Huckabee gave a very good speech I think, though I can't say I agree with him on many issues, especially say the death penalty or support for the poor.
Palin was very good, however...I was alarmed when she mocked Obama for being worried that someone is reading a suspected-terrorist their rights when they are being arrested.
Cindy McCain was like a damn robot.
As for John's speech. It started off a bit awkward simply because of the obnoxious protesters, but he got it going smoothly thereafter. Of course he took some shots at Obama. Obama took some shots at him as well. So it was fair game IMO. He also did the classy thing (as did Obama) of throwing out his respect and so forth towards Obama.
McCain about half way through the speech started diving into actual specifics on issues (or at least, as specific as you are going to get). For continuing comparison sakes, much like Obama did. It was good for him to really get specific and showcase that Palin and him as the Republican ticket, know all about the struggles of families (he even mentioned some specifically).
I also liked that he said he hated war and that he would try to work towards peace. He had a good line saying elsewhere in the speech saying, "It isn't about being able to fight, the real test is what you are fighting for." Great quote.
He returned to his returned to his 'Maverick' roots for about a good ten minutes when he completely blasted not just the Democrats but the Republicans as well for failing the American people. I really enjoyed that.
The most moving part of the speech was the last about ten or so minutes talking about how before he was a prisoner of war, he was pretty much a cocky, arrogant and selfish person. But then thereafter, after his country saved him, he became a sefless person devoted to returning the favor to America through service. Definitely pulling at those heartstrings a bit.
His best line though was when he said, "I'm an imperfect servant, but a servant of the American people nonetheless." Something to that effect. Obviously he isn't as great a speaker as Obama, but content wise, I thought it was right up there with Obama's speech.
Originally posted by sithsaber408I honestly haven't watched anything from the RNC yet. Too busy getting acclimated to school and shit.
A good call. I'm aiming higher, but obviously I'm a supporter of the campaign. 😛 No I know you weren't.In fairness, 4 of those speeches just aired last night so you can't really be "late" on something that's brand new.
You have a good grasp on things...what are your honest impressions? (not expecting you to switch sides or anything.)
What do you think will happen in the debates? (my opinion could change after tonight, but it seems that both McCain at Saddleback and Palin last night are far better than people assumed.)
when it comes to her VP acceptance speech and McCain's performance at Saddleback (neither of which has any relevance to a debate setting, by the way), I think you're mistaking good for the base for being good for the country. Both of the people on the ticket have positions that are outside the mainstream, and will not win them votes. I honestly think that if the Republicans are going to win in November, it will be in spite of the debates rather than because of them.
Depends on how one defines the mainstream. Your country is still largely centre-right; despite what the demographics of KMC suggest.
Palin's speech was apparently about as well received as Obama's according to something I read on 538.
But with regard to both candidates: A leader may make a good speech; but a speech does not necessarily make a good leader.
I found this excerpt from here interesting.
Republicans will spend this week during their national convention trying to convince voters that a 44-year-old "hockey mom from Alaska" is fully qualified to stand a heartbeat from the presidency. In this case, the heart in question is beating inside the chest of a 72-year-old man who's lived a life that ought to take a decade off anyone's expectancy.No knock on Sarah Palin. The Alaskan governor is an overachiever and deserves attention for what she's accomplishing in office, bringing reform to a state that badly needs it. She's also an avid outdoorswoman, is married to an ordinary working stiff and is the mother of five children, one of whom is still in diapers. And as a bonus, she's hot.
It sounds like a Disney movie: "Vice President Mommy."
But is Sarah Palin ready for the Oval Office? She's been governor for just two years, and before that was the mayor of a small town. Had she finished this term and another, and sustained her early success, she would have earned a look for the ticket.
She's certainly one of the GOP's top young prospects, but she's being called up to the big leagues too soon.
And so is Barack Obama. His resume is as thin as Palin's. He was a community organizer in Chicago, served briefly in the Illinois Legislature and lucked into the U.S. Senate when his Republican opponent, the runaway favorite, got tangled in a weird sex scandal.
He, too, has a young family, plays pickup basketball and is very GQ. And as an added bonus, his wife is hot.
But it is embarrassing to hear Obama, 47, explain how his work on the streets of Chicago fully prepared him to be leader of the free world because he met a lot of people down on their luck. He's been in the Senate just four years and has spent half of that time running for president.
And yet, last week in Denver, the elder statesmen of the Democratic Party walked one by one to the podium to extol the leadership skills of Obama. They had to be choking on their words. Obama doesn't chair a Senate committee, hasn't been one of its most influential voices, has never really led anything.
Had he devoted himself to learning his job as senator this term, and then moved into a real leadership post next term, he would have had a legitimate claim to a presidential run.
But like Palin, he's young, charismatic and looks and sounds good on TV. Who needs seasoning when you've got the spice?
As for McCain, well he pretty much did as well as anyone has come to expect of him. Everyone knows he isn't some great orator.
A clear majority of Americans support at least some measure of abortion rights. Both McCain and Palin oppose it almost absolutely.
I don't know where Palin stands on Iraq, but the majority of Americans surely doesn't agree with McCain's stance.
More and more, Americans are showing a clear lean towards the Democratic sides of the issues; gay marriage, true energy independence (not just drill drill drill), universal health care, Social Security, etc, etc.
I know Palin's views are very religious right on abortion. I don't know what McCain's really are.
On an aside, I doubt any US President and/or Supreme Court will ever overturn Roe v Wade, regardless of their personal beliefs.
I don't consider the Iraq war a left-right issue.
On "the two Americas" it depends on what issue you take.
On domestic issues:
On universal healthcare; a majority of your citizens already thought that healthcare is a government responsibility a decade ago.
On energy; a majority think conservation is more important than production - but then again that's not a new thing and dates back a while. A majority do favor more drilling and more nuclear. I'm not sure where Democrats stand on nuclear power.
But on the "moral" issues:
The largest bloc of Americans still think abortion should only be allowed in instances of rape and incest. So one can just as easily play the Devil's advocate and argue that Obama is as out of step with the bulk of Americans than McCain is.
A clear majority of US citizens still oppose gay marriage. 40% still oppose the legality of homosexual relations altogether.
And another watershed issue for me in gauging the demeanor of the US public has always been the evolution "debate." Where the largest proportion of people still think that the Earth is 10,000 years old and humans were made as we are now.
Originally posted by xmarksthespot
I know Palin's views are very religious right on abortion. I don't know what McCain's really are.On an aside, I doubt any US President and/or Supreme Court will ever overturn Roe v Wade, regardless of their personal beliefs.
I don't consider the Iraq war a left-right issue.
On "the two Americas" it depends on what issue you take.
On domestic issues:
On universal healthcare; a majority of your citizens already thought that healthcare is a government responsibility a decade ago.
On energy; a majority think conservation is more important than production - but then again that's not a new thing and dates back a while. A majority do favor more drilling and more nuclear. I'm not sure where Democrats stand on nuclear power.But on the "moral" issues:
The largest bloc of Americans still think abortion should only be allowed in instances of rape and incest. So one can just as easily play the Devil's advocate and argue that Obama is as out of step with the bulk of Americans than McCain is.
A clear majority of US citizens still oppose gay marriage. 40% still oppose the legality of homosexual relations altogether.And another watershed issue for me in gauging the demeanor of the US public has always been the evolution "debate." Where the largest proportion of people still think that the Earth is 10,000 years old and humans were made as we are now.
Good points.
Heck in CA, the most liberal state of the union, gay marriage was defeated by 61% majority voting against it. (and since the liberal judges decided to overturn our decision, we'll do it again this november)
While I personally support an abortion for rape or life of the mother (and Palin doesn't), I'm against it for irresponsible birth control type of fixes. And most americans are as well.
Again, agreed that Iraq isn't a right-left issue. It's an America issue. Maybe it should've never happened, but as of right now...ALL Americans have to hope it works out for the best there, rather than a chaotic state that implodes and Iran or some terror group seizes control.
As for evolution, I don't see where it fits in to this. (other than to throw a jab out that carbon dating also said a Snickers bar was 1000 years old, so don't trust it.)
Originally posted by StrangeloveWe'll see. Don't count them out of the debates just yet.
I honestly haven't watched anything from the RNC yet. Too busy getting acclimated to school and shit.when it comes to her VP acceptance speech and McCain's performance at Saddleback (neither of which has any relevance to a debate setting, by the way), I think you're mistaking good for the base for being good for the country. Both of the people on the ticket have positions that are outside the mainstream, and will not win them votes. I honestly think that if the Republicans are going to win in November, it will be in spite of the debates rather than because of them.
Both of them can think on their toes (Palin moreso than McCain), and can deliver their message well.
Here's an Obama problem: He needs a good 5 minutes of thoughtful pondering to say something that rises to a great level. When he was at Saddleback, you could see him taking time to get to his desired destination with each question.
The debates will not allow that, and McCain will do what McCain does: be emotionally engaging and speak directly and quickly to the people.
Not saying McCain will win the debates, but that it'll be even or a slight Obama win. But they won't "Win in spite of the debates" as you say.
Originally posted by StrangeloveSee my response to Xmarks.
A clear majority of Americans support at least some measure of abortion rights. Both McCain and Palin oppose it almost absolutely.I don't know where Palin stands on Iraq, but the majority of Americans surely doesn't agree with McCain's stance.
More and more, Americans are showing a clear lean towards the Democratic sides of the issues; gay marriage, true energy independence (not just drill drill drill), universal health care, Social Security, etc, etc.
I don't mean this as dig really, as you are very informed and care about your party positions in a passionate way but...
you show your age with that type of statement.
It's a very young and foolish idea to think that working people with families are for higher taxes (taxing business they work for or are consumers at will raise their expenses, so you might as well be taxing them), are for gay marriage, are for abortions, and want to live in a country where we cater to mad dictators and extremists with negotiations.
The only ones who think that America wants that are the big city liberals, or young people like you. As the saying goes: "If you're not a liberal by the age of 18 you have no heart. If you're not a conservative by the age of 40, you have no brain."
But at least you've got heart! 👆
Originally posted by Aster PhoenixI made this on motifake.com for you and everybody like you:
I think she came off as Anne Coulter's less funny step-child.
I'm aware of the grammar mistake, but it's too late to change it. 😛
Originally posted by sithsaber408Because as noted Palin thinks religion should be taught in a science class.
As for evolution, I don't see where it fits in to this. (other than to throw a jab out that carbon dating also said a Snickers bar was 1000 years old, so don't trust it.) We'll see. Don't count them out of the debates just yet.
Also I'd consider Massachusetts to be the most left-leaning state.
I prefer this picture:
Originally posted by BackFire
Evolution fits in because Palin supports ID/creationism/god-made-everything being taught in Science classes.
That's the one part of the post that you wanted to talk about? Her views on it won't influence the debates, the voters, or anybody else.
I think about half of America would be ok with ID being taught in school alongside the theory of evolution.
Especially as more microbiological information comes to light and statistically you have more chance of a tornado blowing through a junkyard forming a fully functioning 1969 Ford Mustang, than you have of the big bang creating everything from nothing by random chance.
It's a debate that will only begin to heat up more as college professors and scientists are starting to say that Darwinism is preached like a religion without pointing out huge flaws like the inaccuracy of carbon dating or the huge gaps in the fossil records that don't show any sort of transitional species.
Originally posted by BackFire
Any perceived problems with Evolution doesn't magically make ID scientifically valid.
No, but they make evolution (don't capitalize it. I mean really, for what?) less scientifically valid all the time.
Seeing the design and order in the way a bee pollinates a flower, or the rain cycle, or the human bodies digestive system and saying that it all came about from nothing by random chance is "a statistical monstrosity" according to the staticians at Gallup.
You don't have to say God is real, but there should be both sides presented in schools. There IS a valid case for a creator and you can determine for yourself who/what that is.
But arguing this "we came from amoebas and monkeys by..umm... I don't know ...lightning struck a puddle of water! Maybe!" is garbage.
Anyway, the fact that I'm even able to debate this at all shows it's not proven, therefore shouldn't be taught along with math, english, and history as FACT.
But in the end, Palin's views on ID/evolution will have little effect on the election.
Originally posted by sithsaber408
No, but they make evolution (don't capitalize it. I mean really, for what?) less scientifically valid all the time.
No they don't. It's a scientific theory, no more, no less; it doesn't claim to have all the answers. Science is the search for truth through observation and experimentation. Evolution can be studied in such a way, ID cannot.
Originally posted by sithsaber408
Seeing the design and order in the way a bee pollinates a flower, or the rain cycle, or the human bodies digestive system and saying that it all came about from nothing by random chance is "a statistical monstrosity" according to the staticians at Gallup.
It doesn't say that it came from nothing, though. That's you misrepresenting what they say.
Originally posted by sithsaber408
You don't have to say God is real, but there should be both sides presented in schools. There IS a valid case for a creator and you can determine for yourself who/what that is.
Both sides shouldn't be presented in school, no more than both sides should be presented in your church. One is a scientific theory, the other is a religious belief - fact.
Originally posted by sithsaber408
But arguing this "we came from amoebas and monkeys by..umm... I don't know ...lightning struck a puddle of water! Maybe!" is garbage.
Scientists don't agree with you. And lazily simplifying a theory/anything to the point that it sounds silly is a fallacy. It's not that cut and dry and that simple and you know it (or maybe you don't).
Originally posted by sithsaber408
Anyway, the fact that I'm even able to debate this at all shows it's not proven, therefore shouldn't be taught along with math, english, and history as FACT.
Never said it was proven. Science rarely deals in absolutes. Conclusions are made through debate and observation, and the best theory is then accepted, until a better one comes. Science always changes, theories always change. That's the scientific method. ID does not and cannot change because it cannot even be observed or experimented. The only argument for ID is "well the other stuff is not proven, so ID must be right", which is another fallacy.
Originally posted by sithsaber408
But in the end, Palin's views on ID/evolution will have little effect on the election.
Maybe. It's still there and worth noting. Which is all I was doing. It may have an effect because it shows a lack of understanding on her part in regards to science.
ID is not science based, Evolution is. They should each be taught in the proper forums.
Also, you seem to be arguing against the Big Bang theory more than you're arguing against evolution. Evolution is simply the idea that organisms can change over time. It has nothing to do with something being created out of nothing, as you've mentioned several times, that's the big bang (well that's your misrepresentation of it anyways). At least learn the different theories.
Actually ID can be observed, in the examples I gave you and countless others of inter-dependent systems that couldn't have evolved slowly but must have been created together all at once for that particular system, function, organ (in the case of humans) to work/survive.
Example: human digestion. We have acidic fluid in our intestines needed to break down solids that would burn right through us if not for the protective coating surrounding them.
So were people designed with all of it in place already(none of it works without the other) or did pieces slowly evolve over generations of humans that took on certain traits?
But again, this will have little effect on the election.
Uh, that is absolutely not evidence or an observation of ID. That would simply be part of evolution.
Stomach acid was part of evolution far before we were even humans.
Obviously that protective coating formed before the acid or before the acid became as strong as it currently is.
None of this inherently supports ID, it can all be explained simply through Evolution.
Bottom line - Evolution is science based. ID is not. One should be taught as science, the other should be taught as religion. They aren't equal.
Originally posted by sithsaber408Um, you're falling into the tried-and-failed argument where Democratic policies automatically equal higher taxes. Nice try though.
I don't mean this as dig really, as you are very informed and care about your party positions in a passionate way but...you show your age with that type of statement.
It's a very young and foolish idea to think that working people with families are for higher taxes (taxing business they work for or are consumers at will raise their expenses, so you might as well be taxing them), are for gay marriage, are for abortions, and want to live in a country where we cater to mad dictators and extremists with negotiations.
The only ones who think that America wants that are the big city liberals, or young people like you. As the saying goes: "If you're not a liberal by the age of 18 you have no heart. If you're not a conservative by the age of 40, you have no brain."
But at least you've got heart! 👆
and the quote is 25 and 35, not 18 and 40.
ID isn't a scientific theory. It has not and cannot be observed. It ultimately can never be a scientific, since it relies on the premise of an ethereal "designer" for which it's empirically impossible to determine the existence of.
Conversely there is a vast repertoire of evidence, for which evolution is currently the best explanation. Ergo evolution is a scientific theory, in the same way that since there's a large amount of evidence for which gravity is the best explanation that there is a theory of gravitation.
"Irreducible complexity" is a failed argument and isn't evidence or observation of ID. "Irreducible complexity" can evolve. If "irreducible complexity" did in fact preclude Darwinian evolution, which it doesn't, it still does not follow that ID is right - false dichotomy. "Parts" in "irreducible complexity" are poorly defined and modified depending upon the attempt of argument.