BF2S Forums Sarah Palin

Jaekus wrote:

13rin wrote:

^maybe or maybe not, but lowing has and excellent point.

Crying about people's opinions is classed as having a good point these days? Deary me.

Don't forgot to gloss over the fact that people from both sides of the political fence are criticising Palin here.

I didn't see any 'crying', more of an observation pointing out the hypocrisy and as Dill illustrated the straw man.  I haven't glossed anything over.  I'm amazed that this thread has gone this far.  Palin really bothers people.  She's polarizing and has endured and overcome a vicious media campaign against her.  I still believe she'd would have made a better VP than Biden, and she shouldn't run for President.

I'd rather have somebody that 'might push the button' opposed to some bozo that flatly rejects the notion (and broadcasts it for all enemies to hear).

Jay wrote:

War Man wrote:

Jay wrote:

Because she's not a brainwashed bible thumper that thinks the world is 5000 years old? She was raised catholic, it doesnt mean it dominates every facet of her life. One day you will realize what a tiny minority people like you and your parents really are. Its going to make you a very angry person.

She still is a creationist though is she not? You said you can't stomach creationists, referring to them all in general.

Ummm... no. Most Christians tend to focus on the new testament, not the old. Really, it's only a tiny minority of uneducated hicks that take the bible literally and believe in creationism...

Besides, she goes to mass on Christmas. I would never use religious as a word to describe her. She simply wants a white wedding in a church because it's traditional. I can live with it for a day.

You saying Christian scientists are uneducated hicks?

13rin wrote:

I'd rather have somebody that 'might push the button' opposed to some bozo that flatly rejects the notion (and broadcasts it for all enemies to hear).

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FFuhXQe0 … re=related

Wow, you're really scared aren't you?

lowing wrote:

FEOS wrote:

lowing wrote:

If it isn't the issue alone and you think she is "retard" then surely there is something with a little more bite to it to use as an example of her retardation. It is a personal belief, not her national policy. Considering the shit Obama has done, in real life, it is a benign belief that dos not affect anything, and you wanna claim it is more dangerous than Obama's ACTUAL policies and plans. That is what I dispute.

Point to where I used the words "belief" or "retarded."

I am referring to the argument in this thread, in general, that Palin is a retard and stupid and unfit because she believes in creationism and how that could start WW3 compared to the sludge washington is buried in now, in reality.

Then kindly address what I posted.

Jaekus wrote:

lowing wrote:

I mean c'mon, this board spent YEARS trashing Bush for absolutely everything under the sun. Obama is a continuation of those exact same polices yet he gets a pass and is largely ignored or forgiven or defended by those same people. Palin comes along and has literally done nothing, yet now you turn the blow torch toward her instead of Obama because of shit SHE MIGHT do? A little to obvious as to your motives folks. Conveniently we are not talking about ethics or morality or corruption in Washington, hell no, the real threat is Palin, and what she might do because she believes in creationism.

You are an odd fellow.

As 13rin said...lowing makes an excellent point regarding the hypocrisy expressed by many here.

I think an honest, objective assessment would show that what lowing is pointing out above is true, in large part.

lowing wrote:

FEOS wrote:

lowing wrote:

I am referring to the argument in this thread, in general, that Palin is a retard and stupid and unfit because she believes in creationism and how that could start WW3 compared to the sludge washington is buried in now, in reality.

Then kindly address what I posted.

Well I thought I did FEOS, it is "retarded" to call someone "retarded" for their thoughts on creationism. It has no bearing on her interactions within society or people under her charge. It is not something that came into play as a governor and their is no reason to think it is something that would be a factor in foreign policy. Quite frankly, I think it is a lack of anything real to bitch about Palin, so add creationism to the list of shit like her clothes her hair and her glasses and her kids.

there are people that believe in scientology affluent people well educated people and extremely accomplished people. Retarded is not the word to describe them either.

Soooo...you're not going to address what I posted? Again, I posted nothing about her being "retarded" because of her "beliefs."

For reference:

I wrote:

Lowing, I think the issue is not that she is a creationist alone. The issue is that she lacks critical thinking skills. To say something like "humans and dinosaurs coexisted" or to even insinuate such a thing--when there is zero evidence to support such a statement and loads of evidence to contradict it--should give one pause when considering her thought processes in general.

That is not to say that Obama is a great alternative, based on his proven track record in office. Tbh, if it were between her and Obama, I'd be pulling hard for a third party candidate...any third party candidate.

So. One more time: that "for instance" was one thing offered up as evidence showing concern over her decision-making in general. Some may choose to mock her because of her beliefs. I find that intellectually weak and shallow. My concern--as stated above--is that she is not displaying the critical thinking ability I need to see in a chief executive and commander in chief. That doesn't mean she's a bad person. That doesn't mean she's mentally deficient, either. It simply means she doesn't have the skillset necessary for the job.

Lacking critical thinking skills =/= "retarded"

An example of someone believing in something that has loads of scientific evidence against the position taken--such as humans and dinosaurs coexisting--is an example of flawed critical thinking skills. Not a problem with her belief in creationism. Creationism does not teach that man and dinosaurs lived simultaneously. Creationism teaches that God created the universe. There is a difference between those two positions, and that difference is empirical evidence and critical thinking. To fault her ability on the latter does not in any way fault her belief in creationism writ large.

Does that sufficiently explain what you're missing?

War Man wrote:

Darwinism and creationism are 2 different theories that neither can really be proven.

wrong wrong so fucking wrong

The theory of evolution has a metric shitton of evidence supporting it. Creationism is from the get-go proven false because the Earth is much much older than 6000 years.

Hurricane2k9 wrote:

War Man wrote:

Darwinism and creationism are 2 different theories that neither can really be proven.

wrong wrong so fucking wrong

The theory of evolution has a metric shitton of evidence supporting it. Creationism is from the get-go proven false because the Earth is much much older than 6000 years.

8000-10000 years for me. More like your scientists try to make the facts fit the theory than the theory fit the facts. Come up with random bullshit theories and accept them as fact automatically. The coelacanth fish is an example, you guys claimed it was the first amphibian ancestor and immediately accepted it as fact, it turned out to actually be a deep sea fish when it was discovered. You guys, also said the coelacanth was extinct too before it was discovered.

Last edited by War Man (2011-06-21 19:05:35)

Hurricane2k9 wrote:

lol, ignoring the fact that that is just not true, how is that any different than you automatically accepting the teachings of a novel as fact?

And that's bad science. Good science is skeptical, and needs to be supported by scientific findings (found using the scientific method) before being accepted as fact.

Not believing in evolution is like not believing in gravity, frankly.

Believing in evolution is like believing lizard people exist on Earth. In fact, why aren't there more diverse species that exist. Why do we humans exist when we are weak physically compared to say... a gorilla. How come we exist still when natural selection would of taken us when we were vulnerable and without technology? I want fucking dragons and lizard people.

Last edited by War Man (2011-06-21 19:09:32)

FEOS wrote:

Looks like someone needs to read about the theory of evolution, then.

Maybe to better understand your views, but not accept them as fact 'cause I feel there'd be more diverse species that'd exist. Better forms of humans that are far superior than us too.

War Man wrote:

Hurricane2k9 wrote:

lol, ignoring the fact that that is just not true, how is that any different than you automatically accepting the teachings of a novel as fact?

And that's bad science. Good science is skeptical, and needs to be supported by scientific findings (found using the scientific method) before being accepted as fact.

Not believing in evolution is like not believing in gravity, frankly.

Believing in evolution is like believing lizard people exist on Earth. In fact, why aren't there more diverse species that exist. Why do we humans exist when we are weak physically compared to say... a gorilla. How come we exist still when natural selection would of taken us when we were vulnerable and without technology? I want fucking dragons and lizard people.