The choice

[Jim2Dokes 3]

Not quite sure what this means. All the time I hear people talking about losing their freedom under Obama. I just wanted to know exactly what freedoms people were talking about. I don't want your list to go away - it simply hasn't convinced me at all that you are any less free than you were 4 years ago. The fact that you're not in Gitmo isn't inconvenient to me at all - I'm glad you're not there! It's just a bit hard for me to believe that you identify so closely with the prisoners being held there that you feel personally oppressed. Obama didn't put them there in the first place. And just imagine what they would say on Fox News if Obama freed the Gitmo prisoners and one of them was later involved in a terrorist attack - I'm guessing they wouldn't be praising him as a champion of civil rights.

 

 

And no, I would not have complained one bit if al-Awlaki had been killed while Bush was the president. Again, what would Republicans and Fox News have said if Obama passed on a chance to take him out, and he was later successful in attacking the U.S.?

 

 

Co-sign.

 

Add to the fact that I am sure Jon was the first to stand up for Bush about Gitmo, add to the fact Bush had a drone take out an American citizen and what you get it is what you get. Its red vs. blue, what is the same doesn't matter its villain vs superhero, even if the superhero does the same stuff. Romney will do nothing but reap the rewards of the foundation of rebuilding Obama has brought us and change nothing.

 

The choice is clear. I am going to go with the guy that has actually improved my personal, and millions of others lives over the past 4 years. Not the guy who I have no idea what position he has from day to day.

 

Please tell me is Romney going to get rid of FEMA or not? I am not sure? Can anyone tell me? How about abortion? Or what exactly am I going to get back in taxes? Being middle class I have seen a reduction under Obama, I am good with my tax cut. My health insurance is top-notch and I pay $20 a month, I am good with Obama-care. I just bought a new car, my college student loan rates are consistent. I'm good man, my choice is absolutely 100% clear.

Edited November 2, 2012 by Jim2Dokes

[Scotty88 0]

Please tell me is Romney going to get rid of FEMA or not?

 

After ignoring that question 11 times form the media, I don't even think Romeny's sure yet.

 

What do you want him to do and he'll probably lean that way:)

[EddieAngel 508]

-something that I sent out to all my friends tonight, these are my thoughts on the choice before us at the most basic level. you may not agree, but I thought it would be thought provoking. Thats what a message board is for right?

 

 

To all my dear friends,

 

Sleep has not come easy tonight; my soul is troubled with the uncertainty that our nation faces. Our future will be decided by a choice. This choice is between two men; a choice between two very different philosophies. Friends, I urge you to read this before you decide who should lead this nation. I urge you to pray for our nation, and for God’s direction and guidance in our future. In a few short days we will find out how the nation decided.

 

Here is my choice-

 

Yes, Romney is not perfect, nor does he embody all of the complete tenets of conservatism that I hold close. However, Romney is a man of character, he is a leader, he is a businessman, and he has actually balanced a budget. The choice is clear for me; continue down a destructive path of government usurpations of power, encroachment on our personal liberties, towards the fiscal cliff that is inevitable if we continue to move “forward” as President Obama puts it. Or do we reverse course. Some argue that it is too late; however I must believe that there is “hope” for America, if we “change” courses.

This election is a rarity in American politics as it offers “we the people” two very distinct choices when we cast our ballots. One ideology argues that the best way to benefit the majority of the American people is through government societal planning to bring about a “collective salvation”. Where as the other ideology predicates itself on the freedom of the individual to pursue any legitimate interest that may or may not bring about happiness or success. We have two very distinct philosophies in which our decision rests. Do we as a people want more government, which ultimately will lead to tyranny and the loss of your “God given rights”, or do the American people still believe in our founding principles, which at their very core is individual liberty.

