The Rosetta Stone

I can see lots of problems with her. So if the Republicans win, and John McCain dies considering he`s 72 years old, I don`t think she`s ready to be president. Women or not, a good, prepared first women president is better than a bad one. If this small chance does happen, are presidents allowed to call elections like they can do here, or is the United States stuck with her until the term is up?

From:

While we would be "stuck" with her if this unlikely scenario were to happen, I rather think she'd be perfectly fine for the job. Plus, if she were found to be unfit for it, we do have a chain of succession whereby she could step aside (by choice or force) and the next person in line would take over.

If nothing else, I firmly believe she's more a more competent leader than Obama can hope to be right now. Starting with a 10 and the risk of having to fall back to an 8 is better than started with a 5.

From:

I whole heartedly disagree but whatever, it`s not my election. Just as long as the militaristic United States doesn`t invade Canada or get involved with our own affairs.

From:

I've got the same question to ask you that I asked someone else recently.

So what you're saying is that you not only will tolerate, but actively endorse a candidate who:

-Ignores scientific facts about reality (global warming)
-Wants children to be taught that evolution is a disputed theory (it isn't) and discuss non-scientific topics in science classes
-Favors abstinence-only sex-ed (which doesn't work) over accurate information

Forget her stance on abortion--it's a controversial topic, but believing women don't have a right to abortions isn't batshit insane the same way that, say, denying scientifically verifiable facts is. And forget about her stance on benefits for gay partners. Those are strictly opinion cases, even if it is socially oppressive to deny women control over their own reproduction or to refuse to let people enjoy spousal benefits just because they like a different kind of sex. The three points I've listed deal with hard information, not fuzzy, emotional issues. Are you saying you aren't worried about elected officials ignoring reality--and indeed, actively endorse it?

From:

More or less, yes.

Every candidate's going to have things I agree with them on, and some that I don't. I've re-evaluated my opinions on the candidates more times than I can count over the past few months, and a few weeks ago I simply decided that I wasn't convinced Obama would be a capable President. (insert preemptive STFU to any accusations of racism here)

Aside from that, I've seen and read about how good a job Palin's done as Governor up here, and despite her flaws (a human with problems?! GASPSHOCKHORROR!!) I still feel that I'd rather have McCain and her in office than Obama and Biden.

And just so this thread doesn't go without my usual, ridiculous sense of humor: When I got off the plane up here in Nome on that sunny July day a few weeks ago, the first thing I saw was my breath. I think people in this state may very well have justifiable reason to question the existence of global warming. :b

From:

You're a pagan, right? And you still want to elect an evangelical Christian who signed a bill (http://www.cbn.com/cbnnews/435912.aspx) to "emphasize America's Christian heritage?"

Why won't Obama be a capable president? I would like to hear your reasoning.

Also, that would be funny if it weren't for the fact that people are actually retarded enough to think that it's true as opposed to just a joke. If the glaciers continue melting, Alaska will be underwater. Local weather does not equal global climate.

From:

And yet the Northwest Passage is pretty much melted, when for centuries ships got stuck and people died trying to get through that icy bitch. I think people exaggerate what global warming means because they can`t see any over night effects.

From:

virginia-fell.livejournal.com

It's easy for him to say her flaws don't matter because he's not gay (and therefore wouldn't need equal rights since he's already got them), isn't raising a family (and therefore wouldn't need help paying for a child's education), hasn't been laid off from his job (and therefore wouldn't need to pay for an education for himself just to get an entry-level job), and is not a woman (and therefore doesn't have to worry about the economic and social inequalities of being part of a population that doesn't get to choose when it reproduces).

He largely does not belong to the groups of people McCain and Palin enjoy screwing over the most (with the exception of being a non-Christian). It's not unexpected that he wouldn't think those people's problems were important, and that their fates shouldn't weigh in when picking executive officers.

The rest of us don't have the privilege to ignore all that, and have to look out for ourselves.

From:

stryck.livejournal.com

Global warming, eh?

From:

Climate change occurs naturally, and each change is a slow process. Take the Little Ice Age, for example. The issue is if we exacerbate it. While it`s a contested issue, the fact that our pollution put a hole in our ozone layer convinces me we aren`t doing something right.

From:

stryck.livejournal.com

There are several questions to global warming. Do we have any influence over what's happening? If so, is it positive or negative? Are higher temperatures or lower temperatures more desirable? What can be done? What -should- be done? Is there any line that we shouldn't cross in trying to correct what's going on?

Now, fighting pollution? I'm all for fighting pollution. Air that's easier to breathe and clean water are both great goals. But the idea that something produced naturally by all animals on earth (including humans) is a pollutant is troubling to me.

From:

Actually, my checkmark in the "Religious Preference" section would currently go to "Undecided". But even in my pagan days I fully acknowledged the country's Christian roots.

As for Obama...I just don't feel he's had enough experience to do the job. Like some of the news channels have said, 5 years ago most of us had never heard of him...rubs me the wrong way to have someone seemingly just drop in out of nowhere and be put in charge.

McCain, on the other hand...well, his military background inspires a lot of trust in me. I'm a lot more comfortable with my Commander-in-Chief being someone who has worn the uniform.

However, I will say this: If Obama does win, I'll accept that and go along with it.

Oh, and just to correct your ladyfriend on a small point: I have actually been laid off, in a sense; my enlistment ended back in July.

From:

Except that this country doesn't have Christian roots (http://ffrf.org/nontracts/xian.php). The Pledge of Allegiance didn't have the words "under God" in it until 1954 (http://history.vineyard.net/pledge.htm) (Palin doesn't realize this) and "in God we trust" wasn't printed on U.S. paper money (http://www.ustreas.gov/education/fact-sheets/currency/in-god-we-trust.shtml) until 1957, though it was on minted currency (coins) as early as 1864 (which is still about a hundred years after the formation of the country--Lincoln, for example, never saw God mentioned on any of his money (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abraham_Lincoln) seeing as how he died in 1865).

I can understand preferring a military president, but that shouldn't be your only reason for voting for somebody. What about his voting record and his stance on various issues?

As a final note, I don't hold my "ladyfriend's" leash. I didn't tell her to post here, she did that of her own accord, so I would appreciate you not insinuating that I sic'd her on you. I'm not going to deliver messages to her, either; she can read and respond to what you've said herself, though I will note that you didn't reply to any of her other points aside from the fact that you're currently out of work.

From:

If anyone had asked me a week ago if I would engage in a knock-down-drag-out fight about global warming, I would've said "no." If you asked anyone I know "is Brian a climate fanatic?" they would've said "what? He never talks about that."

But I have seen too much blatant denial in the past week to ignore it.

None of the questions you're posing are serious questions, except for "what should we do?" We have influence over what is happening because the most likely cause of rapid climate change is the human production of greenhouse gas. It isn't about whether warmer or cooler climate is more desirable, it's about the rate of change. There is some pretty good evidence (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paleocene-Eocene_Thermal_Maximum) that the last time the climate rose this rapidly it caused a mass extinction of life. (And no, this isn't the same mass extinction as the theorized meteor strikes that killed off a lot of dinosaurs. Those were estimated at 250 million years ago. This was a mere 55.8 million years ago, according to geological records.)

Once you actually start paying attention, "is global warming happening/are we causing it" is no longer a serious question. It's very well-established that it is. The place people disagree is what to do about it. I suspect that this is partly because any Repub who proposes Big Business and Big Oil reduce their greenhouse emissions is going to find himself out of a job, but that's just me.

From:

Air pollution is different from natural waste, which is recycled into the ecosystem. We`re talking about man made stuff here. Our man made pollution and other things that damage the ecosystem may influence climate change. Over a period of time (not necessarily 2008 because the polar regions are a tad colder than in the few previous years) the melting of the polar ice caps will rise oceans levels, which can pose a particular threat to lowland areas around the world. In my city`s case, our airport is at risk. There has been numerous cases where large chunks of ice have broken off of the arctic and the antarctic. Natural or not, the result is still the same.

And even if global warming is a contested issue, it couldn`t hurt to be more eco-friendly and start using renewable resources, as they don`t run out. Our present situation is important, but if people are worried about our earth`s long term future, which should always be in the back of our mind because we live here and have no where else to go, I think it should be acknowledges and taken seriously.

From:

I'm aware you don't hold her leash. I was simply being lazy and putting 2 replies into 1 spot. My apologies for it having a different connotation. >.>;

Edited Date: 9/5/08 19:35 (UTC)

From: