By RK are you referring to me? Because I'm in 100% agreement with you here, I don't think Obama has been much of an improvement over Bush when it comes to foreign policy and domestic liberties, except perhaps on rhetoric alone. But again I suppose even Attila the Hun would look like an improvement over Bush.
US Presidential Election: Tuesday November 6th, 2012
- Thread starter Team Brian GB
- Start date
- Status
By RK are you referring to me? Because I'm in 100% agreement with you here, I don't think Obama has been much of an improvement over Bush when it comes to foreign policy and domestic liberties, except perhaps on rhetoric alone. But again I suppose even Attila the Hun would look like an improvement over Bush.
Obama the same as Bush...
if it makes you feel better Cali.
Obama never faked intelligence to invade a country and cause the deaths of hundreds of thousands of people.
Obama stopped the country going off the cliff that Bush had got us to..in spite of the republicans in the congress who would have continued his policies..only at a greater rate.
I could visualize you gritting your teeth spitting out the compliment to Obama about how he handled bin ladin...
He does not need it though. btw this is the same bin ladin that Bush said he did not care where he was and thought he was unimportant.
as for our 'friends' Pakistan,Eqypt and Mexico...firstly Pakistan has never been our friend. They never were honest in their relationship with us. If we had not got bin ladin, they just would be laughing all the more...taking our money.
we acted correctly with regards to Eqypt and Mexico. Just cause they dont like our policies means noting.
...and please don't lump me with Kaos..I'm not an apologist for loony Mid East Countries and hate Israel.
I'm not an apologist for anyone nor do I bear an irrational hatred for any country. If you're going to make silly generalizations then you best back them up, otherwise you'd best say nothing at all.
If theres anyone being an apologist its you for your "Obama can do no wrong" rhetoric.
...sure sure...its fine for those loons in Iran to have nukes.
not arsed to find your posts having a go at Obama for not taking it to Israel because he 'sides' with Israel over the PLO....err just like every American president btw.
Obama could have done more...sure but I am not a blind idealist. we need to move the country in the right direction. Obama is a good start...and we will continue to move the country left where the needs of the majority in the US are satisfied.
My position isn't pro-Iran its anti-intervention - I couldn't care less for the Iranian regime and am unhappy with their over-arching role in Iraqi politics. Its just like how I hated Saddam but was anti-Iraq war, get it now?
As regards Obama my issue wasn't solely on Israel, although him turning back on his pre-presidential commitments was frustrating. And yes I am very well aware that his policy isn't different at all to his predecessors....but that was exactly CaliRed's point was - i.e. he isn't a firm improvement on Bush, at least where foreign policy is concerned. I share that position too, but for what its worth it doesn't mean I dislike him - I honestly think his hearts in the right place, although his hands are tied by corporate and lobbyist commitments.
to say you are not pro-Iran and yet take a position that no matter what the US should not intervene is highly irresponsible. I hope that day never comes but the US and Israel should maintain their right to prevent that region from becoming unstable.
Obama did not go back on his pre-presidential commitments...and to insist his foreign policy is the same as Bush is being blinkered to say the least. Which part of Bush invading Irag under false pretenses and Obama's current policy don't you understand?
Obama is hampered in the US by the republicans refusing to even meet him half way and like all presidents before him he is hampered certainly in the Mid East by the positions taken by Israel and Palestinians. to live in peace, both sides must want it....no foreign power can make them come together.
RK, do you seriously believe Bush faked intelligence on Iraq himself? I can see blaming the politics but don't think the President himself faked whatever reports. His cabinet and advisors may well have exaggerated claims. Personally, I think Cheney was running the country the whole time.
I've read that Cheney set up his own department in the Pentagon where he 'created' fake intelligence to excuse going to war in Iraq.
Bush wanted to take revenge for Saddam trying to take out his dad. simple. Why is it hard to believe he was willing to buy any reason to go into Iraq?
Heck these guys outted an American covert operative because her husband refused to play ball.
Talk about traitors.
Abdicating your responsibilities as an elected president is just as bad as committing the most nefarious acts yourself.
then again perhaps Bush had no problem with letting Chenny take over as he was really appointed by the Supreme Court.
Heck these guys outted an American covert operative because her husband refused to play ball.
Talk about traitors.
Abdicating your responsibilities as an elected president is just as bad as committing the most nefarious acts yourself.
then again perhaps Bush had no problem with letting Chenny take over as he was really appointed by the Supreme Court.
Don't forget that Cheney specifically demanded that the CIA got information on Iraq from suspected terrorists who were being tortured by the US..
I think if I was being tortured that within a minute (knowing I'm innocent) I'd have said that Iraq has chemical weapons and plans to sell them to Islamic terrorists just to try and make them stop.
Richard A. Clarke should be heard on both the 911 and the intelligence on Iraq.
Also 'slam dunk' Tenet, who was awarded the Presidential Medal of Freedom for playing his part in the Iraq war must take some responsibility. He tried to clean up his role in his book but his hands are red with blood too.
Also 'slam dunk' Tenet, who was awarded the Presidential Medal of Freedom for playing his part in the Iraq war must take some responsibility. He tried to clean up his role in his book but his hands are red with blood too.
Americans are stupid enough to vote for a Republican again and that is exactly what will happen in November! Watch this space!
What you stated in this post does not claim Bush faked intelligence. Much better response this time. Yes, he (and Cheney, Rumsfield, et al) wanted to do away with Iraq as should have been done in 1991. So any single shred of intelligence or evidence would have been enough for them to take action.
splitting hairs really. Of course he himself did not sit and manufacture the evidence. I believe Bush wanted any 'evidence' so he could invade Iraq. As President he was obligated to make sure of what was presented to him before he sent American troops. But he was not bothered about the authenticity of the 'evidence'
Until Iraq we had never taken pre-emptive action as a country.
btw I dont see why we needed to get rid of Iraq in 1991. They were not a threat after that.
But a supposedly cuddly pint-friendly toff as prime minister. The one who pays for the party is always the cnut, the one who organises the party is a good bloke. It has always been thus.
But it may be Romney has more of the arsehole and the money-man about him than plays well for a Pres
Huntsman's pulling out it seems...more good news for MRom... which sounds a bit like ENRON
Huntsman's pulling out it seems...more good news for MRom... which sounds a bit like ENRON
Gotta love how Gingrich's negative ads are softening Romney up well before the general election kicks in. The "cnut factor" will definitely be in play this summer.
The Obama campaign is really gearing up. They will destroy what is left of Romney.
Bush certainly didn't attack Iraq because they tried to 'take out' his daddy.
Money and power, that's why.
Money and power, that's why.
I've always thought the Bushes daddy argument is a bit off the mark for invading Iraq. I think Saddam was a thorn in the side of the US for a while and Saddams constant posturing lead to the invasion. I can't remember if it was an article or a news piece now but there was a man that interviewed Saddam after he was in US custody and he admitted he didn't think the US would actually invade. He just over played his hand and it cost him.
shall we have a $10,000 bet?
...oh wait that's Romney's line..
I lived in the states for ten years, I know how Americans tick. George W Bush was the absolute worst president in recent history and how he got a free pass TWICE still astounds me. I said it when Obama got elected that he was on a hiding to nothing with this presidency cleaning up that idiots mess. I maintain that had McCain won that election he would have keeled over by now with the stress!
And yes I will take that $10,000 bet!
The GOP establishment is taking the line that it's like Obama/Clinton in 2008, it's just going to toughen him up for the general. I understand the thinking, but I don't think it's precisely analogous. What Clinton did with things like her "3am phone call" ad and Jeremiah Wright and Bill Ayres was to bring those things out and allow Obama to combat them in such a way that it became a non-issue by the time the general election rolled around, and Palin could be painted as a dimwit for her "palling around with terrorists" line, (well, that and many other reasons.)
The attacks being made on Romney, (vulture capitalist, flip-flopper, no real ideology,) are ones that go to his core brand, though. And the way he's got to defend his time at Bain Capital ("it's the free market, that's how capitalism goes",) aren't going to work nearly as well in the general as they do with the GOP base.
Romney has opened up a big lead over Newt in Florida, their numbers have been diving in opposite directions. Getting more and more certain we'll be looking at a Mormon candidate for President.
At least we can look at that as a sign on the religious acceptance front, perhaps next we'll have a Buddhist candidate.
At least we can look at that as a sign on the religious acceptance front, perhaps next we'll have a Buddhist candidate.
Wonder how long it'll take us to vote in an atheist/agnostic president?
Or (whisper it) an atheist! Surely not.
Didn't actually know that Huntsman was a Mormon as well, people probably didn't make a big deal since he wasn't a frontrunner.
The remaining debates should be fun, anyway, with one less sane person at the party.
After New Hampshire, Huntsman declared, "We go South from here"
I guess he was speaking metaphorically
I guess he was speaking metaphorically
That is quite exceptional. Who are the people who would vote for a homosexual but not an atheist? 'Progressive' Christians?
Yeah, some seem to just think that to be ethical, you need to believe in some form of God. Go figure.
The Theological Differences Behind Evangelical Unease With Romney
By LAURIE GOODSTEIN
Published: January 14, 2012
The Rev. R. Philip Roberts, the president of a Southern Baptist seminary in Kansas City, Mo., is an evangelist with a particular goal: countering Mormon beliefs.
A one-stop destination for the latest political news — from The Times and other top sources. Plus opinion, polls, campaign data and video.
Download Now | Learn More
Mr. Roberts has traveled throughout the United States, and to some countries abroad, preaching that Mormonism is heretical to Christianity. His message is a theological one, but theology is about to land squarely in the middle of the Republican presidential primary campaign.
As the Republican voting moves South, with primaries in South Carolina on Saturday and in Florida on Jan. 31, the religion of Mitt Romney, the front-runner, may be an inescapable issue in many voters’ minds. In South Carolina, where about 60 percent of Republican voters are evangelical Christians, Mr. Romney, a devout Mormon and a former bishop in the church, faces an electorate that has been exposed over the years to preachers like Mr. Roberts who teach that the Mormon faith is apostasy.
Many evangelicals have numerous reasons, other than religion, for objecting to Mr. Romney. But to understand just how hard it is for some to coalesce around his candidacy, it is important to understand the gravity of their theological qualms.
“I don’t have any concerns about Mitt Romney using his position as either a candidate or as president of the United States to push Mormonism,” said Mr. Roberts, an author of “Mormonism Unmasked” and president of the Midwestern Baptist Theological Seminary, who said he had no plans to travel to South Carolina before the voting. “The concern among evangelicals is that the Mormon Church will use his position around the world as a calling card for legitimizing their church and proselytizing people.”
Mormons consider themselves Christians — as denoted in the church’s name, the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. Yet the theological differences between Mormonism and traditional Christianity are so fundamental, experts in both say, that they encompass the very understanding of God and Jesus, what counts as Scripture and what happens when people die.
“Mormonism is a distinctive religion,” David Campbell, a Mormon and an associate professor of political science at the University of Notre Dame who specializes in religion and politics. “It’s not the same as Presbyterianism or Methodism. But at the same time, there have been efforts on the part of the church to emphasize the commonality with other Christian faiths, and that’s a tricky balance to strike for the church.”
On the most fundamental issue, traditional Christians believe in the Trinity: that God is the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit all rolled into one.
Mormons reject this as a non-biblical creed that emerged in the fourth and fifth centuries. They believe that God the Father and Jesus are separate physical beings, and that God has a wife whom they call Heavenly Mother.
It is not only evangelical Christians who object to these ideas.
