Palin has ALREADY been Commander-In-Chief nimrod. She was both the C-I-C of the Alaska National Guard and the Alaska Defense Force. Neither are ceremonial positions.

As for as Foreign policy, her dissection of Obama foreign and national security policy, on Facebook, no less, has been called the finest ever written.

Pretty much EVERYONE who supports Sarah Palin can see her as Commander-In-Chief. More so than any other possible candidate.

gary4205 on July 31, 2010 at 2:24 AM

Oh Gary give it a rest. See first quote below about her CIC role for this 4200 member org.And the ADF? come on. At some point you are going to need to acknowledge that you cheapen her value with the leaps in logic. Ready to be CIC from day one because of what you said? And as it turns out the ANG claim is not true.
Praise her for those things that she really has but for heavens sakes quit making everything little aspect seem to be tracked directly to POTUS level responsibilities.

On August 31, 2008, Major General Craig Campbell of the Alaskan National Guard said in an interview that Palin has no command or say over the military entity: “The entire operation is under federal control, and the governor is not briefed on situations

The mission of the Alaska State Defense Force is to maintain an organized, trained military force capable of timely and effective response to state emergencies, or, on other occasions deemed appropriate by the Governor, to provide military assistance to civil and military authorities in the preservation of life, property, and public safety.[1]

Alaska’s constitution declares every able-bodied man from age 18 to 70 to be a member of the state militia. The ASDF is constituted as a cadre of experienced officers and enlisted personnel which is ready to organize the entire population, if need be.

They are currently made up largely of military police units. The units operate with mostly state certified constables under the Alaska Police Standards Council. By statute, the Alaska State Defense Force must be made up of no less than 75 percent former military personnel.

Huckabee might be authentic, but he’s still undesirable. He just seems creepy to me.

Palin may have the authenticity, but it’s not enough. The reason Tina Fey’s skewering (I know about foreign policy because I can see Russia from my house . . .) worked is that it rings true. I like Palin, but can anybody honestly say we want her as Commander in Chief? I hate to admit this, but at least Hillary got herself on the Senate Armed Services Comm, and is Sec State. (She’s not a good one, but still.)

My attorney lives in Minneapolis, is independent minded, and thinks T-Paw is an empty suit. Thinks his budget success is just tricks, smoke and mirrors. Maybe, but I think he has a bit of that Tony Blair mojo. I think it will play well. And, if he doesn’t step on his macaca in the meantime, I think he’s our guy!

Pablo Snooze on July 30, 2010 at 10:42 AM

Palin has ALREADY been Commander-In-Chief nimrod. She was both the C-I-C of the Alaska National Guard and the Alaska Defense Force. Neither are ceremonial positions.

As for as Foreign policy, her dissection of Obama foreign and national security policy, on Facebook, no less, has been called the finest ever written.

Pretty much EVERYONE who supports Sarah Palin can see her as Commander-In-Chief. More so than any other possible candidate.

Remember, THIS is the guy who was looking to set up some sort of regional cap and tax system. If this guy thinks global warming is real, he has absolutely no business in office.

He also stood by and let Al Franken steal the election and did absolutely nothing.

Sorry, that is not a man of action. The guy is not a leader, and most certainly is not a fighter.

Again, I am sure he is a decent guy, a good guy, but he is not qualified for the job of POTUS. Especially not at this time in history.

We need an absolute warrior who LOVES the sting of battle. Someone who thrives on it. Someone who loves America to her very core, and would rather die than see it destroyed.

There isn’t but one of those kind of leaders, and we all know who She is.

Huckabee is my first choice-he has the most executive experience as a governor 10 1/2 years. But if he does not run, then Pawlenty would be a good alternative.

We don’t need another charismatic leader like Obama. We need someone who can get the job done.

texasconserv on July 29, 2010 at 8:08 PM

Were are you REALLY from?

Can’t be Texas, and you AIN’T no conservative.

Pawlenty is “ok” but he has the charisma of a 1985 Chevette.

crosspatch on July 30, 2010 at 7:13 PM

And the energy policies Pawlenty championed for many years would have you driving a 2010 Chevette. Gee, that sounds exactly like Obama and his brand new Chevy Volt.

Just like California, also Pawlenty signed into law that Minnesota energy companies must buy increasing percentages of expensive “green” energy thereby sticking us with an increasing energy tax for years to come.

I’ve never, EVER made that argument at HA or anywhere else.
Jenfidel

You know that you’ve scored a direct hit when someone tries an odd tangential cry of “Racist!!!”.

What’s not demonstrated clearly is whether that process is sufficient to account for the variation above the family level (recognizing that the biological taxonomy is somewhat arbitrary).

IOW, I have no problem in recognizing that mutation and natural selection are a good explanation for the difference between wolves and coyotes. But I’m not convinced that the same process (plus a couple of billion years) also explains the difference between roses and jellyfish.

And there are many, many blank spaces in the record. Evolutionary biologists are still puzzled by the Cambrian Explosion, for example. When the fossil record disproved Darwin’s original idea of slow steady change, Stephen Jay Gould came up with Punctuated Equilibrium. But now that’s seen as having problems.

The simple fact is that they don’t know how it all happened, but the approved textbooks claim that they do.

Pawlenty and Palin’s suggestion that teachers be able to admit that seems sensible to me. No, it’s not science. It’s philosophy of science. It’s examination of one’s worldview. Critical thinking, even.

Seems to me that’d be a good thing.

Intellectually honest scientists recognize that their tools are of no value answering that question.

Others believe that if science can’t answer the question, then it’s not worth asking. That is a foolish and blind belief IMO.

However, there is a very large body of evidence to suggest that this Universe did not “just happen.” From the symmetry of subatomic particles to the apparent fine-tuning of various constants in quantum physics, it is increasingly clear that the existence of the Universe as we know it requires a large number of highly improbable coincidences. It’s a perfectly rational and logical position to state that the Universe is not an accident.

Depending on which worldview you have, you will interpret the evidence a different way. The problem is that current science instruction only presents one worldview, and actively and viciously squashes any attempt to even acknowledge the other as intellectually valid.

No, I’ve never, EVER made that argument at HA or anywhere else.

Jenfidel on July 30, 2010 at 10:42 AM

I stand corrected you used the term natural law…

When you look at what results from interracial marriages like the Precedent, Tiger Woods and the murder of Nicole by O.J. Simpson, I have to wonder if those “natural law” advocates didn’t have a point.

Jenfidel on February 19, 2010 at 7:39 PM

Yet you advocate natural selection in regards to interracial kids… bit of a contradiction.

Bradky on July 30, 2010 at 7:30 AM

No, I’ve never, EVER made that argument at HA or anywhere else.

Palin may have the authenticity, but it’s not enough. The reason Tina Fey’s skewering (I know about foreign policy because I can see Russia from my house . . .) worked is that it rings true. I like Palin, but can anybody honestly say we want her as Commander in Chief? I hate to admit this, but at least Hillary got herself on the Senate Armed Services Comm, and is Sec State. (She’s not a good one, but still.)

My attorney lives in Minneapolis, is independent minded, and thinks T-Paw is an empty suit. Thinks his budget success is just tricks, smoke and mirrors. Maybe, but I think he has a bit of that Tony Blair mojo. I think it will play well. And, if he doesn’t step on his macaca in the meantime, I think he’s our guy!

This is a perfect example of your disingenuousness. Evolution must be proven but creationism must be disproved.

Bradky on July 30, 2010 at 7:32 AM

No.
Evolution must be proven to more than just theory to be truly “Science,” otherwise other theories that are equally valid–particularly creationism–should also be taught alongside it.
Evolution has been virtually disproved because its advocates cannot find evidence that it actually is at work in the natural world.

No? That’s probably because everybody thinks those people are annoying.

No one’s proved evolutionary theory to be true and brother, have they tried.
As a corollary, they haven’t disproven creationism, either.

Jenfidel on July 29, 2010 at 10:23 PM

This is a perfect example of your disingenuousness. Evolution must be proven but creationism must be disproved.

Jenfidel on July 29, 2010 at 10:16 PM

Yet you advocate natural selection in regards to interracial kids… bit of a contradiction.

Creationism has no basis in fact and teaching it without the scientific theories makes no more sense than sticking strictly to science and not acknowledging the creation theories of most religions. As in most religions believe humans were divinely created. Of course these are based in faith and not on the science.
See you can shoehorn religion into a classroom with scientific theories. You want to have specific religious doctrines in place of science.

Nominate a religious whack-job who can’t tell the difference between the Flintstones and science and it won’t matter. We’ll have guaranteed four more years of Obama Skippy ruin.

MJBrutus on July 29, 2010 at 11:23 PM

Do you call all Christians and Jews “religious whack jobs?”
And all Creationists, according to you, are fans of the Flintstones???
A cartoon about cavemen?

Your problem is with those who believe in the Bible, not politicians.

I’m not sure he’d necessarily be seen as more authentic than Thune or Daniels either

I am no Pawlenty fan, but that’s an unfair characterization of Pawlenty.

Thune has beem in in Washington since the Reagan administration. And Mitch Daniels is more elitist
T. Coddington Van Vorhees III, with his Ivy League and DC Bureaucrat background.

Then vote for Obama Skippy. He sounds like more your speed.

sharrukin on July 29, 2010 at 10:24 PM

Nominate a religious whack-job who can’t tell the difference between the Flintstones and science and it won’t matter. We’ll have guaranteed four more years of Obama Skippy ruin.