Republican Debate: Who Impressed You?

[BobG]

Who did you like? (and notice I used two words in my title since "one word titles may be deleted" :rofl:)

Pawlenty, Bachman, Santorum, and Romney performed well, regardless of whether I agreed with them or not.

Cain gave me absolutely no reason to take him seriously and Paul appeared as out of touch as ever.

Gingrich gave the most bizarre answer when following up Cain's comments about having Muslims on his staff. Gingrich seemed to feel the Joe McCarthy era was a good thing, which is something you don't hear very often.

And one of Romney's answers sounded very strange. He was saying the bailout of car industries was a bad thing and that going through bankruptcy was a better solution, then summed up his argument by saying instead of government getting involved, Obama should have let the car companies solve their own problems the American way. The American way as in declaring bankruptcy? Is that the new version of the American dream? (I know he didn't mean it that way, but it was a strange way to sum up his argument.)

Being unknown seemed to be an asset. Bachman seemed poised and reasonably sane, which was a shock to me. Santorum and Pawlenty made good overall impressions. While Romney did well, it was just hard to shake the image he built in 2008 - an image of being even shallower and possessing less character than even Bill Clinton.

Given that I won't vote for Bachman or Santorum, I think Pawlenty came out impressing me the most.

 

[mege]

Overall - it was nice to see the candidates showing unity against President Obama. There wasn't the internal fight that you sometimes see this early, that was a nice refresher. I'll admit that the debate was on in the background while I was doing housework - so I didn't catch everything, but here's my thoughts on the individual candidates:

The more I see Herman Cain, the more I'm dissapointed. I don't know if it's nerves, or if he's too cocky, but I had high hopes for him early on - unfortunately his public poise has been horrible. I think he's going to be fading away pretty soon unless he can pull it together.

My yearly ad hoc 'scratches' have been Gingrich and Ron Paul for a long time, and it's not going to change this cycle. From a strategic standpoint, they're both too ugly and too wierd. Neither can be a serious party-supported candidate for president imo. However, since Ron Paul seemed to have the 'consensus' answers and fostered few disagreements with his policy ideas; in a technical manner I think he won - however I still don't like him :p

Romney perpetually reminds me of John Kerry for a multiple reasons, foremost: he keeps wanting to give non-answers (this debate, and the example you gave, were no different). I want to support Romney as I grew up in Michigan, but unfortunately there is little substance I like behind that awesome hair (another Kerry trait).

I came in a little biased thinking Pawlenty has been saying the right things so far, and I generally like him and what he did in MN (even before the debate, one of my favorite candidates). I think he is still saying the right things and isn't stirring the pot, yet. Overall, he was a non-entity, he didn't say anything memorable either way - and that's a good thing at this stage. There's still a year of primaries, do you want folks to be tired of talking about you next march? He talked a bit about his experience which I think is going to be importaint to go against an incumbant President. While I don't think he 'won' the debate, I think his performance and poise keep him stationed as a legit candidate.

Santorum kept a pretty neutral image like Pawlenty, but I don't think this debate showed any of the negatives of Santorum. Not that it ever really came out during this debate, but I feel his legislative history is too aggressively socially conservative for the Tea Party-marbled Republican party. For this debate specifically, he's probably somewhere in the middle of the pack because of his poise in giving party-line answers.

Bachmann is going to have the same problem as Palin during the election, and thus is un-nominatable by the GOP, she's too honest. She did very good at articulating some of the budget issues, and in a debate setting that's great, but in the long run that honesty is going to kill her. I think the stark reasonable answers get her a 2nd place at the debate in my mind (or maybe first if I discount Ron Paul as a sheep in a tie-dye shirt). She spoke the most clearly and gave the most 'sane' opinons of the group.

 

[WhoWee]

When Romney said "everyone on this stage would make a better President than Barack Obama" - he revealed the base Republican strategy of the 2012 cycle. There's no reason for the candidates to shred each other. The subtle differences will emerge and the debates will help form a final package - positioned to defeat the President. Again IMO - marketing 101.

 

[Proton Soup]

Who did you like? (and notice I used two words in my title since "one word titles may be deleted" :rofl:)

Pawlenty, Bachman, Santorum, and Romney performed well, regardless of whether I agreed with them or not.

didn't see a lot of it, but was surprised to see Romney in better form than ever

Cain gave me absolutely no reason to take him seriously and Paul appeared as out of touch as ever.

