Well its Started, The C word has entered the Presidential

[_Hoops]

I tend to think of it as being prone to making irrational decisions based on myth and/or dogma rather than being open to facts.

That certainly is your right. You are certainly free to base your decisions on whatever you wish and I don't care how you do it. I do care, however, what those decisions are. You seem to have a different view based on the above. In other words, what difference does it make how decisions are generated, if they are good ones?

The truth is, in my opinion, we all are prone to doing this but some are more vested in predetermined conditions than others. If one, for example, inherently believes that homosexuality is a vile sin by nature, one is prone to make certain policy decisions based on that belief.

Using your example, the same one who believes this, would also tend to believe that governments are instituted by God and that we are required to participate, lead, and defend that government. (of course, and rightly so, you can cite unjust and cruel governments, but that's another discussion)

My concerns seem evident in every Republican debate I've watched so far.

I haven't noticed. Perhaps you could cite an example? Why is it so difficult for you to believe that while a candidate may disagree with an expressed lifestyle, that same candidate can apply the laws fairly to those same people? One can certainly have the same misgivings about liberals and religious people, but we generally don't.

To me, there is a qualitative difference between "values and principles" and moral beliefs. I think the best way to differentiate is that values such as courage, respect, integrity, and compassion transcend religious views. An agnostic or atheist can have all of the above in spades as can a Christian, Muslim, Jew, Buddhist, etc., etc., etc.

Certainly. Keeping this as a political discussion, others may not make the same distinctions as you. Thereby, moral beliefs and values are equivalent. Does that make them "less" in any way?

The moral beliefs question is another matter entirely. I think it is best differentiated by the tendency of such to be associated with a narrowly defined given cultural set of norms and values.

Well, given that, often, these moral beliefs are taken from the same source, that is reasonable. Does that make having these norms and values wrong?

When a candidate for high office exhibits a narrow interpretation of the latter, they remove themselves from my consideration of voting for them. It doesn't matter much what label one gives to their narrow range of self-identifying "purity traits". Atheists of this bent not excluded.

That's fine. But I accuse you of cherry picking. The candidate may have those narrow values, but the same candidate may also narrowly define "freedom" in such a way that benefits you - and a member of those groups you mentioned above - the most profoundly. In fact, I would say that often occurs. Frankly, it's the wishy-washy middle that gives me the most discomfort. At least with President Obama, I have a good idea what I'm getting. With Huntsman, Romney, and Perry, one can never be sure on what ground he's willing to firmly stand.

[Guest]

I'm curious what this has to do with anything, so I'll answer.

Truthfully, I brought it up as something specific to talk about rather than continue to vaguely characterize liberals and conservatives as ridiculous or whatever the term used might have been.

I'd like to come back to this one quickly -

• Preventing children with pre-existing conditions from being excluded from their parent's health care plan. This is including having a disability

Assuming facts not in evidence.

By this, I'm guessing you question that current insurance policies would exclude children with preexisting conditions from being enrolled on their parents health care plans? If so, perhaps this would be worth perusing - Convering Preexisting Conditions

I was also curious if you could elaborate on this?

As someone who has to pay for health care, I wonder how your values align with this? -

• Requiring that 80 cents of every dollar in premiums from individuals and small employers be spent on medical care. (Reread that one. It seldom gets talked about and is one of the reasons some people will never call this bill by it's real name - ObamaCare helps focus the mind on ObamatheAnti-Christ rather than protecting patients and providing affordable health care)

Against it.

When you say you are against this, why and what do you think is the better alternative?

Oh, and which policies in particular do you disagree with, if I may ask?

Thanks.

ETA - fixed hanging quote tag

[_honorentheos]

Frankly, it's the wishy-washy middle that gives me the most discomfort. At least with President Obama, I have a good idea what I'm getting. With Huntsman, Romney, and Perry, one can never be sure on what ground he's willing to firmly stand.

Interesting, given that Obama (the person who has actually signed bills into law and worked to help influence the writing of those laws) is possibly the most centrist, moderate President we've had in a very, very long time. There are myths about him out there that depend on ones POV. If one is an extreme liberal, one tends to see him as a (r)epublican, while the Republicans seem to want to declare him a socialist.

