Controversy over Gov. Palin and the Republican National Party

When the Republican Presidential candidate, Sen. John McCain (R-AZ), picked the inexperienced and young Gov. Sarah Palin (R-AK), quickly the media debated the consequence of choosing a woman as the V.P. candidate. While it was an obvious attempt to draw away the middle class supporters of Sen. Hillary Clinton (D-NY), the flagrant ploy is not in itself a bad move. Moreover, her relative obscurity enabled her to be molded and presented as a wild card and maverick, to compliments the similar misnomers McCain has chosen for himself. This allowed Palin to be examined and judged solely on her own merit as a leader. For once, I felt, the Republican Party had done something morally healthy for politics.

However, several days later, as the news of Gov. Palin’s teenage daughters pregnancy were divulged to the public, controversy began to develop. I was relived to see that the media, by and large, respected the privacy of her daughter, and left the family affairs as a private matter, to be dealt with within the confines of their own home, and not something to be smeared across the nation. Nevertheless, although completely ignorant of Palin’s voting record or capabilities of leadership, had reason to question her common sense as she exposed a very private (and political hot button issue, something I do not feel it should be, but nonetheless is) matter and wellbeing of her daughter to the scrutiny and ridicule of the media. Nevertheless, once again, besides the poor judgment exhibited by Palin, I felt that this issue had no bearing on the politics at hand.

But today reports have been made public concerning her voting record, which is totally at odds with the current situation she finds herself in. Palin had voted with McCain in the past to oppose sex-education in the public school system, an education that seeks to encourage and prepare young men and women for the difficulties and dangers of intimate relationships. As a stanch supporter of abstinence, Palin refused to acknowledge the good sex-education could achieve in the public sector, and further successfully blocked funds to help teenage mothers in Alaska. Allow me to repeat this. Palin blocked funds to help teenage mothers.

As much as I attempted to not allow the very private and personal matters of Gov. Palin affect how I would evaluate her political leadership, she has, through her own actions, forced me to become critical and wary of her political capital. Such glaring omissions of rational judgment cause me question her appointment at all, and places yet another nail in the coffin of the Republican Party, as a political self-serving entity that is completely out of touch with any form of actual reality. This truly is a party composed of individuals who have allowed their ideology to overrule any form of common sense, dignity or rationality. Unfortunately, Palin’s image as a possible leader is already seriously in doubt.

Ed. Note,

Several interesting add-ons, since this mornings writing have surfaced today. See bellow for links

Palin’s religious views cause controversy

McCain angry over media’s examination and questioning of Palin

Report claims US has worst teen pregnancy rate in developed world

Palin “just a heartbeat from the presidency”


~ by maffersalmon on September 3, 2008.

50 Responses to “Controversy over Gov. Palin and the Republican National Party”

  1. Matt,

    What is your premise here? Is it: Sen. Palin wishes she would have not blocked funds to help teenage mothers? or Palin applies for government funds for her daughter but doesn’t get them because she blocked them? or Palin flip flops and wants to change her opinion now because her daughter is now pregnant? I mean your conclusion sounds like you are saying Palin shot herself in the foot/ stuck her foot in her mouth and finds herself in pickle now, which means Republicans are misguided, irrational egomaniacs.

    What does her daughter teenage pregnancy have to do with how Sen. Palin voted in regards to sex-education or her blocking of funding for teenage mothers? Her daughter gets pregnant and so her mom’s “image as a possible leader is in doubt” AND the Republican party as a whole “is a party composed of individuals who have allowed their ideology to overrule any form of common sense, dignity or rationality.” Matt, what does a 17 year old girls decisions have to do with an entire political party and its capacity to lead a nation? Are you saying that if her daughter did not have sex and get pregnant THEN her mother would still be ok in your eyes? Or if she aborted the child and kept it a secret, then you wouldn’t know about it and again her mom would still be ok in your eyes? Before you knew that Sen. Palin blocked funding for teenage mothers you felt “the Republican Party had done something morally healthy for politics.” BUT your approval was short lived because then you found out that Palins voting record and blockage of funding actually did make it ethical and permissible to scrutinize the “very private and personal matters” of the Senators life.

    I just seem to need a little clarification on your article. I do not understand what your premise is nor how given Palin voting record changes the fact that her daughter deserves privacy in her personal matters. I also fail to see how because her daughter got pregnant, Sen Palins ability to lead should be put in doubt.

    Did you research at all why the Senator voted with McCain on the sex education issue, or why or to what extent funding was blocked for teenage mothers? Was an addition to the current funding blocked? Was funding altogether eradicated? What exactly was blocked? It would seem prudent to understand her positions, arguments and justifications for her actions before painting her and the entire republican party as a bunch of incompetents.

    Barrack Obama wants to have children taught sex education classes in KINDERGARTEN! I DISAGREE. This raises the issue of what should the roll of government be in regards to sex education.

    What do you think the ROLE OF GOVERNMENT is in regards to sex education? Should the government even have a ROLL in teaching sex education? Furthermore if a teenager gets pregnant, is it the roll of the government to provide funding for them, and if so what would you suggest be the rules and regulations that should govern said funding?

    Lets assume for a minute that Palin was justified in the positions that she took and maintained about sex education and her blocking of funding. If she were justified, based on her beliefs and views of the life and the government; then how would the actions of her daughter in getting pregnant cast a shadow over Palin? If Palins view is – sex education is the responsibility of the parents AND in the event that a child does get pregnant in spite of the parents teachings, she beleives it should be the roll of the family first, not the government to help that individual. If this was the case then it would show that she stands behind her policies even in the event that a teenager gets pregnant, even her own teenager. She seems to be supporting her daughter, the boyfriend and daughter are at the convention, they plan to get married.

    Thanks for taking the time to consider me comments and questions.



  2. Dusty,

    Thank you for your questions.

    The premise, it would seem, is actually quite simple. The process of choosing the V.P. is not a flimsy process, and typically involves some measure of rational thought and expectation. The V.P. should be a choice that complementary to and supportive of the President. The majority of the public did not know Gov. Palin, and understandably do not know her political stance nor voting records due to her political inexperience. Political inexperience is NOT a negative in itself. However, several of the issues previously mentioned cause me, an empathetic individual, to question her decision-making ability. Allow me to summaries.

    Gov. Palin cannot, and should not be, held responsible for the decisions of her daughter. Nor should she be expected to change her views on morality based solely on the actions of family members. Furthermore, the decisions made in the past are a good litmus test of the party ideology, and thus are not the issue for deconstruction or debate.

    What is in question is Gov. Palin’s foresight and prudence, characteristics that necessarily must be honed for an effective leader. How are her foresight and prudence brought into question? First, the pregnancy debate. Of course, as I had stated earlier, such an issue should NOT be a measure of qualification. However, this is America, American Media, and a rabid base of evangelicals, who are being pandered too. Thus, unfortunately it will be used as an issue, and the daughter and family are forced to have a personal and private issues critiqued throughout the world. Likewise, it will be used as an issue, not that the pregnancy happened, but of the handling of the issue. If she develops some empathy or understanding of the issue, beyond or counter to her previous understanding, and recognizes some problems with the previous vote, she is hamstrung, and unable to reexamine (or in your words, “flip flop”) the legislation, due to the position such a change would place the party in. Therefore, in order to maintain the desired votes of the evangelicals, she must maintain the position. But in order to maintain the desired votes of the disenchanted Hillary voters, (one of the two main impetuses of her nomination), she will need to show more empathy and caring on an issue that she is politically and morally opposed to, i.e., state intervention in matters of sex-education, the theory of “abstinence education” and social-programs. How could she, and the nomination process have overlooked such an obvious problem? Again, I repeat, the pregnancy is not the problem. The fact that she willingly thrust herself, her daughter and her family into an arena, where such an issue, as inconsequential as it is, will become a dominate theme to be debated and disassembled, leads me to question her foresight. It leads me to question her prudence.

    Let me be clear. I am not discussing the validity of state intervention. Nor am I stating agreement with Obama’s sex-ed initiative. I am not endorsing moral laxity, and am not questioning someone’s character based on his or her progenies decisions. I am questioning Gov. Palin’s. Period. And it is self-serving, and party serving. It is shortsighted, like unto the party itself. I am not questioning those individuals who adhere to Republican economic policies, but the leadership that claims morality, and hides corruption and self-serving interests behind a façade of “conservative values”. Gov. Palin was an outwardly obvious choice. However, the outward choices are not always the most prudent. It is ok to examine the action of our governmental parties, and to find flaws of logic, as well as to recognize poor political moves. Although we did not know much about Gov. Palin, this obvious hurdle (again, a hurdle that should not exist in my eyes, but nevertheless does) should have been considered and examined with more empathy and tact.

    Furthermore, I was not attacking her leadership qualities in the political field of foreign affairs or international relations, the true qualities necessary to lead a nation such as America. If I was to do that, I would have to attack not Gov. Palin, but Fox News, but we both recognize what a waste of time that would be. That discredits itself.

    As to the other issues raised, I have strong views on several of them, although my own views are not in question at the moment. We are examining the political expediency of the nomination. And once again, we find a Party that is self serving and short sighted, a Party which encourages outrage and criticism of all who notice subtle and not so subtle inconsistencies.

    As always, I welcome your insightful response, and thank you for taking the time to raise your concerns.



  3. Oh Matt… where do I begin?

    First of all, I agree with Dusty’s points about Gov. (not Sen.) Palin’s daughter’s pregnancy being, if anything, a shining example of someone who practices what she preaches. I had the fortune to watch her deliver her speech in its entirety tonight, and I was impressed by the character that shone through her words and the manner in which she delivered them.

