McCain or Obama?

[GregBurch]

Just to shorten the discussion a bit, as the rest gets filtered by my brain as "Too long to read"

How about this: I'll do the same to you and pick out one small item to respond to:

Does Obama's biography so far have any things in it, you should not know if you read his own books? Sure not. He was always very honest about his past and thus makes it hard for people to suddenly play shocked about the details.

You have ZERO credibility here. How do I know this? because he has NOT been completely honest in his biographies and it is laughably easy to demonstrate it.

But cherry picking your opponents' writing because "it's too long to read" and not knowing the facts -- no bar to having a strong opinion, is it?

 

[Urwumpe]

You have ZERO credibility here. How do I know this? because he has NOT been completely honest in his biographies and it is laughably easy to demonstrate it.

Then go on. So far, most fact checkers had problems finding strong inaccuracies.

PS: I don't give a damn about my credibility in your eyes. It is not like I have to convince you to cease following your own religion, but that does not mean I have to tolerate missionary work here.

But cherry picking your opponents' writing because "it's too long to read" and not knowing the facts -- no bar to having a strong opinion, is it?

No, it is called "I don't gain anything for answering all your arguments, so I just answer those, that I can answer without decrypting foreign grammar." My day still only has 24 hours, regardless of the Internet rumors trying to tell me otherwise.

And about the rest, how about your own fact checking? Who sits in a greenhouse, should not throw with stones...

 

[FlyingSinger]

You know, I've always appreciated your blogging and, especially, your enthusiasm for my addons, but that last comment is so insulting that, well, once again, in order to continue as a member of this community, I have to swallow a gallon of gall. OPPOSING BARAK OBAMA'S CANDIDACY IS NOT PER SE RACIST.

Greg, I do apologize for that last remark, which was not intended to apply to you but to be a rather flip coda to the comments on the "secret Muslim" smear campaign proponents, which you surely are not. But since the post was initially a response to one of your comments, you could easily assume that the whole thing is directed at you. Of course people can oppose Obama on the issues, and many do. Opposing him on his positions does not make one a racist. So again, sorry.

But in the second part of my post, on those who ARE conducting an email and web smear campaign based on false information, I think that for many of those people, both his race and his supposed Muslim religion are unacceptable. My wife listens to talk radio to get some snapshots of "opposing views" - I don't know why she subjects herself to that, but I get to hear about it through her (I do read some opposing articles on Obama and other topics, though admittedly not as much as I should to be fully informed - it's not easy reading). And as Gen. Powell mentioned in his endorsement comments, this "he's a Muslim terrorist" thing is not confined to such fringe elements - he says he has heard such comments from senior members of his own party.

The whole Wright thing, the Ayers thing, it's all based on guilt by association. You knew a bad person, therefore you must BE a bad person. And you didn't only KNOW this bad person, you said he was a mentor and you sat in his church for years, so that MUST have affected you, and you MUST share some of his views! Well, maybe not. Maybe this whole church thing was just Obama checking off the "active in religion" box, a practical requirement for political office in this country. Maybe he should have picked a church with a tamer pastor.

I don't know and I don't much care if Obama is a "good Christian." I just want someone who will do a good job as president. Even with a Democratic Congress, we still have some checks and balances in this country, and I'm sure there will be plenty of scrutiny of everything Obama does in office just as there was for Clinton. One of the talk radio bozos already has bought "impeachobamanow.org" and says he will have the site up on Jan. 20. You betcha.

I read that NR article and to me it just seems like more of the same. "Liberal" and "left" are dirty words for many people in this country, and if that's not strong enough, let's get out the red paint and go for "socialist." We have a $700+ billion welfare program for banks and other financial institutions. The government will be buying ownership stakes in banks. Some people think THAT'S socialism. Some people think THAT'S spreading the wealth around. The GOP has had their shot and they've managed to help a lot of their friends and screw the rest of us up pretty badly at home and abroad. Call Obama whatever you want, but he represents a new direction for this country, and we really, really need a new direction.

 

[dougkeenan]

Call Obama whatever you want, but he represents a new direction for this country, and we really, really need a new direction.

