Presidential Election

[EM_PS]

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.

At the risk of :deadhorse:

Jesus was 'sucker-questioned' by 2 groups who hugely opposed each other but united however briefly in attempt to trap him; the pharisees (conservatives) and the herodonians (liberals). In questioning Jesus about the rightness of paying taxes to Caeser, the two responses (yes its right / no its not) that he could have given would have made 1 of the 2 groups claim he was either opposed to God or a revolutionary who should be turned over to Roman authorities. In a manner, he side-stepped the question by answering 'give Caesar what belongs to him, but everthing that belongs to God must be given to God.' In showing that a denarius (coin) had an image of Caesar on it, he assigned a zero importance of Caesar & 'what belongs to him', while ultimately alluding to the fact that the world and all things in it belong to God anyway. Money & politics were completely off of Jesus's radar screen.

And i agree Dleg, politics and religion do not belong together; for myself, i assign politics as ultimately beneath religion and my faith. Its the means by which my country/state/city "operates", while my religion / faith is the means by which I operate, and nothing by which i would beat anybody over the head with or try to mandate an entire country operate by.

 

[DVINNY]

politics and religion do not belong together; for myself, i assign politics as ultimately beneath religion and my faith. Its the means by which my country/state/city "operates", while my religion / faith is the means by which I operate, and nothing by which i would beat anybody over the head with or try to mandate an entire country operate by.

Well said. But easily said if the side with views opposite yours are not trying to mandate how you operate by.

not saying, just saying.

 

[EM_PS]

Well said. But easily said if the side with views opposite yours are not trying to mandate how you operate by.

Agreed, and i guess thats a roundabout way of making my point. If the liberals don't try to mandate how i or my family operate by, why should I (right leaning) try to mandate back? - as a christian, i simply do not suscribe to the belief that i have an 'evangelical mission' to convert the world, much less my country. My country did not come into being that way - quite the opposite really. Don't impinge on my religion or practice of, and I won't impinge on others need for 'un-religion' or whatever you wanna call it. Both are, or should be, of equal importance in this great country of ours. :unitedstates:

just sayin - :beerchug:

 

[mudpuppy]

Don't impinge on my religion or practice of, and I won't impinge on others need for 'un-religion' or whatever you wanna call it. Both are, or should be, of equal importance in this great country of ours. :unitedstates:

:thankyou:

 

[mudpuppy]

As I'm sure everyone has seen by now, Colin Powell has endorsed Obama for President.

Excerpts from the Yahoo article:

Powell, 71, criticized McCain for invoking the former domestic terrorist William Ayers as an Obama associate.
"They're trying to connect him to some kind of terrorist feelings, and I think that's inappropriate," Powell said. "Now I understand what politics is all about — I know how you can go after one another. And that's good. But I think this goes too far. And I think it has made the McCain campaign look a little narrow. It's not what the American people are looking for. And I look at these kinds of approaches to the campaign, and they trouble me.

. . .

Powell said he has "heard senior members of my own party drop the suggestion [that Obama's] a Muslim and might be associated with terrorists."

"This is not the way we should be doing it in America. I feel strongly about this particular point," Powell said. "We have got to stop polarizing ourselves in this way. And John McCain is as non-discriminatory as anyone I know. But I'm troubled about the fact that within the party, we have these kinds of expressions."

This is one of the biggest things that bothers me about the Republican party. They seem to be trying to stir up some sort of primal hate in order to win elections. I don't like it.

 

[mudpuppy]

change of pace and subject

While election/voter registration fraud is a serious issue, I would not be too quick to implicate just the Democrats on this (and I am not saying you did DV, just that most of the news stories I've seen on this are implying that). There are below-board players on both sides of the aisle.

From the LA Times:

[SIZE=24pt]Voters say they were duped into registering as Republicans[/SIZE]
SACRAMENTO -- Dozens of newly minted Republican voters say they were duped into joining the party by a GOP contractor with a trail of fraud complaints stretching across the country.

Voters contacted by The Times said they were tricked into switching parties while signing what they believed were petitions for tougher penalties against child molesters. Some said they were told that they had to become Republicans to sign the petition, contrary to California initiative law. Others had no idea their registration was being changed.

"I am not a Republican," insisted Karen Ashcraft, 47, a pet-clinic manager and former Democrat from Ventura who said she was duped by a signature gatherer into joining the GOP. "I certainly . . . won't sign anything in front of a grocery store ever again."

It is a bait-and-switch scheme familiar to election experts. The firm hired by the California Republican Party -- a small company called Young Political Majors, or YPM, which operates in several states -- has been accused of using the tactic across the country.

Election officials and lawmakers have launched investigations into the activities of YPM workers in Florida and Massachusetts. In Arizona, the firm was recently a defendant in a civil rights lawsuit. Prosecutors in Los Angeles and Ventura counties say they are investigating complaints about the company.

The firm, which a Republican Party spokesman said is paid $7 to $12 for each registration it secures, has denied any wrongdoing and says it has never been charged with a crime.

. . .

I'm sure everyone agrees that these fraudsters should go to jail. But I think making such a big deal of it just before the election is a deliberate political attempt to distract from the real issues of the election.

And just to say so on the record, I am not a fan of ACORN. They are cosntantly using underhanded tactics to stir the pot.

 

[DVINNY]

Agreed, and i guess thats a roundabout way of making my point. If the liberals don't try to mandate how i or my family operate by, why should I (right leaning) try to mandate back? - as a christian, i simply do not suscribe to the belief that i have an 'evangelical mission' to convert the world, much less my country. My country did not come into being that way - quite the opposite really. Don't impinge on my religion or practice of, and I won't impinge on others need for 'un-religion' or whatever you wanna call it. Both are, or should be, of equal importance in this great country of ours. :unitedstates:
just sayin - :beerchug:

well said. I agree.

 

[DVINNY]

There is voter fraud going on this year in all directions. They are estimating the numbers of fraudulant registrations are well over 200,000 right now.

I have a feeling this election may be decided by less than that. Wouldn't that be the real shame.

 

[EM_PS]

The scary thing (and overall real problem) in that article MP is that people are stupid enough to be duped by a 'scam' that lame, no matter which party they suscribe to - thats like the Howerd Stearn thing 'so you would vote for Obama & Palin?'

They should make voting a right contingent on passing an exam. . . say something along the lines of the FE maybe :joke:

 

[mudpuppy]

^To some extent I agree, but on the other hand, how often do you read every word of something you sign? For instance do you read every page of a mortgage before you sign it? That could take hours.

 

[EM_PS]

True and i just noticed it said "some were told they had to become republicans to sign the petition" - my 1st read thru i thought they were all told they had to switch parties to support the petition.

Interesting, i've never considered myself anything than a temporary member at best of which ever party i support(ed) at the time. I would never proclaim membership to either party, plain & simple, let alone sign anything in such casual settings.

 

[Dleg]

The scary thing (and overall real problem) in that article MP is that people are stupid enough to be duped by a 'scam' that lame, no matter which party they suscribe to - thats like the Howerd Stearn thing 'so you would vote for Obama & Palin?'
They should make voting a right contingent on passing an exam. . . say something along the lines of the FE maybe :joke:

I've said that before and I was NOT kidding. Voting should be something people take more seriously. If you want to vote, IMO, you should have at least graduated from high school, AND pass some sort of voter test showing that you understand at least the basics of US government. Like a driver's license. Someone voting irresponsibly (or several million voters) can potentially do just as much harm as someone driving irresponsibly.

If such were the case, I think we'd see the campaigns of both parties speaking to the real issues more so than they are now. I think both parties focus far too much on the "lowest common denominator" in order to make sure they get more of the "stupid" vote.

 

[engineergurl]

How could you not vote republican after you watch this? sorry I know this probably belonged in the mccain jokes but you know me!!

http://www.nbc.com/Saturday_Night_Live/vid...lin-rap/773781/

no offense to anyone please!

 

[DVINNY]

^^ It was pretty good. The opening skit was kinda funny too.

 

[DVINNY]

OK,

Now I need to stir the pot a little. I'm not sure how many of you have heard about the fact that Barack Obama may not be an American born citizen. He has been asked on numerous occasions to show a birth certificate or somehow otherwise prove he is an American, but he just says that he was born in Hawaii.

Now, if I'm the guy that is leading in the polls to become the next President, and someone asks me that question, I think I'd just show them the proof.

Here is the lawsuit filed against him, and the only way Obama can satisfactorily respond is to release his suposed Hawaiian birth certificate. If he has it, why hasn't he released it? If he does release it, game over.

So why drag this out on technical grounds? It doesn't make sense.

http://dockets.justia.com/docket/court-pae...case_id-281573/

BERG v. OBAMA et al Plaintiff Philip J. Berg alleged that Defendant Barack Obama is not eligible for the Office of the President because Obama lost his U.S. citizenship when his mother married an Indonesian citizen and naturalized in Indonesia. Plaintiff further alleged that Obama followed her naturalization and failed to take an oath of allegiance when he turned 18 years old to regain his U.S. citizenship status.

 

[Dleg]

^I didn't think it was possible for a child to lose their citizenship if they were born in the U.S. I say this because where I live, there are thousands of kids born here of non-citizen parents, and those kids retain their citizenship even when their parents return to China or the Philippines or Bangladesh. I see this nearly every day.

If that was even true, don't you think this would have come up before now? How could Obama have ever gotten a passport, for example, to leave the U.S. and get back in for all those trips he made abroad? I ahd to show my birth certificate to get my passport, didn't you?

Frankly, I was pro-McCain before these kinds of stories started coming out. This is exactly the kind of tactic that turned me off of McCain. I can't imagine McCain himself ever saying something like this, either. But I believe he is condoning these tactics, because I am getting these same stories in e-mails from my Mom, and she is working the McCain campaign in CO.

I don't particularly like Obama, but I dislike this kind of scare tactic more than anything, and it's lost McCain my vote (eh, who am I kidding. I can't vote anyway!)

 

[Dleg]

The "citizenship" controversy on Snopes (Obama DID release his birth certificate to the press, several months ago):

http://www.snopes.com/politics/obama/birthcertificate.asp

and

http://www.snopes.com/politics/obama/citizen.asp

 

[benbo]

As I'm sure everyone has seen by now, Colin Powell has endorsed Obama for President.

Wow! I never would have seen that coming. Powell only agrees with Obama on about 75% of the issues, and is pissed off at the Republican party for several reasons. What's really hilarious is that Powell is suddenly beloved by the Democrats. He didn't seem that popular after his UN testimony. Plus, this is sort of like the guy who piles on to a tackle after the entire team has joined in. This will change nobody's mind. But IMO it doesn't matter. Obama was almost certain to win before this endorsement, and he's still almost certain to win.

The Ayer's thing is stupid because it just isn't working. Ayer's is a terrorist jackoff, but nobody cares. And when you bring it up it sounds like you are calling Obama a terrorist, which he isn't. It's not working. But all this handwringing over it is ridiculous too. This is politics, both sides use nasty techniques. And the ACORN story doesn't matter either, and it is always the losing side that starts whining about voter fraud.

I prefer McCain. But whoever wins I'm going to pray they make decent decisions, because I want to keep my job and my money, and I don't want to get blown up by a terrorist.

 

[benbo]

I have my theory on how McCain's could have had a much better chance at winning. I know I'm not the first person to mention it - I probably heard it somewhere, maybe even here. But I agree with it.

He should have fought the bailout.

The major issue that brought Obama to prominence, the war in Iraq, almost nobody talks about any more. This is because things have gotten better in Iraq, and worse in the economy.

Obama's main argument about McCain was that he was

"George Bush II", and McCain's argument against Obama was that he was inexperienced.

I happen to like Sarah Palin, but when McCain picked her it severely undercut his main argument against Obam. I know why he did - because despite what Obama says, he is not a lock-step conservative and the base doesn't trust him. But it did undercut his argument, and tick off a bunch of Republican elite cogniscenti, giving the media a bunch of fodder about disgruntled "conservatives."

Still, none of that mattered much. But when he voted for the bailout he lost his last chance to really contrast himself with Obama on an important issue. He also voted for a bailout full of pork, so he could no longer claim he never voted for an earmark. Plus, it was very unpopular, and if he had voted against it when Obama said he "always voted with Bush" he could have said "well, I'm not the one who voted with Bush on the bailout." Now I assume McCain thought that the bailout was correct and necessary. But he lost his last chance to really differentiate himself with Obama on an issue that people actually care about.

 

[DVINNY]

WOW benbo, great point.

I wish McCain would have fought the bailout too, I was against the bailout, and still am. Sadly, I can't support the candidate that was against it because there wasn't one. At least not out of the two

so Dleg, you don't ever sit and second guess the Barry Soetoro, Barry Dunham, Barry Obama thing at all?

Then he never told ANYONE that he spent 3 weeks in Pakistan until he was busted on it? I have to admit that I do not think Obama is a terrorist, or a 'sleeper cell', but he has acted very odd when it comes to his past.

I get a slew of the same emails everyday that you are talking about, and it does make you wonder if even a percentage of it is true.