Not voting for Obama - never, never, never in my long legged life!
As long as you vote for who you believe will be the best President of the United States you've done well Pressing. Vote your heart. But at the same time...we all should try not to ridicule or question the Christian faith of those who may not agree with us politically. I'm preaching to myself here too.
__________________
"For I know the plans I have for you, declares the LORD, plans for wholeness and not for evil, to give you a future and a hope." Jeremiah 29:11 (English Standard Version)
As long as you vote for who you believe will be the best President of the United States you've done well Pressing. Vote your heart. But at the same time...we all should try not to ridicule or question the Christian faith of those who may not agree with us politically. I'm preaching to myself here too.
I don't believe I have ever done that, Christopher. If I have then I need you to post the link.
Best to my recollection I just thought all Democrats were lacking whether Christian or not. I'm an equal opportunity evaluator!
I don't believe I have ever done that, Christopher. If I have then I need you to post the link.
Best to my recollection I just thought all Democrats were lacking whether Christian or not. I'm an equal opportunity evaluator!
I was speaking in general Pressing. LOL
__________________
"For I know the plans I have for you, declares the LORD, plans for wholeness and not for evil, to give you a future and a hope." Jeremiah 29:11 (English Standard Version)
Good points by Fred Barnes on Mitt being McCain's running mate.
According to his arguments, the Mittster been thoroughly vetted by the probing press in the course of his presidential campaign, and his strong performance in debates and on the stump highlights his skill as a formidable campaigner. His business background also helps in handling the crucial economic management issues where McCain himself claims little expertise. Finally, and most importantly, his record as a serious presidential contender, an internationally acclaimed Olympics savior, and a successfully governor creates no “stature gap”. No one in press or public would ask “Mitt Who?” with the sort of surprise and bewilderment with which they might respond to the choice of a lesser known sitting governor (Pawlenty, Sanford, Palin, Jindal, even Crist) as McCain’s Veep.
In view of Mitt Romney’s deft pivots on a wide range of issues as he geared up for his presidential run, there’s little doubt that he can re-adjust once again to back up McCain if he’s given a place on the ticket. They already agree on most of the big issues (conduct of the war, peace through strength, cutting taxes and spending, defending human life, protecting gun rights, and so forth). On other issues where there’s been disagreement between them (campaign finance reform, Guantanamo, immigration reform) Mitt can either agree to back up McCain’s positions or else remain silent.
Good points by Fred Barnes on Mitt being McCain's running mate.
According to his arguments, the Mittster been thoroughly vetted by the probing press in the course of his presidential campaign, and his strong performance in debates and on the stump highlights his skill as a formidable campaigner. His business background also helps in handling the crucial economic management issues where McCain himself claims little expertise. Finally, and most importantly, his record as a serious presidential contender, an internationally acclaimed Olympics savior, and a successfully governor creates no “stature gap”. No one in press or public would ask “Mitt Who?” with the sort of surprise and bewilderment with which they might respond to the choice of a lesser known sitting governor (Pawlenty, Sanford, Palin, Jindal, even Crist) as McCain’s Veep.
In view of Mitt Romney’s deft pivots on a wide range of issues as he geared up for his presidential run, there’s little doubt that he can re-adjust once again to back up McCain if he’s given a place on the ticket. They already agree on most of the big issues (conduct of the war, peace through strength, cutting taxes and spending, defending human life, protecting gun rights, and so forth). On other issues where there’s been disagreement between them (campaign finance reform, Guantanamo, immigration reform) Mitt can either agree to back up McCain’s positions or else remain silent.
Im old school. I think the best play is a southern governor. Crist is my pick.
Mitt has some solid postives. He makes a nice omage to the conservitives while not being overtly too far right.
__________________ If I do something stupid blame the Lortab!
Good points by Fred Barnes on Mitt being McCain's running mate.
According to his arguments, the Mittster been thoroughly vetted by the probing press in the course of his presidential campaign, and his strong performance in debates and on the stump highlights his skill as a formidable campaigner. His business background also helps in handling the crucial economic management issues where McCain himself claims little expertise. Finally, and most importantly, his record as a serious presidential contender, an internationally acclaimed Olympics savior, and a successfully governor creates no “stature gap”. No one in press or public would ask “Mitt Who?” with the sort of surprise and bewilderment with which they might respond to the choice of a lesser known sitting governor (Pawlenty, Sanford, Palin, Jindal, even Crist) as McCain’s Veep.
In view of Mitt Romney’s deft pivots on a wide range of issues as he geared up for his presidential run, there’s little doubt that he can re-adjust once again to back up McCain if he’s given a place on the ticket. They already agree on most of the big issues (conduct of the war, peace through strength, cutting taxes and spending, defending human life, protecting gun rights, and so forth). On other issues where there’s been disagreement between them (campaign finance reform, Guantanamo, immigration reform) Mitt can either agree to back up McCain’s positions or else remain silent.
This comes from Fred Barnes who is a warmonger and a neo-con! He is one of the gang of the far right who has no problem sending young men and women to fight in a war built on lies!
Barnes was a promoter and has been a continued supporter of the US war in Iraq. 3] He has been called the "Last Bush Loyalist" for his continued loyalty to George W. Bush by Slate.com columnist Timothy Noah.
__________________
Isaiah 53:5: "But he was wounded for our transgressions, he was bruised for our iniquities: the chastisement of our peace was upon him; and with his stripes we are healed."(KJV)
"God sends no one away empty except those who are full of themselves." Dwight L. Moody
This comes from Fred Barnes who is a warmonger and a neo-con! He is one of the gang of the far right who has no problem sending young men and women to fight in a war built on lies!
Barnes was a promoter and has been a continued supporter of the US war in Iraq. 3] He has been called the "Last Bush Loyalist" for his continued loyalty to George W. Bush by Slate.com columnist Timothy Noah.
first of all anyone who would quote Slate is either ignorant or a pure liar.
egads.
Madam, if you are going to call Fred Barnes a whoremonger, you had best provide documentation.
if it is the case then fine, but to date, I have never heard that.
and second, being called a Neo-Con is NO putdown as far as I am concerned.
In fact it is a compliment! LONG LIVE US NEO-CONS AND ALL THE OTHER CONS TOO!
__________________ If I do something stupid blame the Lortab!
This comes from Fred Barnes who is a warmonger and a neo-con! He is one of the gang of the far right who has no problem sending young men and women to fight in a war built on lies!
Barnes was a promoter and has been a continued supporter of the US war in Iraq. 3] He has been called the "Last Bush Loyalist" for his continued loyalty to George W. Bush by Slate.com columnist Timothy Noah.
Fred Barnes is the bomb! Very intelligent man! I love listening to him!!!!
Quote:
BARNES: Yeah, I doubt that she'll (Hillary) pick him. You know, I've thought for a long time that Obama's not in quite as strong a position on the war in Iraq as he really thinks he is. Remember, when he famously came out against the war, it was back in a time when the entire world believed that Saddam Hussein in Iraq had weapons of mass destruction, that he would probably be willing to use them himself at some time or pass them along to terrorists who would use them. And yet, Barack Obama was against going to the war at that point. I don't think that shows that he is very strong on national security, which he needs to be. But that argument's not going to be used against him in the Democratic primaries. It would, however, by Republicans in a general election.
Linear Mode
