U2 Feedback

U2 Feedback (https://www.u2interference.com/forums/)
-   Free Your Mind Archive (https://www.u2interference.com/forums/f290/)
-   -   US 2008 Presidential Campaign/Debate Discussion Thread - Part III (https://www.u2interference.com/forums/f290/us-2008-presidential-campaign-debate-discussion-thread-part-iii-182084.html)

phillyfan26 12-02-2007 04:33 PM

OK, I don't like Bill Clinton. There. I'm an independent, as well. I'm not a Clinton fan.

George W. Bush has done nothing for this.

Now, discuss with me without referring to Bill Clinton, please.

BVS 12-02-2007 04:34 PM

2861U2

And do you still think you were waranted bringing up Clinton knowing the climate of the situation now?

2861U2 12-02-2007 04:55 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by phillyfan26
OK, I don't like Bill Clinton. There. I'm an independent, as well. I'm not a Clinton fan.

George W. Bush has done nothing for this.

Now, discuss with me without referring to Bill Clinton, please.

Gladly. Gays in the military- is that the discussion to which you are referring?

phillyfan26 12-02-2007 04:59 PM

Correct. The issue of gays in the military. Your issue seemed to be my use of the word "bigot" to describe these people who want to deny rights to citizens. I'm glad you don't hold those views, but you defend people who do.

2861U2 12-02-2007 05:09 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by phillyfan26
Correct. The issue of gays in the military. Your issue seemed to be my use of the word "bigot" to describe these people who want to deny rights to citizens. I'm glad you don't hold those views, but you defend people who do.
When it comes to gays being allowed to serve in the military, I will not defend any Republican candidate who believes they shouldnt serve. Like I've said, on this issue, I believe they are dead wrong. What I was trying to convey (maybe unsuccessfully) was that all I saw was one-sided attacks. I'm fully aware that Bill is no longer president, but if you're going to criticize, criticize both sides, including anyone who supports or has ever supported DADT. If you do that, I'm more than happy to join in and criticize Romney or whoever else (at least on this particular issue- I'll defend them on mostly everything else, though).

BVS 12-02-2007 05:16 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by 2861U2

I'm fully aware that Bill is no longer president, but if you're going to criticize, criticize both sides, including anyone who supports or has ever supported DADT.

:banghead: Well you're still ignoring all context of the time. Until you are willing to recognise what was going on at the time, this discussion is useless.

2861U2 12-02-2007 05:26 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by BonoVoxSupastar


:banghead: Well you're still ignoring all context of the time. Until you are willing to recognise what was going on at the time, this discussion is useless.

From what I understand, gays were being brutally harassed in the military (Allen Schindler), causing Clinton to sign DADT. That's no excuse though. Saying that somebody CAN'T serve in the military if they desire is just wrong. If a homosexual acknowledges the potential danger to himself by his peers and doesn't want to take a chance, fine. But I'm sure there were those who, knowing of the harassment, would still have signed up and couldnt.

BVS 12-02-2007 05:29 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by 2861U2


Saying that somebody CAN'T serve in the military if they desire is just wrong.

I agree. Same with marriage as well.

phillyfan26 12-02-2007 06:01 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by 2861U2
I'm fully aware that Bill is no longer president, but if you're going to criticize, criticize both sides, including anyone who supports or has ever supported DADT. If you do that, I'm more than happy to join in and criticize Romney or whoever else (at least on this particular issue- I'll defend them on mostly everything else, though).
Do you think that at the end of the Civil War it was even remotely possible that an African American person who just was released from slavery would have been allowed equal rights?

These things happen in steps. DADT is a step. It was the first step. It's SUPPOSED to be progressive. Bush and his fellow GOPers have done nothing since then. Nothing,

phillyfan26 12-02-2007 06:02 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by BonoVoxSupastar
I agree. Same with marriage as well.
Exactly.

Anything else is bigotry.

Those against gay marriage don't have opinions.

They're just wrong.

yolland 12-02-2007 06:29 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by phillyfan26
Do you think that at the end of the Civil War it was even remotely possible that an African American person who just was released from slavery would have been allowed equal rights?

These things happen in steps.

Actually, this is wrong--black Southerners had MORE rights during the Reconstruction era than they would for three-quarters of a century afterwards; the Civil Rights Act of 1866 and the 14th and 15th amendments guaranteed African-Americans' civil rights, including the right to vote, but these rights were then effectively retracted through a legislative process beginning about 25 years after the start of Reconstruction and complete by another 25 years after that. Jim Crow wasn't "baby steps," it was a backlash.

phillyfan26 12-02-2007 06:50 PM

Which goes along with my point of it not being possible.

Not that I'm at all for the Jim Crow laws, but looking at the context of the time, it's not surprising at all that those resulted. A lot of ignorance has to be overcome.

U2democrat 12-02-2007 07:14 PM

However, there is a little difference between blacks and gays serving in the military---it's easier to tell whether someone is black than gay :shrug: It was easier to discriminate then.

Doesn't change the fact however that denying gays the right to fight for our/their country is just plain wrong.

phillyfan26 12-02-2007 07:55 PM

My point in the comparison was to talk about how slow our country moves away from these things. It took us a long time with racism, just as the issue over rights for homosexuals will take a long time.

Having a President who's willing to take more steps is a start.

BonosSaint 12-02-2007 08:42 PM

There are no further baby steps to take. The next forward move is for gays to openly serve in the military, subject to the same sexual conduct rules as heterosexuals.

Infinity 12-02-2007 10:27 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by 2861U2


Excuse me?

Assuming you're referring to me, I do not feel defeated in the slightest. And about me bringing up Clinton? It's a fact, sir. If you guys disagree with the Republican candidates here, I don't care. I'm just trying to remind you that it was one of your own who started the policy. Same principle applies for your WMD example. Bringing up Democrats who voted for this war is absolutely a legitimate point in an argument, and anyone who says otherwise is, as far as I can see, ashamed and trying to run from the fact.

No I wasn't referring to you, or I may have, I don't know, because I hadn't read your posts before making my comment. I just saw the few posts before of Clinton and I had a feeling that the conversation had to do with what I was making fun of, about how neo-cons bring up Clinton when people attack Bush policies.

Now let me ask you this.

If I were to criticize Bush for using WMD as a reason to go into Iraq, why on earth would an attack on Clinton statements be a defense on my statement?

The same works the other way around.

If I attacked the Clinton administrations policy of DADT, saying that "Reagan supported a similar policy also" is NOT the appropriate response (not that Reagan supported it).

It makes more sense to defend the policy being attacked rather than saying that "so and so supported it also." Okay, well that doesn't make it right.

None of this is directed towards you or anyone specifically, i'm just saying.


Quote:

Bringing up Democrats who voted for this war is absolutely a legitimate point in an argument, and anyone who says otherwise is, as far as I can see, ashamed and trying to run from the fact. [/B]
But why is that a legitimate point in the argument I don't understand?

Most of the Congress voted for the war, yes, but I still blame the executive branch more then any Senator or Congressman.

This may sound like a 3rd grade argument, but it was Bush's idea to begin with, he is the one that bent the truth and lied in some cases.

Does the Congress deserve partial blame even? Yes they do, because they were careless and irresponsible and just voted for the war without fully studying the facts. But they didn't lie. They were careless, but they didn't lie like Bush did.

So basically, Congress was lazy and Bush took advantage of it, in the simplest terms IMHO.

Let me give an analogy, its like having a prisoner escape from jail because of a lazy watchman.

While the watchman does have partial blame, most of the blame goes to the prisoner, because he was the one who actually took advantage.

Anyway, if you think it is a good idea to bring up democrats who voted for the war, why not also bring up republicans who voted for the war? So both republicans and democrats voted for the war, okay, so now what? Do you see my point? If i'm blaming Bush for lying to the nation about WMD's, there is no point in saying "Oh this Democrat voted for the war also" because I can just as easily say "Oh this Republican voted also." Its not going to get us anywhere in an argument, no point.

And by the way, my candidate Ron Paul did NOT vote for the war, just stating the facts.

Moonlit_Angel 12-03-2007 01:14 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by BonosSaint
There are no further baby steps to take. The next forward move is for gays to openly serve in the military, subject to the same sexual conduct rules as heterosexuals.
Obviously true. Unfortunately, there's still a few people out there who will cling to outdated ideas, and will need those baby steps, because rapid change scares them. To which I'd say, be it slow or sudden, change is going to happen no matter what, so deal with it, but...*Shrugs*.

I think, though, for the most part, acceptance of homosexuality is speeding up big time nowadays. I really feel most people in this country just don't care one way or another anymore.

Anywho, I'm in agreement with Infinitum-we can play the blame game all day long, but that's not going to solve anything. Everyone just needs to acknowledge that people in both parties have made some ridiculously stupid blunders over the years, and then go on to say, "Okay, now how can we work together to fix these problems?" Unfortunately, the political climate nowadays is such that that's easier said than done.

Angela

MrsSpringsteen 12-03-2007 02:06 PM

WASHINGTON (CNN) – Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama is getting advice from an unlikely source: former top Bush aide Karl Rove.

The man behind Bush's two presidential victories took to the pages of the Financial Times Sunday to offer the candidate some unsolicited suggestions on how to beat rival Hillary Clinton.

In an open memo to Obama, Rove said the Illinois senator currently appears "weak and ineffectual," and should start sharpening his attacks on the New York Democrat.

"Stop acting like a vitamin-deficient Adlai Stevenson," Rove writes in reference to another Illinois Democrat who twice ran for president and lost. "Striking a pose of being high-minded and too pure will not work. Americans want to see you scrapping and fighting for the job, not in a mean or ugly way but in a forceful and straightforward way."

Rove also suggests Obama exploit the "real doubts" many Democrats feel about Clinton, take clear stances on the issues, and better articulate the type of change he is hoping to represent.

Finally, Rove says Obama needs to decry what he calls Clinton's complaints that she is "being picked on."

"Find a way to gently belittle her whenever she tries to use disagreements among Democrats as an excuse to complain about being picked on," Rove writes. "The toughest candidate in the field should not be able to complain when others disagree with her. This is not a coronation."

"Blow the whistle on her when she tries to become a victim," he continues. "Do it with humor and a smile and it will sting even more."

Rove's memo comes the same day a new poll out of crucial early-voting state Iowa shows Obama seems to have taken a lead over Clinton, 28 percent to 25 percent. Former North Carolina Sen. John Edwards is a close third at 23 percent. With the poll's 4.4 percent margin of error, the race in the Hawkeye State is a statistical dead heat.

Responding to the memo, a Clinton campaign spokesperson said, "Why is Karl Rove giving Sen. Obama advice on how to win? Could it be that he thinks it will be easier for Republicans to run against the unknown gentleman from Illinois?"

Politico's Jim VandeHei said it's more likely Rove is seeking publicity and wants to have a voice as the election unfolds.

"If you're a gambler you want to be at the table, and he very much wants to be part of this debate," VandeHei said.

verte76 12-03-2007 03:18 PM

That is weird, Rove giving advice to Obama!

verte76 12-03-2007 03:21 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by 2861U2


From what I understand, gays were being brutally harassed in the military (Allen Schindler), causing Clinton to sign DADT. That's no excuse though. Saying that somebody CAN'T serve in the military if they desire is just wrong. If a homosexual acknowledges the potential danger to himself by his peers and doesn't want to take a chance, fine. But I'm sure there were those who, knowing of the harassment, would still have signed up and couldnt.

I agree.


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 03:53 PM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8 Beta 1
Copyright ©2000 - 2022, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Design, images and all things inclusive copyright © Interference.com