-
Website
http://thedistrictweekly.com/ -
Original page
http://thedistrictweekly.com/daily/staff-infection/briefing/sarah-palin-is-coming-to-carson-in-eight-days/ -
Subscribe
All Comments -
Community
-
-
Top Commenters
-
Popular Threads
next
This sort of begs the obvious question for me: If this wasn't ever important before, why now?
The answer seems equally obvious: "Because it is politically expedient for some Democrats that it be so".
It's difficult to find Democrat parallels to Palin as a VP candidate. Surprisingly, very few Governors have become VP's most; like Carter, Reagan and Clinton, seem to get elected as President instead. But there's no evidence that anyone questioned Indiana Governor Thomas R. Marshall's absence of foreign policy experience as he campaigned for, or after he was elected to, the VP seat (1913-1921).
Neither did anyone seem to mind Agriculture Secretary Henry A. Wallace's clear lack of foreign policy experience as he campaigned for, or after he was elected to, the VP seat (1941-1945).
So don't fret about Palin's lack of foreign policy experience, lbresident. If elected, she will have full access to all of the same dozens and dozens of foreign policy advisors and staff that McCain will.
Palin's foreign policy experience will come as Carter's did, and as Reagan's did, and as Clinton's did...on the job. That was apparently good enough for them, as Presidents.
I'm certain it will more than suffice for Palin, as VP.
Seriously, President Palin? She can't even handle Katie Couric.
But don't take my word, here's Kathleen Parker from the uptighty-righty National Review Online in her call for Palin to quit:
"If BS were currency, Palin could bail out Wall Street herself."
She's not qualified to be president. And Grandpa picked her.
"
You seem a lillte bitter, there, Andy. I'm wondering why. I think I've demonstrated that Palin meets and, in some cases, exceeds the standard for qualification to run for V.P. that we've applied to every other such candidate from either party.
So why the annoyance with Palin?
Double standard much?
This is about discussing Sarah Palin's "qualifications", not whether she's more or less qualified than Dan Quayle or the Whig Party's 1840 choice, John Tyler (who became president, BTW).
Your logic train just ran off the rails. Nice try, though.
I see where I asked for specific examples but received none. I see where I present facts that demonstrate that Palin's no less qualified than many who have run for, and won, the V.P seat in the past but been conveniently ignored.
When discussing a person's qualifications it makes sense to conduct a comparative analysis between that person and others who have aspired to the same position. Thus I did so. I believe I have demonstrated that Palin compares very favorably. Certainly there have been other candidates who have been more qualified, but there have also been many who have been considerably less so. Yet, as mentioned, no one questioned the qualifications of those in the latter group. So, again, why the double-standard?
People that most tend to challenge Palin's qualifications seem to fall into 2 distinct categories: Those who would not accept her no matter how qualified she was and those who would not accept her because they feel she isn't qualified *enough*. I believe I have demonstrated that she is better qualified than others who have run for, and won, the seat previously. By that historical (and logical) standard, then, she is sufficiently qualified to run.
That you persist in disputing this seems to indicate that you are among those who will not accept her no matter how qualified she is.
In short, I see where I have done everything reasonable to maintain a logical discourse on this topic but have had no cooperation from you in that attempt.
Next?
But in the meantime, those of us who don't love the sound of our own typing nearly as much as you, won't be surprised when they pull a Harriet Miers and yank this twit off the ticket.
And, by the way, logical discourse is more than restating your previous points over and over and over...
Yip, that sure sounds logical to me!
I do find it interesting that rather then engage with me honestly in the arena of ideas, you seem to feel you must stoop to personal insults and name calling. That approach seems more than a little bit disingenuous, but maybe that's just me.
Logical discourse requires at least two people who are willing to remain intellectually honest and exchange their ideas in a respectful and logical manner.
I feel I brought that to the table in this case while you, on the other hand, never seem to have made it into the room.
If at some point you'd care to offer some actual facts to support your contentions, I'd be all to happy to read them and respond.
Otherwise, how about finding someone else to try to insult?
Frankly we are all supposed to be fans of some concept called "meritocracy." Not every citizen should be considered intelligent enough or qualified to hold public office just because Grandpa says so.
