Obama's Church

[wu_shizzle]

Good lively discussion but in all honesty the country is not ready to elect this guy. Unfortunately, I think the same is true for my favorite candidate, Mitt Romney; too many cannot get past his religion. I could be wrong but I'm afraid this country is ready to elect a woman but not yet a Mormon.

I think most of the anti-Mormon talk comes from the media. When I've talked politics with other Christians who believe Mormonism isn't biblical, I can't remember one dismissing Romney purely based on his faith.

Remember, Harry Reed is a practicing Mormon, and the Democrats elected him Majority Leader. Mitt Romney's father George was elected Governor in Michigan in the 60's when it would have been just as hard or harder for a Mormon to be elected to public office.

It is my opinion that Romney will win or lose based on his policies and charisma, not his faith.

[BostonWu]

I hope you're right...still skeptical.

[Snapshot9]

Oh, I believe in helping the poor and downtrodden, I just believe you do it FIRST in your own country before you go wondering out of the backyard.

I am a 3 time Viet Nam veteran, and I don't want ANY woman running the country when we are involved in a war. If that is sexist, then it is what it is.

And I wouldn't vote for Hillary because she is NOT QUALIFIED for the office of President. What considerable experience does she have that you feel qualifies her for President? What successes in her political life?

And it won't due for you to outpour proper PC innuendos out of me, I don't subscribe to the PC bullshit.

And perhaps you would be interested in the last book I read:

The Book of Revelation - The Smart Guide to the Bible

It could give you a different perspective.

[Wuzee]

And I wouldn't vote for Hillary because she is NOT QUALIFIED for the office of President. What considerable experience does she have that you feel qualifies her for President? What successes in her political life?

"You should never argue with a crazy mind." — Billy Joel.

[BostonWu]

Oh, I believe in helping the poor and downtrodden, I just believe you do it FIRST in your own country before you go wondering out of the backyard.

I am a 3 time Viet Nam veteran, and I don't want ANY woman running the country when we are involved in a war. If that is sexist, then it is what it is.

And I wouldn't vote for Hillary because she is NOT QUALIFIED for the office of President. What considerable experience does she have that you feel qualifies her for President? What successes in her political life?

And it won't due for you to outpour proper PC innuendos out of me, I don't subscribe to the PC ####.

And perhaps you would be interested in the last book I read:

The Book of Revelation - The Smart Guide to the Bible

It could give you a different perspective.

Where's the popcorn icon? Very entertaining stuff.

[wxkid23]

The only thing I agree with here is that we should help ourselves before helping others. I feel that is a huge downfall with this country right now and it annoys me greatly.

I don't have a political choice right now but I do know it is not Clinton or Obama or Edwards. Honestly, im very down on this countries political landscape and would consider myself not belonging to any party but I can't stand those 3.

[rrshock]

Oh, I believe in helping the poor and downtrodden, I just believe you do it FIRST in your own country before you go wondering out of the backyard.

I am a 3 time Viet Nam veteran, and I don't want ANY woman running the country when we are involved in a war. If that is sexist, then it is what it is.

And I wouldn't vote for Hillary because she is NOT QUALIFIED for the office of President. What considerable experience does she have that you feel qualifies her for President? What successes in her political life?

And it won't due for you to outpour proper PC innuendos out of me, I don't subscribe to the PC ####.

And perhaps you would be interested in the last book I read:

The Book of Revelation - The Smart Guide to the Bible

It could give you a different perspective.

Actually Hillary is probably as much or more qualifed than most of the candidates in either party because she's lived in the White House and has a very good idea of what the president has to do.

What makes Romney more qualified? What about Huckabee? Thompson? Edwards? Guiliani?

The only person to be around politics long enough to be qualified is McCain. Guiliani's qualified because he was Mayor of New York? Huckabee was govrnor of Arkansas and a Preacher? Obama's only been an office holder for a few years. Edwards was a lawyer.

