Is Sarah Palin headed South?

You mean is she coming to Florida???? too????

Sarah Palin for President? The GOP has lost its mind and is headed South!

I missed that Sarah is stepping down as governor: when did this happen? Did she say why?

Today. And if you can translate "dumb blond" speak, you might figure out her "why". No one in the news reports could!

I got the impression that she wants to play in the WNBA.

rumor has it she is under investigation for illegal actions while governor according to reporter from Alaska on tv cable news

I've got it! She's one of Sanford's other "crossed lines" and "dirty deeds"!!!

@ladylara - OMG. That would be the most explosive piece of news ever.

WE NEED A WAGER!!! Go Jen :)

Hmm - The party of tolerance strikes again.
If Palin can get the liberal elite so worked up, then she is OK with me.

(Flame away - another 12 hour day tomorrow and I will not be here to defend myself. . . )

Whoo whoo. I am not worked up, I am laughing my socks off! But you don't need to defend yourself, Chat- you are welcome to your opinion..,as I am to mine. And that is tolerance.

No self-respecting librul would let tolerance over-ride common-sense, chatarra
Palin is a loon...not a sacred cow.

I hope she runs; it's already entertaining.

Nervous breakdown maybe?

"If Palin can get the liberal elite so worked up, then she is OK with me."

@ chatarra, and by "liberal elite" you must mean everybody that's not conservative right? Because we all know that people in general all fit into nice little compartmentalized stereotypical groups. Yeah...uh huh

This will give her more time to read all those newspapers.

@chatarra:

Yeah, good point. I am seeing what you mean about "tolerance"!

"If Palin can get the liberal elite so worked up, then she is OK with me. "

Yeah, good point, I am seeing what you mean about "tolerance" too!

@ excontender, yeah, ALL of them. How does she do it? I'm just amazed. I have trouble reading a couple let alone everything.

"(Flame away - another 12 hour day tomorrow and I will not be here to defend myself. . . )"

@ chatarra, I take it you work? A 12-hour day none the less! The Puritan work ethic has probably imparted a certain understanding of the world that escapes us other folk. I'm sure you don't hate us other Americans entirely, or...wait...we are still Americans too right? Or...maybeee not. Only Conservatives are true fellow Mericans. God Bless Merica! Love it or leave it ;) Excuse me, I've got to go do what shiftless hippies normally do. Nothing.

Hope she doesnt come to australia the third most happy place to live ......... let her stay in usa the 154 please.

Oppland
What the hell are you talking about?

LadyLara
Good point.

curios - she's coming to move in with dragonfang. their gonna sleep on your couch. woot woot! :O)

Chatarra
I confuzed

Why can't the republican party stop being their own worst enemy? You can't espouse "family values" out one side of your mouth and claim the moral high ground and be a large ego in power (i.e. abuse your power and sleep with anything that walks) without looking like a hypocrite. The republicans need to drop the Newt Gingrich contract with America social conservative BS and go back to what they did right in the 1980s and be fiscal conservatives in favor of smaller government. Take a page from the liberitarians and stay out of the lives of individuals and live your own lives, moral or not.

The democrats aren't any better; both parties are corrupt as hell, but at least they don't come off as total hypocrites when they sleep around. Sanford is a complete joke for how he behaved during the Clinton scandal and how he's behaving now. I'd encourage him to resign, but then what? More of a loss of the balance of power in congress? Yea, that worked real well between 2001-2006...

Sorry about the bold, I just meant to bold the "and" and apparently the end bold command didn't work. Ooops.

"The republicans need to drop the Newt Gingrich contract with America social conservative BS and go back to what they did right in the 1980s and be fiscal conservatives in favor of smaller government."

@ frogchop, frogchop, this isn't meant as a personal attack on you but the idea that the Republican party under Reagan was "fiscally responsible" is just simply untrue. The biggest S&L (Savings and Loans) scandals took place under Reagans administration, look it up for yourself. In fact, the similarities to today's economic crisis is strikingly similar. The American people ended up paying for the S&L scandals with their tax money and the corporate entities in this country walked scot-free. Also, the idea espoused by the Republican party concerning "smaller government" was entirely disingenous. Yeah, the Republican party espoused "smaller government" but only when it suited them. They cut public service to unprecedented levels. Mental health services, single parent homes, juvenile services, educational services. All of it was cut from the budget, meanwhile Reagan pumped all of that excess money toward the pockets of the richest and most well-off Americans.

Please note that I am a-political. I don't subscribe to any American political party, as I find them all to be corrupt in one way or another. I do however remain politically active and support the causes I believe are working to make this country, and world a better place. The fact is that there really is little difference between the Republican party and the Democrat party. The only difference is which constituents get to rob the cookie jar. Today it's the Democrats constituents, yesterday it was the Republicans and it will continue to trade off and on until the American people decide they are tired of the blatant lies. Sadly, I must say that I hold out little hope in this regard, as I believe we Americans are quite content to remain ignorant, as ignorance ultimately means we don't have to become responsible for our actions. Just the way I believe we like it, despite our best efforts to convince ourselves and the world at large. Anyway, that's only my personal opinion. Take it easy frog.

