View Full Version : Being More Aggressive in our Circle of Influence Against Obama
So I hear from talk radio that McCain is not being aggressive enough against Obama. So how do we make an impact in our circle of influence?
I started putting "Obama Facts" in the signature lines of my emails that state his agenda for our country and his beliefs. (nanny state, abortion, universal healthcare, higher-taxes, same-sex marraiage, etc)
I'm looking for other ideas and recommendations for getting the word out.
Jay Cunningham
06-06-08, 12:19
If "we" had any influence McCain would not be "our" candidate.
If "we" had any influence McCain would not be "our" candidate.
how true
Gutshot John
06-06-08, 13:10
If "we" had any influence McCain would not be "our" candidate.
Maybe, maybe not.
But with anyone other than McCain...you'll have substantially less.
Why did Conservatism start insisting on ideologic purity? Certainly not the conservatism I grew up with.
If "we" had any influence McCain would not be "our" candidate.
+1
I am talking to everyone about Obama and his lovely ideas
Jay Cunningham
06-06-08, 13:13
Why did Conservatism start insisting on ideologic purity? Certainly not the conservatism I grew up with.
Yeah, and until Reagan came along, how did "Republican Conservatism" work out? Ever hear of a Rockefeller or Blueblood Republican?
:rolleyes:
Conservatism doesn't require ideological purity, but it does, at some point, require a conservative.
Gutshot John
06-06-08, 13:24
Yeah, and until Reagan came along, how did "Republican Conservatism" work out? Ever hear of a Rockefeller or Blueblood Republican?
:rolleyes:
Conservatism doesn't require ideological purity, but it does, at some point, require a conservative.
Well what do you call conservatism?
I called it fiscal discipline, low taxes, small government and strong national defense. I don't see where McCain deviates from those CORE principles. Obama on the other hand is the antithesis of ALL of those principles.
Like liberals wished to create the perfect society "upon the hill" now conservatism has become about social issues and litmus tests and retards like Rick Santorum/Pat Toomey who want to create their own idealistic vision of what America should be. Sorry but I don't drink Kool-Aid.
Republican Conservatism didn't "work out" for so long because the country had swung so far left under FDR/LBJ that liberalism in turn needed to be discredited before Reagan could rise.
Unfortunately for you and I the present generation of republican "conservatives" have returned the favor.
Pragmatism (not ideologic purity) is the hallmark of the conservative. Ideology is the hallmark of liberalism.
A conservative utopia is as flawed as a liberal one. Ask Russell Kirk.
KintlaLake
06-06-08, 13:29
A conservative utopia is as flawed as a liberal one.
Now there's something you'll never hear on talk radio.
(Secret: That's why it's called talk radio and not think radio...)
Jay Cunningham
06-06-08, 13:45
I am not asking for Utopia, I'm asking you to carefully consider why - precisely, exactly why - you have decided to pull the lever for John McCain.
That's all.
Bulldog1967
06-06-08, 13:54
I am not asking for Utopia, I'm asking you to carefully consider why - precisely, exactly why - you have decided to pull the lever for John McCain.
That's all.
"Because I love my country MORE than I hate John McCain"
Thats why. I'm not happy about it, but thats the reality.
Gutshot John
06-06-08, 13:57
I am not asking for Utopia, I'm asking you to carefully consider why - precisely, exactly why - you have decided to pull the lever for John McCain.
That's all.
You're assuming that I haven't carefully considered it and that all we need to do is think about it some more and we'll somehow arrive at a different conclusion. This would be a flawed assumption.
For me voting has nothing to do with party. I vote Republican because I can't vote anything else. But I reject outright any notion that one party or the other holds a monopoly on intellectual truth.
First I vote for him because he's the only politician I've ever heard (IN MY ENTIRE ADULT LIFE) who often tells me what I don't want to hear. This means I'll believe him when he tells me something I do want to hear. This is something that GWB has utterly failed to grasp. I'm tired of being pandered to, lied to or treated like a complete moron who can't see what's going on. I've studied government, I've worked with government and I know the system. In my years in DC, he was the only one that was consistently bucking the system. He's earned the label "maverick."
Second he's the only candidate that supports the core conservative principles of fiscal discipline, low takes, small government and a strong national defense. Something no Republican President (not even Reagan) could claim 100% success and something that so-called conservatives like Hastert and Bush demonstrably BETRAYED. I don't want judicial activism, but that doesn't mean I want government to make private/personal moral choices for me either.
Third and perhaps most importantly, he's the only hope that conservative gun owners like you and me have against a veto-proof majority in both houses and the most liberal President since that peanut farmer we all know and "love."
This isn't McCain's fault, you can blame all the so-called "conservative" idiots that call themselves the RNC.
Jay Cunningham
06-06-08, 14:00
It's also not about hating John McCain.
Let me ask you this: when you love something or someone, do you only act with your intentions in the short-term with that person or thing? Or, if you truly love it/them, are you willing to make a hard decision that doesn't feel good in the short-term but will bring a better long-term result?
Just sayin'
Don't switch your brain off when you pull that lever.
Gutshot John
06-06-08, 14:08
It's also not about hating John McCain.
Let me ask you this: when you love something or someone, do you only act with your intentions in the short-term with that person or thing? Or, if you truly love it/them, are you willing to make a hard decision that doesn't feel good in the short-term but will bring a better long-term result?
Just sayin'
Don't switch your brain off when you pull that lever.
I don't recall saying that you hated McCain, but if I did, I shouldn't have.
So you're saying we're better off with Obama in the long-run than McCain? Sorry but that requires a suspension of disbelief.
Not switching my brain off, but you're pretending there's a choice that isn't there. That's utopianism.
Jay Cunningham
06-06-08, 14:13
For me voting has nothing to do with party.
It's also not about the Republican Party, per se.
First I vote for him because he's the only politician I've ever heard who often tells me what I don't want to hear.
Nahh, 95% of politicians tell me things that I don't want to hear 95% of the time...
This isn't McCain's fault, you can blame all the so-called "conservative" idiots that call themselves the RNC.
Agree.
:cool:
Gutshot John
06-06-08, 14:18
Nahh, 95% of politicians tell me things that I don't want to hear 95% of the time...
Allow me to rephrase. He's the only politician I've seen who refuses to pander to my (or his) personal interest.
Telling Michigan Auto Workers that their jobs "weren't coming back" didn't win him that state or any friends, but it was a hard truth.
30 cal slut
06-06-08, 14:20
;)
http://i44.photobucket.com/albums/f15/30calslut/effitmccain08.jpg
Yeah, and until Reagan came along, how did "Republican Conservatism" work out? Ever hear of a Rockefeller or Blueblood Republican?
:rolleyes:
Conservatism doesn't require ideological purity, but it does, at some point, require a conservative.
That last line made me LOL.
Out loud.
Well played, sir.
Gutshot John
06-06-08, 14:41
Sure I'd even buy that...except that according to that standard there's not a single conservative in the Republican party.
Sad but true.
Jay Cunningham
06-06-08, 14:51
Sure I'd even buy that...except that according to that standard there's not a single conservative in the Republican party.
Sad but true.
There are plenty in the Party. The Party just considers them unelectable and won't support them in any major runs. Because they would prefer to "reach out" to "the Middle"...
:(
I am not asking for Utopia, I'm asking you to carefully consider why - precisely, exactly why - you have decided to pull the lever for John McCain.
That's all.
Because he is actually more Conservative in his record than people believe (according to people who have studied his record). He is more Conservative than Obama. And lastly, his record on voting for SCOTUS nominees is very good and he also gave a good speech on who he would nominate. People we would like.
I am a realist. There are only two viable candidates on the ballot this November. Neither is my ideal candidate, but there are not any others. Any idealistic utopian thinking is just that.
Chad
It's also not about hating John McCain.
Let me ask you this: when you love something or someone, do you only act with your intentions in the short-term with that person or thing? Or, if you truly love it/them, are you willing to make a hard decision that doesn't feel good in the short-term but will bring a better long-term result?
Just sayin'
Don't switch your brain off when you pull that lever.
Voting for McCain *IS* voting for the long term. Obama can do more damage than we can ever hope to reverse in any long-term view.
Gutshot John
06-06-08, 14:59
There are plenty in the Party. The Party just considers them unelectable and won't support them in any major runs. Because they would prefer to "reach out" to "the Middle"...
:(
I'm not sure who you mean with the possible exception of Paul (who's not really a Republican anyway), but I guarantee that they've all strayed from conservative principles...the largest increase in the national government since FDR under a Republican controlled Congress and White House? Where were these conservatives of which you speak? Who are they? Tell me who you think measures up and I'm 95% sure I can find departures from conservative principle.
If they exist is it the really party that considers them unelectable? or they are unelectable and the party recognizes it?
If they were electable they'd be able to mount an insurgent campaign...especially in a year of such disarray.
Let me ask you this: when you love something or someone, do you only act with your intentions in the short-term with that person or thing? Or, if you truly love it/them, are you willing to make a hard decision that doesn't feel good in the short-term but will bring a better long-term result?
A question I ask myself all the time when interacting with many people in my life. It is difficult. The latter usually works out better.
There are plenty in the Party. The Party just considers them unelectable and won't support them in any major runs. Because they would prefer to "reach out" to "the Middle"...
It's awful hard to write a story holding the pencil only by the eraser, brother...you gotta have ahold of the middle, too.
But there's a reason it's called the "tyranny of the majority". The "middle" people of America are largely wishy-washy morons that fall for empty rhetoric and emptier promises, and are the kind of people that will vote for Obama for "change" regardless of the fact they don't understand what that means or why they want it. These people live in a Coke-Pepsi world, they'll either choose A or B so both sides would rather be chosen. Nevermind most of them complain about not being able to distinguish between the two anyway.
I'm sure I will vote for McCain but it will likely be at my own peril. I'm sure Obama would try and put through a bunch of sweeping changes that would be meet with resistence while McCain will slowly keep taking and taking on every front. An example, Clinton was looked at as the big anti gun guy. Look at it now and what did we get out of him? I can't think of anything major. The AWB has done more for guns sales than any ad campaign and it is gone. Now lets look at the pro gun choices. Reagan GOPA86, no new MG sales to civilians. Bush Sr., import ban. Bush Jr., ban on imported barrels. None of these are going away. It's a tough choice for me.
McCain is also on the Climate Change bandwagon and things could get ugly there quick.
Jay Cunningham
06-06-08, 15:44
What helped the Republican Party more? 8 years of Clinton or 8 years of Bush?
Would we have gotten Reagan without Carter?
Senators Cornyn and Hutchison from Texas, and Inhofe and Coburn, from Oklahoma, are generally pretty conservative.
As to SCOTUS nominees, that alone is worth a McCain vote, in my view. We cannot afford to lose one seat. I don't know the state of Stevens' health, but given his age, a retirement in the next few years isn't unthinkable.
Just for grins, here are the current Justices, their ages, and who nominated them. If any of this is inaccurate, please say so and I'll correct it. Sorry about the lousy formatting.
Chief Justice Roberts 53 Bush 43
Ginsburg 75 Clinton
Breyer 70 Clinton
Thomas 60 Bush 41
Alito 58 Bush 41
Souter 69 Bush 41
Kennedy 72 Reagan
Scalia 72 Reagan
Stevens 88 Ford
Jay Cunningham
06-06-08, 15:46
As to SCOTUS nominees, that alone is worth a McCain vote, in my view. We cannot afford to lose one seat. I don't know the state of Stevens' health, but given his age, a retirement in the next few years isn't unthinkable.
Considering McCain's past record of "reaching across the aisle" I would not be surprised if he nominates liberals to the SC to make his Dem buddies and his beloved Media happy.
Yes, I really mean that.
I am not so concerned (in this post) whether those on the right will or will not vote for McCain, I am just wondering how to do my part to show people the harm in voting for Obama.
Jay Cunningham
06-06-08, 15:52
I am not so concerned (in this post) whether those on the right will or will not vote for McCain, I am just wondering how to do my part to show people the harm in voting for Obama.
I can respect that.
But I'm not sure it's possible to change someone's mind who has decided at this point to vote for Obama. They look at him as a Democrat Messiah - they are overun by emotion.
Gutshot John
06-06-08, 15:54
What helped the Republican Party more? 8 years of Clinton or 8 years of Bush?
Bush wasn't elected because of Clinton, you might not have liked him but he was a pretty popular president. Bush was elected because the conservative establishment preferred him and had the better machine.
If Bush had been a decent President we'd not be talking about an Obama Presidency, in fact it would have been antithetical.
Would we have gotten Reagan without Carter?
Almost certainly. Reagan won by appealing to traditional Democratic bases. He didn't win by being the "hard-core" partisan jagoff that typifies the current republican president. Bush shattered this alliance between conservative dems and republicans. Clinton won exactly because he adopted the Reagan model...not by being a liberal freak.
KintlaLake
06-06-08, 15:58
What helped the Republican Party more? 8 years of Clinton or 8 years of Bush?
Would we have gotten Reagan without Carter?
