So you are a McCain fan. I'm leaning towards Obama, but I get the sense that I may be generally more moderate than you are.
I am a Republican, always have been. However, I was seriously considering voting for Obama. On the Saturday afternoon of the Saddleback forum I was even writing a blog entry giving my reasons for voting for Obama.
Then I saw Obama as evasive and McCain with the right answers. Even if you buy into the accusations that McCain knew the questions ahead of time, that doesn't change Obama's evasiveness in any way. Then I saw McCain with the right answers and actually decided I'd be voting for McCain.
My first impression with Palin was, "WTF? Forget it, we're toast." But then I heard her speak and was inspired--and a far different type of inspiring than the type Obama tried to achieve last night. Obama's was based on what he perceived was wrong and unjust about the country while Palin's was just generally inspirational without--as far as I remember--any significant mention of the opponents, negative or otherwise. It was all positive and excited people with what's great about our country.
I was undecided going into August. Then I started leaning Obama. Then I decided to vote for McCain after Saddleback. And now I have just ordered a McCain/Palin bumper sticker.
We'll see how it goes, of course, but I think McCain's pick was brilliant. And that's coming from someone who hadn't even heard of Palin before today, was initially in the "WTF?" category, but now am excited.
Hopefully other Republicans (and some independents!) will react the same way.
Oh, and McCain should be the attack dog against McCain and Palin should be the friendly, positive person. Because she does it very well.
How concerned have you ever seen the Republican party over women's rights? Hell, they have a hard time caring about anything other than wealthy, property owner rights.
Nice typical, old-school cliches from the "Party of Change." Good response. Keep it up.
While selecting a VP as a strategy to win the election is part of the decision tree (going after the disenfranchised Hillary votes), choosing a VP is also about having someone that can step in and do the presidents job competently.
I have a feeling this is going to backfire.
No more so than selecting Obama as presidential candidate when he has no more--and arguably less--experience than Palin.
Sorry, this is a win for McCain. It'll be fun to watch. Especially if the Democrats don't acknowledge the genius. Every time they say, "This questions the judgment of McCain as president," a lot of undecided people are thinking, "If this is bad judgment on McCain's part, wouldn't voting for an equally unqualified Obama be bad judgment on my part?"
It's all priceless, really! There's no way the Democrats can spin this without harming themselves.:)
You can try to make that case, but the reality is that people vote for president. Sure, the VP pick is a bit more important with someone McCain's age. But even if she ends up being president, it'd be down the road whereas Obama's inexperience would take office from day one.
You are saying that we should take the word of people thousands of years ago, translated and "interpreted" by multitudes of others, as default, until we can disprove them? Pffft.
Yeah, history class, not science class. You want to teach different theologies in history class? Be my guest. I loved learning about all the Abrahamic religions in my high school world history class.
You want to teach that in science class? Screw you, you're not teaching your religion as though it's science.
I don't want creationism taught in a science class, though I think it makes a certain amount of sense to teach various concepts of the origin of life side by side. Still, I have no problem with creation theory being taught in some other class.
Some Democrats are calling this a "hail Mary" attempt by the McCain camp. I'm perfectly fine with them thinking that because it means they're underestimating the implications and may be caught off-guard. As a Republican I was really surprised when I saw the news. I asked myself, "Palin? Who the hell is that." But as I researched her and especially as I saw the response of some liberals on blogs/message boards/etc., I came to the realization that far from a "hail Mary," I think this is a perfectly calculated and awesomely executed political strategy.
I don't want to under-estimate Obama's ability to deliver a speech, but between his less-than-awesome performance in unscripted debates with Hillary and at Saddlback and with the hatching of this political strategy with Palin, I really do think there's a high possibility that Obama is toast.
If the Democrats don't want to believe it, all the better. The part that bothers me is that I already saw some liberals in a message forum write, "If McCain wins with Palin then it's TOTALLY OBVIOUS it was election fraud." Sigh... First if the Republcians won against Obama it was going to be because we're racist. And now if Republicans win with McCain/Palin we're back to election fraud.
And the Democrats are supposed to be about change? Whether we listen to Obama's speech, Biden's speech, or the liberal bloggers, it sure seems like they're the same old party as always.
I actually am a Christian who believes the Bible and knows God created the universe. I'm also open to the possibility of evolution; I do have some reservations but they are in no way based on the Bible.
To respond further, the original post wrote: "Because evolution teaches what science has concluded with all of the current evidence that they have."
I said it wasn't because, in all honesty, we have additional evidence from human history (in the form of world religions) that do have something to say about the matter and science ignores it. Now I understand that science looks for the truth based on falsifiable theories, but if science specifically ignores and pretends that religious assertions don't exist, they're closing their eyes to possibilities that might lead them towards truths they should consider.
There are three possibilities: 1) Religion is right. 2) Science is right. 3) They're both right. If science ignores possibilities #1 and #3, that might be science but they might never get the right answer--and what good is that?
You've got it the wrong way around. It's McCain's camp (and the Rs in general) that have been attacking Obama's lack of experience. With Palin, they're going to need to tone it down in order avoid pot/kettle issues.
Maybe, maybe not. Palin is not running for president. Obama is. It would be a little risky (as is the VP choice itself), but McCain could easily keep attacking Obama on experience and when the Democrats respond, "What about your VP choice?" the response could be, "Yeah, but she's our VP choice. You're running someone with even less experience for president."
Seriously, it seems that the Democrats don't realize it yet. But I think there's a very high probability chance the the Democrats are toast. Even if not a single Hillary supporter defects.
I'm no advocate of creationism, either. But, I question people who insist that it is a subject that must not be discussed.
EXACTLY! Thank you. Even though I suspect we don't see eye to eye on probably a lot of issues, you're definitely someone I would enjoy the process of disagreeing with!
Just a little something I read about the government not being allowed to outlaw or advance any particular religion.
That's not what the Constitution says. Besides, I learned about different belief systems back in public high school in my world history class. You can't ignore religion and the Constitution doesn't require that it be ignored.
And for strict biblical literalists, teaching a heliocentric model of the solar system is going against their religion.
What "Biblical literalists" would that be? I don't think that means what you think it means.
Who wants to bet that Palin's VP debate performance will outshine McCain's debate performance?
I suspect:
Palin would shine against McCain.
McCain will shine against Obama.
Palin would shine again Obama.
... I don't know how Palin will do against Biden.
Personally, I wouldn't mind the ticket being reversed: Palin/McCain. But given what we've got, Palin's speech this morning was far more inspirational and motivating than Obama's. And she didn't even have a crowd of 80,000 at Invesco field to drum up the energy.
Nah, it's a good political move ignoring completely Hillary supporters.
Which do you want? An experienced president who you hope doesn't die and leaves you with a relatively inexperienced vice-president? Or do you want an inexperienced president that you hope dies so you can get some experience in the presidency?
This was a great chess move by the Republicans. Checkmate, Obama is done.
And sure, she is hot [vpilf.com] (safe for work) but it would appear she is also a proponent of teaching creationism alongside Evolution in public schools [wired.com].
What's your problem with students receiving a more well-rounded education on the different views that are out there? The problem is that, like it or not, evolution touches on an area of belief where science and religion do intersect. I don't like the idea of creationism being taught in a science class, but I wouldn't mind them both (and other compelling theories) being presented in an "Origins and Development of Life" class.
I think this is a great pick. The Democrats seem to want to attack Palin on experience but, in the minds of many, every attack/criticism they make against Palin will be silently re-asked by viewers about the Democrats' presidential pick.
Democrats are in a catch-22. Great political move by McCain. And Palin's speech in Dayton was excellent and motivating and inspirational, far more than what I heard from Obama last night at the DNC convention.
It's a semi-common assertion made by people that normally have some burr up that rear regarding Americans or the U.S. They pretend that it's insulting that American citizens would basically own the name of the entire continent. Personally, I find it more insulting to the citizens of other countries to suggest they'd rather be referred to vaguely as member of a continent than proudly announce themselves of citizens of their specific country.
If you ask someone from Brazil, "What are you?" and they say "American" rather than "Brazillian," they really must have pretty low pride regarding their own country.
In reality, most citizens of South American countries are not like that. They'll proudly tell you they are from Brazil, Colombia, Chile, Argentina, Mexico, Canada... not "from the American continent." I say this as someone who lived in Mexico for 10 years and has traveled in South America.
The Democrats (and the Republicans, for that matter) don't mind offending about 50% of the population anyway. Why would anyone think they're afraid of offending another 5% or so?:)
For what it's worth, the only Americans who will call themselves that are the ones who think you mean the USA, rather than the Americas.
Many people in North and South America also called people from the U.S. "Americans." Just as people from the United States of Mexico are called Mexicans, people from the United States of America are called Americans. Not that complicated.
There is nothing random about extortion --- the victim's family will be extraordinarily wealthy by Mexican standards --- a very small sub-set of the general population.
Nope. They have what's called "Express kidnappings" where, as a Mexican described elsewhere in this thread, they just pick you up and take you around town to ATMs and empty as much money as they can. Doesn't matter if you're rich or poor.
Slashdot Mirror
I am a Republican, always have been. However, I was seriously considering voting for Obama. On the Saturday afternoon of the Saddleback forum I was even writing a blog entry giving my reasons for voting for Obama.
Then I saw Obama as evasive and McCain with the right answers. Even if you buy into the accusations that McCain knew the questions ahead of time, that doesn't change Obama's evasiveness in any way. Then I saw McCain with the right answers and actually decided I'd be voting for McCain.
My first impression with Palin was, "WTF? Forget it, we're toast." But then I heard her speak and was inspired--and a far different type of inspiring than the type Obama tried to achieve last night. Obama's was based on what he perceived was wrong and unjust about the country while Palin's was just generally inspirational without--as far as I remember--any significant mention of the opponents, negative or otherwise. It was all positive and excited people with what's great about our country.
I was undecided going into August. Then I started leaning Obama. Then I decided to vote for McCain after Saddleback. And now I have just ordered a McCain/Palin bumper sticker.
We'll see how it goes, of course, but I think McCain's pick was brilliant. And that's coming from someone who hadn't even heard of Palin before today, was initially in the "WTF?" category, but now am excited.
Hopefully other Republicans (and some independents!) will react the same way.
Oh, and McCain should be the attack dog against McCain and Palin should be the friendly, positive person. Because she does it very well.
Nice typical, old-school cliches from the "Party of Change." Good response. Keep it up.
Nope. Palin's first elected office was in 1992 and Obama was first elected in 1997. :)
No more so than selecting Obama as presidential candidate when he has no more--and arguably less--experience than Palin.
Sorry, this is a win for McCain. It'll be fun to watch. Especially if the Democrats don't acknowledge the genius. Every time they say, "This questions the judgment of McCain as president," a lot of undecided people are thinking, "If this is bad judgment on McCain's part, wouldn't voting for an equally unqualified Obama be bad judgment on my part?"
It's all priceless, really! There's no way the Democrats can spin this without harming themselves. :)
You can try to make that case, but the reality is that people vote for president. Sure, the VP pick is a bit more important with someone McCain's age. But even if she ends up being president, it'd be down the road whereas Obama's inexperience would take office from day one.
No, I didn't say that at all. Not even close.
I don't want creationism taught in a science class, though I think it makes a certain amount of sense to teach various concepts of the origin of life side by side. Still, I have no problem with creation theory being taught in some other class.
Some Democrats are calling this a "hail Mary" attempt by the McCain camp. I'm perfectly fine with them thinking that because it means they're underestimating the implications and may be caught off-guard. As a Republican I was really surprised when I saw the news. I asked myself, "Palin? Who the hell is that." But as I researched her and especially as I saw the response of some liberals on blogs/message boards/etc., I came to the realization that far from a "hail Mary," I think this is a perfectly calculated and awesomely executed political strategy.
I don't want to under-estimate Obama's ability to deliver a speech, but between his less-than-awesome performance in unscripted debates with Hillary and at Saddlback and with the hatching of this political strategy with Palin, I really do think there's a high possibility that Obama is toast.
If the Democrats don't want to believe it, all the better. The part that bothers me is that I already saw some liberals in a message forum write, "If McCain wins with Palin then it's TOTALLY OBVIOUS it was election fraud." Sigh... First if the Republcians won against Obama it was going to be because we're racist. And now if Republicans win with McCain/Palin we're back to election fraud.
And the Democrats are supposed to be about change? Whether we listen to Obama's speech, Biden's speech, or the liberal bloggers, it sure seems like they're the same old party as always.
Exactly. It's not either/or.
I actually am a Christian who believes the Bible and knows God created the universe. I'm also open to the possibility of evolution; I do have some reservations but they are in no way based on the Bible.
OK, fine, I was scored as a troll.
To respond further, the original post wrote: "Because evolution teaches what science has concluded with all of the current evidence that they have."
I said it wasn't because, in all honesty, we have additional evidence from human history (in the form of world religions) that do have something to say about the matter and science ignores it. Now I understand that science looks for the truth based on falsifiable theories, but if science specifically ignores and pretends that religious assertions don't exist, they're closing their eyes to possibilities that might lead them towards truths they should consider.
There are three possibilities: 1) Religion is right. 2) Science is right. 3) They're both right. If science ignores possibilities #1 and #3, that might be science but they might never get the right answer--and what good is that?
Maybe, maybe not. Palin is not running for president. Obama is. It would be a little risky (as is the VP choice itself), but McCain could easily keep attacking Obama on experience and when the Democrats respond, "What about your VP choice?" the response could be, "Yeah, but she's our VP choice. You're running someone with even less experience for president."
Seriously, it seems that the Democrats don't realize it yet. But I think there's a very high probability chance the the Democrats are toast. Even if not a single Hillary supporter defects.
EXACTLY! Thank you. Even though I suspect we don't see eye to eye on probably a lot of issues, you're definitely someone I would enjoy the process of disagreeing with!
Actually, no, it isn't.
That's not what the Constitution says. Besides, I learned about different belief systems back in public high school in my world history class. You can't ignore religion and the Constitution doesn't require that it be ignored.
What "Biblical literalists" would that be? I don't think that means what you think it means.
What's sad is that when Democrats run women, it's looked at as somehow genuine but when Republicans run a woman it's looked at as pandering.
I suspect:
Personally, I wouldn't mind the ticket being reversed: Palin/McCain. But given what we've got, Palin's speech this morning was far more inspirational and motivating than Obama's. And she didn't even have a crowd of 80,000 at Invesco field to drum up the energy.
Nah, it's a good political move ignoring completely Hillary supporters.
Which do you want? An experienced president who you hope doesn't die and leaves you with a relatively inexperienced vice-president? Or do you want an inexperienced president that you hope dies so you can get some experience in the presidency?
This was a great chess move by the Republicans. Checkmate, Obama is done.
What's your problem with students receiving a more well-rounded education on the different views that are out there? The problem is that, like it or not, evolution touches on an area of belief where science and religion do intersect. I don't like the idea of creationism being taught in a science class, but I wouldn't mind them both (and other compelling theories) being presented in an "Origins and Development of Life" class.
I think this is a great pick. The Democrats seem to want to attack Palin on experience but, in the minds of many, every attack/criticism they make against Palin will be silently re-asked by viewers about the Democrats' presidential pick.
Democrats are in a catch-22. Great political move by McCain. And Palin's speech in Dayton was excellent and motivating and inspirational, far more than what I heard from Obama last night at the DNC convention.
It's a semi-common assertion made by people that normally have some burr up that rear regarding Americans or the U.S. They pretend that it's insulting that American citizens would basically own the name of the entire continent. Personally, I find it more insulting to the citizens of other countries to suggest they'd rather be referred to vaguely as member of a continent than proudly announce themselves of citizens of their specific country.
If you ask someone from Brazil, "What are you?" and they say "American" rather than "Brazillian," they really must have pretty low pride regarding their own country.
In reality, most citizens of South American countries are not like that. They'll proudly tell you they are from Brazil, Colombia, Chile, Argentina, Mexico, Canada... not "from the American continent." I say this as someone who lived in Mexico for 10 years and has traveled in South America.
The Democrats (and the Republicans, for that matter) don't mind offending about 50% of the population anyway. Why would anyone think they're afraid of offending another 5% or so? :)
Many people in North and South America also called people from the U.S. "Americans." Just as people from the United States of Mexico are called Mexicans, people from the United States of America are called Americans. Not that complicated.
Yes. When I was there I know a lot of IT work was then being outsourced to India.
Still, the jobs (or lack thereof) have nothing to do with the kidnappings and security. The problem is corruption.
Nope. They have what's called "Express kidnappings" where, as a Mexican described elsewhere in this thread, they just pick you up and take you around town to ATMs and empty as much money as they can. Doesn't matter if you're rich or poor.
I see you aren't a Democrat.