Sarah Palin: MoveOn Email 2
More of the MoveOn.org crap about Sarah Palin. These people are IDIOTS.
Did you watch Sarah Palin’s speech last night? The speech told us a lot about her.
It told us that she can distort the facts and deliver mean-spirited zingers with the best of them. It told us that if Rush Limbaugh or Ann Coulter ever need a stand-in, she’d be a great pick.
It told us that she can be condescending and dismissive of the real work Barack Obama did helping real people on the South Side of Chicago. It told us that she can uphold the long Republican tradition of lying about Democratic tax cuts—even though Obama’s plan would give Americans a bigger break than McCain’s.
But the speech—written by one of President Bush’s speechwriters—didn’t tell us the truth about Sarah Palin’s extremist positions. And the more that people know her far-right views, the less they support her. (There’s a partial list below.)
One of the best ways to get the word out about Palin is to write a letter to the editor of your local paper. Today’s a great day to write because this is very relevant—it just happened last night. Plus, our online tool makes it easy and has great tips. Please take a few minutes to write a quick letter to the editor now:
http://pol.moveon.org/lte?campaign_id=95&id=13709-10385501-KFYZ2wx&t=3Palin’s speech and the reaction to it also made clear why McCain picked her. It wasn’t a decision about who’s most qualified to serve a heart-beat away from the presidency—it was a political decision about pleasing the far-right base of the Republican party.
Writing a letter to your local paper is a great way to make sure voters understand that. The opinion pages are the most widely-read pages of the newspaper. Write today, and your letter’s a lot more likely to get published because it’s so topical. It’ll help sway the editorial board too.
Here are a bunch of points you might want to include in your letter:
* Palin recently said that the war in Iraq is “God’s task.” She’s even admitted she hasn’t thought about the war much—just last year she was quoted saying, “I’ve been so focused on state government, I haven’t really focused much on the war in Iraq.” 1, 2
* Palin has actively sought the support of the fringe Alaska Independence Party. Six months ago, Palin told members of the group—who advocate for a vote on secession from the union—to “keep up the good work” and “wished the party luck on what she called its ‘inspiring convention.’” 3
* Palin wants to teach creationism in public schools. She hasn’t made clear whether she thinks evolution is a fact.4
* Palin doesn’t believe that humans contribute to global warming. Speaking about climate change, she said, “I’m not one though who would attribute it to being manmade.” 5
* Palin has close ties to Big Oil. Her inauguration was even sponsored by BP. 6
* Palin is extremely anti-choice. She doesn’t even support abortion in the case of rape or incest. 7
* Palin opposes comprehensive sex-ed in public schools. She’s said she will only support abstinence-only approaches. 8
* As mayor, Palin tried to ban books from the library. Palin asked the library how she might go about banning books because some had inappropriate language in them—shocking the librarian, Mary Ellen Baker. According to Time, “news reports from the time show that Palin had threatened to fire Baker for not giving “full support” to the mayor.” 9
* She DID support the Bridge to Nowhere (before she opposed it). Palin claimed that she said “thanks, but no thanks” to the infamous Bridge to Nowhere. But in 2006, Palin supported the project repeatedly, saying that Alaska should take advantage of earmarks “while our congressional delegation is in a strong position to assist.” 10The plain fact of the matter is that Sarah Palin did a bang-up job delivering a Karl Rove-style political attack speech last night. That makes her a skilled politician but it doesn’t make her views any more palatable for voters. Americans don’t really want another far-right, anti-science ideologue in the White House.
Please help get the word out about where Sarah Palin really stands on the issues.
I encourage everyone to use their handy-dandy form to send their own email to the papers. I sent one to every paper on their list. I may even send my letter to Rush, Hannity, Ingram, and Boortz.
They’ve even provided talking points and advice on writing your letter! How nice…you can write what they want you to…WRONG. I don’t do that. But if you DO need some idea of what kind of letter I’d send, here’s mine:
I’m using the ’send a letter’ feature that MoveOn.org spammed me with to send this letter.
Last night, Sarah Palin showed Americans exactly what she’s made of.
Gunpowder and lead.
Nevermind that the liberals have been attacking her CHILDREN, it seems that the MoveOn idiots are enraged because she made some ‘mean-spirited zingers’ against a GROWN MAN.
You know, if someone attacked my children, they’d get much more than a zinger. More like a fist in their face.
The MoveOn.org liberals have guts, I’ll give them that. But beyond that, they simply hide behind a facade of caring while all they do is attack children and call names.
You can’t argue with a liberal. Why? Because no matter what evidence you bring to the fight, they will always be correct. Nevermind that you have documented evidence, witnesses, or audio/video, you will always be wrong.
Let’s see. It seems that MoveOn.org has provided me with some talking points…how gracious. Let’s address some of them.
“Palin recently said that the war in Iraq is “God’s task” and she’s admitted she hasn’t thought about the war much, due to being focused on state government.
GOOD. ISN’T THAT HER JOB? I THOUGHT SHE WAS SUPPOSED TO FOCUS ON LOCAL ISSUES!
Next, let’s talk about this one. “Palin wants to teach creationism in public schools.”
AWESOME. THEY CAN TEACH SOMETHING THAT A LARGE NUMBER OF AMERICANS DISAGREE WITH (EVOLUTION), WHY CAN’T THE OTHER BE TAUGHT? OH WAIT, THEY DON’T WANT TO ‘FEEL’ LIKE THEY ARE WRONG. I THOUGHT THEY SUPPORTED FAIRNESS?
