Circus at Saddleback

[Pandora]

NO he just talked about the Border of Afganistan and Iraq.. said the name of Georgia's President wrong a few times, then stated that Al Quida was going over back into Iran to get trained and going back to Iraq....Aslo what was the name of the football team whos line he used be the names of his squad in Nam? Packers or Stealers?

But yea keep with the trivial misspeaking , cuz we know McCain has never screwed up like that....

and Bush does on the hour...

I have to have fun, and I am guilty of laughing at Obama's stupidity just like others have fun laughing at Bush's stupidity and McCains.

I laugh at Bush too, and I would vote for Bush before Obama any day.

 

[The Scotsman]

Just by way of general comment..... The concept of a politician standing up in front of a religious assembly justifying themselves and their beliefs is totally alien in the framework of the UK political system it simply does not happen. It is generally understood that religion and politics do not mix thus no-one really bothers about it to much because administration of the Country has nothing to do with theocracy or better put government does not operate by the leave of theocratic doctrin.

IMHO I feel that this kind of debate is devisive and shows to some extent the reasons why the calibre of candidates is being compromised. To me it seems odd that the selection criterion of a presidential candidate is based partly on his/her religious qualifications when ultimately the state or office of president has little to do with religion. Surely religion and belief are personal and should not become political?

What chance for a supremely qualified person if he or she simply said
"well I'm not that religious really!"

Or if when questioned on abortion they shrugged their shoulders and said "well I'm not qualified to say because I want to put my expertise into running the economy and defence etc."

 

[Libsmasher]

Just by way of general comment..... The concept of a politician standing up in front of a religious assembly justifying themselves and their beliefs is totally alien in the framework of the UK political system it simply does not happen. It is generally understood that religion and politics do not mix thus no-one really bothers about it to much because administration of the Country has nothing to do with theocracy or better put government does not operate by the leave of theocratic doctrin.

IMHO I feel that this kind of debate is devisive and shows to some extent the reasons why the calibre of candidates is being compromised. To me it seems odd that the selection criterion of a presidential candidate is based partly on his/her religious qualifications when ultimately the state or office of president has little to do with religion. Surely religion and belief are personal and should not become political?

What chance for a supremely qualified person if he or she simply said
"well I'm not that religious really!"

Or if when questioned on abortion they shrugged their shoulders and said "well I'm not qualified to say because I want to put my expertise into running the economy and defence etc."

The US is not the UK, and liberals religionists have been DEEPLY involved in politics since the dawn of the american republic. Also you appear not to have grasped what happened - the candidates were questioned on their positions on the >>ISSUES<<. Your comment about abortion misses the point - a politician has to vote up or down when abortion bills come up for a vote.