If you are a godly person, if you believe in Jesus and try to live as he did by using him as an example to follow, even though you know you could never be perfect as he was perfect, and if you read the bible and pray and if you know right from wrong because of God's word to us which teaches righteousness, you will be persecuted by those who are unbelievers.

Sarah Palin is a godly woman of good character. She's not perfect for noone is, and she doesn't claim to be. But, she is honest, sincere, and has values that are upright. She is wise , gifted,and has virtue.The bible teaches that God lives within the believer. He dwells within them. Jesus said, "If the world hates you, keep in mind that it hated me first. Because you are my child, the world hates you. If they persecuted me, they will persecute you also. If they obeyed my teaching, they would obey yours also. They will treat you this way because of my name. For they do not know the one who sent me. "John 15:18-21

I hope she is planning a run for the presidency. She will have my vote if she does.

John McCain was caught from time to time raging out of control. It was something that scared people about him if he were to become the leader of the free world. I have no doubt that it lost him a lot of votes.

John Dean got all excited at a rally and screeched a cry that would have barely been appropriate at a football game. He almost got drummed out of the corps. As it was, his chance at running for president went down the tubes. He was seen as just too emotional.

As far as the sexes are concerned, in the past for a female public figure raged out of control in public, she was considered mentally unstable. Men, on the other hand, were seen as strong and macho.

Things have been changing, thank goodness!

BJean - just a slight correction (no biggie) - it was Howard Dean, not John.

One of the politicians in Texas who is running for Governor, Kay Bailey Hutchison, is one low-key emotion-less woman. I don't like her politics and I do not trust her stoic, stone faced (although hard line), way of communicating.

Thanks, baby! The ole' noggin just ain't what it used to be.

Yesterday I was thinking about Nixon so I probably had John Dean in my thoughts!

Speaking of John Dean, wasn't it amazing how he kinda did a l80, eventually!

Thanks, baby! The ole' noggin just ain't what it used to be.

Yesterday I was thinking about Nixon so I probably had John Dean in my thoughts!

I do it all the time myself. I see him on MSNBC from time to time as a political commentator. I was going to write exactly what you wrote about him. Great minds think alike.

Hmmm, have I told you lately how brilliant you are?

Hmmm, have I told you lately how brilliant you are?

Oh, stop

Dumb is Dumb, regardless what sex the political figure happens to be. Was that idiot Joe Clark from SC home of more idiots per capita then any other state except OK, given a pass for his stupid "shout out" calling Obama LIAR at the Capital Building during one of the Presidents speeches regarding No National Health Care Coverage for Illegals when that MALE dumb ass had his 10 seconds of fame (shame)? But, maybe you are right....perhaps Sen. Joe Leiberman from CT keeps going on because he`s actually a woman in drag wearing men`s suits and pretending to be a Independent (former ) Democrat while actually being a Kosher Republican.

What happened to John Dean politically happens to lots of adults as they age an mature. Once awe struck by Looney Tunes cartoons on Sat mornings and being thrilled to see coins left under their pillow the following morning by the Tooth Fairy, they finally come to the realization as Adults, that once they loose their teeth later in life, the only item found under their pillow the next day after tooth lose is the Bill from the dentist. Ahhh, can we only return to the days of Santa Claus. Much the same, many evolve from the myths and supernatural and superstition also known as Religion.

Joe Lieberman, a cross dresser or woman in drag? You crack me up! I can certainly think of worse things to say about him though. Traitor comes to mind.

Dumb is Dumb, regardless what sex the political figure happens to be. Was that idiot Joe Clark from SC home of more idiots per capita then any other state except OK, given a pass for his stupid "shout out" calling Obama LIAR at the Capital Building during one of the Presidents speeches regarding No National Health Care Coverage for Illegals when that MALE dumb ass had his 10 seconds of fame (shame)? But, maybe you are right....perhaps Sen. Joe Leiberman from CT keeps going on because he`s actually a woman in drag wearing men`s suits and pretending to be a Independent (former ) Democrat while actually being a Kosher Republican.

He was no more stupid than Obama himself at the state of the union adress insulting the supreme court justices in a public forum. Obama owes the high court an apology.

Suppose for a moment that you were a justice seated there as the president of the United States singled you out for criticism and the room stood and cheered. Could they take it? Yes, of course. Should they have been put in this position? Absolutely not.

Then there is the substance of the remark itself. It was factually wrong. The Court's ruling in Citizens United concerned the right of labor unions and domestic corporations, including nonprofits, to express their views about candidates in media such as books, films and TV within 60 days of an election. In short, it concerned freedom of speech; in particular, an independent film critical of Hillary Clinton funded by a nonprofit corporation.

While the Court reversed a 1990 decision allowing such a ban, it left standing current restrictions on foreign nationals and "entities." Also untouched was a 100-year-old ban on domestic corporate contributions to political campaigns to which the president was presumably referring erroneously.

If the president, himself a Harvard Law School graduate, is going to criticize a judicial opinion, it is incumbent upon him to be legally accurate and responsible in his commentary. If that is too much to expect of a politician giving a nationally televised speech to the general public, then this again illustrates the inappropriateness of making this remark in this venue.

For those who strongly object to the ruling in Citizens United and still do not see the impropriety of criticizing the Court this way, consider Rep. Joe Wilson's "You lie!" outburst during the president's address to a joint session of Congress in September. No one denied the right of a congressman to criticize the accuracy of the president's remarks. The objection was to the rudeness and disrespect shown the president, for which Mr. Wilson promptly apologized. So too should the president.

excerpts from Randy E. Barnett's letter (teacher of constitutional law)

Well, I can't speak for all liberals but this liberal doesn't hate Sarah Palin.

This liberal thinks one of the great things about this country is that Sarah is free to think and believe in what God she see fit. And scream it from the rooftops if she sees fit.

However, this liberal doesn't think she has the educational requirements/knowledge base to run the country.

Well said, and in total agreement.

He was no more stupid than Obama himself at the state of the union adress insulting the supreme court justices in a public forum. Obama owes the high court an apology.

Suppose for a moment that you were a justice seated there as the president of the United States singled you out for criticism and the room stood and cheered. Could they take it? Yes, of course. Should they have been put in this position? Absolutely not.

Then there is the substance of the remark itself. It was factually wrong. The Court's ruling in Citizens United concerned the right of labor unions and domestic corporations, including nonprofits, to express their views about candidates in media such as books, films and TV within 60 days of an election. In short, it concerned freedom of speech; in particular, an independent film critical of Hillary Clinton funded by a nonprofit corporation.

While the Court reversed a 1990 decision allowing such a ban, it left standing current restrictions on foreign nationals and "entities." Also untouched was a 100-year-old ban on domestic corporate contributions to political campaigns to which the president was presumably referring erroneously.

If the president, himself a Harvard Law School graduate, is going to criticize a judicial opinion, it is incumbent upon him to be legally accurate and responsible in his commentary. If that is too much to expect of a politician giving a nationally televised speech to the general public, then this again illustrates the inappropriateness of making this remark in this venue.

For those who strongly object to the ruling in Citizens United and still do not see the impropriety of criticizing the Court this way, consider Rep. Joe Wilson's "You lie!" outburst during the president's address to a joint session of Congress in September. No one denied the right of a congressman to criticize the accuracy of the president's remarks. The objection was to the rudeness and disrespect shown the president, for which Mr. Wilson promptly apologized. So too should the president.

excerpts from Randy E. Barnett's letter (teacher of constitutional law)

It's Alito who owes Obama and the american people an apology for mouthing "that's not true" when Pres. Obama spoke. Very unprofessional, inappropriate and unjudicial of him.

And as far as that conservative interpretation of the supreme court ruling, well you can put lipstick on a pig, but it's still a pig.

It doesn't suprise me that you would side with big corporations - you've always advocated for them and big insurance. And why is it that you think the republicans embrace this decision? They don't give a rat's patuty about free speech - it's because they stand to profit from this ruling. It's the whole thing I said before about the republicans representing the rich and corporate america.

And this ruling was the biggest example of judicial activism since they decided the 2000 presidential election.

When republicans complain about judicial activism - which they do all the time- it means: Some judge didn't rule the way we wanted them to. More hypocrisy.

It's Alito who owes Obama and the american people an apology for mouthing "that's not true" when Pres. Obama spoke. Very unprofessional, inappropriate and unjudicial of him.

And as far as that conservative interpretation of the supreme court ruling, well you can put lipstick on a pig, but it's still a pig.

It doesn't suprise me that you would side with big corporations - you've always advocated for them and big insurance. And why is it that you think the republicans embrace this decision? They don't give a rat's patuty about free speech - it's because they stand to profit from this ruling. It's the whole thing I said before about the republicans representing the rich and corporate america.

And this ruling was the biggest example of judicial activism since they decided the 2000 presidential election.

When republicans complain about judicial activism - which they do all the time- it means: Some judge didn't rule the way we wanted them to. More hypocrisy.

Whether the republicans give a rats patuty about free speech or not is irrelivent. The supreme court must uphold the constitution!