mysteryman
 
  1  
Sat 3 May, 2008 03:33 pm
Here is an example, IMHO, of pandering to voters by both Hillary AND Barak.

http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalpunch/2008/05/stumping-for-de.html

Quote:
Clinton also expressed her support for legislation to offer up to $126 million in reparations to Guam residents for their suffering during World War II at the hands of the Japanese military, which occupied the island.

The U.S. would pay the reparations, since it long ago forgave Japan its war debts.

"I think sometimes it takes unfortunately longer than it should to educate people about the justice of a cause like war reparations, or for the people of Guam that suffered under the Japanese occupation during World War II," Clinton told the Guam TV station. "All these years later we still haven't provided the reparations that the people of Guam were promised. As your president, I will work very hard to remedy this injustice. I am committed to doing so."

Sen. Barack Obama, D-Illinois, has expressed support for the reparations legislation as well.


If we forgave Japan her war debts, then why should we pay them now?
This sure sounds like pandering to the voters to me.
0 Replies
 
nimh
 
  1  
Sat 3 May, 2008 04:50 pm
mysteryman wrote:
FreeDuck wrote:
Here, I think that article was based on this one: http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2008/05/01/obama_walks_fine_line_in_quest_for_white_votes/?page=2

A little more information there. It's still not clear to me that he actually IS avoiding black communities. They mention blacks in Charlotte a couple of times, but according to the New York Times election guide, Obama was there in the last month.


From page 1 of the article you linked to...

Quote:
Obama has cut back on his campaigning in the African-American community in the months since his highly publicized speech at Rev. Martin Luther King Jr.'s church in Atlanta - even as black voters in places like Charlotte are mobilizing on his behalf as never before.


Gotta agree with FreeDuck: weird that they'd publish a claim like that without any actual supporting evidence - just going on what this guy said, that guy said. It's pretty easy to find a schedule of Obama's past appearances, so you know, is it actually true? That should be part of a journalist's job, to check it. If FD can find out within a click that Obama has been in Charlotte, for example, then I dunno, but it sounds just like shoddy journalism to me.
0 Replies
 
Butrflynet
 
  1  
Sat 3 May, 2008 08:44 pm
There is a recount underway so this isn't final yet.


http://www.news.com.au/adelaidenow/story/0,22606,23643146-5005962,00.html

Quote:
May 04, 2008 11:14am
BARACK Obama beat Hillary Clinton in the Guam caucuses in the Democratic White House battle by a mere seven votes, local party officials said today.

After a marathon all-night counting session, Senator Obama won 14 of the 21 districts in the remote US territory and finished with 2264 votes to 2257 for Senator Clinton.

Voter turnout was 25 per cent higher than the 4000 party officials expected yesterday as the tiny Pacific island grasped its one opportunity to influence the presidential outcome.

The island's residents, while US citizens, cannot vote in November's presidential election.

Party officials said many people had registered as Democrats at the caucus sites around the island, prompting the tag "Democrats for a day".

"There are many new Democrats today," the chairman of the Democratic nominating committee Herbie Perez said.

"I am so surprised. I never thought it would be like this."

The outcome rested on Dededo, the island's most populated community and the final village to be counted, and where Senator Clinton had strong support from the predominantly Filipo-American community.

She trailed Senator Obama by 203 votes before counting began in Dededo where officials said several spoiled ballots were rejected.

Although Guam offers only four delegate votes, each is now crucial to the Democratic White House battle, in which Senator Obama leads Senator Clinton by a narrow margin estimated at 1742 delegates to 1599.

Neither senators visited Guam ahead of the vote but both vowed to address local issues, such as the relocation of 8000 Marines from Okinawa in Japan and war reparation claims.

Guam, a US territory since 1898, rarely steps into the limelight of US politics as it lies on the other side of the international dateline. The island has about 48,000 registered voters.
0 Replies
 
engineer
 
  1  
Sun 4 May, 2008 05:56 am
nimh wrote:
mysteryman wrote:
FreeDuck wrote:
Here, I think that article was based on this one: http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2008/05/01/obama_walks_fine_line_in_quest_for_white_votes/?page=2

A little more information there. It's still not clear to me that he actually IS avoiding black communities. They mention blacks in Charlotte a couple of times, but according to the New York Times election guide, Obama was there in the last month.


From page 1 of the article you linked to...