“That’s just not Christian,” said the Rev. Serene Jones, president of Union Theological Seminary, a liberal Protestant seminary in New York City. “God and Jesus are not separate physical beings. That would be anathema. At the end of the day, all the other stuff doesn’t matter except the divinity of Jesus.”
The Mormon Church says that in the early 1800s, its first prophet, Joseph Smith, had revelations that restored Christianity to its true path, a course correction necessary because previous Christian churches had corrupted the faith. Smith bequeathed to his church volumes of revelations contained in scripture used only by Mormons: “The Book of Mormon: Another Testament of Jesus Christ,” “The Doctrine and Covenants” and “Pearl of Great Price.”
Traditional Christians do not recognize any of those as Scripture.
Another big sticking point concerns the afterlife. Early Mormon apostles gave talks asserting that human beings would become like gods and inherit their own planets — language now regularly held up to ridicule by critics of Mormonism.
But Kathleen Flake, a Mormon who is a professor of American religious history at Vanderbilt Divinity School, explained that the planets notion had been de-emphasized in modern times in favor of a less concrete explanation: people who die embark on an “eternal progression” that allows them “to partake in God’s glory.”
“Mormons think of God as a parent,” she said. “God makes the world in order to give that world to his children. It’s like sending your child to Harvard — God gives his children every possible opportunity to progress towards this higher life that God possesses. When Mormons say ‘Heavenly Father,’ they mean it. It’s not a metaphor.”
It is the blurring of the lines between God, Jesus and human beings that is hard for evangelicals to swallow, said Richard J. Mouw, president of Fuller Theological Seminary, an evangelical school in Pasadena, Calif., who has been involved in a dialogue group between evangelicals and Mormons for 12 years and has a deep understanding of theology as Mormons see it.
“Both Christians and Jews, on the basis of our common Scriptures, we’d all agree that God is God and we are not,” Mr. Mouw said. “There’s a huge ontological gap between the Creator and the creature. So any religious perspective that reduces that gap, you think, oh, wow, that could never be called Christian.”
Mormons tend to explain the doctrinal differences more gently. Lane Williams, a Mormon and a professor of communications at Brigham Young University-Idaho, a Mormon institution, said the way he understands it, “it’s not a ‘we’re right and they’re wrong’ kind of approach. But it’s as though we feel we have a broader circle of truth.
“My daily life tries to be about Jesus Christ,” he said. “And in that way, I don’t think I’m much different from my Protestant friends.”
In a Pew poll released in late November, about two-thirds of mainline Protestants and Catholics said Mormonism is Christian, compared with only about a third of white evangelicals. By contrast, 97 percent of Mormons said their religion is Christian in a different Pew poll released this month.
Mr. Mouw said that only a month ago he was called to Salt Lake City to mediate a theological discussion about Mormonism among four evangelical leaders who had collaborated with Mormon leaders to pass the Proposition 8 ban on same-sex marriage in California. After two and a half days of discussions, the group was divided on Mormon theology, Mr. Mouw said.
“Two concluded that while Mormons are good people, they don’t worship the same God,” Mr. Mouw said. “Two concluded that Mormons love Jesus just as the evangelicals do, and they accepted the Mormons as brothers and sisters in Christ.
“That’s the split,” Mr. Mouw said, “and it’s very basic.”
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/01/15/u...with-romney-is-theological.html?_r=1&src=recg
By LAURIE GOODSTEIN
Published: January 14, 2012
The Rev. R. Philip Roberts, the president of a Southern Baptist seminary in Kansas City, Mo., is an evangelist with a particular goal: countering Mormon beliefs.
A one-stop destination for the latest political news — from The Times and other top sources. Plus opinion, polls, campaign data and video.
Download Now | Learn More
Mr. Roberts has traveled throughout the United States, and to some countries abroad, preaching that Mormonism is heretical to Christianity. His message is a theological one, but theology is about to land squarely in the middle of the Republican presidential primary campaign.
As the Republican voting moves South, with primaries in South Carolina on Saturday and in Florida on Jan. 31, the religion of Mitt Romney, the front-runner, may be an inescapable issue in many voters’ minds. In South Carolina, where about 60 percent of Republican voters are evangelical Christians, Mr. Romney, a devout Mormon and a former bishop in the church, faces an electorate that has been exposed over the years to preachers like Mr. Roberts who teach that the Mormon faith is apostasy.
Many evangelicals have numerous reasons, other than religion, for objecting to Mr. Romney. But to understand just how hard it is for some to coalesce around his candidacy, it is important to understand the gravity of their theological qualms.
“I don’t have any concerns about Mitt Romney using his position as either a candidate or as president of the United States to push Mormonism,” said Mr. Roberts, an author of “Mormonism Unmasked” and president of the Midwestern Baptist Theological Seminary, who said he had no plans to travel to South Carolina before the voting. “The concern among evangelicals is that the Mormon Church will use his position around the world as a calling card for legitimizing their church and proselytizing people.”
Mormons consider themselves Christians — as denoted in the church’s name, the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. Yet the theological differences between Mormonism and traditional Christianity are so fundamental, experts in both say, that they encompass the very understanding of God and Jesus, what counts as Scripture and what happens when people die.
“Mormonism is a distinctive religion,” David Campbell, a Mormon and an associate professor of political science at the University of Notre Dame who specializes in religion and politics. “It’s not the same as Presbyterianism or Methodism. But at the same time, there have been efforts on the part of the church to emphasize the commonality with other Christian faiths, and that’s a tricky balance to strike for the church.”
On the most fundamental issue, traditional Christians believe in the Trinity: that God is the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit all rolled into one.
Mormons reject this as a non-biblical creed that emerged in the fourth and fifth centuries. They believe that God the Father and Jesus are separate physical beings, and that God has a wife whom they call Heavenly Mother.
It is not only evangelical Christians who object to these ideas.
“That’s just not Christian,” said the Rev. Serene Jones, president of Union Theological Seminary, a liberal Protestant seminary in New York City. “God and Jesus are not separate physical beings. That would be anathema. At the end of the day, all the other stuff doesn’t matter except the divinity of Jesus.”
The Mormon Church says that in the early 1800s, its first prophet, Joseph Smith, had revelations that restored Christianity to its true path, a course correction necessary because previous Christian churches had corrupted the faith. Smith bequeathed to his church volumes of revelations contained in scripture used only by Mormons: “The Book of Mormon: Another Testament of Jesus Christ,” “The Doctrine and Covenants” and “Pearl of Great Price.”
Traditional Christians do not recognize any of those as Scripture.
Another big sticking point concerns the afterlife. Early Mormon apostles gave talks asserting that human beings would become like gods and inherit their own planets — language now regularly held up to ridicule by critics of Mormonism.
But Kathleen Flake, a Mormon who is a professor of American religious history at Vanderbilt Divinity School, explained that the planets notion had been de-emphasized in modern times in favor of a less concrete explanation: people who die embark on an “eternal progression” that allows them “to partake in God’s glory.”
“Mormons think of God as a parent,” she said. “God makes the world in order to give that world to his children. It’s like sending your child to Harvard — God gives his children every possible opportunity to progress towards this higher life that God possesses. When Mormons say ‘Heavenly Father,’ they mean it. It’s not a metaphor.”
It is the blurring of the lines between God, Jesus and human beings that is hard for evangelicals to swallow, said Richard J. Mouw, president of Fuller Theological Seminary, an evangelical school in Pasadena, Calif., who has been involved in a dialogue group between evangelicals and Mormons for 12 years and has a deep understanding of theology as Mormons see it.
“Both Christians and Jews, on the basis of our common Scriptures, we’d all agree that God is God and we are not,” Mr. Mouw said. “There’s a huge ontological gap between the Creator and the creature. So any religious perspective that reduces that gap, you think, oh, wow, that could never be called Christian.”
Mormons tend to explain the doctrinal differences more gently. Lane Williams, a Mormon and a professor of communications at Brigham Young University-Idaho, a Mormon institution, said the way he understands it, “it’s not a ‘we’re right and they’re wrong’ kind of approach. But it’s as though we feel we have a broader circle of truth.
“My daily life tries to be about Jesus Christ,” he said. “And in that way, I don’t think I’m much different from my Protestant friends.”
In a Pew poll released in late November, about two-thirds of mainline Protestants and Catholics said Mormonism is Christian, compared with only about a third of white evangelicals. By contrast, 97 percent of Mormons said their religion is Christian in a different Pew poll released this month.
Mr. Mouw said that only a month ago he was called to Salt Lake City to mediate a theological discussion about Mormonism among four evangelical leaders who had collaborated with Mormon leaders to pass the Proposition 8 ban on same-sex marriage in California. After two and a half days of discussions, the group was divided on Mormon theology, Mr. Mouw said.
“Two concluded that while Mormons are good people, they don’t worship the same God,” Mr. Mouw said. “Two concluded that Mormons love Jesus just as the evangelicals do, and they accepted the Mormons as brothers and sisters in Christ.
“That’s the split,” Mr. Mouw said, “and it’s very basic.”
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/01/15/u...with-romney-is-theological.html?_r=1&src=recg
Yeah I see Romney's election narrative as somewhat similar to John Kerry's (his fellow French speaker) from 2004. An accomplished candidate who never managed to sufficiently energize his party's base to win the election against a shaky (at least poll wise) incumbent President. I don't think it will come down to one state this time as it did in 04, unless Romney picks Marco Rubio as his VP runnings mate at which point the race will be much closer. As it stands, I can Romney winning the nomination, with Gingrich self-aggrandizingly attacking him all the way to the convention. Once the general election kicks off, I think Obama will be back to his best on the campaign trail. With job numbers picking up, Romney faces an uphill struggle to win in Nov.
Rubio won't be Romney's running mate. He sees himself as a future nominee. He's not going to tie his star to Romney's. In any case, Florida's not really where Romney needs to focus, that'll be one of his easier pickups, along with Indiana. It's where he goes from there that's the difficult part. You can probably move NC over to the red column, and NE's 5th EV but at that point, there's still 35 more EVs to pick up, and no clear path to doing so. Virginia's trending more and more liberal every year, and I really don't see Romney being the best choice to bring in the blue-collar independents of Ohio. There's only 20 EVs in the Mountain West that could be picked of for the GOP, and only 4 in NH.
The South Carolina debate
He's the 'food stamp president' because more people are on food stamps now than with any president before.
feck off, there has been a trend towards pushing people onto food stamps since before Obama, you racist prick. Walmart, for example tells their workers to claim foot stamps so they don't have to pay them as much.. is that Obama's fault?
feck off, there has been a trend towards pushing people onto food stamps since before Obama, you racist prick. Walmart, for example tells their workers to claim foot stamps so they don't have to pay them as much.. is that Obama's fault?
The entire debate was about racist dog whistles.
on MLK Day too.
and all that cheering and wooping..
Right there is the heart of the Republican party...bunch of racist scum.
The only thing more predictable and disgraceful than the candidates was the crowd. I mean all you have to do is mindlessly echo catchphrases such as "9 11" "kill all our enemies!" and "foodstamp president" and that'll be enough to make them hysterical. Let's just ignore those boring things called policies.
Reminds me of this:
Had a heated discusion on the elections with a few co-workers ealrier today. I was quite surprised how many are very unhappy with Obama nad think the Republicans will get back in this year. Actually EVERYONE was unhappy, and I was Obama's only supporter. The group weren't particaulary high paid staff either. pretty much ordinary working people.
Watching the last debate.
I am pretty sure Perry just called the Turkish government Islamic terrorists.
I am pretty sure Perry just called the Turkish government Islamic terrorists.
they voted for Obama in 2008?
- Status