The Greatest Danger from Obama

[Guest]

89Glory, somehow, someway many here don't see the logic you so eloquently presented. They fail to see the concept of not voting for the lesser evil just means you are increasing the chance that the greater of two evils will win. Maybe they just like to argue and seem smart?

 

[DixieDestroyer]

89 Glory/JohnnyBoy/Kukulcan, I can understand your support for McCain (to an extend) as I was a faithful "mainline" conservaitve/GOP supporter from 18 until 34. However, I began seeing the Globalist leanings of the GOP "leadership" increase, and began studying the history of the Globalist Elite...their agenda & many pawns. The more I researched, the more shocked & disappointed I was at the truth. My net result...the DNC & GOP are basically two sides of the same (Elite controlled) coin. The "voting for the lesser of two evils" pitch is a deceptive way to convince borderline conservatives to give a vote for the GOP nominee. I strongly urge you gentlemen to do some research on Globalism & the Elite, and find the (not so hidden) truth as I (& other CF'ers) have.

End Game - Blueprint for Global Enslavement

The Money Ma$ters - A History of the Central Banking Cartel

The Brotherhood of Darkness - An Expose on the Global Elite

The Hope of the Wicked

The Creature from Jekyll Island - The Truth Behind the Private Federal ReserveEdited by: DixieDestroyer

 

[White Shogun]

Those of you who are religious, does the pro-life angle have any bearing on who you support for president?

 

[aussieaussie31]

When the Status Quo has you slated for EXTINCTION. Then I believe it is time to withdraw from the STATUS QUO.

 

[White Shogun]

When the Status Quo has you slated for EXTINCTION. Then I believe it is time to withdraw from the STATUS QUO.

How do you withdraw from the status quo?

Do you live in the wilderness in a home run solely on solar power? Grow or hunt for your own food? Ride horses instead of drive a car?

What happens to your wilderness home / farmstead if you don't pay your property taxes? In any place where a citizen is required to pay property taxes, it is impossible to actually 'own' property, because the state is your eternal landlord. Don't pay taxes - you're evicted and your property seized.

If you are supported by civilization in any way, i.e. use gasoline, buy groceries, use the health care system (even if just buying meds,) etc, you cannot actually 'withdraw' from the system, because whatever the system decides to do will effect you. What you have done in this case is not 'withdraw,' but instead you have become non-participatory in the system. There is nothing wrong with that, if that's your choice, but withdrawal is an illusion.

 

[aussieaussie31]

I suppose I should have been more specific. I do not support the status quo in regards to elections where both candidates are two sides of the same coin. I have withdrawn politically in many ways because I see no use in voting for this mainstream clown, or that mainstream clown. Of course I shop for food, buy gasoline, pay my property tax, and all the other essentials that one must do if one is to support a family and try to raise a family properly. Anyway, when I said I refuse to support the status quo, I meant supporting supposedly "acceptable" candidates for various public offices.

 

[White Shogun]

Sorry aussie, I must have had my 'literal' hat on too tight today.

 

[guest301]

Those of you who are religious, does the pro-life angle have any bearing on who you support for president?

It has a bearing on it since one more conservative judge on the Supreme Court will likely lead to a overthrow of Roe Vs. Wade and return the issue back to the states where it belongs. Some of us have been fighting that battle for decades and we are so close to victory that it is scary to throw my vote away on a third party. I live in Ohio, our state will decide the election and so my vote matters. I totally understand why most of you who posted on this thread feel differently and I respect your opinion.

 

[InfamousOne]

89Glory, somehow, someway many here don't see the logic you so eloquently presented. They fail to see the concept of not voting for the lesser evil just means you are increasing the chance that the greater of two evils will win. Maybe they just like to argue and seem smart?

How many times do we have to say this?

1.) There are no "rules" but the ones we make. Vote 3rd party and take the power away from these two liberal parties. Only then will voting for "the lesser of two evils" ever stop. It certainly wont from perpetuating it endlessly like a damn lemming.
2.) The lesser of two evils is still evil. McCain = vote for millions of illegal immigrants and endless war overseas, bankruptcy at home. How is that any different from the socalist Obama, if not worse?

And please, dont try to call me names or appeal to me through emotional platitudes, address what i write. I only respond to logic, lest I be another stupid liberal.

How are the things I wrote about McCain better then the magical Negro for whites?

 

[InfamousOne]

Those of you who are religious, does the pro-life angle have any bearing on who you support for president?

