Then CERTAINLY you’d agree that running for VP when you’re the SOLE executive merely 20 months into your first term is nothing less than irresponsible, right? I mean, she’s left her state without its chief exec and she’s barely figured out where the toilets are.

Illinois has two senators and Obama has 4 years under his belt in the US Congress. Alaska has but one governor, and now she will be absent.

Your first fallacy is assuming that your “4 months” has any basis in reality whatsoever. It’s complete fabrication to equate 4 years of senate experience with 20 months of being a small state governor, which is par for the course for the GOP’s behavior this election: mislead, distort, and manipulate. It’s also an insult all congressman who have ever run for office to imply that they can’t do any of their job while campaigning. McCain has run more than once, so clearly, by your logic, when viewed cumulatively, he’s spent years avoiding his job as a senator.

Asssume you’re right though: 20 months. She presided over ONE fiscal budget, but will be largely in charge of the entire country’s budget. She has ZERO experience in Washington, but she will become president of the senate. She has no foreign policy experience to speak of, but she will become American’s diplomat. Her experience is very valuable: she’s clearly experienced enough to do another year of governing in Alaska.

I’m not knocking her, but you’ve ignored Obama’s entire career except the last 4 years, most of which is relevant, but she has no other relevant experience of which to speak. Please don’t say mayor of Wasilla: that prepared her for an Alaskan governorship, but not the vice presidency.

That’s easy: Her 20 months of governorship has been full-time governing. Obama’s senate experience consists of:
– Join senate
– Make some statements
– A few months into term announce running for president
– Spend entire time since then running for president.

This equates to, what, 4 months of senate experience? Now I went to public school, but I believe that 20 > 4.

Not exactly. As far as I know, we’ve never dug to the core of the Earth, just the mantle. However, we have science to come rescue us from the fog and prove that the core of the Earth must be denser than cheese, etc, and we can infer the chemical composition of the planet. By using science.

Creationism, on the other hand, is bunk. It’s a manmade story, handed down across centuries of both intentional and unintentional scientific ignorance, based on a manmade book claiming to be the word of God that has no foot in reality. It is pure fantasy. And it’s about as worthwhile as teaching the earth’s core – or the moon – is green cheese. Science deals with observation and application of fact, not faith.

Evolution, conversely, is the best explanation of how we came to be that humanity has based on real fact. We can infer from fossils, from empirical observation, from extraction of provable scientific principles, from variations we see across the world and historical records, that animals evolve. We teach it because it’s solid science: it’s based on that which we can observe and that which obeys the core theories of physics.

But these are, as “headshaker” says, the ploys of the GOP. By confusing and confounding the average citizen, they distort facts and come up with ridiculous arguments – such as the shape of the banana or the mere existence of peanut butter – to prove divine existence. Your church may tell you that creationism is a valid counterpoint, but it’s not. It just makes you look stupid.

There’s no point arguing with these Fundamentalists, their Faith comes before any evidence or “critical-thinking” (ha! that was surely a joke!). Then its easy to fall into the trap that all their personal beliefs come before any evidence etc. no flip-flopping here!

Today, of all days, we should reflect on the terrible consequences of unquestioning Faith.

But then let’s examine how you set up a straw man to deal with the issue of creationism. “I think that the Earth’s core is made of green cheese. You should teach it since it’s just a theory and you can’t disprove it.” That’s a patently falsifiable thesis. Just dig.

All scientific statements are falsifiable. Now, tell me how is evolution any different from creationism in regards to being falsifiable? Both of them make assumptions about the past that can never be verified, both of them interpret the current evidence based on held assumptions, what makes one more scientific than the other? This is a genuine question that you should think about.

On the other hand, while I agree with you that no government should legislate what you can do with your body (it’s yours, do with it as you will), aborting a baby doesn’t just affect _your_ body. Even if you were pro-abortion, how then can you square it with being vehemently anti the Born Alive Infant Protection act? Surely if it’s left the womb, is moving and breathing, it must be alive?

I don’t know how old you are, but you labour under the impression that the world loved America pre-Bush and have only started hating America. See USS Cole, Embassy bombings in ’98, etc. The US has always had a budget deficit, even under the Clinton years.

And I am not “pro abortion” or “pro-murder” (murder assumes life, which is not necessarily the case): I simply don’t think that the government has a right to legislate what a woman can do with her body. I’m also pro-ability to burn flags, but that doesn’t mean I would like to see the flag burned. It just means that without the freedom to do so, how can you say we’re free?

Your points are typical GOP spout foam. They’re light on facts and more of the same restrictive, elitist crap that got the US where it is today: broke and perceived by the world as a bunch of idiots.

2) Somethings are worth living for and as a consequent they are worth dying for. While we’re in the mood for hyperbole, how can people who claim violence is abhorrent tolerate the mass extermination of millions of human beings every year in the name of choice? Why would any right thinking person be against the Born Alive Infant Protection act?

3) Because being anti-corruption makes you many friends. Are you thinking of troopergate?

4) Because Obama has achieved so much, right? See http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1218710381368&pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FShowFull

5) See 4)

6) You are of course ignoring the fact that AGW is hardly a proven fact and there are numerous arguments being put forth on both sides. You can be a leading climatologist and still not believe in _anthropogenic_ global warming.

7) She’s not pro-creationism, she’s pro critical thinking. Being critical of naturalistic evolution != pro-creationism, no matter how hard you try to spin it.

In the interest of full disclosure, I’m not Republican and I’m not even American. However, I take a keen interest in the politics of the world’s most powerful country as anything that happens over there will affect me over here (the UK and various parts of Asia). I am not really a conservative, but more of a fence sitter as I understand both liberal and conservative viewpoints and agree/disagree with both sides enough times that I’ll be hated by both