Sam Harris on Sarah Palin and Elitism

[BlindMessiah]

I think this OP is spot on. I agree 100 percent. And its enough already with the "I know you are but what am I" responses. I simply can't stand when people do this. Its the mark of immaturity and childishness that someone can't examine a simple subject without saying "yeah well Obama does the same thing." We're not talking about Obama, we're talking about Palin. The fact that according to the other side, Obama does the same thing means what exactly? If someone is an idiot, the fact that their opponent is also an idiot doesn't make that first someone any less of an idiot. Its not a balancing act where two negatives make a positive. It just shows that the people arguing make no demands for raising the bar. They just keep lowering the bar. Anyone in any sort of job, is only going to do as good as they are expected to do. From a sales clerk to a president. If the masses demand that you step it up, its possible for all of the candidates to recognize that in order to win the election, they need to be the best that they can be. As it stands now all that is required apparently, is for your best to be mildly better than the worst that the other side has to offer. And then we wonder why this country is in the state it is.

Wonder if it has anything to do with hypocritical voting.

[libertyworld]

Why in the world would anyone here want to jump through your hoops? There are twice a dozen threads full of answers to your questions, libertyworld. Yet you sit here like some petty tyrant demanding tribute. And when no one bothers to answer your disingenuous questions, you crow as if you'd just bested all comers in single combat. And here you have the nerve to accuse others of painting "delusional pictures."

What a perfectly illustrative response.

The simple question: "What has he done?" constitutes "disingenuous petty tyranny demanding tribute and expecting you to jump through hoops...'

WOW.

Twice a dozen threads full of answers to that, huh?

Wow again.

This is hysterical!

Next!

[Leonardo]

Leonardo... Cradle of Fish...

Classic projection.

I'm not angry in the least, much less doing the "invective" and "apoplectic fury" routine...

That is laughable. I am the one mostly laughing at obama and his supporters.

Noting his breathtaking emptiness, character deficit and poor, poor judgment is invective?

Is that something like strong conservative opinion being bigoted, racist propaganda?

Not once since I learned the first thing about him have I felt any real anger at what is happening this election, much less what you are imagining.

Makes you seem a little nuts to post such self indulgent fantasies.

Amazing what some people (and obama supporters especially) can delude themselves into believing.

I guess it feeds the elitist malignant narcissism disorder some have to convince themselves they have their opponents all tied in knots of anger and such when the opposite is so plainly the case.

It is the democrats and especially the left that have gone insane with invective hatred over Governor Palin.

Quite the story, actually.

Notice how you could not answer the essential question?

How you could do naught but paint delusional pictures of me?

Not one word about what obama has done to demonstrate his fitness for the position. Not one word.

Judgment skills?! Of all the things obama fails in, there is none he fails in more completely than that. Followed closely by humility and accomplishments...

Foreign policy?! He has the foreign policy views of an idealistic 60's child with not the slightest grasp of the lessons of history.

Manipulating people?! Interesting choice of important qualifications. He is most certainly deceitful...

"Let's not forget she's a Pentecostal..."? Wow, what a scathing indictment.

Bring it on.

This is fun.

Unbelievable!

Such eloquence at saying precisely nothing. In your whole post there is not one iota of substance to back up your opinion - it is pure bile and none of the ubiquitous chunks of carrot.

You are truly the master of vacuous polemic.

This thread is about Sarah Palin and her fitness for the office she has been nominated for, not about Obama - although he would probably be quite satisfied with the fact you cannot, it seems, have a discussion without mentioning his name. There is no such thing as bad publicity, after all. Would you care to comment about Palin (hopefully with some actual examples to support your pov)?

Or is ranting about Obama all you are capable of?

BTW, I am not an Obama supporter any more than I am a McCain/Palin hater. I have opinions about their relative fitness for the offices of course, but it is not my election and the only thing concerning me is what international policy the candidates would bring to the table.

[libertyworld]

Unbelievable!

Such eloquence at saying precisely nothing. In your whole post there is not one iota of substance to back up your opinion - it is pure bile and none of the ubiquitous chunks of carrot.

You are truly the master of vacuous polemic.

This thread is about Sarah Palin and her fitness for the office she has been nominated for, not about Obama - although he would probably be quite satisfied with the fact you cannot, it seems, have a discussion without mentioning his name. There is no such thing as bad publicity, after all. Would you care to comment about Palin (hopefully with some actual examples to support your pov)?

Or is ranting about Obama all you are capable of?

BTW, I am not an Obama supporter any more than I am a McCain/Palin hater. I have opinions about their relative fitness for the offices of course, but it is not my election and the only thing concerning me is what international policy the candidates would bring to the table.

Already did so in my first post on the topic.

In a topic about Palin's fitness for the No. 2 slot it is against the rules to ask what the opposing party's No. 1 slot has done to demonstrate fitness to be President?

...when some of the charges against her are far more damaging to the democrat's No.1 than her as the republicans No. 2?

Fascinating how some of those (analyzing) Governor Palin react with such venom when the same issues are applied to the other ticket's No. 1.

"That's not allowed in this topic!"

The topic, as you have stated is fitness for office. Also elitism.

But holding that issue in Obama's direction within the same thread is not allowed? I disagree.

Her record of reform, imprisoning bad apples within her own party and her approval among Alaskan democrats alone towers over the whole democratic ticket's fitness as I have already stated in my first post in this thread. Is that all one should care about? Of course not, but it's a pretty substantial start to the issue of fitness, isn't it.

Having established that, I simply left it at that for now and ask: Okay, now what has the other ticket demonstrated that can hold a candle to that?

Is that so out of bounds? I don't think so.

Because if they cannot even cite an example of their ticket's No. 1 ever going against his own party or weeding out any bad apples or garnering heavy popularity from the other camp... maybe they should not even bring up the "demonstrated fitness for the position" issue... especially if the only response becomes: HEY! That is not allowed! This thread is about her fitness for VP! NOT about Obama's fitness for President!

I hammer on Obama so much because it makes this so much more fun. Sort of an exercise in exorcism. Plus I think he deserves it. Part of what comes from being such an elitist.

Just raising the issue of his (un)demonstrated fitness for the position is like the morning sun or a cross before vampires. That alone is fascinating and fun.

How dare anyone take analysis of the fitness of Governor Palin and apply the question to Senator Obama in the same thread?

Because this is what bubbles to the surface.

Whereupon one may further draw it out... to cast it out and send it scurrying. ...if that be it's due.

"Let it rise. Let it bubble to the surface".

Edited September 22, 2008 by libertyworld

[Caesar]

Your outrage and antipathy for the fact the Democrats have a popular and effective candidate is plain for all to see. So plain, in fact, that one wonders what you might do if the Dems win the election?

I Obama is so popular and effective then why is he having so much trouble with McCain?

[MasterPo]

Jefferson was a deist. He had no faith.

But he also didn't object to others representation of their faith.

[BlindMessiah]

But he also didn't object to others representation of their faith.

Not sure what you mean by object.

[MasterPo]

Not sure what you mean by object.

He didn't try to erase faith from the world. He didn't seem bothered by others expressing/showing their faith. He had to know very well the men he was working with were all of very strong faith.

[IrishAidan07]

I just think once people realize that we are not a Christian nation and were not founded on Christian principles, we'll be fine.

[BlindMessiah]

He didn't try to erase faith from the world. He didn't seem bothered by others expressing/showing their faith. He had to know very well the men he was working with were all of very strong faith.

I'm not trying to erase faith either. I just want equal rights and personal liberties for all. I don't have some atheistic agenda.

[InHuman]

He didn't try to erase faith from the world. He didn't seem bothered by others expressing/showing their faith. He had to know very well the men he was working with were all of very strong faith.

Yeah, people not goverment.

[MasterPo]

I just think once people realize that we are not a Christian nation and were not founded on Christian principles, we'll be fine.

Well what were we founded on? Hindu or Buddist principles?

I'm not trying to erase faith either. I just want equal rights and personal liberties for all. I don't have some atheistic agenda.

I was unaware we did have unequal rights and liberties based on faith.

Please enlighten me.

[IrishAidan07]

Well what were we founded on? Hindu or Buddist principles?

Neither.

Note Treaty of Tripoli, signed 1796 by President John Adams, a staunch Christian:

Article 11: "As the government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion....

Library of Congress - Treaty of Tripoli

If the link doesn't work, 'cause sometimes it is funny, simply go to Google and type in: "Treaty of Tripoli, LOC" and it should be the first result.

Edited September 22, 2008 by IrishAidan

[BlindMessiah]

I was unaware we did have unequal rights and liberties based on faith.

Please enlighten me.

Gay marriage is illegal isn't it? We're all guarenteed equal rights under the constitution. We aren't to be discriminated against based on faith, race, sexuality, wealth or anything else. If religion stops outlawing protected rights, then we'll have peace. Until then the culture war will continue.

[IrishAidan07]

Gay marriage is illegal isn't it? We're all guarenteed equal rights under the constitution. We aren't to be discriminated against based on faith, race, sexuality, wealth or anything else. If religion stops outlawing protected rights, then we'll have peace. Until then the culture war will continue.

Gay Marriage isn't illegal everywhere - it isn't in California, for example. And the amendment you refer to is the 14th amendment. Laws against Gay Marriage would be, in my opinion and many Constitutionalists, a violation of the equal protection clause, nestled in the 14th amendment.

Edited September 22, 2008 by IrishAidan

[BlindMessiah]

Gay Marriage isn't illegal everywhere - it isn't in California, for example. And the amendment you refer to is the 14th amendment. Laws against Gay Marriage would be, in my opinion and many Constitutionalists, a violation of the equal protection clause, nestled in the 14th amendment.

It's illegal in the vast majority of the country. Then you have the Christian groups trying to pass these marriage laws.

[IrishAidan07]

It's illegal in the vast majority of the country. Then you have the Christian groups trying to pass these marriage laws.

Yeah, which just goes to what I was saying in another thread: Republicans love the Constitution when it helps their case, but despise it when it doesn't.

[MasterPo]

Gay marriage is illegal isn't it?

When did homosexuality become a faith?!

[IrishAidan07]

When did homosexuality become a faith?!

I think the Equal Protection clause was his main point, MasterPo.

Edited September 22, 2008 by IrishAidan

[BlindMessiah]

When did homosexuality become a faith?!

It didn't. Based on the constitution, it should be legal. Faith is preventing that.

[Cradle of Fish]

Not one word about what obama has done to demonstrate his fitness for the position. Not one word.

You cannot defend Sarah Palin so you go on the attack. Obama is intelligent and confident. Palin is not. Obama has met other world leaders. Palin has not. Neither has experience for their positions, but frankly McCain doesn't have any White House experience either. Sitting around congress and arguing that Martin Luther King jr. shouldn't be honoured by a holiday is not experience.

And these are usually the same people who don't like "In G-d We Trust" on our money, phrases like "G-d Bless America", and get offended at seeing an Xmas tree in front of city hall.

The people who do that are nothing but professional busybodies who have nothing to do but enforce their morality on others. It doesn't matter if they're anti-gay christians or atheists who think the word God should be removed, they're just the kind of people who cannot rest unless their way of life is forced on others.

[BlindMessiah]

You cannot defend Sarah Palin so you go on the attack. Obama is intelligent and confident. Palin is not. Obama has met other world leaders. Palin has not.

Ya but, she can see Russia from her house.

The people who do that are nothing but professional busybodies who have nothing to do but enforce their morality on others. It doesn't matter if they're anti-gay christians or atheists who think the word God should be removed, they're just the kind of people who cannot rest unless their way of life is forced on others.

In other words, they have nothing better to do than waste money on worthless issues. Legally speaking though, In God We Trust shouldn't be on our money. It was added do to a rise in atheism during the 20th century. Once again though, clearly not worth the dime it's written on to remove.

[Leonardo]

Ya but, she can see Russia from her house.

In other words, they have nothing better to do than waste money on worthless issues. Legally speaking though, In God We Trust shouldn't be on our money. It was added do to a rise in atheism during the 20th century. Once again though, clearly not worth the dime it's written on to remove.

Do you think any government would be brave enough to remove it? Or do you think that Christianity is now so endemic and embedded in US society that such a move would be political suicide?

Given the equality clause granted to religions under the First Amendment, should money not also read "In Allah We Trust"? Now that would go down a storm!!!!

[IrishAidan07]

Well, actually, "Allah" is nothing more than the Arabic word for "God." Considering that we speak English in this country, generally, "God" doesn't have to be, necessarily, the Christian God. Arabic-speaking Christians and Jews refer to God as "Allah." So it's not a Muslim thing.

Edited September 22, 2008 by IrishAidan

[Leonardo]

Well, actually, "Allah" is nothing more than the Arabic word for "God." Considering that we speak English in this country, generally, "God" doesn't have to be, necessarily, the Christian God.

Ask Bush if he thinks we should consider the word being synonymous with Allah. Ask Bush if he thinks Allah told him going to war with Iraq was the right thing to do.

Naivete does not become a serious reporter/journalist.