Do you think some fundamentalists voted for Obama to hasten the end of the world?

[gurneyhalleck1]

Maybe you can help me with this rpp. I’m trying to remember about when the Republicans started calling the Democratic Party the “Democrat” Party? I know it’s meant to be disrespectful and to try and imply there’s nothing democratic about them, but who coined it and started encouraging conservatives to say it? Rush? Hannity? I disagree with the Democrats a great deal but if that’s the name of their party, then I’ll call it what it is, the Democratic Party.

And your point that not Democrats, but rather Marxists, run the House, Senate and Executive Branches, is odd in that Jimmy Carter, Kennedy, and Johnson were all Democrats who wanted the same things Obama sought. Johnson’s “war on poverty” expanded entitlements and freebies to new heights. FDR brought us the New Deal and Social Security, Kennedy brought us Medicare along with Johnson, and all of them wanted universal health care for decades? Wouldn’t your definition of these guys be “marxist” as much as Obama? When was the last real Democrat in office? Was Clinton a Democrat or Marxist?

It’d be like a liberal from 2000 to 2008 saying, “we don’t have Republicans running this government; we have capitalist pig conservatives at the helm who’d just as soon see people starve to death.”

The rhetoric and hyperbole is the problem with our whole system. It’s ALL politics. It’s tribal, it’s an our team vs. their team mentality. I’ve never seen things more polarized as the Bush-Obama years. It’s awful.

I do not fear a Democrat in the White House. Nor do I fear a Democrat controlled House and Senate.

And, no. America has not survived worse. America has not experienced a communist as President, a man dedicated to negating the Constitution.

However, that is not the situation. We have a Marxist in the White House and Socialists control both the Ho8use and Senate.

But these indisputable facts are off topic. Please do not derail this thread by trying to falsely imply that the Democrat Party controls the two of the three branches of Federal; government. No, Fundamentalists did not vote for the Marxism in the USA.

Oh, your spell checker needs a serious update. Sure, I am the typo king, but please, show some respect and use it.

 

[benidict]

I do not fear a Democrat in the White House. Nor do I fear a Democrat controlled House and Senate.

And, no. America has not survived worse. America has not experienced a communist as President, a man dedicated to negating the Constitution.

However, that is not the situation. We have a Marxist in the White House and Socialists control both the Ho8use and Senate.

But these indisputable facts are off topic. Please do not derail this thread by trying to falsely imply that the Democrat Party controls the two of the three branches of Federal; government. No, Fundamentalists did not vote for the Marxism in the USA.

Oh, your spell checker needs a serious update. Sure, I am the typo king, but please, show some respect and use it.

oh my goodness! the conspiracy nuts have gotten to you! by the way. whats a ho8use? and calling this president a marxist communist is a little strong, dont you think? where are the political prisoners, and the political prisons? i dont see any. also its probably my punctuation that bugs you. my spelling is just fnie…Peace

 

[larkin31]

Maybe you can help me with this rpp. I’m trying to remember about when the Republicans started calling the Democratic Party the “Democrat” Party? I know it’s meant to be disrespectful and to try and imply there’s nothing democratic about them, but who coined it and started encouraging conservatives to say it? Rush? Hannity? I disagree with the Democrats a great deal but if that’s the name of their party, then I’ll call it what it is, the Democratic Party.

And your point that not Democrats, but rather Marxists, run the House, Senate and Executive Branches, is odd in that Jimmy Carter, Kennedy, and Johnson were all Democrats who wanted the same things Obama sought. Johnson’s “war on poverty” expanded entitlements and freebies to new heights. FDR brought us the New Deal and Social Security, Kennedy brought us Medicare along with Johnson, and all of them wanted universal health care for decades? Wouldn’t your definition of these guys be “marxist” as much as Obama? When was the last real Democrat in office? Was Clinton a Democrat or Marxist?

It’d be like a liberal from 2000 to 2008 saying, “we don’t have Republicans running this government; we have capitalist pig conservatives at the helm who’d just as soon see people starve to death.”

