John McCain has guaranteed victory, what does this mean?

I think he’s bucking up his troops. He is acting like he knows something we don’t know, so he can keep his folks from throwing in the towel on election day. He needs his workers to work then.

He doesn’t know how to use that strange box in every hotel room he stays in that projects images of people who say he’s way down in the polls. Ignorance is bliss I guess…

I had a lecture last week about how your brain really starts to atrophy after 70.

Just sayin’.

It means nothing more than any other politician’s assertions and promises mean during an election year.

@Niki
Love it, great answer, let me lurve u :)
I guess hope is the last thing a person loses, especially when you reach certain age…

John McCain guarantees the win.
Obama will say anything to win.
It’s all political campaign garbage.

He’s projecting confidence like leaders are supposed to do. Obama’s doing the same thing, isn’t he?

@jholler: Yeah, but when Obama does it, it seems more likely since the polls are seriously in his favor.

Means the same thing it means when a boxer goes on TV 8 days before the big pay per view fight to predict he’s going to murderize his opponent.

@Niki and flameboi: Hrmm. I wouldn’t want to be President, but my brain seems to be fine. (I think)

Polls can be wrong, and change day to day. Wasn’t Hilary supposed to be anointed at first? If Obama had decided not to fight because she was so heavily favored, where would he be now?

Sorry, G. I’m sure you are as exceptional in brain density as you are in everything else.

Wishful thinking.

The guy at 538 predicted Obama. He predicted a great many of the primaries. And he predicts that Obama has GREAT chances.

jholler – a few polls can be and certainly are incorrect. But when the concensus of polling says that McCain has a 3.3% chance of winning, I tend to think it’s a bit different than when Hillary Clinton used fuzzy math.

How did I just know that while I was typing, I was racing you to reference 538? :)

most likely because of all the free advertising I’ve given them!

@gail;
You are keeping your mind young by learning new things. The internet , for example.

What else would he say? “C’mon guys, we’re LOSING! Man the polls!”
Honestly I don’t think he has many options to appear strong right now, except blatant defiance.

But that would be so Mavericky! “OMG, guys, we’re totes losing! To the polls plz! Kthanxbai!”

And hilarious. Now I really want him to say that even though I know he NEVER will.

I hope the rest of the quote included ”... or I’ll give Americans their country back!” -oh, right, that will happen anyway.

I’m sure he know this.

He’s gonna do a bush. it doesn’t matter who you vote for, it’s decided a long time ago… USA is full of corruption…

I think it means he’s delusional. Or he’s trying out senility to see how he likes it. Or his Crystal Ball is lying to him about what will really happen in 9 days.

They’ve cheated once, I wouldn’t be surprised if they do it again. God help us!

To ANYONE who thinks McCain is going to be able to steal the election the same way Bush did in 2000 (and probably 2004), Look at these facts:

If you look at the map today, 8 days from the election, and you look at all the polling and do as they do at www.fivethirtyeight.com, www.pollster.com, or www.realclearpolitics.com and aggregate all the polling, you come up with a picture that shows one thing. You can take all the states where Obama just has a solid, insurmountable lead (though Real Clear Politics still calls Virginia a tossup, even though they have Obama up by almost 8 points, so arguably it shouldn’t be as neither of the other two sites considers it a tossup), you then have Obama with 268 electoral votes outside the polls’ margins of error, that’s Obama’s floor. Essentially, one more electoral vote would tie the race (probably assuring Obama a win anyway), and 2 more would give him a win. Obama is ahead, in some cases by 5 or 6 percent in all of the following states: NH, OH, NM, CO, MO, ND, NV, NC, and FL. That means that unlike 2000 or 2004, to win they will have to steal 9 states. One, mabye 2 is possible…even 3 if you’re willing to look like you’re wearing a tinfoil hat, but 9. No effing way. Congratulations President Obama.

@Gail
You are a step ahead in the evolution process, you just get better day after day :)
@Petrie
Still, there are a lot of hidden votes that could change the election in the last minute :S

Fortunately as I see it, all the hidden votes are going to Obama. The Bradley Effect has been debunked countless times, what’s left is turnout, the cell phone effect, the reverse Bradley Effect and young and African American voters coming out in higher than average numbers, plus the enthusiasm gap. Add all that up, and Obama will do even better than those sites are predicting. It’s going to be close to if not over 400 EVs for Obama, mark my words.

I hope and belive you’re right, but after 2000 i dont dare to assume anything anymore…

he’s smoking whatever palin is….

palin is smokin HOT! :-)

um…ok. you need to get out more, jholler.

Yeah, stop being on 4Chan. get banned or something
i just got banned :( well, i guess it’s good for me

And a big McCain chortle, you betcha: “My colleague (ah huh, ah huh, ah huh ah ha ha ha) voted blah blah blah (ah huh, ah huh, a ha ha ha) <clutches chest>

I actually didn’t see Senator McCain’s statement. Did he promise a victory or did he promise HIS victory? We all know that someone will have a victory on Tuesday.

Or maybe he thinks the fact that he survived is a victory?

Obama will bring this fallen country even lower. What we really need is Ron Paul, but their is no way that he would win it. McCain will be a moderate, like another Bush. He will sorta keep things steady and not do a whole lot for either party as the way I look at it. Sarah Palin is way better then either presidental candadit or Biden for that matter. We need McCain and Palin to switch places. :)

But maybe if Obama wins, after 4 retched year maybe the people in this country will wake up and realize something. Its sick the laws that Obama supports about abortion. I guess he looks at it like mowing grass. What if he were one of those babies?

God help this sinful nation!

Sinful? The only state of grace you can know is your own!

we have all sinned and fallen short of the Glory of God, ergo we are a sinful nation, and a sinful world.

Palin said what happens on election day is “God’s will”. I tend to agree with her since it’s most probable that Obama will win, but would she view that at “Satan’s doing”?

Prolly something along the lines of, “Mission Accomplished!”

Speak for yourself jholler, or should I say jholier-than-thou\

I Peter iv
Luke xix 22
John vii 24

Romans 3:23. How exactly is acknowledging my imperfection being “holier than thou”?

I already took Bible 202 in college. Aren’t we supposed to be talking Poli Sci here?

Gail 1:i

Thank you, gail.

The assumption that everyone shares your state of dis-grace, You have no knowledge of the state of anyone else’s soul let alone 300 million+ others. Your statement is just a projection of yourself. Judge not…

Not my judgement or my words. Romans 3:23. I quoted my source.

gail- Proverbs 26:4.

LOL! Touche, knotmyday!

Knot, I am supposed to be writing a short essay with a deadline in about 10 minutes. Would you please stop?

ok

welcome…hope you’re thick skinned.

@English: So does that mean, as a Jew, I am graceless? Is it a sin to omit punctuation, use sentence fragments or run-on-sentences? They are “bad things” if you want to be understood, but I guess I will go dance on my two left feet instead of chastising you..

Why would the next four years with Obama be harder than the next for years with McCain? And it is by no means a fact that this nation has fallen into sin. It is your belief that this nation has fallen into sin.

Oh, and we have secular laws to protect us from your religious ones. Which really, I think, helps keep our nation great.

I’m a Christian, but I don’t recognize any religious “laws” except the ones Moses brought down off the mountain, are those the ones you’re talking about?

Oh. I see.

My religious studies friend says that I should tell you this: The laws are the ones God says should not be changed at all and will be an example to civilizations for all time (Deuteronomy 4:2), the laws that Jesus said he has not come to abolish but to fulfill (Matthew 5:17). They include, but are not limited to, allowance of slavery (Lev. 25:45), orders to commit genocide (Deuteronomy 20:16), and forcing virgin rape victims to marry their rapists (Deuteronomy 22:28).

Don’t want to take credit for his writing.

He left out Deuteronomy 21:18–21, which is about stoning disobedient children. Which is one of the ones I was talking about. He always leaves it out when we’re talking to people about the Bible and I don’t know why. Probably because he doesn’t like children.

I’m interested, and looking…I’m not seeing anything in there about being an example to civilizations for all time. What translation is that in, or is it a different verse? I’m intrigued by the concept, though…I’ll look more into it.

“When the disciples picked grain on the Sabbath, the Pharisees accused them of violating the Sabbath Law (Mark 2:23–28), for reaping on the Sabbath was prohibited in Exodus 34:21. However, Jesus justified this apparent Sabbath violation by citing a narrative passage in 1 Samuel 21:1–9. In essence the Pharisees criticized Him with the details of the Law, but Jesus answered them with principles drawn from narrative.”
http://www.biblicalstudies.org.uk/article_law_hays.html

This is what I’ve found so far, it’s a pretty good article on this subject.

Found it.

“Third, the Mosaic Covenant is no longer a functional covenant. The New Testament affirms the fact that the Mosaic Covenant has ceased to function as a valid covenant. Hebrews 8–9 makes it clear that Jesus came as the Mediator of a covenant that replaced the old one. “By calling this covenant ‘new,’ he has made the first one obsolete” (Heb. 8:13). Thus the Mosaic Covenant is no longer functional or valid as a covenant. This has important implications for one’s understanding of the Law. The Old Testament Law specified the terms by which Israel could receive blessings in the land under the Old (Mosaic) Covenant. If the Old Covenant is no longer valid, how can the laws that make up that covenant still be valid? If the Old Covenant is obsolete, should not also the laws in that Old Covenant be seen as obsolete?

Paul stated repeatedly that Christians are not under the Old Testament Law. For example in Galatians 2:15–16 he wrote, “A man is not justified by observing the law, but by faith in Jesus Christ.” In Romans 7:4 Paul stated, “You also died to the law through the body of Christ.” In Galatians 3:25 he declared, “Now that faith has come, we are no longer under the supervision of the law.” Paul argued vigorously against Christians returning to the Old Testament Law. If there was a distinction between civil, ceremonial, and moral laws, it was unusual that Paul ignored it. Furthermore, if the moral laws were to be understood as universally applicable, one would expect Paul at least to use them as the basis for Christian moral behavior. However, as Goldingay points out,

[p.29]

Paul “does not generally base his moral teaching on this foundation but on the nature of the gospel, the guidance of the Spirit, and the practice of the churches.“11

How, then, should Jesus’ words in Matthew 5:17 be understood? He said, “Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them.” Did Jesus and Paul contradict each other? Not at all. First, the phrase “the Law and the Prophets” refers to the entire Old Testament. So in this verse Jesus was not speaking of only the Mosaic Law. Also the antithesis is not between “abolish” and “observe,” but between “abolish” and “fulfill.” Jesus did not claim that He came to observe the Law or to keep the Law; rather He came to fulfill it. The word (“to fulfill”) occurs numerous times in Matthew, and it normally means, “to bring to its intended meaning.” Jesus was not stating that the Law is eternally binding on New Testament believers. If that were the case, Christians today would be required to keep the sacrificial and ceremonial laws as well as the moral ones, and that would clearly violate other portions of the New Testament.

Jesus was saying that He did not come to sweep away the righteous demands of the Law, but that He came to fulfill its righteous demands. As the climax of this aspect of salvation history, Jesus fulfilled all the righteous demands and all the prophetic foreshadowing of the Law and of the Prophets. In addition Jesus was the final Interpreter of and Authority over the Law and its meaning, as other passages in Mathew indicate. Jesus restated some of the Old Testament laws (19:18–19), but some He modified (5:31–32). Some He intensified (5:21–22, 27–28 ), and others He changed significantly (5:33–37, 38–42, 43–47). Some laws He abrogated entirely (Mark 7:15–19). Jesus was not advocating the continuation of the traditional Jewish approach of adherence to the Law. Nor was He advocating that the Law be dismissed altogether. He was proclaiming that the meaning of the Law must be interpreted in light of His coming and in light of the profound changes introduced by the New Covenant.”

same link as above. Good study…thanks for making me look that up, I learned something! I think that questioning one’s Faith is the only way to strengthen it.

Good gawd, how did a relatively simple political question get turned into a Sunday School session?! Separation of church and state anyone?! [And yes, these questions are rhetorical, I don’t expect – or even want – the answers. Thank-you.]

Hey…you maverick.

What the hell happened to my thread!!!

LOL! Where ya been? See what happens when we’re left unsupervised?

This thread is now about The Bible

Please take that elsewhere. I’m all stocked-up on crazy here.

the new guy started it. (heh heh…)

[mod says:] Please stay on topic and avoid delving into the religious side of things. Thank you.

A little late, but ok.

Looks like a close race for Mccain and Obama. I wonder who is gonna win.

It does? What polling site are you at?

Probably this one…out of 88 sites which predict electoral vote outcomes, this is the ONLY one predicting a McCain win (and boy did they have to jump through some hoops).

Yeah. Like the “rampant over sampling of democrats”. What the—- from all the data we’ve seen, if anything republicans are being oversampled. But they also have “voter fraud” nicely listed, which I guess is supposed to be the normal person’s “republican attempts to suppress the vote”. And they still had to use a Bradley effect.

They also manage the (somewhat difficult) task of making Obama not look really good in his picture. Because the man is photogenic. And he does not look good in those blurs.

I almost wonder if this is a liberal using the Colbert method to point out the obvious, rampant idiocy of some members of the right wing of politics?

I would hope so, but as my boyfriend pointed out the other day (and he’s reminds me it is called Poe’s Law): Without a winking smiley or other blatant display of humor, it is impossible to create a parody of Fundamentalism that someone won’t mistake for the real thing.

I went to the class and I just watched the video to be a poll worker. One thing I learned is that if they can’t find your name on the ballot and tell you you have to vote a provisional ballot, insist that you do it on the machine (if available) and not on a paper ballot. They do a poor job of explaining how to do a provisional ballot on the machine (I sure didn’t get it) but in California at least they have to let you do it if you insist. The chances that your vote will count in the event of a provisional ballot are probably higher in the machine than on paper in my humble opinion.