Saddleback Forum

[30ashopper]

Is anybody else watching this?

[Andy A.]

Yep, I am. SoWalling during commercials. Obama is doing well so far.

[30ashopper]

This guy is soo good at this. :) I like the Supreme Court answer. Perfect.

[Rita]

.
Thanks!

I just caught the end. I guess I'll be able to see it all at some point later?

.

[30ashopper]

This guy is soo good at this. :) I like the Supreme Court answer. Perfect.

Looks like McCain is pretty good at this too!

[30ashopper]

John McCain rocks!

[30ashopper]

CNN is doing very good damage control. Thier close in interview is working well. $10 says they'll not be interview McCain.

[Margarita]

I loved this forum and expecially the format which provided voters a great opportunity to compare and contrast Senator Obama and Senator McCain. I applaud both candidates for their willingness to participate and wish that we could see more events like this one. I feel that it was especially beneficial for the undecided swing voters who will decide this election.

[Bob]

I really love the mixing of politics and religion. Works well in Iran.

[30A Skunkape]

I really love the mixing of politics and religion. Works well in Iran.

:lolabove: ziiiiing!

[idlewind]

This guy is soo good at this. :) I like the Supreme Court answer. Perfect.

Yea, I loved Obama's slam on Thomas. He is the perfect person to comment on someone's inexperience and lack of credentials for a job.:floor::funn::rolling::rofl::lol:

[Andy A.]

I am really wondering if the SoWal political forum watched any of this well put together approach to questions Americans on both sides of the aisle have on their minds. It was a good performance by both candidates. I think it is obvious to anyone who watched the whole forum that McCain had the most succinct and precise answers to the questions asked of both candidates. I feel this is so, because for one thing, the silence from the left, usually present on this board, has been deafening. Cat got your tongue?

[Margarita]

I am really wondering if the SoWal political forum watched any of this well put together approach to questions Americans on both sides of the aisle have on their minds. It was a good performance by both candidates. I think it is obvious to anyone who watched the whole forum that McCain had the most succinct and precise answers to the questions asked of both candidates. I feel this is so, because for one thing, the silence from the left, usually present on this board, has been deafening. Cat got your tongue?

Couldn't agree more!!! I thought that the questions were outstanding and McCains answers made me proud to support him. :clap::clap:

[hnooe]

I really love the mixing of politics and religion. Works well in Iran.


ZING!!!! Bingo. Absolutely freightening. Now they are BOTH scaring me!!!

[InletBchDweller]

I am really wondering if the SoWal political forum watched any of this well put together approach to questions Americans on both sides of the aisle have on their minds. It was a good performance by both candidates. I think it is obvious to anyone who watched the whole forum that McCain had the most succinct and precise answers to the questions asked of both candidates. I feel this is so, because for one thing, the silence from the left, usually present on this board, has been deafening. Cat got your tongue?

http://www.nyworms.com/images/groupcrickets.jpg

[30A Skunkape]

I am really wondering if the SoWal political forum watched any of this well put together approach to questions Americans on both sides of the aisle have on their minds. It was a good performance by both candidates. I think it is obvious to anyone who watched the whole forum that McCain had the most succinct and precise answers to the questions asked of both candidates. I feel this is so, because for one thing, the silence from the left, usually present on this board, has been deafening. Cat got your tongue?

Succinct answers woo concrete thinkers. Prolonged answers appeal to those who think abstractly. The point of the exercise was for McCain to solidify the concrete thinkers' vote. I'm pretty sure Obama wanted people to see him answering questions about religion without invoking Allah's name. What else is there to discuss?

[idlewind]

I really love the mixing of politics and religion. Works well in Iran.

Did you watch the event? The vast majority of the content was secular and about the issues of the day.:clap: The format was the best I have seen. (although I am not quite old enough to remember the Lincoln-Douglas debates):funn: Both men had ample time to fully answer the same questions in a very civil forum. The fact that it was held in a church was downplayed and had little impact on the event. I wish that there were more such events as I learned alot about both men and their views on the future of this country.:clap:

[Geo]

I haven't seen the event in its entirety (I hope CNN will reair it asap). But without having seen it I want to share two random items-

1) The political blogs are being overrun by rumors that McCain wasn't in a "Cone of Silence" during Obama's Q&A (Obama went first) but rather that McCain was in a limo on his way. So folks are saying that he was so concise because he already heard the questions and his opponent's answers...

Interesting...

EDIT: This is not my opinion- I don't have one yet and am only reporting what others are saying on political blogs...

2) Irrespective of how good or bad the forum was (I haven't seen it all yet)-
I have a real problem with a presidential debate (or whatever they call it) being conducted by or in a/the Evangelical Church...

I would say the same thing if it was hosted by Catholics, Jews, Christian Scientists, Muslims, INSERT RELIGION HERE, etc.

It is scary to me that this occurred and reminds me of how powerful and pervasive churches are...

Love Bob's earlier Iran comment...

2 cents,
G

[drivingtheview]

This was mentioned previously, but I thought I heard this while watching the replay last night. Check out Obama's almost slip at the 38 second mark of this youtube clip. He almost slammed Clarence Thomas for his lack of "ex!" Wow that was close. No doubt he did not want to get into a discussion about "experience."

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3uV538Hqh-k

Heard a guy on the radio perfectly sum up my thoughts today. Based on their answers, John McCain has lived an amazing, fascinating life with incredible experiences as compared to Obama's. I'm not saying his life has been better. The question that seperated these two was the "most gut-wrenching decision you've ever had to make." EVER! Obama said his was the opposition to the Iraq war. He was in the Illinois Senate when the Iraq war vote came up. So he had no "gut wrenching decision" to make anyway (that anyone cared about at the time). Compare that answer to McCain's decision to stay in the P.O.W. camp. One of those responses was slightly more gut wrenching than the other.

[LuciferSam]

I haven't seen the event in its entirety (I hope CNN will reair it asap). But without having seen it I want to share two random items-

1) The political blogs are being overrun by rumors that McCain wasn't in a "Cone of Silence" during Obama's Q&A (Obama went first) but rather that McCain was in a limo on his way. So folks are saying that he was so concise because he already heard the questions and his opponent's answers...

Interesting...

EDIT: This is not my opinion- I don't have one yet and am only reporting what others are saying on political blogs...

2) Irrespective of how good or bad the forum was (I haven't seen it all yet)-
I have a real problem with a presidential debate (or whatever they call it) being conducted by or in a/the Evangelical Church...

I would say the same thing if it was hosted by Catholics, Jews, Christian Scientists, Muslims, INSERT RELIGION HERE, etc.

It is scary to me that this occurred and reminds me of how powerful and pervasive churches are...

Love Bob's earlier Iran comment...

2 cents,
G

I think there can be a fine line beween being concise and being incomplete. This forum was at least advertised as being a spiritual forum which to me means spiritual/philosophical. It was intended to show the way the candidates think and address the bigger less concrete issues. I have no problem with McCain wanting to rattle off quick decisive answers, but I can't fault Obama for really listening to some of the questions carefully and giving thoughtful answers. The one that stands out was the question about evil. "Does evil exist and if it does, do we ignore it, do we negotiate with it, do we contain it or do we defeat it?" It's a two part question and Obama addressed the first part "Evil does exist. I mean we see evil all the time.... then said we should confront it. He then said we can never erase evil from the world which is honest and true.

Mccain did not answer the two part question as asked. He did not acknowledge the first part of the question by saying evil does exist. He merely said "defeat it. This is a strong answer that will appeal to a lot of people but is it realistic and honest? I say no. Furthermore he got almost frighteningly agitated in talking about his resolve to catch OBL. I think he may be consumed by his personal failure in Vietnam (he was no flying ace) and the trauma he endured in captivity. For McCain "evil" is an excuse to re-fight Vietnam again and again and again. Do we really need 100 years of flag draped coffins? He uses the expression "my friends" a lot, but I say with friends like him, who needs enemies? If he is elected it will become the new "F" word.

[30A Skunkape]

I haven't seen the event in its entirety (I hope CNN will reair it asap). But without having seen it I want to share two random items-

1) The political blogs are being overrun by rumors that McCain wasn't in a "Cone of Silence" during Obama's Q&A (Obama went first) but rather that McCain was in a limo on his way. So folks are saying that he was so concise because he already heard the questions and his opponent's answers...

Interesting...

EDIT: This is not my opinion- I don't have one yet and am only reporting what others are saying on political blogs...

2) Irrespective of how good or bad the forum was (I haven't seen it all yet)-
I have a real problem with a presidential debate (or whatever they call it) being conducted by or in a/the Evangelical Church...

I would say the same thing if it was hosted by Catholics, Jews, Christian Scientists, Muslims, INSERT RELIGION HERE, etc.

It is scary to me that this occurred and reminds me of how powerful and pervasive churches are...

Love Bob's earlier Iran comment...

2 cents,
G

I am interested to hear you expand on why you think it was 'scary' that this forum was conducted by a religious group. 'Pervasive'? It sounds like you are describing (unflatteringly) liquor stores or Wal-Marts instead of assemblies protected by our Constitution.

[Margarita]

This was mentioned previously, but I thought I heard this while watching the replay last night. Check out Obama's almost slip at the 38 second mark of this youtube clip. He almost slammed Clarence Thomas for his lack of "ex!" Wow that was close. No doubt he did not want to get into a discussion about "experience."

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3uV538Hqh-k

Heard a guy on the radio perfectly sum up my thoughts today. Based on their answers, John McCain has lived an amazing, fascinating life with incredible experiences as compared to Obama's. I'm not saying his life has been better. The question that seperated these two was the "most gut-wrenching decision you've ever had to make." EVER! Obama said his was the opposition to the Iraq war. He was in the Illinois Senate when the Iraq war vote came up. So he had no "gut wrenching decision" to make anyway (that anyone cared about at the time). Compare that answer to McCain's decision to stay in the P.O.W. camp. One of those responses was slightly more gut wrenching than the other.

I found it incredible that Obama said that Clarence Thomas " was not a strong enough jurist or legal thinker at the time". He took a shot at Thomas' intelligence. Interesting that Obama thinks that Clarence Thomas did not have the resume to be nominated to the Supreme Court but he thinks he has the resume to be President of the United States. :idontno:

[hnooe]

Succinct answers woo concrete thinkers. Prolonged answers appeal to those who think abstractly. The point of the exercise was for McCain to solidify the concrete thinkers' vote. I'm pretty sure Obama wanted people to see him answering questions about religion without invoking Allah's name. What else is there to discuss?

Exactly: Which explains the Republican and Democratic divide as to who did a better job at Saddleback--succinct and simple answers appeal to the Republicans (all black and white); detailed, big picture thinking appeals to the Democrats (includes important shades of gray).

[Margarita]

Interesting that when Obama stammered and stuttered and had trouble forming a sentence he is described as thoughtful and nuanced. If McCain's delivery had not been so clear and consice he would have been described as a bumbling, old, idiot with no command of the facts on the verge of full blown dementia. Go figure :idontno:

[scooterbug44]

I'm with Geo in that I don't want major political debates or events taking place in churches.

Far too much influence in our gov't and policies by various religious groups already IMO!

[Geo]

I am interested to hear you expand on why you think it was 'scary' that this forum was conducted by a religious group. 'Pervasive'? It sounds like you are describing (unflatteringly) liquor stores or Wal-Marts instead of assemblies protected by our Constitution.

I believe in separation of church and state...

But that is not what I see at all when the two final candidates for POTUS meet for the first real forum of the election on stage in a church with an evangelical pastor grilling them...

This country is so immersed in religion that its citizens see nothing odd about what occurred the other night. But yet many of these same citizens would use words like extremism or fanaticism if they saw leaders of another country sitting on stage in a mosque with a leading cleric (or pastor equivelent)...

I don't dispute that the assembly was protected by the constitution. I wouldn't want it any other way. I just find it scary that the church is so powerful that it can get such a billing...

BTW- I don't get why my usage of the word pervasive brings Walmart or liquor stores to mind but just in case I have misunderstood the word all these years (and to give you the benefit of the doubt) I looked it up...

per-va-sive
spread throughout all parts of; present throughout something

:idontno:

[destindreamer]

Exactly: Which explains the Republican and Democratic divide as to who did a better job at Saddleback--succinct and simple answers appeal to the Republicans (all black and white); detailed, big picture thinking appeals to the Democrats (includes important shades of gray).

The great enemy of clear language is insincerity. When there is a gap between one's real and one's declared aims, one turns as it were instinctively to long words and exhausted idioms, like a cuttlefish spurting out ink.

George Orwell

[jdarg]

I am really wondering if the SoWal political forum watched any of this well put together approach to questions Americans on both sides of the aisle have on their minds. It was a good performance by both candidates. I think it is obvious to anyone who watched the whole forum that McCain had the most succinct and precise answers to the questions asked of both candidates. I feel this is so, because for one thing, the silence from the left, usually present on this board, has been deafening. Cat got your tongue?

http://www.nyworms.com/images/groupcrickets.jpg


No cat on my tongue, just a bad taste. I think the answer to why the Dems just didn't jump on this thread and engage with you can be found in these 2 posts!!:lol:

Here's my take- if you are McCain supporter, you thought McCain rocked.

If you are an Obama supporter, you thought he was fantastic. Obama answered the questions exactly the way I hoped he would.

Duh.

Don't think we are going to find anyone on this forum thinking that their candidate did not do well.:roll: I need to go back and look at their outfits- maybe I can find something interesting in what they were wearing, since this Saddleback forum was completely predictable in the questions and responses from both candidates.

[hnooe]

The great enemy of clear language is insincerity. When there is a gap between one's real and one's declared aims, one turns as it were instinctively to long words and exhausted idioms, like a cuttlefish spurting out ink.

George Orwell

Fine, lets then just throw in the towel, and put up with another repeat of 4 years of the GW Bush type "clarity" of both speech, AND intent." See where that got us all.

[Andy A.]

Succinct answers woo concrete thinkers. Prolonged answers appeal to those who think abstractly. The point of the exercise was for McCain to solidify the concrete thinkers' vote. I'm pretty sure Obama wanted people to see him answering questions about religion without invoking Allah's name. What else is there to discuss?
You hit it. McCain was concrete in his answers. Obama was absstract in his. Sorry, I don't want someone who thinks in th abstract for my president. My opinion, only of course, but in the world as it is now we need someone who is definite in their actions and I don't mean "knee jerk". Abstract is more suited to philosophers not heads of state, IMO.

[30A Skunkape]

I'm with Geo in that I don't want major political debates or events taking place in churches.

Far too much influence in our gov't and policies by various religious groups already IMO!


Ahh, you and Geo are too concerned with this. I don't think any particular faith's agenda was pushed, and tickets were distributed equally among both campaigns. I think an exchange of ideas is great on any stage, be it in a church, an arena that sports the name of a beer brand or wherever.

Punzy and I used to vote at St Francis Xavier in New Orleans and the machines were under the watchful eye of the good Saint's image on the wall...never felt like that swayed my vote at all.

[Andy A.]

Fine, lets then just throw in the towel, and put up with another repeat of 4 years of the GW Bush type "clarity" of both speech, AND intent." See where that got us all.
Oh quit throwing up 4 more years of GW Bush rhetoric when you don't have the foggiest idea what either cancidate will end up proposing. Probably to your dismay and disbelief, the country will continue to function after the election as it has before and it won't make that much difference which one is elected, McCain or Obama. I happen to feel McCain would be better for my family... hard working, saving, charitable and yes, religious than Obama. (Just FYI I am not a chuch goer) But regardless of who wins November's election, America will continue to survive, prosper and progress if we adhere to the principles on which our nation was founded and the ideals our parents brought us up on. Let's all have a little faith in the United States and quit crying "the sky will fall" if so and so is elected. I lived through Eisenhower, Carter, Reagan and many other Presidents and administrations and if I'm lucky enough I'll live through the next one though we all have to go sometime, so enjoy life while you can and quit thinking America will go to hell in a handbasket if the wrong person is elected President. If you really want to worry then worry about who is elected to Congress.

[scooterbug44]

Ahh, you and Geo are too concerned with this. I don't think any particular faith's agenda was pushed, and tickets were distributed equally among both campaigns. I think an exchange of ideas is great on any stage, be it in a church, an arena that sports the name of a beer brand or wherever.

Punzy and I used to vote at St Francis Xavier in New Orleans and the machines were under the watchful eye of the good Saint's image on the wall...never felt like that swayed my vote at all.

I am pretty confident that a political debate in a Christian church promoted a Christian agenda. Especially since one of the questions asked by the pastor was “What does it mean to you to trust in Christ?” :roll:

You weren't uncomfortable voting in a church, but I know people of other faiths who would find it incredibly distasteful and possibly intimidating.

[goodwitch58]

Oh quit throwing up 4 more years of GW Bush rhetoric when you don't have the foggiest idea what either cancidate will end up proposing. Probably to your dismay and disbelief, the country will continue to function after the election as it has before and it won't make that much difference which one is elected, McCain or Obama. I happen to feel McCain would be better for my family... hard working, saving, charitable and yes, religious than Obama. (Just FYI I am not a chuch goer) But regardless of who wins November's election, America will continue to survive, prosper and progress if we adhere to the principles on which our nation was founded and the ideals our parents brought us up on. Let's all have a little faith in the United States and quit crying "the sky will fall" if so and so is elected. I lived through Eisenhower, Carter, Reagan and many other Presidents and administrations and if I'm lucky enough I'll live through the next one though we all have to go sometime, so enjoy life while you can and quit thinking America will go to hell in a handbasket if the wrong person is elected President. If you really want to worry then worry about who is elected to Congress.


Andy, I think there is more reason to be concerned now than ever before in our history: The Bush Administration has been responsible for unheard of changes in the power of the president; changes in the way we apply the rule of law; changes in the interpretation of our Constitution; and invaded a country which had done us no harm--on the pretense of "bringing Democracy" to the middle east, continues a war that clearly can not be "won" by the military and needs a diplomatic solution... We have tortured people; held them for years without charging them, and then said we will hold them anyway, even after a military court has sentenced them and recommended release after serving time...our government has eavesdropped on American's telephone conversations and then held the phone companies harmless...and thousands of our young men and women have died; along with Iraqis and Afghanis...while we have gone further and further in debt to the Chinese...and the list goes on, and on, and on.

After all this, I don't understand how you, or anyone else, can say that it does not matter who is leading the country.:bang:

[dgsevier]

I think they both looked like politicians.

[scooterbug44]

I read Andy's post to say that there are many other voices and influences in our government - that won't necessarily change after a presidential election.

Part of having a system of checks and balances is that people must utilize it - Bush can't do things if there is a strong and united Congress opposing him and passing important legislation.

[30ashopper]

Andy, I think there is more reason to be concerned now than ever before in our history: The Bush Administration has been responsible for unheard of changes in the power of the president; changes in the way we apply the rule of law; changes in the interpretation of our Constitution; and invaded a country which had done us no harm--on the pretense of "bringing Democracy" to the middle east, continues a war that clearly can not be "won" by the military and needs a diplomatic solution... We have tortured people; held them for years without charging them, and then said we will hold them anyway, even after a military count has sentenced them and recommended release after serving time...our government has eavesdropped on American's telephone conversations and then held the phone companies harmless...and thousands of our young men and women have died; along with Iraqis and Afghanis...while we have gone further and further in debt to the Chinese...and the list goes on, and on, and on.

After all this, I don't understand how you, or anyone else, can say that it does not matter who is leading the country.:bang:

Swap Bush for Kennedy or Roosevelt, Iraq with Vietnam or Japan or Germany, rinse wash and repeat. I agree with Andy. The last 8 years have been unique, only because unique things happened during the period. (9/11, lest we forget). The country will be fine, with either candidate. It's a question of what direction you want the country to go politically. (left vs. middle in this case) I think it's important to remember, most of what you brought up goodwitch58 came about because of a lack of checks and balances in Washington. I would argue McCain matched with a democratic congress is change for the good, while Obama with a democratic congress is a step back to 2001. I guess, be careful what door you choose, what's behind it might not be what you expect.

[30ashopper]

I read Andy's post to say that there are many other voices and influences in our government - that won't necessarily change after a presidential election.

Part of having a system of checks and balances is that people must utilize it - Bush can't do things if there is a strong and united Congress opposing him and passing important legislation.

My thoughts exactly. I used to be a proponent of the single party government because I thought they'd get more done. Well, they do, but that turned out to be a bad thing. I'll never vote for such a thing again.

[30A Skunkape]

I am pretty confident that a political debate in a Christian church promoted a Christian agenda. Especially since one of the questions asked by the pastor was “What does it mean to you to trust in Christ?” :roll:

You weren't uncomfortable voting in a church, but I know people of other faiths who would find it incredibly distasteful and possibly intimidating.

Intimidating? C'mon Scoots.

I don't think the 'trust in Christ' question is unfair since both men proclaimed themselves to be Christian without any external prodding.

[scooterbug44]

I didn't say it was an unfair question, just thought it certainly gave a clear idea of just how unreligious the debate was.

How many people do you think would balk at voting in a mosque? Or in a building w/ a large pentagram on the floor?

How comfortable would you be entering a religious building to vote if that religion frequently and publicly condemned your lifestyle choices and sought to have legislation passed to deny you rights and legally allow them to discriminate against you?

[30A Skunkape]

I didn't say it was an unfair question, just thought it certainly gave a clear idea of just how unreligious the debate was.

How many people do you think would balk at voting in a mosque? Or in a building w/ a large pentagram on the floor?

How comfortable would you be entering a religious building to vote if that religion frequently and publicly condemned your lifestyle choices and sought to have legislation passed to deny you rights and legally allow them to discriminate against you?

Look, we have a history of voters contending with poll taxes, literacy tests, gender disenfranchisement...I don't think anyone who shows enough interest in voting will be too intimidated to vote in a church, especially if their vote is percieved as protective of their civil liberty.

[Rose Anna]

The thing that stood out to me was that we were looking at two very different kinds of campaign and voter outreach in that forum.

Obama took a conversational tone and gave thoughtful, nuanced answers to complex questioned.

McCain gave scripted answers to predictable questions -- answers designed to say little about policy and produce maximum soundbyte worthy applause lines.

It reinforced my opinion -- Obama respects the electorate and McCain thinks we're a bunch of idiots and all complexity is lost on us.

[scooterbug44]

We also have a history of poor voter turnout in mildly inclement weather.

Obviously people need to put forth an effort to vote, and it's not as blatant as a literacy test, but I could see locating the polls in a religious building as a way to discourage a certain segment of the population from voting and/or influence a vote.

[goodwitch58]

I read Andy's post to say that there are many other voices and influences in our government - that won't necessarily change after a presidential election.

Part of having a system of checks and balances is that people must utilize it - Bush can't do things if there is a strong and united Congress opposing him and passing important legislation.

I don't disagree that the Congress has been completely ineffective...however, the Bush Administration set out to give the Executive Branch imperial power and to appoint Judges who will interpret the Constitution in the way that benefits the far right...they have followed their play book in spite of everything...and, they are proud of their accomplishments! They have accomplished much of what they set out to do...and Congress has been their enabler.

But, our country would not be where we are today if the President and his party had not had this agenda. From what I read of history (and I have lived through much of it too), this is a different place than where we have ever been before.

We need to get back on track and I believe that a different policy will yield a different result.

[rapunzel]

I don't disagree that the Congress has been completely ineffective...however, the Bush Administration set out to give the Executive Branch imperial power and to appoint Judges who will interpret the Constitution in the way that benefits the far right...they have followed their play book in spite of everything...and, they are proud of their accomplishments! They have accomplished much of what they set out to do...and Congress has been their enabler.

But, our country would not be where we are today if the President and his party had not had this agenda. From what I read of history (and I have lived through much of it too), this is a different place that we have ever been before.

We need to get back on track and I believe that a different policy will yield a different result.

It's sad to me that so few people see the connections between pro-life agenda and the mortgage crisis.

Many people will read the post above and think the bit about judges that please the far right to mean they will overturn Roe v. Wade. The problem is the growth of the power of the Presidency, the redistricting to benefit Republicans, the Justice Department hiring Oral Roberts University graduates over top of their class people from Harvard, deregulating the banking and insurance industries, rolling back consumer protection laws so that companies import lead covered toys.

Imperial is the right word, goodwitch.

This latest upswing in nationalism has me thinking of other words as well...words you heard a lot in 1930's Germany.

[Margarita]

Swap Bush for Kennedy or Roosevelt, Iraq with Vietnam or Japan or Germany, rinse wash and repeat. I agree with Andy. The last 8 years have been unique, only because unique things happened during the period. (9/11, lest we forget). The country will be fine, with either candidate. It's a question of what direction you want the country to go politically. (left vs. middle in this case) I think it's important to remember, most of what you brought up goodwitch58 came about because of a lack of checks and balances in Washington. I would argue McCain matched with a democratic congress is change for the good, while Obama with a democratic congress is a step back to 2001. I guess, be careful what door you choose, what's behind it might not be what you expect.

"The worst nightmare for Republicans on Election Day is the Democrats' best-case scenario: control of the White House, a nine-seat net gain in the Senate, and a healthy gain on their 36-seat majority in the House. In that case, Democrats could steamroll President Obama's agenda into law."

[hnooe]

"The worst nightmare for Republicans on Election Day is the Democrats' best-case scenario: control of the White House, a nine-seat net gain in the Senate, and a healthy gain on their 36-seat majority in the House. In that case, Democrats could steamroll President Obama's agenda into law."




Whew, that one made me want to google the lyrics to "Happy Days Are Here Again." :wave:

[hnooe]

I would argue McCain matched with a democratic congress is change for the good, while Obama with a democratic congress is a step back to 2001. I guess, be careful what door you choose, what's behind it might not be what you expect.

2001. That might actually be a great place to step back to and start again after the last 8 wasted years, regardless. If only dreams could come true...

[goodwitch58]

It's sad to me that so few people see the connections between pro-life agenda and the mortgage crisis.

Many people will read the post above and think the bit about judges that please the far right to mean they will overturn Roe v. Wade. The problem is the growth of the power of the Presidency, the redistricting to benefit Republicans, the Justice Department hiring Oral Roberts University graduates over top of their class people from Harvard, deregulating the banking and insurance industries, rolling back consumer protection laws so that companies import lead covered toys.

Imperial is the right word, goodwitch.

This latest upswing in nationalism has me thinking of other words as well...words you heard a lot in 1930's Germany.

Thanks for adding clarity to my post. That's exactly what I meant. In fact, there are quite a lot of Republicans for choice; however, the "play book" calls for the abortion issue to be used as often as possible for scare and intimidation tactics.

[jdarg]

Whew, that one made me want to google the lyrics to "Happy Days Are Here Again." :wave:

I am sporting a huge smile on my face at the thought! :biggrin:

[jdarg]

We also have a history of poor voter turnout in mildly inclement weather.

Obviously people need to put forth an effort to vote, and it's not as blatant as a literacy test, but I could see locating the polls in a religious building as a way to discourage a certain segment of the population from voting and/or influence a vote.

From what I have seen and heard in our area, voting at church may actually get more people out than not.;-)

I voted early- didn't want to spend more time at my polling place than absolutely necessary.:lol:

[Aggie]

No cat on my tongue, just a bad taste. I think the answer to why the Dems just didn't jump on this thread and engage with you can be found in these 2 posts!!:lol:

Here's my take- if you are McCain supporter, you thought McCain rocked.

If you are an Obama supporter, you thought he was fantastic. Obama answered the questions exactly the way I hoped he would.

Duh.

Don't think we are going to find anyone on this forum thinking that their candidate did not do well.:roll: I need to go back and look at their outfits- maybe I can find something interesting in what they were wearing, since this Saddleback forum was completely predictable in the questions and responses from both candidates.

You are right on target! From watching many debates and forums, you like the ones you liked when you walked in the door. :blink: Guess when there are a lot of undecided folks, they can share OBJECTIVELY who did the best.

[jdarg]

You are right on target! From watching many debates and forums, you like the ones you liked when you walked in the door. :blink: Guess when there are a lot of undecided folks, they can share OBJECTIVELY who did the best.


I owe ya a coffee for such wise words!:wave:

[30A Skunkape]

Suddenly the right's tongue is in the possession of Felis catus.:lol:

[jdarg]

Suddenly the right's tongue is in the possession of Felis catus.:lol:

Now now. Don't go causing trouble.

[30A Skunkape]

Now now. Don't go causing trouble.
:roll:

[30A Skunkape]

Now now. Don't go causing trouble.

What, I mean if the right is comfy with a bunch of Wiccans occupying the executive, legislative and judicial branches, I guess I understand the shush but I thought they had more spunk than that?!:wave:

tap-tap-tap

[jdarg]

What, I mean if the right is comfy with a bunch of Wiccans occupying the executive, legislative and judicial branches, I guess I understand the shush but I thought they had more spunk than that?!:wave:

tap-tap-tap


Let me add a unicorn made of glass to my list of detested things.

[Geo]

Ahh, you and Geo are too concerned with this. I don't think any particular faith's agenda was pushed, and tickets were distributed equally among both campaigns. I think an exchange of ideas is great on any stage, be it in a church, an arena that sports the name of a beer brand or wherever.

Punzy and I used to vote at St Francis Xavier in New Orleans and the machines were under the watchful eye of the good Saint's image on the wall...never felt like that swayed my vote at all.

I'm not concerned that the Evangelical agenda was pushed or that the crowd was filled with too many McCain sympathizers. I am concerned that churches are too influencial in this country and I personally do not want my elected officials making policy decisons based on the teachings of their chosen religion...

[idlewind]

I believe in separation of church and state...

But that is not what I see at all when the two final candidates for POTUS meet for the first real forum of the election on stage in a church with an evangelical pastor grilling them...

This country is so immersed in religion that its citizens see nothing odd about what occurred the other night. But yet many of these same citizens would use words like extremism or fanaticism if they saw leaders of another country sitting on stage in a mosque with a leading cleric (or pastor equivelent)...

I don't dispute that the assembly was protected by the constitution. I wouldn't want it any other way. I just find it scary that the church is so powerful that it can get such a billing...

BTW- I don't get why my usage of the word pervasive brings Walmart or liquor stores to mind but just in case I have misunderstood the word all these years (and to give you the benefit of the doubt) I looked it up...

per-va-sive
spread throughout all parts of; present throughout something

:idontno:

Perhaps you have not read the musings of our Founding Fathers:

The Mayflower Compact (authored by William Bradford) 1620 | Signing of the Mayflower painting | Picture of Compact
“Having undertaken, for the glory of God, and advancement of the Christian faith, and honor of our King and Country, a voyage to plant the first colony in the northern parts of Virginia, do by these presents solemnly and mutually, in the presence of God, and one of another, covenant and combine our selves together…”

John Adams and John Hancock:
We Recognize No Sovereign but God, and no King but Jesus! [April 18, 1775]
John Adams:
We have no government armed with power capable of contending with human passions unbridled by morality and religion. Avarice, ambition, revenge, or gallantry, would break the strongest cords of our Constitution as a whale goes through a net. Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other." --October 11, 1798
Patrick Henry:

“It cannot be emphasized too clearly and too often that this nation was founded, not by religionists, but by Christians; not on religion, but on the gospel of Jesus Christ. For this very reason, peoples of other faiths have been afforded asylum, prosperity, and freedom of worship here.” [May 1765 Speech to the House of Burgesses]

But to quote a few.:clap:

[Geo]

Perhaps you have not read the musings of our Founding Fathers:

The Mayflower Compact (authored by William Bradford) 1620 | Signing of the Mayflower painting | Picture of Compact
“Having undertaken, for the glory of God, and advancement of the Christian faith, and honor of our King and Country, a voyage to plant the first colony in the northern parts of Virginia, do by these presents solemnly and mutually, in the presence of God, and one of another, covenant and combine our selves together…”

John Adams and John Hancock:
We Recognize No Sovereign but God, and no King but Jesus! [April 18, 1775]
John Adams:
We have no government armed with power capable of contending with human passions unbridled by morality and religion. Avarice, ambition, revenge, or gallantry, would break the strongest cords of our Constitution as a whale goes through a net. Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other." --October 11, 1798
Patrick Henry:

“It cannot be emphasized too clearly and too often that this nation was founded, not by religionists, but by Christians; not on religion, but on the gospel of Jesus Christ. For this very reason, peoples of other faiths have been afforded asylum, prosperity, and freedom of worship here.” [May 1765 Speech to the House of Burgesses]

But to quote a few.:clap:

You started with "perhaps you haven't read the musings of our founding fathers..." as if you might really believe I haven't...

You're kidding, right? Folks with my viewpoint hear these quotes as support for your viewpoint on religion all the time...

No doubt about it- this country was founded by Christians, many of whom felt strongly about Christianity. But they also felt okay about being slaveowners and having wooden teeth...

I like to think that if Adams, Hancock et al could hop in the Delorean and come visit us today that they would realize religion (or at least a singular view on it) no longer makes sense in government just like they would trade up for some veneers...

[hnooe]

Perhaps you have not read the musings of our Founding Fathers:

The Mayflower Compact (authored by William Bradford) 1620 | Signing of the Mayflower painting | Picture of Compact
“Having undertaken, for the glory of God, and advancement of the Christian faith, and honor of our King and Country, a voyage to plant the first colony in the northern parts of Virginia, do by these presents solemnly and mutually, in the presence of God, and one of another, covenant and combine our selves together…”

John Adams and John Hancock:
We Recognize No Sovereign but God, and no King but Jesus! [April 18, 1775]
John Adams:
We have no government armed with power capable of contending with human passions unbridled by morality and religion. Avarice, ambition, revenge, or gallantry, would break the strongest cords of our Constitution as a whale goes through a net. Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other." --October 11, 1798
Patrick Henry:

“It cannot be emphasized too clearly and too often that this nation was founded, not by religionists, but by Christians; not on religion, but on the gospel of Jesus Christ. For this very reason, peoples of other faiths have been afforded asylum, prosperity, and freedom of worship here.” [May 1765 Speech to the House of Burgesses]

But to quote a few.:clap:


Have to admit the "musing of the Founding Fathers" is not my idea of a good read. It just sounds to me like Jesus is still being pimped out for any and all polititicians, to use him as they will throughout the centuries, and even now with Rick Warren even shepherding both contenders toward the light. Jesus-- save me from your followers and your polititians!

[Miss Kitty]

It's sad to me that so few people see the connections between pro-life agenda and the mortgage crisis.

Many people will read the post above and think the bit about judges that please the far right to mean they will overturn Roe v. Wade. The problem is the growth of the power of the Presidency, the redistricting to benefit Republicans, the Justice Department hiring Oral Roberts University graduates over top of their class people from Harvard, deregulating the banking and insurance industries, rolling back consumer protection laws so that companies import lead covered toys.

Imperial is the right word, goodwitch.

This latest upswing in nationalism has me thinking of other words as well...words you heard a lot in 1930's Germany.

Graduates from both of those colleges scare me. Guess that is why I am on the fence.

I watched the forum and what I took away was McCain said "my friends" too much and Obama talks pretty.

P.S. who is mary hayden, full of thanks? it's not a problem,...but, i don't remember a post from her.

[Geo]

I watched the forum and what I took away was McCain said "my friends" too much and Obama talks pretty.



The best quote of the thread, IMHO...

:clap::clap::clap:

:lol:

[Andy A.]

Well, the cat has spit out the tongue of the far left here and at the same time spewed forth a lot of erroneous revisionst history, rhetoric lacking any reasonable context or "common sense" whatsoever. Very little to do with how the same questions were answered by the candidates, which was the intent of the Saddleback forum. Too bad so many couldn't recognize how informative it was. But then, maybe those whose minds weren't already made up will have a more clear picture of what each candidate stands for. These are the ones I am really interested in, not those of us whose minds are already made up and not likely to change.

[Geo]

Well, the cat has spit out the tongue of the far left here and at the same time spewed forth a lot of erroneous revisionst history, rhetoric lacking any reasonable context or "common sense" whatsoever. Very little to do with how the same questions were answered by the candidates, which was the intent of the Saddleback forum. Too bad so many couldn't recognize how informative it was. But then, maybe those whose minds weren't already made up will have a more clear picture of what each candidate stands for. These are the ones I am really interested in, not those of us whose minds are already made up and not likely to change.


Huh?

To whom are you addressing your "erroneous revisionst history, rhetoric lacking any reasonable context or "common sense" whatsoever" remarks?

Andy, the original post in this thread was- "Is anyone else watching this?". Seems pretty openended to me. So I'm not sure why you would assume that discussion about the venue, the separation of church and state issue, etc. would be any less relevant/ appropriate than discussion of the candidates' answers during the forum (which is what you want to discuss)...

For the record, I thought the forum was well done and agree with you that it was informative. I just don't think it should have happened in the first place...

:wave:

[Margarita]

Well, the cat has spit out the tongue of the far left here and at the same time spewed forth a lot of erroneous revisionst history, rhetoric lacking any reasonable context or "common sense" whatsoever. Very little to do with how the same questions were answered by the candidates, which was the intent of the Saddleback forum. Too bad so many couldn't recognize how informative it was. But then, maybe those whose minds weren't already made up will have a more clear picture of what each candidate stands for. These are the ones I am really interested in, not those of us whose minds are already made up and not likely to change.

I agree. I really don't know how an undecided voter could have possibly watched the forum and not have a better understanding of the candidates and what type of President they would be. The undecided swing voters will determine who will be our next President and I want them as informed as possible!!!

[Miss Kitty]

Well, the cat has spit out the tongue of the far left here and at the same time spewed forth a lot of erroneous revisionst history, rhetoric lacking any reasonable context or "common sense" whatsoever. Very little to do with how the same questions were answered by the candidates, which was the intent of the Saddleback forum. Too bad so many couldn't recognize how informative it was. But then, maybe those whose minds weren't already made up will have a more clear picture of what each candidate stands for. These are the ones I am really interested in, not those of us whose minds are already made up and not likely to change.

Huh?

To whom are you addressing your "erroneous revisionst history, rhetoric lacking any reasonable context or "common sense" whatsoever" remarks?

Andy, the original post in this thread was- "Is anyone else watching this?". Seems pretty openended to me. So I'm not sure why you would assume that discussion about the venue, the separation of church and state issue, etc. would be any less relevant/ appropriate than discussion of the candidates' answers during the forum (which is what you want to discuss)...

For the record, I thought the forum was well done and agree with you that it was informative. I just don't think it should have happened in the first place...

:wave:

FTLOG...are you talking about me being the CAT? :eek: Sorry if I am assuming your intent, Andy A., but that hit a little close to my litter box!

[idlewind]

Huh?

To whom are you addressing your "erroneous revisionst history, rhetoric lacking any reasonable context or "common sense" whatsoever" remarks?

Andy, the original post in this thread was- "Is anyone else watching this?". Seems pretty openended to me. So I'm not sure why you would assume that discussion about the venue, the separation of church and state issue, etc. would be any less relevant/ appropriate than discussion of the candidates' answers during the forum (which is what you want to discuss)...

For the record, I thought the forum was well done and agree with you that it was informative. I just don't think it should have happened in the first place...

:wave:

Next time Jesse, or Barack, or Bill, or Hillary decide to go raise money and fish for votes at an African-American or liberal church, I expect to hear the same ringing criticism as you have for a fair exchange in a Evangelical venue.:bang:

[Geo]

Next time Jesse, or Barack, or Bill, or Hillary decide to go raise money and fish for votes at an African-American or liberal church, I expect to hear the same ringing criticism as you have for a fair exchange in a Evangelical venue.:bang:

Clearly you don't understand my views. If you did you would not expect to hear any such criticism from me...

I have no issue with any politican raising money or fishing for votes from the Auto Club of America, Boy Scout Meetings or churches (liberal or conservative, black or white)...

But I do have issue with any singular religion being so powerful that we see its pastor on stage grilling our two final candidates for POTUS. It makes me very uncomfortable irrespective of the religion...

I'm putting myself out there when I say this but quite honestly-

I get queasy when I hear our elected officials even mention God. Even "God Bless America" bothers me...

God sounds as outrageous and out of place to me in speeches by our leaders as it probably does to you when you hear these guys say it in their speeches-

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/1/18/Mahmoud_Ahmadinejad.jpg/225px-Mahmoud_Ahmadinejad.jpg (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Mahmoud_Ahmadinejad.jpg)

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/a/af/Bin_laden_12_27a.jpg (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Bin_laden_12_27a.jpg)

Whether it is Clinton, Bush, Obama, McCain, Ahmadinejad or Bin Laden-

I wish they would leave god out of government and politics. But they all do it. They deliver a speech, talk about defeating their enemies and then they praise god or bless their own country...

I imagine your smiley beating his head against the wall is about to increase the frequency or he has already knocked himself out...

[hnooe]

Clearly you don't understand my views. If you did you would not expect to hear any such criticism from me...

I have no issue with any politican raising money or fishing for votes from the Auto Club of America, Boy Scout Meetings or churches (liberal or conservative, black or white)...

But I do have issue with any singular religion being so powerful that we see its pastor on stage grilling our two final candidates for POTUS. It makes me very uncomfortable irrespective of the religion...

I'm putting myself out there when I say this but quite honestly-

I get queasy when I hear our elected officials even mention God. Even "God Bless America" bothers me...

God sounds as outrageous and out of place to me in speeches by our elected officials as it probably does to you when you hear these guys say it in their speeches-


Whether it is Clinton, Bush, Obama, McCain, Ahmadinejad or Bin Laden-

I wish they would leave god out of government and politics. But they all do it. They deliver a speech, talk about defeating their enemies and then they praise god or bless their own country...

I imagine your smiley beating his head against the wall is about to increase the frequency or he has already knocked himself out...
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Excellent points GEO...I too have a real problem with the idea or any conversations about any "fair" discussions in any "Evangelical" setting. "Fair" and "Evangelical" are mutually exclusive terms.

Both Obama and McCain looked absolutely preposterous and phoney at Saddleback, like two little boys who played hookey from Sunday School and were forced to reveal their shortcomings in front of the full congregation. The political discourse in this country is descending back into the Dark Ages!

Oh, and here is a three headed banger :bang::bang::bang:

[Geo]

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Excellent points GEO...I too have a real problem with the idea or any conversations about any "fair" discussions in any "Evangelical" setting. "Fair" and "Evangelical" are mutually exclusive terms.

Both Obama and McCain looked absolutely preposterous and phoney at Saddleback, like two little boys who played hookey from Sunday School and were forced to reveal their shortcomings in front of the full congregation. The political discourse in this country is descending back into the Dark Ages!

Oh, and here is a three headed banger :bang::bang::bang:

For me it isn't a question of fair vs. unfair. I do not think there is anything intrinsically unfair about the Evangelical church or any other for that matter- especially considering that Obama is smart enough to know what he was getting himself into. Like I said in earlier posts- I actually think Rick Warren and his folks did a good job with the event...

I am just for separation of church and state and presidential debates (or whatever it technically was) in churches isn't separate enough for me...

:idontno:

[Geo]

Hello Hello! I am at a place called Vertigo.
It's everthing I wish I didn't know.
But you give me something I can feel. Feel. --Bono.

BTW-

You had me at Hello Hello...
I am a huge U2 fan!

[Margarita]

For me it isn't a question of fair vs. unfair. I do not think there is anything intrinsically unfair about the Evangelical church or any other for that matter- especially considering that Obama is smart enough to know what he was getting himself into. Like I said in earlier posts- I actually think Rick Warren and his folks did a good job with the event...

I am just for separation of church and state and presidential debates (or whatever it technically was) in churches isn't separate enough for me...

:idontno:

After all of the comments on this thread about separation of church and state I looked up what the First Amendment actually says. I fail to see how The Saddleback Forum even comes close to violating the intent of the First Amendment. :idontno:

http://www.firstamendmentcenter.org/about.aspx?item=about_firstamd

[Geo]

After all of the comments on this thread about separation of church and state I looked up what the First Amendment actually says. I fail to see how The Saddleback Forum even comes close to violating the intent of the First Amendment. :idontno:

http://www.firstamendmentcenter.org/about.aspx?item=about_firstamd

Very fair point. I should have chosen my words more carefully. I meant not to imply that I believe anything at all was illegal or unconstitutional about Saddleback.

The fact that it happened is just, IMO, a commentary on how immersed this country and its citizens are in religion and how powerful some churches are...

[Margarita]

Very fair point. I should have chosen my words more carefully. I meant not to imply that I believe anything at all was illegal or unconstitutional about Saddleback.

The fact that it happened is just, IMO, a commentary on how immersed this country and its citizens are in religion and how powerful some churches are...

The church is its citizens and these citizens vote - no different than any other organization.

[Bob]

Perhaps you have not read the musings of our Founding Fathers:

The Mayflower Compact (authored by William Bradford) 1620 | Signing of the Mayflower painting | Picture of Compact
“Having undertaken, for the glory of God, and advancement of the Christian faith, and honor of our King and Country, a voyage to plant the first colony in the northern parts of Virginia, do by these presents solemnly and mutually, in the presence of God, and one of another, covenant and combine our selves together…”

John Adams and John Hancock:
We Recognize No Sovereign but God, and no King but Jesus! [April 18, 1775]
John Adams:
We have no government armed with power capable of contending with human passions unbridled by morality and religion. Avarice, ambition, revenge, or gallantry, would break the strongest cords of our Constitution as a whale goes through a net. Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other." --October 11, 1798
Patrick Henry:

“It cannot be emphasized too clearly and too often that this nation was founded, not by religionists, but by Christians; not on religion, but on the gospel of Jesus Christ. For this very reason, peoples of other faiths have been afforded asylum, prosperity, and freedom of worship here.” [May 1765 Speech to the House of Burgesses]

But to quote a few.:clap: just don't let in the Irish, the Mormons or the *****es.

[Fishfood]

I'd say that the Church has very little actual power in this country. The politicians like to placate the sizable relgious voting public by speaking in pious code and while sickening, this quazi-religiousity has little actual impact on our society.

The religious right is blamed for the difficulty that gays are finding getting marriage rights, for example, but they are basically larger society's convenient scapegoat for its widely held prejudices. Is Obama for "gay marriage"? Was Kerry? No and no. Religion is a nice excuse.

If actual Christianity had such a big impact on U.S. policies, then abortion, capital punishment, aggressive pre-emptive wars, etc, would have no place.

The idea that the Evangelical vote is "important" is based on the fact that it's easy to get and of a decent size so as to be worth getting. People motivated by anger, prejudice, and self-righteousness are easily moved to action. Tell them "Democrats want to kill babies and let the gays marry!" and they are "mobilized".

All that aside, I like what I have seen of Rick Warren. He is not of the Pastor Hagee ilk. He seems to want to do good works rather than just rant about the evils of homosexuality and Islam and the end of the world. It really is telling that we see a Christian minister on TV talking about helping the poor and the hungry around the world and he is "a new kind of Christian leader" in America.

The left need not worry about too much religion though: America is as nihilistic as ever and if anything our faith is in consumerism.

[Geo]

I'd say that the Church has very little actual power in this country. The politicians like to placate the sizable relgious voting public by speaking in pious code and while sickening, this quazi-religiousity has little actual impact on our society.

The religious right is blamed for the difficulty that gays are finding getting marriage rights, for example, but they are basically larger society's convenient scapegoat for its widely held prejudices. Is Obama for "gay marriage"? Was Kerry? No and no. Religion is a nice excuse.

If actual Christianity had such a big impact on U.S. policies, then abortion, capital punishment, aggressive pre-emptive wars, etc, would have no place.

The idea that the Evangelical vote is "important" is based on the fact that it's easy to get and of a decent size so as to be worth getting. People motivated by anger, prejudice, and self-righteousness are easily moved to action. Tell them "Democrats want to kill babies and let the gays marry!" and they are "mobilized".

All that aside, I like what I have seen of Rick Warren. He is not of the Pastor Hagee ilk. He seems to want to do good works rather than just rant about the evils of homosexuality and Islam and the end of the world. It really is telling that we see a Christian minister on TV talking about helping the poor and the hungry around the world and he is "a new kind of Christian leader" in America.

The left need not worry about too much religion though: America is as nihilistic as ever and if anything our faith is in consumerism.

Great post and thx for the perspective. Lemme buy you a beer next time you are in town/if you are local. I would love to hear more...

[30ashopper]

I shudder to think what would happen in Washington if our leaders there weren't being guided by a high moral standard.

Also, note that 85% of the country is religious, 80% of that Christian. Politicians involve themselves in forums like this precisely because so many of their constituents believe in God and Christ. To ignore faith in this country would pretty much guarantee they'd never get elected. It's important to a majority of Americans.

I'd also like to add - having been raised Catholic and having a love and respect for that church and it's doctrine, I'm a little insulted by some here implying my church has any similarity to Bin Laden's. You can apply religion in right ways and in wrong ways. Religion is not the enemy here. This country has been guided by religion since its founding. That guidance helped build the richest, most charitable, most prosperous nation in the world. I hate to think what would happen to this country if we completely removed some of our most cherished principals.

[scooterbug44]

I shudder to think what would happen in Washington if our leaders there weren't being guided by a high moral standard.

Are you serious? Is there another Washington somewhere where they are faithful to their spouses, aren't propositioning their staff, and don't take bribes? :idontno:

[30ashopper]

Are you serious? Is there another Washington somewhere where they are faithful to their spouses, aren't propositioning their staff, and don't take bribes? :idontno:

I wasn't talking about the Democrats. :lolabove:

[scooterbug44]

Neither was I! :biggrin:

[LuciferSam]

. I hate to think what would happen to this country if we completely removed some of our most cherished principals.

Belief in a higher power isn't necessary to retain those principles. Many theists scoff at this assertion because they try to apply their mindset and worldview, which is based on belief, to the nontheist.

[Geo]

I shudder to think what would happen in Washington if our leaders there weren't being guided by a high moral standard.

Also, note that 85% of the country is religious, 80% of that Christian. Politicians involve themselves in forums like this precisely because so many of their constituents believe in God and Christ. To ignore faith in this country would pretty much guarantee they'd never get elected. It's important to a majority of Americans.

I'd also like to add - having been raised Catholic and having a love and respect for that church and it's doctrine, I'm a little insulted by some here implying my church has any similarity to Bin Laden's. You can apply religion in right ways and in wrong ways. Religion is not the enemy here. This country has been guided by religion since its founding. That guidance helped build the richest, most charitable, most prosperous nation in the world. I hate to think what would happen to this country if we completely removed some of our most cherished principals.

Of course you are. And he is insulted too...
This is a classic example of why it scares me that religion is so pervasive. Because the religious feel only their religion is right.

EDIT: Forgot to add- I really enjoyed the part where you gave credit to the guidance of religion for helping us to become so rich, charitable and prosperous. Good stuff...

:wave:

[Bob]

I shudder to think what would happen in Washington if our leaders there weren't being guided by a high moral standard.

Also, note that 85% of the country is religious, 80% of that Christian. Politicians involve themselves in forums like this precisely because so many of their constituents believe in God and Christ. To ignore faith in this country would pretty much guarantee they'd never get elected. It's important to a majority of Americans.

I'd also like to add - having been raised Catholic and having a love and respect for that church and it's doctrine, I'm a little insulted by some here implying my church has any similarity to Bin Laden's. You can apply religion in right ways and in wrong ways. Religion is not the enemy here. This country has been guided by religion since its founding. That guidance helped build the richest, most charitable, most prosperous nation in the world. I hate to think what would happen to this country if we completely removed some of our most cherished principals.If you can love the Catholic church, well, you must be a Very loving person. Your church has much more power and money than Bin Laden. They can stroke buggery checks from here to eternity.

[goodwitch58]

[QUOTE=30ashopper;454290]I shudder to think what would happen in Washington if our leaders there weren't being guided by a high moral standard.

Moral: of, pertaining to, or concerned with the principles or rules of right conduct or the distinction between right and wrong; ethical: moral attitudes.

You mean the high moral standard of only fighting just wars in defence of our country; of integrity and honesty and justice toward all our citizens; and human rights towards all people of the world; of abiding by the treaties and agreements we sign on to; and the Constitution many of us swore to uphold and protect?

You mean that kind of moral standard?

[Andy A.]

It has become obvious to me that not only are there many far left zealots on this site but there are many with atheistic leanings as well. That is fine. It is what I and many others put ourselves in harm's way many times for and I am glad you are able to put forth your opinions and thoughts as is, of course, your right as American citizens. Your opinions and thoughts do not agree with mine and, once again that is fine. But bear this in mind. If you should be wrong about many of your ideas, it not only could come back to take away all so many have fought valiantly to protect, it could also really take away all those rights, liberties and freedoms you already "perceive" you have lost and in reality have not. Am I trying to scare you with patriotic rhetoric? No, certainly not. It is impossible to scare or get anyone to accept ideals they do not believe in, in the first place. There is a wide, wide breach in this country between how people see our past, present and future. I just wish it wasn't so, and I am afraid. Afraid these differences will destroy the country I grew up in, fought for and love.

[Margarita]

It has become obvious to me that not only are there many far left zealots on this site but there are many with atheistic leanings as well. That is fine. It is what I and many others put ourselves in harm's way many times for and I am glad you are able to put forth your opinions and thoughts as is, of course, your right as American citizens. Your opinions and thoughts do not agree with mine and, once again that is fine. But bear this in mind. If you should be wrong about many of your ideas, it not only could come back to take away all so many have fought valiantly to protect, it could also really take away all those rights, liberties and freedoms you already "perceive" you have lost and in reality have not. Am I trying to scare you with patriotic rhetoric? No, certainly not. It is impossible to scare or get anyone to accept ideals they do not believe in, in the first place. There is a wide, wide breach in this country between how people see our past, present and future. I just wish it wasn't so, and I am afraid. Afraid these differences will destroy the country I grew up in, fought for and love.


Hi Andy - "You're a great American"!!!!! :wave:

[idlewind]

It just never ceases to amaze me how left-wing zealots can rail about the "power" of right wing churches but not find fault when their candidate does much worse in left leaning churches. I guarentee that if McCain spoke in Hagee's church, the plate was passed for him and Hagee told his people from the pulpit to vote for him the roar from the left would be deafening. But when Obama does the same thing, that is OK. If a book was pulled that mocked Jesus Christ, the left would be indignant, but a book about Mohammed in love is pulled for fear of offending Muslims and not one peep is heard about censorship. There is a clear double standard.

It also kills me that left wingers can complain about negative campaigning when their darling is compared to Paris Hilton but see nothing wrong in repeatedly questioning Bush's integrity. Like I said, there is a clear double standard and it does not come from the right.

As for me, I do not believe in any church endorsing candidates or any faith being favored over another. I only think we should be fair to everyone. I did not have a problem with the saddleback forum because no candidate was endorsed and the format was fair. And I agree with Rick Warren, separation of church and state does not mean the separation of faith and politics. Faith of whatever stripe is a worldview and voters have a need to know the worldview of all candidates.

[LuciferSam]

It has become obvious to me that not only are there many far left zealots on this site but there are many with atheistic leanings as well. That is fine. It is what I and many others put ourselves in harm's way many times for and I am glad you are able to put forth your opinions and thoughts as is, of course, your right as American citizens. .

So did you not put your life on the line for theists as well? That statement to me does not make the least bit of sense . Please clarify. [EDIT] http://www.atheistfoxholes.org/ http://www.maaf.info/

If you should be wrong about many of your ideas, it not only could come back to take away all so many have fought valiantly to protect, it could also really take away all those rights, liberties and freedoms you already "perceive" you have lost and in reality have not.
The above sounds like it was pulled out of some excretory body part. WTF are you talking about?

[LuciferSam]

If you can love the Catholic church, well, you must be a Very loving person. Your church has much more power and money than Bin Laden. They can stroke buggery checks from here to eternity.

As Christopher Hitchens would say the "No Child's Behind Left Program".

[hnooe]

[quote=idlewind;454534]

It also kills me that left wingers can complain about negative campaigning when their darling is compared to Paris Hilton but see nothing wrong in repeatedly questioning Bush's integrity. Like I said, there is a clear double standard and it does not come from the right.

quote]

I think there is a big difference Idlewind. The Hilton add was a single, stupid negative add--the other represent the totality of issues in 8 years of being the leader of our country.

Seem as if at 19% "favorable" rating for Bush, that it may not just be the left that is questioning his integrity at this point.

[30ashopper]

I think there is a big difference Idlewind. The Hilton add was a single, stupid negative add--the other represent the totality of issues in 8 years of being the leader of our country.

I thought those ads were incredibly good, and it shows how good Schmidt is. McCain was faced with this phenomenon in Obama where the press couldn't keep the cameras off his lofty speeches. McCain was going around talking about the same issues but the press was ignoring him. So instead of trying to drag Obama down they pushed him up to 50,000 feet and created a phenomemnon of their own. It worked, Obama's lost his lead in the polls. Talk about a brilliant peice of campaigning.

Seem as if at 19% "favorable" rating for Bush, that it may not just be the left that is questioning his integrity at this point.

Gallup has him at around 34% currently. That's been ticking up over the last 6 months or so.

[Geo]

I thought those ads were incredibly good, and it shows how good Schmidt is. McCain was faced with this phenomenon in Obama where the press couldn't keep the cameras off his lofty speeches. McCain was going around talking about the same issues but the press was ignoring him. So instead of trying to drag Obama down they pushed him up to 50,000 feet and created a phenomemnon of their own. It worked, Obama's lost his lead in the polls. Talk about a brilliant peice of campaigning.



Removing any emotion or preference for either candidate I can honestly say I agree that it was brilliant and highly effective and if McCain wins- that ad should be viewed as the turning point in the campaign.

The Bush administration was a total disaster though...

[Margarita]

I thought those ads were incredibly good, and it shows how good Schmidt is. McCain was faced with this phenomenon in Obama where the press couldn't keep the cameras off his lofty speeches. McCain was going around talking about the same issues but the press was ignoring him. So instead of trying to drag Obama down they pushed him up to 50,000 feet and created a phenomemnon of their own. It worked, Obama's lost his lead in the polls. Talk about a brilliant peice of campaigning.



Gallup has him at around 34% currently. That's been ticking up over the last 6 months or so.

I think that the approval rating of our democratly led Congress is less than Bush's.

[hnooe]

I think that the approval rating of our democrat led Congress is less than Bush's.

Where is your grammar!!!: It is, for the record, the Democratically led Congress. We are the Democratic Party. The Carl Rove playbook is now history, although I am sure he is texting McCain.

[Margarita]

Where is your grammar!!!: It is, for the record, the Democratically led Congress. We are the Democratic Party. The Carl Rove playbook is now history, although I am sure he is texting McCain.

Well pardon my grammar and by the way it is Karl Rove not Carl Rove!!! - and I'm hoping that McCain is listening to him. :biggrin:

[30ashopper]

I think that the approval rating of our democrat led Congress is less than Bush's.

This is off topic from this thread but I think there’s a long term trend in our dissatisfaction with the federal government as a whole, and I think it's warranted. When a government body grows to the size ours has, (3 trillion in spending) it becomes very inefficient, wasteful and ineffective regardless whose running it. I'd like to see the federal government shrink, with more responsibility placed on the states. Local governments are far more adept at dealing with the particular needs of state's smaller populations. Populations can move between states so they can choose their particular brand of politics. If you’re looking for social services and big government, move to California or Massachusetts. If you’re looking for smaller government and independence move to Texas or Alabama. If you’re looking for a balance move to Florida or Colorado. I think we’d all be getting along much better if we weren’t constantly fighting for control over each other’s lives and money.

[Margarita]

This is off topic from this thread but I think there’s a long term trend in our dissatisfaction with the federal government as a whole, and I think it's warranted. When a government body grows to the size ours has, (3 trillion in spending) it becomes very inefficient, wasteful and ineffective regardless whose running it. I'd like to see the federal government shrink, with more responsibility placed on the states. Local governments are far more adept at dealing with the particular needs of state's smaller populations. Populations can move between states so they can choose their particular brand of politics. If you’re looking for social services and big government, move to California or Massachusetts. If you’re looking for smaller government and independence move to Texas or Alabama. If you’re looking for a balance move to Florida or Colorado. I think we’d all be getting along much better if we weren’t constantly fighting for control over each other’s lives and money.

Amen!!!

[Aggie]

I owe ya a coffee for such wise words!:wave:

Now we are talking my kind of language! :D

[Geo]

If this is accurate then the majority agrees with those of us labeled as far left zealots and atheists on this thread...

http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/08/21/religion.politics/index.html?eref=rss_politics&iref=polticker

[hnooe]

If this is accurate then the majority agrees with those of us labeled as far left zealots and atheists on this thread...

http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/08/21/religion.politics/index.html?eref=rss_politics&iref=polticker

Loved it Geo, but c'mon buddy I am a leftist "Rationalist"--atheist is just so 1960's, ok? :wave:

[Andy A.]

If this is accurate then the majority agrees with those of us labeled as far left zealots and atheists on this thread...

http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/08/21/religion.politics/index.html?eref=rss_politics&iref=polticker
I didn't even bother looking at it. That's easy. If its CNN then it is left leaning. If its FOX NEWS its right. Pick your poison.

[jollyroger]

This is off topic from this thread but I think there’s a long term trend in our dissatisfaction with the federal government as a whole, and I think it's warranted. When a government body grows to the size ours has, (3 trillion in spending) it becomes very inefficient, wasteful and ineffective regardless whose running it. I'd like to see the federal government shrink, with more responsibility placed on the states. Local governments are far more adept at dealing with the particular needs of state's smaller populations. Populations can move between states so they can choose their particular brand of politics. If you’re looking for social services and big government, move to California or Massachusetts. If you’re looking for smaller government and independence move to Texas or Alabama. If you’re looking for a balance move to Florida or Colorado. I think we’d all be getting along much better if we weren’t constantly fighting for control over each other’s lives and money.

Must I remind everyone that the issue of giving states more rights than the federal government led to the most lethal war in American history?

[idlewind]

[quote=idlewind;454534]

It also kills me that left wingers can complain about negative campaigning when their darling is compared to Paris Hilton but see nothing wrong in repeatedly questioning Bush's integrity. Like I said, there is a clear double standard and it does not come from the right.

quote]

I think there is a big difference Idlewind. The Hilton add was a single, stupid negative add--the other represent the totality of issues in 8 years of being the leader of our country.

Seem as if at 19% "favorable" rating for Bush, that it may not just be the left that is questioning his integrity at this point.

Whether Bush is a good President or not is open for debate. :yikes: I for one am not a big fan of his policies. I don't like spending billions "nation building" when we have infrastructure needs here that should be addressed ( 331 anyone.) :angry: I don't like spending trillions more than we take in and I don't like the government snooping on its citizens. But not agreeing with his policies and questioning the man's integrity and intelligence are a much different thing.:doh:

[idlewind]

[quote=idlewind;455176]

I still question Bush's intelligent, although in retrospect, we all now realize he really was just a puppet of the real POTUS, Mr. Dick Cheney--he was the one with all the intelligence, or should I say he is the one that misused the all the "intellegence"...:floor:

John MC BUSH must go--We cannot have 8 more year of Bush policies!! Where is the outrage people, wake up!!!!

This is just the sort of stuff that drives people crazy. :nono1: Anyone paying attention knows that McCain is his own man. He has bucked the GOP on many occcasions. Opposing him is one thing, this stuff is something else. The outrage I hear among people is the spector of Obama coming in and raising our taxes and refusing to drill to start lowering gas prices. :angry:Since I am below 5 million in income I have nothing to fear from McCain.:floor:

[Miss Kitty]

[quote=idlewind;455176]

I still question Bush's intelligent, although in retrospect, we all now realize he really was just a puppet of the real POTUS, Mr. Dick Cheney--he was the one with all the intelligence, or should I say he is the one that misused the all the "intellegence"...:floor:

John MC BUSH must go--We cannot have 8 more year of Bush policies!! Where is the outrage people, wake up!!!!

IMHO, this does not help undecided voters make an informed choice. I feel and understand your passion, but for me, the whole McBush thing is tiresome.

[Geo]

I didn't even bother looking at it. That's easy. If its CNN then it is left leaning. If its FOX NEWS its right. Pick your poison.

Andy,

Agreed that CNN is more left and Fox is more to the right. It's all relative...

But why not open your mind and read it. I watch Fox all the time (in addition to CNN)...

It is an interesting article...

WASHINGTON (CNN) -- A slim majority of Americans think churches should stay out of politics, according to a new survey.
http://i2.cdn.turner.com/cnn/2008/POLITICS/08/21/religion.politics/art.forum.gi.jpg John McCain, the Rev. Rick Warren and Barack Obama together for a CNN broadcast forum on faith.


http://i.cdn.turner.com/cnn/.element/img/2.0/mosaic/base_skins/baseplate/corner_wire_BL.gif


The survey suggests that for the first time in more than a decade, there has been a shift away from the view that religious groups should influence social and political issues.
Fifty-two percent of poll respondents said churches should stay quiet, while 46 percent said churches should express political views.
The biggest shift has come among Republicans, one of the authors of the poll said.
"Overall, the number of people who say churches should not endorse political candidates is up slightly, but among Republicans it is up 11 points, and among white evangelical Republicans it is up 19 points," said Greg Smith, a research fellow at the Pew Forum on Religion (http://topics.cnn.com/topics/religion) & Public Life.
"There is a slight uptick, from 40 percent to 46 percent, among people who are uncomfortable to have politicians talking about religion, but it is up 10 points among Republicans," he added.
Four years ago, seven out of 10 conservatives approved of religious institutions expressing political views. But five out of 10 conservatives in Thursday's poll said it was appropriate.
It seems that the more important social issues are to conservatives, the more likely they were to say that religion and politics should not mix.
Among people who said gay marriage was a very important issue, the number saying houses of worship should keep out of politics doubled, from 25 percent to 50 percent. Among those who said it was not important, the number was essentially unchanged.
Respondents were also more likely to say houses of worship should not meddle in politics if they considered the major political parties to be hostile to religion.
The new figures bring Republican views into line with those of Democrats and independents. A 14-point gap between Republican and Democratic views on the subject in August 2004 fell to one point in the new survey.
But Smith cautioned against reading the survey to mean basic conservative philosophy was changing.
"It appears to be frustration with the contemporary political landscape more than an underlying philosophical shift," he said. "It is not the case the conservatives are uncomfortable with a political role for religion, but we do see increasing discomfort with churches getting involved with politics."
"Voting intentions among white evangelicals have not changed at all," Smith added. Republican candidate Sen. John McCain "has a huge lead even among younger evangelicals."
But social conservatives are lukewarm about McCain as compared to President Bush.
Nearly seven out of 10 white evangelical Protestants and conservatives said they supported McCain; the number was slightly higher for Bush in August 2004. But four years ago, 57 percent of them said they backed Bush strongly. The number is 28 percent for McCain this year, with 40 percent saying they backed him, but not strongly.
The number of people who think religious groups have too much influence over political parties grew -- for both Republicans and Democrats -- as did the percentage of people who are uncomfortable hearing politicians talk about how religious they are.
Americans continue to see the Republican Party as more friendly to religion than the Democrats, although the Democrats closed the gap somewhat since reaching a low point in 2006.
Other survey results showed little change from the past. Two out of three Americans continue to say churches should not endorse candidates for president, and most still feel a president should have strong religious beliefs.
The survey was conducted by the Pew Research Center for People & the Press and the Pew Forum on Religion & Public Life by interviewing 2,905 adults nationwide by phone between July 31 and August 10.
On Saturday, Obama and McCain answered questions that had religious overtones at a forum hosted by the Rev. Rick Warren. The pastor of Southern California's Saddleback Church is author of the best-selling book "The Purpose-Driven Life."
Asked when life begins, McCain was quick to say "at the moment of conception." McCain's response was met with huge applause from the audience. "I have a 25-year pro-life record in the Congress, in the Senate, and as president of the United States, I will be a pro-life president, and this presidency will have pro-life policies," he said.
When Obama was asked about when life begins, the pro-choice candidate said that decision is "above my pay grade." The response garnered criticism from liberal and conservative thinkers who said Obama tried to dodge the issue.
Obama said although he's pro-choice and supports a woman's right to abortion, his goal is to reduce the number of abortions in America.
"On this particular issue, if you believe that life begins at conception ... and you are consistent, then I can't argue with you on that," he said. "What I can do is say, 'Are there ways we can work together to reduce the number of unwanted pregnancies?' "

[idlewind]

I am the first to agree that organized churches who accept tax exemptions should never endorse any political candidate at any level. This includes politicians addressing "worship" meetings.:biggrin: I do not have a problem with religious groups distributing literature of a non-partisan nature that describes each candidates views and I defend the right of religious persons to engage in the political process outside their church. I am not comfortable with pastors endorsing candidates but defend their right to do so if they do not use their title. Example: John Hagee endorsing is ok, Rev. John Hagee is not. :clap:I also believe it is never appropriate for a church to give any candidate a contribution nor should they ever allow candidates at any level to raise money by soliciting contributions at a meeting or through any church activity.:bang:

[hnooe]

[quote=hnooe2000;455279]

IMHO, this does not help undecided voters make an informed choice. I feel and understand your passion, but for me, the whole McBush thing is tiresome.


You are right Kitty, I can't get caught up in negatives like both Parties will, now and until Nov....the voter must hold back his outter passion and outward anger for the good of the undecideds. I shall hold back now.:bow:

[Andy A.]

[quote=Miss Kitty;455437]


You are right Kitty, I can't get caught up in negatives like both Parties will, now and until Nov....the voter must hold back his outter passion and outward anger for the good of the undecideds. I shall hold back now.:bow:
And besides all that, you promised me several weeks ago, on a different thread, you would NOT use the McBush reference. Just reminding you. Of course, this being a free nation, you may choose to go back on your word. Just kidding, just kidding. :lol:

[hnooe]

[quote=hnooe2000;455699]
And besides all that, you promised me several weeks ago, on a different thread, you would NOT use the McBush reference. Just reminding you. Of course, this being a free nation, you may choose to go back on your word. Just kidding, just kidding. :lol:


Ok, Ok, I have cleaned my act up Andy, I surrender..:wave: I am calmer, more relaxed--and I no longer post on SoWal after 2 martini's.

[No McBush, No John Mc Shame, No Osama Bin Barack, no Osama/ Bin Biden 2008, No "Mittens" Romney, etc. for 2008....I graduated from name calling.]

[LuciferSam]

[quote=Andy A.;456241]
[No McBush, No John Mc Shame, No Osama Bin Barack, no Osama/ Bin Biden 2008, No "Mittens" Romney, etc. for 2008....I graduated from name calling.]

You can still talk about McCain's Keating five connection without name calling, so all is not lost. :D