So, now that Palin is not seeking re-election.....

[heliochrome85]

i couldnt care less if she reads the NYT or not. I personally blame her and her ilk for making Ignorance socially acceptable. Its as simple as that.

[audtatious]

Simply stop red states from voting and you easily have only the top-tier of America voting and running the country.

[heliochrome85]

yes cause clearly thats the solution. I refuse to believe that the Republican party does not have articulate, reasonable candidates. I hear good things about Tim Pawlenty. If the GOP stops ebing the party of Jesus, anti-abortion, and ignorance, and returns to its small government, low taxes, core, we might just see it reemerge in this generation. As it stands, the prospects are looking grim,\.

[audtatious]

Right. Should make a number of people happy. Generalizations FTW

[heliochrome85]

remind me exactly what part of Palin do you like? What does she represent that you find core to the GOP?

I for one im a member of neither party.

[audtatious]

Ethics reform, smaller gov, more fiscally responsible gov, strong military, strong stance on use of our own national resources. Just off the top of my head from what I have seen in the press. Of course, if it were all true then she is for forcing Christianity on all citizens, ending abortion, etc etc.

She seems to threaten lots of lobby groups.....

I found this kinda comical...http://article.nationalreview....E4ZjQ=

[heliochrome85]

see, she does threaten alot of lobby groups.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/P...Palin

just a few notable issues i have:

Palin has said this about teaching creationism as part of the public school curriculum: "I am a proponent of teaching both", but subsequently "It doesn't have to be part of the curriculum".

Palin stated in 2006 that because she believes embryonic stem cell research causes the destruction of life, this research is inconsistent with her pro-life position and she does not support it.[23]

Palin is opposed to "explicit sex-ed programs," including "school-based clinics and the distribution of contraceptives in schools," though is in favor of teaching children about contraception, having said "kids who may not hear about it at home should hear about it in other avenues." [25][26]

While campaigning for election as Governor of Alaska in 2006, Palin declared that she supported the 1998 Alaska constitutional amendment that proposed adding "...a marriage may exist only between one man and one woman" to the Alaskan constitution.

Palin is opposed to efforts to decriminalize marijuana, which she says sends the wrong message to children. Palin has said she is more concerned about methamphetamine than marijuana, which she sees as a greater social threat.[43]

Endangered species

Polar bears

In December 2007, Palin wrote an opinion column in which she described her opposition to the listing of polar bears as a threatened species under the Endangered Species Act.[99] In it she also stated that the polar bear population is more numerous now than 40 years ago and "there is insufficient evidence of polar bears becoming extinct in the foreseeable future".[100] After Dirk Kempthorne, the Republican Secretary of the United States Department of the Interior listed the bear as threatened on May 14, 2008, Palin (representing the state of Alaska) sued the federal government, claiming that the listing would adversely affect energy development in the bears' habitat off Alaska's northern and northwestern coasts, while again questioning the scientific basis for the listing.[101][102]

Palin claimed that scientists found no ill effects of global warming on the polar bear, a claim disputed by Alaskan state scientists[103] and environmental groups.[101]

[heliochrome85]

Since its wikipedia, all the citations are at the bottom of the page.

all in all, i suspect for the time being her political life is gonna be quiet. while she may be cooking something for 2012, its most likely gonna be a WTF moment for her supporters, and her opponents.

[audtatious]

see, she does threaten alot of lobby groups.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/P...Palin

just a few notable issues i have:

Palin has said this about teaching creationism as part of the public school curriculum: "I am a proponent of teaching both", but subsequently "It doesn't have to be part of the curriculum".

There's holes in evolution and holes in creationism. By the last statement it doesn't seem she supports forcing it to be taught alongside evolution.

Palin stated in 2006 that because she believes embryonic stem cell research causes the destruction of life, this research is inconsistent with her pro-life position and she does not support it.[23]

So? A large part of the population feel the same way. At this point, embryonic stem cells have not shown to be helpful anyway.

Palin is opposed to "explicit sex-ed programs," including "school-based clinics and the distribution of contraceptives in schools," though is in favor of teaching children about contraception, having said "kids who may not hear about it at home should hear about it in other avenues." [25][26]

Depends on the age. There are some schools starting sex-ed from day 1 with what some would deem inappropriate methods. Again, a large part of the population are against it.

While campaigning for election as Governor of Alaska in 2006, Palin declared that she supported the 1998 Alaska constitutional amendment that proposed adding "...a marriage may exist only between one man and one woman" to the Alaskan constitution.

That's a generic viewpoint held by more than just Republicans. Look at the vote in California as proof.

Palin is opposed to efforts to decriminalize marijuana, which she says sends the wrong message to children. Palin has said she is more concerned about methamphetamine than marijuana, which she sees as a greater social threat.[43]

I agree with her assessment but would support fines instead of jail time for MJ defendant on the amount confiscated.

