Palin is another Jesus Freak

[gldstwmn]

Originally Posted by strandinthewind

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.

True. I mean look at Obama's past drug use. He admitted it and now the story is over and done with.

[gldstwmn]

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.

Oprah? The same Oprah that had Arnold Schwarzenegger on her show? It's her show, not the nightly news so Oprah can do what she wants with it. If Sarah Barracuda can't stand the heat from Charlie Gibson then she'd have a hell of a time on Oprah. Oprah's doing her a favor.
I didn't know I was a "liberal blogger."

[Sorceress]

Catching up on this thread has been interesting. One thing stuck out to me:

Originally Posted by ajmccarrell

McCain is usually too nice to people, much like Eisenhower.

Really? I've never heard anyone call McCain too nice before. If anything, he's infamous for his temper. Of course, in this campaign, he has to hide that aspect of his personality and thus needs a nasty surrogate--Sarah Barracuda.

Here's the first thing that comes up when you google "McCain temper:" http://blog.case.edu/conservativemov...per_explosions

[Dreamz19]

Originally Posted by gldstwmn

Oprah? The same Oprah that had Arnold Scharwenegger on her show? It's her show, not the nightly news so Oprah can do what she wants with it. If Sarah Barracuda can't stand the heat from Charlie Gibson then she'd have a hell of a time on Oprah. Oprah's doing her a favor.
I didn't know I was a "liberal blogger."

Oprah even had Bush on her show back in 2000. However, she hasn't had any canadiate on her show this election. The last time Obama was there was back in 2006.

[Mad4stevie]

Originally Posted by strandinthewind

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.

I really do not understand how people get so wrapped up in the abortion views of the Presidential hopefulls. Everyone panics about this topic. I feel that there is no way that Roe will be overturned. My God, for this to actually happen there are so many variables that would need to fall into place. Even with the right of the President to appoint judges, it is highly unlikely they would be able to "pack the Court" to the extent where it would be even possible to consider overturning this precedent. Even with the conservative Republican presidents that we have had over the last 25+ years, and their numerous appointments to the Court, there has not been any ability to change things in this area.

To overturn Roe would be to essentially overturn many other rulings that are based on that same penumbra right to privacy, which started its life in the 1960's. I cannot invision a court who would overturn this general precedent.

When people use this topic as a way to polarize voters, they do it because it is a sure way to get people fired up and emotional. Many people have no idea about how the government works in this area - I have seen this time and time again in the college classroom. People think that if a candidate says he is pro-life, he will just pass a law that will restrict abortion.

States already decide what restrictions can be placed on abortion in their state with such issues as parental notification, etc.

[gldstwmn]

See more Gina Gershon videos at Funny or Die

[gldstwmn]

[strandinthewind]

Originally Posted by Mad4stevie

I really do not understand how people get so wrapped up in the abortion views of the Presidential hopefulls. Everyone panics about this topic. I feel that there is no way that Roe will be overturned. My God, for this to actually happen there are so many variables that would need to fall into place. Even with the right of the President to appoint judges, it is highly unlikely they would be able to "pack the Court" to the extent where it would be even possible to consider overturning this precedent. Even with the conservative Republican presidents that we have had over the last 25+ years, and their numerous appointments to the Court, there has not been any ability to change things in this area.

To overturn Roe would be to essentially overturn many other rulings that are based on that same penumbra right to privacy, which started its life in the 1960's. I cannot invision a court who would overturn this general precedent.

When people use this topic as a way to polarize voters, they do it because it is a sure way to get people fired up and emotional. Many people have no idea about how the government works in this area - I have seen this time and time again in the college classroom. People think that if a candidate says he is pro-life, he will just pass a law that will restrict abortion.

States already decide what restrictions can be placed on abortion in their state with such issues as parental notification, etc.

With respect, I think you are incorrect.

I think one more conservative Justice and Roe is gone. Can you honestly say that Scalia, Thomas, Alito, Roberts are not going to vote to overturn Roe? I suppose it is fair to say the last two are somewhat untested in the USSC (but not elsewhere). But, Scalia and his lapdog Thomas have clearly demonstrated they want Roe and the entire Right to Privacy gone and they have consistently votes as such

From a practicle point of view, it would be a horrible thing in its ripple effects that you noticed. The only certain thing is that it will fill the coffers of both parties for decades as it has done in the past.

In the end, you are correct, the Pres. will never have the power to pass a Federal Law banning abortion. The power of the Pres on this issue mainly exists in the power to appoint members of the Court and, as mentioned above, all it will take is one more appointment, which almost certainly will happen in the next four years with Kennedy at 72 years old and, mor eimportantly, Stevens at 88 years old.

