Well, I was concerned about Romney too. I had not heard he was out of the race yet, but I can't say that I'm surprised. It's going to be interesing to see what will happen. So, do you have a candidate of choice or are you trying to figure it out as we go along? I'm not asking you to post it or anything. I was just curious as to if you have decided.
Anybody out there worried about the U.S. presidential election?
- Thread starter His By Grace
- Start date
-
Welcome to Christian Forums, a Christian Forum that recognizes that all Christians are a work in progress.
You will need to register to be able to join in fellowship with Christians all over the world.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!
(His By Grace;34365)
Well, I was concerned about Romney too. I had not heard he was out of the race yet, but I can't say that I'm surprised. It's going to be interesing to see what will happen. So, do you have a candidate of choice or are you trying to figure it out as we go along? I'm not asking you to post it or anything. I was just curious as to if you have decided.
I'd very much like Barack Obama to win the presidency. To me, he has, more than any other candidate, embodied the ideals that Christ would want us to: Compassion and concern for one's fellow man. He has consistently prioritized these sorts of issues all the way back to young adulthood when he worked as a community organizer working with low-income families. All of the Republican candidates (with the exception of Ron Paul, who I take issue with for other reasons) still have their eyes firmly locked on the Iraq war, which is a costly and pointless diversion from the issues that really matter back home. As for Hillary, I'm not a huge fan, though I do think she would do more to address the problems of social equity that are so important to me than the Republican candidates would.
Well, I was concerned about Romney too. I had not heard he was out of the race yet, but I can't say that I'm surprised. It's going to be interesing to see what will happen. So, do you have a candidate of choice or are you trying to figure it out as we go along? I'm not asking you to post it or anything. I was just curious as to if you have decided.
I'd very much like Barack Obama to win the presidency. To me, he has, more than any other candidate, embodied the ideals that Christ would want us to: Compassion and concern for one's fellow man. He has consistently prioritized these sorts of issues all the way back to young adulthood when he worked as a community organizer working with low-income families. All of the Republican candidates (with the exception of Ron Paul, who I take issue with for other reasons) still have their eyes firmly locked on the Iraq war, which is a costly and pointless diversion from the issues that really matter back home. As for Hillary, I'm not a huge fan, though I do think she would do more to address the problems of social equity that are so important to me than the Republican candidates would.
I'd like to share a speech that Ron Paul gave today at the Conservative Political Action Conference. Lunar, I'm interested in what your issue is with Ron Paul. So far I haven't really found any good reason not to support him.Here's the youtube in 3 parts:Part 1Part 2Part 3Here's an mp3:http://libertymaven.com/audio/ronpaul-at-cpac2008.mp3
(His By Grace;33882)
I have been receiving e-mails that are very disturbing; particulary in regards to one of the candidates who has a Muslim background. Is anyone else fearful that he may be elected? Snopes has verified that he did not swear in for his senate position using the Bible, but the Koran. He does not honor our flag. He does not honor our national anthem. He seems to be so nice and has a smooth way about him, but that's how we are deceived. I know Oprah has endorsed him, but I have lost a lot of respect for her due to her "new age" move as of late. I don't even watch her program anymore. It has been boycotted from my home.She is kind and funny and that's all well and good, but it's time to take a stand for Christian values. Americans had better be on guard. We are having a Reign Down U.S.A meeting at our church in April in which all local churches will be invited in the greater Baton Rouge area to participate to take back the U.S. for the Lord. Of course, we are acused of being intolerant for this, but if we continue to compromise, we will end up being controlled by the enemy. Their freedom will be our slavery.
The one thing I have learned from the different political forums is that religion is nothing more than a label that politicians wear.Some of the democrats for example wear catholitism as nothing more than a label but yet they support things like abortion,gay marriage and other things Catholics are supposed to oppose.Some of these so called religious politicians act as though they are supposed to keep their religious views separately from the decisions they make.
I have been receiving e-mails that are very disturbing; particulary in regards to one of the candidates who has a Muslim background. Is anyone else fearful that he may be elected? Snopes has verified that he did not swear in for his senate position using the Bible, but the Koran. He does not honor our flag. He does not honor our national anthem. He seems to be so nice and has a smooth way about him, but that's how we are deceived. I know Oprah has endorsed him, but I have lost a lot of respect for her due to her "new age" move as of late. I don't even watch her program anymore. It has been boycotted from my home.She is kind and funny and that's all well and good, but it's time to take a stand for Christian values. Americans had better be on guard. We are having a Reign Down U.S.A meeting at our church in April in which all local churches will be invited in the greater Baton Rouge area to participate to take back the U.S. for the Lord. Of course, we are acused of being intolerant for this, but if we continue to compromise, we will end up being controlled by the enemy. Their freedom will be our slavery.
The one thing I have learned from the different political forums is that religion is nothing more than a label that politicians wear.Some of the democrats for example wear catholitism as nothing more than a label but yet they support things like abortion,gay marriage and other things Catholics are supposed to oppose.Some of these so called religious politicians act as though they are supposed to keep their religious views separately from the decisions they make.
(LittleLightShining;34437)
I'd like to share a speech that Ron Paul gave today at the Conservative Political Action Conference. Lunar, I'm interested in what your issue is with Ron Paul. So far I haven't really found any good reason not to support him.Here's the youtube in 3 parts:Part 1Part 2Part 3Here's an mp3:http://libertymaven.com/audio/ronpaul-at-cpac2008.mp3
I'm very familiar with Ron Paul's ideas. I should probably start by writing that I agree with Ron Paul on a lot of things. I definitely agree with his strong stance in favor of civil liberties, and that we should get out of Iraq as soon as possible. I agree that the government is probably spending too much, but I would chalk this up mostly to the Iraq war. I agree with him that we should end the war on drugs. And I admire that he is one of the few politicians who always votes his conscience and doesn't pander for the sake of a vote. Politics today needs more people like that.But there are some major problems with Ron Paul. First, I have to say that I disagree strongly with how infallibly he views the Constitution. Ron Paul fetishizes the Constitution to a dangerous extent. I'll acknowledge that the Constitution was a brilliant work with many great ideas for its time. Some of those ideas are still relevant today. But some of them aren't. The Constitution was obviously not an infallible document. Under the original Constitution, women couldn't vote. Indeed, the Constitution needed to be amended a number of times to get it to the right place. Why does Ron Paul think that that process has stopped? The views of the Constitution are only as relevant as the time period in which it is being used, and as the time evolves, so too must the Constitution. Now, some people want to amend the Constitution in bad ways. Some people want to use it as a weapon to destroy civil liberties. I disagree with these people. But there are other ways in which the original Constitution simply can't keep up with modern society - in particular, I was aghast when he suggested we repeal the Sixteenth Amendment.Which leads me to another thing I object to about Ron Paul - his no-tax, pro-business model. Ron Paul places far too much faith in the integrity of private corporations to provide effectively for the citizens of the United States. Now, I have a healthy skepticism of the good intentions of our government. But I have a far healthier skepticism of the good intentions of businesses, which do not even make any pretensions to acting in the interest of the citizens. Ron Paul's stance on government regulation of C02 emissions is a perfect example of this. There's simply no incentive for businesses to act in the interests of the environment - and in turn, the citizens, as the environment affects all of us - without government interference. Health care is another issue where I don't trust private corporations to function effectively. What's in the best interest of the health care provider - to make you better at once? Or to lead you on and keep you mostly sick, so that you keep coming back and spending more money?And that he suggests that the Department of Education be dissolved? Honestly, I can scarcely believe he even suggested it. It takes very little imagination to envision the ridiculous class imbalance that will ensue when education is left up to private corporations. In short, thinking that leaving all of these services up to businesses will somehow magically work things out is hopelessly idealistic and suggests severe historical amnesia. Businesses do not care about the citizen. They care only about maximizing profits. I read an article once that was doing a psychological profile of a number of different social entities. The business was diagnosed as a sociopath, and that's very reflective of how much faith I put in them to effectively manage our interests on their own - none.Ron Paul also doesn't really have a coherent positive stance on what the role of the government actually is. I watched several interviews with him and, when asked what role the government actually did have, his only answer was that the role of the government was to reduce regulations and get rid of needless laws. In other words, the role of the government is to destroy itself. His libertarian ideals seem synonymous with anarchism.There's also the issue of the newsletters published under his name from 1978-1995. The content of these newsletters is, to put it bluntly, completely appalling, as they spew a steady stream racist and homophobic vitriol, along with flagrant medical falsehoods (at one point the newsletters claimed that "we can safely assume that 95% of the black males in [Washington DC] are at least semi-criminal or entirely criminal." Another snippet suggested that, because of its high black population, Washington DC be renamed to "Welfaria, or Rapeville, or Dirtburg, or Lazyopolis.")Ron Paul denies that these words were his own and that the articles were ghost-written. The cynic would see this as damage control and assume that Ron Paul is actually a racist, homophobe, and all-around lunatic; while there is some merit to this view considering Ron Paul's voting record and his failure to do anything about the newsletter for seventeen years, I will be generous and give him the benefit of the doubt. But if this really was all an unfortunate mishap, and these views don't reflect Ron Paul's views, then what does this tell us about Ron Paul? I would say that it shows that he is astonishingly incompetent. To have this as a persistent issue for seventeen years, have it brought to his attention numerous times, and not do anything about it - if Ron Paul can't effectively manage a newsletter, what does that say about his ability to manage the country? The whole ordeal represents at best disturbing negligence and incompetence on his behalf, and at worst, blatant racism and homophobia.This charge of incompetence is also consistent with Ron Paul's legislative track record. Considering how long he has served in Congress, it is somewhat astonishing that Ron Paul has absolutely no significant legislative achievements. When you have extreme views like he does, you need a certain degree of tact and legislative finesse in order to accomplish your goals. That he has not been able to implement any of them suggests that he has neither. You have to question how much of his agenda the guy would actually accomplish as president. I'm going to be presumptuous and say not much.Finally, and perhaps most importantly, I don't think Ron Paul is interested in helping people. In terms of foreign policy, he's an isolationist. Even with respect to Darfur, where absolutely horrible things are happening, he has said something to the effect of "It's a civil war, and it's not our problem." What a horribly cynical view to take! Now, I'm wary of the charges of policing the world, and being an arrogant nation, but frankly, I see nothing arrogant about sending aid to Darfur. That seems like a very compassionate view to take. But Ron Paul doesn't seem interested in compassion. His rationale for everything seems to be based on money, not social wellbeing. You can't help but feel that he equates what is right with "where the money is." He seems interested primarily in the Constitution and libertarian ideals, and he has prioritized this ideology before the wellbeing of the people. I simply can't stand for that.So, that's why I don't support Ron Paul. I think his ideas would be incredibly destructive and not at all what Christ would want, and I think that he, personally, is not a competent politician.
I'd like to share a speech that Ron Paul gave today at the Conservative Political Action Conference. Lunar, I'm interested in what your issue is with Ron Paul. So far I haven't really found any good reason not to support him.Here's the youtube in 3 parts:Part 1Part 2Part 3Here's an mp3:http://libertymaven.com/audio/ronpaul-at-cpac2008.mp3
I'm very familiar with Ron Paul's ideas. I should probably start by writing that I agree with Ron Paul on a lot of things. I definitely agree with his strong stance in favor of civil liberties, and that we should get out of Iraq as soon as possible. I agree that the government is probably spending too much, but I would chalk this up mostly to the Iraq war. I agree with him that we should end the war on drugs. And I admire that he is one of the few politicians who always votes his conscience and doesn't pander for the sake of a vote. Politics today needs more people like that.But there are some major problems with Ron Paul. First, I have to say that I disagree strongly with how infallibly he views the Constitution. Ron Paul fetishizes the Constitution to a dangerous extent. I'll acknowledge that the Constitution was a brilliant work with many great ideas for its time. Some of those ideas are still relevant today. But some of them aren't. The Constitution was obviously not an infallible document. Under the original Constitution, women couldn't vote. Indeed, the Constitution needed to be amended a number of times to get it to the right place. Why does Ron Paul think that that process has stopped? The views of the Constitution are only as relevant as the time period in which it is being used, and as the time evolves, so too must the Constitution. Now, some people want to amend the Constitution in bad ways. Some people want to use it as a weapon to destroy civil liberties. I disagree with these people. But there are other ways in which the original Constitution simply can't keep up with modern society - in particular, I was