“Palin doesn’t believe that humans contribute to global warming.”
WOW. I DON’T EITHER. I GUESS US ‘CREATIONISTS’ ARE THE SCOURGE OF MANKIND AND LOGICAL THOUGHT. I’D LIKE TO KNOW WHAT CONTRIBUTED TO THEIR ‘ICE AGE’?
“Palin is extremely anti-choice.”
…BECAUSE SHE DOESN’T DESERVE THE RIGHT TO BELIEVE THAT A FETUS IS A LIVING ORGANISM. AGAIN, LIBERALS DON’T WANT TO BE TOLD THAT THEY ARE WRONG…IF YOU DON’T WANT KIDS (AND WANT TO BE CERTAIN YOU DON’T HAVE ANY) DON’T HAVE SEX.
“As mayor, Palin tried to ban books from the library…because some had inappropriate language in them.”
YET WE CANNOT SAY OBAMA’S MIDDLE NAME. WE CAN’T SAY ‘GOD’. WE CAN’T SAY PRAYERS. BUT WE CAN USE EXPLETIVES ANY TIME WE WISH.
Hmm…sounds like the MoveOn liberals have a double standard on almost every issue they have. Go figure.
I’m willing to bet this doesn’t go through, because I’m pretty sure MoveOn censors these letters, to prevent conservative idiots like me from ‘abusing’ their system.
Screw them.
I’m also sick of hearing the term ‘mean-spirited’. What the heck is it when you attack a minor child, even if she did make a moral mistake?
Which one of you MoveOn morons weren’t rebellious when you were that age?
In the meantime, I support Palin. I see no logical reason not to. MoveOn.org and the liberal media are most definitely the scum of the earth.
Wess Stewart
http://verbalthermite.com
If you enjoyed this post, please subscribe to our RSS feed or help keep this site running!
Tags: attacks, john mccain, moveon.org, sarah palin
- About admin
18 Responses to “Sarah Palin: MoveOn Email 2”
Sponsors
Awards
September 4th, 2008 at 11:27 pm
Entertaining blog. One thing that stuck out at me though was this one.
“As mayor, Palin tried to ban books from the library…because some had inappropriate language in them.”
YET WE CANNOT SAY OBAMA’S MIDDLE NAME. WE CAN’T SAY ‘GOD’. WE CAN’T SAY PRAYERS. BUT WE CAN USE EXPLETIVES ANY TIME WE WISH.
Hmm…sounds like the MoveOn liberals have a double standard on almost every issue they have. Go figure.
Sure it’s the liberals that only have a double standard………?
McCain drops the F-Bomb on the Bush Administration
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,417064,00.html
Woodward notes that Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama opposed the surge, while GOP presidential candidate John McCain was “advocating more troops for years.” Woodward also quotes McCain expressing frustration with the Bush White House, clenching his fists in the West Wing and exclaiming to Woodward: “Everything is f—ing spin.”
McCain Drops the F-Bomb on Texas Republican John Cornyn
http://blog.washingtonpost.com/capitol-briefing/2007/05/mccain_cornyn_cursing_showdown.html
Things got really heated when Cornyn accused McCain of being too busy campaigning for president to take part in the negotiations, which have gone on for months behind closed doors. “Wait a second here,” Cornyn said to McCain. “I’ve been sitting in here for all of these negotiations and you just parachute in here on the last day. You’re out of line.”
McCain, a former Navy pilot, then used language more accustomed to sailors (not to mention the current vice president, who made news a few years back after a verbal encounter with Sen. Patrick Leahy of Vermont).
“[Expletive] you! I know more about this than anyone else in the room,” shouted McCain at Cornyn. McCain helped craft a bill in 2006 that passed the Senate but couldn’t be compromised with a House bill that was much tougher on illegal immigrants.
Dick Cheney drops the F-BOMB on the Senate Floor
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/5297413/
WASHINGTON - During the annual Senate class photo-op on Tuesday, Vice President Dick Cheney allegedly complained to Democratic Senator Patrick Leahy about the senator’s criticism of no-bid Iraq contracts to Halliburton, Cheney’s former company.
Senator Leahy responded by complaining about alleged administration’s smears of Democrats. Cheney then used the “f” word, telling Leahy… “f” yourself.
Leahy confirmed that the confrontation took place and said of Cheney, “I think he was just having a bad day.” He added that he was “shocked to hear that kind of language on the floor.”
Conservatives do it too……..
September 5th, 2008 at 10:08 am
I’m not saying that conservatives don’t do it.
My point was this: it seems that the liberals spend all of their time telling us that we can’t pray in public, we can’t use certain names, we can’t say ‘under God’, we can’t have the ten commandments in public, ad although we are free to worship as we choose, we have to keep in within the confines of our church buildings.
They are very quick to condemn people who do things that offend them, but don’t give a flying flip about things that offend other people.
You know, there aren’t many (if any) politicians that are truly Christians. So as a Christian, shouldn’t we vote for someone who seems to have the more Christian-like policies?
War is bad. Nobody likes war, but sometimes wars are necessary.
As for keeping the war going on forever (as some people like to accuse McCain of wanting to do), WE ARE STILL IN JAPAN/GERMANY/ETC. We’ve had troops there since WW2. I hear nobody complaining about that. Just because we aren’t in a war doesn’t mean we have all of our troops out.
People use bad language. It’s easy to do when you get angry. I’ve done it. I’m sure that almost every one of those guys up on capitol hill have too, so it’s not like McCain is any worse than the others up there.
