Godplace/Mission238 forums

That's all I need to say




Obama '08

Oh, help her Lord....

Once you go Barack, we don't want you back.

hahaha, aww how sad... you all don't like him?

Why do you like him?

haha, that's a loaded question.

I am not going to answer just because I don't like arguing about politics and I know if I say anything there is always something someone will like to argue with.

So let's just leave it at I am voting for him.

Quote from: Legendary_roxy_girL on June 17, 2008, 09:40:44 PM
haha, that's a loaded question.

I am not going to answer just because I don't like arguing about politics and I know if I say anything there is always something someone will like to argue with.

So let's just leave it at I am voting for him.

I wasn't trying to goad an argument out of you.  ;)  I don't do much arguing on GP nowdays.  I was just truly curious.

I've found that in general, young people vote for Obama because he's young, charasmatic, promises change, and represents a difference in that he's both A. new to Washington and/or B. black. 

Quote from: bishopnl on June 17, 2008, 09:44:47 PM

Quote from: Legendary_roxy_girL on June 17, 2008, 09:40:44 PM
haha, that's a loaded question.

I am not going to answer just because I don't like arguing about politics and I know if I say anything there is always something someone will like to argue with.

So let's just leave it at I am voting for him.

I wasn't trying to goad an argument out of you.  ;)  I don't do much arguing on GP nowdays.  I was just truly curious.

I've found that in general, young people vote for Obama because he's young, charasmatic, promises change, and represents a difference in that he's both A. new to Washington and/or B. black. 

Yes, that's true in most case. But I have my reasons other than that. :)
For one, I wouldn't vote for John McCain, period. And if Hillary Clinton was the democrat nominee I would vote for her. It just is purely what they stand for.

Essentially, in this country (or any "Democracy", for that matter) when you vote for any candidate in an election you are basically just answering the following question:


"Which one of these people do you most want interfering in virtually every aspect of your life and forcing you (by threat of fines and imprisonment) to live and act in whatever ways they think are best?"


Therefore, as I've said before, an election can best be defined as basically the same choice that was famously given in the movie  Ghostbusters  - "Choose the form of the Destroyer". 

:o    ............, ummmmmmmmmmm, ....... thanks, ... but, no thanks.

I usually choose what I consider to be the lesser of the evils.

Quote from: practicalme on June 18, 2008, 02:40:19 AM
I usually choose what I consider to be the lesser of the evils.

???

........ Isn't that what I just said?


*LOL*


(you just said it in a more "PC" way, that's all)   ;)

basically...

Im Voting for Obama because he's black...



lol... jk... that'd be an Obomanation! - haha I made a joke!

QuoteObomanation

:laughat:

:laughat:                                          :laughhard:

Quote from: Legendary_roxy_girL on June 17, 2008, 10:01:52 PM
Yes, that's true in most case. But I have my reasons other than that. :)
For one, I wouldn't vote for John McCain, period. And if Hillary Clinton was the democrat nominee I would vote for her. It just is purely what they stand for.

I don't plan to vote for McCain, either.  For starters, I live in Illinois, which unquestionably is going to Obama, so whatever vote I cast isn't going to make a dent in terms of where my states electors go.   And McCain is a big government politician and has leftist tendencies, so I don't know that I'd vote for him anyway.

But what, exactly, does Hillary stand for that Obama doesn't stand for?  They both stand for the same essentials--the only differences are that he's young, new to Washington, charasmatic, and promises change.  In terms of what he believes and the changes he plans to implement--they are the same basic changes Hillary Clinton would be making if she was elected as president.

My dad is constantly saying he doesn't know how someone can call themselves Christian and vote Democrat.  He's under the belief that anyone who votes Democrat and is a Christian is in favor of abortion and gay marriages.

Myself?  I am voting for an independent candidate this term.

Quote from: Kyle on June 18, 2008, 01:51:21 PM
My dad is constantly saying he doesn't know how someone can call themselves Christian and vote Democrat.  He's under the belief that anyone who votes Democrat and is a Christian is in favor of abortion and gay marriages.

Myself?  I am voting for an independent candidate this term.

Those kinds of comments irritate me to death.
And imo, anyone that thinks like that, is closed-minded and doesn't really understand the concept of "Religion and Politics should not be mixed"

Do we force people to be Christians? Do we force them to pray, read the bible, women to wear skirts, not cut their hair.. and so on? No, those are convictions everyone holds in themselves.
Why then, should we restrict other people to other things. It's their decision and theirs alone, that is between them and God. It doesn't involve us at all. PERIOD.
I mean, do you approach someone in the streets about church, and start off saying what they can and cannot do? No, that is left for their own hearts and their own walk with God.

But I am not going to go into that to much, I have argued this so many times and it's pointless to get across.

My main argument to that is, there are A LOT more things to consider  in Democrat vs. Republican, besides Gay marriage and abortion. A LOT MORE. I am not going to limit myself to those two very small things, that for one DO NOT EFFECT me personally.

Quote from: bishopnl on June 18, 2008, 01:22:55 PM

Quote from: Legendary_roxy_girL on June 17, 2008, 10:01:52 PM
Yes, that's true in most case. But I have my reasons other than that. :)
For one, I wouldn't vote for John McCain, period. And if Hillary Clinton was the democrat nominee I would vote for her. It just is purely what they stand for.

But what, exactly, does Hillary stand for that Obama doesn't stand for?  They both stand for the same essentials--the only differences are that he's young, new to Washington, charasmatic, and promises change.  In terms of what he believes and the changes he plans to implement--they are the same basic changes Hillary Clinton would be making if she was elected as president.

Right, and I would vote for her, if she were the candidate and not Obama.

Whoops...I misread and thought you said if Hillary Clinton were the nominee you would NOT vote for her. :oops:

As for your above gripes on religion and politics not mixing....

I do understand where you are coming from.  And I don't think people are putting their souls in jeopardy or anything to vote Democrat.

But consider this.  Your argument is that Obama is the best choice, b/c he will allow people the freedom of choice to choose for themselves.  However, Obama supports federal funding of abortion, and he also supports Roe v. Wade.  Neither Roe v. Wade nor federal funding are areas of "choice."  Federal abortion funding means that my tax dollars are used by Obama to end human life.  And Roe v. Wade takes away the right of each state to choose, for themselves, whether or not they want to legalize abortion. 

As for gay marriage, it's my earnest belief that the question of "marriage" shouldn't be left to the government at all.  While Obama does pay lip service to the notion that states should be free to choose whether or not they want to legalize gay marriage, his support of civil unions and anti-discrimination laws makes it clear which side his bread is buttered on.  Also, he has plainly stated that Romans chapter 1 is an "obscure" passage of scripture that is in essence nullified by Christ's sermon on the mount (even though Christ didn't address homosexuality in the SOTM)

In other words, Obama is business as usual.  He's not a new breed of politician...he's the same old breed hiding in new skin.  He's all for choice, as long as you make a choice he approves of.

Quote from: bishopnl on June 18, 2008, 09:35:39 PM
Whoops...I misread and thought you said if Hillary Clinton were the nominee you would NOT vote for her. :oops:

As for your above gripes on religion and politics not mixing....

I do understand where you are coming from.  And I don't think people are putting their souls in jeopardy or anything to vote Democrat.

But consider this.  Your argument is that Obama is the best choice, b/c he will allow people the freedom of choice to choose for themselves.  However, Obama supports federal funding of abortion, and he also supports Roe v. Wade.  Neither Roe v. Wade nor federal funding are areas of "choice."  Federal abortion funding means that my tax dollars are used by Obama to end human life.  And Roe v. Wade takes away the right of each state to choose, for themselves, whether or not they want to legalize abortion. 

As for gay marriage, it's my earnest belief that the question of "marriage" shouldn't be left to the government at all.  While Obama does pay lip service to the notion that states should be free to choose whether or not they want to legalize gay marriage, his support of civil unions and anti-discrimination laws makes it clear which side his bread is buttered on.  Also, he has plainly stated that Romans chapter 1 is an "obscure" passage of scripture that is in essence nullified by Christ's sermon on the mount (even though Christ didn't address homosexuality in the SOTM)

In other words, Obama is business as usual.  He's not a new breed of politician...he's the same old breed hiding in new skin.  He's all for choice, as long as you make a choice he approves of.