It has a bearing on it since one more conservative judge on the Supreme Court will likely lead to a overthrow of Roe Vs. Wade and return the issue back to the states where it belongs. Some of us have been fighting that battle for decades and we are so close to victory that it is scary to throw my vote away on a third party. I live in Ohio, our state will decide the election and so my vote matters. I totally understand why most of you who posted on this thread feel differently and I respect your opinion.

I truly hope you believe in states rights like I do. No one enjoys abortion Liberal or Conservative. But i honestly get the impression that the Neconservative/Christain coalition wants to federally mandate that it be illegal, again ignoring the constitutional rights of the states. And again using the law to mandate a christian principle, which i completely oppose. There are reasons the constitution separates church and state....

This whole surpreme court mess is rediculous, considering surpreme court justices now routinely ignore the limitations set in the constitution and "adjudicate" as they personally or politically see fit. Thier job is to INTERPRET THE CONSTITUTION, no more no less.

 

[Colonel_Reb]

The seperation of church and states only means that the United States cannot create a national church, like the Chuch of England. It does not mean take God or "Christian principles" out of everything.

 

[darthvader]

I have an idea for everybody here. DON'T VOTE. How about that. I don't know about anybody here but to me voting is just supporting a system that doesn't care about or acknowledge our existence. If anything they have just plotted out our destruction and it seems to be working.&nbs p;

 

[guest301]

The seperation of church and states only means that the United States cannot create a national church, like the Chuch of England. It does not mean take God or "Christian principles" out of everything.

Very true, Reb.

 

[guest301]

Those of you who are religious, does the pro-life angle have any bearing on who you support for president?

It has a bearing on it since one more conservative judge on the Supreme Court will likely lead to a overthrow of Roe Vs. Wade and return the issue back to the states where it belongs. Some of us have been fighting that battle for decades and we are so close to victory that it is scary to throw my vote away on a third party. I live in Ohio, our state will decide the election and so my vote matters. I totally understand why most of you who posted on this thread feel differently and I respect your opinion.

I truly hope you believe in states rights like I do. No one enjoys abortion Liberal or Conservative. But i honestly get the impression that the Neconservative/Christain coalition wants to federally mandate that it be illegal, again ignoring the constitutional rights of the states. And again using the law to mandate a christian principle, which i completely oppose. There are reasons the constitution separates church and state....

This whole surpreme court mess is rediculous, considering surpreme court justices now routinely ignore the limitations set in the constitution and "adjudicate" as they personally or politically see fit. Thier job is to INTERPRET THE CONSTITUTION, no more no less.

If the Supreme Court does overturn Roe vs.Wade that issue will return to the states to decide on. I am a big believer in states rights. However I think it's a goverments basic function to protect innocent life and I would totally be behind any federal law ever proposed that made abortion illegal for everybody. If that view is inconsistent with my belief in states rights,then I will live with that inconsistency. I also disagree with your post stating that nobody likes abortion including liberals, you have got to be kidding me. Thats what the feminist movement is largely about these days, just killing babies otherwise the National Organization for Women(NOW) wouldn't have come out against Palin who actually represents what feminism should be all about.Edited by: guest301

 

[jaxvid]

Here's my take on McCain/Obama. I have voted third party for President for over 16 years so the two/one party system "lost" my vote a long time ago. They certainly have done nothing to win it back. But if I were "forced" to choose between the two the answer would be simple.

John McCain is a 72 year old man. He has seen a lot in his time. His father and grandfather were admirals in the USN, he has served a long time as a senator. He did his duty as a sailor and when disaster hit and he was captured as a POW he made it through some tough times, a lot better then I could have I'm sure.

Despite all of the trials he went through he has led a long accomplished life. I may not care for much of what he has accomplished but he did not sit on the sidelines and watch. He has been in the public eye for several decades and despite having a bad temper he still lasted long enought to make it through the grueling process of campaigning and come out with the most votes.

On the other side is Obama. I really have no idea why anyone would consider this guy as a potential leader of the free world? He really has not done anything that would qualify him for the position. If you were interviewing for the job of President you would look at his resume and not even consider him a candidate. Also since he is such an unknown who in the world can know what to expect from him when he is in the most pressure filled situation possible. Why would anyone want to take that risk? Even he can't know how he would respond in a crucial situation.

McCain has been through numerous enemy sorties where his life was on the line, he learned from his father and grandfather what the ultimate sacrifice was like. He has commanded over men as a base commander in the Navy. He has battled over society changing legislation, he has sat on committees that decided the great issues of the day. He has stood up and been counted. he has ran for election dozens of time.

Honestly. I hate the guy. But if I was voting R or D how is it even a question? How could anyone in their right mind put the fate of mankind in the hands of someone that no one, even himself, knows how he will react in that type of position.