For example: I am an ELITIST. Yes. It is true. I have a f*cking PhD in goddamn Astrophysics. Sarah Palin has no business actually attempting to do any Astrophysics. I think even John_B might be willing to agree to this. Well why can't we all, just for a moment, put aside questions of party affiliation and partisanship and just frigging admit that Palin really doesn't sound intelligent enough to hold the office of VP...
... let alone EVER be the tie-breaking vote in the Senate!
(Source: MSN Encarta Encyclopedia, Qualifications for Vice President of the United States.)
The fact that she was elected to both of those positions, not by 'Grandpa', but by a majority of the voters involved would seem to indicate that those voters felt she was sufficiently qualified to hold them. Although this election will be more about McCain v. Obama, perhaps sufficient numbers of voters will feel Palin is thus qualified come November as well.
If true, I think it's most commendable that you have achieved a PhD in astrophysics and you have my genuine respect for having done so. But knowledge does not necessarily equate to wisdom. I certainly agree that Palin is not qualified to "do any astrophysics" as you put it. But she's not running for astrophysicist, she's running for V.P. and, I believe, is sufficiently qualified to do so...and to serve in that position if elected, and to serve well.
Do you feel that being a poor communicator is a true measure of one's intelligence? Dr's. Einstein and Hawking might both strongly disagree with you. Do you feel that being a poor communicator (and I disagree that Palin is) should disqualify one from running for, or serving as, V.P? Then by that standard neither Quayle, Mondale or Ford should have run or so served...but they did. And, guess what? Our great nation managed to survive all of them.
My defense of Palin (here) is not about party affiliation, Kelson. It's about a logical analysis of the facts surrounding her candidacy. I happen to think Biden would make a horrible V.P, but that doesn't make him unqualified to run. I happen to think Obama would make a terrible and tragic President, but he is certainly qualified to run for the office.
Palin would not have been my first choice as a running mate for McCain. McCain, in fact, was not my preference as a Presidential candidate. That said, I believe its clear that Palin is qualified to run, and to serve, as V.P. Those who disagree would be better served to offer facts, rather than personal attacks, and to rebut my offerings of fact with factual offerings of their own.
If it is your goal to pursuade me (and others) of your position, then I submit you might be far more successful by employing reason, rather than rhetoric.
Einstein and Hawking might disagree? Both of them are excellent communicators but that is beside the point.
When someone is speaking, their unclear and muddle communications are a direct result and consequence of their own unclear and muddle thoughts. Our thoughts are actually intimately tied to the language with which we have proficiency. Unclear use of language is simply the product of poorly stored ideas and concepts.
And I think there is ample evidence that your VP candidate was not qualified to be Mayor and Governer --- being elected didn't make George Bush qualified either so you cannot invoke the simple facts of elections as evidence of qualification for office.
Really, dude, you astound me.
Are you quite certain you're qualified to be an astrophysicist?
Yes, Palin was a pageant contestant before she was a Mayor and a Governor. Reagan, arguably one of the greatest Presidents this nation has ever seen, was a B-movie actor before he led S.A.G. before he was Governor before he was President.
Will Palin ever be that sort of leader? I truly don't know. But if we had written Reagan off like some are now writing off Palin, we likely would never have seen the collapse of the Soviet Union, the subsequent liberation of millions of oppressed Europeans and the rise and success of what we now know as the European Union.
It'd be nice if folks would just be honest and simply say they just don't like her. That's by no means a disqualifier, but at least it would be truthful.
And it's nothing "personal" about me liking Palin, in fact, in person she and I would probably really click--I have the same hairstyle, wear glasses, and am a sports Mom!
She just simply should not be VP--it's like a bad after school special or something. "Like OMG! my mom just became President and it's like, sooooooooooooooo embarrassing!"
The sun rose and set every day,
Hill Street Blues was the most popular TV show,
Central American terrorist death squads killed lots of pesky nuns.
Yes, what if he'd never been president? But, again, logic isn't your strong point. Bumper sticker-deep understanding of issues and endlessly typing the letter "I" before every sentence is your best in eloquent discourse (not to mention throwing out insults and then been offended that someone might respond in kind.)
“The 25th Amendment details procedures for replacing a president who is incapacitated due to illness, injury, or other reasons. In such cases, the president may hand over power to the vice president by sending a written message to the Congress of the United States stating that he or she is unable to carry out the presidential duties. Should the president become incapable of running the country and be unwilling or unable to acknowledge this, the vice president and a majority of the Cabinet can notify Congress that the president is unfit. The vice president then becomes acting president until the president certifies in writing that he or she can resume the presidential responsibilities. The vice president, with the support of a majority of the Cabinet, can block the president’s resumption of power, but their decision must be approved by votes of two-thirds of both houses of Congress within 21 days. If Congress fails to support the vice president and the Cabinet, the president regains control.
“The Constitution gives the vice president few other official duties. The vice president serves as president of the Senate, formally presiding over Senate deliberations. Even this constitutional responsibility is limited, giving the vice president a vote on Senate bills and resolutions only if there is a tie vote. Because of this limited role in the Senate, the vice president rarely comes to the chamber. The Senate selects a president pro tempore (temporary president), who supervises the Senate most of the time. The vice president also presides over a joint session of Congress when it formally counts electoral votes for presidential elections.
“For most of U.S. history, the vice president’s role was limited to these largely ceremonial constitutional obligations. Since World War II (1939-1945) the president and Congress have assigned more and more responsibilities to the vice president. The vice president attends Cabinet meetings and sessions of the National Security Council, the president’s chief advisory panel for formulating and implementing policies related to the military, foreign relations, and other national security issues.
“The president also relies on the vice president to lead important presidential committees and panels, which study issues such as environmental protection, urban renewal, and reducing the size of the government bureaucracy. In addition, the vice president often travels to other countries to represent the president at international conferences, the funerals of foreign dignitaries, and other important events.
“When the president is away from Washington, D.C., or busy with other duties, the vice president often greets White House guests of many kinds, from groups of Boy Scouts to members of professional associations. If the president is unavailable, the vice president may also attend luncheons and dinners for diplomats or other officials from abroad, and hold meetings with leaders from business groups, labor unions, and other important political constituencies.”
(Source: MSN Encarta Encyclopedia, Powers and Responsibilities of the Vice President of the United States.)
What a joke; thanks mccain!
John_B will remind us that our beloved Constitution doesn't define such qualities as requirements to run for office. Too bad the Founders misunderestimated the extent to which basic principles of the Enlightenment should have been explicitly enshrined in the Bill of Rights [The Zeroth Ammendment: that the rights of the people to have leadership based on reason and rational thought shall not be infringed].
http://www.cbsnews.com/blogs/2008/09/27/politic...
So many people who preach tolerance and inclusiveness can't seem to practice either of those where Governor Palin is concerned. Could it be because many of these people are capable of tolerating and including others only when it best suits them?
So many people insist upon more opportunities for women, especially in government, but seem unwilling to extend THIS particular governmental opportunity to THIS particular woman. Could it be because many of these people are only interested in more governmental opportunities for the women that meet with their approval?
Some claim to feel that we should be judged based upon our achievements, yet, when Sarah Palin achieves things, she is, strangely, still found lacking. Could it be because for many of these people the only achievements that have true merit are those that THEY decide deserve it and all other achievements are thus deemed insufficient?
Sarah Palin has a college degree, but all some people seem to be able to focus on is the fact that she was a pageant contestant TWENTY-FOUR years ago. So what? Did she do something illegal? Is it wrong for an attractive and intelligent woman to aspire to be recognized for that?
Palin has served well and faithfully as the Chief Executive, the Governor, of her State, but all some people seem to be able to focus on are her eyeglasses, her hair or her clothes. So what? What happened to judging people by the content of their character rather than according to their outward appearance? Apparently that only applies when we are judging liberals.
Could all of this be because the bottom line for most of these people is the simple fact that Sarah Palin isn’t a liberal and, thus, she is to be sneered at, derided and dismissed?
