Who would you vote for
 

If the US presidential election were held tomorrow, and you were eligible to vote, who would you vote for?

Hrm. I thought I picked the option to only choose one option, but apparently not. :-/ Ah well.

This is Obama's church..... http://www.tucc.org/home.htm

This is is their 10 point vision...... http://www.tucc.org/about.htm

While it may sound raciphobic... there is no way in Hell I am voting for a person who's "church" has those points as their "vision".

Excuse me???? What about a non negotiable commitment to the people in our OWN country????? I guess that's like Oprah giving millions to African schools but nothing to our own....

I'm sorry but this isn't what my country is, at least to me. These "visions" from this "church" do not bring this nation together but it divides us even more.

There is no way in Hell I am voting for a man that goes to a church that wants to divide my country further and promotes a race ancestory and foreign continent over my own country.

You want all this for Africa, go to Africa and do it. Bring my country back to greatness, bring my country's people closer, teach race, ancestory and culture do not matter.

I recommend everyone investigate this "church" and see what it truly stands for and what Obama truly believes.

This is as far from the true teachings of Christ as Pat Robertson's gang is.

And I wouldn't vote for Pat either.

(BTW... this is not to disparage the United Church of Christ (UCC) as a whole it is a very good denomination filled withe IMHO some of the truest and best Christians out there.... the Church Obama belongs to the one above... IMHO is UCC in name only.)

Come now SecretMethod70, voting twice by Democrats is only allowed in the actual general election. :)

How'd you do that anyway?

I'm trying to comprehend how it's okay to disparage Obama, but not the UCC which you are utilizing to judge him by and which, by your own admission, stands for the very things you can not tolerate.

What is it that makes you such a John Lennon fan? I think he would have been disappointed in some of the statements and judgments you've just made.

Sorry, but African Americans and 'Black' churches get a bit of a pass from me on this. I see where you're coming from, but it was not that long ago that white folk routinely enslaved blacks. It was not that long ago they were considered subhuman. It was not that long ago they were not allowed to vote. Racism is still very real in this country today.

One day, I hope, we can truly get beyond race. A lot of progress has been made. But it's far too early to think we're there yet. I also disagree with you when you say that "...race, ancestory and culture do not matter." They *do* matter. Once we can recognize that all men (and women!) are created equal, then we can embrace and enjoy our differences, not pretend they don't exist. I know you probably didn't mean we should pretend they don't exist, but my point is, we should enjoy and celebrate those differences. A black man should feel free to be proud of his ancestry, and have a "commitment" to africa, just like a white man such as myself should be proud of my ancestry, and have a commitment to...well, a bunch of cultures and countries, I'm a bit of a mongrel... There's no difference in my mind between this church's commitment to africa and an Irishman's commitment to Ireland by wearing green, getting drunk on St. Patty's day, and being politically involved in 'Irish' issues.

First, the UCC and the TUCC have different visions. While the UCC tries to bring people of ALL races together and create unity, the TUCC is segregationalist, as much racist as the Aryan Brethren of Christ Church.

This comes from Wiki... it's Jeremiah Wright's bio...
Now tell me again, how does this support unity?

If this were a white man candidate coming from a church that honored David Dukes as a great visionary (or whatever) ... do you think that man would get even 1 vote, even if he vehemently stated he was in disagreement with that decision? The press would be tearing that man to shreds, he'd be considered the biggest racist in America.... so why is Obama different and allowed to get a pass.

Christ and Lennon taught WE ARE ALL BROTHERS... that color, nationality, etc should not matter. Yet, when I point out this "church" does look at race, does separate races, does have agendas that may not be healthy..... I'm told "how un-Lennon like... how dare I..... It's ok for the blacks to be racist we had them as slaves...." When did I own a black man as a slave? When did I ever push a black man or woman to the back of a bus or into a closet of a restroom?

We are ALL people, who have great talents, abilities and intelligence unique only to ourselves. WE are only the color our skin is when we choose to use it to discriminate against others. When we use our religion to denigrate others, when we use our wealth to shame others.

We need churches and religions that teach us those things!!!!!!!

Not how to further racist divides and hatreds, like Obama's church does.

I fail to see what in that churches vision is divisive. Do you really think that pledging commitment to Africa and pledging commitment to the USA are mutually exclusive?

When it singles out one Continent and peoples, yes. If that vision were to say "a non-negotiable commitment to ALL people" I wouldn't have a complaint and I would be very much in support.

The fact that the leader of the "church" went to Libya with Louis Farrakhan during a period when Libya was a terrorist state hating the US, the fact the church gave a racist Louis Farrakhan an award that said he "truly epitomized greatness", the fact that the more information you dig up on Rev. Wright and this "church", the more you find it keeps racism alive and well... yes, it is very divisive, yes it is very racist, yes it is Christian in name only... yes it is Obama's church and I, for one will not support any man that supports such racism.

But again, if it were a "church" that had the vision of empowering whites, non-negotiable commitments to Europe, and so on and the candidate was white he'd be run out as the country's biggest racist, yet when it is Obama and the "church" separates races and promotes black agendas... It's ok, there's nothing wrong with that.

RACISM = RACISM REGARDLESS OF WHICH COLOR USES IT.

Sorry, Obama just isn't my man and this is a major reason, but not the only reason, nor the deciding factor, but it is something people should look at, investigate for themselves, and think about.

Welcome to one year ago pan. This issue has already been brought up and ultimately decided as unimportant to the American public.

I'll leave it at that, because I'm so infuriated by xenophobia and nationalism I'd have difficulty maintaining civility for much longer.

Then I trust you also feel the same about Mc'Cain and his accepting of the recent endorsement from Hagee?

Fair enough.

Then maybe someone can explain all this "church" bs to me. Perhaps, explain how it isn't preaching divisiveness and hatred. Explain to me how Obama is above all this and the "visions" are just being misunderstood.

Explain it to me without implying I'm a racist or Xenophobe because obviously you didn't see where I posted this:

Tell me how Obama's church can get away with saying Louis Farrakhan (a master racist himself) "truly epitomized greatness".

Tell me how the man Obama says helps him stay grounded Jeremiah Wright, can go to Libya with Farrakhan at a point where Libya is a terroristic state and not exactly having our nation's good health in mind.

Tell me how I'm racist when I am calling bullshit on a "church" promoting racism.

Tell me how I am xenophobic when I simply asked why is the "vision" they have not "a non-negotiable commitment to ALL people" but only to "Africa"?

I'd like to know how I'm the racist and xenophobe in all this. Please tell me.

Well, I didn't imply you're racist, so I can't respond to that. As for xenophobic, there's no reason whatsoever that anyone can't be dedicated to something in particular, even if it's something that you don't directly relate to as an American. People who choose to dedicate themselves to environmental concerns aren't doing so because they love trees more than humans. People who concern themselves with ethical treatment of animals (setting the most extreme PETA cases aside) do not do so because they love dogs more than humans. People who are of African ancestry and who then care about African needs (which, btw, is valid regardless of ancestry because it is easily in worse shape than just about any other place on Earth) do not do so (generally speaking) because they don't care about the US or white people. And it makes just about as much sense to criticize Obama based on his church's leader as it does to call John Kerry a child molester because he's Catholic.

I'm not saying a person or a group cannot be committed to their ancestry or heritage... I think it is a great thing when people are.

I don't believe it is a church's place however. A church is supposed to promote ALL people. Not all do, I understand that. But for a church to promote only a certain race and that church to have a presidential candidate.... one must look, investigate and truly wonder what the candidates intentions truly are.

Again, if a white candidate came from a church promoting only European culture, visioned a non negotiable commitment to Europe, stated David Dukes "truly epitomized greatness", that white candidate would be condsidered a racist.

