Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
But your ignorance in general and inability to grasp basic logical principles does.
Do you mean the fact I don't swallow the liberal bullshit hook line and sinker, and I don't follow the conservative trash makes it difficult for you to understand what I'm getting at?
Originally posted by Shakyamunison
I don't know, but all Christians must pray for god's will in their lives.
You'd have a point about with your comparison of Obama and Palin in regards to Christianity if all she did was say "I pray for", but she didn't just say that, she explicitly said the U.S. war in Iraq WAS God's will, which makes sense coming from a snake-handling babbler.
Originally posted by Robtard
You'd have a point about with your comparison of Obama and Palin in regards to Christianity if all she did was say "I pray for", but she didn't just say that, she explicitly said the U.S. war in Iraq [b]WAS God's will, which makes sense coming from a snake-handling babbler. [/B]
Does this need to be corrected yet again?? She said she hoped it was God's will. Entirely different.
Originally posted by Enyalus
Does this need to be corrected yet again?? She said she [b]hoped it was God's will. Entirely different. [/B]
Yes, it's more frightening in certain ways. She doesn't know if her moral system says it's right or wrong so she's letting it happen anyway even though any other moral system says it's wrong.
Originally posted by Robtard
You'd have a point about with your comparison of Obama and Palin in regards to Christianity if all she did was say "I pray for", but she didn't just say that, she explicitly said the U.S. war in Iraq [b]WAS God's will, which makes sense coming from a snake-handling babbler. [/B]
You are putting a lot of weight on one word. Just like everyone, she deserves the benefit of the doubt.
Believing that some guy died 2000 years ago and rose from the dead, and is with us now, is in the same category as snake-handling and speaking in toughs.
Originally posted by Shakyamunison
You are putting a lot of weight on one word. Just like everyone, she deserves the benefit of the doubt.Believing that some guy died 2000 years ago and rose from the dead, and is with us now, is in the same category as snake-handling and speaking in toughs.
One word can make the difference between a non-fanatic and a fanatic.
Actually, it's a little bit wackier, because they play with snakes and babble like morons in order to have the essence of that dead guy in them. It compounds the insanity.
Rob, if that's all you have to go on you're going to be one sad gentleman on Nov. 5th.
She clarified her remarks.
If you read the whole quote, it's plain as day. Pray for the troops, pray for the leaders, pray that it is God's will, pray that there is a plan, pray that it's God's plan, etc...
Not: War=God's will.
She further explained this in the interview.
The issue is dead.
You should read where she explains "Troopergate" in the 2nd part of the ABC interview:
GIBSON: the other issue is Troopergate, which is very much in the news today, the Associated Press is saying how there's going to be 13 subpoenas that come out, one of them to your husband, Todd. First of all, do you welcome the investigation…
PALIN: Absolutely, there's nothing to hide in this. The personnel board is the appropriate agency or overseeing board to inquire as to whether anybody did anything wrong or not, but here's the issue with Troopergate and I'm glad that you're asking. The trooper in question here did conduct dangerous and illegal activities and our personal security detail when I was first elected had asked us very appropriately, are there any threats against you and your family. And I said, well, you know, ironically, yeah, it's a state trooper who's threatened to kill my dad and bring down me and once I got elected, his threats were he was going to bring down the governor and the governor's family, so it was very appropriate that we brought the concerns to personal security detail -- they asked us to bring it to the commissioner, which I did.
GIBSON: And he was your brother-in-law at one point.
PALIN: Yeah, back in '05 -- yeah.
GIBSON: The -- you mentioned the personnel board, it's a bipartisan legislative group, that's working at it now, which you said was fine, until you got named as the vice presidential nominee, and then you said the personnel board ought to handle it.
PALIN: We've said all along that … the personnel board is the appropriate agency or board to inquire -- our state statute says if there is a question about actions of the governor, lt. governor, or attorney general, you go to the personnel board. So we've said all along that's appropriate …
GIBSON: Even though they're all appointed by you.
PALIN: No, they're not. In fact, they were all appointed by the prior administration, I had one reappointment on that board, they weren't all appointed by me. But, the issue that people are asking about -- first, they got it wrong when they say did I fire a trooper, because there was an issue back in '05 about him, as he was divorcing my sister. No, nobody fired the trooper, he's still a trooper to this day, he's out there. He had tasered his stepson, he had made those death threats, you know, there were a lot of concerns from not just my family, but from the public about this trooper's activities, and he's apologized for those since, I saw on the air the other day.
But, the issue is the commissioner, who was his boss, was he pressured to fire that trooper, that's the underlying issue here, right, Commissioner Monegan. Commissioner Monegan has said the governor never asked me to fire him, the governor's husband never asked me to fire him, and we never did. I never pressured him to hire or fire anybody. Why I replaced commissioner Monegan was after two years, of he working in my cabinet, as a political appointment, at will, exempt, recognizing after two years, he wasn't meeting the goals I wanted met in that area of public service, there were a lot of things that we were lacking, and a lot of goals weren't being met…
wanted to bring somebody in with more vision and more energy to beef up public safety, hire more troopers, we increased the budget, yet still we had dozens and dozens of trooper positions vacant, we weren't reaching the goals on recruitment and retention of troopers, so that was one of the issues. I did recognize though that Commissioner Monegan could provide for the state some good public service in another area, so I did offer him another job, as the person in charge of the alcohol beverage control board, he chose not to transfer into that position, he chose then to leave state service, he didn't want that position, so the two issues have nothing to do with each other, the trooper's still a trooper today, Commissioner Monegan was offered another job, he turned that down, and now we're in the midst of a hiring practice for a new commissioner.
GIBSON: You think he should be a trooper? Given what he did?
PALIN: It amazes me still to think we cannot have very, very high standards for our troopers, for anybody in public service, certainly though, those who have a badge and carry a gun. But, I have always put in my commissioners hands their rights, their authority to hire, fire those that they need on their team to provide for better public service, I haven't micromanaged them. So, I didn't tell the guy to hire or fire anybody.
GIBSON: Didn't improperly intercede, not worried about the subpoenas, even to Todd.
PALIN: No, because I know that Todd, too, never pressured Commissioner Monegan. He did, very appropriately, though, bring up those concerns about a trooper who was making threats against the first family, and that is appropriate, in fact, you go to the department of law's website, and it says right there in Q&A form on their Web site, it says, if you have an issue or a concern about an Alaskan state trooper, you bring that concern to the commissioner of the department of public safety. That's what Todd did, he appropriately did.
But another issue that I think has been lost through mainstream media reporting this, is that the trooper is still a trooper, Commissioner Monegan was replaced because he wasn't reaching the goals that our cabinet members were to reach, find efficiencies, put new vision, new energy into all of our departments. And, it's an issue that should be investigated by the personnel board, and they do -- it's been so politicized at this point, too, I think it's turned into quite the political issue.
If she's not lying, then that's a dead issue too.
All that's left is the bridge to nowhere, which AT WORST, she was for and then flip-flopped. But so do Dems (all the time) and Obama and Biden both voted for the bridge.
Libs are running scared, she did very well against a tough interviewer.
See all clips here:http://abcnews.go.com/Video/playerIndex?id=5783816
And a new one on Energy here:http://abcnews.go.com/video/playerIndex?id=5785702
Originally posted by sithsaber408
Rob, if that's all you have to go on you're going to be one sad gentleman on Nov. 5th.
You know, I'm not basing Obama winning on one thing McCain's VP choice has said.
And spin it any way you like, she did open up with: "Our national leaders are sending U.S. soldiers on a task that is from God.", which is pretty straight forward in meaning.
Frankly I think all this talk about her talking about God in regards to the war is kinda silly.
I personally don't think it matters if she thinks we're on God's side. As long as she wouldn't use her religious beliefs to persuade her political decisions it doesn't matter. And I think that it's rather clear that what she was saying was simply that she hopes we're on the right side here.
I mean, I'm not fan of Palin, I think there are any number of legitimate problems and criticisms to be had with her, lord knows I have a lot, but to be honest I don't see this as one that's going to stick.
The whole point/issue, would she use her religious beliefs to dictate policy? Or as Mota said early, she was just dropping the G-word to cater to the specific audience, as many a politician does. I personally don't know, but her babbling and snake-stroking antics makes me think the former.
Edit: We do know she would oppose Roe Vs Wade due to her religious convictions, just seems to be a pattern.
I think it's all a big waste of time. There are far more important issues that you could object to than her religion.
I mean, just yesterday she said that she would consider going to war with Russia, that she thinks there's a connection between Iraq and 9/11, that she doesn't know what the Bush doctrine is, and that she wouldn't second guess standing with Israel if they started a war. All these things are far more important than whether or not she thinks we're on the right side of a war.
And while I find her personal beliefs a bit extreme, her time in power she hasn't actively sought to push those beliefs through policy. So it's somewhat moot.
Originally posted by BackFire
I think it's all a big waste of time. There are far more important issues that you could object to than her religion.I mean, just yesterday she said that she would consider going to war with Russia, that she thinks there's a connection between Iraq and 9/11, that she doesn't know what the Bush doctrine is, and that she wouldn't second guess standing with Israel if they started a war. All these things are far more important than whether or not she thinks we're on the right side of a war.
And while I find her personal beliefs a bit extreme, her time in power she hasn't actively sought to push those beliefs through policy. So it's somewhat moot.
If the last 8 years have taught us anything it's that Americans generally don't care about relevant issues.
It was never an issue of "she belongs to a bad religion"; just "she would use her religious beliefs to dictate, if given the ability".
But yeah, you're right, there are more important issues to question.
The question there, was it because she felt it would be wrong, or that she just couldn't legally do so?
Originally posted by BackFire
I think it's all a big waste of time. There are far more important issues that you could object to than her religion.I mean, just yesterday she said that she would consider going to war with Russia, that she thinks there's a connection between Iraq and 9/11, that she doesn't know what the Bush doctrine is, and that she wouldn't second guess standing with Israel if they started a war. All these things are far more important than whether or not she thinks we're on the right side of a war.
And while I find her personal beliefs a bit extreme, her time in power she hasn't actively sought to push those beliefs through policy. So it's somewhat moot.
1.) Obama is for including Ukriane and Georgia in NATO too.
2.) If they were attacked (like England or any of our other NATO allies) then we WOULD be obligated to respond.
3.) She stated many times that we don't need another cold war and that we wouldn't go to war as the first step. She mentioned discussions, sanctions, pressure from allies, etc..
side note: Do you think Regan kept them at bay because the Russians thought he'd back down or because they believed he'd hit them?
4.) She said that they were going to Iraq to fight those that had destroyed the buildings. Since everybody agrees that Al-Queada is in Iraq now, she's not wrong. If she'd said: Saddam planned 9/11, then you'd be right.
5.) There are about 5 or 6 different answers to what the Bush doctrine is.
Here are about 5 of them:http://hughhewitt.townhall.com/blog/g/7656b78a-a090-4a56-9bf5-0e37bdaff80a
note: Charlie Gibson himself (the interviewer) has said the "Bush Doctrine" meant different things than what he stated last night.
6.) Would you stop Israel (our ally) from defending itself against Iran?
Indeed see this article from USA today that shows she was a "govern from the center" politician in practice. (like McCain) Her religion never informed any of her choices.
http://www.usatoday.com/news/politics/election2008/2008-09-11-palin-cover_N.htm?loc=interstitialskip
Originally posted by sithsaber408
1.) Obama is for including Ukriane and Georgia in NATO too.
No one objected to her wanting to put Georgia in Nato.
Originally posted by sithsaber408
2.) If they were attacked (like England or any of our other NATO allies) then we WOULD be obligated to respond.
Not go to war, though. Which is what she explicitly said. War. Like it's even physically possible anyways.
Originally posted by sithsaber408
3.) She stated many times that we don't need another cold war and that we wouldn't go to war as the first step. She mentioned discussions, sanctions, pressure from allies, etc..
And war.
Originally posted by sithsaber408
side note: Do you think Regan kept them at bay because the Russians thought he'd back down or because they believed he'd hit them?
What kept them at bay was the fact that if they attacked us we'd obviously fight back. And also we didn't have two other wars going on at the same time.
Originally posted by sithsaber408
4.) She said that they were going to Iraq to fight those that had destroyed the buildings. Since everybody agrees that Al-Queada is in Iraq now, she's not wrong. If she'd said: Saddam planned 9/11, then you'd be right.
That's not why we went to Iraq though. The only reason Al-Queada is there is because we're there. They weren't there before. So it's a catch-22.
Originally posted by sithsaber408
5.) There are about 5 or 6 different answers to what the Bush doctrine is.Here are about 5 of them:http://hughhewitt.townhall.com/blog/g/7656b78a-a090-4a56-9bf5-0e37bdaff80a
note: Charlie Gibson himself (the interviewer) has said the "Bush Doctrine" meant different things than what he stated last night.
And she didn't know any of them. The answer she gave before Gibson clarified wasn't correct in regards to any of them.
Originally posted by sithsaber408
6.) Would you stop Israel (our ally) from defending itself against Iran?
No, but our leader is obligated to second guess sending our troops to help them. We shouldn't blindly go to war because an ally does.