ForumGarden

Rick Warren interviews Obama & McCain separately at his church 8/16/08.



http://www.cnn.com/video/#/video/politi ... videosview

http://www.cnn.com/video/#/video/politi ... videosview

http://www.cnn.com/video/#/video/politi ... videosview

http://www.cnn.com/video/#/video/politi ... videosview



TRANSCRIPT LINK

Ah HELL!



It looks like only the first link works. Click it. The show is broken into four parts you can access from there.

Saw bits of it on the bbc and cnn. Tell me does it not bother you that in this day and age politicians in america have to pander to the concerns of the religious? Atheists would clearly have a problem getting anywhere but how about catholics If they did this in front of a group of representatives from the catholic church what would the reaction be. Given the importance of the latin community maybe not so far fetched.

Just curious as to what you think so don't take the question the wrong way. In The UK-well the scottish bit of it religion is kept out of politics as it very rapidly gets to be sectarian.

gmc;955192 wrote: Saw bits of it on the bbc and cnn. Tell me does it not bother you that in this day and age politicians in america have to pander to the concerns of the religious?No, but it amuses me a little that it bothers you to such a degree. :yh_giggle

gmc wrote: Atheists would clearly have a problem getting anywhere but how about catholics If they did this in front of a group of representatives from the catholic church what would the reaction be. Given the importance of the latin community maybe not so far fetched.



Just curious as to what you think so don't take the question the wrong way. In The UK-well the scottish bit of it religion is kept out of politics as it very rapidly gets to be sectarian.
Politicians pander to everybody. If catholics contributed to PACs with "Catholic" in the name politicians would pander to them, too.



What does bother me is that not once did I hear either candidate tell Warren that any of the plans for federal spending should actually be left to the states.

Q: at what point does a baby get human rights, in your view?



OBAMA: Well, you know, I think that whether you're looking at it from a theological perspective or a scientific perspective, answering that question with specificity, you know, is above my pay grade.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~



Stupid non-answer. Obviously he was ready to be asked when does LIFE begin -- so ready that he didn't even hear the actual question posed. So taken in context it comes out:



Q: As potential President of the United States, at what point do you think the government (over which you would preside) should grant to babies the rights of humans?



A: That is above my pay grade.



Our country was founded on the principle that "all men are created equal," and so that equality cannot be granted. So the question can only have one answer in this country, no matter what the pay grade. Babies get human rights at the moment of creation.

Q: what would be the greatest moral failure of America?



OBAMA: I think America's greatest moral failure in my lifetime has been that we still don't abide by that basic precept in Matthew that whatever you do for the least of my brothers, you do for me, and that notion of -- that basic principle applies to poverty. It applies to racism and sexism. It applies to, you know, not having -- not thinking about providing ladders of opportunity for people to get into the middle class. There's a pervasive sense, I think, that this country, as wealthy and powerful as we are, still don't spend enough time thinking about the least of us.



McCAIN: I think America's greatest moral failure has been. Throughout our existence, perhaps we have not devoted ourselves to causes greater than our self-interest, although we've been at the best at it of everybody in the world.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~



No difference there. The question now becomes, is it the federal government's responsibility to mandate that the citizens make up for the country's "greatest moral failure"?



IMO, so far as this issue is concerned, the president's responsibility begins and ends at the bully pulpit. Anything beyond that is abuse of powerl

Q: Can you give me a good example where you went against party loyalty, and maybe even went against your own best interest, for the good of America?



OBAMA: Well, you know, I'll give you an example that, in fact, I worked with John McCain on, and that was the issue of campaign ethics reform and finance reform. That wasn't probably in my interest or his, for that matter, because the truth was that both Democrats and Republicans sort of like the status quo. And I was new to the Senate and didn't necessarily engender a lot of popularity when I started saying, you know, we're going to eliminate meals and gifts from corporate lobbyists.



McCAIN: I'd probably have to say that one of the times that probably was one of the most trying was, when I was first a member of Congress, and I'm a new freshman in the House of Representatives and very loyal and dedicated to President Reagan .... He wanted to send troops to Beirut for a peacekeeping mission. My knowledge and my background told me that a few hundred Marines in a situation like that could not successfully carry out any kind of peacekeeping mission. And I thought they were going into harm's way. ... But it was tough, that vote, because I went against the president I believed in, and the party that believed that maybe I was disloyal very early in my political career.



~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~



I've got no issues with either answer. Could they be indications of where each candidate would focus his attention?

posted by accountable

No, but it amuses me a little that it bothers you to such a degree.


As a non american it bothers me less than if I were american. These religious groups don't believe in free speech and the right of everyone to lead their own lives as thet see fit. Given half a chance they would have a theocracy in a heartbeat. As an outsider I wonder how likely a christian, right wing, militaristic america is going to be.

gmc;955971 wrote: These religious groups don't believe in free speech and the right of everyone to lead their own lives as thet see fit.
Both side of our schizophrenic political party are like that. The religious groups don't hold a monopoly on that. Our left (your center, I guess) wants to limit free speech and people's life choices as well. They invented the term "hate speech" and political correctness, and it's that side that pushes for banning smoking, gun ownership, and fast food restaurants.

Accountable;955602 wrote: Q: at what point does a baby get human rights, in your view?



OBAMA: Well, you know, I think that whether you're looking at it from a theological perspective or a scientific perspective, answering that question with specificity, you know, is above my pay grade.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~



Stupid non-answer. Obviously he was ready to be asked when does LIFE begin -- so ready that he didn't even hear the actual question posed. So taken in context it comes out:



Q: As potential President of the United States, at what point do you think the government (over which you would preside) should grant to babies the rights of humans?



A: That is above my pay grade.



Our country was founded on the principle that "all men are created equal," and so that equality cannot be granted. So the question can only have one answer in this country, no matter what the pay grade. Babies get human rights at the moment of creation.


Obama answered the question...

He specifically said that abortion is a choice that should be made by ones own morale obligation...He made it be known that he felt the majority of women to whom have abortions do not make the decision to have an abortion casually implying quite clearly that it's a matter of pro-choice...

I don't see how you've missed it...

K.Snyder;956385 wrote: Obama answered the question...



He specifically said that abortion is a choice that should be made by ones own morale obligation...He made it be known that he felt the majority of women to whom have abortions do not make the decision to have an abortion casually implying quite clearly that it's a matter of pro-choice...



I don't see how you've missed it...
Sure he said all those things, none of which addressed the question.



The question was "at what point does a baby get human rights, in your view?"

Accountable;955617 wrote: Q: what would be the greatest moral failure of America?



OBAMA: I think America's greatest moral failure in my lifetime has been that we still don't abide by that basic precept in Matthew that whatever you do for the least of my brothers, you do for me, and that notion of -- that basic principle applies to poverty. It applies to racism and sexism. It applies to, you know, not having -- not thinking about providing ladders of opportunity for people to get into the middle class. There's a pervasive sense, I think, that this country, as wealthy and powerful as we are, still don't spend enough time thinking about the least of us.



McCAIN: I think America's greatest moral failure has been. Throughout our existence, perhaps we have not devoted ourselves to causes greater than our self-interest, although we've been at the best at it of everybody in the world.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~



No difference there. The question now becomes, is it the federal government's responsibility to mandate that the citizens make up for the country's "greatest moral failure"?



IMO, so far as this issue is concerned, the president's responsibility begins and ends at the bully pulpit. Anything beyond that is abuse of powerl


Retribution is moot...What's needed is equal opportunity...Equal opportunity had been taken away from slaves as well as the descendants of those slaves not to mention other minorities...That's over and done with...But the effects are still blatantly evident...The numbers don't lie...If every person subjected to inequality were given a job, a significant proportion of those jobs would definitely be at the expense of others...Especially in todays economy...So how this same context isn't considered to be the exact same by virtue of vica versa is beyond me...

Keeping American jobs in the United States of America is what's needed...With more Unions but Unions that represent equal incentive to both business owner as well as business associates...Too much Union is bad - Not enough Union is worse...

There needs to be a middle ground...

"I have loved justice and hated iniquity: therefore I die in exile." - Pope Gregory VII

Accountable;956393 wrote: Sure he said all those things, none of which addressed the question.



The question was "at what point does a baby get human rights, in your view?"


His telling you it were a matter of pro-choice blatantly illustrates that he feels it's a decision better left to the given circumstance...

Just because you don't like the answer doesn't mean that he hadn't addressed it...It doesn't have to be exactly black and white on this issue...

There's without a doubt a concern given both virtues dependent upon either saying specifically that a child has human rights at conception or birth...

K.Snyder;956404 wrote: His telling you it were a matter of pro-choice blatantly illustrates that he feels it's a decision better left to the given circumstance...



Just because you don't like the answer doesn't mean that he hadn't addressed it...It doesn't have to be exactly black and white on this issue...



There's without a doubt a concern given both virtues dependent upon either saying specifically that a child has human rights at conception or birth...
He dodged the question. He did not address the child's right at all. It's an issue a US President should be able to answer.

ETA: Just because you like the person doesn't make his answer right.

WARREN: What's the most significant position you held ten years ago that you no longer hold today, that you flipped on, you changed on, because you actually see it differently?



OBAMA: I think that a good example would be the issue of welfare reform, where I always believed that welfare had to be changed. I was much more concerned ten years ago when President Clinton initially signed the bill that this could have disastrous results. I worked in the Illinois legislature to make sure that we were providing child care and health care, other support services for the women who were going to be kicked off the roles after a certain time.

It had -- it worked better than, I think, a lot of people anticipated. And, you know, one of the things that I am absolutely convinced of is that we have to work as a centerpiece of any social policy.



MCCAIN: Offshore drilling, we've got to drill now and got to drill here and we've got to be (inaudible). (APPLAUSE).

And I know that there's some here in California that disagree -- (LAUGHTER) -- that disagree with that position. Could I also mention very seriously about this issue. My friends, you know that this is a national security issue. We're sending $700 billion a year to countries that don't like us very much, that some of that money is ending up in the hands of terrorist organizations. We cannot allow this greatest transfer of wealth in history and our national security continuing to be threatened.



~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~



"We have to work as a centerpiece of any social policy." vs "We've got to drill now ... here " etc.





One goes against the very foundation of American culture; the other is a good policy, but how does he balance that with his green/global warming stance?

Accountable;957510 wrote:

One goes against the very foundation of American culture; the other is a good policy, but how does he balance that with his green/global warming stance?


Which do you feel is more optimistic?...

K.Snyder;957577 wrote: Which do you feel is more optimistic?...
Lemme see, going counter to our culture or good policy ....... Hmmmm that's a toughie.

Accountable;957586 wrote: Lemme see, going counter to our culture or good policy ....... Hmmmm that's a toughie.


You've seemed to have dodged the question...

What's the difference between "good policy" and "our culture"?...

There has to be a definitive predestination for preference...

"Counter to our culture" and "good policy" has the utmost range of meanings...Anyone can say we have a good culture yet "good policy" should always be coveted...If it isn't then that state is immoral...



Which brings one of two clauses...

You either feel that the United states government conducts bad policy, or that the culture of the United states of America is immoral...

Which is it?...

Accountable;957510 wrote: One goes against the very foundation of American culture; the other is a good policy, but how does he balance that with his green/global warming stance?
K.Snyder;957577 wrote: Which do you feel is more optimistic?...
Accountable;957586 wrote: Lemme see, going counter to our culture or good policy ....... Hmmmm that's a toughie.


K.Snyder;957589 wrote: You've seemed to have dodged the question...



What's the difference between "good policy" and "our culture"?...



There has to be a definitive predestination for preference...



"Counter to our culture" and "good policy" has the utmost range of meanings...Anyone can say we have a good culture yet "good policy" should always be coveted...If it isn't then that state is immoral...



Which brings one of two clauses...



You either feel that the United states government conducts bad policy, or that the culture of the United states of America is immoral...



Which is it?...
Dude, I can't follow your logic at all. Sometimes I think you take devil's advocate positions just to keept the conversation going.



I clearly (or so I thought) stated my opinion that Obama's response goes against the foundation of our culture and McCain's was simply good policy. I'm confused how anyone can possibly think that I would see destroying our culture as a more optimistic view than a policy to help improve our energy situation.

Accountable;957880 wrote: Dude, I can't follow your logic at all. Sometimes I think you take devil's advocate positions just to keept the conversation going.Correct logic is defined by lack of judgment...



Accountable;957880 wrote:

I clearly (or so I thought) stated my opinion that Obama's response goes against the foundation of our culture and McCain's was simply good policy. I'm confused how anyone can possibly think that I would see destroying our culture as a more optimistic view than a policy to help improve our energy situation.


I was asking in which position you supported...

Who do you think will win?

Accountable;957880 wrote: Dude, I can't follow your logic at all. Sometimes I think you take devil's advocate positions just to keept the conversation going.



I clearly (or so I thought) stated my opinion that Obama's response goes against the foundation of our culture and McCain's was simply good policy. I'm confused how anyone can possibly think that I would see destroying our culture as a more optimistic view than a policy to help improve our energy situation.


So you feel our culture is morale with regards to your complacency...I suppose this is why I didn't know your position...

I personally feel our culture isn't immoral but desperately needs to be better educated...

Something the Democrats are for while the capitalist scum bags who have the real control in this country couldn't help but to encourage gun shots to the head VIA flare gun and the occasional truck sledding down highway 95...The rich...

gmc;958682 wrote: Who do you think will win?


Quite simple for me really...

The last two elections were rigged...What makes anyone think this one won't be?...With extreme emphasis on the fact that others probably have been as well(Elections)...

McCain's leading in the polls from what I feel is quite simply part of the foreground within the election being rigged as it is...So as it to not be such a shock...Remember Bushs' first election?...Dumb*** people can't even rig an election...

Florida being the state having been the primary deciding factor......Doesn't take a genius.

McCain VIA rigged election 2008...Why even waste the gas to go vote?...I'll need it for work next week...

gmc;958682 wrote: Who do you think will win?
Nobody this time. We all lose.

Accountable;959501 wrote: Nobody this time. We all lose.


So true!

K.Snyder;958934 wrote: Quite simple for me really...

The last two elections were rigged...What makes anyone think this one won't be?...With extreme emphasis on the fact that others probably have been as well(Elections)...

McCain's leading in the polls from what I feel is quite simply part of the foreground within the election being rigged as it is...So as it to not be such a shock...Remember Bushs' first election?...Dumb*** people can't even rig an election...

Florida being the state having been the primary deciding factor......Doesn't take a genius.

McCain VIA rigged election 2008...Why even waste the gas to go vote?...I'll need it for work next week...


posted by accountable

Nobody this time. We all lose.


Good grief-this from two representatives of the nation exporting the virtues of democracy at the point of a gun. How come you're both so negative about the future?

gmc;959757 wrote: Good grief-this from two representatives of the nation exporting the virtues of democracy at the point of a gun. How come you're both so negative about the future?
Cute. The future is bright. It's just going to be painful in the short term is all. Regardless, as a group, voters get what they deserve.

Accountable;959782 wrote: Cute. The future is bright. It's just going to be painful in the short term is all. Regardless, as a group, voters get what they deserve.


So do you see a shift to the left in american politics with the people-as it were-getting a grip on the politicians a bit more. Not trying to wind you up just trying to get a handle on it. left/right seem to have very different but also variable meanings either side of the pond.

On a happier note. democracy exerts itself in pakistan.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree ... eignpolicy

For 2008 to be recalled as a democratic watershed, America must learn to respect the Pakistani answer to extremism

gmc;959787 wrote: So do you see a shift to the left in american politics with the people-as it were-getting a grip on the politicians a bit more. Not trying to wind you up just trying to get a handle on it.
No. I see our new American Idol-ized culture voting for the music without reading the lyrics (I stole that phrase from a pundit. I think it's great).

Accountable;959791 wrote: No. I see our new American Idol-ized culture voting for the music without reading the lyrics (I stole that phrase from a pundit. I think it's great).


Interesting contrast-the Pakistani writer sees television and the media as a major factor in politicising the nation and ousting of musharif while americans (apparently) see the media as dumbing down the debate and the pretty ones get in. You have no excuse now you can watch the BBC on the internet. I would watch US tv news on the internet but the adverts try my patience too much. Buy this-here's the news-buy this-here's the news- buy this why don't you sheesh

Accountable;959782 wrote: Cute. The future is bright. It's just going to be painful in the short term is all. Regardless, as a group, voters get what they deserve.


Reminds me of Charlemagne -

Charlemagne - Founder of the Holy Roman Empire 742 - 814 A.D.



What is it exactly that you feel the groups deserve?...

gmc;959757 wrote: posted by accountable



Good grief-this from two representatives of the nation exporting the virtues of democracy at the point of a gun. How come you're both so negative about the future?


The day my power gets used legitimately in how it should upheld by the constitution of the United States of America is the day I refrain from cynicism...Obviously pertaining to the vote in question...

Accountable;959791 wrote: No. I see our new American Idol-ized culture voting for the music without reading the lyrics (I stole that phrase from a pundit. I think it's great).


This reliant on the fact that anyone other than one to whom will be voted in office in the upcoming elections were to do a better job than said President...

Which makes the concept moot...

What's left is to ask how it is that someone to whom can do a better job than the future President of the United States of America why that person doesn't have the slightest chance in hell to win presidency...

Essentially you're calling the majority of the peoples within the United States of America stupid...I'd like to see the reasoning behind your conclusion...Considering that there's been no President of the United States of America other than a Democrat or Republican I'd have to imagine such would be a difficult task...

gmc;959909 wrote: Interesting contrast-the Pakistani writer sees television and the media as a major factor in politicising the nation and ousting of musharif while americans (apparently) see the media as dumbing down the debate and the pretty ones get in. You have no excuse now you can watch the BBC on the internet. [...]Yeh, nothing pretty there, that's true. :yh_think

K.Snyder;960429 wrote: What is it exactly that you feel the groups deserve?...It's a truism. The majority gets what it votes for, therefore it gets what it deserves, whatever the result.

Accountable;960745 wrote: It's a truism. The majority gets what it votes for, therefore it gets what it deserves, whatever the result.


I would agree...

With one exception...There are still liars in the world Acc...I can think of a very large majority of peoples to whom's voted republican for the last 8 years to whom feel Bush has done an abysmal job of being the President of the United States of America...

And how anyone doesn't think for a minute that Bush was inaugurated into office legitimately is beyond me...His GD brother was the governor of the state that dictated his presidency...One thing's for sure, and that's being a very damn good job of closing the door on any question...

We've been down this road before in the justification or lack thereof associated with voting...