Presidential Debate #2

[Prodigal_Son1]

OH baloney. He was incredibly rich from the time he was born and his parents had to bail him out of stuff. Google is your friend. This idealizing rich people to populate fantasies is silly.

Really? Couldn’t his money have kept him out of world war II? Certainly his disqualification from the army could have, but he joined the navy and served his country anyway, He was awarded the Purple Heart, American Defense Service Medal, American Campaign Medal, Asiatic-Pacific Campaign Medal with three bronze service stars, and the World War II Victory Medal. That’s pretty classy for a ‘rich guy’, in my opinion, but then I’m not trying to view everything through partisan glasses.

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

OH baloney. He was incredibly rich from the time he was born and his parents had to bail him out of stuff. Google is your friend. This idealizing rich people to populate fantasies is silly.

Now that you’ve given your view of JFK, just so we know it’s not motivated by partisanship, please tell us your opinion of GWB.

 

[iloveangels]

Really? Couldn’t his money have kept him out of world war II? Certainly his disqualification from the army could have, but he joined the navy and served his country anyway, He was awarded the Purple Heart, American Defense Service Medal, American Campaign Medal, Asiatic-Pacific Campaign Medal with three bronze service stars, and the World War II Victory Medal. That’s pretty classy for a ‘rich guy’, in my opinion, but then I’m not trying to view everything through partisan glasses.

Perhaps you don’t know the real history of the Kennedy family. Joe Kennedy was very ambitious. He managed to become the SEC chairman in the 30s, he got himself named as Ambassador to England, but could not get himself in a position to run for the presidency because he was already too old by the standards at that time, and had an unacceptable track record due to his business dealings on wall street etc. So, he set out to make one of his sons into the President of the United States.

The original candidate for Joe Kennedy’s plans was his older son, Joseph Junior, who was groomed for the job from infancy. Both Joe and Jack (as John was called by family members) entered the military during the World War. This was de rigeur and considered a huge plus for future candidates to political office. Things have changed now, but this was very important for a political candidate-to-be in the middle of the 20th century. The oldest daughter–Kathleen I think her name was–also served in the war, regardless of the fact that the family was very, very rich at the time. The military was considered very differently by the general population then, than it is now.

Unfortunately, Joe Jr. died in the war. So then, Joe Sr. turned to Jack and groomed him from there on, pouring enormous amounts of money into the project. Everything was about the Presidency for Joe Kennedy and for his son Jack Kennedy. There has been a LOT written about this. I"m really shocked that you don’t know this really well-known piece of 20th Century American history.

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

Perhaps you don’t know the real history of the Kennedy family. Joe Kennedy was very ambitious. He managed to become the SEC chairman in the 30s, he got himself named as Ambassador to England, but could not get himself in a position to run for the presidency because he was already too old by the standards at that time, and had an unacceptable track record due to his business dealings on wall street etc. So, he set out to make one of his sons into the President of the United States.

The original candidate for Joe Kennedy’s plans was his older son, Joseph Junior, who was groomed for the job from infancy. Both Joe and Jack (as John was called by family members) entered the military during the World War. This was de rigeur and considered a huge plus for future candidates to political office. Things have changed now, but this was very important for a political candidate-to-be in the middle of the 20th century. The oldest daughter–Kathleen I think her name was–also served in the war, regardless of the fact that the family was very, very rich at the time. The military was considered very differently by the general population then, than it is now.

Unfortunately, Joe Jr. died in the war. So then, Joe Sr. turned to Jack and groomed him from there on, pouring enormous amounts of money into the project. Everything was about the Presidency for Joe Kennedy and for his son Jack Kennedy. There has been a LOT written about this. I"m really shocked that you don’t know this piece of 20th Century American history.

I know the history and I don’t envy them their money. I don’t envy anyone’s wealth to be honest.

One son dead, another wounded in the war and the family didn’t give? It’s shocking to see someone give that much and be denigrated for their political aspirations afterwards.

Please share your view of GWB and the differences between the families.

 

[iloveangels]

I know the history and I don’t envy them their money. I don’t envy anyone’s wealth to be honest.

One son dead, another wounded in the war and the family didn’t give? It’s shocking to see someone give that much and be denigrated for their political aspirations afterwards.

Please share your view of GWB and the differences between the families.

A lot of families had things happen to them during the war that were no better or worse than the Kennedys. A lot of people suffered over that war. That all happened a long time ago.

I’m tired of the poor martyred Kennedys meme. Save it for somebody who takes it more seriously than I do.

PS. I’m in flyover country and we got over all that a long time ago out here.

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

A lot of families had things happen to them during the war that were no better or worse than the Kennedys. I don’t worship them and you shouldn’t either. IT’s idolatry.

Okay, the uncharitable false insinuation is duly noted. I don’t really understand why that tactic is used. I must have touched a nerve to cause such an uncharitable action. I apologize for whatever I did wrong.

 

[iloveangels]

Okay, the uncharitable false insinuation is duly noted. I don’t really understand why that tactic is used. I must have touched a nerve to cause such an uncharitable action. I apologize for whatever I did wrong.

Out here in flyover country, we don’t have that kind of stuff going on. I recognize that people on the east coast are still stuck in some of that. But not here.

The Kennedys were a family. Period. We don’t have royalty. Period. A lot of people suffered over that war, and it’s ridiculous to try to make the case that the Kennedys suffered more than anyone else. This is 50 years old and off topic. It’s a total rabbit hole.

This thread is about the Presidential Debate #2. See the heading?

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

Out here in flyover country, we don’t have that kind of stuff going on. I recognize that people on the east coast are still stuck in some of that. But not here.

The Kennedys were a family. Period. We don’t have royalty. Period. A lot of people suffered over that war, and it’s ridiculous to try to make the case that the Kennedys suffered more than anyone else. This is 50 years old and off topic. Do you even realize this?

But it was fine to discuss as long as you denigrated them as not sacrificing enough in world war II.

I didn’t say they suffered anymore, or any less than any other American family of their time. I only pointed out that even though the family was extremely wealthy, they did not place themselves as too good to serve in this country, and the world’s, time of need.

I realize how long ago it was and still remember where I was, and what I was doing the day I heard Kennedy was assassinated.

It became applicable to this discussion when a poster posted about Romney’s wealth, and seem to insinuate it had some affect on him being a potential candidate. I wanted to point out that we have had many good wealthy leaders in this country because I didn’t see how Romney’s wealth would impact his qualifications. Wealth, as you remember, was discussed between the politicians in the debate.

Our discussion is over. I do not idolize any but God, and your ad hominem attack was over the line, and a false witness against me.

 

[iloveangels]

But it was fine to discuss as long as you denigrated them as not sacrificing enough in world war II.

I didn’t say they suffered anymore, or any less than any other American family of their time. I only pointed out that even though the family was extremely wealthy, they did not place themselves as too good to serve in this country, and the world’s, time of need.

I realize how long ago it was and still remember where I was, and what I was doing the day I heard Kennedy was assassinated.

It became applicable to this discussion when a poster posted about Romney’s wealth, and seem to insinuate it had some affect on him being a potential candidate. I wanted to point out that we have had many good wealthy leaders in this country because I didn’t see how Romney’s wealth would impact his qualifications. Wealth, as you remember, was discussed between the politicians in the debate.

Our discussion is over. I do not idolize any but God, and your ad hominem attack was over the line, and a false witness against me.

I remember where I was too. But the overwhelming majority of the important moments of my life have all happened since then. That’s only a historical detail and of little importance in my life compared to everything else that’s happened to me. That happened a long, long time ago.

This thread is about the election in 2012. Specifically it’s about the 2nd presidential debate. See the title of the thread.

 

[buffalo]

Clinton: I Thought Obama 'Was Going to Cry’

At a campaign event for Barack Obama’s reelection campaign, Bill Clinton said that Mitt Romney’s argument “is true, we’re not fixed”:

“Governor Romney’s argument is, we’re not fixed, so fire him and put me in,” said Clinton. “It is true we’re not fixed. When President Obama looked into the eyes of that man who said in the debate, I had so much hope four years ago and I don’t now, I thought he was going to cry. Because he knows that it’s not fixed.”

 

[iloveangels]

Clinton: I Thought Obama 'Was Going to Cry’

At a campaign event for Barack Obama’s reelection campaign, Bill Clinton said that Mitt Romney’s argument “is true, we’re not fixed”:

“Governor Romney’s argument is, we’re not fixed, so fire him and put me in,” said Clinton. “It is true we’re not fixed. When President Obama looked into the eyes of that man who said in the debate, I had so much hope four years ago and I don’t now, I thought he was going to cry. Because he knows that it’s not fixed.”

This is also linked from Real Clear Politics, and it’s on youtube.

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

But it was fine to discuss as long as you denigrated them as not sacrificing enough in world war II.

I didn’t say they suffered anymore, or any less than any other American family of their time. I only pointed out that even though the family was extremely wealthy, they did not place themselves as too good to serve in this country, and the world’s, time of need.

I realize how long ago it was and still remember where I was, and what I was doing the day I heard Kennedy was assassinated.

It became applicable to this discussion when a poster posted about Romney’s wealth, and seem to insinuate it had some affect on him being a potential candidate. ** I wanted to point out that we have had many good wealthy leaders in this country because I didn’t see how Romney’s wealth would impact his qualifications. Wealth, as you remember, was discussed between the politicians in the debate.**

Our discussion is over. I do not idolize any but God, and your ad hominem attack was over the line, and a false witness against me.

 

[St_Francis]

But you can find plenty of biased news coverage with Freepers.

I can’t figure out your issue–I’ve noticed it in other threads and I still can’t figure it out.

Free Republic is a relatively small online forum where people mostly post links to articles and discuss them. They are *openly *conservative. Not a single member claims to be “objective.”

It is not a large metropolitan newspaper like NYT, Washington Post, or magazine, like Time, nor is FR a national TV station like CNN, MSNBC, etc, nor a nationally syndicated radio news service like ABC, NPR, etc.

All of the above claim objectivity, which is ridiculous to anyone is hasn’t been dyed blue.

None of us claims objectivity–we’re not journalists–and most of us you can figure out our bias just by reading a few posts. I am not a Republican, tho I generally vote R just because I have little in the way of options, but I am definitely against the Democrats. Maybe if instead of continually asking why we can’t be more objective, you could ask us why we are not more objective? Because what you seem to be asking us to do is to set aside any of our own personal views and start commenting in a way that journalists *used *to be required or expected to do and are no longer, and we are not journalists.

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

I can’t figure out your issue–I’ve noticed it in other threads and I still can’t figure it out.

My issue, plain and simple, is seeing people use politics as a license to drop all charity, required of all believers. There are some of the meanest things said against fellow Catholics. None of us are perfect, yet some present a self righteousness over anyone that poses a different view. Even if one is in error, correction cannot be taught if it is received through veiled, or blunt, attacks, false insinuations/accusations, condescension, or any other perceived lack of charity. Some seem to desire dividing the body of Christ over politics, only that’s not being taught by the authoritative men of the Church.

We are taught to love our enemies, and we are not enemies of each other. If the election goes a way different than what we personally want, is it not possible it was Christ’s will? I have faith in God, and that His will is being done. We pray the our Father and ask His will be done on earth as it is in heaven. Who’s to say that prayer is not answered and some of us got told ‘no’? But the attacks keep on going.

Is correction being given by posting many ‘news’ links that only reflect poorly on one candidate, even though some of those ‘news’ stories are a stretch by any means? For me, there’s a fine line of malicious intent by going too far, and I believe I’ve seen that on these forums.

People can see for themselves, if we present truth through love. People are not enticed to think through something for themselves if the ‘teachers’ are not thinking things through first.

We cannot do evil to hope to have good come from it. There is no measurement of the evil that cannot be done.

I am trying to be objective about the upcoming election. I am torn between not voting, writing in a vote, and very recently have been looking at Romney very seriously. The latter keeps falling off because I fail to associate ‘good’ with how he, and his supporters, present their cases.

 

[ishii]

I am trying to be objective about the upcoming election.  I am torn between not voting, writing in a vote, and very recently have been looking at Romney very seriously.  The latter keeps falling off because I fail to associate 'good' with how he, and his supporters, present their cases.

I can understand your point. I would only hope that you look at the merits of Romney on their own, and not let slights from overzealous supporters discourage you. You need to look at the case on its own - not on how imperfectly its presented. I hope you look more closely at the prospect of four more years of Obama and what it means for the Catholic church. I hope that having looked more closely at the policies and agenda of Obama, you would look at Romney and conclude that he is not at war with the Catholic church. From there I think the decision on how to vote might be much easier.

Ishii

 

[St_Francis]

My issue, plain and simple, is seeing people use politics as a license to drop all charity, required of all believers. There are some of the meanest things said against fellow Catholics. None of us are perfect, yet some present a self righteousness over anyone that poses a different view. Even if one is in error, correction cannot be taught if it is received through veiled, or blunt, attacks, false insinuations/accusations, condescension, or any other perceived lack of charity. Some seem to desire dividing the body of Christ over politics, only that’s not being taught by the authoritative men of the Church.

We are taught to love our enemies, and we are not enemies of each other. If the election goes a way different than what we personally want, is it not possible it was Christ’s will? I have faith in God, and that His will is being done. We pray the our Father and ask His will be done on earth as it is in heaven. Who’s to say that prayer is not answered and some of us got told ‘no’? But the attacks keep on going.

Is correction being given by posting many ‘news’ links that only reflect poorly on one candidate, even though some of those ‘news’ stories are a stretch by any means? For me, there’s a fine line of malicious intent by going too far, and I believe I’ve seen that on these forums.

People can see for themselves, if we present truth through love. People are not enticed to think through something for themselves if the ‘teachers’ are not thinking things through first.

We cannot do evil to hope to have good come from it. There is no measurement of the evil that cannot be done.

I am trying to be objective about the upcoming election. I am torn between not voting, writing in a vote, and very recently have been looking at Romney very seriously. The latter keeps falling off because I fail to associate ‘good’ with how he, and his supporters, present their cases.

I second Ishii’s comment.

Most of your posts that i was questioning seemed to revolve around national unity and the evil of partisanship, not a lack of charity (except for that one about Steyn’s article). That’s what I was trying to sort out.

 

[Scott_Lafrance]

Even though JFK was not ‘self made’, he paid his dues in his serving this country prior to his political aspirations.

Obama served his country by showing low income people how to blackmail banks into forcing them to underwrite mortgages for people who didn’t qualify.

 

[markomalley]

I can’t figure out your issue–I’ve noticed it in other threads and I still can’t figure it out.

Free Republic is a relatively small online forum where people mostly post links to articles and discuss them. They are *openly *conservative. Not a single member claims to be “objective.”

It is not a large metropolitan newspaper like NYT, Washington Post, or magazine, like Time, nor is FR a national TV station like CNN, MSNBC, etc, nor a nationally syndicated radio news service like ABC, NPR, etc.

All of the above claim objectivity, which is ridiculous to anyone is hasn’t been dyed blue.

None of us claims objectivity–we’re not journalists–and most of us you can figure out our bias just by reading a few posts. I am not a Republican, tho I generally vote R just because I have little in the way of options, but I am definitely against the Democrats. Maybe if instead of continually asking why we can’t be more objective, you could ask us why we are not more objective? Because what you seem to be asking us to do is to set aside any of our own personal views and start commenting in a way that journalists *used *to be required or expected to do and are no longer, and we are not journalists.

The key question is if there is going to be a repeat of a vigil like happened in 2000:
NB: Freepers
But Tuesday night, the scene outside Gore’s residence was raucous. Bush supporters honked their horns and called for him to bring an end to the election controversy.

“Five to four, no more Gore!” Bush supporters chanted in reference to the Supreme Court decision. “Concede now! Concede now!”

Bush supporters also appeared to have fun taunting Gore, standing outside the residence and calling on him to start packing his bags and relinquish the keys to the man they want as its new resident: Bush running mate Dick Cheney.

“Get out of Cheney’s house! Get out of Cheney’s house!” they chanted.

 

[Tampa_Dave]

The key question is if there is going to be a repeat of a vigil like happened in 2000:
NB: Freepers
But Tuesday night, the scene outside Gore’s residence was raucous. Bush supporters honked their horns and called for him to bring an end to the election controversy.

“Five to four, no more Gore!” Bush supporters chanted in reference to the Supreme Court decision. “Concede now! Concede now!”

Bush supporters also appeared to have fun taunting Gore, standing outside the residence and calling on him to start packing his bags and relinquish the keys to the man they want as its new resident: Bush running mate Dick Cheney.

“Get out of Cheney’s house! Get out of Cheney’s house!” they chanted.

From www.examiner.com, this is what we are already seeing:

Romney death threats, riot warnings worry Republicans

Despite the majority of news media outlets ignoring the story, a law enforcement source claims that the Tweets by Obama supporters calling for the murder – assassination – of Mitt Romney increased in their numbers and in their severity after Tuesday night’s presidential debate. Other supporters are threatening civil unrest in U.S. cities should Obama lose the White House.

The police source said that it’s widely known in the law enforcement and intelligence communities that President Barack Obama’s rabid supporters say they will kill GOP presidential candidate Mitt Romney if he defeats Obama in the election less than three weeks away. Many believe they are empty threats, but remain concerned.

 

[vz71]

https://sphotos-b.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-prn1/s480x480/65394_393050230763196_1956146296_n.jpg

No, I don’t have four thumbs.
My wife agrees too.