|
|
Post by Josh on Sept 7, 2008 18:27:47 GMT -8
Nate,
Very articulate. Well thought out. I look forward to engaging with what you put forward.
Before that, going back a little bit, I want to say in regard to Robin's comments about the relative value of personality- I'd agree that although personality isn't everything or even the main thing, it is important.
But for me, though, I feel like both the candidates have more positive personality than any I've seen in a long time.
I realize this is super subjective/ relative to me, but one thing I do like about the current options are that I feel like both the candidates are pretty genuine.
|
|
|
|
Post by robin on Sept 11, 2008 16:06:44 GMT -8
Why I will vote for John McCain, and against Barak Obama.
Regardless of the way we see politicians, I think we can all admit that experience is important. Far more important than rhetoric. John McCain has spent the last 30 years not talking about change but actually fighting for it. Much has been made that what we need is a new direction in Washington. Well who has showed an ability to go against the grain, not just talk about it? Consider earmarks. Barak Obama has requested over 900 million in earmarks in three years as a senator, yet John McCain has never earmarked a bill. Obama chose as a running mate someone who is entrenched in Washington politics and has a son who works as a Lobbyist. We need more than just words about change like Obama has given us but rather, actions like McCain has given us for years.
Early on in the primaries John McCain was declared politically dead. He took allot of heat for pushing for a troop surge in Iraq in order to achieve victory, which we can now all see as the right choice. He could have taken the easy road like all the other candidates, but instead he said “I would rather loose and election and win a war rather than win an election and loose a war”. These are the words of a leader who cares little or nothing about political expediency, but rather what is best for our country. Rick Warren said it best following the forum at Saddle back. He said, “McCain sounded like a leader, and Obama sounded like a Harvard lawyer”. Not an exact quote, but close. Rick Warren is right. I listened to both men, and Obama parsed his word and McCain was direct.
Regarding the Iraq war. I believe now and from the beginning that the Iraq war was just and necessary. How the war was executed I would have some problems with. However, John McCain was right from the very beginning in pointing out the in order to secure the peace the US needed to have more boots on the ground. First I would like to back up a minute and consider a world where we never attacked Iraq. Every intelligence agency in the world agreed that Iraq had WMDs, and I believe they did, contrary to what the media would have us believe. Perhaps not to the extent that was suspected but they (WMDs) certainly existed, and the foundation was there to re-constitute a weapons program. There was a broad bi-partisan agreement that if Saddam did not comply with UN resolution 1448 that the United States reserved the right to take military action, and promised to do so. Diplomacy had reached its limits after a 1½ years of trying to get Saddam to Comply. President Bush would have been derelict in his duty to not follow through on actions promised. But what is worse and even disgraceful is the reaction of the Left (democrats) who voted to send our soldiers to war to quickly throw our soldiers under a bus for political expediency. This is unforgivable and will forever cast doubts in my mind about a Democratic leaders ability to protect our Country. Here we have a stark contrast between Barak and McCain. Barak Voted to cut off the funding to our troops, which would have secured a humiliating defeat at the hands of those who attacked us and 9/11, and McCain pushed for a troop surge the will forever change the outlook of the middle east for the better. It is McCain’s leadership that has helped bring about a secure Iraq, and we should all be thankful that Obama and the Democrats did not prevail in their policy of run-and-hide.
Further more, McCain has always said that troop withdrawal will be determined by the circumstances on the ground and not political pressure from home to set a timetable. It is not for the sake of setting a timetable that we now have one (loosely as it is) but rather it is by the success of the troop surge that McCain supported that has change the situation allowing for a timetable to now be considered.
On meeting with foreign dictators:
McCain and Senator Hilary Clinton are correct in saying that is would be inappropriate for a president to meet face to face with the leaders and any nation and seek the destruction of the American people or our allies. Secretary Gates does not support what Obama had said about meeting unconditionally with dictators from Iran and N. Korea, but rather supports the long held policy to communicate through low-level diplomats, and neutrals countries. Obama specifically said that he as President would meet the leader of Iran without any precondition. Secretary gates does not support this policy and Obama has sense wisely has run way from is own words.
In regard to tax policy you could say that I disagree with both candidates, but I will settle for the lesser of two evils. It is my view that our current tax structure is entirely unjust. As a Christian I am very troubled by the trend I see in how the Left views taxes. Will anyone explain to me where the justice is in having the government steals from one person in order to give his or her wealth to another. Does this not trouble others? When a politician says, “I’m going to tax only the wealthiest in America and cut taxes on the middle and low income” What are they doing? They are stealing from one for the benefit of another. Lets compare and contrast two scenarios. One, the government steals from a wealthy man and skims some money of the top to pay himself and his friends, and gives a little to someone who has not earned it, and in turn the one receiving the money thanks the politician and continues to re-elect them, or two, the wealthy person freely give out of a sense of love and charity, and the poor person can see the wealthy persons good deeds and praise God. What is better, the praise of a politician who steals, or the praise of God who meats the needs of his children through those who have the ability to give? Seems pretty ease to me. There fore, the only fair tax system is a low flat tax, and not a system of wealth distribution, which is socialism.
In regards to Universal healthcare, I have a general opposition to any form of it. I have given detailed reasons at the Universal healthcare thread. I have a unique prespective due to my career in the healthcare field as a benefits broker.
Finally I will touch on the political topic that is most important to me. That is the issue of abortion. For all the hand wringing and sobbing that I hear from the left about social injustice, universal healthcare for children (this is not pointed at you Nate but in general) and human rights abuses, they all fall on deaf ears because they continue to vote for politicians who support the killing of innocent children. Yes infanticide. McCain has always supported the pro-life agenda, and Obama has always supported the pro-choice agenda. Obama even voted “present”, which in actuality is a no vote, on legislation that was aimed at requiring medical attention to be given to a child that is born alive following a failed abortion. How could anyone deny a suffering child medical attention and just let is sit and suffer? This is sick stuff! It is sick enough to know what happens during a partial birth abortion, and I will spare the details, but to not even allow that medical attention can be given when the procedure fails is truly wrong, and in my mind disqualifies a person from holding political office. The left has more compassion for terrorists being held at Gitmo than innocent children. It is beyond me that any Christian can turn away and ignore this precious issue of life for the sake of liberal tax policies, and universal healthcare.
Anyways, I’m sure I did not change anyone’s mind but I thought I would give my reasons for supporting John McCain, and voting against Obama. I have so much more I could say, but at this time I will leave it is it is.
God bless,
Robin
|
|
|
|
Post by Josh on Sept 11, 2008 19:00:19 GMT -8
Nate:
Robin:
I think this is fascinating. You guys are both describing different sides of a coin and I find myself thinking that it all depends on the context. Usually I appreciate "nuance/ judicial parsing of words". I think politicians are too quick to run with slogans and catchphrases, and black and white synopsis of issues from war to poverty. But then again, on certain issues I do prefer a "black and white/ direct" approach.
For instance, while I do in general like Obama's nuance, I thought on the issue of abortion at Saddleback that McCain was playing straight and direct in a good way. I thought, on that one, that Obama came across as weak and unwilling to take a personal stand.
However, several times in the Republican convention I winced at oversimplifications and the black and white implications of a slogan such as "America first" as if they were the only party that did that*
*and anyway, as a Christian, I personally don't feel comfortable being associated with the idea of "America first" . I hope my loyalty is in heaven first. But unchecked patriotism can be a potential danger to left and right alike.
|
|
|
|
Post by robin on Sept 11, 2008 19:51:57 GMT -8
I agree that the kingdom of heaven is first, and should always come first. I don't think the "American first" phrase is in contrast to the kingdom of heaven, but rather it speaks of the parties loyalty to do what is best for us as a country, which is very important when we consider our elected officials nominations. They are our elected officials and not priests, and pastors. I can easily separate the two and feel comfortable with saying "America first" because I believe that a powerful America gives us a better world. Could you imagine if Russia or China were the predominate forces in the world? Or worse the UN!  What would that mean for the church? I have no shame in saying that America is the greatest nation on God's green earth, (Michael Medveds phrase). The Ideals set forth in our constitution are very Godly and Christian base, by its recognition that men are created equally and free by their creator with certain inalienable rights it fits well with what the bible tells us about our creator and what he has given us. Robin |
|
|
|
Post by Josh on Sept 11, 2008 20:25:03 GMT -8
In principle, I do agree with you on this Robin. It's just that I'm leary of it. The same logic characterized other periods in Church history where the Church got too cozy with the government to ill ends. How many times have Christians been lulled into thinking it's not really difficult to "walk in two worlds". Of course we must do so, but never lightly*. The New Testament takes so much time hammering home the stark delineation between the kingdom of God and the kingdoms of this world. Not that they don't ever interact (sometimes amicably), but that they must still remain pretty separate in our minds.
* I'm not implying you do, but just that there is always a temptation for everyone to do so.
|
|
|
|
Post by robin on Sept 11, 2008 20:28:37 GMT -8
In principle, I do agree with you on this Robin. It's just that I'm leary of it. The same logic characterized other periods in Church history where the Church got too cozy with the government to ill ends. How many times have Christians been lulled into thinking it's not really difficult to "walk in two worlds". Of course we must do so, but never lightly*. The New Testament takes so much time hammering home the stark delineation between the kingdom of God and the kingdoms of this world. Not that they don't ever interact (sometimes amicably), but that they must still remain pretty separate in our minds. * I'm not implying you do, but just that there is always a temptation for everyone to do so. I agree!  |
|
|
|
Post by Josh on Sept 13, 2008 14:19:38 GMT -8
I wrote earlier:
Robin responded:
I
Robin,
Please note that I said doesn't have to be. I wouldn't disagree that Christian institutions sometimes (some might say often) devolve into something similar to the dirty business of politics. But whereas I see this corruption as forever and almost always endemic to politics, I have seen the Kingdom of God in a variety of real-world expressions remain largely untainted by similar dynamics. I sure hope so, because that what Christ said we would find in the Kingdom if we lived it out well and humbly and with endurance.
Does that make what I was getting at a little clearer?
|
|
|
|
Post by nathaniel on Sept 15, 2008 17:37:41 GMT -8
I’m curious, did anyone watch any of the videos? If so, which ones, and what do you think? I think this is fascinating. You guys are both describing different sides of a coin and I find myself thinking that it all depends on the context. Usually I appreciate "nuance/ judicial parsing of words". I think politicians are too quick to run with slogans and catchphrases, and black and white synopsis of issues from war to poverty. But then again, on certain issues I do prefer a "black and white/ direct" approach. For instance, while I do in general like Obama's nuance, I thought on the issue of abortion at Saddleback that McCain was playing straight and direct in a good way. I thought, on that one, that Obama came across as weak and unwilling to take a personal stand. A few things on abortion: Josh, I see what you’re saying about context, but I’m of the opinion that if anything is going to happen with abortion, we need to convincingly and compassionately argue the position on a grass roots level. So when I hear the question asked when do you think life begins (aka do you think roe v wade should be overturned) and all I here is ‘CONCEPTION!’ I think it’s a missed opportunity to give a thoughtful presentation of why. Why from a philosophic and scientific standpoint you think that, then, from there what role the government should play, and so on. I disagree with Obama on this issue, but one of the things I appreciate about him is I feel like he would truly listen to my side of the issue, and be open to changing his mind. Also, just some food for thought. Since the Roe v Wade decision in 1973 we’ve had only 12 years of democratic presidency, compared to 23 on the republican side, and yet nothing has happened. (I thought of this all on my own, pretty insightful, I know  ). So it doesn't appear voting for president based on this issue is very effective. Robin, Thanks for your response dude. I have some critiques and disagreements with your post. I’ll try and go through them point by point. As well as where we agree. Why I will vote for John McCain, and against Barak Obama. This may be nitpicking, but saying that you will be voting against somebody, one, isn’t possible, and two, isn’t really necessary to say and (for some) immediately increases tension. Regardless of the way we see politicians, I think we can all admit that experience is important. Far more important than rhetoric. John McCain has spent the last 30 years not talking about change but actually fighting for it...Obama chose as a running mate someone who is entrenched in Washington politics I notice that on one side you say that Mccain has 30 years in Washington and it amounts to good experience, but then say Biden’s same experience amounts to being “entrenched in Washington politics.” I agree w/ you that experience is important. As a friend recently pointed out, though, how we define what qualifies as good experience makes a world of difference. We need more than just words about change like Obama has given us I keep hearing people disregard what Obama says as just words, or a bunch of talk. I think this is very easy way to try and discredit what he’s saying. I think words are very important, and as president of the United States, a very powerful tool. Barrack Obama has engaged and dare I say inspired a lot of people to start, not only paying attention to politics, but even believing in them again. I think the more people actively participating in democracy the better. Consider earmarks. Barak Obama has requested over 900 million in earmarks in three years as a senator, yet John McCain has never earmarked a bill. I’m curious where you got these facts from? I believe now and from the beginning that the Iraq war was just and necessary. I would disagree that the Iraq war was either just or necessary (PS I haven't always felt this way). I just googled “just war” and the first thing that came up was this on Wikipedia: • the damage inflicted by the aggressor on the nation or community of nations must be lasting, grave, and certain; • all other means of putting an end to it must have been shown to be impractical or ineffective; • there must be serious prospects of success; • the use of arms must not produce evils and disorders graver than the evil to be eliminated. The power of modern means of destruction weighs very heavily in evaluating this condition. I’m not sure the Iraq war meets any of these criteria, let alone all of them. Every intelligence agency in the world agreed that Iraq had WMDs, and I believe they did, contrary to what the media would have us believe. Perhaps not to the extent that was suspected but they (WMDs) certainly existed, and the foundation was there to re-constitute a weapons program. I’m curious where you got these facts from too? And if that was the case why didn’t we have broad international support. There have been no WMDs found, so to say “I” believe they had them doesn’t really hold much weight. Furthermore even if they did have them, does that really qualify as a good enough reason to, not only go to war with them, but go to war w/out overwhelming international support? I would say, certainly not. There was a broad bi-partisan agreement that if Saddam did not comply with UN resolution 1448 that the United States reserved the right to take military action, and promised to do so...But what is worse and even disgraceful is the reaction of the Left (democrats) who voted to send our soldiers to war to quickly throw our soldiers under a bus for political expediency. This is unforgivable and will forever cast doubts in my mind about a Democratic leaders ability to protect our Country. Here we have a stark contrast between Barak and McCain. I disagree with some of the logic as well as the tone in this section. Saying things like ‘disgraceful, unforgivable, they threw our soldiers under the bus,’ is an assumption of people's motives and again is inflammatory language. Additionally, you’re grouping Barrack (who spoke out against going into war from the very beginning) with other politicians who, forgive the term, “flip flopped.” Barak Voted to cut off the funding to our troops, which would have secured a humiliating defeat at the hands of those who attacked us and 9/11, and McCain pushed for a troop surge the will forever change the outlook of the middle east for the better. It is McCain’s leadership that has helped bring about a secure Iraq, and we should all be thankful that Obama and the Democrats did not prevail in their policy of run-and-hide. “Humiliating defeat”, “run-and-hide” – Again, words I don’t think help the discussion. Also, the people who attacked us on 9/11 are NOT the same people who we went to war with in Iraq. The connection is simply not true. Further more, McCain has always said that troop withdrawal will be determined by the circumstances on the ground and not political pressure from home to set a timetable. It is not for the sake of setting a timetable that we now have one (loosely as it is) but rather it is by the success of the troop surge that McCain supported that has change the situation allowing for a timetable to now be considered. I would agree that the surge has been successful, and that it appears to have been the right tactical thing to do. And from what I can remember, John McCain was one of the early supporters on the surge train, so kudos to him for that. However, the surge was necessary if we were to stay in Iraq. Obama, and many others were proposing that we begin to end the war, start withdrawing our troops, in the hopes that this would put political pressure on the Iraqi government to start making some moves. There’s no way to know what the result of this would have been. Also, If I had to rank in order of importance, making the right choice about going to war versus supporting an effective strategy within a war it would be an easy 1st and 2nd for me. From what I recall Bush, Mccain, and many other republicans were diametrically opposed to timetables, saying things like “it would let the enemy know when to strike” etc. I’d like to get to these as well, but this is probably sufficient for now. Hopefully this comes across as just some good counter points to a healthy discussion and not too combative. One love, yo. |
|
|
|
Post by Josh on Sept 15, 2008 20:46:46 GMT -8
Good points. I do share the same doubts about the effectiveness of Republican politics in actually changing anything regarding abortion (which, though I'm happy to be pretty independent politically, I will go on record saying I would like to see Roe v. Wade overturned).
