It's always a treat to watch/listen to Sarah Palin.

think so? agreed.

cool!

Anything interesting in the interview?

To San Franciscans, this would be like displaying a crucifix to Dracula.
Now, where did I put that box of my native earth?

It's a little slow going, I've been listening to it the last 15 minutes.

I'm listening to it now, running it in the background.

Is there a transcript?

I love Sarah Palin! She is an inspiration to millions.

Tough, smart, gutsy, confident, and integral- she is exactly what DC has been sorely lacking. May God bless her, her family, the McCain/Palin campaign and America.

2012.

re: #9 Sharmuta

I love Sarah Palin! She is an inspiration to millions.

Tough, smart, gutsy, confident, and integral- she is exactly what DC has been sorely lacking. May God bless her, her family, the McCain/Palin campaign and America.

Amen.

It is very polite.

I finally figured out all of the bile the tanning bed media has for Sarah -- one of her first jobs was as a reporterette....

re: #4 Killgore Trout

Anything interesting in the interview?

She said she's confident McCain will back the GOP platform, specifically the constitutional bans on abortion and gay marriage.

re: #6 twincitiesgirl

I'm skimming through. I'm even less of a Dobson fan than a Palin fan. I don't know if there's anything there for me.

re: #9 Sharmuta
She's the typical all american woman, made good! shame on her!

re: #14 Charles

She said she's confident McCain will back the GOP platform, specifically the constitutional bans on abortion and gay marriage.

Ah, I just got to that part. Are you helping or hurting? I can't tell.

re: #17 Killgore Trout

Ah, I just got to that part. Are you helping or hurting? I can't tell.

Helping.

re: #15 Killgore Trout

I'm skimming through. I'm even less of a Dobson fan than a Palin fan. I don't know if there's anything there for me.

Charles summed it up nicely. Dobson's style is somewhat geared to conservative Christians.

re: #15 Killgore Trout

I'm skimming through. I'm even less of a Dobson fan than a Palin fan. I don't know if there's anything there for me.

If you listen to the end there's a rare recording supposedly of Abe Lincoln talking about his days as a community organizer...serious. and if you listen to it in reverse it says "I buried Paul",,

re: #17 Killgore Trout

Ah, I just got to that part. Are you helping or hurting? I can't tell.

I don't like those platform positions one bit. As I wrote in another thread, the proper way to negotiate social issues is NOT to amend the United States Constitution.

re: #14 Charles

She said she's confident McCain will back the GOP platform, specifically the constitutional bans on abortion and gay marriage.

Even if McCain did, which I doubt, those would never make it out of Congress, much less pass the 3/4 state bar needed. Amendments need two super-majorities and the President has little to do with that other than a role as advocate. I just don't see them passing.

re: #21 Charles

I don't like those platform positions one bit. As I wrote in another thread, the proper way to negotiate social issues is NOT to amend the United States Constitution.

Or to interpret it in a way that was never intended.

OT: I don't think this is the announcement we're waiting for, but the headline is interesting, nonetheless:

Is Obama Pro-Zombie?

re: #21 Charles

I don't like those platform positions one bit. As I wrote in another thread, the proper way to negotiate social issues is NOT to amend the United States Constitution.

Another way is NOT judicial fiat.

It's all good, it's fine.

/GET OUT THE VOTE!

I'm a fan of Palin's, but I'm scared to even look.

Creationist + Christian Right whack job = ?

With the kind of screwball things I hear regarding Palin and religion, I would think this is the LAST guy she ought to be talking to.

re: #21 Charles

Generally, I don't like messing with the Constitution. If those questions have to be raised, let the states - legislatures or voters, not judges - do it.

re: #23 mama winger

Or to interpret it in a way that was never intended.

And this is the most important issue for me, the judges BHO and the clowns in congress will appoint

re: #23 mama winger

Or to interpret it in a way that was never intended.

If that's what's happening -- and it's arguable -- there already exist systems to handle the social issues. Tampering with the constitution is a huge mistake.

re: #22 Sharmuta

Even if McCain did, which I doubt, those would never make it out of Congress, much less pass the 3/4 state bar needed. Amendments need two super-majorities and the President has little to do with that other than a role as advocate. I just don't see them passing.

And conservative, most of us, recognize this. It's a matter of holding the line. Fight for more than you can reasonably expect to achieve, and cement your position somewhere in the middle.

I do think it says something that she did a phone interview, but didn't stop by.

re: #27 Optimizer

I'm a fan of Palin's, but I'm scared to even look.

Creationist + Christian Right whack job = ?

With the kind of screwball things I hear regarding Palin and religion, I would think this is the LAST guy she ought to be talking to.

Oh brother.

re: #9 Sharmuta

I responded to you down thread - I really agree with your points.

re: #21 Charles

I don't like those platform positions one bit. As I wrote in another thread, the proper way to negotiate social issues is NOT to amend the United States Constitution.

So.......the Constitution should be amended to correct Roe v Wade

re: #21 Charles

I don't like those platform positions one bit. As I wrote in another thread, the proper way to negotiate social issues is NOT to amend the United States Constitution.

/with Pelosi in charge, don't waste your time worrying about it

Cant wait for Zombie any longer. Could someone dream mail the story to me?

re: #34 ArmyWife

Thanks, Hon. I saw that and gave you a ding. :)

re: #32 Thanos

I do think it says something that she did a phone interview, but didn't stop by.

