New Election 2008 thread

[uncle wilco]

While McCain's embrace of the unitary executive theory and necon foreign policy principles is definately pathetic, I don't think it's really very moderate.

 

it's all relative.

[Beltmann]

actually i don't think that those "evangelicals" with "decent minds" would actually consider voting for Obama. if so, i don't think they take their evangelical status that seriously. evangelicals are largely social conservatives,

wait a minute' date=' i never said they were "untrue" christians. evangelicals by definition are: Of, relating to, or being a Christian church believing in the sole authority and inerrancy of the Bible, in salvation only through regeneration, and in a spiritually transformed personal life. (from Dictionary.com).[/quote']

But you did say that evangelicals who are not socially conservative are at best unserious about their faith, and perhaps are fraudulent "evangelicals," deserving of your judgmental quotation marks.

 

I guess I'm still not understanding why your given definition of evangelical--a definition that I subscribe to--must lead, without exception, to social conservatism. How does believing in the inerrancy of the Bible make voting for Obama impossible? How does believing in salvation through regeneration make voting for Obama impossible? How does believing in a spiritually transformed personal life make voting for Obama impossible? How, exactly, does your stated definition of evangelical also require a specific, non-negotiable political platform? That definition explains what an evangelical is, but I don't see anything in there that explains how evangelicalism ought to manifest itself politically.

 

Even though evangelicals are typically social conservatives, I don't see why that means the majority is automatically correct in translating their faith into a conservative philosophy, or why an evangelical with different political priorities should be seen as "not serious" about their evangelical faith. In fact, it's reasonable to argue that the reverse might be true: Anyone who supports the neo-conservative agenda must not take their evangelical status, nor the Bible, very seriously.

 

I know you are serious about your religious and political journeys, UW, so I'm not trying to pick a fight... it's just an interesting discussion to me, primarily because it took me many years to confront the political assumptions of my youth. It's a topic that feels close to home.

[Beltmann]

obama's far left philosophy is trumped by mccain's pathetic moderate stance.

I think Obama has been painted as a far-left wacko, and McCain as a "maverick" moderate. I'm not convinced either label is anything but a cartoonish reduction. Here's an interesting link: Liberal-Conservative Rankings Done Right

 

"By this method, Obama is liberal, but not that liberal. He was the 21st most liberal senator in the 109th Congress and has been the 10th or 11th most liberal thus far in the 110th. The surprising result is John McCain, who rates as the 8th most conservative senator in the 110th Congress, the 2nd most conservative in the 109th, and the 5th or 6th most conservative in the 108th."

[EL the Famous]

But you did say that evangelicals who are not socially conservative are at best unserious about their faith, and perhaps are fraudulent "evangelicals," deserving of your judgmental quotation marks.

 

I guess I'm still not understanding why your given definition of evangelical--a definition that I subscribe to--must lead, without exception, to social conservatism. How does believing in the inerrancy of the Bible make voting for Obama impossible? How does believing in salvation through regeneration make voting for Obama impossible? How does believing in a spiritually transformed personal life make voting for Obama impossible? How, exactly, does your stated definition of evangelical also require a specific, non-negotiable political platform? That definition explains what an evangelical is, but I don't see anything in there that explains how evangelicalism ought to manifest itself politically.

 

Even though evangelicals are typically social conservatives, I don't see why that means the majority is automatically correct in translating their faith into a conservative philosophy, or why an evangelical with different political priorities should be seen as "not serious" about their evangelical faith. In fact, it's reasonable to argue that the reverse might be true: Anyone who supports the neo-conservative agenda must not take their evangelical status, nor the Bible, very seriously.

 

I know you are serious about your religious and political journeys, UW, so I'm not trying to pick a fight... it's just an interesting discussion to me, primarily because it took me many years to confront the political assumptions of my youth. It's a topic that feels close to home.

 

it's all relative.

 

[uncle wilco]

But you did say that evangelicals who are not socially conservative are at best unserious about their faith, and perhaps are fraudulent "evangelicals," deserving of your judgmental quotation marks.

 

i meant it in regards to falling under the "evangelical" label.

 

I guess I'm still not understanding why your given definition of evangelical--a definition that I subscribe to--must lead, without exception, to social conservatism. How does believing in the inerrancy of the Bible make voting for Obama impossible?

