jefferiah

It did not contain any specific threat information either.

Do you mean posters who accuse others of being paid by the Conservative Party to post here?

deleted

Bush's 16 words. FactCheck contends he was not lying. http://www.factcheck.org/bushs_16_words_on_iraq_uranium.html

How do you know what is God's will? Do you not have a wordly career yourself? King David was a leader. Joseph was a prime minister in Egypt. Daniel was a royal advisor in Babylon. All raised up to their positions by God's will, according to the Bible. Do you vote for any of these worldy, sinful, self-serving leaders? Would you only vote for someone who does not believe in God?

Bad argument. Being pro-life is a political position. Whether you are pro-life because you are religious or not is immaterial. Political opinions are allowed in our society irrespective of the motive. So therefore a politician who is pro-life would likely nominate pro-life judges, whereas one who is not would nominate pro-choice judges. Obama will legislate his own morality based on his own political ideas, whether those be based on religious upbringing or not. The idea itself is what matters. That's what legislation is--a political moral. Beating an innocent person with a baseball bat is a crime because we consider that immoral. Whether the person who legislates that it is wrong to beat a person with a baseball bat is Christian, Jewish, Muslim, or Atheist is immaterial. You could not say that because this happens to coincide with alot of religious beliefs that this is imposing a religion upon the state. Furthermore, you could never determine whether or not the religious person would support such legislation had this person not been religious. But that is immaterial anyway. Because a moral which happens to be a religious one is not the religion itself. People have a democratic right to agree with such a position irrespective of religion. Are there no atheist pro-lifers? Is the pro-life position only valid if the person is an atheist?

To pray that there is a plan and that the plan is God's is not a far cry at all. It's pretty much the same thing. She is praying that there is a plan and that the plan would be the right one (ie Gods plan). These are still not examples of muddying the lines between Church and State. Nor is applying your religious conscience to your own political ideas. Political ideas are political ideas. The motives behind your ideas are something you are free to choose. In the confines of a Church she asked the congregation to pray that these things would be done. She is in no way establishing a state religion.

That makes no sense at all. How does praying that our leaders will take the right course constitute the establishment of a state religion? This is not an example of blurring the lines between Church and State.

Sharing political opinions on a political website is a strange hobby for an ascetic such as yourself, so disgusted by the taints of worldly politics.

So he is a liar then?

I don't have to present any facts. You are the one making the charge that she is a religious kook who thinks God is speaking to her. You are the one who has to back that up. In post 64 the only thing you presented was the Iraq War statement. Kimmy did a sufficient job in showing there is a fundamental difference between saying we ought to pray that our national leaders are on a task from God and saying the war is a task from God. So once again you are back at square one. No facts, still making the same cheer----that Palin is getting directives from God.

Do you think repeating something over and over and over makes it true? There was just an argument preceding your comment between Kimmy and Kengs over the matter of whether Palin believed she was getting directives from God concerning his will, and anyone who understands English should be aware of the fact that Palin said nothing akin to that. Kimmy won that hands down. So unless you have any additional evidence to submit in this matter---beyond Kengs'(the man with no concept of the word "IF") examples, your comment is basically just mindless cheerleading. As for the first President who thinks God is speaking to him, I presume you mean Bush. It has never been established that Bush actually said that. It was quoted from a Palestinian, I believe, who claimed Bush had told him this in confidence. That smells like propaganda to me.

That's funny. "If it is God's will", or "God willing", etc are quite common expressions. The meaning of the expression is the exact opposite of your interpretation. It is an acknowledgement that you do not control the future, and that these things will only happen if it is God's will. This is such a common expression in Christianity, I find it hard to believe you don't know it. In fact the root of this sort of expression is the New Testament, where it is recommended when speaking of actions you will take in the future. James Chapter 4, Verses 13-15 4:13Come now, you who say, "Today or tomorrow let's go into this city, and spend a year there, trade, and make a profit." 4:14Whereas you don't know what your life will be like tomorrow. For what is your life? For you are a vapor, that appears for a little time, and then vanishes away. 4:15For you ought to say, "If the Lord wills, we will both live, and do this or that." http://www.biblestudyinfo.com/james/ch4.shtml For instance if I were to say "If it be God's will, I'll go to Moncton tomorrow." Do you think that means I believe God is on my side telling me to go to Moncton? Do you not understand the use of the word "IF"?

That, American Woman, is an excellent question. It's a hard one to answer in great detail, and I am probably not qualified to do so. I will try to offer a very general explanation. First, I would say (as I have before) that the CBC always has the incentive to be left-wing, since it's very existence is left-wing. If a person were to campaign on the right-wing (and the capitalist sense of the word) platform of selling off the CBC you can be sure that the CBC would do it's best to sell him off as a nutcase. Secondly, I would say that I am not certain where all conservatives stand on the issue of selling it off. And I think at this point in time, even though I favor the idea, the idea would have to become more popularized among the Canadian people, but I think it could be done. However, it may not be a realistic short-term goal. And finally, I'll leave it to Ronald Reagan to explain: "No government ever voluntarily reduces itself in size. Government programs, once launched, never disappear. Actually, a government bureau is the nearest thing to eternal life we'll ever see on this earth!" --Ronald Reagan

I was not referring to Babble as mainstream media. I used it to say that CBC is biased, except to people who think Babble is centrist.

I did refute it. I said it does not matter, and it does not say anything about her. You do not agree. OK. And then I addressed your comment about me being so biased that I do not care about the security of the nation by pointing out that Obama (that's the guy at the top of the democratic ticket, in case you didn't know) may not be the best choice when it comes to security. For me, Bush Doctrine takes a back seat to the deliberate crippling of the ability of national intelligence to do its job.

I don't think the Bush Doctrine matters. It is a collective term used popularly to describe any number of Bush foreign policies. I don't think it matters. As for the security of the country I would look at things like Obama's proposed amendments to the Patriot Act before it was extended in 2005. The original Patriot Act allowed the government to do a secret investigation on a suspected terrorist without notifying him/her for 180 days. When it was extended in 2005 it was amended so that the period was reduced to 30 days, but with the option that that time period could be extended given an apt reason. But Obama's proposal was to have it reduced to 7 days. Why does he want to let terrorists know they are being investigated so soon? The original Patriot Act allowed national intelligence to subpeona companies for business documents and phone records etc of a suspected terrorist. The company had to comply and was placed on a gag order, the reason being that otherwise it could allow the terrorists to know they were being surveyed. When it was extended, an amendment was made to allow that a company could hire an attorney, but Obama wanted to completely remove the gag order. Why does he want to let a terrorist know he is being investigated?

It's a web forum actually. And no it's pretty left-wing. You can not make a conservative post there without getting banned. Well, no first you get called a racist nazi bigot for..let's say...not agreeing with affirmative action policies or whatever, then you get banned. You should check it out, just for fun. www.rabble.ca/babble Not because I think it's up your alley or anything. Just for the hell of it.

The CBC is biased, except to those people who think Babble is a centrist political site with tolerance for a wide range of opinion.

Once again, the Bush Doctrine is nothing. Who says that one needs to know what you or someone else means by the Bush Doctrine in order to be Vice President? It is not a policy, it not something which was enacted, it is a political buzz word. In office, no one is going to say "Sarah should we employ the Bush Doctrine?" They will ask "Should we strike this nation which harbors terrorists?" (one definition) "Should we wage preventative war against a nation planning to acquire nuclear weapons?" (another)

But if there is no actual one definitive meaning for Bush Doctrine, then people on a web board do not know more than she does, and she did well to steer clear of it!

Is that Clinton's policy on interns?

That works two ways Bubber. If it is not called the Bush Doctrine itself, then it merely becomes yet another of the list of definitions. Sorry.

Once again, the Bush Doctrine has no one meaning, and it was not enunciated in 2002. People have used it to describe the policy of attacking nations that harbor terrorists, preventative war, etc. There is no Bush Doctrine.

uh yeah.... So whats your point. It was not relevant to my argument. I wanted to quote the text of the interview. And Charles Gibson apparently had no idea what the Bush Doctrine was when he says it was enunciated in 2002. It was not enunciated, it was not enacted, it is nothing but a popular term used to describe a broad range of Bush foreign policies. So thus, if you were asked this question, you would have no choice but to ask what the person means.