|
|
Post by bagels on Sept 19, 2008 1:07:19 GMT -8
BTW, Robin, I disagree w/ the vast majority of what you said in your debate w/ Nathaniel, but specifically 2 things:
"You cannot deny that it is Al-Qaeda who has been fighting us in Iraq for the last 3-4 years. And if we were to cut and run now, it would be a defeat at the hands of those who attacked us on 9/11."
It is WELL KNOWN at this point that there was ZERO CONNECTION BETWEEN IRAQ AND 9/11. It is baffling that people still think this w/ all the information out there (you should do some more research). There was a very, teeny tiny amount of Al-Qaeda that was actually in Iraq (close to 1% of their members) prior to the war. "Al-Qaeda in Iraq" wasn't even formed until after the war when Al-Zarqawi capitalized on the U.S.'s botching of the war and hatred from the citizens that followed. It was only until the U.S. led invasion and occupation of Iraq (and failure to protect the borders), that led to the insurgency of epic proportion.
I believe that there were about 30 some other countries that had larger amounts of Al-Qaeda operatives within their borders, which makes a better case to invade them after 9/11, than Iraq. A good example would be, hmmm... I don't know, how about AFGHANISTAN!!, where the real "War on Terror" exists w/ the top Al-Qaeda officials and "Osama-been-forgotten" and still live (and hardly mentioned by you). This is a stance that not even the Bush Administration recognizes anymore because it has been proven to have been COMPLETELY BOGUS at this point. Now your other comments...
"The left has more compassion for terrorists being held at Gitmo than innocent children."
I think this is a completely wreck-less and ASININE statement. I do not consider myself a member of the "far left", but what myself and millions of other people have compassion for SPECIFICALLY is the HUNDREDS OF DETAINEES that were wrongly imprisoned, many of them found innocent of any wrong doing YEARS after their initial captivity. Although there were a lot of Al-Qaeda that were taken, there was proven COUNTLESS AMOUNTS OF INNOCENT PEOPLE that were wrongly and unjustly imprisoned w/o any due process (with many tortured), and the government is recognizes ALL OF THIS. That is all for now...
God bless, and good night... =^)
K
|
|
|
|
Post by robin on Sept 19, 2008 8:15:21 GMT -8
Goodness, where do I begin. Actually I think I will try make this short. All you have stated is your opinion about her interviews, and have not sited and specifics. Though I'm sure there are time when she will tip-toe around a subject, it seems to be well in line with what every other politician does. The problem is Obama rarely subjects himself to interviews, especially one in which he will be challenged. I would like to have seen Obama accept McCain's offer to go around the country and how town hall meetings with the public, but thus far he has been un-willing. So until Obama is willing to be asked difficult questions, I have little patience for critiquing of Palin, who in my opinion has done very well. Forget this "bridge to nowhere" stuff. Earmarks are requested by the legislators, not executives. Palin has been a Mayor and Governor. She did at one point support the bridge but later decided it was a bad idea, and killed the plan. Who cares? Is that the best that the Democrats (or registered Independents) can come up with? Check your facts. Phil Gramm has not been with the McCain campaign since June do to some poorly worded remarks that he made about the economy. You see McCain is willing to separate himself from those in his own party. The question remains, does Obama have the guts to do the same? Liberal is not a derogatory term. It is a term used to describe people of a certain political bent. And if you will recall it was John McCain in 2005 that co-sponsored a mortgage and housing reform bill that addressed and warned us about many of the collapses that we see now. However his legislation was blocked by the democrats, Obama included, because many of them way on the take for Freddy, and Fannie. Here is what John McCain said on may 25, 2005: "Mr. President, this week Fannie Mae's regulator reported that the company's quarterly reports of profit growth over the past few years were "illusions deliberately and systematically created" by the company's senior management, which resulted in a $10.6 billion accounting scandal.
The Office of Federal Housing Enterprise Oversight's report goes on to say that Fannie Mae employees deliberately and intentionally manipulated financial reports to hit earnings targets in order to trigger bonuses for senior executives. In the case of Franklin Raines, Fannie Mae's former chief executive officer, OFHEO's report shows that over half of Mr. Raines' compensation for the 6 years through 2003 was directly tied to meeting earnings targets. The report of financial misconduct at Fannie Mae echoes the deeply troubling $5 billion profit restatement at Freddie Mac.
