Mr.GreyGhost
I'm pretty sure that the Republican Vice Presidential Nominee for The United States of America, Sarah Palin, wouldn't be able to answer any of these questions, along with most Republican voters.
How is it that people that voted for Barack Obama are naive? I did know the issues on both sides which is why I voted for Obama, and not because he is black, but because like the majority of the people in this country we don't want 4 more years of Bush. I know we are being accused of being elitist by putting down Sarah Palin but how could she be the VP when she doesn't even know what the VP does?
"I know we are being accused of being elitist by putting down Sarah Palin but how could she be the VP when she doesn't even know what the VP does?"
What's Biden's excuse then for his errors on VP since he is supposedly the constitutional scholar and Washington insider as senator?
Info on what the actual role of the VP, and I will let readers decide who got it closer to the truth, between Palin and Biden:
http://www.senate.gov/
artandhist...President.htm#2
Vice-Presidential Duties
The framers also devoted scant attention to the vice president's duties, providing only that he "shall be President of the Senate, but shall have no Vote, unless they be evenly divided" (Article I, section 3). In practice, the number of times vice presidents have exercised this right has varied greatly. John Adams holds the record at 29 votes, followed closely by John C. Calhoun with 28. Since the 1870s, however, no vice president has cast as many as 10 tie-breaking votes. While vice presidents have used their votes chiefly on legislative issues, they have also broken ties on the election of Senate officers, as well as on the appointment of committees in 1881 when the parties were evenly represented in the Senate.
The vice president's other constitutionally mandated duty was to receive from the states the tally of electoral ballots cast for president and vice president and to open the certificates "in the Presence of the Senate and House of Representatives," so that the total votes could be counted (Article II, section 1). Only a few happy vice presidents — John Adams, Thomas Jefferson, Martin Van Buren, and George Bush — had the pleasure of announcing their own election as president. Many more were chagrined to announce the choice of some rival for the office.
Several framers ultimately refused to sign the Constitution, in part because they viewed the vice president's legislative role as a violation of the separation of powers doctrine. Elbridge Gerry, who would later serve as vice president, declared that the framers "might as well put the President himself as head of the legislature." Others thought the office unnecessary but agreed with Connecticut delegate Roger Sherman that "if the vice-President were not to be President of the Senate, he would be without employment, and some member [of the Senate, acting as presiding officer] must be deprived of his vote."
Under the original code of Senate rules, the presiding officer exercised great power over the conduct of the body's proceedings. Rule XVI provided that "every question of order shall be decided by the President [of the Senate], without debate; but if there be a doubt in his mind, he may call for a sense of the Senate." Thus, contrary to later practice, the presiding officer was the sole judge of proper procedure and his rulings could not be turned aside by the full Senate without his assent.
The first two vice presidents, Adams and Jefferson, did much to shape the nature of the office, setting precedents that were followed by others. During most of the nineteenth century, the degree of influence and the role played within the Senate depended chiefly on the personality and inclinations of the individual involved. Some had great parliamentary skill and presided well, while others found the task boring, were incapable of maintaining order, or chose to spend most of their time away from Washington, leaving the duty to a president pro tempore. Some made an effort to preside fairly, while others used their position to promote the political agenda of the administration.
During the twentieth century, the role of the vice president has evolved into more of an executive branch position. Now, the vice president is usually seen as an integral part of a president's administration and presides over the Senate only on ceremonial occasions or when a tie-breaking vote may be needed. Yet, even though the nature of the job has changed, it is still greatly affected by the personality and skills of the individual incumbent.
It is beyond scary how so many people are still influenced by the Drive By Media. I have a friend who was telling me last night at Bunko that her husband doesn't like Bush anymore. I asked why and the 2 reasons she cited are areas where the Drive By Media has hammered some points home. It saddened me that he, of all people had fallen prey to the lies. It explains why Bush's approval ratings are so low.
Karl Rove expressed the other night on Fox News about the mistake that he and Bush made. And that was not responding to the critics. I couldn't agree more. Bush was trying to be above it all and be presidential but it allowed the left and the Drive By Media to define him. Thats why I'm so glad Sarah Palin has been doing all these interviews. She is refusing to allow the left to define her. She's responding and going above the heads of the Drive By Media like Reagan did.
As for these people who were extremely naive and voted for Obama, they are going to have a rude awakening and soon. So many people didn't have a clue what they were voting for. Only 22% of the voters on election day classified themselves as liberal. Yet, Obama is already showing that he's going to govern as a liberal by the people he's picking for his cabinet.
Amazing how the hate filled crack pots(heads?) on the left are still throwing vile at Palin 15 days after the election.
Chesty Mom and her ilk are so full of hate, they can't even enjoy "the one" winning.
