George Will: McCain Loses His Head

#76
#76
lawgator1 said:
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.
Click to expand...
I'm dead serious when I say that I would much rather have Palin at the helm than Obama. Even pretending to lump him in with the old senators undermines your entire point.

The guy has less experience than any of the three and it's not really close. You do recall his saying that he has been a community organizer, right?
 
#77
#77
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.
Click to expand...

So Obama needs to explain himself, Palin gets a pass. That is all you have said here.

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.
Click to expand...

Believe whatever you want. I can't make you understand, only point out the facts. It is probably not hard to see I don't think much of religion. I have no problem with religous liberty as long as it stays out of policy. But when somebody vetos a stem cell bill on religious claims and says the jury is still out on evolution then yes, it upsets me. I have no reason to believe Palin will not do these same things IF she ever sits in the oval office (you seem to be missing all my "if's" in previous posts).

Moreover, I am not as far-left as you would all like to believe. I think Obama stances on healthcare and immigration...the cornerstone of the left ideology...are dead wrong. I am in line with him on most social issues and I am a gun owner that see's no problem with his views. I think his stance on a partial extension of the Bush tax cuts is the reasonable but that making them permanent is irresponsible. I think anybody that wants to repeal the tax cuts immediately is off-base. So fiscally I think his plan is more responsible, but that doesn't mean I don't think McCain's has some merit too.

You seem to me like you simply don't like anybody questioning the religious views of anybody running for office. I think it should be scrutinized more than it has been, for all the candidates. If somebody believes the earth was created in the year 4008 b.c., then it should be considered before we vest them with the power of the white house.
 
#78
#78
BigPapaVol said:
I'm dead serious when I say that I would much rather have Palin at the helm than Obama. Even pretending to lump him in with the old senators undermines your entire point.

The guy has less experience than any of the three and it's not really close. You do recall his saying that he has been a community organizer, right?
Click to expand...

don't forget he has a Harvard Law degree.

Palin in the Oval Office isn't any where near as scary as Pelosi or Biden sitting behind the Resolute Desk.
 
#79
#79
rjd970 said:
So Obama needs to explain himself, Palin gets a pass. That is all you have said here.



Believe whatever you want. I can't make you understand, only point out the facts. It is probably not hard to see I don't think much of religion. I have no problem with religous liberty as long as it stays out of policy. But when somebody vetos a stem cell bill on religious claims and says the jury is still out on evolution then yes, it upsets me. I have no reason to believe Palin will not do these same things IF she ever sits in the oval office (you seem to be missing all my "if's" in previous posts).

Moreover, I am not as far-left as you would all like to believe. I think Obama stances on healthcare and immigration...the cornerstone of the left ideology...are dead wrong. I am in line with him on most social issues and I am a gun owner that see's no problem with his views. I think his stance on a partial extension of the Bush tax cuts is the reasonable but that making them permanent is irresponsible. I think anybody that wants to repeal the tax cuts immediately is off-base. So fiscally I think his plan is more responsible, but that doesn't mean I don't think McCain's has some merit too.

You seem to me like you simply don't like anybody questioning the religious views of anybody running for office. I think it should be scrutinized more than it has been, for all the candidates. If somebody believes the earth was created in the year 4008 b.c., then it should be considered before we vest them with the power of the white house.
Click to expand...
Evolution is just a theory until you can prove it to be correct. There is circumstantial evidence but nothing that can be demonstrated as fact, so by definition it is theory and should be taught as such.

There are way too many variables. I do believe in God but also believe in evolution on some level. It makes sense! What doesn't make sense is that we originated from some ooze in a swamp. That would make as much sense as looking at a jet and coming to the conclusion that a series of tornadoes went through a junk yard and tossed enough parts around to assemble that jet.

I am interested to know what you present to be fact.
 
#80
#80
BigPapaVol said:
I'm dead serious when I say that I would much rather have Palin at the helm than Obama. Even pretending to lump him in with the old senators undermines your entire point.

The guy has less experience than any of the three and it's not really close. You do recall his saying that he has been a community organizer, right?
Click to expand...

I find this scary. If we are talking pre-political careers, a community organizer is a far better qualification than beauty queen or sports reporter. And I think your whole experience argument is over-played. Right off the top of my head I know Lincoln, Truman, and Kennedy all had no executive experience. Lincoln's legislative experience was on par with what Obama's is. There is nonething that says extensive executive or legislative experience is a good indicator of how well one will be president.
 
#81
#81
rjd970 said:
I find this scary. If we are talking pre-political careers, a community organizer is a far better qualification than beauty queen or sports reporter. And I think your whole experience argument is over-played. Right off the top of my head I know Lincoln, Truman, and Kennedy all had no executive experience. Lincoln's legislative experience was on par with what Obama's is. There is nonething that says extensive executive or legislative experience is a good indicator of how well one will be president.
Click to expand...

so you're now saying that because of Palin's rumored religious beliefs, she's singularly unqualified to be the President?

now I understand how truly shallow your resistance to Palin is.
 
#82
#82
rjd970 said:
I find this scary. If we are talking pre-political careers, a community organizer is a far better qualification than beauty queen or sports reporter. And I think your whole experience argument is over-played. Right off the top of my head I know Lincoln, Truman, and Kennedy all had no executive experience. Lincoln's legislative experience was on par with what Obama's is. There is nonething that says extensive executive or legislative experience is a good indicator of how well one will be president.
Click to expand...

And for all the questions about it there has not been one person who can tell me or anyone else what that means or what he did in that time.

I have read in some places where he was a "community organizer" with ACORN. If that is true very little good came of his work! Unless you happen to think voter fraud, intimidation tactics and so forth is good.
 
#83
#83
rjd970 said:
I find this scary. If we are talking pre-political careers, a community organizer is a far better qualification than beauty queen or sports reporter. And I think your whole experience argument is over-played. Right off the top of my head I know Lincoln, Truman, and Kennedy all had no executive experience. Lincoln's legislative experience was on par with what Obama's is. There is nonething that says extensive executive or legislative experience is a good indicator of how well one will be president.
Click to expand...
The inexperience argument is overplayed, but it continues to be played re Palin and avoided re Obama. She's the governor of a state today, yet you overlooked it. That's more relevant experience than Obama has had in his entire background. It might not be national security issues, but it is exec experience.

There is nothing that says past experience means anything, but it's what we have to go on. There is nothing else from which to evaluate Obama's positions and pronouncements.
 
#84
#84
KB5252:
Evolution is just a theory until you can prove it to be correct. There is circumstantial evidence but nothing that can be demonstrated as fact, so by definition it is theory and should be taught as such.
Click to expand...

Your first sentence is a misnomer, and your second sentence is patently false.

Everything (well almost) in science is based on theories. Gravity is a theory. Karl Popper said concerning certain theories regarded as fact, "we never really prove a theory right, we just merely fail to prove it wrong." That is the way science works, and that is the way evolution is viewed. 180 years of independent scientific verification by things Darwin could have known nonething about (modern genetic theory, DNA, biochemistry, etc...) has confirmed the basics of the theory, namely the principles of natural selection and beneficial gene adaptations. There is still a debate on certain mechanisms and processes concerning how the theory works, but there is little to no doubt that the overarching theory of evolution by natural selection is dead-on accurate.

There are way too many variables. I do believe in God but also believe in evolution on some level. It makes sense! What doesn't make sense is that we originated from some ooze in a swamp. That would make as much sense as looking at a jet and coming to the conclusion that a series of tornadoes went through a junk yard and tossed enough parts around to assemble that jet.
Click to expand...

This statement alones tell me you have absolutely no clue as to what you are talking about. You are so ridiculously wrong on this that it really makes me wonder is you are talking out of your behind on everything else. First off, evolution and abiogenesis are two completely different things. The "primordial ooze" has nonething to do with evolution. Evolutionary theory concerns itself with what happened after life started. The issue of how life started in the first place is a whole different question. The simple fact is nobody knows how life started, the universe began, etc...but it doesn't mean we should consult a book written by iron-age, superstitious primitives for the answer.

Second, your last sentence illustrates a striking misunderstanding of what evolution is. I don't know, maybe you subscribe to the intelligent design nonsense, this seems to be one of their big arguments. Nonething is postulated about parts lying around everywhere that were assembled at random. The theory argues that all complex life systems evolved from simple to complex, not from spare parts to complex. Evolutionary theory simply postulates that random gene mutations are ordered by natural environmental selection criteria, creating new beneficial traits and ultimately new species.
 
#85
#85
rjd970 said:
I have no reason to believe Palin will not do these same things IF she ever sits in the oval office (you seem to be missing all my "if's" in previous posts).

