Jul 6th 2010 4:06PM Actually, rav5199, there is a difference between opinion and fact. And when someone's opinion is contrary to a fact, it is fair to inform the person that their opinion isn't correct (example: we used to have the opinion that the sun revolved around Earth, but once we discovered the fact that Earth revolves around the sun, it became fair, and even proper, to inform all those who thought the first was correct that their opinion was wrong).
We don't yet know how life originated on this planet, and so any ideas about how that may have occurred are, at least at this point in time, all opinion. However, we have demonstrated the indisputable fact that once life did arise approximately 3.8 billion years ago, it then branched out and evolved over billions of years into the myriad forms we see populating Earth today (as well as the countless other forms that have existed at various times throughout Earth's long, long history).
Is there a God? I have absolutely no idea, nor can I prove it one way or the other (and neither can anyone else). And even if God does exist, did God create life on Earth? Again, that is something which is, as of yet, totally unprovable. However, if your opinion is that life arose on Earth the way that the Christian Bible claims it did, then we can point to any number of facts which prove conclusively that such an opinion is wrong. I'm sorry if you don't like the reality of that, but there it is anyway.
Sep 7th 2008 12:49PM jblsus posted: "I have two key methods of making decisions on key issues in life. First I see what the bible says, then I look at the demoncrats position and take the opposite view."
Now that explains a lot! If that's how other repugnicans make key decisions on key issues, then it's totally understandable how politicians from their party (specifically G. W. Bush) have screwed up our country so much.
Let's leave aside the whole issue of relying on the Bible, which was written at least two thousand years ago, to make decisions about issues that affect us today. What about the admission that you make decisions based on how the democrats view an issue? Doesn't it get tiresome and old making decisions in a reactive fashion? Wouldn't you rather be proactive rather than reactive?
Don't look now, jblsus, but you've demonstrated your narrow-minded ignorance more effecively than anyone else ever could. Should we assume that you accurately represent the republican party in this regard?
Sep 7th 2008 12:04PM Dr. Max Chartrand posted: "Yes, McCain and Palin will be the most robust change for good in many election cycles. The culture that has ruled DC for so long is shaking in their boots..."
Isn't it hilarious when repugnicans like this "doctor" claim that a McCain administration would be a huge change in national politics, ignoring the inescapable, irrefutable, and obvious fact that McCain is the poster boy of old-school Washington insiders, and is one of the most senior members of the US Senate, because he has been a member of Congress for more than a quarter century! Talk about hypocrisy!
Sep 3rd 2008 3:11AM The shameless, unabashed and unbridled hypocrisy of the republican party never ceases to amaze: during the Clinton presidency, the republican party "leadership" spent years, and hundreds of millions of US taxpayer dollars, investigating the Clinton-Lewinsky affair, a situation that, whether you believe it to have been right or wrong, was between 2 consenting ADULTS. However, now those very same people are doing everything they can to convince the American public that the situation involving Palin's underage, unwed pregnant daughter is off limits to the press because it is a private matter, despite the fact that it raises serious, legitimate questions about Palin's own political philosophies of family values, moral superiority, and teaching only abstinence to our nation's teenagers (instead of responsible, safe sex, birth control, etc.). How can a situation between 2 consenting adults -- a situation that resulted in nothing more than a strained marriage, a situation that had absolutely NO connection whatsoever to any official governmental policy -- be a public matter, but at the same time, a situation involving a minor child (who by definition cannot legally consent to anything) -- a situation that will result in a human life, a situation that is DIRECTLY connected to Palin's own political philosophies of family values, moral superiority and teaching abstinence only -- be a private matter? The answer is simple: republican hypocrisy, that's how!
Need another example of unbridled republican hypocrisy? How about their argument that Obama is not experienced enough to be president because he has never served in an executive political office, but Palin has the necessary political experience because she's been the governor of the nation's 4th smallest state (population wise) for less than 2 years. Excuse me, but what about the experience of John McCain? For his entire political career, McCain has been a US representative and a US senator, but has never served in an executive political office. If Obama is not experienced enough to be president because he's never been a political executive officer, then how could McCain have enough experience if, like Obama, McCain has never been a political executive officer? The answer is simple: republican hypocrisy, that's how!
Need yet another example of republican hypocrisy? How about their argument that American voters want change in their leadership, instead of the same old Washington insiders, and Palin represents such change, but somehow, a vote for Obama is a vote for the same old politics of the past. While it may be true that Palin is no Washington insider, it is equally true that as a 25-year member of the US Congress, McCain is the poster boy of old-school Washington insiders. How can a vote for McCain, one of the most senior members of the US Senate, be a vote for change, but a vote for Obama, one of the most junior members of the US Senate, be a vote for the same old failed politics of the past? The answer is simple: republican hypocrisy, that's how!
Aside from the shameless hypocrisy of the republican party, here are 2 concrete, undeniable and irrefutable examples of the irrelevance of the republican party in this 2008 presidential election, both of which clearly demonstrate just how far out of touch the republican party is with the American people: (1) A reporter recently asked John McCain how many houses the presumptive republican presidential nominee currently owns. Sadly, at a time when more people in our country than ever before face the very real, very frightening prospect of becoming homeless because they might lose their homes due to foreclosure, John McCain could not remember how many homes he currently owns! (2) At a time when unwanted teenage pregnancy is so rampant in our country that it could properly be considered a plague afflicting the youth of our nation, Sarah Palin remains steadfast in her insistence that the only sex education we should teach our children is abstinence only, despite the fact that such a narrow-minded, short-sighted and woefully inadequate perspective has failed her own daughter!
Sep 3rd 2008 2:12AM Nasty and degrading to women everywhere. The saddest thing about this is she obviously thinks she's hot. If only she could see herself through our eyes, she'd die of embarrassment.
Sep 2nd 2008 3:52PM susiesfourpeople posted: "Be honest how many ever heard of Obama before he ran for president."
Are you serious susiesfourpeople? How many of us ever heard of Palin before last Friday? Outside of Alaska, nobody! Or, in other words, only 635,000 people in the entire country. Obama on the other hand has been senator for the past 4 years from the nation's 4th largest state (population wise). Heck, even when he was a state senator fro Chicago for 8 years, more than 4 times as many people knew who he was compared to Palin (because Chicago all by itself is 4 times as large as the ENTIRE state of Alaska). And as for good vs. bad news, in the short time I've heard of Palin, I know that she is under investigation in Alaska for abuse of power and despite her preaching abstinence only, her own underage, unwed teenage daughter is pregnant. My goodness, it's truly amazing how blind partisan politics can make you. How sad, how unfortunate, how republican.
Aug 31st 2008 7:35PM Hey Mgarnett25, I'll tell you who is to blame for the economy, the war in Iraq, etc. GWB, that's who. You claim it's the dems fault because they control Congress? Are you forgetting that they "control" Congress by the slimmest of margins? Are you forgetting that they've been in "control" of Congress for only the past 2 years? Bush has been president for the past 8 years, and that's exactly when everything in this country went to hell. Unfortunately, Bush/Cheney have totally abused their power and position, and now McCain chooses a woman who has done exactly the same in Alaska by trying to use the power of her office to get her soon-to-be brother in law fired as an Alaska state trooper. As a lifelong republican, I am TOTALLY DISGUSTED with the republican politicians. McCain's choice of Palin for VP only confirms there is no soul left in the republican party. This conservative is going to do the right thing for America this November. I'm casting my vote for Obama.
HONEST REPUBLICANS FOR OBAMA IN '08!!!
Aug 31st 2008 5:10PM Let's compare Palin to Obama: Palin is a 2-year governor of the nation's 47th least populous state. Before that, she was mayor/councilwoman of a town of 5,000 people. On the other hand, Obama was a state senator for 8 years (4 times as long as Palin has been governor) for the 13th district of Illinois (the south side of Chicago). The 13th district of Illinois has a MUCH larger population all by itself than the ENTIRE state of Alaska. Obama has also been the United States senator for Illinois, the nation's 4th most populous state, for 4 years (twice as long as Palin has been governor). Obama has 4 years of experience at the federal level, Palin has ZERO experience at the federal level.
Aside from political experience, Palin has been a beauty contestant, a commercial fisherwoman, and a TV sports correspondent for a local Anchorage station. NONE of those "occupations" give her ANY experience whatsoever to serve as VP (or president, which is entirely likely given McCain's advanced age and frail physical health). On the other hand, Obama has been a lawyer, a constitutional law professor (for 12 years and at the nation's 7th best law school), a community organizer in Chicago (again, the city of Chicago all by itself has more than 4 times the population than the ENTIRE state of Alaska), and he has been a director of several major philanthropic organizations. Obviously, being a lawyer is good experience for any politician, considering that ours is a nation founded on the rule of law. Moreover, there could NOT be a more relevant legal field than constitutional law for a president to know inside and out. As for being a community organizer, the United States of America is in essence one large community, and the main job of the federal government is to organize it. And finally, being a director of a large philanthropic organization is excellent experience for a politician, considering that the federal government is very similar to a philanthropic organization because it provides much needed social assistance to those in dire need.
In sum, who has more experience, a former beauty contestant, commercial fisherwoman, TV sports correspondent, and 2-year governor of America's 4th smallest state (in terms of population), or an 8 year state senator representing a district with way more people than the entire state of Alaska, a 4 year United States senator of America's 4th largest state (in terms of population), a 12-year constitutional law professor, a lawyer, a former community organizer and former director of several large, multi-state philanthropic organizations? Without question, Obama was vastly greater experience than Palin. Anyone who argues to the contrary is simply spouting partisan crap. In fact, just wait for the vice presidential debates this year. Biden vs. Palin. That's kind of like the New England Patriots going up against a local playground pick-up team. I actually feel bad for Palin in that situation.
Jul 24th 2008 8:52PM If you think Obama is a Muslim, then you are truly the stupid one here. The man was born and raised Christian, and to this day he prays just about every Sunday in a Christian church. He never has been Muslim, nor has he in any way practiced the Islamic religion.
I dare you to provide legitimate proof that Barak Obama is anything other than an average American Christian acolyte. Don't bother wasting your time trying however, as you won't be able to produce any.
Jun 3rd 2008 1:19AM I might have considered buying one, but after learning that GM fired a senior electrician for leaking photos of something that isn't really that secret to begin with, I wouldn't take one if GM tried to give it to me for free. Are you listening GM? Treat your employees with a little more respect. It would be one thing if these photos actually showed something secret. But since they don't, your actions seem more than a little severe, and more than a little unfair. Based on how you treated this situation, it's no wonder you're getting your ass kicked on the world market.