Haha, gotcha, gotcha. But I am not really worried about those issues. I look more on immigration issues and what not. My father is from El Salvador, and he isn't allowed to vote. Therefore I keep tabs on such things as does he, and I vote for him. It was my decision to do so, and I am happy with where I stand. This doesn't mean I believe against my Father, but still vote for him.. I think for myself as well and we discuss things. But mainly I just think religious people get so caught up in politics and try to justify the way they vote by using their religious beliefs as an excuse. Which in my opinion is just dumb. Nuff said :)

I wouldnt vote for him.... and I wont... has too many ties to racist people of multiple races, and it is a well known fact, that you ARE who you hang with.....or how do the older people like to say, birds of a feather....


anywho, I'm going third party canidate this year as well.... I will not vote for these ultra liberal democrats and democrat-lite (McCain) folk....   I would have voted Huckabee... but hes gone now :(

I don't get the point of voting for an independant party, you might as well not vote at all... you know they will never win.


:roll:

this year is their most promising year..... 


why vote for those that are for allowing the double standard of a woman murdering her unborn child is ok and called abortion and her spouse killing the unborn child (which is equally his) is a crime worthy of jail time...just to name one of the many stupidities of the dem party....

the falsified mantra of the dems are for the poor man and the republicans are for the rich man, is a thing of the past, neither have been out for anyone but themselves in many decades.....

besides, the only thing the dems have brought us (either in congress or in the white house) has been higher taxes and social/moral deterioration.....

why does it always come to abortion... I think people should just get over it. Seriously....
You see women going around saying, " I don't believe in abortion, it's against my religion" well isn't against your religion to have pre-marital sex?

People will inevitably do what they want to do.. regardless of a law or religious belief. Politics are OBVIOUSLY not going to change anyone's mind. So why go around saying that is your reason for voting the way you do. It doesn't make sense at all.

LRG,

If you are voting for your father, (who can't vote b/c of citizenship) because he otherwise doesn't have a voice, why would you fault others for voting for the unborn for the same reasons?

Don't get me wrong...I'm not a single issue voter.  But I hope that America never just "gets over" abortion.  Apply that same logic 150 years ago to a situation like slavery, which abolitionists believe was a moral wrong and a blot on the face of America.  Should they have just "gotten over" it?

For my part, there are a whole host of reasons why I despise Barack Obama and his policies, not just abortion.  And come January 20th, if Obama is sworn in, all the people who believed, incorrectly, that Obama was a unifier and a wind of change are going to find out otherwise.  You can't be voted the most liberal congressman in the senate and seriously be considered the man who's going to put an end to Washington partisanship.

Quote from: Legendary_roxy_girL on June 19, 2008, 02:33:05 AM
I don't get the point of voting for an independant party, you might as well not vote at all... you know they will never win.

The only reason "they will never win" is because not enough people will vote for them.  The reason not enough people vote for them is because everyone knows "they will never win."  If we ever want to see a change from two-party dominance, someone has to break the cycle.

I'm breaking it.

So am I.  I'm voting third party cause the the Republican's and Democrats both disgust me.

I'm actually thinking about voting third party too.

 :-\

I'm going with Obama also.  :)

it doesnt matter who we vote for, thier not going to be Good... - its that simple

The bible will be fulfilled no matter who is running for president.

Quote from: EricShane on June 19, 2008, 05:38:25 PM
it doesnt matter who we vote for, thier not going to be Good... - its that simple

The bible will be fulfilled no matter who is running for president.

agreed  :great:

I told ya'll I was a bit more radical than most would believe, here's one reason why:

I am not against "illegal immigration".  At all.  The migration of workers following the harvests is OLD, my friends, older than you or I , older than this nation, as long as this place has been here, the native people have done this.  Transplanted European People [Americans] are being deceived into thinking this is about border security, all the while they ignore the Native peoples, just like they always have.

"They weren't using it, we should be able to take what we need"...the thought processes of the two peoples are just too different.  The Europeans are suspicious of the Natives because they think the Natives are thinking like Europeans.  About profit, about commerce.  About "Who owns the land".  We aren't and don't.

From a governmental standpoint, I am against coyotes, drug cartels, and soldados of the Mexican national government being on "our" soil.  Texas sees a ton of this, their troops on our land - but it gets zilcho coverage in the MSM, and would get none at all if it were not for the Minutemen.  The workers are not the criminals.  Mexico teaches its kids that the US stole the Southwest from them, which it essentially did (NEW MEXICO, anyone?), and everyone over there hates the US.

It is my opinion that we should invade Mexico, and raze Tenochtitlan to the ground.  It is and has always been an evil place, even Cortes remarked on this.  The Mexican government knows about the problem, however they are too weak to stop the cartels, and the various members of their government are too busy lining their pockets to care about the EUA, they hate us anyway.  Google "La Migra" and "Reconquista" also "Aztlan".

Of course, the US federal government isn't going to do anything like that because they are in collusion with members of the federal government of Mexico - more than likely to create a "mandate from the pipple" for a closed southern border, something the native populations of both places are against.

You want to stop coyotes and the like?  Offer the Apache and Commanche money for doing what they used to love doing anyway - keeping the Mexicans frightened to death.

The coyotes may be good in the wastes, but the Apache is better.  No, the Apache is best.

:twocentavos:

I wouldn't vote for Barack if I was paid to.  Simply because the man is an unabashed socialist.  Just like Hillary.

n/a

I really, honestly don't care who anyone votes for. It's a free country. I registered to vote, and I get to vote for whoever I want, for whatever reason. And I never even brought up Abortion EVER, I just made a response to someone. So that never crossed my mind one bit.

I didn't intend for this article to be completely taken out of proportion. I just made an article just showing who I wanted to vote for, with a little funny comment "the title" That's all it was suppose to be. And for whoever was voting for him too, could join in.

Anyway, after that I will no longer be posting on this thread because I think it's pointless and stupid to argue with any of you. Everyone has their opinions and don't think people should get so over dramatic about it.

Alright. Peace.

Obama 08

Quote from: Legendary_roxy_girL on June 19, 2008, 02:33:05 AM
I don't get the point of voting for an independant party, you might as well not vote at all... you know they will never win.


:roll:

I am sorry but will not tell who or how I will vote.  But the reason a person would vote for a thrid party is because they have convictions, and neither main party fits those convictions.  When we vote we should vote for what we know in our hearts to be right.  Too many people vote for their personal agenda rather than convictions.  It is better to exercise your right to speak out in an election, knowing you will lose, than to vote against your convictions.

Quote from: Legendary_roxy_girL on June 19, 2008, 02:55:09 AM
why does it always come to abortion... I think people should just get over it. Seriously....
You see women going around saying, " I don't believe in abortion, it's against my religion" well isn't against your religion to have pre-marital sex?

People will inevitably do what they want to do.. regardless of a law or religious belief. Politics are OBVIOUSLY not going to change anyone's mind. So why go around saying that is your reason for voting the way you do. It doesn't make sense at all.

Tax dollars are used to pay abortions, not sex, well unless you count Clinton.

Quote from: Brother Dad on June 20, 2008, 01:30:44 PM
I am sorry but will not tell who or how I will vote.  But the reason a person would vote for a thrid party is because they have convictions, and neither main party fits those convictions.  When we vote we should vote for what we know in our hearts to be right.  Too many people vote for their personal agenda rather than convictions.  It is better to exercise your right to speak out in an election, knowing you will lose, than to vote against your convictions.

I couldn't have said it any better.  :D

Quote from: HolinessPK on June 20, 2008, 04:15:18 AM
Lets see what other reasons can I give for not ever in my entire life ever even considering voting democrat?

Some of the reasons you list are reason why I will be voting for a Democrat.

Quote from: HolinessPK on June 20, 2008, 04:15:18 AM
1. Gay Marriage.

Gay couples should receive the same rights and benefits as any other couple that wants to get married.

Quote from: HolinessPK on June 20, 2008, 04:15:18 AM
2. Socialistic mindsets.

Socialism isn't always a bad thing.

Quote from: HolinessPK on June 20, 2008, 04:15:18 AM
5. The hatred for the things of God. (It wasnt the republicans that took prayer, the mention of God, the bible, 10 commandments, and morality out of schools..keep that in mind sister.)

There are members of every party that have a "hatred for the things of God."  That's not limited to one single party.   Since the U.S. government was not established upon Christianity, and since fewer than half of the Ten Commandments have any relevance at all to U.S. laws, why should the Ten Commandments be posted in public buildings?  (Actually, if you use the only set of commandments that was ever referred to as The Ten Commandments in the Bible, then none of them have any relevance to U.S. law.)

Quote from: HolinessPK on June 20, 2008, 04:15:18 AM
19. Ok back to their policies............abortion, yes it is an issue.....its murder.

Since I don't believe that abortion is murder, I believe it should be up to the individual to decide whether or not to have one.

Quote from: HolinessPK on June 20, 2008, 04:15:18 AM
21. They are responsible for the tree huggers. You wont find tree huggers in the republican ranks.

On the first point:  If it wasn't for the so called "tree huggers," environmental issues would not be brought to the forefront, and so many environmental disasters would go unchecked.  Places like the Cuyahoga River in Ohio would still be a major fire hazard as well as a public health and safety risk.  On point two:  I work with a very adamant evironmentalist that is also a very staunch Repulican, so you are incorrect on that point.

Quote from: HolinessPK on June 20, 2008, 04:15:18 AM
22. The party that supported slavery. check your history. Lincoln was no democrat.

None of the parties today are what they were 150 years ago, a moot point in my opinion.

Quote from: HolinessPK on June 20, 2008, 04:15:18 AM
28. Anti-war (which means they are wimps with big mouths)

I am against war.  All other means of resolving differences should be exhausted before the U.S. invades another country with guns blazing.

Quote from: HolinessPK on June 20, 2008, 04:15:18 AM
34. Want to sit and talk with our enemies instead of kick their teeth in like Bush has done.

I'll repeat myself:  All other means of resolving differences should be exhausted before the U.S. invades another country with guns blazing.

Quote from: HolinessPK on June 20, 2008, 04:15:18 AM
35. More recently, and some republicans were to blame for this as well......giving rights to the Guantanamo Bay terrorists......I guess citizens havent anymore rights than a terrorist now.

Any one accused of a crime should have the right to a fair trial and counsel.  If not, we are no better than the terrorists that imprison people without due process.

Quote from: HolinessPK on June 20, 2008, 04:15:18 AM
37. flag burners.........you dont see republicans doing that.

If someone wants to burn a flag, they have that right, and I will defend their right to do so.

Quote from: HolinessPK on June 20, 2008, 04:15:18 AM
39. socialized healthcare

It's not necessarily a bad thing.

Quote from: HolinessPK on June 20, 2008, 04:15:18 AM
42. Somehow wiretapping is BAD but tracking people through computer chips, smart cards, and video is ok......hmmmm.

Wiretapping with a properly authorized warrant is not a bad thing.  Wiretapping without a warrant is a bad thing.

Quote from: HolinessPK on June 20, 2008, 04:15:18 AM
45. When our enemies complement someone in our country, that is usually a good sign, that person is no good. Well The world is enthralled with Obama. Even Iran thinks Obama will "improve" relations. Can you not see through that? That makes the hair on the back of my neck stand up and sing.

If an enemy would rather discuss peace options than have the U.S. invade with guns blazing, having someone who would be willing to explore those options would be a good thing.

n/a

lol...


serious yall... you can 'try' voting for what seems to be 'the lesser of two evils' - but Its still gonna be bad... - Last time the Christians voted for the lesser of two evils, look what happened... lol

Quote from: Legendary_roxy_girL on June 19, 2008, 02:33:05 AM
I don't get the point of voting for an independant party, you might as well not vote at all... you know they will never win.

The point is to vote for someone who most completely represents what you really and truly believe and stand for (politically speaking), regardless of the popularity or "chances of winning" that those beliefs and stances may actually have.


It's really quite simple, when we "vote" for a candidate we are placing our personal support behind not just that particular candidate, but also behind the political platform  that said candidate has publicly proclaimed he or she is going to implement.   ...... and not just "part" of their platform:  ALL OF IT!

I mean, do we really think that the public, the media, the politicians in Washington, or even the candidate themselves are really  going to differentiate our "support" for them (i.e., your vote for them), according to each specific part of their platform??  ... In other words, if we vote for them, and part of their platform was continuing to support the federal funding of abortions - or even possibly to increase federal funding, along with the number of performed abortions - then regardless of whatever we may personally believe or how we may personally differentiate our political stances, the candidate themselves, along with all other politicians and the rest of the world in general are all going to view our "vote" as our personal support for that candidate and his platform;  including viewing our "vote" as our own personal support for that candidate's platform and policies concerning abortion.

....... thus, casting our "vote" for a particular candidate can put us in a position where, whether we actually think that way or not, we can find ourselves publicly placing our personal "stamp of approval" on a practice that I assume we all abhor.


It doesn't matter if we  don't personally view the placing of our vote in that "all or nothing" kind of way;  what matters is that the rest of the world (especially the political world) does view it that way, ... and more importantly  they act accordingly!


..... Thus, our vote is, in fact taken as our own, personal  and publicly declared  "support" for not only that candidate but also for every single item and stance that happens to be on that candidate's platform. 

....... And again, it doesn't matter if we  view it that way, because the simple fact is that they view it that way, and like it or not by giving them our "vote" we empower them to act that way!


Just some stuff to think about.  ......  And BTW, my vote is going to be a "write in" vote for Ron Paul, just in case you were wondering (I am not a Republican, nor do I support McCain - just wanted to clarify that).

What's wrong with not voting at all? 






:freaky2:

Quote from: OGIA on June 21, 2008, 03:33:22 PMWhat's wrong with not voting at all? 

Nothing at all.  Voting is not compulsory.

Quote from: M‡¢ĦÆŁ Ҝ on June 20, 2008, 03:01:48 PM

Quote from: HolinessPK on June 20, 2008, 04:15:18 AM
Lets see what other reasons can I give for not ever in my entire life ever even considering voting democrat?

Some of the reasons you list are reason why I will be voting for a Democrat.

Quote from: HolinessPK on June 20, 2008, 04:15:18 AM
1. Gay Marriage.

Gay couples should receive the same rights and benefits as any other couple that wants to get married.

Quote from: HolinessPK on June 20, 2008, 04:15:18 AM
2. Socialistic mindsets.

Socialism isn't always a bad thing.

Quote from: HolinessPK on June 20, 2008, 04:15:18 AM
5. The hatred for the things of God. (It wasnt the republicans that took prayer, the mention of God, the bible, 10 commandments, and morality out of schools..keep that in mind sister.)

There are members of every party that have a "hatred for the things of God."  That's not limited to one single party.   Since the U.S. government was not established upon Christianity, and since fewer than half of the Ten Commandments have any relevance at all to U.S. laws, why should the Ten Commandments be posted in public buildings?  (Actually, if you use the only set of commandments that was ever referred to as The Ten Commandments in the Bible, then none of them have any relevance to U.S. law.)

Quote from: HolinessPK on June 20, 2008, 04:15:18 AM
19. Ok back to their policies............abortion, yes it is an issue.....its murder.

Since I don't believe that abortion is murder, I believe it should be up to the individual to decide whether or not to have one.

Quote from: HolinessPK on June 20, 2008, 04:15:18 AM
21. They are responsible for the tree huggers. You wont find tree huggers in the republican ranks.

On the first point:  If it wasn't for the so called "tree huggers," environmental issues would not be brought to the forefront, and so many environmental disasters would go unchecked.  Places like the Cuyahoga River in Ohio would still be a major fire hazard as well as a public health and safety risk.  On point two:  I work with a very adamant evironmentalist that is also a very staunch Repulican, so you are incorrect on that point.

Quote from: HolinessPK on June 20, 2008, 04:15:18 AM
22. The party that supported slavery. check your history. Lincoln was no democrat.

None of the parties today are what they were 150 years ago, a moot point in my opinion.

Quote from: HolinessPK on June 20, 2008, 04:15:18 AM
28. Anti-war (which means they are wimps with big mouths)

I am against war.  All other means of resolving differences should be exhausted before the U.S. invades another country with guns blazing.

Quote from: HolinessPK on June 20, 2008, 04:15:18 AM
34. Want to sit and talk with our enemies instead of kick their teeth in like Bush has done.

I'll repeat myself:  All other means of resolving differences should be exhausted before the U.S. invades another country with guns blazing.

Quote from: HolinessPK on June 20, 2008, 04:15:18 AM
35. More recently, and some republicans were to blame for this as well......giving rights to the Guantanamo Bay terrorists......I guess citizens havent anymore rights than a terrorist now.

Any one accused of a crime should have the right to a fair trial and counsel.  If not, we are no better than the terrorists that imprison people without due process.

Quote from: HolinessPK on June 20, 2008, 04:15:18 AM
37. flag burners.........you dont see republicans doing that.

