Palin Goes Rogue on Vegans

Cicero said:
Where is Palin quoted as believing in witches? This is from the dopey article "Jesus and Witches," where Newsweek Religion Editor Lisa Miller desperately tried to convinve her readers that Palin believes in witchcraft by citing the 2005 video clip.
Click to expand...

She belongs to a cult that believes in malevolent witches and demons as enemies of the Church and of mankind. What happened the last time that such a cult ran the courts? I would rather not take that chance again.

Maddow actually states her superstitions.
Click to expand...

More like little personal quirks, which she does not insert into her positions on public policy.

[QUOTRE]Please. This is the first time you have heard this?[/QUOTE]

No, but if you offer real proof, it would be, from where I sit, a first.
 
leftysergeant said:
She belongs to a cult that believes in malevolent witches and demons as enemies of the Church and of mankind. What happened the last time that such a cult ran the courts? I would rather not take that chance again.



More like little personal quirks, which she does not insert into her positions on public policy.

Please. This is the first time you have heard this?
Click to expand...

No, but if you offer real proof, it would be, from where I sit, a first.
Click to expand...



Real proof has been there since 1957. Where have you been looking?

"The most thorough analysis of who did what has come from historian Herbert Parmet in Jack: The Struggles of John F. Kennedy (1980). Parmet interviewed the participants and reviewed a crateful of papers in the Kennedy Library. He found that Kennedy contributed some notes, mostly on John Quincy Adams, but little that made it into the finished product. "There is no evidence of a Kennedy draft for the overwhelming bulk of the book," Parmet writes. While "the choices, message, and tone of the volume are unmistakably Kennedy's," the actual work was "left to committee labor." The "literary craftsmanship [was] clearly Sorensen's, and he gave the book both the drama and flow that made for readability." Parmet, like everyone else, shrinks from saying Sorensen was the book's ghostwriter, but clearly he was."

"In May 2008, Sorensen in his autobiography, Counselor largely confirmed allegations that he had done much, if not most, of the writing. Sorensen wrote that he "did a first draft of most chapters" and "helped choose the words of many of its sentences".
 
Last edited:
dudalb said:
Exactly. There are plenty of Conservatives who are well informed on these topics. But the Palin Followers seem to hate them just slightly less then the evil liberals.
Click to expand...

That sounds right. Do you think the overall effect of Palin is to make moderate liberals and moderate conservatives more friendly? (I guess that's not a big change--moderates generally do work together on things.)

At any rate, I do think she has caused liberals and conservatives to agree (on how poor a candidate she is).

During the campaign, the monthly "coffee talk" of my atheist group that I usually host in a coffee house fell on the night of the Palin-Biden debate. So instead, I had the group over to my house to watch it on TV. I was a bit nervous because one guy was coming to his first time meeting, and I knew he was conservative, though I knew the rest of the group was pretty left-leaning and was planning to scoff at them both but mostly at Palin. It turns out he was probably as outraged that she was the nominee as anyone.
 
cwalner said:
I don't think the science being referred to was sociology As we are dealing with pregnancy and spread of STD's, I think the reference was to things like Biology, Immunology and a few other subclasses of Medicine that deal with the spread of infectious disseases.

The one putting sociology over those sciences is Palin herself. She is more concerned with the social implications of moral values than she is in the science of how disseases actually spread.
Click to expand...

No, that would be sociology, as in which program is actually more effective at getting kids to behave safely. Social-conservative criticism does not attempt to discount basic theories of disease transmission (I wonder where you got that idea). Rather, most social cons postulate that distributing condoms along with a middle-of-the-road approach to sex (safe sex) actually creates a culture where sex is completely permissible and common - which would, in their eyes, increase the probability of unsafe behaviors.

You will find debates about condom effectiveness, but those are statistical and rarely stray into biological science.
 
Sporanox said:
You will find debates about condom effectiveness, but those are statistical and rarely stray into biological science.
Click to expand...

REfusing to teach kids how to use them and claiming that they rarely work, as some of the AO lunatics teach, just decreases the likelihood that they will ever use them, thus increasing the likelihood that they will transmit STDs.

Better to outlaw AO in the schools. You can tell your larvae whatever you wish at home. Stay out of my grandkid's space.
 
leftysergeant said:
REfusing to teach kids how to use them and claiming that they rarely work, as some of the AO lunatics teach, just decreases the likelihood that they will ever use them, thus increasing the likelihood that they will transmit STDs.

Better to outlaw AO in the schools. You can tell your larvae whatever you wish at home. Stay out of my grandkid's space.
Click to expand...

I somewhat agree, as proponents of either are pushing their view on others' children...the nature of any sex-ed program. Condoms would seem to work better, since culture is rarely defined by public-school initiatives and kids have been sleeping around since, well, a long time ago.

How far you want to take it has a number of levels, though.
 
leftysergeant said:
You teach them the biology and the social norms in school, the values of your family's religion at home. Pretty simple, really.
Click to expand...

