Palin Bingo

I hope they ask a question about dinosaurs tonight...please, ask her about dinosaurs.

I would rather wonder when the indictments start those pictures will be much more interesting, was it $167000 that Obama had to give to charity because it came from Rezko? Seems like a much bigger Bingo game to be in together Obama, Rezko, Blago and all his buddies going to jail together. 

Q: Did McCain just give up on Michigan?
A: Bingo.

This bingo crap does nothing to heal our nation.  Where's the debate drinking game when you need it?

Go back to making fun of Palin rather then talking about the issues.

When "making fun" of someone brings to light prime examples of their critical thinking "abilities" (e.g., thinking that humans walked with the dinosaurs), it's certainly an issue. Wouldn't you want a rational VP that relies on evidence to make decisions?

Nope.

Kevin... Palin did clarify that she only meant to allow it in such classes in your first source:

In an interview Thursday, Palin said she meant only to say that discussion of alternative views should be allowed to arise in Alaska classrooms:

"I don't think there should be a prohibition against debate if it comes up in class. It doesn't have to be part of the curriculum."

She added that, if elected, she would not push the state Board of Education to add such creation-based alternatives to the state's required curriculum.

 

As for the 6,000 years full on creationist nutjobbery, I'd imagine that with all the fake quotes floating around there (see snopes for more) she wasn't going to bother attempting to debunk all of the idiotic rumors floating around out there, no matter how many news sites regurgitated fake ones from blogs or actual rumors.  AFAIK there are no quotes of her actually supporting this, though it wouldn't shock me if there were some.  I'd imagine if she was as fundy-extremist as people make out though an actual quote of her saying it wouldn't be hard to find.

--

Glock21 Op/Ed

On the first claim, she did say teach it twice, but also let the kids debate it twice.  So perhaps she really thinks both should be taught and her clarification was mere backpeddling... but as her clarification noted and the record shows, she hasn't pushed for teaching both.  So perhaps she's a nutter who doesn't push her nuttiness on others, even if tempting?  Beats me.  I guess it depends on if you want to believe the off the cuff remark was some better insight into how she'd govern than her clarification and record that shows otherwise.

As far as addressing every single rumor that got dumped throughout the media that was provably false or merely hearsay or other absurdities... the McCain campaign would have to higher an entire law firm to correct them all.  Keep in mind that Obama took many months to clarify that the former Fannie Mae CEO wasn't really his economic advisor... something the Washington Post still hasn't corrected even though their factcheckers have called McCain a liar for citing their articles on it.  Somehow it seems politically worse for the McCain camp to help keep all the rumors in the spotlight by going on some crusade to correct the hundreds of inaccurate artitcles out there based on blog bs and word of mouth rumors.  Is this guy's recollection accurate?  Maybe.  But if she's that nutty you'd think there'd be more than just his recollection given all the trash-digging media hounds and campaign minions hunting like mad for these kind of nuggets.

As far as judgment of people on their religion, I know the feeling.  Almost every candidate I vote for thinks some mythical being handcrafted the universe with all sorts of wild tales about the hows, whys, and who got the right voices to let us know how it all went down.  Regardless, these two examples hardly seem damning compared to how nuts every other religious person comes off to me... especially since they're pretty flimsy on showing her to be as nutty as her detractors want her to appear.

[edit: accidentally put years instead of months]

--

Glock21 Op/Ed

I call it a rumor because it has been a rumor... I'd find the rumor more believable if there was actually proof that Palin said it not tons of fake quotes and one guy who swears he heard her say it on top of all the other BS on the exact same subject that fits a narrative by her detractors on top of a dozens upon dozens of other unsubstantiated rumors in pursuit of painting her as a total fundy whackjob... which she very well may be... but almost all the evidence of it comes far short of the claims or is based on indirect evidence.  As far as I can tell from actual quotes from her she's just mostly a whackjob nutter on the religious stuff and not that far off from your average devout anything-religious.

Color me skeptical after everything from secessionist rumors proven wrong to baby bumps proving faked pregnancies from pictures that pre-date the actual pregnancy that the baby bumps supposedly proved to her both being too pro-Israel to too anti-Israel to banning sex-ed that was never banned to prohibiting teaching contraception that was never prohibited to believing dinosaurs walked with Jesus which one can only find one guy attesting that she ever said... and apparently never in public statements, comments, etc that were ever recorded by either cameras or journalists in spite her being some sort of beligerent whackjob that supposedly has done little to hide it?  Honestly, how many blatant nutjobber creationists do you know that are so quiet about it that only one guy has ever heard them mention anything of the sort?  On second thought color me very skeptical.

--

Glock21 Op/Ed

Arvid... like the multiple muslim rumors that I've argued against? The madrassa rumors? The non-citizen rumors? The fake birth certificate rumors? The "whitey" tape?  The refusing to say the pledge rumors? The rumors about him having some drug/sexscapade with a male attention whore?  Hell, I even argued that his church wasn't all that extreme based on the factcheck.org article that came out early on... which I changed my mind about after learning more about it from the church leader, member descriptions, the basis of their ideology, the videos both full and the soundbytes played repeatedly, etc.

Or is my opinion that he has made some idiotic associations for an aspiring politician enough to brand me as not skeptical enough?

--

Glock21 Op/Ed

It's certainly repugnant to the concept of liberty to force people to say the pledge.  Given that it's a patriotic pledge though it'd difficult to argue it is an unpatriotic thing to do, even if misguided.  If anything we can agree that patriotism can sometimes be dumb. :-)

--

Glock21 Op/Ed

Given that it's a patriotic pledge though it'd difficult to argue it is an unpatriotic thing to do, even if misguided.

Weol, under my understanding, it's only hard to argue that if you believe patriotism is about hollow words vs. upholding the actual principles of the country.  (Not saying that you believe that, only that I think there's another way of looking at it that you might not be seeing.)

In the first instance, while her backpedaling was understandable and probably prudent--At first I thought you where talking about Obama Kevin like his flip flop on FISA or Taking Campaign Finance Funds. You have really picked some big issue here that Palin has corrected immediately. To bad Obama wasn't so straight forward with his supporters saying for months he was going to vote against FISA and then kicking his supporters to the curb. Obama will change his mind again if he becomes President he is only making those promises to the American people to get elected.

A pledge of allegiance to it pretty well fits the definition regardless of whether doing so upholds any relevant principles.  I see what you're getting at, but I don't consider patriotism as inherently good/bad/principled/unprincipled/etc... it can be motivated by good intentions or bad, and be completely contradictory to common values or be generally compatible with them.  It's a semantics thing for me... not a disagreement on  ideas, just think there'd need to be a qualifier because patriotism is a bit too generic a term.

I see what you are saying. I don't think it really matters one way or another where we define the semantics here.

I'd argue that "love" is the stumbling block here. One could pledge to allegiance to their spouse, but if they cheat everyday and twice on Thursday, I'd argue that the love is absent.

I don't think that failure to love country is a partisan problem, but it certainly describes a Bush, Cheney or Palin. (IMHO, not McCain)

Why  do most liberals have a problem discussing intelligent design, evolution, the five pillars of Islam, the virgin Mary, transsubstantiation, or any topic religious in our schools.  As long as the State is not trying to prefer one religion of another, I don't see the problem.  The liberals really try to twist the views of Madison (Remonstance against Religious Assessments of 1785) into a suggestion that religion cannot be mentioned in school. 

Now it is true that some liberal  judges have stretched what Madison said to conclude this, but that debate still continues.  Madison suggests that "the religion then of every man must be left to the conviction and conscience of every man."  This to me suggests he is simply saying that you can talk about it, just be careful that you do not try to establish any religion. 

He suggests that it is the right of every man to exercise (religious freedom) in the manner contemplated by his mind.  "It is unalienable, because the opinions of men, depending only on the evidence contemplated by their own minds cannot follow the dictates of other men: It is unalienable also, because what is here a right towards men, is a duty toward the Creator. It is the duty of every man to render to the Creator such homage and such only as he believes to be acceptable to him. This duty is precendent, both in order of time and in degree of obligation, to the claims of Civil Society."

The liberals  reconcile their interpretation by suggesting that explaining what some people believe, intelligent design (Adam and Eve were the first humans),  is an attempt to establish a religion. But these same liberals have no problem with the teacher suggesting that ancestors of Adam and Eve were apes which is sometimes referred to as  teaching evolution.

