Sarah Palin on energy policy (Washington Post)

[jtabeb]

Re: Sarah Palin on energy policy (Washington Post)

then you'll enjoy this... (warning... not work safe!)

Google "Who's doing Sarah Palin",( I couldn't check out metal's link since I'm at the in-law's place.)

[lb]

Re: Sarah Palin on energy policy (Washington Post)

Shes not evangelical. She was raised Catholic and is now a non-denominational christian. For a list of her policy beliefs please see-attached. Interesting fact is that her father was a science teacher that tought her evolution. So to think she believes that the world started 6,000 years ago is unreasonable.

http://www.ontheissues.org/sarah_Palin.htm

So you go from comparing her to the nations founders, to changing the subject. Brilliant.

I am not voting for someone who believed they were/are an agent of god. I don't care if she spends the next 3 years polishing her image to run for national office again. I'm still not voting for her.

[flintlock]

Re: Sarah Palin on energy policy (Washington Post)

Amazing how much the second video reminds you of the first.

[flintlock]

Re: Sarah Palin on energy policy (Washington Post)

So you go from comparing her to the nations founders, to changing the subject. Brilliant.

I am not voting for someone who believed they were/are an agent of god. I don't care if she spends the next 3 years polishing her image to run for national office again. I'm still not voting for her.

Not many others will vote for her either. I think she'll continue to fade as a presidential candidate. McCain was able to spring her on us in the last election but now the world will be ready for her. George Bush couldn't have won either if we'd seen things like his "Won't get fooled again" speech or other gaffs like it. There's enough on tape of Palin now to make her look too foolish to win.

[mmulli]

Re: Sarah Palin on energy policy (Washington Post)

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereo.

It has always amazed me how people are so fixated on the first part of that statement but completely ignore the 2nd part. they will rail against someone professing their faith try to call it illegal or not appropriate. they will encourage laws and legislation which does prohibit practicing ones religion.

Most of these people think that they can rule in an elected office with their own self made "rules of morality" which any psychologist will tell you will quickly become rationalizations for any type of behavior (usually based on how to get reelected). I would rather have some outside influence imperfect as it may be that has been guided by centuries of thoughtful meditation and prayer as well as divine guidance to help me stay on the straight and narrow when my own weakness try to rationalize me into a certain behavior( especially when decisions will affect a governed populace) .

[Munger]

Re: Sarah Palin on energy policy (Washington Post)

Agreed there has always been two sided to the religious debate. And I do not believe that religion as a form of populist control is desirable. I do believe strongly in the seperation between church and state. But religion and faith, whichever one the individual believes in, or chooses not to believe in, do provide a moral compass which is not controlled by the state through a policy of controlled secularism. I believe it is more dangerous when through nationalism and suppression of religious belief or faith in ones self the state becomes the religion. The majority talked about hope and faith but they believe you should have hope and faith in the government. So lets have the debate, let her talk about religion and faith. You do not have to agree with it or vote along the lines but you should understand the viewpoint of a substantial part of the population. By comparing her to a nervous pageant girl you are playing into the hands of the super majority who only wants to stifile the opposition and paint her as inconsequential. No reason to listen to her she is dumb and inexperienced. Have you read her platform? Do you agree with 10%, 50% or 80%. Does the super majority party represent 100% of your beliefs or do you want all of the positions debated out there in public so maybe by some miracle people will get educated about the issues and not make decisions by looking at a 5 minute mash-up produced by the opposition.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talking_Points_Memo

Fair enough. I don't want to be lead by the proudly ignorant. It doesn't work. It certainly didn't work from 2000-2008. Her positions can only reflect either (1) that of a person with average intelligence who completely lacks intellectual curiosity or (2) a faker who thinks that her base is more likely to support a moron who spouts right-wing platitudes than a person who has a firm and nuanced grasp of the issues. I don't think our president should have the intellectual chops of your average high school graduate.

Say what you will about Nixon's policies, the guy was not dummy. Put up a Kissinger, a Kristol, a Posner, a Buckley, a Romney, etc and we'll have a good debate. I am tired of the GOP putting up morons to please their religious-nut base. Obama is smarter than Palin. I'm sorry to break it to you, but it's blatantly obvious from hearing them speak and seeing their writings. And while I disagree with most of what he has done so far in office, at least Obama demonstrates the capacity for rational thought and that he is aware of my concerns when he mentions them briefly before he does the opposite.

[Raz]

Re: Sarah Palin on energy policy (Washington Post)

Fair enough. I don't want to be lead by the proudly ignorant. It doesn't work. It certainly didn't work from 2000-2008. Her positions can only reflect either (1) that of a person with average intelligence who completely lacks intellectual curiosity or (2) a faker who thinks that her base is more likely to support a moron who spouts right-wing platitudes than a person who has a firm and nuanced grasp of the issues. I don't think our president should have the intellectual chops of your average high school graduate.

Say what you will about Nixon's policies, the guy was not dummy. Put up a Kissinger, a Kristol, a Posner, a Buckley, a Romney, etc and we'll have a good debate. I am tired of the GOP putting up morons to please their religious-nut base. Obama is smarter than Palin. I'm sorry to break it to you, but it's blatantly obvious from hearing them speak and seeing their writings. And while I disagree with most of what he has done so far in office, at least Obama demonstrates the capacity for rational thought and that he is aware of my concerns when he mentions them briefly before he does the opposite.

Thank you, Munger. You just explained why I haven't voted for a Republcan presidential candidate since Reagan.

I like Sarah Palin and I'm certain that I would enjoy having dinner with her and her husband, but I don't want to see her as POTUS.
I like my next-door neighbor who happens to be an aircraft technician. He and I are in almost complete agreement on the great moral issues of present day American society, and we are both repulsed by the condescending arrogance of the amoral Left, but if I had a toothache I wouldn't want him digging around inside my mouth. I think you will get the point.

The NeoCons have captured the Republican Party and have played their base, who are mostly very good people, for a bunch of fools. Cutting taxes as a cure for all domestic ills, pursuing "free trade" at the cost of de-industrialization, and kicking the world's ass is not a successful plan for running the country. Real Conservatives look to Eisenhower and Taft for a pattern to run the country, and feel no need to run the world - or police it.

But what I've seen of the Democrats in the past six months only serves to remind me why I haven't taken them seriously since Hubert Humphrey. The New Left is a bunch of closet socialists who will never be satisfied until a radical egalitarianism is forced upon this country. The fact that it won't work is no deterrent to them.
In that sense they are more "religious" in their convictions than are many if not most evangelicals.

Without a viable Third Party I don't see any way out of this mess.

[Raz]

Re: Sarah Palin on energy policy (Washington Post)

That sounds about right to me. I would also add misinformed and slightly corrupt to the list. It is impossible for me to take someone seriously that thinks evolution doesn't happen and that homosexuality should be criminalized.

Also, she puts her foot in her mouth enough to make her an easy target.

That being said I admit to voting for her, not everyone is so easily polarized. Unfortunately she has been completely ineffective as governor since the presidential campaign.

Thomas Jefferson thought homosexualists should be executed. I vehemently disagree, but many people are not the heroes we think they were, nor are many people the evil monsters their political opposition would have us believe.

I voted Constitution Party and won't vote Republican again until (1) party ownership is transferred from Goldman Sachs to the small businessmen who actually provide jobs for most Americans, and the working people are at least offered a fair shake, and (2) the Republican Party ceases to define conservatism as the philosophy and rule of governance put forth by the NeoCon idiots.

[Starving Steve]

Re: Sarah Palin on energy policy (Washington Post)

The 1952 and 1956 presidential elections were between Adlai Stevenson (D) and Dwight David Eisenhower (R). Both elections, the U.S. had two outstanding men running. America elected Eisenhower, both times; not a bad choice at all, and I say that as a liberal of the old school when liberalism meant government helping people.

Eisenhower brought leadership to the world and a solid economy in America with silver dollars in circulation and little or no inflation. Housing was kept dirt cheap and so was energy.

Those were the real can-do (si se puede) years in America when America and Canada joined together and dug the St. Lawrence Seaway, when the first atomic power plant was unveiled in Valecitos, California, when the California water project was dug, and when the needs of the nation(s) were realisticly planned for and met. Those were the best years in America.

Sadly, to-day all liberalism seems to stand for in America (and Canada and the UK) is ridiculous (sp?) solar power schemes, windmills, rock-concerts, pot-smoking, deficits, and wishful thinking.

And even with passing national health insurance in the U.S, legislation more than half-a-century over-due, some so-called Democrats (psuedo-liberals) in Congress are joining with right-wing Republicans to block the achievement--- maybe because the bribes from the American health insurance lobby are so enriching.

Sadly, America is now in decline; its better days long past. The American political system of two parties and the archaic government structure in Washington that it serves is among the most corrupt in the world.