Rough Stone Rolling

42 responses so far ↓

• 1 cheryl // Sep 3, 2008 at 3:06 pm

  I’m excited to have Palin put in as VP and for all the reasons people are scared to have her in as VP.
  She’s fresh; she’s smart; she’s a mother of several children, including a soldier, a special needs child, and a pregnant teen. Dude! That’s the type of person we need running this country! If McCain was to keel over, I would be thrilled to see what a new, fresh, untainted and unaffected person would do in Washington. Because, by golly, the last 20 years have SUCKED with immoral and lousy leader, and wouldn’t it be nice to try something else?

  Some may say Obama has “something else”, but I’m tired of hearing all the promises he can’t keep.

  Hooray for Palin! And good post David, even if it was a tad sexist (but your title did make me laugh out loud. My feminist ways haven’t ruined my sense of humor).

• 2 David // Sep 3, 2008 at 4:04 pm

  I agree, Cheryl. And I’m extremely tired of the edited posturing. For example, the other day Obama was comparing himself– a presidential candidate– with Sarah, a VP hopeful, saying his managing of over 700 staff members and millions of dollars a week on his campaign was more experience than her managing of 25 staff members and thousands a week as mayor of Wasilla. HELLO! How did her being governor of the largest US state, managing thousands of people and handling BILLIONS of dollars get missed??

  I so hope for a big surprise this November, and I hope the “rock star” goes back to doing night clubs.

• 3 ajax // Sep 3, 2008 at 4:50 pm

  What I liked about Palin, her independence, willingness to fight the party etc, will now give way to toeing the party line and being an apolagist for everthing Republican, which I don’t find encouraging. Another one bites the dust.

• 4 David // Sep 3, 2008 at 4:55 pm

  ajax,

  Let’s hold that thought ’til tonight’s speech.

• 5 ajax // Sep 3, 2008 at 5:28 pm

  Reality and rhetoric are two different things. What any politician says is irrelevant, it is what they do.

  This is still a McCain presidency. The move for Palin was not his first choice, but is strictly a strategic move to excite the base. His first two choices of Ridge and Leiberman wouldn’t have done that. If elected, Palin will be doing what most VP’s do: nothing. (Except of course Cheney, who’s been doing everything. I doubt Palin will be given that much power)

  btw, I love your blog. I’ve been following for a while now. don’t comment much tho…sorry.

• 6 DavidH // Sep 3, 2008 at 6:12 pm

  I am and continue to be an Obama-Biden supporter. I think McCain’s selected Palin more because of her capability of energizing the religious right base of the party than for her experience and expertise, and I think the strategy has succeeded. In my view, for example, Romney is much more qualified by experience and expertise than Palin, but I agree with Orson Scott Card that a Romney nomination would not have energized the religious right base–other than Latter-day Saints, and the GOP already has the LDS vote locked up.

• 7 David // Sep 3, 2008 at 6:17 pm

  Granted, talk is cheap. But from her heady days as The Barracuda on the basketball court, to her placement as the first female governor of Alaska, Sarah’s accomplished enough so far to get my attention. And while she does reflect the alpha-female student body president/head cheerleader-type that seemed so Wagnerian and oblivious to my level of the food chain in high school, I forgive her.

  Thanks for letting me know you enjoy the blog, and no need to apologize for not piping up more. I’m just happy I’m something more than annoying.

• 8 David // Sep 3, 2008 at 6:27 pm

  David H,

  I agree with you about Romney. He would have been my first choice– as president and VP– but that dog just wouldn’t hunt. I also agree about some of McCain’s motives for tapping Sarah (except the experience part) and quietly congratulate him on choosing savviness over croneyism.

• 9 cheryl // Sep 3, 2008 at 10:51 pm

  Everyone already planning on voting for Obama has been –at the least –rolling their eyes at the Palin choice (at the most? Well, they are pretty vicious). I think it’s because it blind-sided them and they had no idea it was coming.
  And they wouldn’t be so quick to point fingers and freak out if they weren’t just a tad scared.

  Be afraid Obama lovers. Be very afraid.

  Or not. Because who knows which way this election is gonna swing? Seriously –and I’ve said this before –I’m just glad it’s not going to be a Clinton or Bush that wins. Hallelujah!

