How to win the argument de jour with logic and facts
'Right-Wing Religious Nuts'
What the liberal whiners say:
'Like Charlie Gibson pointed out, Sarah Palin is a nutjob that believes we are sending U.S. soldiers to Iraq on a "task from God"...we don't need ANOTHER religious zealot just one heartbeat from the presidency, who thinks this is a Middle Ages Crusade!'
'We don't know ANYTHING about this wackjob! Like Matt Damon, I want to know if she believes dinosaurs roamed the earth 4000 years ago, she'll have the NUCLEAR CODES!'
'It's just more of the same from the religious nutbag kooks! Babbling about God and the Bible all the time...that has NO PLACE in our government...what about separation of church and state!'
Your winning, logical, reasoned arguments
1. Sarah Palin explained all that. She doesn't believe this is a holy war....This is what Charlie Gibson said, our national leaders are sending U.S. leaders on a task that's from God. Are we fighting a holy war? She said, 'you know, I don't know if that's my exact quote. Gibson said, 'exact words'. Well, unfortunately not the exact words. Her exact words actually were, "Pray that our leaders are sending our soldiers out on a task that is from God." Pray that that is the case, that we're not just higgledy piggledy sending them out for oil or whatever. Pray for that. And then he even took her completely not only out of context but then he changed what she said. Gibson said, 'there is a plan and it is God's plan'. That's not what she said. Palin said, "Pray that there is a plan and that it is God's plan." He had to change the words to be able to give her that exact quote.
2. No one believes dinosaurs roamed the earth just 4000 years ago. Maybe you and Matt Damon should check your Biblical timelines. But if she does believe in Creationism, as 100's of millions of Americans do...what does that have to do with access nuclear codes? Are you saying that all people of faith should be disqualified from office?
3. FIrst of all, there is NOTHING in the Constitution about separating church and state, look it up. Second, if you're so concerned about candidates not talking about the Bible, why aren't you disturbed by Barack Obama, who brings it up a LOT? On June 28, he said: "Which passages of Scripture should guide our public policy? Should we go with Leviticus, which suggests slavery is ok and that eating shellfish is abomination? How about Deuteronomy, which suggests stoning your child if he strays from the faith? Or should we just stick to the Sermon on the Mount - a passage that is so radical that it's doubtful that our own Defense Department would survive its application? Let's read our bibles. Folks haven't been reading their bibles." Isn't that troubling to you?