Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you:
No adverts like this in the forums anymore.
Times and dates in your local timezone.
Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance.
Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely.
Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net.
If you are already a member then feel free to login now.
The faith factor is an interesting consideration in this election and it strikes me as particularly hypocritical, especially from my Christian friends here in Oklahoma (the majority of which are members of the Southern Baptist denomination).
In my part of the country the 2008 election was very focused on Obama being a Muslim, and there was a very big campaign that basically consisted of "we are a Christian nation, and we need to vote for a Christian. If we vote for somebody that is not a Christian this country will be cursed."
But Southern Baptist leadership also makes it pretty clear that it is their opinion that Mormonism is a cult and that Mormons are not Christians. They also don't think that Catholics are Christians and send lots of missionaries to Catholic countries to bring them salvation.
So they are preaching fear against a protestant Christian (Obama) because they think he might be Muslim. But they readily endorse and build support for a Mormon and a Catholic who wouldn't be considered Christians to begin with according to Southern Baptist leadership.
Crap like that makes me very glad that my church (even though it is officially Southern Baptist) has an awesome track record of staying completely out of politics.
d-usa wrote:The faith factor is an interesting consideration in this election and it strikes me as particularly hypocritical, especially from my Christian friends here in Oklahoma (the majority of which are members of the Southern Baptist denomination).
In my part of the country the 2008 election was very focused on Obama being a Muslim, and there was a very big campaign that basically consisted of "we are a Christian nation, and we need to vote for a Christian. If we vote for somebody that is not a Christian this country will be cursed."
But Southern Baptist leadership also makes it pretty clear that it is their opinion that Mormonism is a cult and that Mormons are not Christians. They also don't think that Catholics are Christians and send lots of missionaries to Catholic countries to bring them salvation.
So they are preaching fear against a protestant Christian (Obama) because they think he might be Muslim. But they readily endorse and build support for a Mormon and a Catholic who wouldn't be considered Christians to begin with according to Southern Baptist leadership.
Crap like that makes me very glad that my church (even though it is officially Southern Baptist) has an awesome track record of staying completely out of politics.
Well they are not the only group to have demonized Mormons and Catholics claiming they are not Christians and latter accepting them when they are desperate.
Pat Robertson recently gave his approval for voting for a Mormon (despite a few months prior to that calling them a cult).
Curious what he has to say about Paul Ryan being Catholic has he has repeatedly berated them.
Jihadin wrote:I would have avoided Jeb for another four yrs. The "Bush" stigma bit comes to mind
"Bush Fatigue" is what Jeb cited as the reason he didn't run. There was literally zero chance he would attach himself to any of this cycles candidates. But he did say on CBS Morning he may have missed his opportunity. He is a youngish guy though if Mitt loses 2016 is likely to be a Bush ticket.
Won't happen. Even in 2016, that name will still resonate. I think that family name is burned and finished on a national scale for an entire generation. Every Democrat would be licking their lips and sharpening their knives, just hoping that the GOP is foolish enough to cough up such an easy target on a national campaign.
d-usa wrote:The faith factor is an interesting consideration in this election and it strikes me as particularly hypocritical, especially from my Christian friends here in Oklahoma (the majority of which are members of the Southern Baptist denomination).
In my part of the country the 2008 election was very focused on Obama being a Muslim, and there was a very big campaign that basically consisted of "we are a Christian nation, and we need to vote for a Christian. If we vote for somebody that is not a Christian this country will be cursed."
But Southern Baptist leadership also makes it pretty clear that it is their opinion that Mormonism is a cult and that Mormons are not Christians. They also don't think that Catholics are Christians and send lots of missionaries to Catholic countries to bring them salvation.
So they are preaching fear against a protestant Christian (Obama) because they think he might be Muslim. But they readily endorse and build support for a Mormon and a Catholic who wouldn't be considered Christians to begin with according to Southern Baptist leadership.
Crap like that makes me very glad that my church (even though it is officially Southern Baptist) has an awesome track record of staying completely out of politics.
Well they are not the only group to have demonized Mormons and Catholics claiming they are not Christians and latter accepting them when they are desperate.
Pat Robertson recently gave his approval for voting for a Mormon (despite a few months prior to that calling them a cult).
Curious what he has to say about Paul Ryan being Catholic has he has repeatedly berated them.
He will say whatever is politically expedient, being more politician than preacher.
The people in the past who convinced themselves to do unspeakable things were no less human than you or I. They made their decisions; the only thing that prevents history from repeating itself is making different ones.
-- Adam Serwer
My blog
d-usa wrote:The faith factor is an interesting consideration in this election and it strikes me as particularly hypocritical, especially from my Christian friends here in Oklahoma (the majority of which are members of the Southern Baptist denomination).
In my part of the country the 2008 election was very focused on Obama being a Muslim, and there was a very big campaign that basically consisted of "we are a Christian nation, and we need to vote for a Christian. If we vote for somebody that is not a Christian this country will be cursed."
But Southern Baptist leadership also makes it pretty clear that it is their opinion that Mormonism is a cult and that Mormons are not Christians. They also don't think that Catholics are Christians and send lots of missionaries to Catholic countries to bring them salvation.
So they are preaching fear against a protestant Christian (Obama) because they think he might be Muslim. But they readily endorse and build support for a Mormon and a Catholic who wouldn't be considered Christians to begin with according to Southern Baptist leadership.
Crap like that makes me very glad that my church (even though it is officially Southern Baptist) has an awesome track record of staying completely out of politics.
Well they are not the only group to have demonized Mormons and Catholics claiming they are not Christians and latter accepting them when they are desperate.
Pat Robertson recently gave his approval for voting for a Mormon (despite a few months prior to that calling them a cult).
Curious what he has to say about Paul Ryan being Catholic has he has repeatedly berated them.
That's the problem with mixing your religion with politics. Eventually you will have to compromise one of your convictions.
d-usa wrote:The faith factor is an interesting consideration in this election and it strikes me as particularly hypocritical, especially from my Christian friends here in Oklahoma (the majority of which are members of the Southern Baptist denomination).
In my part of the country the 2008 election was very focused on Obama being a Muslim, and there was a very big campaign that basically consisted of "we are a Christian nation, and we need to vote for a Christian. If we vote for somebody that is not a Christian this country will be cursed."
But Southern Baptist leadership also makes it pretty clear that it is their opinion that Mormonism is a cult and that Mormons are not Christians. They also don't think that Catholics are Christians and send lots of missionaries to Catholic countries to bring them salvation.
So they are preaching fear against a protestant Christian (Obama) because they think he might be Muslim. But they readily endorse and build support for a Mormon and a Catholic who wouldn't be considered Christians to begin with according to Southern Baptist leadership.
Crap like that makes me very glad that my church (even though it is officially Southern Baptist) has an awesome track record of staying completely out of politics.
Well they are not the only group to have demonized Mormons and Catholics claiming they are not Christians and latter accepting them when they are desperate.
Pat Robertson recently gave his approval for voting for a Mormon (despite a few months prior to that calling them a cult).
Curious what he has to say about Paul Ryan being Catholic has he has repeatedly berated them.
That's the problem with mixing your religion with politics. Eventually you will have to compromise one of your convictions.
That is best part about not being Christian/Religious
If someone gives me the "aren't you suppose to be Christian" argument.
Nope.
Use to people I was a Satanist to get a reaction out of them when I worked at price chopper.
It didn't end well.
Now I just say I'm nothing.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2012/08/12 03:25:10
d-usa wrote:The faith factor is an interesting consideration in this election and it strikes me as particularly hypocritical, especially from my Christian friends here in Oklahoma (the majority of which are members of the Southern Baptist denomination).
In my part of the country the 2008 election was very focused on Obama being a Muslim, and there was a very big campaign that basically consisted of "we are a Christian nation, and we need to vote for a Christian. If we vote for somebody that is not a Christian this country will be cursed."
But Southern Baptist leadership also makes it pretty clear that it is their opinion that Mormonism is a cult and that Mormons are not Christians. They also don't think that Catholics are Christians and send lots of missionaries to Catholic countries to bring them salvation.
So they are preaching fear against a protestant Christian (Obama) because they think he might be Muslim. But they readily endorse and build support for a Mormon and a Catholic who wouldn't be considered Christians to begin with according to Southern Baptist leadership.
Crap like that makes me very glad that my church (even though it is officially Southern Baptist) has an awesome track record of staying completely out of politics.
Well they are not the only group to have demonized Mormons and Catholics claiming they are not Christians and latter accepting them when they are desperate.
Pat Robertson recently gave his approval for voting for a Mormon (despite a few months prior to that calling them a cult).
Curious what he has to say about Paul Ryan being Catholic has he has repeatedly berated them.
That's the problem with mixing your religion with politics. Eventually you will have to compromise one of your convictions.
That is best part about not being Christian/Religious
I don't think the problem is being religious, the problem is mixing your politics and your religion.
d-usa wrote:I don't think the problem is being religious, the problem is mixing your politics and your religion.
Well, you could always plead innocence/ignorance when you're religious, citing the reasoning as faith and closed mindedness. Judging by the history of some politicians, it often works. I doubt many of them are religious at all, but it gives them the option of making up stories or excuses when they need to.
I will forever remain humble because I know I could have less.
I will always be grateful because I remember I've had less.
d-usa wrote:Just bugs me that some people can go from
"Don't vote for the Christian because he might not be a Christian"
to
"We know we have been saying they are cults for the last 50+ years, but you should vote for the non-Christians. They are cool now."
Don't bother trying to make sense out of it, they're stuck in their own little world where they think arguments, popularity, money, and winning will solve problems and make the world a better place.
I will forever remain humble because I know I could have less.
I will always be grateful because I remember I've had less.
The other possible downside to Ryan is having a veep candidate who outshines Romney.
Adepticon 2015: Team Tourney Best Imperial Team- Team Ironguts, Adepticon 2014: Team Tourney 6th/120, Best Imperial Team- Cold Steel Mercs 2, 40k Championship Qualifier ~25/226
More2010-2014 GT/Major RTT Record (W/L/D) -- CSM: 78-20-9 // SW: 8-1-2 (Golden Ticket with SW), BA: 29-9-4 6th Ed GT & RTT Record (W/L/D) -- CSM: 36-12-2 // BA: 11-4-1 // SW: 1-1-1
DT:70S++++G(FAQ)M++B++I+Pw40k99#+D+++A+++/sWD105R+++T(T)DM+++++ A better way to score Sportsmanship in tournaments The 40K Rulebook & Codex FAQs. You should have these bookmarked if you play this game.
The Dakka Dakka Forum Rules You agreed to abide by these when you signed up.
I agree. Ryan was a possible candidate in 2016. I see him actualy breaking away from Romney and picking up Christie as VP.
Proud Member of the Infidels of OIF/OEF
No longer defending the US Military or US Gov't. Just going to ""**feed into your fears**"" with Duffel Blog Did not fight my way up on top the food chain to become a Vegan...
Warning: Stupid Allergy
Once you pull the pin, Mr. Grenade is no longer your friend
DE 6700
Harlequin 2500
RIP Muhammad Ali.
Jihadin, Scorched Earth 791. Leader of the Pork Eating Crusader. Alpha
d-usa wrote:Just bugs me that some people can go from
"Don't vote for the Christian because he might not be a Christian"
to
"We know we have been saying they are cults for the last 50+ years, but you should vote for the non-Christians. They are cool now."
It is fairly interesting, and rather complicated, as it touches on a whole bunch of subjects. One of the main ones being that there is a certain sense in which Muslims are often viewed as being anti-Christian as opposed to mere non-Christians. Another is that "Christian" in the most powerful political sense (in the US) is as often as not a euphemism for "conservative", meaning that when faced with two non-Christians the conservative one will often be viewed as closer to being Christian.
Racism may also be a factor, but I think had Obama spent his whole life in the US his skin color would be much less important (note Herman Cain's popularity). The real issue is a sort of mild xenophobia due to his international youth coupled with an elite education, and liberal political positions.
Jihadin wrote:I agree. Ryan was a possible candidate in 2016. I see him actualy breaking away from Romney and picking up Christie as VP.
I don't think Christie would take a VP spot, he has no reason to move from Governor for so little. New Jersey does have term limits, no more than two consecutive, but Christie's second term would end in 2018. This also means that his first term would end in 2014, leaving him out of politics for 2 years* unless he could secure a House seat; which is unlikely given the timing.
He would be better off running against Ryan in 2016, assuming such a scenario comes to pass. Though depending on how the primaries turned out he could still end up in the VP slot.
Honestly, though, I like Christie as a Presidential candidate. He has a good historical balance of positions on many issues that make him an intriguing prospect. The problem is that so did McCain, and we saw how that turned out.
*Not a huge issue if you're running for President, but its hard to pick up a VP nomination if you're not in the news. Unless, of course, the field is very weak (read: 2008 for the Democrats); which it won't be for the GOP in '16.
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2012/08/12 04:43:36
Life does not cease to be funny when people die any more than it ceases to be serious when people laugh.
“Romney is above all else a problem-solver, a doer and a fixer. Ryan, likewise, is a policy maven who has since 2007 been trying to advance budget, tax and health-care reforms, moving the Republican Party to become the champion of market-based reform. Ryan is a smart man, certainly the smartest in Congress, with an eye for detail and a facility with numbers. Romney prizes brains, precision and the ability to wield numbers. Ryan uses a scalpel, not a sledge hammer in skewering his opposition; Romney likewise uses piles of data to slay his competitors (as he did in the Florida and Arizona GOP primary debates). Ryan is personally and professionally disciplined, a straight arrow with a gee-whiz brand of optimism. Romney is as well. . . . The left will be effusive about the opportunity to renew Mediscare. But the Ryan team has been fighting that fight for some time and is perfectly willing to engage President Obama, who has heckled but not lead on entitlement reform. Who better than Ryan to take on the president while Romney sails above the fray?”
“Ryan wants to have an adult conversation with America about the looming insolvency of the welfare state, and he has a serious plan to fix it. . . . I suspect Ryan is one of the few Republicans Obama genuinely fears; after all, Ryan schooled Obama in Obama’s faux-’health care summit’ early last year. (Obama does not look pleased in the video.) David Brooks reports, by the way, that Obama never picks up the phone to try to talk with Ryan. Ryan is not simply fearless about the issues, he also gets the larger picture, and can talk about the larger picture.”
"Mediscare"??? Is that the throw granny off the cliff ad?
whembly wrote: Who better than Ryan to take on the president while Romney sails above the fray?”
There is one obvious reason why that won't work.
Obama v. Ryan is even ground, roughly. Romney v. Biden is about the same. And it looks bad for Romney. You cannot bow out of competition and hope to win.
Also, there's this which really gets at how much VPs matter.
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2012/08/12 05:50:00
Life does not cease to be funny when people die any more than it ceases to be serious when people laugh.
“Romney is above all else a problem-solver, a doer and a fixer. Ryan, likewise, is a policy maven who has since 2007 been trying to advance budget, tax and health-care reforms, moving the Republican Party to become the champion of market-based reform. Ryan is a smart man, certainly the smartest in Congress, with an eye for detail and a facility with numbers. Romney prizes brains, precision and the ability to wield numbers. Ryan uses a scalpel, not a sledge hammer in skewering his opposition; Romney likewise uses piles of data to slay his competitors (as he did in the Florida and Arizona GOP primary debates). Ryan is personally and professionally disciplined, a straight arrow with a gee-whiz brand of optimism. Romney is as well. . . . The left will be effusive about the opportunity to renew Mediscare. But the Ryan team has been fighting that fight for some time and is perfectly willing to engage President Obama, who has heckled but not lead on entitlement reform. Who better than Ryan to take on the president while Romney sails above the fray?”
“Ryan wants to have an adult conversation with America about the looming insolvency of the welfare state, and he has a serious plan to fix it. . . . I suspect Ryan is one of the few Republicans Obama genuinely fears; after all, Ryan schooled Obama in Obama’s faux-’health care summit’ early last year. (Obama does not look pleased in the video.) David Brooks reports, by the way, that Obama never picks up the phone to try to talk with Ryan. Ryan is not simply fearless about the issues, he also gets the larger picture, and can talk about the larger picture.”
"Mediscare"??? Is that the throw granny off the cliff ad?
They called Ryan a policy "maven"? Either that blogger is not aware of what "maven" means, or else they are not aware that you cannot call someone an expert in a field when they put forth mathematically impossible suggestions to that field.
Also, you are aware that blogs are not actually news sources, right?
come debate time, it won't matter who is his sidekick. His whole story about his home, his unreal wealth and his wife's horse being better cared for than the 99% will keep O Bummer in office.
in modern politics, we lose either way in the end. the banks run the world, so our only hope is to fight them. make your business cash only, spend only cash, take away the power from these bastards. It should have been obvious long ago that when EVERYONE gives a group their money that that group will become very very powerful. For fething sake, liquor stores in Oregon are state run and regulated, but the banks are all privately owned.
3000+
Death Company, Converted Space Hulk Termies
RIP Diz, We will never forget ya brother
Jihadin wrote:I would have avoided Jeb for another four yrs. The "Bush" stigma bit comes to mind
"Bush Fatigue" is what Jeb cited as the reason he didn't run. There was literally zero chance he would attach himself to any of this cycles candidates. But he did say on CBS Morning he may have missed his opportunity. He is a youngish guy though if Mitt loses 2016 is likely to be a Bush ticket.
Won't happen. Even in 2016, that name will still resonate. I think that family name is burned and finished on a national scale for an entire generation. Every Democrat would be licking their lips and sharpening their knives, just hoping that the GOP is foolish enough to cough up such an easy target on a national campaign.
You couldn't be more wrong. Jeb has name recognition and a record to stand on.
Avatar 720 wrote: You see, to Auston, everyone is a Death Star; there's only one way you can take it and that's through a small gap at the back.
Powder Burns wrote:what they need to make is a fullsize leatherman, like 14" long folded, with a bone saw, notches for bowstring, signaling flare, electrical hand crank generator, bolt cutters..
* For fun, Ryan noodles catfish, catching them barehanded with a fist down their throats.
Gotta. Say. That is totally bad ass.
The problem is that so did McCain, and we saw how that turned out.
Honestly I don't think that was McCain's problem. McCain got screwed by a combination of his age, Palin's stupidity, and the aptly timed economic recession. He was gaining ground on Obama all summer in polls. Then the recession hit and it was over for him cause everyone blamed Bush and the Republicans which gave Obama and the Democrats the boost they needed to get the White House and the Senate. EDIT: And Obama is a charismatic guy, comparatively young (and looks even younger), family man. What's not to like?
That is the problem. It is a double edged sword, and enough to probably keep him from winning, though I wouldn't completely rule it out.
IDK. People may hate George but there's still a lot of Americans who love him. Jeb is imo a much more articulate man and more charismatic than his brother. He could capitalize on enduring popularity for Bush in the Republican blocks and win over moderates if he says the right things in the right ways.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2012/08/12 09:28:20
That is the problem. It is a double edged sword, and enough to probably keep him from winning, though I wouldn't completely rule it out.
IDK. People may hate George but there's still a lot of Americans who love him. Jeb is imo a much more articulate man and more charismatic than his brother. He could capitalize on enduring popularity for Bush in the Republican blocks and win over moderates if he says the right things in the right ways.
Which is why I wouldn't rule it out. It is hard to say how much effect time will have between then and now, as well as any unforeseen events that might alleviate or exacerbate the issue.
Amidst the mists and coldest frosts he thrusts his fists against the posts and still insists he sees the ghosts.
LordofHats wrote:
Honestly I don't think that was McCain's problem. McCain got screwed by a combination of his age, Palin's stupidity, and the aptly timed economic recession.
Spoken as though national issues were not candidate problems.
Life does not cease to be funny when people die any more than it ceases to be serious when people laugh.
Ryan was chosen to help 'increase' the pull on conservatives. Remember the quote Democrats fall in love, Republicans fall in line?
Romney did not need to do this in order to get the Republicans to vote for him. They may have had to close their eyes and felt sick when they made the vote, but they still would have cast it for Romney.
What the Ryan VP choice has done is push away the moderates.
This message was edited 5 times. Last update was at 2012/08/12 12:01:23
There seems to be a lot of moderate Republicans that are pissed at the choice of Ryan, thinking that it was forced on Romney to try to bring him more in line with the extreme right of the party.
The people in the past who convinced themselves to do unspeakable things were no less human than you or I. They made their decisions; the only thing that prevents history from repeating itself is making different ones.
-- Adam Serwer
My blog
The problem is that extremists have a very hard time winning general elections.
There is a reason Dennis Kucinich or Ron Paul don't win the primaries. It's because they would never be electable - even though both of them have some excellent (and no so excellent) ideas.
So by shifting hard to the right, the Republican ticket is alienating moderates. Ryan's extreme plan to cut taxes for the rich, major cuts to social nets, and renovation (or could be described as removal) of medicare make him a unappealing option for moderates.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2012/08/12 12:22:50
3000+
Death Company, Converted Space Hulk Termies
