Number One with a Bullet: Palin's book

[MicroBalrog]

Thank you for identifying yourself as part of the problem.  Please provide your personal information, so that we scary religious people may more efficiently oppress you. 

There is no oppression.

There shall also be no criticism.

[Perd Hapley]

Well, there's nothing like theocracy.  I can tell you that.

[Ron]

True.  But We haven't seen him or her yet, and I don't think we'll see them in 2012 either.  The Republican party needs to decide what who it is and what it wants.  The economic and civil freedoms brought to us by previous Republican administrations are starting to clash with an increasingly theocratic agenda.  I'm almost old enough to remember when "intellectual" wasn't a dirty word.

theocratic agenda?

please elaborate

[Perd Hapley]

Please don't elaborate.  We've heard it all before.  Why not just call us all racists, like the left does?  It would make about as much sense.

[Balog]

If she didn't have a chance of going the distance in 2012, the Democrats, media and certain Republicans wouldn't be working so hard at taking her down. I can't think of another potential candidate, Democrat or Republican, from the last two years who continues to be under attack.

I'd say it's possible they just hate her and want to hurt her on a personal, irrational level. She represents everything they oppose, just like a conservative black man would.

[Monkeyleg]

She represents everything they oppose, just like a conservative black man would.

How many gut-punch stories have you read recently about Clarence Thomas, Alan Keyes, Michael Steele or Colin Powell?

[MicroBalrog]

Plenty of liberals hate Clarence Thomas. Alan Keyes, on the other hand, has rendered himself so completely politically irrelevant, it'd be difficult to find liberals commenting on him at all.

[Balog]

How many gut-punch stories have you read recently about Clarence Thomas, Alan Keyes, Michael Steele or Colin Powell?

Plenty of liberals hate Clarence Thomas. Alan Keyes, on the other hand, has rendered himself so completely politically irrelevant, it'd be difficult to find liberals commenting on him at all.

Partly this, partly white liberals aren't as likely to bash a black man, even if he's conservative.

[Scout26]

Partly this, partly white liberals aren't as likely to bash a black man, even if he's conservative.

I distinctly remember the Anita Hill "hearings" and the firestorm surrounding her "testimony"

The anger and hatred (not to mention the flying spittle) coming from the liberal left reached a shrillness not seen since they had Nixon cornered during Watergate.

They went far beyond bashing, so no, white liberals will bash/trash/smash anyone or anything that gets in their way. 

[Balog]

I distinctly remember the Anita Hill "hearings" and the firestorm surrounding her "testimony"

The anger and hatred (not to mention the flying spittle) coming from the liberal left reached a shrillness not seen since they had Nixon cornered during Watergate.

They went far beyond bashing, so no, white liberals will bash/trash/smash anyone or anything that gets in their way. 

Yeah, but they still aren't as free to do it as they are to a white guy or gal.

[Scout26]

Yeah, but they still aren't as free to do it as they are to a white guy or gal.

They generally just dismiss them as "Uncle Toms" or "House N-words".   They only thing they don't do is call them racists.

[HankB]

Well, she's no community organizer with a stint as an ACORN attorney, that's for sure.

Did you just do a "but but but obama!" comeback?  Is it not reasonable to think both of them are lightweights?

When someone is under discussion as a candidate for a political office in the future, with questions about their qualifications, it's reasonable to compare them to the current office holder, and his qualifications.

If both are found wanting . . . well, that's OK, and a good basis for discussion.

The sheer, foaming-at-the-mouth hatred directed at Palin from the Left tends to ameliorate what reservations I have about her; just as you can judge a man by the friends he keeps, you can also factor in the enemies they've made. Anyone who's hated by leftists from most of the press to Dave Letterman & Ariana Huffington must have some redeeming qualities.
 
Sadly, the people we'd really like to see holding an office will seldom be on the ballot, and the GOP (aka The Stupid Party) could - and probably will - offer up  something worse than a Palin/Jindal ticket in 2012.

[MechAg94]

They generally just dismiss them as "Uncle Toms" or "House N-words".   They only thing they don't do is call them racists.

Yes, I believe that was said about Condi Rice.  The media and the left have been very hypocritical about that stuff.

[Antibubba]

theocratic agenda?

please elaborate.

Creation Science comes to mind first.  When political and educational policies have to match religious beliefs, that isn't good for a free society.  It certainly doesn't help America regain its image as a well of prosperity, creativity, and innovation.

Fistful, I pick Christianity because it is the dominant religion in this country.  I have no love for Islamic mullahs or Jewish black hats (actually, I have less love for them than any).  Religious belief trumpeted as public policy is bad for democracy.

[Perd Hapley]

Creation Science comes to mind first.  When political and educational policies have to match religious beliefs, that isn't good for a free society.  It certainly doesn't help America regain its image as a well of prosperity, creativity, and innovation.

Fistful, I pick Christianity because it is the dominant religion in this country.  I have no love for Islamic mullahs or Jewish black hats (actually, I have less love for them than any).  Religious belief trumpeted as public policy is bad for democracy.

Hey, I was right.  That does make about as much sense as Jimmy Carter's recent ramblings.

[41magsnub]

Hey, I was right.  That does make about as much sense as Jimmy Carter's recent ramblings.

How so?

[Perd Hapley]

You think it makes less sense than Carter?  Maybe so. 

[MicroBalrog]

So, are you going to actually present some form of counter-argument, or you're just going to state 'this made no sense, this made no sense'?

[Perd Hapley]

And every time someone comes up with a half-baked notion that they're being oppressed, are you going to say "There is no oppression"? 

A counter-argument would require an argument.  We've yet to see one.  No connection has been established between the Republican Party and the attempts of a few activists to have science texts mention creationism as an alternative theory. 

If you, MB, would like to explain how this is "an increasingly theocratic agenda" on the part of the Republican Party, please don't elaborate.

[Waitone]

A theocratic argument is as big a red herring as a racist argument.  Irrelevant in the scheme of things. 

Being qualified for the job of president is also an irrelevant discussion.  We've had a number of presidents at various spots on the political continuum who were unqualified yet they came out of it in a commendable manner.  I would much rather read a make on the advisers Palin has gathered around herself.  What is their background.  What is their positions.  Every president makes use of advisers.  It is my premise the selection of advisers portends the nature of a candidate's governance.

[Balog]

Creation Science comes to mind first.  When political and educational policies have to match religious beliefs, that isn't good for a free society.  It certainly doesn't help America regain its image as a well of prosperity, creativity, and innovation.

Fistful, I pick Christianity because it is the dominant religion in this country.  I have no love for Islamic mullahs or Jewish black hats (actually, I have less love for them than any).  Religious belief trumpeted as public policy is bad for democracy.

I lol'ed.

1. Creation Science seeks to be presented as an alternative, not to supersede atheistic humanism. I find the idea that having your beliefs presented as one of a number of (equally untestable, unprovable) options is theocratic oppression hilarious.
2. Atheistic humanism is every bit as much a religious as Judaism, Christianity etc. So when the state sez "You shall teach this and only this" they are in fact enforcing their chosen religion.
3. Per the bolded statement, you should be in favor of presenting alternatives to the state religion of secular humanism. I guess the fed.gov forcing religious beliefs on people is only bad when it's not your beliefs, eh?
4. Research indicates that while many people profess a cultural identification of Christianity, the majority hold actual worldviews most consistent with secular humanism. Guess the fed.gov indoctrinating kids in the state religion works out, eh?
5. Finally, the entire thing is a huge strawman/red herring as introducing Creationism into schools is not a plank of the Republican party.

[MicroBalrog]

Research indicates that while many people profess a cultural identification of Christianity, the majority hold actual worldviews most consistent with secular humanism.

This is assuming you hold a single definition of Christianity that is 'true'. To agree with this, I would have to essentially accept your religion.

[Balog]

This is assuming you hold a single definition of Christianity that is 'true'. To agree with this, I would have to essentially accept your religion.

 :rolleyes:

One can define certain traits of a religion (or political group etc) without agreeing with it. For example, Christianity believes in absolute truth. Any sect claiming to be Christian that doesn't believe that is it's own thing, not Christianity.

[Gowen]

Fistful, fiscal conservatives are always more righteous than we Religious conservatives.  We are to sit in the back of the bus until our votes are needed.  Don't speak out, keep that Jesus stuff to ourselves and it's our fault that the fiscal messiah Ron Paul was not elected.

[MicroBalrog]

:rolleyes:

One can define certain traits of a religion (or political group etc) without agreeing with it. For example, Christianity believes in absolute truth. Any sect claiming to be Christian that doesn't believe that is it's own thing, not Christianity.

Agreed, but then, on the other hand, there are people who argue that the more liberal, 'all-accepting' churches are 'not true Christians', and there even are people who claim Catholicism isn't real Christianity.

Additionally, the definition of what Christianity is from the POV of the religious person and from the POV of, say, a historian of religion may be different.