Palin is another Jesus Freak
 

Just what we need (rolls eyes) That McCain is actually trying to defend this bullshiitte speaks volumes to the lengths he will lie to get the WH. Haven't we had enough of the R lies from W?

Moreover, that the American people are dumb enough not to see this for what it is is even more frightening.

To put it plainly, why would a political official even ask in the first place how a librarian would react, even, hypothetically, to the banning of a book? The answer of any politician I want would be "we do not ban books." <<<<<< and that's a period

:shrug:

McCain Camp Defends Palin Book-Banning Questions

by Associated PressFriday, September 12, 2008

The McCain campaign is defending Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin’s much-criticized questions to her hometown librarian about book banning, saying the query was only hypothetical.

Shortly after taking office in 1996 as mayor of Wasilla, a city of about 7,000 people, Palin asked the city’s head librarian about banning books. Later, the librarian was notified by Palin that she was being fired, although Palin backed off under pressure.

Palin’s alleged attempt at book-banning has been a matter of intense interest since Republican presidential nominee John McCain named her as his running mate last month.

Taylor Griffin, a spokesman for the McCain campaign, said Thursday that Palin asked the head librarian, Mary Ellen Emmons, on three occasions how she would react to attempts at banning books. He said the questions, in the fall of 1996, were hypothetical and entirely appropriate. He said a patron had asked the library to remove a title the year before and the mayor wanted to understand how such disputes were handled.

Records on the city’s Web site, however, do not show any books were challenged in Wasilla in the 10 years before Palin took office.

Palin notified Emmons she would be fired in January 1997 because the mayor didn’t feel she had the librarian’s “full support.” Emmons was reinstated the next day after public outcry, according to newspaper reports at the time.

Still, one longtime library staffer recalls that the run-in made everyone fear for their jobs.

“Mayor Palin gave us some terrible moments and some rather gut-wrenching moments, particularly when Mary Ellen said she was going to have to leave,” said Cathy Petrie, who managed the children’s collection at the time.

Recent outrage has been fueled by Wasilla housewife Anne Kilkenny, whose 2,400-word critique of Palin’s legacy as mayor is widely posted on the Internet. Kilkenny described Palin’s actions as “out-and-out censorship.”

But the McCain campaign, in a statement, said the charge “is categorically false … Governor Sarah Palin has never asked anyone to ban a book, period.”

Emmons, a former Alaska Library Association president who now goes by Mary Ellen Baker, did not return calls seeking comment.

According to the Mat-Su Valley Frontiersman newspaper, Emmons did not mince words when Palin asked her “how I would deal with her saying a book can’t be in the library” on Oct. 28, 1996, in a week when the mayor had asked department heads for letters of resignation.

“She asked me if I would object to censorship, and I replied ‘Yup’,” Emmons told a reporter. “And I told her it would not be just me. This was a constitutional question, and the American Civil Liberties Union would get involved, too.”

The Rev. Howard Bess, a liberal Christian preacher in the nearby town of Palmer, said the church Palin and her family attended until 2002, the Wasilla Assembly of God, was pushing to remove his book from local bookstores.

Emmons told him that year that several copies of “Pastor I Am Gay” had disappeared from the library shelves, Bess said.

“Sarah brought pressure on the library about things she didn’t like,” Bess said. “To believe that my book was not targeted in this is a joke.” Other locals said the dust-up had been blown out of proportion.

“That was many years ago and Sarah never had any intention to ban books,” said David Chappel, who served as Palin’s deputy mayor for three years. “There were some vocal people in the minority, and it looks like they’re still out there.”

Jim Rettig, who heads the American Library Association based in Richmond, Virginia, suggested that lingering quarrel raises issues that are still relevant as librarians prepare to celebrate Banned Books Week later this month.

“Librarians are very committed to the principles of the First Amendment of the Constitution and that means we don’t allow one individual or a group of people to dictate what people can or cannot read,” he said. “Most librarians if they got that sort of a question would be curious as to what the intent of the questioner was.”

http://elections.foxnews.com/2008/09...nning-inquiry/

Wow a fair and balanced piece of journalism on foxnews? Interesting. It's obvious she had the intent to actually get rid of a book(s). Nice cover-up attempt, which people will likely believe.

She simply asked the question and was told she couldn't, so she let it go. It's not as if some of the posters here haven't tried to say that religion itself is wrong. So, what the hell is the difference?

This chick is certifiable ..she obviously has allowed her extreme religious views to influence her politics in the past and who is to say she won't do it again only in a far higher offiice.I had really hoped America was over this kind of medievalism.

Why would a mayor even ask that question?

And, your statment "so she let it go" is incorrect. She fired the librarian and then public outcry forced her to rescind that decision. So much for "simply asked the question."

That you are even attempting to defend this ****te is disappointing :rolleyes:

In the end, this c*nt is Falwell with a vagina.

Who gives a flying fukc what posters on here say? What does that have to do with what the person one step from the WH says about burning books? Why do you always try to change the focus from the issue at hand?

Now that is the truest, most succint cut through the BS. statement I have read on here in quite some time.:thumbsup:

Speaking of which, did you see McCain on The View today :eek:

I thought the audience was going to boo him when he said he would appoint strict constructionist judges to the USSC and that Roe was incorrectly decided.

In the end, if the USSC overturns Roe, the states will then be able to determine abortion rights on there own. The result will be that in NY you can get an abortion while in Colorado, you cannot (hypothetically). Moreover, the Fed. Govt. will never be able to acknowledge the "right to privacy" unless the Congress creates it. It is a completely unworkable system in that a doctor who performs an abortion in one state but lives in another could be tried for murder in the state in which he lives. That's just fukced up. So, the argument that the effect will be that the states dec. for themselves is, at best, a farce and anyone making it knows that or is short sighted fool.

The interesting thing is the R's were so gung ho to usurp Fla.'s soverign right to adjudicate spousal rights in the conext of Terri Schiavo that despite numerous state court rulings in favor of the former husband, the R Congress demanded essentially the same type of right be applied by the Fed. Ct.'s in that case - all in the name of the cash cow known to them as jesus. The true Jesus had nothing to do with it. But, activist courts are okay when it suits your reelection I guess and if you can make a little cash off of it, so be it :rolleyes: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terri_Schiavo

Personally, I am SICK of politicians and their use of "faith". I am SURE I will be hearing some religatarded BS from the Mighty Burning Shrub who is visiting this state todayto raise $$$$ for the Gas and Oil Party and their candidates the McCain-Burger and the Palin-tologist

Seems EACH political commercial shown on TV here in 'Bible Belt Central' has at least ONE mention of religion/faith - and the Demo-Gods are AS BAD as the Relig-publicans. Even the ads shown on Oklahoma TV for Obama bring up "his faith". Who gives a flying donkey **** about ones 'faith'? I don't...Some politicians RELIGIOUS (Zealot) views arent going to WIN my VOTE!!!

I abide by one of the two "Commandments" George "Cardinal Glick" Carlin mentioned in his skit about reducing the "10 commandments" down to the "2 Commandments":

"Keep thy religion to thyself"

Brian "Oral Roberts said he once saw a 60 foot tall Jesus in Tulsa, Oklahoma...yeah, keep taking your medication Oral, you religious asshole" j.

Religion should stay out of government. Period.

Everything I'm hearing & reading seems to imply that Palin "cleaned house" after she was elected governor. It's a fine line between putting together a good team of people to work together toward the common good and firing everyone who doesn't agree with you so you can hire your cronies.

I don't trust her. I don't agree with her views. I don't want her in office in any capacity.

What is the analogy here?

You complain about censorship of your views, but several times since I made my post, the rest of you wanted to censor Palin and her views, as well as mine. You guys are ridiculous. I mean, what is "religion should stay out of politics" if not censorship? LOL! You guys are as bad as you make her out to be. Good job! :thumbsup:

Throwing out labels is no substitute for having a position.

So, I guess you want to censor people who are for censorship. That makes a lot of sense. LOL! :shrug:

Do you actually listen to the tripe that comes out of your mouth when you make assinine points like this?

It's called the First Amendment and it prohibits the establishment of a state religion in any context. Therefore, while you and anyone else are free to spout whatever your individual views are without govt. interference (the other part of the First Amendment) -- but Plain cannot use her position as Mayor to coerce a public librarian to ban a religious book or any other book based on her religion - much less fire someone. This is not a difficult concept :shrug: But, you are, as usual, playing bait and switch when you cannot win the main and only point.

That's called federalism, where the states do not have a dictatorship of black robed judges. Again, you keep labelling people, IE "fool", etc without really addressing the merits of federalism. I'd support it wholeheartedly. If you want to be an abortion doctor, go to a state that allows it. If you hate abortion, go to a state that disallows it. I mean, you people clamor against people "shoving their views on you" but when an alternative compromise is given where states can choose for themselves, which is real democracy and not the oligarchic system under judges, you are against it. No one did anything in the name "of Jesus" here, McCain's view allowed for both sides to be happy without one or the other imposing their views on the other. Now THAT is "f*cked up" that you don't see that. I guess it's all your way or not at all, screw the rest of us.

How exactly is Federalism going to work in today's global economy? It can't and you know it. Whatever :rolleyes:

Palin didn't attempt to ban any books. She asked a question and got an earful about the ACLU in response. It was a valid question to ask. She can fire whom she chooses as mayor. The fact that the librarian refuses to back the media's spin on this should say something to you, but no, if she came out and disagreed you'd call her a wingnut too. Libraries are public and are subject to regulation. You can write a book all you want, but it doesn't mean that you are entitled to public support. That isn't a violation of free speech. You need a refresher course on the first amendment. You have a right say anything you want to, but that doesn't mean that you have a right to be heard. By your measure, banning people from this website and pornography in public would be violations of the first amendment. The first amendment isn't absolute. Those aren't my words, those are the words of the great liberal judge Oliver Wendell Holmes. I guess Stare Decisis doesn't apply to you.

Exactly why wouldn't it work? Do you understand what the federalist philosophy is? This coming from the guy who said that the economy was whether or not the government had a surplus or deficit. What do you know about economics? LOL! The US government had a surplus during the depression, so I guess according to you the economy was great. Please try to understand economics before you argue with me about the subject. I didn't take a bunch of post graduate courses in it for no reason.

You are becoming tedious.

Yawn - Poor Palin - everyone is just being mean to her :rolleyes:

For the last time, she cannot fire a public employee for indicating they would not ban a book.

Whatever - argue with yourself since we apparently are all idiots here who cannot rise to your level of acumen.

Too tedious?! LOL! No, you just don't know what you're talking about.

Apparently she did fire an employee for doing so.

As far as the last sentence goes, I'm glad you agree with me. :laugh: (JK)

You just admitted she did more than ask a hypothetical question. Congrats for seeing the light.

I was twisting your words to make a joke and a point. You took me too literally. Not all the facts are out, obviously. The librarian hasn't said anything. Even so, this objection is gross hypocrisy. The left loves to censor religion all the time and praises it as courageous, but someone does something they don't like and they ascribe all sorts of things to it and make comparisons to Hitler. How about this one below!

http://www.ffrf.org/fttoday/2001/junejuly01/barry.html It is free speech, literally at a library and this guy removed all the bricks. This guy was eventually successful in removing the bricks. There was a similar idea in a public park where people could write messages on bricks for a donation to support the park and some guy wrote "Jesus loves you" and they removed it. Hell, you have people trying to remove monuments that have been there for decades.

^^^

Mea Culpa :o

Maybe I should sue to remove your Tolkien tagline, since it is rumoured that he was a Christian and your faith offends me. LOL! :nod:

^^^^

I think he and C. S. Lewis were rump rangers :cool:

Also, that line is my fav of fav's in the book LOTR. In the movie, it was changed to the more general:

Be silent. And keep your forked tongue behind your teeth. I did not pass through fire and death to bandy crooked words with a witless worm.

As for Christianity or any other religion for that matter -- I could give a flying fook what people do, I just do not want them using the govt. to tell me what to do. Same for sex. One can people their bed with sheep for all I care :eek: ( I am joking about the sheep)

I think the reason people are watchful of people like Palin is that people like Palin belong(ed?) to a holy roller church and used their faith to implement political policy in a way that denies or denied people the chance to be free in the library incident, which clearly was what Palin was doing and to think otherwise is silly -- Again, why ask a librarian that in a small town in Alaska :shrug: A good example is gay people. They have been compared by pretty much all organized Christianity and most other religions to abominations. Then, the govt. under W (most recently and most vehemently) persecutes them even more by equating them to pedophiles (the R's seemingly took their cue from the Catholic Church there) , beastiality practicers, and other horrible people. All in the name of some twisted version of God. And, all in an unfair comparison - there is no censent in any of the latter as opposed to the former :shrug: Moreover, when they ask why they cannot have the same govt. given legal rights as heterosexual couples are given SOLELY on the basis of a religious ideal, they are persecuted even more and told that although they pay taxes like all Americans do, they cannot be given the same automatic rights -- again, based solely on a religious ideal. They are told to go hire a lawyer and spend thousands of dollars to get maybe 80% of those rights and of that 80%, almost all can be challenged in court. If you were persecuted like that, you might get a little antsy when something like Palin comes along and starts getting all preachy and then backing off it with a seeming wink and a nod to the religious crazies. That is way I think people never want to hear any religion in political speech. Then, people like you get all up in arms and think people are attacking religion itself when someone says that they do not want religion in politics in any sense. It seems you equate that separation to some version of the complete denial of you or whomever to go to Church and worship watever, however and whenever you want -- I think that logic is a fallacy. I get that Bombay attacks religion itself, but that is a totally different issue than saying religion and politics should not be mixed. You seemingly confuse the two into one though. Many people do that and it is incorrect. Then, gay people see that time and time again, the religious persecution at the pulpit level and political level is voiced the most loud by hypocrites. Again, go worship what you want, just do not make the govt. tell me I have to. Mind you, my point is a true ideal of the lesser govt. movement.

For the life of me, I will never get why, other than money, people feel slighted when the govt. does not validate their religion. Christ said give to Ceasar what is Ceasar's :shrug:

Nope...
 

I based my opinion of WHO I vote for UPON THE ISSUES and HOW they APPROACH the 'said' issues...Not SOMEONE's religious background or beliefs. I don't care if someone worships a 'floater in the porcelain God", 'keep that to thyself' and DO the F**Kin' job!!!! Religion should not figure into fixing the countries problem.

And I hate CENSORSHIP!!!! That is why I NEVER voted for a campaign that had the name GORE listed upon it. Tipper "P.O.S." Gore and her PMRC Washington allies were a frikkin' joke TRYING to censor music - whereas all they did accomplish was making songs with "explicit" lyrics easier to locate via the "explicit lyrics" sticker placed upon the album...and musicians LOVED the publicity since it brought in more $$$ for their bank accounts.

Brian "I suffer allergies to Censorship and the Gore's" j.

I agree on the smaller government thing. I've never understood why the government needs to be involved in marriage at all.

Ask the R party - they are the ones writing it into constitutions all in the name of inserting religion into politics - all to get votes they IMO saw themselves losing after the spectre of the cold war diminished.

But, the point is that religion has been used so horrbily by the R's for the last 20 + years that people have come to hate it. I can't say I blame them.

Also -- more lies from McCain -- and I cannot believe Palin is trying to sell that she was never for the bridge to nowhere, which I have been to BTW - I saw the exact site :eek: Does she think people are actually buying this shiitte? I just do not get why she does not say she was for it initially, but then thought better of it. What is harm in that?

Palin defends nearly $200M in project requests

By BETH FOUHY, Associated Press Writer

47 minutes ago

Republican vice presidential candidate Sarah Palin on Friday defended the nearly $200 million in federal pet projects she sought as Alaska governor this year even as John McCain told a television audience she had never requested them.

