McCain chooses Sarah Palin (AK) for VP

[AZhitman]

Interestingly, I find that most people who have an opinion on "evangelicals" or the "religious right" or even "people of faith" have rarely if ever set foot in a house of worship and don't spend much time with people that do.

Therefore, I dismiss their opinion as uninformed and irrelevant.

NOTE: I'm not religious and I tend to shy away from religious people. I DO have a strong faith, and I concur with the poster who said he's met more accepting and tolerant people of faith than not.

Look how many intolerant, verge-of-hate left-leaning people there are. Intolerance is NOT the exclusive domain of the right... the left is often intolerant of the behaviors and customs of people of faith (see evangelism), just as they accuse the right of being intolerant of behaviors and customs they hold dear.

Don't fal for the old "all people of faith are GOP" nonsense. My church is about 75% left-leaning.

[AZhitman]

Yep - Let's see them criticize this:

Palin faces an ongoing state investigation of accusations that she fired the state's public safety commissioner this year because he would not fire a state trooper who is her sister's ex-husband. She has denied any wrongdoing.

Earlier this month, Palin released recordings of a phone conversation between one of her aides and a state trooper lieutenant in which the aide said the governor was troubled that her ex-brother-in-law remained on the force.

The trooper, Mike Wooten, was reprimanded and suspended for five days in 2006 for allegedly drinking beer while on duty and driving his marked patrol car, illegally killing a moose and using his Taser on his 10-year-old stepson, state records show.

Looks like he needed to be fired, and lacking that, the public safety commissioner took the heat. Well-done, Ms. Palin.

Are we in agreement that the supposed "investigation" is a witch hunt? Where's the outrage from the Left about her name being dragged through the mud?

Step up, or you risk being categorized as opposing her decision. Roll call time.

Oh, I get it. Party politics. If she was a libbie you leftys would be lining up to defend her decision.

Enjoy the medicine. It's yours.

[audtatious]

Thus far, I have heard attacks on Palin because she was Mayor of a small town (more attacks against small-town America?) and I have heard her being slapped about for supposedly abusing her power for trying to get Monegan fired, which if you followed the story itself and not the "throw her under the bus" reports you'd see it's a crock of crap. Next up will be worries that she may be going through menopause

As far as Hillary supporters "comments" posted earlier I suggest people visit hillaryclintonforum.net as there seems to be a large number of their members behind a McCain/Palin ticket.

[srellim234]

audtatious- This is a post I placed in a different thread after I cruised through the Anchorage newspaper and T.V. sites dating back to 2006. No one ever acknowledged my post but I think it shows that we need a more solid record on her to trust her in Washington.

"I'm impressed that a politician would finally give a government windfall back to the people, but the money is from the runup in oil prices and the royalties paid to the government from the runup, not anything she did to save the state money. She did the right thing by not spending it and giving it to the taxpayers.

She rejected the federal money for the "Bridge to Nowhere" only after it became a public relations and political nightmare when it became public that the money was attached as an earmark to a Katrina relief bill. She benefited from a lot of votes while she was for the bridge and running for governor. I have very little doubt that if the source of the funding hadn't blown up she would have quietly taken the money.

Standing up to the oil companies? Yes, she negotiated a deal to get the natural gas pipeline jump-started and going ahead of time. Even the former Democratic governor says he didn't think it would get done and credits her for that. To get it done, however, they gave $500 million in incentives to big companies and the costruction goes to a Canadian company, not an U.S.A. one."

I hear a lot of conservatives here claim that the liberals get a lot of their support by basically buying it with handouts. How much of Palin's support is due to the checks she cut to the taxpayers?

She didn't create the budget surplus in Alaska, oil royalties due to the runup in oil prices did. She didn't "oppose" the Bridge to Nowhere as she claimed in her introductory speech with McCain last Friday. She was in favor of the bridge (and still may be) but only turned down the money when the earmark for it turned into a national embarassment.

She may well be the most refreshing thing to hit national politics in a long time; maybe she is the real deal. That said, I just don't see enough of a clear record to warrant trusting her. And that has nothing to do with traffic tickets, "Troopergate" or other petty stuff.

[rn79870]

Interesting fact (even though polls are meaningless until 11/04/08)

It was neck and neck before on August 27 but a poll conducted on August 30th After Palin pick it's;

Obama 49 McCain 41

[srellim234]

rn- which poll? I saw the exact same figure being reported (maybe it was Gallup?) on Friday morning for a poll taken before Obama's speech on Thursday night. Comment was that it was the bump from the first three days of the convention.

EDIT: I heard the 49-41 figure but it wasn't Gallup. Gallup was 48-42 and attributed to the three days of the convention.http://www.gallup.com/poll/109....aspx

[rn79870]

I didn't ignore your post srellim, it was right on topic. I also find it interesting that the Mayoral job she claims she was elected to is a bit of a stretch on her part. She was elected to a city council group that alternated the duties of mayor between them. She never ran for mayor, nor did a single person vote for her as mayor.

I foresee McCain's health and the "heartbeat away" issue to take center stage now.

And Greg, if she were Obama's choice the Reps would be saying the same thingthe Dems are saying. And thedems would be offering the same shallow excuses the reps are offering. Seriously, do the reps really think she is a good choice?

[telcoman]

[QUOTE=AZhitman]

Therefore, I dismiss their opinion as uninformed and irrelevant.

Many studies have shown that well educated people are less likely to have as strong religious convictions as those that are less educated.

The problem that I have is those of you trying to impose your values on others. Freedom of religion is just that. It has no business in a political campaign. For those opposed to abortion, stem cells, contraception, anti gay, you are free to worship that agenda. Just don't try and preach that agenda to me. The right is also anti union, anti equal pay for woman which is against my values.

You want to teach your children creationism, ok by me as long as its not taught in public schools with taxpayer money. Opposed to abortion, ok by me also, just don't try and impose that on an entire nation. The need for abortions could be reduced by sex education and contraception but many on the right are opposed to that also. Why is the right not adopting unwanted children?

The right has had eight years with control of the POTUS and congress until 2006. A miserable failure between the economy, two wars, tax cuts to the rich, budget deficits, in short the majority of Americans are much worse off now than they were under President Clinton.If you thought the election results in 2006 were a wake up call, wait till you see the results in November.

The American people have had it with the Republican right and some of you are going to be shocked at the results come November.Yesterday's speeches by Obama and Biden were hugely attended in a football stadium. McCain and Palin had a sparse and quiet crowd.

Telcoman

[rn79870]

Many studies have shown that well educated people are less likely to have as strong religious convictions as those that are less educated.

I don't know if I agree with that. I know many educated people who at least attend church, whether or not they believe.

Frankly, All I have to do is study some of the Hubble deep space field shots, those shots that transcend 12 to 13 billion years in time, and try to count galaxies and worlds without end and I began to see what Einstein meant when he said; "Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind."

This is a question we best leave for each person to answer and not dwell on here.

[ishkabibble]

Assuming that McCain picked her because she was a woman is silly.

No, it's not. There are lots of women who will vote for her just to set a precedent. Period.

If he wanted a woman just to steal Hillary voters, he would have asked Hillary.

I don't know about this. Many, many people do not like Hillary. Heck, I would vote for a Cheney/Rove ticket before I'd vote for Hillary.

[szh]

Many, many people do not like Hillary. Heck, I would vote for a Cheney/Rove ticket before I'd vote for Hillary.

Agreed on the Hillary dislike, but I don't know if I'd go that far! Luckily, I don't have to make that choice. Phew.

Z

[ishkabibble]

Interestingly, I find that most people who have an opinion on "evangelicals" or the "religious right" or even "people of faith" have rarely if ever set foot in a house of worship and don't spend much time with people that do.

Therefore, I dismiss their opinion as uninformed and irrelevant.

NOTE: I'm not religious and I tend to shy away from religious people. I DO have a strong faith, and I concur with the poster who said he's met more accepting and tolerant people of faith than not.

Look how many intolerant, verge-of-hate left-leaning people there are. Intolerance is NOT the exclusive domain of the right... the left is often intolerant of the behaviors and customs of people of faith (see evangelism), just as they accuse the right of being intolerant of behaviors and customs they hold dear.