If someone wants to burn a flag, they have that right, and I will defend their right to do so.

Quote from: HolinessPK on June 20, 2008, 04:15:18 AM
39. socialized healthcare

It's not necessarily a bad thing.

Quote from: HolinessPK on June 20, 2008, 04:15:18 AM
42. Somehow wiretapping is BAD but tracking people through computer chips, smart cards, and video is ok......hmmmm.

Wiretapping with a properly authorized warrant is not a bad thing.  Wiretapping without a warrant is a bad thing.

Quote from: HolinessPK on June 20, 2008, 04:15:18 AM
45. When our enemies complement someone in our country, that is usually a good sign, that person is no good. Well The world is enthralled with Obama. Even Iran thinks Obama will "improve" relations. Can you not see through that? That makes the hair on the back of my neck stand up and sing.

If an enemy would rather discuss peace options than have the U.S. invade with guns blazing, having someone who would be willing to explore those options would be a good thing.

michael, you are free to vote any way you want and i want to say this, i love ya as a brother should love and dont want to argue but here are my feelings:

first up it is an abomination unto God for homosexuals to even exist!( the activity or sin not the person) to be for a homosexual is an outright sin against the plan of God!!

socialism- study socialism!! most countries who have socialism have failed! when gov. controlls everything you wont see new studies desease controll and cures and medicine.
the individuall assertion in inventions and techknowledgy will cease. people will be scared to open their mouths againt the gov.(that dont sound like the USA to me!!)

i'm sorry but this frustrates me too much to finish the coments, and i agree with bro dad and we should vote our convictions and concious, and if we are christian we will vote for the ones who hold the most regard for the christian veiws we hold.

IMO, both socialism and democracy are failed plans, neither one actually does what it's supposed to.  Socialism devolves into communism, democracy to fascism.

Now we are trying to stuff more socialism into the democratic side of our republic, why?  Socialism carries with it the ills of poorer education (public schools, anyone?), poorer standards of living (in my view, sheer freedom enhances the standard of living more than having someone else pay for my stuff.)

IMO, "socialism" and "democracy" amount to the same thing, since if you ask the pipple, of course they're gonna vote themselves socialized-everything-they-can.  They converge.  Anyone with an eye for history can see that.

I wouldn't mind having a constitutional monarchy.

How to set up a socialistic society.

Turn everyone on to a welfare system.

Convince the people that if you get it free it must be awsome. Give as many "freebies" as possible.

Dumb down education but make students arrogant by getting rid of competition and constant affirmations about how good they are and are doing even if they aren't doing well. 

Constant praise even for small things that should be expected.

Make them believe they deserve the freebies from the government.

They will become stupid and lazy, just what is needed for government to take control and no longer be OF the people, BY the people and FOR the people.

ya know it aint the war mongers that worrie me but the money mongers. and as far as socialism and fasism,
democracy as far as this country is concerned it has lasted longer than all others and will only fail by the hand of the politicall money mongers and controll freaks!! and yall want to be a part of that?? money mongers and controll freaks?? sounds like a people that lust after the flesh!!

if you are Christian and have a sensitive ear to Gods voice, you will not vote in the majority!! seems like most here agree to this, sorry legendary roxy girl.

                                                                 :nono: :tantrum:

                                                                      -yo

Quoteya know it aint the war mongers that worrie me but the money mongers.

Mussolini defined fascism as the tyranny of the corporation. :)

why is it so hard to just do as the bible says, a man eats by the sweat of his brow. sounds like democracy and capitalism to me. you make what you earn. you do as well as you work. every man for hisself!!

Quote from: Legendary_roxy_girL on June 18, 2008, 07:56:58 PM

Quote from: Kyle on June 18, 2008, 01:51:21 PM
My dad is constantly saying he doesn't know how someone can call themselves Christian and vote Democrat.  He's under the belief that anyone who votes Democrat and is a Christian is in favor of abortion and gay marriages.

Myself?  I am voting for an independent candidate this term.

Those kinds of comments irritate me to death.
And imo, anyone that thinks like that, is closed-minded and doesn't really understand the concept of "Religion and Politics should not be mixed" (maybe you are on the wrong track and maybe the reason you get mad is you know it.)

Do we force people to be Christians? Do we force them to pray, read the bible, women to wear skirts, not cut their hair.. and so on? No, those are convictions everyone holds in themselves.
Why then, should we restrict other people to other things. It's their decision and theirs alone, that is between them and God. It doesn't involve us at all. PERIOD.
I mean, do you approach someone in the streets about church, and start off saying what they can and cannot do? No, that is left for their own hearts and their own walk with God. ( convictions are what guids us to do Gods will along or in harmony with HolyGhost. no one is forceing you to do what you know is right!!)
But I am not going to go into that to much, I have argued this so many times and it's pointless to get across.  (dido)

My main argument to that is, there are A LOT more things to consider  in Democrat vs. Republican, besides Gay marriage and abortion. A LOT MORE. I am not going to limit myself to those two very small things, that for one DO NOT EFFECT me personally.
(it does effect you personally: financially and spiritually!!dont you know abortion and gay legal issues will come out of your pay in the form of taxes. if you vote for a person that endorses these sins you may as well endorse it too!  ohhh you think a human life is a small thing!!  maybe a human life isnt worth your consideration!! abortion is murder plain and simple!!!! you know id try to help ya out come judgement day, but i'll be busy filling my own shoes..i must have read that wrong i know she didnt say two very small issues.)

Quote from: Legendary_roxy_girL on June 20, 2008, 06:44:02 AM
I really, honestly don't care who anyone votes for. It's a free country. I registered to vote, and I get to vote for whoever I want, for whatever reason. ( neener neener-childish)  And I never even brought up Abortion EVER, I just made a response to someone. So that never crossed my mind one bit. ( it should )

I didn't intend for this article to be completely taken out of proportion. I just made an article just showing who I wanted to vote for, with a little funny comment "the title" That's all it was suppose to be. And for whoever was voting for him too, could join in.

Anyway, after that I will no longer be posting on this thread because I think it's pointless and stupid to argue with any of you. Everyone has their opinions and don't think people should get so over dramatic about it.

Alright. Peace.

pointless and stupid because we're right? or because you think we're stupid? religious freedom and the right to vote and express our opinion is not overdramatic!!

ever watch freaky friday? there is a line in there i like. "youth is wasted on the young!"

all i can say roxy girl, tame that tiger while you know it all because there will be a time you will look back and say i wish i had known better! if policy never crossed your mind as to why your voting for borax it must not be a political reason, *you think he's cute?*
john mccain isnt your type?   what?

maybe you are just marching to the beat of a popular majority drummer. Jesus never did that. once the majority told jesus to get rid of an old woman. jesus  blessed her against the majority's will !  you know, talking about a majority reminds me of a broad path that a lot of people are gonna take.

"Democracy" is just tyranny in a different form. 

Quote

"In the end more than they wanted freedom, they wanted security.  When the Athenians finally wanted not to give to society but for society to give to them, when the freedom they wished for was freedom from responsibility, then Athens ceased to be free."

~ Edward Gibbon (1737-1794), Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire

Quote

"If Congress can employ money indefinitely to the general welfare, and are the sole and supreme judges of the general welfare, they may take the care of religion into their own hands; they may appoint teachers in every State, county and parish and pay them out of their public treasury; they may take into their own hands the education of children, establishing in like manner schools throughout the Union; they may assume the provision of the poor; they may undertake the regulation of all roads other than post-roads; in short, every thing, from the highest object of state legislation down to the most minute object of police, would be thrown under the power of Congress.... Were the power of Congress to be established in the latitude contended for, it would subvert the very foundations, and transmute the very nature of the limited Government established by the people of America."

~ James Madison (1751-1836), Founding Father of the United States of America, and Father of its Constitution;  4th President of the United States

Don't expect that quote by Madison to be cited by either Obama or McCain any time soon, seeing as they and both of their parties seem to have based their entire platforms, and indeed their entire political existence, on a desire to "subvert the very foundations, and transmute the very nature of the limited Government established by the people of America" - by foisting upon the American people every single reprehensible and unconstitutional abuse of power described by Madison ....... and then some.

Quote from: OGIA on June 21, 2008, 03:33:22 PM

What's wrong with not voting at all? 
:freaky2:

well, there will be one less voice for keeping pure evil out of office, but if God leads you in that path, so be it. :cry2: :tantrum:

Quote from: Tsalagi on June 21, 2008, 08:30:34 PM
IMO, both socialism and democracy are failed plans, neither one actually does what it's supposed to.  Socialism devolves into communism, democracy to fascism.