The OFHEO report also states that Fannie Mae used its political power to lobby Congress in an effort to interfere with the regulator's examination of the company's accounting problems. This report comes some weeks after Freddie Mac paid a record $3.8 million fine in a settlement with the Federal Election Commission and restated lobbying disclosure reports from 2004 to 2005. These are entities that have demonstrated over and over again that they are deeply in need of reform.
For years I have been concerned about the regulatory structure that governs Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac--known as Government-sponsored entities or GSEs--and the sheer magnitude of these companies and the role they play in the housing market. OFHEO's report this week does nothing to ease these concerns. In fact, the report does quite the contrary. OFHEO's report solidifies my view that the GSEs need to be reformed without delay.
I join as a cosponsor of the Federal Housing Enterprise Regulatory Reform Act of 2005, S. 190, to underscore my support for quick passage of GSE regulatory reform legislation. If Congress does not act, American taxpayers will continue to be exposed to the enormous risk that Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac pose to the housing market, the overall financial system, and the economy as a whole.
I urge my colleagues to support swift action on this GSE reform legislation."Now if you can please share with me anything that Obama or Biden have tried to do in order to correct the problem. I will tell you what Obama was doing. He was taking money hand over fist from Freddie and Fanny for his presidential campaign. He is the second highest recipient monetary gifts from these two companies going back as far as 1989. Keep in mind Obama has only served, and I use that word loosely, since 2004. Do you know who was first? Christopher Dodd, the Chairman of the ways and means committee. Now there is enough blame to go around and for you to try and hang all the blame on the Republicans is disingenuous. Now you are just embarrassing yourself. I never said that we attacked Iraq because Al-Qaeda was there. The reason for going to war was resolution 1441 and WMDs. Since then we have been fight Al-Qaeda because they thought they could defeat us on the battle field, and if not for John McCain, President Bush, and General Peterus they may have. This is silly talk. We have troops in Afghanistan fighting and looking for Osama. Sheesh!  Thanks! You just made my point. God bless, Robin |
|
|
|
Post by robin on Sept 19, 2008 15:35:51 GMT -8
Upon reflection, it appears that some of my comments have not been very kind. So I apologize for those comments that go beyond the pail of friendly debate. Anyways.....
Robin
|
|
|
|
Post by bagels on Sept 20, 2008 14:26:22 GMT -8
OK, Robin, so this "friendly debate" seems to have gotten a little unfriendlier than I was hoping. I'm not sure how reasonable and productive it is to really have a discussion w/ you over these topics, because you appear to be HIGHLY dismissive of any notion that doesn't support a highly "right wing" ideology. So after I address a couple of the last remarks you made, I'm just going to keep it basic to why I think the Republicans don't DESERVE ANOTHER chance in the White House... I will say that, whether your apology was aimed toward myself or not, I do appreciate you posting that. ;D... So on to my few rebuttals... I'm not sure how I'm "embarrassing myself" when you clearly stated that "You cannot deny that it is Al-Qaeda who has been fighting us in Iraq for the last 3-4 years. And if we were to cut and run now, it would be a defeat at the hands of those who attacked us on 9/11..." I'm not sure if you didn't mean to put it this way, but both Nate and I believed that you were stating a direct link between who the U.S. is fighting in Iraq, and who attacked us on 9/11. You appear to have backed off that stance now, so I'm just going to let that one die off... In connection with that, I'm well aware that we have troops still fighting in Afghanistan, but what I was getting at is that this is where we the people who ACTUALLY ATTACKED US on 9/11 preside and have been, and the bungling and incompetence of the Iraq War (also the lack of resources) have not allowed those people to be brought to justice. Not to mention, finally win the war in Afghanistan (which should have been done a couple of years ago), and now there's a major, re-emergence of Taliban and insurgents that are disrupting the restoration and peace of the country as a whole... Also, you saying that "I made your point for you" on your argument that liberals care more about the "terrorists at Gitmo" than "innocent children," is pretty absurd. You literally don't seem to care at all that a lot of those people never had committed a crime, and many of them were later "exonerated" and freed from any wrongdoing by our government. So to reiterate my point to you, I not only have compassion for them, but compassion for any group of individuals from any nation across the world (including our own) that has been persecuted and wrongly imprisoned (and I'd like to think that most Christians believe the same way) for crimes that they were not responsible for. The other detainees who were actually brought up on legit charges and have been found to be guilty of their crimes, then I more than happy that they were caught and brought to justice and punished within the laws of the constitution... It seems that we can go back in forth all day about who is MORE RESPONSIBLE for the deregulation of the banking and subprime markets, and all of the other CRAP that has contributed towards the current situation. I could go on about how he's ALWAYS been a heavy supporter of deregulation, such as supporting the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act (a bill that loosened restrictions on the activities of banks, brokerage houses, and insurance companies). The Wall Street Journal (which is typically a little on the conservative side) also hammered him yesterday about his views on the economy (McCain himself has said that the economy is not his strong suit), but I'm sure you will come up w/ another point like the housing reform bill he did support regarding Freddie and Fannie, and yada-yada-yada... Basically, all that we can argue about is who will better take this country into a fresher, better direction w/ this mess we're in NOW. I actually like and respect McCain quite a bit, but I'll AGAIN mention what myself and millions of people believe to be true: That someone like him who said at the beginning of the week said that "The fundamentals of this economy are strong," just a couple of days before the most catastrophic and depressing news about how the financial systems and the economy are on the verge of the biggest collapse in the HISTORY OF OUR COUNTRY, is not suited to be the Commander In Chief at this time. We really believe that he is out of touch with the problems that confront the common people and families that are suffering during this rough time (mine included), and that the Republicans had there shot at it, and BLEW IT BIG TIME in most people's opinions. This may sound highly opinionated, but I mean, why else was President Bush COMPLETELY SHUNNED at the Republican National Convention (w/ the exception of his brief speech via satellite), and nobody even wanted to MENTION HIS NAME AT ALL the entire time??!... They all wanted to distance themselves from his Administration, and I don't blame them one bit... That's about it. I hope we can converse on a more civil level now that we got these last couple things "out of our system."  I'm sure you are a cool person, and I'd like to get to know you better in the future... OK, take care and talk to you later, bro. Kegan |
|
|
|
Post by robin on Sept 21, 2008 0:09:22 GMT -8
Hi Kegan,
I will keep this as positive as possible.
You said:
Why don't you try and make a case against John McCain, and also a positive case for Obama? I have pointed out a number of reasons why McCain is best qualified siting both experience and actions, yet you have not responded to those remarks and only repeated the same liberal (excuse the label) talking points.
I sited John McCain's remarks in 2005 and you chose no ignore them. Why? I asked for some evidence that Obama tried to fix this issue, but you have provided nothing. As a matter of fact I would settle for some evidence that he even recognized the problem. The reason I posted McCain's comments is because I wanted you to respond to them, in light of your earlier remarks about him not understanding the issue at hand. So please explain how McCain's, almost prophetic, comments about Freddy and Fannie fit with your comments about is grasp of the issues.
Don't be so quick to pat yourself on the back. From what I can see, perhaps you are simply unaware that Al-Qaeda fighters flooded into Iraq after the invasion and have been fighting against us and our allies since the summer/fall of 2003. Does the name Zarkawi (SP?) ring a bell? So my statements are entirely accurate, and I am backing off nothing. I will state it again. The reason for invading Iraq was outlined in UN resolution 1441, siting Iraq's continued defiance of the cease fire treaty signed ofter the first Gulf War. It was believed by all credible intelligence agencies that Iraq had and was developing WMDs. This gave adequate reason for a invasion. Since then we have been fighting not the Iraqis, for they were defeated withing a couple months, but we were engaged in battle with thousands of Al-Qaeda soldiers that were pouring in from all over the region. If Obama had his way and we pulled out of Iraq before securing victory, it would be seen as a defeat at the hands of those who attacked us on 9/11. Now I can't be any more clearer than that. If you think I'm wrong, please provided the evidence.
Please! We are not torturing innocent people, and by your own admission, when innocent people have been detained they are set free. This is not persecution. Now you seem rather outraged at your perceived notion that abuses are taking place, but I wonder if you even blink an eye, or give thought to those innocent children who are being murdered inside of their mother womb, without even a fighting chance. And what does you candidate have to say about those atrocities. He will defend the right to murdered children by appointing judges who will uphold Roe V. Wade. If I have to choose between a Republican party that allows the detention of innocent people and later sets them free when they are found out to be innocent, and a democratic party that has no problem with the murder of innocent children through abortion, I will stand with the Republican all day. For you to mention Christianity in support for your view is beyond me and outrageous. You did make my point for me whether like like it or not.
"yada-yada-yada..."? Ya, I keep coming up with points that you can't counter, but go ahead and dismiss away. Your not doing yourself any favors.
First of all "Commander and Chief" is a military term used to describe The president's command of our armed forces, not the economy.
Second of all Obama has been in hiding, and has said nothing and offer no leadership on this issue now or in the past. All he is doing is making snide little petty comments about McCain's words, and offering nothing himself. It is rather sad to see people fall for this type of gotcha politics.
I have noticed since corresponding to you, that you have said little in favor of Obama, but only offer negative comments about McCain. I hate to say this, but it seems that your only reason for voting for Obama, is because you don't like Republicans. Well prepare yourself for another loss. Democrats can't only run against republicans, you will need to give the American public a reason to vote for you. You have proved that there is nothing there to vote for, otherwise you would have told me. At least Nate gave it a valiant effort.
I hope this did not come off as too negative. I have nothing against you personally.
I wrote this quickly so please forgive any grammatical errors.
God bless,
Robin
|
|
|
|
Post by robin on Sept 21, 2008 8:11:56 GMT -8
|
|
|
|
Post by christopher on Sept 21, 2008 15:18:11 GMT -8
There is a saying that “politics makes strange bed fellows”. But stranger still, to me, is the adversaries it makes. It’s rather puzzling to me to see Christians arguing so fiercely (at times uncharitably) about such matters. I’m with Josh about the concern of healthy debate vs. attacks on character or intelligence. In my mind, the fact that intelligent Christians disagree on all these issues speaks more to the complexity of the issues rather than the incompetency of candidates or the advocates of such. I’m still undecided (though leaning toward McCain), but from my perspective, both candidates have many qualities and ideas that are both desirable and undesirable. I plan to weigh the pros and cons of each and make a judgment accordingly. I have also found that it’s ok to be wrong. I voted for both Bill Clinton and George W. Bush, and I now question the wisdom of both. But thank God we live in a country where the political system is such that the potential damage of any one administration is greatly limited. I would like to add that although I can see no mandate in scripture to influence government, I do see a mandate in scripture to keep the peace among the brethren. 2 Tim 2:22-23
but pursue righteousness, faith, love, peace with those who call on the Lord out of a pure heart. NKJV
|
|
|
|
Post by nathaniel on Sept 21, 2008 18:18:58 GMT -8
Sorry it’s taken me a second to get back in here and mix it up. I’ve been too busy try to figure out how to pin this whole economic meltdown on John McCain. ;D I’m glad we can discuss this too. There’s not a ton of John McCain supporters ‘round these parts, so it’s good to get a little push back. Plus I'm hoping to convince all y'all by election time.  I see part of the problem (I think there’s a lot of them) w/ the current political climate is a tendency to view situations w/ colored lenses, to “drink the Kool-aide” so to speak. What I see is that we are inconsistent w/ our critiquing. We are reluctant to give credit where credit is due and criticism where criticism is due. It’s like two parties could do virtually the same thing, and one we defend to the hilltops and the other we quickly heap blame on. One example of this might be the whole “experience” card*. It’s like democrats think Barrack Obama’s already had 4 years in the white house and Sarah Palin just got swooped out of the a PTA meeting (Republicans of course fall into that same trap). This of course isn’t a condition isolated to politics. I feel like I see this sort of herd mentality in all walks of life, and since no particular group we belong to (a church, a country, a party, a family, etc.) will be perfect, if we don’t self critique we not only won’t improve, but most likely will allow evils to fester and grow. And depending on the amount of judgement we cast against those in a different or opposing group, we will be seen as hypocrites as well. So in the spirit of (semi) objective critique I would like to voice some disappointment with the Obama campaign as of late. I’ve watched the campaigns, particularly the Obama campaign, pretty closely since the beginning of the primaries. One thing I love(d) about Obama is that the majority of the time over myriad issues, I’ve seen him take the political high road. Recently though, I feel like he’s lost a little ground on this front. I feel like he’s given a bit more of a surface treatment of the issues, as well as turning to a more negative tone, in both speeches and commercials. I also, however, think this speaks to a bigger problem**. I also am a little uncomfortable with a couple people he has in his campaign staff, particularly this bob Rubin fellar, who was a major voice in the Clinton administration, and I think was involved in some capacity w/ Fannie and Freddie Mac. However, I don’t know enough about him to really make a sound assessment. . Okay, enough of that, back to partisanship.  ;D On meeting with foreign dictators: McCain and Senator Hilary Clinton are correct in saying that is would be inappropriate for a president to meet face to face with the leaders and any nation and seek the destruction of the American people or our allies. Secretary Gates does not support what Obama had said about meeting unconditionally with dictators from Iran and N. Korea, but rather supports the long held policy to communicate through low-level diplomats, and neutrals countries. Obama specifically said that he as President would meet the leader of Iran without any precondition. Secretary gates does not support this policy and Obama has sense wisely has run way from is own words. I’m curious why your against this, i.e. what bad you think would come of it? Also, don’t we have a history of doing this, and with good result, e.g. the Cold War? I don’t know a ton of the history surrounding the Cold War…(I was about to say, I don’t know whether Regan and Gorbachev actually met face to face), but a quick trip over to “wiki” shows them sitting side by side. As a Christian I am very troubled by the trend I see in how the Left views taxes. I think we should be mindful of attaching our Christianity or Christianity in general to a particular tax code. There is certainly a moral element to even taxes, but I am much more comfortable debating it using a more general moral language w/out hinging it to a particular faith. Will anyone explain to me where the justice is in having the government steals from one person in order to give his or her wealth to another. Does this not trouble others? Posed like this, yes, it would trouble me, but that’s not how I see it. I think it’s a bit of a jump and a poor description to say that a more progressive tax code is “The government stealing from one person” and giving it to another. One, I don’t think it’s stealing, and two, just handing over to someone else less deserving, is not what's happening. AND, I would venture to say, we see this more and more egregiously in the free market, it's just usually in the opposite direction, stealing from the poor giving to the rich i.e. Enron. Lets compare and contrast two scenarios. One, the government steals from a wealthy man and skims some money of the top to pay himself and his friends, and gives a little to someone who has not earned it, and in turn the one receiving the money thanks the politician and continues to re-elect them, or two, the wealthy person freely give out of a sense of love and charity, and the poor person can see the wealthy persons good deeds and praise God. What is better, the praise of a politician who steals, or the praise of God who meats the needs of his children through those who have the ability to give? Upon a second read, I’m sure you can see that you have unfairly weighted these two scenarios, no? There’s too many assumptions in here to count. Okay, I counted about 7. This sounds like trickle down economics theory, which I don’t think over the past 20+ years has proven itself to be beneficial to the majority of our society. I personally think the more equitable system we have the better. The smaller gap between the rich and the poor the better. And The stronger the middle class is the better. I don’t have any problem with a progressive tax code. I think the more money a person has the less taxes effect their day to day ability to “make ends meet”. Also, as a persons wealth progressively gets greater and greater the, I would think that it would increase their ability to both pay taxes and give charitably. I also have come to reject this republican idea that government is this great evil out to get us, Particularly because of how our government is set up. Aren’t “We the people” essentially the government. We have votes to elect people who will work on our behalf, and for the greater good for our society. Business (particularly corporations) on the other hand is more of a self serving profit driven entity. And I think the free market philosophy laissez fair capitalism, the market will work itself out, government hands off is a flawed model. This current economic crisis is certainly not the fault of a specific political party. For instance I think the Clinton administration played a significant role, in aiding some of the forces that have led us down this path. However, the republican party, John McCain included have long yelled from the hilltops, “DEREGULATION, SMALL GOVERNMENT, FREE MARKET, DEREGULATION, ETC.!!!”. And now that we know this was a major role in this meltdown, I think they need to take some of the ownership. There is also an argument I’ve heard, but am not very familiar w/, so I won’t be able to articulate it or defend it w/ much authority. The idea is that in general those w/ more wealth use a greater percentage of the “commons” than the rest of us, and therefore, it’s actually more just for them to take on a greater percentage of the tax burden. This dude on the radio Tom Hartman (9-12 a.m. on 670 AM) waxes philosophic on this from time to time fairly convincingly. My thoughts on this feel a little scattered right now so I’ll cut myself off until I can address this a bit more coherently. One last plug for Obama, though. IMO his view of the government's roll in the market place, is one the works more equitably for more people. I also, think he has shown himself to be more presidential in regards to the current economic situation. I see him as being calmer, more proactive, less reactionary, and having an overall better understanding of the situation. I will concede I don't think he's handled the situation perfectly, though. In regards to Universal healthcare, I have a general opposition to any form of it. I have given detailed reasons at the Universal healthcare thread. I have a unique prespective due to my career in the healthcare field as a benefits broker. I don’t remember everything that you said under the health care so I’ll have to recheck those. I don’t, by any means, have a deep understanding of the health care system, but I have a few general thoughts on it. I think in a field like health care where the main business is to take care of people, why not guarantee it for children and make it more affordable for everyone. Why not make protect it from the darwinistic (made up word?) elements of the free market. *So, I may have caught myself red-handed, because I do have more criticisms of Palin’s experience and less of Obama’s. Let me try and justify quickly. I think McCain and his supporters showed themselves to be a little hypocritical. To pick someone who in the least, has no more experience than Obama, after that was a main line of attack on him seems like a bit of a double standard. A main difference I see between Obama’s experience and Palin’s is he and his ideas have been put through the ringer of the election process. One of the longer and more scrutinized in history I might add. While she could feesably become president w/ out much of a public record and w/ out hearing or testing her political character or ideas. **The bigger problem I think this speaks to is I don’t know if a candidate in our current circumstances can win a purely positive campaign. I think the public on a wide scale lacks critical thinking, so they are completely susceptible to petty issues and attack ads. You can see this in the way John McCain poll numbers began to grow from RNC to just recently. And maybe, moreover when Obama began to fight back in the same manner polls started to even out. I Think the media can be completely self serving and doesn’t help matters much. They eat up and exploit this kind of thing, and seem to talk more about What they think the public is thinking than reporting objectively on actual issues. This coupled with all the corporate money and lobbying in Washington, as well as blow hard talking heads on both sides, lends itself to foolery, and is a disservice to democracy. Whoa. That felt like a mouthful. |
|
|
|
Post by robin on Sept 23, 2008 8:21:44 GMT -8
|
|
|
|
Post by bagels on Sept 24, 2008 18:05:25 GMT -8
OK, it seems as other members of the forum have been unimpressed by our little "back and forth" in our discussions. Robin, it also appears as though we're going to continue to set each other off by our comments, so I'm going to try to briefly state a couple of things in a "civil" manner, and hopefully we won't get fired up at the other and make further "inflammatory statements..."
You seem to keep stating that "I'm ignoring" a lot of your comments. 1st your claim that I ignored your comments about McCain statements in 05' isn't true, because I mentioned that in my last e-mail about housing reform bill after I mentioned his support for the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act (a deregulation bill put into place by his buddy Phil Gramm). **Another quick note, since you continue to slam the members of Obama's campaign, a very damning bit of evidence just came out today about the firm of McCain's lead Campaign Manager (Rick Davis), as he had received aproximately over $500k alone just from Freddie Mac over the last 3 years, and countless other contributions from various other lobbyists (which really doens't look good for McCain at all at this point). Honestly, I don't really think things of this nature about a canidate's campaign members are that important, but I will bring them up if you continue to bring up other campaign members' track records w/o exposing those of your canidate... I do acknowledge McCain's statements that he made about the 05' housing reform bill, but UNFORTUNATELY his other past support of degregulation bills and his and other Republican's die hard support of "Small government, less regulation, activity through the private sector, etc." do not have McCain and the Republicans coming out on top on this issue (especially given his recent ABSURD REMARKS about the economy)... I apologize, but unfortunately, my man, I would be here ALL NIGHT LONG if I were to write an essay to debate you on all of your remarks and talking points. I just don't have enough time or patience, so I will address what I can within a reasonable amout of time (not to mention that you don't appear to listen to ANY rebuttals against your arguments anyways) ...
You are STILL not accepting the fact that innocent people were actually wrongly imprisoned and tortured by our government for multiple years. YES, NOT JUST SET FREE to begin with. Hate to bring this up again, but since you made this claim... "Please! We are not torturing innocent people, and by your own admission, when innocent people have been detained they are set free. This is not persecution."
Sorry, but you're just wrong here. WELL OVER 50% of the original detainees taken to Gitmo since the beginning of the war in Afghanistan were released without any charges (with countless abuses and reports of torture taking place over several years to these detainees before their release). Goes w/o saying that these were blatant violations of the Geneva Convention, which contributed a huge role in OUTRAGING the vast majority of the countries in the middle east. This further provoked the massive insurgency and violence against our troops in Iraq (along w/ the prison abuses such as at Abu Ghraib). Therefore saying "This is not persecution," proves that you're not fully understanding the scope of this issue.
OK, so did you really pull out the abortion debate into our discussion about Gitmo detainees?? 1st off, this is completely OFF THE SUBJECT and distracting from the original points that were being made, but since you brought it up... I do not concur w/ the Pro-Choice line of thinking w/ the Democrats (another reason why I'm an "Independent"), but I do realize that this issue is very complex, and half of the country (spiritual and otherwise) will always disagree w/ the other at the very core arguments. Since you've brought up something completely unrelated to our original topic, I could very well argue that the DAMAGE THAT'S BEEN DONE from the current, two-term, Republican Administration in dealings with the recklessness and incompetence in fighting the Iraq War has contributed toward hundreds of thousands of deaths according to (the vast majority non-combatant civilians caught in the middle of the war), along with all of the other U.S. and coalition casualties thus far. You can argue about these deaths being necessary sacrifices or whatever, but there's no doubt that Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, Rice, Wolfowitz, and numerous other members of this administration's numerous failures in conducting this war has led to at least TENS OF THOUSANDS of innocent lives lost (i.e. ignoring General Shinseki's demanding of more troops to occupy the country). In addition, how about all of the people that have been dismembered or have lost limb(s), not to mention have been displaced and lost their homes... The abortion issue is one piece of a massively screwed up puzzle that we face in this world... I'm sure you'll dismiss this as "Typical, liberal talking points and rhetoric," but it still doesn't mean that it's not the TRUTH nonetheless.
Since you also made this comment that "...and a democratic party that has no problem with the murder of innocent children through abortion, I will stand with the Republican all day...," you've pretty much declared that this issue alone will keep you from ever voting for a democrat in ANY POLITICAL SPECTRUM, and it appears pointless to debate w/ you when it's obvious that you won't listen to any other reasoning into how the Dem's could take this country into a better direction. I mean seriously, Robin, have you ever voted for a Democrat for any single political office or government position? (I have done so multiple times).
In the meantime, could you please address at least two of the points I brought up in my prior posting? I'm dying to hear a good, GENUINE response about how the Republicans had completely shunned President Bush at their own convention? I mean, do you realize how BIZARRE it is to have a TWO-TERM President not even mentioned at their party's convention??! It's almost like Bush didn't even exist anymore. That situation along w/ Bush's below 30% approval rating strongly suggests that NO ONE thinks that this current, Republican Administration has done a good job leading this country. This along with the fact that McCain's voted w/ Bush OVER 90% OF THE TIME, doesn't support his campaiging of "Change" at all and taking the country into a better direction (that he hijacked initially from the Obama campaign).
Also, I don't like to get caught up in the talking points of canidates opposed to their policies, but I'd love to hear what you have to say about when McCain infamously stated last week "The fundamentals of this economy are strong," just a couple of days before the most catastrophic news about this country's financial systems and economy in the HISTORY OF OUR COUNTRY. Seriously, this is one of the ALL-TIME WORST "GAFFES" that anyone's ever heard coming from a presidential canidate, given the current situation we're in. How are statements like these going to lead people to believe that he understands what is going on and is not out of touch w/ the vast majority of people in this country??
I hate to bring up the "negative aspects of McCain," but I believe that it's very important for these things have to be addressed at some point, and I'd like to hear your interpretation of these things...
**Unfortunately, I've run out of time and have to leave now, but JUST SO YOU KNOW, I'll be posting my "Pro-Obama" talking points to next time I am able that you are so strenuously requesting. Sorry I couldn't get into them now, but I've got a prior engagement, so I'll go onto the more "positive campaigm points" next time (sorry for my grammatical errors as well, as I'm trying to leave =^).
Take care,
Kegan
|
|
|
|
Post by robin on Sept 25, 2008 12:17:33 GMT -8
At this point I don't think it is constructive to continue the conversation. I have considered the tone, and I'm not entirely thrilled with my posts, at least the tone of them. I still feel that the facts and points I have made are stronger than those by the other side. So, I'm willing to let Kegan, Nate or anyone else to have the last word on this subject, and then we will have to wait and see how it all unfolds, and for the sake of our Country I pray that McCain is elected.  God bless, Robin |
|
|
|
Post by Josh on Sept 25, 2008 12:44:13 GMT -8
I want to say that this dialogue has been informative to me and that all the factual and/or objective statments you guys have made are helpful to someone like me who is still really undecided. It's easy for me to be dispassionate in regard to politics, so it's easy for me to be preachy on it. I do expect, however, that the next time my buttons get pushed on some issue (and I certainly do have mine) that I'll get some preaching from y'all too  |
|
|
|
Post by Josh on Sept 28, 2008 16:22:28 GMT -8
A few personal impression from the recent debate:
*Obama is a better speaker/ debater. He's more natural, less tense, more able to respond on the fly, more present, and more strategic in getting the listener to like him
*From a national security perspective (though not necessarily from a Christian perspective) I think McCain has a more realistic and appropriate stance on foreign policy
|
|
|
|
Post by Josh on Sept 28, 2008 19:58:57 GMT -8
bump
|
|
|
|
Post by bagels on Sept 28, 2008 21:38:14 GMT -8
Robin, I totally agree with you about the debates not being constructive at this point (at least we can agree on something! Time will only tell if Obama is better suited to lead this country at this time (I strongly believe it will be either this time or in the future). I'll "bow out" putting my 2 cents in about any other things that were said now... However, I'll offer some perspectives on the situations and challenges that the country, and the canidates, will be facing presently and in the future (and hopefully avoiding other "tiffs" along the way )... Alright everybody. Peace and love to all of my peoples and "real ones"!! |
|
|
|
Post by nathaniel on Sept 29, 2008 22:39:57 GMT -8
A couple questions, real quick like, if you guys are into it. Chris, Just wondering your reasons for leaning toward McCain? And, what do you think are the desirable and undesirable qualities and ideas of each candidate? Josh, Were your thoughts/impressions of Obama in the debate, in any way meant to diminish what he was saying, i.e. is this a slight to the content or a praise or both? I'm not at all trying to accuse you of being being disingenuous, this just sounds/could be taken similar to the common critique that Obama is all talk and no substance. I'm just curious if that's how you saw it. And, In what ways did you think McCain's stance on foreign policy was more appropriate and realistic? In what ways were they less/not christian? And, which one holds more weight in your book, christian or realistic? PS Robin, I didn't have time to read that article, but did anyways (probable like 3 times now). I've got a couple thoughts on it that i'll try and get to soon, but totally understand if you want to bow out. |
|
|
|
Post by robin on Sept 30, 2008 7:07:35 GMT -8
Just a real quick thought here. This subject of Christianity and foreign policy deserves its own thread. In the next day or so I will try to start a thread on Christianity and war.
Also Nate if you want to respond to the article I will be happy to discuss it.
*Nate, I assume that by foreign policy you are speaking of war.
God bless,
Robin
|
|
I'm sure you are a cool person, and I'd like to get to know you better in the future... OK, take care and talk to you later, bro.
;D