Calling him "Barak" seems to do something for some people.

Greg, can you help us understand why that spelling is better than the one everybody else uses?

 

[tonykattvc]

Man, this thread has turned from politics to the very nature of belief, and its all my fault.

Gobama!

Well, i don't really think that a religion demographic thread is in order yet, it might promote flaming, but since this is a civilized communinty of polite people, i'm gonna do it anyways.

 

[replicant]

If you're asking me, you'll get a harsh answer, since I'm one of those obnoxious militant atheists.

Then you have a religion then. Or at least a belief structure. To me it seems only an agnostic has no relgion or belief, since they neither claim nor deny the existence of God.

To me, faith is simply the process that leads to the acceptance of a proposition that is not supported by evidence.

To what evidence do you refer? One could say the evidence of a maker is all around you. Einstein said that there are two ways to view the world. One is as though nothing is a miracle, the other is as though everything is. If you say that science disproves this, is it your own experimentation and observation that supports this, or is it what you have read from others? If you did not actually OBSERVE the creation of the world and universe, then you take it on faith or the belief in the writings of others that it was not engineered. I agree that the same can be said for my faith, but that is the point. I can no more PROVE the existence of God than you can PROVE he or it doesn't exist, so we both proceed from a faith, and the teachings of others.

But religious people

Careful here. Religion and faith are two very different things. Don't make Bill Maher's ignorant mistake of hitting with a sledgehammer. One can brush their teeth religiously. Religion is ignorant and the creation of man for enslaving and opressing others. Faith is the idea that you are created to have relationship with your creator, and that there is something better than this petty existence.

act as if they know what "faith" means, and they say it is a virtue. (To me, it is a vice.)

Fair enough. Many use it as a vice. However, quite often it replaces other vices. One could argue that every single one of us has some vice, some more destructive than others. The only real question is which vice you choose.

I could say, "what are Obama's religious beliefs?" How's that?

And I could answer I do not care. Yes, you read that correctly, a Christian who does not care if his President is a Muslim, Jew, Buddist, Atheist, or whatever. First and foremost, I seek a capable administrator. Secondly, I would rather deal with a reasonable Muslim, than an off their nut "Christian". I have just as much distaste for Christofascists as I do for Islamofascists.

 

[fort]

About what Replicant says :

Obviously. I said, twice, that I was a atheist. And this morning, I thought of this conversation of yesterday and returned to me in memory this suffix "ist". "ist", like suffix, means, most generally, in French: "in favour" of something; militant. However, in French, the word for "atheist" is "athée".

The abscence of this suffix in the French language, for "athée", reduced of as much, the idea of militancy, negation of the existence of God, if the meaning remains the same . From where this possible confusion between "atheist" and "agnostic".

In my translation from French into the English, I had lost sight of the fact the existence of the "agnostic" word.

It is not either present in the poll creates this day by tonykattvc (" what do you belive in ? ") I can understand this since there is some discussion there about knowing in what the users of the forum believe .

But if I declare that I believe that I am agnostic, which is the case, I do not see reason that agnosticism is excluded from the poll. The doubt of course is a position and not a faith. But to doubt is not less to believe.

To quote another part from Replicant :

"Careful here. Religion and faith are two very different things. Don't make Bill Maher's ignorant mistake of hitting with a sledgehammer. One can brush their teeth religiously. Religion is ignorant and the creation of man for enslaving and opressing others. Faith is the idea that you are created to have relationship with your creator, and that there is something better than this petty existence.".

Religion, beliefs, faith...

I also thought of this, this morning, considering, definition of the faith equivalent to beliefs (s'équivalait à croyances).

Is to believe, to live with God ? The faith, to live in God ?

( they are not questions, only reflexions with high voice )

Two a little "short" definitions but it is what I found of more similar in my reflexion.

 

[GregBurch]

OK, obviously, once again, I’ve gone way too far. There’s only so much swimming against a strong current that someone can do before they get tired. I’m tired. So here are some points before I try to get out of the water for a while.

1. Obama’s biography as related in his books and the speeches he’s given (the two don’t always fit neatly together) has many instances of selective half-truths or even outright fabrications. A very few examples, intended only as illustration:

A piece by a very sympathetic Democrat from right after The Speech in 2004:
http://www.mlrmag.com/FullText.asp?year=04&month=08&day=17
noting how Obama massaged the real story of his parentage to make a more appealing story.

One specific detail – not important in its own right, but a case of “resume misrepresentation” that would be a problem with a prospective employer:
http://sweetness-light.com/archive/did-obama-turn-down-a-wall-street-career

A mostly-sympathetic look into some of the ways in which Obama has made misrepresentations about his younger years:
http://www.baltimoresun.com/news/nation/politics/chi-0703250359mar25-archive,0,156470.story

… and then there’s the issue of “Frank,” the poet who counseled him before he went off to college:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/new...nist-was-early-influence-on-Barack-Obama.html
about which much has been made, but the question remains, why did Obama mask the fellow’s identity?

… and we have his somewhat misleading portrayal of his own years as a “community organizer:”
http://article.nationalreview.com/print/?q=OWMxNGUxZWJjYzg1NjA0MTlmZDZmMjUwZGU3ZjAwNmU=
It turns out there’s almost nothing really there, but two things stand out to me: 1) Obama’s experience as a “community organizer” used to be a big part of his own sales speech for himself, but looking into it reveals very little in the way of actual achievement and 2) the central story about successfully “battling the asbestos” is … pretty much BS.

2. My point in talking about this is two-fold. First, there is a clear double-standard at play among Obama’s supporters in the media. Problems with his background are “distractions” and “smears,” while problems with the biographies of his opponents are “telling details.” Second, for someone so young and with so few real achievements in life, it is reasonable to look at political and cultural biography as at least some indicator of the man – either the people and ideas he associated with do reflect who Obama is now or, if he has repudiated them, they show he has made some kind of intellectual journey to a different set of ideas and values.

The background on the beginnings of Obama’s political career – a mere 15 years ago – offered in the article I cited above reveal an ideological foundation far outside of the mainstream of American political ideology, but that also made use of the most typical of Chicago machine politics. Yet Obama is now portrayed and perceived as a moderate and a “post-partisan.”

The only logical possibilities are:

a. He didn’t agree with the people who supported him when he began his political career.
b. He did agree with the people who launched his political career, but he’s changed his views, or
c. He still agrees with the people who launched his political career.
​

Perhaps he is that moderate and that “post-partisan.” But if this is so, his transformation occurred very recently, and without any kind of explicit statement of a changed political philosophy on Obama’s part. If he has always been a moderate, then he very cynically used some very radical people to launch his political career.

Based on the things he’s said, you can’t tell which of these is true.

Finally, a note on the spelling of Obama’s name. For years, I have been used to spelling the Hebrew name “Barak” so I have been fighting the long-established habit of typing that name in that fashion. The next president is named Barack Obama. I know that.

 

[replicant]

But actually, he is Christian. Maybe even more than McCain. And sure closer to the canon of the Book as Palin...

You clearly know a lot about Obama's religious sentiments. What is the source of that knowledge?

Maybe I can field this. I am not attempting to bait here, but maybe to shed some light on this. I can say that I have read the bible cover to cover more than once, and the new testament several times.

To be a "Christian" means to follow in the path of Jesus. Therefore, it is not defined by what you say you are, but by what you do. Lets make no mistake, Obama as well as Palin and McCain do very devious things, but again, the word is that we all fall short. I think the point being made here is that as a Christian, we are called to observe a few things:

1. Love the Lord thy God with all thy heart
2. Love they neighbor as thyself.

Now, while capitalism may be the best systen ever(I do actually agree with this) Laissez faire capitalism is not. The whole love thy neighbor as thyself kind of rules out the whole cut-throat hustler and devaluing your brother's job thing. It rules out that the most worthwile person is the best businessman or entertainer. It rules out that the best country in the world is America. It rules out war, for any reason. I am not referring to the old testament, so please don't quote it, the new testament is a new covenant. It rules out bigotry and hatred. It rules out taking delight in speaking ill of or even seeing your brother or sister fall.

One could argue that Jesus had some very socialist leanings.