    But to address your concerns, let me be frank. If I were put in the situation of knowing that I could make a world of positive difference to a mass of people I cared about (including those that disagreed with me), but I knew that my child would be put through ridicule and persecution as a result of taking on the challenge, I admit that it would be a tough decision. We don’t know, nor should we know, the conversation that she had with Bristol after she got off the phone with McCain. I can only imagine the tears that were shed. I imagine that Bristol, at some point that night, looked at her mother and said something to the effect of, “Mom, I can handle the challenge with your help. You have an opportunity that will bless all Americans, including me. Go for it.” No perhaps that sounds a little too “after school special” for you, and it probably wasn’t exactly like that, but I think you get the point. This, to me, makes me respect her decision to accept the task even more.

    You know, I hear some pundits talking about how she was hypocritical for being pro-life and then saying how it was her daughter’s CHOICE to keep the baby and marry the father. Abortion activists bug me SO MUCH!!! Pro-life is NOT anti-choice! It simply means that abortion should not be one of the choices! There are plenty of other options (raise it as a single mother, get married, adoption, live with parents and raise it as part of an extended family, etc.) that the expectant mothers can CHOOSE from. (Sorry, just had to throw that quick rant in there.)

    And finally, to tackle the “experience” issue, you probably know what I’m going to say. It’s been said repeatedly over the last few days. Gov. Palin is the ONLY one on EITHER ticket who has executive experience. She has been the LEADER of Alaska! Nobody else in the running, even McCain, can say they’ve been a government leader! Heck, I even saw Stephen Colbert joke about how she should be the Presidential nominee, with McCain as VP, after which he even spoke about switching McCain out and making it a Palin / Romney ticket! Now THAT would be interesting!!!



  4. Ben,

    I am left to assume that you read the main entry, and were as confused as Dusty due to the nature of my writing. Feel free to examine the response I posted, as that make the concerns much more apparent.

    In response to your assumptions of the conversations that transpired between mother and daughter, I am in no position to hypothesize on the clarity, compassion and “after school special” nature of the moments, as, I am sure you understand, neither are you. However, it is not that fact that she went through with it, but what a strange way to present a situation. Short sighted, and often angry at questioning.

    I will not approach the leadership issue in this response, to assume one has credentials based on a short term currently under investigation is comparable to assuming Gov. Palin has foreign relations expertise due to the proximity of her state, (oh wait, that is in fact what FOX is reporting.)

    As to recognizing her character through her speech, I sure hope you didn’t. Because that character is the same as George W. Bush’s character, not because Gov. Palin is anything like Bush, (perhaps she is, I don’t know yet) but the speech was written by Bush’s senior speech writer, Matthew Scully.


  5. Mr. Salmon,

    Your premise then as summarized by you is as follows: “The premise, it would seem, is actually quite simple. The process of choosing the V.P. is not a flimsy process, and typically involves some measure of rational thought and expectation. The V.P. should be a choice that complementary to and supportive of the President.”

    You are stating that the Republican party considers the choosing of a VP to be a “flimsy process” and that they did not judiciously apply “some measure of rational thought and expectation”

    It is not that Ben and I do not understand the “nature of your writing” It is that you make wild claims that it seems like you harvest off some liberal smear merchant. If someone where to briefly look at your original article and just read the phrases you HIGHLIGHTED to get a general feeling of what your piece is about, what do you think they are going to assume. It appears you are trying to expose some inconsistency in her character, and in doing so cast doubt and uncertainty over her ability to judge AND the Republican Parties ability to judge.

    As I can gather it – your issue is with Gov. Palin. You state “What is in question is Gov. Palin’s foresight and prudence, characteristics that necessarily must be honed for an effective leader.” And you site the reason it is in question is NOT because of her inexperience but because “she willingly thrust herself, her daughter and her family into an arena, where such an issue, as inconsequential as it is, will become a dominate theme to be debated and disassembled, leads me to question her foresight. It leads me to question her prudence.” You say the decision “is shortsighted, like unto the party itself.” THESE are the wild claims that are penned by you that I have issue with.

    You may not agree with the Republican Party, it makes no difference in the present discussion, the question is “Has the party chosen someone who reflects their thoughts and beliefs, their goals and ambitions and vision for the country?” “Has their chosen VP the right characteristics and experience to accomplish what the Republican Party stands for?” However this is not what you are addressing you are saying they should not have chosen her because you feel there is some inconsistency in her actions as it relates to her pregnant daughter, and her decision to run for office, even though you admit it is “inconsequential.”

    The fact is she is the most popular Governor in the Union, she’s pro-life, pro-gun, pro-drilling and pro-tax cuts. She’s fought both Republicans and Democrats on public corruption. She has made changes in her State that have awarded her an 80% approval rating. She is an individual that has been both a Mayor and a Governor and has infinitely more executive experience than the entire Democratic ticket combined. Obama says he has more experience than Palin because he has run an 18 month campaign! He used his 18 month campaign as a comparison to Palin’s experience rather than his 18 months as Senator. The man voted “present” over 130 times in the Senate! His qualifications are that he was a “Community Planner” HE HAS ZERO EXPERIENCE. I point this all out because is seems supremely odd to me that you are questioning the Republican Parties choice of VP based on an alleged inconsistencies that casts a shadow on Palins judgment, BUT you haven’t written a single line about how ABSOLUTELY ABSURD it is that the Democratic Party has chosen BARRACK OBAMA to be their PRESIDENT!

    You take issue with the fact that Palin was unknown and that the Republican Party did not give enough “rational thought” nto the decision. May I point out that until Clinton interviewed Al Gore ONE time before choosing him as his vice presidential candidate, he had met Gore only one other time: when Gore was running for president in 1988 and flew to Little Rock seeking Clinton’s endorsement. Clinton TURNED HIM DOWN. Additionally, to this day, there’s no proof that Bill Clinton ever met one-on-one with his CIA director, James Woolsey, other than a brief chat after midnight the night before Woolsey’s nomination was announced. If you want to question a Parties “RATIONAL” I think you are barking up the wrong tree. Or at least bark up both.

    If you are going to say she is a bad choice then give us something of substance. Tell us how she doesn’t reflect the values of Republicans. How she has been unsuccessful or inefficient in her attempts to accomplish things. Tell us of the battles she lost, tell us about her terrible approval ratings. Tell us about her inexperience (but don’t forget to be “fair and balanced” and also expose B. Hussein’s and Bidens inexperience” Don’t just paint one side of the fence.

    You summarize tour retort with “We are examining the political expediency of the nomination. And once again, we find a Party that is self serving and short sighted, a Party which encourages outrage and criticism of all who notice subtle and not so subtle inconsistencies.”

    The “subtle inconsistency” that you say you are “noticing” you admit is “inconsequential” Yet you say the entire party is “self serving and short sighted” You make wild claims Mr. Salmon. If you want not just “subtle” inconsistencies but rather “colossal” inconsistencies, please review the Candidate for the Democratic Party.

    Should you feel that Sarah is the wrong choice because of the exhaustively discussed “inconsistency” in her character that exposes her lack of rational thought and good judgement, please do us the favor of naming who you would recommend and why they are MORE qualified than Gov. Palin. It is only worthwhile to point out inefficiencies and bad choices if we can offer something more efficient. A man can beat himself to death ranting and raving about how a certain tool he has is not the most efficient and doesn’t get the house built fast enough, but if he doesn’t have an idea of a better tool that could solve the problem, then all he did was slow the already slow process down. If there is a better tool in the box, show us which one it is, I will listen… use the rational thought and logic that you claim the Republicans lack, avoid the short sightedness that you have diagnosed them with, and make a case we can discuss. Lets hear your recommendation and weigh the merit and rational of your suggestion. Lets weigh the credentials of you candidate against those of Sen. Palin.

    Allow me to use a metaphor. It’s as if a basketball player made the winning shot in the last three seconds of the game and liberals demand that we have a week-long discussion about whether the player should have taken that shot. WHAT IF HE MISSED?

    With Palin, McCain didn’t miss.

    As always i look forward to your response and further discussion.



  6. Ok, I’m going to respond in reverse order…

    First, the character issue. I didn’t say that I found her words overly inspiring (though the bites at Obama were amusingly pointed), but rather that her character was able to shine through, especially in her delivery. The way she spoke of her family, the way she spoke of her community, the way she spoke of her experience, not so much the words as her ability to show her true character in delivering them.

    I will freely admit that Fox’s comment on her geographical proximity’s influence on her foreign policy experience is ridiculous. I would agree that any border or coastal state, is likely to have insight and experience of certain issues above that of many others, but not due to the fact that they are “closer” geographically, but rather because they have international borders in their states. For this, Alaska would be no better or worse than Washington or Maine.

    And I did actually read your response to Dusty. I found it a bit of a hard read (no worse than Dusty’s though. Spell-checkers are wonderful things! And proof-reading can do wonders!) and I’m still not quite sure what your point is. Nevertheless, I stand by the idea that sticking with her moral principles (abortion, sex-ed, handouts for teen mothers, etc) even in the face of the revelation of her family’s personal issues is a sign of character and integrity. *Warning: rhetoric ahead!* Yes, that same character and integrity that she displayed in taking on corruption in Alaska from both parties, numerous lobbyists, and corporations. (What?!?! A republican taking on corporations?!?! The liberal scum should be bowing at her feet, but the liberal elite media won’t even mention that track record without being forced into a corner. They wouldn’t want anyone thinking she might actually be an asset to the country, would they.)

    Ok, enough of the rant. I see you put up a new post. I’ll have to have a read and reply a little later.


