C *A *P *C *H

Home of the Click Chicks and Joe
 
HomeHome  RegisterRegister  Log inLog in  

Share | 
 

 So, who watched the political debates? A FRIENDLY discussion

View previous topic View next topic Go down 
Go to page : Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9  Next
AuthorMessage
Guest
Guest



PostSubject: Re: So, who watched the political debates? A FRIENDLY discussion   Mon Oct 06, 2008 1:21 pm

Since Obama's pastor has again been raised as an issue, let's discuss Sarah Palin's own stated beliefs.


Three months before she was thrust into the national political spotlight, Gov. Sarah Palin was asked to handle a much smaller task: addressing the graduating class of commission students at her one-time church, Wasilla Assembly of God.

Her speech in June (of 2008) provides as much insight into her policy leanings as anything uncovered since she was asked to be John McCain's running mate.

Speaking before the Pentecostal church, Palin painted the current war in Iraq as a messianic affair in which the United States could act out the will of the Lord.

"Pray for our military men and women who are striving to do what is right. Also, for this country, that our leaders, our national leaders, are sending [U.S. soldiers] out on a task that is from God," she exhorted the congregants. "That's what we have to make sure that we're praying for, that there is a plan and that that plan is God's plan."

Religion, however, was not strictly a thread in Palin's foreign policy. It was part of her energy proposals as well. Just prior to discussing Iraq, Alaska's governor asked the audience to pray for another matter -- a $30 billion national gas pipeline project that she wanted built in the state. "I think God's will has to be done in unifying people and companies to get that gas line built, so pray for that," she said.


And then there is this:


A review of recorded sermons by Ed Kalnins, the senior pastor of Wasilla Assembly of God since 1999, offers a provocative and, for some, eyebrow-raising sketch of Palin's longtime spiritual home. T

he church runs a number of ministries providing help to poor neighborhoods, care for children in need, and general community services. But Pastor Kalnins has also preached that critics of President Bush will be banished to hell; questioned whether people who voted for Sen. John Kerry in 2004 would be accepted to heaven; charged that the 9/11 terrorist attacks and war in Iraq were part of a war "contending for your faith;" and said that Jesus "operated from that position of war mode."

[...]

In his sermons, Pastor Kalnins has also expressed beliefs that, while not directly political, lie outside of mainstream Christian thought.

He preaches repeatedly about the "end times" or "last days," an apocalyptic prophesy held by a small but vocal group of Christian leaders. During his appearance with Palin in June, he declared, "I believe Alaska is one of the refuge states in the last days, and hundreds of thousands of people are going to come to the state to seek refuge and the church has to be ready to minister to them."

He also claims to have received direct "words of knowledge" from God, providing him information about past events in other people's lives. During one sermon, he described being paired with a complete stranger during a golf outing. "I said, I'm a minister from Alaska and I want you to know that your wife left you -- you know that your wife left you and that the Lord is gonna defend you in a very short time, and it wasn't your fault. And the man drops his clubs, he literally was about to tee off and he dropped his clubs, and he says, 'Who the blank are you?' And I says, 'well, I'm a minister.' He says, 'how do you know about my life? What do you know?' And I started giving him more of the word of knowledge to his life and he was freaked out."

Kalnins has, of course, preached on a bevy of topics ranging from humility to "overcoming bitterness." But the more controversial remarks reported above were not out of the norm, appearing in numerous sermons spanning the four years of available recordings.


How can Sarah Palin continue to associate with such a preacher whose views would be considered really extreme and filled with hatred spewed in the name of religion???



Okay...that will give ya all something to debate with me. Be back later to see your responses. In the meantime, love u all!
Back to top Go down
Guest
Guest



PostSubject: Re: So, who watched the political debates? A FRIENDLY discussion   Mon Oct 06, 2008 7:45 pm

Obama has deep ties to ACORN.....


May 29, 2008
Obama's Ties To ACORN More Substantial than first believed
Rick Moran

You've heard of Moveon.org and Code Pink - two radical leftist groups seeking to elect out and out socialists to public office and who are fierce opponents of the capitalist sysetm.

But have you heard of ACORN?

The Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now is mostly a city-based group that you may know from their illegal voter registration efforts in several states during the 2004 election.

But this group also is involved in schemes to impose drastic, left wing dogma on the rest of us through political action.