Don't you  think  one could equally argue that teaching evolution in a public school science class has constituional problems for the same reason  as teaching intelligent design.    The better approach, it seems to me, is to state the issue so that it can be understood by children. 

Perhaps the issue is whether everything in the bible is to be taken literally.    The intelligent design folks believe one way and Catholics and many other Protestant denominations believe another way.  I am sure this is over simplified, but I would argue that it is better to explain the issues and beliefs without  argument than not to mention the view points at all.  Doesn't this teach religious tolerance-which is what Madison was trying to promote?

 Madison was arguing that religion was personal, not that government schools should meddle in any religious beliefs of children by any stretch of the imagination.  Evolutionary theories don't include "adam and eve" and have no basis in religious texts.  Intelligent design is just another cover for the same old book.  Nothing prohibits private schools from teaching religion as much as they want.  Agents of the government are limited due to the Constitutional restrictions against laws respecting an establishment of religion (not the same as simply prohibiting laws establishing religion).

A quick dictionary dive into the meaning of respecting in that context reveals why Madison spoke of a separation of church and state just as Jefferson had.  But with Madison this is far more compelling given that he is given credit for framing that Amendment.  Where the line may be crossed in discussing relevant religious history to actually promoting religious tenets gets a bit more hazy... but to suggest that a scientific theory should be treated like a religion or that intelligent design that, by your own admission, is based upon religious scripture is somehow within the authority of the government to push is a bit more than off imo.

--

Glock21 Op/Ed

Check out Thursday's NewsGazette, page A-5.  (October 2, 2008)  St. Eve said in her five page written order that the clerk of the court would keep the remaining $105, 207, and not dispense it to Rezco or members of his family...The money came from and is directly traceable to the sale of certain property owned and controlled by the defendant, Rezco."

When Michelle Obama served on the Historical Landmark Commission of the City of Chicago, she discovered a house she just had to have, but could not afford.  Senator Obama and Mr. Rezco toured the home together because the Senator did not understand these matters and he knew that Mr. Rezco had vast experience in real estate.  The home in question had a narrow frontage what was divided down into two long rectangular lots.  The entire property was enclosed by a tall brick fence  with one iron gate for access.  The home sat on the the east lot and the tree lined side yard was to the west.   

Mr. Rezco was under federal scrutiny at the time and was in need of cash to pay for his lawyers, to support his wife, and obtain political influence at the highest level.  When he toured the home with Senator Obama, he found a way to do all three.  His London based partner, Nadhmi Auchi, purchased the side yard of Obama's home for $630,000 through Mrs. Rezco.  Obama put up the rest of the $2.3 million. 

The original plan was to get $100,000 into the hands of Mrs. Rezco.  This would have been easy to do without scrutiny, since the lot and the house were both to be closed together and were to be conveyed to two land trusts, one owned by Mrs. Rezco and the other land trust was, I believe,  created by Michelle Obama.    But Michelle apparently got greedy.  When the extent of Rezco's problems became known,  she tried to pay less than the $100,000  that was agreed upon.  She went out and got an appraisal who gave her an estimate of value, as I recall, of $33,000  for the 10 feet of the side yard which ran north and south along the long length of the rectangular lot.   

Michelle might have gotten away with returning only $33,000, but since this was 1/6th of the square footage of the side yard,  he generously agreed to pay $105,000 which was 1/6 of the $630,000 lot purchase price.  Thus the first goal of getting back $105,000 to Mrs. Rezco.

The second mission was to get money to the Rezco lawyers.  Doing this creates an attorney client privilege.  Rezco has conveyed the remaining lot to his lawyers.  

The third goal was political influence which he obviously got when Obama was able to purchase a home originally listed for 2.5m for 1.7m.  We are talking pardon here.  I think that you can see that Obama seems to be involved in money laundering of Nadhmi Auchi's cash to his partner Rezco.    

As long as the State is not trying to prefer one religion of another, I don't see the problem.

The problem, as it's almost embarrassing to have to explain to you, is that the Supreme Court disagrees in case after case, and that by definition makes what you see or don't see irrelevant. Which is another way of saying, if you argued that point in court, you'd have about 100 calabreses of hopelessness.

