McCain & Obama at SoCal Church tomorrow

[Lazlo Toth]

Rick Warren is Pastor of Saddleback Church in southern California. He is author of "The Purpose Driven Life." Obama and McCain will both be at his church Saturday 8/16. I offer this for your enlightenment:

His letter to his congregation is followed by a NYT article.
===============================
Dear Saddleback Family,
I'm in Brazil right now on a multi-country tour of PEACE churches in Latin America.
Yesterday the New York Times broke a front page story (printed below) about an historic event coming up at Saddleback. It was picked up by all the major papers and media so you may have heard about it. I want you to know the story behind the story, why we are doing this, the problems, and how you can pray and help!

MCCAIN & OBAMA AT SADDLEBACK!
John McCain and Barack Obama have agreed to make their first ever appearance together as presidential candidates at our next Saddleback Civil Forum. I've been working with them and their staffs behind the scenes for a few weeks, and last Wednesday they both committed to participate on Saturday evening, August 16th.
Both men have been friends of mine since before either decided to run for president. (You don't have to agree on everything to be friends with someone.) Both taped video messages to our Global AIDS Summit last November. Both have supported the PEACE plan, both have written endorsements for the PEACE Coalition, and both have supported our effort to restore civility to
civil discourse in America. During the primaries, several candidates (actually 3 Republicans and 3 Democrats) occasionally contacted us through calls, emails, and private meetings. You know that I never endorse, nor campaign for, political candidates. Neither is it my role to give political advice. But as a pastor and a cultural observer and I do understand the unique stresses and responsibilities of public leadership, so I try to help leaders when asked.
Last April, a 'Compassion Forum' was held at Messiah College in Pennsylvania with some of the candidates. It was a good event. So when Katie Paris, the organizer of the event, asked us to help with a second forum, I offered Saddleback as a site. Katie went to work on the possibility, but conflicts over schedules, themes, and format kept delaying the idea.
So on July 2nd, I got involved directly and discovered what the candidates wanted to change: 1) They wanted a different format. 2) They wanted a broader agenda than just compassion issues. 3) They wanted me to be the only questioner, and 4) They wanted all the networks and national media to be allowed to use a live video feed from Saddleback.
I agreed to these requests so both candidates will be at Saddleback's Civil Forum on Leadership and Compassion, Saturday, August 16, from 5 pm to 7 pm. I'll interview each candidate for one hour. A flip of a coin determined that Barack Obama will be interviewed first.
Most debate, town hall, and media questions tend to be about hot political issues, or attempts to play 'gotcha' for partisan points. In contrast, I intend to ask questions about factors that have historically determined presidential effectiveness. I'll ask about their understanding of the Constitution, personal leadership convictions and style, philosophy of the role of government, America's role in the world, competence and character issues. They certainly won't be softball questions.
This is an unprecedented honor for our church. Since the founding of our nation, no church has ever been given this kind of opportunity. I am humbled that they wanted me to ask all the questions. We must view this event unselfishly, as our church's opportunity to serve the entire nation we
love. It will be the historic first appearance of the candidates together, and millions of Americans will be introduced to Saddleback Church through the live media coverage.
Now, with every opportunity there are obstacles and we have two big ones to solve in 30 days:
1. How do we decide who gets to attend? With over 100,000 names on our church database and thousands of unchurched folks already calling in, plus VIPS and national leaders, how do we make the best use of 6,000 seats in all our venues? What would Jesus do?
2. Where will we get the money to buy the video equipment needed for this event? We've been asked to provide the nation's media with a high definition video feed because there is no way the media could fit all their multiple cameras into our Worship Center. For some time we've been planning to upgrade our 15 year old video cameras, lights, and mixing boards to high definition digital - but we haven't had the $2 million to purchase it. It is now about to die and we must install new equipment before this national broadcast. We need a miracle.
Can we raise $2 million in a special offering or should we charge for the tickets to cover the expenses? What do you think?
The Elders of our church have met and we want you to know the following:
1. Our two regular Saturday evening worships services are cancelled for August 16th. Saturday attendees need to attend Sunday night services that weekend.
2. We'll have to use a ticket system for this event. To meet the security requirements of the Secret Service, the only way anyone will be able to get on to the campus that evening is with a ticket to one of our video venues or to the Worship Center. People will need to arrive about 2 hours early to get through security. It will actually be more convenient and comfortable to watch from home on one of the networks.
3. This is NOT a political fundraiser and there will be no opportunity for autographs, handshakes, photographs, or meeting with either candidate.
WHY DO WE OFFER THESE CIVIL FORUMS?
The idea behind our Saddleback Civil Forums is to invite leaders in business, education, the arts, entertainment, government, health, or military to speak on subjects that our entire community would be interested in hearing about. These are not worship services and they are usually held on weeknights.
This particular Civil Forum however will be a forum for the entire nation, instead of for our church and community. That will require your famous servant-hearted spirit that has made Saddleback great. For 28 years the members of this church have unselfishly placed the needs of others ahead
of their own. In fact, I am convinced that it is for this very reason - your consistent unselfishness - that God has singled out our church for this national privilege and has positioned Saddleback Church for national and world influence. I am so proud of you!
There's more to tell you but I'll put it in the next News & Views! IN THE MEANTIME DON'T CALL THE OFFICE! I'll let you know what we decide about tickets after hearing from you and praying about it.

If you are willing to help fund the costs of the equipment we need, please give a special offering this week by giving online <https://www.saddlebackfamily.com/onlinegiving/onlinegivinghtml (https://www.saddlebackfamily.com/onlinegiving/onlinegiving.html)>,
or bringing it by the Ministry Center or mailing it in. If you can help in a major way please contact Chris Goulard <mailto:chrisg@saddleback.net> (chrisg@saddleback.net) at (949) 609-8203.
I love you all. From Sao Paulo...
Pastor Rick
<http://www.saddlebackfamily.com/html_email/newsviews/072208/ricksig.gif> (http://www.saddlebackfamily.com/html_email/newsviews/072208/ricksig.gif)

Rick Warren
Saddleback Church
Purpose Driven Network
The PEACE Coalition
- - - - - - - -

[Lazlo Toth]

NY Times article

McCain and Obama Agree to Mega church Forum

July 21, 2008

It has taken a man of God, perhaps, to do what nobody else has been able to do since the general election season began: Get Barack Obama and John McCain together on the same stage before their party conventions later this summer.

The Rev. Rick Warren has persuaded the candidates to attend a Civil Forum at his Saddleback Church, in Lake Forest, Calif., on Aug. 16. In an interview, Mr. Warren said that the presidential candidates would appear together for a moment but that he would interview them in succession at his mega church.

The forum still falls short of the kind of face-to-face, town-hall-style debates that Mr. McCain, of Arizona, has called for this summer before formal debates scheduled for this fall.

Mr. Warren, the author of the best-selling book 'The Purpose-Driven Life,' called each man personally to invite him to his event, which will focus on leadership, how they make decisions, and on some of Mr. Warren's areas of focus, like AIDS, poverty and the environment.

'I realized that these two guys had never been together on the same stage and thought it would be a great way to end the primary season before they both go to their conventions and things go dark for a couple of weeks,' he said. 'I've known both guys for some time, and both have been friends of
mine since before they ran for office, so I just decided to invite them..' Both readily agreed, perhaps reflecting how each candidate is courting the evangelical audience to whom Mr. Warren ministers.

Mr. Warren's event will have as a co-sponsor Faith in Public Life, that held the Compassion Forum at Messiah College in Grantham, Pa., in April, featuring Mr. Obama and Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton in Pennsylvania ,Mr. Warren said he would devise his questions with input from the Muslim, Jewish and Christian leaders.

'I'm not going to ambush them with 'gotcha' questions,' Mr. Warren said, adding that a typical query might be, 'What's the most difficult decision you've had to make, and what process did you use to make it?'

Mr. Warren said he would have Mr. McCain and Mr. Obama, of Illinois, appear on stage together momentarily at the event, though, he added, he would also see if they want to get a little personal time behind the scenes.

[Sultanosurf]

A chance to polish their halos?

http://www.geocities.com/monitoring_u2/mccain.jpg

http://nicedeb.files.wordpress.com/2008/01/r1435545905.jpg

[New York'rr]

Why does this Schlub have the ability to summon the presidential candidates to his church for a "Forum"?

http://images.newsmax.com/headline_vertical/warren.jpg

Barack Obama has been a big Fraidy Cat about appearing in Town Hall meetings or debates against McCain.

Obama has nothing to lose by appearing before the mostly mushy muddleheaded Christians at this church and attempting to fool some of them into believing he will be their guy. In case you have been living in a cave for the past ten days, the Drive By Media has been laying the groundwork for the Obama Evangelical Scam Initiative which will go into overdrive tonight.

For example, in a display of excellent camera work, some CNN infobabe was at the Washington DC rally of Evangelicals this morning. She was standing in front of a group of youths wearing Tshirts with the word "LIFE" on them, and they were singing and praying. So they were clearly Pro-Life, anti-abortion, and not voting for Obama.

But then, the infobabe informed us that young evangelicals were no longer so much interested in unfashionable issues like abortion and gay marriage, but they put the Environment first, so they may be more likely to support Obama. At that very moment, a guy in a bright green T-shirt jumped in front of all the kids in the LIFE T-shirts, waving his arms and mugging for the camera.

Nice work, CNN shooter! You summed up the whole story perfectly for those of us watching with the sound off.

Pro-lifers who aren't out for glory are now being eclipsed by members of the Gaia Church of Climate Change Hysteria, who are all about symbolism over substance.

Sounds like Obama is going to have a good night at Warren's forum.

Too bad he's too big a ***** to appear at real debates and meetings with McCain.

But at least perhaps we can expect the Desperate Dems to STFU for a while about the separation of Church and State.

[Roy Hobbs]

Maybe they can invite Hillary to describe The Over-Driven Wife while they discuss The Purpose-Driven Life.

[Mr. Rugen]

Why does this Schlub have the ability to summon the presidential candidates to his church for a "Forum"?

http://images.newsmax.com/headline_vertical/warren.jpg

Barack Obama has been a big Fraidy Cat about appearing in Town Hall meetings or debates against McCain.

Obama has nothing to lose by appearing before the mostly mushy muddleheaded Christians at this church and attempting to fool some of them into believing he will be their guy. In case you have been living in a cave for the past ten days, the Drive By Media has been laying the groundwork for the Obama Evangelical Scam Initiative which will go into overdrive tonight.

For example, in a display of excellent camera work, some CNN infobabe was at the Washington DC rally of Evangelicals this morning. She was standing in front of a group of youths wearing Tshirts with the word "LIFE" on them, and they were singing and praying. So they were clearly Pro-Life, anti-abortion, and not voting for Obama.

But then, the infobabe informed us that young evangelicals were no longer so much interested in unfashionable issues like abortion and gay marriage, but they put the Environment first, so they may be more likely to support Obama. At that very moment, a guy in a bright green T-shirt jumped in front of all the kids in the LIFE T-shirts, waving his arms and mugging for the camera.

Nice work, CNN shooter! You summed up the whole story perfectly for those of us watching with the sound off.

Pro-lifers who aren't out for glory are now being eclipsed by members of the Gaia Church of Climate Change Hysteria, who are all about symbolism over substance.

Sounds like Obama is going to have a good night at Warren's forum.

Too bad he's too big a ***** to appear at real debates and meetings with McCain.

But at least perhaps we can expect the Desperate Dems to STFU for a while about the separation of Church and State.
Doesn't matter. You're a racist and everyone knows it.

[Union Label]

Kudos to Pastor Warren for convincing the candidates to appear at this forum. Although I don't know much about Saddleback Church, from what I've heard and read recently, it sounds like the church's members represent a pretty good reflection of where the majority of the nation's electorate stands.

Obviously the hard-core, ultra-conservative Evangelicals are as confounded by Senator McCain's middle of the road leanings as the extreme liberals are concerning Senator Obama's pragmatic, negotiating approach on the matters that deeply divide the country. I think something must be right when both ends of the political spectrum are equally pi$$ed off.

Religion plays a large role in a lot of people's lives. The First Amendment in the Bill of Rights establishes and guarantees our freedom of religion. The President of the United States presides over a nation made up of Christians, Jews, Muslims, Buddhists...and the list goes on.

I think it is appropriate that this today's forum takes place in a church. If I may be so bold, I'd also like to see similar forums/debates/town halls take place at a school or university and focus on education, another one in one of our national parks to discuss environmental and energy issues, another one on Wall Street covering banking and business, a couple to discuss infrastructure, entitlements and Social Security and finally how about one held on neutral ground to discuss our nation's stance on global conflicts?

Anything that steers us away from the Karl Rove style of attack campaigning of the recent past and instead goes towards meaningful dialog and discussion is a step in the right direction IMHO.

[Lazlo Toth]

Why does this Schlub have the ability to summon the presidential candidates to his church for a "Forum"?

I'm not sure summon is the right word. I would think invite might be more appropriate. why would McCain and Obama accept his invitation and not the many others they get? The cynical answer might be found here: "With over 100,000 names on our church database " But also it will not be primarily a political forum according to the description. For both who are viewed skeptically in the traditional voting bloc that includes some conservative Christians (not all Evangelicals fall into that category), it is a chance to try to win them over I suppose. Warren is well-known. He is highly respected. He has an existing relationship with both based not on partisan politics but on issues of social justice, compassion and service.

As to young Evangelicals:
I am an old Evangelical who tries to think young. I am the father of two young Evangelicals and the husband of a young at heart Evangelical. Some young Evangelicals are in the mold of the conservative Christian voting bloc. But others have seen the traps of that. They believe, I think, as I do. Politics is not their primary focus or area for seeking change. They believe God is calling them to grass roots service to the poor, to the oppressed, to the troubled. So party is not so important to them. In fact, they are pretty disillusioned with politics.

Still, they see a Biblical calling to urge all human institutions ... business, government, the church (the human organization, not the universal spiritual body of all believers), etc .. to pursue justice, establish mercy, eliminate discrimination, ease poverty, reconcile the races, etc. And so to the extent they engage politically, it is on principle, not party. And because they see more teaching in the Bible about the just treatment of the poor than about abortion, they are willing to engage even those who might disagree with them on some issues in the pursuit of othoers.

Their theology is that of a fallen world in which we never find the perfect solution, the perfect candidate, the perfect government, the perfect chruch (small c). So they recognize there is no purity of pursuit. They can be prol-life on abortion, and pro-life on improving the lives of the poor. And in that way, they might push a Republican to value life after birth and a Democrat to value it before birth. In both cases, they pursue the same principle: to acknowledge, recognize and pursue the value with which God imbues all human beings.

In that way, they might be engaging the public square in a way that is more transcendant of partisanship than we, their fathers and mothers, did. I applaud them for that.

[Diplomat]

Or the James Carville style of attack of smear, scream and threaten people, UL. ;)

Saddleback is a large church and Dr. Warren is well-known for his best-seller, The Purpose-Driven Life. Warren will also have credibility where extremists like Robertson, Dobson, Haggard (or those like him), Pfleger, Lynn, Jackson, Wallis, et al. won't have because he does not endorse candidates.

Also--this is not sponsored by some partisan organization or some outfit that thinks only about the political, so that helps.

The extreme religious rightists with their crazy belief that God or Jesus would vote a certain way and the extreme leftists with their phony social justice foolishness will be offended at this (anticipated) reasonable discussion of issues. The people on both extremes do not really understand faith and in some cases, don't respect it or its major role in the founding of this country. Every time I hear either extreme bleat about how Jesus would support their political beliefs, it shows me they aren't very knowledgeable when it comes to faith.

[Sultanosurf]

There's no real comparison between Rove and Carville. Rove's stated plan was to harness Christians toward his goal of Republicans controlling the presidency and both houses of Congress, something he was able to achieve. 'Don't remember Carville ever planning anything like that.

Warren's PEACE group has attracted wide support for trying to do what the UN and other international efforts haven't. There's no doubt it's rooted in expanding Christianity, which could be troubling, but the goals are noble:

Plant churches, Equip servant leaders, Assist the poor, Care for the sick, Educate the next generation.

[Pro]

There's no real comparison between Rove and Carville.

The big difference is that Carville's philosophy to win elections was to focus on a single issue ("It's the economy, stupid"...."stupid" meaning campaign staffers who wanted the candidate to campaign on a wide range of issues), while Rove's tactic was to "define" the opponent, truth be damned. Carville was all about message dicipline, while Rove was about fear and smear.

Don't confuse Carville the campaign strategist with Carville the pundit....those are two separate roles. Today Carville is getting paid to be outrageous on television. He no longer runs campaigns. Not sure what Rove is doing these days....maybe preparing his legal defense? ;)

[New York'rr]

Carville is being paid by CNN to be a complete jackass on television as usual.

Rove is being paid by FOX News to provide insightful commentary.

Don't pretend you weren't aware of that.

[Pro]

Carville is being paid by CNN to be a complete jackass on television as usual.

Rove is being paid by FOX News to provide insightful commentary.

Don't pretend you weren't aware of that.

I forgot about Rove's employment at Fox News Channel. He isn't on all that much, not nearly as much as Carville is on CNN.

And I reject out of hand your charactarizations. While Carville can be bombastic, that's his style. And I have no expectations that anything Rove says will be "insightful".

But that's just my opinion.

[Mr. Rugen]

Carville is being paid by CNN to be a complete jackass on television as usual.

Rove is being paid by FOX News to provide insightful commentary.

Don't pretend you weren't aware of that.
And you're a bigot.

[Tippster]

Rove is being paid by FOX News to provide insightful commentary.

Don't pretend you weren't aware of that.
That is hysterical. Thanks for the laugh.

[Diplomat]

There's no real comparison between Rove and Carville. Rove's stated plan was to harness Christians toward his goal of Republicans controlling the presidency and both houses of Congress, something he was able to achieve. 'Don't remember Carville ever planning anything like that.

Warren's PEACE group has attracted wide support for trying to do what the UN and other international efforts haven't. There's no doubt it's rooted in expanding Christianity, which could be troubling, but the goals are noble:

Plant churches, Equip servant leaders, Assist the poor, Care for the sick, Educate the next generation.

I don't buy your defense of Carville but we are each entitled to our own opinion. Personally, I believe the man would have stopped at nothing--absolutely nothing--to further his own personal or political goals.

What is "troubling" about a church trying to evangelize people? Christ asked His followers to do that. Warren isn't forcing anyone to be a Christian. Becoming a Christian is all about free will and free choice.

[Pro]

Personally, I believe the man would have stopped at nothing--absolutely nothing--to further his own personal or political goals.

You can believe anything you wish, no matter how baseless that may be.

But I think that Karl Rove learned from Lee Atwater in 1988 how to stop at absoluetly nothing to further their politcial goals. He put it to use in 2000 and 2004. And those who learned from him and doing the same thing this year in the McCain campaign.

[Diplomat]

You can believe anything you wish, no matter how baseless that may be.

But I think that Karl Rove learned from Lee Atwater in 1988 how to stop at absoluetly nothing to further their politcial goals. He put it to use in 2000 and 2004. And those who learned from him and doing the same thing this year in the McCain campaign.

Perhaps I think your comments about Rove are baseless.

[Kace]

Barr wasn't allowed to participate. :(

[Pro]

Perhaps I think your comments about Rove are baseless.

How so? Do you dispute the horrid "Willie Horton" ad in 1988? How about Rove's push polling in the 2000 Republican primaries? Or the "Swift Boating" four years ago?

But then again, you do tend to deny history you don't like.

[Sultanosurf]

I'm not going to descend into the usual Dippy bickering. I didn't 'defend' Carville, just pointed out that whatever his tactics, they never seem to approach how Rove sought to maximize Christian involvement in his candidate's campaigns. Whatever Carville did or does, I can't recall any point in his career where he had to resort to the protection of executive privilege.

Warren's efforts are noble, but what's troubling to me is the reaction other international faiths have when any country attaches to goals that can be perceived as religious crusades. Unfortunately, history has proven that the most noblest of goals can be corrupted by zealots.

[Diplomat]

How so? Do you dispute the horrid "Willie Horton" ad in 1988? How about Rove's push polling in the 2000 Republican primaries? Or the "Swift Boating" four years ago?

But then again, you do tend to deny history you don't like.

Albert Gore Jr. first brought up Willie Horton. The infamous ad was produced by an independent group. If you think Karl Rove invented "push polling," you are more ignorant than I thought, if that's possible.

You're the one who is "denying" here. But then, with your history of bigoted remarks about Christians and Jews and disdainful attitude toward minorities, I'm not at all surprised.

Back to the topic of this thread--do any of you think Rick Warren is positioned to be the next "America's pastor," as Billy Graham has so often been called? Might we see him informally advising Presidents, as Dr. Graham has?

[Union Label]

And you're a bigot.

Do yourself a favor and add New York'rr to your ignore list. I did it long ago and it helps remove the impulse to reply. If enough people do this, he/she might just go away due to the lack of attention.

[Sultanosurf]

Why not cover all the bases?

http://www.iwatchstuff.com/images/2006/06/talladega-ricky-bobby.jpg

"Help me Jesus! Help me Jewish God! Help me Allah! AAAAAHHH! Help me Tom Cruise!"

[Another side]

Oh, I disagree. I don't agree with much he says -- OK ... none --- but he's articulate, witty and he brings a certain freshness to his writing.

Throw him out and all you have left is the mind-numbing blandness of hypocritical Pope Dip and the childish, scateological ramblings of Produce Boy.

[New York'rr]

Do yourself a favor and add New York'rr to your ignore list. I did it long ago and it helps remove the impulse to reply. If enough people do this, he/she might just go away due to the lack of attention.

HA HA HA!!! So "Liberal and Losin' It" isn't the only one who benefits from Rogaine quoting me in entirety all the time. Nice.

Rove is a real talent. Carville, not so much.

Sure, Pro, I believe you when you say you "forgot about Rove's employment at Fox". Especially knowing that you have FOX News on your TV 24/7.

[Pro]

If you think Karl Rove invented "push polling," you are more ignorant than I thought, if that's possible.

I never said he invented it, just used it. Once again your assigning beliefs. And reverting to insults. Which is so typical of you and people like you...Produce, Rootboy, Clever, Lazlo and New York'rr. Six peas in a pod. When you can't refute - insult.

You're the one who is "denying" here. But then, with your history of bigoted remarks about Christians and Jews and disdainful attitude toward minorities, I'm not at all surprised.

Let's see some examples. Not many people here, except your podmates, are buying what you say on your say-so. So come on, put-up or shut-up. I'll be waiting.

[Lazlo Toth]

I never said he invented it, just used it. Once again your assigning beliefs. And reverting to insults. Which is so typical of you and people like you...Produce, Rootboy, Clever, Lazlo and New York'rr. Six peas in a pod. When you can't refute - insult.



Let's see some examples. Not many people here, except your podmates, are buying what you say on your say-so. So come on, put-up or shut-up. I'll be waiting.

You forgot to say ilk and fellow traveler.

[Pro]

You forgot to say ilk and fellow traveler.

It goes without saying, sometimes.

[Lazlo Toth]

It goes without saying, sometimes.

That would be a first.

[Diplomat]

I never said he invented it, just used it. Once again your assigning beliefs. And reverting to insults. Which is so typical of you and people like you...Produce, Rootboy, Clever, Lazlo and New York'rr. Six peas in a pod. When you can't refute - insult.



Let's see some examples. Not many people here, except your podmates, are buying what you say on your say-so. So come on, put-up or shut-up. I'll be waiting.

You have been refuted countless times on this board. You simply refuse to listen. Your attitude is that if you've never heard of it or refuse to acknowledge it, it doesn't exist, and that if you say something is so, it is because you say it is so.

[Pro]

You have been refuted countless times on this board.

Examples? Or again, is this just your say-so (a nicer way of saying "pulled out of your ass")?

if you say something is so, it is because you say it is so.

Nope, that's you. Another example of "I know what you are...." :rolleyes:

[Diplomat]

Examples? Or again, is this just your say-so (a nicer way of saying "pulled out of your ass")?



Nope, that's you. Another example of "I know what you are...." :rolleyes:

Examples have been previously cited by several posters. You do not acknowledge that. It is a waste of time to try and reason with you because you are a narrow-minded bigot who refuses to accept that other people have differing views.

[Lazlo Toth]

I watched the entire two hours. I liked the format, with both men answering the same questions.

I agreed with a lot both men said, and disagreed with some both men said.

In the end, it reinforced my view I would be happy with either being President.

[s'news]

Oh, I disagree. I don't agree with much he says -- OK ... none --- but he's articulate, witty and he brings a certain freshness to his writing.



My computer doesn't receive those meritorious moments.

[s'news]

I watched the entire two hours. I liked the format, with both men answering the same questions.

I agreed with a lot both men said, and disagreed with some both men said.

In the end, it reinforced my view I would be happy with either being President.

It won't happen of course, but I'd be interested in a debate between the two candidates presided over by ... Laz.

[Mighty Dyckerson]

I liked the format, with both men answering the same questions.

Wow, it's just like the Fast Money round in Family Feud! Did they get buzzed if they duplicated each other's answers?

[Pro]

It is a waste of time to try and reason with you because you are a narrow-minded bigot who refuses to accept that other people have differing views.

Imagine that....Medialine's resident racist calling someone a bigot. Will wonders ever cease?

[Lazlo Toth]

Wow, it's just like the Fast Money round in Family Feud! Did they get buzzed if they duplicated each other's answers?

Did you watch it?

[Lazlo Toth]

It won't happen of course, but I'd be interested in a debate between the two candidates presided over by ... Laz.

I'm reminded of a story Bob Schieffer told about the last election and about being married a long time.

He received a phone call one evening at home. It ws the league of Women Voters asking him to moderate one of the Presidential debates on a particular date. Forgetting the significance of what he was being asked and responding like a well-trained married man, he reflexively turned to his wife and siad, "Honey, do we have anything on (particular date)?"

So, I guess I better check with Mrs. Toth before I commit to anything.

[Diplomat]

Imagine that....Medialine's resident racist calling someone a bigot. Will wonders ever cease?

What racist statements have I made?

You've been asked that several times by several posters.

You have no answer because I have made none and you know it.

[Diplomat]

I'm reminded of a story Bob Schieffer told about the last election and about being married a long time.

He received a phone call one evening at home. It ws the league of Women Voters asking him to moderate one of the Presidential debates on a particular date. Forgetting the significance of what he was being asked and responding like a well-trained married man, he reflexively turned to his wife and siad, "Honey, do we have anything on (particular date)?"

So, I guess I better check with Mrs. Toth before I commit to anything.

Smart man. :)

[Sigonfile]

Obama's, "Above my pay grade" remark just cost him a ton of votes.

[Sultanosurf]

Just curious, Sig, why would you think that?

And Laz, you said you'd be happy with either as president, could it be because there really wasn't much defining difference between the two, at least in the Charlie Rose-of-religion forum? The major differences (At least from the questions asked) were on abortion, gay marriage, and liberal judges. We really got nothing about huge pressing issues, like the foundering economy, illegal immigration, and that Iraq deal that's sucking away lives and money.

I welcome the polite forum, and a chance to define moral issues, but McCain got off the hook on how infrequently he attends church, and Obama didn't face anything on how he dumped his church of 20 years. Maybe it's going to take the forge of some much tougher questions to get anything of substance beyond an appeal to faith voters.

[Diplomat]

Just curious, Sig, why would you think that?

And Laz, you said you'd be happy with either as president, could it be because there really wasn't much defining difference between the two, at least in the Charlie Rose-of-religion forum? The major differences (At least from the questions asked) were on abortion, gay marriage, and liberal judges. We really got nothing about huge pressing issues, like the foundering economy, illegal immigration, and that Iraq deal that's sucking away lives and money.

I welcome the polite forum, and a chance to define moral issues, but McCain got off the hook on how infrequently he attends church, and Obama didn't face anything on how he dumped his church of 20 years. Maybe it's going to take the forge of some much tougher questions to get anything of substance beyond an appeal to faith voters.

Sultan--I'm guessing that those issues weren't discussed because this was a forum about faith and also because of the limited time. I'm sure we'll hear more about those issues in other forums, however.

The church attendance/change question is legit but I'm not sure that this would have been the best time to ask it.

[Sultanosurf]

It sure seemed like the perfect time to ask, and both were let off the hook.

[Lazlo Toth]

I don't think the idea was to put them on the hook. Rick Warren's not a news guy. He's a pastor. He wanted them to discuss issues he consideered important in a forum he put on.

He could have turned it into a discussion on black liberation theology or redemption following a failed marriage. But I think he was trying to engage from enough different directions that a viewer could get a sense of both men.

My own interests, political and otherwise, tend to be diverse and broad in scope. I find myself less and less confined to narrow checklists of criteria. Obama appeals to me in some areas, McCain in others. And then there are areas where I like both or could live iwth both.

By election day, I will express a preference on my ballot for one or the other. In a real world sense it won't make much difference. I live in California where Obama is ooing to win overwhelmingly no matter for whom I vote.

[Sultanosurf]

Well, it just seems like Warren let some of the 'faith' criteria questions slide. Considering the forum, though, it was probably inevitable.

And is Obama really inevitable in California? Afterall, the state does have a 'Republican' governator...

[Lazlo Toth]

Most recent California poll on the race by the Field organization:

FOR ADVANCE PUBLICATION BY SUBSCRIBERS ONLY.
COPYRIGHT 2008 BY FIELD RESEARCH CORPORATION.
Release #2276
Release Date and Time: 6:00 a.m., Wednesday, July 16, 2008
OBAMA LEADING MCCAIN BY 24 POINTS IN CALIFORNIA. HIS BACKERS ARE MUCH MORE ENTHUSIASTIC THAN MCCAIN'S. CLINTON'S PRESENCE OR ABSENCE FROM DEMOCRATIC TICKET NOT A SIGNIFICANT ISSUE.
IMPORTANT: Contract for this service is subject to revocation if publication or broadcast takes place before release date or if contents are divulged to persons outside of subscriber staff prior to release time. (ISSN 0195-4520)

[s'news]

It's a similar deal for me in Texas, Laz, but with McCain likely to win the state. I'm also in agreement with you on seeing some good and bad points about either McCain or Obama as president.

[Pro]

You've been asked that several times by several posters.

Your implication that civil rights movements were and not necessary. Your failure to acknowledge that advancements by minorities were not achieved through a united effort on their part.

And I'll turn this around: What bigoted statements have I made?

[ewink]

It's a similar deal for me in Texas, Laz, but with McCain likely to win the state. I'm also in agreement with you on seeing some good and bad points about either McCain or Obama as president.
I could have seen myself voting for Obama, but his windfall profit tax plan has destroyed that.

I don't dislike McCain, but I am afraid it will be another Bush term. I'd very much like for him to prove me wrong.

Otherwise, I will be voting for Bob Barr. Not because I want him to win, but because I would like to see the LP hit that magical 5% mark.

[Lazlo Toth]

My 22 year old son says he plans to vote for someone other than Obama or McCain because he believes the United States is too big to be limited to two dominant parties. I'm guessing he will vote for Barr because my son is registered as a Libertarian. But I would not be surprised if it were someone else, I just don't know who that would be.

[Diplomat]

Your implication that civil rights movements were and not necessary. Your failure to acknowledge that advancements by minorities were not achieved through a united effort on their part.

And I'll turn this around: What bigoted statements have I made?

To quote you, "Bullsh*t." I never said nor implied anything of the sort. And you know it.

You on the other hand, have made statements that could be construed as bigoted. Your ignorant comments about Christians. Your admission that you see people of color first as just that and not unique individuals. Your derogatory comments about a series of people who just happen to be Jewish--the main thing those people have in common--and your defense of those who make anti-Jewish statements.

[Pro]

To quote you, "Bullsh*t." I never said nor implied anything of the sort.

Indeed you have. And I'm not the only person who has called you on it, through the years.

You on the other hand, have made statements that could be construed as bigoted.

Which were....?

Your ignorant comments about Christians.

Which were...?

Your admission that you see people of color first as just that and not unique individuals.

I never said that. You're fabricating....again! But I thank you for proving my point by using a neo-racist code term.

Your derogatory comments about a series of people who just happen to be Jewish.

So because someone is Jewish, I can't oppose them? Do you support Henry Waxman, Dianne Feinstein, Barbara Boxer, Russ Feingold and Charles Schumer? No? Then couldn't I say the same thing about you?

and your defense of those who make anti-Jewish statements.

And who would those people be?

Sorry, you made-up fabrications won't cut it. You'll have to do better than that.

Next?

[Kace]

Otherwise, I will be voting for Bob Barr.

Yes! Join us. :)

[Diplomat]

Pro's questions were answered a long time ago. HIS made-up fabrications about some of us on this board won't wash.

[Union Label]

Indeed you have. And I'm not the only person who has called you on it, through the years.



Which were....?



Which were...?



I never said that. You're fabricating....again! But I thank you for proving my point by using a neo-racist code term.



So because someone is Jewish, I can't oppose them? Do you support Henry Waxman, Dianne Feinstein, Barbara Boxer, Russ Feingold and Charles Schumer? No? Then couldn't I say the same thing about you?



And who would those people be?

Sorry, you made-up fabrications won't cut it. You'll have to do better than that.

Next?

Maybe you two should just get a room. Better yet, how about a pay per view mud wrestling match?

[Diplomat]

I have no desire to have a room or anything else with him, UL. Just the thought makes me want to puke.

Back to the topic: I've noticed that last night's forum is getting some decent coverage among mainstream media, which I see as a good thing.

[Sultanosurf]

Isn't this more fun?

http://www.variety.com/graphics/photos/_storypics/pillow_fight.jpg

http://files.colonies.com/UserData/359590/BlogPhotos/pfl2.jpg
http://craig.yuma.ca/wp-content/uploads/2007/01/_sports_2007-01_14_xin_140104141057031116638-1.jpg

http://www.clubcourtyard.com/jpegs/PillowFight2.JPG

[Pro]

I have no desire to have a room or anything else with him, UL. Just the thought makes me want to puke.

Rather elitist attitude, I'd say.

I wouldn't mind being in the company of anyone. I'm not afraid to look anyone in the eye.

[s'news]

That Pillow Fight League looks like a good time.

[Lazlo Toth]

That Pillow Fight League looks like a good time.

Sure, but were you looking at their eyes?

[Sultanosurf]

Ladies and gentlemen, meet Sarah Bellum (Get it?). You're still not looking at her eyes, are ya?

http://www.canadapfl.com/figher_bios/fighter_pics/sarah_bellum.jpg

PFL Singles Competition Record: 5-4
Professional Pillow Fighting Record: 7-6

Age: 24
Occupation: Freelance writer

About Me: I am the curator of the world’s only library dedicated to the storied art of pillow-based violence. I like rules and order. My IQ is bigger than yours.

Music: I prefer the sound of a nice, quiet library.

Movies: I’d much rather read a book.

TV: I only watch PBS.

Books: The Rule Book and Losing To Digit: A Work of Fiction by Sarah Bellum

Favorite Drink: Nonalcoholic red wine.

Favorite Food: Protein Bars

First Pillow Fight Ever: A stunning victory over Digit Jones on March 11, 2006

Worst Pillow Fighting Fear: Brain damage

#1 Rule You'd Like to Break: I am disgusted by the very existence of this question. Rules should be respected! I have absolutely no desire whatsoever to break one.

Favorite Pillow Fighter: Sarah Bellum

Pillow Fighting Nemesis: Digit Jones

Dream Fight: Sarah Bellum VS Matt Striker. The loser can no longer wear argyle.

[Sultanosurf]

Meanwhile, back at the ol' Saddleback Ranch, it turns out...

Despite Assurances, McCain Wasn’t in a ‘Cone of Silence’

By KATHARINE Q. SEELYE
NYTimes August 17, 2008

ORLANDO, Fla. — Senator John McCain was not in a “cone of silence” on Saturday night while his rival, Senator Barack Obama, was being interviewed at the Saddleback Church in California...

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/08/18/us/politics/18mccain.html?ref=us

[Lazlo Toth]

Interesting. I took Warren's comment at the time as a joke and never literally.

[Sultanosurf]

'Wouldn't be the first time there's been a problem with the cone...

http://content.answers.com/main/content/wp/en/1/14/Coneofsilence.jpg

[Diplomat]

Interesting. I took Warren's comment at the time as a joke and never literally.

Exactly. Guess the reporter wasn't too excited about the event itself so she decided to manufacture a little controversy.

[Sultanosurf]

Exactly. Guess the reporter wasn't too excited about the event itself so she decided to manufacture a little controversy.

Hey, don't let a little thing like the facts get in the way of your bias...

http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2008/08/18/warren-mccain-did-not-violate-cone-of-silence-2/

Personally, I don't care one way or another, but it sure calls into question what happens when you have forums like these outside the purview of the norm.

[Diplomat]

Hey, don't let a little thing like the facts get in the way of your bias...

http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2008/08/18/warren-mccain-did-not-violate-cone-of-silence-2/

Personally, I don't care one way or another, but it sure calls into question what happens when you have forums like these outside the purview of the norm.

What is the "norm?"

I'm glad they have forums like these that aren't controlled by the usual groups. It gives an opportunity for different voices to be heard and more issues to be discussed.

Bias? Give me a break. The writer is taking a comment Pastor Warren made WAY too seriously. Again--the forum may not have been of great interest to them so they had to spice up their story a little.

[Kace]

I'm glad they have forums like these that aren't controlled by the usual groups.

Granted, they have the same attitude as the usual groups, like only including the 2-party candidates.

[Lazlo Toth]

I have been following this year's campaign since it began twelve years ago .. or so it seems. I've heard the stump speeches. I've read the web pages. I've seen some of the late night appearances. This was just one more element, different from the others.

I found it revealing in its own way, and limited in its own way. But taken in the aggregate with everything else, it served a purpose in helping me evaluate the two candidates.

[Kace]

You say that as if you didn't know who you were voting for already. ;)

[Lazlo Toth]

I suppose the explanation for that is that I don't know whom I've going to vote for.

[Kace]

Perhaps because the 2-party guys suck. But then I'm biased... :whistle:

http://blogs.seattleweekly.com/dailyweekly/barr002.jpeg

[s'news]

Sure, but were you looking at their eyes?

I was thinking of John Belushi in Animal House.

http://www.garnersclassics.com/pics/animal/ladder.jpg

[Sultanosurf]

What is the "norm?"

I'm glad they have forums like these that aren't controlled by the usual groups. It gives an opportunity for different voices to be heard and more issues to be discussed.

Bias? Give me a break. The writer is taking a comment Pastor Warren made WAY too seriously. Again--the forum may not have been of great interest to them so they had to spice up their story a little.

What 'different' voices were heard? Politicians have been pandering to church groups forever. More issues discussed? As described earlier, Warren didn't even address some basic glaring faith questions about each candidate.

Taking way too seriously a breach in of the proclaimed outlines? Try that in any other debate, or say, against parliamentary procedure in Congress.

Hey, maybe since it was a faith discussion, it requires a certain suspension of regular thought.

[Diplomat]

What 'different' voices were heard? Politicians have been pandering to church groups forever. More issues discussed? As described earlier, Warren didn't even address some basic glaring faith questions about each candidate.

Taking way too seriously a breach in of the proclaimed outlines? Try that in any other debate, or say, against parliamentary procedure in Congress.

Hey, maybe since it was a faith discussion, it requires a certain suspension of regular thought.

Parliamentary procedure is for Congress and groups like that. And what is or isn't proper procedure would vary, depending on who you ask. It's not for informal discussions and the like--I would hope you're not one of those people who walks around, quoting Robert's Rules of Order.

I'm guessing that Pastor Warren asked the questions he did because they are the ones he has heard most from people in his congregation or in his daily interactions with others. Faith involves much more than going to church.

This manufactured controversy will only manufacture outrage from people who don't get it.

[Sultanosurf]

Well, thank goodness Sarah gets it:


http://www.canadapfl.com/figher_bios/fighter_pics/sarah_bellum.jpg

"I like rules and order... Rules should be respected! I have absolutely no desire whatsoever to break one."

[Sultanosurf]

It sure manufactured outrage, all right.

http://img375.imageshack.us/img375/5247/coneheadsrj1.jpg

http://voices.washingtonpost.com/the-trail/2008/08/18/mccain_in_letter_charges_nbc_w.html

McCain, in Letter, Charges NBC with Bias

By Perry Bacon Jr.
John McCain's campaign manager sent a blistering letter to the president of NBC News yesterday, accusing the network of bias for a report that suggested the senator from Arizona had violated the rules of Saturday's forum at an evangelical church...

[Kace]

Well there ya go, manufactured outrage.

Unless that doesn't count (he's with us!).

[Lazlo Toth]

An opinion piece today from the SF Chronicle:

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2008/08/18/EDJ412CUBK.DTL&type=printable

Straight talk express meets the great conversationalist

David Davenport
Monday, August 18, 2008
(08-18) 04:00 PDT Lake Forest, Orange County -- When President Bill Clinton played his saxophone on the late-night "Arsenio Hall Show" in 1992, it was obvious that presidential campaigns had changed. That evolution continued Saturday night when presidential candidates Barack Obama and John McCain made their first joint appearance of the 2008 campaign. This time, it was not in a televised debate moderated by reporters in a university auditorium, but at an evangelical church conducted over a cup of coffee with its pastor.
The Saddleback Civil Forum on the Presidency, moderated by mega-church pastor and best-selling author Rick Warren, turned out to be more interesting and politically important than one might have expected, as the presumptive nominees discussed heartland issues of leadership, worldview, domestic policy and America's place in the world. Going in, the significance of the event seemed to be its church setting and audience of 2,200 church members, and the increasingly important evangelical Christian voter. From what I saw there, it was that and more.
The two-hour forum was really the opening, the tone-setting lap of an Olympic presidential race, as the candidates contrasted sharply in both style and substance. Democrat Obama spoke for the first hour, with Republican McCain off-stage, unable to hear the questions that would be posed to him later. As expected, Obama was a great conversationalist, offering thoughtful answers to tough questions. Highly personal and seemingly impossible questions - what three people would you listen to as president, what is your greatest moral failure, what does faith in Christ mean to you - seemed like small hurdles for his nimble mind.
After a bit of a shaky start, McCain hit his stride with remarkably direct and energetic answers to the tough questions. Obama's nuanced responses, in which he processed multiple sides of complex issues, contrasted with McCain's direct replies. When asked when a child's human rights begin, McCain said straightforwardly, "at conception," whereas Obama equivocated. On same-sex marriage or merit pay for teachers, again McCain stepped into the pitch with a solid hit, whereas Obama's responses seemed more circular. As one pleasantly surprised evangelical leader said, "McCain is back on the straight talk express."
The expectations game will be hard on Obama. He performed well, but that's what people expect. McCain easily exceeded expectations. Obama's deeper exploration of issues tells us how he would think about education or a global threat, but McCain's straight talk says more clearly what he would do about them. Some of this is age and experience - McCain frequently told anecdotes to illustrate what he has done. It is also different backgrounds and training - a law professor like Obama is taught to see the difficulties and complexities, whereas a military officer such as McCain is schooled to find the path through them. One couldn't help but think that Obama must sharpen his answers to one central point for the formal debates.
And what about those evangelical voters? In one way, Obama won points here just by being on the stage of an evangelical Christian church in conservative Orange County. Evangelicals, who constitute 20 to 25 percent of the national electorate, voted nearly 80 percent for George W. Bush in 2004, so sitting at the same table with the influential evangelical leader, the Rev. Warren, helps Obama. And he naturally speaks the language about his faith in Jesus Christ, evil, sin and salvation.
But McCain overcame his previous reluctance to speak clearly about his faith, stepping right into questions about his relationship to Christ ("I'm saved and forgiven") or limiting the hiring policies of faith-based organizations (no, "it would severely cripple them"). Perhaps more important, McCain's positions on the tough moral issues, such as abortion or same-sex marriage, clearly square better with evangelicals than Obama's positions. In the end, however, Obama doesn't have to win this group outright, but merely make an inroad, which seemed plausible Saturday night.
It was a dramatic couple of hours when a pastor and his church got candidates to grapple honestly and civilly with tough questions. By the end, it seemed clear that McCain's straight talk express will present a formidable challenge to Obama, the great conversationalist.
David Davenport is a research fellow at the Hoover Institution. He attended the Saddleback Civil Forum on the Presidency in Lake Forest (Orange County).

[Sultanosurf]

Lord help me... decipher without paragraphs.

I'd already seen the Chron piece, and all the other analysis, blogs et al (Including a piece in the LATimes that revealed the church sold some seats for something like $200-500 http://www.latimes.com/news/local/politics/cal/la-me-warren18-2008aug18,0,979698.story)

Maybe we can all agree with what Warren said in his follow-up sermon Sunday: "Don't just look at issues, look at character. Look at the candidate and say, 'Does he live with integrity, service with humility, share with generosity, or not?' "

But now can we get to the issues?

[Pro]

Maybe we can all agree with what Warren said in his follow-up sermon Sunday: "Don't just look at issues, look at character. Look at the candidate and say, 'Does he live with integrity, service with humility, share with generosity, or not?' "

There are those who will allow their political bias to influence what they think about a candidate's "character".

[Diplomat]

To many voters, character IS an issue.

Each individual voter must decide for himself what the issues are and no media or political party, etc. has any right to tell them what is and is not an issue.

[Pro]

To many voters, character IS an issue.

"Character" is a political buzz word when a candidate or advocates for a candidate wants to make personal slams against his/her opponent.

[Diplomat]

"Character" is a political buzz word when a candidate or advocates for a candidate wants to make personal slams against his/her opponent.

To borrow a phrase that's all the rage, "In YOUR opinion."

It is the height of arrogance for you to tell someone what is and isn't an issue and what issues should and should not be important to them.

[Pro]

To borrow a phrase that's all the rage, "In YOUR opinion."

Yes it is.

It is the height of arrogance for you to tell someone what is and isn't an issue and what issues should and should not be important to them.

So you don't think someone has the right to offer the view that what's being called "character" is a phoney issue?

[Kace]

To many voters, character IS an issue.

Awesome. Barr should win easily in November. :rockon:

[Lazlo Toth]

Awesome. Barr should win easily in November. :rockon:

So Kace, tell me why I should vote for Barr. I'm willing to toss him in the mix.

[Diplomat]

Yes it is.



So you don't think someone has the right to offer the view that what's being called "character" is a phoney issue?


Let me help you, since you don't seem to understand.

Each person has the right to decide for himself what is and is not an issue. Each person has the right for himself to decide what issues are and are not important.
That includes you, too.

[Kace]

So Kace, tell me why I should vote for Barr. I'm willing to toss him in the mix.

Usually whenever anyone asks, I like to refer one to his website ( http://www.bobbarr2008.com ). I figure Barr himself can explain things a lot better than I could.

My original preference was Wayne Root, but he wound up falling just shy of the Libertarian nod in favor of Barr, who in turn brought Root in as his Vice Presidential running mate. To me, that gave him an automatic plus.

I tend to find myself in agreement with him on most issues and don't fear him being puppeteered by anyone. He's real big on State's rights and doesn't let his personal views dictate the notion of the Federal Government getting involved in things.

Otherwise, I guess it's a matter of which issues you're most interested in. That'd give me a nice starting area for a broader discussion.

Right now, Barr's biggest downside is that he's not on the ballot everywhere. He is on the ballot in 38 states, which is a good start. Of those states is North Carolina in November (thankfully). So I not only plan on voting for the guy, I've even thrown a few bucks to his campaign, which is the first time I've ever done that for any candidate. Probably doesn't mean anything to the rest of humanity, but for me that's pretty big 'cause he's the first candidate I ever felt compelled to do that for.

I do realize that this probably isn't the most convincing argument in the world (I've never been good at selling), but like I said his website is a great place to check out. Or if you don't wanna feel as if you're dealing with someone who's just wanting some dude's hit count to go up, I can try and hit you up with quotes and specific links to whichever subject fancies ya (to the best of my ability at least). I'm really sold on Root as his running mate, too.

[Sultanosurf]

Well, while waiting for Kace, I DID look at Barr's site (Nice video open, btw). We learn:

- "The NRA has a candidate in Bob Barr"

- Bob Barr wants to cut federal spending and enact "real" tax cuts. And "... a tax system that is simple and fair. No more economic gimmicks—let’s have real tax reform to promote the sort of economic growth necessary to put Americans to work again,” Barr says.

- "No Foreign Aid for Georgian War" "...it’s time officials in Washington stopped treating the Treasury Department like an ATM for the world."

Not much to see on immediate economic remedies, Iraq, or illegal immigrants. (Or faith issues, for that matter)

But of course there are plenty of ways to make a contribution to Barr's campaign...

[Pro]

Each person has the right for himself to decide what issues are and are not important.


And does each person have the right to say that things a candidate or his supporters are saying are, in their opinion, phoney issues? "Yes" or "No" will be sufficient.

[Lazlo Toth]

Thanks to you both. I'll go give his websire a look.

[Diplomat]

And does each person have the right to say that things a candidate or his supporters are saying are, in their opinion, phoney issues? "Yes" or "No" will be sufficient.

That has been asked, answered and explained in a simple, straightforward manner. Sorry you are incapable of understanding.

[Sultanosurf]

I was thinking of John Belushi in Animal House.

http://www.garnersclassics.com/pics/animal/ladder.jpg

Kindly recall what happened to that peeping Tom after "seven years of college down the drain":

http://www.urbanposters.com/images/detail_images/senatorblutarsky.jpg

[Pro]

That has been asked, answered and explained in a simple, straightforward manner. Sorry you are incapable of understanding.

Can't ANY of you right-wingers answer a "Yes" or "No" question? :rolleyes:

[Diplomat]

Can't ANY of you right-wingers answer a "Yes" or "No" question? :rolleyes:

Can't any of you left-wing socialists understand anything beyond your own narrow-minded views?

[Pro]

Can't any of you left-wing socialists understand anything beyond your own narrow-minded views?

No "Yes" or "No"...what I'd expect from a neo-con Bircher.

[Diplomat]

No "Yes" or "No"...what I'd expect from a neo-con Bircher.

And your nastiness is what I expect from one who bleats about name calling, yet is one of the worst offenders, and also uses slurs and defends those who do.

[Sultanosurf]

Gees, does anybody ever win these endless things?

Yes? No? Let's see how the ref scores it...

http://cache.daylife.com/imageserve/04XP5je7AV78z/610x.jpg

[s'news]

It looks like a close battle that might go on without any end. And it'll likely become less and less interesting as it goes on. Shoot, they're having a pillow fight and they're not even stripped all the way down to bras and panties.

And there's no mud. There's no Jello.

[Pro]

And your nastiness is what I expect from one who bleats about name calling, yet is one of the worst offenders, and also uses slurs and defends those who do.

Uh-huh :rolleyes: .....are you going to provide a "Yes" or "No" answer?

[Sultanosurf]

It looks like a close battle that might go on without any end. And it'll likely become less and less interesting as it goes on. Shoot, they're having a pillow fight and they're not even stripped all the way down to bras and panties.

And there's no mud. There's no Jello.

Yes, you're right s'news. No, they're not even at optimum PFL fighting apparel. Yes, the golden-clad crotch tugger appears to have used the might of her right to cause a certain discomfort on the banty red. No, I don't think the leopard-print lefty grip appears conducive to a decisive win anytime before fall, and even then we may have to go to the judge's cards.

To recap: Yes, no, yes, no. No on jello, one-half yes on bra, full no on panties. Back to you....

[Diplomat]

Maybe s'news and Sultanosurf can get a room. As Andy Griffith might say, "They sound awful sweet on each other."

[Sultanosurf]

Sha-zam! 16,000 posts and that's the best you've got?

[Pro]

You're talking about someone who won't give a "Yes" or "No" answer to a simple question....:rolleyes:

[Sultanosurf]

I'd say something clever, but to paraphrase Samuel Johnson, Dip's not only dull himself, he's the cause of dullness in others.

[Diplomat]

I'd say something clever, but to paraphrase Samuel Johnson, Dip's not only dull himself, he's the cause of dullness in others.

You have about as much credibility calling someone dull as Roseanne Barr would have calling someone obnoxious and ignorant. Perhaps if you didn't take yourself so seriously....

[Pro]

Dip won't answer a simple "Yes" or "No" question, but he'll join in an insult fight. That he'll do.

[Sultanosurf]

You have about as much credibility calling someone dull as Roseanne Barr would have calling someone obnoxious and ignorant. Perhaps if you didn't take yourself so seriously....

Ah, more delusions of adequacy...

[Diplomat]

Ah, more delusions of adequacy...

At least you admit you have those delusions. It's a step on your road to recovery. :)

[buckpasser]

Diplomat is a guy who suffers from low self-esteem.


I feel sorry for him.

That's why he can't answer questions about what he thinks. Instead, he's filled 16 thousand posts with whines, cries, and pouts about everyone he hates.

I go back to the post where Diplomat defined the source of his political identity:

One of my parents was an independent conservative and the other a Democrat-turned-Republican of the Nixon/Reagan stripe. Many of my relatives are die-hard Democrats and some of them equate Jimmy Carter with our Lord. When I hear them or some politician bleat about "working people," I want to puke because they don't think anyone but factory employees and farmers "work"--no respect for what businesspeople or creative types do; businesspeople were thought as evil. They felt government knew best in all instances for others but not for them.

I arrived at my beliefs through my own thought and study and personal experience.


Diplomat defines himself as good by defining other people down. CLASSIC case of low self-esteem.

That's why Diplomat always finds a Medialiner to, "go after" in his posts. He's defining others down so he can bump up his own self-worth.

It's not just Medialiners who Diplomat will define down so he can define himself up. As seen in his own post, he'll dog his own family members.

That's why Diplomat has his, "list".

[Sultanosurf]

At least you admit you have those delusions. It's a step on your road to recovery. :)

C'mon Dip, you're not making this any fun at all. I give you Samuel Johnson, you try Roseanne Barr? Then can't even get your gun out of the holster with the above?

You could even go over the top (It's gotta get better than that s'newsroom/Andy Griffith line), like Hearst did about Pulitzer and call me " ...a coward, traitor, sycophant, and pimp." Or dis me like Faulkner did Hemmingway "He's never been known to use a word that might send a reader to the dictionary." Or like Hemmingway zinged Faulkner "Does he really think big emotions come from big words?"

You could try poetic: One couplet short of a sonnet.
Scientific: So dense, light bends around him.
Mathematic: Wit of epsilon quality.
Or even blond beatific: If his IQ was two points higher he'd be a rock.

http://cache.lexico.com/dictionary/graphics/luna/thinsp.png
But right now you're simply living down to our expectations.

[Diplomat]

C'mon Dip, you're not making this any fun at all. I give you Samuel Johnson, you try Roseanne Barr? Then can't even get your gun out of the holster with the above?

You could even go over the top (It's gotta get better than that s'newsroom/Andy Griffith line), like Hearst did about Pulitzer and call me " ...a coward, traitor, sycophant, and pimp." Or dis me like Faulkner did Hemmingway "He's never been known to use a word that might send a reader to the dictionary." Or like Hemmingway zinged Faulkner "Does he really think big emotions come from big words?"

You could try poetic: One couplet short of a sonnet.
Scientific: So dense, light bends around him.
Mathematic: Wit of epsilon quality.
Or even blond beatific: If his IQ was two points higher he'd be a rock.

http://cache.lexico.com/dictionary/graphics/luna/thinsp.png
But right now you're simply living down to our expectations.

Spare the pseudo-intellectual discourse. I'm not buying it, especially from you.

If it boosts your already over-inflated ego to spout off drivel as you did in the above post, go right ahead. I make no apologies, however, for noticing and commenting on how shallow you come across.

[Sultanosurf]

A titanic mind in a world of icebergs...

[Lazlo Toth]

Diplomat is a guy who suffers from low self-esteem.


I feel sorry for him.

That's why he can't answer questions about what he thinks. Instead, he's filled 16 thousand posts with whines, cries, and pouts about everyone he hates.

I go back to the post where Diplomat defined the source of his political identity:




Diplomat defines himself as good by defining other people down. CLASSIC case of low self-esteem.

That's why Diplomat always finds a Medialiner to, "go after" in his posts. He's defining others down so he can bump up his own self-worth.

It's not just Medialiners who Diplomat will define down so he can define himself up. As seen in his own post, he'll dog his own family members.

That's why Diplomat has his, "list".

So I guess that would be your downward definition of Diplomat.

[Diplomat]

A titanic mind in a world of icebergs...

Yes, indeed, and it's sad to watch you sink with the weight of your massive ego.

[buckpasser]

So I guess that would be your downward definition of Diplomat.

I'm sure Diplomat appreciates you defending a fellow Bush voter.

However, the difference between Republicans like Dip, and Democrats like me, is that I don't need to hate someone every day, in every post, in order to feel better.

Democrats are this way. In general. Notice, Laz, how Bush had a 90% approval rating after September 11th? That was because of Democrats, Laz. He couldn't get above 60% without them. There's no correlation between Democrats, their self-esteem, and how they define Republicans.

Republicans? Completely opposite. They don't flinch when Republicans spend like drunken sailors because there's no correlation between what Republicans do, and their own self-worth.

Notice, Laz, how Republicans said, after the 2006 election, that "Democrats didn't win, Republicans lost!"? I wondered how Republicans could call themselves losers. Then I realized Repubs could call Repubs whatever they wanted, and it didn't matter because there's no connection there. Now...calling Democrats winners? That stings. There's a connection between the definition of Democrats, and the perceived self-worth of a Republican. Republicans believe they are the opposite of Democrats. If they want to feel patriotic, they call Democrats "America haters". That's what happened after 9-11. Republicans couldn't deal with national unity, because it meant Repubs and Dems were the same. If Dems are the same, Repubs feel bad about themselves.

Notice how Sean Hannity and his types admit they get mad when, "Republicans and Democrats agree"? The idea is simple: if Democrats and Republicans agree, Democrats can't be defined negatively. And if Dems can't be defined negatively, Repubs like Hannity can't define themselves positively.

All this is how Bush's approval rating tanked, how the GOP ended up with John McCain, and how they entire Republican strategy, every election, revolves around the notion of defining the Democrat down, telling voters they only have two choices, then asking people to choose the lesser of two evils.

Remember Diplomat's famous post on the eve of the 2006 election: "I'll be voting against the machine-bred racist Democrat. See you at the polls".

[Produce man]

the difference between Republicans like Dip, and Democrats like me, is that I don't need to hate someone every day, in every post, in order to feel better.
Bwahahahah!!

Oh God, make it stop!!:thumbsup: :thumbsup: :D :D

[Lazlo Toth]

I don't need to hate someone every day, in every post, in order to feel better.".


In other words, you just hate someone every day , in every post, because you enjoy it.

[buckpasser]

In other words, you just hate someone every day , in every post, because you enjoy it.

Hate is a right wing virture, Laz.

Do you see a liberal walking into a church in Tennessee, shooting conservatives because he hates them so badly?

With a copy of books by liberals sitting back home?

How about liberals sitting on radio station after radio station, revolving their shows around Republicans they hate?

Yeah...they tried it. Air America. And it failed because talk radio is a format built for reactionaries who hate.


Republicans didn't drift away from conservative ideas on their own, Laz. The opportunity cost of obsessing over Liberals is the death of the conservative movement.

Wise up.

[Lazlo Toth]

Hate is a right wing virture, Laz.
.

So if I accept that premise, I must conclude you're a right winger.

[Kace]

Um...

Buckpasser if you don't mind me asking...who do you like politically and why?

[buckpasser]

So if I accept that premise, I must conclude you're a right winger.

The old, "YOU YOU YOU!" defense, Laz.

I get it.

[buckpasser]

Um...

Buckpasser if you don't mind me asking...who do you like politically and why?

It's not who do I like politically, but what do I like politically.

I'm an economic conservative, social liberal who doesn't believe in the environmental movement, but does believe in the Second Amendment.

[Sultanosurf]

Yes, indeed, and it's sad to watch you sink with the weight of your massive ego.

Ah, the revered "I know you are, but what am I?" contrepoint. C'mon, if this is the bulk of your 16 thousand posts, invest a little: http://search.barnesandnoble.com/booksearch/results.asp?WRD=creative+writing

Til then, as Alexander Woollcott said, you're like a sinking ship firing on the rescuers...

[Mighty Dyckerson]

Bwahahahah!!

Oh God, make it stop!!:thumbsup: :thumbsup: :D :D

That's right, keep hiding behind your childish emoticons. The truth hurts, eh Douchey??

[Diplomat]

Ah, the revered "I know you are, but what am I?" contrepoint. C'mon, if this is the bulk of your 16 thousand posts, invest a little: http://search.barnesandnoble.com/booksearch/results.asp?WRD=creative+writing

Til then, as Alexander Woollcott said, you're like a sinking ship firing on the rescuers...

Your ego knows no bounds. Now you're demanding I buy a book simply because you don't like what I posted. I said what I said and I said it well. And when it comes to what I post, mine is the only opinion that counts. Not yours.

Get this--you are not worth the money or the effort. You are starting to remind me of the Queen in Snow White and her precious mirror.

I would suggest you buy a dictionary and learn the meaning of the word humility but you'd probably have a mental breakdown trying to practice it.

[Sultanosurf]

Click - click - click...

http://www.micksguns.com/images/reck.380%203.jpg

[Diplomat]

That post tells me more about your character than you realize, Sultan. And it's not good.

[Sultanosurf]

Click - click - click...

http://www.micksguns.com/images/reck.380%203.jpg

Since you seem to need amplification (Good grief), it means you continue to fire on empty cylinders...

C'mon, Dip, you get the spelling and punctuation right, but didn't you ever have a teacher or manager challenge you to something better in substance? It's no fun (And a terrible waste of space) when you can't hit 50 mph fastballs...

[Diplomat]

Click - click - click...

http://www.micksguns.com/images/reck.380%203.jpg

Since you seem to need amplification (Good grief), it means you continue to fire on empty cylinders...

C'mon, Dip, you get the spelling and punctuation right, but didn't you ever have a teacher or manager challenge you to something better in substance? It's no fun (And a terrible waste of space) when you can't hit 50 mph fastballs...

You are lecturing others on SUBSTANCE?

Given your history of empty comments about how great you are and some of the crazy theories you have put forth.

Nah--it wasn't about empty cylinders. You aren't that smart. You had to think about that one after you were nailed.

Hasn't anyone ever told you that your ego is your biggest enemy and that the world actually doesn't revolve around you?

[Sultanosurf]

Ah, empty comments and crazy theories. That's the best we get for your usual 'last word?'

C'mon, here's another chance. Step it up, put a full load in the chamber, and sq-e-e-e-ze off something of substance...

[Diplomat]

Ah, empty comments and crazy theories. That's the best we get for your usual 'last word?'

C'mon, here's another chance. Step it up, put a full load in the chamber, and sq-e-e-e-ze off something of substance...

Yawn.

[Sultanosurf]

http://www.phildourado.com/customer/uploaded_images/MissedTarget-782854.jpg

[buckpasser]

Contrast this...

I said what I said and I said it well.

With this...


I would suggest you buy a dictionary and learn the meaning of the word humility but you'd probably have a mental breakdown trying to practice it.


"I am AWESOME! Now, you...go practice humility!"

[Kace]

It's not who do I like politically, but what do I like politically.

I'm an economic conservative, social liberal who doesn't believe in the environmental movement, but does believe in the Second Amendment.

Okay... I didn't ask you about what though, I asked you about who. As in, who do you find yourself voting for this year. And why. And all that stuff.

[Diplomat]

http://www.phildourado.com/customer/uploaded_images/MissedTarget-782854.jpg

Gee...your aim is WAY off.

I don't even own a gun and think I could do better than that. :)

[Lazlo Toth]

The old, "YOU YOU YOU!" defense, Laz.

I get it.

Simply holding up the mirror to the "YOU, YOu, YOU!" offense.

[Sultanosurf]

...mine is the only opinion that counts.

Ah, humility...

[Lazlo Toth]

I've always been proud of my humility.

[buckpasser]

I was wondering why McCain, who has difficulty with simple questions, answered Rick Warren so quickly. He finished his portion with Warren fifteen minutes faster than Obama. This might be why:


------
August 18, 2008
Despite Assurances, McCain Wasn’t in a ‘Cone of Silence’
By KATHARINE Q. SEELYE, NY TIMES

ORLANDO, Fla. — Senator John McCain was not in a “cone of silence” on Saturday night while his rival, Senator Barack Obama, was being interviewed at the Saddleback Church in California.

Members of the McCain campaign staff, who flew here Sunday from California, said Mr. McCain was in his motorcade on the way to the church as Mr. Obama was being interviewed by the Rev. Rick Warren, the author of the best-selling book “The Purpose Driven Life.”

The matter is of interest because Mr. McCain, who followed Mr. Obama’s hourlong appearance in the forum, was asked virtually the same questions as Mr. Obama. Mr. McCain’s performance was well received, raising speculation among some viewers, especially supporters of Mr. Obama, that he was not as isolated during the Obama interview as Mr. Warren implied.

Nicolle Wallace, a spokeswoman for Mr. McCain, said on Sunday night that Mr. McCain had not heard the broadcast of the event while in his motorcade and heard none of the questions.

“The insinuation from the Obama campaign that John McCain, a former prisoner of war, cheated is outrageous,” Ms. Wallace said.

Before an audience of more than 2,000 people at the church, the candidates answered questions about policy and social issues.

Mr. Warren, the pastor of Saddleback, had assured the audience while he was interviewing Mr. Obama that “we have safely placed Senator McCain in a cone of silence” and that he could not hear the questions.

After Mr. Obama’s interview, he was joined briefly by Mr. McCain, and the candidates shook hands and embraced.

Mr. Warren started by asking Mr. McCain, “Now, my first question: Was the cone of silence comfortable that you were in just now?”

Mr. McCain deadpanned, “I was trying to hear through the wall.”

Interviewed Sunday on CNN, Mr. Warren seemed surprised to learn that Mr. McCain was not in the building during the Obama interview.

[JoinUsForCake]

Perhaps he isn't as full of crap as Obama so he had less to say.
Perhaps he was eager to get out of that church as quickly as possible and go help his wife inventory their homes. Not what was inside them, the homes themselves.

1... 2... 3... 4... 7? Uhh... Oh dang, gotta start over.

1... 2... 3........

[Another OMB]

I was wondering why McCain, who has difficulty with simple questions, answered Rick Warren so quickly. He finished his portion with Warren fifteen minutes faster than Obama. This might be why:


------
August 18, 2008
Despite Assurances, McCain Wasn’t in a ‘Cone of Silence’
By KATHARINE Q. SEELYE, NY TIMES

ORLANDO, Fla. — Senator John McCain was not in a “cone of silence” on Saturday night while his rival, Senator Barack Obama, was being interviewed at the Saddleback Church in California.

Members of the McCain campaign staff, who flew here Sunday from California, said Mr. McCain was in his motorcade on the way to the church as Mr. Obama was being interviewed by the Rev. Rick Warren, the author of the best-selling book “The Purpose Driven Life.”

The matter is of interest because Mr. McCain, who followed Mr. Obama’s hourlong appearance in the forum, was asked virtually the same questions as Mr. Obama. Mr. McCain’s performance was well received, raising speculation among some viewers, especially supporters of Mr. Obama, that he was not as isolated during the Obama interview as Mr. Warren implied.

Nicolle Wallace, a spokeswoman for Mr. McCain, said on Sunday night that Mr. McCain had not heard the broadcast of the event while in his motorcade and heard none of the questions.

“The insinuation from the Obama campaign that John McCain, a former prisoner of war, cheated is outrageous,” Ms. Wallace said.

Before an audience of more than 2,000 people at the church, the candidates answered questions about policy and social issues.

Mr. Warren, the pastor of Saddleback, had assured the audience while he was interviewing Mr. Obama that “we have safely placed Senator McCain in a cone of silence” and that he could not hear the questions.

After Mr. Obama’s interview, he was joined briefly by Mr. McCain, and the candidates shook hands and embraced.

Mr. Warren started by asking Mr. McCain, “Now, my first question: Was the cone of silence comfortable that you were in just now?”

Mr. McCain deadpanned, “I was trying to hear through the wall.”

Interviewed Sunday on CNN, Mr. Warren seemed surprised to learn that Mr. McCain was not in the building during the Obama interview.

So he wasn't in a "cone of silence". Instead, he wasn't even in the building and could not hear the questions. So what's the problem? The point was to prevent him from hearing the questions in advance and he did not hear them. I think it's telling that, since the consensus seems to be that McCain did better than Obama, the Obama camp has to claim that McCain cheated.

[Kace]

That means someone was lying, which means it's possible they could be lying about everything else as well.

[Another OMB]

That means someone was lying, which means it's possible they could be lying about everything else as well.

My take on it, and it's only speculation, is that McCain was supposed to be in the "cone of silence" but hadn't arrived in time to put him in there. Warren didn't know that and assumed everything had gone as planned, which is why he asked McCain if he had been comfortable in it.

Not wanting to contradict Warren in front of his congregation and national TV, McCain made a joke about it instead of calling attention to what, I'm sure in his mind, is something that didn't matter. Again, the point was to prevent his hearing the questions and he didn't.

[Kace]

Not that we know that for sure, since we're going only on your speculation.

One thing that is known for sure is that Bob Barr wasn't invited, so it was a farce no matter how anyone spins it.

[Another OMB]

He was Barred.

[Kace]

Yeah. :(

[Diplomat]

Not that we know that for sure, since we're going only on your speculation.

One thing that is known for sure is that Bob Barr wasn't invited, so it was a farce no matter how anyone spins it.

Libertarian candidates usually aren't invited. I never understood why H. Ross Perot and his so-called "Reform" Party (what a joke!) were treated with the same legitimacy as the Republicans and Democrats while the Libertarians, which have a longer history, have been all but ignored.

[Sultanosurf]

If memory serves, Perot didn't start the Reform Party til years after his 92 run. And the reason his candidacy got so much attention is that he bought it. Perot paid for half-hour commercials in prime (I can still remember the famous charts and his catch-phrases) and used a billionaire's bank account to drive home his rift with Bush 41.

Any billionaire could probably still mount an independent campaign, although they'd probably be hindered by whatever transgressions got 'em all the dough (Remember Perot dropped out because he claimed the GOP was getting set to release doctored pictures before his daughter's wedding) AND the fact that the two major parties pressed for campaign changes that handicap independent runs. An independent also needs to be able to capitalize on one or two core dissatisfactions the public has, something both Perot and Steve Forbes were able to achieve to a degree.

[buckpasser]

So he wasn't in a "cone of silence". Instead, he wasn't even in the building and could not hear the questions. So what's the problem? The point was to prevent him from hearing the questions in advance and he did not hear them. I think it's telling that, since the consensus seems to be that McCain did better than Obama, the Obama camp has to claim that McCain cheated.

ABC's Jake Tapper advances the story:

UPDATE: ABC News' Ron Claiborne, traveling with the McCain campaign, reports that McCain senior adviser Charlie Black would not say whether people around McCain while he was en route to Rick Warren's forum had access to blackberries and cell phones from which they could have tipped off Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., about the questions.

"There's no reason we would do that," was all Black would say, though quite obviously there is a reason.



----------------

Meanwhile notice the similarities between a McCain aide:

A McCain aide told Politico that "Senator McCain was in a motorcade led by the United States Secret Service and held in a green room with no broadcast feed."
-CBS News


And the answer Rick Warren gave CNN when told McCain could not be in a "cone of silence" despite what Warren told his audience:

"Well, uh, that's true. Uhh. He was in a cone of, uh, a uh, uh, a cone of, secret service motorcade".

Sanchez presses further with Warren: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j2W-0Dgmd3I



Also, McCain Campaign Chair Rick Davis, who worked for Bush, did something very Bush-like: single out one person, early, and sent a message to anyone who dare question the administration:

As Politico reports, campaign manager Rick Davis sent a letter requesting a meeting with the news network's president. He suggests the network is "abandoning non-partisan coverage of the presidential race."

In the letter, Davis objects to a statement by NBC's Andrea Mitchell on "Meet The Press." Mitchell said on the program that some in the Obama campaign were suggesting "that McCain may not have been in the cone of silence and may have had some ability to overhear what the questions were to Obama. He seemed so well prepared."

A McCain aide told Politico that "Senator McCain was in a motorcade led by the United States Secret Service and held in a green room with no broadcast feed."

"Andrea Mitchell is repeating, uncritically, a completely unsubstantiated Obama campaign claim that John McCain somehow cheated in last night's forum at Saddleback Church," Davis wrote in the letter. "Instead of trying to substantiate this blatant falsehood in any way, Andrea Mitchell felt that she needed to repeat it on air to millions of 'Meet the Press' viewers..."

Asked about the criticism, Mitchell said she wasn't expressing an opinion but merely "reporting what they were saying."
-Politico, CBS

[Produce man]

Too late, bucky. The jig is up.