Saddleback Forum

[LuciferSam]

It has become obvious to me that not only are there many far left zealots on this site but there are many with atheistic leanings as well. That is fine. It is what I and many others put ourselves in harm's way many times for and I am glad you are able to put forth your opinions and thoughts as is, of course, your right as American citizens. .

So did you not put your life on the line for theists as well? That statement to me does not make the least bit of sense . Please clarify. [EDIT] http://www.atheistfoxholes.org/ http://www.maaf.info/

If you should be wrong about many of your ideas, it not only could come back to take away all so many have fought valiantly to protect, it could also really take away all those rights, liberties and freedoms you already "perceive" you have lost and in reality have not.

The above sounds like it was pulled out of some excretory body part. WTF are you talking about?

 

[LuciferSam]

If you can love the Catholic church, well, you must be a Very loving person. Your church has much more power and money than Bin Laden. They can stroke buggery checks from here to eternity.

As Christopher Hitchens would say the "No Child's Behind Left Program".

 

[hnooe]

It also kills me that left wingers can complain about negative campaigning when their darling is compared to Paris Hilton but see nothing wrong in repeatedly questioning Bush's integrity. Like I said, there is a clear double standard and it does not come from the right.

quote]

I think there is a big difference Idlewind. The Hilton add was a single, stupid negative add--the other represent the totality of issues in 8 years of being the leader of our country.

Seem as if at 19% "favorable" rating for Bush, that it may not just be the left that is questioning his integrity at this point.

 

[30ashopper]

I think there is a big difference Idlewind. The Hilton add was a single, stupid negative add--the other represent the totality of issues in 8 years of being the leader of our country.

I thought those ads were incredibly good, and it shows how good Schmidt is. McCain was faced with this phenomenon in Obama where the press couldn't keep the cameras off his lofty speeches. McCain was going around talking about the same issues but the press was ignoring him. So instead of trying to drag Obama down they pushed him up to 50,000 feet and created a phenomemnon of their own. It worked, Obama's lost his lead in the polls. Talk about a brilliant peice of campaigning.

Seem as if at 19% "favorable" rating for Bush, that it may not just be the left that is questioning his integrity at this point.

Gallup has him at around 34% currently. That's been ticking up over the last 6 months or so.

 

[Geo]

I thought those ads were incredibly good, and it shows how good Schmidt is. McCain was faced with this phenomenon in Obama where the press couldn't keep the cameras off his lofty speeches. McCain was going around talking about the same issues but the press was ignoring him. So instead of trying to drag Obama down they pushed him up to 50,000 feet and created a phenomemnon of their own. It worked, Obama's lost his lead in the polls. Talk about a brilliant peice of campaigning.

Removing any emotion or preference for either candidate I can honestly say I agree that it was brilliant and highly effective and if McCain wins- that ad should be viewed as the turning point in the campaign.

The Bush administration was a total disaster though...

 

[Linda]

I thought those ads were incredibly good, and it shows how good Schmidt is. McCain was faced with this phenomenon in Obama where the press couldn't keep the cameras off his lofty speeches. McCain was going around talking about the same issues but the press was ignoring him. So instead of trying to drag Obama down they pushed him up to 50,000 feet and created a phenomemnon of their own. It worked, Obama's lost his lead in the polls. Talk about a brilliant peice of campaigning.



Gallup has him at around 34% currently. That's been ticking up over the last 6 months or so.

I think that the approval rating of our democratly led Congress is less than Bush's.

 

[hnooe]

I think that the approval rating of our democrat led Congress is less than Bush's.

Where is your grammar!!!: It is, for the record, the Democratically led Congress. We are the Democratic Party. The Carl Rove playbook is now history, although I am sure he is texting McCain.

 

[Linda]

Where is your grammar!!!: It is, for the record, the Democratically led Congress. We are the Democratic Party. The Carl Rove playbook is now history, although I am sure he is texting McCain.

Well pardon my grammar and by the way it is Karl Rove not Carl Rove!!! - and I'm hoping that McCain is listening to him.

 

[30ashopper]

I think that the approval rating of our democrat led Congress is less than Bush's.

This is off topic from this thread but I think there?s a long term trend in our dissatisfaction with the federal government as a whole, and I think it's warranted. When a government body grows to the size ours has, (3 trillion in spending) it becomes very inefficient, wasteful and ineffective regardless whose running it. I'd like to see the federal government shrink, with more responsibility placed on the states. Local governments are far more adept at dealing with the particular needs of state's smaller populations. Populations can move between states so they can choose their particular brand of politics. If you?re looking for social services and big government, move to California or Massachusetts. If you?re looking for smaller government and independence move to Texas or Alabama. If you?re looking for a balance move to Florida or Colorado. I think we?d all be getting along much better if we weren?t constantly fighting for control over each other?s lives and money.

 

[Linda]

This is off topic from this thread but I think there?s a long term trend in our dissatisfaction with the federal government as a whole, and I think it's warranted. When a government body grows to the size ours has, (3 trillion in spending) it becomes very inefficient, wasteful and ineffective regardless whose running it. I'd like to see the federal government shrink, with more responsibility placed on the states. Local governments are far more adept at dealing with the particular needs of state's smaller populations. Populations can move between states so they can choose their particular brand of politics. If you?re looking for social services and big government, move to California or Massachusetts. If you?re looking for smaller government and independence move to Texas or Alabama. If you?re looking for a balance move to Florida or Colorado. I think we?d all be getting along much better if we weren?t constantly fighting for control over each other?s lives and money.

Amen!!!