Saddleback Forum

Exactly: Which explains the Republican and Democratic divide as to who did a better job at Saddleback--succinct and simple answers appeal to the Republicans (all black and white); detailed, big picture thinking appeals to the Democrats (includes important shades of gray).

The great enemy of clear language is insincerity. When there is a gap between one's real and one's declared aims, one turns as it were instinctively to long words and exhausted idioms, like a cuttlefish spurting out ink.

George Orwell

I am really wondering if the SoWal political forum watched any of this well put together approach to questions Americans on both sides of the aisle have on their minds. It was a good performance by both candidates. I think it is obvious to anyone who watched the whole forum that McCain had the most succinct and precise answers to the questions asked of both candidates. I feel this is so, because for one thing, the silence from the left, usually present on this board, has been deafening. Cat got your tongue?

No cat on my tongue, just a bad taste. I think the answer to why the Dems just didn't jump on this thread and engage with you can be found in these 2 posts!!:lol:

Here's my take- if you are McCain supporter, you thought McCain rocked.

If you are an Obama supporter, you thought he was fantastic. Obama answered the questions exactly the way I hoped he would.

Duh.

Don't think we are going to find anyone on this forum thinking that their candidate did not do well.:roll: I need to go back and look at their outfits- maybe I can find something interesting in what they were wearing, since this Saddleback forum was completely predictable in the questions and responses from both candidates.

The great enemy of clear language is insincerity. When there is a gap between one's real and one's declared aims, one turns as it were instinctively to long words and exhausted idioms, like a cuttlefish spurting out ink.

George Orwell

Fine, lets then just throw in the towel, and put up with another repeat of 4 years of the GW Bush type "clarity" of both speech, AND intent." See where that got us all.

Succinct answers woo concrete thinkers. Prolonged answers appeal to those who think abstractly. The point of the exercise was for McCain to solidify the concrete thinkers' vote. I'm pretty sure Obama wanted people to see him answering questions about religion without invoking Allah's name. What else is there to discuss?

You hit it. McCain was concrete in his answers. Obama was absstract in his. Sorry, I don't want someone who thinks in th abstract for my president. My opinion, only of course, but in the world as it is now we need someone who is definite in their actions and I don't mean "knee jerk". Abstract is more suited to philosophers not heads of state, IMO.

I'm with Geo in that I don't want major political debates or events taking place in churches.

Far too much influence in our gov't and policies by various religious groups already IMO!

Ahh, you and Geo are too concerned with this. I don't think any particular faith's agenda was pushed, and tickets were distributed equally among both campaigns. I think an exchange of ideas is great on any stage, be it in a church, an arena that sports the name of a beer brand or wherever.

Punzy and I used to vote at St Francis Xavier in New Orleans and the machines were under the watchful eye of the good Saint's image on the wall...never felt like that swayed my vote at all.

Fine, lets then just throw in the towel, and put up with another repeat of 4 years of the GW Bush type "clarity" of both speech, AND intent." See where that got us all.

Oh quit throwing up 4 more years of GW Bush rhetoric when you don't have the foggiest idea what either cancidate will end up proposing. Probably to your dismay and disbelief, the country will continue to function after the election as it has before and it won't make that much difference which one is elected, McCain or Obama. I happen to feel McCain would be better for my family... hard working, saving, charitable and yes, religious than Obama. (Just FYI I am not a chuch goer) But regardless of who wins November's election, America will continue to survive, prosper and progress if we adhere to the principles on which our nation was founded and the ideals our parents brought us up on. Let's all have a little faith in the United States and quit crying "the sky will fall" if so and so is elected. I lived through Eisenhower, Carter, Reagan and many other Presidents and administrations and if I'm lucky enough I'll live through the next one though we all have to go sometime, so enjoy life while you can and quit thinking America will go to hell in a handbasket if the wrong person is elected President. If you really want to worry then worry about who is elected to Congress.

Ahh, you and Geo are too concerned with this. I don't think any particular faith's agenda was pushed, and tickets were distributed equally among both campaigns. I think an exchange of ideas is great on any stage, be it in a church, an arena that sports the name of a beer brand or wherever.

Punzy and I used to vote at St Francis Xavier in New Orleans and the machines were under the watchful eye of the good Saint's image on the wall...never felt like that swayed my vote at all.

I am pretty confident that a political debate in a Christian church promoted a Christian agenda. Especially since one of the questions asked by the pastor was “What does it mean to you to trust in Christ?” :roll:

You weren't uncomfortable voting in a church, but I know people of other faiths who would find it incredibly distasteful and possibly intimidating.

