NationStates Jolt Archive

Damn right. The first page of any document is just the copyright date and the publishing house address, anyway.

Some guy once told me about some Establishment Clause and a Free Excercise Clause, but I set him straight that its Free Excercise of Christianity and Nothing Else.

As for "Congress Shall Make No Law Respecting the Establishment of Religion", its fine because congress didn't make the law establishing the US as Christian. Jesus did.

wow, that Jesus fellow sure is swell.

Yeah, why be reasonable? Let's pretend like you made some kind of distinction there.
Your self-obsession is bothering me.

Wow! Jesus was American?

Haven't you heard?

http://girlinthedoorway.com/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2006/01/americanjesus.jpg

And a Christian? All this time I thought he was Jewish.

And like all good Jews, he converted to Christianity.

Your self-obsession is bothering me.

So stop talking about it. Both / all of you.

Is Christianity a subset of theology?

Has she ever signed anything proclaiming that the Viriginia Bill of Rights and by extension the US Bill of Rights mandate that we all have a "mutual Christian duty"? (Bear in mind, she can think we have whatever duty she wants, but to attach it to the Bill of Rights attachs the 'ocrat to her).

If yes to both, I think we've got a theocrat.

She was quoting. Obviously, those were selective. Certainly, it overplays our Christian heritage, particularly by ignoring that not all of those quotes are actually from the same religion. I lost where that became part of the definition of theocrat.

If I said, every good leader in our government since founding was Christian, what would that have to do with being a theocrat? Even if I created a an official Christian holiday (in clear violation of the separation), that would make in violation, but not necessarily in favor of a government subject to religious authority.

Wow! Jesus was American? And a Christian? All this time I thought he was Jewish.

Nuh-uh.

Being born to a Jewish mother and father, practicing the Jewish religion, acknowledging the Jewish God, holding sacred the Jewish temple, and acknowledging Jewish scripture as holy does NOT make Jesus a Jew.

He was Christian. You can tell because his last name was Christ.

If she's right, she'll be raptured up, and Alaska will be left to the post-apocalyptic guys, generally a mixture of guys riding motorcycles with football gear and mohawks, with some of the younger "left behind" ladies going for the whole "Resident Evil" technochik look.

They'll have lots of face jewelry, of course.

She was quoting. Obviously, those were selective. Certainly, it overplays our Christian heritage, particularly by ignoring that not all of those quotes are actually from the same religion. I lost where that became part of the definition of theocrat.

By affixing her signature to a document proclaiming that the bill of rights says that "all" have a "mutual Christian duty" is part of the definition of a theocrat.

Christianity is a theology (or many theologies, yes). By claiming that Christian theology and duty are evoked by the Bill of Rights, that appends the "ocrat" part to the theo.


If I said, every good leader in our government since founding was Christian, what would that have to do with being a theocrat? Even if I created a an official Christian holiday (in clear violation of the separation), that would make in violation, but not necessarily in favor of a government subject to religious authority.

She wasn't just quoting leaders, she supported a claim that the Bill of Rights, of one state and then of the US, mandated a "Christian duty."

The "selectivity" of a statement like that hardly dilutes it.

By affixing her signature to a document proclaiming that the bill of rights says that "all" have a "mutual Christian duty" is part of the definition of a theocrat.

Sure. Good thing it didn't say that. You're slowly stretching this till it supports the claim. Even TCT wasn't making the claim you were and he brought it up. He was using it as context for her other actions. It worked, I'd argue.

Christianity is a theology (or many theologies, yes). By claiming that Christian theology and duty are evoked by the Bill of Rights, that appends the "ocrat" part to the theo.

Uh, huh? What definition of theocrat are you using? She claimed it was a forerunner to the Bill of rights. Like I said, you've stretched this pretty far.

She was talking about how we were founded by Christians (a pretty common argument around here, actually.) It's wrong. It requires selective evidence. It's used to support the claim about what they intended when founding the nation. But it's alone makes her a theocrat.

She wasn't just quoting leaders, she supported a claim that the Bill of Rights, of one state and then of the US, mandated a "Christian duty."

The "selectivity" of a statement like that hardly dilutes it.

She was? I guess if you just make it up. The document, quoted in this thread in its entirety, doesn't say that.

That said, I have to say I wasn't aware of those documents when I started the argument. In fact, I suspect no one here was. It's certainly good support, without any kind of inaccurate paraphrasing of what it said.

Sure. Good thing it didn't say that. You're slowly stretching this till it supports the claim. Even TCT wasn't making the claim you were and he brought it up. He was using it as context for her other actions. It worked, I'd argue.

I know he wasn't, I am, with the data he brought up. It DOES say that, it says "all have a mutual christian duty". That isn't heritage, its a claim of policy, which she claims is consistent with the Bill of rights.


Uh, huh? What definition of theocrat are you using? She claimed it was a forerunner to the Bill of rights. Like I said, you've stretched this pretty far.

And as a forerunner, the proclamation clearly brings to bear the premise that this "christian duty" is abiding and pervasive to the US Bill of Rights.


She was talking about how we were founded by Christians (a pretty common argument around here, actually.) It's wrong. It requires selective evidence. It's used to support the claim about what they intended when founding the nation. But it's alone makes her a theocrat.

Is that last part a typo? You mean to say it alone doesn't make her a theocrat, yes? (If I'm following your argument)


She was? I guess if you just make it up. The document, quoted in this thread in its entirety, doesn't say that.

That said, I have to say I wasn't aware of those documents when I started the argument. In fact, I suspect no one here was. It's certainly good support, without any kind of inaccurate paraphrasing of what it said.

I don't consider the paraphrasing inaccurate. "Mutual Christian Duty" requires little paraphrasing.

By the by, this is the full text of the particular item in the Virginia Declaration of Rights.

"That religion, or the duty which we owe to our CREATOR and the manner of discharging it, can be directed only by reason and conviction, not by force or violence; and therefore all men are equally entitled to the free exercise of religion, according to the dictates of conscience; and that it is the mutual duty of all to practice Christian forbearance, love, and charity towards each other."

And it was a forebear of the Bill of Rights of the US along with other states. She certainly took it out of context.

I know he wasn't, I am, with the data he brought up. It DOES say that, it says "all have a mutual christian duty". That isn't heritage, its a claim of policy, which she claims is consistent with the Bill of rights.

It's not heritage? Hmmm... one wonders why I found it on history.org.


And as a forerunner, the proclamation clearly brings to bear the premise that this "christian duty" is abiding and pervasive to the US Bill of Rights.

It's actually true. It's the quote she took out of context, but it really is a forerunner. And you're wildly extrapolating there.


Is that last part a typo? You mean to say it alone doesn't make her a theocrat, yes? (If I'm following your argument)

Sure did. Wow, I'm really tired. Why can't I sleep?


I don't consider the paraphrasing inaccurate. "Mutual Christian Duty" requires little paraphrasing.

I know you don't. I'm not accusing you of being a liar. I am accusing you of creating something it doesn't say. You, like she, took a part of what was said and took it out of context. Unlike her, you're adding something to it that isn't there and cannot be found. What she added is fact. Out of context, it's certainly misleading, but you really are stretching.

It's not heritage? Hmmm... one wonders why I found it on history.org.

You'll find lots of things on history.org that either still apply as policy, or people are trying to apply as policy. She disguised it as heritage; how much of your argument will you bet that she wants it as policy and using heritage to achieve that?


It's actually true. It's the quote she took out of context, but it really is a forerunner. And you're wildly extrapolating there.

Sure did. Wow, I'm really tired. Why can't I sleep?

I know you don't. I'm not accusing you of being a liar. I am accusing you of creating something it doesn't say. You, like she, took a part of what was said and took it out of context. Unlike her, you're adding something to it that isn't there and cannot be found. What she added is fact. Out of context, it's certainly misleading, but you really are stretching.

Again, I add nothing; it says "all have a mutual christian duty", and it states that in frame of law, a bill of rights, that would apply to all.

What have I added?

By the by, this is the full text of the particular item in the Virginia Declaration of Rights.

"That religion, or the duty which we owe to our CREATOR and the manner of discharging it, can be directed only by reason and conviction, not by force or violence; and therefore all men are equally entitled to the free exercise of religion, according to the dictates of conscience; and that it is the mutual duty of all to practice Christian forbearance, love, and charity towards each other."

And it was a forebear of the Bill of Rights of the US along with other states. She certainly took it out of context.

Yes, she took it out of context. Let's consider why, though. What's the vector here?

Let say for a moment, she's solely addressing "heritage".

If she cites, emphasizes, and in fact proclaims that these things are part of law, she is clearly launching an attempt at stare decisis related to a "mutual christian duty".j

EDIT: The missile reference was needlessly evocative, I retract it.

You'll find lots of things on history.org that either still apply as policy, or people are trying to apply as policy. She disguised it as heritage; how much of your argument will you bet that she wants it as policy and using heritage to achieve that?

Um, she added it as policy? What policy was that? A policy to honor a heritage, as pointed out by TCT is also done when we have an Irish holiday.

It was not a policy to apply that statement to anyone. Again, make arguments about this if you like, but this one simply doesn't exist.


Again, I add nothing; it says "all have a mutual christian duty", and it states that in frame of law, a bill of rights, that would apply to all.

What have I added?

Uh, what? It doesn't state any of that. What it says is that there was in the Virginia declaration a quote that she supplied and that said declaration was a precursor to the Bill of Rights, which it is historically credited with being. She said we have a Christian heritage and made a very short argument for that argument. You turned that argument into a claim that the statements in the quote should be policy.

Incidentally, the line she quotes quite clearly prevents a theocracy. It would be a really poor reference if she were trying to set a policy about our mutual Christian duty. As bad as it is, she didn't set that policy.

Yes, she took it out of context. Let's consider why, though. What's the vector here?

Let say for a moment, she's solely addressing "heritage".

If she cites, emphasizes, and in fact proclaims that these things are part of law, she is clearly launching an attempt at stare decisis related to a "mutual christian duty".j

EDIT: The missile reference was needlessly evocative, I retract it.

"Clearly"? Hmmm... I would say that given she didn't say any of that, and didn't accomplish any of that, didn't offer any context that argues that, and that she could have tried better stare decisis, I don't buy it.

The fact you have to add all these words would certainly argue it's not so clear, no? Really, it's not there. She used quotes to demonstrate a Christian heritage. That's all. The rest is being inserted.

Um, she added it as policy? What policy was that? A policy to honor a heritage, as pointed out by TCT is also done when we have an Irish holiday.

It was not a policy to apply that statement to anyone. Again, make arguments about this if you like, but this one simply doesn't exist.

Uh, what? It doesn't state any of that. What it says is that there was in the Virginia declaration a quote that she supplied and that said declaration was a precursor to the Bill of Rights, which it is historically credited with being. She said we have a Christian heritage and made a very short argument for that argument. You turned that argument into a claim that the statements in the quote should be policy.

Incidentally, the line she quotes quite clearly prevents a theocracy. It would be a really poor reference if she were trying to set a policy about our mutual Christian duty. As bad as it is, she didn't set that policy.

Look at stare decisis. Look at all the means that judges might use to arrive at policy, legislative intent, historical precedent, precursor documents going back centuries...she's signed a document that is clearly trying to sneak that section of the Virignia Bill of Rights into the arsenal of context that judges use to affirm or overturn policy.

You drew me back in, you bastard. I was trying to let it settle.

I say she was trying to establish us as an empire in the same legislation. CLEARLY.

"Clearly"? Hmmm... I would say that given she didn't say any of that, and didn't accomplish any of that, didn't offer any context that argues that, and that she could have tried better stare decisis, I don't buy it.

The fact you have to add all these words would certainly argue it's not so clear, no? Really, it's not there. She used quotes to demonstrate a Christian heritage. That's all. The rest is being inserted.

The words I'm using are these: "mutual Christian duty."

Once its written into the Virginia Bill of Rights, it gains weight of policy (or her attempt to make it policy, which I reject), not heritage. And when the Virginia document is alluded to as a precursor of the US Bill of Rights, its an attempt to add that to the context of that document, which will be critical to derivation of policy.

Jocabia, I know you're tired, and I don't think you're utterly wrong here. I just think that if she has to so explicitly try to make it policy for you to see the attempt, if she need apply only the merest obfuscation to her attempt for the attempt to not be seen, she will be able to backdoor almost anything before we acknowledge what she's doing.

You drew me back in, you bastard. I was trying to let it settle.

I say she was trying to establish us as an empire in the same legislation. CLEARLY.

She may be, show me which part. I have to go, but I'll get back to it later.

I don't think you're a dick, J. I think you want to be sure about what she's doing before we decry it, and I respect that.

But if somebody is doing 60 mph ten feet before the stop sign, its hard to claim they aren't going to go past it.

Look at stare decisis. Look at all the means that judges might use to arrive at policy, legislative intent, historical precedent, precursor documents going back centuries...she's signed a document that is clearly trying to sneak that section of the Virignia Bill of Rights into the arsenal of context that judges use to affirm or overturn policy.

It's already in documents. She was referencing a historical precedent and a precursor document. It already existed that way.

Like I said, you keep saying it's obvious and clear, but nothing in that document inserts the intent you're claiming. It requires you to just make up that she had that intent. As I said, she equally established stare decisis (is that how you say that) for declaring us an empire.

I'm sorry, maybe I'm missing something, but I don't see what is wrong with saying "it is the mutual duty of all to practice Christian forbearance, love, and charity towards each other."

Isn't "forebearance, love and charity towards others" a liberal mantra? So she is "preaching" liberalism if she is preaching anything. The fact the "forbearance, love, and charity towards each other" has its roots in the Christian religion is beside the point, she could just as easily say ""it is the mutual duty of all to practice Buddhist/Hindu/Taoistic/Muslim/flying spaghetti monster/common sense forbearance, love, and charity towards each other."

Hate to help SF, but . . . one.

I'll admit I haven't heard everything he said.

Okay, I was wrong. You're all dirty heathens. Go back to reading Mein Kampf and eating babies, heathens! :P

I'm sorry, maybe I'm missing something, but I don't see what is wrong with saying "it is the mutual duty of all to practice Christian forbearance, love, and charity towards each other.

A duty to practice one particular religions interpretations of those virtues is favoritism to that one interpretation and thus that one religion.


Isn't "forebearance, love and charity towards others" a liberal mantra? So she is "preaching" liberalism if she is preaching anything.

Had she just said that, that'd be fine. You left something out.


The fact the "forbearance, love, and charity towards each other" has its roots in the Christian religion is beside the point,

You sure the roots might not go deeper to some other religions, or even some cases where forbearance and love can be done without being motivated by voluntary human sacrifice and torture, or any religious belief?


she could just as easily say ""it is the mutual duty of all to practice Buddhist/Hindu/Taoistic/Muslim/flying spaghetti monster/common sense forbearance, love, and charity towards each other."

And if she had said that last one, she'd be fine. But all of the others, if used, give favoritism to that religion's interpetation and views on those virtues.

Look, I want you to find one place, JUST one, in the amendments to the constitution where it says religion and government should be kept separate. You can't do it, can you? I bet you could read every amendment to the constitution from Amendment II to Amendment IIIX and not find it.

Is Amendment IIIX the one that protects us from discrimination based on our favorite ice cream flavors?

I'm sorry, maybe I'm missing something, but I don't see what is wrong with saying "it is the mutual duty of all to practice Christian forbearance, love, and charity towards each other."

I bolded what was wrong.

/snip
And if she had said that last one, she'd be fine. But all of the others, if used, give favoritism to that religion's interpetation and views on those virtues.
Well, at my end of the street, "forebearance, love and charity towards others" is the same whether it is based on Christianity, common sense or Gaia - the values being promoted are the same, no matter their basis.

I mean, what is the difference between "Christian" forebearance and "Muslim" forebearance? Forebearance is forebearance, no matter how you slice it.

I'm sorry, maybe I'm missing something, but I don't see what is wrong with saying "it is the mutual duty of all to practice Christian forbearance, love, and charity towards each other."


Are you honestly claiming that those virtues are exclusively Chistian? Are you honestly saying that you didn't understand that that was where others had a problem her statement?

I mean, what is the difference between "Christian" forebearance and "Muslim" forebearance? Forebearance is forebearance, no matter how you slice it.

Ok, true, but then why specifically say "Christian forbearance"?

Well, at my end of the street, "forebearance, love and charity towards others" is the same whether it is based on Christianity, common sense or Gaia - the values being promoted are the same, no matter their basis.

I mean, what is the difference between "Christian" forebearance and "Muslim" forebearance? Forebearance is forebearance, no matter how you slice it.

If that's true, why did she embed it in a proclamation specifically delineating Christianity?

If that's true, why did she include the word Christian in the first place if, by your premise, its the same either way?

Why include a modifier that you are now describing as making no "difference"?

And if all those same virtues are the same without regard to which religion they are associated with, why did she (and you in your original post) associate it with a religion as having its "roots" there?

In short, if it makes as little difference as you claim, by your own logic, it makes no "difference" and is thus easily removed.

But if you leave it in, just remember: Some person might come and tell you "You're not doing your Christian duty as we Christian's define love, forebearance, charity, etc, so come along with us now, please."

Every religion has its own take on just what constitutes love. In some religions, a way to express love is to voluntarily torture to death an innocent person, and as long as the innocent person agrees to be wrongfully butchered and slaughtered, the "blood" is an act of "love". Other religions achieve love without anybody having to be torture-executed.

And since various religions define and practices love differently, your premise that "X is X, no matter how you slice it" ignores the ample precedent that those virtues aren't defined or practiced the same by every religion, so no religion gets to puts version as law.

Sadly enough, as if to conveniently 'make up' for the glut of coverage on Jeremiah Wright while Dat Ebil Mozlem Hussein Obama was a member of his church, the Librul Media™ has been completely silent on the whole issue of I Can't Believe It's Not Hillary and her church affiliation.

Well, at my end of the street, "forebearance, love and charity towards others" is the same whether it is based on Christianity, common sense or Gaia - the values being promoted are the same, no matter their basis.

I mean, what is the difference between "Christian" forebearance and "Muslim" forebearance? Forebearance is forebearance, no matter how you slice it.Exactly, there's no need to pretend only Christians have it trademarked.

Exactly, there's no need to pretend only Christians have it trademarked.

Which is precisely why Palin's signature on a proclamation relating to the enshrinement in law of a "mutual Christian duty of forebearance, love, and charity" is objectionable.

Wowmaui's argument that we shouldn't mind them described in law (or precursors of law in state Bill of Rights) as "Christian duties of love, etc" is defeated by his own emphasis that these things aren't solely Christian.

Is Amendment IIIX the one that protects us from discrimination based on our favorite ice cream flavors?

no that's amendment 31. The Baskin Robins amendment.

I'm sorry, maybe I'm missing something, but I don't see what is wrong with saying "it is the mutual duty of all to practice Christian forbearance, love, and charity towards each other."

Isn't "forebearance, love and charity towards others" a liberal mantra?
Yeah, but without the "Christian" part.

So she is "preaching" liberalism if she is preaching anything. The fact the "forbearance, love, and charity towards each other" has its roots in the Christian religion
Excuse me? "Its roots"? Is it your contention that Christians invented those human qualities?

is beside the point, she could just as easily say ""it is the mutual duty of all to practice Buddhist/Hindu/Taoistic/Muslim/flying spaghetti monster/common sense forbearance, love, and charity towards each other."
Then why didn't she say it that way?

Or why didn't she just leave off the "Christian" from the original quote?

Your post only illustrates the prejudice inherent in Palin's remarks.

I think everyone has misunderstood Palin. By Christian forbearance she means that her government will show forebearance towards Christians only. Everyone else will suffer in the righteous flames of Republican anger.

Sadly enough, as if to conveniently 'make up' for the glut of coverage on Jeremiah Wright while Dat Ebil Mozlem Hussein Obama was a member of his church, the Librul Media™ has been completely silent on the whole issue of I Can't Believe It's Not Hillary and her church affiliation.
Yep, free ride. Just like McCain gets on all his flip-flops and sell-outs. And next, some left/liberal/non-republican talking head will say something innocuous, and the republican spin doctors will pick three unrelated words out of it, lay them side by side, and start another month-long piss-fest about how the "liberal media" are attacking McCain/Palin over their age/hair/mannerisms/clothing/whatever because liberals hate American and want to tax us all into submission to terrorists, and we'll hear nothing else but that for a while.

Yep, free ride.
Not so.

She may not be getting such a grilling from the MSM, but I'm certainly aware, via US MSM, that Palin is a creationist and attended a fairly nutty church.

What does the "good Christian" Governor Palin's pastor preach?
If you don't support Bush over Katrina, you'll go to hell. If you voted for Kerry, you may not get into heaven. And Alaska will be a refuge in the end times.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/09/02/palins-church-may-have-sh_n_123205.html

Note: It's titled President Palin for a reason. McCain won't likely last the first term...

Yet another reason why I'm glad I'm Lutheran.

Not so.

She may not be getting such a grilling from the MSM, but I'm certainly aware, via US MSM, that Palin is a creationist and attended a fairly nutty church.
You're not a US voter. Who gives a crap what you think? Everyone knows you foreign types only think because you're godless, terrorist-loving, commies who don't even hate homosexuals. If you were right with God(tm), you wouldn't have to think. Duh.

Trust me, that "fairly nutty church" (which is actually way beyond "fairly" nutty, by the way) is going to lock in a nice chunk of votes for the republican side.

You're not a US voter. Who gives a crap what you think? Everyone knows you foreign types only think because you're godless, terrorist-loving, commies who don't even hate homosexuals. If you were right with God(tm), you wouldn't have to think. Duh.

Trust me, that "fairly nutty church" (which is actually way beyond "fairly" nutty, by the way) is going to lock in a nice chunk of votes for the republican side.

Scary, innit?

And on a side note: I hate maintenance/physical plant, and their tendency to use power tools on the floor above mine at 10:00 in the god damned morning.

In the lab!

Not so.

She may not be getting such a grilling from the MSM, but I'm certainly aware, via US MSM, that Palin is a creationist and attended a fairly nutty church.CNN international dedicated a short segment on uncovering some of the nasty rumors about her that are blatantly false that they repeat every now and then. Interestingly enough, they only address those that turned out to be false, and this is the international edition which still clings to some quality in reporting.

Scary, innit?

And on a side note: I hate maintenance/physical plant, and their tendency to use power tools on the floor above mine at 10:00 in the god damned morning.

In the lab!
Yeah, the bastards. How dare they distract you from NSG a whole hour after you were supposed to have started working? :p

Trust me, that "fairly nutty church" (which is actually way beyond "fairly" nutty, by the way) is going to lock in a nice chunk of votes for the republican side.
I don't doubt that, I just contest your point that Palin is getting a "free ride".



CNN international dedicated a short segment on uncovering some of the nasty rumors about her that are blatantly false that they repeat every now and then. Interestingly enough, they only address those that turned out to be false, and this is the international edition which still clings to some quality in reporting.
I believe it was CNN where I first saw the reports of her church and its beliefs.

Yeah, the bastards. How dare they distract you from NSG a whole hour after you were supposed to have started working? :p

Hour and a half, really, but the point still stands! :p

I don't doubt that, I just contest your point that Palin is getting a "free ride".

Time will tell. Let's make a bet on it. Seriously, I wouldn't mind losing. In fact, I'll be praying and burning incense to the gods in the vain hope that they'll make sure I'd lose such a bet. I just hope the booze I'll buy with the money I win will be enough to drown my sorrow.

Time will tell. Let's make a bet on it. Seriously, I wouldn't mind losing. In fact, I'll be praying and burning incense to the gods in the vain hope that they'll make sure I'd lose such a bet. I just hope the booze I'll buy with the money I win will be enough to drown my sorrow.
Count me in on the booze.

Us on the other side of The Pond and beyond can only shake our heads in awe and horror at the possibility of Palin as VP (or even at the possibility of Obama losing the election).

Count me in on the booze.

Us on the other side of The Pond and beyond can only shake our heads in awe and horror at the possibility of Palin as VP (or even at the possibility of Obama losing the election).Which is why most of us have access to it sooner =D

Which is why most of us have access to it sooner =D
Prost to that!

Prost to that!
Wish I could, but they don't allow beverages in the library =(

Count me in on the booze.

Us on the other side of The Pond and beyond can only shake our heads in awe and horror at the possibility of Palin as VP (or even at the possibility of Obama losing the election).
Leave some for us over here, because we NEED it. This whole thing is giving me an ulcer, headaches, sleeping problems. It's like being trapped in a nightmare.

There's this public service announcement ad that airs on tv every once in a while, encouraging people suffering from depression to seek therapy rather than "self-medicate" with booze and drugs. It shows POV video of someone apparently running down a street, amongst strangers walking around, with the sound of heavy, labored breathing, and it creates a suggestion of someone desperate and in trouble. Then the POV brings us into an apartment where we are greeted by the POV's roommate smiling and saying, "How was your run?" And then it gives the hopeful, encouraging message.

The voice-over message USED to ask, "Are you feeling overwhelmed by life's problems?"

NOW (for about a year or so) it asks, "Are you feeling overwhelmed by current events?"

This election cycle is actually causing clinical depression and anxiety disorders in people. I'm serious.

It's worse than depressing. It's terrifying.

It's worse than depressing. It's terrifying.I'll take fear over depression.

I'll take fear over depression.

Having been there, I would have to concede the point.

Wow! Jesus was American? And a Christian? All this time I thought he was Jewish.Which was kind of awkward when he was growing up, what with his Mom being Catholic...

Anyone else catch, in the text of her RNC acceptance speech, that the word "nuclear" (as in "power") had been spelled out phonetically (as "newclear") just to make sure even a hint of Bush wasn't scented by those listening?

Am I crazy, or is that kinda sad?

Excuse me? "Its roots"? Is it your contention that Christians invented those human qualities?

Of course, didn't you know that there was no such thing as forbearance, love, or charity in the roughly 4,000 years of human civilization prior to the creation of Christianity?

Excuse me? "Its roots"? Is it your contention that Christians invented those human qualities?No, that is not what I meant (and I think you know that, you seem relatively intelligent). To make it clear though I'll say "Its roots for her are found . . ."

I just don't see why it is a big deal that she described it as "christian" forbearance, etc. when it doesn't matter how you describe it, it is the same thing.
Forebearance is forebearance no matter how you slice it. She calls it "christian" forebearance, so what. I don't see this as any sort of attempt by the government to require adherence to any particular relgion. The word "Christian" is merely being used as a modifier to describe the forebearance, love, etc. that people should express. She doesn't say you must be a Christian or that only Christians have those qualities. She is merely using the word Christian to describe the qualities.

No, that is not what I meant (and I think you know that, you seem relatively intelligent). To make it clear though I'll say "Its roots for her are found . . ."

I just don't see why it is a big deal that she described it as "christian" forbearance, etc. when it doesn't matter how you describe it, it is the same thing.
Forebearance is forebearance no matter how you slice it. She calls it "christian" forebearance, so what. I don't see this as any sort of attempt by the government to require adherence to any particular relgion. The word "Christian" is merely being used as a modifier to describe the forebearance, love, etc. that people should express. She doesn't say you must be a Christian or that only Christians have those qualities. She is merely using the word Christian to describe the qualities.

Actually, by appending “Christian” to the beginning, by the rules of English grammar, it means she is advocating a very specific type, namely that held and practiced by Christians (IE by using the adjective “Christian” in that context, it creates a certain meaning).

So technically, that’s exactly what she was saying. Whether she meant to say it or not is another story, but with her I’m not willing to err on the side of “not”

Actually, by appending “Christian” to the beginning, by the rules of English grammar, it means she is advocating a very specific type, namely that held and practiced by Christians (IE by using the adjective “Christian” in that context, it creates a certain meaning).

So technically, that’s exactly what she was saying. Whether she meant to say it or not is another story, but with her I’m not willing to err on the side of “not”
Ok, so she means the type of forebearance, etc. that Christians have. What is the difference between "Christian" forebearance and any other "type" of forebearance? How is one "type" different from another?

Ok, so she means the type of forebearance, etc. that Christians have. What is the difference between "Christian" forebearance and any other "type" of forebearance? How is one "type" different from another?

Which is exactly why her comment makes no sense, even by your premise:

I. She calls it Christian forebearance, the word clearly used as a specifying modifier, a word that functions exactly to differentiate.

II. You point it out makes no difference, yet defend her including a word that clearly incorporates the premise that there is a difference. When you keep stressing that there isn't one.

Congratulations, you have achieved meta-contradiction with your own argument.

For a guy who alludes to the intellect of others, you don't seem to realize that the most cogent refutement of your argument has been provided by you.

No, that is not what I meant (and I think you know that, you seem relatively intelligent). To make it clear though I'll say "Its roots for her are found . . ."

I just don't see why it is a big deal that she described it as "christian" forbearance, etc. when it doesn't matter how you describe it, it is the same thing.
Forebearance is forebearance no matter how you slice it. She calls it "christian" forebearance, so what. I don't see this as any sort of attempt by the government to require adherence to any particular relgion. The word "Christian" is merely being used as a modifier to describe the forebearance, love, etc. that people should express. She doesn't say you must be a Christian or that only Christians have those qualities. She is merely using the word Christian to describe the qualities.

Merely? Even you have admitted that there is nothing propietarily Christian about those qualities, and you have said that they would be identical "however you slice it" if not Christian. So then how can Christian be used to describe it?

So then how can Christian be used to describe it?

Well, certainly Christianity caused a revival, first in parts of the eastern world, which spread over to the Roman Empire, of a new form of more flexible ethic proposed by Jesus, which would seem to take practicality into account more and rely on fundamental virtues like agape etc... to make decisions, INSTEAD of very strict legalism that was the current trend (although of course not universally adopted) at that time (although it would eventually turn into legalism, like everything else). No, forbearance is not inherently Christian, and it has always existed long before Christianity, but I don't think it's such a crime to prefix it with Christian since it perhaps makes the fundamental virtues you are talking about more clear.

But "Christian" forbearance in the contemporary sense (regardless of your viewpoints about the content or the merits of the Christian movement of two thousand years ago) is something very different from what others would call "forbearance".

Well, certainly Christianity caused a revival, first in parts of the eastern world, which spread over to the Roman Empire, of a new form of more flexible ethic proposed by Jesus, which would seem to take practicality into account more and rely on fundamental virtues like agape etc... to make decisions, INSTEAD of very strict legalism that was the current trend (although of course not universally adopted) at that time (although it would eventually turn into legalism, like everything else). No, forbearance is not inherently Christian, and it has always existed long before Christianity, but I don't think it's such a crime to prefix it with Christian since it perhaps makes the fundamental virtues you are talking about more clear.

If there are permutations of this that are more clearly described as "Christian", despite some (of course not all) claims here that its all the same, then those specifically "Christian" versions, by virtue of being religious, should not be given weight of law, whether by state Bill of Rights or proclamation of an government executive.

I see the value in providing that historical context, but it shoulnd't find expression in phraseology of the law, even a precursor state bill of rights.

Also, I prefer Raelian love, because it involves strippers fucking nerds.

Merely? Even you have admitted that there is nothing propietarily Christian about those qualities, and you have said that they would be identical "however you slice it" if not Christian. So then how can Christian be used to describe it?Because that is the word she chose.

Please understand, I am NOT defending her choice of words. I am arguing that the choice is irrelevant and meaningless and too much is being read into it.

Because that is the word she chose.

And so must take responsbility for.


Please understand, I am NOT defending her choice of words. I am arguing that the choice is irrelevant and meaningless and too much is being read into it.

So you argue that "irrelevant and meaningless" language should be included in law, or precursors to law such as state bill of rights, and should be overlooked because its "irrelevant and meaningless".

So, by that argument, since rape is rape, we could pass a law that says "Don't engage in the Jewish act of rape", and nobody should dislike the term applied specifically to rape, because its "irrelevant and meaningless".

Try this: Things that are irrelevant and meanginless should, by definition, be left out.

or this: If its so meaningless, why did she emphasize its inclusion?

Because that is the word she chose.

Please understand, I am NOT defending her choice of words. I am arguing that the choice is irrelevant and meaningless and too much is being read into it.

here's my question, if it's "irrelevant and meaningless"....why did she say it?

Perhaps it's because she didn't find it "irrelevant and meaningless"

here's my question, if it's "irrelevant and meaningless"....why did she say it?

Perhaps it's because she didn't find it "irrelevant and meaningless"

It was actually the opposite. She was talking about Christian heritage. One would think she chose the quote specifically because it had the word Christian in it.

Surprisingly, they also rarely put George Washington on latin heritage posters.

It was actually the opposite. She was talking about Christian heritage. One would think she chose the quote specifically because it had the word Christian in it.
How is this comment meant to address or fit into the conversation? Are you agreeing with NA or arguing with him?

Surprisingly, they also rarely put George Washington on latin heritage posters.
And...? I dont see where you're going with this.

How is this comment meant to address or fit into the conversation? Are you agreeing with NA or arguing with him?


And...? I dont see where you're going with this.
I was saying it was the opposite of irrelevant and meaningless. It didn't just happen to be there. She chose the quote because of its wording. She was cheering on Alaska's 9th annual celebration of the Christian heritage of the US. It's as obvious that the quote was selected for its content as a latin astronaut was chosen for a latin heritage poster (I used that example because I hung it up recently in a ESL classroom).

I'd also disagree that she was trying to set up precedent, since she could point to thousands of old legislations and documents that have that work covered. What she did was consistent with what you'd expect if she were honoring that kind of heritage celebration.

I don't agree she should have supported it. I actually don't like when they support other heritage celebrations officially, personally. But what she did was consistent with that kind of pandering.

You know part of what I like about Obama is that he addresses the complexities. He doesn't treat everything like it's good/evil, yes/no. You can totally disagree with something and at the same time not support vilifying them, or think someone is a villian and occasionally agree with them.

Sarah Palin has TONS of flaws. We needn't exaggerate the problems with her past and present. They are plenty that require no extrapolation at all to be appalling or laughable.

You know part of what I like about Obama is that he addresses the complexities. He doesn't treat everything like it's good/evil, yes/no. You can totally disagree with something and at the same time not support vilifying them, or think someone is a villian and occasionally agree with them.

Sarah Palin has TONS of flaws. We needn't exaggerate the problems with her past and present. They are plenty that require no extrapolation at all to be appalling or laughable.

Except the brain-dead Reality Television Addicted American Populace buys into oversimplification as best exemplified by George W. Bush being allowed a full 8 years to run the United States into the ground like every other business he's been put in charge of.

In addition Teh Librul Meedia™ will conveniently downplay or outright suppress any stories about I Can't Believe It's Not Hillary's gaping flaws.

You add those two together and it's basically Barack Obama as Ben in Night of the Living Dead.

It is unfortunate that sound bites rule the day. I look forward to the debates. I imagine they're going to be a different quality than 2004. I think that's going to be a game-changer.

As far as Sarah Palin, I agree with others that he should leave it to others to deal with her. He's been smart about not promoting McCain into the spotlight unnecessarily, and he's failing with Palin. She's glittering in the pan and he's getting all excited about it. He usually recognizes fool's gold.

I was saying it was the opposite of irrelevant and meaningless. It didn't just happen to be there. She chose the quote because of its wording. She was cheering on Alaska's 9th annual celebration of the Christian heritage of the US. It's as obvious that the quote was selected for its content as a latin astronaut was chosen for a latin heritage poster (I used that example because I hung it up recently in a ESL classroom).

I'd also disagree that she was trying to set up precedent, since she could point to thousands of old legislations and documents that have that work covered. What she did was consistent with what you'd expect if she were honoring that kind of heritage celebration.

I don't agree she should have supported it. I actually don't like when they support other heritage celebrations officially, personally. But what she did was consistent with that kind of pandering.
So you were both agreeing and disagreeing at the same time. Ah. You must be really good at yoga.

Anyway, I'm sure this won't surprise you, but I have an objection to your argument. It is this: It does not matter whether she was "merely" pandering and not deliberately trying to set a precedent. The fact that she did does create the precedent, regardless of her intentions.

Also I disagree with your assertion that she was just honoring a Christian heritage just as she would any other heritage that had contributed to American history. First, has she ever honored any other heritage in this manner? If not, then you have no basis on which to assert that she is honoring Christian heritage the same way another heritage would be honored. Second, as an American politician, she should know better than to suggest that all citizens of Alaska should honor this Christian heritage in the particular way she described in the quoted statement. Frankly, I see nothing in her words that would indicate that she is even aware of the existence of other heritages, let alone that they may be equal to the Christian one.

OK, that's two objections, but to be honest, I see more details in her words that support the interpretation that she intended to characterize Christianity as the driving and identifying force of all things American than anything that indicates otherwise.

And coming from the mouth of an American politician, I find that rather grossly inappropriate.

So you were both agreeing and disagreeing at the same time. Ah. You must be really good at yoga.

Yes, I know that so many prefer simple, but I tend to stick to particular points. I can like your pants and find your shirt objectionable. I'm rational like that.

I anticipated your objection to evaluating things that are complicated in complicated ways. Thus the post about Obama. It's one of his better traits. It would be a boon if people who support him would actually recognize that his message consistently goes against the idea of oversimplifying. But, hey, why don't you call me a flip-flopper. I hear that works.

Regardless, I wasn't disagreeing with NA at all. My original post simply expanded on what NA said. When you challenged me, I further expanded on the overall point.

Anyway, I'm sure this won't surprise you, but I have an objection to your argument. It is this: It does not matter whether she was "merely" pandering and not deliberately trying to set a precedent. The fact that she did does create the precedent, regardless of her intentions.

A precedent that already existed. She was quoting another legal document. Or did you miss that bit?



Also I disagree with your assertion that she was just honoring a Christian heritage just as she would any other heritage that had contributed to American history. First, has she ever honored any other heritage in this manner? If not, then you have no basis on which to assert that she is honoring Christian heritage the same way another heritage would be honored. Second, as an American politician, she should know better than to suggest that all citizens of Alaska should honor this Christian heritage in the particular way she described in the quoted statement. Frankly, I see nothing in her words that would indicate that she is even aware of the existence of other heritages, let alone that they may be equal to the Christian one.

It wasn't my assertion. It was TCT's. I was agreeing with him. Incidentally, you just happened to have supported his post that said so. Consistent much?

And, although the Proclamation may be seen as something of a slight to those of us who are not Christian (especially in the absence of any proclamation celebrating other contributions to the U.S.), the subject of celebrating Christian heritage isn't particularly more offensive than celebrating, say, Irish heritage.


OK, that's two objections, but to be honest, I see more details in her words that support the interpretation that she intended to characterize Christianity as the driving and identifying force of all things American than anything that indicates otherwise.

And coming from the mouth of an American politician, I find that rather grossly inappropriate.

I would say it was inaccurate among other things, but I do think that honoring heritage so specifically runs the very risk that you're speaking to. I don't believe any one heritage should be promoted above others, frankly. So, on this point, we agree.

No, that is not what I meant (and I think you know that, you seem relatively intelligent). To make it clear though I'll say "Its roots for her are found . . ."

I just don't see why it is a big deal that she described it as "christian" forbearance, etc. when it doesn't matter how you describe it, it is the same thing.
Forebearance is forebearance no matter how you slice it. She calls it "christian" forebearance, so what. I don't see this as any sort of attempt by the government to require adherence to any particular relgion. The word "Christian" is merely being used as a modifier to describe the forebearance, love, etc. that people should express. She doesn't say you must be a Christian or that only Christians have those qualities. She is merely using the word Christian to describe the qualities.

But as a modifier in the context you've described, "Christian" is wholly irrelevant. If "forbearance is forbearance", then why use your religion as an adjective? Adjectives describe and qualify nouns. If the noun in question ("forbearance"), as you stated, doesn't need qualification, then why bother?

It's that kind of automatic injection of her religion into her politics that makes her motives and ideas seem somehow ulterior to me.

we can only hope.It's already way-past started. I'll post some pix sometime ... though i always say that and rarely follow through.
http://www.wildsalmononparade.com/2006map.pdf

Yes, I know that so many prefer simple, but I tend to stick to particular points. I can like your pants and find your shirt objectionable. I'm rational like that.

I anticipated your objection to evaluating things that are complicated in complicated ways. Thus the post about Obama. It's one of his better traits. It would be a boon if people who support him would actually recognize that his message consistently goes against the idea of oversimplifying. But, hey, why don't you call me a flip-flopper. I hear that works.
Are you not trying to be a dick again? Because you really should consider trying. You have a talent.

Regardless, I wasn't disagreeing with NA at all. My original post simply expanded on what NA said. When you challenged me, I further expanded on the overall point.
Not very clearly then.

A precedent that already existed. She was quoting another legal document. Or did you miss that bit?
No, I noticed that bit. However, it does not excuse her adding to it.

It wasn't my assertion. It was TCT's. I was agreeing with him. Incidentally, you just happened to have supported his post that said so. Consistent much?
The most reliable consistency here is your inability to make yourself clear. If you had placed your remarks into any kind of context, I would have understood them. See, that's why the first thing I said to you was asking you how your comments were meant to fit into the conversation.


I would say it was inaccurate among other things, but I do think that honoring heritage so specifically runs the very risk that you're speaking to. I don't believe any one heritage should be promoted above others, frankly. So, on this point, we agree.
Gosh, I thought I'd never live to see the day. EDIT: To be honest, I think we should start seeing other posters. Getting to that one "we agree" was just too much work.

What I wrote was perfectly clear and would not have confused anyone who was ...

Something's are just too funny not to point out.

Maybe you should flame me again. It's almost the same as making an argument.

You seem to be confusing a lot in this conversation. The part you're saying I should have made clear before you asked, I hadn't even mentioned before you asked. But, hey, don't actually read what I write just because you're responding to it. Instead, just call me a dick again. I mean, you shouldn't expect better from your own debates.

Something's are just too funny not to point out.

Maybe you should flame me again. It's almost the same as making an argument.
/ignore

And so must take responsbility for.That's fine, ask her to explain it, I don't care and I agree, everyone needs to take responsibility for their actions, the refusal to do so and the attempt to shift blame to others is one of the major problems with our society these days.

So you argue that "irrelevant and meaningless" language should be included in law, or precursors to law such as state bill of rights, and should be overlooked because its "irrelevant and meaningless".Now you are living in a fantasy world. I never said any thing close to this. We're not talking about a piece of criminal legislation to lock folks up due to a religious belief system's beliefs or a constitutional amendment seeking to establish a state religion. Don't try to equate this to those, not the same thing at all. You're putting words in my mouth that exist only in your head.

So, by that argument, since rape is rape, we could pass a law that says "Don't engage in the Jewish act of rape", and nobody should dislike the term applied specifically to rape, because its "irrelevant and meaningless".If Jewish rape is different from other rape, it might have a pertinent part in the criminal statute whether anyone liked it or not. If it is the same, then yes, it would be meaningless there as well and I'm sure some would dislike it, but those who recognized it was meaningless wouldn't worry about it and get their knickers in a twist. But again, never claimed we should include meaningless language in criminal statutes, you are the one making that argument and claim which you have spun out of thin air.

Try this: Things that are irrelevant and meaningless should, by definition, be left out.I would agree, but convince any politician to leave all "feel good" crap out of what they say and do - let me know when you succeed. Our politicians use meaningless phrases like "change" all the time. Our state and federal criminal codes are full of meaningless crap. Sure, meaningless language that fails to serve any specific, legitimate legal purpose should be left out of laws, proclamations, etc. but it is included in them all the time.
or this: If its so meaningless, why did she emphasize its inclusion?I don't know, go ask her. Maybe she was pandering, maybe she is a theocrat, maybe an adviser told her she should, who knows, you certainly don't and neither do I.

