Peek a Boo Posted August 30, 2008 Share Posted August 30, 2008 46% of female McCain supporters do not want Roe Vs. Wade overturned. He is not listening to the women in his own party, merely expecting Hillary Clinton supporters to be so stupid they will vote for Dan Quayle in a dress. ok, I'm not a whiz at math, but i always thought that 54% was more than 46%??? sounds to me like he IS listening to the women *in his own party.* Any "stupid Hillary voters" would be gravy for McCain if he nabbed all his anti-RvW supporters. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Peek a Boo Posted August 30, 2008 Share Posted August 30, 2008 Oh, I was actually thinking of three displayedred dots :D Bill that was my thought too when you mentioned that! yeah, we need a guinea pig who's willing to take the red rep express train..... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nakia Posted August 30, 2008 Share Posted August 30, 2008 Where is the standing ovation smiling? Here is a big thank you from a feminist conservative mom who has a great career AND homeschools her children...it can be done...women CAN do both. And just because I think women are equal to men and should be allowed to run the country (for example) does NOT mean I am a liberal and this nomination is ANYTHING but a slap in the face. In fact, I think it has done much more to move women forward that Hillary would have done. Heather, I love you!!! You said exactly what I wanted to say!! I am very conservative, but I also want my daughters to have the same rights and opportunities as all their little boy cousins. That does not make me liberal!! I did not feel the slap in the face that so many think we women should have felt! I am super excited! I'll say it again: McCain/Palin '08 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CAMom Posted August 30, 2008 Share Posted August 30, 2008 I don't believe that for a minute. I do believe her gutsy "Watch me be a hands on mom AND have a powerful career" is anything but a slap in the face for women. What have the feminists been fighting for, anyway? The right to make your own choices and live life on your own terms, or just the right to be a liberal? Perhaps I have misunderstood the fight for equality and it was all a ruse to force women into a liberal box? Kelli, I really, really wish I could rep you for that but I've got some spreading to do first.:D This is exactly what I'm getting out of this: The feminist fight was to secure that all women would be liberal. Ridiculous, really. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sleepy Posted August 30, 2008 Share Posted August 30, 2008 :iagree: Great post! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
genie Posted August 30, 2008 Share Posted August 30, 2008 that was my thought too when you mentioned that! yeah, we need a guinea pig who's willing to take the red rep express train..... Seems that gray is the lowest so far. :lol: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PiCO Posted August 30, 2008 Share Posted August 30, 2008 A pro-life, far, far right woman. She's so far right she's for teaching creationism in the public schools. Thanks for posting this, Phred. I was intrigued by this woman when I first started researching, but this is (probably) a deal-killer for me. Time to e-mail friends in AK and see what they think. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NevadaRabbit Posted August 30, 2008 Share Posted August 30, 2008 No, it is my opinion that it's a slap in the face to all women, and all we have fought for for the last 100 years. Sure, he picked a woman, but he picked the one that conservative men are least likely to be threatened by, one that "knows her place" so to speak. And it is my opinion that Mrs Palin is exactly what "we have fought for". She has a list of accomplishments while being a mother that makes me feel like underachiever of the year, and has enormous approval from the state she serves. She's no dumb beauty queen, she's an achiever who happens to be beautiful. She "knows her place"? I have no idea how you got there! This IS what I have fought for as a woman: to be a mother, to do something worthwhile, to NOT have it be about my face or my breast size but about what I have ACCOMPLISHED. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Spy Car Posted August 30, 2008 Share Posted August 30, 2008 Yeah, that's funny because a degree from Yale did nothing for Bush's rep. :lol: Well when you have a C-/D average, even a *degree* from Yale doesn't..... Bill Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jugglin'5 Posted August 30, 2008 Share Posted August 30, 2008 Yes, it seems that to be a "real woman" you must be pro-choice. I really think that is what this is all about. So many, not all, feminists will reject her for her abortion views. That is all that counts for them. Her accomplishments, and the fact that she did not do it on her husband's coattails, means nothing to them. The fact that she has taken on corruption in men in her own party, and won repeatedly, means nothing. It is all about abortion for many feminists, it seems. And it is my opinion that Mrs Palin is exactly what "we have fought for". She has a list of accomplishments while being a mother that makes me feel like underachiever of the year, and has enormous approval from the state she serves. She's no dumb beauty queen, she's an achiever who happens to be beautiful. She "knows her place"? I have no idea how you got there! This IS what I have fought for as a woman: to be a mother, to do something worthwhile, to NOT have it be about my face or my breast size but about what I have ACCOMPLISHED. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jugglin'5 Posted August 30, 2008 Share Posted August 30, 2008 http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/4074922.stm For Bush OR for Kerry...right? Well when you have a C-/D average, even a *degree* from Yale doesn't..... Bill Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kelli in TN Posted August 30, 2008 Share Posted August 30, 2008 Yes' date=' it seems that to be a "real woman" you must be pro-choice. I really think that is what this is all about. So many, not all, feminists will reject her for her abortion views. That is all that counts for them. Her accomplishments, and the fact that she did not do it on her husband's coattails, means [i']nothing[/i] to them. The fact that she has taken on corruption in men in her own party, and won repeatedly, means nothing. It is all about abortion for many feminists, it seems. Are you implying that they might be.....gasp......one issue voters? Oh say it isn't so! Surely only conservatives can be one issue voters, right? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jugglin'5 Posted August 30, 2008 Share Posted August 30, 2008 :svengo:Shocking...I know.:lol: Are you implying that they might be.....gasp......one issue voters? Oh say it isn't so! Surely only conservatives can be one issue voters, right? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NevadaRabbit Posted August 30, 2008 Share Posted August 30, 2008 Yes' date=' it seems that to be a "real woman" you must be pro-choice. I really think that is what this is all about. So many, not all, feminists will reject her for her abortion views. That is all that counts for them. Her accomplishments, and the fact that she did not do it on her husband's coattails, means [i']nothing[/i] to them. The fact that she has taken on corruption in men in her own party, and won repeatedly, means nothing. It is all about abortion for many feminists, it seems. Sadly, I think you are right. Abortion stance appears to carry the most weight to qualify you as the "right" kind of feminist, along with being anti-gun (although if chicks=dudes then chicks should be gun-toting camo-wearing deer slayers in a blind in the woods, but I digress). It appears to be killin' the Dems that the GOP has put the wrong kind of woman on the ticket. She's pretty! She's not Ivy League! She's pro-gun and pro-life! Holy cr**, she hunts! :svengo: I hope she is ready for the level of poo that is going to be slung at her because she does not fit the mold of what the self-proclaimed Liberal Goddesses (not trying to indicate anyone here on the board, it is a gross generalization) say a successful woman is supposed to look/be like. They HAD their perfect woman and didn't nominate her! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Peek a Boo Posted August 30, 2008 Share Posted August 30, 2008 beth, in an earlier post on Obama, you said you can't imagine him having the experience to deal with foreign leaders. Suppose McCain wins and dies soon after. Do you believe Mrs Palin has enough experience to deal with the rest of the world? How is that different from your original argument. well I'm not voting for either, but one can logically conclude that electing an inexperienced ALIVE Obama vs electing a not-dead-yet experienced McCain IS --literally-- different. one is a given. the other is speculation. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LisaKinVA Posted August 30, 2008 Share Posted August 30, 2008 Anyone here remember that "Contract with America" -- I was expecting a real "revolution" in the way Washington worked. Red-pen toting, line-item pork-cutting, battle-ready leaders who were gutsy enough to make REAL change in Washington.... It didn't really happen. Of course, some would argue that Clinton stopped progress -- but as a former "inside-the-beltway" politico, I really felt there wasn't enough support from the Good 'ole boy network of entrenched Republican leadership. The leadership squandered the opportunity, making the conservative base even more dissatisfied, feeling like the only reason we voted was because of the lesser of two evils, not because we really believed there were going to be sweeping changes. A big reason Palin excites me isn't because she is a woman (that just adds to my interest), has nothing to do with her mothering choices (but, as a career woman who battles old-boy-networks in my industry I'm very PLEASED to see her taking care of business with babe-in-arms) -- it has everything to do with her willingness to make difficult decisions that go against the entrenched ideas of "how it's always been done." I can't say enough about