Barack Obama vs. Hillary Clinton @ Univ of Texas
After a long week of thesisizing on Southern Baptists AND a late night trip to the Emergency Room due to a rather bizarre allergic reaction to Advil, thebigdaddyweave is preparing to journey South on I-35 to Austin. My destination is the Hyatt Regency where I will join many fellow Dems at the Debate Watch Party sponsored by the Texas Democratic Party.
After tonight's debate being held at the University of Texas, Clinton and Obama will mosey on over to the Hyatt and make an appearance.
And I'll be there to greet the next President of the United States.
So, make sure to watch the debate tonight on CNN.
Labels: Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton
posted by Big Daddy Weave at 11:54 AM
10 Comments:
Wow, I hope you are incorrect about the next president.
I have two questions:
How is supporting abortion, homosexuality, and civil unions helpful to the family institution?
How is destroying the institution of the family helpful to society?
I just don't see how any of that can be a good thing, but am open to having it explained to me.
6:43 AM
Big Daddy,
Travel in God's grace and safety.
I don't want you to get hurt. You are such a worthy opponent and never boring. :-)
Seriously, be safe in your travel.
cb
8:30 AM
Was it worth the $50?
1:22 PM
I know I'm a rare visitor here, but may I?
I have two questions:
How is supporting abortion, homosexuality, and civil unions helpful to the family institution?
Supporting marriage (straight or gay) and families (straight or gay) be part of healthy families helps families, seems to me.
And who supports abortion? Do you have a source?
Or are you talking about being opposed to criminalizing abortion (which is certifiably different than supporting abortion - if words mean anything)?
How is destroying the institution of the family helpful to society?
Again, you'll have to provide a source, showing me who exactly you mean is advocating destroying the "institution of family." I've heard no such claims.
1:25 PM
Even with all errors McCain is now making, beating him will not be easy because the media (NY Times excepting) love him. But Obama still has a better chance of beating Mr. "Less Jobs/More Wars" than Clinton does.
I add this cautionary note only because I think some Dems are foolishly believing the Gen. Election will be a cakewalk. Expect every dirty trick and October surprise in the book.
Obama is, I think, prepared. His community organizing is beating the Clinton machine and will probably do the same with McCain. Also, the GOP cannot count on Ohio, Michigan, or Pennsylvania to swing their way because of the recession.
TX, NM, & CO are in play--maybe AZ, too, if Gov. Janet Napolitano is Obama's VP. If Kathleen Sebelius is his VP, Kansas is in play.
This election will be one for the history books.
4:07 AM
I don't think the General will be a cakewalk. But it will definitely be uphill for the Republicans. The '06 Elections signaled an Anti-Bush sentiment among many voters. McCain is too closely connected to the current Administration and those policies. That will be an easy case to make.
As for Kansas - did you see Sebelius deliver the Response to the State of the Union just a month ago? Look up DRY in the dictionary and you'll see a picture of Sebelius standing next to John Kerry. Compared to Obama, she's a definite contrast!
I'd like to see Gov. Tim Kaine of VA on the Obama ticket. Obama might be able to win Virginia without Kaine. It would be very close. But if on the ticket, Kaine could deliver Virginia to the Dems. And that would be an important southern pick-up.
8:40 AM
PS, I just saw Texan with an *. Hahahahaha!!!
4:29 PM
Dan/world at large,
Abortion is the killing of an innocent human being for the (normally) convienience of another. Everyone loves throwing out the 'to save the life of the mother' argument, but no liberals or moderates seem to want it limited to that. They seem to just want people to be able to murder for convienience. Sounds worse than a Holocaust to me. At least the Jews were able to speak.
And what is a family? Your definiton would have to be 'any group of people choosing to live together.' You may choose to place some sort of paperwork in the mix, but the basic point is that you have completely destroyed the true meaning of family. You like C.S. Lewis? Look at what he writes about the changing of the meaning of the word gentleman. It's pretty applicable.
Ultimately, family is what societies are based on. By family, I mean one man and one woman living together in the covenant of marriage with the children of that union. This institution shows a respect and revere for the larger family of grandparents, siblings, aunts, uncles, etc.
That is what society is based on and to take that away is to destroy the foundation of our country's most prized values, which you may be suprised to find out are not the exaltaion of the individual over the group.
So again, I am open to having all of this explained to me, but I cannot now see how the values prized by moderates and liberals lead to anything productive.
4:21 AM
I have friends who are lesbian, married and who have adopted a child. They are in a stable, loving relationship and have provided the same to their beloved son.
That is of benefit to society. Every time.
I another friend who is single who decided to adopt two lovely children and provide them with a loving, wonderful home instead of the Chinese orphanage where they were living.
That sort of giving, loving behavior is of benefit to society. Every time.
Family is what we make it.
Now, I've answered your question. How about answering mine? Who is advocating abortion? Who is advocating the destruction of the family?
Short of any evidence, I'll have to assume that you have no actual evidence for the erroneous claims made against Obama and Clinton.
11:06 AM
Sorry to have apparently abandoned this. I just tought no one ever responded to me.
Love is a wonderful thing and the statistics do show that in their limited percentage, homosexual unions may 'better' show love to their children than heterosexual ones, but that is an indictment against the family in the US, not an admonition of homosexual union.
You may not agree with this, but it's pretty true that children grow up to be like their parents. With a more accepting view of homosexuality as a 'family' structure, the end result is a loss of gender roles and a breakdown of our society.
Some may tote the loss of gender roles as a good thing, but it can never be universally applied and is faulty at its core, not religiously, just physically.
I guess we need to define the word advocate. What I mean is to approve of or to give ascent by permission.
The basic idea is that since both Obama and Clinton tote a woman's right to choose, they are saying that one person has freedoms that negate another's. Basically, 'I can kill you because you are an inconvinience.'
That sounds like a good ideal for our nation.
By the way, see any of their speeches or platform stances for proof of their pro-choice-ness.
12:39 AM
Post a Comment
<< Home