If anyone knows who Lifelong Democrat is, Teddy...

The messages you are viewing are archived/old.
To view latest messages and participate in discussions, select the boards given in left menu

I am not unhappy that he chose a woman, I am unhappy that he chose this woman, this person that I know nothing about and only have 2 months basically to do it in. IMO that is not a lot of time to get to know the 2nd in command, who could very likely be the 1st considering McCain's age - though God forbid. Yes she has a child in the military and she is the head of the guard, or something to that effect, but how does that in any way qualify for foreign policy or to be a good leader. And no, I don't necessarily think Obama is the answer.

Somehow it all seems to contrived to me. Does he think that us as women are simply going to vote for him now just because he has a woman? Does he think it automatically makes him look better to us? I am just really questioning his judgment right now to pick someone nobody knows anything about and someone I had no idea he even knew. I do know that I have family in Alaska and not everybody loves her. The next time I talk to them I am going to find out the whys on that.

Someone had mentioned in an earlier post that nobody really knew who Obama was 8 years ago but we have had 8 years to know, good or bad, and certainly the last 18-24 months since we all pretty much knew he was going to run.

I know nothing of what she stands for, except no abortion, no gays, and yes on the death penalty. What are her stands on everything else. I will be investigating, just like I hope everybody else does. I want to know exactly why she is the one McCain has chosen to "go to" as his 2nd in times of crisis, in times of anything really. Speaking of, let us not forget what today is and how it is still impacting people that live in our great country.

I am afraid this year, this election I will be voting against party and going for the Democrat. I just don't know if I can trust McCain's judgment. To me, I have said/thought when it came down to McCain and Obama that I was going to be looking at who they chose for the VP and I think McCain just lost it for me, as well as a lot of other people.

For Immediate Release: December 28, 2006
Contact: Carol Goldberg (202) 265-7337

HOW OLD IS THE GRAND CANYON? PARK SERVICE WON�T SAY � Orders to Cater to Creationists Makes National Park Agnostic on Geology

Washington, DC � Grand Canyon National Park is not permitted to give an official estimate of the geologic age of its principal feature, due to pressure from Bush administration appointees. Despite promising a prompt review of its approval for a book claiming the Grand Canyon was created by Noah's flood rather than by geologic forces, more than three years later no review has ever been done and the book remains on sale at the park, according to documents released today by Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility (PEER).

�In order to avoid offending religious fundamentalists, our National Park Service is under orders to suspend its belief in geology,� stated PEER Executive Director Jeff Ruch. �It is disconcerting that the official position of a national park as to the geologic age of the Grand Canyon is �no comment.��

In a letter released today, PEER urged the new Director of the National Park Service (NPS), Mary Bomar, to end the stalling tactics, remove the book from sale at the park and allow park interpretive rangers to honestly answer questions from the public about the geologic age of the Grand Canyon. PEER is also asking Director Bomar to approve a pamphlet, suppressed since 2002 by Bush appointees, providing guidance for rangers and other interpretive staff in making distinctions between science and religion when speaking to park visitors about geologic issues.

In August 2003, Park Superintendent Joe Alston attempted to block the sale at park bookstores of Grand Canyon: A Different View by Tom Vail, a book claiming the Canyon developed on a biblical rather than an evolutionary time scale. NPS Headquarters, however, intervened and overruled Alston. To quiet the resulting furor, NPS Chief of Communications David Barna told reporters and members of Congress that there would be a high-level policy review of the issue.

According to a recent NPS response to a Freedom of Information Act request filed by PEER, no such review was ever requested, let alone conducted or completed.

Park officials have defended the decision to approve the sale of Grand Canyon: A Different View, claiming that park bookstores are like libraries, where the broadest range of views are displayed. In fact, however, both law and park policies make it clear that the park bookstores are more like schoolrooms rather than libraries. As such, materials are only to reflect the highest quality science and are supposed to closely support approved interpretive themes. Moreover, unlike a library the approval process is very selective. Records released to PEER show that during 2003, Grand Canyon officials rejected 22 books and other products for bookstore placement while approving only one new sale item � the creationist book.

Ironically, in 2005, two years after the Grand Canyon creationist controversy erupted, NPS approved a new directive on �Interpretation and Education (Director�s Order #6) which reinforces the posture that materials on the �history of the Earth must be based on the best scientific evidence available, as found in scholarly sources that have stood the test of scientific peer review and criticism [and] Interpretive and educational programs must refrain from appearing to endorse religious beliefs explaining natural processes.�

�As one park geologist said, this is equivalent of Yellowstone National Park selling a book entitled Geysers of Old Faithful: Nostrils of Satan,� Ruch added, pointing to the fact that previous NPS leadership ignored strong protests from both its own scientists and leading geological societies against the agency approval of the creationist book. �We sincerely hope that the new Director of the Park Service now has the autonomy to do her job.�

Read the PEER letter to NPS Director Bomar

View the NPS admission that no policy review on the creationist book has occurred

See the 2005 NPS Director�s Order #6 on Interpretation

8.4.2 Historical and Scientific Research. Superintendents, historians, scientists, and interpretive staff are responsible for ensuring that park interpretive and educational programs and media are accurate and reflect current scholarship�Questions often arise round the presentation of geological, biological, and evolutionary processes. The interpretive and educational treatment used to explain the natural processes and history of the Earth must be based on the best scientific evidence available, as found in scholarly sources that have stood the test of scientific peer review and criticism. The facts, theories, and interpretations to be used will reflect the thinking of the scientific community in such fields as biology, geology, physics, astronomy, chemistry, and paleontology. Interpretive and educational programs must refrain from appearing to endorse religious beliefs explaining natural processes. Programs, however, may acknowledge or explain other explanations of natural processes and events. (Emphasis added)

Trace how the creationist book controversy started and grew

Look at tax dollars used to support the Bush administration program of �Faith-Based Parks�

Obviously, no human being on earth can say with any degree of credibility that agnostics call out to Jesus when the time is near. Nobody can possibly know what every other person on earth calls out, if anything.

For some, peace comes from religion. Others are able to find peace within themselves. Some never find it. Each person must follow their heart and brain and find the niche that works best for them.

I guess Islamic fascists aren't the only ones who try to force their religion on everyone else. The difference is that the United States isn't supposed to favor one religion over another. We're supposed to be a nation that has religious freedom.

This is especially dangerous during a time when war with religious fanatics is involved. To pledge undying, unquestioning loyalty and support of Israel in political matters (even if some feel they have acted badly) soley for personal religious reasons (to insure one's place in heaven) is very dangerous to the United States and the rest of the world. This is why politics and religion don't mix, and this is why the United States is becoming such a scary place. :-(

And liberals are posting on the conservative board and do you see us ordering them off? You really have no tolerance. And by the way, the little article about dissention in the ranks, it seems all isn't what it appears to be. Shocker there.

He raises some very interesting points, doesn't he? I'm glad, too, that he wasn't fired. I wish somebody like him (or he) WOULD run for President because I'd vote for him, as well. After our invasion of Iraq, how DO other countries know they won't be next, and why wouldn't they want to protect themselves from an unwanted, uncalled-for American invasion?

We need someone who can straighten out America and make it a much better place and lead by example so other countries WANT to be like us, rather than having our form of *freedom* forced upon them.

You really need to stop obsessing on me, Nina. You've made your hatred of me known, but it's starting to get spooky. Please find another hobby. You're beginning to resemble a stalker.

At the very least, you might want to scan the board before accusing me of saying things I didn't. It will only take you a second, and you will appear to at least have some common sense and credibility if you do so. Right now, I seem to be your target, and your hateful obsession is quite transparent.

I hadn't read the part where they included the US troops in the mix. What I read was that the Iraqi Prime Minister wanted amnesty only for terrorists who killed American soldiers and NO amnesty for terrorists who killed Iraqis. I felt this was a slap in the face to America, and that's the precise reason I'm so outraged over this.

It's interesting that you said that's what you *make of it.* Every time I've read something on this issue, I walked away just kind of scratching my head because I was unable to grasp an understanding of most of it. Even the bill itself that was voted on yesterday did nothing but express the *sense* of the Congress regarding this issue. How can it be so important to take up Senate time, including the debate and vote, when the end result is that they are EXPRESSING THEIR SENSE? Seems like a big waste of time to me and lends even more credibility to Harold Ford's view that it was nothing but a stunt.

What I don't understand is why 19 Republican senators would publicly place themselves in the position of voting their *sense* that they were in favor of letting terrorists off the hook when it comes to killing our soldiers, given that the majority of Iraqis think it's okay to kill Americans.

I suppose some sense could be made of the reasoning behind it if we were dealing with terrorists/insurgents that could be trusted, but with 65% of the general Iraqi population thinking it's okay to kill Americans and 88% of the Sunni population believing so, I don't feel comfortable placing any trust in them.