how I've grown to laothe the phrase, "but we've always done it that way." As if it was some sort of justification for continuing. A bad system, no matter how long it's been in place, is still a bad system. Palin doesn't just say "This is wrong." She puts her pen (actions) behind it. That's the kind of leader I want -- male or female. She's willing to say "no" because of the common good, period. As she said to the Congressional Delegation regarding the Bridge to Nowhere... If we want a bridge, we'll build it ourselves. I love that attitude. Let the local people decide how they want to spend their money. Which roads are most important, how to fix schools, how to best serve their population -- we're the ones who have to ultimately bear that responsibility anyway (and I bet locals can build it more efficiently, probably for less money, and with a lot fewer strings.) I'm so tired of "yes men" who say what sounds good to get elected and then do nothing. And I'm so looking forward to the debate changing from one of experience to that of accomplishment. Because, thus far, I have not seen one Obama/Biden supporter list their accomplishments for the time spent in office (co-sponsoring legislation is easy, it floats from office to office with a nice note saying, "hey, would you please sign onto my bill?" That's not an accomplishment any more than my signing someone's petition.) McCain/Palin have lists of accomlishments. Things they have actually worked hard to accomplish. There's this saying my college roomate had (back when Why be Normal was popular), it was: "Only dead fish go with the flow." McCain/Palin don't go with the flow. They take risks, they make decisions and stand by their principles (like them or not). They aren't a bunch of hot air, nor do they take the easy way of political non-wave-making. How does this stack up for party politics? According to the Washington Post, Biden has voted 96.6% of the time along party lines. Obama has voted 96.0% of the time along party lines, and McCain? 88.3% So, the next time you hear the ad proclaiming how McCain is the same as Bush, keep in mind that Obama and Biden have shown themselves to be even more in lock-step with their party leadership. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LisaKinVA Posted August 30, 2008 Share Posted August 30, 2008 She was pursuing educational open mindedness. It wasn't creation or nothing. Remember, lest any of us forget, that how the human race got here is a theory that no one can prove. I have no problems teaching the theories (and there are more than one) of creationism alongside the theories (because, again, there are more than one) of evolution. IMO, it goes against the scientific method to make any assumptions about how we got here. We can't observe it. We can't prove it. We're guessing, err hypothesizing. We may choose to believe one theory over another, but for every one of us, that belief is faith based (because until it can be PROVEN, it isn't fact.) It always kills me to hear about the "scientific facts regarding the theory of evolution..." But, to be fair, I also get tired of hearing Creation happened once in a literal 7 days too. I'm probably in a very small minority on both sides with this one. Oh well. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
runninmommy Posted August 30, 2008 Share Posted August 30, 2008 No, it is my opinion that it's a slap in the face to all women, and all we have fought for for the last 100 years. Sure, he picked a woman, but he picked the one that conservative men are least likely to be threatened by, one that "knows her place" so to speak. The Republicans are experts at alienating a large number of party members. Can you please clarify how it is a slap in the face and "all we have fought for in the last 100 years?" I am not being snarky, I would really like to understand how you came to that conclusion. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Beth in SW WA Posted August 30, 2008 Author Share Posted August 30, 2008 well I'm not voting for either, but one can logically conclude that electing an inexperienced ALIVE Obama vs electing a not-dead-yet experienced McCain IS --literally-- different. one is a given. the other is speculation. I could not have said it better myself. Thanks, Peek. The one-heart-beat-away-from-Pres argument does not hold water. Obama, alive & kickin', does not have as much exec experience as Palin. Eleanor Clift of “The McLaughlin Group†tried saying last night on the show that Obama has gained foreign policy experience on the campaign trail over the last 18 months. Monica Crowly rebuffed that by saying that Palin hasn't been "running" she's been "governing" for the last 2 years. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Beth in SW WA Posted August 30, 2008 Author Share Posted August 30, 2008 beth, in an earlier post on Obama, you said you can't imagine him having the experience to deal with foreign leaders. Suppose McCain wins and dies soon after. Do you believe Mrs Palin has enough experience to deal with the rest of the world? How is that different from your original argument. Please see response to Peek above. Thanks, for asking Dot. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
runninmommy Posted August 30, 2008 Share Posted August 30, 2008 Yeah, her breastfeeding experience has a lot to do with making sure women have access to affordable day care. Maybe she should follow suit with Obamas idea. The 0-5 plan just sounds dreamy. http://www.barackobama.com/issues/education/ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
runninmommy Posted August 30, 2008 Share Posted August 30, 2008 Yeah, she is such a good mother who stands up for her way of life so much that she is on a platform AGAINST legislation helping special needs children when she is a special needs parent. 46% of female McCain supporters do not want Roe Vs. Wade overturned. He is not listening to the women in his own party, merely expecting Hillary Clinton supporters to be so stupid they will vote for Dan Quayle in a dress. Where did you find this information?? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
runninmommy Posted August 30, 2008 Share Posted August 30, 2008 :iagree::hurray: Kelli, I really, really wish I could rep you for that but I've got some spreading to do first.:D This is exactly what I'm getting out of this: The feminist fight was to secure that all women would be liberal. Ridiculous, really. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
runninmommy Posted August 30, 2008 Share Posted August 30, 2008 Thanks for posting this, Phred. I was intrigued by this woman when I first started researching, but this is (probably) a deal-killer for me. Time to e-mail friends in AK and see what they think. She wanted to teach creationism along side with evolution. So families could have a choice. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ereks mom Posted August 30, 2008 Share Posted August 30, 2008 I am very pleased with this news and confirms my descision to vote for McCain. :iagree: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nmoira Posted August 30, 2008 Share Posted August 30, 2008 And to my ears, "superiority complex" in a confident smart man who is biracial is just a little close to "uppity." I don't remember EVER hearing this description of a candidate before, not even a very cocky, uber-confident candidate. Not even John Edwards, who was just a teeny bit on the "can't touch that" side of the house.We don't get any TV channels, and, prior to the last election, I had never seen GWB other than in pictures. A few of us got together at a friend's house to watch one of the debates, and I was appalled at GWB's (literal) posturing and strutting. At one point it looked like he was doing an imitation of a turkey. I don't recall reading any criticisms, or even mention of his demeanor after the debate. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Peek a Boo Posted August 30, 2008 Share Posted August 30, 2008 Sorry, I guess I think long term. And yes, Peek, if I remember, correctly, you're not the worrying type. Death happens, if sadly, it did, I'd be concerned with her running the country. Beth, thanks for saying what qualities are trumps for you in a candidate. actually, i do worry. Which is why i won't be voting for McCain or Obama :D Voting in Obama guarantees a guy w/ little experience. Voting in McCain guarantees a guy w/ LOTS of experience. for those that think experience is important, that seems to be a no-brainer. death happens for everyone, including Obama. So they want to make a decision based on what IS happening, not what MIGHT happen. long term, speculation...... you'd have either a guy w/ little experience [Obama] or a woman w/ little experience [Palin]. The difference boils down to personal judgement in who they would listen to as advisors. So if you prefer the POTUS listen to conservative/democratic advisors, you'll pick a conservative/democratic [respectively] Prez :) So plenty of people are thinking long term-- they just want a leader that agrees w/ their values and principles. Sounds reasonable to me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Robin in Tx Posted August 30, 2008 Share Posted August 30, 2008 Oh, I dunno....maybe having a bikini wax, root canal, being burned with the fire of 10,000 suns. :D LOL Okay, now *that* was funny!! Sorry for not being more clear... I assumed the meaning would be easily understood (perfect candidate *if* the strategy is to woo the Perot type voters)... my bad! :) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
my4boysmom Posted August 30, 2008 Share Posted August 30, 2008 I could not have said it better myself. Thanks, Peek. The one-heart-beat-away-from-Pres argument does not hold water. Obama, alive & kickin', does not have as much exec experience as Palin. Eleanor Clift of “The McLaughlin Group†tried saying last night on the show that Obama has gained foreign policy experience on the campaign trail over the last 18 months. Monica Crowly rebuffed that by saying that Palin hasn't been "running" she's been "governing" for the last 2 years. :lol: snort... Yep a lot of foriegn policy going on there with shaking those hands and getting snapshots. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
