Palin: Iraq war and gas pipeline 'a task that is from God'

I read that and just couldn't help but laugh considerng the topic

Just yesterday a close friend of the family dropped by and politics came up. His exact words were "I'm not votin' for no Muslim. That just ain't right."

I about fell over from the amount of ignorance that I just heard. I of course didn't say anything since he's a wonderful person but holy hell, these are the type of people that are allowed to decide the leader of a country! I've known him a long time and he's a very strict Southern Baptist and to hear descrimination against another religion just drives me bonkers (no matter if he's a muslim or not) I personally do not have religion in my life but I could give two sh*ts less what you believe in. I've listened to Palin and McCain and it just doesn't add up for me.

 

so was I.

 

Again, I don't care. What he did and who he was doesn't matter. The only thing that matters right now is which candidate is better for the country. OMG, the VP nominee went to 6 different colleges in 6 different years. So what?

Everyone is being brainwashed now to focus on the candidates and their history. This isn't a popularity contest, nor is it "let's pick apart their past" challenge. All the points the media and supporters are focusing on now, are minor nonsense ones. I don't really care that Mrs. McCain wears a $301,000 outfit.

 

Yet you yourself make assumptions about the character of "the press" -- and potential leaders with formal educations! -- based on inductive reasoning (whatever random educated people you might have encountered = all educated people) and ad populum (presumptions of the inherent corruption/incompetence of candidates based on projected common sentiment).

I'm not trying to be a vast pulsating jerk, but I really have to ask: Which press? What reporters? What news agency exactly is run by "the left"? Are you even defining "the left" correctly -- i.e., as Marxists -- or have you caught the Fox News disease that causes otherwise sane Americans to believe leftist is a synonym for democrat, a little game of Three-Card Monty designed to throw American political terminology out of sync with the rest of the world?

Or are you making the often refuted argument that "the left" runs "the press"?

Have a look at FAIR (Fairness and Accuracy in Reporting), if that really is your argument. If you haven't already, read a few books by conscientious non-mainstream reporters (an early example: Unreliable Sources) to find out how far right the so-called "left-wing" press really is. For perspective, ask our friends from the UK, many of whom can't believe how right-wing the American press has become.

Better to ask, who owns the specific news organization in question, where are their allegiances and what are their vested interests? What mandates might they have a stake in handing reporters of every political description? It seems to me that, post-Fairness Doctrine, the tone and bias of an American news organization is imposed to a great extent by the people who own it and whatever non-news-specific economic interests fuel their overall enterprise.

 

Thank you, I did http://www.fair.org/

I don't know what exactly happened, but I heard that either Nixon or Reagan took away the requirement of having two independent sources when publishing information on candidates.

 

The current organization FAIR is completely different from the Fairness Doctrine. FAIR is a watchdog organization composed of reporters and journalists who call out members of the mainstream media for inaccuracies, under-reporting, bias and the like. The Fairness Doctrine is easy enough to look up on Wikipedia, which gives a reasonably accurate account.

Of course, the notorious "no-spin zone" has its own spin on the Fairness Doctrine, and how it was an evil tool designed to emphasize "the liberal" point of view (by requiring both sides to be heard!? And is there really only one liberal point of view?). Their spin consists mostly of assurances that the full spectrum of the right and "left" (see above) is available to everyone thanks to the internet and PBS (the majority of shareholders of which are right-wing, which is why Bill Moyer was fired from NOW). You can see the fruits of the Fairness Doctrine if you look at footage of mainstream reporting from the 50s and 60s: You'll wonder where all the opining, slander and ad hominem about character has gone. The answer: Those reporters weren't allowed to pass on that disease. Moderators weren't allowed to smear a debate with their own beliefs, as Brit Hume and O'Reilly have gotten rich doing since.

And by the way: Here's my favorite quote from the above gentleman who was castigating the "leftist" American press for assassinating Palin's character:

"Liberals are obsessed with the nobility of intelligence."

Really -- all liberals are obsessed? Everyone who votes for Obama is automatically obsessed with the exact same issues in the same exact way?

