Palin's Church burned/ potential arson.

Welcome to our community

Be a part of something great, join today!

Register Log in

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 1 (members: 0, guests: 1)
Furball

Furball

Member
Joined
Sep 22, 2008
Messages
200
Likes
0
Points
16
Could you imagine what would happen if someone burned a Mosque? Chaos. Now someone may have torched Palin's church and I bet most people could care less. This country is going down a slippery slope.
 
Nobody cares. Palin bought some dresses. She deserves this. /sar

Civil war within 10 years? Who wants to take bets?
 
This is a horrible crime. My understanding is that arson is a crime that is often solved. Chances are that it was committed by a local resident. It could also have nothing to do with the fact that Palin attended the church, although that should have nothing to do with any eventual sentence that is doled out.
 
It's in Wasilla, so I doubt it had anything to do with Palin. If it waas her Anchorage church, then maybe.

The Wasilla church that Palin used to attend is an Assembly of God church. Those churches are Baptist churches where the members all think they are "righteous" and that others are going to hell, that Catholics suck, that Jews aren't going to heaven because they refuse to accept Jesus, etc.

There is a good chance that one of the church members was preaching to some person about how they were going to hell, probably a hoodlum teenager at the local high school, by another high school kid, and the hoodlum type kid went and burned down the church because the evangelical was being such a jerk to him.
 
We have an active member of this board who advocates exterminating Christians.

We have moderators who don't give dang about it.

We are a desensistized society.

We are ripe for a civil war.
 
PapaG said:
We have an active member of this board who advocates exterminating Christians.

We have moderators who don't give dang about it.

We are a desensistized society.

We are ripe for a civil war.
Click to expand...

Jeeez, somebody call the waaaahmbulance for PapaG
 
Last edited:
PapaG said:
We have an active member of this board who advocates exterminating Christians.

We have moderators who don't give dang about it.

We are a desensistized society.

We are ripe for a civil war.
Click to expand...

Yeah we sure are. I can't wait to see you divide this one up :biglaugh::crazy:
 
If a Mosque had been burned down in England Heads would literally roll.
 
GMJ said:
Yeah we sure are. I can't wait to see you divide this one up :biglaugh::crazy:
Click to expand...

I was trying to figure this out. I think the state of Texas doesn't care. They will only get the bottom half of Missouri. It'd pretty much be Oklahoma, Arkansas, Louisiana, Mississippi, Alabama, Kentucky, Tennessee, and maybe West Virginia. And in LA, MS, AL you would have to imagine some massive resistence to this new confederacy as well.

I just don't see the whole Civil War thing working out, and if it were to happen, it would be short lives, as the Union would beat the living snot out of the New Confederacy.
 
GMJ said:
Yeah we sure are. I can't wait to see you divide this one up :biglaugh::crazy:
Click to expand...

An ideological war is what I see happening.

Not based at all on geography. I don't advocate it, I just see the potential for one.
 
Денг Гордон said:
I was trying to figure this out. I think the state of Texas doesn't care. They will only get the bottom half of Missouri. It'd pretty much be Oklahoma, Arkansas, Louisiana, Mississippi, Alabama, Kentucky, Tennessee, and maybe West Virginia. And in LA, MS, AL you would have to imagine some massive resistence to this new confederacy as well.

I just don't see the whole Civil War thing working out, and if it were to happen, it would be short lives, as the Union would beat the living snot out of the New Confederacy.
Click to expand...


Geography class will not matter in our next internal war. It didn't in our last one either. Duh.
 
PapaG said:
Geography class will not matter in our next internal war. It didn't in our last one either. Duh.
Click to expand...

The states aren't red/blue, but rather purplish.

What's more likely is the anti-religious zealots will piss off the religious zealots enough to vote in another W type next time around.
 
PapaG said:
An ideological war is what I see happening.

Not based at all on geography. I don't advocate it, I just see the potential for one.
Click to expand...


Yeah but (ok well outside of Utah) in each state you'd have internal conflict. In this hypothetical situation it wouldn't be a civil war, rather it'd resemble anarchy.
 
Denny Crane said:
The states aren't red/blue, but rather purplish.

What's more likely is the anti-religious zealots will piss off the religious zealots enough to vote in another W type next time around.
Click to expand...

Obama has contributed the majority of his charitable funds to his own church. This is on the record.

Again, not understanding the post. I can say I have not ever contributed a cent to an organized church. W and Obama cannot say this.
 
GMJ said:
Yeah but (ok well outside of Utah) in each state you'd have internal conflict. In this hypothetical situation it wouldn't be a civil war, rather it'd resemble anarchy.
Click to expand...


The Civil War was anarchy. Do you know how many Americans died in that war?
 
#1_War_Poet_ForLife said:
Anarchy is a lack of government. In the Civil War, there were two governments, so there was actually less anarchy then than now!
Click to expand...

I happen to agree with this, but I have to keep it simple for those here who don't realize that words and actions eventually have counteractions.
 
PapaG said:
Geography class will not matter in our next internal war. It didn't in our last one either. Duh.
Click to expand...

That's hard to see happening.

In Wisconsin for example, you have both evangelicals and non-evangelicals, atheists, etc. but the way they interact and respect each other is going to be a lot different than it is in the Southern States. Thus, the people of Wisconsin aren't very likely to go to war with each other, while say in Mississippi or something like that they are. So we will have this geographical divide based on states like Wisconsin, and basically the entire North, Southwest not wanting to go to war with each other, who will find it unacceptable for the Southern states, who would be more willing to go to war against each other, so we will have this big geographic block which the majority of the nation's resources against a small bloc of southern states, with the southern states finding tons of resistence from within their own state.

It just doesn't seem that feasibly to me for another civil war to happen. Taking ove the Whitehouse with an evangelical ideologist doesn't seem that likely to me. I think best, they could take over Congress again.
 
PapaG said:
The Civil War was anarchy. Do you know how many Americans died in that war?
Click to expand...

heh, I'm pretty sure the Civil War wasn't anarchy, I'm pretty sure there was government present...in fact wasn't there two? :drumroll:


edit: damn it warpoet!
 
GMJ said:
These are a bit conflicting.
Click to expand...

Not at all conflicting. Please explain. Brother fought against brother in the Civil War, and it didn't have anything to do with religion or geography.
 
PapaG said:
Not at all conflicting. Please explain. Brother fought against brother in the Civil War, and it didn't have anything to do with religion or geography.
Click to expand...


Well you said that the Civil War was anarchy, and then you agreed with War_Poet's:

"Anarchy is a lack of government. In the Civil War, there were two governments, so there was actually less anarchy then than now!"
 
GMJ said:
Well you said that the Civil War was anarchy, and then you agreed with War_Poet's:

"Anarchy is a lack of government. In the Civil War, there were two governments, so there was actually less anarchy then than now!"
Click to expand...

There were two "half" governments, not one of them controlled the country. Anarchy is a fair description.

The govt. of the South was never recognized by a foreign nation, though it came close.
 
GMJ said:
Well you said that the Civil War was anarchy, and then you agreed with War_Poet's:

"Anarchy is a lack of government. In the Civil War, there were two governments, so there was actually less anarchy then than now!"
Click to expand...

I still don't see how the two quotes of mine you tagged conflict at all.
 
Denny Crane said:
There were two "half" governments, not one of them controlled the country. Anarchy is a fair description.

The govt. of the South was never recognized by a foreign nation, though it came close.
Click to expand...

ohhhh so it was a government. Thanks.
 
GMJ said:
ohhhh so it was a government. Thanks.
Click to expand...

Your definition of anarchy is wrong:

"Absence of government; a state of lawlessness due to the absence or inefficiency of the supreme power; political disorder."

Inefficiency of the supreme power (lincoln, the usa, the north) and political disorder perfectly fit.
 
I'll say it.

Obama/Rev. Wright's church torched, and we have a national crisis.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top