my4boysmom Posted August 30, 2008 Share Posted August 30, 2008 Maybe she should follow suit with Obamas idea. The 0-5 plan just sounds dreamy. http://www.barackobama.com/issues/education/ Don't even get me started on this. What about NOT giving schools extra funding because they don't have any displinanry issues on paper because the teachers and admin decide not to make kids accountable so they look better than they really are. They tell the kids that are getting bullied to ignore it. This happened to my son. What about the teachers ignoring everything so they don't have to deal with it all. Oh boy... lets fix what we have now. Not all teachers are this way but we had so many in our years before HS. Sorry.. big mouth.. sore subject Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rowan-tree Posted August 30, 2008 Share Posted August 30, 2008 Um, we fought a war the last time we had a king:lol: Tis true. But wars have characterized our democratic-republic ever since, too. I don't think any particular form of government is going to alleviate the problem of war. According to James, as you know, wars without come from sin within. And sin is not something the State can save us from (although it tries). Only Jesus is savior. Right? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Academy of Jedi Arts Posted August 30, 2008 Share Posted August 30, 2008 Link please? I am the mom of a special kiddo, so this would definitely be of interest to me. Just one example: http://mccainsource.com/homefront?id=0003 McCain Voted Against Increasing Benefits For Children With Special Needs In The Social Security Act. In 1997, McCain voted to table an amendment that would revise the Social Security Act to include additional benefits for children with special needs, including physical, speech and language therapy, and mental health services. The motion to table passed 57-43. [s 947, Vote #128, 6/25/97] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
my4boysmom Posted August 30, 2008 Share Posted August 30, 2008 Thanks for posting this, Phred. I was intrigued by this woman when I first started researching, but this is (probably) a deal-killer for me. Time to e-mail friends in AK and see what they think. I don't have a problem with kids learning about this especially when evolution is shoved down there too. Why not have all sides of science and creation is part of it. I am teaching mine so why not. How many things are taught to kids that shouldn't be taught and yet people are forced to have that. There is so much history that is wrapped around a religion taught now. Is it the fear of something Christian being taught that people have a fear of? hummmm perhaps.;) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nakitty Posted August 30, 2008 Share Posted August 30, 2008 :001_smile:Nope, I only have 2, but I got them on the same day from the same thread, probably from the same person too! Just an FYI....that isn't possible...you can't rep the same person twice in a single day.:D Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sdWTMer Posted August 30, 2008 Share Posted August 30, 2008 I've had it up to my eyeballs with presidents itching for a fight. But, Pam, you always seem itching for fights here. ;) And, you're quite scrappy. :D Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PiCO Posted August 30, 2008 Share Posted August 30, 2008 Remember, lest any of us forget, that how the human race got here is a theory that no one can prove. I have no problems teaching the theories (and there are more than one) of creationism alongside the theories (because, again, there are more than one) of evolution. I have no problem with multiple creation stories being taught in school. I covered these before ancient history. However I do think they should be covered in a philosophy class, not a science class. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cheryl in NM Posted August 30, 2008 Share Posted August 30, 2008 Just an FYI....that isn't possible...you can't rep the same person twice in a single day.:D Yeah, I think I was still sore and feeling a little victimized! I still can't figure out how I was rude or offensive. :glare: Even the mods didn't delete my supposedly offensive posts. Oh well... What's the expression? Get over it!:lol: I am officially, publicy dropping it now! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PiCO Posted August 30, 2008 Share Posted August 30, 2008 I don't have a problem with kids learning about this especially when evolution is shoved down there too. Why not have all sides of science and creation is part of it. I am teaching mine so why not. How many things are taught to kids that shouldn't be taught and yet people are forced to have that. There is so much history that is wrapped around a religion taught now. Is it the fear of something Christian being taught that people have a fear of? hummmm perhaps.;) I don't believe creation stories should be taught in science class. I believe *all* creation stories should be taught as part of ancient history, comparative religion, mythology or somesuch- as I taught my kids. And I do fear Christianity being pushed on my children (as it was pushed on me in public schools)- it's one of the reasons I started homeschooling. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
