mischaracterization of the so called "Christian right"

[raderag]

If you want to see what liberals and non-religious see from the Christian white, I mean right, look no further than the CARM poli board. The left will be the left, but many "evangelicals" there are conspiracy theorist, racists (yes, I mean that), xenophobic, and just plain obnoxious.

Not only that, they have put on blinders when it comes to supporting the likes of Sarah Palin.

[Joe S]

I resemble those remarks, except for racist, I don't think I'm that. I am suspicious of foreigners and believe there must be an overarching conspiracy, though I'm not sure which one. It just doesn't make sense when politicians do things that are obviously harmful to the country and its people, undermining our sovereignty and power- unless they have ulterior motives.

My wife doesn't like Palin, but I think she would act out of genuine concern for her country and believes in our way of life, so long as she gets good people to advise her, I think she has the common sense to do the job.

I believe our current administration doesn't believe in our way of life, and looks over-seas for their paradigm of government.

[raderag]

Joe, while you may be further to the right than am I, I doubt you are what I am talking about.

As far as Palin goes, I don't have a problem with her politics, but rather her inability to answer basic civics questions and her unwillingness to govern the state she was elected to govern. She is an unfaithful magistrate, and should not be elected to any other office.

As far as Obama goes, I think he is trying to finish what FDR started. His policies are more American liberalism and Kenseyanism than European socialism. European socialism would not permit us to run the types of deficits we are running now.

[JBaker45]

Yes. I was astonished at some of the comments I received in a thread I posted regarding Sarah P. I think she will be a breath of fresh air for this country once we run out the clock on the now failing Obama presidency.

[tking]

Yes. I was astonished at some of the comments I received in a thread I posted regarding Sarah P. I think she will be a breath of fresh air for this country once we run out the clock on the now failing Obama presidency.

She'll never make it cause she's too real and earthy. She has a lot of the qualities that our foremothers had...you know...rough around the edges, blunt, more than a little acquainted with physical labor and has too much common sense to consider some of the idiotic "journalism" questions asked her. Like...what kinds of magazines do you read in Alaska *blink, blink, blink* ala Couric...LOL!! Good grief, how out of touch ARE these "journalists," a term I'm using very loosely, with the real world?

I sometimes wonder if we have any political figures around who aren't celebrities moreso than leaders of our country?

[Tallen]

As far as Palin goes, I don't have a problem with her politics, but rather her inability to answer basic civics questions and her unwillingness to govern the state she was elected to govern. She is an unfaithful magistrate, and should not be elected to any other office.

I'm with you on this one Brett. It was a brillant move on the part of McCain to bring her into his Presidential bid, although he failed. This was a great move to show the hypocrisy of the left and there hatred for all things right. But on the level of ability, to me, she is too much of a lightening rod for controversy and political fighting. I feel she would not be a good president for this country not a good spokesperson for the right in general. She's a Glen Beck in the political realm, someone that is just not what you would want to be the spokesperson for your views.

[JBaker45]

The reason that I think that she has a good chance is because there is usually a strong backlash after a democratic presidency.

[tking]

The reason that I think that she has a good chance is because there is usually a strong backlash after a democratic presidency.

It'd have to be an extremely strong one. And really, I don't know that she'd be good for the job simply because of the fact that she's been such a lightning rod for the Rep. party. It's hard to get a job done when you're not particularly liked or respected by your own party members. But then I didn't think we'd have anyone in office who doesn't even respect the country they're leading either...just goes to show ya.

[raderag]

Am I the only one bothered by here quiting her job in Alaska and her not being able to answer basic questions in the ABC Interview?

[Yodas_Prodigy]

I did not like her quiting her elected role either. I don't consider being Governor as being a job. She quit the people of Alaska. I don't want her on any more tickets.

[raderag]

I did not like her quiting her elected role either. I don't consider being Governor as being a job. She quit the people of Alaska. I don't want her on any more tickets.

I agree with you that it is more than a job, not sure why I called it that.

IMO, she is an unfaithful magistrate, uninformed, and unfit for office.

[tking]

Am I the only one bothered by here quiting her job in Alaska and her not being able to answer basic questions in the ABC Interview?

