I have many issues with this. But the first issue that we must start with is that you are saying anyone who labels Obama with a definition is being dishonest and therefore fails “your definition” of what can be construed as an honest discussion.

I would comment further Domajot but your defining of me has limited anything further I say in your mind as being dishonest therefore what is the point of continuing the conversation?

I have many issues with this. But the first issue that we must start with is that you are saying anyone who labels Obama with a definition is being dishonest and therefore fails “your definition” of what can be construed as an honest discussion.

I would comment further Domajot but your defining of me has limited anything further I say in your mind as being dishonest therefore what is the point of continuing the conversation?

The sliding scale in this debate is being used by anyone who chooses to partake in this discussion. We all subjectively put random numbers on, In this case Barak Obama, for the sake of attempting to have a common understanding of the basic premise in which to maintain a rational conversation.

For my purpose I put Barak Obama flat in the middle of the commonly accepted far left base of American Citizens in this country. I did not condemn the far left I just simply stated that the Barak Obama supporters seem to constantly keep pointing to the fact that republicans are crossing over in elections and voting for a far left democrat means to them that Barak Obama is going to win the general election because:

“SEE even Republicans and conservatives are voting for Obama”

The sliding scale in this debate is being used by anyone who chooses to partake in this discussion. We all subjectively put random numbers on, In this case Barak Obama, for the sake of attempting to have a common understanding of the basic premise in which to maintain a rational conversation.

For my purpose I put Barak Obama flat in the middle of the commonly accepted far left base of American Citizens in this country. I did not condemn the far left I just simply stated that the Barak Obama supporters seem to constantly keep pointing to the fact that republicans are crossing over in elections and voting for a far left democrat means to them that Barak Obama is going to win the general election because:

“SEE even Republicans and conservatives are voting for Obama”

Don: I'm not a gentleman, but on the comment itself: it has nothing to do with whether a range of political thought is 'acceptable', I was simply pointing out the reality of the situation. Yes, the 6-9 range is what exists in America, so when someone describes an American politician as far left, he's talking about an 8 or a 9, not a 10.

Don: I'm not a gentleman, but on the comment itself: it has nothing to do with whether a range of political thought is 'acceptable', I was simply pointing out the reality of the situation. Yes, the 6-9 range is what exists in America, so when someone describes an American politician as far left, he's talking about an 8 or a 9, not a 10.

So if we had scale representing political thought running from 0 to 10, with 0 representing the furthest left point and 10 representing the furthest right point, the acceptable range of political thought would be from 6 to 9.

Good to know!!!

As for regulations, you gentlemen are about to discover the price thereof as the Fed devalues the currency & the government raises your taxes to bail out Wall street.

So if we had scale representing political thought running from 0 to 10, with 0 representing the furthest left point and 10 representing the furthest right point, the acceptable range of political thought would be from 6 to 9.

Good to know!!!

As for regulations, you gentlemen are about to discover the price thereof as the Fed devalues the currency & the government raises your taxes to bail out Wall street.

When it became apparent that the Catholic church had put children at risk by covering up for child molesting priests, the reasoning used by those not leaving the church in protest was that , in spite of everything, the Church offered them the spiritual guidance they wanted. . An onlooker might be tempted to call that aiding and abetting or another round of enabling.
The public, for the most part, understood the attachement the religious have to their church., and why they would be content to hear the good messages and block out the bad practicess. Even those who oppose the second class roles imposed on nuns seldom leave the church because of it. They take the bad for the sake of the the good.

Obama is held to a different standard (talking of double standards, so popular in these criticisms. He is held responsible for every word his pastor ever spoke, even those words he may not have heard, and Obama's idendity is being fused with that of Rev Wright. He is renounced for having the same kind of attachment to his church and his spiritual guides as other denominations have to theirs.

We must also look at the difference between words and actions. The Rev. Wright spoke startingly angry and inapropriate words. He neither performed offensive actions nor called on others to do so, however. No one was harmed by his words the way coutnless children were harmed by the actions of the Catholic church.

Would a Cathokic candidate be asled why he hasn't publically renounced the failures in the actions (not mere words) of his Church? Actions do speak louder than words, you know.

Everything Obama said in his speech is the antitheses of this kind of argumentation. It called for restraint in blaming others and respecing our differences. He extended an offer of respect and understnding to those who disagree with one antoher and with him. It seems to me, that in spite of everything, Rev. Wright managed to instill some deep Christian values in Obama. .

As a reply to that offer of mutual respect, he is being torn to shreds for the sake of an election.

We could, instead learn from Obama's speech and refrain from the atttack dog mode of political debate, no matter who the candidate is.
It doesn't look like we will. What does that say about America? Or is it unpatriotic to ask the question?
.

When it became apparent that the Catholic church had put children at risk by covering up for child molesting priests, the reasoning used by those not leaving the church in protest was that , in spite of everything, the Church offered them the spiritual guidance they wanted. . An onlooker might be tempted to call that aiding and abetting or another round of enabling.
The public, for the most part, understood the attachement the religious have to their church., and why they would be content to hear the good messages and block out the bad practicess. Even those who oppose the second class roles imposed on nuns seldom leave the church because of it. They take the bad for the sake of the the good.

Obama is held to a different standard (talking of double standards, so popular in these criticisms. He is held responsible for every word his pastor ever spoke, even those words he may not have heard, and Obama's idendity is being fused with that of Rev Wright. He is renounced for having the same kind of attachment to his church and his spiritual guides as other denominations have to theirs.

We must also look at the difference between words and actions. The Rev. Wright spoke startingly angry and inapropriate words. He neither performed offensive actions nor called on others to do so, however. No one was harmed by his words the way coutnless children were harmed by the actions of the Catholic church.

Would a Cathokic candidate be asled why he hasn't publically renounced the failures in the actions (not mere words) of his Church? Actions do speak louder than words, you know.

Everything Obama said in his speech is the antitheses of this kind of argumentation. It called for restraint in blaming others and respecing our differences. He extended an offer of respect and understnding to those who disagree with one antoher and with him. It seems to me, that in spite of everything, Rev. Wright managed to instill some deep Christian values in Obama. .

As a reply to that offer of mutual respect, he is being torn to shreds for the sake of an election.

We could, instead learn from Obama's speech and refrain from the atttack dog mode of political debate, no matter who the candidate is.
It doesn't look like we will. What does that say about America? Or is it unpatriotic to ask the question?
.

Liberalism wagers that a state… can be strong but constrained – strong because constrained… Rights to education and other requirements for human development and security aim to advance equal opportunity and personal dignity and to promote a creative and productive society. To guarantee those rights, liberals have supported a wider social and economic role for the state, counterbalanced by more robust guarantees of civil liberties and a wider social system of checks and balances anchored in an independent press and pluralistic society. – Paul Starr, sociologist at Princeton University,

The liberal quite simply believes that the economy needs more then a few tweaks and in fact needs an abundance of regulation to achieve the desired results.

As such you have those who believe that the government needs to be even more involved in the constraining of business in order to assure a more equitable solution for the masses. Thus you end up with liberals who are farther left of their mainstream counterpart.

No ones accusing them of being communist or socialist. Because once you cross that threshold then you are no longer a liberal by definiton.

Liberalism wagers that a state… can be strong but constrained – strong because constrained… Rights to education and other requirements for human development and security aim to advance equal opportunity and personal dignity and to promote a creative and productive society. To guarantee those rights, liberals have supported a wider social and economic role for the state, counterbalanced by more robust guarantees of civil liberties and a wider social system of checks and balances anchored in an independent press and pluralistic society. – Paul Starr, sociologist at Princeton University,

The liberal quite simply believes that the economy needs more then a few tweaks and in fact needs an abundance of regulation to achieve the desired results.

As such you have those who believe that the government needs to be even more involved in the constraining of business in order to assure a more equitable solution for the masses. Thus you end up with liberals who are farther left of their mainstream counterpart.

No ones accusing them of being communist or socialist. Because once you cross that threshold then you are no longer a liberal by definiton.

That is a fair question. I do suspect that you are baiting me into presenting such so you have an opening to destroy it.

However it is not for me to define what is McCain's experience. That will come out over the course of the election.

Obama supporters have embarked upon an agenda of minimalizing anyones experience to being trivial. They have laughed at, scorned and mocked anyone who might have more experience then Obama and then pull the bait and switch and claim that Judgment is more important then experience.

This will be the debate. McCain and his experience in government for 24 years. The old codger. The insider. The man who has gotten down and dirty with the best of them and came out on top.

Vs.

Barak Obama. You enter your description. He is your candidate. I only reference McCain because he is the opponent to either Hillary or Obama.

That is a fair question. I do suspect that you are baiting me into presenting such so you have an opening to destroy it.

However it is not for me to define what is McCain's experience. That will come out over the course of the election.

Obama supporters have embarked upon an agenda of minimalizing anyones experience to being trivial. They have laughed at, scorned and mocked anyone who might have more experience then Obama and then pull the bait and switch and claim that Judgment is more important then experience.

This will be the debate. McCain and his experience in government for 24 years. The old codger. The insider. The man who has gotten down and dirty with the best of them and came out on top.

Vs.

Barak Obama. You enter your description. He is your candidate. I only reference McCain because he is the opponent to either Hillary or Obama.

What exactly is McCain's applicable experience?

Dropping bombs on defenseless civilians? Taking bribes from Bankers?

What exactly is McCain's applicable experience?

Dropping bombs on defenseless civilians? Taking bribes from Bankers?

What exactly is McCain's applicable experience?

What exactly is McCain's applicable experience?