Official Political (Republican/Democrat) Debate Thread

[Kayxero]

Oh, no. I think it's a perfect example in this context. You said earlier:

So, we're talking about rape here. We're talking about receiving a child who you never wanted, and is 50% from somebody you hate. So, my example fits perfectly in this context.

And, you and kraw keep using the phrase, "her body" instead of her body plus the infant inside. You guys can't see that there is a life inside there. Yet, if you would probably refer to your wife's fetus (if she were pregnant) as a baby in normal conversion. If you guys can't recognize the life that exists inside the womb, that's your belief, and I won't try to change that. But I think it's a shame that many people today can't realize it.

And about the death penalty. The death penalty is for those who have killed another person. If they took another person's life in a premeditated situation, they did not care about that person's life, and why should they expect us to care about theirs? You say we're hypocritical because we say we're Pro-Life and yet we're okay with the death penalty, but I say that if you're really Pro-Choice, why don't you give the baby inside a mother's womb a choice?

Stop twisting things to fit what you think. I said I would not force her to have the baby. Does that mean I would force her to get rid of it. NO!. ITS HER DECISION!

And I am guessing women who abort babies do not deserve life either since they took a life. And it was premeditated, just like the murderder right? See how I take what you say and put a spin on it too.

My point is that YES most of us recognize there is a life in the woman. However we cannot force her to do something with her body that she does not want to.

Thank god for the morning after pill though. Now irresponsible people who have sex and the next day find out their lives are about to go upside down, can clear everything up. I think its a fine way out of things given that alot of teens have sex and are not ready to be parents. And I said its great because we do not need more immature, irresposible parents in this world. Their kids will make the this same error. *cough* Palin* Cough* lmao jk

Education and livlihood are at stake you know when you are young and having a kid.

[Sean O]

Plain and simple the difference between capital punishment and abortion is that abortion is killing an innocent life. Capital punishment on the other hand is killing a murderer. Capital punishment is also a deterrent. Capital punishment should be used for all violent crimes (murder, rape, child molestation, etc.). If after McCain is elected, I hope we can get a Supreme Court willing to overturn Roe v Wade. I would also like to see the women who have abortions along with the doctors who perform the abotions be tried for what they are, murderers. If convicted they should also receive the death penalty.

Haha, you're hilarious. Everyone gets all emo about the abortion issue, because they don't care about the reality of the situation. I have never seen so much hatred of rape and incest victims than in these discussions.

Though, considering what the bible says about rape victims, I guess i'm not surprised.

[bhiggy1961]

There's no hatred of the victims here at all. In fact the people who do these crimes should be put to death. However making a murder victim of a defensless unborn child is not the answer.

[Sean O]

There's no hatred of the victims here at all. In fact the people who do these crimes should be put to death. However making a murder victim of a defensless unborn child is not the answer.

So, other than saying rape victims should get the death penalty, what are you going to do to prevent them from having their lives ruined, through no fault of their own? Or is it "you're on your own" and "you were asking for it."

I want to hear your detailed plan. You've obviously thought long about this issue, so I'm sure you're not just going to let rape victims rot.

edit:

I have a great compromise: let's give rape victims gift cards to walmart, so they can buy as many coat hangers as they like.

[Kayxero]

Abortion will never be illegal, and if it ever is, many women will be arrested because they just do not want kids. Looks up stories of women who get arrested in some south american countries, because they felt they did not have the finances to raise a child. Google it.

If the majority cannot agree on something then it should be put to rest. Just like gay marraige. Its all about freedom of personal choice. If you love someone, get married and get to the lovin' and cuddlin'. =P

[bhiggy1961]

If we have the right judges in place, there would be many fewer acts of rape, incest, child molestation, etc. The problem is the same people who say they feel sorry for the victims, are the same people who want to elect politicians that keep appointing liberal activist judges. These bleeding heart judges keep letting the criminals go. Most rapists are repeat offenders. They cannot be rehabilitated, but they are permitted by these judges to go free and commit the same crime. In many cases, many times. One sure solution to this would be if a judge or parole board allows a criminal his freedom to repeat the crime, then perhaps we should try the judge on the same charges as the criminal.

[Sean O]

If we have the right judges in place, there would be many fewer acts of rape, incest, child molestation, etc. The problem is the same people who say they feel sorry for the victims, are the same people who want to elect politicians that keep appointing liberal activist judges. These bleeding heart judges keep letting the criminals go. Most rapists are repeat offenders. They cannot be rehabilitated, but they are permitted by these judges to go free and commit the same crime. In many cases, many times. One sure solution to this would be if a judge or parole board allows a criminal his freedom to repeat the crime, then perhaps we should try the judge on the same charges as the criminal.

Answer the question. Stop with the pathetic attempts to change the subject. Answer the question.

So, other than saying rape victims should get the death penalty, what are you going to do to prevent them from having their lives ruined, through no fault of their own? Or is it "you're on your own" and "you were asking for it."

I want to hear your detailed plan. You've obviously thought long about this issue, so I'm sure you're not just going to let rape victims rot.

[bhiggy1961]

I would rather try to prevent the crime first. But if it does happen, I'm saying that killing an unborn child doesn't solve the problem. Furthermore abortion is used far more as birth control than it is in rape cases.

[Sean O]

I would rather try to prevent the crime first. But if it does happen, I'm saying that killing an unborn child doesn't solve the problem. Furthermore abortion is used far more as birth control than it is in rape cases.

So you have no answer, no plan, just that the rape victim was asking for it, and is now SOL. How compassionate.

[bhiggy1961]

I've went back over this thread and I can't seem to find anywhere where I said that the rape victim was asking for it. Please point that post out to me.

[Sean O]

I've went back over this thread and I can't seem to find anywhere where I said that the rape victim was asking for it. Please point that post out to me.

Well, you seem to think it's ok to have them killed, right? In fact, you seem positively gleeful at the concept. What you're doing is throwing them to the wolves, forcing them to raise a baby they're unprepared for, that they have no interest in having, and will probably always associate with a violent sexual assault.

You are more like McCain than I thought: absolutely no plan for fixing our problems.

[catzrthecoolest]

I think it would be interesting to watch bill o'reilly's interview of Obama, which will be on soon (as in, within the hour).

[Kayxero]

Wow. O reilly is kinda being a douche and cutting of Obama a bit too much so far. Obama is giving him good answers and I think he wants Obama to shoot himself in the foot so he cuts his answers off.

[Sean O]

The hypocrisy of the right wing noise machine:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J8uGenNjOAI

[BigRog]

The republicans are saying that Obama doesn't support the war and would rather support retreating while McCain would rather win the war. Is it me or is this was looking more like a repeat Vietnam day after day with the Republicans trying to make us think we will win?

[HardcoreLegend]

We are winning the war in Iraq.

[tywiggins]

We are winning the war in Iraq.

When will it be over?

[RaptorQuiz]

The republicans are saying that Obama doesn't support the war and would rather support retreating while McCain would rather win the war. Is it me or is this was looking more like a repeat Vietnam day after day with the Republicans trying to make us think we will win?

First of all - are you REALLY trying to pretend you were even BORN during the Vietnam war or even it's immediate aftermath?

Second - are you REALLY suggesting that the U.S. effort in Iraq is a losing effort? You feel that the former Iraqi regime is winning the war in Iraq?

When will it be over?

I don't know. When do you think we should pull 100% of our troops out of Germany and Japan?

And yes, of course, I realize there are not active conflicts in Germany and Japan - and yet, our military remains, approaching 70 years after the conflicts that first brought them there. We are barely at the 10% mark of this benchmark, yet, but people feel like we've been in-country in Iraq outrageously long. Sigh. Short attention spans cannot be allowed to dictate this country's military strategy and doctrine. It's not a reality show, folks. There's no phone-in voting, as much as people feel they should have a direct hand in everything they can watch on television.

[maddux31]

Raptor,

I think you nailed it dead on! Well said, and pointed out!

[meteamo]

LMAO @ phone-in voting. As long as there is a Simon.

Regarding the troops in Japan, Germany and elsewhere ... I was about to ask why we still have troops there and how many troops we had in Japan and Germany so I decided to use my best friend GOOGLE and I found an interesting article although I'm not sure whether or not if it's accurate.

US Troops Abroad

. . .

Currently, the United States has 116,400 military personnel from all four services assigned to its European Command, an organization that oversees U.S. military affairs in 93 countries spanning Europe, North Africa, and part of the Middle East. Roughly two-thirds of these—56,000 soldiers and 15,000 airmen—live and work in Germany. Turkey, Britain, and Italy each host several thousand soldiers, too. The remaining number in Europe is comprised of small specialized detachments and diplomatic missions; nearly every U.S. embassy in the world has a small Marine Corps detachment and a military attaché.

Nearly all of the U.S. military presence in Asia remains concentrated in two countries—Japan and South Korea. The U.S. Pacific Command keeps about 37,500 troops in South Korea and 47,000 troops in Japan (including Okinawa). Another few thousand troops are scattered around the Pacific: There is a sizable Air Force detachment on Guam and the U.S. Army operated a chemical weapons disposal detachment on Johnston Island until June of 2004.

. . .

Is it just me or does it seem that mostly everything going on in the world today one way or another is an indirect side effect of the Cold War between the US and Russia (or if you want to get technical USSR)? And didn't we support the group in Iraq [or maybe it was Iran] against the USSR that later became our enemies? And while we supported Iraq in the Iraq/Iran war, the USSR supported Iran. Anyway, while searching for Iraq and the Cold War, I came upon another little article which may be interesting to some: Who used whom? Baathist Iraq and the Cold War, 1968–1990.

And we are in talks with Georgia about letting them join NATO just as we did with some of the other countries that used to be a part of the USSR. I guess for Russia, it's a little too close for comfort having all these neighboring countries that used to be under its control to all of a sudden be allies and "under the protection if need be" by the US and the other NATO countries. I'm not as concerned with Iran as I am with what may happen with Russia, especially how it just cuts off the oil supply it provides to Europe when they want. It sucks to be British Petroleum.

*edit*

Am I correct to assume that Iran and Russia are still allies? Russia borders Georgia but in between Georgia and Iran are Armenia and Azerbaijan and I don't know which way they lean. But, if Russia can go into Georgia, Iran and Russia will practically border each other. So, with Russia possibly shutting out the oil to Europe when it wants and Iran threatening doing the same at the Strait of Hormuz, it could lead to scary scenarios. And with Russia (and China) having one of the veto votes in the United Nations, it seems like nothing would be done to punish Russia if anything actually happens. I guess that's why NATO is being built up ... to circumvent the UN but that leads back to square one ... Russia feeling threatened.

[BigRog]

First of all - are you REALLY trying to pretend you were even BORN during the Vietnam war or even it's immediate aftermath?

Second - are you REALLY suggesting that the U.S. effort in Iraq is a losing effort? You feel that the former Iraqi regime is winning the war in Iraq?

Obvioulsy, What I learned about vietnam is through my textbook and through my grandfather. I'm double majoring in school and one of my majors is history.

Secondly, if the war is "over" why do we have so many troops still dying. If the Iraqi regime fell shouldn't we just leave instead of having troops die left and right over there. I don't watch American news so I could care less what CNN or Fox says about the war. It's the euro news that know whats up about the war.

[Sean O]

We are winning the war in Iraq.

Wait, I must have missed when Al-Sadr disbanded his army because there was a proper diplomatic agreement between Shia, Sunni and Kurdish factions. Also, when did we stop paying both sides?

Since these were the goals of the escalation, I figured they must have happened, even if the drawdown should have happened months ago.

