Obama - Useless

What a cretin.

Guardian News

Fucking arsehole gets into a spot of bother for saying that America's disadvantaged turn to guns, religion and racism to express their frustrations.

Then, in a bold move to suck up to those very people, he somehow attempts to demonstrate how guns, religion and racism are positive things.

He's in a pickle there, eh? A black man simultaneously taking on the NRA, Christians and racists; then turning it all around and upsetting the PC lot and the atheists. Way to go, idiot.

Good luck to you lot if you end up with him as your Prez.

Don't put your finger on the button (apologies to 79 Order)

I'm really surprised he said what he said at all. In a presidential primary so close, especially at the tail-end, they really need to watch thier 'p's and 'q's (not pissing off the status quo). The thing he said was so sloppy, it shocked me. Obama seemed to be a better orator than that... seemed he loaded his own pistol to shoot himself with... not very becoming of a candidate (not that I was that impressed with him as a candidate anyways, but hell, even I would say he is a great orator)...

I'm just surprised he said anything with any meaning at all. Whenever I've seen him speak he seems to just repeat the word 'change' over and over again.

Not actually paid much attention since I was in the States at Christmas, so maybe I'm being unfair.

In the US, that old addage is even more true.....

Doesn't matter who you vote for, the governemt always wins.

I've only ever voted once, because I'm pro-drugs and anti-war, yet all the candidates are pro-war and anti-drugs. Democracy is a lie.

they should be pro war, on drugs

BIGINLYCRA wrote: I'm just surprised he said anything with any meaning at all. Whenever I've seen him speak he seems to just repeat the word 'change' over and over again.

Not actually paid much attention since I was in the States at Christmas, so maybe I'm being unfair.

Not much has changed in what he speaks about, he just has a good way of not answering any questions, but making someone feel all warm and fuzzy inside. I'll give an example that happened tonight:

He went on seperately (after Clinton) at CNN for a forum that asked the question: Does life begin at conception?

"This is something that I have not, I think, come to a firm resolution on. I think it's very hard to know what that means, when life begins. Is it when a cell separates? Is it when the soul stirs? ... What I know, as I've said before, is that there is something extraordinarily powerful about potential life and that that has a moral weight to it that we take into consideration when we're having these debates."

Good, well 'Bama yer at a debate, how about actually debating it then? I think this is the place to do it, or is there a greater debate we are all waiting for?

I've always thought he was useless.

What he's done here is very telling. He's been tutored in the art of not actually saying anything at all ever since he started on the trail.

The first time he slips up and actually expresses an opinion; it puts him at odds with most of the population of his country. Then he tries to put it right by upsetting the other half.

Doesn't bode well, does it?

It may well be possible to run an election campaign by refusing to saying anything at all, but he won't get away with running a country that way.

EdelBrock wrote:

BIGINLYCRA wrote: I'm just surprised he said anything with any meaning at all. Whenever I've seen him speak he seems to just repeat the word 'change' over and over again.

Not actually paid much attention since I was in the States at Christmas, so maybe I'm being unfair.

Not much has changed in what he speaks about, he just has a good way of not answering any questions, but making someone feel all warm and fuzzy inside. I'll give an example that happened tonight:

He went on seperately (after Clinton) at CNN for a forum that asked the question: Does life begin at conception?

"This is something that I have not, I think, come to a firm resolution on. I think it's very hard to know what that means, when life begins. Is it when a cell separates? Is it when the soul stirs? ... What I know, as I've said before, is that there is something extraordinarily powerful about potential life and that that has a moral weight to it that we take into consideration when we're having these debates."

Good, well 'Bama yer at a debate, how about actually debating it then? I think this is the place to do it, or is there a greater debate we are all waiting for?

Edel, you have zero credibility in commenting on US politics. According to you there's no war in in Iraq and your economy is booming.

Go Hilldog.

There's a world of difference between politics and the dross that Obama comes out with.

BIGINLYCRA wrote: There's a world of difference between politics and the dross that Obama comes out with.

I said go Hilldog. Google it. :)

I just can't believe these primaries. This is the best chance in eight years for the Dems and what do they do.

Bloody weird this. Guys get out of the 19th century. Just have one big preselection of delegates and one quick conference.

Here members don't even got to vote on the leader. The parliamentary party does that, but that wouldn't work in a presidential system.

NOOLigan wrote: Edel, you have zero credibility in commenting on US politics. According to you there's no war in in Iraq and your economy is booming.

When did I ever say either of those things? I never stated any such opinions.

NOOLigan wrote:

BIGINLYCRA wrote: There's a world of difference between politics and the dross that Obama comes out with.

I said go Hilldog. Google it. :)

I just can't believe these primaries. This is the best chance in eight years for the Dems and what do they do.

Bloody weird this. Guys get out of the 19th century. Just have one big preselection of delegates and one quick conference.

Here members don't even got to vote on the leader. The parliamentary party does that, but that wouldn't work in a presidential system.

this isn't the first time the Dems screwed things up. Last election over 50% of the population hated Bush and would vote for anyone that made them smile... and who do they chose? Kerry, who was about as personable as a statue.

i don't like any of them.

EdelBrock wrote: [

this isn't the first time the Dems screwed things up. Last election over 50% of the population hated Bush and would vote for anyone that made them smile... and who do they chose? Kerry, who was about as personable as a statue.

He still got the most votes though, eh?

American politics a fookin agin :barf:

BIGINLYCRA wrote:

EdelBrock wrote: [

this isn't the first time the Dems screwed things up. Last election over 50% of the population hated Bush and would vote for anyone that made them smile... and who do they chose? Kerry, who was about as personable as a statue.

He still got the most votes though, eh?

Wrong guy, that was Gore not Kerry... but popular vote doesn't mean squat, its the electoral votes that matter... and for good reason.

It really does make you look like a bunch of halfwits

Edel, I remember those endless threads. You denying there was a war in Iraq and now shrub has admitted that there it is indeed the case. You claimed your economy was booming and I told you that you were living in a fool's paradise. I can't be arsed to dig the them out, but the threads are there. Either you can't admit the truth, or humble pie is hard to eat. Everything I predicted has come true and no matter who will be the next president, they will have to sort out shrub's mess and it won't be easy for you lot. Don't expect any more tax cuts.

Sorry you still don't have any credibility in my eyes unless you start seeing the the world through your own eyes and stop listening to Rush.

Tut Ro-on.

You've broken the thread!

BIGINLYCRA wrote: Tut Ro-on.

You've broken the thread!

Fixed it and now it is just about shed time. I can't believe they replaced sarah conner with those fooking ladettes.

I guess I'll have to get the dvd and I do so like Lena Headey and Summer Glau.

Jeffari-al-Texani wrote:

NOOLigan wrote: Everything I predicted has come true

Who are you, Emperor Palpatine, or Rasputin???

Call me Cassandra. If only people listened to me. Here's another example, at work just in the past month something turned to shit because my advice was ignored. I then had to pull the shit out of the fire, which meant fookin long hours. (lovely mixed metaphor there)

What Obama said is basically true, he is trying to think like a middle-lower class white person, trying to relate. He should have bashed bowlers also. Who the fuck still bowls in 2008 except rednecks, except as a drunken joke.

White Americans distrust intelligence, that is why George Bush has been president for two terms. Say "Jesus Loves me", stick a flag on your porch and truck, dress badly and collect guns to protect yourself from coloreds and immigrants. That is the lowest common denominator of America, you gotta try to reach the "base"...

NOOLigan wrote: Edel, I remember those endless threads. You denying there was a war in Iraq and now shrub has admitted that there it is indeed the case. You claimed your economy was booming and I told you that you were living in a fool's paradise. I can't be arsed to dig the them out, but the threads are there. Either you can't admit the truth, or humble pie is hard to eat. Everything I predicted has come true and no matter who will be the next president, they will have to sort out shrub's mess and it won't be easy for you lot. Don't expect any more tax cuts.

