shibshib

My feelings exactly. Personally, I'm a Christian, so of course I don't have an issue with her being a Christian in general... I just find her lack of logic scary when you consider the same logic that allows her to believe man and dinosaurs existed together will be deciding on other policies.

Also, I'm not comfortable with ANYONE like Palin who believes Jesus is coming to save us all really soon.

Honestly, if you believe that Jesus is coming to pick you up within your lifetime and kickstart the End of Days.... what real motivation is there to care about global warming (which she obviously doesn't), the health of the world, or anything else that goes beyond about 60 years?

I want someone who is planning for generation after generation... not gambling with our country's future based purely on sketchy-religious-beliefs.

BTW, if we are playing the "guilt by association game", then:

-What about the pastor which McCain actively sought endorsement from saying Hitler was fulfilling God's Will?
McCain Backer Hagee Said Hitler Was Fulfilling God's Will (AUDIO)

-What about Palin's Pastor saying "God will strike out his hand against" america?
Palin's Pastor: God Will Damn America

Enough with the republican hypocritical bullshit, troublemaker. It's a non-issue. Everyone knows/can be connected to numerous amounts of crazy people.

Can we get back on topic, or do you want to tell me how Obama went to school with a guy that knew a guy that did something bad to someone sometime in history?

Edit: And I mean "enough with the republican hypocritical bullshit" in a fun, "lets crack open a bear and move past the bullshit" way... not in a bad way. <3

__________________
Q: Does weed make you smarter, ShibShib?
A: No, it just focuses me. ADHD is like having a bunch of TVs in your head, all running different programs, and having no ability to control them. Marijuana not only appears to give me a remote, it also allows me to shut off all the other TVs sucking up the juice... which makes the TV I'm watching a bit brighter.

troublemaker_42

YOu call it bullshit, I say its certainly worth discussion. Why is it that my views are "bullshit" whenever they seem to be at odds with your personal beleifs? this is, I believe, the second time you've dismised my arguments as "bullshit". Rather than label my sentiments as so much bovine scat, why not stick to the issues and argue those rather than your feelings towards my POV? I've yet to sink to such a level no matter how strongly I disagree with you, and I in turn would like some of the repsect I've shown you. Otherwise, I don't have a whole lot to say to you at this point.

__________________
Ted Nugent: "To my mind it is wholly irresponsible to go into the world incapable of preventing violence, injury, crime, and death. How feeble is the mindset to accept defenselessness. How unnatural. How cheap. How cowardly. How pathetic."


If total government control equals safety, why are prisons so dangerous?

shibshib

In this instance, I'm calling it "bullshit" in the sense that it is a sad attempt at derailing the point of this thread. If you want to start a new thread in which we make lists of crazy people associated with candidates, that'd be fun too. We can call it "8 degrees of PR Disaster".

Because their presence in this thread is bullshit... it is an attempt by you to take something completely different (as buzzby pointed out) and force it into the thread. The only thing it has in common with the current theme of the thread is that "Reverand Wright" has to do with religion... other than that, it doesn't belong in this thread.

Outside of this thread, I would still consider it pretty pointless, because I care more about issues (economy, war, liberties, etc.) than I care about tabloid-like stories about who said what and who knows who.

Furthermore, you will have to convince me what Wright said was all that bad. I've listened to his full, un edited-speech, and to me it sounded a lot like a guy protesting the bastardization of a country he loves so much. But again, that is a whole 'nother thread in itself.

Because I've earned myself a couple warnigns from mods for going off topic and I'm trying to learn my lesson.

I still love you, troublemaker <3. I just am being defensive of my thread (which was started for a specific point, as stated in the first few sentences of my first post). Whether you see it or not, you attempted to inject a complete tangent of an argument which was neither here nor there.

I look forward to your new thread.

Now, back to the adventures in Palin's reality:

o_t00high_o

That article isn't a good starter for someone trying to bash Palin. That article to me reads as a vindictive old man who believes that gays are modern day messiahs (WHAT?!) and has a vendetta against Palin because of history with her and is jealous she has succeeded.


