Jump to content
Washington Football Team Logo
Extremeskins
Forum Rules and Guidelines

Pastor snags Obama, McCain for joint appearance

Zguy28

By Zguy28
in The Tailgate

Recommended Posts

88Comrade2000

88Comrade2000

Posted
Posted

I just watched my tape of it.

Mccain won overall but Obama did fine. The audience was suited more to Mccain than Obama. If this forum had taken place in say a Black Church; I think Obama would've won.

I do think we could be in for some historic debates that will be talked about for years like Nixon-Kennedy.

I thought the evil question was good as it exposed both a strength and weakness for both of them. Mccain only focused on terrorism but didn't mention other kinds of evil. Obama didn't mention terrorism at all but talked about other kinds of evil.

I hope when they actually have debates the idiot press actually asks them good questions.

I think both candidates displayed their strengths and weaknesses and it be interesting to see them in the debates. If the race remains close; the debates could be what seals it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Henry

Henry

Posted
Posted
I gotta agree with TrumanB. Obama did "fine" but he's definitely not as good in that format as he is when he has a prepared speech.

Actually I thought Obama did really well ... until McCain had his turn. I didn't think Obama looked uncomfortable at all, I just think McCain's approach to the questions was better. Then again, McCain's ability to cut through the BS is one of the reasons I'm voting for him. This event really reinforced that for me.

But to be fair I don't think Obama looked like and empty suit. He just didn't hit a home run like McCain did.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
@DCGoldPants

@DCGoldPants

Posted
Posted
Actually I thought Obama did really well ... until McCain had his turn. I didn't think Obama looked uncomfortable at all, I just think McCain's approach to the questions was better. Then again, McCain's ability to cut through the BS is one of the reasons I'm voting for him. This event really reinforced that for me.

But to be fair I don't think Obama looked like and empty suit. He just didn't hit a home run like McCain did.

I think both guys looked very comfortable. I don't think either one came out ahead from this. It just reinforced probably their core bases.

However, I like this style. Imagine if candidates could only talk about what they were FOR and not about the other guy? If they had spend all their campaign money on telling the country about themselves. People wouldn't have to dig through the smears to find the real guy.

However, it would mean they'd be cut off from anything the other guy said for about 2 years.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
twa

twa

Posted
Posted

Could one of Obamas supporters explain his reasoning why civil unions should be decided by the States,yet abortion should not?

For the McCain ones,What does Georgia's Christian history have to do with anything?

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Midnight Judges

Midnight Judges

Posted
Posted
Could one of Obamas supporters explain his reasoning why civil unions should be decided by the States,yet abortion should not?

?

You've heard this before but I'll repeat it: The supreme court ruled that abortion is covered by the constitution under the right to privacy under the due process clause of the 14th amendment. Marriage is not.

If it were up to me I would amend the constitution to protect the right to marriage for any two consenting adults, but Obama is more conservative than I am in that respect.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Tastes Like Chicken

Tastes Like Chicken

Posted
Posted
Could one of Obamas supporters explain his reasoning why civil unions should be decided by the States,yet abortion should not?

For the McCain ones,What does Georgia's Christian history have to do with anything?

Barack Obama on Gay Rights:

Opposes CA Prop. 8, one-man-one-woman marriage. (Jul 2008)

Being gay or lesbian is not a choice. (Nov 2007)

Decisions about marriage should be left to the states. (Oct 2007)

Homosexuality no more immoral than heterosexuality. (Oct 2007)

Ok to expose 6-year-olds to gay couples; they know already. (Sep 2007)

Has any marriage broken up because two gays hold hands? (Aug 2007)

We need strong civil unions, not just weak civil unions. (Aug 2007)

Legal rights for gays are conferred by state, not by church. (Aug 2007)

Disentangle gay rights from the word "marriage". (Aug 2007)

Gay marriage is less important that equal gay rights. (Aug 2007)

Gay rights movement is somewhat like civil rights movement. (Aug 2007)

Let each denominations decide on recognizing gay marriage. (Jul 2007)

Pass ENDA and expand hate crime legislation. (Mar 2007)

Opposed 1996 Illinois DOMA bill. (Mar 2007)

Supports health benefits for gay civil partners. (Oct 2006)

Opposes gay marriage; supports civil union & gay equality. (Oct 2006)

Marriage not a human right; non-discrimination is. (Oct 2004)

Include sexual orientation in anti-discrimination laws. (Jul 1998)

Barack Obama on Abortion:

Ok for state to restrict late-term partial birth abortion. (Apr 2008)

We can find common ground between pro-choice and pro-life. (Apr 2008)

Undecided on whether life begins at conception. (Apr 2008)

Teach teens about abstinence and also about contraception. (Apr 2008)

GovWatch: Obama's "present" votes were a requested strategy. (Feb 2008)

Expand access to contraception; reduce unintended pregnancy. (Feb 2008)

Rated 100% by NARAL on pro-choice votes in 2005, 2006 & 2007. (Jan 2008)

Voted against banning partial birth abortion. (Oct 2007)

Stem cells hold promise to cure 70 major diseases. (Aug 2007)

Trust women to make own decisions on partial-birth abortion. (Apr 2007)

Extend presumption of good faith to abortion protesters. (Oct 2006)

Constitution is a living document; no strict constructionism. (Oct 2006)

Moral accusations from pro-lifers are counterproductive. (Oct 2004)

Pass the Stem Cell Research Bill. (Jun 2004)

Protect a woman's right to choose. (May 2004)

Supports Roe v. Wade. (Jul 1998)

Voted NO on defining unborn child as eligible for SCHIP. (Mar 2008)

Voted NO on prohibiting minors crossing state lines for abortion. (Mar 2008)

Voted YES on expanding research to more embryonic stem cell lines. (Apr 2007)

Voted NO on notifying parents of minors who get out-of-state abortions. (Jul 2006)

Voted YES on $100M to reduce teen pregnancy by education & contraceptives. (Mar 2005)

Sponsored bill providing contraceptives for low-income women. (May 2006)

Rated 0% by the NRLC, indicating a pro-choice stance. (Dec 2006)

Ensure access to and funding for contraception. (Feb 2007)

http://www.ontheissues.org/Barack_Obama.htm

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Tulane Skins Fan

Tulane Skins Fan

Posted
Posted
Could one of Obamas supporters explain his reasoning why civil unions should be decided by the States,yet abortion should not?

For the McCain ones,What does Georgia's Christian history have to do with anything?

Some issues should be decided by the States, and others shouldn't. I'm not sure I see the connection.

If you want a real legal debate about it, it comes down to the Fourth Amendment of the Constitution, at least arguably, saying that the government cannot infringe on your right to abortion versus nothing about the definition or Marriage in the Constitution.

I'm curious what makes you think that you can't logically support these two views?

Link to comment
Share on other sites
twa

twa

Posted
Posted
Some issues should be decided by the States, and others shouldn't. I'm not sure I see the connection.

If you want a real legal debate about it, it comes down to the Fourth Amendment of the Constitution, at least arguably, saying that the government cannot infringe on your right to abortion versus nothing about the definition or Marriage in the Constitution.

I'm curious what makes you think that you can't logically support these two views?

Arguably being the operative word in applying the 14th(though you obviously have the past court agreeing with you )

Simply curious how a right to abortion can be 'read' into the constitution,yet a right to marriage cannot.

quote

I BELIEVE IN ROE V. WADE AND COME TO THAT CONCLUSION NOT

BECAUSE I'M PRO ABORTION, BUT BECAUSE ULTIMATELY I

DON'T THINK WOMEN MAKE THESE DECISIONS CASUALLY.

(excuse the caps,it's a cut and paste )

http://www.rickwarrennews.com/transcript/civil_forum_transcript-02.txt

He seems to argue abortion is a inherent right of self determination,yet civil unions should be left up to popular choice?

Does that mean he believes gays/lesbians are casual in the choice of unions?

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Tulane Skins Fan

Tulane Skins Fan

Posted
Posted
Arguably being the operative word in applying the 14th(though you obviously have the past court agreeing with you )

Simply curious how a right to abortion can be 'read' into the constitution,yet a right to marriage cannot.

quote

I BELIEVE IN ROE V. WADE AND COME TO THAT CONCLUSION NOT

BECAUSE I'M PRO ABORTION, BUT BECAUSE ULTIMATELY I

DON'T THINK WOMEN MAKE THESE DECISIONS CASUALLY.

(excuse the caps,it's a cut and paste )

http://www.rickwarrennews.com/transcript/civil_forum_transcript-02.txt

He seems to argue abortion is a inherent right of self determination,yet civil unions should be left up to popular choice?

Does that mean he believes gays/lesbians are casual in the choice of unions?

Here's what you are sort of misapplying when you are equating abortion and gay marriage:

Roe v. Wade (well, really Casey v. Planned Parenthood) does not say that abortion is a right that can not be infringed upon. What those cases say is that the Fourth Amendment protects a person's right to privacy, and that privacy includes the ability to have an abortion. (The Fourteenth Amendment does apply the Fourth Amendment to the States, but its really the Fourth Amendment which says that the government cannot infringe upon a person's right to privacy.) So, in the case of abortion, what the SC has stated is that the government cannot INFRINGE on your rights.

Now, with gay marriage... what people are asking for is for the government to PROTECT marriage. It's actually not what the Constitution does. The Constitution, for the most part, lists the powers and LIMITS the powers of the government (both federal and states). In the case of gay marriage, you are asking that the government not infringe upon something, but instead that it take an active role in defining or granting some right.

I think it breaks down like this... Obama (or anyone with these views) can believe that both abortion and gay marriage are immoral or wrong acts. The issue, though, is whether the GOVERNMENT can do anything, or should do anything about that. A person can believe that the act is wrong, but also believe that the government cannot infringe upon your right to privacy. But that does not equate to saying that the government should overreach into the realm of defining and/or protecting moral views.

edit: i think what he's saying with that statement about women making decisions is that its a private decision. And Obama is a constitutional law scholar, so I believe that goes hand in hand with that view.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Smoot Point Really

Smoot Point Really

Posted
Posted

Of course, the question of when constitutional rights are extended to a child already born is "above his pay-grade." I think hearing what people have to say on this issue on Monday will be interesting. Also, the question on a "tough decision and the process he went through" was a flat out revision of history, since he wasn't in the US Senate during the decision to go to war with Iraq or not. By the time he entered the US Senate, it was fashionable in the "moveon.org" party to not support funding for the war. Another question about "working across party lines" his answer revolved around his support for McCain's "Ethics and Finance Reform" bill... However, it turns out he wasn't all that supportive: http://mccain.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=PressOffice.PressReleases&ContentRecord_id=a72aa248-ed25-4ec1-9c20-1386b3ee960c&Region_id=&Issue_id=

Link to comment
Share on other sites
sean_e_b

sean_e_b

Posted
Posted

Obama seemed to be thinking too much in order to try and give answers that would please the audience rather than simply being honest in his views as well as trying to tell stories to help get around questions that wouldn't fit the mindset of those at the forum.

McCain on the other hand got his answers out much faster and straighter to the point. His honesty on a failed marriage and other subjects was what I wanted to hear and he'll definately be getting my vote.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Tastes Like Chicken

Tastes Like Chicken

Posted
Posted
Of course, the question of when constitutional rights are extended to a child already born is "above his pay-grade." I think hearing what people have to say on this issue on Monday will be interesting. Also, the question on a "tough decision and the process he went through" was a flat out revision of history, since he wasn't in the US Senate during the decision to go to war with Iraq or not. By the time he entered the US Senate, it was fashionable in the "moveon.org" party to not support funding for the war. Another question about "working across party lines" his answer revolved around his support for McCain's "Ethics and Finance Reform" bill... However, it turns out he wasn't all that supportive: http://mccain.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=PressOffice.PressReleases&ContentRecord_id=a72aa248-ed25-4ec1-9c20-1386b3ee960c&Region_id=&Issue_id=

1. I believe the 'pay-grade' comment was referring to the question of 'when does life begin', not about already born children's rights. :whoknows:

2. You don't have to be in the US Senate to oppose a war. He made a speech which was unpopular at the time, and could have ruined his future Senatorial and Presidential aspirations. Fortunately, he was right. :D

3. Yeah, McCain's puzzling letter to Obama. Let's see Barack's response, shall we?

February 6, 2006

The Honorable John McCain

United States Senate

241 Russell Senate Office Building

Washington, DC 20510

Dear John:

During my short time in the U.S. Senate, one of the aspects about this institution that I have come to value most is the collegiality and the willingness to put aside partisan differences to work on issues that help the American people. It was in this spirit that I approached you to work on ethics reform, and it was in this spirit that I agreed to attend your bipartisan meeting last week. I appreciated then - and still do appreciate - your willingness to reach out to me and several other Democrats.

For this reason, I am puzzled by your response to my recent letter. Last Wednesday morning, you called to invite me to your meeting that afternoon. I changed my schedule so I could attend the meeting. Afterwards, you thanked me several times for attending the meeting, and we left pledging to work together.

As you will recall, I told everyone present at the meeting that my caucus insisted that the consideration of any ethics reform proposal go through the regular committee process. You didn't indicate any opposition to this position at the time, and I wrote the letter to reiterate this point, as well as the fact that I thought S. 2180 should be the basis for a bipartisan solution.

I confess that I have no idea what has prompted your response. But let me assure you that I am not interested in typical partisan rhetoric or posturing. The fact that you have now questioned my sincerity and my desire to put aside politics for the public interest is regrettable but does not in any way diminish my deep respect for you nor my willingness to find a bipartisan solution to this problem.

Sincerely,

Barack Obama

United States Senator

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Go to topic listing

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...