Iowa Debates

Off Topic Politics and World Issues
1

Some thoughts:

Reps–

That moderator was MUCH less civil with the Reps than the Dems. She was constantly cutting them off with “Thank Yous” while the only person to get that treatment with the Dems was Richardson. Also, notice that each of the Dems got to answer the global warming question while the Reps were supposed to raise their hands. Good on Thompson for not being her puppy. Too bad most every Republican there is so scared of the global warming cult to grow a pair and say that people need to calm down or that the main problem is that GIANT FUCKING FIREBALL IN THE SKY.

That said, I don’t think there was much substance. Paul did well again until he spoke about foreign affairs. As it stands I reiterate that I can only vote for Paul or Thompson and maybe Huck(but his would be a lesser of two evils vote).

But…I think there’s already something of a Paul effect. Notice how no one but Paul and Thompson spoke of the value of liberty in the early debates. Now they are ALL doing it.

Oh, and how about Romney’s “It takes one to know one.” comeback? I mean, wow, and it took a full 5 seconds for him to come up with that.

Dems–

I disagree with these guys so badly that I just kind of laugh them off. Yet I can entertain the idea that not all Dems are idiots. Well, that is unless you vote for Edwards. If you vote for Edwards then you are a complete moron. If you cannot see through his insincerity then you are really special. I also laughed at how his support spiked every time he said “corporation”. I mean, are libs this stupid?

I also liked Obama’s line, “If we had the obesity rates we did in the 80’s then we’d cut trillions from a health care program.” Umm, okay. Then he goes onto a whole different line. That didn’t make a lick of sense.

Richardson: “Health care is a human right.” Really? I love how health care is a human right, but not getting thrown into a wood chipper ISN’T a human right. Also, let us imagine that health care really is a human right. So if we all decided that we didn’t want to be doctors would the .gov start drafting us to be doctors?

Let me round up the list of suggestions.
–mandatory $40,000 minimum wage
–mandatory universal health care
–mandatory universal preschool
–free tuition for college

How did they all suggest paying for this? By removing the tax breaks (yeah, the ones that are actually bringing in more tax revenue) to the rich for having the audacity to give us all jobs. The rascals.

mike

2

I thought these debates were much better than the youtube CNN debates. I liked how it moved along quick and orderly.

That Alan Keyes was what I thought the highlight of the republican debate… that man was passionate! What an emotional speaker! He sure does know how to get his point across! He is also very articulate! I liked how he was able to speak for so long without a pause, or an uh, er, or oh! He seems very intelligent!

I think Thompson did pretty well in that debate. I liked Duncan Hunter too. However I am still on the fence about who to vote for, I think I am gettign burned out. I will probably vote for either Thompson or Hunter in the primaries, but I am still very undecided at this point.

Dems looked silly yesterday, especially Edwards and his “us vs them” crap…

I want to ask though, hwo does tax breaks for the rich create jobs? I was talking to my grandpa about this, and he says that tax breaks for the rich don’t necessarily mean more jobs for Americans.

He says the notion that the rich take the money they save from paying taxes and invest it, creating American jobs is mainly a lie because the money doesn’t necessarily get invested in American job creating endeavors.

They will invest in whatever earns a higher rate of return, and that doesn’t always mean more jobs for Americans. More and more investment dollars are leaving the country, adn with those dollars American jobs. That is what he said anyways…

3

[quote]skaz05 wrote:
I thought these debates were much better than the youtube CNN debates. I liked how it moved along quick and orderly.

That Alan Keyes was what I thought the highlight of the republican debate… That man is bat-shit nutso, I laughed out loud after almost every time he went a diatribe… Seriously, something is wrong with that guy.
[/quote]

Do a little research before you start throwing out insults and you’ll find that Keyes is the most intelligent of all the republican nominees. He is committed to the America that our forefathers envisioned and is a scholar of the consititution. He is the only nominee that recognizes that the biggest problem in America today is our lack of morality. Fix this first and all of the other conservative ideals will follow. He also shows the leadership and emotion that one should want in a leader, and is a very motivational speaker.

4

[quote]tedro wrote:
He is the only nominee that recognizes that the biggest problem in America today is our lack of morality. Fix this first…
[/quote]
Give me a f’n break. Who is “us”?

…don’t lump me into this group. Morality isn’t the issue. Government cannot regulate morality…are you delusional?

5

[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
tedro wrote:
He is the only nominee that recognizes that the biggest problem in America today is our lack of morality. Fix this first…

Give me a f’n break. Who is “us”?

…don’t lump me into this group. Morality isn’t the issue. Government cannot regulate morality…are you delusional?[/quote]

First of all I did not say that everbody suffers from a lack of morality, that is ridiculous. But as a whole, our nation is not a very moral one in this day and age. Mall shootings, school shootings, rape, false accusations of rape, etc.

Government cannot regulate morality? Are YOU delusional? So the government can’t regulate abortion? sanctions for murder, theft, or destruction? sex with a consenting minor? All of these are very much moral issues and I would be very worried if they were not regulated, some need more regulation.

6

[quote]tedro wrote:
LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
tedro wrote:
He is the only nominee that recognizes that the biggest problem in America today is our lack of morality. Fix this first…

Give me a f’n break. Who is “us”?

…don’t lump me into this group. Morality isn’t the issue. Government cannot regulate morality…are you delusional?

First of all I did not say that everbody suffers from a lack of morality, that is ridiculous. But as a whole, our nation is not a very moral one in this day and age. Mall shootings, school shootings, rape, false accusations of rape, etc.

Government cannot regulate morality? Are YOU delusional? So the government can’t regulate abortion? sanctions for murder, theft, or destruction? sex with a consenting minor? All of these are very much moral issues and I would be very worried if they were not regulated, some need more regulation.
[/quote]

How can the country collectively lack morality but not be an issue for everyone? That is the greatest fallacy you make. You generalize about the morality of the “country” but a country does not have morality - it makes no sense. You are a collectivist. Morality is individualistic and this outside the scope of government

And no the government cannot regulate morality. Criminality and morality are not mutually exclusive. Some people worship Satan which others might find immoral but it is not illegal. Figure out the difference of which I speak and them rejoin the conversation with some logic.

I do not need people deciding what is right for me.

7

[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
How can the country collectively lack morality but not be an issue for everyone?
[/quote]
It is indeed an issue for everyone as we are all affected, but this does not mean that everyone lacks morals.

A country in terms of the people that make up the country does have morality. Obviously everybody does not hold the same morals, but when one looks at the people as a whole it is very easy to understand their morality.

I agree that criminality and morality are not mutually exclusive, but who regulates criminality?

The government very much regulates morality, sometimes it is needed, sometimes it is not. Many things that are obviously and widely considered immoral are regulated without question. When moral issues are more widely debated, regulation is more controversial, e.g. abortion.

[quote]
I do not need people deciding what is right for me.[/quote]

I did not suggest you do, but some people do and it is for the protection of others, you included, and your family, and your friends, and your posterity.

Now, before you respond, do not take my comments on morality too far. I am not advocating more government and more regulations. I am advocating a government that encourages freedom, healthy living, and a devotion to family. Before you bash on Keyes, listen to him for a few minutes, to me he is a true “T-man”, and he can explain his platform much better than I can.

There is a good video on his homepage:

This one is also good:
http://www.alankeyes.com/video?clip=070330candles

You may find that he actually has a lot in common with Ron Paul, in that they are both committed to the constitution moreso than any other candidate.

8

[quote]tedro wrote:
You may find that he actually has a lot in common with Ron Paul, in that they are both committed to the constitution moreso than any other candidate.[/quote]

Believe me I am aware of Keyes’ positions. He does line up well with Paul and I was not responding to your assessment of him. I am trying to correct you about the issue of morality v. legality. Morality is relative because it is always based on personal value judgments.

You still confuse morality and legality. Just because certain laws have a moral basis does not mean they are legislated because of their morality. Life, liberty and property must be protected and that is the basis for law in this country. Do not confuse the forest for the trees.

I want a president who defends liberty for all, understands the strength of peace, and has clear comprehension of the connection of both of these ideas to economics. Keyes does not – and for that matter no other candidates but Paul does.

9

[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
You still confuse morality and legality. Just because certain laws have a moral basis does not mean they are legislated because of their morality. Life, liberty and property must be protected and that is the basis for law in this country. Do not confuse the forest for the trees.
[/quote]

I ask you this: Why must life, liberty, and property be protected?

[quote]
I want a president who defends liberty for all, understands the strength of peace, and has clear comprehension of the connection of both of these ideas to economics. Keyes does not – and for that matter no other candidates but Paul does.[/quote]

I want the same president as you, but Ron Paul is not that guy. I believe Paul’s intentions truly are good, but his libertarian views are not going to achieve these intentions. Keyes understands these things, understands the constitution and the visions of our forefathers, is committed to achieving them, and has the intellect and morality to do so.

10

I agree that the government does to some extent legislate morality. They may not do it in the name of God or a higher purpose but they are still making decisions about what is right or wrong or good or bad. Not to mention that this country was founded on on Christian principles and morality. I realize the government is completely different now but there is no right or wrong without some kind of notion of morality.

