Sarah Palin's Speech

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
161

[quote]jsbrook wrote:
SteelyD wrote:
Rocky101 wrote:

Alcohol Prohibition-moral crusaders against the evil alcohol. Our current drugs laws were started by moral crudasers against the “evil weed”

Yet, you don’t see a Liberal controlled Congress repealing these “religious zealot laws”. No. In fact, they love them because they increase the size and scope of Government, and what’s not against the law, they tax to fund social programs.

And, you’ll likely vote for them again and again and again.

They’re raping you-- but that’s OK because you’re distracted by the reach around…

This is a prety misleading post. The so-called War Against Drugs has at least as much support from Conservative leaders. Bush has called it ‘the greatest threat facing the nation.’ Both parties are misguided and deserve condemnation on this issue.[/quote]

Not at all. The original premise was that ‘moral crusaders … against the evil weed’ created these laws (and taxes, ie sin taxes) against something.

The author of that post was somehow trying to tie it into ‘religious zealotry’ (I don’t understand the connection myself)-- and the point is that a Democrat controlled Congress has only to take a vote to repeal the laws. That hasn’t happened because they enjoy the fruits of the laws.

And, to make the point again, when you say “Conservatives” that promote government intervention in your life, you’re not really talking about “Conservatives”-- you’re using it as pejoritive or to describe the “Neo-Con” wing of the Republican Party (ie Socially Conservative/Fiscal Liberal).

I agree that this discussion about religious views guiding politicians is derailing the thread, sooooo…

That Palin really ripped Obama a new asshole, eh?

162

[quote]SteelyD wrote:
jsbrook wrote:
SteelyD wrote:
Rocky101 wrote:

Alcohol Prohibition-moral crusaders against the evil alcohol. Our current drugs laws were started by moral crudasers against the “evil weed”

Yet, you don’t see a Liberal controlled Congress repealing these “religious zealot laws”. No. In fact, they love them because they increase the size and scope of Government, and what’s not against the law, they tax to fund social programs.

And, you’ll likely vote for them again and again and again.

They’re raping you-- but that’s OK because you’re distracted by the reach around…

This is a prety misleading post. The so-called War Against Drugs has at least as much support from Conservative leaders. Bush has called it ‘the greatest threat facing the nation.’ Both parties are misguided and deserve condemnation on this issue.

Not at all. The original premise was that ‘moral crusaders … against the evil weed’ created these laws (and taxes, ie sin taxes) against something.

The author of that post was somehow trying to tie it into ‘religious zealotry’ (I don’t understand the connection myself)-- and the point is that a Democrat controlled Congress has only to take a vote to repeal the laws. That hasn’t happened because they enjoy the fruits of the laws.

And, to make the point again, when you say “Conservatives” that promote government intervention in your life, you’re not really talking about “Conservatives”-- you’re using it as pejoritive or to describe the “Neo-Con” wing of the Republican Party (ie Socially Conservative/Fiscal Liberal).

I agree that this discussion about religious views guiding politicians is derailing the thread, sooooo…

That Palin really ripped Obama a new asshole, eh?[/quote]

Maybe not conservatives in the true sense. But few in the Republican party are true conservatives anymore. I don’t know what else to call them. ‘Liberal’ become a slur. A tar and feather word used against anybody left of center whether or not their policies are in fact liberal .

The policies and views of some republicans are so egregious that Conservative to some degree has too. It’s a fair point that religious zealotry isn’t the motivation behind the ‘war on drugs.’ At least not these days.

However, neither is liberal philosphy. This is a policy that enjoys support from both sides of the political spectrum. Anyhow, back to the topic at hand…

163

[quote]Malevolence wrote:
rainjack wrote:
Malevolence wrote:
tedro wrote:

I’d like him to go a step further and explain how Sarah Palin pushes religion down citizens throat. It is her beliefs, after all, that started this whole thing.

I do not have to. I don’t think that she does, from what I know of her. My contention was in your claim that this is a Christian nation. It is not.

I don’t think his question was directed at you. I think he was talking to rocky101, or whatever his name is.

This thread is quickly becoming a bit of a cluster-fuck. My apologies. At least it has not degenerated into flaming and nonsense…yet.[/quote]

I agree, it is getting off topic and out of hand. I apologize. If those catholic nuns didn’t beat my ass so hard in school after finding my stash of Judas Priest cassettes I might not be so jaded about religion.

I should post a picture of my 6th grade mullet to ease the tension with laughter. Those nuns even chased me with scissors on more than one occasion.

