Sarah Palin - A closer look

[CCIP]

Originally Posted by Frame57

Yes Indeed! Membership in churches is at an all time low in europe. They fear morals (Moralaphobic?) This is why pedaphilia is being legalised in europe. This same mindset is attacking God in this country. They want God out of our history so we too can be a nation that embraces things like pedaphiles and beastiality. "One nation under God..."

Um what

Since when are dogmatic morals and membership in a Christian church a pre-requisite for ethical behaviour? Lovely. And I know paedophilia is a big word, but I would suggest learning more about it and its status around the world before making claims on the legality thereof on that or other continent.

It's precisely this type of rhetoric that makes me deeply concerned about the Palin vote. Based entirely on ultraconservative social stance with a startling illiteracy in world and domestic politics alike.

[AntEater]

[quote=Frame57]

Originally Posted by August

This is why pedaphilia is being legalised in europe.

This is a statement worthy of the Sarah Palin award for supreme ignorance in foreign affairs.
I could launch into a lenghty article on that legal topic, but instead I just recommend you to read the wikipedia articles on the penalties on that crime in various european countries.

I mean I have nothing against conservatives per se. McCain is a conservative, but at I am pretty sure that he knows the difference between Austria and Australia.
Do conservativism and ignorance have to go together?

[Skybird]

Originally Posted by Frame57

Yes Indeed! Membership in churches is at an all time low in europe. They fear morals (Moralaphobic?) This is why pedaphilia is being legalised in europe. This same mindset is attacking God in this country. They want God out of our history so we too can be a nation that embraces things like pedaphiles and beastiality. "One nation under God..."

Just consider the guy not to be himself, but me, and then you know my reply - from A to Z.

BTW, the words "one nation under God" were not added to the pledge of allegiance before 1951, after a massive political campaign by the arch-catholic order of the Knights of Columbus.

"In God we trust" was added to coin money not before 1864, and on notes it was added not before 1956, assumed to display an attempt to unite the people in the confrontation with the Soviet Union.

[Frame57]

Not really! This is a symptom and not necessarily one that deals with religion. I feel morals are aside from religion this is why we have laws. But if you check that indeed what i have said is true. Perhaps another thread would be required for the child molester issue, but I feel strongly that any candidate not just Palen will be attacked by amoralsist. The progressives in the US embrace the doctrines of the EU which are precisely the people that attack our American history and any and all that have faith and morals. It is just that folks of religion tend to stand up for morals so they get the brunt of these arguments. I make no apologies for our attacked pledge of allegiance or that our sworn in officials place their hand over the bible. Palen has her rights in this country to practice her faith a faith that I am sure the likes of many will attack. But do note that she is not running a faith based campaign by no measure, but it is the attack dogs that are bringing up these issues not the GOP. It is also interesting to note that here that the arguments are from mostly non US residents. Case and point....

[Skybird]

Originally Posted by Frame57

Not really! This is a symptom and not necessarily one that deals with religion. I feel morals are aside from religion this is why we have laws. But if you check that indeed what i have said is true. Perhaps another thread would be required for the child molester issue, but I feel strongly that any candidate not just Palen will be attacked by amoralsist. The progressives in the US embrace the doctrines of the EU which are precisely the people that attack our American history and any and all that have faith and morals. It is just that folks of religion tend to stand up for morals so they get the brunt of these arguments. I make no apologies for our attacked pledge of allegiance or that our sworn in officials place their hand over the bible. Palen has her rights in this country to practice her faith a faith that I am sure the likes of many will attack. But do note that she is not running a faith based campaign by no measure, but it is the attack dogs that are bringing up these issues not the GOP. It is also interesting to note that here that the arguments are from mostly non US residents. Case and point....

judging by the level of barbarism and brutlaity conducted in the name of rtelgions and institutionalised morality, I have a pricnipla problem with state,ments saying people who do not blindly take something invisible and unchecked as the ultimate truth - are amoral morons. To use Pat's words: that is like being called "yellow" by a bunczh of bananas. regarding relgions, give me evidence, then I must not stupidly beloieve some tale being told, but then I know. If you cannot do it, keep thy relgion to thyself and don't stand in my way and don't stick your nose in other people's business.

That simple.

But if you go on campaign with your religion and turn it into a fairground attraction, do not complain for beeing stared and poked all day. And do not expect people to step aside when you come along just because you are "religious". What you believe inside the four walls of your home, is of no interest for me. How you pray and what you imagine your relation to some invisible rabbit to be, is of no interest for anybody. but where you think you must spread your belief and impose it onto others or soceity in general, you become an invader of the freedom of others, and an agressor. No surprise then if peopole not sharing your ideas raise resistance to you.

On your claims being true:

churches are empty, that is true. church dogmas have failed to convince many people. This does not mean that thes epeople turnign away, are amoral, or are not "searching". but possibole that your answers simply are not good enough to convince their thinking minds. Your claim that all those people are fearing morals and are moralphobic, is nonsense. that pedophilia'S legal status is linked to this immorality because of lacking church memberships, is nonsense (mind you of the american churche's recehnt sex scandals abiut absuing children). And your claim regarding beastiality - also is nonsense in the context it was given.

Just wildly throwing around some provoking terms and labels - is no argument pro or contra anything.

[cobalt1]

[Takeda Shingen]

Cobalt1, that's pretty funny. After all, as we know, the order of cities that would likely be struck in a global nuclear conflict are as follows:

1. Wasilla
2. Anchorage
3. Ketchikan

and then maybe Washington DC, New York, Chicago, Los Angeles, Philadephia, Miami et al.

[Tchocky]

Regarding Palin - If she could give a good interview, she would have by now.

[Molon Labe]

The MSM has been deliberately editing out parts of the Palin interview that went well for her and parts where she came off as less moderate than they hoped she would.

You guys want to see someone unprepared for a question? How bout this? And this guy is probably going to be our next President. Of course, pitiful remarks like this don't get the airtime that media-manufactured Palin clips get.

[GlobalExplorer]

Originally Posted by Frame57

It is also interesting to note that here that the arguments are from mostly non US residents. Case and point....

Before this gets out of context may I also say that these are people from countries that still care about the United States. The debates get all broadcasted in Germany, even in the original without any comments / subtitles. We know what the collapse of the United States means for us.

Let me also say that this thread not directed towards John McCain, who I think is more than capable of doing the job of President, and is certainly not dumb. I am not looking forward to a continuation of the Bush years but at least his policies are sound. I see Sarah Palin more of a desperate measure by him to get the support of the conservative base, that he simply can't do without. Providing McCain gets through this and wins the election Palin is already as good as sacked.

I can understand the reasons why he can't rid of her now. But she is already a political liability, merrily diggin her own political grave. Instead of cheekily lecturing journalists about things that she has no clue about, like a keen college girl, she should convince the American voters (and the world she wants to lead) what qualifies her for the office when she

- doesnt know what the Bush doctrine is
- thinks that war against Russia should be a viable political option
- doesnt have any idea about the economic crisis
- never met a foreign head of state
- didnt even have a passport until one year ago

[Tchocky]

GlobEx, you just don't get it. Can you see Russia from your house?!!?!?

[GlobalExplorer]

Tchocky, I can .. eh take .. my bicycle and go to abandoned Russian military installments, does that count? Even with .. eh real .. russian inscription on the walls Tchocky! Can you imagine Russians used to live there like .. eh 20 .. years ago and they even had .. eh weapons .. I mean real ones they would use to make war on us .. eh Tchocky.

[SUBMAN1]

Look at the questions they were asking her? Liberal media as they say. Why don't they ask Obama these questions? His lack of experience is probably worse than hers! She has at least held the title of Governor.

-S

1. Gibson Accuses Palin of 'Hubris' and Seeing Iraq as 'a Holy War'
Charles Gibson's interview with Republican vice presidential nominee Sarah Palin, the first since her selection, not surprisingly focused mostly on pressing her to prove she's qualified for the job and quizzing her about foreign policy issues. He suggested her willingness to unhesitatingly accept John McCain's offer demonstrated "hubris" and he delved into what he described as her "provocative comments" on the Iraq war being part of "God's plan." When he seemingly caught her unaware of the definition of the "Bush Doctrine," he outlined its tenets without embarrassing her, yet he also veered close to condescension in asking if she had "ever travel[ed] outside the country" and: "Have you ever met a foreign head of state?" Gibson began the World News excerpt with what he termed "the central question," namely: "Can you look the country in the eye and say 'I have the experience and I have the ability to be not just Vice President, but perhaps President?'" Gibson paraphrased her as saying "our national leaders are sending U.S. soldiers on a task that is from God." He demanded: "Are we fighting a holy war?" Unconvinced by her answer about how she only meant, as Lincoln urged, "let us pray that we are on God's side," Gibson pounced: "But you went on and said, 'There is a plan and it is God's plan.'" He soon followed up again: "Are you sending your son on a task that is from God?"

2. Part 2: Gibson Pushes Palin to Concede Global Warming 'Man-Made'
ABC's Charles Gibson pressed Sarah Palin repeatedly, in a fresh interview excerpt aired on Thursday's Nightline, to cry uncle and concede global warming is "man-made" -- but even when she did he wasn't satisfied and pushed for more of a mea culpa. Gibson presumed not believing global warming is "man-made" is some kind of shameful oddity as he wondered: "Do you still believe that global warming is not man-made?" Palin offered that "I believe that man's activities certainly can be contributing to the issue of global warming," but that wasn't enough for Gibson, who held up John McCain as the oracle and lectured: "But it's a critical point as to whether or not this is man-made. He says it is. You have said in the past it's not." To which Palin promised "John McCain and I are gonna be working on what we do about it." Still not satisfied, Gibson argued: "Yes, but isn't it critical as to whether or not it's man-made, because what you do about it depends on whether its man-made?" Palin repeated herself ("That is why I'm attributing some of man's activities to potentially causing some of the changes in the climate"), which finally led Gibson, "color me a cynic," to gloat "it sounds to me like you're adapting your position to Senator McCain's."

3. ABC's John Berman Suggests Palin Politicizing Son's Iraq Service
On Thursday's Good Morning America, reporter John Berman raised the issue of whether Alaska Governor Sarah Palin was politicizing her son's military service. Observing that Governor Palin would be giving a speech later in the day at a deployment ceremony to send her son off to Iraq, Berman critiqued: "And it [the speech] will be open to television cameras. It's such a drastic difference, from the way her own running mate John McCain handled his own son's deployment." A few seconds later, Berman again referenced the deviations between McCain's son Jimmy, also in the military, and Palin's child. "Jimmy's six-month deployment came and went with hardly any public notice. Why? Because John McCain never mentioned it on the stump." He added: "That stands in stark contrast to what Governor Sarah Palin told more than 40 million viewers about her son during the Republican convention last week."

4. Barbara Walters: Palin 'Had Such a Glorious Ride with the Media'
What media outlets are the ladies of ABC's The View watching? After Joy Behar the previous day spoke of an alleged media love affair with Sarah Palin, Barbara Walters echoed Joy's charge on Thursday's show. Responding to Joy Behar's statement that a "Bush operative" wrote Palin's speech, Elisabeth Hasselbeck noted the media's double standard in that they never inquired as to who wrote Obama's speech. Barbara Walters then jumped in and exclaimed that Governor Palin has "had a glorious ride with the media." Elisabeth Hasselbeck sarcastically responded: "It was glorious when they attacked her daughter too."

5. Women at McCain-Palin Event 'Recoil' from New York Times Reporter
A New York Times reporter told two women at a McCain rally who considered the paper to be biased: "You have to read the New York Times. Don't just listen to what Bill O'Reilly says." Jennifer Rubin of Commentary magazine had a great on-the-ground report from Wednesday's McCain-Palin rally in Fairfax, Va., in which an anonymous Times reporter (who could be Elisabeth Bumiller) demonstrated why many Americans don't trust the paper. Rubin was in the designated media area next to "a well-known New York Times reporter" who was trying to get some interviews with the pro-McCain crowd, when Rubin overheard the flustered reporter trying to convince the women, who "recoiled" when they heard she was from the New York Times, to talk to her.
http://www.mediaresearch.org/cyberalerts/2008/cyb20080912.asp

[antikristuseke]

Originally Posted by Frame57

Yes Indeed! Membership in churches is at an all time low in europe. They fear morals (Moralaphobic?) This is why pedaphilia is being legalised in europe. This same mindset is attacking God in this country. They want God out of our history so we too can be a nation that embraces things like pedaphiles and beastiality. "One nation under God..."

The phrase "Treaty of Tripoli, bitch." comes to mind for some reason.

[August]

Originally Posted by Molon Labe

The MSM has been deliberately editing out parts of the Palin interview that went well for her and parts where she came off as less moderate than they hoped she would.

You guys want to see someone unprepared for a question? How bout this? And this guy is probably going to be our next President. Of course, pitiful remarks like this don't get the airtime that media-manufactured Palin clips get.

Don't expect a reply to this ML. These guys prefer to have their opinions spoon to them by the NYT and Spiegel.