|
50 minutes without a single substantive question (pg. 3)
|
View this Thread in Original format
| jerZ07002 |
i think you missed the whole point of my post; i was responding to a claim that the only character we should analyze is the criminal character of the candidate.
| quote: | Originally posted by MisterOpus1
It would be even more unwise to hire someone without knowing exactly where they stand and where they will take the business based on their policies and past record. Anyone can bull a character trait. Hell that's pretty much a requirement to be a successful politician in America. But you can't bull what you've voted for and where you've stated the direction you want to take the country.
Why is it so difficult for Republicans to discuss their ideas on policies at all with Americans, especially in comparison to a Democrat? I guess we'll all get to see that debate soon, at least I hope as opposed to character assassinations.
|
first, i'm a democrat. second, i don't disagree with what you wrote.
| quote: | Originally posted by MisterOpus1
Of course he is, because us Democrats and Obama supporters have never examined his record or his stance on policies and agree with them.:rolleyes: |
considering obama and clinton have the same stances on just about everything, what accounts for the difference?
dead link to his US record, but that's irrelevant, because i was speaking in relative terms.
how about the fact that obama was purposefully missing votes as to not have a congressional record to hinder his campaign?
http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/11...otes/index.html
And i don't buy the schedule bs in the article. they don't vote because they don't want voters to see a clear position because they can't back out of it easily after voting.
| quote: | Originally posted by MisterOpus1
And that's a bad thing? Do you honestly think that's the primary rationale for his success and being ahead in the polls, delegate count, and popular vote? |
yes i do think so. that's why even though clinton has almost the same stance on nearly all substantive issues obama is still ahead. and i'm not saying it is a bad thing, you just can't say that character doesn't matter and then say, "how is that a bad thing," because clearly it does matter.
| quote: | Originally posted by MisterOpus1
Corrupt, shrill, full of , heavily influenced by lobbyists, typical DLC-Washington more-of-the-same politics of ignorance, etc. etc. Plenty of other reasons out there. |
you're entitled to your opinion.
EDIT: This is you not supporting clinton strictly on character. where's the criticism on substantive issues? |
|
|
| Q5echo |
| quote: | Originally posted by jerZ07002
As a matter of fact, obama is only winning because of his character. |
bingo |
|
|
| Q5echo |
| quote: | Consider this thought experiment: Assume that a conservative candidate for the GOP nomination spent two decades at a church whose senior pastor was a white supremacist who uttered ugly racial (as well as anti-American) epithets from the pulpit. Assume, too, that this minister wasn’t just the candidate’s pastor but also a close friend, the man who married the candidate and his wife, baptized his two daughters, and inspired the title of his best-selling book.
In addition, assume that this GOP candidate, in preparing for his entry into politics, attended an early organizing meeting at the home of a man who, years before, was involved in blowing up multiple abortion clinics and today was unrepentant, stating his wish that he had bombed even more clinics. And let’s say that the GOP candidate’s press spokesman described the relationship between the two men as “friendly.”
Do you think that if those moderating a debate asked the GOP candidate about these relationships for the first time, after 22 previous debates had been held, that other journalists would become apoplectic at the moderators for merely asking about the relationships? Not only would there be a near-universal consensus that those questions should be asked; there would be a moral urgency in pressing for answers. We would, I predict, be seeing an unprecedented media “feeding frenzy.”
The truth is that a close relationship with a white supremacist pastor and a friendly relationship with an abortion clinic bomber would, by themselves, torpedo a conservative candidate running for president. There is an enormous double standard at play here, one rooted in the fawning regard many journalists have for Barack Obama. They have a deep, even emotional, investment in his candidacy. And, as we are seeing, they will turn on anyone, even their colleagues, who dare raise appropriate and searching questions–the kind journalists are supposed to ask. The reaction to Stephanopoulos and Gibson is a revealing and depressing glimpse into the state of modern journalism. |
|
|
|
| MisterOpus1 |
| quote: | Originally posted by jerZ07002
i think you missed the whole point of my post; i was responding to a claim that the only character we should analyze is the criminal character of the candidate. |
My mistake for misunderstanding you. Apologies.
| quote: | | first, i'm a democrat. second, i don't disagree with what you wrote. |
Sorry, I wasn't trying to attack you directly, even if I thought you might be against the Democrats. I should have been more clear that I was speaking in generalities on this point.
| quote: | | considering obama and clinton have the same stances on just about everything, what accounts for the difference? |
Voting records, and a number of issues on stances (including health care, Iraq, Iran, Pakistan, etc.). I'm not sure if you wanted me or someone else to outline the number of differences here, but perhaps that could be best served for a brand new thread of its own.
| quote: | dead link to his US record, but that's irrelevant, because i was speaking in relative terms. how about the fact that obama was purposefully missing votes as to not have a congressional record to hinder his campaign.
http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/11...otes/index.html
and i don't buy the schedule bs in the article. they don't vote because they don't want voters to see a clear position because they can't back out of it easily after voting.
|
Sorry about the link. It doesn't work as well as I thought. You can start here:
http://thomas.loc.gov/bss/d110query.html
and then put in Obama as the Senator with Sponsor, Co-sponsor, or both on the bills that he created and supported. The results came up with 558 total.
As for your question about Obama missing votes, I absolutely agree that's a good point, one that SHOULD be asked to all candidates. Again, this is a great question I would consider on character. Simply ask, "Why did you not vote for that, Senator?" "Why were you not there for a vote? Did you not think it was important?" And then be sure to ask ALL the candidates the very same question, because all the candidates are notorious for doing this.
| quote: | | yes i do think so. that's why even though clinton has almost the same stance on nearly all substantive issues he is still ahead. and i'm not saying it is a bad thing, you just can't say that character doesn't matter and then say, "how is that a bad thing" because clearly it does matter. |
To that end, I will agree but only somewhat. Both candidates are strong candidates, and I've stated here ad nauseum that if Hillary was the candidate, I wouldn't like it but her stance on issues are closer to my beliefs than McCain so I'd vote for her. But I would also hope that many of those Americans who've examined both Democratic candidates have also examined each candidates' past voting record and statements to see the differences that have swayed folks like myself. If they haven't, I admit that's unfortunate, because I think they should do so. But I'll concede your point that this is probably the case for a decent portion of Dem. voters.
| quote: | | you're entitled to your opinion. |
I'm sorry if you disagree, as you are certainly entitled to yours as well. Hopefully soon we'll all look past these things and have a good campaign this summer. |
|
|
| MisterOpus1 |
| quote: | Originally posted by Q5echo
|
That piece directly sidesteps the one I posted, which I'll do so again:
| quote: | I hope all the wingnuts who plan to beat up on Barack Obama because he served on the board of a community foundation with someone who did something horribly disgusting in 1970 and said he wasn't sorry for it in 2001 are absolutely certain that they have no similar contact with anyone involved in supporting or facilitating:
1. The terrorist campaign to maintain racial domination in the South. (That would include virtually the entire political and law enforcement leadership of the whole region.) For example when William F. Buckley wrote:
| quote: |
The central question that emerges … is whether the White community in the South is entitled to take such measures as are necessary to prevail, politically and culturally, in areas in which it does not prevail numerically? The sobering answer is Yes – the White community is so entitled because, for the time being, it is the advanced race. |
he knew very well that "such measures as are necessary" included lynching. He eventually changed his mind about racial superiority. But did he ever make apology, let alone reparation, to the scores of people who were murdered in defense of the segregationist cause while he continued to adhere to it? And of course Strom Thurmond as Governor of South Carolina must have been much more directly involved in promoting and protecting terrorist violence. Yet no one has suggested that sitting on a charitable board with Strom Thurmond constituted retroactive support for terrorism.
2. The terrorist campaign directed by anti-Castro organizations in South Florida against other Cuban-Americans and against independent media, including the successful effort to make it impossible to distribute the Miami Herald in Cuban Miami through the use of systematic violence, including firebombing, against newsdealers who failed to comply with the boycott called by the Cuban-American National Foundation. Like the segregationist campaign, this couldn't have continued without at least the passive connivance of the rest of the Cuban-American political establishment of Miami and of federal and local law enforcement agencies.
3. The largely successful terrorist campaign to shut down clinics that offered abortion services.
I have no brief for William Ayers. I wouldn't have put him on a foundation board, and I'd be disinclined to shake his hand. But the notion that the Weather Underground and the Black Panther Party somehow introduced violence into a previously non-violent polity doesn't pass the giggle test. The American Right has infinitely more blood on its hands in this regard than does the American Left. |
He's absolutely right - this doesn't even pass the giggle test for the Republicans. Not even close. You seriously think Republicans can somehow wipe their hands clean of these shoulder rubs and wink/nods of the more recent past? Please.
And while you're at it, I'm still waiting to hear the Right's explanation of why McCain excepted the endorsement of a nutbag minister who called the Catholic church a whore of the anti-Christ. |
|
|
| jerZ07002 |
| quote: | Originally posted by MisterOpus1
Voting records, and a number of issues on stances (including health care, Iraq, Iran, Pakistan, etc.). I'm not sure if you wanted me or someone else to outline the number of differences here, but perhaps that could be best served for a brand new thread of its own. |
no need, i do my homework, their differences are not substantial.
| quote: | Originally posted by MisterOpus1
and then put in Obama as the Senator with Sponsor, Co-sponsor, or both on the bills that he created and supported. The results came up with 558 total. |
i wouldn't read too much into sponsoring/co-sponsoring. take a look at some of those 558 items, it's mostly bull:
- a resolution condeming violence in zimbabwe
- A concurrent resolution honoring the life of Percy Lavon Julian
- A concurrent resolution expressing the sense of Congress that a commemorative postage stamp should be issued honoring Rosa Louise McCauley Parks
- A concurrent resolution supporting the goals and ideals of Sickle Cell Disease Awareness Month.
i think i'll vote for obama because he sponsored a resolution urging the postal service to issue a Rosa Parks stamp. ;) |
|
|
| Krypton |
| quote: | Originally posted by Q5echo
two things. first, mindboggling ignorant and insulting generalizations will get you absolutely nowhere in LIFE, much less taken seriously anywhere in politics.
second, don't ever, ever, bring up ANY politician's character in this forum then if they don't have a criminal record.
thats most absurd thing i've heard this week from you. take another hit. |
1. First point was no point (relevancy).
2. I didn't say we shouldn't talk about their character, I said, we should not FOCUS on it!! Especially in a DEBATE... |
|
|
| Q5echo |
| quote: | Originally posted by Krypton
1.(relevancy). |
youre right. breathtakingly insulting generalizations are not relevant. not even sure why i "focused" on it.
| quote: | | 2. I didn't say we shouldn't talk about their character, I said, we should not FOCUS on it!! Especially in a DEBATE... |
i don't give damn how you word it. it's dumb either way.
it's even dumber now after you've tried to clarify yourself. |
|
|
| Q5echo |
| quote: | Originally posted by MisterOpus1
That piece directly sidesteps the one I posted, which I'll do so again: |
Wherner was writing about journalistic integrity, not gamesmanship among party affiliates. |
|
|
| Krypton |
| quote: | Originally posted by Q5echo
youre right. breathtakingly insulting generalizations are not relevant. not even sure why i "focused" on it.
i don't give damn how you word it. it's dumb either way.
it's even dumber now after you've tried to clarify yourself. |
1. Who am I insulting, you? Political bull should never be the focus of a presidential debate period...Talk about that on radio or something; keep it out of debates!!
2. Again, nothing relevant has been said. You're just calling my comments stupid, without proving anything...
Do you have any substantive to say? |
|
|
| Q5echo |
| quote: | Originally posted by Krypton
You're just calling my comments stupid, |
but they are!
c'mon, the question of character is moot on the main stage sans a criminal wrap sheet? gimme a f***n break man.
| quote: | | Do you have any substantive to say? |
i think this thread speaks for itself regarding the vetting of character in POTUS electability. it's kinda left you in the dust, so to speak, with your opinion about it.
EDIT> and furthermore i don't want to hear a peep out of you when the Dems start attacking McCain about his temper. |
|
|
| Krypton |
| quote: | Originally posted by Q5echo
but they are!
c'mon, the question of character is moot on the main stage sans a criminal wrap sheet? gimme a f***n break man. |
The focus of any debate should not be on trivial political gaffes. If they want to talk about real scandals, that would be appropriately possible criminal issues. Not campaign gossip which won't mean in 12 months.
| quote: | | i think this thread speaks for itself regarding the vetting of character in POTUS electability. it's kinda left you in the dust, so to speak, with your opinion about it. |
Left me in the dust ay? I hate being in the dust...:(
| quote: | | EDIT> and furthermore i don't want to hear a peep out of you when the Dems start attacking McCain about his temper. |
Hey, I don't care, just as long as the question from the moderator isn't, "Hillary/Obama, do you think John McCain has a temper?" |
|
|
|
|
