SeVeR

Ugh, Palin saying she reads the economist after she was unable to answer the question previously, and at a time when the economy is in trouble... It's so rehearsed and fake that i want her brought up on charges of re!@#$%^&*ation in public office, and if that isn't a charge, then the Supreme Court can make that another of the laws she "disagrees" with...

Didn't Obama correct himself in the Pres debate right after he said McCain's name wrong? He would say something like "Jim, i mean John" It's not giving the benefit of the doubt to Biden when his mistakes were far less severe than Palins. If Biden claimed McCain said something in December instead of in January while still making a correct argument, then it's not as severe as Palin talking about the wrong general entirely! How can she make a point about a general agreeing with her when she doesn't even know who he is. If Biden says an billion surplus (something McCain and Obama said in the previous debate) when the most up to date figure happens to now be 24 billion, then his point is still correct and just as valid. You should look at how objective you're being NBV. Don't take this out on the BBC. You keep saying you're a fence sitter, but its clear to me that you're a republican at heart and have been for years...

Holy crap........ I was already saying how bad it would be to have her as VP given that she's a corrupt Christian fanatic, but this almost makes me feel sick. I honestly thought it was a joke by someone on Youtube at first, and considering how low an opinion i already had of her, that was incredibly sympathetic of me. just wow...

Maybe nature does have a reason for incest. Incest can introduce mutations into a society that may become dominant through natural selection if the environment favours it. Webbed hands and feet may be favourable in a flooded world. I use here the same reasons for homosexuality. These extremes of human-interaction, that appear counter-evolutionary, exist in order to defeat the extremes of nature. Greater diversity is what favours natural selection, and by pushing natural selection to extremes through extreme environmental changes may require extreme diversity. Thanks for the argument Ace, i think i agree.

The reason i used words like "possible" and "capable" are because i don't think it's necessary to determine "precisely when a foetus starts representing conscious thought" before coming to a decision on abortion. We would have to set a time that is based on the minimum requirements for the possibility of thought, based on the current results of research into the issue. There is a margin for error, and the earliest possible time is what should be used. In the same way we make sure to prove a person is guilty beyond all reasonable doubt in a court of law. The issue is too important to get wrong, we can't take a life, and thus we must take the earliest possible moment for conscious thought, given our current understanding of a developing brain, and use this as opposed to our best estimate of an exact time.

I put in the word "possible" for a reason. Once a foetus is capable of thought, then it's alive. I think we can measure this as electrical impulses, although i don't know if it's measurable for a foetus... and i am far from an expert on the matter. We certainly know if the physical apparatus is there though, and this is a fairly accurate guide i would imagine.

It comes down to choice again. People in Sub-Saharan Africa don't choose to have sickle-cell genes. People don't choose to be homosexual. People do choose whether or not to have sex with their family members. That's what natural selection is about in a way. If it exists, even if it's counter-evolution, then nature still has a reason for it. People are homosexual because nature made them that way, and some people have sickle-cell genes in the same way. If you choose to mess with nature then you're at fault.

Of course they didn't understand evolution back in the times when the church had people executed for it. This seems to be one thing that the church got right in the end. Evolution and natural selection are hindered like Sama said.Another related issue is homosexuality which is also detrimental to evolution, although in this case the person doesn't choose their sexuality, and therefore the church was wrong to persecute them. However, in this age of contraception, having sex with your sister and not producing a child is no more wrong than homosexuality if one thinks of it as a simple physical act. However, emotional attachments can be formed which could lead to a brother and sister selecting each-other as mates, and thus, buggering up evolution again.

I understand what you're saying and have heard it a million times in a million debates. I was over-simplifying, let me elaborate: Life isn't just a combination of cells. When a virus or a cancer combines with your cells or DNA, is this life? Anyone who makes the argument that a sperm+egg combination is the point at which we have a human life is making a different kind of argument. They're arguing about the potential for life. In this case abstaining from creating a life is on equal footing. Terminating a foetus once it has developed brain function is a different matter, as this is the earliest possible point at which it is aware of it's existence. It's no longer a self-replicating machine like a virus. I am pro-choice, but after the point of possible self-awareness, i am pro-life.

Abortions don't kill anyone. They take away the potential for a life in much the same way not having sex does. So ban the clergy? !@#$%^&*ed hypocrites.... Guantanamo Bay was just another example of how fear turned to fascism in America. And of course they gave them wonderful medical facilties. They wanted them healthy for the big show trial and execution.... Saddam anyone? Nazi war criminals anyone?

I just listened to it again. She said it in the way of a statement, not as a continuation of the previous sentence. Her words are so muddled anyway, it's sad. It sounds like she was reading it from an auto-que and forgot what punctuation is...

It's borderline, if she'd said "pray that" instead of just "that" i might have thought so, but as it is i don't know.

Yes. This is the way she spoke the words, and whether or not she read the speech wrong matters little because she said it in that way. It might have made more sense if she'd read it in the way you propose, but i don't pretend to know how Christians lead their prayers. In the first sentence she is praying that the military are doing what is right over there, and that this is also right for America. The second sentence states that America's leaders have sent them out on a task from God. The third sentence prays that the American military have a plan for this task that agrees with God's plan. I mean look, saying that God has a plan for the Iraq war is saying plenty. That's the way i see it.

You think she means one thing by what she said, and i think she means something else,. Trying to p!@#$%^&* off your opinion as something more elemental will not fly. What she said can mean two different things and you seem to be arguing that one meaning is more valid than the other. I've already told you that the punctuation in your quote does not fit with the actual speech, so what "she said" in your words is incorrect. The last sentence can mean two different things, as the word "plan" has no obvious meaning. Considering that she had just stated that Iraq is a task from God, how could she then contradict herself in the next sentence. Thus, i think my meaning is more valid: that the plan is the method for carrying out God's task. She is hoping that America is carrying out God's instructions in the way he wants, and that is where her uncertainty lies. -EDIT- But yea, it's not obvious. Maybe she could be a better public speaker?

I referred to the last sentence in my post... read the last line. God gave the task, and she hopes they're doing it in the way God wants them too.

You can tell by the way she says the words that "also for this country" is apart of the previous sentence. There is no pause for the full stop and there is even a change in tone for the next sentence. Brain, your source has changed the meaning by changing the punctuation. "They are striving to do what is right also for this country". Saying she hopes it's God's plan has nothing to do with who she thinks has set the task.

Here is the speech. Make of it what you will... -EDIT- Dr. Brain, you have to be careful with that quote. The words are correct but i doubt the punctuation is. The changing of one full stop can make it mean something completely different. If you listen to the video, she would have to be a very poor public speaker to have said what you have quoted... in that particular way.

Well here goes. If you weren't sure about Sarah Palin yet, here is what i've found out. Palin's Religious Extremism: 1. She is anti-contraception, anti-abortion, anti-evolution, and a vocal opponent of gay-marriage. 2. She wants creationism taught in schools. 3. Her religious beliefs extend to a conviction that the Iraq war is God's will. 4. She grew up in a small, deeply religious town. She was inducted into the Pentecostal Church, with all it's charismatic preaching, the tears of joy, and the laying on of hands.... etc. 5. Then there is Palin's successful campaign to become mayor in 1996. All previous elections had revolved around such existential questions as how to improve the pavements and get litter off the streets. She ignored all that, campaigning instead against abortion and gun control and casting aspersions on her (Republican) opponent about his infrequent attendance of church. 6. In 1996 she attempted to get non-Christian books censored from her town Library and fired the librarian when she refused. Enough people in her town rebelled against the decision to get it rescinded. 7. Others were less fortunate. The museum director, city planner, six department heads within the council, and the public works director all quit within months of Palin's ascendancy, and the police chief was sacked outright (he sued for wrongful dismissal but lost). 8. She will not countenance sex education for teenagers, preferring instead to preach that abstinence is the only complete protection against pregnancy or venereal disease. 9. Palin is embroiled in a full-scale investigation by the Alaskan state legislature into allegations that she sacked the safety commissioner because he in turn refused to act against a police officer whom Palin wanted dismissed. (Does this corruption thing remind you of anything? Points 6 and 7) 10. She described the Bush-doctrine as his "worldview". I have debated with Christians on many occasions and this is a word that seems to have caught on with the more extremist variety, a word they use to explain why people think differently to themselves without asking any deeper questions. Palin's Foreign Policy: 11. She said Russia's attack on Georgia was unprovoked. Even people who support Georgia would have to say it wasn't. Either she is uninformed, or is as extreme as McCain in her hatred for Russia. These two are a recipe for another Cold War. 12. She said that invading Pakistan to stop terrorists is a viable option. These terrorists have no means to threaten the US, yet she used that as the excuse for doing it. Such double standards when criticising Russia for similar and possibly more excusable actions, is deplorable in my opinion. Not to mention the flawed excuse for doing it. Otherwise: 13. Republicans criticising the Obama remark would strike any intelligent person as being petty, shallow and taking advantage of political correctness in order to make a ridiculous and unwarranted attack. Only a stupid person would fall for it and be swayed by the Republicans, but everyone has a target audience... http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2008/sep/0...2008.sarahpalin Anyone who wants to put this woman one step away from being leader of the free world needs to take a good long look at themselves.

What is going on? I have been trying to get to ssforum.net from my home and work computers and keep getting some weird thing coming up saying that the domain is expired. It's one of those advertisement sites with loads of annoying pop-ups. I've now tried it from a new work computer that i've never used before and it works!.... Has ssforum.net been down for ages, or am i going to find that it won't be working when i go back to my old computer? Has anyone else had these problems??

Someone needs to find out just how much of a Bible bashing ultra conservative this Palin is. It's ok to be pro-life, but it does seem she is anti-contraception too, like Aceflyer said. The Bridge to Nowhere just shows she does shat she can to benefit her agenda and not the people's. She used the money for something the people wanted, to not only gain political points, but to have more money for her state to spend. I suppose this idea fits with her gaffes over ultra-Alaskan-allegiance; In the video X'terrania posted she says "VP should be a fruitful position, especially for Alaskans", supporting the claim that she was once a member of the whacky Independence party. Why "especially Alaskans"... there is something wrong there and something wrong with her.

I listened to a speech from Palin. I think she'll be quite a weapon for the Republicans and I'm beginning to think Obama should have recruited Hillary now (even though she is the spawn of Satan's !@#$%^&*hole). She talks in the vein of a strong mother with a righteous at!@#$%^&*ude, but not so much that it would be preachy. She is going to guarantee the votes of a large swath of the women who hear her speak. You can't help but think she is right on everything she says, it's almost annoying, she has the "mother's way". She also softens McCains maverick image, and McCain looks like the proud grandfather to Palin's family now. I almost think she should be running for President instead of ol' senile McCain. This election just got a lot closer.

Lots of important policy in Obama's speech. So here is a run down: 1. Pro-nuclear, pro-clean-coal, pro gas-reserve tapping, pro renewables. End dependency on Middle Eastern oil in 10 years. Create 5 million new jobs in energy sector (that can't be out-sourced). 2. Obama recognises America is divided on Abortion and Gun Control, and recognises that these are issues of little importance in this election.. but may be used by Republicans to detract from the real issues. 3. Eliminate Capital Gains Tax for small businesses. Lower taxes for all Middle Class and Working Class Americans, paid for by reversing Bush's (and McCain's) tax cuts for big corporations. 4. Open new schools, recruit "an army" of new teachers, and pay them higher salaries. 5. Guarantee soldiers and war veterans a college education. 6 Affordable health care for every American. 7. Protect Social Security and Pensions (McCain voted to privatise these) 8. Close corporate loops holes and savings, remove federal programs that are a waste of time. 9. No Tax breaks for companies that ship jobs overseas, instead giving tax breaks to companies who create jobs at home. (I think this is a great idea!) Criticisms against McCain: He voted with GWB 90% of the time. McCain said the economy made great progress under GWB, and that America has become a nation of whiners. McCain voted for tax breaks on big corporations and oil companies (the Bush Tax), a health-care plan that taxes peoples benefits, and a plan that privatises social security.

Seriously? I would have had you pegged for a McCain supporter from the moment he announced his candidacy.