Valid point on Reagan in some ways, not valid in others. It was a bad example on my part, as we had a Republican in the presidency, and Dems running both chambers of congress. I don't want to nit-pick the details on the S&L crisis, but it was way cheaper than the banking crisis on the taxpayers, but that's based on the scope and scale. Who's to blame is the silly game that leads to fingerpointing and no real solutions. The truth is both are to blame because they're both in bed with corporations and banks.

The only time either party can behave itself with taxpayer money is when there's a split in power between the house, senate and presidency. Generally a Republican senate is the most fiscally conservative under a Democratic president, but there's been exceptions there, too. the tough part is figuring out how to do the best we can with the system we have. It's not like a third party has a chance at garnering more than a handful of seats, so we're stuck with a government that is without real checks or real change. I guess we get the government we deserve.

"I guess we get the government we deserve."

Precisely! and we've got it. Also, the idea that a viable third-party would be a to mobilize and actually form in the face of rabid political opposition by the two-party, two-power system we have is highly unlikely. The Democratic party and Republican party have worked together to insure that this scenario has little hope of coming to fruition. And I might add that it suits them well, very well. Political/Corporate domination is the order of the day and the United States is little but market to them. There is very little national allegiance anymore, politicians put on an air of concern to dupe the naive and simple-minded American, assuring them that America the beautiful and brave is a land of the "free" and "good." In the end it's all about money. People will always try to defend the religious and political tropes we hear everyday because ignorant people need something to believe in. After all, Nazi Germany needed Hitler and Hitler Germany. So America needs its daily dose of brainless propaganda so that we all continue to consume, work and keep the richest of the rich comfortable.

The idea that America as a sovereign nation still exists is just that, an idea. America is a corporate wasteland, Americans in generally are mindless consumers, albeit not intentionally mindless we have little to no understanding of our actions in terms of their long-term consequences. This planet is nearly trashed. It's not going to take very long for total collapse especially when one takes into account China and its geo-political ambitions. America is comprised of a mere 300+ million beings. What do you think is going to happen when China, made up of a billion+ people hits its stride? c'est la vie!

Meanwhile, America is willing to standby while China continues to pollute, imprison and kill its own citizens. We are even willing to give China the Olympics despite their egregious record. And why? because America's religion is the dollar. And that says what about America? You can spout all you like about our "freedom" and "democracy" but in the end, its all window dressing for our really values. Power and money. What a shame. Imagine if we actually stood for the value we espouse. How amazing that would be. Really. But life never really adds up to the dream does it?

The problem in America is that you think you are the be all and end all . i wonder what would happen if you had compulsory voting. you are certainly not a sovereign state.

And you are becoming daily a less democratic county.

Why does it takes you 2 years to vote in a president which in my opinion is wrong .and yet demand of others to do it sooner what hypocrisy.

Mind you IMO you have the right one get behind him . it takes your senate extra ages in factional arguments to get to an answer under the auspices good government what a lot of bull

"And you are becoming daily a less democratic county."

We never were a democracy to begin with. The definition of democracy is government by the people ; especially : rule of the majority. We have always been about protecting the richest among us, while feeding the far less rich among us (which is the majority) fantasies. Essentially throwing the metaphorical dog a bone. Just enough to keep the dog in line, pacified. Meanwhile, you are left to do whatever like, as the people are sufficiently bought off and lulled to sleep you make commit just about any attrocity you like. Just about, not everything, but almost. You want to go to war for profit? Just give "the people" some lame, and I mean LAME excuse and you can conduct your war. It's that easy. Act now, asks questions later. That's how are country behaves. It's really rather puerile.

Keep in mind that that every country has problems, the United States is no exceptions. Just like the Romans, they too made contributions to the world but they too were corrupt. No nation operates in a vacuum. Perhaps the problem is nations. Perhaps it's humanity that is the problem. Perhaps humanity is incapable of learning from its mistakes. It's really sad actually. Sometimes things appear very hopeless. Especially when you have so many people and so many ideas in conflict. It's hard enough to get two people to agree, let alone 6+ billion and counting. The future doesn't look bright. If we as a species manage to make it another century I'd be amazed. Very amazed.

Iraq agreed to comply with the cease fire agreement... but then didn't comply. It took us 12 years to finally enforce that agreement... that is not 'Act now, asks questions later.' as you put it.

@curios:

If you like him so much, you should invite him to be president of Australia. We would give you a good deal for him too. He is dumber than a box of rocks - he claims to be a constitutional lawyer but he can't seem to follow the US constitution. Here is an example of the latest adventure he has embarked upon:
http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalpunch/2009/07/us-russian-arms-negotiators-under-the-gun-might-temporarily-bypass-senate-ratification-for-treaty.html

oppland - "The republicans need to drop the Newt Gingrich contract with America social conservative BS - can you say republicans take control of the house for the first time in 40 years. thats all newt and the contract did..well and 80% of it was enacted into law.

all HD'rs - can somebody explain to me where this "the right is the party of family values" comes from? has any politician ever ran saying..i cheat on my wife, starve my granny, and hate my kids? i agree 100% some republicans are hypocrites. newt had a promising future till he got caught with his zipper down. the dems get caught and they lie and deny till the blue dress shows up (clinton) or the baby pops out. (edwards) i also agree that the american people as a whole are getting what the deserve. we let the govt do as they please! until the people get off their a** and vote the scoundrels in power out, things ain't gonna change. obama is such an eloquent speaker, (umm or reader of the teleprompter) is gonna change how washington works, the people over seas like him, etc is the same old politican we've always had. nothing has changed!

"Iraq agreed to comply with the cease fire agreement... but then didn't comply. It took us 12 years to finally enforce that agreement... that is not 'Act now, asks questions later.' as you put it."

@ fingers_of_fury, you make an interesting point. Perhaps you can explain so discrepancies for me? Firstly, whom has charged our country America with the authority to enforce the world? If you state the international community vis-à-vis the U.N. then we've got yet further discrepancies to clear up.

Let me explain. One, you cannot cherry-pick which U.N. resolutions you want to abide by and which you do not. Your above statement suggests that you believe ultimate authority was auhtorized and given to the "coalition" forces i.e. America and its allies to invade Iraq. Alright, understood. But to the run up to the 2003 Iraq war and after the U.N. was explicit in its opposition to the United States' plans to invade without further inspections. So here is an example of the United States disregarding the U.N..

It's pretty simple. America was being led by a conservative radical which wanted war and he wasn't interested in the U.N.s position on this matter. So we went to war anyway. Yet, you see America deferring to the U.N. when it suits its own interests. It pure hypocrisy. There is no denying it. Essentially we do what we want and if you don't back we dismiss whatever you have to say. It's the classic either you're with us or you are without argument. Which is to say it's no argument at all. It's our way or no way. This to me strikes me a self-defeating, arrogant and ass-backwards. And I am an American. And I love my country. But that doesn't mean I'm going to turn a blind eye to crimes committed by my own government.

Here's a snippet from Wikipedia: "United Nations Secretary-General Kofi Annan said in an interview with the BBC in September 2004, "[F]rom our point of view and from the Charter point of view [the war] was illegal."[210] This drew immediate criticism from the United States and was immediately played down."

This is what really happened. We broke international law. Like it or not.

oppland, i have THOROUGHLY enjoyed reading your posts here. you do a few of us proud, friend.

i couldn't agree more with what you've offered up here. but what do you expect from people willing to go to any length to 'defend our way of life'?
slaves to a soulless system and voluntarily so. breaks my heart and blows my mind.

@Notable. first we do not have a president, and a comination of yours and our premier Rudd

and the world would be a ok . remember we rank 4th in the world and the US of A 154? what a emmbarresment, have i relatives there A BIG YES.
i read your link not very impressed its a blog (one persons opinion ) join the real world my friend come out of your personal willderness smell the daiseies

Thanks conspiracy, I too always found the 'defend our way of life' assertion to be strange. I mean, what "way" of life are we talking about here? Perhaps it's the life where you are "free" to drive to the store even though it happens to be a block and a half away? or the life where you can work two jobs for 30 years and still not afford to send your kids to college and afford health insurance at the same time. Yeah, I'll get right on that! Where is my butter knife? I'm going to start defending this sh*t! right now.

curios, is dragon still with you? how could you even dare to write these comment?
*applauds*

@dieseldog,

dunno, maybe from such things like:
"Ensign, like Sanford a social conservative who promoted family and religious values and criticized President Bill Clinton for his affair with a White House intern, admitted two weeks ago to an extramarital affair with a former campaign aide."
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/06/28/potential-gop-candidates-tread-sanford-affair/
"’Family Values’ Republican Rep. Admits to Affair, Daughter"
http://www.edgeboston.com/index.php?ch=news&sc=glbt&sc2=news&sc3=&id=74269
"Of course, the Palins' predicament is a private family matter, but choosing Sarah Palin as John McCain's running mate begs this question: Is this the image that the so-called party of family values wants to put front and center?"
http://www.bvblackspin.com/2008/09/01/new-meaning-to-republican-family-values/

but, seriously, it seems to have it's origin here:
"The use of family values as a political term became widespread after a 1992 speech by Vice President Dan Quayle that attributed the Los Angeles riots to a breakdown of family values. Quayle specifically blamed the violence in L.A. as stemming from a decay of moral values and family structure in American society"
(from the comicbook: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Family_values#Political_application more details: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Family_values#Republican_Party )

hm, just stumble upon this:
http://www.armchairsubversive.org/
it just seems to be that the Republicans are even worse when it comes to the socalled family values despite their vows ...

