A first(?) thread on 2008: McCain,Giuliani & the Republicans

OCCOM BILL wrote:

Seemed pretty obvious to me too, Lash. I read; really bad guy= Justified Death Penalty. I don't see him so much agreeing, necessarily, but fully recognizing the public's reasonable interest and demand for same. Close enough for me. Where do you see spin?

It depends on your own personal views, Bill.

You may agree with him--if so, there's no problem.

However, when you have voters who have vilified Republicans for that same stance and suddenly appreciate the view or suddenly aren't so upset by Capital Punishment when it's uttered by a Democrat Presidential candidate, it chafes my ass, what can I say?

0 Replies

Lash wrote:

He supports the death penalty.

My impression is that he respects the majority's support for the death penalty on a professional level, while not necessarily supporting it personally. That's close enough for me.

Lash wrote:

He opposes equal rights for all Americans.

We've been around the block on this, and your narrow view of what constitutes equal rights for all Americans doesn't really constitute all Americans... only those who share your ideals.

Lash wrote:

He supported the most notorious hoodlum in American politics.

That may be so, but I'm not going to get that deep in Chicago Politics to debate it. (But if the roads are any indication Shocked

) Frankly, I think both our current President and his predecessor are more notorious and have larger numbers who consider them hoodlums. Excluding the Presidency, Senator Kennedy comes immediately to mind.

Lash wrote:

He deceptively voted "present" rather than do the job he is paid to do by his constituents to hide his views for political expediency.

This does suck. No way around it. The man should vote his conscience. On the other hand; I'll take an abstianer over a weathervane like John Kerry any day.

Lash wrote:

No matter what language these facts are inserted into--they constitute significant evidence that Obama is just as shady as the rest of the pack.

Hardly. At most they show he isn't perfect. Watching his biggest competitors (both Hillary and Edwards), tell bald faced lies about their vividly clear answers from a few years ago puts them WAY out in front in the Shady Department.

Lash wrote:

This isn't gotcha.

True, that.

Lash wrote:

OCCOM BILL wrote:
Seemed pretty obvious to me too, Lash. I read; really bad guy= Justified Death Penalty. I don't see him so much agreeing, necessarily, but fully recognizing the public's reasonable interest and demand for same. Close enough for me. Where do you see spin?

It depends on your own personal views, Bill.

No, it doesn't. I was addressing your allegation of spin and didn't see it. My own personal views have nothing to do with it.

Lash wrote:

You may agree with him--if so, there's no problem.

However, when you have voters who have vilified Republicans for that same stance and suddenly appreciate the view or suddenly aren't so upset by Capital Punishment when it's uttered by a Democrat Presidential candidate, it chafes my ass, what can I say?

I do indeed support the Death Penalty. The question itself isn't of make-or-break proportion in determining who I'd seek to put in the Oval Office, however. Some compromise is inevitably required in assessing a Presidential Candidate if you want your vote to mean anything (writing in my own name isn't likely to sway the race :wink: ).

You make a solid case for demonstrating he isn't perfect. As shady as everyone else? No. Not proven.

0 Replies

You and I have a different definition of spin, Bill.

I consider it attempting to lessen the impact of politically unpopular (or possibly unpopular) behavior through verbal hopscotch. That is what I saw.

He's for the death penalty. Period.

Certainly, one's opinion of the death penalty DOES impact their opinion of whether or not spin has occurred.

It's like the pro-abortion guy who says he's only for abortion because of the victims of rape and incest or to save the mother's life. He finds a way to wiggle out of saying he's either doing it for political expediency or because it's what he thinks is the right thing to do. It's fence straddling.

Either you think it's right--or you do it for votes. Everything else is a lie.

PS-- Gay people deserve equal rights.

0 Replies

I don't see things quite as black and white as you do. Abortion is such a touchy subject precisely because both sides are right, so a lack of polarity makes sense to me. I think Dennis Miller said it best: Nobody is Pro-abortion. Of course you should consider there's a human life at stake. Of course you should consider there might be would-be parents out there that would cherish that life... and I think every woman should consider this before she makes her decision. Ultimately, it's none of my business, because I'm never going to have to make that choice. And, if men had to carry babies, abortions would be easier to get than a hotdog at Yankee Stadium.

The Death Penalty isn't so different. No one wants to see an innocent man executed and no one wants to read about the recidivism of a convicted murderer. Dennis hit the nail on the head again: Of course it's cruel... that's why we only do it to the bad people. Again, anyone thinking clearly can easily see both sides of the argument, so the answers are NOT just Pro or Con. PERIOD.

