US 2008 Presidential Campaign/Debate Discussion Thread - Part III

[phillyfan26]

Continue discussion, guys.

 

[2861U2]

Congratulations on proving to a national audience that you're a bunch of bigots, Republican candidates.

You know, I'm getting pretty tired of seeing that word in here. Since when is it a crime to have convictions? Are they bigots because they have an opinion different that yours, phillyfan? Aren't you then, by definition, a bigot yourself?

Bigot = a person intolerant of opinions different that their own

 

[MrsSpringsteen]

I don't think it's an "opinion" to deny any human being equal rights, employment,military service, etc. on the basis of sexual orientation or any other innate human quality and/or trait. Whether or not your opinion is that it is not innate and is morally wrong somehow, that doesn't give you the right to do that.

 

[BVS]

Bigot = a person intolerant of opinions different that their own

If that "opinion" is intolerance how is one to be tolerant of that?

What kind of "conviction" makes one think homosexuals can't serve their country?

 

[phillyfan26]

You know, I'm getting pretty tired of seeing that word in here. Since when is it a crime to have convictions? Are they bigots because they have an opinion different that yours, phillyfan? Aren't you then, by definition, a bigot yourself?

Bigot = a person intolerant of opinions different that their own

Are you nuts?

First, I'm going to stop you throwing around the word "opinion" when it comes to issue of homosexual rights.

Liberals and conservatives in general differ on issues. And there are merits to both sides, most of the time. Taxes, trade, abortion, etc. All issues with legitimate reasoning on both sides. And each side has OPINIONS. Yes.

But on the issue of homosexual rights, there's no opinions. It's right and wrong. And the people (usually conservatives) who take these stances are WRONG. They don't have differing opinions. They're wrong. They deny civil rights to human beings. They're wrong. They're bigots. There should be no debate, no issue here. They're flat out wrong.

 

[Irvine511]

You know, I'm getting pretty tired of seeing that word in here. Since when is it a crime to have convictions? Are they bigots because they have an opinion different that yours, phillyfan? Aren't you then, by definition, a bigot yourself?

Bigot = a person intolerant of opinions different that their own

in order to be fair, i will actually come out and say that i'm willing to bet that most of the Republican candidates aren't, themselves, bigoted against gays or, if the immigration frenzy is any indication, Mexicans.

i am willing to say that they are using bigotry against gay people and Mexicans to get votes.

that was the other striking thing about the debate, for me. the fervor regarding immigration. and i feel quite certain that much of it is genuinely racist -- perhaps unknowingly racist, would there be that much of an issue if there were all these Norwegians streaming across the border?

 

[2861U2]

What kind of "conviction" makes one think homosexuals can't serve their country?

Don't ask me. Like I said earlier, I disagree with conventional Republican "no gays in the military" belief.

 

[2861U2]

would there be that much of an issue if there were all these Norwegians streaming across the border?

YES! It's not a racism thing! It's a national security thing! It's about obeying our own laws!

 

[BVS]

Don't ask me. Like I said earlier, I disagree with conventional Republican "no gays in the military" belief.

But it is "conviction" that makes them deny other rights?

So they can die for this country but aren't good enough to be equal to you?

Wow, that "opinion" sucks, how does one look at that opinion and not see bigotry?

 

[MrsSpringsteen]

Then how come immigration is suddenly all about Mexicans? No one wants to build a fence across the Atlantic Ocean, do they?

 

[BVS]

YES! It's not a racism thing! It's a national security thing! It's about obeying our own laws!

They don't care when it's Canadians.

 

[2861U2]

Then how come immigration is suddenly all about Mexicans? No one wants to build a fence across the Atlantic Ocean, do they?

Because an incredible majority of people here illegally came via the south. If hypothetically millions of people enter here illegally via the east, then the problem is equally as serious, and 9/11 was a testament to this.

 

[Vincent Vega]

Didn't they come legally to the US?

 

[2861U2]

They don't care when it's Canadians.

Well I do. I don't care if you're black, white, brown, Mexican, Swedish, Australian, whatever. I want zero illegal immigration.

 

[BVS]

If hypothetically millions of people enter here illegally via the east, then the problem is equally as serious, and 9/11 was a testament to this.

 

[2861U2]

Didn't they come legally to the US?

A handful did not.

 

[phillyfan26]

But it's not just about your opinion specifically that we're worried about. It's your party! The guys you are defending on many of these issues!

 

[Irvine511]

YES! It's not a racism thing! It's a national security thing! It's about obeying our own laws!

i genuinely disagree with you. i really do.

 

[Irvine511]

Because an incredible majority of people here illegally came via the south. If hypothetically millions of people enter here illegally via the east, then the problem is equally as serious, and 9/11 was a testament to this.

so the people who flew the airplanes into the WTC were illegal immigrants?

 

[2861U2]

so the people who flew the airplanes into the WTC were illegal immigrants?

5 of the 19 violated federal immigration laws. They were illegal aliens, and if the police had known that when 4 of them were stopped for speeding, they could have been arrested.

 

[BVS]

5 of the 19 violated federal immigration laws. They were illegal aliens, and if the police had known that when 4 of them were stopped for speeding, they could have been arrested.

3 of them were illegal. 8 were registered voters.

 

[BVS]

They were illegal aliens, and if the police had known that when 4 of them were stopped for speeding, they could have been arrested.

How would they have known? Did they not check IDs.

 

[2861U2]

How would they have known? Did they not check IDs.

From ABC News:

On April 1, 2001, Hazmi was stopped for speeding in Oklahoma while traveling cross country with Hanjour. Had the officer asked Hazmi a few basic questions or asked to see Hazmi’s visa, he might have discovered that Hazmi was in violation of U.S. immigration law.

The Maryland trooper did not know about Ziad Jarrah’s immigration violations. Had the officer asked a few questions or simply made a phone call to the federal government’s Law Enforcement Support Center (LESC), which operates around the clock from Williston, Vermont, he could have arrested Jarrah. Instead, the trooper issued Jarrah a $270 speeding ticket and let him go. The ticket would be found in the car’s glove compartment at Newark Airport two days later, left behind when Jarrah boarded Flight 93.

 

[BonosSaint]

What would the response been from the Immigration Department, particularly back then? Likely," What do you want us to do about it? It's a traffic violation." He likely would not have been deported and would have been out on the street shortly thereafter anyway.

 

[U2democrat]

Ooooooooh wow Gravel's done it again.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0S2zkh6ZOGE

Now why isn't he higher in the polls?

 

[BVS]

But nothing would be different if there were a wall(or whatever your approach). For they didn't immigrate here illegally, they were in violation of immigration law, completely different. Plus cops still aren't going to check all the time, 99% of the time it would be a waste.

So this example really has nothing to do with "safer borders".

 

[martha]

would there be that much of an issue if there were all these Norwegians streaming across the border?

Just don't go retroactively on this.

 

[AngelofHarlem01]

Ooooooooh wow Gravel's done it again.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0S2zkh6ZOGE

Now why isn't he higher in the polls?

That's awesome. I miss Gravel at the Democratic debates.

 

[Moonlit_Angel]

Because an incredible majority of people here illegally came via the south. If hypothetically millions of people enter here illegally via the east, then the problem is equally as serious, and 9/11 was a testament to this.

So should we build fences around the entire U.S.?

Not to mention, even if we did put a fence between Mexico and the U.S., it wouldn't work for the simple fact that we have these bodies of water called the Pacific Ocean and the Gulf Of Mexico on either side. So if people wanted to come to the U.S., they can just go to the coasts, grab a boat, and sail over. And besides, I just don't think a fence is the way to solve things anyway. Kinda defeats the purpose of America being seen as a welcoming, open country. The immigration problems need to start being resolved from within, we need to get to the root of things and figure out why people come over illegally to begin with.

As for the soldiers thing...*Sigh*. People are entitled to hold whatever beliefs they want, irrational as I think they may be. But when they want to try and put beliefs that promote discrimination into law...sorry, that's where I draw the line. After listening to the absolute gall that was the stuff Hunter and Romney spewed last night in response to that soldier, I just cannot understand how anybody could, would, want to support them. It was cruel, it was heartless, it made them look like true jerks. I just can't trust these people on anything-equal rights, safer borders, foreign policy decisions...anything.

Angela

 

[phillyfan26]

Was Huckabee calling homosexuality "attitudes" and "views?"