English Warning To Americans

[flip]

Na I got more confidence in Tc than that. It's obvious the man can't do the job and is squarely in the national banks and corporations pockets. i don't give a ★■◆● what he says, when the ★■◆● hits the fan, he will always vote for more government regulation and control. Someone said earlier, Krom, that what does it matter, they all seem to be that way. I agree. Why not take a chance and quit voting the norm. At worse, at least these issues will come to the forefront, but not if we keep being so damn easily controlled. The only candidate I hear actually proclaiming old fashioned, AMERICAN ideals mainly devoid of religious sentiment is Ron Paul. I'm curious to how things would actually change if you put someone like that in office. The greatest power a president has is to set the tone and the topic of conversation. Aside from that, he needs agreeance to move forward.

[flip]

Lol I had a great idea for ole Ron. He should start his own party and call it the American Party. This is the problem I see with the Tea Party. The name itself suggests revolt, discontentment and upheaval. At the time it played into the nations mood but now that everyone wants stability, it's scaring everyone but the most radical away. Call it the American Party and actually run on that platform, would be something people could get behind now.

[callmeslick]

... but I have no idea why TC would vote for the man.

No idea? Didn't you watch the election? Most people were just plain suckered by a lot of empty idealistic banter. It was the perfect candidate for a generation that gets their reality from media and the progressive/liberal teat.

or, maybe they were just scared by the other party, who seems to eschew any sign of intelligence in it's leaders. Look at who is on the rise: Rick Perry and Michelle Bachman. Ron Paul or Newt Gingrich(men of real intelligence, whether one agrees with them or not) haven't a chance. Sad, really, but true.

[callmeslick]

By the way I predict that TC and a whole lot of liberals are going to forgive Obama come the election. It's a fickle thing. They just need some kind of a impressive token or offering to bring them back in. That is unless the Democrats field some shiny new candidate that totally overshadows him.

yeah, they will. See my comment above. The GOP seems singularly incapable of nominating a sane, rational candidate, preferring religious extremists with little or no contact with reality. Middle America is frightened by such types.

[CUDA]

Middle America is frightened by such types.

I disagree. with 70% of Americans calling themselves "Christian" it would seem to be the left that is frightened.

[woodchip]

By the way I predict that TC and a whole lot of liberals are going to forgive Obama come the election. It's a fickle thing. They just need some kind of a impressive token or offering to bring them back in. That is unless the Democrats field some shiny new candidate that totally overshadows him.

yeah, they will. See my comment above. The GOP seems singularly incapable of nominating a sane, rational candidate, preferring religious extremists with little or no contact with reality. Middle America is frightened by such types.

Riiiight....the only sane people out there are Obama and his acolytes. People are so afraid of the the nut jobs like the Tea Party types is why the Tea Party has a toe hold in congress. The real people who are afraid are like Maxine Waters spouting the Tea Party can go to hell comments. The only people you think are sane and rational Slick are those who won't stand a snow balls chance in hell of getting elected. Gingrich? I'm sure if he got the nomination you'd still vote for Obama.

[flip]

If Ron Paul is on the ballot, I'm voting for him and according to the bull★■◆● polls, there is a great deal of people thinking the same thing. No matter what, I think Obama is finished. This next election will have record voter turn-out from people who have never voted before in their lives. That's the unpredictable part. Newt screwed the pooch with his T-shirt debacle and others but if there was one damn thing to say against Ron Paul, they would. That guy is the only serious contender in the Republican field right now, and he should disassociate himself from them immediately and get on the ballot as an independent. His odds increase dramatically then.

[callmeslick]

Middle America is frightened by such types.

I disagree. with 70% of Americans calling themselves "Christian" it would seem to be the left that is frightened.

hardly. Every polling of independants shows utterly no interest in folks who govern with some whackjob variation of Christianity at their core. And, for both of the folks I mentioned, their form of Christianity is foreign ground to the sane and rational. Heck, one of Perry's core supporters is leading a gathering up in Detroit that features, among other events, a bunch of loons placing stakes with biblical quotes outside of Masonic Temples. These are not stable people. The rapture is not upon us, and most of us don't wish to elect some fool who thinks he/she is doing God's work preparing for it. We want a leader than cares about the nation, understands the economy and is concerned with the thinking of ALL the people, Christian or otherwise.

[callmeslick]

The only people you think are sane and rational Slick are those who won't stand a snow balls chance in hell of getting elected. Gingrich? I'm sure if he got the nomination you'd still vote for Obama.

I'll wager this: if Gingrich or Paul got the nomination, they would stand a better chance come election time than the right wing fringe. Seen the numbers on the Tea Party's level of national support recently? They make Obama look positively fabulous. Just because they had one good off-year election, don't read that as anything other than an abberration. POTUS elections bring out far more folks, and most of them aren't fervent ideologues.

[callmeslick]

If Ron Paul is on the ballot, I'm voting for him and according to the **** polls, there is a great deal of people thinking the same thing. No matter what, I think Obama is finished. This next election will have record voter turn-out from people who have never voted before in their lives. That's the unpredictable part. Newt screwed the pooch with his T-shirt debacle and others but if there was one damn thing to say against Ron Paul, they would. That guy is the only serious contender in the Republican field right now, and he should disassociate himself from them immediately and get on the ballot as an independent. His odds increase dramatically then.

