• Welcome To LPSG
    Welcome to LPSG.com. If you are here because you are looking for the most amazing open-minded fun-spirited sexy adult community then you have found the right place. We also happen to have some of the sexiest members you'll ever meet.

    Click the Register button to come join us.

God, Jerusalem and Democrats

RideRocket

Sexy Member
Joined
Nov 30, 2005
Posts
3,009
Media
0
Likes
47
Points
268
Location
Arlington, VA, USA
Sexuality
80% Straight, 20% Gay
Gender
Male
I've looked in most of the political posts and have found nothing with regards to what I consider an important event at the DNC. I think it's noteworthy it hasn't been discussed here since everything anti-right/conservative/republican/Romney/Ryan/etc., tends to get ink.

1) After eliminating 'God' and references to Jerusalem as the capital of Israel, party folks made an attempt to re-instate such langeuage as part of the official Democratic party platform. Interesting that those two points would be removed considering they were part of the party platform in 2008.

2) The Los Angeles mayor had to make three attempts to confirm the voice vote on whether to re-instate the language. Not one showed a clear, required 2/3 majority vote. However, the mayor then decided a 2/3 vote had been met, approved the measure, and was quickly met by booing from the audience.

3) Say what you will, but this appears to be pure political pandering on behalf of the Democratic party because they know they will alienate those who still belief in God and will alienate the Jewish vote.

Democrats' Efforts To Reinsert 'God' And 'Jerusalem' Into Platform Met With Loud Opposition (VIDEO)
 
Last edited:

Calboner

Verified
Gold
Joined
Aug 16, 2007
Posts
9,017
Media
26
Likes
7,114
Points
433
Location
USA
Verification
View
Sexuality
100% Straight, 0% Gay
Gender
Male
2) The San Antonio mayor had to make three attempts to confirm the voice vote on whether to re-instate the language. Not one showed a clear, required 2/3 majority vote. However, the mayor then decided a 2/3 vote had been met, approved the measure, and was quickly met by booing from the audience.

The man chairing that session was the mayor of Los Angeles, Antonio Villaraigosa. He just happens to have "Antonio" as his first name. The mayor of San Antonio--who, so far as I know, is not such a tool as his colleague from California--is Julián Castro.
 

hot-rod

Gold
Platinum Gold
Joined
May 9, 2006
Posts
2,083
Media
0
Likes
1,079
Points
583
Location
Austin, TX, USA
Sexuality
100% Gay, 0% Straight
Gender
Male
Are we better off today than we were 4 years ago? Well, hell yeah! We got rid of Bush 4 years ago.
Vote against and get rid of all anti-people politicians this November........:usa:
 
M

Mr Ed in Mass

Riderocket,
I was wondering the same question,but I don't think that you will get an clear response..Hopeful someone still step up to the plate with something more than "4 more years".
 

RideRocket

Sexy Member
Joined
Nov 30, 2005
Posts
3,009
Media
0
Likes
47
Points
268
Location
Arlington, VA, USA
Sexuality
80% Straight, 20% Gay
Gender
Male
I'm surprised this hasn't gotten more responses considering how collectively liberal the site members are in their politics. So with the lack of discussion, would it be safe to say point #3 is right, the Democratic party is simply pandering to those who believe in God and Jewish citizens?

Also, why were those two items removed in the first place?
 

tamati

Verified
Gold
Joined
Jun 6, 2011
Posts
1,876
Media
7
Likes
86
Points
248
Location
NorCal
Verification
View
Gender
Male
I dont see why oppening ones arms to believers in god, alah,budda or the big bang is a bad thing. including everyone in the discussion seems better than exclusion to me.
 

vince

Legendary Member
Joined
May 13, 2007
Posts
8,271
Media
1
Likes
1,634
Points
333
Location
Canada
Sexuality
69% Straight, 31% Gay
Gender
Male
Sounds to me like they were pandering. Too bad, but what do you expect? They are politicians and left or right it's part of the game.

All the God baloney should have no place in politics IMO.

I see Romney is pandering with the God issue as well today. He said (words to the effect) "I'm opposed to removing 'In God we Trust' from our money". Trouble is, no one from anywhere has proposed doing so! Certainly not Pres Obama. :rolleyes:
 

RideRocket

Sexy Member
Joined
Nov 30, 2005
Posts
3,009
Media
0
Likes
47
Points
268
Location
Arlington, VA, USA
Sexuality
80% Straight, 20% Gay
Gender
Male
I dont see why oppening ones arms to believers in god, alah,budda or the big bang is a bad thing. including everyone in the discussion seems better than exclusion to me.

