Palin and censorship

[Enigma]

Per the dellusion on the Repubs part, who continue to spew whatever they are force fed, it seems.....

-Lacking in extensive experience = for Dems: Not ok. For Repubs = Fantastic! She'll shake up Washington!

-Making a good speech: for Dems: Being a good public speaker doesnt make you worthy of the white house. For Repubs = This woman is great, based on one speech! Make her VP to a 73 year old man with a history of cancer!

It's lunacy. 2 of the biggest flip flops in recent memory undertaken not by a candidate, but by a whole friggin party, and somehow the giant liberal media beast have missed it.....

[August]

Originally Posted by Enigma

Per the dellusion on the Repubs part, who continue to spew whatever they are force fed, it seems.....

No more than Democrats who are supposed to be the champions of women and minorities making catty little remarks about her daughters pregnancy.

-Lacking in extensive experience = for Dems: Not ok. For Repubs = Fantastic! She'll shake up Washington!

Lacking extensive experience is a much bigger problem in a president than a VP doncha think?

-Making a good speech: for Dems: Being a good public speaker doesnt make you worthy of the white house. For Repubs = This woman is great, based on one speech!

Last I knew the VP doesn't live in the White House.

Make her VP to a 73 year old man with a history of cancer!

That's pure age bigotry and one of our greatest presidents was crippled and a Democrat to boot. Maybe next you'll say that women don't possess the temperament for leadership positions?

It's lunacy. 2 of the biggest flip flops in recent memory undertaken not by a candidate, but by a whole friggin party, and somehow the giant liberal media beast have missed it.....

They haven't missed it as far as i can tell. For example you seem to be particularly well informed. Now how did that happen if the giant liberal media beast missed it?

[Enigma]

No more than Democrats who are supposed to be the champions of women and minorities making catty little remarks about her daughters pregnancy.

Actually, yes, alot more than the Democrats. And, it was the Republicans who used this pregnancy as a political pawn, not the Dems. Oh, and if Obama had a teenage daughter who was pregnant? The repubs would be respectful and silent, right? Ha.

Lacking extensive experience is a much bigger problem in a president than a VP doncha think?

The choice of VP has to be prepared for the Presidency on day 1. I'm sure thats written somwhere and you can look up the details of the vice presidents position and duties in the event of something unthinkable happening to the Prez. If Obama isn't qualified, then Palin sure isn't. You Repubs love having your cake and eating it too. Sad part is, most of the time, you get it....

Last I knew the VP doesn't live in the White House

Yeah, this isnt worthy of a response beacause it's incredibly nanny nanny boo boo childish, but you are correct, August. But I was referring the the Vice Presidency, which I beleive holds an office somwhere in the WH, and frankly, you knew that, so grow up. Oh, and lets not overlook the fact that you completely avoided the point. The Repubs now beleive that they should back Palin based on one speech. One speech. However, Obama's thousands of speeches, 2 books, debates etc don't qualify him for anything. It's republican hypocrisy at its finest. Given the fact the the McCain team is all but hiding this woman from the media, I don't think its a stretch to say that she can appeal to the base while shes shouting pre prepared lines carefully written by staffers from the safety of a friendly convention podium, but is such a light weight, they won't put here near a microphone or in front of a press conference without having filled her with enough party line nonsense, rhetoric and talking points to satisfy them. McCain's campaign is hoping politics work with this VP pick. They can't rely on her having any substance of her own. If they could, she'd be talking. She ain't.

That's pure age bigotry and one of our greatest presidents was crippled and a Democrat to boot. Maybe next you'll say that women don't possess the temperament for leadership positions?

I'll ignore the sheer stupidity of suggesting I'm a bigot, but if you think the voters shouldn't consider who would be running the country should the unthinkable happen, then you vote with your heart, and not your mind. It's a worthy thing to consider, and doesn't make anyone a bigot. Maybe next you'll say you dont want to see a black man in the White House. I don't know or think that you will, but while we're making dumb assumptions....

They haven't missed it as far as i can tell. For example you seem to be particularly well informed. Now how did that happen if the giant liberal media beast missed it?

I know this may sound like an incredibly bizarre concept to you, but I heard the speeches and reactions frpm Republicans on the floor of the convention while I drove accross the country over the laast few days, and I formulated this position and opinion all on my own, without the help of a talk show host. Incredible, eh?

PS - Excuse the bad spelling and punctuation errors. They have MAC's in this here hotel, and I'm MAC disabled. Ha.

[SS107.9MHz]

Originally Posted by Skybird

I think I have made my stand clear in the essay you asked me for last week. Even shorter, my position is this: believing is not knowing. I take the freedom to insist for you showing evidence that what you believe is true and your god does exist. Give me evidence in the meaning of the word, not just some distorted carricature of evidence, and I join your camp.

