And that’s the point many of us are making. We wish Obama would stand up to the opposition rather than give in to it.
Maybe we’re following the conservative definition of the term: anyone who isn’t a conservative is a liberal.
If he/she is liberal, then they aren’t very electable and aren’t likely to be a Democrat, either.
As for an individual I have no idea. I gave up ever electing anyone who supported anything I believe in or anyone I consider a decent human being long, long ago. I just vote against the Republicans at this point, never for anyone. So Obama, simply because he’s the most likely to keep the Republican out of office.
I like both Obama and Mrs. Clinton, and they may have been the two most qualified among Democrat contenders, but I’m afraid the vile hypocrites would have just taken advantage of the gender card instead of the race card.
I am in agreement with your “turning over some rocks.” But it is so sad that it has provided a wedge for evil people to bring this once-great country’s politics to a slapstick farce, that will soon be recognized as a tragedy of epic proportion.
It was, and still is for that matter, disturbing and saddening how often we’d be treated to the words “bitch” and “shrill” in this very forum.
But I don’t think there’d be as much of the bigotry you describe - women are actually a majority in the US, many of them Republicans, and besides every voter actually personally knows some, so employing sexism is likely to backfire badly while employing bigotry at a minority candidate may pay off; and there are no ancestral fears of women that can be easily stirred up either.
Obama. I’m a little disappointed in some decisions, but then, my expectations were sky-high. My real beef is with D leadership in general. We are just too damned pansy and soft. We don’t even bring a knife to a gun fight. We bring puppies.
I’m sure not a liberal, but reading this, I just have to clear up this misconception.
Jesus did NOT support redistribution, at least not FORCED redistribution, as with the government doing it. Christian ethics calls for VOLUNTARY giving to help those less fortunate.
Luke 12:13-14:
13 And one of the company said unto him, Master, speak to my brother, that he divide the inheritance with me.
14 And he said unto him, Man, who made me a judge or a divider over you?
In this passage we see that Jesus had a golden opportunity to preach redistribution had He wanted to do so. The fact is that He did NOT want to preach that because it is contrary to Biblical principles, and those call for individuals to give.
When government takes money by force (tax/robbery) and gives it to someone else who has done nothing to merit it, that someone else then becomes recipient of stolen goods, made accessory to a (moral) crime.
Just so you have one Christian’s perspective on the subject.
Yes. That’s why Ananias and Sapphira lived long, happy lives.
And where in the bible does it say this?
That was in that specific case largely because the couple lied to God.
Sorry to continue this hijack, but I have to call out some Christian hypocracy.
As a Christian myself, and a Democrat, I want to call out this hypocracy. The Bible *does *promote redistribution, notably in Acts 4:
This is a clear description of how the Spirit wants people to live. The Christian Right has no problem attempting to impart Biblical values in other realms of society through government laws and policy: Gay marriage, abortion, creationism taught in schools, abstinence education instead of sex education, sodomy laws, just to name a few.
So why is it, on the one issue that acutally, ya know, could help the “least among us,” they get all “Oh redistribution has to be VOLUNTARY! The government can’t *force *people to do it!”
But forcing those other Christian morals upon people is okay?
/end hijack
I don’t support for instance banning homosexuality but I’m opposed for instance to the idea that taxpayers should pay for gay marriages. As for abortion its murder so it has a particular urgency that most other social issues do not.
Why?
Because it means people who find homosexual marriage immoral have to pay for it.
And people who oppose straight marriage have to pay for it. And people who oppose interracial marriages have to pay for them.
Really? If there are people who find *something *immoral, then no taxes should go toward it?
What should taxes pay for? Rainbows? Butterscotch? Jump ropes?
And what about the people who think it’s immoral for a nation that allows the wealthy to keep so much of their money through tax cuts and loopholes at the expense of the poor?
You don’t see the hypocracy?
And if I were going to pick a Christian value to force upon the American public, I’d pick one that Christ actually preached on. I don’t remember him ever telling any parables or preaching any sermons on homosexuality. But making sure we take care of the poor, sick and the “least among us?” Yep.
The perfect candidate is probably someone I barely know anything about. However traits I’d really like to see in a liberal president are
The ability to communicate his message to the public
An ability to work behind the scenes to get congress to pass his legislation (like LBJ did) using whatever methods were needed
An ability to profess progressive values in a way the public can relate to them
A willingness to use the power of the executive branch (like Bush did) to get his way
Who has all that and electibility? I don’t know. Bernie Sanders seems principled. But I don’t know if he is electable, or how effective he’d be as president. So no idea.
FDR and LBJ both seem like presidents with courage of their convictions who knew how to get things done. None of that applies to Obama from what I’ve seen.
The last congress was productive. The health reform law was a good start. The stimulus probably kept the U3 below 13%.
Jesus was also in favor of paying taxes, for the government to do whatever with. Pay unto Caesar that which is Caesar’s, after all.