Posted on 09/11/2010 7:28:01 PM PDT by rabscuttle385
Former Republican vice presidential candidate Sarah Palin Wednesday evening decried a Florida pastor's plan to lead a Quran burning over the weekend, likening it to the plans to build a Muslim community center near Ground Zero.
"Book burning is antithetical to American ideals," Palin wrote in a Facebook note. "People have a constitutional right to burn a Koran if they want to, but doing so is insensitive and an unnecessary provocation - much like building a mosque at Ground Zero."
(Excerpt) Read more at cbsnews.com ...
Of course, with the track record of the MSM concerning Mrs. Palin, such analysis is moot in the end. Considering the support vs. outright hostility on just this forum concerning Mrs. Palin on several subjects, especially her support of McCain, perhaps it would be a better idea to pick your battles a little more carefully?
Seeing as how I'm not a politician nor am I inclined to reason as a politician would, I am of the opinion that keeping your cards close to your chest is occasionally the best strategy. Laying out everything on the table all at once leaves more time for your adversaries to adapt and attack.
You are right. If authority figures told some freepers it is necessary to cut off their heads for the cause of the US military, they would chop chop and haunt everyone who didn’t from the grave as betrayers to the country.
Sister Sarah might be practicing taqiyya on them?
On the other hand, calling out, or labeling, those who do not believe that burning the Koran (or Quran or whatever) are “dumb”, when a good portion of those who support you disagree with that sentiment, may not be the “best” choice of responses for an aspiring political “phenom”? I suppose what I am attempting to get across is that although I personally support and favor Mrs. Palin on just about any given topic, on this particular issue I simply believe that the better answer for her would been not to supply one in the first place, but again, that is my own personal opinion.
I think the best response would have been, “He has a right to do it, end of story.”
No. Palin does not lie.
That would have been just as good, or probably better, than my suggestion.
Actually, I think it shows character that she stands up for what may not be popular.
It also will give her more moral authority when she is called on to condemn Muslim acts which she considers inciteful (like the GZ Mosque, for example). She can say that she condemns such acts across the board as she has now proven and, because, there are far more of these acts on the Muslim side the world will see more clearly that moral equivalency is NOT a reality despite what the MSM continually says. In other words, Palin and other leaders in the US condemn such acts when performed by Americans whereas Muslim leaders do not when they are performed by their people.
Rabs, do you consider yourself a Christian?
I agree.
Moreover, as a proponent of Sarah, I would like to tell her that there is no correlation between building a celebratory victory mosque at GZ, and burning a book written by a pedophile.
If muslims seek to revolt in indignation, kill’em. Or, come home, so they can’t kill you, when we at home protest their intent to conquer America.
Sarah Palin doesn’t strike me as the kind of person who would call for koran burning, simply because she is a decent, good-hearted lady.
And she’s too smart to fall into the trap.
It’s real easy, as an anonymous poster, to claim you support koran burning. Especially if you’re a romney supporter, or a leftist subversive hoping Palin would fall for it. (These idiots are so clueless I don’t know where to start.)
Imagine the catcalls that would follow if Palin had supported burning the koran. Anyone on this forum who criticizes her comments should drop everything, and check themselves into a nursing home.
Nope, Islam has not been hijacked. It is the muslim rule of law for all muslims. It is their dogma. It was written by some pervert in a desert cave. Any follower of this perverted doctrine, is equally perverted. To speak of it as a religion is perverted.
Standing up for what you believe in is not the same as taking a stance on a topic to achieve “moral authority”, although both goals are not necessarily mutually exclusive, and aggressive attempts to display “moral authority” only serve to expose an entities ultimate agenda and typically leads to exposure as a hypocrite or an outright charlatan. There are plenty of demagogues that come to mind when I think of that line of reasoning.
Her response was perfect - she brought the focus back to the GMZ. There is more public support against the GMZ then almost anything else.
Chris Matthews for example is fuming that she pivoted her response that way - he knows this puts Obama and other liberals under the spotlight again for their postion on the GMZ, and makes them look hypocritical.
I don't see Palin acting aggressively to display moral authority.
True moral authority is earned. Through taking principled stances and working to better improve conditions Palin seems to be doing so as more and more people tune into and trust what she has to say.
I'm trying not to come across as “judgmental”, but simply trying state that “taking a principled stand” does not equate to “moral superiority”.
On a final note, I'd like to personally state that I will NEVER trust ANYTHING that ANY politician says without doing my own research and forming my own opinion independently of any statement or belief that ANY politician holds.
Throughout history, good people have followed leaders who led them on a wholesome path.
Ex: In the last century Ronald Reagan and Winston Churchill seemed to people to have good moral compasses i.e. they considered them authorities who were moral...who had earned their trust through actions and words which reflected values in the Judeo-Christian mold.
This is not a revolutionary concept.
By now you have left the libertarians and turned on them and discovered something else.
Of course following leaders is not “revolutionary”, and I would never blindly follow any leader simply because they claimed to possess “moral authority”. It’s an age old fallacy that has caused misery, poverty and large scale slaughters throughout human history.
Nobody earns my trust without exhaustive research on my part, along with an ongoing review of that persons actions, traits and beliefs.
As a simple example, I present my own history. I volunteered for the U.S. Army while Reagan was president. I did not do so with any regard to the fact that he was our POTUS at the time. My reason was much more basic and simple. I was taught of the sacrifices and hardships borne by our forefathers that fought for our independence during the Revolutionary War. I believed that it was the least I could do. Nobody instilled those beliefs and values in myself, I came to my own conclusions after endless hours of reading about our ancestors.
Very commendable. There are millions of people out there who don't bother to do so.
I would never blindly follow any leader simply because they claimed to possess “moral authority”.
Of course not. But Palin never claimed this for herself. Her followers just sense that she has leadership quality.
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.