Endangered species

Polar bears

In December 2007, Palin wrote an opinion column in which she described her opposition to the listing of polar bears as a threatened species under the Endangered Species Act.[99] In it she also stated that the polar bear population is more numerous now than 40 years ago and "there is insufficient evidence of polar bears becoming extinct in the foreseeable future".[100] After Dirk Kempthorne, the Republican Secretary of the United States Department of the Interior listed the bear as threatened on May 14, 2008, Palin (representing the state of Alaska) sued the federal government, claiming that the listing would adversely affect energy development in the bears' habitat off Alaska's northern and northwestern coasts, while again questioning the scientific basis for the listing.[101][102]

Palin claimed that scientists found no ill effects of global warming on the polar bear, a claim disputed by Alaskan state scientists[103] and environmental groups.[101]

I agree with her on this too. Do a search for the polar bear topic we had on here last year.

The above is pretty much based upon your viewpoints and I respect that. Why do you simply want to dismiss others viewpoints as having no bearing on any matter? or am I reading things wrong?

Now, do you agree with her concerning ethics, fiscal measures, etc. or do you dismiss everything based on the above?

[heliochrome85]

1.) Creationsim isnt science. Yes there are holes in evolution, but it is at least a theory based on identifiable facts and evidence. Creationism is a theory based on a book that has been edited and rewritten throughout history. The only place for creationism is in sunday school. That this is even discussed is scary.

We should ban stem cells because they haven't proven their value? What value does Nasa have? What value did it have in 1959? Science isn't about studying what is valuable or not, it is about studying the unanswered questions. That stem cell research hasnt shown to be helpful is simply short sighted. That they have the possibility to cure any number of lethal diseases is reason enough to pursue their study. It just so happens that it conflicts with what some people define life as.

Study after study has shown that abstinence only programs don't work. You may be too old to remember the misconceptions you heard about sex growing up, from your friends. Trust me, in the information age, they are just as farfetched. The only way to reduce teen pregnancy and abortion rates is to teach kids how to practice safe sex. I agree there has to be a limit as to how young they should be taught, but the fact of the matter is that parents at home arent doing their jobs, and abstinence only programs arent doing theirs.

Why is it ok for one group of citizens to disinfranchise another group of citizens based on ideology? I do not understand what right the government has, either state or federal, to sanction what is in essence, a religious institution, the institution of marriage. Yet again, we are trying to interject religion into politics. I am for gay marriage. Am i gay? No. Does it in any way bother me that my neighbors might be gay? No. Should i be allowed to prevent them from being happy, and treated as equals under the law? No.

As for marijuana, remind me why exactly it is banned? Last I checked, it is less dangerous than alcohol and cigarettes, yet those are legal too. Do cigarettes have any medicinal properties? No.

I dont think im dismissing your viewpoitns as being irrelevant. I just dont understand, in part becuase ive never had anyone actually tell me, why people support her, beyond the tired and cliche Caribu Barbie mentality.

I have fundamental disagreements with her style. She comes off as petulent, irrational, and careless. She holds grudges, and has done more to advance the acceptablility of american ignorance than any of the hollywood skanks who grace america's newsstands everyweek. You simply can not be a candidate for the highest office in the land if you have NO views on foreign policy. It is dynamically opposed to the job description.

I can't apply for a job as a car salesman if im not the least bit interested in cars.

Like i said before, im not trying to dismiss your viewpoint, i just dont understand why people support her, beyond the "iwanna bang her" variety of comments. I'm glad you are at least able to see beyond that. I appreciate it.

[audtatious]

1.) Creationsim isnt science. Yes there are holes in evolution, but it is at least a theory based on identifiable facts and evidence. Creationism is a theory based on a book that has been edited and rewritten throughout history. The only place for creationism is in sunday school. That this is even discussed is scary.

Because it's a viewpoint that a good portion of the country believe? Nobody is saying to teach a bible study class in school (that I know of). Hell, when I went through school they went over the basics of creationism and deep-dived into evolution. Learning something about creationism while in school lets you understand others, who you may run into on a daily bases due to the numbers, viewpoints. Call it junk, call it the Great Spaghetti Moster, whatever, but a large portion of the population believe in it to some degree. IMO, I don't really care if they teach it or not but if all forms of religion must stay outside of school then that should go for all faiths.

We should ban stem cells because they haven't proven their value? What value does Nasa have? What value did it have in 1959? Science isn't about studying what is valuable or not, it is about studying the unanswered questions. That stem cell research hasnt shown to be helpful is simply short sighted. That they have the possibility to cure any number of lethal diseases is reason enough to pursue their study. It just so happens that it conflicts with what some people define life as.

Embryonic stem cell research IS going on. What Bush did simply stopped Gov financing of it outside the existing lines. That does NOT stop businesses nor Universities in the US from performing research. If her position is to completely do away with embryonic stem cell research completely then I would be against her position. If, from the research that has happened already, there had been any breakthroughs at all then I would support more fed funding, but that is not the case.

Study after study has shown that abstinence only programs don't work. You may be too old to remember the misconceptions you heard about sex growing up, from your friends. Trust me, in the information age, they are just as farfetched. The only way to reduce teen pregnancy and abortion rates is to teach kids how to practice safe sex. I agree there has to be a limit as to how young they should be taught, but the fact of the matter is that parents at home arent doing their jobs, and abstinence only programs arent doing theirs.

Yeah, showing a 4th grader how to put a condom on a banana is quite helpful. As things are now I do agree that abstinence programs alone probably won't work due to the availability of sex on TV and the internet, along with peer pressure. I am against the indoctrination of youth to accept the gay lifestyle. Let them choose it when they are old enough to make the decision instead of showing it as "what everyone does". Maybe I'm just old fashioned, although some on here will simply call me a ****phobe.

Why is it ok for one group of citizens to disinfranchise another group of citizens based on ideology? I do not understand what right the government has, either state or federal, to sanction what is in essence, a religious institution, the institution of marriage. Yet again, we are trying to interject religion into politics. I am for gay marriage. Am i gay? No. Does it in any way bother me that my neighbors might be gay? No. Should i be allowed to prevent them from being happy, and treated as equals under the law? No.

At this point I'm for moving marriage back to the church and out of the Gov altogether. Will "being married" make people happy? Honestly, if it takes that to make someone happy then they are in for a short "marriage" in the first place. Marriage is being used as a boundary point in which one side wants it to remain a traditional value and the other side wants to break it down as a way to "self justify" their lifestyle to those who wish to not accept it. Which one is right? The only fact is that the traditional perspective has been the "norm" in this country.

As for marijuana, remind me why exactly it is banned? Last I checked, it is less dangerous than alcohol and cigarettes, yet those are legal too. Do cigarettes have any medicinal properties? No.

Addiction and changes to brain chemistry long-term? Short term memory issues? It makes you giggle and eat bunches of food?

[HashiriyaS14]

Turning this thread into a kind of prosecution of the GOP social agenda is nonproductive.

We know what Palin's stances are, no need to argue over embryonic stem cell research in here.

So even if she isn't going to run for re-election, does anyone think that this move damages the credibility of the REST of the GOP? I'm not sure that it does, although a general air of flakiness is surrounding the party of late, particularly because this comes so closely on the heels of the Sanford fiasco.

Anyone?

[dusred]

1.) Creationsim isnt science. Yes there are holes in evolution, but it is at least a theory based on identifiable facts and evidence. Creationism is a theory based on a book that has been edited and rewritten throughout history. The only place for creationism is in sunday school. That this is even discussed is scary.

Depending on who you ask Creationism is as scientifically proven as Evolution. Both are considered "theories" and both have some scientific proof but are not absolutely proven beyond a doubt; but if you are going to teach one in school why not teach the other since they are opposites? Isn't that what a good teacher would do is teach both sides of the story? It's like only teaching Conservatism and leaving Liberalism out.

Helio, you are drinking "media-aid" with all your bashing of Palin. Sure, you may disagree with her but to act like she's a brainless zombie is a bit much.

[heliochrome85]

What scientific proof is there behind Creationism? Please enumerate it for me.

[themadscientist]

uh oh, non-believer!

[heliochrome85]

LOL. I love it!

[Bubba1]

Turning this thread into a kind of prosecution of the GOP social agenda is nonproductive.

We know what Palin's stances are, no need to argue over embryonic stem cell research in here.

So even if she isn't going to run for re-election, does anyone think that this move damages the credibility of the REST of the GOP? I'm not sure that it does, although a general air of flakiness is surrounding the party of late, particularly because this comes so closely on the heels of the Sanford fiasco.

Anyone?

To win a presidential election requires appealing to more than your core consitituency. there's no question, Audtatious is clearly a Palin supporter. while he is willing to overlook her negatives, the more moderate swing voters clearly did not. those losses in November should have sent a message to the GOP that they're on the wrong path.

If the GOP wants the white house back, they need to move more toward the center. As long Palin remains a viable candidate for 2012, the more the moderates/swing voters will believe that the GOP has not yet learned their lessons.

[Urabus GodofTraction]

If the GOP wants the white house back, they need to move more toward the center.

Oh, they're pretty center already. It was the GOP that brought us the TARP...bastards.

[dusred]

What scientific proof is there behind Creationism? Please enumerate it for me.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q7um6aqA210

Take it for what it is. I don't agree with everything in there but I think there is some truth in it.

[Cold_Zero]

What scientific proof is there behind Creationism? Please enumerate it for me.

I currently subscribe to The Institute for Creation Research's periodical.http://www.icr.org I must admit that I don't always understand the periodical fully since I am a Geographer by trade and not a geologist or biologist.

While I am not sure what you want me to enumerate, to claim that there is NO scientific proof behind Creationism is a bit much. You could make the same claims of proof about Evolution and have Creationists punch holes in them, and the other way around. To me the matter has everything to do with faith, don't get me wrong when I say that. Sure everyone thinks I am talking about the Creationist side, but I am talking more about the faith (and sometimes blind) that people place in Evolution. Evolution really has nothing to do at it's core with science and attempting to solve a problem, but everything to do with trying to deconstruct religion (specifically in the western world Christianity). I look at it more in the confines of a Social Theory rather than a Scientific Theory. It was 'invented' at a time in the Western World when Modernism and Modern Liberalism (I am not talking about political liberalism) was starting to taking hold in society, the church and in the universities. But if you take a step back and look at the Age of the Enlightenment and look at the work that came out of that period, things like Evolution is just the natural conclusion of its core tenants.

I don't want to throw this conversation into a full blow Creationism vs Evilution argument, so I will leave it at that. I dont think we are going to solve this issue today or on NICOClub.bud

[HashiriyaS14]

Oh, they're pretty center already. It was the GOP that brought us the TARP...bastards.

^^I think he meant socially, and I'm pretty sure you already knew that.

[Bubba1]

^^I think he meant socially, and I'm pretty sure you already knew that.

Correct...

[ishkabibble]

Trying to portray people who use the scientific method as "blindly following a religion" is so nonsensical, it is almost laughable.

[Cold_Zero]

To portray people who just accept Evilution, because it is a commonly taught theory in the classroom , as "people who use the scientific method" is equally laughable. And was what I was originally referring to in my post.

But when you come to the table with a presupposition, bend the facts and methods to prove your point because it is more important to prove your case or to be honest to disprove God, then I have a hard time just accepting it as Scientific Method. These are the people that refuse to take any criticism of their theories or to acknowledge other observations in science (yes they attack other scientists for being creationists or holding to intelligent design) because it conflicts with their world view. Which is what this is really all about in the first place.

[Urabus GodofTraction]

^^I think he meant socially, and I'm pretty sure you already knew that.

Yeah yeah yeah. I just think there are bigger issues at hand than a bunch of ****s wanting to get married so they can scrape artificially inseminated fetuses out of wombs to harvest their stem cells for research into global warming.

[Urabus GodofTraction]

It censors ****s?

That's pretty queer. The authors of the censoring list are a bunch of f*****y over sensitive poofters.

[ishkabibble]

To portray people who just accept Evilution, because it is a commonly taught theory in the classroom , as "people who use the scientific method" is equally laughable. And was what I was originally referring to in my post.

But when you come to the table with a presupposition, bend the facts and methods to prove your point because it is more important to prove your case or to be honest to disprove God, then I have a hard time just accepting it as Scientific Method. These are the people that refuse to take any criticism of their theories or to acknowledge other observations in science (yes they attack other scientists for being creationists or holding to intelligent design) because it conflicts with their world view. Which is what this is really all about in the first place.

The general populace does not use the scientific method, scientists do. Let's not conflate the two groups. Nearly all scientists accept evolution as the best available model to describe the world. Come up with a better model, and they will adopt it.

The theory of evolution is not a war on anything except ignorance. It has holes/gaps (like most theories do), but there is not currently a better model to replace it.

[audtatious]

To win a presidential election requires appealing to more than your core consitituency. there's no question, Audtatious is clearly a Palin supporter. while he is willing to overlook her negatives, the more moderate swing voters clearly did not. those losses in November should have sent a message to the GOP that they're on the wrong path.

If the GOP wants the white house back, they need to move more toward the center. As long Palin remains a viable candidate for 2012, the more the moderates/swing voters will believe that the GOP has not yet learned their lessons.

I'm a supporter of her views on fiscal conservatism, ethics reform and starting to use our own natural resources (safely) instead of relying on others. I will support any Dem or Rep who have those viewpoints. If I can't write checks that I can't cover via what my income is neither should the Gov.

[audtatious]

It censors ****s?

That's pretty queer. The authors of the censoring list are a bunch of f*****y over sensitive poofters.

I'm sure I can make it a custom title for ya and it won't be censored.

[Kohster]

To portray people who just accept Evilution, because it is a commonly taught theory in the classroom , as "people who use the scientific method" is equally laughable. And was what I was originally referring to in my post.

Do you really not believe in the scientific method?