And by the way: The right's characterization of liberals as elitists is completely stolen from truly leftist tracts from the 30s. Of course, the right's propaganda has no real cultural meaning for the simple reason they've removed economic class from the elitist category: without wealth and power, elitists wouldn't be in a position to affect the lower classes. The whole point of "proletariat novels" of the 30s was to vilify the wealthy and powerful, whom many leftists and socialists of the 30s believed to be responsible for virtually all social ills. Power brokers who were far above projected readers' classes were characterized as the enemy, not politicians who tried to balance class distinctions. A good book on that subject: What's the Matter with Kansas?, by the editor of the Baffler, which chronicles exactly how the right appropriated leftist terminology against the right and then turned it against centrists, who are now called leftists!

 

I don't want to get into a whole thing about it but when I say "left" I mean liberal. It's well established that the press contributes to Obama 10/1 and independent studies of the coverage of Obama shows favorable/unfavorable stories to be a ratio of around 7/1. I don't care about Fox News, I watch Fox, CNN, MSNBC, BBC and all the major Sunday forum shows and listen to NPR. I like to listen to a diverse range of media outlets and if you don't detect at lest a slight tinge of bias, you aren't listening. I don't even mind the bias, just be up front about it. At least Fox admits the right leanings.
Chris Mathews is a former Carter speech writer and George Stephonopolus used to work for Clinton and that's just a few examples of people that used to be on party payroll. Again, I don't care about the leaning, just admit it.

 

Actually, isn't that exactly what it is? A contest to see who the popular choice to run the country is?

 

Unfortunately, this is sometimes the case. George W. Bush is/was considered quite affable compared to Gore who was considered "stiff."

 

Depends on how you judge which candidate is better for the country. What are your criteria?

Mother-Gooser is right. This is a popularity contest. It's not about rational politics; it's about attachment: wanting a parent figure to make people feel safe and important and fulfill their childlike gratifications and demands. Who's your daddy?

 

Exactly, what it really comes down to is who has good policies and the ability to win people over. The policies are important for the nation, but not as important as the nation liking their president.

Just look at Bill Clinton, one of the most popular up until he was impeached, and alot of people have forgiven that as being human, because he's so damn nice. This is where I think Obama has the edge (or should that be had?), he's got the ability to win the hearts and minds, although the people who are interested in politics will notice he's come up with many things he wants to change, but no firm tactics as to how he'll address them (which is at odd's with Hillary and McCain). However, now 'hockey mom' has arrived, hearts and minds of many a republican will be put at ease.

Also, being popular with the rest of the world, as Obama seemingly is, could make him less popular with Americans?

 

I dont know how much of it is people being brainwashed and how much is the media reporting on what people care about. Try having a discussion on actual issues with someone and most of the time it degenerates into either "I like X better" or "I think X agrees with me more".

On so many issues the country seems to be polarized. Everything seems to be black and white to most people and split down a sociopolitical divide.

If you're pro-life, you vote McCan, if you're pro-choice (or anti-life as I am) you vote Obabma.

If you're think the government has a role to play in society, you vote Obama, if you want less taxes and less government, you vote McCain.

We've entered the digital phase of the campaign, there are really only two choices and for every issue and every position on a given issue the choice is pretty clear. Given that, we end up discussing the trivialities because for the most part people's minds are already made up.

 

Wow, watching the videos, the part about sending forth American soldiers to Iraq on " . . a task which is from God.." was a little blood chilling.

America has immense capacity for good, something which has been increasingly squandered under the leadership of people like Palin who either genuinely believe in the AG or feel the need to pander to it for political ends.

I care not what Palin/McCain/Obama believe in person on a religious level, but whatever it is it should never creep into foreign policy either as a genuine reason or (even worse) as a false justification for any action.

I fear that given that the election is a popularity contests, god will indeed win again.

 

McSame.

 

This is finally hitting the TV news believe it or not. Some reports also have her pastor (while standing right next to her) saying that Alaska will be a haven when the world ends with the second coming.

Some reports discuss the fact that for most of Sarah Palin's life she went to an Assembly of God church. This is a Pentecostal church which elevates the Holy Spirit into the here and now. It also encourages speaking in tongues and faith healing without doctors. She started going to a nondenominational evangelical church about the same time as she started running for Lt. Governor.

What makes me angry about some reports is that they go something like this. "She was baptized in a Catholic church." Then, they skip the history of the Pentecostal roots, and they go to "She has been attending her nondenominational evangelical church for the last six years." It almost sounds like she went from being in a more traditional church to a mainstream protestant church with no stopover in extremism which is where she has spent most of her life.

I always thought half-truths were considered a form of lies.