Obama '08?

Ticomaya wrote:

Um, how can you call it "non-standard"?

Because it's hardly the way everyone does it, is it?

But that's not what most people do, is it? Most people stay with their congregation, mostly because well, they've bonded with the community, arent just there for the sermons, and decide to weigh it all out. Sermons they dont agree with or even consider outright dumb vs good works that they like, a community of people they're attached to, sermons they do feel inspired by.

That doesnt make sense. It doesnt need to mean that at all. It could just mean that the Obamas don't share this belief that "sitting there" in a church makes you "an adherent", and that it's one's duty to walk away whenever you hear something that offends you. They would hardly be alone in that.

Ticomaya wrote:

He's obviously waiting until he's elected to announce his radical plans. Nobody has claimed he's an idiot.

But you dont seriously believe this though, do you?

Actually, I am curious what you see in Obama as someone you are willing to go out into the streets to campaign for? I ask this with the knowledge that very few people really know what Obama would do as president, as he has really no track record to speak of. I think we know alot more about what McCain will try to do, and even Clinton. As part of the question, forget Obama for part of your answer and explain your political views, are you extremely left leaning, or do you consider yourself what? I presume you have voted Democrat in the last election or elections, nationally and locally? And why?

nimh wrote:

Ticomaya wrote:

He's obviously waiting until he's elected to announce his radical plans. Nobody has claimed he's an idiot.

But you dont seriously believe this though, do you?

Did you seriously just ask me that question?

Ticomaya wrote:

nimh wrote:

Ticomaya wrote:

He's obviously waiting until he's elected to announce his radical plans. Nobody has claimed he's an idiot.

But you dont seriously believe this though, do you?

Did you seriously just ask me that question?

Yes. Why?

I would assume you didnt, but then your post I quoted here seems to suggest you do. So why not clarify it?

If you're going to go suggest that who knows, Obama might be a closet radical who's only going to reveal himself as some kind of black militant once he's a President, it's not unreasonable to clarify whether you yourself actually believe that, or are just poking a bit, is it? I mean, you do a fair bit of that too.

okie wrote:

Actually, I am curious what you see in Obama as someone you are willing to go out into the streets to campaign for? I ask this with the knowledge that very few people really know what Obama would do as president, as he has really no track record to speak of. I think we know alot more about what McCain will try to do, and even Clinton. As part of the question, forget Obama for part of your answer and explain your political views, are you extremely left leaning, or do you consider yourself what? I presume you have voted Democrat in the last election or elections, nationally and locally? And why?

I know this question wasn't directed to me, but it was an excellent question, so I thought I would answer for myself.

I'm a moderate. I think there should be some level of social safety net in this country, but I think there should be adequate incentive for personal accomplishment as well. I think we should implement policies that are good for the nation as a whole and those policies should be evaluated on the results they produce instead of any ideology they support. I think the US should be involved internationally but should work within a framework of our allies whenever possible. I am not in favor of foreign military action that does not involve the US, its interests or the safety of our allies. I did not favor our involvement in Kosovo or Iraq 2. I did support Afganistan and Iraq 1. I support a strong, modern military, but I support higher troop pay, training and maintenance over fancy new military systems. The submarine we are commisioning here this weekend will not stop terrorists even though it costs 2.5 billion dollars. I believe there is an optimum level of taxes that benefits the US by allowing optimum economic growth. If we are below that level (as objectively determined by reasonable metrics), we should raise taxes. If we are above that level, we should lower taxes. I believe it is the duty of the President to surround himself with extremely competent people, regardless of political leanings so that he will have all the information and opinions he requires to make educated decisions. I expect he will have the education, drive and moral fortitude to make difficult decisions and he will do so for the benefit of the entire country. I expect our President to be able to inspire and lead our country. I liked Nixon (until Watergate), Reagan, Bush I. I thought Clinton was OK. I didn't care for Carter (as President) and Bush II. In all of those cases, there are specific examples of things I liked and didn't like. I don't feel that I need to agree with the President on every issue. I'm not a single issue voter.

So why do I support Obama? Do I agree with all of his positions? No, most notably on his NAFTA rhetoric. I like Obama because:

1. He has surrounded himself with extremely capable advisors with varied opinions. That has always been my vision of how a President should put together a team. Lincoln did this and is remembered as our best President. (Not saying Obama is Lincoln.) Reagan did some of this as well. (Not saying Obama is Reagan.) His willingness to hire the best people and take their opinions into account even when not agreeing is one of the reasons his campaign does not have the infighting and difficulties of the Clinton and McCain campaigns.

2. He can inspire. This is one of the key requirements of the job, getting the American people behind initiatives that might not be popular, but are required. For example, I believe one of the biggest failings of the current President is that he has not come to the people and said "we are at war and you must pay for it."

3. In my opinion, he is willing to try to be the President of all the people. His strategy is not "win the blue states plus Florida and Ohio." He wants to run a fifty state campaign, he appeals to independents and moderate Republicans, he doesn't seem to think that we should divide the country into little demographic groups and turn them against each other for political gain.

4. He saw through the pre-war Bush fear mongering and made the call correctly. To me, this goes straight to his critical thinking faculties and moral fortitude. To many, the "mushroom cloud" arguments being tossed about before the Iraq war were very transparent. I erroneously accepted the "Iraq has WMD" argument, but I never accepted the "Iraq supports terrorists" or the "Iraq is a threat to the US" arguments. There was too much data refuting them and none supporting them. My personal belief is that Senator Clinton saw through them as well, but made a politically expedient decision to support the war since Congress was going to support it anyway. Obama was heavily favored to win his Senate race, so maybe you think there was little political risk in bucking a popular war, but in the end, he made the correct call.

I don't think Obama is perfect nor does he agree with me on all the issues. I do think he has demonstrated he meets the minimum requirements I want in a President. Equally, I think the other two candidates have demonstrated that they do not.

And who knows ... he might be a closet radical. Can you assure me he isn't?

But then again, maybe I am just poking a bit. As you say, I do a fair bit of that.

Ticomaya wrote:

And who knows ... he might be a closet radical. Can you assure me he isn't?

But then again, maybe I am just poking a bit. As you say, I do a fair bit of that.

And who knows ... McCain might be a closet shape-shifter from the planet Zargono. Can you assure me he isn't?

OCCOM BILL wrote:

Ticomaya wrote:

And who knows ... he might be a closet radical. Can you assure me he isn't?

But then again, maybe I am just poking a bit. As you say, I do a fair bit of that.

And who knows ... McCain might be a closet shape-shifter from the planet Zargono. Can you assure me he isn't?

You don't seriously believe this, do you?

I think alot of people are forgetting something important here, or conveniently ignoring it. Wright was not and is not out there saying dumb things as sort of an anomaly, apart from the so-called religious philosophy being propagated here. I will remind everyone here that the root of this whole thing, and of which Wright is an extension of, is the foundational philosophy of the church, which is Black Liberation Theology. This is well documented, advertised, and crucial to what is going on here. Simply go to the church's own website and read up on it, or do a search on the internet and become a bit more informed. I would agree that Wright takes this to the Nth degree, but in my opinion the basic philosophy is the poison that lies at the basis of this whole thing. Obama simply cannot disavow the pastor and have all of this over with, as if he is some naive guy that is just now waking up to what Wright and his church are all about.

It seems obvious to me that Obama's mindset probably sympathizes with and springs out of all this, that America is more or less a broken country, and probably always has been in his opinion, and hence the mantra "change" has become his way of fixing all the axes that he has to grind.

okie wrote:

I think alot of people are forgetting something important here, or conveniently ignoring it. Wright was not and is not out there saying dumb things as sort of an anomaly, apart from the so-called religious philosophy being propagated here. I will remind everyone here that the root of this whole thing, and of which Wright is an extension of, is the foundational philosophy of the church, which is Black Liberation Theology. This is well documented, advertised, and crucial to what is going on here. Simply go to the church's own website and read up on it, or do a search on the internet and become a bit more informed. I would agree that Wright takes this to the Nth degree, but in my opinion the basic philosophy is the poison that lies at the basis of this whole thing. Obama simply cannot disavow the pastor and have all of this over with, as if he is some naive guy that is just now waking up to what Wright and his church are all about.

It seems obvious to me that Obama's mindset probably sympathizes with and springs out of all this, that America is more or less a broken country, and probably always has been in his opinion, and hence the mantra "change" has become his way of fixing all the axes that he has to grind.

Since you seem to be fearful of a BLT coup de tat ala Obama, perhaps you can name a policy you think that Obama will promote/implement once in office that is related to Rev Wright. Or perhaps you can point us in the direction of policies that Obama has already pushed forward with his radical-closet-BLT-secret muslim agenda as farmerman pointed out.

If you can't find some practical threat in this whole Rev Wright ordeal, then there is no reason to keep talking about it. Prove to me you're not just full of $hit. Answer the question.

which have evolved into...

"What specific policies either past, present or future of Obama's threaten you that are because of Reverend Wright?"

Why won't any conservatives answer this? What is so hard about this question? I'll keep asking as long as conservatives keep trolling around this obviously irrelavent topic.

T
K
O

okie wrote:

Actually, I am curious what you see in Obama as someone you are willing to go out into the streets to campaign for? I ask this with the knowledge that very few people really know what Obama would do as president, as he has really no track record to speak of. I think we know alot more about what McCain will try to do, and even Clinton. As part of the question, forget Obama for part of your answer and explain your political views, are you extremely left leaning, or do you consider yourself what? I presume you have voted Democrat in the last election or elections, nationally and locally? And why?

I know this question wasn't directed to me, but it was an excellent question, so I thought I would answer for myself.

I'm a moderate. I think there should be some level of social safety net in this country, but I think there should be adequate incentive for personal accomplishment as well. I think we should implement policies that are good for the nation as a whole and those policies should be evaluated on the results they produce instead of any ideology they support. I think the US should be involved internationally but should work within a framework of our allies whenever possible. I am not in favor of foreign military action that does not involve the US, its interests or the safety of our allies. I did not favor our involvement in Kosovo or Iraq 2. I did support Afganistan and Iraq 1. I support a strong, modern military, but I support higher troop pay, training and maintenance over fancy new military systems. The submarine we are commisioning here this weekend will not stop terrorists even though it costs 2.5 billion dollars. I believe there is an optimum level of taxes that benefits the US by allowing optimum economic growth. If we are below that level (as objectively determined by reasonable metrics), we should raise taxes. If we are above that level, we should lower taxes. I believe it is the duty of the President to surround himself with extremely competent people, regardless of political leanings so that he will have all the information and opinions he requires to make educated decisions. I expect he will have the education, drive and moral fortitude to make difficult decisions and he will do so for the benefit of the entire country. I expect our President to be able to inspire and lead our country. I liked Nixon (until Watergate), Reagan, Bush I. I thought Clinton was OK. I didn't care for Carter (as President) and Bush II. In all of those cases, there are specific examples of things I liked and didn't like. I don't feel that I need to agree with the President on every issue. I'm not a single issue voter.

So why do I support Obama? Do I agree with all of his positions? No, most notably on his NAFTA rhetoric. I like Obama because:

1. He has surrounded himself with extremely capable advisors with varied opinions. That has always been my vision of how a President should put together a team. Lincoln did this and is remembered as our best President. (Not saying Obama is Lincoln.) Reagan did some of this as well. (Not saying Obama is Reagan.) His willingness to hire the best people and take their opinions into account even when not agreeing is one of the reasons his campaign does not have the infighting and difficulties of the Clinton and McCain campaigns.

2. He can inspire. This is one of the key requirements of the job, getting the American people behind initiatives that might not be popular, but are required. For example, I believe one of the biggest failings of the current President is that he has not come to the people and said "we are at war and you must pay for it."

3. In my opinion, he is willing to try to be the President of all the people. His strategy is not "win the blue states plus Florida and Ohio." He wants to run a fifty state campaign, he appeals to independents and moderate Republicans, he doesn't seem to think that we should divide the country into little demographic groups and turn them against each other for political gain.

4. He saw through the pre-war Bush fear mongering and made the call correctly. To me, this goes straight to his critical thinking faculties and moral fortitude. To many, the "mushroom cloud" arguments being tossed about before the Iraq war were very transparent. I erroneously accepted the "Iraq has WMD" argument, but I never accepted the "Iraq supports terrorists" or the "Iraq is a threat to the US" arguments. There was too much data refuting them and none supporting them. My personal belief is that Senator Clinton saw through them as well, but made a politically expedient decision to support the war since Congress was going to support it anyway. Obama was heavily favored to win his Senate race, so maybe you think there was little political risk in bucking a popular war, but in the end, he made the correct call.

I don't think Obama is perfect nor does he agree with me on all the issues. I do think he has demonstrated he meets the minimum requirements I want in a President. Equally, I think the other two candidates have demonstrated that they do not.

I don't usually get involved in political stuff here at A2K, i'm just not well enough equipped to hang with the big dawgs in that regard, but I do want to respond to this by Lash (though i still wub you )

Lash wrote:

When my pastor offends me, I leave. I kept getting offended, I kept leaving...

If a pastor says something that raises the hairs on the back of your neck, you can't stay. By sitting there under his teaching, you are an adherent--a student. A contract.

I just want to say that when my pastor says something that I disagree with (a) if it's NOT bible/spirituality related, I shrug it off. I disagree with people about many things, a disagreement with my pastor isn't a 'special' type of disagreement (b) if it's bible or spiritual and i disgree with something he says I do my own research for my own answer and interpretation (this is what believers are supposed to do anyway...read/research the bible for yourself)

If I feel that we're having CONSTANT disagreement in views on things that aren't related to my spiritual life, then I wouldn't necessarily leave the church, I just know to let his non spiritual views inone ear and out the other. If i'm getting what I need in regards to the Word, then that's where I'm going to stay until my spiritual being is no longer being fed there.

A pastor (at least in my view) is not the person who's views in any way influence mine. I'm adult enough to make up my own mind about things especially when it comes to racial matters, politics and so forth. I don't quite see why anyone would insinuate that because barack obama felt his spiritual needs were being met by the pastoring of Rev. Wright that he took his political, wordly, racial and other views from that man's beliefs.

onyxelle wrote:

I don't usually get involved in political stuff here at A2K, i'm just not well enough equipped to hang with the big dawgs in that regard, but I do want to respond to this by Lash (though i still wub you )

Lash wrote:

When my pastor offends me, I leave. I kept getting offended, I kept leaving...

If a pastor says something that raises the hairs on the back of your neck, you can't stay. By sitting there under his teaching, you are an adherent--a student. A contract.

I just want to say that when my pastor says something that I disagree with (a) if it's NOT bible/spirituality related, I shrug it off. I disagree with people about many things, a disagreement with my pastor isn't a 'special' type of disagreement (b) if it's bible or spiritual and i disgree with something he says I do my own research for my own answer and interpretation (this is what believers are supposed to do anyway...read/research the bible for yourself)

If I feel that we're having CONSTANT disagreement in views on things that aren't related to my spiritual life, then I wouldn't necessarily leave the church, I just know to let his non spiritual views inone ear and out the other. If i'm getting what I need in regards to the Word, then that's where I'm going to stay until my spiritual being is no longer being fed there.

A pastor (at least in my view) is not the person who's views in any way influence mine. I'm adult enough to make up my own mind about things especially when it comes to racial matters, politics and so forth. I don't quite see why anyone would insinuate that because barack obama felt his spiritual needs were being met by the pastoring of Rev. Wright that he took his political, wordly, racial and other views from that man's beliefs.

I'm glad you responded, Onyx. Love you, too. I guess we do have quite different views on a pastor's role and the quite heavy responsibility regarding the words (and sentiments they represent) coming from the pulpit. When I heard racism or sexism (obviously why I can't find a church) or any sentiments I felt were wrong, I couldn't sit there in quiet agreement. I view a pastor as a representative/translator for the god they are talking about and the religion they follow. In the Baptist tradition I followed, this was a spoken contract between the pastor and congregation. I realize there are a multitude of variations.

I just don't understand how anybody could sit and listen to things they found to be wrong Sunday after Sunday. It makes no sense to me. I possibly took it too seriously.

Well Onyxelle,

If it helps to clear up that bit of puzzlement about why some seem to take such offense that Obama could stay at that church even though his preacher had some loopy ideas...

You might notice that those so insistent and outraged that Obama didn't leave 20 years ago are the one's least likely to vote for him for ANY reason.

Wright got froggy from all the Obama media attention.