I think I understand now.
More can be achieved through unequivocal opposition than through reluctant support; therefore, Obama defeating McCain is in conservatives' long-term interest.
Did I get it right?
I think it was Mike Huckabee who said, "Sometimes when you get what you want, you don't want what you get."
Considering McCain's past record of "reaching across the aisle" I would not be surprised if he nominates liberals to the SC to make his Dem buddies and his beloved Media happy.
Yes, I really mean that.
I know what you mean. When he does that it makes me want to rip my teeth out, but I think our chances are better with McCain. I will readily admit this might be whistling in the dark.
Through a graveyard.
In Transylvania.
Gutshot John
06-06-08, 16:03
Reaching across the aisle...like the "Gang of Fourteen" that got Justices Alito, Roberts and a slew of other Republican appointees on the bench?
Boy...some people just can't catch a break.
This is what I mean about ideologic purity over pragmatism. Conservatives used to be pragmatic, now they are as hopelessly addled by orthodoxy as the left...even when they get what they supposedly want.
Jay Cunningham
06-06-08, 16:05
"hard-core" partisan jagoff
You must be from Picksburgh!
:p
I can respect that.
But I'm not sure it's possible to change someone's mind who has decided at this point to vote for Obama. They look at him as a Democrat Messiah - they are overun by emotion.
Maybe that's true. But in my own family, many know nothing of his record or his assocations (and some don't want to know).
When I turned 18 and my parents took me in to vote for the first time, they TOLD ME that I must vote Democrat on everything because that's what we are and what we do.
Thankfully that eventually changed because I was around people who were smart in how they shared their different beliefs/values with me. They presented another world....and I did change. So I think I am proof that some things are possible.
Bush wasn't elected because of Clinton...
The 94 Republican coup was the result of Clinton, and that was a pretty good bunch for a few years.
Jay Cunningham
06-06-08, 16:08
Reaching across the aisle...like the "Gang of Fourteen" that got Justices Alito, Roberts and a slew of other Republican appointees on the bench?
Ah, so it was McCain and his gang that derailed Bush's stupid plans when he wanted Harriet Miers? I seem to remember it differently...
Gutshot John
06-06-08, 16:08
The 94 Republican coup was the result of Clinton, and that was a pretty good bunch for a few years.
Not really, Clinton helped but it was years of big government that brought this about. Even still they so-called conservatives failed to learn their own lesson.
You prove my point, McCain didn't betray conservative principles...the ENTIRE GOP DID.
Gutshot John
06-06-08, 16:09
Ah, so it was McCain and his gang that derailed Bush's stupid plans when he wanted Harriet Miers? I seem to remember it differently...
So Bush didn't want Roberts/Alito?
As I recall, they were assuring that Bush's plans were carried out.
Harriet Miers was an embarrasment.
Gutshot John
06-06-08, 16:11
You must be from Picksburgh!
:p
My car needs worshed too. :D
Gutshot John
06-06-08, 16:13
All in all tell me what makes a real conservative.
Than tell me who fits that mold.
Jay Cunningham
06-06-08, 16:16
All in all tell me what makes a real conservative.
Than tell me who fits that mold.
No, I'm not going to do that.
You know that John McCain is not a conservative. I am not going to list Mr. Dream Candidate because he/she does not exist but that doesn't change the fact that McCain is a horrible choice for the Republican nominee...
Nor does it change the fact that he is extremely LUCKY that he is running against someone as horrifying as Obama, otherwise he'd never stand a chance.
Hillary probably would have beaten him.
Gutshot John
06-06-08, 16:22
No, I'm not going to do that.
You know that John McCain is not a conservative. I am not going to list Mr. Dream Candidate because he/she does not exist but that doesn't change the fact that McCain is a horrible choice for the Republican nominee...
Nor does it change the fact that he is extremely LUCKY that he is running against someone as horrifying as Obama, otherwise he'd never stand a chance.
Hillary probably would have beaten him.
I know nothing of the sort and I certainly don't understand what makes McCain NOT a conservative. He's for fiscal discipline, small government, low taxes and a strong defense. This is precisely Reagan Conservatism. How has he deviated from these core principles?
Actually it's the exact opposite, if it wasn't for Bush and Obama, McCain would be a shoe-in for the general election. It's the primary that he'd have failed. If it were any other year he'd never have made it through the Republican nomination process due to the so-called "ideologic purists" who nominated Bush the last time...and look what great conservative we got.
You may not believe it, but McCain is the only one in the party, true conservative or not, that can rebuild the Reagan Coalition (hell Reagan wasn't even an ideologic purist).
It's not the far-right or the far-left that holds the balance of power. It's the vast middle. So far partisan antics have suppressed this "silent majority" but that is at an end.
America remains a conservative country...but only when governed by pragmatic conservatism.
You know that John McCain is not a conservative. I am not going to list Mr. Dream Candidate because he/she does not exist but that doesn't change the fact that McCain is a horrible choice for the Republican nominee...
Honestly as far from the perfect conservative candidate as McCain is, he IS the perfect candidate to run this year against a far left democrat in an election cycle where NO HARD-CORE CONSERVATIVE CANDIDATE has a snowballs chance in hell nationally.
Since the choice now is not who will run but rather between Obama and McCain, I'd rather have half of what I want than all of what I don't. And any self-identified conservative that votes for a 3rd party, doesn't vote or votes for Obama is cutting off their nose to spite their face and is in actuallity conceding an Obama win and 4 years (and quite likely 8) of liberal misery from which our country may not recover.
Jay Cunningham
06-06-08, 16:28
I know nothing of the sort and I certainly don't understand what makes McCain NOT a conservative. He's for fiscal discipline, small government, low taxes and a strong defense. This is precisely Reagan Conservatism. How has he deviated from these core principles?
Actually it's the exact opposite, if it wasn't for Bush and Obama, McCain would be a shoe-in for the general election.
If it were any other year he'd never have made it through the Republican nomination process due to the so-called "ideologic purists" who nominated Bush the last time...and look what great conservative we got.
You may not believe it, but McCain is the only one in the party, true conservative or not, that can rebuild the Reagan Coalition (hell Reagan wasn't even an ideologic purist).
It's not the far-right or the far-left that holds the balance of power. It's the vast middle. So far partisan antics have suppressed this "silent majority" but that is at an end.
America remains a conservative country...but only when goverened by common sense conservatism.
Ok, at least I 100% know where you are coming from now.
Jay Cunningham
06-06-08, 16:29
And any self-identified conservative that votes for a 3rd party, doesn't vote or votes for Obama is cutting off their nose to spite their face and is in actuallity conceding an Obama win and 4 years (and quite likely 8) of liberal misery from which our country may not recover.
Those scare tactics don't work on me anymore.
Those scare tactics don't work on me anymore.
Not a scare tactic merely the truth as I see it.
Reaching across the aisle...like the "Gang of Fourteen" that got Justices Alito, Roberts and a slew of other Republican appointees on the bench?
Boy...some people just can't catch a break.
This is what I mean about ideologic purity over pragmatism. Conservatives used to be pragmatic, now they are as hopelessly addled by orthodoxy as the left...even when they get what they supposedly want.
I think that what's labelled (or libelled) as "conservative" today is a bastardization of what I believe it to mean. To me, it's Goldwater/Buckley conservatism. "W" isn't, and really has never been, a conservative. Republican, yes. Conservative, no.
I can't really tell that conservatives have much at all to do with Republican policy anymore.
Full disclosure: I think I voted for Carter. I was in college and I inhaled.
I am not so concerned (in this post) whether those on the right will or will not vote for McCain, I am just wondering how to do my part to show people the harm in voting for Obama.
Roxanne, the problem with this nation doesn't rest with the government, it rests with the people. Government of any philosophical makeup is not going to change the hearts of the American people. We are a nation whose primary worldview is secular humanism and, as a result, we contend that morality is relative. All the laws in the world won't change that. John Adams correctly identified the inherent weakness of the Constitution when he stated it was only capable of governing a religious and moral people. America is neither. Our Constitution is an anachronism.
America has the government it wants and it will continue that way even when Obama is POTUS and Congress is 2/3 Democrat. I will vote my conscience in November. I don't care whether the individual is "electable". It is my vote and I'll use it as I see fit. As for America, we'll get exactly what we ask for and deserve and we'll have no one to blame but ourselves.
Karl
Jay Cunningham
06-06-08, 16:40
I think that what's labelled (or libelled) as "conservative" today is a bastardization of what I believe it to mean. To me, it's Goldwater/Buckley conservatism. "W" isn't, and really has never been, a conservative. Republican, yes. Conservative, no.
Pretty much agree.
Gutshot John
06-06-08, 16:41
I think that what's labelled (or libelled) as "conservative" today is a bastardization of what I believe it to mean. To me, it's Goldwater/Buckley conservatism.
Are you kidding me? Those are UNIVERSALLY considered as the patriarchs of modern conservatism.
What's wrong with Goldwater/Buckley? Both brought about the shift that made Reagan possible. If Reagan heard the above statement he'd fall over laughing.
I wish we still grew conservatives like that, but again that only prooves my point. Modern conservatism has abandoned all pretense at pragmatic solutions and is instead addled by notions of a conservative utopia that is not only impossible but relies on the same disingenuousness of liberalism.
Buckley and Kirk brought modern conservatism from the abyss, that you would dismiss them so casually shows how little self-professed conservatives really understand what "conservative" actually means.
Crash reading course:
"The Conservative Mind" and "John Randolph of Roanoke" by Russel Kirk
"Up from Liberalism" and "God and Man at Yale" by William F. Buckley
If you don't think they're true conservatives after reading the above, than I want nothing to do with your brand of conservatism. I"ll vote democrat instead.
I don't care whether the individual is "electable". It is my vote and I'll use it as I see fit. As for America, we'll get exactly what we ask for and deserve and we'll have no one to blame but ourselves.
I'm not trying to argue with you but I've honestly never understood that reasoning and it frustrates the heck out of me. You have every right to do it of course, I just can't fathom thinking that way myself.
Jay Cunningham
06-06-08, 16:49
is my vote and I'll use it as I see fit. As for America, we'll get exactly what we ask for and deserve and we'll have no one to blame but ourselves.
Cheers!
I just can't fathom thinking that way myself.
I do it because my personal integrity means more to me than choosing the lesser of two evils. This nation will rise or fall, not because of the POTUS, but because of the people. Maybe if we all cared more about our integrity than winning, we might be a better nation. But I really hold no hope for that.
Gutshot John
06-06-08, 16:55
choosing the lesser of two evils.
This is a truism of ALL politics. No matter where.
If you don't like making that choice, abandoning society is about your only practical solution.
Reagan GOPA86, no new MG sales to civilians. Bush Sr., import ban. Bush Jr., ban on imported barrels.
The GOPA86 was a huge net GAIN for gun owners. Yes, the no new MG for civilians was stupid and is a PITA but overall things went our way with that. Supposedly Reagan was going to veto the whole thing due to the MG manufacture ban but was persuaded not to because the thing as a whole was a huge net gain (mail order ammo, out of state rifle sales, all sorts of things).
Bush Sr is evil for the import ban. I will hand that to you.
I am not sure Bush Jr had anything to do with the barrel import ban. Probably a low level bureaucrat made that decision and it is off Bush's radar (he has bigger things to worry about).
Those scare tactics don't work on me anymore.
Not a scare tactic. It is the realistic truth. Stop living in a fantasy land.
Roxanne, the problem with this nation doesn't rest with the government, it rests with the people. Government of any philosophical makeup is not going to change the hearts of the American people. We are a nation whose primary worldview is secular humanism and, as a result, we contend that morality is relative. All the laws in the world won't change that. John Adams correctly identified the inherent weakness of the Constitution when he stated it was only capable of governing a religious and moral people. America is neither. Our Constitution is an anachronism.
Actually, I would content that America as a whole is still a moral society. The fringe elements get all the press and make it look otherwise. The average Joe knows what is right and what is wrong, except maybe on the left coast and the northeast, but wants to be left alone and not get involved or doesn't believe he can do anything. The media makes anyone who thinks differently than them out to be scary fanatics.
What you say may be the path we are on, but we ain't there yet.
America has the government it wants and it will continue that way even when Obama is POTUS and Congress is 2/3 Democrat. I will vote my conscience in November. I don't care whether the individual is "electable". It is my vote and I'll use it as I see fit. As for America, we'll get exactly what we ask for and deserve and we'll have no one to blame but ourselves.
Karl
America does not have the government it wants. It has the government it gets due to the system having been corrupted by both parties to favor politics instead of governing. Only the extreme believe we have the government we want. The rest of us, and I think it is the majority, feel helpless.
Chad
This is a truism of ALL politics. No matter where.
If you don't like making that choice, abandoning society is about your only practical solution.
Let me be more specific ... I will vote for the candidate I feel is best qualified for the job. If that means Obama beats McCain because I didn't vote for McCain, then that's just too bad.
My hope lies elsewhere, not in our government.
