Actually what he is doing it would seem is playing both sides for a vote.
Not true across the board. What is happening is that we have a large group of people who are what they are by choice, by association, by abuse, to name a few.
We cannot, as a nation, stand on our First Amendment rights for only those we agree with. As the First Amendment has been abused in so many ways for so many divergent views, choices and lifestyles we turn to God, take care of our own hearts and keep walking.
As much as we cannot "clean up" a sinner that walks through our doors, the Government cannot and should not be allowed to form everyone into their view and box.
The church is becoming a greater force in this world than what we are giving it credit for, remembering, II Timothy 1:12 "For the which cause I also suffer these things: nevertheless I am not ashamed: for I know whom I have believed, and am persuaded that he is able to keep that which I have committed unto him against that day."
You vote for the one closest to your beliefs or what you want direction you most want the country to go - it's all you can do!
Or we can decide that we will not vote for any person who will not govern by the things that are important to us. Let the GOP put that in their pipe for a little while and they will not take your vote for granted...or you can elect someone else who will govern by the ideals that are important to us.
As much as I dislike extremely liberal politicians, I will give them credit for actually governing according to the wishes of their supporters (even if their supporters are in the minority concerning an issue. You can also rest assured that anyone who does not expressly promise to uphold those things that the liberals deem important will not get their vote.
__________________
There are no weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, Chuck Norris lives in Houston.
Either the United States will destroy ignorance, or ignorance will destroy the United States. – W.E.B. DuBois
Or we can decide that we will not vote for any person who will not govern by the things that are important to us. Let the GOP put that in their pipe for a little while and they will not take your vote for granted...or you can elect someone else who will govern by the ideals that are important to us.
As much as I dislike extremely liberal politicians, I will give them credit for actually governing according to the wishes of their supporters (even if their supporters are in the minority concerning an issue. You can also rest assured that anyone who does not expressly promise to uphold those things that the liberals deem important will not get their vote.
My brutha from unutha mutha - you are broadbrushing!!!
That happens in both parties. Did you see how Dobson was going to pull out and had the whole Christian community on his side. That, alone, may have rattled McCain to stand for what he really wanted to do because he saw what his base was really about.
Or we can decide that we will not vote for any person who will not govern by the things that are important to us. Let the GOP put that in their pipe for a little while and they will not take your vote for granted...or you can elect someone else who will govern by the ideals that are important to us.
As much as I dislike extremely liberal politicians, I will give them credit for actually governing according to the wishes of their supporters (even if their supporters are in the minority concerning an issue. You can also rest assured that anyone who does not expressly promise to uphold those things that the liberals deem important will not get their vote.
I can understand taking that approach, but I don't believe it helps or that it will change the way things are done.
__________________
Master of Science in Applied Disgruntled Religious Theorist Wrangling
PhD in Petulant Tantrum Quelling
Dean of the School of Hard Knocks
My brutha from unutha mutha - you are broadbrushing!!!
That happens in both parties. Did you see how Dobson was going to pull out and had the whole Christian community on his side. That, alone, may have rattled McCain to stand for what he really wanted to do because he saw what his base was really about.
Put down that brush before we beat you with it!!!
Just calling it like I see it. ...and it doesn't happen in both parties. They would never elect someone who was not for civil unions.
__________________
There are no weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, Chuck Norris lives in Houston.
Either the United States will destroy ignorance, or ignorance will destroy the United States. – W.E.B. DuBois
We would not elect someone who was for gay marriage. What is the difference?
They are both standing their ground on some issues basic to their party line.
I have not seen McCain as wanting to oppose civil unions at the level of government where he would be serving as President, but for me that Dems are more proactive in pushing their complete agenda when they are actually in office.
__________________
There are no weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, Chuck Norris lives in Houston.
Either the United States will destroy ignorance, or ignorance will destroy the United States. – W.E.B. DuBois
I have not seen McCain as wanting to oppose civil unions at the level of government where he would be serving as President, but for me that Dems are more proactive in pushing their complete agenda when they are actually in office.
How can he oppose such a large group of people and their lifestyle? How can we as Republicans. We'd certainly be classified as Ultra-Con-Republicans then. Boy, what a gasket to blow on that one.
We have defined marriage as between one man and woman simply on fact of procreation.
The Dems want both. I vote Repbublican because we can't force gays to go straight, but we can try to make sense that they cannot procreate.
What is the marriage deal for them then? They already get all the rights afforded a married couple in this country, so the point on marriage is for procreation.
How can he oppose such a large group of people and their lifestyle? How can we as Republicans. We'd certainly be classified as Ultra-Con-Republicans then. Boy, what a gasket to blow on that one.
We have defined marriage as between one man and woman simply on fact of procreation.
The Dems want both. I vote Repbublican because we can't force gays to go straight, but we can try to make sense that they cannot procreate.
What is the marriage deal for them then? They already get all the rights afforded a married couple in this country, so the point on marriage is for procreation.
PO, I'm not sure that I follow you here , but I will say that they currently do not get all the rights afforded to a married couple and that that is one of the things that Obama wants to do on a Federal level.
Maybe the issue that I pulled out of the air was not the best example, but I was just making the point that Republicans seem to be more willing to elect someone who is not necessarily pledging the action that we want to see in key areas than Democrats.
And if we're not going to "oppose such a large group of people and their lifestyles:, why is gay rights one of the major things we hear people talk about during the election cycle?
I've gotta run though...
__________________
There are no weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, Chuck Norris lives in Houston.
Either the United States will destroy ignorance, or ignorance will destroy the United States. – W.E.B. DuBois
...and it doesn't happen in both parties. They would never elect someone who was not for civil unions.
Linear Mode
