A woman???

[quadz]

In the earlier videos, Governor Palin was speaking to a 'graduating class' of the Wasilla Master's Commission (of the Assembly of God.)

Here's a self-produced recruitment video from that group:


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xJnhRhJW35o

"God is invading Alaska. God has a destiny for the state of Alaska. Master's Commision is one of the keys in God's plan for Alaska, the United States, and the Entire World."

While that last sentence is spoken, I love the imagery depicting what are apparently missile-like fireballs from god, beginning at their Alaska church and spreading out in arcs from Alaska, and the US, until the whole world is immolated in the fires of Armageddon.  Then a cut to an apparent survivor, kneeling, arms raised in triumphal praise.

This appears to be the same ideology as the cult terrorizing the kids in the movie Jesus Camp.

Way to go, mammals.

[DaHanG]

At least she's better looking than Hillary and probably not as silly as ol' Mitt Romney.

Glad I said 'probably'.

[jägermonsta]

Mr. Texas was on vacation the weeks preceding the attacks. It appeared to be preventable. Then he invaded a country whose government didn't have anything to do with it. The intelligence reports were cherry picked, and he didn't even look at the arguments against invading (maybe because God told him it was the right thing to do? I wonder if God said he would be in and out in a number of months like it was initially proposed), nor did he take the advice from top military experts for the need of a lot more troops if we were to invade.

Yes it was clearly preventable, action should of been taken by cliton. It was clearly known during his time yet nothing was done.

Talk about cherry picking information? I'm 100% sure most of your statement here is cherry picked context...

If the argument is that it's a moral obligation to remove Saddam, that's one thing. But to argue that they had something to do with 9/11 (which I don't think you are) is another, and in which case I don't see why we don't invade North Korea or Iran or stop genocide in Darfur by force since it would be worth the money and blood assuming we would succeed.

Iraq was clearly more hostile towards the US then even North Korea. The 9/11 attacks only fueled their hostility once they found out it's possible to get to us. Whether they had WMDs or not we called their bluff which gave us a chance to take out the man responsible for 100s of disgusting crimes against humanity.

Is it better to remove an evil dictator from power to who slaughtered tens of thousands (maybe more), or to pour those hundreds of billions of dollars to save millions of lives in third world countries from hunger/starvation/etc.

I don't know... two completely different things here.

On one side we have basically enslaved people striped of normal human rights living in fear...

On the other side we have people living in inhospitable lands, over breeding, not lifting a finger to do anything about it.

I think I'll spend my money on something worth wild...

Maybe we could even go where the terrorists actually are in Afghanistan and Pakistan (and some all over the world but it's impossible to get them all in one swoop) instead of the tiny fraction of insurgents in Iraq who belong to terrorist groups, and who are pretty much only there because we invaded in the first place.

We've been in Afghanistan and that program is being stepped up now things are looking less grim in Iraq. Troops were needed there, it was the priority to create some kind of order.

You have these crazy religious factions in Iraq. They see the country is basically up for grabs and each one wants a piece... It's their primitive attitudes that keeps us there... order needed to be restored, some type of hierarchy needed to be set in place.

Like it or not Saddam was a world criminal, we can't have people like him with the kind of power he had. Learn from the past...

You know you can't make everyone happy? You can't do everything 100% right? I realize this and as long as you don't give up, that's all that matters to me.

[metaL]

cliton.

if this was on purpose you kick ass jager

[jägermonsta]

cliton.

if this was on purpose you kick ass jager

of course it was

[DaHanG]

Mr. Texas was on vacation the weeks preceding the attacks. It appeared to be preventable. Then he invaded a country whose government didn't have anything to do with it. The intelligence reports were cherry picked, and he didn't even look at the arguments against invading (maybe because God told him it was the right thing to do? I wonder if God said he would be in and out in a number of months like it was initially proposed), nor did he take the advice from top military experts for the need of a lot more troops if we were to invade.

Yes it was clearly preventable, action should of been taken by cliton. It was clearly known during his time yet nothing was done.

Talk about cherry picking information? I'm 100% sure most of your statement here is cherry picked context...

  @ blaming Clinton and "Cherry pick on U."

If the argument is that it's a moral obligation to remove Saddam, that's one thing. But to argue that they had something to do with 9/11 (which I don't think you are) is another, and in which case I don't see why we don't invade North Korea or Iran or stop genocide in Darfur by force since it would be worth the money and blood assuming we would succeed.

Iraq was clearly more hostile towards the US then even North Korea. The 9/11 attacks only fueled their hostility once they found out it's possible to get to us. Whether they had WMDs or not we called their bluff which gave us a chance to take out the man responsible for 100s of disgusting crimes against humanity.

My point was that we were not in grave danger of having one of our major cities destroyed as the hype implied. If it's a moral obligation to invade, go for it! No need to not get our facts straight and mislead the world.

Maybe we could even go where the terrorists actually are in Afghanistan and Pakistan (and some all over the world but it's impossible to get them all in one swoop) instead of the tiny fraction of insurgents in Iraq who belong to terrorist groups, and who are pretty much only there because we invaded in the first place.

We've been in Afghanistan and that program is being stepped up now things are looking less grim in Iraq. Troops were needed there, it was the priority to create some kind of order.

You have these crazy religious factions in Iraq. They see the country is basically up for grabs and each one wants a piece... It's their primitive attitudes that keeps us there... order needed to be restored, some type of hierarchy needed to be set in place.

Like it or not Saddam was a world criminal, we can't have people like him with the kind of power he had. Learn from the past...

You know you can't make everyone happy? You can't do everything 100% right? I realize this and as long as you don't give up, that's all that matters to me.

Yes I do, and the issue I initially had was you saying something along the lines of "Mr. Texas stepped in there and is taking care of business". When, in fact, any competent administration who took the expert military advice for more troops right from the beginning would have probably meant the war would have been years ahead in progress. A competent administration would have at least learned that there are different sects of people in the nation we're about to invade...

[jägermonsta]

  @ blaming Clinton and "Cherry pick on U."

My point was that we were not in grave danger of having one of our major cities destroyed as the hype implied. If it's a moral obligation to invade, go for it! No need to not get our facts straight and mislead the world.

It has to be destroyed?

Yes I do, and the issue I initially had was you saying something along the lines of "Mr. Texas stepped in there and is taking care of business". When, in fact, any competent administration who took the expert military advice for more troops right from the beginning would have probably meant the war would have been years ahead in progress. A competent administration would have at least learned that there are different sects of people in the nation we're about to invade...

Sometimes the best suggestion is not an option.

[reaper]

We could not have gone into Iraq,  like how we don't go into China, or Russia, or North Korea.

[DaHanG]

My point was that we were not in grave danger of having one of our major cities destroyed as the hype implied. If it's a moral obligation to invade, go for it! No need to not get our facts straight and mislead the world.

It has to be destroyed?

 

Yes I do, and the issue I initially had was you saying something along the lines of "Mr. Texas stepped in there and is taking care of business". When, in fact, any competent administration who took the expert military advice for more troops right from the beginning would have probably meant the war would have been years ahead in progress. A competent administration would have at least learned that there are different sects of people in the nation we're about to invade...

Sometimes the best suggestion is not an option.

Using more troops and taking the advice of the millitary officials was an option, it was just overlooked.

On a somewhat unrelated note, if you have five minutes to spare, this is absolutely hilarious:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R1A0ts88LXE

[quadz]

On a somewhat unrelated note, if you have five minutes to spare, this is absolutely hilarious:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R1A0ts88LXE

Oh man.  Those clips of Karl Rove were priceless.

ROVE: She's a former mayor.  She's a mayor, I think, of the second largest city in Alaska before she ran for governor.

STEWART: Karl Rove is very impressed with Governor Palin's experience as mayor of a city with 9,000 people in it.  I imagine he was equally impressed last month, when Tim Kaine--former mayor of Richmond, population 200,000--former Lt. Governor of Virginia--and now current Virginia governor, was on Barack Obama's vice presidential short list.

ROVE: He's been a governor for three years.  He was mayor of the 105th largest city in America.  And again, with all due respect to Richmond, VA, it's smaller than Chula Vista, CA, Aurora, CO, Mesa or Gilbert, AZ, North Las Vegas, or Henderson NV -- it's not a big town.  So if you were to pick Governor Kaine, it would be an intensely political choice, where you said: You know what? I'm really not first and foremost concerned with, "Is this person capable of being President of the United States?"

[peewee_RotA]

Yes Quadz, I was aware of your upbringing and your bieng a former member of the church, however it still does not explain your misuse of the quote. In fact the quote was meant to be a compliment and the fact that you use it as an insult shows the very vitriol I was commenting on. It's the same as if you quoted someone as being a "die hard capitalist that loves making money". We know that in your conext it would be a comment based on disgust and meant to be held against that person.