So why is Obama given a pass here? And if one says "well he's black and it's great to see a black man achieve and it's part f his heritage and blah blah blah..."

That IS still racism. Reverse racism but still evil, foul disgusting racist thinking.

We should vote for a man/woman on their accomplishments, beliefs and merits.... not because of race, not because "it is time we have a black man president". We should vote for him because of what he represents... this church is part of what he represents and I have serious problems with it.

Again, it is not the deciding factor why I won't vote for him, but it is in my mind a legitimate factor.

Context is important. A church which feels the need to explicitly say they promote a non-negotiable commitment to Europe - when we already basically do, and have - is implying something greater. A commitment to Europe to the exclusion of others. A church which says they promote a non-negotiable commitment to Africa - when we essentially ignore the continent, and have for a long time, even when repeated genocides are taking place and when sub-saharan Africa contains the poorest people in the world - is saying something entirely different.

This poll is missing Ralph Nader.

For my part, I'll vote for whomever the Democratic Party chooses at the national convention.

Pan, I don't like what you're saying here. Maybe I'm reading it wrong, but that church's website is basically just about empowering (often impoverished) African Americans, and supporting the neglected nations in Africa. These seem like entirely reasonable, acceptable, and kind goals.

You sound like an asinine racist jerk (come on, I know you're not! But it really does sound this way) when you critique his church for admiring a person who is a role model for a race that basically feels stepped on and ignored by the rest of the world. Let them be. It is within Religion's role to bestow thanks, awards, and blessings to people in countries that the government is against. It is an olive branch of peace and goodwill between this "unabashedly Christian" church and their brothers who are muslim. You're not interested in supporting that leader, so don't have anything to do with that church. Let them be.

By ignoring culture, you kill a culture. By ignoring race, you kill culture. Rather than ignore and deny, try accept, embrace, and adore. Have you ever looked into the eyes of someone who is in touch with their heritage? I have. I wouldn't ever kill the spirit and empowerment that it brings.

edit: Oh yeah, who would I vote for?
Christine Smith (Libertarian)

Who would you vote for?
Illinois State Senator Barack Hussein Obama.

Especially since he doesn't mind wearing traditional Kenyan dress.

Because he can love both America and Africa at the same time.

Love to Africa. Love to America.

Pan just incase you didn't now Obama voiced disagreement with his churches stance toward Farrakhan. He said he disagreed with their honoring him.

I bet a majority of American's don't agree with everything their churches say or do. I know I don't always agree with mine but I still attend it because it best represents my views.

pan...this is just nonsense. I would suggest you read beyond the surface of this particular church's "Black Value System" that you pointed out before you make blanket charges of racism.

For a church to honor the heritage of its 8,000 + black parishioners and hold those parishioners accountable for stepping up and taking care of their own is hardly racist.

Obama said it best:

"If I say to anybody... -- white, black, Hispanic or Asian -- that my church believes in the African-American community strengthening families or adhering to the black work ethic or being committed to self-discipline and self-respect and not forgetting where you came from, I don't think that's something anybody would object to. ... I think I'd get a few amens."

To suggest that the church is part of what Obama represents and then only present a skewed view of said church is a bit narrow-minded to say the least.

But after you learn more about the church and its positive role in the community of southside Chicago, if you still dont like what the church represents, then dont vote for the minister if he ever runs for president.

I do not intend to vote in this election cycle.

As far as I am concerned no current candidate has anything resembling a sensible position on either economics or the environment. As for economics, it appears there is no practical approach to managing our nation's wealth within a global framework. And as for environmental concerns, it appears to me that Americans have an irrational fascination with not using available environmental resources. We actsupremely deluded about the importance of environmental "preservation" and "protection" to degrees that are harmful to our economic requirements. We seem to have some emotional need to consider the state of the "environment" and other species' "needs" far more important than our own species' economic requirements. I suppose it has to do with self-hatred.
__________________

You are taking some big leaps here; would you care to elaborate?

What do you mean by "our own species' economic requirements"? And do you think the environment isn't tied to the economy for better or for worse? I'm not sure what you are getting at exactly.

Yeah, sorry Snowy - I specifically limited myself to those who have a chance of winning at this point...which is funny because I hate it when 'teh media' decides to ignore the weaker candidates. But at this stage we know it's gonna be one of those three. I also left off Huckabee, and whoever the greens, libertarians, and other parties are fielding this year, if they've even picked candidates yet. Maybe I should've included everyone.

This sounds like an excessively verbose way of saying "I don't care". You've posed more questions than you answered.

I think Obama addresses all your concerns (as well as many others). Were I to humor your position that there isn't a 'qualified' politician on your scale, you'd have to elaborate:

Why do you think there is not a "practical approach to managing our nation's wealth within a global framework"?

What available environmental resources are there?

Why do you think Americans have an aversion to using them?

Why is it irrational to have such an aversion?

We act supremely deluded about the importance of environmental "preservation" and "protection" to degrees that are harmful to our economic requirements.

What does this even mean? What are our "economic requirements"? Why do you think people act "deluded" in respect to environmental preservation and protection?

We seem to have some emotional need to consider the state of the "environment" and other species' "needs" far more important than our own species' economic requirements. I suppose it has to do with self-hatred.

What does this mean? Are you implying that human economy is more important than the needs of other species on Earth?

And finally, is this really why you can't find a candidate you like? It really seems to be like a pretty esoteric set of concerns, rationalized as a reason to not pick between the available choices.

For the OP, and as I've addressed in threads of my own, I will absolutely be voting for Barack Obama. He's the second coming of Jesus.

JinnKai,
No need for you to humor my position. I am sure there are many people with whom you may engage in discussions of this sort. I don't see a need for me to be one of them. Have a nice day.
Art

I just wish Gravel actually had a chance.

No one has yet to answer the question, if this were a white candidate:

coming from a church where the minister there honored David Duke calling him a great visionary (of course the candidate publicly repudiates it),

the minister went to Apartheid South Africa with David Dukes in the 80's,

The candidate says that this minister is his spiritual leader,

the candidate claims to have been friends with radical skinheads....

how would YOU (who want to ignore the question and not answer it) truly react???????

Why am I being painted or made to feel racist because I bring up VERY legitimate questions about Barack Hussein Obama?

All I ask is that people truly look at where this man is from, what this man has done to deserve the highest office in this country.

I don't want my president coming from a racist church, calling a militant his "spiritual mentor".

The Rev. Wright's last sermon included this:
http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/c...tory?track=rss

What racist ideology? Where is this racist ideology? 99% of the people I know are just trying to make it in this world, that in and of itself is difficult enough whatever your race, color, religion, ethnic background is.

I know racists of both colors.....

And to me that sermon is racist, I have known some biracial men and women all my life and to say they were "destined for the poor house" is bullshit. That in and of itself to me is very racist.

This is Obama's "spiritual mentor":
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jeremiah_Wright

But that's not promoting racism..... no not at all. He's pointing out how Whitey has kept him down. But ummmmm, what kind of car does he have, how much is his house worth, how much does he make....but Whitey is keeping him down. Whitey kept Colin Powell down, Thurgood Marshall, Clarence Thomas, Condi Rice, Martin Luther King Jr., Mohammed Ali, and so on and so on. Bt I can hear it now "yeah they are all Uncle Toms, not one of them is balck black and know what poor is."

Yes, our history in this area isn't all that great but we are making great strides and if it were Powell running, I'd vote for him in a heartbeat. I'd vote for MLK in a heartbeat.... he preached God didn't care about the color of skin but what was in your heart. Would MLK have gone to Libya with Farrakhan during the 80's?


What kind of character does Obama have if Rev. Wright is his "spiritual mentor".

If McCain said Pat Robertson was his "spiritual mentor" people would be all up in his shit..... why is it ok for Obama to get a free pass from all these questions?

Call me racist, tell me how stupid I look, how this is all last year etc etc.... but I honest to God would like to know the answers to ALL these questions especially the first question in this post.

I'm sorry, there is too much wrong here and along with the fact, to me he has no experience, no one truly knows anything about him, no one seems to really push him on hard questions.... he's just not my candidate... if anything, out of the 3 we have he scares me most... then McCain and Hillary... well at least we get Bill and that idea I like.

Although I still would have to cut off my voting finger or soak it in rubbing alcohol/hydrogen peroxide for a week.... but it's better than what I would have to do if I voted for McCain.... and I can't even fathom what I would do to my voting finger if I had to vote for Obama.

Sorry, talk down to me, call me racist, tell me how bigoted I sound, how ignorant and prejudice.... but after all that....please answer my questions without any personal attacks. I haven't attacked you, I have just asked questions I want answers to.

(Oh.... I do have a feeling a few Obama fans will all of a sudden go quiet, attack me but answer nothing or gave me 10 articles researched about how this is George Bush's fault and Carl Rove has brainwashed me. But there won't be a single answer to any of my questions especially the first one.)

I await someone's answer with baited breath....

I finish with this:

http://www.americanrhetoric.com/spee...haveadream.htm

http://www.americanrhetoric.com/imag...dreamgogo.jpeg


Obama is not even close to the greatness, does not have the class nor dignity of MLK.

Obama is a true wolf in sheep's clothing.

The church is not racist.

The church is not supporting one race over another, it is supporting a continent.

I think it's about time you stopped calling yourself a liberal, Pan. And be a John Lennon fan, he wrote some incredible music, but stop trying to pervert what we all know he stood for to support your statements here.

And I will come out and say, based on these and other statements that I have seen you make over the last several years here that you are a racist, Pan. You may not want to hear that, but the first step to changing something about yourself is acceptance.

I am voting for Barack Obama in this election cycle. (I say with an unguarded certainty...)

Obama.

McCain doesn't gel with alot of my views, Clinton is a little too lenient in some areas. Thanks my simple answer, I'm sticking with the question in the OP instead of ending up in some long-winded argument that stepped off track from the simple question asked in the OP.
Hasn't the Obama/racism horse been beaten in another thread?

Oh, and it'll continue to get flogged through November, I'm quite sure.

I'll go with the Democratic nominee, whether it's Clinton or Obama, I disagree with McCain too much to vote for him, though otherwise I find him to be likable.

Pan, I read all your posts twice to make sure that I didn't miss anything. I keep coming back to the idea that you WANT to see this as an issue, so you're trying to make it one.

This strikes me as being very similar to the Papist arguments against Kennedy in 1960. As far as Obama goes, who cares what his minister says or doesn't say. Obama hasn't encorporated any of those ideas into his platforms.

Pan, Africa is FULL of people that don't have black skin. Ask the Egyptians, the South Africans, the Lybians or the Tunisians. It's also a unique continenent in that there's only 1 "developed" nation (South Africa), and the rest is a mess. I don't see anything wrong with wanting to help that kind of situation.

And everything MixedMedia said lines up quite nicely with my ideas as well.

Pan....the only reason Obama's church and "spiritual advisor" are issues at all is because of the portrayal (by both the Clinton camp and right wing media) of Obama as some kind of radical muslim.

Do you even know what church McCain attends? or who is spiritual advisor is? I do know he actively sought out the endorsement of the televanglist John Hagee, who has uttered vile racist and anti-catholic remarks on a regular basis. So where is your outrage?

Have you ever referred to McCain as John Sydney McCain? ...so why the Barack Hussein Obama?

The only thing I would add is that Mixed Media has it right....take a look at yourself first, pan!

Rather than waste space by quoting, I'll simply state that I agree with both The_Jazz and mixedmedia 100%. Like I said, the context of singling out Africa is entirely different than the context of singling out Europe. The majority of the questions you pose have been answered here (and repeatedly).

No, read what I have written. Libya in the 80's, giving awards to Farrakhan, his last sermon, the things I have pointed out in my last post... all seem very racist and coming from a man with a closed mind. Having a President with a closed minded racist "spiritual leader" scares me.

If I had a closed mind I wouldn't be asking the questions, I wouldn't be worried about all this.

I'm being very open minded but I have yet to see answers that don't call me racist. Is it truly racist to point out things that bother you about a presidential candidate, question those things and not 1 person can answer those questions with any form of rationality because they are stuck calling, implying or talking to you as though you are a racist.

Show me the proof and YES, I'll be just as outraged and raising just as much of a stink.

I am not doing this to attack Obama, regardless what those who would paint me as a racist want everyone else to believe...... I am attacking a school of thought, racism and hatred... that I perceive coming out. Iwill do the same to John Sydney McCain, if given information that his "spiritual mentor" has done similar things.

I'm not a McCain fan, I never cared to know that much about the man because up until now, I didn't think he stood a chance in Hell to win. He does. Mainly because the questions I ask now, once Obama gets the nomination... there will be many others making similar questions. To call them racists and provide answers that have come in previous posts do not answers the questions, do not alleviate or make them go away, it only makes those asking them, why won't you answer the questions without attacking the person asking them.

If I were a black man asking these questions, what would your answers be then?


Really, first, from day 1 on m arrival here I have never called myself a "liberal", I am socially liberal, fiscally conservative and most definitely a centrist in my politics, I lean Left in a lot of my views, but it is just that a "LEAN", not a leap Left.

And if you can't answer the questions put forth without attacking me, implying that I'm a racist and so on..... come September, October and that day in November the others who have asked it will pull the lever for someone else.

You can only guilt someone for so long.... then when the legitimate questions don't get answered, you just try to guilt the people asking into not asking... they will ask why there were no answers just guilt, names called, insinuations thrown around and so on. They will vote where they weren't made to feel in such ways.

Basically, if you can't answer the questions without attacking, no matter how subtly.... I would say to you, yo really don't have the answers either. f you have to answer these questions with attack and defensiveness, then perhaps you also need to find the answers out because I'm not seeing anything that is changing my value on these questions. Only strengthening them, because there are no answers without attacks.

I have these questions, I am looking to Obama supporters here to answer them and show me why they shouldn't matter. But with the attacks and how the questions do not get answered without attacks..... I don't get the answers thus I am left wondering why. Why are the questions going unanswered without attacks?

That should scare anyone.

MLK Obama is not.

Maybe I'm wrong, I'm wrong about a lot of things I'm vehement about... but until I have the answers I need... I cannot nor will ever support Obama.

Why was I attacked for using Obama's middle name when way before I even ever gave thought to typing it, it was used.

Pan....you (and Clinton and the right wing media) have singled out Obama among all the candidates (past and present) to justify the words and action of the minister of the Church he attends.

Its simply not relevant to me since I will not be voting for the minister.

I will be voting for Obama because of his legislative record at the state and federal level , his background as a community organizer and uniter and his platform for the future, among other things. Of the least important reasons, I appreciated his denoucement of Farrakhan.

If you feel a need to continue to narrowly typecast Obama based on his place of worship....go for it. I've had my say.

Pan, please tell me why it matters what church Obama goes to and why it doesn't matter which ones Clinton and McCain go to. After that, please show me where the ideals espoused by that church coincide with Obama's platform.

As we've seen most obviously with pro-choice Catholics, the candidate and the church quite often disagree with details. The onus is on you to show where they do agree in this case. Thus far I've seen nothing even beginning to make that case. Please show me where I'm wrong.

The pastor is not Barack Obama. What the pastor has done in the past has no more to do with the candidate than what JPII did with John Kerry. If you're going to make a case that Rev. Wright is steering Obama's campaign and candicacy, you're going to have to provide some evidence. The hard evidence that you've provided thus far has Obama condemning Wright's actions (post #6).

One thing that you neglected to point out in your discussion of the TUCC - their mission statement. It's probably the most important thing to look at since it is where they want to go.

Please note that last paragraph. They explicitely state that they want to eradicate the color line. If that's not a telling statement that points to the opposite of what you're saying, I don't know what is.

It's going to be a HUGE issue come September, October and ging into election day......

How you as an Obama supporter and thus to people you talk to a representative of his candidacy answer that question, will be as important as the question itself.

If you answer it defensively and questioning their motives (when all they want is to know the answer and have an answer they can say "ok, maybe it isn't an issue"....) they'll probably walk away with this question and how it was answered as a possible deciding factor.

There were some decent answers above, but they were clouded in attacks and bullshit that just made me want to press further.

If you truly read my posts and especially the one before this the answer to why I am asking the question becomes VERY clear.

I'm not trying to make it an issue, it's already that and will only become bigger. How it is answered and how the one asking it is treated will be the solution.

Again, calling or implying one is a racist, answering it with contempt, degrading, and so on...in a negative fashion... will only cement support for others, an assure a loss.

If however, the answer is well informed, respectfully answered and whatever fears allayed by the answers and how they were given.... may well lead that questioner to support Obama.

Again, I maybe wrong, I may not have a clue in any of this..... but, I just may.

You need to be given the information about McCain, but you go out and actively look for it about Obama? Well here's the proof about McCain's 'spiritual advisor'

Personal beliefs
Oh yeah, this guy being the advisor to the president would be no issue:rolleyes:

Criticism of the Roman Catholic Church
Claims that Hurricane Katrina was "the Judgement of God against New Orleans"
Claims that Islamic Qur'an contains a "mandate to kill Christians and Jews"
Enough proof for you? Should we expect the same response to this as you have to Obama's 'spiritual advisor'?
No one attacked you, you seem to have an odd definition of the word attack or something, no one attacked you for using his entire name, no one has attacked you in this thread at all actually.

You may be right as to how the voters will react to his church. I saw an interview last night on TV with an unemployed Ohio mill worker who had no insurance. He said he was leaning to voting for Obama but he heard that he did not know or wouldn't say the pledge of allegiance and that he was a Muslim. Many voters do not pay attention and rely on gossip from their friends and family.

Silent Jay = host of the North

:)

Seriously, that's very interesting information. Can you post a link to it?

Pan, my answer to these accussations is that they simply don't matter. As I've pointed out, there is conflicting information about the TUCC. I think I understand the "why" behind your posts - you do not offer trust easily. And that's perfectly fine and acceptable. You don't trust Obama, and I'll fight for your right for that opinion. I don't agree with it, and that's why I've posted evidence to the contrary and why I'll keep asking you to address it.

This is turning into a "guilt by association" discussion. I truly do not believe that Obama believes in the same things that the Rev. Wright did. I see evidence of that in your own posts (again, look at the details of your post #6) as well as mission statement of the TUCC. My great-grandfather was in the Klan and was a staunch Prohibitionist to the point that he was once accused of killing a moonshiner. And what does that say about me?

Really now?

From DC = , this minimizes the question and issue. Perhaps it is huge to me. Minimizing it with your first sentence puts me on the defensive, don't care to hear the rest because you just attacked me (whether intentional or not... whether you believe it right or not.... with that being your first response you put me on the defensive and tuned me out.

From MixedMedia her first interaction in this =
Is that not an attack on me?

Is that not an attack, subtle but yes, very much so.

SecretMethod's first response to the issue = First it's old news he says, so again my feelings on the issue have been minimized......

Then he can't say more because he is "infuriated" by xenophobia and nationalism.

Must I continue..... Only Rekna and Robot answered without any form of attack, everyone else, minimized my feelings, attacked my Lennonism, insinuated or flat out called me a racist.

Now, if you were trying to convince me that I should put this issue (that I have demonstrated as important to me) to rest and not worry about it.... attacking me, minimizing the issue and so on will not convince me that it really isn't an issue.

All you did was piss me off and make it a bigger issue for me.

NOW do you get what I am saying???????????

I had to go hostal, while I was copying and pasting I was thinking the same thing, 'this is so host right now' lol

I knew I forgot to post something along with the information. It's from Wiki so it may or may not be accurate, but from looking elsewhere it seems to be on the mark.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Hagee

Pan - disagreement does not an attack make.

And we're not going to make this thread about you. Let's nip that in the bud right now. If you've got a problem with what you think are attacks, take it up with the staff. If the person in question in on staff, pick someone else that you know and trust and ask their opinion.

I expect that this aspect of the conversation is closed here in the thread. It may continue elsewhere, but not here.

Jesus, look at every thread host ever started here, the guy has his point minimized every fuckin time, every fuckin time. If it's an attack use the 'report bad post' button, if you don't want to report it, then don't continually complain about it because you haven't done anything to stop it.


If we're ranking the candidates by 'spiritual advisors' I guess Hillary wins with the lady who told her to have conversations with Eleanor Roosevelt:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jean_Houston

Separation of church & state is an important issue. I see no problem in bringing up Obama's church activities and positions, which to me seem to be placing an awful lot of emphasis on promoting a black value system. This is a church that places more concern on Africa than America. Well I have news for these people: you are not in Africa anymore, you're in America. This isn't the 17th century, its the 21st. I would hazard a guess that there would be a formidable backlash if there was a white candidate in this position. Fine, be proud of your religion and your heritage, but keep it out of the government.

This particular issue means very little to me. I'm surprised it means anything to you, pan. I guess being a spiritual person, you are more sensitive to the spiritual differences in others. I'm not spiritual, so I can recognize how little spirituality has to do with Obama's platform. As far as I can tell, his affiliation with a church is a communal duty and not something he'll turn into an agenda for the country. Denying him credibility because of this is like refusing to buy 75% of the cars on the market today because their parent companies found themselves on the wrong side of World War 1 and 2. What car do you drive?

You're acting like a Republican.

pan....if Obama's church is a huge issue to you, then you should fully examine the church's statements, mission, accomplishments, etc.,and the context of all of the above before declaring it racist. Otherwise, I would say again, it is nonsense to make such a declaration.

Even more so if Obama is the only candidate of whom you feel church affiliation is a huge issue. He has never sought the endorsement of his pastor and has denounced the endorsement by Farrakhan.

As to McCain..he has been seeking the endorsement of Hagee for months and upon receiving that endorsement, said:

"I'm very honored by Pastor John Hagee's endorsement today..".."all I can tell you is that I am very proud to have Pastor John Hagee's support."
http://www.reuters.com/article/polit...49859920080228

This Hagee:

*All Muslims are programmed to kill and we can thus never negotiate with any of them (paraphrased....full text from an NPR interview)

*God caused Hurricane Katrina to wipe out New Orleans because it had a gay pride parade the week before and was filled with sexual sin. (from the same interview)

* The End Times -- Rapture -- is imminent and the U.S. Government must do what it can to hasten it, which at minimum requires: (a) a war with Iran and (b) undying, absolute support for a unified Israel, including all Occupied Territories (from NY Times story)

*The Catholic Church is the "‘The Great Whore," "the ‘anti-Christ," and a "false cult system.’”

***

Thus, white evangelical Ministers are free to advocate American wars based on Biblical mandates, rant hatefully against Islam, and argue that natural disasters occur because God hates gay people. They are still fit for good company, an important and cherished part of our mainstream American political system. The entire GOP establishment is permitted actively to lavish them with praise and court their support without the slightest backlash or controversy. Both George Bush and Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert sent formal greetings to the 2006 gathering of Hagee's group.

By contrast, black Muslim ministers like Farrakhan, or even black Christian ministers like Rev. Jeremiah Wright, are held with deep suspicion, even contempt. McCain is free to hug and praise the Rev. Hagees of the world, but Obama is required to prove over and over and over and over that he does not share the more extreme views of black Ministers.

http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwa...gee/index.html

IMO, it will be an issue only if the double standards are allowed to perpetuate...and some see the dubious advantage of continuing to make it in issue for only one candidate and take such issues out of context (attributing the words and actions of third parties to the one candidate in question who has repeated denounced such words and actions).

He is. His religion isn't in any way a part of his policy, platform, or campaign. It's being dragged in by people with an agenda to undercut him.

For anyone willing to listen to Obama, he's addressed and settled this. If it's not addressed and settled for you, consider that you're not willing to listen. And that's okay--you don't have to be willing to listen. But at least have the honesty to say, "You know, he's addressed this, and I refuse to believe what he says," rather than continuing to pretend your first flush of reaction to it stands unchallenged.

I don't see Obama's church as all that important. I haven't seen anything supporting that he takes direction from the church. He attends it, so?

People who do like Obama seem to be pulling out all the stops. "He doesn't pledge allegiance to the flag, he's a Muslim, he went to a Madrsas, he sworn in on a Koran, he part of a sleeper cell." None of that seems to be sticking so now it's "his church cares more about Africa then the US."

I didn't read that in the church's vision. I read "a non-negotiable COMMITMENT TO AFRICA." Not a "non-negotiable COMMITMENT TO AFRICA even if we have to screw over ever person in the US in the process." And that's the problem with attacks like this, you have to read more into it then it actually says. If a Jewish person was running would anyone really have a problem if their synagogue had a mission or vision statement that included "a non-negotiable COMMITMENT TO ISRAEL?" That's likely a really dumb question, isn't it? The same people attacking Obama would probably have just as big a problem with a Jewish person.

I agree with you that anyone who would use his affiliation to such a church would do so as a weapon against him -- but the thing is what it is. The pastor of this church, this Wright guy, did say that that racist slimeball Farrakhan "epitomized greatness", praised "his integrity and honesty" and called him "an unforgettable force, a catalyst for change and a religious leader who is sincere about his faith and his purpose."

Yes, Obama denounced Farrakhan, and smart move too because it would have done serious damage to be associated with a viper like Farrakhan. I don't think anyone here is saying Obama is racist - I don't think he is - but I think it raises some valid points about a candidate running for president who's attended such a controversial and racially outspoken church for 20 years. Especially a candidate that so many people complain they know so little about.

And this nonsense about people outright calling pan a racist, and that he's delusional for thinking that this church is in anyway extreme or controversial, that references to Africa aren't necessarily addressing blacks, is ridiculous. This Trinity Church most definitely has a racial agenda, it most definitely has a religious agenda, it most defintely is afro-centric, Louis Farrakhan is most definitely a racist, anti-semitic demagogue. Fine, what candidate isn't affiliated with equivalent organizations. I don't think it takes a racist to see what the Trinity Church is all about, and I hope religion stays, as much as possible, out of the official presidential debate.

Wouldn't you say all churches have "religious agenda?"

Perhaps, but not all churches have Presidential Candidates in their constituencies.

Question for folks that have this problem with Obama: what do/did you think about Romney? Because in many ways, the LDS church has many of the same issues, albeit with a much different bent.

Honestly, it seems like the same issue with a fake mustache on it to me. Romney's Mormonism was never an issue for me. The fact that he went from being a moderate to conservative Republican was, but his religion never factored into it at all.

And Huckabee's an actual pastor in the Southern Babtist church, which was a bastion of segregation for years. Then again, he's always been consistent about being a conservative.

If the candidate's platform does not reflect the agenda of the church that he choses to attend, can someone explain to me why it is an issue at all? Churches are just as much a social outlet as they are a concentration of philosphical thought.

You might as well say that Clinton supported the fascist coup of Argentina in 1976. After all, Burson-Marsteller, Clinton's PR firm headed by CEO Mark Penn, represented the regime. Also on the list of tacit endorsements is Nicolae Ceaucescu, Blackwater, and Countrywide Financial.

Something a candidate's minister once said about a man whom the candidate has publicly and explicitly denounced isn't something I'd get worked up about. This recent fracas about Obama's statements regarding NAFTA is much more interesting to me.

Ultimately, however, Obama is the stronger candidate on the basis of a lack of partisan baggage. In the wake of Clinton's failed health care initiative in the 90s, she even created some enemies within her own party and within Bill Clinton's administration. Dick Morris practically foams at the mouth every time he hears her name.

I am not trying to make this thread about me. I am trying to demonstrate a problem here.

IF this were a serious issue to me the attacks I earlier offered up should show something.

RatBastid, PowerClown seemed to understand.

YOU do not denigrate, degrade, minimize and so on someone's issue. If you truly support Obama, God love ya. But don't sit there and degrade someone's questions. Answer to the best of your ability and show respect and you may shift that HUGE issue into a petty one and win a vote.

If you denigrate, put them on the defensive, call them names and minimize, you will definitely lose that vote and possibly others (that person will tell friends and so on).

People don't know the candidates personally.... I seriously doubt we have many if any that can say they know any of the top 3 as friends. However, when you wear a pin, have a bumper sticker, somehow demonstrate your support for a candidate.... you become in some people's eyes a spokesperson for that candidate.

They ma ask you questions on your candidate's positions on all sorts of items. Easily answered. No problem.

However, someone may ask you a question or make a statement against your candidate like I did about Obama.

How you react, how you treat that person, how you talk to that person and accept their right to feel the way they do, can very much be a deciding factor in that person's vote.

You attack me and minimize my feelings and the issue.... I'm not going to vote for your candidate. Because if you believe in your candidate there is no reason for you to be defensive or offensive towards my feelings and questions.

Yes, this is going to be a very HUGE issue whether you want to believe it or not.... how you answer to your friends and people who ask you about it may very well decide their vote.

I know I'm repeating myself.... but Hey Zeus Frickin Crisps.... I shouldn't have to. I practically told you 2 posts ago, my last post I flat out told you and still some of you seem to not understand.

It's as simple as....

"What problems do you see going on with this issue?" "I respect what you are saying and the candidate has shown that a, b, c (separated himself from Wright, denounced Farrakhan... etc) has been done about this issue. I can give you my take on it if you like and maybe I can help answer your questions or at least point you in the right direction."

You start out with "that is so last year: you're a racist: do you even know what you are talking about....etc." You lost. It's highly doubtful no matter what point you make, no matter how legitimate... the person will listen.

The question, the issue becomes then an argument and all that does is set deeper a person's opinion. You lost just about any chance you will ever have had of getting that voter.

Now that it is spelled out in black and white.... and I admit this probably was the wrong place to show this.... do you understand what I was trying to get across?

Believe what you will..... I think a few may understand ... I hope so, because between now and Nov. you will have to defend your candidate and you best do so in a way that does not turn the other person off to your candidate.


But not everyone knows how he addressed this issue. By minimizing, attacking and degrading... the issue becomes bigger.

You must first give the benefit of the doubt and discuss with respect how Obama did handle it. Then go from there. Minimize your defensiveness and show that you understand the issue is important to the other person.

I believe that was a factor. I think the leaders of LDS church had a huge say in what and or how he took those positions.

I would have felt the same way if he'd been a Scientologists.

I don't think that's the same issue regarding Obama and his church.

I have never heard this issue addressed outside of political internet forums and it is always brought up by right-wing, reactionary racists. Which is just as likely to make someone see Obama in a more positive light than a more negative one. I've never heard this question brought up as a means of better understanding Obama as a person and a candidate. It is a ploy to discredit him. In fact, I had a conversation about Obama this weekend with a Republican and the issue was never broached...because unless you have a pre-existing bias against his candidacy, it is a non-issue. And, for the record, I think I may have secured another vote for Obama.

Vive la Africa! :p

pan.....you say this with such certainty like you know something the rest of us dont.

In fact, there is nothing to suggest that this will be a very HUGE issue. Polls dont suggest it, focus groups dont suggest it, campaign professionals in both camps dont suggest it, talking heads on TV dont suggest it...

And to the extent that it was an issue as a result of the misleading attacks on Obama, he has addressed it to the satisfaction of most.

IMO, the huge issue MAY be the record number of younger (18-25), first time voters that Obama has attracted who believe he represents the best hope for their future as evident by the exit polls from many (most) of the primaries held to date. The turnout among young voters in the Democratic primaries has been 3-4 times past turnouts in many states...and Obama has won most of these primaries in part because he has won this demographic group by a large margin in every state.

But I am not as certain as you because these same voters tend to be fickle, may lose interest between now and Nov and may not show up when it counts.

Just to make it clear,there is little or nothing that supports your conclusion that Obama's affiliation with his church or the statements of his pastor will be a huge issue or an issue at all..other than to those who have already decided not to vote for him.

The only issue that is marginally related to all of this "nonsense" is race. While publicly, most voters say that race is not an issue, privately, in the voting booth, it is still uncertain if some voters are willing to vote for a black president (ie the Bradley effect).

And its a waste to time trying to convince these folks to take a second look....particularly if they get so easily offended if their "certainty" or their superficial, one-sided view of the issue is questioned.

If you find this offensive or degrading or a personal attack, IMO, this is something you have to deal with yourself.

I'm curious as to where pan's outrage over McCain's political advisor is, he even said:
Well I posted proof, yet no outrage, no raising of stink, no recognition of the proof I posted whatsoever, but yeah you don't have a hard on for Obama or anything.
Sure you will.

dc_dux, do you have any estimate as to whether Obama will attract more votes because he's black or lose more votes because he's black? I can see arguments either way, and not just among African-Americans, either.

loquitor...I dont think it will be a significant issue either way.

The more compelling trends show both Obama and Clinton attracting more young voters, more affluent voters, and more women than previous Democratic nominees....and there is nothing to suggest that race is (or is not) influencing these trends.

The National Journal has an interesting article on these trends:
IMO, Obama's race wont be an issue for most women, young voters or high income voters that are voting (or trending) Democrat in greater numbers.

It may be an issue for seniors, but it could be hidden by their concern about his "experience". It may be an issue for blue color white men (the former Reagan democrats who have slowly returned to the fold)).

And it could have been an issue for Latinos if McCain had not recently backed away from his McCain/Kennedy immigration reform bill that provided a path to citizenship (his new position negates any advantage he may have had with the Latino community to protect his anti-immigration base).

First, if you do not think it will be an issue, you do not listen enough to your political rivals and depend too much on polls. Polls this early do not mean much.

Secondly, the GOP and radical right are not going to show their hand and put much heart into any attack right now. There is nothing to gain from it.

No one thought Swift Boat would be an issue in March '04 either. It is not a question of whether or not something is an issue to you, it is a question of what value someone who asks you as a supporter of your candidate puts on the issue.

DC let's say I support X for Senate. You ask me because you see I am very vocal in m support of candidate X. You come to me and say X has done this, the people around X has done that, his church/family/etc have all been accused of the other thing. Now, you may ask the question and open the issue up, but there maybe 10 people watching because they have heard the same things and have similar questions but never really wanted to ask because they feel not well informed, are scared, etc.

Now, if I minimize, put you on the defensive or just become all argumentative..... you will all of a sudden be wanting to make what was a small issue bigger, the people watching will see the defensiveness and anger over the issue and either tune politics out completely or believe there is more to X than they at first believed and may tune out any legit defense I may have because I already became combative and showed there maybe something there.

Now, if I answer, "Candidate X has addressed that this way, I understand your concerns and I believe that Candidate X truly handled this best when he did....... and said......... What is it about this issue that bothers you (DO NOT ACCUSE, IMPLY OR MINIMIZE)?" Listen to the concern then answer with your feelings about the issue.

Now, instead of having a negative exchange, I not only made myself look knowledgeable over the issue, I turned it into a positive exchange. I have gained respect and may have swayed a vote or 2... instead of losing votes and losing people's respect. I am a representation of my candidate, whether I want to be or not, as soon as I speak out, show my support with t-shirts, bumper stickers, buttons, etc for him/her, people will see me as an expert on the candidate.

This is where politics is going wrong and why we lose voters and close elections are lost. Negativity at the ground level. The politicians and talking pundits have enough negativity, supporters are supposed to maintain an optimism and positive view of their candidate.

So to interact with someone who has a question about the candidate in a negative fashion, no matter how negative that person may have come at you... will determine how some will see that candidate.

In other words, since you are the candidate's representation on the ground level:

Answer the question like the candidate would.

Now, do you think, Obama would have answered the questions I posed the way they were answered here?

But then again..... what do I know? I'm a racist, xenophobic, asshole who has no right asking questions because, well I'm not informed and I'm a racist and that issue was so last year....

You set a negative tone when asked about your candidate, you'll receive negativity back. You set a positive tone and an uplifting and people will see your candidate as a positive.

If I coming out negatively attacking your candidate and you answer in a positive, non minimizing, knowledgeable way... then all of a sudden my attack has lost steam and the people watching then look at the issue differently.

pan....I'm not going to debate you on debating (or posting) styles, but based on my 20+ years of working in grass roots politics, I think I have a pretty good sense and feel for when its makes sense to be respectful and when its necessary to call bullshit when it stinks. But even in the case of the latter, it is a stretch to call it a personal attack.

If you have framed your initial concern in a different way other than state "There is no way in Hell I am voting for a man that goes to a church that wants to divide my country further (no it doesnt) and promotes a race ancestory and foreign continent over my own country (no it doesnt)....." (yes, your characterization of his church was bullshit to me)...perhaps the responses would have been different.

As to your Swift Boat reference, I could characterize your initial post as a "swift boat type" attack (particularly the false characterization of the church in the statement above). And the lesson learned from 2004 is that you dont respond politely and respectfully to such scurrilous attacks. You call it out for the bullshit it is.

I stand by everything I posted :)

Tully - this in interesting. I don't think that the LDS leadership factored in at all. Romney did what he needed to do to get elected governor of Massachusetts, and his ideals either had to flex to fit that roll, or they were his real beliefs to begin with. When he ran for POTUS, I think that he changed his message in an attempt to capture the Republican right, which is probably the most valuable portion of the party since they do so well at actually voting. Honestly, if he had stayed true to his message as governor, I would have thought about voting for him, but that went away almost as soon as he declared for President.

As far as your idea about Scientologists, I'm going to have to give that a lot more thought. For some reason I can't get the South Park "Tom Cruise is in the closet" episode out of my head when pondering it. You do raise an interesting point, though.

There is no point in this because as long as we disagree with you, you'll see it as a 'personal attack'. Let's see, no one in this thread has called you an asshole, and no one has said you don't have the right to ask questions, so you're exaggerating things.


