Obama finally forced to resign!

Yeah, but...

He's a great speaker. So is Tony Robbins. All talk with no content to back up what was just said. Case in point: Hope/Change. Hope for what? A better America? DUH! Everybody that's a good citizen wants a better America. Change? What change? All talk with no specifics.
Click to expand...

If you look at political campaigns since the invention of television, and maybe even before then, going into the specifics of your policy ideas is almost always the losing way to go. First, it gives as much ammo to your opponent as it does to you, and second, it's hard to do without sounding like you're reading stereo instructions aloud.

I think Obama's going to win the Presidency, and I think he'll probably do at least a decent job. Most of them have, really. We've had some spectacular failures, and some notable successes, but most of our Presidents have been pretty mediocre. Which is what you'd expect... fairly graded, most students get C's and B's.

--Shannon
 
Im not going to vote for him and even if I was, I wouldnt worry about his church. What about bush and all evangelicalness? That never came up..
 
I'm not a big fan of any religious organization. In any church the preacher will say something stoopid and offensive.
The difference here imho is that white preachers such as Hagee, and Roberston have real political power and that for the most part gives them a pass in the media. So in spite of years of saying things that are pretty much bigoted baloney they are still main-stream enough that McCain would actively lobby for their support. I suspect it was only as part of the Rev. Wright that McCain had to distance himself from Hagee and Parsley.
Pfleger and Wright are pretty much out of the political main-stream so they're a novelty, when they something stupid it's news. A long history of reportage of right wing lunacy has pretty much deadened our ability to be shocked by it.
Wright Pfleger et al. don't have the power to make pointing out their idiocy dangerous to the media that reports it. That's not to say they don't have power, Wright is very powerful in Chicago and Illinois politics. But in national power elites, fat right wing white conservative preachers out number every other religious demographic combined.

We could of course change this by demanding that all politicians be either agnostic, atheist, or perhaps deists.
 
If you look at political campaigns since the invention of television, and maybe even before then, going into the specifics of your policy ideas is almost always the losing way to go. First, it gives as much ammo to your opponent as it does to you, and second, it's hard to do without sounding like you're reading stereo instructions aloud.
Click to expand...

I see your point...but what if a candidate did provide specifics early in the game? So what if the media goes nuts and your opponent uses it against you. If a candidate is honest with his/her plan and answers directly how he/she wants it executed, little ammo is left in the opponent's gun after the dust settles. After the "sticker shock", voters may take reason and rational thinking to heart. By November people might actually vote for the candidate with no surprises in the next 4 years.

An arbitrary example. VERY generalistic terms to keep things simplified:

What if I was running for POTUS and I wanted to lower the federal income tax by 50%. Well, great. But something has to give if I also want to reduce the deficit. Programs will have to be slashed or benefits reduced. I would be upfront on what programs are affected in order for this to happen. If the general public really thinks that a Pres. can actually allow them to have cake and eat it too, then maybe they won't vote for me. So be it. If they vote for the other candidate that claims to perform the impossible, then they deserve the end result. And we all know what the result would be.

I'd rather vote for a candidate that gives me specifics on what he/she is going to do and how we're going to afford it than one that proclaims that he/she will promise the world.
 
We could of course change this by demanding that all politicians be either agnostic, atheist, or perhaps deists.
Click to expand...

Which is a religion in itself...

So tell me....How would a candidate that's Atheist become POTUS when the majority of Americans are traditionalists and are believers?

Scratch that. I don't want to cause a thread lock. Consider it a rhetorical question....
 
A small observation

And I apologize if this is considered off topic.

I am suprised this even bothers most people, considering all the lies and hipocrisy we have seen from the Bush Administration.
Click to expand...

It seems to come up rather frequently, that whenever one of the current candidates does or says something disagreeable to someone (and this is frequent), that someone else will point out something disagreeable to them (and many of us) about the Bush administration.

For them, and us, I offer a quote, (and if you can figure out where this one comes from, you win no prize)

"Pointing out the mud on someone else's fins does not improve your own swimming."

In short, I don't care to hear about how something the candidates do/say isn't so bad beacuse Bush said/did xxxxxx. It doesn't matter. Johnny takes your toys, but that's not so bad, because Timmy beat you up? Come on people, grow up, please!
 
Huh? I don't like Obama, and will not vote for him. But I do believe a lot of the attacks made upon him regarding his religion are thinly veiled attempts to discriminate against him based on race and/or religion.
Click to expand...

His religion is Black Liberation Theology, the same as the Black Panthers....Black seperatist Marxists. They think anything other than blacks should be sent back to Europe, or better yet, the ultimate silence...non-blacks are not genuine people. Their BLACK god hates whites and must destroy them.