Gutshot John
06-06-08, 17:08
Let me be more specific ... I will vote for the candidate I feel is best qualified for the job. If that means Obama beats McCain because I didn't vote for McCain, then that's just too bad.
My hope lies elsewhere, not in our government.
I hope you are this sanguine in a year.
I do it because my personal integrity means more to me than choosing the lesser of two evils. This nation will rise or fall, not because of the POTUS, but because of the people. Maybe if we all cared more about our integrity than winning, we might be a better nation. But I really hold no hope for that.
Is it integrity to do something you know will cause massive problems? To concede to Obama because of "integrity" is the exact opposite of "integrity."
As gutshot_john has pointed out, McCain is very Conservative on many issues. Issues that are important to our Country. To not do everything you can to stop the ultra-left Obama and the damage he would do to the country is not "integrity."
The primaries is the chance to stand up for specific issues and candidates. The general election is not that time -- that is the time to have a say based on realism on who gets elected and forces their crap on us.
Gutshot John
06-06-08, 17:12
John Adams correctly identified the inherent weakness of the Constitution when he stated it was only capable of governing a religious and moral people. America is neither. Our Constitution is an anachronism.
Huh? Can I see the actual quote, because that's quite the opposite of my understanding. I agree he didn't have much faith in people's inherent morality and believed in strong government to curtail passions, but he would never create a document he felt was naive and idealistic. He was a pragmatic man, like all TRUE conservatives.
He SUPPORTED the Constitution as a Federalist because he viewed it as the best way of government as it did not rely on a nation's virtue to be effective, it relied on their ambition.
The argument is laid out in Federalist #10.
The rest of us, and I think it is the majority, feel helpless.
Helpless, afraid, or just plain apathetic? Considering the percentage of the electorate who actually vote, it looks like apathetic.
When the Founders faced this philosophical dilemma, they went to war. When the southern states faced this same dilemma, they seceded (and then went to war).
Nope, helpless is not the description I would use. Afraid or apathetic, but not helpless.
Can I see the actual quote, because that's quite the opposite of my understanding.
"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."
— John Adams, October 11, 1798
Gutshot John
06-06-08, 17:17
Considering the percentage of the electorate who actually vote, it looks like apathetic.
So how is this improved by you not voting?
You sound pretty apathetic to me.
I started putting "Obama Facts" in the signature lines of my emails that state his agenda for our country and his beliefs. (nanny state, abortion, universal healthcare, higher-taxes, same-sex marraiage, etc)
I'm looking for other ideas and recommendations for getting the word out.
The only one of those that are mentioned in the Constitution is taxes. Everything else is not the role of the federal government and there is no authority for them to intervene in those areas. The best thing you could do is to get the fed to assume it's proper role.
And as far as marriage goes, we need to worry more about the high divorce rate and cohabitation, those are far more ruinous to society than worrying about what contract Tom and Jerry are entering into.
Gutshot John
06-06-08, 17:26
"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."
— John Adams, October 11, 1798
Can I see the text before and after that quote for some context? If nothing else do you have a speech or letter title that I can track it down?
This would have been right about the time of the quasi-War so I'm pretty sure he is talking about his own time and circumstances rather than in general, but I could be wrong.
Gutshot John
06-06-08, 17:31
Ok, at least I 100% know where you are coming from now.
Let me guess...I'm not a REAL conservative either. :rolleyes:
The only one of those that are mentioned in the Constitution is taxes. Everything else is not the role of the federal government and there is no authority for them to intervene in those areas. The best thing you could do is to get the fed to assume it's proper role.
And as far as marriage goes, we need to worry more about the high divorce rate and cohabitation, those are far more ruinous to society than worrying about what contract Tom and Jerry are entering into.
But the "contract Tom and Jerry are entering into" is being taught in the public schools. Tolerance is taught there with a new definition. And who runs the school systems? Not the people, that is for sure.
Are you kidding me? Those are UNIVERSALLY considered as the patriarchs of modern conservatism.
What's wrong with Goldwater/Buckley? Both brought about the shift that made Reagan possible. If Reagan heard the above statement he'd fall over laughing.
I wish we still grew conservatives like that, but again that only prooves my point. Modern conservatism has abandoned all pretense at pragmatic solutions and is instead addled by notions of a conservative utopia that is not only impossible but relies on the same disingenuousness of liberalism.
Buckley and Kirk brought modern conservatism from the abyss, that you would dismiss them so casually shows how little self-professed conservatives really understand what "conservative" actually means.
Crash reading course:
"The Conservative Mind" and "John Randolph of Roanoke" by Russel Kirk
"Up from Liberalism" and "God and Man at Yale" by William F. Buckley
If you don't think they're true conservatives after reading the above, than I want nothing to do with your brand of conservatism. I"ll vote democrat instead.
I'm not dismissing Goldwater and Buckley. I think the problem is that the Republicans have. Never read Kirk.
Sorry I wasn't clear. I'm sure the Carter thing didn't help. It embarasses me to this day.
Roxanne, the problem with this nation doesn't rest with the government, it rests with the people. Government of any philosophical makeup is not going to change the hearts of the American people. We are a nation whose primary worldview is secular humanism and, as a result, we contend that morality is relative. All the laws in the world won't change that. John Adams correctly identified the inherent weakness of the Constitution when he stated it was only capable of governing a religious and moral people. America is neither. Our Constitution is an anachronism.
America has the government it wants and it will continue that way even when Obama is POTUS and Congress is 2/3 Democrat. I will vote my conscience in November. I don't care whether the individual is "electable". It is my vote and I'll use it as I see fit. As for America, we'll get exactly what we ask for and deserve and we'll have no one to blame but ourselves.
Karl
I believe there is only one way the heart of anyone can change...by the Grace of God.
But I am led to do more to make people aware that innocent babies are being murdered, the right to defend yourself is being challenged, and believing certain things are wrong is becoming a hate crime.
KintlaLake
06-06-08, 19:27
But the "contract Tom and Jerry are entering into" is being taught in the public schools. Tolerance is taught there with a new definition.
My wife and I are grateful for this "new definition" of tolerance, and that our teenage spawns are learning about "Tom and Jerry" in school.
It's education, not indoctrination. The former allows them to make informed decisions; the latter robs them of the ability to do so.
In the classroom, our spawns are taught science and facts. At home, our family speaks openly, cultivating understanding and tolerance. (I'm thinking you might not like some of our dinner-table conversations. ;) ) Even as teenagers, our spawns can distinguish between what they object to and what actually affects them.
As a result, they're developing an understanding that people like "Tom and Jerry" (and whatever contract they may enter into) pose no threat whatsoever to us or the community in which we live -- in fact, they're a vital part of our community and we have much to learn from them.
well there's nothing more american than hating queers by god!
Submariner
06-06-08, 20:13
;)
http://i44.photobucket.com/albums/f15/30calslut/effitmccain08.jpg
The only USNA grad I'd vote for is Jim Webb.
A Jacksonian Democrat.
Not Jesse.
Not Scoop.
Andrew Jackson.
KintlaLake
06-06-08, 20:45
well there's nothing more american than hating queers by god!
Interesting choice of words.
Regrettably, in America it often seems that there's nothing so godly as hate.
So how is this improved by you not voting?
I don't understand what made you believe I wouldn't vote. I just won't be voting for Obama or McCain. Neither represent the candidate I feel is best suited to lead the nation or represent my views.
It's education, not indoctrination.
You could have fooled me. But then, truth is relative ... to most.
Like I said Roxanne, we have the government we want. And the government knows best. So sit back and relax ...
or
... be like Daniel. But you will be thrown to the lions.
Gutshot John
06-06-08, 21:01
I don't understand what made you believe I wouldn't vote. I just won't be voting for Obama or McCain. Neither represent the candidate I feel is best suited to lead the nation or represent my views.
Fair enough, but if throwing your vote away on someone who has no chance of winning facilitates the very thing you profess to dislike, I'm not sure I understand how you or your nation is served.
I believe the expression is "cutting off your nose to spite your face."
You could have fooled me. But then, truth is relative ... to most.
Truth comes from questioning your preconceptions honestly and seeing what survives the fire. Truth is something that you have to experience to understand. Truth CANNOT be taught in school...even religious school. Truth can only come from painful instruction...not dictated like a grammar lesson.
Like I said Roxanne, we have the government we want. And the government knows best. So sit back and relax ...
or
... be like Daniel. But you will be thrown to the lions.
So which are you?
The reality of democracy has finally caught up to, pounced on, raped, pillaged, and murdered the ideal of democracy.
Time for a few generations of totalitarian regime. I nominate me. :D
The reality of democracy has finally caught up to, pounced on, raped, pillaged, and murdered the ideal of democracy.
Time for a few generations of totalitarian regime. I nominate me. :D
I don't know. You're a little shy. ;)
Robb Jensen
06-06-08, 21:32
well there's nothing more american than hating queers by god!
The Great Way is not difficult for those who are not attached to their preferences.
When love and hate are both absent everything becomes clear and undisguised.
Make the smallest distinction, however, and heaven and earth are set infinitely apart.
If you wish to see the truth then hold no opinions for or against anything.
To set up what you like against what you dislike is the disease of the mind.
When the deep meaning of things is not understood the mind's essential peace is disturbed to no avail.
The Way is perfect like vast space where nothing is lacking and nothing is in excess.
Indeed, it is due to our choosing to accept or reject that we do not see the true nature of things.
Live neither in the entanglements of outer things, nor in the inner feelings of emptiness.
Be serene in the oneness of things and such erroneous views will disappear by themselves.
When you try to stop activity to achieve passivity your very effort fills you with activity.
As long as you remaining in one extreme or the other you will never know Oneness.
Those who do not live in the single Way fail in both activity and passivity,
assertion and denial.
To deny the reality of things is to miss their reality;
to assert the emptiness of things is to miss their reality.
The more you talk and think about it, the further astray you wander from the truth.
Stop talking and thinking, and there is nothing you will not be able to know.
To return to the root is to find the meaning, but to pursue appearances is to miss the source.
At the moment of inner enlightenment there is a going beyond appearance and emptiness.
The changes that appear to occur in the empty world we call real only because of our ignorance.
Do not search for the truth; only cease to cherish opinions.
Do not remain in the dualistic state; avoid such pursuits carefully.
If there is even a trace of this and that, of right and wrong, the Mind-essence will be lost in confusion.
Although all dualities come from the One, do not be attached even to this One.
When the mind exists undisturbed in the Way, nothing in the world can offend,
and when a thing can no longer offend, it ceases to exist in the old way.
When no discriminating thoughts arise, the old mind ceases to exist.
When thought objects vanish, the thinking-subject vanishes, as when the mind vanishes, objects vanish.
Things are objects because of the subject [mind]; the mind [subject] is such because of things [object].
Understand the relativity of these two and the basic reality: the unity of emptiness.
In this Emptiness the two are indistinguishable and each contains in itself the whole world.
If you do not discriminate between coarse and fine you will not be tempted to prejudice and opinion.
To live in the Great Way is neither easy nor difficult, but those with limited views are fearful and irresolute; the faster they hurry, the slower they go,
and clinging [attachment] cannot be limited; even to be attached to the idea of enlightenment is to go astray.
Just let things be in their own way, and there will be neither coming nor going.
Obey the nature of things [your own nature], and you will walk freely and undisturbed.
When thought is in bondage the truth is hidden, for everything is murky and unclear, and the burdensome practice of judging brings annoyance and weariness.
What benefit can be derived from distinctions and separating?
If you wish to move in the One Way do not dislike even the world of senses and ideas.
Indeed, to accept them fully is identical with true Enlightenment.
The wise man strive to no goals but the foolish man fetters himself.
There is one Dharma, not many; distinctions arise from the clinging needs of the ignorant, to seek Mind wih the [discriminating] mind is the greatest of all mistakes.
Rest and unrest derive from illusion; with enlightenment there is no liking and disliking.
All dualities come from the ignorant inference.
They are like dreams or flowers in air: foolish to try to grasp them.
Gain and loss, right and wrong: such thoughts must finally be abolished at once.
[Consider war. The core of which is ignorance:
liking and disliking; right and wrong; my idea, your idea...]
If the eye never sleeps, all dreams will naturally cease.
If the mind makes no discriminations, the ten thousand things are as they are, of a single essence.
To understand the mystery of this One-essence is to be released from all entanglements.
When all things are seen equally the timeless Self-essence is reached.
No comparisons or analogies are possible in this causeless, relationless state.
Consider movement stationary and the stationary in motion,
both movement and rest disappear.
When such dualities cease to exist oneness itself cannot exist.
To this ultimate finality no law or description applies.
For the unified mind in accord with the Way all self-centered striving ceases;
doubts and irresolutions vanish.
With a single stroke we are freed from bondage; nothing clings to us and we hold to nothing.
All is empty, clear, self-illuminating, with no exertion of the mind's power.
In this world of Suchness there is neither self nor other-than-self.
To come directly into harmony with this reality just simply say, when doubt arises, "not two." In this "not two," nothing is separate, nothing is excluded.
No matter when or where, enlightenment means entering this truth.
And this truth is beyond extension or diminution in time or space; in it a single thought is ten thousand years.
Emptiness here, Emptiness there, but the infinite universe stands
always before your eyes.
Infinitely large and infinitely small: no difference, for definitions have vanished and no boundaries are seen.
So too with Being and non-Being.
Don't waste time in doubts and arguments that have nothing to do with this.
One thing, all things: move among and intermingle, without distinction.
To live in this realization is to be without anxiety about non-perfection.
To live in this faith is the road to non-duality.
Because the non-dual is one with the trusting mind.
Words!
The Way is beyond language, for in it there is no yesterday no tomorrow no today."
-Sengtsan
Hating can never overcome hatred. Only love can bring the end of hating. This is the eternal law.
You too will die someday, as everyone must. When you know this, your hatred is stilled.
-Dhammapada
But the "contract Tom and Jerry are entering into" is being taught in the public schools. Tolerance is taught there with a new definition. And who runs the school systems? Not the people, that is for sure.
I can sympathize with that position. I do not have children, but if I did, I would not want those values being taught to them. At least not until I felt they were mature enough to understand. And it would be either me, my spouse or someone that I trusted to teach those things to them.
My issue is with the public schools and the morality of funding them by money stolen from those who do not particularly wish to fund them. How can we hope to instill values and morals to those children when the very means we use to pay for it is immoral.
The education of our children is way to important to entrust to government.
KintlaLake
06-06-08, 21:52
But then, truth is relative ... to most.
Truth is relative. Facts are absolute.
Facts, filtered through experience, produce truth.
Confronting the same facts, each of us sees different truths.
It's great to be a free-willed human. :cool:
Interesting choice of words.
Regrettably, in America it often seems that there's nothing so godly as hate.
Except for isolated groups like Trinity and the Nation of islam, and even the KKK, these groups are a minority.
Hate does not prevail here. Not yet.
Well I am sitting at work on a mid shift and read this thread. Ok so I skim read it. Bottom line the thread was against obama (which I am) and about spreading the word of the damage he will do to this country. I don't care what your views are, think what you want. Do yourself a favor and go to ontheissues.org learn about obama and McCains voting records and see if you really want someone who doesn't want english as the offical US language. That is one of many things obama votes wrong in my opinion. I didn't even mention the biggie GUNS. We will be worse off and will take many years to recover if obama is elected. If you vote obama I don't want to hear your complaining when he bans semi-automatics (he voted yes on that as well) or anything else that you view as wrong. I have read a bunch of people tried to sound smart using plenty of big words and neato quotes on this thread. All of this I never thought I would read on a pro assualt weapons thread. But maybe I am just clinging to my religous views and guns on this.... Read voting records, know your canadites and vote....for McCain. I will cause I want to retire from the military in ten years and don't think I will make it that long if obama is elected. By the way this is not directed towards anyone in this thread and if you want to break this down and quote me use small words cause I am not that smart and don't want to have to go get a dictionary while you try and dazzle me with your BS.
Jay Cunningham
06-07-08, 01:51
Well I am sitting at work on a mid shift and read this thread. Ok so I skim read it. Bottom line the thread was against obama (which I am) and about spreading the word of the damage he will do to this country. I don't care what your views are, think what you want. Do yourself a favor and go to ontheissues.org learn about obama and McCains voting records and see if you really want someone who doesn't want english as the offical US language. That is one of many things obama votes wrong in my opinion. I didn't even mention the biggie GUNS. We will be worse off and will take many years to recover if obama is elected. If you vote obama I don't want to hear your complaining when he bans semi-automatics (he voted yes on that as well) or anything else that you view as wrong. I have read a bunch of people tried to sound smart using plenty of big words and neato quotes on this thread. All of this I never thought I would read on a pro assualt weapons thread. But maybe I am just clinging to my religous views and guns on this.... Read voting records, know your canadites and vote....for McCain. I will cause I want to retire from the military in ten years and don't think I will make it that long if obama is elected. By the way this is not directed towards anyone in this thread and if you want to break this down and quote me use small words cause I am not that smart and don't want to have to go get a dictionary while you try and dazzle me with your BS.
I am not a single-issue voter.
Also, "assault weapons" are an invention of the Janet Reno BATF.
I am not a single-issue voter.
Also, "assault weapons" are an invention of the Janet Reno BATF.
You did not go to ontheissues.org or else you would not have said single issue voter, I did by the way mention more than guns, but being that were are on a gun or assualt weapons forum I firgured that was a big one. obama has several bad policies IMO. I don't get the the janet reno and BATF thing? Are you saying she coined that phrase? Back to topic, go to the site and look at his voting record with an open mind.
KintlaLake
06-07-08, 06:36
...isolated groups...a minority...
While their gathering places may be isolated, Safetyhit, the proselytes of hate walk among us.
In our relatively small community is a well-known mega-church, led by a pastor who's been "repudiated" by one presidential candidate for his litany of hate. A neighboring community is home to a faith-based white-supremacist group. My wife's workplace sits at the edge of a large legal-immigrant population that's widely believed (by law-enforcement and homeland-security agencies) to hide anti-American terror cells.
But those are just pins in a map. The real effect of these groups extends far beyond their gatherings, a diaspora of hate that pervades our community. This hate bears three marks: religious ideology, ignorance (willful isolation) and arrogance (superiority).
Consider war. The core of which is ignorance:
liking and disliking; right and wrong; my idea, your idea...
gotm4, I read your post several times, to the point of meditating on a few passages. I read some of it aloud to Mrs. KintlaLake. The time will come when I'll want to share it with our spawns.
Brilliant and simple. Thanks for that. :cool:
Gutshot John
06-07-08, 07:48
Hatred exists everywhere there is mankind. We are no more, nor less hateful than we have ever been though our manners have certainly deteriorated. When given a choice most prefer to indulge their misunderstanding, fear, anger and hate. To do otherwise requires disproving the close-held assumptions that have been part of their identity for so long. Jeremiah Wright is a perfect example of this.
To transcend fear requires the tools and gifts God has given us...free-will, humility, learning, love and wisdom. Christ was the perfect embodiment of these qualities. Even if one does not accept the divine nature of Christ, his message of forgiveness, sacrifice and love is the fundamental truth of human existence. He provided the example of humility and love. This however requires introspection and peering into that abyss. This is something few men, even physically brave men, can stomach. From it, however, emerges strength, character and integrity...and ultimately humility. These are men that we call "wise." It is also something that many Christians have yet to learn so sure are they of themselves instead of their inherently flawed natures. God does not distinguish between sins, we are all sinful creatures, castigating the sins of another is a soporific against this realization.
God does not require you to check your brain at the door, God wants us to think, ponder and ultimately wrestle with him and his nature and in doing so you become closer to him, but you are also marked forever. This is the difference between learning scripture and learning truth. Very few Christians, especially of the fundamental/charismatic persuasion, have come to grips with this core principle. In this way, Jeremiah Wright is identical to those that preach White Theology.
I do not believe Wright=Obama anymore than I believe McCain=Bush, but where I've seen the latter harshly criticize the failed policies of his President, Obama only blasted Wright when it became politically convenient to do so. This is smart, but it is not wise.
Agree or disagree McCain has taken unpopular stands, that fly in the face of his personal interest. That's a quality I wish to encourage in politics. Sadly for Obama he has not been baptised in the fire. He has never once had to suffer or genuinely sacrifice for anything other than his own vanity and so he is incapable of making genuinely principled stands...even against his own party.
Ultimately he is a very foolish young man and an Obama Presidency is something that fills me with profound dread.
My wife and I are grateful for this "new definition" of tolerance, and that our teenage spawns are learning about "Tom and Jerry" in school.
It's education, not indoctrination. The former allows them to make informed decisions; the latter robs them of the ability to do so.
In the classroom, our spawns are taught science and facts. At home, our family speaks openly, cultivating understanding and tolerance. (I'm thinking you might not like some of our dinner-table conversations. ;) ) Even as teenagers, our spawns can distinguish between what they object to and what actually affects them.
As a result, they're developing an understanding that people like "Tom and Jerry" (and whatever contract they may enter into) pose no threat whatsoever to us or the community in which we live -- in fact, they're a vital part of our community and we have much to learn from them.
Don't assume to know what I would like or not like, please.
I can love people and not agree with what they do. That is correct tolerance. If I hated people that were different from me, I would have no relationship with anyone.
Thank you for your comments everyone.
From looking at the direction these posts went, Obama may get elected because the Republicans and Conservatives will spend all their effort arguing about McCain.
Truth comes from questioning your preconceptions honestly and seeing what survives the fire. Truth is something that you have to experience to understand. Truth CANNOT be taught in school...even religious school. Truth can only come from painful instruction...not dictated like a grammar lesson.
I disagree. John 14:6
So which are you?
Daniel was thrown into the lions den, he didn't go in on his own accord. I prefer to be thrown in also.
I'm sorry you all are so afraid of Obama and his cohorts. But as I've said, my hope is most certainly not in the government of this failing nation. Voting for someone just because he's less of a threat to my way of life isn't a vote at all. Whoever wins this November, it is the will of the people via the electoral college (or at least the will of those who are willing to get off their dead ass and vote). That's the way it was setup. If we are appalled at that, then we need to put our live's where are mouth's are and do what our predeccors did and go to war. But even though there is a philosophical and political division in this nation that even supercedes that which existed prior to the Civil War, we do not have folks who are willing to give up their life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness to fight for what they believe. Those who do are made a laughing stock or made to look like evil madmen. And I must suspect John Adams is now repenting in Heaven for preserving our freedom.
As for me, I will live the dictates of my conscience. I have no doubt that will put me in disfavor among most. But I will be in good company.
KintlaLake
06-07-08, 10:32
Don't assume to know what I would like or not like, please.
It wasn't my intent to insult you, Roxanne -- you and Grant are invited over for dinner any time. ;)
I can love people and not agree with what they do. That is correct tolerance. If I hated people that were different from me, I would have no relationship with anyone.
Well said.
From my perspective, the foundation of love is understanding -- and being presented with knowledge wrapped in a right-wrong judgment impedes my learning and, as a result, blocks my understanding. (I spent six years of my life studying for the ministry, so I've seen different types of "education" firsthand -- one worked for me, the other didn't. ;) ) And that's why our family values the presentation of "Tom and Jerry" relationships in a secular public-education setting.
When it comes to another person's choices, lifestyle or nature, I acknowledge that my agreement or disagreement isn't particularly relevant to them -- applying "sin" and "salvation," for example, has no relevance to one whose beliefs don't incorporate those concepts. I mean, if you bop on down to I-70 and drive 70mph, that's a violation here in Ohio; in West Virginia, it's lawful.
I infer that you embrace your faith and live the Word of God as He reveals Himself to you. I carry my own compass. Seems to work out well for each of us. :)
Gutshot John
06-07-08, 10:34
I disagree. John 14:6
People often quote that line, and just as often misinterpret it. John 14:2. It is simple to argue by citation, and take a single passage at the exclusion of everything else. Unfortunately this often misses the larger point.
Nothing in John says that wisdom can simply be handed to someone. Everything about it says that it is only through the way of love and sacrifice do we become wise.
Daniel was thrown into the lions den, he didn't go in on his own accord. I prefer to be thrown in also.
I see no lion's den, so any comparison between you (or anyone for that matter) and Daniel seems a bit of a stretch.
What I fear in Obama is not the man, but what his actions mean for our nation. Personally I like him, but what he represents may put this nation on the path to greater faction and anger...under the guise of "christian" virtue....you know false prophets n'at.
CarlosDJackal
06-07-08, 11:02
If "we" had any influence McCain would not be "our" candidate.
The same can be said for the FOPA of 1986 which should have never been signed into law by the POTUS back then. We can "IF" and wish all we want, but this will not change the fact that the individual who is running against McCain is a known advocate of serious gun control and has a middle ame of "Hussein".
Like it or not a vote against McCain is a vote against gun ownership, the military, etc. JM2CW.
It wasn't my intent to insult you, Roxanne -- you and Grant are invited over for dinner any time. ;)
Well said.
From my perspective, the foundation of love is understanding -- and being presented with knowledge wrapped in a right-wrong judgment impedes my learning and, as a result, blocks my understanding. (I spent six years of my life studying for the ministry, so I've seen different types of "education" firsthand -- one worked for me, the other didn't. ;) ) And that's why our family values the presentation of "Tom and Jerry" relationships in a secular public-education setting.
When it comes to another person's choices, lifestyle or nature, I acknowledge that my agreement or disagreement isn't particularly relevant to them -- applying "sin" and "salvation," for example, has no relevance to one whose beliefs don't incorporate those concepts. I mean, if you bop on down to I-70 and drive 70mph, that's a violation here in Ohio; in West Virginia, it's lawful.
I infer that you embrace your faith and live the Word of God as He reveals Himself to you. I carry my own compass. Seems to work out well for each of us. :)
But stereotyping...I think that is a major contributor to many problems.
