Obama vs. McCain

[MMM]

Originally Posted by fluffy0000

The question is not Obama or his distancing himself from Rev. Wright but the similairity in the message of Rev. Wright and Rev. Martin Luther Kings' message. Both opposed unpopular wars in their time and delivered similiar themes about race and religion. It is the intervening decades between these 2religious leaders that has transformed Rev. Martin Luther King and his message into something entirely alien from it's original content? Islam is not the no.1 growing religion on the planet its the Baptist religion according U.N. 07' fig. If Martin Luther King was around today in 08'
would the critrea that ruled out the Rev. Wright by Obama be different for Rev King ?

Unfortunately, the message has little to do with it. In 2008 we have this little thing called YouTube and sound bites, and a 4 second clip taken out of context from a 45 minute sermon can mean pretty much whatever you want it to. Rev. Wright's real message was lost, and unfortunately he liked the attention more than he worried about the reason he was getting it. Even if the message is similar (I am not saying it is or isn't) they are two very different people.

[fluffy0000]

Both Rev. Wright and Kings fathers were Baptist ministers both the Rev. Wright and King were or are Baptist ministers . Rev. Wright holds a Doctor of Ministry degree (1990) from the United Theological Seminary in Dayton, Ohio, where he studied under Samuel DeWitt Proctor, a mentor to Martin Luther King, Jr. I could continue with this if you doubt the differences you think are not in fact similarities?

[MMM]

Originally Posted by fluffy0000

Both Rev. Wright and Kings fathers were Baptist ministers both the Rev. Wright and King were or are Baptist ministers . Rev. Wright holds a Doctor of Ministry degree (1990) from the United Theological Seminary in Dayton, Ohio, where he studied under Samuel DeWitt Proctor, a mentor to Martin Luther King, Jr. I could continue with this if you doubt the differences you think are not in fact similarities?

I am not saying they are or aren't different. I am saying that Wright's real message has never been broadcast, and given the opportunity to explain, he chose the exciting attention of the camera over the responsibity of protecting his "sheep" and correcting those hanging him out to dry.

[fluffy0000]

the difference is Obama maybe 'left the Rev. Wright' out to dry like a true politician and not the reverse?

[Sangetsu]

Originally Posted by MMM

Unfortunately, the message has little to do with it. In 2008 we have this little thing called YouTube and sound bites, and a 4 second clip taken out of context from a 45 minute sermon can mean pretty much whatever you want it to. Rev. Wright's real message was lost, and unfortunately he liked the attention more than he worried about the reason he was getting it. Even if the message is similar (I am not saying it is or isn't) they are two very different people.

What was his real message? As you seem to know, please enlighten us.

[Paul11]

Originally Posted by MMM

Hoo boy...I'll let the experts respond to this one.

Don't let the PC police determine what you can and can't say. I didn'y say it was true, just an explanation as to why people feel that way.


Ivan said:
Do I have to remind you that all you see that stuff on is through the media?
Who do you think controls the media? Who do you think is fighting the war against what you see on the media?
So in essence, what types of things would you expect to see through the media?
No, the media is not as free and as unbiased as they'd like you to believe.
As for people showing their hatred of America, i'm sure its quite easy to do that when you've been wronged by anyone. I mean all I have to do is plant a mine outside your house and wait for it to kill a family member and i'm sure you'll be cursing whoever I might be associated with, dancing around in the street with the nearest weapon you can find.
So yes, for the last thirty years, (if not more) you've seen it over and over again because of the simple fact that those people have been wronged by the American Government, over and over again. The media will snatch up those pictures rather than show an intellectual conversation because they want the mass public, like yourself, to believe that your "enemy" is stupid.
Also, those "Muslim Leaders" aren't really anything but Muslims by name. They are what I would call puppets.
There is not a single country that is a practicing Islamic state, in the world at the moment.
At the end of the day, it is your choice on what garbage to sift through and take as the truth.
That is also why it is important for the America Voter to make the right and responsible choice, not just for America but for the rest of the world.


You don't have to remind me of anything. That's what people see and some people take it to heart. I didn't make any statements about the validity of those ideas. Re-read the post. And you don't have to be part of the "blame America first" crowd. It's ok to explore ideas.

[Sangetsu]

Originally Posted by TalnSG

Sangetsu, I hoep I don't distort your meaning, by pulling what points I think should be highlighted.


For the most part that's a good overview and I only disagree with you on the details. But the details can make a serious difference.

This election is historical in some ways. Obama is bi-racial, but when I was still in public school, even 1/10 black would have prevented him from voting in Mississippi, much less ever running for a national office. To see even one white face in that state support someone even resembling a black for president is an historical milestone. And the same goes for Hillary, those in less severe terms. Women 40 years ago would never have gotten even one delegate, except in the ultra liberal districts that elected Bella Abzug and Diane Feinstein. Women were still to be seen and not heard, especially in political arenas. Even as late as 20 years ago when I was a Gore delegate, I can assure you that the "good ole boys" did their best to force me to "play nice and go home and take care of my husband" instead of represent my district's voters.

We finally got rid of the poll tax in the 1960's, but there are still two aspects of voting in United States elections that need to be removed.

First, the "party lever". These days its a punch instead of a lever, but the effect is the same. You can vote for an entire slate of candidates without ever seeing who they are by simply marking a political party's punch. That is wrong! You should have to literally vote for every single candidate, or abstain from voting for that specific office.

Second, the Electoral College. It became obsolete in the mid 1900's, but prooved it when it overturned the popular vote in 2004. When it reversed the popular votes in 1824, 1876 and 1888 it could be argued that popular vote counting was seriously flawed. But if you accept that arguement then the miscarriage of justice in 2004 is even worse, because the best documented miscount would have made the lead of the popular win even higher if corrected. Gore won the popular election by a verified 0.5 % of the votes. If that seems small, Nixon only won 0.9% and no one objected to that until it was way too late.

So are you arguing that Hillary should be the nominee because she won the popular vote in the primaries? Or is the argument only convenient when your candidate is the one who benefits?

The electoral college is the last remaining remnant of the time when states had any type of political autonomy. State's rights were not supposed to be seconded to the power of the federal government, the federal government was supposed to be a partnerships of the states, and not a power unto itself. Following the argument that the presidency should be decided by popular vote means that the votes of the 5 states could outweigh the votes of the other 45. In this case, those most populous 5 states would have the greatest influence over national policy. Why would a candidate bother going to the trouble and expense of campaigning in small states if they didn't have enough votes to influence the election? These states might as well cease to exist as part of the county.

The electoral college system has been challenged many times over the years, generally immediately after close elections, but thankfully the system has been able to withstand those challenges. This is the United States of American, not America.

[MMM]

Originally Posted by Sangetsu

What was his real message? As you seem to know, please enlighten us.

No need to be smarmy.

The point was not a condemnation of America (if I remember correctly) but by those that use the name of God as an excuse to go to war. He said people can confuse God with government, but God doesn't take us into war, God takes us into peace. There was something like "fighting for peace is like fornicating for virginity" and God will not fail us, God damn those that take us into war and God damn those that that use his name as an excuse to kill Muslims.

It's meant to provoke, and I am not an Rev. Wright excuser, but the message he was giving was more about God then it was about America, that's all. (Again, if I remember correctly...this was back in March that I watched it).

And regards to Hillary winning the "popular vote". Again this is a moot argument, but the neither the democratic or republican nominees are chosen by the popular vote. That being said, you can only saw she won the popular vote IF you count Michigan and Florida, and Obama wasn't even on the ballot in Michigan, and ignore all the caucus states, which I believe Obama won all of.

But it isn't as if she is saying the election was stolen from her. She conceded she lost, and it's over.

Originally Posted by Paul11

Don't let the PC police determine what you can and can't say.

Never would, never will, I just knew ivi and Noodle would have a reaction to that post.

[Hyakushi]

I was really hoping Hilary would stay in it but I don't really like any of the people running, there was to much personal wars going on and not enough info on what they planned to do whats right and so on.

[Paul11]

Originally Posted by MMM

No need to be smarmy.

The point was not a condemnation of America (if I remember correctly) but by those that use the name of God as an excuse to go to war. He said people can confuse God with government, but God doesn't take us into war, God takes us into peace. There was something like "fighting for peace is like fornicating for virginity" and God will not fail us, God damn those that take us into war and God damn those that that use his name as an excuse to kill Muslims.

It's meant to provoke, and I am not an Rev. Wright excuser, but the message he was giving was more about God then it was about America, that's all. (Again, if I remember correctly...this was back in March that I watched it).

And regards to Hillary winning the "popular vote". Again this is a moot argument, but the neither the democratic or republican nominees are chosen by the popular vote. That being said, you can only saw she won the popular vote IF you count Michigan and Florida, and Obama wasn't even on the ballot in Michigan, and ignore all the caucus states, which I believe Obama won all of.

But it isn't as if she is saying the election was stolen from her. She conceded she lost, and it's over.



Never would, never will, I just knew ivi and Noodle would have a reaction to that post.

Lol to that last part!

For the other stuff, I have never heard anyone invoke god to justify this war. Maybe some extremist has, but come on. That type of statement shows your extremism in defining the right as so.