McCain or Obama: Which would make the best president for Adventists

[Planey]

Doctorj, you will have observed by now that the noisiest posters on this topic are so far to the right that they make Genghis Khan look like a blazing left-wing radical.

Graeme

[jasd]

>>Doctorj, you will have observed by now that the noisiest posters on this topic are so far to the right that they make Genghis Khan look like a blazing left-wing radical.<<

Ahh, the ever and never perceptive Planey. And perhaps,

doctorj will observe that some posters are 'bamaesque; seemingly unable to contribute with aught but inanities.

Rather than parroting that already admitted and established - you might want to consider contributing something of consequence; y'know, to give pause - or thought

[carolaa]

Quote:

What I'm wondering is, is that the extent of their religion?

Some of the most loving, caring, generous and kind Christians I know consider themselves part of the "religious right". I am ashamed to admit that some of them have stronger faith than I. I certainly cannot look down my nose at them.

Yes, I should have worded my question better. I don't mean to question their Christianity. But I do wonder why they seem to care primarily about those two issues, at least in the political arena. As I said, it's like a litmus test.

[carolaa]

>>It's also interesting that the religious right seems to have 2 litmus tests - abortion and homosexuality. What I'm wondering is, is that the extent of their religion?<<

What I find interesting is - that one might seem to take issue with moral certitudes.

I'm not necessarily taking issue. I'm just wondering why it seems to stop there. How did those two issues become the "biggies" for the party that claims to be religious? I don't see those as being the two biggest issues that God is concerned about.

[jasd]

>>I'm just wondering why it seems to stop there. How did those two issues become the "biggies" for the party that claims to be religious?<<

Okay, I take your point; however, have you not noticed that the evangelicals consider the issue of the State of Israel to be at least as much a point of impasse as those of abortion and/or homosexuality?

>>I don't see those as being the two biggest issues that God is concerned about.<<

Granted. I've noticed it bruited on these threads that the Sabbath issue seems to be the sticking point with Gd.

[doctorj]

>>I see a lot wrong with the Bush Administration and think that the Bush Administration should be curtailed.<<

I'm curious as to the "a lot wrong...". Please, feel free to expand.

There is a lot wrong caused by or as a result of actions taken by the current administration. Consider these:

• rising unemployment
• sinking dollar
• expensive war that is eating into our children's future
• loss of business confidence
• gas at $4 per gallon and rising

and the list could go on.

[doctorj]

Doctorj, you will have observed by now that the noisiest posters on this topic are so far to the right that they make Genghis Khan look like a blazing left-wing radical.

Yes, I am beginning to see a pattern. The vocal right as against the quiet left. However, I do see that there is a lot more to McCain than I had first thought. But I still lean towards thinking Obama might be good for the USA and perhaps the rest of the world.

[nuff sed]

Quote: doctorj:"Yes, I am beginning to see a pattern. The vocal right as against the quiet left. However, I do see that there is a lot more to McCain than I had first thought. But I still lean towards thinking Obama might be good for the USA and perhaps the rest of the world"

In what way ??????

[Dr. Shane]

There is a lot wrong caused by or as a result of actions taken by the current administration. Consider these:

• rising unemployment
• sinking dollar
• expensive war that is eating into our children's future
• loss of business confidence
• gas at $4 per gallon and rising

and the list could go on.

The increase in gas prices is not due to anything any politician is doing. Anyone that suggests that either the Republicans or Democrats are responsible for gas prices increasing should be viewed with suspicion. That said, diesel is more expensive than it needs to be because of environmental laws that require it to be refined more than in the past but this is not something that has caused its price increase in the last couple of years.

The sinking dollar has more to do with what the Federal Reserve is doing that what Congress or the President are doing. Deficit spending doesn't help it but the Fed playing with interest rates and printing money has a much larger impact on the dollar than deficits do.

