Free speech for me but not for thee. ACLU busted!

I guess Fox is saying that Harris only did what many politicians do in a campaign, and that, therefore, it is somehow acceptable.

Assuming Harris didn't mean her comments, she would certainly be prostituting herself in a big way to win an election. It reminds me of McCain, who suddenly finds flaws in the conduct of war in Iraq, or Lieberman suddenly reconsidering his views on the war.

0 Replies

Advocate wrote:

I guess Fox is saying that Harris only did what many politicians do in a campaign, and that, therefore, it is somehow acceptable.

Assuming Harris didn't mean her comments, she would certainly be prostituting herself in a big way to win an election. It reminds me of McCain, who suddenly finds flaws in the conduct of war in Iraq, or Lieberman suddenly reconsidering his views on the war.

Come on Advocate. Don't pull a sleazy, idiotic leftwing tactic on me with that straw man. I didn't say whether I thought it was acceptable or not acceptable.

Any politician is honorable if s/he presents her views honestly to any audience, and I have no problem with any politician picking and choosing what views will be presented to any given audience. I do expect honorable politicians to be consistent in presenting their views honestly when they are presented. It would be reasonable to talk about religious faith to a Baptist group but not get into women's rights, and it would be reasonable to talk about women's rights and opportunities to a YWCA or NOW group without mentioning religion.

But when a politican says one thing to one group and an entirely different/opposite thing to another group, THAT is dishonest and prostituting yourself for contributions and votes.

There is no way that you can say that Kathleen Harris did that by virtue of that one article.

And that you might disagree with the politician's position on something makes neither you nor he/her dishonest or dishonorable.

I would think any honest voter, whether left or right, Democrat or Republican, would want to know that a person actually did say something the way it was quoted, presented, or inferred before drawing a conclusion about that person.

The dishonorable accept erroneous facts/quote/representations/characterizations of people just because they don't like the person and so want those facts/quotes/representations/characterizations to be true, they don't care whether they actually are or not.

0 Replies

Quote:

The dishonorable accept erroneous facts/quote/representations/characterizations of people just because they don't like the person and so want those facts/quotes/representations/characterizations to be true, they don't care whether they actually are or not.

Hogpoop. If the reporter altered words spoken or misrepresented the content, then that reporter ought to be fired.

If Harris said what is reported, she ought to be put on meds because what she is reported to have said is so illogical, not to mention so divorced from an understanding of the Bill of Rights and Constitution, that it suggests pathology.

0 Replies

We were not discussing her mental stablility. We were discussing what is honoable in political presentations.

I agree that the statements as presented.....not direct quotes of hers mind you but what some reporter says she said.....are way off the wall and quite unlikely for somebody who has been in politics for a long time and should be more astute. This is itself should make the piece suspect that she has been represented fairly or accurately.

Do you have any objection to looking for accurate quotes in context before we pass judgment on somebody?

0 Replies

I have no reason at all to suspect the quotes are inaccurate or incomplete in a manner to significantly misrepresent what was said.

On the other hand, she has now gone through at least three campaign advisors, each who have left her employ. She is not being supported by the WH or the RNC. Her polls have been consistently in the basement and her chances of victory are not far off zero. Her statements here are simply over the edge, logically and in terms of American democratic traditions. Emotional balance is validly suspect.

0 Replies

Okay, I'll put you down as one that thinks unless it is disproved, she is guilty as charged. Please don't put me down as a reference for your judicial appointment or to do jury duty, however.

0 Replies

Foxfyre wrote:

I'm not particularly a fan of Harris, but I would really like to see the whole context of her remarks before accepting that she has been accurately or honestly quoted by the Orlando Sentinal. It is possibly that she did say this to a group of Baptists who wanted to hear that. It sure wouldn't be the first time a politican tailored remarks for a specific audience. But at the time time, I no longer trust the media to present these things honestly and fairly.

Any Media? Including the Florida Baptist Witness which first published her QUOTES, these were not some summation by a reporter, she said these things.

Foxfyre wrote:

Quote:

I agree that the statements as presented.....not direct quotes of hers mind you but what some reporter says she said.....are way off the wall and quite unlikely for somebody who has been in politics for a long time and should be more astute. This is itself should make the piece suspect that she has been represented fairly or accurately.
Do you have any objection to looking for accurate quotes in context before we pass judgment on somebody?

This is mis-leading and disingenuous and unlike you. Again, this was NOT something a reporter said she said, they are quotes, meaning word for word as spoken by the the person

There has been no call for a retraction by Ms. Harris from either the Witness nor the Sentinel, has there? The words are hers.