Now: Who's views discriminate based on race and who's religion wants to eliminate people based on race? Look at Obama's relative in Kenya, Odinga, who Obama has endorsed and other BLACK Marxist regimes in Africa to see the worldview Obama has in mind. Note that under the Alinsky model that Obama was trained under (as a community organizer) you are not supposed to show your true beliefs until you have the power to impose it.

I do not hate black people as a group, but why can't I recognize that certain black people seem to hate me without being called a racist?
 
His religion is Black Liberation Theology, the same as the Black Panthers....Black seperatist Marxists. They think anything other than blacks should be sent back to Europe, or better yet, the ultimate silence...non-blacks are not genuine people. Their BLACK god hates whites and must destroy them.
Click to expand...

Doesn't the fact that Obama is as much white as he is black kind of make most of what you just said kind of silly?
 
Doesn't the fact that Obama is as much white as he is black kind of make most of what you just said kind of silly?
Click to expand...

Obama's genetic background is well known and not subject to debate, nor should it be. However, his beliefs are germaine to his candidacy for the Presidency and are a valid topic for discussion.
 
+1 Mountainclimbr is correct, Obama was a praticing Black Liberation theologist for 20 years, and his autobiographies have a anti-white flavor.

A "self hating jew" is a Jewish person who actually hates jewish tradition and people. Obama may be part white, but he definately shuns that side of his makeup.

Any other person with common sense would have moved on and changed churches after their pastor made those remarks. Unfortunately Obama core is still the same. He will just move to another BLT church that has a less outspoken pastor.

Here is a video breakdown of the history of Obama and the Black Liberation Theology.
http://www.eyeblast.tv/Public/Video.aspx?RsrcID=2036&offset=2
 
tube_ee

Based on your responses above you will be voting for Obama...We are all on a forum where I believe we all believe in the 2nd amendment...that being the case.....with Obama's record of voting for Gun control how can you in good conscience vote for him?

I am just wondering....
 
I believe the phrase was " I can no more turn my back on Rev. Wright than I can on the Black Community."

Looks like he has now managed to do both.

This is simple though. Obama is a Chicago politician whose whole career has been primary fights. The general election never mattered for him since the Dem candidate would win that. The key was the primary and Obama's core for those primary fights has been Wright, TUC and the enraged black poor. That got him is state seats. That got him is Washington Senate seat. That has even gotten him his DNC nomination.

The problem is he has come to realize that the core which got him all he wanted in the past will cost him what he wants in the future. Now he needs to toss every association he has had for 20 years under the bus in order to shore up support among white working class democrats. At least he is revealed for what he really is, a politician willing to associate with ANYONE in order to gain a vote.
 
Doesn't the fact that Obama is as much white as he is black kind of make most of what you just said kind of silly?
Click to expand...
Not according to the One Drop Rule.

McCain is going to continue to lead us down the same path as Bush.
Click to expand...
That's a popular Obama sound byte, but fortunately isn't the truth. McCain is very different from Bush, and has been critical of the Bush administration for years now.
Contrary to Obama propaganda, McCain didn't start the Iraq war. But he is the only candidate with enough guts to admit that we can't just walk away from the Iraq mess. Leaving Iraq now would turn it into a larger and far more dangerous version of Afghanistan under the Taliban, or it might become West Iran. We'd be very, very sorry in the long run. Obama might be smart enough to know this, but he isn't honest enough or lacks the courage to tell the unpopular truth.
 
I don't see any difference between McCain and Bush on any issue, except that McCain is more anti-gun, in favor of more open borders, and knows less (if you can imagine) about the economy than Bush.
 
I don't see any difference between McCain and Bush on any issue, except that McCain is more anti-gun, in favor of more open borders, and knows less (if you can imagine) about the economy than Bush.
Click to expand...

McCain hasn't voted against Bush. Seems pretty similar to me.
 
The fact that Obama has resigned from his church at this time, in spite of his long history of espousing black liberation theology, exposes him as politically flippant and not credible, not to mention the racist leaning direction he has taken for quite some time. Come on, he's gonna deny living his history? I am voting Libertarian, and let the chips fall where they may. If Obama gets in, it will be one term, long enough for the GOP to get a clue.
 
What I find interesting is that the negative comments from Michelle Obama, Wright, Pfleger, and Ayers do not conflict with each other, but they do conflict with what Barack professes to believe. Michelle Obama, Wright, Pfleger, and Ayers have all made statements that Barack has stated, in his own words, that he disagrees with (in the case of his wife, he claims her words were taken out of context, although I see no evidence of that).

It must be very lonely spending decades of your life immersed in and surrounded by people you vehemently disagree with.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top