« Democrats for Republicans for Ron Paul | Main | September 6th (1st Saturday Artsy-fartsy Night) »

Palin vs. Reality

http://www.samefacts.com/archives/campaign_2008_/2008/09/palin_v_reality.php

What a lying sack of Moose shit.

//

Other interesting pieces:

http://www.time-blog.com/swampland/2008/09/what_a_community_organizer_doe.html

http://rushkoff.com/2008/09/04/hate-party/

http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/commentary/la-oe-steinem4-2008sep04,0,7915118.story

September 5, 2008 in BITCHING & SCHEMING | Permalink

Comments

8 or 9 anti-Palin posts on this page. Whence the hatred? Is it just a case of "everyone else is blogging it so I might as well" or do you really hate her? Y'all just met!!

Posted by: Chaz | Sep 5, 2008 12:47:17 PM

I hate no one really.

BUT

I am disgusted and have always been disgusted by Christians who are divisive and hypocritical. By those who spread lies in the MSM echo chamber and mislead Americans.

She is both.

If you have any defense for her please feel free to share it.

Posted by: humidhaney | Sep 5, 2008 12:55:22 PM

When has she ever forced her religious beliefs on anyone else? That, I think is the question to ask.

To me, a hypocrite is one who says one thing and does another. When has she done this?

For that matter, are atheists, agnostics, Muslims, Jews and Hindus incapable of hypocrisy? Incapable of being divisive? The fact is, some people are willing to ignore a leader's religious beliefs if they do not impose them on everyone else. Almost EVERYONE is willing to COMPLETELY IGNORE them if the leader shares their political ideology.

Obama's church made racist statements. Palin's an Evangelical Christian. So what? 75% of Americans are Christians. So where's the issue here? It all comes down to who you want to vote for, who you don't, and how many different ways you can attack the one you hope loses.

Posted by: Chaz | Sep 5, 2008 6:13:25 PM

Palin, citing religious beliefs, once tried to have a librarian fired because she refused to censor books. I think people are less likely to overlook religion in a world leader when she's consistently citing God as her go-to when making important decisions. And since you mention Muslims, Jews, and Hindus, do you really think that a vice presidential nominee of any one of those faiths would get away with so freely tossing around God-loving rhetoric as Palin has?

Posted by: Cyndy G. | Sep 5, 2008 7:28:49 PM

Evidence for the librarian issue? I wouldn't normally ask, but with the pregnancy rumors I must.

As far as consistently mentioning God during issues...

///
"people are less likely to overlook religion in a world leader when she's consistently citing God as her go-to when making important decisions"///

Well what else would they cite? Regardless of their religious beliefs, people make decisions based upon their value systems. A Christian's value system is more vulnerable to scrutiny than others, but they deal with situations based on what they think is right. Any atheist who is a career politician also has a certain (perhaps less codified) belief system by which he/she forms his.her opinions or policies. What's to say that one value system is less valid than any other? Partisanship. It all comes down to where they stand on the issues. Anyone who holds the belief that he/she is capable of leading others should have a belief system and a set of values that he/she calls upon.

An Evangelical Christian such as Palin uses her value system -- one of the most time-tested ones around -- to make judgements on what the right thing to do is. From wars to pipelines to what do I say to my neighbor who just lost his dog. A good Christian realizes he/she is fallible and will often pray that he/she is doing the right thing, in recognition that there may be doubt. What that means is, she's thinking about it. It is an act of humility.

When anyone decides what he is going to do next, they typically decide what to do based on their value system. They believe it is the right thing to do (typically) ... which is why they go ahead and do it. Religious people have a personification of that abstract value system to make it easier to relate to it. But it's no different from a non-religious person doing something ... their justifications are based upon their beliefs, whether they believe in a God or not.

Look at the library censorship issue in terms of the only way that it makes sense.. in political terms, not religious terms. That's the only way that it can reasonably be discussed. Again, I want to see where this happened, but the value system that caused her to react as she did (if it's Christian) should be shared by the majority of the electorate. I'm not saying it was right, just provide me with specifics and we'll discuss it.

Posted by: Chaz | Sep 6, 2008 1:53:46 AM

Not to be unfair, as far as your question about a candidate of a non Christian faith: in what year does the hypothet take place and to which party does he/she belong?

Posted by: Chaz | Sep 6, 2008 2:00:24 AM

Watching both conventions, I noticed one very important difference. The females at the Dumos convention were fairly scaggy looking while the females at the Repugs convention were mostly hot. Then the Rrepugs come up with a vice pres nominee that I would do in a DC second. I think my mind is made up.

Posted by: D-BB | Sep 8, 2008 12:35:10 PM

The comments to this entry are closed.