US 2008 Presidential Campaign Thread - Part 2 - Page 9 - U2 Feedback

Go Back   U2 Feedback > Lypton Village > Free Your Mind > Free Your Mind Archive
Click Here to Login
 
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
 
Old 10-01-2007, 05:08 PM   #121
Forum Moderator
 
yolland's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 7,471
Local Time: 12:47 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by diamond
I think success or failure in Iraq is indeed a 2008 campaign issue.

Matter of fact one of the main issues, if not the main issue.
Of course, but no one in here is campaigning. The thread is supposed to be for discussing the stances of the actual Presidential candidates. If what you (plural) really want is an Iraq debate then that should be a separate thread.
__________________

__________________
yolland [at] interference.com


μελετώ αποτυγχάνειν. -- Διογένης της Σινώπης
yolland is offline  
Old 10-01-2007, 05:33 PM   #122
ONE
love, blood, life
 
U2isthebest's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Vision over visibility....
Posts: 12,332
Local Time: 07:47 AM
In response to deep's post of the the McCain article:

Wow. McCain is a U.S. senator and apparently he still doesn't have a grasp on the basic principles of the nation. That's all kinds of comforting! I think any fool can see by studying the Constitution and The Bible that the general framework of the Constitution, i.e all people are created equal (although, as we know, the founding fathers unfortunately did not mean "all" as in "all"). The statement stands though, and we've done a good job at building upon it with everything from the emancipation of slaves to the end of slavery, to the Civil Rights movement, to the Women's Liberation movement, to work done to end poverty and improve the standard of living. The list continues. We still have a lot of work to do in all these areas, but the improvements still speak for themselves. To bring The Bible into the discussion, anyone who has ever studied it will come to realized that it's general principles are similar. We are looked at as equal in the eyes of God. All people should have the same rights and freedoms and those that are poor and oppressed should have their rights fought for (preferably non-violently for anyone who's even glanced at the words of Jesus and the majority of the New Testament) by those who already have them. That being said, the major thrust of Christianity for me is still being able to have a relationship with God through what Jesus did on the Cross. That is what Christianity is. It's not a political position, a social position or anything of the sort. It's a position of the heart. A person's heart and conviction can not govern a nation of people with different beliefs, different values, and different backgrounds and goals. However, a person following the general rules and principles of The Bible is probably best suited for the job. Why? I personally believe that the general rules of The Bible and Christianity at it's core (believing in the divinity and salvation of Jesus alone, and accepting it for yourself) do not necessairly go hand-in-hand. The general laws of The Bible, treating others justly, looking at them as your equal, giving of time, talent, and treasure, showing mercy and grace to others, taking care others, of oneself, and the environment, are often practiced by people of other faiths or no faith (in terms of religion), than those of us who claim to be followers of Christ. So many of us Christians are so concerned with avoiding the fiery depths of hell and being a cutesy little moralist that we ignore the most basic foundations of what God wants us to do. We may be Christians, but we're not like God. The difference is simple; the basic laws of The Bible can be followed by anyone simply because they are what would make our world an ideal place to live. Those who follow them simply have a more joyful, peaceful, and all-around better existence than those who don't. These aren't things that one needs faith to believe in, in the religious sense. Everyone can follow them and make the world better. The main thrust of Christianity, accepting what Jesus did, is a personal matter. It simply will not be accepted by every person on this planet. Ergo, in a country that i is supposed to be governed by the people, and for the people, ALL the people; How can one person's religion be established as law? Not every person in the U.S. is or will be a Christian. Nor will every U.S. citizen ever be Jewish, Muslim, Hindu, Buddhist, atheist, agnostic, or anything in between. None of these belief systems should be set up as law. What should be set up as law are the principles of justice, equality, generosity, liberty, etc. The fact that these principle are all found in The Bible has nothing to do with them being "Christian" One is not a Christian because they follow said principles, because the only way to be a Christian is to believe and accept Jesus. That's a personal conviction that can never be legislated for any one. In a republican government, laws must be made with the benefits of the common good in mind, not the benefits of a group of peoples' (or person's) personal faith committment.
__________________

__________________
U2isthebest is offline  
Old 10-01-2007, 05:53 PM   #123
Blue Crack Addict
 
deep's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: A far distance down.
Posts: 28,501
Local Time: 03:47 AM
There really is not a problem with what McCain said in context of GOP primary campaigning.


