George Will: McCain Loses His Head

[BigPapaVol]

Again, I have to question the open-mindedness you bring to the situation.

Open-mindedness is funny as hell in this situation. Mr. Dio is open-minded like LG.

Nothing is more hideous than partisanship under the guise of open-mindedness. In fact, it's simply lying.
Posted via VolNation Mobile

 

[rjd970]

volinbham:
You ignored the part where she also said that she pledged she wouldn't push her creationsim views as governor. She made these comments during campaigning as well. Here we have evidence that she can separate her religious views from policy decisions.

Here is what she said during her campaign for govenor:

"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."

Then in between the Dover decision and her taking office, she said the following:

"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,"

So she was all for explicitely making it part of the curriculum while running for office, then after the courts...yet again...declared it unconstitutional she backed off because she knew it would never pass or at the very least be overruled by the courts. So yes, she never pushed it while in office, but it certainly wasn't for a lack of intention beforehand.

Besides, she has never even had an opinion on any kind of national security issue before a couple of months ago, other than to say she heard about the surge in the news. She has never had to take a stance or deal with any kind of international crisis. So, we quite frankly have no idea how she will react. All we have to go on is what her worldview is. It's true Obama has never dealt with an international crisis in an executive role either (or McCain or Biden for that matter) but at least he has voiced opinions that have some merit. At the very least, Palin is the only one of the four right now that subscribes to the story in Revelation as an absolute certainty.

 

[rjd970]

Nothing is more hideous than partisanship under the guise of open-mindedness. In fact, it's simply lying.
Posted via VolNation Mobile

I couldn't agree more, you might want to go re-read some of your own posts too.

 

[volinbham]

Here is what she said during her campaign for govenor:



Then in between the Dover decision and her taking office, she said the following:



So she was all for explicitely making it part of the curriculum while running for office, then after the courts...yet again...declared it unconstitutional she backed off because she knew it would never pass or at the very least be overruled by the courts. So yes, she never pushed it while in office, but it certainly wasn't for a lack of intention beforehand.

Besides, she has never even had an opinion on any kind of national security issue before a couple of months ago, other than to say she heard about the surge in the news. She has never had to take a stance or deal with any kind of international crisis. So, we quite frankly have no idea how she will react. All we have to go on is what her worldview is. It's true Obama has never dealt with an international crisis in an executive role either (or McCain or Biden for that matter) but at least he has voiced opinions that have some merit. At the very least, Palin is the only one of the four right now that subscribes to the story in Revelation as an absolute certainty.

I guess I have to dig it up but she made a specific statement to the effect she would not pursue curriculum changes on this issue if elected. She has completely complied with that pledge.

I see that as clear evidence of her ability to separate her personal views from her policy. To repeat, there is no evidence she has based policy on her religious views. To the contrary, she seems to have a pretty constituent-focused record of working within the bounds of what those citizens desire.

You continue to push this religious extremism argument with zero evidence it would affect her policy decisions. Further you ignore the her record of not injecting this "extremism" in policy but somehow conclude she will somehow do so if elected.

 

[BigPapaVol]

I couldn't agree more, you might want to go re-read some of your own posts too.

It's not like you to be dead red wrong, but remind me when I have been anything but forthright about my own views, then review the point you just quoted.

As a helper, there is an edit feature so you can try to erase the evidence of your inability to reason.
Posted via VolNation Mobile

 

[rjd970]

BPV,

Arguments aside, this is a serious question...did you ever have a dog in this political race, or was there nobody that ever appealed to you? I assume any democratic ticket is out of the question and you don't seem like a big McCain guy. Was there anybody that in the primaries you could identify with? Given a post on another thread, you seem like you would want somebody a little more left leaning on social issues and far right on fiscal issues. Who would you like to see take office?

 

[BigPapaVol]

BPV,

Arguments aside, this is a serious question...did you ever have a dog in this political race, or was there nobody that ever appealed to you? I assume any democratic ticket is out of the question and you don't seem like a big McCain guy. Was there anybody that in the primaries you could identify with? Given a post on another thread, you seem like you would want somebody a little more left leaning on social issues and far right on fiscal issues. Who would you like to see take office?

I can't stand either of the candidates, but find Obama's old school Euro style socialism just reprehensible.

