Sarah Palin's 9 Most Disturbing Beliefs

[alexalonso]

Sarah Palin's 9 Most Disturbing Beliefs

By AlterNet Staff, AlterNet. Posted September 8, 2008.

Let's forget for a moment that Sarah Palin likes to kill moose, has lots of children and was once voted the second-prettiest lady in Alaska; that's all part of the gusher of sensationalist, but not particularly substantive, news that has dominated coverage of the Alaska governor's addition to the Republican ticket.

Before the next news cycle brings the shocking information that Palin was actually impregnated by Bigfoot, we need to shift the discussion to what really matters about her in the context of the White House: her dangerous views.

AlterNet has compiled a list of Palin's most shocking beliefs, ranging from her positions on the economy to her views on reproductive rights. This list has nothing to do with her personal life, her looks or her gender. It's the stuff that voters need to know: what Sarah Palin really believes.

1. Despite problems at home, Sarah Palin does not believe in giving teenagers information about sex.

The McCain campaign is spinning Bristol Palin's pregnancy as a neat, shiny example of the unbreakable bonds of family. But while Bristol's actions and choices should not be attacked, teen pregnancy is no cause for celebration, either. To state the very obvious, it is not a good thing when teenagers have unprotected sex. And U.S. teens appear to have unprotected sex a lot: The United States has some of the highest rates of teen pregnancy in the industrialized world, and 1 in 4 American teen girls has an STI.

Like John McCain, Palin's approach to the problems of teen pregnancy and STI transmission is abstinence-only education. In a 2006 questionnaire by the conservative group Eagle Forum, Palin stated: "Explicit sex-ed programs will not find my support." Presumably the programs that do find Palin's support are ones that focus on abstinence and only mention contraceptives to talk about their supposed shortcomings.

But someone already tried that. For eight years the Bush administration has thrown its heft behind Title V, a federal program that provides states with funding for abstinence-based sex education. In 2007 an expansive study proved abstinence-until-marriage education does not delay teen sexual activity.

If Palin is elected, she will continue to throw money at a policy that does little besides ensure that a larger number of sexually active teens lack information about how to avoid pregnancy and STIs.

2. Sarah Palin believes the U.S. Army is on a mission from God.

In June, Palin gave a speech at the Wasilla Assembly of God, her former church, in which she exhorted ministry students to pray for American soldiers in Iraq. "Our national leaders are sending them out on a task that is from God," she told them. "That's what we have to make sure that we're praying for, that there is a plan and that plan is God's plan."

Palin talked about her son, Track, an infantryman in the U.S. Army:

When he turned 18 right before he enlisted, he had to get his first tattoo. And I'm like -- I don't think that's real cool, son. Until he showed me what it was and I thought, oh he did something right, 'cause on his calf, he has a big ol' Jesus fish!

Holy war, holy warriors.

3. Sarah Palin believes in punishing rape victims.

Palin thinks that rape victims should be forced to bear the child of their rapist. She believes this so strongly that she would oppose abortion even if her own daughter were raped.

The Huffington Post reports: "Granting exceptions only if the mother's life was in danger, Palin said that when it came to her daughter, 'I would choose life.'

At the time, her daughter was 14 years old. Moreover, Alaska's rape rate was an abysmal 2.2 times above the national average, and 25 percent of all rapes resulted in unwanted pregnancies.

If Palin's own daughter was only 14 when she made that statement, does she think any girl of reproductive age is old enough to have a child? Girls are hitting puberty earlier and earlier. What if the rape victim were only 10? 9? 8?

Palin also opposes abortion in cases of incest and would grant an exception only if childbirth would result in the mother's death. She has not made any statements yet about whether she believes a 10-year-old who was raped by her father would be able to actually raise the child once it was born. Perhaps Palin doesn't care.

4. Who's really not in favor of clean water? Sarah Palin.

As The Hill reports, "Governor Palin has ... opposed a crucial clean water initiative."

Alaska's KTUU explains: "It is against the law for the governor to officially advocate for or against a ballot measure; however, Palin took what she calls 'personal privilege' to discuss one of this year's most contentious initiatives."

Palin said, "Let me take my governor's hat off just for a minute here and tell you, personally, Prop. 4 -- I vote no on that." And what is that? A state initiative that would have banned metal mines from discharging pollution into salmon streams.

She also approved legislation that let oil and gas companies nearly triple the amount of toxic waste they can dump into Cook Inlet, an important fishery. It looks like being an avid outdoorsperson doesn't mean Palin really has the health of watersheds, natural resources or our environment at heart.

5. Sarah Palin calls herself a reformer, but on earmarks and the "Bridge to Nowhere," she is a hypocrite.

Palin says she's a "conservative Republican" who is "a firm believer in free market capitalism." She's running as an anti-tax crusader, and she did make deep cuts to Alaska's budget.

So, one would assume she is no borrow-and-spend conservative like George W., right?

Well, there was the time when she served as the mayor of the tiny town of Wasilla, Alaska. According to the Associated Press, "Palin hired a lobbyist and traveled to Washington annually to support earmarks for the town totaling $27 million." You'd think that $27 mil in taxpayers' funds would be enough scratch for a town with a population of 8,000, but you'd be wrong. According to Politico, Palin then "racked up nearly $20 million in long-term debt as mayor of the tiny town of Wasilla -- that amounts to $3,000 per resident."

Then there's her current stint as Alaska governor, during which her appetite for federal pork spending has been on clear display. The Associated Press reported, "In her two years as governor, Alaska has requested nearly $750 million in special federal spending, by far the largest per-capita request in the nation." While Palin notes she rejected plans to build a $398 million bridge from Ketchikan to an island with 50 residents and an airport, that opposition came only after the plan was ridiculed nationally as a "Bridge to Nowhere."

6. Sarah Palin believes creationism should be taught in schools.

Until somebody digs up the remnants of a T. rex with an ill-fated caveman dangling from its jaws, the scientific community, along with most of the American public, will be at peace with the theory of evolution. But this isn't true of everyone. More than 80 years after the Scopes "Monkey" trial, there are people -- and politicians -- who do not believe in evolution and lobby for creationism to be taught in schools.