"etc is the same old politican we've always had."
yes, of course.

and as much as you agree "100% some republicans", you should try to say "some of the dems get caught" instead of using those generalizations all the time. try it. you'll see that - if you do so - your and mine position aren't that far apart.

@ oppland, re: #38......I'm thinking that the 'way of life' ideal and mantra was born out of some sense of patriotic/religious entitlement. I say this because it seems those same folks that keep calling America a Christian nation seem to see the Judeo/Christian God as a gun loving Capitalist who rewards his 'chosen ones' with the very things he bitched about being the root of all evil.

After reading all the posts, I must shake my head as I see an America that has slowly lost its morality involving many issues to the point that nothing shocks us anymore! We have lost control in the schools and on the streets. I know that all of you younger people think that all of this is progress, but sadly, I do not! I have seen our government slowly take away our freedoms, tax us into oblivion, begin every money wasting program that they can come up with, not control our borders, and lawsuit the cost of our products and services into the stratosphere all in the name of being progressive. Both Republican and Democrats are to blame for the erosion of this country's foundation! I am astounded by our ignorance!

@ conspiracy2riot, Yeah, exactly! I have a saying, I say 'If Jesus's followers knew 1/10th of 1% about their own religion, the history and how things got the way they are...they probably wouldn't be Christians.' From everything I've read the evidence suggests that Jesus did exist, I however question whether he "walked on water" and so forth. The evidence also suggests he was more akin to a fun-loving hippie than a gun toting bible-thumper. He despised the ill-treatment of the poor and material riches. Now time-warp back to the present day and what do you see? You see politicians coddling Jesus's ideals in order to win office. You see politicians espousing "family-values" while getting sucked-off in airport bathroom stalls.

Another thing I find wildly hypocritical is when I see a "Christian" driving a huge Hummer with the "Support your Troops" bumper sticker and "Jesus Saves" sticker on the same bumper. WTF? What part of "Shall not Kill" don't you people understand? Shall not Kill doesn't have an asterisk by it does it? It's okay to kill if *You are a Christian and you have good family values. LOL! It's just so asinine. It defies logic.

The 6th Commandment does not forbid killing. It forbids murder: You shall not murder
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ten_Commandments

Romans 12:19-21
Beloved, never avenge yourselves, but leave it to the wrath of God, for it is written, “Vengeance is mine, I will repay, says the Lord.” 20 To the contrary, “if your enemy is hungry, feed him; if he is thirsty, give him something to drink; for by so doing you will heap burning coals on his head.” 21 Do not be overcome by evil, but overcome evil with good.

Additionally, Jesus warned that an unforgiving heart will destroy you in the end (Matthew 6:15; 18:35). I could go on and cite examples of how Jesus handled things, the bit about plucking the plank from your own eye, turning the other cheek, etc. Additionally nowhere in either Daniel or Revelation will you find the God of the Bible asking you to take up arms against anyone or to resist evil with violence. In fact quite the contrary. He says his followers will be taken into captivity and martyred. Now there's a sentiment you don't see coming out of the churches in America....'let's follow where He leads us even if it means death'. Not here, no way. Too many Cowboys in this country. And their all pretty much anti-abortion and pro war.

Yes, oppland...it positively reeks of hypocrisy.

@ FoF....Now....would you like to make your fairytale case of how this nation is not responsible for MURDERING ANYONE with their military actions over the years because I would really love to see you try.

"The 6th Commandment does not forbid killing. It forbids murder: You shall not murder"

Not to beat this horse to death but..."You shall not murder" And tell me is not the line between "killing" and "murder" not a subjective one? I might say you murdered someone, you might say you killed them. It just strikes me as unaccountability. You want to be "Godly" yet you want to be able to kill people at the same time. And don't you think that's the very problem with our world, that everyone seems to think their actions can be justified while others are not?

@conspiracy:

You miss the definition of murder. Let me help:

The offense of killing a human being with malice prepense or aforethought, express or implied; intentional and unlawful homicide.

Seems to me that everybody knows the meaning of 'collateral damage'. And that is to expect in advance that you will murder, kill, snuff, extinguish and bring to an end some innocent people's lives when you launch a war. So if you know it's by ACCIDENT ahead of time then it's okay? Do you really see God parsing words this way? Do you actually GET that kind of wiggle room with God's word? Just so you know I'm off to pray for you in an effort to heap coals on your head....

kru - once again you interpurt what you want, then say thats what was said.

you should try to say "some of the dems get caught" instead of using those generalizations all the time. - show me where i said ALL dems get caught. i used clinton and edwards as an example. thats a far cry from all dems.

con2 - lecturing us on her interpation of the bible yet again. rotflol

If it can be demonstrated that God uses the word with that distinction, then your theory loses some of its shine, doesn't it?

Now, can you point me to a passage where God uses the word "murder" for war?

Nobody is arguing that war is a good thing or fun in any way, only that you cannot mix definitions and end up with any kind of coherent rationalization for your position.

@KRU AND D/d. YES i can write those comments why becouse i live in a true land of the free.
yes old man dragon is still here you realise kru he is d/d cousin and i have been told to look after him.
the ships have left they are going east(Queensland) for war games.

@conspiracy2riot - the very next chapter from the book you quote sheds light on how God administers justice: "...The authorities that exist have been established by God... rulers hold no terror for those who do right, but for those who do wrong... he [rulers/authorities/government] does not bear the sword for nothing..."

If I witnessed someone attempting to kill you, my stopping them (including killing them if necessary) to preserve your life would not be vengeance but a justifiable homicide. The police hunting them down to bring them before a judge and jury is also not vengeance but justice.

It would be vengeance if I hunted them down to kill them, in effect making myself judge, jury and executioner. Civil societies establish rules and laws for the proper administration of justice.

Vengeance, justice, killing and murder are unique words with very different meanings.

"You miss the definition of murder. Let me help:

The offense of killing a human being with malice prepense or aforethought, express or implied; intentional and unlawful homicide."

@ notable, oh, okay then, so if I send others to do my bidding, fight my wars of profit "I'm" personally not responsible or held accountable because according to your definition the difference between "murder" and "killing" is merely a semantic one. I may not intend to kill anyone one particular person but by my actions the likelihood of someone dying directly or indirectly by my actions are great. In other other words; same f'ing thing!

You are trying to separate the wheat from the chaff. You wish to have your cake and eat it too. God's law doesn't have a full page of fine print. It's quite straight forward. You can twist, contort and distort God's law to your liking but there it ceases to be "God's law" It then becomes your justifications for your actions in which you are trying to satisfy your conscience.

@dieseldog #49,
"show me where"
just move back to your comment #34:
- "i agree 100% some republicans are hypocrites." (limitation)
- "the dems get caught and they lie and deny" (generalization)
Clinton and Edwards in this case were used as an example (like you say). You used them to backup your allegation about the dems.
If this is not what you meant, then don't write it that way. If it is what you meant, then what's your point?


"once again you interpurt [sic] what you want, then say thats what was said."
yes, I interpret what I read. like anyone else: just look at how the people read the bible and interpret what they want!

dieseldog - lecturing us on how to argue again rotflmao
(see, this is an offending sentence, isn't it?)

once again your interpation of what somebody else said. you just can't help yourself. no need to deny that using the word the doesn't mean all/generalization. who wrote it? who decided to interpurt the authors meaning again? your always trying to nit-pic and cause trouble where there is none. maybe you should go lay down and rest. ROTFLOL

If this is not what you meant, then don't write it that way. - if i need your advice on how to write what i want to i'll ask for it. ROTFLOL who made you king of HD to tell people how they should write things? same question on how things should be interpreted? now run along your starting to get on my nerves.

it seems those same folks that keep calling America a Christian nation - well seeing that all 50 states Preambles mention God i would say america is a christian nation. darn it don't ya hate it when the facts get in the way. :O)

Anyway, back on topic guys. This was a nice little diversion but I think we are detracting from the question at hand: Is Sarah Palin headed South?

"once again your interpation of what somebody else said."

its the explanation of the interpretation of what you said. you asked for it. it's nothing new. it's no new interpretation, just the explanation of the original interpretation. obviously I am the only one who actually makes the effort to interpret (read: understand) what the other one is saying. in case it isn't what you meant, I am clearly willing to listen what you intended to say. but don't attack me if I explain to you why or how I come to a specific conclusion.

and as an aside: you should consider to stop laughing at other HD members. it doesn't suit your image as respectable, high standing HD buddy.

"now run along"
why should I? who made you king of HD to tell people that they should run along?

NN

"You miss the definition of murder. Let me help:

The offense of killing a human being with malice prepense or aforethought, express or implied; intentional and unlawful homicide"

One word that jumps out at me is 'unlawful'. That is, the definition does not actually provide for the distinction of murder and killing in and of itself. Rather, it makes only 'unlawful' killing 'murder'.So what is unlawful? Circles within circles. It is complex and i doubt that the distinction is capable of precise definition. Hence we have judges to determine whether a killing is unlawful depending on the circumstances. Those circumstances are near infinite in their variations.


DD

"it seems those same folks that keep calling America a Christian nation - well seeing that all 50 states Preambles mention God i would say america is a christian nation. darn it don't ya hate it when the facts get in the way. :O)"

Am I correct in assuming that your definition of whether a particular nation can be categorised as of a particular religious persuasion depends on the preamble to legislation that sets out that states consitituion?

Or are other factors (such as whether the people in the said state actually practice, or live in accordance with, the said religious persuasion, also relevant?

(Dont ya hate it when analysis gets in the way :0)

D/d and KRUS,
its not nice when i see two friends argue over murder.

i leave this as just one of several,please read and settle down. in fact all of you read!!!

http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m4021/is_2001_Nov_1/ai_79501192/

You can believe in God, but not believe that Jesus was the son of God. Therefore, a preamble mentioning God does not equate to "Christian." Faulty logic.

"well seeing that all 50 states Preambles mention God i would say america is a christian nation"

then the US of A are a more fundamental religious nation as, let's say, Turkey. wouldn't you agree?

"Palin said she has started a legal defense fund to raise money for legal fees."

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/07/07/palin-blasts-critics-resignation-announcement/

Republicans logic: She defends herself - that's very suspicious .... she actually must be guilty than.

:-P

@curios,
Just to let you know: I am against death penalty.

@ FoF & NN, see, here's the beauty of the entire book of Romans, it is about the law, works, faith and grace (how to behave) and how they translate into a PERSONAL relationship with God thru (or thanks to) Jesus. And that would be the portion of the program where one experiences a 'change of heart'. It's about tolerance and compassion and not passing judgment. It's about ALL the commandments being summed in one rule, " ...Love your neighbor as yourself, Love does no harm to it's neighbor, Therefore Love is the fulfillment of the Law." This would be what followed that 'does not bear the sword for nothing' part of Rom. 13.

The 'body of Christ' is not a country called America. But somehow, it seems, many Christians have come to think of it this way.

Both Rick Warren and G.W. were big on that snippet of Rom. 13 you trotted out and they liked to speak of the do gooders (us) and evil doers (whomever we target). You just can't cherry pick scripture to support decisions in which ALL these other things that clearly mean so much to God are dismissed.

But I'm done with my Bible lesson here because I don't think d-dawg can bear having his shot glass of reality tampered with any further...so I'm taking opplands advice and jumping back on topic.....which was what? Will Sarah rent or buy some property near a political power hub....to which I say no. Like any good Christian I'm sure God wants her making big bucks without people pickin' on her.

buckyojo - Am I correct in assuming that your definition of whether a particular nation can be categorised as of a particular religious persuasion depends on the preamble to legislation that sets out that states consitituion

you would be correct if you thought i ment the USA was founded and built by God fearing men and women. its on the money, the supreme court, (serval places) you put your hand on the bible in court, the president takes the oath with his hand on the bible, etc. when the things i just mentioned are FACTS,</> i would call that nation a christian nation. some folks might not like that, but the facts are the facts. just so i'm clear, i'm NOT saying all people in the USA are God fearing folk, nor that all presidents placed their hand on a bible why taking the oath.

curios - i'm not arguing over murder. i'm not in that debate. the bible gives the govt the power of the sword. so when people say you can't be a christian and believe in the death penalty, i saw imo they can. jesus among others have high praise for the centurions as well. so war is not a never do thing that some claim it is imo. is war something that should be taken lightly..NO! it doesn't make you a sinner either imo.

kru - Republicans logic: She defends herself - that's very suspicious .... she actually must be guilty than. - if i was like somebody else i would call that a generalization of all republicans.

I am the only one who actually makes the effort to interpret (read: understand) what the other one is saying. - no your the only one who who interprets what others say through your eyes not theirs. then proceed to tell them what they said.

conartist - so glad your done giving bible lessons. i see we're not pose to pick and chose but its fine for you to. i still find it hilarious when you give folks bible lessons. by all means refresh us on what the bible says about man having sex with another man. yeah, yeah, i know it has nothing to do with this subject, but it will give us all an insight as to how you interpurt scripture. :O)

this subject has passed my self imposed rule of the 50 comments. i admit i had my part in going off subject. if you would like to continue having me beat your pants off on the subject you can create a forum, and post the link. other wise i prolly won't answer many responses to my brillant and unflawed comment above. i might eventually respond every 5 days or so..depending the comments left. :O)

oppsy goofed up the html. my apologies.

DD - you and I must have different definitions relating to whether a country can be categorised as of a particular religious perusasion.

IMO if a country was founded by, say, Jews, and the infrastruture has links to Judaism (for example swearing on the Torah in court) but the majority of people eat pork and otherwise largely do not live in accordance with Judaism, it would be absurd to refer to that country as a 'Jewish' nation.

The USA is a christian nation like Madonna's a virgin.

The bald spot on the top of my head was HOT and RED all day long... I thought: "conspiracy2riot & Reverend Wright - stop praying to heap coals of fire on my head!"

...but then I remembered it was 106°F. I finished drinking my Big-Gulp.

;-)

Personally Ive always found reliance on the bible to sustain arguement as..well...a bit silly.

Silly because pointing to the bible as a document that we should be paying attention to seems to indicate that the folliwng are worth paying attention to :

On Punishing ‘Immorality’

Leviticus 20:9
If anyone curses his father or mother, he must be put to death.
20:10 If a man commits adultery with another man’s wife—with the wife of his neighbor—both the adulterer and the adulteress must be put to death.
20:13 If a man lies with a man as one lies with a woman, both of them have done what is detestable. They must be put to death.
Deuteronomy 22:20-1 If, however, the charge is true and no proof of the girl’s virginity can be found, she shall be brought to the door of her father’s house and there the men of her town shall stone her to death. She has done a disgraceful thing in Israel by being promiscuous while still in her father’s house.
Exodus 35:2
For six days, work is to be done, but the seventh day shall be your holy day, a Sabbath of rest to the LORD. Whoever does any work on it must be put to death.

On Destroying Other People

Deuteronomy 7:1-2 When the Lord your God brings you into the land you are entering to possess and drives out before you many nations . . . then you must destroy them totally. Make no treaty with them, and show them no mercy.
20:10-17 When you march up to attack a city, make its people an offer of peace. If they accept and open their gates, all the people in it shall be subject to forced labor and shall work for you. If they refuse to make peace and they engage you in battle, lay siege to that city. When the Lord your God delivers it into your hand, put to the sword all the men in it. As for the women, the children, the livestock and everything else in the city, you may take these as plunder for yourselves. . . . This is how you are to treat all the cities that are at a distance from you and do not belong to the nations nearby.
However, in the cities of the nations the Lord your God is giving you as an inheritance, do not leave alive anything that breathes. Completely destroy them—the Hittites, Amorites, Canaanites, Perizzites, Hivites and Jebusites—as the Lord your God has commanded you.
On the Evil of Biblical Law

Ezekiel 20:25-26 I also gave them over to statutes that were not good and laws they could not live by; I let them become defiled through their gifts—the sacrifice of every firstborn—that I might fill them with horror so they would know that I am the LORD.

On Slavery & Subjugation of Women

Ephesians 5:22-24 Wives, submit to your husbands as to the Lord. For the husband is the head of the wife as Christ is the head of the church, his body, of which he is the Savior. Now as the church submits to Christ, so also wives should submit to their husbands in everything.
Exodus 21:20-21 If a man beats his male or female slave with a rod and the slave dies as a direct result, he must be punished, but he is not to be punished if the slave gets up after a day or two, since the slave is his property.
1 Peter 2:13 Submit yourselves for the Lord’s sake to every authority instituted among men.
2:18 Slaves, submit yourselves to your masters with all respect, not only to those who are good and considerate, but also to those who are harsh.
Leviticus 25:44-45
Your male and female slaves are to come from the nations around you; from them you may buy slaves. You may also buy some of the temporary residents living among you and members of their clans born in your country, and they will become your property.
Jesus, on His Second Coming

Matthew 24:29-34
[T]he sun will be darkened, and the moon will not give its light; the stars will fall from the sky, and the heavenly bodies will be shaken. . . . They will see the Son of Man coming on the clouds of the sky, with power and great glory. . . . I tell you the truth, this generation will certainly not pass away until all these things have happened. [Emphasis added.]
16:27-28
For the Son of Man is going to come in his Father’s glory with his angels, and then he will reward each person according to what he has done. I tell you the truth, some who are standing here will not taste death before they see the Son of Man coming in his kingdom.

A Few Scientific Errors

(1) Rabbits don’t chew cud.
Deuteronomy 14:6-7
You may eat any animal that has a split hoof divided in two and that chews the cud. However, of those that chew the cud or that have a split hoof completely divided you may not eat the camel, the rabbit, or the coney.
(2) No insects (including grasshoppers) are 4-legged.
Leviticus 11:20-22
All flying insects that walk on all fours are to be detestable to you. There are, however, some winged creatures that walk on all fours that you may eat: those that have jointed legs for hopping on the ground. Of these you may eat any kind of locust, katydid, cricket or grasshopper.
(3) This is only possible on a flat earth.
Matthew 4:8
Again the devil took him to a very high mountain and showed him all the kingdoms of the world and their splendor.
(4) pi does not = 3.
1 Kings 7:23
He made the Sea of cast metal, circular in shape, measuring ten cubits from rim to rim . . . It took a line of thirty cubits to measure around it.
(5) The earth moves. It does not have a foundation.
Psalms 104:5
He set the earth on its foundations; it can never be moved.

Some Selected Contradictions

(1)
2 Kings 2:11 As they were walking along and talking together, suddenly a chariot of fire and horses of fire appeared and separated the two of them, and Elijah went up to heaven in a whirlwind.
John 3:13 No one has ever gone into heaven except the one who came from heaven—the Son of Man.
(2)
Numbers 23:19 God is not a man, that he should lie, nor a son of man, that he should change his mind.
Exodus 32:14 Then the Lord relented and did not bring on his people the disaster he had threatened.
(3)
Ephesians 2:8-9 For it is by grace you have been saved, through faith . . . not by works.
James 2:14-17 What good is it, my brothers, if a man claims to have faith but has no deeds? Can such faith save him? . . . Faith by itself, if it is not accompanied by action, is dead.
Revelation 22:12 Behold, I am coming soon! My reward is with me, and I will give to everyone according to what he has done.
(4) (Jesus speaking)
Matthew 5:16 Let your light shine before men, that they may see your good deeds and praise your father in heaven.
Matthew 6:1 Be careful not to do your ‘acts of righteousness’ before men, to be seen by them.
(5) (Jesus speaking)
John 14:27 Peace I leave with you; my peace I give you.
Matthew 10:34 Do not suppose that I have come to bring peace to the earth. I did not come to bring peace, but a sword.
(6)
Genesis 32:30 So Jacob called the place Peniel, saying, “It is because I saw God face to face, and my life was preserved.”
Exodus 33:11 The Lord would speak to Moses face to face, as a man speaks with his friend.
John 1:18 No one has ever seen God.
(7) (Jesus speaking)
John 5:31 If I testify about myself, my testimony is not valid.
John 8:14 Even if I testify on my own behalf, my testimony is valid

so, diesel-"now run along your starting to get on my nerves"-dog, you don't recognize the irony, even if I mark it with an

:-P

now that is getting on my nerves....

If she wants to add to her foreign affairs resume she should move to Texas. She can get an apartment on the Rio Grande with a southern exposure. This way she can look out her window and see Mexico.

@charlesf:

You are thinking about Tina Fey, not Sarah - that is what happens when you rely on comedy for your education!

? - didnt Palin state her foreign affairs portfolio was bolstered by being able to see 'Russia from my house'? BTW - I think your selling Palin short by excluding her from the category of 'comedy' :)

Nope, that was Tina Fey spoofing Sarah Palin's gracious defense of Cindy McCain's stupid comment about Alaska's proximity to Russia.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eXVIwo5fLYs

Thanks for the clarification. Its interesting that Fey's 'sppof' was of Palins' actual statement with reporter Charles Gibson :

GIBSON: "What insight into Russian actions, particularly in the last couple of weeks, does the proximity of the state give you?

PALIN: They're our next door neighbors and you can actually see Russia from land here in Alaska, from an island in Alaska."

One of the reasons that Fey's take off was funny was that it was believable in that it was not too far from the truth (as good comedy often is).

No doubt it was funny... I frequently spoof that line: "And I can see <<insert xyz here>> from my house!"

This should stick to Gibson too for starting the Russia questions in this context:
GIBSON: Let me ask you about some specific national security situations.
PALIN: Sure.
GIBSON: Let’s start, because we are near Russia, let’s start with Russia and Georgia.

He sets up the 'nearness' (borrowed from a previous Cindy McCain blunder) and then makes the proximity to Russia appear to be her idea concerning her national security qualifications. She should have bounced that back at him immediately, with something like: I didn't say that, those were your words Charilie... BUT that would have opened the door for Gibson to remind everyone that those were originally Cindy's words thereby forcing Palin to ridicule or defend Cindy's stupid comments.

Here's the wider context:

PALIN: First off, we’re going to continue good relations with Saakashvili there. I was able to speak with him the other day and giving him my commitment, as John McCain’s running mate, that we will be committed to Georgia. And we’ve got to keep an eye on Russia. For Russia to have exerted such pressure in terms of invading a smaller democratic country, unprovoked, is unacceptable and we have to keep…

GIBSON: You believe unprovoked.

PALIN: I do believe unprovoked and we have got to keep our eyes on Russia, under the leadership there. I think it was unfortunate. That manifestation that we saw with that invasion of Georgia shows us some steps backwards that Russia has recently taken away from the race toward a more democratic nation with democratic ideals. That’s why we have to keep an eye on Russia.
And, Charlie, you’re in Alaska. We have that very narrow maritime border between the United States, and the 49th state, Alaska, and Russia. They are our next door neighbors.We need to have a good relationship with them. They’re very, very important to us and they are our next door neighbor.

GIBSON: What insight into Russian actions, particularly in the last couple of weeks, does the proximity of the state give you?

PALIN: They’re our next door neighbors and you can actually see Russia from land here in Alaska, from an island in Alaska.

GIBSON: What insight does that give you into what they’re doing in Georgia?

PALIN: Well, I’m giving you that perspective of how small our world is and how important it is that we work with our allies to keep good relation with all of these countries, especially Russia. We will not repeat a Cold War. We must have good relationship with our allies, pressuring, also, helping us to remind Russia that it’s in their benefit, also, a mutually beneficial relationship for us all to be getting along.

The context is interesting. Certainly Gibson appears to have lead her down the path.