iNow

Oh yeah? I'm going to hold your feet to the fire on this one. Prove it. Doesn't matter. This is a pretty clear example of "foot in mouth" disease, and I don't really care about her religion as pertains to this point (only peripherally, anyway). The only way that her religion potentially factors into this is that it misinformed her answer. Either way, whether she's christian, jewish, hindu, buddhist, atheist, or mormon, she was still VERY wrong on one of the simplest (beer and pretzels) issues out there. On my litmus test, this was just extra credit. She'd failed long before I got to the "it was good enough for our founding fathers" stupidity.

H/t - Afarensis

Most of the greater thinkers of that time also believed in a Deist / Pantheist god, not a Theist interventionist god like most of todays believers. Either way, that's far from on topic. Here's the quote from Palin which reinforced my disdain. Palin was asked, "Are you offended by the phrase 'Under God' in the Pledge of Allegiance?" She responded: "Not on your life. If it was good enough for the founding fathers, its [sic] good enough for me and I'll fight in defense of our Pledge of Allegiance." Now, Mr. Waitforufo: The founding fathers didn't recite the Pledge of Allegiance. It was written in 1892, and didn't include the phrase "Under God" until 1954. Next... In God We Trust first appeared on a United States coin in 1864, but In God We Trust did not become the official U.S. national motto until after the passage of an Act of Congress in 1956. So, yeah. I've got a problem with a person running for the second highest office in our land having a complete misunderstanding and vacuous recognition of this point. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/In_God_We_Trust http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pledge_of_Allegiance

Ah... welcome to your 20s. The feeling never goes away, you just get used to it. Kidding aside... I think an Obama win would have great impact on what can happen and who can get elected in oh-twelve.

I want to be very clear that this thread is not about "religion," per se, but I found this study to be tremendously interesting. http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/09/080903134209.htm One of the few studies to look at the effects of religious participation on the mental health of minorities suggests that for some of them, religion may actually be contributing to adolescent depression. Previous research has shown that teens who are active in religious services are depressed less often because it provides these adolescents with social support and a sense of belonging. But new research has found that this does not hold true for all adolescents, particularly for minorities and some females. <more at link> These quotes stood out to me: What are your thoughts?

I'm honestly not sure... are you old enough to have voted in any previous? This one is more energized and passionate than any I've seen before, and I've been voting since the early mid-90s myself.

Wow. I'm a patriot, too. So what? Since when did this dialog become about me and not the issues our nation faces?

You've never met a logical fallacy you don't like, have you? To address your primary attack - I CAN"T STAND THAT THE DEMOCRATS ARE PANDERING WITH THIS RELIGIOUS NONSENSE! There. I said it. I still agree with many of the other things they're doing, and also recognize that the US is not yet at a point where someone who openly rejects religion could get elected. http://www.gallup.com/poll/26611/Some-Americans-Reluctant-Vote-Mormon-72YearOld-Presidential-Candidates.aspx

Well, I guess the thread title says it all. Wow. I guess she scared a lot of people. http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2008/09/04/palin-speech-pulls-in-8-million-for-obama/ Barack Obama's campaign says it has raised more than $8 million from over 130,000 donors following Republican VP candidate Sarah Palin's speech Wednesday night. The campaign also says it is on track to raise $10 million before John McCain takes the podium at the Republican National Convention tonight. http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5i6BkMiFClO-golI3_rj8iiidLNTAD9308008B Barack Obama's presidential campaign said it raised $10 million Thursday following the Republican National Convention speech by rival John McCain's running mate, Sarah Palin. Obama spokesman Bill Burton said Palin's address, heavily laced with digs at Obama, prompted an outpouring of donations from more than 130,000 donors. <pause for laughter> The Republican National Committee announced earlier Thursday, at mid-afternoon, that it had raised well in excess of $1 million since Palin's speech. Republicans expect Palin to mobilize their donors. <resume laughter>

The fact being checked in this point was actually that she said he was a "Top Gun," not just "fighter pilot." (at least per the link I shared) TOPGUN is the popular name of the United States Navy Strike Fighter Tactics Instructor (SFTI) program. SFTI is the modern-day evolution of the United States Navy Fighter Weapons School and carries out the same specialized fighter training as NFWS had from 1969 until 1996, when it was merged into the Naval Strike and Air Warfare Center at NAS Fallon, Nevada. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Navy_Fighter_Weapons_School However, I too find that a minor point and will grant rhetorical license.

Like I said, I thought last night was one of the best episodes I've ever seen of TDS. Not only laugh out loud funny, but also very direct, biting, and awareness raising. line[/hr] I really wish these idiots in the crowd would stop cheering and going into chants of "USA" when McCain is talking about economic harships and troubles real people face. He's discussing solemn and powerful issues of poverty and some dumbshits are yelling out, "Yayyy!!! Wooooo!!!! USA! USA!" You can almost see the look of disappointment on McCain's own face. I also wish the dumbasses who disagree with him would stop interrupting his speech by protesting while he talks. This is his moment. There is a time and a place for protest, and disrupting McCain's acceptance of the nomination (while he's speaking, I mean) is not it.

Do you see the irony about saying that you have a "side" when you're point is arguing against partisanship? Partisanship never factors into the mix. It's not me supporting a side because I agree all out with their ideology or because I associate myself with a group or label and see that person as part of my "ingroup." I instead am being just reasonable (no non-partisan qualifier required), using my skills of critical thinking to come to a conclusion based on the merits of that position. To your previous question, let's say you marry a woman. She's educated, successful, helps around the house, and contributes to the bills every so often. However, she also cheats on you, maxxes out your credit cards, wrecks the cars, and gives you an STD. I'd say it's fair to call her a bad wife, and to say that any of her friends are not worthy of trust or respect since they agree with her 95% of the time, and I further feel it would be fine to say these things without the caveat that "she also had some good qualities."

You obviously have no understanding of marketing, salesmanship, or even social psychology.

You're missing my point. People are forced to choose between two options. The people need to know the difference between them. It's not "two wrongs make a right" and it's not even saying that "one side did it so the other has to as well." It's just that we're asked to choose, and there must be some basis on which to make that choice. line[/hr] How about this. Compare and contrast these two speeches: John Kerry at last week's Democratic Convention And these two: Mike Huckabee at last night's Republican Convention - Part 1 Mike Huckabee at last night's Republican Convention - Part 2 h/t - Blog Around the Clock

New thread created here.

Actually, mate... here's what she said: "Pray for our military men and women who are striving to do what is right also for this country, that our leaders, our national leaders, are sending them out on a task that is from God. That's what we have to make sure that we are praying for, that there is a plan and that that plan is God's plan." It certainly helps to provide the context of my comment if you don't intentionally truncate the quote she made. Tell me this... what precisely is supposed to be the difference between a Christian who thinks God tells them to go to war against Iraq and someone like Osama Bin Laden who believes that God tells him to go to war against America? I think it has something to do with the "us/them" mentality (and how most people in the US see christians as part of the "us" group), but the motivations are strikingly similar. Stupid religiots.

In an ideal world, or in a vacuum, sure... but that's not where we live. People are going to the voting booth, and have 2 choices (unless they waste a vote on the 3rd guy). They need to have as many lines of demarcation between the two as possible, and it's important for each party to drive those differences home. If you go to the voting booth, and you have the mindset "It doesn't matter, they're both the same," then clearly all of the campaigning was a collasal waste of time, money, and attention.

That's not to imply he didn't make any errors, though. I saw this one this morning on ABC: http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/Conventions/story?id=5726571&page=1 It's really bad how extensive the falsities are. For reference, there were 7 relatively minor one's in Obama's speech.

Well, I don't care. If you're not at least willing to look at the links I've shared throughout this thread to support my position, I'm not going to bother taking your attacks of my position very seriously. Also, frankly, I don't have to support my points which were bulletted (and to which you responded). I clearly stated in the sentence immediately preceding them that it those were my personal litmus test, so bugger off if you disagree. It's not my problem.

I think you may actually be trying to make a bigger point about ingroup/outgroup dynamics.

