No, Sarah Palin's position, however...:D:oOriginally Posted by Space Gravy
|
|
05-10-2009, 06:44 PM
No, Sarah Palin's position, however...:D:o
05-10-2009, 06:55 PM
No, McCain could have had the Man on the Moon on his ticket as VP and he would have still lost. If not for Palin, McCain would have gotten slaughtered.
Liberals, Rino's and the liberal press are frightened to death of her because she does not represent the DC establishment.
05-10-2009, 07:07 PM
You mean, the best and the brightest? :p
I'm no fan of the 'establishment, but IMO, she's... (this is tiresome, you know my opinion and I know yours.) The more great candidates the GOP can field the better. That's my bottom line.
My prediction: She'll self-destruct way before 2012 and the GOP won't have to push her under the bus to keep her out of the primaries.
05-10-2009, 08:16 PM
IMO i dont believe abortion should take such a national prominence, this is definately something that can be handled at the state level. However...seeing as the catholic faith sees abortion as immoral i do find it somewhat of a slap in the face to the faith's followers and leadership for an obviously catholic university to have such an avidly pro-abortion person make any sort of speach at the institution.
on the other hand, who are we to say who is allowed to speak at one place or not? And why are so many non-catholics, non-notre dame alumni/students wrapped up in it? If you dont like the fact that hes making a speach somewhere...dont watch it. hell, I dont watch these little PR stunts anyway...they are of trivial importance. we already know hes not going to say anything that isnt prompted for him, hes not going to field any controversial questions, and hes not going to un-do everything hes screwed up in the last 100ish days so what does it matter anyway?
05-10-2009, 09:28 PM
If you think that's the best and brightest (Liberals and RINO"s), we are fucked.
05-10-2009, 10:56 PM
Hmmmm... I seem to recall a number of liberals telling us that dissent was the highest form of patriotism. Of course, that was when an R was in office, and the dissent consisted of doing things like leaking classified information, giving aid and comfort to an enemy during wartime and constantly making specious connections between Republicans and Nazis. Frankly, I have no problem with dissent during either administration, but I do have a problem when it crosses the line to treason.
"Rouge" bishops? A little eyeliner, maybe...
How is it that the bishops who are standing by their church's doctine are the rogues and not the ones who are trying to rewrite it without approval from the Vatican? I mean, I'm not Catholic, but I do get the idea of a chain of command, and that the church has a hierarchy that tops off at the Pope. What excuse to pro-choice Catholics have?
Hate to tell you this, but the Catholic church's position is pretty much set on this one. Now, I suppose that one can go through the motions of Catholicism, go to mass, confess sins, etc., but if you really have that fundamental difference with your church and state it publicly, then the correct term for that is Protestant.
On what planet are Liberals, Rino's and the liberal press the best and the brightest (outside of their own opinion, I mean)?
I'm betting that she'll be the nominee in 2012. Since I also predicted that Obama would be the Democratic nominee two years ago, I'm pretty happy with my track record. Basically, the Democrats always line up behind either a complete rookie (i.e, someone who is going for their first attempt at the nomination) or the heir apparent (either an incumbent or the previous veep). Go back to every election since 1960. The rookies were JFK, McGovern, Carter, Dukakis, Clinton and Kerry. The heirs apparent were LBJ, Humphrey, Carter (in 1980), Mondale, Clinton (in 1996) and Gore. No Democrat has ever tried for the nomination twice and gotten it on the second attempt since 1960. The last one to do it was Adlai Stevenson in 1956. Republicans, OTOH, almost always line up behind the also-ran from the previous election cycle. The exceptions were Goldwater and Bush 43. Nixon ran in 1960 as Ike's veep, and again in 1968 and 1972. Ford was Nixon's veep, and his veep candidate was Bob Dole. Reagan ran a primary challenge to Ford in 1976 before getting the nomination in 1980. His veep, who also ran against him in 1980, was Bush 41, who got the nomination in 1988 against Dole, among others. Dole got the nomination in 1996, and W got it in 2000 after beating McCain, who was nobody's first choice in 2008, but still managed to get the nomination. Once is a fluke. Twice is coincidence. Eight times? That's a lock.
05-10-2009, 11:01 PM
God, please, please. And when she gets crushed, will it be because America doesn't like extremely conservative social positions (I'm assuming she will be a bit better prepared on the issues by then) or because the evil liberal media conspired against her?
05-10-2009, 11:37 PM
Like you said, you're not Catholic, so you're really talking out of your ass on this one.
Catholics, typically, don't go around ramming their views down peoples throats like evangelicals. Abortion and many issues are brought up in homilies during mass, but protests and press releases... this is new. When they take political action, it's done in a thoughtful and respectful way. This is disgraceful, IMO.
Catholics focus on what they can do to help their community. Save the world by staring at home. Teaching others by becoming living examples of the faith. The Catholic charity I've worked with does a great deal to help underage girls carry to term and find adoptive parents. But this charity doesn't go out looking for girls or pressuring girls into anything. Maybe certain dioceses are leaning more toward an evangelical approach to promoting and selling their faith. That would be too bad.
Unlike Bob Jones University, there is no religious requirement for attending Notre Dame--the academic requirements are quite rigorous however, which makes this shameful attempt to embarrass the university and the President even more disturbing. Once again, conservatives are being represented by the loud minority and not the educated and intelligent majority.
There is no conflict between the University and the President. They are honored to have him and he is honored to speak at the graduation.
05-11-2009, 06:50 AM
LINKKeyes was among a group of 26 protesters, some of them pushing baby carriages with dolls covered in fake blood, who entered the campus and were greeted by Notre Dame police, said university spokesman Dennis Brown.
You've gotta be kidding me. If these people are calling themselves Catholics they should be excommunicated for bad taste and stupidity.:mad:
05-11-2009, 10:07 AM
Could be... but I don't speak for, nor represent liberals.. However, that still does nothing to explain or justify the sudden disappearance of the respect for the office of the presidency that many conservatives have been fuming about for 8 years.
There wouldnt be many Catholics left if this were true.. and the church knows it. The modern westerner has no taste for such a monarchy. That there exists a perfect hierarchy with wizened old fools in pointy hats and robes disseminating alleged wisdom to their flock from the top down may be the lie those old fools tell themselves to feel relevant... but the reality is much different.Hate to tell you this, but the Catholic church's position is pretty much set on this one. Now, I suppose that one can go through the motions of Catholicism, go to mass, confess sins, etc., but if you really have that fundamental difference with your church and state it publicly, then the correct term for that is Protestant.
Last edited by wilbur; 05-11-2009 at 10:11 AM.
| « Previous Thread | Next Thread » |
| Bookmarks |
Bookmarks |