11

Hey tedro, I cleaned up my OG post for ya!

I wonder why he isn’t getting more media coverage, especially because he is a black republican running for president. You would think that the MSM would have focused on that.

12

[quote]tedro wrote:
I ask you this: Why must life, liberty, and property be protected?
[/quote]
Because they are natural rights.

13

[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
tedro wrote:
I ask you this: Why must life, liberty, and property be protected?

Because they are natural rights.
[/quote]

I openly admit that I believe in natural rights…yet I cannot prove that they exist. Can you?

Re: Keyes. I think it’s funny that Keyes plays himself up as a moral authority when he disowned his daughter when he found out she was a lesbian. The guy is a dick.

mike

14

[quote]skaz05 wrote:
Hey tedro, I cleaned up my OG post for ya!

I wonder why he isn’t getting more media coverage, especially because he is a black republican running for president. You would think that the MSM would have focused on that.[/quote]

Hey I like it!

Many people are quick to label Dr. Keyes as a nutjob, but if you give him a chance and really listen to what he has to say for a few minutes, he makes a lot of sense and is very inspirational.

If you really agree with his political views, go to www.alankeyes.com and sign The Pledge for America’s Revival!

15

[quote]Mikeyali wrote:
LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
tedro wrote:
I ask you this: Why must life, liberty, and property be protected?

Because they are natural rights.

I openly admit that I believe in natural rights…yet I cannot prove that they exist. Can you?

Re: Keyes. I think it’s funny that Keyes plays himself up as a moral authority when he disowned his daughter when he found out she was a lesbian. The guy is a dick.

mike[/quote]

This is completely wrong. Keyes never disowned his daughter. She worked for his political campaign and was fired and kicked out of an apartment funded by the campaign when she showed up to protest George Bush’s inauguration in 2005. Her parents had known she was gay since 2003.

Here is an interview with Maya Keyes, Alan’s daughter:
http://www.metroweekly.com/feature/?ak=1468

It doesn’t get into the details of her being kicked out, but she does repeatedly say how much love and respect she has for her father despite their disagreements.

16

[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:

Because they are natural rights.[/quote]

Not four posts ago you claimed there are no moral absolutes.

And yet - the rights to life, individual liberty, and property are, in fact, moral absolutes, by your own admission.

Definitionally, the rights you list are moral absolutes, because they represent claims you can make upon other men regardless of circumstances. They are absolute - they are not relative.

Hmmm. So, which is it?

17

[quote]Mikeyali wrote:
LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
tedro wrote:
I ask you this: Why must life, liberty, and property be protected?

Because they are natural rights.

I openly admit that I believe in natural rights…yet I cannot prove that they exist. Can you?
[/quote]
Do you exist? Is your life your property? Do you have a right to live your life in pursuit of happiness that you deem worthy?

One cannot prove whether rights exist or not. One must believe they exist. Logically, if I believe they exist for me then I cannot deny they exist for anyone else. Since it is in my best interest to protect the rights that I believe exist I logically have to protect those rights for everyone. That should be the basis of our society.

I love Keyes…he’s so fun to listen too. The guy should switch to decaf though. I agree I wouldn’t want to live under what Keyes considers moral.

18

[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:

Because they are natural rights.

Not four posts ago you claimed there are no moral absolutes.

And yet - the rights to life, individual liberty, and property are, in fact, moral absolutes, by your own admission.

Definitionally, the rights you list are moral absolutes, because they represent claims you can make upon other men regardless of circumstances. They are absolute - they are not relative.

Hmmm. So, which is it?
[/quote]
Relativity doesn’t work that way. It is always individually defined. Absolutes only exist individually as value judgments.

I believe these rights exist but you may not. That is relativity; however, I don’t think morality has anything to do with rights and vice versa.

19

[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:

Relativity doesn’t work that way. It is always individually defined. Absolutes only exist individually as value judgments.

I believe these rights exist but you may not. That is relativity; however, I don’t think morality has anything to do with rights and vice versa.[/quote]

Then they aren’t “rights” - if you have no absolute claim on other men w/r/t to them, they aren’t “rights”. They are policy “preferences” - and you keeping 100% of your hard-earned property is no greater or lesser from a moral point of view than my preference that 95% of your property must be handed over to a government agency.

As for your last paragraph, it defies description - a “right” is a moral claim. You can’t think morality and rights have nothing to do with one another - otherwise, it isn’t a “right” that you are entitled to exercise in every circumstance.

You’re sputtering.

20

There are many other videos here:
http://www.alankeyes.com/video.php

The ones with Obama are particularly good. It’s too bad he didn’t enter that election under a better scenario.