Personally, she scares the hell out of me - and most of the genuinely moderate people I've discussed it with.

I'm no Obama fan and haven't been for months now, but I find Palin's political viewpoints much more virulent, contradictory, and anti-American than anything I've heard out of BO's mouth.

Scares the hell out of me, I say.

I'm one who has been excited about her, but I'm also hoping the honeymoon ends soon so we can really get a look at the candidate herself.  What I'm really watching for is how she handles the firestorm.  Hillary didn't handle it well, and in my opinion, neither has Obama.  McCain has taken it all in stride, but then again, he's been there before, taking it from both sides. If she can take it better than Hillary and Obama, then she earns my vote.

What I find interesting about Obama fans is, most of us who don't support him are willing to give him credit where credit is due.   I haven't heard or read much positive about McCain or Palin from Obama fans... even among those who thought McCain was great before he became the Republican nominee.

Of course, SanCho, I don't think you're for Obama.  I just noted that you made that statement and wanted to see what you were talking about.  Aren't you for Nader?

Pretty good Zoo. Like I said, I see very little from my point of view that I don't like. There are a few but not too many. Besides, if I gonna get down to details I may not be able to vote for anyone since I am sure to find something I won't agree wth with any of them.

I'm the opposite of Zoo, as we have both known for a while.  So it makes sense for him to not like her while I do like her.  Although I don't know anything about polar bears and endangeredness, it would make sense for the governor of a state that actually has them to not want them protected as they rip people to shreds.

Of course, it doesn't matter that she doesn't want to give rights to the homosexuals, because they're going to get them anyway.  Then they're going to take away the rights of Christians to believe it's a sin.

 *sigh* Crap...now I got myself in politics.

I was just copying and pasting from that link I quoted.  I'm all for the discussion(even though it is horribly flawed in every scientific way imaginable, but hey I'm a nice guy) but I strongly oppose the teaching of it as a valid theory.

I do indeed support understanding, but not teaching of them in a public school.  There's a difference between learning about a religion and being instructed in it.  I learned about Christianity, Judaism, Native American religions, and New Age in one of my classes...I was not taught why and how to perform certain rituals, which one is 'right',  or what have you, but the way they worked and the things they believed.  I believe religious instruction should be separate from other forms of education.  I don't want Jesus in my calculus in other words.

Yeah...but problem bears can be dealt with accordingly.  I'm not saying have polar bears eat people and then just shoo them away afterwards.

Depends on if the businesses are private or not.  Private business may do as they like, even if they are jerks about it.  I just don't like the idea of having "NO GAYS" in windows like "NO COLOREDS" signs in the good ol' days of racism.

Because some of the school boards are obviously stupid...like in Kansas.  Creationism/intelligent design was not, is not, nor will ever be a valid scientific theory and has no real place in schools aside from perhaps one day to talk about why it sucks as science.

What exactly are "faith based materials in homeschooling?"  I mean is it "God and the ABC's?"  Or does it promote more religious based skews on actual education?  Like I said, I don't think education should be mixed with faith and religion.  If you want to learn about religion, then go at it.  It's all good.  I just don't see how combining the two helps in any way whatsoever...and I know that creationism is in there somewhere.  It's a huge pet peeve of mine if you couldn't tell already.  I just don't want parents undermining a good education with crap about how the world is only 6,000 years old and all the fallacies that come with it.  If you want to believe that, go ahead...but don't ever teach it as fact.

I've been learning a bit about global warming in my geography class.  Turns out that global warming can be predicted and replicated by models similar to those that predict other weather phenomenon. (Daily weather, hurricane paths, stuff like that).  Well, when you input environmental data you don't get the results we see today.  If you add human contributions to that model...guess what?  Model reflects reality.  I'm growing fairly convinced that human interaction has a significant effect.

A bit of my environmental side coming out, I suppose.  I don't think we should screw up ANWR, plain and simple.

I doubt drilling in Alaska will magically solve our problems.  It will only delay the inevitable while screwing up Alaska's environment.

You can read this Wikipedia section if you like, at least they cite sources.  It is widely believed that there's trouble brewing for our polar bear friends. There's only 22,000-25,000 to begin with...so if anything drastic happens then they're gone forever before we can do a thing if we don't think ahead.

Using our own resources is great...but people need to take into account conservation and limits onto what can be harvested.  Do some tree replanting, limit the number of fish you catch, for the love of God don't strip mine, and I've already covered oil drilling...although I'd like to add that we should drill what we have instead of poking around in protected areas and offshore crap.

