This is why I think Mitt Romney is who we need running this country...

[MikeWaters]

Originally Posted by YOhio

I'm not sure it was as bad as you say, but McCain definitely got the best of him on this point:

I think I have for a while been in the camp that Romney is woefully misguided. I am now entertaining the idea that he is just plain evil.

[YOhio]

Originally Posted by MikeWaters

I think I have for a while been in the camp that Romney is woefully misguided. I am now entertaining the idea that he is just plain evil.

Based on that? All he really said is that we're not going to be advertising our interrogation field manuals to the rest of the world. He looked like a dork saying it in contrast to an emotional and indignent war hero, but the substance of what he wasn't that bad. He's said alot worse things.

[MikeWaters]

Originally Posted by YOhio

Based on that? All he really said is that we're not going to be advertising our interrogation field manuals to the rest of the world. He looked like a dork saying it in contrast to an emotional and indignent war hero, but the substance of what he wasn't that bad. He's said alot worse things.

He has no morals. He has no center. He has no compunction. This is obvious to almost everyone.

[Archaea]

Originally Posted by MikeWaters

He has no morals. He has no center. He has no compunction. This is obvious to almost everyone.

No I think Professor Peters hit the nail on the head, Mormons do not fight against structural evil very well. We do much better against individual evil than structural evil. To say he has no morals is dishonest. He has no sense of public morals in terms of structural issues. But that is a fault of Mormon culture not this individual in particular. It's why Mormons simply allowed the priesthood ban to continue so silently.

[MikeWaters]

Originally Posted by Archaea

No I think Professor Peters hit the nail on the head, Mormons do not fight against structural evil very well. We do much better against individual evil than structural evil. To say he has no morals is dishonest. He has no sense of public morals in terms of structural issues. But that is a fault of Mormon culture not this individual in particular. It's why Mormons simply allowed the priesthood ban to continue so silently.

I don't care whose fault it is. It's a fault of his, and I oppose him.

If he was a New Mormon, then maybe he would be a better candidate.

New Mormon = aware of structural evil

[SeattleUte]

For the love of God, the President is the Commander in Chief of our armed forces. This may be our ultimate redeeming virtue, the commander in chief popularly elected by civilians. Truman made the decision to drop The Bomb on Hiroshima and Nagasaki. It was also Truman who fired his chief general, MacArthur, who wanted to use tactical nuclear weapons in Korea, for insubordination. The President has to have the scruples to draw the line on what is and is not torture, to follow international and domestic law in the treatment of prisoners, or no one else will. He's the check, the people's check. Otherwise expecting generals to not torture is like expecting coporations not to put profit aboove all else, not polluting, etc. People who think we're constitutionally incapable of sliding into the moral chasm of our predecessors are deluded. Decency at a national level takes discipline and constant moral vigilance.

This exchange between McCain and Romney is about the most appalling thing I've seen in an election. Anyone with a sense of history and the miracle that is our republic ought to be totally disgusted with Romney over that exchange.

[Archaea]

Originally Posted by MikeWaters

I don't care whose fault it is. It's a fault of his, and I oppose him.

If he was a New Mormon, then maybe he would be a better candidate.

New Mormon = aware of structural evil

Does somebody being aware of structural evil necessarily live a better personal life?

Will those changes in life, such as being sensitive to Euro sensibilities in relationship to definitions of torture make for a better life for our citizens?

I'm not stating structural evil should be eliminated wherever possible, but where does it relate in terms of other priorities?

We have issues of immigration, issues of trade regulation, issues of criminality, and many other germane issues. Why do you rate structural evil in Gitmo higher than these others?

[Archaea]

Originally Posted by SeattleUte

For the love of God, the President is the Commander in Chief of our armed forces. This may be our ultimate redeeming virtue, the commander in chief popularly elected by civilians. Truman made the decision to drop The Bomb on Hiroshima and Nagasaki. It was also Truman who fired his chief general, MacArthur, who wanted to use tactical nuclear weapons in Korea, for insubordination. The President has to have the scruples to draw the line on what is and is not torture, to follow international and domestic law in the treatment of prisoners, or no one else will. He's the check, the people's check. Otherwise expecting generals to not torture is like expecting coporations not to put profit aboove all else, not polluting, etc. People who think we're constitutionally incapable of sliding into the moral chasm of our predecessors are deluded. Decency at a national level takes discipline and constant moral vigilance.

This exchange between McCain and Romney is about the most appalling thing I've seen in an election. Anyone with a sense of history and the miracle that is our republic ought to be totally disgusted with Romney over that exchange.

For me, it's not whether we should guard against structural evil, as I suppose most would agree that's a virtue. But what priority does an issue such as Gitmo deserve in light of all the other priorities? Do we focus upon an issue which so far has affected not one citizen to the exclusion of one affecting each and every citizen?

To me, it's a sense of a hierarchy of priorities and we're placing one with no immediate impact upon our citizens above those which affect all of us.

[MikeWaters]

It's absolutely key. It's a small step to go from torturing terrorist suspects to torturing the suspect in a kidnapping to torturing political enemies.

[Tex]

Originally Posted by YOhio

Based on that? All he really said is that we're not going to be advertising our interrogation field manuals to the rest of the world. He looked like a dork saying it in contrast to an emotional and indignent war hero, but the substance of what he wasn't that bad. He's said alot worse things.

Interesting that the prevailing opinion on here is that Romney came off looking bad against McCain in that exchange. I disagree. I think McCain came off exploitative (the Powerline guys used the word "demagogic") of the question.

McCain on torture is starting to become a little like Rudy on 9/11. Smacks of opportunism. I understand the man suffered and I respect his view, but he isn't the only one permitted to lodge an opinion on this topic. In fact, one could argue that his experience taints his ability to make an objective decision.

Originally Posted by MikeWaters

I think I have for a while been in the camp that Romney is woefully misguided. I am now entertaining the idea that he is just plain evil.

I think I have for a while been in the camp that Waters' take on Romney is woefully misguided. I am now entertaining the idea that it is just plain stupid.