Originally Posted By planodisney I wasnt saying he was a good father and therefore he would be a good president. I just wish people could put their political prejudices aside and see that they are both good men. And then go foreward from there. I dont think anything has scared me as much as obama sending a secret message to Putin. Lets be honest about it. he was saying i have to fool people now, but after the election, I dont have to worry about it. obamas stance on partial birth abortion and even more so his vote against protecting babies who have survived abortion is inhumane and far, far to the left of 90% of americans, but sadly most of them dont even know about it. I dont think he is a horrible man because of these stances. Just horribly misguided and cant see through the politics of these issues. if every american new about his votes in Illinois on partial birth abortion, he would drop 10 points overnight. Precisely why most people dont know.
Originally Posted By Dabob2 < Lets be honest about it. he was saying i have to fool people now, but after the election, I dont have to worry about it.> That wasn't what he was saying, and it's amazing you leaped there. He said something self-evidently true; that he'd have more flexibility after the election. Before the election, every little thing he does gets pounced on. He was talking specifically about missile defense. If, before the election, he made moves for a deal with Russia on missile defense, even if it was a good deal for the US, Romney and company would inevitably jump all over it as "weak" and "troubling," and... you could write the press release yourself. Hell, look how Romney jumped all over the statement from the Cairo embassy - not even from Obama! - instantly and inaccurately. Obama was saying - completely accurately - that after the craziness of the election politicking is over, the two countries could try to work something out without any deal being instantly politicized. As for so-called "partial-birth abortion" (which is NOT the medical term, but an invented incendiary term), I'm guessing you never even stopped to think that any woman who is reaching her 8th or 9th month of pregnancy WANTS to have that baby. These procedures are done when her doctor tells her that something has gone terribly wrong with the pregnancy and that her health, the baby's health, or both are in danger if the pregnancy continues. By definition, a woman that far along was not looking for an abortion, until the doctor told her that. She WANTS it. But the doctor tells her she shouldn't. It's a tragic situation that is shamefully politicized. And they constitute less than 2 tenths of one percent of abortions.
Originally Posted By fkurucz >> I look at both and they inspire nothing more than a mere shrug.<< Obama makes me shrug. Romney and Ryan make me want to run away screaming.
Originally Posted By ecdc >>Show us a time when he valued people more than he values his wealth.<< "Then why are you doing it? How much better can you eat? What can you buy that you can't already afford?" "The future, Mr. Gittes. The future."
Originally Posted By dshyates Plano, I believe that your being in Texas has colored you impression of what "most Americans" believe. Maybe you should say "most Texans believe".
Originally Posted By Kar2oonMan >>Watch Glenn Beck's special tomorrow night for all of those answers.<< Glenn Beck, the non-partisan guy who said Obama had a "deep-seated hatred for white people?" That Glenn Beck? Is he still around? I thought he got laughed of Fox News long ago. Where's his special, Cartoon Network?
Originally Posted By TomSawyer Beck is doing a show about the great-great-grandson of one of the founding members of his religion. It's like someone in the 3rd Century interviewing Peter's great-great grandson. And it is someone who is on the same side of the political fence. I think it might be just a touch on the biased side.
Originally Posted By utahjosh I'm sure it will be totally biased. Doesn't mean the stores shared aren't true.
Originally Posted By SingleParkPassholder Anyone who gives Glenn Beck any kind of credibility is a tremendous fool.
Originally Posted By skinnerbox Since this is Glenn Beck, the man "who uses more Swastika props and video of the Nuremberg rallies than the History Channel," I'm going to ask the following question: Should watching a documentary about all the good things done for white German Catholics by Hitler, negate the all bad things done against everyone else? I don't care if Romney found a cure for cancer. I don't care if Romney donated over $100 million to saving endangered species. What I do care about is his qualifications as President compared to other candidates. What I do care about is his sense of ethics and moral compass. And I'm not referring to religious values. That's a totally different animal. Beck can blather on and on and on all he wants to, about all the so-called 'good' that Romney has done in his life. It's no different that all the 'good' that Hitler did for the white German Catholics. The ability to do some good never negates the ability to do plenty of bad.
Originally Posted By Kar2oonMan >>I don't care if Romney found a cure for cancer.<< Well, if he does that, all is forgiven. : )
Originally Posted By Kar2oonMan >>It's no different that all the 'good' that Hitler did for the white German Catholics.<< Well, it's a little different. A lot different. Here is Romney<------------------>here is Hitler *Each dash above = 1,000,000 light years. I'm no Romney fan, but really.
Originally Posted By DDMAN26 Anytime you introduce the Hitler equation into your argument when comparing him to another person you really lose the argument. Unless you say you know who's better than Hitler and you follow that up with everyone.
Originally Posted By tiggertoo <<Harry Reid converted to the LDS as an adult and has faced criticism from the LDS because of his positions on gay marriage. He never held high offices within the LDS like Romney did, and his ancestors were not among the founding members of it.>> I wouldn’t call a Stake President “high office” in the church per se. On the political scale, it’s like being a mayor of a mid-sized town. High office would be Area Authority, Seventy, Temple President, Apostle, and First Presidency. Secondly, what does his ancestry have to do with anything? My roots in the church go way back too. In the 1850s, they came from Denmark and crossed the plains to the Salt Lake Valley with the 6th handcart company. That doesn’t imply that I would relinquish my political autonomy to the church. In fact, they’ve taken great pains to inform us that they don’t endorse any party or candidate. Here is the message they recently sent and asked to be read before each congregation: “Principles compatible with the gospel are found in the platforms of all major political parties. While the Church does not endorse political candidates, platforms, or parties, members are urged to be full participants in political, governmental, and community affairs.” The irony here is that many protestant preachers or reverends actually DO endorse parties/candidates, and ask their congregations to vote a particular way. I believe you’re barking up the wrong tree. Anyhow, the implication is that the church controls its members politically, particularly those in power. If so, why have they had so little effect of the heretofore highest church members in public office? It doesn’t quite pass the smell test. We are asked only to be active American citizens and to vote our conscience. Many people have a hard time separating their Christianity and American citizenship. Myself and others like me (like Reid, et al.) don’t. My testimony as a Christian can only speak for myself. However, when voting as an American citizen, I must separate the two because I cannot force upon others a testimony of something they may not share. I may think something is wrong personally, but that isn’t for me to dictate to others. They must learn for themselves through personal prayer and study and follow the inspiration provided the way I do. That’s the gist behind Philippians 2:12, to “work out your own salvation with fear and trembling.” Members might criticize Reid for his stances, but only because they don’t know how to separate personal faith and politics. That’s the shame of it. After all, I highly doubt a gospel that teaches “turn the other cheek”, “render under Caesar’s what is Caesar’s”, and the beatitudes would have any place in the Republican party. Just saying. What a strange world we live in.
Originally Posted By TomSawyer Romney did find the cure for cancer. Stop paying for health care for people who have it. They die. They don't have cancer any more.
Originally Posted By TomSawyer >>Should watching a documentary about all the good things done for white German Catholics by Hitler, negate the all bad things done against everyone else?<< Here's a screen cap from Glenn Beck's show about Hitler. Just look at him - he's adorable! <a href="http://img.thesun.co.uk/multimedia/archive/01450/0614b830-532_1450394a.jpg" target="_blank">http://img.thesun.co.uk/multim...394a.jpg</a>
