I think he sat back and rested on his laurels and it backfired. He believed his own press. Thought he was a shoe in, cuz it said so in the papers.

I just thank God he's out, not only for his abortion stance, but because if he could be this wrong about a strategy to win an election, how wrong could he be about any and all strategies having to do with running our country.

And let us not forget how God cast his own vote early on in the campaigning...

http://youtube.com/watch?v=FsiFhlvMNlA

I wonder if he is cognizant of the notion that if he had been pro-life things could have been different...

or do politicians in this situations walk around unaware?

I know that for me, I had respect for him in spite of his "prochoice" credentials, until the FDNY came forward with their beefs about his refusal to get them the new radios they needed -- radios that would have saved scores of firefighters on 9/11.

I imagine that this really hurt him among first responders and folks who admire them.

Christina,

Ouch.

He did very little in the early primary states. You can't just sit back and watch, acting as if those states don't make any difference.

THis is just my Canadian opinion: First I'm glad he didn't make it. I think his poor choices in his personal life which were going on just prior to 9/11 have continued on into is public life. Usually you don't have one without the other.
9/11 was a period of grace for Rudy that your nation needed.
If he had been prolife, with his record on 9/11 he might have done very well.

Perhaps it had something to do with his inability to utter a sentence without "9/11" in it.

California ladies disappointed at Giuliani leaving race and seeking new candidate.

http://link.brightcove.com/services/link/bcpid1155201977/bctid1399221378

Please see my post of April 17, 2007 when Rudy had recently announced his candidacy.

Go the the bottom of that post.

Apparently he didn't listen to me.

Giuliani hasn't got a clue.

I agree with Patricia, he had to much baggage. While I admire him for not lying to get votes, his personal life is a mess, and after 8 years of that with Billy, I don't think the country wants to deal with it.

Besides if you are running for office, you need to make an appearance in all states. IMHO by ignoring the early primaries it hurt him. Voters don't like the idea that their votes don't matter, and that is what happens when candidates blow off "smaller" or "not as important" states.

Oh please. Trying to pretend that he would have been the GOP candidate 'if only' he had been anti abortion is laughable.

Political fortunes change. I agree that Giuliani messed up in strategy, but it is also that he "peaked" too early, to make a sports analogy.

McCain arose, seemingly from the dead. Keeps things interesting. I've always liked him.

Doug

Why do you think Giuliani's star fell?

because he's pro-choice. why else...

if he were pro-life, I probably would've have voted for him.

Why do you think Giuliani's star fell?
Because he stutters. Made him look like he either didn't have a clue as to what he was talking about, or that he was lying.

I don't think it had anything to do with him not being pro-life. Even if he were, the same thing would have happened. Look at Huckabee. He's totally pro-life, but can't seem to rise above 15%. There are more issues other than pro life that will hurt a candidate. I don't think that one in itself would matter, it's the whole ball of wax, IMO.

Americans are smarter than to be a one-issue voter.

Did you guys see that Ann Coulter will endorse Hillary if McCain wins the primaries? Go figure!

I think people were tired of him and his love affair with 9/11.

9-11 9-11 9-11 9-11 9-11 9-11

When his answer for almost everything is "I was mayor of New York on 9-11," he begins to look crazy. Aside from the YouTube video montages of him garnering millions of hits, "Family Guy" mocked him in an episode and comedians and commentators noted and joked about his answer for everything being "9-11." He tried to score points with it, and make it appear he's some He-Man, but it just made him look neurotic to a lot of folks who might otherwise support him.

Well, if he was actively pro-choice he might have gotten more of the 1/3 of his party that is pro-choice. Looking back, I think he'd be pretty happy if he could have received 1/3 of the votes.

I just don't think he looked very good in a dress.

I think he lost due to poor political strategy, being a sleaze, and having virtually no credibility due to his sleaziness.

Again, all I can say is: Who cares? He's done. End of story.

I think people were tired of him and his love affair with 9/11.

Posted by: prettyinpink at February 2, 2008 11:32 AM
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Yeah, but what if a religious fanatic was going to crash a jetliner into YOUR uterus?
Who would YOU want in the White House?

Jetliner? McCain. Uterus? Brownback.
religious? Huckabee. Fanatic? Ron Paul.
Going? Hillary.

LOL Laura

There are two reason why Giuliani was forced dropped out. The first is that he was pro-choice and pro-gay marriage and this is obviously inconsistent with being a conversative. However, he could have gotten over these hurdles by claiming to now be magically pro-life and against gay marriage, the way Mitt Romney is spectacularly fooling millions of people.

See, people are willing to believe what Mitt Romney says about his miraculous conversion because people are rightly looking for someone who is solid on the issue. Rudy should have had a "road to Damascus" conversion before the race began last year.

The second problem, which is the bigger problem, is that he ignored the early states and banked on doing well in Florida and California and other later states.

Why is this a problem? Because when you run for President you have to convince people that you actaully want to be the President. Ignoring some states and hoping that others will carry the load for you sends the signal that you really are not interested in the people as much as you are the race.

Fred Thompson was regularly charged with being lazy but the truth is that Rudy Giuliani was the lazy one. The fierce campaign cycle that we are now witnessing is a testament to the fortitude of the candidates and if you want the big prize, you better be willing to jump in with both hands and feet. I did not see that in Rudy.

Andrew right on--although I still don't understand why people are still fooled.

God is making the LIFE issue THE stumbling stone for each candidate this year. They can talk about ANY other issue that effects our country. But, these issues are all directly tied to the LIFE issue - terrorism, the economy... directly linked to abortion. Says so right here -Ezekiel 35:35 "since you did not hate bloodshed, bloodshed will pursue you." In other words, God's hand of protection lifts off our land and we are ever vulnerable to those who would kill since we did not hate the shedding of innocent blood. Likewise, the resulting favor of heaven on this nations economy is directly tied to this issue. Candidates who don't share God's heart on this will be removed.

I'm tellin' you...watch the video I posted. God spoke his peace and that was the end of it...

Hey I'm watching Sex and the City and one of them is having an un-baby shower, to celebrate the fact that she doesn't have a baby. How do you guys personally feel about that? Do you think someone who chooses material goods over personal relationships can be happy? How about someone who has a lot of friends but no children? Do you think they'll be happy when they're older?

Yeah, but what if a religious fanatic was going to crash a jetliner into YOUR uterus?
Who would YOU want in the White House?

Which is why I oppose abortiont. I'm sick to death of living in a country where there's a sicko with a box cutter in every major city, ready to turn my body into a charnel house if I have a moment of panic.

Who do I want in the White House? Somebody who doesn't see women as killing fields, who isn't into subsidizing the slaughter of children.

Quit assuming that all women have an infatuation with abortion and get off on the power trip of pulverizing a 20 gram fetus. Let abortion be limited to those with enough of an enthusiasm for it that they'll move Hell and earth to get their babies killed. Leave the innocent women out of it.

Hi Jess,

I wouldn't let you watch Sex in the city if I was your father....the unbaby shower? how selfish and immature.

"Do you think someone who chooses material goods over personal relationships can be happy?"

no.

Amen Christina.

Here 'tis:

HillBilly/Obamanation

v.

Mac/Huck

and...............

Mac/Huck wins with 53% of the vote.

HillBilly is adverstising on AZ TV in advance of Super Tuesday that she's going to freeze foreclosures.