The man is the exact opposite of GWB not because he's a bleeding heart liberal, but because he is someone who wants to compromise to get results. Look at his bills, his approach to health care and Wall Street reform. Or the Jobs Bill he is currently pushing. When someone calls him a republican in sheeps clothing from the left or a socialist from the right, it tells me that person is not looking at Obama in the context of National Political Identity but is instead simply defining him in a pejorative manner because he happens to be more than a few degrees closer to reasonable that that particular individual in question might be willing to accept.

[_honorentheos]

. You seem to have a different view based on the above. In other words, what difference does it make how decisions are generated, if they are good ones?

Here lies the rub - how does one determine a decision is a "good" one?

For me, what matters is how I think a person would answer the question as much as try and answer it myself.

Oh, and to kill as many birds with one stone from the post as I can, here is an example from the debates to consider - Gays want special privileges in military

Bad answer, Rick Santorum. Bad answer.

Or this one - Capitalism is about risk

Before you think that Paul gave a good answer, go back and read the 2008 article from the Washington Post I linked to in the first ACA post. It's BS. If it were true, we wouldn't have needed health care reform. It's an example of how an ideology may sound good, but it wasn't true in 2008 and it won't be true in 2013. It's BS being labeled as freedom.

There's more, but these are a couple of the more explicit examples of what I considered bad decision making potential on display during the debates.

[_Hoops]

Here lies the rub - how does one determine a decision is a "good" one?

Of course. That's the key question. I don't see any other way for one to decided this other than determining if a "good decision" coincides or supports what one values. Things like justice, honesty, compassion, there's more... you get the idea.

For me, what matters is how I think a person would answer the question as much as try and answer it myself.

That's reasonable.

[_Hoops]

Bad answer, Rick Santorum. Bad answer.

Why?

[_Hoops]

Before you think that Paul gave a good answer, go back and read the 2008 article from the Washington Post I linked to in the first ACA post.

I did.

It's BS. If it were true, we wouldn't have needed health care reform. It's an example of how an ideology may sound good, but it wasn't true in 2008 and it won't be true in 2013. It's BS being labeled as freedom.

Why?

[_Hoops]

Interesting, given that Obama (the person who has actually signed bills into law and worked to help influence the writing of those laws) is possibly the most centrist, moderate President we've had in a very, very long time.

He is not.

There are myths about him out there that depend on ones POV. If one is an extreme liberal, one tends to see him as a (r)epublican, while the Republicans seem to want to declare him a socialist.

You've set up false choices. Note how you've used the labels "extreme liberal" and "Republican".

The man is the exact opposite of GWB

Meaningless. You first have to define GWB, which is difficult to do, if possible at all.

not because he's a bleeding heart liberal, but because he is someone who wants to compromise to get results.

You'll have to show me within the bills you've cited below where he compromosed. What about "health care" and "wall street reform", buzz words that sets up, purposefully, false choices. If one is against Obama's health care reform, they are against health care. Same for wall street reform.

Look at his bills, his approach to health care and Wall Street reform.

Or the Jobs Bill he is currently pushing.

Yes, let's look at it.

When someone calls him a republican in sheeps clothing from the left or a socialist from the right, it tells me that person is not looking at Obama in the context of National Political Identity but is instead simply defining him in a pejorative manner because he happens to be more than a few degrees closer to reasonable that that particular individual in question might be willing to accept.

Okay, but how is this germane to this discussion?

Nevertheless, I would call him simply incompetent. He is incompetent in not knowing what he is trying to do, how to do it, and to surround himself with people who can accomplish these things. He was, generously (one could argue he was disengenuous, rather than incompetent), incompetent as a campaigner, and he is incompetent as a leader. As a campaigner, he promised things he knew he could not deliver (gitmo, ending the war(s), military commissions act, and a host of others). As a leader... well, i don't know that anyone is sure what he's trying to do He is rhetorician, and not much more.

Finally, citing the health care bill as an example of centrism is ridiculous. this bill was passed with no opposition support nor influence. It was passed with little congressional debate, and no republicans voted for it (as I recall, certainly the number was not significant).

[Guest]

Baptist Pastor Defends 'Cult' Description of Mormonism

Jeffress mentioned the word "cult" in referring to Romney's religion when he spoke to reporters after introducing Perry on stage. The comment drew a strong rebuke from conservative icon Bill Bennett and disavowal from Perry's campaign.

But after considerable backlash, Jeffress stood by his definition on Sunday, saying the Southern Baptist Convention deems Mormonism a "cult," though he distinguishes between a "sociological" cult and a "theological" one.

Mormons have "never been considered a part of mainstream Christianity," Jeffress told Fox News. "Mormonism was invented 1800 years after Jesus Christ and the founding of Christianity, and it has its own founder, Joseph Smith, its own set of doctrines and its own book, the Book of Mormon. And that, by definition, is a theological cult, that's all I'm saying."

Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2011/10 ... z1aIlxvKkG

I would like to hear how the believers on this board would defend the LDS Church in light of Jeffress' fact based statements.

[_honorentheos]

Bad answer, Rick Santorum. Bad answer.

Why?

Let's examine what was said.

QUESTION: In 2010, when I was deployed to Iraq, I had to lie about who I was, because I'm a gay soldier, and I didn't want to lose my job.

My question is, under one of your presidencies, do you intend to circumvent the progress that's been made for gay and lesbian soldiers in the military?

(END VIDEO CLIP)

(BOOING)

SANTORUM: Yeah, I -- I would say, any type of sexual activity has absolutely no place in the military. And the fact that they're making a point to include it as a provision within the military that we are going to recognize a group of people and give them a special privilege to -- to -- and removing "don't ask/don't tell" I think tries to inject social policy into the military. And the military's job is to do one thing, and that is to defend our country.

We need to give the military, which is all-volunteer, the ability to do so in a way that is most efficient at protecting our men and women in uniform.

(APPLAUSE)

And I believe this undermines that ability.

(APPLAUSE)

KELLY: So what -- what -- what would you do with soldiers like Stephen Hill? I mean, he's -- now he's out. He's -- you know, you saw his face on camera. When he first submitted this video to us, it was without his face on camera. Now he's out. So what would you do as president?

SANTORUM: I think it's -- it's -- it's -- look, what we're doing is playing social experimentation with -- with our military right now. And that's tragic.

I would -- I would just say that, going forward, we would -- we would reinstitute that policy, if Rick Santorum was president, period.

That policy would be reinstituted. And as far as people who are in -- in -- I would not throw them out, because that would be unfair to them because of the policy of this administration, but we would move forward in -- in conformity with what was happening in the past, which was, sex is not an issue. It is -- it should not be an issue. Leave it alone, keep it -- keep it to yourself, whether you're a heterosexual or a homosexual.

(APPLAUSE)

Breaking it down, we have Santorum tell us, immediately, he doesn't understand the issue -

"I would say, any type of sexual activity has absolutely no place in the military. And the fact that they're making a point to include it as a provision within the military that we are going to recognize a group of people and give them a special privilege to -- to -- "

WTF is he trying to say there? That by repealing don't ask, don't tell the white house has initiated mandatory gay orgies? That homosexuality is best defined as an act, not as a state of being?

If you are familiar at all with the issues that surrounded racial integration and the military, you should see parallel fallacies in Santorum's mind set. It's bigotry and ignorance writ large and on full display.

Perhaps it would help illuminate the issue if you replaced "sexuality" and "gays" with "religion" and "Christianity" and asked yourself if his answer even remotely reflected what it would mean to you if you were a Christian soldier who was forced to hide your Christianity in order to serve your country.

It's a terrible answer, and it is a prime example of how certain worldviews become evident in political candidates. I don't disparage Rick Santorum for his religious views and in fact am not sure what they may be. But I do see in his response a mindset that is not fit to occupy the highest political office in our nation.