|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 Posted: Fri Sep 05, 2008 5:33 pm
 |
|
|
 |
Edi Gammon KuroFur STill not getting how that's hipocrasy. It WAS her daughters choice to have the baby (probably.). Jow does Palin commending that reflect hipocrasy? I'm assuming she's pro-life, but we have no way of knowing if her daughter is or not. It is the president's descision to appoint these powers (yes, for some reason I've heard Bush gave cheney the power the run the war department?). Do you really think McCain would give that to such an inexpierenced person? Certainly, the VP can advise the president, but they really have no powers. Just random, why do you think MCCAin picked her? IMO it was to appeal to women. Would Palin have commended her daughter and defended her if she had chosen to have an abortion? No. Because Palin is Pro-Life. Not pro choice. Still don't get it eh? confused I imagine McCain picked Palin because he thinks it will win the election for him. I don't think he cares what she does once she's VP, as long as she can stand around and look good and get certain segments of the public emotionally charged up about things. If there's some role she's too inexperienced to fill, he can always appoint someone from the old boy's club to fill in for her.... Which the old boy's club is probably counting on him to do anyhow.
But her daughter DIDN'T have an abortion. I'm still not seeing it.
You don't know that Palin wouldn't have said "I respect my Daughter's descision, though I do not agree" or osmething of the like.
My father told me someone he met said "I'm glad Palin is running ,because now I have someone [a woman] to vote for." Voting based on gender...
So you think Palin's just being used? (Such is politics...) |
|
|
|
|
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Fri Sep 05, 2008 5:39 pm
|
|
|
|
Edi Gammon KuroFur Really? How do you know of these dominionists? SEe them with your own eyes or do you have proof of this theory? (What is a dominionist, btw?) It is true that McCain is pretty old. However, what do we know about his lifestyle, such as eating habits, excercise, etc? These factors contribute to longevity. McCain could live to be 100, for all we know. Or he could die tommorow. We can't predict the future. Google. It's your friend. From wikipedia: [ Dominionism describes, in several distinct ways, a tendency among some conservative politically-active Christians, especially in the United States of America, to seek influence or control over secular civil government through political action — aiming either at a nation governed by Christians, or a nation governed by a conservative Christian understanding of biblical law.] Did you take a look at the video Daffodil has on her profile? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6VtF7Ypr1hYWe can't predict the future, but we can make judgments of the probability of certain events taking place by noting past outcomes and factors that led to those outcomes.
Thank you for that definiton, seeing as I am in a hurry and don't have time to look taht up.
That still proves nothing. We can make probable guesses, but all in all they are still not certain.
For example, take a look at weather forcasting. They may say its going to rain tommorow.... and yet the sun's out. |
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sat Sep 06, 2008 2:44 pm
|
|
|
|
KuroFur Daffodil the Destroyer KuroFur Edi Gammon KuroFur Don't pass judgement yet: There is still more to know. You did watch the video right? Should I point out just a taste of the hypocrisy that is already becoming evident? We all know her 17 year old daughter is having a baby. It's a given that her daughter will be having this baby, coming from a conservative family... Yet she says that it's her daughters 'chioce' to have this baby and take care of it.... When it's also her Pro Life stance that will influence any policy on abortion to absolutely take away this 'choice' from American women. If I could say one thing to her it would be Don't piss down my back and tell me it's rainin' How does her daughter having a baby illustrate hipocrisy? In any case, you have no idea wheter or not the daughter was "forced" into it, or if she truly wants to keep her bably/ marry the father of her own choice. If one really doesn't know, how can you make such a judgement? You act as though Palin forced her daughter to keep the child, but you have no proof. (I do admit this could have happened; however, you have not substaniated the claim that it has.) What's to worry about with Palin when the vice president really has very few powers? " shall be President of the Senate, but shall have no Vote, unless they be evenly divided" "The vice president's other constitutionally mandated duty was to receive from the states the tally of electoral ballots cast for president and vice president and to open the certificates "in the Presence of the Senate and House of Representatives," Constitutionally, I do believe those are their only powers. Unless McCain dies abpruptly (And yes, he is 72. His state of health I do not know at this time.) that's all Palin does. EDIt Forgot my source. http://www.senate.gov/artandhistory/history/common/briefing/Vice_President.htm 
McCain's age alone is a good enough reason to be extremely wary of her. He is already 72, and has had malignant melanoma, the most dangerous form of skin cancer, removed from his face. He would be the oldest person ever to be elected President. Death could be a very real possibility for him in the next four years. Not to mention that many dominionist groups are fervently praying for him to win the election and then die so that Palin can take over; given that they want this to occur so badly I would not be surprised if there were at least one nutjob out there that would seek to assassinate McCain to allow Palin to take the Presidency.
 Really? How do you know of these dominionists? SEe them with your own eyes or do you have proof of this theory? (What is a dominionist, btw?) It is true that McCain is pretty old. However, what do we know about his lifestyle, such as eating habits, excercise, etc? These factors contribute to longevity. McCain could live to be 100, for all we know. Or he could die tommorow. We can't predict the future.
(Thank you, Edi. Google is indeed your friend.) And if you've got time to get on a Gaia guild and post, you've got time to Google a quick definition of a dominionist. Indeed, if you wish to participate in a discussion like this, it's a good idea to do some research on your own and come up with your own sources to defend your position.
Dominionists wish to turn the US, and even the entire world into a theocracy based on what they view as "God's will." There is no room for democracy in this sort of world, except perhaps in matters that God hasn't already spoken about. For information about such people wishing for McCain to take office and die, try the following article (I've copied a small section of it, but please read the entire article for the full story):
Here (The most recent target of theoractic imprecations is none other than Republican presidential candidate John McCain. They hope that an act of God will make Sarah Palin president.)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sat Sep 06, 2008 5:34 pm
|
|
|
|
Daffodil the Destroyer KuroFur Daffodil the Destroyer KuroFur Edi Gammon KuroFur Don't pass judgement yet: There is still more to know. You did watch the video right? Should I point out just a taste of the hypocrisy that is already becoming evident? We all know her 17 year old daughter is having a baby. It's a given that her daughter will be having this baby, coming from a conservative family... Yet she says that it's her daughters 'chioce' to have this baby and take care of it.... When it's also her Pro Life stance that will influence any policy on abortion to absolutely take away this 'choice' from American women. If I could say one thing to her it would be Don't piss down my back and tell me it's rainin' How does her daughter having a baby illustrate hipocrisy? In any case, you have no idea wheter or not the daughter was "forced" into it, or if she truly wants to keep her bably/ marry the father of her own choice. If one really doesn't know, how can you make such a judgement? You act as though Palin forced her daughter to keep the child, but you have no proof. (I do admit this could have happened; however, you have not substaniated the claim that it has.) What's to worry about with Palin when the vice president really has very few powers? " shall be President of the Senate, but shall have no Vote, unless they be evenly divided" "The vice president's other constitutionally mandated duty was to receive from the states the tally of electoral ballots cast for president and vice president and to open the certificates "in the Presence of the Senate and House of Representatives," Constitutionally, I do believe those are their only powers. Unless McCain dies abpruptly (And yes, he is 72. His state of health I do not know at this time.) that's all Palin does. EDIt Forgot my source. http://www.senate.gov/artandhistory/history/common/briefing/Vice_President.htm
McCain's age alone is a good enough reason to be extremely wary of her. He is already 72, and has had malignant melanoma, the most dangerous form of skin cancer, removed from his face. He would be the oldest person ever to be elected President. Death could be a very real possibility for him in the next four years. Not to mention that many dominionist groups are fervently praying for him to win the election and then die so that Palin can take over; given that they want this to occur so badly I would not be surprised if there were at least one nutjob out there that would seek to assassinate McCain to allow Palin to take the Presidency.
Really? How do you know of these dominionists? SEe them with your own eyes or do you have proof of this theory? (What is a dominionist, btw?) It is true that McCain is pretty old. However, what do we know about his lifestyle, such as eating habits, excercise, etc? These factors contribute to longevity. McCain could live to be 100, for all we know. Or he could die tommorow. We can't predict the future.
(Thank you, Edi. Google is indeed your friend.) And if you've got time to get on a Gaia guild and post, you've got time to Google a quick definition of a dominionist. Indeed, if you wish to participate in a discussion like this, it's a good idea to do some research on your own and come up with your own sources to defend your position.
Dominionists wish to turn the US, and even the entire world into a theocracy based on what they view as "God's will." There is no room for democracy in this sort of world, except perhaps in matters that God hasn't already spoken about. For information about such people wishing for McCain to take office and die, try the following article (I've copied a small section of it, but please read the entire article for the full story):
Here (The most recent target of theoractic imprecations is none other than Republican presidential candidate John McCain. They hope that an act of God will make Sarah Palin president.)
(Hell yeah google! lol)
Hey, I have my excuses reasons. Actually, googling it didn't occur to me.
Ok, so now we're all up to date on dominionists.
My question is, So what?
Exactly what percentage of Americans do these fellows make up? More than your average person extending their right to vote?
If they make up minor percentage, I'm not seeing the issue. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sat Sep 06, 2008 8:26 pm
|
|
|
|
KuroFur (Hell yeah google! lol) Hey, I have my excuses reasons. Actually, googling it didn't occur to me. Ok, so now we're all up to date on dominionists. My question is, So what? Exactly what percentage of Americans do these fellows make up? More than your average person extending their right to vote? If they make up minor percentage, I'm not seeing the issue.
The best figure I've found on this so far is a claim by one of the Left Behind authors that they make up 25% of the population. Source
A fourth of the country is a pretty large number, especially considering the amount of regular, non-dominionist conservatives and moderates that will likely vote for McCain based on his status as war hero.
Edit: I've found from this source that the regular churchgoing population of the country is approximately 20%, though of course that says nothing of the type or fervor of religious belief of those who don't attend church weekly.
The book American Fascists estimates the number of far-right dominionist "traditional evangelicals" at 12.6% (published in 2006).
So, I've got three different numbers, but I still think it's a large enough group to worry about.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Mon Sep 08, 2008 8:00 pm
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Tue Sep 09, 2008 12:30 am
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Tue Sep 09, 2008 3:38 pm
|
|
|
|
Daffodil the Destroyer
McCain is now ahead of Obama in most polls, and I just continue to find frightening information about Sarah Palin.
Cliffs for that article: Palin unashamedly uses a racial slur to refer to Obama whilst in the middle of a restaurant, and also frequently refers to Alaskan Aboriginals as "Arctic Arabs" and "******** Eskimos." Many residents of Wasilla, Alaska describe her as racist, vindictive, and mean, but most are afraid to go on the record for fear of retribution. This article again mentions her excessive spending, which stands in stark contrast to her campaign promises of lowering unnecessary spending.
All right, I want to ask you this:
What is it you fear from Palin?
RElating to her religious views, that is, seeing as that is the topic here.
Is that site really that good a source? Is it credible?
"people who know her say she refers regularly to Alaska’s Aboriginal people as “Arctic Arabs"
Who are these people who know her? Notice they are not mentioned by name.
I figure you know that sort of deal, but I'm just pointing it out anyway.
EDIT:
Nice avatar, though. XD |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Tue Sep 09, 2008 7:07 pm
|
|
|
|
KuroFur Daffodil the Destroyer
McCain is now ahead of Obama in most polls, and I just continue to find frightening information about Sarah Palin.
Cliffs for that article: Palin unashamedly uses a racial slur to refer to Obama whilst in the middle of a restaurant, and also frequently refers to Alaskan Aboriginals as "Arctic Arabs" and "******** Eskimos." Many residents of Wasilla, Alaska describe her as racist, vindictive, and mean, but most are afraid to go on the record for fear of retribution. This article again mentions her excessive spending, which stands in stark contrast to her campaign promises of lowering unnecessary spending.
All right, I want to ask you this: What is it you fear from Palin? RElating to her religious views, that is, seeing as that is the topic here. Is that site really that good a source? Is it credible? "people who know her say she refers regularly to Alaska’s Aboriginal people as “Arctic Arabs" Who are these people who know her? Notice they are not mentioned by name. I figure you know that sort of deal, but I'm just pointing it out anyway. EDIT: Nice avatar, though. XD
What am I afraid of? I'm afraid of her influence over Washington. If she and McCain are elected, I fear her influence over his decisions, including on foreign policy (dealing with Muslims, etc - you realize she actually thinks the war we're in right now is a divine mission from The Lord?), bills that he has to decide to pass or veto, who he chooses to head up the different departments in the cabinet, and who he chooses to place on the Supreme Court should the openings arise. Additionally, as I'm sure I've mentioned, I'm afraid of the potential consequences if McCain dies and leaves her in the President's chair, for those same reasons. It's not ONLY her wacko religious ideas I'm worried about either, but I think that having a dominionist of any religion in the office of the US President is a dangerous thing, as all of her decisions will likely reflect what she believes to be "God's Law," or at least as many of them as she can push through under the guise of having a secular purpose.
As for your question about the credibility of the site, etc. - I really don't mean to sound bitchy here, but I'm sure it will probably come off that way, so try to keep in mind that I'm not saying this to be rude or anything. Throughout this thread, all you have done is come in and try to insinuate that others of us are using unfair or untrue sources, and that we are making unfair accusations. You have also asked us to do all your research for you - "what is a dominionist?" "what percentage of Americans are dominionists?" or "is that source credible?" I have been posting a number of articles all over Gaia from a variety of sources. This particular source is a Los Angeles news e-zine; if it's too liberal for your taste, you can find similar stories on a number of other, possibly less biased news sites. Find them yourself.
Whether you think these claims are unfair, or biased, or over-exaggerated, the fact of the matter is that these are issues that need to be brought to national attention, both for their possible implications, and also to ensure that Palin will have to answer for them. Perhaps if I see or hear her in an interview, discussing the reasons why she will or will not keep her religion out of her office, and the reasons why her campaign promises don't match up to her fiscal record from Alaska, perhaps then I can make a less biased decision. Until then, the facts from many different sources point to her being at the very least someone who runs a serious risk of: doing everything in her power to overturn Roe v. Wade, spending (or at least encouraging McCain to spend) superfluous amounts of taxpayer money on things that are less than necessary, likely also raising taxes, and possibly even pushing hard for unfair censorship of books she finds "offensive" to her sensitive Christian sensibilities. These are all statements that are based on her record as mayor of Wasilla and as governor of Alaska.
Again, I don't mean to come off as rude (it's really hard to convey what my tone of voice would be over the internet), but it rather bothers me that you've come into this thread without having done your own research, and all you seem to have done in this thread is crap all over the research the rest of us have done and the opinions and theories we've formulated after having done this research. I could post some of the other sources that I've been using elsewhere on Gaia, but honestly... it's your turn to find some information.
Edit: In additional response to an earlier question of yours ("How do you know of these dominionists?"): I used to BE one of those dominionists. I lived in a city full of them, and went to Bible studies with a fairly large group of these people. I still know dominionists at the university I go to. They are truly frightening in many respects, on a personal level, and it's scary to think of more and more of them making their way into the national government.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Wed Sep 10, 2008 3:57 pm
|
|
|
|
Daffodil the Destroyer KuroFur Daffodil the Destroyer
McCain is now ahead of Obama in most polls, and I just continue to find frightening information about Sarah Palin.
Cliffs for that article: Palin unashamedly uses a racial slur to refer to Obama whilst in the middle of a restaurant, and also frequently refers to Alaskan Aboriginals as "Arctic Arabs" and "******** Eskimos." Many residents of Wasilla, Alaska describe her as racist, vindictive, and mean, but most are afraid to go on the record for fear of retribution. This article again mentions her excessive spending, which stands in stark contrast to her campaign promises of lowering unnecessary spending.
All right, I want to ask you this: What is it you fear from Palin? RElating to her religious views, that is, seeing as that is the topic here. Is that site really that good a source? Is it credible? "people who know her say she refers regularly to Alaska’s Aboriginal people as “Arctic Arabs" Who are these people who know her? Notice they are not mentioned by name. I figure you know that sort of deal, but I'm just pointing it out anyway. EDIT: Nice avatar, though. XD
What am I afraid of? I'm afraid of her influence over Washington. If she and McCain are elected, I fear her influence over his decisions, including on foreign policy (dealing with Muslims, etc - you realize she actually thinks the war we're in right now is a divine mission from The Lord?), bills that he has to decide to pass or veto, who he chooses to head up the different departments in the cabinet, and who he chooses to place on the Supreme Court should the openings arise. Additionally, as I'm sure I've mentioned, I'm afraid of the potential consequences if McCain dies and leaves her in the President's chair, for those same reasons. It's not ONLY her wacko religious ideas I'm worried about either, but I think that having a dominionist of any religion in the office of the US President is a dangerous thing, as all of her decisions will likely reflect what she believes to be "God's Law," or at least as many of them as she can push through under the guise of having a secular purpose.
As for your question about the credibility of the site, etc. - I really don't mean to sound bitchy here, but I'm sure it will probably come off that way, so try to keep in mind that I'm not saying this to be rude or anything. Throughout this thread, all you have done is come in and try to insinuate that others of us are using unfair or untrue sources, and that we are making unfair accusations. You have also asked us to do all your research for you - "what is a dominionist?" "what percentage of Americans are dominionists?" or "is that source credible?" I have been posting a number of articles all over Gaia from a variety of sources. This particular source is a Los Angeles news e-zine; if it's too liberal for your taste, you can find similar stories on a number of other, possibly less biased news sites. Find them yourself.
Whether you think these claims are unfair, or biased, or over-exaggerated, the fact of the matter is that these are issues that need to be brought to national attention, both for their possible implications, and also to ensure that Palin will have to answer for them. Perhaps if I see or hear her in an interview, discussing the reasons why she will or will not keep her religion out of her office, and the reasons why her campaign promises don't match up to her fiscal record from Alaska, perhaps then I can make a less biased decision. Until then, the facts from many different sources point to her being at the very least someone who runs a serious risk of: doing everything in her power to overturn Roe v. Wade, spending (or at least encouraging McCain to spend) superfluous amounts of taxpayer money on things that are less than necessary, likely also raising taxes, and possibly even pushing hard for unfair censorship of books she finds "offensive" to her sensitive Christian sensibilities. These are all statements that are based on her record as mayor of Wasilla and as governor of Alaska.
Again, I don't mean to come off as rude (it's really hard to convey what my tone of voice would be over the internet), but it rather bothers me that you've come into this thread without having done your own research, and all you seem to have done in this thread is crap all over the research the rest of us have done and the opinions and theories we've formulated after having done this research. I could post some of the other sources that I've been using elsewhere on Gaia, but honestly... it's your turn to find some information.
Edit: In additional response to an earlier question of yours ("How do you know of these dominionists?"): I used to BE one of those dominionists. I lived in a city full of them, and went to Bible studies with a fairly large group of these people. I still know dominionists at the university I go to. They are truly frightening in many respects, on a personal level, and it's scary to think of more and more of them making their way into the national government.
I entered here and I see you're making claims that Palin is with dominionists and is going to take away our rights to have/not have abortions, and that dominionists are trying to take over the U.S. (Along with a variety of other things.) I expect YOU to be the one to back up your own claims, no? The ol' burden of proof deal.
As far as I can see (Although I do admit I should have looked up Dominionist.) all I've been asking you to do is back up what you're saying, which you have done.
All though it is suspicious that for the statistics on dominionists, what you have provided does not match in the slightest.
When you have three different sources giving numbers from 12.6% to 25%, something's sketchy. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Wed Sep 10, 2008 10:26 pm
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