Obama's connection to this group has been shadowy - some work he did back in 1995 representing an effort by the group to get the courts to force Illinois to adopt the motor voter law. But Stanley Kurtz has uncovered even more ties that Obama has to this radical group:


The extent of Obama's ties to Acorn has not been recognized. We find some important details in an article in the journal Social Policy entitled, "Case Study: Chicago - The Barack Obama Campaign," by Toni Foulkes, a Chicago Acorn leader and a member of Acorn's National Association Board. The odd thing about this article is that Foulkes is forced to protect the technically "non-partisan" status of Acorn's get-out-the-vote campaigns, even as he does everything in his power to give Acorn credit for helping its favorite son win the critical 2004 primary that secured Obama the Democratic nomination to the U.S. Senate.

Before giving us a tour of Acorn's pro-Obama but somehow "non-partisan" election activities, Foulks treats us to a brief history of Obama's ties to Acorn. While most press accounts imply that Obama just happened to be at the sort of public-interest law firm that would take Acorn's "motor voter" case, Foulkes claims that Acorn specifically sought out Obama's representation in the motor voter case, remembering Obama from the days when he worked with Talbot. And while many reports speak of Obama's post-law school role organizing "Project VOTE" in 1992, Foulkes makes it clear that this project was undertaken in direct partnership with Acorn. Foulkes then stresses Obama's yearly service as a key figure in Acorn's leadership-training seminars.

At least a few news reports have briefly mentioned Obama's role in training Acorn's leaders, but none that I know of have said what Foulkes reports next: that Obama's long service with Acorn led many members to serve as the volunteer shock troops of Obama's early political campaigns - his initial 1996 State Senate campaign, and his failed bid for Congress in 2000 (Foulkes confuses the dates of these two campaigns.) With Obama having personally helped train a new cadre of Chicago Acorn leaders, by the time of Obama's 2004 U.S. Senate campaign, Obama and Acorn were "old friends," says Foulkes.

Not surprisingly it turns out that Reverend Jeremiah Wright and Father Michael Pfleger - two radical clergy closely associated with Obama - have extensive ties to ACORN . Their views fit nicely within the ACORN anti-capitalist agenda that they have been pushing for years.

More evidence, if any were needed, that Obama's past associations have defined him as a politician and that the more radicals that turn up in his background, the more we must question just what his beliefs truly are.

http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2008/05/obamas_ties_to_acorn_more_subs.html
Back to top Go down
joechgo11



Number of posts : 640
Registration date : 2008-08-31

PostSubject: Re: So, who watched the political debates? A FRIENDLY discussion   Mon Oct 06, 2008 9:06 pm

CinC wrote:
Since Obama's pastor has again been raised as an issue, let's discuss Sarah Palin's own stated beliefs.

How can Sarah Palin continue to associate with such a preacher whose views would be considered really extreme and filled with hatred spewed in the name of religion???

Okay...that will give ya all something to debate with me. Be back later to see your responses. In the meantime, love u all!

Cincy, with all due respect, you just cannot compare the two. Her first quote was to pray for guidance, not a declaration of Godly intent. I really get irked at the media for falsely proclaiming the latter.

The other beliefs, though more fire and brimstone than my Catholic comfort zone, are still a far far cry from "God DAMN America". There's a difference between those types of belief and hating your country. Period. Sorry, on this issue, there is absolutely no gray area.
Back to top Go down
View user profile
Morgan Rowan
Admin
avatar

Number of posts : 16603
Registration date : 2007-01-20

PostSubject: Re: So, who watched the political debates? A FRIENDLY discussion   Mon Oct 06, 2008 9:14 pm

Wasilla has only three churchs - Not a whole lot of choice there don't you think ?????


I'd say criticizing her choice of church and its pastor is more than a bit of a stretch.
Back to top Go down
View user profile http://clickchicks.niceboard.com
Guest
Guest



PostSubject: Re: So, who watched the political debates? A FRIENDLY discussion   Mon Oct 06, 2008 9:42 pm

ACORN is the nation’s largest grassroots community organization of low- and moderate-income people with over 400,000 member families organized into more than 1,200 neighborhood chapters in 110 cities across the country. Since 1970, ACORN has been building community organizations that are committed to social and economic justice, and won victories on thousands of issues of concern to our members, through direct action, negotiation, legislative advocacy and voter participation. ACORN helps those who have historically been locked out become powerful players in our democratic system.


Community organizing: Each of the 1,200 local ACORN neighborhood chapters in 110 cities and 40 states brings neighbors together to work for stronger, safer and more just communities.