Is it just that she comes off looking like a wack job?

What if the situation were different? Suppose she was quoted while she defined a brilliant new peace plan for the Middle East exposing a deep understanding of the history and socio-economics of the area and revealing her passionate hopes for the future of the world?

Would you doubt those quotes too? Need to see them in complete context? Murmur about the vagaries of reportage?

Nope, I don't think so.

Joe(not for a minute)Nation

0 Replies

Quote:

Do you support civil rights protections on the basis of sexual preference?

Harris: Civil rights have to do with individual rights and I don't think they apply to the gay issues. I have not supported gay marriage and I do not support any civil rights actions with regard to homosexuality.

Odd, but I suspect Miss Harris thinks she's a good American.

0 Replies

Joe Nation wrote:

Foxfyre wrote:
I'm not particularly a fan of Harris, but I would really like to see the whole context of her remarks before accepting that she has been accurately or honestly quoted by the Orlando Sentinal. It is possibly that she did say this to a group of Baptists who wanted to hear that. It sure wouldn't be the first time a politican tailored remarks for a specific audience. But at the time time, I no longer trust the media to present these things honestly and fairly.

Any Media? Including the Florida Baptist Witness which first published her QUOTES, these were not some summation by a reporter, she said these things.

Foxfyre wrote:

Quote:
I agree that the statements as presented.....not direct quotes of hers mind you but what some reporter says she said.....are way off the wall and quite unlikely for somebody who has been in politics for a long time and should be more astute. This is itself should make the piece suspect that she has been represented fairly or accurately.
Do you have any objection to looking for accurate quotes in context before we pass judgment on somebody?

This is mis-leading and disingenuous and unlike you. Again, this was NOT something a reporter said she said, they are quotes, meaning word for word as spoken by the the person

There has been no call for a retraction by Ms. Harris from either the Witness nor the Sentinel, has there? The words are hers.

Is it just that she comes off looking like a wack job?

What if the situation were different? Suppose she was quoted while she defined a brilliant new peace plan for the Middle East exposing a deep understanding of the history and socio-economics of the area and revealing her passionate hopes for the future of the world?

Would you doubt those quotes too? Need to see them in complete context? Murmur about the vagaries of reportage?

Nope, I don't think so.

Joe(not for a minute)Nation

If I was making a speech to an environmental group, I might say some like this: "I am very much in favor of protecting elephants in the wild and doing what we can to educate people not to kill or harm them. But if I was being charged by crazed elephants, I would shoot elephants."

Then later it was reported in the evening news that Foxfyre, speaking to an environmental group, said "I would shoot elephants."

It would be an honest to goodness quote of something I said. I couldn't say I didn't say it because I did. It would also be a 100% dishonest representation of what I was expressing in the speech.

Do you see where I'm going with this? If you don't know in what context something was said, you can't know if the way it looks is really the way it was. And newspapers these days are really really bad about quoting something out of its full context. Even Ray Nagin's "Chocolate city" fiasco can be seen in a different light if placed within the full context of his speech that day.

I have not said I condoned the remarks. I am saying I would like to see her full statement in the context in which it was given before passing judgment on her. That is not in the least bit disingenuous.

0 Replies

Foxfyre wrote:

I am saying I would like to see her full statement in the context in which it was given before passing judgment on her. That is not in the least bit disingenuous.

Doesn't the link to full interview work for you?

0 Replies

That wouldn't work for her either, Walter, then she would say she would have to speak directly to the candidate about how the candidate was feeling that day....

anything to further slice the oblivious.

Joe(Okay. What else?)Nation

0 Replies

Tape recordings can be altered.
Easy to fake video.
Reporter could ask leading and entrapping questions, tricking Harris.
And there's all that missing context...what happened before the interview? Were promises made? Who knows. Maybe the reporter's cousin's child's friend played soccer years ago with a now older and active Harris supporter and something happened... without the full context and with such error-prone and bias-prone "evidence", foxfyre won't just leap to a cheap indictment by Harris and Bush haters. She's comfortable with that.

0 Replies

Walter Hinteler wrote:

Foxfyre wrote:
I am saying I would like to see her full statement in the context in which it was given before passing judgment on her. That is not in the least bit disingenuous.

Doesn't the link to full interview work for you?

We weren't discussing an interview. We were discussing the news report of a speech she gave to a bunch of Baptists.

But obviously you gentlemen do not wish to consider anything other than your own narrow minded, judgmental, and any truth that doesn't fit what you want it to be damned view of it, so I'll leave you to your bashing and find something more constructive to do.

0 Replies

Foxfyre wrote:

We weren't discussing an interview. We were discussing the news report of a speech she gave to a bunch of Baptists.

Okay, very slowly, because I'm clueless:

there was an interview by the candidate with a Baptist Magazine. This was reported by a number of newspapers.

So you want
a) only to discuss the news report about that,
b) would like to see her full statement in the context in which it was given,
c) are not willing to read that original interview the news report is about.

Fine with me.

Have a nice Sunday and keep off any news which don't follow your line!

0 Replies

Quote:

Katherine Harris (R)

HARRIS
Why do you want to be United States Senator for Florida?Why are you the best-qualified candidate?
I have the experience to hit the ground running in the United States Senate. I have the record of accomplishments that proves that I deliver my promises. I have the voting record that matches up head to head with Nelson and crushes him in Florida.

And I have proven that I will not kowtow to the media and all the pressure. I won't kowtow to even the part of the elite in my own party when they want to do something that's not right for Florida. And I think that I have a history that proves I'm not going to do what's popular. I am going to do what's right. The other candidates have no records and while they have certain stands there is no evidence that they are going to be able to stand as I have proven.

What is your personal religious faith?
I am Christian.

Are you involved in a local place of worship? If so, in what way?
Calvary Chapel in Sarasota is my base. I grew up as a Presbyterian, in the PCA (the USA is more liberal), and here I attend the Calvary Chapel. My heritage, my grandfather was a missionary in Africa and my aunt and uncle were missionaries in India and now they head up Arab World Missions. My brother-in-law is a Christian singer who has won number one song of the year, every year, his name is Wes King. So, I had a godly family. But I think what changed me the most was I had a chance to study under Dr. Francis Schaeffer. I studied under him at L'Abris. So, it's a faith that is active and real and not just on paper. It's the most important thing in my life.

Some day all of us have to give an account before God for what we have done. Are you certain in your own heart that when you come to that point of accounting that you'll spend eternity with God in Heaven?
No question.

One day when you stand before God, if He says to you, "Why should I let you into my Heaven?" What you would say in response?
That's an interesting question. Because I loved Your Son and because I know He died for my sins. I know He was resurrected at Your right hand and I served Him. You know we're covered with, our sins are covered with His blood and so we are blameless before Him. We are as white as snow.

How does your faith impact the way you view your responsibilities as a public official?
They animate. Clearly, I wish I could tell you I never made a mistake in my walk every day, but in terms of my votes, my faith and my actions have to animate everything I do. I sponsored and passed the parental consent bill in the Florida Senate. The first time it has ever passed the Florida Senate. I have a 100 percent voting record with the Christian Coalition. I have a 100 percent voting record with the traditional values groups. Bill Nelson will have a 0-20 percent. Bill voted against the partial-birth abortion ban. He voted against the marriage between a man and a woman, not once, but twice. He voted against the Lacey and Connor act which would say that if you murder a pregnant womanit's a double murder. He voted against parental consent and he voted against Judge Alito, which is really remarkable. A representative of Florida.

What role do you think people of faith should play in politics and government?
The Bible says we are to be salt and light. And salt and light means not just in the church and not just as a teacher or as a pastor or a banker or a lawyer, but in government and we have to have elected officials in government and we have to have the faithful in government and over time, that lie we have been told, the separation of church and state, people have internalized, thinking that they needed to avoid politics and that is so wrong because God is the one who chooses our rulers. And if we are the ones not actively involved in electing those godly men and women and if people aren't involved in helping godly men in getting elected than we're going to have a nation of secular laws. That's not what our founding fathers intended and that's certainly isn't what God intended. So it's really important that members of the church know people's stands. It's really important that they get involved in campaigns. I said I'm going to run a campaign of integrity. I'm not going to run it like all of the campaigns that I've seen before. And you know, it's hard to find people that are gonna behave that way in a campaign and be honorable that way in a campaign. But that's why we need the faithful and we need to take back this country. It's time that the churches get involved. Pastors, from the pulpit, can invite people to speak, not on politics, but of their faith. But they can discern, they can ask those people running for election, in the pulpit, what is your position on gay marriage? What is your position on abortion? That is totally permissible in 5013C organizations. They simply cannot endorse from the pulpit. And that's why I've gone to churches and I've spoken in four churches, five churches a day on Sunday and people line up afterwards because it's so important that they know. And if we don't get involved as Christians then how could we possibly take this back?

Do you support civil rights protections on the basis of sexual preference?
Civil rights have to do with individual rights and I don't think they apply to the gay issues. I have not supported gay marriage and I do not support any civil rights actions with regard to homosexuality.

Do you support a federal constitutional amendment to define marriage as being only between one man and one woman? Why or why not?
I fully support a federal constitutional amendment to define marriage as being only between one man and one woman. I have voted in support of the Marriage Protection Amendment because we should not undermine the uniqueness of an institution that continues to serve as an essential thread in the fabric of our society.

Do you support the Florida Marriage Protection Amendment?
Absolutely. I have signed on the amendment, I have promoted the amendment. I have stood with them and done press conferences for that amendment and no other candidate has in the primary or the general. They may have signed it but obviously not done press conferences and such.

Setting aside for the moment the public policy questions related to abortion, is abortion a moral evil? Why or why not?
Yes. Because it's a life, it's a life. Life begins at conception.

What public policy limits on abortion have you supported or will you support in order to decrease the number of abortions in our nation?
First and foremost, one of the most important things we can do is encourage abstinence in the schools. That's really important. The Promise Keepers and some of the things that they've been able to do with dads and their daughters, it's really important. We need to do more, so much more, with adoption and counseling so that women really know what is at stake and the opportunities that exist and have such opportunity for adoption. Because many of the couples throughout the country, they go abroad because that just isn't available and abortion is so readily available. Clearly I would only, from a public policy standpoint, I would limit abortion to rape and life of the mother and incest, but for my personal standpoint, I would not have an abortion for any of those cases.

What is your view of Gov. Bush's efforts on behalf of Terri Schiavo?
Well, we voted in the United States House of Representatives to preserve her life. I voted to support her life. I supported (Bush's) efforts. I took a more pro-active stance than any primary or general election candidate because I actually voted to support her life.

Is there something wrong with Florida and federal statutes when a severely brain-damaged woman who's not in the process of dying can be starved and dehydrated to death by her husband with the assistance of the courts?
It's unconscionable. Having a feeding tube and being hydrated are not life-sustaining. If that were the case then you'd have to take a look at prisoners. I mean, we provide them food and hydration. It is unconscionable. That is normal living. That is what we require to live and to allow that kind of death was truly devastating.

Should food and water be defined as extraordinary care, thus permitting such care to be denied to persons like Terri Schiavo?
It's not extraordinary care or we should take a look at our own life.

What is your view on state funding of embryonic stem cell research?
I am adamantly opposed to embryonic stem cell research and voted as such. I'm the only candidate in the primary or general who's voted against embryonic stem cell research and has voted for cord blood research and adult stem cell research. We've had enormous successes with nasal cells, other things in terms of adult stem cell research as well as cord blood. There are no successes for embryonic. That is why the private sector is not involved and there is no justification for taking a live embryo and destroying it.

Why should Florida Baptists care about this primary election?But the real issue is why should Baptists care, why should people care? If you are not electing Christians, tried and true, under public scrutiny and pressure, if you're not electing Christians then in essence you are going to legislate sin. They can legislate sin. They can say that abortion is alright. They can vote to sustain gay marriage. And that will take western civilization, indeed other nations because people look to our country as one nation as under God and whenever we legislate sin and we say abortion is permissible and we say gay unions are permissible, then average citizens who are not Christians, because they don't know better, we are leading them astray and it's wrong. ...

0 Replies

Yes, that's from the link I gave already yesterday and quoted from it.

But Foxfyre doesn't want that nor discuss about it.

This time, I'm even deeper in my usual cluelessness.

0 Replies

Walter Hinteler wrote:

Yes, that's from the link I gave already yesterday and quoted from it.

But Foxfyre doesn't want that nor discuss about it.

This time, I'm even deeper in my usual cluelessness.

Foxy doesn't dictate this discussion.

0 Replies

You're clueless as well :wink:

0 Replies

0 Replies

Okay I read the interview. When this first came up however, it was not the interview but what reporters were saying about the interview that was at issue. I was in error thinking it was a speech instead of an interview.

Now that I have seen Harris's statements in their full context, assuming that what is posted here is the full context, I am quite confident in saying that she has been seriously misrepresented in the press.

She is a pretty fundamentalist Christian and as such looks at government through the prism of that perspective. That puts her in the politically incorrect, unacceptable category as far as the leftwing or anti-religion types go, but it definitely does not put her in the unbalanced or mentally unstable category. I don't personally agree with her on every point, but from the point of view she represents, she sounded completely balanced and rational in her remarks.

She is probably less dogmatic than some of our former presidents and legislators, and no theocracy developed under them and there is no danger of such with Harris in the legislature. She probably isn't going to be elected because she is not particularly appealing as a candidate, but I do not see that her remarks disqualify her in any way.

0 Replies

Free speech for me but not for thee. ACLU busted!

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know