With a conservative and the word 'explicit' I think they're leaning more towards advocating abstinence only education...which obviously didn't work for her daughter.  I just have the crazy idea that in a sex ed class you should learn about sex and how to perform it safely if you're going to do it. 

Ugh...politics.  I should stop having so many opinions.

~Zoo

This thread is hilarious, especially the 'Honest' in the title.  Dripping with sanctimony, the way I like 'em.  Keep it up!

I didn't think it was funny, Charles.

Glad to have been part of pulling you in! Muahahaha!!

If there were signs like that, I would be marching along side you against it.  But it isn't up to the city, county, state or federal government to dictate to businesses what benefits they must or must not offer employees.

For the record though, in states where same sex marriages are recognized, I do think it would be discrimination to offer benefits for traditional spouses but not for same sex spouses.

Our Constitution and system of government is based on government situations being handled by the smallest jurisdiction possible, with oversight by the next highest jurisdiction.  However, people just can't stand it when other communities do things differently than their own.  It's like everywhere has to be exactly the same as everywhere else for some reason.

For example, I think San Francisco does things about as "obviously stupid" as it gets.  But that is the way the people of San Francisco want to do things, so, unless they are violating the state and/or US Constitutions, so be it.

If the people of a community in Kansas think that teaching ID is best for their community, then they should be able to do it, as long as the schools meet the minimum standards set by the state. 

Oh, so not only do you want to tell other school districts what they can and can't teach to students, you want to dictate that to parents too?  Do you respect any freedom at all when it comes to teaching kids?

And thousands of scientists disagree with you.  The whole "consensus" thing is a lie.

Oh yes, let's not mess up all those trees and undergrowth at ANWR. ;'~D

Who said anything about "magically solving our problems"?  Right now, oil is the lifeblood of our society.  It is moronic to have our president go over to other countries begging them to increase oil production when our government refuses to allow increased production here in the US.

So we're supposed to make billion dollar decisions on what "might" happen?

But it's ok to use the resources of other nations, no matter what it does to the environment?

Thanks for the bit of stereotyping here.  And the personal attack on Bristol.  Apparently to you all kids follow their parents advice all the time.  But than again, you don't want parents teaching their kids anything that you don't approve of anyway, so why don't we just let the government raise our kids for us...

Zoologist for Secretary of the Department of Childraising.  ;~D

You could use Ayn Rand's book Anthem as your guide.

You gotta check Drudge today -

Made my morning.

Except for there are scientists who don't believe in God who accept ID and reject the idea that it has anything to do with religion.

But that isn't the point.  The point is that community standards should be respected unless it breaks state or US Constitutions.  Otherwise we tip the balance of power to the state and federal governments, which means a loss of personal freedom.

We have already given too much by insisting the President and Congress micromanage the states and cities.

Maybe I misunderstood you before.  Are you saying that homeschoolers shouldn't include any kind of religious instruction to their own kids?  Or are you saying that they have the right to teach anything they want, but there needs to be a minimum standard that includes math, reading, science... etc.?

If you are saying the later, then we agree here.

And "man caused" global warming is no different.  There is real "concensus" among scientists about it, there are only those who accept it and those who don't, but many who accept it as fact want the others to shut up.  Now, I don't know how much of that is more from politicians and within the politics of science (which is rampant in peer reviews, but you know that much more than I), but it is far from generally accepted.

If the scientific jury is still out, shouldn't both sides be taught, if it's taught at all?

That's a pig in a poke argument from the Congressional Democrats who have seen the reports and know that those parcels have already been surveyed and found to be either dry or not economically feasible to squeeze whatever oil is left in them.  They might as well be telling the oil companies, "you can drill all you want, as long as you drill where there isn't any oil".

The arguments against drilling in ANWR were all used against building the Alaskan Pipeline, and not a single one actually occured.

No problem, that's why I resonded in kind.  We all take our digs at times. ;~)

It's all just conversation and discussion here, right? ;~D

I thought the earth was cooling again, Zoo?

Hmm, well would you look at that.  Wonder why that happened.  I know large volcanic eruptions can cool the earth in about a year...but I don't recall hearing about any of them happening.

Anyway, a 12 month trend compared to a 100 year trend is fairly insignificant, unless it continues...then we might have a problem.  I don't deny that there's still stuff up in the air(heh, pun) about climate science and unfortunately I'm a bit lacking in knowing how the whole thing works.

Well, over time it seems to be warming.  Those last 12 months you mentioned seem to be showing a dip in that trend...whether that's indicative of a new trend or merely an anomaly in this one, I cannot say one way or the other.

Oh, actual facts matter...to the people studying it anyway...but when politics gets involved...well, you know what happens with some people and their views....crazy one way or the other.

~Zoo