The only way this race could get more exciting is if a half Native American half Puerto Rican paraplegic who has converted to Judaism ran as an independent with a homosexual aethist running mate.
This is gonna' generate a lot of flak but I just have to say it...
I can see that she's really latching on to that feminist title, but really, come on. Being a woman does not make you a feminist. I know as a movement that feminism accepts a wide spectrum of experiences and beliefs but I can't help but feel that pro-life feminists are about as legitimate as Jews for Jesus. Anyone can call themselves something, but those who are truly concerned with feminist issues should really think twice about the republicans.
But then again what the hell do I know, I don't even live in the United States.
Creationism in schools? She should appeal to the fundamentalist crowd.Yikes. I'm not sure I can, in good conscience, vote for that... even if her fiscal conservatism is refreshing.
You know, I'm surprised by how many conservatives have expressed a similar sentiment. It makes me wonder if the marriages of fiscal conservatism and religious fundamentalism was such a great idea (assuming you believe such a marriage exists in the contemporary Republican party). I know my perception of just such a union precludes me from seriously considering most Republican candidates.
It was to be taught as an option.Creationism in schools? She should appeal to the fundamentalist crowd.Yikes. I'm not sure I can, in good conscience, vote for that... even if her fiscal conservatism is refreshing.
Option or no, it doesn't belong in science class. Religion, sociology, etc? Absolutely. But barring the discovery of major new evidence, putting it on equal footing with evolution, "optional" or not, is imo a grave mistake.
|
This is gonna' generate a lot of flak but I just have to say it...
I can see that she's really latching on to that feminist title, but really, come on. Being a woman does not make you a feminist. I know as a movement that feminism accepts a wide spectrum of experiences and beliefs but I can't help but feel that pro-life feminists are about as legitimate as Jews for Jesus. Anyone can call themselves something, but those who are truly concerned with feminist issues should really think twice about the republicans.
But then again what the hell do I know, I don't even live in the United States.
I'm not sure why being in favor of women giving birth to their children is anti-feminist but I am pretty sure we really don't want to start up an abortion debate here. :)
Alaska pays the highest price per gallon on gaoline and fuel oil. Her pick lends credit to McCain's willingness to "Drill here, drill now," philosophy. Romney would have been more articulate and experienced on the economy, but with short-attention spans, quick fix promises to lower gas prices could just win this election.
It was to be taught as an option.
Her quote was, "I don't think we should be afraid of information. Teach them both." This shows a near-total ignorance of what science is, of how a theory differs from an unsubstantiated statement. Teach it as an option in World Religions or World Mythology class? Certainly. In science class? No; that I can't stomach, because the prerequisite is that you stop teaching what science is and how it works.
The guy is 72, not 172, sheesh. Ageism is alive and well, even if racism is on the decline.
|
Anyone can call themselves something, but those who are truly concerned with feminist issues should really think twice about the republicans.
One of the first classes I took in college was feminist Political Thought. The greatest thing about that class is that it taught me that even feminists do not agree what it means to be feminist. You have liberal feminists which focus on equality with men. This is what Susan Palin is. Then you have so many other styles of feminists many of whom disagree with each other on many issues. Some feminists are opposed to pornography, others find it liberating. Some believe that women should work to succeed in the current system, others believe that the only way to liberate women is to tear down the current order and rebuild it with women in charge. Some extreme radicals even support incest and pedophilia as a means of liberation. The only constant with feminists is that they believe that women should be given a fair shot. Everything else is up in the air.
It probably doesn't hurt that this woman could be my wife's twin, either, in regards to buying my vote.
You know, I'm surprised by how many conservatives have expressed a similar sentiment. It makes me wonder if the marriages of fiscal conservatism and religious fundamentalism was such a great idea (assuming you believe such a marriage exists in the contemporary Republican party). I know my perception of just such a union precludes me from seriously considering most Republican candidates.
I'm having the same problem now. I want someone with the disipline and the guts to take care of the economy. But there's no way I can vote to approve scientific ignorance.
|
I have to say, this election is now the most interesting election EVAH!!!!!! It doesn't matter if you are Republican or Democrat, Male or Female, Black oe WHite, this one has it all!!!! Now this is what America is really all about. God I love this country! Everybody remember to go out and vote!!!! God Bless America!!!!
I won't be content until our first lesbian Native American independant president is inaugurated.
I'm not sure why being in favor of women giving birth to their children is anti-feminist but I am pretty sure we really don't want to start up an abortion debate here. :)
My comment wasn't about whether abortion was good or not (it's true there is no point in having that debate), it was about whether being pro-life was incongruent with the basic tenants of feminism. And no, a woman giving birth to her children in not anti-feminist, someone telling a woman she can't have an abortion is. The feminist movement was built up around this belief and others - its one of the pillars.
Disagree with abortion by all means, and I honestly think she represents her constituents with this belief, just don't call yourself a feminist hoping to get the votes of some people you don't represent.
|
|
I'm just happy all of the VP selection stuff is over and now we can get down to the final campaigning.
Biden is fine, honestly none of Obama's VP choices were all that thrilling for me. I don't know anything about Palin except what I've read today, but McCain could have picked the very best VP pick of any candidate who ever ran in the entire history of our country and you'd still have ... President McCain. I'll pass, thanks ;)
|
|
You know, I'm surprised by how many conservatives have expressed a similar sentiment. It makes me wonder if the marriages of fiscal conservatism and religious fundamentalism was such a great idea (assuming you believe such a marriage exists in the contemporary Republican party). I know my perception of just such a union precludes me from seriously considering most Republican candidates.I'm having the same problem now. I want someone with the disipline and the guts to take care of the economy. But there's no way I can vote to approve scientific ignorance.
Would you support her if the ID issue was off the table? Because right now it does not seem that the courts are going to allow it to be taught is schools.
She was born in the US, a permanent resident of the US for 14 years or more, and 35 or older. Qualifications met.Just read some of the bio on Palin. She doesn't seem qualified.
What if the ol' guy has a heart attack?
Those are the minimum definitions of qualified, but not my minimums. Hillary Clinton was qualified.
|
|
[
My comment wasn't about whether abortion was good or not (it's true there is no point in having that debate), it was about whether being pro-life was incongruent with the basic tenants of feminism. And no, a woman giving birth to her children in not anti-feminist, someone telling a woman she can't have an abortion is. The feminist movement was built up around this belief and others - its one of the pillars.
Actually, feminism was built around the idea that men and women should be equal under the law. Abortion is a relatively new addition to the feminist platform, and not one that all feminists agree with. A lot of postcolonial and globalist feminists are actually opposed to abortion because in many parts of the world a girl baby is more likely to be aborted than a boy baby. Therefore many feminists actually view abortion as a tool of oppression against women. You have confused the philosophy called radical feminism with feminism in general.
Would you support her if the ID issue was off the table? Because right now it does not seem that the courts are going to allow it to be taught is schools.
Unfortunately, I find that the ID issue has an almost perfect correspondence with anti-science in almost all other issues. For example, take opposition to global warming: not on the basis of lack of data, but on the basis of "well, I just don't think it's happening because I just don't think we can change God's creation." Note that I make no stance pro/con anthropogenic climate change, but that I have a strong stance about how people obtain their opinion. If you look at Gore's movie and can point out the scientific (as opposed to the anecdotal) flaws, good for you. But if you form a strong opinion but have absolutely no idea what the data are or what a feedback loop is, that's just silly.
She was born in the US, a permanent resident of the US for 14 years or more, and 35 or older. Qualifications met.Just read some of the bio on Palin. She doesn't seem qualified.
What if the ol' guy has a heart attack?
Those are the minimum definitions of qualified, but not my minimums. Hillary Clinton was qualified.
And she remains qualified for a possible future run.
|
|
Would you support her if the ID issue was off the table? Because right now it does not seem that the courts are going to allow it to be taught is schools.Unfortunately, I find that the ID issue has an almost perfect correspondence with anti-science in almost all other issues. For example, take opposition to global warming: not on the basis of lack of data, but on the basis of "well, I just don't think it's happening because I just don't think we can change God's creation." Note that I make no stance pro/con anthropogenic climate change, but that I have a strong stance about how people obtain their opinion. If you look at Gore's movie and can point out the scientific (as opposed to the anecdotal) flaws, good for you. But if you form a strong opinion but have absolutely no idea what the data are or what a feedback loop is, that's just silly.
Interesting.