My point is that none have been president, so none are more qualified than the others. And your not having a woman leading our country during war? Well we have a war monger running our country right now. It doesn't matter who's running the country, not everyone will be happy until all of our troops come home and quit dying for something that really doesn't appear to be right in the first place.

Everyone has their own choice for who should be president. But I'm really questioning why you are throwing around garbage on here that isn't even backed up by any proof.

[BOBB]

This is much ado about nothing. Everyone knows this country was bought, sold and paid for by "The Man" (military/industrial complex) a long time ago. Who is president matters very little. Didn't anyone ever take Sociology of Inequality with Dr. Wright?;-)

[RoyalShock]

This is much ado about nothing. Everyone knows this country was bought, sold and paid for by "The Man" (military/industrial complex) a long time ago. Who is president matters very little. Didn't anyone ever take Sociology of Inequality with Dr. Wright?;-)

There is one candidate who isn't owned by "the man". :yes:

[BostonWu]

How about any legit candiates?

[rrshock]

How about any legit candiates?

None.

[RoyalShock]

How about any legit candiates?

I have several reasons why I think he is legit. Until people stop using that as an excuse/reason to either support or not support a candidate, absolutely NOTHING will ever change with this country's political climate or its direction.

[RoyalShock]

And if you want to know one of the reasons so many people consider Paul a "fringe" candidate, consider this:

Fox News is planning a candidate's forum in New Hampshire on Jan. 6th, just days before that state's primaries.

Can you guess who Fox News chose not to invite? Yep. Ron Paul. Appearently, Fox News thinks that the voters in NH don't need to hear the message from a candidate that is polling as high or higher in their state than Thompson and Guiliani.

http://ronpaul2008.typepad.com/ron_p...x-news--1.html

If you still believe that the major news agencies in this country aren't forcing their agenda on the American people, you aren't paying attention. These agencies are for-profit companies who stand to make much more money if we have a president who's policies will create news-worthy situations, like, oh say, war.

Here are a couple of videos that highlight the only candidate addressing what is (or should be) one of the biggest issues facing America:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IWfIhFhelm8&feature=related

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XaxdUPNYj2s&feature=user

[BostonWu]

No offense Royal but on the surface the guy comes across as a squirly nut...kind of like good old Ross Perot along with the retired Navy Admiral sidekick. Now that shouldn't make a difference but in reality it does. That's just one of the reasons he doesn't stand a chance.

I admit I don't know a whole lot about the man but the one interview (Fox or CNN?) I saw I came away scared...(paraphrasing here):

"Oh I would prefer Iran didn't have nuclear weapons but if they did so what, they're a 3rd rate country..."

I'm sure you'll try and convince me he's the man for the White House but it's going to take a lot to get me past his squirliness and comments like that.

[RoyalShock]

No offense taken.

You have to understand Paul's position of non-interventionism. Until someone poses a clear threat to us, we should stay out. We have politicians (and their influential supporters) who are prepared to take military action against Iran despite the consensus from our many intelligence organizations that they abandoned their nuclear weapons programs in 2003. Now, tell me, which position sounds more nutty?

Until Iran gets a navy, they are no direct threat to us. If they threaten Israel, Isreal will wipe them off the map. I wish people would realize that the wackos over there hate us because we're on their lands and have meddled in their affairs since at least the 50s. How many leaders/rulers in that region have we supported, only to have it backfire decades later? Iranian Shah, Bin Laden, Hussein. I could even argue Saudi Arabia, seeing as how the majority of 9/11 attackers were Saudi (which I think supports Paul's position of why they hate us). How long before our support of Musharraf bites us?

Your comment about not knowing a lot about him illustrates what I think the problem is with a majority of American voters. If they aren't basing their choice off of what a candidate promises them in the form of handouts or "doing good", they base their opinions off of sound bites provided to them by a biased media and debates (or more accurately, arguments), neither of which really allow a candidate to fully explain their positions and why they hold them.