What a laugh. That will give the financial markets a lot of confidence. Economics by decree. Ha, ha, ha, ha, ha........

She's is either a complete idiot or playing the flute to those who just are too stupid to understand. I really, really hope she keeps running those ludicrous ads.

Quit assuming that all women have an infatuation with abortion and get off on the power trip of pulverizing a 20 gram fetus. Let abortion be limited to those with enough of an enthusiasm for it that they'll move Hell and earth to get their babies killed. Leave the innocent women out of it.

Posted by: Christina at February 2, 2008 5:26 PM
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Leave the innocent women out of it?

I really dont think hillary will get the nomination, she has no shot at getting elected.

Obama is drawing from all fields and walks of life. I think he is FAR more likely to win the presidential race. He is far better prepared to stand his own against McCain and could very well come out the winner. Espescially if McCain's running mate is Huckabee. Enough people are afraid of Huckabee instituting something close to a theocracy in anyway he can that it will draw votes away from McCain.

As long as the nominee isnt Clinton, I think the Dems could win the election fairly easily. Granted that leaves my candidate of choice becoming pres, which is fine with me :D.

Not to mention, Hillary is losing TONS of ground in Super Tuesday states. Where she once had double digit leads its now tied or a very close race. Obama very well could come out of Super Tuesday with plenty of delegates, easily rivaling Clinton. I think he'll win more of the uncommitted superdelegates as well. Hillary has shown herself to be far more divisive, and if the Republican nominee is McCain she stands no chance.

"I wouldn't let you watch Sex in the city if I was your father...."
Thank you for your concern jasper, but I'm 19 and don't live at home : ) I don't really watch it either but there was nothing else on and I hate my room being so quiet. I think it was a good episode though, what I got from it (I tuned in late) is that one of their friends was having a baby and was gloating so one of the four had an unbaby shower for all their childless friends. The pregnant women ends up feeling left out because she can't drink and party like she used to. The the main character thinks she's pregnant and is upset, but then she goes to a playground and sees a mother and daughter playing together and they seem so happy she decides she wants to have the baby. But then on her way home she gets her period and she's upset that she won't be a mom.

I think some people can be just as happy with material goods then with personal relationships. Scott Peterson pops in mind. Would I choose material goods over personal relationships? Lets just say, I got along fine without a tv when I had my roommate.

On that note I'm off to attend a good old fashioned girly sleep-over. Goodnight.

Hey I'm watching Sex and the City and one of them is having an un-baby shower, to celebrate the fact that she doesn't have a baby. How do you guys personally feel about that? Do you think someone who chooses material goods over personal relationships can be happy? How about someone who has a lot of friends but no children? Do you think they'll be happy when they're older?

Jess...I think it is somewhat immature to have an un-baby shower. What's the point in it? To poke fun at women who have babies and embrace motherhood. I don't know why some women find it so liberating to be anything BUT a mother. Carrying and feeling a life grow inside of you is IMO one of the most empowering things a woman can do. Like I said IMO.

Do you think someone who chooses material goods over personal relationships can be happy?

No. One can never be satisfied by material goods in all REALITY. They'll always want more..want the latest and the best. It's like my grandfather who lives out in Arizona in a BEAUTIFUL home and holds onto his millions like somebody's going to rob him or something. He lives out there all by himself..but hey..he's got that death grip on his money. Your money and your material things in life aren't going to make you feel comforted when it's time for the end of your life..but having memories with the people you love will bring you some peace I believe.

How about someone who has a lot of friends but no children? Do you think they'll be happy when they're older?

It really depends on the person. Some people don't have good family relationships so maybe their friends become more like family. I don't think having A LOT of friends though would be the way to go..maybe a couple very close friends. I can see that.

As far as people who have NO children feeling happy in life...I really don't know.

Ask me after I'm done with these terrible two's lol.

"Hey I'm watching Sex and the City and one of them is having an un-baby shower, to celebrate the fact that she doesn't have a baby. How do you guys personally feel about that? Do you think someone who chooses material goods over personal relationships can be happy? How about someone who has a lot of friends but no children? Do you think they'll be happy when they're older?"

no matter what, THAT EPISODE WAS HILARIOUS

"Obama is drawing from all fields and walks of life. I think he is FAR more likely to win the presidential race. "
Went to his rally tonight, it was madness! 22,000 strong.

pip,

I don't know if you've answered this or not before...but how do you feel about Obama's views on infanticide that Jill has posted a lot about? I'm just curious cause I know you can't vote for a candidate based on one issue, but I just couldn't vote for someone who was in support of leaving babies in soiled utility rooms.

Oh, we poor childfree women have a dirty little secret - especially those of us in sprawling middle age:

Published: 16:27 EST, May 07, 2007

Childless women fare as well psychologically as mothers at mid-life

For one day each year, motherhood brings flowers, cards and Sunday brunches, but a new University of Florida study asks, how important is it for women’s happiness in midlife whether and when they had children?

“Contrary to warnings we hear about being lonely if you don’t have children, our study finds that childless women and mothers generally report similar levels of psychological well-being in their 50s,” said Tanya Koropeckyj-Cox, lead author and a UF sociology professor.

Whether a woman has children seems less critical than other important factors that shape her life, including education, work and earnings, and relationships with family and friends, Koropeckyj-Cox said. “Whether you are socially integrated or have concerns about paying the bills – those things play a more direct role in shaping psychological well-being among women in midlife,” she said.

Being in good health and having a husband or partner gave the biggest boost to older women’s psychological well-being, said Koropeckyj-Cox, whose study of nearly 6,000 women between the ages of 51 and 61 is scheduled to be published in the June 7 issue of the International Journal of Aging and Human Development.

The study used data from two major national surveys: the Health and Retirement Study, conducted in 1992, which includes women born between 1931 and 1941, and the National Survey of Families and Households, which provides a comparable sample from 1987-88.

“The most vulnerable group in terms of being least happy, loneliest and most depressed are the mothers who were single, divorced or widowed in middle age,” she said.

For mothers, psychological well-being also was heavily influenced by when they had their children. Women who gave birth early, before age 19, reported being least happy, more depressed and lonelier than mothers who had their children later, Koropeckyj-Cox said. Slightly more than one-third – 35 percent – of “early mothers” reported ever feeling lonely, for
example, compared with about a quarter — 25 percent to 27 percent — of mothers who had their children in their 20s or later, she said.

For early mothers, unhappiness is related to poorer economic circumstances and the likelihood of being unmarried in midlife. “Early childbearing often means interrupting or dropping out of school, creating economic stress that can last throughout adulthood,” Koropeckyj-Cox said.

Women who became mothers at age 25 or older were happier and less lonely or depressed than either the early or “on-time” mothers, defined for these women who were born in the late 1920s and the 1930s as between 19 and 24, when about half of American women had their first child, she said.

“Those women who delay childbearing and possibly marriage as well are able to spend their early adult years focusing on education and career, which helps them economically and gives them more opportunities later in their 30s and 40s and beyond,” she said.

Besides being better educated and having higher incomes, older mothers may find it rewarding to have children young enough to be at home as they enter their 50s, she said.

Family satisfaction was lower among those who had been single mothers, and more than half of early mothers had been without a partner at some time when their children were under 18, compared with a quarter to a third of women who gave birth on-time or late.

