Obama v. Romney

Right? Left? Centre?
Political news and debate.
Put your views and articles up for debate and destruction!
rubato
Posts: 14245
Joined: Sun May 09, 2010 10:14 pm

Re: Obama v. Romney

Post by rubato »

MajGenl.Meade wrote:“Very truly, I tell you, everyone who commits sin is a slave to sin. The slave does not have a permanent place in the household; the son has a place there forever. So if the Son makes you free, you will be free indeed"

New Revised Standard Version(Jn 8:34-36)

Jesus Christ is in the business of setting men and women free from things that have them in bondage so that they can be the type of people God intends them to be. The way we are born (i.e. our naturally sinful condition) is not what God intends men and women to be.
And the Christian church spent nearly 2,000 years supporting slavery and the degradation of women.

yrs,
rubato

User avatar
Lord Jim
Posts: 29716
Joined: Thu Jun 10, 2010 12:44 pm
Location: TCTUTKHBDTMDITSAF

Re: Obama v. Romney

Post by Lord Jim »

Meanwhile, back at Obama V Romney:

Here is the Real Clear Politics average of the last eight major national polls (taken between 4/26 and 5/11)_

Obama Romney
RCP Average 4/27 - 5/13 -- 46.5 45.1 Obama +1.4


http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls ... -1171.html

The most recent poll, one done by CBS and The New york Times, taken between 5/11 and 5/13 (after the whole prep school bruhaha broke) has Romney up by 3....

It doesn't look like the average American is being much affected by that sort of thing....

That's why this week Team Obama is test marketing the "Romney The Vulture Capitalist" theme....

Two weeks ago, it was "Romney the out-of-the-mainstream-right winger" theme....

That one didn't seem to have much affect on the numbers either...

Next week it will probably be, "Romney The flip Flopper".....

I get the feeling that the Obama campaign is basically testing a whole series of ways to try to define Romney in the hopes they'll find something that will resonate with voters, and move his numbers down....

But instead, both nationally and in the swing states, ever since the nomination fight ended, Romney's numbers have improved....

I suspect this is because the American people don't much care about Bin Ladin, or gay marriage, or what Romney did in prep school 47 years ago, when they're afraid of losing their jobs....

Romney may be his own worst enemy, but the economy is Obama's....
ImageImageImage

User avatar
loCAtek
Posts: 8421
Joined: Tue Apr 06, 2010 9:49 pm
Location: My San Ho'metown

Re: Obama v. Romney

Post by loCAtek »

Image

User avatar
Gob
Posts: 33646
Joined: Tue Apr 06, 2010 8:40 am

Re: Obama v. Romney

Post by Gob »

Of course, fear-mongering and millitary might over social justice has always been the republican stock in trade.
"The world is not safe," Romney told veterans on Memorial Day. He was joined by Senator John McCain, in a speech to honor the veterans of America's wars.

The United States now has two paths forward, Romney said. He called one "the pathway to Europe," suggesting Europe had acquiesced to geopolitical threats. "To shrink our military smaller and smaller to pay for our social needs."

The other path, Romney said, is "to commit to preserve America as the strongest military in the world, second to none, with no comparable power anywhere in the world."
“If you trust in yourself, and believe in your dreams, and follow your star. . . you'll still get beaten by people who spent their time working hard and learning things and weren't so lazy.”

User avatar
MajGenl.Meade
Posts: 21464
Joined: Sun Apr 25, 2010 8:51 am
Location: Groot Brakrivier
Contact:

Re: Obama v. Romney

Post by MajGenl.Meade »

rubato wrote: And the Christian church spent nearly 2,000 years supporting slavery and the degradation of women.

yrs,
rubato
and "the" Christian church would be.......?

And "degradation of women" would be.....? I suppose something other than that historically exemplified by Playboy, the democrat party, the republican party, Augusta National, the governments of the USA, Britain, et al, native Americans, Jews, Hindus, Buddhists, atheists, agnostics, etc etc etc

Meade
For Christianity, by identifying truth with faith, must teach-and, properly understood, does teach-that any interference with the truth is immoral. A Christian with faith has nothing to fear from the facts

User avatar
Guinevere
Posts: 8990
Joined: Mon Apr 19, 2010 3:01 pm

Re: Obama v. Romney

Post by Guinevere »

I'd modify rubato's claim and substitute submission for degradation. Submission is a subset of the larger topic, as you point out MGM. But certainly you cannot deny that the bible and many many branches of Christian denominations require women to be subservient and inferior to men -- and it is their ongoing policy to maintain that inequality. And certainly that mindset only reinforces the concept that the ongoing degradation of women in society as a whole is ok.
“I ask no favor for my sex. All I ask of our brethren is that they take their feet off our necks.” ~ Ruth Bader Ginsburg, paraphrasing Sarah Moore Grimké

User avatar
MajGenl.Meade
Posts: 21464
Joined: Sun Apr 25, 2010 8:51 am
Location: Groot Brakrivier
Contact:

Re: Obama v. Romney

Post by MajGenl.Meade »

Guinevere wrote: But certainly you cannot deny that (1) the bible and (2) many many branches of Christian denominations require women to be subservient and inferior to men -- and it is their ongoing policy to maintain that inequality.
Numbers added by me.

Hi Guin

I can deny the first (and do). I agree that historically some/many Christians have erred in their understanding of the Bible and have misapplied it - with sometimes terrible and shameful results. Unbelievers have been much more consistent in wilfully misunderstanding the relevant passages of course

I'm not sure about the second. Who are we speaking of there? I've not been in a church belonging to such a denomination as far as I know - although general historical experience suggests your statement/intuition is probably correct. Moslems do a pretty good job of holding women back - and atheists (that is, I assume Wall Street to be thoroughly un-Christian). :lol:

Meade

PS I am sorry to keep on hijacking this thread. Well not really.
For Christianity, by identifying truth with faith, must teach-and, properly understood, does teach-that any interference with the truth is immoral. A Christian with faith has nothing to fear from the facts

dgs49
Posts: 3458
Joined: Fri Oct 29, 2010 9:13 pm

Re: Obama v. Romney

Post by dgs49 »

Essentially every society in the world and throughout history, by liberal definition, is and has been "oppressive" to women.

Men are bigger and stronger than women. Men have intelligence that is superior to that of women when it comes to building things, inventing things, breaking things, and causing great harm to others - thus, it is normal and natural that men have assumed positions of power. Womens' contribution to the arts and literature until very, very recently has been nothing more than marginal. Studies that focus on the artistic and cultural contributions of women throughout history are mainly exercises in the exaltation of mediocrity.

Woman are smaller, weaker, and are defined by biology as the bearer of children and nurturer, at least for the first years. A woman can essentially be incapacitated for years by a single act of sexual intercourse, voluntary or otherwise.

It is possible to pick through history and find the occasional female leader or preacher or artist or architect, or what have you and truthfully say that she was outstanding, but the tide of history is a tide that is propelled by men.

And this has nothing to do with Christianity or The Church. But if you really have a bug up your ass about Christianity or The Church, you can maybe make yourself feel better by pretending that the Church has had it out for women for the past 2,000 years.

By my guest.

Big RR
Posts: 14907
Joined: Thu Apr 15, 2010 9:47 pm

Re: Obama v. Romney

Post by Big RR »

Meade--if I'm nott mistaken, I believe your denomination denies women leadership positions in your churches (perhaps based on oneof Paul's statements that women should not exercise authroity over men?); and even if yours does not, there are many christian denominations that have this rule. Is that not placing women in an inferior or subservient position compared to men? Likewise, is the RC church's position that women are barred from priesthood (and thus from any positions of real power or authority within the church) much the same?

Perhaps some will say that this just recognizes that women and men are different and have different roles to fill in god's cosmic plan (or whatever), but the effect is to place women in inferior positions.

dgs--you really believe that? Then I am not surprised that you see any positions that place women in inferior positions as just the way things are. Personally, I think church's should strive to ennoble and free everyone and not just defendthe status quo, but then relgion can be used as the opiate of the people to encourage them to accept things the way they are, regardless of how unfair some are treated.

User avatar
MajGenl.Meade
Posts: 21464
Joined: Sun Apr 25, 2010 8:51 am
Location: Groot Brakrivier
Contact:

Re: Obama v. Romney

Post by MajGenl.Meade »

Big RR - you are not exactly mistaken. Actually I'm a member of the Presbyterian church here in SA and one of our elders is a female ordained minister named Chrissie. I was a member of Parkside Church in Bainbridge OH which has some 9 pastors and 15 or so elders - all of them men. They base their church practise on the Biblical instruction that elders should be "husbands of but one wife". I doubt that same-sex marriage is going to change their belief that "husband" means a man (and "wife" a woman).

Does their church practise place women in a subservient or inferior position? I don't know. You'd have to ask the 800 or so women members which includes of course those engaged in working (some paid, some as volunteers) in various church activities - school, administration, taping and broadcasting and so on. Now they do insist that the parking lot attendants who stand outside in all weathers directing traffic are men. I don't recall any women feeling compelled to go out and freeze with or in place of their husbands. Maybe it is terribly iniquitous.

As to the Roman church, I cannot answer for a non-christian organization

Meade

eta: I don't endorse the sentiment that dgs49 displayed
For Christianity, by identifying truth with faith, must teach-and, properly understood, does teach-that any interference with the truth is immoral. A Christian with faith has nothing to fear from the facts

User avatar
RayThom
Posts: 8604
Joined: Wed Mar 14, 2012 4:38 pm
Location: Longwood Gardens PA 19348

RELIGION AND POLITICS

Post by RayThom »

It appears to me those who write the most in trying to support their narrow minded views are the very same who should be more open-minded and understanding to the other 99%. In other words, sit back and LISTEN.

Shout enough, talk over the other person enough, over-gesticulate enough, and eventually you'll be 100% correct. At least in your own mind. How do I know this? This person was my father for 61 years. And, because of, or in spite of him, I know when to say the least... and often do. Thankfully, it never curtailed my critical thinking.

Oh, by the way, here is a song by Pete Townshend that sums up undeniable, infallible, self-righteous, pomposity. It appears that men in dresses speak for a higher authority -- Christian Dior, perhaps.

"Man in a Purple Dress"
How dare you wear a robe to preside
How dare you cover your head to hide
Your face from God
How dare you smile from behind your beard
To hide the fact your heart's afeared,
And wave your rod
How dare you be the one to assess
Me, in this God-forsaken mess
You, a man, in a purple dress
A man in a purple dress

You are all the same
Gilded and absurd
Regal, fast to blame
Rulers by lost word
Men above men, or prats
With your high hats
You priest, you mullah so high
You pope, you wise rabbi
You're invisible to me
Like vapour from the sea

How dare you? Do you think I'll quietly go?
You are much braver than you know
For I can't die
Your staff, your stick, your special cap
They'll protect in Hell? What crap!
Believe the lie
How dare you be the one to assess
Me, in this God-forsaken mess
You, a man, in a purple dress
A man in a purple dress

When you place your frown
Between my God and prayer
However grand your crown
Or dignified your hair
Men above men, or prats
In your high hats
You priest, you mullah so high
You pope, you wise rabbi
You are invisible to me
Like vapour from the sea

I lovingly mock you noble lords
We all dress up to grant awards
I do that as well
I dare condemn your fashion sense
At least you're not astride a fence
That would not sell
But I will deliver this address
Your soul's condition don't impress
You, a man, in a purple dress
A man in a purple dress

Hallelujah... and go in peace. AMEN.
Image
“In a world whose absurdity appears to be so impenetrable, we simply must reach a greater degree of understanding among us, a greater sincerity.” 

User avatar
MajGenl.Meade
Posts: 21464
Joined: Sun Apr 25, 2010 8:51 am
Location: Groot Brakrivier
Contact:

Re: Obama v. Romney

Post by MajGenl.Meade »

Good lyric. I agree

Meade
For Christianity, by identifying truth with faith, must teach-and, properly understood, does teach-that any interference with the truth is immoral. A Christian with faith has nothing to fear from the facts

dgs49
Posts: 3458
Joined: Fri Oct 29, 2010 9:13 pm

Re: Obama v. Romney

Post by dgs49 »

At the present time, our culture and technology have made it possible for women to assume roles and to accomplish things that were virtually impossible until now. Many are doing it, and that is a great thing for everyone's benefit.

But the issue before the court is whether "Christianity" or "The Church" have systematically oppressed women for the past two thousand years. They have not. They have simply gone along with the tide of history.

Which is not to say that the current refusal by the Catholic and some other Christian churches to permit women into positions of power and authority is one that I support. I don't think it can be justified any more. The main obstacles now are just inertia and inconvenience.

Big RR
Posts: 14907
Joined: Thu Apr 15, 2010 9:47 pm

Re: Obama v. Romney

Post by Big RR »

So it's your position then that the church should adjust its policies to "go along with the tide of history". I thought the purpose of any church was to educate their congregants on what is right or wrong; indeed, I fully support that and if any church refuses to marry two people of the same gender (or different religions or whatever) that is its own business (not that I'd attend one that did, but that's a different story). I don't think I'd defend any church just "going along".

Of course, a church has no right to insist that its view be imposed on all by force of law, but that's a different issue.

User avatar
Gob
Posts: 33646
Joined: Tue Apr 06, 2010 8:40 am

Re: Obama v. Romney

Post by Gob »

Mitt Romney; The Dark Side.


By 1983, Hayes was 23 and back in the Boston area, raising a 3-year-old daughter on her own and working as a nurse’s aide. Then she got pregnant again. Single motherhood was no picnic, but Hayes said she had wanted a second child and wasn’t upset at the news. “I kind of felt like I could do it,” she said. “And I wanted to.” By that point Mitt Romney, the man whose kids Hayes used to watch, was, as bishop of her ward, her church leader. But it didn’t feel so formal at first. She earned some money while she was pregnant organizing the Romneys’ basement. The Romneys also arranged for her to do odd jobs for other church members, who knew she needed the cash. “Mitt was really good to us. He did a lot for us,” Hayes said. Then Romney called Hayes one winter day and said he wanted to come over and talk. He arrived at her apartment in Somerville, a dense, largely working-class city just north of Boston. They chitchatted for a few minutes. Then Romney said something about the church’s adoption agency. Hayes initially thought she must have misunderstood. But Romney’s intent became apparent: he was urging her to give up her soon-to-be-born son for adoption, saying that was what the church wanted. Indeed, the church encourages adoption in cases where “a successful marriage is unlikely.”

Hayes was deeply insulted. She told him she would never surrender her child. Sure, her life wasn’t exactly the picture of Rockwellian harmony, but she felt she was on a path to stability. In that moment, she also felt intimidated. Here was Romney, who held great power as her church leader and was the head of a wealthy, prominent Belmont family, sitting in her gritty apartment making grave demands. “And then he says, ‘Well, this is what the church wants you to do, and if you don’t, then you could be excommunicated for failing to follow the leadership of the church,’ ” Hayes recalled. It was a serious threat. At that point Hayes still valued her place within the Mormon Church. “This is not playing around,” she said. “This is not like ‘You don’t get to take Communion.’ This is like ‘You will not be saved. You will never see the face of God.’ ” Romney would later deny that he had threatened Hayes with excommunication, but Hayes said his message was crystal clear: “Give up your son or give up your God.”

Not long after, Hayes gave birth to a son. She named him Dane. At nine months old, Dane needed serious, and risky, surgery. The bones in his head were fused together, restricting the growth of his brain, and would need to be separated. Hayes was scared. She sought emotional and spiritual support from the church once again. Looking past their uncomfortable conversation before Dane’s birth, she called Romney and asked him to come to the hospital to confer a blessing on her baby. Hayes was expecting him. Instead, two people she didn’t know showed up. She was crushed. “I needed him,” she said. “It was very significant that he didn’t come.” Sitting there in the hospital, Hayes decided she was finished with the Mormon Church. The decision was easy, yet she made it with a heavy heart. To this day, she remains grateful to Romney and others in the church for all they did for her family. But she shudders at what they were asking her to do in return, especially when she pulls out pictures of Dane, now a 27-year-old electrician in Salt Lake City. “There’s my baby,” she said.

In the fall of 1990, Exponent II published in its journal an unsigned essay by a married woman who, having already borne five children, had found herself some years earlier facing an unplanned sixth pregnancy. She couldn’t bear the thought of another child and was contemplating abortion. But the Mormon Church makes few exceptions to permit women to end a pregnancy. Church leaders have said that abortion can be justified in cases of rape or incest, when the health of the mother is seriously threatened, or when the fetus will surely not survive beyond birth. And even those circumstances “do not automatically justify an abortion,” according to church policy.

Then the woman’s doctors discovered she had a serious blood clot in her pelvis. She thought initially that would be her way out—of course she would have to get an abortion. But the doctors, she said, ultimately told her that, with some risk to her life, she might be able to deliver a full-term baby, whose chance of survival they put at 50 percent. One day in the hospital, her bishop—later identified as Romney, though she did not name him in the piece—paid her a visit. He told her about his nephew who had Down syndrome and what a blessing it had turned out to be for their family. “As your bishop,” she said he told her, “my concern is with the child.” The woman wrote, “Here I—a baptized, endowed, dedicated worker, and tithe-payer in the church—lay helpless, hurt, and frightened, trying to maintain my psychological equilibrium, and his concern was for the eight-week possibility in my uterus—not for me!”

Romney would later contend that he couldn’t recall the incident, saying, “I don’t have any memory of what she is referring to, although I certainly can’t say it could not have been me.” Romney acknowledged having counseled Mormon women not to have abortions except in exceptional cases, in accordance with church rules. The woman told Romney, she wrote, that her stake president, a doctor, had already told her, “Of course, you should have this abortion and then recover from the blood clot and take care of the healthy children you already have.” Romney, she said, fired back, “I don’t believe you. He wouldn’t say that. I’m going to call him.” And then he left. The woman said that she went on to have the abortion and never regretted it. “What I do feel bad about,” she wrote, “is that at a time when I would have appreciated nurturing and support from spiritual leaders and friends, I got judgment, criticism, prejudicial advice, and rejection.”
Never mind, when Jesus returns to rule from Missouri, all will be well. :loon
“If you trust in yourself, and believe in your dreams, and follow your star. . . you'll still get beaten by people who spent their time working hard and learning things and weren't so lazy.”

User avatar
Long Run
Posts: 6723
Joined: Sat Apr 17, 2010 2:47 pm

Re: Obama v. Romney

Post by Long Run »

I have no doubt, if we took political thinking out of it, I would rather spend a day hanging out with Obama than Romney. Most people felt the same way about GWB and those self-righteous prudes, Gore and Kerry. The question is not who is the least A-hole, but who has the best vision for the future, i.e., implementing policies that will reduce the future debt catastrophe facing us, while encouraging current economic activity.

User avatar
MajGenl.Meade
Posts: 21464
Joined: Sun Apr 25, 2010 8:51 am
Location: Groot Brakrivier
Contact:

Re: Obama v. Romney

Post by MajGenl.Meade »

Long Run wrote:I have no doubt , if we took political thinking out of it, I would rather spend a day hanging out with Obama than Romney

Taken out - and I still think it's correct this way. Obama on the other hand........well it would be a tough choice for him!

Meade
For Christianity, by identifying truth with faith, must teach-and, properly understood, does teach-that any interference with the truth is immoral. A Christian with faith has nothing to fear from the facts

dgs49
Posts: 3458
Joined: Fri Oct 29, 2010 9:13 pm

Re: Obama v. Romney

Post by dgs49 »

God DAMN that Romney fellow! He is a fucking MORMON, and he actually believes what they teach,and tries to live by it, and counsels others (who claim they are or want to be good Mormons) to do likewise.

Damn him. What a HYPOCRITE!

And that Obama guy...all he does is follow and idolize a hate-preaching, anti-white, anti-American bigot for 20 years, raise his daughters in his Church, call him out as a major influence in his autobiography...and some people want to CRITICIZE him for it, as though he (Obama) actually believes or supports anything the preacher says.

Just can't catch a break.


"The Dark Side." You gotta be shittin' me.

User avatar
MajGenl.Meade
Posts: 21464
Joined: Sun Apr 25, 2010 8:51 am
Location: Groot Brakrivier
Contact:

Re: Obama v. Romney

Post by MajGenl.Meade »

I looked and I didn't
For Christianity, by identifying truth with faith, must teach-and, properly understood, does teach-that any interference with the truth is immoral. A Christian with faith has nothing to fear from the facts

User avatar
RayThom
Posts: 8604
Joined: Wed Mar 14, 2012 4:38 pm
Location: Longwood Gardens PA 19348

YIKES!

Post by RayThom »

It is starting to feel very slimy in here. And the election is still five (5) months away. What a long, strange, trip it's gonna' be.


Oh, and God Bless America!
Image
“In a world whose absurdity appears to be so impenetrable, we simply must reach a greater degree of understanding among us, a greater sincerity.” 

Post Reply