barracuda Posted August 22, 2008 Share Posted August 22, 2008 Because humans are the constituents and a significant number of them are emotional, irrational, fundamentally flawed, pathetic, small-minded little creatures.You must have a lot of enemies. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KinkaidAlum Posted August 22, 2008 Share Posted August 22, 2008 Here's my deal with the other night;Why in the world are we having a Faith-based conversation at a national level? Is this the country we've become? We're at war. We've got a deficit out of control. We've got record foreclosures and the economy in most states is abysmal. Just this week, multiple blasts in Afghanistan have killed tons of people. And yet, we're asking our next potential leaders what accepting Jesus Christ means to them and whether or not a human life is created when someone dumps some sperm on an egg! Un-friggin-believable.Secondly, why are people acting like this was a debate? It wasn't. It was a conversation with a moderator. The fact that McCain treated it like a debate and didn't open up beyond party soundbites further cemented my opinion of him. While many have said McCain came across more pwerfully, I think Obama's careful deliberation and obvious though-processing was rather enjoyable. Considering it was a CONVERSATION, I know which one I'd rather speak with... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ricco67 Posted August 22, 2008 Share Posted August 22, 2008 Obama-Bayh 08??Looks like some printed material are being made with this. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheNiche Posted August 22, 2008 Share Posted August 22, 2008 You must have a lot of enemies.Not really. Just pawns in the game. Lots and lots and lots of pawns. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lockmat Posted August 22, 2008 Share Posted August 22, 2008 Here's my deal with the other night;Why in the world are we having a Faith-based conversation at a national level? Is this the country we've become? We're at war. We've got a deficit out of control. We've got record foreclosures and the economy in most states is abysmal. Just this week, multiple blasts in Afghanistan have killed tons of people. And yet, we're asking our next potential leaders what accepting Jesus Christ means to them and whether or not a human life is created when someone dumps some sperm on an egg! Un-friggin-believable.Secondly, why are people acting like this was a debate? It wasn't. It was a conversation with a moderator. The fact that McCain treated it like a debate and didn't open up beyond party soundbites further cemented my opinion of him. While many have said McCain came across more pwerfully, I think Obama's careful deliberation and obvious though-processing was rather enjoyable. Considering it was a CONVERSATION, I know which one I'd rather speak with...Become?People of the past actually cared about a solid world view and good morals. Our society is becoming more and more immoral and screwed up, and to know where someone stands morally is a bad thing?Seems like backwards thinking to me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TJones Posted August 22, 2008 Share Posted August 22, 2008 See, as the token hispanic on this system, I can say that somebody that speak spanish doesn't automatically get my vote. There has to be more behind that voice than a dialect.There is also the fact that "certain" candidates go out of the way to "please" the brown vote instead of doing what's right gets on my nerves. signed, The Brown dude. And another thing, they should make it mandatory that once they throw their hat in the ring, that they should announce who the running mate will be. All this dancing and selecting a VP gets on my nerves. Pick a VP that you believe in from the start, just not who you believe is "useful" when you get the nomination. If I knew who the VP's WOULD be, that would allow for a more informed vote. Dear Browndude, perhaps this will shed a little light for you as to WHY Presidential hopefuls wait until really close to their conventions to pick a VeeP. So, if Obama had picked John Edwards as a running mate, where do you think the "anointed one" would be now ? (see why they wait?) Now, there is whisper that Obama is gonna pick some no name Texas rep. ? I think Obama needs to think a little harder on that one, and quit being Pelosi's puppet. Obama needs to realize WHO he will be leaving in charge if something happens to him since he can't leave the Presidency to his wife or one of his spiritual leaders like Jeremiah Wright. Obama-Bayh 08??Looks like some printed material are being made with this. Should be Obama-OyVey '08 ....but calm down, "Officials said the Obama campaign had taken the trouble to print material bearing the names of several potential ticketmates — thereby minimizing the significance of a report that a printing company in Kansas was churning out signs bearing Bayh's name." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
barracuda Posted August 23, 2008 Share Posted August 23, 2008 Become?People of the past actually cared about a solid world view and good morals. Our society is becoming more and more immoral and screwed up, and to know where someone stands morally is a bad thing?Seems like backwards thinking to me.I agree we need to understand a candidates moral boundaries, but we don't need a religious forum to illustrate it. You can look at the candidates history and personal life to determine this. For example, you might say that a candidate that leaves his first wife for a hotter, younger, wealthier girl after the first wife becomes disabled in an auto accident shows a lack of morals. You don't need to be religious to be moral; in fact, it seems like organized religion is the one frequently involved in scandals related to a lack of ethics or morals. These religious-political forums also confer an idea that we have an established religion in America, which of course is prohibited by the first amendment. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HtownWxBoy Posted August 23, 2008 Share Posted August 23, 2008 MSNBC is reporting Bayh has been informed he is NOT the VP pick for Obama... they printed up stuff w/ several names as VP to keep people guessing... smart. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RedScare Posted August 23, 2008 Share Posted August 23, 2008 Become?People of the past actually cared about a solid world view and good morals. Our society is becoming more and more immoral and screwed up, and to know where someone stands morally is a bad thing?Seems like backwards thinking to me.I would disagree with the belief that morals in the past were superior to today's morals. They were identical. Read up on your history of western boomtowns, US settlement practices in regards to the native inhabitants, US practices in regard to ownership of human workers, and the origin of the term, Oklahoma Sooner.I would, however, agree that HYPOCRISY regarding morals in the 21st Century is at an all-time high. Evidence of such was on full display at the "conversation". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheNiche Posted August 23, 2008 Share Posted August 23, 2008 Why in the world are we having a Faith-based conversation at a national level? Is this the country we've become?Whether you like it or not doesn't mean that the influence of religion on cultural norms and ultimately on policy and laws is a recent phenomenon or that it is going away. If anything, we've backed off from that in the last several decades. And for all the imperfections that remain, I think its good that we're making progress in that direction.Secondly, why are people acting like this was a debate? It wasn't. It was a conversation with a moderator. The fact that McCain treated it like a debate and didn't open up beyond party soundbites further cemented my opinion of him. While many have said McCain came across more pwerfully, I think Obama's careful deliberation and obvious though-processing was rather enjoyable. Considering it was a CONVERSATION, I know which one I'd rather speak with...It was a kind of interview format with challenging questions and a moderator that didn't want to hear stump speeches. Closer to debate than to a speech, then. I've seen Obama do interviews/conversations before where the interviewer gives tough questions, and although he has performed better in the past than he did this time, his answers are pretty consistently dodgy. Perhaps it is not enough to say that debating is not his strong suit; interactivity is the problem. He just comes off as a lawyer making and defending his case, holding a few very important cards near the vest, and playing to 51% of a jury. Not a true believer...at least in anything that anybody knows about. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RedScare Posted August 23, 2008 Share Posted August 23, 2008 Not a true believer...at least in anything that anybody knows about.Neither is McCain...except that war is the answer to all foreign policy questions. He has changed his position on everything else. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BryanS Posted August 23, 2008 Share Posted August 23, 2008 MSNBC is reporting Bayh has been informed he is NOT the VP pick for Obama... they printed up stuff w/ several names as VP to keep people guessing... smart. Good. He had bad hair. Reminded me of Edwards... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lockmat Posted August 23, 2008 Share Posted August 23, 2008 I don't really see the big deal. It's not as if it took time away from other potential debates. Those will still be had. What's wrong with another perspective? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheNiche Posted August 23, 2008 Share Posted August 23, 2008 I agree we need to understand a candidates moral boundaries, but we don't need a religious forum to illustrate it.These religious-political forums also confer an idea that we have an established religion in America, which of course is prohibited by the first amendment.So when Obama took a fairly hawkish foreign policy position when speaking to APAC (sucking up to militant pro-Israel Jews), you might be led to believe that he was not in fact playing to a unified constituency but conferring the idea that Judaism is the established religion in America and, furthermore, that his actions were unconstitutional? No. That's crazy. And if a candidate can address APAC, there is no good reason that they should avoid a Christian special interest group; there's even less good reason to think that speaking to them is some kind of a government endorsement of their religion.Candidates do not accept to take part in religious forums to demonstrate their morality. They do so to reach an audience. They are acting as politicians that recognize how important religion is to many prospective voters. And whether someone that is not religious and a-moral (like myself) agrees or not with the policy that these people would like to implement or even likes these voters or hates their guts, I do not believe that it would be in the public's interest to prevent politicians from talking about religion or targeting voters that have religious interests at heart--I think that would doing so would serve my own personal interests but defeat the purpose of the First Amendment as a mechanism for protecting free thought. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wernicke Posted August 23, 2008 Share Posted August 23, 2008 It is Obama-Biden... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RedScare Posted August 23, 2008 Share Posted August 23, 2008 It is Obama-Biden... I'd pick Joe Biden on this quote alone... Or, if you prefer the Family Guy version... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KinkaidAlum Posted August 23, 2008 Share Posted August 23, 2008 I don't really see the big deal. It's not as if it took time away from other potential debates. Those will still be had. What's wrong with another perspective?As other posters have already pointed out...read the CONSTITUTION.If I wanted to live in a theocracy, I'd move to Saudi Arabia. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TJones Posted August 23, 2008 Share Posted August 23, 2008 As other posters have already pointed out...read the CONSTITUTION.If I wanted to live in a theocracy, I'd move to Saudi Arabia. If you vote Obama into the White House, we all may be one step closer to being a Muslim country. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
houstonmacbro Posted August 23, 2008 Share Posted August 23, 2008 I would disagree with the belief that morals in the past were superior to today's morals. They were identical. Read up on your history of western boomtowns, US settlement practices in regards to the native inhabitants, US practices in regard to ownership of human workers, and the origin of the term, Oklahoma Sooner.I would, however, agree that HYPOCRISY regarding morals in the 21st Century is at an all-time high. Evidence of such was on full display at the "conversation".This whole morals issue is ridiculous. If we are such a God-fearin', right-wing, morally correct country, why are we in such terrible shape morally?Personally, I do not feel you have to be God-fearing to have better morals than half the country, but that is just me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TJones Posted August 23, 2008 Share Posted August 23, 2008 I would disagree with the belief that morals in the past were superior to today's morals. They were identical. Read up on your history of western boomtowns, US settlement practices in regards to the native inhabitants, US practices in regard to ownership of human workers, and the origin of the term, Oklahoma Sooner.I would, however, agree that HYPOCRISY regarding morals in the 21st Century is at an all-time high. Evidence of such was on full display at the "conversation".I would agree 100% with you on this Red. I think the morals are exactly the same as they were then, the difference is that we now have the evil INTERNET !!! This makes it easier to access everyone's immorality. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mark F. Barnes Posted August 23, 2008 Share Posted August 23, 2008 Curious to see how this plays out. Joe Biden is often one of those misunderstood individuals, that some people just don't know how to take. I thought for sure he was leaning toward General Backstabber, but that shows what I know. I still think Bill is going to have a meltdown on the floor of the convention...... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lockmat Posted August 23, 2008 Share Posted August 23, 2008 This whole morals issue is ridiculous. If we are such a God-fearin', right-wing, morally correct country, why are we in such terrible shape morally?Personally, I do not feel you have to be God-fearing to have better morals than half the country, but that is just me.Without the God of the Bible (which where morality is established) everyone is left to make up their own morality, or compare theirs with others. When that happens, you get what we have today; everything, including morals is relative. It's only gonna get worse.As other posters have already pointed out...read the CONSTITUTION.If I wanted to live in a theocracy, I'd move to Saudi Arabia.Not only do people need to read it, but UNDERSTAND it.I don't see anyone setting up a theocracy or establishing a church to rule over our country. I saw a discussion. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
barracuda Posted August 23, 2008 Share Posted August 23, 2008 I'm just glad there is on Bush or Clinton running for the White House after 28 years. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
memebag Posted August 23, 2008 Share Posted August 23, 2008 Without the God of the Bible (which where morality is established) everyone is left to make up their own morality, or compare theirs with others. When that happens, you get what we have today; everything, including morals is relative. It's only gonna get worse.Then why are some of the people who base their morality on "the God of the Bible" so intent on killing other people who base their morality on "the God of the Bible"? It looks like "the god of the Bible" doesn't lift a finger to stop people from making up their own morality. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
barracuda Posted August 23, 2008 Share Posted August 23, 2008 Without the God of the Bible (which where morality is established) everyone is left to make up their own morality, or compare theirs with others. When that happens, you get what we have today; everything, including morals is relative. It's only gonna get worse.Not only do people need to read it, but UNDERSTAND it.Sounds like you're saying that humans have no morality without christianity. Tell that to the billions of non-christians in the world. Even intelligent animals that live in social groups (chimpanzees, for example) live by a code of morals that have nothing to do with religion. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
westguy Posted August 23, 2008 Share Posted August 23, 2008 Does this mean McCain's going to pick someone young and fundamentalist? No one's expecting him to make more than one term (or less if he croaks), so whoever gets picked will please the religious right. OTOH, if the ticket has someone that only die-hard Republicans love (like Cheney), most will not want to see that person having a real chance in office. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CyKat Posted August 23, 2008 Share Posted August 23, 2008 It is Obama-Biden... Obama-Biden Looks alot like Osama bin LadenCyKat, just stirrin' the pot alittle. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Trae Posted August 23, 2008 Author Share Posted August 23, 2008 If you vote Obama into the White House, we all may be one step closer to being a Muslim country. Oh lawd. Good thing that was a joke (I hope). And why'd you leave Houston? If you have seen him on Meet the Press, you know he doesn't take crap from anybody and will tell you where to shove it and shut up. Also, Biden has all the numbers when it comes to how much this country has spent, and where all the money has gone, so when it comes to the debates McCain better pick someone real good or he's out of luck. Biden's speech today was also VERY good. Already started hitting McCain hard. Love it. It's Michelle and Jill Biden! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
houstonmacbro Posted August 23, 2008 Share Posted August 23, 2008 Then why are some of the people who base their morality on "the God of the Bible" so intent on killing other people who base their morality on "the God of the Bible"? It looks like "the god of the Bible" doesn't lift a finger to stop people from making up their own morality. And shoving their 'beliefs' down everyone's throats. Religion is just as corrupt as any other forms of business (probably even more so since it is so deregulated). I do not want religion to be the moral test for a leader any more than I would want it to be the litmus test for whether I got a job or not. Sounds like you're saying that humans have no morality without christianity. Tell that to the billions of non-christians in the world. Even intelligent animals that live in social groups (chimpanzees, for example) live by a code of morals that have nothing to do with religion. Because you just know that without religion to keep us in place we'd be raping, pillaging, and rampaging hordes with a mindless group mentality. Oh ... I mean, more than this 'Christian' nation already has... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BryanS Posted August 23, 2008 Share Posted August 23, 2008 I'm just glad there is on Bush or Clinton running for the White House after 28 years.There is one. His name is John McCain. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.