BF2S Forums Sarah Palin

Palin trashed herself, there is nothing else to say.

Apart from that, in elections each side trashes the other - and you're getting excited about one side trashing the other.

AussieReaper wrote:

lowing wrote:

AussieReaper wrote:

You asked for a retarded Sarah reason, you were given one. Why shift the goal posts cause you're losing?

I didn't. I asked if that was the best you got? Apparently it is. Her faith is not a deal breaker for me, obviously it is scandalous enough for you however. lol

It isn't scandalous at all. It is retarded to think that creationism is real and that creationism should be taught in biology classes in highschools.

Sorry if that is a lol to you, but to me, it is very serious.

over every other issue? Again, If your candidate had all the right answers for you EXCEPT creationism, they would loose your vote?

Dilbert_X wrote:

Palin trashed herself, there is nothing else to say.

Apart from that, in elections each side trashes the other - and you're getting excited about one side trashing the other.

who's getting excited?

Jaekus wrote:

lowing wrote:

Jaekus wrote:

Yes, that's exactly what I'm saying. Everyone wants to watch the dumb bimbo try to play politics, because it is entertaining.

dumb bimbo? Again, every time the left tries to destroy her, like the Paul revere thing, they are the ones that look like dumb bimbos. Palin hasn't had any REAL scandal or political blunder for the left to sink their teeth into. That is why they go after her wardrobe or her haircut. Lets be honest about that.

The only things I've really noticed the media and other sides of politics attack her for was some of the dumb things she said during the election.

Well then, you have missed the attacks on her clothes, her hair, her kids, her grandkids, etc.... Funny everything except what is relevant to an election.

Well it seems you missed a lot of the stupid things she said during the election, because that was the attention of the media around the world.

Jaekus wrote:

lowing wrote:

AussieReaper wrote:

It isn't scandalous at all. It is retarded to think that creationism is real and that creationism should be taught in biology classes in highschools.

Sorry if that is a lol to you, but to me, it is very serious.

over every other issue? Again, If your candidate had all the right answers for you EXCEPT creationism, they would loose your vote?

What you are suggesting is unlikely to ever happen, because all their other policies would come into line with their hardcore religious beliefs. Which means merging of church and state, not separation.

simple question, what is the priority of the issues that matter to you most? If your candidate agreed with you on them except creationism, you would walk away from them?

You just said Obama who is a supposed man of faith, does not believe creationism should be taught in schools, so their "hardcore religious beliefs", does not necessarily need to come into play with their politics.

lowing wrote:

Jaekus wrote:

lowing wrote:

over every other issue? Again, If your candidate had all the right answers for you EXCEPT creationism, they would loose your vote?

What you are suggesting is unlikely to ever happen, because all their other policies would come into line with their hardcore religious beliefs. Which means merging of church and state, not separation.

simple question, what is the priority of the issues that matter to you most? If your candidate agreed with you on them except creationism, you would walk away from them?

You just said Obama who is a supposed man of faith, does not believe creationism should be taught in schools, so their "hardcore religious beliefs", does not necessarily need to come into play with their politics.

I said nothing about Obama.

If a candidate believes in creationism then that ties in with other beliefs that affect their policies, policies I would then disagree with. You can hypothesize all you like but it simply doesn't happen - their stance would be too contradictory to their party.

Jaekus wrote:

lowing wrote:

Jaekus wrote:

What you are suggesting is unlikely to ever happen, because all their other policies would come into line with their hardcore religious beliefs. Which means merging of church and state, not separation.

simple question, what is the priority of the issues that matter to you most? If your candidate agreed with you on them except creationism, you would walk away from them?

You just said Obama who is a supposed man of faith, does not believe creationism should be taught in schools, so their "hardcore religious beliefs", does not necessarily need to come into play with their politics.

I said nothing about Obama.

If a candidate believes in creationism then that ties in with other beliefs that affect their policies, policies I would then disagree with. You can hypothesize all you like but it simply doesn't happen - their stance would be too contradictory to their party.

Sorry, Aussie mentioned Obama. He is a man of faith however, yet, hid faith is not an issue. Based on your statement, how could this be?

Jaekus wrote:

lowing wrote:

Jaekus wrote:

I said nothing about Obama.

If a candidate believes in creationism then that ties in with other beliefs that affect their policies, policies I would then disagree with. You can hypothesize all you like but it simply doesn't happen - their stance would be too contradictory to their party.

Sorry, Aussie mentioned Obama. He is a man of faith however, yet, hid faith is not an issue. Based on your statement, how could this be?

Aussie has already covered this too.
It's not the faith, it's the pushing of faith into the classroom.
I'm sure you'd be singing a different tune if Palin was a Muslim and wanted the Qu'ran taught in biology class.

Also, his faith is not an issue because he never made it one. And look at the right wingers saying he's a Muslim?

Goes both ways.

I have acknowledged what Aussie has said, I then asked if the issue of creationism over evolution was the deal breaker over issues like the economy, wars, foreign policy etc.... He said it was not realistic because their faith would spill over into the other issues. So which is it? Does a candidates faith spill over or not? As I see it, a persons faith does not mean it will transcend into their political philosophy, so it is wrong to suggest it does.

Actually I have no problem teaching the EXISTENCE of religion in school as an influencing factor in history and current events, and yes that would include Islam

For me on lowing's creationism question, yes. If I agreed with a candidate on every issue but that candidate swore that the earth and all it's creatures were made 6000 years ago by an invisible spaceman I would not vote for them ever. The type of person who would believe in creationism despite all the evidence to the contrary and the lack of any evidence for is one I wouldn't elect.

This is a hypothetical and I strongly doubt that somone who believed in creationism would share even the majority of my political beliefs. But if this person did exist, yeah I wouldn't vote for them.

But Palin's not even that. She's a creationist and she wants this taught as science. The fact that she's a creationist is bad enough, the fact she wants it taught as a plausable scientific theory is inexcusable.

We've been on creationism for a while though and it's far from the only thing Palin has proven herself to be a retard on.

Let's see:
- She's a creationist and thinks this should be taught in schools, (we've touched on this.)
- She thinks humans and dinosaurs coexisted.
- She couldn't name a founding father other than George Washington.
- She has in the past partaken in faith healing which is close to bat-shit retarded as you can get.
- She considers Africa a country.
- To add hilarity to this she also referred to South Africa as a continent.
- She believes abstintance should be taught instead of proper sex education despite the knowledge of how well that turned out for her daughter.
- She believes the second coming of Christ and the Rapture will happen in her lifetime - this puts her in league with the people who were oh-so-disappointed late last month.
- After becoming the Republican VP candidate she made it quite clear she didn't know what the job of a VP is.
- She can't name a newspaper she reads.
- She didn't know the difference betwen North and South Korea, ("We must stand with our North Korean allies".)
- She couldn't name any Supreme Court cases other than Roe v Wade.
- Lastly, (meaning the last thing I'm going to mention,) as mayor of Wasilla she tried to ban books from the local library, (books like A Clockwork Orange, Brave New World, the Harry Potter series, Tom Sawyer, Huckleberry Finn, Lord of the Flies, Of Mice and Men, One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest, Slaughterhouse Five, The Catcher in the Rye, The Grapes of Wrath, The Merchant of Venice and a number of other Shakespeare works, To Kill A Mockingbird and many many more.)

This last one more than anything else speaks to the type of person Palin is - but coupled with things like the creationist thing, the lack of knowledge about the judiciary, the lack of knowlege about geography, the irrational faith, (and yes I very much hold that as a negative,) the lack of anything that would suggest she has the tiniest intellectual streak. Politicians make gaffs, they have brainfarts but Palin is something else entirely.

This is a retard. I say this knowing full well that she'd probably get falsely offended by the word because of her down syndrome son; to which I would respond I would never call Trig Palin a retard. I would call Sarah Palin one.

Ty wrote:

For me on lowing's creationism question, yes. If I agreed with a candidate on every issue but that candidate swore that the earth and all it's creatures were made 6000 years ago by an invisible spaceman I would not vote for them ever. The type of person who would believe in creationism despite all the evidence to the contrary is one I wouldn't elect.

This is a hypothetical and I strongly doubt that somone who believed in creationism would share even the majority of my political beliefs. But if this person did exist, yeah I wouldn't vote for them.

But Palin's not even that. She's a creationist and she wants this taught as science. The fact that she's a creationist is bad enough, the fact she wants it taught as a plausable scientific theory is inexcusable.

We've been on creationism for a while though and it's far from the only thing Palin has proven herself to be a retard on.

Let's see:
- She's a creationist and thinks this should be taught in schools, (we've touched on this.)
- She thinks humans and dinosaurs coexisted.
- She couldn't name a founding father other than George Washington.
- She has in the past partaken in faith healing which is close to bat-shit retarded as you can get.
- She considers Africa a country.
- To add hilarity to this she also referred to South Africa as a continent.
- She believes abstintance should be taught instead of proper sex education despite the knowledge of how well that turned out for her daughter.
- She believes the second coming of Christ and the Rapture will happen in her lifetime - this puts her in league with the people who were oh-so-disappointed late last month.
- After becoming the Republican VP candidate she made it quite clear she didn't know what the job of a VP is.
- She can't name a newspaper she reads.
- She didn't know the difference betwen North and South Korea, ("We must stand with our North Korean allies".)
- She couldn't name any Supreme Court cases other than Roe v Wade.
- Lastly, (meaning the last thing I'm going to mention,) as mayor of Wasilla she tried to ban books from the local library, (books like A Clockwork Orange, Brave New World, the Harry Potter series, Tom Sawyer, Huckleberry Finn, Lord of the Flies, Of Mice and Men, One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest, Slaughterhouse Five, The Catcher in the Rye, The Grapes of Wrath, The Merchant of Venice and a number of other Shakespeare works, To Kill A Mockingbird and many many more.)

This last one more than anything else speaks to the type of person Palin is - but coupled with things like the creationist thing, the lack of knowledge about the judiciary, the lack of knowlege about geography, the irrational faith, (and yes I very much hold that as a negative,) the lack of anything that would suggest she has the tiniest intellectual streak. Politicians make gaffs, they have brainfarts but Palin is something else entirely.

This is a retard. I say this knowing full well that she'd probably get falsely offended by the word because of her down syndrome son; to which I would respond I would never call Trig Palin a retard. I would call Sarah Palin one.

Good points, shall we now review Obama's "retarded" credentials? point is, every politician, based on your examples, could be considered a "retard". Obama thinks there are 57 states and the Marine Corps is now the Marine "Corpse"  are a few examples. yet, where are all the "retard" comments. I am not hearing you say you would not vote for Obama because of things like these.

Last edited by lowing (2011-06-19 05:34:13)

Jaekus wrote:

lowing wrote:

Jaekus wrote:

Religious studies in themselves I have no problem with. You seem to be missing the point though. What Aussie (and I) are against is treaching creationism as FACT. Something Palin wants.

I understand that. and my question is, would the issue of creationism be the deal breaker if your candidate satisfied your concerns over all other issues?

Yes.

Ty summed it up most eloquently here, so I'll quote him instead of rehashing something better said than what I would have written.

Ty wrote:

For me on lowing's creationism question, yes. If I agreed with a candidate on every issue but that candidate swore that the earth and all it's creatures were made 6000 years ago by an invisible spaceman I would not vote for them ever. The type of person who would believe in creationism despite all the evidence to the contrary and the lack of any evidence for is one I wouldn't elect.

This is a hypothetical and I strongly doubt that somone who believed in creationism would share even the majority of my political beliefs. But if this person did exist, yeah I wouldn't vote for them.

A solid answer, thank you.

I gotta say though, considering all the other issues, creationism is pretty far down on my list of concerns. If a person had a solid answer for our economy as an example, I wouldn't give a shit if they prayed in school.

It is funny though, they save the prayers for AFTER you are thrown in jail. Then it is ok.

Last edited by lowing (2011-06-19 05:38:56)

lowing wrote:

I have acknowledged what Aussie has said, I then asked if the issue of creationism over evolution was the deal breaker over issues like the economy, wars, foreign policy

I wouldn't vote for them any more than I'd vote for a scientologist.

If someone is unthinking and extreme on one issue chances are they'll be unthinking and extreme on important issues.