All voters should consider this regardless of which side
Posted By: LookIt on 2008-09-04
In Reply to:
It should be very troubling that the mainstream media has been in the tank for Obama since day one. Ask Hillary Clinton or anyone else who ran (again, R, D, or I).
With that in mind, who gave them the right to choose our next President?
Incidentally, the media (left-wing, of course) actually selected McCain, too. They were absolutely certain that he would be the weakest candidate. Mitt scared the holy hanna out of them. I personally hoped for a Rudy-Fred ticket, in no particular order.
It should be interesting as to how many honest people there are reading this stuff to see how they'll react. Based on what I've read since Palin's speech, she's certainly changed quite a few minds.
The thing that surprises me the most is that the bulk of people on this board is women, yet so many of them put party above the person. I personally don't vote by genitalia. I think it's foolish.
Complete Discussion Below:  marks the location of current message within thread
The messages you are viewing
are archived/old.
To view latest messages and participate in discussions, select
the boards given in left menu
Other related messages found in our database
Where were all the voters before?
Good point. I vote in every election, whether it be for president or town dog catcher. It is really pathetic to see the low turnout time after time unless it is the presidential election or a tax overide on the ballot. And I live in a town with a majority of senior citizens, can't imagine how low the turnout would be without them.
When my Dad was alive and we lived in the same town, he would check the list when you first signed in to make sure our names were crossed off indicating that we had voted. Look out if you had not. He was a big bad Boston police officer and you did not want to cross him!
It also comes down to those voters
who had no clue what they were voting for and did no research at all and just voted for the celeb candidate. How many people did interviewers stop and question about Obama and McCain and they had no clue who was for what or who their VPs were, etc......but they were voting for Obama.
I know that all people have a right to vote but I think sometimes we should really restrict that. LOL! Too may ignorant people not knowing who they are voting for but they are voting just to vote.
tell that to the voters who are only voting for O
There were thousands of voters........ sm
who voted in this election who were not informed or educated on the issues or the candidates. I don't see much of a difference, do you?
American voters do not trust
the fact that this is a real "crisis". Don't want to allow Bush to force congress into another debacle like the funding for the war before he is dragged from the WH kicking and screaming. McCain is asking for time out so he can rest and catch his breath.
the voters don't decide the election- sm
Perhaps you forgot, or don't even know, that it isn't the voters who actually decide the election anyway. It is the electoral college. We could all boycott (although that would be stupid beyond belief as our voices would not be heard at all) and it would not affect the election results anyway. Get it??
If it weren't for uninformed voters
NEITHER candidate would have a chance.
VOTING BY WRITE-IN VOTE FOR LOU DOBBS!!!!!!!!!
Too bad that over half the voters disagree with you.
.
There are a lot of voters across America who make
$250,000 or more who are voting for Obama. These are the same folks who will pay more taxes under Obama's tax plan. It goes to show even the wealthy who will be taxed more by Obama's tax plan, still want him to be President. I hear JTP complain but he is not making much money and he owes back taxes. There must be something right about Obama if the wealthy who are going to get a tax increase, are voting for him.
Of course they did. But at issue here is showing voters
I did not call you an imbecile. I said your posts are imbecilic. Being a hot-headed Obama supporter, according to the red camp, I have no character to degrade, so evidently I have nothing to lose by calling it like I see it. BTW, I've probably done all the growing I'm gonna do by age 64.
Belittling intelligent voters
just end up making you and yours look very, very small. It is sad to see the other party's apparent complusion to tear down something they cannot quite understand. Better luck next time with your candidate, your campaign strategy and your capacity to muster up the hope and inspiration so many Americans are feeling today. Maybe you too can find a way to feel a bit more proud of who you are and who seeks to represent you.
Speaking of stupid voters....(sm)
http://www.break.com/index/redneck-woman-rails-on-obama.html
stupid voters are an embarrassment to all of us huh!!!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bUC3ORbhjTg
Voters Send a Pro-Choice message
I read this in my local paper this evening. The entire column is a bit too long to post, but I personally found it interesting. Some highlights:
In three states, abortion was literally on the ballot. In South Dakota, a ban amounting to outright criminalization of the procedure was defeated soundly, going down by a yawning margin in a deeply red state. In California and Oregon, voters turned back efforts to mandate parental involvement in abortions for teenagers -- it's the second time California has rejected the proposal.
---
As Democrats seized control of the Senate, abortion-rights supporters gained ground. Incoming Sens. Sherrod Brown of Ohio, Jon Tester of Montana, Claire McCaskill of Missouri and Jim Webb of Virginia all support abortion rights. They all are set to replace anti-abortion Republicans -- and will vote in the chamber that decides on the fate of nominees to the Supreme Court.
In the House, at least 22 new pro-choice members are to replace lawmakers whose records were either anti-abortion or mixed on the issue, according to a count by NARAL Pro-Choice America. Final results in a few races still are unknown.
---
In Arizona's 5th Congressional District, where anti-abortion Republican incumbent J.D. Hayworth was defeated by Democrat Harry Mitchell, residents received fliers mocking Hayworth's support for letting pharmacists who say they personally oppose contraception to refuse to fill birth-control prescriptions. ``Sleeping pills? I don't believe in sleeping pills,'' a genial-looking middle-aged man in a white coat says in the flier. ``Try counting sheep.'' Tying incumbents to the pharmacist-refusal issue, as well as to their widespread opposition to emergency contraception, showed these lawmakers to be precisely where they are: Outside the mainstream.
Any comments?
Voters do this when candidates spout fvalues.
nm
I do not think there will be anything negative from family values voters...
I do not believe they will react negatively to this. What kind of man would McCain have been to decide not to choose her just because her daughter was pregnant and not married. What if she was pregnant and married? This whole thing just reeks. Like Obama said...children should not be involved in politics and this will not affect her ability to function as governor or as vice president. At least one on the left is being decent about this.
Yeah, and a large number of those new voters are
coming out saying they will vote for McCain now.
to foster relations with the Muslim voters...
both campaigns are needing those votes - not just Obama. There are Muslims in this country that are American citizens and they do get a vote too.
Probably because after 35 years, voters probably feel confident
Guess Biden's appearance in front of 3875 University of Northern Colorado students earlier today was just our/their collective imaginations. Tune in tomorrow for his 8:30 am stop in Colorado Springs, his afternoon stump in Pueblo or perhaps Thursday's in Raleigh NC rally. There is no reason whatsoever for Biden or the campaign to blink an eye over Biden stating the obvious about a new president being tested. He can also comfortably shine light on the experience issue (double-digit lead an all) since McCain gave up any credibility on that subject the minute he picked SP. Did you see the new polls top pick regarding what McCain's greatest liability is? But there should be no suprise there. Voters would have to be crazy to think she is ready to lead when she does not even understand her own job description and didn't have the sense to read the Constitution after the last 2 times she botched that question.
Typical pub. Underestimates the intelligence of US voters.
x
Obama has played the voters for fools...
http://exposingliberallies.blogspot.com/2008/10/obama-has-played-voters-for-fools.html
To think that conservatives have viewed Bill and Hillary Clinton as unethical politicians who would do anything to get elected. When we are as disgusted as we think we possibly can be, on to the political stage steps Barack Obama. The senator from Illinois makes Bill and Hillary look “not quite so bad”.
Though they enjoyed paling around with Yasser Arafat, we didn’t have the all-consuming fear that they would completely sell-out Israel, nor did we have to worry about them supporting infanticide, though they saw nothing wrong with partial-birth abortion.
Yes, Obama keeps his pants on when away from his “bitter-half,“ Michelle, but that’s not much comfort when he has campaigned for Kenyan Prime Minister Raila Odinga who made a pact with Kenyan Muslims to institute Sharia law.
http://exposingliberallies.blogspot.com/2008/10/obama-funds-odinga-who-promises-sharia.html
Thomas Sowell has written an article in National Review describing how Obama has played the American people for fools.
http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=ZTQ5YTM3M2UzMjY3N2M3YWRiMDI0NzNmMTNhNjJlNTc=
“Although Senator Barack Obama has been allied with a succession of far-Left individuals over the years, that is only half the story. There are, after all, some honest and decent people on the Left. But these have not been the ones that Obama has been allied with — allied, not merely ‘associated’ with.
ACORN is not just an organization on the left. In addition to the voter frauds that ACORN has been involved in over the years, it is an organization with a history of thuggery, including going to bankers’ homes to harass them and their families, in order to force banks to lend to people with low credit ratings.
Nor was Barack Obama’s relationship with ACORN just a matter of once being their attorney long ago. More recently, he has directed hundreds of thousands of dollars their way. Money talks — and what it says is more important than a politician’s rhetoric in an election year.
Jeremiah Wright and Michael Pfleger are not just people with left-wing opinions. They are reckless demagogues preaching hatred of the lowest sort — and both are recipients of money from Obama.
Bill Ayers is not just ‘an education professor’ who has some left-wing views. He is a confessed and unrepentant terrorist, who more recently has put his message of resentment into the schools — an effort using money from a foundation that Obama headed.
Nor has the help all been one way. During the last debate between John McCain and Barack Obama, Senator McCain mentioned that Sen. Obama’s political campaign began in Bill Ayers’s home. Obama immediately denied it and McCain had no real follow-up.
It was not this year’s political campaign that Obama began in Bill Ayers’s home but an earlier campaign for the Illinois state legislature. Barack Obama can match Bill Clinton in slickness at parsing words to evade accusations.
That is one way to get to the White House. But slickness with words is not going to help a president deal with either domestic economic crises or the looming dangers of a nuclear Iran.
People who think that talking points on this or that problem constitute ‘the real issues’ that we should be talking about, instead of Obama’s track record, ignore a very fundamental fact about representative government.
Representative government exists, in the first place, because we the voters cannot possibly have all the information necessary to make rational decisions on all the things that the government does. We cannot rule through polls or referendums. We must trust someone to represent us, especially as President of the United States.
Once we recognize this basic fact of representative government, then the question of how trustworthy a candidate is becomes a more urgent question than any of the so-called ‘real issues.’
A candidate who spends two decades promoting polarization and then runs as a healer and uniter, rather than a divider, forfeits all trust by that fact alone.
If Ronald Reagan had attempted to run for president of the United States as a liberal, the media would have been all over him. His support for Barry Goldwater would have been in the headlines and in editorial denunciations across the country.
No way would he have been able to get away with using soothing words to suggest that he and Barry Goldwater were like ships that passed in the night.
If Barack Obama had run as what he has always been, rather than as what he has never been, then we could simply cast our votes based on whether or not we agree with what he has always stood for.
Some people take solace from the fact that Senator Obama has verbally shifted position on some issues, like drilling for oil or gun control, since this is supposed to show that he is ‘pragmatic’ rather than ideological.
But political zigzags show no such moderation as some seem to assume. Lenin zigzagged and so did Hitler. Zigzags may show no more than that someone is playing the public for fools.
Some people who see the fraud in what Obama is saying are amazed that others do not. But Obama knows what con men have long known, that their job is not to convince skeptics but to enable the gullible to continue to believe what they want to believe. He does that very well.”
Right on, brother! Right on! It’s refreshing to see a black conservative who stands on principle and doesn’t support Obama just because of his dark pigment. I’m speaking of you, General Powell.
To all well-educated voters and free thinkers...
On Tuesday night, If and when Barack Hussein Obama wins the 2008 United States Presidential Election, please join me in announcing that "The tribe has spoken, and that John McCain, Sarah Palin, and the ubiquitous Sam have officially been voted off the island!"
No, Obama voters will be stomping and kicking
nm
I think Obama will ask his voters to vote for who he wants in; I hope not though! nm
Voters who actually read party platforms and plans
the distinctions between $250,000, $200,000 and $150,000. The figures apply to a variety of tax structures which have been clearly laid out for those interested in something other than basing their vote on dead-end issue-dodging, obsfucation, misinformation, character slurs and the like. You can read up or not. The information is there for the taking.
If it weren't for uninformed voters, Obama wouldn't have a chance.
Did you happen to catch John Stossel's report on 20/20 last night?
Uninformed Obama voters....brought to you by the biased media...sm
Unfortunately, I know a lot of people who voted for Obama, several of my relatives included....and they don't know even half of the answers to these questions either. They believe exactly what the media tells them to believe (or not to believe....)
The voting machines is a must to make voters confident their votes are counting...sm
But the Democrat party needs to delineate what separates them from the republican party as terms of what direction they will take the country. That is definitely uncertain. The chances of them getting their voters out to the polls will be better, I think.
It's a dark day in America when voters dare to feel inspired and hopeful?
rasberries
Young Voters Fall for Obama’s Promises Without Any Historical Perspective..sm
Election 2008: Young Voters Fall for Obama’s Promises Without Any Historical Perspective
By Liz Peek
Financial Columnist
Today we will almost surely elect Barack Obama President of the United States. A new generation will vote for Mr. Obama –- a generation that has grown up with the Internet. This new crop of voters has access to more information than any that came before, and yet has swallowed Obama’s impossible campaign promises and contradictory policies just as trustingly as those who in earlier times looked for a chicken in every pot.
Welcome to the disillusionment of another generation. I don’t anticipate this inevitable consequence of today’s election with any glee, believe me. To see young people turning out in droves to vote for this eloquent, attractive young man is inspiring. To hear them buy into his promises, though, is sobering.
For instance, we are told that the image of the United States has suffered mightily under George Bush, and that Obama is going to usher in a veritable global love-fest. Would those falling over themselves to herald our new president include the peoples of South Korea and Colombia –- allies both — whose much-needed free trade agreements with the U.S. Obama has opposed?
How about our neighbors in Canada or Mexico; will Obama’s promised re-write of NAFTA endear them to the U.S.? Is it possible that Obama’s opposition to free trade demonstrates his gratitude to labor unions –- groups that aroused his ire by donating to the Clinton and Edwards campaigns but suddenly were much more warmly welcomed when they began shifting funds his way?
Over a year ago I wrote a tongue-in-cheek column defending the status quo against the pressing demand for “Change” writ large. While politicians of all stripes were heralding new directions, they were ignoring, for example, that the U.S. has been blessed for many years with low inflation. Voters in their 30s and 40s could not be expected to remember the devastating inflation of the 1970s. They couldn’t be expected to understand how double-digit price hikes threw the fear of God into retirees on fixed incomes and created the same kind of paralysis in lending that we are witnessing today.
They might not connect the dots between Obama’s enthusiasm for the Employee Free Choice Act, a resurgence of unionization, and wage-driven inflation. They might not realize that restricting trade with China, re-writing NAFTA and barring adoption of free trade agreements with Colombia and South Korea will indeed drive prices higher.
The United States has also enjoyed a period of stable employment. The new generation has never seen serious unemployment. True, they have witnessed shifts in employment as manufacturing jobs have been lost to lower-priced locales. But they have never seen unemployment rates go much above 6%, where it is now. In 1982, when unemployment reached 9.7%, Obama was 21 years old. I doubt he was much focused on the dismal state of the economy. Voters, however, were focused, and gave Ronald Reagan a mandate to set the country on a new course –- one which encouraged growth through lower taxes, expanded trade and deregulation.
That program was adopted by both Democrats and Republicans because it worked. People in their thirties and forties cannot imagine that raising taxes on successful people might harm the economy. That’s because they weren’t around to witness the exodus of talent from England –- a country wherein punitive marginal tax rates squashed incentives and drove out anyone who could locate elsewhere. Margaret Thatcher didn’t just join the Reagan Revolution –- she clung to it for dear life.
What young voters have seen, and have responded to, is the collapse of Wall Street. Because bankers, politicians and speculators conspired to create the worst investment bubble in modern times, we are about to abandon the policies that brought millions of people around the world into the middle class. Policies that gave people real hope –- not just its rhetorical facsimile. This is a tragedy.
http://foxforum.blogs.foxnews.com/2008/11/04/lpeek_1104/#more-2415
I was never on SP's side.... s/m
but I think that it was extremely tasteless of this Canadian comedian to post as
French President Sarkozy and interview her for 5 minutes and making fun of her.
Extremely tasteless.
After all she was the running mate of McCain.
I am a democrat.
I don't think that either side... sm
has much room to talk.
I have seen articles, opinions and links posted, apparently by Republicans, about the issues facing Obama, and the first replies are the childish Dems who come on and say "well, it's Bush's fault that he has this or that to deal with" or some other childish remark.
By the same token, I have seen what I believe to be Democrats posting nasty articles and opinions about Sarah Palin and how she is giving interviews, how she obviously doesn't have the sense to be a major political player or whether she gave the clothes back to the party before going back to Alaska.
I'm with BWT. I think the childishness and catiness that I have seen on this board for the last week or so need to end and let's get to discussing the issues at hand. We won't be able to solve a danged one of them, but we can have a civilized adult discussion and we might even learn a thing or two from each other.
Reach across the aisle, folks. 
We are on the same side
I wanted to post and did not want to respond to an Ann fan, so I posted under your reasonable statement.
no just one side
This problem is not just a dem/repub problem. It is a greedy CEO/Wallstreet problem as well. It is a mass amounts of people went out and bought things they couldnt afford and houses they didnt need and couldnt afford problem. Did the gov make them go out and do that? Who made all these people sign their names on these subprime short arm loans that collapsed? It is their fault too. It is also a welfare problem. You know, those people who would rather pop out kids for a job than work for real.
...and just you on the other side.
...but not LAST night.
Get a job.
No one took Eric's side. sm
 But then, you know that. The rest I won't argue with you about. If you use science against God's Word, what more can I say.
The Other Side of Mel Gibson...sm
Disney Cancels Mel Gibson Holocaust Series
The ABC television network has pulled a miniseries about the Holocaust it was developing with Mel Gibson 's production company, the Wall Street Journal reported Tuesday, quoting an unidentified representative for the network.
Gibson was arrested on suspicion of drunk driving early on Friday and was reported to have launched into a tirade against Jews, asking the arresting officer if he was a Jew and blaming the Jews for starting all wars.
The actor, who holds strong conservative Catholic religious and political views and whose father is a Holocaust denier, apologized on Saturday.
The incident has raised questions about the future of projects Gibson and his Icon Productions company are working on, like the ABC television miniseries based on a memoir about a Dutch Jew during World War II, the newspaper said An ABC representative told the paper, without elaborating, it has been two years and the network still has not seen a script, so the project is being pulled.
A spokesperson for ABC, which is owned by Walt Disney Co. , could not be reached for comment.
Disney's movie studio arm still plans to release Gibson 's self-financed Mayan-language movie Apocalypto on Dec. 8, Hollywood's trade papers reported. The Web site Slate.com quoted Walt Disney Studios president Oren Aviv as saying he accepted Gibson 's apology.
Copyright Reuters 2006. All rights reserved. Republication or redistribution of Reuters content, including by caching, framing or similar means, is expressly prohibited without the prior written consent of Reuters.
We're on the same side
I am trying to understand where all this animosity is coming from. Why does it bother you so much that the last democratic president and former first lady/candidate/senator are going to be at the convention? How would it look if they weren’t there? Hillary and Obama are basically on the same page when it comes to policy, so I am guessing this is a personality issue for you? During the primaries, her tactics and strategies left a lot to be desired, to be sure, which may have been a mitigating factor as to why Obama was ultimately able to come out on top but, let’s face it, not by much. It will be extremely important that the party get past its in-fighting and focus on the task at hand of winning the election in November.
Bill and Hillary Clinton are and will remain influential party leaders for a some time to come. It appears that it is her die-hard base supporters that are acting like children. They are the ones who prolonging the division and ill-will which you are expressing here. Both the Clintons have been selected by the Democratic National Convention Committee to speak in Denver for good reason. The DNC recognizes just how pivotal their roles will be in bringing the party back together. This group of HRC’s supporters who are planning to disrupt the convention and demand a roll-call are not very likely to succeed in this effort. This serves no useful purpose whatsoever and is in nobody’s best interests.
Hillary will eventually “crawl back into her hole,” as you so eloquently put it, and return to her position as a junior senator, but not until she has done her job of trying to encourage party unity. I suspect that she still has much to contribute in that capacity and in roles yet undefined in terms of advancing party policies. Try not to take what the newscasters say as gospel. They relish in scandal and controversy. Do not give them the satisfaction. It should come as no surprise that the Clintons are disappointed in the primary results, but that does not mean that they are supposed to fade on off into the sunset. It is not their time to pass...not just yet.
Bill Clinton, a racist? Where is this coming from? Fox News? He does not hide behind mansion walls in the ghetto. His foundation continues to advance the cause of civil and human rights, both here and abroad. It is unfair to write HRC off as a disgrace to women who needs to “just go away,” based on this one less than stellar chapter in her political career. She is much more than that, just as Bill Clinton is much than the "impeached president" you so casually dismiss. I am wondering if you hated him this much while he was in office, or did this arise out of the recent primary process?
In any case, if Obama is defeated, HRC will not be responsible. It will be this divisive in-fighting within the party members that will be the reason. We are between the primaries and the convention. The entire campaign still lies ahead of us. Just give it a little more time. You will see Hillary and Bill come around as party loyalists who will play perhaps the most key roles of all in party unification. This is not just their job. It is up to all democrats to come together this fall and keep their eyes on the prize. Perpetuating this kind of division does nothing to advance that cause. Is this hatred really worth harboring to the extent that, in the end, we will be facing 4 or 8 more years of a republican regime? Try to keep that in mind the next time you find yourself this riled up, and ask yourself what I ask you now….where is this really coming from? I think I know the answer, but I am more interested in hearing yours at the moment.
Disrespect is nothing new on your side...
and it is not just directed at me, and to suggest so is being dishonest at best. You tolerate no opinion other than your own, want to discuss only issues that you are pro and do not tolerate discussion of any other viewpoint, and for people who call themselves Democrats that is a very undemocratic attitude. You hate an entire group of people (all Republicans...well I should say anyone who is not Democrat) for no reason other than that. Two sides? That's rich! There have never been 2 sides.
As to domination of the board....there are about 6 or 8 of you guys to 1 of mine. lol. Talk about blinders.
"Woe to the other side who does not
recognize it." What I saw was very scary, an individual who has not clue one about what is going on in this country or out of it. Very scared, indeed. Woe, indeed. You make this election sound like a football game. This is our country, our children's future that is at stake. And no, I didn't find her very knowledgeable in the least, just mouthing words and throwing something someone told her to say. We will see, but I pray to God these two do not get elected.
The other side of the story....
http://www.newsmax.com/smith/barack_obama_tony_rezko/2008/09/02/126890.html
Another side of the coin.....
I respect your beliefs and am very happy you found your niche in life and saved your marriage. Kudos to you! I myself do not question Obama's morals - and I can't say that I question McCain's either. But, Bush got into the white house based on deceptive strategies aimed at leading the populace to believe he was on the moral high ground. (I see the same strategy being used in McCain's campaign). In view of what has transpired over the last 8 years, my faith in the pubs moral high ground has been trampled beyond repair. I believe torture of other human beings to be reprehensible and not advocated by any religion, but it continues and McCain supported it - even though he himself was tortured as a POW. The sex scandals - Larry Craig (airport bathrooms - it was illegal - otherwise, I don't care who he has sex with), Mark Foley (Repub House Representative - Once known as a crusader against child abuse and exploitation, Foley resigned from Congress on September 29, 2006 after allegations surfaced that he had sent suggestive emails and sexually explicit instant messages to teenaged males who had formerly served and were at that time serving as Congressional pages) and now the scandal surrounding the Department of the Interior on charges of getting into bed with big oil (literally and figuratively) drug abuse, etc. I find the whole thing ridiculous to base your campaign on "personality" and moral high ground. I am not saying that Dems did not have their issues with sex scandals - as we all know.
I believe Jesus Christ was once a very highly evolved human being and no longer has to incarnate as a human as he has reached perfection. I believe Buddha was a very highly evolved human being who no longer has to incarnate for the same reason. I believe that Ghandi and Mother Theresa were highly evolved. I believe that energy never disappears, it only changes form. I believe in life after death. I believe that love is the most important thing in life. Humans are not perfect. I do not believe that sex is sin. Dolphins have sex for pleasure and I am not equating humans to aquatic life - but Dolphins are highly intelligent. Do you think God judges them for indulging in pleasure? I believe that exploiting the vulnerable for sex is morally wrong (children, women....that's as far as I'll go on that). Sex between 2 consenting adults is not wrong.
I believe that every religion has it's place on earth and I am in no way authorized or vetted to judge which one is right and which one is wrong. They are all right. Paganism, Wiccan, the Jewish faith, Catholic, Muslim, etc., etc. We, as humans, have the right to decide what is right for us in that regard.
I think all religions know the difference between right and wrong and stealing from others, torturing others, even JUDGING others is morally wrong. You can boil it down to not having ANYTHING to do with religion.
And to believe that whoever is in the white house holds your moral values as a primary reason for decisions that are made is naive. I think the last 8 years proves that and for that reason, I fear more of the same. I am willing to cross party lines just to see if this disaster of a country can be repaired.
The other side of the coin....
Karl Rove would be working to get any Republican elected. That is what he does. He is not a member of the campaign and it is a free country...he can advocate anyone he wants.
If Obama was serious about change he would not have picked a senator who has been in the senate over 30 years. That is not change. That is also more of the same.
James Johnson, of Fannie Mae/Freddie Mac fame, who used to be an economic advisor to Obama...after he came under scrutiny for possible fraud, he left the OBama campaign with his tail between his legs. Don't see much difference in the two.
Other side of the story...
http://www.nydailynews.com/news/politics/2008/09/16/2008-09-16_john_mccain_campaign_releases_troopergat.html
I'm just going to explain our side...
please don't start a war about this.
We are taught in the Bible that homosexuality is wrong and that marriage is between ONE man and ONE woman. We believe in the holy sanctity of marriage. Therefore it is violating the laws of God when homosexuals marry.
Again, it is not the homosexuals that we "hate" or "despise". It is the sin of homosexuality.
I do believe homosexuals are born that way. We are all born into sinful natures. Remember, in God's eyes, all sins are equal. We all have natural tendencies, and that includes homosexuality. I was born a compulsive liar. Since as far back as I can remember I have lied about anything and everything. Now that I am a Christian, that doesn't change. But with the help of Christ I am changing that and I have put away my sinful nature of lying. In the same sense, when a homosexual comes to know the true Christ, He will give them new desires and help them to withstand the temptation to go back to their old ways.
I know most of you won't understand this, but I just wanted to give you our viewpoint. True Christians do not hate homosexuals, or blacks, or immigrants, or abortionists, or anyone else. We just hate the sin, because sin separates us from God.
We want a president who is going to keep the sanctity of marriage, meaning one man and one woman. Marriage came from God, and it is a holy matrimony.
Please don't flame, I'm just trying to explain in a way that maybe you can understand. I see it from your side too. Before I became a Christian I didn't understand the big deal either. But now I do and I see the big picture. If God had meant for man and man or woman and woman to be together, he would have given us the "parts" to be able to do so.
On the lighter side (maybe)
This was sent to me from a friend. Don't know where the info came from.
Guess who I am?
I am 42 years old
I love the outdoors,
I hunt,
I am a Republican reformer,
I have taken on the Republican Party establishment,
I have five children,
I have a spot on the national ticket as vice-president
with less than two years in the governor's office.
Who am I?
|
|
|
|
|
V
I am Teddy Roosevelt in 1900
How can anyone say that Sarah Palin is not qualified?
|
And I'll be right there on the side with you.
I gotta take a break, this board is making me crazy.
On a side note..
Where in the Mojave desert did you live? I grew up in a tiny town called Inyokern and went to high school in Lone Pine.
On the up side of things.........sm
Since I've been such a downer, gloom and doom "prophet" in my last posts  , here is an article that recommends buying now, if you have the cash and the stomach for it, and reap the rewards 10 or 20 years down the road. Might be our solution to no Social Security when that time comes.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/27829555/
I think I have the other side of the story.
I've been watching all those other stations for years. I just started watching Fox lately. How much more "open-minded" do you want me to be???
...and on the flip side...we will soon see...sm
what Obama will do with his regime.
I have a feeling it won't be pretty.
At least we'll have a reason to throw all the democrats out of all branches of offices when they fall flat on their you know whatsits, and find they can't do what they think they can.
The American people won't stand for what the country is about to become, you included, once you wise up and see what's about to come.
|
!["](http://www.blogger.com/img/icon18_edit_allbkg.gif"){kind=icon}
0 comments:
Post a Comment