POT - McCain blinked!
Judity
From watching all the TV news stations last night, both left and right
leaning ones, I heard that McCain didn't actually suspend his
campaign. The negative ads against Senator Obama were aired, and the
staff in various states continued campaigning without being notified
to stop.
There is also McCain's big show of putting politics aside for the good
of the country and lying to David Letterman. He phoned and said he had
to rush back to Washington. Did any of you catch the Letterman show
last night? I go to bed before it comes on, but the clips from it were
on the news this morning.
Finally, even though McCain said he wouldn't go to tonight's debate
until the financial crisis was fixed, which it still isn't, he will be
there. With all the lies and stretching of the truth from him lately,
can we really trust this man to run our country? I'd originally
written old and befuddled man, but know some here might be offended by
those words about the person they hope will be our next President.
Oh, I just saw McCain on TV. His comments included something like,
"How much I had to do with progress being made, I'll leave for you to
judge."
Judity
1,000 Words or Less
My collection of short stories
listed on E-Booktime.com
http://tinyurl.com/68fkoo
Marsha
> there. With all the lies and stretching of the truth from him lately,
> can we really trust this man to run our country?
> Judity
If you're worried about "all" the lies from McCain, then you should be
worried about all the "lies" from Obama, too. Why is it that no one
seems to be able to see that most all politicians can be proven to lie,
depending on who reports the story?
Marsha/Ohio
Kathycarp
You are so quick to point out every single thing you can glean from the news
and what rumors you have heard about McCain/Palin. Yet, the silence is
deafening when Biden made the following comment:
"...comments to CBS News about Democrat Franklin D. Roosevelt going on
television after the stock market crash - although Republican Herbert Hoover
was president during 1929 crash, which predated television."
I think people believe what they want to believe, and they ignore what they
don't want to hear, pretty much. And I include myself in that statement.
--
Kathy
www.ambergriscaye.com/villadelsol
"Judity" <Judi...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:c5ab0cb7-0594-4de9...@v16g2000prc.googlegroups.com...
Marsha
> Judity,
> You are so quick to point out every single thing you can glean from the news
> and what rumors you have heard about McCain/Palin. Yet, the silence is
> deafening when Biden made the following comment:
>
> "...comments to CBS News about Democrat Franklin D. Roosevelt going on
> television after the stock market crash - although Republican Herbert Hoover
> was president during 1929 crash, which predated television."
>
> I think people believe what they want to believe, and they ignore what they
> don't want to hear, pretty much. And I include myself in that statement.
>
There's also Obama's comment about the wrong number of states in the
U.S., which was quickly explained away because he was "obviously tired."
There's also his association with some very questionable people, his
many flip-flops, his lack of experience compared to McCain, blah blah
blah. We could go on and on about each candidate's faults. For me, it
boils down to those basic differences between liberals and
conservatives, which will never change. I think most everyone on this
group has already made up their mind, so it's pointless to debate
anymore. Obama is not this country's God and Savior, as much as people
would like to think of him as such. He's an empty suit who was
magically elevated to a position he is not entitled to, nor has he earned.
Marsha/Ohio
Ed Chait
"Kathycarp" <k@thyc@rp@comc@st.net> wrote in message
news:NcydnVdMX4mhHEDV...@comcast.com...
> I think people believe what they want to believe, and they ignore what
> they don't want to hear, pretty much. And I include myself in that
> statement.
>
> --
> Kathy
Yeah, but those who don't have this degree of introspection and insight are
the people Barnum and Bailey were talking about who are born every minute.
People who can be manipulated by the "cult of personality."
Awareness of my prejudices is what allows me to be more open-minded.
ed
an...@munge.com
<k@thyc@rp@comc@st.net> wrote:
>Judity,
>You are so quick to point out every single thing you can glean from the news
>and what rumors you have heard about McCain/Palin. Yet, the silence is
>deafening when Biden made the following comment:
>
>"...comments to CBS News about Democrat Franklin D. Roosevelt going on
>television after the stock market crash - although Republican Herbert Hoover
>was president during 1929 crash, which predated television."
>
>I think people believe what they want to believe, and they ignore what they
>don't want to hear, pretty much. And I include myself in that statement.