• 10 lorenhops // Sep 3, 2008 at 11:42 pm

  Savvy move on McCain’s part, total political pandering. The sad part is he’s probably going to win.

• 11 David // Sep 3, 2008 at 11:49 pm

  Loren, from your lips…

• 12 Steven // Sep 4, 2008 at 3:04 pm

  I am a former BYU Bishop who exposed Mitt Romney’s corruption — connected to banking fraud through Zions First National Bank, once wholly-owned by the Mormon Church. Sarah Palin and John McCain are good people who know how to stop corruption with the Clintons, Bushs and Salt Lake City. Palin is a true Reaganomics: http://www.stopzion.com

• 13 xoxoxoxo // Sep 4, 2008 at 4:20 pm

  I was rather shocked that most of the …ahem….”other” LDS blogs I TP regularly haven’t said a WORD about her so far. I was thinking that the LDS-feminists would be whooping it up.

  Then yesterday I heard a comment to the affect that she is “too perfect”…bring home the bacon, fry it up in a pan, wears a skirt well, had a baby 4 months ago and looks great, cooks her family’s meals AND can wrestle a full grown moose to the ground and hog tie it while coaching soccer. I laughed out loud and thought “I wonder if they’ll hate her as much as they hate Sister Beck? I mean…she’s ‘all that’ AND running for VP….doesn’t that raise the bar just a tad more?” *eg*

  I’ve followed her since Glenn Beck had her on months ago and I like her. Savvy political move? You bet your drawers it was, but I WANT a politically clever President that doesn’t do what “Washington expects” and actually KNOWS what various leader of various states are accomplishing. Rather than picking one of the “good ol boys”, McCain picked someone who eats them for breakfast. I also love that perhaps because of the hurricane (that Michael Moore is convinced proves that God is a Democrat) they are staying low-key-low-budget and FAR more “green” than the bazillion dollar showcase the Dems hosted two weeks ago. I love it that the announcement totally sucked the wind out of Obama’s sails and that the Dem convention seems to not have even taken place. I love it that the press is literally FUMING over being taken by surprise. I love it that her “pregnant” daughter AND boyfriend showed up last night and smiled and waved in the face of all the bitter,nasty, small minded press coverage, and that she didn’t get her knickers in a twist and throw a hissy fit like Obama did when the press criticized his anti-American wife’s behavior. And I roared with laughter at every single one of her sparkly-eyed snarks at Obama and his camp.

  I don’t care if they don’t win-she’s my new hero. And even if it doesn’t last, the breath of fresh air that came flowing out of our TV last night filled me with hope and patriotism that I feared was long gone.

• 14 cheryl // Sep 4, 2008 at 4:33 pm

  xoxoxoxo-
  Amen!

• 15 Karron // Sep 4, 2008 at 4:36 pm

  I thought Palin’s speech was outstanding. I loved it that she managed to slam Obama and knock him on his snooty political behind. All the pundits for the drive by media kept saying her speech was written for her. Yep, so is every speech Mr. Aren’t I Wonderful gives. Every candidate has input, however, and they don’t just stand up there and read from the teleprompter without knowing what they are going to say.

  I think Sarah Palin is going to make a lot of fence sitters take a jump on the Republican side. I love it that the liberal whiners who have been shouting that a woman needs to be in the White House now have to put their vote where their rhetoric is. I think Palin will rejuvinate the whole gender issue in a big way, and she will cause the liberal media to have to put up or shut up. She will expose Obama and all those who worship him for what they really are. I can’t wait to see what happens. Funny that Obama is trying to trash the VP choice, after all isn’t he supposed to be running against McCain?

  Laughing all the way to the voting booth.

  Karron

• 16 David // Sep 4, 2008 at 4:42 pm

  And isn’t it ironic– and predictable– that the knee-jerk reaction from the press was wholesale “Brilliant!” and then slowly, deftly, the little snits start pulling loose threads from the details of her speech.

• 17 Dennis // Sep 4, 2008 at 5:51 pm

  I have long been an Obama supporter, and I still am. So what I say may not have much sway among many here.

  I think that some enthusiastic Republican Mormons are selectively attending to certain things about Palin. She may have some similar social values on the surface to many Latter-day Saints. (See here by the way, for evidence of the many searches about her being Mormon. In the comments of this same link I express some of my concerns about Palin.)

  I try to judge a person’s character not simply by whether their stated values are the same as mine, but whether I see their character as “trying to be like Jesus.” I’ll share just one thing about the former and two about the latter.

  First, Palin’s ultra-conservative views on abortion (it should be illegal except to save the mother’s life) are troubling to say the least, as well as at odds with the church’s policy. I realize that Obama’s views are as well, that is not my point. Which is better is certainly a matter of debate. My point is that Latter-day Saints ought to be concerned about this, especially considering that Palin’s position reflects most of the mainline GOP leaders. It really is a horrific thing if raped teenagers are forced to have children. In this way they are raped twice. The charitable — and Christlike — response is to at least allow raped women to choose to have an abortion. The church recognizes this; the GOP does not. I’m even OK to disallow this choice in the third trimester. I express these concerns as a member of a rape crisis team, and as a person who recognizes that rape (especially acquaintance rape) is a far more common thing than many people realize, even here in Utah.

  Second, I am disturbed by at least two things regarding what I have seen and heard — which is admittedly very limited — about Palin’s character. First, in an interview several years ago, Palin laughed after a political rival, who had cancer, was called “a b____ and a cancer.” I can’t imagine Sister Beck (to continue the analogy from someone’s comment) doing such a thing.

  I also can’t imagine a Christlike person making the speech that was given last night. It was well delivered and brilliantly spoken, but it was an incredibly divisive, sarcastic speech that lacked substance about what the GOP is going to do regarding the economy (she did mention drilling, but that is one very minor thing regarding problems with the economy facing the middle class).

  America needs less pit bulls (with or without lipstick), and more clear speaking, fair minded leaders.

  Please be clear that this comment is about Palin, not anyone else. I hope that if you respond to this comment, you respond in a way that is directed to the things I am saying about her, and not redirected toward Obama or anyone else. While that could be an important exchange, it is not what I am interested in. I am interested in hearing people respond to these things I am saying about Palin herself.

• 18 David // Sep 4, 2008 at 8:54 pm

  Dennis,

  I hear what you’re saying and I agree with you on the point about abortion. I won’t address Palin laughing at the expense of the rival who had cancer because a lot of stories are flinging around the airwaves about Sarah and, frankly, I’ve never seen so much rabid pouncing on a candidate, especially before she even made her RNC speech. For example, they love to beat up the point that she’s “under investigation.” Well, that’s all it is now– an investigation. Anyone can call an investigation, and the purposes don’t have to be noble. As for the substance of the speech, I think she and McCain decided to tackle who she is and what experience she’s bringing to the table. There’s plenty of time to address the issues, and I’m hoping that will start with tonight’s address from McCain.

  I think we can agree to disagree. While Sarah may not be Sister Beck, I think she’s holding her own in the environment she’s in. And with the voting choices that have been handed to me this election year, I’m leaning towards the McCain camp because I like what they’re saying more than the other side. But then, I’m a conservative, so what are you gonna do?

• 19 xoxoxoxo // Sep 4, 2008 at 9:03 pm

  Of course we won’t redirect to Obama…he is “the untouchable one” after all. Your comments about Palin were enough to indicate that you are an “enthusiastic [Democratic] Mormon who is selectively attending to certain things about Palin” yourself, and since you don’t do your homework before you judge someone’s supposed actions, an informed “exchange” about Obama would be impossible anyway.

  First, you need to listen to the complete and UNEDITED recording of the interview that was chopped up and re-edited before being thrown to the bloggosphere dogs. What you’ll notice is that after the comment made by the DJ that you posted, she does NOT laugh, only silence follows on her side of the conversation. The DJ (who is an idiot) goes off and eventually goes on to ask another question before she says another word.

  The rape issue is a personal matter for everyone and you insisting that LDS Church policy is perfectly “OK” with abortions that take place after rape or incest only shows you haven’t done much homework in that area either. Here’s the official word from the lds.org site:
  “The Church teaches its members that even these rare exceptions do not justify abortion automatically. Abortion is a most serious matter and should be considered only after the persons involved have consulted with their local church leaders and feel through personal prayer that their decision is correct.”

  An innocent life is at stake no matter what circumstances brought it about and killing A BABY because of the actions of a CRIMINAL is NOT “what Jesus would do”. YOUR candidate thinks that babies that SURVIVE the abortions intended to kill them should be killed or left to die on their own, how do you suppose Jesus feels about THAT?

  Your last concern, about whether or not her speech was “Christlike” made me laugh too. Perhaps you aren’t very familiar with the Bible? Perhaps you have never read the passages where Christ speaks out against sin, lies, the vicious judgment of the public, or hypocrisy. You should look into them.

  Last night wasn’t a debate or a campaign speech or a state-of-the-union address, or a Sarah Palin platform/agenda reveal. It was an acceptance speech. PERIOD. And as a clear speaking, fair minded, lipstick wearing pitbull myself, I thought it was a damn fine one at that.

• 20 xoxoxoxo // Sep 4, 2008 at 9:05 pm

  David,

  I apologize for saying “damn” on your blog. I’ll wash my hands off with soap as soon as I get back from getting my rabies shots

• 21 David // Sep 4, 2008 at 9:06 pm

  Oh, that was rabies? I thought you were just happy to see me.

• 22 xoxoxoxo // Sep 5, 2008 at 3:54 am

  Always. But there is only so much mouth foam that lipstick can cover on us pitbull types.

  I must admit that watching McCain tonight, against all my prior opinions/thoughts/reserves….I actually wept at the end when he said “Stand up! Stand up and FIGHT! Stand up and FIGHT for America!” I turned to my husband and said “That has to be one of the most moving speeches I’ve heard in decades. I do believe the man just earned my vote.” I’m more optimistic than I’ve been in months.

• 23 Dennis // Sep 5, 2008 at 7:02 am

  David,

  I appreciate your response.

  I’ve never seen so much rabid pouncing on a candidate, especially before she even made her RNC speech.

  This may be true, but things almost always exist in opposition. I’ve never seen such knee-jerk and uncritical enthusiasm for a candidate among many conservatives.

  xoxoxoxo,

  Clearly we see things differently. Beyond that, though, you seem to be putting a lot of words in my mouth.

  My not wanting your comments to be redirected to Obama is not at all because I think he is untouchable but simply because I wanted to hear people’s responses on Palin and not simply redirected at someone else (as is so often the case). In fact, guess what? I run a weekly forum on my blog in which people talk very openly about different issues regarding the candidates. I have even criticized Obama on several issues. Clearly I wouldn’t have started the open forum nor made my criticisms if I thought Obama was “untouchable.”

  xoxoxoxo,

  Your comments about Palin were enough to indicate that you are an “enthusiastic [Democratic] Mormon who is selectively attending to certain things about Palin” yourself, and since you don’t do your homework before you judge someone’s supposed actions, an informed “exchange” about Obama would be impossible anyway.

  I see this comment as unfair. I guess I can see where you’re coming from about the selective attention thing, but I was merely trying to present some counterpoints to the unbridled enthusiasm that I see toward Palin in many quarters. Let me be clear that I think there is much to admire about Palin. There are also things to be concerned about.

  Regarding not doing my homework, I’m pretty sure this is unfair. (Did you do your homework on me before making this judgment about my actions?) I have actually read quite a bit about Palin, from both sides of the spectrum. I am certainly not infallible, though; I will admit that I haven’t heard of what you are saying about the unedited recording. Do you have a link for that?

  Regarding your perception of the impossibility of an informed exchange about Obama, again I’ll direct you to my blog. I think you’ll be surprised.

  The rape issue is a personal matter for everyone and you insisting that LDS Church policy is perfectly “OK” with abortions that take place after rape or incest only shows you haven’t done much homework in that area either.

  I am very aware of the Church’s position on abortion that you cite. I’ve probably read it about 100 times. I don’t see anything that I’ve said that is suggesting that it is “perfectly OK” for any raped person wanting an abortion to have one. How have I suggested that? Clearly, in order for the Church’s position to be meaningful, though, is for raped individuals to have the OPTION to have a legal abortion. THAT is the issue.

  An innocent life is at stake no matter what circumstances brought it about and killing A BABY because of the actions of a CRIMINAL is NOT “what Jesus would do”.

