Damon on Palin

valerie · Post by **valerie** » Thu Sep 11, 2008 3:12 pm

I really LIKE this guy:

Matt

Odie · Post by **Odie** » Thu Sep 11, 2008 3:14 pm

Oh I really like him!

ohhhhhhhhh baby!:guitarist

abbey · Post by **abbey** » Thu Sep 11, 2008 3:27 pm

My fan was going so I could'nt hear him.

He's pretty easy on the eye though.

Lon · Post by **Lon** » Thu Sep 11, 2008 3:43 pm

valerie;981309 wrote: I really LIKE this guy:

Matt

Nice guy --- I like his acting despite the fact that he is politically inept.

Nomad · Post by **Nomad** » Thu Sep 11, 2008 4:26 pm

We cant have that !

Accountable · Post by **Accountable** » Thu Sep 11, 2008 4:40 pm

Are we pretending that he was considering voting for McCain until he picked Palin?

That's who I want to hear from. Find me somebody who was going to vote for McCain, but Palin's inexperience or whatever scared them so bad that they decided the risk was SO great, that they're now voting for Obama.

gmc · Post by **gmc** » Fri Sep 12, 2008 12:59 am

Lon;981331 wrote: Nice guy --- I like his acting despite the fact that he is politically inept.

Surely just because he disagrees with you doesn't make him politically inept.

Lon · Post by **Lon** » Fri Sep 12, 2008 6:43 am

gmc;981632 wrote: Surely just because he disagrees with you doesn't make him politically inept.

I did not say we disagree------I said he is politically inept.

Lon · Post by **Lon** » Fri Sep 12, 2008 6:45 am

Ian;981672 wrote: Why is he politically inept?

Because he is too quick to circulate information about Palin that has already been disproved.

yaaarrrgg · Post by **yaaarrrgg** » Fri Sep 12, 2008 11:56 am

Lon;981872 wrote: Because he is too quick to circulate information about Palin that has already been disproved.

There have been some email rumors that have been false, but nothing that Mr. Damon referenced. His claims are legitimate.

She did try to ban books, and tried to fire the librarian for not going along. Then she came out some disingenuous rebuttal saying "no books were banned" and "no one was fired." Both true statements, because the librarian and public put a stop to the silliness before it could progress to that point.

Also the GOP is now claiming that she was just asking the question "hypothetically" about banning some books:

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080912/ap_ ... X4YKcDW7oF

That's also dishonest ... the person was going to be fired until the public outrage reversed the decision. There was nothing hypothetical about it.

As for the "Iraq war is from God" comment, her pastor said that anyone that questions Bush is going to Hell. Her church is a little wacky ..

I think what takes the cake is her distorting what FactCheck said:

http://www.factcheck.org/elections-2008 ... nding.html

Lon · Post by **Lon** » Fri Sep 12, 2008 12:21 pm

yaaarrrgg;982068 wrote: There have been some email rumors that have been false, but nothing that Mr. Damon referenced. His claims are legitimate.

She did try to ban books, and tried to fire the librarian for not going along. Then she came out some disingenuous rebuttal saying "no books were banned" and "no one was fired." Both true statements, because the librarian and public put a stop to the silliness before it could progress to that point.

Also the GOP is now claiming that she was just asking the question "hypothetically" about banning some books:

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080912/ap_on_el_pr

/palin_librarian;_ylt=AjATjNi01dY.07lpooX4YKcDW7oF

Damon said that Palin believed the Earth was created 4,000 years ago.

That's also dishonest ... the person was going to be fired until the public outrage reversed the decision. There was nothing hypothetical about it.

As for the "Iraq war is from God" comment, her pastor said that anyone that questions Bush is going to Hell. Her church is a little wacky ..

I think what takes the cake is her distorting what FactCheck said:

http://www.factcheck.org/elections-2008 ... nding.html

Damon said that Palin thought the earth was created 4,000 years ago.

yaaarrrgg · Post by **yaaarrrgg** » Fri Sep 12, 2008 12:47 pm

Lon;982076 wrote: Damon said that Palin thought the earth was created 4,000 years ago.

He wanted to ask if she believed that *dinosaurs* existed 4,000 years ago. Palin is a creationist, from a fundamentalist church, so it's an entirely legitimate question to ask of her.

It's a pretty common belief. My parents, for example, are also fundamentalists and only believe the Earth is about 6,000 - 10,000 years old. They believe dinosaurs and humans co-existed.

Lon · Post by **Lon** » Fri Sep 12, 2008 2:42 pm

yaaarrrgg;982097 wrote: He wanted to ask if she believed that *dinosaurs* existed 4,000 years ago. Palin is a creationist, from a fundamentalist church, so it's an entirely legitimate question to ask of her.

It's a pretty common belief. My parents, for example, are also fundamentalists and only believe the Earth is about 6,000 - 10,000 years old. They believe dinosaurs and humans co-existed.

Look, I am not a Palin supporter nor a Fundamentalist, nor a Christian, but I do know that not all Fundamentalist believe that the earth was created 4 5 or 6,000 years ago and it was absolutely stupid for anyone to attribute this to Palin without her specifically saying that she believes dinosaurs and humans co-existed .

yaaarrrgg · Post by **yaaarrrgg** » Fri Sep 12, 2008 4:14 pm

Lon;982263 wrote: Look, I am not a Palin supporter nor a Fundamentalist, nor a Christian, but I do know that not all Fundamentalist believe that the earth was created 4 5 or 6,000 years ago and it was absolutely stupid for anyone to attribute this to Palin without her specifically saying that she believes dinosaurs and humans co-existed .

Palin had given support to teaching both creationism and evolution in school. It's pseudoscience. I know it, you know it, but Palin does not.

Lon · Post by **Lon** » Fri Sep 12, 2008 4:56 pm

yaaarrrgg;982374 wrote: Palin had given support to teaching both creationism and evolution in school. It's pseudoscience. I know it, you know it, but Palin does not.

You are missing the point--------Creationism is pseudoscience, but since you looked it up in Wikepedia, please note, there is Old School and New School Creationist and they don't all agree that man and dinosaurs existed together some 5 to 6,000 years ago. Example---------I am a Secular Humanist---don't attribute certain things to me without understanding what Secular Humanism is all about.

yaaarrrgg · Post by **yaaarrrgg** » Fri Sep 12, 2008 8:41 pm

Lon;982416 wrote: You are missing the point--------Creationism is pseudoscience, but since you looked it up in Wikepedia, please note, there is Old School and New School Creationist and they don't all agree that man and dinosaurs existed together some 5 to 6,000 years ago. Example---------I am a Secular Humanist---don't attribute certain things to me without understanding what Secular Humanism is all about.

If someone is a creationist, it's reasonable to ask if they are and Old Earth or Young Earth creationist. This is not a "stupid question" as you claim Damon is asking. You may assume that she's an Old Earth creationist, but that is just your assumption.

BTW, I know what secular humanism and creationism are. I was a creationist fundamentalist Christian years ago, now I am secular humanist.

Lon · Post by **Lon** » Fri Sep 12, 2008 10:28 pm

yaaarrrgg;982601 wrote: If someone is a creationist, it's reasonable to ask if they are and Old Earth or Young Earth creationist. This is not a "stupid question" as you claim Damon is asking. You may assume that she's an Old Earth creationist, but that is just your assumption.

BTW, I know what secular humanism and creationism are. I was a creationist fundamentalist Christian years ago, now I am secular humanist.

You are still missing the point. I never assumed Palin was Old or New Creationist. At this point who knows for sure, certainly our numb nuts actor friend doesn't know either. It's assumption at this point not fact.

gmc · Post by **gmc** » Sat Sep 13, 2008 2:20 am

Lon;982263 wrote: Look, I am not a Palin supporter nor a Fundamentalist, nor a Christian, but I do know that not all Fundamentalist believe that the earth was created 4 5 or 6,000 years ago and it was absolutely stupid for anyone to attribute this to Palin without her specifically saying that she believes dinosaurs and humans co-existed .

He's not attributing it to her at all. What he actually says is he really wants to know "if she really thinks dinosaurs were here four thousand years ago" or if she bans books or tried to ban books." I think you are hearing what you expect to hear rather than what is actually being said. Fairly important questions I would have thought.

Besides surely it is easy enough to check whether she did try and ban books. She either did or she didn't. She either believes in creationism or she doesn't. It's not a secret is it?

Accountable · Post by **Accountable** » Sat Sep 13, 2008 3:06 am

yaaarrrgg;982097 wrote: He wanted to ask if she believed that *dinosaurs* existed 4,000 years ago. Palin is a creationist, from a fundamentalist church, so it's an entirely legitimate question to ask of her.Why?

gmc · Post by **gmc** » Sat Sep 13, 2008 5:39 am

Accountable;982675 wrote: Why?

Does the rationality or otherwise of a likely president not matter?

Accountable · Post by **Accountable** » Sat Sep 13, 2008 6:02 am

gmc;982738 wrote: Does the rationality or otherwise of a likely president not matter?I don't see the relevance of dinosaurs to, say, border security. Although ......... they do have a connection to the energy issue. :yh_think

yaaarrrgg · Post by **yaaarrrgg** » Sat Sep 13, 2008 6:54 am

Accountable;982757 wrote: I don't see the relevance of dinosaurs to, say, border security. Although ......... they do have a connection to the energy issue. :yh_think

Science isn't some collection of factoids but a methodology. It shows one's thought processes (or lack thereof).

It occurs to me that one of Bush's fundamental problems was that he couldn't look at data (about WMD's) and interpret it objectively.

When someone looks for data they like, and ignores the data they don't like, it's called confirmation bias.

Belief in creationism is a giant red flag that the person can't reason scientifically.

Accountable · Post by **Accountable** » Sat Sep 13, 2008 7:15 am

yaaarrrgg;982787 wrote: Science isn't some collection of factoids but a methodology. It shows one's thought processes (or lack thereof).

It occurs to me that one of Bush's fundamental problems was that he couldn't look at data (about WMD's) and interpret it objectively.

When someone looks for data they like, and ignores the data they don't like, it called confirmation bias.

Belief in creationism is a giant red flag that the person can't reason scientifically.
So is there any other religious discrimination you support? Any other religious beliefs you think should disqualifiy a person from public office? How about Hindu? They believe in reincarnation, y'know. How irrational is that?!?

Heck, any religion by definition is irrational, so the only people qualified, or at leas not disqualified from office should be athiests, right?

yaaarrrgg · Post by **yaaarrrgg** » Sat Sep 13, 2008 7:27 am

Accountable;982800 wrote: So is there any other religious discrimination you support? Any other religious beliefs you think should disqualifiy a person from public office? How about Hindu? They believe in reincarnation, y'know. How irrational is that?!?

Heck, any religion by definition is irrational, so the only people qualified, or at leas not disqualified from office should be athiests, right?

I don't have a problem with any religion, but the fundamentalist mindset which afflicts all religious viewpoints (including atheism).

Science is compatible with the existence of God or the non existence of God. A Christian might see evolution as the mechanism by which God created the world, for example.

Pitting science against religion is both bad theology and bad science.

Accountable · Post by **Accountable** » Sat Sep 13, 2008 8:08 am

yaaarrrgg;982807 wrote: I don't have a problem with any religion, but the fundamentalist mindset which afflicts all religious viewpoints (including atheism).

Science is compatible with the existence of God or the non existence of God. A Christian might see evolution as the mechanism by which God created the world, for example.

Pitting science against religion is both bad theology and bad science.
Be objective about your own viewpoint, then. I think you disagree with McCain-Palin politically, and are grasping at every straw you can find to justify your opposition.

There's plenty of reasons to vote against McCain without going to such extreme and silly lengths. It hurts your case. Try to stick to the issues. Quality vs quantity.

Of course what I'd much rather see is a reason to vote for someone, which is what neither side has been able to do.

yaaarrrgg · Post by **yaaarrrgg** » Sat Sep 13, 2008 8:48 am

Accountable;982830 wrote: Be objective about your own viewpoint, then. I think you disagree with McCain-Palin politically, and are grasping at every straw you can find to justify your opposition.

There's plenty of reasons to vote against McCain without going to such extreme and silly lengths. It hurts your case. Try to stick to the issues. Quality vs quantity.

Of course what I'd much rather see is a reason to vote for someone, which is what neither side has been able to do.

A person's intelligence and reasoning capacity IS the most relevant thing, more so than issues. Elect a foolish person, you're going to get foolish policies, and a foolish implementation of something you might agree with. Look at what Bush did to the Republican party ... he's about destroyed it.

I kinda chuckle thinking back at raising many of the same objections in 2000 about Bush. I'm not joking, but people would give long defenses of Bush saying that a person doesn't have to be smart to be president.

Accountable · Post by **Accountable** » Sat Sep 13, 2008 9:10 am

yaaarrrgg;982881 wrote: A person's intelligence and reasoning capacity IS the most relevant thing, more so than issues. Elect a foolish person, you're going to get foolish policies, and a foolish implementation of something you might agree with.Okay, fine. Tell where one presidential candidate (stop with the psychic predictions of McCain's death) has better reasoning capacity. Stipulating that selecting Palin is less than stellar reasoning by McCain, I say that Obama's decision to downplay his various relationships with radical people, then flipping and abandoning them, ranks right alongside. In fact, I'd call that more worrisome because it indicates he might be less than forthcoming than McCain.

yaaarrrgg · Post by **yaaarrrgg** » Sat Sep 13, 2008 9:51 am

Accountable;982895 wrote: Okay, fine. Tell where one presidential candidate (stop with the psychic predictions of McCain's death) has better reasoning capacity. Stipulating that selecting Palin is less than stellar reasoning by McCain, I say that Obama's decision to downplay his various relationships with radical people, then flipping and abandoning them, ranks right alongside. In fact, I'd call that more worrisome because it indicates he might be less than forthcoming than McCain.

Obama talks to thousands of people, not necessarily because he agrees with them politically. I do the same thing. So do you. Surrounding yourself with like-minded individuals is not a sign of intelligence.

If we take academic performance as a rough gage of mental ability, McCain finished fourth from the bottom of his class. Obama magna cum laude. Of course, for an anti-intellectual country, this is probably seen as a handicap for Obama.

Accountable · Post by **Accountable** » Sat Sep 13, 2008 12:38 pm

yaaarrrgg;982951 wrote: Obama talks to thousands of people, not necessarily because he agrees with them politically. I do the same thing. So do you. So does McCain. Don't forget he's the one famous for reaching across the aisle to get things done.

yaaarrrgg wrote: If we take academic performance as a rough gage of mental ability, McCain finished fourth from the bottom of his class. Obama magna cum laude. Of course, for an anti-intellectual country, this is probably seen as a handicap for Obama. :)Academic performance is no guage at all of reasoning ability, and without that, intelligence is useless.