I agree that we should be paying for the war today and not deficit spending but that is a Libertarian view. Neither Democrats or Republicans want to run a balanced budget. Just listen to the Democrats rhetoric. They always talk about this and that we could be spending the war money on. They don't talk about running a balanced budget and paying down the debt. When we did have a balanced budget for a year everyone was trying to figure out how to spend the surplus. Why didn't wwe just pay down the debt?

[Anderoo]

I tend to be on the quiet left. With people like El Rushbo and O'Reilly as models, no wonder the right is so loud! lol I also tend to be skeptical of both Democrats and Republicans and think the elected officials higher up in the government serve an agenda that is laid out by an elite group that transcends nationality. Call me a conspiracy theorist if you wish. There has to be some reason Democrats haven't done much to change the direction of our policies since they gained a majority in the house and senate. They've more or less given Bush what he's asked for.

Anyway, I finished reading a book that I think has a good blueprint for the direction we should go, though many of you here would disagree with some of the premises in the book. It is called "The Great Turning" by David Korten. Another website I just found is www.beyondplutocracy.com

The problem is that we are living in a plutocracy and have been since the founding of this nation. This country isn't as democratic as we'd like to believe.

[Anderoo]

http://www.letstalksense.com/articles/Hartmann41503.htm

[John317]

Ours, of course, is not a pure democracy; we have a constitutional representative democracy, or a democratic republic. That is the way it was designed and the way Americans have wanted it.

Do you favor a pure democracy?

Have you read the Federalist Papers? There is a really good book out now that also contains the major anti-Federalist Papers written before we chose our present constitution. It is a very interesting debate.

[Anderoo]

I realize that ours is not a pure democracy. I understand the structure of our government yet I believe that now is the time for a more direct form of democracy. Plutocracy has been held in check more or less for the past 200 years but we are at a point where, I believe, corporate interests have too much influence in government and over our lives in general. I know we have our believers in trickle-down economics here, and the benefits bestowed on society by those with a lot of capital are undeniable. However, those benefits have been diminishing for quite a while and I do not believe that unbridled capitalism is benevolent enough to continue to bestow fair benefits for those who provide labor or for consumers for that matter.

I believe in walking away from big corporations and spending as much of my money in the local economy as possible. It is imperative that we begin to shift our thinking and invest in local economies, local culture, all things local to dry up the means these corporate powers have to control our lives via media, advertising, etcetera.

John317, I'm not sure Americans would want things to continue as they have been if they understood some of these things. I'm still fairly young, and my political views are evolving as I assimilate more information. I'm beginning to understand the role of the Federal Reserve and understand enough to know that big corporate and banking interests are responsible for the condition of our economy. Consumers are also responsible because of choices made in regard to credit and spending.

We have become so dependent on long supply/distribution networks which depend on a dwindling supply of petroleum. It makes me angry that we have allowed corporations and banks to implement the overall economic structure that has made us depend on goods that come from thousands of miles away, to depend on currency that is created out of thin air. I know enough to know that if this structure collapses, most Americans will be completely unprepared. The entertainment industry has America so addicted to worthless drivel that most of us haven't taken the time to understand how the economy and our government function/dysfunction.

Sadly, I don't see any of the "approved" candidates REALLY adequately addressing the root causes and core issues. Ron Paul addressed the Federal Reserve but I don't think a pure laissez-faire capitalist market will benefit the American people. We'd continue to see outsourcing of American jobs. I thought Obama would take a stand for workers and place some restrictions on corporations but I've read about those he has met with and it looks like he won't change the status-quo all that much. Both Obama and McCain say they will encourage the development of alternative forms of energy and I'm all for that (I run my diesel on bio-diesel I make from USED oil obtained from a veggie-meat factory-I don't support diverting food toward fuel though). I just don't like McCain's willingness to continue expanding U.S. hegemony in the middle east. The reason terrorism has become a problem for the U.S. is because of the west meddling in the middle east for generations. When Great Britain left, the United States filled the vacuum. Our own government isn't pure and noble as much as we'd like to believe what has been presented in high school history classes. The dark side of human nature is going to be present in all of the powers in high places regardless of what nation's government we are discussing.