 

-- Here is an exert of a discussion I had with a friend about political philosophy, and which side would Jesus would take--

 

My response

“Liberals always tout that there needs to be a separation of religion and politics, then bring up that Jesus would side with the left because “the left wants to help everybody”. First, Jesus would abstain from this debate because well, He is kind of above politics. Second, even if we hypothetically continue this argument, I disagree with the main premise of your point. Ok, let’s get started. No, I don’t think the best way to help people is through government. It has proven to be inefficient, and ineffective. Check the statistics on how much money we have spent on the “war on poverty” and its correlation to the poverty level/unemployment level. Also, again I disagree with you on political philosophy. I don’t believe in the forced and coerced taking of private property or finances to help the “collective”. I ascribe to the belief that you deserve to pursue your own interests, not because it is coerced by the government but because these are unalienable natural rights. Through personal success or failure, you can help your fellow man, or “neighbor”, or community, out of the goodness of your own heart, not because government takes and then decides who to help. So from your perspective, Jesus would applaud the government’s coerced taking and redistributing of wealth. But I would like to point out that this takes away a personal choice to sacrifice for someone else out of the goodness of your heart and give to a neighbor or someone you come across that is struggling. By selfishly taking from others, and then having some distant government bureaucrat decide what to do with the money. How is that a personal choice to help someone? Our arguments come down to it being a heart issue, and through government doing your “charity” for you, it cannot be charity by any definition”.

 

Though the GOP may not represent all of my values, they more closely align with the core beliefs that I hold true. That is why, in a few short days, I will be casting my vote for Mitt Romney and Paul Ryan.

 

REAL HOPE AND REAL CHANGE ARE ONLY POSSIBLE THROUGH REAPPLYING OUR FOUNDING PRINCIPLES

 

*The Choice is clear. If the nation chooses government, which is a choice to pivot away from our history, culture, philosophy. Then we as a nation DESERVE the natural consequences of that decision.

 

-Brirish09

 

GOOD NIGHT AND GOD BLESS

 

Thanks for sharing man, I like the way you think. Money comes and goes, governments rise and fall, only one thing is eternal. At the core of it I pray to God that people will vote their values on this one, and that goodness and righteousness prevails.

 

I wonder how many people would know the answer to this question:

 

Which constitutionally granted right is currently in danger:

 

a) A woman's RIGHT to choose.

b) A person's RIGHT to worship and freely practice their religious beliefs.

 

I think most people would probably say a, not knowing that it is not a right to begin with, and that the rights of Christians and Catholics everywhere is hotly contested and in danger on a number of fronts.

 

Whatever you believe about religion and the afterlife, remember that religious freedom is the bedrock of this country, and it is in very real danger if the current administration serves another term. Neither candidate can perform their promises, and no one is going to fix the economy with a finger snap. Vote your values.

[Scotty88 0]

http://www.standard.net/stories/2012/11/02/if-romney-wins-it-will-be-because-he-ignored-conservatives

 

Interesting read on the many colors of Mitt

 

"In the end, all of this shape-shifting leads to confusion about what Mitt Romney will govern. Will it be the fellow who was trying to court conservatives in the primaries or the one who is appealing to moderates now? Or, will he be pragmatic, calculating his political positions based on the composition of the Congress and the forces in the larger electorate he’ll still have to appeal to once he’s in office?

 

Mitt Romney has always seemed awkward playing the severe conservative. It’s not his best stuff. He might lose this thing - the polls in the battleground states aren’t looking good - but since Oct. 3 he’s been going with his best pitch. He’s no longer taking advice from the Scott Walkers of the world. He is listening to the more pragmatic Chris Christies."

[ND3 0]

Which constitutionally granted right is currently in danger:

 

a) A woman's RIGHT to choose.

b) A person's RIGHT to worship and freely practice their religious beliefs.

 

I think most people would probably say a, not knowing that it is not a right to begin with,

 

What makes you say that? A woman choosing what to do with her own body isn't a basic human right that she has?

 

and that the rights of Christians and Catholics everywhere is hotly contested and in danger on a number of fronts.

 

I would fundamentally disagree with this. It seems to me that all religions are being treated equally, which is a change from the traditional anti-non-Christian sentiment that has been so entrenched in our society for 100 years. (Sorry for the double negative....)

[EddieAngel 508]

What makes you say that? A woman choosing what to do with her own body isn't a basic human right that she has?

 

 

 

I would fundamentally disagree with this. It seems to me that all religions are being treated equally, which is a change from the traditional anti-non-Christian sentiment that has been so entrenched in our society for 100 years. (Sorry for the double negative....)

 

I am not debating about what a woman's rights are with her body, that is not my fight. I am saying that the right to terminate a pregnancy (Whatever the reason) is not a constitutionally protected right.

 

IRT the anti-non-Christian secular oppression or whatever, this country was founded by Christians. It is what it is. They left England to have the ability to worship. In that founding they realized that the fundamental ability to worship should be inherit to all, so all religions are given equal rights to worship freely.

 

Health care mandates forcing religious groups to provide brith control and abortive medications is oppresive. Forcing the issue on gay marriage is oppresive, especially since (At least in my state) the popular majority voted against it.

 

If you were a Christian I think you would see the unequal treatment, but you are clearly on the outside looking in. I am not sure what your spiritual background is but I am sure that if you wanted to honor your dead with a monument or freely choose to abstain from teaching your kids about sexuality until they were of an appropriate age you might be agitated if the government, put in place to serve the will of the people, takes it upon itself to do something for the good of the people that is not voted on by the people.

 

But I digress. From my position as a conservative right wing Christian, Romney is not perfect but his values are a much closer fit than Obama, who apparently is openly Christian in spite of his values.

[Jim2Dokes 3]

I am not debating about what a woman's rights are with her body, that is not my fight. I am saying that the right to terminate a pregnancy (Whatever the reason) is not a constitutionally protected right.

 

IRT the anti-non-Christian secular oppression or whatever, this country was founded by Christians. It is what it is. They left England to have the ability to worship. In that founding they realized that the fundamental ability to worship should be inherit to all, so all religions are given equal rights to worship freely.

 

Health care mandates forcing religious groups to provide brith control and abortive medications is oppresive. Forcing the issue on gay marriage is oppresive, especially since (At least in my state) the popular majority voted against it.

 

If you were a Christian I think you would see the unequal treatment, but you are clearly on the outside looking in. I am not sure what your spiritual background is but I am sure that if you wanted to honor your dead with a monument or freely choose to abstain from teaching your kids about sexuality until they were of an appropriate age you might be agitated if the government, put in place to serve the will of the people, takes it upon itself to do something for the good of the people that is not voted on by the people.

 

But I digress. From my position as a conservative right wing Christian, Romney is not perfect but his values are a much closer fit than Obama, who apparently is openly Christian in spite of his values.

 

1. Hyperbole. You contradict yourself, so therefore you must not be serious.

2. Generalization that does not apply to EVERYONE, maybe you.

3 rd bold. You have the right for your children to not attend sex ed. Another generalization, as I am sure most Americans support sex ed. There is nothing in the bible against sex ed, in fact there are children in the bible mentioned who have sex. This is not a Christian value, this is an American value which laws have been put in place against underage sex. So "age" is a value that you have because laws have been put in place not because of religion.

[Rocknes Shadow 0]

Until I read this thread.

 

If you guys truly believe half of your own arguments above you are beyond nuts. The stupidity, the illogic nature of your own arguments. "Obama didn't close Gitmo like he promised" - what the f- do you care - Bush/Cheney started it. Lawyers are making boat loads on it - you guys are using that to criticize him? You should be dancing in the streets.

 

A wise man once said - "thank God only 40 percent of Americans vote - many of the rest can't tie their shoes."

 

I highly respected Romney...until this election. The guy would breast feed his own cat if it increased his chances.

 

I respect people that enter the booth and choose neither candidate more than I respect a Romney vote. Wants to eliminate FEMA....good luck with that. FEMA is going to be Romney's global warning agency.

[ND3 0]

I am not debating about what a woman's rights are with her body, that is not my fight. I am saying that the right to terminate a pregnancy (Whatever the reason) is not a constitutionally protected right.

 

IRT the anti-non-Christian secular oppression or whatever, this country was founded by Christians. It is what it is. They left England to have the ability to worship. In that founding they realized that the fundamental ability to worship should be inherit to all, so all religions are given equal rights to worship freely.

 

Health care mandates forcing religious groups to provide brith control and abortive medications is oppresive. Forcing the issue on gay marriage is oppresive, especially since (At least in my state) the popular majority voted against it.

 

If you were a Christian I think you would see the unequal treatment, but you are clearly on the outside looking in. I am not sure what your spiritual background is but I am sure that if you wanted to honor your dead with a monument or freely choose to abstain from teaching your kids about sexuality until they were of an appropriate age you might be agitated if the government, put in place to serve the will of the people, takes it upon itself to do something for the good of the people that is not voted on by the people.

 

But I digress. From my position as a conservative right wing Christian, Romney is not perfect but his values are a much closer fit than Obama, who apparently is openly Christian in spite of his values.

 

The power of the government is limited to what is expressedly written in the Constitution. If something is not in the Constitution, the government has no business dealing with it, which is why I get so riled up when the platforms of politicians are so strongly social. Trust me--I hate abortion. I wish we didn't have to deal with it. I wish it wasn't an issue. However, it is, and the government has no right to outlaw it, per the Constitution.

 

Several of our founding fathers were Deists, and some were even atheists. This country wasn't founded on Chirstianity, it was founded on the principles of religious freedom for all. Fun Fact: The Quakers actually came to America because the laws were too loose, i.e. they were actually prejudiced against other religions and wanted to worship without the burden of having other belief systems surrounding them.

 

I understand the healthcare/birth control issue. I agree with you that it is over-reaching in that aspect. However, looking beyond the healthcare bill, you may believe that BC is wrong, but why can't people of other beliefs use it? If you don't like it, don't use it. You may believe gay marriage is wrong, but why can't people of other beliefs accept it? If you don't like it, don't get gay married. Freedom of marriage IS a constitutionally guaranteed right.

 

Haha- I was borned and raised in a liberal Catholic household. I just don't think the government and religion should cross paths. Whenever there is a law that is based on religion, it limits freedom of religion.

 

As far as teaching about sexuality, states can decide what they want to do in the public school system. Secular schools are always an option if you want a child to be taught abstinence-only and creationism.

 

My philosophies are very Libertarian and "live and let live". People can believe anything they want- just don't force those beliefs on me, and I'll do the same for them.

[EddieAngel 508]

The power of the government is limited to what is expressedly written in the Constitution. If something is not in the Constitution, the government has no business dealing with it, which is why I get so riled up when the platforms of politicians are so strongly social. Trust me--I hate abortion. I wish we didn't have to deal with it. I wish it wasn't an issue. However, it is, and the government has no right to outlaw it, per the Constitution.

 

Several of our founding fathers were Deists, and some were even atheists. This country wasn't founded on Chirstianity, it was founded on the principles of religious freedom for all. Fun Fact: The Quakers actually came to America because the laws were too loose, i.e. they were actually prejudiced against other religions and wanted to worship without the burden of having other belief systems surrounding them.

 

I understand the healthcare/birth control issue. I agree with you that it is over-reaching in that aspect. However, looking beyond the healthcare bill, you may believe that BC is wrong, but why can't people of other beliefs use it? If you don't like it, don't use it. You may believe gay marriage is wrong, but why can't people of other beliefs accept it? If you don't like it, don't get gay married. Freedom of marriage IS a constitutionally guaranteed right.

 

Haha- I was borned and raised in a liberal Catholic household. I just don't think the government and religion should cross paths. Whenever there is a law that is based on religion, it limits freedom of religion.

 

As far as teaching about sexuality, states can decide what they want to do in the public school system. Secular schools are always an option if you want a child to be taught abstinence-only and creationism.

 

My philosophies are very Libertarian and "live and let live". People can believe anything they want- just don't force those beliefs on me, and I'll do the same for them.

 

Freedom of marriage is rightfully offered, the definition of marriage is the issue. But that is another issue outright. People like you and I don't sway based on what we read anyways, we have our positions. I only try to induce the "undecideds" to vote their values.

 

http://www.hulu.com/#!watch/404175

[ND3 0]

Freedom of marriage is rightfully offered, the definition of marriage is the issue. But that is another issue outright. People like you and I don't sway based on what we read anyways, we have our positions. I only try to induce the "undecideds" to vote their values.

 

http://www.hulu.com/#!watch/404175

 

I agree that it's all about the definition. I just really don't like that gay people have fewer rights than others upon marriage/civil unions.

 

Either way, much respect.

 

Haha, that's a great SNL sketch.

[Soko 128]

I have only one comment on this and it relates to manufacturing in China.

 

Nearly every car company in the world are expanding their current operations in China as it is a booming market.

 

One of the biggest projects in the Jiangsu region right now is a JV between Landrover Jaguar and a Chinese auto company named Chery. This JV will allow Landrover to sell cars at a 20% discount and avoid all import duties which can cause cars to rise in price substantially.

 

http://autonews.gasgoo.com/china-news/prices-of-land-rovers-in-china-expected-to-decreas-121102.shtml

 

Would it be better for American car companies to export cars to the APAC market from America? Of course it would. Does it make any sense financially and competitively? Of course it does not.

 

Business men make business decisions and these are the types of decisions Mitt Romney has made all his life. He would not be where he is today is he had not done so. This is not even a slight against him and his policies but more a rant against the completely uniformed opinions of millions of voters who have no idea how business really works and where the bottom line actually exists.

 

Would you like your Nike sneakers to be made in Oregon, WA? Would you like to pay $350 for these same sneakers? I didn't think so.

[Jim2Dokes 3]

I have only one comment on this and it relates to manufacturing in China.

 

Nearly every car company in the world are expanding their current operations in China as it is a booming market.

 

One of the biggest projects in the Jiangsu region right now is a JV between Landrover Jaguar and a Chinese auto company named Chery. This JV will allow Landrover to sell cars at a 20% discount and avoid all import duties which can cause cars to rise in price substantially.

 

http://autonews.gasgoo.com/china-news/prices-of-land-rovers-in-china-expected-to-decreas-121102.shtml

 

Would it be better for American car companies to export cars to the APAC market from America? Of course it would. Does it make any sense financially and competitively? Of course it does not.

 

Business men make business decisions and these are the types of decisions Mitt Romney has made all his life. He would not be where he is today is he had not done so. This is not even a slight against him and his policies but more a rant against the completely uniformed opinions of millions of voters who have no idea how business really works and where the bottom line actually exists.

 

Would you like your Nike sneakers to be made in Oregon, WA? Would you like to pay $350 for these same sneakers? I didn't think so.

 

 

 

It is even bigger than that. What republicans do not understand like most things, is the dynamics of other countries. So, the main reason why Jeep has to produce jeeps in China, is that their country requires it. So if you want to sell a product in China you have to manufacturer it there. Laws should be setup like that in USA but whatever. That is the law in China so that is the major reason Jeep is making Jeeps in China to sell Jeeps in China.

 

But the republican base is not intelligent to realize this or they argue Jon's point "well it is fact that they are making cars in China", which underscores the intention of the ad, which is to scare American workers. So from Jon's standpoint that is correct, however he knows but will not say that it is a marketing scam. Because like I said before if Mitt wanted to highlight what an automaker is doing he should be a journalist and not the President. Anyways, none of this matters we are 3 days away from Obama winning another landslide and me bringing up all of the old posts and gloating.

Edited November 3, 2012 by Jim2Dokes

[Soko 128]

It is even bigger than that. What republicans do not understand like most things, is the dynamics of other countries. So, the main reason why Jeep has to produce jeeps in China, is that their country requires it. So if you want to sell a product in China you have to manufacturer it there. Laws should be setup like that in USA but whatever. That is the law in China so that is the major reason Jeep is making Jeeps in China to sell Jeeps in China.

 

But the republican base is not intelligent to realize this or they argue Jon's point "well it is fact that they are making cars in China", which underscores the intention of the ad, which is to scare American workers. So from Jon's standpoint that is correct, however he knows but will not say that it is a marketing scam. Because like I said before if Mitt wanted to highlight what an automaker is doing he should be a journalist and not the President. Anyways, none of this matters we are 3 days away from Obama winning another landslide and me bringing up all of the old posts and gloating.

 

 

It's not mandatory to make your cars in China but the government taxs on important effectively make it statutory if you want to compete with the fat of the market. Not surprisingly nobody else has replied as most people are concerned with bullshit rhetoric.

[jon33dn 0]

It's not mandatory to make your cars in China but the government taxs on important effectively make it statutory if you want to compete with the fat of the market. Not surprisingly nobody else has replied as most people are concerned with bullshit rhetoric.

 

...yep, just wait a few days then gloat or drink...

 

... and the other thing you forgot to point out is that transportation costs for the finished product would be substantial if cars were made here and shipped...

[Soko 128]

...yep, just wait a few days then gloat or drink...

 

... and the other thing you forgot to point out is that transportation costs for the finished product would be substantial if cars were made here and shipped...

 

 

 

Eh... that was my point. People moan and groan about companies manufacturing in China yet have no clue about the dynamics of the actual business at work.

[IrishNYgirl 0]

I didn't even read the posts in this thread but by the look of the players, I can imagine the content. I just wanted to say that I for one always want less government intrusion in my life but after this week after Sandy's destruction, I'm sure glad for my local, state and even federal involvement.