Now once again I ask, where is the outrage over McCain's spiritual advisor? Proof has been posted by me, and ignored by you, now why are you ignoring this proof? The only reason I can see is you have a hard on against Obama for some reason, and McCain is allowed to get all the shady 'spiritual advice' he likes. Of course you'll probably respond with my proof isn't good enough.

I think the point here is that perspective is important. Clinton has Burson-Marsteller on her side, and McCain not only got the endorsement of Hagee but courted it, and won't back down from the endorsement while simultaneously distancing himself from the man's outrageous public statements. Choosing to ignore that and call Obama out because his minister once praised a man whom Obama has denounced looks off-balance when you consider the context.

Obama's church making a commitment to Africa and the black community does not mean that Obama would ignore other groups as a result, because the United States already has a passel of international obligations: Israel, Saudi Arabia, South Korea, Eastern Europe... Basically, everywhere that we have a military base, we have a certain degree of commitment. And Obama would not necessarily take this church's mandate as a presidential mandate. I would expect him to support it to a certain degree, but it is simply not probable that he would let other issues fall by the wayside. The US government has more than enough resources to support multiple initiatives of international scope.

Obama ftw!

I'll make the caveat that I know pan isn't a right-wing, reactionary racist, but him aside, I couldn't agree more. I'm still having difficulty understanding why it is an issue to anyone, present company included.

I'm not here to call out pan as a right-wing, reactionary racist. Believe me, I've seen them, talked to them, lived around them. I know from where I speak.

Although it can't be denied pan is highly reactive to issues of non-white race and culture, these issues usually being viewed as some kind of a threat to his own idea of 'American' culture and national 'pride.' pan may want to deny this and he can go right ahead. I think there is ample evidence right here on TFP to support my observation.

I don't necessarily think he has an agenda, which is what would most literally define a racist in my estimation, but I think he has issues with race that cause him to react in ways that could easily be interpreted as 'racist' in a colloquial sense. As we have seen in people's reactions to his posts in this thread previously and since.

What issues do I have with race?

I'm outspoken on Illegal Immigrants.... ummmm they are illegal and bankrupting Western Medical facilities, taking jobs away from hard workers and we have no idea who is coming over.

I bring up Obama's church because it became an issue to me this week. I grew up listening to Billy Cunningham on WLW and while he is outspoken and I don't agree with his politics, I became angered over the fact that people wanted him fired and taken off the air because he said Barack Hussein Obama. at a McCain rally.

I'm tired of censorship. I had heard about Obama's church but never cared to look into it, mainly because to me it wasn't an issue. Up until this time to be honest, I was truly undecided, I was scared of Obama because he just seemed to come out of nowhere, but his message seemed very intriguing and more positive than Hilary's.

I heard people talking about the issue of how even McCain pulled back because of Billy's use of "Hussein" and I listened to him talk about Obama's church. I investigated. I didn't exactly like what I saw, and decided to post here what I felt.

I figured someone here that I may respect would answer me with some honest answers and allay my fears. I was quite heated when I typed my reply because of the censorship issue and the "visions" I read from that church.

I was instead greeted by the very disrespectful replies I have shown in past posts.

No one allayed my fears, no one took the time to talk to me with respect over the issues. In the meantime I asked close friends at work (3 of the 5 happen to be black) and asked them what they thought. The one who when LS and I got married called us "devil worshippers" and was at one time a serious militant explained to me about Obama's church, she quelled my fears and anger and did so in a way that I was able to feel good that I asked.

McCain going after some white racist preacher doesn't bother me because that's what GOP candidates do. They make nice with extremists. I expected that from McCain. All this talk of McCain being "to moderate" and "not a true conservative" is bullshit, they said the same thing about W in 2000. I'm truly not concerned about McCain.

But perhaps, MM you can give me examples of my being racist by PMing me or opening a new thread. I would love to stop that lie and slanderous statement against me. I will not have someone who knows nothing about me at all make accusations that have absolutely no merit to them at all.

BTW, yes, I will probably vote for Obama in Nov. because while I do have fears (such as how fast he has risen, some of his stances on the issues) he is still better than McCain (or Bush lite).

I am just sorry that my "friends" on here decided to label me, call me out, degrade me, minimize the issue and treat me like shit. When all it would have taken would have been a PM or a simple talking to about my fears.

As Ms. M at work said, "It's not racist to ask the questions that bother you, you may even be passionate because the issue means something to you, it's racist to make assumptions and not ask at all." Then she told me about Obama's church... she happens to belong to a very similar church in Akron.

edit

I find it interesting that you chose to see our responses as personal attacks. My comment was merely stating the John was never judgmental and I felt that you were doing just that.

My view may be simpler than most here, but it ain't "Obama's church". Many men, and probably more so with black men, remain with churches their families grew up in. Personally, I don't go to any religious gatherings or even believe in the faith I grew up with, but I still have pride in my heritage. What's so wrong with that?

I understand your disagreement. But I think your wrong, just known too many ex-LDS members. I think Mitts changing positions are a sign of a couple things including a willingness within the LDS membership and church doctrine to support dishonesty in an attempt to do what they see as the right thing.

I believe you've just answered your own question.

This is the same type of misinformation and half truths used against the Irish and the Italians around the turn of the last century. It was racist then and it's racist now.

Seriously you're playing the 'friends' card? Oh darn someone called you out, suck it up, it doesn't mean people have attacked you, disagreement and attack are two totally different things. As I said before, lots of people have their issue minimized on this forum when they start topics, the difference is they don't whine about it in every single post. If someone degraded you or treated you like shit, report the fuckin post, it's that simple, if you don't want to report it, suck it the fuck up, because you aren't willing to do anything about it.
What you've shown are people who disagree with you, not people who have disrespected you, there's a difference.
So if they know nothing about you why let it bother you? In reality it's just some random internet person who has this opinion of you, why the fuck should it matter?

I don't even know why I bothered to reply to you, you'll just ignore it like every other post I've made in this thread, even when I posted the proof you asked for. Come on pan, where's this fuckin outrage over McCain's church, you make a big deal of asking for proof then ignore it when it is posted. Don't bother answering, just ignore like you usually do.

Ms. M had it right...."its racist to make assumptions." And that is exactly what you did in your post about Obama's church. And you did it in an inflammatory and provocative manner that painted Obama as guilty by association.

"There is no way in Hell I am voting for a man that goes to a church that wants to divide my country further and promotes a race ancestory and foreign continent over my own country....."

People responded to the tone and content of your post. I suspect the responses would have been different if you had simply asked the question without the false and/or biased assumptions.....something to think about for the future.

So, get over it, pan. You werent attacked, degraded, disrespected or treated like shit. Your words were called out for what they were.

McCain because he is the only one in the race with any sort of record of working in a bipartisan way to get things done. I am tired of division and deadlock and believe that McCain can unite more than divide. Clinton has no hope of uniting the government and while Obama talks a good fight about uniting the government he has no record of doing so at all. His voting record is nearly straight down party lines while McCain is co-authoring legislation with the Democrats.

Is this the same McCain who is now running away from the McCain/Feingold campaign reform bill and the McCain/Kennedy immigration reform bill in order to appease the conservative Republican base?

....or who voted with Democrats in the Senate against Bush's 2003 tax cuts for the wealthy, but now supports making them permanent?

McCain once was bipartisan, but it seems as if that's ended now that he's taking a shot at the oval office. Where he once was critiquing the war (remember when he called the efforts "inadequate"?), he now is taking a hard line to stay in Iraq for "100 years".

If you vote for McCain in this election, you won't be voting for McCain in 2000 or 2004. This is McCain 2008, and he's a hardline neocon.

