Spleen Squeezin's

I totally agree with you on this. The press and the liberals aren't going to like any Republican candidates, save for RINO's who can't win anyway and whose victories would be worthless to the genuine Republicans. But then, "the press and the liberals" are becoming increasingly irrelevant to the outcome of elections in America. So maybe the Republicans should just accept that "the press and the liberals" aren't going to like them, and get to the task of winning elections and taking back America for proper Constitutional government, hmm?

(Reply) (Thread)

You'd have thought that the candidacy of John McCain would have taught them something.

Before he picked Sarah Palin as his running mate, John McCain was running well behind both Obama and Clinton in polls. This despite McCain being the darling of the press for years because he opposed fellow Republicans on a number of issues. But when he actually came to challenge Democrats for the presidency, the press turned on him, as we knew they would. Liberals did not like him, conservatives did not like him.

Then, he brought in Sarah Palin, and Republicans surged ahead. Way ahead.

Then they squirreled her away, to groom her, as they think they should have. Then they put her on two attack dog liberal shows, and wonder of wonders, they made her look stupid.

How could they NOT know they would make her look stupid?

It is no wonder that she resigned from being Governor. Since that time, she has surged in popularity, can speak her mind, and does so eloquently.

I would love to see a Palin/Ryan ticket.

(Reply) (Thread)

Some folks here don't like that she proposes that intelligent design be taught in schools.

You know, like back in the day when they proposed evolution be taught in the schools.

How unsurprising, hypocrites and cowards.

(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)

That's because they equate intelligent design with creationism.

While creationism falls under the category of intelligent design not all hypotheses regarding intelligent design are creationism.

In other words, while intelligent design proposes a creator, it does not state any specific method of creation, merely proposes that there is too much order in the universe for it to be pure chance. That some intelligence had to be behind it.

(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)

Strict Creationism works from the precedent that the record of Creation, as recorded in the Bible, is historically accurate.

(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)

On paper, ID is perfectly plausible. In practice, it's little more than a shoddy attempt at stealth Creationism.

THAT'S why people have a problem with ID.

(Reply) (Parent) (Thread) (Expand)

Except that those moderates and RINOs are more likely to listen to Washington, and especially the corporate money backers, than to you or me. She can't win without the financial backing, no matter how good she is, and right now, the backing is not there.

The Tea Party or, more importantly, their IDEAS) while gaining in popularity, is not enough. They still do not have sufficient corporate cachet to win the money. True, people are fed up-finally-with intrusive government, but we've gotta have more converts from the moderates, liberals and undecideds. They have to be wooed, not disparaged. There has to be a plan beyond anger and criticism, since we want folks to wake up, not just to reflexively push back. Otherwise, we're looking at a repeat of 2008.

I haven't the slightest idea how to go about that.

Take a look at this, if you want a laugh. Or maybe a cry.

http://www.alaska.statenews.net/story/744803

(Reply) (Thread)

Well, just discovered this, so not sure to what extent that Alaska News link can be taken seriously:

"The owning entity of State News.Net is Mainstream Media EC, which is incorporated in Bahrain where its original media aspirations were born, however the ownership is Australian."

But my preceding points still stand.

(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)

I tend to think that her remarks on teaching creationism in school science classes should disqualify her from any serious run at the Presidency...but that's just me.

I would love to have a Republican candidate I could support. Ron Paul comes the closest, but he's a little too extreme on some points for me to really get behind him.

(Reply) (Thread)

If she means force creationism to be taught in PUBLIC schools, she can go hump a cactus. If she means PRIVATE schools should be allowed to teach it, that is just fine by me.

Yeah I like ol' Ronnie too, but let's face it, he's honked the Jews on their ample noses waaay too much to get elected. His son Rand is the closest we'll ever get. (yeah he's sold out a bit, but can you blame the guy when the electoral system is rotten top to bottom?)

(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)

Teach it in sociology or religious courses? Fine. Teach it as science? Hell no. Not in public schools, not in private schools. Kids deserve a decent education no matter what school they're in.

(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)

At the risk of this becoming Yet Another Religious Debate On Teh Interwebz...

What exactly is wrong with teaching alternative theories of origin, provided they're specifically presented as such? I say it's high time we taught kids in school to think for themselves and make their own decisions about such things rather than parrot the State's spoon-fed dogma.

(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)

Merle's problem, I think, has less to do with teaching creationism than with teaching creationism as science - a bias I can agree with, as creationism isn't science. Teach it, by all means - but as what it is: theology.

(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)

Really? Because I have a serious problem with evolution being taught as science. Especially since you can shoot holes in that theory large enough to fly a 747 through.

Science alone can't determine how we came to be here on earth, simply because such things can't be repeated or observed (two key requirements of the scientific process) from within our limited frame of reference.

(Reply) (Parent) (Thread) (Expand)

If you really want to get into a debate over evolution/creationism, we can, but first off:

You do not teach cutting-edge science in school classrooms. Science education, especially below college-level, consists of bedrock-level ideas - you teach them basic physics and biology, things that have been well-supported parts of the body of knowledge for decades.

Completely aside from any debate on its actual merits, creationism is not an accepted scientific theory at this time - and you don't teach kids something that doesn't have a long line of experiments supporting it.

(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)

"You do not teach cutting-edge science in school classrooms. Science education, especially below college-level, consists of bedrock-level ideas - you teach them basic physics and biology, things that have been well-supported parts of the body of knowledge for decades."

You mean like the proven biological law of abiogenesis (life cannot arise from non-living matter)? Or are you going to claim that macroevolution does have a long line of observed experiments supporting it? (here's a hint- it does not and never will)

And since when has science education in the USA taught basic physics and biology, even at the college level?

And who is this mysterious body which determines what "accepted scientific theory" really is?

Btw: why /is/ creationism not accepted? Not due to any evidence disproving it, but due to the fact that the implications condemn those people who know themselves to be guilty of sinning against the Living Creator, Who has left the evidence of a past Judgements on this very earth, as a sign that more righteous Judgement /WILL/ happen.

(Reply) (Parent) (Thread) (Expand)

The main problem is both sides' theories ultimately come down to some level of faith.

Creationism: "A big magic sky fairy created everything." Allright, so where'd he/she/it come from?

Evolution: "A big explosion created (?!?) everything." Mmmkay, so what caused that explosion and where did the stuff for IT come from?

Some wit remarked that both theories remind him of B-17's: you can shoot holes in them until they resemble a barely-airborne junkheap, and they just keep on chuggin'. Frankly the only honest thing for public schools to do is teach both as the THEORIES they are and honestly tell them "we don't really know the answer, you're gonna have to decide for yourself."

But you'll see snow in the Sahara before you see that - and here's the reason why: *both* sides want federal permission to indoctrinate the little darlings with their pet ideas.

(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)

"Both sides are exactly the same." Ah yeah, right.....

(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)

Umm, I think you might be seriously confused about evolution, if you think it has anything to astronomy. You're thinking of the Big Bang Theory, which is a COMPLETELY different subject. On that note, the Big Bang Theory pretty much only says the universe as we know it began from a single point. It says absolutely nothing about how the universe came into existence.

Lastly, a 'theory' in science is a proposed explanation for a set of phenomena, it is not a synonym for conjecture or speculation. Something does not get called a theory in science unless there is a lot of evidence supporting it. Just because you try to state the idea that there are all of these supposed holes in evolution or scientific theory as if were common knowledge or well-established fact does not make it so.

(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)

And can you name any current office holder or reasonable candidate who doesn't hold at least one idea which "should disqualify" him or her from a serious run at office? They've all got holes in their heads one way or another - shoot, a potential "perfect candidate" for any national office has better things, more productive things, to do with their time, and can think of better ways to achieve those things.

Palin strikes me as one of the better candidates available, and the creationism bit is only a minor bobble, not likely to be that big a deal if she does get into the Oval Office. After all, the President isn't exactly in position to force such a change through, nor is anyone savvy enough to get the job likely to waste the credibility required to even make the attempt. Admittedly, she's a little shaky on what exactly constitutes science, but the same is/was true of Obama, Bush the Younger, Clinton, likely Bush Senior, possibly Reagan, and arguably Carter, Ford, and Nixon... and probably most of our presidents all the way back.

I'd say, give the lady a chance. It's not like she's got any worse ideas than the lot we've currently got, and they may well turn out to be better.

(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)

I guess our priorities differ - for me, supporting teaching creationism in science classes is a deal-breaker, just like an anti-vaccine candidate would be similarly disqualified. There are ideas that I disagree with but can understand why they wouldn't render a candidate unfit for office, and there are harmful ideas.

Anti-vaxxers kill children, and IDers (or any creationists who want it taught in science classes) poison their minds.

(Reply) (Parent) (Thread) (Expand)

Herman Cain is my choice regardless of what anyone happens to think of it.

(Reply) (Thread)

Amen!

(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)

What? Over Chuck Norris?

(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)

"Oh, that's right. What they mean is 'the liberals and the press don't like her.'"

Actually, the liberals and the press despise her just the same as they've despised all conservatives but unlike all conservatives, Palin can be taken down with the same kind of smears, lies, and "reporting" that took down one of the most admired conservatives pre-Reagan: Barry Goldwater. Rational people (which doesn't include RINOs or moderates) aren't saying that she's hopeless because the media hate her but because she's an easy target for the kind of lying unprincipled campaign that defeated Goldwater, a campaign that Obama and his minions would eagerly wage. Newt Gingrich has the same problem: the media/liberals know exactly how to attack him to inflict devastating political damage. Other candidates enjoy similar advantages to Palin (charisma, oratorical skill, governmental experience, conservative bona fides) but the media/liberals would have to largely start from scratch to build their smear machine and figure out how to best lie about the conservative. And to emphasize, Republicans are trying to excise the country from the grip of dangerously clueless Democrats... and cannot afford to use their one shot for anything but a nearly-sure thing. Destined to start out at a severe disadvantage, Palin is far from a nearly-sure thing.

(Reply) (Thread)