So, to suggest that "it is highly unlikely they would be able to "pack the Court" to the extent where it would be even possible to consider overturning this precedent" is, with repsect, incorrect.

As for precedent itself, I think most judges and Justices use that when it is convenient, sort of like the term "strict construction" and "states rights" a la the R party trying to usurp the power of state of Florida in the Terri Schiavo matter. Regardless of whether the Florida courts were correct, the decision was solely within the jurisdiction of Florida in that case. But, the R's could not abide that. The R's saw the religious cash cow the issue presented as well as the wrath and potential loss of the Christian far right on which they based their hold on power. So, the R's used the Federal Courts to try and overturn Florida Law. So, I think precedent is used in a similar manner.

[strandinthewind]

Originally Posted by Mad4stevie

. . . States already decide what restrictions can be placed on abortion in their state with such issues as parental notification, etc.

. . . subject to Federal Review and existing Federal law. Without this Federal Law, clearly the majority of states would ban abortion and the right to privacy. Women will die as a result. Civil Rights will diminish as a result.

With respect, are you actually believing this? I know you are pretty conservative, but clearly you know the law better than this

Also, how are ya?

[mylittledemon]

I find it disturbing that we live in a nation that is supposed to be about "freedom of religion" and yet, it's viewed as a weakness to believe in God and to publicly say so. How many of us would mock a child when he or she says they believe in Santa Claus? Maybe Santa Claus IS real.

I for one don't want an agnostic or an atheist in public office. I don't believe that that belief falls in line with the majority of the American people. I would also add that the majority of Americans would agree on that point.

I also strongly believe that we shouldn't presume to know what the will of God is, unless he comes down to speak to you personally in front of lots of people. It's when you start using God as a means to your own gain (Whats that guy? Smiling Preacher Osteen?), to pass your own legislature (Ahem...Jessie Helms), or affect your law making decisions that this becomes a scarier issue.

I *think* I saw Palin on TV stressing the importance that she would never presume to say what the will of God IS. None of us can. But we do live in a nation where freedom of religion is being threatened by this idea that those who believe God is real are "freaks" or A-1 nutballs.

So what if God is real? Sit and ponder on that thought for a moment. What if God IS real and everything that you fight so strongly against believing is actually real. Maybe you choose not to believe because of what happened to you in your past. How can a loving God allow so much suffering and war to take place? Now, here we've come full circle...none of us can presume to know the will of God is. We may never get those answers in this life. But maybe you can presume to know what the will of God is for your own life. And there's nothing wrong with believing in that.

I went a bit off topic there...I know the original topic was Palin. I'm not necessarily supporting her, just her right to believe what she wants to.

[strandinthewind]

I find it disturbing that we live in a nation that is supposed to be about "freedom of religion" and yet, it's viewed as a weakness to believe in God and to publicly say so.

. . .

I *think* I saw Palin on TV stressing the importance that she would never presume to say what the will of God IS. None of us can. But we do live in a nation where freedom of religion is being threatened by this idea that those who believe God is real are "freaks" or A-1 nutballs. [/QUOTE]

No one I know is saying that any American does not have the right to worship whatever, however, and whenever they want. Therefore, there is no loss of personal religious freedom

The sole arguement is against people like Palin forcing another American to believe what they believe. Palin has demonstrated a propensity to this by saying she wants to appoint judges who will overturn Roe and that she does not believe in abortion in any instance. That is putting her religious beliefs into law

She also fired a librarian for saying he would not ban a book that went against her religious beliefs. Once again, that is putting her religious beliefs into law Moreover, it is taking away the religious freedomn of others by denying them access to a books that support their religions.

Originally Posted by mylittledemon

I for one don't want an agnostic or an atheist in public office. I don't believe that that belief falls in line with the majority of the American people. I would also add that the majority of Americans would agree on that point.

With respect, the majority of Americans wants slavery, they wanted to deny women the right to vote, etc.

Originally Posted by mylittledemon

It's when you start using God as a means to your own gain (Whats that guy? Smiling Preacher Osteen?), to pass your own legislature (Ahem...Jessie Helms), or affect your law making decisions that this becomes a scarier issue.

I'd ad to that list firing a librarian because they said they would not ban a book that she found to be contrary to her religious beliefs

Originally Posted by mylittledemon

. . . just her right to believe what she wants to.

I totally agree she is perfectly entitled to believe what she wants to believe, but she is taking a step further as discussed above.

I also think that when she invokes the name of God, she is doing so for one purpose, which is to excite the far Christian right, of which she is member. To imply that is wrong for the mid to left wing people to call her on that or term it as "viewed as a weakness to believe in God and to publicly say so" is incorrect.