Of course this makes it all the more sweet for us "uneducated" right wingers....I just wonder what the Hell I was doing those 7 years in college, if not getting an education?
chessmom
What did Palin say that was incorrect about being VP? Yes, she gave a vague statement but I don't recall her saying anything that was infactual.
I recall her saying that the VP is in charge of the Senate, I'm no expert on the Constitution but I believe that Article 1 speaks to exactly what Palin said. But then too as we all know the Constitution isn't an exact science, often left up to interpretation and I would guess that Ruth Ginsberg guides your understanding.
And the idea that not wanting "4 more years of Bush" isn't being naive is ludicrous because it speaks to the big picture (literally and figuratively with Bush and the media's interpretation of what Bush represents) instead of your own knowledge the issues and how they affecy your vote. Barack's inexperience alone should've turned off enough voters to overcome the media bias, economy tanking and charisma that helped him win.
Punisher
Here's what Palin said a few months ago about being VP, "As for that VP talk all the time, I'll tell you, I still can't answer that question until somebody answers for me what is it exactly the VP does everyday? We want to make sure that that VP slot would be a fruitful type of position, especially for Alaskans and for the things we're trying to accomplish up here for the rest of the U.S., before I can even start addressing that question." Huh?
Palin told Greta Van Sustran,"Well, they've got to be exclusively, of course, concentrating on the administrative side of government and there again, that's where my executive experience will be put to good use." Huh?
Biden confused which part of the Constitution covers the Executive Branch, he said Article I, not II. Maybe if Biden had been asked this question 3 or 4 times, like Palin, he would have eventually gotten it right.
Dee,
What is beyond scary is you having The Bible and Ann Coulter's books both listed as your favorites on your blog. Do you see anything wrong with this?
Why are you listening to Karl Rove, he is a felon, he won't even appear for Congressional Subpoenas.
Please be specific, for all of us naive voters out here, exactly what is this "rude awakening" that we're going to be in for. Or is this just something you heard Ann Coulter or Karl Rove say. Is Obama going to start an illegal war? Is he going to make the economy worse? Is he going to be on a non-stop vacation for 8 years? He is going to refuse to hold press conferences? Is he going to refuse to talk to anyone in the media? Is he going to do whatever he wants and not listen to anyone? Is he going to say, 'I don't really spend much time thinking about Osama Bin Laden', Is he going to destroy the environment further? Will millions of more people lose their jobs and their homes? Will more people go hungry?As you can see the list is endless. As I stated in a previous post, bring it on. The American people have decided that even if Obama were a Marxist, Socialist, Communist, Muslim, hung out with terrorists, whatever else you have slung at him we don't care. That tells you how bad things have been under the Republican Party. Bad. Really, really bad.
PS...the media are owned by corporations, there is no such thing as a liberal media.
Pat,
The only one that is filled with hatred seems to be you and others that seem to be seething over Obama's victory.
Just because I, and many more, think Sarah Palin is unqualified to be Vice President doesn't mean I hate her. I don't even think she's stupid. I really wouldn't want her to be my childs geography teacher but I don't, and I don't hate her.
Maybe you spent your 7 years in college dancing naked on the bar, instead of studying, just like George Bush.
Obama is "the one", alright, he's the one that's going to get us out of this nightmare, this huge mess that your party put us in.
chessmom: You have alot to say. Why don't you start a blog of your own so we can read it selectively? You could just copy/paste from Daily KOS, it'd be real easy.
"Obama is "the one", alright, he's the one that's going to get us out of this nightmare, this huge mess that your party put us in."
Are you still forgetting that the Democrats had control of legislation two years ago, and it is in that two year span, was when the economy sank?
"Biden confused which part of the Constitution covers the Executive Branch, he said Article I, not II. Maybe if Biden had been asked this question 3 or 4 times, like Palin, he would have eventually gotten it right."
He messed up al ittle bit more than you are willing to admit.
But maybe if Palin had decades in the Senate like Biden, she might have gotten it right to satify the liberals who suddenly are claiming they care about constitutional fidelity...something they showed absence of in regards to issues like gun control or when they somehow think seperation of church and state somehow means Christian morality can't influence laws (tell that to the abolitionist movement, largely driven by Christians, and tell that to even the most "secular" among founding fathers who had laws that make the "Christian right" look today like the "far left").
"al ittle"
Correction:
a little
bullfrog,
Thanks for the tip, or I could just talk about what I had for lunch at the Cheesecake Factory, or what my kids did at school...
I feel like the crying Indian in that old commerical when I watch this video. I weep for this country.
ConservativeGamerGal
Your blog cracked me up, I loved all the puppets. Why does Fox pretend to be fair and balanced? Is that a joke? I saw Megan Kelly attacking someone from Us Weekly, how dare he say that Todd Palin got a DUI? How dare he report that Sarah Palin belonged to the AIP...that reporter better be careful.
Punisher
The Republicans had complete control for 6 years. So, complete control and Bush in for 8 years = Democrats fault, gotcha!
Dee
Great points. I've thought about too and I really that someone within his camp had to tell the President to go out and advocate for McCain, but he chose not too. The fact of the matter is that the Democratic-controlled Congress' favorable rating are even lower than Bush's, the President could've said that esp in the light of the libs constant reminders of how bad Bush is polling with Americans. However, it's no secret that Bush and McCain have never really liked each other and my gut tells me that's why Bush held back.
"The Republicans had complete control for 6 years. So, complete control and Bush in for 8 years = Democrats fault, gotcha!"
Let me remind you that the economy was actually doing relative well until after the Democrats took control of the House and Senate. The first four years was a struggle as a result of 9/11, but economy was picking back up.
Nice try.
Or you forget the role of folks like ACORN in the fall of our economy?
Punisher
I think we are finally feeling the effects of Ronald Reagans trickle-down economics, let's de-regulate the government, government is bad for the poor and middle class, corporations can police themselves, etc. So, I don't blame it all on Bush.
Still ignoring the effects of bad mortage and real estate practices that ACORN forced on banks that affect the economy?
Punisher
Maybe you should get your news from somewhere other than Fox.
The Nation Activism & Organizing
The GOP's Blame-ACORN Game By Peter Dreier & John Atlas
This article appeared in the November 10, 2008 edition of The Nation.
An increasingly desperate Republican attack machine has recently identified the community organizing group ACORN as Public Enemy Number One. Among ACORN's alleged crimes, perhaps the most serious is that it caused, nearly single-handedly, the world's financial crisis. That's the fantasy. In the reality-based world, it was ACORN that sounded the alarm about the exploitative lending practices that led to the current mortgage meltdown and financial crisis.
Since the 1970s ACORN, which has 400,000 low- and moderate-income "member families" in more than 100 cities in forty states, has been warning Congress to protect borrowers from the banking industry's irresponsible, risky and predatory practices--subprime loans, racial discrimination (called "redlining") and rip-off fees. ACORN has persistently called for stronger regulations on banks, private mortgage companies, mortgage brokers and rating agencies. For years, ACORN has alerted public officials that the industry was hoodwinking many families into taking out risky loans they couldn't afford and whose fine print they couldn't understand.
Now John McCain and his fellow conservatives are accusing ACORN of strong-arming Congress and big Wall Street banks into making subprime loans to poor families who couldn't afford them, thus causing the economic disaster. McCain's campaign is running a one-and-a-half-minute video that claims Barack Obama once worked for ACORN, repeats the accusation that ACORN is responsible for widespread voter registration fraud and accuses ACORN of "bullying banks, intimidation tactics, and disruption of business." The ad claims that ACORN "forced banks to issue risky home loans--the same types of loans that caused the financial crisis we're in today."
For months, the right-wing echo chamber--bloggers, columnists, editorial writers and TV and radio talk-show hosts--has pitched in with a well-orchestrated campaign to blame the mortgage crisis on ACORN and the Community Reinvestment Act (CRA), the 1977 anti-redlining law. In a September 27 editorial, the Wall Street Journal wrote that "ACORN has promoted laws like the Community Reinvestment Act, which laid the foundation for the house of cards built out of subprime loans" and then falsely claimed the bailout bill would create a trust fund "pipeline" to fill ACORN's coffers. On October 14 the Journal's lead editorial, Obama and ACORN, described ACORN as a "shady outfit" and accused the group of being "a major contributor to the subprime meltdown by pushing lenders to make home loans on easy terms, conducting 'strikes' against banks so they'd lower credit standards."
Discussing the mortgage crisis on his Fox News show, Your World, Neil Cavuto commented, "Loaning to minorities and risky folks is a disaster."
Over at the Washington Post, columnist Charles Krauthammer complained that the CRA had led banks and other lenders "to extend mortgages to people who were borrowing over their heads." Holding forth on The O'Reilly Factor, Laura Ingraham laid the foreclosure problem on Bill Clinton, who "pushed all these institutions to lend to minority communities." Many of the loans, she said, were "very risky." Former Arkansas Governor Mike Huckabee, a putative populist, echoed on the Hannity & Colmes Show: "The truth is that Democrats controlled the ability to fix this [the mortgage crisis]. It was their harsh regulation under the Community Reinvestment Act that started this ball rolling down the hill. "
On September 10 on Fox & Friends, National Review columnist Stanley Kurtz described ACORN as "a group of community organizers [who] specialize in putting pressure, really kind of intimidation tactics, on banks, to get these banks to make high-risk loans to low-credit customers.... They even show up at the homes of bank officials to scare them and their families. They send demonstrators into the lobbies of banks, all to get the banks to make these high-risk loans to people with low credit." McCain's anti-ACORN attack video is almost a word-for-word duplication of Kurtz's comments.
The right-wing case against the CRA is entirely bogus--a diversionary tactic to take the heat off the financial services industry and its allies, like McCain. The CRA applies only to depository institutions, like commercial and savings banks, but thanks to Congress's deregulation mania, there are now many other lenders, including private mortgage companies like CitiMortgage, Household Finance and Countrywide Financial (which was recently bought out by Bank of America). These outfits, which exist in a shadow world without government oversight, account for most of the predatory loans in trouble today.
When Congress enacted the CRA in 1977, the vast majority of all mortgage loans were made by lenders regulated by the law. In 2006 only about 43 percent of home loans were made by companies subject to the CRA. Indeed, the main culprits in the subprime scandal--the nonbank mortgage companies, which successfully grabbed the bulk of the mortgage market away from the CRA-regulated banking industry--were not covered by the CRA.
Wall Street investment firms--including Lehman Brothers, Goldman Sachs, Bear Stearns and Citigroup--set up special units, provided mortgage companies with lines of credit, then purchased the subprime mortgages from the lenders, bundled them into "mortgage-backed securities" and sold them for a fat fee to wealthy investors worldwide, typically without scrutiny. By 2007 the subprime business had become a $1.5 trillion global market for investors seeking high returns. Because lenders didn't have to keep the loans on their books, they didn't worry about the risk of losses.
Congress passed the CRA after many studies, using the banks' lending data, had documented widespread racial discrimination in mortgage lending. The CRA encourages federally chartered banks to examine the credit needs of the communities they serve and to lend based on these needs--for small businesses, homes and other types of loans. It does not require banks to make loans to businesses or people who can't repay them. It does not ask banks to engage in charity. It simply tells banks: don't discriminate against qualified borrowers.
At first, many banks were reluctant to make loans to minority borrowers seeking to fix up their homes, buy new ones or start new businesses in urban neighborhoods. In the late 1970s and early '80s, community organizing groups like ACORN, National People's Action and others pushed banks and federal regulators to remove their racial blinders. Once they did so, banks discovered that many working- and middle-class black and Latino borrowers were excellent customers with good credit histories. These new markets generated good profits on stable loans with little risk.
The explosion of subprime mortgages was touched off in the early twenty-first century, as the number of lenders regulated by the government and covered by the CRA dramatically dwindled. In 2002 subprime loans made up 8 percent of all mortgages; by 2006 they had soared to 20 percent. Since 2004 more than 90 percent of subprime mortgages have come with exploding adjustable rates.
Not surprisingly, the foreclosure rates on subprime, adjustable-rate and other exotic mortgage loans have run four to five times higher than the foreclosure rates on conventional CRA mortgages. Testifying before the House Financial Services Committee in February, University of Michigan law professor Michael Barr reported that only about 20 percent of subprime mortgages were issued by banks regulated by the CRA. The other 80 percent of predatory and high-interest subprime loans were offered by financial institutions not covered by the CRA and not subject to routine examination or supervision. "The worst and most widespread abuses occurred in the institutions with the least federal oversight," Barr told Congress.
In contrast, the CRA actually penalizes banks for reckless, irresponsible or otherwise predatory lending. According to Ellen Seidman, director of the Treasury Department's Office of Thrift Supervision from 1997 to 2001, federal regulators warned CRA-covered institutions that "badly underwritten subprime products that ignored consumer protections were not acceptable." Lenders not subject to CRA did not receive similar warnings.
And unlike the institutions that offer unregulated predatory subprime loans, banks that make CRA loans are required by federal regulation to verify borrowers' incomes to make sure they can afford the mortgages. In 2006 the Federal Reserve reported that just 11.5 percent of mortgages made by CRA-regulated institutions were high-cost loans, compared with 33.5 percent for lenders not covered by the CRA. Janet Yellen, president and CEO of the Federal Reserve Bank of San Francisco, has criticized those who blame CRA lending for the subprime crisis: "Most of the loans made by depository institutions examined under the CRA have not been higher-priced loans, and studies have shown that the CRA has increased the volume of responsible lending to low- and moderate-income households."
While the CRA helped boost the nation's homeownership rate, particularly among black and Latino borrowers, subprime and other exotic mortgages had very little impact on homeownership. Most subprime loans were refinances of existing mortgages. From 1998 through 2005, more than half of all subprime mortgages were for refinancing, while less than 10 percent of subprime loans went to first-time home buyers. Moreover, a significant number of borrowers who took out subprime loans could have qualified for conventional, prime-rate mortgages wi
Chessmom,
And maybe you should get off your obsession with fox. I don't just listen to fox for news.
You should talk about getting real news when you pass off as piece of news that Palin does not know Africa was a continent.
Punisher,
Sorry, I know that should have been hard to believe coming from someone that can't name ONE single periodical that she read's on a daily basis. My children read the paper every morning, even they could have rattled off something.
I know you said you chose Palin because of her belief in Christ, yet she told Katie Couric she doesn't even belong to a church. That's the funny thing about the Christian right, they always seem to support people that aren't particularly religious. This would include Ronald Reagan, George and Barbara Bush, Bush Jr., Cheney, McCain and Palin. I remember when Carter and Clinton were in office, we were always seeing them coming out of church on Sunday morning.
What do you think about Sarah Palin having a best friend that is gay?
I'm not obsessed with Fox, but conservatives are always quoting them and referring to them as a reliable news source. We're supposed to listen to Karl Rove and take what he says seriously, fair and balanced? Come on!
Republicans have no right to question the intelligence of any voter after selecting Sarah (I can see Russia from my backyard) Palin. They're throwing stones while living in the Taj Mahal of glass houses.
"Republicans have no right to question the intelligence of any voter after selecting Sarah (I can see Russia from my backyard) Palin. They're throwing stones while living in the Taj Mahal of glass houses."
After all, we spent the last eight years listening to insufferable Democrats mock voters for voting in Bush.
"I know you said you chose Palin because of her belief in Christ, yet she told Katie Couric she doesn't even belong to a church."
You know wrong.
I chose to vote for the McCain/Palin ticket first and foremost because they were the lesser of two evils for the country. The key issue for me was abortion. Obama promised to eradicate every restriction on abortion.
Palin, yes, is a Christian, is a plus. But that by itself would not have gotten my vote. What did get me enraged is every attack on her over her religious beliefs, and people making things up to buttress their attacks on her (like false claims she believes in abstinence only education or she wants to force people to teach creationism only).
"That's the funny thing about the Christian right, they always seem to support people that aren't particularly religious."
You don't know much about "Christian right" making comments like those.
First off, "Christian right" is term liberals throw out to lump in every Christian evangelical conservative. Funny thing is, even they have variations in their beliefs, religious or even what to look for in a candidate (other than that the candidate is moral conservative).
Secondly, I hear liberals complain all the time to vote according to one's religious dictates as moral Christian conservatives do is violating church and state. But liberals have no problem as you do bashing them when they have other criteria for candidates.
Thirdly, Christian evangelical conservatives do not see the state as heaven in earth. They don't believe the person in office necessarily has to be a Christian, but that his main duty in office regardless of whether he is a Christian or not, is to guard the sanctity of life, liberty, and property. In other words, we believe what the apostle Paul wrote about following lawful authority, whoever that maybe.
Obama is an example. He is our lawful authority come January. We are to respect the office of Presidency that he occupied. We are not to disrespect him in that capacity, while we do have moral duty to lawfully oppose him when he does wrong or run the country in immoral direction. But opposition must always be lawful and respectful. And we are to pray for him as we are for all those in authority.
"This would include Ronald Reagan, George and Barbara Bush, Bush Jr., Cheney, McCain and Palin. I remember when Carter and Clinton were in office, we were always seeing them coming out of church on Sunday morning."
Going to church does not make one a Christian.
Neither does not going to church disqualified one from being a Christian.
I do believe if Palin does not go to church, she is wrong. It could affect her adversely in her walk with God.
"What do you think about Sarah Palin having a best friend that is gay?"
I think that you don't know Christian evangelical conservative mindsets very well.
You seem to think that is somehow sin and wrong in the eyes of Christian evangelical conservatives.
It is based on your wrong-minded judgmental mindset towards them as all somehow not believing in reaching out to others like gays or as those who prefer to judge others and be intolerant of others rather than judge them. You are merely parroting liberal talking points to denigrate every Christian moral conservatives out there without really getting to know them. Many, if not most, are NOT like how and other liberals describe them.
We see the gay lifestyle as sin to be sure, and we oppose gay marriage, to be sure, since we believe that is destructive to traditional family values. But we have no problems being friends with gays. Nor do we have problems believing that we should love them as fellow men and women made in the image of God. We believe God's love extends to them as well as the rest of us.
"I'm not obsessed with Fox, but conservatives are always quoting them and referring to them as a reliable news source. We're supposed to listen to Karl Rove and take what he says seriously, fair and balanced? Come on!"
Alan Colmes is not conservative. Neither is Hurrington who is going to go work for fox. Fox also has folks like Marc Lamonte Hill as well being interviewd on regular basis.
Take away the abortion issue, that I have with Obama, I would have voted independent (for the Constitution Party, given I agree with it on many issues like pro-life, pro-family, issues of property and taxes, much more so than I would ever agree with either of the two soiled political parties we have).
I am still feeling a bad taste in my mouth casting one more vote for Republicans.
I don't know where to begin. I do feel that I know Chrisian evangelical conservative mindsets very well because that is what my brother-in-law and his wife are, my sister-in-law and her husband, my father and mother-in-law as well as everyone else in my husbands family, except my husband. They don't have any gay friends or Jewish friends or any friends that are not heterosexual Christian conservatives. I have been told I should convert my friends that are Jewish to Christianity and I need to save all my gay friends.
Again, no one is for abortion. I could never vote on this one single issue and ignore everything else that also adds up to life. Do you think it's ok that John McCain sided with pro-life extremists and voted twice against legislation to give the Federal government the power to protect women, doctors and staff at abortion clinics from physical intimidation, bombings and murder? Why don't Republicans ever do anything to get the ball rolling on Roe V. Wade?
Here's my problem with the abortion issue. You have men like Fred Thomspson who said his goal in life is to make abortion illegal. Long time playboy Fred Thomspson married his first wife after he got her pregnant, he then divorced her to marry someone 24 years younger. This is a solid conservative? This man actually cares about abortion?
"I don't know where to begin. I do feel that I know Chrisian evangelical conservative mindsets very well because that is what my brother-in-law and his wife are, my sister-in-law and her husband, my father and mother-in-law as well as everyone else in my husbands family, except my husband. They don't have any gay friends or Jewish friends or any friends that are not heterosexual Christian conservatives."
In other words, you need to get out more. The operative words there are "your family members."
They definitely don't speak for all Christian evangelical conservatives, if they believe they can't have friends outside the Christian conservative community.
"I have been told I should convert my friends that are Jewish to Christianity and I need to save all my gay friends."
The Bible does say preach the gospel to all nations. The Bible does say living the gay lifestyle is sin, and I don't mean just the OT either. The NT railed against it as well, along with a host of other sins.
But you do make one mistake in basing your family members as proof of what Christian conservatives believe. Traditional Christianity don't hold to we save anyone at all.
It teaches that we preach the word, and God changes the heart. Most Christians believe people can resist God's grace to change hearts, and the fault is of the will who rejects God. We don't have any power to change anyone or save anyone.
"Again, no one is for abortion. I could never vote on this one single issue and ignore everything else that also adds up to life."
Republicans were founded on one single issue in 1856- anti-slavery sentiment in the North. Sometimes one single defines a nation's moral compass. Just as the civil rights issue of the 1960s.
Would it have been ok to you if someone told you in the 1800s that he was not for slavery but will vote for some diehard pro-slavery person who wants to keep slavery permanent and expanded all over the United States, based on other issues like he was good for the economy?
Would you find it acceptable if someone in the 1960s say he is for segregation but since he does well on other issues, he will vote for such a person?
And the statement no one is for abortion but right to choose abortion is as good as saying no one is for right to own another human being as slaves or treat them like second class citizens but for right to choose to do these things.
Abortion makes unborn babies properties literally of those who murdered them. It is worse than slavery. It makes them second class human beings.
"Do you think it's ok that John McCain sided with pro-life extremists and voted twice against legislation to give the Federal government the power to protect women, doctors and staff at abortion clinics from physical intimidation, bombings and murder?"
No.
But spare me your indignation if I don't have much sympathy for abortion doctors there, who get pay to kill babies every day.
It is like saying I should have sympathy for someone in Nazi Germany taking the law into his own hands and murder Nazi doctors who experimented on people in the death camps and murder those people.
I am all for law and order, so I would be for punishing those, yes, for bombing abortion clinics and the like.
But let's get real here. The folks who are up in arms over the FEW cases of abortion doctors murdered give no thoughts to 50 millions of dead babies as result of abortion. At least most Christian conservatives condemned violence against abortion doctors. Do pro-choicers condemn millions upon millions of murders of unborn babies?
So the funny part when liberals try to use these few cases of murders of abortion doctors to condemn the pro-life movement as whole (when that movement condemned these actions also) speaks not to hypocrisy of the pro-life movement (which is not there at all) but to the hypocrisy of the very pro-choicers making that argument.
"Why don't Republicans ever do anything to get the ball rolling on Roe V. Wade?"
That is why they lost the conservative Christian vote in general, and only got it back in part because of Palin.
Some attempts have been made in the past by Republicans especially on partial birth abortion ban and cutting off funding for abortion overseas. But not nearly enough.
"Here's my problem with the abortion issue. You have men like Fred Thomspson who said his goal in life is to make abortion illegal. Long time playboy Fred Thomspson married his first wife after he got her pregnant, he then divorced her to marry someone 24 years younger. This is a solid conservative? This man actually cares about abortion?"
And you want to base support for right to abortion based on some pro-lifers being hypocrites about family values?
It is like me saying you would be pro-life since pro-choicer Bill Clinton sexually harassed several women. It is one of those arguments that don't follow at all, whether you use it on me or I use it on you.
If you best argument is to assume moral hypocrites make up the entire pro-life movement (false premises you have), then you don't have any real argument to oppose the pro-life position.
"It is like saying I should have sympathy for someone in Nazi Germany taking the law into his own hands and murder Nazi doctors who experimented on people in the death camps and murder those people."
Let me rephrase that: "It is likke saying I should have symapthy for the murdered Nazi doctor who was killed at the hands of someone who took the law into his own hands by getting rid of this scumbag who experimented on people killing them in the process in the most brutal manner."
Punisher
"But you do make one mistake in basing your family members as proof of what Christian conservatives believe. Traditional Christianity don't hold to we save anyone at all."
Right, my family members are Southern Baptist and believe that if homosexuals had Jesus in their hearts that they would repent and not be gay. In the south I heard that they just need to be saved over and over...not that I have the power to save them, but this would imply that anyone who has unrepented sin in their lives are not Christians. I know people who have been divorced and remarried and still go to church, they still are Christians in their mind. This is no different from being Gay...in fact it might be worse, since they entered a covenant with God and it was broken...and then they are living in fornication thinking that they are man and wife.
"But let's get real here. The folks who are up in arms over the FEW cases of abortion doctors murdered give no thoughts to 50 millions of dead babies as result of abortion. At least most Christian conservatives condemned violence against abortion doctors. Do pro-choicers condemn millions upon millions of murders of unborn babies?"
Yes, I am opposed to having an abortion and will not have one. But I would like to know where abortion statistics come from, do the millions of women that have miscarriages get put into the same statistics as elected abortions? I can make the same argument about liberals being up in arms about all the innocent pregnant women that were killed during the Iraq War, what about those innocent babies? Christian Conservatives seem to give no thought at all to the dead babies that were murdered during this unnecessary, illegal war. Do pro-lifers give any thoughts to these innocent lives?
"Would it have been ok to you if someone told you in the 1800s that he was not for slavery but will vote for some diehard pro-slavery person who wants to keep slavery permanent and expanded all over the United States, based on other issues like he was good for the economy?"
Interesting point, except Obama is not a diehard pro-abortion person, he is for protecting a woman's right to choose, that doesn't mean he is for abortion, no matter what you say. Again, the Republican Party will never try and get this overturned, they don't want to, they use it to their advantage, so yes, you might as well vote for the guy that is going to actually do something for the poor or middle class and not just the wealthy and get us out of this war and fix the economy, etc. When a Democrat is in office, the people at the bottom always do better, if you are pro-life than why are you against helping those that need it the most? Republican's cry pro-life but once the child is born they are forgotten, all social programs get the short end. I guess by you voting for McCain I could say you voted for a diehard pro-war person who loves bombing pregnant women and children and wanted to keep this war going for as long as possible. I guess then Republicans also voted for a baby murderer? (I've heard many Conservative Christians call Obama this) Isn't bombing an innocent pregnant woman in Iraq just as bad as someone having an abortion? The pregnant women in Iraq weren't given a choice when it came to their babies. Is this because they are Muslim or African or Communist or just not Americans? Why are these lives less important than others? Could this be another case of Nationalism or Racism?
"Yes, I am opposed to having an abortion and will not have one. But I would like to know where abortion statistics come from, do the millions of women that have miscarriages get put into the same statistics as elected abortions? I can make the same argument about liberals being up in arms about all the innocent pregnant women that were killed during the Iraq War, what about those innocent babies? Christian Conservatives seem to give no thought at all to the dead babies that were murdered during this unnecessary, illegal war. Do pro-lifers give any thoughts to these innocent lives?"
That's funny how liberals always want to cite wars as proof conservatives don't care about innocent lives, as long as wars are started by so-called conservative presidents, ignoring liberal Presidents also embroiled us in wars as well. And let's not revise facts here. Clinton made the same claim Bush did about Iraq, in regards to WMDs and was on the verge of getting us to war with Iraq, and the only thing that stopped him was that Clinton ran out of time in office.
Liberals it seems care nowdays about lives lost during war when they are not the ones starting the wars.
But let's get real here. You assume Christian conservatives are pro-war with Iraq.
You thought wrong. Maybe you are the one watching too much fox to get what Christian conservatives think. There are Christian conservatives like me who opposed the war.
And let's get real about realities of wars- whether they are "legal" or not, lives get lost, something liberals don't get.
Lives get lost during Civil War, too, and that war was a good thing, or otherwise slavery would not have been abolished.
Are you going to complain about that war, too?
And where did you get the idea the war was illegal? Democrats voted for the war, too.
It might have been unjust. And unnecessarily (which I believe is the case). But unless you want to subject Democrat liberal Presidents to the same standards, I don't believe liberal complaints are all that sincere.
It is just complaining just to justify their behaviour in supporting MASS MURDER.
The war lasted a few years.
Abortion lasted 35 years and is LEGAL.
"Interesting point, except Obama is not a diehard pro-abortion person, he is for protecting a woman's right to choose, that doesn't mean he is for abortion, no matter what you say."
No matter what I say? You avoid my point completely. My point is saying if one says one is against something but for another person's right to choose really don't amount to anything.
It is not different from someone saying I am personally against enslaving someone but I am for another's right to choose to enslave someone.
I took you at your own word that you hold to right to choose. Simply saying that is not a lot of different from folks who hide behind that to refuse to do anything about slavery back in the 1800s.
Protecting a person's right to choose? More like protecting a person's right to choose MURDER.
And Obama? He is more than just for protecting women's right to choose MURDER. He is against saving babies who survive abortion. That speaks VOLUMES.
"When a Democrat is in office, the people at the bottom always do better, if you are pro-life than why are you against helping those that need it the most? Republican's cry pro-life but once the child is born they are forgotten, all social programs get the short end."
The usual liberal kool-aid you basically drink. I suggest next time you attack me for remotely using fox, you don't do same what you accused me of...reading faux news from some liberal media outlet.
Conservative Christians for the most part are VERY CHARITABLE when it comes to giving their own money freely to organizations to feed the hungry. There are groups like World Vision that many conservatives contribute to. Many pro-live organizations and churches have shelters for women and children.
You are basically throwing around the same liberal lie over and over again about pro-lifers. Repeating the same lie does not make the lie any more true than first said.
Basically, it is so that liberals can feel better about themselves that they support a method to KILL babies.
Even for the sake of the argument let's assume that conservatives don't care about children. That still does not justify liberal support for murdering babies.
Period.
Even with that argument you used, you still ignore one thing. Parents have responsibility to raise children. Or to give them away for adoptions. Killing them should never be an option.
For liberals to use that argument is shameful on their part. It is basically diverting blame. The blame still goes with those who murder the babies...abortion doctors and mothers alike.
If you want to make the argument you use that since pro-lifers don't care about children already born, by your logic, mothers should have right to kill their already born infants as well!
"Isn't bombing an innocent pregnant woman in Iraq just as bad as someone having an abortion? The pregnant women in Iraq weren't given a choice when it came to their babies. Is this because they are Muslim or African or Communist or just not Americans? Why are these lives less important than others? Could this be another case of Nationalism or Racism?"
As usual when liberals can't defend the practice of abortion, divert blame by saying something asinine like racism.
Of course, you assume (as usual with your stereotypes) that all conservative Christians support the war with Iraq. You thought wrong. A large segment of them don't support the war. It is another case of liberals and neo-conservatives being on two sides of the same coin when it comes to war. And it stinks for conservative Christians like me.
So dispense with your asinine race card.
Maybe we can turn around on you for the countries Bill Clinton had bombed during his time in office. Should we then say he does not care for pregnant women?
If you want to equate lives lost during war with people murdered in our country, be my guess.
Just be consistent and apply it to ALL WARS, not just the one Bush fought.
In fact by your logic, let's call FDR a murderer for his decision to have America bombed Nazi Germany. Or Truman a murderer for his decision with the A-BOMB. Or call Lincoln a murderer for the scourched earth policies of his generals.
Do you want to go there?
I am against innocent lives being lost in wars where possible. But where not possible, it is the results of wars. All wars, whether just or unjust, whether legal or not.
For the sake of the argument, let's assume all Christian conservatives support the war against Iraq, you deemed illegal and murderous, and that somehow supports your point that makes Christian conservatives for murderous policies (in your eyes).
That only "proves" then both your side and my side have blood on our hands. That does nothing to justify your position of being for women's right to choose to MURDER their own babies as long as those babies are in the womb.
PS: I use "prove" in quotes to state that is if your premise was correct to begin with that Bush's war equals murdering people (a premise I don't agree with, and a premise I know from your posts you are selective about and don't seem to want to apply it to anyone but Bush).
"Why are these lives less important than others? Could this be another case of Nationalism or Racism?"
I could flip that around and say since you see the war as murdering people in other countries, their lives are more important than those we MURDERED in our country as long as they are infants in the womb and incapable of defending themselves. And then use that to say you must really hate Americans, especially American babies, given you are for rights to KILL them off.
It would be equally asinine for me to say that as you would playing that race card you just did against Christian conservatives.
Or use your argument like I am against Presidents waging illegal wars, but for their right to choose.
How come you are for women's right to choose to MURDER babies but deny Presidents choices to do what you deem is MURDER?
Punisher,
We will never convince each other, will we? We can't justify abortion or war. I am a Christian that is against abortion and war, you are a Christian that is against abortion and war. I guess we can just pray that one day there will be an end to both.
Commenting by HaloScan