Bill Clinton with an opposing congress would be just fine for me. I'm not opposed to someone who makes sense and believes in rugged capitalism as the root of our greatness.

I really don't identify well with any of the candidates, but Romney was probably the best suited to handle the economic side of the debate.

I'm left of center on social issues, but just don't make any decisions based upon that stand. I really just don't care what our president thinks about stuff like gay marriage. I want a guy tough on defense, leader in foreign policy and someone who understands the impact of economic decisions.

I would like to see Jack Welch as our president. He was a communicator, set clear policy and goals and worked to achieve them. I think he was the greatest CEO of our lifetimes, besides Ronald Reagan.

 

[rjd970]

Volinbham,

I think if Palin had the opportunity to interject her religious beliefs into public policy, and there was enough support for it, she would not hesitate to do it. Maybe I am naive and she has always just been appealing to the evangelical base and doesn't really want to institute everything she says, but she has at least shown the intention to. When she says one thing during her campaign and then another when she takes office after certain court decisions, it doesn't mean she is being reasonable about not pushing her views...it means she is being politically prudent about her decisions. When she says things like a pipeline is the will of God, and subscribes to end time prophecies it is something to worry about. A lot of christians believe the same kind of things, and I am worried about that too. The difference, is she is the one that will be in command of the military. She will undoubtedly view conflicts in the middle east through a religious mantra. I don't see how this helps, and it certainly doesn't paint a picture of someone who will objectively look at a crisis.

If I am overreacting, then so be it. It is better to be on the safe side of this one, given what's at stake. You don't seem to agree.

 

[BigPapaVol]

Volinbham,

I think if Palin had the opportunity to interject her religious beliefs into public policy, and there was enough support for it, she would not hesitate to do it. Maybe I am naive and she has always just been appealing to the evangelical base and doesn't really want to institute everything she says, but she has at least shown the intention to. When she says one thing during her campaign and then another when she takes office after certain court decisions, it doesn't mean she is being reasonable about not pushing her views...it means she is being politically prudent about her decisions. When she says things like a pipeline is the will of God, and subscribes to end time prophecies it is something to worry about. A lot of christians believe the same kind of things, and I am worried about that too. The difference, is she is the one that will be in command of the military. She will undoubtedly view conflicts in the middle east through a religious mantra. I don't see how this helps, and it certainly doesn't paint a picture of someone who will objectively look at a crisis.

If I am overreacting, then so be it. It is better to be on the safe side of this one, given what's at stake. You don't seem to agree.

I'm honestly surprised that you would voice these reservations, yet have never had them about Obama, the only other alternative. He said unequivocally that he is bringing the troops home. He had no idea what that might mean or of any ramifications of said action. He has since backpedaled from that stand, but not until he got some political capital behind him for the absurd stand.

Does that type of pronouncement concern you in the least when the guy's bonafides are a law degree and state huckster focused on black plight?

He has demonstrated no qualifications for anything, except public speaking from a script, working out, smoking and acting as heir to the throne.

 

[KB5252]

Volinbham,

I think if Palin had the opportunity to interject her religious beliefs into public policy, and there was enough support for it, she would not hesitate to do it. Maybe I am naive and she has always just been appealing to the evangelical base and doesn't really want to institute everything she says, but she has at least shown the intention to. When she says one thing during her campaign and then another when she takes office after certain court decisions, it doesn't mean she is being reasonable about not pushing her views...it means she is being politically prudent about her decisions. When she says things like a pipeline is the will of God, and subscribes to end time prophecies it is something to worry about. A lot of christians believe the same kind of things, and I am worried about that too. The difference, is she is the one that will be in command of the military. She will undoubtedly view conflicts in the middle east through a religious mantra. I don't see how this helps, and it certainly doesn't paint a picture of someone who will objectively look at a crisis.

If I am overreacting, then so be it. It is better to be on the safe side of this one, given what's at stake. You don't seem to agree.

I just think you are reading into things that aren't necessarily there.

You speak as if she will be in charge of the military, that is the presidents job. You are making a huge assumption she will be president, which in the grand scheme of things is not very likely.

You also speak of Palin's religious beliefs about the end of days as if this is an idea isolated to her "brand" of Christianity. It is a core belief of all Christians of which, hold your breath, Obama happens to believe as a Christian himself.

You assume she will "undoubtedly view conflicts in the middle east through a religious mantra". What has she said or done to make you believe this? And please don't bring up anything about a politician saying two different things, it happens all the time.

 

[lawgator1]

any dem willing to throw around words like cesspool in regards to Republicans is OK with me.

Just curious, what do you think the D/R ratio is in prison?

That's a dangerous question.

 

[BigPapaVol]

That's a dangerous question.

by design.

 

[lawgator1]

by design.

Muck, meet the raker.

Pot, meet the stirrer.

 

[rjd970]

BigPapaVol:
I'm honestly surprised that you would voice these reservations, yet have never had them about Obama, the only other alternative. He said unequivocally that he is bringing the troops home. He had no idea what that might mean or of any ramifications of said action. He has since backpedaled from that stand, but not until he got some political capital behind him for the absurd stand.

He has always been for a phased withdrawal and has said all along that this is necessary for political reconciliation to move forward in any significant fashion. What more can we possibly do over there? The Iraqi PM has agreed with his position on this. And it is not like we are going to have no presence at all. We are constructing an embassy over there that is bigger than the vatican. This has always been his position, and is there anything you can show that would prove he doesn't understand the ramifications of doing this? Is staying working? Has there been any improvement in political reconciliation or achievement of any significant nationalistic goals?

This is a far cry from anybody that ran on the republican primaries (other than Ron Paul) who worked under the manifestly delusional assumption that if we stay there long enough they will get used to us.

BigPapaVol:
Does that type of pronouncement concern you in the least when the guy's bonafides are a law degree and state huckster focused on black plight?

OK, let's play this game. Why do you think he is focused on the black plight? All we have is a graduate from Colombia and Harvard Law, president of Harvard Law Review, and passed up lucratic career offers in corporate law to work public service. He worked to register minorities to vote. Can you imagine the nerve of him? Reagan, Clinton, and Bush were all state hucksters.

Besides, this is all completely useless in my opinion. I don't understand how I talk about Palin, and it turns into a comparison to Obama. It is a worthless comparison.

If you are going to denigrate the bona fides of somebody like Obama then I would think you would be on board in saying Palin is even worse, no? We have a beauty queen that attended six different schools before she could figure it out, worked as a sports reporter, head of the PTA, and stumbled into local politics.

He has demonstrated no qualifications for anything, except public speaking from a script, working out, smoking and acting as heir to the throne.

So you don't like Obama's stance on economic and tax policy....and from that you have derived to the position that there is nothing at all redeeming about the credentials of him? You really find no merit into him being raised on food stamps, coming from a one parent home, working his way through Colombia and Harvard, and then dedicating his career to public service? You don't like him, I get it. But all you can really see about him is speech giving, working out, smoking, and a media manufactured arrogance?

 

[BigPapaVol]

He has always been for a phased withdrawal and has said all along that this is necessary for political reconciliation to move forward in any significant fashion. What more can we possibly do over there? The Iraqi PM has agreed with his position on this. And it is not like we are going to have no presence at all. We are constructing an embassy over there that is bigger than the vatican. This has always been his position, and is there anything you can show that would prove he doesn't understand the ramifications of doing this? Is staying working? Has there been any improvement in political reconciliation or achievement of any significant nationalistic goals?

This is a far cry from anybody that ran on the republican primaries (other than Ron Paul) who worked under the manifestly delusional assumption that if we stay there long enough they will get used to us.



OK, let's play this game. Why do you think he is focused on the black plight? All we have is a graduate from Colombia and Harvard Law, president of Harvard Law Review, and passed up lucratic career offers in corporate law to work public service. He worked to register minorities to vote. Can you imagine the nerve of him? Reagan, Clinton, and Bush were all state hucksters.

Besides, this is all completely useless in my opinion. I don't understand how I talk about Palin, and it turns into a comparison to Obama. It is a worthless comparison.

If you are going to denigrate the bona fides of somebody like Obama then I would think you would be on board in saying Palin is even worse, no? We have a beauty queen that attended six different schools before she could figure it out, worked as a sports reporter, head of the PTA, and stumbled into local politics.



So you don't like Obama's stance on economic and tax policy....and from that you have derived to the position that there is nothing at all redeeming about the credentials of him? You really find no merit into him being raised on food stamps, coming from a one parent home, working his way through Colombia and Harvard, and then dedicating his career to public service? You don't like him, I get it. But all you can really see about him is speech giving, working out, smoking, and a media manufactured arrogance?

1. The stand that won him the primary was coming home, now. I understand that his constituency is a herd of ignorant clowns, but that's ridiculous. Only recently has the plan become the least bit measured. The fact that he ever said it is absolute proof, 100%, that he had no idea what he was talking about. Ditto his tax plan. Reagan, Clinton and Bush were all mulitple term governors. If Obama had anything remotely akin to that kind of executive experience, I'd give him credit for it. He doesn't and it's a glaring deficiency. Your ilk continues to cover it with his educational background. That's just weak.
2. Palin has spent her most recent political years as chief executive while Obama's been a community organizer. But as you say, this isn't about Palin. It's about Obama relative to McCain, where the experience gap isn't worth discussion. I don't understand why you talk about Palin when the discussion is about the presidency. As to educational backgrounds, remind me about George Washington's education.

3. I can respect that Obama came from humble beginnings, but that's hardly a qualifier for the presidency, which is what the debate is about. I personally know hundreds with from similar circumstances with similar academic success. Hell, our parents all came from broken and broke homes, yet aren't asking for bozo buttons for having done so. It's the American Dream, but it's not a presidential qualifier. Just like community organizer isn't relevant. Just like law review king isn't relevant.

Oh, and the being a public servant language is garbage. He has had nothing but this current job interview in mind since the day.

 

[rjd970]

KB5252:
You speak as if she will be in charge of the military, that is the presidents job. You are making a huge assumption she will be president, which in the grand scheme of things is not very likely.

She could be, and given McCain's age, it is more likely than any other potential president in history. She is one step removed from commaning the military. This seems like the default position of, "Well it doesn't matter, it is unlikely she will be president anyway".

KB5252:
You also speak of Palin's religious beliefs about the end of days as if this is an idea isolated to her "brand" of Christianity. It is a core belief of all Christians of which, hold your breath, Obama happens to believe as a Christian himself.

Here's the difference, Assmeblies of God seem to place a special emphasis on this, declaring Alaska will be a safehaven for all the righteous too witness death and destruction for everybody else. She has never distanced herself from these views or even clarified them. Obama's church placed an emphasis on subvertly racist doctrines and anti-american rhetoric. All it would take is a separation from the extremist views on her part similar to what Obama did and it would be a nonissue with me. Be a Christian and practice your faith, but if taken to the extreme be prepared to answer for it when running for public office.

KB5252:
You assume she will "undoubtedly view conflicts in the middle east through a religious mantra". What has she said or done to make you believe this? And please don't bring up anything about a politician saying two different things, it happens all the time.

How about the fact that we should pray our soldiers are working the will of God? Echoing the words of Lincoln on this is nothing more than a calculated lie to conceal what she really believes. Given her church affiliation, there is every reason to believe she subscribes to the notion that the Bible is the infallible guide to future events. In the same address to her congregation, she also said, "God's going to tell you what is going on, and what is going to go on, and you guys are going to have that within you". IF she ever takes office, what's the use with listening to advisors if you have a direct line to God?

Again, maybe I am wrong. All she has to do is come out and say it isn't so.

 

[KB5252]

She could be, and given McCain's age, it is more likely than any other potential president in history. She is one step removed from commaning the military. This seems like the default position of, "Well it doesn't matter, it is unlikely she will be president anyway".



Here's the difference, Assmeblies of God seem to place a special emphasis on this, declaring Alaska will be a safehaven for all the righteous too witness death and destruction for everybody else. She has never distanced herself from these views or even clarified them. Obama's church placed an emphasis on subvertly racist doctrines and anti-american rhetoric. All it would take is a separation from the extremist views on her part similar to what Obama did and it would be a nonissue with me. Be a Christian and practice your faith, but if taken to the extreme be prepared to answer for it when running for public office.



How about the fact that we should pray our soldiers are working the will of God? Echoing the words of Lincoln on this is nothing more than a calculated lie to conceal what she really believes. Given her church affiliation, there is every reason to believe she subscribes to the notion that the Bible is the infallible guide to future events. In the same address to her congregation, she also said, "God's going to tell you what is going on, and what is going to go on, and you guys are going to have that within you". IF she ever takes office, what's the use with listening to advisors if you have a direct line to God?

Again, maybe I am wrong. All she has to do is come out and say it isn't so.

You have nothing to base your beliefs that a Lincoln quote is cover for a lie. Most of what you are typing here is little more than grasping at straws. You have worked yourself into a frenzy over this woman and speak of her as the presidential nominee on the republican ticket.

Your hysteria over her is very concerning. I would venture to guess that most free thinkers would find this on the fringes of clear and rational thinking at best. Your views of her put you more along the lines of those who believe Obama to be a Muslim than an objective thinker.

 

[volinbham]

If I am overreacting, then so be it. It is better to be on the safe side of this one, given what's at stake. You don't seem to agree.

I agree that you are overreacting.

It's not about her ability to force the agenda. It looks clear to me that she hasn't done so because she doesn't view that as her role as an elected leader. I don't see why that would change as VPOTUS. Her record as an elected official is quite clear on this matter.

 

[rjd970]

You have nothing to base your beliefs that a Lincoln quote is cover for a lie. Most of what you are typing here is little more than grasping at straws. You have worked yourself into a frenzy over this woman and speak of her as the presidential nominee on the republican ticket.

Your hysteria over her is very concerning. I would venture to guess that most free thinkers would find this on the fringes of clear and rational thinking at best. Your views of her put you more along the lines of those who believe Obama to be a Muslim than an objective thinker.

I don't think there is anything accurate in what you just said. I don't know what else to say, I've made a case.

In simple terms, I would feel much better about her if she came out and clarified certain beliefs. This is no different then how I felt about Obama with the Wright stuff.

 

[rjd970]

I agree that you are overreacting.

It's not about her ability to force the agenda. It looks clear to me that she hasn't done so because she doesn't view that as her role as an elected leader. I don't see why that would change as VPOTUS. Her record as an elected official is quite clear on this matter.

We agree to disagree then. I find some of what she has publicly said disturbing.

 

[volinbham]

We agree to disagree then. I find some of what she has publicly said disturbing.

I assume you apply this same standard to Obama then and any comments he's made along the lines of social justice, the 2nd amendment, racial problems, corporations, etc. will emerge directly into his governing style despite any other evidence.

 

[BigPapaVol]

I assume you apply this same standard to Obama then and any comments he's made along the lines of social justice, the 2nd amendment, racial problems, corporations, etc. will emerge directly into his governing style despite any other evidence.

all you Republicans are the same. Always switching subjects from Palin's inadequacies to Obama's. It makes no sense.

 

[volinbham]

all you Republicans are the same. Always switching subjects from Palin's inadequacies to Obama's. It makes no sense.

busted

 

[KB5252]

I don't think there is anything accurate in what you just said. I don't know what else to say, I've made a case.

In simple terms, I would feel much better about her if she came out and clarified certain beliefs. This is no different then how I felt about Obama with the Wright stuff.

You may believe you have made a case but the fact that you don't see how tenuous the threads that hold it together are, is very telling.

As far as the correlation with Obama goes for me his cutting ties with Wright was absolutely needed for him, given the nature of their long standing relationship (both personal and political). I seriously doubt from everything I know about Palin's relationship with her church that she has anything but a normal relationship with the pastors there, certainly nothing as political as Obama and Wright's relationship was.

Bottom line is there is no reason or need for her to explain her religious beliefs to anyone.

Your statements involving Palin lead me to believe that you see this election through far left tinted glasses and are going to see what validates your opinion only.

 

[lawgator1]

all you Republicans are the same. Always switching subjects from Palin's inadequacies to Obama's. It makes no sense.

Clever.

I think an argument can be made that Obama-McCain-Biden are all so much more qualified to be president than Palin that its worth noting the distance between those three and her.

You are of course free to argue that within their group McCain is much more prepared to be president than is Obama. In many respects I agree.

I view it akin to saying that the SEC is much better prepared to offer up a worthy opponent against USC next January than is the Mountain West. You can argue that there is within the SEC a big gulf between the good teams (Florida, UGA and LSU) and the mediocre ones (Arkansas, Vandy, and you-know-who). Doesn't mean it isn't fair to point out that the Mountain West team would be a crapped upon by the Trojans whereas the SEC rep might actually win.

Given McCain's health and age, worrying about what would happen if Palin were POTUS is a legitimate worry.