  I never said he would. But if we can agree that Jesus is the head of the LDS Church, it is clear that one thing He would do is to be OK with at least some raped women having abortions. He clearly differs here from Palin. (And certainly from Obama on the point you mention — this has been addressed over and over again on my blog. I’m not trying to dodge it; I was simply interested in talking about Palin here.)

  Your last concern, about whether or not her speech was “Christlike” made me laugh too. Perhaps you aren’t very familiar with the Bible? Perhaps you have never read the passages where Christ speaks out against sin, lies, the vicious judgment of the public, or hypocrisy. You should look into them.

  Your argument commits a straw man fallacy. I have not condemned speaking out “against sin, lies, the vicious judgment of the public, or hypocrisy.” I have spoken out against Palin’s divisiveness, but I can certainly admit that divisiveness can be the right thing. I just don’t think it was in Palin’s speech. So let me be a little more clear. Palin’s speech was unnecessarily divisive. It was not necessary for her to make the sarcastic and completely uncharitable jabs she did at Obama. I hate sarcasm; I think that it is a subtle device of the devil. Jesus was never (as far as we can tell) sarcastic. And for Palin to say what she said about community organizing was uncalled for. How was her tone and sarcasm necessary? I actually think that Obama’s comment about her small-town experience was not fair itself, but it paled in comparison to Palin’s derision. What would Jesus have done? I say this because maybe we should think twice before we jump up and down about how “she sure showed him!” This is not the spirit of Christ. Certainly, she can and should defend herself. But she doesn’t need to deride the experience of others like she did to Obama. That comment about community organizing was flat out offensive to a whole lot of (average) Americans and it will hurt her, I think.

  Regarding your accusation of me not being very familiar with the Bible. This is completely unfair — though I’m not surprised by your rhetoric that you had an affinity for the Palin acceptance speech. I don’t see why you need to throw my knowledge of the Bible in question. You don’t know me at all. I’d hope that we can have an exchange with each other that doesn’t throw into question our religious integrity. As for as I’m concerned, I’ll give you the benefit of the doubt that you are a wonderful scripture-reading woman with whom I disagree on some political issues. I’ll invite you to give me the same benefit of the doubt, but that’s your choice.

• 24 Dennis // Sep 5, 2008 at 7:04 am

  xoxoxoxo,

  Oh, by the way, I’m not a Democrat.

• 25 David // Sep 5, 2008 at 1:57 pm

  Dennis,

  I’ve never seen such knee-jerk and uncritical enthusiasm for a candidate among many conservatives.

  I guess you see what you look for– or your exposure may not have been wholly reflective of the mood out there. Before Sarah’s acceptance speech I sensed a sort of Uh-oh feeling among Republicans. Granted, there were some immediately excited about her– her gender, her record, the surprise of her (myself included)– but it wasn’t until after her speech that the enthusiasm became more universal. And I believe a part of that was a “circling of the wagons” around her, for the pre-speech onslaught from the rivals and pundits was already flying full-throttle. That said, the speech did solidify an optimism for the ticket much, as xoxoxoxo has demonstrated. As for the sarcasm, I’ve always been a proponent of “well-played” sarcasm ( I do seem to recall one instance where Jesus used it when talking to the Pharisees–chiding, actually– but I don’t have time to hunt for it right now), but perhaps Sarah’s was a tad drippy. I was concentrating more on her wordplay than her delivery (I think Obama and Biden can be every bit as sarcastic, but their delivery doesn’t have the same drip) and I came away mostly happy. She successfully fulfilled the role she was assigned– to quell doubt (at least a large portion of it), to galvanize the party, to sell herself and to sell her running mate.

  You have to admit, the next two months have the potential of being very interesting.

• 26 xoxoxoxo // Sep 5, 2008 at 9:39 pm

  Dennis-

  Here’s the reason your post irritated me-from the very first sentence, you were judgmental and divisive.

  You judged right off the bat that what you were going to say might not “hold much sway with many here” based SOLELY on the fact that you are an Obama supporter.

  You drew a dividing line between the “enthusiastic Mormon Republicans who might be selectively attending to certain things” about Sarah Palin-and yourself. You also indicated that this “other” group is enthusiastic about her because “on the surface” her “stated values” appear to be similar to the “social values” of “many Latter-day Saints”, whereas YOU tend to go deeper and want to see “their character as trying to be like Jesus”.

  And on it goes.

  So let me use one of your points to clarify MY point. In post #23 you state “You don’t know me at all. I’d hope that we can have an exchange with each other that doesn’t throw into question our religious integrity.” You don’t know US at all either, so your initial post came across as the extremely offensive and arrogant assumption that simply because “some” of the Mormons here are excited about Sarah Palin, we needed someone with superior judgment and discernment skills to step in and instruct us on how to determine who is “trying to be like Jesus” and who is not.

  It was also extremely hypocritical to point fingers at ONE speech given by Sarah Palin-a VICE Presidential candidate- and claim that she wasn’t trying to be like Jesus because she was divisive, sarcastic, and offensive-when Obama-a PRESIDENTIAL candidate you support-has spent more than a YEAR being un-Christlike in his own speeches and comments that are divisive, sarcastic and offensive to a “whole lot of average Americans”(-you know, the ones who cling to their guns and their religion for example.)

  The fact you need to face is that if the Obama camp and the God-making media had kept their mouths SHUT and not taken a hundred very unChristian and “uncharitable” and “sarcastic” jabs at Sarah Palin’s career experience (not to mention her personal life AND that of her CHILDREN) before the woman even accepted her nomination, her speech might have had an altogether different tone and intent.

• 27 xoxoxoxo // Sep 5, 2008 at 9:47 pm

  Link to the actual unedited interview:

  http://bobandmarksuck.com/blog/audio/Palin-responds-scheduling-conflict.mp3

  Try reading Newsbusters.org if you ever want to know how biased the media has become.

  http://newsbusters.org/blogs/terry-trippany/2008/09/03/us-magazine-launches-tabloid-style-attack-sarah-palin

• 28 xoxoxoxo // Sep 5, 2008 at 9:50 pm

  Sorry David.

  Obviously you moderate posts for URL’s so that people don’t attempt to promote their own blogs by posting links to their blog on your blog. (ahem) If you want to reduce the two http addresses I posted to links that would be hunky dory with me since I have no personal stake in either one.

• 29 David // Sep 5, 2008 at 10:06 pm

  Sorry Skippy,

  That was a Wordsmith detour; I didn’t purposely have the email re-directed. But now that you pointed out why it does that, it’s not a bad idea to keep it that way.

  Yes, I heard about the Us Weekly smear on Glenn Beck. Did you cancel your subscription?

  Sorry… my keyboard hasd a nervous tic

• 30 xoxoxoxo // Sep 5, 2008 at 10:50 pm

  David,

  No biggie…just informin ya that the requested link to the interview had been “moderated”. Wordsmith obviously doesn’t stop people with HTML experience from creating and embedding their own click-able links to their personal blogs in their posts. (post #17, second paragraph)

  Although I would love to have a subscription just so I COULD cancel it, I don’t, so I heard about it on Glenn Beck, but had way more fun reading the Newsbusters coverage. It’s also a fun place to see what Mr. Obama said at one point in time and denies/changes/ignores at another.

  I was stunned that Oprah has apparently decided NOT to invite Mrs. Palin to be a guest on her show-being a landmark female nomination and all. But of course it has nothing to do with personal bias…..

• 31 xoxoxoxo // Sep 5, 2008 at 11:23 pm

  Oh….hilariousness. After reading a certain suggested blog, I am weeping with laughter over the idea that Obama’s “community organizer” days were ANYTHING remotely connected to civic duty or government of any kind (ACORN anyone?) or that being ON the Senate Foreign Relations Committee actually means he HAS Foreign POLICY experience. Anyone who doesn’t know the difference between Foreign Relations and Foreign Policy (not to mention knowing that Obama’s attendance record while on that committee resembles Bristol Palin’s school attendance while she had mono) has no business attempting to discuss politics online at all. Unless they practice comedy as a profession…

  One has to ask just how much time Obama has had to BE an effective leader of ANY kind while publishing two books about himself and running for President. Seems 4 times more people have been shot and killed in his native Chicago this summer than died during the Surge this summer. He does his state proud huh?

• 32 Dennis // Sep 6, 2008 at 6:39 am

  xoxoxoxo:

  I’m sorry I offended you so greatly. It certainly wasn’t intended. I certainly wasn’t trying to come off as superior, but simply to give another perspective. Honestly, I’m not certain how constructive continuing this conversation is going to be so I think I’ll just stay over in my corner. You’re certainly welcome to comment on my blog anytime.

• 33 David // Sep 6, 2008 at 3:32 pm

  Dennis,

  Please don’t let my other visitors dissuade you from speaking up here with exactly how you feel. You’re welcome anytime. I do agree with you, though, political arguments are unattractive– I even said so yesterday on another post on nine-moons.com where the other side was represented. It’s like religion– we’re all adopt “truths” and then lock horns with anyone else had something to say about it.

  I hope to hear from you again and will definitely come visit your blog.

• 34 Dennis // Sep 6, 2008 at 7:36 pm

  Thanks David,

  I’ve actually appreciated my exchanges with you. I’ll visit again.

• 35 Dennis // Sep 6, 2008 at 8:30 pm

  I find xoxoxoxo’s claim that foreign policy and foreign relations are somehow two fundamentally opposed things to be quite curious. Apparently she doesn’t want to actually debate me on my blog and face the scrutiny of others in the context of the original conversation, but would rather guffaw at me here.

  I’ll simply quote the following from the U.S. Foreign Relations Committee website (from Joe Biden):

  Our committee is one of the oldest in the Senate, dating back to the initial creation of permanent Senate committees in 1816. It plays a vital role in shaping U.S. policy around the world. The committee has oversight over the foreign policy agencies of the U.S. government, including the State Department, the U.S. Agency for International Development, the Millennium Challenge Corporation, and the Peace Corps. The Committee reviews and considers all diplomatic nominations and international treaties, as well as legislation relating to U.S. foreign policy.

  Also, I listened to the unedited clip of Palin and my opinion of Palin’s behavior on the clip is mostly the same. I do agree, though, that the edited clip is misleading. It is certainly nice to hear the whole conversation, but Palin still did what she did. I already figured that there was good reason for Palin to be upset at Lyda Green. Plus I had already read commentary about this from news reports published after the incident occurred. Many people took issue with Palin’s behavior way back when it happened.

  Regarding Newsbusters, it’s hard for me to give a lot of credibility to such an obviously right-wing organization (do I need to mention the enormous advertisement for conservative t-shirts which have “Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms” printed on them?). The same could certainly be said of liberal sites like Huffington Post (which I almost never read). I’d prefer to read about news media bias from a non-partisan source.

  I actually agree, by the way, that there is a liberal news media bias, but that it is exaggerated. It is nowhere even close to the conservative bias of FOXNews. In terms of online blogs and news (like Huffington Post) there’s a whole lot of bias in both directions. Do I need to mention that there is still a sizable number of Americans who think that Obama is a Muslim?

• 36 Karron // Sep 7, 2008 at 3:57 am

  Tsk . . . politics can get so heated at times. Still, I have to go with xoxoxo, I think Sarah Palin is an amazing woman who has all talent and abilities needed to make a strong and dedicated vice-president. I think John McCain is a strong candidate too, especially for those of us of a certain age. Baby boomers can relate to him in a number of important ways, we speak the same language.

  Obama is a snobby pipsqueak who has one goal and one goal only, to be the president of the United States. I have read every word he has written, listened to everything he has said, watched interview after interview, and all I see is a man in love with himself. He doesn’t love his country, that much is clear, and he is more divisive than any candidate I have seen since Bill Clinton didn’t have relations with that woman. He is anti white, anti middle class, anti middle American, and anti constitution. He hates anyone who is wealth and or who has done well. He hasn’t done his job in the Senate, because he has been far too busy trying to become president. It’s as if he has it in mind as some sort of personal goal, like graduation from college, and not as a great desire to serve US, the people of this great country. Heck, as long as he thinks he is king, who cares what the people need. Just my opinion, but he really annoys me.

  As for Oprah, who bothers to watch the clap trap she calls a television show? Ever since she went off the deep end with a new ‘spiritual’ guru every few months, and started recommending trash for everyone to read, I haven’t bothered to even tune in. The only Oprah show I would watch would be an interview with Sarah Palin. Won’t happen, Oprah is too much of a snob in her own right.

  Enough rambling. I have got other things to do than be on line.

