• Welcome to Christian Forums
  1. Welcome to Christian Forums, a forum to discuss Christianity in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to be able to join in fellowship with Christians all over the world.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!

  2. The forums in the Christian Congregations category are now open only to Christian members. Please review our current Faith Groups list for information on which faith groups are considered to be Christian faiths. Christian members please remember to read the Statement of Purpose threads for each forum within Christian Congregations before posting in the forum.
  3. Please note there is a new rule regarding the posting of videos. It reads, "Post a summary of the videos you post . An exception can be made for music videos.". Unless you are simply sharing music, please post a summary, or the gist, of the video you wish to share.
  4. There have been some changes in the Life Stages section involving the following forums: Roaring 20s, Terrific Thirties, Fabulous Forties, and Golden Eagles. They are changed to Gen Z, Millennials, Gen X, and Golden Eagles will have a slight change.
  5. CF Staff, Angels and Ambassadors; ask that you join us in praying for the world in this difficult time, asking our Holy Father to stop the spread of the virus, and for healing of all affected.
  6. We are no longer allowing posts or threads that deny the existence of Covid-19. Members have lost loved ones to this virus and are grieving. As a Christian site, we do not need to add to the pain of the loss by allowing posts that deny the existence of the virus that killed their loved one. Future post denying the Covid-19 existence, calling it a hoax, will be addressed via the warning system.

How interested in the US elections are you?

Discussion in 'UK and Ireland' started by GreenMunchkin, Sep 8, 2008.

  1. Hugely important

  2. Taking a casual interest

  3. Meh...

  4. There's an election?

Multiple votes are allowed.
Results are only viewable after voting.
  1. shout2thelord

    shout2thelord adopted aussie :)

    +27
    Pentecostal
    Single
    US-Republican
    well i guess he failed at impacting events becuase it was George Soros who got obama elected. He has ties to all the networks apart from fox. Ive never seen anything positive about a republican on any network other than fox and its only about 50% of the time. This video http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=7qsHKRbyRlE cites a rassmussen poll (which has been the most accurate in predicting elections, other polls including gallup exaggerate in favour of democrats. Fox is the least biased in showing positive and negative parts of both campaigns. MSNBC of course its no surprise is the most biased with almost all positive coverage of obama and all negative of mccain.

    here are the figures


    > Fox News has 22/40 pos/neg coverage of McCain
    > Fox News has 25/40 pos/neg coverage of Obama

    > CNN has 13/61 pos/neg coverage of McCain
    > CNN has 36/39 pos/neg coverage of Obama

    > MSNBC has 10/73 pos/neg coverage of McCain
    > MSNBC has 43/14 pos/neg coverage of Obama
    > Media overall has 14/57 pos/neg coverage of McCain
    > Media overall has 36/29 pos/neg coverage of Obama


    > MSNBC Tone of McCain coverage -
    > Positive - 10%
    > Neutral - 17%
    > Negative - 73%


    > Fox News Tone of McCain coverage -
    > Positive - 22%
    > Neutral - 38%
    > Negative - 40%


    > CNN Tone of McCain coverage -
    > Positive - 13
    > Neutral - 26
    > Negative - 61


    > MSNBC Tone of Obama coverage -
    > Positive - 43%
    > Neutral - 43%
    > Negative - 14%


    > Fox News Tone of Obama coverage -
    > Positive - 25%
    > Neutral - 35%
    > Negative - 40%


    > CNN Tone of Obama coverage -
    > Positive - 36
    > Neutral - 25
    > Negative - 39
     
  2. theFijian

    theFijian Well-Known Member Supporter

    +453
    Calvinist
    Married
    That's part of the problem. too many American's don't want a president who is a statesman who will make the difficult decisions. They want someone who they can go to the pub with. I've never met anyone in the pub who I'd think would be a good candidate to run the country.
     
  3. Assyrian

    Assyrian Basically pulling an Obama (Thanks Calminian!)

    +874
    Christian
    Married
    Mind you you get a lot of people in the pub who think they know how to run the country.
     
  4. ScottishJohn

    ScottishJohn Contributor

    +444
    Presbyterian
    Married
    I'm sure it would make a difference to Murdoch which US politician got elected, because all the candidates are from the right in comparison to Europe.

    In any case the events he used his media to impact were in the middle east.

    Fox is not a neutral source, it has an agenda. That is the bottom line.

    Is that because other networks are biased, or because there is so much bad news to report about republicans? ^_^


    That is an extremely simplistic way of looking at bias, it takes no account of the volume of good news and bad news about each candidate, and it fails to deal with networks choosing not to report bad news about their preferred candidate. McCain should have had higher negative reporting about him, because there were more legitimate bad news stories surrounding him. Life does not come prepackaged in a neutral stance to make life easy for news editors.

    That's not to say I like Obama, I haven't made my mind up about him yet. He's made a lot of big promises, now he has to deliver.

    I had made my mind up about McCain and Palin, and I wouldn't trust either of them.

    None of this alters the fact that Sarah Palin is completely ignorant of a whole raft of crucial knowledge for anyone wanting to make a half decent VP.
     
  5. shout2thelord

    shout2thelord adopted aussie :)

    +27
    Pentecostal
    Single
    US-Republican
    There was plenty of negative news about Obama. The left wing networks like chris matthews were to busy talking about how obama excited him and gave him a shiver up the leg. Actually didnt make many promises at all he mainly repeated he was for hope and change. But as he has chosen many old clintonites for his cabinet that is obviously not true.

    Anyway ill start with things that concern me about Obama
    *he has only ever handled a small budget and led a few people. And now people think he can fix the economy. I would personally trust someone who has handled a $16 billion budget more.

    *Tony rezko - currently doing time in jail for corruption, Obama had no problem doing business with him until resko was caught.

    *Bill Ayers - this is where obama started his political career in ayers living room. Bill ayers was part of the weatherman terrorist group and he is unrepentant. He still advocates the use of terroism. http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=rxoiZdBSi-g

    *Obama refuses to show his birth certificate. There are concerns he was born in Kenya which means he wouldnt be qualified to be president. A court asked him to produce his birth certificate and he refused. The case has changed to a new case that will make the previous one moot. He could have stopped this long ago if he would just produce his birth cirtificate, what is he hiding? Same thing happened with Mccain as he was born in panama but he produced the birth certificate showing it was a US area then and it was sorted.

    *Obama also supported Daley a corrupt mayor in chicago. There is no evidence he will deal with corruption in washington when he supports it in chicago.

    *Obama sent a team of investigators to alsaka to dig up dirt on sarah palin - what a decent guy! Imagine if mccain or palin had done anything like that.

    *Obama had a racist pastor - who supports black liberation theology. Imagine if Gov. palin had a pastor who was part of the KKK. Notabely michelle obama did not want to leave the church even after the statements become public.

    * Sheik mohammed khalidi was a friend of obamas also - a former plo terrorist. Obama was seen at a dinner hosted by himk laughing but the LA times refused to release the tape.

    *Obama also was backed by Hamas. yet another terrorist group backing obama.

    *Obama again showed poor judgement or he was attacking sarah palin when he made the lipstick on the pig comment.

    *Obama seems to think hes visited 57 states but just missed out 1 hawaii and alaska mmm so they are one state now. The teleprompter went out and he couldnt say anything coherent after that.

    *Joe the plumber was sytematically investigated by more than one department after asking Obama what he meant by spreading the wealth.

    *Obama and his campaign refused to speak to news organisations that questioned him.

    *Obama called christians in the south bitter people clinging to their religion.

    *Obama has decided not to go to church anymore now but the gym instead. Not to mention his positions on stem cell research, partial birth abortion and infantcide.

    So you see, hes lied, gone to a racist church, continually changes his position depending on who hes speaking to, seems to spend a lot of time with terrorists and people with radical positions. I cant trust someone who has no integrity or values.

    I would rather have someone with integrity like sarah palin

    http://dwb.adn.com/opinion/comment/story/9076682p-8992663c.html
     
  6. theFijian

    theFijian Well-Known Member Supporter

    +453
    Calvinist
    Married
    I think the rest of the world is glad they got someone who has a clue what he's doing.
     
  7. ScottishJohn

    ScottishJohn Contributor

    +444
    Presbyterian
    Married
    Now who is paying too much attention to the media mud slinging?!

    Seriously. I already said I'm no enthusiast for Obama.

    None of this alters the fact that when it comes to crucial areas of policy, Palin is thick as two short planks. She may be a very nice woman (personally I'm not convinced) but she is woefully inadequate for the office she was standing for, and is one of the reasons McCain lost. And as for her having integrity, I'm not really sure about that either.
     
  8. shout2thelord

    shout2thelord adopted aussie :)

    +27
    Pentecostal
    Single
    US-Republican
    If you think she is think how has she managed to handle a $16 billion budget? Plus we have actual evidence she cut spending. How did she manage to take down the 3 major oil companies? How did she manage to defeat corruption in her own party as well as state government? She also handles national security information everyday as the missile defence system is in alaska. she also feels strongly about NAFTA has she trades with canada and they are building a pipe line.

    This is an article on sarah palins integrity from before the presidential campaign and the media slander on her.

    http://www.weeklystandard.com/Utilities/printer_preview.asp?idArticle=13851&R=13AF457A
     
  9. shout2thelord

    shout2thelord adopted aussie :)

    +27
    Pentecostal
    Single
    US-Republican
    Well we will see with Obama he has no budgeting experience other than hes always voted to raise taxes and hes never run anything before. hes hardly voted on any bills, been a senator for 143 days most of which he spent runing for president? so to be honest that says to me he doesnt have a clue what hes doing but then it doesnt matter congress has the final say and is completely democratically controlled. The president cant do anything without congress so reid and pelosi will most likely be the ones running america and the former clinton aids that are now in obamas cabinet too. Part of me thinks were gonna see clinton 2 here but worse.

    Thats why i would have much rather Hillary been president. a moderate dem atleast on policy and not afraid to put reid and pelosi in their place. Also the alternative Mccain was a RINO. Many conservatives were gonna stay home on election day until he chose palin.
     
  10. ScottishJohn

    ScottishJohn Contributor

    +444
    Presbyterian
    Married
    You need to reread what I said.

    None of this alters the fact that when it comes to crucial areas of policy, Palin is thick as two short planks.
     
  11. shout2thelord

    shout2thelord adopted aussie :)

    +27
    Pentecostal
    Single
    US-Republican
    I would say the economy is important and she is not stupid. She is good at reiging in spending and that is what the economy needs. Again as far as Obama goes weve got no idea what hes gonna do because hes never handled a budget before, he really could be stupid and we would have no idea. I can only presume with no experience that he has no idea what hes doing.

    You may disagree with her on our need to defend Israel and to take a proactive response to terrorism. She does beleive in meeting with leaders from dangerous states such as Iran but not without pre conditions as Obama does.

    Shes pro life

    Pro Gun

    Pro NAFTA

    pro free speech

    Makes government smaller

    Fights corruption

    she is smart and genuine. We have different views i think the economy and terrorism are the main policy issues and shes got the right idea but weve discussed this already and i know we disagree so theres no point going over that again.

    You said that you werent sure about her integrity so i posted an article on it.
     
  12. ScottishJohn

    ScottishJohn Contributor

    +444
    Presbyterian
    Married
    Again, I didn't say all policy areas. I am thinking especially about foreign policy because it is such a huge issue. Geography even. She called Afghanistan a 'neighbouring country'! Politics in her own country; she couldn't name a single supreme court ruling other than Roe vs Wade. Climate change. And on integrity: She was on record as governor as being for the bridge to nowhere, and then she bragged about being against it while she was running for VP.

    Having said that I have yet to see a detailed argument for Palin's economic competence. Who were her advisers? Who were her civil servants? Did she herself come up with the ideas you approve of, or did her staff? American politicians are like that. Under average intelligence figureheads for a whole team of clever people.

    She's made mistakes on the economy too. She didn't understand what the Bush bailout was for. She didn't understand what Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac were. She doesn't seem that good with numbers. She reckoned Alaska produced 20% of US energy. It is actually about 3.5%.

    Yes I do. I disagree with her because history, common sense, current affairs and logic all determine that her course, and the course Bush has been steering, simply does not work.

    Israel is a rogue elephant and a perpetrator of genocide. We can do without those kind of allies, and with their own nuclear weapons and the billions of dollars the US have slung them over the years, I think it is about time they stood on their own two feet. It might make them sensible to the reality of their situation and make some positive and sustainable decisions for the future.

    Those kind of preconditions are just a sly way of ensuring the meeting never happens and that you can pin the blame on Iran. Thatcher did the same with the IRA and then Major jettisoned her policies started the negotiations, and Blair finished up. Successfull outcome, no preconditions needed.

    What has every other pro life candidate done over the last 40 years? Nothing.

    This is a red herring for getting deluded Christian voters, and the same thing happens again and again. Nothing changes in terms of abortion law, yet they still vote for the next liar the next time around.

    That's an excellent reason not to support her.

    Free trade is non existent. The US ignore whatever free trade rules it imposes on others whenever it chooses. Of course she supports NAFTA, it is a way of swindling the Canadians and the Mexicans.

    Is she? How has she supported free speech?

    I saw an interview where she defended her right to make attacks on Obama and at the same time called attacks on her unconstitutional, and got the constitution back to front. Again another area of policy she doesn't get!

    Which creates a power vacuum which is filled by something worse and even less accountable.

    And simultaneously promotes it by being 'small government'.

    I don't see any evidence of either, but like I said, you have yet to prove she knows anything about foreign policy or other areas, like what the Vice President actually does!

    Here is a video of her saying the Vice President is in charge of the senate:

    http://thinkprogress.org/2008/10/21/palin-vp-senate/

    (That's not true!)

    I have one last problem with Palin. She said 'nucular' instead of Nuclear on a couple of occasions. I think there should be an ammendment which prohibits any such person from office. If you can't say it, then you're not getting to be second in line to button.
     
    Last edited: Dec 1, 2008
  13. Kel_ee

    Kel_ee New Member

    87
    +10
    Christian
    Private
    Just for a little laugh...

    http://d.yimg.com/us.yimg.com/p/uc/20081128/ldb081128.gif

    From the moment I heard Palin was chosen for Vice President, I knew and so did most of America that this was a desparate tactic to keep up with Obama becoming the first African President. Which in turn made the McCain/Palin campaign come accross to most of the American public as a joke. This observation was made before she began to speak. She is not a bad person, she was not ready to become Vice President.
     
Loading...