McCain/Palin

[Tallen]

What do you think of McCains choice.

[JBaker45]

What do you think of McCains choice.
I like it :smile:

[Tallen]

I like it :smile:

When I heard the announcement Friday, I thought of you John. I knew you would approve.

I heard Palin speak a few months ago and liked her. She seems a good choice in my opinion. :bigtup:

[strangecharm]

Now....about her daughter...?

[Joe S]

I think Palin has most conservatives excited. She's an actual conservative Protestant ( using that term very broadly to include all non-RCC Trinitarians.) She hunts and fishes and believes that evolution is merely a (false) theory and not an axiomatic truth. :clap:

As far as her daughter becoming pregnant, I don't think that necessarily makes her an irresponsible parent. I remember when I was a teen- that could have very easily happened to me (I mean, I couldn't have got pregnant, I'm not some kind of freak of nature, but you get my drift.) And my grandparents were responsible and God fearing. :bigthink:

The Obama ticket has in response once again shown arrogant disdain for rural Americans. Makes my neck red just thinking about it :angry:

[TigerBunny]

I've been under a rock since the announcement apparently so I haven't been able to check her out. Sounds like a good choice from the posts thus far.

[raderag]

What do you think of McCains choice.

Great political choice, but not sure that a woman with small kids is fit for the office of POTUS. The whole point is that she could be President if something happened.

[Tallen]

Great political choice, but not sure that a woman with small kids is fit for the office of POTUS. The whole point is that she could be President if something happened.

She would probably make a better President than McCain would. The kids do present some problems, although not insurmountable, IMO. But I am not sure that I can support McCain to start with.

[tking]

I think it was a good one, and what's entertaining is watching the media scramble because they didn't have a clue. (At least he still knows how to use strategy.) So here we are with trash talk about the pregnant daughter who's getting married (what business is this of anyone's anyhow?). Anything to take the focus off the fact that they were surprised...lol!!

[Tallen]

I think it was a good one, and what's entertaining is watching the media scramble because they didn't have a clue. (At least he still knows how to use strategy.) So here we are with trash talk about the pregnant daughter who's getting married (what business is this of anyone's anyhow?). Anything to take the focus off the fact that they were surprised...lol!!

I wonder what the press spin would be if it was Obama's daughter. I am sure you would see a different coarse of action.

BTW, we are being bambarded with Obama political ads in Michigan, he slams McCain for being against abortion. Would that be his answer to Palin's situation? :bigthink:

[raderag]

I wonder what the press spin would be if it was Obama's daughter. I am sure you would see a different coarse of action.


Well, considering that Obama's oldest daughter is like 8, that would be pretty big news. :-)

Sorry, I couldn't resist.

[Tallen]

Well, considering that Obama's oldest daughter is like 8, that would be pretty big news. :-)

Sorry, I couldn't resist.

I have one name for the press..., Chelsea Clinton. Who they tried to make out of bounds when Clinton was President.

[raderag]

I have one name for the press..., Chelsea Clinton. Who they tried to make out of bounds when Clinton was President.

Right, but the Clinton's asked for that also.

Palin made the announcement about her daughter on television. Well, I haven't really seen the presses coverage, so I can't say its good or bad.

[Tallen]

Right, but the Clinton's asked for that also.

Palin made the announcement about her daughter on television. Well, I haven't really seen the presses coverage, so I can't say its good or bad.

How I understand it she was responding to the press revealing this. I think she is pretty straight forward in her response. She said that she loves and supports her daughter and realizes the hardship she faces as a teenage mother. I think this was a very appropriate response myself.

[raderag]

How I understand it she was responding to the press revealing this. I think she is pretty straight forward in her response. She said that she loves and supports her daughter and realizes the hardship she faces as a teenage mother. I think this was a very appropriate response myself.

Yes, I agree.

[Tallen]

Yes, I agree.

I'll take your Pastor's advice and pray for Palin and her family.

That is the best I can do. :bigtup:

[Maestroh]

What do you think of McCains choice.

The only BETTER move I've ever seen is when GHW Bush chose Clarence Thomas and told the Democrats," Let's see about that equality thing NOW!"

1) She firms up the conservative base for Johnny Mac.

2) Inexperience? Do you REALLY think Obama is going to be able to make that argument? If Biden does then they just show him on TV dissing Obama's experience last year.

3) Palin: "There's four people in this race, and I'm the ONLY ONE who has ever had to balance a budget." Can hardly wait for that one.

4) She appeals to all those gun toting religionists that Elitist Obama dissed back in Pennsylvania.

5) Appeals to some portions of the 'pro-Hillary' woman segment.

6) AFFIRMS the picture for Independents of McCain as a 'maverick.'

I think it was a bold political move - and hardly the 'gamble' folks are saying.

[Yodas_Prodigy]

Much agreed....

[Machairan]

After last night's speech at the convention, I cannot think of a better co-candidate for McCain. Palin brings tons of benefits to the Republicans by giving them a base for reform that is aggressive, rational, and ethical.

[tking]

After last night's speech at the convention, I cannot think of a better co-candidate for McCain. Palin brings tons of benefits to the Republicans by giving them a base for reform that is aggressive, rational, and ethical.

I agree! I wish I'd thought of the line that the only difference between a soccer mom and a pit bull was ....lipstick...hahaha. And I'll tell ya, she struck me as being one pit bull of a candidate.

I didn't hear all of it..only the last 15 minutes or so, but she touched on several of the things that I'd felt, too. I really have this thing about having a Commander-in-Chief who has at least been in a war or served in a heavy duty military way. I think in this election, especially, that kind of experience is needed.

She also hit a biggie by using the phrase that some candidates use the word change to further their careers and others, like McCain, use their careers to create change...something like that.

And she brought the media down to size!!! I loved that!

She actually revved me up about this election and gave me a little spark of hope for getting someone in there who isn't trying to be a celebrity about it all.

She turned Obama's own words against him by addressing the experience issue.

Of course, this morning we have Joe Biden downplaying her speech and trying to say she didn't address health care and middle America. The thing is..he missed the whole point of the speech. That is EXACTLY what she was talking about. She did it with her attitude and her presentation as well as stepping up and showing that she wasn't daunted or intimidated in the least by the competition. The fact that she comes from small-town America (you know, the ones Obama said cling to their religion and their guns?...lol) and presented a picture of a person FROM small-town America who can stand up to the big dogs said something the Obama people completely missed...which has been typical so far.

[Julie]

http://www.netbroadcasting.tv/sarah_palin.html

[Quintessential Archetype]

Isn't she a hardcore Christian extremist?

I read she tried to ban books that opposed Christianity vaules and also attends chruch where they try to "pray the gay away." She also uses the word "prayer" extensively as a way to get things done, and using the phrases "God's plan" in numerous to promote her own agenda, the war for instance. The thing I find silly is that, shes breaking the constitution by trying to ban books in the first place. Secondly, you can't pray away the gay, that's silly, they're gay. Thridly, using "This is God's plan" in reference to the war, this pisses me off the most cause if we don't kill them with our God, then they will kill us with their God. Yet she is a Godly women who loves and yet arms and kills those who reject her God. Silly world we live in, besides prayer is best left for spiritual purposes, not materalistic decay.

[Joe S]

I never knew you had such a low view of Scripture, which is very clear that practicing homosexuals will not inherit the kingdom of God. To deny the sin of homosexuality is impenitent rebellion against God's decree and design. Palin should be praying that God would release gays from their bondage to sin.

Here's Obama's theology: Black Liberation Theology (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_liberation_theology)

[JBaker45]

Palin should be praying that God would release gays from their bondage to sin.
Good points Joe, and as far as I know she does.

[tking]

I never knew you had such a low view of Scripture, which is very clear that practicing homosexuals will not inherit the kingdom of God. To deny the sin of homosexuality is impenitent rebellion against God's decree and design. Palin should be praying that God would release gays from their bondage to sin.

Here's Obama's theology: Black Liberation Theology (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_liberation_theology)

Off subject, but I've always wondered why apologies to African-Americans seem to be so important when we don't see such publicity for the apologies to the Native Americans. Weird. Methodist history has a huge stain concerning this. They did apologize in the mid 1990's to the Cheyenne and Arapaho tribes for the Sand Creek Massacre, but still that's only the tip of the iceberg really.

[Tallen]

Isn't she a hardcore Christian extremist?

No. Just an Arminian in the Assembly of God church. There are millions of them around you. A besides that, what makes you think that all written material should be allowed into a public library? I can think of a lot of books, magazines and materials that should not be allowed. The libraries in my town carry video tapes of movies, documentaries and other things. Should we allow any kind of content in that as well? I think not. Historically community standards are determined by the community and not enforced upon them by a federal government. I, for one, like it that way. :pray:

[bartalonis]

I have a serious problem with this election. I carefully listened to McCain’s speech and the one thing that I noticed above all others is that he failed to mention the Constitution once. Oh sure, he talked plenty about his love of country and it all sounded very patriotic and there is no doubt that he is a war hero for enduring over 5 years of captivity in POW camps. I’ll grant him all of that and no doubt his love of this country. However, which country does he love? My country is the Republic that our founding fathers gave us. You know, it’s the one that we pledge allegiance to. So if our country is the Republic then it is, in a very real sense, the Constitution itself. The Constitution is the covenant between the federal government, the several states, and we the people. It’s sole purpose is to spell out exactly what the federal government is suppose to be able to do and makes it clear that those things that are spelled out are all that it is suppose to do. All the rest of the powers, even if they have not come up before, are left up to the people and the states. The people are supposed to be the rulers of this nation through their representatives and the government is supposed to be our servant.

Now, I personally believe that the Constitution is not a “living document”. It means exactly what it meant in the founders day and doesn’t change from generation to generation, except through the amendment process of course. I also believe that it was written in clear English and where the average citizen who is able to read can understand it. I believe that the founders knew that they had to have the cooperation of the majority of the people who were distrustful of central governments and did not want a document that was hard for the people to understand.

I personally believe that the best way to see where we are at the present time is not to look at each piece one by one but to look at the whole at the present time to see just how far away from the Republic that our government has moved. So if we look at the federal government as it exists today (look at the whole forest instead of each tree) and then compare it to the Constitution, if we are reasonable people, we can see that the federal government is violating the Constitution in thousands of different ways and that most of the politicians and bureaucrats know that it is doing so. Else how could the federal government have gotten to where it is? Yet every one of those politicians and probably many of the bureaucrats swear allegiance to promise to defend the Constitution against all enemies foreign or domestic. From the looks of things they should place a hand on the Bible with one hand and hold a mirror in the other so that they can see themselves and look into their own eyes because they are the very ones who go on to violate the Constitution on a regular basis. This might look a little awkward while taking the oath but so be it. It would at least be a visual reminder to everyone about what is going on and perhaps cause some of them to blush creating a second visual sign. I’ll not vote for either the republicans or the democrats because that is exactly what has gotten us here in the first place and there is little hope that anything is going to change for the better if we keep on voting for these two parties. The only change there will be is for the worse because they have shown no willingness to change direction. After all, the federal governement has grown in size and power for every year that I can remember and I'm 58.

I am not naïve. I don’t believe that you become a vice presidential candidate without sitting down in the back room and go over the whole ‘shebang’. Large corporations and various political powers have far too much invested in a presidential race and want their interests looked after and they most always will be looked after and that’s part of the obvious problem. So, once again, I see the ‘same o same o’ happening, but What about the Constitution?

Chuck Baldwin sent an email out a few days ago and he had nothing but good words to say about Sarah Palin but then he gave a whole long list of things that will come up shortly after the inauguration (assuming McCain wins). He asked whether Sarah Palin would immediately begin disagreeing with all of these issues because they are unconstitutional. A far more probable use of Palin will be to make them more easily swallowed as we continue on down the road to destruction. In the early part of the election a reporter asked Ron Paul if he would be willing to be a vice presidential candidate. He didn’t think long about it and immediately answered that he would not consider it because the first thing that would happen is that the administration would support something unconstitutional and he would be forced to resign. Chuck Baldwin alluded to the Bible when he said “can two walk together lest they be agreed?” Dr. Paul's voting record may not be perfect but he has tried very hard to make it so. He has tried very hard to vote for the Constitution in every vote. We had all better start voting for the Constitution very soon or we'll one day soon be asking - "What happened to the Republic?" :bigO:

bartalonis

[Quintessential Archetype]

I never knew you had such a low view of Scripture, which is very clear that practicing homosexuals will not inherit the kingdom of God. To deny the sin of homosexuality is impenitent rebellion against God's decree and design. Palin should be praying that God would release gays from their bondage to sin.

Your right, scripture says to pray for those who live a sinful life, even ourselves. The thing that bugs me, I don't like the whole establishment of "praying away the gay." A gay man is no differen't than a lier in the eyes of God, sin is sin, according to scripture, so why the central attention to only gay people, there a whole world out there who deny their sins.

[Quintessential Archetype]

No. Just an Arminian in the Assembly of God church. There are millions of them around you. A besides that, what makes you think that all written material should be allowed into a public library? I can think of a lot of books, magazines and materials that should not be allowed. The libraries in my town carry video tapes of movies, documentaries and other things. Should we allow any kind of content in that as well? I think not. Historically community standards are determined by the community and not enforced upon them by a federal government. I, for one, like it that way. :pray:

All written material should be allowed and sold any where, our consititution protects us on that part, even if you disagree. None of us have any right to say what is allowed and not allowed, which beats the whole purpose of freedom of expression. You get one person banning books, other think they'll have some sort of authority to bans books aswell. The fact is this, we all have differen't opinions and views, doesn't mean we should silience them cause we get offended. What people need to learn is tolerance and I bet if some group of people started banning Christians books of all kind, there would be an up roar about it.

[raderag]

All written material should be allowed and sold any where, our consititution protects us on that part, even if you disagree. None of us have any right to say what is allowed and not allowed, which beats the whole purpose of freedom of expression. You get one person banning books, other think they'll have some sort of authority to bans books aswell. The fact is this, we all have differen't opinions and views, doesn't mean we should silience them cause we get offended. What people need to learn is tolerance and I bet if some group of people started banning Christians books of all kind, there would be an up roar about it.

Your opinion just isn't based in reality. No court has ever ruled that the 1rst amendment protects the right of all written material in all settings. Its just your opinion.

[raderag]

I have a serious problem with this election. I carefully listened to McCain’s speech and the one thing that I noticed above all others is that he failed to mention the Constitution once. Oh sure, he talked plenty about his love of country and it all sounded very patriotic and there is no doubt that he is a war hero for enduring over 5 years of captivity in POW camps. I’ll grant him all of that and no doubt his love of this country. However, which country does he love? My country is the Republic that our founding fathers gave us. You know, it’s the one that we pledge allegiance to. So if our country is the Republic then it is, in a very real sense, the Constitution itself.

Bart,

You concern is well founded, but I'm not so sure of the "cure" (Ron Paul).

Regardless, what we need now is for the public to become educated on the constitution and to start holding politicians accountable for that.

Our Republic had begun being eroded for many years; FDR pretty much finished it off.

[bartalonis]

The answer is not necessarily Ron Paul but it is for people who try to vote according to what the Constitution says. Have you ever noticed that when ALL the people routinely start ignoring stop signs and begin using a stop sign for a 'rolling stop' sign the exception becomes the rule and is what is expected.

Our Republic began to disintegrate in an accelerated pace shortly after the Civil War.

bartalonis

[raderag]

The answer is not necessarily Ron Paul but it is for people who try to vote according to what the Constitution says. Have you ever noticed that when ALL the people routinely start ignoring stop signs and begin using a stop sign for a 'rolling stop' sign the exception becomes the rule and is what is expected.

Our Republic began to disintegrate in an accelerated pace shortly after the Civil War.

bartalonis

On the first point I agree.

As far as what you say in your second point, I would say that it isn't quite that simple. On one hand, it may appear that the first 80 years were an ideal point in time in our Republic. That may seem true on the surface, but if you dig deeper into history, you would see far more corruption than now, a rule of law that was much more inconsistent, far more injustices (i.e. Slavery), and constitutional crisis aplenty(you mentioned the Civil War).

Christians need to take care in not wanting to go back to the "good ole days" as they never existed. The government that we have now is exactly what God has given us. I would also add that, while I am very thankful for our Constitution, it is as much or more of a product of French enlightened liberalism as it is of Christianity. It is a flawed document as is any other manmade document. That is why we have had to amend it 17 times (in addition to the much fought over Bill of Rights). It is the law, and we should as a country follow it.

The problem with our Republic is that the people have held the feet to the fire of politicians to fix the problems in our Country to the demise of the 10th amendment. That is why FDR threatened to pack the court so that he could get the new deal through. While, I do not like the new deal, it is certainly better than what might have happened if we had nothing at all. I mean that only in a political sense as the 1932 election saw around 2 million voters for the Socialist and Communist parties. It may have been better to feed the peoples desires for socialism with the new deal that to have starved it and let it take over all together. I don’t know. I do know that socialism and communism in its pure form lost much support after the new deal.

[Tallen]

All written material should be allowed and sold any where, our consititution protects us on that part, even if you disagree. None of us have any right to say what is allowed and not allowed, which beats the whole purpose of freedom of expression. You get one person banning books, other think they'll have some sort of authority to bans books aswell. The fact is this, we all have differen't opinions and views, doesn't mean we should silience them cause we get offended. What people need to learn is tolerance and I bet if some group of people started banning Christians books of all kind, there would be an up roar about it.

I would suggest you read up on what the Constitution protects and doesn't protect. You are simply expressing a personal opinion.

[bartalonis]

I certainly believe that the original Constitution was flawed. No document written by man is perfect. However, it did give us a workable government that we could control had we have been observant and vigilant.

Naturally no one, certainly no Christian, would want to go back to slaveholding and I hope that you are aware that that was not what I intended by my post.

By bringing up the Civil War it was my intention to call attention to the fact that one of the main principles in the Constitution was to guard states' rights not because I wanted to return to slaveholding.

From the Civil war forward is where the federal government really began to cease power in a big way. It is when the corporations started to grow in power and is when the federal government started to conform many state commercial codes to each other.

I personally believe that when the Federal Reserve and the Income tax came into being was when the Republic really began it's decline at an even more accelerated rate.

The main point is that when much of the power remains in the states and local governments then freedom will be more easily guarded. This was one of the main things the Constitution attempted to do.

bartalonis

[raderag]

By bringing up the Civil War it was my intention to call attention to the fact that one of the main principles in the Constitution was to guard states' rights not because I wanted to return to slaveholding.

bartalonis

I realized that you weren't defending slave holding. Here are some things to think about though. The perceived need for government action always comes about during moral failings. For example,

The moral failing for the US to end slavery, and later discrimination.
The moral failing to take care of the poor during the depression. Many, including those in the Church, had bought into the social Darwinism.

Lack of internal government always lead to more external and can lead to authoritarianism and even totalitarianism. At Tocqueville said, "America is great because Americans are good... When Americans cease to be good, it will cease to be great."

For the record, I am certainly for a constitutional Republic, but we need the Church and culture to be reformed for this to happen.

[tking]

All written material should be allowed and sold any where, our consititution protects us on that part, even if you disagree. None of us have any right to say what is allowed and not allowed, which beats the whole purpose of freedom of expression. You get one person banning books, other think they'll have some sort of authority to bans books aswell. The fact is this, we all have differen't opinions and views, doesn't mean we should silience them cause we get offended. What people need to learn is tolerance and I bet if some group of people started banning Christians books of all kind, there would be an up roar about it.

Actually, the first amendment doesn't offer this kind of protection:

First Amendment Overview (http://topics.law.cornell.edu/wex/First_amendment)

We can also see that some things fall outside the rights of the First Amendment here:

Obscenity (http://www.law.cornell.edu/anncon/search/display.html?terms=first%20amendment&url=/anncon/html/amdt1efrag1_user.html)

It's like that old adage...we have freedom of speech but not the freedom to yell "FIRE" in a crowded theater when there is none.

[raderag]

Actually, the first amendment doesn't offer this kind of protection:

First Amendment Overview (http://topics.law.cornell.edu/wex/First_amendment)

We can also see that some things fall outside the rights of the First Amendment here:

Obscenity (http://www.law.cornell.edu/anncon/search/display.html?terms=first%20amendment&url=/anncon/html/amdt1efrag1_user.html)

It's like that old adage...we have freedom of speech but not the freedom to yell "FIRE" in a crowded theater when there is none.

Coming soon. First amendment protection for arsonists. Ok, it doesn't fit perfectly.

[Tallen]

Coming soon. First amendment protection for arsonists. Ok, it doesn't fit perfectly.

It's a way to express his feelings and he has a perfect right to his artistic freedoms. :shocked:

[Quintessential Archetype]

Your opinion just isn't based in reality. No court has ever ruled that the 1rst amendment protects the right of all written material in all settings. Its just your opinion.

er...How does this answer my question about banning stuff that offends those who which to ban them? :bigthink:


I would suggest you read up on what the Constitution protects and doesn't protect. You are simply expressing a personal opinion.

:bigthink: Isn't that what we all are doing, to the religious, to protesting, and to those who write books, expressing our right to free speech?


Actually, the first amendment doesn't offer this kind of protection:

First Amendment Overview (http://topics.law.cornell.edu/wex/First_amendment)

We can also see that some things fall outside the rights of the First Amendment here:

Obscenity (http://www.law.cornell.edu/anncon/search/display.html?terms=first%20amendment&url=/anncon/html/amdt1efrag1_user.html)

It's like that old adage...we have freedom of speech but not the freedom to yell "FIRE" in a crowded theater when there is none.

Thank you tallen, I will read this.

[raderag]

er...How does this answer my question about banning stuff that offends us? :bigthink:
The courts have determined that anything beyond community standards can be banned. That is how it answers it.

[Quintessential Archetype]

The courts have determined that anything beyond community standards can be banned. That is how it answers it.

So "in your opinion" what would be beyond community standards? :bigthink:

[raderag]

So "in your opinion" what would be beyond community standards? :bigthink:

Depends on the community.

Child porn should be right out.

[Quintessential Archetype]

Depends on the community.

Child porn should be right out.

Ouch, you win by knockout. :crying:

[Tallen]

Isn't that what we all are doing, to the religious, to protesting, and to those who write books, expressing our right to free speech?

BTW QA, the right to protest a book that Palin wants banned in the library is protected by the Constitution. We don't all have to accept every book and article written as a holy script above our scutiny. Palin has the right to work for any book she wants banned from the library as you have the right to protest to keep it.

Amendment 1: 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.

If we take this at face value, Sarah Palin's right to her speech is just as important as the freedom of those who want to print something for her to protest. And let's take this one step further, would those that want freedom of press and freedom of speech extend that to the church and her message? In fact, the liberal press is trying to subvert the freedom of religion, not realizing they are arguing against the same amendment that gives them freedom of the press. Would it be out of reason for every pastor to attend a public meeting and print thier views about it as it is thought that the press should have access to every event? I'll submit that this amendment isn't viewed as an equal treatment to the church as it is to the press or some boisterous fool to spout his godless mantra.

If we take away the right for Sarah Palin to protest a book in the library, we take away our own right to free speech at the same time. A tricky row to hoe.

[tking]

BTW QA, the right to protest a book that Palin wants banned in the library is protected by the Constitution. We don't all have to accept every book and article written as a holy script above our scutiny. Palin has the right to work for any book she wants banned from the library as you have the right to protest to keep it.

Amendment 1: 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.

If we take this at face value, Sarah Palin's right to her speech is just as important as the freedom of those who want to print something for her to protest. And let's take this one step further, would those that want freedom of press and freedom of speech extend that to the church and her message? In fact, the liberal press is trying to subvert the freedom of religion, not realizing they are arguing against the same amendment that gives them freedom of the press. Would it be out of reason for every pastor to attend a public meeting and print thier views about it as it is thought that the press should have access to every event? I'll submit that this amendment isn't viewed as an equal treatment to the church as it is to the press or some boisterous fool to spout his godless mantra.

If we take away the right for Sarah Palin to protest a book in the library, we take away our own right to free speech at the same time. A tricky row to hoe.

Yes, and the irony lies in the bolded part there. Of course, the "separation of church and state" is used as defense of such, however, there is nothing in the constitution about separation of church and state. It was in a letter written by Thomas Jefferson. As secularism has risen in the government, the first amendment has been interpreted and reinterpreted in order to further agendas through the manipulation of wording and understanding of those words.

The positive side of separating the function of church within the government is that we don't have to worry about facing the atrocities committed by the Catholic Church centuries ago when we could either bow to the pope or be beheaded (or slowly killed by more cruel means). However, the flipside of that is the fact that the utterance of anything to do with God is seen as fair game in politics and the government on all levels.

And the most incredible irony of it all is that I can't talk about Christmas and the religious concept of it, but the Muslims can wear their attire and demand tolerance for their religion...and the government COMPLIES!

[raderag]

Just found out there has been a fake email about her banning books. It includes books that were published after she supposedly banned them. Wow, amazing.

http://snopes.com/politics/palin/bannedbooks.asp

[tking]

Just found out there has been a fake email about her banning books. It includes books that were published after she supposedly banned them. Wow, amazing.

http://snopes.com/politics/palin/bannedbooks.asp

Yeah, we can expect all sorts of things I imagine. Actually, on the news a couple weeks ago they clarified that when she asked the librarian about it, it was a tongue-in-cheek, teasing question. She'd never intended to ban anything. I also saw a clip of her views about creationism in school, and it jives with that other post you put up. I think we have to face the fact that since she's a Christian, she's a female with a special-needs child, and she isn't afraid to "boldly go" toe to toe with the Washington big boys, she's going to take a LOT of flack. She's a breath of fresh air as far as I'm concerned.

Imho, it's about time for us to stand up and let the Oval Office know that the media and special-interest groups aren't going to dictate to us who to vote for. It seems like the whole process has been dumbed down, and I find that insulting.

*yikes...I'm ranting again*

[Quintessential Archetype]

BTW QA, the right to protest a book that Palin wants banned in the library is protected by the Constitution. We don't all have to accept every book and article written as a holy script above our scutiny. Palin has the right to work for any book she wants banned from the library as you have the right to protest to keep it.

Amendment 1: 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.

If we take this at face value, Sarah Palin's right to her speech is just as important as the freedom of those who want to print something for her to protest. And let's take this one step further, would those that want freedom of press and freedom of speech extend that to the church and her message? In fact, the liberal press is trying to subvert the freedom of religion, not realizing they are arguing against the same amendment that gives them freedom of the press. Would it be out of reason for every pastor to attend a public meeting and print thier views about it as it is thought that the press should have access to every event? I'll submit that this amendment isn't viewed as an equal treatment to the church as it is to the press or some boisterous fool to spout his godless mantra.

If we take away the right for Sarah Palin to protest a book in the library, we take away our own right to free speech at the same time. A tricky row to hoe.

I understand what you are saying and you are right, she has every right to protest, but banning certian books is taking it way too far. Just like you said, if Palin supposedly did ban those books, she would essentialy be taking away freedom of expression from those ceritan groups. I wonder if I can ban Palin from being running mate for John McCain, though if we did such things, we would be taking away her rights from what the consitution protects. So it isn't anyone responsibilty to restirct anyones opinion just tolerance.

Tho, thanks to our good friend "raderag" who has correct me, we now know she isn't accused anymore, tho it is till left for questioning.

[Tallen]

Good rants and thoughts, though. I agree.