I understand what you are saying about agreement/disagreement not being relavent. When I was an athiest, it didn't matter what the Bible said because I didn't believe in it. God didn't use the Bible directly to reach me. Nor did he use "sin, salvation, Jesus, cross" terminology through someone else. (Not that that doesn't happen and all that is needed for some) But He showed me Himself by seeing the Joy those who believed in Him had and that He actually had a personal relationship with them. Now if He leads me to use those words I will. But I think it is my joy (a big change from before I knew Him) that has in impact in my circle of influence. I use words when necessary.
But I think you have helped me realize what I need to do concerning Obama.
KintlaLake
06-07-08, 12:29
But I think you have helped me realize what I need to do concerning Obama.
Uh-oh... :D
Submariner
06-07-08, 15:11
But I think you have helped me realize what I need to do concerning Obama.
Pray for him. His wife, too.
Since Ahab and his Jezebel aren't our rulers yet, perhaps an Imprecatory Psalm or three might be in order.
Just my two silver shekels.:D
Thank you for your comments everyone.
From looking at the direction these posts went, Obama may get elected because the Republicans and Conservatives will spend all their effort arguing about McCain.
People need to get the heads out of their arses on this obama thing. We are stuck with McCain like it or not (I wanted Huckabee). I am so disturbed or atcually more scared with what I read on this site. If assualt weapon owners can't agree that McCain is the wise choice, who is going to. Middle America is asleep, we are going to get a POTUS that is a very Liberal, Big Goverment, taxing idiot. I won't even go into the whole Rev. wright thing for all you people who are preaching change and love. Here is some of obama voting record These facts are not BS go to ontheissues.org and read about the canidates. Here are just some of obama's voting record
Voted NO on recommending Constitutional ban on flag desecration. (Jun 2006)
Voted NO on constitutional ban of same-sex marriage.
No extra penalty for gang associatioOk for states & cities to determine local gun laws. (Apr 2008)
FactCheck: Yes, Obama endorsed Illinois handgun ban. (Apr 2008)
Respect 2nd Amendment, but local gun bans ok. (Feb 2008)
Provide some common-sense enforcement on gun licensing. (Jan 2008)
2000: cosponsored bill to limit purchases to 1 gun per month. (Oct 2007)
Concealed carry OK for retired police officers. (Aug 2007)
Stop unscrupulous gun dealers dumping guns in cities. (Jul 2007)
Keep guns out of inner cities--but also problem of morality. (Oct 2006)
Bush erred in failing to renew assault weapons ban. (Oct 2004)
Ban semi-automatics, and more possession restrictions. (Jul 1998)
Voted NO on prohibiting lawsuits against gun manufacturers.
Encourage every student to learn a second language. (Feb 2008)
Need to look at different aspects of immigration reform. (Feb 2008)
Have border patrolled, surveillance, and deploy technology. (Feb 2008)
Increasing the legal fees on immigrants is not helping. (Feb 2008)
Deporting 12 million people is ridiculous and impractical. (Feb 2008)
Immigration raids are ineffective. (Feb 2008)
Solve the driver's license issue with immigration reform. (Jan 2008)
Immigrants are scapegoats for high unemployment rates. (Jan 2008)
Support the DREAM Act for the children of illegal immigrants. (Jan 2008)
Health plan: not enough resources for illegal immigrants. (Jan 2008)
Illegals shouldn't work; but should have path to citizenship. (Dec 2007)
Don't deputize Americans to turn in illegal immigrants. (Dec 2007)
OK to provide government services in Spanish. (Dec 2007)
Comprehensive solution includes employers & borders. (Nov 2007)
Undocumented workers come here to work, not to drive. (Nov 2007)
Support granting driver's licenses to illegal immigrants. (Nov 2007)
FactCheck: Lightning IS likelier than employer prosecution. (Nov 2007)
Illegal immigrants' lack of ID is a public safety concern. (Oct 2007)
Immigration system is broken for legal immigrants. (Sep 2007)
Reform must include more border security, and border wall. (Sep 2007)
Sanctuary cities show that feds are not enforcing law. (Sep 2007)
Pathway to citizenship, but people have to earn it. (Aug 2007)
Let's be a nation of laws AND a nation of immigrants. (Aug 2007)
Do a better job patrolling the Canadian and Mexican borders. (Jun 2007)
Give immigrants who are here a rigorous path to citizenship. (Jun 2007)
Extend welfare and Medicaid to immigrants. (Jul 1998)
Voted YES on continuing federal funds for declared "sanctuary cities". (Mar 2008)
Voted YES on comprehensive immigration reform. (Jun 2007)
Voted NO on declaring English as the official language of the US government. (Jun 2007)
Voted YES on building a fence along the Mexican border. (Sep 2006)
Voted YES on establishing a Guest Worker program. (May 2006)
Voted YES on allowing illegal aliens to participate in Social Security. (May 2006)
Voted YES on giving Guest Workers a path to citizenship. (May 2006)
Comprehensive immigration reform without amnesty. (May 2005)
Sponsored bill paying fair prevailing wage to guest workers. (May 2006)
Provide funding for social services for noncitizens. (May 2006)
Rated 8% by USBC, indicating an open-border stance. (Dec 2006)
FactCheck: Ranked most liberal in Senate, based on 99 votes. (Feb 2008)
Rated 89% by the HRC, indicating a pro-gay-rights stance. (Dec 2006)
Rated 100% by the NAACP, indicating a pro-affirmative-action stance.
In hard times, people take refuge in traditions, God & guns. (Apr 2008)
These are just some, I got bored. I did pick the big ones I did't like, the guy is not all bad, just these alone are terrible. I hate to harp on guns, but they mean security to me. Look at Washington D.C crime and Austraila crime. No guns, obama wants that to be the whole U.S.
Prayer...always first line of defense. :)
Preaching change and love...trying to do it more than talk about it. And I don't think Obama's 'change' is in the best interest of the country. That leads to a responsibility to act. How? Well, that was my goal in starting this thread. To see how others are acting in response to their concern with Obama.
Obama's record...I've read it. I don't like it. But many Obama fans don't read it (at least the few I have talked too). They have no clue what he has voted for and really don't care.
I have left my personal opinon about McCain out of this thread because that is not of importance concerning how to get the word out about Obama.
(But I did vote for Huckabee... :D )
Quick Karl
06-07-08, 17:25
Try this for an eye-opener -- It should be sent to every person you know.
http://www.eyeblast.tv/public/video.aspx?RsrcID=2036
George Bush and the rest of the republican scum have handed our country on a silver platter to the leftist liberals who WILL take your guns the instant they get the majority in Congress and the Senate, and the NRA aint gonna do nothing about it except blow some more of your money -- remember that next time you vote for either candidate from either of the two controlling parties.
95% of your 18 to 30-yr old children WILL vote for Obama, because of what they have been indoctrinated to believe by the education system you sat back and didn't rise up against.
Find a candidate that actually comprehends the constitution and stop letting the talking heads on your TV sets form your opinions for you -- if it isn't too late 4-years from now.
WHAT IS WRONG WITH PEOPLE, watch this video. If may be from the right but one thing it is, is FACTS. I am really going to hate looking on any forum and see poeple b!tching about obama when he wins the POTUS slot in nov. People will b!tch, I can almost garuantee it. I am going to say I told you so. But hey I am sure I am just coming off like a typical angry Republican at this point. Bush and the Repulicans have handed the libs this country on a friggin platter. It is sad, but what is worse is the fact that people are watching nothing but the news, for the most part liberal news. Our young teens and people up to 30 are being swayed by this media. When are going to end up in a world of hurt is this man is elected POTUS. We need to get the word out, but apparently not on this forum based on the some of the opinoins I have read. How has this counrty slipped into such a trance that this person was elected as the dems runner. Shame on anyone for votes for this person while my friends and collegues are fighting the GWOT. I have been there myself and am glad it was undere Bush, he may have his faults (alot of them) but he isn't above fighting to keep the country safer. I feel obama is. He will try to solve everything with his kind words or worse yet welcome more hate into this country. WAKE UP.
We need to get the word out, but apparently not on this forum based on the some of the opinoins I have read.
Uh, that's why I posted this thread.
But getting the word out in this forum (that Obama is not the right choice for our future) is not the venue that needs to hear it. My guess is that this pro-gun site is not likely to have many Obama fans. But that is my guess...I may be wrong.
At least the link is an answer to my intial question. I asked for recommendations, and that link was a recommendation as to how to get the word out.
;)
Thanks for opening the thread, keep up the good work , gonna be ordering stuff from you soon.
variablebinary
06-08-08, 04:15
This is a truism of ALL politics. No matter where.
.
Not true for the far left and their support for Obama. They are more than happy with their candidate, and dont regard him as a lesser of evil...
As of right now, I still have no reason to vote for McCain, other than attempting to block Obama. Generally speaking, candidates cant win with this strategy. You need people to believe in you, perhaps even love you. Hence Obama's success. He's an imposing, and compelling political figure. McCain is not.
Very few like McCain, but there is an element that dislikes Obama. This is not enough to win the White House.
As I've said before, I will vote, but I have no reason right now to vote for McCain outside of spiting Obama. Once McCain actually makes an effort to earn my vote, he'll have my support.
Simply put, Obama builds more support for McCain than McCain himself.
Lastly, exercising my right to vote, in any capacity, is never throwing a vote away. I will always vote with my conscience
Gutshot John
06-08-08, 06:27
Not true for the far left and their support for Obama. They are more than happy with their candidate, and dont regard him as a lesser of evil...
You mean other than the Hillary supporters?
McCain's not a "Compelling Figure"? I'm not sure how this isn't the case given a man who's survived the hardship he has and still kept faith, but if you say so. If you don't think he's a decent and honorable man, than you really shouldn't vote for him because at that point there is no difference between he and Obama.
Like I said, in my entire life, I've never seen a politician put the nation's interest and his personal beliefs above his party's (not even Reagan did this) or his own personal interest this is a trait I wish to encourage. Greatness is forged in adversity...something Obama (despite the price hype) has never had to deal with.
I don't vote for "compelling figures" I vote for the best man for the job. Clearly Obama ain't it...no matter what MTV addled democrats may believe.
Back to the original subject of this post....
I don't frankly think there is any "get the word out". Obama supporters basically fall into two categories; those that are too ignorant to research his record and understand what it means, and those that don't care.
I have a coworker that is a Democrat largely because his Cuban-American mother is a Republican, and an ignorant Republican at that. When the only brand of conservatism you're exposed to is the uneducated immigrant kind, you're bound to rebel as soon as you get the slightest hint of an education. However, he knows all about Obama, knows his lack of experience, knows his voting record, knows more about the reverend Wright business than I do, etc. At the end of the day he is voting for Obama simply because of GWB. If you really press him on the issue, and I have, he readily admits that Obama may not be the most experienced candidate, but he thinks that's a good thing. When young people and blacks come out to vote they LIKE the fact that Obama has no business sitting in the White House because they themselves feel some sort of entitlement to things they haven't earned and jobs they don't deserve.
Obama brings out segments of the electorate that traditionally wouldn't bother; young people and blacks. He will win, or lose, based on these segments. Anti-abortion, pro-gun, pro-war, pro-self-reliance candidates do not do well in our society. It's all well and good to wish for that conservative messiah (whether you have someone in mind or not) but he is totally unelectable in today's society. If you think that America is going to return to some "traditional conservative values" you're nuts. We're in an environment where "we" have to pick and choose our battles. Voting for some 3rd choice that has no chance of getting elected is like fiddling while Rome burns. Most people do it just so they can sit back and say "don't blame me, I didn't vote for either one".
Gutshot John
06-08-08, 07:48
There are certainly those that are enraptured by Obama's oratory and rhetoric, but these are people that are overtly disinclined to analyze the record clearly.
I ask these people if in their daily lives are they more inclined to believe a man's words? or actions. Invariably, as any reasonable person would, they say "actions."
I then ask what in Obama's actions far-left record is in any way consistent with his current bipartisan rhetoric. The fair-minded say that no...his words do not match, but they "HOPE" that he will bring change to this nation and govern.
I then point to John McCain and point to a 20 year political career of deeds that embody principle, hard lessons and a desire to forge his own way irrespective of his party's wishes or his self-interest. Is this not the very change that people wish to see?
"Words" or "Deeds" even Obama supporters acknowledge a huge risk in voting for him, however it is only the far-left that embraces his past.
It really won't take much to remind people of that.
John McCain may not be the most charismatic speaker, he may not embody the hope of an entire people, but history teaches us that charismatic leaders not only inevitably fail to live up to their promises, but that the consequences of these failures are catastrophic.
If we chose a leader based on how "cool" they are...we're screwed.
If we chose a leader based on how "cool" they are...we're screwed.
How do you think Clinton got elected?
Gutshot John
06-08-08, 08:00
How do you think Clinton got elected?
Exactly my point. It's also how we got "W"
America wants to do this again why?
America gets the government it deserves, as for me I believe it's only a matter of time before this country splits wide open. Voting "hope against all hope" is a sure fire recipe for disaster.
