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 11-29-2007 05:14 PM

US 2008 Presidential Campaign/Debate Discussion Thread - Part III
 
Continue discussion, guys.

2861U2 11-29-2007 05:24 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by phillyfan26
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 11-29-2007 05:33 PM

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 11-29-2007 05:42 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by 2861U2


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 11-29-2007 05:43 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by 2861U2
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 11-29-2007 05:47 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by 2861U2


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 11-29-2007 05:47 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by BonoVoxSupastar



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 11-29-2007 05:49 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Irvine511


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

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

BVS 11-29-2007 05:51 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by 2861U2


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 11-29-2007 05:53 PM

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

BVS 11-29-2007 05:54 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by 2861U2


:banghead: 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 11-29-2007 05:57 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by MrsSpringsteen
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 11-29-2007 05:58 PM

:eyebrow:

Didn't they come legally to the US?

2861U2 11-29-2007 05:59 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by BonoVoxSupastar


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 11-29-2007 06:00 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by 2861U2

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.

:eyebrow:

2861U2 11-29-2007 06:00 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Vincent Vega
:eyebrow:

Didn't they come legally to the US?

A handful did not.

phillyfan26 11-29-2007 06:00 PM

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 11-29-2007 06:04 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by 2861U2


:banghead: 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 11-29-2007 06:05 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by 2861U2


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 11-29-2007 06:08 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Irvine511




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 11-29-2007 06:19 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by 2861U2



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 11-29-2007 06:23 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by 2861U2

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 11-29-2007 06:28 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by BonoVoxSupastar


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 11-29-2007 07:01 PM

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 11-29-2007 07:03 PM

Ooooooooh wow Gravel's done it again.

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

Now why isn't he higher in the polls? :hmm:

BVS 11-29-2007 07:05 PM

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 11-29-2007 07:15 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Irvine511
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. :shifty:

AngelofHarlem01 11-29-2007 07:39 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by U2democrat
Ooooooooh wow Gravel's done it again.

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

Now why isn't he higher in the polls? :hmm:

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

Moonlit_Angel 11-29-2007 08:04 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by 2861U2
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 11-29-2007 08:12 PM

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

Dreadsox 11-29-2007 08:16 PM

Huck will be the nominee I think.

deep 11-29-2007 08:22 PM

I still think Giuliani has the best shot with the early primaries on Feb 5.

I think Huckabee will do better than Thompson. and Romney will make some decent showings in some primaries, but will not be able to capture the nomination

it is possible we could go in to the GOP convention with no candidate having the delegates to cinch the nomination






_______________________________
if I had a sig - this might be it


https://www.rawstory.com/images/other...shot112907.jpg

phillyfan26 11-29-2007 08:25 PM

Giuliani and Huckabee are the frontrunners now, with Romney and Paul a good distance back, and the other guys with no chance.

deep 11-30-2007 03:24 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Michelle Malkin
Abortion questioner is declared Edwards supporter (and a slobbering Anderson Cooper fan); Log Cabin Republican questioner is declared Obama supporter; lead toy questioner is a prominent union activist for the Edwards-endorsing United Steelworkers ....
Jay Tea was one of several to complain, writing at the blog Wizbang: "Those were good, solid questions. But CNN, by playing by completely contradictory standards for its questioners at debates, betrays its bias: the Democrats get to stack their questions to make their candidates look good; the Republicans find themselves having to squirm and evade, or give concrete answers that won't make some people very happy."


Quote:

CNN's Feist said, conservative commentators did not complain when questioners who shared their political ideology had videos aired during the Democratic forum in July.

During that session, one video questioner asked the candidates to choose between raising taxes or cutting benefits in order to save Social Security. Another demanded to know whether taxes would rise "like usually they do when a Democrat comes in office." A third featured a gun-toting Michigan man, who in an interview Thursday said he had voted twice for President Bush, who wanted to know if the Democrats would protect his "baby" -- an assault rifle he cradled in his arms.

Another questioner from that forum who seemed to have clear conservative credentials was John McAlpin, a sailor who asked Clinton: "How do you think you would be taken seriously" by Arab and Muslim nations that treat women as "second-class citizens"?

McAlpin's MySpace page features pictures of Rudolph W. Giuliani, the former New York mayor and Republican presidential candidate.

It depicts Fox commentator Bill O'Reilly as a friend, while offering a caricature of a bearded, turban-wearing "Borat Hussein Obama" -- a derogatory reference to Obama, the Democratic candidate who as a youth attended a Muslim school.
So are Conservatives just a bunch of whining little babies?

phillyfan26 11-30-2007 04:02 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by deep
So are Conservatives just a bunch of whining little babies?
Bingo.

And that women Malkin (sp?) misses the point. A Republican president still has to rule a nation divided along political lines. "Leaving them to squirm and evade" isn't the fault of the questioner. If the candidate cannot give a good answer to an important issue, that's the problem of the candidate.

BVS 11-30-2007 04:08 PM

It was rigged, it was rigged :yippie: :yippie:






Conservatives = :crybaby: with this one.

2861U2 12-01-2007 01:06 AM

Why is it that when the topic of gays in the military comes up, I never hear any of you attack Bill Clinton for signing DADT, only the "bigoted, heartless Republicans?"

martha 12-01-2007 01:20 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by 2861U2
Why is it that when the topic of gays in the military comes up, I never hear any of you attack Bill Clinton for signing DADT, only the "bigoted, heartless Republicans?"
Because he's no longer president? :shrug:

I thought it was bullshit then, and I think it's bullshit now.

Moonlit_Angel 12-01-2007 01:28 AM

I wasn't as into politics then (or I was a bit young to really pay attention, depending on when it was), but I don't agree with that, either. My guess is Clinton was trying to cater to the Republicans with that, to help placate them so they wouldn't get as upset whenever he did something that would cater to the Democrats. I personally would've just said, "Screw it, I'm not getting involved in this", but I'm not president, so...*Shrugs*.

But yeah, if you do anything that shows discrimination towards gays, I think it's stupid no matter who you are.

Quote:

Originally posted by phillyfan26
A Republican president still has to rule a nation divided along political lines. "Leaving them to squirm and evade" isn't the fault of the questioner. If the candidate cannot give a good answer to an important issue, that's the problem of the candidate.
Exactly. I don't care what party you belong to, if you can't give a good response to a question, then that's your issue to deal with, and it makes me wonder why you're even in politics in the first place. I've had to listen to people complain for years that the media isn't getting tough on the candidates, that they're not asking the important questions, and yet when they finally do get tough, people complain about that. Same thing is happening with the Democrats. If they back down from a debate, they're called spineless, if they fight back, people complain that they're being bullies. What do you want, people?

Quote:

the Democrats get to stack their questions to make their candidates look good;
Psst...Michelle Malkin...the Republicans have done that, too. Both sides are guilty of this. And I think it's wrong either way, but politics is dirty and that sort of thing is going to happen.

Angela

martha 12-01-2007 01:48 AM

As far as I remember, the Don't Ask thing was a modernization of the policy of actively looking for and routing gays out of the service. Someone will have to correct me if I'm wrong on that.

It was nearly a decade ago. We were all younger then. : old:

BVS 12-01-2007 02:17 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by 2861U2
Why is it that when the topic of gays in the military comes up, I never hear any of you attack Bill Clinton for signing DADT, only the "bigoted, heartless Republicans?"
It was babysteps, and it's bullshit that no one has done anything since...

But like always, you are missing context.

U2DMfan 12-01-2007 02:40 AM

BVS is right. DADT was trying to take a step in the right direction, as opposed to doing nothing. That's the thing, if the Clinton admin takes a "must allow gays, period" to the military, they scoff. He can't get it passed through congress, he was in a world of hurt at the time. 1994 was when the Reps took congress and held until last year. I don't believe he had the authority to change it on his own and if he did, the political fallout from forcing the military's hand would have been even worse for him, at the time a pretty weak President.

I think Clinton should be applauded for trying to get something done. He said, "look, if this person isn't trying to cause trouble, leave them alone, let them serve" not perfect but it was better than the altervative, status quo.

As Martha said, the status quo, as far as I understand was to actively root out gays. What that entailed, not exactly sure. My guess is if solider X thinks Joe over in the next bunk is gay, he might be able to 'report' him in some manner without much warrant, whereas, it seems to me that the policy now is anything short of Joe coming out and proclaiming how fabulous Judy Garland is ( :; flaunting) that he should be left alone to serve, even if they have suspicions or outright knowledge. I don't know for sure though.


It's exactly the kind of compromise we need now. Leaves people unhappy, yes, but gets some shit done until the next step can be taken. We can't get a decent immigration policy for this very reason, nobody is willing to take the hit to compromise. One side wants a basic amnesty, another wants something just short of rounding them up and building a wall, and we all now the policy will be somewhere in the middle. I'll applaud whoever gets that done as well, even Georgey Chimpnuts Bush.

BVS 12-01-2007 02:49 AM

Compromise isn't a dirty word...

Unfortunately that's the way it works...

BonosSaint 12-01-2007 05:55 AM

Actually Don't Ask Don't Tell was passed in 1993, a good year before the Republicans took over the House. So much as I like to point out the failings of the Republicans, this was a policy adopted by a Democratic President with a Democratic House and a Democratic Senate. Clinton came in promising to lift the ban, Congress and the Military blew a gasket and Clinton caved with the compromise. This policy belongs to the Democrats.

In somewhat of a defense for Clinton, decisions like this had in the past been made by Executive Order and he undestandingly expected he could change policy with the sweep of a pen, but Congress stepped in. Clinton caved either because he thought this was the best he could get or he wasn't about to make this THE fight of his Presidency.

Better than outright ban, yeah. But ultimately a joke.

Anu 12-01-2007 10:43 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by 2861U2
Why is it that when the topic of gays in the military comes up, I never hear any of you attack Bill Clinton for signing DADT, only the "bigoted, heartless Republicans?"
Great point, really. Will they call Bill the 'first gentleman'?

Yet another reason to support Dennis Kucinich.

Anu 12-01-2007 10:46 AM

Compromise is great, but the ball-less, soul-less, mean-spirited opportunism that the Democratic Party has used to get its grassroots activists to support centrist pro-NAFTA globalist warmakers like the Clintons is frankly despicable.

Glad we have Dennis the menace to call them out from our side.

2861U2 12-01-2007 12:18 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by BonoVoxSupastar


But like always, you are missing context.



How am I missing context? BonosSaint is absolutely right. Unless my math is failing me, 1993 comes before 1994. The Republicans had nothing to do with it.

martha 12-01-2007 01:32 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by 2861U2
The Republicans had nothing to do with it.
Except now the Republican candidates all think it's the greatest policy since sliced bread. :rolleyes:

BVS 12-01-2007 02:05 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by 2861U2




How am I missing context? BonosSaint is absolutely right. Unless my math is failing me, 1993 comes before 1994. The Republicans had nothing to do with it.

I never said the Republicans had anything to do with it, did I?

What was the climate in the military before this? This was a baby step that had to be made. The fact that it's been policy for 14 years now is discusting, but that isn't Clinton's fault. Context.

phillyfan26 12-01-2007 02:16 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by 2861U2
How am I missing context? BonosSaint is absolutely right. Unless my math is failing me, 1993 comes before 1994. The Republicans had nothing to do with it.
The context that for the last seven years our President hasn't even attempted to do anything towards correcting it.

Instead of talking about Bill Clinton, discuss our current president.


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 03:19 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