Latest attack on Palin. She prays! - Page 7 - U.S. Politics Online: A Political Discussion Forum

historybuff · #91 (**permalink**) 09-13-2008

Quote:

Originally Posted by Andrewl

I'll offer an example of a worst case scenario of what she could do as both VP or POTUS. She could go after Iran by lying to the american people about the danger iran actually poses in order to pursue her faith based agenda of america's role in the end times. There is already a very recent precedence of a president and VP engaging in this sort of behavior, so its not absurd to consider it. Im not claiming GWB and Cheney are end-timers, but they lied to go to war for a neoconservative agenda. She could likewise lie for war to achieve her own twisted agenda.

McCain is a hawk on Iran (of a secular nature), and Palin could be used to garner support in the religious right for any adventures he might have planned in that region.

Another example: She could use her position to avoid tackling the enormous environmental problems the world faces because her theology of dominion necessarily places human wants and desires above that of the environment and other animals. Dominionism offers an extreme anthropocentric view of our place in the cosmos.

There are plenty more examples in the realm of abortion rights, stem cell research, creationism. She might not be able to ever pass laws on these issues, but she could waste at least 4 years giving respect to them as important issues.

There are plenty of books and internet sources on this topic. I don't really need to hold you hand if you want to learn about it. I'm sure you can read about it and figure it out for yourself. Your apparent ignorance on the subject seems more feigned than genuine anyway.

Andrew

Yea! We have a winner! Someone who can actually answer.

Okay. Yes, you're right. They could lie for war. However, every news outlet and a majority of the nation would have to be complicit in that scenario for it to come into fruition. Further, the Senate would have to vote on that war. Due to the recent example that many bemoan, the bar on this is going to be very, very high. With the 24 hour news cycle and internet forums such as this, a scenario in which they are allowed to lie without being found out and then succeed purely on their own religious belief is highly unlikely. So I don't think that's valid.

For her to impede doing something about environmental issues, she would have to veto what comes out of the Senate. That is her only possible power in this scenario. If you believe that she will veto bills that are aimed at solving this climate crisis, then that's a good reason not to vote for her. I find that, however, highly unlikely, and if she consistently did that, I'm sure impeachment outrage from the nation would either pressure her to resign or quit vetoing. And she knows that, so it would be lunacy for her to enact those vetos.

As far as your other points, she can't pass any laws. There are a lot of books on that, I won't hold your hand on the role of the President or Vice President and what the Senate does.

Is my point starting to sink in?

historybuff · #92 (**permalink**) 09-13-2008

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tanngrisnir3

Who sent it there, genius?

Uh. Ok. That was meant metaphorically.

Unless you can't read, I just gave you one. If you choose to ignore it, that's your business.

You've proven nothing, and I have posited nothing concrete. I am addressing possibilities, and you fiddle while Rome burns, whistling past the graveyard.

Good luck with that.

If you're trying to say that Bush's religious beliefs is what sent us to Iraq, you're going to have to provide proof. And show how you're so much smarter as to the cause than the Senate and 30 other countries who didn't go into it because God told them to. They didn't buy the god told him to thing, but I guess you're just way more clever.

Tanngrisnir3 · #93 (**permalink**) 09-13-2008

Quote:

Originally Posted by historybuff

If you're trying to say that Bush's religious beliefs is what sent us to Iraq, you're going to have to provide proof. And show how you're so much smarter as to the cause than the Senate and 30 other countries who didn't go into it because God told them to. They didn't buy the god told him to thing, but I guess you're just way more clever.

You seem to have comprehension difficulties. And that's OK.

He said god told him to do it. What more do you need? The ones who joined on wanted political favors.

Never mind, I'm not your pharmacist, and you're going to need a good one.

historybuff · #94 (**permalink**) 09-13-2008

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tanngrisnir3

You seem to have comprehension difficulties. And that's OK.

He said god told him to do it. What more do you need? The ones who joined on wanted political favors.

Never mind, I'm not your pharmacist, and you're going to need a good one.

I guess you'd know. Maybe you can give me the name of yours, so I can be sure not to go there.

It's simplistic, at best, to say that we went to Iraq because "God told Bush to do it." I'm actually thinking beyond that. Try it. It's fun.

I do need more because that's not the way it works. That's the way Stalin and Hitler and Mussolini worked. They said something crazy and evil, and were able to make it happen. And if we were electing someone in that kind of government, then you'd have a point.

As it is, you don't. Bush had to have hearings, had to convince the Senate to vote for him and convince 30 other countries. And he didn't go to them and say, "Look, we gotta do this because God told me to." There were many hoops he had to go through and if the only reason was becuase of his religious beliefs, believe me, we wouldn't be in Iraq. Do you see the reality of the situation yet?

Imperator · #95 (**permalink**) 09-13-2008

Quote:

Originally Posted by Andrewl

It calls into question her trustworthiness and credibility, absolutely.

Andrew

wow....frigin' wow......I am speechless.

Tanngrisnir3 · #96 (**permalink**) 09-13-2008

Quote:

Originally Posted by historybuff

I guess you'd know.

Yes, I do know.

Quote:

Maybe you can give me the name of yours, so I can be sure not to go there.

Don't have one, myself.

Quote:

It's simplistic, at best, to say that we went to Iraq because "God told Bush to do it." I'm actually thinking beyond that. Try it. It's fun.

I never said we did, and it shows the paucity of your 'argument' to maintain that I did.

Quote:

I do need more because that's not the way it works. That's the way Stalin and Hitler and Mussolini worked. They said something crazy and evil, and were able to make it happen. And if we were electing someone in that kind of government, then you'd have a point.

As it is, you don't. Bush had to have hearings, had to convince the Senate to vote for him and convince 30 other countries. And he didn't go to them and say, "Look, we gotta do this because God told me to." There were many hoops he had to go through and if the only reason was becuase of his religious beliefs, believe me, we wouldn't be in Iraq. Do you see the reality of the situation yet?

Irregardless: he stated that he talked to god, and he maintains that god told him to do this. Where are we now? Iraq.

Was political pressure a part of that? You bet, and no one is maintaining otherwise. Were the times more or less unique in our history? You bet.

You think that can't happen again?

Think. You might find it refreshing and novel.

historybuff · #97 (**permalink**) 09-13-2008

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tanngrisnir3

Yes, I do know.

Don't have one, myself.

I never said we did, and it shows the paucity of your 'argument' to maintain that I did.

Irregardless: he stated that he talked to god, and he maintains that god told him to do this. Where are we now? Iraq.

Was political pressure a part of that? You bet, and no one is maintaining otherwise. Were the times more or less unique in our history? You bet.

You think that can't happen again?

Think. You might find it refreshing and novel.

I love how angry you're getting because it's just proof you know you're bested and you're lashing out.

Let me think about what you said... he talked to god and now we're in Iraq. That's your argument. And you think Sarah Palin is going to talk to god and we'll be in Iran? Am I following what you're going for?

You seem to know a lot about medication, but not a lot about how the government or human nature works. Trying reading my response above to Andrew. It might enlighten you on a little more than your vast knowledge of dry drunks and fanatics.

Tanngrisnir3 · #98 (**permalink**) 09-13-2008

Quote:

Originally Posted by historybuff

I love how angry you're getting because it's just proof you know you're bested and you're lashing out.

Go ahead, laugh. Nothing has been bested here, and I'm certainly not lashing out. I know what I know. I know that personal experience seems to be beyond your ability to parse. There really isn't an anger here.

Quote:

Let me think about what you said... he talked to god and now we're in Iraq. That's your argument. And you think Sarah Palin is going to talk to god and we'll be in Iran? Am I following what you're going for?

No, and it's patently dishonest to attempt to sum up all I've said as the above. You're not following what I'm saying, most likely purposefully. Your loss.

Quote:

You seem to know a lot about medication, but not a lot about how the government or human nature works. Trying reading my response above to Andrew. It might enlighten you on a little more than your vast knowledge of dry drunks and fanatics.

The entirety of my postings have been about my experience with human nature. That's why I hold the opinions I've expressed. Your response to Andrew exposes the dishonesty of your exchange with me. For the last time, I am not interested nor in the position to hold your hand through all of this.

That you are unable to understand that, this late in the game, leaves me to conclude that further communication on this matter would be pointless.

historybuff · #99 (**permalink**) 09-13-2008

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tanngrisnir3

Go ahead, laugh. Nothing has been bested here, and I'm certainly not lashing out. I know what I know. I know that personal experience seems to be beyond your ability to parse. There really isn't an anger here.

No, and it's patently dishonest to attempt to sum up all I've said as the above. You're not following what I'm saying, most likely purposefully. Your loss.

The entirety of my postings have been about my experience with human nature. That's why I hold the opinions I've expressed. Your response to Andrew exposes the dishonesty of your exchange with me. For the last time, I am not interested nor in the position to hold your hand through all of this.

That you are unable to understand that, this late in the game, leaves me to conclude that further communication on this matter would be pointless.

I agree. That's probably as close as I'll get to you admitting your stance on Sarah Palin being dangerous is simply too flimsy to continue forcing your fingers to type the bullshit.

Tanngrisnir3 · #**100** (**permalink**) 09-13-2008

Quote:

Originally Posted by historybuff

I agree. That's probably as close as I'll get to you admitting your stance on Sarah Palin being dangerous is simply too flimsy to continue forcing your fingers to type the bullshit.

Translation: you refuse to accept logic and actual human experience, so you appeal to emotion.

Why am I not surprised?

historybuff · #**101** (**permalink**) 09-13-2008

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tanngrisnir3

Translation: you refuse to accept logic and actual human experience, so you appeal to emotion.

Why am I not surprised?

Ha. My argument is that there are too many checks and balances in our system for a President to enact their religious agenda. Which is very logical and true.

Yours is that you know fanatics and they're dangerous. Probably. Somehow. Personal experience. With fantaics. Bad.

Si modo · #**102** (**permalink**) 09-13-2008

Quote:

Originally Posted by historybuff

Ha. My argument is that there are too many checks and balances in our system for a President to enact their religious agenda. Which is very logical and true.

Yours is that you know fanatics and they're dangerous. Probably. Somehow. Personal experience. With fantaics. Bad.

Don't let the facts get in the way of a hearty appeal to fear, one of the strongest emotions the anti-faith crowd peddles.

historybuff · #**103** (**permalink**) 09-13-2008

Quote:

Originally Posted by Si modo

Don't let the facts get in the way of a hearty appeal to fear, one of the strongest emotions the anti-faith crowd peddles.

Seriously. They're scared and creeped out, but they can't clearly say what evil they think those faith-types will do. They just know it will be bad. Whatever it is.

Tanngrisnir3 · #**104** (**permalink**) 09-13-2008

Quote:

Originally Posted by Si modo

Don't let the facts get in the way of a hearty appeal to fear, one of the strongest emotions the anti-faith crowd peddles.

Yawn. I don't know any 'anti-faith' people. I'm anti fanaticism.

Others aren't.

Gosh, whaddya know?

Tanngrisnir3 · #**105** (**permalink**) 09-13-2008

Quote:

Originally Posted by historybuff

Ha. My argument is that there are too many checks and balances in our system for a President to enact their religious agenda. Which is very logical and true..

Then you should recheck your argument.

What you say can't happened already has.

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Email this Page
Display Modes
Linear Mode Switch to Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode