You are currently viewing our boards as a guest which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our free community you will have access to post topics, communicate privately with other members (PM), respond to polls, upload content and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free so please, join our community today!
If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact contact us.
Go to Page...
Thank you for crosschecking our sponsors!
About This Page: This is a discussion on Politics within the LetsGoKings.com forums, at Los Angeles Kings Hockey Fan Forum. Obama lets it be known that he's not afraid to talk about God. I wonder if people will be as fearful of him being an "instrument of God" like they
Obama lets it be known that he's not afraid to talk about God. I wonder if people will be as fearful of him being an "instrument of God" like they would if it were Romney saying it? Or Bush? I doubt the reaction would be the same. Just my thoughts. Anyone disagree?
Yes, I know. Another, hypothetical-what-would-happen-if thread. It's my theme right now ok?
No, because they don't expect Obama's faith to be a center of his potential administration. Bush, however, has.
What is up with your hypotheticals that completely ignore context?
Do they expect Romney's faith to be a center of his potential administration? If so, based on what? If Romney was at a mormon church and said he wanted people to pray for him to be an instrument of God, I have zero doubt that it would probably sink his campaign. People would be all over that.
Besides, what context do we need? When he's saying he wants to be an instrument of God, what could that possibly mean other than he'd like to use his faith to guide his policies?
Either way, I've said for a long time that I'd love for Obama to run against Romney in this election. First of all, the south would vote for secession (again). Second, I think either guy would (on a surface level), make a fine President.
Do they expect Romney's faith to be a center of his potential administration? If so, based on what? If Romney was at a mormon church and said he wanted people to pray for him to be an instrument of God, I have zero doubt that it would probably sink his campaign. People would be all over that.
Because when Republicans say "instrument of God" and Democrats say "instrument of God" they are usually talking about two different things.
When Republicans say it (see: GWB), they tend to mean trying to stack the courts with pro-life justices, denying gay rights, and stacking the DOJ with Regent Law grads.
When Democrats say it...
Quote:
Originally Posted by SmytheKing
Besides, what context do we need? When he's saying he wants to be an instrument of God, what could that possibly mean other than he'd like to use his faith to guide his policies?
How about actually reading the article instead of harping on three words you're obviously taking out of context?
Obama said he was pleased that leaders in the evangelical community such as T.D. Jakes and Rick Warren were beginning to discuss social justice issues like AIDS and poverty in ways evangelicals were not doing before.
"I think that's a healthy thing, that we're not putting people in boxes, that everybody is out there trying to figure out how do we live right and how do we create a stronger America," Obama said.
so Obama throws out his faith, and all of sudden it "won't be important in his administration" because he's a Democrat.
pure spin. Why even bring it up then, Senator
(other than ridiculous race baiting and "talk with our enemies and bomb our allies" stupidity that's gone out there with the very Junior Senator from Illinois)
Same reason [half of] the Republicans showed up at the Tavis Smiley debate.
I'm here with a professor, ordained minister, best-selling author, social analyst, warrior-poet, gas-station attendant, alchemist, and amateur astrologist: Dr. Michael Eric Dyson.
Because when Republicans say "instrument of God" and Democrats say "instrument of God" they are usually talking about two different things.
When Republicans say it (see: GWB), they tend to mean trying to stack the courts with pro-life justices, denying gay rights, and stacking the DOJ with Regent Law grads.
When Democrats say it...
....they what? A better question is what do the people he was speaking to think he meant? I'd be curious to see those exit polls. I'd be willing to bet it had less to do with being sympathetic to gays and more to do with abortion and the "sanctity of marriage". While those are just suspicions, considering the leanings of southern religious folk, I feel I'm on steady ground.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jbruin
How about actually reading the article instead of harping on three words you're obviously taking out of context?
Obama said he was pleased that leaders in the evangelical community such as T.D. Jakes and Rick Warren were beginning to discuss social justice issues like AIDS and poverty in ways evangelicals were not doing before.
"I think that's a healthy thing, that we're not putting people in boxes, that everybody is out there trying to figure out how do we live right and how do we create a stronger America," Obama said.
I did read the article. I think Obama would be a very solid candidate and he's a wild card. I don't have a leaning towards him one way or the other. This isn't about him and whether he's credible or whether he's a religious nut. It's about the lack of reaction that typically comes from people on the left whenever faith and legislation is brought into the picture. You saw the same lack of response when Hillary got behind faith based initiatives a couple years back. Bush gets banged on for that, but nothing about Hillary.
It's about the lack of reaction that typically comes from people on the left whenever faith and legislation is brought into the picture. You saw the same lack of response when Hillary got behind faith based initiatives a couple years back. Bush gets banged on for that, but nothing about Hillary.
Maybe the perceived double standard isn't a double standard at all? If the Democratic Party was bulwarked by religious groups like the Christian Coalition, there might be an underlying tremor from the separation of church and policy amongst its members. Luckily they're not, so we're not worried about it. I'll be the first to admit that if Obama starts pushing his God on America he'll lose my support, fast.
Democrats and Republicans are about as similar as the Dodgers and Angels. They both play baseball games; they both have bats and gloves and stadiums and managers and left fielders, etc., shoot, they both play in Southern California!
Only an ignorant person would confuse the two and only a snake would deliberately attempt to.
The Black Civil Rights movement was mainly left wing and religious inspired.
That's a twist on history if I've ever heard it. The Civil Rights act of 1964 was brought by Kennedy that was mirroring a bill from the 1800's created by a Republican. The Democrats who controlled the Congress at that time threatened to hold the bill up and then actually filibustered it. As far as percentages go, more Republicans voted for it than Democrats. In fact, Al Gore's father and Robert Byrd voted against it.
If you want to characterize the movement, it was more southerners who were against it rather than anything else.
I think the difference is that there are politicians who would like to legislate THEIR morals onto the people because they think they are right. Obama is a smoker but I doubt he's going to repeal the smoking bans in restaurants whereas I doubt Bush and Romney would have little problem with legislating tougher alcohol laws because of their own beliefs.
Umm... that's what the second half of my post answered. Pretty straightforward.
Quote:
Originally Posted by SmytheKing
That's a twist on history if I've ever heard it. The Civil Rights act of 1964 was brought by Kennedy that was mirroring a bill from the 1800's created by a Republican. The Democrats who controlled the Congress at that time threatened to hold the bill up and then actually filibustered it. As far as percentages go, more Republicans voted for it than Democrats. In fact, Al Gore's father and Robert Byrd voted against it.
He's talking about the movement, not the politicians... so hardly revisionist history.
Besides, the Democrats and Republicans of the 1950s-1960s (let alone the 1800s!) were very different in ideology than they are today. Hell, Strom Thurmond was a Democrat up until 1964, even though he split off as a Dixiecrat for president in 1948.
Last edited by Joe Hoya; October 8th, 2007 at 03:26 PM.
SmytheKing
Guess Obama just lost the left right? 