[RaptorQuiz]

Obvioulsy, What I learned about vietnam is through my textbook and through my grandfather. I'm double majoring in school and one of my majors is history.

Secondly, if the war is "over" why do we have so many troops still dying. If the Iraqi regime fell shouldn't we just leave instead of having troops die left and right over there. I don't watch American news so I could care less what CNN or Fox says about the war. It's the euro news that know whats up about the war.

???

When in the world did I even imply that the war was over? Or, for that matter, even close to over?

I stated that the U.S. effort was winning the war - not that it had won the war.

As for why our troops should still be there, despite the fact that the original "regime" has fallen?

Because you cannot leave a power vaccuum, or it becomes filled by the lowest common denominator.

Some people (I'm not saying YOU, or even anyone on this board) seem to think that any Republican or anyone that argues for continuing the military effort in Iraq (etc) is "pro-war" and is somehow perfectly alright with the idea of the young men (and women) of the armed services coming home in boxes or wounded. That somehow Republicans like to watch all the killing and suffering, and think it's just wonderful.

No.

Of course not.

That's outrageous.

War is a terrible thing. People dying is a terrible thing. I wish it wasn't like this. I wish the forces that were still fighting against the U.S. had simply thrown up their hands and said "thank goodness you're here" and welcomed the U.S. soldiers as liberators - not invaders.

Sadly, that is not how it went. That entire part of the world has never, and will never (likely) lend itself to being kind to outsiders on their soil.

Even those middle-Eastern nations that were our allies during the first (and second) gulf wars were reluctant to allow our soldiers to base their operations from their soil, and even more reluctant to allow women soliders (in or out of uniform) in their countries at all.

That part of the world is very different from ours - and it means that the type of war being fought there is very different from the wars we have fought in the past.

You have to win more than just the physical battles. That part we have and can continue to do. But winning the support of a nation takes time - lots of it, sadly. There isn't even an effective nation to speak of at this point.

Iraq is shattered and splintered. There is no denying that. And U.S. forces did that. It's true. Debate the motivations for going there in the first place all you want - at this point, it's too late to matter.

U.S. forces removed the previous Iraqi regime. What's currently in place is, at best, feeble. Nothing currently installed could really hope to lead that nation if left to its own devices.

THAT is why I (and most Republicans) support NOT withdrawing troops on some aribtrary time scale.

Just because the American public has tired of hearing about young men and women dying (of any nationality) in the news, does not mean the correct decision is to abandon the effort in Iraq, and leave all those people (both the innocent public and the supposed 'enemy' as well) to their own devices.

The point of the U.S. military is not to entertain the public. It might've been interesting to watch the 24-hour coverage during the major combat operations - but clearly the public has grown weary now that there's less excitement to talk about. This American ideal of instant gratification does not mesh with how a military goes about its business.

The major fighting was over very quickly. Of course it was. Our soldiers, their training, and their equipment were all vastly superior to their enemy's. Now there is more work to do. It isn't as sexy, but it's just as dangerous, sadly - if not moreso.

I wish the job was done. I wish the Iraqi government, police force, and military was ready to stand on its own, and run that nation from top to bottom, so the U.S. could remove anything resembling a major combat force.

But it isn't.

Leaving those people on their own now would be tantamount to murder.

Our forces broke Iraq. It is their responsibility - their duty - to remain there and provide some form of stabilizing support, as long as it takes to make it as self-sufficient as it can be expected to be.

It's not easy, it's not entertaining, it's not fun to watch or hear about. It's all quite the opposite, really. There isn't even a well defined enemy to "attack" anymore. Hussein is gone - they dug him out of his humiliating hiding spot, and at that point - the war was over as far as the CNN-generation was concerned. But there is far more to be done. This is why all the pertinent decisions should be left to military commanders on the ground - and not be swayed by the ever-fickle court of American popular opinion.

Decisions that affect lives and the balance of world-power cannot be left to the same decision makers who choose America's Next Top Model or the new American Idol. Sadly - many people seem to expect the military to work in a similar fashion. "I don't like hearing about what's going on over there anymore, so it should change." It's not pleasant. It's horrible. But it's not done.

[Sean O]

???

When in the world did I even imply that the war was over? Or, for that matter, even close to over?

I stated that the U.S. effort was winning the war - not that it had won the war.

As for why our troops should still be there, despite the fact that the original "regime" has fallen?

Because you cannot leave a power vaccuum, or it becomes filled by the lowest common denominator.

Some people (I'm not saying YOU, or even anyone on this board) seem to think that any Republican or anyone that argues for continuing the military effort in Iraq (etc) is "pro-war" and is somehow perfectly alright with the idea of the young men (and women) of the armed services coming home in boxes or wounded. That somehow Republicans like to watch all the killing and suffering, and think it's just wonderful.

No.

Of course not.

That's outrageous.

War is a terrible thing. People dying is a terrible thing. I wish it wasn't like this. I wish the forces that were still fighting against the U.S. had simply thrown up their hands and said "thank goodness you're here" and welcomed the U.S. soldiers as liberators - not invaders.

Sadly, that i not how it went. That entire part of the world has never, and will never (likely) lend itself to being kind to outsiders on their soil.

Even those middle-Eastern nations that were our allies during the first (and second) gulf wars were reluctant to allow our soldiers to base their operations from their soil, and even more reluctant to allow women soliders (in or out of uniform) in their countries at all.

That part of the world is very different from ours - and it means that the type of war being fought there is very different from the wars we have fought in the past.

You have to win more than just the physical battles. That part we have and can continue to do. But winning the support of a nation takes time - lots of it, sadly. There isn't even an effective nation to speak of at this point.

Iraq is shattered and splintered. There is no denying that. And U.S. forces did that. It's true. Debate the motivations for going there in the first place all you want - at this point, it's too late to matter.

U.S. forces removed the previous Iraqi regime. What's currently in place is, at best, feeble. Nothing currently installed could really hope to lead that nation if left to its own devices.

THAT is why I (and most Republicans) support NOT withdrawing troops on some aribtrary time scale.

Just because the American public has tired of hearing about young men and women dying (of any nationality) in the news, does not mean the correct decision is to abandon the effort in Iraq, and leave all those people (both the innocent public and the supposed 'enemy' as well) to their own devices.

The point of the U.S. military is not to entertain the public. It might've been interesting to watch the 24-hour coverage during the major combat operations - but clearly the public has grown weary now that there's less excitement to talk about. This American ideal of instant gratification does not mesh with how a military goes about its business.

The major fighting was over very quickly. Of course it was. Our soldiers, their training, and their equipment was all vastly superior to their enemy's. Now there is more work to do. It isn't as sexy, but it's just as dangerous, sadly - if not moreso.

I wish the job was done. I wish the Iraqi government, police force, and military was ready to stand on its own, and run that nation from top to bottom, so the U.S. could remove anything resembling a major combat force.

But it isn't.

Leaving those people on their own now would be tantamount to murder.

Our forces broke Iraq. It is their responsibility - their duty - to remain there and provide some form of stabilizing support, as long as it takes to make it as self-sufficient as it can be expected to be.

It's not easy, it's not entertaining, it's not fun to watch or hear about. It's all quite the opposite, really. There isn't even a well defined enemy to "attack" anymore. Hussein is gone - they dug him out of his humiliating hiding spot, and at that point - the war was over as far as the CNN-generation was concerned. But there is far more to be done. This is why all the pertinent decisions should be left to military commanders on the ground - and not be swayed by the ever-fickle court of American popular opinion.

Decisions that effect lives and the balance of world-power cannot be left to the same decision makers who choose America's Next Top Model or the new American Idol. Sadly - many people seem to expect the military to work in a similar fashion. "I don't like hearing about what's going on over there anymore, so it should change." It's not pleasant. It's horrible. But it's not done.

tldr

[RaptorQuiz]

tldr

lol.

curse you, kahn!