The Sarah Palin Thread: 'Controversial Controversy' Edition

[Marx]

Which is why I said that Obama has more experience but not by much Do you people even read posts in here

You know...it's a funny thing...I actually do.

 

[Wylie Times]

Please point to my post where I said that Palin was more qualified than Obama.

That's a mistake on my part in my last post. You never said Palin was more qualified. You did say they're close in regards to their qualifications and that's simply not true.

Bush graduated from Yale and with a business degree from Harvard. How do you feel about Bush compared to Obama?

In regards to their qualifications it's MUCH closer than Obama and Palin.

I am talking political experience.

And I said before if you were talking about the amount of experience each had you'd be correct in saying they "aren't that far off from each other". When it comes to their actual qualifications (which is what you originally mentioned) they're not close at all.

 

[chaseter]

They both are not apt to run this country. I just hope that Palin is not the nominee in 2012 because as I said, the world will end. It will be like choosing which way you want to die...but the end result is the same.

 

[StorminNorman]

Barack Obama was also a constitutional law professor for nearly 12 years.

A constitutional lawyer with apparently no understanding of the document. He is either completely unaware of the original intent of the document or knowingly ignoring them. Either one is inexcusable.

 

[Superman]

A constitutional lawyer with apparently no understanding of the document. He is either completely unaware of the original intent of the document or knowingly ignoring them. Either one is inexcusable.

And I guess you understand the "Original Intent" better than anyone else.

 

[TimBisley]

Seriously.

 

[Marx]

A constitutional lawyer with apparently no understanding of the document. He is either completely unaware of the original intent of the document or knowingly ignoring them. Either one is inexcusable.

I think he has a much better understanding than you give him credit for man.

 

[Matt]

It really just comes down to theory. Some believe the Constitution is a living document (many judges, justices, and lawyers have subscribed to this view) where as some believe it to be it to be strictly written and not made to be changed (and again, many judges, justices, and lawyers carry this view). I tend to fall into a middle ground between the two. Being as none of us can go back in time and talk to Jefferson, Hamilton, Madison and the other Framers, none of us can be sure what is exactly right.

 

[hippie_hunter]

They intended it to be both. That is why they put in the amendment process so that way the people can choose how to change the Constitution in the events of times changing. But they also intended for the government to follow what the Constitution said.

 

[Hobodeluxe]

It really just comes down to theory. Some believe the Constitution is a living document (many judges, justices, and lawyers have subscribed to this view) where as some believe it to be it to be strictly written and not made to be changed (and again, many judges, justices, and lawyers carry this view). I tend to fall into a middle ground between the two. Being as none of us can go back in time and talk to Jefferson, Hamilton, Madison and the other Framers, none of us can be sure what is exactly right.

why does it matter what those guys thought at the time? they aren't some kind of all knowing deities. I don't get the near worship these guys receive. they weren't infallible. they cobbled together a charter and a legislative system that was workable but it was not perfect.

 

[StorminNorman]

And I guess you understand the "Original Intent" better than anyone else.

Better than most. Including most politicians and teachers. You can't understand the Constitution without understanding the people who wrote it, without understanding the political climate it was created, without understanding the people who wrote it.

I understand those things.

I think he has a much better understanding than you give him credit for man.

I never said that Obama doesn't understand the Constitution, only that he understands it and actively dismiss it the way most liberals (and conservatives these day) do. In fact dismissing the Constitution was at the heart of the Progressive movement and the fundamental foundation of it. The entire movement was based off the need of society to progressive over the arbitrary shackles the Constitution place in government and begin to use the state as a force of good.

It really just comes down to theory. Some believe the Constitution is a living document (many judges, justices, and lawyers have subscribed to this view) where as some believe it to be it to be strictly written and not made to be changed (and again, many judges, justices, and lawyers carry this view). I tend to fall into a middle ground between the two. Being as none of us can go back in time and talk to Jefferson, Hamilton, Madison and the other Framers, none of us can be sure what is exactly right.

Modern scholars may subscribe to the view of the Constitution as a living document, but the Founders did not. And the fact is that you don't need to go back in time and talk to the Founders to understand them. They all had sound, deep, thoughtful political philosophies that are not outdated today. By understanding the philosophy you can detect political motives.

The Constitution was put in place to shackle the Federal Government so that it couldn't become big and powerful.

It was the intent that most of the power of governing would reside in the states. Even thought Alexander Hamilton disagreed with this view in theory, he understood that the document itself made this clear. It was for this reason that the Senate was elected by STATE GOVERNMENTS.

[FONT=arial, helvetica][SIZE=-1]The State governments may be regarded as constituent and essential parts of the federal government; whilst the latter is nowise essential to the operation or organization of the former. Without the intervention of the State legislatures, the President of the United States cannot be elected at all. They must in all cases have a great share in his appointment, and will, perhaps, in most cases, of themselves determine it. The Senate will be elected absolutely and exclusively by the State legislatures. Even the House of Representatives, though drawn immediately from the people, will be chosen very much under the influence of that class of men, whose influence over the people obtains for themselves an election into the State legislatures. Thus, each of the principal branches of the federal government will owe its existence more or less to the favor of the State governments, and must consequently feel a dependence, which is much more likely to beget a disposition too obsequious than too overbearing towards them. On the other side, the component parts of the State governments will in no instance be indebted for their appointment to the direct agency of the federal government, and very little, if at all, to the local influence of its members. [/SIZE][/FONT]

They intended it to be both. That is why they put in the amendment process so that way the people can choose how to change the Constitution in the events of times changing. But they also intended for the government to follow what the Constitution said.

Yes, the Constitution had the ability to be changed. But that required the states to willing give the federal government such a power through the amendment process. There intent was not to change the meanings of words in order to use painful logic to defend government action.

why does it matter what those guys thought at the time? they aren't some kind of all knowing deities. I don't get the near worship these guys receive. they weren't infallible. they cobbled together a charter and a legislative system that was workable but it was not perfect.

"You don't get the near worship" because you don't understand how brilliant a system of government they created.

And in any case, I have no problem for America to get rid of the Constitution. But it must be done with the express approval of the people in a disciplined fashion. It is NOT to be done by judges and attorneys twisting the meaning of words. The government we have today is not Constitutional.

 

[hippie_hunter]

Yes, the Constitution had the ability to be changed. But that required the states to willing give the federal government such a power through the amendment process. There intent was not to change the meanings of words in order to use painful logic to defend government action.

That's what I'm saying. They were smart enough so that the Constitution was "living" enough so that it could stay relevant hundreds of years later, but they still intended for the Federal Government to follow through with it. They had no intention of the Federal Government expanding without following through the proper channels.

 

[redhawk23]

I never said that Obama doesn't understand the Constitution, only that he understands it and actively dismiss it. .

A constitutional lawyer with apparently no understanding of the document. He is either completely unaware of the original intent of the document or knowingly ignoring them. Either one is inexcusable.

Yes you did. And then you went on to state both possibilities.

 

[redhawk23]

Better than most. Including most politicians and teachers. You can't understand the Constitution without understanding the people who wrote it, without understanding the political climate it was created, without understanding the people who wrote it.

I understand those things.
.

Your piousness is mind blowing. We get it, you have very strong educated opinions. You are well informed. You make intelligent arguements and I respect that. You've read books of philosophy and biographies of our founding fathers, and of political science and theory across the board. We get it. But guesse what? YOU ARE NOT THE ONLY ONE. Has it occured to you that there are people that are in fact formally educated on these topics. That there are people who devote their entire lives to these studies. There are some who are formally educated in our laws and in the Constitution. There are others who apply this knowledge to public service and a few who run for public office. Now I'm not saying everyone in the government has had this ammount of education, or have had this perspective, but the fact remains that many of them do. They are the ones who's job it is to apply their knowledge in the actual creation and writing of the policies and laws, that you yourself spend your time commenting on in the political forums of a website originally created to discuss rumors about Spiderman. Think about that, and while you do pleace gracefully slink off the the back of your high horse. Until you do I will no longer be able to take your arguements seriously. Not that it matters as you will simply write me and many others off as uneducated and therefore not worthy of discussing with. Thank you.

 

[Hobodeluxe]

"Once, while Sarah was preparing for a city-council meeting, she said, 'I'm gonna put on one of my push-up bras so I can get what I want tonight.' That’s how she rolls."

 

[Hobodeluxe]

Better than most. Including most politicians and teachers. You can't understand the Constitution without understanding the people who wrote it, without understanding the political climate it was created, without understanding the people who wrote it.

I understand those things.



I never said that Obama doesn't understand the Constitution, only that he understands it and actively dismiss it the way most liberals (and conservatives these day) do. In fact dismissing the Constitution was at the heart of the Progressive movement and the fundamental foundation of it. The entire movement was based off the need of society to progressive over the arbitrary shackles the Constitution place in government and begin to use the state as a force of good.



Modern scholars may subscribe to the view of the Constitution as a living document, but the Founders did not. And the fact is that you don't need to go back in time and talk to the Founders to understand them. They all had sound, deep, thoughtful political philosophies that are not outdated today. By understanding the philosophy you can detect political motives.

The Constitution was put in place to shackle the Federal Government so that it couldn't become big and powerful.

It was the intent that most of the power of governing would reside in the states. Even thought Alexander Hamilton disagreed with this view in theory, he understood that the document itself made this clear. It was for this reason that the Senate was elected by STATE GOVERNMENTS.





Yes, the Constitution had the ability to be changed. But that required the states to willing give the federal government such a power through the amendment process. There intent was not to change the meanings of words in order to use painful logic to defend government action.



"You don't get the near worship" because you don't understand how brilliant a system of government they created.

And in any case, I have no problem for America to get rid of the Constitution. But it must be done with the express approval of the people in a disciplined fashion. It is NOT to be done by judges and attorneys twisting the meaning of words. The government we have today is not Constitutional.

Oh I appreciate that they got it mostly right. and the fact that they allowed for amendments is one of the things that has made it so enduring.
and I agree that our govt is far from what it is supposed to be constitutionally. mostly the way the big money is allowed to usurp the will of the people. They purchase legislation like they were buying socks at WalMart.

 

[Matt]

"Once, while Sarah was preparing for a city-council meeting, she said, 'I'm gonna put on one of my push-up bras so I can get what I want tonight.' That’s how she rolls."

I'm not one to defend Palin, but I think that the context of that would be fairly important. It seems like a joke, or even a slight on the councillors (as in, they're a bunch of perverts), more than a serious suggestion.

 

[Hobodeluxe]

I'm not one to defend Palin, but I think that the context of that would be fairly important. It seems like a joke, or even a slight on the councillors (as in, they're a bunch of perverts), more than a serious suggestion.

she might not be the brightest bulb but she knows what works. She dresses to catch the male eye.

 

[chaseter]

Breaking News Story:

Pretty women sometimes dress seductively.

 

[Hobodeluxe]

A constitutional lawyer with apparently no understanding of the document. He is either completely unaware of the original intent of the document or knowingly ignoring them. Either one is inexcusable.

or maybe he just doesn't think Ayn Rand wrote it.

 

[Hobodeluxe]

Breaking News Story:

Pretty women sometimes dress seductively.

yeah cause when I see a tight leather skirt and heels w a push up bra on a mother of 4 I think "Conservative Christian Family Values"

Sometimes the children rebelled. A campaign aide remembers that one of the Palin children found her mother’s public displays of piety especially grating. Though Palin prayed and read the Bible every night, aides never saw the family join her for devotionals. “You’re just putting on a show. You’re so fake,” one of the children said when Palin made a point of praying in front of other people. “This is not who you are. Why are you pretending to be something you’re not?”

Gospel of Matthew chapter 6, verses 5-6,

When thou prayest, thou shalt not be as the hypocrites are: for they love to pray standing in the synagogues and in the corners of the streets, that they may be seen of men. Verily I say unto you, They have their reward. But thou, when thou prayest, enter into thy closet, and when thou hast shut thy door, pray to thy Father which is in secret; and thy Father which seeth in secret shall reward thee openly.
​

 

[Schlosser85]

She's a hypocrite about her "Christianity", just like she is about everything else. The only god she worships is fame and money.

 

[chaseter]

yeah cause when I see a tight leather skirt and heels w a push up bra on a mother of 4 I think "Conservative Christian Family Values"

Sometimes the children rebelled. A campaign aide remembers that one of the Palin children found her mother’s public displays of piety especially grating. Though Palin prayed and read the Bible every night, aides never saw the family join her for devotionals. “You’re just putting on a show. You’re so fake,” one of the children said when Palin made a point of praying in front of other people. “This is not who you are. Why are you pretending to be something you’re not?”

Gospel of Matthew chapter 6, verses 5-6,

When thou prayest, thou shalt not be as the hypocrites are: for they love to pray standing in the synagogues and in the corners of the streets, that they may be seen of men. Verily I say unto you, They have their reward. But thou, when thou prayest, enter into thy closet, and when thou hast shut thy door, pray to thy Father which is in secret; and thy Father which seeth in secret shall reward thee openly.
​

Are you really going to complain about what she is wearing Because that is the meat and bones of any political argument.

What do you think about Universal Healthcare Mrs. Obama? Oh wait nevermind, you are wearing a short dress and heels and profess yourself to be a Christian so you are a total skank, hypocrite and your opinion doesn't matter.

Shall women wear Burkas?

 

[Schlosser85]

I don't question Palin's Christianity because of the way she dresses, I question it because she lies every time she opens her mouth and abandoned the people she was elected to serve to go enrich and advance herself.

 

[Hobodeluxe]

Are you really going to complain about what she is wearing Because that is the meat and bones of any political argument.

What do you think about Universal Healthcare Mrs. Obama? Oh wait nevermind, you are wearing a short dress and heels and profess yourself to be a Christian so you are a total skank, hypocrite and your opinion doesn't matter.

Shall women wear Burkas?

I have no problem with the way she dresses. it's the hypocrisy. See she likes to judge people and beat them over the head with her "Christian values". She doesn't mind at all telling people how they should live.

So all I do is use her own piety against her by pointing out her hypocrisy.

And really who gets to ask Sarah a question other than Fox news?
She's at least listening to her handlers and only operating in environments she has full control over. Well except for that teacher thing the other day.
That was unexpected and her people tried to keep them from recording the conversation.

but I just despise her because she's a fake,she's irresponsible and a compulsive liar. She's divisive,vindictive and all ambition with nothing to support it other than the hyper partisan dittoheads who are in her thrall.