Oh quit throwing up 4 more years of GW Bush rhetoric when you don't have the foggiest idea what either cancidate will end up proposing. Probably to your dismay and disbelief, the country will continue to function after the election as it has before and it won't make that much difference which one is elected, McCain or Obama. I happen to feel McCain would be better for my family... hard working, saving, charitable and yes, religious than Obama. (Just FYI I am not a chuch goer) But regardless of who wins November's election, America will continue to survive, prosper and progress if we adhere to the principles on which our nation was founded and the ideals our parents brought us up on. Let's all have a little faith in the United States and quit crying "the sky will fall" if so and so is elected. I lived through Eisenhower, Carter, Reagan and many other Presidents and administrations and if I'm lucky enough I'll live through the next one though we all have to go sometime, so enjoy life while you can and quit thinking America will go to hell in a handbasket if the wrong person is elected President. If you really want to worry then worry about who is elected to Congress.

Andy, I think there is more reason to be concerned now than ever before in our history: The Bush Administration has been responsible for unheard of changes in the power of the president; changes in the way we apply the rule of law; changes in the interpretation of our Constitution; and invaded a country which had done us no harm--on the pretense of "bringing Democracy" to the middle east, continues a war that clearly can not be "won" by the military and needs a diplomatic solution... We have tortured people; held them for years without charging them, and then said we will hold them anyway, even after a military court has sentenced them and recommended release after serving time...our government has eavesdropped on American's telephone conversations and then held the phone companies harmless...and thousands of our young men and women have died; along with Iraqis and Afghanis...while we have gone further and further in debt to the Chinese...and the list goes on, and on, and on.

After all this, I don't understand how you, or anyone else, can say that it does not matter who is leading the country.:bang:

I think they both looked like politicians.

I read Andy's post to say that there are many other voices and influences in our government - that won't necessarily change after a presidential election.

Part of having a system of checks and balances is that people must utilize it - Bush can't do things if there is a strong and united Congress opposing him and passing important legislation.

Andy, I think there is more reason to be concerned now than ever before in our history: The Bush Administration has been responsible for unheard of changes in the power of the president; changes in the way we apply the rule of law; changes in the interpretation of our Constitution; and invaded a country which had done us no harm--on the pretense of "bringing Democracy" to the middle east, continues a war that clearly can not be "won" by the military and needs a diplomatic solution... We have tortured people; held them for years without charging them, and then said we will hold them anyway, even after a military count has sentenced them and recommended release after serving time...our government has eavesdropped on American's telephone conversations and then held the phone companies harmless...and thousands of our young men and women have died; along with Iraqis and Afghanis...while we have gone further and further in debt to the Chinese...and the list goes on, and on, and on.

After all this, I don't understand how you, or anyone else, can say that it does not matter who is leading the country.:bang:

Swap Bush for Kennedy or Roosevelt, Iraq with Vietnam or Japan or Germany, rinse wash and repeat. I agree with Andy. The last 8 years have been unique, only because unique things happened during the period. (9/11, lest we forget). The country will be fine, with either candidate. It's a question of what direction you want the country to go politically. (left vs. middle in this case) I think it's important to remember, most of what you brought up goodwitch58 came about because of a lack of checks and balances in Washington. I would argue McCain matched with a democratic congress is change for the good, while Obama with a democratic congress is a step back to 2001. I guess, be careful what door you choose, what's behind it might not be what you expect.

I read Andy's post to say that there are many other voices and influences in our government - that won't necessarily change after a presidential election.

Part of having a system of checks and balances is that people must utilize it - Bush can't do things if there is a strong and united Congress opposing him and passing important legislation.

My thoughts exactly. I used to be a proponent of the single party government because I thought they'd get more done. Well, they do, but that turned out to be a bad thing. I'll never vote for such a thing again.

I am pretty confident that a political debate in a Christian church promoted a Christian agenda. Especially since one of the questions asked by the pastor was ?What does it mean to you to trust in Christ?? :roll:

You weren't uncomfortable voting in a church, but I know people of other faiths who would find it incredibly distasteful and possibly intimidating.

Intimidating? C'mon Scoots.

I don't think the 'trust in Christ' question is unfair since both men proclaimed themselves to be Christian without any external prodding.

I didn't say it was an unfair question, just thought it certainly gave a clear idea of just how unreligious the debate was.

How many people do you think would balk at voting in a mosque? Or in a building w/ a large pentagram on the floor?

How comfortable would you be entering a religious building to vote if that religion frequently and publicly condemned your lifestyle choices and sought to have legislation passed to deny you rights and legally allow them to discriminate against you?