I think Palin IS a scare tactic. She & her fellow
Posted By: Christian soldier goons scare those of us who on 2008-09-09
In Reply to: and would you be 1 of those people that claim the - other side uses "scare tactics?" -hypocritic
believe in FREEDOM.
Freedom of Speech.
Freedom of/from Religion.
Freedom of Association.
Pursuit of Happiness.
Marching in lock-step with America's religious Nazis somehow just doesn't fit with what our forefathers had in mind when they wrote the Constitution.
Complete Discussion Below:  marks the location of current message within thread
The messages you are viewing
are archived/old.
To view latest messages and participate in discussions, select
the boards given in left menu
Other related messages found in our database
This lame scare tactic is aimed at
twisting both the free choice of English language usage and the Bible verse/word of Jesus (who you claim is your Savior) to support the claims of a snarky cult. Back in the Puritan times, that was considered blasphemy and the ONES who chose to do this could be burned at the stake.
You make me ashamed to be associated with the Christian faith.
Will Palin Scare the Jews?
We think the conventional wisdom, now, is that Sarah Palin is a cynical appeal not to Hillary voters but to the Republican "base," which means religious white people. It's a last-ditch effort to win just one more with George W. Bush's coalition, not to bring in those moderates John McCain supposedly appeals to most. But here's the risk: the old, conservative Jewish vote McCain's had in the bag since day one? They might not like this lady so much. As you can see in this clip (attached below), even Ben Stein—the Nixon speechwriter so happy to pretend to be something other than an educated East Coast elitist that he'll hop in bed with creationists—is insulted and shocked by the Palin pick. This is just the beginning. The New York Sun, that probably doomed organ of intellectual Zionist conservatism, seemingly also can't quite believe this selection. Allow them to tell you about Sarah Palin's grand plans for The Jews!
The disclosure that last month Governor Palin's church hosted the executive director of Jews for Jesus, who told congregants that violence against Israeli Jews is God's punishment for their failure to accept Jesus, is going to be the next club that Mrs. Palin's leftist critics pick up against her. The Jewish Telegraphic Agency quotes Mrs. Palin's pastor at Wasilla Bible Church, Larry Kroon, as saying that he doesn't believe Jews for Jesus are deceptive. "Look at Paul and Peter and the others — they were Jews and believed in Jesus as the messiah," he told JTA. "There's gentile believers and there's Jewish believers that acknowledge Jesus as messiah. There's Swedish believers."
They go on to half-assedly defend Palin by mentioning Jeremiah Wright and how there's no "religious test" for the presidency, but the Jews For Jesus are far outside the mainstream even for practicing evangelicals. Jewish Defense League Anti-Defamation League [I do know the difference! Whoops!] head Abe Foxman is pretending it's not a big deal by invoking the Spanish Inquisition (done by Catholics, not Protestants!) but his own organization has a longer, richer history of warning people about the deceptive and offensive tactics of the Jews for Jesus.
Sarah Palin's Jews for Jesus setting up shop in Wasilla, Alaska almost reminds us of Michael Chabon's charming The Yiddish Policeman's Union, his detective novel set in an alternate universe in which Americans settled Jewish WWII refugees in Alaska and Israel died before it was born. The incongruous idea of a Jewish settlement in far-off Sitka gives the book much of its uneasy atmosphere, especially in the mentions of the current fictional President of the US, an evangelical Christian promising to finally kick those Jews out of the pristine frontier, "pledging to restore Alaska for Alaskans, wild and clean."
The Democrats more or less handed Florida over to the Republicans when they selected (sorry, we'll say it) a black man without a rich history of pro-Israel hawkishness (even though he saw the light and came around pretty dam quick). This, though, might actually put it back in play.
Palin really seems to scare the loony lefties and mainstream media
One has to wonder why they continue to expend so much time and effort on trying to villify, ridicule and harass this woman - who isn't running for any office at the moment.
