Sarah Palin not good for the world

[Anubis]

Plus if our immigration policies weren't so ass-backwards regarding immigrant doctors we'd be doing alot better than we are.

The problem is not that foreign doctors cannot immigrate to Canada, the problem is their education is not up to par with our standards and are unqualified to practice here. We have some of the most liberal immigration policies in the world, so I can't see that being a problem where they are concerned.

Speaking of which, don't forget it was the conservative Eves/Harris government that screwed Ontario over in the first place. This year I will "elect" not to vote again. I can't in good concience support any of these criminals.

Well, I guess we have opposite political ideology. I think Harris was an exceptional Premier and wish he would run for leadership of the federal Conservatives (I live in Flaherty's riding, and Harris is still pretty popular out here... especially among people my age (mid-30s).

This election however, I am simply voting against tax hikes. That narrows it down to one choice. The Liberal and Green Parties want to place surcharges on all fossil fuels (and by extension will raise the price of home heating, groceries and everything else that is dependent on gasoline, natural gas, fertilizer, etc.) so they won't get my vote. The NDP are boderline communists and looking back to what they did during the Rae years in Ontario, I wouldn't vote for them if the only other choice was the Antichrist. Sadly, this is probably why Harper is going to end up with a majority. Most people I know feel exactly the same way. Who the hell can afford to fill up their car with gasoline being raised to a potential $1.50 a litre under the Liberals or the Greens???

The sad part about Canadian politics is that the parties are so partisian, you know what any representitive is going to say before they open their mouths. As such, I really don't care to watch leader debates or read each party's "platform" (ie. the BS they promise you prior to an election to con you into voting for them). I mostly vote for the lesser of two evils, as opposed to anyone I think will be a good leader. As I drive a Ford F150 pickup truck and am an avid hunter, I won't be voting for any party that suggests fuel surcharges or pointless gun control legislation. So (once again) it looks like the Conservatives will get my vote on those two points alone.

I guess we'll find out what happens Oct. 14th.

 

[CapnG]

Well, I guess we have opposite political ideology. I think Harris was an exceptional Premier and wish he would run for leadership of the federal Conservatives (I live in Flaherty's riding, and Harris is still pretty popular out here... especially among people my age (mid-30s).

Politically I'm a centrist who leans slightly left (virtually the architypical Canadian demographic) but I guess you don't have any family working in or with the medical establishment. Harris/Eves gutted healthcare in Ontario. McGuinty's been wasting his time with every program that wasn't focussed on repairing the damage the Conservatives did.

This election however, I am simply voting against tax hikes. That narrows it down to one choice. The Liberal and Green Parties want to place surcharges on all fossil fuels (and by extension will raise the price of home heating, groceries and everything else that is dependent on gasoline, natural gas, fertilizer, etc.) so they won't get my vote.

You'll get no argument there. I have no problem paying taxes so long as they're being properly spent (I'm looking at you, Quebec...). A pointless carbon tax doesn't fall under the aegis of "proper spending" in my book.

The NDP are boderline communists and looking back to what they did during the Rae years in Ontario, I wouldn't vote for them if the only other choice was the Antichrist.

Yeah but come on, we were kids when they were in power (I'm 33). I've always secretly wanted them to win one election just to see what they'd actually DO...

Sadly, this is probably why Harper is going to end up with a majority. Most people I know feel exactly the same way. Who the hell can afford to fill up their car with gasoline being raised to a potential $1.50 a litre under the Liberals or the Greens???

Careful now, talk like that will get the Europeans on the board riled up! Some of them would step over their own grandmothers to pay $1.50/L. I think Harper will wind up with either a squeaker majority or another miniority. It'll all amount to so much re-arragning the deck chairs on the Titanic. With the bitter taste of the Mulroney era still in the mouths of many, I doubt will see a strong conservative majority again in our lifetimes.

The sad part about Canadian politics is that the parties are so partisian, you know what any representitive is going to say before they open their mouths.

Funny, I've always felt that what seperated Canada's politics from America's was the lack of partisanship. The Liberals are surprisingly conservative at times, while the conservatives are routinely liberal. It's all very grey and mushy... much like our weather.

I guess we'll find out what happens Oct. 14th.

Not really, I can tell you now. About 40% of eligble voters will cast ballots and at the end of the day several hundred politicians in nice suits will head to Ottawa and resume Parliment. And off we go again...

 

[Anubis]

Politically I'm a centrist who leans slightly left (virtually the architypical Canadian demographic) but I guess you don't have any family working in or with the medical establishment. Harris/Eves gutted healthcare in Ontario. McGuinty's been wasting his time with every program that wasn't focussed on repairing the damage the Conservatives did.

I am not convinced that the Harris Tories were solely to blame for the mess our medical system is in right now. The brain drain is still happening, as the unlimited potential for doctors to make money south of the border combined with the lower tax base makes it a much better prospect than the overworked, understaffed limited system we have up here. I once had the misfortune to visit a hospital in Florida and a hospital in Ontario in a two-day stretch. The hospital in Florida (which was a low-end "community" hospital, BTW) was bright and cheery. The Ontario hospital by comparison, was a dark, dirty hellish place staffed by nurses with the worst attitudes I have ever encountered. Additionally, contrary to popular belief, the Florida hospital did not ask for any kind of medical insurance until after I was treated.

You'll get no argument there. I have no problem paying taxes so long as they're being properly spent (I'm looking at you, Quebec...). A pointless carbon tax doesn't fall under the aegis of "proper spending" in my book.

Quebec is a welfare state who takes in far more than they actually contribute, all the while screaming that English Canada does not do enough to make them feel welcome. I propose instead of another referendum to see if Quebec would like to stay, the rest of the provinces should have a referendum to see if the rest of us want them to leave - kinda like that stupid Survivor show.

Yeah but come on, we were kids when they were in power (I'm 33). I've always secretly wanted them to win one election just to see what they'd actually DO...

I was 18 when they were elected. I recall within 12 months I was laid off with absolutely no prospects for employment. I went back to school on pogey, and took a millwright pre-apprenticeship course. I graduated the course and still could not find work, while newspaper advertisments for police and firemen stated "white men need not apply" thanks to the NDP's Employment Equity legislation (one of the first things Harris scrapped when he came to power). I would NEVER want to see what kind of damage Layton and that bunch of morons could cause on a national scale.

Careful now, talk like that will get the Europeans on the board riled up! Some of them would step over their own grandmothers to pay $1.50/L.

Well, Europe is not known to produce oil in any kind of large quantities, while we have enough in the oil sands alone to supply the world for at least 100 years. From my perspective, Canadians should be getting it on the cheap and the rest of the world should be paying a premium (much like what happens in every OPEC nation).

I think Harper will wind up with either a squeaker majority or another miniority. It'll all amount to so much re-arragning the deck chairs on the Titanic. With the bitter taste of the Mulroney era still in the mouths of many, I doubt will see a strong conservative majority again in our lifetimes.

I would have thought that if not for Dionne's ridiculous "Green Shift" plan. This is the worst political strategy since John Tory came up with announcing seperate cultural high schools as his platform during the last election in Ontario. Sadly, he was a shoo-in up to that point. Now we are stuck with 4 more years of McGuinty as a result.

Funny, I've always felt that what seperated Canada's politics from America's was the lack of partisanship. The Liberals are surprisingly conservative at times, while the conservatives are routinely liberal. It's all very grey and mushy... much like our weather.

I have always found the opposite, which is why I found leader "debates" a pointless waste of time.

Not really, I can tell you now. About 40% of eligble voters will cast ballots and at the end of the day several hundred politicians in nice suits will head to Ottawa and resume Parliment. And off we go again...

You are probably right. However don't forget high gas prices are a very touchy subject with most people that drive (which is almost everyone). I think Dionne's threat to charge a new 10 cents a liter tax will motivate a lot of people to vote against him.

 

[CapnG]

Well, Europe is not known to produce oil in any kind of large quantities, while we have enough in the oil sands alone to supply the world for at least 100 years. From my perspective, Canadians should be getting it on the cheap and the rest of the world should be paying a premium (much like what happens in every OPEC nation).

HA! If we tried it on a friday night the Americans would have tanks on the border by saturday morning and would be carpet bombing Ottawa by noon. Hmm... maybe it's not such a bad idea after all...

 

[DamnDirtyApe]

Whee!

Socialism is a good thing, dont confuse it with communism, not saying you did. However people is what is important. you cant give out to China for being in your country because the American economy is based on Free market platform. China has cheap labour, so American companys would rather do the work outside the USA. The policies you have for your reasons voteing Republican, i will discuss them here briefly.


