US 2008 Presidential Campaign Thread - Part 2

[BVS]

Thou shall not steal?
Thou shall not bear false witness?
Thou shall not kill/murder (the innocent)?

umm hello?

That's pretty weak, but I'm sure you realized that after you typed it.

30%, if that much, and like Sean said, most countries have those...

Do some research!!!

 

[BVS]

And Mitt comes up large in Michigan debate:

ding
ding
ding

http://youtube.com/watch?v=AYtt9aOOS5c

You didn't even watch it, did you?

Why do you even try talking politics?

 

[A_Wanderer]

Then that fact tells me there is a God of us all.
And Audeltry used to be against US law, still frowned upon by most US citizens -unless you're a guest talk show host on The View

dbs

And blasphemy? Is that to be against the law as well - should erase the first amendment for that

How about coveting your neighbours posessions? Goodbye aspiration in a capitalist society

Honouring father and mother? Im sure that one should be enforced, in fact abused children should be at fault in those cases since child abuse never made the top 10 laws of Jesusland.

No idolatry? Time to ship those bloody Buddhists out of the country, for starters.

Keep the Sabbath holy? Again, shut down the whole country for that time, it would be mad!

Thou shalt not murder? One size fits all rule given to us from God - of course the concept of upholding the individual rights that we get by consensually engaging with society and state without a God based cause to be could arguably be as effective - or not, it seems a lot simpler if God says so.

All the coveting ones are bloody hard to enforce, short of mind reading - but aspirational freethinkers are totally not what built America anyway and getting rid of them should do wonders, the idolatry one sort of slices through the establishment clause and the rest are by no means unequivocally bad every single time (judging cases upon their merits can be better done in an imperfect secular system of laws than one that claims to be perfect).

Arguing that the law is derived or justified in some manner from God and favouring the extension of it to match that belief goes dead against the model of Government that America was able to institute and preserve for centuries (with obvious exceptions - but it was still ahead of the game on a number of points). While pulling quotes from the 18th Century that use the parlance of God or explicitely refer to the Christian God and ethic may seem critical they are trumped by both the explicit wording of the documents as well as the presence of naturalistic minded men among the drafters (not believing in an interventionist God in a world before Darwin is more significant than the opposite).

Secularism preserves your right to worship and to live your life according to your religious beliefs, at the same time it alows others to do the same (or not); it protects the liberties of all, and the vigilance of groups like the ACLU is what keeps it alive.

 

[Earnie Shavers]

I think the logic is that you can go against God's Commandments if you do it in God's name.

 

[Moonlit_Angel]

*Nods* Just look at the wars going on right now for proof of that one.

Angela

 

[diamond]

Re last nights debate, Time has Mitt coimng in 2nd:

http://www.time.com/time/specials/2007/article/0,28804,1669812_1669813_1669823,00.html

 

[phillyfan26]

Sorry to disapoint you guys but a lot of the US laws are based on the 10 Commandments.

dbs

You're missing the entire point.

 

[phillyfan26]

And Mitt comes up large in Michigan debate:

ding
ding
ding

http://youtube.com/watch?v=AYtt9aOOS5c

Wow, in that clip they discussed his "funny" response to a question about religion and the separation of church and state that actually reeks of hypocrisy.

 

[Irvine511]

And Mitt comes up large in Michigan debate:

ding
ding
ding

http://youtube.com/watch?v=AYtt9aOOS5c

it seems like someone's committing adultery amongst his candidates.

 

[MrsSpringsteen]

Washington, the old cliché goes, is Hollywood for ugly people—a mecca for ambitious strivers who lack the cheekbones or the glamour to make it to the silver screen. But that was before wall-to-wall media coverage turned presidential campaigns into lengthy spectacles as relentlessly contrived and overproduced as the Golden Globes. Managed by fleets of pricey handlers and professional writers, candidates have become as manufactured as move stars: coached on every aspect of their dress and demeanor, and supplied with perky sound-bites for spontaneous delivery on Letterman.

http://www.radaronline.com/from-the...ry_clinton_rudy_giuliani_barack_obama_mit.php

Which is why, as we set out to plan the cover of Radar's Politics issue, it seemed appropriate to do a little facile packaging of our own. What better way to underline the ego, excess, and artifice that dominate modern politics than to borrow a page from Vanity Fair's now-notorious 2006 Hollywood issue, which starred Tom Ford, Keira Knightley, and Scarlett Johansson in various states of undress? True, on our cover, Hillary may lack Knightley's porcelain visage, and Barack makes for a jarringly beefy ScoJo, but they, and the other contenders for the 2008 election, do have a few attributes to recommend them. Washington may well be Hollywood for ugly people, but, as John McCain once gamely noted, "Hollywood is Washington for the simpleminded."

This is an excerpt from the November issue of Radar Magazine.

 

[verte76]

Sorry to disapoint you guys but a lot of the US laws are based on the 10 Commandments.

dbs

Oh, come on, diamond, U.S. law is based on English common law, not the Ten Commandments. The Constitution explicitly states that no religion shall be established. The Founding Fathers were deists. There's a famous picture of Benjamin Franklin having his grandson blessed by Voltaire, the great writer who fought against religious bigotry in France.

 

[diamond]

Are you saying that English common law did not incorporate some of the principles found in the 10 Commandments?

And you don't think the founding fathers took some of those philosophies and incorporated them into US law?

 

[BVS]

Are you saying that English common law did not incorporate some of the principles found in the 10 Commandments?

And you don't think the founding fathers took some of those philosophies and incorporated them into US law?

Why do you keep ignoring everyone's posts?

Look at Wanderer's post, look at Sean's post, hell just ask anyone who's read the constitution...

 

[diamond]

I did.
From what I know that 3 of the Commandments are still incoporated into US Law.

Also many towns and some States have a "Blue Law" meaning businesses are closed on the Sunday or the Sabbath as most Christians understand the what the Sabbath now is-(this is not your cue maycocksean).

Adultrey used to be against US Law until recently, that's why Frank Sinatra was arrested, notre Mr. Deep's avatar.

So there are half of the Commandments listed for you that have been incotporated into US Law, nationally or locally -until recently.

As far as "Seperation of Church and State" that statement is not in the Constitution, a lot of the minions on the Left assume it is, BUT IT'S NOT.

What the founders wanted was not to have a "Church of The United States" siimilar to "The Church Of England" from which the colonists of our country ran from.

And with Obama speaking in a church about politics, that was crossing the line.




Mitt has never gave a polictical speech in a church, nor have any of the conservatives running for office this season-that I know of. If the did-they would be excoriated by the Left, and if you were honest-you would admit these facts.

dbs

 

[phillyfan26]

I did.
From what I know that 3 of the Commandments are still incoporated into US Law.

Also many towns and some States have a "Blue Law" meaning businesses are closed on the Sunday or the Sabbath as most Christians understand the what the Sabbath now is-(this is not your cue maycocksean).

Adultrey used to be against US Law until recently, that's why Frank Sinatra was arrested, notre Mr. Deep's avatar.

So there are half of the Commandments listed for you that have been incotporated into US Law, nationally or locally -until recently.

As far as "Seperation of Church and State" that statement is not in the Constitution, a lot of the minions on the Left assume it is, BUT IT'S NOT.

What the founders wanted was not to have a "Church of The United States" siimilar to "The Church Of England" from which the colonists of our country ran from.

And with Obama speaking in a church about politics, that was crossing the line.

Mitt has never gave a polictical speech in a church, nor have any of the conservatives running for office this season-that I know of. If the did-they would be excoriated by the Left, and if you were honest-you would admit these facts.

dbs

So much wrong with this post...

1) Again, again, again, moderates and those on the Left would be upset if he tried to make religious beliefs into law. Such as a ban on same-sex marriage.

2) We know that separation of Church and state isn't in the written Constitution. Doesn't mean it isn't a policy.

3) Why should those with alternate religions or no religions be governed by the laws of other religions?

4) Haven't most here said they didn't like Obama making that speech there?

5) We know that laws of the United States do have some parallels to the Ten Commandments followed by some religions. You don't have to point them out. They're not relevant to what we are saying.

 

[BVS]

I did.
From what I know that 3 of the Commandments are still incoporated into US Law.

You mean there are three common sense laws that are very similar to the 10 commandments, but what about these countries that have these same laws but never heard of the 10 commandments?

Also many towns and some States have a "Blue Law" meaning businesses are closed on the Sunday or the Sabbath as most Christians understand the what the Sabbath now is-(this is not your cue maycocksean).

Yeah and most of these are gone...

Adultrey used to be against US Law until recently, that's why Frank Sinatra was arrested, notre Mr. Deep's avatar.

Still is in parts of the Middle East, did they copy us?

As far as "Seperation of Church and State" that statement is not in the Constitution, a lot of the minions on the Left assume it is, BUT IT'S NOT.

What the founders wanted was not to have a "Church of The United States" siimilar to "The Church Of England" from which the colonists of our country ran from.

Yes this is nice twist of words the right has made over the past few decades.

And with Obama speaking in a church about politics, that was crossing the line.

Mitt has never gave a polictical speech in a church, nor have any of the conservatives running for office this season-that I know of. If the did-they would be excoriated by the Left, and if you were honest-you would admit these facts.

You are right, I really didn't like Obama speaking in the church but politicians have been doing it for years. Mitt probably won't because it would ruin his campaign, he has to be very careful about his religion. As far as the others, I haven't heard of any yet, but give it time...

 

[diamond]

You are right, I really didn't like Obama speaking in the church but politicians have been doing it for years. I haven't heard of any yet, but give it time...

Well, I'm glad we agree on something.
Until a consevative does this there really isn't much to add, but I'm sure if one does, FYM will explode.

Until then, cheers.

dbs

 

[phillyfan26]

You don't want to address any of the points any of us made other than to focus on Obama?

 

[MrsSpringsteen]

I think the way Bush (and some other conservatives) mixes up religion and politics is worth exploding over. As soon as any Democrat uses it in the same manner, I will explode over it.

 

[BVS]

Until a consevative does this there really isn't much to add,

You're speaking about purely this campaign?

Because if you think a conservative never has you are sadly, sadly mistaken...

 

[Moonlit_Angel]

No kidding. It's sort of like with that MoveOn ad, I loved hearing conservatives complain about it-yeah, 'cause they've never done anything similar in the past, right? Their political ads have always been free of controversy. Uh-huh.

(And for what it's worth, I don't care if it's MoveOn or some conservative political group, I'd support both sides' right to free speech)

I think the way Bush (and some other conservatives) mixes up religion and politics is worth exploding over. As soon as any Democrat uses it in the same manner, I will explode over it.

Exactly. Maybe there will be some people out there who might act hypocritical on this issue, diamond, it wouldn't surprise me if that happened. But I won't-I get really uneasy when any political candidate tries to incorporate their religious beliefs into their politics, because all that usually winds up meaning is that they're trying to force their beliefs on other people. Candidates can believe whatever they want religion-wise, I don't care. Just do not push it on anybody else. Do not use it to make laws that fit your religious worldview. That's not fair to those who aren't of your faith. Period. End of story.

Angela

 

[diamond]

As soon as any Democrat uses it in the same manner, I will explode over it.

 

[BVS]

You know Diamond has nothing to bring to the discussion when photos start popping up...






This was one of your saddest attempts.

Just give up.

 

[MrsSpringsteen]

Oh well, at least he didn't post a picture referring to me as a witch and/or a shrew

 

[martha]

Oh well, at least he didn't post a picture referring to me as a witch and/or a shrew

Do you feel left out?

 

[verte76]

Well said, Angela. I'm uneasy over mixing religion and politics. Americans are of diverse religious views. This is not a "Christian country". Hell, there's a Muslim, Keith Ellison, in Congress. He's an American, too. There are Jewish people in Congress. Russ Feingold, one of my favorite Senators, is Jewish. Whatever you think of Joe Lieberman, and he's not one of my favorite Senators because he's too hawkish, is also Jewish. I do admire the man's guts and think he's basically very honest and sincere. Let's be fair to these people.

 

[MrsSpringsteen]

Clinton vows to check executive power
Would curb use of signing statements

By Marcella Bombardieri, Globe Staff | October 11, 2007

Senator Hillary Clinton said yesterday that if she is elected president, she intends to roll back President Bush's expansion of executive authority, including his use of presidential signing statements to put his own interpretation on bills passed by Congress or to claim authority to disobey them entirely.

"I think you have to restore the checks and balances and the separation of powers, which means reining in the presidency," Clinton told the Boston Globe's editorial board.

Although Bush has issued hundreds of signing statements, declarations that accompany his signature on bills approved by Congress, Clinton said she would use the statements only to clarify bills that might be confusing or contradictory. She also said she did not subscribe to the "unitary executive" theory that argues the Constitution prevents Congress from passing laws limiting the president's power over executive branch operations. Adherents to the theory say any president who refuses to obey such laws is not really breaking the law.

"It has been a concerted effort by the vice president, with the full acquiescence of the president, to create a much more powerful executive at the expense of both branches of government and of the American people," she said.

In the wide-ranging interview, the senator, a Democrat of New York, also said her policy on Russia would focus on influencing that nation's role in the world rather than trying to halt its internal move away from democracy. She would seek Russia's help negotiating with Iran over its suspected nuclear weapons program, she said, and try to prevent Russia from "being a problem in the Middle East" or bullying its neighbors.

"I'm interested in what Russia does outside its borders first," she said. "I don't think I can, as the president of the United States, wave my hand and tell the Russian people they should have a different government."

Clinton decried what she called Bush's "incoherent" policy on Russia, saying the president was "naive" to rely so strongly on his personal relationship with Russian leader Vladimir Putin.

Clinton was asked about a statement she made on Tuesday when criticizing the Bush administration's conduct in Iraq. She said she hadn't known that Blackwater USA, the military contractor accused of killing more than a dozen Iraqi civilians last month, had immunity from prosecution in Iraq because of an exemption approved soon after the US invasion.

"Maybe I should have known about it; I did not know about it," she said yesterday.

Asked if that suggested she, a member of the Senate Armed Services Committee, was not sufficiently vigilant on the contractors issue, she said she has been raising questions about contractors for several years and opposed the government's use of them.

On domestic priorities, Clinton pitched her proposals on Medicare reform and scientific research and said she would unveil a plan today to make college more affordable.

Clinton recently floated the idea of issuing a $5,000 bond to each baby born in the United States to help pay for college and a first home, but it immediately inspired Republican ridicule and she quickly said she would not implement the proposal.

She defended that decision yesterday, saying she is focusing on proposals with more political support and she is not formally proposing anything she can't fund without increasing the deficit: "I have a million ideas. The country can't afford them all."

Responding to statements by some Democratic rivals that she is not electable because her negative ratings are too high, she pointed to her increasing lead in national polls. "I am winning," she said. "That's a good place to start."

She sketched out a road to victory in the general election, if she becomes the Democratic nominee, saying she expected to win every state that Senator John F. Kerry won in 2004, plus Florida, Ohio, Arkansas, and probably Louisiana, New Mexico, and Nevada.

"I believe," she said, "that both my theory and my strategy, and my track record and how I'm doing right now, really adds up to a very compelling argument that I will actually win."

 

[BVS]

I'm liking her more and more...

 

[Moonlit_Angel]

I've been conflicted on Hilary. But I like this article regarding her.

Also, I just want to say that Ron Paul's position on everything regarding the war on terror makes me a very happy person. It'll kill his chances of getting far in the Republican race, but good to see him stick to his position anyway.

Well said, Angela. I'm uneasy over mixing religion and politics. Americans are of diverse religious views. This is not a "Christian country". Hell, there's a Muslim, Keith Ellison, in Congress. He's an American, too. There are Jewish people in Congress. Russ Feingold, one of my favorite Senators, is Jewish. Whatever you think of Joe Lieberman, and he's not one of my favorite Senators because he's too hawkish, is also Jewish. I do admire the man's guts and think he's basically very honest and sincere. Let's be fair to these people.

Thanks, and well said to you, too . It's nice to have some diversity in our politicians, would make for one hell of a boring race otherwise.

Angela

 

[eltimbomofo]

I'm still holding out for Mr. Gore. Hoping he will at the very least, not close the door on the idea of him running when he goes in front of the press today to discuss his winning of the Peace Prize.