<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Talk to Think</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.blogsmonroe.com/christianpolitics/2008/05/talk-to-think/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.blogsmonroe.com/christianpolitics/2008/05/talk-to-think/</link>
	<description>Politics from a progressive Christian perspective</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Wed, 17 Mar 2010 01:47:01 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=2.9.2</generator>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
		<item>
		<title>By: keith</title>
		<link>http://www.blogsmonroe.com/christianpolitics/2008/05/talk-to-think/comment-page-1/#comment-3131</link>
		<dc:creator>keith</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 03 Jun 2008 12:54:16 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.blogsmonroe.com/christianpolitics/?p=107#comment-3131</guid>
		<description>Good response Jeff, &quot;fair AND balanced.&quot; You should go to work for Fox....

MK, your issue is with the party in who&#039;s primary you chose to vote. 

Also, because I hear this a lot can you give me an explanation as to how bush and cheney benefited from high oil prices? I&#039;m not sure how $4 gas, which in a lot of the publics eye is the final nail in their coffin and has pole numbers now south of 30%, has been much of a benifit to them? I&#039;d love to hear your thoughts.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Good response Jeff, &#8220;fair AND balanced.&#8221; You should go to work for Fox&#8230;.</p>
<p>MK, your issue is with the party in who&#8217;s primary you chose to vote. </p>
<p>Also, because I hear this a lot can you give me an explanation as to how bush and cheney benefited from high oil prices? I&#8217;m not sure how $4 gas, which in a lot of the publics eye is the final nail in their coffin and has pole numbers now south of 30%, has been much of a benifit to them? I&#8217;d love to hear your thoughts.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Jeff Beamsley</title>
		<link>http://www.blogsmonroe.com/christianpolitics/2008/05/talk-to-think/comment-page-1/#comment-3130</link>
		<dc:creator>Jeff Beamsley</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 03 Jun 2008 02:16:27 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.blogsmonroe.com/christianpolitics/?p=107#comment-3130</guid>
		<description>MK,

Thanks for your reply.

I have to take issue, though, with your claim that you have a consitutional right to vote in the Democratic primary.  You do have a right to vote in the general elections, but the primaries and their rules are determined by the individual parties.  

Also I think that Obama was on the democratic ballot in Michigan.  When the state democratic leaders (primarily Clinton supporters) moved the date of election, they broke the party&#039;s rules.  Both Obama and Edwards asked that their names be withdrawn.  Clinton didn&#039;t.  It would have worked for her, if she had gone on to capitalize on her early lead, but the rise of Obama caused that strategy to backfire.  

As far as that being a cause to justify succession, it&#039;s pretty weak.

If you want to talk about the current administration&#039;s willingness to allow Michigan to languish as the rest of the country enjoyed the Bush &quot;boom&quot;, you might have a stronger argument.

jeff</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>MK,</p>
<p>Thanks for your reply.</p>
<p>I have to take issue, though, with your claim that you have a consitutional right to vote in the Democratic primary.  You do have a right to vote in the general elections, but the primaries and their rules are determined by the individual parties.  </p>
<p>Also I think that Obama was on the democratic ballot in Michigan.  When the state democratic leaders (primarily Clinton supporters) moved the date of election, they broke the party&#8217;s rules.  Both Obama and Edwards asked that their names be withdrawn.  Clinton didn&#8217;t.  It would have worked for her, if she had gone on to capitalize on her early lead, but the rise of Obama caused that strategy to backfire.  </p>
<p>As far as that being a cause to justify succession, it&#8217;s pretty weak.</p>
<p>If you want to talk about the current administration&#8217;s willingness to allow Michigan to languish as the rest of the country enjoyed the Bush &#8220;boom&#8221;, you might have a stronger argument.</p>
<p>jeff</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: MK</title>
		<link>http://www.blogsmonroe.com/christianpolitics/2008/05/talk-to-think/comment-page-1/#comment-3126</link>
		<dc:creator>MK</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sun, 01 Jun 2008 14:27:26 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.blogsmonroe.com/christianpolitics/?p=107#comment-3126</guid>
		<description>After reading and hearing about the delegates from Michigan, I am truly sickened.  I am one vote - it is my constitutional right.  There is a process by which those who wish to seek office must follow.  Obama did not.  Therefore, I cannot rationalize why we would award delegates to a person (not a candidate - remember, he didn&#039;t register) who is ineligible for any votes?  I was not allowed delegates or votes - perhaps I wanted to run.  Puerto Rico and Guam - which aren&#039;t States each get a vote.  ONLY the registered voters in Michigan do not get a vote - instead, we must split the votes with a person that didn&#039;t and doesn&#039;t give Michigan a second thought.  I am completely appalled and at this point, I think Michigan should leave the Union - yes, leave it.  Perhaps as a non-US state, my taxes will be less, we&#039;ll be able to move all the auto manufacturing here and charge huge export mark-ups to the US..Think about it, Michigan can get filthy rich - like Dubai.  Am I sounding crazy?  Yeah, well that&#039;s what happens when my constitutional rights exist no longer because I happen to live in Michigan.  BTW - don&#039;t even say that we did something wrong in the primary - we didn&#039;t.  New Hampshire started this whole fiasco and the bottom line is that Obama did not regard us as important enough to challenge the party by registering to run - why, because it benefited him - kind of why oil is so high, it benefits Bush and Cheney.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>After reading and hearing about the delegates from Michigan, I am truly sickened.  I am one vote &#8211; it is my constitutional right.  There is a process by which those who wish to seek office must follow.  Obama did not.  Therefore, I cannot rationalize why we would award delegates to a person (not a candidate &#8211; remember, he didn&#8217;t register) who is ineligible for any votes?  I was not allowed delegates or votes &#8211; perhaps I wanted to run.  Puerto Rico and Guam &#8211; which aren&#8217;t States each get a vote.  ONLY the registered voters in Michigan do not get a vote &#8211; instead, we must split the votes with a person that didn&#8217;t and doesn&#8217;t give Michigan a second thought.  I am completely appalled and at this point, I think Michigan should leave the Union &#8211; yes, leave it.  Perhaps as a non-US state, my taxes will be less, we&#8217;ll be able to move all the auto manufacturing here and charge huge export mark-ups to the US..Think about it, Michigan can get filthy rich &#8211; like Dubai.  Am I sounding crazy?  Yeah, well that&#8217;s what happens when my constitutional rights exist no longer because I happen to live in Michigan.  BTW &#8211; don&#8217;t even say that we did something wrong in the primary &#8211; we didn&#8217;t.  New Hampshire started this whole fiasco and the bottom line is that Obama did not regard us as important enough to challenge the party by registering to run &#8211; why, because it benefited him &#8211; kind of why oil is so high, it benefits Bush and Cheney.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: jeff Beamsley</title>
		<link>http://www.blogsmonroe.com/christianpolitics/2008/05/talk-to-think/comment-page-1/#comment-3110</link>
		<dc:creator>jeff Beamsley</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 28 May 2008 00:30:35 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.blogsmonroe.com/christianpolitics/?p=107#comment-3110</guid>
		<description>Keith,

Good to hear from you.

Here&#039;s a good website with summaries of the views of all the candidates in and apples to apples form.

http://www.2008electionprocon.org/candidates/barackobama.htm

So you can see clearly how Obama&#039;s stated positions compare with Clinton and McCain.

Jeff</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Keith,</p>
<p>Good to hear from you.</p>
<p>Here&#8217;s a good website with summaries of the views of all the candidates in and apples to apples form.</p>
<p><a href="http://www.2008electionprocon.org/candidates/barackobama.htm" rel="nofollow">http://www.2008electionprocon.org/candidates/barackobama.htm</a></p>
<p>So you can see clearly how Obama&#8217;s stated positions compare with Clinton and McCain.</p>
<p>Jeff</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: keith</title>
		<link>http://www.blogsmonroe.com/christianpolitics/2008/05/talk-to-think/comment-page-1/#comment-3109</link>
		<dc:creator>keith</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 27 May 2008 19:00:14 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.blogsmonroe.com/christianpolitics/?p=107#comment-3109</guid>
		<description>good thoughts.

the issue for obama is this: i along with many of my conservitive friends like the guy. we are all tired of hearing democrats &quot;yelling&quot; at us and in every sentence attacking us. so we like him as in &quot;we are not red states or blue state but the united states.&quot; so we&#039;re on his side. the problem is his change message is largely unexplained. 

just one layer down into the onion is the fact he has NEVER signed on to a bi-partisan bill. he&#039;s never reached across the aisle. so what is he willing to change? im willing to listen but he really hasn&#039;t said anything yet. (as we know thats what a candidate who wants to be elected is suppose to do, say nothing)</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>good thoughts.</p>
<p>the issue for obama is this: i along with many of my conservitive friends like the guy. we are all tired of hearing democrats &#8220;yelling&#8221; at us and in every sentence attacking us. so we like him as in &#8220;we are not red states or blue state but the united states.&#8221; so we&#8217;re on his side. the problem is his change message is largely unexplained. </p>
<p>just one layer down into the onion is the fact he has NEVER signed on to a bi-partisan bill. he&#8217;s never reached across the aisle. so what is he willing to change? im willing to listen but he really hasn&#8217;t said anything yet. (as we know thats what a candidate who wants to be elected is suppose to do, say nothing)</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>