I disagree. The left tends to be intolerant of intolerance. Fundamentalists are welcome to do whatever they please, just don't try to legislate their interpretation of morality on the rest of us.

What I find is that many of the fundies are conspiracy theorists. Scientists are supposedly out to get them because they don't want pseudoscience being forced upon their kids in public schools. The left (who, as you state, is primarily Christian) hates them and thinks they are morally and intellectually superior. There is a "War on Christmas", "War on Easter", yadda yadda yadda. I'm about ready to start doling out tin-foil habits.

[telcoman]

I don't know if I agree with that. I know many educated people who at least attend church, whether or not they believe.

Frankly, All I have to do is study some of the Hubble deep space field shots, those shots that transcend 12 to 13 billion years in time, and try to count galaxies and worlds without end and I began to see what Einstein meant when he said; "Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind."

This is a question we best leave for each person to answer and not dwell on here.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/R...gence

I don't mean to turn this into a religious debate.

I only wish to point out that religious agenda does not belong in our politics or attempts to change the constitution to conform with someones religious beliefs

Telcoman

[audtatious]

"I'm impressed that a politician would finally give a government windfall back to the people, but the money is from the runup in oil prices and the royalties paid to the government from the runup, not anything she did to save the state money. She did the right thing by not spending it and giving it to the taxpayers.

She's the Gov of the state (she's the leader so she should take the accolades if you follow what some on this board believe) and it is a big oil state. The above is a "switch hitter" quote in that it gives her kudo's for getting money back to the state but then it dismisses it because it is based on "oil runup" costs. Either she did it and was successful or she didn't. As usual, if a Republican does something good then it's beause it was simple, plopped in their lap or was luck. To note, she has "sparred with oil giants Exxon Mobil Corp, ConocoPhillips and BP Plc since her election in 2006" in order to setup the possibility of getting this "windfall" for Alaska. Without the runup I would imagine there still would have been a "windfall" for Alaska, just not as much as it is with the prices of oil going up.

She rejected the federal money for the "Bridge to Nowhere" only after it became a public relations and political nightmare when it became public that the money was attached as an earmark to a Katrina relief bill. She benefited from a lot of votes while she was for the bridge and running for governor. I have very little doubt that if the source of the funding hadn't blown up she would have quietly taken the money.

Here is a good report on the whole issue:http://www.cnn.com/2007/US/09/22/alaska.bridge.ap/

I don't blame a state for trying to get Federal Funding for in-state projects. It's what they all do. This one was just a good "firing line" for some to point out how horrible the Republicans are with pork-barrel spending projects when this is an issue Congress-wide.

Personally I don't want any pork spending. I do not agree that this bridge was justified. BUT, I don't see it any different than other bridges on the east coast, Florida and the gulf coast that connect to their small islands. These get screwed over year after year due to hurricanes and require federal dollars to get them fixed. If it is OK to constantly spend federal money on these island bridges then why is it not OK for Alaska to try and get federal money for their bridge? If I were a resident of Alaska I would expect my Gov't to try to get as much funding as possible.

I hear a lot of conservatives here claim that the liberals get a lot of their support by basically buying it with handouts. How much of Palin's support is due to the checks she cut to the taxpayers?

Because her handouts don't come directly from a federal gov't coffer. It's coming from revenue made in Alaska itself, correct?

She may well be the most refreshing thing to hit national politics in a long time; maybe she is the real deal. That said, I just don't see enough of a clear record to warrant trusting her. And that has nothing to do with traffic tickets, "Troopergate" or other petty stuff.

She at least has a record of success thus far which is more than Obama can say. You also know where she stands. With an 80-85% approval rating in Alaska she must be doing something right unless you want to believe that 80-85% of the Alaska polulation is straight-voting Republicans.

[audtatious]

Many studies have shown that well educated people are less likely to have as strong religious convictions as those that are less educated.

Wow. More bashing of those with religious beliefs. Thought the Dem party was the party of the people and for the little people? Based on your constant bashing of those who don't live in your big city nor share your belief system then you are simply an supremist.

Show your studies. Prove it. Until then, STFU

[audtatious]

I don't mean to turn this into a religious debate.

Yes you did. Go back to pulling wings off fly's and stop posting in here

[srellim234]

Here's the Anchorage Daily News this morning:

http://www.adn.com/sarahpalin/story/511471.html

If you review the newspaper's archives from 2006 you'll find that she was a big time supporter of the bridge and used it to garner votes. The CNN article fails to address that she campaigned for governor supporting the bridge.

Again, the surplus of money was not her doing. She rightfully didn't spend it and sent checks back out, but the increase in state revenues were not her doing. The increased oil revenues were built into the revenue flow before she got there.

And again, I ask. Regardless of the source, how much of Palin's approval rating is a result of the checks they sent out? A lot of people will approve of anyone who sends them a check. Many don't care how the benefactor obtained the money.

You obviously miss where I'm coming from in these forums with your last-sentence comparison to Obama. I have in no way endorsed him at any time on these boards. In fact, I have clearly explained why I wouldn't vote for him. I'm a third party supporter who has no love for the Democrats OR Republicans.

[telcoman]

Wow. More bashing of those with religious beliefs. Thought the Dem party was the party of the people and for the little people? Based on your constant bashing of those who don't live in your big city nor share your belief system then you are simply an supremist.

Show your studies. Prove it. Until then, STFU

http://www.economics.harvard.e...l.pdf

"......But across religious groups or denominations, church attendance declines with education. In themost educated Christian denomination, Episcopalianism, the median person attends church“several times per year.” In the least educated major denomination, the Baptist groups, themedian person attends church once per month. In the General Social Survey, members of thegroup with the least education, "other denomination Protestants", have the most religiousattendance.4 Figure 2 shows the negative 86 percent correlation between average education andaverage religious attendance across denominations. The goal of this paper is to understand whythe denomination-level connection between education and religion has the opposite sign of theindividual-level connection between these variables."

Telcoman

[telcoman]

Show your studies. Prove it. Until then, STFU

I did, however I would not respond to you in that manner or the use of that kind of language.

Responding in that manner to anyone in a political forum is not going to help anyone believing your position.

Telcoman

[audtatious]

http://www.economics.harvard.e...l.pdf

"......But across religious groups or denominations, church attendance declines with education. In themost educated Christian denomination, Episcopalianism, the median person attends church“several times per year.” In the least educated major denomination, the Baptist groups, themedian person attends church once per month. In the General Social Survey, members of thegroup with the least education, "other denomination Protestants", have the most religiousattendance.4 Figure 2 shows the negative 86 percent correlation between average education andaverage religious attendance across denominations. The goal of this paper is to understand whythe denomination-level connection between education and religion has the opposite sign of theindividual-level connection between these variables."

Telcoman

You left out the first part of the abstract:

"In the United States, religious attendance rises sharply with education across individuals"

also

"Fifty percent of college graduates born after 1945 attend church more than “several times per year.” Only thirty six percent of high school dropouts, born during the same period, attend church that often."

and

"When we control for other factors, the relationship between education and religious attendance gets stronger. In many multivariate regressions, education is the most statistically important factor explaining church attendance."

In the conclusion:

"Within the U.S., education raises religious attendance at an individual level. This does not seem unusual to us because religious attendance is a major form of social interaction and education raises every other measurable form of social connection."

In effect, associating with a single religious denomination itself is deminishing but not religion as a whole. Thus your quote of:

Many studies have shown that well educated people are less likely to have as strong religious convictions as those that are less educated.

is incorrect and your source says the exact opposite. In effect, you FAIL and are continually showing your one-sided disdain for anyone other than yourself.

[audtatious]

Responding in that manner to anyone in a political forum is not going to help anyone believing your position.

What does it matter? You believe in only what you find as a truth and anyone who opposes is wrong. AZhitman has smashed your absurd insinuations on every occasion and you have no response but to post more NYTimes articles which support your viewpoint. The above is another example of where you read something and spin it to meet your own limited draconian view of the world when in fact the "proof" is not there.

[themadscientist]

blah blah blah

Tel, can you just post links rather that the text of these articles? I stopped actually reading them a while back when I figured you out. It would make it easier to skip over your posts that way and save wear and tear on my mouse's scroll wheel.

[OriginalWheelman]

just don't try to legislate their interpretation of morality on the rest of us.

Yet this is exactly what the democratic party is trying to do to the Christian right. The democrats are trying to legislate their interpretation of morality on the religious. THAT is why I call dems hypocrites.

[themadscientist]

It is hard to listen to both the extreme right and left spout off. I think most Americans are in the middle not being heard. I am I guess you would say agnostic if I had to define myself. I don't believe in a god but I am willing to examine any new evidence. I think militant atheists annoy me more than militant religious people. To be so dogmatic about "nothing" confuses me

As a non-believer though I subscribe to a couple of opinions.

1. Unless your religion treads upon another's rights worship as you see fit and know that I am ready to fight for your right to believe and worship your god(s) unmolested even though I do not share your beliefs.

2. Show me the same consideration and respect.

3. Keep your religion out of our government and if you want to retain your tax exempt status don't try to legislate from the pulpit.

[AZhitman]

I did, however I would not respond to you in that manner or the use of that kind of language.

Why not?

It's just words. Don't force your antiquated beliefs about language on me.

Or, to use your words: "Just don't try and preach that agenda to me. "

Quit pushing your pro-gay, baby-aborting, criminal-coddling, faith-hating, tree-hugging, lazy worker protectionist stance and apologist agenda on me.

Like it or not, I'm still a member of the majority.

If you were an effective communicator, you'd be winning more people over to your way of thinking... I haven't seen it happen yet.

Freedom OF religion. Not FROM religion.

[smockers83]

Lol, this thread is only getting funny.

telco, if you don't know how to read statistics, please don't. Leave it to those of us that can do comprehensive reading. Some people, not just yourself, have a problem in reading statistics in that they only find statistics that suit their viewpoint. First thing to look at when reading a statistical study, or any other academic paper for that matter, is the conclusion, then start from the beginning.

[ishkabibble]

Yet this is exactly what the democratic party is trying to do to the Christian right. The democrats are trying to legislate their interpretation of morality on the religious. THAT is why I call dems hypocrites.

Example(s) of Democrats limiting your "religious freedoms"?

[skylndrftr]

Didn't read a lot of this page its all just kinda drivel once we hit religion...my two cents? well heres the rest of the McCain 'pick the Washington outsiders' (read patently unqualified e.g. stupid) ticket

Uncle Tom for HUD secretarySomeone who can't read for Secretary of EducationAmish Farmer for Secretary of the interiorThe CEO of Haliburton for SecDefThe CEO of Blackwater for Homeland Security chief

its standard republican policy, neuter important programs that help the people of this country and put people with other interests in positions to make money through their own decisions.

[rn79870]

rn- which poll? I saw the exact same figure being reported (maybe it was Gallup?) on Friday morning for a poll taken before Obama's speech on Thursday night. Comment was that it was the bump from the first three days of the convention.

EDIT: I heard the 49-41 figure but it wasn't Gallup. Gallup was 48-42 and attributed to the three days of the convention.http://www.gallup.com/poll/109....aspx

August 26th Gallop daily pollJohn McCain now slightly ahead 46%-44%.More ...

August 30th, 2008 Gallop daily pollGallup Daily: Obama Continues to Lead 49% to 41%

August 31st. Gallop daily pollObama-Biden holds a six percentage point lead over the Republican McCain-Palin ticket, 48% to 42%

Sept 1st. Gallop pollGallup Daily: Obama Maintains 6-Point Lead, 49% to 43%

Thank you Sarah, you're worth about 6 points to Obama.

[rn79870]

Lol, this thread is only getting funny.

telco, if you don't know how to read statistics, please don't. Leave it to those of us that can do comprehensive reading. Some people, not just yourself, have a problem in reading statistics in that they only find statistics that suit their viewpoint. First thing to look at when reading a statistical study, or any other academic paper for that matter, is the conclusion, then start from the beginning.

Here is a statistic for you smocky. 49% of the people polled today said they would vote for Obama while only 43% of the people said they would vote for McCain. All Obama has to do statistically is grab another 1.1%, while McCain has to gain 7.1%, or 7 times what Obama does.

::doing the we won happy dance here::