Another reason NOT to vote for Obama

[DividedThigh]

Originally Posted by tstew

My problem is that I have seen enough of politicians' practices and lifestyles on both sides of the aisle to buy this deep moral indignation at homosexuality and abortion. My skepticism is strengthened by the fact that once in power, they do very little to get rid of them.
I guess what I'm saying is that if those of us on this forum who do feel strongly about these areas were ever in the position of power to do something about it (and in the majority), we probably would have done more.

It's just my opinion that they know they can roll those issues out there in word only, and secure our votes. Meanwhile I have no doubt that the corporate collusion and greed have infiltrated that party in almost unprecedented ways to the extent that it is affecting our lives in real and devastating ways and costing the lives of our children.
BTW I am not a Democrat...I want the Republican party to be what we hope it is...but I'm just starting to see a lot of things.

i never assumed you were bro, i understand your feelings and agree with you on many levels, i just know that judicial appts make a huge diff and it is one small way that can have huge effects going forward, with you all the way bro, dt

[tstew]

I'm almost to the point where I'm just feeling like we should elect politicians just based on how they will run the country and how secure our children will be. Then the church and parents will have to instill our values and our sense of morality. I say that not because I don't want a moral and Godly government, I say that because I'm becoming more and more convinced that we do not presently have moral and Godly options.... Maybe after some coffee I'll feel better.

[Ferd]

Originally Posted by ChristopherHall

Both parties are pro-abortion. Both parties are for civil unions. The only issue is that one party is lying about it and using religion to manipulate good people.

Originally Posted by tstew

Chris, I often wonder why this is not obvious to everybody. Republican politicians get away with paying lip service to these two issues to guarantee the Christian vote while not having to be accountable for doing anything about them nor anything else for that matter (to keep guaranteeing the vote). I strongly doubt most of them truly have strong Christian convictions in these areas or many other areas of their lives. It's not as if a Republican controlled White House and Senate have ever been close to erradicating either. If Mccain wins, I would wager that there would be no impact on the thousands of abortions and I'm sure there will still be homosexuality.
I look at this with the same sadness as I look at the token positions that enable the Democrats to guarantee the Black vote with very little effort, accountability, or scrutiny.

As it relates to Abortion, Chris is absolutly wrong. Either it is a case of ignorance or a case of willful misdirection.


As an American institution, Abortion is OUTSIDE of the political process. You could have 435 anti-aboriton members of the House and a 100 anti-abortion senators and an Anti-Abortion President and you wouldnt be able to get a law passed that would impact abortion.

Chris says that Republicans are for abortion and are lying about it? thats just nuts.

the fact is, it doesnt matter if Rs are for or against it, what matters is the president appoint Supreme Court Justices that will drive Abortion back into the political process!

The Dems certainly wont do that. No they appoint incompitants like Ginsburg who thinks everyone ought to get an abortion men, women and even potatos.

Voting for republicans means getting Justices that wont create law. That wont legislate from the bench.

THAT is what needs to happen. then let the political process take its course.

Dems dont want that because they would rather govern by Fiat.

[tstew]

Originally Posted by Ferd

As it relates to Abortion, Chris is absolutly wrong. Either it is a case of ignorance or a case of willful misdirection.


As an American institution, Abortion is OUTSIDE of the political process. You could have 435 anti-aboriton members of the House and a 100 anti-abortion senators and an Anti-Abortion President and you wouldnt be able to get a law passed that would impact abortion.

Chris says that Republicans are for abortion and are lying about it? thats just nuts.

the fact is, it doesnt matter if Rs are for or against it, what matters is the president appoint Supreme Court Justices that will drive Abortion back into the political process!

The Dems certainly wont do that. No they appoint incompitants like Ginsburg who thinks everyone ought to get an abortion men, women and even potatos.

Voting for republicans means getting Justices that wont create law. That wont legislate from the bench.

THAT is what needs to happen. then let the political process take its course.

Dems dont want that because they would rather govern by Fiat.

Ferd, I understand that. My point is that there is not a candidate who would ban abortion, and certainly not a Supreme Court that would.
My main point is that I am concerned about our nation being sold out and heading in the wrong direction. I don't like to see any politician given blind support based on what can easily be construed as token stances. Whether it is minority support of Dems or Christian support of Reps. Either way there is too much at stake. I am concerned about what our country will be like for the next generation.
The greatest asset in a democracy is accountability to the people...the best way to avoid accountability is to hang your hat on a few issues that people are very passionate about.

[ChristopherHall]

Originally Posted by HeavenlyOne

We don't throw ethics out the window for the better good, especially when it doesn't concern us.

Now, if it were an American soldier, I might throw ethics out, depending on the situation, but for someone that isn't American? Nope. Sorry. I won't throw out ethics related to my country because after all, I'm trying to save someone's life.

Carter is acting as a private individual who happens to have contacts in the American government, giving him some extra respect abroad. Nevertheless, Carter is a private citizen on a private errand to secure the release of an Israeli prisoner at the behest of that prisoner’s parents. This Israeli soldier is a human being. Perhaps if he were an unborn person you’d care. However, the Israeli soldier is a human being and his life is at stake. This isn’t a movie. It’s not a chess game. This isn’t a play. This isn’t an internet video on YouTube. This is a real person, a real father, a real husband, a real child of loving parents being held prisoner by a vicious enemy. What kind of Christian would look pleading parents in their tear filled eyes and say, “Sorry, I know I could go, but it would make me look bad politically and I risk making our country look bad. Sorry…you’re son will have to die. BUT, I’ll pray for y’all.”??? I would give a Christian like that a very quick lesson on ethics…a Christian is beholden to a HIGHER ethic, rules of a HIGHER Kingdom. Carter, a private citizen who is a Baptist Christian, is personally traveling to the other side of the planet to meet with very dangerous men to secure the release of a prisoner before they kill him. Carter isn’t afraid of what it will look like politically, he isn’t afraid of how it makes this earthly nation look. His concern is the life and well being of a human being who has no other hope. He can’t help them all…but this person’s parents laid this plight at his feet. Carter could have walked away and avoided the rants and condemnations of the right wing. Carter could have walked away and tried not to risk making Democrats look bad in an election year. But Carter is doing something I think takes far more guts than most are able to see. To save this person’s life he’s risking damaging his political clout with Israel, risking damaging the perception of the Democratic party in the eyes of the electorate in an election year, risking being lied to once more, risking embarrassing his own country…all to get a person home to their family. I think that’s commendable.

It all comes down to what matters most to you. To Carter…he feels he has to secure the release of this prisoner. For all I know advisors had repeatedly told him, “President Carter…this will look very bad. We advise you not get involved.” Yet maybe something deep down in his soul is propelling him. How do we know God isn’t leading this Baptist to get an Israeli free. Yes…God can use a Baptist to do what an army of soldier and a thousand bombs can never do. Look at it SPIRITUALLY and don’t be the pawn of the Right Wing.

Again, who is Carter that he could possibly do something that others have tried and failed to do, even in his own country?

Carter is a human being who counts himself a Christian…trying to secure the life and freedom of another human being who is a Jewish citizen of Israel. This soldier is of the seed of Abraham. I think Carter would be cursed if he told the soldier’s parents “no”.

And what does laying flowers on the grave of a terrorist have to do with securing the release of a prisoner?

Maybe I understand this because I was a three year French student and President of Colonel White H.S.’s International Club my Junior year. I was also involved with People to People International in a Soviet/American Student Youth Exchange program, though I couldn’t raise the money to go, I still had gone to all the meetings. I remember being told how to react when eating with foreign peoples. Never turn down the food no matter how gross it appears to you, EAT IT. Don’t cough it up or spit it out. When shown pictures of family members praise them and compliment them, if they are deceased speak the absolute best of them. It’s about respect. When Carter lays down flowers on the grave of a terrorist, remember, in the eyes of the Palestinians and the Hamas he’s not a terrorist, but a a martyred “freedom fighter”. By laying flowers on the man’s grave Cater is showing deep respect not only to the dead, but to those who loved him including his Hamas superiors and his family. Such a gesture is no doubt aimed at showing them that he respects them as a people and wishes them no harm, his mission is only to secure the prisoner.

My God…Bush has utterly twisted any notion of civility and ambassadorship among Conservatives. Dear Lord I fear for us.

[ChristopherHall]

Originally Posted by tstew

Chris, I often wonder why this is not obvious to everybody. Republican politicians get away with paying lip service to these two issues to guarantee the Christian vote while not having to be accountable for doing anything about them nor anything else for that matter (to keep guaranteeing the vote). I strongly doubt most of them truly have strong Christian convictions in these areas or many other areas of their lives. It's not as if a Republican controlled White House and Senate have ever been close to erradicating either. If Mccain wins, I would wager that there would be no impact on the thousands of abortions and I'm sure there will still be homosexuality.
I look at this with the same sadness as I look at the token positions that enable the Democrats to guarantee the Black vote with very little effort, accountability, or scrutiny.

Amen. But the partisan ideologues will swear that we have to elect a Republican because of gay marriage and abortion. Honestly, the jokes on them.

[ChristopherHall]

Originally Posted by DividedThigh

tstew my friend there will always be homosexuals, but we dont have to condone there behavior by giving them normal marriage priveleges, and also if mccain does win he promises to nominate conservative judges that will help in the battle against abortion, i believe that judges are a big deal because many issues that the liberals cant get done in the congress they turn to the judiciary to see if it cant be rammed down our throats, just my honest opinions, smile, dt

dt…I don’t want to say you don’t know what you’re talking about…but you don’t know what you’re talking about.

McCain never promised to nominate “conservative” judges that will help in the battle against abortion. He was repeatedly asked if a judge’s position on abortion would have ANY importance in being nominated. McCain offered the political answer that he wouldn’t ask how a judge would rule on a case. They even drilled him as to if he would even review the judge’s record on the issue and he argued that he wouldn’t, McCain said anyone can take this as they want to, but he’d only seek “strict constructionist” judges. That’s code language. Obama has said outright that he would appoint judges respecting a woman’s right to choose. The Republican base is Pro-Life. Why in Heaven would McCain refrain from saying clearly that he would consider a judge’s position on abortion and respect for life, though not make it a litmus test like Reagan did? I’ll tell you why…McCain has no intention of making such a promise or implication because he doesn’t intend on nominating a justice who will address abortion. Why? Because Republicans need the abortion issue as an issue to use in elections. There are devout Catholics who would vote Democratic if the issue were resolved…but with the abortion issue on the table they lock in many folks. It’s a tool to manipulate religious people who are too gullible to realize that they’re being manipulated. While we disagree with Obama on the issue…Obama is being truthful McCain is trying to pull a fast one.

The majority of judges Republicans nominate aren’t focused on issues of civil liberties…but rather corporate law. Corporations need a justice system that rules in their favor over individuals. For example, Home Depot is a notable offender. Home Depot has approached local governments and requested that these governments use immanent domain powers to take private property and land from individual home owners and small businesses so that they can develop it into massive retail outlets. Since taxes have been cut so low most state governments and municipalities are hurting for revenue. When presenting the case to local and state governments Home Depot and other massive companies underscore how much additional tax revenue will be generated with a massive retail outlet over a few homes on an expanse of land. They governments have often decided that it was in the community’s best interest and excersized their rights of immenent domain and taken land from private citizens to give it to companies like Home Depot. Then it goes to court. Guess who the companies want on the courts? Here’s the code, “Strict CONSTRUCTIONist judges.” And when a company wants to begin developing a tract of protected forest or wetland…guess who they want on the courts? Again, “Strict CONSTRUCTIONist judges.” It’s not about values…it’s about corporate power vs. the people.

When it comes to “marriage” we’re in a difficult position. Does one believe in religious freedom to practice their own religion? What if the Episcopal church sanctions such unions? Do we say they don’t have a right to practice their religion? Also you have the issue of civil rights. Two sovereign adult citizens desiring to marry. Do you deny them that right under the law?

BUT…most importantly in regards to the civil union issue we never hear about what’s fueling the gay marriage movement. CORPORATIONS have increasingly given “domestic partner benefits” to gay and unmarried couples. When CORPORATIONS began offering gay employees “domestic partner benefits” the issue of benefits brought up the question of civil rights. While gay couples shared medical insurance and life insurance, they were often denied various liberties by the state leading to litigation. For example, a gay couple might share health and life insurance through a company one of them works for…but when one of them is dying the other partner doesn’t have the rights of a spouse in relation to various details. Often families of dead gays have sued the other gay person who was signed as a beneficiary claiming that they had no right to benefits. These gay people began to feel if they are signed on for benefits through these companies they should have all the rights of a legally married couple…enter, the battle for gay marriage. Thank the CORPORATIONS and businesses that opened this Pandora’s Box!

Most folks don't know enough about this stuff.

[ChristopherHall]

Ferd…7 out of 9 justices were appointed by Pro-Life Republican Presidents and the SCOTUS has done little about abortion. Do you think 8 out of 9 will do it? Or 9 out of 9? And then aren’t you concerned with any of their other positions? Like are they pro-business over civil rights? Do they feel Wal-Mart or Home Depot has a greater right to your property than you do? Do they believe private communications companies have a right to disclose your communication records to the government? Would they rule I favor of warrantless wiretapping?

Here’s the deal…what are you willing to sacrifice in your pursuit of this issue?

If they do allow abortion to be banned…what will be the penalty? No court in the land will prosecute a woman or a doctor for abortion and send them to prison. What will be won after all this money is spent, all this effort is used, and all these corporate puppets have secured a one party Corporatocracy in the US?

[DividedThigh]

Originally Posted by ChristopherHall

dt…I don’t want to say you don’t know what you’re talking about…but you don’t know what you’re talking about.

McCain never promised to nominate “conservative” judges that will help in the battle against abortion. He was repeatedly asked if a judge’s position on abortion would have ANY importance in being nominated. McCain offered the political answer that he wouldn’t ask how a judge would rule on a case. They even drilled him as to if he would even review the judge’s record on the issue and he argued that he wouldn’t, McCain said anyone can take this as they want to, but he’d only seek “strict constructionist” judges. That’s code language. Obama has said outright that he would appoint judges respecting a woman’s right to choose. The Republican base is Pro-Life. Why in Heaven would McCain refrain from saying clearly that he would consider a judge’s position on abortion and respect for life, though not make it a litmus test like Reagan did? I’ll tell you why…McCain has no intention of making such a promise or implication because he doesn’t intend on nominating a justice who will address abortion. Why? Because Republicans need the abortion issue as an issue to use in elections. There are devout Catholics who would vote Democratic if the issue were resolved…but with the abortion issue on the table they lock in many folks. It’s a tool to manipulate religious people who are too gullible to realize that they’re being manipulated. While we disagree with Obama on the issue…Obama is being truthful McCain is trying to pull a fast one.

The majority of judges Republicans nominate aren’t focused on issues of civil liberties…but rather corporate law. Corporations need a justice system that rules in their favor over individuals. For example, Home Depot is a notable offender. Home Depot has approached local governments and requested that these governments use immanent domain powers to take private property and land from individual home owners and small businesses so that they can develop it into massive retail outlets. Since taxes have been cut so low most state governments and municipalities are hurting for revenue. When presenting the case to local and state governments Home Depot and other massive companies underscore how much additional tax revenue will be generated with a massive retail outlet over a few homes on an expanse of land. They governments have often decided that it was in the community’s best interest and excersized their rights of immenent domain and taken land from private citizens to give it to companies like Home Depot. Then it goes to court. Guess who the companies want on the courts? Here’s the code, “Strict CONSTRUCTIONist judges.” And when a company wants to begin developing a tract of protected forest or wetland…guess who they want on the courts? Again, “Strict CONSTRUCTIONist judges.” It’s not about values…it’s about corporate power vs. the people.

When it comes to “marriage” we’re in a difficult position. Does one believe in religious freedom to practice their own religion? What if the Episcopal church sanctions such unions? Do we say they don’t have a right to practice their religion? Also you have the issue of civil rights. Two sovereign adult citizens desiring to marry. Do you deny them that right under the law?

BUT…most importantly in regards to the civil union issue we never hear about what’s fueling the gay marriage movement. CORPORATIONS have increasingly given “domestic partner benefits” to gay and unmarried couples. When CORPORATIONS began offering gay employees “domestic partner benefits” the issue of benefits brought up the question of civil rights. While gay couples shared medical insurance and life insurance, they were often denied various liberties by the state leading to litigation. For example, a gay couple might share health and life insurance through a company one of them works for…but when one of them is dying the other partner doesn’t have the rights of a spouse in relation to various details. Often families of dead gays have sued the other gay person who was signed as a beneficiary claiming that they had no right to benefits. These gay people began to feel if they are signed on for benefits through these companies they should have all the rights of a legally married couple…enter, the battle for gay marriage. Thank the CORPORATIONS and businesses that opened this Pandora’s Box!

Most folks don't know enough about this stuff.

i will say this one thing to you, chris you in my opinion are immature and full of answers for questions that no one is asking, kind of like my son, but just so you know mccain has promised a couple times to appoint conservative judges, now do me a favor and dont address me again, that way i will have peace, and you can do whatever it is you do, good grief, dt

[Ferd]

Originally Posted by ChristopherHall

Ferd…7 out of 9 justices were appointed by Pro-Life Republican Presidents and the SCOTUS has done little about abortion. Do you think 8 out of 9 will do it? Or 9 out of 9? And then aren’t you concerned with any of their other positions? Like are they pro-business over civil rights? Do they feel Wal-Mart or Home Depot has a greater right to your property than you do? Do they believe private communications companies have a right to disclose your communication records to the government? Would they rule I favor of warrantless wiretapping?

Here’s the deal…what are you willing to sacrifice in your pursuit of this issue?

If they do allow abortion to be banned…what will be the penalty? No court in the land will prosecute a woman or a doctor for abortion and send them to prison. What will be won after all this money is spent, all this effort is used, and all these corporate puppets have secured a one party Corporatocracy in the US?

To suggest that Gerald Ford was anti abortion is likely a strech. Stevens is as bad as ginsburg. and Suter was a mistake. Kennedy was more conservitive early on and moved to the center. so now we have 4 good guys in Thomas, Scalia, Roberts and Alito.

I dont know exactly what McCain will do but I know exactly what Obama will do. Obama will give us two Ginsburgs.

if McCain gives us two Kennedy's we wont have the abortion issue back in the political process, but things over all will be far better than the idiots Obama would give us.

I dont want the supreme court to outlaw Aboriton. I want the supreme court to say they dont control it and thus the legislature will have to decide.

the issue isnt outlawing abortion, the issue is driving the law making process back to the legislature.