I feel lost...

[MarkCorrigan]

(Appologies in advance for this remarkably long and most likely rambling intro)
I am hereby going to start a new thread on a topic that has (sort of) been covered before. Except, when it was covered last time, the question I wish to ask was effectively ignored (TO THE BEST OF MY RECOLLECTION), despite me not being the only one who asked it.

Today, after spotting a long post by Whiplash (this is NOT a call out thread for Whiplash) I noticed a snippet from it that once again left me wanting to hear the rationalisation for something specific. In the thread "I will call her a pig" I noted a long response to the OP and decided to snip a specific bit of it and question it.

Only, after I chose to reply, I noted a mod box had been added by Darat, and was the top reply to the thread. The moment I finished my comment and hit reply, it was sent right to AAH along with virtually all of the thread.

So here again is the relevant bit plus my comment with question. Appologies again for the LONG opening statement but I feel a little too much exposition is better than not enough.

Their slam dunk victory of a year ago is evaporating and Palin is a legitimate phenomenon, regardless of how much they wish otherwise.

.....and this doesn't disturb you? This doesn't give you one ounce of worry AT ALL because it means that your favoured political view gets in?

The fact that this woman IS a fundementalist creationist whackjob who (assuming the ticket wins) will be one short hop (very short considering the age of McCain) from being the President is ok for you because you agree with her politically?

I've said it before and I'll say it again, there has to be something severely wrong with you if you are a sceptic who ACCEPTS a lunatic like Palin because she's politically the same as you. It greatly disturbs me. You whiplash, and Brainster, and a few others I'm sure who I vehemently disagree with politically but consider to be rational intelligent people are siding with this woman simply because she's improving the GOP chances (apparently) of gaining the presidential vote?

Where did the critical thinking go, to be sold like a cheap hooker with you (not aimed at ONE person but at all those who think this woman is a GOOD thing) as the pimp just for your favourite political party (HA!) to gain points with the drooling moron subset of American society?

I cannot understand this mindset now and I don't think I ever will. (Added question) So why do you all support her? Is it purely party politics, or is there something I am missing?

[Tailgater]

I think his post has more to do with responding to posts using the language that's been put out by a few posters in this sub-forum the last couple months. In fact, alot of people I know don't really care for Palin either, but they see the slobbering hatred coming out some peoples mouths and it turns even the slightest indifference into a degree of sympathy among the average. I'm an independent and am actually still on the fence (especially because of the Palin pick). I would have taken Clinton over Mcain over Obama, but Palin has evened the field a little. But then I come to this sub-forum and go down the list of titles.....it's ridiculous. I've read the word pig and other names so many times lately that it's sad. I honestly come away from a couple hours here, not with any more or less support for Mcain, but a negative feeling about some people who support Obama. It was that way when they wanted Hillary to go down too. Hell, Conspiraider (who I've some tiffs with) left the forum till after the election. I wasn't happy with my post being removed either, but for different reasons.

[MarkCorrigan]

I think his post has more to do with responding to posts using the language that's been put out by a few posters in this sub-forum the last couple months. In fact, alot of people I know don't really care for Palin either, but they see the slobbering hatred coming out some peoples mouths and it turns even the slightest indifference into a degree of sympathy among the average. I'm an independent and am actually still on the fence (especially because of the Palin pick). I would have taken Clinton over Mcain over Obama, but Palin has evened the field a little. But then I come to this sub-forum and go down the list of titles.....it's ridiculous. I've read the word pig and other names so many times lately that it's sad. I honestly come away from a couple hours here, not with any more or less support for Mcain, but a negative feeling about some people who support Obama. It was that way when they wanted Hillary to go down too. Hell, Conspiraider (who I've some tiffs with) left the forum till after the election. I wasn't happy with my post being removed either, but for different reasons.

Oh I understand that some of the invective against Palin is just that, invective, and that should be countered. I mean I can't STAND the woman politically (I think...) and on her woo beliefs, and I think she's a shrill speaker but I don't think she deserves to be lambasted in wuite the way she gets from time to time.

On the other hand, the woman IS counter to what the majority on here are supposedly in favour of (critical thinking et al) and while I hold that people should be allowed to support her economic or other political points, I find the fact that some cheer her on as being quite disturbing.

[Brainster]

.....and this doesn't disturb you? This doesn't give you one ounce of worry AT ALL because it means that your favoured political view gets in?

The fact that this woman IS a fundementalist creationist whackjob who (assuming the ticket wins) will be one short hop (very short considering the age of McCain) from being the President is ok for you because you agree with her politically?

I've said it before and I'll say it again, there has to be something severely wrong with you if you are a sceptic who ACCEPTS a lunatic like Palin because she's politically the same as you. It greatly disturbs me. You whiplash, and Brainster, and a few others I'm sure who I vehemently disagree with politically but consider to be rational intelligent people are siding with this woman simply because she's improving the GOP chances (apparently) of gaining the presidential vote?

Yes, of course. I'd take Charlie Manson himself as the VP candidate if it would improve the chances of the GOP winning.:rolleyes:

How serious can you be with this post when you describe Mrs Palin as a lunatic? Barack Obama said at Saddleback that Jesus Christ died on the cross to save him personally; the man's either a fundie wackjob or cynically using religion to gain the votes of the fundies; which is it?

Where did the critical thinking go, to be sold like a cheap hooker with you (not aimed at ONE person but at all those who think this woman is a GOOD thing) as the pimp just for your favourite political party (HA!) to gain points with the drooling moron subset of American society?

Okay, you weren't serious. Very amusing parody.:D

[MarkCorrigan]

Yes, of course. I'd take Charlie Manson himself as the VP candidate if it would improve the chances of the GOP winning.:rolleyes:

How serious can you be with this post when you describe Mrs Palin as a lunatic? Barack Obama said at Saddleback that Jesus Christ died on the cross to save him personally; the man's either a fundie wackjob or cynically using religion to gain the votes of the fundies; which is it?



Okay, you weren't serious. Very amusing parody.:D

As to you making the claim that I am outright stating that you WOULD vote for anything if it had an elephant pin, I absolutely did not state that. Strawman or comprehension failure. Your choice.

In relation to Barack....big ol' differnce between "Christian" and "Creationist, anti-civil rights, anti-choice lunatic". Yes, I think that his position is ALSO crazy, but, and here is the rub, Obama has not stated anywhere he is anti-science, or that he is going to persecute those who do not conform to his view of the world.

Either you really don't understand, in which case I've severely underestimated you, or you are attempting to be "humourously" obtuse, in which case....what was the point?

This just smacks of point scoring to me.

[DavidJames]

Two axioms.
Politics trumps Religion. Even among the Evangelists and Religious Right, politics trumps religion. All that nonsense about them not voting if such and such Republican candidate wasn't chooses is just that nonsense.

As far as not voting for someone who's not a "critical thinker", here's the second...
Politics trumps critical thinking. Who cares what thought process Palin (or someone else) uses to develop their opinions, as long as those opinions are the "right" ones.

[not_so_new]

I am so glad the OP posted this.

I feel the same way, how exactly did we get here?

I mean when I was growing up as a kid it was VERY respectable to be intelligent, brains were a good thing. To graduate from an ivory league school was an amazing accomplishment. Scientists and engineers were looked up to not scoffed at and ridiculed. Getting good grades in school and being smart on the job was supposed to lead to higher wages and a better career, now that is just being an "elitist."

On one hand we have a candidate who graduated at the top of his class from Harvard Law School, most of our mothers would be EXTREMELY proud of this accomplishment, I know mine would have but maybe times have changed that much.

The other candidate graduated at the bottom of the class from the Naval Academy yet he actually TOUTS this because it makes him seem like an "average Joe" ……..and it's working. This seriously makes me sad and angry at the stupidity of the American people to fall for such a load of BS. It's good to not be good enough to finish with high grades?

I WANT my leaders to be smarter than me yet, with the one instance of Tricky Bill Clinton, we keep electing the less intelligent candidate to run our country with the belief that they are "one of us" therefore we are in good hands. And then some defend that decision tooth and nail on no more solid ground than blind political party affiliation.

Amazing to me that we got here..

http://dekerivers.wordpress.com/2008/09/12/do-americans-want-intelligent-leadership-or-lowest-common-denominator/

[MarkCorrigan]

Please note I made no attack on McCain. As much as I do not want the man to become President, I don't actually have anything against him in the smae way I have something against Palin.

[MarkCorrigan]

Two axioms.
Politics trumps Religion. Even among the Evangelists and Religious Right, politics trumps religion. All that nonsense about them not voting if such and such Republican candidate wasn't chooses is just that nonsense.

As far as not voting for someone who's not a "critical thinker", here's the second...
Politics trumps critical thinking. Who cares what thought process Palin (or someone else) uses to develop their opinions, as long as those opinions are the "right" ones.

Really?

See, I'm pretty politically motivated, and I can ignore small things (like say, the candidate being religious, unlike Brainsters strawman) but I don't understand why anyone would constantly trumpet Palin as being a good thing.

It seems insane to me.

[DavidJames]

Really?
See, I'm pretty politically motivated, and I can ignore small things (like say, the candidate being religious, unlike Brainsters strawman) but I don't understand why anyone would constantly trumpet Palin as being a good thing.
For the second axiom, no, it's not as absolute as I made it sound. But for many on this forum, it sure seems to be true. The first one I believe is pretty darn accurate.
It seems insane to me.Start a poll, see if you can find one person (Republican/conservative) who will not vote for McCain because of Palin's religious beliefs. Good luck.

[not_so_new]

For the second axiom, no, it's not as absolute as I made it sound. But for many on this forum, it sure seems to be true. The first one I believe is pretty darn accurate.
Start a poll, see if you can find one person (Republican/conservative) who will not vote for McCain because of Palin's religious beliefs. Good luck.

Yup... I will say it again, blind political party affiliation.

[not_so_new]

And intelligent people would actually vote for this?

Sad.....

Another Wasilla resident, Phil Munger, a music composer and teacher, says she pushed an evangelical agenda in the town. "She wanted to get people who believed in creationism on the [school] board. I bumped into her after my band played at a graduation ceremony at the Assembly of God [a church]. I said, 'Sarah, how can you believe in creationism – your father's a science teacher.' And she said, 'We don't have to agree on everything.' I pushed her on the earth's creation, whether it was really less than 7,000 years old and whether dinosaurs and humans walked the earth at the same time. And she said yes, she'd seen images somewhere of dinosaur fossils with human footprints in them."

Mr Munger also asked Mrs Palin if she believed in the End of Days, the doomsday scenario when the Messiah will return. "She looked in my eyes and said, 'Yes, I think I will see Jesus come back to earth in my lifetime'."

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/hillarys-women-reject-mccains-vp-choice-933050.html

[Brainster]

This just smacks of point scoring to me.

When the OP contains loaded terms like "fundamentalist creationist whackjob", "lunatic", "cheap hooker", "pimp" and "drooling moronic subset", you'll excuse me if I find it laughably hyperbolic and not deserving of a serious reply. You were not writing to conservatives/Republicans on this board looking for thoughtful responses. You were just making a few uncontested layups.

[dirtywick]

I don't know how much her personal beliefs effect her enaction of policy and how much her beliefs have been over-exaggerated. That's what happens when half of what you read is a lie.

Either way, what are you supposed to do? Not vote for the guy who you think will do the best job because the second in line will do a worse job than the guy you're not voting for?

Besides, I don't see many people here defending Palin on her beliefs but rather that the Democrats should be treating her like a real political opponent and not a gimmick.

[MarkCorrigan]

When the OP contains loaded terms like "fundamentalist creationist whackjob", "lunatic", "cheap hooker", "pimp" and "drooling moronic subset", you'll excuse me if I find it laughably hyperbolic and not deserving of a serious reply. You were not writing to conservatives/Republicans on this board looking for thoughtful responses. You were just making a few uncontested layups.

She is a fundementalist creationist whackjob....What, exactly, is the issue?

