OMG, Palin

[grEnAlEins]

Wow, I didn't say any name with my statement.... seeing you objected so fervently, maybe you have a few race issues you need to talk to a proffesional about.

Yes race is an issue for, on the record 5% of voters, off the record I'm sure much higher. I know Obama's record, and I have heard all the "shady" things he did to get elected. "Obama worked as a community organizer and practiced as a civil rights attorney before serving in the Illinois Senate from 1997 to 2004. He taught constitutional law at the University of Chicago Law School from 1992 to 2004: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barack_Obama Now I know people like yourself only want people that think and act like you rights protected....

I know you guys love to talk about "showing up"... Mcsame has not had a vote on the hill sence April, Obama sence June...

You don't have to name anyone in specific. The general insinuation is the issue. You brought about the race issue, not I. Nobody made it a part of this thread until you insinuated that anyone who dare cross Obama does so because he is black. Maybe I read more into it than was intended, but it sounded that way to me. the mere general suggestion of racial motivation is disgusting to me, especially because it is so frivolously thrown around today.

As for suggesting mental help, that is not called for; but, thanks for your caring and consideration in this important issue. It is very mature of you to do such a thing.

Obama has neglected to show up to a vote about 65% of the time since he was a state representative. He is a flake, there is no way around it. When he does vote, he votes "present" much of the time. I take issue with this.

As for your allegation that I do not stand for the rights of those who oppose my opinion, I must again thank you for that. Thanks for trying to make me out to be a lesser person than you, good sir, oh mighty champion of free expression . Let's not make any assumptions about each other If you actually knew me you might not be of that opinion, but because it is unlikely, I think I'll just leave it alone from this point on.

Yes he taught classes on an adjunct basis. Yes he worked at civil rights law firm while serving as a community organizer. So what? That does not suggest that he would be qualified for the Presidency in any way whatsoever.

I am also concerned by your use of quotations around the word shady. Maybe you do not know quite what I am referring to. Also, the fact that he is a close associate of the Strogers should raise some red flags about the content of his character... Just sayin

You seem fixated on "Mcsame" for some reason. I assure you that I do not think that McCain is the ultimate answer to the nation's problems. I don't even want to vote for him. I came into this thread to say that I would kick Palin out of bed after I was done with her, that's it (see above, it is the first on on page 2). That said, I think Obama would be just as bad, if not worse. I am really stuck for someone to vote for here. I vote in a few days (absentee) and cannot figure out what to do. Voting for Bob Barr or another "third" party candidate is a waste IMHO, but I really do not like either ticket. We shall see what happens.

[snoopay700]

Exactly man, both choices suck, but in the end it usually is that way, there haven't been many people in history who i think did a stellar job or those that would be capable of it. I'm really contemplating not even voting, but if i do i cant complain about the problems i figure, but then again no matter who i vote for nothing will get solved. It really sucks, cause i hate both candidates, the guy i wanted no one wanted to vote for in the primaries mainly due to superficial reasons, which sucks because i truly think he would have been great for this country.

[grEnAlEins]

the guy i wanted no one wanted to vote for in the primaries mainly due to superficial reasons, which sucks because i truly think he would have been great for this country.

Are you a Ron Paul fan? If so, me too! I am thinking about writing him in...

The main reason I will be voting will be to keep Lisa Madigan in her place as Illinois' AG. She is doing awesome and will hopefully indict Rod Blagojevich soon. He needs it. This will make two governors in a row! We only need one more to win the game!

[snoopay700]

Are you a Ron Paul fan? If so, me too! I am thinking about writing him in...

The main reason I will be voting will be to keep Lisa Madigan in her place as Illinois' AG. She is doing awesome and will hopefully indict Rod Blagojevich soon. He needs it. This will make two governors in a row! We only need one more to win the game!

Eh, i was until i found out he was a pretty huge racist and there are some other things that i don't agree with, but i do still think he'd be better than these hacks. Actually the guy i wanted was a democrat.

[grEnAlEins]

Eh, i was until i found out he was a pretty huge racist and there are some other things that i don't agree with, but i do still think he'd be better than these hacks. Actually the guy i wanted was a democrat.

While that magazine scandal was a turn off, he did not actually write much of that. He did choose to publish it though, which was poor judgment on his part.

Who were you pulling for if you don't mind my asking? Richardson seemed like a good guy, but I did not really look into him much. Some other Democrats were appealing to me initially too.

[dave p]

Too bad some people are too stupid and would rather just use the term Republican - even though the Republican party is the one revolting to try to stop it and the Democrats seem ready to push it through.

you may think im too stupid, but the fact is, i have been paying attention. a lot of attention. i know what i see. lets call a spade a spade.

[snoopay700]

While that magazine scandal was a turn off, he did not actually write much of that. He did choose to publish it though, which was poor judgment on his part.

Who were you pulling for if you don't mind my asking? Richardson seemed like a good guy, but I did not really look into him much. Some other Democrats were appealing to me initially too.

I was rooting for Kucinich actually, he seemed like he would really do some good, but everyone i talked to said they "didn't want an elf" or something to that extent for president. Plus his wife is a babe .

[grEnAlEins]

I was rooting for Kucinich actually, he seemed like he would really do some good, but everyone i talked to said they "didn't want an elf" or something to that extent for president. Plus his wife is a babe .

Yeah she is . I was not really a fan on Kucinich, but he was not bad at all. It could be, is, and will be worse

[snoopay700]

Yeah she is . I was not really a fan on Kucinich, but he was not bad at all. It could be, is, and will be worse

Yeah, it's going to be a grim 4 years methinks.

[grEnAlEins]

Or maybe eight!

[snoopay700]

Or maybe eight!

god forbid, that would be horrible, dunno if i could stand 16 years of bad administrations.

[edweird]

I took some time to rationalize this out for a bit...

The reason I feel more comfortable with a McCain/Palin win vs Obama/Biden:

First of all, I don't back either for I am fiscally conservative but socially liberal; just wanted to get that out there.

The items that scare me about McCain/Palin, overturn RoeVWade, moar faith based legislation, gutting of sex-ed programs, socially conserv replacement justices, expansion of the evangelical holywar in mideast, creationism in science class, gutting of science funding, and a few others are easily debated/overturned with the constitution and rational discourse. I feel that even if they manage to do all I mentioned it is quite a recoverable position.

However, the Obama/Biden policies(nationalized healthcare, tax increases for the successful and corporations, decreased defense budget etc...) that scare me hinge on socialism and nationalism, which I do not feel we have a legal basis to undo in this country(nothing in the constitution states[outside of "pursuit of happiness" which is admittedly a stretch] that we must have a capitalist economy. So therefore I think the potential hole that this ticket could dig us into is far less recoverable.

thats my opinion on it... If a better option presents itself I may consider it; but as I stated before I might have to vote for the FSM/Cthulhu ticket.

[grEnAlEins]

creationism in science class

There is nothing wrong with this provided it is done correctly. I am a Greek Orthodox; in my religion we have treated both creation and evolution as truth. Creationism (if the biblical explanation is taken exactly for what it is) is fully compatible with the theory of evolution. The only major people who have really not agreed are Catholics (not anymore though) and the south ( ). The Catholics came on board the reasonability train in the last week or so. Also, the Theory of Evolution does not actually specifically rule out Intelligent Design. This is what could have happened happened:

1)God creates heaven and Earth
2)God fills it with stuff
3)Stuff becomes other stuff

or

1)God causes big bang
2)Big bang causes everything which evolves into everything else
3)God and FSM high-five each other because they are both cool and actually completely compatible with each other.

It actually makes as much sense as saying "Something or nothing happened to a bunch of nothing that caused it to create everything which by magic or chance turned into dinosaurs." What you need to do is look at a religion that has at least attempted to stay true to the Bible. Most of them are so far gone that they are scary. Those of us who are part of a religion that holds to the word of the Bible and not the word of the Pope (although on this issue the Catholics have come back out of the dark ages--they see the light... IT BURNS!!) or some nut job preaching on TV are actually fairly reasonable.

[snoopay700]

There is nothing wrong with this provided it is done correctly. I am a Greek Orthodox; in my religion we have treated both creation and evolution as truth. Creationism (if the biblical explanation is taken exactly for what it is) is fully compatible with the theory of evolution. The only major people who have really not agreed are Catholics (not anymore though) and the south ( ). The Catholics came on board the reasonability train in the last week or so. Also, the Theory of Evolution does not actually specifically rule out Intelligent Design. This is what could have happened happened:

1)God creates heaven and Earth
2)God fills it with stuff
3)Stuff becomes other stuff

or

1)God causes big bang
2)Big bang causes everything which evolves into everything else
3)God and FSM high-five each other because they are both cool and actually completely compatible with each other.

It actually makes as much sense as saying "Something or nothing happened to a bunch of nothing that caused it to create everything which by magic or chance turned into dinosaurs." What you need to do is look at a religion that has at least attempted to stay true to the Bible. Most of them are so far gone that they are scary. Those of us who are part of a religion that holds to the word of the Bible and not the word of the Pope (although on this issue the Catholics have come back out of the dark ages--they see the light... IT BURNS!!) or some nut job preaching on TV are actually fairly reasonable.

The problem with teaching it in a science class is there's no science involved in the theory, it's simply faith. I have no problem with it being taught in schools as long as it's treated as something based on faith, not science and fact, especially since they'll likely only tell the christian version.

[grEnAlEins]

The problem with teaching it in a science class is there's no science involved in the theory, it's simply faith. I have no problem with it being taught in schools as long as it's treated as something based on faith, not science and fact, especially since they'll likely only tell the christian version.

There is not really one Christian version per say though. If they teach straight creationism there is a bit of a problem, yes. Evolution should be mandatory to teach, but I think that if creationism can fit in with it then why not present this hybrid as one plausible explaination? I am not advocating teaching only creationism or the hybrid; no intelligent person would. But I think that because at Creationism's foundation is the ability to encompass evolution, why not teach it alongside the idea of a random creation along with evolution?