So, until a true Christian runs for office, we’re going to have to make choices that most accurately reflect our own morals and standards.
September 5th, 2008 at 12:11 pm
I’m not saying that conservatives don’t do it.
Good. Therefore there is no double standard if both sides partake in the same activity. (Although I didn’t find any recent stories on Democrat leaders dropping the F-bomb in the Senate).
My point was this: it seems that the liberals spend all of their time telling us that we can’t pray in public (actually no one tells you that you cannot pray in public. If you want to pray, pray. What the government (which has a republican president and 51-49 split in the house with the tie-breaker being Joe Libermann, a supporter of John McCain, tells you is that you cannot use the government functions for your prayer. Like if you were at a high school football game, you are on the school property. If you want to stand in the bleachers and pray, pray. But if you want to go get on the school‘s aka the government‘s microphone and do it, forcing others who may not believe in your form of deity to listen to it, then that is not allowed. You want to pray what you like, build your own school, build your own football field, buy your own mic, but the government cannot promote your form of religion over every other form of religion. Remember these laws are still in tact with a Republican President and a split congress, it‘s not like Washington is overrun by “libs“.,
we can’t use certain names, we can’t say ‘under God’(Under God has not been removed from the pledge and at BOTH national conventions, Republican and Democrat, it was recited).,
we can’t have the ten commandments in public (Again, if you want to own a business and post them, fine. That is why places like Christian bookstores exist. However if you think you should be able to post your form of religion in a government office, like a court house or a school or a court room, then you are wrong. There is no reason to post the ten commandments in a court house more than the Torah or the teachings of Muhammad, AND the rulings that have shot down displaying the Ten Commandments have come from the United States Supreme Court, which leans conservative 5-4 and has conservatives appointed by George W. Bush),
ad although we are free to worship as we choose, we have to keep in within the confines of our church buildings ( Again I disagree with this. As a religious person I worship where I want. As long as I don‘t use the government‘s property to force it on others, I have no problems with it. Never been arrested once).
They are very quick to condemn people who do things that offend them, but don’t give a flying flip about things that offend other people. (Kinda like saying “libs” shouldn’t attack Sarah Palin because it’s sexist and then sending Sarah Palin out to give a speech attacking Barack Obama?)
You know, there aren’t many (if any) politicians that are truly Christians. So as a Christian, shouldn’t we vote for someone who seems to have the more Christian-like policies? Sure.
War is bad. Nobody likes war, but sometimes wars are necessary. Agreed.
As for keeping the war going on forever (as some people like to accuse McCain of wanting to do), WE ARE STILL IN JAPAN/GERMANY/ETC. We’ve had troops there since WW2. I hear nobody complaining about that. Just because we aren’t in a war doesn’t mean we have all of our troops out. (In the past presidential election I can think of three candidates off the top of my head who disagreed with you. Mike Gravel, a democrat, Dennis Kucinich a democrat, and Ron Paul a republican all argued that we should not have troops left in Germany, Japan, Korea and all the other places we stick our noses in. Paul, a VERY conservative republican was the main advocate of this theory of bringing all of our troops home from around the world. I don’t really agree with Paul’s policies very much, but it shows that even conservative republicans don’t agree with McCain’s 100 years in Iraq comment. Here is a you tube of Ron Paul hammering McCain over this topic in a debate: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0Q9WzCrLuC4).
People use bad language. It’s easy to do when you get angry. I’ve done it. I’m sure that almost every one of those guys up on capitol hill have too, so it’s not like McCain is any worse than the others up there. (Yeah I’m sure they all curse all the time. But as far as policy, he’s pretty bad.)
So, until a true Christian runs for office, we’re going to have to make choices that most accurately reflect our own morals and standards. Agreed.
September 5th, 2008 at 12:28 pm
“They are very quick to condemn people who do things that offend them, but don’t give a flying flip about things that offend other people. (Kinda like saying “libs” shouldn’t attack Sarah Palin because it’s sexist and then sending Sarah Palin out to give a speech attacking Barack Obama?)”
I didn’t say that either…
Let’s break it down this way, (sometimes I have difficulty clarifying my stance).
Sarah Palin is now a target. Fair enough. That’s part of the game. It’s the TYPE of attacks that I’m concerned with.
If you want to make a political attack, shouldn’t it be focused on policies?
You know, instead of children’s rebellious mistakes?
It would be wrong to attack Obama because he’s not white. It would be wrong for a woman to attack with a ‘men suck’ attitude. Likewise, it would be wrong to attack Palin because she’s female. And children should be off limits completely.
It would NOT be wrong to attack either one based on their positions given in their speeches, voting records, or planning.
My concern is that the libs will do anything they can to make conservatives look like hypocrites (which is why you won’t see much f-bombing from libs in the biased liberal media), but if anyone on the rep side says anything at all that might be twisted into something that may sound offensive to even a handful of people, it will be paraded around the media with fanfare.
September 5th, 2008 at 2:40 pm
I agree with a lot of your last post. Attacks are part of politics unfortunately. However, family should be kept out of those attacks. I agree with that. You know who else agrees with that? Barack Obama.
Obama says Palin’s family is off limits
http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/09/01/obama.palin/index.html
I completely however disagree with your assumption that:
1. The media has a liberal bias
2. The idea that they never hold democrats accountable for what they say.
The most popular and most watched news organization is Fox News which is CLEARLY right wing conservative. Bill O Reilly, Sean Hannity, shoot they even have Karl Rove as a correspondant.
Secondly, they try to hold democrats to the fire all the time. Look at Joe Biden. It wasn’t too long ago that he called Obama “bright, clean and articulate” and the so called liberal media made him out to be a racist. Why would they do that to the liberal vice president. Maybe there isn’t a liberal bias in the media…..
September 5th, 2008 at 5:50 pm
Then why didn’t Ron Paul get coverage?
Then why is it that whenever a Rep gets tounge-tied that it’s a big deal, and they didn’t report things like when Biden called (by mistake) Obama ‘Barack America’?
These things aren’t big deals (speaking of poor public speaking). You only hear about these things when someone like Bush does it.
I agree, Obama did say that family was off-limits, and I respect him for doing so. Not many people would do that, especially on the liberal side. Many liberals attack, then make excuses why it’s ok for them to do so.
I like Sean Hannity! In fact, the email in this post (my response)…I sent it to him. And Rush. And Ingram. And Boortz. And about 15 newspapers around the US.
And you are correct, they do hold dems to the fire. What’s fair for one is fair for the other.
Which is part of the reason that I started this website. To put my non-party-claiming religious conservative views out there, and to allow others to share their ideas.
Both sides need to forget that we are dealing with the old, the young, the black, the white, and the female.
We are dealing with politicians and their camps doing dumb politician things.
September 5th, 2008 at 9:56 pm
I read your post. I think most of it is non-responsive, red-herring, or just misses the point.
Iraq war as “God’s task” -
I think the problem is that Sarah Palin (”SP”) believes God has a hand in the mass slaughter of innocent civilians and U.S. soldiers in a battle that has ABSOLUTELY NOTHING to do with 9/11. Nothing. No person with ANY knowledge of what’s going on believes this.
Also, not giving much thought to it is surprising and horrifying to hear. I mean, the war has been THE story of the past few years. And, she’s going to be the VP? I mean, most people CAN multitask.
Creationism -
First, there is no scientific evidence of creationism, it is not a scientific theory, and it can be taught in two seconds: “God did it.” Next, the Courts have held, correctly, that teaching creationism violates something called the First Amendment [of the United States Constitution]. Third, as far as most people disagreeing w/ evolution, most people are dumb. Pure and simple. Most people in the middle ages believed the earth was flat. They were wrong. So are the anti-evolution people. Nothing to do with “fairness.” Nothing at all. It has to do w/ correctness.
Global Warming -
The only thing I got out of your response was that you are a creationist. No idea what you were going for with the Ice Age thing.
Anti-Choice -
I understand that this is a hot-button issue. However, Palin opposes letting abortions for those who are raped. She wants parental consent laws - even though the laws are in place to prevent child abuse. The problem is that SP wants to enforce HER views on EVERYONE.
Banning Books -
This is probably one of the scariest things about SP. There is this thing called the First Amendment (remember, mentioned above?). Your reply, about not mentioning Obama’s middle name has nothing to do with anything. The books SP wanted to ban were at a PUBLIC LIBRARY. In a small town. Where there probably aren’t a lot of bookstores. Banning books is like banning knowledge. It’s wrong. It’s dumb. It’s one of the worst things a person in power can do, besides violating the Constitution at every turn like GWB, but that’s a bit off topic. I could really go on all day. And, your argument about language? Really? You want to ban language? Do you know what “vulgar” language refers to? I’ll bet you don’t! And, if you do, you realize that banning the language b/c it’s vulgar is ELITIST to the extreme.
Finally, the whole thing about attacking SP for her kid’s action is a little questionable. However, I think the point that is most missed is that SP wants to make “abstinence only” an educational policy. Seems like that was a failure in this case.
Oh, wow. I didn’t even get to mention SP’s vindictive nature! Maybe next time around . . .
September 5th, 2008 at 10:21 pm
The Iraq war HAS been THE story of the last few years, but a governor’s job is not to cast his/her vote on any matter pertaining to the war, it is to govern the area they are over. Simple. Just because it’s all over the news does not mean we have proactive roles in it…unless we are in the military or some other branch of government that has direct interaction with the war effort.
As for the ice age comment, here was my point: evolutionists seem to believe that there was an ice age (where everything was frozen). In the past, they have mentioned ‘global cooling’ as a problem. Well, according to their theories, the ice age happened before ‘homo sapiens’ were around. So tell me, if men are the cause of global warming, and likewise they are the cause of global cooling (back in the day), then who caused their ice age? It certainly wasn’t corporations with their pollution…
I have kids. Kids are wonderful. Kids should not be killed for any reason…period. Just because some waste of skin rapes a woman, there is no justification for taking that out on an innocent child. None. The problem is that people want abortions to be legal (because they want to behave irresponsibly with no real consequences), and use ‘rape and incest’ as a crutch. I highly doubt that the majority of abortions in the US are directly related to either of these factors. Prove me wrong.
Now, lets talk about vulgar language. You seem to think I’m an idiot. By vulgar, I’m referring to language that’s deemed unacceptable in most situations.
Now let me break this down for you: I don’t care WHAT society says is acceptable, my concern is what is right based on my beliefs…which I’m not trying to force on anyone, by the way. Here’s the definition of vulgar:
1. Crudely indecent.
2.
a. Deficient in taste, delicacy, or refinement.
b. Marked by a lack of good breeding; boorish. See Synonyms at common.
c. Offensively excessive in self-display or expenditure; ostentatious: the huge vulgar houses and cars of the newly rich.
3. Spoken by or expressed in language spoken by the common people; vernacular: the technical and vulgar names for an animal species.
4. Of or associated with the great masses of people; common
Now, I think that profanity would fall into these categories. Just because it’s common DOES NOT MAKE IT RIGHT.
The argument against SP here would be that she’s using her religious beliefs to force censorship. Perhaps she doesn’t want her children picking up a book that may have some immoral content from a place that provides obscene material to children freely.
How do I tie that in with Obama’s middle name? Well, if SP’s beliefs are promoting censorship, then the beliefs of liberals who get offended (or may even be offended, even with spin and stretching the facts) when someone mentions Barack’s middle name telling us we cannot use it (or attack those who do) is censorship also.
Abstinence is the only 100% guaranteed method of STD prevention and birth control. I’m sure we all have made mistakes when we were at the age of Palin’s daughter, so why should we attack her?
Hey, have you ever disobeyed your parents? I have. And I did some stupid things when I did. That doesn’t mean my parents failed, it means I failed to obey my parents. Liberals hate that kind of thing, especially when it’s something they can use to hurt someone in public office.
Back to abstinence. I think that should be taught BY THE PARENTS. It’s not the school’s place to tell students how/when/why they should be having sex. Granted, the decision is ultimately up to the people involved in having sex, not the parents, and not the schools. Should they be ‘informed’ before they have sex? Yes. By the parents. And should they be having sex before they are married? No. And if they do, will teaching them about safe sex guarantee that they are safe from pregnancy and STD’s? Absolutely not.
You know, I had a man cut my kid’s car seat straps when they were out of town. Do you think I would have a right to be vindictive…or at least very angry? Do you think I would have the right to say something about it?
And you can’t honestly believe that Sarah Palin is any more vindictive than any other politician up there. If so, I’m not the one who needs help. No offense :)
Banning books is not the same as banning knowledge. Restricting access to vulgar material is not banning.
And for the record, I’m not elitist at all. I support the common people, but I believe that personal faith should dictate how you live your life. I touched on this earlier - liberals want your faith restricted to your church building. They don’t want to hear it, they don’t want to see it, and they are shocked if you outwardly show that you are trying to do what is right.
Prove me wrong.
September 5th, 2008 at 10:26 pm
Or perhaps, if you prefer I use a more accurate word, how about this:
PROFANE
1. Marked by contempt or irreverence for what is sacred.
2. Nonreligious in subject matter, form, or use; secular: sacred and profane music.
3. Not admitted into a body of secret knowledge or ritual; uninitiated.
4. Vulgar; coarse.
tr.v. pro·faned, pro·fan·ing, pro·fanes
1. To treat with irreverence: profane the name of God.
2. To put to an improper, unworthy, or degrading use; abuse.
profanity
Noun
pl -ties
1. the quality of being profane
2. coarse or blasphemous action or speech
September 6th, 2008 at 11:02 am
War of Iraq -
You miss the point. Of course she isn’t going to cast a vote, but that (1) she believes God supports this, and (2) she “hasn’t given much thought to it” proves she is out of touch. I’m not directly involved in the war effort. I know people who are. I believe we need to get these people home and out of Iraq before more people die. Wow. I’m not directly involved, I have a job, AND I’ve given thought to the war.
Ice Age -
Ummm. (1) You are wrong on what the ice age was; (2) it is not an evolutionist theory, it’s really a geological/geoclimatical theory; (3) you are mistaken on global climate theory. Clearly, your lack of understanding is causing your attack here. That is unfortunate. Perhaps if you read a science text and became informed on the topic, you would revise your critique.
Kids/Abortion -
I’m glad you feel that a raped woman should have to bear the child (who, if she takes the morning after pill would really just be a zygote or small cluster of cells at that time). Guess that is an easy choice for you - you will never face such a situation and have to re-live the horror of the rape on a daily basis.
As far as “proving you wrong” - you are producing a challenge that has NO BEARING on the situation. It doesn’t matter if a majority of abortions are based on a whim. If you re-read my post, I don’t ever support “Abortions for everyone.” You are trying to change the topic.
Vulgar language -
Ah ha. And here’s where you implicitly contradict yourself in a fun manner. First, you say, “I’m not trying to force on anyone” (remember, you think woman who are raped shouldn’t be allowed to have an abortion based on YOUR belief that “kids” should never be killed). Then, you say that certain speech, which YOU find offensive, should be forbidden to the point that NO ONE ELSE can access this. Hmmm…okay, in case you aren’t seeing my point yet, I’ll continue.
“I’m referring to language that’s deemed unacceptable in most situations.” - Who defines what’s unacceptable? I think you and I would have differing standards. Also, who decides what situations deserve protecting? Again, highly subjective. Seems like we have a problem here.
“Just because it’s common DOES NOT MAKE IT RIGHT.” - Of course, the converse is also true, right? In many cases, the “vulgar” word is merely a common usage of some more acceptable term. I wonder if you want to ban the word “sex.” Perhaps you do. If so, then we really have a censorship problem. But, assuming you don’t, what is really the difference between “sex” and **** [I was debating about whether to use the word here. I have decided that the use of the term would probably cause you to censor my post. I feel it would be more effective to have my post read. Therefore, I choose not to use the term. Funny, no one had to TELL me not to. Also, in certain areas, the term is perfectly acceptable. That is really the problem with banning, right? That you can't make exceptions and can't allow people to think freely for themselves.]. So, we have two words that mean the exact same thing - actually in many situations **** has no sexual connotations - yet, one word would be “acceptable” in book, the other, if you or SP was in charge, would not be? Strange.
