Thread: The Palin debate

Originally Posted by Ray

I would not know how the US address Christian morals, but in India, if a anyone, be she of any religious order, will never be able to live down the fact that she was immoral in having extra marital sex.

It is not that it does not happen in India, but such a person and her family will never live down the shame. And Christians, would find it quite disgraceful and shameful and never wear it on the sleeve as a badge of honour!

I am not sitting on judgement, I am merely stating how Indian Christians would take this thing as an affront to the religious edicts!

But then India is not the US!

I understand what you mean.
The situation, and how you explained above, reenforces the meaning of the phrase, "Only in America."

Originally Posted by Mangolassi

It is short sighted, drilling is just an aspect of an probable sollution it's not the core of the sollution. The Republicans are just trying to cure the symptomes of the problems instead of really solving the problem. The real issue is that there will be a world energy problem. Drilling for more oil isn't the answer, the answer is alternative energy sources. What will the Republicans do to stimulate R&D on that topic?

Why is it the government's job to stimulate R&D in this area? Why is it the government's job to pick and choose which alternative fuel to research? Who gets to make that choice? Why does this person get to pump billions of dollars into a certain sector of the economy?

Originally Posted by Mangolassi

What will McCain do to prefent another credit crisis?

Greenspan should have raised interest rate 4 years ago instead of 2. Meanwhile, let a few people go bankrupt and they'll learn. The worst thing to do is to bail them out.

Originally Posted by Mangolassi

They keep on talking that's a dangerous world and that McCain will be the right guy to lead them in a crisis. But the real crisis isn't Iraq or Iran at the moment, the real crisis is the credit crisis. We're all feeling the effects of the stupidity started in the U.S. How many U.S. dollars is the Iraq war costing?

I don't know. You tell me. And I'll tell you that we're spending $2 trillion a year on non-war related stuff.

Originally Posted by Mangolassi

What is the result? Will the Iraqi's suddenly say, wel hey democracy is a great thing. Shia and Sunni difference doesn't matter anymore let's just get along?

Maybe. Maybe not. Have you tried? Will Obama even give them a chance?

Originally Posted by Mangolassi

The world is alot more complicated then the Republicans suggest in their oneliners.

Yes, and Obama wants to unilaterally invade Pakistan to go after Osama. Is Osama there? Who says he's there? The same intelligence agencies that believed Iraq had "stockpiles of WMD?"

Originally Posted by ShawnG

I understand what you mean.
The situation, and how you explained above, reenforces the meaning of the phrase, "Only in America."

Maybe.

But we look upon the US as the ideal figure to emulate!

Today's youth in India have replaced English ideals for American and also the accent and other things!

But thank heavens in religion, it is not changing to make life disastrous and confusing where a scoundrel tasered is immoral and illegitimate sex is 5 star heroics!

I am no longer a Christian, but I stand by Christian values without being a bigot!

That is why the hypocrisy bristles.

Originally Posted by Ray

I would not know how the US address Christian morals, but in India, if a anyone, be she of any religious order, will never be able to live down the fact that she was immoral in having extra marital sex.

It is not that it does not happen in India, but such a person and her family will never live down the shame. And Christians, would find it quite disgraceful and shameful and never wear it on the sleeve as a badge of honour!

Brigadier,

How would you then explain the continued sexual abuse of Dalit women by upper caste Indian men? Or is there a double standard between men and women or upper caste men and untouchable women?

Originally Posted by tim52

Brigadier,

How would you then explain the continued sexual abuse of Dalit women by upper caste Indian men? Or is there a double standard between men and women or upper caste men and untouchable women?

Sweetheart,

You were standing there when that was done?

Upper Caste?

We have a more stringent law about Untouchable than your Affirmative action.

I have commanded Untouchables as you so quaintly put it. There were high caste officers and they ate and lived with them.

Which world are you living in?

An untouchable (as you so cutely put it) Chief Minister has been rated in an US poll as more powerful than Sonia Gandhi (A Catholic!).

Please desist with your western propaganda material!

Let not anyone say I am browbeating you. Please give facts and not total fiction and I will answer.

Yes, there is a caste differential in some of the archaic states, but their Chief Ministers are from the "untouchable" caste and isn't it interesting that they do damn all about it? It is all about power and blackmail of inequality. Keep this inequality up in the show window, it gets you funds from bleeding hearts foreigners and intelligence agents as also give you the vote bank.

Read more into the issue that the glib statements!

Tim,

I was accused of bringing in Kashmir in this debate, so can we leave India alone.

It is a shithole, if you wish!

I am looking at the Presidential election of the USA.

Much is being touted how Plaian is holier than thou Christian and an All American Mother and such like and what an evangelist she is!

My idea of evangelist is that person has to be a true Christian. Is she? A Mother who has no influence on her child and who begets an illegitimate child herself, is, to my mind a departure from Christian values, let alone being an evangelist!!

Is not being able to inculcate true Christian values the All American Mom?

So, why pander to such falsehood and be ridiculed?

Let me assure you rape is an universal phenomenon (or does it not happen in the USA?) and the carnal desires do not correspond to one's birth and station!

Like Rodney King makes news so does a Dalit!

To quote Parihaka, does that mean that all are the same?

Originally Posted by ShawnG

Everyone is being fed the rhetoric, "Obama will lower taxes for the middle class", claiming that the middle 80% of taxpayers will see a decrease. Is there any plausability? And how would that potentially effect our economy?
Generally I believe that Obama is full of crap, but I don't always understand "what's good" and "what's bad." when it comes to particulars.

Obama has clearly stated that he intends to let the Bush tax cuts expire, which can be interpreted as a tax increase on EVERYONE or not, depending on how twisty you want to be. But he's also been quite clear on raising the corporate income tax, raising taxes on "big oil", and on "the rich".

-dale

Originally Posted by Ray

Tim,
My idea of evangelist is that person has to be a true Christian. Is she? A Mother who has no influence on her child and who begets an illegitimate child herself, is, to my mind a departure from Christian values, let alone being an evangelist!!

Sir
I may have misunderstood the highlighted statement above, but ;
Sarah Palin married on 29 August 1988 and gave birth to her first child on 20 April 1989. Actually, right on track for being a "honeymoon" baby.

Influence can only go so far with rebellious tendencies. Peer pressure, freedom of expression, freedom of choice, and the influences that America's youth are exposed to completely change the facets of how to raise a child with good values. It's the mother's duty to influence, yes. But virtually impossible to force a child to do the right thing. Her daughter made a poor choice, and the situation is being rectified. If she departed from christian values as you say she did, there would be an abortion, no?

Originally Posted by ShawnG

Sir
I may have misunderstood the highlighted statement above, but ;
Sarah Palin married on 29 August 1988 and gave birth to her first child on 20 April 1989. Actually, right on track for being a "honeymoon" baby.

Influence can only go so far with rebellious tendencies. Peer pressure, freedom of expression, freedom of choice, and the influences that America's youth are exposed to completely change the facets of how to raise a child with good values. It's the mother's duty to influence, yes. But virtually impossible to force a child to do the right thing. Her daughter made a poor choice, and the situation is being rectified. If she departed from christian values as you say she did, there would be an abortion, no?

Shawn G,

It is not about the VP nominee. Her child could be premature. So, we can't stand on judgement.

I am talking about her daughter, her illegitimate child and her proposed shotgun marriage in the offing!

From what I understand from this Forum of western family values, such issues are perfectly normal and acceptable.

But, with all due regards to those who may report me to the Moderators so that I am hounded, I most humbly suggest that the interpretation of Christianity is not the sole prerogative of the US morals. I beseech forgiveness if I have transcended my brief!

Christianity is an universal religion beyond interpretation of social values of any country. As I understand Christianity, when I was within the flock, extra martial sex is immoral. Am I wrong? Was the Christianity I was taught laced with pagan Indian values? The pagan Indians of all religious beliefs too do not welcome immorality in sex and illegitimate children or pre marital sex!

If the US concept of Christianity has the same value as Christianity elsewhere, then all this hoop la of being a Family person, evangelist, true Christian etc should be canned since such proclamation is an insult to Jesus and Christians worldwide. Christians around the world, beyond the US, will be lampooned if such blasphemous assertions are made.

Please understand, there are Christians beyond the shores of the US, who are not the majority and if such ridiculous ideal are upheld of true Christians, they will be left as Babes in the wood.

Please think of them too!


I also don't understand as to how been tasered is more immoral than bearing illegitimate children!

Odd values!

Originally Posted by dalem

Obama has clearly stated that he intends to let the Bush tax cuts expire, which can be interpreted as a tax increase on EVERYONE or not, depending on how twisty you want to be. But he's also been quite clear on raising the corporate income tax, raising taxes on "big oil", and on "the rich".

-dale

That's where I was lost. I understood the taxing of the "rich", but failed to read between the lines with relating Bush taxes expiring : taxes increasing.

Thanks Dale

Originally Posted by Ray

Shawn G,

It is not about the VP nominee. Her child could be premature. So, we can't stand on judgement.

I am talking about her daughter, her illegitimate child and her proposed shotgun marriage in the offing!

From what I understand from this Forum of western family values, such issues are perfectly normal and acceptable.

But, with all due regards to those who may report me to the Moderators so that I am hounded, I most humbly suggest that the interpretation of Christianity is not the sole prerogative of the US morals. I beseech forgiveness if I have transcended my brief!

Christianity is an universal religion beyond interpretation of social values of any country. As I understand Christianity, when I was within the flock, extra martial sex is immoral. Am I wrong? Was the Christianity I was taught laced with pagan Indian values?

No sir, you are absolutely correct. The interpretation of Christianity is not the sole perogative of the US morals. And thank you for clearing up the statement not being about the VP, I did misread initially.

However, I ask, do you feel it is appropriate for the poor decision of the teenager (17 is considered an adult in most places other than the US) to be attributed to poor parenting/moral upbringing? Or should it be attributed to the rebellious nature and lack of respect for moral values of the individual who actually made the mistake?

Irresponsible as the act was, I don't think it relates to Sarah Palin's character or ability to function as a leader at all. The true judgement of character, I believe, can be found in how she handles the aftermath of the mistake made, that was arguably not directly under her control.

Reference the highlight in bold above: Sadly, Yes.

Originally Posted by ShawnG

That's where I was lost. I understood the taxing of the "rich", but failed to read between the lines with relating Bush taxes expiring : taxes increasing.

Thanks Dale

There are more fine lines to read.

In an interview with ABC's Charlie Gibson, hardly a rightwing hack, Obama was forced to outline his tax policies. Gibson pinned Obama by saying increase of taxes doesn't lead to increase in tax revenue. Obama said he wants to increase taxes not to increase revenues but to be "fair" because top 50 hedgefund managers made $29 billion last year. Obama said he would increase capital gains tax (not income tax) from the current 15% to 28% during the height of the Clinton era. He wants to punish 50 people by increasing taxes on 100 million people who own stocks in the United States. Talk about throwing the baby out with the bath water.

Obama is correct in saying he won't increase income tax on "working" Americans. He'll just increase capital gains tax.

gunnut,

Gibson pinned Obama by saying increase of taxes doesn't lead to increase in tax revenue. Obama said he wants to increase taxes not to increase revenues but to be "fair" because top 50 hedgefund managers made $29 billion last year. Obama said he would increase capital gains tax (not income tax) from the current 15% to 28% during the height of the Clinton era. He wants to punish 50 people by increasing taxes on 100 million people who own stocks in the United States. Talk about throwing the baby out with the bath water.

talk about idiocy on both sides. increasing taxes DOES increase tax revenue. however, the question of "fairness" is also stupid, because the increase does nothing to address the underlying issue of educational differences that power this.

had obama made the case (as mccain did, but unfortunately not anymore) that we could cut down on the federal deficit by using the taxes gained from reverting to clinton-era rates, that would be persuasive. he doesn't.

Originally Posted by gunnut

There are more fine lines to read.

In an interview with ABC's Charlie Gibson, hardly a rightwing hack, Obama was forced to outline his tax policies. Gibson pinned Obama by saying increase of taxes doesn't lead to increase in tax revenue. Obama said he wants to increase taxes not to increase revenues but to be "fair" because top 50 hedgefund managers made $29 billion last year. Obama said he would increase capital gains tax (not income tax) from the current 15% to 28% during the height of the Clinton era. He wants to punish 50 people by increasing taxes on 100 million people who own stocks in the United States. Talk about throwing the baby out with the bath water.

Obama is correct in saying he won't increase income tax on "working" Americans. He'll just increase capital gains tax.

Participation in these forums should be worth college credit.