McCain's VP Wants Creationism Taught in School

Again..it's not about winning. This country is not about winning hte presidency..and that is one of hte biggest hangups this country suffers from. Many a political candidate and politician will change their views given enough opposistion. The opponent doesn't ahve to win..they jsut have to get enough votes to get noticed. When Ross Perot ran for president he had no chance of winning..at first. Enough people(including myself) saw his values though. IIRC i wasn't old enough to vote..but he grabbed enough votes form what are now called "conservatives" that the republican party took notice. Now for years they take pains to court them during an election cycle..only to screw them over at the first available opportunity. HOw can you expect things to change if you continue to use the same procedures? einstein called this insanity..and it's what many in our country practice every election cycle. It's not if you win or loose..it's relaly about how many votes you can garner. Garnering hte votes for change isn't an instantaneious..microwave thing. It takes work..election cycleS..grassroots discussions like this one..and hard line, critical thinking outside what hte establishment wants you to think. The last one is the hardest one to break out of. It took me nearly 24 years..i hope it doesn't take others nearly this long..:) The candidate who can affect this change is going to be an obama or a mccain..it'll be a perot or nader..or..maybe..you.
 
Last edited:
While I admire your ideals and willingness to try to shake the system, I won't be following your lead on the write-in this time around. I have no problems with people that want to vote for an off-candidate to make a point. However, I voted for Perot in '96, and was sorely disappointed by the results. I had the same stubborn streak, but in this particular election, I feel that there is a significant need to follow a major candidate. If there were a third candidate that was running, I'd gladly vote for them.

However, as the case stands, the only person in any party that I share ideals with is Palin. So, lesser of the evils or not, I can only hope that McCain's health fails after I vote for him because of his VP candidate.
 
Last edited:
I thought Secretary of State was in line behind the VP, then Speaker of the house? I guess I had that backwards.

I remember my government teacher in 9th grade talking about how Madeline Albright was cut out of the pecking order due to not being a natural born citizen, blah blah Strom Thurmond is president pro tem something or other. I didn't pay much attention in gov't class, I guess it shows. It was a sham anyway, I kinda goofed my way through the class and passed with flying colors.
 
Last edited:
That was way back when. the Constitution says the senate shall set the others in line and it's been switched around a few times. As of today the order is:

  • The Vice President
  • Speaker of the House
  • President pro tempore of the Senate
  • Secretary of State
  • Secretary of the Treasury
  • Secretary of Defense
  • Attorney General
  • Secretary of the Interior
  • Secretary of Agriculture
  • Secretary of Commerce
  • Secretary of Labor
  • Secretary of Health and Human Services
  • Secretary of Housing and Urban Development
  • Secretary of Transportation
  • Secretary of Energy
  • Secretary of Education
  • Secretary of Veterans Affairs
  • Secretary of Homeland Security
Cabinet members are in the order of succession in the order their departments were created earliest to latest.
 
Pilosi is a bad argument. She's third in line, regardless of who gets elected.

As far as not wishing someone ill because of the possibility of her moving up? I don't really wish ill upon anyone, but I'm voting for the ticket that has a candidate that best supports my morals, ideals, and beliefs. She just happens to be a running mate instead of the candidate. If you think that Ron Paul is your best vote, then write him in.

My guess is that McCain sees the huge burst in support that he's gotten since picking Palin to run with him. Even if she's not in the driver's seat, so to speak, she'll have enough influence to control the path the bus takes. I'm guessing the GOP sees a potential to take the next 16 years in the White House if McCain doesn't blow it for them.

They'll keep the heat on him to made popular conservative decisions
 
I have to disagree with you there. His record speaks volumes about his leanings..Palin is a smokescreen to get the "conservatives" on board. Bush was supposed to be the conservative messiah as well..don't think McCain is going to be nearly as conservative as Bush was...
 
Does writting in a candidate on your ballot generate enough opposition to change the political will of the person ultimatly elected into Presidency? What is the critical mass of opposition votes that will change that political will? And if you view either candidate that is running for office as ultimately bad for the country and with full knowledge that one will get into power, are you not, by virtue of the Gettysburg address, part of what ever government is in power and thus not only is your oppositional vote not enough to encourage change, rather you have to get up and protest in a very visible and physical manner to bring about the change you want?

Your write in vote is very much confidential, and thanks to confidentiality, very ignorable by the powers that be. And thus, not enough to encourage change in itself. Which leaves those who oppose either part of the current two party system with this ultimate choice: To what level do I wish my voice to be heard, at what point do I stand back and allow what ever government to continue on its way with out further opposition? How far are you willing to go?

Writing in your vote for Ron Paul may well be your first step, but is it going to be your last step and what will your ultimate last step be? How close to the furnace are you willing to get?
 
Last edited:
can we just drop Mccain and have Palin run? Course I would take anyone over the false "Messiah" Obama. Wow..did you hear that Farakan speech on Obama being the Herald of the Messiah? Creepy
 
As far as the 3rd party topic goes, you will never see a dominant 3rd party in the US because of how the electoral system works. Usually the electoral college for every state votes for the majority of the popular vote. This is how Gore lost in 2000 when in fact more people vote for him. So the state can be divided 51% for Obama and 49% for McCain and the whole state goes to Obama. Some states are moving to divide their electoral college to mirror the popular vote (which I believe is more democratic) which would allow for more than two parties to be in the running for office.

I believe that if you want to make a difference, you create an organization that arranges for large quantities of voters to write in one person. Lots of people use the write in, but because its BLANK that means they all may vote for someone different. Or you just side with the candidate you most agree with, for me its Obama (I know I am alone here, lol).

The only way for a 3rd candidate to win is in a write in... but next to no one uses it (compared to how many use the "traditional" way of voting). I agree that if enough people wrote in Hillary, that she would take a good amount away from Obama and McCain.
 
Last edited:
As far as the 3rd party topic goes, you will never see a dominant 3rd party in the US because of how the electoral system works. Usually the electoral college for every state votes for the majority of the popular vote. This is how Gore lost in 2000 when in fact more people vote for him. So the state can be divided 51% for Obama and 49% for McCain and Obama gets all of the electoral votes, despite half the state wanting McCain. Some states are moving to divide their electoral college to mirror the popular vote (which I believe is more democratic) which would allow for more than two parties to be in the running for office. (Its confusing and I know I didn't explain it right...)

I believe that if you want to make a difference, you create an organization that arranges for large quantities of voters to write in one person. Lots of people use the write in, but because its BLANK that means they all may vote for different people. Or you just side with the candidate you most agree with, for me its Obama (I know I am alone here, lol).

The only way for a 3rd candidate to win is in a write in... but next to no one uses it (compared to how many use the "traditional" way of voting). I agree that if enough people wrote in Hillary, that she would take a good amount of votes away from Obama and McCain.

Back to the original post regarding creationism...

I think that evolution should be taught in school as a theory and not creationism. Why? Christianity is not our nation's "official" religion. So if we did teach creationism it would have to include other gods than just ours because America is a melting pot of many cultures and religions. It would be unfeasible and unAmerican to teach creationism.
 
Last edited:
Odale said:
Back to the original post regarding creationism...

I think that evolution should be taught in school as a theory and not creationism. Why? Christianity is not our nation's "official" religion. So if we did teach creationism it would have to include other gods than just ours because America is a melting pot of many cultures and religions. It would be unfeasible and unAmerican to teach creationism.
Click to expand...

Ceationism is the wrong word. Inteligent design should be taught as an alternate "theory". There is no need for a religious brand. All major religions have a "creation" story, you can propose creation without calling it christian. If a student chooses to embrace the intelligent design theory it could be their 1st step toward choosing Christ as their savior and lord.
 
Odale said:
I think that evolution should be taught in school as a theory and not creationism. Why? Christianity is not our nation's "official" religion. So if we did teach creationism it would have to include other gods than just ours because America is a melting pot of many cultures and religions. It would be unfeasible and unAmerican to teach creationism.
Click to expand...
Every major world religion holds that the universe was created by a deity rather than spawned as the result of random variables. The list includes:
  • Christianity
  • Islam
  • Hinduism
  • Jainism
  • Buddhism
  • Zoroastrianism
"Intelligent design" is far from exclusive to Christianity.

If teachers are going to present a theory of a "random" universe, I don't see the issue with presenting the opposite viewpoint: the theory of an "on purpose" universe.
 
But they are essentially all the same. At the beginning of time (insert diety) was there, created everything, and here we are. Each story is only different in time, place, and situation of the details.

I agree with Tek. Just proposing to the students that there could be an alternative to random chance is the right approach. You don't have to give specifics of which one... just that there is an alternative. Currently, any teacher that even mentions the remote possibility of there being something than Evolution gets their hands smacked.

If ~80% of this country claim to be Christians, than why are we EXCLUSIVELY teaching what only a part of the other 20% believe? And remember, the "other" 20% also include the other religions that support Intelligent Design theories.

No wonder people are messed up today when we teach kids Adam & Eve on Sunday and refuse to allow them the possibility of being taught that it *might* have happened that way on Monday.
 
Hescominsoon said:
it's not the schools job..it's the parent's.
Click to expand...

That's exactly it "Ephesians 6:4 And you, fathers, do not provoke your children to wrath, but bring them up in the training and admonition of the Lord." note that it doesn't say 'teachers bring them up in the training and admonition of the Lord' It's the family's job to teach their children about God and His works.
 
Hescominsoon said:
it's not the schools job..it's the parent's.
Click to expand...

Odale said:
This is exactly my point, if they teach one, they have to teach all of them.
Click to expand...

If their not teaching all then they shouldn't teach any theories. It frustrates me to no end having to try to reteach my kids the proper world perspective. Our kids get indoctrinated by a bunch of atheist teachings and theories and sometimes its very difficult to beat those godless views out of their little skulls full of mush.
 
Separation of Church and State is to blame/thank here.

Captain_Tea said:
If their not teaching all then they shouldn't teach any theories. It frustrates me to no end having to try to reteach my kids the proper world perspective. Our kids get indoctrinated by a bunch of atheist teachings and theories and sometimes its very difficult to beat those godless views out of their little skulls full of mush.
Click to expand...
Private Christian schools can do that for you.
 
Odale said:
Separation of Church and State is to blame/thank here.


Private Christian schools can do that for you.
Click to expand...

I'm already being forced to pay a couple thousand a year in taxes to get them brainwashed in the atheistic socialist public school system, leaving me no money to pay for a private school.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top