Gingrich gave the most bizarre answer when following up Cain's comments about having Muslims on his staff. Gingrich seemed to feel the Joe McCarthy era was a good thing, which is something you don't hear very often.

but did you read it that way before David Gergen gave his spin on it? I'm guessing not. because he really didn't say what Gergen said.

And one of Romney's answers sounded very strange. He was saying the bailout of car industries was a bad thing and that going through bankruptcy was a better solution, then summed up his argument by saying instead of government getting involved, Obama should have let the car companies solve their own problems the American way. The American way as in declaring bankruptcy? Is that the new version of the American dream? (I know he didn't mean it that way, but it was a strange way to sum up his argument.)

i think the American Way here is to simply use the legal structure that is already in place. we already have rule of law and courts to take care of these situations in an orderly way. getting politicians involved is actually a way of subverting due process and choosing winners and losers by fiat.

Being unknown seemed to be an asset. Bachman seemed poised and reasonably sane, which was a shock to me. Santorum and Pawlenty made good overall impressions. While Romney did well, it was just hard to shake the image he built in 2008 - an image of being even shallower and possessing less character than even Bill Clinton.

Given that I won't vote for Bachman or Santorum, I think Pawlenty came out impressing me the most.

i thought Bachmann was terrible. she can speak in complete sentences, but the depth of her argument about Libya was that Obama was ceding authority to the French. that was an appeal to the lowest common denominator, and i can no longer see her as anything but a knuckle-dragger. the reality is that it isn't really our war to fight, nor our national interests, but europe's. the fact we only played a supportive role instead of doing it all for them is a good thing.

 

[WhoWee]

i thought Bachmann was terrible. she can speak in complete sentences, but the depth of her argument about Libya was that Obama was ceding authority to the French. that was an appeal to the lowest common denominator, and i can no longer see her as anything but a knuckle-dragger. the reality is that it isn't really our war to fight, nor our national interests, but europe's. the fact we only played a supportive role instead of doing it all for them is a good thing.

Isn't her point valid in the context of the cost to, and involvement of, the US?

 

[Proton Soup]

Isn't her point valid in the context of the cost to, and involvement of, the US?

no. do you really want to own it and be there for the next decade?

 

[WhoWee]

no. do you really want to own it and be there for the next decade?

Of course not - but do you think the French (or any other NATO member) cares how much this costs the US?

 

[BobG]

but did you read it that way before David Gergen gave his spin on it? I'm guessing not. because he really didn't say what Gergen said.

Yes, I did. Actually, I was surprised it took so long for someone to comment on it.

What Gingrich said, along with the discussion that led up to his comments to provide some context. It may not have been totally clear what Gingrich meant by "we did this in dealing with the Nazis and we did this in dealing with the communists", but Joe McCarthy's Red Scare and loyalty oaths were the first thing that popped into my mind from Gingrich's comments.

(And this was one of Romney's better moments, as he resisted the chance to pander to the Muslim fearing fringe elements.)

MCELVEEN: Thank you.

While we're on the topic of faith and religion, the next question goes to Mr. Cain. You recently said you would not appoint a Muslim to your cabinet and you kind of back off that a little bit and said you would first want to know if they're committed to the Constitution. You expressed concern that, quote, "a lot of Muslims are not totally dedicated to this country."

Are American-Muslims as a group less committed to the Constitution than, say, Christian or Jews?

CAIN: First, the statement was would I be comfortable with a Muslim in my administration, not that I wouldn't appoint one. That's the exact transcript.

And I would not be comfortable because you have peaceful Muslims and then you have militant Muslims, those that are trying to kill us.

And so, when I said I wouldn't be comfortable, I was thinking about the ones that are trying to kill us, number one.

Secondly, yes, I do not believe in Sharia law in American courts. I believe in American laws in American courts, period. There have been instances -

(CHEERS AND APPLAUSE)

CAIN: There have been instances in New Jersey -- there was an instance in Oklahoma where Muslims did try to influence court decisions with Sharia law. I was simply saying very emphatically, American laws in American courts.

KING: So, on that point, Governor Romney let me come to you on this.

What Mr. Cain is saying that he would have -- my term, not his -- a purity test or a loyalty test. He would want to ask a Muslim a few question or a few questions before he hired them, but he wouldn't ask those questions of a Christian or Jew.

CAIN: Sorry. No, you are restating something I did not say, OK? If I may, OK?

KING: Please let's make it clear.