Wowmaui, ahem (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=14001946&postcount=326)?

You two have fun, I'm just going to go beat my head against a wall or something. Ahhh, that's nice and numbing...

That's fine, ask her to explain it, I don't care and I agree, everyone needs to take responsibility for their actions, the refusal to do so and the attempt to shift blame to others is one of the major problems with our society these days.

Great, lets show some responsibility for things you said, like defending her leaving it in, which clearly means you are defending its inclusion.


Now you are living in a fantasy world. I never said any thing close to this. We're not talking about a piece of criminal legislation to lock folks up due to a religious belief system's beliefs or a constitutional amendment seeking to establish a state religion. Don't try to equate this to those, not the same thing at all. You're putting words in my mouth that exist only in your head.

Go back and look; she attempted to clearly relate it to the Bill of Rights. It doesn't take something so egregious as "criminal legislation to lock folks up due to a religious belief system" in order for it to violate the establishment clause.


If Jewish rape is different from other rape, it might have a pertinent part in the criminal statute whether anyone liked it or not. If it is the same, then yes, it would be meaningless there as well and I'm sure some would dislike it, but those who recognized it was meaningless wouldn't worry about it and get their knickers in a twist. But again, never claimed we should include meaningless language in criminal statutes, you are the one making that argument and claim which you have spun out of thin air.

The "thin ai"r was your own words defending her leaving it in, which by definition means including it.

And if you truly believe the bolded part, it explains a great deal about your claims. You said yourself, the meaningless part should be excluded.


I would agree, but convince any politician to leave all "feel good" crap out of what they say and do - let me know when you succeed. Our politicians use meaningless phrases like "change" all the time. Our state and federal criminal codes are full of meaningless crap. Sure, meaningless language that fails to serve any specific, legitimate legal purpose should be left out of laws, proclamations, etc. but it is included in them all the time.

So because something occurs all the time, it should be allowed? That is your clear premise here, you realize.


I don't know, go ask her. Maybe she was pandering, maybe she is a theocrat, maybe an adviser told her she should, who knows, you certainly don't and neither do I.

Ah, so because we don't know how something meaningless was included, it should remain included. By your logic, the inexplicably "meaningless and irrelevant" should remain included. After all, if it has no purpose (you've admitted that), no meaning (you've admitted that), and now we don't know why its even in there (your premise), then it should remain included.

You have explicitly stated and subscribed to the mentality that you ascribed as me thinking you had "only in my head".

Hammurab
Is it really that difficult for you to understand I am not defending her leaving that language in there. I'm not defending the language being there. I am saying it doesn't matter that it is there. The language doesn't change a damn thing so I don't give a rat's ass about it. And for people to be all bent out of shape over something that is meaningless shows a set of mixed up priorities IMO.

I'm not saying we should put meaningless language in laws, statutes and proclamations. I'm saying we shouldn't get all bent out of shape when they appear. I'm not saying it should be allowed, I'm saying be a realist and recognize it happens whether it should be allowed or not. My premise is NOT that it should be allowed because it occurs. My premise is that WHEN it occurs, it should be ignored.

Intangelon
I understand that the inclusion of the word might cause you and others some concern about how much her religious beliefs influence and affect what she does in her official capacity. And I respect that as a legitimate concern. I just don't see this as evidence she is out to craft a theocracy in the U.S. or Alaska anymore than I see a statement about civil rights from the mullahs of Iran as evidence they are out to create a democracy.

Hammurab
Is it really that difficult for you to understand I am not defending her leaving that language in there. I'm not defending the language being there. I am saying it doesn't matter that it is there. The language doesn't change a damn thing so I don't give a rat's ass about it. And for people to be all bent out of shape over something that is meaningless shows a set of mixed up priorities IMO.You are wrong. Your inability to address meaning to it is not somehow the crux by which the statement should be measured and weighed.

It is unfortunate that sound bites rule the day. I look forward to the debates. I imagine they're going to be a different quality than 2004. I think that's going to be a game-changer.

Unfortunately, enough people like the yes/no and black/white mentality from their politicians that it could hurt Obama in the debates (even if people like you and I quite like that quality).

As far as Sarah Palin, I agree with others that he should leave it to others to deal with her. He's been smart about not promoting McCain into the spotlight unnecessarily, and he's failing with Palin. She's glittering in the pan and he's getting all excited about it. He usually recognizes fool's gold.

He doesn't even have to directly talk about her. As the "lipstick" comment proved, if he mentions something generally associated with women, he's clearly making sexist comments against her. :rolleyes:

Pali has the three things that turn me off most about the right. Bible thumping, anti-eviromentalism and love affair with big business. Especially energy companies.

Intangelon
I understand that the inclusion of the word might cause you and others some concern about how much her religious beliefs influence and affect what she does in her official capacity. And I respect that as a legitimate concern. I just don't see this as evidence she is out to craft a theocracy in the U.S. or Alaska anymore than I see a statement about civil rights from the mullahs of Iran as evidence they are out to create a democracy.

Fair enough. I don't agree, but fair enough.

Pali has the three things that turn me off most about the right. Bible thumping, anti-eviromentalism and love affair with big business. Especially energy companies.

Indeed, I hear she has a tramp stamp that says "Big Oil" in caligraphy.

You are wrong. Your inability to address meaning to it is not somehow the crux by which the statement should be measured and weighed.
Why? Why does your desire to give meaning to it any more the crux by which it should be measured and weighed than my opinion that it is meaningless? Why is your opinion right and my opinion wrong?

Because you see, that is what it all boils down to, a difference in opinion. Your opinion is that it is exceptionally important that she used the word "Christian" because it reveals some horrible, hidden, Theocratic agenda. Whereas my opinion is that it does no such thing and is meaningless and not worthy of significant concern.

Pali has the three things that turn me off most about the right. Bible thumping, anti-eviromentalism and love affair with big business. Especially energy companies.
I understand, it would be much better if they were cozy with investment bankers, securities traders, trial lawyers and real estate moguls - all they did was bring about a Mortgage meltdown and a trillion dollar bail out and take over of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.

Oh, wait, Obama Campaign Financing (http://www.opensecrets.org/politicians/summary.php?cid=N00009638)

Gimme a break, she's a politician, She'll get cozy with who ever has lots of money and will assist her. In Alaska that means big oil just like in the North East were Obama is it means banks and financial firms. They are all politicians and they are all for sale to the highest bidder.