Issue campaigns: Each ACORN office carries out multiple issue campaigns. ACORN members across the country work to raise the minimum wage or enact living wage policies; eliminate predatory financial practices by mortgage lenders, payday lenders, and tax preparation companies; win the development of affordable housing and community benefits agreements; improve the quality of and funding for urban public schools; rebuild New Orleans; and pass a federal and state ACORN Working Families Agenda, including paid sick leave for all full time workers.

A recent study shows that our issue campaign victories have delivered approximately $15 billion in direct monetary benefits to our membership and constituency over the past 10 years.



Service delivery: ACORN and its allied organizations provide extensive services to our members and constituency. These include free tax preparation focusing on the Earned Income Tax Credit; screening for eligibility for federal and state benefit programs; and, through the ACORN Housing Corporation, first time homeowner mortgage counseling and foreclosure prevention assistance, and low income housing development.



Ballot initiatives: ACORN-backed ballot-initiative campaigns in 2006 helped raise the minimum wage in Ohio, Arizona, Missouri and Colorado, working with community-faith-labor coalitions on successful campaigns in each state.



Voter participation: Since 2004, ACORN has helped more than 1.7 million low- and moderate-income and minority citizens apply to register to vote.




ACORN is a non-profit, non-partisan social justice organization with national headquarters in New York, New Orleans and Washington, D.C. To maintain independence, ACORN does not accept government funding and is not tax exempt.



ACORN gets the people out to vote and, of course, the more people vote, the more likely Obama will win. No problem for me there, Janey.
Back to top Go down
Guest
Guest



PostSubject: Re: So, who watched the political debates? A FRIENDLY discussion   Mon Oct 06, 2008 9:50 pm

Here is the info on moveon.org.....decide for yourself if these two grassroots programs are the terrible political vehicles Janey's posts suggest.


What is MoveOn™?

The MoveOn family of organizations brings real Americans back into the political process. With over 3.2 million members across America – from carpenters to stay-at-home moms to business leaders – we work together to realize the progressive promise of our country. MoveOn is a service – a way for busy but concerned citizens to find their political voice in a system dominated by big money and big media. The MoveOn family of organizations is made up of a couple of different pieces. MoveOn.org Civic Action, a 501(c)(4) nonprofit organization, formerly known just as MoveOn.org, primarily focuses on education and advocacy on important national issues. MoveOn.org Political Action, a federal PAC, formerly known as MoveOn PAC, mobilizes people across the country to fight important battles in Congress and help elect candidates who reflect our values. Both organizations are entirely funded by individuals. Every member has a voice in choosing the direction for both MoveOn.org Political Action and MoveOn.org Civic Action. Using our ActionForum software, you can propose priorities and strategies. Both organizations also take the initiative to organize quick action on other timely issues that our members care about. A short history
MoveOn.org Civic Action was started by Joan Blades and Wes Boyd, two Silicon Valley entrepreneurs. Although neither had experience in politics, they shared deep frustration with the partisan warfare in Washington D.C. and the ridiculous waste of our nation's focus at the time of the impeachment mess. On September 18th 1998, they launched an online petition to "Censure President Clinton and Move On to Pressing Issues Facing the Nation." Within days they had hundreds of thousands of individuals signed up, and began looking for ways these voices could be heard. In 1998, MoveOn PAC was formed as a political action committee so that like-minded, concerned citizens could influence the outcome of congressional elections, and in turn, the balance of power in Washington, D.C. Now known as MoveOn.org Political Action, this organization provides individuals, who normally have little political power, an opportunity to aggregate their contributions with others to gain a greater voice in the political process, and brings people together to take important stands on the most important issues facing our country.
The MoveOn Peace campaign was founded independently by Eli Pariser, a Maine native and recent graduate of Simon's Rock College of Bard. In the days following September 11th, 2001, he launched an online petition calling for a restrained and multi-lateral response to the attacks, which was quickly signed by more than half a million people. Eli joined forces with MoveOn soon afterward, and is now MoveOn.org Political Action’s Executive Director.


Because it’s a federal PAC, MoveOn.org Political Action can’t accept donations greater than $5,000. And in fact, MoveOn.org Political Action is mostly funded by people who give less than $100 – folks who don’t have a lot of money but want to see a change. Through 2004, MoveOn.org Political Action raised approximately $11 million for 81 candidates from over 300,000 donors. In 2005, MoveOn.org Political Action grew to 3.2 million members and 125,000 members contributed $9 million to progressive candidates and campaigns (average donation: $45).

About MoveOn.org Civic Action
MoveOn.org Civic Action, a 501(c)(4) nonprofit organization, is engaged in a campaign to reform the media and other work aimed at bringing real people back into the democratic process by making sure legislators hear their voices.
In 2002 and 2003, MoveOn.org Civic Action conducted a campaign to stop the Iraq war, as well as campaigns to keep the federal courts moderate, support campaign finance reform, oppose the repeal of the estate tax, and reduce America’s dependence on oil. Over the years, MoveOn.org Civic Action has created a number of television and print advertisements to amplify the voices of MoveOn members.
Back to top Go down
Guest
Guest



PostSubject: Re: So, who watched the political debates? A FRIENDLY discussion   Mon Oct 06, 2008 10:18 pm

Moving on (no pun intended) to the discussion of Obama's pastor's comments and those of Palin's, I don't agree with Rev. Wright, but I can at least understand where his views come from. While very extreme, they are generated by anger rooted in reality...slavery, prejudice, mistreatment and failure to recognize human rights of blacks. As an older black man, Wright has lived that experience and it has given him a perspective that I can't embrace but do tend to understand. He is very extreme and in many cases, his sermons went too far. I am in no way condoning him. But if you take a position that HIS opinions and words reflect Obama, it is fair to say the same of Palin's minister who preaches such extreme ideas that everyone in the world will be going to hell other than those of their denomination; that people who voted for John Kerry are damned to hell; that the war in Iraq is God's mission; and that at the end of days, everyone will be heading on up to Alaska to avoid the fires of hell. Those views, to me as a liberal, are dangerous and extremity rooted in exclusion and hate more than the extreme anger and life experiences that led to Wright's equally extreme words. From a political standpoing, Obama DID stay in his church too long, but that was the church he was married in and the one he took his children to...it was his extended community....you don't easily walk away from that because the preacher gives a few overly-reactive sermons to which you don't agree. All of Rev. Wright's sermons were not of that vein.

The most telling thing for me, however, is that unlike Palin, you have never heard Obama speak those same words rooted in anger and spoke with the venom of Rev. Wright. However, with Sarah Palin, you do hear the words of her pastor from her own mouth in her speeches (see my post on this above). His extreme and at least to me hate-driven thoughts and ideas are her words too and therefore should be given more weight in deciding whether either of the candidates embrace what I consider to be the extreme religious and social positions of both of their church leaders.

Her political positions are too closely grounded in those religious beliefs for her to be an acceptable leader to me. There are many people who do agree with her positions on things such as
gay rights (which only recently changed to the more universally accepted position of allowing civil unions) and most tellingly her hope and desire to overturn Roe vs. Wade (she is pro-life) to her seeing war as Jesus's course of action and God's plan for the U.S. I'm not saying she should denouce her beliefs or walk away from her church, but by repeating the extreme views of her minister as her own (which Obama has never done with regard to Rev. Wright), she indicates she not only sits in the congregation but carries the sword.
Back to top Go down
Guest
Guest



PostSubject: Re: So, who watched the political debates? A FRIENDLY discussion   Mon Oct 06, 2008 11:24 pm

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IDofbll86dY&eurl=http://my.barackobama.com/page/invite/keatingvideo
Back to top Go down
Guest
Guest



PostSubject: Re: So, who watched the political debates? A FRIENDLY discussion   Tue Oct 07, 2008 4:26 am

All I can say is may God help us all if Obama wins. If you think things are bad now we aint seen nothing yet. The economy was great under Bush for many years, no one gave him credit. Now things went south and its all Bush's fault. Who will the democrats blame for everything when they have their man in the white house and a majority in Congress? I am not fooled by Obama's rhetoric or eloquence, he works both sides of the aisle. Whatever his excuse you don't sit in a church for twenty years and listen to a anti-white american hating pastor and then pretend you are not a racist. His voting record is the farthest left of any senator and now he panders to the middle and gullible americans buy into it. When speaking of equality in our great country a black phony deserves the same criticism as a white phony.
Back to top Go down
amainachen

avatar

Number of posts : 2074
Registration date : 2007-01-24

PostSubject: Re: So, who watched the political debates? A FRIENDLY discussion   Tue Oct 07, 2008 9:15 am

paminhlwd wrote:
All I can say is may God help us all if Obama wins. If you think things are bad now we aint seen nothing yet. The economy was great under Bush for many years, no one gave him credit. Now things went south and its all Bush's fault. Who will the democrats blame for everything when they have their man in the white house and a majority in Congress? I am not fooled by Obama's rhetoric or eloquence, he works both sides of the aisle. Whatever his excuse you don't sit in a church for twenty years and listen to a anti-white american hating pastor and then pretend you are not a racist. His voting record is the farthest left of any senator and now he panders to the middle and gullible americans buy into it. When speaking of equality in our great country a black phony deserves the same criticism as a white phony.


