Thoughts on Palin?

[XDinmyXJ]

Personally, I think she's just another Political Whack Job who got famous and used the flack from the election and so forth to get out of her job. OTOH she has said some things that make me want to punch her and some things that make me Laugh!

 

[dross]

Personally, I think she's just another Political Whack Job who got famous and used the flack from the election and so forth to get out of her job. OTOH she has said some things that make me want to punch her and some things that make me Laugh!

What's a "political whack job"?

 

[Archbishop]

Simple solutions to complex problems is often times the best approach. Although she may not have the experience that many would like to see, she seems to have the moral compass that is dearly needed today. If experience were a requirement, we would not have the President that we currently have. I will gladly vote for her if she runs, on a two party ticket, if she runs on a third party ticket, we are in for another four years of "Hope". She seems to be the closest thing to Reagan I have seen, and that is a huge asset in my book. If we want "change we can believe in", vote for "someone we can believe in for a change".

+1

 

[groovatron]

Scary Palin quotes:


"Pray for our military men and women who are striving to do what is right. Also, for this country, that our leaders, our national leaders, are sending soldiers out on a task that is from God. That's what we have to make sure that we're praying for, that there is a plan and that that plan is God's plan."
Sarah Palin
On Iraq war, speaking to students at the Wasilla Assembly of God, June 2008.


On teaching creation in schools: “Teach both. You know, don’t be afraid of information. Healthy debate is so important, and it’s so valuable in our schools. I am a proponent of teaching both.”

“God’s will has to be done in unifying people and companies to get that gas line built. So pray for that.”



Stuff like this is enough of a turn off too me. I suppose if you support a religious political cocktail, then she may be a great fit for you. I personally believe in the ACTUAL seperation of church and state.....Hmmmm.....I think that's also in the Constitution. I guess that interpretation of the 1st ammendment isn't convenient enough for some of you so-called "constitutionalists."..............

 

[IrishSon of Liberty]

Amendment I -
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

That's it. That's the entire 1st Amendment.

If your issue is with God, then I suppose you cringe at every political speech ever given when the orator ends with the phrase "God Bless America". Additionally, based upon the quotes you provided, it was a speech given to an Assembly of God audience. That's just a basic principle of speech presentation; know your audience.

As for the teaching of creation in schools, how can you disagree with teaching two different opinions on a subject and allowing the process of critical thinking, thought process, and personal decision/evaluation to take place? Based upon that platform, the government funded public school systems should only be able to teach the Progressive agenda? Now that sounds "nuts" to me.

 

[groovatron]

That's it. That's the entire 1st Amendment.

If your issue is with God, then I suppose you cringe at every political speech ever given when the orator ends with the phrase "God Bless America". Additionally, based upon the quotes you provided, it was a speech given to an Assembly of God audience. That's just a basic principle of speech presentation; know your audience.

One quote was from that speech. Politicians have every right to believe in whatever they choose.......but their religious beliefs should not be equated to a reason for political action. That's what I have a problem with.

As for the teaching of creation in schools, how can you disagree with teaching two different opinions on a subject and allowing the process of critical thinking, thought process, and personal decision/evaluation to take place? Based upon that platform, the government funded public school systems should only be able to teach the Progressive agenda? Now that sounds "nuts" to me.

It has nothing to do with a progressive agenda. Creationism is a niche opinion formulated by individuals with specific religious beliefs. Those teachings belong in the home and church. Evolution is a scientific fact that applies to all humans. Teaching creationism in school is teaching religion in school, and that ,IMO, clearly contradicts the 1A.

 

[Joe Williams]

Scary Palin quotes:


"Pray for our military men and women who are striving to do what is right. Also, for this country, that our leaders, our national leaders, are sending soldiers out on a task that is from God. That's what we have to make sure that we're praying for, that there is a plan and that that plan is God's plan."
Sarah Palin
On Iraq war, speaking to students at the Wasilla Assembly of God, June 2008.


On teaching creation in schools: “Teach both. You know, don’t be afraid of information. Healthy debate is so important, and it’s so valuable in our schools. I am a proponent of teaching both.”

“God’s will has to be done in unifying people and companies to get that gas line built. So pray for that.”



Stuff like this is enough of a turn off too me. I suppose if you support a religious political cocktail, then she may be a great fit for you. I personally believe in the ACTUAL seperation of church and state.....Hmmmm.....I think that's also in the Constitution. I guess that interpretation of the 1st ammendment isn't convenient enough for some of you so-called "constitutionalists."..............

Please show me where in the Constitution it actually says "seperation of church and state." It doesn't, it's a court created law, and a fantasy of atheists. You can "interpret" all you want to create words that aren't there, but you just can't change the fact that they aren't there. A politician shouldn't have to hide,disguise, or be silent about their beliefs in order to satisfy bigots.

 

[Joe Williams]

It has nothing to do with a progressive agenda. Creationism is a niche opinion formulated by individuals with specific religious beliefs. Those teachings belong in the home and church. Evolution is a scientific fact that applies to all humans. Teaching creationism in school is teaching religion in school, and that ,IMO, clearly contradicts the 1A.

And the "science" of creation being taught in schools today is nothing more than the opinion of Humanists who wish their religion taught in schools... a magical Big Bang that "just happened," life that "just happened," everything just happened, and NONE of it is anything more than an opinion, none of it actually proven. Those teaching belong in the homes of Humanists, not in schools, until their guess (another more accurate word for their "theory") is actually proven.

Evolution may be fact, but they do not teach merely changes in animals over time, they preach a non-factual, non-proven version of the origin of life, no more proven, or provable, than mine, and even less likely.

 

[groovatron]

Please show me where in the Constitution it actually says "seperation of church and state." It doesn't, it's a court created law, and a fantasy of atheists. You can "interpret" all you want to create words that aren't there, but you just can't change the fact that they aren't there. A politician shouldn't have to hide,disguise, or be silent about their beliefs in order to satisfy bigots.

I never said she has to hide. Your statements are more bigoted than mine. You are one of the least tolerant of differing opinions on this forum.

 

[flagtag]

Exactly! The "seperation of church and state" doesn't mean that one is not allowed to refer to his/her religion. It only means that "our" government is not allowed to dictate a particular religion that we must follow. I would prefer to hear a politician refer to his/her religion (even if it's different from mine) than what we have now - the attempt to REMOVE God (or religion) from our lives!

And as for teaching creation in schools also - our schools are supposed to give students the tools needed to make informed decisions/choices - NOT dictate how they are supposed to "think" (indoctrination/brain washing). The schools are supposed to offer ALL the information on the various subjects necessary. Not just THEIR views.

But the schools should NOT teach them (10yoa and up) the "pleasures of sex" as is being proposed now. (See: IPPF) It seems that Planned Parenthood doesn't like the fact that Catholics and Muslems teach abstinance. (How could Planned Parenthood possibly recieve all that abortion money if our KIDS don't get pregnant? Start them younger so that they can have (and pay for) even more abortions and fatten the wallets of IPPF.)

 

[groovatron]

And the "science" of creation being taught in schools today is nothing more than the opinion of Humanists who wish their religion taught in schools... a magical Big Bang that "just happened," life that "just happened," everything just happened, and NONE of it is anything more than an opinion, none of it actually proven. Those teaching belong in the homes of Humanists, not in schools, until their guess (another more accurate word for their "theory") is actually proven.

Evolution may be fact, but they do not teach merely changes in animals over time, they preach a non-factual, non-proven version of the origin of life, no more proven, or provable, than mine, and even less likely.

Here you go again attaching ill-founded labels to a slough of assumptions. Humanists?!?:wtf: You read to much internet garbage. Less likely? You make me laugh

 

[Joe Williams]

I never said she has to hide. Your statements are more bigoted than mine. You are one of the least tolerant of differing opinions on this forum.

I reckon that sneer means you are trying to sidestep the fact that what you claim is in the Constitution, actually isn't.

What I am intolerant of is hypocritical BS, not differing opinions. You claim you don't say she has to hide her beliefs, yet you posted her statements which referenced her beliefs and represented them as somehow deeply disturbing.

Your crocodile tears are impressive, but unconvincing.

 

[groovatron]

Exactly! The "seperation of church and state" doesn't mean that one is not allowed to refer to his/her religion. It only means that "our" government is not allowed to dictate a particular religion that we must follow. I would prefer to hear a politician refer to his/her religion (even if it's different from mine) than what we have now - the attempt to REMOVE God (or religion) from our lives!

And as for teaching creation in schools also - our schools are supposed to give students the tools needed to make informed decisions/choices - NOT dictate how they are supposed to "think" (indoctrination/brain washing). The schools are supposed to offer ALL the information on the various subjects necessary. Not just THEIR views.

But the schools should NOT teach them (10yoa and up) the "pleasures of sex" as is being proposed now. (See: IPPF) It seems that Planned Parenthood doesn't like the fact that Catholics and Muslems teach abstinance. (How could Planned Parenthood possibly recieve all that abortion money if our KIDS don't get pregnant? Start them younger so that they can have (and pay for) even more abortions and fatten the wallets of IPPF.)

Read my posts. I never said that a political figure couldn't refer to his/her religion. I swear, some of you folks don't take the time to actually read what people are saying. You just "hear" what you want to "hear" and go on the defensive. So I have a different opinion......deal with it. It's not like your narrow view doesn't get enough support on this board.

 

[Joe Williams]

Here you go again attaching ill-founded labels to a slough of assumptions. Humanists?!?:wtf: You read to much internet garbage. Less likely? You make me laugh

Well, if less likely makes you laugh, it must be because you can prove the Humanist theory of the origin of life being taught in schools today.

Please, do so.

 

[groovatron]

I reckon that sneer means you are trying to sidestep the fact that what you claim is in the Constitution, actually isn't.

What I am intolerant of is hypocritical BS, not differing opinions. You claim you don't say she has to hide her beliefs, yet you posted her statements which referenced her beliefs and represented them as somehow deeply disturbing.

Your crocodile tears are impressive, but unconvincing.

There you go again......you are as predictable as a sunrise.

As far as the Constitution goes, I'm not sidestepping anything. Stop dwelling......it's obviously open to interpretation. 2A doesn't say much either, but we all attach boat loads of stock in it.

Crocidile tears That's good.

 

[dross]

I fall short of declaring myself an atheist, yet I am a pretty strict constitutionalist, and I also believe that natural rights supercede the Constitution. Now here goes:

I do not believe that any laws should be made on religious grounds that cannot be justified on secular grounds.

I also have no problem with religious folks (including many, many of our leaders dating back to the founding) invoking God as their guidance throughout. I wish they wouldn't invoke it, but the Constitution doesn't require it, I just think it's good practice. I take such matters into consideration as I vote.

Praying that we remain on God's side is not a violation of the Constitution, regardless of whether you believe in God, god, or no god.

Feel free to vote against someone like Palin, don't act as if she's disqualified herself.

 

[Joe Williams]

There you go again......you are as predictable as a sunrise.

As far as the Constitution goes, I'm not sidestepping anything. Stop dwelling......it's obviously open to interpretation. 2A doesn't say much either, but we all attach boat loads of stock in it.

Crocidile tears That's good.

What interpretation? The words simply are not there. They are nowhere to be found. How do you "interpret" words that are not there?

 

[IrishSon of Liberty]

It has nothing to do with a progressive agenda. Creationism is a niche opinion formulated by individuals with specific religious beliefs. Those teachings belong in the home and church. Evolution is a scientific fact that applies to all humans. Teaching creationism in school is teaching religion in school, and that ,IMO, clearly contradicts the 1A.

Again, you support the idea of teaching only one side of any given topic. The first tenant of a progressive agenda is to replace God with government. I don't care if your God is Allah, Buddha, Lilith, Mother Azra, or Ryan Seacrest; the idea of teaching only one side of any debate while discrediting all other opinions and claiming only one side to be "fact", and approved for teaching the masses, is lunacy. Thus, the establishment of this great republic required both the Federalist Papers AND the Anti-Federalist Papers.

The reason for such a debate was because the founding fathers were escaping the single minded governance of the kingdom. If memory serves me right, even the king established the beliefs for the Church of England, so as to support his kingdom.

 

[groovatron]

Well, if less likely makes you laugh, it must be because you can prove the Humanist theory of the origin of life being taught in schools today.

Please, do so.

There you go with the Humanist crap again. Get off it buddy. Is there anything you can't attach a label to? It is your entire bag of tricks.

 

[MTC]

Creationism is a niche opinion formulated by individuals with specific religious beliefs.

a niche opinion...hmmm

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed,...

One day you will be asked point blank, "Where do your rights come from?" and you will have no answer. That is, none that can't be overruled by The State. Without The Creator, there is only The State.