What is your opinion of people who believe in anthropogenic global climate warming because 'everyone knows its happening'?
|
|
Unfortunately, I find that the ID issue has an almost perfect correspondence with anti-science in almost all other issues. For example, take opposition to global warming: not on the basis of lack of data, but on the basis of "well, I just don't think it's happening because I just don't think we can change God's creation." Note that I make no stance pro/con anthropogenic climate change, but that I have a strong stance about how people obtain their opinion. If you look at Gore's movie and can point out the scientific (as opposed to the anecdotal) flaws, good for you. But if you form a strong opinion but have absolutely no idea what the data are or what a feedback loop is, that's just silly.
As I have stated in other places, I am a supporter of intelligent design. I also believe that global warming is happening, but I don't support the idea that man caused it, because the scenario that is always pointed to in relation to what could happen occurred 35 million years ago. Neither intelligent design or creation place mankind in existence at that time, therefore my understanding tells me that man is a random variable that is not responsible for the reaction. At least that is what my chemistry teacher said. He taught us that if you remove a variable from a reaction and the reaction still occurs, then that variable was not a part of the reaction.
He taught us that if you remove a variable from a reaction and the reaction still occurs, then that variable was not a part of the reaction.
He either lacked any knowledge of chemistry, or mis-stated the case. Some reactions that occur naturally can occur much faster, and more completely, in the presence of a catalyst. Anyone with an intro college chemistry course should be able to tell you that.
What is your opinion of people who believe in anthropogenic global climate warming because 'everyone knows its happening'?
They are equally silly, and equally dangerous.
|
And she remains qualified for a possible future run.She was born in the US, a permanent resident of the US for 14 years or more, and 35 or older. Qualifications met.Just read some of the bio on Palin. She doesn't seem qualified.
What if the ol' guy has a heart attack?
Those are the minimum definitions of qualified, but not my minimums. Hillary Clinton was qualified.
God I hope that day never comes.
|
|
He taught us that if you remove a variable from a reaction and the reaction still occurs, then that variable was not a part of the reaction.He either lacked any knowledge of chemistry, or mis-stated the case. A reaction that occurs naturally can occur much better in the presence of a catalyst. Anyone with an intro college chemistry course should be able to tell you that.
I remember something along those lines, but I didn't need the class for my major so I spent a lot of time sitting in back working on D&D and Gamma World. ;p
Actually, feminism was built around the idea that men and women should be equal under the law. Abortion is a relatively new addition to the feminist platform, and not one that all feminists agree with. A lot of postcolonial and globalist feminists are actually opposed to abortion because in many parts of the world a girl baby is more likely to be aborted than a boy baby. Therefore many feminists actually view abortion as a tool of oppression against women. You have confused the philosophy called radical feminism with feminism in general.
Well I guess they do feminism differently south of the border, but up here pro-choice is certainly not radical feminism.
The opposition to abortion in feminist circles is to forced abortion, again they are still pro-choice, as in a woman has the right to choose whether they have an abortion or not. These feminists would not agree with someone telling women in 'many parts of the world' that they can't have an abortion either.You're right that the idea that men and women are equal under the law is the historical first ideal of feminism (best demonstrated by the suffrage movement). However, while these are the historical roots they didn't call themselves feminists until much later, around the time they were embracing the idea that women should have control over their own bodies (best demonstrated by embracing contraception and pro-choice).
Yes not all feminists agree on what feminism is that's true, just like conservatives don't all agree on what that is. But like the conservatives do all the time I'm making an assertion that what she represents is not legitimate feminism.
|
Those are the minimum definitions of qualified, but not my minimums.
Not my minimums either. Someone mentioned ageism. We'll never have a truly hot president until we get rid of the age requirement. Yes, some thirty-somethings look good, but they looked better when they were 20.
Note #1: I'm speaking from the heterosexual male POV. I know some hold the opinion that older men are sexy. But I'd take a barely legal over a milf 9 times out of 10.
Note #2: Palin's not a milf.
|
|
Those are the minimum definitions of qualified, but not my minimums.
Not my minimums either. Someone mentioned ageism. We'll never have a truly hot president until we get rid of the age requirement. Yes, some thirty-somethings look good, but they looked better when they were 20.
