What Scares Me About Mccain's/Gop's Choice for Vp

[susanr613]

Obama and the Palin Effect by Deepak Chopra

Sometimes politics has the uncanny effect of mirroring the national psyche even when nobody intended to do that. This is perfectly illustrated by the rousing effect that Gov. Sarah Palin had on the Republican convention in Minneapolis this week. On the surface, she outdoes former Vice President Dan Quayle as an unlikely choice, given her negligent parochial expertise in the complex affairs of governing. Her state of Alaska has less than 700,000 residents, which reduces the job of governor to the scale of running one-tenth of New York City . By comparison, Rudy Giuliani is a towering international figure. Palin’s pluck has been admired, and her forthrightness, but her real appeal goes deeper.

She is the reverse of Barack Obama, in essence his shadow, deriding his idealism and turning negativity into a cause for pride. In psychological terms the shadow is that part of the psyche that hides out of sight, countering our aspirations, virtue, and vision with qualities we are ashamed to face: anger, fear, revenge, violence, selfishness, and suspicion of “the other.” For millions of Americans, Obama triggers those feelings, but they don’t want to express them. He is calling for us to reach for our higher selves, and frankly, that stirs up hidden reactions of an unsavory kind. (Just to be perfectly clear, I am not making a verbal play out of the fact that Sen. Obama is black. The shadow is a metaphor widely in use before his arrival on the scene.) I recognize that psychological analysis of politics is usually not welcome by the public, but I believe such a perspective can be helpful here to understand Palin’s message. In her acceptance speech Gov. Palin sent a rousing call to those who want to celebrate their resistance to change and a higher vision.

Look at what she stands for:

* *Small town values* — a nostaligic return to simpler times
disguises a denial of America ’s global role, a return to petty,
small-minded parochialism.

* *Ignorance of world affairs* — a repudiation of the need to repair
America ’s image abroad.

* *Family values* — a code for walling out anybody who makes a claim
for social justice. Such strangers, being outside the family,
don’t need to be needed.

* *Rigid stands on guns and abortion* — a scornful repudiation that
these issues can be negotiated with those who disagree.

* *Patriotism* — the usual fallback in a failed war.

* /*”Reform”*/ — an italicized term, since in addition to cleaning
out corruption and excessive spending, one also throws out anyone
who doesn’t fit your ideology.

Palin reinforces the overall message of the reactionary right, which has been in play since 1980, that social justice is liberal-radical, that minorities and immigrants, being different from “us” pure American types, can be ignored, that progressivism takes too much effort and globalism is a foreign threat. The radical right marches under the banners of “I’m all right, Jack,” and “Why change? Everything’s OK as it is.” The irony, of course, is that Gov. Palin is a woman and a reactionary at the same time. She can add mom to apple pie on her resume, while blithely reversing forty years of feminist progress. The irony is superficial; there are millions of women who stand on the side of conservatism, however obviously they are voting against their own good. The Republicans have won multiple national elections by raising shadow issues based on fear, rejection, hostility to change, and narrow-mindedness.

Obama’s call for higher ideals in politics can’t be seen in a vacuum. The shadow is real; it was bound to respond. Not just conservatives possess a shadow — we all do. So what comes next is a contest between the two forces of progress and inertia. Will the shadow win again, or has its furtive appeal become exhausted? No one can predict. The best thing about Gov. Palin is that she brought this conflict to light, which makes the upcoming debate honest. It would be a shame to elect another Reagan, whose smiling persona was a stalking horse for the reactionary forces that have brought us to the demoralized state we are in. We deserve to see what we are getting, without disguise.

 

[Darcia]

Pastor Voddie - says it better

Did McCain Make a Pro-Family VP Pick?
Saturday, August 30, 2008 by. Pastor Voddie Bauchman
Conservatives are all aglow as John McCain pulled off an apparent coup d’état this week by naming Sarah Palin as his choice for Vice President. Bob Unruh, writing for the conservative Christian web magazine, Worldnet Daily may have put it best when he opened his column:

Pro-family advocates and Republicans are saying presumptive GOP nominee for president Sen. John McCain may have checkmated Democrat Sen. Barack Obama with his choice of Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin as his vice-presidential running mate.

Everyone from Liberty Counsel to FRC is raving about the political genius displayed by Mr. McCain. It seems Christian conservatives have received the bone they were hoping McCain would throw their way in order to alleviate doubts about his conservative bona fides.

While I agree that from a political standpoint Mr. McCain made a brilliant political move, I am not so sure his pick can be portrayed as “pro-family.” It is true that Mrs. Palin is ardently pro-life –a distinction bolstered by the fact that she has five children, and chose not to abort a Down Syndrome baby—and she is also a fiscal conservative, a Washington outsider, and she hunts wolves from helicopters! What more could the Neocons ask for?

Unfortunately, Christians appear to be headed toward a hairpin turn at breakneck speed without the slightest clue as to the danger ahead. I don’t see this as a pro-family pick at all! Moreover, I believe the conservative fervor over this pick shows how politicized Christians have become at the expense of maintaining a prophetic voice. I believe that Mr. McCain has proven with his VP pick that he is pro-victory, not pro-family. In fact, I believe this was the anti-family pick. I say that for at least two reasons.

NOT A PRO FAMILY JOB

First, if Mr. McCain was pro-family, he would want to see Mrs. Palin at home taking care of her five children, not headed to Washington to be consumed by the responsibilities of being second in command to the most powerful man in the world (or serving as the Governor of Alaska for that matter). Let me also say that I would have the same reservations about a man with five children at home seeking the VP office. It’s not exactly a pro-family job.

FRC’s piece on Mrs. Palin links to a Wallstreet Journal article outlining her political career. While many Christian conservatives are highlighting Palin’s toughness, integrity and obvious conservative credentials (more conservative than McCain, in fact), they also seem to be ignoring several red flags.

For example, the Journal article, in an effort to highlight Palin’s ‘eco-friendly’ lifestyle, uncovers a disturbing trend that plagues far too many young women with families. The article refers to Palin’s habit of “driving herself to and from work every day from the Anchorage suburb of Wasilla, about 45 miles away.” Does this bother anyone else? Lets say the Governor averages sixty miles per hour on her daily commute (which I seriously doubt). That adds seven and a half hours per week to what one would assume is already a fifty to sixty-hour workweek (at least that if she is as driven as the article implies). This is supposed to be pro-family?

Perhaps the most disturbing revelation in the article is Mrs. Palin’s recent decision to travel for work (against her doctor’s orders) in the final days of her pregnancy. According to the article:

“Gov. Palin's opted to board a jet from Dallas in April while about to deliver a child. Gov. Palin, who was eight months pregnant, says she felt a few contractions shortly before she was to give a keynote speech to an energy summit of governors in Dallas. But she says she went ahead with it after her doctor in Alaska advised her to put her feet up to rest. "I was not going to miss that speech," she says.”

She put her child at risk, not for an official, necessary, or emergency duty as the Governor of Alaska, but because she simply “was not going to miss out on that speech.” A speech! The more I learn about the choices this woman has made, the less inclined I am to see Mr. McCain’s choice as pro-family. She may be the best working mother in America, but the evidence is questionable at best.

NOT A PRO FAMILY MESSAGE

Not only do I believe that a pro-family candidate would prefer to see Mrs. Palin at home taking care of her children, I believe a pro-family candidate would also avoid validating and advancing our culture’s desire to completely erase gender roles. Much of the discussion about Mrs. Palin’s candidacy centers around her opportunity to “break through the class ceiling” and be a “role model for young women.” The same was said of Mrs. Clinton’s candidacy in the Democratic primary. But what does this mean?

Are we really saying that we want to completely erase the distinctions between men and women. Do we really believe that it is good for our country to promote the view that women are merely men who happen to be biologically capable of having children (when it does not interfere with career advancement, of course)? I don’t think so. What do we do with the Bible’s admonition in Titus chapter two? Are Christian conservatives saying that Paul’s instructions concerning women’s duty to be “keepers of their homes” has somehow been overturned in light of recent discoveries? Or are we saying that pro-family means one thing when we’re in church, but something else when we’re trying to beat the Democrats?

Let me be clear. I am not arguing that it is always wrong for a woman to be engaged in affairs outside the home. I agree with Albert Barnes who wrote:

This does not mean, of course, that they are never to go abroad, but they are not to neglect their domestic affairs; they are not to be better known abroad than at home; they are not to omit their own duties, and become “busy-bodies” in the concerns of others. (Barnes’ Notes on the Bible)

My point is simple. The job of a wife and mother is to be a wife and mother. Anything in addition to that must also be subservient to it. There is no higher calling. Moreover, I believe Paul’s admonition should lead us to reject any notion of a wife and mother taking on the level of responsibility that Mrs. Palin is seeking.

My heart breaks for her. She has been blessed beyond measure with five incredible children, but she is running hard after what the world says is ‘something more.’ I fear she will regret this some day. In fact, I believe she already does. I can’t imagine her going to sleep at night without a nagging doubt in the back of her mind as she thinks about the time with her children that she will never get back.

My heart breaks for her children. Their mother, by all reports, is an incredible, intelligent, energetic woman with a great deal to offer. Unfortunately, right now she is offering it to the people of Alaska, and the people of the United States of America when her first priority is to offer it to them. God designed them to flourish under the nurturing care of their mother, not some surrogate.

My heart breaks for her husband. Mrs. Palin is not even supposed to be the head of her own household (Eph. 5:22ff; Col. 3:18; Titus 2:5; 1 Peter 3:1-7), let alone the State of Alaska, or the United States Senate (The VP oversees the Senate). He should be shepherding her, but instead she is ruling over him (Rom 13:1-7; 1Pet 2:13-17). How difficult it must be for him to walk the fine line of bowing to the culture that is stealing his bride while still trying to love his wife and lead his family.

My heart breaks for the so-called Christian right. All the usual subjects have been falling all over themselves to praise Mr. McCain and justify their blind allegiance to the Republican Party in an effort to secure more “pro-family” judges. They want to protect marriage from redefinition by the homosexual movement, and they are willing to redefine marriage (and motherhood) to do it.

Ironically, the Neocons are merely using Mrs. Palin as a political pawn. She is beloved because she gives them the coveted “moral high ground” in the upcoming debates. Read recent articles and the goals become clear. We must win on abortion. She makes it hard to argue for it. We must win on the race/gender issue. She gives us a woman to their ethnic minority. We must win on being young and hip. Obama is 47; Palin is 44. We must win the “change” argument. Obama is new to Washington; Palin has never served there. Checkmate!

Unfortunately, this political pawn represents a fatal flaw worldview flaw. In an effort to win the pro-family political argument, we are sacrificing the pro-family biblical argument. In essence, the message being sent to women by conservative Christians backing McCain/Palin is, “It’s ok to sacrifice your family on the altar of your career; just don’t have an abortion.” How pro-family is that?

 

[chefsteph07]

Obama and the Palin Effect by Deepak Chopra

Sometimes politics has the uncanny effect of mirroring the national psyche even when nobody intended to do that. This is perfectly illustrated by the rousing effect that Gov. Sarah Palin had on the Republican convention in Minneapolis this week. On the surface, she outdoes former Vice President Dan Quayle as an unlikely choice, given her negligent parochial expertise in the complex affairs of governing. Her state of Alaska has less than 700,000 residents, which reduces the job of governor to the scale of running one-tenth of New York City . By comparison, Rudy Giuliani is a towering international figure. Palin’s pluck has been admired, and her forthrightness, but her real appeal goes deeper.

She is the reverse of Barack Obama, in essence his shadow, deriding his idealism and turning negativity into a cause for pride. In psychological terms the shadow is that part of the psyche that hides out of sight, countering our aspirations, virtue, and vision with qualities we are ashamed to face: anger, fear, revenge, violence, selfishness, and suspicion of “the other.” For millions of Americans, Obama triggers those feelings, but they don’t want to express them. He is calling for us to reach for our higher selves, and frankly, that stirs up hidden reactions of an unsavory kind. (Just to be perfectly clear, I am not making a verbal play out of the fact that Sen. Obama is black. The shadow is a metaphor widely in use before his arrival on the scene.) I recognize that psychological analysis of politics is usually not welcome by the public, but I believe such a perspective can be helpful here to understand Palin’s message. In her acceptance speech Gov. Palin sent a rousing call to those who want to celebrate their resistance to change and a higher vision.

Look at what she stands for:

* *Small town values* — a nostaligic return to simpler times
disguises a denial of America ’s global role, a return to petty,
small-minded parochialism.

* *Ignorance of world affairs* — a repudiation of the need to repair
America ’s image abroad.

* *Family values* — a code for walling out anybody who makes a claim
for social justice. Such strangers, being outside the family,
don’t need to be needed.

* *Rigid stands on guns and abortion* — a scornful repudiation that
these issues can be negotiated with those who disagree.

* *Patriotism* — the usual fallback in a failed war.

* /*”Reform”*/ — an italicized term, since in addition to cleaning
out corruption and excessive spending, one also throws out anyone
who doesn’t fit your ideology.