  7. Dusty,
    Thank you for your comments. It would appear to me that while you are obviously passionately defending your own position, which is commendable, you are also willing to viciously attack my observations, and hypothesis on the ramifications of certain appointments upon party politics, as well as make radical generalizations about my own character, research and political leanings. Such attacks are suspect, although not unexpected. However, due to your general likeability, and my foreknowledge of your upstanding character and debate loving personality, I obviously do not take such criticisms negatively, but as an effort to positively develop the critical skills of bi-partisanship.

    You mention at the beginning of your response, that the issues I presented that you take issue with, and may I assume offence to, are the matters of the decisions of Sen. McCain and of the unelected nomination of Gov. Palin. I quote,
    “You say the decision “is shortsighted, like unto the party itself.” THESE are the wild claims that are penned by you that I have issue with.”

    Dusty, if these are the claims that you have issue with, then these are the issues you should respond too. I agree that my concern regarding the “inconsequential” issues of the pregnancy is relatively minor. I never claimed them to be catastrophic. However, in my opinion, they were unforeseen and unplanned firestorms, that have the potential to split the votes of the very demographic that Gov. Palin was obviously brought in to cater to, the women vote and the evangelical vote. I also foresaw a confrontation between past voting and future feelings on the subject, a confrontation of experiences that I myself would experience under such developments, and a possible moral conundrum of hamstrung decisions. I saw this as a shortsighted decision, as it was based on an appeal to two specific groups, and now has already provided a possible split between the two (Notice I have used “possible”. Dusty, contrary to popular belief, no observer knows the future, as no one can absolutely claim, “McCain didn’t miss”. That will be revealed in time.) Furthermore, as an empathetic individual, which I understand not all people are, I feel for Gov. Palin, and her family. But it must have been foreseen, and thus discounted as relatively less important then the practical issues of the daughter’s pregnancy, which is a devastating and difficult time for a teenage, regardless of family support.

    As to the myriad of your other issues raised, I genuinely feel that they are unimportant to the issue at hand. You have encouraged me to be more observational, and fair and balanced. However, your outright attacks of the Democratic nominees (which I have neither supported nor defended) and your over glorification of the Republican nominees would support the hypothesis that perhaps I am not the only one who needs to step back and reexamine the position and vantage from which I commentate.

    Furthermore, as a brief aside, she absolutely does not have “infinitely more executive experience than the entire Democratic ticket combined.” However, her inexperience does not and should not count against her. If anything, they can be a collective breath of fresh air that on both ballets, there are individuals, untested, but willing to inject new life into the political system. Likewise, as I was not attacking her character, I feel no need to do so as you have suggested. Furthermore, you disapproved of my closing sentence “a Party which encourages outrage and criticism of all who notice subtle and not so
    Subtle inconsistencies”, and yet my observations elicited such a reaction from you. I am afraid that you did indeed become confused by the “nature of my writing”, as your disapproval of my comments reflects an argument read into the writing.

    I do not suppose that through my comments you will have changed your mind. We are only seeking to allow a free exchange of ideas and suggestions. Please take that into consideration.

    Respectfully yours,

    Matthew Salmon

  8. Ben,

    Thanks for clarifying your position. I must admit, I stand in your corner for the majority of what you advocated. Understandably, you are still slightly confused at my initial argument. I would suggest the confusion stems from the fact that I was not trying to inflame an argument, but rather comment on what I saw as a potential blunder, a microcosm of what the future might hold. However, in retrospect, and especially due to Dusty’s concerns, it may have come off otherwise. Nevertheless, I stand by my observations, and allow others to reject my comments.

    Glad you clarified the character comment. I must say, I also was quite pleased with the manner of her delivery and the passion of her convictions. Quite captivating. Also, I believe that sticking to ones conviction is a major asset if it is genuine, but is a folly if such loyalty is in the face of Party pressure. I did not claim that she was going to be doing one or the other. Just that complications may very well arise. As for Gov. Palin’s active work as Gov, I have been incredibly impressed with what I have seen so far.

    Luckily, I understand your hatred of the “Liberal Media” is only half in jest, as you are consciously aware of the importance in a liberal mindset in matters of academia, as opposed to the liberal mindset of the political mind, two very different ideologies.

    Finally, the spell check. I apologies. But who has time to proofread a blog? ☺

  9. OK, what a merry-go-round!

    I think when you read what I write your picture me with a frown or downright scowl on my face – let me assure you I smile the whole time. I embrace the exchange of ideas.

    Matt, I am responding to the claim I have issue with? That is why I ask how you paint a whole party as “short sighted” because you think the decision to chose Palin was preemptive, urgent or otherwise not well thought out. So what we have a Matt Salmon who knows relatively little about the Palin family situation the involvement of the family in the decision making process, or the strength of the character of Bristol and her ability to weather this TEMPORARY media frenzy. Therefore I conclude that you are making a wild claim about an issue that you know little about (or I for that matter). I am “standing back” giving Palin and her family time to make the case why she is a good candidate, not jumping in right off saying it is a huge tactical error that was not well thought through. Then you extend that judgment to the entire party. You say that “in my opinion, they were unforeseen and unplanned firestorms” You whole argument is based on your supposition that no one, especially Palin herself “foresaw” that people where going to scrutinize her family, and in the process of said scrutiny find out that Bristol was pregnant. If you have evidence that this really is the case then the point is worth discussing, especially if Bristol is now suffering as a result. But I cannot imagine (now I am offering my opinion) that anyone, especially not the entire party would “oversee” an issue that seems obvious to the rest of us, would become a hot topic in the media. This constitutes a “wild claim” without some kind of evidence to back it up. Maybe if Bristol and her boyfriend were so ashamed that they did not attend the convention, or approached the media and expressed their disgust at Sen. Palins choice. I just see no evidence that supports the claim that you make, and upon which your argument is based.

    Also Palin does have infinitely more EXECUTIVE experience that the Democratic Ticket – neither Obama or Biden have ANY – and because Palin has some – I ergo claim infinite.

    Another point. You wrote “you are also willing to viciously attack my observations, and hypothesis on the ramifications of certain appointments upon party politics, as well as make radical generalizations about my own character, research and political leanings”

    I have asked many questions in our correspondences that would help me and any and all who read this blog (the numbers grow daily – congrats on the 10,000th) some elucidation about your “character, research and political leanings”. But you keep say they are unimportant, or do not address the issue at hand. If I am miss judging in what you think are my “radical generalizations” of your character then please point them out and clarify them. The more information that is available the deeper an issue can be looked at. Many of my questions were designed to such an end. The more the readers and I understand Matt, his political sentiments and passions or opinions on an issue the further the discussion progresses. If it turns out that you just down right hate republicans and FOX news (apparently), then we need to know where this hate comes from. Do you just watch FOX and take the opposite position of whatever they say because you know of some deep conspiracy inside FOX. (Remember I am still smiling) Obviously I am not entirely serious but using a bit of satire to make a point. In all your writings in this article you only criticize the actions of others, which only lets the readers know you disagree with whatever issue, but you do not then state what a better action in your opinion would have been. Thus we do not get to know Matt more, we need to know the criteria by which you are making your claims so we can weigh the same issue using your criteria, which might be hidden to us. The reason I continue to write and ask questions is because I enjoy the dialogue and discovery. Getting defensive and saying I am attacking you and closing up so I can’t understand more fully your opinions does not move the dialogue forward. I value your opinion I know we have both read things the others have not, and we do have some common beliefs which again is why I dedicate hours of my time to this blog. In order for us to discover more fully where our opinions part we need more discovery. Presently we are discussing and issue that we may never see eye to eye on because there are issues far deeper that we do not see eye to eye on. But if we found those, starting off through you addressing my questions, then we may get somewhere.

    You could start by simply stating who you would vote for this election if you were American and why. Then you could tell us who of all the original candidates for president you wished would have made it so you could have voted for them. You say on your facebook that you are moderate but that like asking if warm water is hot or cold, it just doesn’t provide much insight until we address specific issues. Where do you stand?

    Don’t forget I am still smiling, still want to golf and watch fights with you and sincerely enjoy the dialogue thus far. Your a witty fella.


    I wrote on your blog “Western Hubris exposes western follies” But I never got a response. You wrote today that this article has generated more dialogue than any other.

  10. You apologies?!?! I don’t think that’s right. 😉

    Oh, and one thing about your latest response to Dusty, I don’t see how her decision to join the ticket could possibly split either evangelical OR women voters, at least not those with conservative leanings. If anything, she’d pull across more of the liberal leaning women and evangelicals with her bipartisanship. No evangelical in today’s society would ever ostracize a pregnant teenager. They would certainly discourage the processes that could lead to the circumstance, but once it happens, support, love, and most of all family involvement would be encouraged. The type of love and support that Palin is showing to her daughter will also be a beacon to women, an example of how I think many women would love to throw their support around their children whenever they face difficult trials.

    Anyway… onward and upward…

  11. um…sorry, but i’m pretty sure this will close the argument

  12. After some thought – can you let us know someone who you tend to see eye to eye with – Hugh Grotius, Emmerich DeVattel, Henry Kissinger, Abraham Lincoln – if you named someone it would really open the door. Of all the political writings I have viewed in my life the one person I agree with most would the Ex Minister of Agriculture Ezra Taft Benson. That will pretty much define my opinions and thoughts are almost all topics. I find him thoroughly rational and judicious. Who(m) would you pick?

  13. Or here…

  14. Dusty,

    I truly appreciate your comments, and have always looked forward to more of the same. I never got back to you on the section of “Hubris”, due in large measure to the proximity of exams at the time of writing. In fact, I am ashamed to note that were this not the beginning of the semester, the reality is I would most likely write the post and forget about it. So while this type of dialogue is initially what I had hoped would be produced from a medium such as a blog, I have been quite out of practice, and had slightly forgotten that anyone even read the words I took the time to put to paper, so to speak. So when I claim that this posting has generated the highest comments, it is important to note that the majority of the comments have not been approved due to the explicitly language and threats.

    I recognize your criticisms of the last posting as a serious shortfall in my writings, and briefly will attempt to answer them to the best of my ability. First, I did indeed claim that the party had overlooked the reactions of this particular issue, an admittedly large oversight. While I would typically not suspect that any political body would be capable of such a gaff, we have to remember that the majority of the beaurocratic body running the election is on loan from the Bush administration. These are the same group of people capable of legitimizing an illegal war, passing off economic catastrophe as a non-issue, and failing to foresee the fallout of disassembling a strong dictatorship in a country of deep religious and political schisms.

    I am aware that you, and several of the other readers of this blog do not share my concern over the welfare of the teenage daughter. You are absolutely right when you state that we cannot know the mindset of the daughter. But we are able to assume that a daughter, especially in her teens, during such a traumatic time, would feel some undue pressure from the media, the party and her family. Often mothers in this situation repress some of their most basic emotions causing lasting psychological harm. However, speaking from some personal experience, I will claim that often the pressures from a conservative upbringing will place pressures that have a lasting effect.

    As for my original argument, (and more in response to Ben) Gov. Palin was brought in for the vote of women who supported Hillary, not the women already in the camp of the Conservatives. Thus, yes, such an issue will indeed highlight some of her past voting records, and will indeed cause a split between the desired bases.

    But in regards to FOX news, this issue has been clearly outlined in my postings on reporters without borders. But allow me to surmise. I have strong feelings towards news agencies that twist truth, outright lie, and prey on fear mongering.

    Executive experience is gained through leadership, and is actually not easily definable. Let us not confuse experience in an executive office with executive experience. If we are solely judging a candidate through such flimsy litmus tests, then perhaps the manager at my local McDonalds deserves the ticket. She has been there in an executive position for well over four years. Executive experience comes from leadership and delegation, compromise and critical observation. Sen. Obama has stood at the head of an organization of over 500 beurocratic employees worth over 100 million dollars for over 18 month. His organization built up support in grassroots areas, and took votes from a camp with more money and “executive experience” on a regular basis, and in the end received the backing of a demographic of the American people. It is fair to say that Obama has some “executive experience”. Enough with the straw man argument.

    So what does a “moderate” mean? Simply put, I now and forever more, will refrain from pledging allegiance to any particular party ideology. I vote according to conscious. I recognize that at times strength of arms is a necessity, while at others, peaceful negotiations is a virtue. There will be times when social programs will need to be expanded, and times they will need to be cut back. We do not live in a stagnant society, and thus our outlook on a political system should not be static. To be political is to interact. A moderate individual attempts to interact with a clear eye and an open heart. In fact, the basis of the American Republic was founded on such liberalism. However, words have changed meaning, parties have crystallized due to societal change, and some would like me to pick on side or another. It is a false dichotomy, and such partisanship is an affront to me.

    So whom do I vote for? Well, economically I tend to lean toward conservative policies, while socially I tend to lean toward liberal policies. My justification for such contradictions comes from a conservative background, and global worldview, and sincere empathy. It is difficult for me to reconcile at times, but that is a challenge I embrace.

    Now, whom would I vote for in this election? Simply, I would vote Democrat this election if I could. I find the economic policies, the social policies, and the general character of the democratic camp much more palatable. I am sure that the disastrous economic policies, foreign policies and social policies of the last administration do not strengthen McCain’s camp for me. I have always been fond of McCain, however, his judgment on several serious economic foreign affairs issues is completely out of step with my own personal feelings.

    I hope that helps build an understanding of my positions.

  15. Nathaniel,
    Thanks for the links. Unfortunately in Canada we cannot access those vids. Viacom rules, etc etc. Hopefully our American friends will be able to access them though 🙂 Glad it “closes the argument” 🙂

  16. Ben,
    That last spelling fo-pa was for you 🙂 Glad you liked it!

  17. bummer. it really does boil this down to the ridiculousness that it is…good old Jon Stewart. I’ll see if I can dig something up for you.

  18. Try here

    and the second one here:

    Let me know if those work for ya 🙂

  19. Nathaniel,

    I saw these clips this morning after I wrote my second posting regarding Gov. Palin. I am amazed myself that such a simple observational post could generate such controversy, but I am even more amazed at the redic reaction of the so many.

    As is usually the case, John views the entire matter for what it is, a fiasco. A shame that such double standards of opinion and reporting are covered by no one else besides a fake news anchor-man, whose show follows “killer puppets”. A serious shame.

  20. Hey Mattie,

    First, I just want to say that I admire both you and your readers for their passionate interest in politics! Now it may be due to the fact that we spoke face to face regarding Gov. Palin but I understand very clearly and agree with the point you are trying to make. I think you should consider doing a live group discussion, in a park/coffee house etc. as that is truly the forum where you shine. It is definitely easier to effectively communicate when you can use tone of voice, body language and calm, direct statements instead of page long replies. Thanks for having the courage to open yourself to comments (and criticism). We all learn from it 😉

  21. Maff…

    I have to agree with Stephanie – I think there’s way too much to be incorrectly interpreted in a static forum such as this – and it’s easier to agree to disagree in person. It’s also a lot easier to cherry pick an argument here than in person, and in my opinion, there’s a general lack of “getting to the point” which doesn’t lend to a very effective dialogue.

    It’s like the whole email argument problem that plagues our generation…Most of the intense arguments I’ve had over email were because someone was offended by something they misinterpreted – and there was no way for them to confirm whether or not I meant what they thought I meant 🙂 see, this makes no sense! in person it would have taken two seconds, a couple nods, and on we go to the next discussion. Keep up the good work though. It takes a lot of guts to throw your opinion out like this.

  22. Wow,

    Isn’t it a wonderful world when a clip from Jon Stewart can “close an argument” Especially when he has uncovered a double standard (in his clips that we have no background to) that has nothing to do with the premise of the blog. If I were to quote Bill O’Reilly or Ann Colture or Rush Limbaugh I would be crucified on a cross of ad hominem attacks, BUT Jon Stewart and his clever cropping can “close an argument”.

    Lets just say that everything in Jon’s clip is the bold face truth. What does it have to do with the premise that has been discussed in this blog, which is summarized as such:

    “Gov. Palin and the Republican party overlooked the fact that Bristol’s pregnancy would be scrutinized by the media, and as I result Bristol will suffer. Also this unmediated decision will split the vote of the women (from Hillary’s camp) that it was designed to get. Therefor I conclude that because of what I PERCEIVE as and oversight, I feel Gov. Palin’s personal judgment is in question, and as she is seeking the office of VP we should further scrutinize her and the entire party. Let me also note that I thought that the Republican party as a whole is irrational, self-seeking and hypocritical BEFORE I cast any judgment on Palin”.


    “Matt, my opinion of your opinion, that Gov. Palin and the Republican Party OVERLOOKED the fact that Bristol’s pregnancy would be scrutinized by the media and cause a split in the vote her nomination intended to succor, is that I disagree, respectfully and appreciate this forum in which to discuss it. I disagree for these reasons:
    1. I can not imagine that a women who is involved in politics would OVERLOOK the fact that her daughters pregnancy will not be scrutinized by the media. I cannot imagine that Bristol would not have that cross her mind and have mentioned it to her Mom.
    2. I cannot imagine that it already wasn’t public knowledge in Alaska, I bet if we look we will find that Alaskan papers already had fun with the fact that the Governors teenage daughter was pregnant.
    3. I saw no indication that Bristol or her boyfriend or anyone in the entire family was upset about the coverage it was getting or the Governors or the Parties gross OVERSIGHT.
    4. No one in this blog has been able to provide me evidence that this alleged OVERSIGHT has occurred. No statements from the family or the Gov.
    5. The issue Matt brings up as to whether or not it will split the vote remains to be seen. So far I have no evidence of women who where going to vote for Palin, but when they found out her daughter was pregnant changed their vote. Also it is Matt’s “assumption” that the Gov. was brought on board to sway those votes. A claim I want you all to recognize I did not dispute, to me that makes sense. What didn’t make sense was the OVERSIGHT idea, which is what we are discussing, it is just taking a LONG time to get there.”

    I have no problem agreeing to disagree via this forum. Stephanie wrote that she agrees with Matt – I ask, what do you agree with, everything, most, what in particular? With no indication it is hard to address anything. Though a public forum is a nice idea, it must be stated that calm, tone of voice and body language are not the Truth, the truth will not be held hostage to expediency, body language, tone of voice or calm. If it could be then Barrack Obama holds the truth in the palm of his hand.

    Back to the Jon Stewart clip – I am not saying he is not uncovering a double standard, which we may want to discuss, it is just that it does not address the issue of the OVERSIGHT. There may be a double standard in regards to the treatment of Hillary vs Palin, but it has nothing to do with the OVERSIGHT.
    Palin may not be the best person for the job, McCain may not be the best person for the job or Barrack or Biden. We can discuss that but they are separate issues. Matt mentioned that I was making radical claims about his character. Are you all doing the same with mine? Do you all think I love John McCain? or Palin?

    This election comes down to two bad choices this year but you still have to chose one or the other. The issue that can be discussed about Palin as Jon McCain’s pick is “given Jon McCain’s platform, strengths and weaknesses, is Palin a good choice? or the best choice among those he could have chosen from? Matt address’s the political expediency of the choice and opines that is was bad because of the OVERSIGHT, which will translate into less votes than they anticipated from the choice. If that is the case, then what or who in your “opinion would have been a better choice, given the perceived political expediency?”

    Respectfully your, and enjoying the blog,


  23. Dusty,

    Thanks for your enthusiasm, and effort to keep this forum active. However, I am afraid that the issue has reached its natural conclusion. Arguments have been made, and positions have been laid bare. I feel a general understanding of each others views on this particular issue have been made manifest, and although we disagree, for the most part we can understand where the other is coming from. Therefore, we now have the wonderful opportunity to sit back and watch as these issues either play themselves out, or not. What a singular opportunity, for which I am grateful.

    Lastly no one questioned your character or political decisions. So no needs to worry.

    I look forward to my next political post (unfortunately those are few and far between, but since they seem to spark discussion and increased readership, they may be more frequent), and your continued insights and observations. On a side note, feel free to send me ideas for posts to further the balance of this blog.


  24. Well, I step away for a day and this blog lights up like a Christmas Tree. (Sorry, that may not be politically correct, how about a “tree to adorn a festive winter occasion”?)

    Anyway, back to the meat…

    Matt, you wrote “His (Obama’s) organization built up support in grassroots areas, and took votes from a camp with more money and “executive experience” on a regular basis, and in the end received the backing of a demographic of the American people.” I will give full credit to Obama as a dynamic speaker. One who can cloud the truth of the issues with his charisma. And it’s sad to say it, but he’s still the most likely candidate to take the White House, due to his popularity gained through said charisma. But when people look at the issues, they’ll see that his economic ideals are completely backwards! I’ll admit that McCain may not be a master economist, but at least his ideas won’t drive the economy in the wrong direction. I actually heard a campaign ad from Obama where he said he will award companies who ship jobs overseas, as if that is a good thing. What?!?! And if you’re complaining about high gas prices and then say you’re going to tax the Oil companies, what are the oil companies going to do to recoup their losses? RAISE GAS PRICES!! Why don’t Democrats get it?!?!

    Anyway, enough about Obama’s inadequacies, let’s get back to the issue. I admit that I love watching Jon Stewart and Stephen Colbert. They’re entertaining, and they have a way of drawing the interest of a younger generation into the realm of politics. What they also have a way of doing is presenting fallacious arguments. Who really cares what Carl Rove said? He’s not running for office. Heck, he’s was fired as a political advisor and got picked up by a cable news network as a pundit. You’ll notice that the only clip there that really mattered was the one from Palin, and all she said was that she didn’t like that Hillary was whining about the unfair treatment. Well, that would only be hypocritical if Palin was whining. But she’s NOT! The only people that are whining are the pundits. I could really care less about what most of the pundits say. I’m more interested in what the candidates say!

    And I agree with Dusty that your argument of an “oversight” or “gaffe” is purely speculative. Who’s to say that all those involved in the decision weren’t well aware of the issues and possible consequences and weighed them out in their minds before making the decision? That would hardly constitute an oversight!

    Keep it comin’! This is good!

  25. Wow, dusty, calm yourself and sense the tone. In my opinion, which you clearly love, those clips get exactly to the heart of what’s being discussed. The irony here, which you seemingly missed, is that Jon Stewart doesn’t claim to be a credible news source…unlike your neo-con racist pals insist they in fact are (Coulter? Limbaugh? Seriously? I’m pretty sure God ((or Pres. Benson for that matter)) doesn’t smile favorably on these people you seemingly wish you could quote but for our sake won’t).

    Jobs overseas: Ben, do you own your own business? Have you watched what every major business (fortune 5000) in the US is learning to do in order to function and compete? I own a small business, and to my conservative friends who work the 9-5 and just don’t get it, I say: There is nothing wrong with outsourcing overseas – the idea that it’s some how un-American or will destroy the economy is unfounded and illogical. Every major Law Firm and Accounting firm in the US outsources work to India. Most big web development companies and tech companies have offices overseas for one reason: cost of labor. Auto manufacturers outsource work. Everyone outsources overseas. I outsource 60 percent of my work to India every year. To put it bluntly in my experience, Americans are lazy and unqualified and want a kings ransom for their shoddy labor (don’t refute this until you run your own business and try to hire US based help that’s qualified, affordable, and hard working).

    John McCain hasn’t said anything that even remotely relates to most Americans, or to me for that matter (yes, I listen). He and his wife are so out of touch with the majority. His advisers and cronies charge that Obama is somehow an elitist is most amusing. Most conservatives are also conveniently forgetting their charge to vote in someone with “moral values” in the last two elections – and that Edwards can’t and McCain can simply because of party, is a remarkable show of conservative ignorance. The idea (I get this a lot at church) that Bill Clinton is an evil man and John McCain is God’s appointed man for the job, is mind blowing, no pun intended. He’s out of date, irrelevant, has never been much of a maverick, has a moral compass that points to the nearest vulva, and has basically sold out to his party just to get elected. His own conservative pundits praise the man in print and blast him when they think no one is listening (msnbc mic fiasco). Doesn’t say much about a man to me.

    Palin, in her bush-writer crafted speech, made fun of Obama’s experience as a community organizer. Nice. Way to rag on the people that work for pennies to get your agenda through to the masses regardless of political affiliation. Of all people in this race, she is the last person that should be lambasting Obama’s experience. She’s got some experience, to be sure, but the move to make her the VP pick was pure political theater – total gimmickry. You can’t tell me there’s not someone more qualified. Romney is a choice I would have said wow to – I lived in Boston under his tenure as a Governor (despite his total 180 on most issues that made him a “wow” governor). Sure, McCain was a vet, great, we get it – doesn’t mean you’re the best person for the job.

    Karl Rove isn’t running for office, but he has systematically RUN THE OFFICE MESSAGE for 7 years. He’s a dangerous man with a frightening agenda. He’s been held in contempt of court, has refused to go on trial for his role in innumerable cover ups and federal crimes, and because Nancy Pelosi is a spineless tool (who does not deserve re-election) he gets to parade his opinion around in front of an audience that absolutely eats it up. You can’t tell me he’s not relevant.

    Talking heads are simply political farce – the trouble being (and this goes for equally farcical liberal media) most Americans are too lazy to dig around into the issues and make a decision based on anything other than a sound bite from faux news or huffington post.

    I know, I know…cherry pick this all you want for not being “to the point” but until we have a formal sit down, I can’t just sit idly by and let some one pick on me for posting a Jon Stewart video (if he’s so irrelevant, why do conservatives and liberals alike clamber to get on his show?). I don’t know about you Canadians, but this American is ready for some change.

  26. Wow, Natheniel, way to completely misinterpret what I wrote. 🙂

    I never said that businesses should never outsource overseas. My point, rather, was that I’m baffled by a prospective president’s encouragement to do so. So basically he’ll reduce taxes to companies who send their profits overseas. Let’s break this down for a minute:
    a) The gov’t will incur a reduction in revenue from the company,
    b) Due to the company’s revenue going to overseas employees who don’t pay US taxes, the gov’t will not receive their income tax,
    c) As the incentive will be to perpetuate this, more Americans (no matter how qualified or unqualified) will be out of jobs, making them a burden to society, further straining the economic resources of the gov’t.
    The question remains, how will the gov’t recoup from these losses? Oh yeah, they’ll tax the crap out of the middle- and upper-class and businesses who choose to employ Americans (who will then, in turn, also pay higher taxes). Sounds to me like a liberal wet dream (A.K.A. Communism)!!

    And are you just trying to raise contention now? I mean, we agree about Karl Rove, but you’re turning it into an argument. He’s an idiot. In my opinion, it’s HIM, not Bush’s policies, that is the root cause of the president’s %20 approval rating. And while he may unfortunately be relevant to some, he’s certainly not to me.

    In Dusty’s defense, I don’t think it’s the fact that you posted the video that is the cause for refute, but rather the “this will close the argument” line. As I mentioned, I’m a fan of Jon Stewart. I don’t agree with everything he says, but at least brings up topics and highlights misunderstandings that would likely otherwise be missed. That said, his presentations are often full of blatant fallacies. For this reason, they should not be meant to “close” arguments, but rather they should be launching pads for further in-depth discussion. My greatest fear about shows like his is that too many people will just take what he says as gospel truth, much as they do with the Huffington Post! It’s sad, really!

    Anyway, lunch break’s over, time to get back to work.

  27. Ahh, my point exactly on the dangers of a static forum – no one is immune.

    Here are some resources I’ve found helpful with regard to the obama tax plan:

    First here is the fact check website:

    Tax plan

    More on Obama’s Senate Voting record on taxes

    Some specific plans
    * economic website that simplifies everything
    * Long PDF file highlighting his economic agenda for the middle class
    * Short simplified version of his economic agenda
    * His plan for small businesses

    Unfortunately, McCain’s camp is lying about Obama’s plan and confusing a lot of earnest would be voters. A play right out of the Rove handbook.

    Here’s a video break down I also found enlightening – yes it’s by an Obama staffer so may not count as it comes from the source, but it responds directly to the Tax Lies touted by McCain’s camp.

  28. Ben,

    I appreciate your response, but a line taken directly from Glenn Beck will win you no points (i.e., liberal wet dream, “A.K.A. communism”) – these are tongue in cheek I am sure, but are false designations. As Dusty has pointed out, let us use terms carefully, as to avoid flippancy.

  29. Actually, I don’t think I’ve ever heard Glenn Beck use that line, though I’m sure I’d laugh if he did. I almost deleted part of it and put in “fantasy world” instead, but since the previous post had some suggestive content also, I figured I’d let it stand. I didn’t intend flippancy in the remark, but rather satirical metaphor. I’m sorry if it was interpreted otherwise.