  Karron

• 37 David // Sep 7, 2008 at 3:29 pm

  Karron,

  I sense you have some strong feelings on the campaign. Would you care to share?

• 38 xoxoxoxo // Sep 7, 2008 at 11:59 pm

  Dennis,

  I don’t want to debate you on your blog. I don’t like debates PERIOD. You posted here and I replied. I lived in Washington D.C. long enough to understand that the government of the Founding Fathers is nothing like the government of today and the corruption and stupidity is leagues deep in both parties.

  I do not claim that both McCain and Palin are squeaky clean, completely ethical individuals capable of reversing this country’s continually escalating slide. I don’t believe that is possible for any candidates to accomplish and I think it is naive to look to the political leaders of this country as examples of religious integrity in this day and age. For all intents and purposes, my vote in this election even WITH Palin on the ticket will be a “lesser of two evils” decision, and it always has been, but I live in a state where my individual vote is rendered futile by the electoral college system anyway.

  I did not say that Foreign Policies and Foreign Relations are “fundamentally opposed”. I stated that there is a difference between them. The committee that both Barak and Joe sit on “oversees” the government agencies that actually determine and execute Foreign policies , and they “review and consider” appointments and legislation presented to the Senate for debate and approval.

  In other words, I see a vast difference between sitting on a committee with 15-20 other Senators that “has oversight” on foreign relations and having real, pertinent, hands-on life experience dealing with other nations, cultures, governments and world situations. NONE of the candidates (Presidential or VP) has ever been in charge of, or had security clearance for, the official intelligence, reports, statistics and evidence required to determine and/or author legislation on “Foreign Policy”.

  Either way, whichever team is elected, they will have entire staffs dedicated to foreign affairs, not to mention several agencies, and a Senate and a House to contend with BEFORE issuing any new or different policies. Having personal experience in drafting international laws isn’t one of the job qualifications and never has been.

  We all have biases, so the only thing we can do is stay close to the spirit, be obedient and worthy of inspiration, and make choices based on what we know. I personally don’t think that knowing which candidate is better than another is even remotely as important as knowing my Savior and preparing myself and my family for whatever happens on a global level to the best of my ability.

• 39 Karron // Sep 8, 2008 at 3:48 am

  I guess, David, and everyone else, that I have such a strong position on things because I have lived under both communist and socialist governments and I have seen just how poorly they treat their people in the name of so called equality. I nearly died in a socialist hospital with socialized medicine. It took six MONTHS to see a follow up cardiologist after heart surgery. And Obama would LOVE to have socialized medicine. Anyone who is for that will certainly not get my vote. Strike one for Obama.

  I am a pro gun person. Belong to the NRA and have for years and years. Obama wants to take our guns away. Well that is what they did in England, so now the criminals just go about in gangs and stab people to death. Yep, banning guns really worked out well didn’t it? Just like in England (lived there for three years recently) only the criminals here will have guns if Obama gets his way. Strike two for Obama.

  I am for lower taxes. In fact, I would like to see a flat tax like they have in Hong Kong. (lived there for two years 2000-2002) The flat tax of ten percent of your income works great. The more you make, the more you pay, the less you make, the less you pay. It is up to you how hard you work. Obama wants to rob the very people who provide jobs for people by taxing the large businesses, medium business, and small businesses right out of business. Then he wants to tax the people who earn good money because they work hard. In some places, 200 thousand a year is barely middle class and that is where he wants to start his high taxation. Soon, because that won’t be enough, he will go after anyone making 100 thousand – and so on. Strike three for Obama.

  And he is still a snobby self serving pipsqueak.

• 40 David // Sep 8, 2008 at 3:45 pm

  Well from what I hear, the Canadians who receive socialized medicine come down here for their health care. So, what does THAT say?

• 41 xoxoxoxo // Sep 8, 2008 at 6:02 pm

  40 comments on one thread~!!! Congrats Davey Boy…you’ve hit the big time

• 42 xoxoxoxo // Sep 12, 2008 at 9:36 pm

  I find it funny that in an interview with George Stephanopolis, George had to remind Barak Obama that he was a “Christian” and not a “Muslim”…so it’s no wonder that many Americans aren’t sure what he is-because he isn’t. *g*

You must log in to post a comment.