[QUOTE][QUOTENAME]Zebonka12 wrote: [/QUOTENAME]Haha. Knocked Up.[/QUOTE]
Maybe she was trying to join the Jamie Lynn Spears club (csp?)
Thread
Posts in chronological order
[QUOTE][QUOTENAME]Mr.Jingles wrote: [/QUOTENAME][QUOTE][QUOTENAME]Holly2003 wrote: [/QUOTENAME]This woman cannot be trusted: look what she has named her children.
Trig
Track
Willow
Piper
Bristol
What's up with that shit? Those aren't American names. Unless they are named after oilfields, I would suggest they're some kind of commie names -- possible code for something about gay marriage.
[/QUOTE]
Did she name her kids after Santa's raindeers?
I don't mind McCain, but what the fuck was he thinking when he picked this woman? Here's this ultra conservative woman who apparently didn't raise her daughter properly enough to tell her to keep her panties on (since safe sex is not an option according to Palin's moral code).
I appreciate McCain's "reaching across the aisle" approach, but at his age there's the possibility that he might croak while in office. I seriously don't want to see in the White House a woman with a 1950s mentality whose "family values" don't seem to even work at home, let alone the entire nation.[/QUOTE] Ofcourse people like John Edwards who cheats on his cancer ridden wife and Eliot Spitzer who consorts with prostitutes have such wholesome "family values". Their behaviour must be the end result of not receiving any progressive sex ed in high school.
Trig
Track
Willow
Piper
Bristol
What's up with that shit? Those aren't American names. Unless they are named after oilfields, I would suggest they're some kind of commie names -- possible code for something about gay marriage.
[/QUOTE]
Did she name her kids after Santa's raindeers?
I don't mind McCain, but what the fuck was he thinking when he picked this woman? Here's this ultra conservative woman who apparently didn't raise her daughter properly enough to tell her to keep her panties on (since safe sex is not an option according to Palin's moral code).
I appreciate McCain's "reaching across the aisle" approach, but at his age there's the possibility that he might croak while in office. I seriously don't want to see in the White House a woman with a 1950s mentality whose "family values" don't seem to even work at home, let alone the entire nation.[/QUOTE] Ofcourse people like John Edwards who cheats on his cancer ridden wife and Eliot Spitzer who consorts with prostitutes have such wholesome "family values". Their behaviour must be the end result of not receiving any progressive sex ed in high school.
[QUOTE][QUOTENAME]MasterHistoryGirl wrote: [/QUOTENAME]You know, I swear that McCain is ACTIVELY trying to lose this election:
1) Palin has retained a private lawyer to represent her in the investigation over her alleged abuse of power.
2) She was a member of a group for 2 years that has tried to push for secession from the US.
3) And have you guys seen the church video she's got out? In June she spoke to the graduating class from her home church (in her official capacity as governor, not as a private citizen). In the speech, she says that the soldiers in Iraq are sent there "by our national leaders on a mission from God, and we have to pray that God's will be done" and that, apparently, God also wills companies to unite to build the Alaska oil pipeline.
The video is at: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/09/02/palins-church-may-have-sh_n_123205.html
I realize it comes from an ultra-liberal blog. But you don't have to read the blog. In fact, I recommend not reading it. Just scroll down the page until you find the video (taken straight from the church's website) and watch what she says.
*Shudders*[/QUOTE] No Mrs. Palin was not a member of the Alaska Independence Party. That lie was debunked before the end of the day. But Walter Hickel was http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Walter_Hickel He was twice elected governor of Alaska and served as Secretary Of The Interior under President Nixon. Bulletin, according to Michael Moore and Donald Fowler former chairmen of the democratic party Hurricane Gustav was proof god was on the side of the democrats. I wonder if any of you have ever read or listened to Franklin Roosevelts D-Day prayer? I doubt it. A quote "With Thy blessings we shall prevail over the unholy forces of our enemy". I wonder though what the Almighty thought about Bill Clinton sending 20,000 troops to Haiti in 1994 in order to return drug trafficker and Fidel Castro lover Jean Bertrand Aristide to power?
1) Palin has retained a private lawyer to represent her in the investigation over her alleged abuse of power.
2) She was a member of a group for 2 years that has tried to push for secession from the US.
3) And have you guys seen the church video she's got out? In June she spoke to the graduating class from her home church (in her official capacity as governor, not as a private citizen). In the speech, she says that the soldiers in Iraq are sent there "by our national leaders on a mission from God, and we have to pray that God's will be done" and that, apparently, God also wills companies to unite to build the Alaska oil pipeline.
The video is at: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/09/02/palins-church-may-have-sh_n_123205.html
I realize it comes from an ultra-liberal blog. But you don't have to read the blog. In fact, I recommend not reading it. Just scroll down the page until you find the video (taken straight from the church's website) and watch what she says.
*Shudders*[/QUOTE] No Mrs. Palin was not a member of the Alaska Independence Party. That lie was debunked before the end of the day. But Walter Hickel was http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Walter_Hickel He was twice elected governor of Alaska and served as Secretary Of The Interior under President Nixon. Bulletin, according to Michael Moore and Donald Fowler former chairmen of the democratic party Hurricane Gustav was proof god was on the side of the democrats. I wonder if any of you have ever read or listened to Franklin Roosevelts D-Day prayer? I doubt it. A quote "With Thy blessings we shall prevail over the unholy forces of our enemy". I wonder though what the Almighty thought about Bill Clinton sending 20,000 troops to Haiti in 1994 in order to return drug trafficker and Fidel Castro lover Jean Bertrand Aristide to power?
[QUOTE][QUOTENAME]MasterHistoryGirl wrote: [/QUOTENAME]
I realize it comes from an ultra-liberal blog. But you don't have to read the blog. In fact, I recommend not reading it. Just scroll down the page until you find the video (taken straight from the church's website) and watch what she says.
*Shudders* [/QUOTE]
Shudder for sure.
The gathering at which she spoke on this video was the graduation service of the Wasilla Assembly of God's "School of Ministry, Master's Commission Wasilla Alaska."
Now... has anyone seen the "Masters Commission" video or "trailer" If not, check it out -
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xJnhRhJW35o
I realize it comes from an ultra-liberal blog. But you don't have to read the blog. In fact, I recommend not reading it. Just scroll down the page until you find the video (taken straight from the church's website) and watch what she says.
*Shudders* [/QUOTE]
Shudder for sure.
The gathering at which she spoke on this video was the graduation service of the Wasilla Assembly of God's "School of Ministry, Master's Commission Wasilla Alaska."
Now... has anyone seen the "Masters Commission" video or "trailer" If not, check it out -
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xJnhRhJW35o
@ Charlie Brown...there is a VAST difference between the tie you try to make to Bill Clinton and his sending troops to Haiti. He NEVER claimed that God told him to do it. He NEVER said that he was on a "mission from God" to do what he did. He mentioned God as much as any President; in this white Puritan-founded nation a president can't get away without doing that a few times (rather unfortunately, I think, but that's another matter).
Mentioning God, and even praying to him before a major advance like D-Day is COMPLETELY different than saying that it's "God's Will" that you invade someone, and that the soldiers are on a "mission from God". God has nothing to do with the process; and trying to attribute things like this to God only leads to the worst bloodshed in human history. I'm not saying bad stuff can't happen if you don't attribute it to God, but if you think you are on some kind of crusade for the Almighty, you aren't likely to stop no matter how much proof is provided that what you are doing is a BAD move. (See any number of historical events for proof: I'd recommend the Bloodshed of the Crusades, Protestant Reformation Massacres and various Bloody Inquisitions)
Saying that something is "God's Will" is a cop out. It shows a DANGEROUS lack of thought about the action, a complete failure to consider the consequences of your events, and an unwillingness to let any contrary proofs or events sway you. I don't know about you, but I've had ENOUGH of that type of thinking for the last 8 years; with this woman occupying a position where she is a breath away from the Presidency (as McCain is in his 70's), this is the last thing I think most Americans want to see.
Mentioning God, and even praying to him before a major advance like D-Day is COMPLETELY different than saying that it's "God's Will" that you invade someone, and that the soldiers are on a "mission from God". God has nothing to do with the process; and trying to attribute things like this to God only leads to the worst bloodshed in human history. I'm not saying bad stuff can't happen if you don't attribute it to God, but if you think you are on some kind of crusade for the Almighty, you aren't likely to stop no matter how much proof is provided that what you are doing is a BAD move. (See any number of historical events for proof: I'd recommend the Bloodshed of the Crusades, Protestant Reformation Massacres and various Bloody Inquisitions)
Saying that something is "God's Will" is a cop out. It shows a DANGEROUS lack of thought about the action, a complete failure to consider the consequences of your events, and an unwillingness to let any contrary proofs or events sway you. I don't know about you, but I've had ENOUGH of that type of thinking for the last 8 years; with this woman occupying a position where she is a breath away from the Presidency (as McCain is in his 70's), this is the last thing I think most Americans want to see.
[QUOTE][QUOTENAME]Charlie Brown wrote: [/QUOTENAME][QUOTE][QUOTENAME]Mr.Jingles wrote: [/QUOTENAME][QUOTE][QUOTENAME]Holly2003 wrote: [/QUOTENAME]This woman cannot be trusted: look what she has named her children.
Trig
Track
Willow
Piper
Bristol
What's up with that shit? Those aren't American names. Unless they are named after oilfields, I would suggest they're some kind of commie names -- possible code for something about gay marriage.
[/QUOTE]
Did she name her kids after Santa's raindeers?
I don't mind McCain, but what the fuck was he thinking when he picked this woman? Here's this ultra conservative woman who apparently didn't raise her daughter properly enough to tell her to keep her panties on (since safe sex is not an option according to Palin's moral code).
I appreciate McCain's "reaching across the aisle" approach, but at his age there's the possibility that he might croak while in office. I seriously don't want to see in the White House a woman with a 1950s mentality whose "family values" don't seem to even work at home, let alone the entire nation.[/QUOTE] Ofcourse people like John Edwards who cheats on his cancer ridden wife and Eliot Spitzer who consorts with prostitutes have such wholesome "family values". Their behaviour must be the end result of not receiving any progressive sex ed in high school.[/QUOTE]
John Edwards is not waving the "family values flag" and rubbing it on people's faces. For a woman who has such a hard issue on sex-ed by putting abstinence as the only option, Sarah Palin is an absolute embarrassment as the role model she wants to make of a mother.
I'm not defending John Edwards. Cheating is always despicable, especially when you're married and your wife is suffering of a life threatening disease. However, John Edwards was not telling men to stay loyal to their wives.
Eliiot Spitzer comes across as hypocrite for cracking down on prostitution, and then hiring a escort service.
Trig
Track
Willow
Piper
Bristol
What's up with that shit? Those aren't American names. Unless they are named after oilfields, I would suggest they're some kind of commie names -- possible code for something about gay marriage.
[/QUOTE]
Did she name her kids after Santa's raindeers?
I don't mind McCain, but what the fuck was he thinking when he picked this woman? Here's this ultra conservative woman who apparently didn't raise her daughter properly enough to tell her to keep her panties on (since safe sex is not an option according to Palin's moral code).
I appreciate McCain's "reaching across the aisle" approach, but at his age there's the possibility that he might croak while in office. I seriously don't want to see in the White House a woman with a 1950s mentality whose "family values" don't seem to even work at home, let alone the entire nation.[/QUOTE] Ofcourse people like John Edwards who cheats on his cancer ridden wife and Eliot Spitzer who consorts with prostitutes have such wholesome "family values". Their behaviour must be the end result of not receiving any progressive sex ed in high school.[/QUOTE]
John Edwards is not waving the "family values flag" and rubbing it on people's faces. For a woman who has such a hard issue on sex-ed by putting abstinence as the only option, Sarah Palin is an absolute embarrassment as the role model she wants to make of a mother.
I'm not defending John Edwards. Cheating is always despicable, especially when you're married and your wife is suffering of a life threatening disease. However, John Edwards was not telling men to stay loyal to their wives.
Eliiot Spitzer comes across as hypocrite for cracking down on prostitution, and then hiring a escort service.
She's still fuckable, but she's a mental case.
[QUOTE][QUOTENAME]Microbrain wrote: [/QUOTENAME][QUOTE][QUOTENAME]The Mir@cle wrote: [/QUOTENAME][QUOTE][QUOTENAME]iron eagle wrote: [/QUOTENAME]it helps shore up the conservative wing of the party--[/QUOTE]
How will that wing react hearing that her 17-years old daughter is pregnant? Having sex before marriage at that age? :O[/QUOTE]
I dunno. Probably the same way they react to Obama being born when his momma was 18 and unmarried. [/QUOTE]
Yeah, the difference being that they were never going to vote for Obama in the first place ("Wha? Yer 'spectin' me ter go vote fer a niggur? Get m'gun, momma!").
How will that wing react hearing that her 17-years old daughter is pregnant? Having sex before marriage at that age? :O[/QUOTE]
I dunno. Probably the same way they react to Obama being born when his momma was 18 and unmarried. [/QUOTE]
Yeah, the difference being that they were never going to vote for Obama in the first place ("Wha? Yer 'spectin' me ter go vote fer a niggur? Get m'gun, momma!").
[QUOTE][QUOTENAME]MasterHistoryGirl wrote: [/QUOTENAME]
Mentioning God, and even praying to him before a major advance like D-Day is COMPLETELY different than saying that it's "God's Will" that you invade someone, and that the soldiers are on a "mission from God". God has nothing to do with the process; and trying to attribute things like this to God only leads to the worst bloodshed in human history. [/QUOTE]
Whoa, whoa, whoa...
(1) She was speaking to a church group in Alaska. Maybe about 30-40 people. You make it sound like she started a cult, armed a militia, and grabbed a crucifix, then began the assault.
(2) Tell the millions of muslims that "God has nothing to do with this process".
Every critic wants to sit back and say the same thing, that and blame oil for this war. Go over there. Once you're there, you'd see this has nothing to do with oil. Oil is a side player. This has EVERYTHING to do about God... and it has for hundreds of years. I don't think I need to elaborate on that here. There are hundreds of websites & thousands of books chronicling the history of the Middle East.
You're worried because our new VP told 30-40 people this? C'mon! What did Biden have to say?
"Let's go to war!"
then later
"Let's not".
Mentioning God, and even praying to him before a major advance like D-Day is COMPLETELY different than saying that it's "God's Will" that you invade someone, and that the soldiers are on a "mission from God". God has nothing to do with the process; and trying to attribute things like this to God only leads to the worst bloodshed in human history. [/QUOTE]
Whoa, whoa, whoa...
(1) She was speaking to a church group in Alaska. Maybe about 30-40 people. You make it sound like she started a cult, armed a militia, and grabbed a crucifix, then began the assault.
(2) Tell the millions of muslims that "God has nothing to do with this process".
Every critic wants to sit back and say the same thing, that and blame oil for this war. Go over there. Once you're there, you'd see this has nothing to do with oil. Oil is a side player. This has EVERYTHING to do about God... and it has for hundreds of years. I don't think I need to elaborate on that here. There are hundreds of websites & thousands of books chronicling the history of the Middle East.
You're worried because our new VP told 30-40 people this? C'mon! What did Biden have to say?
"Let's go to war!"
then later
"Let's not".
[QUOTE][QUOTENAME]Microwave wrote: [/QUOTENAME]
Whoa, whoa, whoa...
(1) She was speaking to a church group in Alaska. Maybe about 30-40 people. You make it sound like she started a cult, armed a militia, and grabbed a crucifix, then began the assault.[/QUOTE]
...and that's where she should stay, in a church.
If those are her views, fine, go ahead and say whatever you want. There's a first amendment that gives you the right to say anything you want despite of how absurd or ignorant it might sound. Words don't hurt people, but giving someone like Palin a position of power where she will enforce her views is indeed dangerous.
Do we want someone with such radical views to lead the nation?... HELL NO!!
Whoa, whoa, whoa...
(1) She was speaking to a church group in Alaska. Maybe about 30-40 people. You make it sound like she started a cult, armed a militia, and grabbed a crucifix, then began the assault.[/QUOTE]
...and that's where she should stay, in a church.
If those are her views, fine, go ahead and say whatever you want. There's a first amendment that gives you the right to say anything you want despite of how absurd or ignorant it might sound. Words don't hurt people, but giving someone like Palin a position of power where she will enforce her views is indeed dangerous.
Do we want someone with such radical views to lead the nation?... HELL NO!!
[QUOTE][QUOTENAME]Mr.Jingles wrote: [/QUOTENAME]
...enforce her views...
Do we want someone with such radical views to lead the nation?... HELL NO!![/QUOTE]
Well, Congress has to declare war, so she'd have to convince THEM that we're on God's mission.
The Vice President does not:
(1) declare War
(2) make laws and pass legislation
And you, Jingles, are one of those "Change is NOW" people. You want Change. Obama is your beacon of hope for Change.
Only a radical is going to change anything.
Either you want change or you don't. You're confusing me.
Also, how does one "enforce her views"? Did Bush "enforce his views?" If so, how?
...enforce her views...
Do we want someone with such radical views to lead the nation?... HELL NO!![/QUOTE]
Well, Congress has to declare war, so she'd have to convince THEM that we're on God's mission.
The Vice President does not:
(1) declare War
(2) make laws and pass legislation
And you, Jingles, are one of those "Change is NOW" people. You want Change. Obama is your beacon of hope for Change.
Only a radical is going to change anything.
Either you want change or you don't. You're confusing me.
Also, how does one "enforce her views"? Did Bush "enforce his views?" If so, how?
hmmm...I may be wrong on this one point, but I think the President can send troops anywhere at any time for any reason, or no good reason, and has 90 days to justify it to Congress & get their stamp of approval. It's a fact that Iraq never violated the sovereign territory of the US. Or...think contras vs sandinistas. Ronald Reagan was a coke dealer, and Oliver North was his mule.
as for the VP not declaring war or passing legislation, that's a really beautiful theory, but in the real world the last 11 yrs, the answer is Dick Cheney. see: Iraq War, USA Patriot Act. Pay great attention to the man behind the curtain in the remote location. Cheney's been involved in the Trilateral Project since the Nixon administration. He just happens to be carrying the ball this time around. Would Palin be different? Of course. She's McCain's third trophy wife, and that's all.
how does Palin enforce her views, eg Wasilla Master's Commission? by using inflammatory rhetoric TOTALLY devoid of scriptural exegesis, claiming YHVH chose AK as a 'refuge' state during judgement day. this is literally leading the sheep to the slaughter. When the massive surge in solar flare activity happens, rather violently creating "a new heaven and a new earth," try not to be anywhere north of the equator. No, I can't say when exactly that will be, but based on the evidence available to me, Palin seems completely ignorant of Psalm 24. Studying P24 might be one way for her to reach out to Eskimo citizens in AK that have a different perspective on the environment than herself. Or is Palin just a classic example of "white is right" prejudice in the USA?
How does Bush enforce his views? other than calling relatives in the media to report inaccurate vote tallies in FL, try the No Child Left Behind Act. Which could be called the Every Child Left Behind Act. Ask any teacher in rural USA with the tax base eroded by the export of jobs. Visit Preston County, WV or Fayette County, PA and speak with elementary & high school teachers. Witholding funding-- and the threat of it-- is how Bush enforces his views. (BTW, Happy Birthday Lisser!) Or, try touting terribly inadequate intelligence work re:enriched uranium, and Valerie Plame-Wilson. Who is the modern Machiavelli? Karl Rove.
Palin also is in the crowd that chooses to think homosexuality is a "choice" that can be "cured." Now, let's think about that, Queenzoners!
How would this view get enforced? Very subtly, then very openly -- take your pick of any number of changes in federal funding that affect San Francisco. The election of McPalin would result in an even greater stream of homophobic discourse in America (Ann Coulter very briefly comes to mind), and an increase in homophobic acts of violence. Additionally, there would be war with Iran, and we would see pictures of Iranian children on CNN, maimed by the US military. It's commendable that Palin asks folks to pray for servicemen & servicewomen in harm's way--I'll take her advice there--but it's the selectivity she does it with that's a problem. Has Sarah Palin ever asked anyone to pray that homosexuals in the US military be protected from harm? Or from prejudice? It would be a real test to see if she's actually on the path. Palin is NOT a princess in any sense of the word.
Microwave, I totally agree with you that Obama is not a source of true, lasting political change for the US, although the exception should be improved race relations. Seriously, I respect your point of view, and I'm not trying to be sarcastic with you or flame you! I apologize if I sound that way. Still Obama's the better choice. But, MasterHistoryGirl and MagicalFreddieMercury make more relevant points imho. As for the stereotype Thomas Quinn refers to...sadly, oh sh*t. Palin's just a more sophisticated example. I remember footage from around our primary and some folks are 'convinced' Obama's a closet Muslim. If that's true...shouldn't we have better diplomatic relations with the Middle East as a result? And, cheap oil again?
So, as for the Iraq war being about religion and not oil, well, I sort of agree. I'm not a socialist, mostly libertarian. Saddam Hussein didn't want any Shiites OR Sunnis in power -- as a Baathist, he was in favor of secular Pan-Arab unity, envisioning a post-modern Ottoman Empire that could rival the Asian powers and the West, with oil supply as its main leverage. BRIC nations (Brazil, Russia, India & China) are changing the way the US acquires natural resources through competition. Thus, the Iraq War is about the religion of US politicians: the $$$$$$.
as for the VP not declaring war or passing legislation, that's a really beautiful theory, but in the real world the last 11 yrs, the answer is Dick Cheney. see: Iraq War, USA Patriot Act. Pay great attention to the man behind the curtain in the remote location. Cheney's been involved in the Trilateral Project since the Nixon administration. He just happens to be carrying the ball this time around. Would Palin be different? Of course. She's McCain's third trophy wife, and that's all.
how does Palin enforce her views, eg Wasilla Master's Commission? by using inflammatory rhetoric TOTALLY devoid of scriptural exegesis, claiming YHVH chose AK as a 'refuge' state during judgement day. this is literally leading the sheep to the slaughter. When the massive surge in solar flare activity happens, rather violently creating "a new heaven and a new earth," try not to be anywhere north of the equator. No, I can't say when exactly that will be, but based on the evidence available to me, Palin seems completely ignorant of Psalm 24. Studying P24 might be one way for her to reach out to Eskimo citizens in AK that have a different perspective on the environment than herself. Or is Palin just a classic example of "white is right" prejudice in the USA?
How does Bush enforce his views? other than calling relatives in the media to report inaccurate vote tallies in FL, try the No Child Left Behind Act. Which could be called the Every Child Left Behind Act. Ask any teacher in rural USA with the tax base eroded by the export of jobs. Visit Preston County, WV or Fayette County, PA and speak with elementary & high school teachers. Witholding funding-- and the threat of it-- is how Bush enforces his views. (BTW, Happy Birthday Lisser!) Or, try touting terribly inadequate intelligence work re:enriched uranium, and Valerie Plame-Wilson. Who is the modern Machiavelli? Karl Rove.
Palin also is in the crowd that chooses to think homosexuality is a "choice" that can be "cured." Now, let's think about that, Queenzoners!
How would this view get enforced? Very subtly, then very openly -- take your pick of any number of changes in federal funding that affect San Francisco. The election of McPalin would result in an even greater stream of homophobic discourse in America (Ann Coulter very briefly comes to mind), and an increase in homophobic acts of violence. Additionally, there would be war with Iran, and we would see pictures of Iranian children on CNN, maimed by the US military. It's commendable that Palin asks folks to pray for servicemen & servicewomen in harm's way--I'll take her advice there--but it's the selectivity she does it with that's a problem. Has Sarah Palin ever asked anyone to pray that homosexuals in the US military be protected from harm? Or from prejudice? It would be a real test to see if she's actually on the path. Palin is NOT a princess in any sense of the word.
Microwave, I totally agree with you that Obama is not a source of true, lasting political change for the US, although the exception should be improved race relations. Seriously, I respect your point of view, and I'm not trying to be sarcastic with you or flame you! I apologize if I sound that way. Still Obama's the better choice. But, MasterHistoryGirl and MagicalFreddieMercury make more relevant points imho. As for the stereotype Thomas Quinn refers to...sadly, oh sh*t. Palin's just a more sophisticated example. I remember footage from around our primary and some folks are 'convinced' Obama's a closet Muslim. If that's true...shouldn't we have better diplomatic relations with the Middle East as a result? And, cheap oil again?
So, as for the Iraq war being about religion and not oil, well, I sort of agree. I'm not a socialist, mostly libertarian. Saddam Hussein didn't want any Shiites OR Sunnis in power -- as a Baathist, he was in favor of secular Pan-Arab unity, envisioning a post-modern Ottoman Empire that could rival the Asian powers and the West, with oil supply as its main leverage. BRIC nations (Brazil, Russia, India & China) are changing the way the US acquires natural resources through competition. Thus, the Iraq War is about the religion of US politicians: the $$$$$$.
Sheesh, I go out of town and away from the internet for a few days and this one comes back. :-) OK, well Danny has just about covered it, but here's my response Microwave.
1) I never implied she started a cult. If you read my post, you will see that I fully admit that she was in a church, and politicians when speaking in churches always say things that would be shocking outside of it. So some leeway is granted. But when she is a member of a church that believes that Alaska is going to be a "safe state" during Armageddon and will serve as the re-staging point for humanity after the ultimate battle with the Devil and says these things to it's audience, it's hard to give her the leeway of "Well, it was a church audience." I do not want ANYONE who believes that God has anything to do with this anywhere near a position of power.
2) I fully agree with you that the war is about religious beliefs. Remember, you are speaking to a student of Middle Eastern History several times over; I'm well aware of the history of the region and the cause of this conflict. But, I ask you, what happens when two sides scream that "God Wills It!" at the top of their lungs, killing each other constantly in the process and trying to out-scream the other? Answer? More killing, more death. The only way to stop the process is to remove this point of view from the equation. The Islamic Extemists think that Allah tells them to do this; OK, that's true. But the Extemists are a minority within the larger Muslim society, where the arguments are more political in nature. If we put someone in a position of authority who screams that the soldiers are there on a mission from God, how likely is it that she'll listen to reason? Not much. What we need is someone to take the initiative to try and solve the problem with the larger Muslim society; they will in turn repress the Extemists who are causing the violence to be rained down on them. With religion in play here, there is no end until one side or the other is converted. So take out the religion and you can solve the conflict easier.
3) The President, as you know, can send troops wherever he wants to and keep them there for 90 days. That's how the War on Terror started. Sure, Congress can call them back in 90 days, but let us think about this logically. Say we send troops into Iran for example, on the orders of a McCain/Palin administration and they are there wreaking havoc for 90 days. Then Congress calls them back home. Do you think Iran is going to let it end there? Hell no!! They declare war on us, which means Congress is FORCED to authorize troops to defend the country, giving the administration the war it wanted in the first place. That's the loophole that got us into the mess we find ourselves in currently. And say all you want about Palin being the VP; she's serving under a man in his 70's who has had cancer SEVERAL times over and has permanent health problems from his days as a POW in Vietnam. That puts her closer to the helm than Biden would get in all likelihood.
1) I never implied she started a cult. If you read my post, you will see that I fully admit that she was in a church, and politicians when speaking in churches always say things that would be shocking outside of it. So some leeway is granted. But when she is a member of a church that believes that Alaska is going to be a "safe state" during Armageddon and will serve as the re-staging point for humanity after the ultimate battle with the Devil and says these things to it's audience, it's hard to give her the leeway of "Well, it was a church audience." I do not want ANYONE who believes that God has anything to do with this anywhere near a position of power.
2) I fully agree with you that the war is about religious beliefs. Remember, you are speaking to a student of Middle Eastern History several times over; I'm well aware of the history of the region and the cause of this conflict. But, I ask you, what happens when two sides scream that "God Wills It!" at the top of their lungs, killing each other constantly in the process and trying to out-scream the other? Answer? More killing, more death. The only way to stop the process is to remove this point of view from the equation. The Islamic Extemists think that Allah tells them to do this; OK, that's true. But the Extemists are a minority within the larger Muslim society, where the arguments are more political in nature. If we put someone in a position of authority who screams that the soldiers are there on a mission from God, how likely is it that she'll listen to reason? Not much. What we need is someone to take the initiative to try and solve the problem with the larger Muslim society; they will in turn repress the Extemists who are causing the violence to be rained down on them. With religion in play here, there is no end until one side or the other is converted. So take out the religion and you can solve the conflict easier.
3) The President, as you know, can send troops wherever he wants to and keep them there for 90 days. That's how the War on Terror started. Sure, Congress can call them back in 90 days, but let us think about this logically. Say we send troops into Iran for example, on the orders of a McCain/Palin administration and they are there wreaking havoc for 90 days. Then Congress calls them back home. Do you think Iran is going to let it end there? Hell no!! They declare war on us, which means Congress is FORCED to authorize troops to defend the country, giving the administration the war it wanted in the first place. That's the loophole that got us into the mess we find ourselves in currently. And say all you want about Palin being the VP; she's serving under a man in his 70's who has had cancer SEVERAL times over and has permanent health problems from his days as a POW in Vietnam. That puts her closer to the helm than Biden would get in all likelihood.
I saw Obama on Letterman last night.
I still don't know what to think of him; my first impression is that it was nice to have a potential future president speak in positive language, constructive language.
But after 8 years of listening to Bush, I'm forced to think maybe there were pupeteers on hand during this interview. It's just not possible to have someone aiming at the top job without being a total buffoon.
I still don't know what to think of him; my first impression is that it was nice to have a potential future president speak in positive language, constructive language.
But after 8 years of listening to Bush, I'm forced to think maybe there were pupeteers on hand during this interview. It's just not possible to have someone aiming at the top job without being a total buffoon.
A mission from God, eh? Just like Winthrop and his Puritans then. Almost 400 years and nothing has changed, not for the better.