my4boysmom Posted August 30, 2008 Share Posted August 30, 2008 Where is the standing ovation smiling? Here is a big thank you from a feminist conservative mom who has a great career AND homeschools her children...it can be done...women CAN do both. And just because I think women are equal to men and should be allowed to run the country (for example) does NOT mean I am a liberal and this nomination is ANYTHING but a slap in the face. In fact, I think it has done much more to move women forward that Hillary would have done. First off kudos to you for your accomplishments. I'm not a feminist but I'm a Christian conservative mom who is also a business owner and homeschools. I did it better when I was younger but with organization and a great partner (hubby) you can accomplish great things. I am more of a stay at home mom than a working mom. I don't make a ton of money but enough to buy my own car and pay the payments myself without hubby helping. I can work more but chose not to. I am however conflicted but I really like Palin. I'm impressed with her accomplishments but I'm in general conflicted with any woman being president. This doesn't mean I wouldn't vote for her now or later if she runs for president. I'm just seeing things a little further and raising the issues that would present themselves. It's foreign policy and how other countries view women in power. It is what it is. They have a different view of women. I support her and like her views and policies at this point. I don't care for McCain as I've mentioned before I'm in Arizona. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Academy of Jedi Arts Posted August 30, 2008 Share Posted August 30, 2008 I have no problem with multiple creation stories being taught in school. I covered these before ancient history. However I do think they should be covered in a philosophy class, not a science class. I totally agree. I am all for the Christian story of creation to be taught, alongside what Muslims, etc. etc. etc. think. Boy, would I love it if philosophy (and logic) could be taught in our elementary, middle, and high schools. It's not that I am afraid of something Christian being taught. My family and I are weekly churchgoers. I just believe that there is a time and place for all of that, and if you are going to take everyone's money, you can't just teach Christianity without teaching about atheism too. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PiCO Posted August 30, 2008 Share Posted August 30, 2008 She wanted to teach creationism along side with evolution. So families could have a choice. But creationism isn't science, so it doesn't belong in a science classroom. I would have no objection to creationism being taught as an elective for people who want their kids to learn that. But isn't that what Sunday School is for? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rowan-tree Posted August 30, 2008 Share Posted August 30, 2008 I'm just curious- what about Joan of Arc? Was she called because all the French men were too weak? I'm sure Joan of Arc's contemporaries would agree that the officers and men who had failed to lift the siege of Orleans were, at the same time, both shamed and thankful (in that order) for her leadership and subsequent success. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
my4boysmom Posted August 30, 2008 Share Posted August 30, 2008 I don't believe creation stories should be taught in science class. I believe *all* creation stories should be taught as part of ancient history, comparative religion, mythology or somesuch- as I taught my kids. And I do fear Christianity being pushed on my children (as it was pushed on me in public schools)- it's one of the reasons I started homeschooling. She does support the HS and this is good for us all. I'm not minding the Christian teaching in school but I don't remember being taught it. Hey you are in CO. What part? I graduated from Jefferson High. It was a nice school then but not now from what I've heard. None of the same teachers are there anymore... since it was a 100 years ago that I was there. lol Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JumpedIntoTheDeepEndFirst Posted August 30, 2008 Share Posted August 30, 2008 No, it is my opinion that it's a slap in the face to all women, and all we have fought for for the last 100 years. Sure, he picked a woman, but he picked the one that conservative men are least likely to be threatened by, one that "knows her place" so to speak. The Republicans are experts at alienating a large number of party members. Ok-so by extension is it a slap in the face to all African-Americans that the democrats picked a candidate who is half white? I'm sorry, I don't think being asked by your party to represent it and potentially serve your country is a slap in the face to anyone. If you dislike Palin's politics or her opinions that is one thing but don't assume that the choice of a conservative woman is a slap in the face to all women. There seem to be many women impressed thus far. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Peek a Boo Posted August 30, 2008 Share Posted August 30, 2008 Just one example: http://mccainsource.com/homefront?id=0003 McCain Voted Against Increasing Benefits For Children With Special Needs In The Social Security Act. In 1997, McCain voted to table an amendment that would revise the Social Security Act to include additional benefits for children with special needs, including physical, speech and language therapy, and mental health services. The motion to table passed 57-43. [s 947, Vote #128, 6/25/97] ...and, um, that's pretty much right in line with where many conservatives stand wrt the subject of Social Security itself. That becomes a pro, not a con. You can be supportive of special needs children and against FEDERAL programs. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cheryl in NM Posted August 30, 2008 Share Posted August 30, 2008 But creationism isn't science, so it doesn't belong in a science classroom. I would have no objection to creationism being taught as an elective for people who want their kids to learn that. But isn't that what Sunday School is for? Creationism might not be science, but evolution is NOT a fact about creation. If one is taught then the other should. As homeschoolers we know that all the things we want to teach don't fall nicely into a box labeled "science" or "philosophy". We teach what needs to be taught. Maybe a theory of creation class would be acceptable. A class where "all" theories of creation are taught. You are right, Sunday School is where a child should learn the beliefs of their religion, including their creation story. So in public school they would learn different theories and at home and church they would learn what their family and religion believes is correct. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
my4boysmom Posted August 30, 2008 Share Posted August 30, 2008 But creationism isn't science, so it doesn't belong in a science classroom. I would have no objection to creationism being taught as an elective for people who want their kids to learn that. But isn't that what Sunday School is for? But for me evolution is NOt something I want taught either or at least the way its taught. I'm having all kinds of problems with that right now so if both were taught together the students would have more info otherwise the same could be said about evolution being taught as an elective too. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Academy of Jedi Arts Posted August 30, 2008 Share Posted August 30, 2008 Ok-so by extension is it a slap in the face to all African-Americans that the democrats picked a candidate who is half white? I'm sorry, I don't think being asked by your party to represent it and potentially serve your country is a slap in the face to anyone. If you dislike Palin's politics or her opinions that is one thing but don't assume that the choice of a conservative woman is a slap in the face to all women. There seem to be many women impressed thus far. Barack Obama was not elected as the Democratic Candidate because of his race. If Palin was picked because of HER and HER record and experience, not for political reasons because she is a woman, this would be a non-issue. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
runninmommy Posted August 30, 2008 Share Posted August 30, 2008 But creationism isn't science, so it doesn't belong in a science classroom. I would have no objection to creationism being taught as an elective for people who want their kids to learn that. But isn't that what Sunday School is for? Well, that depends on your belief in "Science" I belive creationism can be taught from a scientific point of view. If creationism should be taught as an elective than evolution should be treated the same. There are a lot of evolution theories that can not be proven as well, yet we believe it b/c that is what is taught. I, personally would not care "how" creationism would be offered only that it would be a choice. Just for the record, I believe both sides have a lot of credibility. There are some things that are proven by science, some things that science can not explain. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
my4boysmom Posted August 30, 2008 Share Posted August 30, 2008 Creationism might not be science, but evolution is NOT a fact about creation. If one is taught then the other should. As homeschoolers we know that all the things we want to teach don't fall nicely into a box labeled "science" or "philosophy". We teach what needs to be taught. Maybe a theory of creation class would be acceptable. A class where "all" theories of creation are taught. You are right, Sunday School is where a child should learn the beliefs of their religion, including their creation story. So in public school they would learn different theories and at home and church they would learn what their family and religion believes is correct. Exactly because the Indians believe this, the Jews believe this, etc... tribes, Egypt, Greece and so on. They are History whether it's personally believed or not. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts