I think Palins version is simply a way to claim various benefits without having to commit to or identify any particular sect.
Kinda like a “fuck buddy”.
Hey, if I have to defend GW over in MPSIMS, then you can just buck up here, mister!
No one made you do anything, shitstain. It was your own free will. You could have just kept your damn mouth shut.
Here in the sticks of the mid-South, a “non-denominational” church is usually a church that split off from the church down the road when prominent members had a “disagreement” with the pastor. Usually that means the pastor was fucking somebody’s wife, but they couldn’t prove it well enough to get him fired. The new church will have a similar name but won’t go to the trouble or expense to affiliate themselves with a larger congregation. They tend to have generic names like Church of God, Church of Christ, or Gospel Church, though they’re not associated with the national organizations with the same names. Doctrine-wise, they’re generally indistinguishable from every other church in the county.
In Palin’s case, though, it’s just a way to avoid associating with an organization so she doesn’t have to distance herself if they take controversial positions or turn out to have controversial leaders. I still think this is why GWB didn’t attend church in DC during his presidency.
If the republicans want to scare me by running a (pretty) woman for president, they should run Monica Crowley. Not only does she have nice legs, she is very smart and knows her stuff about politics and foreign affairs.
And she disses Obama and the democrats. Fluently.
Next to her Palin is a cuddly puppy.
Wow. Never heard of her until your post.
But all I can say is…Hellooooo Guv’ner!
Yep. A lot of politicians do the same, as they probably should. Loot at Mit Romney.
So what? That’s the “cuddly puppy” part. Do you think the conservatives would worry too much about a few liberal rantings? Slick Willie, who I loved as president, got away with a lot more than that.
As a matter of fact, I’d love to see Palin and Crowley debate issues.
I think Crowley is brilliant.
After all, she has a Ph.D. from Columbia. They aren’t just giving those away, the last time I checked. Just like law degrees from Harvard. She must be brilliant.
I believe that once we elect her, she will be “The Smartest President We’ve Ever Had.”
I think she’s a transformational candidate who will “make all of our problems go away.”
She’ll reach across the aisle. She’ll put all the healthcare debates on C-Span. She has a first-class temperament.
She’s the bomb. Let’s vote for her.
Oh no. I wouldn’t vote for her. In spite of all her qualifications, I don’t want her for president. I don’t like her positions on issues. But she is, intellectually anyway, qualified.
But you go ahead, Mr. IdahoMauleMan. you sly rascal you. 
I just wanted to say… excellent post! :eek:
Good to see you are vetting a candidate in advance.
In this instance, I think a vet screening would be appropriate, make sure she’s had all her shots.
You suggested we vote for her. I thought maybe you know something I don’t.
And yes, I pre-vetted Crowley. I am that afraid of her being president.
I don’t think she has any non-human diseases though.
She’s married to Fox’s token liberal commentator. :eek:
Her sister is married to him.
Oh. That seems more likely.
And she never palled around with terrorists, either!
(Not for lack of trying. They just all thought she was a bitch.)
Rather depends on how you define “terrorist”. If your definition excludes white men in nice suits and wing-tipped shoes, then no, she didn’t.
Now you guys are losing me. Are you hinting that there were some mysterious white men in nice suits and wing-tipped shoes who were terrorists which Monica Crowley did hang with?
If you don’t shoot one, you are one?