In the end, the sooner religion is out of public law, the freer we all will be to worship as we choose. Yet, when I say that, people automatically presume I hate God, never go to Church, etc. Nothing could be further from the truth.

[strandinthewind]

Originally Posted by mylittledemon

. . . So what if God is real? Sit and ponder on that thought for a moment. What if God IS real and everything that you fight so strongly against believing is actually real. Maybe you choose not to believe because of what happened to you in your past. How can a loving God allow so much suffering and war to take place? Now, here we've come full circle...none of us can presume to know the will of God is. We may never get those answers in this life. But maybe you can presume to know what the will of God is for your own life. And there's nothing wrong with believing in that . . . .

I agree that there is nothing wrong with believing in God. I just do not want the govt. telling me I have to. Those are wildly different issues and America was founded on the very idea that people should be free to worship without govt. intrusion. Palin and the R party are not upholding that ideal in any way though they may gove it lip service

[mylittledemon]

Originally Posted by strandinthewind

I agree that there is nothing wrong with believing in God. I just do not want the govt. telling me I have to. Those are wildly different issues and America was founded on the very idea that people should be free to worship without govt. intrusion. Palin and the R party are not upholding that ideal in any way though they may gove it lip service

Good Lord...8 years on here and I still cant figure out how to do the damn quotes...

I should've started off by saying, I didnt mean to say that these were PALIN's beliefs. Everything I said was just my 2 cents on the matter.

The majority of Americans want slaves and want women to not be able to vote? What century are we living in? Where are these people? If this is true, it's just one more reason I don't want to live in this country anymore.

If you take "religion" completely out of public law...then anyone who holds an office would have to be an agnostic. If you believe in God, it's part of the fiber of your being. It's going to affect what you believe, maybe some of the choices and decisions you have to make. If you believe abortion is wrong, then you're going to vote against it. If the majority of Americans say abortion is legal, then it should stay that way. Some things you just can't change because you feel it's wrong. Let it be on the abortionist heads if that's how you feel about it.

[BombaySapphire3]

Originally Posted by mylittledemon

I find it disturbing that we live in a nation that is supposed to be about "freedom of religion" and yet, it's viewed as a weakness to believe in God and to publicly say so. How many of us would mock a child when he or she says they believe in Santa Claus? Maybe Santa Claus IS real.

I for one don't want an agnostic or an atheist in public office. I don't believe that that belief falls in line with the majority of the American people. I would also add that the majority of Americans would agree on that point.



I *think* I saw Palin on TV stressing the importance that she would never presume to say what the will of God IS. None of us can. But we do live in a nation where freedom of religion is being threatened by this idea that those who believe God is real are "freaks" or A-1 nutballs.

If an adult in a leadership position in this country wishes to believe in Santa Claus that is fine by me ..however when that belief impacts my life by their legislating how they think I should live my life according to the teachings of Santa Claus then I have a problem .By you stating you don't think an atheist or agnostic should be in public office you are doing exactly what you are accusing us of..major discrimination.I think people should be allowed to believe or worship how they wish ..ie: I could care less if Obama is indeed a Moslem ..I like his policies so I'll vote for him as long as his beliefs don't affect his policies in a way that curtails the freedom of others..I or most non believers are not trying to thearten your religious freedom..we just don't want your religion threatening our freedom ..If you want to see how a theocracy works I'd suggest a trip to Iran.

[strandinthewind]

The majority of Americans want slaves and want women to not be able to vote? What century are we living in? Where are these people? If this is true, it's just one more reason I don't want to live in this country anymore.

This was the tenor of the times when these were the big issues. My point was public opinion rarely is for change

If you take "religion" completely out of public law...then anyone who holds an office would have to be an agnostic.

No. America is guided by the rule of law, which stems from the Constitution, which expressly prohibits the establishment of a religion.

If you believe in God, it's part of the fiber of your being. It's going to affect what you believe. If you believe abortion is wrong, then you're going to vote against it. If the majority of Americans say abortion is legal, then it should stay that way. Some things you just can't change because you feel it's wrong. Let it be on the abortionist heads if that's how you feel about it.

Well, no. At least no in the sense that the fiber of your being cannot be against the law, which is that the govt. cannot establish a religion.

Again, I think you, like many, confuse this with me or anyone else telling you it is not okay to be a Christian. Put it this way, what if a Wiccan took office? Would it be okay for them to vote as a Wiccan on every issue? Of course it would not be okay. So, why is it okay for a Christian to do that?

Note - I am not slamming you - just pointing out why America is governed by the rule of law, which often is contrary to public opinion. The alternative is a mob rules mentality, which is great when it goes your way

On edit - you edited - may I keep this in?