Palin is one of those politicians. When Palin ran for governor, part of her platform called for teaching schoolchildren creationism alongside evolution. Although she did not push hard for this position after she was elected governor, Palin has let her views on evolution be known on many occasions. According to the Anchorage Daily News, Palin stated, "Teach both. You know, don't be afraid of information. Healthy debate is so important, and it's so valuable in our schools. I am a proponent of teaching both."

Palin further argued, "It's OK to let kids know that there are theories out there. They gain information just by being in a discussion."

Not when those "theories" are being presented as valid alternatives to a set of principles that most scientists have ascribed to for more than a century.

7. Sarah Palin supports offshore drilling everywhere, even if it doesn't solve our energy problems.

If McCain was hoping to salvage any part of his credibility with environmentalists, he threw that chance out the window by adding Palin to his ticket. Palin is in favor of offshore drilling and drilling in the ecologically sensitive Arctic National Wildlife Refuge.

The Miami Herald reported:

The Alaska governor has said that she has tried to persuade McCain to agree with her on drilling in the wildlife refuge. She also has said that she was happy that he changed his position over the summer and now supports offshore oil drilling.

As if that weren't bad enough, in her speech this week at the Republican National Convention, she said, "Our opponents say, again and again, that drilling will not solve all of America's energy problems -- as if we all didn't know that already." Huh. I guess drilling even when it won't help is better than working on renewable energy sources, as Palin also vetoed money for a wind energy project.

8. Sarah Palin loves oil and nuclear power.

Aside from her "drill here, drill there, drill everywhere" approach to our energy crisis, the only other things we know about Palin's energy policy, especially given her Bush-like love of avoiding the press, comes from her acceptance speech:

Starting in January, in a McCain-Palin administration, we're going to lay more pipelines, build more nuclear plants, create jobs with clean coal and move forward on solar, wind, geothermal and other alternative sources.

Nuclear power plants. Interesting. As folks look for alternative fuel sources (and again, Palin loves oil first and foremost so her commitment to any alternative energy source is suspect at best), nuclear power is enjoying a return to vogue. But here's the problem: Even the U.S. government's own nuclear agency, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, thinks an atomic renaissance is a bad idea:

Delivered by one of America's most notoriously docile agencies, the NRC's warning essentially says: that all cost estimates for new nuclear reactors -- and all licensing and construction schedules -- are completely up for grabs and have no reliable basis in fact. Thus any comparisons between future atomic reactors and renewable technologies are moot at best.

Not to mention all the other problems with nuclear energy, such as how to dispose of nuclear waste and the possibility of a catastrophic meltdown, to name a couple. Palin has no background with nuclear energy and shows no evidence of having looked into the science behind it or the dangers that come with it.

Also, it's time for Palin to drop another Bush-like tendency: Governor, the word is pronounced "new-clear."

9. Sarah Palin doesn't think much of community activism; she'd much rather play insider political games.

In her Republican convention speech, Palin slammed Barack Obama's early political work, saying, "I guess a small-town mayor is sort of like a community organizer, except you have actual responsibilities." Palin's put-down of grassroots workers, often unpaid or low-paid, demeaned an American tradition of neighbors helping neighbors, according to Deepak Bhargava, executive director of the Center for Community Change. But more revealing is Palin's apparent lack of experience in community change and local volunteer efforts, during her years in Alaska before becoming governor.

Scores of press accounts of her early years as mayor of Wasilla omit any mention of such work. Instead, they note as mayor, and in the intervening years before running for governor, Palin gravitated to those with power, money or influence. She worked to enlarge Wasilla's Wal-Mart and build a sports center (that went over budget in an eminent domain dispute), and she hired a Washington lobbyist, directed a political fundraising committee for the state's senior U.S. senator, Republican Ted Stevens, now under indictment for corruption, and steered $22 million in federal aid to her town. While some of her early community work was undoubtedly centered on her church, perhaps this comment by a blog reader best sums up Palin's political opportunism:

[Kara Ben Nemsi]

So what are you saying Alex?

Africans hunt game same as Palin (and yes they like to do it) so why can't she? Believe it or not, outside of Los Angeles, a lot of people hunt game and up until some liberals decided killing an animal and eating it was evil nobody had anything bad to say about it.

1. It's not a waste of taxpayer money to promote abstinence programs for school children. And that's all she'll be able to do is promote abstenence programs. McCain disagrees with her on this issue and won't change anything so you'll just have an increase in abstenence education. Nothing wrong with that. Encourage kids to wait until they are ready before having kids. Those who decide not to have access too all the other programs already in existence.

2. Ok you win. McCain/Palin is a vote for WAR WAR WAR!!! A hot war with Iran. A cold war with Russia. They love their wars and lots of people are going to die if they get elected. But Obama is a vote for a vicious leftist attack on our personal freedoms that will run the rest of our lives after he nominates marxists to the Supreme Court. This "citizen of the world" dislikes many of those pesky amendments. Honestly, if he's elected I expect troops in Africa by next year's end. More holy war just the other liberal version of it and some of it directed at the citizens of THIS country.

3. Obviously, she doesn't like killing unborn babies and sees it as two wrongs don't make a right.

4. I'm sure she likes and sees the need for clean water. She likes PAC money more though it seems?

5. Well she's a woman and women like to shop right?

6. Nothing wrong with that. The Scopes trial was a sham. Everyone today knows there are lots of Christians in science and your daddy's creationism isn't today's creationism. Atheistic Darwinianism is a theory and should be forced to compete alongside other theories.

7. Myopitic?

8. Repeat 7.

9. So liberals have a problem with Sarah playing the same games Barack plays? Takes one to know one.

Next time Alex, try running down Obama.

[rocstar]

He didnt write it he posted an article.

Nothing wrong with that. Encourage kids to wait until they are ready before having kids. Those who decide not to have access too all the other programs already in existence.

That's ignorant pre-1950's style thinking. While children should be encouraged to abstene sex education should be provided to all children. Even those who decide to abstene still need sex education, like we all should be educated on anything that affects our health, way of living, society etc.

