Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
dairygirl4u2c

Palin

Recommended Posts

dairygirl4u2c
wanting to succeed from the union is a conservative mantra. there's variations of conservative, granted, this isn't a science.

"global warming is a hoax" is a hoax. man made isn't proven, but the evidence is substantial and in its favor. i am willing to debate anyone on this matter and look forward to it. the bottomline points,,, are that sunspots account for only a third of the warming and CO2 in the atmosphere being twice what it's ever been should make people think that maybe we're doing more than volcanoes, and maybe, given that it's so high, it might make a difference. (there is evidence CO2 causes warming to some degree, no pun intended) also, we put a whole in the ozone, mankind did, showing we can indeed make global impacts.
i can cite my sources.

the librarian was going to be fired due to palin, to my understanding. palin asked three times for the books to be removed. at any rate, what she intended is what matters, not necessarily what happened, when assessing her credibility.

the reason she's a cookie cutter, is because it's too convenient she takes the conservative position on every issue. it could be possible that she's genuinely that way. but, the way she acts, the way she dismisses global warming or panders to succesionists etc, goes to show. she just argues in passing free market, but doesn't stick around to argue why, and doesn't give any hint of being not laissez faire ish about it at least sometimes- ie, what biden said in that link.

if she's the borrow and spend type, then the only real thing she stands for is higher taxes and being less conservative than obama, on this issue. cause higher debt only means more you gotta pay back later.

roberts and mccain both said they want to preserve roe, this is plausibly a moot point. this is the only issue that she might have going for her, but it doesn't appear anything will change.
if i vote for mccain, it will be because of this issue.
i actually haven't made up my mind and won't until the debates.
my only point in this thread is to show that palin is terrible. other than the abortion point.
that no one can concede any of the points just goes to show they're willing to rationalize anything. Edited by dairygirl4u2c

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
dairygirl4u2c
the foreign leaders thing may be false, it appears to be, what i posted.
i don't know if every past VP has met with heads that can make a difference in policy, as Gibson clarified in the question before she said that VP comment. so what she said might still be false, but i don't know. i doubt it is. a lot of VPs weren't that great.

i do know she had the bridge to no where shirt, i saw a picture of it. i do know, that she's in the past gotten those pork barrels. i don't know if she opposed hte pork barrel in the end genuinely or not, that last time. i haven't seen any evidence to say that she did. that shirt, nowhere alaska, puts the burden of evidence against her and her supporters. Edited by dairygirl4u2c

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
dairygirl4u2c
so really, other than abortion, there's not one good thing about her really, but many bad things. that is, unless she comes out and says that she wants to reduce spending (and preferrably how, so it's not just sounbites), other than negligble pork etc, then even that's not in her favor but in fact against it if she also wants large tax cuts. Edited by dairygirl4u2c

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
dairygirl4u2c
[quote]Interviews show that Ms. Palin runs an administration that puts a premium on loyalty and secrecy. The governor and her top officials sometimes use personal e-mail accounts for state business; dozens of e-mail messages obtained by The New York Times show that her staff members studied whether that could allow them to circumvent subpoenas seeking public records.

Rick Steiner, a University of Alaska professor, sought the e-mail messages of state scientists who had examined the effect of global warming on polar bears. (Ms. Palin said the scientists had found no ill effects, and she has sued the federal government to block the listing of the bears as endangered.) An administration official told Mr. Steiner that his request would cost $468,784 to process.

When Mr. Steiner finally obtained the e-mail messages — through a federal records request — he discovered that state scientists had in fact agreed that the bears were in danger, records show.

“Their secrecy is off the charts,” Mr. Steiner said.[/quote]

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
dairygirl4u2c
[quote]when there was a vacancy at the top of the State Division of Agriculture, she appointed a high school classmate, Franci Havemeister, to the $95,000-a-year directorship. A former real estate agent, Ms. Havemeister [b]cited her childhood love of cows as a qualification for running the roughly $2 million agency[/b].[/quote]

[quote]Ms. Havemeister was one of at least five schoolmates Ms. Palin hired, often at salaries far exceeding their private sector wages.[/quote] Edited by dairygirl4u2c

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
dairygirl4u2c
[quote]Last summer State Representative John Harris, the Republican speaker of the House, picked up his phone and heard Mr. Palin’s voice. The governor’s husband sounded edgy. He said he was unhappy that Mr. Harris had hired John Bitney as his chief of staff, the speaker recalled. Mr. Bitney was a high school classmate of the Palins and had worked for Ms. Palin. But she fired Mr. Bitney after learning that he had fallen in love with another longtime friend.[/quote]

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
dairygirl4u2c
[quote]“Professionals were either forced out or fired,” Mr. Deuser said.[/quote]

[quote]The Wasilla High School yearbook archive now doubles as a veritable directory of state government. Ms. Palin appointed Mr. Bitney, her former junior high school band-mate, as her legislative director and chose another classmate, Joe Austerman, to manage the economic development office for $82,908 a year. Mr. Austerman had established an Alaska franchise for Mailboxes Etc.[/quote] Edited by dairygirl4u2c

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
dairygirl4u2c
[quote]During the last legislative session, some lawmakers became so frustrated with her absences that they took to wearing “Where’s Sarah?” pins.[/quote]

similar to obama, granted.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
dairygirl4u2c
[quote]Dan Fagan, a prominent conservative radio host and longtime friend of Ms. Palin, urged his listeners to vote for her in 2006. But when he took her to task for raising taxes on oil companies, he said, he found himself branded a “hater.”

It is part of a pattern, Mr. Fagan said, in which Ms. Palin characterizes critics as “bad people who are anti-Alaska.”[/quote]

if you're not with us, you're against us.
etc etc. politics as usual.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
kamiller42
[quote name='dairygirl4u2c' post='1656607' date='Sep 16 2008, 07:49 AM']wanting to succeed from the union is a conservative mantra. there's variations of conservative, granted, this isn't a science.[/quote]
So you apply the flavor of conservatism to make an accusation against Palin even if it doesn't fit? Nice. <_<

[quote]"global warming is a hoax" is a hoax. man made isn't proven, but the evidence is substantial and in its favor. i am willing to debate anyone on this matter and look forward to it. the bottomline points,,, are that sunspots account for only a third of the warming and CO2 in the atmosphere being twice what it's ever been should make people think that maybe we're doing more than volcanoes, and maybe, given that it's so high, it might make a difference. (there is evidence CO2 causes warming to some degree, no pun intended) also, we put a whole in the ozone, mankind did, showing we can indeed make global impacts.
i can cite my sources.[/quote]
Man did not put an ozone whole (sic) in the atmosphere. It is a natural phenomena that we began to monitor in 1956. Serious measuring and monitoring did not start until the 70s. The hole would be there with or without man.

In regards to global warming, some points to consider:
[quote]Problems with the Hypothesis. The global warming hypothesis is not scientifically verified. Critics of the hypothesis argue:

* About 60% of the temperature increase mentioned above occurred before 1940, but only 33% of the increase in carbon dioxide concentration had occurred by then. This indicates that increased carbon dioxide was not the cause of the temperature increase.
* The observed temperature rise is not accelerating: temperatures increased from 1880 to 1940, dropped slightly from 1940 to 1980, and have by some reports increased since then.
* The reported increase since 1980 is not confirmed by satellites or air-borne measurements and may result from weather stations being close to urban areas. In fact, there is specific evidence that the reports of higher temperatures since 1980 by some sources reflect dishonest science.
* Changes in global temperature are better correlated with changes in solar activity. Solar magnetic flux shows trends similar to that for temperatures from 1880 to the present.
* Observations contradict the computer model predictions, indicating that the computer models are significantly exaggerating any potential warming. Also, the computer models are predicting smaller temperature increases than they did ten years ago, as they have become more sophisticated.
* The various predicted disastrous results of a temperature increase are doubtful, with different studies often making opposite predictions. Historically, however, civilizations have prospered in times of warmer climate. Various studies also indicate that plant life is prospering from the increased carbon dioxide levels.

These critics point out that we have not scientifically verified that mankind is causing a measurable increase in global temperatures. They say we should therefore wait for more evidence before we take actions that will cause immediate harm to people.
[url="http://www.johnstonsarchive.net/environment/wrjp365g.html"]Source[/url][/quote]
Let's take your word for it. Man is creating global warming. Is your solution global population control?

[quote]the librarian was going to be fired due to palin, to my understanding. palin asked three times for the books to be removed. at any rate, what she intended is what matters, not necessarily what happened, when assessing her credibility.[/quote]
Could she have been fired because she was a bad employee and her final act of revenge is to trash Palin? Is there any possibility that is the case?

[quote]the reason she's a cookie cutter, is because it's too convenient she takes the conservative position on every issue. it could be possible that she's genuinely that way. but, the way she acts, the way she dismisses global warming or panders to succesionists etc, goes to show. she just argues in passing free market, but doesn't stick around to argue why, and doesn't give any hint of being not laissez faire ish about it at least sometimes- ie, what biden said in that link.[/quote]
Convenient to take a conservative position? I guess you have never been a conservative. Do you think the media and her critics have been making things convenient for her to take the positions she does? I don't think so.

Actually, I wish she would dismiss global warming, but what she told Gibson was a little different.
[quote]Sarah Palin on Climate Change:

GIBSON: Let me talk a little bit about environmental policy, because this interfaces with energy policy and you have some significant differences with John McCain. Do you still believe that global warming is not man-made?

PALIN: I believe that man's activities certainly can be contributing to the issue of global warming, climate change. Here in Alaska, the only arctic state in our union, of course, we see the effects of climate change more so than any other area with ice pack melting. Regardless, though, of the reason for climate change, whether it's entirely, wholly caused by man's activities or is part of the cyclical nature of our planet -- the warming and the cooling trends -- regardless of that, John McCain and I agree that we gotta do something about it and we have to make sure that we're doing all we can to cut down on pollution.[/quote]
This removes another one of your complaints. It disappoints me, but she is open to the question of just how much man's behavior contributes.

[quote]if she's the borrow and spend type, then the only real thing she stands for is higher taxes and being less conservative than obama, on this issue. cause higher debt only means more you gotta pay back later.[/quote]
I think the McCain/Palin team will cut spending, especially with McCain at the wheel. He hasn't taken any earmarks from what I understand.

[quote]roberts and mccain both said they want to preserve roe, this is plausibly a moot point. this is the only issue that she might have going for her, but it doesn't appear anything will change.
if i vote for mccain, it will be because of this issue.[/quote]
[url="http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/17222147/"]McCain wants to overturn Roe and give it back to the states.[/url]

[quote]i actually haven't made up my mind and won't until the debates.
my only point in this thread is to show that palin is terrible. other than the abortion point.
that no one can concede any of the points just goes to show they're willing to rationalize anything.[/quote]
Before asking someone to concede a point, one should ask whether the point was valid to begin with. You might be dealing with a non-sequitur.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Fr. Bruno
[quote name='dairygirl4u2c' post='1654908' date='Sep 14 2008, 02:37 AM']she insists on abstinance only education (which may have led to her daughter getting pregnant,,, i don't know. i tend to think this type of eduation is faulty. but i am an empiracally minded person and would think whatever position can be shown to best reduces pregancies is what should be taught)[/quote]

Just a short note on this one :
it has been known for years (even if many don't want to admit it) that the "promotion" of contraception results in an increase of the number of unwanted pregnancies and abortions...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
eagle_eye222001
[i]QUOTE (FSM Sister @ Sep 14 2008, 04:40 PM) *
Are you going to use any of this in your own defense on Judgement Day, when you are faced by millions of the innocent souls who were murdered in their mother's womb, after their mother made the FREE CHOICE to become sexually active without being able to shoulder the responsibility that comes with it - namely, that it might result in causing a human life?



QUOTE (dairygirl4u2c @ Sep 15 2008, 08:54 PM) *
[url="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KZaUDKejZ_g"]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KZaUDKejZ_g[/url][/i]

[quote name='eagle_eye222001' post='1656566' date='Sep 16 2008, 02:06 AM']How does the Youtube link answer the question?[/quote]

You have not answered either this person's question nor mine. Why not?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
MilesJesu
Dairygirl,

I could not remain silent on this post. You state:

"she insists on abstinance only education (which may have led to her daughter getting pregnant,,, i don't know. i tend to think this type of eduation is faulty. but i am an empiracally minded person and would think whatever position can be shown to best reduces pregancies is what should be taught)"

Your logic seems flawed.

Premise 1: Palin insists on abstinence only education.
Premise 2: Her daughter became pregnant.
Conclusion: Palin's position on abstinence only education contributed to her daughter getting pregnant.

The conclusion is flawed by the obvious fact that her daughter DID NOT apply abstinence only principles which is why she is pregnant. I think your assertion and and some talking heads on TV that perhaps a robust contraception education would have a different result is also flawed.

How does anyone KNOW that the young couple in question did not use some form of contraception? After all, a quick goolgle search shows that according to the young womans health org site:

Out of 100 Women Using Male Condoms, 14 become pregnant.

Out of 100 Women Using Withdrawal, 19 become pregnant.

Out of 100 Women Using Combination Birth Control Pills: 5 become pregnant.

Out of 100 Women Using Spermicides: 26 become pregnant

I think you get the point. Despite the talk otherwise, none of those talking about the issue knows what the young couple did EXCEPT not practice abstinence only. To assert that teaching abstinence only results in pregnancy is like asserting that teaching it is wrong to commit adultery results in adultery.

As for advocating any position that "reduces pregnancies should be taught" is a very problematic position. Is this to be advocated because pregnancies are a bad thing? That pregnancy is ... what exactly?

Peace,

MilesJesu

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
dairygirl4u2c
[quote]QUOTE
On June 8, 2008 Palin was publicly blessed, with the "laying on of hands" before six thousand Wasilla area church members, by Head Wasilla Assembly of God Pastor Ed Kalnins and on the same day both Kalnins and Palin described, at a "Masters Commission" ceremony at the Wasilla Assembly of God church, how she had been blessed prior to winning the Alaska governorship by an African cleric known for driving the "spirit of witchcraft" out of a town in Kenya, after which town supposedly crime rates dropped "almost to zero."

...

Wagner's top leaders often conduct spiritual warfare campaigns against the demons that block the acceptance of their brand of Christian belief, such as 'Operation Ice Castle' in the Himalayas in 1997. Several of their top prophets and generals of intercession spent weeks in intensive prayer to "confront the Queen of Heaven." This queen is considered by them to be one of the most powerful demons over the earth and is the Great Harlot of Mystery Babylon in Revelation. (The "Great Harlot [or 'whore'] of Mystery Babylon" theme also figures prominently in the sermons of Texas megachurch pastor and Christians United For Israel founder John Hagee, former endorser of John McCain's 2008 presidential bid.) Wagner and his group also claim that the Queen of Heaven is Diana, the pagan god of the biblical book Ephesians and the god of Mary veneration in the Roman Catholic Church. Following the 'Operation Ice Castle' prayer excursion which included planting a flag for Jesus on Mt. Everest, one of the lead prayer intercessors from the excursion, Ana Mendez, reported that there had been dramatic results including, "millions have come to faith in Asia... and other things happened which I believe are also connected...an earthquake had destroyed the basilica of Assisi, where the Pope had called a meeting of all world religions; a hurricane destroyed the infamous temple 'Baal-Christ' in Acapulco, Mexico; the Princes Diana died... and Mother Theresa died in India, one of the most famous advocates of Mary as Co-Redeemer."[/quote]

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
dairygirl4u2c
[quote]You have not answered either this person's question nor mine. Why not?[/quote]

i'm pointing out the bad things about palin. that someone thinks voting for her is a mortal sin,,, is irrelevant to her bad points.

it's similar to people responding this way: "palin kicks puppies and beat old people" "yeah but she's prolife". "palin charges the natioal debt to her 50% interest rate credit card" "yeah but she's prolife".

i thikn there's something ot be argued about whether voting for her is a mortal sin or not. i'm not comfortable answering it in this thread, cause it's obviously intended to belittle ht points i'm making.
i see the point,,, that you thikn it's implied i say it's moral to vote for her. i don't thikn i'm trying to imply that. i'm just showing how she's not all that, at all. at least... if you want ot make the point that she's prolife... say "you have a point with X, but she's prolife". or say "i think she's prolife and that's all that matters ultimatley.... but as to your points, i disagree with it for Y"
that all that's being said is that she's prolife is totally getting to be irrelevant.

we can debate whether it's right or not to vote for her in another thread,,,, as i try to do often. i think there's merit to both arguments, as to whether ot vote for her and mccain, depending on how the arguments are made.

please take me up in those other threads or start a new one. stop making irrelvant points in this one. Edited by dairygirl4u2c

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Restore formatting

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...