Note #1: I'm speaking from the heterosexual male POV. I know some hold the opinion that older men are sexy. But I'd take a barely legal over a milf 9 times out of 10.
Note #2: Palin's not a milf.
But she did win some beauty pagents.
|
|
Well I guess they do feminism differently south of the border, but up here pro-choice is certainly not radical feminism.
Down here, the militant abortion supporters, the ones that get upset at people who sit outside the abortion clinics to try and talk women out of it, are associated with "we're fierce, we're feminist, and we're in your face" group. There are a lot of pro-choice people like myself who oppose abortion as a general rule, but think it needs to remain legal because the exceptions exist. Based on Palin's record, I would guess that this is where she stands as well.
I remember something along those lines, but I didn't need the class for my major so I spent a lot of time sitting in back working on D&D and Gamma World. ;p
I needed those classes for my major. LOTS of them. I'm still miffed at how much they cut into my drinking time!
When there's a problem with the wiring, I call an electrician, because I know from experience that I have a horrible ignorance of home wiring, and come close to electrocuting myself when I try to redo it myself. I don't call a theoretical mathematician.
If there's a question regarding what should be taught in science class, I'd prefer a candidate who would ask a scientist, not a candidate who's content to ask a preacher.
|
|
. I'm still miffed at how much they cut into my drinking time!
At least you had drinking time. I went home, spent some time with my wife and three kids, got my three hours of sleep, and then worked the night shift in a factory. I am the student Obama talks about in his speeches, he just doesn't know it.
At least you had drinking time. I went home, spent some time with my wife and three kids, got my three hours of sleep, and then worked the night shift in a factory. I am the student Obama talks about in his speeches, he just doesn't know it.
That's rough. Kudos for pulling it off.
I'm glad I held off marriage until later in life. (I still don't know if I want kids.)|
|
Actually, feminism was built around the idea that men and women should be equal under the law. Abortion is a relatively new addition to the feminist platform, and not one that all feminists agree with. A lot of postcolonial and globalist feminists are actually opposed to abortion because in many parts of the world a girl baby is more likely to be aborted than a boy baby. Therefore many feminists actually view abortion as a tool of oppression against women. You have confused the philosophy called radical feminism with feminism in general.Well I guess they do feminism differently south of the border, but up here pro-choice is certainly not radical feminism.
The opposition to abortion in feminist circles is to forced abortion, again they are still pro-choice, as in a woman has the right to choose whether they have an abortion or not. These feminists would not agree with someone telling women in 'many parts of the world' that they can't have an abortion either.
You're right that the idea that men and women are equal under the law is the historical first ideal of feminism (best demonstrated by the suffrage movement). However, while these are the historical roots they didn't call themselves feminists until much later, around the time they were embracing the idea that women should have control over their own bodies (best demonstrated by embracing contraception and pro-choice).
Yes not all feminists agree on what feminism is that's true, just like conservatives don't all agree on what that is. But like the conservatives do all the time I'm making an assertion that what she represents is not legitimate feminism.
Isn't a male trying to force his vision of what the definition of femenism is ironic?
|
|
Those are the minimum definitions of qualified, but not my minimums.
Not my minimums either. Someone mentioned ageism. We'll never have a truly hot president until we get rid of the age requirement. Yes, some thirty-somethings look good, but they looked better when they were 20.
Note #1: I'm speaking from the heterosexual male POV. I know some hold the opinion that older men are sexy. But I'd take a barely legal over a milf 9 times out of 10.
Note #2: Palin's not a milf.
Note 1:I'm speaking from the 20 something heterosexual male view as well, I'll take a MILF over jailbait 9 times out of 10.
Note 2: Palin is so a milf if that earlier linked picture is recent.
McCain should not have picked the VP candidate that he wanted to screw the most; he should have picked someone who could become president if he died in office. I know this sounds sexist, but I believe that a majority of Americans would prefer a man as "Commander-in-Chief". I know that a majority of Republicans believe this, and they must be asking themselves what the F-Word McCain was thinking. I know he wasn't thinking with his brain...
|
|
McCain should not have picked the VP candidate that he wanted to screw the most; he should have picked someone who could become president if he died in office. I know this sounds sexist, but I believe that a majority of Americans would prefer a man as "Commander-in-Chief". I know that a majority of Republicans believe this, and they must be asking themselves what the F-Word McCain was thinking. I know he wasn't thinking with his brain...
Wow, that kind of stance is downright victorian. If the majority of Americans would prefer a man as commander in chief then why did hillary do so well? And what prey tell makes her unfit for being president if McCain died in office that couldn't also be applied to another candidate currently running?
I know that a majority of Republicans believe this, and they must be asking themselves what the F-Word McCain was thinking. I know he wasn't thinking with his brain...
Disagree. McCain's big minuses as a candidate are his near-total ignorance of fiscal conservatism, and his lack of "cred" with the religious right. His VP pick gives him both, in one shot, and also allows him to play up his "maverick" label to the independents, and show that his running-mate isn't a "Washington insider" the way Obama's is. I think he made an incredibly shrewd choice.
|
|
I would say he's an insider in regards to national politics (Chicago/Washington) but very naive and inexperienced in international politics. And this difference is reflected in how people perceive Obama/McCain in polls about international crises such as Georgia.
Although I can somewhat understand your feelings here, I completely disagree. Obama has a very realist take on international politics. McCain is of the "Don't talk with our 'enemies'" camp, whereas Obama knows that discussion is a diplomat's most powerful tool, especially with your enemies. McCain has shown himself to be an idealist in his overseas views, putting countries in nice "good" and "bad" categories, and then treating them as such. History is full of situations where countries judge themselves to be "good" and others to be "bad", and then leap into horrible situations. The Crusades, both World Wars, and nearly every other needless conflict was caused by governments that saw themselves as priviledged and unwilling to compromise. Compromise is key, and McCain's refusal to compromise is unrealistic and helps no one. Alienating the world more than we already are is a mistake, in my opinion. Not to mention, Obama has a degree in political science with a specialization in international relations. His experience living in Indonesia will help make him more palatable to the Muslim world, which is a very, very good thing. No, he is not a Muslim, and it is not wrong to understand your "enemies". I respect the opinion of anyone who disagrees: politics is not science, and it is all based on perspective.
I would say he's an insider in regards to national politics (Chicago/Washington) but very naive and inexperienced in international politics. And this difference is reflected in how people perceive Obama/McCain in polls about international crises such as Georgia.Although I can somewhat understand your feelings here, I completely disagree. Obama has a very realist take on international politics. McCain is of the "Don't talk with our 'enemies'" camp, whereas Obama knows that discussion is a diplomat's most powerful tool, especially with your enemies. McCain has shown himself to be an idealist in his overseas views, putting countries in nice "good" and "bad" categories, and then treating them as such. History is full of situations where countries judge themselves to be "good" and others to be "bad", and then leap into horrible situations. The Crusades, both World Wars, and nearly every other needless conflict was caused by governments that saw themselves as priviledged and unwilling to compromise. Compromise is key, and McCain's refusal to compromise is unrealistic and helps no one. Alienating the world more than we already are is a mistake, in my opinion. Not to mention, Obama has a degree in political science with a specialization in international relations. His experience living in Indonesia will help make him more palatable to the Muslim world, which is a very, very good thing. No, he is not a Muslim, and it is not wrong to understand your "enemies". I respect the opinion of anyone who disagrees: politics is not science, and it is all based on perspective.
What he said.
Isn't a male trying to force his vision of what the definition of femenism is ironic?
Ironic, yes. Any less informed or true, no. What I'm trying to say is that OK, feminism is a broad tapestry of philosophies, as most political movements are, BUT, pro-life fundamentalist feminism is on the fringe of the core feminist ideology.
Just as Jim Jones could call himself a Christian, his beliefs were on the fringe of the Christian tapestry (not an equivalent comparison but you get my point).I'm just calling her out, just as Christians would call out someone from their fringes who they felt didn't represent their core beliefs.
|
I would say he's an insider in regards to national politics (Chicago/Washington) but very naive and inexperienced in international politics. And this difference is reflected in how people perceive Obama/McCain in polls about international crises such as Georgia.Although I can somewhat understand your feelings here, I completely disagree. Obama has a very realist take on international politics. McCain is of the "Don't talk with our 'enemies'" camp, whereas Obama knows that discussion is a diplomat's most powerful tool, especially with your enemies. McCain has shown himself to be an idealist in his overseas views, putting countries in nice "good" and "bad" categories, and then treating them as such. History is full of situations where countries judge themselves to be "good" and others to be "bad", and then leap into horrible situations. The Crusades, both World Wars, and nearly every other needless conflict was caused by governments that saw themselves as priviledged and unwilling to compromise. Compromise is key, and McCain's refusal to compromise is unrealistic and helps no one. Alienating the world more than we already are is a mistake, in my opinion. Not to mention, Obama has a degree in political science with a specialization in international relations. His experience living in Indonesia will help make him more palatable to the Muslim world, which is a very, very good thing. No, he is not a Muslim, and it is not wrong to understand your "enemies". I respect the opinion of anyone who disagrees: politics is not science, and it is all based on perspective.
Wow...I think you have completely mixed up the definitions of realist and idealist. In my mind, it's the idealist who thinks that if somehow we could all talk to each other we'd be able to work things out and all sit down next to the fire and sing Kum-ba-ya. Obama is most certainly an idealist in this regard. The realist understands that there are horrible people in this world who simply can't ever be reasoned with because they're unreasonable. And the realist approach is to find alternative methods of dealing with those unreasonable psychos.
|
|
McCain should not have picked the VP candidate that he wanted to screw the most; he should have picked someone who could become president if he died in office. I know this sounds sexist, but I believe that a majority of Americans would prefer a man as "Commander-in-Chief". I know that a majority of Republicans believe this, and they must be asking themselves what the F-Word McCain was thinking. I know he wasn't thinking with his brain...
Query: Are you speaking as a Republican or are you presuming to be speaking for Republicans?
|
|
McCain should not have picked the VP candidate that he wanted to screw the most; he should have picked someone who could become president if he died in office. I know this sounds sexist, but I believe that a majority of Americans would prefer a man as "Commander-in-Chief". I know that a majority of Republicans believe this, and they must be asking themselves what the F-Word McCain was thinking. I know he wasn't thinking with his brain...Query: Are you speaking as a Republican or are you presuming to be speaking for Republicans?
I'd like to know as well. Because not only did he sound sexist, he implied that the majority of republicans are sexist. And as a republican, I have to strongly disagree with that statement. Not that I can speak for the majority of republicans, either though...
|
|
Obama has a very realist take on international politics. McCain is of the "Don't talk with our 'enemies'" camp, whereas Obama knows that discussion is a diplomat's most powerful tool, especially with your enemies. McCain has shown himself to be an idealist in his overseas views, putting countries in nice "good" and "bad" categories, and then treating them as such. History is full of situations where countries judge themselves to be "good" and others to be "bad", and then leap into horrible situations. The Crusades, both World Wars, and nearly every other needless conflict was caused by governments that saw themselves as priviledged and unwilling to compromise.
Its funny you should mention the world wars.
I thought the second world war was caused because certain countries wanted to take over the world. I also understood that there were people that thought that the best way to deal with Germany was to compromise and that this was in point of fact tried.
Are you in fact suggesting that the second world war could have been avoided if we had only tried a little harder to meet Germany and Japan halfway in their quest for world domination?
Wow...I think you have completely mixed up the definitions of realist and idealist. In my mind, it's the idealist who thinks that if somehow we could all talk to each other we'd be able to work things out and all sit down next to the fire and sing Kum-ba-ya. Obama is most certainly an idealist in this regard. The realist understands that there are horrible people in this world who simply can't ever be reasoned with because they're unreasonable. And the realist approach is to find alternative methods of dealing with those unreasonable psychos.
Hmmm...I understand that there are horrible people in this world who simply can't be reasoned with. And we have our fair share of them here in the United States. Unfortunately that fact is often seems to be lost on the most vocal of the "realists."
Its funny you should mention the world wars.I thought the second world war was caused because certain countries wanted to take over the world. I also understood that there were people that thought that the best way to deal with Germany was to compromise and that this was in point of fact tried.
Are you in fact suggesting that the second world war could have been avoided if we had only tried a little harder to meet Germany and Japan halfway in their quest for world domination?
You can always count on compromise in foreign policy threads being Godwinned.
There's a time for compromise and a time for no compromise. The time for compromise was at the settlement of WWI. A good settlement there could have potentially prevented WWII in Europe.