stevoh

If an individual, without permission, posts a religious artifact or symbol on government property, then of course its not an endorsement by the government. But if there is a stone tablet with the ten commandments permenantly installed in front of government property, then yes, this is an endorsement of that religion. The implication of an endorsement is due to proximity. The religious item that belongs to only one religion is displayed in front of a non religious building. That implies endorsement. When I go to a church, even on public property, there is no mixed message. I know what the purpose of the church is. I just don't want the courthouse to also have references to a religion. Because its purpose is not religious. Individuals can express any belief they wish. A turban or a ten commandments shirt, by proximity, imply that person has a relationship with a specific religion. Same thing with a public building that has a permenant religious installation. It implies a relationship between the building and the religion. On a church? Fine. On a courthouse? No.

If I see someones home with the ten commandments posted on that individuals property, I see it as an individuals expression of belief. If I see someones office with a copy of the 10 commandments on the wall, I see it as an individuals expression of belief. If I see the 10 commandments on the front lawn of a court house, I see it as an endorsement of that religion by the govenment. That goes beyond allowing the individual to express their belief system and implies government endorses christianity over all other beliefs. Publicly owned areas should be religion nuetral, either display nothing, or display religiously meaningful symbols from many different religions to show the government supports freedom of religious choice. Allowing just one religions symbol to appear on public property is the first step towards governments making laws regarding the establishment of a religion. It implies endorsement over all others.

She needs to get a few more things up than that. (no pun intented)

When I first heard Sarah Palin speak I imagine my reaction was similar to the first time a republican heard Obama speak. Oh crap! She has definitely retained that folksy charm and rural wisdom she seems to eminate. As the last election showed however, you need to have some other skills to qualify for the POTUS. If she can study up and get some more worldly understanding of various issues that go beyond Alaska and in fact beyond American borders, and develop sound conservative policy based on that, she will be a force to be reckoned with. However, if she continues to gain the media spotlight for wars with Letterman as opposed to sensible conservative policy changes, then her odds considerably decrease.

The accomplishments that most people agree with are simply not newsworthy. Not even Fox news can come up with a strong case against being better prepared for hurricanes. Obama has also made some sensible changes to recent drug laws that I cannot locate in the MSM except for a small article on a drug user having specific charges dropped. Its not like they aren't putting it out there, they had a half day media conference for the FEMA issue, and most issues are outlined on the government website. They just don't sell as many papers as "racist latinos" or "terrorists on American soil".

Take a look at some of the less newsworthy items he has been working on, such as hurricane preparedness and FEMA improvements. The contraversial news items get all the press, meanwhile he is accomplishing measurable good work that is not reported on. In other words, on hurricane preparedness and other items, he has made practical and feasible changes that are already in action.

Did the pharmacist try and remove the gun? Was the boy unconscious but still within reach of his weapon? Shoot him again in the leg, remove the weapon, that is the most drastic course of action I could defend. Unloading 5 rounds into the abdomen of a downed man is not being worried about potential retaliation. It is the intent to murder.

Well, glad to know you know more about what she meant than she herself does!

I think in our current political climate that any slight against a minority group from the majority is going to be a huge newsworthy item, whereas a minority group passing judgement on the majority is "ok" because of their background. I don't agree with it, and I hope to eventually have a world where a persons race, color, and sexual orientation simply doesn't matter, but I also understand that previously oppressed minorities have a right to feel empowered. I just wish it wasn't at the expense of the majority. And as far as the MSM defending her and the press being Obamas lap dog. I have two comments, the press and in fact the democrats are not letting Obama simply have his way, see "guantanimo detainees", and secondly, the media IS left wing biased, and I am happy to to have them on our side

So you feel being gay is a lifestyle choice? And being straight isn't?

Like I said, I am left wing biased, so unless I have really compelling evidence otherwise, I will always give another left winger the benefit of the doubt. I have no doubt, that in the same situation, if these words had come from a republican, I would view it as spin also. But since it comes from a left winger, I see it as an honest mistep.

While I understand the necessity of programs such as affirmative action, racism against non whites isn't changed through simply saying "don't be a racist", I think in this case her wording was regrettable. While I am waiting for her own response to this issue before forming any firm conclusions about what she really meant, the White House Press secretary himself has stated: I 100% agree with his assertation.

First off, yes, I am left wing biased. I fully recognize that when I read something like this, I am going to going to give anyone from Obama's team the benefit of the doubt, while anyone from the republicans I would be all over like a horny dog on your leg at a family picnic. The key for me is the statement "who hasn't lived that life". I DO happen to believe that diversity of experience will lead to better judgement, so I agree with that portion of the statement. I DO also think its unfortunate that the phrase "latino woman" is part of the statement. It does indicate, to me anyway, a bias. I could argue that a slight bias that way is an effective counter to historially obvious biases FOR white males, but I won't. For me to support it fully, it would read: "Second, I would hope that a wise person with richness of experience..."

If Obama had nominated the pope the repubs would attack him. It doesn't really matter who she is, its who nominated her. Proof? Bush Senior had also appointed her to a vital position.

I have read all about wrights beliefs, cones beliefs, Obamas years in church, and, thanks to you, even read Michelle Obama's thesis, and STILL come to the conclusion that Obama is not racist, this automatically makes me reverse racist? Sounds to me like you think anyone that disagrees with you is simply reverse racist, rather than capable of independent thought. Pretty easy way to justify your own racism I suppose.