They made a point of noting that in the intro, didn't they?

re: #35 lesbianrainforest

Howdy forest!

re: #30 Charles

If that's what's happening -- and it's arguable -- there already exist systems to handle the social issues. Tampering with the constitution is a huge mistake.

What I am saying is that social policy is made by liberals thru the Courts. This is because they cannot get their legislation actually passed any other way. Conservatives want to hold the courts to strict interpretation and NOT allow social policy to be made thru court challenges.

At least this is the Scalia position, which most conservatives hold to.

re: #33 mama winger

Oh brother.

Oh brother is right.

I wish there was a "rolls eyes" icon to use on LGF.

re: #9 Sharmuta

I love Sarah Palin! She is an inspiration to millions.

Tough, smart, gutsy, confident, and integral- she is exactly what DC has been sorely lacking. May God bless her, her family, the McCain/Palin campaign and America.

How can you write this stuff? Aren't you afraid The One's PC goon squads will track you down, and drag you off for re-programming? What do you think this is? America?

Yeah! Go Sarah! Dr. Dobson is a man of integrity and concern for life. I like him. :)

Why not listen for yourself? No Bible thumping from either one so far...

re: #42 TheMatrix31

Oh brother is right.

I wish there was a "rolls eyes" icon to use on LGF.

There is... *rolls eyes*

Okay...

That Andy Martin guy is claiming that Barack Obama's father is really Frank Marshall Davis, and that is what Barack is trying to hide.

Whaddaya think?

I think all social issues take time, and they need to play out in the states first to get to the right balance. McCain's a strong federalist, I do not see him pushing those planks hard.

re: #46 Fat Bastard Vegetarian

There is... *rolls eyes*

Fat Bastard Vegetarian has eyes? Who knew................... ;p

re: #30 Charles

If that's what's happening -- and it's arguable -- there already exist systems to handle the social issues. Tampering with the constitution is a huge mistake.

I believe that's why the Founders made it difficult to pass Amendments By requiring 2 super-majorities. I don't think either of these proposals can even make it out of Congress.

re: #47 stevieray

Okay...

That Andy Martin guy is claiming that Barack Obama's father is really Frank Marshall Davis, and that is what Barack is trying to hide.

Whaddaya think?

His mom, God rest her soul, slept around a lot?

Great article about Klonsky the commie at NRO:

[Link: article.nationalreview.com...]

This guy was blogging at Obama's campaign site as recently as June...

re: #47 stevieray

God, the troofer's'll have loads of fun if O'Bama is elected.

re: #46 Fat Bastard Vegetarian

There is... *rolls eyes*

Eh, it's not quite as cold as the icon I'm thinking about.

re: #49 doriangrey

Fat Bastard Vegetarian has eyes? Who knew................... ;p

I'm just a common tater!

re: #53 Fat Bastard Vegetarian

God, the troofer's'll have loads of fun if O'Bama is elected.

re: #53 Fat Bastard Vegetarian

God, the troofer's'll have loads of fun if O'Bama is elected.

The Court systems will melt down.

re: #54 TheMatrix31

Just trying to help!

re: #35 lesbianrainforest

So.......the Constitution should be amended to correct Roe v Wade

You get The Best New Nic Golden Showerhead Award! In keeping with the rainforest theme and such.

LOL!

re: #50 Sharmuta

I believe that's why the Founders made it difficult to pass Amendments By requiring 2 super-majorities. I don't think either of these proposals can even make it out of Congress.

And in this sense- it's really ridiculous that this is even discussed concerning our Presidential nominees, because the only thing a President can do is be an advocate. The proper context here is discussing this issue in regards to Congressional and Senatorial elections.

re: #55 Fat Bastard Vegetarian

I'm just a common tater!

Hmmmm, does that make your son a tater tot?

re: #50 Sharmuta

I believe that's why the Founders made it difficult to pass Amendments By requiring 2 super-majorities. I don't think either of these proposals can even make it out of Congress.

Let's not forget that amendments also have to be ratified by 2/3 of the states.

Much as I love Sarah Palin, the problem with women in politics is they have limited "shelf life." As she ages and looses her looks, she will become less attractive to the voters. I wish this were not true, but whatever you call it, Sarah's looks are a major part of her appeal to many (especially male) voters. So, I don't think 2012 is such a great idea.
TO say nothing of the fact that I am not at all sure that If Obama wins the presidency, we will have real democratic elections in 2012. Remember: Marxists do not come to power to relinquish it peacefully.

re: #10 Arby Dwiar

re: #56 CapeCoddah

The Court systems will melt down.

yes - it's just not the Supreme Court at stake..... it's the Courts of Appeal, the Circuit Courts, the whatever courts all the way down the line. Most of these appointments are for life. With a Dem president and a Dem Congress we would be stuck with these bozos forever till they die.

re: #28 arethusa

Generally, I don't like messing with the Constitution. If those questions have to be raised, let the states - legislatures or voters, not judges - do it.

I agree. Laws should be confirmed or changed by legislatures. (What a weird thought!)

re: #61 gmsc

Let's not forget that amendments also have to be ratified by 2/3 of the states.

That's what I said- two super-majorities. One in Congress (both houses) and then the states.

re: #61 gmsc

Let's not forget that amendments also have to be ratified by 2/3 of the states.

Correction . . . 3/4.

OT, but I wanted to share this with my fellow Lizards. A friend of mine directed me to this comment on another blog:

Many of my conservative friends and myself no longer refer to the Democrats as Liberals. They are Modern Marxists with a definite agenda. That said, a friends [sic] went to dinner the other night and there was a homeless man outside with a sign that read "Vote for Obama, I Need The Money". At dinner, my friend was served by a waiter who had an Obama tie on. He did a good job and at the end of the meal my friend complemented him and said "Now I am going to show you just what income redistribution is. It is someone else deciding what will be done with money you have earned. And so, I am going to give your tip to the homeless man outside." Needless to say the waiter was furious but the homeless man was happy. Lesson learned? I don't know but if I get the chance, I will use that technique too.

Heh.

For some reason I caught the tail end of this interview this morning. My usual AM channel had been detuned upwards to a local religious station.

Not joking. A sign?

re: #62 Tigger

She'll be _48_. What a geezer.

/geez

re: #62 Tigger

Yeah - kinda like Maggie Thatcher. The only reason they elected her Prime Minister was for her looks. And Gold Meir - now there was a hottie.

Are you serious ?

Anybody creeped out about that Craig T. Nelson commercial for Direct TV with the little girl (Heather O'Rourke) from Poltergeist who died twenty years ago?

re: #35 lesbianrainforest

So.......the Constitution should be amended to correct Roe v Wade

Since the constitution does not support Roe v Wade how exactly would you do that?

Suffrage? Equal rights? Prohibition?

Like it or not, the Constitution is a powerful tool when properly amended, one that keeps our society from growing stale and out of step with current reality.

re: #49 doriangrey

{doriangrey}

Good evening, Lizards.

re: #14 Charles

She said she's confident McCain will back the GOP platform, specifically the constitutional bans on abortion and gay marriage.

Red meat for the base.

No possible way would either measure obtain the necessary 2/3 Congressional majority to pass or the subsequent necessary 3/4 state ratification (let alone with a majority or supermajority Dem Congress).

Ain't going to happen in the foreseeable future.

Zombie thread up

Oh boy oh boy oh boy

/heading to Zombie thread--->

re: #21 Charles

I don't like those platform positions one bit. As I wrote in another thread, the proper way to negotiate social issues is NOT to amend the United States Constitution.

Sounds like the perfect issues to leave "to the States, respectively, ot to the people", to me. But nobody seems to remember about the tail end of the Bill of Rights. Maybe they should have written it down, or something.

re: #70 mama winger

Yeah - kinda like Maggie Thatcher. The only reason they elected her Prime Minister was for her looks. And Gold Meir - now there was a hottie.

Are you serious ?

The exact two I thought of when I read that post.

re: #48 Thanos

People accept change a lot more easily when it is not shoved down their throats by a handful of gnostic judges. And, as you say, gradualism helps.

(And I agree that McCain isn't going to mess w/ this stuff.)

e.g. in CA there is prop 8

The visit to my parents before this last I got in a long protracted argument with them over gay marriage. I was favoring civil union. My parents argued for gay marriage, which in the end made me examine how silly it is to differentiate between the two, both are by the state, and in the end each church can decide whether they will or will not perform gay marriage ceremonies. So I did change my mind on that (a rare thing since I mostly disagree with my parents,) and if I were in CA I would vote against prop 8.

re: #62 Tigger

Yes, less attractive to voters. Like Madeline Albright, or Hellen Thomas. The left really turned on them when their looks went

re: #21 Charles

I don't like those platform positions one bit. As I wrote in another thread, the proper way to negotiate social issues is NOT to amend the United States Constitution.

I would agree except in the case of marriage where states would be tied in knots trying to decide whether to recognize legal marriages performed in other states that are not legal in their own state.

Catholic Charities shut down their adoption unit in MA because they didn't want to adopt to gay couples based on principles related to the natural family. But unless this is resolved on a national level there will be all sorts of issues when people cross state borders.

re: #74 goddessoftheclassroom

{doriangrey}

Good evening, Lizards.

Good evening goddess.... ((goddess))

re: #62 Tigger

I must humbly disagree with you on your first point; however, it is moot, as your second point no doubt will prevail over our life, liberty, pursuit of happiness, and everything else.

Time for more merlot...///

re: #62 Tigger

I'm going to disagree with you by pointing to Jeanne Kirkpatrick and Maggie Thatcher.

re: #30 Charles

If that's what's happening -- and it's arguable -- there already exist systems to handle the social issues. Tampering with the constitution is a huge mistake.

In *general* "tampering" with the Constitution gave us Amendments permitting women to vote, ending Slavery, allowing income tax, letting 18 year olds vote, limited Presidential terms to two, etc.

Arguably, not ALL of these are bad things ;-)

But I agree in particular here. We don't need a Constitutional amendment to grant (or deny) gay couples appropriate civil rights.

re: #75 looking closely

Red meat for the base.

No possible way would either measure obtain the necessary 2/3 Congressional majority to pass or the subsequent necessary 3/4 state ratification (let alone with a majority or supermajority Dem Congress).

Ain't going to happen in the foreseeable future.

I seriously doubt if it would ever happen.

McCain in 2004:

"The constitutional amendment we're debating today strikes me as antithetical in every way to the core philosophy of Republicans," McCain said. "It usurps from the states a fundamental authority they have always possessed and imposes a federal remedy for a problem that most states do not believe confronts them."

The proposed amendment died Wednesday after a procedural vote to move the measure to the Senate floor failed 48-50, or 12 votes short of the 60 required by Senate rules. (Full story)

McCain said Tuesday night he would side with opponents of the amendment on the procedural vote to make clear to his constituents that he is against the amendment itself.

McCain also said the amendment "will not be adopted by Congress this year, nor next year, nor any time soon until a substantial majority of Americans are persuaded that such a consequential action is as vitally important and necessary as the proponents feel it is today."

"The founders wisely made certain that the Constitution is difficult to amend and, as a practical political matter, can't be done without overwhelming public approval. And thank God for that," he said.

.

..Social conservatives have been pushing hard for the measure since May, when Massachusetts' highest court legalized same-sex marriages in the Bay State.

But McCain argued on the Senate floor that there are "far less draconian" remedies, including the 1996 Defense of Marriage Act -- which defined marriage for purposes of federal law as a union between a man and a woman and allowed states to refuse to recognize same-sex marriages legally performed in other states -- and state constitutional amendments limiting marriage to heterosexual couples.

He said if the U.S. Supreme Court strikes down the Defense of Marriage Act or "state remedies to judicial activism fail," then amending the federal Constitution might be "appropriate."

McCain: Same-sex marriage ban is un-Republican

re: #62 Tigger

Much as I love Sarah Palin, the problem with women in politics is they have limited "shelf life." As she ages and looses her looks, she will become less attractive to the voters. I wish this were not true, but whatever you call it, Sarah's looks are a major part of her appeal to many (especially male) voters. So, I don't think 2012 is such a great idea.
TO say nothing of the fact that I am not at all sure that If Obama wins the presidency, we will have real democratic elections in 2012. Remember: Marxists do not come to power to relinquish it peacefully.

You almost got banned for that one.

Speculation on the last thread over what Zombie has in store caused me to check Google Book Search, but there is only a snippet view available for Prairie Fire. However, The Way the Wind Blew: A History of the Weather Underground, by Ron Jacobs (1997) is available in full text: [Link: sunrisedancer.com...]

And for the humor of it, there's also a romantic fiction work with the same Prairie Fire title [by Catherine Palmer, 1998]. It had these blurbs attached:

In "Prairie Fire," the flames that threaten to consume the town called Hope are overcome by the flood of love and forgiveness in the hearts of...
and
The fictional town of Hope discovers the importance of forgiveness, overcoming prejudice, and the dangers of keeping unhealthy...

How weird is that?

I think there are two elements that are of primary importance for an office holder: native intelligence & principles. Sarah Palin has both and is clearly smarter than Joe Biden. Considering Joe's almost innumerable wrong votes, I think his experience is pretty much neutralized. Sarah Palin has more experience than Barak Obama. Since he has zero experience I would say way more.

As for Barak's intelligence: Let's see some of those school grades, some of those standardized test scores. I think we have a potential "affirmative action" President here. He's the worst case of "The Emperor's New Clothes" I have ever seen in the area of intelligence. In all of the debates the difference between his and McCain's knowledge of the workings of government and national issues was clearly massive. Barak knows almost zip, but fills in with empty rhetoric. Even that is not that impressive.

Sarah Palin is not simply a "woman". She is a person; and probably a great one. The ugly souls who promote fear-based thought-control and statism have dropped back to simple male chauvinism in their hypocritical complaints about her. Right - "I don't think she has enough experience, so I will vote for someone who has less." Just brilliant.

I doubt that McCain would be able to overturn Roe v wade. I just won't happen.McCain is pro-life but very much a federalist.
Palin is talking to James Dobson about the issues that matter to some Christians. Like it or not - both Republicans and Democrats have different coalitions in their camp. You can't slam the door.

"It"

re: #93 FrogMarch

I doubt that McCain would be able to overturn Roe v wade. I just won't happen.McCain is pro-life but very much a federalist.
Palin is talking to James Dobson about the issues that matter to some Christians. Like it or not - both Republicans and Democrats have different coalitions in their camp. You can't slam the door.

McCain can't but the SCOTUS can, they just need the right case to come before them.

Murtha's opponent on H&C right now.

My apologies, but I really do not understand why. I.e., which part of it is unacceptable? I must have missed something. re: #90 Charles

re: #14 Charles

McCain needs to be seen as backing the Party Platform, especially break-point issues that will cost him in his base. That is what happened with Bush the Elder. He crawfished away from the Party on Guns and taxes, and he lost. He lost because a large faction of the Republican Party were tired of Bush's atitude. And Clinton looked very centerest when he was running. If the base stays home,or has a viable other candidate (Ross Perot) then you, as a candidate, are fucked.

You have to be able to count on your base, so you have to at least pay lip service to it. And in the event that you win, you have to give some effort to placate the people who have placed their trust in your hands. You have to honor it.

At least you have to honor your obligation if you hope to be re-elected to a second term.

re: #33 mama winger

Oh brother.

I would love to be told I'm wrong about this, but wasn't there some kind of video involving Palin, her congregation, and witchcraft? And are rumors exploring her creationism true? I mean, we know she's a Creationist, but just how whacked out of a Creationist, is the question. I console myself in her having not let it impact her job in anyway (unlike Gov Jindel), but does she speak in tongues and stuff? Tell me "it ain't so", Lizards! This is stuff to be either dispelled or downplayed, and talking to Dobson is not the way to do that.

Dobson is the pre-eminent Separation of Church and State denier; so he has issues with the Constitution. Not a patriot, IMHO.

re: #97 Tigger

If I had to guess, I'd say it was the flaming sexism.

I listened to the whole 30 minutes, Christian Conservatives are going to vote rather than sit at home, like they did two years ago.

/it's a huge, en masse voting block and who am I to say you shouldn't vote for McCain?

re: #99 Optimizer

I would love to be told I'm wrong about this, but wasn't there some kind of video involving Palin, her congregation, and witchcraft? And are rumors exploring her creationism true? I mean, we know she's a Creationist, but just how whacked out of a Creationist, is the question. I console myself in her having not let it impact her job in anyway (unlike Gov Jindel), but does she speak in tongues and stuff? Tell me "it ain't so", Lizards! This is stuff to be either dispelled or downplayed, and talking to Dobson is not the way to do that.

Dobson is the pre-eminent Separation of Church and State denier; so he has issues with the Constitution. Not a patriot, IMHO.

Are equating speaking in tongues to witchcraft?

re: #41 mama winger

What I am saying is that social policy is made by liberals thru the Courts. This is because they cannot get their legislation actually passed any other way. Conservatives want to hold the courts to strict interpretation and NOT allow social policy to be made thru court challenges.

At least this is the Scalia position, which most conservatives hold to.

Yeah, but the inescapable fact is that 7 out of 9 of the SCOTUS were appointed by Republicans. I'm not saying you're completely wrong, but it appears not to be that simple. Sometimes it's a matter of the for-real Constitution simply not supporting what Conservatives want.

re: #27 Optimizer

I'm a fan of Palin's, but I'm scared to even look.

Creationist + Christian Right whack job = ?

With the kind of screwball things I hear regarding Palin and religion, I would think this is the LAST guy she ought to be talking to.

Don't agree with you on this. She is bringing in tens of millions of evangelical votes here for the McCain/Palin ticket. I'll guarantee you this interview will be flying through the net via e-mails within every conservative congregation within the next 48 hours, and that will solidify the very large and still crucial christian right.

They weren't so thrilled with McCain until Palin came along. Now that's she's done an interview with Dobson, that'll clinch it.

Also, she's never advocated changing school curriculum to reflect ID or creationism. Never.

re: #102 goddessoftheclassroom

Are equating speaking in tongues to witchcraft?

No, and I don't see why you would suggest that, other than to maybe change the subject. I have identified three screwball rumors (at least I consider these behaviors to be "screwball") that concern me, and that I hope are at least partly wrong. It's really the only thing I don't like about Palin.

Optimizer (#99),

but does she speak in tongues and stuff?

Yeah.

re: #99 Optimizer

Dude/Dudette, you might want to get your facts straight here. She was in church on Sunday when they had a guest preacher from either an African or Caribbean nation there, and he prayed for her that she would be protected from witchcraft.

African and Caribbean churches deal with rage-filled villagers incited by those who fear their loss of influence in their communities. I know several African christians/ministers, and they battle with this often.

re: #62 Tigger

Much as I love Sarah Palin, the problem with women in politics is they have limited "shelf life." As she ages and looses her looks, she will become less attractive to the voters. I wish this were not true, but whatever you call it, Sarah's looks are a major part of her appeal to many (especially male) voters. So, I don't think 2012 is such a great idea.
TO say nothing of the fact that I am not at all sure that If Obama wins the presidency, we will have real democratic elections in 2012. Remember: Marxists do not come to power to relinquish it peacefully.

There's a point this, on both counts, but I like to think you're being too sexist about Palin in the same way as her detractors. I first got to like her in hearing her talk about energy on business shows. There are plenty of good-looking people on TV, I certainly wouldn't approve of just any of them.

I also don't care for hearing the very same things the Moonbats used to say about Bush being aired in this kind of forum. That being said, it does sound frighteningly like the Hugo Chavez story (to the meager extent I know that story).

re: #5 rawmuse

To San Franciscans, this would be like displaying a crucifix to Dracula.
Now, where did I put that box of my native earth?

Well, I'm a Jewish vampire, so.... But, yeah, I really dislike Dobson. He's smarmy to say the least, and while I'm tired of the Left peddling The Truth, I'm tired of the Religious Right doing so too. (I'm Secular Right) At least his speaking style isn't nearly as abominable when Anne Coulter tries to prove god and belittle non-believers. Ack.

I am a woman and I admire Sarah Palin. When I heard her acceptance speech I made a donation to a political campaign for the first time in my life. And learning that a big deal is made about $150 K allegedly spent on Gov Palin's wardrobe, only prompted me to make another donation to McCain-Palin Campaign. (If I could, I would have specified that I don't mind at all if my money is spent on shoes or whatever). But what I said was the way I feel things are, and not the way I believe they should be or the way I like them to be. Why kill the messenger? re: #100 Sharmuta

Hey ploome.

Midla ifglof forgen trendles. :-)

re: #50 Sharmuta

It will be interesting to watch as various States enact Marriage Amendments. I agree that this is not a Federal issue, but you have these radical Leftists trying to force gay Marriage on a resisting population.

Because one side has already taken the issue to friendly Justices, those opposed must show that their objections are found in interpreting arguements for your position, existing case law, etc. This can result in cases that adjudacate positions that strike down laws, or even compel behaviors that are anathema to a large segment of the population. Where else can they go without amending the Constitution

re: #110 ploome hineniSpeaking in tongues is regarded in some faiths (few of which are close to 'mainstream') as a sign of possession by the heavenly spirit. Even most Christians regard it as a bit overboard, but would probably not consider it harmful.

Gwen Awful on pbs cites Smurfa's statement about his racist constituency as evidence that race is why many whites don't support The One.

,,may her new book praising senator government, coming out inauguration day, become an instant pennybook on amazon,,

re: #110 ploome hineni

The technical term is Xenoglossy - speaking in a tongue in which you had no training. That's what happened at the Pentecost. What is done today in charismatic denominations is glossolalia--speaking in tongues. It's supposed to be evidence of the "fruit" of the Holy Spirit manifest in you, usually as a result of some ecstatic experience. (I hear tell BHO produces the same affect/////)

re: #113 Geepers

Hey ploome.

Midla ifglof forgen trendles. :-)

I'm reporting that to Charles! How COULD you?

The beauty of the United States Constitution is how little it actually deals with. -- just the super important stuff. Don't mess with it. I was against a balanced budget amendment because we don't need macroeconomic policy in our Constitution.* It is the most impressive document ever created, by anyone, bar none. Fucking brilliant.

*The only amendment I see that would be warranted is one that allows a state not to recognize another state's gay marriage law, but frankly, in a few generations that's going to look as bad as anti-miscegenation laws because younger people tend not to see gay marriage as negatively, good or bad.

re: #115 revobob

Speaking in tongues is regarded in some faiths (few of which are close to 'mainstream') as a sign of possession by the heavenly spirit. Even most Christians regard it as a bit overboard, but would probably not consider it harmful.

But it sure scares the dickens out of new visitors to church./////

re: #113 Geepers

Hey ploome.

Midla ifglof forgen trendles. :-)

How dare you say that. Non-believer! Heretic! Burn them!////

re: #109 Optimizer

I already replied to the first part of you post.
As far as the second one is concerned, attacks on free speech plus the expected supermajority do not bode well at all.
I have seen socialism first-hand and do not entertain any illusions regarding Marxist ideas and their realization.

re: #122 ploome hineni

heheheh

/you devil

I've read that a lot of the time it sounds like nonsense Hebrew. It could be fun to go into one of those churches and speak real Hebrew.

re: #117 calcajun

The technical term is Xenoglossy - speaking in a tongue in which you had no training. That's what happened at the Pentecost. What is done today in charismatic denominations is glossolalia--speaking in tongues. It's supposed to be evidence of the "fruit" of the Holy Spirit manifest in you, usually as a result of some ecstatic experience. (I hear tell BHO produces the same affect/////)

I don't think that is the same thing at all. The definition, as you state, is speking in a known language, without supposedly having training or knowledge of it.

The words spoken do however have meaning while "Speaking in Tongues" is simply speaking gibberish and claiming it has meaning.

re: #126 ploome hineni

....................right geeps?

hahaha

Four in tha last four months, so I'm thinking, no.

But really, the six crowns in two days was worse.

re: #62 Tigger

Much as I love Sarah Palin, the problem with women in politics is they have limited "shelf life."

Margaret Thatcher and Golda Meir disagree with your assessment.

So does Hilary Clinton, who won more votes in the Dem primaries than Obama, but has never been mistaken for a beauty contest contestant.

"...while "Speaking in Tongues" is simply speaking gibberish and claiming it has meaning."

I think that is called "Democratic Political Speech".

And on the "shelve life" issue, where would you put Eleanor Roosevelt?

Some would argue that she has a reasonable claim to the title "First Female President of the United States".

re: #105 Optimizer

No, and I don't see why you would suggest that, other than to maybe change the subject. I have identified three screwball rumors (at least I consider these behaviors to be "screwball") that concern me, and that I hope are at least partly wrong. It's really the only thing I don't like about Palin.

Do you always worry about screwball rumors? How can you like or dislike a person based on screwball rumors unless you believe those rumors?
How about basing your judgements on the truth. More often than not, those screwball rumors were started by leftist rumor mills which are notorious for deception and outright lies.

re: #62 Tigger

No matter what you call it, that's just sexist. The fact you're a woman doesn't change that fact, but it is odd that a woman would say such a thing.

I don't know why Dobson can't see that these issues will never be resolved via Costitutional Ammendment. It's virtually impossible (IMO impossible in today's culture).
There's too many people that don't care about the redefinition of marriage and abortions, unfortunately.

I'm not against civil unions and rights for gays, but I am against the redefinition of the word and meaning of marriage for the same reasons Dennis Prager is.

PIMF Constitutional (I'm sure I hit that n key).

As a late-in-life, first-time mother of a healthy four-year-old boy, I was moved (yes, a little teary) by her admission of being scared when faced with Trig's physical prognosis while pregnant. This is an issue that every parent fears they might have to face. Even though I agree Dr. Dobson is smarmy, who else would question her about this topic and treat it with the respect she deserves-Couric? Gibson? Oprah? I also liked her responses to the "thick-skin" questions. As a non-evangelical type, these answers resonated with me more than the possibility of amendments to the constitution and I agree with the above discussion about the impracticability of that happening. If I were an Evangelical Christian woman, especially with a "special needs" child or family member, I can only imagine how thankful I would be to hear a strong political woman discuss this in an open, frank, accepting and live-affirming manner.

re: #104 Intrepid

Don't agree with you on this. She is bringing in tens of millions of evangelical votes here for the McCain/Palin ticket. I'll guarantee you this interview will be flying through the net via e-mails within every conservative congregation within the next 48 hours, and that will solidify the very large and still crucial christian right.

They weren't so thrilled with McCain until Palin came along. Now that's she's done an interview with Dobson, that'll clinch it.

Also, she's never advocated changing school curriculum to reflect ID or creationism. Never.

If anybody's still there (sorry, got called away)...

I appreciate your point, but my own judgment is that as soon as Palin was picked they were thrilled - big-time - and that hadn't really changed. I speak from some experience - my mother is a classic Evangelical (even a member of an Assembly of God congregation, and a Dobson supporter).

My concern was that perhaps things would come up that would turn off the mainstream independents who (I believe) will decide this thing. You know darn well that if she got embroiled in some in-depth discussion of Creationism or something that it would be all over the media in a nanosecond. I would think it would be pretty easy to spin darned near anything against her, and religion is a subject that can only stir up controversy.

I don't have time to look at the interview now (or read the Lizardly take on it); I hope it doesn't make much in the way of news tomorrow.

Now THIS interview oughtta really capture those undecided moderates!

You betcha.

Well, this interview made this commited McCain/Palin supporter start to reconsider. I will not vote for Barack Obama. But I have to say, I switched from being a reluctant McCain supporter to dedicated McCain supporter due to his choice of Palin. Now I'm back to reluctant. She managed to make me look like an idiot by advocating positions I've been insisting she didn't support and sounding pretty much like the caricature that's been painted of her by the loony left. The Obama campaign must be thrilled with this. I'm truly nauseated.

re: #139 Optimizer

Okay, I see what your saying, but Palin has no history of imposing her views on anyone (unlike Obama), so any reasonable person has no need to worry.
As for spinning, the MSM, Hollywood and leftist blogs have already spun a multitude of lies about her, and I beieve most conservative voters can see through that BS.

The most damaging element has been the "conservative" pundits like Kathleen Parker, Peggy Noonan and company who are trying to destroy Palin and by doing so, destroy McCain's chances as well.
They are traitors to the conservative cause and I hope their readership drops precipitously.

Palin has said time and time again that she would not put anyone in jail for having an abortion, but personally, she did not want to abort Trig and believes in bringing life. Thus her history of NOT imposing her views on others. Don't be reluctant!

Sarah Palin is the least likely of anyone running to force her views on the American people. Amendments ain't gonna be passed. It's not going to happen. McCain doesn't actually support it and there aren't enough zealots in the Congress to make it happen.

But for sure Sarah Palin will be the one to get thrown under the bus asap by erstwhile 'supporters' the minute she utters a word outside of the approved balloon.

I think she's the only person on either ticket who has the stones to lead this country.

re: #141 Lynn B.

Well, this interview made this commited McCain/Palin supporter start to reconsider. I will not vote for Barack Obama. But I have to say, I switched from being a reluctant McCain supporter to dedicated McCain supporter due to his choice of Palin. Now I'm back to reluctant. She managed to make me look like an idiot by advocating positions I've been insisting she didn't support and sounding pretty much like the caricature that's been painted of her by the loony left. The Obama campaign must be thrilled with this. I'm truly nauseated.

You, madame are a person who (like so many others) want Sarah Palin to fit the image you want her to fit. She, however, has never made any pretenses about being anything less than a firmly committed Christian. Like Noonan and her fellow inside-the-beltway-conservatives, you should learn to face reality.
Governor Palin really does mean it when she says that whatever happens on November 4, America will get the government it needs not necessarily what it wants.

re: #21 Charles

I don't like those platform positions one bit. As I wrote in another thread, the proper way to negotiate social issues is NOT to amend the United States Constitution.

Amen to that!

Leave the Constitution alone..........

re: #141 Lynn B.

Well, this interview made this commited McCain/Palin supporter start to reconsider. I will not vote for Barack Obama. But I have to say, I switched from being a reluctant McCain supporter to dedicated McCain supporter due to his choice of Palin. Now I'm back to reluctant. She managed to make me look like an idiot by advocating positions I've been insisting she didn't support and sounding pretty much like the caricature that's been painted of her by the loony left. The Obama campaign must be thrilled with this. I'm truly nauseated.

Unfortunately, this is the choice you have. And remember, Palin is not at the top of the ticket. McCain is. It will be his Presidency. Now you must ask if you would rather vote for McCain or for Obama. Any vote that is for someone other then McCain is for Obama. There are no third party choices, really. Only a choice between Obama and McCain.

You choose.

re: #147 yesandno

And please, Lynn B., choose wisely...

JAFLW

I think Sarah Palin will be the first female president if she will have us. I can't stand the media. CNN intentionally misquoting to impugn Governor Palin is deliberate and a desperate attempt to ensure Obama’s win. The coverage of Obama and Michelle all full of “puff and fluff” and we are being deceived by the print and TV media. Look at all the mistakes Biden makes and they let it go, He is the REAL dummy. You can not become Mayor over and over and then get elected Governor of an American state and be “stupid”.

The media is stupid! It’s stupid for the media to think that we don’t know what they are doing. It makes Obamas campaign vicious when the media do his bidding by attacking Sarah Palin in such a personal way and then attack Joe the Plumber. If McCain had the media in his pocket the way Obama does McCain would be winning 75% to25%. Obama is not that good, smart or cool. The media is dishonest.

re: #87 looking closely

I agree that we don't need to ban whatever civil agreements people engage in. However, What we do need is to clearly define what Marriage and Human Life ARE in the Constitution. Redefining terms is a major weapon of the left's assault on our civilization. If they are not defined in the constitution, then they are subject to interpretation by judges. And obviously, as history shows, their actual judgment wildly varies.

If you want to destroy a republic. You only need to weaken and marginalize its most important institutions.

re: #136 SteveRogers

I don't know why Dobson can't see that these issues will never be resolved via Costitutional Ammendment. It's virtually impossible (IMO impossible in today's culture).
There's too many people that don't care about the redefinition of marriage and abortions, unfortunately.

I'm not against civil unions and rights for gays, but I am against the redefinition of the word and meaning of marriage for the same reasons Dennis Prager is.

What exactly do you think he should focus on then? These issues are the ENTIRE reason that most Christians are politically active to begin with. I also hope you know you're suggesting that he should stop attempting to correct what is considered by many many people to be institutional evil in our society. How is that going to go over in a believers prayer life? Pragmatic appeals to someone who actually believes that there is a God and that this God does things in the world is never concerned about whether something "is never going to happen" in the words of someone who doesn't believe this. In the eyes of many, slavery would never be abolished either.

re: #62 Tigger

Much as I love Sarah Palin, the problem with women in politics is they have limited "shelf life." As she ages and looses her looks, she will become less attractive to the voters.

TO say nothing of the fact that I am not at all sure that If Obama wins the presidency, we will have real democratic elections in 2012.

For the record, I would've given this a downding for EACH part, were I able. All the "I fear this will be our last democratic election" moaning was bullshit when BDS-stricken liberals were saying it in 2004, and it's bullshit now.

re: #14 Charles

She said she's confident McCain will back the GOP platform, specifically the constitutional bans on abortion and gay marriage.

Boo to her for that.

I understand the point others have made, that she's "throwing red meat to the base." But it seems to me that what she's actually doing is throwing them one of those rubber-steak squeak toys for dogs. (Or, a real steak with a string tied to it, so that it can be jerked away.)

She is, in other words, making a thoroughly phony promise that she knows the GOP can't keep.

re: #136 SteveRogers

I don't know why Dobson can't see that these issues will never be resolved via Constitutional Amendment. It's virtually impossible (IMO impossible in today's culture).
There's too many people that don't care about the redefinition of marriage and abortions, unfortunately.

Ahem. There are also too many people who DO care about the principle of "states' rights" -- and believe an outright Constitutional ban on either abortion or gay marriage would, by its nature, take power away from individual state governments. (On the specific matter of abortion, note that some conservatives oppose Roe v. Wade NOT because they want to see all abortions banned everywhere, but because they believe that the legality of abortion should be on a state-by-state basis, and that Roe wrongly intrudes on the autonomy of individual states.)

I'M GOING TO SEE SARAH TODAY!

re: #153 Throbert McGee

All the GOP has to do to support the platform is appoint Supremes who are strict constructionists. So I think they can easily deliver.

The popular support in the nation for a national protection of Marriage amendment will eventually define Marriage in our constitution. It is the fundamental building block of our society. We can't jack around with it to avoid hurting some peoples feelings.

re: #156 captainzot

All the GOP has to do to support the platform is appoint Supremes who are strict constructionists. So I think they can easily deliver.

The popular support in the nation for a national protection of Marriage amendment will eventually define Marriage in our constitution. It is the fundamental building block of our society. We can't jack around with it to avoid hurting some peoples feelings.

This is kind of a dead thread, but: Striking down Roe is not the same as a Constitutional ban on abortion. And affirming marriage as "one man, one woman" in the Constitution would amount to a ban on gay marriage using that word, but would not necessarily be a ban on gay "civil unions," which is what Dobson presumably wants.

re: #49 doriangrey

Fat Bastard Vegetarian has eyes? Who knew................... ;p

Oh I know...FBV MUST be Mr. Potato Head!

:-D

BTW, I'm only kidding - I ain't lookin' for no fight here

re: #158 Quad Mocha Matti

Oh I know...FBV MUST be Mr. Potato Head!

:-D

BTW, I'm only kidding - I ain't lookin' for no fight here

Um, get it? FBV = vegetable consumer. Potatoes = vegetables. Potatoes have EYES. Guess it's time to say g'nite.