Posted on 08/30/2008 7:09:59 AM PDT by chessplayer
Taking a look at the stories in the Old Media will show that the Media is turning attack dog ASAP on McCain's choice for vice president, Sarah Palin. Notice the main meme is her supposed "inexperience." Funny how Palin was the VP pick for about 15 seconds before the Old Media went after her "inexperience" while they have yet to hit Barry Obama on HIS inexperience at all and he's been running for president since 2004. We should also note that Palin didn't get the honeymoon that Biden got when his announcement was made. But, the worst is yet to come and the Daily Kos is doing its level best to mine the lowest of lows. In a Kos diary today, it is being alleged that Sarah Palin "faked" the pregnancy of her last child, a baby born with Down's Syndrome. The claim is that it was her teenaged daughter's child, not hers. And, true to form, the Kossacks took that absurd calumny and hate even further in the comments.
(Excerpt) Read more at newsbusters.org ...
Carter was far worse than any president we’ve had. Thanks to him, Iran fell to the Mullahs and we have real problems there now. I remember the gas lines, too! I’ll take President Bush over all of them.
I didn't know that. That's fascinating.
Do you think that would be allowed today? No. It is folly to pretend that we were founded and intended to be a secular nation. We were intended to be a Christian nation, allowing those of other faiths the freedom to practice their faiths without recourse by the state.
AMEN!
I see you are working on increasing your vocabulary of 500 grunts a day. It’s a start.
You can pray anywhere, FK. You can bring a priest into a room, close the doors and have a service, unless there is a specific law that says no prayers on government property.
But be aware that allowing something that is by all standards a private activity should not be something done on government time.
If someone wants to have a prayer during lunch, I don't see a problem. But if they want to pray on government time and get paid with taxpayers' money to pray, I would call that abuse.
There is nothing in the founding documents to support that notion, FK.
I think that is a caricature of anything that is not "conservative" as treasonous. The Bush Administration certainly managed to create that world view, claiming monopoly on patriotism. Nothing could be further form the truth.
Pres. F. Roosevelt was liberal by our standards, yet the only member of Congress who voted against declaring war on Japan in 1941 was a Republican congresswoman.
John F. Kennedy was a liberal yet he did the wisely to blockade Cuba before resoritng to a world-devastting nuclear war. It was Richard Nixon who pulled us out of Vietnam rather than persuing the intervantionist policy of the liberal Lyndon B. Johnson.
And it was Ronald Reagen who foolishly sent the Marines to to Lebanon (something the liberal-now-turned "conservative" John McCain vehemently opposed), where they suffered unnecessary casualties and accomplished nothing. It was Carter who sent a rescue mission to Iran to free the hostages there. Unfortunately, the mission failed, resulting in many US casualties.
I can't think of a single American president, no matter how liberal by your standards, who would have done what you suggest—surrender immediately or negotiate for a while and then surrender.
Exactly! Well put, Kolo.
Yes, I type fast and and the spellchecker is not able to discern the context. I meant parties, of course.Sometimes I forget to use the spellchecker so so words come out unrecognizable. Plus, cut and paste sometimes creates novel sentences I never intended. Oh well...
I realize that in American politics religion payed a role in different times and in different circumstances to various degrees. Nevertheless, I don't think any of those religious offshoots you mention achieved party monopoly as it seems to be happening in the Republican party today. I think the GOP is in real danger of becoming a religious party.
I’m proud of telling the truth to a leftist. Your opinion means nothing to me.
Brilliant reply. Ignore the truth at your own peril.
The Founding Fathers were all Christian. No one ever denied that. Their own religious denomination is listed and all of them are Christian, or at least they claim Christ as in their faith (I am not sure what Unitarians claim, but at least two of them were Unitarians).
Your argument, which seems to reflect the article you mention, reminds me of the Catholics arguing that some of the Latin Fathers wrote things that the Catholic Church believes forgetting that those views were never accepted by the Church as a whole.
By the same token, the individual Christian beliefs of the Founding Fathers have nothing to do with the documents of Independence and how the United Dates of America was defined as a state. Again, their individual beliefs notwithstanding, where do you find Christ mentioned specifically in the Declaration of Independence or the U.S. Constitution?
After all, the Constitution is how the country is constituted, i.e. legally defined. As far as I know, there is no Christ in the US Constitution, and therefore any claim that America is constituted as a Christian nation is simply false.
The two major players in the Declaration of Independence were deists. Is there any wonder why Christ is not mentioned in the Document and why even God is simply called a Creator? Apparently, all other signatories, who would consider themselves Christian, did not insist on any mention of Christ, but opted for terminology that can accommodate any religious preference.
Also, Ben Franklin says in his own autobiography that he was a deist. Yet the Judge you quote seems to imply otherwise. He knows better than Ben Franklin himself?
or this
Even if your claims were true about Nixon and Carter (which you are not) being lower, fine company Mr. Bush is in. Really something to be proud of.
Or how about this?
| End-of-Presidency Job Approval Ratings | ||
| President | Rating (%) | Election Results |
| Bill Clinton (2 terms, D, 2001) |
65 | VP Gore (D) wins popular vote but Bush (R) wins electoral college vote |
| Ronald Reagan (2 terms, R, 1989) |
64 | VP Bush (R) defeats Dukakis (D) |
| John F. Kennedy (partial term, D, 1963) |
63 | (VP) Johnson (D) defeats Goldwater (R) |
| Dwight Eisenhower (2 terms, R, 1961) |
59 | Kennedy (D) defeats Nixon (R) |
| George Bush (1 term, R, 1993) |
56 | Clinton (D) defeats Bush (R) |
| Gerald Ford (partial term, R, 1977) |
53 | Carter (D) defeats Ford (R) |
| Lyndon Johnson (1+ terms, D, 1969) |
49 | Nixon (R) defeats Humphrey (Johnson did not run) (D) |
| Jimmy Carter (1 term, D, 1981) |
34 | Reagan (R) defeats Carter (D) |
| Richard Nixon (partial term, R, 1974) |
24 | Carter (D) defeats (VP) Ford (R) |
And here is a Reuter's report "Bush's job approval rating fell to 24 percent from last month's record low for a Zogby poll of 29 percent" that shows Nixon and Bush competing for the bottom.
NB: Nixon would have been impeached; all evidence suggested he abused his executive privilege and broke the law. Bush didn't have to do any of that. He was just himself!
Case closed.
It’s closed if you want it to be. I didn’t say anything about “end of term” ratings, or disapproval ratings, but if you have to change the terms to pretend to win, that’s OK.
BTW, your little chart neglects to show that Nixon served more than a “partial term”. In case you don’t know, he served a full term from 1968 to 1974, and was re-elected in 1974. Always glad to help your education.
“BTW, your little chart neglects to show that Nixon served more than a “partial term”. In case you don’t know, he served a full term from 1968 to 1974, and was re-elected in 1974. Always glad to help your education.”
Nixon was elected Nov. 1968.
...He served a full term from Jan. 1969 to Jan. 1973.
Nixon was re-elected in Nov. 1972. He resigned in Aug. 1974.
Always glad to help YOUR education.
“I’m proud of telling the truth to a leftist.”
And the truth is that kosta50 is a “retard”? My, what a marvelous testimony to the mindset of some of the devotees of the right. Are you also a Republican? I’m sure the party would be proud to have you as a prominent member.
“Your opinion means nothing to me.”
I’m sure it doesn’t...but if you are active in the Republican party, or a supporter of the Republican ticket, it should.
What are you talking about? Stalling? You made an accusation and I asked for a source. That's unreasonable? :)
She said "Our leaders are sending them out on a task that is from God. There is a plan and it's God's plan."
Thank you, although that is out of context. I just watched the Youtube clip and it has Palin PRAYING (asking for prayer) that the task our soldiers are on is of God. She says we should PRAY that what they are doing is God's plan. That is a wonderful thing to pray about. It boils down to a prayer that God's will be done. I saw nothing strange in her words at all.
She is implying that "our leaders" are acting on behalf of God. That's jihad, and blasphemy, while we are at it. Everything we like we "bless" with God's name. How convenient.
Looking beyond Youtube, Newsmax has the full appearance, and while I usually like Newsmax, their pull quotes are just wrong in this case. She is talking about what to pray for, she is not making blanket declarations. Listen to the full clip from Newsmax (about 7 and a half minutes). There is NOTHING comparable to "jihad" in the Newsmax clip.
Just as evangelicals make themselves official mouthpieces of God, they also tend to equate the Administration with the people.
Evangelicals ARE mouthpieces of God to the extent they relay what God's word is. They get into trouble when they claim to know God's motivations without scriptural backing. For example, "I KNOW that AIDS is God's punishment against gay people, or I KNOW that 9/11 is God's punishment against America." These "could" be true, but there just isn't enough evidence to say "I KNOW", IMO. I don't think the Palin clip goes this far at all on either subject.
On the Pipeline she sad it was "God's will," and then added "God's will has to be done in unifying people and companies to get that gas line built. So pray for that. We can work together to make sure God's will [is] done here." Maybe this kind of babble is colloquialism to Evangelicals where everything has a God label attached to it, but to non-evangelicals this is a red flag big time.
To us, everything DOES have a God label attached to it. God is sovereign. In her statement she asked for God to unify companies and people FOR THE GOOD of the people. I don't think it is terrible to suppose that the good of the people is God's will. That's what she was talking about. I don't think it's really that big a deal.
There is nothing harmless about it and it is true only within the mindset of evangelical beliefs. The rest of the world begs to differ.
I agree with you that DECLARING God's motivations without Biblical support should be a red flag. However, Palin clearly did NOT do that in the war clip, and on the pipeline her call for unity for the good of the people is perfectly in line.
Some people just don’t want to hear the truth about this. They enjoy their version of it and it will take a miracle to make them see what’s really been said. Keep trying.
Satisfied FK? Now, either she’s saying that its God’s will that Eastern Christians get whacked by our friends with our weapons and under our protection...or she’s uninformed and running off at the mouth.
Context, context, context. Listen to the full appearance here at NEWSMAX
It is her PRAYER that our soldiers are doing the will of God. Technically, for Reformers, they ARE by definition, but that's another story. :) Palin did not develop that argument. She said we need to pray for God's will and His plan. At best (or worst) she may have indicated her opinion on what that plan was, but she in no way declared it as fact, as the pull quotes suggest. I listened to her talk twice, and very carefully. The attacks I have heard for what she said are simply unwarranted.
I just noticed that the Newsmax clip is also Youtube, so forget this part. :) The important thing is to get the full appearance.
Thank you. I voted for him in 1974. Where were you?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.