Palin is another Jesus Freak

[strandinthewind]

Originally Posted by ajmccarrell

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

[ajmccarrell]

Originally Posted by strandinthewind

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 But, you are, as usual, playing bait and switch when you cannot win the main and only point.

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.

[ajmccarrell]

Originally Posted by strandinthewind

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

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.

[strandinthewind]

Originally Posted by ajmccarrell

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.

[strandinthewind]

Originally Posted by ajmccarrell

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.

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

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.

[ajmccarrell]

Originally Posted by strandinthewind

You are becoming tedious.

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

[ajmccarrell]

Originally Posted by strandinthewind

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

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.

Apparently she did fire an employee for doing so.

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

[strandinthewind]

Originally Posted by ajmccarrell

Apparently she did fire an employee for doing so.

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

[ajmccarrell]

Originally Posted by strandinthewind

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.

[strandinthewind]

^^^

Mea Culpa

[ajmccarrell]

Originally Posted by strandinthewind

^^^

Mea Culpa

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

[strandinthewind]

^^^^

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

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 ( 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 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 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

[estranged4life]

Originally Posted by ajmccarrell

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

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.

[ajmccarrell]

Originally Posted by strandinthewind

^^^^

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

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 ( 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 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 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

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

[strandinthewind]

Originally Posted by ajmccarrell

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 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

______________________________________