Comments Posted By Doug Purdie
Displaying 11 To 20 Of 34 Comments
I think the biggest question he'll have to answer is his support for the war effort in Iraq at a time when popular support is waning. I think he can win the GOP nomination by drawing himself tougher and more aggressive than Bush, but that may, at the same time, alienate him from General Election voters.
Comment Posted By Doug Purdie On 15.02.2007 @ 12:50
"GOODE" GRIEF! HERE COME DA MOOSLIMS
Jonathan,
Correct, but not absolutely correct. Anybody of any religious faith can't help but let it influence their politics. We are talking a matter of degree, though, and not just a few degrees.
Unlike Islam, Christianity does not have a "take over the world and replace all laws of man with the laws of the Book" mentality. Laws of the Western/Christian nations do not, for example, outlaw dissin' your Mom and Dad, fantasizing about your neighbor's wife or deciding not to be Christian any more. Yet those are three of the primary ten "Thou shalt nots" that the Judeo/Christian God gave to man.
Comment Posted By Doug Purdie On 4.01.2007 @ 12:58
I hear about Muslim demands all the time - special times to swim in the public pools; special prayer rooms in the public schools; to act suspiciously on airplanes with impunity; wives' faces covered in their ID photos; the right to refuse Taxi service a customer based on their previous puchase. Nothing specific from Kieth Ellison, but I'm guessing he's symapthetic to much of the above.
"...his religion shouldn’t enter into the debate."
... unless his religion largely influences his policies, which is a major charateristic of Islam. It's not just a religion. It's a philosophy of life that must be applied in all circumstances, inside or outside the Mosque, inside or outside the halls of government.
I agree with Goode. I'll continue to apply a religious test when I vote, but only for Muslims.
Comment Posted By Doug Purdie On 3.01.2007 @ 12:06
Hot Ait did a good job of clarifying the apprent contradictions of Ford's quotes. He was aginst the invation, but supported the effort once underway.
I have to disagree with DeFranks' conclusion, though. Being a man of loyalty to the USA and the office of the President, Ford did not want to publicly criticize the sitting President while he was still in office. He asked that his opinion be withheld until his death, I think, because he didn't think he would die before Bush's term expired. Unfortunately, he did die and did criticize the current President.
Comment Posted By Doug Purdie On 29.12.2006 @ 12:19
OBAMA FAILS RELIGIOUS TEST: SCHLUSSEL
I can criticize Ms. Schlussel for her assumptions about Obama's religious affiliations based on his name and parentage. By her logic individuals cannot choose their own belief system. They are stuck with what their parents bestow upon them. So, when I tell you that I am an atheist, don't believe me. My parents gave me a Scottish name - first, middle and last - then baptized and raised me Presbyterian.
I do share some of her suspicions. While I would never support a law that would prevent a candidate of any religious affiliation from running or taking office should they be elected, I, personally, will not vote for a Muslim. Kieth Ellison was elected to the House in a fair and free election and should be allowed to hold his office regardless of which book he places his hand on when he swears allegience to the USA and to uphold it's constitution.
I am, however, still free to use a religious test to determine my own vote. I use it for Muslims because most would tell me that Islam is not just a relious philosophy. It is also a political and socio-economic philosophy - in short, a holistic approach that informs their choices in all aspects of life. And it's a philosophy with which I have a great many disagreements.
Comment Posted By Doug Purdie On 20.12.2006 @ 12:25
IF BUSH GOES "ALL IN," I'M WITH HIM
It will work. But, adding troops and "doubling-down" efforts won't be enough. As B. Poster said, we have to allow them to actually fight. And, by fight, I mean fight ruthlessly, without regard for the opinions of the world's media and governing elite, because the only opinions that matter are ours and the Iraqi's.
In America, support for the war will return. America loves a war time president, but only if he is winning.
In Iraq, those citizens who were with us after deposing their brutal dictator will start to support us again and those who have always been against us will fear and respect us.
In a culture with a "King of the Hill" mentality, we have to march up the hill, proclaims ourselves their King, then re-start democracy building. We say, "Your King orders you to choose your own government. It's safe now."
Break 'em down, then build 'em back up.
Comment Posted By Doug Purdie On 15.12.2006 @ 11:30
Racism won't prevent an Obama victory. His name will prevent it. One very close and reasonable person I know said, "I won't vote for him. I don't care what stands he has on the issues or how smart he is. His name (Obama rhymes with Osama) makes him sound too much like a terrorist."
When polled people will say, "I have no problem voting for a black man." In the privacy of the voting booth, many will decide, on the spot, that they can't take the chance that they'd be voting for a terrorist sympathyzer. It's not sound reasoning, but it's how a lot of people think.
Comment Posted By Doug Purdie On 13.12.2006 @ 11:41
THE ISG REPORT: NOT EXACTLY "BLOOD, SWEAT, AND TEARS"
I guess the ISG was formed to put an end to political back biting over Iraq by issuing bipartisan, consensus recommendations. I think many people assumed that because the recommendations are bipartisan and consensus, they would actually be effective solutions. Not necessarily so.
Comment Posted By Doug Purdie On 6.12.2006 @ 13:43
LET'S HEAR IT FOR THE MAPLE LEAF
Rick, I didn't know! I do now, though, and will take your advice and honor the Canadian soldiers whenever I have an opportunity. Thanks for informing us so well.
Comment Posted By Doug Purdie On 30.11.2006 @ 11:38
ANTHRAX HOAXER CAUGHT: WHERE'S MALKIN?
I think many of these crazies do "need the 'trigger' of a Limbaugh or a Coulter (or a Manson or a Castro". Still, you absolutely cannot blame the "trigger" for a shooting. The crazy is the one pulling the "trigger" and bears all the responsibilty.
Commentators cannot tame their rhetoric because some crazy, somewhere, somehow, may misinterpret it. Their language should only be tailored to the overwhelming majority of their audience who are sane and reasonable.
Comment Posted By Doug Purdie On 15.11.2006 @ 12:29
