McCain VP choice

[iNow]

With regard to the book banning issue, she asked a question. No books were banned. You got nothing, so deal with it.

 

I find it absolutely hilarious that you are still going on about what I, moi, 我, mí, ich, انا, me, personally had an issue with. Any even reasonably intelligent person would not ever even consider banning a book. Such an action evidences vast ignorance and abundant blindness and speaks volumes about a persons character.

 

But, whatever. All I said was that I had a problem with that, and it was only one entry among many of her stances with which I vehemently disagree. You're grasping at straws going on and on and on about "she never mentioned a specific title" or "she was not able to get any books banned" and it's a lot of fun to watch. Thanks for the show!

 

 

 

What part of that don't you get?

I think it was the part where you were blathering on about how the evironment is better than ever because you went and bought a Brita filter and pay for the garbage truck to come every week, and expected all of us to use this as evidence that there is nothing wrong with Palin's postion that there is no man-made impact on global climate.

[Pangloss]

With regard to the book banning issue, she asked a question. No books were banned. You got nothing, so deal with it.

 

It's not "nothing", it's a clear indication of a policy she thought worth considering. Clear enough that I think it would be reasonable to ask her what her feeling on that subject is today. If she is not in favor of banning books in public libraries, then that's fine, but it's a reasonable question to ask.

[waitforufo]

I think it was the part where you were blathering on about how the evironment is better than ever because you went and bought a Brita filter and pay for the garbage truck to come every week, and expected all of us to use this as evidence that there is nothing wrong with Palin's postion that there is no man-made impact on global climate.

 

iNow,

You really think that is where we are at today? Dredging Hudson River PCBs is equivalent to buying a Brita filter? You are further gone than I thought.

 

Pangloss,

Perhaps the question Palin asked is not nothing I doubt it is going to move many swing voters. Those voters will ask what books were banned? Answer, None. Also, when executives in government change, those placed by previous administrations don't like it. Most things like this are just sour grapes by those that lost. Palin asked a question, the librarian tried to embarrass Palin over it, and the librarian was reminded who signs her check. J. Edger iNow might want to make a big deal over these sour grapes but most people will say ho hum.

 

Also iNow protests that he was merely stating his own litmus tests, but in fact all such statements from anyone are intended sway people. There is nothing wrong with challenging him on the validity of his judgments against Palin. If he doesn't want to be challenged he should not state his opinions. This is the "Politics" Thread of Science Forums is it not?

[iNow]

J. Edger iNow might want to make a big deal over these sour grapes but most people will say ho hum.

 

Also iNow protests that he was merely stating his own litmus tests, but in fact all such statements from anyone are intended sway people. There is nothing wrong with challenging him on the validity of his judgments against Palin. If he doesn't want to be challenged he should not state his opinions. This is the "Politics" Thread of Science Forums is it not?

 

Ho hum, indeed. Challenge away. You are a weak opponent, more of a gnat, really.

 

Leaving aside your appeal to ridicule for the moment, there's the fact that she discounts human impact on climate, thinks that intelligent design is actually a theory which can compete with evolution, thinks the war in Iraq is an errand from god (again, how is that different from Osama bin Laden who thinks war against America is an errand from god?), she is against abortion EVEN in the case of rape and incest, she thinks more oil drilling will solve our problems, and misframes the problem itself in purely economic terms, she lies about her history on earmarks, all of the other questionable issues ALREADY discussed in this thread, and also those we haven't yet even found out about or discovered.

 

And... yeah... she asked the librarian about banning books as soon as she took power. I have a hard time understanding how you can dismiss ALL of that and then still go on to suggest that I am the one who is "further gone than previously thought" because I consider these questions and concerns worthy of attention and focus from all of us in the electorate.

 

 

 

"We are a fact-gathering organization only. We don't clear anybody. We don't condemn anybody. "

[Pangloss]

Perhaps the question Palin asked is not nothing I doubt it is going to move many swing voters. Those voters will ask what books were banned? Answer, None.

 

So we shouldn't ask her what her position is? I disagree. She either thinks it's okay to ban books, or she does not. The fact that it came up during one of her tenures in public office, however small the office and brief the tenure, is plenty reason to believe that she may have come to a decision on the matter, and therefore is sufficient justification for requiring her to state a position on the issue. And I do mean "requiring". The only reason NOT to ask her this question would be partisan in nature.

 

 

Also, when executives in government change, those placed by previous administrations don't like it. Most things like this are just sour grapes by those that lost. Palin asked a question, the librarian tried to embarrass Palin over it, and the librarian was reminded who signs her check. J. Edger iNow might want to make a big deal over these sour grapes but most people will say ho hum.

 

Apf. That's like saying it's okay that Nixon broke the law because Woodward and Bernstein were out to get him. If she didn't want to know the answer to her question, then she should not have asked it. But I'm not leaping to conclusions about her position, I'm saying we have a valid reason for asking her what it is.

 

I kinda like that "J. Edger iNow", btw. You should adopt that, iNow. It's quite clever and, IMO, quite a compliment.

 

 

There is nothing wrong with challenging him on the validity of his judgments against Palin. If he doesn't want to be challenged he should not state his opinions. This is the "Politics" Thread of Science Forums is it not?

 

So he disagrees with you. You'll live. Welcome to the club! Grab an "I debated iNow and lived to brag about it" button from the table in the corner.

[iNow]

So he disagrees with you. You'll live. Welcome to the club! Grab an "I debated iNow and lived to brag about it" button from the table in the corner.

 

They've upgraded, and the new offerings include, "I debated "J.Edgar" iNow over at SFN and all I have to show for it are these scars and this stupid t-shirt."

[waitforufo]

So we shouldn't ask her what her position is? I disagree. She either thinks it's okay to ban books, or she does not. The fact that it came up during one of her tenures in public office, however small the office and brief the tenure, is plenty reason to believe that she may have come to a decision on the matter, and therefore is sufficient justification for requiring her to state a position on the issue. And I do mean "requiring". The only reason NOT to ask her this question would be partisan in nature.

 

I have no problem if someone wants to ask her the question. The problem I have is with someone assuming that the question is sinister. Assume for a minute that her favorite book is Huckleberry Fin. There are probably more requests to libraries around the country to have this book banned than any other book. Wanting to insure good books like Huck Fin are not removed from the library shelf Palin asks the question "How would someone go about banning a book?" By the way she is the executive, she doesn't need to give her subordinate a reason for her question. Her subordinate then very publicly implies that under her very pleasant exterior lies a jack booted thug. This same implication is made by iNow. At this point as an executive, what is she supposed to do? Executives fail if they let subordinates push them around. So instead she pushes back.

 

I have found that life is much more enjoyable if you first look for the positive reasons for the words and actions of others. iNow takes the opposite position.

 

With regard to your Nixon reference, what law did Palin break? I think this comment is over played.

 

J. Edger iNow is at least a little more creative then "waitforlogicalfalliciesandpoorarguments"

[Pangloss]

Well first of all if you don't like all the ad hom, don't start the ball rolling down that hill in the first place. I agree he's leaping to a conclusion based on facts not in evidence, but that's his opinion, and if it's partisan, he's not alone. Hint, hint.

 

Isn't this a great metaphor for how society handles "debate" these days? The facts suggest that X or Y may be true, so the liberal says X must be true, the conservative says Y must be true, and then they yell at each other for leaping to conclusions, and nobody bothers to find out which one is correct. Around and around and around we go, where it stops nobody knows. Wee!

[waitforufo]

Ho hum, indeed. Challenge away. You are a weak opponent, more of a gnat, really.

 

oh ouch...

 

Leaving aside your appeal to ridicule for the moment, there's the fact that she discounts human impact on climate, thinks that intelligent design is actually a theory which can compete with evolution, thinks the war in Iraq is an errand from god (again, how is that different from Osama bin Laden who thinks war against America is an errand from god?), she is against abortion EVEN in the case of rape and incest, she thinks more oil drilling will solve our problems, and misframes the problem itself in purely economic terms, she lies about her history on earmarks, all of the other questionable issues ALREADY discussed in this thread, and also those we haven't yet even found out about or discovered.

 

I have commented on all of this. None of this will have a a negative impact on the election chances of John McCain. For McCain she has been a good choice so far. She has done nothing but improve McCain's poll numbers.

 

And... yeah... she asked the librarian about banning books as soon as she took power. I have a hard time understanding how you can dismiss ALL of that and then still go on to suggest that I am the one who is "further gone than previously thought" because I consider these questions and concerns worthy of attention and focus from all of us in the electorate.

 

Covered above in my reply to Pangloss.

 

The "further gone than previously thought" quote was based on your Brita filter comment with regard to improvements in the envirionment.

 

Well first of all if you don't like all the ad hom, don't start the ball rolling down that hill in the first place. I agree he's leaping to a conclusion based on facts not in evidence, but that's his opinion, and if it's partisan, he's not alone. Hint, hint.

 

Isn't this a great metaphor for how society handles "debate" these days? The facts suggest that X or Y may be true, so the liberal says X must be true, the conservative says Y must be true, and then they yell at each other for leaping to conclusions, and nobody bothers to find out which one is correct. Around and around and around we go, where it stops nobody knows. Wee!

 

 

Points well taken. Also, I think iNow and I are both enjoying this.

Edited September 8, 2008 by waitforufo
multiple post merged

[iNow]

None of this will have a a negative impact on the election chances of John McCain.

What else does your crystal ball tell you?

 

 

For McCain she has been a good choice so far.

This depends entirely on how you define "good." I would say the exact opposite, that this choice has helped him to energize a previously apathetic base, but that it undercuts his desire to improve the lives of americans and move our country forward. Just opinions for both of us, so no need to argue much there.

 

 

She has done nothing but improve McCain's poll numbers.

This, however, is flat out wrong, and I can show facts to prove it. When you say it has done "nothing but improve" McCain's poll numbers, you arbitrarily ignore the fire storm it has set off in more intelligent circles. You arbitrarily ignore the fact that he's done more to galvanize the democrats than the republicans, and how he's caused Obama's donation numbers to soar.

 

It also shows how McCain is more interested in choosing someone for partisan reasons than he is choosing someone ready to lead and take over should something happen to him.

 

You know what else is funny? There's nutjobs out there already asking people to pray that McCain/Palin win the election, then asking god to promptly kill McCain so Palin can take over and "make our nation a christian one."

 

 

 

---

line[/hr]

 

In the meantime, more facts.

 

 

That whole "I sold my airplane on eBay" story was false.

 

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/09/05/AR2008090503722.html?referrer=digg

In fact, the jet did not sell on eBay. It was sold to a businessman from Valdez named Larry Reynolds, who paid $2.1 million for the plane -- shy of the $2.7 million purchase price -- according to news reports at the time. Reynolds contributed to Palin's campaign in 2006.

It appears that, as she promised during her bid for governor, Palin did try to sell the plane on eBay, but there was only one serious bid, in December of 2006, and it fell through. The Westwind II was sold about eight months later, achieving her goal of ridding the state of a luxury item.

 

But that hasn't stopped Palin, or John McCain, from implying -- or asserting outright -- that Palin sold the jet on the Internet.

 

 

 

She also seems to have no regard for what science says, and instead chooses to ignore it, and make decisions explicitly counter to it.

 

 

http://www.salon.com/env/feature/2008/09/08/sarah_palin_wolves/index.html

The controversy over Palin's promotion of predator control goes beyond animal rights activists recoiling at the thought of picking off wolves from airplanes. A raft of scientists has argued that Palin has provided little evidence that the current program of systematically killing wolves, estimated at a population of 7,000 to 11,000, will result in more moose for hunters. State estimates of moose populations have come under scrutiny. Some wildlife biologists say predator control advocates don't even understand what wolves eat.

"Across the board, Sarah Palin puts on a masquerade, claiming she is using sound management and science," says Nick Jans, an Alaskan writer who co-sponsored the initiative. "In reality she uses ideology and ignores science when it is in her way." The initiative was defeated last month.

 

Gordon Haber is a wildlife scientist who has studied wolves in Alaska for 43 years. "On wildlife-related issues, whether it is polar bears or predator controls, she has shown no inclination to be objective," he says of Palin. "I cannot find credible scientific data to support their arguments," he adds about the state's rational for gunning down wolves. "In most cases, there is evidence to the contrary."

 

 

 

But yeah! Go Palin! She's here doing God's work!

Edited September 8, 2008 by iNow

[waitforufo]

What else does your crystal ball tell you?

 

 

 

This depends entirely on how you define "good." I would say the exact opposite, that this choice has helped him to energize a previously apathetic base, but that it undercuts his desire to improve the lives of americans and move our country forward. Just opinions for both of us, so no need to argue much there.

 

 

 

This, however, is flat out wrong, and I can show facts to prove it. When you say it has done "nothing but improve" McCain's poll numbers, you arbitrarily ignore the fire storm it has set off in more intelligent circles. You arbitrarily ignore the fact that he's done more to galvanize the democrats than the republicans, and how he's caused Obama's donation numbers to soar.

 

It also shows how McCain is more interested in choosing someone for partisan reasons than he is choosing someone ready to lead and take over should something happen to him.

 

You know what else is funny? There's nutjobs out there already asking people to pray that McCain/Palin win the election, then asking god to promptly kill McCain so Palin can take over and "make our nation a christian one."

 

 

 

---

line[/hr]

 

In the meantime, more facts.

 

 

That whole "I sold my airplane on eBay" story was false.

 

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/09/05/AR2008090503722.html?referrer=digg

In fact, the jet did not sell on eBay. It was sold to a businessman from Valdez named Larry Reynolds, who paid $2.1 million for the plane -- shy of the $2.7 million purchase price -- according to news reports at the time. Reynolds contributed to Palin's campaign in 2006.

It appears that, as she promised during her bid for governor, Palin did try to sell the plane on eBay, but there was only one serious bid, in December of 2006, and it fell through. The Westwind II was sold about eight months later, achieving her goal of ridding the state of a luxury item.

 

But that hasn't stopped Palin, or John McCain, from implying -- or asserting outright -- that Palin sold the jet on the Internet.

 

 

 

She also seems to have no regard for what science says, and instead chooses to ignore it, and make decisions explicitly counter to it.

 

 

http://www.salon.com/env/feature/2008/09/08/sarah_palin_wolves/index.html

The controversy over Palin's promotion of predator control goes beyond animal rights activists recoiling at the thought of picking off wolves from airplanes. A raft of scientists has argued that Palin has provided little evidence that the current program of systematically killing wolves, estimated at a population of 7,000 to 11,000, will result in more moose for hunters. State estimates of moose populations have come under scrutiny. Some wildlife biologists say predator control advocates don't even understand what wolves eat.

"Across the board, Sarah Palin puts on a masquerade, claiming she is using sound management and science," says Nick Jans, an Alaskan writer who co-sponsored the initiative. "In reality she uses ideology and ignores science when it is in her way." The initiative was defeated last month.

 

Gordon Haber is a wildlife scientist who has studied wolves in Alaska for 43 years. "On wildlife-related issues, whether it is polar bears or predator controls, she has shown no inclination to be objective," he says of Palin. "I cannot find credible scientific data to support their arguments," he adds about the state's rational for gunning down wolves. "In most cases, there is evidence to the contrary."

 

 

 

But yeah! Go Palin! She's here doing God's work!

 

So should I comment on the above or are these again all just a bunch of your personal opinions not deserving or requesting comment?

 

Okay, I can't help myself, do your really think your exaggerations improve your credibility?

[iNow]

What specifically are you referring to? You've quoted my entire post and responded with two sentences, one of which asserts that I've exaggerated something.

 

Be specific. WTF are you talking about?

[waitforufo]

What specifically are you referring to? You've quoted my entire post and responded with two sentences, one of which asserts that I've exaggerated something.

 

Be specific. WTF are you talking about?

 

I find it absolutely hilarious that you are still going on about what I, moi, 我, mí, ich, انا, me, personally had an issue with.

 

I just thought I should check if the post in question was just another statement of your personal opinion or if it was acceptable to comment on.

 

For example to my " For McCain she has been a good choice so far." You replied...

 

This, however, is flat out wrong, and I can show facts to prove it. When you say it has done "nothing but improve" McCain's poll numbers, you arbitrarily ignore the fire storm it has set off in more intelligent circles. You arbitrarily ignore the fact that he's done more to galvanize the democrats than the republicans, and how he's caused Obama's donation numbers to soar.

 

In response I could simply provide this post.

 

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2008/president/us/general_election_mccain_vs_obama-225.html

 

But just before your above quote you said

 

This depends entirely on how you define "good." I would say the exact opposite, that this choice has helped him to energize a previously apathetic base, but that it undercuts his desire to improve the lives of americans and move our country forward. Just opinions for both of us, so no need to argue much there.

 

So I'm not sure if this is one of those

I, moi, 我, mí, ich, انا, me, personally

 

cases where I am just to revel in the brilliance of your genius or if you are looking for a response. I would just hate to make you upset again.

[iNow]

I just thought I should check if the post in question was just another statement of your personal opinion or if it was acceptable to comment on.

 

For example to my " For McCain she has been a good choice so far." You replied...

This' date=' however, is flat out wrong, and I can show facts to prove it. When you say it has done "nothing but improve" McCain's poll numbers, you arbitrarily ignore the fire storm it has set off in more intelligent circles. You arbitrarily ignore the fact that he's done more to galvanize the democrats than the republicans, and how he's caused Obama's donation numbers to soar.

 

It also shows how McCain is more interested in choosing someone for partisan reasons than he is choosing someone ready to lead and take over should something happen to him.[/quote']

 

 

 

Actually, I replied to this statement which you also made in that post (as clearly evidenced by my proper use of the quote feature):

 

She has done nothing but improve McCain's poll numbers.

 

So, when you show the context of my quote, and don't misrepresent me, it makes much more sense.

 

 

 

So I'm not sure if this is one of those <...> cases where I am just to revel in the brilliance of your genius or if you are looking for a response. I would just hate to make you upset again.

 

Am I the only one who sees that waitforufo has yet to make a substantiated rebuttal? Am I the only one that sees that waitforufo is trying to make this about me to distract us from the questions I raised? Am I the only one who sees that waitforufo is not able to rebut the issues under discussion so instead goes on with continued appeals to ridicule and personal comments?

 

Again, when did this become about me? Oh yeah, that's right, when you weren't able to counter my points about Palin with any actual content.

Edited September 8, 2008 by iNow

[waitforufo]

I stand corrected your

This, however, is flat out wrong, and I can show facts to prove it. When you say it has done "nothing but improve" McCain's poll numbers, you arbitrarily ignore the fire storm it has set off in more intelligent circles. You arbitrarily ignore the fact that he's done more to galvanize the democrats than the republicans, and how he's caused Obama's donation numbers to soar.

 

did indeed follow my "She has done nothing but improve McCain's poll numbers."

 

So where was I wrong.

 

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2008/president/us/general_election_mccain_vs_obama-225.html

 

Your correction however just makes your above statement more ridiculous.

[iNow]

I never countered the point you made that poll numbers have improved for the Republican ticket since the Palin choice, so I think we're both in agreement there. As you can see by looking back, I challenged your comment that "the only thing that's happened" was an improvement in polls.

 

Again, you said:

She has done nothing but improve McCain's poll numbers.

 

...and I proved that assertion false by showing other things which have also occurred in addition to poll number improvement.

 

 

So, why again are you trying to make this about me and avoiding substantive issues?

 

 

 

---

line[/hr]

 

Now, back to showing why Palin is incompetent and a horrendous choice for such a high office, she seems to have screwed up her talking points this past weekend. Her lack of knowledge on the economy is readily apparent based on this:

 

 

http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalpunch/2008/09/a-confusing-com.html

Saturday in Colorado Springs, Colo., Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin said, "The fact is that Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac have gotten too big and too expensive to the taxpayers. The McCain-Palin administration will make them smaller and smarter and more effective for homeowners who need help."

 

"Too expensive to the taxpayers?"

 

They're private entities.

 

Though they're private entities ultimately backed up by the taxpayers.

 

But the only way Fannie and Freddie are "too expensive to the taxpayers" is if you're talking about the bailout announced over the weekend.

 

 

Which, it appears, she was not.

 

So -- according to this aide, speaking on background -- Palin meant they are CURRENTLY too expensive.

 

 

 

So, am I liberal for pointing out that she's already failing on a national stage and that her knowledge is barely adequate to make it through a small round of questions with the press? Golly... Even if I am, how does that change anything about her noticeably absent ability to lead our nation?

Edited September 9, 2008 by iNow
multiple post merged

[Pangloss]

So, am I liberal for pointing out that she's already failing on a national stage and that her knowledge is barely adequate to make it through a small round of questions with the press? Golly... Even if I am, how does that change anything about her noticeably absent ability to lead our nation?

 

Well I admit I'm only following this conversation with half an ear (and I doubt anybody else is following it at all since it kinda degenerated), so I hope this doesn't come acros as picking on you, but to be blunt you're not really qualified to say whether she's "failing on a national stage", since you've got a predetermined opinion on the matter. And you sound kinda silly trying to convince people that you have an objective opinion on the matter.

 

And the polls seem to reflect that. Obama had a huge lead amongst white women voters before the Palin selection; that's turned around by a whopping 20 points. That's why they're in a statistical dead heat now in several polls.

 

From page 3 of this story:

http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/Vote2008/story?id=5752204&page=1

 

... a new ABC News/Washington Post poll out today finds white women have moved from 50-42 percent in Obama's favor before the conventions to 53-41 percent for McCain now, a 20-point shift in the margin that's one of the single biggest post-convention changes in voter preferences.

 

Sixty-seven percent view her favorably and 58 percent say her selection makes them more confident in McCain's decision-making. Among those with children, Palin does better yet. And enthusiasm for McCain among his female supporters has soared.

 

I don't think you can really say that she's "failing on the national stage".

[iNow]

And you sound kinda silly trying to convince people that you have an objective opinion on the matter.

I don't recall doing that. Can you provide an example where I stated I was objective?

 

What I HAVE been doing is bringing up issues which concern me, and pointing out how every attempt at argument people have made (here and in the media) against those issues have focussed on attempts to ridicule, and have lacked content. Instead of responding with substantive rebuttals, the responses have been laden with personal comments and logical fallacies.

 

I see a clear difference. I also agree with you that this thread has degenerated badly, and should like be put to sleep for a while.

 

We can always start a new one the next time she screws up or lies or whatever else.

 

 

 

I don't think you can really say that she's "failing on the national stage".

 

I take your point. It's well supported, too. Perhaps that is a sign of my own bias. I see her as underqualified, mistaken on important issues, and too political and partisan to serve our country well. Yet, people are now more for McCain than ever because of his choice to put her on the ticket. That scares the shit out of me, and causes me to question that electorate we have in this country on a very fundamental level.

 

 

Oh well. It really is too bad that the under-educated out breed the highly educated like 3:1.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

---

line[/hr]

 

 

http://www.salon.com/opinion/feature/2008/09/09/palin_fundamentalist/

John McCain announced that he was running for president to confront the "transcendent challenge" of the 21st century, "radical Islamic extremism," contrasting it with "stability, tolerance and democracy." But the values of his handpicked running mate, Sarah Palin, more resemble those of Muslim fundamentalists than they do those of the Founding Fathers. On censorship, the teaching of creationism in schools, reproductive rights, attributing government policy to God's will and climate change, Palin agrees with Hamas and Saudi Arabia rather than supporting tolerance and democratic precepts. What is the difference between Palin and a Muslim fundamentalist? Lipstick.

 

 

I think that some people may connect with this video, and may find it inspiring, but I see it as an example of the level of batshit crazy the rest of us who follow our existence using reason, rationality, and critical thinking are here dealing with:

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5K_1Eit0pxM

 

 

 

H/T

Edited September 9, 2008 by iNow
multiple post merged

[Pangloss]

I don't recall doing that. Can you provide an example where I stated I was objective?

 

LOL! Okay, fair enough.

 

 

... people are now more for McCain than ever because of his choice to put her on the ticket. That scares the shit out of me, and causes me to question that electorate we have in this country on a very fundamental level.