The last part is the most important for Urwumpe's case. I have not observed Obama take delight in seeing his opponents fail, or stumble, or be wrong. I have not seen him take delight in the negativity of his campaign, (which does exist, that is not in denial here). I have observed that Sarah Palin takes great delight in these things. She takes delight in revving up crowds with negativity, a very un-christian thing to do. Now please remember, before anyone replies, this is in reference to the what the stated goal is for a Christian. So please no comments about they have to attack because of what the media does, or Obama is a good actor, or any of another angles, because this is simply in answer to what do you base this on. It is based on comparing what the book states to what is observed, whether Obama is good at hiding is delight if it exists, is well, speculation.

One other thought. I have never seen anything in the words of Jesus that says that a loving homosexual couple cannot enter into the Kingdom. Therefore I consider the evangelical right's hatred of this as simply cherry picking from the old testament to shore up old cultural hatreds. Again, something Palin does well.


The source of the knowledge, is not about what is shouted or written, but upon what is seen.

 

[Urwumpe]

One other thought. I have never seen anything in the words of Jesus that says that a loving homosexual couple cannot enter into the Kingdom.

Therefore I consider the evangelical right's hatred of this as simply cherry picking from the old testament to shore up old cultural hatreds. Again, something Palin does well.

Actually, it is simply that Jesus confirmed the old laws and gave a few important clarifications. It is not that easy to say that Jesus legalized something, only because he did not mention it. If he mentioned it, it would be legalized. Of course the bible is contradicting itself a bit when it calls for the death of all homosexuals and also says a few pages earlier, you shall not kill.

Now, there is also one important saying "Who is free of sin, may throw the first stone". As nobody is practically born free of sin, nobody is allowed to take such actions, without sinning himself.

I think, when you take the bible literally, you are closer to the road to hell as when you take the right to take some freedoms in the interpretation.

And more important: It is not about saying every Sunday, that you are a Christian, it is what you do. Heaven should be a pretty lonely place, if there are no sins to be forgiven.

 

[David]

Because Palin fails to offer anything else? Her political offers are quickly summarized as "I am a woman, I am a hockey mom, I am from Alaska, I am Christian, I am against abortion, I am against sexual education in schools, I am something new and not tainted by the old school of Washington DC".

You do know that Sarah Palin is Governor of Alaska, right?

The current U.S. President was Governor of Texas.
His predecessor was Governor of Arkansas.
His predecessor was U.S. Vice President.
His predecessor was Governor of California.
His predecessor was Governor of Georgia.
His predecessor was U.S. Vice President.
His predecessor was U.S. Vice President.
His predecessor was U.S. Vice President.
His predecessor was a U.S. Senator.
His predecessor was a U.S. military commander.
His predecessor was U.S. Vice President.
His predecessor was Governor of New York.
His predecessor was U.S. Secretary of Commerce.
His predecessor was Governor of Massachusetts.
His predecessor was a U.S. Senator (and Lieutenant Governor of Ohio).
His predecessor was Governor of New Jersey.
His predecessor was U.S. Secretary of War.
His predecessor was U.S. Vice President, after being Governor of New York.
His predecessor was Governor of Ohio.

That covers the 21st and 20th Centuries of U.S. Presidents. 9/19 were Governors of States, as their "political offers are quickly summarized," before they became U.S. President.

Also, I am unaware that Palin is "against sexual education in schools." I recall that an allegation that she was for "abstinance-only sex-ed," has been reported as one of the many popular "myths" about her, that have been disproven.


-----Posted Added-----

The whole Wright thing, the Ayers thing, it's all based on guilt by association.

No; "guilt by association" is, you were shopping at the supermarket, and a Mafia guy was there, shopping at the same time, or you were invited to a party, and a Mafia guy was at the party, too, so this means that you are a member of the Mafia.

Such is not the case wrt Obama and Wright, or Ayers. If one attends a Catholic church for 20years, then a reasonable inference is that he is Catholic; if one attends a synagogue for 20years, then a reasonable inference is that he is Jewish; etc. Obama attended Jeremiah Wright's church for 20years. Furthermore, he called Wright his teacher and spiritual mentor. That is not a trivial "association." Wright is not some guy who happened to be at the church, at times when Obama was also there; he was the leader of the church and, according to Obama, the cause for Obama's having joined it.

It is worthy of notice, that Obama appears as a candidate for President of the USA, being a virtually unknown person. He says a lot of arguably pretty things, but all politicians seeking office, say things that they expect will make them seem attractive. Normally, politicians who are seeking the U.S. Presidency, have a considerable record of previous actions in political office, which provide an indication of what can be expected of them in the future. But Obama has no such record; he has had a very short political career, during most of which time, he seems to have devoted his energies mostly to seeking advancement to higher offices. Other than his words - which he, of course, tries to make appealing - the only indicators for predicting his behavior, are the sorts of general attitudes that he may seem to have about various things. When he spends a lot of time hanging out with persons like Jeremiah Wright, and identifies them as persons who influenced his ideas, their ideas matter, since the implication is that they influenced his ideas to be like theirs.

So, this is not merely "guilt by association;" it is a rational inference that Obama's ideas are likely to be similar to those whom he claims to have influenced him, or those whom his behavior indicates to have influenced him. This is a reasonable and necessary approach to evaluating someone, for suitability to a very powerful political office, about which person there is very little other information upon which to rely.

 

[Urwumpe]

David: Your statistic could also be interpreted as such, that if you have not reached the job of governor in your higher ages (around 60), you are not the most successful politician.

Also... which governor is McCain? That being Governor of Alaska obviously does not come with great skills should be obvious. I don't want to know how far Palin would have come in her early election campaigns without party money.

 

[David]

David: Your statistic could also be interpreted as such, that if you have not reached the job of governor in your higher ages (around 60), you are not the most successful politician.

If you say so. Nevertheless, a great many politicians have had some considerable success as legislators, or in other governmental offices. And there have been several historical, American politicians who were not Presidents, whose names are far better known, than the names of many U.S. Presidents. There are different kinds of political jobs, than simply the executive one of being Mayor, or Governor or President.

The interpretation that I intended, was that, since U.S. Presidents - at least within the most recent century - tend to have been State Governors, more than having held any other specific, previous political office (including even U.S. Vice President), one can suppose that being a State Governor is a meaningfully noteworthy political qualification, particularly in the context of a Presidential/Vice-Presidential campaign, notwithstanding your having ignored it, in characterizing Gov. Palin's "political offers."

Also... which governor is McCain?

As I'm sure that you can recognize, the subject of discussion, was Palin. McCain and Obama are both U.S. Senators.

That being Governor of Alaska obviously does not come with great skills should be obvious. I don't want to know how far Palin would have come in her early election campaigns without party money.

It's not at all obvious, or even reasonable. Palin has apparently been quite a successful Governor (including, wrt the international negotiations involved with establishing a natural gas pipeline from Alaska, through Canada, to the contiguous States), and also a very popular one. Party money for election campaigns, cannot make a person actually good at the job.

 

[Urwumpe]

It's not at all obvious, or even reasonable. Palin has apparently been quite a successful Governor (including, wrt the international negotiations involved with establishing a natural gas pipeline from Alaska, through Canada, to the contiguous States), and also a very popular one. Party money for election campaigns, cannot make a person actually good at the job.

"Very popular one" is your personal opinion, there is nothing in the election results which indicate that. She is just another (female) governor in Alaska.

And her involvement in the natural gas pipeline was pretty marginal, as she was not doing ANY negotiations for that.

She just signed a permit making the only company meeting the conditions of a law (Alaska Gasline Inducement Act, AGIA ) allowed to build the pipeline, if they also get the federal permits for the project. And gave the company 500 million USD tax money as initial financial support, before the company had even all permits. This company is also not the only project to build a pipeline, there is also a large joint venture of the oil and gas companies which will build one on another route. The 500 million USD, BTW are not from Palins office, but had been controlled by the Alaskan Gasline Port Authority. Most decisions and negotiations had been done already in 1977, if I read the information correctly, with Palin just "ending" a process starting there. The governor at that time was a republican named Hickel, who was for a short time inside the AIP and was a supporter of Palin in 2006.

And from what I can tell about the politics, it sounds like a huge act of communism. Companies according to AGIA don't choose the route by market forces, but by legislative proposals, get lot's of tax money to get competive and finally, build on the land of natives without even consulting them.

Also, most commercial companies seem to support the other route anyway, as even Gazprom plans to invest into the joint venture.

 

[Tschachim]

...I recall that an allegation that she was for "abstinance-only sex-ed," has been reported as one of the many popular "myths" about her, that have been disproven.

As I'm not from the USA I need to apologize for my lack of knowledge, but I wasn't able to find any source that her position about sex-ed is a "myth" or has been disproven, I only found articles like this: http://abcnews.go.com/Health/story?id=5711359&page=1

Can anyone enlighten me here?

Cheers
Tschachim

 

[replicant]

You do know that Sarah Palin is Governor of Alaska, right?

The current U.S. President was Governor of Texas.

:rofl::rofl::rofl: That should be enough said.

In any case, the next president will be a Senator, thank God. Governors hold too much power in their individual states. I believe an official title if somewhat passe' for a governor is "Your Excellency". Yecch

So, this is not merely "guilt by association;" it is a rational inference that Obama's ideas are likely to be similar to those whom he claims to have influenced him, or those whom his behavior indicates to have influenced him. This is a reasonable and necessary approach to evaluating someone, for suitability to a very powerful political office, about which person there is very little other information upon which to rely.

While never a member of AIP, Palin sure had some political associations with and support from them, enough to affect her thinking I'll bet. What about the whole voodoo witch doctor with the exorcism? I'm sure THAT didn't affect her thinking. I wonder how long before the flame thrower squads are burning books in the public square while saying "evil demons be gone" as they purify the written word.

 

[David]

"Very popular one" is your personal opinion, there is nothing in the election results which indicate that. She is just another (female) governor in Alaska.

Again, not reasonable. It is not possible for an opinion that Palin is "popular," to be formulated singularly; "popular" is a word having a common definition - specifically, it fundamentally means "pertaining to the people," and it colloquially means "supported/favored/liked by many persons." The basis for my assertion that Palin is a popular Governor, is the media's reporting that her "approval rating" among Alaskans, is about 80%, iirc. Admittedly, I don't know whether Alaskans have had such an opinion of all their Governors, but that doesn't pertain to whether Palin is or is not a popular Governor.

And her involvement in the natural gas pipeline was pretty marginal, as she was not doing ANY negotiations for that.

If you mean that she was not personally the negotiator, it is possible that your assertion is factual in some way. It is my understanding, however, that her administration had responsibility for the State's involvement in the negotiation and its results, as a U.S. Presidential administration would have responsibility for the federal government's involvement in any international negotiations and their results, whether or not the President was personally the negotiator.

She just signed a permit making the only company meeting the conditions of a law (Alaska Gasline Inducement Act, AGIA ) allowed to build the pipeline, if they also get the federal permits for the project. And gave the company 500 million USD tax money as initial financial support, before the company had even all permits. This company is also not the only project to build a pipeline, there is also a large joint venture of the oil and gas companies which will build one on another route. The 500 million USD, BTW are not from Palins office, but had been controlled by the Alaskan Gasline Port Authority. Most decisions and negotiations had been done already in 1977, if I read the information correctly, with Palin just "ending" a process starting there. The governor at that time was a republican named Hickel, who was for a short time inside the AIP and was a supporter of Palin in 2006.

Oh, OK; as long as you've explained how it's all so simple (and without involving Canada).

And from what I can tell about the politics, it sounds like a huge act of communism. Companies according to AGIA don't choose the route by market forces, but by legislative proposals, get lot's of tax money to get competive and finally, build on the land of natives without even consulting them.

But at least you could assert that no negotiations would be involved. Anyway, it seems similar to a process of establishing a road (although one that passes through another country). Your criticism of the process, may have some merit, nevertheless, although I don't recognize how it pertains to Palin, specifically.

Also, most commercial companies seem to support the other route anyway, as even Gazprom plans to invest into the joint venture.

Yet more evidence for the absence of any need for negotiations?


-----Posted Added-----

As I'm not from the USA I need to apologize for my lack of knowledge, but I wasn't able to find any source that her position about sex-ed is a "myth" or has been disproven, I only found articles like this: http://abcnews.go.com/Health/story?id=5711359&page=1

Can anyone enlighten me here?

Cheers
Tschachim

Here are a couple of links found by a Google search on "Palin myths" (~1.3million hits, returned):

http://sooshisoo.wordpress.com/2008/09/09/palin-abstinence-only-no/

http://www.latimes.com/news/politics/la-na-sexed6-2008sep06,0,3119305.story

 

[Urwumpe]

It is my understanding, however, that her administration had responsibility for the State's involvement in the negotiation and its results, as a U.S. Presidential administration would have responsibility for the federal government's involvement in any international negotiations and their results, whether or not the President was personally the negotiator.

Again, read about the historic component, instead of thinking only in the geographic dimension (Was done in Alaska, Palin is governor of Alaska, so Palin must have done it). Between 1977 and 2006, Palin was not governor. Do you honestly think, that she had any serious negotiations in these final 1.5 years?

And the myth pages you posted are not about facts, they are only about semantics. They try to reinterpret her words, so they sound better. But the reality can not be changed that way: She promotes abstinence as better alternative to programs teaching about contraception. That is nothing else as she does. What is the alternative to abstinence programs, that she mentions? "Explicit sexual education".

What would be a implicit sexual education? Bees and flowers? We are not talking about showing pornography in school (Though I am sure, some conservatives would call even mentioning the activity pornography) The first question is: What do you want to teach teenagers? And not supporting a education form is the equivalent of promoting the other in practical politics. The battlefield is not the class room, but the budget office.

Also, I suspect you in reality have 80% approval rate for Tina Fey now.

 

[Tschachim]

Here are a couple of links found by a Google search on "Palin myths" (~1.3million hits, returned):

http://sooshisoo.wordpress.com/2008/09/09/palin-abstinence-only-no/
http://www.latimes.com/news/politics/la-na-sexed6-2008sep06,0,3119305.story

Thanks for the links, but it looks like my English isn't good enough to understand the difference between "...I don't support..." and "...will not find my support...", also I can't imagine what "non-explicit sex-ed" might be, both articles quote Gov. Palin:

Yes, the explicit sex-ed programs will not find my support.

Cheers
Tschachim

 

[joeybigO]

Again, read about the historic component, instead of thinking only in the geographic dimension (Was done in Alaska, Palin is governor of Alaska, so Palin must have done it). Between 1977 and 2006, Palin was not governor. Do you honestly think, that she had any serious negotiations in these final 1.5 years?

And the myth pages you posted are not about facts, they are only about semantics. They try to reinterpret her words, so they sound better. But the reality can not be changed that way: She promotes abstinence as better alternative to programs teaching about contraception. That is nothing else as she does. What is the alternative to abstinence programs, that she mentions? "Explicit sexual education".

What would be a implicit sexual education? Bees and flowers? We are not talking about showing pornography in school (Though I am sure, some conservatives would call even mentioning the activity pornography) The first question is: What do you want to teach teenagers? And not supporting a education form is the equivalent of promoting the other in practical politics. The battlefield is not the class room, but the budget office.

Also, I suspect you in reality have 80% approval rate for Tina Fey now.

First of all I really didn't know that pornography was an activity that could be taught.

Secondly, thank GOD that Government here in the US does not decide what goes in classes, thank GOD thats a job for the individual states, within separate entities known as school districts, within those school districts, individual lesson plans are based upon a core curriculum.

Third: Funny you mention the SNL, why did you not mention Biden's appearance on Ellen Degeneres? He played no funny character, however his character had the evil villain 2 face on there. He told how he would support such a referendum for same sex marriage. However later told that he would not vote for a same sex marriage, and to keep individual rights within states.
DUH! To keep his dumbass out the limelight. Palin on the other hand spoke out about it, and kept it open. She was HONEST about her opinion.
THank God for honesty.... You can never have enough.