Your Nov 4th predictions, Ladies and Germs.

sink

Mordeth wrote: »

well it's preferable to the alternative, the heavily populated urban centres will run roughshod over the rural voters. Might be great for the democrats and preferable for the europeans, but it's hardly fair.

Inquitus wrote: »

What's fair is that 'he who gets the most votes wins', thats one of the tenets of democracy. What is not fair is that in the US you can win the popular vote and yet not the Presidential Election.

Ludo wrote: »

erm...so it is ok for the 49% to tell the 51% what to do , how to do it etc etc.
It is a rediculous system which puts someone who less people vote for in charge. That is NOT democracy.

I think your confusing elections with democracy. The sum of democracy is not elections and tyranny of the majority. The first democratic principle is that all members of the society have equal access to power and the second that all members enjoy universally recognized freedoms and liberties. In order to ensure this there must be a body of law and independent courts to protect minorities from the elected government of the majority.

Manic Moran

in Europe it's everywhere, and has really scared alot of people.

They must be really paranoid. Just what is 'scary' in Europe about a McCain/Palin presidency? What will happen should they get into charge which will threaten the entire way of life in Ireland? 'Scary' is being told that there's a 60% chance of a two-mile asteroid about to hit the planet. Bear in mind that the Democrats are most likely to hold both houses of Congress, and the President can only enact laws which have been sent to him from said Congress. Frankly, you should have less cause for concern with a McCain/Palin presidency than an Obama/Biden one: Things often get more turbulent when one party holds both houses and the white house than when the opposing parties control them, which tends to be a period of less activity, because if one party holds all three, there is nothing to moderate the effect for two years.

Inquitus wrote: »

What's fair is that 'he who gets the most votes wins', thats one of the tenets of democracy. What is not fair is that in the US you can win the popular vote and yet not the Presidential Election.

I'm not entirely sure how the US version of EC differs in equity from the election of the President of the European Commission. It will generally approximate the feelings of the voters at the pointy end, but not exactly.

I'm an urbanite in California, a direct vote would more than likely benefit my area, and I support EC. Both on the principle of the US being a Union of fifty equal States, and because of the dampening effect it has on politics. The urban/rural divide is very real, and very big in the US. The highly concentrated urban areas in the US lean to the left of the American political sphere, and the rural areas to the right. This is purely on the social issues. Economically it's even more of a disaster: You'd have all the urbanites voting for whoever gives the most emphasis on urban issues such as public transportation, and to hell with anything which farmers might need.

One of the arguments against EC is that places like California are ignored, and that instead the focus is on a small number of battleground States. This is a benefit! The reason that they are battleground states is that they are more or less a good balance of the competing priorities of the urban/rural split. Moderate politicians are the people who will win these States. Though they may not necessarily be 'ideal' for the plurality of voters, they are certainly acceptable enough' for the vast majority on both sides of the divide. Can you imagine what the elections would be like if there was no such emphasis on the middle ground?

NTM

coco0981

The Raven. wrote: »

The Pat Kenny show is even worse. it's like an ad. for the Democrats, full of fabrications also. But what can you expect from a host who is so PC (when it suits him), that muslim clothes are merely a 'style' of dress.

clothes are clothes raven, not neccessarily an expression of your religion or beliefs

molloyjh

Manic Moran wrote: »

They must be really paranoid. Just what is 'scary' in Europe about a McCain/Palin presidency?

What is scary is that Palin is next in line beside someone who (if he wins) will be the oldest person inaugerated as President in the US. He has a history of cancer (afaik anyway) and could potentially croak it while in office. This then would lead to Palin becoming President.

Her CBS interviews proved she is not ready to be in that position. She was caught out on matters such as foreign affairs and the economy. The impact that the US has with these two policy areas the world over is not to be underestimated. We are going through potentially one of the worst economic crises ever and the last thing we need is someone like Palin who can't even talk the talk the way Obama can, let alone do the job. It could be disasterous for everyone, not just Americans.

From an Irish perspective as well we rely quite heavily on foreign (predominantly American) investment. If things were to go well and truly belly up in the US this could cripple our economy, and therefore our country. American politics has ramifications the world over, more so than the politics in any other part of the world. Thats why we take such an interest and develop such strong opinions on the matter. Someone like Palin would be, in my view, downright dangerous in that position. More so than GWB.

Trojan

My main concerns are that

1) The GOP voter purge has removed vast amounts of Democrat voters
2) Diebold and friends are ready with their vote rigging machines (for the 3rd time in as many elections)
3) Obama is overconfident due to the huge lead in the polls.
4) Obama voters are overconfident and don't bother voting.

Otacon

Trojan wrote: »

1) The GOP voter purge has removed vast amounts of Democrat voters

I think a lot of the new registrations over the past weekend, especially in the swing states, favoured the Democrats URL="http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/10/05/AR2008100502524.html?hpid=topnews"]Source[/URL

Trojan wrote: »

2) Diebold and friends are ready with their vote rigging machines (for the 3rd time in as many elections)

Hopefully Americans are more awake to this than before. However, I honestly don't believe the election will be so close as to allow it happen, without it being blindingly obvious. It would have to affect a lot more votes than it had to before.

Trojan wrote: »

3) Obama is overconfident due to the huge lead in the polls.

From looking at the polls, though he is in front at this stage, it would be foolish to think this is all wrapped up. All Obama has to do for the next few weeks is continue to hammer McCain on the economy and the 'McBush' thing, and he should win.

Trojan wrote: »

4) Obama voters are overconfident and don't bother voting.

That is probably the only thing I can honestly say worries me too. The Obama camp have to make sure they push their support to the booths come election day.

Manic Moran

Someone like Palin would be, in my view, downright dangerous in that position. More so than GWB.

Which is fine as a sentiment, but have a look at what the practical effects are.

Firstly, she wouldn't kill the economy. I don't know if you've noticed, but it's already in the tank. By the time mid-January comes around, the damage is long done. Secondly, as has been oft-said, Congress, not the President, controls the purse strings. There is apparently some impression going around that the President is an autocrat with full sway over everything to do with the daily running of the country, whereas economic policy is really the purview of Congress: Just look at the last week, when the President really wanted something done, the House and Senate leaders of both sides wanted it done, and the average Congresscritter said 'no.' Cue world-wide financial markets plummeting.

A Republican president with a Democratic Congress is going to be fairly limited in his or her options, regardless of how 'scary' you may think it is.

NTM

molloyjh

Manic Moran wrote: »

Which is fine as a sentiment, but have a look at what the practical effects are.

Firstly, she wouldn't kill the economy. I don't know if you've noticed, but it's already in the tank. By the time mid-January comes around, the damage is long done. Secondly, as has been oft-said, Congress, not the President, controls the purse strings. There is apparently some impression going around that the President is an autocrat with full sway over everything to do with the daily running of the country, whereas economic policy is really the purview of Congress: Just look at the last week, when the President really wanted something done, the House and Senate leaders of both sides wanted it done, and the average Congresscritter said 'no.' Cue world-wide financial markets plummeting.

A Republican president with a Democratic Congress is going to be fairly limited in his or her options, regardless of how 'scary' you may think it is.

NTM

Which is also well and good except that Congress behaved the way it did re the bail out because of the election. Do you think it would have been the same otherwise? Do the politicians in the States in general show any real concern for the people? Additionally just because the economy is in a heap now doesn't mean it can't get any worse. If that were the case there would be no real need for the bail out, which is there to try and ensure that things don't get any worse. And was introduced by, well, the President.

While the President may not be a dictator, whoever is in that position has a unique level of power over all of these aspects. And if what you're saying is in fact true then the Republican mantra at the moment re the economy (It was all Clintons fault) is also fundamentally flawed. The problem being that Clinton did introduce legislation that contributed to this problem. It does matter who sits in the Oval Office and it does impact American policy making.

metrovelvet

molloyjh wrote: »

Which is also well and good except that Congress behaved the way it did re the bail out because of the election.

What makes you say that?

molloy wrote:

Additionally just because the economy is in a heap now doesn't mean it can't get any worse. If that were the case there would be no real need for the bail out, which is there to try and ensure that things don't get any worse. And was introduced by, well, the President.

No of course not and chances are this is the tip of the iceberg and no one is confident the bailout will work. As an American this is a sure surprise to me. Hey - I didn't know were were communists.

molloy wrote:

While the President may not be a dictator, whoever is in that position has a unique level of power over all of these aspects. And if what you're saying is in fact true then the Republican mantra at the moment re the economy (It was all Clintons fault) is also fundamentally flawed. The problem being that Clinton did introduce legislation that contributed to this problem. It does matter who sits in the Oval Office and it does impact American policy making.

This goes back to FDR [who btw vetoed congress 635 times]and state owned and regulated mortgages which were then privatised but still had government backing under LBJ. When you have government backing you take risks that you wouldn't normally. This was then compounded by moves made by Carter and Clinton.

But MM is right, congress control the purse strings.

ghostdancer

seeing as this thread is supposed to be about predictions for Nov 4th:


Obama: Kerry States (-NH) + NM + IA + CO is prefectly do-able, and is 269 EVs, and, effectively, the presidency.


as things stand, i'd imagine he'll take one of: NH, VA, OH, FL, NV.

Indiana, NC, and Missouri are long shots too, but McCain should be a hell of a lot stronger in those states than he is.


i can't see McCain winning any of the Kerry states to be honest. his best options are MN, NH and PA but i can't see them turning as things stand.


overall though, almost certainly Obama to win, could be anywhere from a squeaker to an easy win, but a win nonetheless.

ghostdancer

obl wrote: »

Pretty hard for McCain to lose, imo.

He'll keep all of the states President Bush won in 2004, and may well add WI or MN.

The Northern, mid-west states are the only ones where you're going to see any change on last time.

not a hope.

he doesn't have a chance in Iowa, and NM is pretty much gone too.

Black Swan

The Dow loses 30 percent of its value during 2008, housing foreclosures hit historic highs, largest bank failures in US history, major brokerage house failures, unemployment reaches recessionary levels, and federal deficit hits historic high (at over $10 trillion, almost doubling during the 8 years of the Bush administration), and the two "won" wars rage on (Iraq and Afghanistan) adding to the federal deficit by billions per month. After the 4 November elections, the US financial meltdown is declared the worst since the Great Depression.

The financial meltdown impacts the party in the Oval Office, where not only the Commander in Chief sits, but also the nation's CEO (a second role which Bush subordinated to focus on his wars). The meltdown also benefits close senate and house races to the advantage of the Democrats, as election history suggests: "It's the economy stupid!"

Revised predictions:

• Dems increase their US House 2006 won majority in 2008
• Dems break the tie in US Senate and gain a majority by 5 senators in 2008
• Dems (Obama) win presidency by a very narrow margin in electoral college (but also win by a one-half million in popular vote as Gore did in 2000, although this does not count)

Cautionary observation: Just like when the Republicans controlled both houses of Congress and the presidency, the lack of checks and balances in the American political system by one party rule results in abuses of power, increases in pork barrel legislation, and increased waste of financial resources. This represents a major flaw in the American two party system of government, suggesting that a multiparty parliamentary system would exhibit more checks and balances, as well as a greater representation of diverse political interests. Unfortunately, the US seems stuck with their two party system, with competing third parties only serving as spoilers in close elections.

banquo

ghostdancer wrote: »

seeing as this thread is supposed to be about predictions for Nov 4th:


Obama: Kerry States (-NH) + NM + IA + CO is prefectly do-able, and is 269 EVs, and, effectively, the presidency.


as things stand, i'd imagine he'll take one of: NH, VA, OH, FL, NV.

Indiana, NC, and Missouri are long shots too, but McCain should be a hell of a lot stronger in those states than he is.


i can't see McCain winning any of the Kerry states to be honest. his best options are MN, NH and PA but i can't see them turning as things stand.


overall though, almost certainly Obama to win, could be anywhere from a squeaker to an easy win, but a win nonetheless.

I choose 'C', 'Strongly agree'

Rasmussen has Obama with a 10+ lead in NH, 53% to McCain's 43% IIR.

Strong lead in IA, MOE (margin of error) lead in CO.

Denis Irwin

Obama to win for me but as has been said before, If Obama does win it'll either be a tight win something like 278-260 in favour of Obama or it could easily be a fairly comfortable win for Obama ie: 325-213.

Interesting to note though that the latest Daily Tracking Poll from Rasmussen gives Obama his highest level of support at 52% (McCain is at 44%) and that he has been comfortably ahead in the tracking polls (since around the time Lehaman Bros. went under.


http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/election_20082/2008_presidential_election/daily_presidential_tracking_poll

banquo

You can actually get an election special subscription from Rasmussen that just does election stuff and expires after the election. All polls are broken down into questions asked and all the different demographics, etc.

Might treat myself.

limklad

My Uncle live in the US have been a very Republican supporter and always voted Republican. He and I always debated the effect of both parties on the US and especially in World affairs. This Summer, He lobbed a "shock and awe" on me, when he told me he vote for Obama in the primaries and is voting for him in the Presidential Elections in November. This has been a huge U turn by him.

I haven't got a chance to talk to him about Palin. Do not underestimate her ability in getting votes and swing votes to other way in the next month, she has the media focus better now with her gaffs. Look at the Rating in the US for the First Presidential debate (52.4 Millions) and the rating on the Vice-Presidential debate (70 Millions viewers) quite the opposite to which is typically an non-event in US TV election viewings. It was the second more watched televises election debate in the US history.
The Vice-Presidential debate got a hell of more viewings than the First Presidential debate because of Palin. :eek:

Her ability to charm and say things in order to swing the less informed voters is a worry, despite her lack of knowledge in Obama and economy. Bush too in his elections made gaff about foreign affairs matters. Yes we can slag her for her views and gaffs, but she has that deadly weapon. Her ability to connect and to sweet charm with "the Hockey Mum's" & "Joe six pack" with eye contact with the Camera to give "a wink and attractive smile" and complement them (voters) and claims that she on their side. She is doing that by speaking to them on their level with their every day terms and quotes. When she talks, she does so with eye contact in great length to connect with the TV Viewers not directly at Joe Biden or interviewers. She lets people know who is more important to talk to (which is the Voters). She is connecting a hell of lot better to the voters than Biden is. She has that likeable quality and she makes a better impression which will stick. Who would you vote for? Some one you know the name or the one you don't, who never left an impression and forgotten what s/he stand for. In tight elections it makes a huge difference. With one Month to go polls can swing easily.

Just like Bush, she tells reporters and other groups, she say things like she a dedicate church going Christian and then go to NRA supports and claims she supports the right to have guns which is totally contradictory to Christians views with love, tolerance and forgiveness.

Her ability to connect better to the low income wage voters than Obama is a worry for us here in Ireland and for the World in General. After all the US voted in Bush to the office of President for two terms and this was a man who on September 11th 2001, was caught holding a book upside down in a school during an reading exercise.

Here in Ireland, We vote in Jackie Healy Rae for two terms in South Kerry (First term as protest, a Joke vote and with disillusionment with current parties). Luckily for South Kerry, It ended better for them as the roads got tarred with extra funding when O' Doughoue failed as Minister to get that done. If I had a choice between Bush and Jackie Healy Rae for US President, I would pick the one that will do less damage that would be Jackie Healy Rae. He would spend more time in tarring the Roads of the US than invasion plans.
This election is no longer McCain/Obama Presidential campaign, it is Palin/Obama Presidential campaign.
If you look at the news media, they want more Palin interviews because they know the people will want to listen and their ratings goes up.
So In this election the media wants to interview in this order of choice.
1/.Palin 2/.Obama 3/.McCain 4/.Biden
Just like Bush, Palin is a big Threat for us all (the worst wolf in sheep clothing that i have ever seen), and the more media attention she gets the more votes she will get, and will be the next President of the US, once McCain easily croaks.

Mr.Micro

If you look at the news media, they want more Palin interviews because they know the people will want to listen and their ratings goes up.
So In this election the media wants to interview in this order of choice.
1/.Palin 2/.Obama 3/.McCain 4/.Biden
Just like Bush, Palin is a big Threat for us all (the worst wolf in sheep clothing that i have ever seen), and the more media attention she gets the more votes she will get, and will be the next President of the US, once McCain easily croaks.

I tend to agree with you limklad, Palin is photogenic and appears glamourous to the media. I even read somewhere that there has been a huge demand for the type of spectacles that she wears. It is Palin now that one would be forgiven for thinking is the Presidential candidate and not McCain ( whose chips are cooked IMO) and she a relative newcomer upstaging all the work put in by the McCain team.

If the report is true that she tried to get an in law fired ( a state trooper) over some domestic issue then that could be trouble for the future if she gets power as such vindictiveness could be a major flaw in her personality. After all the damage that Bush has done financially and militarily its the last thing that the US needs,or the world for that matter now is another loose cannon.

limklad

Mr.Micro wrote: »

If the report is true that she tried to get an in law fired ( a state trooper) over some domestic issue then that could be trouble for the future if she gets power as such vindictiveness could be a major flaw in her personality. After all the damage that Bush has done financially and militarily its the last thing that the US needs,or the world for that matter now is another loose cannon.

She is doing a Bush on it and keep denying and claim that it smear campaign by Democrat's and keep smiling, kissing and charming the pants of voters. The more dirt that is plastered at her the better she will perform in the Polls for McCain (Remember the long years of smear campaign against Ahern from the opposition and media which boosted Ahern popularity) unless her smear campaign on Obama may backfire on her first. With a month to go and the smear campaign in full swing already is going to be one very dirty campaign. Let hope that Obama do not stoop down to the McCain/Palin level because he will not win that battle and for him to keep to the true facts that can be easily verified and not taken out of context like the McCain/Palin smearing campaign.

Manic Moran

limklad wrote: »

Just like Bush, she tells reporters and other groups, she say things like she a dedicate church going Christian and then go to NRA supports and claims she supports the right to have guns which is totally contradictory to Christians views with love, tolerance and forgiveness.

Not at all. There is nothing in Christian belief which says anything about not being able to hunt, not being able to conduct target practise, and certainly nothing about relinquishing the right to defend oneself. Not that the Bible is any huge authority or anything, but Exodos says there's nothing wrong with killing burglars who break in at night, and Jesus did chastise his disciples for going shopping without swords according to Luke. You will note that the Testaments tend to distinguish between protection and vengeance. The one is permitted. The other is not. Thomas Aquinus was certainly very clear on his opinion of the matter.

After all the US voted in Bush to the office of President for two terms and this was a man who on September 11th 2001, was caught holding a book upside down in a school during an reading exercise.

Would you care to substantiate this claim? Please reference your answer to the topic of 'people believing what they see on the Internet that they want to believe.'

NTM

Denis Irwin

Obama making major gains in 5 swing States

WASHINGTON (CNN) -- Polls in five key battleground states in the race for the White House released Tuesday suggest that Sen. Barack Obama is making major gains.
The CNN/Time magazine/Opinion Research Corp. polls of likely voters in Indiana, New Hampshire, North Carolina, Ohio and Wisconsin reflect a significant nationwide shift toward the Democratic presidential nominee.
Obama has made significant strides in New Hampshire, the state credited with reviving Sen. John McCain's Republican primary campaign in both 2000 and 2008.
Fifty-three percent of New Hampshire's likely voters are backing Obama, while 45 percent are supporting McCain. Obama held a lead of 5 percentage points in the last CNN New Hampshire poll, taken in early September. Watch what the poll numbers mean »
Four years ago, Sen. John Kerry narrowly carried New Hampshire -- a one-time GOP stronghold. George W. Bush squeezed out a slender win by 1 percentage point in 2000. iReport.com: Are you in a battleground state? Share your story
In Indiana, 51 percent of likely voters say McCain is their choice for president, with 46 percent backing Obama, a Democratic senator from neighboring Illinois. Indiana went for Bush by 21 percentage points four years ago; Democrats have not carried Indiana since 1964. See the latest polling

In North Carolina, the two major party nominees are locked in a dead heat, with McCain and Obama each claiming the support of 49 percent of likely voters.
"Obama's strongest region is in the Raleigh/Durham area," said Keating Holland, CNN's polling director. "McCain does best in Charlotte and the surrounding counties."
The last Democrat to carry North Carolina was Jimmy Carter, a Southerner, in 1976. The state's 15 electoral votes are considered critical for any successful Republican presidential campaign.
McCain trails Obama in Ohio; 50 percent of likely voters favor Obama, while 47 percent support the senator from Arizona. No Republican has won the White House without carrying the state.
"McCain has a 6-point lead in the Cincinnati area," Holland said. "But a GOP candidate normally needs to do better than that in southwestern Ohio in order to win the state. And overall, Obama actually has a 2-point edge among suburban communities across the state."
In Wisconsin, which hasn't voted Republican since 1984, Obama is holding a 51 percent to 46 percent lead among likely voters.
"Obama continues to maintain a 'home field advantage' in the southern Wisconsin counties that border Illinois," Holland said. "He has nearly a 30-point lead in the city of Milwaukee, although he loses the Milwaukee suburbs by nearly as large a margin."
The new polls are behind several shifts in the CNN Electoral College map.
CNN is shifting North Carolina from leaning toward McCain to a tossup. CNN is moving Wisconsin and its 10 electoral votes, and New Hampshire and its four electoral votes, from tossup to leaning toward Obama.
Finally, CNN is switching Michigan and its 17 electoral votes from leaning toward Obama to safe for Obama. The McCain campaign announced last week that it was shifting its resources out of the once hotly contested industrial state, instead intensifying efforts in Pennsylvania and Ohio.
With these moves, CNN estimates that if the presidential election were held today, Obama would win states with 264 electoral votes and McCain would carry states with 174 electoral votes, with 100 electoral votes still up for grabs. To win the White House, 270 electoral votes are needed. See CNN's Electoral College map
Obama's lead has expanded by 29 electoral votes in comparison with his margin in CNN's last electoral map, which was released on October 1.
The CNN/Time/Opinion Research polls were conduced October 3-6, with 677 likely voters in Indiana, 813 likely voters in New Hampshire, 666 likely voters in North Carolina, 749 likely voters in Ohio and 859 likely voters in Wisconsin. Respondents were all questioned by telephone.
The survey's sampling error is plus or minus 3.5 percentage points in New Hampshire, Ohio and Wisconsin, and plus or minus 4 percentage points in Indiana and North Carolina.

http://edition.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/10/07/battleground.poll/index.html

The results of these polls would seem to make uncomfortable reading for Republicans.

FatherTed

I don't trust any poll ever since the 1992 election in the UK. Predictions all along were for a Labour win until the actual election when the Torys won easily.

For me, I'm guessing it will either be an Obama landslide or very tight McCain win. Opinion polls are showing a big win for Obama now but we don't know how much the Bradley Effect has to do with this or just how accurate the polls really are.

Manic Moran

I think the pollsters are a lot better today than they were a few years ago. A few embarassments such as the 2000 election and yes, the 1992 Tory win really shook them up and kicked them back into shape.

NTM

Benedict XVI

We will see something like this on Nov 5th (obviously with the party roles reversed)

banquo

Hey. Nice.

limklad

Manic Moran wrote: »

Not at all. There is nothing in Christian belief which says anything about not being able to hunt, not being able to conduct target practise, and certainly nothing about relinquishing the right to defend oneself. Not that the Bible is any huge authority or anything, but Exodos says there's nothing wrong with killing burglars who break in at night, and Jesus did chastise his disciples for going shopping without swords according to Luke. You will note that the Testaments tend to distinguish between protection and vengeance. The one is permitted. The other is not. Thomas Aquinus was certainly very clear on his opinion of the matter.

There is big difference in Hunting animals and attacking humans. Violents breeds violents.

From Christian point of view, You are also forgetting in the Garden of Gethsemane Christ also chastise Peter for Fighting in defending Christ himself. The sixth Commandments say "Do not kill/Murder" If you have a gun you use it to kill. Guns are one of the most violent instruments in destruction of Life.

Manic Moran wrote: »

Would you care to substantiate this claim? Please reference your answer to the topic of 'people believing what they see on the Internet that they want to believe.'

NTM

There been several Serious documentaries on TV(BBC, channel 4 and many came from the US/Canada which was viewed here in Europe, even fox news even joked about it which showed Bush reading the Book upside down during 9-11.

RedPlanet

If Obama doesn't win, it means America really is that backward, ignorant and racist, place i think it is.

Manic Moran

limklad wrote: »

From Christian point of view, You are also forgetting in the Garden of Gethsemane Christ also chastise Peter for Fighting in defending Christ himself.

Not at all. Different set of circumstances, Peter used violence in a situation where violence was not called for. Malchus et al were simply coming to arrest Jesus, not do him harm. You will note that Jesus did not berate Peter for having a sword to begin with, he simply told him to place the sword back into the scabbard.

The sixth Commandments say "Do not kill/Murder" If you have a gun you use it to kill. Guns are one of the most violent instruments in destruction of Life.

Yet in that case why did Jesus encourage that his disciples be armed? Were he so against violence in all circumstances, he'd be telling his disciples to get rid of the swords, not that they should sell their clothes in order to be able to afford one, or in the Garden case, put it back on his hip. Reconciling common Christian beliefs with violence is a problem that military chaplains have been dealing with for some time.

There been several Serious documentaries on TV(BBC, channel 4 and many came from the US/Canada which was viewed here in Europe, even fox news even joked about it which showed Bush reading the Book upside down during 9-11.

Have there. Would you care to link me to one?

To help you out, please consider investigating 'fact-checking' sites. To make it really easy, I'll even link you to one.
http://www.snopes.com/photos/bushbook.asp

[ETA: I'm amused by the capitalisation of "Serious", even if it was unintentional]

NTM

Manic Moran

On a totally different track...

Gunman kills 15 in crucial swing State

NTM

turgon

Mr.Micro wrote: »

I even read somewhere that there has been a huge demand for the type of spectacles that she wears.

Maybe when they go to the shop and see the price of her glasses they will realize she isn't the blue-collar hockey mom she wants us to think she is.

limklad

Manic Moran wrote: »

Not at all. Different set of circumstances, Peter used violence in a situation where violence was not called for. Malchus et al were simply coming to arrest Jesus, not do him harm. You will note that Jesus did not berate Peter for having a sword to begin with, he simply told him to place the sword back into the scabbard.



Yet in that case why did Jesus encourage that his disciples be armed? Were he so against violence in all circumstances, he'd be telling his disciples to get rid of the swords, not that they should sell their clothes in order to be able to afford one, or in the Garden case, put it back on his hip. Reconciling common Christian beliefs with violence is a problem that military chaplains have been dealing with for some time.



Have there. Would you care to link me to one?

To help you out, please consider investigating 'fact-checking' sites. To make it really easy, I'll even link you to one.
http://www.snopes.com/photos/bushbook.asp

[ETA: I'm amused by the capitalisation of "Serious", even if it was unintentional]

NTM

With all the damage Guns causes in the US, is way more than in other parts of the world. Where 10 years ago US Military Doctors were going the L.A. and other Major US cities to train up where there were plenty of gun shot wounds because LA had the best War time scenario and prove effective in training for events of War, for LA had weapons that caused similar wounds as see in many War zones.

Guns like many major weapons breads Violence, death, revenge, hate, pain, suffering. Total opposite To Christ Forgiveness, love, tolerance of others. Jesus did say "love you enemies".

There is A big difference between hunting for Food to eat because you are starving and hunting for fun to pleasure you sense of power so you can hang up a head of a prey.