[John317]

Good, informative, well-written article. I found this part especially significant:

Even the American Civil Liberties Union, in a recent and misguided effort, argued before the Supreme Court that corporations should have the free speech right to lie (or say anything else they want) that’s granted to humans by the First Amendment.

A few of the world’s largest corporations referenced Santa Clara and successfully claimed the protection of the First Amendment, then lobbied Congress and the FCC to relax local ownership rules so they could take control of our media. Once that was done, they claimed First Amendment free speech rights to tell us whatever serves their interest and call it “news” without consideration of its truthfulness or having to worry about giving fair and equal time to other viewpoints. They claim the protection of the Fourth Amendment (search and seizure) so they can prevent the EPA and OSHA from inspecting factories for environmental or labor violations without first obtaining the corporation’s permission - which they say can be withheld for any reason.

They now have the protection of the Fifth Amendment so they are protected from double jeopardy and don’t have to answer questions about their own crimes. They now have the protection of the Fourteenth Amendment so they can sue local towns or counties or states that try to pass laws to protect local small businesses against their predations.

The structure for this displacement of humans by corporations under the constitution has been in place since 1886, but only since the 1980s have our largest corporations aggressively used the courts to claim human rights.

[John317]

I don't disagree with many of the things you say.

I was referring to the way the U.S Constitution is written. In what way would you change it or perhaps add to it?

My guess is that you would choose to abolish the Electoral College. I can understand that. As a college student, I once exchanged correspondence with Senator Fulbright about that very question. He favored doing away with it, at least in his letters to me, but ultimately I ended up believing that we should keep it the way it is.

[jasd]

Shane addressed most of the bulleted points you’ve listed; so, I’ll only cursorily dwell upon a coupla points...

Unemployment has always been cyclical – and often desirable, during inflationary cycles. It seems indisputable that we are currently in a significant inflationary uptick. Nevertheless,

5.5% unemployment still represents optimal figures.

There has been more than ten million jobs created in the last eight years. It is only the last six months that have seen an increase in unemployment. One might ask what the

Dem’crat Congress is doing about unemployment?

Loss of business confidence is only recently perceptible – in some ways, coinciding with the takeover of Congress by the opposition party and ‘bama’s promise to jack up the tax rate on capital gains, etc. The threat of an increase in the capital gains tax might be perceived as a surefire way to encourage selling off of capital assets and moving them to a safer environment; ipso..., capital flight. That said,

the market may also be experiencing jitters because the Fed is printing money like there is no tomorrow – precisely, as one pundit puts it, “Because, there is no tomorrow.”

Though Shane touched upon the expenses incurred in this war, I thought I might remind that –

most monies being spent accrue to our own business interests; that is, it is our own manufacturers and other interested US entities that are most garnering the benefit$ of war (major, major stimulus package). After all,

war causes huge destruction. Besides, the matter is very complicated; for example,

it seems the deeper in debt we go, the more prosperously we live – as measured in assets owned and by our general welfare. That is, remember,

in spite of our budget deficits; however,

that is not to say that all will continue to be well with us...

(The question most concerning me is – how will the Hague, in future years – interpret ‘the full faith and credit of the American people’ vis-à-vis the legal tender aspect of our monies. Will we and/or our children be reduced to serfdom to satisfy the demands of those holding these so-called ‘legal tender’ dollars? If so, what or who will consist or comprise the ’implementing vehicle’?)

[jasd]

>>I tend to be on the quiet left.<<

I take it that the above does not deflect from the fact those who most, ermm, rambunctiously opine – are on the left; the far left, of course

>>With people like El Rushbo and O'Reilly as models,<<

Hey! where were you? The New York Times Magazine just lionized the Maharushie! and, O’Reilly’s numbers are, comparatively, just creaming the opposition networks... Not too shabby, eh?

>>...no wonder the right is so loud! lol<<

That may be so; however, the ‘right’ on this thread are rather muted. I am the party noisemaker; me, moi, myself. Hoohah! and, I’m not even a ‘plublicrat – and definitely, most definitely, not a Dem’crat!

>>I also tend to be skeptical of both Democrats and Republicans and think the elected officials higher up in the government serve an agenda that is laid out by an elite group that transcends nationality.<<

Ahhh, a thinking man (woman?).

>>Call me a conspiracy theorist if you wish.<<

“I'm a Conspiracist! Who are you?

Are you--One--Too?

Then there's a pair of us?

Don't tell! they'd advertise--you know!

[...]” -- Emily Dickinson

(apologies to Emily)

[doctorj]

Quote: doctorj:"Yes, I am beginning to see a pattern. The vocal right as against the quiet left. However, I do see that there is a lot more to McCain than I had first thought. But I still lean towards thinking Obama might be good for the USA and perhaps the rest of the world"

In what way ??????

The pattern I saw up to this last post is a very vocal right and a quieter left viewpoint being expressed in these postings.

[carolaa]

>>I'm just wondering why it seems to stop there. How did those two issues become the "biggies" for the party that claims to be religious?<<

Okay, I take your point; however, have you not noticed that the evangelicals consider the issue of the State of Israel to be at least as much a point of impasse as those of abortion and/or homosexuality?

>>I don't see those as being the two biggest issues that God is concerned about.<<

Granted. I've noticed it bruited on these threads that the Sabbath issue seems to be the sticking point with Gd.

You're right about the State of Israel. I guess I was thinking more about domestic agendas.

LOL, the Sabbath wasn't at all what I had in mind. I was thinking more along the lines of how we treat each other.

[jasd]

>>I was thinking more along the lines of how we treat each other.<<

Hard to fault the thought..., that said,

extraordinarily well, one hopes, yes?

[carolaa]

Extraordinarily well? Hmm. I think we could be doing a better job of taking care of our returning soldiers, the homeless, people in poverty, to name a few.

[jasd]

>>Extraordinarily well? Hmm. I think we could be doing a better job of taking care of our returning soldiers, the homeless, people in poverty, to name a few.<<

Okay, it turns upon extraordinarily...? I agree that we should properly provide for the needs of our returning soldiers; that said, howsabout we first begin by appreciating them where they’re at – in harm’s way? and providing more than we currently do – for their families... The boys and girls in our military are our giants, our heroes - not the whizz-ants who posture as politicians. Anyway,

there is ‘taking care’ and there is ‘taking care’. There are returned soldiers playing the system with the numinous mental health card – which pays for life, beaucoup buck$. Otherwise...

Re the homeless and those in poverty: they would come under the umbrella of social programs, yes? Our govt has spent thirty trillion dollar$ since the '60s, that’s “T” – as in trillion! as in "T"-Rex. ...ginormous metrics – on social programs for the ‘deserving’; what’s that!?

I deserve, as does my family. Years ago, Federal law mandated that there would be a three-year supply of food stored in grain silos, warehouses, civil defense shelters, etc – for you, me, and every other American citizen to sustain us through an unforeseen emergency.

Liberal programs proved insufficient in expending upon the ‘deserving’ in America – ipso..., the concept of $pending was expanded to include peoples and govts all over this world – as to draw down against those mandated reserves – until there is now only

15 pounds of food staples per person in reserves. That is not per day, weekly, monthly, or otherwise. That is 15 pounds per person – PERIOD. An unforeseen emergency will see you and me through

15 pounds of food staples and then, THAT’S IT!

Having stated the above, it behooves all of us to be observant to the needs of others and to have bowels of mercy; however, reality intrudes extensively.

[doctorj]

>>Extraordinarily well? Hmm. I think we could be doing a better job of taking care of our returning soldiers, the homeless, people in poverty, to name a few.<<

So who do you think will do a better job of caring for returning soldiers, the homeless and people in poverty? McCain? or Obama? From what I can read of jasd's post it looks like the current government is not doing so well.

[John317]

Who says it's the responsibility of the federal government to take care of the homeless and the poor?

[Woody]

Surely John ... You are not suggesting that it would be the job of the church are you?