Personally, I think it's highly unlikely that Palin would be nominated or run in 2012, but why are the Democrats already worrying about the next presidential race? Hmmmm? Passing strange, if you ask me, considering what we've got on our plate to deal with right now.
And the Dem's tactic of -
x
That's their favorite tactic! sm
All "neocons" are liars. It has to be true because they say so. They don't know what neocon means. It's a catch phrase they hear in the liberal media and they think they are being cool using it.
Not a tactic, just scripture. Take it or leave it.
And you are the one shaming Christianity -- if you truly claim to be one.
Guilt by association tactic is tired, did nothing
In a democracy, even communists are allow to have their own perceptions. It is good news that Sam will be putting time-consuming research into overdrive. Poor pubs. Plain to see they are spinning themselves into the ground. Spin, baby, spin. Nothing you can say will change the fact that the DNC was a phenomenal success and the RNC is a dud so far, plagued by disappearing speakers, scandal and damage control.
The favorite tactic of the left....you have nothing substantial...
attack and belittle. Don't even realize how it reflects on them...or don't care.
Ignorance is not an effective campaign tactic.
stil needs more time on that one. Maybe he'll get back to us before the holidays.
Exactamundo, JTBB. A diversionary tactic
The Republicans have embarrassed and humiliated themselves so much over this past year, it's no wonder they now want to divert attention.
I am just shocked and embarrassed by the way the Republicans (and MOST posters on this board) have been behaving over the past year. It is disgusting and juvenile and THEY are the ones making all of us look stupid as a nation.
I wish the sore losers would just shut up and let President Obama do his job. They had their turn. They blew it. Now they have to wait at least another 7-1/2 years. SO BE QUIET and be real Americans for once in your life, okay? You are embarrassing the whole country!
Fellow Arkie
I know where that is! We used to shop in Fort Smith when I was little. From Mena, now south Arkansas. Your part of the country is beautiful. Where the Ouachitas meet the Ozarks! 
To my fellow Americans.....
we are all screwed. I don't think any one in government has a clue what is the right thing to do and the ones who do won't say anything as it might go against their party and who would want to do that. If one party has a good idea, the other party refuses to vote for it because it wasn't their party and let's face it.....neither party wants the other one to look good. Government is going to stick it to us again so we might as well be prepared and get the vaseline out for a little bit of lube.
Hello there fellow vegan
Okay, have to admit I'm not total vegan but am trying. I love beans too. We eats tons of black beans, garbanzo's, and some navy beans and lately been on a homemade split pea soup kick. I do love beans, less meat (we stick to mainly chicken and ham. Although I still won't eat a fava bean (mainly because they said it was like a lima bean and lima beans are repulsive to me).
Is that what they laughed about. I had forgotten.
So am trying here to be more vegan myself. There are certain veggies I just cannot get enough of (brussel sprouts for one).
If you have or know of any good recipes or websites of how to transition more veggie I'd love to hear from you. More than welcome to send me an email.
Thanks and let me know how you like the fava beans.
As I pointed out before...that fellow is not entirely honest either...
and Bush did not lie. While the bill does not explicitly state it will cover families to $83,000, it opens a loophole that will allow New York to again ask for the $82,600 raise and under the new bill would probably get it, because the stipulation preventing it was being removed. So basically what Bush said is true...he should have worded it differently.
Here are some things that were not brought forward that are also bad things about the bill:
Bush had good reason to veto SCHIP
By Grace-Marie Turner
Article Launched: 10/14/2007 01:33:38 AM PDT
Is President Bush a liar who hates children? That's what many of his critics now are asking in the opinion pages of major newspapers across the country. Why else, they say, would he refuse to sign a bill providing health insurance to poor kids?
Specifically, the president has vetoed a bill expanding the State Children's Health Insurance Program designed to provide health coverage to lower-income children. One nationally syndicated columnist went so far as to call Bush's rationale in vetoing the bill a "pack of flat-out lies."
This kind of rhetoric is wrong and misleads readers about the facts of this important issue.