I think you make a valid point in that the democratic party is trying to be more inclusive of different belief systems. That being said, at some point you have to draw a line because then you stand for nothing.
 

tbrguy

Verified
Gold
Joined
Jun 18, 2011
Posts
1,123
Media
18
Likes
130
Points
183
Location
The North of England
Verification
View
Sexuality
100% Straight, 0% Gay
Gender
Male
I doubt this will go down well in the US, but I think we do much better here in the UK where politicians rarely mention their religious opinions; and those that do stand to lose more support than they gain.

Wouldn't it be easier to separate candidates purely on their political policies without clouding the issue.

In theory the US is supposed to be a secular state, is it not?
 

Eric_8

Experimental Member
Joined
Aug 13, 2010
Posts
3,559
Media
0
Likes
17
Points
73
Location
San Diego
Sexuality
100% Straight, 0% Gay
Gender
Male
Got nothing against the change, but it was PURE pandering. Listening to Debbie Wasserman Schultz try to explain it away was comedy at its peak
 

tamati

Verified
Gold
Joined
Jun 6, 2011
Posts
1,876
Media
7
Likes
86
Points
248
Location
NorCal
Verification
View
Gender
Male
I think you make a valid point in that the democratic party is trying to be more inclusive of different belief systems. That being said, at some point you have to draw a line because then you stand for nothing.

"you stand for nothing" if youre party accepts and embraces freedom of religion, instead of blatantly pandering to just a one (and any of the other clone faiths)???
 

RideRocket

Sexy Member
Joined
Nov 30, 2005
Posts
3,009
Media
0
Likes
47
Points
268
Location
Arlington, VA, USA
Sexuality
80% Straight, 20% Gay
Gender
Male
"you stand for nothing" if youre party accepts and embraces freedom of religion, instead of blatantly pandering to just a one (and any of the other clone faiths)???

My point is directed at trying to be all inclusive, not just from a faith point of view. If you accept everything and everyone, at some point in time there will be conflict.
 

redneckgymrat

Experimental Member
Joined
Dec 3, 2011
Posts
1,479
Media
0
Likes
14
Points
73
Location
Texas
Sexuality
No Response
Gender
Male
Wouldn't it be easier to separate candidates purely on their political policies without clouding the issue.

Of course it would, but a candidate's political beliefs tell only part of the story. In practice, it's often considered wise to know as much about the person, not just the candidate, as you possibly can.

A candidate's stated faith says a lot about what they believe, at their core, and often influences their decision making when deciding between two otherwise "equal" choices. In other words, it often reveals their personal bias.

In that respect, religious faith can be a very useful metric when evaluating a candidate.

In theory the US is supposed to be a secular state, is it not?
We do not have a state endorsed religion. There is a tremendous difference between freedom of religion, and freedom from religion...a subtlety that is often forgotten, or possibly ignored, by those making your exact argument.
 
Last edited:

tamati

Verified
Gold
Joined
Jun 6, 2011
Posts
1,876
Media
7
Likes
86
Points
248
Location
NorCal
Verification
View
Gender
Male
My point is directed at trying to be all inclusive, not just from a faith point of view. If you accept everything and everyone, at some point in time there will be conflict.



I firmly believe that accepting other's view points as valid and embracing all the differences around the globe, is actually extremely important in avoiding future conflict.
 
Last edited:

slurper_la

Superior Member
Joined
Jul 6, 2008
Posts
5,801
Media
9
Likes
3,375
Points
258
Location
Los Angeles (California, United States)
Sexuality
100% Gay, 0% Straight
Gender
Male
I think the basis of the conflict during the vote was both procedural and principled. The two amendments were clumped together for the vote which is inappropriate in parliamentary procedure. They should have been moved, seconded and voted on separately.

As for the question of Jerusalum, there was apparently no issue in accepting the amendment. A poor oversight by the drafting committee that President Obama asked be
changed.

The issue of G-D was another thing. Many delegates believe politics and religion should NOT be mixed and that should be good news for the tea-party constitutionalists. I agree. But I also have no problem with the amount of expression for love of G-D and Jesus we heard during the 3 days of DNC. I rather like hearing talk of religious morals and standards by people who walk the walk rather than just talk the talk. There was more policy presented at the DNC that was Christlike than anything I heard during the RNC
 
5

516778

Read the article and it said 'the sources' a lot but didn't post what those sources were or are. I like to see sources were an article is written from.
That being said I agree on the separation of church and state. It shouldn't have been changed, but the issue of god/jesus is minor because it was said so much during both conventions. I doubt there is any huge disagreement on the topic of Israel when it comes to this country.

There are more pressing issues not to take away from this topic though.