math_04 said:
What is wrong with learning as you go? A hallmark of a great, successful person is the willingness to listen and learn from past experiences whether good or bad.
If that is the case, then why was there any criticism over Palin's "lack" of foreign policy knowledge/experience? She was willing to learn and I think still is. She matched Joseph Biden in the VP debate.
Obama was running for President however. He should not have chosen to run without first being learned in the subjects. And McCain should not have chosen to run without knowing the economy (although Barack Obama didn't know that really either).
As for all those questions, most of them have been answered by Obama. As far as I am concerned, they seem logical and follow reason. In fact, a few of them were answered on the O'Reilly factor.
Not all of them, only some of them, and sort of. And none in-depth.
I asked you whether you were confident that Palin's pastor was not making any hateful remarks aimed at fellow Americans. Again you keep moving from topic to topic and your statements are illogical. Environmentalism is there to protect our planet and future generations from possible suffering.
I was just coming back to answer about Palin's church, had forgotten about that; I cannot be 100% confident her church never said such things, however, one would think if her church or pastor had said such things, she would have made it aware to the McCain campaign before joining, because it for sure would have come out in time.
I also would think the McCain campaign would have vetted her as best they could, and that would include the church.
Since nothing such has come out, and with so many out to get her, I think it is safe to assume her church is okay until otherwise disproven.
As for environmentalism, decent environmentalism is fine. But the religion of environmentalism, which is anti-capitalism, anti-individualism, anti-American (as we are the biggest "polluter"), is not. Global warming is a highly controversial theory right now with no one having any full arguments either way. Rushing to ram a carbon tax bill on the public as the President is trying is crazy right now.
Even if real, who says a carbon tax is the solution? No one knows for sure if the planet is warming, if so, if by humans, or just naturally, or by the Sun, and if being warmed, naturally or by humans, if warming will be bad, etc...and if it will be bad, how to stop it.
How will such a bill help with moving us off of foreign oil? Windmills, solar, etc...even if viable, won't do it. Oil is needed for fuel to run autos. Is President Obama aware that some say moving off of foreign oil is not possible or desirable? And such.
Extreme environmentalism has wrecked businesses, has led to millions of deaths in Africa from the not allowing nations there to use DDT to kill pests, and makes claims that are often groundless and can lead to catostrophe (such as the claim that species are dying at enormous rates or that trees are precious; for example, the environmental groups in California that hate the timber industry, even though we have more trees per capita today than we did 150 years ago, nevertheless, they will not cut much of the underbrush and dead trees in California forests, so those forests catch fire easily and create huge fires).
Notice no privately-owned and maintained forests by the big paper companies catch fire and burn down people's homes, because they clear out the underbrush, cut down the dead trees, and so forth, so it is far tougher for a fire to start.
Or the view that trees are somehow "sacred," when they're really just a big plant that can be regarded as a weed in a sense, as they suck up lots of water and block out the sunlight, making it tougher for other plants to survive.
Or the environmentalist view, I'm sure you've heard it, that nature uninhabited by humans is "un-spoiled, pristine, etc..." those are religious views.
I believe I read somewhere that the reason there is such gridlock in the Los Angelos highway system is because it's meant to handle 1960s traffic, not 21st century traffic levels. The solution would be to build some more highways for more cars, but the environmentalists put a stop to that.
The debate lasted for very nearly an hour. So just because the O'Reilly factor is watched by moderates, it automatically does not count? So Bill O'Reilly has to have a certain amount of airtime devoted to bashing Obama heavily and illogically before the show can regain credibility in the eyes of the conservatives.
NOOO. You mist-understood me. I meant that since the show is watched by moderates, Barack Obama had to do it.
This is exactly the kind of polarizing effect that can seriously damage America, conservatives have to attack Obama because he is not a conservative or because he does not believe in their values.
They criticize him because his "values" are a good deal fundamentally anti-American.
To be honest, the Couric-Palin interview was much easier to negotiate than the O'Reilly interview, Palin failed because she could not string an eloquent, logical sentence together and not because the interviewer was harsh.
Couric-Palin interview wasn't good, I agree.
[quote[There are numerous debates in congress and Obama has been going around hosting town hall meetings with ordinary citizens trying to promote his administration's plans in regards to the economy, health care etc. Compare that to Palin who struts around and calls every plan that the Obama administration proposes as socialism without even knowing its definition.[/QUOTE]
When you think big-government will fix everything, that is ultimately grounded in socialism. However, Palin does need to learn to articulate her views better. If she is smart, that is one reason why she resigned, if the job was keeping her from that. She cannot keep speaking in platitudes, that's okay at the start, but not as you advance.
Regarding President "O," his healthcare "town hall" recently did not permit opposing viewpoints. For example, he says you will be allowed to keep your existing health plan. But what if the public plan drives the private health insurance industry out of business? Many proponents of single-payer want to get to it via universal healthcare because of this very fact. Why should we think it will lower costs? How will rationing not occur? Is he aware the private health insurance sector is not a "free-market" so-to-speak. And so forth.
On carbon tax, I'd like to ask:
1) Why is carbon even considered a pollutant, when it isn't?
2) Why does he say "the debate is over" when it is not?
3) How will it create jobs and not harm the economy?
4) How is it not an incredible tax on everyone, and a very regressive one at that?
5) What kind of control is this going to give to government? It looks like a massive power grab.
6) Why does it apply California's housing standards nationwide when that state has wrecked its economy with its policies?
and so forth.
Probably will be an impassioned plea for Americans to understand that she can actually see Russia from her house, the global media conspiracy to discredit her and her family, and a 100 page diatribe against her would be son in law Levi Johnston and David Letterman.