Well said, Kathy. I know I'm not about to get in here and talk
politics when the "invitation" is so obviously biased!
Anne/OH
an...@munge.com
I don't like either candidate much, but I'm truly puzzled at the
unbridled enthusiasm I see for Obama. How can people feel so strongly
about a man with so little history? I think because he's politically
in the right time at the right place--a man running against the party
that has had an unpopular administration--he's being elevated to
something he has not yet deserved.
Anne/OH
Judity
unbridled enthusiasm I see for Obama. How can people feel so strongly
Okay, you mention Senator Obama's limited history. I'll give you that,
but I'd rather have a younger man with less experience who is
thoughtful and doesn't do things rashly as McCain seems prone to do.
Would you rather elect someone like McCain with decades of government
history? If so, why? What has McCain done for you? I honestly would
like to know since all I see coming across in ads and debates and most
online sites is an old, befuddled man living mainly in the past.
Perhaps my own personal opinion of war and the need for having them
drives my dislike of this man. He was a war prisoner for years. Does
that make him any more qualified to be President than someone who
believes in first trying to communicate with our country's enemies?
My support for Senator Obama is quite a surprise to me. Since I first
voted back in the 1960's, I always voted Republican except for the
times I wanted Ross Perot to be our President. My parents were
Republicans with all the old beliefs of that party, and I believed in
what that party stood for. Sadly, the basic premise of people first
before government intervention has been mishandled these last eight
years.
I take part of the blame for this mess our country is in since I did
vote for George W. Bush, thinking the man was smarter than he actually
is. Maybe, though, it's not a lack of intelligence, but an inability
to say NO to his rich friends. That's something I see now in McCain,
and I won't make the same voting mistake twice.
I agree Senators Obama and Biden are far from perfect for their
prospective jobs, but do you really, REALLY want people like McCain
and Palin running our country? If so, I hope you'll be happy with a
hothead and a woman who thinks her living between Russia and Canada
makes her an expert in foreign affairs.
Anne, I don't think people are blind to Senator Obama's faults so much
as they are also not blind to the danger of electing McCain and
Palin.
Judity
Doug Jones
Let's just take a look at the past few weeks. A financial crisis is
announced. McCain comes out and says the "fundamentals of our economy
are strong." Then, three hours later, he says something different.
He's now for regulation, when he's been a consistent advocate of
deregulation. His plan for healthcare gets published - he wants to
make it just like the Republicans have done for banks and the stock
market. Oh, just dandy! He's advocated for privatizing Social
Security, and investing it in the stock market.
He announces he's "suspending his campaign" but he really doesn't.
He goes to Washington, and instead of helping the process, throws the
entire thing into disarray. Then he "restarts" his campaign.
His VP choice is so incoherent in any interview that it's painful to
watch. Even conservative columnists are cringing.
Oh, and then there's Marsha:
>He's an empty suit who was
>magically elevated to a position he is not entitled to, nor has he earned.
Get a clue. He put together one of the best campaign organizations in
history. He beat a lot of seasoned politicians, including one of the
most powerful political machines in the country to win the nomination.
He did it by outsmarting them, outworking them, and outorganizing
them. He earned it.
So, let's see. You prefer a guy who wants to continue the policies
that have put this country on the brink of another Great Depression.
You want him to put your Social Security at risk. You want him to
enact programs which will destroy many people's chances of access to
healthcare. You want him to continue to keep ruining our military by
keeping them in a war we shouldn't have been in, in the first place.
You want a guy who was 5'th from the bottom in his class, and have as
his running mate a woman who can't form a coherent sentence, who went
to 5 colleges to get her degree.
Because, after all, a guy who was magna cum laude at Harvard Law and
who actually has a coherent plan is just totally unacceptable.
On Sat, 27 Sep 2008 08:19:27 -0700 (PDT), Judity <Judi...@aol.com>
wrote:
jmorn...@aol.com
>
> ed
Ed,
Is this your's? I love this line. Can I use it?
Janice
Gisele
I checked in on the debate only now and then, and I was a bit surprised
to hear McCain work in mentions of Nixon and Kissinger. Seems like he's
reaching pretty far back.