Pangloss - The phrasing of your question is going to add noise to the result. I find partisanship very relevant (because it's so rampant), but I find it neither useful nor productive. Speaking of partisanship, however... While definitely showing signs of venting, I can't help but agree with most of the points that Jason made over on the EvolutionBlog today: http://scienceblogs.com/evolutionblog/2008/09/the_republican_convention.php

So, in England, are the artists arrested? Would a person holding a camera behind them be arrested for conspiracy? Let's set the appropriate boundaries here so we're not just "trying to get your anger up."

I don't understand what you are asking here. line[/hr] Interestingly, McCain is more agreeable to the conservative christian than Bush was. When Bush ran, he at least pushed back and tempered his speeches on this issue to some extent. McCain, however, has been allowing them to hold the leash and has made multiple promises to them. I heard the story on NPR earlier today, and it focussed primarily on abortion (Bush used to play word games, but McCain makes no mistake or qualms when he says that human rights start at conception). Beside the simple fact that he nominated Palin to galvanize them, he and his ambassadors have been meeting regularly with fundie christians to bring them on board, and he's been selling out to them several times. Here's one example (since I couldn't find the NPR story I heard earlier and referenced above): http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5hdg0hr1uMSEliqiwYBeYCtJAF96gD92U9OVG0 In St. Paul, the McCain-Palin campaign is working to win over evangelical voters, dispatching surrogates like former presidential candidate Gary Bauer, a well-known evangelical Christian, to chat up delegates. After the convention's storm-shortened first night wrapped Monday night, top McCain adviser Charlie Black and Republican National Committee deputy chairman Frank Donatelli mingled with activists at a "conservative movement leaders reception" at a nearby hotel. The event was hosted by the anti-abortion Susan B. Anthony List. "You are the tip of the arrow in the battle to advance the McCain-Palin ticket," the group's president, Marjorie Dannenfelser, told the crowd. "There's more excitement than there's been in a long time," said Kelly Shackelford, a conservative Christian activist, Texas delegate and member of the GOP platform committee. "Talk is cheap in politics. We didn't want McCain to say nice things to us. We wanted him to do something. And he has." line[/hr] Now, as to waitforufo's comments... You really ought to try reading a thread before you comment in it. I've answered your questions already, and shared links. But, just since you seem to need more help: Yes. The 2006 Eagle Forum Gubernatorial Questionnaire which she filled out. I've already cited this multiple times in this thread. There are also several news stories available where she reinforced those comments. Don't have to. Palin is not for "more restrictions," she's against all restrictions, even in the face of rape or incest she would not allow abortions. She's very cut and dry on this issue, and you are wrong trying to frame it as if she wants "more" restrictions, since she wants total restrictions. You will find that more americans agree with Obamas nuanced position here, and that agreement with Palin's stance on abortion is limited almost entirely to our country's group of religiots. Again, you clearly haven't been paying attention to this thread: http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/jacketcopy/2008/09/sarah-palin-ban.html Sure. 2006 Eagle Forum Gubernatorial Questionnaire. Again, you're clearly not paying very close attention to this thread. Yes, actually, but to be honest, the bigger deal for me is how badly she misunderstands the founding principles of our nation. If you are going to be a leader in this nation, you should at least have an accurate understanding of its formation, and not some incorrect blindness about religion and church. Well, besides that questionnaire to which I keep referring you (you know, the one discussed repeatedly in ths thread), there's also this: VIDEO: Sarah Palin in front of her Assembly of God church (I'm an atheist, and am confident in my views, so definetly had my bullshit detectors ringing pretty quickly in the above) Oh, and there's always wiki (which is not my primary source, just YET ANOTHER for you to answer your questions): http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_positions_of_Sarah_Palin Well, the Republicans did say this election isn't about issues.

So who's gonna fact check Palin's speech from last night and McCain's from tonight? http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/Conventions/story?id=5726571&page=1 Speaking last night at the RNC in St. Paul, vice-presidential pick Gov. Sarah Palin stretched the truth when it came to Barrack Obama and her support of earmarks. (See 2 page link for her comments followed by the actual facts)

Why bother? Your mind is already made up: That's fine, too. It's your opinion. Where the challenge becomes is where you try to legislate your personal opinion and morality on everyone else.