I certainly believe American has suffered a socio-cultural decline over the last 35 years or so – - and I believe a re-energizing of what appears to me to have been formerly stronger beliefs and more active participation in organized religion – - would be a plus.

BUT – - so-called “pastors” like Wright AND Hagee are just another variety of egocentric extremist spouting the propaganda they feel is necessary to achieve their personal agendas, whatever they may be, and, of course, to keep themselves in the public eye and fill those collection baskets!

And supposedly “orthodox believers” like Lieberman?  Garden-variety chameleons!  Lieberman has been in the political public eye for some 40 years – - and can anyone tell me exactly how his ostensible religious “orthodoxy” has significantly contributed even one tiny wit to improving morals, mores, ethics, or errant behavior over those 40 years?  He’s just a lifer politican who goes where the political winds blow him.

And Wright and Hagee?  Just egocentric, extremist, publicity and money-grubbing “religio-politicos”!

Unfortunately, extremism begets extremism – - and there are some people out there who “religiously” repond to Wright’s, Hagee’s and Liebermnan’s kind of propagandistic crap.  (And, of course, not to play favorites, we also have the Fr. Pfleger version of these smoke-blowers!)

These kind of people take the real religiosity out of religion!

(A few Sundays ago, during my channel-surfing, I happened upon the Rev Hagee deliving the latter part of a sermon.  The following is based upon this limited exposure along with a few references to Hagee in columns, such as the one above, along with several Media references to him from the time of John McCain’s repudiation.  My only exposure to the Rev Wright has similarly been that afforded by the press and the media, including the infamous (in my opinion) National Press Club sermon. The following discussion is based on this limited info, and must be judged accordingly.)
I grew up in the church (Protestant), and although in my youth was subjected to many powerful sermons, few were as powerful as Hagee’s.  The Rev Hagee could have been Ralph Waldo Emerson, as preaching personal responsibility was the theme of this particular sermon.  He exhorted his congregation to look inwards to find the reasons for their lack of success in the various aspects of their lives, and, after this honest introspection, to apply themselves assiduously to improving their lives by hard work and constructive thinking, again, as I said, sentiments generally agreeing with Emerson’s self-reliance.  There was no hint, absolutely none, of blaming others, the very antithesis of the Rev Wright’s inveighing against America and Whites, exhorting his congregation to blame others for all their troubles.  Nor was it just that their approaches to life’s problems were 180 degrees apart, their styles of delivery were also diametrical opposites: The Rev Hagee’s powerful exhortations to look into oneself for the answers to personal failure were delivered in a strong but calm, reasoning voice, while the Rev Wright’s appeal to blame others for all of life’s probems were delivered in his well-publicized bombastic, and overly theatrical manner.
Nor did Hagee ever lie to his congregation, as did Wright in respect to AIDS, nor did he inveigh against his country, “God Damn America,” the “KKK of America,” or rabble-rouse in any way, while Rev Wright overtly preached hatred seemingly based on the infamous Black doctrine of “victimology.”
It is unfortunate that McCain was so unfamiliar with the Rev Hagee as to denounce him out of hand, without apparently much examination of Hagee’s ministry.  He may have had no choice, as Hagee, liberally (no pun intended) quoted out of context by a hostile press, was certainly therefore an instant liability.  Yet, Hagee merely expressed his support of a man who had never as far as we know attended his church, whereas Obama had his own self-proclaimed close, personal twenty-year association with the Rev Wright. No one should be surprised at partisans in the midst of a campaign suddenly twisting and distorting whatever they can to gain an advantage or to seek to lessen, in this case, the damage done by the Rev Wright connection.  However, it takes a thorougly corrupt, generally dishonorable media to label the Rev Wright/Obama and Rev Hagee/McCain parallel influences. 
As for the Rev Hagee, I hope that he takes to heart his own admonition that we are responsible for our own troubles and examines how even good people could misread his intentions and find his words unacceptable even though taken of context.  As a public figure, it seems fair to expect the Rev Hagee to seriously consider such chances for misinterpretation and assiduously avoid them.  Although the quotes used against him were taken out of context, even in context they could be offensive, especially to Jews.  However, I think that while Hagee went rather far in using the Hitler reference to make a point about the unintended consequences of history, Jews understand the context and few seem to have gotten too excited about it. Again, Hagee will have to grapple with the problem of couching sometimes his Biblically oriented argumentation,and perhaps even legitimate points, in somewhat outrageous or insensitive examples or language.  However, that said, I sincerely hope that the Rev Hagee will continue in his ministry far into the future, for America needs to hear what he is preaching.  If fact, I suggest to anyone who has a few moments to spare, that he or she tune in to Rev Hagee some Sunday morning for a constructive, up-lifting message.  That includes Senator McCain, although introspection is probably a given for a long-time POW. 
(Again, I offer the caveat that my sentiments are based on limited exposure to both preachers.)

There are undoubtedly many, many men (and women) of the cloth who can offer intelligent, informative, instructional, motivational and uplifting sermons and, maybe, if he can leave politics out of it, Hagee is one of them.  BUT – - neither Hagee, Wright, nor any other pastor, priest, reverend, rabbi, etc., etc. should be peddling political propaganda.  They should stick to religion.  IF they do insist on politicizing or politiking their parishioners, they (and their churches) should lose their tax-free status.

There have certainly been more than enough scandals of all sorts involving denominations of all kinds indicative of the fact that a lot of these people are often nothing but nickel-and-dime immoral and unethical hypocrites in their personal lives and in their “ministries”.

They can do a lot of humanistic good at the grass roots level without injecting their politics or seeking a mass media stage.

To me, both Wright and Hagee are fundamentalist extremists in their own rights amd neither should be on a national stage peddling personal politics and claiming that they have an inside track to the “politics of Jesus”!

And Lieberman?  He’s just a politically flip-flopping, over-the-hill and homeless n’er-do-well looking for a place to spend the night!  He’s made himself totally irrelevant.

(Amazing how he and Gore were such a perfect couple of “doin’ nothin’ and goin’ nowhere”!  No wonder The Texas Ranger and El Dicque won!)

First, a point on the Bible, which cautions against those who “prayer on street corners.” While I am a Christian who has felt God’s hand at work in my life, as has my wife, it does seem as though televangelists have gone WAY beyond street corners.

Wanna get screwed? If you notice religious posters/sayings in a store that doesn’t specialize in selling such stuff, shop there. Said screwing will ensue. It took me a couple of times, but I picked up on this quickly. Jesus is our Savior, not a sales gimmick.

I must note in all honesty that I prefer Joel Osteen, who ALWAYS has something to say that we might be sitting over cups of coffee with him directly addressing me, often about some problem I could use a little help with. Okay, I may be inconsistent in my views, but if I find something that works for me, I go for it!

Joel follows FoxNews Sunday Report in my area, and I stumbled upon him as I turned my attention to something else, but heard Joel making a lot of sense, offering practical advice, drawing my attention. He’s not a fire and brimstoner, but more of a motivational speaker who backs up his words with scripture. He COULD drop some of his “I’m good looking” remarks: he’s not THAT good looking! Making fun of his family members isn’t a winner, either. 

Bottom line: Sooner or later, Americans are going to realize that Obama is basically running on higher taxes and higher gas prices and his skin color, as any “race cards” played have come from Obama, NOT McCain. (Yes, *other* GOP groups have mentioned Rev Wright, including in NC where I live, but this is NOT the “race card,” but the “anti-American, conspiracy nut, racist, hater, hypocrite card.” Got anything good to say about this horse’s arse? Knock yourself out.)

Anyone who wants to pay higher taxes and higher gas prices is free to do so RIGHT NOW! But they don’t unless everybody else HAS TO. Why is that? Do they lack the strength of their convictions? Or are they simply stupid? You want it? Do it!

Obama is essential to neither paying more taxes nor paying higher gas prices. Why wait? Pay ‘em NOW! The IRS and gas station owners will take your extra money! I promise you this. Wouldn’t you take an offer of money that doesn’t involve a crime? (Of course you would! If you walked by a $5 bill lying on the sidewalk, would you walk on by without nabbing it? Show of hands from the idiots, please.)

Were I McCain, I wouldn’t want some of Hagee’s more egregious pronouncements in Obama’s campaign ads, either. Then again, I WOULD immediately drop my oppo to drilling ANWR (as there’s not one good reason not to), allowing the conservative “idiot vote” (a sub-group of conservatives who would rather shame the sacrifices our military has made to secure this *privilege* than vote; not in the Constitution, so voting is NOT a right, although it is a de facto right) to get onboard without looking like the nitwits they are.

Okay, McCain isn’t my ideal candidate, either, but, as always, the GOP is the lesser of two evils. Americans should have heard about MOST of Obama’s screwups during the dem primary, say in January of this year, as Hillary’s infamous oppo-research team seems to have slept out most of the dem primary. If Obama continues to screw up at every given opportunity, Hillary may well end up the dem candidate as more people see the new Messiah as unelectable. NEVER underestimate this snakewoman. (Screw the youth vote. They won’t… unless they can do so by text messaging, which they can’t. Voting isn’t sufficiently narcissistic.)

Note the insignificant bump (in SOME polls; down in others) Obama got from his “presidential tour” of Europe and the Middle East, because he simply hasn’t got the goods… and made several HUGE mistakes, eg, not visiting wounded troops because no cameras were allowed for political posturing, but had plenty of time for basketball. He has made himself into a racial stereotype. Shoot hoops, bro.

Obama’s priorities are way misplaced.

And this is going to cost him the election, unless McCain gets caught in a hotel room with a dead girl or a live boy as the saying goes.

Ron Paul/Ralph Nader (the “vanity run” candidates) are unelectable, while Obama is unsuitable, leaving McCain as the least of three evils.

Closing on a bright note: John Edwards despicable political career ended after he was caught sneaking out of his mistress’s hotel room after siring a “love child” with her while his wife has supported him 110%, despite facing terminal cancer. Remind anyone of Newt Gingrich? (Despite his obvious flaws, Gingrich isn’t stupid and has some good ideas. Hope McCain is bright enough to use them. He CAN be a stubborn a-hole at times, as shown by his position on ANWR.)

To those who disagree, you have this privilege, while I will not get into running gun battles with morons, so hit me with your best shot. Won’t bother me.

God bless.

To voxoreason:

I disagree with a lot of what you write – - and while I truly believe that religion is the last available vehicle for the teaching of morals and values – - I don’t think religion should be politicized.  And, I’m not a Biblical literalist – - so, as far as religion goes, I can’t really relate to those who are.

But – - relating to something else you said in your post:

I’m in Florida – - in the midst of the MOST conservative, most Republican, and most religious part of a very Republican stronghold.  In fact, in my immediate area, Republican voter registration outnumbers Dem registration 3 to 1!

TODAY – - McCain and Obama are BOTH in the immediate area – - and each has already made several stops and given several speeches.  And a local media group has been running opinion (or a version of “exit”) surveys all day – - simply asking “Are you for Obama or McCain?” – - and EVERYBODY has apparently been totally startled at the results (as of 5 pm, 8/1) – - OBAMA is running AHEAD – - by 10 points!

The theory they’re using on TV to explain the result is that the deciding issue is “offshore drilling” – - and let me tell you – - Floridians, especially on the west peninsular coast – - DO NOT WANT offshore drilling!  This has been a #1 issue here since the OPEC crisis in the ‘70s.  In fact, when Charlie Crist came out supporting McBush on the issue – - Crist’s populatiry numbers – - which had been in the 70+% range – - dropped a dozen points overnight!

So – - think about the very high number of electoral votes – - and think about the fact that The Texas Ranger and El Dicque “won” here in ‘00 only by a highly-disputed and miniscule 537 votes – - and didn’t do notably better in ‘04! 

It’s still early and some 90+ days to the election – - but if Obama can win Florida on the basis of this one issue – - he’ll be elected for sure!

I am and always have been for drilling wherever oil or natural gas may be found – - I’m for putting giant windmills wherever sufficient wind blows – - and I’m for putting giant thermal solar arrays anyplace out in the boondocks where there’s room and where the sun shines regularly – - AND – - I was for ALL those things even BEFORE the ‘70s. 

The only thing I ask for in regard to the oil and gas drilling is that the best of technology be used to prevent pollution – - whatever the cost.

I’m an Independent and not thrilled with either candidate – - but I do think The Texas Ranger and El Dicque have been the worst in history – - and McCain has chosen to become McBush.  So – - under no circumstances can I vote for more of the same!  ANYBODY would be better than another Bush or a Bush clone!

On the other hand, in 2000, I would have happily voted for McCain – - but the Bushleaguers slimed him right out of the race!  This time around, I will never understand why he hasn’t remained true to himself!  I admired him somehwat – - once!

BUT – - how about the importance of the drilling issue in Florida!  Here, Republicans have voted time-and-time-again against it! 

(In its entire history, Florida has only elected ONE black person to a statewide office – - and that was a Supreme Court justice in 1976!  Maybe the law of averages says it’s time to do it again?  Pretty interesting!)

Unfortunately I don’t find it out of the ordinary that liberals in the MSM haven’t the intellectual integrity or ability to distinguish the difference between a senator attending a church for 20 years and a senator who hasn’t attended a church but was endorsed by its pastor. Bob Beckel’s and Moveon.org’s objections seem to be that any endorsements are an endorsement by the extreme religious right.

Too many liberals seem to think that the Constitution forbids the church from speaking out on political subjects in the public square and even want to believe the Bible also forbids that. Yet even Jesus chastised the leaders of His time for their conduct and John the Baptist was killed for doing so. When Jesus threatened the economics of the leaders He too was killed. So I suppose good liberals out to be out killing Christians who oppose their agenda or at least sending them to Gulags.

Oh how the ‘Conservatives’ love the Trotsky Communist (Neo Con) line of garbage from Fox/News Corp to the Televanglists. An too stupid to follow Christs words, take your Bible into to a quiet room, close the door and read/pray.

Fred, Jesus read the Scriptures in public and expounded on them. For that they even tried to kill him. His reference to private prayer was against showy prayers in public for personal aggrandizement. So I think you should reread your Bible, if you have one.

If you think the Rev. Wright is a real Christian with his Marxist Liberation Theology, think again. By the way, there’s a great deal of difference between conservatives and neoconservatives. The neocons were former liberals, including some Trotskyites, who were mugged by reality but refused to press charges. The came out of the LBJ years disillusioned by our liberal media induced defeat in the Southeast Asian War.

But just keep on parroting the far left mantra against Fox News and conservative Christians. It only goes to show the animus liberal demagogues have against fair play and the putting forth of opposing viewpoints. No doubt you believed moveon.org, the Huffington Post, and the Daily Kos are paragons of truthful journalism and cogent political discourse.

TK

Okay, YOU I will reply to as you seem to offer intelligent disagreement.

First, I don’t take the Bible as literally true in all instances for two reasons (among others): 1) I believe in Jesus, but I also believe in dinosaurs, which came and went well before Man’s arrival on the scene – no dinosaurs in the Bible; and
2) Revelation (which concludes the Bible) is written entirely in symbolic language. If the Bible ends with symbolic language, it’s not a wild stretch to conclude that it begins with symbolic language. Would Moses have been able to explain the Big Bang theory to the Israelites? If there WAS a Big Bang, what was there a second, a minute, or a year before? My assumption is there was God (or The Word and The Word was with God). (Infinity is a difficult concept, but if there was a Big Bang, there was, by definition of infinity, something already there before.)

(I take from Genesis that when Adam and Eve were expelled from the Garden of Eden, they were admonished that life would be tough. And indeed it is! I pray for guidance and understanding, not explanations of events occurring millenia before and perhaps decades after my existence on earth. Some things we are just not given to know. Sadly, John Edwards’ extra-marital sex life and siring of a child outside of marriage during an election season isn’t one of these things! No Attorney General slot for cheatin’ John! As you might perceive, I’m all broke up about this. He was my Senator…and couldn’t carry his own state, although he was born in SC, not NC, where I currently reside.)

It’s simply too convenient (and usually rather sanctimonious) for one to say that one believes the Bible is literally true, thus one knows how the world began and how it will end (if one can even understand the symbolism in Revelation, which isn’t light reading and certainly open to differing interpretations). Only the latter is a matter of concern as we seem to be racing toward this goal. The weather in 2050 en re Global Warming (hoax)? Personally, I don’t believe there will be a 2050 as far as civilization is concerned. Too many nuts with nukes is a recipe for just such an end of civilization…and this is the way things are trending.

Joel Osteen doesn’t do politics; he isn’t a political figure so much as a motivational speaker, as noted before. He doesn’t presume to know the mind of God re specific events as Hagee does, making statements about God’s punishments for our degrading – in the sense of “ongoing” -  culture. I don’t blame gays (or several other Biblical no-nos) for 9/11 or natural disasters, ironically dubbed “Acts of God.”

(Gays have been around forever. I never consciously decided to be heterosexual, but in school, when the hormones kicked in, it simply wasn’t guys, but attractive girls who put the rise in my Levis. My johnson seems to have a mind of its own. I seriously doubt that gays can switch sexual preferences anymore than could I. A deliberate decision to be sinners? I don’t buy that.)

However, I think that both heteros and homos are throwing too much of their sexuality in everyone’s face. Can you say, “Bay Watch” (Or “Babe Watch,” the usual alternative name for the show)? I think people should keep their private, personal lives private and personal. I have known and benefitted from gay friends who have helped me out, while I didn’t ridicule their obvious sexual proclivities, and they didn’t throw them in my face. They weren’t gay with ME knowing that I was straight, so this was not a major issue.)

Floridians are worried about rigs that they won’t be able to see from the shore? When the next hurricane devastates Florida, will residents take taxpayer assistance? If people want to live in places where floods and hurricanes devastate large areas (including their homes) from time to time, why should my taxes pay for the freely-made decisions of those who choose to live in such places? Time after time after…

During Katrina, several offshore rigs were put out of action (some remain so), but no oil was spilled. Plus, the plan is NOT to line the shoreline with rigs in plain sight: the plan as I understand it is to extend the drilling sites out as far as 50 miles. Cuba and Russia have teamed up to drill about 50 miles off the coast of Florida. Think this will lower the cost of gasoline?

When I was growing up, Florida was a solid “red state.” This is why it’s annoying that the major networks called Florida for Gore before the state voting was concluded in 2000. If I lived in Pensacola and had been driving to the polls and heard this on the radio, I wouldn’t have bothered to go vote.

So the media, feigning ignorance of FL’s extension across two time zones (this wasn’t the first prez election the networks covered in FL, so simple ignorance won’t cover this betrayal of trust), they tampered with a national election, whereupon Gore disgraced himself by sending in a team of 500 lawyers to throw out the millitary ballots, then the dems had the audacity to say, “Every vote should count.” Except those of the military, ie, those who are willing to risk life and limb to preserve the privilege of fellow Americans to vote. This is beneath contempt, only much lower.

Is there a depth to the stupidity of dems? In San Francisco, they spent $10,000 to set up a “hot line” so guys could phone in and learn how to avoid being forced into an ALL-VOLUNTEER military. The FREE answer: don’t JOIN a volunteer military. Duh.

You raise some interesting points. It’s nice to discuss an issue with someone with an IQ. You made your points clearly, backing them up with rational arguments, instead of going ballistic.

But you give up the right to complain too much about high gas prices…in a state with a major tourism industry.

Not part of the solution, then…

Respectfully,
vox (I assume that you “get” my alias.)

Religion and politics should be kept separate period. How can you be blamed for what your pastor says? My pastor is a good man, but he says many things I do not agree with. How can Obama or McCain be held accountable for what friends, family or pastors say?

I trust Obama more than I do McCain. People are blinded by Muslim bigotry and race. People will actually vote for McCain knowing he will do absolutely nothing the average job. Why? Because they will not vote for a black man.

Fred Miles, I highly doubt you’re a Vietnam veteran, and you’ve certainly never met McCain. If you did you’d never have the courage to say anything. So take your puerile braggadocio and fascist anti-Semitism elsewhere.

Julius, does the fact that I won’t vote for Sen. Obama make me a racist religious bigot? If you really believe that, then tell me, as a conservative Republican Christian why would I vote for a socialist leftist liberal Democrat; be it Obama, Clinton, Edwards, or Kucinich?

However, I would vote for Colin Powell, JC Watts, Alan Keyes, or even Condoleezza Rice before voting for a socialist who favors appeasement and surrender, a welfare nanny state, an energy policy that favors reducing the American standard of living, open borders and giving benefits to illegal immigrants, abortion on demand and infanticide, confiscatory taxation of those who produce wealth, and a scrapping of the Constitution. I’d even favored those I mentioned over Sen. McCain for the top spot.

But you and the Obama campaign should keep on playing the race card. Maybe you’ll overplay your hand and snatch defeat from the jaws of victory.

By the way, if McCain had any sense of vision and realized this election is about excitement, he’d choose a black man or woman as his VP pick. In addition to Rice, AK Gov. Sarah Palin would be a good choice as would former HP head Carly Fiorina. But I’ll bet he chooses a wealthy middle aged white man from a swing state and will promptly loose the election.

Well your All-American Christian GOP has bankrupted the country. A non-vote for Obama does not make you a bigot but a vote for McCain makes me wonder? McCain embraces the majority of Bush policies, which have been wrong for the economy and for the world.

War is expensive and Bush has racked up a 9 trillion deficit. At 10.1 billion per month in Iraq our dollar is worth only 6 points. Where do you think we will get the money to pay the bills? Bush’s war on terror has bamboozled the American people.

How can conservative Republican Christians vote for McCain? He is not a conservative and the only person who claims to be a Christian is Obama? Concerning the war in Iraq, nobody there was responsible for blowing up the towers. What about WMD? Sorry but they didn’t find those either. GOP has hoodwinked America. We ask for it when we put two oil-men in charge.

Concerning the race card, I think senator Obama has tried to do everything in his power to run a decent campaign. He has not run a single dirty ad but has focused on the issues and condemned race baiting. McCain is dirty and has been for many years. He is also an adulterer but you won’t hear much about that from the Christian right. They are to busy lying on senator Obama.

voxoreason, I once read an interesting comment on the Bible by a fundamentalist who believed it was literally true. He said we should take the Bible as literally true; if the language is symbolic it’s literally symbolic, if figurative it’s literally figurative. In other words he rejected trying to twist symbolic or figurative language into a literal fact, such as you rightly mention about Revelations. He said however that symbolic and figurative language did convey literal truths. For example, Jesus spoke about taking a beam out of our own eye before going after the speck in someone else’s eye. Obviously He wasn’t talking about a literal beam but about a fundamental truth.

Unfortunately, the MSM in its ignorance and animus towards Biblical Christianity chooses to misinterpret things that people like Pastor Hagee say. To say that God used Hitler to get the Jews back into the Holy Land is not an endorsement of Hitler just as claiming the harsh treatment of the Jews by Pharaoh was God’s way of getting them to leave egypt isn’t an endorsement of the Pharaoh’s conduct. God even used cruel leaders like Nebuchadnezzar to chastise the Jews. But in every instance the oppressors paid for their oppression. That’s even stated in the Scriptures.

Yet many in the liberal media are trying to equate attending a church for 20 years is the same as being endorsed by a pastor from a church one has never attended. That’s absurd but not surprising coming from partisan liberal far left Democratic demagogues. If McCain were found to have attended just one KKK meeting even as a curious observer the left would howl for his head, that he be impeached, that he be disqualified from even running for office. Some liberals have even said that his military service combined with the fact that his father and grandfather served and that his son is serving should disqualify him from becoming president such is their animus towards the military.

Many have said that Bush was God’s chosen leader. I believe that’s true; we deserved him. But it hasn’t been a reward for being good. We have a Constitution in tatters with our leaders in both parties trading essential liberties for temporary security and an economy about to fall apart. I believe that Pres. Obama will be further judgment on the US with his socialist welfare state, his appeasement and surrender, and an effectively one party state. We’ll be seeing a brave new world all right.

So sometimes we should be careful what we pray for. God may give it to us, sometimes in spades. By the way, it’s my belief that someone claiming to be a Christian who says we shouldn’t be involved in the political arena is either not a Christian or a very weak one. We are called to be the salt of the earth. I don’t think the Scriptures literally means NaCl.

Julius, you’re absolutely right, for me as a conservative Republican Christian I find it difficult to vote for McCain so I’m seriously thinking of voting 3rd party, such as the Constitution Party. But you failed to state why a conservative Republican Christian should vote for a supporter of abortion on demand, infanticide, welfare nanny state, an end to the Constitution, redefining marriage, making it a hate crime to say homosexuality is wrong even in a church, and appeasement of aggressive Islam. Yes, Obama claims to be a Christian and I don’t doubt it, but I believe he believes in Liberation Theology which is founded in communism although not Marxism. I do resent the efforts to claim he’s a Muslim educated in an Islamic Madrasah. However, Obama is a socialist and for that reason I can’t vote for him. Not voting isn’t in my repertoire.

For your information, Obama has played the race card a number of times. His remarks about what the McCain forces were trying to do in scaring the public about him were clearly race references. Furthermore, his campaign has intentionally lied about what McCain said about how long we might be in Iraq. So don’t tell me Obama isn’t dirty. I will admit however that seems to be endemic to our political system. I don’t believe a man or woman of integrity, vision, and courage who isn’t beholding to special interests can be elected to high office today. And while voting for who one believes will be the lesser of 2 evils isn’t wrong we can send a message to the major parties by voting for a 3rd party.

As for WMDs, ask the Iranians, the Kurds, and many Iraqis whether or not Saddam used them. And our intelligence agencies even know the serial numbers of the planes that spirited nuclear weapons research equipment out of Iraq. Of course the big thing is that at the time we decided to invade Iraq it was not an imminent threat to us or any of our allies, a requirement under the 1978 War Powers Resolution that allows the president to act without a Declaration of War. And for that and other offenses against the Constitution Bush should be impeached. But that’s another matter for another time.

By the way, you rightly say war is expensive. Tell us; is defeat and submission to Dhimmitude less expensive? And what is your definition of a country being bankrupt. We aren’t officially in a recession yet although I think we’re headed towards one. I think you’re resorting to hyperbole, but you’re right to be concerned about our economic condition. I believe that a Pres. Obama could bring on a depression.

Is everyone here foolish?

MCCAIN IS EPISCOPALIAN AND CONTINUES TO REMAIN IN HIS CHURCH.

MCCAIN DID NOT SPEND 20 YEARS LISTENING TO HAGEE’S PREACHINGS.

HAGEE IS NOT EVEN AN EPISCOPALIAN!

In fact, McCain is not so very religious, unlike his holi…ness, Saint Obama of Reverend Wright.

Plus:  Reverend Wright and many of the Jeremiads are members of Chicago Democratic Socialists of America. Is Obama a member of Chigaco DSA (or just a friend)?

Conclusion:  The Analogy will not pass the standards of Logic.

But didn’t McCain specifically seek out Hagee’s endorsement despite his record of inflammatory remarks? Yes, he did.

Also, doesn’t it sound like, from the clips provided here in and the CUFI video AIM has posted, that Hagee is un-retracting his remarks attacking Catholics and gays? Remember, he did retract them after they got media coverage. Claiming that his critics “not understand the Bible view” sounds a lot like he’s re-endorsing his previous attacks and that his previous retraction was an empty gesture designed to blunt public scrutiny.

To Julius – #10:

I certainly agree that religion and politics should be kept separate – - insofar as churches/synogogues/mosques/temples, and those who operate them, clearly should NOT advocate for any political candidate or particular political persuasion, policy, or concept.

I think I do feel, however, that if a politician wants to discuss his religious beliefs and practices, e.g., “My strict Christian upbringing and my commitment to my religion today requires me to be opposed to the practice of abortion” – - that would be OK.  And, I do think the media should be able to question politicans and candidates on their religious beliefs.

Regarding your question about how a candidate can be blamed for what his pastor says:

You know, I believe it’s a standard operating procedure for many (if not most) people to make judgments about other people based on the company that the other person keeps. (???)  I dropped college classes because I did not care for the professor’s point of view;  I’ve left a church and selected them based on the particular pastor’s point of view – - and even now, on another topic, people are condemning Obama because as a child he had a short-term relationship with an adult black poet – - because the guy was a member of the Communist Party, apparently at that time!

Really, if convention says an 11 year-old kid shouldn’t be trusted today (at age 46) because he was associated for a short time with an adult communist party member some 35 years ago – - obviously – - lots of people are holding others accountable for the perspectives of those others’ associates (including the religious) – - however long ago, or however infrequent, or however superficial the contact might have been.

In truth, who knows, specifically, what predelictions anyone else has – - or from whom, how, when and from where they got them?

I don’t know if the convention should apply to young kids – - but I think the stereotype of “you’re known by the associations you keep” is often a somewhat useful indicator during adulthood.

(???)

To think an Obama presidency is some sort of Judgment from God is outlandish? If this were true, on what basis? Homosexuality? Abortion? These issues have been prevalent all over the world. Why would God decide to judge America? What about the social injustice and how we have treated our neighbor? Do you think that is worthy of God’s judgment? How about those we stole land from and ran out of town at gunpoint? How about the institutional racism that has created disproportionate education, wages and social status over the last 300 years? How about all those government created ghettos that have become gang-infested cesspools? Surely that would insight a little wrath from on high?  A brave new world is what the good old GOP is afraid off and that is why Obama is a threat.

The idea of a socialist welfare state has only become an issue because those who have been in power fear a paradigm shift. Welfare (the dole) started under FDR and his so-called new deal. It created jobs and opportunities for everyone except people of color. If you were not white you did not get the luxury of welfare. The civil rights movement caused the life of many peaceful people of all races. I personally believe if Jesus were here today, he would be a Liberal. I cannot see him fighting against civil rights and equality.

To insinuate Obama surrendering in Iraq is also madness. Who would he be surrendering to? Alkita? These radicals are not just in Iraq? Bush has bamboozled the American people to believe we are fighting a war on terror and it is in Iraq. The people of Iraq want us to leave their nation and McCain says we can’t leave until we win? Senator McCain, the Iraqis people do not want any more favors from America except go home!

America is not a Christian nation and religion and politics should be separated. The nation was founded on Christian principles, but that all changed when it was penned a “nation by the people and for the people”. The people are not all Christian and the President has to be fair, balanced and represent all the American people. There is no room for religious pandering because not all the people are religious and the President is not called to be the salt of the earth.

Why a conservative Republican Christian should vote for a supporter of abortion? Because abortion is not the only issue America is facing? Redefining marriage is already being done and in due season it will be performed in states all across America. Why? Because this is a nation of the people and by the people! Your values are yours alone and you cannot legislate morality. We saw that in the Old Testament and it did not work.

Sure Obama have some Liberation Theology roots. But that does not make him a bad person. Considering mainstream Christian churches did not care to fellowship with blacks until about 10 years ago, I’m glad he did find Rev. Wright. He got the basics and appear to be doing well.

To Julius – #21:

Re your comment:  “Sure Obama have some Liberation Theology roots. But that does not make him a bad person. Considering mainstream Christian churches did not care to fellowship with blacks until about 10 years ago, I’m glad he did find Rev. Wright. He got the basics and appear to be doing well.”

It seems to me that the people who came over here on the Mayflower were “liberation theologists”, too – - believing that the religious establishment in their homelands was stifling their freedom to worship as they wished – - so – - their choice was – -  “Let’s go somewhere where we can do out own thing!”.

And, of course, in those days, “religion” exerted a powerful influence over the governments of most European nations – - so – - the Pilgrims “liberation” may have been as much “political” as it was “theological”.

I do disagree with you on your statement that Christian churches “did not care to fellowship with blacks until ten years ago”.  I’m a white guy, grew up in the northeast, and am well into my 60s – - and there were plenty of blacks in any “white” church service I ever attended – - and there were also a few “blacks only” churches, too!  I even attended (and at one time taught at) Christian religious schools – - which had plenty of black (and religious) students at the time!

Maybe the tradition in the south was “separate churches” – - but not so much so in the northeast/New England – - way back in my day – - 40-50 years ago.

To me, Obama seems to be a pretty well-grounded Christian – - and it sure appears that he’s led a “more Christian life” than the current office holder in D.C.

(???)

I do not think Obama is inherently influenced by Liberation Theology.  The reason being is because he is now attending a church that has more of an Episcopalian foundation. Many people including myself attend church for the purpose of fellowship. There are many people who are Christian who attend a local church and know very little about the denomination or history thereof. An example would be Catholics who claim to be Christian, but pray to God through mother Mary and not Jesus Christ, count beads and confess sins to a priest? None of this is substantiated through the Bible, but how these believers have come to the conclusion that this is the will of God is perplexing. I conclude it has more to do with relationship and exposure. People are a product of their environment, as it relates to religion, wealth and social status.

Julius, your argument has a great deal of merit with regard to why many people go to a particular church. Much the same can be predicated when it comes to pursuing a political career; establishing long term associations early is crucial. Coming out of an environment that included an atheist socialist mother, socialist step-father, a hard-core communist mentor, a liberal college, knowing the importance of associations and networking, and upon getting into the bailiwick of the Daley Democratic Party machine, the one that fixed the 1960 Cook County (Chicago) election for JFK, thus winning IL and the Electoral Vote that pushed JFK over making him president, Obama sought out the most significant black activist church in Chicago, the most radical party for endorsement, the best Chicago fixer and fund raiser, the most identifiable leftist activist, a former PLO operative and leftist University of Chicago professor, and the best known communist attorney who trained other attorneys to be “community organizers.”

Those people were Rev. Wright who taught Obama communistic Black Liberation Theology for 20 years; the Marxist New Party founded by Daniel Cantor, who was a Jesse Jackson presidential campaign staffer, and which included former Maoists, Trotskyites, and Communist Party USA members, which endorsed Obama for his 1996 IL senate campaign; the convicted Syrian bribery and fraud felon Tony Rezko who raised funds and acquired property for him; the unrepentant communist Weathermen domestic terrorist bombers Bill Ayers and Bernadine Dohrn who launched Obama’s political career from their home; the Middle East professor at the University of Chicago Rashid Khalidi who was former PLO operative and who as a Columbia University professor invited Iranian President Ahmadinejad to speak at Columbia University after his UN speech and who held a number of fundraisers for his friend Obama; and the founder of the Community Organizing movement, a euphemism for communist attorney agitators in poor and minority neighborhoods who use the law as a weapon against society, communist radical Saul Alinsky.

Now many say that associations shouldn’t matter just like those people who said during Bill Clinton’s run and presidency that character didn’t count. More than likely there’re the same people. By their advocation I can only surmise that only officially espoused plans and policies matter in judging the fitness of a person for office. So I guess we old curmudgeon conservatives are out of touch with reality in believing that a person’s past associations, morality, achievements, educational exposure, and conduct are of vital concern for fitness for holding high office. Perhaps that’s why we have so many thieves, child molesters, rapists, drunks, murderers, and traitors in office. Perhaps we have the government we deserve.  That doesn’t mean we should look for the perfect candidate, for saints; but that not only do we have the right but also the obligation of judging all aspects of a candidate if we are to call ourselves responsible American citizens.

In my view Sen. Obama is a very moral man with a great family, a good spellbinding orator, and who is quite intelligent. But he lacks experience in the field of executive authority, economics, significant legislation, foreign affairs, and therefore in judgment. He’s a left wing Democrat and socialist who has shown a remarkable lack of eruditeness with regard to the Constitution considering he was a constitutional college instructor. An argument could be made that he’s a socialist-communist although not a Marxist. That’s not meant to be a condemnation but rather an observation. As a Christian, which I believe he is, he would reject atheistic Marxism.

He believes, and I think correctly, that our system is corrupt and has failed both the poor and the middle class of all races but particularly blacks. But I believe it’s the failure of following constitutional principles that has corrupted the once free marketplace and our system of federalism and that socialism is a moral, political, and economic failure. And that’s why I believe Sen. Obama’s past associations are so critical to getting to know who he is and where he’s coming from. Furthermore, he has eschewed one on one hometown type debates where his views and those of Sen. McCain’s could be compared. And by the way, Sen. McCain also has a few problems in my view, but that’s another matter.

Julius, you say we can’t legislate morality and that’s seems to be the summation of your argument against religion “meddling” in the public square, an argument you can’t support from the constitution. Never did I argue that America is a Christian nation or that it should be. For me I’d rather see Christians influencing American politics and culture. Nor did I say what particular reasons God would judge America for. It might surprise you that I would agree with many of the reasons you cite as reasons for judgment. And not only have I said that Obama might be a judgment from God but I’ve claimed the same about Bush. Of course I named current issues as the election is about such issues, not ones from decades or centuries ago, although I have the feeling that those who harp about such are really looking for dissolution of America. But then in order for you to support your position you might have to call me a liar rather than admit what I write. I do understand that liberal demagogues are prone to doing that. By the way, more than 40 years ago my lily white Methodist church associated with a black church, but what’s a few decades? Who cares about honesty or accuracy?

So what do you call laws against theft, fraud, violence, and even murder if not laws legislating a form of morality? After all, those who believe in a Machiavellian or Marquis de Sade approach to governance might disagree with those laws. And I’ve certainly met a number of socialist-communists who would dispute those laws.

As for the question I asked about why should a conservative Republican Christian vote for a supporter of a particular position, I named a number of positions, not just abortion. As I mentioned, but which you ignored seeing as you seem aliterate, I’m not only considering voting for a 3rd party but also believe that Bush should be impeached. But a favorite tactic of disingenuous liberals is to try and separate issues saying that their relationships are irrelevant and thus justify disregarding the sum of the parts. It’s the same tactic being used about the question of Obama’s past radical associations. It’s more than disingenuous, it’s dishonest and sophomoric.

THIS TK IS A FOOL. 

EVEN BO WILL WISH FOR THE VOTES OF THE WORST PEOPLE IN AMERICA, INCLUDING THE CHURCH OF RAPISTS,…. AND EVEN OF SATAN.  THAT’S ABOUT CAMPAIGNING AND WINNING ELECTION.

That’s different from the issue of Rev. Wright, the 20-year spiritual mentor of BO.

BTW, what’s wrong with Hagee?  Many Christians (including BO?), believe that bad things happen to the sinful.  For good people, bad things may be considered as a test.  Hagee is entitled to his own opinion.

Luckily for McCain, he’s not so religious like the preacher Obamessiah.

Why is Obama not further ahead in the polls? Because he is black. It is so easy to draw the conclusion by reading various blogs and listening to numerous news outlets. The GOP best defense is to use the fear factor based on fear of the black man. No they do not say “BLACK MAN BEWARE,” but he is constantly being associated with Muslims, Communist, Marxist and Socialist.  It is an underlining bigotry with the intent of making people afraid of him.

Another thing I have noticed is the GOP and followers have adopted the slogan of “empty suite.” No candidate in the history of running for President has been conjoined with such an attribute. From a historic point of view, such attribute of less value, low value and no value has been analogous with the black race or people of color. Another manifestation of how Obama is portrayed in the right wing media.

What is most interesting is Obama’s political position is not much different than Hillary Clinton? But when was Clinton ever accused of being a Communist, Marxist, or Socialist? It is literally impossible for Obama to be all of these ideologies. Does Obama have questionable associations? Sure does, but what politician does not? Consider for a moment that every great leader on the planet has questionable association, including Jesus, who was accused of being friends of publicans and sinner.

The GOP and followers will not admit it, but it is all about race, as it relates to Obama being a viable candidate and leader of America. His political position is no different from Hillary or Bill Clinton. And his association with Rev. Wright is moot because McCain has been associated with Rev. Hagee. You might say that Obama was a member of the church for 20 years. But it was not an issue until the 20-second sound bites of GD America. Now notice very little has been said about all the other good deeds Rev. Wright and the church has accomplished on the south side of poor inner city Chicago.

What is fair and balanced is in the eye of the beholder. Those who support Obama will vote for him and those who support McCain, no matter how off based he is, will support him.

“… Another thing I have noticed is the GOP and followers have adopted the slogan of “empty suite.” No candidate in the history of running for President has been conjoined with such an attribute …”

Nonsense! Mitt Romney was the empty suit before he dropped out.

http://wuzzadem.typepad.com/wuz/2008/01/mccain-by-defau.html

“… So what do you call laws against theft, fraud, violence, and even murder if not laws legislating a form of morality? …”

I call that prohibiting the violations of others’ individual rights. That of course can be construed as the moral thing to do.

I’d just like to point out that Marxism, Socialism, Communism, and other collectivist philosophies do not necessarily require atheism of their adherents.

Notice the socialist Liberation Theology of the Roman Catholic Jesuits in Central America in the 80s and 90s, or the fact that the majority of Central and South Americans are Roman Catholic and socialism is big down there. Black Liberation Theology just puts a “whitey keeps the black man down” spin on what the Jesuits were agitating for.

Note also that the “isms” above are mostly focused on economics and politics, not religion (although it’s often hard to tell the difference between those as demonstrated in many of the preceding opinions).

“… I take from Genesis that when Adam and Eve were expelled from the Garden of Eden, they were admonished that life would be tough. …”

In my youth it was always stressed that Adam and Eve were expelled from Eden because they ate from the Tree of Knowledge. Lately I take that to be an explicit condemnation of reason in favor of religious belief.

i.e., If some event or phenomenon seems “miraculous” don’t investigate, BELIEVE!

Adam, Eve and the Garden of Eden? I am no theologian, but most people who read the Bible know that God put the tree of knowledge in the garden for the purpose of bringing redemption through dependence on Jesus Christ? I believe the scriptures say that Jesus was crucified before the foundations of the world. Elsewhere the Bible says that we all were created for Him and by Him. If this is true then God set the complete drama in motion for the purpose of bringing all to Him and through complete dependence.

To insinuate that God was taken aback or caught off guard when Adam ate from the tree is complete nonsense. God said the serpent would bruise his heal, but he would crush his head. It was a prophecy referring to Jesus destroying the works of the devil and redeeming mankind.

Concerning Liberation Theology, I can clearly see why certain pockets of the black population took on this teaching. It had to do with the civil rights movement and how many of the black Christians were treated and accepted by white Christians during that time. Let us face it, we were not kind to black people during those days, and we are only talking 40 years ago.

I think Obama is a Christian at hart but has many associations who are not what we call mainstream Episcopalians. We talk about the good old days and how it uses to be, but was it all that good for them? McCain in my opinion is where he is in the polls because you have a bunch of people who are afraid to let go of the past. Good old John is familiar. It does not matter if he will do basically the same Bush has done. He is white and has the look of what many people feel America should look like

John Galt, while you’re quite correct that communism and socialism don’t require atheism, and it could be argued that the very early Christian Church was communist as things were communally shared, Marxism by definition is atheist. I believe that Sen. Obama is definitely a socialist and possibly a communist, but I also believe he’s a Christian. Even if he were a communist that wouldn’t mean he was in favor of revolution or in destroying America, just in changing it into a socialist welfare state with high taxation and a rigidly controlled economy with possible nationalization of key sectors.

However, I don’t believe socialism or communism will work and I therefore won’t vote for Sen. Obama or the Democratic Party. There are other reasons but that’s sufficient. Unfortunately I realize some people like Julius have a need to portray those who will vote for McCain or against Obama as red-necked racists. If I told him I’d vote for Colin Powell, J.C. Watts, or Condoleezza Rice he’d probably just try to ignore that as irrelevant or call me a liar. But as it is, I’m considering a 3rd party.

John Galt, I too was taught that the fruit that Adam and Eve ate, and it doesn’t say apple, was from the Tree of Knowledge. But in my fundamentalist Pentecostal circle that isn’t a condemnation of reason. It’s taught that eating from the tree would let them decide what was moral and what was evil without the guidance of God. In other words, they, and mankind as a result, would become a law unto themselves. Is that not what we have become? Yet elsewhere the Scriptures says God said, let us reason together. 

As for miracles, do you think they violate the laws of all of creation? Consider the mathematical discipline of set theory and respond. We’re taught to investigate but what we’re taught not to do is to reject truth when we’ve found it in order to prove our independence or so-called rationality. Another term for such conduct is called rebellion.

“… Marxism by definition is atheist. …”

Have you ever read the Communist Manifesto by Karl Marx and Freidrich Engels? I did a long time ago and I don’t recall anything about atheism being part of the definition of the economic system they longed for. The Soviets/Bolsheviks brought that in, I believe, but I’m ready to stand corrected if someone knows differently.

“… It’s taught that eating from the tree would let them decide what was moral and what was evil without the guidance of God. …”

And Jesus said to Peter something along the lines of whatever you condemn on earth, heaven will go along with and whatever you call good on earth heaven will also go along with. How does that jibe with the “guidance of god” thing? It would seem to me that it puts the whole thing squarely into the hands of self-appointed witch doctors.

And as to Julius’s post, does you mean that god put the forbidden fruit there explicitly so that Adam and Eve would disobey (original sin) and thus pave the way for Jesus to sacrifice himself for redemption of that original sin and reinforce the dependence on god rather than reason? If so, what a cynical bastard he must be. And how does “free will” enter into such a pre-ordained situation? The whole story is irrational.

Immanual Kant saw the explosion of Reason in the “Age of Enlightenment” of the late 18th century and felt compelled to write his “Critique of Pure Reason” in order to “make room for faith.”

I fail to see how faith (belief in something that is not objectively and repeatably provable by any investigator) can be made compatible with reason which demands that facts of reality be used to discover the true nature of reality.

It should be obvious that I am anti-religious, however that doesn’t form the basis for my opinions about who would best lead this nation back to the governance envisioned by those brilliant men who conceived it. They were strongly religious men, but they saw the dangers of governing relations among men on earth by aligning government with religion as witnessed over centuries in Europe.

“Render unto Caesar…” and all that.

Something I read years ago in a Kurt Vonnegut book (Breakfast of Champions?) “stuck” with me. There was a character Bokonon who founded a religion he called “The Church of God the Utterly Indifferent.”

The two main teachings of that church according to Bokonon were:

1. Puny Man can do nothing at all to please or displease God. and

2. Luck is not the hand of God.

Pretty amusing in my opinion, and seemingly accurate summation of an agnostic philosophy.

“… the very early Christian Church was communist as things were communally shared, …”

The common theme of both religion (Christianity in particular) and collectivism (communism, socialism, marxism, nazism) is altruism: the belief that sacrifice for the benefit of others is the highest virtue. I agree with Objectivists who point out that the only logical end of such a belief is the constant destruction of value and the demonizing of those who seek and create value to promote their own benefit and survival.

John Galt, as you point out, our Founding Fathers were quite wise in “they saw the dangers of governing relations among men on earth by aligning government with religion as witnessed over centuries in Europe.” But the inverse was not enshrined in the Constitution; that religion couldn’t influence or “interfere” with government. We should remember that the restrictions in the Bill of Rights are restrictions on government, not the people.

As for Karl Marx, he didn’t write much directly about religion, or his dislike of it. He did write that “The religious world is but the reflex of the real world.” As such Marx felt that religion was an illusion that provided reasons and excuses to keep society functioning just as it was. Marx, like you, felt that religion was irrational, that it negated human dignity by making them servile, and that it was hypocritical. As Marx wrote, “Religion is the sigh of the oppressed creature, the heart of a heartless world, just as it is the spirit of a spiritless situation. It is the opium of the people. The abolition of religion as the illusory happiness of the people is required for their real happiness. The demand to give up the illusion about its condition is the demand to give up a condition which needs illusions.” In light of the foregoing I would hazard a guess that he favored atheism as part of Marxist communism.

By the way, I find it sad but unsurprising that like most atheists you need to denigrate people of faith and mock religious beliefs with crudity. Sadly, I consider that a sign of hatred. I suppose that’s what led to the Psikhushkas and Gulags. Thus it was an atheistic system that killed more people than all of religion in all of history, including the Crusades, the Inquisition, and the Witch Trials.

Roberto, you are reading more into what I wrote than I actually wrote. Oh well.

I suppose calling god a cynical bastard and religious leaders self-appointed witch doctors is what ticked you off. I know lots of cynical bastards, some whom I admire, others whom I despise. No man is perfect or omniscient, and those who claim they are deserve skepticism at best and scorn at worst.

To John Galt – Everything has a beginning and end. Everything! The Bible says that God set everything in motion and has an appointed time when it will end. It appears that you are well read, except perhaps the Bible and other commentary related to the Bible. Concerning Christianity, it does require faith but it also involves personal relationship and experience. Many atheists will admit they do not understand Christianity and cannot see the God of the Bible. Many Christians have confirmed their faith with answered prayer. Can all these Christians be fanatical? Unlike other so-called religions, Christianity has been substantiated with many infallible proofs. The relationship with the Jews and the Bible can be confirmed back to thousands of years. Archeologists have actually used the Bible to locate settlements and towns, including addition text confirming Biblical events.

Faith as it relates to Christianity has to do with filling in the blanks. Paul in his letters to the early Christians said everything we have was given, including our faith. That tells me we only have a measure of faith. Paul also said how can the clay tell the potter why was I created without a handle? That tells me that we had nothing to do with our creation or outcome. Paul said that in every house there are vessels created for more honor than others. There are tons of examples that certify the complete sovereignty of God in creation.

Some of the most interesting examples of God’s sovereignty can be seen in the Old Testament. God told Abraham to tell Pharaoh to free the Hebrew slaves. He also told Abraham that He would harden the heart of Pharaoh so that he would not release them? Before Abraham took the job, he told God he was not eloquent in speech. What God said next was fascinating! God said to Abraham who do you think made man dumb? Was it not I?

I can give example after example. One of the most interesting was God’s prayer concerning the first disciples. He was praying for them and said all have been kept except for the son of perdition? Paul said the Gospel is hidden to those who are perishing! Now that is scary if you fit those shoes. There is just too much in creation that confirms a higher authority.

The best example in laymen terms that I have seen is the movie Matrix. The whole program was written and each individual is a player. No matter how much you think you are in control, you are not. The path and outcome has already been determined. You may choose to go left or right but did you actually make the choice? Even the hairs on your head are numbered.

John, I’m not reading more into what you wrote than what you intended. You’ve made it clear in several posts about your disdain and animus for religion and people of faith. You take Scripture out of context such as that about Peter and binding and loosing in order to try and heap ridicule. I stand by my assertion that both are a sign of hatred. If that ticks you off, so be it.

Also you stated that you didn’t believe that Marx posited that his theory embraced atheism. I believe I’ve also answered that contention. Or did I erroneously read more than what you intended into what you wrote with regard to Marxism as well?

By the way, God isn’t a man, so don’t use the strategy of twisting words to try and win a point. But to bring it around to the subject of the forum, that’s what the Rev. Wright did with his Black Liberation Theology, whereas Rev. Hagee preached from the Scriptural concepts. Another concept that seems to escape liberals is the difference between someone attending a church for 20 years in one instance and someone who didn’t attend another church at all. That liberals seem unable to make the distinction is troubling.

I don’t hate people of faith. I disdain people who arrogate Truth to belief. My antipathy towards religion is due to its requiring rejection of reason, logic, and objective evidence of facts.

WRT “proof:”

Proving that a 3000 year old village written about in scripture actually existed does not prove that a supernatural being exists. There is a huge difference between writing about physical places, or historical characters and writing about what a “supernatural being” supposedly told one of those historical characters. The former can be verified, the later cannot.

Scriptures that have been translated and interpreted over the last 3000 years from dead languages to various other languages. That provides an excellent indication that what is written and read today is many layers of interpretation on what was written a long time ago. Who doesn’t tend to exaggerate things in the telling and retelling of stories, particularly details that emphasize some virtue or moral?

When people say that god told them this or that, it is valid to question what they assert, just as it is valid to reject people “hearing voices telling them to murder” as being either rational or justified in their murder.

“Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic.” I’m not sure who said that, but it partially illustrates my point.

When some event takes place that to the event’s observers seems miraculous or beyond their understanding, those observers will attribute the causes of the event to supernatural forces or beings. When they tell others about the event, they often include assertions very similar to the statements contained in Julius’ last post.

While the event and its ultimate effect may indeed be historically correct (e.g., pharaoh wouldn’t release the Jews from their bondage), the causes of the event (god “harden[ed] the heart of Pharaoh”) are interpretive window-dressing provided by the narrator to emphasize a lesson and to “prove” his belief in a supernatural causation.

“… Also you stated that you didn’t believe that Marx posited that his theory embraced atheism. I believe I’ve also answered that contention. …” – Roberto

“… I’d just like to point out that Marxism, Socialism, Communism, and other collectivist philosophies do not necessarily require atheism of their adherents. …” – John

“… so don’t use the strategy of twisting words to try and win a point. …” – Roberto

Practice what you preach, brother.

John, you claim that religion “automatically” rejects reason, logic, and objective evidence provided by facts. Yet your condemnation is merely an assumption as I’ve found my religion doesn’t reject reason, logic, or evidence but embraces such. But it does recognize that man’s reasoning, logic and interpretation of evidence can be and often is faulty. So I don’t accept your protestations that you don’t hate people of faith and have a hubristic disdain for them.

As for your launch into “WRT” proof’”, I have no idea of it’s relevance to what I said about atheism’s relationship to Marxism or the question about the differences between claims about Wright’s and Hagee’s relationship to the candidates. But I suppose it’s meant to sidetrack the argument, as are the multiple posts to one of mine. My comment “That liberals seem unable to make the distinction is troubling,” still stands and is reinforced by your response. Besides, we got to the point of discussing Marxism and atheism, not communism and socialism. So in practicing what I preach I’ll ask you to quit being aliterate.

By the way, I’m not your brother, but I’d like to be. You see, believers in Jesus as the Messiah sent by God as stated in the Gospels are my brothers and sisters. The door is open if you wish to step thru.

Roberto:

I combined responses to both your and Julius’ posts, so the proof discourse was in response to Julius. Sorry for your confusion.

I have no problem with your contention that Marxists (or Marx himself) “embrace” atheism, I simply stated they did not “require” it. If your quote attributed to Marx is correct, I stand by my recollection that quote was not found in the Communist Manifesto but concede my recollection may be incorrect. I have no intention of re-reading that book anytime soon.

I also have no problem with your distinction between the Hagee and Wright issues.