Fact of the matter is that the quote was regarding her religion in general, not creationism, and you were using that quote in disgust with the intention to be held against her. Followed then by an apathy towards the other candidates' religion despite it's similarities.

Once again all we see are attempts to derail the topic towards a debate on evolution vs. creationism, as well as the usual suspects continuing the same bashing that already took place. Finally followed up by more of the same premise "myths and lies" while expecting not to have those words considered harsh, or inappropriate.

I guess one of the problems with always being "provocative" is that you eventually stop realising that you're doing it.


(also still no answer to the "denounce creationism" litmus test)



Edit:
"I can say with some confidence I'd choose response 2."

No you haven't because I never made that assertion. You're in fact presenting a one sided view on a topic that is not at hand. Your transparent bitter attitude towards a religion is not a logic based conclusion, which I assume is why you are having a hard time defending or identfying it.

[metaL]

 

[quadz]

Yes Quadz, I was aware of your upbringing and your bieng a former member of the church, however it still does not explain your misuse of the quote. In fact the quote was meant to be a compliment and the fact that you use it as an insult shows the very vitriol I was commenting on. It's the same as if you quoted someone as being a "die hard capitalist that loves making money". We know that in your conext it would be a comment based on disgust and meant to be held against that person.

Fact of the matter is that the quote was regarding her religion in general, not creationism, and you were using that quote in disgust with the intention to be held against her. Followed then by an apathy towards the other candidates' religion despite it's similarities.

In these disagreements we frequently seem to be talking at cross-purposes.  I'm reminded of the following quote, "But the literal mind does not understand the ironic mind, and sees it always as a source of danger."

Which (with perhaps only the most faint irony) is from Christopher Hitchens, in his book God Is Not Great.

You seem surprised and/or offended that I've taken a quote from the man the LA Times described as Palin's Pentecostal pastor, and treated it ironically.  Or, as you put it, that I misused the quote, insultingly and with vitriol.

But after all, my entire post consisted of: 1. quoting two sentences from an LA Times article; and 2. appending the smiley.

Thus, this smiley: ...was my entire contribution.  None of the other words in that post were mine.

Is there really that much vitriol in that goofy little guy?

Have you watched the videos of that pastor actually speaking?  Do you find no potential for irony when someone who claims that God requires a gas pipleine built in preparation for the Last Days, goes on to say anything about biting down on and not letting go of a truth?


Having asked that question, I'm concerned your response will follow the following pattern: So far, it seems like you cannot or will not consider a question like that in isolation; but instead insist on inflating it into an epic affront on your entire belief system.

I couldn't illustrate it better than metal did with this analogy:

"That's like me stating that since you're saying that I can't get away with expressing my opinion, you are therefore contradicting freedom of speech, and thus bashing the first amendment of the constitution, which means you're degrading the human race by denouncing our basic rites."

But no!  Here and now I'm asking specifically about the case of someone who believes: It is true that God wants energy infrastructure built in preparation for the rapture.  Do you not find any potential for irony when such a person would praise the virtue of clinging doggedly to a 'truth'?

If you go off on a tangent about the origins of whatever bible quote, then you're completely missing the question I'm asking.

Your transparent bitter attitude towards a religion is not a logic based conclusion

Bitter is the wrong adjective.  Do you feel bitter about people who used to believe in Zeus?  Or Thor?  Probably not, right?  Think about it.  Amused or bemused, possibly?  Or what?  Almost certainly not bitter.


Regards,

quadz

[jägermonsta]

http://elections.foxnews.com/2008/09/05/top-7-myths-lies-and-untruths-about-sarah-palin/

3) Palin “Wants Creationism Taught in School”

The Charge: Palin opposes the teaching of evolution, and would mandate the teaching of creationism in the state’s public schools.

The Facts: Palin said during her 2006 gubernatorial campaign that she would not push the state Board of Education to add creation-based alternatives to the state’s required curriculum, or look for creationism advocates when she appointed board members. She has kept this pledge, according to the Associated Press.

Palin has spoken in favor of classroom discussions of creationism, in some cases. “I don’t think there should be a prohibition against debate if it comes up in class. It doesn’t have to be part of the curriculum,” Palin told the Anchorage Daily News in a 2006 interview.

[DaHanG]

"Teach both. You know, don’t be afraid of education. Healthy debate is so important, and it’s so valuable in our schools. I am a proponent of teaching both."

I am not worried that creationism will be taught, they've lost the battle over and over and over. I am worried about someone of this intellectual caliber running the country (again).

"don't be afraid of education."