If the number of abortions can be decreased that is better than the status quo (though woefully short of justice). I'm glad Obama seems to want to move in that direction. But I would much rather hear him say, as a Christian, "I am of the personal conviction that life begins at conception. I will, however, as chief executive, uphold the laws of the land. I recognize that the country is deadlocked over this issue, and so I prefer compromise with some results in limiting abortion as opposed to the continuance of current abortion rates". Then at least he'd be supporting the silent many whose lives are taken 24/7 instead of sitting by saying he doesn't get paid enough to answer the question of when life begins*
Enough of my rant on that for now. There are other things I do like about Obama.
I hope to respond to some of the other stuff. I started watching the clips.
*One has to wonder why, if he can't say when it begins, he doesn't take the moral high ground of, if in doubt about whether fetuses are alive, treat them as if they were just in case.
|
|
|
|
Post by robin on Sept 16, 2008 8:32:05 GMT -8
Hi Nate, I'm glad we can discuss this. OK I see what you are saying, but what I am getting at is this. When I decide to cast my ballot for McCain, it is not only because I support what he stands for, but also that I so dislike what Obama stands for. There is a reason that McCain is called the Maverick. He has always run against the grain in Washington, and his own party. Has anyone ever referred to Biden in this manner? You see, Obama's whole message has been about bring change to Washington. Out with the old and in with the new. That is why his VP pick is so baffling. Good point. Could you define what experience Obama has that can make a difference? Fine he can inspire young people. So can Palin and McCain. As a matter of fact, both Palin and McCain drew larger audiences for their convention speeches than Obama. However, I don’t really want a motivational speaker as president. I want a leader who is tough and knows what he (or she) believes. I would be more encourage if Obama talked less about change and instead used his power as a US Senator to enact change. On the earmark requests, please see the link below. These are the 2006-2007 earmark requests from Barak Obama. If I find his requests for 2004-05 I will post that link as well. I was recalling the 900 million from memory, but it could be off. answercenter.barackobama.com/cgi-bin/barackobama.cfg/php/enduser/std_adp.php?p_faqid=172&p_created=1205426026&p_sid=TNlxoC-i&p_accessibility=0&p_redirect=&p_lva=&p_sp=cF9zcmNoPTEmcF9zb3J0X2J5PSZwX2dyaWRzb3J0PSZwX3Jvd19jbnQ9MSwxJnBfcHJvZHM9JnBfY2F0czI have searched for McCain's earmarks and can find none, but feel free to correct me if I’m wrong. All I can say is I think it was just. We will just have to agree to disagree. Sorry I disagree. No president should ever put aside the protection of the American people because the international community doesn’t approve. Also, I’m actually surprised to hear you dispute the intelligence comment. I figured that it was common knowledge that the world agreed that Iraq had and was developing WMD’s. By the way we did have a fair amount of international support for the invasion. Lets not walk over the sacrifice that our allies made in order to support us. Keep in mind Britain, Spain, Italy, Australia, south Korea, and Japan only to name a few have supported us. The one’s that opposed us, the same ones with Veto power in the UN security council, were getting paid through corrupt programs like the food for oil program. They had a sweet deal, and did not want to loose it, or be found out. I agree that my tone may seem abrasive, and I apologize for the tone but not the facts behind the tone. Even though Obama was against the war from the beginning, is that an excuse to cut off funding of our troops while they are in harms way? Maybe not. But, in my mind it is an accurate description. You cannot deny that it is Al-Qaeda who has been fighting us in Iraq for the last 3-4 years. And if we were to cut and run now, it would be a defeat at the hands of those who attacked us on 9/11. According to our generals it would have been a disaster for the Iraqi people who stood by us, much like those in South Vietnam who were slaughtered at the hands of our enemies after our withdrawal from Vietnam Again, I believe McCain was right and Obama was wrong on both points. Wrong. It has always been stated that a withdrawal will be determined by the circumstance on the ground. Both McCain and Bush have been apposed to setting an arbitrary timetable for withdrawal regardless of what is happening of the ground, and they were correct in doing so. God bless, Robin |
|
|
|
Post by moritz on Sept 17, 2008 3:47:53 GMT -8
|
|
|
|
Post by robin on Sept 17, 2008 7:05:41 GMT -8
|
|
|
|
Post by bagels on Sept 18, 2008 19:21:00 GMT -8
Robin, 1st off, that's really lame somehow painting Obama with the leaders of "The Third Reich" (which I can only assume is what you're getting at w/ those commments about 200,000 Germans watching them speak)... Let's forget for a sec that she LIED about her record on government earmarks and that she actually was ORIGINALLY for the famous "Bridge to Nowhere" in Alaska (that she made a huge campaign issue out of being "Against" in the 1st place)...
... have you been watching any of Palin's interviews lately?? She's TERRIBLE. She doesn't answer any specific questions that anyone asks her about her foreign policy issues, and is sounding more incompetent as she is confronted w/ more and more campaign issues...
With that and McCain's insistence the other day that the "Fundamentals of our economy are strong...", I'd be REALLY worried about the debates coming up if I were a Republican. Are you kiddin me!? The last 2 days has produced some of the WORST economic crises in the history of our country, and he's still trying to convince people that the current economic system put in place is still working (knowing that current voters contribute those blunders towards the GOP)... Just a thought that you may consider... ;^)
Kegan
|
|
|
|
Post by Josh on Sept 18, 2008 19:58:17 GMT -8
Nate:
Rose and I watched most of the videos. Thanks for posting them.
Bagels:
I'm always a bit leary about linking economic woes to a political party. In what ways specifically are the current crises linked to Republican-specific policy in your opinion? And how would they be headed off better by future Democratic policies?
|
|
|
|
Post by robin on Sept 18, 2008 20:08:11 GMT -8
She lied? What proof do you have of that? Trust me, I pay very close attention to what is being said, and if I were you (a defender of Obama) I would not bring up honesty. Well thats your opinion, and your entitled to it. I don't think its a very informed one, but none the less your entitled to it. It sounds to me like you have PDS (Palin Derangement Syndrome). It is very common among liberals these days. First of all, I disagree with you. She has answered every question put to her, and done if very confidently and eloquently. Obama has yet to subject himself to any real interview where he will be challenged with difficult questions with the exception of Bill O'Reilly's in which Obama stuttered, stammerd, and lost his composure when pressed on the success of the troop surge. Second of all why are you worried about the Republican VPs foreign policy experience when the top of the Democratic ticket's experience is less impressive. Again, there are certain issues that you may want to avoid, and experience is another one. At least she (Palin) can speak without a tela-prompter, and not use the word "uh" 50 time in a single interview. By the way I'm referring to Obama in case you didn't know. I think it is rather sad that liberals like yourself look at a troubling situation like that of the recent wall street woes as a political issue to be taken advantage of rather than proposing ways to make the situation better. By the way, perhaps Obama should not underestimate the intelligence of the voting public. It will soon surface that those at the heart of the Fannie may/ Freddie Mac woes are now serving him as economic advisor's. Jim Johnson, and Frank Raines are advising Obama, and that does not look good. Basically this is like putting the CEO of Enron at the head of your economic team. It shows a real lack of judgment. It is pretty sad to see Democrats gleeful when so much of the country is hurting right now. Your not really going to tell me that Obama has more experience than McCain, and is better suited to lead us through these time of economic trouble? Well, I will be happy to debate you on each candidates economic plan. That is if you can figure out what Obama's plan consists of.  As far a s the debates go. I think you are dead wrong. Obama by all counts has not looked nearly as presidential as John McCain during either of the first two presidential Forums (the one held by Saddle back, and the most recent hosted by Columbia University). I look forward to the debates and believe the McCain will eat Obama's lunch. On another note, does it not bother you, or anyone else who is supporting Obama, to find out that on his recent trip th Iraq, he asked the Foreign minister of Iraq not to sign a troop withdrawal, and security agreement the the US until after he is elected (A little presumptuous on his part if you ask me). I guess he (obama) only wants a troop withdrawal so long as the timing doesn't hurt him politically. This is really sad, and perhaps illegal. Robin |
|
|
|
Post by Josh on Sept 18, 2008 21:24:09 GMT -8
Yo Democrats and Repbulicans, I'm just going to put in a plug for gentleness every third post or so : Galatians 5:22-26 But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness and self-control. Against such things there is no law. Those who belong to Christ Jesus have crucified the sinful nature with its passions and desires. Since we live by the Spirit, let us keep in step with the Spirit. Let us not become conceited, provoking and envying each other.Philippians 4:5 Let your gentleness be evident to all. The Lord is near.Honestly, my biggest fear about Nov. 4th isn't which candidate will win but how the Church will react- winners and losers (and those who don't care). I think I'm going to invest my political passion deficit into an extreme peacemaking campaign for the body of Christ. Love to y'all, truly. |
|
|
|
Post by bagels on Sept 18, 2008 23:08:18 GMT -8
OK, Robin, I'm not sure where to start w/ your comments. I'll try to move this "argument" into the form of a more positive, "friendly debate," and not get too fired up ... 1st off, you took what I said and ran with it FAR AWAY from the point I was getting at. I wasn't even questioning Palin's foreign policy experience, but merely criticizing her on her lack of "answering questions" directed to her. Also, it is well documented at this point that she was not being truthful when she claimed to be strongly opposed the "Bridge to Nowhere", and there are multiple videos of her showing that she actually supported it in the 1st place. Then, it became very "unfavorable" in the public eye, and she then switched her position and opposed it. It's been clearly documented in the Wall Street Journal and multiple other media outlets, but here's a video that also touched on what I'm referring to. I'll also put her town hall meeting link from yesterday below where she "completely ignored" answering specifics on here foreign policy experience... I'll reiterate again since you kept bringing it up, I did not question any part of Palin or McCain's experience. Now, while you're bringing up Obama's advisors, that's pretty interesting that you failed to mention anything about one of McCain's chief advisors is Phil Gramm, who is known also as "Foreclosure Phil". The cute name aside, he was instrumental in deregulating the banking and mortgage industry (which I happen to be very familiar with during my time in the real-estate market). I'll leave another link if you'd like that gets into specifics about what a HORRIFIC impact he has played in the Subprime meltdown. Admittedly, this is a pretty "Left leaning" article. But once you look at the specific dealings Gramm had w/ the SEC and other legislation he helped push through that are sited in this article, then that aspect doesn't affect the validity of this position... Also, Gramm (if McCain were to be elected), is said to be a "top choice for the head of Treasury Department." To play off your Enron analogy, putting Gramm in that position is like "Breaking back into Alcatraz", or maybe even like putting Donald Duck as the "Chairman of the Speech Pathology Foundation." =^D www.motherjones.com/news/feature/2008/07/foreclosure-phil.htmlBefore I get to bed, I actually want to comment on your use of the word "liberal". Believe it or not, I'm not really not as staunch a liberal as you're making me out to be. I'm a registered "Independent" and use to be more on the conservative side... I think you're going a little too far (i.e. Sean Hannity) in your CONSTANT use of that word to try to villain-ize certain individuals when you don't agree w/ their positions. If you'd like people to take you serious in a debate as a mildly open minded person, I wouldn't recommend repeatedly using that phase because I think you are smarter than that... On a more important note, I STRONGLY RESENT your contention that I am taking the current crisis on Wall Street and taking advantage of it to our political gain. Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac were my company's "life-line" and unbelievably instrumental to our careers as real estate appraisers. Nobody has a better insight to how important a role the FHA and other banking institutions were to us, and now our business is on the verge of going BANKRUPT because of all of the surrounding factors... I am merely stating my opinion that the since the Republicans have had control of the white house (and congress until a year and a half ago), that they should accept a MAJOR, MAJOR amount of responsibility towards the failings in our economy as a whole. I'll also add that I live and work in "McCain's backyard", (yes that's right, the great desert state of Arizona), and his career long, constant support of deregulation and "free market capitalism" have made a major dent in the scope of our local economy down in AZ. Now, Arizona has one of the Top 3 worst housing crisis in the whole country. I could go on and on about the great "firewall financial systems" and regulation guidelines that have made Oregon and Washington (those damn Liberals!! one of the best markets in the country, in comparison... but I'm over it now, and don't think it's necessary... Nice chattin it up wit cha, Robin. It's all in good fun, I know, so I'll be more pleasant to debate with in the future (Josh, this I promise!! =). Good night.... K |
|
What would that mean for the church? I have no shame in saying that America is the greatest nation on God's green earth, (Michael Medveds phrase). The Ideals set forth in our constitution are very Godly and Christian base, by its recognition that men are created equally and free by their creator with certain inalienable rights it fits well with what the bible tells us about our creator and what he has given us. 
). So it doesn't appear voting for president based on this issue is very effective.
Perhaps this is the best endorsement of the McCain / Palin tick yet. ;D