I do take issue with 2 of your presumptions and/or judgments about me. I am not a “liberal,” except in the Jeffersonian sense, nor am I a hater. I’m sorry you confuse sarcasm and skepticism with hatred.

There are in fact many people of strong faith in my life whom I love dearly. I just disagree with them about certain things I find irrational.

I addressed your aliterate contention in another post a month or so ago. Seems you like using that one, so I’ll just leave it alone.

John, I don’t know why you trying to excuse the fact that Karl Marx and most Marxist “theologians” oppose all religion except their own of Humanism. But to set your mind at ease, my quote of Marx was not from the Communist Manifesto. But the following is, “There are, besides, eternal truths, such as Freedom, Justice, etc., that are common to all states of society. But Communism abolishes eternal truths, it abolishes all religion, and all morality, instead of constituting them on a new basis; it therefore acts in contradiction to all past historical experience.”

Now I don’t know about you but I find it pretty definitive as to Marx’s attitude towards religion. I suppose you could resort to dialectics to refute the quote. But I really think you need to concede that mainstream Marxism per se is atheistic.  By the way, should I assume you’re a Marxist? After all, you say you’re not a liberal.

Another point, sarcasm is usually a showing of disdain and when repeatedly done so it does indicate hate.

By the way, what “aliterate contention” of mine did you address a month ago? Was that the Wright Hagee issue? If so I missed that. It is the focus of this forum, is it not? Marxism comes into the matrix because Wright preached a Black Liberation Theology that mixes many aspects of Marxism into it. And with Sen. Obama’s other past associations it’s therefore fair to question whether of not he’s a socialist or a communist, is it not?

I stand corrected, but not to put too fine a point on things, anti-religious is not the same as atheistic.

I am not Marxist by any stretch of the imagination. You must not have read much of what I post here to think that.

I am an enemy of all collectivist/altruist philosophies and a promoter of laissez-faire Capitalism. I am an admirer of Ayn Rand although some of her writing inspires me to affectionately call her Ayn Rant!

I find her philosophy of Objectivism accords with my thinking, although I often disagree with some so-called Objectivists who seem to insist that only certain slavishly-rote parrots are “real” Objectivists and those who disagree with them are “evil.”

Here’s a decent summary if you’re interested:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Objectivism_(Ayn_Rand)

I find nearly all Democrats but especially Obama to be socialists and social authoritarians. There are plenty of “compassionate conservatives” who fall into that classification as well, unfortunately.

You and I had a back-and-forth over the difference between aliteration and alliteration a while back I believe.

I stand corrected, but not to put too fine a point on things, anti-religious is not the same as atheistic.

I am not Marxist by any stretch of the imagination. You must not have read much of what I post here to think that.

I am an enemy of all collectivist/altruist philosophies and a promoter of laissez-faire Capitalism. I am an admirer of Ayn Rand although some of her writing inspires me to affectionately call her Ayn Rant!

I find her philosophy of Objectivism accords with my thinking, although I often disagree with some so-called Objectivists who seem to insist that only certain slavishly-rote parrots are “real” Objectivists and those who disagree with them are “evil.”

There’s a decent summary of Rand’s philosophy (and the controversies within Objectivism) on wikipedia if you’re interested: search for Objectivism and read the one ascribed to Ayn Rand.

I find nearly all Democrats but especially Obama to be socialists and social authoritarians. There are plenty of “compassionate conservatives” who fall into that classification as well, unfortunately.

You and I had a back-and-forth over the difference between aliteration and alliteration a while back I believe.

Just because Obama is a Liberal does not mean he wants to put everybody on welfare. I do not know how much attention you paying the American economy, but our country is hurting right now. Sure the Republicans say no to taxes, but have you noticed how much debt we have racked up under the Bush administration? What that does is reduce the value of our dollar, which is currently at 6 points. A weak dollar reduces our buying power, which causes retailers to raise prices on good and services. George Herbert Walker Bush said if elected he would not raise taxes. The famous read my lips speech proved to be just words, as he had no choice but to raise taxes. AT least Obama is telling what he plans to do?

No quarrel on the deficit or the debt issues Julius. It’s rotten and wrong and is due to uncontrolled spending addiction in both Congress and the Administration.

I should point out that all spending is proposed and approved by Congress before the President signs the bill, and even if he vetoes some bill, Congress often overrides that veto. Higher taxes are not the answer, lower spending is. Higher taxes suppresses Gross Domestic Product and increases government spending’s percentage of GDP which at 40% presently is totally insane!

High taxes, artificially low interest rates, high deficit spending and huge national debt all act to suppress the value of the dollar and the effect is stealing money from us all.

What Obama is planning to do (or at least at this particular moment since he changes his position so frequently) is to raise taxes. Yes he tells you that, but he obfuscates the fact that his promised $1000 “gift” to lower-income people has to be stolen from someone. Higher taxes on corporations and producers in general are simply passed onto consumers in the form of higher prices.

I should also point out that Federal taxes are only part of the picture. States are just as bad as the Federal government with respect to spending and deficits and debt and sticking it to you with taxes. Politicians always have their hand in your wallet!

No matter how many people are dissatisfied with congress, the bottom line is the President is responsible. This is how it has been for the last 300 year. The president signs the bills. No one wants higher taxes. Not even the Democrats. However, we have a situation where the president lied to American and convinced the people that Iraq is our enemy and strong-armed congress into approving 10.2 billion per month tab to fund the war.

Everyone agrees lower spending is the answer. But we are beyond that now. The 40% GDP was much lower under the Clinton administration. If anyone has created a welfare state, it is Bush.  The GDP has doubled under his administration. Bank failures, housing meltdown and GDP are all failures under President Bush. Now it is time to pay the piper. There is no way around it. Mark my words; the next President will raise taxes.

The next President will need to cut pork and look at everything we are throwing money at. The war machine needs to be shut down ASAP. Tax dollars will need to be channeled to infrastructure. Our bridges have not bee overhauled in 40 plus years. I would like to see something like what FDR did when he put the country to work.

Obama has modified his position on oil drilling. But if you want to talk flip-flop, then McCain is chief of the flip-flops. Why do you suppose he is called a maverick? He has changed his mind on EVERY position he stands for. He agreed with the Bush policies 95% of the time last year and disagrees with him on everything this year. We are not sure what McCain stands for. Is he a Christian? Is he a conservative? Will he raise taxes or not? Honestly, I do not know who McCain is.

Higher taxes on corporations and producers does not necessarily mean the cost will be past onto consumers. What many economist believe is smaller business will have more headroom to compete with giants like Wal-Mart and Exxon. That is why Obama has millions supporting his plan.

John Galt,

We did have a discussion on the word aliterate. One thing I once wrote to a conservative was:

Why do liberals who think they’re so literate are actually semi-illiterate when they say someone using the word aliterate is illiterate. Of course I’m being alliterate.

I think I sprained my brain when I wrote that one.

As for the economy, if it were you or me in such a position as the government is, we would have to cut back on purchases, particularly frill, take a second job, and maybe sell off some assets. But I guess when you become a Democratic or Republican politicians that rule somehow magically disappears.

Nevertheless, when you’re on the verge of a recession, and we are headed into one if not in one, if you institute the highest tax increase in American history you risk not only a severe recession, but a depression. Now how can the government reduce expenses?

There is only one effective way is can be done. First off, everyone agrees that entitlement programs such as Medicare, Medicaid, Social Security, and interest payment are off the table for any serious cuts. So what program can be cut back drastically just to balance the budget, not to mention pay for increases in things like welfare payments, socialized medicine, and energy rebates? Not only must we withdraw from Iraq, but also Afghanistan, Europe, SW Asia, and the Far East. We will have to reduce the military to levels reminiscent of just after WWI and close a significant number of bases, starting with the BRAC list of about 150 installations including 33 major bases. That would be just for starters. As a result America would have to withdraw as a major military world power, deferring to China and Russia and become Isolationist Fortress America. Anything less will as I said risk a depression.

To put it mildly, we’re between a rock and a hard place. If we elect Sen. McCain the problem isn’t going to go away. My suggestion used to be that perhaps we should consider pulling most of our troops home from Europe and Japan and adopt part of the 2005 BRAC plan. But look at our impotence at dealing with Russia’s attempt to retake its former Soviet Republics starting with Georgia. The East Europeans are quite anxious with good reason.

Also I feel that most Europeans and Americans don’t understand the Muslim worldview and its threat. We’re involved in WWIII with Islam and have been for about 40 years. According to Islamic holy books and teaching, their goal is to convert the world, by force if necessary. Under Islam there’re three options for people in Islamic dominated lands; conversion, Dhimmitude, or death. That’s why I’m concerned about the Democrats’ apparent appeasement attitude and Sen. Obama’s associations. So now my suggestion is that we buy prayer rugs and learn the direction to Mecca.

By the way, if you find religion so offensive, wait until you live in a Caliphate.

>>The famous read my lips speech
proved to be just words, as he had no choice but to raise taxes.

This isn’t the full story. During the term of Bush 1, we went into recession (and were coming out of it, even though Clinton stressed his slogan, It’s the economy, stupid, while the recession was a passing thing). Check any long term stock chart: it never goes keeps on going up (at some point, there are those who will sell on a double, and selling brings a stock’s price down; see “daytrading”), although a stock that tanks can keep on going down until the co goes out of biz.

A deal was struck: If Bush would raise taxes, the dems would cut spending. Bush raised taxes, and then the dems, typically, forgot all about cutting spending, ie, the dems made a liar out of Bush…by lying. Sadly, Bush couldn’t communicate to the American people that we were coming OUT of a recession. I beleive it was Carville that came up with the “economy stupid” slogan.

Alliteration is a series of a consonant used in a sentence, eg, Bumble bee belly buttons are very small.

John Galt: Higher taxes on corporations and producers in general are simply passed onto consumers in the form of higher prices.

Very few people understand this notion, which is right on the money.

Likewise, if an employer plans to pay a new worker $10 an hour, he budgets $15/hour for the new employee as he has to make matching funds and incur other expenses that go along with the new hire. (If anyone has a friend who owns his/her own business, ask the friend. If honest, he/she will tell you just what I told you. It was an employer that told me this, which I confirmed independently. I don’t believe everything I hear.)

Corporations don’t simply pass the hat at a Board of Directors meeting when tax time comes around: they add it into their prices for goods and services, raising said prices to cover taxes. (You can’t stay in business selling $10 bills for $5.) And employers aren’t going to reach for their wallets to provide matching funds, other expenses, etc. This is one reason that net pay is less than gross pay.

There simply isn’t a free lunch. Earmarks (or pork, as they’re usually more accurately described) are simply extra taxes tacked onto a bill that has passed both Houses of Congress that taxpayers will cough up if the prez approves it or a veto is not upheld.

Some may remember the $200+ million “earmark” for the “Bridge to Nowhere.” If not, google it up. I suspect there will be a large number of results, but let me check right quickly.

Okay, here’s the copy/paste of the results:
>>Results 1 – 10 of about 248,000 for “Bridge to Nowhere”

This came from Alaska’s Senator Ted Stevens (now under indictment for 7 offenses) and Rep Don Young. Both are republicans, which is why I refer to republicans as “spineless worms,” but still vote a “lesser of two evils” straight republican ticket every two years.

CNN reports that this “earmark” was abandoned in Sept of ‘07, also headlining “Stevens’ Senate career hurt by ‘bridge to nowhere’ – CNN.com”

Google can be a wonderful thing if you want to know the truth. I am giving CNN the benefit of the doubt in this instance.

Julius:

You said: “… If anyone has created a welfare state, it is Bush. …”

FDR created the welfare state, LBJ expanded it and made it more expensive (and damn near ruined the economy with his “war on poverty” while also spending on the war in VietNam that he escalated), but I agree with you that Bush has also extended the welfare state with his “compassionate conservative” hogwash.

66% or more of government spending is welfare. Total US military spending (including the war efforts in Iraq and Afghanistan) amounts to 3.5% – 4.0% of GDP and around 16% of total government spending.

The feckless, miserly, socialist Europeans spend somewhere around 1.5% of their GDPs on their military and NATO. Why do they spend so little? Because the are counting on Uncle Sam to save their butts yet again when the new fascist Russians come gunning for them as they are now doing to the Georgians.

Hamilton wrote in Federalist 23 ( http://federali.st/23 ):

“The principal purposes to be answered by union are these the common defense of the members; the preservation of the public peace as well against internal convulsions as external attacks; the regulation of commerce with other nations and between the States; the superintendence of our intercourse, political and commercial, with foreign countries.”

Where does welfare fit in the principle purposes of government? Only in the imagination of altruist social authoritarians who wish to make Charity not a voluntary benevolence, but an extortion imposed under threat of imprisonment.

To Julius – #50:

An awful lot of theoretical, rhetorical and terminally-partisan smoke blows around on this forum – - but I believe your comment #50 offers the best real-world, real-time, right-down-the-middle commentary on the situation that exists in the country today.

Is the President responsible for the direction of the country?

Not really.

This congress has gone along with this President on every destructive thing he had done.  They could have done something to change that.

I have said this before – but ask youself if you had been a congressperson when this President and his henchmen began the barrage of ‘Iraq has weapon of mass destuction’ – ‘nuclear weapons capable of launching an attack on us in 45 minutes’ – ’ we know what they have, how many they have, where they are, and the red ‘x’ marks the spot’, etc?  What if you knew (and some did, I believe) this was untrue – or believed it to be untrue?  What would you have done?

I don’t know but I would hope that I would have used every power I had to get the questions, the doubts, or the facts out to the people of this country.  I would have gone on as many TV shows as would have had me.  I would have written letters to my constituents.  I would have had town hall meetings.  I would have stood on the street corner, rather than keeping my mouth shut and either go along or remain silent and allow our country to be taken into such a destructive war.

We have a 90% incumbency up there.  Some have been up there through Presidents of different parties, same parties, etc.  The things that are destroying our country – unnecessary wars, ballooning government, illegal immgration, welfare increases, oursourcing of jobs, importation of workers to replace Americans, etc., have moved along, unchecked, through several administrations.

Ladytexan,

You make a good case why this country needs in addition to a Term Limits Bill several others including a Write the Bills Act, a One Subject at a Time Act, an Enumerated Powers Act, a Read the Bills Act, and the Liberty Amendment.

These bills would return our government to regular citizens by getting rid of professional politicians, force our legislators to write the actual bills rather than lobbyists doing so,  include only one subject in a bill thus stopping the hiding of earmarks in massive omnibus bills and in listing who’s behind the bills and who’s profiting from them, forcing them to justify bills as being constitutional according to Article 1 Section 8 and the Bill of Rights of the Constitution, forcing them to actually read entire bills in a quorum, and preventing the government engaging in business or owning property that should be left to the private sector. We also need a bill restoring private property right after their demise in the SCOTUS Kelo Decision.

GOP says we know nothing about Obama except he can give a great speech. By the way, the GOP says great speech Palin we are so happy you are on the ticket. WHAT

How can anyone trust the judgment of someone who
actually believes that the story of Adam and Eve is a true, historical, and literal fact – - and that we are in Iraq “doing God’s work”?

Palin is as extremist as the Muslim fundamentalists who threaten America!

This is some of the craziest stuff I have ever heard? The GOP said for months, who is Obama? Now they have fully embraced a woman they heard about last week? Now I am hearing Palin say it is God’s will for us to be in Iraq? Okay, did I just miss something? Here we go again!

So John, you’re an anarchist? Just kidding. As a Christian I can understand someone saying that they’re anti-religious but not atheist. Belief in God and Jesus doesn’t require being a member of the organized church incorporated, thank God.

By the way, I reject Ayn Rand’s disdain of faith and her faith in man as the epitomy of creation, but I agree with her that the role of government is to protect the rights of individuals and that all else is often theft or violence. If our government were to truly return to Article 1 Section 8 of the Constitution we would be much closer to those ideals.

TX, so Gov. Palin is an extremist who believes in the forced conversion or execution of people? So she believes in stoning women who demand equal rights or who marry men outside of her religion? So she believes in an authoritarian theocracy? Do you really have even a modicum of understanding between the differences of Islam and Christianity? I think not.

It’s clear you believe anyone who believes in the Bible is unfit to be in elective office and therefore wish to impose a religious test for office. It’s clear that you are the extremist and one who rejects the Constitution and what America stands for.

Roberto Benitez…Religion should not be played in politics period. If so, which one? Christians read the same Bible and cannot discern between keeping the Sabbath holy or not. There are different types of Muslims with different belief systems. To say that all Muslims are radical or capable of being extremist is plain wrong. Islam, Christianity and all other religions should be separate from Government.

Julius, you’re quite right to point out that there are different types of Islam and that not all are radical. You’re also right to ask the question as to which religion should be allowed to participate in the public square. As a matter of fact, it’s an essential question. As a conservative fundamentalist Christian I believe that under our form of constitutional government which was founded on Judeo-Christian precepts that all religions share that right, whether they are Christian, Buddhist, Hindu, Jewish, Satanist, or even secular humanist.

Yet TK said and I quote, “Palin is as extremist as the Muslim fundamentalists who threaten America!” Do you deny he posted that or do you deny that was what I was responding to? Surely you don’t deny the hatred that the Islam TK described wants, desires, and preaches the subjugation or destruction of the US and Western Civilization? Are you familiar with the concepts of not only Jihad, but also Dhimmitude, Mar al-Islam, and Dar al-Harb? Do you deny that many of the practices I described are common in many fundamentalist Islamic controlled countries? Can you really say TK was right in equating Christianity and that Islam which he described as alike?

As for your claim that religion shouldn’t be played in politics period what do you really mean? Are you saying that people of faith have no right under the Constitution or modern cultural and political precepts to speak out in the public square about government policies from a distinctly religious or sectarian point of view? Or are you saying that government mustn’t base its programs and policies on explicit religious points of view, establish a state religion, establish a religious test for office, or show intentional favoritism to one religious viewpoint? If it’s the latter I would certainly agree with you. Please remember, there’s no such thing as a wall of separation of church and state.

The only real restriction on formal religious organizations is their Faustian agreement with the Infernal Retribution Sackers due to a contractual agreement under the 501(c))3 rules in which charitable organizations agree not to meddle in government affairs in return for their thirty pieces of silver. Of course union charitable and educational organizations and liberal foundations don’t believe those rule apply to them. But the idea that the government has a right to restrict free speech by non-charitable organizations within a certain time period before an election is certainly of dubious constitutional validity. But those are different matters.

To Julius, Post #61:

Right on, brother!  But, “crazy” ain’t the right word for it – - it don’t do it justice!  It’s way beyond “crazy”.

Obviously, Palin is just a pure political play and McCain’s handlers get a “A” for “gamesmanship”.  BUT – - the fact that McCain went along with it as though it was some move made to win a Student Council election – - really brings his judgement into question for me.

As I’ve said all along – - in 2000, I would have voted for him over Gore and the disaster who’s occupied the Oval office for the past 8 years.  But not now!  First, he’s too damned old now and, second, he’s changed direction on too many issues – - and, after all else is said and done, should his time on earth end before his term – - what the hell would happen to this country with a female version of Dan Quayle in charge.  That’s a scarier thought than a bunch of fundamentalist Muslims moving in next door!

Both political parties have become caricatures of themselves.  And, to me, Sarah Palin is a combo of a character out of the Batman and Flying Nun TV series.  Pure camp.  (Now, I can clearly picture McCain as “Mr. Magoo”!)

To Roberto Benitez, Post #65:

My simple point is that ANY and ALL kinds of all-out religious zealotry and extremism is bad. Period.

In fact, extremism of all kinds at all times is a danger to all those who don’t share in the particular variety of zealotry of those in charge at the moment.  In truth, the minority of zealots in both major political parties who have captured control of those parties have rendered those parties pretty useless to the majority of us Americans who are political, social and cultural moderates – - or middle-of-the-roaders.

What exactly is a zealot or extemist and what exactly is a moderate or middle of the roader?

I never knew what exactly that means.  In this country, we have somehow been convinced we have to put a label on everything and everybody.  That idea didn’t happen by accident.  If you can convince yourself or others that someone is a zealot or extremist, then that kinda neuralizes them, doesn’t it?

The fact is the so called extremist and zealots are simply the diversion the media is showing us.  The people in control of the parties are the corporations.

Part identity, part cultural, part economics and part upbringing. We are witnessing one of the most unique elections I have seen in my lifetime. Barack Obama is driving a message of change base on current American issues, which are being tromped by powerful cultural issues coming from the McCain camp. What you are seeing in the polls are people choosing what they know as comfortable over what we know as rational.

We all know that McCain is much too old for the extremely demanding job of President of The United States. If elected, he would be a one-term leader at best and because he would be dealing with a democratic congress, I doubt he would accomplish much.

But Palin and McCain look like what Americans are use to and that does not say Americans are racist, but rather comfortable with what they are accustom. Americas have said for months “who is Obama”. But since people are not voting rationally but culturally, they meet Palin and within one week, the polls are in McCain’s favor? Has McCain’s policies changed? No! Supporters are now saying Palin is one of us.

No one cares if she has not been to Washington, does not have any foreign policy experience or has not even served a full term as governor. What if McCain dies in office? She has never been to Washington.

Re:  Julius, Post #61;

Boy!  You got that right!  Crazy stuff!

Apparently, according to Palin’s normal modis operandi, EVERYTHING is “God’s will”.

Every time that Obama campaigns against Palin instead of McCain, he leaves another bullet hole in his feet. Lipstick remark? 10-yard penalty!

But the media has a great trick: they waste our time with polls of the American people, great numbers of whom don’t vote. “Registered voters” polls are almost as misleading for the same reason: many registered voters don’t vote.

It’s only when you get down to “likely voters” (that would be me and my wife, among others, who vote every even-numbered year) polls that you approach any meaningful information.

Of course, the radical left is going nuts over Palin and will attack a veep candidate that has more executive experience than either prez candidate or Biden, a blowhard liar. (He not only plagiarized the Brit politician, but plagiarized his bio as well: Biden’s old man made enough money that they didn’t have to live a “working class” existence. Dying to see Palin shred this clown on Thursday, Oct 2. Palin will beat him, he will beat himself with his longwinded speeches, or a combo of the two.)

The media has been blatantly biased throughout the campaign…and more and more people are picking up on this. America loves to root for the underdog who slogs on despite the deck being stacked against him/her.

The white women vote (essential to Obama’s election) has flip-flopped over to McCain/Palin, and every time the libs blast Palin or Obama tries to ridicule her, chalk up more GOP voters. Blacks do themselves a great disservice by voting 90+ dem in all elections, which is why they are largely ignored unless there’s an upcoming election. They’re children aren’t getting educated (neither are white children), but they vote for the Teachers Unions party, the dems, who are largely responsible for ruining our schools with their failed social experiments being conducted in our schools.

Obama is becoming pathetic. And he still has the debates ahead of him…but can’t speak without a prepared speech on a prompter, whereupon his use of the term “uh” skyrockets, just as Hillary couldn’t get through an entire sentence with saying, “you know” at least twice. I note that Obama is now using “you know” a lot in unscripted responses.

Bush and Cheney: ain’t it just a cryin’ shame that Obama chooses to run against the current prez and veep who AREN’T running for re-election? McCain isn’t Bush. But McCain votes with Bush 90% of the time? On what? Our congress has done nothing of any consequence since the dems took control in ‘06 and accomplished NOTHING of what they promised, hence, the term “do-nothing Congress” has been attached to them as they hit a historical approval rate of 9%, while disapproval rate sits at 51%.

I suspect that the American people are tired of this tactic, while “Hope” and “Change” and “Change you can believe in” and “Change you hope you can believe in” are beginning to grate on my nerves…and I doubt that I’m the only one so affected.

The Feminists are doing the GOP a great service by betraying ALL of their original “principles” to trash Palin. (All women aren’t this stupid and are realizing that NOW simply doesn’t represent them now, if ever.) The same is true of high-powered female news anchors/reporters who have children, but manage to do their jobs…but don’t note the inconsistency inherent in their criticism of Palin for doing essentially the same thing.

For liberals, it’s okay to be black or female, but you HAVE to be a democrat!

Blacks voting for democrats to get to the social spending bucks are in for a big surprise. Obama hasn’t got a clue about running the country.

BTW, the subprime mortgage mess began under the Carter administration (along with a bunch of other world-class blunders, eg, giving away the Panama Canal which is now controlled by China at both ends, and running off the Shah of Iran, which was the beginning of the Iranian threat to the world when the mullahs took over). Liberals are great at starting things they can’t finish, things go SNAFU, then the blame is passed to the GOP. The Vietnam War is a perfect example.

We basically lost the Vietnam War when Walter Cronkite mistakenly “reported” that we lost the Tet Offensive, when in fact, we broke their backs. LBJ heard this and, giving Cronkite (who is just short of Carter in the senile old fool category) way too much credibility, decided that we couldn’t win. Cronkite just passed along enemy propaganda, just as we have seen and heard a lot of same in the Iraq War.

This is, BTW, indisputable. The terrorists themselves proclaim this one of their most effective weapons. Libs hang on their every word.

The US, whether it wants to or not, must remain the Policeman of the World when put in that position (like it or not) for the simple reason that there is no good second choice for the position! Wanna pass this along to, say, Russia, China, N Korea, Iran, or the rest of the usual suspects?

If so, you have a screw loose.

TK, I actually agree with you that extremism isn’t good for the common weal. But my objection to the quote that Palin is as bad as extremist Muslims still is valid. The Assemblies of God, of which I’m a member, doesn’t preach hate, the imposition of Christianity on others, or the use of terror and force to gain its objectives. It preaches converting others thru living the Christian life.

Yet I find that liberal leftists are ready, willing, and able to prevaricate about what Pentecostal Christianity preaches. Perhaps because it’s because they seek out churches like the Westboro Baptist Church of Topeka which advocates that US are being killed due to America’s alleged support of homosexuality.  By the way, they aren’t associated with the American or Southern Baptist Church but are an independent family cult.

I remember when one of the politically correct networks wanted to due a piece on the argument over creationism so they contacted the Creation Institute. But rather than interview the real organization they searched out a small radical organization by the same name and presented it as the mainstream view of conservative Christianity. It was a dishonest move and it was intentional.

Re: Roberto Benitez, Post #52;

I didn’t say Palin was as bad aa a Muslin fundamentalist terrorist – - rather – - my point is that extremism of all kinds and to whatever degree – - is bad – - and is inherently divisive.  Generally speaking, though, religious extremism has probably caused more conflict and war than any other cause.  In the current context of politics in this country – - Palin is certainly an extremist in her party – - as is Pelosi in hers.

I also believe that the GOP is essentially under the domination of the “religious right” – - and, I think the DEMs have an equally extremist “anti-religious left” influencing the agenda of the party.

Palin is quick to show her religion-based extremism in full-color; the anti-religionists among the DEMs seemingly tend to hide their extremism.  I do, however, believe most DEMs support religion – - but believe they should keep it out of government decision-making and programming.

???

TK, my post #52 had nothing to do with what you posted. Perhaps you’re referring to post #63 which was a response to your post #60. Sometimes I too get confused which post is which.

In any event, you say in post #73 “I didn’t say Palin was as bad aa (sp) a Muslin fundamentalist terrorist.” Yet in post #60 you wrote that “How can anyone trust the judgment of someone who actually believes that the story of Adam and Eve is a true, historical, and literal fact – - and that we are in Iraq “doing God’s work”? Palin is as extremist as the Muslim fundamentalists who threaten America!”

Do you not remember what you wrote? You certainly did say that Gov. Palin is as bad as a Muslim fundamentalist terrorist. There’s no denying it. Yet you attempt to do so and also try to twist what Gov. Palin said about our being in Iraq.

Gov. Palin didn’t say that we were in Iraq doing God’s work. She wasn’t asserting that we’re doing God’s will but simply praying that we are. How many presidents have publicly offered that prayer throughout our history? To illustrate, I could say you’ll see the light or I pray that you’ll see the light. There’s a big difference in meaning. The MSM and most liberal blogs leave out her beginning statement just as they’re leaving out her ending remarks about what NATO countries should do if Georgian and the Ukraine became NATO members and were attacked by Russia. Most liberals claim she says NATO countries will have to go to war yet in the remarks they cut off she points out other options other than war. I believe there’s an intentional lack of forthrightness on the part of the partisan MSM.

Let’s face the truth; the MSM led by the left is intentionally trying to twist what she says. It’s aggravated by the fact that they know little about the tenets of her faith, just as you know very little about it. Unfortunately, I believe a lot of the ignorance is willful, aggressively so. Many are also willfully ignorant of the Constitution which forbids a religious test for office. But you seemingly would do just that, forbid people of deep faith in the Bible from serving in public office. I should point out that those who don’t allow their faith to guide their decisions don’t really have any faith. I realize that’s hard for many liberals to understand as they believe that there’re no absolute truths and that all is relative.

By the way, the “religious right” wishes it dominated the Republican Party. Unfortunately the Republican Party, which betrayed its traditional principles of smaller government, fiscal sanity, avoidance of foreign adventurism, less intrusive government, lower taxation for all, and protection of our borders when it traded its 1994 Contract With America for a contract on America, is dominated by neoconservative who were “former liberals mugged by reality yet who refuse to press charges” and who have a Machiavellian outlook on governance with a disdain for the Constitution. I believe you and I would agree that Pres. Bush hasn’t been the best president we’ve had.

To let you know, I’ve been an almost lifelong registered Republican but will likely vote for a 3rd party, quite possibly the Constitution Party. As I have written quite a few times I believe we need to restore this once great country to a democratic Republic under the rule of Constitutional Law. I hope you agree. Perhaps we Americans need to dust off the Declaration of Independence and take it to heart with a vengeance, keeping in mind the reason Jefferson said the 2nd amendment was written,

One more fact I’d like to bring up. The belief system that has caused the most suffering and death in human history is atheistic communism, more so than did the Nazis, the Crusades, the Inquisition, and the Witch Trials put together. That’s not to excuse those wrongs, but meant to put matters into perspective.

Palin has been lying on the campaign trail and will not take questions? She is also under investigation and will not cooperate with investigators. This woman has not been fully vetted and the worst is yet to come.

Re: Julius, Post #75:

I agree with your post.  While her “guns-babies-Bibles” religio-politics gets her significant attention and support from the religionists – - I think her Belle Starr-Calamity Jane-Annie Oakley persona will ultimately be a turn-off to many (if not most) Independent moderates and middle-of-the-roaders.  And, like you, I believe there’ll be some serious ethical, nepotism, abuse of power and lying (and, maybe, contempt) problems coming to light over these next seven weeks.  Personally, aside from the preceding, I think that in the “Intellectual Lightweight Rankings”, she’s definitely bumped Dan Quayle and taken over his spot.

All these posts pointing out – ‘it’s the democrats fault, they did this’ or ‘it’s the Republican’s fault, they did this’ – fact is, you are all right.

It’s all their faults.

No one man, no group, no party alone, could have gotten this accomplished. 

It took both of them, over decades.

But keep fighting each other and championing th very people that are cutting our throats.

Re: Roberto Benitez, Post #:

Regarding your following comment:

“As I have written quite a few times I believe we need to restore this once great country to a democratic Republic under the rule of Constitutional Law. I hope you agree. Perhaps we Americans need to dust off the Declaration of Independence and take it to heart with a vengeanc … “

I certainly agree – - and I believe every American would agree – - regardless of their political persuasion.

And, I didn’t mean to convey that I believed Sarah Palin, herself, was as “bad” as a “fundamentalist Muslim terrorist” – - rather – - what I though I was conveying was that ANY religious fundamentalism (and I do believe she is an evangelical Christian fundamentalist), taken to its MOST EXTREME degree, is apt to be just as dangerous as the fundamentalism exhibited by Muslim terrorists.  I do think the Muslims of the middle ages who were subjected to the militancy and militarism of the Christian Crusaders might well refer to them, today, as terrorists.  And, of course, throughout history, there have been countless wars fought for religious reasons.

Personally, I’m opposed to extremists of all kinds – - religious, political, or what have you – - and I do believe that expanded levels of political extremism and partisanship have been paralyzing American government for the past dozen years, or so – - and – - we sure as hell don’t need more of it!

I thought this was interesting:

If you’re a minority and you’re selected for a job
over more qualified candidates you’re a “token hire.”
If you’re a conservative and you’re selected for a
job over more qualified candidates you’re a “game
changer.”

Black teen pregnancies? A “crisis” in black America.
White teen pregnancies? A “blessed event.”

If you grow up in Hawaii you’re “exotic.”
Grow up in Alaska eating moose burgers, you’re the quintessential “American story.”

Similarly, if you name your kid Barack you’re “unpatriotic.”
Name your kid Track, you’re “colorful.”

If you’re a Democrat and you make a VP pick without fully vetting the individual you’re “reckless.”
A Republican who doesn’t fully vet is a “maverick.”

If you spend 3 years as a community organizer growing your
organization from a staff of 1 to 13 and your budget from
$70,000 to $400,000, then become the first black President
of the Harvard Law Review, create a voter registration drive
that registers 150,000 new African American voters, spend 12
years as a Constitutional Law professor, then spend nearly 8
more years as a State Senator representing a district with
over 750,000 people, becoming chairman of the state
Senate’s Health and Human Services committee, then spend nearly 4 years in the United States Senate representing a
state of nearly 13 million people, sponsoring 131 bills and
serving on the Foreign Affairs, Environment and Public Works
and Veteran’s Affairs committees, you are woefully inexperienced.

If you spend 4 years on the city council and 6 years as the
mayor of a town with less than 7,000 people, then spend 20
months as the governor of a state with 650,000 people, then
you’ve got the most executive experience of anyone on
either ticket, are the Commander in Chief of the Alaska
military and are well qualified to lead the nation should
you be called upon to do so because your state is the
closest state to Russia.

If you are a Democratic male candidate who is popular with
millions of people you are an “arrogant celebrity”.
If you are a popular Republican female candidate you are
“energizing the base”.

If you are a younger male candidate who thinks for himself
and makes his own decisions you are “presumptuous”.
If you are an older male candidate who makes last minute
decisions you refuse to explain, you are a “shoot from
the hip” maverick.

If you are a candidate with a Harvard law degree you are
“an elitist-out of touch” with the real America.
if you are a legacy (dad and granddad were admirals)
graduate of Annapolis, with multiple disciplinary infractions
you are a hero.

If you manage a multi-million dollar nationwide campaign,
you are an “empty suit”.
If you are a part time mayor of a town of 7000 people, you
are an “experienced executive”.

If you go to a south side Chicago church, your beliefs are
“extremist”.
If you believe in creationism and don’t believe global
warming is man made, you are “strongly principled”.

If you kill an endangered species, you’re an excellent hunter.
If you have an abortion your not a Christian, you’re a
murderer (forget about if it happen while being date raped.)

If you teach abstinence only in sex education, you get teen
parents.
If you teach responsible age appropriate sex education,
including the proper use of birth control, you are eroding
the fiber of society.

Julius, let’s address a few of your accusations:

If you’re a minority hired over a more qualified white you’re an affirmative action hire as likely required by the government.

Illegitimate birth rates among blacks is over twice that of whites, 68% vs. 28%, a crisis in both cases, yet all births are blessed events except to radical liberals who believe humans are a plague on Mother Earth and should be culled.

To us white males most Hawaiian Asians are exotic; viva le difference!  If you’re black or white and born in Hawaii you’re merely black or white. Alaskans are hardly quintessential American stories but rather independent sourdoughs.

Who’s said naming a child after their ethnic background is unpatriotic, particularly when a child is named after a parent? It’s liberal regimes that try to limit the giving of names as in some Scandinavian countries and in France. And which Republican said that Barack didn’t look like the presidents on American money? Oh, it was a Democrat named Barack who said that.

Who has seriously claimed that Biden or Palin wasn’t vetted? Oh yes, it’s the partisan Democrats claiming that. Now Republicans have claimed that Sen. Obama wasn’t properly vetted. If I had had his background of radical communist associations I would never have had qualified for a security clearance.

What is a community organizer other than a socialist agitator using the law as a weapon? And since when was Obama a professor of anything? And what piece of major legislation has Obama written by himself and gotten passed?

Since when is a senator, no matter how large a state is, considered an executive? And since when is a governor of a state, no matter how small, not considered an executive? Only among partisan leftist Democrats. And why is it a Democratic candidate for president first time out speaking about the opposition’s VP choice completely ignores the fact she’s a governor and intentionally mispronounces the name of the town she was mayor of calling if WaSILLY?

How many VPs were selected because they were ready to lead the nation should the president expire in office? It’s not a bad idea but just how many were?

When you’re marketed as a celebrity, act like a celebrity, conduct yourself like a celebrity, have bands as into acts, have grand sets, are you not a celebrity, particularly if your message is based only on a vague message of change and hope?

If the base of a party consists of conservatives and the party chooses a liberal as its standard barer, doesn’t choosing a firm conservative as a VP energize a discouraged base?

Who has claimed that because Sen. Obama supposedly thinks for himself that he’s presumptuous? When he presumes to speak for America before he’s president then he is presumptuous.

If you’re a Harvard graduate who says to his rich San Francisco friends that he believes that regular folks in PA clutch to their Bibles and guns than you are an elitists.

The academies require even legacy candidates to qualify for entrance. Furthermore, McCain’s infractions were for opposing upperclassman who bullied underclassmen. But I suppose liberals would favor bullying, find serving passé, and claim that because a candidate’s family has served the country in the military the candidate is unqualified.

Candidates don’t manage their campaign; that’s what campaign managers are for. Sponsoring bills that were handed to you isn’t leadership nor is serving 4 years when 2 of then are spent running for president.

That mayor of Wasilla became the full time governor of Alaska. And Palin was the full time mayor of Wasilla.

If you go to a church for 20 years where the pastor preaches Marxist liberation theology and hatred of the American government, if all your significant mentors are socialists, communists, and terrorists, perhaps you’re an extremist.

If you believe in the Bible and believe that man isn’t the sole cause of global warming just maybe you’re the rational person. If you’re a liberal you believe that Bible believing Christians don’t belong in the public square (but maybe in a gulag).

If you agree with your wildlife officials and allow hunting of predators that are putting too much pressure on the moose population maybe you’re a responsible conservationist. If you’re a liberal you accuse someone who has never hunted wolves of murdering them, which by the way aren’t classified as endangered in Alaska.

If you believe that parents rather than schools have primary responsibility for teaching values in sex education maybe you believe in the Constitution, but if you insist that teaching about homosexuality as normal in grade schools is normal maybe you are eroding belief in the backbone of society, the family.

If you’re a partisan Democratic demagogue you resort to canards, innuendoes, prevarications and ad hominem attacks as a matter of course. Am I making an unfair assessment Julius?

Roberto,

Very good.

We are having our attention drawn to so many things other than the real issues, problems, and needs of this country.

Re:  Julius, Post #79;

One of the more realistically fair and balanced posts I’ve seen on this forum.  Frankly, I’ve had many female neighbors over the years who were way more qualified in terms of education, experience and intellect than Palin – - and none would have been presumptuous enough to claim they were qualified to be Vice-President (or, Heaven forbid, President!).  Hell!  I’ve had female grade-school teachers who were way more qualified in EVERY respect than Palin (well, maybe not in “marksmanship”).  I would have voted for McCain in 2000 – - but he’s clearly lost it here in 2008.  (Too old – now, too partisan – too lacking in creative thinking, flexibility and adaptability – too much last-minute pandering to the extremists among the Religious Right – no longer able to distinguish the trees from the forest.)

In all honesty – - I think my most basic reaction to this whole election is – - “You gotta’ be kiddin’!”  To me, this one’s more off-the-wall than Johnson vs. Goldwater (and, Geez! McCain has claimed that Goldwater was his political “role model”!).

Frankly, I don’t care much for Red OR Blue!

We all know that Palin was a pander pick because McCain sources confirmed that she was not his preferred choice. He went out on a limb to appease the religious right and the woman vote. The first week looked very good for McCain, but once the press and liberal news media began probing who Palin is, some very troubling issues begin surfacing. She is down in the polls and it appears the new car smell is wearing off.

Trooper gate has become a problem for Palin and she has refused a suspena. Her husband has also refused to answer questions. Why won’t she answer queries? What is she hiding?

Obama, in an interview with Bill O’Reilly, the dreadful associations question came up again. Notice it is always a Communist, Muslim, Socialist or Black Liberation Theology association. Obama’s answer was brilliant. He said I have thousands of friends and associations and cannot be all of these connotations at the same time. Considering the tremendous amount of accomplishment Obama has made in his young adult life, you wonder why no one has criticize his positive influences? 

Obama solidified his willingness to serve by spending several years helping the poor and needy. The RNC soiled themselves on national television with ignominy towards community organizers. I was appalled at the elitism that was display and the thumbing of the snout towards community service.

The University of Chicago is a tier 1 (top 10) law school. Obama taught constitutional law for several years. A Harvard lawyer who graduated top of his class and taught constitutional law at one of the best law schools in the country is a heavyweight. Obama has the mental aptitude to lead and the analytical skills to judge. 

McCain graduated at the bottom of his class and I do not think he has the intellectual aptitude of a Barack Obama. The only thing McCain has on Obama is years, but that does not make McCain smarter or wiser. Concerning Palin, she has a journalism degree and has not served a full term as governor. It has not been determined what her service record will be. She has been lying on the campaign trail and nothing good comes from lying.

Notice how Obama has been criticized for being popular? Has the same thing been said of Palin’s popularity? And what of Obama’s message of hope? How can anyone criticize a hope message? How wonderful if President Bush offered hope during these troubling times. You bet poor folks are clinging to their guns and religion. Some people did not like hearing it, but the truth is what it is. That is what people do during hard times. Pray and bear arms.

It has been said that Obama has run one of the best campaigns in the history of a presidential election. Why would anyone say he is not the manager thereof? Does a CEO of a fortune 100 company manage anything of do shareholders pay him millions for the fun of it?

My Prediction: Obama will win this election. He is steady, consistent, organized and inspiring. Obama is always on point and surrounds himself with wise counsel and like-minded people. All the proven attributes of a top CEO and leader. This is the type of training he got a Columbia and then at Harvard. McCain is out-gunned and Palin is well?

Well who is a socialist now? For months I have read that Obama is a socialist. Today was a huge day in American history, as it relates to bailouts. At the tune of about a trillion dollars to back failings financial institutions, it is very hard for the right to say Obama is a dangerous socialist, when a REPUBLICAN President Bush and REPUBLICAN treasure Hank Paulson bleeds out a ton of money to keep financial establishments from going belly up. And it’s not over yet people

Julius,

You ask a fair and important question. I’m a conservative Republican (maybe not Republican for long) who believes that Pres. Bush and the Republican Party have betrayed the traditional Republican principles of fiscal sanity, smaller government, avoidance of foreign intrigue, corporate coziness, lower taxation for the common folks, protection of our borders, creation of jobs at home, self-reliance both individually and as a nation, and opposition to political chicanery.

Bush and the Republican Party are both controlled now by the neoconservatives who’ve been described as former liberals who were mugged by reality yet who refuse to press charges. In my opinion the Republican Party gave up its 1994 Contract With America and traded it in for a contract on America. It decried the earmarks and corruption of the Democrats and then decided to outdo them at the public trough.

So if you’re implying that Bush’s and Paulson’s policies smack of socialism, particularly corporate socialism, I will have to agree with you. But I doubt that Sen. Obama’s, Sen. Reid’s, and Rep. Pelosi’s approach would be more conservative, i.e., more fiscally responsible.

Quite frankly, I fear we’re stuck between a rock and a hard place. Having let things fester so long the administration and congress say we can’t afford to let the banks reap their just dues, but will putting off the drastic corrections, which include perhaps the yardarms for some CEOs and CFOs (fiscally speaking of course), needed for another decade make the eventual reckoning any more pleasant?

I am a democrat that on a sliding scale, fall somewhere between JFK and Reagan.  I could be considered a Liberal but I am in favor of lower taxes, self-reliance and smaller government. I think the Republican Party is dead and support Barack Obama because I believe he is the future. My prediction is Obama will win in November and if he was white, Obama would win really big.

Because of the state of affairs in America, I don’t think we’ll ever see conservatism grace the halls of Washington. If so, you will not see conservatism in it’s purist form. This is also why many Republicans have a problem with John McCain and was some-what happy when he added Sarah Palin to his ticket. We live in a new era. Issues like gay rights, abortion, fiscal bailouts and entitlement are more in favor with the Democrats.

I do not agree that neo-conservatives control the Republican Party. As previously mentioned, you are witnessing the death of the accurate GOP. These neo-conservatives are on a sliding scale and have liberal tendencies. If any of the GOP expects to be re-elected they have to be flexible to the growing trend of liberalisms in America. This is very difficult for Republicans because they know their numbers are dwindling.

Personally, I think our country is in trouble. We are on a slippery slope and we ALL aware. It is like a moth flying into the flame.

<<<<<<<Obama solidified his willingness to serve by spending several years helping the poor and needy. >>>>>>>

The people who do this community programs are not in it to help the people.  For one thing it is very lucrative.  If you don’t believe me, think of the Revs. Jesse and Sharpton.  They have made a very good living off being ‘do gooders’ – money from the taxpayers.

This kind of ‘volunteer’ work is also a springboard for politics.  He and his backers knew he had to have that background in order to work into politics.  Come on.

Obama’s race is about all he has going for him.  He will get more votes because he’s black, then votes against because he’s black.

His race, his good looks, is about the only thing he has going for him.  He’s the one who continues to bring up race.  He’s so afraid people might forget.  If so, people would ask themselves exactly what he is all about.  All you have left is – “change”. 

TK,

As to qualifications, I have known many people, men, women and children I felt were more qualified and capable,  to be President than the last two we had.

These people who call themselves conservatives are corportists and globalists – that’s their own ideology.

The same goes for those who call themselves democrats.  They just have different rhetoric.

It will never happen, but our only hope is to vote 3rd party -  or write in Ron Paul. 

People in this country remind me of the children I have known who have abusive parents.  They will defend, love and protect those parents because they think it’s all they have.  That’s the same relationship with these political parties.

ladytexan

There is nothing wrong with someone aspiring a career in politics by volunteering for community service. It is highly recommended and appreciated, considering most politicians come from money and typically start their careers on the coattails of their parents or relatives. George Bush comes to mind.

Not sure why Sharpton and Jackson were used as examples, but I assume it is because they are black and you needed credence to associated someone similar to Obama. Neither Sharpton or Jackson are senators but civil rights activist, of which has done a great deal for minorities. Such activist would not be needed if so-called Christian America had spoken out against social injustice.

You also mention Obama had backers? While doing community service for $10,000 per year, between the age 23 and 26 years old, Obama did not have any backers? With all due respect, I suggest you get your facts from a reliable source and not from the media. Concerning Obama, you can check public records with the Chicago community agencies he worked with, but we are talking 24 years ago.

Why you would play down Obama’s experience and education and say he is getting votes because of his race is perplexing? Obama is the most educated than all the candidates. He is a top Harvard graduate and smarter than Bush, McCain and Palin combined. Palin has a degree in journalism and knows nothing about foreign policy. She has never even been to Washington? McCain is just too old and should retire.

If Obama was white this election would be over. This is the first campaign I have ever witnessed where people are not voting for a candidate because of his color. Racist also hide behind their hate by saying Obama is a Muslim. He has repeatedly said he is not a Muslim but a Christian.

Re: Julius, Post #;

Boy! Ain’t that the truth, though!

If I had a nickel for every time I’ve heard a Republican criticize “Democrats” or “Liberals” for being “socialists” – - I wouldn’t have to worry about the coming Depression!

I think this proves the point that “de-regulated”, “trickle-down” Reaganomics – - in all its Wall Street-oriented greed and glory – - simply doesn’t work.

“Rules, boundaries and limitations” is where its always at!

Re: Julius, Post #83;

I agree with everything you say – - except – - I believe Obama will lose this election – - maybe by 8-9-10 points – - simply because he’s NOT an older white guy!  Call it ethnocentrism, bias, prejudice, racism – - or old-fashioned “fear of anything new” – - or whatever else you want.  But, I believe Obama will lose because of race.

Current studies repeat the fact that 40% of white Americans have some level of bias or prejudice (from very low to significant) related to race – - and I believe that when many voters get into the privacy of the voting booth (as opposed to publicly responding to pollsters) – - that percentage will likely rise even higher – - and those voters will insure a sizeable McCain victory.

And, I believe much of the negative (and quite a bit of false) bloviating going on about Obama is little more than a verbal “cover-up” of basic racial bias.

The last eight years – - and this election campaign – - have been pretty unbelievable!  And, I do think we’re in for – - worse.

Julius,

First off, don’t make it easy on yourself and don’t ascribe ideas to me I don’t have.

I am not a fan of this President, nor am I any longer a REpublican – haven’t been for some time.
Never was I a party line voter.

I don’t fear Obama because he might be a communist.

A man does not get the entire media running interference for him, promoting him and protecting him, unless there is something behind him that is very, very powerful.

The only one who has interjected race into this race is Mr. Obama.  Other than his powerful backers, it is just about all he has going for him.  He is using it for all it’s worth.  He is dividing the nation and awakening resentment that we have all worked very hard to address and put behind us.

Racism is ugly – no matter what color person is promoting it.  It is also destructive to the entire country.

His divisive rhetoric is despicable.  It shows a willingness to hurt us all, and the nation, to achieve a selfish goal.

More people will vote for him because he is black, than will not vote for him because he is black.

Some blacks I have talked with do not like him, do not trust him, but will vote for him because he is black.  To be honest, I can almost understand that – it is suicidal, but I do understand their thinking.  If I were a black person, I might take the chance to see, for the first time, a black person as President.  It isn’t a good reason, but I do understand, and it does have more merit than what a lot of people have for voting the way they do.

Then there are the wannabe intellectuals who want to show all that intellectualism by voting black.

Then there are some who simply want to be different and to vote for a black man, never mind his politics, thnking it will prove just how open minded and well, ‘good’ they are.

There are plenty who will vote for John McCain for equally ridiculous reasons.

Let’s just don’t pretend that Obama might loose this election because he’s black – that just isn’t the case.

That is being put forward as a type of blackmail, though. 

I brought up Rev. Jesse and Sharpton because they are self-serving rabble rousing money grubbers. 

They do more harm for black people than good.  They never saw a camera they didn’t jump in front of to further their careers.  The rake up problems where none exist.  They take a small problem and make it bigger and more dangerous.

The Rev. Jesse has, over the years, gotten big money from the government for all his altruistic ‘volunteerism’.

There is nothing wrong with volunteerism – nothing wrong with using it as a springboard.  Let’s just be honest about it, however, and admit what it is.  Let’s don’t pretend he did all this just to help poor people.  That is insulting.

RE: TK, Post #90

I do agree that the election has much to do about race. Obama’s readiness is played down with indictments of racism, Marxism, Communism, Socialism and extremist religion. Nothing more than the bloviating cover-up of racial bias. I have also noticed the play on experience, even though Obama has been in public office for over 25 years. His campaign is one of the best run I have seen and what he has been doing is registering new voters at an alarming rate, which is one of the reasons we see traditional red states in play.

Hank Paulson did not know we had a financial crisis a week ago is saying we need 750 billion dollars tonight, no questions asked. The basic fiscal premise of the GOP is let the free market process work. But because we don’t like where the free market is taking us, we must spend billions to correct it. I do not have a degree in economics but I can tell you this will not work. Paulson has not been right on trade, markets or regulations. He says turn over the keys to the economy and I will fix it.

The democrats do not want to give over a blank check and I agree. Our crisis was created by crazy assumptions where we were lending money to people who could not repay. FDR was big on regulation. The reconstruction finance corporation of the nineteen thirties comes to mind. If the government is going to bailout financial institutions, there have to be limits on executive compensation and fiscal responsibility. We need a renegotiation board like during WWII, where if you were a war profiteer, the government could go back and audit the contract and get some of the tax payer money back. We need a complete renegotiation provision for this bailout. I can tell you right now that lawyers are figuring out how their clients can profit from the proposed bailout at taxpayer expense.

This mess is not over by a long shot. It is impossible to manipulate a free market. The market is trying to correct and you are inserting money we do not have. Lawmakers know this but refuse to let Americans loose their savings and possessions. I am afraid of what might happen in the months to come. No this is not over.

The election is about race because Obama made it about race.

The only thing about racism that has been mentioned concerning Obama, by other than his supporters, has been the flap over his minister.

Gee, I wonder how his supporters would have reacted if the world suddenly realized some candidate was attending church, for 20 years, that was lead by a KKK member? 

Think maybe that might have been discussed?

Nope, the only racism as far as Obama is concerned has been what his supporters have interjected, because it’s his best point.

So I guess the theory is – if you don’t succumb to Obama’s race baiting, andn you want to discuss things other than race, then you must be covering up some racial bias.  Is that it?

Yes, race will play a big part – it is his biggest part. He couldn’t rely on his own merits, I guess. Many will vote for him because he is black.  Absolutely, race is playing a big part.

TK,

If I recall, those polls about racial misgivings were taken of Democrat Party whites, not all whites, were they not?

If Sen. Obama loses, and I don’t think he will, it will be because he will have failed to detail what he believes specifically and how he would approach matters specifically. Combine that with his relative newness and his past associations with socialists and communists many people will choose someone who is perceived rightly or wrongly as part of the good old boy network.

I’m not claim that’s right or wrong. I’m just saying that “change” from someone who isn’t well known is scary to many people, even if it’s needed. For others like me, while I believe change is definitely needed, I don’t believe his brand of change will solve matters, nor will the Republican Party’s. You correctly say that we’re in for worse to come.

Julius,

With your views favoring lower taxes, self reliance, and smaller government, could it be that you’re a 19th century conservative, or classical liberal? It’s not quite libertarianism as you seem to believe that we are brothers’ keeper and that in a large nation the central government must take a significant role in that. It’s part of a social contract with the government seeing that a safety net exists and is adequate. If one holds to Ayn Rand’s beliefs and rejects religion as a motivating factor then call it enlightened self interest or better yet enlightened self preservation. Why did Rome fall, besides being overrun by the Muslims in the 1450s? Was it not because they denied Germanic tribes who were part of the Empire a greater share in the benefits of Roman citizenship?