True Stupidity: Sarah Palin On Evolution

[T.A.M.]

As an outsider who was very pleased when Obama took office, i will comment on what was good and bad from my perspective...

1. hatred of America, at least a sense of it, seemed to decrease when he was elected.
2. he helped save the usa, and probably the world, from entering another depression.
3. he introduced an energy bill.
4. he introduced wall street reform.
5. He introduced health care reform.
6. he has made good on his promise to get troops out of iraq.

Bad...
1. he tried to negotiate with the party of NO.
2. he took too center an opening stance on many of the above issues, rather then starting far left and moving to the center. As a result, the above reforms are severely watered down.

The rest is all political whining with little factual info to back it up.

TAM

 

[T.A.M.]

Oh, and concerning who is better able to run the usa....

As an outsider, if i had to choose between an intellectual lightweight with no want or desire to learn things outside of alaska with 2 years experience as governor, versus someone with intellectual prowess, and health intellectual curiosity who was a state senator and us senator, i would choose the latter...in a heart beat.

TAM

 

[Towlie]

Those are great points in your post #101, TAM.

For me, the really frustrating consequence of being unsatisfied with Barak Obama's pandering to conservatives (or "trying to pet the snake", as I call it) is that in typical opinion polls, people who regard him as too far to the right are grouped with those who regard him as too far to the left, and together they're represented as the unsatisfied group who outnumber the few who regard him as "just right." Thus, his performance rating falls below 50%. It's what I call the "Goldilocks Fallacy."

 

[T.A.M.]

He suffered from something more then all I have mentioned, something which many of us are to blame for, though most blame goes to the USA people....MESSIAH SYNDROME.

Now I am not sure if that is a real syndrome or effect, but I will call it that. The expectations based on the hyperbole and grandstanding speeches he made and the need for change that people longed for, simply made it too high a mountain to climb.

I think the only way he was not going to let people down, compared to what they expected of him, was if he did ALL of the following in his first 2 years.

1. Cured Cancer.
2. Solved the middle east crisis.
3. Caught Osama bin Laden
4. Created a new form of renewable energy
5. Got rid of "Dont ask dont tell"
6. Walked on water

TAM

 

[Fast Eddie B]

I thought Dan Carlin shed light on another reason to be disappointed with Obama here:

http://www.dancarlin.com/disp.php/csarchive/Show-185---False-Advertising/Obama-Bush-rights

Carlin is hardly a conservative - he bashed Bush unmercifully and had hopes for Obama.

So it goes.

 

[Snide]

At the risk of repeating myself (and committing a logical fallacy)...

...who is more qualified to run a country - someone who has run a state or someone who has run, well...nothing.

The problem with this over-used philosophy is the false dilemma fallacy as you seemed to admit to. If all you knew about either candidate was the above bit, then sure, you'd take your chances on the former. (Never mind that Obama actually ran more than "nothing.") But we had so much more to go by, fortunately.

Again, I sat out the last election cycle. It worried me to have Palin and her religious views and lack of knowledge "a heartbeat away" and McCain seemed like he would represent four more years of tired and failed policies.

But Obama scared me with his talk of redistributing wealth as "only fair". His affiliations also concerned me. There seemed to be a very left-wing philosophy being barely contained when he spoke, and it reared its ugly (to me) head from time to time in unguarded comments.

Still, I was glad, and hopeful, and even proud when Obama won. I wanted to give "Hope" and "Change" a chance. So far, I've been pretty disappointed pretty much down the line*.

But That's Just Me™!


*I'm pretty conservative fiscally, but I think this country needs either a "public option" for health care (Medicare buy-in option for everyone), or even a "single payer" system done right. Instead, with a democratic majority in both houses, all we got was a monstrosity of a health care bill that will seem to do just cover more people, but at unconstrained and possibly unaffordable rates.

Good, well-reasoned thoughts.

 

[Snide]

He suffered from something more then all I have mentioned, something which many of us are to blame for, though most blame goes to the USA people....MESSIAH SYNDROME.

Now I am not sure if that is a real syndrome or effect, but I will call it that. The expectations based on the hyperbole and grandstanding speeches he made and the need for change that people longed for, simply made it too high a mountain to climb.

I think the only way he was not going to let people down, compared to what they expected of him, was if he did ALL of the following in his first 2 years.

1. Cured Cancer.
2. Solved the middle east crisis.
3. Caught Osama bin Laden
4. Created a new form of renewable energy
5. Got rid of "Dont ask dont tell"
6. Walked on water

TAM

7. Held Jesus's hand while doing #6. Without that, plenty will believe he is the son of Satan.

 

[Towlie]

The expectations based on the hyperbole and grandstanding speeches he made and the need for change that people longed for, simply made it too high a mountain to climb.

And "mountain" is a metaphor for the Republican Party. If it wasn't for them there would be no "mountain" to climb and our hopes would be realized.

 

[T.A.M.]

Towlie,

I agree to a degree. I am an outsider from Canada, but I am a liberal and a big fan of the DEM party. That said, and agreeing that the PARTY OF NO, was a huge factor, Obama also made the mistake, as I mentioned earlier, of starting too near the center at the beginning of every reform, every negotiation. In an effort to be bipartisan (or a misbelief that he was so skilled he above all could win them over), he began negotiations in the middle, so the end result was a right of center bill or reform.

TAM

 

[BenBurch]

What i find astounding is that someone with apparent smarts would try to defend someone with so little qualification (to do the job right) as palin. There are so many rep leaders who i can see legitimacy in defending...but palin? Really?

TAM

Judy Topinka from Illinois, for example. A Republican I might vote for.

 

[Fast Eddie B]

And "mountain" is a metaphor for the Republican Party. If it wasn't for them there would be no "mountain" to climb and our hopes would be realized.

With a Democratic house and senate and presidency, the problem was not Republican opposition - a unified Democratic party did not need Republican support.

But many of the "reforms" put forth by the Democrats did not have universal support even in their own party.

From Will Rogers: "I am not a member of any organized political party. I am a Democrat."

 

[T.A.M.]

With a Democratic house and senate and presidency, the problem was not Republican opposition - a unified Democratic party did not need Republican support.

But many of the "reforms" put forth by the Democrats did not have universal support even in their own party.

From Will Rogers: "I am not a member of any organized political party. I am a Democrat."

60 votes...Senate...NO REP SUPPORT...Leiberman a sniveling tool...nuff said.

TAM

 

[DrBaltar]

The problem is that it gives more credibility to the creationist argument than it does to show evolution as the superior theory. The most that can be said is "creationism/intelligent design is not a scientific theory in that they do not result in testable hypotheses." It's a 30 second statement. Anything more than that, and the teacher runs the risk of insulting religious children and therefore violating 1st amendment rights.

Bolding is mine. In a science class that's all that needs to be said.

 

[DavidJames]

With a Democratic house and senate and presidency, the problem was not Republican opposition - a unified Democratic party did not need Republican support.

But many of the "reforms" put forth by the Democrats did not have universal support even in their own party.

Democrats are not a monolithic voting block. The are allowed and will vote they as they choose. The Republican party is much better at getting their members to vote as the party chooses rather then personal choice.

 

[Towlie]

Democrats are not a monolithic voting block. The are allowed and will vote they as they choose. The Republican party is much better at getting their members to vote as the party chooses rather then personal choice.

In other words, if sheep could vote they'd rule the world.

 

[mhaze]

...but I think this country needs either a "public option" for health care (Medicare buy-in option for everyone), or even a "single payer" system done right. Instead, with a democratic majority in both houses, all we got was a monstrosity of a health care bill that will seem to do just cover more people, but at unconstrained and possibly unaffordable rates.

Well, some of us warned you and otherse, who thought that because (true or not) Canada and England could do the socialized medicine thing, America could.

What you are seeing now and in the mess of the bamacare bill is that we make really, really crappy socialists.

So give it up. Then we can go back to being halfway good capitalists.

 

[T.A.M.]

If the rich would shut up whining about the pitiful amount of tax they have to pay, and if money thirsty insurance companies could be DECENTLY regulated, then America COULD enjoy a health care system as good as those in Europe, or at least as good as the one here in Canada.

But don't say it too loud or the REPs will all cry "Socialists!!!" and scare everyone away.


TAM

 

[Towlie]

Well, some of us warned you and otherse, who thought that because (true or not) Canada and England could do the socialized medicine thing, America could.

That's because Canada and England don't have our Republican "Party of NO" that will use any trick in the book to prevent Congress from accomplishing anything useful.

What you are seeing now and in the mess of the bamacare bill is that we make really, really crappy socialists.

.. and what the Republicans want to show us is what sort of fascists we can be.

 

[elbe]

Bolding is mine. In a science class that's all that needs to be said.

There are likely fundies that would argue that that would be an insult to their religion and therefor a violation of the the first amendment.

 

[mhaze]

If the rich would shut up whining about the pitiful amount of tax they have to pay, and if money thirsty insurance companies could be DECENTLY regulated, then America COULD enjoy a health care system as good as those in Europe, or at least as good as the one here in Canada.

But don't say it too loud or the REPs will all cry "Socialists!!!" and scare everyone away.


TAM

Actually, I'm surprised that you would say such a thing. Isn't it true in Canada, your central government gives allotments of money for health care to the provinces, and they then disburse it.

There is no parallel between that, and what was or is being proposed here.

None whatsoever, socialist.