just when you thought it couldnt get any more ridonkulous

just when you thought it couldnt get any more ridonkulous (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion

Message

Lucylastic -> just when you thought it couldnt get any more ridonkulous (12/19/2011 6:34:58 PM)
It explodes in a paradoxical sadness at the crap that is passing for an election for a leader of the USA Sarah yes Former Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin rekindled speculation about her 2012 plans Monday, offering a teasing response to a question about whether she or anybody else might still get involved in the presidential race. "It's not too late for folks to jump in," Palin said during an interview on the Fox Business Network, according to advance excerpts. "Who knows what will happen in the future." Earlier in the year, Palin appeared to shut the door on her White House aspirations, at least for this election cycle. "After much prayer and serious consideration, I have decided that I will not be seeking the 2012 GOP nomination for president of the United States," said Palin in a statement on her decision." As always, my family comes first and obviously Todd and I put great consideration into family life before making this decision. When we serve, we devote ourselves to God, family and country. My decision maintains this order." Palin may not be including herself in that list of "folks," and it's possible that she's simply referring to other potential figures, such as real estate mogul Donald Trump, who have been irresolute about their presidential ambitions. Earlier this month, Trump removed himself as moderator of a Republican debate because he refused to rule out mounting a third-party run later in 2012 should the GOP primary produce a candidate he finds unacceptable. The comment could well recharge the energy of her persistent supporters, who just last month launched an ad in Iowa urging Palin to jump in the race due to dissatisfaction with the current field. That sentiment has apparently lingered among the ranks of many conservatives, as Tea Party leaders recently told the Associated Press that they remained "disappointed" with their choices. More at http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/12/19/sarah-palin-2012-president_n_1158571.html with video

thishereboi -> RE: just when you thought it couldnt get any more ridonkulous (12/19/2011 6:42:33 PM)
Does she have another book coming out or perhaps a new tour?

Lucylastic -> RE: just when you thought it couldnt get any more ridonkulous (12/19/2011 6:47:03 PM)
weell apparently she lost out on a couple of reality shows, so I would say theres a damn fine possibility of one or two of each

DarkSteven -> RE: just when you thought it couldnt get any more ridonkulous (12/19/2011 7:46:38 PM)
Her goal is to get the maximum exposure from "running', while at the same time putting in little effort. Gingrich is doing similar. Note that he takes vacations throughout the contest - I'm wondering if he's serious or just selling books and jacking up his speaking rate.

Owner59 -> RE: just when you thought it couldnt get any more ridonkulous (12/19/2011 7:48:39 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: thishereboi Does she have another book coming out or perhaps a new tour? We can hold out hope that she`ll run again.....can`t we?[8D] The way things are going,she might just be full of herself enough to make a run.She`ll get that non-mitt bump and will make things much more entertaining.

Iamsemisweet -> RE: just when you thought it couldnt get any more ridonkulous (12/19/2011 8:19:45 PM)
I hope she runs. I just can't get enough of Tina Fey.

tweakabelle -> RE: just when you thought it couldnt get any more ridonkulous (12/19/2011 8:40:21 PM)
quote: When we serve, we devote ourselves to God, family and country. My decision maintains this order." Did any one else do a double take when they saw this? I certainly did! It's so revealing that a potential candidate for POTUS should list two other matters as having higher priority than serving "country". This is no accident - Paling emphasises her choices in the very next sentence: "My decision maintains this order." For Palin, "God" and "family" come before "country" - unambiguously, emphatically. For mine, I would have thought that any one running for POTUS would have that position, and the extensive and grave responsibilities associated with it, at the very top of any list of priorities. It's even more perplexing that Palin's priorities pass without remark when demands are constantly made that members of non-mainstream religions declare their first allegiance to the USA. I'm not criticising Palin's choices here - simply pointing out a double standard that is regularly applied.

Termyn8or -> RE: just when you thought it couldnt get any more ridonkulous (12/20/2011 1:11:25 AM)
quote: When we serve, we devote ourselves to God, family and country. My decision maintains this order." I'll show this around for laughs. Maybe the word will get to someone willing to whack her. Gotta be crazy I guess. Fucking maybe when they kill each other it is OK. How come all of these people are stupid and belong in a fucking "home" somewhere ? These politicians, I mean I wouldn't want them handling kitchen knives. This is so stupid. T^T

DaddySatyr -> RE: just when you thought it couldnt get any more ridonkulous (12/20/2011 1:53:22 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: tweakabelle quote: When we serve, we devote ourselves to God, family and country. My decision maintains this order." Did any one else do a double take when they saw this? I certainly did! It's so revealing that a potential candidate for POTUS should list two other matters as having higher priority than serving "country". This is no accident - Paling emphasises her choices in the very next sentence: "My decision maintains this order." For Palin, "God" and "family" come before "country" - unambiguously, emphatically. For mine, I would have thought that any one running for POTUS would have that position, and the extensive and grave responsibilities associated with it, at the very top of any list of priorities. It's even more perplexing that Palin's priorities pass without remark when demands are constantly made that members of non-mainstream religions declare their first allegiance to the USA. I'm not criticising Palin's choices here - simply pointing out a double standard that is regularly applied. I have some very strong beliefs. I'm not a member of any specific "church" (I don't think one that shares my belief system exists) and my beliefs are ever-changing as new evidence is presented. For purposes of ease, I may refer to God but, I promise; I'm no fundementalist Christian. I consider myself to be a patriot. I believe in the ideals upon which this country was founded. One of those principles is: this country doesn't tell God what to do (First Amendment). As a result, forming an opinion about issues is a bit of a highwire act for me. I will give one example: I am *strongly* anti-abortion because I believe that life is the most precious gift bestowed upon us. But, I think abortion should *always* be legal. I believe as a people, we should do everything we can to discourage the behavior but we should never legislate against it. I think the previous paragraph demonstrates my point about my highwire act. I believe that the proper person to run this country, at any time, would be a person who has strong beliefs in right and wrong and I believe that people that are spiritual tend to have that. I don't believe that *only* people that identify as "spiritual" are endowed with these beliefs but, I think you'll find that if you observe people, the ones that espouse spirituality tend to be the same ones that have some kind of a personal code that they follow. I believe that if a person has that strong courage of their convictions, one of the things that would guide them is that there are certain areas that laws cannot govern. We cannot legislate what people believe. We can try (Hate crime laws) but we cannot truly control what goes on in a person's mind. Another example would be homosexuals, serving in the military. Does anyone seriously believe that the first time that happened was after President Clinton initiated "Don't Ask/Don't Tell"? Now, to try to get myself back to the beginning ... I think that because I hold the spiritual beliefs that I do; because I feel that all of my actions are a reflection upon a God of my understanding, that if I were to serve in some kind of elected capacity, I would take into account that doing the right thing as far as my oath to the municipality/state/country would be my charge. I would think that my spiritual (or "religious", if you like) beliefs would play a part in my decision-making process. At the end of the day, I have a hard time "slamming" people because they espouse some kind of belief in some kind of Great Creator. On the contrary; I find that to be a plus. It pains me that we seem to be a people that says: "I'm tired of leaders/politicians that are corrupt or way off point but I refuse to vote for someone who might mention 'God'." I do *not* believe in the path that Governor Palin would try to take the country should she ever get elected and my dream candidate has never existed but, I would be comforted in the knowledge that whoever works in the oval office is guided by some set of principles. I believe - if looked at from a particular point of view - placing "God" above country is not entirely incorrect (ask a US Marine about their code and the answer *will* be: "Duty, Corps, God and Country"). I do *strongly* object to someone placing their family above the good of the whole. Serving the greater good almost always requires personal sacrifice and, certainly, one's family is something that is personal. Peace and comfort, Michael

rulemylife -> RE: just when you thought it couldnt get any more ridonkulous (12/20/2011 2:35:44 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: tweakabelle quote: When we serve, we devote ourselves to God, family and country. My decision maintains this order." Did any one else do a double take when they saw this? I certainly did! It's so revealing that a potential candidate for POTUS should list two other matters as having higher priority than serving "country". This is no accident - Paling emphasises her choices in the very next sentence: "My decision maintains this order." For Palin, "God" and "family" come before "country" - unambiguously, emphatically. For mine, I would have thought that any one running for POTUS would have that position, and the extensive and grave responsibilities associated with it, at the very top of any list of priorities. It's even more perplexing that Palin's priorities pass without remark when demands are constantly made that members of non-mainstream religions declare their first allegiance to the USA. I'm not criticising Palin's choices here - simply pointing out a double standard that is regularly applied. I'm not religious so I won't address that part, and I don't like Palin, but I don't know of anyone who would not put their family first.

tweakabelle -> RE: just when you thought it couldnt get any more ridonkulous (12/20/2011 5:00:19 AM)
Having re-read my post after reading yours, and DaddySatyr's, I can see that I didn't make my point very clearly. I specifically said that "I'm not criticising Palin's choices here". In fact, I understand perfectly well why people put their families first. It's exactly what I would do too. That is not the point I am trying to draw attention to here. Nor am I criticising any one's religion. For me, the main point is that that it is regularly demanded of others that they declare their "first allegiance" to the USA. Here's a clear case of someone specifically declaring their first allegiance to something other than the USA. Yet it is let slide by with no one saying anything. The Palins of this world aren't questioned according to this standard because they're seen as white, Christian and therefore not a 'threat'. Yet I've seen calls for Muslims (despite having US nationality/citizenship) to declare their first allegiance to the US. The same thing happens here in Australia where a couple of Islamophobic politicians regularly demand that Muslims (who have Australian nationality/citizenship) declare they'll put Australia ahead of the Koran or their religious obligations. No one ever demands this of mainstream white Christian politicians. The Palins of this world are assumed to be loyal and trustworthy until proven otherwise according to this standard. At the same time, under this same standard, Muslims are assumed to be disloyal/untrustworthy until proven otherwise. My aim was to draw attention to this specific double standard. My bad if I didn't express it clearly first time.

DaddySatyr -> RE: just when you thought it couldnt get any more ridonkulous (12/20/2011 5:35:42 AM)
I grant - with no reservations - that people who follow Islam are "stained" by prejudice. I would imagine (and history bears me out) that it is the same prejudice that Japanese Americans faced, starting on 08 DEC 1941. I know, from family history, that it is the same as what German Americans experienced during WWII. I didn't realize that prejudice was the aim of your post and I apologize for my part in the misunderstanding. I am, unaware of any people who are not seeking public office, enlistment in the military, or naturalization who are placed under the same scrutiny you call for. Certainly, *no one* is asked to denounce their *faith, when seeking these things. Indeed, in the case of public office, most seem to feel the need to profess religion which they do not really believe in order to seem "palatable" to the voting public. I will agree that Muslims are often believed/accused of horrible things for which they are not personally responsible. In the days shortly following the attacks on this country over a decade ago, even I found myself on the wrong side of certain issues, based upon an animous toward an entire people because of the acts of a few. I would like to clarify, that in the time since, I have done some research into the Islamic faith and I meant to include Muslims who are not extremists when I wrote: quote:* Original: DaddySatyr I do not believe in the path that Governor Palin would try to take the country should she ever get elected and my dream candidate has never existed but, I would be comforted in the knowledge that whoever works in the oval office is guided by some set of principles. I would also like to add that I view most extremists of any faith with the same distain that I view their counter-parts. Peace and comfort, Michael

Iamsemisweet -> RE: just when you thought it couldnt get any more ridonkulous (12/20/2011 7:11:24 AM)
I would not want someone to be president who put any priority before the USA. Leaving aside the whole question of whether I would want someone who literally b in Christian dogma running the country, the POTUS has to be willing to put the interests of the country before his family. What if a member of the family was kidnapped, and the ransom was something that was not in the USA's interest? I would not want the well being of Bristol Palin to trump national security. I am not questioning Palin's priorities either, I just think they make her unsuitable as a candidate. But I thought she was unsuitable before.

willbeurdaddy -> RE: just when you thought it couldnt get any more ridonkulous (12/20/2011 7:27:33 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DaddySatyr quote: ORIGINAL: tweakabelle quote: When we serve, we devote ourselves to God, family and country. My decision maintains this order." Did any one else do a double take when they saw this? I certainly did! It's so revealing that a potential candidate for POTUS should list two other matters as having higher priority than serving "country". This is no accident - Paling emphasises her choices in the very next sentence: "My decision maintains this order." For Palin, "God" and "family" come before "country" - unambiguously, emphatically. For mine, I would have thought that any one running for POTUS would have that position, and the extensive and grave responsibilities associated with it, at the very top of any list of priorities. It's even more perplexing that Palin's priorities pass without remark when demands are constantly made that members of non-mainstream religions declare their first allegiance to the USA. I'm not criticising Palin's choices here - simply pointing out a double standard that is regularly applied. I have some very strong beliefs. I'm not a member of any specific "church" (I don't think one that shares my belief system exists) and my beliefs are ever-changing as new evidence is presented. For purposes of ease, I may refer to God but, I promise; I'm no fundementalist Christian. I consider myself to be a patriot. I believe in the ideals upon which this country was founded. One of those principles is: this country doesn't tell God what to do (First Amendment). As a result, forming an opinion about issues is a bit of a highwire act for me. I will give one example: I am *strongly* anti-abortion because I believe that life is the most precious gift bestowed upon us. But, I think abortion should *always* be legal. I believe as a people, we should do everything we can to discourage the behavior but we should never legislate against it. I think the previous paragraph demonstrates my point about my highwire act. I believe that the proper person to run this country, at any time, would be a person who has strong beliefs in right and wrong and I believe that people that are spiritual tend to have that. I don't believe that *only* people that identify as "spiritual" are endowed with these beliefs but, I think you'll find that if you observe people, the ones that espouse spirituality tend to be the same ones that have some kind of a personal code that they follow. I believe that if a person has that strong courage of their convictions, one of the things that would guide them is that there are certain areas that laws cannot govern. We cannot legislate what people believe. We can try (Hate crime laws) but we cannot truly control what goes on in a person's mind. Another example would be homosexuals, serving in the military. Does anyone seriously believe that the first time that happened was after President Clinton initiated "Don't Ask/Don't Tell"? Now, to try to get myself back to the beginning ... I think that because I hold the spiritual beliefs that I do; because I feel that all of my actions are a reflection upon a God of my understanding, that if I were to serve in some kind of elected capacity, I would take into account that doing the right thing as far as my oath to the municipality/state/country would be my charge. I would think that my spiritual (or "religious", if you like) beliefs would play a part in my decision-making process. At the end of the day, I have a hard time "slamming" people because they espouse some kind of belief in some kind of Great Creator. On the contrary; I find that to be a plus. It pains me that we seem to be a people that says: "I'm tired of leaders/politicians that are corrupt or way off point but I refuse to vote for someone who might mention 'God'." I do *not* believe in the path that Governor Palin would try to take the country should she ever get elected and my dream candidate has never existed but, I would be comforted in the knowledge that whoever works in the oval office is guided by some set of principles. I believe - if looked at from a particular point of view - placing "God" above country is not entirely incorrect (ask a US Marine about their code and the answer *will* be: "Duty, Corps, God and Country"). I do *strongly* object to someone placing their family above the good of the whole. Serving the greater good almost always requires personal sacrifice and, certainly, one's family is something that is personal. Peace and comfort, Michael This......plus to reiterate another post, since the country was founded on Judaeo-Christian principles, informing governance decisions based on religion "first" is the same as putting allegiance to the countries core ethic first. That said, she's not running, so who gives a fuck?

mnottertail -> RE: just when you thought it couldnt get any more ridonkulous (12/20/2011 8:40:43 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: willbeurdaddy This......plus to reiterate another post, since the country was founded on Judaeo-Christian principles, informing governance decisions based on religion "first" is the same as putting allegiance to the countries core ethic first. That old dogshit about this country being founded on Judeo-Christian beliefs is strictly dogshit, and has had the lie put to it many times. Endless repeating of dogshit does not lend it any stature, it remains dogshit.

Lucylastic -> RE: just when you thought it couldnt get any more ridonkulous (12/20/2011 2:25:18 PM)
for a country who has taken in millions upon millions of immigrants from every country on earth and EVERY religion, Saying it is only for judeo christians is pathetic.Isnt there a reason god and state are sposed to be separated. Especcially when what GOD says is open to so much interpretation.Even with the simple thing like 10 commandments.

Iamsemisweet -> RE: just when you thought it couldnt get any more ridonkulous (12/20/2011 3:07:25 PM)
Vanity Fair's take on Sarah's possible candidacy. They seem to think she is doing it just to get another reality show. How cynical: Sarah Palin has indicated she’s again considering a presidential run because, why not? It certainly doesn’t cost her anything to say so—arguably, quite the opposite—and it doesn’t cost us much to pretend to take her seriously. For more on this urgent matter of national importance, we turn to Reuters: in a forthcoming interview with Fox Business Network, the irrelevant half-governor said, “It’s not too late for folks to jump in.” Specifically: folks who are struggling to sell their husband’s snowmobiling docu-series for $1 million an episode.

JstAnotherSub -> RE: just when you thought it couldnt get any more ridonkulous (12/20/2011 3:22:49 PM)
quote: "It's not too late for folks to jump in," I have a couple of places I wish she would jump in to. A live volcano is one of them.

DaddySatyr -> RE: just when you thought it couldnt get any more ridonkulous (12/20/2011 3:43:18 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Lucylastic for a country who has taken in millions upon millions of immigrants from every country on earth and EVERY religion, Saying it is only for judeo christians is pathetic.Isnt there a reason god and state are sposed to be separated. Especcially when what GOD says is open to so much interpretation.Even with the simple thing like 10 commandments. There is no such thing as a "separation of church and state". It is a one-way wall as clearly set out in the first amendment to our Constitution. It begins with the five most beautiful words in the English language (to this Libertarian's ear): quote: ORIGINAL: U.S. Constitution Amendment 1 "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; ..." The way the amendment is written, it's "Government must keep its nose out of religion" It does *not* specifically state the converse. I understand that "separation of church and state" is a common misnomer but, it would be more accurately referred to as: "Freedom of religion". Peace and comfort, Michael

Page: [1]

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.046875