(1)small goverment dont really undestand what you mean about that.
(2)Less taxes, but have Republicans reduced taxes in the last eight years.
(3)Strong military, that has destroyed the economic climate of America , thousands of soldiers killed on a false promise, hundreds of thousands of civilians killed seriously man.
(4)Pro business notting wrong with business it is necessary,however business needs to look after its workers. In business it is called self realisation.

(5)Allegiance. Notting wrong with that , however you cant blindly support something that is wrong, " especially if that Allegience is wrong that you are supporting

(6)Secureing the border . is a policy i believe in, but you have to be open to people who have suffered stuff that they cant deal with anymore.
(7)Self reliance. well if ye had self reliance, you would not be robbing other Nations resources.

Sorry, we will have to agree to disagree that socialism (public control over productive property and the distribution of wealth) is a good thing I'm not arguing the libertarian stance that there should effectively be NO oversight or governing of business, but generally speaking less control and guidance of the government over my life and property is better. That's what I meant by smaller central government. Smaller in bureaucracy and smaller in power vs individuals' rights

You seem to think I'm defending the republicans in Congress or Bush. I'm not. They have fucked up on many issues and have not been true to their own stated platform. You have misunderstood, or twisted, my list of the republican platform. Like I said, Bush and the republican congress have NOT lived up to their own platform. I want a strong military, not necessarily one bent on "democratizing" the world. No, the republicans have not reduced taxes. That's part of the why I'm upset with them. I would not have gone into Iraq since I don't think there was suficent evidence that they were truly an eminent threat. The Middle East is a hornet's nest, as Russia found out in the 80s. Better to ignore them completely and pump our resources into solar, wind, nuclear, geothermal etc. Unfortumately, the democrats have a dismal record on that here in the states. In congress they obstructed nuclear power and drilling at every turn. Even things like wind turbines they balked at because they didnt like the turbines in their own back yards or because birds might fly into them. Both parties have failed us on that matter since the 70s when we had our big OPEC crisis under Carter.

>>>)Self reliance. well if ye had self reliance, you would not be robbing other Nations resources. " Not sure who's resources we are robbing. We have been paying through the nose for oil and everything else. If we we really wanted to make war in iraq for oil, then why is the price of oil so high on a per barrel basis and at the pump? The war was an ideological one more than economic one.

As for China, I was referring to us operating in debt and esentially borrowing from China, not cheap labor. So back to my previous point, the money we spend in Iraq could have been better spent making us fiscally solvent, balancing the budget, and investing in alternative fuels.

As for "enemies" of the US loving Obama, I wasn't referring to Europe. I wouldn't consider them enemies, more "tentative allies" or "occasional rivals" is a better descpription. I meant Hamas, Iran, North Korea etc. I think they all endorse Obama becuase they feel he will be weaker and more yielding to their own goals.

As for me being racist and shallow.. well... let's just not go there, shall we? This has been civil so far, and I'd hate for this to degenerate into name calling.

 

[CapnG]

Whee!

As for "enemies" of the US loving Obama, I wasn't referring to Europe. I wouldn't consider them enemies, more "tentative allies" or "occasional rivals" is a better descpription. I meant Hamas, Iran, North Korea etc. I think they all endorse Obama becuase they feel he will be weaker and more yielding to their own goals.

You should bear in mind that the majority of the nations on earth have a stated preference in polls for Obama. That America's defacto "enemies" (I could split hairs over nations which are openly hostile to the US and those that are merely unfriendly but let's stick with your term) factor into that percentage is as much a matter of mathematics as it is politics.

And let's not forget that China, India and Libya (?!) favour McCain...

 

[DamnDirtyApe]

Whee!

You should bear in mind that the majority of the nations on earth have a stated preference in polls for Obama. That America's defacto "enemies" (I could split hairs over nations which are openly hostile to the US and those that are merely unfriendly but let's stick with your term) factor into that percentage is as much a matter of mathematics as it is politics.

And let's not forget that China, India and Libya (?!) favour McCain...

LOL.. ya Libya is a "WTF" thing if true. I'm guessing China and India realize that McCain/republicans tend to favor free trade more that protectionism/tariffs as with the Dems. Although Clinton did eventually vote for NAFTA. Or perhaps China thinks McCain continuing the Occupation will drain our economy even more, digging us even deeper into their debt.

Excerpt from Obama on free trade: "Well, in a year's time, it'll be me who's enforcing them. We're going to make sure that the right thing is being done. It is absolutely critical for us to understand that NAFTA was an enormous problem. The permanent trade relations with China, without some of the enforcement mechanisms that were in there, that you voted for, was also a significant problem. And we've got to all move forward as Democrats to make sure that we've got trade deals that work for working people and not just for corporate profits"

 

[Kieran]

Whee!

