Welcome to the
Marriage Builders® Discussion Forum

This is a community where people come in search of marriage related support, answers, or encouragement. Also, information about the Marriage Builders principles can be found in the books available for sale in the Marriage Builders® Bookstore.
If you would like to join our discussion forum, please read the Announcement Forum for instructions, rules, & guidelines.
The members of this community are peers and not professionals. Professional coaching is available by clicking on the link titled Coaching Center at the top of this page.
We trust that you will find the Marriage Builders® Discussion Forum to be a helpful resource for you. We look forward to your participation.
Once you have reviewed all the FAQ, tech support and announcement information, if you still have problems that are not addressed, please e-mail the administrators at mbrestored@gmail.com
Previous Thread
Next Thread
Print Thread
Page 4 of 4 1 2 3 4
Joined: Jul 2005
Posts: 116
N
Member
OP Offline
Member
N
Joined: Jul 2005
Posts: 116
Rasmussen has Hagen leading by 6 points, although other polls have her closer.

Joined: Nov 2007
Posts: 1,880
K
Member
Offline
Member
K
Joined: Nov 2007
Posts: 1,880
Originally Posted by ForeverHers
Originally Posted by AGoodGuy
Actually, you are the one being silly without apparently realizing it. Let's examine the slogan you are using, one that has been used ad nauseum by Palin and Co.

"Associations are relevant". OK, let's examine that. What is an "association"? Does the phrase "association with" have any meaning without providing additional context? No, it does not. There is a huge difference between attending a fundraiser which included a (fill in the blank - atheist, KKK Grand Wizard, tax evader) and being "associated" with them, as in being closely connected to them, following their ideology, etc.

All this "associations are relevant" nonsense is just that, nonsense, because it provides no context. Did the ad say that she went to a fundraiser where one of the 40 people was an atheist? No. It said she was "associating" with Godless people.

AGG

You know what the basic problem seems to be, AGG?

The liberals LOVE to hurl these sorts of innuendos and accusations at the "right," and they scream bloody murder when they "get some of their own medicine."

Associations ARE important to voters simply because the voters will evaluate for themselves whether or not they think the "association" is just a "political" thing or if it seems to have such repeated consistency as to REVEAL the true "feelings" and "leanings" of a candidate.

Obama is not much different from many liberals, except for being "hard core far left" of even most liberals and the furthest left of all the current Senators. THAT IS an "association" that is both proven and claimed BY Obama himself.

But to the point of the apparent "outrage" over the Hagen ad, and I LIVE in North Carolina, it is no different from Barack Obama being "associated" with Planned Parenthood and THEIR desire for unrestricted abortion. That group of supporters for Hagen wants anything remotely "connected" to God OUT of everything, especially anything that concerns THEIR view of what is "public," whether it is school, government, or anything.

Hagen goes to them, accepts their money, KNOWING full well that what they STAND FOR is decidely anti-Christian and anti-God, period. For "political expediency" she is willing to take their money and their support. Why? Why would they even support her? What might they think is "in it" for them?

Hagen is an Episcopalean by choice. This is neither the time nor the place to "debate" some of those "Christian" beliefs, but it IS relevant to ask WHY a "NO GOD" group would want to through their support to someone who claims to hold "Christian" beliefs that are completely opposite of their avowed stance.

Furthermore, just how often has the liberal "pot" tried to "tar and feather" anyone who "DARED" to go to some places, such as Bob Jones University (which surprisingly DOES also support "Christian" ideals and beliefs)?

Beyond that, Hagen HAS a record, unlike most of Barack Obama's "smoke and mirrors" of virtually undefined "change." HER record is more big governement, more taxation, increased (literally doubled) the State spending and increasing the State debt. The "change" she wants is MORE big government, more taxation, more spending, more of "you don't know enough yourself to decide what to do with your money so give it to us and WE will decide what to do with it, even if you "fundamentally" disagree with "our choices," such as funding Planned Parenthood and their INDUSTRY of making money from killing babies and their support for induced labor and letting the "born" baby DIE (otherwise known as Infanticide).

North Carolina, along with several other "tobacco producing States," has been the "recipient" of this warped liberal thinking for years, and it has hurt MILLIONS of North Carolinians.

How you might ask?

Tobacco is the really BAD boogey man. Therefore we are going to make the "evil" tobacco companies PAY exhorbitant taxes to BOTH the government and to the "blessed lawyers." Nevermind that it will COST thousands of people their jobs.

And by the way, did I forget to mention that they want to keep using Tobacco as a source of funding for their major pet projects? Tobacco tax is VITAL to MANY of the liberal programs, both State and Federal.

IF tobacco IS such a huge "evil," (and doesn't the decision to smoke or not to smoke reside with the Individual's "right to choose" for themselves?), WHY doesn't the government simply declare it ILLEGAL and remove ALL tobacco, shut down the "evil" companies and do away with all the farming, processing, producing, and selling. If it is THAT harmful and bad, WHY support it JUST to get the TAX money?

Oh ya, let's not forget the "mantra" of the anti-smoking liberal crowd....the "second-hand smoke" risks to others is WHY we are banning smoking from all government buildings, are getting laws passed to ban smoking from "public access" buildings like business and bars. And we are trying our darnedest to get smoking banned from YOUR cars and homes too. All because of some unproven "fear" of second-hand smoke health problems for other people.

But, "second-hand" problems for babies as a result of choices to engage in sex? Naaaa....THAT's not a "second-hand choice" that "potentially causes harm to another human being." Forget the "harm," it KILLS the innocent person who is the "victim" of your choices, albeit "secondarily."

Hagan is what Hagan is. She is a "died in the wool" liberal who will say, and had proven she will DO, anything to get elected so she can impose MORE governmental control over the people. She is dedicated to the proposition that "all people are NOT created equal, endowed by their Creator with unalienable RIGHTS, among which are life, liberty, and the PURSUIT of happiness." There is NO "guarantee" FOR happiness, just the right to pursue its attainment in a free society. But LIFE is a guarantee that the liberals are dedicated to taking away, and keeping away, from all the "non-voting block" of babies.

"Outraged" over the ad? Give me a break!

And since you seem to also believe in flying pigs, perhaps it would be a good time to remind folks that you can dress up a pig, put lipstick on it, and it's STILL a Pig. Very appropriate when you think of all the PORK spending the liberals always support (like the attempted giving of MILLIONS of dollars to ACORN).

You shouldn't assume that a longer post equals a better post.

You are partisan to point of foolishness.

Why do you even bother to follow politics at all? Just wait for election time, and vote for the Republican. There was never anything Obama could've done to win your vote, regardless of where he stood on issues.

His designation as a Democrat excluded him from the possibility of getting your vote.

You hate liberals. We got it.


Divorced
Joined: Oct 2005
Posts: 7,464
B
Member
Offline
Member
B
Joined: Oct 2005
Posts: 7,464
I think I could have picked how ALL the 10 regular protagonists on these political threads will vote 6 months ago when all this sillyness started.

No one has changed their mind - that's for sure.


Me: 56 (FBS) Wife: 55 (FWW)
D-Day August 2005
Married 11/1982 3 Sons 27,25,23
Empty Nesters.
Fully Recovered.
Joined: Nov 2000
Posts: 4,345
A
Member
Offline
Member
A
Joined: Nov 2000
Posts: 4,345
Originally Posted by bigkahuna
I think I could have picked how ALL the 10 regular protagonists on these political threads will vote 6 months ago when all this sillyness started.

Yup, you are mostly correct. I'll repeat though that I was leaning for McCain until he picked Palin two months ago. That to me more than offset my concerns regarding Obama and the Wright scandal. But since Wright was not running for VP and Palin was, that was the final straw.

AGG


Joined: Jul 2005
Posts: 116
N
Member
OP Offline
Member
N
Joined: Jul 2005
Posts: 116
Originally Posted by bigkahuna
I think I could have picked how ALL the 10 regular protagonists on these political threads will vote 6 months ago when all this sillyness started.

No one has changed their mind - that's for sure.

So who did I vote for for juvenile court judge?

Joined: Oct 2005
Posts: 7,464
B
Member
Offline
Member
B
Joined: Oct 2005
Posts: 7,464
rotflmao


Me: 56 (FBS) Wife: 55 (FWW)
D-Day August 2005
Married 11/1982 3 Sons 27,25,23
Empty Nesters.
Fully Recovered.
Joined: May 2002
Posts: 9,015
F
Member
Offline
Member
F
Joined: May 2002
Posts: 9,015
Originally Posted by Krazy71
You are partisan to point of foolishness.

Now THAT is hysterically funny coming from you! rotflmao rotflmao rotflmao



Originally Posted by Krazy71
Why do you even bother to follow politics at all? Just wait for election time, and vote for the Republican.

I don't know, Krazy, why do YOU even bother with politics?



Originally Posted by Krazy71
There was never anything Obama could've done to win your vote, regardless of where he stood on issues.

Lordy, Lordy, you finally understand something. I disagree with Obama's stance on most issues, period. But above all, I totally am opposed to his callous disregard for the lives of babies and his unwavering SUPPORT for partial birth killing, after birth killing, killing of babies at any time up to and after birth.

He is an infanticide monster.

And as I was discussing with my Pastor this afternoon, I would not vote for McCain either if he supported abortion. As a Christian I cannot and would not vote for ANY candidate that supports abortion on demand and the killing of babies who "happened" to survive an abortion attempt. By the way, Krazy, have you WATCHED the video of a Planned Parenthood person ADMITTING they induce labor and then let the baby die? That IS infanticide, and Obama supports it and he supports Planned Parenthood, which by the way gets a TON of money from taxpayers, and *I* have no choice in their taking my money and giving it to such dispicable use.

So NO, I wouldn't vote for Obama even if he magically became a conservative on every other issue. KILLING a baby and TAKIING a life DISQUALIFIES someone from being anyone I'd want in charge anything, including the street sweeper cleaning up Chucky's Upchuck!



Quote
His designation as a Democrat excluded him from the possibility of getting your vote.

No, his "designation" as a baby killer supporter and being a far far left socialist excludes him from "getting my vote." NOT because he is a Democrat. There have been a few Democrats that I happened to like, but the Democrat Party didn't like them much.


Quote
You hate liberals. We got it.

Good. Just like you hate conservatives and those bad bad folks who "cling to there guns and religion."

And your point is what, that YOU are so much "better" or "enlightened?"

Right.

Joined: Dec 2005
Posts: 3,703
N
Member
Offline
Member
N
Joined: Dec 2005
Posts: 3,703
Originally Posted by MelodyLane
Originally Posted by AGoodGuy
Originally Posted by MelodyLane
Even so, Hagan was not accused of being an athiest, she was accused of being affiliated with them. And we are known by the company we keep.

Nope. "Godless Americans and Kay Hagan. She hid from cameras. Took godless money," the narrator says. "What did Kay Hagan promise in return?". The ad then plays a clip of a female voice saying, "There is no God." The clear suggestion is that it is Hagan's view. Now you can play dumb all you want, and say "oh, but it didn't say Hagan thinks there is no God", but a picture is worth a thousand words, and that is what Dole is counting on.

Sorry, but that is not a "clear implication." It never said that Hagan was an athiest. Rather it spoke of her affiliations. When I watched it, I didn't wonder if she is an athiest, but wondered about her connections. So no, it is not clear and I did not take it that way.
*******************************************

Well, when I watched the commercial, I felt it was a "clear implication." I won't be surprised if Dole loses this election. I don't live in North Carolina or know anything about Kay Hagen, but I have met Elizabeth(and Bob)Dole and that commercial was beneath her and a sad dissapointment to me.
Elizabeth Dole has countered with a new commercial that points out that Hagen's faith is not in question,just her associations/donations. It is a much better commercial....more direct, honest, more effective....I wish she had used it in the first place.
I think the smear and fear days are ending.....most voters want more civility and less insinuations. I think that is why "pallin around with terrorists" hasn't swayed too many voters away from Obama.....people were able to look up Bill Ayers and(as McCain said) realize he was "just a washed up old domestic terrorist" and they were offended by the radical muslim connection that the campaign kept trying to link Obama.

Joined: Jul 2005
Posts: 116
N
Member
OP Offline
Member
N
Joined: Jul 2005
Posts: 116
Both Fox and CBS have called North Carolina for Kay Hagan.

Joined: Dec 2005
Posts: 3,703
N
Member
Offline
Member
N
Joined: Dec 2005
Posts: 3,703
Originally Posted by NMDreams
Both Fox and CBS have called North Carolina for Kay Hagan.
**********************************

I was afraid of that. I think the tone of that commercial is really drove people toward Hagen.

Page 4 of 4 1 2 3 4

Link Copied to Clipboard
Forum Search
Who's Online Now
1 members (Overcomer4513), 140 guests, and 49 robots.
Key: Admin, Global Mod, Mod
Newest Members
Overcomer4513, caraduke, Convict20, GTNY, Avianna
71,737 Registered Users
Forum Statistics
Forums67
Topics133,550
Posts2,322,804
Members71,737
Most Online3,185
Jan 27th, 2020
Building Marriages That Last A Lifetime
Copyright © 1995-2020, Marriage Builders®. All Rights Reserved.  |  Web Development by SunStar Media.
Site Navigation
Powered by UBB.threads™ PHP Forum Software 7.7.5