Second Republican Debate

[kujo]

So, what did we think of the debates? I really really liked Brownback's responses about abortion. I really liked Romney's stance on improving our own government, specifically in Washington. I liked Ron Paul pointing out that American foreign policy has directly-influenced the hatred the terrorists from the Middle East feel towards America. I LOVED Tancredo's jab at John Edwards. And I liked Giuliani's firm stance on defense.

Now if only Fred Thompson would announce already, take all of these good points, and KICK SOME DEMOCRATIC BOOTY!!!!

[reelguy227]

Overall, I think Romney did the best. He's tough on defense, pro life and against Gay marriage. Those are my biggest areas.

But like you said, if Fred Thompson would run, I would choose him over any of them....let's just pray he does.

[RezaMikhaeil]

Romney was funny... in saying that there's nothing about America that he doesn't like...

[The Joey-O]

Romney is only claiming a "pro-life" stance to get votes. It's not an important issue for him. With that said, I generally like him.

Edited May 16, 2007 by The Joey-O

[kujo]

FOXNews conducted a poll following the debate about which candidate people thought came out the "winner":

[quote]— 29% Former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney

— 25% Rep. Ron Paul, R-Texas

— 19% Former New York City Mayor Rudy Giuliani

— 8% Former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee

— 5% Rep. Duncan Hunter, R-Calif. Hunter

— 4% Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz.

— 3% Rep. Tom Tancredo, R-Colo.

— 1% Sen. Sam Brownback, R-Kan.

— 0% Former Virginia Gov. Jim Gilmore

— 0% Former Wisconsin Gov. Tommy Thompson

Source: [url="http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,272493,00.html"]FOXNews.com[/url][/quote]

[reelguy227]

So does that mean we don't vote for Romney The Joey?

[Paladin D]

There was a lot of tension in the room when Ron Paul indirectly said the U.S. was responsible for 9-11. Rudy Guiliani was mad, good for him.

I hope Romney and Paul do not make it.


[b]EDIT:[/b] Romney said he was personally against abortion, like Guiliani, but he wouldn't vote put a stop to it. Unless I misunderstood, that is what I heard.

Edited May 16, 2007 by Paladin D

[reelguy227]

I think Romney is pro life now, at least that's what I got from what he said. Saying that although he was for a woman's right to choose, when he had eventually seen the cheapening of life that is going on, he became unconditionally pro life. So I think that's what he is. I'm glad he was the number one choice in the poll instead of Guiliani, that guy is not a good candidate-morally that is.

Paladin, you'd take Guiliani over Romney, why??

Edited May 16, 2007 by reelguy227

[The Joey-O]

[quote name='reelguy227' post='1275061' date='May 16 2007, 01:09 PM']I think Romney is pro life now, at least that's what I got from what he said. Saying that although he was for a woman's right to choose, when he had eventually seen the cheapening of life that is going on, he became unconditionally pro life. So I think that's what he is. I'm glad he was the number one choice in the poll instead of Guiliani, that guy is not a good candidate-morally that is.[/quote]

I just don't believe him. I'm sure he can talk a good game, but his sudden change of opinion is awefully coincidental with his running for the Republican Nomination. I bet we'll watch him flip-flop again, if he gets nominated and runs for president.

[aalpha1989]

Ok so here's a dillema i have. I don't really want to be affiliated with any political party because I don't agree with enough of either party to be registered. I want to remain independant. However I also want to help ensure that good people get voted into office. Should I regisiter with the Republicans to vote in primaries or should i just wait for general elections? help?

[kujo]

[quote name='Paladin D' post='1275039' date='May 16 2007, 01:20 PM']There was a lot of tension in the room when Ron Paul indirectly said the U.S. was responsible for 9-11. Rudy Guiliani was mad, good for him.

I hope Romney and Paul do not make it.
[b]EDIT:[/b] Romney said he was personally against abortion, like Guiliani, but he wouldn't vote put a stop to it. Unless I misunderstood, that is what I heard.[/quote]

See, I think his comments were taken out of context, and Giuliani pounced at the opportunity to score points with the national-defense crowd. Again, it would be ignorant of us to believe that the terrorists who attacked us on 9/11, and those who wish to attack us in the future, are motivated simply by religion. Al Qaeda and other terrorist organizations don't generally recruit the upper-class, educated, well-off people in the region, instead targetting the impoverished, capitalizing on their misfortunes by blaming the "Americans" and the "Zionist regime."

Now, where Paul failed was in his tone, where he made it seem as if he was saying America was "at fault" for 9/11, which is untrue. But, a study of our involvement in the Middle East over the last 100 years will show that, at least in part, our policies have not always been benevolent in nature or beneficial in outcome.

[quote name='The Joey-O' post='1275114' date='May 16 2007, 03:14 PM']I just don't believe him. I'm sure he can talk a good game, but his sudden change of opinion is awefully coincidental with his running for the Republican Nomination. I bet we'll watch him flip-flop again, if he gets nominated and runs for president.[/quote]

I agree here. I'm not altogether convinced of his pro-life stance. That's why I will be supporting Fred Thompson.

P.S.- [url="http://www.breitbart.tv/?p=611"]Fred Thompson is currently have a war of words with Michael Moore[/url]. How freakin' awesome is this guy?

[kujo]

[quote name='aalpha1989' post='1275122' date='May 16 2007, 03:43 PM']Ok so here's a dillema i have. I don't really want to be affiliated with any political party because I don't agree with enough of either party to be registered. I want to remain independant. However I also want to help ensure that good people get voted into office. Should I regisiter with the Republicans to vote in primaries or should i just wait for general elections? help?[/quote]

If your state has open primaries, stay an independent.

If your state has closed primaries, register Republican.

[kenrockthefirst]

[quote name='aalpha1989' post='1275122' date='May 16 2007, 01:43 PM']Ok so here's a dillema i have. I don't really want to be affiliated with any political party because I don't agree with enough of either party to be registered. I want to remain independant. However I also want to help ensure that good people get voted into office. Should I regisiter with the Republicans to vote in primaries or should i just wait for general elections? help?[/quote]

Not to hijack the topic, but I feel the same way, not represented by either party. In a nutshell, the Dems support for abortion is a non-starter, while the Repubs are extremely weak on social justice issues.

What would you think of a "Christian Democratic" party which would blend social justice and pro-life platforms in the best traditions of the Catholic Church?

[Sojourner]

[quote name='kenrockthefirst' post='1275125' date='May 16 2007, 01:47 PM']Not to hijack the topic, but I feel the same way, not represented by either party. In a nutshell, the Dems support for abortion is a non-starter, while the Repubs are extremely weak on social justice issues.

What would you think of a "Christian Democratic" party which would blend social justice and pro-life platforms in the best traditions of the Catholic Church?[/quote]
That would be my ideal party.

At the moment I'm registered as nothing and have never voted in a primary.

[Didymus]

[quote name='kenrockthefirst' post='1275125' date='May 16 2007, 02:47 PM']Not to hijack the topic, but I feel the same way, not represented by either party. In a nutshell, the Dems support for abortion is a non-starter, while the Repubs are extremely weak on social justice issues.

What would you think of a "Christian Democratic" party which would blend social justice and pro-life platforms in the best traditions of the Catholic Church?[/quote]
but theoretically, isn't the Republican party intended to make it so that social justice is able to be carried out by the private charitable individual, rather than the state? Cuz even outside of abortion, I don't like the Democratic stance. I think lower taxes is the best way to take care of social justice issues. But I understand where you are coming from. Catholics are traditionally part of the democratic party.

[Sojourner]

[quote name='Didymus' post='1275131' date='May 16 2007, 02:05 PM']but theoretically, isn't the Republican party intended to make it so that social justice is able to be carried out by the private charitable individual, rather than the state? Cuz even outside of abortion, I don't like the Democratic stance. I think lower taxes is the best way to take care of social justice issues. But I understand where you are coming from. Catholics are traditionally part of the democratic party.[/quote]
See, I would totally disagree. I'm not wanting to get into a huge debate here, but we all benefit from addressing social justice issues. Leaving the cost of addressing those to a small percentage of the population is not equitable.

But let's not get into that here ...

[kujo]

Be Catholic.

Vote for Catholic morals.

If a Democratic candidate showed up, was pro-life, strong on defense, pro-tax cuts, and promised to cut government spending, they'd get my vote. But, as it is, Democrats are a party of people who, despite their best intentions, condone killing babies and elderly folk. They are weak in foreign policy, pandering to the wishes of the United Nations. But, if they changed all that and adopted more socially-conservative stances while beefing up defense, then I'd vote for 'em...

But wouldn't all of those things make them Republicans?????

[aalpha1989]

[quote name='kujo' post='1275137' date='May 16 2007, 03:11 PM']Be Catholic.

Vote for Catholic morals.

If a Democratic candidate showed up, was pro-life, strong on defense, pro-tax cuts, and promised to cut government spending, they'd get my vote. But, as it is, Democrats are a party of people who, despite their best intentions, condone killing babies and elderly folk. They are weak in foreign policy, pandering to the wishes of the United Nations. But, if they changed all that and adopted more socially-conservative stances while beefing up defense, then I'd vote for 'em...

But wouldn't all of those things make them Republicans?????[/quote]

didn't mean to change the subject...we can get back to the debates if you want. i didn't even watch them...

[Aloysius]

Subsidarity is a Catholic principal that we should all work for too. No Catholic can support centralization of social justice to the federal government, this would be against the principal of subsidarity. We must always be working for the strengthening of local governments' power over social justice issues and the weakening of the federal government's power over them; because what can be done at a local level SHOULD be done at a local level, morally speaking. The only justification for larger governments like the federal government is for the sake of international affairs and disputes between multiple local governments, according to true Catholic social justice. Otherwise the Church teaches that local communities should work within themselves to fix their social inequalities; local charities and churches first, local governments next. The ideal situation that we should all be working for is that the buck is able to stop there, local issues of homelessness or unemployment should never have to go above the local government: that's what we should all believe is the ideal, but that's not what the democratic party believes is the ideal.

[kenrockthefirst]

[quote name='Didymus' post='1275131' date='May 16 2007, 02:05 PM']but theoretically, isn't the Republican party intended to make it so that social justice is able to be carried out by the private charitable individual, rather than the state? Cuz even outside of abortion, I don't like the Democratic stance. I think lower taxes is the best way to take care of social justice issues. But I understand where you are coming from. Catholics are traditionally part of the democratic party.[/quote]

Can you point to a real world example of lower taxes leading to improved social justice, although I'll grant that the best means of delivering social justice is through charitable organizations such as the Catholic Church? Based on policy outcomes, I don't think that one can infer anything other than that the Republicans don't care about the poor. I'm open to correction but I'd need actual examples.


[quote name='kujo' post='1275137' date='May 16 2007, 02:11 PM']Be Catholic.

Vote for Catholic morals.

If a Democratic candidate showed up, was pro-life, strong on defense, pro-tax cuts, and promised to cut government spending, they'd get my vote. But, as it is, Democrats are a party of people who, despite their best intentions, condone killing babies and elderly folk. They are weak in foreign policy, pandering to the wishes of the United Nations. But, if they changed all that and adopted more socially-conservative stances while beefing up defense, then I'd vote for 'em...

But wouldn't all of those things make them Republicans?????[/quote]

From my perspective, the only thing you've listed that has anything to do with Catholic morals is being pro-life. Being strong on defense, cutting government spending, and lowering taxes can be construed, IMHO, as antithetical to Catholic teaching, which places an emphasis on the dignity of the person, particularly the poor and disenfranchised. The US spends more on defense than the rest of the world combined. I find it hard to square that with the fact that increasing numbers of people, especially children, are falling below the poverty line and going without health insurance, adequate nutrition, etc.