Lipstick on a Pit Bull

Our "pub" where you can post about things completely Off Topic or about non-silent PC issues.

Moderators: NeilBlanchard, Ralf Hutter, sthayashi, Lawrence Lee

aristide1
*Lifetime Patron*
Posts: 4284
Joined: Fri Apr 04, 2003 6:21 pm
Location: Undisclosed but sober in US

Lipstick on a Pit Bull

Post by aristide1 » Sat Sep 06, 2008 7:31 am

Interesting how a creature with such a reputation is now something to strive for:

http://www.boomantribune.com/story/2008/9/4/131057/5736

Ever see a pit bull as a police dog? Ask yourself why.

I thought part of this nation's problems came from a certain groups inability to want to reason. Need an example? They created their own.

Lieberman mentioned that in the last 8 years that politicians failed the people because they didn't work together. He got weak applause. When Palin made her remark the crowd went crazy. When Romney blamed all of the current problems on the liberals, (even when the republicans held control of everything), the crowd also went wild for that. So apparently the "reason" aspect of running a country doesn't appear to be all that important, does it?

NeilBlanchard
Moderator
Posts: 7681
Joined: Mon Dec 09, 2002 7:11 pm
Location: Maynard, MA, Eaarth
Contact:

Post by NeilBlanchard » Sat Sep 06, 2008 6:44 pm

Hello Aris,

Yes, she accepted the money for the "bridge to nowhere" -- and kept it.

As mayor, she tried to fire the town librarian, because the librarian would not remove books that had "offensive language".

She also fired the city police chief, who had supported her opponent.

She apparently fired the Alaska public safety commissioner because he would not fire her ex-brother-in-law, who was divorced from her sister. On the investigation of this, seven of her supporters have postponed their appearances, to try and slow down the investigation.

xan_user
*Lifetime Patron*
Posts: 2269
Joined: Sun May 21, 2006 9:09 am
Location: Northern California.

Post by xan_user » Sat Sep 06, 2008 6:52 pm

after listening for 5 mins I'm convinced she's a cyborg.

Albeit a cute cyborg.

The most dangerous kind.

nomoon
Posts: 201
Joined: Thu Apr 14, 2005 8:35 pm
Location: Allen, TX US
Contact:

Post by nomoon » Sat Sep 06, 2008 7:51 pm

NeilBlanchard wrote:Yes, she accepted the money for the "bridge to nowhere" -- and kept it.

As mayor, she tried to fire the town librarian, because the librarian would not remove books that had "offensive language".

She also fired the city police chief, who had supported her opponent.

She apparently fired the Alaska public safety commissioner because he would not fire her ex-brother-in-law, who was divorced from her sister. On the investigation of this, seven of her supporters have postponed their appearances, to try and slow down the investigation.
Did you get your "facts" from an Obama website? You are reporting a very slanted view of at least one these stories that I know of, which makes me question the validity of the rest. CNN recently interviewed the brother-in-law and concluded that he is not going to be the poster child for Obama supporters. He drank on the job and tasered his 10 year old step son. Look up the full story on the bridge to nowhere. There are things about her that I'm not terribly fond of, but I don't have much respect for half-truths.

Jason

joelmusicman
Posts: 42
Joined: Sat Jun 18, 2005 6:11 pm

Post by joelmusicman » Sun Sep 07, 2008 5:44 am

I second that Nomoon.

<rant>

The story about the guy Palin fired was because he *refused* to fire an Alaska state trooper who threatened the lives of Palin's father, and Palin herself, before she was governor.

This guy had a record of tasering his son, DRINKING IN A PATROL CAR... Wooten was his name.

By the way, the story about Todd Palin's DUI... it was 22 YEARS AGO, before they were running for anything, BEFORE HE EVEN KNEW SARAH!!


Sorry for yelling, but it has angered me from Day 1 how fast the "unbiased" media has attacked Sarah Palin.




You want to read something scary... look up the Chicago chapter of "Public Allies," that Barack was a founding member of, and Michelle was the Executive Director of...

"My husband WON'T allow you to sit idly by..."

</rant>

aristide1
*Lifetime Patron*
Posts: 4284
Joined: Fri Apr 04, 2003 6:21 pm
Location: Undisclosed but sober in US

Post by aristide1 » Sun Sep 07, 2008 6:55 am

Hey, both sides have certain elements in the press that are clearly biased. Rupert Murdoch's publications are in full propaganda mode, routinely printing bold lies on page one as truth. The non-sheeple recognize however that the tabloids have always lacked anything resembling journalistic integrity, they are more entertainment pieces for sheeple than they are instruments of fact delivery.

CNN? Any station that keeps Nancy Grace on as a "journalist" has sunk as low, or perhaps even lower, than Faux News and Bill O'Reilly.

The important thing here is to question all info delivery for accuracy and then weigh it for importance and to do it equally for both sides. Bill Clinton and Jimmy Carter had brothers that embarrassed them. Obama has his priest. The question with Palin will not be whether all her family and connections are squeaky clean, but whether she's power mad, and that remains to be seen. The last politician I noted that seemed squeaky clean was Spitzer, who went down in flames, mostly for being totally out of control, and answering to nobody, i.e. the system of checks and balances went out the window. Now the current administration has also unbalanced the system of checks and balances, and what remains to be seen is if the either side can restore that balance and the reputation of the US, which represents only one in 20 of the human race.

It seemed as though either party would be able to do that better than W, but gradually one party seems more and more like W than comfort will allow. McCain initially voted against the Bush tax cuts, now he wants them to be permanent. I saw him state clearly and deliberately that people should not listen to the "siren song of change". Now he's the poster child of change. Can you spell flip-flopper? "The Economist" a British conservative magazine, in their most recent issue, said McCain is catering to evangelicals too much and he should spend more time on the issues. Note - The Economist is considered to be slanted towards conservatism, so what does their statement tell you about McCain?

Guiliani's reputation is much better outside of NY city than in. People in NYC know what's he's like, his clear bigotry and abuses of power. If you want to know what he's done over the years ask a NY city person. People from MA wondered why Dukakis was running for president with his mediocre past. Now I'd like to hear what the people of Alaska who have had to deal with Palin have to say about her. Given the reaction of the crowd I'd say there were a lot of sheeple at the RNC who would be happy to see Palin run amuck. That should concern all US citizens.

CallMeJoe
Posts: 207
Joined: Wed Aug 27, 2003 11:01 am
Location: Secession State

Post by CallMeJoe » Sun Sep 07, 2008 12:05 pm

From what I've read, she should at least get the benefit of the doubt on the so-called Troopergate and Librariangate issues. As for the Bridge to Nowhere and other "earmark" issues, there may be something there, especially since Senator McCain presents her as an antidote to the earmark problem in Congress.

m0002a
Posts: 2831
Joined: Wed Feb 04, 2004 2:12 am
Location: USA

Post by m0002a » Sun Sep 07, 2008 2:22 pm

CallMeJoe wrote:From what I've read, she should at least get the benefit of the doubt on the so-called Troopergate and Librariangate issues. As for the Bridge to Nowhere and other "earmark" issues, there may be something there, especially since Senator McCain presents her as an antidote to the earmark problem in Congress.
Palin did not request the federal "earmarks" for the bridge. They were the pet projects of the Alaskan US Congressman and US Senator. The whole "earmark" issue of awarding federal funds to the states is a difficult one, because each state wants to get back their share (or more than their share) of the money that the citizens of their state pay in taxes. Some states get much more than their share, such as the federal funds for the Boston Big Dig. You can't really expect any state official to go against their congressional delegation and tell the citizens of their state that they don't want their share of federal funds.

The person that the Democrats have elected as President pro tempore of the US Senate, and 3rd in line of succession to the President (Robert Byrd of West Virginia) is the king of pork barrel funding that is second to none in the history of the United States.
http://porkbusters.org/hall_of_shame.php
I am sure that Obama voted for him.

NeilBlanchard
Moderator
Posts: 7681
Joined: Mon Dec 09, 2002 7:11 pm
Location: Maynard, MA, Eaarth
Contact:

Post by NeilBlanchard » Sun Sep 07, 2008 6:00 pm

Hello,

Which one are you referring to as suspect?

She hired a former aide to Ted Stevens (for $140,000) as a lobbyist, and netted quite a bit of "pork" for Wasilla. Ted Stevens is #1 in pork, and he may be convicted on accepting ~$250,000 in house renovations.

m0002a
Posts: 2831
Joined: Wed Feb 04, 2004 2:12 am
Location: USA

Post by m0002a » Sun Sep 07, 2008 6:30 pm

NeilBlanchard wrote:Ted Stevens is #1 in pork.
No sir, The person that the Democrats have elected as President pro tempore of the US Senate, and 3rd in line of succession to the President (Robert Byrd of West Virginia) is the king of pork barrel funding that is second to none in the history of the United States.
http://porkbusters.org/hall_of_shame.php
I am sure that Obama voted for him.

BTW, Byrd is more than 90 years old (3rd in line of succession to the US President after VP and Speaker of the House).

CallMeJoe
Posts: 207
Joined: Wed Aug 27, 2003 11:01 am
Location: Secession State

Post by CallMeJoe » Sun Sep 07, 2008 7:16 pm

m0002a wrote:Palin did not request the federal "earmarks" for the bridge. They were the pet projects of the Alaskan US Congressman and US Senator. The whole "earmark" issue of awarding federal funds to the states is a difficult one, because each state wants to get back their share (or more than their share) of the money that the citizens of their state pay in taxes. Some states get much more than their share, such as the federal funds for the Boston Big Dig. You can't really expect any state official to go against their congressional delegation and tell the citizens of their state that they don't want their share of federal funds.
Governor Palin publicly supported the bridge until it became a political liability, at which time she reversed her stand. This conflicts with her claim to have refused funding for the bridge. Furthermore, as Mayor of Wasilla, she hired a lobbyist specifically to obtain budget earmarks for her city. This lobbyist was spectacularly successful, averaging ~$1000 per resident per year in federal funds. There is nothing unlawful in any of this, but it does undermine her credibility as a steadfast opponent of earmarking.
The person that the Democrats have elected as President pro tempore of the US Senate, and 3rd in line of succession to the President (Robert Byrd of West Virginia) is the king of pork barrel funding that is second to none in the history of the United States.
http://porkbusters.org/hall_of_shame.php
I am sure that Obama voted for him.
I would not be at all surprised to find that Senator Obama voted in the Democratic caucus for senator Byrd. Out of curiosity, would you happen to know who Senator McCain supported for that position when the Republicans held the majority?

m0002a
Posts: 2831
Joined: Wed Feb 04, 2004 2:12 am
Location: USA

Post by m0002a » Sun Sep 07, 2008 8:00 pm

CallMeJoe wrote:Governor Palin publicly supported the bridge until it became a political liability, at which time she reversed her stand. This conflicts with her claim to have refused funding for the bridge. Furthermore, as Mayor of Wasilla, she hired a lobbyist specifically to obtain budget earmarks for her city. This lobbyist was spectacularly successful, averaging ~$1000 per resident per year in federal funds. There is nothing unlawful in any of this, but it does undermine her credibility as a steadfast opponent of earmarking.

I would not be at all surprised to find that Senator Obama voted in the Democratic caucus for senator Byrd. Out of curiosity, would you happen to know who Senator McCain supported for that position when the Republicans held the majority?
What you are saying is not anything different than what I said. But I don’t think it is realistic to suppose that a governor gets involved in philosophical discussions about earmarking in the federal government. The particular earmark in question was the brainchild of the US Representative and Senator from Alaska.

I know a lot of liberals who were against the Bush tax cuts, but I know for a fact that they do everything they can to minimize there own taxes. It is perfectly reasonable to be philosophically against earmarking, but if it exists, still make sure that your state gets its fair share.

The last time the Republicans controlled the Senate, Ted Stevens was the President pro tempore. I don't know for sure, but I suspect McCain voted for him.
Last edited by m0002a on Sun Sep 07, 2008 8:23 pm, edited 2 times in total.

aristide1
*Lifetime Patron*
Posts: 4284
Joined: Fri Apr 04, 2003 6:21 pm
Location: Undisclosed but sober in US

Post by aristide1 » Sun Sep 07, 2008 8:09 pm

"They never did this to Chelsea Clinton."
- Mike Huckabee [R], former Pres. Candidate

Really?

"Why is Chelsea Clinton so ugly? Because Janet Reno is her father."
- Sen. John McCain [R-AZ], 1998

And I heard him say it.


Of course this great patriot can say anything he wants:

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. When viewers objected, he claimed,
in typical Limbaugh fashion, that the gag was an accident and that
without his permission some technician had put up the picture of
Chelsea--which I found as disgusting as his original attempt at humor.

Molly Ivins
http://www.motherjones.com/commentary/c ... ivins.html

CallMeJoe
Posts: 207
Joined: Wed Aug 27, 2003 11:01 am
Location: Secession State

Post by CallMeJoe » Sun Sep 07, 2008 8:23 pm

m0002a wrote:What you are saying is not anything different than what I said. But I don’t think it is realistic to suppose that a governor gets involved in philosophical discussions about earmarking in the federal government. The particular earmark in question was the brainchild of the US Representative and Senator from Alaska.

I know a lot of liberals who were against the Bush tax cuts, but I know or a fact that they do everything they can to minimize there own taxes. It is perfectly reasonable to be philosophically against earmarking, but if it exists, still make sure that your state gets its fair share.
From the accounts I have read, rather than merely accepting the bridge funding championed by her state's senators, she voiced active support for the project, and expressed her distaste for those who used the term "Bridge to Nowhere" - until the project became a liability, at which time she began using that term herself.

Setting aside the "Bridge" issue, what are your thoughts concerning the lobbyist she hired to obtain earmarks for Wasilla? Would you at least agree that indicates she has not been a life-long opponent of the earmarking process?

m0002a
Posts: 2831
Joined: Wed Feb 04, 2004 2:12 am
Location: USA

Post by m0002a » Sun Sep 07, 2008 8:33 pm

CallMeJoe wrote:From the accounts I have read, rather than merely accepting the bridge funding championed by her state's senators, she voiced active support for the project, and expressed her distaste for those who used the term "Bridge to Nowhere" - until the project became a liability, at which time she began using that term herself.

Setting aside the "Bridge" issue, what are your thoughts concerning the lobbyist she hired to obtain earmarks for Wasilla? Would you at least agree that indicates she has not been a life-long opponent of the earmarking process?
I believe that Palin did voice support for the project early on because it would have brought economic development to the island. It is easy to say that very few people were living on the island at the time, but that is because there was no way to get there other than by ferry (which is not always a year round option in Alaska). Besides, I wouldn't expect any state elected official to turn down funds from the federal government. If they did, they would not be in office much longer.

I am not sure if you read my entire post, but just because someone accepts money under a federal program does not mean they agree with the way it is administered. A lot of people were against the Bush tax cuts, but they did not return the extra money refunded to them. There are many people who don’t agree with various tax deductions, but they all claim them on their own return. Same with the recent $600 stimulus refund. So even though many Senators and Congressional members don’t like the way earmarks work (and would like to see the process changed), they don’t turn them down if they are for their own state.

NeilBlanchard
Moderator
Posts: 7681
Joined: Mon Dec 09, 2002 7:11 pm
Location: Maynard, MA, Eaarth
Contact:

Post by NeilBlanchard » Mon Sep 08, 2008 7:19 am

Hello,

I think that Ted Stevens has gotten more earmark dollars per capita for Alaska:

http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington ... arks_N.htm
http://change-congress.org/blog/2008/04/03/pork-capita
Image
Click on image for source link

As you can see, Alaska has gotten 3X more money per person, than has West Virginia.

m0002a
Posts: 2831
Joined: Wed Feb 04, 2004 2:12 am
Location: USA

Post by m0002a » Mon Sep 08, 2008 11:11 am

NeilBlanchard wrote:Hello,

I think that Ted Stevens has gotten more earmark dollars per capita for Alaska:

As you can see, Alaska has gotten 3X more money per person, than has West Virginia.
As Mark Twain said: "There are three kinds of lies: lies, damned lies, and statistics."

Not all money is pork. Money is not allocated just for people, but also for things like National Parks and support of Federal lands, including roads to those remote areas.

That is not to deny that Ted Stevens was a porker, but not anywhere near the pork that Byrd was able get for West Virginia.

CallMeJoe
Posts: 207
Joined: Wed Aug 27, 2003 11:01 am
Location: Secession State

Post by CallMeJoe » Mon Sep 08, 2008 1:01 pm

m0002a wrote: As Mark Twain said: "There are three kinds of lies: lies, damned lies, and statistics."
FWIW, I believe that quotation is more correctly attributed to Benjamin Disraeli.

Back OT, I agree that Governor Palin's acceptance of earmarks does not necessarily make her a proponent of the earmarking process, but it weakens her standing as an earmark opponent. Similarly, Senator McCain's selection of Governor Palin as his running mate undermines his "experience" argument against Senator Obama, and Senator Obama's selection of Senator Biden weakens his "change" argument against his Republican opponents.

m0002a
Posts: 2831
Joined: Wed Feb 04, 2004 2:12 am
Location: USA

Post by m0002a » Mon Sep 08, 2008 2:08 pm

CallMeJoe wrote:FWIW, I believe that quotation is more correctly attributed to Benjamin Disraeli.

Back OT, I agree that Governor Palin's acceptance of earmarks does not necessarily make her a proponent of the earmarking process, but it weakens her standing as an earmark opponent. Similarly, Senator McCain's selection of Governor Palin as his running mate undermines his "experience" argument against Senator Obama, and Senator Obama's selection of Senator Biden weakens his "change" argument against his Republican opponents.
You are correct. Twain quoted Disraeli and gave him credit for it, but there are also others who may have originated it before Disraeli.

Considering that McCain is probably the number one opponent of earmarks in the Congress, I don't think it matters much what Palin did as governor of Alaska in applying for or accepting Federal money. Every other governor and mayor did the same thing. The most important issue regarding Palin is her ability to assume the presidency if needed.

I don't know whether Biden seriously weakens the change argument (especially since he will only be VP), but he definitely has his own skeletons regarding plagiarism in law school, not telling the truth about his past accomplishments, and plagiarizing campaign speeches (even the parts that were untrue regarding him being the first one in his family to attend college). These revelations forced him out of the 1988 campaign, but they don't seem to be reported by the media these days.

NeilBlanchard
Moderator
Posts: 7681
Joined: Mon Dec 09, 2002 7:11 pm
Location: Maynard, MA, Eaarth
Contact:

Post by NeilBlanchard » Mon Sep 08, 2008 4:23 pm

Hello,

Well, we have not heard about the Keating Five recently, either.

m0002a
Posts: 2831
Joined: Wed Feb 04, 2004 2:12 am
Location: USA

Post by m0002a » Mon Sep 08, 2008 5:06 pm

NeilBlanchard wrote:Hello,

Well, we have not heard about the Keating Five recently, either.
There is a big difference between what Biden did (well documented by the New York Times) and the Keating 5 where McCain was cleared of any impropriety. Here is a brief snippet of an article about what happened when savings and load executive Charles Keating tried to get 5 senators to convince bank regulators to drop an investigation against his bank:

"By March 1987, Keating and DeConcini were asking McCain to travel to San Francisco to meet with regulators regarding Lincoln Savings; McCain refused. DeConcini told Keating that McCain was nervous about interfering. Keating called McCain a "wimp" behind his back, and on March 24, Keating and McCain had a heated, contentious meeting."

Considering that we are discussing ethical matters, is it really proper to make false charges against an innocent man? McCain was the only one of the 5 Senators involved who stood up to Keating. He was probably the only one in the entire Congress who would have told Keating to take a hike like he did (the five Senators were involved because Lincoln Savings and Load did business in their states).

NeilBlanchard
Moderator
Posts: 7681
Joined: Mon Dec 09, 2002 7:11 pm
Location: Maynard, MA, Eaarth
Contact:

Post by NeilBlanchard » Fri Sep 12, 2008 4:14 am

Hiya,

Does Governor Palin know what the "Bush Doctrine" is?

Why did she wait until the "bridge to nowhere" was already killed by Congress before she changed her mind and came out against it? (She was strongly supporting it at first.)

Is the Iraq War "God's work"? If so, why?

How long will it take to get oil from new drilling? How much of our imported oil will it displace? And how long will that oil last once we do start getting some?

How does living ~700 miles from Russia qualify for knowledge of foreign policy?

aristide1
*Lifetime Patron*
Posts: 4284
Joined: Fri Apr 04, 2003 6:21 pm
Location: Undisclosed but sober in US

Post by aristide1 » Fri Sep 12, 2008 4:35 am

Here we have examples of more recent ethics:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/26649779/

http://www.newsweek.com/id/158265

It seems McCain is not totally immune with taking the low road.

aristide1
*Lifetime Patron*
Posts: 4284
Joined: Fri Apr 04, 2003 6:21 pm
Location: Undisclosed but sober in US

Post by aristide1 » Fri Sep 12, 2008 4:38 am

NeilBlanchard wrote:Is the Iraq War "God's work"? If so, why?
Oddly enough, when a leader says God told him to do it, some believe that makes him great, righteous, and truthful. When regular people hear voices, we immediately medicate them, and quite heavily, so that they don't kill anybody.

thejamppa
Posts: 3142
Joined: Mon Feb 26, 2007 9:20 am
Location: Missing in Finnish wilderness, howling to moon with wolf brethren and walking with brother bears
Contact:

Post by thejamppa » Fri Sep 12, 2008 5:58 am

aristide1 wrote:
NeilBlanchard wrote:Is the Iraq War "God's work"? If so, why?
Oddly enough, when a leader says God told him to do it, some believe that makes him great, righteous, and truthful. When regular people hear voices, we immediately medicate them, and quite heavily, so that they don't kill anybody.
That your double standards... As I've worked in closed ward for menthally ill patients... I've seen a lot more dangerous persons free on street or holding public office...

Sylph-DS
Posts: 223
Joined: Wed Apr 04, 2007 2:56 am
Location: The Netherlands

Post by Sylph-DS » Fri Sep 12, 2008 6:28 am

aristide1 wrote:
NeilBlanchard wrote:Is the Iraq War "God's work"? If so, why?
Oddly enough, when a leader says God told him to do it, some believe that makes him great, righteous, and truthful. When regular people hear voices, we immediately medicate them, and quite heavily, so that they don't kill anybody.
I'd say that there's rather a huge difference between a politician lying to the people and maybe even to himself to look good and acquire popularity and a person that genuinely hears voices that aren't there.

xan_user
*Lifetime Patron*
Posts: 2269
Joined: Sun May 21, 2006 9:09 am
Location: Northern California.

Post by xan_user » Fri Sep 12, 2008 6:47 am

Sylph-DS wrote:
aristide1 wrote:
NeilBlanchard wrote:Is the Iraq War "God's work"? If so, why?
Oddly enough, when a leader says God told him to do it, some believe that makes him great, righteous, and truthful. When regular people hear voices, we immediately medicate them, and quite heavily, so that they don't kill anybody.
I'd say that there's rather a huge difference between a politician lying to the people and maybe even to himself to look good and acquire popularity and a person that genuinely hears voices that aren't there.
Yet if they hold office as president the outcome is the same, the world gets screwed.

The only two ways this country will last is real accountability and the removal of the Electoral College so every vote COUNTS.

aristide1
*Lifetime Patron*
Posts: 4284
Joined: Fri Apr 04, 2003 6:21 pm
Location: Undisclosed but sober in US

Post by aristide1 » Fri Sep 12, 2008 12:14 pm

Sylph-DS wrote:
aristide1 wrote:
NeilBlanchard wrote:Is the Iraq War "God's work"? If so, why?
Oddly enough, when a leader says God told him to do it, some believe that makes him great, righteous, and truthful. When regular people hear voices, we immediately medicate them, and quite heavily, so that they don't kill anybody.
I'd say that there's rather a huge difference between a politician lying to the people and maybe even to himself to look good and acquire popularity and a person that genuinely hears voices that aren't there.
So the sheeple actually appreciate this sort of lie, is what you're saying? Much in the same way all of the US's problems are created by 21st Century witches, which we call liberals these days.

floffe
Posts: 497
Joined: Mon May 08, 2006 4:36 am
Location: Linköping, Sweden

Post by floffe » Fri Sep 12, 2008 2:30 pm

NeilBlanchard wrote:Is the Iraq War "God's work"? If so, why?
This one was a quote taken out of context:
Sarah Palin wrote:Pray for our military men and women who are striving to do what is right. Also, for this country, that our leaders, our national leaders, are sending [U.S. soldiers] out on a task that is from God. That’s what we have to make sure that we’re praying for, that there is a plan and that that plan is God’s plan.
Saying that she's praying for the soldiers in Iraq being a part of God's plan (and hence carrying out work that Christians see as good) is far from "hearing voices" and acting on them. I'm no fan of hers, but people really should try to stick to facts when they want to dis someone, or it'll blow up in their face.

aristide1
*Lifetime Patron*
Posts: 4284
Joined: Fri Apr 04, 2003 6:21 pm
Location: Undisclosed but sober in US

Post by aristide1 » Fri Sep 12, 2008 3:10 pm

thejamppa wrote:
aristide1 wrote:
NeilBlanchard wrote:Is the Iraq War "God's work"? If so, why?
Oddly enough, when a leader says God told him to do it, some believe that makes him great, righteous, and truthful. When regular people hear voices, we immediately medicate them, and quite heavily, so that they don't kill anybody.
That your double standards... As I've worked in closed ward for menthally ill patients... I've seen a lot more dangerous persons free on street or holding public office...
That's not my double standard, I totally agree with you. All those for giving Cheney 10cc of Haldol 24/7 for life say "Ay!".
Sylph-DS wrote:I'd say that there's rather a huge difference between a politician lying to the people and maybe even to himself to look good and acquire popularity and a person that genuinely hears voices that aren't there.
There certainly is, when a politician says it:

People die, except members of his clan.
His portfolio gains value, and a future job as a lobbyist.
Mass induced hysteria gets him re-elected.
He shreds the Constitution to pieces to gain more power.

And the rest of us pay for it.

Post Reply