Palin is another Jesus Freak

[strandinthewind]

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

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.

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

[iamnotafraid]

Originally Posted by strandinthewind

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

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.

[strandinthewind]

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.

[Dreamz19]

Originally Posted by strandinthewind

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.

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.

[gldstwmn]

Originally Posted by ajmccarrell

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!

No one is trying to censor Palin.

[strandinthewind]

Originally Posted by Dreamz19

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.

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:

"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?

[strandinthewind]

Originally Posted by gldstwmn

No one is trying to censor Palin.

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.

[ajmccarrell]

Originally Posted by strandinthewind

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

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.

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

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.

[ajmccarrell]

Originally Posted by strandinthewind

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?

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.

[ajmccarrell]

Originally Posted by gldstwmn

No one is trying to censor Palin.

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.

[ajmccarrell]

Originally Posted by strandinthewind

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.

The media is less trying to censor Palin as much as try as hard as they can to smear her. Again, the rest of this is opinion. I take it you didn't watch Saddleback. McCain clearly articulated his policies and religious point of view. I remember you turning on Rick Warren as an excuse to dismiss it. Ad homonym, an illogical argument. The Clinton thing was never really about sex, it was about him lying about it. He was impeached for purjury, not for having an affair. The media loved the sex part and spread it around. I agree with your opinion above about respecting Clinton if he had just told the truth. Also, please learn to spell. Not everyone works for the government, so we haven't mastered the ability to spell in abreviated sentences, while balancing coffee and crosswords.

[strandinthewind]

Originally Posted by ajmccarrell

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 . . . .

Of course it would go back to the states. No one is saying it will not. But, it does not end there, which is what you are implying if not stating. Are you actually arguing the R party will not then vehemently advocate the states ban it "eek." I think you know better than that.

Again, if you are for less govt., then why would you advocate the govt. (state of federal) telling a woman what to do with her body?

Interestingly, if the Congress or a state legis. passed a law allowing abortion, would you be for getting some court to overturn the law?

Originally Posted by ajmccarrell

. . . 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 . . . .

I did not see that. And, if you do not believe in the right to privacy, then what do you believe in? Do you actually think the Const. or any of the papers surrounding its creation fail to support the right to privacy? If you are for less govt., that belief is founded on a right to privacy is it not?

Originally Posted by ajmccarrell

. . . 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 . . . .

My point was as VP, Palin has no Constitutional power to change anything. So, all this talk about her is meaningless. It is, IMO, a rather obvious attempt to take the focus off of McCain and his 95% voting with W record.

I take it you like Palin. That is strange because she is for more govt. interference in our lives. Her history clearly dictates that she wants religion to control us - she wants to make religion the rule of law in stark violation of the First Amendment. Or, do you think that establishing a religion is okay? If you do, Palin is your candidate despite your professed want of less govt.

Originally Posted by ajmccarrell

. . . 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.

Do not try to haul out the war veteran card with me in an attempt to make your argument. McCain served his country in an honorable manner and I and everyone owes him a huge thank you. So, thank you McCain! But, that service does not de facto allow him to throw away the Constitution and then shove his religious beliefs down my throat.

Interestingly, were you this gung ho about service records when Kerry ran for office, much less the smearing of Max Cleland? After all, they served their country honorably as well, but got little to no respect from the R's for it. Instead, the R's fuly supported W, whose service record was, to be kind, less than stellar, and Cheney, who "had more important thing to do" than serve.

More to the point though - do you actually think that the far Christian right will have any rest until the Fed. Govt. is a religious entity. I just do not get how you can be for less govt. and still support these people, which is what you are doing when you support the current R party. While Obama's plan taxes the rich a little more (please do not haul out that BS economic argument again ) Obama's plan is much less govt. interference with our private lives. To say otherwise distorts the truth - and I am no fan of Obama's.

In the end, even if everyone is paying a little more, I'd rather pay a little more tax and be left alone. I am at a loss why you would not want to either.

[strandinthewind]

Originally Posted by ajmccarrell

The media is less trying to censor Palin as much as try as hard as they can to smear her. Again, the rest of this is opinion . . . .

No, the media is stating facts about her. McCain and the R party are trying to prevent the discovery of those facts. Do you think the media should not be presenting the book banning and other articles for discussion? Also, they are portraying them in a fair manner.

Smearing someone is what McCain is doing to Obama with the lipstick on a pig ad and the Obama wants to teach sex ed to 8 year old ads. Those were utter crapola - but you likely will never admit that.

Originally Posted by ajmccarrell

. . . I remember you turning on Rick Warren as an excuse to dismiss it . . . .

I did this? Please show me where.

Do you actually believe these people when they say they will not force religion down our throats. If so, I have a bridge for sale in Brooklyn To prove my point, look at gay marriage and the R position on it. The R's and McCain are using their religion in that instance to prevent rights in that there is no argument other than religion for preventing it. I get that you and I think that marriage should not be in the law. However, it is and the R's want it there to create more of a religious state.

Originally Posted by ajmccarrell

. . . The Clinton thing was never really about sex, it was about him lying about it. He was impeached for purjury, not for having an affair. The media loved the sex part and spread it around. I agree with your opinion above about respecting Clinton if he had just told the truth . . . .

Yes, Clinton was properly impeached. However, I do think that the hundreds of millions spent by the witch hunting R's resulted in a bunch of BS. They could not prove anything they set out to prove and all we got for our money was a man lying about getting a hummer from a fat chick. Was it worth all that time and money? I think not? It was a vendeta, pure and simple.

Originally Posted by ajmccarrell

. . . Also, please learn to spell . . . .

I am a lousy typist

[strandinthewind]

Originally Posted by ajmccarrell

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.

The Christian far right is in power and they want more. That is why I address them in this political thread.

But, to pacify you, as I have repeatedly said before, I think religion is a great thing. I just do not want the govt. telling me I have to practice it, which is what the Christian far right is trying to do with people like Palin. Yet, you give her a pass for that, which rather defies belief as you say you are against more govt.

No one here should ever take my attacks on govt. in religion as an attack on the individual right to worship on your own. I think I have said this like 50 times now

[strandinthewind]

Originally Posted by ajmccarrell

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.

So, if they should print her history (a big if according to you) - then Americans should just read what she has said and have no discussion or thought about it because that discussion or thought will lead to opinions, which you apparently equate to smearing, which is the same as censorship to you? Or, maybe just the favorable opinions should be allowed.

Again, utter crapola.