Question 1: Name the source of the following quotation, "We believe that the United States and Israel share a special long-standing relationship based on shared values, a mutual commitment to a republican form of government, and a strategic alliance that benefits both nations. Our foreign policy with Israel should reflect the special nature of this relationship through continued military and economic assistance and recognition that Jerusalem is the capital of Israel and should remain an undivided city accessible to people of all faiths. We believe that the US Embassy should be located in Jerusalem. In our diplomatic dealings with Israel, we encourage the continuation of peace talks between Israel and the Palestinians, but oppose pressuring Israel to make concessions it believes would jeopardize its security, including the trading of land for the recognition of its right to exist. We call on the U.S. to cease strong arming Israel through prior agreements with the understanding of delivering equipment to them to defend themselves in exchange for future diplomatic concessions, such as giving up land to the Palestinians on the West Bank. We support the continuation of non-recognition of terrorist nations and organizations. Our policy is based on God’s biblical promise to bless those who bless Israel and curse those who curse Israel and we further invite other nations and organizations to enjoy the benefits of that promise."
Question 2: Name the source of the following quotation, "We urge Congress to evict the United Nations from the United States and eliminate any further participation."
recommend this
email
print
link to this page
Comments: 28
Question 2: Texas GOP platform...
OK, I totally cheated. :) But I figured it was GOP.
What I want to know is, why do Republicans think it's okay to say - on the one hand - that they support the First Amendment, but then...
Oh, Hell, never mind. Why do I even ask? Never mind the whole "anti-abortion" thing - or the "anti-gun control" thing - what I'm most concerned about is the "anti-Constitution" thing.
What specifically do you mean by "anti-constitution"? I skimmed over the info I found (heard it all before).
I think you should ask. We should all ask. Everything, everyone, ask ask ask... read read read... whatever we think or believe, the truth stands up to all assaults.
Freedom of speech - I know a woman who is on the "no fly list." Presumably because she blogged something critical about Bush.
Freedom from government established religion - isn't it becoming clearer and clearer, daily, that unless you're Republican and a conservative Christian, the current (and future hopeful) administrations have no use for you, unless they can convert you, save your soul, and make you their poster child?
A woman's right to choice is founded in an implied Constitutional right to privacy and freedom from undue government interference. Isn't it ironic that a party that argues they're in favor of LESS government is actually anti-choice, and wants a Constitutional amendment opposing abortions under any circumstances?
Sorry to scream your name, but please post your friend's story! Did she go to the airport and get kicked off a flight???? What happened? Does she happen to share the name of a shady character? Was she told it was because of her blog?
As for religion, I don't really see our government as particularly religious. They say it, but they don't do it. I am generalizing with the term "they", of course. We do have some believers in government.
Let me just say, at this point, that TSA is working harder - as far as I can see - to make an unpleasant process less unpleasant. They rarely strike me as nasty, power-hungry thugs these days. At worst, they're bored bureaucrats. At best, they're genuinely friendly. But SO untrusting. I accidentally tried to take an UNOPENED BOTTLE OF WATER (well-known brand, clearly still with its original seal intact) onto a flight. Ooops. I offered it to the TSA agents and said, "Why WASTE it?" Nope, it still went straight into the trash.
At least, on my last trip, they had the courtesy to put a little note in the bag they searched. I appreciate accountability and openness. Just for the record, nothing was missing (including the pocket knife and all-purpose camp tool) and amazingly, they managed to shove everything back into the duffel bag exactly as I'd packed it. If it hadn't been for the little note, I'd have never guessed they were there. I suspect they took extra care because I packed an inventory list of everything I'd taken on the camping trip, with a note at the bottom that I had a copy of the list with me, and would be comparing the lists as soon as I arrived home.
Or not. Who knows.
Now, they can even take your laptop as you go through security. Make sure you don't travel with sensitive data.
On to McCain, abortion, and Constitutional amendments:
http://majikthise.typepad.com/majikthise_/2006/11/mccain_wants_a_.html
We support a human life amendment to the Constitution, and we endorse legislation
to make clear that the Fourteenth Amendment’s protections apply to unborn children.
See p. 52 of the 2008 Republican Party Platform, available here:
http://www.gopplatform2008.com/2008Platform.pdf
Make no mistake - I'm all in favor of recognizing life in the womb when it comes to others assaulting a pregnant woman and killing her unborn child. I'm just pro-choice - a choice that should belong only to the mother - up to the moment when the child can live independently from her outside the womb. We always have to balance the interests of people in our society, and sometimes that leads to difficult moral choices. If you are truly "anti-abortion" on the grounds that you are "pro-life," you cannot support abortion "only in cases of rape, incest, or where the mother's health is in jeopardy." In cases of rape or incest, HOW ON EARTH can anyone argue that the child shares in the father's guilt? WHY is the child condemned to die for the acts of the father?
Further, these "pro-lifers" have NO problem with the death penalty:
We object to the Court’s unwarranted interference in the administration of the death penalty in this country for the benefit of savage criminals whose guilt is not at issue. We lament that judges have denied the people their right to set abortion policies
in the states and are undermining traditional marriage laws from coast to coast.
This is taken from p. 20. It's a little disingenuous to suggest that you are in favor of preserving states' rights to set abortion policies and, in the same document, talk about making a Constitutional amendment to effectively outlaw abortion on a federal level.
I went back and took out my question about abortion (from my comment) since it usually starts a bloody battle here on Gather! But I am glad you answered my question anyway.
I see your point here- "If you are truly "anti-abortion" on the grounds that you are "pro-life," you cannot support abortion "only in cases of rape, incest, or where the mother's health is in jeopardy." In cases of rape or incest, HOW ON EARTH can anyone argue that the child shares in the father's guilt? WHY is the child condemned to die for the acts of the father?"
You are so right.
Interesting points and a well-written post.
"Bloody battle," eh? I respect everyone's right to their beliefs and opinions. I have more respect for them if they are at least consistent and sincere. I have even more respect for them if they were formed after evaluating facts, opposing points of view, and considering all the angles. I don't know if you've read my post on abortion, but it's half of a debate between me and a Catholic dad who hadn't planned on being a dad... (out of respect for his copyright, I've only included links to the original - not any of his text - so at some points it may be difficult to follow unless you go to the site where it was originally posted). Somehow, we managed to have quite a debate and still remain friendly - in fact, we decided we would probably enjoy meeting in person and having a coffee. Neither of us changed the other's mind on the issues, but no blood was drawn.
:)
How many of you have read your party's platform?
Assuming that the platform DOES represent the majority of Party members, then the candidate's stance on the issues should sincerely reflect that - he's a Party candidate. Would you prefer a loose cannon? Why would a Party back him, then? It would cause a lot of confusion and a larger waste of money than we have now, I think. But it's also a shame that Independents face such a tough battle financially and in terms of publicity. The Parties really are a huge political machine - I like to think an Independent stood a chance, but I'm just cynical enough to think it'll never happen.
I see nothing in American History to suggest that a person could elected without a political party. I think George Washington was the last to do it.
Gather Broadcasting: Have it your way
This takes you in the front door, and this takes you in the back door. If you’ve been, don’t click again.