Palin reinforces the overall message of the reactionary right, which has been in play since 1980, that social justice is liberal-radical, that minorities and immigrants, being different from “us” pure American types, can be ignored, that progressivism takes too much effort and globalism is a foreign threat. The radical right marches under the banners of “I’m all right, Jack,” and “Why change? Everything’s OK as it is.” The irony, of course, is that Gov. Palin is a woman and a reactionary at the same time. She can add mom to apple pie on her resume, while blithely reversing forty years of feminist progress. The irony is superficial; there are millions of women who stand on the side of conservatism, however obviously they are voting against their own good. The Republicans have won multiple national elections by raising shadow issues based on fear, rejection, hostility to change, and narrow-mindedness.

Obama’s call for higher ideals in politics can’t be seen in a vacuum. The shadow is real; it was bound to respond. Not just conservatives possess a shadow — we all do. So what comes next is a contest between the two forces of progress and inertia. Will the shadow win again, or has its furtive appeal become exhausted? No one can predict. The best thing about Gov. Palin is that she brought this conflict to light, which makes the upcoming debate honest. It would be a shame to elect another Reagan, whose smiling persona was a stalking horse for the reactionary forces that have brought us to the demoralized state we are in. We deserve to see what we are getting, without disguise.

I did not read this entire post, but I did see what she "stands for" and I think I "stand for" the same things...of course it is all shown in a negative light...
And the foreign stuff she can be brought up to speed on no problem...I'm not too worried about it.

 

[chefsteph07]

Pastor Voddie - says it better

Did McCain Make a Pro-Family VP Pick?
Saturday, August 30, 2008 by. Pastor Voddie Bauchman
Conservatives are all aglow as John McCain pulled off an apparent coup d’état this week by naming Sarah Palin as his choice for Vice President. Bob Unruh, writing for the conservative Christian web magazine, Worldnet Daily may have put it best when he opened his column:

Pro-family advocates and Republicans are saying presumptive GOP nominee for president Sen. John McCain may have checkmated Democrat Sen. Barack Obama with his choice of Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin as his vice-presidential running mate.

Everyone from Liberty Counsel to FRC is raving about the political genius displayed by Mr. McCain. It seems Christian conservatives have received the bone they were hoping McCain would throw their way in order to alleviate doubts about his conservative bona fides.

While I agree that from a political standpoint Mr. McCain made a brilliant political move, I am not so sure his pick can be portrayed as “pro-family.” It is true that Mrs. Palin is ardently pro-life –a distinction bolstered by the fact that she has five children, and chose not to abort a Down Syndrome baby—and she is also a fiscal conservative, a Washington outsider, and she hunts wolves from helicopters! What more could the Neocons ask for?

Unfortunately, Christians appear to be headed toward a hairpin turn at breakneck speed without the slightest clue as to the danger ahead. I don’t see this as a pro-family pick at all! Moreover, I believe the conservative fervor over this pick shows how politicized Christians have become at the expense of maintaining a prophetic voice. I believe that Mr. McCain has proven with his VP pick that he is pro-victory, not pro-family. In fact, I believe this was the anti-family pick. I say that for at least two reasons.

NOT A PRO FAMILY JOB

First, if Mr. McCain was pro-family, he would want to see Mrs. Palin at home taking care of her five children, not headed to Washington to be consumed by the responsibilities of being second in command to the most powerful man in the world (or serving as the Governor of Alaska for that matter). Let me also say that I would have the same reservations about a man with five children at home seeking the VP office. It’s not exactly a pro-family job.

FRC’s piece on Mrs. Palin links to a Wallstreet Journal article outlining her political career. While many Christian conservatives are highlighting Palin’s toughness, integrity and obvious conservative credentials (more conservative than McCain, in fact), they also seem to be ignoring several red flags.

For example, the Journal article, in an effort to highlight Palin’s ‘eco-friendly’ lifestyle, uncovers a disturbing trend that plagues far too many young women with families. The article refers to Palin’s habit of “driving herself to and from work every day from the Anchorage suburb of Wasilla, about 45 miles away.” Does this bother anyone else? Lets say the Governor averages sixty miles per hour on her daily commute (which I seriously doubt). That adds seven and a half hours per week to what one would assume is already a fifty to sixty-hour workweek (at least that if she is as driven as the article implies). This is supposed to be pro-family?

Perhaps the most disturbing revelation in the article is Mrs. Palin’s recent decision to travel for work (against her doctor’s orders) in the final days of her pregnancy. According to the article:

“Gov. Palin's opted to board a jet from Dallas in April while about to deliver a child. Gov. Palin, who was eight months pregnant, says she felt a few contractions shortly before she was to give a keynote speech to an energy summit of governors in Dallas. But she says she went ahead with it after her doctor in Alaska advised her to put her feet up to rest. "I was not going to miss that speech," she says.”

She put her child at risk, not for an official, necessary, or emergency duty as the Governor of Alaska, but because she simply “was not going to miss out on that speech.” A speech! The more I learn about the choices this woman has made, the less inclined I am to see Mr. McCain’s choice as pro-family. She may be the best working mother in America, but the evidence is questionable at best.

NOT A PRO FAMILY MESSAGE

Not only do I believe that a pro-family candidate would prefer to see Mrs. Palin at home taking care of her children, I believe a pro-family candidate would also avoid validating and advancing our culture’s desire to completely erase gender roles. Much of the discussion about Mrs. Palin’s candidacy centers around her opportunity to “break through the class ceiling” and be a “role model for young women.” The same was said of Mrs. Clinton’s candidacy in the Democratic primary. But what does this mean?

Are we really saying that we want to completely erase the distinctions between men and women. Do we really believe that it is good for our country to promote the view that women are merely men who happen to be biologically capable of having children (when it does not interfere with career advancement, of course)? I don’t think so. What do we do with the Bible’s admonition in Titus chapter two? Are Christian conservatives saying that Paul’s instructions concerning women’s duty to be “keepers of their homes” has somehow been overturned in light of recent discoveries? Or are we saying that pro-family means one thing when we’re in church, but something else when we’re trying to beat the Democrats?

Let me be clear. I am not arguing that it is always wrong for a woman to be engaged in affairs outside the home. I agree with Albert Barnes who wrote:

This does not mean, of course, that they are never to go abroad, but they are not to neglect their domestic affairs; they are not to be better known abroad than at home; they are not to omit their own duties, and become “busy-bodies” in the concerns of others. (Barnes’ Notes on the Bible)

My point is simple. The job of a wife and mother is to be a wife and mother. Anything in addition to that must also be subservient to it. There is no higher calling. Moreover, I believe Paul’s admonition should lead us to reject any notion of a wife and mother taking on the level of responsibility that Mrs. Palin is seeking.

My heart breaks for her. She has been blessed beyond measure with five incredible children, but she is running hard after what the world says is ‘something more.’ I fear she will regret this some day. In fact, I believe she already does. I can’t imagine her going to sleep at night without a nagging doubt in the back of her mind as she thinks about the time with her children that she will never get back.

My heart breaks for her children. Their mother, by all reports, is an incredible, intelligent, energetic woman with a great deal to offer. Unfortunately, right now she is offering it to the people of Alaska, and the people of the United States of America when her first priority is to offer it to them. God designed them to flourish under the nurturing care of their mother, not some surrogate.

My heart breaks for her husband. Mrs. Palin is not even supposed to be the head of her own household (Eph. 5:22ff; Col. 3:18; Titus 2:5; 1 Peter 3:1-7), let alone the State of Alaska, or the United States Senate (The VP oversees the Senate). He should be shepherding her, but instead she is ruling over him (Rom 13:1-7; 1Pet 2:13-17). How difficult it must be for him to walk the fine line of bowing to the culture that is stealing his bride while still trying to love his wife and lead his family.

My heart breaks for the so-called Christian right. All the usual subjects have been falling all over themselves to praise Mr. McCain and justify their blind allegiance to the Republican Party in an effort to secure more “pro-family” judges. They want to protect marriage from redefinition by the homosexual movement, and they are willing to redefine marriage (and motherhood) to do it.

Ironically, the Neocons are merely using Mrs. Palin as a political pawn. She is beloved because she gives them the coveted “moral high ground” in the upcoming debates. Read recent articles and the goals become clear. We must win on abortion. She makes it hard to argue for it. We must win on the race/gender issue. She gives us a woman to their ethnic minority. We must win on being young and hip. Obama is 47; Palin is 44. We must win the “change” argument. Obama is new to Washington; Palin has never served there. Checkmate!

Unfortunately, this political pawn represents a fatal flaw worldview flaw. In an effort to win the pro-family political argument, we are sacrificing the pro-family biblical argument. In essence, the message being sent to women by conservative Christians backing McCain/Palin is, “It’s ok to sacrifice your family on the altar of your career; just don’t have an abortion.” How pro-family is that?

I'm kind of offended by this whole post to be honest. I think it's ridiculous that so much is being put upon her not being a good mother due to all this! We are in the 2008's here people!

 

[BethCooks4U]

I don't agree that a woman (even with children) can't do the job but I do agree with the original post on this thread. There are ways to give your job 150% AND be a great mother - many do it every day. Some of those "jobs" are volunteer too so more do that juggle than anyone can realize. You all know the saying "If you want a job done give it to a busy woman" (something like that...).

My biggest red flag about her is all the apparent lies or at least stretching of the truth that she has been doing and the fact that she's hidden away all this time. It makes her look weak and guilty and very pit bullish.

 

[chefsteph07]

I think she's doing an interview tomorrow w/ Charles Gibson.
I don't think she's been "hidden away", I believe she's probably being brought up to speed on things so she can be more informed. I don't think there's anything wrong w/ that. I don't remember being this whole big deal about Cheney being nominated...

 

[BethCooks4U]

I think she's doing an interview tomorrow w/ Charles Gibson.
I don't think she's been "hidden away", I believe she's probably being brought up to speed on things so she can be more informed. I don't think there's anything wrong w/ that. I don't remember being this whole big deal about Cheney being nominated...

The big deal is that few outside of Alaska hardly knew her. She's a mystery and they want to keep it that way. It adds to her appeal. She's doing a two part interview today and tomorrow with ONE reporter and I would bet that it will be scripted. I want her to stand there and take random questions like everyone else has to. Fair is fair. Boy, what we would have heard if Biden refused to talk to the press.

 

[Hathery]

I find both of those articles very interesting. I've never actually thought of how contradictory the Christian right are on Palin: abortion=bad, as it disgrees with the Bible. Reversing gender roles=good, even though it disagrees w/ Biblical theology? Not saying it's right or wrong, just....interesting.

 

[susanr613]

I did think long and hard before I posted this (the Chopra essay). There is no question that the majority of Cheffers (at least the ones that post) are delighted with the Republican ticket and disgusted and fearful of the Democrat one. I did not want this to turn into yet another "Obama is the AntiChrist" thread. I also would be disappointed if this turns into a "Palin is a bad person" thread. She is not.

I wound up posting it because it represents my viewpoint. I don't have any issues with Mrs. Palin as a person; I am very concerned about the views and stances she represents. Dr. Chopra's essay puts into words the dread I have been feeling ever since the GOP and McCain made their VP choice.

 

[JAE]

Darcia

Where is the article from that you posted? Is it written by Pastor Voddie Bauchman with a small part from Worldnet Daily by Bob Unruh? Where is Pastor Bauchman's part and where does Bob Unruh's part stop and start?

IMO it's a very judgemental article and putting words in pro-family Christians' mouths. The author does not speak for me.

Back to Susan's thread.

 

[Hathery]

I did think long and hard before I posted this (the Chopra essay). There is no question that the majority of Cheffers (at least the ones that post) are delighted with the Republican ticket and disgusted and fearful of the Democrat one. I did not want this to turn into yet another "Obama is the AntiChrist" thread. I also would be disappointed if this turns into a "Palin is a bad person" thread. She is not.

I wound up posting it because it represents my viewpoint. I don't have any issues with Mrs. Palin as a person; I am very concerned about the views and stances she represents. Dr. Chopra's essay puts into words the dread I have been feeling ever since the GOP and McCain made their VP choice.

It eloquently represents my viewpoint, too. I don't think any of the candidates are "bad people", some just have viewpoints that I find disconcerting. It's a shame that we as Americans turn every election into a character assassination when we should be focusing on the issues.

 

[susanr613]

It's a shame that we as Americans turn every election into a character assassination when we should be focusing on the issues.

AMEN to that, Hathery!

 

[janetupnorth]

I was going to stay out of this thread because it doesn't reflect my views.However, delighted vs. disgusted and fearful does not reflect my views at all.I find the Chopra essay to be very close-minded, tying Palin to a reactionary and radical right and basically eluding to the fact that Republicans are narrow-minded.The definitions are all wrong. If you live in a small town you are petty, small-minded and parochial? Family values does not mean social justice? Patriotism means failure? That to me insults our military.Reform means anti-your opinion?I just don't agree...it seems as far to the left as people accuse Republicans (especially cheffer-Republicans) of being to the right.The psycho-bable does not touch on any legitimate facts for me on issues and just tries to stir up feelings and emotions in people to sway based on that.

