More Conservatives Endorse Obama

I don't base my "christian pride" (whatever that is) upon who supports a particular candidate.

By the way, 10 out of 10 unborn babies surveyed did not support Obama. Wonder why?

 

NO such thing as a "conservative" that supports Obama. That is an oxymoron

 

I have also heard that 85% of all statistics are made up on the spot.

 

All generalizations are lies, including this one.

 

You can't support Obama and be a true conservative! You can only support Obama if you believe socialism is the way to go and you're just blinded by all the flash and think you're going to get something for nothing.

I'm not exactly sure what you mean by being "proud to be a Christian". I think we should be humble - not proud - in having been given salvation we didn't deserve. But if you mean something along the lines of not being ashamed of our faith then I agree.

 

And given their choice I expect the 3000+ American military personnel kill in Iraq would not support McCain. But we will never know.

 

Perhaps that is the worst comparison ever made.

Every military person that died in Iraq VOLUNTEERED to be in the military, and yes, I believe the overwhelming majority would support Bush and McCain, if they could be heard. As a matter of fact, they already have.

No baby ever volunteered to be killed in the womb.

The U.S. military personel overwhelmingly supports the war on terror and our efforts in Iraq.

When their little arms and legs are being ripped from their bodies...babies in the womb overwhelmingly wish the pain would stop, even if they can't express it.

While liberals scream for "choice", they never give women all the information to make that choice...about how many women die or suffer permanent injuries from abortions...about how many women suffer depression and other mental issues because they had an abortion...about how women who have had abortions having higher rates of breast cancer than women who don't.

Will liberals ever get it?

peace to youraying:

 

You miss the point. Both were the result of terrible errors. There is nothing redeeming about either. Once you are in the military you have to obey your orders regardless of whether they are wise or completely stupid. In this case it was stupid, arrogance that sent them to their needless deaths.

 

Most of these so called conservatives are jumping on the Obama bandwagon at the last minute because the rats smell an Obama victory and are trying to protect their career. The media are silent on all the democrats who are going to vote for Mccain, of course. Like this one:

A speechwriter for Obama, Edwards, and Clinton on why she’s voting McCain.


I suggest that you read this before you vote!

http://www.thedailybeast.com/blogs-and-stories/2008-10-28/so-long-obama/

 

I disagree. You do not have to obey orders. You can choose to disobey the orders and suffer the consequences, but that is still your choice.

 

In a war zone refusing to obey an order in consider treason and death is the sentence. In a non-war zone the refusal of an order is a criminal offense. You are right, you have to be brave or foolish enough to suffer the consequences. However, the law is that you obey the order.

Actually I made the comparison because the statement on abortion was outside the intent of the thread. I doubt it was an overt attept to derail the thread, but it really was not a logical comment in light of the subject of the thread.

Cheers.

 

You miss the point. Both are the result of terrible people. The abortion doctors who kill the unborn, and the radical muslems that kill with roadside bombs and suicide bombers.

The military deaths were not in vain, unless the demoncrats pull our troops out in surrender, which they have attempted to do on numerous occasions.

As far as getting into Iraq being the cause of stupidity or arrogance, it was stupidity and arrogance on the part of Sadaam Hussein.

You have forgotten the suicide planes killing more than 3000 people on 9/11. You have forgotten that Sadaam Hussein bragged about having weapons of mass destruction as we prepared to go to war. You have forgotten that Sadaam Hussein used chemical and biological weapons in the past, and murdered 100,000's of his people after Gulf War I.

George Bush could not take the chance that Sadaam had the weapons he claimed that he had, and was threatening to use, given the consequences to the U.S. if he were not lying.

peace to youraying:

 

No, I have forgotten none of that. Their deaths are all in vain. Any reading of Mid-East history teaches this ... regardless of how long we stay when we pull out be it in a week or in 50 years the three groups who have been killing each other for 1300 years will go back to killing each other until one group emerges with a dictator who will continue killing the others.

 

Yet another illegitimate comparison. Go figure.

 

Why do you do that so often?

 

Generally the military would prefer to see a ("former") soldier in the Presidency regardless of Party. Most of our recent Presidents who have themselves seen battle, know its horrors in a way that no or few civilians have ever faced. They know the heartbreak of fallen friends whom they fought with, the stories of ones who've suffered casualties. They have more confidence that a soldier in the Whitehouse is reluctant to send men into harms way unless options are exhausted. They know such a President knows the cost in terms of lives and broken families first hand..... and will weigh the cost beyond the cold statics of business growth and economy, numbers to fight, and cost of materials and armaments. They know a "former' military man who has fought, will understand the price they pay in service to protect our country, and will advocate on their behalf in a fair and just manner to help them retain their dignity when broken and crippled in body or mind and return from the war. A "former" soldier in the Whitehouse, will try not to declare war without conviction that it is necessary, and will not seek a solution once declared before making an effort to win.

And I am off topic...... Not so much because of the direction of this thread as much as the confusion which still remains in that I saw the video, the characters weren't clear or focused upon when speaking, any one could be saying anything, and the message I was left with was a bunch of emotional and divisive banter, with little to nothing to do with conservatism..... unless a meeting in the country, or at a park, or the middle of a golf course with people wearing clothes is supposed to represent conservatives. Duh! And talk which mocks or questions religious expression .....even with churchy sounding terms does not constitute "Christian" identification. I don't know what the poster was trying to get across..... I saw no list nor identification of endorsement.

 

Actaually that is a good question for you.