164

[quote]jsbrook wrote:

Maybe not conservatives in the true sense. But few in the Republican party are true conservatives anymore. I don’t know what else to call them. [/quote]

How about… Americans. Like it or not, here we all are, and for better or worse, we’re here because of how much this country means to us(even if we’re not fully aware of it or don’t fully understand it).

165

[quote]Malevolence wrote:
rainjack wrote:

Your are using a shotgun approach here. My question is not that broad.

And in light of your post, I will qualify my question further: Can you cite a law that has been passed in the last 30 years that was specific to those christian values that do not overlap with generic values that are common across the board?

In other words, what laws have been passed that are a direct result of religious interference in governance.

I cannot, and I hope that it stays that way. My contention is not with the nature of laws today. I was only hoping to respond to Tedro’s claim that this nation was founded on “Christian Values”. It wasn’t.

Or, if you must insist that it was, that statement needs to be rephrased to read: “This nation was founded using some ideas that are also present in Christianity” [/quote]

I think I get what you’re saying, though. That at the time of the founding of this nation, the morals and values underlying our laws were not uniquely Christian. And I’d agree with that.

166

[quote]Malevolence wrote:
jsbrook wrote:

Maybe not conservatives in the true sense. But few in the Republican party are true conservatives anymore. I don’t know what else to call them.

How about… Americans. Like it or not, here we all are, and for better or worse, we’re here because of how much this country means to us(even if we’re not fully aware of it or don’t fully understand it). [/quote]

I agree. That’s why some of the posts on in these forums make me sick. Both parties want a better country. Certainly, the electorate does. They just have a very different vision of what that entails and how to get there. People on these boards sometimes spew so much vitriol that I sometimes think they forget that.

167

I like what she said about illegal immigration.

169

[quote]pushharder wrote:
jsbrook wrote:

…I think I get what you’re saying, though. That at the time of the founding of this nation, the morals and values underlying our laws were not uniquely Christian. And I’d agree with that.

That is simply incorrect.

The colonies’ populations were almost exclusively European and Europeans were exclusively Protestants and Catholics. Their morals and values WERE uniquely Christian. They surely weren’t based on native American, Hindu or Muslim values.

The fact that freemasonry and deism was common at that time does not change the above at all.

JS, where do you pull your knowledge of history from?

For that matter, why do so many of you come into the Politics forum with such an incomplete knowledge of basic history? It makes you look so incredibly lame in a debate.[/quote]

I could care less either way. They all originate from Judaism in the first place. By the time this country was founded, in any case, I feel the basic moral precepts underlying our laws were ingrained and independent of religion.

I was not saying that our founding fathers were not of the Christian faith. But that our values are not uniquely Christian. However, there is a plethora of evidence that Jefferson was a deist who did not believe in the divinity of Jesus Christ. Look into it.

The values and morals underlying Christianity are distinct from beliefs in Jesus. If not true then, it’s certainly true today. Christians have no monopoly on any of these values.

170

[quote]Malevolence wrote:

Personally, I think that it is more my responsibility to keep myself safe than the Government’s. They may be charged with that task. But I don’t believe in trusting them for my personal well being.

I also don’t live in fear of terrorism or radical assholes on the other side of the world coming to kill me, and think it is borderline insane to allow a Government any more power as a result of that fear. I think that is a more dangerous thing to allow the Government to ‘take care of’ than social programs.

When it is abundantly clear by the hideously poor handling of an armed conflict in Iraq, both financially and politically. (although I have to commend the tremendous talents of our armed forces to do their best to minimize civilian casualties and erroneous loss).

How can you still place your faith in the Government to protect you from the big bad world?
[/quote]

By safety I am not referring to personal safety in my home. Nobody could be more supportive of individual weapons rights and the ability to use lethal force if necessary in the defense of my family or to carry concealed firearms for that matter. A full select fire society would be a safer one in my view.

However I’m a bit less confident in the ability of myself and my 12 gauge to go toe to toe with with a foreign government or militarily armed terrorist organization.

I don’t know if you’ve noticed but the Bush administration HAS kept us free from domestic terrorism since 911 and many plots have been foiled. Who said anything about living in fear, but that also doesn’t mean pretending the threats don’t exist.

I am acutely concerned about the eroding of privacy rights and maybe there’s a better way to do this, but until you become a real life comic book hero there is no other choice than to trust our government to fight wars and defend us against the many threats we are undeniably facing.

172

My gyno is acting up…

173

[quote]pushharder wrote:
jsbrook wrote:
pushharder wrote:
jsbrook wrote:

…I think I get what you’re saying, though. That at the time of the founding of this nation, the morals and values underlying our laws were not uniquely Christian. And I’d agree with that.

