Presidential Froum at Saddleback Church

[Talbaz]

so noticed no topic yet so who watched ?
what are your thoughts on what was said?

MSNBC
CNN
FOX

Edit:add links to summary for those that miss it have msnbc fox and cnn take your pick

[Vequor]

McCain when asked who rich people are, said those making 6mil and up.

[Thanatos]

Could have gone, decided not to waste my time, had a feeling I'd know what was going to be said by both sides that was already said a billion times before..

[Talbaz]

people must not care or something:hmmm:

[Thanatos]

people must not care or something:hmmm:

It's pointless, both politicians just keep repeating themselves like parrots, nothing we haven't seen before already.

[Blau&Gruen]

So noticed no topic yet so who watched?

Me, twice.

What are your thoughts on what was said?

I have enjoyed it quite a lot. Two good guys.

[Каие]

Ok, so two politicians are courting Christian voters by promising them Christian things and simply repeating stereotyped democrat and republican views? No need to watch we get that every single day.

[Blau&Gruen]

Of course they walk in the frame they owe their voters. It is interesting what questions have not been in the focus of the talk. Economy has hardly played a role.

[Thanatos]

Of course they walk in the frame they owe their voters. It is interesting what questions have not been in the focus of the talk. Economy has hardly played a role.

Dig deep enough, and you see what they're truly made of. And if people knew that, they'd be too horrified to vote.

[kev-o]

I watched it and I thought it was done really well. Rick Warren asked straight up questions to both Obama and McCain and they gave straight answers.

[kev-o]

Of course they walk in the frame they owe their voters. It is interesting what questions have not been in the focus of the talk. Economy has hardly played a role.

Well Rick Warren did say that he had over 500 questions. Kinda hard to ask them all and expect a quick and detailed response in the span of two hours.

[Thanatos]

Well Rick Warren did say that he had over 500 questions. Kinda hard to ask them all and expect a quick and detailed response in the span of two hours.

Then they should have covered less topics, but have each be in more detail.

[kev-o]

Then people will start moaning on how they didn't cover this that and the other. I think this was done a much better job than the YouTube debates (even though this was a Q&A).

[Каие]

It seems people care more about tiny irrelevant religious bull, like gay rights and abortion, then of the economy, their jobs, global stability, global warming. Unless said things have something to do with the church, such as the fight against evil Islam. Its funny, the churches declare harming the environment a sin, yet everyone ignores them, i guess not enough profit.

[Mikelus Trento]

I turned it off as soon as I realized they were not going to be on the same stage. It was nothing more than a longer than average 60 Minutes interview moderated by a preacher.

When they go mano y mano is what I want to see.

[Viking Prince]

It seems people care more about tiny irrelevant religious bull, like gay rights and abortion,

And this is wrong in what manner? People are individuals and with their own minds. A great many people care about a lot of stuff that does not become an issue with me. So what?

...then of the economy, their jobs, global stability, global warming.

No basis for this. Just because things were discussed that you do not think important enough and other items are not covered does not mean anything. These were the choices of the modeator/questioner and not necessarilly his opinion of importance.

...Unless said things have something to do with the church, such as the fight against evil Islam. Its funny, the churches declare harming the environment a sin, yet everyone ignores them, i guess not enough profit.

no comment.

It is important to remember, the country is big and there are many people wanting a huge variety of positions and stands from our future president. This does not mean they will get the attention of the president after election. Also -- certain issues need to be dealt with, but no politician will discuss them in a serious manner in an election campaign, such as social security. This does not mean the issue is unimportant, only divisive.

Global warming is also such an issue -- those who believe it to be a problem which is fixable by man are already persuaded. They will not vote for a politican who wants to compromise. Those who do not believe in the issue in this manner want the politican to ignore the issue completely. Any politican loses votes by simply bringing the topic up.

[Каие]

And this is wrong in what manner? People are individuals and with their own minds. A great many people care about a lot of stuff that does not become an issue with me. So what?

Just don't try to rule the world, then. We don;t share priorities.

No basis for this. Just because things were discussed that you do not think important enough and other items are not covered does not mean anything. These were the choices of the modeator/questioner and not necessarilly his opinion of importance.

In my Country, abortion and Gay rights are not even campaign topics, or in manifestos, never mind having their own platforms.

Global warming is also such an issue -- those who believe it to be a problem which is fixable by man are already persuaded. They will not vote for a politican who wants to compromise. Those who do not believe in the issue in this manner want the politican to ignore the issue completely. Any politican loses votes by simply bringing the topic up.

That shows hypocrisy, it seems abortion is an excuse to bash libs, and promiscuous people, and gay rights simply homophobic disguised by the church 'will'. Yet global warming also a church issue now, it is simply ignored.

[Viking Prince]

Just don't try to rule the world, then. We don;t share priorities.

This comment relates how? We are talking about the Senators McCain and Obama in their back to back interviews, correct?

In my Country, abortion and Gay rights are not even campaign topics, or in manifestos, never mind having their own platforms.

That is fine. No problem with what is considered a political question in your country. And this means these should not be political questions in the USA?

That shows hypocrisy, it seems abortion is an excuse to bash libs, and promiscuous people, and gay rights simply homophobic disguised by the church 'will'. Yet global warming also a church issue now, it is simply ignored.

You may have differant beliefs, but that does not make those you disagree with hypocrites. Is the use of hypocrosy an attempt to cut off discussion?

Most churches do not bash liberals nor conservatives. Most churches and religious people have positions on certain activites -- not the same as bashing groups. There are unfortunately exceptions.

Opposition to the gay "agenda" is not homophobic. Is this an attempt to cut off discussion?

If you believe that the sex act itself is a part of creation and that any attempt to interrupt the process is a sin -- this is not an "excuse to bash..." Global warming in itself is not a sin -- any irrevocable damage to the world by man is. We are stewards and not owners with no responsibilities. You still need to answer the question of whether global warming is caused by or correctable by man.

Also -- not all sins are the same.

[Каие]

This comment relates how? We are talking about the Senators McCain and Obama in their back to back interviews, correct?

That is fine. No problem with what is considered a political question in your country. And this means these should not be political questions in the USA?

If the USA minded its own business, but does not. It chooses, along with our fellow American forum members, to dictate what morals are, what democracy is, what western society is. So the fact some of your most important issues are abortion and gay people, its just something which we don;t wish to import.

You may have differant beliefs, but that does not make those you disagree with hypocrites. Is the use of hypocrosy an attempt to cut off discussion?

You mustn't have read my post, i didn't say those who disagree with me are hypocrites. I described an element of hypocrisy then proved it. My personal viewon Abortions and Gay rights may actually surprise you. But i don;t believe in the way these issues are treated in politics.

[Big War Bird]

Did anyone see Obama stopping himself from saying Clarence Thomas didn't have enough experience to be a Supreme Court Justice.

Obama on Clarence Thomas
August 18, 2008

Barack Obama likes to portray himself as a centrist politician who wants to unite the country, but occasionally his postpartisan mask slips. That was the case at Saturday night's Saddleback Church forum, when Mr. Obama chose to demean Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas.

Pastor Rick Warren asked each Presidential candidate which Justices he would not have nominated. Mr. McCain said, "with all due respect" the four most liberal sitting Justices because of his different judicial philosophy.

Mr. Obama took a lower road, replying first that "that's a good one," and then adding that "I would not have nominated Clarence Thomas. I don't think that he, I don't think that he was a strong enough jurist or legal thinker at the time for that elevation. Setting aside the fact that I profoundly disagree with his interpretation of a lot of the Constitution." The Democrat added that he also wouldn't have appointed Antonin Scalia, and perhaps not John Roberts, though he assured the audience that at least they were smart enough for the job.

So let's see. By the time he was nominated, Clarence Thomas had worked in the Missouri Attorney General's office, served as an Assistant Secretary of Education, run the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission and sat for a year on the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals, the nation's second most prominent court. Since his "elevation" to the High Court in 1991, he has also shown himself to be a principled and scholarly jurist.

Meanwhile, as he bids to be America's Commander in Chief, Mr. Obama isn't yet four years out of the Illinois state Senate, has never held a hearing of note of his U.S. Senate subcommittee, and had an unremarkable record as both a "community organizer" and law school lecturer. Justice Thomas's judicial credentials compare favorably to Mr. Obama's Presidential résumé by any measure. And when it comes to rising from difficult circumstances, Justice Thomas's rural Georgian upbringing makes Mr. Obama's story look like easy street.

Even more troubling is what the Illinois Democrat's answer betrays about his political habits of mind. Asked a question he didn't expect at a rare unscripted event, the rookie candidate didn't merely say he disagreed with Justice Thomas. Instead, he instinctively reverted to the leftwing cliché that the Court's black conservative isn't up to the job while his white conservative colleagues are.

So much for civility in politics and bringing people together. And no wonder Mr. Obama's advisers have refused invitations for more such open forums, preferring to keep him in front of a teleprompter, where he won't let slip what he really believes.

Source