This whole election is just another thing about today's world that I just don't get.

 

[InfamousOne]

The seperation of church and states only means that the United States cannot create a national church, like the Chuch of England. It does not mean take God or "Christian principles" out of everything.

Read the federalist papers, especially Jefferson. There is seperation of church and state because ultimately the church will legislate morality (as it had always done) and freedom would dissappear. This country was founded on the concept of FREEDOM. Telling other people how to live thier lives with the law, based on christian principle is anathema to freedom of religion. What about athiests, muslims, buddhists living here? Do they lose thier right to thier beliefs because we are "a christian nation" and its our laws?

... no man shall be compelled to frequent or support any religious worship, place, or ministry whatsoever, nor shall be enforced, restrained, molested, or burthened in his body or goods, nor shall otherwise suffer on account of his religious opinions or belief; but that all men shall be free to profess, and by argument to maintain, their opinion in matters of religion, and that the same shall in no wise diminish enlarge, or affect their civil capacities.

Let the people decide, take the federal government out of peoples business. It has no authority to do these things anyway. Edited by: InfamousOne

 

[Don Wassall]

Here's my take on McCain/Obama. I have voted third party for President for over 16 years so the two/one party system "lost" my vote a long time ago. They certainly have done nothing to win it back. But if I were "forced" to choose between the two the answer would be simple.

John McCain is a 72 year old man. He has seen a lot in his time. His father and grandfather were admirals in the USN, he has served a long time as a senator. He did his duty as a sailor and when disaster hit and he was captured as a POW he made it through some tough times, a lot better then I could have I'm sure.

Despite all of the trials he went through he has led a long accomplished life. I may not care for much of what he has accomplished but he did not sit on the sidelines and watch. He has been in the public eye for several decades and despite having a bad temper he still lasted long enought to make it through the grueling process of campaigning and come out with the most votes.

On the other side is Obama. I really have no idea why anyone would consider this guy as a potential leader of the free world? He really has not done anything that would qualify him for the position. If you were interviewing for the job of President you would look at his resume and not even consider him a candidate. Also since he is such an unknown who in the world can know what to expect from him when he is in the most pressure filled situation possible. Why would anyone want to take that risk? Even he can't know how he would respond in a crucial situation.

McCain has been through numerous enemy sorties where his life was on the line, he learned from his father and grandfather what the ultimate sacrifice was like. He has commanded over men as a base commander in the Navy. He has battled over society changing legislation, he has sat on committees that decided the great issues of the day. He has stood up and been counted. he has ran for election dozens of time.

Honestly. I hate the guy. But if I was voting R or D how is it even a question? How could anyone in their right mind put the fate of mankind in the hands of someone that no one, even himself, knows how he will react in that type of position.

This whole election is just another thing about today's world that I just don't get.

I guess it comes down once again to how much difference one believes there is between the two parties and how much unilateral action the president has.


I happen to believe the whole thing is stage managed and scripted. The conventions are just one more reality show replete with great special effects and audiences that scream and applaud on cue. If Al Gore had won the 2000 election our economic and foreign policy would have been almost identical to that pursued by the Bush regime over the past eight years.


Is George W. Bush really making the decisions? Does he have the power to do so? Or is it done by consensus of the system's elites, through its advisers, handlers and PR agents?


Every policy announced by a President Obama or a President McCain will be carefully vetted and distilled. Speeches and appearances are scripted to the last detail; every word uttered by the president is planned out. The audiences are handpicked and screened. Even the rare news conference is scripted in that only the same few lapdogs at the top of the media food chain are allowed to participate and everyone knows what questions will be asked.


The president is a symbol of power, not the actual unilateral decision maker somehow "running the world." There is a system, a power structure that finances and controls both parties, and these parties pretend that there are great differences between them so that they can both continue to run things without any real opposition. If you think it's more important that this symbol of power be a white man, then vote for McCain. But as AussieAussie succinctly put it, why vote for either party when both are for white extinction? Many can't vote for McCain becauseour conscience won't letus and we have chosen to no longer participate in a closed, farcial system that has targeted us for destruction. I don't see why that is so difficult for some here to understand and respect (and I am not referring to jaxvid but the enthusiastic McCain partisans here).Edited by: Don Wassall

 

[Colonel_Reb]

The seperation of church and states only means that the United States cannot create a national church, like the Chuch of England. It does not mean take God or "Christian principles" out of everything.

Read the federalist papers, especially Jefferson. There is seperation of church and state because ultimately the church will legislate morality (as it had always done) and freedom would dissappear. This country was founded on the concept of FREEDOM. Telling other people how to live thier lives with the law, based on christian principle is anathema to freedom of religion. What about athiests, muslims, buddhists living here? Do they lose thier right to thier beliefs because we are "a christian nation" and its our laws?

... no man shall be compelled to frequent or support any religious worship, place, or ministry whatsoever, nor shall be enforced, restrained, molested, or burthened in his body or goods, nor shall otherwise suffer on account of his religious opinions or belief; but that all men shall be free to profess, and by argument to maintain, their opinion in matters of religion, and that the same shall in no wise diminish enlarge, or affect their civil capacities.

Let the people decide, take the federal government out of peoples business. It has no authority to do these things anyway.

The Federalist Papers might be about whata few of thefounders thought, butthey arenot the Constitution. Do you really think the founders were thinking of Muslims, athiests, or Buddhists when they wrote the Constitution? They weren't. Nobody is saying that the above mentioned groups shouldn't have the right to believe the way they do or practice their religion. I agree that the fedgov should be out of the picture completely and that the people of the states should decide what they want to do. Just out of curiosity, exactly whose freedom is being threatened by protecting the lives of unborn babies? How long do you think this country would exist minus the Christian principles that you say cause so many problems? The slow and steady erosion of the Christian principles in this country, and the subversion of them by Zionists, have caused much of the decay that we at CF abhor, including loss of free speech anddiscrimination against whites in sports.Talk about a loss of freedom!Edited by: Colonel_Reb

 

[Solomon Kane]

Shogun, as a Catholic Christian, fighting abortion means a lot to me and definitely influences my vote. But I hope that my approach to the pro-life issues is a comprehensive one. And I also respect the Constitution and states' rights. I also believe that the constitution can be peacefully modified by the amendment process.

I hope that Roe v. Wade is overturned. The immediate effect of this will be the returning of the issue to the states. Many states will forbid abortion, many will permit it. As a citizen of CT, I will work to protect the infants in the womb in my own state. I will also work with the pro-life forces in the other states so as to protect the infants in the other states. Obviously, I cannot vote on any referenda--or vote for pro-life candidates--of those states of which I am not a citizen. But I can still argue and donate money for the pro-life position in these other states.

I could also work to ensure that the Federal government does not support or fund abortion. Also, all personnel who are directly under federal jurisdiction could be made subject to an anti-abortion law.

I could also work to pass a paramount amendment to the constitution--to protect all infants in the womb for the whole of the US. The consitution can always be constitutionally altered by amendment.

Some of my friends say that Federal legislation against abortion binding the whole of the US could be justified constitutionally via the 14th amendment. I'm open to being convinced of this.

Regarding the present political situation.

**Putting your hopes on a candidate to nominate the correct judges is always a gamble.

Remember Ronald Reagan? He was (supposedly) a pro-lifer who would appoint traditionalist judges who would overturn Roe v. Wade, and return the issue to the state legislatures. Guess what happened?

2 out of his three appointees supported Roe v Wade!**

Also--liberal presidents often give us appointees who turn out to be conservatives. Look at Byron White.

McCain has far less impressive pro-life credentials than Reagan...How likely is it that he will appoint anti roe v. wade justices?

Moreover, there has to arise a case to enable you to render a decision on these issues. Years can elapse before such a case arises. It took 14 years for a potential anti-roe v. wade case to arrive at the supreme court. And then it went for Roe!

So one can hardly use the pro-life issue, and say "oh well its obvious you must vote for mccain, so as to guarantee the overturning of Roe v. wade"

**But a far more important point--innocent life not only exists in the womb, it also exists outside the womb.**

Look at all the innocent people killed by the sort of aggressive foreign policy favored by McCain.

--the bombing of Serbian civilians
--the starving of (500,000+)civilians via the embargoes/blockades placed on Iraq.
--the massive killing of civilians (whether deliberately or "collaterally")which has occurred via the wars in Iraq and afghanistan (1,000, 000?).

And now we have a supposedly "Christian" candidate who has joked about "Bombing Iran" and has boasted about how tough he's going to be against the Christian Vladimir Putin. McCain favors the expansion of NATO right up to Russia's border. This is insanely provocative.

Combine these facts with *McCain's temperament and personality* and the incredible anger and vituperativeness which he shows towards anyone who disagrees with him (last especially displayed during the immigration debate where he dropped several "f-bombs" on someone who raised the delicate little matter of secure borders and the rule of law).

This is a recipe for a world war, a war which will kill far more innocent lives than will be saved by the overturning of Roe.

Is it worth it to elect this maniac on the *very slim chance he will nominate conservative justices who will overturn Roe v. Wade?*

 

[White Shogun]

Very well thought out post Solomon.

As you may or may not be aware, I'm not a fan of John McCain. I disagree with any number of his policies and stance on various issues.

However, I don't see Obama as a peacenik. He has changed his stance on the war in Iraq and the war against Iran. Nor will he do anything to shut down the border. I haven't seen him make any negative remarks against Putin, but Putin's belief or lack thereof should have no bearing on the would-be president's political stance concerning Russia.

Believing that McCain will nominate conservative judges is indeed a gamble, a true roll of the dice. But there is no doubt that Obama will not appoint a conservative judge. No doubt.

Having asked this question, and engaging you on this topic, I now somehow find yself in the unenviable position of defending John McCain for President.

*sigh*

 

[InfamousOne]

The seperation of church and states only means that the United States cannot create a national church, like the Chuch of England. It does not mean take God or "Christian principles" out of everything.

Read the federalist papers, especially Jefferson. There is seperation of church and state because ultimately the church will legislate morality (as it had always done) and freedom would dissappear. This country was founded on the concept of FREEDOM. Telling other people how to live thier lives with the law, based on christian principle is anathema to freedom of religion. What about athiests, muslims, buddhists living here? Do they lose thier right to thier beliefs because we are "a christian nation" and its our laws? ... no man shall be compelled to frequent or support any religious worship, place, or ministry whatsoever, nor shall be enforced, restrained, molested, or burthened in his body or goods, nor shall otherwise suffer on account of his religious opinions or belief; but that all men shall be free to profess, and by argument to maintain, their opinion in matters of religion, and that the same shall in no wise diminish enlarge, or affect their civil capacities. Let the people decide, take the federal government out of peoples business. It has no authority to do these things anyway.

The Federalist Papers might be about what a few of the founders thought, but they are not the Constitution. Do you really think the founders were thinking of Muslims, athiests, or Buddhists when they wrote the Constitution? They weren't. Nobody is saying that the above mentioned groups shouldn't have the right to believe the way they do or practice their religion. I agree that the fedgov should be out of the picture completely and that the people of the states should decide what they want to do. Just out of curiosity, exactly whose freedom is being threatened by protecting the lives of unborn babies? How long do you think this country would exist minus the Christian principles that you say cause so many problems? The slow and steady erosion of the Christian principles in this country, and the subversion of them by Zionists, have caused much of the decay that we at CF abhor, including loss of free speech and discrimination against whites in sports. Talk about a loss of freedom!

The federalist papers were a discussion that lead to the formation of the constitution, and a good deal of insight into the wording of the constitution can be gleaned from reading the federalist papers.

In a way the founding fathers were speaking for non-christian religions, a large part of the people originally immigrated to the US to avoid religious persecution.

I have never said that Christian moral principles were causing problems, in fact I wish we as Americans could follow more of them. Principles such as "thou shalt not kill, thou shalt not covet, thou shall not steal" all of which our government does constantly.

I am pro-life, (and athiest btw) but forcing others to observe a christian moral belief is wrong. States rights allows people to make the choices they believe correct based on thier beliefs, maintaining freedom and observing the intent of the constitution.

 

[White Shogun]

Just a note on the abortion debate. We keep talking about 'pushing Christian morality' on everyone else.

We generally hold that non-sanctioned killing by anyone other than the state is morally wrong. It is called 'murder.' People are incarcerated and subject to the death penalty in many states for violating this moral statute.

Isn't this enforcement of the statute against murder technically an imposition of morals?

 

[Menelik]

Isn't this enforcement of the statute against murder technically an imposition of morals?

Of course

Mores

 

[White Shogun]

Isn't this enforcement of the statute against murder technically an imposition of morals?

Of course

Mores

Thanks for the link. My question was asked rhetorically to show that we do, in fact, enforce our mores on others all the time. It's practically fundamental to civilization.

 

[highschoolcoach]

Just a note on the abortion debate. We keep talking about 'pushing Christian morality' on everyone else.

We generally hold that non-sanctioned killing by anyone other than the state is morally wrong. It is called 'murder.' People are incarcerated and subject to the death penalty in many states for violating this moral statute.

Isn't this enforcement of the statute against murder technically an imposition of morals?

Excellent point. Yes, laws and rules are an imposition of morals. And, with regards to abortion and being pro-choice, everything is a choice. A person can choose to commit murder, but society will impose a moral, and legal, judgement regarding that act. Everyone just doing what they think is OK is called anarchy and does not work well.