That so few differences in psychological well-being were found between childless women and mothers was significant considering it was this generation that mothered the baby boomers, Koropeckyj-Cox said. “If anyone was going to show disadvantages in being childless, it would be these women,” she said. “They came of age during the 1950s, when motherhood was regarded as the focal point that defined women’s lives.”

Fewer than 10 percent of women of this generation remained childless, compared with nearly a quarter of those who came of age earlier during the Depression, Koropeckyj-Cox said. Today, 16 percent to 19 percent of women in their 40s have not had children, she said.

Source: University of Florida

Do any of you really believe that either John McCain or Mitt Romney are pro-life?

I fear McCain, but it has more to do with his singing "Bomb Iran," suggesting that we should stay in Iraq for a hundred years, declaring that the US will have "more wars," and that a draft might be neccessary.
This little gem from his 2000 campaign seems to have come back to haunt him on sites like Free Republic:

(2000)
McCain Apologizes for ‘Gook’ Comment
But leadership competence thrown into question
By Jason Ma

Less than 24 hours after stories ran about Sen. John McCain’s statement to reporters that he would continue to refer to his Vietnamese wartime captors as “gooks,” his campaign announced Feb. 18 that he would no longer use that term. Three days later McCain issued an official apology.

Several stories that ran last Friday quoted McCain as saying “I hate the gooks. I will hate them as long as I live… I was referring to my prison guards and I will continue to refer to them in language that might offend.”

But after APIs blasted his unabashed use of the highly derogatory term that has historically been used against Asians and Asian Americans, the campaign made an apology after annoucing that McCain would no longer use the racial slur.

“I will continue to condemn those who unfairly mistreated us,” McCain said in a statement released Feb. 21. “But out of respect to a great number of people for whom I hold in very high regard, I will no longer use the term that has caused such discomfort… I apologize and renounce all language that is bigoted and offensive, which is contrary to all that I represent and believe.”

"We hope that people understand that the senator was referring very specifically to the men who beat and tortured him for five and a half years in a prisoner of war camp,” McCain campaign spokesperson Dan Schnur said on Friday. “His language in no way represents his feelings toward the people in Vietnam or the Vietnamese American community.”

Nevertheless, observers predict that in the short-term, especially in a multiracial state like California, McCain could lose support from “better educated,” white Democrats and independents -- groups that he has actively courted in other states, according to U.C. Berkeley political science professor Bruce Cain.

Indeed, independent and Democratic crossover voters in New Hampshire accounted for his landslide victory in that state’s primary earlier this month and was the base of his support for his victory in the Michigan primary on Tuesday.

And despite losing the South Carolina primary, exit polls showed that 60 percent of the independents and 79 percent of the Democrats who voted in the Republican contest supported McCain.

But more than the effect McCain’s comments will have on his success in the California Primary next month, Cain questioned his leadership competence, especially in the area of foreign affairs.

Though the Arizona senator was pivotal in the normalization of diplomatic relations between the United States and Vietnam, his “gook” comments -- added with his hard-line stances on China and rogue states -- raise concerns over how his experiences in Vietnam will affect his decision making if elected president, according to Cain.

“Why call them ‘gooks’? It’s kind of inexplicable to pick a term that indicates a whole nation,” he said. “It could have a deeper impact on foreign policy matters.”

Though the Asian American electorate in California is small, Cain said it is a swing vote and could still hurt McCain in the primary. Nevertheless, he said, “It’s a potential problem, but it’s not irreversible.”

Asian Pacific American Legal Center of Southern California executive director Kathay Feng said APIs in California made up from 8 to 10 percent of the voters in the 1998 gubernatorial election. But that share is still disproportionately lower than the estimated 12 percent of the state’s population that APIs control.

According to exit polls that Feng’s group conducted in 1998, 42.3 percent of API respondents said they were Democrats while 34.4 percent said they were Republicans. However, 20.7 percent of respondents said they had no party affiliation and another 2.6 percent were affiliated with other parties.

But rather than vote along party lines, said Legal Center research coordinator Dan Ichinose, APIs will vote based on the issues, adding to the community’s swing potential.

While Gov. George W. Bush’s campaign has made significant inroads into the Asian American community in California -- even forming a steering committee of more than 300 APIs -- there have not been similar efforts on the part of the McCain campaign to reach out to the API community.

“I haven’t heard about the McCain campaign on the radar screen” in the Asian American community, Feng said, adding that Bush’s name recognition and his father’s record of appointing Asian Americans to high posts during his administration accounts for much of Bush’s popularity now.

Schnur admitted that the Senator has not conducted much Asian American outreach during the campaign, saying that up until now, most of his resources and assets were devoted to states with critical primary elections like New Hampshire and South Carolina.

Cain acknowledged that had McCain used a racial slur to indicate African American or Latino individuals, it would have been the “kiss of death” for his campaign, ending the competition for the Republican Party nomination immediately.

But since McCain’s use of the word “gook” was in a context in which people “could understand his anger,” he explained, the campaign has not been rejected by the general public.

Asked why news of McCain’s use of the racial slur has only recently received a lot of media attention, Cain said “the press has only now started to do their critical phase. It’s the natural cycle.”

Elizabeth-

I don't believe the frontrunners of the republican side are pro-life even in the narrower sense (I don't know why the poor Romney supporters think they are voting for a pro-life candidate). And I don't agree with Republicans on a lot of issues I would consider life issues: torture, genocide in darfur, iraq, health care, death penalty, gay rights. I think on those votes he was wrong but in the long term I think he is better than Hillary even in the abortion sector. I think he might have taken a political stance for some reason but does not have big plans to pursue the issue any further. At the rally he didn't even mention abortion rights.

I know that people here will lambast me, but at this point, Obama is the best hope for America to get back on its feet. I believe he will be a refreshing and successful leader. If we have more Republican politics I just might cry; if we have another Clinton dynasty I will sigh.

"I fear McCain, but it has more to do with his singing "Bomb Iran," suggesting that we should stay in Iraq for a hundred years, declaring that the US will have "more wars," and that a draft might be neccessary."
Yes that scares me quite a bit. I do love his digs at Romney about torture though if that's worth a penny or two. Romney is just so plastic to me.

another thing Elizabeth is that I am often attacked for supporting Obama but both major repub frontrunners have taken some pro-choice stances that I might lash out at them for, but I try not to. I don't think that strategies like one-issue voting has worked so far, so I don't think it's going to work well in the future. I think it's time to change strategies. But noone here seems to be on board with that...

pip, I'm jealous. He's having a rally in Boston on Monday that I MIGHT be able to go to. I'm hoping my mom will let me. It doesnt start til 8 and is supposed to end at 10, so im sure in her calculations my mom will add an hour for it running late plus the return route. So its gunna be a tough battle.

*wishes he were a college freshman in Boston already like he hopes to be next year*

I can't help myself, I still love Ralph Nader. He is not perfect but at least he isn't a corporate sell out like Hillary and Obama.

He may not always be right but at least he is honest. A good friend and total conservative republican said the same of Kucinich.

Even Edwards at least wasn't a total sellout to corporate interests on wall street.

If we get Hillary or Obama it will be just like having Bush.

I think it's time to change strategies. But no one here seems to be on board with that...

PIP, agreed - there is a big difference between dogmatic stubbornness and being practical in the real world.

I've always liked McCain, and I'd love to see Obama get a try, although I think conditions are ripe for whoever's in the White House to get blamed, along with their party, for bad economic conditions, the causes of which are in the past.

As far as "getting America back on its feet," do you think that's really possible?

IMO we're only a ways down the road we're going, and there will come a time when the average American has had a meaningful lowering of living standard, and the sentiment then will be much more than what it is at present. In fact, I'd say it'll eventually be like, "Oh man, our country is GONE..." That'll probably be when things start getting better.

Doug

As far as people who have NO children feeling happy in life...I really don't know.

Ask me after I'm done with these terrible two's lol.

Elizabeth, have to laugh - yeah, that's a "special" age, heh heh heh.

For you, I have no doubt you did the right thing, and you're going to treasure your daughter forever.

Some other people are really not suited to having kids.

Doug

Look at Huckabee. He's totally pro-life, but can't seem to rise above 15%. There are more issues other than pro life that will hurt a candidate. I don't think that one in itself would matter, it's the whole ball of wax, IMO.

Americans are smarter than to be a one-issue voter.

Sunshine, for some people, one issue is all that really matters, or it dwarfs all else.

I don't think who is in the White House really would matter to most people, all in all, in their daily lives. Had Bush Jr. been a Democrat or Clinton been a Republican, for example, would it really have mattered that much at the end of the year?

One fairly concrete thing on some issues is the makeup of the Supreme Court, and there the President does have a meaningful effect.

Doug

HillBilly is adverstising on AZ TV in advance of Super Tuesday that she's going to freeze foreclosures.

What a laugh. That will give the financial markets a lot of confidence. Economics by decree. Ha, ha, ha, ha, ha....

HisMan, on that we are agreed. What an ultramaroon.....

I'd say she's scared and trotting out the truly foolish stuff out of desperation.

Doug

Anon,

Obama takes no money from federal lobbyists and PACs.

"As far as "getting America back on its feet," do you think that's really possible?"
Yes, but it won't happen all at once, though.

Dan-
Yes, I've been to 2 rallies already. He is such a powerful speaker. Just great. I love how Obama's campaign is really more of a grassroots campaign than Hillary's is. She seems to be running because of political ambitions to be more powerful. Obama ran because the people honestly wanted him to. Most of the money he has raised has been from normal everyday people that have donated only 10-20 dollars each.
I liked how he said that people have asked him to "stew" for a while in congress so he could be like them. And he said he wasn't running because it was something he wanted to do-it was because it is a time that necessitates change. Brilliant.

"I'd say she's scared and trotting out the truly foolish stuff out of desperation."
She better be scared. lol

pip, he is an absolutely amazing speaker. I've watched videos on his the website and youtube. Absolutely amazing.

I dont know if you visited the site I posted directed towards Hal, or if you've gotten it via Obama emails from people, but go to www.dipdive.com and watch it. Absolutely inspiring.

pip, she must be afraid. Obama has brought the race much closer. She was leading by double digits in many states, and now its down to a few points, or tied. In less than a week Hilary lost something like 16 points here in MA. Amazing what grss-roots politics can do. I'm actually planning on doing some visibility today. I'm psyced.

Um, HisMan, Doug-
Hillary is hardly the first to suggest this, and I think you'd be surprised at who agrees with her:

Hillary Wants to Freeze Foreclosures and ARM Adjustments
2 December 2007 · 3 Comments
Seen at the Wall Street Journal (subscriber link):

In a sign that the housing crunch is increasingly resonating on the campaign trail, Sen. Hillary Clinton is expected to call Monday for a 90-day moratorium on home foreclosures, as well as a five-year freeze on the rates of adjustable mortgages—an idea the Bush administration is already considering.[…]

But the plan she is about to announce is striking on two levels. Calling as it does for a 90-day moratorium on foreclosures and a five-year freeze on interest rate adjustments for existing mortgages, the Clinton plan goes further than those of her colleagues. More striking is that the centerpiece of her proposal—a freeze on interest rate hikes for adjustable-rate mortgages—is similar to a plan being concocted by Mr. Bush’s Treasury secretary, Henry Paulson.

Laura, no question that other politicians are willing to do just about anything for the sake of popularity or "vote-buying."

"Housing crunch"? If ya can't afford something, ya can't afford it.

No question that there were some rather deceptive sales-pitches for loans, but there is also the "no such thing as a free lunch" principle, and the bottom line is that one person's or one relatively small group of people's foolish financial moves is not a sound reason to penalize everybody, let alone those who made no such foolish moves, and such plans as Hillary's and apparently Bush Jr's would do just that.

I am not saying it'd be the end of the world, though. Just one more silly step down the economic road we've been on for many decades.

Doug

"As far as "getting America back on its feet," do you think that's really possible?"

PIP: Yes, but it won't happen all at once, though.

LMAO - yep, no doubt about that one, PIP.

FF,
I'm sorry, but I have absolutely no sympathy for those people whose homes are in foreclosure due to the refinancing fiasco a few years ago.

To me, at least, it was nothing but a greed-monger's festival. People refinanced, took $$ out of their homes, took nice vacations, paid off credit cards, bought nice cars, clothes, etc. They lived well beyond their means, spending money from their homes to live high on the hog for a time. When the money ran out, they racked up their credit cards again to maintain their new "high style" of living. Not to mention, that they while they were signing the docs for the refinancing, they didn't bother to read the terms of their loans because the dollar signs blinded their view.

Now, we come to a time where their stupidity fiasco has caught up with them, people want to bail them out simply because there's an election in the near future.

But don't be deceived...it has absolutely nothing to do with the individual homeowner (voter). While a home sits in foreclosure, the city or village, and the county, does not get one tax dollar. Not to mention the banks losing their money. Who on earth do you think will have to pay for this fiasco?

Yes, thank you all of you greedy, dumba$$ homeowners who obvioulsy do not know what a privilege and true responsibility it is to BE a homeowner.

Proverbs 17:16
Of what use is money in the hand of a fool,
since he has no desire to get wisdom?

Ecclesiastes 5:10
Whoever loves money never has money enough;
whoever loves wealth is never satisfied with his income. This too is meaningless.

Matthew 6:24 AND Luke 16:13

"No one can serve two masters. Either he will hate the one and love the other, or he will be devoted to the one and despise the other. You cannot serve both God and Money.

1 Timothy 6:10
For the love of money is a root of all kinds of evil. Some people, eager for money, have wandered from the faith and pierced themselves with many griefs.

I don't think who is in the White House really would matter to most people, all in all, in their daily lives. Had Bush Jr. been a Democrat or Clinton been a Republican, for example, would it really have mattered that much at the end of the year?

One fairly concrete thing on some issues is the makeup of the Supreme Court, and there the President does have a meaningful effect.

Doug

Posted by: Doug at February 3, 2008 10:09 AM

Doug,
I will agree with you regarding the importance of the President choosing those to sit on the Supreme Court. That IS very important.

I would also agree with you regarding it wouldn't really matter at the end of the day who was President, if the bit 'ol veto stamp was insignificant and Hillary the "overturner" didn't exist!

