Republican Debate

WhoWee

Sorry - your post number 12:

"fringe is a good point. this is nothing at all like the Nazis or Communists, is it? compared to them, the muslim lunatic fringe is a mere nuisance."

WhoWee

I've posted this in other threads - IMO - this conflict with Muslim radicals will never end - regardless of who we elect or what we say or do (other than converting and prescribing perhaps?).

Ryumast3r

There will always be radicals. The most we can do is educate, liberate, etc, to make sure that people aren't basically bribed into subscribing into the ideology because they are poor and starving.

Proton Soup

i don't understand your point. what does this have to do with justifying a war with iran ?

is that so ? have you ever paid attention to what al qaeda actually says ? from the post used to claim that al qaeda has "confirmed" bin laden's death:
http://articles.cnn.com/2011-05-06/w...da?_s=PM:WORLD

if american security is important, then why don't we just put boots on the ground in palestine? since we demand that the palestinians remain defenseless, then why not just send in american soldiers to enforce the borders and protect palestinians?

WhoWee

I had responded to a post discussing the US capability of turning Iran into a glass parking lot. My listing was an opinion of the (nuclear) actions by Iran that could lead to a (nuclear) response by the US.

Proton Soup

your first option implies a nuclear attack by iran?

i had no idea you were trying to limit the discussion to only a nuclear engagement. ivan even mentioned conventional warfare in the post you responded to. but the nuke rhetoric will certainly be there in infotainment sphere, just as it was with iraq.

BobG

Anti-abortion violence is a concurrent problem that exists along side anti-abortion protests. I could imagine the violence helped create extra support for laws restricting protests, but those laws have to stand on their own in court. You can't restrict the rights of one group because of the criminal acts of an unrelated group just because both groups are motivated by similar ideals. (Besides, while laws vary by locale, most restrictions on protestors don't push them far enough back to prevent shootings or bombings.)

I think that the situation of Muslims in Europe might possibly have some relevance to the US, but not necessarily to Muslims in the US. There's a higher percentage of Muslims in Europe than the US (less than 1% in the US, and from 2.7% in the UK to 6% in France) and their incomes are significantly less than the overall average incomes in Europe. Muslims in the US have incomes comparable to the overall average income. The situation in Europe would be more similar to the situation of Hispanics and Blacks in the US. Both make up a large segment of US population and both have average incomes significantly below the average income of the general population. I don't think the religion of the minority group is most significant factor.

mege

BTW that Bush 'quote' from most sources, was actually from President Bush 41 when he was VP in 1987 - but I can't find any original documentation for it except from liberal blogs and a few different supposed 'copies' of transcripts. Never mind the potential slander, he probably did feel that way, BUT why does every policy need to get the Atheist seal of approval? Isn't that a religion/belief system in it's own right? It's no secret that neither of the President Bush 41 or 43 were popular with Atheists, but that still doesn't answer why anything with religious connotations should be rejected at face value like many claim (see my Ten Commandments statement from earlier).

With the abortion debate - just because a candidate says 'God thinks every life is sacred' means that we need to discount the fact that we hold life to a high standard? That's a binary application of principle without actually weighing the entire statement. Replace 'God' in the statement and it's instantly 'better' in your mind? To me, that's just as wrong as blindly following and attempting to apply policy based religious principles. I also feel that much of the secular message gets ignored because of the religious connotations associated with any position. Candidates would be commiting political suicide if they actually based all of their decisions, and campaigned on them, based on religious motivations. You may only hear the 'God told me so' message from the media, but listen to the whole speeches and you have a wider range of secular arguements from most candidates in addition to the religious arguement. Too bad the media just emphasises the religious message.

NeoDevin

Whichever Bush it was, my point remains that there are politicians who don't think people outside their religion should be considered citizens. It's not quite "mandating that everyone goes to church or prays 3 times a day", but it does show that there are "serious politicians" who would be willing to force their religion on the people.

A policy doesn't need to have a Atheist seal of approval, but it must have a secular purpose. Further, it's primary purpose must be secular. Meaning a secular benefit can't simply be the by-product of a policy primarily intended to promote religion.

The point is not that they should be legal because they're part of Judeo-Christianity, but that they shouldn't be illegal because they are part of Judeo-Christianity (that is, the reasoning for making them illegal shouldn't be because of religion, it should be because of secular benefit). Surely you wouldn't propose that the second commandment (no other god) become law in the US? There would be no secular benefit to that, only promotion of religion.

If you replace "God" with some sort of secular reasoning, then yes. (I'm going to leave off the specifics of the abortion debate, since that has been covered ad nauseum in other threads, and will come to no productive end here either)

If that is the case (and you haven't convinced me that it is), then it is more likely ignored by the religious proponents in emphasizing their religious motivations.

That would depend which state they are running in. In some states, it seems that the winner of any office is the one who reads the loudest from their Bible.

Remarkably I have listened to whole speeches, and generally the emphasis is on "God told me so", and anything resembling a secular argument is tacked on as an afterthought, if at all. (This is not true of every religious politician, but is for many of them)

While I agree with you that their can be both religious and secular motivations for the same argument, I disagree with you that most religious candidates are actually making the secular arguments. I further suggest that many of them are proposing religiously motivated policies that have very little if any secular benefit.

We're getting pretty far off topic here, want to continue in a new thread?

Ivan Seeking

Chris Christie didn't hurt himself any on Meet the Press, this morning. I don't know a lot about his politics yet but I was impressed with him as a person.

Of course he's not running, and he even disqualifies himself as being "not vice-presidential material".

WhoWee

I've always been a little suspicious of very fast moving/rising stars - ala then Senator Obama half way through his first term. I personally want to see a 4 to 8 year track record of voting or (in the case of a Governor) an administrative record.

Ivan Seeking

Same here, but if I judge a person to be of low character or unqualified for high office, their record doesn't matter.

For example, there is nothing Palin could ever do to get my vote. In her case it's a fundamental character issue so there is no possible redemption. I've never been fond of Romney but he doesn't offend me, and he does seem to be Presidential material. So it is conceivable that issues could drive a choice there. Ron Paul stands as a voice for classic libertarianism but could and should never be elected to a higher office. Rand Paul is just the wayward bastard child of Ron - too fringe to ever be considered seriously. Bachmann - a wonderful woman no doubt, but like Ron Paul, she's hopelessly fringe. Huntsman looks good on paper but he has no presense and could never gain support from the more extreme elements of the Republican party - esp the tea partiers. From what I know about him so far he sounds like someone I could support in principle. Even so, he appears to be far too boring to ever get nominated, even under the best of circumstances. Pawlenty would seemingly inappropriately drive religion into politics - I took serious issue with one of his comments - and he acted like a coward when he had his chance to assert himself, so he's out for good. His political positions don't matter. Cain? Yeah, right!!! He's more fringe than Bachmann.

As for Gingrich... I like the man personally, and I think his voice is a valuable component in public discourse, but not a chance he could get elected or that I would support him. It's a character issue. Plus, he seems to be getting a little nutty. He has certainly demonstrated a serious inablity to control his message. Given his long experience in public office, there is no excuse for that.

Ivan Seeking

Barring any radical disclosures or unpredictable meltdowns, it looks to me like it will be Obama vs Romney in 2012.

Of the field he is really the only viable candidate that I see, and it's getting pretty late in the game for any completely new players to emerge.

Al68

That seems a very odd thing to say this far out. Especially given the history of unpredictability in primaries.

It's especially seems odd to think that Romney is the only viable candidate. The only reason he even has a chance is the popular belief that he would be most likely to defeat Obama, and how desperate and urgent that goal is to so many Republicans.

mege

I don't think the GOP Presidential Candidate has been seen as a front runner yet.

Romney is the political 'proper' candidate, and is moderate enough to snag votes from those that are afraid of the true anti-collectivist folks with media bullseyes on their heads. But, he will be a President Bush 3.0 - appealing to the neo-cons more than anyone.

Still better than the incumbent IMO, but people need to understand what they're getting.

Ivan Seeking

It is pretty late to start from scratch. By now candidates need to be getting the money machine in place.

Ivan Seeking

Not for Republicans. You're thinking of the Democrats.

I see him as the only candidate the Republicans would nominate who isn't a nut. If you want to beat Obama, you will need someone at least as moderate as Romney.

Put Palin or Bachman or Paul in there, or any tea party extremist. Obama would LOVE that.