Presidential Election

[DVINNY]

I've never said the Republican party is perfect. They are far from it. But closer to my views.

 

[FLBuff PE]

I've never said the Republican party is perfect. They are far from it. But closer to my views.

And the Democratic party isn't perfect either, far from it (hey, we just agreed on something). Now back to looking at wedding dresses! :eyebrows:

 

[benbo]

"On an issue like partial birth abortion, I strongly believe that the state can properly restrict late-term abortions. I have said so repeatedly. All I've said is we should have a provision to protect the health of the mother, and many of the bills that came before me didn't have that"One thing that I find curious about the Republican Party is that the party is for less government, but wants to tell a woman what they can and can't do with their body.

Apparently Obama also wants to be able to tell a woman what she should do with her "own body", it is just a matter of how far along in the pregnancy it is.

Some people believe the unborn child is actually a separate human being, at least at some point in it's gestation. The main problem with Obama is that he wants to repeal the Hyde amendment, which would require people who hold such beliefs to pay taxes for what they consider to be akin to infanticide.

 

[roadwreck]

One thing that I find curious about the Republican Party is that the party is for less government, but wants to tell a woman what they can and can't do with their body.

Best I can tell the republicans are only for 'less government' when they are talking taxes, but then they fail to curtail spending.

I find the trend between 1992 to 2000 pretty interesting. Who was president then? I forget.

 

[RIP - VTEnviro]

One thing that I find curious about the Republican Party is that the party is for less government, but wants to tell a woman what they can and can't do with their body.

And what sorts of 'family values' I should have. If your platform is less government and less interference, then why are you telling me what I should or shouldn't do in my own home.

 

[benbo]

Best I can tell the republicans are only for 'less government' when they are talking taxes, but then they fail to curtail spending.

I find the trend between 1992 to 2000 pretty interesting. Who was president then? I forget.

I don't know of many Republicans who would be for, oh say, banning trans-fats in restaurants, but I know plenty of Democrats who would. And they also seem to be particularly enamored of sin taxes on things they don't like, while allowing things they do.

As far as that trend line - I just see an X. But for any trend from 1992 on there is always an alternate explanation that involves a Republican congress.

 

[FLBuff PE]

Apparently Obama also wants to be able to tell a woman what she should do with her "own body", it is just a matter of how far along in the pregnancy it is.
Some people believe the unborn child is actually a separate human being, at least at some point in it's gestation. The main problem with Obama is that he wants to repeal the Hyde amendment, which would require people who hold such beliefs to pay taxes for what they consider to be akin to infanticide.

From my quick research (b/c, to be honest, I did not know about the Hyde Amendment), my understanding is that the Amendment to the Roe v. Wade decision bans women on Medicaid from using their coberage to help pay for an abortion. The problem that I have with this amendment, is that it federally mandates the exclusion of benefits for this procedure. I understand your position, though, benbo. I do not want the government funding issues that I am morally opposed to either. I am not sure what the answer is.

 

[benbo]

From my quick research (b/c, to be honest, I did not know about the Hyde Amendment), my understanding is that the Amendment to the Roe v. Wade decision bans women on Medicaid from using their coberage to help pay for an abortion. The problem that I have with this amendment, is that it federally mandates the exclusion of benefits for this procedure. I understand your position, though, benbo. I do not want the government funding issues that I am morally opposed to either. I am not sure what the answer is.

Once the court (as they did in Roe) declares something a "right" under the Consitution, the next step is almost always to mandate paying for it, unless there is someone to stop it politically. It has gotten to the point where the Court has usurped a lot of the legislature's power.

I understand a lot of people don't like funding the war. They think it is immoral. They do not want to pay for it. But they have the ability to vote a new person (like Obama) in. Fighting wars is not generally mandated by a court. And it's not like we'll not be fighting any wars when Obama gets in. He already said he wants to send a few more batallions to Afghanistan. But apparently that is an acceptable war.

You seem to be a reasonable person. Obviously, this abortion is never going to be a personal physical issue for me as a man. I generally don't debate this since NOBODY ever changes their mind on this. So I'll quit now.

 

[FLBuff PE]

I was against going to war in Iraq, but we are now there. I am NOT against funding the effort there now. We are there, and need to support our troops wherever they are (Iraq, Afganistan, etc.). I think that we need to get out of Iraq responsibly, as Obama does. I personally do not believe that we can EVER have a no war president, b/c as soon as a no war candidate is elected, we will be target #1. The threat still needs to be there. The main beef that I have with McCain's foriegn policy, and agree more with Obama, is that I think McCain is a 'shoot first, ask questions later' type of guy. I believe in diplomacy first, aggression last.

 

[DVINNY]

Some people believe the unborn child is actually a separate human being, at least at some point in it's gestation. The main problem with Obama is that he wants to repeal the Hyde amendment, which would require people who hold such beliefs to pay taxes for what they consider to be akin to infanticide.

This is my major issue with it, as I've stated before in this thread.

Obviously, this abortion is never going to be a personal physical issue for me as a man. I generally don't debate this since NOBODY ever changes their mind on this. So I'll quit now.

People DO change their minds on it.

Do a search for Norma McCorvey (she is JANE ROE)

 

[benbo]

People DO change their minds on it.
Do a search for Norma McCorvey (she is JANE ROE)

Maybe I should have said that I've never been able to change anyboy's mind on it.

 

[DVINNY]

, yeah me neither.

but its not my mission to.

As a christian I'm supposed to spread the word and teach to others, but I don't because I do not believe in 'jamming my beliefs down someone else's throat"

I just don't appreciate them doing it to me.

so I'm far from perfect.

far, far, from it.

 

[FLBuff PE]

, yeah me neither.


but its not my mission to.

As a christian I'm supposed to spread the word and teach to others, but I don't because I do not believe in 'jamming my beliefs down someone else's throat"

I just don't appreciate them doing it to me.

so I'm far from perfect.

far, far, from it.

Again, we agree on several fronts. I'm in the same boat as you on the whole 'perfect' thing. Although I might add a few more fars for myself (just to be safe).

 

[Dleg]

Here's my thoughts on ANYONE mixing Christianity into American politics...

Step back, think back to the "real" Jesus (as we know him from Sunday school, presented in the Bible) and just imagine for yourself what Jesus would do if he was stood up in front of the two political parties. Which one would he join?

At the risk of balsphemy, my guess is that he would fly into a rage and flip tables over at BOTH parties.

Would he classify himself as a liberal or a conservative? Libertarian? Socialist?

Once again, I think none of those. But I wouldn't say Jesus's teachings were aploticial, either, and meant to apply only to the individual. Just as an example, what do you think Jesus' position is on the "redistribution of wealth" in society as a whole? I don't think you have to look very far into the Gospel to find out.... And it is certainly most inconsistent with the policies coming from a LOT of politicians who claim to be representing the "Christian" voters.

So in other words, US politics and Christianity don't mix, and should NEVER mix. I get very upset with anyone who tries to claim that Christianity is driving their political views, or that their party represents "christians" more than another. I don't see either candidate up there presenting positions that I can imagine "the real Jesus" ever agreeing with. So I say we just talk policies and keep religion out of it.

 

[FLBuff PE]

Here's my thoughts on ANYONE mixing Christianity into American politics...
Step back, think back to the "real" Jesus (as we know him from Sunday school, presented in the Bible) and just imagine for yourself what Jesus would do if he was stood up in front of the two political parties. Which one would he join?

At the risk of balsphemy, my guess is that he would fly into a rage and flip tables over at BOTH parties.

Would he classify himself as a liberal or a conservative? Libertarian? Socialist?

Once again, I think none of those. But I wouldn't say Jesus's teachings were aploticial, either, and meant to apply only to the individual. Just as an example, what do you think Jesus' position is on the "redistribution of wealth" in society as a whole? I don't think you have to look very far into the Gospel to find out.... And it is certainly most inconsistent with the policies coming from a LOT of politicians who claim to be representing the "Christian" voters.

So in other words, US politics and Christianity don't mix, and should NEVER mix. I get very upset with anyone who tries to claim that Christianity is driving their political views, or that their party represents "christians" more than another. I don't see either candidate up there presenting positions that I can imagine "the real Jesus" ever agreeing with. So I say we just talk policies and keep religion out of it.

Agreed...I attempted to take politics out of it, but what thread did I post in? My bad. I agree with your analysis. I think 'the real Jesus' would turn the tables over on both parties.

Anyway, Dleg, any amazing breakfast stories that you can regail us with? I miss those...

 

[DVINNY]

Here's my thoughts on ANYONE mixing Christianity into American politics...
Step back, think back to the "real" Jesus (as we know him from Sunday school, presented in the Bible) and just imagine for yourself what Jesus would do if he was stood up in front of the two political parties. Which one would he join?

At the risk of balsphemy, my guess is that he would fly into a rage and flip tables over at BOTH parties.

Would he classify himself as a liberal or a conservative? Libertarian? Socialist?

Once again, I think none of those. But I wouldn't say Jesus's teachings were aploticial, either, and meant to apply only to the individual. Just as an example, what do you think Jesus' position is on the "redistribution of wealth" in society as a whole? I don't think you have to look very far into the Gospel to find out.... And it is certainly most inconsistent with the policies coming from a LOT of politicians who claim to be representing the "Christian" voters.

So in other words, US politics and Christianity don't mix, and should NEVER mix. I get very upset with anyone who tries to claim that Christianity is driving their political views, or that their party represents "christians" more than another. I don't see either candidate up there presenting positions that I can imagine "the real Jesus" ever agreeing with. So I say we just talk policies and keep religion out of it.

Dleg,

You make great points, I've thought about this many times before. He would be very sad by the state of this union, that's for sure.

However, let's look at his "redistribution of wealth" stance.

In his day, TAX collectors from Rome came by and took from all the Jews of that day.

Was he in favor of this in the bible? I wish I could remember where it was in the bible but I remember once seeing something that said it was OK to pay a tax, but extorsion from Rome was wrong. I'll have to try and find its location in the Bible.

He was in support of the wealthy individual making the decision to distribute the wealth on their own. Not by force from Rome. There's a big difference there. So that does not fall under government or Robin Hood doing it for you, it comes under acts of kindness and charity.

One of his disciples, Matthew, was a tax collector from Rome, the book talks many times about how Jesus accepted "the tax collectors and other sinners" as his friends.

Jesus taught that as an individual, you should do the right thing.

Maybe I interpret his teachings wrong, but that's how I see it.

 

[benbo]

Once again, I think none of those. But I wouldn't say Jesus's teachings were aploticial, either, and meant to apply only to the individual. Just as an example, what do you think Jesus' position is on the "redistribution of wealth" in society as a whole? I don't think you have to look very far into the Gospel to find out.... And it is certainly most inconsistent with the policies coming from a LOT of politicians who claim to be representing the "Christian" voters.

As a disclaimer, I don't have a huge problem with paying income tax, even with a slightly progressive tax system. So I assume that'll get me in trouble with one half of the people around here. THe problem is that it is hard to determine when it becomes excesive.

I don't think anybody can look at some of these tax rates and think there was much incentive to earn well above the top bracket -

http://www.truthandpolitics.org/top-rates.php

Granted I don't know what deductions were like in those days, but it makes it seem funny the couple of percentage points we're talking about now. THat was pretty bad.

I am not a big fan of all the "Jesus" talk in a political campaign either, although I know people do shape their political beliefs by their faith or lack thereof.

However, I do think it is funny that even you seem to have some sort of interpretation of "How would Jesus vote?" My suspicion is that Jesus wouldn't have bothered to vote at all. But that's my opinion. My reading of Jesus was that primarily he was talking about the afterlife. When he did speak about earthly things I think he was generally talking about activities here on earth (such as charity) that would help the individual set themselves up better for the afterlife, and serve as a witness to their faith. I don't read Jesus as seeing governmentally compulsed acts of charity as being a big plus for anyone. I don't think he was big on money. So I guess I sort of agree with both you and DVinny.

THe one I can never get over was that parable when all those guys worked different lengths of time and they got the same pay. I would have been the one complaining too. And I probably would have bitched like hell about the prodigal son, except I was the prodigal son.

 

[DVINNY]

change of pace and subject

 

[ktulu]

Jimmy Johns is also an ex-Alabama football player currently in jail for selling cocaine to kids...

 

[Flyer_PE]

As a disclaimer, I don't have a huge problem with paying income tax, even with a slightly progressive tax system. So I assume that'll get me in trouble with one half of the people around here. THe problem is that it is hard to determine when it becomes excesive. I don't think anybody can look at some of these tax rates and think there was much incentive to earn well above the top bracket -

http://www.truthandpolitics.org/top-rates.php

Granted I don't know what deductions were like in those days, but it makes it seem funny the couple of percentage points we're talking about now. THat was pretty bad.

I don't have a huge problem with paying income tax either. However, I do have a problem with the progressive tax schedule. Currently, the top 50% of wage earners in this country pay well over 90% of the income taxes. The problem is that this sets up a situation where politicians can make tax proposals based on "sticking it to the rich" where "the rich" is anybody making more money than you.