In these instances; I find fence sitting a reasonable activity and moreover think they're indicative of a reasoning mind. While my own conclusions are clearer; they aren't necessarily right.

PS. Gay people and religious people both deserve equal rights. Your favorite pet peeve ignores the fact that one inevitably runs roughshod over the other so compromise is reasonable. We can resume that debate, simply by your answering my last post on that thread in earnest, instead of evading the simple truth.

0 Replies

The black and white is

people who support the death penalty support a person being killed. Not half killed or almost killed or pseudo-killed.

people who deny gay people the right to marry are denying people equal rights.

allowing gay people the right to marry does not infringe on the rights of religious people.

I do not recall a question, Bill, but a monstrous, rambling manifesto.

If you have a question, I will answer it.

0 Replies

Lash wrote:

The black and white is

people who support the death penalty support a person being killed. Not half killed or almost killed or pseudo-killed.

My sympathies are with the family and friends of the dozens of boys dug out of John Wayne Gacy's basement, not with the killer clown. Had capital punishment been meted out when he first became a child molester; those sympathies wouldn't be necessary. NOT black and white.

Lash wrote:

people who deny gay people the right to marry are denying people equal rights.

allowing gay people the right to marry does not infringe on the rights of religious people.

That is your opinion, and pretty close to my own in fact, but that's not the opinion of millions of people whose rights to their own opinion you care nothing about. I'll not start this over with you here. I believe I made my case in spades here.

0 Replies

It is black and white.

You choose to have Gacy killed.

No matter what comes before or after--he is killed by the state.

Additionally, despite my opinion--or yours or anyone else's--

allowing gay people to marry does not infringe on the rights of religious people.

0 Replies

You choose to have Gacy killed.

No matter what comes before or after--he is killed by the state. [/quote]Yep... and water is wet, bricks are hard and the sun is hot. But wait; dozens of innocent young men are no longer killed as a result. NOT black and white.

Lash wrote:

Additionally, despite my opinion--or yours or anyone else's--

allowing gay people to marry does not infringe on the rights of religious people.

Oh; I guess that settles that. Laughing

(Your levels of hypocrisy and denial here are both astounding)

0 Replies

You seem to think I'm trying to argue the merits of these issues. I'm not.

I am merely pointing out two individual points.

They are no matter how you arrive at the decision to kill Gacy et al-- when you decide to kill him, you are ultimately engaging in the same behavior he did. You can talk all around it--note the people's lives he ended--but when you decide to kill him, you become like him.

As long as you decide to have him killed.

As to the other issue, maybe this can help you see what I'm trying to explain to you-- If the gay people were preventing the religious people from marrying, I'd be on the other side of the issue.

If you can show how allowing gay people to marry infringes on the rights of religious people, I'll change my mind.

This isn't about what leads you to your decision--it is about what results from your decision--and that is what you and I are responsible for.

I deny nothing. I'm sure if you choose to call my statements hypocritical, you'll point out where.

0 Replies

We don't live life in a series of vacuum-packed bags, Lash. Ever hear; no man is an Island?

Unfortunately, this applies to Gacy... though there is one sure way to make a man an island. ONE.

Unfortunately, this applies to marriage as well. Righteously, gay people feel entitled to share this institution.
Unfortunately, this institution needs to be corrupted in the minds of some faithful who've been practicing it for umpteen generations. While "the sanctity of marriage" may not ring true to many anymore; still others consider an absolute and have since forever. What you have are two conflicting rights.

IMO, they are both right, and neither group is to blame for the culture collision. The problem lays in the fact that the government adopted the same name as many religious institutions. So too then should the solution come from the same place. It's really quite simple. Let the Government call ALL such institutions Civil Unions while the church calls them Marriage. Then you'll have equality for all, and all sensitivities will be respected. I'd wager the couple getting married by the Judge won't give a rat's ass one way or another and if they do, even if they're full-time nude-hedonists, I'm sure they'll find a church out there somewhere willing to "marry" them.

Frankly, it's just a word to me. I neither understand why the religious object so strenuously, nor why gays have a problem with the Civil Union compromise. The bigots; I couldn't give a rat's ass less about. However, assuming that all religious objections are derived from bigotry is no different than assuming all faithful who believe in God, the bible and creationism are idiots. To each their own. That's what freedom is all about. If we all agreed; there would be no need for laws mandating freedom of religion. I don't see that day coming any time soon. Your disregard for it is a product of your values... and I understand them completely... but not to the exclusion of understanding other people's values.

I have a friend who is VERY Mormon. Don't drink, don't smoke, don't cuss, don't don't don't. Nice guy, not perfect, but he'll never fit in anywhere he goes... or seems to go. He's frequently looked at as kind of a weirdo, people judge him, poke fun (though mostly behind his back) and his childhood was even worse. Doesn't matter; he is what he is, and doesn't see it as though he's ever had a choice to be anyone else. Sound like anyone you know?

0 Replies

OCCOM BILL wrote:

We don't live life in a series of vacuum-packed bags, Lash. Ever hear; no man is an Island?
I will just concede I've used stupid analogies, and withhold comment about this...
Unfortunately, this applies to Gacy... though there is one sure way to make a man an island. ONE.
Good Grief. Rethink! There is more than one way to protect the public from murderers.
Unfortunately, this applies to marriage as well.
We have to kill them...?
Righteously, gay people feel entitled to share this institution.
End of story.
Unfortunately, this institution needs to be corrupted in the minds of some faithful who've been practicing it for umpteen generations.
Please spend a little time thinking about this statement.
While "the sanctity of marriage" may not ring true to many anymore; still others consider an absolute and have since forever. What you have are two conflicting rights.
It is hard to imagine you feel comfortable making these statements. If you don't get it this time, we should never open the issue again between us. What Christians want to think is their right. When their right to an opinion becomes law that intrudes into the lives of other people and forces them to live in a way that actively denies them equal rights, there is no question about conflict. One group--in this case Christians DO NOT HAVE THE RIGHT TO IMPOSE THEIR OPINIONS ONTO OTHER'S LIVES. It is impossible that you don't get the distinction. You may agree with the Christians, and prefer to deny gay people equal rights, but you cannot equate the desire to marry (your right as a human being in a free society) and the desire to prevent other people from marrying. One is a right--the other is NOT.

I have a friend who is VERY Mormon. Don't drink, don't smoke, don't cuss, don't don't don't. Nice guy, not perfect, but he'll never fit in anywhere he goes... or seems to go. He's frequently looked at as kind of a weirdo, people judge him, poke fun (though mostly behind his back) and his childhood was even worse. Doesn't matter; he is what he is, and doesn't see it as though he's ever had a choice to be anyone else. Sound like anyone you know?

Ross Perot?

0 Replies

In your hyper-reactive blather you seem to have missed a substantial part of my post, or you coundn't have said You may agree with the Christians, and prefer to deny gay people equal rights You need to chill... and think. You're usually sharp as a tack; but in this discussion you've now twice ducked every compelling point believing that shouting "I'm right, I'm right and that's final" will somehow make it so. Open your eyes, and at least try to see what others see, from their perspective.

OCCOM BILL wrote:

IMO, they are both right, and neither group is to blame for the culture collision. The problem lays in the fact that the government adopted the same name as many religious institutions. So too then should the solution come from the same place. It's really quite simple. Let the Government call ALL such institutions Civil Unions while the church calls them Marriage. Then you'll have equality for all, and all sensitivities will be respected. I'd wager the couple getting married by the Judge won't give a rat's ass one way or another and if they do, even if they're full-time nude-hedonists, I'm sure they'll find a church out there somewhere willing to "marry" them.

Frankly, it's just a word to me. I neither understand why the religious object so strenuously, nor why gays have a problem with the Civil Union compromise. The bigots; I couldn't give a rat's ass less about. However, assuming that all religious objections are derived from bigotry is no different than assuming all faithful who believe in God, the bible and creationism are idiots. To each their own. That's what freedom is all about. If we all agreed; there would be no need for laws mandating freedom of religion. I don't see that day coming any time soon. Your disregard for it is a product of your values... and I understand them completely... but not to the exclusion of understanding other people's values.

0 Replies

McCain is an opportunist that is divorced from any ethics or princple. I knew when he voted for prisoner torture that he can't be trusted.

0 Replies

Indeed, ci, Mr McCain can't get his message straight. He wants to be a conservative Repub. He wants to be a more liberal Repub. He is toast.
The money trail. where the money is going to go in this, will come out in March. McCain, in my guess, will end up with little support. He will be gone by the end of March as a vaiable candidate.

0 Replies

He is toast.

0 Replies

It's also my guess that McCain will lose all the moderates for his push to overturn Roe vs Wade. He's using it to win votes, but I hope it backfires on him!

0 Replies

OCCOM BILL wrote:

In your hyper-reactive blather you seem to have missed a substantial part of my post, or you coundn't have said You may agree with the Christians, and prefer to deny gay people equal rights You need to chill... and think. You're usually sharp as a tack; but in this discussion you've now twice ducked every compelling point believing that shouting "I'm right, I'm right and that's final" will somehow make it so. Open your eyes, and at least try to see what others see, from their perspective.

OCCOM BILL wrote:
IMO, they are both right, and neither group is to blame for the culture collision. The problem lays in the fact that the government adopted the same name as many religious institutions. So too then should the solution come from the same place. It's really quite simple. Let the Government call ALL such institutions Civil Unions while the church calls them Marriage. Then you'll have equality for all, and all sensitivities will be respected. I'd wager the couple getting married by the Judge won't give a rat's ass one way or another and if they do, even if they're full-time nude-hedonists, I'm sure they'll find a church out there somewhere willing to "marry" them.

Frankly, it's just a word to me. I neither understand why the religious object so strenuously, nor why gays have a problem with the Civil Union compromise. The bigots; I couldn't give a rat's ass less about. However, assuming that all religious objections are derived from bigotry is no different than assuming all faithful who believe in God, the bible and creationism are idiots. To each their own. That's what freedom is all about. If we all agreed; there would be no need for laws mandating freedom of religion. I don't see that day coming any time soon. Your disregard for it is a product of your values... and I understand them completely... but not to the exclusion of understanding other people's values.

Bill, my conversation was quite calm, but I can see how my tendency not to insert "niceties," coupled with my hopes that larger font would make you read slower can appear as though I'm irate.

My "you" in the sentence you excerpted is the collective "you."

I am unable to communicate with you.

I understand what you are saying--and have the last few times you've said it.

You don't seem to be able to understand me.

My last attempt:

Denying someone else their rights ...is...not....a....right.

Try to forget everything else.

Denying someone else their rights ...is...not....a....right.

Why did you ignore this?

What Christians want to think is their right.

When their right to an opinion becomes law that intrudes into the lives of other people

and forces them to live in a way that actively denies them equal rights,

there is no question about conflict.

One group--in this case Christians do not have the right to impose their opinions onto other people's lives.

Do they?

Just answer that single question, please. Do they?

0 Replies

Lash wrote:

My last attempt:

Denying someone else their rights ...is...not....a....right.

Try to forget everything else.

Denying someone else their rights ...is...not....a....right.

Why did you ignore this?

What Christians want to think is their right.

When their right to an opinion becomes law that intrudes into the lives of other people

and forces them to live in a way that actively denies them equal rights,

there is no question about conflict.

One group--in this case Christians do not have the right to impose their opinions onto other people's lives.

Do they?

Just answer that single question, please. Do they?

They have the right to try and have their beliefs codified as law, don't they?

I don't think anyone would suggest that "Christians" have the right to storm into a same sex marriage ceremony and forcibly prevent it from being completed, but then I don't think any "Christians" have taken this approach.

Are you suggesting that Christians don't have the same right as Gays to organize politically?

Are you suggesting that any law that prevents one group from engaging in its desired practices is wrong?

Are you suggesting that it is not legitimate for society to restrict the behavior of a few for the benefit of the many?

0 Replies

Finn dAbuzz wrote:

Lash wrote:

My last attempt:

Denying someone else their rights ...is...not....a....right.

Try to forget everything else.

Denying someone else their rights ...is...not....a....right.

Why did you ignore this?

What Christians want to think is their right.

When their right to an opinion becomes law that intrudes into the lives of other people

and forces them to live in a way that actively denies them equal rights,

there is no question about conflict.

One group--in this case Christians do not have the right to impose their opinions onto other people's lives.

Do they?

Just answer that single question, please. Do they?

They have the right to try and have their beliefs codified as law, don't they?
Yes--if the gays can create laws that also prevent the Christian fom marrying, I can live with it.
I don't think anyone would suggest that "Christians" have the right to storm into a same sex marriage ceremony and forcibly prevent it from being completed, but then I don't think any "Christians" have taken this approach.
That is great imagery. I think that's exactly what they've done.
Are you suggesting that Christians don't have the same right as Gays to organize politically?
No. I'm suggesting they don't have the right to render a group legally inferior due to race, creed or sexual orientation.
Are you suggesting that any law that prevents one group from engaging in its desired practices is wrong?
No. I'm suggesting preventing people from the same pursuit of happiness that everyone is enjoying is discrimination.
Are you suggesting that it is not legitimate for society to restrict the behavior of a few for the benefit of the many?
The benefit of many....bigots? Yes. Really, Finn, how can restricting gay people fom marrying benefit anyone?

0 Replies

A first(?) thread on 2008: McCain,Giuliani & the Republicans

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know