I just think that the divide between the republicans and democrats has become somewhat a disgraceful "war", if you will. I just can't seem to help but think that some decisions will be made simply out of spite, (especially if a Democrat was elected) and not what's in the best interest of the country. But of course, it they will "spin" it to make us think it is. IMO

I just think that the divide between the republicans and democrats has become somewhat a disgraceful "war", if you will. I just can't seem to help but think that some decisions will be made simply out of spite, (especially if a Democrat was elected) and not what's in the best interest of the country. But of course, it they will "spin" it to make us think it is. IMO

Sunshine, IMO politics in the US, pretty much period, is disgraceful.

I'd say there is some "spite" here - just that the usual party that's been in power has an uphill stuggle deal applies, doubly so in this time of Bush Jr., yet here we have the Democrats putting forth a woman and a black guy, and regardless of their own personal merits, there's going to be extra resistance to them from certain quarters.

I saw today that a poll had McCain favored over Hillary in the general election, and that surprises me - sentiment against Bush Jr. has been so high that I thought the Democrats had an easy one this time. Just shows that ya never know...

Doug

"I saw today that a poll had McCain favored over Hillary in the general election, and that surprises me - sentiment against Bush Jr. has been so high that I thought the Democrats had an easy one this time. Just shows that ya never know..."

That doesn't surprise me at all. Hillary is far too polarizing within the party itself, on top of normal party lines. I myself will not vote for Hillary if she is the nominee. I trust her least out of the candidates, and I don't think she haas the capability to effectively run the country. If she does win the nomination over Obama, I will be voting for McCain.

Doug,
You are correct! You never know. IMO, when the nominees are finally chosen, I think it will be their running mates that will be not only be a big part of the spotlight, but the deciding factor on who actually gets elected. Unless, of course, someone does something REALLY stupid between then and the actual election! You never know!

Obama takes money, and favors and fundraising etc. from big business.

He is a Bush wannabe.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/01/25/obama-takes-heat-for-ind_n_83258.html

Being from Illinois I am amazed at the Obama phenomena. He was barely on the radar screen here until an unlikely series of events fell into place that catapulted him into the U.S. Senate essentially unchallenged.

He gives a great speech, but he remains unproven and has no real record of accomplishment. He has shown he can do a great deal of monday morning quarterbacking about some of Hillary's votes and President Bush's policies, but does that constitute wisdom? If he had wisdom would he have allowed himself to have a multi-year association with slum landlord Tony Rezko? And what about his cozy little land purchase deal from the same?

What are his leadership credentials? What has he really done that we can measure him by? He was not a standout performer in the Illinois Senate. We do know that his ratings from liberal interest groups are through the roof because of his far left voting record. In spite of that can he show us that he has enough political savvy and/or openmindedness to be a unifier and reach out to mainstream concerns about things like illegal immmigration, abortion, and the assault on the traditional family?

And finally, what is this refusal to put his hand over his heart at the playing of the national anthem and making a big deal about not wearing the flag on his lapel? This guy is to be the commander-in-chief? There are many who compare him to JFK, but he still has a lot to prove before he can come close to that legacy. Bottom line: he should get a few more years in the Senate and gain some experience in world affairs before seeking the highest office in the land.

Jerry, hand over the heart deal, as with MANY more Americans than you would think, sometimes he does, sometimes he doesn't.

And if you recall, HE didn't make it a big deal, the media did and he responded in kind.

As for the lack of experience, some of our greatest president's of all time have had little to no experience. Lincoln ran after one (also undistinguished) term in the House of Representatives and he got the country through a civil war. JFK was considered inexperienced, as were Reagan, Clinton, et al. In fact the recent "experienced" presidents have been considered some of the worst (i.e. Nixon). Yes experience has some factor in voting, but some of the presidents considered "the best" and romanticized had some of the least political experience.

In spite of that can he show us that he has enough political savvy and/or openmindedness to be a unifier and reach out to mainstream concerns about things like illegal immmigration, abortion, and the assault on the traditional family?
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Abortion is hardly a mainstream concern, and what do you mean by "the assault on the traditional family?"

"To me, at least, it was nothing but a greed-monger's festival. People refinanced, took $$ out of their homes, took nice vacations, paid off credit cards, bought nice cars, clothes, etc. They lived well beyond their means, spending money from their homes to live high on the hog for a time. When the money ran out, they racked up their credit cards again to maintain their new "high style" of living. Not to mention, that they while they were signing the docs for the refinancing, they didn't bother to read the terms of their loans because the dollar signs blinded their view."
Posted by: Sunshine at February 3, 2008 12:06 PM

Or maybe they were trying to keep their families off the streets? It's pretty hard to pay a mortgage if you don't have a job, but maybe they should have read those Bible passages before they worried about how they were going to feed their children.

And finally, what is this refusal to put his hand over his heart at the playing of the national anthem and making a big deal about not wearing the flag on his lapel?
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

The week after THAT silly little dust-up someone took video of the crowd at a NASCAR race standing for the anthem. While they stood at attention and many removed their caps, virtually NONE had a hand over their heart.
It's very important to me that you go to a NASCAR race, point at the crowd, and scream "DIE PINKO COMMIES!" over and over until they see it your way. Heck, I'll even pay your airfare...

Meh, I never say the Pledge of Allegiance. I don't put my hand on my heart either.

I just stand quietly with my head bowed.

Samantha T.,
You shouldn't have a house if you can't pay the mortgage. I don't care how much help comes via freezing rates, etc. If these people can't pay the mortgage, they will lose their homes. It's just a cold, hard fact. Many of these people that you speak of may have been better off selling their homes, taking the equity and investing it while living in an apartment or other less inexpensive means until they had a job to pay their mortgages.

My post was about the greed mongers that the verses I posted may have helped if they heeded God's wisdom, not about the people (very few, I might add) that you speak of. But hey, I've got some verses for them, too, if you would like for me to post them! :)

If you go back and re-read my post, the majority of homes that are in foreclosure are due to the above. Another fact that I didn't mention, was that there were many young people that put zero down to buy the homes of their dreams. You know, the homes most people wait until they can afford by putting down 20 percent? The homes that many will never see because no matter how hard they try, they will never be able to afford the mortgage?

Hey, Samantha:
Why do you think Giuliani's star fell?

Samantha T.,
You shouldn't have a house if you can't pay the mortgage. I don't care how much help comes via freezing rates, etc. If these people can't pay the mortgage, they will lose their homes. It's just a cold, hard fact.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

It's true.
I feel the same way about children...

Or maybe they were trying to keep their families off the streets? It's pretty hard to pay a mortgage if you don't have a job, but maybe they should have read those Bible passages before they worried about how they were going to feed their children.

That's an ignorant and insulting thing to say, Samantha.

pip,

I don't think one-issue voting is productive either..and I don't think many people vote for a candidate based off of one issue. If they do, they are looking at the leader of our nation with tunnel vision. I was just curious what you thought about Obama and his support of infanticide. Thanks for your response.

No problem Elizabeth, it has been hard for me to solidify my position, it was good to put it out there again.

And to be succinct, voting records don't make good presidents, good leaders do!

FF:

When you sign a mortgage agreement, you are making a contract. A contract is something you agree to and abide by and if not, you suffer the remedies of the contract.

Just like when you have sex, you risk getting pregnant. So what do you do? Do you follow what prudence and morailty and God's dicatates and refrain from immoral and irresponsible sex even after repeated warnings? NO, you do what you want, you then get pregnant, and you appeal to an illcit government run amok policy that allows the murder of children. This is who Billy Boy, Hillabeans and Obamanation and the of teh Democratic Party are really all about.

I don't expect liberals to understand this, however, since, if you can kill a baby in the womb, how can you be expected to keep your word?

Your support of someone like Hillary is so telling about the underlying and twisted thinking of liberals. Liberals want to live their lives without consequence of their actions, be able to blame someone else, be it God, or their parents or their circumstance and then have the government bale them out.

Never once have I accepted welfare, or unemployment or any other government assistance. I have always WORKED my way out of difficult financial situations, sometimes to the tune of 100 hours a week for years on end.

The sad thing is that Hillary understands economics and the normal expansion and contraction that occurs within financial cyles. She and her evil husband also know that abortion are wrong as theyt were once pro-life. However, ignoring this for the sake of getting elected by a ship of fools, she lies to you gullible ones who haven't got a clue about most things in life, be it about abortion, economics, God, etc.

"NO, you do what you want, you then get pregnant, and you appeal to an illcit government run amok policy that allows the murder of children. This is who Billy Boy, Hillabeans and Obamanation and the of teh Democratic Party are really all about."
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

No, HisMan, the Republicans - the same folk who gave us the greatest debt and fiscal irresponsibility in American history - also gave America the Roe v. Wade decision:

The Roe Court:
Burger, C.J.(Nixon'69), Douglas (Roosevelt'39), Brennan (Eisenhower'56), Stewart (Eisenhower'58), White (Kennedy'62), Marshall (Johnson'67), Blackmun (Nixon'70), Powell (Nixon'71), Rehnquist (Nixon'71).

FF,
Nice try, but the Presidents do not have any say over supreme court decisions.

Obama is a puppet, and an great orator.

He has never been in charge of anything.

His leadership record is empty.

Give Obama a chance. He's smart and capable. (it might be hard to recognize those traits these days)

Yes we can

Back to the original topic: Rudy's star fell because he isn't actually conservative, and the GOP is the (more or less) conservative party. Rudy is a liberal who just happens to support a strong defense. Otherwise, his social positions would make him very comfortable in the Democratic Party.

Hal,
Ok, you say Obama is smart. let's see, subtract all of his catch phrases. Then, look at his record (what record?). What have you seen from Obama, besides his speeches that he probably didn't even write, that have made you think HE is smart and capable? What has he done or said that makes you say, "he's smart" and capable?

His candidacy is nothing but a crapshoot to American citizens asking us to believe in something we have not seen. You believe in him but don't believe in God? Wow, Hal. Simply amazing.

FF,
Nice try, but the Presidents do not have any say over supreme court decisions.

Posted by: Anonymous at February 4, 2008 8:56 AM
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

The Roe decision was made by Republican-appointed justices.
Thank the Republicans for Roe v. Wade!

FF,
Okay, now I see where you were going with that. But hey, Nixon doesn't really count...he was a liar! (should have been a Democrat)

:)

Sunshine, Obama was a very respected and sucessful state senator in Illinois. He taught Con Law at University of Chicago, he was Editor of the Harvard Law Review. He beat the pants off Allan Keyes.

It will be nice to have a president who can speak in complete sentences, and appeal to the better part of all of us.

TOday's Washington Post, "why Republicans Like Obama" by former Bush aid:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/02/01/AR2008020102663.html

of course, I like the "liberal" stuff Republicans don't, so for me, Obama is the whole package. Yes we can. The ONLY thing I don't like about him is that he seems to be religious. I'll overlook that blemish.

Hal,
You crack me up!

Talk is cheap, you know.

I'm not saying he CAN'T do a good job, but I don't know about him...I live in Illinois, and haven't seen but boo from him thus far. As far as "successful senator", that must mean that he hasn't been indicted on anything! It is Illinois, you know!

I saw a mini-documentary on him this morning, and I must say that I do give him ALOT of credit for coming as far as he has from where he started. I do give him an A+ on motivation. I just still think that he would be a "nobody" in this election without the media hype.

Thanks for your response.

Sunshine, agreed that "nobody" might apply, given other factors, but just as others have alluded to the fact that "experience" doesn't necessarily mean a person would be a great President (to say the least), I would say that Obama doesn't have to be "somebody" in that regard in order to have as least as good a chance, or better, or to get my vote.

Doug

Doug,
I sincerely hope that you're right. I just think that we live in a day & age that is crucial to the survival of the US. It's imperative that we KNOW the man or woman (cringe) elected CAN and WILL do their job, not just hope for the best because he or she can talk the talk. It's the walk the walk that we need to be absolutely sure about. For me, at least, that's what I'm looking for when I cast my vote.

HisMan: When you sign a mortgage agreement, you are making a contract. A contract is something you agree to and abide by and if not, you suffer the remedies of the contract.

Having sex is no necessary agreement to remain pregnant if pregnancy occurs, but you're right about the mortgage. There may have been some misrepresentations made by mortgage companies along the way (and if so that's not fair), but yeah - people signed the contracts, increasing interest rates, balloon payments, etc., all set down in black and white.

And you're dead on about taking equity out of houses, living beyond their means, etc.
......

Never once have I accepted welfare, or unemployment or any other government assistance. I have always WORKED my way out of difficult financial situations, sometimes to the tune of 100 hours a week for years on end.

Me too, and I still do a lot of 100+ hour weeks in a year; just the nature of the job, and that my wife and I are looking hard at retirement - I'm 48 years old.

I am appalled at the level of debt in the US - corporate, private, and governmental.
......

The sad thing is that Hillary understands economics and the normal expansion and contraction that occurs within financial cyles. ....However, ignoring this for the sake of getting elected by a ship of fools, she lies to you gullible ones.

The Republicans, and "conservatives" in general have no shortage of gullible people, as well. If Obama wins then we'll see, and I think that a Ron Paul might actually try to do what he says and be sensible for the country, economically, but looking back at the last few Administrations, Republican and Democratic alike, it's an unbroken string of heinous fiscal behavior, Presidents and Congress alike.

Doug

I just think that we live in a day & age that is crucial to the survival of the US.

Sunshine, I think the US will "survive," as have most countries in financial straits, but I'm guessing there will be a true depression or hyperinflation first, something that liquidates the debt one way or the other - depression and outright default on the obligations, or the currency losing all or most of its value via inflation.

Thus far, I see nothing from the gov't to indicate they'll accept deflation, so for now inflation is the deal and down goes the value of the Dollar. My wife and I went to Italy in 2002, and the European currency has gone up 74% against the Dollar since. Sheesh.

And Europe isn't even an economic powerhouse like China, other Pacific Rim countries, etc....

Doug

If you look at the bills Obama has sponsored some of them are pretty impressive.

http://www.barackobama.com check it out, skeptics!

The ONLY thing I don't like about him is that he seems to be religious. I'll overlook that blemish

Why is that a blemish Hal? This is America..and people CAN be religious if they so choose, as you can choose not to be. So why is it a blemish for him to be religious? Or is it just a blemish in YOUR mind?

Why is that a blemish Hal? This is America..and people CAN be religious if they so choose, as you can choose not to be. So why is it a blemish for him to be religious? Or is it just a blemish in YOUR mind?

Posted by: Elizabeth at February 4, 2008 7:31 PM
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Hal considers it a blemish, just as you consider being pro-choice a blemish.
Why are you ranting?

yes, of course, only a blemish in my mind. (I don't find belief in the supernatural a positive character trait) Many like that about him. To me, it's a bad sign. But, as I said, I'll overlook it.

lol Hal you really think an atheist could be elected president in this country? I think we MIGHT have one atheist senator, or something.

PIP, I almost typed that it would be nice to live in such a country. I'd say "no chance" for the next fifty years or so at least.

If you look at the bills Obama has sponsored some of them are pretty impressive.

Posted by: prettyinpink at February 4, 2008 4:47 PM

He sponsored 91 bills and one passed.

Can he really get things done?

Barack Obama cultivates a squeaky-clean image and referred to his work as a ''civil rights attorney'' at the Los Angeles debate. He didn't mention other work he did during his decade at Davis Miner Barnhill & Galland, a small Chicago law firm, helping craft housing deals involving millions of dollars in public subsidies.

Among those involved in some of the deals: Obama patron Tony Rezko. He donated thousands to Obama's campaigns, raised thousands more and was even involved in the purchase of the Obama family home in Chicago.

These days, Rezko is awaiting trial in federal court on fraud charges.

http://www.miamiherald.com/campaign08/story/405158.html

Hal,

"...of course, I like the "liberal" stuff Republicans don't, so for me, Obama is the whole package. Yes we can. The ONLY thing I don't like about him is that he seems to be religious. I'll overlook that blemish."

Don't you know good people who are religious? What is wrong with believing in something greater than yourself?

Enigma,

"On both counts, (the no line skipping and the time it took to respond) no worries. Life has a way of taking over and forcing a change in plans. When this happens, I've learned to just go with it, things often turn out better that way."

Thanks for understanding :)

"I also enjoy talking with you much more than many of the anti-abortion advocates here: you are willing to go beyond surface answers and press for something deeper."

Again, thank you kindly.

"Stop me if I get too personal, but you mentiond that you got "all fired up" about relgion around the time when you were 24. Is there any particular reason--did something happen in your life or did you come to a sudden realization that you had not found before?"

No, not at all. I love talking about it. To make a long story short, I basically began studying apologetics. It was mostly from a Catholic vs. Protestant POV as opposed to theistic or simply Christian apologetics. I began to be intellectually convinced that the Catholic Church was the Church founded by Jesus and that Jesus was, indeed, the Son of God and God himself. So that's basically what happened. It wasn't any one event or anything, just began studying and haven't stopped since.

"I'm not going to disagree with your first sentance but I do dispute your notion that communication within a marriage improves with children. Assuming that communication does, in fact, improve with children, I would not see this as heightening a marriage. Using our understanding of the word heightened, something can be improved without being heightened. Consequently, improvements in communication might make a marriage better, but would not necessarily bring the marriage to a higher level."

I concede this point. True, it does not NECESSARILY follow. But you make a point I like next.

"That said, if this improved communication leads spouses to discuss deeper moral values and understandings of the world, this communication has deepened the bond between the spouses and thus brought the marrital bonds between the two to a higher level--which would fit with our understanding of the word heightened."

Right. And even though in every and all cases this does not happen, it probably happens in many cases, although I don't do statistics. But I think from a common sense point of view, it seems probable that it would follow in many cases, which I think you seem to see as well.

"You have indeed both convinced me and found an avenue by which you can demonstrate that having children can heighten a marriage."

I'm humbled.

"Yes; my personal feelings on the subject are that objective morals and truths do exist, but that humans lack the capacity to know what they are because we are all caught up in our subjective interpretations of both objective truth and morality.

Before you ask, I have no idea where this objective morality would come from. I simply cannot shake my absolute conviction that there are things that are objectively wrong or objectively right in this world irrespective of human interpretation. Welcome to the insane and confusing world of my own personal philosophies."

You know what? I think we should pursue this further. Because I too believe this, even looking at it from your POV (by that I mean atheist/agnostic.) Some people use "the argument from objective morals" as a "proof" for the existence of God, and personally, I don't buy it. I think people, and you are a prime example, can believe that there are objective morals without believing in God. But, like you, I can't quite figure out how to go about arguing the premise "if objective morals exist, then God is the source of them." I also think, in somewhat opposition of what you said, that despite our subjective understandings, we may yet have the capacity to know them.

So this is neat. I don't have any ideas about how to proceed right now, but I'll think about it, and maybe we can figure this out. This is exciting!

"There is an element of morality to me personally that is also based on intent (More on this later). To me, however, intent with regards to the homework example would not factor into the equation at all. My conception of morals is that they are a higher aspect of reality and, consequently, many things in life slip in beneath the level of morality. I suppose, to try to make that a little bit more intelligible, to me, morals do not and can not address everything in life. Instead, morals address important facets of our lives and do not touch some of are more trivial actions."

BTW, I wanted to tell you that I coincidentally was reading something non related to what we have been talking about, and I learned that the belief that the morality of an action is SOLELY determined by the intent of the person performing the action is called "voluntarism." So there it is.

But back to your above paragraph, I see your distinction now. I think there is a certain level in which we can agree. So I guess when I gave the example of someone not turning in homework to spite the teacher, the immoral act isn't really not turning in the homework, yet having a feeling of spite and animosity towards the teacher. So if what you are saying is that homework is "below" morals, I think I agree with that, bearing in mind the clarification I made.

"I like this idea and had nevr thought of it that way. I suppose this fits in pretty well my understandings of morality. So one could be behaving "morally" in terms of their subjective morality but might be behaving in a manner that is immoral because it violates objective morality."

Yes, that's right. Now, what practical purpose does this distinction serve, or what's the point of this distinction? Well, obviously I have a hard time thinking outside the box, but I think of it in terms of one's account of one's behavior to God. So Catholic theology teaches that one can not be held culpable for what one didn't know or if one truly believed that what they were doing is good. Now that's just as far as God is concerned, but again, sorry for bringing the discussion here. Maybe there is a good "secular" reason to make this distinction. I'll think about that too.

"To some extent I agree with your "an action's morality should be judged in terms of the action itself" and not it's consequences and on another level I disagree with it. I believe that it is often laudable to act in moral manner even if you know that it will have negative consequences (ie. exposing you company's corrupt labor practices or dangerous products) even though you know that A.) you will be fired and B.) that no one will believe you and the company will cover it's tracks so that there will be no proof of what has been done). On the other hand, I that in some circumstances committing a normally immoral act might be the most moral thing that a person could possible do. For example, say that there's a terrorist group or something that rounds up a bunch of people and then singles out one individual and offers this person a choice. This one individual can either kill one other person or the terrorists will kill everyone except for the individual in question and whoever he/she would have had to kill. Let's further pretend that outcomes in this situation are guaranteed; ie. that the terrorists will keep their word and let everyone go unharmed if this one person dies. Faced with this choice, would you still say that it is immoral for our chosen individual to pull the trigger on another in order to save everyone else?"

I certainly agree with your first example. Your second example is tough, and I may change my mind about how to deal with this situation in the future, but right now I lean towards saying that even though there will be more deaths, it would be immoral for the prisoner to kill one other prisoner. There are a couple “basic moral principles” that I might site for this, although I will probably need to argue why I would subscribe to them. The first one that I would site is that “the end does not justify the means.” So there is a wonderfully noble end; saving several innocent lives. But the action is the killing of an innocent. I do hold that an innocent can never directly and willfully be killed by another.

The second premise I would site is that “one may never do evil so that good may come of it.” The evil, I believe, is the killing of the innocent prisoner. The good is the saving of the lives of the other innocent.

But, if we take a step back, it’s like “what’s going to happen?” Either 1 innocent dies or 10 innocent die. It seems obvious and it makes my previous arguments seem ludacris. Perhaps there is a way to justify killing the one person. Tough, tough situation.

To complicate this matter even more (at least from my perspective) I would argue that one could offer ONESELF to be killed for the lives of the others. I would say that is morally acceptable. Is that considered suicide, which I believe is always wrong? I think it’s a sacrifice; you give yourself up for the greater good of others. Is that suicide though? Kind of a tricky distinction. This is a good scenario you’ve come up with. I have a lot of thinking to do…

“Perhaps I should have been more clear with my Native American example. The fundamental goal was not to educate the children, it was to remove them from the Native American culture and impose a new one upon them because those doing the removing felt that Native Americans were uncivillized and that their culture was inferior.”

I’d say that makes it even worse. Unless the culture was abusive to children or treated them as slaves or something, I would certainly say that it is immoral. Well, the baby is acting up, so I better tend to her. Take care, Enigma.

Bobby,

"It wasn't any one event or anything, just began studying and haven't stopped since."

That's always a good way to go. Thanks for sharing.

"Right. And even though in every and all cases this does not happen, it probably happens in many cases, although I don't do statistics."

I don't think anyone would have compiled statistics on this in any case; it's far too subjective and would be difficult to both measure and prove.

"You know what? I think we should pursue this further. Because I too believe this, even looking at it from your POV (by that I mean atheist/agnostic.) Some people use "the argument from objective morals" as a "proof" for the existence of God, and personally, I don't buy it. I think people, and you are a prime example, can believe that there are objective morals without believing in God. But, like you, I can't quite figure out how to go about arguing the premise "if objective morals exist, then God is the source of them." I also think, in somewhat opposition of what you said, that despite our subjective understandings, we may yet have the capacity to know them."

I feel that this would be a good avenue to pursue as well, but, like you, I haven't the faintest idea as to how one would do so. An obvious route would be "where do objective morals come from?" but I feel like it would probably not be productive one at this point.

"BTW, I wanted to tell you that I coincidentally was reading something non related to what we have been talking about, and I learned that the belief that the morality of an action is SOLELY determined by the intent of the person performing the action is called "voluntarism." So there it is."

Good to know--I'd never run into anything that stated what that belief was called. I suppose I should actually read philosophy instead of just debating it. Blast, another thing I don't have time for.

"But back to your above paragraph, I see your distinction now. I think there is a certain level in which we can agree. So I guess when I gave the example of someone not turning in homework to spite the teacher, the immoral act isn't really not turning in the homework, yet having a feeling of spite and animosity towards the teacher. So if what you are saying is that homework is "below" morals, I think I agree with that, bearing in mind the clarification I made."

We still don't completely agree: you would draw the distinction between the action being neutral and the feelings behind it being immoral whereas I would not draw that distinction at all. To me, in a general sense, feelings are not immoral or moral. This stems from my belief that humans cannot control all of their thoughts or feelings. Since they cannot control them, to me is seems counterintuitive to say that they are "behaving" morally or immorally based on either feelings or thoughts. How they act on those feelings or thoughts, however, is a completely different story.

"Now, what practical purpose does this distinction serve, or what's the point of this distinction?"

I would answer that it enables us to draw a distinction between a person behaving immorally and an immoral person. It's actually quite similar to your anser, barring the religious element.

I don't, however, believe that one should be completely absolved simply because he/she didn't know that said action was immoral. A bit contradictory with my other views, I admit, but this cuts really close with something I dislike about Christianity.

The notion that, regardless of what one does, one is simply forgiven if he/she confessess his/her trangressions to Christ and accepts Christ as his/her personal lord and savior is one that I have trouble with. On one hand, it's a beautiful and noble sentiment; on the other, I find it unfair to those who already were behaving in a moral fashion.

"Well, obviously I have a hard time thinking outside the box, but I think of it in terms of one's account of one's behavior to God."

First off, you do yourself too little credit.

"I certainly agree with your first example. Your second example is tough, and I may change my mind about how to deal with this situation in the future, but right now I lean towards saying that even though there will be more deaths, it would be immoral for the prisoner to kill one other prisoner. There are a couple “basic moral principles” that I might site for this, although I will probably need to argue why I would subscribe to them. The first one that I would site is that “the end does not justify the means.” So there is a wonderfully noble end; saving several innocent lives. But the action is the killing of an innocent. I do hold that an innocent can never directly and willfully be killed by another."

It may strike you as ironic in someone who clearly prefers theory as much as I do, but I believe that theory, as wonderful as it is, cannot possibly answer to all of the realities of life. When theory collides with reality, I am more likely to choose the latter.

"The second premise I would site is that “one may never do evil so that good may come of it.” The evil, I believe, is the killing of the innocent prisoner. The good is the saving of the lives of the other innocent."

Perhaps a real-life example would be more poignant. I read this autobiographical account in Reader's Digest several years ago, though I would be hard-pressed to tell you exacly when.

Anyway, this particular women worked as a maid for a fairly high-up SS officer. She lived in his basement and used it to hide a number of Jews who would instantly be killed if they were found.

They were successful for a while at keeping the SS officer in ingornance of their prescence but eventually he found out. When he did, he offered his housekeeper (I believe her name was something like Ingrid or Elena or Ivena) a choice: he would let them continue to live in his basement as before if she would willingly become his mistress. (I believe the exact quote was, "I want you willingly"). Ignoring the moral dimensions of the SS officer, what should the woman have done? What was the more moral thing for her to do: sleep with the man (and since the Catholic Church teaches that pre- or extra- maritial sex is immoral, this has more implications for you than me) or stand by and watch her Jewish friends be turned out on the street?

In the story, she slept with him and never told her houseguests because she knew that they would never have allowed her to pay that price for their survival. When she confessed to her priest (she was Catholic), he refused to absolve her and said that she was committing a mortal sin.

"To complicate this matter even more (at least from my perspective) I would argue that one could offer ONESELF to be killed for the lives of the others. I would say that is morally acceptable."

I would agree.

"Is that considered suicide, which I believe is always wrong? I think it’s a sacrifice; you give yourself up for the greater good of others. Is that suicide though? Kind of a tricky distinction. This is a good scenario you’ve come up with. I have a lot of thinking to do…"

I would argue that it is not considered suicide for a number of reasons. A.) It is not the person's own hand that commits the deed. B.) The person is not following typical suicidal reasoning (ie. "I don't like my life," "I would be better off dead," ect.). The person would prefer to remain alive but has realized that, for whatever reason, sacrificing onself is the only way to spare others. Suicide is a selfish act; this type of sacrafice is a selfless one. (Well, there are problems with that last statement--I could argue that a person could be sacrificing him/herself in order to be remembered or for some other selfish reason, but for the moment, I'll let that statement stand.)

"I’d say that makes it even worse. Unless the culture was abusive to children or treated them as slaves or something, I would certainly say that it is immoral."

My bad; I have this bad habit of assuming that a good portion of what I know is basic knowledge that everyone knows. This is not the first time I've been tripped up on that.

Have a good day.