doctorj Posted July 1, 2008 Author Share Posted July 1, 2008 When I think of the Adventist church I think of a world-wide church. Individual members have their own opinion on a variety of things but the church should be rather consistent. I don't see that the church should take a position on taxes other than it not oppress the poor. Taxes certainly do not do that in America. Yes, I understand. What I was asking right at the beginning of this topic was very much of a "personal Adventist" viewpoint rather than a Church-wide stand. I agree that the Adventist Church should not take a stand on Taxation or many other topics. However, as an Adventist which of the nominees would I support from a personal view as an Adventist? Which candidate would I support as an Adventist? The personal view rather than a Church Stand. Which candidate would be best from an Adventist's viewpoint? Quote Make sure you have finished speaking before your audience has finished listening. -- Dorothy Sarnoff Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moderators John317 Posted July 1, 2008 Moderators Share Posted July 1, 2008 Obama... intends to bring the troops home... Even if Obama does become president, he is not going to be able to bring American troops home as quickly as a lot of people have come to believe. He used to say he would bring them home immediately. He has backed off from that in recent times. There is no way he can bring American troops home before 16 months are up, and even then, he will leave some troops there. When and if he becomes the president, he is going to find that it is a lot easier to make promises and talk about bringing all American troops home than it is to actually do it. What if bringing all American troops home immediately would defeat everything we have been fighting for during the last 5 years and for which our soldiers have given their life's blood? Does Obama and the Democratic party want to be responsible for America's losing a war that we are close to winning? I don't think so. Obama has said that if he found that al-Qaeda has established itself in Iraq, he would send American troops back in. That would mean starting the battle all over, after allowing al-Qaeda time to get established, and would make it much more difficult the second time around. Why leave and allow that to happen, when we could stay and make sure we don't have to start the battle all over? It is almost won. Bringing the troops home at this point would be stealing victory right out of their hands. If we leave too soon, the war there will be lost for sure, because the enemy will consider an American withdrawal proof that the extremists have won. It would only embolden them. Iran would become the major power in the region and fill the vacuum we leave, and Iran is a terrorist state. Any progress towards democracy in that region that has been made in the last few years would not only be lost but reversed. Quote John 3:16-17 For God so loved the world, that he gave his only Son, that whoever believes in him should not perish but have eternal life. [17] For God did not send his Son into the world to condemn the world, but in order that the world might be saved through him. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kountzer Posted July 1, 2008 Share Posted July 1, 2008 Under the aegis of the Holy Spirit the Apostle Paul recorded the biblical prophecy that all who live Godly under Christ Jesus will suffer persecution. With that in mind, if sda christians are about what they are supposed to be about, there is no wsy to avoid opposition and persecution, from the head of state on down. I don't think the pushing of an electronic voter button, or the pulling of a voter lever can change that. Kountzer Quote I prayed for twenty years but received no answer until I prayed with my legs. Frederick Douglass Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jasd Posted July 1, 2008 Share Posted July 1, 2008 >>...and BBC channels...<< I hope you don’t read al-Guardyan. >>BUT I just don't see McCain as a future president of the USA...<< Curiosity prompts: why not? >>...let alone being the right president to suit Adventist needs?<< Adventist needs? Say what!? What of larger issues, fer instance – America’s needs. Though perhaps futile, one hopes that on November 4 – saner Americans will outnumber the barmy – and vote Right. Were you a voting American, I’d hope you had a larger than sectarian view of America than to vote as some stereotyped do – to the extent of being in 90% factional lockstep. >>Really, which one is going to champion the causes we need to have championed?<< Again, the cause is America – and by extension, the rest of the world. Anything suggesting otherwise must surely be simple rhetoric, yes? >>Maybe Obama is not the right one either? Would Hillary been a better option?<< “BARAK OBAMA - ASSASSINATION WILL DIE - GUNMAN – CONSPIRACY" "BARAK OBAMA - ASSASSINATION TISHRI - HE WILL DIE SUBSTITUTE - REPLACEMENT" (Tishri is October) "HILLARY RODHAM - PRESIDENT WELCOMES - ACCEPTS - HONORS PRAISES - THE BEAST – 2010” Then again..., "JOHN McCAIN - NOT PRESIDENT HEART TROUBLE - AFFLICTION" WDYT of Bible codes? Though vigorously against ‘bama because he lacks the qualification needed to become Prez, and because I perceive him to be an extreme leftist – I would rather he be Prez than assassinated. Other considerations aside, the consequences incurred to the nation by his assassination – would be catastrophic. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
doctorj Posted July 1, 2008 Author Share Posted July 1, 2008 With that in mind, if sda christians are about what they are supposed to be about, there is no wsy to avoid opposition and persecution, from the head of state on down. I don't think the pushing of an electronic voter button, or the pulling of a voter lever can change that. So are you saying that regardless of who one, as an Adventist, votes for, we are going to end up the same. That is, supposing that as Adventists we go about our work of preaching the Gospel to all nations, including the USA. Doesn't it matter who we vote for, the end game will be the same? Quote Make sure you have finished speaking before your audience has finished listening. -- Dorothy Sarnoff Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
doctorj Posted July 1, 2008 Author Share Posted July 1, 2008 >>BUT I just don't see McCain as a future president of the USA...<< Curiosity prompts: why not? From what I see on the news channels coming out of USA and visible to us here in Australia, McCain just does not seem to be an orator, a leader in thought, a strong believer in what he is saying. In nearly every report about McCain I have found him to be a very weak leader of thought, and seeming that he needs to be better prepared to say what he is trying to say. Quote Make sure you have finished speaking before your audience has finished listening. -- Dorothy Sarnoff Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moderators John317 Posted July 1, 2008 Moderators Share Posted July 1, 2008 Of course Obama is a better public speaker. That will no doubt help him, but being a great speaker doesn't necessarily make a better president. The US-- thank God-- does not elect people based primarily on their speaking ability. George Washington was a terrible public speaker, and so was Thomas Jefferson. Lincoln wrote better than any other president, but he wasn't the best speaker. Stephen Douglas was better. Adlai Stevenson was far better than Eisenhower as a speaker. What's more important is who best represents the values and views of Americans, and who has the best judgment and experience. Those are far more important than who can talk the best. If that was the main thing, we might as well put Obama in the White House right now. American elections show that generally it comes down to which candidate Americans like and trust the most personally. For instance, I'd sooner vote for a man I trust to make good decisions than for the one who believes like I do on every issue. The fact is that liars sometimes make the best speakers and are often the most popular because they are willing to say anything and promise anything others want to hear. (I'm not saying Obama is a liar-- I am simply showing one major reason a good speaker is not the most important thing when it comes to deciding who should be president.) Quote John 3:16-17 For God so loved the world, that he gave his only Son, that whoever believes in him should not perish but have eternal life. [17] For God did not send his Son into the world to condemn the world, but in order that the world might be saved through him. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jasd Posted July 1, 2008 Share Posted July 1, 2008 >>...does not seem to be an orator,<, An orator? rather, give me judgement and integrity in my President. >>...does not seem to be [...] a leader in thought,<< Mebbe, the opposition is simply better scripted, yes? Or calculating, to wit: Memorial Day speech in Las Cruces, NM; together with Hillary in Unity, NH; patriotism in Independence, MO – one wonders where he would give a Urscrewd speech... >>...a strong believer in what he is saying.<< Ya’think? ..threatens to send troops into Pakistan; has an uncle – who liberated Auschwitz; "57" States; “unbroken line of fallen heroes -- and I see many of them in the audience here today” (from his Memorial Day speech); etc... I hope he better believes than these examples (misspeaks?) indicate... (sorry, I was thinking 'bama. Confusion reigns.) >>McCain ... a very weak leader of thought,<< Oh I don’t know..., it seems to me our military places inordinate emphasis upon the mind in preparing our boys and girls in case of capture by the enemy. I’d say that McCain must be an extraordinary example of that strength of mind; perhaps following – thought, also. >>...and seeming that he needs to be better prepared to say what he is trying to say.<< I suppose it is easier to orate upon false promises and the vacuous... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
carolaa Posted July 1, 2008 Share Posted July 1, 2008 General comment: The taller man always wins. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moderators John317 Posted July 1, 2008 Moderators Share Posted July 1, 2008 Actually, believe it or not, there is evidence that usually the man with the most hair wins the general election. I've read about this before. Very strange! Imagine our elections coming down to the amount of hair on someone's head. I hope it's not true. Quote John 3:16-17 For God so loved the world, that he gave his only Son, that whoever believes in him should not perish but have eternal life. [17] For God did not send his Son into the world to condemn the world, but in order that the world might be saved through him. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
doctorj Posted July 1, 2008 Author Share Posted July 1, 2008 . . . there is evidence that usually the man with the most hair wins the general election. I've read about this before. Very strange! Imagine our elections coming down to the amount of hair on someone's head. I hope it's not true. And I suppose that there are other unrelated things that could be brought into the mix as well. For example, the elected president needs to be less than 90 years of age, or even better, the person elected as President is always under 150 kg or something like that. Seriously though, it seems to me that you are all saying McCain would be the better president for all of America including Adventists? And no one seems to be saying Obama? Quote Make sure you have finished speaking before your audience has finished listening. -- Dorothy Sarnoff Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moderators John317 Posted July 1, 2008 Moderators Share Posted July 1, 2008 Like I said before, I lean toward McCain right now, but I could change my mind about it. I'd be fine with Obama if America votes him into office. I have the view that the vast majority of Americans used to have-- the president is my president; he is the president of all Americans. That was the way Americans have felt throughout most of our history. I was a kid when President Kennedy was killed. I remember a woman crying and saying, "They killed Kennedy. He was my president." That woman was a Republican and campaigning for Goldwater. It didn't matter. Kennedy was her president. It's no different today. If Obama wins, he will be my president. Quote John 3:16-17 For God so loved the world, that he gave his only Son, that whoever believes in him should not perish but have eternal life. [17] For God did not send his Son into the world to condemn the world, but in order that the world might be saved through him. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moderators Bravus Posted July 2, 2008 Moderators Share Posted July 2, 2008 Quote: Oh I don’t know..., it seems to me our military places inordinate emphasis upon the mind in preparing our boys and girls in case of capture by the enemy. I’d say that McCain must be an extraordinary example of that strength of mind; perhaps following – thought, also. Obduracy is pretty much the opposite of the kind of flexibility that is required of a leader in a rapidly changing world. Quote Truth is important Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moderators John317 Posted July 2, 2008 Moderators Share Posted July 2, 2008 And I suppose that there are other unrelated things that could be brought into the mix as well. For example, the elected president needs to be less than 90 years of age, or even better, the person elected as President is always under 150 kg or something like that... I'm not talking about what American presidents should be or need to be--- rather, I was pointing out that historians who analyze general elections say that there is a correlation between hair and the winning candidate. I don't think it's a characteristic that voters think through or are even conscious of. Just one of those strange things in history. We've had some really overweight presidents. Like Cleveland and Taft. Talk about fat. Taft was 5'11 and weighed 243 lbs, and Grover Cleveland weighed 307 lbs. So we've had some big ones. Americans are still thinking in terms of lbs and inches, etc. I had to look up what 150 kg is. Neither Cleveland or Taft quite reached it. Quote John 3:16-17 For God so loved the world, that he gave his only Son, that whoever believes in him should not perish but have eternal life. [17] For God did not send his Son into the world to condemn the world, but in order that the world might be saved through him. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
carolaa Posted July 2, 2008 Share Posted July 2, 2008 ...it seems to me that you are all saying McCain would be the better president for all of America including Adventists? And no one seems to be saying Obama? I'm leaning toward Obama, but I haven't decided for sure, and I'm honestly not totally thrilled with either one. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
doctorj Posted July 2, 2008 Author Share Posted July 2, 2008 We've had some really overweight presidents. Like Cleveland and Taft. Talk about fat. Taft was 5'11 and weighed 243 lbs, and Grover Cleveland weighed 307 lbs. So we've had some big ones. Americans are still thinking in terms of lbs and inches, etc. I had to look up what 150 kg is. Neither Cleveland or Taft quite reached it. Sorry, I didn't think for a moment there about quoting in Pounds rather than Kilograms. Just habit. But with Google at everyone's fingertips conversion from one scale to another is simple. Quote Make sure you have finished speaking before your audience has finished listening. -- Dorothy Sarnoff Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moderators John317 Posted July 2, 2008 Moderators Share Posted July 2, 2008 Very true. No problem at all. I should have learned that stuff a long time ago. Quote John 3:16-17 For God so loved the world, that he gave his only Son, that whoever believes in him should not perish but have eternal life. [17] For God did not send his Son into the world to condemn the world, but in order that the world might be saved through him. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moderators Bravus Posted July 2, 2008 Moderators Share Posted July 2, 2008 Actually, given McCain's age, his VP pick is pretty important in the final judgement too, IMO. Quote Truth is important Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moderators John317 Posted July 2, 2008 Moderators Share Posted July 2, 2008 Yes, I agree. He could promise to run for only one term and then turn it over to his vice-president, but he probably won't want to back himself into a corner like that unless he thinks it would persuade a lot of people to vote for him who otherwise might not. I'm sure he will pick someone who is qualified to be president immediately and who won't cause people to have any more questions about the age factor. Quote John 3:16-17 For God so loved the world, that he gave his only Son, that whoever believes in him should not perish but have eternal life. [17] For God did not send his Son into the world to condemn the world, but in order that the world might be saved through him. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
doctorj Posted July 2, 2008 Author Share Posted July 2, 2008 Yes, I agree. He could promise to run for only one term and then turn it over to his vice-president, but he probably won't want to back himself into a corner like that unless he thinks it would persuade a lot of people to vote for him who otherwise might not. I'm sure he will pick someone who is qualified to be president immediately and who won't cause people to have any more questions about the age factor. What age is McCain? Is age really a factor that might stop people from voting for McCain? Quote Make sure you have finished speaking before your audience has finished listening. -- Dorothy Sarnoff Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moderators Bravus Posted July 2, 2008 Moderators Share Posted July 2, 2008 McCain will be 72 at the time of the election and 76 at the end of his first term. He would be 80 if he served a second term. Even that is not so ancient these days, but the chances of something medical going wrong at that age are just higher than for a younger person. I don't think it's a massive factor, but it's one among many that a prudent voter might consider. Quote Truth is important Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moderators John317 Posted July 2, 2008 Moderators Share Posted July 2, 2008 For some, McCain's age might be a factor, but I doubt if that is a significant factor with very many voters. It probably won't be, either, as long as he continues to show that he's capable of doing the job. If he were to show signs of not being clear in his thinking, or of having significant memory lapses, then I think it would spell very serious problems for him. Reagan turned 78 about a month after he left office in 1989. By that time, he had begun to show signs of forgetfulness. Quote John 3:16-17 For God so loved the world, that he gave his only Son, that whoever believes in him should not perish but have eternal life. [17] For God did not send his Son into the world to condemn the world, but in order that the world might be saved through him. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dr. Shane Posted July 2, 2008 Share Posted July 2, 2008 McCain just seems so old when he talks. It is hard to imagine him living through the first term. Quote Pastoral Family Counselor... Find me at www.PostumCafe.com Author of Peculiar Christianity Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
doctorj Posted July 2, 2008 Author Share Posted July 2, 2008 McCain just seems so old when he talks. It is hard to imagine him living through the first term. You see, this is part of my view. He looks old and seems to be so old when he speaks. As much as there seems to be many issues with Obama that may not appeal to an Adventist, I kind of feel that I would be partly responsible in voting for an old guy like McCain. I believe as an Adventist we might be better served by Obama than McCain. At least Obama talks about and is knowledgeable about religion, church going and the like. McCain can hardly say anything on the topic. I have yet to see McCain saying anything much about religion or even if he would take into account people's religious beliefs. Quote Make sure you have finished speaking before your audience has finished listening. -- Dorothy Sarnoff Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moderators John317 Posted July 2, 2008 Moderators Share Posted July 2, 2008 "Old" is relative. There are people who think 30 is old. I know I thought that way when I was 16 and 17. I know people who think a person is "old" at 55 and 60. Wait until you are of an age where you will tell someone your age, and then they will ignore you like you are dead already. Age depends on the "old" person. I used to manage a retirement center where we had some people who were "old" at 45 and 50. But I know others at that same age and even much older who can run faster and work harder than some 25 year olds. We used to believe that "old" people had wisdom because of their experiences and their years and deserved to be listened to and respected. Now the young say their elders have lived too long and are "old" as if being "old" is a disease. There was a popular film once about young people who made laws which said everyone 30 and above was "old" and had to be retired to a kind of concentration camp. I know we're not there yet, but I hear the clock ticking really fast. Quote John 3:16-17 For God so loved the world, that he gave his only Son, that whoever believes in him should not perish but have eternal life. [17] For God did not send his Son into the world to condemn the world, but in order that the world might be saved through him. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.