I think the fact that Obama's votes are so strongly Democratic and yet he still frequently gets Republican co-sponsors shows just how much of a "uniter" he is, and how much he's capable of getting done.

Who are you voting for Smeth? :confused: :confused:

huh?

I agree. I keep hearing that Hillary's winning states that are Dem stronghold therefore she's the stronger candidate for the general. I think it's just the opposite. Most of her big wins came in states that usually go Dem. Obama's taking huge chucks of independants and even some GOP votes in typically GOP states. I think who ever ends up being the Dem nominee will win states like New York. But Obama has a decent shot at states where she simply has little or no support.

Plus most polls show Obama beating McCain and Hillary losing to McCain.

I think that makes Obama a stronger candidate.

No, Hillary, You Can't
 

Despite my being in the Barack Obama camp and his streak of 11 blowout victories in February, Hillary Clinton still had my support to compete in the Mini-Tuesday primaries in OH, TX, RI, and VT. Perhaps these voters would show their support for Clinton akin to the 15 and 20 percentage point victories Obama's supporters demonstrated in February. Maybe these voters would spin the race around 180 degrees by emphatically giving the senator from New York huge margins. As the results trickled in yesterday, the aforementioned clearly did not occur. In Rhode Island and Vermont, the size of the states and victory margins means they almost offset each other. Clinton, with the help of longtime ally Governor Strickland, did indeed win Ohio by 10 percentage points. Texas, however, was a split decision as Clinton won the primaries by four percent and Obama took the caucuses by 12 percent. The net result is a Clinton gain of four or fewer delegates out of a possible 228. One doesn't need a calculator to realize that just won't cut it. It's laughable to see headlines about Clinton's "huge" victories in both Texas and Ohio. That's like saying 98 Degrees has a "humongous" fan base (Sorry having now-25 year old women using your CD as a coaster doesn't count as being a fan).


Despite being a political science major, I have never donated to a candidate in my life. That streak came to an end this morning when I logged onto barackobama.com and sent in a contribution. Every major media outlet from the Wall Street Journal to CNN to NBC to Congressional Quarterly claims that it is essentially mathematically impossible for Clinton to make up the pledged delegate deficit. This bitter intra-party fighting has done enough damage to the Democratic cause and needs to end now before Bush's party gets more time to fundraise and campaign for McCain. If Clinton wants to influence a national contest, then she needs to pick up the phone and vote for the next American Idol because the people have chosen their Democratic representative. The Democrats cannot continue to drain their limited resources against each other during the primary rather than in the November election.


(Aside: I don't understand why North Carolina's primary on May 6 is not getting more attention. NC is the 9th most populous state in the nation and its 91 delegates exceed Wyoming, Montana, South Dakota, and Oregon combined.)

I just sent him more cash this morning as well. Got lots of room before I hit the $2500 mark. The more she plays cheap and dirty the closer I'll get to that number. At this point Hillary can get me to donate simply by dragging this thing out. Too bad for her my donations will be going to her opponent.

I don't get why NC isn't getting more air time either.

I have to say I'm almost hoping it drags onto North Carolina, because that's where I live. It would be nice to get a chance to vote in this primary. Also we're teaching our kids about elections this year, and it would be great to take them to hear the candidates speak once or twice.

We also have the fastest-growing population of native Spanish speakers of any state in the country. So it'll be an interesting primary, as well as an important one.

None of the above. I don't know if Root will get the nomination from his party, but there are a couple of strong points I dont agree with him on. I may be with ARTelevision and not voting. I'll have to see what happens in terms of independents. I also think there should be a rethinking in the vote counts; I don't trust where it is at now. There needs to be more than 2 podiums on the stage during the primary debates.

Pan, I do not wish to derail this conversation anymore, but I want to make clear that I am only giving my honest observations, accumulated over time. I would not make such a statement lightly or with malicious intent (unless I thought you were a hateful person, which I don't).

I am not one to pore over long-dead threads to 'gather evidence' to make a case against a person. Suffice it to say that I am speaking honestly and I am not the only person who has made these same observations.

Maybe if you weren't so defensive, you would take a moment to ponder what it means that you are so often coming across this way when you are talking about issues of race and culture that you deem to be 'un-American.'

This the last I have to say on this subject. I hold no hard feelings against you, but I understand if you cannot say the same for me.

I have seen his record and read through the bills. What I am forced to wonder is if he is that good at getting bi-partisan support or if he has just chosen issues which are something of no brainers for legislators to sign onto. In all the articles I read (and I know I have hardly read them all, far from it) the examples given seem pretty straight forward to me. I have fallen on the conservative side of politics pretty much all my life, although it is definitely a more centrist view than true GOP conservativism and I would have no issue with voting for most, if not all, of Obama's legislation.

I also see McCain's record where he has gone against the grain of both parties with campaign finance reform and immigration reform. I will grant you that neither of these solutions were or are perfect by my standards but they do represent progress. More importantly, they were focused at big, hot button issues of the day that were getting big press. McCain knew when he went after them his position was an exposed one and he was opening himself up for shots not just from his opponents but also from his own party.

Do you watch presidential politics much? This is SOP at this point in the process. Every 4 years the candidates for the two parties slide right or left, respectively, to appeal to the party faithful and then move back to the center for the general. Granted, the degrees to which they move either way differs but they do move.

McCain has had no choice but to distance himself from somethings he has done that the party faithful are angry about in order to get this far in the process. Now that he is presumptive nominee we will see what happens. If he continues to distance himself from his own past, you might be correct.

I do not believe he has gone "neocon", at least not the point you seem to think. I could be wrong though and I will be watching to see what he does/says between now and November.

His slide could also be the result of oncoming dementia, but it's really hard to say. What I do know is that McCain was running for president before, but wasn't taking these stances. Either he's realized you have to be out of your gourd to get the nomination or he's gone soft in the melon.

Suddenly I'm hungry for gourd and melon.

Does it matter to you that he's breaking the campaign finance law that bears his name?

Whether or not he is breaking it has yet to be decided as I understand it although I will grant that he is, at the very least, walking a fine line and that does not sit real well with me.

However, neither of the other 2 are lily white at this point either. If I were holding out for someone truly squeaky clean then I would never vote for anyone now would I?

Sadly it is almost always the lesser of evils.

Was that a black joke? I don't get it.

Correct! It is arguable that in every election since 1984 the American people have not so much elected a President and voted against the loser.

No, it is not a black joke. It is an expression. In this case it indicates that both Obama and Clinton have their own issues with ethical matters.

I know. I was kidding.

Still, I'm unaware of any real ethical issues with Obama .

Every heard the name Tony Rezko?

At best Obama's association with him is an example of a poor choice in friends and I, for one, am tired of that being an issue for the White House. I think Bush's biggest mistakes have revolved around his choice of advisers and I don't want to see it repeated by the next President.

Obama bought some land without thinking. I'm still not 100% sure why people consider it an issue. There's no evidence whatsoever that there was a back room deal or anything.

I'm from Chicago, and I really don't see anything to be concerned about whatsoever with regards to Obama and Rezko. This kind of stuff easily gets blown out of proportion in the national media, where Rezko himself isn't a big news story overall. Here, however, it's much more clear that if there's any major politician who needs to be looked at with suspicion when it comes to Rezko ties, it's Public Official A....er, I mean, Governor Blagojevich.

That said, Obama's not squeaky clean...but no one is, politician or not. I'm much more comfortable with his level of ethical imperfection than I am with Clinton or McCain's.

Our last 8 years of precedent notwithstanding, friends != advisors.

Obama has named some of the names of people he'd like surrounding him in his administration. He's included some prominent, if moderate, Republicans. Curiously, he hasn't included Tony Rezko. What do you make of that, Seymour?