A Letter From God

[Enoch the Red]

Jaded? Probably. I'm not doubting she loves her children, Downs or not. She made her choice, but wants to take away other women's private choices. The underlying pro-life Christian conservatives admit they want to ban abortion or repeal Roe v Wade. These types of emotional and religious missives are part of their strategy, including bills introduced to define Life beginning at conception, replacing the term fetus with person, etc.

She's also no better than other politicians who put their kids 'on stage' like props, parade them around for photo-ops, then complain about wanting privacy for their family.

What about politicians who do put their nether regions on stage for porn stars and lonely women the world over? You seemed more than willing to go the extra mile in defending them from the invasive eye of the media circus, but are less than willing to extend that same courtesy to someone who you clearly don't agree. All the while feigning outrage at the sad state of partisan politics in this country.

It's not that you think she's no better than other politicians who put their kids on stage like props, that could be understood; instead you think she's much, much better than that. By planting otherwise innocuous emails in her inbox in the off-chance that reporters might request them under the Freedom of Information Act, find that exact email, and publicize it for the world to see you are assigning her nearly superhuman foresight and planning. That's not the workings of your average American politician, that's the creative collusions of a criminal mastermind. You think she is at once an imbecile and a genius, and I'm not sure how you reconcile the two, except by way of massive conspiracy theory.

Occam's Razor is not the latest and greatest from Gillette.

[GGT]

It's not that she's no better than other politicians who put their kids on stage like props, it's that you think she's much, much better than that. By planting otherwise innocuous emails in her inbox in the off-chance that reporters might request them under the Freedom of Information Act, find that exact email, and publicize it for the world to see. That's not the workings of your average American politician, that's the creative collusions of a criminal mastermind. You think she is at once an imbecile and a genius, and I'm not sure how you reconcile the two, except by way of massive conspiracy theory.

Occam's Razor is not the latest and greatest from Gillette.

Her letter to God was reportedly published in her first book, for the world to see, long before the rest of us read the e-mails.

[Enoch the Red]

Her letter to God was reportedly published in her first book, for the world to see, long before the rest of us read the e-mails.

Which only reinforces that this is certainly not new, or news?

[GGT]

It's in the news, yes. These pro-life missives are nothing new, no. It's not the massive conspiracy you suggest, or singularly about Palin. It's a political platform with coordinated propaganda (like all others). You can bet I'll post more about anti-choice and anti-abortion efforts in the future, as it pops up in the news state-by-state.

[Ziggy Stardust]

Which only reinforces that this is certainly not new, or news?

Indeed. Instead of first checking whether these emails had anything newsworthy, the media salivated over it before anyone knew what was in them. Journalism at it's laziest. And the way I use the word "journalism" there is an insult to journalists.

It's in the news, yes.

Walter Cronkite wept.

[Enoch the Red]

It's in the news, yes. These pro-life missives are nothing new, no. It's not the massive conspiracy you suggest, or singularly about Palin.

As I see it, as an American voter, this is early 2012 campaigning for legislating extreme-right social conservatism. Advanced preparation for national defunding of Planned Parenthood, orchestrating a national anti-abortion movement, using "Letters from God" to justify laws making women victims of their pregnancies/bodies.

Your posts suggest otherwise.

Unless you think that people who are opposed to abortion are a new phenomena.

[GGT]

Your posts suggest otherwise.
Unless you think that people who are opposed to abortion is a new phenomena.

What? I said being anti-abortion and campaign platforms aren't new. What is relatively "new" are states whittling away women's choices. Republicans are having to prove just how conservative they are, to get the religious right wing endorsements. Re-visiting the old Moral Majority days. Odds are that a pro-choice candidate will either flip their position or lose support.

Unfortunately for them, it's hypocritical. It doesn't jive with their views of small and non-intrusive government, or following the constitution by not legislating from the pulpit.

I can change the thread title if that makes it clearer....?

Rick Perry from Texas:

“This administration in Washington that’s in power now clearly believes that government is not only the answer to every need, but it’s the most qualified to make the most central decisions for every American in every area,” he said.


Perry also criticized some Republicans – without naming names – for failing to hold the line on social issues such as abortion. “When it comes to conservative social issues it saddens me when sometimes my fellow Republicans duck and cover under pressure from the left,” he said.


If Perry enters the race, his candidacy would clearly shake up the field. Polls show conservatives want more choices – especially conservative choices – for president. Neither of the perceived frontrunners, former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney and ex-Minnesota Gov. Tim Pawlenty, are from the Republican stronghold of the South. And neither is viewed as a staunch conservative.

http://blogs.marketwatch.com/electio...e-will-he-run/

[Enoch the Red]

What? I said being anti-abortion and campaign platforms aren't new. What is relatively "new" are states whittling away women's choices. Republicans are having to prove just how conservative they are, to get the religious right wing endorsements. Re-visiting the old Moral Majority days. Odds are that a pro-choice candidate will either flip their position or lose support.

No, you said you viewed this email as a clever ploy on her part to play to her base.

Unfortunately for them, it's hypocritical. It doesn't jive with their views of small and non-intrusive government, or following the constitution by not legislating from the pulpit.

I don't think the constitution makes any statements about legislating from the pulpit, (and before you ask, no, the first amendment does not do that), nor do I believe that the only objections that can be raised to abortion are religious, but I don't disagree with your sentiment. That being said, I don't see bogeymen in people who are opposed to abortion, or mothers who believe that children are precious gifts, regardless of the challenges that they may have been born with. They may hold beliefs that I don't agree with, but I don't see evil or conspiracies in all that they do.

[Ziggy Stardust]

A hypocritical politician eh?

Someone alert the ... oh wait.

[EyeKhan]

Jaded? Probably. I'm not doubting she loves her children, Downs or not. She made her choice, but wants to take away other women's private choices. The underlying pro-life Christian conservatives admit they want to ban abortion or repeal Roe v Wade. These types of emotional and religious missives are part of their strategy, including bills introduced to define Life beginning at conception, replacing the term fetus with person, etc.

She's also no better than other politicians who put their kids 'on stage' like props, parade them around for photo-ops, then complain about wanting privacy for their family.

Did she make a choice? Doesn't she personally believe with all her heart that there is no choice in that situation; that God forbids it, and her Faith is such that she cannot act so blatantly against the will of God without condemning her immortal soul? How is that a choice? And what you and I think of as taking away other women's choice is really safeguarding the immortal souls of those other women and keeping God's plan for each of us as God intended, unwanted pregnancy and all. She literally has faith that such choices as to have an abortion do not exist, are false, are a 1 way ticket to hell and damnation. Right?

[Enoch the Red]

Did she make a choice? Doesn't she personally believe with all her heart that there is no choice in that situation; that God forbids it, and her Faith is such that she cannot act so blatantly against the will of God without condemning her immortal soul? How is that a choice? And what you and I think of as taking away other women's choice is really safeguarding the immortal souls of those other women and keeping God's plan for each of us as God intended, unwanted pregnancy and all. She literally has faith that such choices as to have an abortion do not exist, are false, are a 1 way ticket to hell and damnation. Right?

I can't speak for her, but most of the Christians I know don't believe that. They believe that unrepentant sin, regardless of the nature, is the problem. If a woman were to have an abortion, but later repented for it, then she would be forgiven, not subjected to eternal torment. I don't know of very many Christians who reject the notion of salvation/grace, though I do know some that certainly don't seem to focus on it.

[GGT]

Her choices included birth control (or none), pre-natal testing to know if there were anomalies in advance (assuming she would never choose abortion, of course). Defining life or personhood from the moment of conception, and anti-abortion views based on God, the soul, heaven or hell are based on religious faith. No one's forcing women to have abortions against those religious beliefs, but they don't get to choose for all other women and force their beliefs on anyone else.

[Loki]

Remind how these views are "extreme right" when they're shared by about half the population?

[GGT]

Remind how these views are "extreme right" when they're shared by about half the population?

Source?

[Loki]

http://people-press.org/2011/03/03/s...social-issues/

That's 42% supporting Palin's position. But I guess anyone to the right of you must be an extremist.

[GGT]

No, you said you viewed this email as a clever ploy on her part to play to her base.