Now we are trying to stuff more socialism into the democratic side of our republic, why?  Socialism carries with it the ills of poorer education (public schools, anyone?), poorer standards of living (in my view, sheer freedom enhances the standard of living more than having someone else pay for my stuff.)

IMO, "socialism" and "democracy" amount to the same thing, since if you ask the pipple, of course they're gonna vote themselves socialized-everything-they-can.  They converge.  Anyone with an eye for history can see that.

I wouldn't mind having a constitutional monarchy.

Our government is actually a mix: something of a limited elected monarchy (the presidency), a republic (where the citizens elect representatives to make decisions on their behalf), and a democracy (where the citizens vote on things for themselves).

It's still far from perfect, but the government the founders finally arrived at after years of debate really ain't too bad.

Concerning the idea of simply not voting at all:


If enough eligible voters simply refused to vote in a given election, how could any of the candidates, much more the government itself, claim to be truly representing "the people"?  And how could they then claim any authority to govern?

If, say, only 30% of all eligible voters actually went to the polls for a presidential and congressional election, how could any of the "winning" candidates claim to be the people's choice, much more claim that their election gives them a "mandate" from the people??  .... How could the "winners" claim any kind of valid representative authority  when 70% of the eligible voters voiced their displeasure in the choice of candidates, and by their absence essentially cast their votes for "None of the Above"?


Any time that a government is elected by less than 50% of the eligible voters that is a clear sign that the voters have lost all faith in both that government, and in its election process;  that same government loses any and all claims that it supposedly represents "the people", and by default it also loses all of its authority to govern that it claims to derive from those same people.

n/a

Quote from: yosemite on June 22, 2008, 02:07:05 AM

Quote from: OGIA on June 21, 2008, 03:33:22 PM

What's wrong with not voting at all? 
:freaky2:

well, there will be one less voice for keeping pure evil out of office, but if God leads you in that path, so be it. :cry2: :tantrum:

Oh, I'm sure I'll vote.  I have for a long time now.   ;) But, I view politics much differently nowadays.  I used to get all worked up about it, but I am pretty much at the point that I couldn't care less who gets elected. 

I do feel an obligation to voice my opinion and I do feel, as a citizen of this country, that God expects me to honor and obey its leaders (as regarding man's law).  However, I've come to believe that God's eternal purpose in raising up this country will be accomplished no matter who I or anyone votes for.  Some will call that a copout.  I call it sovereignty and God's purpose being higher than man's desires.  Didn't He prove that in the OT with the Jews?  He let them have their king and then go downhill for centuries before He finally came to earth to show them what His government should look like. 

My vote is simply because I feel He desires me to at this time, but I don't view my vote as necessary to help Him accomplish His purpose.  Our votes for President of the USA don't have any effect on His Kingdom, and that is the one I am most, if not completely, concerned about these days. 

As I said, I don't believe I could care any less who gets elected.  I just know that whoever does get elected will be because HE designed it that way and that it is being done to bring about the revelation of Who HE is to this world, along with establishing the only government that will ever be 100% successful.

bravo, well said.  -yo

Quote from: titushome on June 22, 2008, 02:45:04 AM

Quote from: Tsalagi on June 21, 2008, 08:30:34 PM
IMO, both socialism and democracy are failed plans, neither one actually does what it's supposed to.  Socialism devolves into communism, democracy to fascism.

Now we are trying to stuff more socialism into the democratic side of our republic, why?  Socialism carries with it the ills of poorer education (public schools, anyone?), poorer standards of living (in my view, sheer freedom enhances the standard of living more than having someone else pay for my stuff.)

IMO, "socialism" and "democracy" amount to the same thing, since if you ask the pipple, of course they're gonna vote themselves socialized-everything-they-can.  They converge.  Anyone with an eye for history can see that.

I wouldn't mind having a constitutional monarchy.

Our government is actually a mix: something of a limited elected monarchy (the presidency), a republic (where the citizens elect representatives to make decisions on their behalf), and a democracy (where the citizens vote on things for themselves).

It's still far from perfect, but the government the founders finally arrived at after years of debate really ain't too bad.

I did neglect to throw in the republic - our country is a republic, theoretically a "democratic republic".  What most folk who identify with "the people" do not understand is that the Founders were most all of them wealthy, influential, powerful people.  ARISTOCRATS.  The lines of Second Sons, et c.

Not farmers or small business owners, in other words not "democratic".  (Although in it's strictest sense, a "democracy" should refer to an overriding middle class, one that is educated and sober, one that actually keeps track of the decisions made in the houses of government, and the effects of said decisions - worldwide)

Look back at the governmental stink caused by Jefferson's inauguration, from the simple clothes he wore (not at all like Washington's inauguration) to the "mud-heeled farmers" climbing all over the furniture afterwards :D  The "Founders" were most unhappy regarding this ...rather...muddy... breach of protocol.

Why?  Because they feared that they would not be taken seriously by Europe, that they would appear as "the rabble".

We have got to learn to look at this country's government in light of family line all the way back through Europe's founding families, and their collateral lines.  Again, let me stress that every candidate running for the Presidency has some of the blood of Europe's royals running through their veins (They are all related to one another).

We tend as a nation to be blind to the politics of Empire.  Look back at all the "Revolutions" that occurred (very close to one another) and after study, tell me that they weren't planned.  Each and every one of those "revolutions" came at the hands of the educated middle class (agitators) stirring up the majority class (farmers and small craftsmen) against the rulers.

It's all the same.

*shrug*

Quote from: Legendary_roxy_girL on June 19, 2008, 02:33:05 AM
I don't get the point of voting for an independant party, you might as well not vote at all... you know they will never win.


:roll:

That is never the point, the point is having your say.  Should I vote for Satan or his #1 demon just because one of them might win?  The same applies to the election, we have our choices and we have a chance to vote and register our view, win , lose or draw.

Quote from: Scott on June 23, 2008, 12:31:58 AM

Quote from: Legendary_roxy_girL on June 19, 2008, 02:33:05 AM
I don't get the point of voting for an independant party, you might as well not vote at all... you know they will never win.


:roll:

That is never the point, the point is having your say.  Should I vote for Satan or his #1 demon just because one of them might win?  The same applies to the election, we have our choices and we have a chance to vote and register our view, win , lose or draw.

that is exactly right!! thanks scot. another thing that is ruining our elections is this popularity pole thing telling " who is gonna win " when no one knows who it will be. i think this leads a lot of clueless people to just vote for " the winner " of the pole.
people are being brainwashed as how to vote.

if you are clueless and need to know how to vote:
1. take a suvey of your church and like minded people who vote their convictions and see who they think is worthy.

2. vote for that person!!  simple! and at least you'll be voteing for the right survey! not one bought and payed for by the democrats.

now you have no excuse for being clueless!!  LOL                    -yo

Quote from: yosemite on June 23, 2008, 02:20:26 AM
if you are clueless and need to know how to vote:
1. take a suvey of your church and like minded people who vote their convictions and see who they think is worthy.

2. vote for that person!!  simple!

Mmmm... I think I'd rather draw my own conclusions, not let someone else make my decision for me. :)

What happens if I'm in _their_ survey? :P

:beret:

:copcar:

Admin Note: IF any more posts have to be deleted, this thread gets nuked.

:copcar:

i think we should have kings and queens and princes and Princess's! lol... I wanna be a Prince!  :bow:

 :freaky2:    :ignore:

Quote from: EricShane on June 24, 2008, 04:25:38 AM
i think we should have kings and queens and princes and Princess's! lol... I wanna be a Prince!  :bow:

Nobody's kissed you yet, eh?

*cough*

:beret:

Don't look at me.  I've given up on the frogs around here. :sadbounce:

Quote from: SippinTea on June 24, 2008, 05:23:55 AM

Quote from: EricShane on June 24, 2008, 04:25:38 AM
i think we should have kings and queens and princes and Princess's! lol... I wanna be a Prince!  :bow:

Nobody's kissed you yet, eh?

*cough*

:beret:

He wants you to kiss his ring!

Quote from: SippinTea on June 24, 2008, 05:23:55 AM

Quote from: EricShane on June 24, 2008, 04:25:38 AM
i think we should have kings and queens and princes and Princess's! lol... I wanna be a Prince!  :bow:

Nobody's kissed you yet, eh?

*cough*

:beret:

haha Ruby dont make me croak!

Quote from: EricShane on June 24, 2008, 05:50:20 PM
haha Ruby dont make me croak!

Eric after watching a scary thing pup up on the computer screen.....  (http://www.webweaver.nu/clipart/img/nature/animals/frog2.jpg)

Quote from: SippinTea on June 23, 2008, 05:38:30 AM

Quote from: yosemite on June 23, 2008, 02:20:26 AM
if you are clueless and need to know how to vote:
1. take a suvey of your church and like minded people who vote their convictions and see who they think is worthy.

2. vote for that person!!  simple!

Mmmm... I think I'd rather draw my own conclusions, not let someone else make my decision for me. :)

What happens if I'm in _their_ survey? :P

:beret:

well if your in their survey: you must be thought of as one who keeps up with all the issues and have a valued opinion as to what or who is worthy. in my opinion you are obligated to give a well thought answer and cover the why's and how's and who's as aligns with your convictions to the issues. and drawing your own conclusions was my
intention for the post i last made. dont be clueless. keep up with issues, not the populus or popularity pole. dont follow the masses blindly. but if your one who has to vote on a survey finding, vote toward your church's convictions and surveys. dont vote on a pole that is bought and payed for by the democrats.  -yo

Quote from: Sis on June 24, 2008, 07:02:37 PM

Quote from: EricShane on June 24, 2008, 05:50:20 PM
haha Ruby dont make me croak!

Eric after watching a scary thing pup up on the computer screen.....  (http://www.webweaver.nu/clipart/img/nature/animals/frog2.jpg)

I took my pic down....what is there to be scared of?

I'd rather eat a worm than vote Democrat.  I'd rather eat half a worm than vote Republican.  But then,   I'm a monarchist so there ya go.

Quote from: Scott on June 23, 2008, 12:31:58 AM

Quote from: Legendary_roxy_girL on June 19, 2008, 02:33:05 AM
I don't get the point of voting for an independant party, you might as well not vote at all... you know they will never win.


:roll:

That is never the point, the point is having your say.  Should I vote for Satan or his #1 demon just because one of them might win?  The same applies to the election, we have our choices and we have a chance to vote and register our view, win , lose or draw.

I believe Satan's #1 demon is running.

Quote from: Max_Kolbe on June 24, 2008, 11:42:24 PM
I'd rather eat a worm than vote Democrat.  I'd rather eat half a worm than vote Republican.  But then,   I'm a monarchist so there ya go.

I'm with you on that one.

well i guess....pass the salt and pepper please.due to the issues i have not been voteing,
but lately i see how the states are being deceived and feel a strong conviction to vote.
i guess every one knows how i will vote. it wont be democrat for sure, and not even republican this time around. if that is all they have to offer us for candidates we are in a sad shape!  -yo

Pelosi on 'Hush Rush,' and Filibustering FISA
by John Gizzi
 
The speaker of the House made it clear to me and more than forty of my colleagues yesterday that a bill by Rep. Mike Pence (R.-Ind.) to outlaw the "Fairness Doctrine" (which a liberal administration could use to silence Rush Limbaugh, other radio talk show hosts and much of the new alternative media) would not see the light of day in Congress during '08.  In ruling out a vote on Pence's proposed Broadcaster's Freedom Act, Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D.-CA.) also signaled her strong support for revival of the "Fairness Doctrine" -- which would require radio station owners to provide equal time to radio commentary when it is requested.

Experts say that the "Fairness Doctrine," which was ended under the Reagan Administration, would put a major burden on small radio stations in providing equal time to Rush Limbaugh and other conservative broadcasters, who are a potent political force.  Rather than engage in the costly practice of providing that time, the experts conclude, many stations would simply not carry Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, and other talk show hosts who are likely to generate demands for equal time.

At a breakfast hosted by the Christian Science Monitor yesterday, I asked Pelosi if Pence failed to get the required signatures on a discharge petition to get his anti-Fairness Doctrine bill out of committee, would she permit the Pence measure to get a floor vote this year.

"No," the Speaker replied, without hesitation.  She added that "the interest in my caucus is the reverse" and that New York Democratic Rep. "Louise Slaughter has been active behind this [revival of the Fairness Doctrine] for a while now."

Pelosi pointed out that, after it returns from its Fourth of July recess, the House will only meet for another three weeks in July and three weeks in the fall.  There are a lot of bills it has to deal with before adjournment, she said, such as FISA and an energy bill.

"So I don't see it [the Pence bill] coming to the floor," Pelosi said.

"Do you personally support revival of the 'Fairness Doctrine?'" I asked.

"Yes," the speaker replied, without hesitation

Source (http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=27185)

This doesn't necessarily have anything to do with Obama, other than the fact that if Democrats retain control of Congress this fall, and pick up more seats, and Obama wins the presidency, you can kiss freedom of speech goodbye.

There are few entities on earth that I have more contempt, loathing, and hatred for than the modern day Democratic party, and it's rabid liberal base.  In my opinion, voting for Democrats supports, by proxy, abandonment of the constitution and all of the principles that made this country great--as noted above, free speech being one of them.

I'm not interested in "bipartisanship" or unity or coming together (in political terms).  To me, compromising with the Democrats is the equivalent of compromising with the devil.  I'd rather see the complete and utter annihilation of liberalism. 

:demand:

Pelosi wants to force radio stations and other media outlets to give equal time to opposing viewpoints - but she won't allow a bill with a viewpoint opposite to hers to come up on the House floor.

Interesting.

Quote from: titushome on June 25, 2008, 01:42:07 PM
Pelosi wants to force radio stations and other media outlets to give equal time to opposing viewpoints - but she won't allow a bill with a viewpoint opposite to hers to come up on the House floor.

Interesting.

That's called "hypocrisy"...and it's pretty much synonymous with the word "Democrat."  One of the best things a budding liberal can do is get a copy of the book, "Do As I Say..." by Peter Schweizer.  And Nancy Pelosi is one of the liberal hypocrites featured in there.  It's a real eye opener into how the people who say they are for the common man don't ever apply those pesky rules meant for 'fat cat Republicans' to themselves.

Quote from: bishopnl on June 25, 2008, 01:41:50 PM
In my opinion, voting for Democrats supports, by proxy, abandonment of the constitution and all of the principles that made this country great--as noted above, free speech being one of them.

Nate,

I'm of the opinion that what made this country "great" is in part, if not wholly, responsible for what's made it so horrible in these last days.  I've wondered why there are such tremendous revivals in other parts of the world as opposed to here.  I believe the "greatness" of the USA -- all the wonderful "rights" we have come to expect -- has had a great impact on God's being able to move here. 

The few missionaries I've spoken to about the feelings they get when they come "home" all have said they are saddened when they come back.  They clearly see the Laodicean spirit more alive and well here than in any other place they go.

"Great"?  Yeah, maybe in the carnal realm, but our country's greatness has become a curse to God's people.  Reminds me much of the Jews right before they would get plastered by an invading army.  Good thing is that God would always spare His remnant.

Quote from: bishopnl on June 25, 2008, 03:55:34 PM

Quote from: titushome on June 25, 2008, 01:42:07 PM
Pelosi wants to force radio stations and other media outlets to give equal time to opposing viewpoints - but she won't allow a bill with a viewpoint opposite to hers to come up on the House floor.

Interesting.

That's called "hypocrisy"...and it's pretty much synonymous with the word "Democrat."  One of the best things a budding liberal can do is get a copy of the book, "Do As I Say..." by Peter Schweizer.  And Nancy Pelosi is one of the liberal hypocrites featured in there.  It's a real eye opener into how the people who say they are for the common man don't ever apply those pesky rules meant for 'fat cat Republicans' to themselves.

made me smile...... truth tends to do that to folks.....

after seeing so many people I know stress out and fight and argue over politics... it makes me kind of Glad that I dont Follow politics or anything... lol I have enough stress in my life

OGIA,

I think our country's apathy is due more to our affluence than it is to our Constitutional liberties.


............ besides, Americans have clearly become more and more apathetic precisely as those foundational liberties have been progressively stripped from them by the federal government, with such apathy coming seemingly in direct proportion to the loss of those liberties.

That would seem to indicate that quite contrary to apathy being a result of individual liberties, that our apathy has instead been a result of American's ever increasing love of, dependence on, and an eerily religious-type of faith in that entity we call "government".  ....... thus it is the rise and worship of government that has resulted in our apathy, while a restoration of our lost liberties could only result in an increase of our faith in and our dependence on God.