“Perhaps she doesn’t want her children picking up a book that may have some immoral content from a place that provides obscene material to children freely.” - Do you have any evidence that SP was trying to stop “obscene material”? I mean, its not like the library was passing out playboys. Perhaps it is time for YOU to produce proof to back up your statements :)
“How do I tie that in with Obama’s middle name?” - Good question
“Well, if SP’s beliefs are promoting censorship, then the beliefs of liberals who get offended (or may even be offended, even with spin and stretching the facts) when someone mentions Barrack’s middle name telling us we cannot use it (or attack those who do) is censorship also.” - Bad answer. Only idiots get offended by such things. Perhaps they were offended that the right wing republicans were trying to use Barrack Hussein Obama’s middle name to try to convince Christians that Mr. Obama was closely tied to Muslims (which, if you remember, the right wingers were going so far as alleging Mr. Obama was a “closet Muslim”). But, Christians wouldn’t be that easily lead, right?
“Abstinence is the only 100% guaranteed method of STD prevention and birth control.” - First, not quite true. I can think of one instance where it didn’t work. And, teaching abstinence only is about 90% guaranteed not to work.
“I’m sure we all have made mistakes when we were at the age of Palin’s daughter, so why should we attack her?” - I’m not attacking her. I’m attacking her mom’s abstinence only policy. Perhaps if her mom were more open - abstinence first, but if you are going to disobey me, at least protect yourself. I won’t even get into the hypocrisy of right wing bloggers / talk show hosts viciously attacking Jamie Spears, Juno [great movie - pregnant girl learns lessons of life, chooses not to have abortion, but instead gives up the child to a loving woman who can't conceive - I think it was crazy for idiots to attack the film], or anyone else who was stuck in this less-than-perfect situation.
“Liberals hate that kind of thing, especially when it’s something they can use to hurt someone in public office.” - I don’t understand this sentence. Did you know that “liberal” is not a derogatory word, AND, isn’t really synonymous with Democrats? Just thought I should point that out, since you obviously believe the two are the same.
Vindictive -
A man cutting a kid’s car seat is CERTAINLY different than a man divorcing your sister. Also, you aren’t in a position of power to abuse (I don’t imagine, at least). So, your example adds nothing to the discussion. Thanks for playing.
“And you can’t honestly believe that Sarah Palin is any more vindictive than any other politician up there. If so, I’m not the one who needs help. No offense :)” - Sure, point out where Barrack Obama tried to have a public official fired due to a PURELY PERSONAL dispute. Or, how about Obama trying to have a local librarian fired for trying to keep John S. Mill’s “marketplace of ideas” alive.
“Banning books is not the same as banning knowledge.” - YES, IT IS.
“Restricting access to vulgar material is not banning.” - YES, IT IS. THAT IS THE VERY DEFINITION OF BANNING - “PREVENTING ACCESS TO.” Again, thanks for playing.
“liberals want your faith restricted to your church building. They don’t want to hear it, they don’t want to see it, and they are shocked if you outwardly show that you are trying to do what is right.” - maybe I’m more demanding in my online debates. I usually expect the person who makes excessively broad generalizations to prove up their point, not to expect me to do the opposite. Sorry, I guess, but I don’t play your way, nor will I lower my standards for intellectual debate based on a challenge.
Here is some reading for you:
http://www.ala.org/ala/oif/statementspols/ftrstatement/freedomreadstatement.cfm (American librarian association’s statement on censorship and democracy)
http://pubs.usgs.gov/gip/ice_age/ice_age.pdf (Ice Age)
“If there is a bedrock principle underlying the First Amendment, it is that the government may not prohibit the expression of an idea simply because society finds the idea itself offensive or disagreeable.” — Supreme Court Justice William J. Brennan, Jr.
September 6th, 2008 at 12:53 pm
“You miss the point. Of course she isn’t going to cast a vote, but that (1) she believes God supports this, and (2) she “hasn’t given much thought to it” proves she is out of touch.” - WRONG. I don’t believe that God ’supports’ the war, and I don’t agree with Palin on that exact item. Other than missing the point, forgive me, but you aren’t a governer/mom/wife with five kids, a husband and a state to run. When you are, then tell me how much time you have to dedicate to non-local and non-household things. She knows there is a war, but she has other things to worry about. So do I. It’s called taking care of my responsibilities.
“Ummm. (1) You are wrong on what the ice age was; (2) it is not an evolutionist theory, it’s really a geological/geoclimatical theory; (3) you are mistaken on global climate theory. Clearly, your lack of understanding is causing your attack here. That is unfortunate. Perhaps if you read a science text and became informed on the topic, you would revise your critique. ” - WRONG. I believe that the earth did not exist millions of years ago, so don’t assume that I’m stupid. I do not believe in evolution. I do not believe that it took millions of years for the earth to form. I do not believe in evolution. Perhaps we differ on this topic, but since I run the show here, I can point out where I stand. I’m not calling you stupid for your beliefs based on scientific guesswork. Scientists cannot prove things such as evolution or ice ages conclusively, and they know it.
Ah ha. And here’s where you implicitly contradict yourself in a fun manner. First, you say, “I’m not trying to force on anyone” (remember, you think woman who are raped shouldn’t be allowed to have an abortion based on YOUR belief that “kids” should never be killed). Then, you say that certain speech, which YOU find offensive, should be forbidden to the point that NO ONE ELSE can access this. Hmmm…okay, in case you aren’t seeing my point yet, I’ll continue. DON’T BOTHER.
Ok this is silly. I did not contradict myself. You perceived a contradiction that did not exist. I am not trying to ‘force’ anyone to believe anything. I do argue my case, but that’s not the same as force. Force would be if I tried to make you believe something against your will. You are the one who keeps coming to this site and arguing your point against mine, and that is your choice. If you think that im using ‘force’ by arguing my point, what exactly are you doing?
Yes, there are things I find offensive and it wouldn’t hurt me ONE BIT if they were pulled from shelves. I’m not out there trying to get them pulled. If they remain in public access, fine. I’m not the one who has to make that call. If you don’t like my opinion on this, DON’T VOTE FOR ME IF I RUN FOR OFFICE. It’s that simple.
First, let’s define force a bit more accurately, and not in my own terms, shall we?
If used in this context as a noun, it means:
violence, force (an act of aggression (as one against a person who resists))
Or a verb, since we’ve used it both ways:
impel, force (urge or force (a person) to an action; constrain or motivate)
force, thrust (impose urgently, importunately, or inexorably)
Clearly, stating my opinions does none of the above. You can thank Princeton for those definitions.
I can say that I’d like to see access restricted from children, and that’s not forcing anything on anyone. IF I RESTRICTED THE ACCESS MYSELF, IT WOULD BE FORCE.
YOU NEED TO LEARN THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN AGREEING WITH SOMETHING AND DOING SOMETHING YOURSELF. Obviously, you don’t know the difference.
- Who defines what’s unacceptable? GOD DOES.
I think you and I would have differing standards. OBVIOUSLY.
Also, who decides what situations deserve protecting? IN THE CASE OF OFFENSIVE READING MATERIAL IN LIBRARIES, THE PARENTS. THE LIBRARY WON’T DO IT…
Again, highly subjective. Seems like we have a problem here. I DON’T.
“Just because it’s common DOES NOT MAKE IT RIGHT.” - Of course, the converse is also true, right? Define this a bit better. Sometimes you twist things to make your point. Do you mean:
a. just because it’s right it doesn’t make it common
or
b. just because it’s not right doesn’t mean it’s common
Clarify this.
“So, we have two words that mean the exact same thing - actually in many situations **** has no sexual connotations - yet, one word would be “acceptable” in book, the other, if you or SP was in charge, would not be? Strange.” I’d rather my kids not know what that word is. The Bible teaches that we should let no unclean thing come from our mouths.
‘Sex’ is not a bad word. I challenge you to find someone who speaks our language that feels that ‘f***’ isn’t.
And no, I wouldn’t censor your post. Your opinion is your opinion, and you have the right to say what you think, but I do appreciate your adherence to propriety, since this is a family-friendly site.
“A man cutting a kid’s car seat is CERTAINLY different than a man divorcing your sister. Also, you aren’t in a position of power to abuse (I don’t imagine, at least). So, your example adds nothing to the discussion. Thanks for playing.” I agree there is a difference. But then you have do define what a position of power is. In that situation, my opinion was this: if I would have a) not chosen to act as a Christian and b) had a gun with me, I’d have probably killed him. Nobody attacks my kids. Nobody.
And ownership of a gun gives you the ability to abuse the power you have as a gun owner. I like guns. It boils down to personal restraint.
Now, how about the difference between a ‘ban’ and a ‘restriction’
BAN - forbid the public distribution of ( a movie or a newspaper)
RESTRICT - place restrictions on; “curtail drinking in school”
Come on, you’re a lawyer, right? Dictionaries are wonderful.
Oh wait, you used one…and then you goofed your argument.
“Banning books is not the same as banning knowledge.” - YES, IT IS. - NO IT’S NOT. You can gain knowledge other ways. And removing them from a public library is not the same as removing them from libraries, homes, the country, etc. Hitler banned books. Libraries can restrict them. THERE IS A DIFFERENCE.
“Restricting access to vulgar material is not banning.” - YES, IT IS. THAT IS THE VERY DEFINITION OF BANNING - “PREVENTING ACCESS TO.” Again, thanks for playing. WRONG AGAIN. RESTRICTION AND BANNING ARE DIFFERENT THINGS. Look, you want to agree on this? How about this proposition…don’t allow children to access the books, but put them in an area where adults who can choose to look at these materials only have access. That’ll work too. That way, children don’t have to see it, but non-Christian adults who don’t care a thing about doing what is right can. Fair enough?
“liberals want your faith restricted to your church building. They don’t want to hear it, they don’t want to see it, and they are shocked if you outwardly show that you are trying to do what is right.” - maybe I’m more demanding in my online debates. PERHAPS. YOU’D THINK THAT IN PERSON YOU’D FARE BETTER.
I usually expect the person who makes excessively broad generalizations to prove up their point, not to expect me to do the opposite. OK, HOW ABOUT THIS: OFFENDED BY RELIGIOUS CLOTHING WORN IN PUBLIC PLACES, SUCH AS SCHOOLS. Now you can argue that a school is a public institution paid for by tax money and that religion has no place being taught there. Fine. They get offended when a kid wears a shirt with a religious message on it…yet other kids can go around with their underwear hanging out of their pants, their cleavage showing, they can teach kids that it’s ok to have sex (against their religious beliefs) as long as they protect themselves, that man came from apes (against their religious beliefs), that the earth took billions of years to form (against their religious beliefs).
Pfft. Wow. It looks like as long as the person that’s offended is a Christian, it’s ok.
Sorry, I guess, but I don’t play your way, nor will I lower my standards for intellectual debate based on a challenge. FINE. I JUST GAVE SOME EVIDENCE. DON’T WANT TO PLAY ALONG? FINE. YOU CAN EITHER BRING A MORE LOGICAL ARGUMENT, OR YOU DON’T HAVE TO. EITHER WAY IS FINE.
Look, we obviously see things differently. You’re a lawyer, I’m not. I’m not going to try to be one. You have been quite condescending, and I’ve been pretty fair about it (considering that I DO have the power to ban you from this site using the technology involved therein), but I won’t do that.
Why?
Because I believe that everyone has a right to say what they feel.
From what I see, it comes down to this. I have a set of morals and values that I try to use to guide my life and my decisions. I’m not going to tell you that you have to have the same set of guidelines for you…that’s for you to decide, not me.
We both feel that we are right. The difference here is that I have not twisted any words to make my points.
It’s not something that I do, and it would be wrong for me to do so.
Debating is fine, but when you have to attack someone’s knowledge of the English language to prove them wrong…wow. I know you are smart enough to know the definitions, but you seem to want to attack me and assume that because I’m not as experienced in debating as you are that I don’t.
I’m not stupid.
September 6th, 2008 at 1:45 pm
I usually stop conversations/debating when it becomes obvious that logic has no place in the debate.
“I believe that the earth did not exist millions of years ago, so don’t assume that I’m stupid.”
This was that point. The rest of your post confirmed the same - we speak different languages, therefore, we cannot continue this conversation.
September 6th, 2008 at 2:33 pm
I like Sean Hannity! In fact, the email in this post (my response)…I sent it to him. And Rush. And Ingram. And Boortz. And about 15 newspapers around the US.
You like Rush? Lets see what Rush thinks about your idea of keeping people’s young children out of the spotlight?
On his TV show, early in the Clinton administration, Limbaugh put up a picture of Socks, the White House cat, and asked, ‘Did you know there’s a White House dog?’ Then he put up a picture of Chelsea Clinton, who was 13 years old at the time and as far as I know had never done any harm to anyone.
Ouch. He didn’t mind slamming Clinton’s 12 year old daughter did he? Good man.
Sean Hannity? Lets see what he said about this situation….
HANNITY: We’re running out of time, but they tried to make the attack that she has a young daughter, pregnant and engaged. Is that fair that they would attack that? I mean, I don’t remember Chelsea Clinton being attacked. I don’t remember Al Gore’s children being attacked. I thought there was a general rule that children of candidates ought to be left alone. And Alan knows I’ve said that many times.
Hmm, sounds dishonest to me. So lets see John McCain….attacks small children. Rush Limbaugh…..attacks small children. Sean Hannity……Chelsea Clinton never got attacked. Barack Obama……family is off limits. Oh those dirty democrats…….
September 6th, 2008 at 3:06 pm
“I usually stop conversations/debating when it becomes obvious that logic has no place in the debate.”
Good. Perhaps knowing when to quit is a good thing…and I agree, logic took a backseat when broken logic came into play…heh heh.
Whatever happened to common sense in America? Oh, wait…it’s gone.
I said I like Rush. I didn’t say I agree with him 100% of the time. And yes, I can see how that would be wrong for him to do.
I was listening to Hannity when he said that. How that statement is an attack on any of the others mentioned is beyond me…or anyone.
Hannity was pointing out that the other children were off limits, so why should Palin’s daughter be attacked?
Perhaps you should listen to Hannity. He’s more sane than Rush, and he wouldn’t attack a child.
Hannity was trying to point out a double standard in the media.
I agree with you that Rush should not have done that. Hannity…you must not have picked up on the topic he was talking about.
My site isn’t about trashing democrats. It’s about right and wrong, and to me that is FAR MORE IMPORTANT than which party you claim.
It just happens that some people feel they can ‘out-debate’ their way to a conclusion regarding common sense, when it is simply not there.
I hold both of you in high regard, and respect both of you, just so you know.
September 6th, 2008 at 3:14 pm
The Hannity quote clearly shows him saying that he does not remember Chelsea Clinton being attacked. That is untrue. I have given you clear examples of not only Rush but also the Republican nominee attacking a child. You have NO evidence of Barack Obama doing such a thing. Maybe you should put a blog up on how John McCain shouldn’t be attacking young children, you didn’t mind attack “liberals” on that topic…..
September 6th, 2008 at 3:40 pm
Yeah…Hannity usually show-preps while Rush is on the air…and he doesn’t rip his material from rush.
I think he may not have heard the comment, but either way…
Look, Rush was wrong for that. It didn’t make national news, did it?
Was it a ‘hot topic’ issue?
It was wrong, but so is attacking Palin’s kid. We agree on that. Obama agrees on that.
Got a clip of McCain attacking, because if he did I must have missed it. I will be glad to post something on it if I see it and it is, in fact, an attack.
September 6th, 2008 at 3:58 pm
I left the attack McCain did a on a blog further down. It was during a Republican dinner in 1998. Also, don’t you find it a little odd that Rush attacking Chelsea Clinton wasn’t front page news? I thought we had a liberal media……
September 6th, 2008 at 4:05 pm
You mean the liberal media that attacks children, right?
It sounds to me like you may be looking for ‘perfection’ in a person, media source, or political party.
You will not find it.
I don’t call the shots with US politics or major media outlets. I recommend using the ’send a letter’ feature from MoveOn to send your complaints to the media outlets to let them know what they should be focusing on.
Do you have a video clip of the Rush show where he did that? I’d like to use it if you do…