aghast when he suggested we repeal the Sixteenth Amendment.Which leads me to another thing I object to about Ron Paul - his no-tax, pro-business model. Ron Paul places far too much faith in the integrity of private corporations to provide effectively for the citizens of the United States. Now, I have a healthy skepticism of the good intentions of our government. But I have a far healthier skepticism of the good intentions of businesses, which do not even make any pretensions to acting in the interest of the citizens. Ron Paul's stance on government regulation of C02 emissions is a perfect example of this. There's simply no incentive for businesses to act in the interests of the environment - and in turn, the citizens, as the environment affects all of us - without government interference. Health care is another issue where I don't trust private corporations to function effectively. What's in the best interest of the health care provider - to make you better at once? Or to lead you on and keep you mostly sick, so that you keep coming back and spending more money?And that he suggests that the Department of Education be dissolved? Honestly, I can scarcely believe he even suggested it. It takes very little imagination to envision the ridiculous class imbalance that will ensue when education is left up to private corporations. In short, thinking that leaving all of these services up to businesses will somehow magically work things out is hopelessly idealistic and suggests severe historical amnesia. Businesses do not care about the citizen. They care only about maximizing profits. I read an article once that was doing a psychological profile of a number of different social entities. The business was diagnosed as a sociopath, and that's very reflective of how much faith I put in them to effectively manage our interests on their own - none.Ron Paul also doesn't really have a coherent positive stance on what the role of the government actually is. I watched several interviews with him and, when asked what role the government actually did have, his only answer was that the role of the government was to reduce regulations and get rid of needless laws. In other words, the role of the government is to destroy itself. His libertarian ideals seem synonymous with anarchism.There's also the issue of the newsletters published under his name from 1978-1995. The content of these newsletters is, to put it bluntly, completely appalling, as they spew a steady stream racist and homophobic vitriol, along with flagrant medical falsehoods (at one point the newsletters claimed that "we can safely assume that 95% of the black males in [Washington DC] are at least semi-criminal or entirely criminal." Another snippet suggested that, because of its high black population, Washington DC be renamed to "Welfaria, or Rapeville, or Dirtburg, or Lazyopolis.")Ron Paul denies that these words were his own and that the articles were ghost-written. The cynic would see this as damage control and assume that Ron Paul is actually a racist, homophobe, and all-around lunatic; while there is some merit to this view considering Ron Paul's voting record and his failure to do anything about the newsletter for seventeen years, I will be generous and give him the benefit of the doubt. But if this really was all an unfortunate mishap, and these views don't reflect Ron Paul's views, then what does this tell us about Ron Paul? I would say that it shows that he is astonishingly incompetent. To have this as a persistent issue for seventeen years, have it brought to his attention numerous times, and not do anything about it - if Ron Paul can't effectively manage a newsletter, what does that say about his ability to manage the country? The whole ordeal represents at best disturbing negligence and incompetence on his behalf, and at worst, blatant racism and homophobia.This charge of incompetence is also consistent with Ron Paul's legislative track record. Considering how long he has served in Congress, it is somewhat astonishing that Ron Paul has absolutely no significant legislative achievements. When you have extreme views like he does, you need a certain degree of tact and legislative finesse in order to accomplish your goals. That he has not been able to implement any of them suggests that he has neither. You have to question how much of his agenda the guy would actually accomplish as president. I'm going to be presumptuous and say not much.Finally, and perhaps most importantly, I don't think Ron Paul is interested in helping people. In terms of foreign policy, he's an isolationist. Even with respect to Darfur, where absolutely horrible things are happening, he has said something to the effect of "It's a civil war, and it's not our problem." What a horribly cynical view to take! Now, I'm wary of the charges of policing the world, and being an arrogant nation, but frankly, I see nothing arrogant about sending aid to Darfur. That seems like a very compassionate view to take. But Ron Paul doesn't seem interested in compassion. His rationale for everything seems to be based on money, not social wellbeing. You can't help but feel that he equates what is right with "where the money is." He seems interested primarily in the Constitution and libertarian ideals, and he has prioritized this ideology before the wellbeing of the people. I simply can't stand for that.So, that's why I don't support Ron Paul. I think his ideas would be incredibly destructive and not at all what Christ would want, and I think that he, personally, is not a competent politician.
Well, Lunar, we'll have to disagree on Obama. The problem with saying that he embodies everything a Christian stands for is that everything Christ commanded us to do was to be done privately and of one's own personal charity. It's not up to any government to take away one's free will and redistribute to others. What these types of idealists never tell you about are the families with their heads above water. Yes they may get that healthcare, but at what expense; food on the table?Anyone who says that he can insure the entire populace or even a large fraction of it and "cut costs" is lying to you. Here's why.In 2006, Medicaid alone was $295 billion - with a "b." This was with 42 million insured. There are now 300 million in the US. So let's go ahead and multiply that $295 billion by 6-7. You're talking $2 trillion. Guess what our entire budget is? $3.1 Trillion.Medicare is not a whole lot better.
According to the 2004 "Green Book" of the House Ways and Means Committee, Medicare expenditures from the American government were $256.8 billion in fiscal year 2002. Beneficiary premiums are highly subsidized, and net outlays for the program, accounting for the premiums paid by subscribers, were $230.9 billion. Medicare spending is growing steadily in both absolute terms and as a percentage of the federal budget. Total Medicare spending reached $440 billion for fiscal year 2007, or 16 percent of all federal spending. The only larger categories of federal spending are Social Security and defense. Given the current pattern of spending growth, maintaining Medicare's financing over the long-term will require significant changes.
(Source: Wikipedia)Where are they gonna get the money? From everyone. Is that really helping out the people who need it most? Not at all.I don't vote for liars, and I wish people would wake up, but such is the way of one worldism. It sounds so nice!
According to the 2004 "Green Book" of the House Ways and Means Committee, Medicare expenditures from the American government were $256.8 billion in fiscal year 2002. Beneficiary premiums are highly subsidized, and net outlays for the program, accounting for the premiums paid by subscribers, were $230.9 billion. Medicare spending is growing steadily in both absolute terms and as a percentage of the federal budget. Total Medicare spending reached $440 billion for fiscal year 2007, or 16 percent of all federal spending. The only larger categories of federal spending are Social Security and defense. Given the current pattern of spending growth, maintaining Medicare's financing over the long-term will require significant changes.
(Source: Wikipedia)Where are they gonna get the money? From everyone. Is that really helping out the people who need it most? Not at all.I don't vote for liars, and I wish people would wake up, but such is the way of one worldism. It sounds so nice!
(jamesrage;34450)
The one thing I have learned from the different political forums is that religion is nothing more than a label that politicians wear.Some of the democrats for example wear catholitism as nothing more than a label but yet they support things like abortion,gay marriage and other things Catholics are supposed to oppose.Some of these so called religious politicians act as though they are supposed to keep their religious views separately from the decisions they make.
That is so true.
The one thing I have learned from the different political forums is that religion is nothing more than a label that politicians wear.Some of the democrats for example wear catholitism as nothing more than a label but yet they support things like abortion,gay marriage and other things Catholics are supposed to oppose.Some of these so called religious politicians act as though they are supposed to keep their religious views separately from the decisions they make.
That is so true.
(Denver;34612)
In 2006, Medicaid alone was $295 billion - with a "b." This was with 42 million insured. There are now 300 million in the US. So let's go ahead and multiply that $295 billion by 6-7. You're talking $2 trillion. Guess what our entire budget is? $3.1 Trillion.Medicare is not a whole lot better.
Well, I'm not sure I really want this to segue into a debate over health care, but I will say that every acknowledges that the current health care system is broken. That doesn't imply that socialized health care can't possibly work - indeed, if you look at most European countries, they are able to do this much more efficiently and with far greater results. This seems to suggest that we can make socialized health care work if we just do some tweaking. And since we don't even have universal health care over here yet, I don't think we can look at our current system and say that it will be doomed to failure under every implementation. The analogous case seems to be to look at the countries that have been successful with universal health care and ask "Why can't we do that? What are we doing wrong?"I will also say that saying that what Christ wanted was for all of us to give personally, and not through organized government, seems to me to be much too narrow a reading of Christ's actual message, and not analogous to the society we live in today. But if anything, Christ and his followers struck me as having some very socialistic ideas themselves, and not a whole lot of free-market libertarian ideas. ("The community of believers were of one heart and one mind. None of them ever claimed anything as his own; rather, everything was held in common." - Acts 4:32)
In 2006, Medicaid alone was $295 billion - with a "b." This was with 42 million insured. There are now 300 million in the US. So let's go ahead and multiply that $295 billion by 6-7. You're talking $2 trillion. Guess what our entire budget is? $3.1 Trillion.Medicare is not a whole lot better.
Well, I'm not sure I really want this to segue into a debate over health care, but I will say that every acknowledges that the current health care system is broken. That doesn't imply that socialized health care can't possibly work - indeed, if you look at most European countries, they are able to do this much more efficiently and with far greater results. This seems to suggest that we can make socialized health care work if we just do some tweaking. And since we don't even have universal health care over here yet, I don't think we can look at our current system and say that it will be doomed to failure under every implementation. The analogous case seems to be to look at the countries that have been successful with universal health care and ask "Why can't we do that? What are we doing wrong?"I will also say that saying that what Christ wanted was for all of us to give personally, and not through organized government, seems to me to be much too narrow a reading of Christ's actual message, and not analogous to the society we live in today. But if anything, Christ and his followers struck me as having some very socialistic ideas themselves, and not a whole lot of free-market libertarian ideas. ("The community of believers were of one heart and one mind. None of them ever claimed anything as his own; rather, everything was held in common." - Acts 4:32)
I have to agree with Denver here. Of course, it does make a difference about who your influences are too.My parents were/are middle-class Americans who have always worked hard for what they have. I think if you are a middle-class, working American, it tends to hit you hard when they raise taxes(and they will) to ensure that everyone is taken care of with these government programs (i.e.-government healthcare) and what makes it even worse is when you have to pay these enormous co-pays,health insurance monthly premiums, and deductibles. Yet someone who doesn't even have a job (now I'm not talking about those who CAN'T work or even those who have temporarily fallen on hard times) has full access to free healthcare/prescriptions and the like. I absolutely will not vote for Hillary for this very reason. I am not voting for Obama because it will probably be like this as well. I received an informative e-mail from Dr. James Dobson this morning asking me to endorse Mike Huckabee. That's who my vote is going to. Some people think it's a vote thrown into the wind. If so, so be it. I have to vote for who I think is the best moral, family-minded, faith-based choice. I know none of the candidates are perfect and there is always something "in the closet" we could find on them. But, of all of them, I think Huckabee would have the most integrity. If the choices come down to Hillary and Obama, I have to say, that I'm with Dobson. I just don't think I could cast a vote in good conscience. Lord, help us all to do the right thing is all I can say.
I'm writing in Ron Paul if he doesn't get the nomination. I'm not going to vote for anyone else because I don't believe them, I don't trust them at all. And it won't be a wasted vote, it will be a vote for liberty and the Constitution and I will be able to look back and say I had no part in the destruction of our nation.
I will be doing the same thing. We are in the messes we are in mostly because our government mismanages everything it is entrusted with. Minimizing government and placing the responsibility firmly with the people is the only answer. Otherwise you get what we have here. I haven't seen any social programs in America work the way they were designed. Have you??Ron Paul will not be able to get all the things done that he wants to, if he is elected. There are too many people sucking the govt. teat to just rip it out of their mouth all at once. He would have to be gentle. Congress isn't going to approve most of his measures because the people in Congress got there by promising certain people certain things. But Ron Paul being elected and trying to reverse socialism is a good first step. It would take several Ron Pauls in a row to get us where he wants us to be. People thinking that big government is the answer mystifies me. Someone believing in the Constitution being labeled as "radical" and someone with the name of Barack Hussein Obama being touted as Christian seems a little surprising to me, unless you believe everything the TV tells you??
I will be doing the same thing. We are in the messes we are in mostly because our government mismanages everything it is entrusted with. Minimizing government and placing the responsibility firmly with the people is the only answer. Otherwise you get what we have here. I haven't seen any social programs in America work the way they were designed. Have you??Ron Paul will not be able to get all the things done that he wants to, if he is elected. There are too many people sucking the govt. teat to just rip it out of their mouth all at once. He would have to be gentle. Congress isn't going to approve most of his measures because the people in Congress got there by promising certain people certain things. But Ron Paul being elected and trying to reverse socialism is a good first step. It would take several Ron Pauls in a row to get us where he wants us to be. People thinking that big government is the answer mystifies me. Someone believing in the Constitution being labeled as "radical" and someone with the name of Barack Hussein Obama being touted as Christian seems a little surprising to me, unless you believe everything the TV tells you??
Well Lunar, you brought Europe into this, but kindly let me point out that our nation is itself the size of all of Europe combined. You're talking about a social program so large that anything like it has ever been created by well over a trillion dollars. This has to be funded and we've got to realize where this funding comes from.I mean Hillary is talking about docking your pay if you don't use this system. I'm sorry, but that's communism.
(Denver;34736)
Well Lunar, you brought Europe into this, but kindly let me point out that our nation is itself the size of all of Europe combined. You're talking about a social program so large that anything like it has ever been created by well over a trillion dollars. This has to be funded and we've got to realize where this funding comes from.
Precisely because there are that many people to provide health care for, there are also that many people to tax to provide for the health care system. It's going to scale more or less proportionally with the population, so I don't see why the size of it is an issue.(His By Grace;34706)
If the choices come down to Hillary and Obama, I have to say, that I'm with Dobson. I just don't think I could cast a vote in good conscience. Lord, help us all to do the right thing is all I can say.
Thankfully, you will never need to make this choice, because Hillary and Obama are in the same party.(For Life)
someone with the name of Barack Hussein Obama being touted as Christian seems a little surprising to me
With all due respect, are you serious? You're bringing someone's name into this, as though their name somehow dictates their actions and decisions? I'm sorry if this offends you, but that is just one of the most juvenile things I've ever heard and I can't believe you could bring it up in a serious political discussion.
Well Lunar, you brought Europe into this, but kindly let me point out that our nation is itself the size of all of Europe combined. You're talking about a social program so large that anything like it has ever been created by well over a trillion dollars. This has to be funded and we've got to realize where this funding comes from.
Precisely because there are that many people to provide health care for, there are also that many people to tax to provide for the health care system. It's going to scale more or less proportionally with the population, so I don't see why the size of it is an issue.(His By Grace;34706)
If the choices come down to Hillary and Obama, I have to say, that I'm with Dobson. I just don't think I could cast a vote in good conscience. Lord, help us all to do the right thing is all I can say.
Thankfully, you will never need to make this choice, because Hillary and Obama are in the same party.(For Life)
someone with the name of Barack Hussein Obama being touted as Christian seems a little surprising to me
With all due respect, are you serious? You're bringing someone's name into this, as though their name somehow dictates their actions and decisions? I'm sorry if this offends you, but that is just one of the most juvenile things I've ever heard and I can't believe you could bring it up in a serious political discussion.
Okay, Lunar. I think you know what I meant. No matter which of these the Democratic party elects to represent them, I wouldn't be able to choose him/her. Maybe I left out the detail that I don't like McCain either. OOOOPPPS! So, my bad.
You're bringing someone's name into this, as though their name somehow dictates their actions and decisions?
Do you think I am the only one that wonders about this? A lot of times in the Bible, someones name is very significant in what they were doing and what they were about to do. You disagree?
Do you think I am the only one that wonders about this? A lot of times in the Bible, someones name is very significant in what they were doing and what they were about to do. You disagree?
(For Life;34783)
Do you think I am the only one that wonders about this? A lot of times in the Bible, someones name is very significant in what they were doing and what they were about to do. You disagree?
Putting aside for the moment the issue of how literally we should be reading the Bible, I think you're going to have a very difficult time finding biblical backing for Barack Obama's middle name being some sort of prophecy for his future evildoing. Hussein is an extremely common Arabic name. It would be like a foreigner saying that an American leader is destined to be evil because his last name was Smith - i.e., completely ridiculous. As I've said multiple times now, Barack Obama has been actively involved in a Christian church for decades - longer than he has been involved in politics - and I'd like to think that that carries more evidential weight than his middle name.If you were really intent on reading meaning into Barack Obama through his middle name, I'd think that the first thing you'd point out is the fact that the word "Hussein" is literally translated as "good." But that's just me.
Do you think I am the only one that wonders about this? A lot of times in the Bible, someones name is very significant in what they were doing and what they were about to do. You disagree?
Putting aside for the moment the issue of how literally we should be reading the Bible, I think you're going to have a very difficult time finding biblical backing for Barack Obama's middle name being some sort of prophecy for his future evildoing. Hussein is an extremely common Arabic name. It would be like a foreigner saying that an American leader is destined to be evil because his last name was Smith - i.e., completely ridiculous. As I've said multiple times now, Barack Obama has been actively involved in a Christian church for decades - longer than he has been involved in politics - and I'd like to think that that carries more evidential weight than his middle name.If you were really intent on reading meaning into Barack Obama through his middle name, I'd think that the first thing you'd point out is the fact that the word "Hussein" is literally translated as "good." But that's just me.
I'm sure they are reporting the Louisiana Primary election results nationally. When I went to bed last night, it was Obama for Democratic party votes and Huckabee (praise the Lord) getting the Rebublican votes. I heard the Clintons were quite stunned, as he was in N.O. just a day or so ago. McCain also visited a few days ago. Anybody heard an update this morning?
Putting aside for the moment the issue of how literally we should be reading the Bible, I think you're going to have a very difficult time finding biblical backing for Barack Obama's middle name being some sort of prophecy for his future evildoing. Hussein is an extremely common Arabic name. It would be like a foreigner saying that an American leader is destined to be evil because his last name was Smith - i.e., completely ridiculous. As I've said multiple times now, Barack Obama has been actively involved in a Christian church for decades - longer than he has been involved in politics - and I'd like to think that that carries more evidential weight than his middle name.
I never said I was worried about Obama's future evildoing, I wonder why you would bring that up? I said I thought it was funny that people assume he is a Christian when his name is Arabic. You'd think he would spend more time telling people he is Christian and not Muslim, and maybe even stand for some Christian values. Are Democrats allowed to stand for Christian values??
I never said I was worried about Obama's future evildoing, I wonder why you would bring that up? I said I thought it was funny that people assume he is a Christian when his name is Arabic. You'd think he would spend more time telling people he is Christian and not Muslim, and maybe even stand for some Christian values. Are Democrats allowed to stand for Christian values??
(For Life;34914)
I said I thought it was funny that people assume he is a Christian when his name is Arabic. You'd think he would spend more time telling people he is Christian and not Muslim, and maybe even stand for some Christian values
I don't. I think that's a completely silly reason to think that someone who has been in a Christian church for over 20 years isn't Christian. His name is just something he was born with. It's his actions we should be judging him by. He shouldn't need to have to argue in favor of not being a Muslim; the evidence speaks for itself.And you can read my previous posts to see why I think Obama embodies Christian values better than any other candidate. You're doing yourself a disservice if you reduce "Christian values" to "pro-life, anti-gay marriage."
I said I thought it was funny that people assume he is a Christian when his name is Arabic. You'd think he would spend more time telling people he is Christian and not Muslim, and maybe even stand for some Christian values
I don't. I think that's a completely silly reason to think that someone who has been in a Christian church for over 20 years isn't Christian. His name is just something he was born with. It's his actions we should be judging him by. He shouldn't need to have to argue in favor of not being a Muslim; the evidence speaks for itself.And you can read my previous posts to see why I think Obama embodies Christian values better than any other candidate. You're doing yourself a disservice if you reduce "Christian values" to "pro-life, anti-gay marriage."
forgivenWretch
New Member
I believe that this election is the most important election that we have or ever will see. I am a Democrat, but no way would I ever vote for either of the two candidates. And BTW I have voted and took my stand against them both. We need a TRUE Christian leading our country or what's left of it. Is that person available? Who knows? Unfortunately the only One capable of that knowledge is God. We can only pray and talk to Him and pray that He leads us to make the right decision.Church readerboard...."A vote for right can never be wrong"
I have been worried about this joke they call a campaign since it started. God help us we are going to need it.