There is no debate over whether to reauthorize the SCHIP program so it can continue to provide insurance to needy children. That's a given. The debate is about whether children in middle-income families should be added.
The president is absolutely right in insisting that SCHIP focus on its core mission of needy children. When SCHIP was created in 1997, the target population was children whose parents earned too much for them to qualify for Medicaid but not enough to afford private insurance. The president wants the program to focus on children whose families earn less than 200 percent of the federal poverty level. In today's dollars, that's $41,300 a year.
About two-thirds of the nation's uninsured children already are eligible for either Medicaid or SCHIP, but aren't enrolled. Raising the income threshold won't solve this core problem. Congress should require states to focus on the 689,000 children whom the Urban Institute says are uninsured and would be eligible for SCHIP if eligibility were limited to the $41,300 income level.
The other big problem is that, across the country, states are using SCHIP dollars to insure adults.
Fourteen states cover adults through SCHIP, and at least six of them are spending more of their SCHIP dollars on adults than on children. For example, 78 percent of SCHIP enrollees in Minnesota are adults, 79 percent in New Mexico, and 72 percent in Michigan.
With these statistics in mind, the Bush administration issued a ruling in August requiring states to demonstrate that they had enrolled 95 percent of eligible needy children before expanding the program.
Yet the bill that Congress passed, and which the president vetoed, nullifies that ruling and effectively refuses to agree that needy kids should get first preference. Instead, the congressional measure would give $60 billion to the states over five years to enroll millions more "children" - although many of them will, in fact, be adults. Others will be from higher-income families.
New York, for instance, could submit a plan that would add children in families earning up to $83,000 a year to SCHIP. New Jersey could continue to cover kids whose parents make up to $72,000. All the other states would be allowed to cover kids in families with incomes up to $61,000.
Most children in these higher income families are already covered by private insurance. According to the Congressional Budget Office, 77 percent of children in families earning more than twice the poverty line have private health insurance now.
No one doubts that SCHIP is a vitally important program for needy children, and that our nation needs to do a better job of helping working families afford health insurance. But giving the states incentives to add middle-income kids to their SCHIP rolls will prompt families to replace private insurance with taxpayer-provided coverage.
This is completely backward. The goal of SCHIP should be to provide private coverage to uninsured children. If Congress would send the president a bill that does that, he says he would sign it in a minute.
How I hate to disagree with my fellow....
But that is just nonsense. It would do nothing but create anarchy and keep the government so busy rotating presidents in and out of office, that absolutely nothing would get done. I will agree with you that the Bush presidency is one of the worst and that we will be seeing the ramifications of it in the many, many years to come and I am just hoping that he can keep things on an even keel until his term is over. But a no convidence vote? Never.
Not a fellow liberal, just a few things to say...
the National Right to Life Committee is not a religious organization. This from Wikipedia: The National Right to Life Committee is the largest right to life/pro-life organization in the United States with affiliates in all 50 states and over 3,000 local chapters nationwide. The group works through legislation and education to work against abortion, infanticide, euthanasia and assisted suicide. It was founded in Detroit in 1973 in response to the Supreme Court decision Roe v. Wade which legalized the practice of abortion in all fifty states. It a non-sectarian, non-partisan group whose founding members included leaders in fields of science, religion, law, ethics and medicine. Its board consist of an elected representative from each of the 50 states and several at-large board members.
It might surprise you to know, there are Democrats, and there are liberals, who are not pro choice. There are Republicans who are pro choice. It is not a political issue. It is a deeply moral, deeply personal issue. In my case, it is tied to my belief in God (not my God, He is everyone's God). Perhaps not so in others. Those who do not have God in their lives, I do not expect them to understand where I am coming from, and I am not trying to force anything down anyone's throat. That is MY personal conviction. In others, perhaps it is tied to their own sense of morality and what to them is right and wrong. That is our right, just as your stand is yours.
I would counter what you say by saying how could you stand up with such strong conviction for the less fortunate, the sick, for all living things EXCEPT the unborn, the most innocent of all? And the helpless? Piglet...who in this world is MORE helpless, more utterly defenseless than an unborn child? Who?
