The 2008 presidential field at-a-glance

[PeppyGPhiB]

Originally Posted by DaemonSeid

Now....let's move on...since the media is so busy being all up in Obama's church, let's ask about our other two candidates...

John McCain is of the belief that the USA is a "Christian" nation and is uncomfortable with a Muslim in the White House which pissed off both Muslims and Jews alike.
See this link BTW for a refresher: http://www.beliefnet.com/story/220/story_22001_1.html

Hillary Clinton's beliefs and convictions haven't come to the forefront as yet, but I can't wait to hear what she has to say considering that she is possibly anti atheist and part of a religion that may actually (in it's own twisted way) wants to carry out (LOL) John McCain 's vision of having a "Christian" nation.

http://atheism.about.com/od/hillaryc...onReligion.htm

If I recall correctly, the Clintons are mainstream, non-evangelical protestants...maybe Methodists? You know, one CAN be Christian, or any religion for that matter, and still believe in the separation of church and state. Just because you believe it, doesn't mean you preach it.

The African American church community (i.e. AME) has a long, strong history in this country of delving into politics. The reason for this is because back in MLK's day (and earlier), church was often the center of the black community, one of the few places they could gather publicly en masse without fear of opression. Many leaders of the African American community emerged from the many meetings organized in churches/houses of worship, led by passionate, inspiring preachers, MLK, Malcolm X, and Jesse Jackson being a few. Religion had a big role in the civil rights movement. But one could argue that it had as much to do with the right meeting space, right audience, right message, and right TIME, more than the religion. The church had a political use at that time, mainly because there was so far to go in civil rights in this country, and people needed BIG, "out there" leaders to push them. Not to diminish the growth that still needs to happen here, but the reason people like Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton are not taken seriously these days (aside from their personal issues) is because, well, they've already served their purpose. Their community doesn't feel the same need to have religious leaders dictating political movements - they have other organizations for that.

The "white" evangelical Christian churches popping up all over the country these days concern me far more than mainstream Muslims or Jews, or things a radical black preacher says. Why? Because their brand of political activism focuses on taking rights AWAY. Why are people so afraid to let others practice a different religion? Just because my neighbor goes to temple, and the chick down the street goes to church on Saturdays, doesn't mean I can't still go to my church on Sunday. Any politician that feels threatened by allowing free practice of religion in this country is awfully suspicious to me, and that includes the freedom to NOT practice religion if one chooses.

[skylark]

Originally Posted by DaemonSeid

Still no word from Florida however


http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080314/...NqCxAGgJQb.3QA

I'm not opposed to this option, simply because it forces the Michigan legislature themselves to fix the problem. The fact that they are doing it themselves makes it less likely for this debacle to happen in the future.

[DaemonSeid]

Originally Posted by PeppyGPhiB

If I recall correctly, the Clintons are mainstream, non-evangelical protestants...maybe Methodists? You know, one CAN be Christian, or any religion for that matter, and still believe in the separation of church and state. Just because you believe it, doesn't mean you preach it.

The African American church community (i.e. AME) has a long, strong history in this country of delving into politics. The reason for this is because back in MLK's day (and earlier), church was often the center of the black community, one of the few places they could gather publicly en masse without fear of opression. Many leaders of the African American community emerged from the many meetings organized in churches/houses of worship, led by passionate, inspiring preachers, MLK, Malcolm X, and Jesse Jackson being a few. Religion had a big role in the civil rights movement. But one could argue that it had as much to do with the right meeting space, right audience, right message, and right TIME, more than the religion. The church had a political use at that time, mainly because there was so far to go in civil rights in this country, and people needed BIG, "out there" leaders to push them. Not to diminish the growth that still needs to happen here, but the reason people like Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton are not taken seriously these days (aside from their personal issues) is because, well, they've already served their purpose. Their community doesn't feel the same need to have religious leaders dictating political movements - they have other organizations for that.

The "white" evangelical Christian churches popping up all over the country these days concern me far more than mainstream Muslims or Jews, or things a radical black preacher says. Why? Because their brand of political activism focuses on taking rights AWAY. Why are people so afraid to let others practice a different religion? Just because my neighbor goes to temple, and the chick down the street goes to church on Saturdays, doesn't mean I can't still go to my church on Sunday. Any politician that feels threatened by allowing free practice of religion in this country is awfully suspicious to me, and that includes the freedom to NOT practice religion if one chooses.

let the chruch say AMEN


BTW did anyone see Keith Olbermann tonight?

Obama discussed his views with his dealings with Wright...very oised and to the point.

[bluefish81]

Originally Posted by PeppyGPhiB

If I recall correctly, the Clintons are mainstream, non-evangelical protestants...maybe Methodists? You know, one CAN be Christian, or any religion for that matter, and still believe in the separation of church and state. Just because you believe it, doesn't mean you preach it.

According to wikipedia - Bill's a Baptist, Hillary is a Methodist.

Originally Posted by skylark

I'm not opposed to this option, simply because it forces the Michigan legislature themselves to fix the problem. The fact that they are doing it themselves makes it less likely for this debacle to happen in the future.

After reading that article, I'll be curious to see if it actually happens. Two weeks to get it through the legislature before they go on vacation. Where's the money coming from? Is the Mich. Democratic Party playing MegaMillions?

[PeppyGPhiB]

Bumping this because this morning Bill Richardson endorsed Obama.

[nittanyalum]

Originally Posted by PeppyGPhiB

Bumping this because this morning Bill Richardson endorsed Obama.

Considering Richardson's history and relationship with the Clintons, I'm really really surprised by that.

[NewBee]

I think that if Obama gets the nomination he should pick Bill Richardson as his VP. They share similiar views, Richardson would hopefully help him with the Hispanic vote, and he backed Obama at perhaps his lowest in popularity.

[AGDee]

No do-over for Michigan. Now they are suggesting that the delegates get split evenly. My personal feeling is that if you aren't going to find out who we really want, then don't seat our delegates at all.

[KAPital PHINUst]

This Newsweek article on why Ron Paul still continues to run in spite of the hurdles he is experiencing is brilliant. He also explains why he won't give McCain an endorsement and why the Hillary/Obama fight for the Dem nomination (and the issues the press has been raising involving such) is meaningless.

http://www.newsweek.com/id/124451/page/1

[texas*princess]

Originally Posted by KAPital PHINUst

This Newsweek article on why Ron Paul still continues to run in spite of the hurdles he is experiencing is brilliant. He also explains why he won't give McCain an endorsement and why the Hillary/Obama fight for the Dem nomination (and the issues the press has been raising involving such) is meaningless.

http://www.newsweek.com/id/124451/page/1

i think it's great that he's so upbeat and optomistic.



but i still don't think he will get the nomination

[DaemonSeid]

Originally Posted by AGDee

No do-over for Michigan. Now they are suggesting that the delegates get split evenly. My personal feeling is that if you aren't going to find out who we really want, then don't seat our delegates at all.

Well I am glad Michigan figured it out...they broke the rules and now they just have to deal with the consequences.

[honeychile]

Originally Posted by DaemonSeid

Well I am glad Michigan figured it out...they broke the rules and now they just have to deal with the consequences.

Such an easy concept - and so easily ignored!


I have 2 hours to decide whether to change parties for the primary, in order to vote AGAINST the person I don't want to be a viable candidate! So far, the only thing stopping me is the sense of justice, that I chose a party and have to deal with the fact that the candidate has already been selected. *sigh*

[KAPital PHINUst]

Originally Posted by texas*princess

i think it's great that he's so upbeat and optomistic.

but i still don't think he will get the nomination

Actually whether or not he gets the nomination isn't nearly as important as him getting his message out on constitutional-based small government, a non-interventionist foreign policy, a real money-backed currency (read: gold and/or silver-based currency) , and a free market economic policy.

His winning the presidency will be an easier means to achieve these ends, but empowering the people to realize these items will bring us back to America's founding roots, and to either demand their government to return us to those roots, or run for positions of influence to achive these ends will serve just as effectively.

IMHO even if McCain gets the nomination, short of some serious poll rigging, I'd be hard pressed to believe he will win the presidency.

[shinerbock]

Originally Posted by KAPital PHINUst

IMHO even if McCain gets the nomination, short of some serious poll rigging, I'd be hard pressed to believe he will win the presidency.

I'd like to say you're wrong, but you may not be. Voters can be pretty stupid.

[SWTXBelle]

but never underestimate the power of the Democratic party to take what looks like a sure win for an election and blow it!