Other than that, I really don't feel like getting into another political discussion, I get into enough of those in real life considering my best friend is on the opposite end of the political spectrum as me.

o_t00high_o

Why would you crack open a bear?
That sounds horrible.

shibshib

LOL... I'm not even going to edit and fix it. I'll keep it there as a testiment of how tired i am right now. (damn studying)

o_t00high_o

Cram, like everybody else does. But enough off topic, resume your bickering.

troublemaker_42

Exactly!! Not to mention he is still clinging to the "book censorship' myth which i've debunked via links to snopes.com and factcheck.org in other posts. Why should thisa man's opinion be given any weight whatsoever, when its obvious at least part of his claims have been debunked and proven false?? By clinging to one lie, it makes you wonder how many others he harbors due to personal grudges? Its amazing what gets published as "the truth" these days....aren't there any editors/proofreaders/factcheckers left out there anymore? Or do people just publish any and evwerything as "fact" and leave it to the readers to ascertain what parts actually somewhat resemble the truth? I think theres plenty reason to question his motivations and accuracy here. He sounds like an old man with a grudge more than he sounds like any sort of authority figure whose opinions should be given any more consideration than the common man's. If it wasn't for his obvious gruge and bias, it might be something worthy of serious consideration. Instead, we get an opinion from someone whose ideas were overpowered by Palin's a few times down the line, resulting, in what I see as a bitter man with little tom lose by trying to trash palin's character. Once he referenced the false book ban, his accuracy was immediately questioned, and I found it hard to take anything seriously after that point. Does that mean I'm spewing "hypocritcal Republican bullshit" because I dare question his intent, or bring up the fact he references a proven lie like it somehow still rings of the truth? Rule Number One--If trying to assinate someone's character, stick to things that can be proven, raqther than reference (as the truth) things that have been proven false. The article's author would have been wise to follow such advice, but instead brought his entire credibility into question instead.


just for reference:
snopes.com: Books Banned by Sarah Palin
FactCheck.org: Sliming Palin

Not everything you read (ore someone tells you) is true. Check the facts, people

troublemaker_42

Not necessarily. We have an embittered man making the claim she said such things. Considering he obviously clings to other lies as the truth and promotes it as such leads one to question his overall integrity, does it not? Just because i say someone said something doesn't necessarily make it true, even if I get my buddy to say she said it too. Where is it ever proven she said this? Is it really conclusive when two of her enemeies get together and state she said something?

Trocisp

“Believe me,” Palin said, “I know what I am saying — where God has sent me, from underneath the umbrella of this church, throughout the state.” NY Times

Does Palin believe in the Separation of Church and state?

It's difficult for me to believe that someone who states that they were sent from the church to the 2nd highest office in this land is going to be truly fair when they're looking at issues.

It’s precisely because Falwell and Bush have put forward such a mixed image for Christianity that many Christians thirst for a leader who shares their values but lives her life in accordance with them. Such Christians view attacks on Gov. Palin as attacks on Christians in general, which means the more she is criticized — the more persecuted she seems — the more Christ-like she’ll become, and the more beloved. -Blog; Wall Street Journal

This, in my opinion, is as much why she's popular as anything else.


Not a Book Burner

One accusation claims then-Mayor Palin threatened to fire Wasilla’s librarian for refusing to ban books from the town library. Some versions of the rumor come complete with a list of the books that Palin allegedly attempted to ban. Actually, Palin never asked that books be banned; no books were actually banned; and many of the books on the list that Palin supposedly wanted to censor weren't even in print at the time, proving that the list is a fabrication. The librarian was fired, but was told only that Palin felt she didn’t support her. She was re-hired the next day. The librarian never claimed that Palin threatened outright to fire her for refusing to ban books.

It’s true that Palin did raise the issue with Mary Ellen Emmons, Wasilla’s librarian, on at least two occasions, three in some versions. Emmons flatly stated her opposition each time. But, as the Mat-Su Valley Frontiersman (Wasilla’s local paper) reported at the time, Palin asked general questions about what Emmons would say if Palin requested that a book be banned. According to Emmons, Palin "was asking me how I would deal with her saying a book can't be in the library." Emmons reported that Palin pressed the issue, asking whether Emmons' position would change if residents were picketing the library. Wasilla resident Anne Kilkenny, who was at the meeting, corroborates Emmons' story, telling the Chicago Tribune that "Sarah said to Mary Ellen, 'What would your response be if I asked you to remove some books from the collection?' "

Palin characterized the exchange differently, initially volunteering the episode as an example of discussions with city employees about following her administration's agenda. Palin described her questions to Emmons as “rhetorical,” noting that her questions "were asked in the context of professionalism regarding the library policy that is in place in our city." Actually, true rhetorical questions have implied answers (e.g., “Who do you think you are?”), so Palin probably meant to describe her questions as hypothetical or theoretical. We can't read minds, so it is impossible for us to know whether or not Palin may actually have wanted to ban books from the library or whether she simply wanted to know how her new employees would respond to an instruction from their boss. It is worth noting that, in an update, the Frontiersman points out that no book was ever banned from the library’s shelves.

Palin initially requested Emmons’ resignation, along with those of Wasilla’s other department heads, in October 1996. Palin described the requests as a loyalty test and allowed all of them (except one, whose department she was eliminating) to retain their positions. But in January 1997, Palin fired Emmons, along with the police chief. According to the Chicago Tribune, Palin did not list censorship as a reason for Emmons’ firing, but said she didn’t feel she had Emmons’ support. The decision caused “a stir” in the small town, according to a newspaper account at the time. According to a widely circulated e-mail from Kilkenny, “city residents rallied to the defense of the City Librarian and against Palin’s attempt at out-and-out censorship, so Palin backed down and withdrew her termination letter.”

As we’ve noted, Palin did not attempt to ban any library books. We don’t know if Emmons’ resistance to Palin’s questions about possible censorship had anything to do with Emmons’ firing. And we have no idea if the protests had any impact on Palin at all. There simply isn’t any evidence that we can find either way. Palin did re-hire Emmons the following day, saying that she now felt she had the librarian’s backing. Emmons continued to serve as librarian until August 1999, when the Chicago Tribune reports that she resigned.

So what about that list of books targeted for banning, which according to one widely e-mailed version was taken “from the official minutes of the Wasilla Library Board”? If it was, the library board should take up fortune telling. The list includes the first four Harry Potter books, none of which had been published at the time of the Palin-Emmons conversations. The first wasn't published until 1998. In fact, the list is a simple cut-and-paste job, snatched (complete with typos and the occasional incorrect title) from the Florida Institute of Technology library Web page, which presents the list as “Books banned at one time or another in the United States.”

Update, Sept. 9: We have revised this section dealing with accusations that Palin wanted to ban books from Wasilla's library to include more detail about what transpired at the time.

I would encourage everyone to read this themselves, this is directly taken from the site TM listed (Factcheck), an it gives a slightly different impression than the one that TM says he simply 'disproved' it.

It states, specifically, that there were no books ever banned, nor was a list of books to be banned ever made. However it also states that the Librarian in question was fired by Palin, and rehired, the circumstances of which are questionable (read the article, don't take my word for it).

Invoking Divine Support for Pet Projects: She told a group of young church leaders to pray for a gas pipeline because it was God’s will. “God’s will has to be done in unifying people and companies to get that gas line built. So pray for that.” This is well beyond what President Bush customarily said. Asserting that God endorses a particular energy strategy or public works project is exactly the sort of mindset the Founders feared. The vote-for-this-because-God-says-so approach means that those who oppose a particular policy are violating God’s will — and good Christians should view them that way. It turns policy issues into religious conflicts. Such a politician may be impervious to reason, evidence or compromise. If God has blessed an idea — and told you so personally — what possible argument could dissuade you?

__________

What should be of concern to religious minorities is that Palin signed a resolution establishing a Christian Heritage Week. It didn’t actually declare the U.S. to be an officially Christian nation but it plucked Founding Fathers quotes way out of context to misleadingly imply they were devout Christians. In many other cases, this same technique has been used to promote the argument that America was created to be a Christian nation, and separation of church and state is a myth. Now, I’m willing to drop this from the list if can be shown that also has a Jewish Heritage and Muslim Heritage and Secular Heritage Week (I’m not holding my breath). That would mean she wasn’t giving preference to one religion over another.

Again, from Blog; Wall Street Journal