Nathan_Bell
06-08-08, 08:59
I have been attacking the Congress in general not doing their jobs. Get the person a good bit annoyed with each issue, then mention how BHO voted on those issues when he was in the US congress or the ILL gov't. Is is working to get people to not vote for BHO?? Don't think so, but I hopefully have convinced a couple people that were going to 'sit this one out' to go and vote against the Marxist.
The issues page linked earlier is great for gathering information for that little endeavor.
As of right now, I still have no reason to vote for McCain, other than attempting to block Obama. Generally speaking, candidates cant win with this strategy.
First, there is no use cutting off your nose to spite your face. We need to stop with this nonsense all factors considered. Republicans can still regroup and fall back on core values with McCain as president if that is really a priority for them. And yes, a candidate most certainly can win an election if significant numbers of undecided/disillusioned voters go his way at the last minute.
Second, letting Obama take the helm now, just to show what a mistake he was, while world tensions rise, is just flat out shallow thinking. Our future and safety are at stake in an incredibly difficult time.
Give me the slightly misguided, but very strong and competent, pro-gun veteran who spent five years in hell to be here today my vote.
I have been attacking the Congress in general not doing their jobs. Get the person a good bit annoyed with each issue, then mention how BHO voted on those issues when he was in the US congress or the ILL gov't. Is is working to get people to not vote for BHO?? Don't think so, but I hopefully have convinced a couple people that were going to 'sit this one out' to go and vote against the Marxist.
The issues page linked earlier is great for gathering information for that little endeavor.
I am not very good at presenting my case in a way that makes someone "think" about their reasoning for choosing this or that. Thank you for the tips.
Living with Grant and watching him present his case is amazing. I have spent 10 years talking to my mother and showing/telling her why "this and that" is not good for America. Grant can spend 10 minutes talking with her and suddenly she is contemplating....I watch it and it's like I am in another world.
Maybe because it's family or because I wear my emotions on my sleeve, but I think I make a much bigger impact laying flyers or business card size information in the bank, grocery store, etc., about subjects. The less talking I do the more impact I seem to make....and you know how chatty I am Nate! :D
So maybe I need a flyer/small card made up to lay out everywhere. Maybe with Obama's record on it and his associations....I just got 3000 business cards for $150 (they are sweet, so look for them in your next order from G&R). So I am all for putting in some money to get them made up and pass out if someone can design them. As a group, we can collectivly do a lot to get the word out at our local level.
Glad to hear about the business cards. It will make it easier for me to just hand them to people when they ask "where'd you get that?" Make sure to throw a couple dozen in the next box headed my way. :D
(The G&R cards, not the Obama ones :p )
Glad to hear about the business cards. It will make it easier for me to just hand them to people when they ask "where'd you get that?" Make sure to throw a couple dozen in the next box headed my way. :D
(The G&R cards, not the Obama ones :p )
I think I put a handful in your last order. ;)
Back on topic. I personally believe that extreme liberals/socialists (like my Mother-in-Law) NEVER hear another other POV than that of other extreme liberals. Their friends are all liberals, they only watch liberal news channels, read liberal newspapers/mags and tend to be in a union type job, a minority or are a "save the whales and hug a tree" types.
It is the job of CONSERVATIVE, PRO GUN Americans to help educate people on the far left in a POLITE and considerate way. In the case of political discussions with my Mother-in-Law, I use a give and take attitude. She says something I disagree with, but I find something in what she has said that is factual (there is always some truth in a lie). I then present a different view and then they are somewhat required to hear what I have to say as I have just "submitted" to SOME of her POV.
A lot of what I said to her about the war in IZ or Obama she has NEVER HEARD before. So there is hope for are fellow Americans that are basically socialists that want the Govt. to take care of their every need. ;)
C4
If the Electoral College functioned as it was intended I would wager that none of these clowns would be in the picture.
Gutshot John
06-08-08, 12:08
If the Electoral College functioned as it was intended I would wager that none of these clowns would be in the picture.
Huh? :confused:
The electoral college has nothing to do with primary elections.
Quick Karl
06-08-08, 12:16
With no offense toward anyone - the underlying problem in America is that the very people that aspire to rule us, are the precise people that should never be allowed to do so.
Our system of government served us well for 150-years. It was only after the power-hungry tyrants devised the means to undermine the very principals that guaranteed our rights, independence, and freedoms, that things began to devolve.
Our young - 18 to 30 - have been indoctrinated to believe that they should not have to worry about food, gas, and health care, and that some old evil people are withholding those imagined rights from them, and furthermore believe that if they elect a different lying politician, they will be handed these things at the cost of people who have more than they do.
It is a sinister and evil strategy, but it is working.
Nothing will change by voting for either of the 2 ruling parties -- they are the folks that have gotten us to where we are today. Neither party will return us to the true principals of America because it will diminish their hold on power.
That is the bottom line.
Study History and stop relying on talking heads and propaganda to help form your opinions.
Only one candidate talked about the TRUE principals of the Constitution, and everyone laughed at him.
Gutshot John
06-08-08, 12:33
With no offense toward anyone - the underlying problem in America is that the very people that aspire to rule us, are the precise people that should never be allowed to do so.
No argument really there, but on some level you have to have those people in power as they are the most capable of wielding it. Washington and Hamilton for instance were men of extraordinary ambition with very little in common with "the people." The problem REALLY becomes when you have dynastic rule as it rarely produces competent leadership. The parties have institutionalized a form of dynastic rule.
Our system of government served us well for 150-years.
That's pretty debatable. All human government is flawed, I'm not sure the "good, old days" were really all that "good." The Republican Congress during Restoration laid a good bit of the groundwork that has created the present situation.
It was only after the power-hungry tyrants devised the means to undermine the very principals that guaranteed our rights, independence, and freedoms, that things began to devolve.
They weren't power hungry tyrants, they genuinely believed that they knew better, and sought to do what was genuinely best for the country. Unfortunately they did lay the groundwork for today's would-be tyrants.
Our young - 18 to 30 - have been indoctrinated to believe that they should not have to worry about food, gas, and health care, and that some old evil people are withholding those imagined rights from them, and furthermore believe that if they elect a different lying politician, they will be handed these things at the cost of people who have more than they do.
That's a pretty broad brush, given the number of young men fighting overseas. That being said it's not just the young...it's a whole population of people...yours and my generations included, who've been indoctrinated to believe that government will solve all their problems. MOST HUMANS prefer an easy lie to a hard truth, cynical politics ALWAYS takes advantage of this.
It is a sinister and evil strategy, but it is working.
It works because we are unwilling (with few exceptions) to endure hardship. We for the most part have grown soft and self-serving. It is not the politician's fault, we have no one to blame but ourselves. Sorry.
Nothing will change by voting for either of the 2 ruling parties -- they are the folks that have gotten us to where we are today. Neither party will return us to the true principals of America because it will diminish their hold on power.
Politicians will always act as politicians. The true principles of America are to rely on a politician's and a populations ambition's, rather than their virtues. There is always tension between law and liberty.
Nothing will change so long as we continue to elect politicians who overtly lie to us, and play on our emotions and fear rather than intellect. The two parties would rapidly fall into line if we as a nation took this responsibility.
Study History and stop relying on talking heads and propaganda to help form your opinions.
Only one candidate talked about the TRUE principals of the Constitution, and everyone laughed at him.
I study history as a profession and am more than capable of distilling information through a variety of news sources.
No one laughed at Paul because of his Constitutional principles, in fact it got him a lot of support. They "laughed" at Paul (if that's the right word) because he had other goofy ideas that would neither make him a good candidate nor a good president.
Whatever Obama is doing, he is playing the exact same cynical game that have produced the exact same result time and time again. Appealing to our hopes and aspirations to accomplish things he knows are impossible, and then when our hopes are dashed he will shift the blame to political rivals. Though Democrats and the Left invented this tactics, Republicans co-opted it and have been the acknowledged masters for about 10 years...now they're getting schooled. The fate of the nation hangs in the balance.
To paraphrase Larry Miller voting for Obama is like taking sour milk out of the fridge, taking a whiff and putting it back saying to yourself "well maybe it will be fresh tomorrow."
The notion that Obama represents anything new in politics is a transparent fraud.
Huh? :confused:
The electoral college has nothing to do with primary elections.
The concept of the Electoral College began to lose it's meaning with the rise of the political party. Hence, if it functioned as intended, there would be no political party campaigning, expensive conventions or candidates trying to get themselves elected.
Gutshot John
06-08-08, 12:51
The concept of the Electoral College began to lose it's meaning with the rise of the political party. Hence, if it functioned as intended, there would be no political party campaigning, expensive conventions or candidates trying to get themselves elected.
Political parties predate the electoral college. In fact the origins of the political parties predate the Constitution. The Electoral College was modified significantly to avoid confusion/hassles of the PARTISAN elections of 1796/1800 and the problems with having a President and VP from different parties.
The electoral college as affirmed by the states' Constitutional authority to run their own elections, therefore you don't directly vote for President, you vote as a member of your state.
The electoral college was never intended to limit political parties or conventions. If anything it was meant to prevent the passions of the masses from being swept up by a charismatic leader...not partisan politics.
KintlaLake
06-08-08, 13:32
I don't think this is a secret, so I'll say it out loud:
Most citizens won't vote in November;
Of those who do, most won't research the candidates (and probably wouldn't know what to do with the information if they had it); and
Of those who believe they're in possession of "facts" about the candidates, most will have gleaned them from dubious sources like talk radio, FOXNews, MoveOn.org and AirAmerica.
Given those predictions:
Fear, not facts, will swing this election; and
The candidate who's most effective in presenting hyperbole, half-truths and outright lies about the other candidate will win.
Whichever candidate you favor, there's only one thing to do:
Load up the Spin Machine with good old-fashioned disinformation and let's have at it!
It's time we're honest about that.
Quick Karl
06-08-08, 13:47
Well said, KintaLake.
And very true.
The sad truth about politics is that most people are... fools... in my humble opinion.
I don't mean to offend anyone, it's just what I truly believe.
KintlaLake
06-08-08, 14:29
Thanks, 'Karl. I'd been pitchforking compost since 9am, so I guess I was inspired. ;)
Fear thrives only in the presence of ignorance. Think Kudzu.
It's part-and-parcel of the political process. See also How to swing an election (http://kintlalake.blogspot.com/2008/03/year-was-1950.html).
Quick Karl
06-08-08, 14:43
KintaLake,
I may be construed to be somewhat more cynical than most, and humbly admit that my writing and blogging skills are significantly weaker than are yours, however even at the risk of grammatical critique I have endeavored my own simple blog, which I hope you might read and comment on.
http://karllarsen.blogspot.com/2007/09/history-of-politics.html
The candidate who's most effective in presenting hyperbole, half-truths and outright lies about the other candidate will win.
A truth that is in itself very scary...Obama seems to have his Formal Public Speaking (not his impromptu speaking) down to a tee.
Quick Karl
06-08-08, 15:17
How may times throughout history have people been willingly decieved by charismatic speakers...
First rule of politics!
I don't think this is a secret, so I'll say it out loud:
Most citizens won't vote in November;
Of those who do, most won't research the candidates (and probably wouldn't know what to do with the information if they had it); and
Of those who believe they're in possession of "facts" about the candidates, most will have gleaned them from dubious sources like talk radio, FOXNews, MoveOn.org and AirAmerica.
Given those predictions:
Fear, not facts, will swing this election; and
The candidate who's most effective in presenting hyperbole, half-truths and outright lies about the other candidate will win.
Whichever candidate you favor, there's only one thing to do:
Load up the Spin Machine with good old-fashioned disinformation and let's have at it!
It's time we're honest about that.
How would you rate MSNBC, CBS, CNN, ABC, CBS, NBC compared to those dubious info sources you listed?
Thanks,
bootfoot
Fear, not facts, will swing this election; and
The candidate who's most effective in presenting hyperbole, half-truths and outright lies about the other candidate will win.
Whichever candidate you favor, there's only one thing to do:
Load up the Spin Machine with good old-fashioned disinformation and let's have at it!
It's time we're honest about that.
With all due respect, now you are over-analyzing.
Fear is not always inspired by ignorance, as you stated in post 124. It can be inspired by learning you have a terminal illness, or have a cheating spouse who is the mother of your children. Ignorance has little to do with those fear inducing scenarios, in fact in those cases knowledge of the circumstance can justifiably inspire even more fear. Sounds like we may have been reading too many fortune cookies.
Obama will not win by generating fear about McCain, but rather he will win by utilizing the ignorance of others who simply don't see that he is as disingenuous as they come and incapable of delivering on many of his promises. Therefore, he advocates a false sense of hope as his tool for victory. Plus, many see him as what America needs to repent for her sins, so to speak. Spite, if you will. Lastly, he will have the majority of the black vote because he is black.
Fear about McCain being another Bush plays a small part perhaps, but not as much as you portray.