Not what I said at all. I said (IMO) her letter to God was part of her anti-abortion political platform. She even put it in her first book.

I don't think the constitution makes any statements about legislating from the pulpit, (and before you ask, no, the first amendment does not do that), nor do I believe that the only objections that can be raised to abortion are religious, but I don't disagree with your sentiment. That being said, I don't see bogeymen in people who are opposed to abortion, or mothers who believe that children are precious gifts, regardless of the challenges that they may have been born with. They may hold beliefs that I don't agree with, but I don't see evil or conspiracies in all that they do.

You're the only one here using words like evil or conspiracy. Or hinting that pro-choice means not seeing children as precious. As I said earlier, the "bogeymen" are in the anti-abortion religious who are also anti-birth control, anti-sex ed, and anti-family planning that includes abortions.

[GGT]

http://people-press.org/2011/03/03/s...social-issues/

That's 42% supporting Palin's position. But I guess anyone to the right of you must be an extremist.

Then you should have been more clear when asking why "these views are extreme right when shared by half the population". Right after my post about life beginning at conception, souls, and God.

I am criticizing the extreme right wing in the GOP who want to make abortions illegal, and have that in their platform.

[Wraith]

Not what I said at all. I said (IMO) her letter to God was part of her anti-abortion political platform. She even put it in her first book.

Source/ page #? None of the news sites I've seen talking about this mention it. Seems a glaring omission.

And does this even really matter?

Does any of this really matter?

[GGT]

It was in the LA times article and mentioned more than once in the comments. No, the e-mail releases don't matter. I even said this isn't singularly about Palin (include Rick Perry, Michelle Bachmann, etc.) It's the mindset of the extreme religious fringe that wants to legislate against abortion. For some that also includes pharmaceuticals that prevent or disrupt implantation.

Yes, that matters to me.

[Loki]

The extreme religious fringe that makes up 42% of the population. You might want to look up the words "extreme" and "fringe" in the dictionary.

[Enoch the Red]

Not what I said at all. I said (IMO) her letter to God was part of her anti-abortion political platform. She even put it in her first book.

Her letter from God was no doubt based on her beliefs, (both in God, and abortion) and that you are feigning surprise that her politics are influenced by her beliefs is absurd. Of course her politics are, at least in part, derived from her beliefs.

You're the only one here using words like evil or conspiracy. Or hinting that pro-choice means not seeing children as precious. As I said earlier, the "bogeymen" are in the anti-abortion religious who are also anti-birth control, anti-sex ed, and anti-family planning that includes abortions.

So private that she sent e-mails knowing full well the public would eventually read them. Right.

You don't know much about US politicking so you get a free pass, minx.

As I see it, as an American voter, this is early 2012 campaigning for legislating extreme-right social conservatism. Advanced preparation for national defunding of Planned Parenthood, orchestrating a national anti-abortion movement, using "Letters from God" to justify laws making women victims of their pregnancies/bodies.

Just sounds more "Christian" when they try to ban abortions by proxy, using pro-life propaganda and "Letters from God" to appeal to voters. But they also won't fund reproductive health and birth control with public tax dollars, let alone "welfare" in the form of food aid for women-infants-children (WIC). Great pro-life ethic, huh.

Sorry, how should I read this? You're saying that this is a cleverly orchestrated ploy, masterminded by the national anti-abortion movement, pushed by extreme social conservatives to ground their propaganda and hatred of women/the poor in religious faith. Is that about right?

But no, you aren't saying evil or conspiracy. Your posts are.

[GGT]

The extreme religious fringe that makes up 42% of the population. You might want to look up the words "extreme" and "fringe" in the dictionary.

No, I said the religious right within the Republican party. And GOP candidates competing for who can be most socially conservative--being anti-abortion is the expectation.

Her letter from God was no doubt based on her beliefs, (both in God, and abortion) and that you are feigning surprise that her politics are influenced by her beliefs is absurd. Of course her politics are, at least in part, derived from her beliefs.

Sorry, how should I read this? You're saying that this is a cleverly orchestrated ploy, masterminded by the national anti-abortion movement, pushed by extreme social conservatives to ground their propaganda and hatred of women/the poor in religious faith. Is that about right?

But no, you aren't saying evil or conspiracy. Your posts are.

Oh, FFS. Previously we'd discussed the same conservative religious-based propaganda before voting on Prop 8 to ban same-sex marriage. That even Democrats were heavily campaigned by religious anti-gay groups before the vote. We've also discussed Islamaphobia and those suspicious of Muslims, trying to influence laws preventing building Park 151 based on their religion.

For some reason you're trying to pick a fight about the damn letter, instead of the GOP's talking points about God and religion, abortion and family planning....or in general using religious beliefs to legislate.

I'll change the title of the OP once I figure out a new one. Any suggestions?

[Enoch the Red]

Oh, FFS. Previously we'd discussed the same conservative religious-based propaganda before voting on Prop 8 to ban same-sex marriage. That even Democrats were heavily campaigned by religious anti-gay groups before the vote. We've also discussed Islamaphobia and those suspicious of Muslims, trying to influence laws preventing building Park 151 based on their religion.

For some reason you're trying to pick a fight about the damn letter, instead of the GOP's talking points about God and religion, abortion and family planning....or in general using religious beliefs to legislate.

I'll change the title of the OP once I figure out a new one. Any suggestions?

Address what you said, and then we'll talk.

You seem to be in the habit of saying one thing, abandoning that position when you are called out on it, all the while taking umbrage because what you actually posted was never the point in the first place.

[LittleFuzzy]

It was in the LA times article and mentioned more than once in the comments. No, the e-mail releases don't matter. I even said this isn't singularly about Palin (include Rick Perry, Michelle Bachmann, etc.)

Yes, that matters to me.

No, you've backpedaled to your tired but trusty general stance regarding a segment of society after your original specific assertions in this thread were properly challenged as being full of shit.

[Illusions]

Remind how these views are "extreme right" when they're shared by about half the population?

Off-topic: A viewpoint should be classified independent of the number of people in the population who hold such a view. For instance, Nazis are at one end of the political spectrum, whether there is one person who is a Nazi, or a billion people who are Nazis.

[Loki]

Off-topic: A viewpoint should be classified independent of the number of people in the population who hold such a view. For instance, Nazis are at one end of the political spectrum, whether there is one person who is a Nazi, or a billion people who are Nazis.

Extreme relative to what? I should note that GGT used extreme in tandem with fringe, which definitely requires the term to apply to a small section of the population.

[Illusions]

Extreme relative to what?

An objective center. In a hypothetical population of bloodthirsty murderers, we could still create an axis/scale whereby on one end we have "Murder Nobody" and on the other "Murder Everybody" and come up with an objective means to class them. 95% of them could be on the far end of "Murder Everybody" on the Murder Scale and they could still be classed as extreme.

[Loki]

An objective center. In a hypothetical population of bloodthirsty murderers, we could still create an axis/scale whereby on one end we have "Murder Nobody" and on the other "Murder Everybody" and come up with an objective means to class them. 95% of them could be on the far end of "Murder Everybody" on the Murder Scale and they could still be classed as extreme.

Does it make any sense to talk of someone's political position as being extreme when it's widely shared? Being pro-slavery is "objectively" an extreme position. Does that mean you'd describe every early 19th century politician (except for the handful that opposed slavery on moral grounds) as an extremist? What's the value-added of using that term in that circumstance?

[Illusions]

Does it make any sense to talk of someone's political position as being extreme when it's widely shared?

Yes, it does. How do you argue against a viewpoint you feel is wrong, diametrically opposed to your own, but held by a larger percentage of people? Its still extreme compared to your own.

Being pro-slavery is "objectively" an extreme position. Does that mean you'd describe every early 19th century politician (except for the handful that opposed slavery on moral grounds) as an extremist?

You could if you were discussing their position on slave holding relative to other people's positions on slave holding.

What's the value-added of using that term in that circumstance?

None, but there are other possible circumstances you could discuss where it would make sense. Like the above.

[Loki]

Why are you assuming that extreme means bad? I would argue that being an abolitionist was an extremist position 200 years ago. Political labels are always relative. There's nothing useful about calling everyone who holds a "bad" position an extremist, when that belief is the norm (which is the opposite of extreme).