Ok you win. McCain/Palin is a vote for WAR WAR WAR!!! A hot war with Iran. A cold war with Russia. They love their wars and lots of people are going to die if they get elected. But Obama is a vote for a vicious leftist attack on our personal freedoms that will run the rest of our lives after he nominates marxists to the Supreme Court. This "citizen of the world" dislikes many of those pesky amendments. Honestly, if he's elected I expect troops in Africa by next year's end. More holy war just the other liberal version of it and some of it directed at the citizens of THIS country.

This is why Obama probably wont win. In alot of peoples minds all they see Black Man and are scared somehow if he is elected Black folks around the world is going to go crazy. Obama's agenda is going to be be get money to Watt's, Harlem, DC, Africa and Haiti. LOL @ we will be in Africa by next year. We already have troops in Africa. But I guess once Obama is elected we will be in Africa, Jamaica, Haiti, etc. And Leftist attacks on our freedoms? He dislikes amendments? Have you been in this country the last several years? Have you not noticed all the war on terror laws that have passed that allows the government to intrude on nearly every aspect of your life? That was done under the Bush and Cheney regime.

[Kara Ben Nemsi]

He didnt write it he posted an article.

Nothing wrong with that. Encourage kids to wait until they are ready before having kids. Those who decide not to have access too all the other programs already in existence.

That's ignorant pre-1950's style thinking. While children should be encouraged to abstene sex education should be provided to all children. Even those who decide to abstene still need sex education, like we all should be educated on anything that affects our health, way of living, society etc.

--> and as I explained, they will get it of course as McCain will be the President and Palin the vice president.

Ok you win. McCain/Palin is a vote for WAR WAR WAR!!! A hot war with Iran. A cold war with Russia. They love their wars and lots of people are going to die if they get elected. But Obama is a vote for a vicious leftist attack on our personal freedoms that will run the rest of our lives after he nominates marxists to the Supreme Court. This "citizen of the world" dislikes many of those pesky amendments. Honestly, if he's elected I expect troops in Africa by next year's end. More holy war just the other liberal version of it and some of it directed at the citizens of THIS country.

This is why Obama probably wont win. In alot of peoples minds all they see Black Man and are scared somehow if he is elected Black folks around the world is going to go crazy. Obama's agenda is going to be be get money to Watt's, Harlem, DC, Africa and Haiti. LOL @ we will be in Africa by next year. We already have troops in Africa. But I guess once Obama is elected we will be in Africa, Jamaica, Haiti, etc. And Leftist attacks on our freedoms? He dislikes amendments? Have you been in this country the last several years? Have you not noticed all the war on terror laws that have passed that allows the government to intrude on nearly every aspect of your life? That was done under the Bush and Cheney regime.

--> He'll print the fiat money and hand it out like it's monopoly money by the trillions devaluing the dollar, worry more about looking like a "citizen of the world" than a citizen of the United States, he has no record of bipartisanship, has written no laws, has no understanding of the military or Defense, he's never passed a budget, he's never managed a populace, he has no commerce or Economics training, he has a feeble understanding of international trade law (NAFTA, etc.), he knows few, if any, foreign leaders, other than oratory is inexperienced in leadership, his only real political area of expertise is civil rights, has never run a business, or any enterprise, has inconvenient truths that pop out of his closet at unforeseen moments, has never been on a trade mission while in the Senate, has skeletons in the closet, will nominate marxists to the supreme court of the USA (imo), and engage for authoritarianism to "get control" of the free citizens of the United States.

I can not understand the hoopla. All I see is an inexperienced freshman congressman that talks a good talk and comes without power (unless you consider he has the full power of the liberal media behind him). I can only imagine what the obama supporters will do when the anti-christ shows up with a much better oratical presentation and power to back it up. They will fall down to their knees and worship him.

[razbojnik]

Analyze the Good:

1. Teenagers will find out all they need to know through experiance.
2. Thinking of Muslim extremeists.
3. Thinking of the Islamic Courts.
4. So what? 3000 years ago people drank out of rivers and lakes, one reason people died like flies.
5. That's one of the rights people have, believe whatever the fuck you want.
6. Again, beliefs. I believe that you should be your God and all of you should be my slaves(regardless of race, don't take this the wrong way), it still don't make it right.
7. This is another right being a controlling world power has, do whatever the fuck you want. This has been done through millenia. It's wrong, but whatever.
8. Speaking of oil, hold on a sec. Ahh there we go, well speaking of bee's but whatever. Nuclear power is good because it's energy creating energy, I disagree with nukes being used in war though. Old way is best. It's Darwin and Einstein combined.
9. That's why people get into politics, for their own gain and everyone else's pain. Who gives a crap.

Analyze the Good:

One sentence: What the fuck is wrong with her?!

[Kara Ben Nemsi]

What really is worrisome about the left in general is the disconnect they have towards everyday Americans that simply disagree with them. For example, weeks before the 2008 presidential election, liberals are warning America that if Barack Obama loses, it is because Americans are racist. Liberals call everone a racist that disagrees with them on most any position and this is just another manifestation of their racisthatephobia. If you don't vote for Obama for 1,001 legitimate reasons then you are a Hitler worshipping goose stepping swastika tat over your heart racist.. lol. It's ludricious but so wrapped up in their pathology as to be tragic.

The consequences of such biased ignorant hate for anyone that disagrees with them posits very real consequences for the country. For example, if Obama loses, liberal rage will focus on millions of fellow Americans and on American society they consider racist that simply didn't vote for who they believed was the best candidate.

And it could become a rage the likes of which America has not seen in a long time, if ever. It will first and foremost come from within black America. The deep emotional connection that nearly every black American has to an Obama victory is difficult for even empathetic non-blacks to measure. A major evangelical pastor told me that even evangelical black pastors who share every conservative value with white evangelical pastors will vote for Obama. They feel their very dignity is on the line.

Which comes down to this: if you're a liberal in America you don't afford others dignity or the right to an opinion if theirs disagrees with yours. And there's a lot of words to describe what that amounts to. Chauvenism, bias, facism, etc... None of them are good. Even more legitimate reasons why freedom loving Americans don't want to vote for Obama.

[Azure9920]

I think it's comical when people attack Obama's lack of experience. Have you actually looked into his experiences, or are you just followed the rest of the parade?

[Kara Ben Nemsi]

I think it's comical when people attack Obama's lack of experience. Have you actually looked into his experiences, or are you just followed the rest of the parade?

I can bang a drum as well as you can I guess but sure I've looked at his record. Two years in the U.S. Senate. Seven years in the Illinois Senate. One loss in a primary election for the U.S. House of Representatives. He wrote a couple books, lectured a little, and was a community organizer.

He ran against candidates with a lot more and better experience than he has but the media put their full weight behind him and he became the media's choice for President of the United States and hence the Democratic candidate for President.

The media made him.

[Azure9920]

I think it's comical when people attack Obama's lack of experience. Have you actually looked into his experiences, or are you just followed the rest of the parade?

I can bang a drum as well as you can I guess but sure I've looked at his record. Two years in the U.S. Senate. Seven years in the Illinois Senate. One loss in a primary election for the U.S. House of Representatives. He wrote a couple books, lectured a little, and was a community organizer.

He ran against candidates with a lot more and better experience than he has but the media put their full weight behind him and he became the media's choice for President of the United States and hence the Democratic candidate for President.

The media made him.

So you're aware that he has more experience than the current President ever did, as well as Clinton, Lincoln and presumably others I've not bothered to look up?

They said the same thing about both Lincoln and Clinton's lack of experience, and look how that turned out.

I think you may be a racist.

[Kara Ben Nemsi]

I think it's comical when people attack Obama's lack of experience. Have you actually looked into his experiences, or are you just followed the rest of the parade?

I can bang a drum as well as you can I guess but sure I've looked at his record. Two years in the U.S. Senate. Seven years in the Illinois Senate. One loss in a primary election for the U.S. House of Representatives. He wrote a couple books, lectured a little, and was a community organizer.

He ran against candidates with a lot more and better experience than he has but the media put their full weight behind him and he became the media's choice for President of the United States and hence the Democratic candidate for President.

The media made him.

So you're aware that he has more experience than the current President ever did, as well as Clinton, Lincoln and presumably others I've not bothered to look up?

They said the same thing about both Lincoln and Clinton's lack of experience, and look how that turned out.

I think you may be a racist.

Of course you think that. You are a liberal. Liberals are programmed by the liberal media, the liberal dumbed down education system, and the liberal culture to believe that everyone who holds a different opinion than them is a racist. It's one of their failings. If it's any consolation to you, I am NOT a racist. But then a liberal's definition is that everyone who thinks differently, believes differently, or has a different opinion might just be a racist so I doubt it's any consolation. Anyways, now that we worked through that pathological BS you liberals like to project onto innocent people who don't agree with you back to the subject.

Neither Obama nor McCain have ever held the office of governor or mayor. McCain has about 13 months executive experience in leading a Navy unit of 1,000 people when he was in the military. Obama has argued that both McCain and himself have executive experience via running their campagins which I think is flaky (sort of like an intern claiming their internship qualifies them to be CEO) but let's see how they stack up:

SEN. BARACK OBAMA, Democratic presidential nominee
Obama, 47, has been a U.S. Senator for Illinois for the past four years.
Prior to that, he was a state senator for eight years, from 1996 to 2004.
He also was a civil rights attorney for four years full time, and he practiced law part time during the eight years he was in the state legislature.
Obama also taught law school part-time and wrote a couple of best-selling memoirs. Right after college, Obama spent three years working as a community organizer, a part of his history that is often highlighted on the campaign trail.
Community organizer: Three years.
Professional/legal experience: Four years full-time and eight years part-time.
Teaching experience: 11 years part-time.
State legislative experience: Eight years.
Federal legislative experience: Four years.

SEN. JOHN McCAIN, Republican presidential nominee
McCain, 72, has been a U.S. senator from Arizona since 1986, for a total of 22 years. Prior to that, he served in the U.S. Congress for four years, from 1982 to 1986.
He also served for 22 years in the U.S. Navy. Included in that time are the five and a half years he spent in a prisoner of war camp; the four years he served as the U.S. Navy Liaison to the Senate; and the 13 months he spent as the executive for the Replacement Air Group 174 in Jacksonville.
Federal legislative experience: 26 years.
Military experience: 22 years.

The most important benchmark here imo is: federal government experience. It's clear that McCain (who I don't advocate for President by the way anymore than I advocate Obama) has 26 years of Federal legislative experience to Obama's 4.

But let's forget all that for a minute because it's true that some good Presidents (and bad ones like Bush) have gotten into the white house with less experience.

The reason why I personally don't advocate him for President (or McCain either) is because of their stance on the issues and what I believe they will do once they become President. You're free, of course, to follow your beliefs (and I urge to do that if you have put in the time to properly qualify them) but my model for what will restore this country to greatness is simply based on a different set of values and mechanisms than yours.

[$outhPhillypuppet]

excerpt from Couric interview

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2008/9/25 ... 003/610224

REALLY!?!
that.....wow
im confused,angered and saddened at the same time.
If the republicans get the white house i will honestly think America failed.

[$outhPhillypuppet]

thats a dumb hoe.
fuck all that other shit.
If she really does believe what she said she a dumb muhfucca.
If McCain gets bodied i do not want that heifer as prez.
Obama '08

[Kara Ben Nemsi]

excerpt from Couric interview

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2008/9/25 ... 003/610224

REALLY!?!
that.....wow
im confused,angered and saddened at the same time.
If the republicans get the white house i will honestly think America failed.

I think so too. And I think that for the Democrats as well for different reasons but for reasons just as legitimate. However, back to the video. What we see in this video is a scary war hawk lady who can't tell the difference between winning a basketball game and thermal nuclear world war. Palin is a true believer.. a modern day Joan of Arc (one of the primary reasons McCain chose her) currently in the process of being converted to neoconservatism. If McCain and Palin get the white house they will certainly push down the iron curtain once again. You're actually looking at the beginning of Cold War version 2.0 with Russia in this video interview with Palin.

[Azure9920]

Of course you think that. You are a liberal. Liberals are programmed by the liberal media, the liberal dumbed down education system, and the liberal culture to believe that everyone who holds a different opinion than them is a racist. It's one of their failings. If it's any consolation to you, I am NOT a racist. But then a liberal's definition is that everyone who thinks differently, believes differently, or has a different opinion might just be a racist so I doubt it's any consolation. Anyways, now that we worked through that pathological BS you liberals like to project onto innocent people who don't agree with you back to the subject.

So anyone who points out differences in your thinking is a Liberal?

Sounds a bit like the Liberal media you keep talking so fondly of.

[$outhPhillypuppet]

However, back to the video. What we see in this video is a scary war hawk lady who can't tell the difference between winning a basketball game and thermal nuclear world war.

that doesnt bother you?
I see her as nothing more then the pretty faced girl that doesn't add anything to the conversation at the party.
bet she was told to say that stupid shit with a smile on her face.
SMH @ John pimpin that dumbass for the female vote.

[Kara Ben Nemsi]

However, back to the video. What we see in this video is a scary war hawk lady who can't tell the difference between winning a basketball game and thermal nuclear world war.

that doesnt bother you?
I see her as nothing more then the pretty faced girl that doesn't add anything to the conversation at the party.
bet she was told to say that stupid shit with a smile on her face.
SMH @ John pimpin that dumbass for the female vote.

Sure it does. Just as much as the thought of a democratic congress, democratic senate, democratic president, and marxist supreme court all acting in unison to bring liberal facism down upon my head does. I can discuss a thousand reasons why that should never be allowed to occur in this country. One in the news right now is immigration. Liberals want to wave a magic amnesty wand forever finalizing immigrant network control over entire industries that total over ten million jobs. There are forty-five million Americans living on public assistance or in abject poverty today (e.g. right now) that need access to those jobs. Have you any idea how many poor black citizens in this country need access to those jobs? And it would be good for the country on many levels. I can think of a thousand reasons why liberals should not have control of this country. Every one of them is important just like the example I gave you. And all of them aside, I honestly just don't want to live under a facist regime (liberal or otherwise).. even one that comes to power in a democracy.

Part 1: Liberal Facism Part 1 Video
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GsFoiVZDSRs

Part 2: Liberal Facism Part 2 Video
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3hdqjDIfyfo&feature=related

Part 3: Liberal Facism Part 3 Video
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Nqdf7Wz-Pe4&feature=related

Part 4: Liberal Facism Part 4 Video
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SfJSub3CDJk&feature=related

Part 5: Liberal Facism Part 5 Video
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vmAMVyNuVa0&feature=related

[Sentenza]

With all respect due, but liberal fascism is an oxymoron. That is like saying "a circle is squared".
Liberalism, as flawed as it is, is a democratic ideology, whereas Fascism is strictly totalitarian. Pinochet, Mussolini or Hitler would be prototypes of that ideology.
The word Fascism is derived from the Latin Word "Fasces" and those were the Axes the ancient Roman police the Lictors and the Pretorians wore as a symbol on their shoulder.
So Fascism metaphorically refers to a totalitarian, big brother type, law and order state, which would rather be resembled by communist or right wing/fascist types of government. Now to anyone who claims Obama is a socialist/Marxist, i would like to invite you to Europe and introduce you to some real Marxists. I am talking about fundamentalist "lets disown all business owners/rich people and hang the bourgoise establishment type of marxists". There are light years between Obama and authoritarian socialists. Obama is as much of a socialist as George Bush is a Nazi.
I can not see Obama being close to that at all in any sense.
I have to say though that to me it is very unclear what Obamas stance on worldwide political issues is. I dont think that much will change when he gets elected, at least not in that field.
But if these opinions of Palin, that are stated in this thread are true, i dont think she would be a good choice either. That stuff sounds insane to me. I am glad i dont have to vote.

[Azure9920]

With all respect due, but liberal fascism is an oxymoron. That is like saying "a circle is squared".
Liberalism, as flawed as it is, is a democratic ideology, whereas Fascism is strictly totalitarian. Pinochet, Mussolini or Hitler would be prototypes of that ideology.
The word Fascism is derived from the Latin Word "Fasces" and those were the Axes the ancient Roman police the Lictors and the Pretorians wore as a symbol on their shoulder.
So Fascism metaphorically refers to a totalitarian, big brother type, law and order state, which would rather be resembled by communist or right wing/fascist types of government. Now to anyone who claims Obama is a socialist/Marxist, i would like to invite you to Europe and introduce you to some real Marxists. I am talking about fundamentalist "lets disown all business owners/rich people and hang the bourgoise establishment type of marxists". There are light years between Obama and authoritarian socialists. Obama is as much of a socialist as George Bush is a Nazi.
I can not see Obama being close to that at all in any sense.
I have to say though that to me it is very unclear what Obamas stance on worldwide political issues is. I dont think that much will change when he gets elected, at least not in that field.
But if these opinions of Palin, that are stated in this thread are true, i dont think she would be a good choice either. That stuff sounds insane to me. I am glad i dont have to vote.

It's common among Right-Wingers to blindly call anything they don't approve of as "Liberal"(see above) or fascist.

[$outhPhillypuppet]

man fuck all them political words.
I've watched both parties conferences/speeches whatever the fucks and to me the Republican ticket Mccain/Palin either thinks im stupid or are retarded themselves.

[Kara Ben Nemsi]

With all respect due, but liberal fascism is an oxymoron. That is like saying "a circle is squared".
Liberalism, as flawed as it is, is a democratic ideology, whereas Fascism is strictly totalitarian. Pinochet, Mussolini or Hitler would be prototypes of that ideology.
The word Fascism is derived from the Latin Word "Fasces" and those were the Axes the ancient Roman police the Lictors and the Pretorians wore as a symbol on their shoulder.
So Fascism metaphorically refers to a totalitarian, big brother type, law and order state, which would rather be resembled by communist or right wing/fascist types of government. Now to anyone who claims Obama is a socialist/Marxist, i would like to invite you to Europe and introduce you to some real Marxists. I am talking about fundamentalist "lets disown all business owners/rich people and hang the bourgoise establishment type of marxists". There are light years between Obama and authoritarian socialists. Obama is as much of a socialist as George Bush is a Nazi.
I can not see Obama being close to that at all in any sense. I have to say though that to me it is very unclear what Obamas stance on worldwide political issues is. I dont think that much will change when he gets elected, at least not in that field.
But if these opinions of Palin, that are stated in this thread are true, i dont think she would be a good choice either. That stuff sounds insane to me. I am glad i dont have to vote.

Respect noted and given. You're understanding of facism is skewed though as a result of the myth you were taught in the public school system that liberalism never becomes state authoritarianism. Historically it certainly does. It did in France, Russia, etc... and does so today in various countries. Calling a neo-liberal a liberal facist is like calling a square a square. Whether it be Hugo Chavez nationalizing private enterprise and forcing his brand of authoritarian liberal facism on Venezuela or Castro forcing his brand of authoritarian liberal facism on Cuba, Neo-Liberalism (not to be confused with Classical Liberalism) traces its roots to Fascism via Progressivism, and in fact, prior to World War II "fascism was widely viewed as a progressive social movement with many liberal and left-wing adherents in Europe and the United States... the title "Liberal Fascism" comes "directly from a speech that H.G. Wells gave to the Young Liberals at Oxford in 1932 [where] Wells stated he wanted to "assist in a kind of phoenix rebirth" of Liberalism as an "enlightened Nazism."" -Wiki

And the most important quantifiable benchmarks of facism exist in neo-liberalism including the totalitarian impulse to use state control to achieve the goals of their social construct and the philosophy of state control of decisions taking priority over individual freedoms. Of course we see this also in neo-conservatism but what you don't yet understand is that neo-conservatism is not historical or traditional conservatism.

During the 1960s and into the 1970s, leftist followers of Leon Trotsky, the revolutionary communist leader who was expelled from Russia following a power struggle with Stalin in the 1920s, as the CFR journal Foreign Affairs explains in John Erhman's 'The Rise of Neoconservatism' confirmed stating "the other important influence on neoconservatives was the legacy of Trotsky.... Many of the founders of neoconservatism including The Public Interest founder Irving Kristol ... were either members of or close to the Trotskyite left in the late 1930s and early 1940s" and later Democrats. Many of the early neocons were Democrats. But in 1972, they were repulsed by the Democratic candidacy of George McGovern because of his isolationism and his embrace of the countercultural excesses of the New Left (drugs, free love, radical feminism, homosexuality, etc.). What they saw propelled the early neocons to seek a new home in the Republican Party which they quickly took over. Traditional or authentic conservatives were labled as paleoconservatives to isolate them and end their influence over the Republican party. So the neo-conservatives of today are basically liberals with more traditional values than the liberals which are liberals without traditional values.

Neo-liberalism and it's red headed step child neo-conservatism are the direct connection between European Fascism and the political philosophy of the American Left. Communism, Fascism, Socialism and the American Left are all versions of the same general political philosophy standing in direct opposition to the founding principals of our nation: individual laissez faire liberty (which was wildly popular for much of this nation's history), free enterprise and limited government power (classical federalism).

It's true there are some differences between the rising authoritarian Liberal Fascism we see today in this country (primarily because we still have certain freedoms such as the freedomof speech which didn't exist in Europe like it does here) versus the Fascism of Europe's past but they are primarily a difference of tactics. Today’s left nanny first and then bully once they get enough power... they haven't yet reached the point where they can implement laws that compel law enforcement/militarism to force their ideological transcendentalized values on the entire population of this democracy yet. And I don't want to give them that chance.

[Sentenza]

It's common among Right-Wingers to blindly call anything they don't approve of as "Liberal"(see above) or fascist.

Yea i have noticed that too, that the word Fascist is used to an inflationary extend nowadays.
Liberals calling conservatives Nazis and Conservatives calling Liberals Communists/Fascists. Both misses the point.

[Azure9920]

Respect noted and given. You're understanding of facism is skewed though as a result of the myth you were taught in the public school system that liberalism never becomes state authoritarianism. Historically it certainly does. It did in France, Russia, etc... and does so today in various countries. Calling a neo-liberal a liberal facist is like calling a square a square. Whether it be Hugo Chavez nationalizing private enterprise and forcing his brand of authoritarian liberal facism on Venezuela or Castro forcing his brand of authoritarian liberal facism on Cuba, Neo-Liberalism (not to be confused with Classical Liberalism) traces its roots to Fascism via Progressivism, and in fact, prior to World War II "fascism was widely viewed as a progressive social movement with many liberal and left-wing adherents in Europe and the United States... the title "Liberal Fascism" comes "directly from a speech that H.G. Wells gave to the Young Liberals at Oxford in 1932 [where] Wells stated he wanted to "assist in a kind of phoenix rebirth" of Liberalism as an "enlightened Nazism."" -Wiki

How was it not expected that you read THAT book. Let it be known that Goldberg was a man who(borrowing your own words) skewed facts to fit his entirely off brand view of the world. Half truths hardly contend in the academic world. Oh wait, that MUST mean I'm a Liberal, correct? I love how you attempt(and I say attempt because neither of those examples you use, Castro and Chavez, bear any irregular resemblance to Fascism at all), yet fail to bring up any remotely right of center examples. Woohoo, you've taken a page out of Goldbergs book and present a small minority(often out of context at that) to describe the large minority. Now correct me if I'm wrong, but wasn't it Hitler who stated "the bigger the lie...blah blah blah". How ironic that a Jew borrows concepts from Mien Kampf. How very ironic indeed.

And the most important quantifiable benchmarks of facism exist in neo-liberalism including the totalitarian impulse to use state control to achieve the goals of their social construct and the philosophy of state control of decisions taking priority over individual freedoms. Of course we see this also in neo-conservatism but what you don't yet understand is that neo-conservatism is not historical or traditional conservatism.

Yet another example borrowed from Goldberg. Are you aware of what "neo" means? So neo Liberalism(which bears about as much resemblance to traditional Liberalism as neo conservationism does), yet Neo Conservatism doesn't take the same path? Interesting.