This is the weakest link of your argument - she has demonstrated over 9 years that she's not injecting her religious views into policy but somehow that would magically change if she became VPOTUS.


You seem to me like you simply don't like anybody questioning the religious views of anybody running for office. I think it should be scrutinized more than it has been, for all the candidates. If somebody believes the earth was created in the year 4008 b.c., then it should be considered before we vest them with the power of the white house.
Click to expand...

It's not that you can't question religious views - go ahead. I think most of us are reacting to your inability to believe (and look at her history) that she might be able to separate personal beliefs from policy decisions. I guess her record has less weight then your inherent bias here.
 
#86
#86
volinbham said:
It's not that you can't question religious views - go ahead. I think most of us are reacting to your inability to believe (and look at her history) that she might be able to separate personal beliefs from policy decisions. I guess her record has less weight then your inherent bias here.
Click to expand...

We have a winner.....

:eek:k:
 
#87
#87
BigPapaVol said:
The inexperience argument is overplayed, but it continues to be played re Palin and avoided re Obama. She's the governor of a state today, yet you overlooked it. That's more relevant experience than Obama has had in his entire background. It might not be national security issues, but it is exec experience.

There is nothing that says past experience means anything, but it's what we have to go on. There is nothing else from which to evaluate Obama's positions and pronouncements.
Click to expand...


We seem to be debating the merits of experience vs. judgement. You concede the fact that nothing says past experience means anything, then disregard the other qualities other than experience he's shown in past judgement on foreign policy and the intelligence factor as irrelevant.

Obama doesn't have the experience, I am not downplaying that, I am just saying your argument doesn't make sense. You say experience is not the best indicator, then use it as the sole criteria for Obama's qualifications.
 
#88
#88
volinbham said:
It's not that you can't question religious views - go ahead. I think most of us are reacting to your inability to believe (and look at her history) that she might be able to separate personal beliefs from policy decisions. I guess her record has less weight then your inherent bias here.
Click to expand...

There is nonething to believe that Bush would do the same thing with his record as Governor, yet he used his first veto on a stem cell bill precisely on religious grounds. 75% of Americans and the scientific community agreed with this bill, but God trumps all. Everything Bush said during his campaigns are the same things Palin is saying now. Without the Dover decision, there is nonething to believe that she would have stood in the way of crationism being taught right along side evolution in science classrooms across Alaska. Her publicly declared stance changed after-the-fact.

The rhetoric is what's scary, if her record was as scary she wouldn't have ever been nominated in the first place.
 
Last edited:
#89
#89
rjd970 said:
Your first sentence is a misnomer, and your second sentence is patently false.

Everything (well almost) in science is based on theories. Gravity is a theory. Karl Popper said concerning certain theories regarded as fact, "we never really prove a theory right, we just merely fail to prove it wrong." That is the way science works, and that is the way evolution is viewed. 180 years of independent scientific verification by things Darwin could have known nonething about (modern genetic theory, DNA, biochemistry, etc...) has confirmed the basics of the theory, namely the principles of natural selection and beneficial gene adaptations. There is still a debate on certain mechanisms and processes concerning how the theory works, but there is little to no doubt that the overarching theory of evolution by natural selection is dead-on accurate.



This statement alones tell me you have absolutely no clue as to what you are talking about. You are so ridiculously wrong on this that it really makes me wonder is you are talking out of your behind on everything else. First off, evolution and abiogenesis are two completely different things. The "primordial ooze" has nonething to do with evolution. Evolutionary theory concerns itself with what happened after life started. The issue of how life started in the first place is a whole different question. The simple fact is nobody knows how life started, the universe began, etc...but it doesn't mean we should consult a book written by iron-age, superstitious primitives for the answer.

Second, your last sentence illustrates a striking misunderstanding of what evolution is. I don't know, maybe you subscribe to the intelligent design nonsense, this seems to be one of their big arguments. Nonething is postulated about parts lying around everywhere that were assembled at random. The theory argues that all complex life systems evolved from simple to complex, not from spare parts to complex. Evolutionary theory simply postulates that random gene mutations are ordered by natural environmental selection criteria, creating new beneficial traits and ultimately new species.
Click to expand...
To say that humanity, as compared to every other animal species, is not divine is simply ignorant, though.

While the creation stories in the Bible were not ever meant to be taken literally, they are fully meant to be taken as truth. Man, and the ancestor of today's man, has always been made in the image and likeness of God. The human link, back to the earliest caves that have been discovered, has had an appreciation for logic and art that not a single other species has ever demonstrated.

When a community of ape's gathers together to paint a mural on the side of a cave or processes wine, then I might begin to pay attention to any argument that the human past is linked to anything other than more humans or a Divinity.
 
#90
#90
rjd970 said:
There is nonething to believe that Bush would do the same thing with his record as Governor, yet he used his first veto on a stem cell bill precisely on religious grounds. 75% of Americans and the scientific community agreed with this bill, but God trumps all. Everything Bush said during his campaigns are the same things Palin is saying now. Without the Dover decision, there is nonething to believe that she would have stood in the way of crationism being taught right along side evolution in science classrooms across Alaska. Her publicly declared stance changed after-the-fact.

The rhetoric is what's scary, if her record was as scary she wouldn't have ever been nominated in the first place.
Click to expand...

Mercy, in short, you hate conservatives and you really really really really really really really really really
really really really really really really really really really
really really really really really really really really really
really really really really really really really really really
really really really really really really really really really
really really really really really really really really really
really really really really really really really really really
really really really really really really really really really
really really really really really really really really really
hate people of faith?
 
#91
#91
rjd970 said:
Your first sentence is a misnomer, and your second sentence is patently false.

Everything (well almost) in science is based on theories. Gravity is a theory. Karl Popper said concerning certain theories regarded as fact, "we never really prove a theory right, we just merely fail to prove it wrong." That is the way science works, and that is the way evolution is viewed. 180 years of independent scientific verification by things Darwin could have known nonething about (modern genetic theory, DNA, biochemistry, etc...) has confirmed the basics of the theory, namely the principles of natural selection and beneficial gene adaptations. There is still a debate on certain mechanisms and processes concerning how the theory works, but there is little to no doubt that the overarching theory of evolution by natural selection is dead-on accurate.



This statement alones tell me you have absolutely no clue as to what you are talking about. You are so ridiculously wrong on this that it really makes me wonder is you are talking out of your behind on everything else. First off, evolution and abiogenesis are two completely different things. The "primordial ooze" has nonething to do with evolution. Evolutionary theory concerns itself with what happened after life started. The issue of how life started in the first place is a whole different question. The simple fact is nobody knows how life started, the universe began, etc...but it doesn't mean we should consult a book written by iron-age, superstitious primitives for the answer.

Second, your last sentence illustrates a striking misunderstanding of what evolution is. I don't know, maybe you subscribe to the intelligent design nonsense, this seems to be one of their big arguments. Nonething is postulated about parts lying around everywhere that were assembled at random. The theory argues that all complex life systems evolved from simple to complex, not from spare parts to complex. Evolutionary theory simply postulates that random gene mutations are ordered by natural environmental selection criteria, creating new beneficial traits and ultimately new species.
Click to expand...
My statement about the jet was meant to be taken as sarcastic. I am aware of the basic theory about evolution and do believe it has merit.

If science is willing to accept as fact something that has so many holes in it then I will certainly not put my faith in it completely. Do I believe we share a common ancestor with apes? Yes, I think we do, can I resolve that in the context of my faith? Yes, I can.

I do believe in intelligent design. There are way too many "coincidences" in science that are just a little too convenient for me to ignore.

These iron age superstitious primitives as you put it were responsible for structures that we still have trouble grasping. I would submit to you they were not nearly as primitive as you think. And yes, you are correct we do not know what started the universe as we know it, and while you say we shouldn't consult a book written by our ancestors does that mean that science tells us we should discredit it?
 
#92
#92
Evolution debates are painful and boring, but the severe lack of transitional species is a problem.
 
#93
#93
rjd970 said:
We seem to be debating the merits of experience vs. judgement. You concede the fact that nothing says past experience means anything, then disregard the other qualities other than experience he's shown in past judgement on foreign policy and the intelligence factor as irrelevant.

Obama doesn't have the experience, I am not downplaying that, I am just saying your argument doesn't make sense. You say experience is not the best indicator, then use it as the sole criteria for Obama's qualifications.
Click to expand...
But I think he was dead wrong on Iraq, based upon the information in front of him. 95% of other senators agreed with that point. He was simply making a political statement for future campaign purposes. Hence, I don't think any of it is relevant.

I didn't say it isn't the best indicator. I said it isn't necessarily an indicator of anything, but that it is unequivocally what we have to use in making our judgments.

My view of Obama's qualifications is that he is educated (doesn't really matter, good and bad were educated and not), he will say what people want to hear with no regard for reality, he is taking advantage of an awful predecessor to help make is neo socialist thing work and his congressional time at the state and national level is weak at best.
 
#94
#94
rjd970 said:
There is nonething to believe that Bush would do the same thing with his record as Governor, yet he used his first veto on a stem cell bill precisely on religious grounds. 75% of Americans and the scientific community agreed with this bill, but God trumps all. Everything Bush said during his campaigns are the same things Palin is saying now. Without the Dover decision, there is nonething to believe that she would have stood in the way of crationism being taught right along side evolution in science classrooms across Alaska. Her publicly declared stance changed after-the-fact.
Click to expand...
what does Bush have to do with this conversation, other than the fact that Palin likely has one?
 
#95
#95
KB5252
If science is willing to accept as fact something that has so many holes in it then I will certainly not put my faith in it completely. Do I believe we share a common ancestor with apes? Yes, I think we do, can I resolve that in the context of my faith? Yes, I can
Click to expand...

That is reasonable, but it is still a matter of weighing the evidence. Is it true that there is a possiblity that genes have nonething to do with physical traits? Sure, I suppose so....antything is possible. But if they don't, then mother nature sure has a lot of explaining to do. The real question should be what are the chances that the two have absolutely nonething whatsoever to do with each other? It is effectively zero. Is it true that there are holes in the specifics of the theory? Sure, but the mounds of data that have accumulated over the last 180 years in its favor far outweighs the argument that divine books and magical thinking will will provide a better answer.

If you find there is a way to accept that within the context of your faith, then I am happy for you.
 
#96
#96
rjd970 said:
There is nonething to believe that Bush would do the same thing with his record as Governor, yet he used his first veto on a stem cell bill precisely on religious grounds. 75% of Americans and the scientific community agreed with this bill, but God trumps all.
Click to expand...
In this respect, I will side with God. Embryonic stem-cell research is absolutely horrific. What is the difference between harvesting embryonic stem cells (killing babies) and using concentration camp prisoners as guinea pigs for science???
 
#97
#97
BigPapaVol said:
what does Bush have to do with this conversation, other than the fact that Palin likely has one?
Click to expand...

Haha.....nice.

I was just trying to give an example of someone that had no previous record of religious ideology driving policy, yet made decisions based on personaly religous faith after taking office that impacted policy...since this is the percieved weakness of my argument.
 
#98
#98
rjd970 said:
Haha.....nice.

I was just trying to give an example of someone that had no previous record of religious ideology driving policy, yet made decisions based on personaly religous faith after taking office that impacted policy...since this is the percieved weakness of my argument.
Click to expand...

You have it all wrong..... the weakness of your argument is that you believe government is able to fix something.....

:hi:
 
#99
#99
rjd970 said:
Haha.....nice.

I was just trying to give an example of someone that had no previous record of religious ideology driving policy, yet made decisions based on personaly religous faith after taking office that impacted policy...since this is the percieved weakness of my argument.
Click to expand...
I could site a historical example of almost anything, but that doesn't mean that someone who uses the same brand of toothpaste will do the same thing.
 
#100
#100
rjd970 said:
That is reasonable, but it is still a matter of weighing the evidence. Is it true that there is a possiblity that genes have nonething to do with physical traits? Sure, I suppose so....antything is possible. But if they don't, then mother nature sure has a lot of explaining to do. The real question should be what are the chances that the two have absolutely nonething whatsoever to do with each other? It is effectively zero. Is it true that there are holes in the specifics of the theory? Sure, but the mounds of data that have accumulated over the last 180 years in its favor far outweighs the argument that divine books and magical thinking will will provide a better answer.

If you find there is a way to accept that within the context of your faith, then I am happy for you.
Click to expand...

Why does it have to be a better (or implied different) answer? The answer could very well be one in the same.

You look at it through a "the bible is wrong" mindset, I happen to think science is just starting to peel back the many layers of of something which is completely unfathomable by man, which would be by the name I know God. To believe in God does not make my thoughts any less valid than yours.
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top