I didn't see that interview, so I can't really comment on that one. As for quitting her job, it all depends on the why. I actually thought it was a wise decision for her to quit because she, the office, and the state itself was becoming merely tabloid fodder. It was an embarrassment for the entire state of Alaska I'd think. Now whether or not she considered that, I can't say.

The only interview I've listened to recently was on talkradio, and she seemed pretty well informed to me. My thought is that we're so used to the pat, memorized answers folks give, whether they know what they're talking about or not, that we don't like anything that looks less polished. As for me, personally, I'd vote for just about anyone who wasn't part of the DC scene right now. How sickening our government has become, and I don't see much of anyone with integrity in the political arena these days. I'm just waiting for the country to go entirely broke and be held up as an example to the world like Russia was...and that's the truth.

Edited to clarify: Don't take my posts to mean I'd vote for her because I probably wouldn't. She was pretty much doomed from the start and has made herself much like raking fingernails on the blackboard for politics in general. However, I do admire her for stepping out there and pretty much letting Washington know that not everyone out here is fooled by the slickness of the political movers and shakers.

I guess my question is...am I the only one bothered by the "celebrity" status of our government leaders? I always thought it was about leading the country not being the newest sparkler.

[raderag]

I didn't see that interview, so I can't really comment on that one. As for quitting her job, it all depends on the why. I actually thought it was a wise decision for her to quit because she, the office, and the state itself was becoming merely tabloid fodder. It was an embarrassment for the entire state of Alaska I'd think. Now whether or not she considered that, I can't say.

The only interview I've listened to recently was on talkradio, and she seemed pretty well informed to me. My thought is that we're so used to the pat, memorized answers folks give, whether they know what they're talking about or not, that we don't like anything that looks less polished. As for me, personally, I'd vote for just about anyone who wasn't part of the DC scene right now. How sickening our government has become, and I don't see much of anyone with integrity in the political arena these days. I'm just waiting for the country to go entirely broke and be held up as an example to the world like Russia was...and that's the truth.

Edited to clarify: Don't take my posts to mean I'd vote for her because I probably wouldn't. She was pretty much doomed from the start and has made herself much like raking fingernails on the blackboard for politics in general. However, I do admire her for stepping out there and pretty much letting Washington know that not everyone out here is fooled by the slickness of the political movers and shakers.

I guess my question is...am I the only one bothered by the "celebrity" status of our government leaders? I always thought it was about leading the country not being the newest sparkler.

The only reason that she can do interviews now is that she speaks with generic talking points. In the interview, she could not name any SCOTUS decision other than Roe V Wade that she disagreed with among other blunders.

[tking]

The only reason that she can do interviews now is that she speaks with generic talking points. In the interview, she could not name any SCOTUS decision other than Roe V Wade that she disagreed with among other blunders.

She was promoting her book, but it happened that something else was going on at the time. I can't remember off the top of my head what it even was. My opinion is that her interviews during the campaign were pretty much setups. The attitudes and the condescension were so obvious, and like it or not, the media is what determines who's running the county. It was shameful imho. It wouldn't surprise me at all to find out someone in her own "camp" let interviewers know what she was weak on and what she was strong on. Country mouse gone to the city.

None of the candidates seemed really...ready?...I guess. Not one of them seemed strong enough in anything they were promoting nor were they willing to give specific answers on much of anything. Meh...it's an ugly business for sure and for certain.

What is the importance of the Supreme Court's decisions? Since I didn't see it, I'm not sure of the importance of that particular aspect other than determining a general feel for a person's beliefs about those decisions. I tend to look over that kind of thing because I want to hear what they're planning to do and how they intend to do it. You can usually tell what their passion is by their answers.

FWIW, I don't think any woman belongs in the White House. And if I had my way, no male who hadn't at least served in the military could be there either. Our Commander in Chief needs that kind of experience.

[raderag]

She was promoting her book, but it happened that something else was going on at the time. I can't remember off the top of my head what it even was. My opinion is that her interviews during the campaign were pretty much setups. The attitudes and the condescension were so obvious, and like it or not, the media is what determines who's running the county. It was shameful imho. It wouldn't surprise me at all to find out someone in her own "camp" let interviewers know what she was weak on and what she was strong on. Country mouse gone to the city.

None of the candidates seemed really...ready?...I guess. Not one of them seemed strong enough in anything they were promoting nor were they willing to give specific answers on much of anything. Meh...it's an ugly business for sure and for certain.

What is the importance of the Supreme Court's decisions? Since I didn't see it, I'm not sure of the importance of that particular aspect other than determining a general feel for a person's beliefs about those decisions. I tend to look over that kind of thing because I want to hear what they're planning to do and how they intend to do it. You can usually tell what their passion is by their answers.

FWIW, I don't think any woman belongs in the White House. And if I had my way, no male who hadn't at least served in the military could be there either. Our Commander in Chief needs that kind of experience.


Do we want somebody in the whitehouse that can't handle a "setup"? Maybe it was, but I could have answered those questions, and probably even when I was in high school.

[tking]

Do we want somebody in the whitehouse that can't handle a "setup"? Maybe it was, but I could have answered those questions, and probably even when I was in high school.

Oh I'm not saying she shouldn't have been ready. I was just wondering what the particular importance of it was. I lean more toward the straight out speeches rather than interviews, or debates for that matter. And isn't it sad that the question about setups would even have to be asked about our own countrymen? I guess politics has always been kinda slimey that way though...but I don't really think the media, or maybe I should say journalists, were always that way.

I don't think she knew what she was in for. She seemed unprepared for the predator attitude of the media and too effected by it to offer much in the way of campaigning. It seemed almost like folks felt since she wasn't a part of the lower 48, she was somehow ignorant and too unsophisticated for the job. One thing about it, her family definitely got an education out of the deal. It was a hard lesson, I'd imagine, but in a way it shows the true face of what our society has become. It wouldn't have mattered who was running against the current Pres. and VP, they would've lost. It would've been too un-PC to elect anyone else. At least that's the way it appeared to me. Imagine if Hillary had gotten the thumbs up!...ACK!

[JBaker45]

Sorry for the delay, but I never saw these replies until I did this global search here at LAD. (Could be a bug.)

But I'm going to hold onto my predication that she will be coming on strong in the future. Sure, I could be wrong. But I'm looking forward to a strong presentation of Sarah in the media in the future, and I think she is the winner :).

[Joe S]

I think we could survive a figurehead president if the right people were advising them. I think that's what we have now, except we have a well spoken radical who is wet behind the ears being informed by other ignorant radicals who drink their own "kool-aid". I don't think it would be the first figurehead president we have endured.

[Joe S]

The types of deficits we are running now are easily explained if you are a conspiricy theorist :L52: They know very well that they are setting the stage for future economic collapse. Proletarian dictatorship, here we come! :L11:

[tking]

The types of deficits we are running now are easily explained if you are a conspiricy theorist :L52: They know very well that they are setting the stage for future economic collapse. Proletarian dictatorship, here we come! :L11:

And speaking of conspiracies...isn't it odd how the swine flu is so deadly and is a pandemic right at health care bill time? (except for the fact that it hasn't been as deadly as just regular ole run o' the mill flu):L21:

[Tallen]

Yep, there is a bug.

[raderag]

I think we could survive a figurehead president if the right people were advising them. I think that's what we have now, except we have a well spoken radical who is wet behind the ears being informed by other ignorant radicals who drink their own "kool-aid". I don't think it would be the first figurehead president we have endured.

Hi Joe,

What do you mean by radical?

[Joe S]

By "radical" I mean devout socialist revolutionaries who believe in the powerful centralized federal government that controls the economy and dictates societal norms, whilst seeking to oppress and marginalize those with opposing views.

[raderag]

By "radical" I mean devout socialist revolutionaries who believe in the powerful centralized federal government that controls the economy and dictates societal norms, whilst seeking to oppress and marginalize those with opposing views.

Ok, but I'm not sure that Obama is any worse or even as bad as FDR.

[Joe S]

I agree. FDR made hundreds of socialist changes. The supreme court overturned many for being unconstitutional but many more were instituted, at least from what I learned from the PBS program about FDR. PBS has a liberal reputation, but I've found in these biographies they usually lay the facts bare.

I think there have been two radical shifts away from our rather libertarian roots- the civil war and FDR. We may be experiencing the third- but Obama doesn't quite have the popularity and power that FDR had.

I think, however, many of the social changes made during the first two radical shifts were for the better. I think both Abraham Lincoln and FDR did much against slavery, even if in both cases their motives were'nt pure.