Discussion Board

If preacher's preach about which candidates they think do or don't follow Biblical principles ( I know because mine did and so do many others), then why shouldn't Dr. McDougall talk about which candidates do or don't follow a healthy lifestyle?

audience? writer's purpose?

frankly, i'd like to attend some of the events - 5 day, 10 day, or costa rica
(actually, it's all about costa rica - it just sounds like such a blast!!!!) but would be going for the fun and major help w/ dietary changes - i don't need help w/ politics or religion. (repeat - bright grown up who knows how to read and think)

AND don't want to spend major bucks (it is for me - i'm a school teacher) to feel uncomfortable 'cause people want to persuade others to adopt their political views.

seriously doubt if the topic would be a point of discussion if your candidate was the one passing krispy kremes to the camera dude.

In your dire prediction of McCain's future health, you failed to mention the existence of his peppy 95-year-old mother. Obama's parents are both deceased. You also left out Obama's prior recreational drug use and the length of time he has been addicted to nicotine.

But this is all beside the point--presidents should be chosen based upon their policies, not upon a third party's assessment of their future health. The robust health of a tyrant will not restrain his tyranny. I would hazard a guess that if McCain's health was clearly superior to Obama's, you would not advocate for McCain.

Please leave politics out of your message--it is a real turnoff to the considerable number of us who are conservative. Your message is very important and we want to be able to pass it on to friends and associates without the polarizing effect of political campaigning.

It is wrong to encourage anyone to vote as a block. At my church the only reference to the election is "VOTE, it is your responsiblity and right and an American citizen".

Being healthy and living longer gives no guarantees. The healthier candidate could live longer to make our government worse. Or the unhealthy candidate could live a shorter time and do great things. Let's be serious, this discussion has nothing to do with future policies the potential president could influence. The "next in line" is the real issue here.

It is clear to me that Dr. McDougall supports Sen. Obama and he has a right to his opinion just like we all do. What troubles me is the manner in which Dr. McDougall is trying to sway voters.

As a Dr. I would think that Dr. McDougall would be concerned about Sen. Obama's opinion on the Born Alive Infant Protection Act. Sen. Obama did not support legislation that gave the child the right to medical care if it survived a late term abortion. Even the NARAL-Pro-Choice America stated there was no risk in this being used to undermine Roe vs. Wade.

Why would Sen. Obama vote against this legislation? I don't know of anyone, not even one of my tofu eating, healthy, lovely vegan friends that would oppose medical care to an infant.

Again, I have to reiterate. Sen. Obama suffers from an addiction to nicotine, a drug. HE IS NOT HEALTHY.

Before we presume that Dr. McDougall supports Obama, go back and read what he wrote about Clinton and his health problems. When one candidate is 72, the issue of health is of concern. Even my mother, who will always be Republican, said it concerns her. It is helpful to have a review of both candidates health. Perhaps we should look also at the VP candidates health.

Diet and food policies are also of concern for the country. Preaching to the choir here, but look at the general health of the nation.

I can understand people not wanting politics injected into a health forum such as this. I had the same experience during church many many times. The difference is, anyone on this forum is free to drop out, turn on or tune out whatever their preference may be. I on the other hand had to sit as a captive audience in my church Sunday after Sunday while my Sunday school teacher, minister and fellow Christians proceded to not only tell me whom they felt was the right candidate to support, but also let me know that anyone who didn't agree with them was certainly NOT a Christian. Finally one day while sitting smack dab in the center of the sanctuary, my husband had had enough and we got up and walked out and never went back to that church. Unfortunately far too many churches and their leaders are like that. Which is worse, having a doctor give an opinion about a candidate based upon sound health principles or having your soul condemned to hell by fellow believers? While some people may be uncomfortable about Dr. McDougall's assesment of the candidates based upon published reports about what they eat and their health in general, he is not really telling anyone whom to vote for and even if he is, he's not gonna condemn you and make you feel like a an unrepentant sinner or backslider if you do not agree with him.

nana3boys"---Thumbs down,Shame on you John McDougall. For using your captive audience as a platform to voice your liberal views. WRONG WRONG WRONG.

---------------------------------

Captive audience ? You are free to not receive the newsletter. You have free choice to read or not read any particular article. You are free to read or not this message board. You are free to or not read his books. You are free to or not follow any or all of his advice. You can even respectfully voice your disapproval of the newsletter on this board.

The president or would be president are role models. One may disagree with GWB on most issues, but can admit that he is a good role model when it comes to physical fitness and health. Bill Clinton while in office, not so much. Though now he does do some work to promote healthy eating for children. When I read in the newsletter about Obama's good health and diet, I immediately did a search to find more about it. I'm open to learning new things. And want to know what is working for others. I would also note the title of the article made it clear what the topic was. So it wasn't like he ambushed the reader, and titled the article, broccoli and your health.

I see nothing wrong with Dr, M., whose main mission is health, evaluating the prospective candidates as it regards to health. Now if he sent a newsletter out on the candidates position of the role of the U.S. in XYZ country, I would find that odd. However, I would still be free to read or not the newsletter, discontinue receiving it, or maybe saying, wow, that's a good point. It's interesting to hear Dr. M's view on other matters. I'm hardly a captive audience.

And finally, good health is not a liberal or conservative issue. It's a vital topic to all, no matter where they fall on the political spectrum.

Dale,

It doesn't sound like your church was "Christian" at all. I consider myself a devout follower of Christ and I don't have the desire or authority to "condemn" anyone's soul. What you describe is an abuse. NOONE should use their influence, in a position of authority (church, school, Doctor) as platforms to sway votes. It is unethical.

We the People should make our own decisions based on information we attain and process ourselves............we are not sheep.

(No slight to sheep everywhere, they are beautiful creatures, they just tend to follow each other around alot)

"almost forgot Hitler was a Vegetarian!"

Another myth and not true. That's been discredited so many times it's not worthy of further comment.

Dr. McDougall was talking about health and spoke the facts as he (and any other honest health professional) would see it.

And talking about who is most likely to be assassinated? Now that's bizarre. Don't forget that even Reagan had an assassination attempt made on him. So what's the lesson here? Don't vote for Obama because some crazy person might decide to kill him?

Make the decision on who to vote for in November based on your personal beliefs. That's what democracy is about. But let's leave out the lies and nonsense.


Anna

I don't recall knowing much about what the last two presidential candidates ate, but I sure knew enough about W.'s performance as Pres. to know I didn't want another 4 years, and look at how bad things are now. If McCain were to be elected we'd get more of the same.

It would be great if we had a president who, among other things, were to appoint actual experts to head departments instead of his own political cronies. How about Dr. McDougall for Surgeon General, or perhaps the Sectretary of Health and Human Services???? Or, perhaps Lawrence Tribe (well-known constitutional law scholar) to the Supreme Court? Now that would be revolutionary, and I'm ready to join that revolution.

Well good for you, but many Christians have no qualms about judging others including their fellow Christians. It is all too common. Even our family members question our salvation because we don't vote Republican anymore. My former church is one of the most Bible based groups in the U. S. I will not name them but you can find them in virtually every city in the U.S. Needless to say, I don't attend there anymore.

I agree. And no one's mentioning national security. Truth is, if terrorist attacks become common here, like they are in some other countries, discussions about buying local or organic won't even be happening--we'll just hope to survive the trip to the grocery store. This might sound extreme, but it could eventually happen. I saw an interview of a woman in Israel, and she said "you Americans talk about what movie you're going to watch tonight, and we wonder if we're going to eat." I just met a man from South Africa who said over there, you have a 25% chance each year of getting robbed, raped, or killed. We really don't know what life like that is, and hopefully it'll remain that way.

Well good for you, but many Christians have no qualms about judging others including their fellow Christians. It is all too common. Even our family members question our salvation because we don't vote Republican anymore. My former church is one of the most Bible based groups in the U. S. I will not name them but you can find them in virtually every city in the U.S. Needless to say, I don't attend there anymore.

I don't know how old you are, but have you ever heard of the old tv show "All in the Family"? Cause this sounds very much like Archie Bunker material. Salvation by political affilliation? um..not Christian.[/b]

I agree about national security. That is why we need someone like Barack Obama who will do everything in his power to get Bin Laden and dismantle Al Queda rather than McCain who would just extend George Bush's policies in Iraq. We must remember that no Iraqi took part in the bombing of the World Trade Center.

I presume you don't attend a conservative fundamental evangelical church or have never listened to Pat Roberstson or Jerry Falwell. The attitudes I described are quite common in such churches. In fact there was a concerted effort in many churches beginning just last Sunday for preachers to point out by name from the pulpit whom they thought should be elected to the U.S. presidency. Evangelical fundamentalist churches have been mixing politics and religion for quite awhile now and those who don't agree with them are made to feel uncomfortable to say the least and sometimes outright condemned. Not only that, but a certain preacher near where I live actually formed a political organization entitled Patriot Pastors (as if other pastors were unpatriotic), to promote their conservative agenda as well as support the candidacy of George Bush in 2004 and used church monies to do so, which is in direct violation of the U. S. tax code.