Sarah Palin: Thoughts?

[Boaz1]

Let’s face it…she’s Dan Quayle

Dan Quayle was much better then the Left Wing media portrayed him.

Palin is much better and she will help the ticket. Great Pick !

Looking forward to the debates

 

[Wyzaard]

Dan Quayle was much better then the Left Wing media portrayed him.

Errr... how?

 

[TooCurious]

do you honestly expect me to trust a site that can't even spell 'women' correctly?

#1 California:9,212
#2 Texas:8,372
#3 Florida:6,475
#4 Michigan:5,269
#5 Ohio:4,548
#6 Illinois:4,078
#7 Pennsylvania:3,401
#8 New York:3,169

http://www.statemaster.com/graph/cri_for_rap-crime-forcible-rape

Funny how every state but one are mostly democratic states that pride themselves on secular culture. California, the first state to legalize gay marriage, and taken God out of the public schools has the highest rate of rape and crime. What a coincidence

Those are raw numbers, not per-capita statistics. (You know, X number per 100,000 people.) Obviously, the highest total number of rapes happen in the most populated states. What a coincidence.

And didn't Massachusetts legalize gay marriage first? I don't see it on your list. I guess gay marriage has nothing to do with rape after all.

So cities like Amherst, Madison, and Newton don't apply then right? Many of the safest places in the US have a large conservative population.

Source?

And given your lack of response to my Deuteronomy citations, I take it you acknowledge the Bible's stance on rape?

 

[TooCurious]

Secularism and gay activism are a good place to start.

I really don't see how these things make "living according to one's own conscience" equivalent to "having a good time." Maybe you can explain?

The ones not reading the Bible. Both Jesus and Paul have glowing things to say about non-believers. Not anti's, but non's.

Later in this response, I'm going to remind you that you said this.

You should read things other than skeptic websites.

It's not from "skeptic websites" that I get the impression that some Christians think nonbelievers have no morals; it's from places like HERE -- Christianforums.

Go to a Christian book store or listen to Christian music and see what and who we are. Our adversaries are not going to tell you the truth.

You seem to be under the mistaken impression that I am ignorant about Christianity or Christians. I was raised Catholic, and was confirmed. My uncle is studying to be a Baptist minister. I don't think that all Christians feel this way, but it's pretty undeniable that some do. Which is exactly what I said.

Really? The Bible ends with Jesus. Not a bad place to find compassion and love. And "out of" the same book.

So the Bible sends a mixed message? I agree. The fact that the Bible says some nice things in the Jesus bits doesn't make Deuteronomy go away -- unless you're suggesting that certain bits don't apply anymore?

Non-sequitor, that is precisely the point. Following "their own" consciences have lead to the greatest horrors in the history of our species (and other's), beingforced on all. Even now, INTO and ONTO our Churches.

People believing they are doing God's will have also committed some of the greatest horrors this planet has witnessed. That's because people sometimes do bad things. That doesn't mean that the individual conscience is invalid on the whole, or that one group of civilians has the right to force everyone else to abide by their particular set of morals.

Prison and civil lawsuits. The secular answers to the reality of The Slippery Slope Effect.

Earlier, you said that "Christians who have read their Bible" do not believe that non-Christians lack a moral compass. You seem to be reversing your position here; please explain.

Also, "slippery slope" reasoning is fallacious -- which you seem to take note of later in your post.

Violence and Christ do not mix. It is a well-established fact.

Violence and Christians, however, sometimes seem to get along much better, as history would indicate. I'm not saying this is true of all Christians, by any means, or that it necessarily meshes with the teachings of Christ, but it happens. When people believe God is on their side of a conflict, they're often willing to do all sorts of nasty, violent things to the other side. We see this repeated over and over, throughout history and into the modern day.

The Romans before Constantine held that Christians were "enemies of mankind." Sounds very familar 2008-wise. Free thinking anyone?

Actually, it sounds more familiar 1950's-wise. Pagan Rome distrusted Christians because they refused to acknowledge and participate in the state religion in addition to their own practices, and because they met secretly in private groups, which the Romans had laws against in order to discourage seditious behavior. Early Christian's refusal to acknowledge the cult of the Emperor and participate in public worship was seen as unpatriotic, "anti-Roman" behavior. The Jews got a free pass in this regard because Judaism was very old, and Romans respected tradition, but Christianity was new and unfamiliar.

You call Leviticus and I'll raise you Philemon. You may want to gamble elsewhere. Treating their slaves correctly to a Christian "master" in Roman Christianity, got the slave treated like a borther.

Once again, the contradictions of the Bible do not damage my case any -- unless you are claiming that Leviticus doesn't matter anymore?

I'm sorry? You call forced conversion and I'll raise you a billion free Christians.

(Man I'm gunna be rich.)

What does that have to do with the price of tea in China? I'm sorry, but I honestly do not understand what this comment has to do with my statements. Feel free to explain.

Humanism sounds alot like Christian morality when you boil away the non-godianism. Luckily for the signers of the Humanist Manifesto, Christians are not quick to sue plagarists.

Lucky for the leaders of the early Christian churches, pagans weren't quick to sue plagiarists either. Little if any of Christianity, from its teachings to its mythology to its rituals, was unique. And even if it were not for the startling similarities between Christianity and the other mystery cults of Imperial Rome, Christianity by no means has a monopoly on good ideas.

As do sows and boars and peopel with heart disease.

Again, relevance to the price of tea in China? And no, sows and boars have no notion of the concept of morality, and people with heart disease think it's a poor health choice.

Um, how long before it is a law? Cigarettes are a free choice, and look what happens now in restaurants and bars? It may be a good thing don;t get me wrong, but it is someone else's idead of a good time being implemented and taken away too.

This doesn't actually address my question. Is it right to be forced to adhere to the moral values of a religious group whose beliefs you do not share (as long as you are not violating secular law)? Because this is what the person to whom I was responding initially was suggesting -- only, of course, he was using HIS religious values as the basis for theocracy.

Slippery slope WARNING! Injury and death may occur.

So now you acknowledge the fallacy of "slippery slope" argumentation? Good; see above. However, I was not arguing from the slippery slope fallacy; I was presenting a hypothetical using the premises that the person to whom I was initially speaking was advocating, but turned around so that he wasn't a member of the party in power, to show that it was a bad idea in concept. This is different from slippery slope argumentation, which makes the claim that "if you allow A, then pretty soon you'll end up allowing X, Y, and Z!"

Sorry, I like facts.

Me, too.

Did he now? He was referring to a coin and taxes.

Is not taxation one of the acts of a secular government? If he supported the right of the government to tax its citizens, then how is that not acknowledging that the secular government had some authority separate from and independent of the religious authority of the day?

He didn't speak highly of "pagans" and "tax collectors." In fact, He (Jesus) put them as low as it gets: a liar that won't repent. Have you never read the Gospels?

So, how does this relate to what you said before about Jesus and Paul having "glowing things to say about non-believers"? Is this just more of the Bible contradicting itself, the way it did with Leviticus and Deuteronomy?

Jesus was opposed by the Sanhedrin members because he was advocating a Theocracy, with Him (Jesus), as absolute ruler (God). Have you never read the New Testament?

I was always taught that Jesus was talking about the Kingdom of Heaven, not a theocratic empire on earth. That was one of the reasons that Jewish leaders were irritated with him, because he wasn't going to lead a revolt against Rome, wasn't it?

Would you start another thread for our debate?

If you think we've wandered far enough afield of the original post as to warrant a new thread, feel free to start one, and I'll follow you.

 

[Sammy615]

We have let A RELIGION have full sway in public institutions without any real adversity. It is called Secular Humanism. It is pervasive and it has indeed undermind free thought and spiritual enlightenment in public education. This is why kids today can be suckered into cults, shoot their fellow students/teachers, can't read, have little understanding of how to express themselves without vulgarities, and have little understanding of world history. The glue that held everything together has been thrown away. I believe the environment begins with how well people treat their own bodies. The pervasive misapplication of sex, the abundancy of wasted tatoos/body piercing, and the extreme flaunting of abortion as some right; is secular humanistic hedonism that is throwing darts at the Creator and HIS creation. It has nothing to do with Christian virture. It has everything to do with trying to fix everything at the whim of "divine" human efforts devoid of GOD's blessings. The silly tales you have expressed pale when compared to the Genesis Creation epic; however, they are not far removed from evolutionary beliefs.

See, the issue here would be... things like evolution have scientific proof. Hence why they are taught. This means... today's top SCIENTISTS(you know, the people who went to college and learned more about these things than many people can even comprehend)find these to be the truth. And seeing as they are the SCIENTISTS... they should probably be able to determine what is taught in SCIENCE class. See the connection? I hate to sound like a jerk, but it's impossible not to when it seems you're basically blaming bad things that happen at public schools on the lack of religious teachings there.
Try reading your holy book from beginning to end, and tell me if it honestly makes any sense to you scientifically.

 

[BigBadWlf]

Dan Quayle was much better then the Left Wing media portrayed him.

Palin is much better and she will help the ticket. Great Pick !

According to the polls I heard today she certainly is helping the Democratic ticket

Looking forward to the debates

I wonder if she will have learned something about foreign policy by then

 

[BigBadWlf]

do you honestly expect me to trust a site that can't even spell 'women' correctly?

#1 California:9,212
#2 Texas:8,372
#3 Florida:6,475
#4 Michigan:5,269
#5 Ohio:4,548
#6 Illinois:4,078
#7 Pennsylvania:3,401
#8 New York:3,169

http://www.statemaster.com/graph/cri_for_rap-crime-forcible-rape

Funny how every state but one are mostly democratic states that pride themselves on secular culture. California, the first state to legalize gay marriage, and taken God out of the public schools has the highest rate of rape and crime. What a coincidence




So cities like Amherst, Madison, and Newton don't apply then right? Many of the safest places in the US have a large conservative population.

As Too Curious pointed out you are presenting raw numbers not per capita statistics. She is correct in her assessment of your list, the higher the population of a state the more rape there is but that is because there are more people, not because such states are less safe.

When you look at per capita rape statistics a much different picture emerges

Alaska has the highest per capita incidence of rape in the United States. One our of every three women in Alaska will be raped in her lifetime. This is about twice as high as the state with the next highest per capita incidence of rape (its South Dakota BTW).

The states with the highest per capita rapes for 2007:
Alaska: 81.1 : 1,000 (that is 81 women per 1,000 women was raped in 2007)
South Dakota 46.7 : 1,000
Colorado 43.4 : 1,000
Arkansas 42.9 : 1,000
South Carolina 42.5 : 1,000
Nevada 42.1 : 1,000
Oklahoma 41.9 : 1,000
Idaho 40.4 : 1,000
Mississippi 39.3 : 1,000
Kansas 38.4 : 1,000

Honorable mention goes to Utah 37.3 : 1,000
Utah is actually much higher but the state doesn’t report rapes of women under the age of 18 as rapes



The states with the lowest per capita rape statistics
Puerto Rico 4.3 : 1,000 (I know technically not a state but deal with it)
New Jersey 13.9 : 1,000
New York 18.9 : 1,000
Connecticut 20.0 : 1,000
Vermont 20.6 : 1,000

Interestingly enough some of the most liberal states around have the lowest incidence of rape

Ref: Bureau of Justice Statistics http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/

 

[beechy]

Dan Quayle was much better then the Left Wing media portrayed him.

Palin is much better and she will help the ticket. Great Pick !

Looking forward to the debates

McCain is 71 years old (the average life expectancy for white men in the U.S. is 76 years) and has had a history of surgeries to remove three noninvasive melanomas and one invasive melanoma from various parts of his body over the last 15 years, with the invasive lesion being the most recent. In addition to his melanomas, he has had (less serious) basal and squamous cell skin cancers removed as well. He continues to be monitored by his oncologist every 3-4 months, which is a fairly agressive schedule.

While Palin may make an entertaining running mate, do you think she would make a good President of the United States?

 

[keith99]

I find the New York number very impressive. For crime in general there is a correlation between 'city' size and per capita crime. E.g. bigger cities have a higher crime rate. New York has a high urban population. Their already impressive numbers seem even moreso considering this.

As Too Curious pointed out you are presenting raw numbers not per capita statistics. She is correct in her assessment of your list, the higher the population of a state the more rape there is but that is because there are more people, not because such states are less safe.

When you look at per capita rape statistics a much different picture emerges

Alaska has the highest per capita incidence of rape in the United States. One our of every three women in Alaska will be raped in her lifetime. This is about twice as high as the state with the next highest per capita incidence of rape (its South Dakota BTW).

The states with the highest per capita rapes for 2007:
Alaska: 81.1 : 1,000 (that is 81 women per 1,000 women was raped in 2007)
South Dakota 46.7 : 1,000
Colorado 43.4 : 1,000
Arkansas 42.9 : 1,000
South Carolina 42.5 : 1,000
Nevada 42.1 : 1,000
Oklahoma 41.9 : 1,000
Idaho 40.4 : 1,000
Mississippi 39.3 : 1,000
Kansas 38.4 : 1,000

Honorable mention goes to Utah 37.3 : 1,000
Utah is actually much higher but the state doesn’t report rapes of women under the age of 18 as rapes



The states with the lowest per capita rape statistics
Puerto Rico 4.3 : 1,000 (I know technically not a state but deal with it)
New Jersey 13.9 : 1,000
New York 18.9 : 1,000
Connecticut 20.0 : 1,000
Vermont 20.6 : 1,000

Interestingly enough some of the most liberal states around have the lowest incidence of rape

Ref: Bureau of Justice Statistics http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/

 

[stan1980]

While Palin may make an entertaining running mate, do you think she would make a good President of the United States?

It would be a scary thought if Palin ever gets in. You only need to hear her speak to realise she has already identified her 'enemies' when it is quite clear her knowledge of foreign affairs is poor at best. Diplomacy should always come first as people generally don't respond well to threats or indeed being attacked. I fear the world will become a much more unstable place with her in charge.

 

[beechy]

It would be a scary thought if Palin ever gets in. You only need to hear her speak to realise she has already identified her 'enemies' when it is quite clear her knowledge of foreign affairs is poor at best. Diplomacy should always come first as people generally don't respond well to threats or indeed being attacked. I fear the world will become a much more unstable place with her in charge.

It's a very scary thought.

 

[TooCurious]

Aha! These are the statistics I'd been trying to find earlier, but Google failed me. Thanks, BigBadWlf!

As Too Curious pointed out you are presenting raw numbers not per capita statistics. She is correct in her assessment of your list, the higher the population of a state the more rape there is but that is because there are more people, not because such states are less safe.

When you look at per capita rape statistics a much different picture emerges

Alaska has the highest per capita incidence of rape in the United States. One our of every three women in Alaska will be raped in her lifetime. This is about twice as high as the state with the next highest per capita incidence of rape (its South Dakota BTW).

The states with the highest per capita rapes for 2007:
Alaska: 81.1 : 1,000 (that is 81 women per 1,000 women was raped in 2007)
South Dakota 46.7 : 1,000
Colorado 43.4 : 1,000
Arkansas 42.9 : 1,000
South Carolina 42.5 : 1,000
Nevada 42.1 : 1,000
Oklahoma 41.9 : 1,000
Idaho 40.4 : 1,000
Mississippi 39.3 : 1,000
Kansas 38.4 : 1,000

Honorable mention goes to Utah 37.3 : 1,000
Utah is actually much higher but the state doesn’t report rapes of women under the age of 18 as rapes



The states with the lowest per capita rape statistics
Puerto Rico 4.3 : 1,000 (I know technically not a state but deal with it)
New Jersey 13.9 : 1,000
New York 18.9 : 1,000
Connecticut 20.0 : 1,000
Vermont 20.6 : 1,000

Interestingly enough some of the most liberal states around have the lowest incidence of rape

Ref: Bureau of Justice Statistics http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/

 

[BlackSabb]

She is so Hot. Sorry for my one track mind folks, being a Male is rough stuff...

Seriously dude, I think you need glasses. Or if you have glasses, get some new ones. She's okay only. Definately not hot.

This is hot:

And this is not:

*shudders*

 

[GQ Chris]

Seriously dude, I think you need glasses. Or if you have glasses, get some new ones. She's okay only. Definately not hot.

This is hot:

And this is not:

*shudders*

Dude, they are both Hot, of course Beckinsale will be hotter because she's a lot younger too. But then again, you just might be like some of my friends who think that if a woman is not smoking hot like Kate Beckinsale then she is in the undesireable column...

 

[BlackSabb]

Dude, they are both Hot, of course Beckinsale will be hotter because she's a lot younger too. But then again, you just might be like some of my friends who think that if a woman is not smoking hot like Kate Beckinsale then she is in the undesireable column...

Haha. Are you kidding me dude? You think I regard Sarah Palin as not hot only compared to Kate Beckinsale?

Dude, buddy, pal, mate, compadre, comrade. She's just plain Jane at best, Kate Beckinsale or no Kate Beckinsale.


It's real easy to demonstrate. Google Kate Beckinsale (and put a drop cloth over your computer for all the drool) and I'll guarantee you that you won't find a single, ugly image of her.

Here's some Googled images of Sarah Palin. Serioulsy, you tell me now if this is "hot?":

She looks like an older, nerdier version of Brittany Speers here. Ugh! Yeah, good luck finding an image like this of that smoking hot babe, Kate Beckinsale. Moving right along:

Yeah, this is hot.......................if I was 80!!! Oh man, I'd like to undo her support hose, haha.

Ugh! This reminds me of some of my university lecturers that were not hot. She is saying here:

"Damn it GQ Chris, if you think I'm hot, then you need glasses like me. Okay?"


Hey friend, I'm only yanking your chain. Oh man, I gotta get Sarah Palin out of my head now Chris, so thanks for nothing! This'll do it:

Now that's more like it brother!!!!

 

[Braunwyn]

BlackSabb, what you're doing is offensive and sexist. Please stop.

 

[SiderealExalt]

Lol I dunno about that, but, speaking for myself. Palin is not attractive at ALL.

 

[Braunwyn]

I don't care for Palin and would never vote for her on any ticket but c'mon. If her looks are so darn important and it's ok to be outright mean about it than lets see what some of the men look like in this thread so we can rate you.

 

[BlackSabb]

I don't care for Palin and would never vote for her on any ticket but c'mon. If her looks are so darn important and it's ok to be outright mean about it than lets see what some of the men look like in this thread so we can rate you.

I'm not posting to be mean or offensive. Come on, my posts were a type of running skit back and forth mainly between GQChris and myself. Don't be offended, it's just a bit of harmless fun posting between 2 dudes.

And if you want to do a running commentary on the looks of Mccain or Obama, then go right ahead. Honestly, take a chill pill, relax, think "calm blue ocean, calm blue ocean".

I tell you what, I'll show that I'm not a sexist and put up some ugly pics of both Mccain and Obama, just to show you that I can be a good sport, and not venerate/degrade just one gender. Okay?

Here's an ugly one of Mccain:

I think he was asked to do a pirate impersonation, and he's trying to say, "Ahoy there matey. I'm the baddest pirate on them scurvy seas, arrrrr...."

Haha. Hey, here's another ugly one, just because I'm that sort of bloke:

Mccain does his impersonation of a Japanese blowfish. Here's an ugly one of Obama:

What is wrong with this picture? Well, the eyes are too squinty, the teeth too prominent, the nose too wide, the hair cut too short and square that makes the ears look too big and the jaw too long and elongated.

Apart from that he looks great!!

This is Obama doing an impersonation of Denzel Washington. A bad impersonation.


There you go. I've ridiculed both genders. Please don't accuse me of being sexist. And try and lighten up. You need to de-stress. I suggest the smooth, mellow sounds of Black Sabbath.

Can't we have a little fun? I want to live. Why won't you let me live?

 

[Braunwyn]

Ok, that cracked me up.