Comments on: The Swift-Skirting of Sarah Palin

By: Myron Pitts

Myron Pitts — Tue, 09 Sep 2008 20:44:46 +0000

Gary: I think the Clarence Thomas analogy is apropos, in the sense that, like him, she was a pure affirmative action pick, is very likely unqualified, and holds views antithetical and harmful to the group she represents.

By: Warner Todd Huston

Warner Todd Huston — Mon, 08 Sep 2008 22:54:27 +0000

Cate, so you admit that your “opinion” is a meaningless jab based on no proof but your feelings? Wow. And you have the gall to accuse OTHER people of not arguing “intelligently”? Well, thanks for proving yourself such a silly person not worth taking seriously. We do appreciate it.

By: Mike

Mike — Mon, 08 Sep 2008 17:42:25 +0000

“You are disingenuous at best, lying to advance atheism on our kids at worse.”

No, not really. I have some experience teaching high school and college biology, and I can assure you that discussing the subject matter in class is, indeed, teaching. I’m not an atheist either. Defending creationism in public schools is not a conservative position, but, unfortunately, the latest repackaging of anti-evolution strategies has been too much of a temptation for politicians desperate for a compromise that looks good to the majority. The extreme anti-evolution campaign has been happy to oblige. This is why McCain appears to waffle on the question. He does not want to appear to be supporting the teaching of religion as science in public schools, he’s not anti-science, but he knows that there should be some way of teaching science without appearing to denigrate someone’s religion. Unfortunately, the scientific community hasn’t been able to get behind a message that no one need feel that science threatens their religious faith. That has left the field open to crusading atheists, and crusading religious extremists.

By: Cate

Cate — Mon, 08 Sep 2008 15:04:46 +0000

Perhaps if you don’t like having a “discussion” with the other side, WTH, you could make everyone pledge their political assimilation to you before they post a comment. Or perhaps state their race, so you’re sure you’re not dealing with someone too far from your bubble of reality.

By: Cate

Cate — Mon, 08 Sep 2008 14:46:25 +0000

WTH: I can’t be a liar for stating my opinion, as well as that of most American women (including many pro-life ones) that I know.
The “proof” is that there were women he could have picked (Kay Bailey Hutchinson, for one), but he instead chose a woman who is a new face to America and dub her “reformer”, though when it comes to her own sister and her ex-husband, it seems like “politics as usual” are quite familiar to her. (BTW: she was also a new face to him. He met her once, and talked to her once before making this monumental, “presidential” decision.)

Also, in case you can’t read things thoroughly, I live in a rural area, not a commune. The closest thing I have to “socialism” in my life is the flock of chickens in my backyard.
I simply think we might want to join the rest of the industrialized world in offering family friendly laws, especially if you’re part of a party that purports to believe in “family values.” (We are one of 5 countries without paid maternity leave, among Papau New Guinea and Swaziland. How “family values” of us!)
http://abcnews.go.com/Video/playerIndex?id=3664021&affil=wjla

Thanks for reinforcing my “whining” point! Way to argue intelligently. Why would I think I could get that from the Right?

By: Warner Todd Huston

Warner Todd Huston — Mon, 08 Sep 2008 14:04:30 +0000

Cate you are a liar...

However, it is overall demeaning to women that McCain thinks that he only had to put a pretty face on the ticket, and the female population would overlook her own contradictions and jump on the bandwagon. Same genitalia is ALL she shares with most women.

And your PROOF that McCain meant Palin's pick as merely this supposed "cynical" move is???

The TRUTH is this is your wild-eyed, hatemongering CLAIM. And NOT any REAL proof. Go peddle your talking points and lies to your socialist friends. We aren't fooled here.

By: Cate

Cate — Mon, 08 Sep 2008 14:00:05 +0000

It never ceases to amaze me how hypocritical the Right is. Awww. The Left is picking on your VP candidate! The whining is laughable after all the attacks from the Right over Clinton. What, we’re not allowed to point out yet another Republican’s hypocrisies?
http://www.thedailyshow.com/video/index.jhtml?videoId=184086&title=sarah-palin-gender-card
I am a feminist, though I did not support Hillary. I am also one of those “white, working-class, rural voters” that the GOP thinks they can steal with this VP pick. However, it is overall demeaning to women that McCain thinks that he only had to put a pretty face on the ticket, and the female population would overlook her own contradictions and jump on the bandwagon. Same genitalia is ALL she shares with most women.
Balancing work and family life is indeed a tough chore, but when her family life is in peril, she instead chose work. Yes, just 3 days after her special needs child was born.
How’s that for “family values”? As a mother of a boy the same age (and other children), I couldn’t imagine doing that to him, much less if he needed more attention from BOTH parents. Nope, instead, my dh and I have worked out a way to have quality family time, both in FT employment (and no Social Services!), and never put our children in daycare.
Note that no one from the Right seems to notice that poor, working women HAVE to return to work quickly, sometimes as fast as Ms. Palin chose to.
I don’t seem to hear a remedy from the “family values” party for paid family leave or mandatory maternity leave for companies of ALL sizes, which would actually support family structure and child health.
I suppose many on the right simply don’t have to think about that, what with their large elitist tax-cut funded bankrolls.
Sure, go ahead and be “pro-life,” but make sure to ignore the “life” that comes after. Does McCain/Palin (and the entire GOP, for that matter) have alternatives for young women who are not as economically viable as Bristol? Oh, sure: abstinence. Got it.
And yes, I do believe that many McCain supporters are racist. It isn’t simply theory; it is what I hear way too often everywhere from my rural community to TV and online pundits. You’re all trying to scare the “average” American of the big scary Black man. At the head of this fight: McCain. Why else would that ad that paints Obama as a celebrity (painting his popularity as a bad thing…seriously?) put him alongside pics of white blond bimbos instead of celebs that actually DO support him? Again, laughable.
Keep whining, conservatives. It’ll get you in practice for November 5.

By: False teacher on Palin « 4Simpsons Blog - Eternity Matters

False teacher on Palin « 4Simpsons Blog - Eternity Matters — Mon, 08 Sep 2008 13:56:46 +0000

[...] here’s a recent list of the lies and the truth about Palin. Yes, the lies are spreading rapidly but I think people are onto the MSM (at least [...]

By: Warner Todd Huston

Warner Todd Huston — Mon, 08 Sep 2008 13:09:47 +0000

Mike, that is the most ridiculous claim I’ve ever seen. “Teach” has a far different meaning than discuss. To “teach” evolution is to go into it as a matter of course work. To DISCUSS creationism is to make it an aside without going into it as a scientific theory, NOR does it have to mean that creationism is given the weight of science.

You are disingenuous at best, lying to advance atheism on our kids at worse.

By: Mike

Mike — Mon, 08 Sep 2008 13:00:19 +0000

“Teach the controversy” IS putting creationism in the science class. You can’t “just discuss it” without presenting it. Having a governor friendly to anti-evolution propaganda in the classroom is all that is needed to give the green light to teachers and school admins. “Teach the controversy” is spreading quite nicely throughout the country without any laws being passed.