Quote:
Obama has cut back on his campaigning in the African-American community in the months since his highly publicized speech at Rev. Martin Luther King Jr.'s church in Atlanta - even as black voters in places like Charlotte are mobilizing on his behalf as never before.


Gotta agree with FreeDuck: weird that they'd publish a claim like that without any actual supporting evidence - just going on what this guy said, that guy said. It's pretty easy to find a schedule of Obama's past appearances, so you know, is it actually true? That should be part of a journalist's job, to check it. If FD can find out within a click that Obama has been in Charlotte, for example, then I dunno, but it sounds just like shoddy journalism to me.

Obama has stopped in communities all over North Carolina in the last couple of weeks. Maybe he considers all of these communities both black and white.
0 Replies
 
engineer
 
  1  
Sun 4 May, 2008 06:52 am
Not that we have the largest newspaper in the state, but the Wilmington Star has endorsed Obama. Over the years, I've found the Star to be a pretty good, logical endorser without a lot of political bias. Unfortunately, their track record of picking winners in Presidential races is poor. They endorsed Bush I over Clinton, Dole over Clinton, Gore over Bush II and Kerry over Bush II.
0 Replies
 
blueflame1
 
  1  
Sun 4 May, 2008 08:49 am
0 Replies
 
Bi-Polar Bear
 
  1  
Sun 4 May, 2008 10:32 am
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/24447399
0 Replies
 
revel
 
  1  
Sun 4 May, 2008 11:09 am
Nevertheless, bpb, the polls in indiana are closer than i would have thought.

CNN's "poll of polls" shows Clinton, Sen. Barack Obama in dead heat in Indiana

Quote:
Sen. Barack Obama is tied with Clinton at 45 percent, with 10 percent of respondents unsure, according to the Indiana Democratic poll, an average of campaign surveys.




And still ahead in NC though I admit not as much as was previously. (but ahead is still ahead)

Quote:
Obama has a significant lead in the polls in North Carolina and is heavily favored to win there.

Obama owes his victories throughout the nomination battle to African-Americans, young voters, upscale whites and independent voters.


Perhaps the number of working whites are less than blacks and upscale whites and Independents voters. (don't really fit into any of those labels myself)
0 Replies
 
Diest TKO
 
  1  
Sun 4 May, 2008 02:27 pm
blueflame1 wrote:

I thought that he would take this position.

T
K
O
0 Replies
 
teenyboone
 
  1  
Sun 4 May, 2008 04:17 pm
nimh wrote:
mysteryman wrote:
FreeDuck wrote:
Here, I think that article was based on this one: http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2008/05/01/obama_walks_fine_line_in_quest_for_white_votes/?page=2

A little more information there. It's still not clear to me that he actually IS avoiding black communities. They mention blacks in Charlotte a couple of times, but according to the New York Times election guide, Obama was there in the last month.


From page 1 of the article you linked to...

Quote:
Obama has cut back on his campaigning in the African-American community in the months since his highly publicized speech at Rev. Martin Luther King Jr.'s church in Atlanta - even as black voters in places like Charlotte are mobilizing on his behalf as never before.


Gotta agree with FreeDuck: weird that they'd publish a claim like that without any actual supporting evidence - just going on what this guy said, that guy said. It's pretty easy to find a schedule of Obama's past appearances, so you know, is it actually true? That should be part of a journalist's job, to check it. If FD can find out within a click that Obama has been in Charlotte, for example, then I dunno, but it sounds just like shoddy journalism to me.

Nowadays, "reporters" are HANDED their script and TOLD what to say, whether it's true or not! Ever channel surf at the news hour and they're reporting on the SAME thing on EVERY channel? The Corporations own ALL of the channels, so THEY control the media, which is owned by US, well, the airwaves anyhow! Even PBS and C-Span are falling into this "media" trap! Rolling Eyes
0 Replies
 
revel
 
  1  
Mon 5 May, 2008 06:45 am
May 4, 2008
Gallup Daily: Obama 49%, Clinton 45%

http://media.gallup.com/poll/graphs/050408DailyUpdateGraph1_b8v7c0.gif

Not too bad considering all the startup of the whole Wright thing again and other pro-hillary negative obama press lately.
0 Replies
 
nimh
 
  1  
Mon 5 May, 2008 07:04 am
Finn dAbuzz wrote:
nimh wrote:
Oh, and:

Finn dAbuzz wrote:
In fact when I had the temerity to post that my black friends would never accept him as their spokesman, let alone their spiritual mentor, I was chided by nimh and others as either being a closet rascist with my friends, or lying about having black friends.

BS.

Not so.

No, it's BS allright. I never said such a thing.

I do know what convo you're referring to, though. I cant find it back through Search, but the subject was how many African-Americans would broadly agree or disagree with Rev. Wright's comments. You claimed that of course, African Americans too were just as furious about his remarks. But you cited no proof, and then I found an opinion poll showing that no such wide-spread anger existed among blacks. You dismissed the poll, saying that well, your black friends sure thought it was all outrageous.

In response, I said two things. A) Considering your strong political opinions and your personal background (social/economic/whatnot), the black friends you would have are probably not exactly representative of the black community as a whole; B) Considering the fierce opinions you hold, do you really think that even if some of them would agree with some of the stuff Wright said, you would hear the full extent of that?

I think there'd be some self-censorship going on. And that's hardly a bold assertion; we all do it. I sure do it. Not on this forum of course, where I'll debate anyone with opposite opinions, but in real life, when it comes to colleagues, acquaintances and even close friends, I will take some reserve in expressing my political opinions if I know that they probably hold contrasting views. Unless you have come to know, over time, that this is the kind of guy who enjoys a good to-and-fro and will not hold anything against you later, people generally will avoid confronting a colleague or acquaintance with opposing political view points (the remnants of the old-fashioned taboo on talking politics or religion at the dining table, so to say).

In the light of that I will take an opinion poll over you references to what your black friends think any day. Fact, I will take it over any anecdotal evidence like that.

To lift all this above the level of personal squabbles, I think the subject of self-censorship is in fact particularly relevant for this thread. While anyone will sometimes shy away from expressing one's full opinions to someone with presumably opposite opinions, I think the black community in America may face this dilemma in particular. There are still very much parallel realities when it comes to race, that mingle but also keep some stuff separate in their own domain. This article is interesting in that regard:

Quote:
Black churches come to terms with Obama-Wright schism
USA Today

In black churches across the country Sunday, pastors and parishioners tried to reconcile their hope to elect Sen. Barack Obama president with their respect for his controversial former pastor, Jeremiah Wright.

The story includes the following bits that touch on this subject:

Quote:
In Detroit, Nicholas Hood, senior minister at Plymouth United Church of Christ, said Obama made the right move.

He said the controversy is confusing for those who don't understand how some followers can support both men.

"We need the Jeremiah Wrights of the world to remind the world to be fair," Hood said. "One represents the past; the other, the future.

"Deep down inside … we need both," he said.

Walter Fauntroy, who was an aide to Martin Luther King Jr. and serves as pastor at New Bethel in Washington, devoted his sermon to the issue. He said Obama's opponents could not unearth other controversies against him so they focused on his retired pastor. Obama handled it effectively, he said.

Then, last week, "Jeremiah gave (Obama's) opponents the gift that keeps on giving," Fauntroy said.

He said Wright spoke the truth about the struggles of blacks in this country, but, citing the Bible's Book of Ecclesiastes, "there is a time to keep silent and a time to speak."

The congregation erupted in cheers, claps and "Amens." [..]

At the heart of the controversy, said Graylan Hagler, senior minister at Plymouth Congregational United Church of Christ in Washington, are issues about race that the country has yet to solve.

"What we really realize is there is a schism not just between black and white, but between people of color and the dominant culture," Hagler said. "The viewpoints are not the same, and we have to resist trying to homogenize each other. … It also shows white America may consider a black man as president, but it does not want a black president."
0 Replies
 
Ticomaya
 
  1  
Mon 5 May, 2008 08:19 am
Quote:
Glenn Beck: Obama's odd timing on Wright
By Glenn Beck
CNN

NEW YORK (CNN) -- Sen. Barack Obama is moving away from the Rev. Jeremiah Wright so fast he may claim to be an atheist by next weekend. The ongoing sprint from such a polarizing figure is far from a surprise, it's just the timing of it that is so odd.

A New York Times editorial described the recent developments like this:

"In the last few days, in a series of shocking appearances, he [Wright] embraced the Rev. Louis Farrakhan's anti-Semitism. He said the government manufactured the AIDS virus to kill blacks. He suggested that America was guilty of "terrorism" and so had brought the 9/11 attacks on itself."

Shocking? Every one of these opinions of Wright has been part of the public record for months. It's no more shocking than Angelina Jolie coming out in favor of adoption.

Even in the schizophrenic world of politics, it's unclear how to accomplish the mental gymnastics required to make sense of all of this. The media's love affair with Obama makes them ask us to believe that Obama was courageous for defending Wright in his Philadelphia speech on race and also courageous for throwing him under the bus six weeks later for the exact same opinions.

The only plausible realities are that either the speech was naïve and the press conference realistic, or the speech was pandering and the press conference politically expedient. Neither paints a pretty picture of a politician who is supposed to change Washington.

When the tapes surfaced Obama informed us that much of the controversy had been caused not by Wright's views, but by our lack of understanding about the differences in culture. "Trinity's services are full of raucous laughter and sometimes bawdy humor. They are full of dancing, clapping, screaming and shouting that may seem jarring to the untrained ear."

It wasn't Wright's overbearing volume, hilarious comedy, hand movements, or dance quality that made me think he was a dangerous peddler of conspiracy theories. It was his words that did that. I don't want someone like him with access to the president for twenty minutes, let alone twenty years.

Those who were outraged by Wright's divisive and destructive comments that preyed on hate have been called racists by many. But, when Obama said he was "outraged" by the "divisive and destructive" comments that gave "comfort to those who prey on hate," he's called brave.

For anyone believing this is about race for Wright's critics, think of disgraced professor Ward Churchill. He was fired for research misconduct from University of Colorado at Boulder and made famous for saying many of the same things as Wright.

If any presidential candidate from either side -- white or black -- had been using Churchill as a "sounding board" for the last twenty years, we would rightly dismiss them.

Obama's political excommunication of Wright is not only a sudden and stark departure from his vaunted Philadelphia speech on race -- it also appears to be retroactive. In his press conference he said about Wright: "I know that one thing that he said was true, that he was never my "spiritual adviser." He was never my spiritual mentor. He was my pastor. And to some extent how the press characterized in the past that relationship, I think, was inaccurate."

Indeed, the press had characterized Wright in that role quite often. For example, the Chicago Sun Times described him as "a close confidant" in an article about people Obama "seeks out for spiritual counsel," and the New York Times described Wright as his "spiritual mentor."

Another source even called Wright the man "who helped introduce" Obama to his "Christian faith," who "counsels" him, is "like family," "a friend," "a great leader" and a "sounding board," who was a member of Obama's spiritual advisory committee and who officiated his wedding and baptized his children.

That source? Barack Obama. I wonder where "the press" got all those crazy ideas.

Do I think for a second that Obama believes the government created the AIDS virus to kill African-Americans? No. But at this point it's rational to wonder whether he is either lying or has an awful sense of judgment. He either knew Wright's views and didn't tell the truth about them, or he somehow missed the core beliefs of the man who was spending his Sunday mornings teaching core beliefs.

I'm glad Obama has come to the same conclusion that Wright's critics came to long ago. I just wonder why it took me two minutes and him two decades.
0 Replies
 
woiyo
 
  1  
Mon 5 May, 2008 08:27 am
nimh wrote:
Finn dAbuzz wrote:
nimh wrote:
Oh, and:

Finn dAbuzz wrote:
In fact when I had the temerity to post that my black friends would never accept him as their spokesman, let alone their spiritual mentor, I was chided by nimh and others as either being a closet rascist with my friends, or lying about having black friends.

BS.

Not so.

No, it's BS allright. I never said such a thing.

I do know what convo you're referring to, though. I cant find it back through Search, but the subject was how many African-Americans would broadly agree or disagree with Rev. Wright's comments. You claimed that of course, African Americans too were just as furious about his remarks. But you cited no proof, and then I found an opinion poll showing that no such wide-spread anger existed among blacks. You dismissed the poll, saying that well, your black friends sure thought it was all outrageous.

In response, I said two things. A) Considering your strong political opinions and your personal background (social/economic/whatnot), the black friends you would have are probably not exactly representative of the black community as a whole; B) Considering the fierce opinions you hold, do you really think that even if some of them would agree with some of the stuff Wright said, you would hear the full extent of that?

I think there'd be some self-censorship going on. And that's hardly a bold assertion; we all do it. I sure do it. Not on this forum of course, where I'll debate anyone with opposite opinions, but in real life, when it comes to colleagues, acquaintances and even close friends, I will take some reserve in expressing my political opinions if I know that they probably hold contrasting views. Unless you have come to know, over time, that this is the kind of guy who enjoys a good to-and-fro and will not hold anything against you later, people generally will avoid confronting a colleague or acquaintance with opposing political view points (the remnants of the old-fashioned taboo on talking politics or religion at the dining table, so to say).

In the light of that I will take an opinion poll over you references to what your black friends think any day. Fact, I will take it over any anecdotal evidence like that.

To lift all this above the level of personal squabbles, I think the subject of self-censorship is in fact particularly relevant for this thread. While anyone will sometimes shy away from expressing one's full opinions to someone with presumably opposite opinions, I think the black community in America may face this dilemma in particular. There are still very much parallel realities when it comes to race, that mingle but also keep some stuff separate in their own domain. This article is interesting in that regard:

Quote:
Black churches come to terms with Obama-Wright schism
USA Today

In black churches across the country Sunday, pastors and parishioners tried to reconcile their hope to elect Sen. Barack Obama president with their respect for his controversial former pastor, Jeremiah Wright.

The story includes the following bits that touch on this subject:

Quote:
In Detroit, Nicholas Hood, senior minister at Plymouth United Church of Christ, said Obama made the right move.

He said the controversy is confusing for those who don't understand how some followers can support both men.

"We need the Jeremiah Wrights of the world to remind the world to be fair," Hood said. "One represents the past; the other, the future.

"Deep down inside … we need both," he said.

Walter Fauntroy, who was an aide to Martin Luther King Jr. and serves as pastor at New Bethel in Washington, devoted his sermon to the issue. He said Obama's opponents could not unearth other controversies against him so they focused on his retired pastor. Obama handled it effectively, he said.

Then, last week, "Jeremiah gave (Obama's) opponents the gift that keeps on giving," Fauntroy said.

He said Wright spoke the truth about the struggles of blacks in this country, but, citing the Bible's Book of Ecclesiastes, "there is a time to keep silent and a time to speak."

The congregation erupted in cheers, claps and "Amens." [..]

At the heart of the controversy, said Graylan Hagler, senior minister at Plymouth Congregational United Church of Christ in Washington, are issues about race that the country has yet to solve.

"What we really realize is there is a schism not just between black and white, but between people of color and the dominant culture," Hagler said. "The viewpoints are not the same, and we have to resist trying to homogenize each other. … It also shows white America may consider a black man as president, but it does not want a black president."


For something you deem insignificant, you certainly address it often.
0 Replies
 
maporsche
 
  1  
Mon 5 May, 2008 08:52 am
Glenn Beck wrote:
Sen. Barack Obama is moving away from the Rev. Jeremiah Wright so fast he may claim to be an atheist by next weekend.



If he announces his atheism, he'll get my vote, guaranteed.
0 Replies
 
OCCOM BILL
 
  1  
Mon 5 May, 2008 08:55 am
maporsche wrote:
Glenn Beck wrote:
Sen. Barack Obama is moving away from the Rev. Jeremiah Wright so fast he may claim to be an atheist by next weekend.



If he announces his atheism, he'll get my vote, guaranteed.
Shocked Good heavens; we agree on something...
0 Replies
 
okie
 
  1  
Mon 5 May, 2008 09:06 am
For what its worth to anybody, you all know my politics, but I am now 2/3 through Obama's book, Audacity of Hope, now part of the way through the religion section, and a couple of things pop out. First, Obama is not a dummy, so I am personally now 99.99999% sure he knew what Wright was about and has been preaching for the last 20 years. There is always the shadow of a doubt, but it isn't much. Unless somebody else fed him alot of the ideas for his book, and I would hope not.

Secondly, I don't think he agreed with Wright altogether, but I get the feeling he has had sympathies for what Wright has been preaching all along, how much it is hard to tell, as the book is an artful work of riding the fence and presenting all sides of an issue, not because he believes all sides have merit, but because that is his political strategy or personality.

So, it appears to me that Obama has used the church as a way to gain a political base in Chicago, and also because he sympathizes with its philosophy to some extent, and as I said I don't know the extent exactly. I think one of the things he likes is the political vector of the religion. Bottom line, I see Obama much more as a man that has designed his political identity for a very very long time, and most of what he has been doing is in large part due to his political image and aims, all the while reasoning within himself that he does not wish to be a typical politician.

In his efforts not to be a typical politician and trying to see merit in everybody's experiences while building his political base, he has allowed himself to become identified with the truly despicable character, Wright. I see it as an outgrowth of his reluctance to condemn wrong. He has a tough time drawing a sharp line between right and wrong, and his method of reconciling everyone together is to essentially shy away from condemning anything completely. In so doing, he has found himself identified with the wrong element here, and so now he has the uncomfortable task of distancing himself. He is of course only doing this for political purposes and the distance is proportional to whatever he thinks is necessary to see his poll numbers stabilize and head in the right direction. I think I have seen it evidenced that he and Wright agreed that this may need to happen at some point, so none of this is a surprise to either of them.

P.S. As an interesting aside, in Obama's book, he asserts that our laws have a Judeo - Christian foundation. I would need to look it up to find the exact quote.
0 Replies
 
nimh
 
  1  
Mon 5 May, 2008 09:33 am
woiyo wrote:
For something you deem insignificant, you certainly address it often.

Well that's the dilemma isn't it? You like a certain presidential candidate above the others. The guy has stuff thrown at him that you deem insignificant, but that a whole lot of stink is made about, in the media, by the punditry, by his rivals. What to do?

If you respond to each of the accusations and insinuations on the subject, you amplify the freakshow, lending the silly distractions credibility even as you denounce them. But what's the alternative? Ignoring them and let this silly storm just batter your preferred candidate, week after week? Thats not really an option...
0 Replies
 
FreeDuck
 
  1  
Mon 5 May, 2008 09:40 am
okie wrote:
For what its worth to anybody, you all know my politics, but I am now 2/3 through Obama's book, Audacity of Hope, now part of the way through the religion section, and a couple of things pop out. First, Obama is not a dummy, so I am personally now 99.99999% sure he knew what Wright was about and has been preaching for the last 20 years. There is always the shadow of a doubt, but it isn't much. Unless somebody else fed him alot of the ideas for his book, and I would hope not.

Secondly, I don't think he agreed with Wright altogether, but I get the feeling he has had sympathies for what Wright has been preaching all along, how much it is hard to tell, as the book is an artful work of riding the fence and presenting all sides of an issue, not because he believes all sides have merit, but because that is his political strategy or personality.

So, it appears to me that Obama has used the church as a way to gain a political base in Chicago, and also because he sympathizes with its philosophy to some extent, and as I said I don't know the extent exactly. I think one of the things he likes is the political vector of the religion. Bottom line, I see Obama much more as a man that has designed his political identity for a very very long time, and most of what he has been doing is in large part due to his political image and aims, all the while reasoning within himself that he does not wish to be a typical politician.

In his efforts not to be a typical politician and trying to see merit in everybody's experiences while building his political base, he has allowed himself to become identified with the truly despicable character, Wright. I see it as an outgrowth of his reluctance to condemn wrong. He has a tough time drawing a sharp line between right and wrong, and his method of reconciling everyone together is to essentially shy away from condemning anything completely. In so doing, he has found himself identified with the wrong element here, and so now he has the uncomfortable task of distancing himself. He is of course only doing this for political purposes and the distance is proportional to whatever he thinks is necessary to see his poll numbers stabilize and head in the right direction. I think I have seen it evidenced that he and Wright agreed that this may need to happen at some point, so none of this is a surprise to either of them.

P.S. As an interesting aside, in Obama's book, he asserts that our laws have a Judeo - Christian foundation. I would need to look it up to find the exact quote.


okie, as much as I often disagree with you and have sometimes not respected your opinions, I think it says something about you that you are taking the time to read that book, even if you might be doing it with a less than completely open mind.
0 Replies
 
okie
 
  1  
Mon 5 May, 2008 09:47 am
FreeDuck wrote:

okie, as much as I often disagree with you and have sometimes not respected your opinions, I think it says something about you that you are taking the time to read that book, even if you might be doing it with a less than completely open mind.

Well, I got called on it here, by somebody, Butrfly, as calling his book's title dumb without even reading the book, and I had to admit she had a point, so I went down that day and bought the book. So far, I still don't see the point of the title yet - relative to his writings in the book, but be that as it may I think I am gaining more insight into his mindset and basic philosophy.
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

So....Will Biden Be VP? - Question by blueveinedthrobber
My view on Obama - Discussion by McGentrix
Obama/ Love Him or Hate Him, We've Got Him - Discussion by Phoenix32890
Obama fumbles at Faith Forum - Discussion by slkshock7
Expert: Obama is not the antichrist - Discussion by joefromchicago
Obama's State of the Union - Discussion by maxdancona
Obama 2012? - Discussion by snood
 
  1. Forums
  2. » Obama '08?
  3. » Page 812
Copyright © 2025 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.21 seconds on 07/10/2025 at 11:00:30