I think your assessment of Paul might be correct, although Independant candidates have a rough row to hoe.

[woodchip]

Middle America is frightened by such types.

I disagree. with 70% of Americans calling themselves "Christian" it would seem to be the left that is frightened.

hardly. Every polling of independants shows utterly no interest in folks who govern with some whackjob variation of Christianity at their core.

JFK would prove you wrong. Back when he was elected there were a lot of negative comments towards Kennedy's Catholic beliefs. Still he got elected. I'm sure the leftist press will do their best to paint any GOP nomination as a whack job. Then again they tried it with Reagan and look at all the good it did them.

[callmeslick]

Then again they tried it with Reagan and look at all the good it did them.

I don't know what planet you are living on, but I was here, and going to school in New Hampshire when Reagan ran for President, the first time. At no time did anyone ever try to paint him as religious, as he really wasn't, ever, strongly religious, beyond convenience of political appearances. A reading of his diary and memoirs will clearly reveal that. As for JFK, that election occurred when politics was at a different juncture. His victory can be clearly traced to old-school payoffs and serious irregularities, so religion becomes less a dominant issue. Further, JFK(although I am too young to remember, as I was 5 when he took office) seems to have consciously played down religion, where the same can clearly NOT be said of Perry or Bachman.

[Will Robinson]

Middle America is frightened by such types.

I disagree. with 70% of Americans calling themselves "Christian" it would seem to be the left that is frightened.

hardly. Every polling of independants shows utterly no interest in folks who govern with some whackjob variation of Christianity at their core. ....

For your assertion to be correct everyone in that 70% CUDA mentioned would have to identify themselves to pollsters as independents. I think that the 70% who identify themselves as Christian are not all identifying themselves independent as well. So your polling, or your interpretation of it doesn't support your position.

[Will Robinson]

Then again they tried it with Reagan and look at all the good it did them.

I don't know what planet you are living on, but I was here, and going to school in New Hampshire when Reagan ran for President, the first time. At no time did anyone ever try to paint him as religious, as he really wasn't, ever, strongly religious, beyond convenience of political appearances. ....

The first time was in '76. Is that the time you are talking about? Because in the elections that he won the Presidency, 1980 and 1984, which seems to be woodchips point, you are wrong.

1980
The Moral Majority was a relatively early supporter of Reagan, with Falwell announcing the organization’s endorsement of Reagan before the Republican convention.[25] Naturally, the Moral Majority continued working on behalf of Reagan after he gained the Republican nomination. Following the organization’s heed, more than one-fifth of Moral Majority supporters voted for Reagan in 1980 that had supported Carter in 1976.[26] After Reagan’s victory, Falwell announced Reagan’s success was directly due to the Moral Majority and others registering and encouraging church-goers to vote who had never before been politically active.[27] Empirical evidence suggests that Falwell’s claim about the role of Christian Right organizations in Reagan’s victory has some truth, thought difficult to determine definitively.[28]
Reagan sought the input from the Moral Majority leadership during his campaign and appointed the Rev. Robert Billings, the Moral Majority’s first executive director, to be a religious advisor to the campaign.[29] Later, Reagan appointed Billings to a position the Department of Education. This appointment was particularly significant for the Moral Majority, which had lobbied on education policy issues, especially those regarding private schools.[30]
[edit]1984
The Moral Majority maintained their support for Reagan’s 1984 reelection campaign and, alongside other Christian Right organizations, influenced the Republican platform for the election, shaping the party’s campaign stances on school prayer and abortion.[31] The nation’s political climate, however, had changed since Reagan’s first campaign. Although Reagan won reelection, the role of the Moral Majority in the victory had changed since 1980. A study of voters in the 1984 election showed that more anti-Moral Majority voters voted for Walter Mondale than pro-Moral Majority voters voted for Reagan, suggesting the Moral Majority may have actually had a negative effect on Reagan’s campaign.

So on planet earth woodchip is correct, on planet Callmeslick you get to write the history.

From here

[callmeslick]

For your assertion to be correct everyone in that 70% CUDA mentioned would have to identify themselves to pollsters as independents. I think that the 70% who identify themselves as Christian are not all identifying themselves independent as well. So your polling, or your interpretation of it doesn't support your position.

huh?

[flip]

I'm a believing Christian, believe firmly in the bible, but I don't want anyone who thinks they are doing God's work in office. If they make moral decisions based on their Christianity, I have no problem with that, but at the point they start claiming to do God's will I start worrying. I've went to church off and on all my life and you will never find people more critical or tunnel-visioned. Not all by a mile but a great deal of them. Make decisions that are good, compassionate, and kind to ALL others and you have done God's will. Don't go start a war somewhere and then proclaim God is with you. He might be, might not be, but I'm pretty sure He's gonna judge the motives. I don't trust anybody who uses God to earn a name for themselves.

[callmeslick]

um, Will, I am aware of the Christian right supporting Reagan(as did the very much secular traditional GOP) but that does not equate to the electorate perceiving Reagan as a strong, let alone radical type of Christian. Note, in almost all of Reagan's personal writings, he refers to God, but very, very seldom mentions Jesus. Also, his personal writings show utterly ZERO interest in the hot button religious/cultural issues of the day(abortion and homosexuality).

[callmeslick]

I'm a believing Christian, believe firmly in the bible, but I don't want anyone who thinks they are doing God's work in office. If they make moral decisions based on their Christianity, I have no problem with that, but at the point they start claiming to do God's will I start worrying. I've went to church off and on all my life and you will never find people more critical or tunnel-visioned. Not all by a mile but a great deal of them. Make decisions that are good, compassionate, and kind to ALL others and you have done God's will. Don't go start a war somewhere and then proclaim God is with you. He might be, might not be, but I'm pretty sure He's gonna judge the motives. I don't trust anybody who uses God to earn a name for themselves.

precisely the viewpoint I have heard, time and again, from the overwhelming percentage of Christian believers.

[Top Gun]

The real problem is that the normal majority opinion like flip posted gets absolutely no airtime, while the fringe nutjobs like Bachmann and Perry are the ones actually in the running.

[Spidey]

I remember all of the talk from the left about how Reagan was going to start the apocalypse.

[Will Robinson]

um, Will, I am aware of the Christian right supporting Reagan(as did the very much secular traditional GOP) but that does not equate to the electorate perceiving Reagan as a strong, let alone radical type of Christian. ...

You said:

"At no time did anyone ever try to paint him as religious..."

I recall the Moral Majority and their support for Reagan was a hot topic in pop culture back then and he certainly was 'painted as religious' as far as being a candidate was concerned. His association with the religious right, either by deed or popular perception fostered by his liberal opponents, was well established.

So now you can continue moving the goal posts all you want.

[Will Robinson]

For your assertion to be correct everyone in that 70% CUDA mentioned would have to identify themselves to pollsters as independents. I think that the 70% who identify themselves as Christian are not all identifying themselves independent as well. So your polling, or your interpretation of it doesn't support your position.

huh?

You said: 'middle america' is afraid of the christian types.
Cuda said: america is 75% self identifying as a Christian type so its the libs who are afraid
You said polling of independents show otherwise...
If 75% call themselves Christian I don't think your polling results of "middle america" is significant

[Ferno]

Middle America is frightened by such types.

I disagree. with 70% of Americans calling themselves "Christian" it would seem to be the left that is frightened.

[Tunnelcat]

I found the quote that TC Lives by

I always voted at my party's call, and I never thought of thinking for myself at all.
William Gilbert

Uh huh. Like you don't vote right along your Christian Dominionist party lines either CUDA.

By the way, I'm not a registered Democrat, just an independent that happens to lean in that direction. Give me a liberal leaning strong independent with the cajones to fight for working people and not for a religion or for the corporations and I'll vote for him or her.

This is why Republicans "suck" in my opinion and why sensible Americans should be fearful of the present conservative lineup.

Christian Dominionism

I'm not against conservative values, I'm against the NEW Theocratic Corporate Conservative values. This graph in Andrew's blog tells all about how far right the Republican Party moved since 1976, starting with the Nixon Strategy and the movement of Racist Southern Democrats out of the Democratic Party into the Republican Party, all over those inconvenient civil rights issues the Dems were standing up for back.

[callmeslick]

You said: 'middle america' is afraid of the christian types.

no, I specifically stated EXTREME types, and stand by it.

my quote, exactly:

preferring religious extremists with little or no contact with reality. Middle America is frightened by such types.

note also, I never limited my assessment to Christians.

[flip]

I think your assessment of Paul might be correct, although Independant candidates have a rough row to hoe.

Well, to us he has that in his favor. He is the odd man out really. Republican because he's pragmatic but on the outs just enough to not have hard association. That kind of man would speak his mind and just the fact that he has been in politics for so long and still is on the outs goes to support that.

[Will Robinson]

..

By the way, I'm not a registered Democrat, just an independent that happens to lean in that direction. Give me a liberal leaning strong independent with the cajones to fight for working people and not for a religion or for the corporations and I'll vote for him or her. ...

You also have said many times that Obama isn't liberal enough. If he isn't far enough left for you then you may call yourself independent but you are no where near being one of the stereotypical "independent voters" that victorious presidential campaigns depend on winning the majority of!
You are one of 30% that can be counted on to vote for your party.

[flip]

You are one of 30% that can be counted on to vote for your party.

[Tunnelcat]

You also have said many times that Obama isn't liberal enough. If he isn't far enough left for you then you may call yourself independent but you are no where near being one of the stereotypical "independent voters" that victorious presidential campaigns depend on winning the majority of!
You are one of 30% that can be counted on to vote for your party.

Has it ever occurred to you that Republicans nowadays have moved so far to the right that even the center looks left to you? You really need to check your scale, it's a little out of register. And no, I'm not going to blindly vote Democratic just because my philosophy is liberal-leaning. One can be an independent and not be a Democrat. Last I checked, most of the Dems in Congress have been bought off by corporate money anyway, so they are Democrat in name only.