 

[chefruthie]

It eloquently represents my viewpoint, too. I don't think any of the candidates are "bad people", some just have viewpoints that I find disconcerting. It's a shame that we as Americans turn every election into a character assassination when we should be focusing on the issues.

An issue that should be on everyone's mind, especailly today, is our national security. Obama has already stated that he feels the US should sit down and talk with Ahmadinejad. You cannot negotiate or talk with a terrorist leader.

This is in response to the original post.
Ronald Reagan was an incredible President. Every registered Democrat that I knew voted for him his 2nd term. He had nothing to do with "bringing us to the demoralized state that we are in". That was a truly incorrect statement. I'm guessing Deepak thinks Former President Clinton had nothing at all to do with getting us into this demoralized state we're in.

This is in response to the 2nd post.
I don't have time to post everything I want to on this on. I think reading Proverbs 31 should answer any questions one might have to this one.

 

[ChefBeckyD]

I was going to stay out of this thread because it doesn't reflect my views.

However, delighted vs. disgusted and fearful does not reflect my views at all.

I find the Chopra essay to be very close-minded, tying Palin to a reactionary and radical right and basically eluding to the fact that Republicans are narrow-minded.

The definitions are all wrong. If you live in a small town you are petty, small-minded and parochial?

Family values does not mean social justice?

Patriotism means failure? That to me insults our military.

Reform means anti-your opinion?

I just don't agree...it seems as far to the left as people accuse Republicans (especially cheffer-Republicans) of being to the right.

The psycho-bable does not touch on any legitimate facts for me on issues and just tries to stir up feelings and emotions in people to sway based on that.

Couldn't have said it better myself.:thumbup:

 

[JAE]

I was going to stay out of this thread because it doesn't reflect my views.However, delighted vs. disgusted and fearful does not reflect my views at all.I find the Chopra essay to be very close-minded, tying Palin to a reactionary and radical right and basically eluding to the fact that Republicans are narrow-minded.The definitions are all wrong. If you live in a small town you are petty, small-minded and parochial? Family values does not mean social justice? Patriotism means failure? That to me insults our military.Reform means anti-your opinion?I just don't agree...it seems as far to the left as people accuse Republicans (especially cheffer-Republicans) of being to the right.The psycho-bable does not touch on any legitimate facts for me on issues and just tries to stir up feelings and emotions in people to sway based on that.

Thank you Janet. I didn't know how to post that so eloquently. I agree that the definitions are way off. I would be scared if that was how I viewed the Republican/Conservative party, too.

 

[Hathery]

An issue that should be on everyone's mind, especailly today, is our national security. Obama has already stated that he feels the US should sit down and talk with Ahmadinejad. You cannot negotiate or talk with a terrorist leader.

You'll never convince a terrorist leader to change his viewpoint, but you can certainly negotiate a truce of some sort. I know a lot of people believe that it is morally incorrect to negotiate with terrorists because they believe it validates their behavior, but I personally don't believe the US is everyone's Savior...if we as a country can come to an understanding with another nation or group, we ought to do it.

 

[janetupnorth]

Thank you Janet. I didn't know how to post that so eloquently. I agree that the definitions are way off. I would be scared if that was how I viewed the Republican/Conservative party, too.

:blushing::blushing::blushing:Aw...I'm blushing...I don't normally get called eloquent...:blushing::blushing::blushing:

Now off to get my kiddos and have some "Family Time".

 

[dannyzmom]

Pastor Voddie - says it better

Did McCain Make a Pro-Family VP Pick?
Saturday, August 30, 2008 by. Pastor Voddie Bauchman
Conservatives are all aglow as John McCain pulled off an apparent coup d’état this week by naming Sarah Palin as his choice for Vice President. Bob Unruh, writing for the conservative Christian web magazine, Worldnet Daily may have put it best when he opened his column:

Pro-family advocates and Republicans are saying presumptive GOP nominee for president Sen. John McCain may have checkmated Democrat Sen. Barack Obama with his choice of Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin as his vice-presidential running mate.

Everyone from Liberty Counsel to FRC is raving about the political genius displayed by Mr. McCain. It seems Christian conservatives have received the bone they were hoping McCain would throw their way in order to alleviate doubts about his conservative bona fides.

While I agree that from a political standpoint Mr. McCain made a brilliant political move, I am not so sure his pick can be portrayed as “pro-family.” It is true that Mrs. Palin is ardently pro-life –a distinction bolstered by the fact that she has five children, and chose not to abort a Down Syndrome baby—and she is also a fiscal conservative, a Washington outsider, and she hunts wolves from helicopters! What more could the Neocons ask for?

Unfortunately, Christians appear to be headed toward a hairpin turn at breakneck speed without the slightest clue as to the danger ahead. I don’t see this as a pro-family pick at all! Moreover, I believe the conservative fervor over this pick shows how politicized Christians have become at the expense of maintaining a prophetic voice. I believe that Mr. McCain has proven with his VP pick that he is pro-victory, not pro-family. In fact, I believe this was the anti-family pick. I say that for at least two reasons.

NOT A PRO FAMILY JOB

First, if Mr. McCain was pro-family, he would want to see Mrs. Palin at home taking care of her five children, not headed to Washington to be consumed by the responsibilities of being second in command to the most powerful man in the world (or serving as the Governor of Alaska for that matter). Let me also say that I would have the same reservations about a man with five children at home seeking the VP office. It’s not exactly a pro-family job.

FRC’s piece on Mrs. Palin links to a Wallstreet Journal article outlining her political career. While many Christian conservatives are highlighting Palin’s toughness, integrity and obvious conservative credentials (more conservative than McCain, in fact), they also seem to be ignoring several red flags.

For example, the Journal article, in an effort to highlight Palin’s ‘eco-friendly’ lifestyle, uncovers a disturbing trend that plagues far too many young women with families. The article refers to Palin’s habit of “driving herself to and from work every day from the Anchorage suburb of Wasilla, about 45 miles away.” Does this bother anyone else? Lets say the Governor averages sixty miles per hour on her daily commute (which I seriously doubt). That adds seven and a half hours per week to what one would assume is already a fifty to sixty-hour workweek (at least that if she is as driven as the article implies). This is supposed to be pro-family?

Perhaps the most disturbing revelation in the article is Mrs. Palin’s recent decision to travel for work (against her doctor’s orders) in the final days of her pregnancy. According to the article:

“Gov. Palin's opted to board a jet from Dallas in April while about to deliver a child. Gov. Palin, who was eight months pregnant, says she felt a few contractions shortly before she was to give a keynote speech to an energy summit of governors in Dallas. But she says she went ahead with it after her doctor in Alaska advised her to put her feet up to rest. "I was not going to miss that speech," she says.”

She put her child at risk, not for an official, necessary, or emergency duty as the Governor of Alaska, but because she simply “was not going to miss out on that speech.” A speech! The more I learn about the choices this woman has made, the less inclined I am to see Mr. McCain’s choice as pro-family. She may be the best working mother in America, but the evidence is questionable at best.

NOT A PRO FAMILY MESSAGE

Not only do I believe that a pro-family candidate would prefer to see Mrs. Palin at home taking care of her children, I believe a pro-family candidate would also avoid validating and advancing our culture’s desire to completely erase gender roles. Much of the discussion about Mrs. Palin’s candidacy centers around her opportunity to “break through the class ceiling” and be a “role model for young women.” The same was said of Mrs. Clinton’s candidacy in the Democratic primary. But what does this mean?

Are we really saying that we want to completely erase the distinctions between men and women. Do we really believe that it is good for our country to promote the view that women are merely men who happen to be biologically capable of having children (when it does not interfere with career advancement, of course)? I don’t think so. What do we do with the Bible’s admonition in Titus chapter two? Are Christian conservatives saying that Paul’s instructions concerning women’s duty to be “keepers of their homes” has somehow been overturned in light of recent discoveries? Or are we saying that pro-family means one thing when we’re in church, but something else when we’re trying to beat the Democrats?

Let me be clear. I am not arguing that it is always wrong for a woman to be engaged in affairs outside the home. I agree with Albert Barnes who wrote:

This does not mean, of course, that they are never to go abroad, but they are not to neglect their domestic affairs; they are not to be better known abroad than at home; they are not to omit their own duties, and become “busy-bodies” in the concerns of others. (Barnes’ Notes on the Bible)

My point is simple. The job of a wife and mother is to be a wife and mother. Anything in addition to that must also be subservient to it. There is no higher calling. Moreover, I believe Paul’s admonition should lead us to reject any notion of a wife and mother taking on the level of responsibility that Mrs. Palin is seeking.

My heart breaks for her. She has been blessed beyond measure with five incredible children, but she is running hard after what the world says is ‘something more.’ I fear she will regret this some day. In fact, I believe she already does. I can’t imagine her going to sleep at night without a nagging doubt in the back of her mind as she thinks about the time with her children that she will never get back.

My heart breaks for her children. Their mother, by all reports, is an incredible, intelligent, energetic woman with a great deal to offer. Unfortunately, right now she is offering it to the people of Alaska, and the people of the United States of America when her first priority is to offer it to them. God designed them to flourish under the nurturing care of their mother, not some surrogate.

My heart breaks for her husband. Mrs. Palin is not even supposed to be the head of her own household (Eph. 5:22ff; Col. 3:18; Titus 2:5; 1 Peter 3:1-7), let alone the State of Alaska, or the United States Senate (The VP oversees the Senate). He should be shepherding her, but instead she is ruling over him (Rom 13:1-7; 1Pet 2:13-17). How difficult it must be for him to walk the fine line of bowing to the culture that is stealing his bride while still trying to love his wife and lead his family.

My heart breaks for the so-called Christian right. All the usual subjects have been falling all over themselves to praise Mr. McCain and justify their blind allegiance to the Republican Party in an effort to secure more “pro-family” judges. They want to protect marriage from redefinition by the homosexual movement, and they are willing to redefine marriage (and motherhood) to do it.

Ironically, the Neocons are merely using Mrs. Palin as a political pawn. She is beloved because she gives them the coveted “moral high ground” in the upcoming debates. Read recent articles and the goals become clear. We must win on abortion. She makes it hard to argue for it. We must win on the race/gender issue. She gives us a woman to their ethnic minority. We must win on being young and hip. Obama is 47; Palin is 44. We must win the “change” argument. Obama is new to Washington; Palin has never served there. Checkmate!

Unfortunately, this political pawn represents a fatal flaw worldview flaw. In an effort to win the pro-family political argument, we are sacrificing the pro-family biblical argument. In essence, the message being sent to women by conservative Christians backing McCain/Palin is, “It’s ok to sacrifice your family on the altar of your career; just don’t have an abortion.” How pro-family is that?

I couldn't agree more.

 

[chefruthie]

You'll never convince a terrorist leader to change his viewpoint, but you can certainly negotiate a truce of some sort. I know a lot of people believe that it is morally incorrect to negotiate with terrorists because they believe it validates their behavior, but I personally don't believe the US is everyone's Savior...if we as a country can come to an understanding with another nation or group, we ought to do it.

The problem with this is we come to the understanding, we do our part and they continue to terrorize. Was there any desire from the 9/11 terrorists to "talk" with us at any time before they caused such pain and devastation. The only understanding they will agree with is that we become a Muslim nation or remain infidels and pay the price. You are right, The US is not everyone's Savior, there's only one Savior and His name is Jesus

 

[JAE]

I agree completely that God wants me home with my kids rather than off working full time. But, I cannot and will not make a judgement on other moms and the calling that God puts on their lives. Only God can possibly know what Palin is running hard after.

 

[Hathery]

The problem with this is we come to the understanding, we do our part and they continue to terrorize. Was there any desire from the 9/11 terrorists to "talk" with us at any time before they caused such pain and devastation. The only understanding they will agree with is that we become a Muslim nation or remain infidels and pay the price. You are right, The US is not everyone's Savior, there's only one Savior and His name is Jesus

I just don't believe that sinking to their level and imposing violence on an entire society (the majority of which are innocent bystanders) is the right plan of action. Everyone's personal philosophy is different in that respect.

 

[chefruthie]

I just don't believe that sinking to their level and imposing violence on an entire society (the majority of which are innocent bystanders) is the right plan of action. Everyone's personal philosophy is different in that respect.

I don't beleive in sinking to their level either nor imposing violence on an entire society. You do realize the 9/11 attacks did just that. Our whole nation was affected. The United States has never imposed violence on an entire society. What violence on an entire society are you referring to?

 

[Darcia]

voddie baucham ministries

You have to go through the archives. That particular article is dated 8/30/08. You can also hear his CNN interview on you tube. His view points reflect mine and Obama does not I will be voting on 11/4 but not for the presidency.

Darcia

Where is the article from that you posted? Is it written by Pastor Voddie Bauchman with a small part from Worldnet Daily by Bob Unruh? Where is Pastor Bauchman's part and where does Bob Unruh's part stop and start?

IMO it's a very judgemental article and putting words in pro-family Christians' mouths. The author does not speak for me.

Back to Susan's thread.

 

[Hathery]

I don't beleive in sinking to their level either nor imposing violence on an entire society. You do realize the 9/11 attacks did just that. Our whole nation was affected. The United States has never imposed violence on an entire society. What violence on an entire society are you referring to?

Erm, this war in Iraq? The war that is perpetuated against people that had nothing to do with the 9/11 attacks? The one with almost 100,000 civilian deaths reported?

 

[chefruthie]

Erm, this war in Iraq? The war that is perpetuated against people that had nothing to do with the 9/11 attacks? The one with almost 100,000 civilian deaths reported?

Saddam was a terrorist, who would "talk" with the UN and then laugh at all of their deadlines. I'm not sure how many civilian murders they have counted under the rule of Saddam. I don't know where the number you quoted came from and I don't know if that number includes those killed by suicide bombers and other terrorists. Every loss of life is tragic.

 

[Kitchen Diva]

Erm, this war in Iraq? The war that is perpetuated against people that had nothing to do with the 9/11 attacks? The one with almost 100,000 civilian deaths reported?

And trust me when I say that every precaution is taken so that a civilian is NOT killed that didn't have a gun or granade pointed at a true innocent by-stander or a solider. There are soliders that will even DIE to save a civilian over there. My step son happened to know a few--- the terrorists over there would kill their own mother's if it meant furthering their cause...

I don't know where you get your numbers either- war sucks, period. If America is so bad, like you guys seem to think it is, feel free to move.

 

[BethCooks4U]

And trust me when I say that every precaution is taken so that a civilian is NOT killed that didn't have a gun or granade pointed at a true innocent by-stander or a solider. There are soliders that will even DIE to save a civilian over there. My step son happened to know a few--- the terrorists over there would kill their own mother's if it meant furthering their cause...

I don't know where you get your numbers either- war sucks, period. If America is so bad, like you guys seem to think it is, feel free to move.

WOW.

It seems both sides are saying things are really bad. That's why they are both saying we need change.

 

[Shawnna]

I didn't plan on getting involved in this thread as it is against my standing on this election, but I have to voice my opinion on 2 issues:

1. I don't remember anyone saying Obama was the anti-Christ...just that the way people view him reminded them of how people are described in the book of Revelations and in a fiction book...but I am not going there anymore. I don't even want to get into that again.

2. I find those passages listed above to be offensive to women. But, everyone has their own opinion and I choose to let it go. The Bible talks about the "virtuous woman" and says that she takes care of her household and then goes to work...working the fields, buying land, etc...while her husband sits at the gate with other men. My husband works about 18 every day and I also work and take care of my children and husband. Does this go against what the Bible says? NO! The husband is the spiritual head of the household. Women have "callings" on their lives too. Ruth, Mary the mother of Jesus, Debra, and Ester are just a few that are mentioned. God doesn't say we can't be leaders...He uses anyone who is willing to be used.

 

[Jean DeVries]

I saw this article and thought, "Man, I wish I could post this on CS without getting lambasted..."

Commentary: It's not Hillary's role to attack Sarah Palin - CNN.com

 

[MissChef]

I was going to stay out of this thread because it doesn't reflect my views.

However, delighted vs. disgusted and fearful does not reflect my views at all.

I find the Chopra essay to be very close-minded, tying Palin to a reactionary and radical right and basically eluding to the fact that Republicans are narrow-minded.

The definitions are all wrong. If you live in a small town you are petty, small-minded and parochial?

Family values does not mean social justice?

Patriotism means failure? That to me insults our military.

Reform means anti-your opinion?

I just don't agree...it seems as far to the left as people accuse Republicans (especially cheffer-Republicans) of being to the right.

The psycho-bable does not touch on any legitimate facts for me on issues and just tries to stir up feelings and emotions in people to sway based on that.

WOW!!! You do have a way with words! You are eloquent I so admire you for being to put into words some of my feelings! Thanks Janet!

 

[ChefBeckyD]

I saw this article and thought, "Man, I wish I could post this on CS without getting lambasted..."Commentary: It's not Hillary's role to attack Sarah Palin - CNN.com

Jean - I thought that was a very good article. Condon did a good job of expressing her views without attacking anyone.:thumbup:I thought it was much more balanced and articulate than Deepak's article - and not inflammatory or derogatory to anyone that doesn't believe or vote the way that she does.It didn't make my blood pressure rise to read it - it just made me understand her, and other Clinton Supporters. I liked it.

 

[JAE]

I saw this article and thought, "Man, I wish I could post this on CS without getting lambasted..."

Commentary: It's not Hillary's role to attack Sarah Palin - CNN.com

Jean, I thought that was a well written article by the comedian. Not 100% in agreement but well written.

 

[Hathery]

And trust me when I say that every precaution is taken so that a civilian is NOT killed that didn't have a gun or granade pointed at a true innocent by-stander or a solider. There are soliders that will even DIE to save a civilian over there. My step son happened to know a few--- the terrorists over there would kill their own mother's if it meant furthering their cause...

I don't know where you get your numbers either- war sucks, period. If America is so bad, like you guys seem to think it is, feel free to move.

I got my numbers here: Iraq Body Count :

I don't think we think America is bad...we feel like it's ready for a change.

 

[janetupnorth]

I got my numbers here: Iraq Body Count :

I don't think we think America is bad...we feel like it's ready for a change.

Reminds me a little of Hitler's Germany...only that was 6 million...you really think if we pulled out of Iraq it would save that many civilians?

I believe it would be much worse if we weren't there at this point in time.

I don't think a "body count" tells the true story. We just have more information now than years ago.

There are varying opinions on the war but until I've been there first-hand to see what is happening, I will personally rely on family and friends who have rather than some nay-sayer I don't know on some blog.

No matter how you look at it, war sucks. But I'd much rather be in Iraq than have a president who will let a war in Israel happen without defending them.

 

[Hathery]

I also have family members who have been involved in the war effort as well as acquaintances who have been killed or mentally scarred by it.

I don't believe we have more information than we did a few years ago. A few years ago, the information was simply ignored to justify our actions. You can disagree with that if you want, but it is a well-documented fact.

 

[janetupnorth]

I also have family members who have been involved in the war effort as well as acquaintances who have been killed or mentally scarred by it.I don't believe we have more information than we did a few years ago. A few years ago, the information was simply ignored to justify our actions. You can disagree with that if you want, but it is a well-documented fact.

I'm comparing WWII and Vietnam to now, not 4-7 years ago to now.War will scar anyone...I know people scarred by WWII, Vietnam, Korea, Dessert Storm...any conflict. But I also know people scarred by life itself...losing a love one to a heart attack, a bee sting, drowning while fishing. The emotional effects of an action cannot be the sole basis for our arguing for or against doing it.

 

[Hathery]

My grandpa was a WWII vet. He earned a purple heart and missed going to Normandy by 1 week b/c of his injury. He never spoke to us about the time he spent at war, because it was too difficult to discuss. I know all about the damage war can cause.

WWII is not the Iraq conflict, however. WWII was a direct response to an attack on the US. The actions in Afghanistan were a direct response to the attacks of 9/11. The Iraqi conflict is not a direct result of anything but poor judgment and "mishandled" information.

 

[janetupnorth]

My grandpa was a WWII vet. He earned a purple heart and missed going to Normandy by 1 week b/c of his injury. He never spoke to us about the time he spent at war, because it was too difficult to discuss. I know all about the damage war can cause.

WWII is not the Iraq conflict, however. WWII was a direct response to an attack on the US. The actions in Afghanistan were a direct response to the attacks of 9/11. The Iraqi conflict is not a direct result of anything but poor judgment and "mishandled" information.

Ok, let's get back to Palin, the topic of this thread, we've greatly digressed...

A good healthy debate does not entail picking out one little point of a conversation or list and focusing on that as a comparison.

 

[Hathery]

Fine with me. I thought the conversation was just evolving, as conversations do...

I was just responding to someone who felt I should leave the country, and then someone thinking I form my beliefs from "blogs" rather than experience.

 

[BethCooks4U]

Hmmm... interesting that when a point is made by "the other side" we are asked to get back to the subject instead of discussing it. I take that as Hathery just won that one.

I am done with these threads (she says hoping she can really stay away). This is a waste of my time.

 

[chefsteph07]

My grandpa was a WWII vet. He earned a purple heart and missed going to Normandy by 1 week b/c of his injury. He never spoke to us about the time he spent at war, because it was too difficult to discuss. I know all about the damage war can cause.

WWII is not the Iraq conflict, however. WWII was a direct response to an attack on the US. The actions in Afghanistan were a direct response to the attacks of 9/11. The Iraqi conflict is not a direct result of anything but poor judgment and "mishandled" information.

I"m sorry, I thought we went to war w/ the terrorists after 9/11? That was not a direct attack? Sorry Janet, I have to respond here for a minute...

Last night was watching something on the History Channel, it was people who videotaped the WTC attack and their reactions. There was someone on Times Square who was taping as everyone gathered around for information on the jumbotron...people were screaming "we have to attack now!" "They are going to pay for this!" "They have messed with us for the last time!" etc etc..I was thinking to myself that I wonder where those people are today, if they still feel the same way, we responded as a DIRECT result of those attacks. We were not in Iraq, or Afghanistan, before that. So, yes, what the country is doing NOW is a DIRECT RESULT of what happened 7 yrs and one day ago!

IF WE FORGET WHAT HAPPENED AND LET OUR GUARD DOWN WE BECOME ANOTHER TARGET FOR ATTACK PEOPLE!!! WHY did the DNC not want any reminders of 9/11 shown??? Because no one wants to talk about it??? If we don't talk about it on a DAILY basis, it will be forgotten what happened to this country!

HAVE WE LEARNED NOTHING????

 

[BethCooks4U]

I"m sorry, I thought we went to war w/ the terrorists after 9/11? That was not a direct attack? Sorry Janet, I have to respond here for a minute...

Last night was watching something on the History Channel, it was people who videotaped the WTC attack and their reactions. There was someone on Times Square who was taping as everyone gathered around for information on the jumbotron...people were screaming "we have to attack now!" "They are going to pay for this!" "They have messed with us for the last time!" etc etc..I was thinking to myself that I wonder where those people are today, if they still feel the same way, we responded as a DIRECT result of those attacks. We were not in Iraq, or Afghanistan, before that. So, yes, what the country is doing NOW is a DIRECT RESULT of what happened 7 yrs and one day ago!

IF WE FORGET WHAT HAPPENED AND LET OUR GUARD DOWN WE BECOME ANOTHER TARGET FOR ATTACK PEOPLE!!! WHY did the DNC not want any reminders of 9/11 shown??? Because no one wants to talk about it??? If we don't talk about it on a DAILY basis, it will be forgotten what happened to this country!

HAVE WE LEARNED NOTHING????

Okay, I said I was gone but I have to comment on this: We went to Afganistan in response to 9/11. Iraq is a totally different story.

 

[janetupnorth]

Fine with me. I thought the conversation was just evolving, as conversations do...

I was just responding to someone who felt I should leave the country, and then someone thinking I form my beliefs from "blogs" rather than experience.

No, we tend to get totally off topic or forced off topic around here - ALL THE TIME.

Admin Greg likes us to keep on the topic of the thread on any serious conversation.

 

[janetupnorth]

Hmmm... interesting that when a point is made by "the other side" we are asked to get back to the subject instead of discussing it. I take that as Hathery just won that one.I am done with these threads (she says hoping she can really stay away). This is a waste of my time.

No, there was no win or loss there...I could have countered that comment EASILY. The fact though is many don't argue the issue at hand...they pick and chose words out of a statement for comparisons.BESIDES, I MADE THAT POST ON ALL THE THREADS THAT VEERED. IT IS KEEPING US ON TASK AS WE SHOULD BE DOING AS LONGER TERM MEMBERS.No one is FORCING anyone to be here...I come and go too.If it is a waste of your time, work your business, spend time with family, whatever suits you best.I spent all last night with my family and the night before and not on here until about 9 p.m.

 

[chefsteph07]

Okay, I said I was gone but I have to comment on this: We went to Afganistan in response to 9/11. Iraq is a totally different story.

A terrorist and a dictator like Hussein is the same thing...
I disagree that Iraq was different. He was a threat and we eliminated him.

 

[Hathery]

A terrorist and a dictator like Hussein is the same thing...
I disagree that Iraq was different. He was a threat and we eliminated him.

Yikes! If we went to war with every dictatorship, we'd be in war for the rest of our nation's life.

 

[chefsteph07]

That's why we don't go to war w/ EVERY one...I agree on that point.

 

[Hathery]

Just the ones that have huge oil reserves, right? (Okay, I know that is WAY of topic, but it had to be said!)

 

[chefsteph07]

Just the ones that have huge oil reserves, right? (Okay, I know that is WAY of topic, but it had to be said!)

GIVE ME A BREAK
No, it did NOT have to be said. I don't even recall that being a topic for quite some time, like since 91 so get off it.