Those beliefs fit perfectly with the voters that will determine who the GOP nominee will be.


Jews need not apply, along with most other non white males.


We do find Alan Keyes entertaining.
__________________
deep is offline  
Old 10-01-2007, 06:04 PM   #124
ONE
love, blood, life
 
U2isthebest's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Vision over visibility....
Posts: 12,332
Local Time: 07:47 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by deep
There really is not a problem with what McCain said in context of GOP primary campaigning.


Those beliefs fit perfectly with the voters that will determine who the GOP nominee will be.


Jews need not apply, along with most other non white males.


We do find Alan Keyes entertaining.
Right you are. Yet, if McCain did become President he would not simply be the president of Republicans, Conservatives, and/or fundamentalists. He would be the president of every citizen of this country. The Constitution is not set up for Conservatives, Liberals, Republicans, Democrats, Christians, Atheists, or anyone else exclusively. It's set up for every citizen of this nation. If McCain can not at least recognize that and accept that he would have to leave his personal faith conviction out of the government and govern by the non-biased principles set up to lead this nation; he doesn't deserve to even run for president of this nation. This goes for anyone, of any political, religious, social, etc. persuasion that is not in line with the Constitution.
__________________
U2isthebest is offline  
Old 10-01-2007, 06:06 PM   #125
ONE
love, blood, life
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Tempe, Az USA
Posts: 12,856
Local Time: 04:47 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by deep
There really is not a problem with what McCain said in context of GOP primary campaigning.


Those beliefs fit perfectly with the voters that will determine who the GOP nominee will be.


Jews need not apply, along with most other non white males.


We do find Alan Keyes entertaining.
You don't think McCain meant Judaeo-Christian Principles?

I mean are they trying to take a sound bite out of context here?

Do you also think that most non white males in our country, namely Hispanics and African Americans do not subscribe to
Judaeo-Christian Principles?

Or is this another attempt at race baiting and other methods of obfuscation that you're occassionally successful at in FYM only ?

dbs
__________________
diamond is offline  
Old 10-01-2007, 06:12 PM   #126
Rock n' Roll Doggie
Band-aid
 
AEON's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: California
Posts: 4,052
Local Time: 04:47 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by deep
There really is not a problem with what McCain said in context of GOP primary campaigning.


Those beliefs fit perfectly with the voters that will determine who the GOP nominee will be.


Jews need not apply, along with most other non white males.


We do find Alan Keyes entertaining.
I think he would also said "yes" if the word Judeo-Christian was used. As in, we are a nation built upon Judeo-Christian values.
__________________
AEON is offline  
Old 10-01-2007, 06:13 PM   #127
ONE
love, blood, life
 
U2isthebest's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Vision over visibility....
Posts: 12,332
Local Time: 07:47 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by diamond


You don't think McCain meant Judaeo-Christian Principles?

I mean are they trying to take a sound bite out of context here?

Do you also think that most non white males in our country, namely Hispanics and African Americans do not subscribe to
Judaeo-Christian Principles?

Or is this another attempt at race baiting and other methods of obfuscation that you're occassionally successful at in FYM only ?

dbs
It's the statement about the U.S. being a Christian nation that angers me. To me, that statement reeks of exclusion and arrogance. To most people that says, "If you're not a Christian and don't subscribe to every statement of The Bible as truth, than you don't belong, and your views don't count." I am a Christian, and I do believe The Bible is Truth; yet that kind of remark doesn't sit well with me. I am no better than Jane Atheist down the street from me. Neither of our convictions should ever become law unless they follow the basic principles of this nation, which also happen to be Judeo-Christian. As I stated in my first post, one doesn't have to BE a Christian to have those principles as their values, and many non-Christians are much more in line with them than those of us who ascribe to Christianity.
__________________
U2isthebest is offline  
Old 10-01-2007, 06:14 PM   #128
ONE
love, blood, life
 
U2isthebest's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Vision over visibility....
Posts: 12,332
Local Time: 07:47 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by AEON


I think he would also said "yes" if the word Judeo-Christian was used. As in, we are a nation built upon Judeo-Christian values.
If that is what he had said, and if that's really what he meant, than I suppose I could actually say I agree with McCain on one point.
__________________
U2isthebest is offline  
Old 10-01-2007, 06:20 PM   #129
ONE
love, blood, life
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Tempe, Az USA
Posts: 12,856
Local Time: 04:47 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by U2isthebest


It's the statement about the U.S. being a Christian nation that angers me. To me, that statement reeks of exclusion and arrogance. To most people that says, "If you're not a Christian and don't subscribe to every statement of The Bible as truth, than you don't belong, and your views don't count." I am a Christian, and I do believe The Bible is Truth; yet that kind of remark doesn't sit well with me. I am no better than Jane Atheist down the street from me. Neither of our convictions should ever become law unless they follow the basic principles of this nation, which also happen to be Judeo-Christian. As I stated in my first post, one doesn't have to BE a Christian to have those principles as their values, and many non-Christians are much more in line with them than those of us who ascribe to Christianity.
Yes, and everybody (I would say the majority of US citizens) do not see John McCain as a Pat Robertson or Michael Huckabee figure nor a person campaigning for "Christian In Chief"..and that was the point of my post.

dbs
__________________
diamond is offline  
Old 10-01-2007, 06:41 PM   #130
Blue Crack Addict
 
deep's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: A far distance down.
Posts: 28,501
Local Time: 03:47 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by AEON


I think he would also said "yes" if the word Judeo-Christian was used. As in, we are a nation built upon Judeo-Christian values.
You do realize Jews, for the most part, do not use this term.

It is used primarily by Conservatives for political reasons.
__________________
deep is offline  
Old 10-01-2007, 06:47 PM   #131
Blue Crack Addict
 
deep's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: A far distance down.
Posts: 28,501
Local Time: 03:47 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by diamond


Yes, and everybody (I would say the majority of US citizens) do not see John McCain as a Pat Robertson or Michael Huckabee figure nor a person campaigning for "Christian In Chief"..and that was the point of my post.

dbs
a majority of US would have to agree that McCain is pandering for that voting block, if they are paying attention

and with a Huckabee or even a Robertson,
at least one feels they are not pandering but showing us who they are and what they think
__________________
deep is offline  
Old 10-01-2007, 06:59 PM   #132
Blue Crack Addict
 
deep's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: A far distance down.
Posts: 28,501
Local Time: 03:47 AM
Quote:
Christian Conservatives Consider Third-Party Candidate

10/1/2007 4:34:21 PM Christian conservatives, concerned that pro-choice Rudy Giuliani may become the Republican presidential nominee, have signaled that they may support a third-party candidate who is more in line with their views.

Members of the Council for National Policy, a secretive conservative group, met recently in Salt Lake City to discuss the possibility.

The group, which includes such conservative powerhouses as James Dobson of Focus on the Family and Tony Perkins of the Family Research Council, is considering a resolution that says, “If the Republican Party nominates a pro-abortion candidate we will consider running a third-party candidate,” participants told the New York Times.

Of other concern to some Protestant leaders beyond Giuliani's pro-choice stance is the fact that he's been married three times and is estranged from his children.

Responding to the group, a spokeswoman for the Giuliani campaign provided a statement from Representative Pete Sessions, a Texas Republican who supports Giuliani, saying, “Conservatives are rallying around the one candidate with the executive experience and proven leadership our country needs.”

If the Christian leaders decide not to back Giuliani should he gets the GOP nomination, it could be a major setback for the moderate Republican's campaign since many GOP voters in early primary states Iowa and South Carolina identify as evangelical Protestants.

Although other Republican candidates are in sync with conservative Christians -- including Sen. Sam Brownback of Kansas and former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee and former Tennessee Sen. Fred Thompson, their campaigns are seen as long shots.

Dobson, speaking of Thompson, wrote in a recent e-mail that Thompson could not "speak his way out of a paper bag."

"He has no passion, no zeal, and no apparent 'want to,' " Dobson wrote. "And yet he is apparently the Great Hope that burns in the breasts of many conservative Christians? Well, not for me, my brothers. Not for me!"
Who could blame them?

A person who compromises his principles is no better than a person without principles.

What honest Conservative Christian would vote for Giuliani?
__________________
deep is offline  
Old 10-01-2007, 07:30 PM   #133
Blue Crack Supplier
 
Irvine511's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 30,499
Local Time: 06:47 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by AEON

As in, we are a nation built upon Judeo-Christian values.


no, we're not.

we're built on the secular humanist values of the Enlightenment with a diest perspective on God, who is so secularized in the founding documents that he's only refered to as the "Creator" and there's nary a mention of Jesus.
__________________
Irvine511 is offline  
Old 10-01-2007, 07:49 PM   #134
She's the One
 
martha's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Orange County and all over the goddamn place
Posts: 42,338
Local Time: 03:47 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by diamond


You don't think McCain meant Judaeo-Christian Principles?

That's not what he said though, is it.
__________________
martha is offline  
Old 10-01-2007, 08:26 PM   #135
Blue Crack Addict
 
deep's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: A far distance down.
Posts: 28,501
Local Time: 03:47 AM
I think Rudy has a good shot to be the GOP nominee

and in polls today , he beats Hillary

but, come November 2008

It will be a different story








Quote:
Rude Giuliani

If he wants voters to respect his privacy, he ought to show some respect for basic manners.

Monday, October 1, 2007 12:01 a.m.

A lot is going well for Rudy Giuliani's campaign. His fund raising is strong. He outstrips his GOP rivals in national polls. His speeches on taxes and health care were solid. He picked up some foreign-policy gravitas with a successful trip to London.

But there is a fly in the ointment. Even members of Mr. Giuliani's own staff are appalled at how he handled the incident in which he answered a phone call from his wife, Judith, right in the middle of a nationally televised speech to the National Rifle Association.

What was that about? Columnist Robert Novak cites "supporters from outside the Giuliani staff" who claim that taking phone calls from his wife as been "part of his political bag of tricks all year." But Mr. Giuliani's deputy press secretary Jason Miller told me the NRA incident was definitely not a stunt. Instead it was a "candid and spontaneous moment" that would humanize the tough-guy former mayor with voters.

Nice try. Just in case this isn't obviously ridiculous, Fox News commissioned a poll on the subject. It found that only 9% of Americans think a candidate should ever interrupt a speech to accept a call from his spouse.

The fact is that people inside the Giuliani campaign are appalled at the number of times their candidate has felt compelled to interrupt public appearances to take calls from his wife. The estimate from those in a position to know is that he has taken such calls more than 40 times in the middle of speeches, conferences and presentations to large donors. "If it's a stunt, it's not one coming from him," says one Giuliani staffer. "It's an ongoing problem that he won't take advice on."

And in trying to explain his odd behavior, Mr. Giuliani has only dug himself in deeper. On Friday he told David Brody of CBN News that since 9/11, when he and Mrs. Giuliani get on a plane, "most of the time . . . we talk to each other and just reaffirm the fact that we love each other." He admitted he had taken calls from his wife "before in engagements, and I didn't realize it would create any kind of controversy." That's hardly possible. Giuliani staffers say he has been warned over and over again that the phone calls are rude and inappropriate and have alienated everyone from local officials to top donors to close friends.

Consider a spring incident in Oklahoma City. Mr. Giuliani spoke twice at the Oklahoma History Center, first at a small private roundtable for $2,300 donors and then to 150 people who donated $500 apiece. Ten minutes into the roundtable, Mr. Giuliani's phone rang. He left the room to take the call, apparently from Mrs. Giuliani, and never returned. The snubbed donors received no explanation. "The people there viewed it as disrespectful and cheesy," says Pat McGuigan, a local newspaper editor who was asked by the Giuliani campaign to moderate the roundtable.

An hour or so later, Mr. Giuliani was speaking to the bigger group of donors when his phone rang again. While he spoke with his wife, he invited her to say hello to the assembled crowd. "It was remarkable, and was not viewed by the audience in a positive way," public relations executive Brenda Jones told me.

I've been told of many other incidents, from a California fund-raiser to a Florida speech to a gathering with top donors at Bear Stearns in New York. At the Bear Stearns meeting, Mr. Giuliani took a call from his wife and then noting the strained faces of his supporters, he sheepishly tried a joke. "I've been married three times," he explained. "I can't afford to lose another one. I'm sure you understand." (Mr. Giuliani's media office didn't return a call I made to them on Friday afternoon.)

Mr. Giuliani understands that such behavior is rude--when other people do it. A year ago Hanna Rosin reported in The Atlantic Monthly on a speech Mr. Giuliani gave at a motivational seminar in Iowa before he became a candidate:

Giuliani was up to principle No. 2 ("Follow your hopes and dreams") when he was interrupted. From down in the audience, just beyond the stage, he heard a cell phone ring. He stopped in the middle of telling a story. "It's okay, you can answer your cell phone," he said. "You won't interrupt me." The woman whose phone had rung was mortified; he had just embarrassed her in front of 18,000 people. In the "town hall" meetings he used to conduct as mayor of New York, through a radio show, Giuliani was not known for his good-natured populism. He was known for making fun of constituents who called him with what he thought were petty problems. This is the dark Giuliani, and here he was, making an unwelcome appearance.

He shifted to a long digression about the scene in "Dr. Strangelove" where General Buck Turgidson answers a call in the middle of a crisis and whispers sweet nothings to his girl on the phone, as the nation's political and military leadership looks on impatiently. "Just tell him you love him so I can go on with my speech," Giuliani said. No one was laughing. Giuliani actually waited for the woman to hang up. Then, after a painful minute or so, he was back in candidate mode, talking about Vince Lombardi and the mind of a champion.

Giuliani staffers say Judith Giuliani is in a league of her own. Many of the complaints are inside baseball: Staffers have been fired, advisers shut out of meetings, schedules changed based on her whim. But it was her idea for Mr. Giuliani to suggest on national TV that he might let her attend cabinet meetings. Her high-handed behavior prompted a series of negative profiles this summer, including a vicious one in Vanity Fair, which were said to have prompted her to retreat from day-to-day involvement in the campaign.

But not for long. The staff remains "terrified" of her, according to a former staffer. "Mollifying Judith is at the top of the to-do list for far too many people on the campaign," one person close to Mr. Giuliani told me. Another says: "The biggest concern is that if not corrected it will stir up questions about his judgment closer to when people vote--either before the early primaries or before the general election. It's a ticking time bomb."

Mr. Giuliani has so far managed to keep this question largely at bay by asking voters to respect his privacy. In August he faced down a woman in New Hampshire who questioned how he could expect loyalty from voters when he isn't getting it from his own children. His crisp answer: "I love my family very, very much and will do anything for them. There are complexities in every family in America. The best thing I can say is kind of, 'leave my family alone,' just like I'll leave your family alone." The audience applauded.

But if Mr. Giuliani wants voters to respect his privacy, he ought to show some respect for basic manners. When he arrives for a public appearance, he should check his cell phone at the door.
__________________

__________________
deep is offline  
 

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 06:47 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8 Beta 1
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Design, images and all things inclusive copyright © Interference.com