My sentiments exactly Pam. There will be no restrictions on Obama at all with control of both house and senate and the White House. I sure hope he knows what he is doing but with his very limited experience it scares the daylight out of me.

As for Wright I think its time to get over that too. sorry. Spewing all that hatred around doesn't do anyone any good. I never lived his life that is true but he is a man of God (I guess anyway) and talking hate, violence from the pulpit is disgusting. Why preach. To be being a pastor is to speak of God's love to all and not speak of hate, violence. I understand black people have suffered greatly but so have many many others who don't spew such hatred.

As for Palin's minister I haven't heard his entire sermon but again I come from the Pentecostal religion and while we do believe that hell exists for disbelievers and for sinners that is quite different than preaching hate and violence towards others. The pentecostal religion does not preach hatred and violence. I do know that some extremes of the religion do believe their beliefs are directly from the Bible and that other religions may more loosely take what they want from the Bible and leave other parts and not practice them. We do not feel we are the only ones going to Heaven though. If this man did indeed say that and I would have to hear the sermon then he is on the very extreme of the religion and believe me i came from the really old line Pentecostals and that was never Preached. The pentecostal religion takes the verses of the Bible as true and they don't tend to interpret but rather practice what they have felt it says. Right or wrong I have no idea but to equate this religion to Wright is just so off base. Wright is a man full of hate and is preaching from a pulpit to some very young people, then we wonder why our young people are acting out when they get messages like this from a minister who should be preaching about God's love and forgiveness. Seems Wright can't forgive the mistakes of the past, and they were extensive to the blacks.
Back to top Go down
View user profile
Susan
Admin
avatar

Number of posts : 13631
Registration date : 2007-01-25

PostSubject: Re: So, who watched the political debates? A FRIENDLY discussion   Tue Oct 07, 2008 9:41 am

All I can say is may God help us all if Obama wins.

:s3:
Back to top Go down
View user profile
Guest
Guest



PostSubject: Re: So, who watched the political debates? A FRIENDLY discussion   Tue Oct 07, 2008 10:13 am

Deb, I was not criticizing the Pentecostal Church....just quoting that particular pastor/minister and Ms. Palin's own echoing words.

I am so reminded of the words that were thrown at me while protesting the war in Viet Nam, "America Love it or Leave It."
This is such a prevalent underlying assertion implied there that can likely make it understandable why a person would remain in a church where one or two sermons don't sit right with me...or that I may find totally 100% in opposition to my own person beliefs. I've never really been one to think that if you don't like something, you ought to cut and run. Don't like school? Drop out! Don't like your job? Quit! Family's a drag? Get a divorce or run-away from home. In some cases, those reactions can lead to a positive outcome, but more often it's better to consider the good along with the bad and walking away leaves very little likelihood of changing the situation or attitude. Assuming that I were to choose leaving my own particular church, where should I go? Without a doubt, at any other church there would be some sermons I would not agree with. It's so easy these days to just hit the "delete my membership" button and walk away. I am Catholic but I use my faith to determine my own conscience. And there have been many times when I have not exactly been proud to be an American. (There, I said it!) Doesn't mean I want to leave and go somewhere else....or even that the things that make me not proud even directly pertain to me. I'm not black...I'm not poor, or a non-Christian, I've never tortured an adversary to get information from them or perpetrated lies to promote a war, imprisoned the Japanese or bombed a country killing and maiming thousands of innocents. There are many things in this country that I find appalling and if I were a 70-year old black person who had lived through persecution, I imagine there would be times when I would have to say....enough!!

The difference between Obama and Palin in this matter is that nowhere has Obama himself spewed the hatred of Rev. Wright. In fact, he has worked within the system and within that church to first of all understand and then work toward change addressing the reasons that form the basis for Rev. Wright's extreme statements. On the other hand, Palin echos her pastor's words in not only her personal statements at a private ceremony but also in her speeches on the campaign trail.

I will take open minded consideration over dogma. And when there comes a time when the words of a pastor are in such direct conflict with my own personal beliefs that I am being found guilty by association and that guilt is a hinderance in achieving my more far reaching goals (as is the case with Obama), that is when I reluctantly will walk away. But I, like Obama, do not walk away from something I am committed until I have tried to either adapt or do everything I personally can to change the situation, but only when there is such a great perception that those ideas are reflective of my own that they would eliminate my possibilities of my long range goals.

Palin's words speak for themselves. I doubt she would or even could resist making those types of statements if she were to deal with foreign friends and adversaries who may not share her particular religious bias and zeal.
Back to top Go down
joechgo11



Number of posts : 640
Registration date : 2008-08-31

PostSubject: Re: So, who watched the political debates? A FRIENDLY discussion   Tue Oct 07, 2008 10:36 am

CinC wrote:


Palin's words speak for themselves. I doubt she would or even could resist making those types of statements if she were to deal with foreign friends and adversaries who may not share her particular religious bias and zeal.

You know, Cincy, I would much rather have a woman who will speak her mind, like it or not, than a man who will say ANYTHING to get elected. I no longer believe a word out of his mouth. It wasn't long ago that I held Obama in respect, even if I didn't support his policies. Now he's just another lying politician to me.

Contrarily, my support for Biden grows.

How about a McCain/Biden ticket, lol?
Back to top Go down
View user profile
Guest
Guest



PostSubject: Re: So, who watched the political debates? A FRIENDLY discussion   Tue Oct 07, 2008 10:44 am

[quote="Renee"]
CinC wrote:


Palin's words speak for themselves. I doubt she would or even could resist making those types of statements if she were to deal with foreign friends and adversaries who may not share her particular religious bias and zeal.

You know, Cincy, I would much rather have a woman who will speak her mind, like it or not, than a man who will say ANYTHING to get elected. I no longer believe a word out of his mouth. It wasn't long ago that I held Obama in respect, even if I didn't support his policies. Now he's just another lying politician to me.

Contrarily, my support for Biden grows.


I admire Joe Biden, too. I have no animosity toward John McCain. Sarah Palin makes my stomach and head hurt and is the exact opposite of me as a woman. I love Barack Obama.

As for a woman who will speak her mind, if that mind is filled with myopic and non-inclusive sentiments that are contrary to what I feel is best for this nation, I would have to disagree. Hillary Clinton, on the other hand and for example, is someone who compassionately spoke her mind very well. As for Obama, I have never thought he would say anything just to get elected, but rather that he is very pragmatic about putting the horse in front of the cart (more of a diplomat than a politician) and since his policies are in direct correlation with mine, I understand his reluctant desire to dissassociate from words that could be misconstrued as his own.

I can't wait for the debate tonight!!!
Back to top Go down
Morgan Rowan
Admin
avatar

Number of posts : 16603
Registration date : 2007-01-20

PostSubject: Re: So, who watched the political debates? A FRIENDLY discussion   Tue Oct 07, 2008 11:29 am

I'm just going to repeat. There are three churchs in Palin
s home town and exactly one of her chosen faith. Palin did not make a choice as to what pastor was in that church and she had no other church to go to. Can't we judge her by her own words on religion and leave the church out of it ?

Obama on the other hand, had choices and that might make it a bit more relevant. . . but only a bit.

Honestly, to me this is like judging them on the words of thier college professors. You go to church to explore and learn, you don't necessarily ' wear ' every word and thought and action of the pastor of the church as you leave.
Back to top Go down
View user profile http://clickchicks.niceboard.com
Guest
Guest



PostSubject: Re: So, who watched the political debates? A FRIENDLY discussion   Tue Oct 07, 2008 11:41 am

Morgan Rowan wrote:
I'm just going to repeat. There are three churchs in Palin
s home town and exactly one of her chosen faith. Palin did not make a choice as to what pastor was in that church and she had no other church to go to. Can't we judge her by her own words on religion and leave the church out of it ?

Obama on the other hand, had choices and that might make it a bit more relevant. . . but only a bit.

Honestly, to me this is like judging them on the words of thier college professors. You go to church to explore and learn, you don't necessarily ' wear ' every word and thought and action of the pastor of the church as you leave.


I actually did post Palin's own words. Those words are what I am basing my opinion of her on...I have very little knowledge of her actions in Alaska or her position on issues although I have searched for them online and even asked her staunch supporters here to clarify for me. So her words are the only indicators I have of what she is all about....and they scare the heck out of my liberal mindset.

It doesn't matter if you have three churches to choose from or three hundred. For most people, their church is their "home base" and not something they cast aside easily.

I don't believe anyone here is criticizing the Pentecostal church. I have been very careful not to and have stated I am not basing any opinion of Palin on that doctrine. I too wish the debates could concentrate on the issues rather than any of the candidates religious beliefs, but the Republicans have opened that can of worms in their search to attempt to gain in the polls where they are falling behind....it speaks of desperation. And it will likely backfire since they are having such a hard time finding anything other than the words of Obama's pastor and the fact that someone he knows minimally was a member of the Minute Men. While, McCain's association and far greater support of Charles Keating, on the heels of the current economic issues and his stance on not wanting regulation of the banking industry, puts McCain in a much more current and disasterous position. Aside from Keating, McCain has also attempted to dissassociate himself from the Bush administration, yet he voted along with Bush 90-95% of the time.....hardly a maverick, more like a gunslinger (only we know what he's slinging and it is just more of the same.)

So let's discuss the Keating 5 matter, banking deregulation and McCain's record on that very important, critical issue. How do the McCain supporters here find peace with all that?
Back to top Go down
amainachen

avatar

Number of posts : 2074
Registration date : 2007-01-24

PostSubject: Re: So, who watched the political debates? A FRIENDLY discussion   Tue Oct 07, 2008 12:00 pm

I believe the Pentecostal church was attacked to a certain level, by stating they ex program gays. I have heard the church called a cult. OMG how ludicrious. I am not sure what words Palin spoke about that was so offensive Cincy. She is obviously pro life, i support that. She is a Christian and is not afraid to say that. Don't see anything wrong with that. She supports civil rights but is against gay marriage. she believes as Biden does that marriage should be between a man and a woman i also believe that. I have watched her speeches and i am not sure what words she spoke about that were wrong. What i really find amazing to me is when Obama said he never heard Wright speak of hate and violence. O'Reilly said you sat under him for 20 plus years and your telling me never heard him say those things. No ididn't, now come on. That is impossible unless he never attended church which he says he always attended so there is an untruth in there somewhere. If you believe in the church stand up like a man and say so, if you believe the man is wrong in his teachings get out like a man and stand up and say no. Don't wait till the hatchet falls from the campaign and then leave. To me that showed the type of man he truly is.

Also I don't want this to be about any type of religion. I have seen some comments about the Pentecostal religion which is baseless and untrue. obviously i can't say that any pentecostal church doesn't have a minister that may say something that i don't find offensive. I do know what they believe and i have been to many pentecostal churches in my life. While they are very adamant in their love in God and salvation through Jesus and sometimes are unrelenting in their beliefs they are good hard working people.
Back to top Go down
View user profile
amainachen

avatar

Number of posts : 2074
Registration date : 2007-01-24

PostSubject: Re: So, who watched the political debates? A FRIENDLY discussion   Tue Oct 07, 2008 12:05 pm

McCain's words on the Keating issue was that it was his biggest mistake. He apologized, it was years ago. He was found to be innocent of any wrongdoing but had used some poor judgement. Then we have Obama who voted against the insurgence, an immediate issue, was wrong and will not even say so. He was given many times to say yes i was wrong on the insurgencecy but wouldn't. To me that was a very bad decision to not apologize to our military men and women who needed help. We will never agree. Obviously that is the case. I see a man in Obama who scares me immensely. I see a man with very questionable associates during his formative years and yes I fear that those associates will show the type of President that leaves me quaking in fear.
Back to top Go down
View user profile
Guest
Guest



PostSubject: Re: So, who watched the political debates? A FRIENDLY discussion   Tue Oct 07, 2008 12:18 pm

Here's a link to the Palin speech where she echos the sentiments of her pastor

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/09/02/palins-church-may-have-sh_n_123205.html

If that is what she believes, fine....I just don't agree.

Obama does not go to church in Chicago every single Sunday, so it is likely he wasn't present during Rev. Wright's controversial sermon.


Back to the issue of the economy which is where I wish we could focus today rather than religious associations..... and in light of Renee's post that she wants someone who says what they mean...how do you explain McCain's record of opposing banking regulations when in March 2008, he said, "I am always for less regulation" and added that he didn't want to burden the average citizen with overregulation and government buracracy. But where was his concern for regular folks when they needed somone to protect them, when life savings of people was destroyed in 1995 as a result of the Keating affair and whose life savings are NOW at risk because of failure to regulate. Obama warned that regulations were needed to avoid all this mess two years ago. But on the other hand, McCain stated just months ago, "I am fundamentally a deregulator. I'd like to see a lot of the unnecessary overnment regulations eliminated,not just a moratorium. I've thought more on the area of deregulation rather than a moratorium." But NOW, in light of the bailout and this being a time when he has to switch that stance, he suddenly becomes a supporter of regulation. Too little, too late and since he is fundamentally a deregulator and wants elimination, not just a moritorium on, regulations, what in the world would lead anyone to think he cares about anyone other than his banking and investment associates? Where was he for the private citizen whose money was in the S&L in 1995, where was he in as recently as September 2008 when he again stated he favored deregulation and more importantly where will he be if he is elected President.

So he apologized for 1995 and admitted his mistake. Okay...but he continues to believe FUNDAMENTALLY the same principles that led him to that mistake.

And OBAMA scares you? uns

So, let's put aside the muddying the waters with Rev. Wright and the Minute Men, and let's talk about something that REALLY happened.
Back to top Go down
Guest
Guest



PostSubject: Re: So, who watched the political debates? A FRIENDLY discussion   Tue Oct 07, 2008 12:39 pm

My concern with the McCain/Palin decision to "take the gloves off," (code for going dirty) is that this all might end up in a very bad way.

WashingtonPost
Quote :
Palin's routine attacks on the media have begun to spill into ugliness. In Clearwater, arriving reporters were greeted with shouts and taunts by the crowd of about 3,000. Palin then went on to blame Katie Couric's questions for her "less-than-successful interview with kinda mainstream media." At that, Palin supporters turned on reporters in the press area, waving thunder sticks and shouting abuse. Others hurled obscenities at a camera crew. One Palin supporter shouted a racial epithet at an African American sound man for a network and told him, "Sit down, boy."

This, coupled with McCain/Palin not responding to outbursts of "Terrorist" and "Kill him!" by supporters at their rallies.... does not bode well for this campaign. Whatever happened to running a clean campaign (McCain)?

I myself am gobsmacked.....
Back to top Go down
Guest
Guest



PostSubject: Re: So, who watched the political debates? A FRIENDLY discussion   Tue Oct 07, 2008 12:42 pm

spongie wrote:
My concern with the McCain/Palin decision to "take the gloves off," (code for going dirty) is that this all might end up in a very bad way.

WashingtonPost
Quote :
Palin's routine attacks on the media have begun to spill into ugliness. In Clearwater, arriving reporters were greeted with shouts and taunts by the crowd of about 3,000. Palin then went on to blame Katie Couric's questions for her "less-than-successful interview with kinda mainstream media." At that, Palin supporters turned on reporters in the press area, waving thunder sticks and shouting abuse. Others hurled obscenities at a camera crew. One Palin supporter shouted a racial epithet at an African American sound man for a network and told him, "Sit down, boy."


This, coupled with McCain/Palin not responding to outbursts of "Terrorist" and "Kill him!" by supporters at their rallies.... does not bode well for this campaign. Whatever happened to running a clean campaign (McCain)?

I myself am gobsmacked.....




Wow, spongie, I wasn't aware of that. They will say and do anything to get elected.
Back to top Go down
Guest
Guest



PostSubject: Re: So, who watched the political debates? A FRIENDLY discussion   Tue Oct 07, 2008 12:51 pm

Morgan said
Quote :
Can we have a viable THIRD choice please ????

A BIG 'OL YEAH TO THAT.

That's all I'm gonna say about that.
Back to top Go down
Guest
Guest



PostSubject: Re: So, who watched the political debates? A FRIENDLY discussion   Tue Oct 07, 2008 1:09 pm

And it continues....

Quote :
In the latest instance of inflammatory outbursts at McCain-Palin rallies, a crowd member screamed "treason!" during an event on Tuesday after Sarah Palin accused Barack Obama of criticizing U.S. troops.
Back to top Go down
Guest
Guest



PostSubject: Re: So, who watched the political debates? A FRIENDLY discussion   Tue Oct 07, 2008 1:15 pm

Check this out......kinda takes the wind out of the Weather Man bullpoopy


http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/27062761/
Back to top Go down
Morgan Rowan
Admin
avatar

Number of posts : 16603
Registration date : 2007-01-20

PostSubject: Re: So, who watched the political debates? A FRIENDLY discussion   Tue Oct 07, 2008 1:42 pm

Is Clint Eastwood available ?


dt
Back to top Go down
View user profile http://clickchicks.niceboard.com
Sponsored content




PostSubject: Re: So, who watched the political debates? A FRIENDLY discussion   

Back to top Go down
 
So, who watched the political debates? A FRIENDLY discussion
View previous topic View next topic Back to top 
Page 4 of 9Go to page : Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9  Next
 Similar topics
-
» How many times have you watched Mai HiME?
» Azumanga Daioh Discussion
» Burst Angel Discussion
» Tokyo Mew Mew Discussion
» Entry #48 Discussion

Permissions in this forum:You cannot reply to topics in this forum
C *A *P *C *H :: KITCHEN / politics, hot subjects-
Jump to: