toldailytopic: Romney vs Obama round one. Thoughts? Assessment?

[drbrumley]

And I have every right to complain. I "vote" by not voting. Voting is giving consent. I refuse to give my consent freely anymore. If the majority felt like I did and didn't vote, you can bet your bottom dollar things will be changing in a hurry. But most want to be a part of something, even if it means selling your soul to the devil. Follow a party that doesn't give a rip about you. Like sheep being led to slaughter. You have two lines, one with an "R" and one with a "D". But your going to the same place, the slaughter house. You can take your high school civics lesson and stick it where the sun don't shine. Get out in the real world Buzz. Look around. Your vote doesn't mean a thing.

 

[drbrumley]

To quote Luther: “My conscience is held captive by the Word of God. And to act against conscience is neither right nor safe.”

 

[Buzz]

And I have every right to complain. I "vote" by not voting. Voting is giving consent. I refuse to give my consent freely anymore. If the majority felt like I did and didn't vote, you can bet your bottom dollar things will be changing in a hurry. But most want to be a part of something, even if it means selling your soul to the devil. Follow a party that doesn't give a rip about you. Like sheep being led to slaughter. You have two lines, one with an "R" and one with a "D". But your going to the same place, the slaughter house. You can take your high school civics lesson and stick it where the sun don't shine. Get out in the real world Buzz. Look around. Your vote doesn't mean a thing.

What a big crybaby you are... waa waa waa :baby:. "I don't get what I want, so screw you and America."

If you were on a jury casting the deciding vote on a child molester who murdered his victims, and your conscience held to the "principle" that this man should be executed, you would rather see him back on the street if you knew that the judge was going to give him a life sentence, because it would be against your "principles" to vote for "evil".

This is the same stupidity promoted by those who support personhood and their all or nothing mentality. They would rather a baby be aborted, then to compromise their principles.

You are like the Pharisee who complained about Jesus healing on the Sabbath.

 

[Buzz]

Young girl walking into abortion clinic...

Protestor: "Please miss, don't kill your baby. We have someone who will adopt it"

Girl: "Okay, what do I need to do?"

Protestor: "Do you support a personhood amendment"

Girl: "No"

Protestor: "Well then, never mind. We can't support anyone who goes against our principles"

 

[credo]

The TheologyOnline.com TOPIC OF THE DAY for October 4th, 2012 07:34 AM

toldailytopic: Romney vs Obama round one. Thoughts? Assessment?

Take the topic above and run with it! Slice it, dice it, give us your general thoughts about it. Everyday there will be a new TOL Topic of the Day.
If you want to make suggestions for the Topic of the Day send a Tweet to @toldailytopic or @theologyonline or send it to us via Facebook.

I am not certain I fully embrace everything Mitt Romney said in the debate. (Perhaps not radically conservative enough for me.) Yet, I believe it is fair to say that he pummeled President Obama. For a moment, I actually felt rather bad for the President - he came to debate with nothing to stand on, and he clearly knew it. When Romney called him out (several times) on his failure to reduce the deficit he didn't even try to respond, except for a hilariously familiar allusion to the problems he inherited (from the Bush presidency). We got similiar (lack of) responses from the President on several other major issues Romney launched at him, such as the failure and corruption of his green energy projects.

It was also rather funny, when Romney destroyed Obama's talking points by denying his assertion that he planned to cut 5 trillion dollars in taxes. Clearly Obama had intended to make this a major point of the debate, and was so caught off guard that he restated that same point and continued to argue against it. (Forcing Romney to repeat himself.) Likewise, it seems that Obama had planned to make a big deal of the idea that Romney was planning to lay off millions of teachers and destroy education spending, but Romney also denied this.

Romney was the image of confidence up the very end of the debate. The President, in contrast, was so uncertain of his position that at times he could hardly put sentences together, and he kept hitting his microphone with his hand motions. Of course, we have yet to see what promises Romney will be able to keep (a dollar for every promise made by a politician...) but as far as debates go, that is +1 for Romney.

By the way, I haven't heard or seen any of the political commentary yet. These are just my impressions.

 

[chrysostom]

Your vote doesn't mean a thing.

it can mean something

the democratic party supports abortion
and
the republican party supports life

what could be more important than life?
so
vote republican

 

[The Barbarian]

Romney has pledged to always maintain a "woman's right to choose."

"I will preserve and protect a woman's right to choose."
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P_w9pquznG4

He wouldn't even require a 24-hour waiting period.

He's not pro-choice; he's not anti-choice.

He's multiple choice.

 

[chrysostom]

Romney has said that he will appoint judges like:

Scalia
Thomas
Roberts
Alito

they upheld the ban on partial birth abortion

the two clinton judges did not

 

[The Barbarian]

Romney has said that he will appoint judges like:
Scalia
Thomas
Roberts
Alito

And he's pledged to preserve and defend a woman's right to choose. He's flip-flopped so many times on abortion, I doubt if even he knows what he really believes.

If Bush, who has been consistent in his position on abortion did nothing of substance, why do you suppose Romney who has pledged to support abortion, might do so?

they upheld the ban on partial birth abortion

It did no good at all. The republicans wrote the bill so technically that a small change in the procedure makes it legal.

 

[chrysostom]

It did no good at all. The republicans wrote the bill so technically that a small change in the procedure makes it legal.

it could have been stronger
if
the democrats had not fought it

 

[Buzz]

Romney has pledged to always maintain a "woman's right to choose."

"I will preserve and protect a woman's right to choose."
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P_w9pquznG4

He wouldn't even require a 24-hour waiting period.

He's not pro-choice; he's not anti-choice.

He's multiple choice.

Video from 10 years ago. So what? Why would anyone honestly believe that Romney would support the pro-life position for any other reason than it being politically expedient to do so. The fact is, he will do what he thinks is best for him, and going more conservative than Obama is how he will play it. For the next 4 years, it is the only choice we have in this game of chess, until enough people stand up and fight for someone who has true convictions, if such a person exists. Obama is quite outspoken as a liberal/socialist, and will work to bring us to a place in which we might never recover.

 

[chrysostom]

For the next 4 years, it is the only choice we have in this game of chess, until enough people stand up and fight for someone who has true convictions, if such a person exists. Obama is quite outspoken as a liberal/socialist, and will work to bring us to a place in which we might never recover.

yes

 

[The Barbarian]

it could have been stronger
if
the democrats had not fought it

In fact, Bush controlled both houses of Congress. He was president. And they still refused to do anything of substance about the issue.

No, that excuse won't play anymore, Chrys.

 

[Granite]

What a big crybaby you are... waa waa waa :baby:. "I don't get what I want, so screw you and America."

If you were on a jury casting the deciding vote on a child molester who murdered his victims, and your conscience held to the "principle" that this man should be executed, you would rather see him back on the street if you knew that the judge was going to give him a life sentence, because it would be against your "principles" to vote for "evil".

This is the same stupidity promoted by those who support personhood and their all or nothing mentality. They would rather a baby be aborted, then to compromise their principles.
You are like the Pharisee who complained about Jesus healing on the Sabbath.

Believe it or not, you and I agree completely on this.:shocked:

 

[Buzz]

The one thing Romney will not do is attempt to be branded a liberal among his conservative peers who win their elections next month. Contrary to the conservative naysayers who whine and complain because their political "god" is not going to win, so they refuse to vote, there will be conservative champions in both the house and senate elected to office. They will hold Romney accountable, knowing full well that he is easily swayed to be faithful to whatever benefits his re-election.

Otherwise, if this is all just a facade, and there is no hope, then we might as well just turn in our guns now, close our churches, hand our daughters a supply of morning after pills, and sit down and watch the latest episode of "Glee".

 

[Lighthouse]

Young girl walking into abortion clinic...

Protestor: "Please miss, don't kill your baby. We have someone who will adopt it"

Girl: "Okay, what do I need to do?"

Protestor: "Do you support a personhood amendment"

Girl: "No"

Protestor: "Well then, never mind. We can't support anyone who goes against our principles"

That is a false dichotomy; a straw man. If a girl is willing to get an abortion of course she doesn't support personhood. That doesn't change the fact that those who do will do all they can to save as many children as possible, even if that means they only save one.

The problem is the so-called pro-life people who support laws that won't save a single child.

And the idea of sacrificing all the rest in order to save one is irrelevant because there isn't a single person who believes themselves to be pro-life that is willing to do that.

it can mean something

the democratic party supports abortion
and
the republican party supports life

what could be more important than life?
so
vote republican

You're a fool.

 

[Buzz]

That is a false dichotomy; a straw man.

You don't have a clue what you are talking about. Read back a few posts to what prompted my point with doc.

If a girl is willing to get an abortion of course she doesn't support personhood.

That's correct, she might even say that she is still "pro-choice", and yet those who misuse the verse about "doing good that evil should come" will not support a candidate that is not 100% in agreement with all their views, and thus abandon any help they might give to their neighbor or their own family. To abandon doing good, because you don't get it all is "evil".

The problem is the so-called pro-life people who support laws that won't save a single child.

That's what you are doing by elected Obama by default.

 

[Lighthouse]

You don't have a clue what you are talking about. Read back a few posts to what prompted my point with doc. That's correct, she might even say that she is still "pro-choice", and yet those who misuse the verse about "doing good that evil should come" will not support a candidate that is not 100% in agreement with all their views, and thus abandon any help they might give to their neighbor or their own family. To abandon doing good, because you don't get it all is "evil".

If a candidate doesn't support the fundamental right to life then how can we expect them to support any of our other rights?

That's what you are doing by elected Obama by default.

Do you think Romney would be any different? Or that McCain would have been?

 

[Buzz]

If a candidate doesn't support the fundamental right to life then how can we expect them to support any of our other rights?

He may not. Bush didn't, and he deceived people into thinking he would. These guys are liars. Palin and simple... oops, I mean plain and simple.

So... what are you (we) going to do about it?

Please read my previous posts in this thread before you respond.

Do you think Romney would be any different? Or that McCain would have been?

Doubt it. But, if we are going to turn things around (yes, I'm being optimistic), we have to work strategically to win the battle. We will lose too many soldiers fighting Obama's administration than we will Romney's.

 

[Lighthouse]

He may not. Bush didn't, and he deceived people into thinking he would. These guys are liars. Palin and simple... oops, I mean plain and simple.

So... what are you (we) going to do about it?

Please read my previous posts in this thread before you respond.

I don't need to read your previous posts, because I already know that I am going to vote for someone other than Obama or Romney. And I believe that is what we should all do, because that is the only thing that will make a difference.

Doubt it. But, if we are going to turn things around (yes, I'm being optimistic), we have to work strategically to win the battle. We will lose too many soldiers fighting Obama's administration than we will Romney's.

I disagree, because those in the House and Senate that oppose Obama's policies will embrace Romney's, when they are the same policies.