Sorry you still don't have any credibility in my eyes unless you start seeing the the world through your own eyes and stop listening to Rush.

Ron,

I never stated an opinion on whether there was a war (though I did state that I didn't think there was a civil war) in Iraq, I was explaining the legal definition of war as defined throughout world politics. I didn't make the definition. Have a problem with that definition, take it to the UN and have them change it.

I don't ever recall saying that our economy is booming. I don't even recall what conversation you are refering to. I do remember stating things opposite to what you are trying to imply. You'll have to jog my memory on what the topic was....

and I don't listen to Rush, I hate the guy (and the band).

Obama told the truth-- when the economic and/or other hopes of people are crushed, they turn to that which is comforting. And as will happen in a political campaign, two opportunists-- one of them a shameless bottom-feeding opportunist-- blew his comment completely out of all proportion and context. He's the only candidate speaking to the American people as if they are adults capable of thinking for themselves. The two opportunists he is running against are speaking to us as if we're easily manipulable children.

Comrade Shampanyov wrote: Obama told the truth-- when the economic and/or other hopes of people are crushed, they turn to that which is comforting. And as will happen in a political campaign, two opportunists-- one of them a shameless bottom-feeding opportunist-- blew his comment completely out of all proportion and context. He's the only candidate speaking to the American people as if they are adults capable of thinking for themselves. The two opportunists he is running against are speaking to us as if we're easily manipulable children.

While I agree that people when crushed turn to something comforting... like maybe love, sex, music, alcohol, drugs... but racism, stances on immigration and the such is a bit reaching... at least it can be easily misunderstood (as it obviously has)... not not a smart thing to talk about now, when in a close race.

Obama never states anything, he just goes around the questions... and that is what America really needs? A prez that can't answer or explain what is going on?

What I can say is that he would be good for the economy, though. Not that he would have a direct impact by his policies, but his speeches make people feel all warm and fuzzy inside. Economy has alot of basis on people's perceptions (Wall Street), and less scare in the stock market...

EdelBrock wrote:

Comrade Shampanyov wrote: Obama told the truth-- when the economic and/or other hopes of people are crushed, they turn to that which is comforting. And as will happen in a political campaign, two opportunists-- one of them a shameless bottom-feeding opportunist-- blew his comment completely out of all proportion and context. He's the only candidate speaking to the American people as if they are adults capable of thinking for themselves. The two opportunists he is running against are speaking to us as if we're easily manipulable children.

While I agree that people when crushed turn to something comforting... like maybe love, sex, music, alcohol, drugs... but racism, stances on immigration and the such is a bit reaching... at least it can be easily misunderstood (as it obviously has)... not not a smart thing to talk about now, when in a close race.

I don't think it's a reach to say that when Americans feel an economic pinch, they start scapegoating illegal immigrants who are working here. But right now, in a close race, it may not be the best time to say it, because it will be pounced upon by the bottom-feeders.

EdelBrock wrote: Obama never states anything, he just goes around the questions...

Perhaps you missed his speech on race...

EdelBrock wrote: and that is what America really needs? A prez that can't answer or explain what is going on?

It hasn't bothered you so far.

Comrade Shampanyov wrote:

EdelBrock wrote: Obama never states anything, he just goes around the questions...

Perhaps you missed his speech on race...

How about all the other questions given to him, have you watched any of the debates? The Ohio one was the best... he answered everything "I agree with what she (Hillary) said, but I think we need change!"

EdelBrock wrote:

Comrade Shampanyov wrote:

EdelBrock wrote: Obama never states anything, he just goes around the questions...

Perhaps you missed his speech on race...

How about all the other questions given to him, have you watched any of the debates? The Ohio one was the best... he answered everything "I agree with what she (Hillary) said, but I think we need change!"

From a change standpoint alone, I'm deeply disturbed by the dynastic implications of another Clinton Presidency-- Bush, Clinton, Bush, and now another Clinton? Who's next after Hillary? Jeb Bush? That trend alone should at least give us pause.

Chris Nash wrote:

Comrade Shampanyov wrote:

From a change standpoint alone, I'm deeply disturbed by the dynastic implications of another Clinton Presidency-- Bush, Clinton, Bush, and now another Clinton? Who's next after Hillary? Jeb bush? That trend alone should at least give us pause.

Isn't one of the main drawbacks in an American election or standing for Governor, Congress, Nomination for Presidency, etc. that you need alot of money to even consider it?

That does rather push the established 'dynasties' to the fore and preclude the 'average joe' of aspiring to any kind of meaningful political career.

I'm not that well-up on the intricacies of American (USA) politics and selection processes, but it does seem to be that unless there is some kind of radical overhaul, you will always end up with a rather limited choice of established rich and/or powerful/popular families or the extensions thereof running what is soon to become the second most powerful country in the world.

Is there a (realistic) way for some 30 year old who manages the local convenience store to one day become President?

That's not a leading question, I genuinely don't know and would be interested to find out.

Well, theoretically yes. There have been many Presidents that were average 'joes' that aspired to become more, but the last one like that that comes to mind is Truman (though he wasn't really voted into office)... and this is really before television and marketing expensive ads. I'm not really sure if it really is attainable for an average person today...

But I do agree with Comrade, not big on family struggles for the presidency. However, that doesn't mean being related to other Presidents will make a poor president. Theodore Roosevelt (one of the best presidents we have ever had in my opinion) was related to (I think) 5 Presidents.

but I do agree that a bush/clinton/bush/clinton.... office would not be good.... hell neither would Obama... vote McCain

Chris Nash wrote:

Comrade Shampanyov wrote:

From a change standpoint alone, I'm deeply disturbed by the dynastic implications of another Clinton Presidency-- Bush, Clinton, Bush, and now another Clinton? Who's next after Hillary? Jeb bush? That trend alone should at least give us pause.

Isn't one of the main drawbacks in an American election or standing for Governor, Congress, Nomination for Presidency, etc. that you need alot of money to even consider it?

That does rather push the established 'dynasties' to the fore and preclude the 'average joe' from aspiring to any kind of meaningful political career.

I'm not that well-up on the intricacies of American (USA) politics and selection processes, but it does seem to be tend to that unless there is some kind of radical overhaul, you will always end up with a rather limited choice of established rich and/or powerful/popular families or the extensions thereof running what is soon to become the second most powerful country in the world.

Is there a (realistic) way for some 30 year old who manages the local convenience store to one day become President?

That's not a leading question, I genuinely don't know and would be interested to find out.

It's theoretically possible-- the only qualification is that you must be a native-born citizen who has attained the age of 35. Practically speaking, however, it's not going to happen. In his book Who Rules America, William Domhoff observes that although there is some degree of social mobility, and the wealthy don't always rule (some prefer to be playboys), the likelihood is that the children of a guy who pumps gas will tend to grow up to become gas station attendants, and the children of politically powerful families will tend to grow up to become politically powerful.

Comrade Shampanyov wrote:

EdelBrock wrote:

Comrade Shampanyov wrote:

EdelBrock wrote: Obama never states anything, he just goes around the questions...

Perhaps you missed his speech on race...

How about all the other questions given to him, have you watched any of the debates? The Ohio one was the best... he answered everything "I agree with what she (Hillary) said, but I think we need change!"

From a change standpoint alone, I'm deeply disturbed by the dynastic implications of another Clinton Presidency-- Bush, Clinton, Bush, and now another Clinton? Who's next after Hillary? Jeb Bush? That trend alone should at least give us pause.

Despite the fact that she's the only one with a serious political bone in her body?

Whilst I doubt you should select your Prez from the relatives of previous WH residents, in this case you certainly shouldn't reject them.

Keep the faith

BIGINLYCRA wrote:

Comrade Shampanyov wrote:

EdelBrock wrote:

Comrade Shampanyov wrote:

EdelBrock wrote: Obama never states anything, he just goes around the questions...

Perhaps you missed his speech on race...

How about all the other questions given to him, have you watched any of the debates? The Ohio one was the best... he answered everything "I agree with what she (Hillary) said, but I think we need change!"

From a change standpoint alone, I'm deeply disturbed by the dynastic implications of another Clinton Presidency-- Bush, Clinton, Bush, and now another Clinton? Who's next after Hillary? Jeb Bush? That trend alone should at least give us pause.

Despite the fact that she's the only one with a serious political bone in her body?

Whilst I doubt you should select your Prez from the relatives of previous WH residents, in this case you certainly shouldn't reject them.

Keep the faith

What are the serious issues in this election? Domestically, the economy and access to health care. On foreign policy, the war in Iraq.

When it came time to show leadership on Iraq, Hillary voted in support of the war. Why? Because she wanted to run for President, and she thought opposing the war would harm her campaign. Only now that the war has gone south has she suggested that she wouldn't have voted for the war if she had known that it would become so...unpopular.

On health care, Hillary did attempt to get universal health care when she was First Lady. I'll give her props for that. But after that effort went down in flames, and she packed her carpet bags to go represent the great State of New York in the Senate, something funny happened. She became the second largest recipient of campaign cash from the health insurance industry, right behind that other great champion of universal health care, George W. Bush. If the health insurance industry is backing her, shouldn't we be asking "why"?

She's a shameless opportunist who will say and do whatever it takes to get into the White House, and that is not, in my opinion, the kind of person who will be a champion of change. Will she be better than Bush? No question, but with the bar set that low, there aren't many who wouldn't be better than Bush.

Comrade Shampanyov wrote: ...change...

He's been brainwashed!

Chris Nash wrote:

Comrade Shampanyov wrote: It's theoretically possible-- the only qualification is that you must be a native-born citizen who has attained the age of 35. Practically speaking, however, it's not going to happen. In his book Who Rules America, William Domhoff observes that although there is some degree of social mobility, and the wealthy don't always rule (some prefer to be playboys), the likelihood is that the children of a guy who pumps gas will tend to grow up to become gas station attendants, and the children of politically powerful families will tend to grow up to become politically powerful.

Thanks for that.

I thought I'd seen/heard somewhere that you don't have to be native-born to hold political office any more - one of the things that was discussed when 'Arnie' became governor of California.

So basically, you're saying that America is likely to be stuck with the same few rich families in power until the whole process becomes truly democratic, rather than paying lip-service to the notion. :(

You only have to be native-born to hold the Presidency-- it's a Constitutional requirement. As you noticed, there was some discussion about removing that requirement so Ah-nuld could make a bid for the White House.

My guess is that powerful, wealthy families have ruled in every society since the dawn of time. One thing that we can say about the U.S. is that there is at least the opportunity for upward mobility-- the ruling class does reward merit. But yes, there is an oligarchy in the U.S. that generally sets the agenda.

BIGINLYCRA wrote:

Comrade Shampanyov wrote: ...change...

He's been brainwashed!

You know, there are two main themes in every election. If you're in power, your theme is "stay the course." If you're out of power, your theme is "time for change."

This election will be interesting, because not even McCain will be campaigning on a theme of "stay the course"-- except on the issue of Iraq.

Clinton and Obama are both positioning themselves as the "real" agent of change. The question facing the Democrats is which one will actually be able to effect the change that both candidates are calling for.

Comrade Shampanyov wrote:

Clinton and Obama are both positioning themselves as the "real" agent of change. The question facing the Democrats is which one will actually be able to effect the change that both candidates are calling for.

But doesn't Clinton actually state what changes she intends to make and how, thereby exposing herself to being held to account if elected? Obama seems to just repeat the word CHANGE over and over again in front of a load of clapping monkeys. (Apart from the one time he did say what he actually thought and looks like he's blown it as a result.)

But Nash is right. It's not going to make one jot of difference what they say now, or which one you pick. They'll do what they want when they get in, it will have no impact because the Senate rule the country anyway and there's fuck all you'll be able to do about it for four years. And even then you won't get the change you so desperately want and need.

And you are right too, at least it will be better than the prick you've got now.

Have you read 'Better than Sex' by Hunter S Thompson? Or, for that matter, Hobson's Choice?

Chris Nash wrote: So from what I've gathered so far: Clinton is an opportunist who switches allegiances, depending on money/votes

Obama seems to be as politically astute as Boris Johnson and is so bad at saying the right/wrong thing that he could start a major diplomatic incident simply through incompetence if he was President (a bit like our Prince Philip)

McCain is a nasty piece of right wing crap and may turn out to be even worse than Bush Dumb and Bush Dummer.

I've heard people say that Clinton will win because she's a woman. Obama will win because he's black. McCain erm... is the Republican nomination.

Is there any way at all that the American people can say, 'Hang on, we don't trust any of you, we want someone else'?

I mean, a vote of 'No confidence' or a mass abstension?

From what I've seen, it's going to be a Presidential 'race' between McCain and one of the two Democrat nominees.

I'm still trying to get my head round the whole thing

No, we haven't got a "no confidence" option. A third candidate could always run, but I don't think there's been a successful run like that since the 1800's, if ever.

Chris Nash wrote: EDIT: Or am I missing the point entirely and it's actually true that the President holds no real power and is controlled as a 'puppet' by the same people, no matter which party 'appears' to win?

Noam Chomssky argues that the United States has one political party-- the Business Party-- with two wings, the Democrats and the Republicans.

0_o wrote: He should have bashed bowlers also. Who the fuck still bowls in 2008 except rednecks, except as a drunken joke.

Hey, I used to go bowling occasionally! I don't _think_ I'm a 'redneck'. Though I am from 'the South' (of London).

Obama I worry is unelectable. His appeal seems to be mainly young college liberal types and African Americans. His remarks did sound a bit snobbish to me.

Hilary seems to have honesty problems and a slightly scary desperation for power (though she seems to have more 'blue collar' support, along with that of an annoying older, posh white feminists for whom gender is more important than race and for whom class doesn't even exist).

McCain is a warmonger, and in any case the Republicans really deserve some punishment for the disasters of the Bush years. If the Democrats can't win now, can they ever do so?

I'm quite glad I don't have to pick any of them.

BIGINLYCRA wrote:

Comrade Shampanyov wrote:

Clinton and Obama are both positioning themselves as the "real" agent of change. The question facing the Democrats is which one will actually be able to effect the change that both candidates are calling for.

But doesn't Clinton actually state what changes she intends to make and how, thereby exposing herself to being held to account if elected? Obama seems to just repeat the word CHANGE over and over again in front of a load of clapping monkeys. (Apart from the one time he did say what he actually thought and looks like he's blown it as a result.)

But Nash is right. It's not going to make one jot of difference what they say now, or which one you pick. They'll do what they want when they get in, it will have no impact because the Senate rule the country anyway and there's fuck all you'll be able to do about it for four years. And even then you won't get the change you so desperately want and need.

When Bill Clinton was President, his major accomplishments (going by memory) were to push the Republican agenda through. NAFTA? That was George H.W. Bush's baby, but it was Clinton who performed the delivery. Welfare reform? Again, the Republican agenda, and pushed through by Clinton. He was spectacularly unsuccessful at pushing through a Democratic agenda, beginning with Hillary's own failed attempt to establish a system of universal health care in this country.

I suspect that Hillary's naked ambition for power will overshadow the importance of any particular agenda item. They're all disposable-- her ascent to power being the one thing she cares most about.

Obama may be hobbled if the Republicans can control the legislative agenda, but he doesn't have a record of caving in (and to be fair, he doesn't have much of a record in his brief career), and he doesn't appear to have the same naked ambition for power. And yes, he does talk about change quite a bit, but he also speaks to the American people about the issues as if they are adults, which is more than we are used to hearing. While Hillary does have detailed proposals, and has thoroughly mastered the issues, the fact is they both have very similar positions on how they will address specific issues.

McCain will be more of the same, although he is at least more honest than the current President. He's the best of the current Republican crop, but he's still yesterday's hero.

BIGINLYCRA wrote: Have you read 'Better than Sex' by Hunter S Thompson? Or, for that matter, Hobson's Choice?

Nope, haven't read either.

Chris Nash wrote:

Comrade Shampanyov wrote:

Chris Nash wrote: EDIT: Or am I missing the point entirely and it's actually true that the President holds no real power and is controlled as a 'puppet' by the same people, no matter which party 'appears' to win?

Noam Chomssky argues that the United States has one political party-- the Business Party-- with two wings, the Democrats and the Republicans.

Thanks for that.

I sort of have the feeling that Chomsky argued the same about any elections in a 'capitalist' state - the USA or otherwise.

Probably. I took a course on Chomsky as an undergrad, and had my fill of him then. While I think he's an important voice in public discourse, he's just too pessimistic and dismissive of the possibility for fulfilmment of the American potential for good for my liking.

Chris Nash wrote: So, basically you're stuck in both nominations and in a Presidential election with 'The Lesser Of Two Evils'?

Yes...

Chris Nash wrote: So abstensionism is the only third option?

A large percentage of the voting population "abstains" every election. Some cunt still always wins.

I suppose if there was an embarrassingly large "abstention," the winning candidate might be less emboldened to push through a particular agenda. On the other hand, Bush called his razor thin margin of victory a "mandate."

There is always the possibility of a third candidate. New York Mayor Bloomberg has toyed with the idea of running as an independent for this election, but has apparently abandoned the idea. And Ralph Nader is running again, despite there being no chance he will win.

Chris Nash wrote: Do your candidates or their representatives have to see all 'spoiled' ballot papers as they do in the UK?

Dunno.

I agree with the ideas on Obama and Clinton that have been talked about. But there seems to be a closed mindness to McCain. He has his issues, but 'more of the same ' is far from it.

McCain is really not liked in the Republican circle. He is consideed too 'left-leaning'. The only reason he's been given considerable thought is because of the nations leaning against Bush (i.e. the Republican Party). He's the closest it comes to an indepedent that could possibly win the election.

I think his main two problems are his age, which has shown to keep him less then astute and he isn't the best politician (persuading people to feel all warm and fuzzy inside).

So basically:

Obama - scares me if he became President. Really bad policies, and don't trust his ability to lead a nation.

Clinton - Hate her policies, but trust she could lead the country

McCain - Like his policies, but hesitant on his ability to lead the populace.

EdelBrock wrote: Obama - scares me if he became President. Really bad policies, and don't trust his ability to lead a nation.

Clinton - Hate her policies, but trust she could lead the country

McCain - Like his policies, but hesitant on his ability to lead the populace.

I have a somewhat different take (of course ;) ):

Obama- Good policies, and he's the only candidate on the Democratic side who is promising to end the divisive politics of the past-- i.e., to be a President for all the American people.

Clinton- Good policies, but she's promising to continue the divisive politics of the past. i.e., she can't be a President for all the American people.

McCain- I don't think his age is an issue at all, but his policies are too little, too late for the problems confronting America today. Most troubling is his promise to further tilt the Supreme Court to the right. He has shown some willingness to work with the other side of the aisle, which is more than can be said for Bush or Clinton.

Comrade Shampanyov wrote: He has shown some willingness to work with the other side of the aisle, which is more than can be said for Bush or Clinton.

Or Obama for that matter... he is deeply entrenched in the Democratic party, not ever 'going across the aisle'. Clinton has gone across the aisle much more than Obama has.

The one thing that scares me is how people blindly follow him. He talks about 'change', but it goes as far as that. What "change" is he going to exactly do? Its rhetoric that people are clinging to, because everyone wants things to change in Washington... but what change will he bring? He never clarifies this, because it is a false hope. Washington is a slow moving animal, and always will be. He is not a great unifier, look at his voting record. He's a wolf in sheeps clothing.

He's a great orator, nothing more.

Jeffari-al-Texani wrote: Don't forget, McCain is also not quick to play the religion card...he keeps his faith to himself...oh...and he also pisses off the evangelicals because he supports stem cell research...

what a fucking loon...

the only thing that genuinely concerns me about McCain is his age...so an acceptable alternative for everyone in the States is to hope for a McCain-Rice Republican ticket...that way, when McCain kicks the bucket, Condoleezza will be sworn in, and the States will get it's first black and it's first female president in one nicely gift wrapped package...

Of course, I'm probably just an ignorant, racist whitey who is afraid of Obama...

Right wing is still right wing, regardless of the person's race and gender. Of course, people are free to vote for right wing agendas if they choose, but let's not fool ourselves into believing that the agenda is somehow different if the person pushing the agenda isn't a white male.

EdelBrock wrote:

Comrade Shampanyov wrote: He has shown some willingness to work with the other side of the aisle, which is more than can be said for Bush or Clinton.

Or Obama for that matter... he is deeply entrenched in the Democratic party, not ever 'going across the aisle'. Clinton has gone across the aisle much more than Obama has.

Which candidate has made, as a centerpiece of his campaign, a promise to work with both sides of the aisle in order to address the issues facing America today?

EdelBrock wrote: The one thing that scares me is how people blindly follow him. He talks about 'change', but it goes as far as that. What "change" is he going to exactly do?

He's told you, you've just got to take your fingers out of your ears and listen.

(1) He's going to end the divisive politics of the past. That's change. Don't think he can do it? Which Democratic candidate is talking about the issues, and which candidate is going negative on the non-issues? He's already demonstrated his commitment to a change from the divisive politics of the past in this primary, and there's no reason to believe he won't keep that commitment once he's in the White House.

(2) His policy proposals are a distinct break from the Bush administration policies. That's change too.

EdelBrock wrote: Its rhetoric that people are clinging to, because everyone wants things to change in Washington... but what change will he bring? He never clarifies this, because it is a false hope.

See above.

Comrade,

I had more respect for you than this. The post above this goes off about right-wing agenda... as if there isn't a left-wing agenda. Both sides have agendas... such is politics

(1) ooooohhh, he said he would reach across the aisle... never heard a politician use that phrase before... 'cause all those dirty, old politicians talk about how they refuse to work with the other party. check his record, he doesn't and hasn't... can't teach an old dog new tricks... its called rhetoric

(2) What issues has he REALLY discussed? Have you watched any of the debates? He rides on the coattails of Clinton's ideas, then only adds he would induce 'change'.

You didn't answer the question though. EXACTLY what will he change in Washington? How does he plan on going about doing it? He hasn't said anything of any real substance to answer these two questions. You answered as vaguely as he speaks, because that's all there is.

(3) Of course his policies are a distinct break from Bush's.... he'a Democrat and not Republican (surprise, surprise, the two parties have different policies! )

Come on Comrade, you're better than to be seduced by a smooth talker like Obama... or did he get you in bed and now yer madly in love with him?

EdelBrock wrote: Comrade,

I had more respect for you than this. The post above this goes off about right-wing agenda... as if there isn't a left-wing agenda. Both sides have agendas... such is politics

Of course there's a left-wing agenda; who said there wasn't?

(Although in the interest of accuracy, the Democrats usually present a center-right agenda, and at most, present a centrist agenda. And in fact, every Republican candidate and every Democratic candidate (with the exception of Kucinich) is to the right of center.)

The point of my comment, however, is not that the Republicans have an agenda; it's that if one disagrees with the right-wing policies of Bush, Cheney, et al, then one will not be getting a different set of policies, centrist or left-wing, simply because the candidate is an African-American woman. Condoleeza Rice is every bit as right-wing as Bush and Cheney, although she is boatloads smarter than her boss...but then, who isn't?

Therefore, if one is inclined to vote for Condoleeza Rice, one may as well also be inclined to vote for Dick Cheney or any of the other right-wing demagogues in the Bush Administration; the policies will be virtually the same, regardless of the race or gender of the candidate.

EdelBrock wrote: (1) ooooohhh, he said he would reach across the aisle... never heard a politician use that phrase before... 'cause all those dirty, old politicians talk about how they refuse to work with the other party. check his record, he doesn't and hasn't... can't teach an old dog new tricks... its called rhetoric

I think you must have confused him with your blue-blood good ol' boy W, who has gone back on virtually every promise he ever made about working with the other side of the aisle. Obama, on the other hand, hasn't gone back on his promise...yet. Now if you want to call him a liar on that score, fine, but you could at least wait until he's broken his promise.

There’s another aspect to his talk of “change” that relates to this, but which hasn’t been raised here—Obama has made a commitment to avoid the politics of the past, in which personal attacks and political game-playing substitute for discussion of the issues. Avoiding the petty politics and focusing on the issues will allow Obama to work with the other side of the aisle in addressing the issues facing this country.

EdelBrock wrote: 2) What issues has he REALLY discussed? Have you watched any of the debates? He rides on the coattails of Clinton's ideas, then only adds he would induce 'change'.

What issues? The economy, Iraq, global warming, health care... What issues hasn't he discussed? Or for that matter, what issues did Clinton discuss in the Pennsylvania debate? Aside from Obama's comments about blue-collar voters…(and incidentally, the Wellesley graduate and Yale-educated lawyer who’s throwing around charges of “elitism” has some explaining of her own to do, regarding her “screw ‘em” comments—something that Obama has not made an issue in this campaign, despite Hillary’s now-backfiring efforts to slam Obama for his comment).

Did you even read what he had to say the day after Pennsylvania?

EdelBrock wrote: You didn't answer the question though. EXACTLY what will he change in Washington? How does he plan on going about doing it? He hasn't said anything of any real substance to answer these two questions. You answered as vaguely as he speaks, because that's all there is.

Jesus.

He’s been pretty clear about what his policies are. You can go to his website if you don’t know what he’s proposing, or you can google any particular issue and Obama to see what his policies are. What do you want him to do? Write you a personal letter explaining what he proposes to do?

As far as changing the political environment in Washington, he’s been crystal clear about that as well—focus on the issues facing the country, work on those issues with both sides of the aisle, avoid the petty politics that focus on non-issues in order to divert attention from the real issues.

What more do you want from him?

Now let me ask you a question: EXACTLY how will John McCain "talk straight"?

Don't bust an artery trying to figure out why that's not vague on substance...

EdelBrock wrote: (3) Of course his policies are a distinct break from Bush's.... he'a Democrat and not Republican (surprise, surprise, the two parties have different policies! )

So you do agree then that he will bring change? Despite your professing that you don’t know what he means?

EdelBrock wrote: Come on Comrade, you're better than to be seduced by a smooth talker like Obama... or did he get you in bed and now yer madly in love with him?

Well, he is kinda hot….

From abroad, it seems that the next president will be Obama or Clinton... Just like if it was already the regular conservative/liberal final duel...

Who's MacCain? Seems that the conservatives had elected this man in order to lose.

You can say what you want upon Obama and Clinton. What I predict is that they will be in troubles as soon as they will be at the White House. It is nice to have a program... Problem is to manage W legacy... It will be very difficult for them to apply their programs in such conditions... And it will be easier for the conservatives to come back four years later...

Yep.

The bill for W's mismanagement comes due after he leaves office. Maybe he's not the complete and utter fucktard everybody thinks he is, after all.

Comrade,

You still have bounced around the questions. Obama has a website and has his policies in it, sure. However, at any debate he does not discuss his policies, even if asked point blank about them. He talks around each question. He isn't getting reputation for this in the news out of thin air, there is substance to it.

Clinton might be doing 'attack' politics, but Obama has his own way of attacking Clinton in a very passive and sneaky way. In 8 debates I have watched, he allowed Clinton to answer questions first, to which he agreed to her well developed answers to the questions. He would then say that his ideas were a little bit different (but would not explain how) and talk how he will bring about change (in every question). He is allowing for Clinton to take the fall if the public doesn't like any of the policy, so he can change his and come out clean. Not really good sportsman-like conduct.

The funny thing is that every candidate talks how they will reach across the aisle and change politics... which politician hasn't? He can't do that if he has always voted die-hard left-wing... unless he thinks he can convert all the right-wingers to vote opposite of thier entire careers (which isn't going to happen). He won't change anything in Washington, its all lip service. He has yet to describe, in detail, a plan to which he is refering to. And changing policy because he's Democrat isn't the change he is talking about... if so, Clinton would be just as good for the change.

Here's a question. Just how long would Obama live if he became endorsed or even the president?

This is not having a go at the man, far from. I'm interested in how accepting the USA is with the idea of a black man at the helm.

Yes I know there are large areas of enlightenment in in America, but there's that bit in the middle and especially in the South that has me worried.

Then there's the main reality of politics of putting up a candidate for whom people actually want to vote for. For much the same reason.

What are the general opinion polls saying about him? It is not good enough just to win San Francisco, New York and Chicago voters. What do the votes of Louisiana, Texas and Florida think of having a man of colour as the CiC?

Again let me state clearly I am not a racist and colour should not matter in this day and age, well should it ever have, but it clearly is an issue still for many people.

EdelBrock wrote: Comrade,

You still have bounced around the questions.

Float like a butterfly, sting like a bee...

Or was it rope-a-dope?

EdelBrock wrote: Obama has a website and has his policies in it, sure. However, at any debate he does not discuss his policies, even if asked point blank about them. He talks around each question. He isn't getting reputation for this in the news out of thin air, there is substance to it.

I haven't watched the debates, but I have read the news here and there, and there's no mystery at all about what he's proposing to do if elected. In fact, Robert Reich, Labor Secretary under Bill Clinton, just endorsed Obama, noting that “Although Hillary Clinton has offered solid and sensible policy proposals, Obama’s strike me as even more so. His plans for reforming Social Security and health care have a better chance of succeeding. His approaches to the housing crisis and the failures of our financial markets are sounder than hers. His ideas for improving our public schools and confronting the problems of poverty and inequality are more coherent and compelling. He has put forward the more enlightened foreign policy and the more thoughtful plan for controlling global warming.”

If Robert Reich, a longtime Clinton associate, can compare the Clinton and Obama policy proposals, and decide that Obama's policy proposals are better, then there must be something more to Obama's campaign than the vague and unsubstantive "rhetoric" you've accused him of.

Which brings us to McCain. You complain that Obama talks about change, and yet you haven't answered my question: EXACTLY how will McCain "talk straight"? That is, after all, the theme of his campaign-- the "Straight Talk Express." Is McCain, then, spouting nothing more than vague and unsubstantive fluff? Or is there more to his campaign than "the straight-talk express"?

NOOLigan wrote: Here's a question. Just how long would Obama live if he became endorsed or even the president?

This is not having a go at the man, far from. I'm interested in how accepting the USA is with the idea of a black man at the helm.

Yes I know there are large areas of enlightenment in in America, but there's that bit in the middle and especially in the South that has me worried.

Then there's the main reality of politics of putting up a candidate for whom people actually want to vote for. For much the same reason.

What are the general opinion polls saying about him? It is not good enough just to win San Francisco, New York and Chicago voters. What do the votes of Louisiana, Texas and Florida think of having a man of colour as the CiC?

Again let me state clearly I am not a racist and colour should not matter in this day and age, well should it ever have, but it clearly is an issue still for many people.

I think there are some barely whispered concerns for his safety. On the other hand, he does have Secret Service protection. You never know, though...all it takes is one nut with a gun.

The states aren't really divided neatly into red and blue states. Often, they're shades of purple:

And while geographically they seem to be overwhelmingly red, when they are weighted for population, there are large blue areas, even in red states like Texas and Florida:

In "red states" like Texas and Florida, those large blue areas are often largely populated by people of color, so I think they'd be just fine with one of their own in high office. ;)

And don't forget, the Democrats won Florida in 2000. ;)

Of course, the real question you're asking is whether white conservative voters will accept an African-American Commander in Chief. I think that's a possibility, although for EdelBrock, he'd obviously rather it be Colin Powell or Condi Rice than Barack Obama. And maybe that's how it will happen: If Obama fails, it may take a Colin Powell or Condi Rice to win the acceptance of white conservatives. There is that saying "Only Nixon could go to China," meaning it took a cold warrior to normalize relations with Communist China, just as it took a Democrat to put an end to welfare. So maybe it will take a conservative Republican to break the color and/or gender barrier.

But I'm hoping it will be somebody with sensible policies instead.

Comrade Shampanyov wrote: [But I'm hoping it will be somebody with sensible policies instead.

Maybe some day like this?

EdelBrock wrote:

Comrade Shampanyov wrote: [But I'm hoping it will be somebody with sensible policies instead.

Maybe some day like this?

Exactly!

Obama, McClain, Clinton... all three are better than Bush, Kerry, and Gore

As I have stated earlier, this is the Dems best chance in years and they seem to be doing their best to stuff it up. You would never see attack ads between two candidates of the same party here. They'd get expelled.

To win elections you need candidates with a broad appeal. That's what I'm saying. It doesn't matter that the Dems think Obama is the greatest thing since sliced bread, well going by the evidence even they don't think that (ok same goes for Hilldog), What matters is what Joe Sixpack and Brandine think of him.

Commie it sounds like you've already admitted to the possibility of his defeat here.

Frankly I'm getting a bit tired of these Primaries. Just get it over with already.

I shan't say anymore on this, at least for a while. Now it's back to my floors and then the bathroom. :dead:

NOOLigan wrote: Commie it sounds like you've already admitted to the possibility of his defeat here.

Anything can happen between now and November. Clinton has been relentless in tearing down his candidacy, even though her chance of winning the nomination is virtually nil. Her attacks have wounded him to some degree, and if he does win the nomination, the Republican smear machine will kick into full gear to capitalize on what Hillary has begun.

On the other hand, by the time the general election campaign begins, she may well have inoculated him against the worst of the Republican smear machine-- after all, how many times do people want to hear about Obama's former pastor between now and November? How many times do they want to hear about his lack of a flag lapel pin? How many times do they want to hear about his low bowling score? It may be that by getting all of that garbage out of the way now, we can have a campaign that focuses on, oh, I don't know, the issues?

So, yes, it's possible he can be defeated, but I do think he has more of a chance to win over conservative Democrats and independent voters than Hillary does. She's just too polarizing. Obama isn't.

There is so much time between now and November, though, that it's anybody's guess what will happen. How long will Hillary continue her unwinnable campaign? And what is her goal-- to win the nomination this year, or to destroy Obama now so she can run in 2012? What does the Republican smear machine have waiting in the wings? And how will the attempts to create doubts about Obama work with the voters? Will the voters vote the issues, or will they be swayed by negative campaigning-- or worse, by whatever prejudices they may secretly harbor? Right now, it's anybody's guess.

Who will get this guy's vote...?

Comrade Shampanyov wrote:

NOOLigan wrote: Commie it sounds like you've already admitted to the possibility of his defeat here.

Anything can happen between now and November. Clinton has been relentless in tearing down his candidacy, even though her chance of winning the nomination is virtually nil. Her attacks have wounded him to some degree, and if he does win the nomination, the Republican smear machine will kick into full gear to capitalize on what Hillary has begun.

On the other hand, by the time the general election campaign begins, she may well have inoculated him against the worst of the Republican smear machine-- after all, how many times do people want to hear about Obama's former pastor between now and November? How many times do they want to hear about his lack of a flag lapel pin? How many times do they want to hear about his low bowling score? It may be that by getting all of that garbage out of the way now, we can have a campaign that focuses on, oh, I don't know, the issues?

So, yes, it's possible he can be defeated, but I do think he has more of a chance to win over conservative Democrats and independent voters than Hillary does. She's just too polarizing. Obama isn't.

There is so much time between now and November, though, that it's anybody's guess what will happen. How long will Hillary continue her unwinnable campaign? And what is her goal-- to win the nomination this year, or to destroy Obama now so she can run in 2012? What does the Republican smear machine have waiting in the wings? And how will the attempts to create doubts about Obama work with the voters? Will the voters vote the issues, or will they be swayed by negative campaigning-- or worse, by whatever prejudices they may secretly harbor? Right now, it's anybody's guess.

While I agree with much said here... the dems have thier smear campaigns as well... both sides have a tendency to fight dirty. McCain, I think won't fight dirty, but he also does have a tendency to shoot from the hip, which at his age might be his downfall. Obama isn't a helpless, truthful guy at the mercy of a political machine... his presentation is different, doesn't mean he is different. He's 100% politician, don't be fooled by his speeches.

Are you seriously going to claim that the Democrats have used anything resembling the Swiftboating smear machine?

Bush even rolled out the smear machine against a fellow Republican-- McCain-- in 2000. The closest analogy to that on the Democratic side is Hillary's "Obama is a Muslim" smear campaign, and perhaps her ridiculous"Obama is an elitist" charges.

So maybe, just maybe, McCain won't resort to smear tactics. I think it would be beneath what we know of him-- it's more the modus operandi of Bush, Turd Blossom, and the rest of the chickenhawks in his administration. But even if he doesn't order it, there are plenty of Republicans experienced at running smear campaigns who would be only to glad to do it from the cover of anonymity.

Clinton has already shown her willingness to smear her opponent, so we can assume that if she's the candidate, mudslinging, dirty tricks, and smears will continue to be the order of the day.

On the other hand, if Obama is the candidate, there's no indication whatsoever that Obama would roll out a smear machine, and no indication that other Democrats would do it from the cover of anonymity.

Comrade, when will you realize that both sides do about the same... each does it slightly different... and the first to do this was the great Federalist, Alexander Hamilton; trying to smear Thomas Jefferson anytime he could with his newspapers. Since then, pretty much every politician and party has done smear campaigns.

That doesn't make them right, and I want them to stop, but at the same time I don't think its going to end. Thinking that it is only in one party's camp and not the other is only keeping yer eyes squinted in rose-tinted glasses. Even Martin Luther King, Jr. had Malcolm Little.

What about Clinton today then?

She threatened to obliterate Iran if it launched a nuclear strike against Israel.

That, as the saying goes, is fighting talk :nod;

What the fuck is that all about?

Of COURSE the US, along with the rest of the International community, would react in the strongest manner towards anyone launching a nuclear strike against any other nation.

But going on Good Morning America and BOASTING about it in exchange for a few half-wit votes? I bet they took that really well in Iran. I bet they're working 24 hour shifts down that nuclear weapon factory after that little outburst. Stupid bastard.

Oh goodness me, you're fucked whatever happens, aren't you?

Go with Clinton and start buying canned goods. That's my advice. The fats in the fire folks. We'll be at war again by Christmas.

Cheevers, I thought I posted a lot.

Have we actually taken Comrade on full time now?

i'm completely gobsmacked when people say that in the US any one can become president. name ONE president who wasn't a white male christian!

Jeffari-al-Texani wrote:

AgentWood wrote: i'm completely gobsmacked when people say that in the US any one can become president. name ONE president who wasn't a white male christian!

erm...Jefferson wasn't a christian...

ummm... yes and no. Jefferson believed (as did many of the Founding Fathers) that God existed and in Jesus' teachings, but did not believe in the divine intervention, miracles, or any of what Cambo descibes as 'hocus pocus'.
So although this is not Christian in thought (which relies heavily on the Bible), they did not denounce God or Jesus' teachings.

The only one without any religious affiliation (Woodsie) is Abraham Lincoln. He was an atheist... not self-proclaimed, but he had no religious beliefs which would make him an atheist.

One thig to note, not a single Catholic among them

EdelBrock wrote:

One thig to note, not a single Catholic among them

Jefferson was a Deist.

They've all put the odd rhetorical foot wrong, and at times into the mouth quite badly. BBC World just goes on about who is most popular, I see close to zero on what their policies actually are...

My gut feeling is that McCain will (sadly) win because the democrats will be unable to unify around whatever the final candidate is. They've really stuffed themselves up!

I wouldn't go for Clinton; she can't admit when she's wrong and she is very reactionary.

Still, looks unlikely that McCain will survive 8 years of presidential pressure!

His Holiness, The Pope wrote:

EdelBrock wrote:

One thig to note, not a single Catholic among them

Jefferson was a Deist.

yer right, completely forgot about JFK.

And what is yer point about Jefferson? Yes he was a Deist... a person that believes in God and the teaching of Jesus, but not all the miracles and divine interventions...

completely forgot about JFK. oops

i'm telling the pope on you two.

(i tell you what, that's another job that only ever seems to go to white male christians...)

(click for more chinatown fun)

I went to vote in the OMG BIGGGG Primary yesterday. I went at 7 am and there was still a 20 minute wait.

I went back to the polls around 630 bored as fuck to take some pictures and wound up seeing a friend of mine. I waited in line with him for 45 minutes before I was getting bored of that and he was still a good 15 20 a way from voting.

Amazing for a primary day.

geez... the assurtion that he wasn't Christian is only half right. A Christian is someone who believes in Christ, which Jefferson did... just not all the miracles, Trinity and such... so he detached himself from the Protestant churches, but not entirely away from the religon (many books assert that he was Unitarian by belief, which is Christian)... he did write his own version of the New Testament.

In general they rejected the miraculous element in Scripture and ecclesiastical tradition. They would not admit that there was any one "peculiar people", such as the Jews or the Christians, singled out for the reception of a truth-message, or chosen to be the recipients of any special grace or supernatural gift of God. They denied the doctrine of the Trinity and altogether refused to admit any mediatorial character in the person of Jesus Christ.

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/04679b.htm

His Holiness, The Pope wrote: In general they rejected the miraculous element in Scripture and ecclesiastical tradition. They would not admit that there was any one "peculiar people", such as the Jews or the Christians, singled out for the reception of a truth-message, or chosen to be the recipients of any special grace or supernatural gift of God. They denied the doctrine of the Trinity and altogether refused to admit any mediatorial character in the person of Jesus Christ.

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/04679b.htm

Which is the reason I say 'half-right'. I'm confused on what the disagreement is here

You can't throw all deists in one pool, as it differs heavily on the individual... Jefferson was closer to Unitairism, which is Christian, but did have slightly different ideas...

To say he was NOT Christian at all is a misnomer...

So, seems to me AgentWood's point still stand, with the partial exception of Lincoln (who was rather a long time ago).

Jefferson seems to me was as near to Christian as makes no difference for anyone who isn't themselves sufficiently Christian as to worry about all the subtle doctrinal stuff.

(Unitarians regard Christ as a human being, exemplar and a prophet, but not in any way the Son of God and don't think he 'died for us', right? So Jefferson was slightly less orthodox Christian than even the Unitarians, then?)

Incidentally some survey just showed that 54% of Brits belong to a religion, but only 38% believe in God. So presumably there are Christian atheists out there.

I completely agree with you in the big difference, I am not arguing with you on that. To put Jefferson's Bible as a historical explination of some dude that was good, is not entirely correct though.

Jefferson had issues with Churches in general. He didn't like how they all competed with each other, and would demolish the competition if they had the power. To him religon was a personal issue, not something to congregate and try to claim 'mine is better than yours'. It has been stated in a few books* I have read that he was closer to Unitarianism (which is a type of Christianity), but didn't become part of the church due to his distaste for congregating people for religon... but he spoke very highly on the church and hoped it would become the next large church, if there were to be one.

He was not 'Christian' in the usual sense of the word, but he believed in much of the core of Christianity (one God, Jesus as a role model, and many other things similar to unitarians).

"To the corruptions of Christianity, I am indeed opposed; but not to the genuine precepts of Jesus himself. I am a Christian, in the only sense in which he wished any one to be; sincerely attached to his doctrines, in preference to all others; ascribing to himself every human excellence, and believing he never claimed any other." **

*American Sphinx - Joseph Ellis **Essential Thomas Jefferson (A collection of letters written by Jefferson) and a few others I can't remember at this time

i disagree with most of mccain's policies, but i admire the man. this will be one time i wouldn't be gutted if a republican beame president.

Jeffari-al-Texani wrote:

EdelBrock wrote: geez... the assurtion that he wasn't Christian is only half right. A Christian is someone who believes in Christ, which Jefferson did... just not all the miracles, Trinity and such... so he detached himself from the Protestant churches, but not entirely away from the religon (many books assert that he was Unitarian by belief, which is Christian)... he did write his own version of the New Testament.

I'm sorry, but I can't believe you are arguing this...Jefferson did not believe in the divinity of Christ, so there is no way, by any stretch of the imagination, that you can even attempt to call him a Christian. The basic belief of all Christians is that Jesus died on the cross, and was resurrected. Deists (like Jefferson) would have absolutely no part of this miraculous resurrection.

His version of the New Testament removed all references to the supernatural...and is basically nothing more than an example of how a good person led a life teaching others to be good people. A huge difference from believing that same person was the son of God, and your way to Salvation...

While I don't disagree with the substance of what you are saying, I do disagree with the notion that people who believe those things are "Christian." I would argue that they are more accurately "Paulians." They don't follow the teachings of Jesus of Nazareth, they follow the teachings of Saul (later, Paul) of Tarsus. That "basic belief of all Christians"? Paul's theology. That belief that Jesus is the "way to salvation"? Luther's theoology. When was the last time you heard a conservative Christian quote Jesus on issues of social values? Or on anything else, really... Conversely, when was the last time you heard a conservative Christian not quote Paul on issues of social values?

By definition, the vast, vast majority of people who label themselves "Christian" are actually "Paulian" (although I suppose one could make an argument that the title "Christ" implies Paulian theology.).

And also by definition, Jefferson's belief in following the teachings of Jesus of Nazareth, rather than the teachings of Paul (nee Saul) of Tarsus, make him one of the few who might appropriately be called "Christian."

Read this today on MSN:

The Democratic candidates have also acknowledged they would keep non-combat troops in Iraq to ensure its stability. But they have said they would begin withdrawing combat troops promptly upon becoming president, a step McCain has said would be precipitous.