That is simply incorrect.

The colonies’ populations were almost exclusively European and Europeans were exclusively Protestants and Catholics. Their morals and values WERE uniquely Christian. They surely weren’t based on native American, Hindu or Muslim values.

The fact that freemasonry and deism was common at that time does not change the above at all.

JS, where do you pull your knowledge of history from?

For that matter, why do so many of you come into the Politics forum with such an incomplete knowledge of basic history? It makes you look so incredibly lame in a debate.

I could care less either way.

Man, don’t say that. Don’t say, “I could care less if I’m ignorant of history. I’m going to strut and preen on a Politics forum like I know what I’m talking about anyway.”

…Christians have no monopoly on any of these values.

Not now but they did then which is PRECISELY why they don’t now. In other words, the “monopoly” was so complete at that time that yes it did ingrain the values so effectively that the monopoly does not exist now. Does that make sense?

And JS, I did not mean to single you out. I see other posters on here with a far more limited knowledge of history then you. You just happened to have posted last right before I chipped in.[/quote]

Read my post again. I edited it to explain more clearly. There are many scholars who believe Jefferson and other of our founding fathers were in facts deists who THEN did not accept the divinity of Jesus Christ.

Some of this evidence is pretty indisputable. For example, Jefferson wrote in an 1803 letter Joseph Priestly that he did not believe in the divinity of Jesus, but he had high esteem for Jesus’s moral teachings, which he,

Acording to the letter, he viewed as the “principles of a pure deism, and juster notions of the attributes of God, to reform [prior Jewish] moral doctrines to the standard of reason, justice & philanthropy, and to inculcate the belief of a future state.”

So, you see, at least one of our founding fathers rejected the divinity of Christ while embracing the moral teachings underlying Christianity. Which were NOT, even at that time, unique to Christianity but originiated in Judaism some 4000 years earlier.

Ignorant of history. I don’t think so. Instead of accepting conventional dogma, we actual looked at primary sources in my history class and original writings of the founding fathers.

174

[quote]jsbrook wrote:
<<< Both parties want a better country. Certainly, the electorate does. >>>[/quote]

That is not true. The Obama camp want anOTHER country. A different one than what this one has been. The left wants to recreate this country in the image of it’s marxist heroes.

True constructionist conservatives, not to be necessarily confused with Republicans, want this country to remain in it’s essentially founded form minus the institutionalized racism.

That is the plain fact of the matter. Liberal democrats hate this country or they wouldn’t keep trying to transform into somebody else’s. People seem to think that anything that happens within our border is by definition “American”.

Barack Obama is an American in name only. His worldview is decidedly un American. It IS the state worshiping cradle to grave socialism we fought the cold war to defeat.

I’m tired of hearing about how were all just patriotic Americans trying to do the best we can. Bullshit, the left is my enemy. I have no interest in bi-partisan cooperation with them. I want them defeated.

176

[quote]pushharder wrote:
jsbrook wrote:
pushharder wrote:
jsbrook wrote:
pushharder wrote:
jsbrook wrote:

…I think I get what you’re saying, though. That at the time of the founding of this nation, the morals and values underlying our laws were not uniquely Christian. And I’d agree with that.

That is simply incorrect.

The colonies’ populations were almost exclusively European and Europeans were exclusively Protestants and Catholics. Their morals and values WERE uniquely Christian. They surely weren’t based on native American, Hindu or Muslim values.

The fact that freemasonry and deism was common at that time does not change the above at all.

JS, where do you pull your knowledge of history from?

For that matter, why do so many of you come into the Politics forum with such an incomplete knowledge of basic history? It makes you look so incredibly lame in a debate.

I could care less either way.

Man, don’t say that. Don’t say, “I could care less if I’m ignorant of history. I’m going to strut and preen on a Politics forum like I know what I’m talking about anyway.”

…Christians have no monopoly on any of these values.

Not now but they did then which is PRECISELY why they don’t now. In other words, the “monopoly” was so complete at that time that yes it did ingrain the values so effectively that the monopoly does not exist now. Does that make sense?

And JS, I did not mean to single you out. I see other posters on here with a far more limited knowledge of history then you. You just happened to have posted last right before I chipped in.

Read my post again. I edited it to explain more clearly. There are many scholars who believe Jefferson and other of our founding fathers were in facts deists who THEN did not accept the divinity of Jesus Christ.

Yes, there is no doubt Jefferson was a deist at a particular time in his life. There is no conclusive proof he always was.

He was somewhat unique in his deistic views and was strongly criticized for them by his political foes. If the deistic view was widely accepted and embraced in general he would not have caught so much flak for it.[/quote]

So, how is it that you can tell me I’m wrong and that these were uniquely Christian values when Jefferson and other founding fathers rejected the divinity of Christ and many of the morals and values underlying Christianity originated in Judaism thousands of years earlier?

178

[quote]HoratioSandoval wrote:
So, what did everyone think of the “Bridge to Nowhere” part of the speech?

http://www.reuters.com/article/vcCandidateFeed7/idUSN3125537020080901[/quote]

Ok, since everyone’s arguing about God…

The “Thanks, but no thanks” was a total lie. How do McCain supporters feel about her line, seeing as he was one of the major opponents of these types of earmarks?

179

[quote]Tiribulus wrote:
jsbrook wrote:
<<< Both parties want a better country. Certainly, the electorate does. >>>

That is not true. The Obama camp want anOTHER country. A different one than what this one has been. The left wants to recreate this country in the image of it’s marxist heroes.

True constructionist conservatives, not to be necessarily confused with Republicans, want this country to remain in it’s essentially founded form minus the institutionalized racism.

That is the plain fact of the matter. Liberal democrats hate this country or they wouldn’t keep trying to transform into somebody else’s. People seem to think that anything that happens within our border is by definition “American”.

Barack Obama is an American in name only. His worldview is decidedly un American. It IS the state worshiping cradle to grave socialism we fought the cold war to defeat.

I’m tired of hearing about how were all just patriotic Americans trying to do the best we can. Bullshit, the left is my enemy. I have no interest in bi-partisan cooperation with them. I want them defeated.[/quote]

You’re wrong. Since our two-party system originated, there’s never been a coherent view of what this country is, was, or should be. Each side has there own view. There is some common grounds.

Not as much as there should be. And not as much between party leaders as between the people themselves. As far as the specifics, I don’t want to debate it. On some level, on some of your allegations, I agree. On the others, I don’t have the interest to get into the protracted debate it would entail.

180

The GOP’s girl wonder has certainly stirred the pot if nothing else. Personally, I can’t stand McCain.

He doesn’t seem to have much regard for either the First or the Second Amendment to the Constitution, a document that he will take an oath to defend if successful in his current endeavor.

I’ll give him credit, though, the man knew his weakness and found a great solution for it, so far anyway.

Malo- what’s all the BS about how politics doesn’t meet your standards and people should spend the time and effort before casting their vote and have the purist of motives that Your Highness would approve of and all of that.

Ever heard of rational igorance? It is not worth the effort. Besides, one look at The Breck Girl told me everything I needed to know. He is a phony peice pile of excrement, at best. If our legal system actually doled out any justice, that destructive dumbfuck would be paying back with interest lots of money. But I digress.

Most people have better things to do than research candidates when they know their vote won’t change the outcome. A quick and dirty up or down will do for their trip to the polling booth.

Maybe you could argue that Christianity shouldn’t have any place in lawmaking. But to say that when people who come from Europe, where at the center of every town to this day is a Christian church, founded this nation, that all got filtered out- please.

Oh, and what were the motives of so many of them- something to do with the proper notions of Christian worship- not possible, not remotely, no sir.

What I like best about Palin is the reaction of the usual useless (at best) idiots of the left. She’s not the right sort of female, you see. She didn’t load up on leftist ideological drivel at the elitist of institutions to go forth and fuck up the nation she lives in.

She didn’t, in her quest for power, hook up with a sexual predator and then cover for him while he committed adultry on her to advance her own cause. The right sort of feminist indeed.

And she worships the wrong god(s). Of course the left will say that no, its not religion, its science, you know, like “scientific” socialism, but how else can they justify the belief in something they can’t prove, like man-made global warming? Isn’t that the basic notion of faith, a cornerstone of religion?

Being that it is in fact science that you call it, then show the causation, bitches. Really tough to do, when you don’t even have good correlation.

Besides, lets face it, most of you believe it because it sounded good before you even understood what the argument was about anyway. Kind of like the whole hope and change thing- sounds great, nothing there, though.

Much like the Gipper she strikes me as. Short on the proper credentials, affable, sunny outlook on things, none too complicated, not big on airs- the kind of person the chattering class dolts can’t get or stand, because they are too stupid to see outside of ideological box that loads of political, instinct, apptitude and nerve go with it.

I am of the notion that the usual suspects in the usual places will sprint down the path of obscurity spilling ink, thinking that lots more people give a flying fuck than actually do, trying to take her down. When viewed from the proper prospectve, comedy at its best, kind of like Lixy’s posts.