If somebody wants creationism being taught in school as if it were on same eyelevel like scientific theories, then I demand classes to teach the religion of the flying spagetthi monster as a scientific truth as well. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flying_Spaghetti_Monster

Amen to that!:rotfl:

[SS107.9MHz]

Just to add something up to the whole undisclosure of and unidentified sources, the previous article continues n this one

http://www.laprogressive.com/2008/09...-palin-and-me/

At the risk of repeating what has been said, it's obvious that the site has an agenda, so does everybody else, in ny view we have to be skeptical of any source, even those we trust, but can't deny one alltogether just bec ause they don't adress our iews and opinions... but thing is, where there's smoke there's fire, we should try to get the most of the possibillity to gather information like we can now and draw our conclusions from there...

[UnderseaLcpl]

Originally Posted by Skybird

Lance,
I think I have made my stand clear in the essay you asked me for last week. Even shorter, my position is this: believing is not knowing. I take the freedom to insist for you showing evidence that what you believe is true and your god does exist. Give me evidence in the meaning of the word, not just some distorted carricature of evidence, and I join your camp.

Yes, your essay did make your position on religion clear, and was a good read as well. Thanks again for that

And we do agree on limiting the influence of religion in secular, and especially political, affairs. So do not think that we are at odds over this. Like I said, I am only playing Devil's Advocate.

I was more interested to see what methods you would use to keep religion out of schools, politics, and public life in general. Looking back, I communicated this poorly. Sorry for that.

So, what do you think? Any public policies you would favor? And would you be politically opposed to creationism being taught in private schools?

[August]

Originally Posted by Enigma

Actually, yes, alot more than the Democrats. And, it was the Republicans who used this pregnancy as a political pawn, not the Dems. Oh, and if Obama had a teenage daughter who was pregnant? The repubs would be respectful and silent, right? Ha.

Sure, go on believing that.

The choice of VP has to be prepared for the Presidency on day 1. I'm sure thats written somwhere and you can look up the details of the vice presidents position and duties in the event of something unthinkable happening to the Prez. If Obama isn't qualified, then Palin sure isn't. You Repubs love having your cake and eating it too. Sad part is, most of the time, you get it....

yeah ok. Nice try at dodging the question. Bottom line here is that if you're right then we have a problem only if the "unthinkable" happens, whereas with your candidate we have a problem the second he sits his butt down in the oval office, but to you there's no difference, right?

Yeah, this isnt worthy of a response beacause it's incredibly nanny nanny boo boo childish

I know it wasn't but I gave you the benefit of the doubt that it wasn't your intention to come off like that. Perhaps i was wrong. "nanny nanny boo boo"?

but you are correct, August. But I was referring the the Vice Presidency, which I beleive holds an office somwhere in the WH, and frankly, you knew that, so grow up. Oh, and lets not overlook the fact that you completely avoided the point. The Repubs now beleive that they should back Palin based on one speech. One speech.

If you seriously think that's all there was to it then i have a bridge i'd like to sell you.

However, Obama's thousands of speeches, 2 books, debates etc don't qualify him for anything.

Actually the "thousands" (more like dozens) of speeches, 2 books and debates, etc have yet to show he is qualified to do anything other than blather about "change". There's no substance to the man. The Dems have nominated an empty suit and I think that will become apparent to the nation once the presidential debates start.

It's republican hypocrisy at its finest. Given the fact the the McCain team is all but hiding this woman from the media, I don't think its a stretch to say that she can appeal to the base while shes shouting pre prepared lines carefully written by staffers from the safety of a friendly convention podium, but is such a light weight, they won't put here near a microphone or in front of a press conference without having filled her with enough party line nonsense, rhetoric and talking points to satisfy them. McCain's campaign is hoping politics work with this VP pick. They can't rely on her having any substance of her own. If they could, she'd be talking. She ain't.

Well see, but i'm betting the VP debates will prove you wrong. Still, it's only the VP whereas your lightweight is trying to get elected to President.

I'll ignore the sheer stupidity of suggesting I'm a bigot, but if you think the voters shouldn't consider who would be running the country should the unthinkable happen, then you vote with your heart, and not your mind. It's a worthy thing to consider, and doesn't make anyone a bigot. Maybe next you'll say you dont want to see a black man in the White House. I don't know or think that you will, but while we're making dumb assumptions....

I'm not suggesting anything. The Dems have been displaying age bigotry ever since McCain won the nomination and their tactics so far against Palin are pure sexism. Personally I hope they keep alienating old people and women who after all are two of the largest voter groups in American politics.

I know this may sound like an incredibly bizarre concept to you, but I heard the speeches and reactions frpm Republicans on the floor of the convention while I drove accross the country over the laast few days, and I formulated this position and opinion all on my own, without the help of a talk show host. Incredible, eh?

So now you're claiming to be more perceptive than the entire American media? Maybe the Dems should have nominated you then.

PS - Excuse the bad spelling and punctuation errors. They have MAC's in this here hotel, and I'm MAC disabled. Ha.

Who isn't?

[Wolfehunter]

Originally Posted by Skybird

You are right. and maybe that is one of the reasons why there are political motivations on level of federal states to replace religious classes in school with non-specific, non-religious ethics classes. The hypocrisy continues in varied court-ruling regarding head-scarfs, and crucifixes in classroom. Conservative Bavaria ("Germany's Texas") insists on the latter, while other federal states have banned them, and have forbidden at least female teachers to wear head-scarfs. the state should stay away from promoting religious classes of any kind in publicly funded schools.

I myself was successfully banned repeatedly from religious classes for the rest of the schoolyear. Nothing better than to start early...

Creationism is NOT being taught at public schools in Germany. But the rate at which it is becoming popular in Europe'S new Eastern states, and Turkey and parts of the Islamic world as well, is frigthening. must be a virus eating the brain.

Lance,

when I said "witness" i maybe was not precise enough, and lacked the correct words. what I meanis: it is a difference to know that somebody is islamic, for example a colleague at work. not by business, I do not jump at his throat over that info alone. but if he is given freedoms to make breaks five times a day while others must compensate for his absence, or like we just had it in my wider neighbourhood: that in a part of the city where no Muslim community lives, a mosque is being raised or is to be enlarged, close to your home, or every time you go into town you need to shake off some people from religious information stands that try to engage you, or a sect is meeting in the flat next to you and you need to live with their tootling and yelling extacy, or a religious lobby demands teachings in its favour being brought to public or being made part of the curriculum at public schools - then that is something different.

As I always say: keep thy religion to thyself. It is NOT a public thing, it is a most privvate thing, so keep your belief in your private sphere. what could be more intimate and private than the relation you have between you and the deity you believe in? Is it a fairgrouund attraction? You need to dress it in candy-floss, and advertise it with colourful lights and promises for prices of goldfish? No relgion has a legal or moral right to missionize, no matter what it claims. I do not care for the colours of the walls in your flat, I must not like it and I must not be interested. But when you tell me I need to paint my own flat in the same colours, or that I need to come over and admire it and like it, I turn difficult, and short time later turn towards attack if you do not shut up. (Saying "you" in a general, not in a personal meaning). What somebody's private beliefs are, does not interest me as long as he does not claim needs or rights to bother others or me with it. But once he claims that by religion he is obligated and demands the freedom to make it known to the public, or enforce his ways no matter if the social environments cares or not, wants it or not, religion turns away from caring for man's spiritual wellfare and turns towards becoming totalitarian earthly powerpolitics, and is about trying to subjugate others and establish censorship and tyranny with itself as the ruler. That is true in case of Islam, and that is true for fundamental Christians lobbying for their church's goals, and that is true for the traditional past role of the conventional churches as well. As a matter of fact I think it is a general rule that where religion is public - RELIGION IS POWERPOLITICS. That's the deal: you submit. You can't argue with it, you can't have a reasonable debate, because religion wants you to give up the very reason and logic itself, give up independant thinking and submit to just believing, blindly - believing in what it tells you. You submit, becasue to say you got convinced needs that you have been given undeniable reasons and evidence. but this does religion not: it declares blind beloieving as the real virtue, and claims it is superior to reason and logic. Where you give reasons, thoughts, logic and argument, it just says "I believe different" and demands that that shall be seen as valid and worthy an attitude like evidence, logic or reason. This is where it becomes useless and a waste of time to try arguing with religion. when somebody says: "That is all nice and well what you say, but you can'T prove that god does not exist, and that is evidence for me that he does exist", it becomes stupid, and is nothing more than intellect's declaration of bancruptcy.

But where such people want me to accept limiting my freedom in favour of their religious powerpolitics, they find a new enemy in me. I demand to be left alone by them and their practices, and I demand them to practice their things in ways that I do not need to be constantly noting it, and does not need to chnage my life. keep thy religion to thyself. But if you don't - expect nothing but mockery and attack from me.

I think I have made my stand clear in the essay you asked me for last week. Even shorter, my position is this: believing is not knowing. I take the freedom to insist for you showing evidence that what you believe is true and your god does exist. Give me evidence in the meaning of the word, not just some distorted carricature of evidence, and I join your camp.

Or better, don't care for giving me evidence, but leave it to the boss himself to show up with evidence. If he really is a god, he knows my motivation and will understand it as the honesty that it is. and if he doesn't and just threatens me hellfire and penalty if I do not obey, he can lick my a$$.

If somebody wants creationism being taught in school as if it were on same eyelevel like scientific theories, then I demand classes to teach the religion of the flying spagetthi monster as a scientific truth as well. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flying_Spaghetti_Monster

I'm with skybird on the keep it personal.... I believe religion shouldn't be in schools but at home or in their church.

If a child wants to learn about a religion they should be able to do it on their own time with parental supervision.