If you have the benevolence to stand up for all the others you mention, why does that not extend to the unborn? Why are they excluded?
How is it different for a woman to deem an unborn child inconvenient and decide to kill it before it is born or partially born, and that is fine, yet let that child be born and she smother it the next day and you would be outraged, or at least I hope you would. How is that right in even a most twisted sense? The plain and simple fact is it is still a dead baby who was murdered. I realize that terms like "Murder" and "Chopped up like salad in a blender" are terms that make people uncomfortable. And well they should. Because that is the stark reality of abortion, choice or not.
In this day and time, in all but the most extreme circumstances (rape, incest, possible death of mother), there are ways to prevent an inconvenient pregnancy. If we stopped performing abortions except in those extreme cases, that would stop 90%, of not more, of all abortions.
REASONS FOR ABORTIONS: COMPILED ESTIMATES
rape 0.3 % (0.1-0.6 %)
incest 0.03 % (<0.1 %)
physical life of mother 0.2 % (0.1-0.3 %)
physical health of mother 1.0 % (0.1-3 %)
fetal health 0.5 % (0.1-1.0 %)
mental health of mother depends on definition
"personal choice"
--too young/immature/not ready for responsibility
--economic
--to avoid adjusting life
--mother single or in poor relationship
--enough children already 98% (78-99 %)
Not sure where you are going with the deciding how we die thing...unless you are talking about assisted suicide/euthanasia? That slippery slope may lead somewhere you don't want to go...when that decision is taken away from you and given to someone else, to whom you have become inconvenient and a bother and it would be in their best interest that you be dead. Think about that very carefully. And before you say "Oh that would never happen" I am sure that people who made the same comment about abortion never thought it would be legal or commonplace either. The Terri Schiavo case...I just think it would behoove anyone to think very carefully about that particular snowball and do they really want to start it down the hill.
Looking out for your fellow Americans, how noble sm
Did you figure out how to spell McCain yet?
Wouldn't you want your fellow supporters to think for
;?/
LOL...Kind of like saying *my fellow prisoners*..
I read articles on this fellow......... sm
during the campaigns before the election. His predictions are not very promising and I believe we are in for a long, rocky ride. The government bailouts are just the beginning of government owning America, lock, stock and barrel.
I live in a rural, rather economically depressed area now and wonder how quickly my area will start seeing these changes. I wonder if it will be one of the first and hardest hit or if the more affluent areas of the country that enjoy a wider variety of jobs and better paying jobs will be more adversely affected first.
My 18-year-old son and I were discussing his future last night. Although he is a junior in high school, I told him that it is time that he started looking at the job markets in our area and deciding on a job that would pay well and would be in demand for a few years, at least. He won't be going to college, partly because of financial issues, but mainly because he is just not "college material" but I do want him to investigate trades-type schools and trades jobs in which he will be able to provide for himself as an adult in an economy where blue-collar workers struggle at best. 
Personally, I am not spending any more than is absolutely necessary to survive at this point. I guess I'm being "unAmerican" by not stimulating the economy, but right now I'm more concerned about what my future holds and whether I will be able to keep my home than whether I have a big-screen TV or an iphone. Times are indeed getting scary.
I am concerned for my fellow democrats on this post
Is there possibly anything else you can discuss or raise cane about other than Bush? To say that Bush started the fires in California is just beyond the scope of common sense.
I am not a Bush supporter, never was, never will be....however, not all the ills in the world or in our own country can be blamed on him alone.
I am most astounded by some of these postings, as they don't seem to make much sense and make you sound much less intelligent than I am sure you are.
Blame the people who elected him and blame Congress for not pursuing further investigation, but to keep rehashing it is blarney.
Are you calling your fellow pubs ignorant?:
x
You're really worried about your fellow citizens?
because if that were the case, you would be asking him why he continues to let illegals and overseas workers with visas into this country to take those very jobs they report are gone.
You don't know any of this is going on because you don't pay attention to anything unless Obama has said it. If he doesn't tell you illegals are taking these jobs, then you'll just pretend they are not. Sorry you don't feel illegals taking our jobs to the tune of 1.5 million right now isn't MORE important than spending more of your money.
Ever stop to think if they didn't have the jobs, Americans would?
Nope....she just stated she was here to post issues for her fellow liberals...
(or he, whichever the case may be), and I just mentioned I had not seen any issues posted. Are YOU the posting police?
And what facts to post....I hope you are really proud of your fellow posters...
right now.
not scare of her
Disturbed by her misrepresentation of her activities. disturbed about the way her far-far right beliefs could damage our country if given access to power.
Oh please, not another scare
The chance he could live well past his presidency is a possibility too.
Yes, they scare the holy
and I consider myself a Christian. I just don't see the Christian in a LOT of what these people advocate. Looks, smells, and feels more like a political power grab.
This is a good one:
Bush and the Bible: A Letter to George Bush
Dear President Bush,
Thank you for doing so much to educate people regarding God's Law. I have learned a great deal from you and understand why you would propose and support a constitutional amendment banning same sex marriage. As you said in the eyes of God marriage is based between a man a woman. I try to share that knowledge with as many people as I can. When someone tries to defend the homosexual lifestyle, for example, I simply remind them that Leviticus 18:22 clearly states it to be an abomination... End of debate.
I do need some advice from you, however, regarding some other elements of God's Laws and how to follow them.
1. Leviticus 25:44 states that I may possess slaves, both male and female, provided they are purchased from neighboring nations. A friend of mine claims that this applies to Mexicans, but not Canadians. Can you clarify? Why can't I own Canadians?
2. I would like to sell my daughter into slavery, as sanctioned in Exodus 21:7. In this day and age, what do you think would be a fair price for her?
3. I know that I am allowed no contact with a woman while she is in her period of menstrual uncleanness - Lev.15: 19-24. The problem is how do I tell? I have tried asking, but most women take offense.
4. When I burn a bull on the altar as a sacrifice, I know it creates a pleasing odor for the Lord - Lev.1:9. The problem is, my neighbors. They claim the odor is not pleasing to them. Should I smite them?
5. I have a neighbor who insists on working on the Sabbath. Exodus 35:2. clearly states he should be put to death. Am I morally obligated to kill him myself, or should I ask the police to do it?
6. A friend of mine feels that even though eating shellfish is an abomination - Lev. 11:10, it is a lesser abomination than homosexuality. I don't agree. Can you settle this? Are there 'degrees' of abomination?
7. Lev.21:20 states that I may ! not approach the altar of God if I have a defect in my sight. I have to admit that I wear reading glasses. Does my vision have to be 20/20, or is there some wiggle- room here?
8. Most of my male friends get their hair trimmed, including the hair around their temples, even though this is expressly forbidden by Lev. 19:27. How should they die?
9. I know from Lev. 11:6-8 that touching the skin of a dead pig makes me unclean, but may I still play football if I wear gloves?
10. My uncle has a farm. He violates Lev.19:19 by planting two different crops in the same field, as does his wife by wearing garments made of two different kinds of thread (cotton/polyester blend). He also tends to curse and blaspheme a lot. Is it really necessary that we go to all the trouble of getting the whole town together to stone them? Lev.24:10-16. Couldn't we just burn them to death at a private family affair, like we do with people who sleep with their in-laws? (Lev. 20:14)
I know you have studied these things extensively and thus enjoy considerable expertise in such matters, so I am confident you can help.
Thank you again for reminding us that God's word is eternal and unchanging.
then again, they ALL scare me - all the candidates
  
I wasn't trying to scare you but if it does, I
--
Mostly just scare tactics
...
Can you say scare tactics? sm
I knew you could.
I hope your dad's phone has caller ID and that he reports this call to the authorities and to the telephone company.
I am still scare of BUSH
He still has enough time to do a lot of damage.
More like a voice of scare tactics.
XX
Just more scare-tactics propaganda. nm
.
More scare tactics...just in a rhyme!
Go Obama!
C'mon, GP.....maybe not scare tactics....
maybe honest concern. Just because Obama won, you think that all disappears? Of course not. Had Obama lost, would all your concerns about McCain just magically disappear? I would think, based on your posts, you could be a little more charitable about it. Your guy won. Don't expect the rest of us to embrace him immediately. We have a trust issue and it is up to him to work his way out of that. Being sniped at by his supporters does not help us in that journey. :-)
They scare me, as well, on a very dangerous level.
Nope. The only way to get them to confess is scare
nm
I repeat...religious fanatics scare me!
I don't care what religion they are. If they are fanatic about their chosen religion, they are not independent thinkers, and I find that frightening.
No scare tactics. Just pointing out that we don't live
If we don't start talking with some of these countries, and trying to find a way to get them thinking of other things to do with their artillery than aim it at us, then sooner or later, our little plastic bubble could get blown to bits. We're not invincible.
Republican Mantra - Scare Tactics
You better vote for John McCain or the Boogeyman is going to get us. McCain couldn't even keep himself free from the enemy, how is he going to keep the entire United States free from them? Oh, I know, he is going to send Sarah Palin after the Boogeyman...she'll protect us!
Scare tactics!! Ohhh, be afraid, be very
afraid. You rightwingers are such wimps! Well, as Roosevelt once said and as Barack Hussein Obama repeats, "We have nothing to fear but fear itself." The rightwingers have surely gotten to the skittish. I, for one, am very afraid of McPalin. Now there's reason to fear them. They have nothing to offer, just more of the same old politics and power-hungry greed. Get away from me! If you want to base your decisions on lies, then you all deserve whatever comes from McPalin, but the thing is that our country will be stuck in the mire for another four years. So big deal, McCain was shot out of the sky...so were hundreds of others, others have given their lives for this country but McCain votes against any bill that will cost anything to help them....some leader he will make. Makes me wanna puke! Country First...doubt it!!
It's a good way to scare other democrats from seeing the truth nm
x
Scare tactics or stern warnings.....sm
Just got to thinking about this after ExMQMT made the statements she did below about being scared. Now, I know there was an element of sarcasm in her post, and I can appreciate the dark humor of it.
However, I think people really should look at the big picture here and understand that, with all of the findings (and yes, they are documented) of Obama's associations and religious upbringing, he could very possibly be a threat to our nation in a lot of ways. When the Russians were "loaded for moose" back in the 1950s, people were warned about the danger, but a lot of them chose to call it scare tactics. Granted, Russia never blew us off the map, but knowing that they could and that they were a threat to our country made our citizens more aware that there was more to life than what was going on in their own secure back yard. Saying that Obama is a threat to us because of his associations and religious beliefs (Muslim or Wright-brand religion) is not a scare tactic to coerce people into voting for him. It is a stern warning that this man is a wolf in sheep's clothing and that we need to be aware of the implications of electing someone who is such a person.
Scare tactics? If it was supposed to be scary....it wasn't...
it is just odd that the combination of the names worked out that way. Freaky, yes. Scary...not hardly. It it was meant to be scary it was lost on this Independent.
Word, semantics, when socialist doesn't scare...sm
people enough, it gets elevated to communist and nazi just being inflammatory. We are Americans first, democrats and republicans second, period.
Conservatives Scare More Easily Than Liberals, Say Scientists
http://blog.wired.com/wiredscience/2008/09/fearmongering-h.html
A quick look at some of the posts on this board would seem to corroborate the above. 
Don't you remember the gas/toxic warfare scare and we were told to duct tape our windows? SM
So, with the bird flu plan, what kind of silly advice do you think we'll get to keep us safe?
Sarah Palin fans are as whack as Palin.
Even John McCain's top adviser referred to Sarah Palin as a whack job.
Vote McCain and Palin! -oh and why does Palin
nm
|