What will 'non-combative' troops be doing in in Iraq??? Dems really have thier heads up their arses on that one... good sounding words that make people feel 'safe', but fuck all if that makes any sense what-so-ever. If a Dem does get voted in, and this does in fact become true... I'm damn glad I got out when I did... as a shite tour like that would be more dangerous than what we have now...

I just saw this on the telly.

http://www.abc.net.au/4corners/content/2008/20080428_obama/interviews.htm

Perhaps he really isn't all he seems.

Could Biggie have been right all along?

NOOLigan wrote:

Could Biggie have been right all along?

I'd like to agree with you, but I'm not sure what I'm supposed to be right about (this time).

I like it when you call me Biggie though

biggyinthecorner wrote:

NOOLigan wrote:

Could Biggie have been right all along?

I'd like to agree with you, but I'm not sure what I'm supposed to be right about (this time).

I like it when you call me Biggie though

Whatever your first post in this thread was, something about him being wishy washy Col.

Watch the doco. It is good.

If you ask Shelby Steele about Obama, you're bound to get criticism-- Steele's a Republican.

Comrade Shampanyov wrote: If you ask Shelby Steele about Obama, you're bound to get criticism-- Steele's a Republican.

I think that's a bit vague of a description. At what point can someone criticize your candidate and be taken seriously? People on the other side of the fence might not be entirely wrong. Who better to criticize him then Steele?

EdelBrock wrote:

Comrade Shampanyov wrote: If you ask Shelby Steele about Obama, you're bound to get criticism-- Steele's a Republican.

I think that's a bit vague of a description. At what point can someone criticize your candidate and be taken seriously? People on the other side of the fence might not be entirely wrong. Who better to criticize him then Steele?

Steele is presented as articulating a line of thinking within the African-American community; nothing could be further from the truth.

There's nothing wrong with interviewing Steele for his perspective, and there's nothing wrong with Steele criticizing Obama. But the fact remains, Steele is a Republican-- a party affiliation that is exceedingly rare within the African-American community-- and that important bit of information is left out of the program. The resulting impression is misleading.

Comrade Shampanyov wrote:

EdelBrock wrote:

Comrade Shampanyov wrote: If you ask Shelby Steele about Obama, you're bound to get criticism-- Steele's a Republican.

I think that's a bit vague of a description. At what point can someone criticize your candidate and be taken seriously? People on the other side of the fence might not be entirely wrong. Who better to criticize him then Steele?

Steele is presented as articulating a line of thinking within the African-American community; nothing could be further from the truth.

There's nothing wrong with interviewing Steele for his perspective, and there's nothing wrong with Steele criticizing Obama. But the fact remains, Steele is a Republican-- a party affiliation that is exceedingly rare within the African-American community-- and that important bit of information is left out of the program. The resulting impression is misleading.

I can see your point as that is not stated, but I think for good reason. The information Steele gives is personal opinion, based upon his experence and what he believes to be a cultural translation between black and white cultures.
He could state that he is part of a party rarely affiliated with the Black community, but at the same time he could claim to be part of a another minority; a part of the 18% that has a college degree...

EdelBrock wrote:

Comrade Shampanyov wrote:

EdelBrock wrote:

Comrade Shampanyov wrote: If you ask Shelby Steele about Obama, you're bound to get criticism-- Steele's a Republican.

I think that's a bit vague of a description. At what point can someone criticize your candidate and be taken seriously? People on the other side of the fence might not be entirely wrong. Who better to criticize him then Steele?

Steele is presented as articulating a line of thinking within the African-American community; nothing could be further from the truth.

There's nothing wrong with interviewing Steele for his perspective, and there's nothing wrong with Steele criticizing Obama. But the fact remains, Steele is a Republican-- a party affiliation that is exceedingly rare within the African-American community-- and that important bit of information is left out of the program. The resulting impression is misleading.

I can see your point as that is not stated, but I think for good reason. The information Steele gives is personal opinion, based upon his experence and what he believes to be a cultural translation between black and white cultures.
He could state that he is part of a party rarely affiliated with the Black community, but at the same time he could claim to be part of a another minority; a part of the 18% that has a college degree...

It's still misleading. His opinion is an extreme one, not widely held in the African-American community. To present his opinion to a foreign audience, without any context to explain that he represents an extreme and minority viewpoint within the African-American community, is misleading because it implies that the program is presenting the voice of black America. While one can certainly find views like Steele's within the African-American community (Alan Keyes would be another example), they by no stretch of the imagination represent mainstream Africa-American thought. And yet, by giving Steele such a prominent place in the program, with no context, it's implied that his thinking has some currency within the African-American community. It doesn't.

I don't think that he is being portrayed as a voice of the black community... like I said before more like a translation of cultural differences... (I know this is going to be a poor example, but the only I can think of to describe what I mean, but...) A psychologist can explain the reasonings and emotions behind a patient's behavior, it doesn't mean he is the exact voice of that person, or stating that they agree with everything that the psychologist explains... kinda like that.

and if that doesn't explain it well enough well...

butter the sheets with bacon pickle flashing alone they bicycle pants!

EdelBrock wrote: butter the sheets with bacon pickle flashing alone they bicycle pants!

Well, why didn't you just say that in the first place!

Look, I'm fairly certain that if Australian TV did a program on the Marines in Iraq, and they had General Petraeus presenting his view that the surge is working, and they had some Marine private on, who was saying that the surge isn't working, and that the American military is a racist imperialistic war machine, and that the American military command should be tried for war crimes, and the program only identified him as a Marine, and implied that he was speaking for the average Marine in the field, and didn't disclose that no other Marine agrees with the guy, and the Marine and Petraeus had equal time on the program to present their case, you'd be the first one on here saying that the Marine is espousing a fringe viewpoint that no other Marine agrees with, and that the program was misleading. And yet when the fringe guy is an African-American Republican presenting a viewpoint that you agree with, you don't see any problems with hiding the fact that he's presnting a fringe viewpoint that (almost) nobody else in his community agrees with.

Chris Nash wrote:

Comrade Shampanyov wrote:

Obama ... speaks to the American people about the issues as if they are adults, which is more than we are used to hearing.

Hillary does have detailed proposals, and has thoroughly mastered the issues.

The fact is they both have very similar positions on how they will address specific issues.

McCain will be more of the same.

If I was presented with the three as described above (sorry, I edited out a bit of it for simplicity) then I'd have to go for Clinton if given no other choices.

It may not be a conscious decision to type it, but 'has thoroughly mastered the issues' seems to be a telling observation.

I'd prefer someone who was politically and intellectually astute enough to be aware of all situations, their ramifications on not only a national, but a global scale and had detailed proposals which, by their nature, would be more open to scrutiny and criticism.

If, as you say, they have pretty similar stances on various issues, that would lead me to vote for Clinton out of the two.

If McCain is 'More of the same' that would certainly sway me to vote for the Democratic candidate, whichever it was.

For what it's worth, my 'virtual' vote therefore goes to Ms. Clinton. Thanks for sort of explaining things guys.

If she does get to be President, let's hope she doesn't fall victim of 'Thatcher Syndrome' or half the Middle East will cease to exist and there'll be a 'Red War' similar to the old 'Cold War'.

Hillary: I'm not listening to the economists

Looks like Clinton may be giving up.

Hurrah!

Have you seen news we haven't?

Because here, we're told that she's fighting on, despite there being virtually no chance of her winning.

Apparently she's cancelled her chat show appearances this morning after not doing as well as expected yesterday... Something may be in the air.

Jeffari-al-Texani wrote: I swear, if I hear Obama say the fucking word CHANGE one more fucking time...

I suddenly want to go listen to some John Waite...

mAYBE HE WAS TRYING TO WARN YA ABOUT YER DRAWERS BEFORE YOU GET A FLAMING BUM.... damn caps was on... so YEAH I WAS SCREAMING AT YA!