Andy: Please point out for me where and when I have insulted anyone. Is it your assertion that no other candidate for V.P. has ever misspoken or failed to follow in lockstep with their running mate’s ideas and beliefs? Clearly this is not the case yet, for some reason, when others have done it, it has been excused. But when Palin does it it’s somehow not.
Kelson: Your attribute a belief to Governor Palin (your reference to dinosaurs) that I do not believe she possesses. Please cite your source for this attribution or, once again, please try to deal in fact, rather than fiction. Palin has been making ‘policy decisions’ for some time now and, by all accounts, doing so very well indeed. This would seem to indicate that she is quite capable of weighing evidence and taking facts into account. “Misunderestimated”? Are you trying to say that the Founders *didn’t* underestimate the “basic principles of ‘the Enlightenment’” (whatever those and that might be)? I realize I’m no astrophysicist, but that one really confused me. The “Zeroth Ammendment”? Are you making up words, misspelling others and making up amendments to support your arguments now? If your comments are in any way indicative of the sort of ‘reason and rational thought’ you would have us follow, I think I’ll stick to Plato and Socrates, Locke and Descartes.
Thanks though!
So many people who preach tolerance and inclusiveness can't seem to practice either of those where Governor Palin is concerned. Could it be because many of these people are capable of tolerating and including others only when it best suits them?
So many people insist upon more opportunities for women, especially in government, but seem unwilling to extend THIS particular governmental opportunity to THIS particular woman. Could it be because many of these people are only interested in more governmental opportunities for the women that meet with their approval?
Some claim to feel that we should be judged based upon our achievements, yet, when Sarah Palin achieves things, she is, strangely, still found lacking. Could it be because for many of these people the only achievements that have true merit are those that THEY decide deserve it and all other achievements are thus deemed insufficient?
Sarah Palin has a college degree, but all some people seem to be able to focus on is the fact that she was a pageant contestant TWENTY-FOUR years ago. So what? Did she do something illegal? Is it wrong for an attractive and intelligent woman to aspire to be recognized for that?
Palin has served well and faithfully as the Chief Executive, the Governor, of her State, but all some people seem to be able to focus on are her eyeglasses, her hair or her clothes. So what? What happened to judging people by the content of their character rather than according to their outward appearance? Apparently that only applies when we are judging liberals.
Could all of this be because the bottom line for most of these people is the simple fact that Sarah Palin isn’t a liberal and, thus, she is to be sneered at, derided and dismissed?
Andy: Please point out for me where and when I have insulted anyone. Is it your assertion that no other candidate for V.P. has ever misspoken or failed to follow in lockstep with their running mate’s ideas and beliefs? Clearly this is not the case yet, for some reason, when others have done it, it has been excused. But when Palin does it it’s somehow not.
Kelson: Your attribute a belief to Governor Palin (your reference to dinosaurs) that I do not believe she possesses. Please cite your source for this attribution or, once again, please try to deal in fact, rather than fiction. Palin has been making ‘policy decisions’ for some time now and, by all accounts, doing so very well indeed. This would seem to indicate that she is quite capable of weighing evidence and taking facts into account. “Misunderestimated”? Are you trying to say that the Founders *didn’t* underestimate the “basic principles of ‘the Enlightenment’” (whatever those and that might be)? I realize I’m no astrophysicist, but that one really confused me. The “Zeroth Ammendment”? Are you making up words, misspelling others and making up amendments to support your arguments now? If your comments are in any way indicative of the sort of ‘reason and rational thought’ you would have us follow, I think I’ll stick to Plato and Socrates, Locke and Descartes.
Thanks though!
http://www.salon.com/news/feature/2008/09/15/be...
And you would be hard-pressed to find anyone who would make the statement that "by all accounts" she h as been doing very well at policy decisions. Sounds like she left her old town quite heavily in debt. Sounds like she may be doing very well protecting us from Putin's rearing head whenever it pops up over Alaska.
I appreciate that you have a knack for knocking down straw men (and straw women) in your posts. Someday you should get out from behind that mirror of yours and actually read something from the reality-based part of the world.
She went to college; so what? Lots of people go to college. And because she's not your "first choice" you don't quite get off the hook. Was she your second choice? Third? 100th? Or last choice (at least within the GOP)?
I am stunned by what might be the last person in this country to have such blind obeisance.
What does it take for you to acknowledge a mistake or error on the part of your comrades?
When you ask "Could all of this be because the bottom line for most of these people is the simple fact that Sarah Palin isn’t a liberal and, thus, she is to be sneered at, derided and dismissed?" it strikes me as odd that you continue to think we don't sneer and deride and dismiss because she's simply an UNQUALIFIED BUFFOON? Many of us sneer and deride and dismiss the unqualified buffoons in our party as well but you can't seem to do this. But hey, that's what comes with all the other cognitive dissonance in your life.
Tolerance has nothing to do with suffering fools gladly. A distinction lost on the living-in-Mom's-basement and offshore-bride marrying kind.
Last time I checked, "bitter" was generally a pejorative term.
Sorry about your computer troubles, but it explains why you're in the McCain-Palin camp.
Andy: That you seem incapable of making a point without insulting others does you, and your opinions, great disservice. This is unfortunate because you might actually persuade others if you would rely less on insults and more on facts.
LB_City_Girl: So if I understand you correctly, you have no facts to support your concerns about Palin…merely a sense that her becoming V.P. would somehow be embarrassing for you. All I can say to that is to repeat my previous comment: It seems to me that some folks just don’t like Palin, and it would be nice if they would just admit that. It doesn’t disqualify Palin to any degree, but it would be a lot more truthful if they would simply admit it.
And, you lied, it is NOT false that she left Wasilla in debt. She campaigned for an increased sales tax for the sports complex bond. And then screwed that project. But don't take my word for it, here's the Wall Street Journal's take on that:
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB122065537792905...
So, J_B: fool or liar, your choice. I believe they both fit.
Perhaps that’s the case with you.
Your WSJ article is an interesting offering. But I think you have misunderstood it as well as my own assertion on this topic.
Nowhere in this article does Author Michael Phillips assert that Palin left Wasilla in debt. Nowhere in this article does anyone that Phillips interviewed say that Palin left Wasilla in debt. Nowhere. No one in this article says this because Palin *did not leave Wasilla in debt*. I believe if you would simply review the published FY03 budget for Wasilla (as I did), you would see the truth of this.
That you seem unwilling to do so leads me to believe what I have suspected all along; that you are not interested in truth but, rather, simply in condemning Palin.
This article reports upon a municipal project that Palin, as Mayor, oversaw and some of the challenges that occurred throughout the process. I believe that, in your over-anxiousness to condemn Palin, you may have missed a couple of key quotes within the article:
“At the time, with the information she had, [Ms. Palin] made the right decision, but you know what? Litigation happens." - Former City Finance Chief, Mr. Leonard
And then this one:
“All I can say about the sports complex is that it was done on time and under budget. It was done legally, and for someone else to say it could have been done differently in a better way, that's strictly their opinion." - Construction Manager Donald Moore.
So when Kelson asserts that Palin “left her old town quite heavily in debt”, I dispute this and offer the City’s published annual budget as proof that she, in fact, left Wasilla with quite a large surplus. Then you respond with an article about a municipal project that experienced some challenges, an article that doesn’t refute, to any degree or in any manner, the budgetary *fact* that I offered and you then accuse *me* of “repeating untruths”, being “a fool and a liar”.
So much for reason. So much for logic. So much for seeking truth and then acknowledging it once found.
Lastly, it is not “foolish” to support a candidate that one may not feel is “the most qualified”. The “most qualified” candidate could very well be Jesus Christ but, unfortunately, He isn’t running. I would venture to guess that you have supported many candidates that you may not have felt were necessarily the “best qualified” at the time, but, like me in this case, you supported the candidate (or the ticket) that, through the process we currently have, was offered and that most closely represents your view of the direction our great nation should be heading.
McCain/Palin represent that for me. Apparently Obama/Biden represent that for you. So be it.
At the end of the day (or the year or the millenium) I believe we will be a better nation and a better people for having once again struggled through this critical aspect of self-government.
