Jump to content
  • Welcome to Online Baptist

    Free to join.

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Kitagrl

Hillary and the nomination

Recommended Posts

Guest Guest
I probably have been too serious (although I don't like the name calling as I've stated) so I will be the new ZYG with 80% less politics.



LOL. I don't like politics, either. I think it is b/c my party deserted me, too. :sad I know what you mean, ZYG, but...I laugh in the face of danger...what can I say? :bonK:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Guest

I know exactly what you are saying...kita. I wish that LuAnne was on here today, b/c she keeps me in line with politics. The USA ship is sinking, quickly. :sad

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I really don't understand where you are getting at with religion/politics actually...maybe our church just isn't one of the ones you are referring to.

I see them as fairly seperate actually, which is why I might be voting for McCain (depending on VP pick, haven't yet decided) in order to avoid Obama...because I'm not voting for a religious institution or a church, I'm trying to use my vote to keep as much freedom in this country as possible. Given the choices, there isn't a whole lot of hope, but Obama will have our freedoms gone within four years and at least the alternative should be more gradual.


So how many people in your church will be voting for Obama, or a third party?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites


So how many people in your church will be voting for Obama, or a third party?



I have absolutely no clue. I don't see your point...? My husband does not use the pulpit as a political outlet, if that is what you are getting at. Anyway...for those who are tax free, its illegal.

What ARE you getting at???

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites



I have absolutely no clue. I don't see your point...? My husband does not use the pulpit as a political outlet, if that is what you are getting at. Anyway...for those who are tax free, its illegal.

What ARE you getting at???
You said that you don't see any connection with religion and politics in America. I am glad your husband doesn't use the pulpit to push a candidate. I've been pretty clear and consistent as to what I am "getting at". In fact I've said it bluntly as possible. The ungodly marriage of churches and the republican party is wrong.

The idea that they are going to save us is wrong.

The idea that we can only have our freedom preserved by the republicans is wrong.

We need to vote righteously. If that means that someone believes that voting for McCain is righteous so be it, but that's not what I hear. I hear he's the lesser of two evils, there is no other option, etc. and yet that's not true almost every state has the opportunity to write in votes and most every state will have third party candidates... some of which line up far closer to biblical teaching than John McCain does.

Further more, I am on a pastor's sermon sharing list. If you would post something supporting Obama, or another candidate, you would more than likely get thrown off it, and yet there is all kinds of innuendo of Barack Obama being the AntiChrist, to him taking off the American flag on his plane, to him being a muslim and not a U.S. citizen that gets passed along that list. Even though the list rules clearly state that it's for sermons only. I KNOW it's happening in a vast majority of churches.

Even furthermore, I've been involved in IFB churches my whole life and with fellowship with many other pastors and many of them think that the GOP, Rush Limbaugh and Sean Hannity are the second trinity. Sure they don't agree with everything, but you never hear them preach against the party. In even the "liberal" New Evangelical churches there is a huge link between the Republicans and the church. Think about focus on the family, AMA and their political alignments. It would be different if it was simply scriptural teaching on issues, but it goes into endorsements (real or implied).

And we propagate the lie that the only way we will be saved is if our party gets into the Presidents seat. But the truth is "our party" has had control of the seat for 20 out of the last 28 years and yet we haven't been saved yet.

Salvation is of the Lord, let's vote righteous and believe that he will deliver us.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I remember when Reagan was running - so many Christians really did look to him to save our country. I heard more than once (not from any preacher) that if he didn't get in, our country would be doomed. Well, he got in and some things went well, others didn't.

No party is the salvation of the country...but there are some in office or running who could do major damage! And have done so.

Just for the record, I know of more than one person in our church who will be voting third party or not at all - for more than just president! We voted third party for governor last time. This time I don't know of a third party candidate, so we may just not vote for governor...because either Dem or Rep will do almost the same thing to the state.

RE: Obama's citizenship. A person can verbally renounce their citizenship, but it takes a legal process to remove one from the rolls. If his mom listed him as a citizen of Indonesia, that doesn't make him so. If he truly was born in Hawaii, he is a citizen - regardless of what his mother did or said (which is why so many Mexican mothers want their babies born here....). But, this country allows dual citizenship. Nowadays, once you reach the age of 18, you must declare which country, but when Obama reached 18, as far as I know (I say as far as I know, because he is a little younger than me, and when I was a teen, it was still legal), it was still legal to be a dual citizen. He holds citizenship in Kenya, also, (because of his father) which is another country that allows dual citizenship. I truly believe that if he weren't a bona fide citizen, the Clinton campaign would have found it and used it...unless they found out just recently and will use it to destroy his campaign and allow McCain to get in.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Looks like McCain may be picking a female VP...smart....it will take some of Hillary's previous votes, I'm sure that's the idea.

If the VP is pro life I will vote for McCain. If not, I won't be able to.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Guest
Looks like McCain may be picking a female VP...smart....it will take some of Hillary's previous votes, I'm sure that's the idea.

If the VP is pro life I will vote for McCain. If not, I won't be able to.



I believe that he has 2 or 3 women on his list. Maybe...2? I know that they are conservatives, though. I think they are all pro-life...if I am not mistaken. I can't remember the sight where I saw his list of VP's. :ooops


Yeah, that is smart. :thumb

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yep I think he did a great job and I plan to vote for him. I know he isn't perfect but our country would be better off with him than with Obama.

She seems to be quite conservative in many ways, and I like that she is not only pro life but has a Down's child to prove it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Yep I think he did a great job and I plan to vote for him. I know he isn't perfect but our country would be better off with him than with Obama.

She seems to be quite conservative in many ways, and I like that she is not only pro life but has a Down's child to prove it.


I think she's more conservative than McCain is!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites


I think she's more conservative than McCain is!


Yep which is good, it will help McCain rope in some of the more conservative voters, and maybe some of the women voters. I'm really happy about this pick, and I am for sure voting for McCain in November now. I'm not voting in a pastor...I'm voting in a political leader, and I will do what I can to see that Obama stays far away from the reins of this nation.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Guest
Yep I think he did a great job and I plan to vote for him. I know he isn't perfect but our country would be better off with him than with Obama.

She seems to be quite conservative in many ways, and I like that she is not only pro life but has a Down's child to prove it.



This is the best, news...kita. :smile You are right, about the "Down's child" too. :clap: BTW, she is the same age as me.


Not only is my party back...but, I think I will get on the campaign. LOL. This just changed everything in my eyes. hehe.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Guest


I think she's more conservative than McCain is!



I know, LuAnne. That was the first thing that came to my mind. :smile

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
She is definitely more conservative than McCain (and that says a lot).

Let me ask, does the fact that she approved same-sex benefits for Alaskans affect your vote at all?



I read she is anti-gay marriage so I am not sure about that.

I'm happy about this pick, but I'm still voting "anti Obama" and the only way to do this, is to vote McCain. Luckily he picked a VP that makes doing that a bit easier.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
She is definitely more conservative than McCain (and that says a lot).

Let me ask, does the fact that she approved same-sex benefits for Alaskans affect your vote at all?


Does it matter to you that she didn't approve them; but vetoed a ban on them? Does it matter to you why?

Same-sex benefits ban gets Palin veto

FIRST ONE: Attorney general told her the bill was unconstitutional.

By KYLE HOPKINS
Anchorage Daily News

Published: December 29, 2006
Last Modified: December 29, 2006 at 02:47 AM

Gov. Sarah Palin vetoed a bill Thursday that sought to block the state from giving public employee benefits such as health insurance to same-sex couples.

In the first veto of an administration that isn't yet a month old, Palin said she rejected the bill despite her disagreement with a state Supreme Court order earlier this month that directed the state to offer benefits to same-sex partners of state employees.

Advice from her new attorney general said the bill passed by the Legislature was unconstitutional, she said.

"Signing this bill would be in direct violation of my oath of office," Palin said in a prepared statement released by her administration Thursday night.

For supporters, the Supreme Court ruling was considered a victory for gay rights and civil liberties. To opponents, it equated same-sex partners with married couples, despite the state's ban on gay marriage.

The Republican-controlled Legislature passed the bill barring regulations implementing same-sex benefits during a November special session. The measure would have prevented the commissioner of administration from taking action on the new benefits plan.

Rep. John Coghill, R-North Pole, sponsored the bill. In a phone interview Thursday night, he said that Palin, also a Republican, faced a constitutional dilemma but he's still disappointed by her veto.

"I would have like to have seen her stand up to the courts," Coghill said.

The Supreme Court ruled Dec. 19 that the state has to offer the benefits starting Jan. 1.

"It is the Governor's intention to work with the legislature and to give the people of Alaska an opportunity to express their wishes and intentions whether these benefits should continue," the statement from Palin's administration said.

Coghill said he's interested in a new plan that would allow state employees to designate one person -- maybe a same-sex partner, but also possibly a family member or roommate -- who would be eligible for state-paid benefits. But the employee would have to pay to add that person to his or her benefits.

On Dec. 20, Palin signed a bill that calls for an advisory vote on whether there should be a constitutional amendment denying benefits to same-sex couples. The vote, set for a special election on April 3, will be nonbinding but is intended to help guide legislators, Palin has said.

Palin's veto wasn't a sure thing, said Allison Mendel, a private lawyer who handled an Alaska Civil Liberties Union lawsuit that led to the Supreme Court ruling:

"There was a lot of doubt. And she put off doing it for a while, obviously studying the issue."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites


Does it matter to you that she didn't approve them; but vetoed a ban on them? Does it matter to you why?




Sure it matters to me. Remember I had over a week to review her history. I know it's easy to dismiss people who disagree with you, but I don't make statements lightly and without research.

She opposes same-sex marriage, but she has stated that she has gay friends and is receptive to gay and lesbian concerns about discrimination.[12] While the previous administration did not implement same-sex benefits, Palin complied with an Alaskan state Supreme Court order and signed them into law.[34] She disagreed with the Supreme Court ruling[35] and supported a democratic advisory vote from the public on whether there should be a constitutional amendment on the matter.[36] Alaska was one of the first U.S. states to pass a constitutional ban on gay marriage, in 1998, along with Hawaii.[37] Palin has stated that she supported the 1998 constitutional amendment.[12]

Palin's first veto was used to block legislation that would have barred the state from granting benefits to the partners of gay state employees. In effect, her veto granted State of Alaska benefits to same-sex couples. The veto occurred after Palin consulted with Alaska's attorney general on the constitutionality of the legislation.[35]


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sarah_Palin

Here is an article from Gay.com (bastion of conservative values)
Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin vetoed a bill Thursday that sought to block the state from giving health benefits to the same-sex partners of public employees, the Anchorage Daily News reported.

In the first veto of her new administration, Palin said she rejected the bill as unconstitutional despite her disagreement with a state Supreme Court order that directed the state to offer the benefits.

"Signing this bill would be in direct violation of my oath of office," Palin said in a written statement Thursday night.

The anti-gay bill was passed by the Republican-controlled legislature during a special November session.

The state Supreme Court last year ordered Alaska to extend the benefits, finding that denying them violated the state's guarantee of equal protection for all Alaskans. Justices set a deadline of Jan. 1, 2007, for having the benefits in place.

In September, a Superior Court judge assigned to oversee details of implementation found that the regulations proposed by the state were too restrictive; they required, for example, that same-sex couples attest to being in a committed relationship for at least 12 months and document each year they are still together.

The fight began in 1999, when the American Civil Liberties Union and nine couples sued challenging the lack of benefits for same-sex couples employed by the state and the city of Anchorage.


Finally, she should have signed the law and let it go to the Supreme Court for them to strike down. The law WAS the will of the people of Alaska and based on the word of her adviser she didn't let the law work like it should. Especially if she is against same-sex marriage.

In other words, she didn't allow the law to see if the new law that was written was sufficient and constitutional.


On an aside, your post seems angry. If I have accosted you in some way I apologize.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Looks like she made the decision not because she agreed with it but because she was told it would be unconstitutional to veto it.

With that reasoning we should not try to pass legislation on abortion because it's been declared that abortion is constitutional.

Kansas shouldn't have passed this legislation. http://www.kslegislature.org/bills/2008/389.pdf

So do you agree with Sebilus vetoing it? http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/103108.php

The Kansas Senate on Thursday voted 25-13 to pass a bill (House Substitute for SB 389) that includes a number of antiabortion-related provisions, the Wichita Eagle reports. The bill was sent to Gov. Kathleen Sebelius (D), who is expected to veto the measure. According to the Eagle, the bill passed two votes short of the two-thirds majority that would be required to override a veto.

The bill, which adds additional abortion reporting requirements, would expand information physicians must provide to the state when they perform abortions, require that more information be made public, and that abortion clinic employees report suspected abuse of underage girls. During debate, the major point of contention was a provision that would allow siblings, parents, grandparents or the husband of a pregnant woman to go to court to stop her from having a post-21 week abortion if they can argue the procedure might violate state law (Lefler, Wichita Eagle, 4/4). The measure allows a woman who had an abortion after the 21st week of pregnancy and some members of her family to sue for monetary damages if a physician violates the law (Manning, Associated Press, 4/3). The measure also would allow a district or county attorney, as well as the attorney general, to prosecute violations (Wichita Eagle, 4/4).


This perfectly illustrates why we need to look deeper.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

youthguy, I'm not even remotely angry at you or anyone else, most of the time I have a laugh in my heart and a smile on my face when I interact with postings. Sometimes I agree with what you post, other times I don't. In reading your posts though, you seem very angry concerning politics and politicians. Your post was a very quick "quip" and I just wanted to make certain all the facts were out there, as I know you do (I've seen you say so in your posts and I do believe you do).

Peace! TRC

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks for the post TRC. I am angry a bit about politics/religion marriage in this country (as I've stated before).

I think we need to stress, repeatedly, that we are strangers in a strange land and yet we seem to lean on the ultimate pleasers of men, politicians so heavily.

We WANT to believe in someone and invest in "hope". I can see why so many people are going to vote for Obama, he gives a great oratory and postulates and projects hope. But hope is only found in Jesus Christ. (I know that YOU know this, but I am speaking in general now).

I've admitted I like Palin as a political figure, but she IS a political figure. I am sure you are aware of the investigation into ethics of her firing in Alaska. I of course will reserve judgment until the findings are in... but men are wicked and evil (women too).

I get a kick every time I hear someone saying "I'm not voting a pastor in". It's a non-sequitur argument. We aren't talking about denominations or doctrines. We are talking about offering our support to men (or women) to be lifted to the highest post in America who sets the tone and moral direction for our country in many ways. I would love to vote for King Jesus, but I know that no one will measure up to that, but I do have to take into account the history of the people running and compare that to their words now.

I've not seen any of them when addressing a situation say... You know, I was wrong on that... all I see is political spin. Politicians playing the political game. If Sarah Palin came out and said... You know I should not have vetoed that bill. I could respect that. But we can NEVER let the constitution take place of the God and the bible and our convictions. If something over rules our conviction, then what we have is a preference and not a conviction.

It's a dangerous precedent to set, that our interpretation (or our adviser's interpretations) over rule our convictions... And yes this is why it's HARD for a Christan to serve in the government, because we hold God and his word higher than the constitution... What if Daniel had said, "Well it's the law and I agreed to serve the King." ??? What if the Hebrew Children had chosen law over conviction?

God is best served, not by the constitution, but by the conviction of his servants. And it's unfortunate (because most Christians can't even see it) but we allow our churches and pastors and members to be used for political expediency and then we look the other way and wash our hands instead of holding them to task.

So to be clear, I am not angry at anyone individual (especially here on OB) but I am angry. If you (general not YOU trc) decide to vote for McCain/Palin and you feel peace at God with what you are supporting... I can't say anything. But if you vote to "keep out Obama" and vote FOR the things that McCain/Palin have done and what they hope to do... I can say that this is nothing more than compromise.

So, as I said. Vote Righteously. Just remember, God doesn't work through the majority, in fact he goes out of his way to make it clear that it's really HIM working and not the populace.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hey, I hear you and I totally understand that God sets up kings and those in national authority. I do my part to be a good citizen and I do exercise my right to cast a ballot for the better candidate in light of God's Word........I didn't volunteer and serve for 10 1/2 years in our nations military to insure our freedom to cast a ballot to not do so.

With that said, I will say that we in America have caused a self-fulfilling prophecy. We have put forth that "all politicians" are corrupt or ungodly; then removed ourselves from those offices and left things up to the corrupt and ungodly. Not everyone is called to be a preacher, pastor or evangelism; there are those who are gifted and stand on the Word of God that could and should run for office to be a servant to do the right things for their neighbor and to be a testimony for God.

While God holds the king's heart in his hands; I've noticed many times throughout the Scriptures that God has also used people of God in those "king's" nations in very prominent ways. Some were men and others women. I believe that God does allow us to be involved in running our government and there is nothing wrong with that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

  • Who's Online   0 Members, 0 Anonymous, 443 Guests (See full list)

    There are no registered users currently online

Article Categories

About Us

Since 2001, Online Baptist has been an Independent Baptist website, and we exclusively use the King James Version of the Bible. We pride ourselves on a community that uplifts the Lord.

Contact Us

You can contact us using the following link. Contact Us or for questions regarding this website please contact @pastormatt or email James Foley at jfoley@sisqtel.net

Android App

Online Baptist has a custom App for all android users. You can download it from the Google Play store or click the following icon.

×
×
  • Create New...