 

Okay, and I happen to agree with your assessment of Palin, but it shouldn't scare you. Warning: A bit of a diatribe coming here, and I'm not trying to put words in your mouth, but I'm going to speak to a larger issue for a moment.

 

I think that being "scared" is one of the reasons we're struggling with partisanship in this country right now -- people getting scared when they really have no reason to be. Republicans aren't on the wrong side of the global warming issue (for example) because of secret conspiracies or being in bed with corporations, they're on the wrong side of the issue because people have allowed and encouraged them to go there. And it gets worse: Democrats aren't on the RIGHT side of the issue because they're the good guys in white hats with perfect ideological ideals. They're there because people have allowed and encouraged them to go there. All it takes is a quick glance at the history books to see both parties on the wrong sides of issues.

 

So while I know that's an honest sentiment from you, and I respect that, I think you have to ask yourself, where does it come from? Where I think it comes from, this kind of emotion, is our drama-oriented media and our do-or-die society. It isn't real. And saying that it is real isn't just bad politics, it's bad policy. How many times have we seen policy formed on that awful, subjective basis? It's like playing with a live wire and saying "who cares if it's live, so long as it shocks the OTHER guy first!" That's the source of my objection to any ABB posts around here -- exaggeration for political purpose is counter-intuitive. It goes against reason. Against logic. Against well-considered, thoughtful, progressive measures.

 

In short, if you really think it's that bad if John McCain gets elected, you probably need to step back and re-assess your own partisanship and ideological motivations. After all, what are you going to do for the next 4-8 years if he gets elected? Stew about it? Automatically oppose everything he does the moment he tries to do it, regardless of how logical it may be? Well people have been behaving exactly that way for the past 16 years, and where has that gotten us? How's that working out for us so far? Are we making progress? Are we conquering global warming, or are we stuck in a political quagmire over it? Have we actually resolved ANY issues, or have we just beaten each other into submission over some of them and moved on to more exciting, newspaper-selling topics?

 

I think those of us who put reason ahead of faith have the highest obligation to do something about this problem. We're the ones who are supposed to know better, so at the very least we shouldn't be succumbing to it ourselves. So, in this election, don't be afraid of something that can't hurt you, and instead choose to get behind progressive, positive motivations instead of scary, negative ones.

 

It's got to be more productive!

[ParanoiA]

So, am I liberal for pointing out that she's already failing on a national stage and that her knowledge is barely adequate to make it through a small round of questions with the press? Golly... Even if I am, how does that change anything about her noticeably absent ability to lead our nation?

 

Yes, you're highly liberal for drawing those conclusions. Why? Because most of the stuff you draw conclusions on are statements that scream for context and clarification. For instance: Ron Paul says inflation is a tax on the poor. He also says printing money causes inflations which is rhetorically a tax on the poor. He could be caught saying, at any given time, any of these statements and you could turn right around and say "WFT? This dude doesn't know shit about the economy. He obviously thinks we pay taxes on printing currency...what a dumbass, blah blah blah".

 

Out of context, far away from the statement that defined what "printing money taxes the poor" means, it looks hideous. Taken in context, the rhetoric being defined, you can still disagree with him but recognize he's making an analytical statement and clearly understands the economy.

 

She said Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae are too expensive for taxpayers. How do I know whether or not she's reaching for her canned rhetoric? How do I know the context of the conversation to know if she's already made some kind of connection between taxpayers and the private mortgage markets?

 

I'm not coming to her defense here, I'm just answering your question, yes, you are a liberal for assuming the answers to these open ended statements as you have. As a conservative, you would assume something more flattering. As a person who doesn't have a horse in the race, you wait for more evidence, or dig for it. I'll just wait. Plenty of diggers out there, I think.

[iNow]

Fannie and Freddie are private. No impact to tax payers. Once the government bailout is complete, THEN it will impact tax payers. But, there I go, reading what people ACTUALLY said and judging them on it.

 

The difference with your analogy to Ron Paul is that your example with him were basic abstract principles, whereas with Palin it was a real world issue that she completely misframed.

[waitforufo]

Am I the only one who sees that waitforufo has yet to make a substantiated rebuttal? Am I the only one that sees that waitforufo is trying to make this about me to distract us from the questions I raised? Am I the only one who sees that waitforufo is not able to rebut the issues under discussion so instead goes on with continued appeals to ridicule and personal comments?

 

iNow,

 

It has been since 5pm on September 9th since you made your appeal for support. You have received none. Perhaps you are wondering why? I know it is often difficult to take constructive criticism from those you don't respect but here goes.

 

You have carefully cultivated a reputation on Science Forums as a person who does not suffer fools. You seem too actually to revel in this self created persona. Your tact and demeanor while cultivating this reputation has perhaps even alienated those that support your positions. Most people don't want to be associated with bullies.

 

You are easily angered by those that disagree with you. You become irrational when angered. Angering a debate opponent to gain advantage is the oldest debating trick in the book.

 

You exaggerate the worth of evidence you provide. Doing this damages both your credibility and diminishes the value of your evidence. Tin has value but it is not gold. Examples of this tendency of yours are everywhere in Science Forums.

 

Your militant support of atheism, clouds your reason. Plenty of brilliant people though out history and today believe in god or gods and the religions that support them. Your militant stance is abusive of these people and of their memory. Not a good way to win friends or supporters. Telling people you are an atheist and that you have no interest in their opinions about religion or god is fine. Telling people that religion and god have no place in science is fine. Telling people that the truths discovered by science can only destroy their religious belief system is just your opinion. It’s a fruitless and tiresome argument anyway, so why make it. Doing so is simply proselytizing your own belief system. I know you don't believe in god, and I have no interest in your atheist opinions.

 

You constantly display an elitist attitude. Politics, religion, scientific opinions that differ from your own can only be held by those that are willfully ignorant at best, or by people that are born stupid.

 

Oh well. It really is too bad that the under-educated out breed the highly educated like 3:1.

 

Perhaps you should take a Dale Carnegie seminar.

[iNow]

For like the 27th time...

 

Why are you trying to make this thread about me?

 

 

Also, saying I "support" atheism is like saying I support "non-astrology." Since so many people know that astrology is completely bunk, there's no need to have a lable like "non-astrologer." The atheist label allows believers to dismiss critical examinations of their evidence free faith and instead circumvent the need to support these childish beliefs by saying, "oh, you're just an atheist... I know your type... you just haven't found god yet." Then, all challenges and criticism go unaddressed, and we continue chasing our tails.

 

However, SFN is not a place for discussing religion, and I find it funny how you continue to attempt to steer the conversation away from substance and instead toward personal posts toward me.

 

 

Whether you think I'm a bully or not is quite irrelevant. You have yet to contribute any legitimate on topic content to this thread.

Edited September 9, 2008 by iNow

[Pangloss]

This conversation between you and waitforufo is probably as boring for the rest of the membership as mine with bascule at the moment. I don't think waitforufo has produced a lot of substance, no, and I told him before that he shouldn't have started on the invective, but if you continue it this is where it goes. You should probably give up on trying to convince him, just as I should probably give up on trying to get bascule to stop using ellipses and just say what he feels..........

 

I do have some advice: Find some common ground and agree to disagree on the rest.

[john5746]

I had already typed this, so...

 

It has been since 5pm on September 9th since you made your appeal for support. You have received none. Perhaps you are wondering why? I know it is often difficult to take constructive criticism from those you don't respect but here goes.

 

I agree with iNow, you did not make any decent rebuttal to his remarks and instead started attacking him. You are right about one thing - many people see Plain as a positive and that will not change.

 

 

Your militant support of atheism, clouds your reason. Plenty of brilliant people though out history and today believe in god or gods and the religions that support them. Your militant stance is abusive of these people and of their memory.

 

All brilliant people in history have been wrong about something, that doesn't make those ideas or beliefs OK today AND it does not discount the person in totality.

 

 

Telling people that the truths discovered by science can only destroy their religious belief system is just your opinion.

 

If you have religious beliefs that are at odds with reality, eventually they must change, as they have in the past. Assuming one lives in a society that continues to progress and thrive.