CAIN: When you interview a person for a job, you look at their -- you look at their work record, you look at their resume, and then you have a one-on-one personal interview. During that personal interview, like in the business world and anywhere else, you are able to get a feeling for how committed that person is to the Constitution, how committed they are to the mission of the organization --

KING: When I asked -- I asked this question the other night, though, you said you want to ask a Muslim those questions but you didn't you have to ask them to a Christian or a Jew? CAIN: I would ask certain questions, John. And it's not a litmus test. It is simply trying to make sure that we have people committed to the Constitution first in order for them to work effectively in the administration.

KING: Should one segment, Governor -- I mean, one segment of Americans, in this case, religion, but in any case, should one segment be singled out and treated differently?

ROMNEY: Well, first of all, of course, we're not going to have Sharia law applied in U.S. courts. That's never going to happen. We have a Constitution and we follow the law.

No, I think we recognize that the people of all faiths are welcome in this country. Our nation was founded on a principal of religious tolerance. That's in fact why some of the early patriots came to this country and we treat people with respect regardless of their religious persuasion.

Obviously, anybody who would come into my administration would be someone who I knew, who I was comfortable with, and who I believed would honor as their highest oath -- their oath to defend and protect the Constitution of the United States.

KING: Mr. Speaker, go ahead.

GINGRICH: I just want to comment for a second. The Pakistani who emigrated to the U.S. became a citizen, built a car bomb which luckily failed to go off in Times Square was asked by the federal judge, how could he have done that when he signed -- when he swore an oath to the United States. And he looked at the judge and said, "You're my enemy. I lied."

Now, I just want to go out on a limb here. I'm in favor of saying to people, if you're not prepared to be loyal to the United States, you will not serve in my administration, period.

(APPLAUSE)

GINGRICH: We did this -- we did this in dealing with the Nazis and we did this in dealing with the communists. And it was controversial both times, and both times we discovered after a while, you know, there are some genuinely bad people who would like to infiltrate our country. And we have got to have the guts to stand up and say no.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

This comment from Pawlenty about had me throwing rocks at the tv.

Well, the protections between the separation of church and state were designed to protect people of faith from government, not government from people of faith.

http://sotimpawlenty.com/celebritynews/religion-references-new-hampshire-republican-debate

Thank God I have the Constitution to protect me from people like Pawlenty.

Imo, Romney had the best night. By far he looked and sounded the most presidential of them all. However, the notion that this won't be reduced to a dog fight is nothing but wishful thinking. It is normal for people to hold back and show some unity while its this early in the game.

I have to admit, the term "Obamney Care" was pretty clever.

 

[BobG]

i thought Bachmann was terrible. she can speak in complete sentences, but the depth of her argument about Libya was that Obama was ceding authority to the French. that was an appeal to the lowest common denominator, and i can no longer see her as anything but a knuckle-dragger. the reality is that it isn't really our war to fight, nor our national interests, but europe's. the fact we only played a supportive role instead of doing it all for them is a good thing.

Well, your criticisms of her have to more to do with substance than presentation. She may be appealing to the lowest common denominator, but I already knew that before the debate.

The worrying thing is that she did it very well. I consider her a much more serious threat than I did before the debate. Before the debate, I considered her to be a loon on the fringe, more a circus act than a serious candidate. After the debate, I think you're looking at the best chance Tea Party/social conservative candidate and that she'll go into Iowa, a state she's lived in, with a good chance to push right into the mix for the Republican nomination.

I can see her now, celebrating an Iowa win with all 23 of her foster kids on the stage with her.

 

[WhoWee]

Well, your criticisms of her have to more to do with substance than presentation. She may be appealing to the lowest common denominator, but I already knew that before the debate.

The worrying thing is that she did it very well. I consider her a much more serious threat than I did before the debate. Before the debate, I considered her to be a loon on the fringe, more a circus act than a serious candidate. After the debate, I think you're looking at the best chance Tea Party/social conservative candidate and that she'll go into Iowa, a state she's lived in, with a good chance to push right into the mix for the Republican nomination.

I can see her now, celebrating an Iowa win with all 23 of her foster kids on the stage with her.

By "lowest common denominator" are either of you referencing the average American tax payer?

 

[Proton Soup]

Of course not - but do you think the French (or any other NATO member) cares how much this costs the US?

actually, was reading something recently where this war was really driving home just how unprepared, and unable, some of these countries are to fight a war. because they simply don't have the equipment to do it anymore. that makes me very happy that we were dragging our feet in the beginning. europe will either have to fund development of their own war machine, or depend on us for even small regional wars. i wonder if business taxes would continue to be so low there?

Yes, I did. Actually, I was surprised it took so long for someone to comment on it.

What Gingrich said, along with the discussion that led up to his comments to provide some context. It may not have been totally clear what Gingrich meant by "we did this in dealing with the Nazis and we did this in dealing with the communists", but Joe McCarthy's Red Scare and loyalty oaths were the first thing that popped into my mind from Gingrich's comments.

(And this was one of Romney's better moments, as he resisted the chance to pander to the Muslim fearing fringe elements.)

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]

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.

When Iran creates an inventory of nuclear warheads - won't they be more powerful than Nazi Germany?

 

[Ivan Seeking]

When Iran creates an inventory of nuclear warheads - won't they be more powerful than Nazi Germany?

Perhaps in terms of destructive capacity but not in terms of destructive capabilities. Unlike Hitler, Iran's leadership knows we could turn their country into a glass parking lot in an hour. Even in a worst case for us, MAD still applies. We didn't have this to counter threats before WWII.

 

[Office_Shredder]

When Iran creates an inventory of nuclear warheads - won't they be more powerful than Nazi Germany?

Germany had a puncher's chance of taking over the whole world... do you really think Iran will be able to do that? Power has to be considered relative, not absolute

 

[aquitaine]

Not that I'm a Republican or anything but I think Romney got it right on that, it isn't about the particular form of superstitious nonsense they chose it is the way of thinking that counts. Backwardness like Sharia has no place in America.

 

[WhoWee]

Perhaps in terms of destructive capacity but not in terms of destructive capabilities. Unlike Hitler, Iran's leadership knows we could turn their country into a glass parking lot in an hour. Even in a worst case for us, MAD still applies. We didn't have this to counter threats before WWII.

How many Muslims would be enraged world wide if Iran was turned into a "glass parking lot in an hour"?

 

[Ivan Seeking]

How many Muslims would be enraged world wide if Iran was turned into a "glass parking lot in an hour"?

If we are ever forced to engage in a nuclear war, do you really think we will care? When push comes to shove, we are still the biggest kid on the block. Our power is only artificially limited in conventional warfare.

 

[WhoWee]

If we are ever forced to engage in a nuclear war, do you really think we will care? When push comes to shove, we are still the biggest kid on the block. Our power is only artificially limited in conventional warfare.

That is a great question Ivan. I think it depends upon the circumstances leading to an engagement. IMO - there are three scenarios whereby we might engage Iran.
1.) They launch an attack directly unto our personnel or a ship.
2.) They launch an attack on Israel.
3.) They take credit for (or can be linked without question to) a nuclear terrorist attack in the US.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

I don't know what would push us over the edge but I would expect that we would only use nukes as a response to a nuclear attack, or perhaps to a biological or chemical attack of sufficient consequence.

However, if that line is ever crossed, I wouldn't want to be on the receiving end of US retribution. Once the lid comes off I think it will be all but impossible to contain the situation. We in the US have all lived with the threat of mutually assured destruction with the Soviets, and more recently with the Chinese, for decades. The minor threat posed from places like Iran are nothing new and pale in comparison to the reality we accepted long ago.

What concerns me the most is that radical muslims understand this. In the end, we are fatalists and incredibly powerful - our policy of MAD shows this. I think many young people abroad fail to understand just how much power we really have; and that we are willing to use it if we must.

 

[Ryumast3r]

One thing that Yamamoto knew very well, and I think many other people around the world could learn, is that the U.S. is filled with in-fighting, and makes us appear rather weak, however, if you are on the outside looking in, and you piss us (as a country) off enough, we will set aside everything we have and care for to make sure that you have nothing left.

Our policies throughout history, most recently being M.A.D. definitely shows this. The United States has more than enough nuclear weaponry to deal with any one, and a significant amount of our warheads aren't even in our mainland (we have a ton of submarines and other things around the world). We've used them before, and I doubt there's much stopping us from using it again, with the exception of our own internal feelings on the issue.

 

[BobG]

Not that I'm a Republican or anything but I think Romney got it right on that, it isn't about the particular form of superstitious nonsense they chose it is the way of thinking that counts. Backwardness like Sharia has no place in America.

What Romney said:

ROMNEY: Well, first of all, of course, we're not going to have Sharia law applied in U.S. courts. That's never going to happen. We have a Constitution and we follow the law.

I guess there's more than one way to interpret what he said (which is typical Romney), but I think the point of his comment was that Sharia law was a silly issue to get spun up about because it wasn't a realistic possibility. I don't think he was boasting that he wasn't going to let Sharia law happen in the US.

And Romney is right. You can ask the social conservatives that want to insert Christian law into the courts. (Wait, I don't think Romney wants his comment interpreted that way.)

 

[Proton Soup]

That is a great question Ivan. I think it depends upon the circumstances leading to an engagement. IMO - there are three scenarios whereby we might engage Iran.
1.) They launch an attack directly unto our personnel or a ship.
2.) They launch an attack on Israel.
3.) They take credit for (or can be linked without question to) a nuclear terrorist attack in the US.

4.) we claim they are harboring terrorists, or financing or supplying terrorists.

 

[Al68]

This comment from Pawlenty about had me throwing rocks at the tv.

Well, the protections between the separation of church and state were designed to protect people of faith from government, not government from people of faith.

Why? The first amendment's wording specifically protects religious freedom from government infringement, not the other way around. The other way around doesn't even make any sense in the context of the constitution.

So little sense that I'm at a loss to understand how Pawlenty's comment could even be controversial. What am I missing?

 

[Ivan Seeking]

Thank God I have the Constitution to protect me from people like Pawlenty.

And Romney is right. You can ask the social conservatives that want to insert Christian law into the courts.

Yes, this Sharia law business is much ado about nothing. It is only a question of ratings, not law.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

Why? The first amendment's wording specifically protects religious freedom from government infringement, not the other way around. The other way around doesn't even make any sense in the context of the constitution.

So little sense that I'm at a loss to understand how Pawlenty's comment could even be controversial. What am I missing?

You don't think I'm protected from him legally imposing his beliefs on me?

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion...

 

[Al68]

You don't think I'm protected from him legally imposing his beliefs on me?

Huh? Why would you ask that when I clearly just said the exact opposite, in the post you just responded to?

That's what "protects religious freedom from government infringement" means.

And my original question still remains: Why throw rocks at Pawlenty for saying essentially the same thing? Did you misinterpret his statement as you did mine?

 

[mege]

You don't think I'm protected from him legally imposing his beliefs on me?

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion...

So lying, stealing and murder should be legal in the US just because they're part of the Judeo-Christian belief system via the Ten Commandments? Of course not.

"Imposing beliefs" is something I have a hard time buying because there's secular reasons for nearly any popularly perceived 'Christian belief'. Discounting something religious just for the sake of it being religious is just as rediculous as following a religious principle for the sake of it being religious in my mind. It's not like any serious politician or candidate is trying to mandate that everyone goes to church or prays 3 times a day. I firmly believe that the religiously fueled 'moral debates' we have in this country (like like abortion and gay marriage) aren't solely 'religion vs non-religion' - because if they were that simple, they would have been solved easilly a long time ago. While many Christians are quick to quote the bible in regards to these issues, what's the reasoning behind what's in the bible? Why can't these ideas be separated from the religious implications? Prima facia rejection (or support) doesn't lead to any level of enlightenment on the issue, and in my opinion that's the biggest problem with our politics today.

I think Senator Santorum put it very eloquently:

I'm someone who believes that you approach issues using faith and reason. And if your faith is pure and your reason is right, they'll end up in the same place.

I think the key to the success of this country, how we all live together, because we are a very diverse country -- Madison called it the perfect remedy -- which was to allow everybody, people of faith and no faith, to come in and make their claims in the public square, to be heard, have those arguments, and not to say because you're not a person of faith, you need to stay out, because you have strong faith convictions, your opinion is invalid. Just the opposite -- we get along because we know that we -- all of our ideas are allowed in and tolerated. That's what makes America work.

 

[aquitaine]

Perhaps in terms of destructive capacity but not in terms of destructive capabilities. Unlike Hitler, Iran's leadership knows we could turn their country into a glass parking lot in an hour. Even in a worst case for us, MAD still applies. We didn't have this to counter threats before WWII.

We should also consider that germany at that time was the most technologically advanced nation, with loads of nobel prize winners and inventions to back up, plus they also had the third largest industrial output in the world, behind only american and the soviet union which were considerably larger, and that is ultimately why they were such a huge threat. Iran is none of these.

How many Muslims would be enraged world wide if Iran was turned into a "glass parking lot in an hour"?

We've also got enough nukes in stockpile to flatten the rest of the mideast as well, plus the secret massively illegal stockpile israel has. There's plenty of mass death and destruction to go around if they're lining up.

I guess there's more than one way to interpret what he said (which is typical Romney), but I think the point of his comment was that Sharia law was a silly issue to get spun up about because it wasn't a realistic possibility. I don't think he was boasting that he wasn't going to let Sharia law happen in the US.

And Romney is right. You can ask the social conservatives that want to insert Christian law into the courts. (Wait, I don't think Romney wants his comment interpreted that way.)

Good point. People are getting wound up in Sharia because they have had so much success in the UK and to a much lesser extent the Netherlands. It's truly been stunning what they have been allowed to get away with. Unfortunately for them they don't have an establishment clause but still, things like this and http://bigpeace.com/dwest/2011/04/25/michigan-court-establishes-blasphemy-free-zone-for-islam/ seriously make you wonder.

 

[BobG]

Good point. People are getting wound up in Sharia because they have had so much success in the UK and to a much lesser extent the Netherlands. It's truly been stunning what they have been allowed to get away with. Unfortunately for them they don't have an establishment clause but still, things like this and http://bigpeace.com/dwest/2011/04/25/michigan-court-establishes-blasphemy-free-zone-for-islam/ seriously make you wonder.

The second story is similar to stories about the Westboro Baptist Church protesting military funerals. It's also similar to stories about anti-abortion protestors being forced to keep their protests a certain distance away from abortion clinics. Having First Amendment rights to voice your opinion doesn't give you the right to disrupt other people's actions, which is what Terry Jones was attempting to do.

Edit: In other words, as far as the court was concerned, the fact that a mosque was involved was coincidental. They treated the situation the same way they usually do.

(I hate it when people give supporting examples and no argument or ask leading questions and pretend the reader will actually have a clue what they're trying to say and I especially hate it when I forget to include my argument with my post.)

 

[WhoWee]

4.) we claim they are harboring terrorists, or financing or supplying terrorists.

Actually (as per this discussion) number 4 falls under the nuisance category - doesn't it?

 

[NeoDevin]

It's not like any serious politician or candidate is trying to mandate that everyone goes to church or prays 3 times a day.

No, I don't know that atheists should be considered as citizens, nor should they be considered as patriots. This is one nation under God.

Why can't these ideas be separated from the religious implications?

Because the only reasons most opponents of these ideas have for opposing them are religious. The vast majority of opponents of both abortion and gay marriage base their opposition solely on religious grounds, without ever even considering possible secular reasons.

 

[aquitaine]

The second story is similar to stories about the Westboro Baptist Church protesting military funerals. It's also similar to stories about anti-abortion protestors being forced to keep their protests a certain distance away from abortion clinics. Having First Amendment rights to voice your opinion doesn't give you the right to disrupt other people's actions, which is what Terry Jones was attempting to do.

Edit: In other words, as far as the court was concerned, the fact that a mosque was involved was coincidental. They treated the situation the same way they usually do.

(I hate it when people give supporting examples and no argument or ask leading questions and pretend the reader will actually have a clue what they're trying to say and I especially hate it when I forget to include my argument with my post.)

Protesters have to keep a certain distance back from abortion clinics because of assasinations of doctors and bombings of clinics, hardly a comparable situation. Plus I don't recall those protesters getting arrested. Had the religions been reversed this never would have happened, there is a very real danger in giving one group more leeway than another. Personally I'm an atheist so I don't have a stake in it either way, but I do recognize favortism and potential threat they could pose if left unchecked, the UK is a good example of that. As though the christian fanatics weren't bad enough...

 

[Proton Soup]

Actually (as per this discussion) number 4 falls under the nuisance category - doesn't it?

nuisance category? I'm not sure what you're saying. but my point is that iran doesn't have to do anything for the USG to decide to start a war with them.

consider afghanistan. http://www.statesman.com/news/nation/gates-says-afghanistan-is-not-war-without-end-1542416.html?printArticle=y

what do you need to justify staying there? al qaeda. can we ever get them all, or will they just recruit more the longer we stay at war? i can't imagine we ever can get them all, and even if we did, someone else would take their place. it seems an impossible goal to me, but it's a goal for which it is easy to gain public support.

 

[WhoWee]

nuisance category? I'm not sure what you're saying. but my point is that iran doesn't have to do anything for the USG to decide to start a war with them.

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."