As an Army retiree, I thank McCain for his service to the USA and the untold hell he endured for this country. Having said that: It is unbelievable that McCain puts the welfare of illegal aliens above that of law abiding US citizens. It is my humble opinion that McCain is washed up and needs to step down from the US Senate.
McCain worried
- Thread starter Pat H
- Start date
McCain's position on remaining long term in Iraq.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vf7HYoh9YMM
A hundred years, anyone?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vf7HYoh9YMM
A hundred years, anyone?
In the end Pat this party will get what it deserves. This party is at a crossroads, if all it has to offer real conservatives is 'you better vote for us because the other guys are really bad' the party will lose its limited govt base.
IMHO like a drug addict....the party just has not hit the bottom yet. (its felling to good to know its sick)
IMHO like a drug addict....the party just has not hit the bottom yet. (its felling to good to know its sick)
You clearly know not of what you speak. As usual, strong emotion is being misinterpreted as understanding. In no way is big government an interest to Christians. To make such an assertion is evidence of a strong lack of understanding.
Christians have accepted responsibility for their own lives. They have committed to a willingness to be held accountable for their actions. They believe that improvement of their lives is personal. Christianity and liberty have far more in common then they do in contrast. Those critical of Christianity think that it is some kind of rigid, dogmatic, conformity insistent, bondage. The opposite is actual Christianity.
The ignorant assertion that Christians like big government is like saying that that NRA members like school shootings. They like guns right? Christians vote Republican because Republican platforms more often reflect personal responsibility vs. victim status. The mind set that individuals, not governments, make better societies.
Bottom line, all are acceptable. ALL have GREAT potential and WILL realize that potential given THEY pursue it. Is that a Republican or Christian belief? Answer is it is both.
Work on the bigotry as it is grotesque and becoming an identifying attribute.
With respect to marriage, if it was not for state governments, specifically judges, usurping the will of the voters in several states then there wouldn't be a need for this. As a result, the marriage amendment is actually a rebuke of government action.
Of course, the idea that there would need to be a HUGE federal police force to enforce either amendment is absurd. We have no federal police force enforcing roe v wade. We wouldn't have any "police force" enforcing these either. As with anything else, any dispute would be settled in the courts.
I suggest you refresh yourself with how the government works Pat.
BoringAccountant
New member
Hmm...sounds like you have it nailed there Pat...Christians are against abortion and against same-sex marriages, so in order to prevent those things they try to get things passed:barf:
Please Pat, tell me you dont seriously believe that because of these two things all Christians, well most, want big government?
I feel as if I shouldn't be stepping in here, so I will tread lightly. I don't like "group" identities and think it waters down individuals and hence their rights. We don't get our rights because we're Christians, Gun Owners, Black, or Gay. We were given our rights because we are all individuals, created by God and able to take part in the "Social Contract".
I despise blocks of people (even Evangelicals), who are ignorant and so band together to protect their ignorance. I find that a lot of the convincing I must do to people belong and identify themselves as "Christians", and then without regard to what that term entails, they tell me that if I don't vote for X candidate, I am certainly putting Hillary in the White House and she's no Christian you know...
Well- no I don't know that. I know many of the candidates with maybe three exceptions supported and still support Abortion rights. I personally don't believe that is a Christian position. I similarly don't like that they try to win arguements and impose their views on the nation without finding a good secular arguement. Abortion shouldn't be banned because it is a sin, abortion should be banned because our most fundamental right is a right to life.
So- I think especially with a Southern Baptist minister (don't flame me, I grew up with them and half the fam is SB), he has a ways to go before I jump on the bandwagon with him. So far, he has done a remarkable job. Still I don't think he's ever really studied the Constitution, though perhaps he has.
I believe that if we don't select a president who will get us closer to Constitutional Governance, we are all in a world of hurt. They want to fix healthcare by focusing on health care and corporations. They want to fix the price of oil by hammering big oil, or big Arabs, or some other boogieman.
So far, only one candidate has fairly explained why oil costs more, why medicine and education cost more and why jobs are going overseas. Monetary policy as dictated by the constitution would go a long, long, way to fixing national problems, but only one candidate wants to fix the problem, not the blame.
I am looking forward to spreading the ideas. No- I think he can't win. That doesn't mean I won't give him every chance by voting for him and sending him money. Still, right now there's a glaring population of tens of millions of supporters, many who came over from the Democrats to support this man's ideas. Let me be clear, there is no position of Ron Paul's that is liberal. You can't point one out to me. Hence, there are many hundreds of thousands of harvestable votes out there for the Republican candidate who takes notice of the ideas, learns them, embraces them and moves our way. Otherwise, these guys will move back to the Democrats and Libertarian parties, and the Republican party will fade away because they forgot what limited government, individual rights, and sound fiscal policies were.
That's my 2 cents.
I despise blocks of people (even Evangelicals), who are ignorant and so band together to protect their ignorance. I find that a lot of the convincing I must do to people belong and identify themselves as "Christians", and then without regard to what that term entails, they tell me that if I don't vote for X candidate, I am certainly putting Hillary in the White House and she's no Christian you know...
Well- no I don't know that. I know many of the candidates with maybe three exceptions supported and still support Abortion rights. I personally don't believe that is a Christian position. I similarly don't like that they try to win arguements and impose their views on the nation without finding a good secular arguement. Abortion shouldn't be banned because it is a sin, abortion should be banned because our most fundamental right is a right to life.
So- I think especially with a Southern Baptist minister (don't flame me, I grew up with them and half the fam is SB), he has a ways to go before I jump on the bandwagon with him. So far, he has done a remarkable job. Still I don't think he's ever really studied the Constitution, though perhaps he has.
I believe that if we don't select a president who will get us closer to Constitutional Governance, we are all in a world of hurt. They want to fix healthcare by focusing on health care and corporations. They want to fix the price of oil by hammering big oil, or big Arabs, or some other boogieman.
So far, only one candidate has fairly explained why oil costs more, why medicine and education cost more and why jobs are going overseas. Monetary policy as dictated by the constitution would go a long, long, way to fixing national problems, but only one candidate wants to fix the problem, not the blame.
I am looking forward to spreading the ideas. No- I think he can't win. That doesn't mean I won't give him every chance by voting for him and sending him money. Still, right now there's a glaring population of tens of millions of supporters, many who came over from the Democrats to support this man's ideas. Let me be clear, there is no position of Ron Paul's that is liberal. You can't point one out to me. Hence, there are many hundreds of thousands of harvestable votes out there for the Republican candidate who takes notice of the ideas, learns them, embraces them and moves our way. Otherwise, these guys will move back to the Democrats and Libertarian parties, and the Republican party will fade away because they forgot what limited government, individual rights, and sound fiscal policies were.
That's my 2 cents.
I believe the post was considering evangelical and such pseudo-Christians as John Hagee and not all of Christendom.
dalegribble
New member
I live in AZ and I don't think Mcain could get himself re-elected here for another term, let alone president. Thompson isn't even going through the motions like he is interested in the job. Romney can't even buy himself the office, Rudy is only running where he thinks he has a chance. Ron Paul is the most legitimate candidate. Paul vs Obama would be an event worth watching.
This is just my opinion, but I believe that RP's most vehement supporters are his biggest problem. They make it difficult for people to align themselves with RP because people don't want to be associated with the vehement supporters, who are given to hooting- and hollering-down any opposition.
Also, some of them tend to make outrageous claims. For one example, I've seen several posts that "Only RP can defeat the Dems." Frankly, I don't see the Dem's presidential hopefuls as being all that inevitable. Each has serious weaknesses. Whoever the two nominees are, the race will be very tight.
For another example, I've seen posts by RP supporters who say, "Ronald Reagan was a failure." That kind of talk might help a Dem candidate, but it will hurt a Republican candidate. The fact is that most Republicans, especially those who vote in primaries, have great respect for Reagan. Whatever anyone thinks of Reagan - love him, hate him, or don't care one way or the other - it helps to do the math. If most Republicans who vote in primaries have great respect for Reagan, you don't do your candidate much good by insisting that the man they respect is a failure. Instead, that approach may be the best way to turn them against your candidate. A better approach would be to concentrate on your candidate's strong points.
Obama is doing so well mostly (but not entirely) because he's avoiding the Clinton-style attacks that have dominated politics since the 1992 election. I wouldn't vote for him for president, but I must give credit where credit is due. Obama is at the forefront of a sea change in political campaigning, and it's a change people had better pay attention to if they want to win.
Toning down the rhetoric is something the candidates and their supporters, particularly vehement supporters, need to do if they don't want to be footnotes in the history books.
Also, some of them tend to make outrageous claims. For one example, I've seen several posts that "Only RP can defeat the Dems." Frankly, I don't see the Dem's presidential hopefuls as being all that inevitable. Each has serious weaknesses. Whoever the two nominees are, the race will be very tight.
For another example, I've seen posts by RP supporters who say, "Ronald Reagan was a failure." That kind of talk might help a Dem candidate, but it will hurt a Republican candidate. The fact is that most Republicans, especially those who vote in primaries, have great respect for Reagan. Whatever anyone thinks of Reagan - love him, hate him, or don't care one way or the other - it helps to do the math. If most Republicans who vote in primaries have great respect for Reagan, you don't do your candidate much good by insisting that the man they respect is a failure. Instead, that approach may be the best way to turn them against your candidate. A better approach would be to concentrate on your candidate's strong points.
Obama is doing so well mostly (but not entirely) because he's avoiding the Clinton-style attacks that have dominated politics since the 1992 election. I wouldn't vote for him for president, but I must give credit where credit is due. Obama is at the forefront of a sea change in political campaigning, and it's a change people had better pay attention to if they want to win.
Toning down the rhetoric is something the candidates and their supporters, particularly vehement supporters, need to do if they don't want to be footnotes in the history books.
Time to get back on topic as to just why exacly Mccain should be worried: http://parocks.com/mccainoniraq.JPG
