The only other thing I would add to that is how much can someone love their country to put her in a position of taking over the whole thing? What are they thinking and just how far are they willing to put this great country at risk in order to win an election?
I agree with Matt on two things: 1. We don't know enough about this person to put them in charge of the country, but then again, how much did the average American know about Woodrow Wilson when he was elected? 2. Despite having governed a state for a short time (and I prefer governors over senators as my president), she's far from qualified to deal with broader, international issues.
That said, Mr. Damon here furthers more stuff that factcheck has been dispeeling for weeks, i.e., the book banning:
"She did not demand that books be banned from the Wasilla library. Some of the books on a widely circulated list were not even in print at the time. The librarian has said Palin asked a "What if?" question, but the librarian continued in her job through most of Palin's first term."
Or, like Gloria Steinem did, Palin's opinions on evolution:
"Palin has not pushed for teaching creationism in Alaska's schools. She has said that students should be allowed to "debate both sides" of the evolution question, but she also said creationism "doesn't have to be part of the curriculum."
Since there aren't actually "two sides" to discuss regarding evolution, I consider the stories about Palin to be accurate in this case. There simply isn't another theory; there's Darwin, and then there's superstition. Any argument for "discussing both sides" is a de facto declaration for creationism. That's all there is to it, until someone actually introduces another scientific theory. Since this has not occurred in the 160 years since the idea was first introduced, I wouldn't hold my breath.
As to the stories I've heard about the book banning, while they have indicated she wasn't anything like the Miami-Dade School Board, she's still someone to keep an eye on. While she didn't actually call for specific books to be banned, she did pursue creation of a policy to do just that, she did make some initial inquiries, they received utterly no support, so she dropped the matter.
But the idea is lurking in there. This matter didn't erupt out of whole cloth.
What makes Matt Damon an authority on anything? Just because someone thinks they are important, doesn't make them so. Regardless of anyone's political opinions, I am so sick of those in Hollywood think that since they can stand in front of a camera they are experts in world affairs. And the blog post makes it sound like Damon is some kind of God! Get a life! Any person's opinion is just as valid as this moron's.
At least he speaks out under his own name,"anonymous." You, you're a coward. Sniping away without even the guts to take on a "nomme de guerre."
Matt Damon is something you are not: a proud American, willing to stand up and tell us his opinion. And he makes some excellent points; he doesn't call anyone names. He tells us WHY he doesn't like Palin.
You? You, the gutless coward, can't even decide on what to call yourself, and give us nothing outside of whining.
When you can stand up like a man (or a woman), then you might have an opinion worth listening to
Exactly. Ex.Act.Ly.
ReplyDeleteThe only other thing I would add to that is how much can someone love their country to put her in a position of taking over the whole thing? What are they thinking and just how far are they willing to put this great country at risk in order to win an election?
I agree with Matt on two things:
ReplyDelete1. We don't know enough about this person to put them in charge of the country, but then again, how much did the average American know about Woodrow Wilson when he was elected?
2. Despite having governed a state for a short time (and I prefer governors over senators as my president), she's far from qualified to deal with broader, international issues.
That said, Mr. Damon here furthers more stuff that factcheck has been dispeeling for weeks, i.e., the book banning:
"She did not demand that books be banned from the Wasilla library. Some of the books on a widely circulated list were not even in print at the time. The librarian has said Palin asked a "What if?" question, but the librarian continued in her job through most of Palin's first term."
Or, like Gloria Steinem did, Palin's opinions on evolution:
"Palin has not pushed for teaching creationism in Alaska's schools. She has said that students should be allowed to "debate both sides" of the evolution question, but she also said creationism "doesn't have to be part of the curriculum."
Since there aren't actually "two sides" to discuss regarding evolution, I consider the stories about Palin to be accurate in this case. There simply isn't another theory; there's Darwin, and then there's superstition. Any argument for "discussing both sides" is a de facto declaration for creationism. That's all there is to it, until someone actually introduces another scientific theory. Since this has not occurred in the 160 years since the idea was first introduced, I wouldn't hold my breath.
ReplyDeleteAs to the stories I've heard about the book banning, while they have indicated she wasn't anything like the Miami-Dade School Board, she's still someone to keep an eye on. While she didn't actually call for specific books to be banned, she did pursue creation of a policy to do just that, she did make some initial inquiries, they received utterly no support, so she dropped the matter.
But the idea is lurking in there. This matter didn't erupt out of whole cloth.
What makes Matt Damon an authority on anything? Just because someone thinks they are important, doesn't make them so. Regardless of anyone's political opinions, I am so sick of those in Hollywood think that since they can stand in front of a camera they are experts in world affairs. And the blog post makes it sound like Damon is some kind of God! Get a life! Any person's opinion is just as valid as this moron's.
ReplyDeleteAt least he speaks out under his own name,"anonymous." You, you're a coward. Sniping away without even the guts to take on a "nomme de guerre."
ReplyDeleteMatt Damon is something you are not: a proud American, willing to stand up and tell us his opinion. And he makes some excellent points; he doesn't call anyone names. He tells us WHY he doesn't like Palin.
You? You, the gutless coward, can't even decide on what to call yourself, and give us nothing outside of whining.
When you can stand up like a man (or a woman), then you might have an opinion worth listening to