As for "cheap hooker" you do realise I was intentially being stupid to attempt to inject humour? Maybe I should have used a :p smilie....

I want to know why Reps seriously think someone as insane as she is is a good thing.

If it was Kent Hovind I seriously doubt you would have an issue with me calling him a fundementalist creationist whackjob, so why is it different for Palin?

Ok, I did go for inflamatory language. I appologise. Now, will you answer me why you cheer on Palin, OR point out why I've gone insane and suddenly can't understand where you are going?

[dudalb]

I think his post has more to do with responding to posts using the language that's been put out by a few posters in this sub-forum the last couple months. In fact, alot of people I know don't really care for Palin either, but they see the slobbering hatred coming out some peoples mouths and it turns even the slightest indifference into a degree of sympathy among the average. I'm an independent and am actually still on the fence (especially because of the Palin pick). I would have taken Clinton over Mcain over Obama, but Palin has evened the field a little. But then I come to this sub-forum and go down the list of titles.....it's ridiculous. I've read the word pig and other names so many times lately that it's sad. I honestly come away from a couple hours here, not with any more or less support for Mcain, but a negative feeling about some people who support Obama. It was that way when they wanted Hillary to go down too. Hell, Conspiraider (who I've some tiffs with) left the forum till after the election. I wasn't happy with my post being removed either, but for different reasons.


Palin is what confirmed me in my Opinion that Obama is the lesser of the two evils in this campaign, but some of the attacks on her are point blank idiotic, and might backfire.
When you begin trying to make somebody's grades in college an issue, it has reached the point of idiocy. A number of people who barely scraped by in college have gone on to have brllliant careers.
This is whole section should go to "Abandon All Hope" IMHO.

[dudalb]

This whole section of JREF is why I have no loyalty to any political party. I refuse to give a blank check for my vote to any idiot just because a party nominates him.
At times I despair. Both of the Major US parties are arrogant and corrupt, and the existing third parties are way too extreme and full of crackpots.

[Brainster]

She is a fundementalist creationist whackjob....What, exactly, is the issue?

Lack of evidence that she really applies her religious beliefs to her job? I appreciate this is the reason for all the focus on her "banning books" at the local library in her first year as mayor. But despite being a governor with an extraordinarily high approval rating, she did not push for creationism in the schools in Alaska, or banning abortion or anything similar. Why not?

As for "cheap hooker" you do realise I was intentially being stupid to attempt to inject humour? Maybe I should have used a :p smilie....

Must bite tongue....

I want to know why Reps seriously think someone as insane as she is is a good thing.

Because insane people deserve representation too.:rolleyes:

Now, define insane.

If it was Kent Hovind I seriously doubt you would have an issue with me calling him a fundementalist creationist whackjob, so why is it different for Palin?

I had to Google Hovind; I'm not at the JREF forum because I hate fundies. I ignore them. Hovind is a huckster, and that's clearly not the same thing as a believer. The sole tie to creationism is that Palin once wrote something about how the discussion shouldn't be closed down if the topic of creationism versus evolution should come up. Maybe those are "code words", but really, that's it for Palin's creationism; there's no evidence she's pushed it anywhere, despite that 80% approval rating as the governor of Alaska.

Ok, I did go for inflamatory language. I appologise. Now, will you answer me why you cheer on Palin, OR point out why I've gone insane and suddenly can't understand where you are going?

I'll take the latter question. You've gone insane because you support the Democrats and it looks like they're in a dogfight when you expected a romp. You've allowed your confirmation bias to overwhelm you. Everyone must see that Sarah Palin's as nutty as a Blue Diamond warehouse, and yet we deny it.

Sarah Palin seems like a solid person. She's achieved a lot in her life. She's been a governor, so she's got actual executive experience, unlike McCain, Obama, or Biden, who've always handled legislative functions. She's eminently qualified to be VP, surely as qualified as John Edwards, who somehow gets ignored in these conversations.

But I'm not voting for a VP, I'm voting for John McCain. Palin doesn't worry me in the slightest; she seems eminently sensible. And this reaction to Republican VP nominees goes way back; since 1968 they've been Agnew, Agnew, Ford (replacement), Dole, Bush I, Bush I, Quayle, Quayle, Kemp, Cheney and Cheney. If you can point out one of them on that list who wasn't immediately labeled evil or incompetent or crazy by liberal Democrats, I'll eat my hat.

By contrast, Republicans don't seem to go berserk when the Democrats name their candidate. Over the same period, Muskie, Eagleton (withdrawn)/Shriver, Mondale, Mondale, Ferraro, Bentsen, Gore, Gore, Lieberman, Edwards. Yeah, Gore got the "Ozone Man" tag, and Ferraro's husbands' finances came under a lot of scrutiny. Eagleton really was crazy, but as far as I know that was discovered by McGovern after he nominated the guy.

The GOP mostly focuses on the person at the top of the ticket, and this year is no different. How many Joe Biden posts are there versus Sarah Palin posts?

[MarkCorrigan]

Lack of evidence that she really applies her religious beliefs to her job? I appreciate this is the reason for all the focus on her "banning books" at the local library in her first year as mayor. But despite being a governor with an extraordinarily high approval rating, she did not push for creationism in the schools in Alaska, or banning abortion or anything similar. Why not?



Must bite tongue....



Because insane people deserve representation too.:rolleyes:

Now, define insane.



I had to Google Hovind; I'm not at the JREF forum because I hate fundies. I ignore them. Hovind is a huckster, and that's clearly not the same thing as a believer. The sole tie to creationism is that Palin once wrote something about how the discussion shouldn't be closed down if the topic of creationism versus evolution should come up. Maybe those are "code words", but really, that's it for Palin's creationism; there's no evidence she's pushed it anywhere, despite that 80% approval rating as the governor of Alaska.



I'll take the latter question. You've gone insane because you support the Democrats and it looks like they're in a dogfight when you expected a romp. You've allowed your confirmation bias to overwhelm you. Everyone must see that Sarah Palin's as nutty as a Blue Diamond warehouse, and yet we deny it.

Sarah Palin seems like a solid person. She's achieved a lot in her life. She's been a governor, so she's got actual executive experience, unlike McCain, Obama, or Biden, who've always handled legislative functions. She's eminently qualified to be VP, surely as qualified as John Edwards, who somehow gets ignored in these conversations.

But I'm not voting for a VP, I'm voting for John McCain. Palin doesn't worry me in the slightest; she seems eminently sensible. And this reaction to Republican VP nominees goes way back; since 1968 they've been Agnew, Agnew, Ford (replacement), Dole, Bush I, Bush I, Quayle, Quayle, Kemp, Cheney and Cheney. If you can point out one of them on that list who wasn't immediately labeled evil or incompetent or crazy by liberal Democrats, I'll eat my hat.

By contrast, Republicans don't seem to go berserk when the Democrats name their candidate. Over the same period, Muskie, Eagleton (withdrawn)/Shriver, Mondale, Mondale, Ferraro, Bentsen, Gore, Gore, Lieberman, Edwards. Yeah, Gore got the "Ozone Man" tag, and Ferraro's husbands' finances came under a lot of scrutiny. Eagleton really was crazy, but as far as I know that was discovered by McGovern after he nominated the guy.

The GOP mostly focuses on the person at the top of the ticket, and this year is no different. How many Joe Biden posts are there versus Sarah Palin posts?
Ah. I think you have made a rather large mistake....


You've gone insane because you support the Democrats and it looks like they're in a dogfight when you expected a romp.

That's.....not quite true. You know I'm British right? Well I don't like ANYONE in US politics much, although I didn't mind Edwards, and I rather liked Guliani. The only reason I support the Dems IN THIS ELECTION is because I prefer Obama to McCain, and Palin terrifies me.

Admittedly however, she has not brought some of her views into play in her former role of Governor. So it's entirely possible that she would not do that as VP or, if McCain happened to die (something that I do not wish for in ANY way, I hasten to add) as President. However, I would not like to test that theory out, and would rather have someone who I disagree with but think is intelligent and sensible, like McCain or, preferably, Obama.