In the second part of her interview with ABC News, Palin was confronted with two claims that have been a staple of her reputation since joining the GOP ticket: that she was opposed to federal earmarks, even though her request for such special spending projects for 2009 was the highest per capita figure in the nation; and that she opposed the $398 million Bridge to Nowhere linking Ketchikan to an island with 50 residents and an airport.

Palin actually turned against the bridge project only after it became a national symbol of wasteful spending and Congress had pulled money for it.

Palin told ABC's Charles Gibson that since she took office, the state had "drastically" reduced its efforts to secure earmarks and would continue to do so while she was governor.

"What I've been telling Alaskans for these years that I've been in office, is, no more," Palin said.

When Gibson noted she had requested money to study the mating habits of crabs and harbor-seal genetic research — the kind of small-bore projects that draw McCain's ire — Palin said the specific requests had come through universities and other public entities and weren't worked out by lobbyists behind closed doors.

On the Bridge to Nowhere, Palin said she had supported a link from the mainland to the airport but not necessarily the costly bridge project.

"It's not inappropriate for a mayor or for a governor to request and to work with their Congress and their congressmen, their congresswomen, to plug into the federal budget, along with every other state, a share of the federal budget for infrastructure," Palin said.

Palin's comments came after McCain sat for a feisty grilling on ABC's "The View," where he claimed erroneously that his running mate hadn't sought money for such pet projects.

"Not as governor she didn't," McCain said, ignoring the record.

The panel of female hosts also pressed McCain on Palin's religious views, his position on abortion rights and whether he had traded in his maverick ways to placate conservatives.

In Alaska, meanwhile, the investigator looking into whether Palin abused her power as governor in trying to fire her former brother-in-law asked state lawmakers for the power to subpoena Palin's husband, Todd, a dozen others and the phone records of a top aide. The state House and Senate judiciary committees were expected to grant the request.

Palin was in Alaska on Friday and scheduled to attend a campaign rally in Nevada on Saturday while McCain took the day off, a reflection of her growing status as the GOP ticket's celebrity draw.

Palin had kind words for Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton, months after suggesting that Obama's rival for the Democratic nomination had been whining about tough press coverage.

"What determination, and grit, and even grace through some tough shots that were fired her way — she handled those well," Palin told ABC News.

In March, Palin was asked about coverage of Clinton at a Newsweek forum, and said: "Fair or unfair, I think she does herself a disservice to even mention it, really. I mean, you gotta plow through that. You have to know what you're getting into ... when I hear a statement like that coming from a woman candidate with any kind of perceived whine about that excess criticism, or you know maybe a sharper microscope put on her, I think, 'That doesn't do us any good — women in politics."

On "The View," McCain said that Palin had "ignited a spark" among voters but acknowledged they parted ways on certain issues. The Arizona has said human behavior is largely responsible for climate change and opposes drilling for oil in a federally protected refuge, for example.

McCain appeared to back off a bit from his claim that Palin was the best vice presidential pick in U.S. history when he joked, "We politicians are never given to exaggeration or hyperbole."

The GOP hopeful also stood by two debunked campaign commercials — one which said Obama favored comprehensive sex education for kindergarten students and another that suggested Obama had called Palin a pig. Both are factually inaccurate.

Obama, as an Illinois state senator, voted for legislation that would teach age-appropriate sex education to kindergartners, including information on rejecting advances by sexual predators. And while Obama told a campaign rally this week that McCain's policies were like "putting lipstick on a pig," he never used the phrase in connection with Palin.

"Those ads aren't true. They're lies," said "View" co-host Joy Behar.

"They're not lies," McCain said, insisting that Obama "chooses his words very carefully" and should never had made the lipstick remark.

McCain defended Palin's conservative religious views but said as president he would maintain a clear separation of church and state. To a smattering of boos, he reiterated his opposition to Roe vs. Wade, the landmark 1973 Supreme Court decision legalizing abortion rights.

McCain looked irked when Behar asked him whether he had jettisoned his independence as a candidate by appearing to be in "lock step" with President Bush's policies.

"What specific area have I, quote, 'changed?' Nobody can name it," McCain said.

McCain has changed positions on significant issues. For example, he once opposed Bush's tax cuts but now supports making them permanent. He had opposed lifting the ban on additional offshore oil exploration but now calls for drilling off the U.S. coast. He had been against mandatory caps on greenhouse gas emissions but now favors them.

___

Associated Press writer Garance Burke in Wasilla, Alaska, contributed to this report.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080912/...gn_republicans

______________________________________

Here is the clip from The View - note the scattered booing

http://abc.go.com/daytime/theview/index

BTW - his view of the USSC has been incorrect since 1803. And, that is a gross simplification of the implication of the overturning of Roe. In the end, what will happen is that abortion will be for the rich even in the four or five states that may allow it :shrug:

Also, all that "I repsect other people' views" is BS. It is lip service. He will appoint judges that will overturn the right to privacy, which BTW you never responded to my argument on the positive results of despite the means. IMO the correct and Constitutional thing to say is that I believe life begins at conception, but that is my opinion and as long as there is no definitive answer, I respect the right of an American woman to belive differently and take control of her own body. I think she is wring, but that is between her and her maker. The govt. should stay out of it - again me with the lesser govt, thing.

Finally, Cindy McCain came across like a snob with her refusal to answer the question about how many houses they have. Last I checked, the assets of the Pres. are the business of the American people in that the Pres. must make an accounting. Will they refuse to name their assets then?

On edit --

Just exactly how is the VP going to reform the govt.? The VP has no power. Granted Cheney did, but that was because he was controlling things. I also love that McCain had no coherent answer and the specifics he gave were misleading and inaccurate. And, this wants to be Pres. :eek:

I have to say the women of The View totally henpecked him :laugh:

Come on Strand I think you're better than this. We all have our different points of views, and I enjoy the debates and some of the jabs. But there is so much hate on this board. This thread and the "Palin Racist" thread are prime examples of the extreme hate shown towards Conservatives and Christians.

I hope we can all debate or poke fun at others we disagree (or agree with for that matter), but maybe do it with a little less hatred.

My 2 cents.

Nah - called it as I saw it.

She reminds me of the hypocritical self righteous and I cannot stand.

Also, it seems to me that you are confusing the hatred of religion with religion out of politics. Saying the govt. does not have any business in religion in no way lessens anyones' individual right to practice their religion. Many confuse this point.

In the end though, if you were persecuted and in some instances killed in the name of a twisted version of God, you might have a different take on religion in politics. So, I get why people hate religion.

Finally, I likely am way more conservative than anyone on this board. But, because I want religion nowhere in govt., I do not fit into the neocon version of conservative.

I'm a Christian and I couldn't agree with this statement more. The hypocrisy of these
so called Christian republicans embarrasses me just about everytime they open their mouths up about it.

No one is trying to censor Palin. :confused:

I have often said that I think Christ would be horrified at what has been done in His name. I know I am and I hardly am Christ.

In the end and to quote John 3:16-17

16 "For God so loved the world that he gave his only Son, so that everyone who believes in him may not perish but may have eternal life.

17 "Indeed, God did not send the Son into the world to condemn the world, but in order that the world might be saved through him.

Regardless of anyone's belief in this event, the fact that any father would send his son to be sacrificed to save a certain people is, at the least, a stunning metaphor. Yet, all the R's can do is distort that and all but completely ignore Jesus' teachings of forgiveness and peace. Instead, they cherry pick things and use them to judge and hurt people who are already the least amongst us. It sickens me. What sickens me more is people are being turned off of faith of any kind, not just my own. Again, it has become even more of the "if you want to fill your pew, preach hate" kind of world. How is that Christlike?

On edit - another example of this faction of so called Christians raising the persecution flag when religion is taken out of govt, but the right to practice religion on your own is untouched, was when Alabama Chief Justice Roy Moore placement (in the dark of night like he had something to hide) a 2.6-ton granite monument of the Ten Commandments in the rotunda of Alabama's state judicial building. He used public funds for this monument and made no bones about his reasons for putting it there - he incorrectly equated the decalogue with American law (only two or so are actually against the law) - and he incorrectly stated them at that. When a Federal Court correctly ruled this violated the First Amendment's establishment clause andordered its immediate removal, Moore responded:

Quote:

"It is a sad day in our country when the moral foundation of our law and the acknowledgment of God has to be hidden from public view to appease a federal judge,"

The far Christian right echoed that response by arguing that the Ten Commandments are the foundation of the U.S. legal system (an incorrect argument - see the Magna Carta) and that forbidding the acknowledgment of the Judeo-Christian God violates the First Amendment's guarantee of free exercise of religion (another incorrect argument in that the right to worship privately was untouched).

Judge Moore clearly placed the monument there as a fu*k you to anyone who was not a Christian - how dare they come into the Christian land and expect any rights. Any other interpretation of this event clearly is ridiculous. Then, he had the effrontery to suggest that the Federal Govt. was somehow denying his right to worship God by ordering the monument removed. That makes no sense because he has the same right to worship his god in private whether that monument is there or not. Why does he need the Fed or state Governments to validate his religion. Is he that insecure in his religion?

Yet, a CNN-USA Today-Gallup poll found 77 percent of the 1,009 Americans interviewed disapproved of U.S. District Judge Myron Thompson's order to remove the monument. That people need government validation of religion that overwhelmingly both baffles and horrifies me. Are people that brainwashed so that they think that if the govt. does not validate their religion, there is something wrong or that their right to worship privately is in any way diminished?

I know. His argument makes no sense. Once again, he ignores the main point, which he cannot win, and instead makes these irrelevant and untrue points to try to hide that fact.

As for Palin, she can say what she wants. What I can't stand is the obvious speaking in code and doubletalk. If you want a librarian to ban a book that you feel is inappropriate, be proud of it and say it out loud. Don't use innuendo and back room tactics that cheapen the value of your view all in an attempt to stay in power and, in the end, obtain power and money. What a hypocrit.

Ditto for McCain saying he wants to leave it up to the states to determine the right to privacy and that he respects others' views that differ from his. He and everyone with an IQ over 65 knows this is utter crapola. Have the sand to say you hate abortion and when it is left up to the states you will appoint judges who will ban it and you will openly lobby for the states to ban it as well - say "I hate it, it is wrong, and I want it to end because my religion demands it." Though I'd disagree with this latter position, I'd at least have some respect for the man because he actually stated something concrete insead of all his hypocritcal doublespeak.

Another example on the other side was Clinton. I think if he had said, yea I got a hummer from the fat chick, I like to fool around and it really is none of your business - so piss off -- things would have been different. Instead he lied and covered up and it cost him and us dearly in the end.

Well, I've heard it from several lawyers all the way from a Yale grad to the company counsel that sits in the office next to mine that McCain's interpretation is correct because the states had control of the issue before Roe. Overturning it would simply put it back to the states. Also, I would assume you know that when overturning a law, it doesn't always reverse it back to zero, there is room for nuance in the final orders. I did respond to your statement on the ends justifying the means and I said what I thought, which was something along the lines of "this car is great, despite the number of wrecks its been in." No, I don't believe in an inherent right to privacy. The job of the VP is up to the VP and the president. There is no defined job. I see this ticket as being a reincarnation of the Eisenhower-Nixon administration. Nixon was an excellent VP because he was a great bully and I think Palin can do that for McCain. McCain is usually too nice to people, much like Eisenhower.

As far as the rest of it goes, it's just your opinion and you have a right to it. It's why McCain has a limp.

As far as I can tell, you're taking the actions of a few people and painting an entire religion with a broad brush. You never cite examples that any more than a few people actually "hate" anyone from the church. I left the church years ago, but I still don't appreciate people spreading lies. Jesus would be horrified, especially because he never asked anyone to worship him. We totally misunderstand his role, which was not "God substitute" but that of the Memre or of the Metatron in the Talmud. The entirety of Christianity follows lies (IE Sunday Worship, an absence of Law, pagan holidays, evil doctrines), but you spread lies about them.

Oprah sure is. The media and liberal bloggers, such as yourselves, have been trying to silence Palin by smearing her. Censorship by any other name is still censorship.