    As for the inspiration for my comments on Obama’s economic plan, I did not use any information from McCain’s camp, pundits, or even any independent source to get my information. I’m using only things that I heard on from Obama’s own campaign ad, and then giving my personal opinion and thought on them. Believe me, any information that I gather from a source other than my own thoughts will be indicated as such. I’m not trying to take steal ideas from anyone, but rather express my opinions on the statements of the relevant players in this well-scripted drama. I actually heard Obama’s voice in his own campaign ad stating that he would give tax breaks to those who send jobs overseas and increase taxes on oil companies. I didn’t get that line from a conservative pundit, or a Republican Convention speech. My comments about the resultant impacts of these two actions came specifically from my own head. As a thinking man, I use my powers of simple deduction to foresee the consequences of actions. Now if only Democrats could do the same. (Sorry, was that flippant?)

    Wow, this is a great conversation Matt. You really do need to write more posts like this.

  30. Well, as a Democrat, and therefore according to your logic, a non-thinker, I guess the debate is over.

  31. Nathaniel,

    If you don’t mind telling us via this forum, what kind of business do you run? What type of work are you sourcing overseas? I am interested to know how much more affordable it is? I read the book “The World is Flat” and there were some interesting facts about the costs of outsourcing labor. I was just wondering in your first hand experience how much more affordable it is. Also where in the States do you live?

    Now to reply to your comment. Mostly your response to Ben, I am actually Matt didn’t point this out since he was so clever to identify a straw man fallacy in one of my posts. The point I am trying to make is your ad hominem attack on Ben and his “experience as a business owner” is irrelevant. Not only irrelevant and fallacious, it is laughably ironic. Here you are saying Ben cannot have an opinion because he has not had personal business experience, and that he cannot respond until he has tried to hire people in the US for himself, and yet you are supporting a man for president who has NO experience. I mean sure he was a community planner and has run his campaign for 18 whole months, but they are not worth bringing up. It is laughable that a man’s only perceived executive experience that qualifies him for an office he is seeking came while he was campaigning for that self same position.

    Another amusing thing I might mention is that I have quoted Ann Colture in a few of my responses, yet no one has had a problem with those specific quotes or points. However, I wonder if I would have mentioned that it was a quote from Ann, would everyones back hair have stood up? Would they all have attacked that point JUST because it came from Ann? Just for the record I don’t listen to Limbaugh but he always gets a rise from liberals when I mention his name.

    Anyway, I really would like to know a bit about you, if you don’t mind disseminating that type of information via this blog.


  32. I just saw a error, my comment reads “I am actually Matt didn’t” It should say “I am actually SURPRISED Matt didn’t”


  33. Not at all Dustin…

    For starters, I’m Matthew’s brother in law. I live in Las Vegas, was born and raised in Oregon, and went to undergrad in Hawaii and grad school in Boston. married, one kid.

    I have a media consulting business that is two pronged: HD Video production and website/brand development. Seemingly unrelated, I know, but one is a passion (video production) and the other pays the bills.

    As for cost savings in outsourcing, I can honestly tell you that I could not operate my web business if I did not outsource. One site that I recently had developed , is a perfect example.

    The client came to me and said: here’s what I want, here’s my budget, can you get it done? I took bids from all over, and the bids from the US were more than twice those from India. I chose an Indian team of developers who all have graduate training and are ridiculously talented at what they do. I was able to bring in the project under budget.

    My point in bringing up the argument that “i own a business, I know what I’m talking about” is simply to say to Ben: “Look, I’m a business owner, and a democrat, oh, and religious (is this possible?) and Obama’s tax plan doesn’t bother me in the least. So don’t infer that I’m some liberal moron blinded by my emotions.” Likewise, I wasn’t aware that Obama, Biden, McCain or Palin had any experience as President. That line has to be one of the most repeated and tired phrases of the election – and one I hear the most often. People don’t like Obama because they’re afraid of him, simply put.

    Can you point out to me what good the experience of the current Administration has had on American domestic or foreign policy? It’s widely acknowledged that Bush’s time as a governor was an exercise in delegating, and this idea that his time (or lack of time) in the national guard makes him a fit commander in chief is totally laughable. The same goes for McCain. Good on you for your service and your trials as a POW – but get off that horse – it doesn’t mean you can run a complicated and struggling nation. You could say the same for Obama’s service as a senator and as a community organizer I’m sure, but somehow that experience strikes me (and obviously millions of others) as actually genuine – something DC politics lacks.

    Can you honestly examine the last 8 years with a clear conscious and say the Bush administration has done a bang up job for the American people? Sorry, but you will never convince me that anyone is experienced enough to take that office confidently, so your point is moot.

    I’m sure that Ann Coulter not coming from Ann Coulter is somewhat tolerable – Have you seen Thank you for smoking? Great scene about a very clever quote used during an interview on the air. All in the room agree with its premise…the catch? Hitler was the author.

    Sorry, but she, and O’Reilly and Limbaugh (and Cheney & Co) are some of the most despicable public figures, whose immoral actions are regularly ignored by the conservative base – a largely self righteous and pious organization. I’m just tired of the double standard, and I thought Stewart’s video summed that up. Don’t get me wrong, the left is full of hypocrites too, but the right is happy to forgive and forget some of the most heinous acts committed in the name of public service.

    When it comes right down to it, I’m probably more of a moderate than a liberal – but in terms of audience here, I’m clearly way out in left field. Crying baby. Gotta run.

  34. Again, Nathaniel, you’ve inferred something that was never said. I didn’t say that Democrats were non-thinkers, but simply that they don’t foresee the consequences of their actions. I understand that my cutting sarcasm may sometimes blur the line between “doing” and “being”, but that was not the intent. Regardless, I know that I made a gross generalization, but it wasn’t meant to attack individuals, but rather an ideology that is far too often short-sighted, in my opinion.

  35. I’m sorry for inferring Ben, but your “way” of debating here leaves no choice and I can’t help but think that it’s an intentional dig at a group of people you see is inferior to yourself. Look at what you wrote:

    “As a thinking man, I use my powers of simple deduction to foresee the consequences of actions. Now if only Democrats could do the same.”

    Sorry, but it’s 1) totally smug and 2) if I had said something similar I’d be quickly labeled an elitist snob. How else was I or anyone here supposed to interpret what you typed?

    Do the same = use pre-possessed powers of simple deduction (aka thinking skills) to see the consequences of actions.

    It’s a gross generalization. What you’ve essentially implied, (again, you leave me no choice but to read between the lines) in my opinion, that half the country (the US) are total ignoramuses and are short sighted (liberals) while the other half (republicans) are intellectually superior in their reasoning and decision making skills and therefore don’t make bad decisions. WTF? Throw me a bone here?

  36. Nathaniel,

    Truth is truth no matter the source. It doesn’t matter if Ann, Bill, Benson, Romney, Obama or Satan himself says it. We are after the truth, not appropriate tone, and body language. Who God and Benson do or do not look favorably upon is irrelevant and also not up to you to judge. “Behold he is a friend of publicans and sinner” – Or better “Behold Dusty is a friend of (Re)publicans and sinner” Does this mean we can scrutinize any and everyone you quote and determine the value and acceptability of their quotes based on some moral standard that you have have derived? Seems crass and inane.

    It appears that you and I are going to agree on very little when it comes to politics. (Which if fine) I will repeat and expand my previous comment that I subscribe to Benson’s interpretation and writings on government, constitution and the powers that any administration should be allowed to derive from the constitution. I am not blindly saying that not having read any of Benson’s writings – as far as I know I have read them all, if there are more writings that I am heretofore unaware of I will read those too. I am also not saying this having ONLY read Benson and then jumped behind his file solely because of his religious affiliations. (Though his religious affiliations did bring me to his writings) I agree with him that America needs to get back to the framework and foundation of the Constitution in the areas where they have strayed from it. George Washington was right when he said that Americas particular security lies in that written document. I also agree with Mitt Romney when he says that “it is not that Democrats are bad people, it is just that they are wrong”
    I guess Mitt will fall into your classification you pinned on Ben of “totally smug”.

    I have to raise another point – you wrote that you feel that Obama’s experience is “genuine – and obviously so do a million others” Millions of people supported Hitler too, does that make his decisions and leadership ok? Once again, truth will also not held hostage to the majority vote, or a million votes.

    Now lets review the Democratic Nominee for President:

    The key problem with Hillary’s campaign was that normal people reel back in horror at her association with the Clinton administration.

    If Hillary could run exclusively on her record since becoming a senator from New York, she’d be a relatively moderate Democrat who hates the loony left — as we found out when a tape of Hillary denouncing surfaced.

    But because of her unfortunate marriage, Hillary comes with a cast of undesirables like James Carville, Paul Begala, Terry McAuliffe, Joe Conason — and of course Bill Clinton, along with his trusted impeachment manager Larry Flynt. Buy one, get the entire dirt-bag collection free!

    No one wants those people back.

    Even semi-respectable Democrats look sleazy by their association with the Clintons. No serious Democrat defended Clinton over his “presidential kneepads” incident with Monica Lewinsky.

    That’s why cable TV producers had to call in the O.J. defenders to flack for Clinton during his impeachment. Any Democrats who still clung to Hillary at that point appear to be soulless climbers desperate for jobs in the next administration.

    So repellent are Bill Clinton’s friends (to the extent that a sociopathic sex offender with a narcissistic disorder can actually experience friendship in the conventional sense) that Barack Obama’s association with a raving racist reverend and a former member of the Weather Underground hasn’t caused as much damage as it should.

    On one hand, Obama pals around with terrorists. On the other hand, Hillary pals around with James Carville. Advantage: Obama.

    Asked why he would be friends with the likes of Weatherman Bill Ayers, Obama said: “The notion that … me knowing somebody who engaged in detestable acts 40 years ago, when I was 8 years old, somehow reflects on me and my values doesn’t make much sense.”

    That’s a slick answer — even “Clintonian”! — but the problem is, Ayers and his Weatherman wife, Bernadine Dohrn, won’t stop boasting about their days as Weathermen.

    It’s not simply that they haven’t repented. To the contrary, those were their glory days! And Ayers isn’t just someone who lives in the neighborhood: He and Dohrn were there at the inception of Obama’s political career, hosting a fundraiser for Obama at their home back in 1995.

    Besides wanton violence, including a dozen bombings of buildings such as the Pentagon, the U.S. Capitol, historic statues and various police stations, the Weathermen’s “revolutionary” activity consisted primarily of using vulgar words, dropping LSD, coming up with cutesy phrases — like “the Weather Underground” — and competing over who could make the most offensive statements in public. (I also believe Dohrn may have set the North American record for longest stretch without bathing.)

    At one rally, Dohrn famously praised the Manson family for murdering Sharon Tate and others, shouting: “Dig it. First they killed those pigs, then they ate dinner in the same room with them. They even shoved a fork into a victim’s stomach! Wild!”

    In a better country, just saying “Dig it!” in public would get you 20 years in the slammer.

    Dohrn has recently tried to clarify her Manson remarks by saying it was some sort of “statement” about violence in society and, furthermore, that she said it while under sniper fire in Bosnia. Also recently, the members of the Manson family have distanced themselves from Ayers and Dohrn.

    At other rallies, Dohrn said, “Bring the revolution home, kill your parents — that’s where it’s at.”

    After a Chicago Democratic official, Richard Elrod, became paralyzed while fighting with a privileged looter during the Weathermen’s “Days of Rage,” Dohrn led the Weathermen in a song sung to the tune of Bob Dylan’s “Lay Lady Lay”:

    Lay, Elrod, lay,
    Lay in the street for a while
    Stay, Elrod, stay
    Stay in your bed for a while
    You thought you could stop the Weatherman
    But up-front people put you on your can,
    Stay, Elrod, stay
    Stay in your iron lung,
    Play, Elrod, play
    Play with your toes for a while

    Only because of a merciful God is the author of that ditty, Ted Gold, not teaching at Northwestern or the University of Illinois now, alongside Dohrn or Ayers. That’s because Gold is no longer with us, having accidentally blown himself up with a bomb intended for a dance at Fort Dix for new recruits and their dates.

    While trying to assemble the bomb at an elegant Greenwich Village townhouse that belonged to one of the revolutionaries’ fathers, the bungling Weathermen blew up the entire townhouse, killing Gold and two other butterfingered revolutionaries. Leave it to these nincompoops to turn their glorious Marxist revolution into an “I Love Lucy” sketch.

    So in addition to being stupid and violent, the Weathermen were also incompetent terrorists. Would that Timothy McVeigh had been so inept!

    If he had only said he bombed the building in Oklahoma City to protest American “imperialism,” McVeigh, too, could be teaching at Northwestern University, sitting on a board with and holding fundraisers for presidential candidate B. Hussein Obama.

    After seeing Obama defend infanticide with the glib excuse that the question of when life begins is above his “pay-grade,” Rev. Jeremiah Wright announced that although he’s known Obama for 30 years, he only recently became aware of how extreme the senator’s viewpoints were. Wright, after all, has his reputation to consider.

    Network heads responded by dashing off an urgent memo: During the main presidential debates this fall, ask NO questions about abortion, ethics or evil! Morality isn’t the Democrats’ forte.

    Obama’s defenders spin his abominable performance in the Saddleback forum by saying he’s just too smart to give a straight answer. As Rick Warren charitably described Obama’s debate performance: “He likes to nuance things … He’s a constitutional attorney.” The constitutional lawyer “does nuance,” as Bill Maher said on “Larry King Live,” “and you saw how well that goes over with the Rick Warren people.”

    If that’s Obama’s excuse, he ought to know a few basics about the Constitution.

    Did the big constitutional lawyer whose “nuance” is too sophisticated for Rick Warren’s audience see the letter his wife sent out on his behalf in 2004? Michelle Obama denounced a federal law banning partial-birth abortion, writing that “this ban on a legitimate medical procedure is clearly unconstitutional.” Clearly!

    The Supreme Court later found the law not “unconstitutional,” but “constitutional” — which I believe may have been the precise moment when Michelle Obama realized just how ashamed she had always been of her country.

    But most stunningly, when Warren asked Obama if he supported a constitutional amendment defining marriage as between a man and a woman, Obama said he did not “because historically — because historically, we have not defined marriage in our Constitution.”

    I don’t care if you support a marriage amendment or not. That answer is literally the stupidest thing I’ve ever heard anyone say. If marriage were already defined in the Constitution, we wouldn’t need an amendment, no?

    Say, you know what else was “historically” not defined in the Constitution? Slavery. The words “slavery” and “slave” do not appear once in the original Constitution. The framers correctly thought it would sully the freedom-enshrining document to acknowledge the repellent practice. (Much like abortion!)

    But in 1865, the 13th Amendment banned slavery throughout the land, in the first constitutional phrase ever to mention “slavery”: “Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction.”

    On Obama’s “historical” argument, they shouldn’t have passed the 13th Amendment because the Constitution “historically” had not mentioned slavery.

    Do we know for a fact Barack Obama has read the Constitution? Obama’s Facebook profile: “I’m pro-infanticide, I love sunsets, and I don’t get the 13th Amendment!”

    This is the guy who thinks he can condescend to Clarence Thomas? Asked at the Saddleback forum which Supreme Court justice Obama would not have nominated, Obama said … the black one!

    In Obama’s defense, he said he thought Thomas wasn’t experienced enough “at the time.” So I guess Obama thinks Thomas should have to “wait his turn.”

    By contrast, Obama has experience pouring out of those big ears of his. Asked last year by Robin Roberts on ABC’s “Good Morning America” about his lack of experience in foreign policy, Obama took umbrage.

    Swelling up his puny little chest, Obama said: “Well, actually, my experience in foreign policy is probably more diverse than most others in the field. I’m somebody who has actually lived overseas, somebody who has studied overseas. I majored in international relations.”

    He actually cited his undergraduate major as a qualification to be president.

    But on Saturday night, Obama said he didn’t think Clarence Thomas was a “strong enough jurist or legal thinker” to be put on the Supreme Court.

    I bet Thomas has heard of the 13th Amendment!



  37. wow, and I thought I had diarrhea of the fingers and a problem with tangents. You’re right about one thing Dustin, we don’t agree on anything political, and I would guess not much of anything else. I can guarantee we have black and white views of our common religion and its purpose. Thanks for your lengthy response though, it put a smile on my face for sure.

    You and Ben see truth as those things that you agree with – you have this (in my mind) twisted paradigm where you feign “open mindedness” for the sake of a “harmonious” dialogue of ideas which ends up being a total farce when push comes to shove. Your Fox news and talking points aren’t even worth discussing. You come across as so far on the right as to be beyond reason.

    You link Obama to terrorism but you (as the Republicans are so good at doing) forget that your holy and prophetic standard bearer Bush and Papa Bush have had terrorist family and political ties for decades – but that’s ok, right, because they’re Republican and they always choose the right because of those terrific and superior thinking skills that I (and millions of other brainwashed “obama-hitler” supporters) don’t possess? McCain is an adulterer many times over, but that’s ok, he’s a republican – must have had a good reason right? Palin is an on the record racist (breaking news, sucks to be vetted by your “adoring” Alaskan friends and former colleagues), but that’s ok, and well, she must be right because hey – Palin’s a republican, yay! Talk about your twisted wet dream.

    Your last post has shredded any hope I had that you might in fact be genuine in your “let’s have a good discussion Matt, this is great” approach to commenting. What a rouse. I have disdain for your type of “superiority” attitude. It disgusts me, frankly, and the idea that you believe and flaunt that you are a more intelligent human (this may very well be the case) simply by virtue of your political persuasion is also off-putting, and illogical, and disappointing because it’s so cliche.

    Catch you on the next post.

  38. Ok, Let’s see if I can get this in order…

    Nathaniel, I meant no judgement as to the intellectual capacities of Democrats. What I did imply was that they, as a general group, are not USING those powers to “foresee the consequences of actions”, speaking economically, of course. I honestly just think that the overarching Democratic mindset is that the redistribution of wealth through tax and spend is a good thing. Sounds to me more like communism.

    Thanks Dusty for the Mitt quote (Dems aren’t bad people, just wrong), that’s really the point I was trying to get across. I have a terrible memory for quotes, so I just state my own opinions instead. It’s good to know my opinions jive with the likes of Romney, though he’s certainly more eloquent in expressing them.

    I love the Terrorists v. Carville comment. Nicely done!

    And finally, Nathaniel, where do you get off putting words in Dusty’s mouth. He never said anything about Faust. Look, I’ve never said I don’t like anyone simply because of their political viewpoints. I don’t agree with them, and I may even criticize and cast judgement over their views, but not the people. I fear you’re really taking this stuff far to personally. I’m not attacking your worth as a person! I’m attacking your incorrect views! Get over it!

  39. Nevermind, I see the Faust comment has been rescinded.

  40. Rescinded because it was mean-spirited, not because it wasn’t true – Faust was a democrat therefore according to the logic on display here, a short sighted “follow the crowd” moron who doesn’t know the consequences of his actions.

    Ben, where do you get off coming across as such an arrogant blow hard who loves the look of of his own “type.” I can’t believe you have the audacity to come on here under the guise of a productive dialogue and then turn around and tell us to accept that we’re wrong? Doesn’t get much more arrogant than that, sorry. But then, you don’t care, so it doesn’t matter.

    And fault me here all you like for taking it personally when I’m thrown in bed with terrorists and Hitler, and then told that “you’re good, just wrong.” Seriously – SO SMUG – and then you tell me to get over it. Wow. Pure classic A-type. Never wrong, always right, always an ass. Don’t worry Ben, Dustin, You’re good people, just wrong. Now, run along and get over yourselves.

  41. At this point Nathaniel I have long cast off the hope of having a good conversation with you, which is why my last post which was 85% Ann Coulture was just posted to see how worked up you would get. The reason I got to this point is because of your whinny attitude. You paint Ben and I with a broad brush and make gross radical generalizations of our characters since you started participating in this forum. You have made no attempt to get to know us or even ask what our opinion is on McCain or Republicans for that matter. The very brush you paint me with is the very reason I got turned off of you in the first place. The comment you wrote “I have disdain for your type of “superiority” attitude. It disgusts me, frankly, and the idea that you believe and flaunt that you are a more intelligent human (this may very well be the case) simply by virtue of your political persuasion is also off-putting, and illogical, and disappointing because it’s so cliche.” is so funny because all I have been doing since you got involved was imitate you so you could see what you look like in a mirror.

    I actually genuinely enjoyed the conversation with Matt, whom I know respect, golf with and have exchanged ideas with on a number of occasions. We may not always agree but we have always been civil and respectful. The name calling and generalizations all started when you got involved. From there on out I was just seeing how worked up you could get and how many names you could come with to call people who disagree with you.

    The attitude of superiority resides in you my friend, I gave up having a ration discussion with you a long time ago. Your attacks on Ben and I honestly make me laugh since you really know nothing about us. For the purpose of amusement I continued to write, it just cracks me up how much you complain and whine and support your arguments via this tactic.

    I bet your actually a pretty fun guy to hang out with because you get so passionate and high strung. Guys like you make good Motocross racers. You don’t by chance dirt bike do you? I bet you are quite the competitor in sports.

    Good luck with you web design and video business. I wish you the best of luck.


  42. You keep saying that I’m talking about individual people. I’ve said no such thing. The reason I used “Democrats” as the target of my argument was to make a generalization as to the overarching Democratic mindset. I don’t target any specific person whose opinions I’ve not had clearly expressed to me. If it turns out that Faust had a leniency toward tax and spend economics, I’d likely disagree with that. But I would never label him, or you, or even Obama, as a moron. You really need to stop putting words in people’s mouths. Just calm down and think about what you’re claiming before you write it. (Sounds indicative, doesn’t it?)

  43. Dudes…you’re equally blind, whinny and pedantic…it all depends on the perspective – and mine, which you keep reminding me, are incorrect (seriously, you have to admit this is total arrogance). Have a great elder’s quorum tomorrow – I’m sure you’ll be razzing Matthew about his crazy American brother in law. Peace.

  44. And you have to admit there’s a big difference between claiming that someone is wrong and calling someone a moron. But will you?

  45. Well, I had thought that I had closed this particular post yesterday afternoon with my conclusionary remarks. How incredibly wrong I was. I have not even begun to examine the comments on the second Palin posting. Looking forward to it. Because as well know, I am in love with outlandish arguments. Oh wait…

    As a self professed moderate, it is my turn to once again bring this forum to a conclusion. First, Dusty, I was enjoying your comments earlier about how you had been quoting Ann in an attempt to get a rise, with the implicit deception of not providing her with the appropriate recognition of her ideas, as a way to mask her hate. You famously commented that we “democrats” had not noticed. Yes, I did. If I were to follow up every disingenuous comment posted which had first been spewed from the pseudo “authoritative” mouth of the like of Bill O’Riely or Ann Coultier or Glenn Beck, I would never be able to accomplish anything productive with my time. But perhaps that is the objective of such individuals, if they can keep you either in fear or in disbelief, or rather, in shock (more on the shock doctrine to come later), then rational people are left without recourse.

    But then you followed the initial comment about not noticing Ann’s handy work with a long tirade of her misinformation, half-truths and outright lies. Yes, again, I noticed that. And yes, again, I will refuse to comment on such filth. Filth? Yes filth. You know my feelings on Ann, but worse then that, I also know that in your heart you do not agree with her more outrageous comments (which are the vast majority of her comments, as you know). Thus, were they used for actual practical purposes or rather for contention sake?

    Dusty, your arguments have been circular and designed with the intent of language and format to trap. You know this. You are better then this, I do believe.

    Ben, the same goes for you. We have had a few conversations over the years that I have know you, and you have often resorted to an argument of the least resistance, typically falling on the rejection of rationality for the superiority of common assent. Ben, you have done the same in these postings. With no animosity whatsoever, you should know that despite the frustration expressed by Nathaniel, I do agree with his thesis that both you and Dusty have discarded rational thought for dogma and ideology. There is nothing wrong with political leanings, but if they are not malleable and fluid, they are dangerous and counterintuitive with the spiritual teachings that we profess.

    Nathaniel, I have never in all of my eight years (?) of knowing you have I EVER seen you get excited or upset. I have known you to express frustration with the blind political followers of rabid ideologies, but never outright disappointment and cessation of rational discussion. But then again I have never been around while you have had to engage in faux intelligent discussion with the intellectually retarded (I do not mean this in a pejorative sense, but rather in the entomological manner). It is good to see you riled. But please understand that these two gentlemen enjoy getting a rise. (Common Dusty and Ben, you know you do. You may be smiling at this right now) Thus, while it is amazing, and stimulating to see you so frustrated, your attempts at rational academic discourse are indeed wasted on this community.

    Glad you all weighted in. Now I have to jump on over to the next group of postings and comments to see what other sort of bastardized pool of contention has developed. Oh how I love humanity.

  46. Matt please grace us with tour literary prowess and provide us with entomological derivation of how “intellectually retarded” is not pejorative.

    I admit that in the latter section of this fiasco my arguments may have had some intention to trap, or better expose. But for the first half of the aforementioned fiasco I reject you claim that my writings were designed to trap. At least no less than any other participants entries.

    I also reject the claim that I have abandoned rational thought for dogma and ideology. A bit of lofty claim and a cheap shot, Matt and you are better than that, I do believe. This is the radical character generalization that I mentioned before that you assured me was not taking place.

    I will admit I love to get a rise when people resort to name calling and claims that the other person is blind, dogmatic and intellectually inferior. When you stop using facts and attack the person we once again court fallacy.

    Just as an exercise, if you did notice I was quoting Ann, can you point out the times I did? Not including the long posting where we read about Obama courting terrorists? Just for fun, I mean if you can without some clever web search tool then we know that your claim is valid. I can accept that.


  47. Ha ha ha.
    Oh dusty. You would want to keep this going 🙂
    As for entomological derivation, intellectually retarded would imply that the process of creative intellectual thought has halted, or has been restrained. Creative intellectual thought is “liberal” thought 🙂
    other then that, good first half, weak second half, painful third. Keep it real in the free world kids 🙂

  48. OK, last one for me on this post – Maff, as you know I’m very laid back on just about everything including politics among friends (surprise, I’ve got good friends that are very conservative), and rarely let myself get pulled in to fruitless debate (c’mon, it’s not like anyone here is going to be convinced by another) but when I feel I’m being incorrectly labeled and talked down to, and then told I’m wrong about things I’ve thought very carefully about, it downright pisses me off – politically speaking and otherwise. I did my best to hold my tongue – but I’ll be the first to admit I let my passions get the best of me and the issues then become totally generalized.

    Dusty and Ben, while I fell for your “trap” face first (sorry, it’s how I’m wired and you obviously deduced that) my apologies for calling you asses and passing judgment, or insinuating that you think all democrats are morons. However, it still frustrates me very much that you won’t concede that you’re being arrogant when you say “You’re good, just wrong” which is what (for me) got this whole ball rolling. In my opinion, it does nothing to foster a healthy debate.

    In the future, provided we all find ourselves haggling over another of maff’s observations, I’ll do my best to keep things relevant and name-calling free.

  49. Painful third what? Painful third half? Interesting…

    I do have to pipe in here again to clarify one little thing: you claim that I am prone to “falling on the rejection of rationality for the superiority of common assent.” I disagree. In fact, I will admit that even you, in some of our conversations, have opened my eyes to realms of rationality that I hadn’t presupposed to exist. Generally, in these circumstances, we leave the conversation alone and I go and think rationally about your views while hoping that you do the same with mine. Yet we tend to not readdress the issues again, which is unfortunate.

    While I certainly admit to enjoying the spectacle (or debacle) to which this issue has given rise in this forum, I reject the claim, just as Dusty did, that I have abandoned rational thought for dogma and ideology. Furthermore, the warning of unmalleable political leanings, while noted and valid, is irrelevant to the discussion at hand thus far. I have not said, nor implied, anything substantive that would cast doubt onto my spiritual convictions. If you want to make this a spiritual discussion, we may need to continue this elsewhere. I doubt the servers at WordPress have the capacity to contain the barrage of rhetoric that would no doubt ensue. 🙂

    Anyway, this has been fun!

  50. […] of sex education. Before you watch the two strategists square off, watch the original ad here. I have had individuals repeat the same line here on this blog, as well as in personal conversation. So I did some hunting, and read the proposed bill myself, to […]

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: