Site Presented By
Sunday, Nov 8, 2009
Thanks for bringing this video of the Anti-Palin rally in Alaska to our attention. Just watched it. So inspiring, thank you women of Alaska - you rock! (Or, should I say you Barack!)
I am so bi-polar this election year - bouncing between hope and despair. But both end up getting me up and out the door campaigning. Whatever it takes. And by the time I get to phone banks and canvas locations I have come back around to hope. The only way to talk to people is with hope, enthusiasm and passion. So, I am going to try to keep focussing on the hope.
Thanks for bringing this video of the Anti-Palin rally in Alaska to our attention. Just watched it. So inspiring, thank you women of Alaska - you rock! (Or, should I say you Barack!)
I am so bi-polar this election year - bouncing between hope and despair. But both end up getting me up and out the door campaigning. Whatever it takes. And by the time I get to phone banks and canvas locations I have come back around to hope. The only way to talk to people is with hope, enthusiasm and passion. So, I am going to try to keep focussing on the hope.
Sitka0230, I don't think any poster is trying to defend Palin. thatswhatsup wants valid grounds for attacking her and is correct. Attacking Palin on weak grounds could easily backfire.
You might be interested to see what Snopes.com has to say about Palin's alleged book-banning. You should read the whole thing, not just the first part.
There are nuances here. Palin inquiring about whether she can get books banned is one thing; actually trying to ban books is quite another.
Democrats can validly attack Palin on the Bridge to Nowhere; on being a right-to-life extremist; maybe on "Troopergate"; and perhaps on some other issues. Democrats can also attack her as lacking background and experience with most national and international issues. They can also point out she raised taxes on oil companies, which is fine by me, but not to most Republicans.
I don't think it wise to try to smear Palin on thin evidence; that's the sort of thing Republicans do.
I totally agree. If a profoundly undemocratic individual or party uses the electoral process to ascend to power, they shouldn't be allowed to. That's how the Nazis got to power in 1929. Palin, McCain and most of the GOP are hostile to the US Constitution which is the foundation of our system of government. McCain's views are clearly fascist, and Palin is so extreme that it's nearly impossible to find an equivalent to her particular brand of extremism unless we go back as far as medieval Europe. A military coup, assisted by millions of civilians should prevent fascism from taking over. Our nation has drifted so far toward militaristic and religious fascism, that a civil war is probably the only thing that can save us from becoming the Fourth Reich.
Your knowledge of Roman Catholicism is clearly limited. Also, prior to attacking one of the largest, most unified, and most politically active religious denominations in the nation, a denomination with a real sense of paranoia about outsiders criticisming them, you might want to think how that attack would affect your candidates chances.
Honestly, not picking a Catholic is just one of the many many mistakes that John McCain made in picking his running mate (the biggest was probably picking someone vastly more popular than himself).
All these discussions however are moot until 2012.
As goes the economy, so goes the Whitehouse. McCain can't run from the Elephant on his ticket and it's failed policies.
Palin may be back in 2012 (assuming McCain doesn't drag her too far down) and then all these issues will again become relavent.
Palin and her ilk are a clear and present danger. Does that mean a "Premptive strike" is in order?
Mr. Mumrock
The only political difference I see between Sarah Palin and Osama Bin Laden is that she has been presented by John McCain with an easier way to absolute power, and she's shrewd enough to exploit her opportunity. They are both fanatic ideologues. Al Quaida's firepower is puny compared to what she would have at her disposal, should she succeed to the presidency. We should be very afraid.
All the fundies love the Old Testament. That's where they get the justification for waging war (a time to kill) and blocking life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness for gay citizens (an abomination). And yet they say that they love Jesus. They really picked the wrong god in that guy, who, as you note, is all about love, refusing wealth, and suffering gladly.
I knew it was only a matter of time before the truth about this freak show started to come out. Note to Barack's handlers: stop trying to play the high road, it's time to roll up your sleeves and sling it like the GOP. I know you never wanted to stoop to that, but too much is at stake here. DO SOMETHING, and make it big. You've simply got to get the focus off of the beauty queen sheen and onto the nasty underbelly of who and what she really is.
@Mumrock... it has certainly crossed my mind, and I bet you and I aren't the only ones...
America's Roman Catholic bishops overwhelmingly approved a statement Wednesday that urges states to withhold recognition for same-sex marriages. The bishops approved the statement by a vote of 234-3, with three abstentions.
By Rachel Zoll, AP Religion Writer, Washington (November 12, 2003
"After a three-month study, Catholic Charities of Boston concluded that a Massachusetts anti-discrimination law makes it impossible for the agency to adhere to Roman Catholic teachings that prohibit the placement of children with same-sex couples (i.e. require discrimination against gays). Rather than challenge the law in court, the agency opted to end its 103-year-old tradition of facilitating adoptions."
from http://www.thelutheran.org/article/article.cfm?article_id=5875
In 2003 the R.C. hierarchy and the "Knights of Columbus" promoted a petition drive in its churches in the state of Connecticut. They succeeded in persuading 70,000 Catholics (note that number!) to deny homosexual citizens the privileges and obligations that this state and the U.S.A. provides for its heterosexual citizens, when they get married. (Note that gay people who are not even Catholic are not asking for whatever rights and privileges Catholic heterosexuals may obtain through "the sacrament of marriage". All that they are asking is to be included whenever secular governments decide to provide secular benefits to people who take on the responsibilities of civil marriage.)
Much of the initial coverage about Fort Hood turned out to be wrong. Is there anything wrong with that?
The accountability imposed by another country for the CIA's kidnapping and torture reveals much about our own.
Fox News' morning show plays to type, talking about whether Muslims in the Army should face "special debriefings"
The survivor and author is upset about comparisons some on the right are making to genocide
Once seen as a lunatic fringe, reactionary anti-women groups are courting respectability
Salon headlines in your mailbox