I don't think this is a secret, so I'll say it out loud:
Most citizens won't vote in November;
Of those who do, most won't research the candidates (and probably wouldn't know what to do with the information if they had it); and
Of those who believe they're in possession of "facts" about the candidates, most will have gleaned them from dubious sources like talk radio, FOXNews, MoveOn.org and AirAmerica.
Given those predictions:
Fear, not facts, will swing this election; and
The candidate who's most effective in presenting hyperbole, half-truths and outright lies about the other candidate will win.
Whichever candidate you favor, there's only one thing to do:
Load up the Spin Machine with good old-fashioned disinformation and let's have at it!
It's time we're honest about that.
Argue what is facts and what is not all you want, watch the video in this thread, kinda hard to argue with that, as is is FACTS you can see with your own eyes. Not a whole lot of spinning going on there, just plain truth. I do have to agree, fear and CNN/MSMBC with seat obama in the White House.
well with all this politics talk. I think we need to start talking about religion next right?:D
I think the one thing that we can all agree on is that if obama wins we are all going to be in a bad place.
KintlaLake
06-08-08, 16:56
http://karllarsen.blogspot.com/2007/09/history-of-politics.html
'Karl, you convey your perspective well. Give me a bit to ruminate on it. :)
Obama seems to have his Formal Public Speaking (not his impromptu speaking) down to a tee.
And McCain needs work -- a lot of work -- on both. He's completely lost behind a 'prompter (a necessary skill for a POTUS); and off the cuff, he's a danger to himself and others.
I'm available for coaching, by the way. :D
How would you rate MSNBC, CBS, CNN, ABC, CBS, NBC compared to those dubious info sources you listed?
Interesting question, 'foot. Everyone has a different preference and, for the record, mine are influenced by the fact that the news business intersects with my profession.
In any given 24-hour cycle, I'll take CNN every time. They're fast, almost always accurate, and offer an open mic to virtually all relevant and credible points of view. MSNBC would be second, CBS News third, and I occasionally watch FOXNews just for a laugh. :D Truth is, the former "Big Three" broadcast networks can't keep up anymore, really.
With all due respect, now you are over-analyzing.
Of course I am -- isn't that what the WWWeb is all about? :D
I'm saying that politics a contact sport. Considering how few voters are informed -- and how many are influenced by contrived political goblins -- the most reliable campaign tactic is fear.
The whole "Obama's a Muslim" thing is a classic -- and it worked! Last I checked, 24% of self-described conservatives still believe it. I suspect that many of those folks know it's a lie, intellectually, but they believe it out of fear that he might still be Muslim.
...watch the video in this thread...
Um...sorry, gishooter, but that video illustrates my earlier points as well as anything I've seen. :rolleyes:
well with all this politics talk. I think we need to start talking about religion next right?:D
Scroll back a page or two. :D
The whole "Obama's a Muslim" thing is a classic -- and it worked! Last I checked, 24% of self-described conservatives still believe it. I suspect that many of those folks know it's a lie, intellectually, but they believe it out of fear that he might still be Muslim.
You are reaching again. Too much effort extended into a false pretext, IMHO.
Folks who are so stupid as to not vote for Obama just because they think he may be a muslim are irrelevant to any well rounded debate about his candidacy. Yes, they can vote, but if as you say 24% of conservatives are swayed by such rhetoric only then that is hardly a fear driven election overall regardless.
KintlaLake
06-08-08, 18:41
Folks who are so stupid as to not vote for Obama just because they think he may be a muslim are irrelevant to any well rounded debate about his candidacy.
I'm not in the habit of labeling people "stupid."
I'm also inclined to concede your point. ;)
All the same, despite the fact that those self-described conservatives probably aren't potential Obama voters, it does make one wonder what other "facts" they're swallowing -- from or about their favored candidate.
Yes, they can vote, but if as you say 24% of conservatives are swayed by such rhetoric only then that is hardly a fear driven election overall regardless.
It's not this election in particular, it's the process in general. The next five months will bear that out.
I'm not in the habit of labeling people "stupid."
I'm also inclined to concede your point. ;)
I don't advocate calling people stupid, either. But, there comes a time when one must call a spade a spade. I wish these stupid people had no pull when it comes to this countries government, but they do because we all have a say.
The problem is, here we enable stupidity through lack of overall awareness and accountability. Thus, we allow it to incorporate itself into our political doctrine.
Democracy gone awry. :(
I fail to see how that video illustrated one of your earlier points. Some of the video was found in his book, and the rest was captured on true blue video tape. There is no special effects when he talking , no one made him believe the way he does or take documented trips with hate mongers, No one made him attend the same hateful/anti white/anti America church for the last 17 or so years. I don't see where you think there is a spin there. THEY ARE FACTS. Verified facts that have played on ALL news channels and have been seen with the worlds eyes. Kinda hard to say that is a dubious source of a half truth or whatever can be spun up.
CarlosDJackal
06-08-08, 20:51
I fail to see how that video illistreted one of your earlier points. Some of the video was found in his book, and the rest was captured on true blue video tape. There is no special effects when he talking , no one made him believe the way he does or take documented trips with hate mongers, No one made him attend the same hateful/anti white/anti America church for the last 17 or so years. I don't see where you think there is a spin there. THEY ARE FACTS. Verified facts that have played on ALL news channels and have been seen with the worlds eyes. Kinda hard to say that is a dubious source of a half truth or whatever can be spun up.
"Fact" is such a relaive term nowadays that no amount of video, audio, or eyewitness proof is not going to sway the sheep that Barrack Hussein Obama is not the best choice for POTUS.
Our only hope is that those who have declared themselves as "Independent" do not throw away their votes in November and hand BHO the Presidency. Also, that those who consider themselves Conservatives or Republicans do not do the same just because their preferred candidate is not John McCain.
Unfortunately, I fear that a lot of the so-called swing votes will do just that and we may very well find ourselves in an era darker than when slick willy was in office (I hope I'm proven wrong on this though). :(
Well said a very true and very scary statment, I pray you are proven wrong as well
KintlaLake
06-09-08, 05:41
I fail to see how that video illistreted one of your earlier points.
Because that video is all about inflaming fear.
Sure, all those clips and images are real, but they were synthesized and packaged for your consumption not to inform you, but to make you afraid.
Give me an hour and an editing console and I could rearrange all those real clips into a package that says something entirely different.
Sen. Obama won't get my vote for POTUS, but it won't be because of amateurish fearmongering like that.
Fearmongering yes, but that video can show people FACTS about obama that might not be known. The approach may be wrong but there is no doubt to the truth behind the video.
KintlaLake
06-09-08, 06:38
...there is no doubt to the truth behind the video.
Exactly! :cool:
Facts are absolute. Truth is what a person does with the facts.
And there's no doubt about Max Headr-- er, Lorne Baxter's truth. ;)
ETA...
The approach may be wrong...
Right or wrong, it will be very effective in this campaign.
Facts are absolute. Truth is what a person does with the facts.
And there's no doubt about Max Headr-- er, Lorne Baxter's truth. ;)
ETA...
Right or wrong, it will be very effective in this campaign.
And you say that the politicians are good at spin?
You, sir, are the master.
KintlaLake
06-09-08, 08:04
You, sir, are the master.
:rolleyes:
Tell the world. ;)
live2offroad
06-09-08, 09:37
No, I'm not going to do that.
You know that John McCain is not a conservative. I am not going to list Mr. Dream Candidate because he/she does not exist but that doesn't change the fact that McCain is a horrible choice for the Republican nominee...
Nor does it change the fact that he is extremely LUCKY that he is running against someone as horrifying as Obama, otherwise he'd never stand a chance.
Hillary probably would have beaten him.
Why won't you detail the "perfect" candidate? I've read post after post of conservatives that are more interested in beating the "Liberals" than they are in getting their own party to promote a decent candidate.
It's your party (or it's supposed to be) shouldn't you be spending at least as much time working with it, as against the other side?
-Peter
People often quote that line, and just as often misinterpret it. John 14:2. It is simple to argue by citation, and take a single passage at the exclusion of everything else. Unfortunately this often misses the larger point.
Nothing in John says that wisdom can simply be handed to someone. Everything about it says that it is only through the way of love and sacrifice do we become wise.
I thought the topic was whether truth was objective or subjective. It appeared you supported Kintla Lake's position that truth was subjective. I was mearly referencing one of the Scriptures I use to support why I believe truth is objective. If you believe truth to be objective, then my apologies for the misunderstanding.
The acquisition of wisdom is a different subject.
I see no lion's den, so any comparison between you (or anyone for that matter) and Daniel seems a bit of a stretch.
I was referencing that if I choose to live outside the "law" of this land, then I will be punished. I will be viewed as a criminal, even though my actions may well put me within the dictates of my conscience (what I believe to be my Constitutional rights) and the will of God. Daniel didn't pray to Yahweh in the open, he did it in the confines of his own room. However, those who hated him (the Marxists among us perhaps) were determined to see him removed, so they sent in spies to gather evidence.
I personally believe there are several laws on the books which openly violate my Constitutional rights. Make of that what you will. I also believe that my children (if not myself) will see the practice of any religion other than secular humanism outlawed in this nation (science and acadamia will see to that). I hope to impart on them enough of an understanding and appreciation for their need to seek a relationship with Y'shua, that they will stand against this nation (as did Daniel) when that time comes.
What I fear in Obama is not the man, but what his actions mean for our nation. Personally I like him, but what he represents may put this nation on the path to greater faction and anger...under the guise of "christian" virtue....you know false prophets n'at.
The faction and anger you speak of is prominent and these elections will do nothing (regardless of who wins), to mitigate that condition. If this nation votes the Marxist in as POTUS, then so be it. At least I won't have to worry about being blind-sided.
There's a grizzled NCO over at LF.net who has a sig line which best represents my mindset on this nation:
"Feeling betrayed by his country like a Rhodesian Circa 1978." The outcome of this election is not going to change the hearts and minds of the American people. I wish it would, but I see no hope. To step out against the government will just get you labelled a terrorist and nobody wants that to happen. :rolleyes:
Gutshot John
06-09-08, 12:48
You keep mentioning "secular humanism" I've never heard it mentioned in the context in which you use it but it does not really jive with history.
Humanism by its origins in the Renaissance was a reaction against the superstition and dogma of the Catholic Church. Erasmus, Rabelais, Luther and Machiavelli were all humanists.
These humanists in turn inspired the enlightenment ideas of liberty and government which became foundational in our own Republic. Voltaire, DesCartes, Montesquieu, Hobbes and Locke were all humanists. The Reformation itself was a humanist concept.
Some humanists were religious and some were secular but all were intrinsic to our nation.
What's wrong with humanism? Your whole notion of "liberty" was borne of humanism. If you're arguing that religious fundamentalism will somehow preserve your liberty, I fail to see a connection. If you're arguing "render unto caesar what is caesar's" ok I'll buy that but liberty is a human social concept, not a divine one.
You keep mentioning "secular humanism" I've never heard it mentioned in the context in which you use it but it does not really jive with history.
Just goes to show my ignorance. The neanderthals I run with use it to descibe those who believe man is divine and truth is subjective.
If you're arguing that religious fundamentalism will somehow preserve your liberty, I fail to see a connection..
? I stated that my ability to legally practice my faith will be outlawed. I do believe it will and who knows, maybe you'll lead the charge. I mean, science and acadamia have all the answers.
Gutshot John
06-09-08, 14:00
Just goes to show my ignorance. The neanderthals I run with use it to descibe those who believe man is divine and truth is subjective.
I know of no one who believes man is divine. Please point these fools out so we can all have a good laugh.
Human truth is indeed subjective. The theologian Thomas Aquinas espoused an Aristotelean/Platonic model of truth that said that universal truth could NEVER be understood by humanity. As such we must reason using imperfect "human" truth, such truth is indeed subjective and far from universal.
? I stated that my ability to legally practice my faith will be outlawed. I do believe it will and who knows, maybe you'll lead the charge. I mean, science and acadamia have all the answers.
Huh? Your faith will be outlawed? What are you talking about? No one said science and academia have all the answers, but only a fool scoffs at learning and understanding.
If your faith is premised on beliefs that are antithetical to science, than I understand how you might be paranoid. God created the universe, its wonders and its laws, as a perfect being he works within the confines of his creation. If you feel that science, learning and reason somehow contradict God, than I genuinely feel sorry for you. Such faith cannot survive and it won't take someone passing a law.
Being able to question one's faith is not a sign of weakness, the Bible is replete with stories of such questioning. Like Jacob in wrestling with God, one's faith can only emerge stronger.
Gutshot John
06-09-08, 14:38
Boy was I surprised...there is actually a "Council of Secular Humanism."
I wasted about 5 minutes reading their manifesto, and ok I agree...so they're a little goofy, but if you see these people as a threat...you're giving them way more credit than they deserve. I don't see anything that says faith should be outlawed, but maybe I didn't look deep enough. I feel as sorry for those that believe Reason disproves God as much as those that feel that God disproves Reason.
That being said, I'm not sure how Obama or any Presidential candidate (or even a single politician outside of the extreme left) that qualifies as a secular humanist. Indeed like Obama there are even religious leftists as I'm sure there are secular right-wingers. In the end it's just another meaningless label.
So what?
I thought the topic was whether truth was objective or subjective. It appeared you supported Kintla Lake's position that truth was subjective. I was mearly referencing one of the Scriptures I use to support why I believe truth is objective.
I also believe the truth to be objective, and not because of scripture. Subjective interpretations are just that.
Facts are facts. Truth is truth, if based on fact.
If I am wrong, please explain using simple points, not dazzling intellect.
Kitna
It will be effective because of fear. Guess there are intertwined, spinning and fear.
+1 for safetyhit
AMEN Brother. Make it simple and to the point, KISS.
CarlosDJackal
06-09-08, 17:18
I also believe the truth to be objective, and not because of scripture. Subjective interpretations are just that.
Facts are facts. Truth is truth, if based on fact.
If I am wrong, please explain using simple points, not dazzling intellect.
It has been proven that in crimes that involve multiple witnesses, there will always be an abundance of conflicting "facts". It's not that all or any of them may be lying; it's more than likely because each individual truthfully believe that the suspect they saw was wearing a red shirt versus a blue one, etc. You could hook all these individuals to a Lie Detector or pump them full of some sort of "Truth Serum" and you could not prove them wrong. In some cases, even if you were to show them a video of the very same incident that shows facts contrary to what they believe and "proves" the suspect was wearing a Barney-colored shirt, they would still not believe you because in their mind what they are seeing on that video monitor is not the "truth". There are still some societies that believe eating a dead relative's heart allows them to inherit their strengths - it's a matter of perspective.
A few years ago, I convinced a friend of mine to finally accepted my invitation to go shooting. When it came time for their turn to shoot one (a Ruger Mk II that I've owned for more than 20-years) they could not even get themselves to hold it, much less shoot it. They were honestly and truthfully afraid of it as if it was some sort of venomous snake that could turn on them on its own. I'm talking gripped by absolute fear that turned them white as a sheet, trembling, with tears rolling down their faces and the inability to even fire a single shot. They TRUTHFULLY believed that it is a FACT that guns are evil. While those of us who have a healthy respect for guns know that there is nothing to fear about such inanimate objects (unless they are in the hands of some scumbag who means to do you harm). But as far as my friend is still concerned, it is a very different story. So much so that they took offense to me having my gun while at mass even though I was in uniform!!
That is the difference between them and us. Most of us who lean to the right, whether we are declared Independents or Republicans, tend to look at the facts as they are available and we make our choices based on what we know. The other side tends to vote on emotion and it is that emotion that such individuals a Reverend Wright, Jesse Jackson, Al Sharpton, Barrack Obama, Hillary Klinton, etc. cater to and take advantage of. There are left-wingers who honestly believe that BHO is the best candidate for this country, PERIOD - Amen!! No amount of video tapes, taped confessions, eye witness accounts, or presentation of fact will ever convince them otherwise. Even in the face of statistical facts, numbers that are not made up, will these individuals ever believe otherwise.
To them what they believe to be the TRUTH is also FACT. And no amount of convincing is going to make a bit of difference just like there are those on these very boards who are convinced that they are only punishing the Republican Party if they vote against McCain in November. JM2CW.
To them what they believe to be the TRUTH is also FACT.
You make great points that cut to the heart of the argument well.
But, as I said, truth based in fact is real and absolute. Someone truly thinking that a suspect wore red when he wore blue is speaking a false truth, based on an incorrect interpretation of a fact. Truth is not subjective when based on the corresponding facts, only when some facts are absent or skewed.
If someone truthfully believes (come on, they didn't really cry, did they?) that a gun is pure evil, then they are speaking a false truth based on skewed facts. While it can be incorporated for evil, the true evil resides in man. The person who understands fact would know that that same gun can, and often does, exterminate evil.
That is the truth based on fact, my friend.
KintlaLake
06-09-08, 20:01
It will be effective because of fear. Guess there are intertwined, spinning and fear.
They are in politics, that's for sure.
...truth based in fact is real and absolute.
If that were universally so, we'd never see a hung jury.
If that were universally so, we'd never see a hung jury.
Hung jury's are a result of a lack of facts, leading to subjective interpretation.
Again, facts are not subjective. Nor is fact based truth.
KintlaLake
06-10-08, 06:39
Hung jury's are a result of a lack of facts, leading to subjective interpretation.
None of us ever has all the facts, of course, so that's moot. In the case of a jury, at least, we're talking about 12 citizens who are presented the same facts-in-evidence. A jury's only charge is to render a verdict or judgment -- to distill truth from facts-in-evidence.
And yet we still have hung (split) juries, because the same facts can yield different truths.
Here in central Ohio, when an accurate thermometer reads 50 degrees F (fact) in January (fact), we call it "balmy" -- and that's truth, relative to our norms. The same facts in south Florida would yield a truth called "chilly" -- just as true, given different norms. Central Ohioans would share that "chilly" truth if that factual 50 degrees happened on a factual August day.
There's been some hard feelings here
About some words that were said
Been some hard feelings here
And what is more
There's been a bloody purple nose
And some bloody purple clothes
That were messing up the lobby floor
It's just apartment house rules
So all you 'partment fools
Remember: one man's ceiling is another man's floor!
One man's ceiling is another man's floor
(Paul Simon)
None of us ever has all the facts, of course, so that's moot. In the case of a jury, at least, we're talking about 12 citizens who are presented the same facts-in-evidence. A jury's only charge is to render a verdict or judgment -- to distill truth from facts-in-evidence.
And yet we still have hung (split) juries, because the same facts can yield different truths.
As the great Moe from The Three Stooges says: Why you.....
Apparently we could go on forever here, but let's not. I will hold the opinion that real truth is objective and you can say otherwise. However, the example you use is still flawed because if a jury has all the absolute facts, then as rationally thinking adults they should come to the same end point.
If they don't, it is likely to be because some hard-head wants to be subjective. ;)
Gutshot John
06-10-08, 08:51
It seems like you both mostly agree but that you're splitting a very fine hair.
May I offer a compromise?
Facts are scientific truth and are immutable and objective.
Philosophical truth is metaphysical and subjective but it cannot contradict facts.
You will not find "truth" in a courtroom other than what people "believe" to be true. As Carlos said, many people will witness the same event, but will tell different stories that they all sincerely believe to be true. Why? Because you interpret truth through the lens of perception. Humans are INCAPABLE of perceiving/defining metaphysical truth and only occasionally, by chance, do they stumble on scientific truth.
It should be noted that the most valued evidence in a courtroom is eye-witness testimony, whereas in science it is the LEAST valuable. This should say something about human beings ability to perceive objective truth.
On a lighter, but related note I quote the immortal Dr. Henry Jones Jr. :D:
"Archaeology (Science) is the search for fact, if you're looking for truth, philosophy is down the hall."
KintlaLake
06-10-08, 10:21
As the great Moe from The Three Stooges says: Why you...
:D
Apparently we could go on forever here, but let's not.
It's been fun. :cool:
Quick Karl
06-10-08, 10:48
In spite of all this hair-splitting and back-and-forth, the factual truth is that I, and I alone, seem to be the only soul on earth that can identify right vs. wrong, 100% of the time.
And that is based on fact. :p
In spite of all this hair-splitting and back-and-forth, the factual truth is that I, and I alone, seem to be the only soul on earth that can identify right vs. wrong, 100% of the time.
And that is based on fact. :p
I thought Gutshot John and I were the only two in existence with that ability.
Damn.
variablebinary
06-10-08, 13:42
I still dont think I am voting for McCain.
Hell if anything, I am more inclined to vote for Obama and recreate the conditions between January 20, 1977 and January 20, 1981, and the many good years that followed.
Quick Karl
06-10-08, 13:58
After watching that video (http://www.eyeblast.tv/public/video.aspx?RsrcID=2036) I would rather denounce my citizenship than vote for Obama...
Whether the video is 'fear mongering' or not, to watch a candidate for the Presidency of this country stand with his hands clasped while the National Anthem plays, should be more than enough to portray Mr. Obama's true feelings about America - a country that insures his freedom to run for the office he seeks - and enrage any reasonable American, regardless of political philosophical slant.
+1 Quick Karl, anyone not seeing that has major issues.
KintlaLake
06-10-08, 14:53
...anyone not seeing that has major issues.
Really, now. :rolleyes:
Given the choice, I'll take the highway, thanks.
variablebinary
06-10-08, 15:09
An Obama President is the sum of a remainder of an ever declining moral compass inherent to the foundation of a free society. He is the eventuality of decades of unfettered decadence
To prevent him or anyone like him from winning the White House, we must draw a line in the sand, establish a moral compass and win the culture war by any means necessary.
live2offroad
06-10-08, 15:26
An Obama President is the sum of a remainder of an ever declining moral compass inherent to the foundation of a free society. He is the eventuality of decades of unfettered decadence
To prevent him or anyone like him from winning the White House, we must draw a line in the sand, establish a moral compass and win the culture war by any means necessary.
With what as the judged "right" lifestyle? Chosen by whom, you? Frankly, I think I'll pass..
The "moral" few always so willing to enforce their version of "good" on everyone else.. And yet, from these camps come just as much spousal and child abuse, philandering, lying, drug abuse and alcoholism as from everywhere else..
The notion that any one group has the "right" way for everyone to live is ridicules. And it has no place in the America I love..
You want to adhere to a particular Moral compass, do so... Live as freely as you want. But the minute you try and force that version of "right" on me, we have a problem...
Liberty and Freedom before all.. Anyone standing in the way of that is the enemy..
-Peter
Quick Karl
06-10-08, 15:29
An Obama President is the sum of a remainder of an ever declining moral compass inherent to the foundation of a free society. He is the eventuality of decades of unfettered decadence
To prevent him or anyone like him from winning the White House, we must draw a line in the sand, establish a moral compass and win the culture war by any means necessary.
Well, we can start by leading by example instead of preaching from on high.
The 'join my cult or we'll kill you' method doesn't seem to have worked out too well.
Most of those that have been spouting off about a 'moral compass' - that windbag of all windbags Sean Hannity for instance - do more to hurt our country by insisting their beliefs are more legitimate than anyone else's, than any liberal democrat can do.
Next time you want to influence someone, think Gandhi, or Jesus... what would they do? Shoving a philosophy down someone's throat just doesn't come to mind.
:D
variablebinary
06-10-08, 16:03
The notion that any one group has the "right" way for everyone to live is ridicules. And it has no place in the America I love..
So you're an anarchist? I hate to break it to you, but you're told what's right every day.
If you dont have a moral compass, how do you what's right and wrong, or should we just make it up as we go along. That's the Obama/far left liberalism theory at its core. It's all relative to the moment and how it feels.
Gun bans "feel" good today. Yeah we have that whole 2nd amendment thing, but who cares.
Someone's sig line says it best, "The lack of a standard is the downfall of credibility"
Wavering standards is how kooks like Obama rise to power. But as many have said, the USA deserves whatever it gets.
Simply put: "Kein Mehrheit Für Die Mitleid"
You want to adhere to a particular Moral compass, do so... Live as freely as you want. But the minute you try and force that version of "right" on me, we have a problem...
Really? You must have an extremely difficult time going through life playing by your rules and your rules only.
News Flash: You live by the definition of "right" established by others every minute of every day. Try to step too far outside those boundaries, you will either be ostracized, jailed or killed.
Hope that doesn't ruin your view of the world.
Really, now. :rolleyes:
Given the choice, I'll take the highway, thanks.
Yes, you take the highway while you defend that disingenuous, anti-American weasel some more, why don't you.
Not the first time, I've noticed.
KintlaLake
06-10-08, 17:08
Yes, you take the highway while you defend that disingenuous, anti-American weasel some more, why don't you.
Not the first time, I've noticed.
I guess because I don't level unsubstantiated allegations at Sen. Obama and call him schoolyard names, it may not be obvious that he won't get my vote come November.
He won't.
I adamantly oppose his (and the DNC's) approach to entitlements, and I predict that an Obama presidency would be the last element of a perfect anti-Second Amendment storm, among other bases for spending my vote elsewhere. I happen to agree with Sen. Obama on some issues, and I hold what he brings to American politics in the highest regard.
And he still won't get my vote in November.
I can stand in passionate opposition without whirling around in a venomous fugue. I insist on thinking critically, and I steadfastly resist being manipulated by propaganda.
If that makes me a "disingenuous, anti-American weasel," too, then I have but one thing to say:
Thank you! :cool:
Jay Cunningham
06-10-08, 17:10
If you kids can't play nice I will lock this thread and shitcan it.
~Thekatar
If you kids can't play nice I will lock this thread and shitcan it.
~Thekatar
I'm fine with that. It has been pretty much off topic since the start... :mad:
Jay Cunningham
06-10-08, 17:32
I'm fine with that. It has been pretty much off topic since the start... :mad:
10 - 4 Roxanne...
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.5 Copyright © 2024 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.