[quoteDuring the 1960s and into the 1970s, leftist followers of Leon Trotsky, the revolutionary communist leader who was expelled from Russia following a power struggle with Stalin in the 1920s, as the CFR journal Foreign Affairs explains in John Erhman's 'The Rise of Neoconservatism' confirmed stating "the other important influence on neoconservatives was the legacy of Trotsky.... Many of the founders of neoconservatism including The Public Interest founder Irving Kristol ... were either members of or close to the Trotskyite left in the late 1930s and early 1940s" and later Democrats. Many of the early neocons were Democrats. But in 1972, they were repulsed by the Democratic candidacy of George McGovern because of his isolationism and his embrace of the countercultural excesses of the New Left (drugs, free love, radical feminism, homosexuality, etc.). What they saw propelled the early neocons to seek a new home in the Republican Party which they quickly took over. Traditional or authentic conservatives were labled as paleoconservatives to isolate them and end their influence over the Republican party. So the neo-conservatives of today are basically liberals with more traditional values than the liberals which are liberals without traditional values.[/quote]

OOH! So now you're taking the common Republican retort that Liberals lack traditional values, how very original. Where does the lack of values come from? From their view that it's immoral to preemptively attack countries under false pretenses?(See again, Hitler, Mein Kampf), or perhaps the belief that it's wrong to remain in the dark ages and still continue to commit state murders in acts commited under the false flag of "justice" when really motivated by revenge? PLEASE steer me in the right direction on this one.

It's true there are some differences between the rising authoritarian Liberal Fascism we see today in this country (primarily because we still have certain freedoms such as the freedomof speech which didn't exist in Europe like it does here) versus the Fascism of Europe's past but they are primarily a difference of tactics. Today’s left nanny first and then bully once they get enough power... they haven't yet reached the point where they can implement laws that compel law enforcement/militarism to force their ideological transcendentalized values on the entire population of this democracy yet. And I don't want to give them that chance.

The only thing you've managed to prove is that Fascism borrowed slightly from mainstream 20th century American politics, certainly not the other way around. On that same note, it would be easy for me to convince the masses(Hitler...again. See a link here yet?) that Liberals are secretly closet Christian Democrats. But that wouldn't make a very good book, would it?

I suppose you missed the end of that book where Goldberg admits that Liberals aren't really fascist at all, merely of the same "family" which is still heavily debatable.

[Sentenza]

Respect noted and given. You're understanding of facism is skewed though as a result of the myth you were taught in the public school system that liberalism never becomes state authoritarianism. Historically it certainly does. It did in France, Russia, etc... and does so today in various countries. Calling a neo-liberal a liberal facist is like calling a square a square. Whether it be Hugo Chavez nationalizing private enterprise and forcing his brand of authoritarian liberal facism on Venezuela or Castro forcing his brand of authoritarian liberal facism on Cuba, Neo-Liberalism (not to be confused with Classical Liberalism) traces its roots to Fascism via Progressivism, and in fact, prior to World War II "fascism was widely viewed as a progressive social movement with many liberal and left-wing adherents in Europe and the United States... the title "Liberal Fascism" comes "directly from a speech that H.G. Wells gave to the Young Liberals at Oxford in 1932 [where] Wells stated he wanted to "assist in a kind of phoenix rebirth" of Liberalism as an "enlightened Nazism."" -Wiki

I dont know how France and Russia were liberal before they turned authoritarian. The Tzars were a despotic medieval regime that was replaced by a despotic 20th century regime.
And Chavez and Castro never considered themselves as liberals from what i know. They claimed to be Socialist/Communist from day one. The success of leftist/socialist movements in South America results mostly from failed authocratic right-wing regimes who in the shadow of the cold war exploited and oppressed the large majority in their respective countries. Pinochet, Batista and others. In all these cases the political landslide towards the left resulted out of failed right-wing or monarchic regimes. One evil was replaced with another.

And the most important quantifiable benchmarks of facism exist in neo-liberalism including the totalitarian impulse to use state control to achieve the goals of their social construct and the philosophy of state control of decisions taking priority over individual freedoms. Of course we see this also in neo-conservatism but what you don't yet understand is that neo-conservatism is not historical or traditional conservatism.

During the 1960s and into the 1970s, leftist followers of Leon Trotsky, the revolutionary communist leader who was expelled from Russia following a power struggle with Stalin in the 1920s, as the CFR journal Foreign Affairs explains in John Erhman's 'The Rise of Neoconservatism' confirmed stating "the other important influence on neoconservatives was the legacy of Trotsky.... Many of the founders of neoconservatism including The Public Interest founder Irving Kristol ... were either members of or close to the Trotskyite left in the late 1930s and early 1940s" and later Democrats. Many of the early neocons were Democrats. But in 1972, they were repulsed by the Democratic candidacy of George McGovern because of his isolationism and his embrace of the countercultural excesses of the New Left (drugs, free love, radical feminism, homosexuality, etc.). What they saw propelled the early neocons to seek a new home in the Republican Party which they quickly took over. Traditional or authentic conservatives were labled as paleoconservatives to isolate them and end their influence over the Republican party. So the neo-conservatives of today are basically liberals with more traditional values than the liberals which are liberals without traditional values.

Even though Communist and Fascist governments share some common aspects concerning their policy, there are a few fundamental differences that make them mortal enemies.
Fascist/Nazi type governments clearly borrow their core principles from the ultraconservative part of society and not the left. Their societies are based on racial or religious principles or they mix up both. Fascist governments are clearly elitist oriented which means they support the big business and the upper class. The NSDAP had the term "socialist" in their name, but that was nothing more than a propagandistic trick. Emphasis in everything they did was put on "National" and "German". They were absolutely capitalist even though they had their own version of it. During their rise to power many many conservatives joined them, because they shared common values.
Im from Berlin/Germany and my city has a long history of violent clashes between communists and Fascists, especially in the 1920s when political uprisings, gunfights and massbrawls between communists and fascists would turn the city into a war zone.
To put it short: Fascism is the authoritarian version of ultraconservatism/the right wing and communism is the authoritarian version of the left. Both suck.
The difference between liberals and socialists is, that Liberals are democratic and capitalist.

I have noticed many extreme right wingers trying to blame NationalSocialism and Fascism on the left to make their "team" look innocent from all these evils but that is a fallacy and nothing more then a propagandistic trick. Both of these ideologies definitely have a conservative origin and conservative core principles.
Fascism was developed by Italian Catholics.

Neo-liberalism and it's red headed step child neo-conservatism are the direct connection between European Fascism and the political philosophy of the American Left. Communism, Fascism, Socialism and the American Left are all versions of the same general political philosophy standing in direct opposition to the founding principals of our nation: individual laissez faire liberty (which was wildly popular for much of this nation's history), free enterprise and limited government power (classical federalism).

It's true there are some differences between the rising authoritarian Liberal Fascism we see today in this country (primarily because we still have certain freedoms such as the freedomof speech which didn't exist in Europe like it does here) versus the Fascism of Europe's past but they are primarily a difference of tactics. Today’s left nanny first and then bully once they get enough power... they haven't yet reached the point where they can implement laws that compel law enforcement/militarism to force their ideological transcendentalized values on the entire population of this democracy yet. And I don't want to give them that chance.

Even though liberals tend to want to apply more governmental regulations that doesnt make them necessarily authoritarian. That is like saying the "Patriot Act" makes George Bush a Nazi because it resembles the Empowerment laws of Hitler to some extend.
For historical reasons many americans are scared of strong governments. That is not the case in Europe. "Strong government" doesnt necessarily have a negative touch here.
The mentality is different.
I tend to consider myself somewhere in between. I think that a totally unregulated free market wouldnt be of benefit for anyone but a chosen few, but i also think that the government shouldnt mess too much with certain issues like privacy/freedom of speech, economical development etc.
Btw. I would say that by european standards Obama would be considered centrist, slightly right leaning concerning most issues.

[Kara Ben Nemsi]

Marx wrote that socialism was a bridge allowing capitalism to cross over into communism. However, other constructs arose from socialism that Marx did not foresee: namely facism. In 1930 Hitler wrote, "I am a Socialist, and a very different kind of Socialist... What you understand by Socialism is nothing more than Marxism." In 1914, Mussilini started his own socialist newspaper "Il Popolo d'Italia" ("The people of Italy") and was considered by socialists to be a great writer about socialism receiving Lenin's endorsement and support for expelling reformists from the Socialist Party. He was first dubbed "Il Duce" (the Leader) when he was a member of Italy's (Marxist) Socialist Party.

Power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely and these Marxist socialists shed their skin, as any snake must, to create a nationalized form of socialism that contested openly with their communist bretheren.

History shows, unlike the myth taught in our public schools that liberalism has never and can never result in state authoritarianism, that Marxism and socialism were two driving forces behind facism and that prior to World War II fascism was widely viewed as a progressive social movement with many liberal and left-wing adherents in Europe and the United States.

Interestingly, during the 1960s and 70s, leftist followers of Leon Trotsky (the revolutionary communist leader who was expelled from Russia following a power struggle with Stalin in the 1920s) became an important influence on many of the founders of neoconservatism including The Public Interest founder Irving Kristol who became Democrats but in 1972 they were repulsed by the Democratic candidacy of George McGovern (because of his isolationism and his embrace of the countercultural excesses of the New Left which included drugs, free love, radical feminism, homosexuality, etc.).

What they saw propelled them to seek a new home in the Republican Party which they quickly took over. Traditional or authentic conservatives were labled as paleoconservatives to isolate them and end their influence over the Republican party.

Modern liberalism and it's red headed step child neo-conservatism are the direct connection between European fascism and the political philosophy of the American Left. Communism, fascism, socialism and the American Left are all somewhat different versions of the same general political philosophy standing in direct opposition to the founding principals of our nation: individual laissez faire liberty, free enterprise and limited government power (classical federalism).

But what happens when powerful factions of socialist adherents successfully employ democratic processes to further their social construct?

Venezuela provides one example. After his attempt at a military coup d'etat failed in 1992, Hugo broadened his base of support by promising free elections for presidential candidates and formed the leftist Fifth Republic Movement (with communist backing... a backing he quickly discarded after using them to gain power) on a platform of ending poverty in Venezuela. He won the presidency with 59.5% of the vote and has now rolled the Fifth Republic Movement party into a new party called the United Socialist Party of Venezuela with which Chavez seeks to consolidate his power, nationalize industries, and use the government to change vast aspects of everyday life for Venezuelans. In other words, the era of Venezuelan national socialism has begun.

Historically, communists and socialists have no problem using democracy to gain state power wherein they implement their construct leveraging the power of the state to pass the laws which compel law enforcement and military organs eventually to act against its own populace. Sometimes by revolution and sometimes by usurping democracy, but always the justification for it is a seemingly good trencendentalized set of values which none are permitted to challenge (e.g. ending poverty for example).

Yet the rising modern liberalism we see in our country is not so much a conspiracy as a syndrome destroying our culture and creating a fragmented society in which a sense of community has all but disappeared in some places (with immigration playing a powerful role in accomplishing this). Fragmented societies have diminished morale and ability.

[razbojnik]

I think it's comical when people attack Obama's lack of experience. Have you actually looked into his experiences, or are you just followed the rest of the parade?

That's right. Same goes with me and Vostok. But still, we have to choose between a smart but inexpieranced young liberal and a dumb but experianced old conservative...

I'm racist, I know, but...come on...first off we don't have this choice, the people who control the country do. Second, I don't want Obama to become president cause he's siding with the Greeks on the 'name issue' and I don't want McCain to become president because he'll start World War 3. I would perfer we all die instead of getting humiliated, as long as we go to heaven.

[alexalonso]

this is about Sarah Palin and her beliefs. Kara Ben Nemsi if you want to start a string about Obama's belief go ahead and do so, but do not question my judgment for posting something that is circulating all over the internet. Dont be an idiot. Make your view and keep it pushing to the next string.

[Kara Ben Nemsi]

this is about Sarah Palin and her beliefs. Kara Ben Nemsi if you want to start a string about Obama's belief go ahead and do so, but do not question my judgment for posting something that is circulating all over the internet. Dont be an idiot. Make your view and keep it pushing to the next string.

Good advice. My work here is finished.