 

are you trying to bait me? because i'm not taking it.

 

How does believing in salvation through regeneration make voting for Obama impossible? How does believing in a spiritually transformed personal life make voting for Obama impossible? How, exactly, does your stated definition of evangelical also require a specific, non-negotiable political platform? That definition explains what an evangelical is, but I don't see anything in there that explains how evangelicalism ought to manifest itself politically.

 

still not taking the bait.

 

Even though evangelicals are typically social conservatives, I don't see why that means the majority is automatically correct in translating their faith into a conservative philosophy, or why an evangelical with different political priorities should be seen as "not serious" about their evangelical faith. In fact, it's reasonable to argue that the reverse might be true: Anyone who supports the neo-conservative agenda must not take their evangelical status, nor the Bible, very seriously.

 

nope, can't do it.

 

I know you are serious about your religious and political journeys, UW, so I'm not trying to pick a fight... it's just an interesting discussion to me, primarily because it took me many years to confront the political assumptions of my youth. It's a topic that feels close to home.

 

Beltman, i have nothing but respect for you and once upon a time, i may have been eager to take on such a debate, but i think i'm losing the urge to do so. i'm mellowing out on these types of discussions which always seem to gravitate towards something i'm not comfortable with. i respect the differences and would rather focus on the common ground we have in faith. especially when it's mixed with politics.

 

what an unholy mix that is.

[MrRain422]

it's all relative.

 

Relative to what? Yes, McCain is moderate compared to Bush...that's really about it.

[uncle wilco]

I think Obama has been painted as a far-left wacko, and McCain as a "maverick" moderate. I'm not convinced either label is anything but a cartoonish reduction. Here's an interesting link: Liberal-Conservative Rankings Done Right

 

"By this method, Obama is liberal, but not that liberal. He was the 21st most liberal senator in the 109th Congress and has been the 10th or 11th most liberal thus far in the 110th. The surprising result is John McCain, who rates as the 8th most conservative senator in the 110th Congress, the 2nd most conservative in the 109th, and the 5th or 6th most conservative in the 108th."

 

obama is obama. God bless him, i think he means well. i just see things differently.

 

mccain has a pattern of betraying his own party. i guess that's were he gets the "maverick" label...is that supposed to be some kind of badge of honor? because i'm not impressed. he comes across as arrogant and indifferent to those who disagree with him and i would rather buy barack a drink and hang out with him than i would mr. mccain. that's just how i feel.

 

but on election day, my fondness for the personality that is barack obama would have to end as political reality sets in. i probably won't eat before i vote because i'll be pretty nauseous in the booth while pushing the "mccain" button.

[LouieB]

Let's impeach Bush and Cheney while we are at it. I understand Kucinich gave a great speech last night regarding this. Fuck it that Bush/Cheney is nearly over, let's impeach them once they are out of office if not now. It is possible and would do the US of A a world of good.

 

LouieB

[uncle wilco]

Let's impeach Bush and Cheney while we are at it. I understand Kucinich gave a great speech last night regarding this. Fuck it that Bush/Cheney is nearly over, let's impeach them once they are out of office if not now. It is possible and would do the US of A a world of good.

 

LouieB

 

as tempting as that would be, i'd rather they spend their time on something more worthwhile...like increasing the oil supply. yeah, let's start there.

[tugmoose]

as tempting as that would be, i'd rather they spend their time on something more worthwhile...like increasing the oil supply. yeah, let's start there.

Argon is way ahead of ya.

[Gobias Industries]

Anyone who believes in the inerrancy of a piece of writing first written in ancient Hebrew, translated into Greek about a half a dozen times, then translated into English about 30 zillion more times is disrespecting the reason that God gifted them with. The Bible has some of the best moral guidance and wisdom ever collected, but fundamentalists are wrong, in my humble opinion, to think they can correctly divine what that book means at all times and without error.

 

Jesus was all right' date=' but his disciples were thick and ordinary. It's them twisting it that ruins it for me.[/quote']

 

I mean, you know, I agree. I just had to pull the quote out.

[Beltmann]

Beltman' date=' i have nothing but respect for you and once upon a time, i may have been eager to take on such a debate, but i think i'm losing the urge to do so. i'm mellowing out on these types of discussions which always seem to gravitate towards something i'm not comfortable with. i respect the differences and would rather focus on the common ground we have in faith. especially when it's mixed with politics.[/quote']

Fair enough, my friend, fair enough.

[IRememberDBoon]

All This Talk About the Dropping Dollar and the failing economy is just more LIEberal sour grapes. Our economy is doing great, and prosperity for every American is just around the corner! Those Bush tax cuts will kick in soon, and start RECORD GROWTH, in no time flat! Just be patient! Prosperity's just around the corner!

[mfwahl]

All This Talk About the Dropping Dollar and the failing economy is just more LIEberal sour grapes. Our economy is doing great, and prosperity for every American is just around the corner! Those Bush tax cuts will kick in soon, and start RECORD GROWTH, in no time flat! Just be patient! Prosperity's just around the corner!

Yeah, those damn elitist economists with their schooling and knowing stuff. Mmmm patience. It's almost like food and it's cheaper than gas!

[Guest Cousin Tupelo]

as tempting as that would be, i'd rather they spend their time on something more worthwhile...like increasing the oil supply. yeah, let's start there.

 

Or lobbing softball legislation that has a snowball's chance in hell of passing, so the Dem congress can "make a statement."

 

That statement is they've been equally inept as the last Congress.

[MrRain422]

I disagree -- this Congress is far more inept. The last Congress successfully passed a lot of terrible legislation and rubber stamped the President's entire agenda, much to our nation's detriment. This current one has continued to rubber stamp far more than they should have, and have allowed the minority to railroad nearly every worthwhile bill that they have tried to pass into oblivion. The last Congress was more evil, but this one is more inept.

[bjorn_skurj]

All This Talk About the Dropping Dollar and the failing economy is just more LIEberal sour grapes. Our economy is doing great, and prosperity for every American is just around the corner! Those Bush tax cuts will kick in soon, and start RECORD GROWTH, in no time flat! Just be patient! Prosperity's just around the corner!

Edit: This is herbert_hoover.

[John Smith]

I disagree -- this Congress is far more inept. The last Congress successfully passed a lot of terrible legislation and rubber stamped the President's entire agenda, much to our nation's detriment. This current one has continued to rubber stamp far more than they should have, and have allowed the minority to railroad nearly every worthwhile bill that they have tried to pass into oblivion. The last Congress was more evil, but this one is more inept.

 

I think this congress is just as evil as the last, only the evil is contained in a smaller portion than before. Why woudl I think it more evil? One word...obstructionism. Thsi is the saddest display of partisan obstructionism that I have ever witnessed by a minority party. If the dems were have as bad as the republicans they too would be procedurally finding a way make the minority party irrelevant. Of course if my election predictions come true then the minnority party will bring on that irrelevance with their own actions. examples...Military - the new GI Bill. Hearings - procedurally shutting down the torture hearings. More fillibusters than any congress in the past, and this one is 2/3 over. yadda yadda yadda.

[MrRain422]

It wouldn't even be hard for them to make them irrelevent -- all they would have to do is actually make them filibuster rather than letting bills die at the mere threat of one. Not only would they not actually be able to filibuster everything they threaten to, but it would expose their obstructionism to the public in a way that allowing the threats to work simply doesn't.

[Moe_Syzlak]

Good link to follow the electoral map:

 

http://www.electoral-vote.com/

[bleedorange]

Why woudl I think it more evil? One word...obstructionism.

 

 

That's not evil, that's good government.

[MrRain422]

Why is that?

[Guest Cousin Tupelo]

It wouldn't even be hard for them to make them irrelevent -- all they would have to do is actually make them filibuster rather than letting bills die at the mere threat of one. Not only would they not actually be able to filibuster everything they threaten to, but it would expose their obstructionism to the public in a way that allowing the threats to work simply doesn't.

 

I agree. Among the clamor of the 2006 victory this group has shown no backbone. At least Kucinich is giving it a go (although against Pelosi's urgings).

[Beltmann]

Good link to follow the electoral map:

 

http://www.electoral-vote.com/

Nifty. Thanks!

[bleedorange]

Why is that?

 

The less government does, the better. Especially with some of these bills that have come down the pipeline recently. Windfall profits tax??? Ridiculous. That's just one example.