You can dispute facts with twisted spin and excepted quotes, but offer no supporting numbers. Very simply, a larger percentage of Wasilla's budget was devoted to "debt service" after she left office. Nice try, smugster.
Perhaps you also believe dinosaurs walked the earth with men? Or maybe with Jesus?
"ANCHORAGE -- Soon after Sarah Palin was elected mayor of the foothill town of Wasilla, Alaska, she startled a local music teacher by insisting in casual conversation that men and dinosaurs coexisted on an Earth created 6,000 years ago -- about 65 million years after scientists say most dinosaurs became extinct -- the teacher said"
http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/...
Nor did I ever say that Wasilla didn’t have either debt or debt service funds or that one or the other had not increased. What I said was that the last Wasilla budget that Palin presided over reflected a surplus…and it did.
I didn’t offer specific numbers because I had hoped you might go find them…and see and accept them…for yourself. Since you seem unwilling (or perhaps unable) to do so, here they are: At the beginning of FY03; total available funds were $45.6 million. By the end of FY03 they spent $30.4 million. The remainder was $15.2 million.
This remainder, Andy, is what is referred to as a “surplus”.
Do you get it now? Are those numbers sufficiently specific for you?
Do you have anymore ad hominem attacks or can we finally move on?
Ms. Unwed Grandmother will make a fine president that you can be proud of as she's clearly well-qualified to lie about pregnancies, use her office for personal gain, and prop up secessionist parties. Some "patriot" you are.
And, remember, YOU started the personal attacks, so Pompous Pilate, you might want to check into the stones and glass houses thing.
The last time I checked, in this country we are guaranteed the right to believe (or to not believe) as we choose. You may not like Palin's religious beliefs but, whatever they are do not de-facto disqualify her from running for elected office...at ANY level.
Palin's religious beliefs did not disqualify her at the local or State levels, where, in both cases, she ran successfully and served effectively. I don't think her running and serving at the national level will prove to be any exception.
im judging palin on the fact that she has religious views that are FAR out of the mainstream of xtianity. the fact that she actually believes that nonsense about humans and dinosaurs disqualifies her for ANY elected position in my opinion.
Palin may not be as adept at expressing her beliefs to others as she could be but the fact remains that, religiously speaking, she is most definitely mainstream in her beliefs. That said, I would again caution you against judging others based upon their religious beliefs. Doing so represents a level of religious intolerance that, taken to its extreme, is the stuff that pogroms and holocausts are made of.
Neither is there any definitive proof that Palin ‘believes that nonsense about humans and dinosaurs’. One person has attributed a comment to her that, to my knowledge, has never once been corroborated. Much ado is being made about this one person’s comment about a conversation he claims to have shared with Palin. One must ask why. Many people seem concerned that as VP, Palin would somehow attempt to inject her personal religious views (whatever they may be) into notional public policy. Yet, when she had every opportunity to do so at the State level, as Governor, she never did.
This excerpt from an L.A. times article cited previously: “But since taking office in December 2006, Palin has made no moves to impose the teaching of creationism or "intelligent design," the modern version of creationist thought, in Alaska schools. ‘As far as teachers are concerned, we haven't seen any push,’ said Joan Sargent, a Fairbanks teacher who heads the Alaska Science Teachers Assn. ‘Teachers already have the flexibility to introduce creationist views, as an addendum to the mainstream study of evolution’, Sargent said”.
Those who are anxious to condemn Palin (for ANY reason) will not point out facts or quotes like these. They are too busy ignoring them in favor of less reliable reports that indict and besmirch her. But facts are funny things, they stand on their own and exist whether some will acknowledge them or not.
Now, I think I have clearly demonstrated here, and by any and all standards of reasonableness, that: Palin is mainstream in her religious beliefs; Palin should not be considered unqualified for elected office because of those religious beliefs and that Palin has had ample opportunity to inject her religious beliefs into public policy at the State level and *has not done so*.
Next?
all you've proved is that youre willing to put party above country and defend the indefensible. palin can self identify herself as the pope for all i care, belief in "young earth" creationism, witches and other bronze age myths disqualifies her as far as i am concerned. do you believe those things john b? do you believe humans and dinosaurs walked together? have you watched the video of her getting blessed by the african witchhunter? do you find that normal?
Now, nothing I have learned about the FACTS of anything Palin has done or said is to any degree 'indefensible'. Palin has the inalienable right to follow whatever religious beliefs she chooses, just as you do. To condemn Palin on the basis of her personal religious beliefs is wrong and it is discriminatory.
Pastor Muthee is an ordained evangelical minister from Africa. He had been a guest at Palin’s church on several previous occasions. While visiting the church in 2005 he prayed over Palin. So what? I don’t see anything wrong with the prayer he prayed over her. Do you? Nor should Palin be held accountable for what this particular ordained minister once did in Africa any more than JFK should have been held responsible for what thousands of catholic priests did to millions of little boys…oh wait…that’s right…JFK wasn't held responsible…he was a liberal democrat so it never occurred to anyone to think that he could be. Silly me, I forgot.
Like it or not, howardx, the condemnation of what, today, we call witches and witchcraft is very much an accepted Christian biblical concept. It is not fringe and it is not ‘FAR out of the mainstream”, it’s printed…very clearly…in scripture if you would but care to seek it out. That you disagree with this concept and this belief does not make it any less valid as a Christian biblical concept.
Do I believe that Pastor Muthee really ran a witch out of Kiambu in Africa? I find it unlikely, but not, to any degree, impossible. Do I believe that HE believes he did? Clearly. Does his belief that he did make him any less of an ordained Christian minister? Not one tiny bit less. As an ordained Christian minister does he have any business praying over a member of a church he is visiting? Absolutely. Does the fact that this visiting ordained Christian minister prayed over Palin in any way disqualify her as a VP candidate?
Not in the least.
Next.
Keep in mind that this woman has a 'degree' in Journalism:
COURIC: And when it comes to establishing, I was curious, what newspapers and magazines did you regularly read before you were tapped for this to stay informed and understand the world?
PALIN: I’ve read most of them, again with a great appreciation for the press, for the media.
COURIC: Like what ones specifically?
PALIN: Umm… all of them. Any of them that have been in front of me over all these years.
COURIC: Can you name any of them?
PALIN: I have a vast variety of sources where we get our news… Alaska isn’t a foreign country where it’s kind of suggested it seems like, wow how could you keep in touch with what the rest of Washington, DC may be thinking and doing, when you live up there in Alaska. Believe me, Alaska is like a microcosm of America.
Reasonable explanations for the issues you last raised are possible but I will not suggest them because, at end, it will not matter to you and those who believe, and behave, as you do.
The bottom line, as I asserted from the beginning, is that you just don't like Sarah Palin. Fine. I get that. No amount of reasoned discourse or facts offered on my part is going to change that.
I have made my best attempt to address each point you've raised and to do so respectfully but I have been met with insult and derision for my efforts.
Fine, I get that to. You need someone to sneer at. You need someone to insult and feel superior to. The only redeeming aspect of this dialog has been that, through the manner in which you have conducted yourself, you have, I believe, shown all of us just how lacking you are in intelligence; in respect; in honesty; in integrity; in tolerance; and in maturity.
I will thus conclude my participation in this discussion. You are now free to return to your perfect little world where you are always right and where those who disagree with you are always wrong; where it's acceptable to return respect with insult and to return factual offerings with cynical sound bytes, half truths, out-of-context quotations and other shoddy reporting practices.
You and those who feel as you do can thus now high-5 one another and proudly declare:
"Boy, we didn't have much in the way of facts to support our position or to refute his, but we sure got some good personal insults in!"
God bless you and yours, Andy.
None of Sarah Palin's quotes were taken out of context, facts are facts not half-truths, and recording devices aren't liberally biased. Typical talk radio whining points, but after eight disastrous years, even the most-rabid right wingers are fleeing Bush. I'm sure John_B was a big Bush supporter then, but now?
And Palin is even worse and more unqualified than Bush. And her biggest supporters are bailing already.
But, one thing does still bother me John_B, how can you call yourself a patriot love a seccesionist? Kinda the icing on your twisted rhetorical cake.