Sorry, we will have to agree to disagree that socialism (public control over productive property and the distribution of wealth) is a good thing I'm not arguing the libertarian stance that there should effectively be NO oversight or governing of business, but generally speaking less control and guidance of the government over my life and property is better. That's what I meant by smaller central government. Smaller in bureaucracy and smaller in power vs individuals' rights

You seem to think I'm defending the republicans in Congress or Bush. I'm not. They have fucked up on many issues and have not been true to their own stated platform. You have misunderstood, or twisted, my list of the republican platform. Like I said, Bush and the republican congress have NOT lived up to their own platform. I want a strong military, not necessarily one bent on "democratizing" the world. No, the republicans have not reduced taxes. That's part of the why I'm upset with them. I would not have gone into Iraq since I don't think there was suficent evidence that they were truly an eminent threat. The Middle East is a hornet's nest, as Russia found out in the 80s. Better to ignore them completely and pump our resources into solar, wind, nuclear, geothermal etc. Unfortumately, the democrats have a dismal record on that here in the states. In congress they obstructed nuclear power and drilling at every turn. Even things like wind turbines they balked at because they didnt like the turbines in their own back yards or because birds might fly into them. Both parties have failed us on that matter since the 70s when we had our big OPEC crisis under Carter.

>>>)Self reliance. well if ye had self reliance, you would not be robbing other Nations resources. " Not sure who's resources we are robbing. We have been paying through the nose for oil and everything else. If we we really wanted to make war in iraq for oil, then why is the price of oil so high on a per barrel basis and at the pump? The war was an ideological one more than economic one.

As for China, I was referring to us operating in debt and esentially borrowing from China, not cheap labor. So back to my previous point, the money we spend in Iraq could have been better spent making us fiscally solvent, balancing the budget, and investing in alternative fuels.

As for "enemies" of the US loving Obama, I wasn't referring to Europe. I wouldn't consider them enemies, more "tentative allies" or "occasional rivals" is a better descpription. I meant Hamas, Iran, North Korea etc. I think they all endorse Obama becuase they feel he will be weaker and more yielding to their own goals.

As for me being racist and shallow.. well... let's just not go there, shall we? This has been civil so far, and I'd hate for this to degenerate into name calling.

I think we have to agree to disagree.I believe that is the term used, i think we should end the debate here know, because we probably go around in circles forever withount ever agreeing with each other. Still your views i respect and i look forward to debateing you again on further issues that come up.

 

[SoCalGNX]

I Watched this women today in a interview she almost remained me of Dick Cheney,Maybe it is Dick cheney , maybe he is a cross dresser, maybe he hasnt told his wife yet?

God help the world if she ever become president.I Think we might need to clone John McCain.We cant let this women become president.We the west would probably be at war with Russia if McCain kicked the bucket, and ye all no what that means! NUCLEAR DESTRUCTION. GOD GIVE US BACK J.F.k, let us have Obama
I think J.F.k and Obama haveing Irish ancestary give them something which might not be much as it goes "Common sense"

Everyone keeps talking about the book "1984" in terms of things happening today. I think that if Palin gets in, it will be more like "The Handmaids Tale" by Margaret Atwood.

 

[Anubis]

We cant let this women become president.We the west would probably be at war with Russia if McCain kicked the bucket, and ye all no what that means! NUCLEAR DESTRUCTION. GOD GIVE US BACK J.F.k, let us have Obama

Not to sound obtuse, but didn't the Cuban Missle Crisis occur under JFK's watch?

Why would you assume that Obama would be the best candidate to deal with escalating Russian aggression?

 

[CapnG]

Not to sound obtuse, but didn't the Cuban Missle Crisis occur under JFK's watch?

Not to be pedantic but wouldn't it be more accurate historically speaking to say that the Cuban missile crisis didn't happen on JFK's watch?

 

[Kieran]

Everyone keeps talking about the book "1984" in terms of things happening today. I think that if Palin gets in, it will be more like "The Handmaids Tale" by Margaret Atwood.

I Dont agree , however you are entitled to your view.

 

[DamnDirtyApe]

God help the world if she ever become president.I Think we might need to clone John McCain.We cant let this women become president.We the west would probably be at war with Russia if McCain kicked the bucket, and ye all no what that means! NUCLEAR DESTRUCTION. GOD GIVE US BACK J.F.k, let us have Obama
I think J.F.k and Obama haveing Irish ancestary give them something which might not be much as it goes "Common sense"

I'm not sure where people get the idea that Palin is bent on nuclear war with Russia? Seriously. She is a Christian, true enough, but aside from internet rumors, where is any evidence she would be inclined to use nuclear weapons? She's not even running for president.

Reagan was a Christian, yet he never nuked Russia (at a time when tensions were much much higher). This whole idea that mainstream Christian politicians will try to bring about an apocalypse is silly fearmongering IMO. Clinton was a Christian. No nuclear war there. High altitide bombings over Kosovo, yes. But no nuclear war. Obama and Biden are Christian as well.

Since Palin has been a state governer, she has been rather middle of the road, policy wise. Go check out snopes.com for the real story on her supposedly wanting to ban books or other nutty stuff. They debunk that internet smear stuff rather well.

If nuclear weapons are used in the next 20 years, I'm betting 100 percent it's from Israel or Iran, not the US or Russia (at least not from Russia officially). It doesn't necessarily follow that supporting Nato or Georgia/Yukraine = nuclear war. Talk about jumping to conclusions!

PS: I have no dog in this fight over Christians in office, since I'm athiest. If you have specific links to truly reputable sources where she states that she feels it's ok to use nukes, please post them

 

[Kieran]

Not to sound obtuse, but didn't the Cuban Missle Crisis occur under JFK's watch?

Why would you assume that Obama would be the best candidate to deal with escalating Russian aggression?

Yes i do however that is my choice. But you cant really compare J.F.k to a lighthouse watch man (that is my term not yours).It was the cold war after all that was happening.I have looked at the Cuban missile crisis through study. And it is well known that the Military at the Pentagon wanted to invade Cuba.

And carry out
Airstrikes on the nuke placements that were situated all around Cuba.Some of the top military tried dirty tricks so this war could come about. But only for J.f.K and his adminstration this war would have happened. look at the fact guys seriously.

Ok i play out the scenario if this war happened, if the Military and Airforce got there way by there dirty deeds.

America attacks Cuba with the Airforce killing both Cuban and the Russian military " later a invasion of Cuba happens. Russia declares war on America.Mark my words there is no other choice, Russia would have to attack back, It would be a "full nuclear war" no doubt about it. As i siad before this would be the only option because the stakes where too high.


look this Republican party doesnt give me confidence that they could handle such a situation of such importance. I think there deeds of the last Eight years kind of back's up my statement.I believe Obama has more intelligence and sense then the two candidates put forward on the other side.Come on guys think , cant ye not see that.

Russia feels like America is carrying out act's that are aggressive. Ok Russia has it faults and they are real flaws. however look at the facts people.America is putting missiles all around them in countries that where formally there Allies, ok allies maybe not.

America has more Nato warships in Areas around Russia that are allowed by certain Treaties.Russia told America it has twenty one days for those ships to leave the area, That should be the end of the month of september.The Russian leader mededev siad with the Americans aggression we will deploy two fully Armed nuclear submarine's to venezuela.All this rubbish going on worry's me.

 

[DamnDirtyApe]

America has more Nato warships in Areas around Russia that are allowed by certain Treaties.Russia told America it has twenty one days for those ships to leave the area, That should be the end of the month of september.The Russian leader mededev siad with the Americans aggression we will deploy two fully Armed nuclear submarine's to venezuela.All this rubbish going on worry's me.

Perhaps this has something to do with Russia's invasion of Ossetia? How long have the ships been there? Russia has trying to reassert dominance over its former satellites since Putin came to power, and I think this whole thing is fueled by high oil prices and Russia's oil revenues from places with strategic locations like Georgia's oil pipelines.

I doubt it has to do with nefarious motives by the US to hassle Russia per se. We have enough on our plate already with the Iraq war and the housing loan/bank crisis.

 

[Kieran]

I'm not sure where people get the idea that Palin is bent on nuclear war with Russia? Seriously. She is a Christian, true enough, but aside from internet rumors, where is any evidence she would be inclined to use nuclear weapons? She's not even running for president.

Reagan was a Christian, yet he never nuked Russia (at a time when tensions were much much higher). This whole idea that mainstream Christian politicians will try to bring about an apocalypse is silly fearmongering IMO. Clinton was a Christian. No nuclear war there. High altitide bombings over Kosovo, yes. But no nuclear war. Obama and Biden are Christian as well.

Since Palin has been a state governer, she has been rather middle of the road, policy wise. Go check out snopes.com for the real story on her supposedly wanting to ban books or other nutty stuff. They debunk that internet smear stuff rather well.

If nuclear weapons are used in the next 20 years, I'm betting 100 percent it's from Israel or Iran, not the US or Russia (at least not from Russia officially). It doesn't necessarily follow that supporting Nato or Georgia/Yukraine = nuclear war. Talk about jumping to conclusions!

PS: I have no dog in this fight over Christians in office, since I'm athiest. If you have specific links to truly reputable sources where she states that she feels it's ok to use nukes, please post them [/quotel



Look at her first interview she done when she become McCain's Running mate.You will get a little insight behind the mask.

Like i siad before Obama, J.f.k, have Irish ancestary and so has Reagan.Haveing Irish in your genes gave those guys sense . It is something i guess.
Reagan hated the communists and i think it was well known. However he knew that he had to get on with Russia. Reagan keeping relations up with Russia was one of the reasons why communism eventually fell in that country.

Look she has no knowledge on anything full stop.

Russia has already siad if Iran is attacked , it will attack Israel. Russia has lots of civilians of all professions working on the nuclear power stations that are situated around that vast country.

 

[Cosmic Ejaculator 1814]

I'm not sure where people get the idea that Palin is bent on nuclear war with Russia? Seriously. She is a Christian, true enough, but aside from internet rumors, where is any evidence she would be inclined to use nuclear weapons? She's not even running for president.

PS: I have no dog in this fight over Christians in office, since I'm athiest. If you have specific links to truly reputable sources where she states that she feels it's ok to use nukes, please post them

I'm NOT saying she's "hell bent" on nuclear war with Russia!

In my opinion the most likely scenario is an overreaction,in the event of a large scale terrorist attack on Isreal or the US.

Think,911=Iraq,times a 1000!

Don't forget,the ONE thing Christian and Muslim fundamentalists have in common,is the idea that there MUST be conflict in the Middle-East in order too fulfill the "prophesies" in their "Holy Books"!

In fact,peace would be the death of these distorted worldviews!

But if you need too tell yourself that these are insignificant character traits in an American (Vice) President,in order too justify voting "pocketbook" one more time - more power too ya'!

I suggest you take a look at ALL the parts in this Glenn Beck - John Hagee exchange - and then get back to me!

I'm not saying Sarah Palin shares John Hagee's "Cosmology" - but don't tell me it's not a fair question too ask a woman who might one day have her finger on the "Red Button"!

 

[Anubis]

Not to be pedantic but wouldn't it be more accurate historically speaking to say that the Cuban missile crisis didn't happen on JFK's watch?

Regardless of how JFK handled the situation, it was still the closest that the world came to a full-out nuclear war.

As for this silly Obama vs. Palin debate, I don't believe either one would handle it like JFK. Obama would likely shy from confrontation with the Russians and thereby let them do as they please, while Palin seems like she would order a full-out nuclear retaliation. Neither of these situations would bode well for the United States. I guess the Americans had better hope McCain gets elected and stays healthy for his entire term as President. Despite Democrat claims of a "new Camelot" Obama is not JFK by a long shot.

BTW: What is all this about Obama being Irish? Obama sounds about as Irish to me as Clayton sounds Hebrew. Can someone elaborate???

 

[Kieran]

That preacher in the vid is a scare monger. Takeing stuff from the Bible , and mixing stuff so it kind of makes sense, But behind it all it doesnt. However i still believe we live in a time that is quiet dangerous and the future looks uncertain.

 

[Anubis]

I'm not saying Sarah Palin shares John Hagee's "Cosmology" - but don't tell me it's not a fair question too ask a woman who might one day have her finger on the "Red Button"!

By the same logic, we should also assume since Obama has a Muslim name, we should assume he is a terrorist until he proves himself otherwise. After all, he will have better access to that same button if he is elected.

This is why I don't think there truly is Freedom of Religion anywhere in the world. You may be free to believe what you want, but if you even appear to think any diifferent than the majority of the sheeple, you will be looked upon with scrutiny and mistrust. I find it somewhat absurd that so many people find Palin's beliefs so bizarre, yet see nothing wrong with the beliefs of Catholics that include performing symbolic cannibalism every Sunday at Mass. All religions are equally bizarre when measured with the same stick.