Originally posted by vansmack:fair enough. . .and from the la times article, it appears that palin makes an distinction between safe sex education versus "explicit" safe sex education. i have no idea what explicit means though.
Originally posted by Venerable Bede:That is good to hear and I was pointing out flaws in Evangelicals more so than Gov Palin, so let's not be to quick to put this one to rest. The Evangelical's have a long way to go on this argument.
it appears that palin agrees.
i think we can put this thing to rest.
I'll have to find the link, but I was referring to when I pointed out the policies of Gov Palin were amounts of money Alaska appopriated for abstinence-until-marriage programs being substantially more than she appropriated for other safe-sex based programs. You, of all people, should understand the "what you say" vs. "what you do" argument - it's the core of your problems with the Republican party (and presumably Senator Obama as well based your comments in this thread).
once again the jokes write themselves...
Originally posted by Venerable Bede:Haha…I didn't either (although I did raise an eye brow when I read that). I assumed any conversation about "explicit" and "non-explicit" safe-sex education would have to take place in the NSFW thread.
fair enough. . .and from the la times article, it appears that palin makes an distinction between safe sex education versus "explicit" safe sex education. i have no idea what explicit means though.
I hope the Dems are smart enough to make any differences between McCains thoughts and Palin's thoughts on safe-sex teaching a non-issue (unless of course they show actual policy that might be diffferent then her published statements), because anything that paints Palin further to the left would not be helpful. Of course, the Repubs would want to do the same because they need Palin to look way right for the base.
Hey, wouldn't it be great if Sarah Palin did an interview or a press conference to answer some of these questions?
Just one of those off the wall thoughts…
Just one of those off the wall thoughts…
Isn't she scheduled to be on Good Morning America?
Maybe she could also do the View.
Maybe she could also do the View.
Originally posted by callat703:
Hey, wouldn't it be great if Sarah Palin did an interview or a press conference to answer some of these questions?
Just one of those off the wall thoughts…
will she do the interview in tongues?
Middle aged evangelical males everywhere are hoping the answer to this one is "yes".
Originally posted by very sonick:
will she do the interview in tongues?
Originally posted by callat703:yeah, maybe she'll go on oprah. oh wait. . . . .
Hey, wouldn't it be great if Sarah Palin did an interview or a press conference to answer some of these questions?
Just one of those off the wall thoughts…
As a somewhat outsider it seems that religion is a huge issue when picking a president for a country that has seperation of church from state.
Originally posted by Ever Circling Skeletal Family:yet congress starts every day with a prayer…..and "in god we trust" is on every form of currency.
As a somewhat outsider it seems that religion is a huge issue when picking a president for a country that has seperation of church from state.
Originally posted by Venerable Bede:Oh don't get me started.
Originally posted by Ever Circling Skeletal Family:yet congress starts every day with a prayer…..and "in god we trust" is on every form of currency.
As a somewhat outsider it seems that religion is a huge issue when picking a president for a country that has seperation of church from state.
Originally posted by Ever Circling Skeletal Family:Yes, your feelings reflect many on the British opinion of American Politics:
As a somewhat outsider it seems that religion is a huge issue when picking a president for a country that has seperation of church from state.
The Palin appointment is yet more proof of the way that abortion still distorts American politics. This is as true on the left as on the right.The Economist, Sept 4.
Originally posted by Ever Circling Skeletal Family:yeah, i'd rather not go on with this, since i disagree with your premise to begin with, but that's not really a discussion i want to have today.
Originally posted by Venerable Bede:Oh don't get me started.
Originally posted by Ever Circling Skeletal Family:yet congress starts every day with a prayer…..and "in god we trust" is on every form of currency.
As a somewhat outsider it seems that religion is a huge issue when picking a president for a country that has seperation of church from state.
Originally posted by Venerable Bede:This was a mistake, although consistent with her not having any Presidential candidates on the show (Obama was on before he announced his candidacy).
yeah, maybe she'll go on oprah. oh wait. . . . .
She should have had Palin on to discuss women's issues with Hillary Clinton (which she wouldn't have agreed to), then reminded America that she has refused your invitation every day until the election.
Originally posted by Venerable Bede:Probably like that the sex education bit in Monty Python's Meaning of Life. I know that's how I was taught. Of course I was home-schooled.
it appears that palin makes an distinction between safe sex education versus "explicit" safe sex education. i have no idea what explicit means though.
Originally posted by Ever Circling Skeletal Family:Actually it's nowhere within the constitution that America maintain a separation of church and state. That phrase and the ideal meant by it literally is from Thomas Jefferson, specifically in a letter he wrote in 1802 to a congregation of Baptists.
As a somewhat outsider it seems that religion is a huge issue when picking a president for a country that has seperation of church from state.
The closest thing we've got is the first amendment. And all that says is freedom of religion, congress can't establish an official religion by law, or stop anyone from freely exercising their own religion.
Note that having "In God We Trust" on money, praying before the opening of congress, and "one nation under God" aren't laws, they're just official traditions maintained by people whose religion has been the majority culture of America from its founding until the present time.
sometimes the jokes write themselves, other times we have jon steward to fill in the blanks.
Originally posted by sweetcell:That's so two pages ago...
sometimes the jokes write themselves, other times we have jon steward to fill in the blanks.
Originally posted by Venerable Bede:Agreed….your posts are very enlightening to me for the most part, and this is a topic that is not just a right/wrong issue so lets leave it alone.
Originally posted by Ever Circling Skeletal Family:yeah, i'd rather not go on with this, since i disagree with your premise to begin with, but that's not really a discussion i want to have today.
Originally posted by Venerable Bede:Oh don't get me started.
Originally posted by Ever Circling Skeletal Family:yet congress starts every day with a prayer…..and "in god we trust" is on every form of currency.
As a somewhat outsider it seems that religion is a huge issue when picking a president for a country that has seperation of church from state.
As for your constitution….you all brag about it's the only unchanged constitution in the world, and that's very nice and all. So if it's unchanged what are these "amendments" you all speak of, and why do you think everyone else has changed their constitutions? Because it's a totally different world from when the originial constitutions were first written. It's called changing with the times doodles.
*playing devils advocate a little here, with a ring of sincerity in my opinions. But you all love your constitution so no offense intended, just expressing what a lot of Europeans feel about it.
Originally posted by Ever Circling Skeletal Family:just for the record, i agree with what arthwys wrote about the church and state thing. to go any further would really require a long drawn out discussion on a number of issues that don't need to be discussed today.
Agreed….your posts are very enlightening to me for the most part, and this is a topic that is not just a right/wrong issue so lets leave it alone.
As for your constitution….you all brag about it's the only unchanged constitution in the world, and that's very nice and all. So if it's unchanged what are these "amendments" you all speak of, and why do you think everyone else has changed their constitutions? Because it's a totally different world from when the originial constitutions were first written. It's called changing with the times doodles.
*playing devils advocate a little here, with a ring of sincerity in my opinions. But you all love your constitution so no offense intended, just expressing what a lot of Europeans feel about it.
and i haven't heard the "unchanged" part before. i've heard the oldest constitution (although, i want to say that rhode island or connecticut also may have a claim of sorts), but that's primarily because england doesn't have a "constitution" but rather uses a common law understanding based, loosely, on the magna carta and moving forward from there. other than that, most other countries didn't have democratically elected leaders, or at least not continuously since before 1789.