Maybe not too simple. There always are the matters of how graphic it should be at various age levels and when to start...
 
gtc said:
Special Olympians may disagree with you there.
Click to expand...

Phrost said:
Vegetarians are cool; vegans are just nifty.

People who are smugly self-righteous about what they eat should be held down and force-fed Lutherburgers and bacon milkshakes.
Click to expand...

Another fine example of a vegan who's shoving his ethics down someone else's throat, literally. Yep, it's vegans who are intolerant of others. And the obvious solution to someone acting "smug" is to force feed them your food against their will. That's the tolerant, rational way to handle it.

However, if anyone tried to force feed me anything I didn't want they'd walk away with a busted face.
 
Unabogie said:
Another fine example of a vegan who's shoving his ethics down someone else's throat, literally. Yep, it's vegans who are intolerant of others. And the obvious solution to someone acting "smug" is to force feed them your food against their will. That's the tolerant, rational way to handle it.

However, if anyone tried to force feed me anything I didn't want they'd walk away with a busted face.
Click to expand...

You're taking all of this way too seriously. It's the internet.
 
Sporanox said:
You're taking all of this way too seriously. It's the internet.
Click to expand...

Let's just say that if I were talking about ramming some disgusting crap down YOUR throat against your will just because I found you "smug", you wouldn't take it as a joke.

In fact, there are quite a few things that we could joke about, like forcibly aborting fetuses from anti-choicers, torturing the kids of the pro-torture crowd, executing the pro-death penalty people's families, and kidnapping the chickenhawks and dropping them in Iraq.

Haha. It's just jokes, right?

Fun times.
 
JoeTheJuggler said:
She clearly puts religious values ahead of science, since there's loads of evidence that abstinence only programs don't work as well as comprehensive sex ed at preventing pregnancy and STDs in young people.
Click to expand...

She also doesn't advocate abstinence only education.


(She once answered "yes" to a poll question about it, but it was a push-poll situation with an excluded middle fallacy. The question, quoting from memory, was "Do you support abstinence only sex education, or would you prefer explicit sexual images and distribution of free condoms?" That isn't the exact wording of the question, but the actual question was no less absurd, and did mention both explicity sexual images and free condoms. A more savvy politician would simply not have answered the question, or at least refused to check a box, but "savvy" isn't one of the words often used to describe the former governor.)

When in a position to influence public policy, she advocated comprehensive sex education in schools, and her famous daughter received such instruction.
 
JoeTheJuggler said:
That sounds right. Do you think the overall effect of Palin is to make moderate liberals and moderate conservatives more friendly? (I guess that's not a big change--moderates generally do work together on things.)

At any rate, I do think she has caused liberals and conservatives to agree (on how poor a candidate she is).

During the campaign, the monthly "coffee talk" of my atheist group that I usually host in a coffee house fell on the night of the Palin-Biden debate. So instead, I had the group over to my house to watch it on TV. I was a bit nervous because one guy was coming to his first time meeting, and I knew he was conservative, though I knew the rest of the group was pretty left-leaning and was planning to scoff at them both but mostly at Palin. It turns out he was probably as outraged that she was the nominee as anyone.
Click to expand...


You take atheism more serioulsy than some Catholics take Catholicism .
 
Meadmaker said:
(She once answered "yes" to a poll question about it, but it was a push-poll situation with an excluded middle fallacy. The question, quoting from memory, was "Do you support abstinence only sex education, or would you prefer explicit sexual images and distribution of free condoms?" That isn't the exact wording of the question, but the actual question was no less absurd, and did mention both explicity sexual images and free condoms. A more savvy politician would simply not have answered the question, or at least refused to check a box, but "savvy" isn't one of the words often used to describe the former governor.)
Click to expand...

The fact that she is currying favor with the morons who ran that survey, as a major element of her power base, makes her dangerous to civilization.
 
Puppycow said:
Sarah Palin has some friendly advice for Vegans in her new book.

Quote:
“If any vegans came over for dinner, I could whip them up a salad, then explain my philosophy on being a carnivore,” she wrote. “If God had not intended for us to eat animals, how come He made them out of meat?”

“I love meat, I eat pork chops, thick bacon burgers, and the seared fatty edges of a medium-well-done steak. But I especially love moose and caribou. I always remind people from outside our state that there’s plenty of room for all Alaska’s animals — right next to the mashed potatoes.”
Click to expand...
Hey, what are aborted fetuses made of?
Yummy. :newlol
Click to expand...
Oh my. I wonder if she was serious. What does Alaska see in her? My guess is they are too busy staying warm.
 
Cicero said:
You take atheism more serioulsy than some Catholics take Catholicism .
Click to expand...

I can explain that! :) I consider myself a Catholic atheist--sort of the way there are ethnic Jews who are not of the Jewish faith.

Someone made the joke that in Ireland if you say you're an atheist, you'll be asked, "Yeah, but are you a Catholic atheist or a Protestant atheist?"--and that makes perfect sense to me.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom