Obama - Useless

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!