Patterico's Pontifications

9/10/2008

What Palin Will Say to ABC’s Charlie Gibson

Filed under: 2008 Election — DRJ @ 3:42 pm



[Guest post by DRJ]

Today in a speech in Virginia, Sarah Palin gave us a preview of what she will say in her interview with ABC’s Charlie Gibson:

“Just the other day, our opponent brought up earmarks, and frankly I was surprised that he did, considering his record on earmarks. I didn’t think he’d want to go there. In just three years, our opponent has requested nearly a billion dollars in earmarks, and that’s about a million dollars every working day.

We reformed the abuses of earmarks in our state, and it was while our opponent was requesting a billion dollars in earmarks as a Senatorial privilege. What I was doing was vetoing half a billion dollars as an executive responsibility.”

Video and commentary is at the link from Hot Air.

— DRJ

131 Responses to “What Palin Will Say to ABC’s Charlie Gibson”

  1. Just curious.

    How does she know what the questions are before the interview has even taken place?

    jharp (a28e4a)

  2. Do you think that somehow the subject won’t come up, rag?

    Icy Truth (6273ad)

  3. jharp,

    In addition to our many other talents, conservative women have a sixth sense when it comes to media questions.

    EDIT: You realize this was just part of her speech, right? I’ve edited the post to make that clear.

    DRJ (7568a2)

  4. Check out this scorecard just released.

    http://councilfor.cagw.org/site/PageServer?pagename=reports_Ratings_Intro

    McCain was given a 100% rating against earmarks last year. Biden? ZERO percent – he voted for every earmark. BHO? 10%.

    Tell me again why the Dems will choose to attack Palin? Well, it is very simple, and very obvious: at all costs they must discredit Palin. If they don’t, they lose.

    The beauty part, as DRJ and many others have noted, is that it is a big trap for them. Experience? Fiscal responsibility? Even if they manage to stain Palin, the Dems will be digging a deeper hole.

    Ed (f35a20)

  5. Every time I hear Baracky talking about the Bridge to Nowhere, I chuckle. I just know that they are waiting to hit him with a haymaker on that issue. Eapecially since Baracky and Biden voted in favor of it every chance they got.

    JD (5f0e11)

  6. In addition to our many other talents, conservative women have a sixth sense when it comes to media questions.

    Sigh. There aren’t enough hours in the day to list all those talents, DRJ! Hopefully jharp will spend more time with them, he’ll get some learning.

    Dana (084de8)

  7. “In addition to our many other talents, conservative women have a sixth sense when it comes to media questions.”

    Good one. That explains it.

    Let me guess. God speaks to her and lets her know what’s going to be asked.

    jharp (a28e4a)

  8. Or God speaks to me and I mind-meld with Sarah Palin. Then again, maybe it’s neither. Maybe I’m just kidding.

    DRJ (7568a2)

  9. We reformed the abuses of earmarks in our state

    Palin, meanwhile, has requested $3.2 million to be spent in part researching the “genetics of harbor seals

    (link)

    jpe (bd88bc)

  10. #9, this should certainly relieve those who have criticized her for not caring about the wildlife of Alaska…you know, the PETA groups.

    Dana (084de8)

  11. “Hopefully jharp will spend more time with them, he’ll get some learning.”

    He doesn’t need any more learning, apparently – just ask him to detail his impressive and amazing (and still growing with each posting) list of lifetime accomplishments and achievements. Truly, one who has seen everything, knows everything, has done everything, and is never ignorant on any subject known to man.

    Dmac (e639cc)

  12. “Hopefully jharp will spend more time with them, he’ll get some learning.”

    — Conservative women don’t sell it on the street corner!

    Icy Truth (202292)

  13. DRJ,

    I keep forgetting you are a conservative woman.

    Just curious.

    How can you justify that knowing that without liberals you would not even be allowed to vote?

    jharp (a28e4a)

  14. jharp, that comment to DRJ shows your ignorance of political history rather well.

    SPQR (26be8b)

  15. jharp (#13): You’re disgusting. The decent people I know who are left-of-center, some of whom self-identify as “liberal,” would find you an acute embarrassment.

    Beldar (8a23eb)

  16. How can you justify that knowing that without liberals you would not even be allowed to vote?

    — Huh? Because liberals — allegedly — won women the right to vote, women should all be voting for liberals? What — they owe you? They won the right to vote but not the right to decide?

    Icy Truth (202292)

  17. Good Question #9 but 3.2 million for harbor seals is much less than Obama’s $8.5 million to prevent Asian Carp fish from entering the Great Lakes through the Chicago waterways

    Michael (e02a51)

  18. I suppose jharp has no problem with Obama earmarking $1 million for the university that gave his wife a raise of $1 million over his 6 year term.

    But probably why Sarah is surprised Barry would try that tack.

    Kevin Murphy (0b2493)

  19. And, damn, can we libertarians have the “Liberal” word back, please. All these other guys are doing is dragging it through the mud.

    How “liberal” can to describe a position akin to socialism is a mystery — in most places (e.g. Eastern Europe) “Liberal” and “socialist” are diametric opposites.

    Kevin Murphy (0b2493)

  20. jharpy – That was your most moronic comment to date. No small feat.

    JD (5f0e11)

  21. Earmarks are normal. Most people are stupid enough to attribute the phenomenon of earmarking to doing personal favors for people, being skeptical of how politicians may or may not divert taxpaying citizens’ funds to something that might be of questionable practice only because its one person handling a large amount of money that they themselves could not fathom doing. Most people who cry about this probably don’t even vote in local elections, when it counts. But in actuality – THAT IS HOW OUR COUNTRY WORKS!!! If we did not have this system in place, we would not have a civilized country. It is literally the heartbeat of our nation. HOWEVER!!! – What we can do [as being the voters who vote], is analyze precisley how the [un]disclosed money gets diverted toward nonsensical projects, like a “Bridge to Nowhere.” Which Sarah Palin actually is lying about how she said she opposed the bridge to nowhere, but then never returned the money for it!! It’s rediculous to claim to be a maverick, and then turn around and keep the money and spend it for something else. People who vote for Mccain are simply dumb.

    Daniel (910f86)

  22. Good greif, did someone just bring up PETA like they care about animals, rather than “animal rights”?

    http://www.wesleyjsmith.com/blog/2008/07/some-truths-about-peta-and-hsus.html

    Foxfier (15ac79)

  23. And, OF COURSE, when I said “allegedly,” I somehow knew I would be proven correct. From The New York Times, Thursday, June 5, 1919:

    After a long and persistent fight advocates of woman suffrage won a victory in the Senate today when that body, by a vote of 56 to 25, adopted the Susan Anthony [19th] amendment to the Constitution. YES votes – 36 Republicans, 20 Democrats; NO votes – 8 Republicans, 17 Democrats.

    Wrong AGAIN, jharp.

    Icy Truth (94cc06)

  24. Daniel, you almost showed a grasp of reality there. It is the job of Congress to levy taxes and determine how the public purse is to be spent.

    But then you jump the rails right off into cuckoo land.

    In fact, your post reads as if it were written by two different people. Grammatically and punctuationally correct in the first part, but degrading rapidly after the dramatic “HOWEVER!!!” as a moonbat takes over.

    If there really is only a single person sitting at the keyboard there, you might want to see a doctor about that.

    EW1(SG) (1c0755)

  25. jharp, that comment to DRJ shows your ignorance of political history rather well.

    Comment by SPQR — 9/10/2008 @ 5:57 pm

    Link? I’d like to know the story.

    With the strong response it sure seems as if there is something I don’t know.

    Thanks in advance.

    jharp (a28e4a)

  26. “After a long and persistent fight advocates of woman suffrage won a victory in the Senate today when that body, by a vote of 56 to 25, adopted the Susan Anthony [19th] amendment to the Constitution. YES votes – 36 Republicans, 20 Democrats; NO votes – 8 Republicans, 17 Democrats.”

    I thought I was pretty clear that liberals were the ones to thank. Not democrats or republicans.

    Thanks but your post brings us to an entirely different debate.

    jharp (a28e4a)

  27. jharp, they were not “liberals”. The term did not exist, and the ideological positions of the time do not match the term once it is later created.

    You really don’t understand political history at all.

    SPQR (26be8b)

  28. Bet he thinks liberals made the Civil Rights bill possible…

    Scott Jacobs (d3a6ec)

  29. SPQR,

    Granting women the right to vote is clearly a liberal idealogy regardless of what they were called at that time.

    As was allowing blacks and whites to marry a liberal position.

    Conservatism, on the other hand, clearly stands against both issues.

    Definition – “Conservatism is a term used to describe political philosophies that favour tradition, where tradition refers to various religious, cultural, or nationally defined beliefs and customs.”

    jharp (a28e4a)

  30. Bet he thinks liberals made the Civil Rights bill possible…

    Comment by Scott Jacobs — 9/10/2008 @ 6:42 pm

    Yeah, I do.

    I’ll bet you think dixiecrats were liberals.

    jharp (a28e4a)

  31. jharp, no, it isn’t. That just shows your narrow view of the world.

    SPQR (26be8b)

  32. You really don’t understand political history at all.

    Comment by SPQR — 9/10/2008 @ 6:37 pm

    Please, enlighten me.

    I open to learning something new every day.

    jharp (a28e4a)

  33. Yet another example of jharpy’s aggressive ignorance.

    JD (5f0e11)

  34. jharp, just because one single policy position is shared by a particular political ideology does not make everyone who shared that single policy position a member of that ideology.

    By your logic, you are a Communist since the Communist Manifesto called for at least one policy position you now support.

    Frankly, I don’t think you can be enlightened.

    SPQR (26be8b)

  35. DRJ,

    I keep forgetting you are a conservative woman.
    Just curious.
    How can you justify that knowing that without liberals you would not even be allowed to vote?

    Comment by jharp — 9/10/2008 @ 5:53 pm

    I don’t think about women’s suffrage that often. I’m fortunate to live in a country where men and women came before me and did the hard work that make my life easy and secure.

    People like my great-grandmother who was orphaned in North Texas at age 13 after her family and others in their wagon train were killed by Indians. She married at 14 and raised 8 children on a West Texas ranch, delivering some of them by herself and single-handedly protecting them from human and animal predators while her husband tended to their livestock or was away on cattle drives. She lived to be 104 and she didn’t need the vote to know how to fend for herself. Neither do I.

    In addition, people like the men and women of our military who have fought for and fight today to protect all Americans. In fact, they make our lives so secure that we have the luxury to think the right to vote is our most important right.

    DRJ (7568a2)

  36. May 21, 1919
    Republican House passes constitutional amendment granting women the vote with 85% of Republicans in favor, but only 54% of Democrats

    — Tell me again, jharp, how it was liberals that gave women the right to vote?

    Icy Truth (2c3adb)

  37. DRJ – As always, I marvel at your kindness and patience.

    JD (5f0e11)

  38. SPQR,

    “jharp, just because one single policy position is shared by a particular political ideology does not make everyone who shared that single policy position a member of that ideology.”

    Agreed.

    I simply asked DRJ “that knowing that without liberals you would not even be allowed to vote how can you justify being a conservative”

    “By your logic, you are a Communist since the Communist Manifesto called for at least one policy position you now support.”

    What the hell are you talking about. I only asked a simple straight forward question.

    And DRJ answered.

    “I don’t think about women’s suffrage that often. I’m fortunate to live in a country where men and women came before me and did the hard work that make my life easy and secure.”

    I guess we can stop thinking about what the founders fought and died for and just be grateful that they did.

    Using DRJ’s logic.

    jharp (a28e4a)

  39. May 21, 1919
    Republican House passes constitutional amendment granting women the vote with 85% of Republicans in favor, but only 54% of Democrats

    – Tell me again, jharp, how it was liberals that gave women the right to vote?

    Comment by Icy Truth — 9/10/2008 @ 7:02 pm

    Try to keep up.

    I said liberals. Not Democrats or Republicans.

    Or do you think the Dixiecrats were liberals too?

    jharp (a28e4a)

  40. Do you history revisionists think the founders were conservative too?

    jharp (a28e4a)

  41. Or what Gibson should ask Palin. Starting from all those half-truths and lies she keeps pandering to.

    love2008 (1b037c)

  42. from The History of the House of Representatives:
    The House passed the resolution on May 21, 1919, by a vote of 304 to 89, with 200 Republicans, 102 Democrats, 1 Prohibitionist, and 1 Independent voting “aye,” and 19 Republicans and 70 Democrats voting “no.”

    Thanks but your post brings us to an entirely different debate.
    — Don’t you even try to put this on me! YOU brought it up, and now YOU need to deal with it.

    Icy Truth (2c3adb)

  43. I guess we can stop thinking about what the founders fought and died for and just be grateful that they did.

    Using DRJ’s logic.

    Comment by jharp — 9/10/2008 @ 7:05 pm

    I don’t think you understand my logic. I believe people need to prioritize what’s important in life. Voting is important but so is freedom. The right to vote is small consolation if we live in a country where it’s a meaningless right.

    DRJ (7568a2)

  44. love, don’t end a sentence with a preposition; it reflects poorly upon thee.

    [did you receive a new message?]

    Icy Truth (2c3adb)

  45. #

    from The History of the House of Representatives:
    The House passed the resolution on May 21, 1919, by a vote of 304 to 89, with 200 Republicans, 102 Democrats, 1 Prohibitionist, and 1 Independent voting “aye,” and 19 Republicans and 70 Democrats voting “no.”

    Thanks but your post brings us to an entirely different debate.
    – Don’t you even try to put this on me! YOU brought it up, and now YOU need to deal with it.

    Comment by Icy Truth — 9/10/2008 @ 7:14 pm

    Put the bong away and read my original post.

    DRJ,

    I keep forgetting you are a conservative woman.

    Just curious.

    How can you justify that knowing that without liberals you would not even be allowed to vote?

    Comment by jharp — 9/10/2008 @ 5:53 pm

    And please note I made no mention of Democrats or republicans.

    I tried to be as clear as I could that I meant liberals.

    jharp (a28e4a)

  46. jharp, you are using a term that was invented more than a generation after the event you reference and you are calling me a history revisionist?

    It has long been clear that you are well over your head in every discussion you either insert yourself or even attempt to start. You certainly have given up any right to a presumption of good faith in any comment you make.

    SPQR (26be8b)

  47. Try to keep up. I said liberals. Not Democrats or Republicans. Or do you think the Dixiecrats were liberals too?

    — Let’s see: Dixiecrats – formed in 1948. Whoops!

    Icy Truth (2c3adb)

  48. I don’t think you understand my logic. I believe people need to prioritize what’s important in life. Voting is important but so is freedom. The right to vote is small consolation if we live in a country where it’s a meaningless right.

    Comment by DRJ — 9/10/2008 @ 7:16 pm

    You are right I don’t.

    The right to vote is the most important right we have in this great country.

    It’s kind of what we fought the American revolution for. You know “taxation without representation” and all that stuff.

    And liberal fought tooth and nail for 30 years to grant women that precious right.

    And you don’t think about it much? Oh, well.

    jharp (a28e4a)

  49. jharp,

    Who are you talking about if not the legislators who voted for women’s suffrage?

    Perhaps you mean the women of the Christian temperance movement, virtually all of whom were active in the suffrage movement. You do realize conservative Christian females were the prime movers behind the women’s right to vote?

    DRJ (7568a2)

  50. Liberals did not fight for 30 years to grant women the right to vote – it is just a flat out false statement. Like most of your, jharp.

    SPQR (26be8b)

  51. Whatever, Icy.
    Talking about panic, me thinks this post title reveals a little uncertainty and trepidation in the Palin camp about her forth-coming interview. “What Palin will say to Abc’s Gibson..” Sounds like putting words in your candidates mouth. Whats the hurry. Let the interview take its natural course. After all, she has nothing to be afraid of. Right?

    love2008 (0c8c2c)

  52. Did you hear Biden say that Hillary would be a better VP than he would? He said that today, love. There’s only one side panicking here.

    Icy Truth (2c3adb)

  53. You are wearing me down and I must prepare for a golf match and a business trip.

    All of you know dam well it is the liberal ideal that won women the right to vote.

    And the conservative ideal is to keep things as they are.

    Good luck selling your snake oil to the uneducated fools who will buy it.

    I’m standing for what I believe in til I go to grave.

    Equal rights for all. (And yes, that includes gay people, and Muslims too)

    jharp (a28e4a)

  54. I’m standing for what I believe in til I go to grave.

    Equal rights for all. (And yes, that includes gay people, and Muslims too)

    Really? So my cousin can read her Bible in study hall now?

    Oh, wait, you meant for everyone but white christians…

    Scott Jacobs (d3a6ec)

  55. “Facts don’t matter. What I feel matters.”

    jharp, posting on any topic

    steve miller (dcbd46)

  56. jharp, frankly you are the uneducated one here. The “snake oil” is your continuous contribution.

    SPQR (26be8b)

  57. #52
    How is that any sign of panic? The man is just trying to win over whatever is left of Hillary’s base by praising her. It’s politics man.
    Joe Biden:
    “Make no mistake about this, Hillary Clinton is as qualified or more qualified than I am to be vice president of the United States of America. Let’s get that straight,” Biden said testily when a voter told Biden he was glad the Delaware senator had been chosen and not Clinton.

    Watch: Biden opens up about death of first wife

    “She’s a truly close personal friend and she is qualified to be President of the United States of America, she’s easily qualified to be Vice President of the United States of America and quite frankly it might have been a better pick than me,” he continued.

    “I mean that sincerely, she’s first rate.”
    The key to winning this election is swinging over Hillary’s supporters over to Obama. And I don’t mean just women. The middle class, blue collar voters that Hillary did well with. The least they can do is to continue to extol her qualities before her base, to win them over. Or what were you thinking it was, Icy? Don’t tell me you are naive. 🙂

    love2008 (0c8c2c)

  58. How can you justify that knowing that without liberals you would not even be allowed to vote?

    Comment by jharp

    I suggest that harp check out this liberal’s writing, where she says:

    The gun-toting Sarah Palin is like Annie Oakley, a brash ambassador from America’s pioneer past. She immediately reminded me of the frontier women of the Western states, which first granted women the right to vote after the Civil War — long before the federal amendment guaranteeing universal woman suffrage was passed in 1919. Frontier women faced the same harsh challenges and had to tackle the same chores as men did — which is why men could regard them as equals, unlike the genteel, corseted ladies of the Eastern seaboard, which fought granting women the vote right to the bitter end.

    Quick, harp. What state first gave women the vote ? Quick now.

    Mike K (2cf494)

  59. #54
    Or do kids get to now pray in public schools and discuss God? Would “equal rights” include that? Gee, that will be a real change for the best. I hope.

    love2008 (0c8c2c)

  60. jharp’s motto: Gleichheit vor Freiheit – Equality before Liberty

    Icy Truth (2c3adb)

  61. Love, I do hope you stay around. You generally provide an interesting point of view, and the clash of opinions is what makes good conversation.

    I’m not sure that “women” are a bloc that can be swayed one way or another by simple gender. I do think, however, that there are some people – as in any large group – who are swayed by identity politics, and vote for someone who ‘looks like them’ or who vote against someone who doesn’t ‘look like them.’ Perhaps Palin will appeal to that group, just like McCain appeals to the heroic males, and Biden appeals to men who are concerned about growing back their missing hair or who wish they, too, could speak the words written and spoken by others in their own campaigns.

    Time will tell. This is certainly an interesting election. I heard some commentator exclaim on NPR how unusual it was for a candidate to be talking down other candidates or elected officials from her/his own party, but “this is an unusual campaign.” I’m pretty sure she was speaking about Palin, because she sure wasn’t speaking about Bambi, who failed to do any speaking out about the endemic corruption in Chicago politics.

    steve miller (dcbd46)

  62. Or do kids get to now pray in public schools and discuss God? Would “equal rights” include that? Gee, that will be a real change for the best. I hope.

    Comment by love2008 — 9/10/2008 @ 8:12 pm

    As someone who got negative attention for *silently* saying a prayer over the cafeteria food…yeah, it would….

    Foxfier (15ac79)

  63. #61
    Come on Steve, be generous to Biden. A little bit. I am sure he brings in more than “men who are concerned about growing back their missing hair or who wish they, too, could speak the words written and spoken by others in their own campaigns
    Oh the cruelty. Just too cruel!
    LMHO.

    love2008 (0c8c2c)

  64. Well, I’ve been listening to Biden for 30 years. I was initially impressed with him during the Clarence Thomas hearings when he publicly made it sound like he was going to be fair. Then his summation and his vote – he negated everything he said, and I realized he didn’t really listen to any opposing viewpoints – just was posturing. And yes, up to that point I thought politicians really would listen during a ‘hearing.’ (It’s called a ‘hearing’ because calling it a ‘listening and thinking’ would be a lie.)

    steve miller (dcbd46)

  65. #62
    Wow!

    love2008 (0c8c2c)

  66. Or do kids get to now pray in public schools and discuss God?

    No, they don’t. Reading the bible or discussing god has, in the past, been found in court (in cases filed by the ACLU) to violate freedom of religion for other students…

    But by golly, you better learn about Ramadan

    Scott Jacobs (d3a6ec)

  67. lovetwoohohate –

    The least they can do is to continue to extol her qualities before her base, to win them over. Or what were you thinking it was, Icy? Don’t tell me you are naive.
    — So, the key to convincing Hillary voters to vote for Obama is to tell them Obama should have picked Hillary for VP? How does that logic work? If you really think that, and if the Obama campaign actually shares that thought in the form of strategy, it looks like the only thing that’s naive is your expectation that the Hillary voters are that naive.

    Icy Truth (2c3adb)

  68. Icy Truth, more evidence that Biden is not the brightest bulb on the Christmas tree.

    Ooops, did I just “swiftboat” Slow Joe?

    SPQR (26be8b)

  69. I can’t believe Sarah has stooped to the level of making fun of Barry’s ear marks. What’s next for you evil rethug’s? I thought everyone knew about the unmentionables wrt to O. His ears are prominently on that list! Racists!!
    /sarc

    Chris (6b9f67)

  70. #64
    FWIW, I think at this point, Hillary would have been a smarter choice. On that, Biden is right. McCain played a fast one on Obama by making him think this election was going to be about experience. Obama acted, or should I say reacted out of fear and picked Biden, thinking he knew what move McCain was going to make. Now after annoucing Biden as his VP, McCain pulls the rug from his feet by picking and inexperienced, superstar, new face, celebrity in Palin. And with one blow, knocked off Obama from the change platform and became the new change crusader. Leaving Obama to grapple with ….Biden and his experience.
    Lesson: Never let the opposition dictate your response. And, stick with what has helped you succeed so far.

    love2008 (1b037c)

  71. Love, that is a VERY astute comment. “Never let the opposition dictate your response.”

    Please don’t send this to the Bambi camp. They might take the advice.

    On second thought, given how badly they’ve performed already – fire away. Fax it, send e-mail. Heck, put it on a banner outside the DNC offices.

    steve miller (dcbd46)

  72. Scotty,
    Are you for or against freedom to express religion in public places, like schools?

    love2008 (1b037c)

  73. Love #70 (8:46p),
    That has to be the first thing you’ve written that I agree with; he clearly made a bad choice with Biden. He reacted to the McCain campaign bringing up experience. He was afraid of what it would be like to govern with Billary down the hall and he forgot one key point: he had to WIN the election first. His entire behavior, post Super Tuesday, has been consistent with someone who expects to win, but has failed to deliver the goods. Or instead of “win”, was it rather “be coronated”?

    Cankle (59a78a)

  74. “Ooops, did I just “swiftboat” Slow Joe?

    Comment by SPQR — 9/10/2008 @ 8:33 pm”

    Well, you mentioned “Christmas,” but not “Cambodia,” so I rule you’re still okay. No Swiftboating.

    Dan S (438146)

  75. #71
    I think they need to step back and take a deep breath. Being in a reactionary mode is no way to win.

    love2008 (1b037c)

  76. Are you for or against freedom to express religion in public places, like schools?

    I am exceedingly for it, provided it does not actively harm others.

    Freedom of Religion, not Freedom from Religion

    Scott Jacobs (d3a6ec)

  77. True.

    But I love to see them in a reactionary mode. I’m sure they are all up tonight, trying to think of a way to get ahead of the news curve.

    Perhaps they’ll find someone in Alaska who doesn’t like Palin, who can write a letter filled with lies? They could send that out as a mass e-mail.

    Perhaps they could have the Alaskan Democrat Party take down the page on their own website giving Palin credit for cancelling that Bridge to Nowhere.

    Perhaps they could have someone come out and say that Sarah’s only qualification to be VP is that she’s never had an abortion.

    Wait. They’ve tried all those things.

    steve miller (dcbd46)

  78. #73
    Obama has been one to shoot himself on his own foot. Lets hope the bleeding stops soon enough.

    love2008 (1b037c)

  79. love2008 70-
    Hillary, though we agree on almost nothing, is a very good politician. Were she a better actor– in the Hollywood sense– then McCain would be running against her.

    I’m still wishing, deeply, that Obama had gone to Hollywood instead of politics– I think he would’ve been happier.

    Foxfier (15ac79)

  80. #76
    Then we are on the same side Scotty. 🙂

    love2008 (1b037c)

  81. #79 Foxfier:

    I think he would’ve been happier.

    Come to think of it, so would I.

    EW1(SG) (1c0755)

  82. #79
    I’m still wishing, deeply, that Obama had gone to Hollywood instead of politics– I think he would’ve been happier
    Obama will surely go to Hollywood. You need not worry about that. He will. Just wait till he wins. What a great story his will be. There will be numerous great actors wanting to play him in his life’s movie. I hear Will Smith is being tapped for it. I think Denzel would make a better look alike. Except for those ears. But that can be easily fixed. Wishes do come true, so don’t stop wishing. 😉

    love2008 (1b037c)

  83. Or do kids get to now pray in public schools and discuss God? Would “equal rights” include that? Gee, that will be a real change for the best. I hope.

    Comment by love2008 — 9/10/2008 @ 8:12 pm

    So I guess you’d have no problem with allowing the Muslim students a chance to discuss Allah.

    Or the Wiccans discussing the meaning of pentagrams.

    Or the Hindu’s discussing the meaning of swastikas?

    Or Mormons discussing the garden of Eden in Missouri.

    Religion has no place in the public schools.

    They have enough problems getting along. No need to add the hassles over religious views.

    jharp (a28e4a)

  84. #83
    Jharp, excluding religion is also another form of religion. It is called Atheism. Nature abhors vacuum. A nation needs to know what she believes. That faith is what unifies them around a common goal. Without it, we are divided and scattered. Leaving every man to seek out God, truth, religion in his own way. This is the reason for the division and spiritual, moral anarchy we face today. We know not who we are because we know not Whose we are. But our founders knew and called us “One nation under God.”
    I am for freedom of religious expression. So long as it does not infringe upon other people’s rights.

    love2008 (1b037c)

  85. Why can’t students discuss their beliefs? They can discuss sex, which is The Most Sacred Thing In Life.

    Why should religion be (a) special and (b) banned? And how do you decide what religions get banned? Surely the belief in Global WarmingSanta Claus is religious.

    steve miller (dcbd46)

  86. jharp,

    I agree it’s better to keep religion from being taught in public schools, other than in a course on religion(s) or history class.

    Isn’t it nice that we agree on that?

    DRJ (7568a2)

  87. I hope she takes him to that garden spot, that vision of natural splendor, ANWR.

    Patricia (ee5c9d)

  88. Why not a course on “religion”? It’s part of the social structure. We seem to think that kids are amazingly tolerant of all kinds of things, but they will lose their cool on religion.

    I don’t understand that point. Can’t we teach critical thinking in all areas? Or are we admitting that religion is just too powerful to talk about?

    I don’t get it.

    steve miller (dcbd46)

  89. love2008,

    So you’d have no problem with your children’s kindergarten teacher expressing her devotion to Atheism?

    jharp (a28e4a)

  90. I agree it’s better to keep religion from being taught in public schools, other than in a course on religion(s) or history class.

    Isn’t it nice that we agree on that?

    Comment by DRJ — 9/10/2008 @ 9:49 pm

    Yes, it is. Cheers to you.

    The history of religion is an interesting proposal but to be honest I see it leading to disagreement and a big hassle.

    Let’s leave the religion up to the parents and whatever church you choose to attend.

    jharp (a28e4a)

  91. You fail to comprehend: discussing religion does not mean “teacher gets to pick favorites.”

    We don’t allow this in other courses. Teachers who believe in phonics must teach whole language/look-see if that’s what the district wants.

    I fail to see a problem with discussing “religion” as a social event. It’s not destroying other aspects of culture. We seem to be able to discuss it in movies and plays.

    Why do we pretend it doesn’t exist as a subject in school?

    steve miller (dcbd46)

  92. And I fail to see how the schools should ‘avoid’ controversy.

    Global warming is controversial. Yet they teach about it.

    Black history is controversial. Yet they teach about it.

    Religion – too scary! Kids shouldn’t be taught how to think about that.

    steve miller (dcbd46)

  93. Oh, I forgot.

    Conservatives and conservative Christians sure seem to believe in less government and keeping the government out of our lives as much as possible.

    Isn’t it a little hypocritical for this same group to want the government teaching our kids about religion?

    jharp (a28e4a)

  94. You FAIL to comprehend what I am saying. I will type slowly.

    The FACT that people believe certain things IS OF ITSELF not dangerous.

    Just teach that “many cultures believe these things.”

    There is nothing wrong with that.

    Try reading this VERY SLOWLY.

    steve miller (dcbd46)

  95. How is the government forbidding the discussion of one particular aspect of the social construct “getting into our lives”?

    Do you just spout this stuff like political Tourette’s?

    steve miller (dcbd46)

  96. #89
    “Devotion”? How do you express devotion to unbelief? Thats a stretch, don’t you think?
    In any case, it seems like people are free to talk about everything in school. Including their lack of faith in God and preference for some new age experience. But it is a taboo to mention the name “Jesus”, or pray in His name publicly. I wonder why.

    love2008 (1b037c)

  97. Religion – too scary! Kids shouldn’t be taught how to think about that.

    Comment by steve miller — 9/10/2008 @ 9:59 pm

    So I guess you’d have no problem with a middle eastern instructor teaching your children about Islam?

    jharp (a28e4a)

  98. “Devotion”? How do you express devotion to unbelief? Thats a stretch, don’t you think?

    Substitute Wiccan, or Islam, or Hinduism, or Scientology, or Mormonism.

    jharp (a28e4a)

  99. NOT AT ALL.

    I would like my kids to know about religion in the same way I want them to know about math – that is, what is it?

    steve miller (dcbd46)

  100. Do you just not really comprehend what I’m talking about here?

    Teaching about religion is teaching about it. Not a catechism class.

    Do you have trouble with ordinary English sentences?

    steve miller (dcbd46)

  101. #

    You FAIL to comprehend what I am saying. I will type slowly.

    The FACT that people believe certain things IS OF ITSELF not dangerous.

    Just teach that “many cultures believe these things.”

    There is nothing wrong with that.

    Try reading this VERY SLOWLY.

    Comment by steve miller — 9/10/2008 @ 10:02 pm

    I got mixed up on who posted what.

    I understand your point and still think it is best left alone.

    Example. How much time do you devote to the Muslims? Christians? Jews? Wiccans? Atheists? Buddists?

    It’s opening a can of worms that doesn’t need to be opened.

    jharp (a28e4a)

  102. Why? I do not see WHY we can’t simply teach about religion as “here’s what cultures believe.” I don’t see any need to worry about at this point what % they each get. It’s like having a science class teach ONLY about a certain theory of light, or a history class that ONLY teaches a certain theory about the origins of the Civil War.

    That’s not education.

    I don’t see a problem with teaching “here are the basic things these religions teach.” It doesn’t say “and by the way, none/one/all of them are true.”

    Religion is one of the most significant things in life, but school is silent and hostile to it. I wouldn’t mind if teaching about “atheism” were part of the curriculum. It’s just a part of the culture we all live in.

    If we don’t teach it in schools, kids will get mistaken information from friends, movies, and songs. We don’t want that for sex education; why do we think that kids should be protected from learning about religion?

    steve miller (dcbd46)

  103. And stating it’s a “can of worms” is what’s called “making stuff up.”

    You might be an expert on what makes this a can of worms, but you provide no evidence other than the repeated assertion.

    steve miller (dcbd46)

  104. “I would like my kids to know about religion in the same way I want them to know about math – that is, what is it?”

    OK I’ll bite.

    You’ve got ten weeks for instruction.

    What do you suggest. One week per religion?

    And what version of Christianity? Baptist? Pentecostal? Presbetarion? Lutheran?

    Seventh Day adventist?

    Mormons?

    Shiite? Sunni?

    Orthodox Judism?

    Our public schools have enough problems teaching the basics.

    There is no need for our government to get involved in our religious beliefs.

    jharp (a28e4a)

  105. One more question, does America have a religion? If so, what is it?

    love2008 (1b037c)

  106. jharp –

    Personally, I’d choose that schools teach only basic facts– reading, writing, ‘rithmatic, biology, logic– then offer advanced courses for more theoretical options.

    The fact that you feel the need to try to specify Christianity to a single small creed that can be briefed in five minutes, and try to claim it would take a week, is telling.

    Foxfier (15ac79)

  107. “I don’t see a problem with teaching “here are the basic things these religions teach”

    I have a huge problem with it.

    I do not want the government teaching my kids about religion.

    jharp (a28e4a)

  108. Hey, Baracky supports sex education in schools, age appropriate of course, in grades K-12. The curriculum for grades K-3 includes discussions of genitals, homosexuality, intercourse and masturbation. As a parent, I’m not real down with that. No wonder his campaign is upset with the McCain ad for publicizing it today.

    daleyrocks (d9ec17)

  109. “I do not want the government teaching my kids about religion.”

    jharp – Who should teach your kids about religion? Do you even have kids? Are they as screwed up as you?

    daleyrocks (d9ec17)

  110. “One more question, does America have a religion? If so, what is it?”

    No.

    We’ve got the first amendment which is quite clear.

    And not only is it the 1st but it’s the 1st sentence in the 1st. Seems like our founders felt it quite important.

    “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion”

    jharp (a28e4a)

  111. “I do not want the government teaching my kids about religion.”

    jharp – Who should teach your kids about religion?

    Take a wild guess, jackass. Our church maybe?

    Do you even have kids?

    Yes I have 2.

    Are they as screwed up as you?

    They are fine decent human beings who are kind to others, respect others, polite. And treat others like they’d like to be treated. In other words kind of little liberals.

    Comment by daleyrocks — 9/10/2008 @ 10:33 pm

    jharp (a28e4a)

  112. El Harpinator’s children, described by the man:

    “They are fine decent human beings who are kind to others, respect others, polite. And treat others like they’d like to be treated. “

    C’mon everybody, let’s say it together:

    In other words, nothing like their father.

    Eric Blair (36c1a9)

  113. #110
    You did not complete the statement Jharp.
    “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.”
    It doesn’t sound like they were against religious expression there. The law was actually created to protect religious expression and assembly. Not prohibit it.

    love2008 (1b037c)

  114. Take some advice from a liberal poster.

    If you aren’t happy with the religious upbringing your children are getting.

    Change churches.

    Do not get the government involved.

    Agreed?

    jharp (a28e4a)

  115. Do not get the government involved. – In supressing religion, as Lovey pointed out.

    Agreed.

    daleyrocks (d9ec17)

  116. love2008,

    “or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble,”

    So you’d have no problem paying for, with your tax dollars, a classroom to study Islam.

    Government has no business meddling in anyone’s religious beliefs.

    jharp (a28e4a)

  117. jharp – Your statements lead me to conclude that you would be against the recent wave of government expenditures on footbaths to accomodate muslim worshippers at public universities, public buildings and the like.

    daleyrocks (d9ec17)

  118. “Do not get the government involved. – In supressing religion” or endorsing one

    jharp (a28e4a)

  119. jharp – Your statements lead me to conclude that you would be against the recent wave of government expenditures on footbaths to accomodate muslim worshippers at public universities, public buildings and the like.

    This sounds to me like a gesture of hospitality that is likely part of a broader strategy to create a welcoming environment towards Muslim students, much like many public universities offer services that go above and beyond the minimum legal requirements for students with special needs. What’s the matter with that?

    Tom (b5d10a)

  120. jharp – Your statements lead me to conclude that you would be against the recent wave of government expenditures on footbaths to accomodate muslim worshippers at public universities, public buildings and the like.

    Comment by daleyrocks — 9/10/2008 @ 11:00 pm

    Yeah, I’d be against that. I’m against the government getting involved in religion period.

    Got a link? I’d be happy to join the cause.

    jharp (a28e4a)

  121. Tom- if they offered a place for daily Mass, and made “G*d D*mn it” free zones, maybe.

    Foxfier (15ac79)

  122. “This sounds to me like a gesture of hospitality that is likely part of a broader strategy to create a welcoming environment towards Muslim students, much like many public universities offer services that go above and beyond the minimum legal requirements for students with special needs. What’s the matter with that?”

    Think again, Tom.

    I’m going night night. Big golf match tomorrow.

    jharp (a28e4a)

  123. jharp – All I’m saying, it sounds like a university strategy to attract a certain demographic of students. That’s the name of the game.

    Foxfier – a lot of public universities foot the bill for university chaplains and associated religous services. It comes down to hospitality, and I’m not sure why it’s not okay in the aforementioned case.

    Tom (b5d10a)

  124. Tom – That would be the same reason the President of William & Mary removed the cross from the Wren Chapel, correct? He did not want the building to appear inhospitable to non-Christian students I suppose or some such nonsense. Where does the hospitality line stop Tom and the establishment of religion line begin? Don’t just focus on universities. Think about public buildings and facilities. How about women only swimming hours at public pools with only female lifeguards to accommodate muslims? Aren’t we really talking about sharia creep when we consider requests like that, ignoring the job discrimination angle?

    daleyrocks (d9ec17)

  125. So you’d have no problem paying for, with your tax dollars, a classroom to study Islam.

    State-run colleges do it, actually.

    Would I have a problem with a public K-12 school doing it? Sure.

    But that isn’t actually what we’re talking about…

    This started from my statement that you aren’t allowed to quietly, to yourself, read a bible in school. You get in trouble, and told to put it away.

    The person wasn’t trying to convert people, wasn’t even talking about it at all. They were reading.

    How is telling them to stop, MAKING them stop, not a violation of the 1st Amendment? Why is it not legal for groups to gather around the flagpole and hold a prayer before school? They aren’t forcing their religion/view on anyone, but you say that’s bad.

    And why would students talking amongst themselves, discussing their religion, not be allowed? if the teacher stays out of it and only moderates, why is it wrong?

    Scott Jacobs (a1c284)

  126. “This started from my statement that you aren’t allowed to quietly, to yourself, read a bible in school. You get in trouble, and told to put it away.”

    You got a link?

    I specifically recall the ACLU defending a students right to have a bible in school but am not aware of what you posit.

    jharp (a28e4a)

  127. Here’s an interesting link jharp.

    daleyrocks (d9ec17)

  128. Another link . Apparently the group does have a case in Tennessee where a student was prohibited from reading a bible on the playground during recess. It was referred to on a clip I saw on Youtube. I haven’t found the information yet.

    daleyrocks (d9ec17)

  129. daleyrocks,

    Both of your links are ridiculous.

    Just as I thought. More made up shit from right wing blog posters.

    You know. You don’t seem to that stupid of a guy.

    Why don’t you do something worthwhile?

    Instead of just making shit up. Or defending utter nonsense.

    jharp (a28e4a)

  130. Why are they ridiculous, harpy?

    JD (6a8c0a)

  131. jharp, an amusing comment given how much shit you make up.

    SPQR (26be8b)


Powered by WordPress.

Page loaded in: 0.2239 secs.