Comments on: When Palin Says Country First, She Means It!

By: JD

JD — Sat, 06 Sep 2008 18:12:59 +0000

This whole espisode points to the 2 sets of rules between black and white.This woman is unqualified, undeserving and unworthy of high office. Unqualified, because she has no interest in major news isues,ie, the war in Iraq. Undesserving, she was part ofa qroup willing to part from the USA and make Alaska a seperate country, undeserving, daughter knocked upped,leaving her special needs child for chance, and rumors of cheating on her husband, the husband with a trak record that includes a dui.She is rumored to have cheated on her husband. Now ask, what if she were black, or her grandbaby father, black, if she were black, she would not be running, and if her grand baby,s daddy was black, she would quickly become pro choice. There is no problem with her gender, just with her

By: theo.johnson

theo.johnson — Thu, 04 Sep 2008 20:38:39 +0000

TheDad, that’s for the comment. I said the same thing last night about the baby! Palin in her speech “reached out” to parents with special needs children, promising to be a “friend in the White House”.

She forgot to tell them it would take tax dollars to do that and Republicans don’t believe in social services programs. And sadly after the war the U.S. won’t have anymore money to create those programs. Leaving the parents to adhere to Republican values and pull themselves up by the bootstraps.

By: BlackandMarried (TheDad)

BlackandMarried (TheDad) — Thu, 04 Sep 2008 19:23:56 +0000

I don’t understand how the republicans are so much more christian because they oppose gay marriage and abortions but are down to go to war and kill anybody and if you say otherwise your un-American.

There is a double standard with men and women totally so lets get that out of the way.

If that were Hillary and she still had young kids the republicans would rip her apart for not putting “family first” and for her daughter being pregnant.

And am I the only one who thinks they’re pimping the baby? Everytime they mention the baby it’s brought up that she has down syndrome or its how the baby has special needs. It kills me to see the kid used as a tool.

I’m so sick of political games.

By: theo.johnson

theo.johnson — Thu, 04 Sep 2008 16:35:20 +0000

Thanks Darrell. It was tough putting this together because I didn’t want to question her relationship also. The purpose was to tell what I’ve learned and to present it to the Repubs who are quick to throw religion in the face of the Dems.

All these terms and labels we use are really getting on my nerves. Just yesterday I heard someone use the term Progressive Christian. We are a country of labels. That’s what led me to write this post.

http://www.theotalks.net/2008/07/are-you-black-or-african-american

But last night Palin showed her toughness and it’s time for Obama to go on the policy attack.

By: Darrell.Holmes

Darrell.Holmes — Thu, 04 Sep 2008 16:29:29 +0000

Great post Theo! I won’t speak towards Sarah Palin because I don’t know her personal relationship with Christ but I do know MILLIONS of Americans talk the talk but don’t even stand to walk the walk when it comes to Christianity or Christ-like beliefs. I believe somewhere around 70% of American say they believe in God and around 60% of Americans identify themselves as Christian. Yet, we allow and encourage all types of immoral mediums (physical and otherwise) to come into our worlds every day; myself included. In Ephesians, Paul said we’re not just wrestling with flesh and blood but principalities and powers. We, as a country, allow our lusts, our wants, and things that aren’t really important to become the focus of our lives. At one point, our country at least did a good job of showing a good face, but we’ve become much more laissez fare and PC about accepting all different types. Much of those types aren’t in line with God’s will.

I think Sarah will do well in her position assuming the Republicans win, but as we all do, her party will shape and augment what is moral around her career choice instead of vice versa.

By: theo.johnson

theo.johnson — Thu, 04 Sep 2008 16:28:30 +0000

yagottaloveit, thanks for your comment. You have a point about Obama, but at least he’s had experience with having to manage a family from Washington. Last night Palin made a smart comment about the role religion played in the lives of the people she served. I’m just stating what that role should be.

You’re right about Clinton. But people tend to not question men and fatherhood as much as they do mothers. It’s like there’s lower expectation from us or something. I feel when you look at it from a Biblical standpoint, the expectations can be set and the family can work it out from there. Having it all can be done, but not at the expense of your kids. My wife was telling me about an interview with Michelle Obama on Oprah where she talked about Barack’s dedication to his girls. If the family is okay with the way things are working, then great.

By: yagottaloveit

yagottaloveit — Thu, 04 Sep 2008 16:07:20 +0000

Perhaps only people without children, or whose children have grown and are no longer at home, should be allowed to run for high office. Hillary Clinton would have been perfect in this sense: she had the parenting experience, but no longer had child care obligations. Obama has young children at home — so much for “Family First”. This is one reason why it’s expected that older, experienced, people run for the top leadership positions. The empty-nesters have more time.

I agree that both parties seem to be full of crap when it comes to economic promises. The so-called fiscally conservative Republicans have borrowed the country into deep debt that will take generations to climb out of, but the Democrats are promising tax cuts and tax credits for the “middle class” and paying for it by taxing the rich and companies. The companies move (and take jobs with them) and the rich find tax shelters. Besides, there’s a reason we tax the middle class: that’s where the real money is.