Ditto to what Jd has said.  In fact, America has in the past seen great spiritual awakenings since the ratification of the Constitution.  The fact that we've slipped into apathy and stagnation has little to do with our freedoms and a whole lot to do with our increased "richness" as well as our propensity for allowing our role in the world as salt and light to be usurped by corrupt, unspiritual entities.

Quote from: bishopnl on June 26, 2008, 01:26:31 PM
Ditto to what Jd has said.  In fact, America has in the past seen great spiritual awakenings since the ratification of the Constitution.  The fact that we've slipped into apathy and stagnation has little to do with our freedoms and a whole lot to do with our increased "richness" as well as our propensity for allowing our role in the world as salt and light to be usurped by corrupt, unspiritual entities.

WOW! bishopnl and jd for prez!!  dido, dido!! i guess there are others that listen to as much talk and news shows as i do, in following the election and the issues. i guess me and ole holinesspk,and kyle tend to hold a more agressive view and conversation though!!  LOL  i admit i like an objective conversation. it tends to make it more interesting. if we all had the same opinion we wouldnt have anything to talk about. -yo

Oh, I agree that apathy is in part due to affluence and dependence on the government.  But, I wasn't talking about apathy.  The atttitude I was addressing is almost the opposite.  It is the strong concern we have for holding onto a false sense of control we seem to think we have because of all the "rights" we've got in this country.  If I'm not mistaken, freedom is one of the hallmarks of this country and why so many, here and abroad, think of the USA as being "great".  We've got more rights than we know what to do with!  I think it is this attitude -- that of believing we have and are guaranteed complete freedom -- that is, in part, what has led this country away from whatever "Christian" basis it ever had.  Everyone is "free" to do what he or she pleases.  Why not apply that to how we view God?  Makes sense to me, especially when governmental issues become more important than God's agenda. 

I don't know if that makes sense, but....oh well.   :grin:

I'm of the opinion that 'rights' are a fiction.

Truth to tell, nobody has any rights.

It's a straw palace, a sop given to the commoner so he won't question what the elitists do, as long as his 'rights' aren't violated.

I do my best to live my life as though I had no "rights".

You have the 'right' to be born.

You have the 'right' to struggle with life as long as you live.

You have the 'right' to die.

That's it.

what about the right to pay taxes till ya choke!!  -yo

Tsalagi,

I have to disagree with ya.  I believe that God really has endowed every man (and woman) with such basic rights as those of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.

1.  In creating us he gives us the right to life (and technically, a right to death as well, but that's a whole nuther can-o-worms ... *L*).

2.  In giving each of us a free will he essentially endowed us all with a right to liberty, that liberty being the right to make individual choices concerning both big and small aspects of our lives, both long-term and immediate, and to have those choices not be restrained and/or interfered with by those in authority:  God himself respects every man's free will and does not force our hand to make us live as he knows is best, therefore any and every authority beneath him should do the same and follow the lead of he who is the head of all authority (in both heaven and earth).

3.  Before the fall of man God himself ensured mankind's happiness, but after the fall our personal happiness depends on our own individual pursuit of such happiness, and to what degree of effort .... and risk ... we each choose to give to that pursuit.  Thus, the pursuit of happiness is also a "right" given to us by our creator.   


The Bill of Rights simply backs up the three general "rights" above, by restricting the government from infringing on specific aspects of them.

Well, let's look at that in the light of 'God-given' vs 'government':

1.) Life is now commonly snuffed out in the womb thanks to governmental interference, leading me to believe that man's God-given right to life is being infringed upon.  Also, wars deprive all sorts of people of life.

2.) If liberty is defined as "the right to make individual choices concerning both big and small aspects of our lives, both long-term and immediate, and to have those choices not be restrained and/or interfered with by those in authority", then it would appear that the natural earthly function of government is to restrain and interfere with total liberty (Some people will not restrain themselves, otherwise what would be the point of government in society?).  Prisoners are not at liberty, at present 25% of the total population of the US is incarcerated.

3.) well, the "pursuit of happiness" is a bit nonsensical as a "right" - happiness is not really definable as one size fits all.  It's a state of mind and the reasons for happiness differ from person to person.  One person may pursue his happiness by barbecuing the neighbors, which of course is not kosher.

(Sorry, couldn't resist the pun :biglaugh:)

I guess you could say I believe that if those rights are God-given, then we have no earthly "right" to moderate them at all.  After all, He knows better than we.  Which is why I don't really believe in 'rights' as such, when arbitrary action by the powerful can strip anyone of the natural evidence of those rights in a heartbeat.

I think of government like this:

It's the monster we created to boss us because we're too lazy to boss ourselves. 

It's the one to blame when things go wrong in our nation (who really believes the president has anything to do with the economy?  We buy the cars, and houses, consumer electronics, toys of all sorts, luxury items, et c.  We are (literally) the economy.)

It's the stick we can use to threaten our neighbors, and then pass the blame off on the stick.

Government to me is basically the abrogation of personal responsibility.  The more power is given away, the bigger the government gets and the less responsible we feel - a deliberate adult regression into civil infancy, if you will.

Politically speaking, the closest I've ever come to defining my stance is probably 'pragmatic anarcho-syndicalist', however I am also antidisestablishmentarian - we must have law and order.

Quoteany and every authority beneath him should do the same and follow the lead of he who is the head of all authority (in both heaven and earth).

That's a good saying, JD!  :great:

but they don't... :sadbounce:

But I still like it, all the same.  :grin:

man, we're off in (left feild) now. at least it has a righ wing about it!! what are some of yalls veiws of the issues going on now? borack vrs mccain, borack vrs ron paul, mccain and borack vrs ron paul? i kinda shortened the post since yall know where i am on the issues. i'm in a anti-big gov. conspiracy kinda mind, and i like the righteous underdog in the battle.


-yo :mad: :mad:

Quote from: yosemite on June 29, 2008, 08:48:49 PM
man, we're off in (left feild) now. at least it has a right wing about it!! what are some of yalls veiws of the issues going on now? borack vrs mccain, borack vrs ron paul, mccain and borack vrs ron paul?

I think that Ron Paul was and is the only truthful and honest candidate in the bunch;  and quite frankly he's the only truthful and honest politician in the entire federal government.  He's certainly the only one that actually votes according to the Constitution - the rest of them vote first, and then maybe, possibly, consider the Constitution afterwards, ........ but only if they are dragged kicking and screaming, and absolutely forced into doing so (which they never are, since the only part of the Constitution that the American public actually cares about or pays any attention to is the Bill of Rights - the rest of it they deem "boring" and not worth worrying about, which is why the federal government has become the intrusive gargantuan behemoth and tax-guzzling black hole that it is today).

 :clap: :laughhard: :clap: :laughhard: :clap: :laughhard:  bravo JD!!

Quote from: Tsalagi on June 28, 2008, 06:51:53 PM...Prisoners are not at liberty, at present 25% of the total population of the US is incarcerated...

That number is a bit inaccurate.  Were that the case, there would currently be nearly 76 million people incarcerated in this country alone.

According to the U.S. Dept of Justice and The Sentencing Project, there are approx 2.2 millions persons currently incarcerated in county, state and federal facilities throughout the United States.

According to the CIA World Factbook, the population of the United States, as of July 2008 estimates, is 303,824,646.

That would make the incarceration rate for all county, state and federal correctional facilities less than 1% - .724% to be exact.

Not sure where you came up with the 25% figure, but when I saw it, I knew it was way out of line.  I work at the state penitentiary in Oklahoma, and for April 2008 our total population - incarcerated, parole, probation and contract facilities was 56,497.  The population of OK is approx 3.5 million.  Oklahoma has one of the highest incarceration rates in the country, and our rate is only 1.6%.

BenJammin

Sources - http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/prisons.htm (http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/prisons.htm); http://www.sentencingproject.org/Admin/Documents/publications/inc_newfigures.pdf (http://www.sentencingproject.org/Admin/Documents/publications/inc_newfigures.pdf); https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/print/us.html (https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/print/us.html); http://www.doc.state.ok.us/newsroom/facts/DOC_Facts_At_A_Glance_April%202008.pdf (http://www.doc.state.ok.us/newsroom/facts/DOC_Facts_At_A_Glance_April%202008.pdf); http://quickfacts.census.gov/qfd/states/40000.html (http://quickfacts.census.gov/qfd/states/40000.html)

Actually, it's not 25% of the U.S. population: 


I believe the figure he was trying to cite is that 25% of all incarcerated people in the entire world are incarcerated here in the U.S.


Granted, the record keeping on such matters is probably a tad shoddy in some "Third World" countries - but even granting that it still remains that at least 1 in every 5 people on earth that are imprisoned happen to be imprisoned right here in the United States, and that compared to the rest of the world the U.S. Government is clearly "trigger happy" when it comes to locking people up.

Also, it should come as no surprise that the fabulously successful  "War on Drugs"  (*cough*) has in fact only succeeded in creating a black market and in bloating the prison population (to its currently ridiculous and disproportionate levels) with both true criminals who violently conducted their business on that market, but also with far too many "criminals" who's only "crime" is that they have personal vices which under normal circumstances do not victimize any other person in a way that could even remotely be described legally as a "crime", but vices which the government has nevertheless decided (with a lot of helpful nudging and influence from lobbyists, P.A.C.'s, and powerful corporate interests) that it simply does not approve of such personal "bad habits" .........  and apparently they feel that such "tisk, tisk" disapproval is more than enough to justify confiscating every asset the person has and then imprisoning them for automatic maximum term sentences.

..... talk about the punishment not fitting the so-called "crime" (not to mention the sheer "overkill" involved).

   

BenJammin, JD

You are correct.  I was incorrect regarding my figures; I have also passed this along to the [normally rather reliable] source, he replied 'it was a typo'.

:D

while on this subject and NOT trying to be racial, what is the percentage of blacks vrs. whites in prison.

my point is that with so many blacks in prison(if my thought is correct on percentage) and all of that race (practically) voteing for oboma would it be correct in saying the election may be swayed by a more criminal element? i'm not to good with being politically corect and do not wish to offend anyone. i just dont know how to put it any better.

Quote from: yosemite on July 07, 2008, 05:36:04 PM
while on this subject and NOT trying to be racial, what is the percentage of blacks vrs. whites in prison.

my point is that with so many blacks in prison(if my thought is correct on percentage) and all of that race (practically) voteing for oboma would it be correct in saying the election may be swayed by a more criminal element? i'm not to good with being politically corect and do not wish to offend anyone. i just dont know how to put it any better.

that's funny because the percentage of white men voting for obama back when voting started was higher than black men.

why must everything be a racial thing?

well mis roxy, there was two questions and none of which were racist.

1 are there more blacks incarcerated than whites

2 would borack get the vote of those who tend to be of a more criminal element.
(lets be honest, if more blacks, or whites are incarcerated surely they have family and freinds who sympathize to their perdicament.)

i stated that i did not want this to be considered as racist. so please, dont jump to conclusions. i feel this is a viable question pertaining to the election.

i havent seen a survey that said there have been more white than black voteing for borack. where do you find that, for the talk shows i listen to and get info from on the web say the oposite.
can we just get past the skin issue? can a white not say anything anymore without it being considered as racial?

Quotecan a white not say anything anymore without it being considered as racial?

Nope.  That's the whole point of pretending there are "races" - so there's never any shortage of goats...

The Wheel turns...

Quote from: Tsalagi on July 09, 2008, 05:26:33 PM

Quotecan a white not say anything anymore without it being considered as racial?

Nope.  That's the whole point of pretending there are "races" - so there's never any shortage of goats...

The Wheel turns...

point taken and agreed!!   *sigh*

Coke or Pepsi..
CNN or Fox..
Leno or Letterman..
Democrat or Republican..

America Land of the Free...Two choice maximum some restrictions may apply..

All offers valid until complete NWO takeover...No citizenship necessary..See court for details.

:laughat:

Someone wants us to have the illusion of choice, perhaps?

I was watching barelypolitical videos on youtube a while back...they had a spoof on John McCain as a comedian, with a great line...

You know the difference between Miley Cyrus and Barack Obama?

One tours the country singing empty verses to teenage fans...




The other one is a pop singer.

LOL  How true, how true....

LOL!

Obama's 'emergency' economic plan
By MIKE ALLEN | 8/1/08 9:38 AM EST   


Sen. Barack Obama (D-Ill.) on Friday announced an "Emergency Economic Plan" that would give families a stimulus check of $1,000 each, funded in part by what his presidential campaign calls "windfall profits from Big Oil."

Details are in this six-page policy paper.

The first part of Obama's plan is an emergency energy rebate ($500 to individual workers, $1,000 to families) as soon as this fall.

"This rebate will be enough to offset the increased cost of gas for a working family over the next four months," Obama said. "Or, if you live in a state where it gets very cold in the winter, it will be enough to cover the entire increase in your heating bills. Or you could use the rebate for any of your other bills or even to pay down debt

Separately, Obama's plan includes a $50 billion stimulus package that his campaign claims would save more than 1 million jobs.

Half of the money would go to state governments, which are facing big budget shortfalls, and half would be used for national infrastructure, including replenishing the Highway Trust Fund, rebuilding roads and bridges, and repairing schools.

Obama announced his plan 27 minutes after a Labor Department report showed unemployment hit a four-year high of 5.7 percent in July — the highest rate since March 2004, when it was 5.8 percent.

"We need to do more," Obama said in a statement. "That's why today I'm announcing a two-part emergency plan to help struggling families make ends meet and get our economy back on track.

McCain reacted to the surprisingly dour jobs report with a two-paragraph statement: "Across this country, Americans are hurting and today's job numbers are just the latest reminder of the economic challenges we face. ... Unlike Sen. Obama, I do not believe that raising taxes is the answer to our economic problems. There is no surer way to force jobs overseas than to raise taxes on businesses."

Obama announced his plan for a windfall profits tax on oil companies on June 9 in Raleigh, N.C., as he launched a two-week economic tour after clinching the Democratic nomination.

Friday's proposal says Obama "is proposing to offset the cost of his emergency energy rebates over the next five years by enacting a windfall profits tax on big oil companies."

"Obama simply asks that big oil companies contribute a reasonable share of the windfall profits they receive from high oil prices over the next five years to pay for emergency assistance for families right now," the campaign says.

Source (http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0808/12237.html)

This is Obama's plan?  Windfall profits taxes?  And when oil companies get higher taxes, what does that do to the price of oil?

So Obama's plan is for the government to take money from the oil companies (who will then make up their loss by raising prices) and give it to families in the form of a $1000 check to help them pay for gasoline costs, or heating their home. 

First, $1000 isn't going to go very far....second, how many people are going to get that big government check and put it in a savings account to be doled out to meet energy costs?  No way.  They're going to take that $1000 and put it towards a new HD TV, or a new I-Phone, or some other ridiculously expensive purchase that they wouldn't otherwise have money for, and then when gas prices shoot back up, they're going to start demanding more action by the government.

And oh yeah, Obama's supporters LEFT Congress today for their summer vacay's without allowing a vote on oil drilling...and chief supporter Nancy Pelosi ordered the C-Span cameras to be turned off and the lights to be dimmed in the House while a half dozen Republicans continued to argue for oil drilling to ease gas prices.  And oh yeah, they (Dems) kicked reporters out of the Speakers Lobby where they traditionally interview lawmakers.

I have to ask, in the current climate, what in the world would make anybody vote for Obama?  The only thing I can possibly think of is either blissful ignorance of the facts, or pure hatred of freedom.  Obama is a liar.  He's a race baiter.  And his supporters in the House and Senate are some of the most despicable, vile scum this side of Mos Eisley.   :darth:

Sean Hanity was calling him a Marxist the other night. He took things point by point and showed how he came to that conclusion.

It was mostly about redistributing wealth and government funded health care.

IN essence, the Democratic party platform mimics, in several ways, Marxism.

Btw, here's McCain's new ad...lol...kind of corny, but it is EXACTLY how people view Obama...

Ad Here (http://www.breitbart.tv/html/143513.html)

I've heard from/met so many people who say "I've never given money to a politician before until Obama" or similar statements.  That's because Obama isn't about substance.  It's not his message that they believe in.  It's this messiah like aura he's draped around himself.  Barack Obama acts less like a candidate for president, and more like a saviour.

What's going to need saving is the country, if he's elected.

I don't really have a head for politics and understand very little about it. But I wouldn't want the government taking money from one group (business or not) and giving it to another. No matter who the group is or what they've done. Not only because costs would probably increase (as was stated above), but also because it just seems wrong to me. The way I was raised, taking something from someone is stealing. Doesn't matter who you're stealing from. It's still wrong.

I don't know what it is that should be done with oil companies and to help the economy, but there has to be a better option than stealing.

:clap:                             :clap2:


Bravo, Niki!


:great: