Someone tortures and murders your entire family and is never punished for it.

This is NOT what Ayers did.

So you are saying no one should be redeemed? No one should be able to be better? No one should try to change because you are forever guilty for your past sins.  I would have NO PROBLEM being a friend to Ayers. In fact I would be proud of him for turning his life around.

But under your line of thinking Priests, that work with people to change their lives are connected to all of their sins and should be called vile names like terrorists.

If this is the best thing you have to make your guy better , it is really sad. And we are in a heap of trouble.

I missed the Palin quote where she believed in witches.  Where was that reported?  Or, are you attributing things others said or believed to her?  If so that would make all of Wright's beliefs Obama's as well, now wouldn't it?

Sorry - missed this gem above - now, keep in mind, this came from a gag post of mine, but there were some truths in it - she does have hair.  And eyes.  And she did allow her priest to put a protection on her against witches.

The equivilent would be if Obama asked Wright to protect him from the cracker-ass honkeys trying to keep him down.  Which never happened, so...

Once again...

Scott... seriously.

Er, Jodi - just be warned - that IS a popular thesis on here - look up threads on villians being redeemed - look for threads about Sandman, Darth Vader, etc.  Redemption for villians is not a celebrated idea by some here.

I do believe in it, though.   That's one of my beliefs as a Democrat.  That people can be redeemed. 

Or worse, making excuses for it - "Well, it's ok that he did it because someone said something about Palin that I didn't care for".

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Not what I said. It's wrong when both sides do it. You only think it's wrong when McCain supporters do it.

Here's a question for Scott:

I get that you don't care for Obama.  Early in this thread, when the primaries were on, you were a Clinton supporter.  I understand (even defended this a few pages ago) that you are a life-long Democrat that can't bring themself to vote for Obama.

So... why are you embracing McCain/Palin?

Like, had Hillary won, I would have done like Thom and held my nose and voted third party (who though!  The candidates all suck!  I can't bring myself to vote for Nader after what he did, and the Green party is a bunch of fascist nuts  and Bob Barr and Alan Keyes are both right wing nuts, so... uh... damn...) - but I never would have voted for, much less thrown my arms around the Republicans.

I don't get that one.  In this instance, I'm not saying you're wrong, I'm saying I don't get you.  I'm asking - why?

For someone who, if what you say is true, voted for Clinton twice and Gore and Kerry and wanted to support Hillary, I don't see how McCain/Palin is something you can be excited about.  I can see you holding your nose and voting for it, but you're actually defending them.

So... explain how that happened.

Some of what the trooper did. A bit more than just a personal grudge on Palin's part.

• Wooten used a Taser on his stepson.

• He illegally shot a moose.

• He drank beer in his patrol car on one occasion.

• He told others his father-in-law would "eat a f'ing lead bullet" if he helped his daughter get an attorney for the divorce.

http://www.adn.com/politics/story/476430.html

Not what I said. It's wrong when both sides do it. You only think it's wrong when McCain supporters do it.

Almost a touche... but not 100% - I think we can both work on our positions on this one.  I agree that's not what you said, but I also stand by my thought that what the guy was doing was worse than someone calling Palin a name. 

Now, I understand that there's a difference of opinion on the lasting effects of the Black Diaspora and Experience in America, and perhaps we're coming at this from two points of view, and that would be a fair divide. 

To clarify - I think calling Palin a name is calling Palin a name.  I think if you called Obama an asshole, a dog-raper, a shit-heel douchebag, a moron, an imbicile, a kalikak, etc, those would also be calling Obama a name and would be, meh, no big deal.  I do personally add extra emphisis to things relating to race in terms of name calling.  That's true.  And we might be divided there - not to suggest you are not sensitive to these things, but perhaps you believe that it's all just name calling and I'm givng things too much weight by making some names worse than others or something?  Either way, a legitimate debating point.

Does that clear that up?

 He illegally shot a moose.

Wait!  Didn't Palin do this, too?  Can we have her fired too over this?