The rhetoric and hyperbole is the problem with our whole system. It’s ALL politics. It’s tribal, it’s an our team vs. their team mentality. I’ve never seen things more polarized as the Bush-Obama years. It’s awful.

well put

mud-slinging in politics goes way, way back…

 

[Contarini]

And, no. America has not survived worse. America has not experienced a communist as President, a man dedicated to negating the Constitution.

However, that is not the situation. We have a Marxist in the White House and Socialists control both the Ho8use and Senate.

But these indisputable facts are off topic.

No, they’re not, because the conspiracy-driven worldview of fundamentalists is very much on topic, and you are a nice illustration of this, with your “indisputable facts” which are in fact only right-wing talking points.

Edwin

 

[Donkey_Gong]

So if a vote for Obama hastens the rapture, shouldn’t the fundamentalists support voter fraud?

 

[blaskoman]

That is the funniest joke I have seen in months. Two hysterical jokes in one post. Thank you for injecting some humor into this thread.

thank you, Im here all week, dont forget to tip the waitress…So, the indisputable fact that Bush Jr. started two wars, which were illegal according to international law and the UN, shows that Bush at least made a decent attempt to reap destruction in the world…if you disagree with this, can you provide me proof that Bush’s wars were not illegal?

 

[foolishmortal]

International law and mutually assured destruction: partners in the demise of nations. Some want to try Pope Benedict too. Now, since we weren’t attacked or defending allies, it was probably morally illicit–at least the Iraq War.

 

[benidict]

No, they’re not, because the conspiracy-driven worldview of fundamentalists is very much on topic, and you are a nice illustration of this, with your “indisputable facts” which are in fact only right-wing talking points.

Edwin

sorry my friend. you are kinda wrong there. these are EXTREME right wing talking points. im deffinitly right of center on most issues, and these are not my views. theres alot of this garbage on the right AND the left. the rest of us poor souls, are just stuck in the middle. Peace

 

[benidict]

thank you, Im here all week, dont forget to tip the waitress…So, the indisputable fact that Bush Jr. started two wars, which were illegal according to international law and the UN, shows that Bush at least made a decent attempt to reap destruction in the world…if you disagree with this, can you provide me proof that Bush’s wars were not illegal?

ummm. 3000 dead americans in the world trade center. not to mention the pentagon, and the field in pennsylvania. the name which escapes me at the moment. im happy to be fighting these @#!$&^%$#. reason i joined the army at age 39. and im in a job, where i can make a difference. i can either arrest them, or neutralize them. i dont care which. just so long a horrible people like this, stop hooking up bombs to innocent civilians, and send them after my brothers and sisters. also we have done wonders for iraq. opening up schools. bringing clean water to villages.and that doesnt count what weve done in afghanistan. Peace P.S. i love long beach Ca.

 

[gurneyhalleck1]

I was actually born in Long Beach…right on, dude! But I’m a Giants fan and hate the Dodgers…go figure?

I

ummm. 3000 dead americans in the world trade center. not to mention the pentagon, and the field in pennsylvania. the name which escapes me at the moment. im happy to be fighting these @#!$&^%$#. reason i joined the army at age 39. and im in a job, where i can make a difference. i can either arrest them, or neutralize them. i dont care which. just so long a horrible people like this, stop hooking up bombs to innocent civilians, and send them after my brothers and sisters. also we have done wonders for iraq. opening up schools. bringing clean water to villages.and that doesnt count what weve done in afghanistan. Peace P.S. i love long beach Ca.

 

[crazzeto]

Honestly I think the fundamentalists (typically younger) who voted for him did so for the same reasons some Catholics (such as my self did, I do regret my vote)…

1. What we saw in the '08 election was a number of bad trends in this nation. First, a disturbing rise in partisanship the likes of which I really can’t remember. Yes, I realize parties have always been powerful, but at the same time there used to be some level of civility there… People used to be very good about picking out the wack jobs on both sides.

Today everyone has either a “your for me or your against me” attitude. Bi-partisanship seems to be a thing of the past, this started with the Bush administration and Karl Rove, but Obama has extended it.

1. Disturbing rise in power of the presidency, and for that matter the vice-presidency! We’ve seen executive orders to accomplish things which I don’t beleive ever would have happend before! Here too, Obama has carried the flag forward (though on a positive note, Biden ain’t no Cheney).
2. Iraq war, this was a biggie for me… Totally unjust, a money pitt and we didn’t know where we were going with it. Bush finally agreed to put it to an end in the final days of his administration, thankfully this is one Obama has carried forward (I wish he hadn’t on the last two counts).

*****4) Obama really did come off as pragmatic, yes I understood as a liberal he was pro-choice but I thought that as a practical issue he wouldn’t want to spend too much political capital on trying to advance his anti-life agenda. Sadly I was mistaken, Obama has shown no practicality here. In fact he very nearly sacraficed Health Care reform (which we needed) on the alter of baby slaughter only to find a tricky menuver to keep some pro-choice advancement in there albeit at the cost of putting him self on the line politically.

I was wrong about Obama, and I suspect the evangelicals who voted for him feel similarly burned and are equally committed to rectifying their mistakes in 2012.

 

[Contarini]

*****4) Obama really did come off as pragmatic, yes I understood as a liberal he was pro-choice but I thought that as a practical issue he wouldn’t want to spend too much political capital on trying to advance his anti-life agenda. Sadly I was mistaken, Obama has shown no practicality here. In fact he very nearly sacraficed Health Care reform (which we needed) on the alter of baby slaughter only to find a tricky menuver to keep some pro-choice advancement in there albeit at the cost of putting him self on the line politically.

I was wrong about Obama, and I suspect the evangelicals who voted for him feel similarly burned and are equally committed to rectifying their mistakes in 2012.

Interesting. I could not in good conscience have voted for Obama because of the abortion issue (given the existence of a pretty good alternative in McCain–I’d have been more likely to support Obama against Romney). I don’t feel "burned’ at all. (Note: I’m not an American citizen so I do not in fact vote, but I live here and I pay taxes and I care about what happens.) Obama has turned out more or less as I had expected–I hoped he would be better, but am not particularly stunned that he isn’t.

I’m rather puzzled by your characterization of his actions on the abortion issue, though. It doesn’t seem to me that he’s made it a priority. Maybe I’m not following the “right” p) media, but what I thought I heard happening in the health care debate bore little resemblance to what you describe. I have found Obama to be considerably less of an ideologue than I thought he would be. This is a relief on some issues (like abortion) and a disappointment on others (like war).

Edwin

 

[crazzeto]

Interesting. I could not in good conscience have voted for Obama because of the abortion issue (given the existence of a pretty good alternative in McCain–I’d have been more likely to support Obama against Romney). I don’t feel "burned’ at all. (Note: I’m not an American citizen so I do not in fact vote, but I live here and I pay taxes and I care about what happens.) Obama has turned out more or less as I had expected–I hoped he would be better, but am not particularly stunned that he isn’t.

I’m rather puzzled by your characterization of his actions on the abortion issue, though. It doesn’t seem to me that he’s made it a priority. Maybe I’m not following the “right” p) media, but what I thought I heard happening in the health care debate bore little resemblance to what you describe. I have found Obama to be considerably less of an ideologue than I thought he would be. This is a relief on some issues (like abortion) and a disappointment on others (like war).

Edwin

He’s done exactly as I described, in fact he personally got involved in the fight against the Nelson amendment in the Senate just after the stunning upset in the House with Stupak. He constantly repeated the lie that the Heath Care bill does not change public policy on abortion (it does). This is why he was forced to sign a last minute, unenforceable executive order in order to placate the “pro-life” demacratic block in order to be sure of enough votes for the bill.

One would have thought he wouldn’t have taken such risks, and simply instructed congress to make hyde the guiding principal behind any bill they draft. Instead he tried his hardest to convinently forget hyde.

BTW
You need not view the “right” media in order to discover this… you need only familiarize your self with the bills (now laws). I my self didn’t believe it until I started reading the bills, ironically so I could defend then against “false charges” like they some how advanced the anti-life cause… Boy did I feel stupid when I learned what was really in there.

 

[Contarini]

He’s done exactly as I described, in fact he personally got involved in the fight against the Nelson amendment in the Senate just after the stunning upset in the House with Stupak. He constantly repeated the lie that the Heath Care bill does not change public policy on abortion (it does). This is why he was forced to sign a last minute, unenforceable executive order in order to placate the “pro-life” demacratic block in order to be sure of enough votes for the bill.

What do you mean by saying that the executive order is unenforceable? I thought that the executive order was clear indication that he really is sincere in saying that the bill isn’t supposed to change the existing situation WRT abortion.

But I admit that I haven’t read the bill!

Edwin

 

[crazzeto]

What do you mean by saying that the executive order is unenforceable? I thought that the executive order was clear indication that he really is sincere in saying that the bill isn’t supposed to change the existing situation WRT abortion.

But I admit that I haven’t read the bill!

Edwin

It’s unenforceable because an executive order is not powerful enough to override the law… Basically the President can’t just make a declaration nullifying the anti-life aspects of the law. There for the executive order in this case serves as little more than a promise on his part that he’s won’t actually implement any anti-life policies.

Considering this is the same guy who claimed:

1. The Senate bill maintains Hyde (this is a lie)
2. Promised to flush out all special interest from his administration (big lie)
3. End unnecessary partisanship (lie from day one)
4. Denouce partisan politics (huge lie, in many ways he’s worse that Rove)

 

[gurneyhalleck1]

And if keeping abortion out was that much of a priority, why couldn’t it have been actually put into the language of the bill rather than be put in an executive order?

It’s unenforceable because an executive order is not powerful enough to override the law… Basically the President can’t just make a declaration nullifying the anti-life aspects of the law. There for the executive order in this case serves as little more than a promise on his part that he’s won’t actually implement any anti-life policies.

Considering this is the same guy who claimed:

1. The Senate bill maintains Hyde (this is a lie)
2. Promised to flush out all special interest from his administration (big lie)
3. End unnecessary partisanship (lie from day one)
4. Denouce partisan politics (huge lie, in many ways he’s worse that Rove)

 

[4Squarebaby]

And if keeping abortion out was that much of a priority, why couldn’t it have been actually put into the language of the bill rather than be put in an executive order?

They couldn’t because it wasn’t a priority. In fact there are to sides and the priority went to those who wanted abortion funding. Come November 7, 2012 it is a lot easier to change an Executive Order then it is to change a law. Especially with the war protest voted in congress already back to the normal balance of power.

 

[gurneyhalleck1]

If they wanted the abortion language in the bill, they could’ve made it happen, pure and simple. But the Democratic Party is pro-abortion to a fault. They would’ve accomplished the “public option” if they had just been willing in round one to keep abortion OUT of the original bill. The Senate Democrats wouldn’t hear of it. Abortion is such a huge priority to Dems that they’d throw away the public option, the ultimate dream of the Left for decades, just to keep abortion in. Shows you where their hearts are.

They couldn’t because it wasn’t a priority. In fact there are to sides and the priority went to those who wanted abortion funding. Come November 7, 2012 it is a lot easier to change an Executive Order then it is to change a law. Especially with the war protest voted in congress already back to the normal balance of power.

 

[crazzeto]

If they wanted the abortion language in the bill, they could’ve made it happen, pure and simple. But the Democratic Party is pro-abortion to a fault. They would’ve accomplished the “public option” if they had just been willing in round one to keep abortion OUT of the original bill. The Senate Democrats wouldn’t hear of it. Abortion is such a huge priority to Dems that they’d throw away the public option, the ultimate dream of the Left for decades, just to keep abortion in. Shows you where their hearts are.

And I’ll out my self here, when it comes to health care Matthew 25 is my primary guiding princepal… So I wasn’t necessarly against a public option assuming there was a means to fund it. It really irked me that the public option was more expendable than abortion.

 

[larkin31]

And I’ll out my self here, when it comes to health care Matthew 25 is my primary guiding princepal… So I wasn’t necessarly against a public option assuming there was a means to fund it. It really irked me that the public option was more expendable than abortion.

Which part of Matthew 25? As you know, this chapter is read very differently depending on which part one focuses on and how one reads the parables.