Are you laughing yet?

I can't help but notice that Rezko is spelled with a 'k.' The misspelling doesn't completely discredit this theory, but it does make me question to amount and quality of 'research' and 'facts' behind it.

nattering-  The Supreme Court decisions are all narrowly drawn to the precise facts in the case.  The constitution is what it is and only get modified by amendment.  This is the precise problem with Roe vs. Wade.  This is what all the argument is about concerning liberal judges.  There is no right of privacy under the constitution. The right to an abortion during the first tri-mester could have been decided based on a 14th amendment or on freedom of religion grounds.  Most people believe that true constitutional issues should be decided based upon the constitution, not some made up bs.  "I prefer a straight fight to all this sneaking around."

I think you can take that k and shove it up your krack.

"IP:  I fear that someone may be fraudulently using John E. Maloney's good name in an obvious ruse to discredit him by posting elaborately inarticulate, unsubstantiated nonsense here and falsely attributing it to him.  Krack, indeed."

Heh.

The Supreme Court decisions are all narrowly drawn to the precise facts in the case.

Actually, no. And again, it's embarrassing to have to correct you on something so basic. You'll see, for example, Lemon v Kurtzman, 1971, which set up a very general "Lemon test" to determine whether the Establishment clause of the First Amendment ("Congress shall make no law regarding the establishment of religion") has been violated. If the Supreme Courts decisions were all as narrow as you *wish* they were, then the Lemon test couldn't have been applied in so many varied cases across the country. Such as the case in Dover PA that demonstrated that "intelligent design theory" was not only a crock of crap but also in violation of -- wait for it! -- the separation of church and state as determined by the Lemon test. A good chunk of Judge Jones' ruling is specifically taking the facts of the Dover case and methodicaly applying the Lemon test.

And, of course, calling evolution a "theory" doesn't disparage it; scientists also refer to "atomic theory," "theory of electromagnetism," "theory of gravitation," and so on. "Theory" doesn't mean "hunch" in science, though Reagan and Palin have both lied to the general public by suggesting otherwise.

From Kevin Sanderfer's comment above. "You'll notice that there is no discernable connection between this money and either Michelle or Barack Obama,"

From the article which may not cover all connections or explains of everything but it sure makes a connection to Barack Obama.

CHICAGO (AP) — a federal judge on Wednesday froze more than $100,000 belonging to Antoin "Tony" Rezko, saying the money may be needed if she orders the prominent political fundraiser to forfeit a big chunk of his assets as punishment for masterminding political corruption.

"There is a substantial probability that the United States will prevail in its request for entry of a money judgment against the defendant," U.S. District Judge Amy J. St. Eve, who presided at Rezko's trial, said in her order freezing the money.

Rezko, a major fundraiser for Democratic Gov. Rod Blagojevich and Sen. Barack Obama, was convicted in June of mail fraud, wire fraud, aiding and abetting bribery, and attempted extortion. Neither Blagojevich nor Obama are accused of wrongdoing in the case.

I think the corruption issue especially when it comes to Obama friend and consultant on housing Franklin Raines that will be Obama's biggest problem. The fact that Raines was removed from Fannie Mae for improprieties surrounding managers inflating the numbers to make more money in bonuses when Raines made 90 million dollars is just another example of the corruption that surrounds Obama. The Republicans and Bush tried to regulate Fannie Mae and was stopped by the democrats now we have the financial mess we are in now. 

"I think the corruption issue especially when it comes to Obama friend and consultant on housing Franklin Raines that will be Obama's biggest problem."

Well, it might of been if the allegation of their relationship had been true.  Unfortunately for your argument, the sole, original source of this linkage (the Washington Post) has already fact checked it and found it to be false.

Yes and there was never a connection between Obama aand Rev. Wright. I beleive the Washington Post about as much as they have investigated the story which is little.

"Yes and there was never a connection between Obama aand Rev. Wright. I beleive the Washington Post about as much as they have investigated the story which is little."

Ah, but now you have contradicted yourself, since the only source for the alleged connection between Raines and Obama in the first place was: (wait for it...) The Washington Post!  Ta da!  Thankyuh.  Thankyuhverymuch...