Say What, Barrack?

[DividedThigh]

i never justify there behavior, sometimes i have to when it comes to politics hold my nose and vote for the one that will protect my rights and my pocket book, things like not raising taxes and not condoning the killing of innocents, but i also know that this is not a perfect world, i must maintain my code of conduct which is established in scripture, personally, i do actually wish the world were perfect, but alas, it aint, lol,dt

[Ferd]

if McCain tells a big fat one I will be inclined to ignor it.

[ChristopherHall]

Originally Posted by DividedThigh

i never justify there behavior, sometimes i have to when it comes to politics hold my nose and vote for the one that will protect my rights and my pocket book, things like not raising taxes and not condoning the killing of innocents, but i also know that this is not a perfect world, i must maintain my code of conduct which is established in scripture, personally, i do actually wish the world were perfect, but alas, it aint, lol,dt

Be of good cheer DT, the world may not be perfect right now…but one day it will be when Jesus returns.

I agree. When I vote I’m typically holding my nose too.

I also vote for those who I believe will protect my pocket book from ever increasing costs. Here’s my angle, last year in the private sector I would have paid $4,200.00 in health care premiums (that doesn’t include co-pays or prescriptions). In Canada, after my taxes and negotiated premium was paid I would have only paid $2,280.00 for the same coverage. O would have taken home an additional $1,920.00. In my mind, that’s protecting my pocket book and allowing me to keep more of my own money. All that extra money I would have paid in our current system would have gone to fit the bill for those without insurance here in the US. Why should I pay their bill while they pay nothing? At least in Canada they would also be paying something into the system in the form of taxation. All pay into the system…as opposed to the insured carrying everyone like we see here. That’s one example of why I side with the Democrats on this issue.

But when it comes to my rights, I don’t trust either of the two parties. With the “hate speech” laws and Patriot Act, I can’t bring myself to trust either one. As the nation goes back and forth with the parties, we’re going to loose all our civil liberties as they reign us in from both sides. That’s my opinion.

My position on abortion is the same. The Republicans talk the talk but don’t do enough to make a significant change. The Democrats would keep abortion legal. So the question becomes which party’s policies will tend to reduce the abortion rate? Abortion rates are significantly higher among those who live near or below the poverty level. Also abortion rates are higher among families who experience joblessness and have no health insurance, regardless to legality. So do we look at the party who promises to make abortion illegal on the books without significantly relieving the factors that appear to contribute to the abortion rate or do we vote for the party that might address the issues that contribute to the abortion rate but would keep it legal on the books? It’s like comparing Belgium with Chile. Belgium has liberalized abortion laws but the lowest abortion rate per every 1000 pregnancies while Chile has one of the highest abortion rates per every 1000 pregnancies in spite of increased restrictions. In fact, if one looks into Chilean politics, this is a motivating factor for Chile’s liberalization among segments of Chilean Catholics. I know it’s counter intuitive…but when I vote I feel it’s something to consider. How do we really define progress on the issue; rates or legalities? If one is concerned primarily with legality certainly the Republicans appear to talk the talk…the question is…when will they finally deliver? They had the majority and did very little compared to what they could have done. If it’s abortion rates, do we trust the Democrats to address the socioeconomic factors that contribute to the abortion rate?

Frankly, I don’t trust either party on the issue. I think the issue is a fabricated psychological tool to manipulate the religious and feminist voters and both parties will do very little to address the issue because both need it alive to motivate a voting block they depend upon.

So, as a Christian, I feel both parties fail terribly and aren’t worthy of supporting. But I’ve realized this one thing…most Christians who vote for one of these parties do so for the “good” they believe the party will do, not for the “bad”. That’s why I’ve always told folks who said they were Democrats to be the best Democrats they could…and if a person was a Republican to be the best Republican they could. But increasingly I’m finding it more and more difficult to be a good Democrat or Republican. These parties are just part of the machine that’s destroying this country and dividing us…and we don’t gain from their progress…they and their corporate backers (both on the left and the right) do.

This is why I found it noteworthy that some Christians such as some Mennonites and Anabaptists find it un-Christian to vote and participate in this world’s political system.

[ChristopherHall]

Originally Posted by Ferd

if McCain tells a big fat one I will be inclined to ignor it.

I can understand that. Most who feel loyalty to a particular party will do that. I know too much about McCain to support him. For example, on Apr 7, 2008, McCain Voted Against $19 Billion for Military Hospitals and veterans benefits, thereby choosing to protect tax cuts over better serving those sacrificing their health and limbs for our country. I don’t get that.

But at the same time, I’ve been an Obama supporter because I felt his approach was more positive and he appeared to be a different breed of Democrat. Obama is very pro-faith and his policies are better for middle class America and small independent businesses (my uncle owns a car customizing shop and is big on Obama because of this). But increasingly I’m finding myself at odds with Obama. I was prepared to accept that I disagreed with him on abortion and gay rights, thinking that if his policies will restore federal block grants to local governments and stabilize the costs of health insurance I could support him. But with everything that I’m hearing here and there, I’m increasingly finding myself at odds. If I vote for him, it won’t be because I’m so much a big supporter…it will be a protest vote to slap a Republican Party that manipulated my faith to get my vote.

But the beliefs of some Christian churches that voting is not something a Christian shouldn’t be involved in are interesting. Neither party can save us. The Bible says things will get worse and worse ushering in the Great Tribulation…so why delude ourselves into thinking that our vote will even matter? Do we serve God by voting or do we serve ourselves? Do we take a stand for the Kingdom of God when we vote or are we acquiescing to the worldly power of this world’s political system? Factor in what can happen if people you know who don’t believe in your views find out your politics…does it bring unity to the body?

Those are just some thoughts I’ve had recently. What would be the 100% Christian thing to do?

[Fiyahstarter]

Originally Posted by pelathais

Great points, Fiyahstarter. Good job on the historical research.

Thanks, but not to my credit.

This article was written by a Paul Hollrah...

I'm just passing it along (for Bro. Chris...tic)

[Kings Kid]

Originally Posted by Fiyahstarter

Say What, Barrack?
By Paul R. Hollrah

Tuning in to C-Span recently, I found myself listening to a speech by Senator Barrack Hussein Obama, Jr. He was standing in the pulpit of a black church in Selma, Alabama, and as I studied the body language of the dozen or so black ministers standing behind the senator, I couldn't help but be reminded of the little head-bobbing dolls that people used to place in the rear windows of their 1957 Chevrolets. If their reactions are any indication, the new "Schlickmeister" of the Democrat Party is actually a pretty accomplished public speaker.

However, as he spoke, I found my b.s. alarm going off, repeatedly. But I couldn't quite figure out why until I actually read excerpts of his speech several days later. Here's part of what he said:

"...something happened back here in Selma, Alabama. Something happened in Birmingham that sent out what Bobby Kennedy called, "ripples of hope all around the world." Something happened when a bunch of women decided they were going to walk instead of ride the bus after a long day of doing somebody else's laundry, looking after somebody else's children.

"When (black) men who had PhD's decided 'that's enough' and 'we're going to stand up for our dignity,' that sent a shout across oceans so that my grandfather began to imagine something different for his son. His son, who grew up herding goats in a small village in Africa could suddenly set his sights a little higher and believe that maybe a black man in this world had a chance.

"So the Kennedy's decided we're going to do an airlift. We're going to go to Africa and start bringing young Africans over to this country and give them scholarships to study so they can learn what a wonderful country
America is.

"This young man named Barack Obama got one of those tickets and came over to this country. He met this woman whose great great-great-great- grandfather had owned slaves; but she had a good idea there was some craziness going on because they looked at each other and they decid ed that we know that, (in) the world as it has been, it might not be possible for us to get together and have a child. There was something stirring across the country because of what happened in Selma, Alabama, because some folks are willing to march across a bridge. So they got together and Barack Obama Jr. Was born. So don't tell me I don't have a claim on Selma , Alabama. Don't tell me I'm not coming home to Selma, Alabama."


Okay, so what's wrong with that? It all sounds good. But is it?

Obama told his audience that, because some folks had the courage to "march across a bridge" in Selma, Alabama, his mother, a white woman from Kansas, and his father, a black Muslim from Africa, took heart. It gave them the courage to get married and have a child. The problem with that characterization is that Barrack Obama, Jr, was born on August 4, 1961, while the first of three marches across that bridge in Selma didn't occur until March 7, 1965, at least five years after Obama's parents met.

Obama went on to tell his audience that the Kennedys, Jack and Bobby, decided to do an airlift. They would bring some young Africans over so that they could be educated and learn all about America. His grandfather heard that call and sent his son, Barrack Obama, Sr., to America.

The problem with that scenario is that, having been born in August 1961, the future senator was not conceived until sometime in November 1960. So if this African grandfather heard words that ''sent a shout across oceans,'' inspiring him to send his goat-herder son to America, it was not a Democrat Jack Kennedy he heard, nor his brother Bobby, it was a Republican President, Dwight D. Eisenhower.

Obama's speech is reminiscent of Al Gore's claim of having invented the Internet, Hillary Clinton's claim of having been named after the first man to climb Mt. Everest, even though she was born five years and seven months before Sir Edmund climbed the mountain, and John Kerry's imaginary trip to Cambodia.

As one of my black friends, Eddie Huff, has said, "We need to ask some very serious questions of the senator from Illinois. It's not enough to be black, it's not enough to be articulate, and it's not enough to be eloquent and a media darling. The only question will be how deaf an ear, or how blind an eye, will people turn in order to turn a frog into a prince."

Sounds like he could be suffering from selective amneisa.

[ChristopherHall]

Originally Posted by Kings Kid

Sounds like he could be suffering from selective amneisa.

We still call it "lying" in Ohio.

[Kings Kid]

Originally Posted by ChristopherHall

We still call it "lying" in Ohio.

I do to.