McCain Chooses Creationism Advocate as VP
Budikka666
pocket of Big Oil.
She's also the hypocritical choice. After all McCain's show-boating
of Obama's purported inexperience and ill-preparedness for the
presidency (like Mccain's any better!), a 72 year old presidential
wannabe picks someone who is in precisely the same boat as Obama!
Obviously he's desperate for young votes and he's passionately hoping
she'll pick up disaffected Clintonites, but I seriously doubt that.
It's entirely conceivable that this anti-choice Republican will force
independent and self-possessed women into the democrat camp.
Budikka
Stan-O
She reminds me of a local theatre director where I live. This woman
had so much plastic surgery that she was referred to as "raccoon face"
Andres64
I gotta say though. It's a great move. He's now going going to claim
the "veteran/war hero/maverick/experienced/progressive" ticket. Obama
is in serious trouble.
Andres64
After further review, I would like to revise my opinion. I think it's
a decent move. I'm afraid it's all going to come down to people's
biases and not who's really the better ticket. McCain has (many of)
the white/male and now white/female. Obama now has many of the
progressive/minority. If Obama/Biden is able to show how unqualified
Palin is, they have a good chance. Set your calendars for the VP
debate on Oct. 2, 2008
Lord Calvert
Obama had a golden opportunity to do to the Republicans what Nixon did
to the Democrats in 1972...strip away one of their core constituencies
for decades. Nixon did that in 1972 by reaching out to the theocratic,
big-government, Christian-supremacist Dixiecrats and welcoming them
into the Republican Party. By 1981, extremist totalitarian Christian
southerners were the dominant force in the GOP. By 1994 they had taken
complete control and retain it to this day. But by doing so, the GOP
has antagonized their former core...limited-government "Goldwater"
conservatives and the policies of the Bush administration have driven
them to utter contempt. Obama had a chance. He had a perfect VP
candidate in Kathleen Sebelius who could have appealed to the limited-
government conservatives in a region of the country where the
Republicans are now vulnerable (the Plains and the Rockies) precisely
because of those policies. It would have resonated with his claimed
desire to change the face of politics in the Beltway. Instead he chose
Joe Biden...one of the main architects of Washington supremacism and
the status quo. While Biden would have been a fine Secy of State
choice, he is a miserable VP choice precisely because he represents
everything that Obama claims to hate about Washington politics.
So, since Obama did not reach out to the Goldwater-conservatives,
McCain wisely chose the only high ranking limited-government
conservative that still holds office in the Republican Party...one
that is not truly beholden to the theocrats and one who already has a
reputation to standing up against entrenched elements within her own
Party. She publicly blasted her own congressional delegation, three of
the most entrenched and politically powerful congressmen on the hill
and told them to stop concentrating on so much pork, they didn't need
it. Not only was she not politically crushed, she thrived. It takes a
very rare and special kind of political animal to stand up and villify
someone like Ted Stevens and Don Young and become stronger at the end
of it. She did.
Obama made a bad choice. McCain responded with a brilliant one. The
Dems don't see it because they are so obsessed about seeing her as a
*woman* that they are incapable of seeing what she represents as a
*politician*...and it is going to cost them.
Rich Goranson
Amherst, NY, USA
aa#MCMXCIX, a-vet#1
EAC Department of Cruel and Unusual Choreography
Free Lunch
<Calver...@msn.com> wrote in alt.atheism:
Small government? Alaska? Ha ha ha ha ha.
They whole state is on oil welfare.
Fred Stone
4eb6c0...@a70g2000hsh.googlegroups.com:
> Sarah Palin is also a closet global warming denialist and in the
> pocket of Big Oil.
>
If you consider raising state oil taxes to be "in their pockets". Not to
mention that she's a Porkbuster. She killed off the Bridge to Nowhere and
has encouraged the state to put up a challenger to Don Young.
> She's also the hypocritical choice. After all McCain's show-boating
> of Obama's purported inexperience and ill-preparedness for the
> presidency (like Mccain's any better!), a 72 year old presidential
> wannabe picks someone who is in precisely the same boat as Obama!
>
Vice President is not the same as President, no matter how hard you huff
and puff. And she's much better looking than either Biden or Cheney.
> Obviously he's desperate for young votes and he's passionately hoping
> she'll pick up disaffected Clintonites, but I seriously doubt that.
> It's entirely conceivable that this anti-choice Republican will force
> independent and self-possessed women into the democrat camp.
>
She's staunchly Catholic and will draw off a lot of people who don't like
the extreme pro-abortion stance of Obama and Biden.
--
Fred Stone
aa# 1369
"The urge to save humanity is almost always a false front for the urge to
rule." - H L Mencken
Free Lunch
in alt.atheism:
Giving women the choice is not pro-abortion. I didn't realize that you
were one of Ratzinger's Storm Troopers.
Let's not forget that the actions of the Republicans has increased the
chance that people will have abortions, legal or not.
Cary Kittrell
> Budikka666 <budi...@netscape.net> wrote in news:797bb977-8ac6-4e92-95c7-
> 4eb6c0...@a70g2000hsh.googlegroups.com:
>
> > pocket of Big Oil.
> >
>
> mention that she's a Porkbuster. She killed off the Bridge to Nowhere and
> has encouraged the state to put up a challenger to Don Young.
>
> > of Obama's purported inexperience and ill-preparedness for the
> > presidency (like Mccain's any better!), a 72 year old presidential
> > wannabe picks someone who is in precisely the same boat as Obama!
> >
>
> and puff. And she's much better looking than either Biden or Cheney.
You don't know that. Have you *seen* Dick "undisclosed location"
Cheney within the last however-many? Has anyone? For all
you know he could look like Jo Lo now. In fact...in fact, have
Cheney and Jo Lo been seen in the same room? Ever?
Furthermore, no one has ...hang on; knock at the door...
Fred Stone
news:3m0hb4pgom7a0ochc...@4ax.com:
Obama even voted in favor of killing infants born alive during an
abortion procedure.
> Let's not forget that the actions of the Republicans has increased the
> chance that people will have abortions, legal or not.
>
How so?
Free Lunch
in alt.atheism:
Feel free to misrepresent what was going on there. Why would you be
different from your other Republican talking points.
>> Let's not forget that the actions of the Republicans has increased the
>> chance that people will have abortions, legal or not.
>>
>
>How so?
The Republicans have done a great job of increasing economic insecurity,
a cause of abortions. They also have pandered to the folks who don't
want children to have a good education about sexuality or good access to
birth control. When that happens abortions increase.
Fred Stone
I'm only reporting what people are saying, and not just Republicans
either.
>>> Let's not forget that the actions of the Republicans has increased
>>> the chance that people will have abortions, legal or not.
>>>
>>
>>How so?
>
> The Republicans have done a great job of increasing economic
> insecurity, a cause of abortions. They also have pandered to the folks
> who don't want children to have a good education about sexuality or
> good access to birth control. When that happens abortions increase.
>
And here I thought that you might actually have some hard facts instead
of ideological pronouncements. Silly me.
Free Lunch
in alt.atheism:
Those are the facts.
Conspiracy of Doves
Is anyone even remotely surprised by his choice?
Michelle Malkin
"Stan-O" <bnds...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:vkngb4hf6tnsocnbc...@4ax.com...
The only Hillary voters this neocon anti-female
female will get to vote for her are the ones who
were already Republicans and were only voting
for Hillary because they were certain that McCain
would defeat her in the election. I would love to
see the voting records for the so-called Hillary
supporters who are now saying they will vote for
FlipFlop McShameless.
Stan-O
<hypa...@comcast.net> wrote:
>The only Hillary voters this neocon anti-female
>female will get to vote for her are the ones who
>were already Republicans and were only voting
>for Hillary because they were certain that McCain
>would defeat her in the election. I would love to
>see the voting records for the so-called Hillary
>supporters who are now saying they will vote for
>FlipFlop McShameless.
That just goes to show you that people will vote for a candidate for
the stupidest reasons...
johac
<797bb977-8ac6-4e92...@a70g2000hsh.googlegroups.com>,
Budikka666 <budi...@netscape.net> wrote:
> Sarah Palin is also a closet global warming denialist and in the
> pocket of Big Oil.
And she's also anti choice. Shameless pandering to the religious right.
>
> She's also the hypocritical choice. After all McCain's show-boating
> of Obama's purported inexperience and ill-preparedness for the
> presidency (like Mccain's any better!), a 72 year old presidential
> wannabe picks someone who is in precisely the same boat as Obama!
>
> Obviously he's desperate for young votes and he's passionately hoping
> she'll pick up disaffected Clintonites, but I seriously doubt that.
> It's entirely conceivable that this anti-choice Republican will force
> independent and self-possessed women into the democrat camp.
Agreed. McCain screwed up big time.
>
> Budikka
--
John #1782
Budikka666
That's one I might actually watch. Biden is going to chew her up and
spit her out in unrecognizable flecks.
But the bottom line is that rationality and elections really don't
have much in common. People are emotional, irrational beings and the
unfortunate majority of them will vote with their hearts and fears,
not with their heads.
And in the end we'll get a candidate who largely does pretty much what
the previous candidate did regardless of party affiliation. I'll be
really surprised if Obama turns out to be the visionary organ of
change he's promoted himself be.
However, he's the unknown quantity. What you see is what you get with
McCain, for better or for worse, and I think people understand that.
It's Obama who's the fly in the ointment. This may be a good thing or
a bad thing, but McCain definitely has an advantage in security; not
the security of the nation from threats or anything like that, but in
the security that people know exactly what he will do, how he will
react, where he will go, whether they like it or not. How much that
will influence voters remains to be seen.
Budikka
Budikka666
> Budikka666 <budik...@netscape.net> wrote in news:797bb977-8ac6-4e92-95c7-
> 4eb6c04d0...@a70g2000hsh.googlegroups.com:
>
> > Sarah Palin is also a closet global warming denialist and in the
> > pocket of Big Oil.
>
> If you consider raising state oil taxes to be "in their pockets". Not to
> mention that she's a Porkbuster. She killed off the Bridge to Nowhere and
> has encouraged the state to put up a challenger to Don Young.
>
> > She's also the hypocritical choice. After all McCain's show-boating
> > of Obama's purported inexperience and ill-preparedness for the
> > presidency (like Mccain's any better!), a 72 year old presidential
> > wannabe picks someone who is in precisely the same boat as Obama!
>
> Vice President is not the same as President, no matter how hard you huff
> and puff. And she's much better looking than either Biden or Cheney.
>
> > Obviously he's desperate for young votes and he's passionately hoping
> > she'll pick up disaffected Clintonites, but I seriously doubt that.
> > It's entirely conceivable that this anti-choice Republican will force
> > independent and self-possessed women into the democrat camp.
>
> She's staunchly Catholic and will draw off a lot of people who don't like
> the extreme pro-abortion stance of Obama and Biden.
Extreme pro-abortion? As usual, your mouth is running away from any
semblance of smarts. Why isn't that a surprise?
As Gallup handsomely demonstrates, the majority of Americans favor
abortion rights. There are no "extreme pro-abortionists" as you so
ignorantly phrase it.
http://www.gallup.com/poll/1576/Abortion.aspx
So what happened to democracy in Stone World? Clearly you favor
overturning even the shambles of a democracy we have in favor of some
sort of Fascist regime in which it's evidently quite acceptable to
slam women under foot at every opportunity. Just like a religious
extremist.
No surprises there.
When you actually start talking like you're in the real world on
planet Earth, I'll give you the time of day. Until then you're not
worth talking to let alone taking seriously.
Budikka
Budikka666
> Budikka666 <budik...@netscape.net> wrote in news:797bb977-8ac6-4e92-95c7-
> 4eb6c04d0...@a70g2000hsh.googlegroups.com:
>
> > pocket of Big Oil.
>
> If you consider raising state oil taxes to be "in their pockets".
Wikipedia will tell you all you need to know about that:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sarah_Palin
But why would you read anything which doesn't explicitly bolster your
own Fascist view of the world?
Not to
> mention that she's a Porkbuster. She killed off the Bridge to Nowhere and
> has encouraged the state to put up a challenger to Don Young.
Wikipedia will tell you all you need to know about that:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sarah_Palin
> > She's also the hypocritical choice. After all McCain's show-boating
> > of Obama's purported inexperience and ill-preparedness for the
> > presidency (like Mccain's any better!), a 72 year old presidential
> > wannabe picks someone who is in precisely the same boat as Obama!
>
> Vice President is not the same as President, no matter how hard you huff
> and puff.
Right, and if an aging McCain dies in office, she won't be the
president.
I love your fairy-tales. Have you ever considered writing a
children's book? Maybe you could include a bit about shooting down
wolves from helicopters?
Budikka
Fred Stone
news:c3d2af45-05c9-4606...@k37g2000hsf.googlegroups.com:
As usual, you mistake me reporting what other people are saying for my
own opinions.
> As Gallup handsomely demonstrates, the majority of Americans favor
> abortion rights. There are no "extreme pro-abortionists" as you so
> ignorantly phrase it.
> http://www.gallup.com/poll/1576/Abortion.aspx
>
> So what happened to democracy in Stone World? Clearly you favor
> overturning even the shambles of a democracy we have in favor of some
> sort of Fascist regime in which it's evidently quite acceptable to
> slam women under foot at every opportunity. Just like a religious
> extremist.
>
> No surprises there.
>
> When you actually start talking like you're in the real world on
> planet Earth, I'll give you the time of day. Until then you're not
> worth talking to let alone taking seriously.
>
Yep, you're an idiot. No surprises there at all.
Fred Stone
news:7a1716bf-500d-49bb...@j22g2000hsf.googlegroups.com:
So, Sarah Palin isn't experienced enough but Barack Obama is?
Maybe you could include a bit about what an idiot you are.
Kate
wrote:
Uh, let me see, Obama said he voted against that bill because it had
constitutional problems and dictated that only a doctor can provide
pre-natal care.
Sounds like you are quite happy to lie about why he did what he did.
No surprise there.
Fred Stone
west.newscene.com:
Sounds like you are quite happy to ignore what I said about why I did
what I did. You're a hypocrite, Kate, among your other virtues.
No surprise there.
Kate
wrote:
You said he did something that he didn't. And then you said you were
'only reporting' right?
You think that gives you some kind of moral pass to state lies as
'facts'?
Or perhaps you are little desperate to pretend you didn't just state
an outright lie and want to pretend I did something.
Gail Futoran
supporting the assertion that Palin is a creationist?
Gail
aa#2247
Gail Futoran
news:ec7is9cjftjo.16...@40tude.net...
> Gail Futoran wrote:
>
>> I might have missed a post in this thread. Did anyone provide a
>> link
>> supporting the assertion that Palin is a creationist?
>
> science
> class if a student brings it up, but she claims she wouldn't use
> religion as a litmus test for anything. On the other hand, she
> thinks
> evolution is a matter of opinion, and she has voluntarily joined an
> anti-science, pro-creationism political party. From the GOP
> platform:
> "We support giving Creation Science equal representation with other
> theories of the origin of life. If evolution is taught, it should be
> presented as only a theory."
>
> http://dwb.adn.com/news/politics/elections/story/8347904p-8243554c.html
>
> GOVERNOR: Palin is only candidate to suggest it should be discussed
> in
> schools.
>
> By TOM KIZZIA
> Anchorage Daily News
>
> Published: October 27, 2006
> Last Modified: October 30, 2006 at 09:40 AM
>
> The volatile issue of teaching creation science in public schools
> popped
> up in the Alaska governor's race this week when Republican Sarah
> Palin
> said she thinks creationism should be taught alongside evolution in
> the
> state's public classrooms.
>
> Palin was answering a question from the moderator near the
> conclusion of
> Wednesday night's televised debate on KAKM Channel 7 when she said,
> "Teach both. You know, don't be afraid of information. Healthy
> debate is
> so important, and it's so valuable in our schools. I am a proponent
> of
> teaching both."
>
> ...
>
> In an interview Thursday, Palin said she meant only to say that
> discussion of alternative views should be allowed to arise in Alaska
> classrooms:
>
> "I don't think there should be a prohibition against debate if it
> comes
> up in class. It doesn't have to be part of the curriculum."
>
> She added that, if elected, she would not push the state Board of
> Education to add such creation-based alternatives to the state's
> required curriculum.
>
> Members of the state school board, which sets minimum requirements,
> are
> appointed by the governor and confirmed by the Legislature.
>
> "I won't have religion as a litmus test, or anybody's personal
> opinion
> on evolution or creationism," Palin said.
>
> Palin has occasionally discussed her lifelong Christian faith during
> the
> governor's race but said teaching creationism is nothing she has
> campaigned about or even given much thought to.
>
> ...
>
> The Republican Party of Alaska platform says, in its section on
> education: "We support giving Creation Science equal representation
> with
> other theories of the origin of life. If evolution is taught, it
> should
> be presented as only a theory."
>
> [Continued at site]
>
> --
> L. Raymond
Thanks for that info. Sounds like she's not a full-blown
creationist, but still...
Gail
aa#2247
Kate
wrote:
>Gail Futoran wrote:
>
>> I might have missed a post in this thread. Did anyone provide a link
>> supporting the assertion that Palin is a creationist?
>
>Yes and no. She sees no reason not to go over creationism in science
>class if a student brings it up, but she claims she wouldn't use
>religion as a litmus test for anything. On the other hand, she thinks
>evolution is a matter of opinion, and she has voluntarily joined an
>anti-science, pro-creationism political party. From the GOP platform:
>"We support giving Creation Science equal representation with other
>theories of the origin of life. If evolution is taught, it should be
>presented as only a theory."
This from the daughter of a science teacher.
Not good.
Mark K. Bilbo
> Sarah Palin is also a closet global warming denialist and in the
> pocket of Big Oil.
Closet?
--
Mark K. Bilbo
EAC Department of Linguistic Subversion #1423
------------------------------------------------------------
I'm not good or real... I'm evil, and imaginary.
-- Karen Walker