Gisele
--
Gisele
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Gisele's Profile: http://www.scribera.org/forum/member.php?userid=317
View this thread: http://www.scribera.org/forum/showthread.php?t=7020
Anne V.
perfect, and neither is going to be able to do everything they promise. My
position is that I prefer the direction that Obama proposes our country take
over McCain's proposals. People talk about being frightened of the
direction Obama wants to take the country in, and that's exactly how I feel
about McCain.
As far as the debate went last night, unlike some of the opinions I've read
online, I really liked the forum. I felt that the candidates were able to
talk a little more about the subjects they wanted to address, and we were
able to get a little better feel for both of them. I don't see a winner or
loser, and that wasn't the point anyway, as far as I was concerned. I just
wanted to hear what they had to say. I feel that both of them did pretty
well with presenting themselves, and I especially liked that they both
answered the same questions, rather than questions tailored specifically for
each candidate. I'd much rather see where they each stand on the same issue
so we can weigh the differences between them, and I felt that came across
well in this debate, although I know there were questions that weren't asked
or weren't answered completely because they ran over the time constraints.
I hope the forum for the VP debate is similar.
Anne
"Judity" <Judi...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:a929274f-f075-4290...@s20g2000prd.googlegroups.com...
an...@munge.com
wrote:
>((I don't like either candidate much, but I'm truly puzzled at the
============================
>If so, why? What has McCain done for you?
Nothing at all that I'm aware of. What has Obama done for you?
Judy, I'm not pro McCain. I'm just appalled at the unbridled
enthusiasm for Obama. He hasn't earned it. Perhaps he will--I can't
pretend to know. Maybe I'm just suspiciouis of anyone who gets wildly
excited about ANY candidate in this election.
Re education as cited in another post...having been an educator most
of my adult life, I just can't get worked up about a candidate's grade
point average. Experts will tell you academic achievement often does
not correlate with life successes or leadership qualities. It is what
it is--a measurement of how well a person achieves academic success in
a controlled, formal academic setting.
>>Anne, I don't think people are blind to Senator Obama's faults so much
>>as they are also not blind to the danger of electing McCain and
>>Palin.
What exactly are those dangers? Do you already know how Congress is
going to shake out? Do you already know the future appointed cabinet
nominees if McCain wins? And you know they're deficient?
I'm sorry if this sounds like a cop-out, but I'm done talking
politics! <GG> I've probably already offended anyone/everone who has
strong feelings about one candidate or the other because I truly can't
see how they justify it.
Anne/OH
Anne V.
I think it's important to try to understand the issues and candidates from
others' points of view, too.
Anne
<an...@munge.com> wrote in message
news:9n0td411pkl4ieeil...@4ax.com...
an...@munge.com
<ahva...@NOSPAMsbcglobal.net> wrote:
>I can't speak for anyone but myself, but you haven't offended me, at least!
>I think it's important to try to understand the issues and candidates from
>others' points of view, too.
>
>Anne
I think it is, too, Anne, and I guess that's why I'm so puzzled by
some peoples' reaction to Obama. I can understand admiration for his
public speaking as he's articulate and refreshing. I can understand
excitement about a change, too, as I think America is sick of the war,
economic and health care woes. But to put him out there as some kind
of savior when he remains largely untested as a one-year vet of the
Senate smacks of sensationalism to me. He's run a great campaign, and
that certainly bodes well for him!
It will be an interesting election! If Obama doesn't win he can at
least bank on the fact that millions of people will be watching to see
how he seasons out over the next four years.
Anne/OH
Anne V.
with his campaign, I know a lot of other Obama supporters, and I don't know
even one who views him as a savior or anything more than a man with feet of
clay. I think probably a lot of what you're seeing is media frenzy (hey, it
sells newspapers and makes for great TV ratings), and the perception of the
opposing point of view. A lot of us who support him prefer the calm,
rational manner he uses and think he will conduct himself with dignity and
strength with foreign leaders, rather than continuing to pass our country
off as the big bully on the block. That's one thing I see. We don't
believe he's a miracle worker or will somehow wave a magic wand and bring
peace and prosperity to the country, but we see his positions as steps in
the direction we'd like to see our country head toward. Of course,
everyone's vision for our country's future is different, and if there
weren't a lot of people who disagree with my POV, the polls wouldn't be as
close as they are!
Anne
<an...@munge.com> wrote in message
news:n24td4tomvjvigcq4...@4ax.com
Ed Chait
<jmorn...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:212bfea5-6ef3-46f1...@k36g2000pri.googlegroups.com...
It is and you sure may.
ed
Jeannie
news:Gisele...@no-mx.forums.yourdomain.com.au:
> I checked in on the debate only now and then, and I was a bit surprised
> to hear McCain work in mentions of Nixon and Kissinger. Seems like he's
> reaching pretty far back.
Perhaps you should've watched more and maybe you wouldn't have been so
surprised or maybe wouldn't think he is "reaching pretty far back". Isnt
Henry Kissinger one of his advisers? I don't think that's reaching too far
back AND Obama brought up a lot of what Kissinger has said as well.
Here's a link to the transcripts of the debate:
http://elections.nytimes.com/2008/president/debates/transcripts/first-
presidential-debate.html
Judity
First of all, if I'm the person your post is aimed at, my name isn't
Judy. Judity or Judith will do! No offense was intended, I know, but
I allow only a handful of people to call me Judy, and you're not one
of them.
((What has Obama done for you? ))
You want to know what Senator Obama has done for me? Well, one thing
is get me interested again in politics after years of not caring.
((I'm just appalled at the unbridled
enthusiasm for Obama. ))
Ah, unlike the unbridled enthusiasm for Palin, right?
((I've probably already offended anyone/everyone who has
strong feelings about one candidate or the other because I truly
can't
see how they justify it. ))
You haven't offended me in any way. Most of us come to this newsgroup
to have discussions on many subjects, and I really enjoy the spirited
ones. How boring it would be here if we all agreed, don't you think?
an...@munge.com
wrote:
>((Judy, I'm not pro McCain))
I am just totally blown away by the vitriol of your first paragraph!
Have a nice life.
Anne/OH
Samantha Hill - remove TRASH to replyi
Anne, I wouldn't necessarily call it that. I have moved past the
nickname I was called as a child because I have too many bad memories
associated with it, and if someone tried to call me by my nickname, I
would also politely-but-firmly ask them NOT to do it. But I would
probably also tell them why, and hopefully they wouldn't want to call me
by a name that I have bad associations with.
Susan Mitchell
--
Sue -- Firefighter mom -- still rabid UW DAWG fan!
<an...@munge.com> wrote in message
news:0885e4drp88e501mt...@4ax.com...
Neal
> Vitriol? Are you serious?
Is Vitriol liquid Viagra?
Judity
paragraph! ))
My goodness, Anne, you blow away easily, don't you?
((Have a nice life.))
And, yes, I will have a nice life. Thank you!
I was letting you know, as politely as I could, that I do not care to
be called Judy. The reason for that does not concern you, and I
don't plan on expanding on that. Now, if this offends your sensitive
feelings, I do apologize.
((But I would
probably also tell them why, and hopefully they wouldn't want to call
me
by a name that I have bad associations with. ))
Samantha, you are more willing to share personal information than I
am.
((Is Vitriol liquid Viagra? ))
Neal, I think Vitriol is a combination of Viagra and oily vitamins,
but I could be wrong.
Judity
Marsha
To be honest, I also thought the first paragraph sounded off. Maybe
that was the best "Judity" could do "as politely as she could", but it
certainly wasn't tactful. "No offense was intended, I know, but I allow
only a handful of people to call me Judy, and you're not one of them."
How much haughtier sounding can you possibly get? Why even bring it up,
when Ann has always addressed her as "Judity." It was simply a typo and
"Judity" thought it worth taking her to task. Get a grip. Others may
call it being sensitive on Ann's part, but that's BS. Most posters on
this group will not agree with this assessment, and the usual fanatics
will fire away, but that's okay. I simply could not see that what was
obvious to at least Ann and me go without comment.
Marsha/Ohio
Kathycarp
would have sufficed. No further explanation needed, especially not "...and
you're not one of them". But hey, I don't want to pick any fights. I just
want Anne to know that I would have been hurt by the statement, too, even if
the slap was unintended.
--
Kathy
www.ambergriscaye.com/villadelsol
"Marsha" <m...@xeb.net> wrote in message news:gc1agg$c3t$1...@news.datemas.de...
Jeannie
news:FYKdneY55Zx0rHnV...@comcast.com:
> Ditto. A simple "I would appreciate it if you would not address me as
> Judy" would have sufficed. No further explanation needed, especially
> not "...and you're not one of them". But hey, I don't want to pick any
> fights. I just want Anne to know that I would have been hurt by the
> statement, too, even if the slap was unintended.
Another Ditto.
Ed Chait
"Jeannie" <jwils...@comcastspamkills.net> wrote in message
news:Xns9B2B5151E7CA2jw...@216.196.97.136...
I also have to agree.
That came across as very snarky.
ed
Judity
Hey, I AM snarky when people I don't know call me Judy. I refuse to
apologize any more for this. Usually I'm a mild-mannered woman, but at
the age of 67, I feel I have the right to express my annoyance when
people get too familiar with me.
If I sign something Judity or Judith, why on God's green acre would
someone think the name Judy is appropriate? I equate being called Judy
with the even more rude Dude!
If, Annie or Edie, you find my calling someone out for this being
snarky, that's your problem, not mine.
Judity aka Judith aka J. A. Buxton
Jeannie
ec3acd...@u26g2000hsd.googlegroups.com:
> but at
> the age of 67
Wow - are you really 67? I'm confused by looking at some old posts and
some of your posts on other newsgroups.
Kathycarp
think the name Judy is appropriate?
Ummm, a one-time mistake? A typo? I dunno, but I really don't think that
Anne was trying to purposefully get on your nerves. Frankly, most people
don't care. People call me Kathleen, Kathy, Kath - doesn't bother me in the
least. But I do know that it is your request to not be called Judy, which is
fine and I try to comply, but sometimes my hands type what I don't intend
them to. I'm pretty sure I'll never make that error now, though! :)
--
Kathy
www.ambergriscaye.com/villadelsol
"Judity" <Judi...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:e1bea518-1564-4a8d...@u26g2000hsd.googlegroups.com...
Ed Chait
"Kathycarp" <k@thyc@rp@comc@st.net> wrote in message
news:yLydnbSBo_l9bHnV...@comcast.com...
> If I sign something Judity or Judith, why on God's green acre would
> someone think the name Judy is appropriate?
> --------
>
> Ummm, a one-time mistake? A typo? I dunno, but I really don't think that
> Anne was trying to purposefully get on your nerves. Frankly, most people
> don't care. People call me Kathleen, Kathy, Kath - doesn't bother me in
> the least. But I do know that it is your request to not be called Judy,
> which is fine and I try to comply, but sometimes my hands type what I
> don't intend them to. I'm pretty sure I'll never make that error now,
> though! :)
>
> --
> Kathy
Yeah, unless you always wear a shirt that proclaims "DON'T CALL ME JUDY" and
also use that as your signature line on the Internet, I think you shouldn't
react so much when somebody does so.
It's not like everybody knows your rules.
ed
Marsha
> Perhaps my own personal opinion of war and the need for having them
> drives my dislike of this man. He was a war prisoner for years. Does
> that make him any more qualified to be President than someone who
> believes in first trying to communicate with our country's enemies?
>
Neither Biden nor Obama have ever served in the military, which is
probably why they think that talking with animals who want annihilate
Western civilization would be useful. That, to me, makes them
unqualified to make decisions as important as how to protect this
country. There was a discussion on this group quite a while back about
whether an unmarried person was qualified to be a marriage counselor.
IIRC, the overwhelming response was no. Why is this different?
Marsha/Ohio
Gisele
> Neither Biden nor Obama have ever served in the military, which is
> probably why they think that talking with animals who want annihilate
> Western civilization would be useful.
And I imagine that some Muslims feel that we are animals who want to
stomp out their civilization. We have proppsed up some pretty cruddy
governments over there in order to keep the oil pumping, you know.
Saddam was our very own thug, once upon a time.
Anne V.
some of the poorest have. Think about it...don't you know people who served
in the military whom you would definitely NOT want running the country? To
me, there's little, if any, correlation between the two jobs at all.
Anne
"Marsha" <m...@xeb.net> wrote in message news:gc3jl0$o2f$1...@news.datemas.de...
Marsha
Marsha wrote:
>>Neither Biden nor Obama have ever served in the military, which is
>>probably why they think that talking with animals who want annihilate
>>Western civilization would be useful.
>
>
> And I imagine that some Muslims feel that we are animals who want to
> stomp out their civilization. We have proppsed up some pretty cruddy
> governments over there in order to keep the oil pumping, you know.
> Saddam was our very own thug, once upon a time.
>
> Gisele
>
But you didn't address the original question, which was why would anyone
expect two people in the highest office, neither of which has any
military experience, to be able to protect this country? They don't
understand the problem. We and the United Nations can, and have, talked
until we're blue in the face with people like Hussein, Kim Jong,
Ahmadijan, you name it, and it gets you no where. They're power hungry
dictators. And we've never beheaded any terrorists or killed thousands
of innocents by crashing planes into their buildings. Even if we didn't
"support" their governments for some reason or another, these animals
are still fixated on killing anyone who isn't of their belief. If you
want to be one of those who continues to believe that 9/11 was our
fault, then I don't know what else to say to you, except maybe become
one of them if you're sympathies lie in that direction.
Marsha/Ohio
Marsha
> IMO, some of our best presidents have not had a military background, and
> some of the poorest have. Think about it...don't you know people who served
> in the military whom you would definitely NOT want running the country? To
> me, there's little, if any, correlation between the two jobs at all.
>
> Anne
>
According to one site I've read, not since 1940 has either party ran a
ticket without some military service. Whether they were good or not is
a matter of which party you favor. I believe there is a definite
advantage for a former serviceperson in regards to protection,
especially at this time. If you don't have adequate military
protection, and know how and when to use it, our economy and all of our
other relatively petty problems do not matter much at all.
Marsha/Ohio
Phyllis Nilsson
irrelevant. A gentleman stopped at our door this afternoon and asked who we
thought we would vote for. I told him McCain because if this country is
going to be at war, I want someone who isn't afraid to defend us.
Diplomacy is not only inadequate, it does not work on people who want to
kill us.
"Marsha" <m...@xeb.net> wrote in message news:gc3o2s$umj$2...@news.datemas.de...
Gisele
> But you didn't address the original question, which was why would anyone
> expect two people in the highest office, neither of which has any
> military experience, to be able to protect this country?
Isn't that what we have generals for? Do they not advise the
president? Right now, we seem to be on the verge of ecnomic collapse,
but our president is not an economist, is that not a problem?
And if you continue to ignore the US history of meddling in Middle East
affairs, I guess you can continue to expect more 9/11's.
Marsha
> Isn't that what we have generals for? Do they not advise the
> president? Right now, we seem to be on the verge of ecnomic collapse,
> but our president is not an economist, is that not a problem?
>
I think his business degree helps tremendously. Not every president can
have expertise in everything, so advisors have their role. You have to
chose a president who has experience in what is most important to you.
National security is first, in my book. And over the last several
years, we've been warned about this economic collapse caused by
Democrats, but they didn't want to listen because too much money was
being pumped into their pockets.
Marsha/Ohio
Susan Mitchell
--
Sue -- Firefighter mom -- still rabid UW DAWG fan!
"Marsha" <m...@xeb.net> wrote in message news:gc8t8i$ckt$1...@news.datemas.de...
Gisele
> Gisele wrote:
> > Isn't that what we have generals for? Do they not advise the
> > president? Right now, we seem to be on the verge of ecnomic collapse,
> > but our president is not an economist, is that not a problem?
> >
> > Gisele
>
> I think his business degree helps tremendously.
In what way has it helped?
Marsha
>>Gisele wrote:
>>
>>>Isn't that what we have generals for? Do they not advise the
>>>president? Right now, we seem to be on the verge of ecnomic collapse,
>>>but our president is not an economist, is that not a problem?
>>>
>>>Gisele
>>
>>I think his business degree helps tremendously.
>
>
> In what way has it helped?
>
> Gisele
>
You're serious?
Marsha/Ohio
Marsha
Susan Mitchell wrote:
> Caused by DEREGULATION!
>
Wrong:
BTW, Sowell is an expert in economics.
Marsha/Ohio
RaeMorrill
I"m not so much pro-Obama as I am anti-McCain/Palin. They are running on
the "God" ticket and then the guy lies about a simple appearance on a
talk show? That blows me away. Then never even "raced" back to DC until
the next day. If he lies about something simple like that, what else
will he lie about. Then, the party that condemned Clinton for his sexual
activities - well he cheated on his wife with Cindy, who is now his
wife, didn't he? I personally don't really care about those issues,
except for the hypocritical factors involved - we'll point fingers long
as it isn't our guy, but if our guy did it suddenly it doesn't matter. A
lot of folks here have made a huge deal over not trusting an adulterer,
and I'll "betcha" some of the same people are turning a blind eye in
this case. Palin is being investigated in Alaska for abuse of her
position and her party is trying to squelch that. What's wrong with
finding out the truth if she did nothing wrong? I've still not heard of
any dirty laundry falling out of Obama's closet related to his personal
life.
I didn't think Palin sounded too bad from an intelligence point of view
during the debate, but I also know she was well coached and prepared.
I'd like to see how she does having to answer questions on the fly.
Yesterday's paper had an article on how the Southern Baptists are
supporting her as okay (from POV of being a woman) to lead the country,
whereas they would not allow her to lead a church or a home. Okay,
that's not mentioned in scripture, so they can get away with it - except
for how then will she being able to fulfill her scriptural (in their
opinion) role as a woman "submitting graciously" to her husband and
fulfilling her role as wife and mother, particularly if McCain drops
dead?
--
RaeMorrill
------------------------------------------------------------------------
RaeMorrill's Profile: http://www.scribera.org/forum/member.php?userid=982
Gisele
> I think his business degree helps tremendously.
> >
> >
> >
> > Gisele
> >
>
> You're serious?
>
> Marsha/Ohio
>
>
Yes, I'm serious. Bush brought nothing to the table as president
besides his several failed business ventures backed by his daddy's
money.
Gisele
--
Gisele
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Gisele's Profile: http://www.scribera.org/forum/member.php?userid=317
Jeannie
news:RaeMorri...@no-mx.forums.yourdomain.com.au:
> Yesterday's paper had an article on how the Southern Baptists are
> supporting her as okay (from POV of being a woman) to lead the country,
> whereas they would not allow her to lead a church or a home. Okay,
> that's not mentioned in scripture, so they can get away with it - except
> for how then will she being able to fulfill her scriptural (in their
> opinion) role as a woman "submitting graciously" to her husband and
> fulfilling her role as wife and mother, particularly if McCain drops
> dead?
I am a Baptist and I live in the south and have been to several churches
and know others in several other Baptist churches here in the south and I
am sure I don't know what you are talking about. Perhaps it isn't "the
Southern Baptists" but maybe "some" or "a few", etc.
Gisele
> I am a Baptist and I live in the south and have been to several churches
> and know others in several other Baptist churches here in the south and
> I
> am sure I don't know what you are talking about. Perhaps it isn't "the
> Southern Baptists" but maybe "some" or "a few", etc.
>
do the Southern Baptists have female ministers or pastors or whatever
is the correct term for the leader of a church?
Gisele
--
Gisele
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Gisele's Profile: http://www.scribera.org/forum/member.php?userid=317
Jeannie
news:Gisele...@no-mx.forums.yourdomain.com.au:
> do the Southern Baptists have female ministers or pastors or whatever
> is the correct term for the leader of a church?
Not if they are members of the Southern Baptist Convention. There's a
difference in the SBC members and "southern Baptist people/churches". Not
all Baptist churches in the south are "members" of the SBC.
Phyllis Nilsson
"Gisele" <Gisele...@no-mx.forums.yourdomain.com.au> wrote in message
news:Gisele...@no-mx.forums.yourdomain.com.au...