View Poll Results: Democract Primary

Voters
53. You may not vote on this poll
  • Barack Obama

    37 69.81%
  • Hillary Clinton

    13 24.53%
  • Another Democrat Candidate (and share below who)

    3 5.66%
Page 5 of 15 FirstFirst 12345678910 ... LastLast
Results 81 to 100 of 285
  1. #81  
    Quote Originally Posted by bclinger View Post
    You speak of a living icon - his statements boil down to his stating that "black people need him to get anywhere" - he got somewhere...his wife got somewhere...
    Not surprisingly, that is the only part of the speech you heard. Wanna know why I think your heart is filled with hate? Your myopic cherry-picking of his speech is your first clue.

    No one needs him to get anywhere in this country.
    That's right, gotta keep him in his place, right Ben?

    His melting pot requires him to be in charge.
    I can only hope that he will be in charge soon. The way I look at it, neither he (or the other two candidates for that matter) can be any worse than what we'll have had in office for 8 years.
  2. #82  
    Who helped him get there? Did he help you? What is so hateful about people making it on their own. Did you make it on your own?

    Cherry picking the speech - not at all and I did read all of it. Ben
  3. #83  
    Quote Originally Posted by bclinger View Post
    He has not given any indication why he has stayed with the church or the minister for 20 years.
    Ben, you really needn't say anymore because it is clear to me you never listened to the speech nor have you read it.

    During that time, he married and had 2 children, both under the minister - his family and children brought up listening to the sermons filled with hate for this country, non-whites, et cetera. At no time did he attempt to get away from the church or denouce/correct the minister - that is until he was in such a position he had to do something.

    Now why am I being hateful bringing this up? Do I hate the man? No. He just is not being honest with anyone.
    No, you're not being honest. You clearly did not read nor listen to the speech. He addressed this very clearly. He outright rejected his pastor's comments that were offensive. He also went on to acknowledge that the pastor had done much good in the community and his body of work consisted far more of good deeds than "hating white people".
  4. #84  
    At no time did he state what he found objectionable, just "things." He has avoided to an extreme stating what he found objectionable. Did you hear what he found objectionable? The written copy I read did not give any indication of what he found objectionable.

    Also, it is getting old your statement that I did not read it. I did. Did you?

    Ben
  5. #85  
    Quote Originally Posted by bclinger View Post
    Cherry picking the speech - not at all and I did read all of it. Ben
    Sure you did Ben. Then you have a serious reading comprehension problem you may want to look into. They have classes for that sort of thing Ben - feel free to look into it.

    He addressed your points of contention quite succinctly and eloquently. So either you turned the volume down on the TV when he was speaking or simply took Sean Hannity's word for it.
  6. #86  
    Quote Originally Posted by bclinger View Post
    At no time did he state what he found objectionable, just "things." He has avoided to an extreme stating what he found objectionable. Did you hear what he found objectionable? The written copy I read did not give any indication of what he found objectionable.

    Also, it is getting old your statement that I did not read it. I did. Did you?

    Ben
    There is no reasoning with you Ben because you are unreasonable and always have been up here. You plop in from time to time to crap on threads with your right-wing hit jobs and then when I call you on it you'll eventually start to cry about how unfair I am being and claiming you're so objective and merely pointing out the obvious. Yea right...
  7. #87  
    You know Ben, perhaps you can help me? I have been searching the forum looking for your outrage over Pastor Ted Haggard and Bush's apparent lack of any comment on him whatsoever, despite Ted's frequent contributions to Bush's faith-based policy team meetings and lots of cozy pictures of the two of them together plotting their Christian assault on our free nation. Strange that I cannot find anything because you're such a bastian of impartiality.

    I wonder if I should take Bush's silence and/or lack of outright rejection of Ted as a ringing endorsement for homosexuality and crystal meth? Or would that be unfair to construe the words and deeds of one's pastor to be one's own? After all, Ted was just a pastor offering spiritual advice to Bush. Right?
    Last edited by moderateinny; 03/21/2008 at 01:02 AM.
  8. #88  
    Quote Originally Posted by moderateinny View Post
    I'm somewhat surprised at this sentiment that he could not be as successful as HRC. I think just the opposite - I think HRC would bring yet another 4 years of a very divided nation. Obama is half white - half black. He is a christian but has other religions in his family tree. He grew up living abroad and would help our country restore some of our tattered image. All in all I don't know that I've ever seen a candidate like him nor will I ever see one again in my lifetime. He seems to literally be a walking icon for what America is supposed to be all about - a melting pot whereby anyone can live the American dream. Can anybody think of any other candidate that embodies this better than him?

    Obama is not a perfect candidate nor a perfect man. But I am starting to believe that he will be historically significant for more than just his skin color. In a perfect world, I'd like to see him win the Presidency and the house of reps go back to the GOP - the senate remain with the Dems - and insert some semblence of balance back into our system. And yes, his speech was that moving to me - a call to arms for me personally that we must elect this man.

    Not sure if you watch Survivor, but on yesterdays show there was this interesting dynamic between ozzie -- this incredibly skillful and athletic veteran player -- and this new guy.

    Everyone else was watching them and laughing about how the new guy had a man crush on Ozzie. (Ozzie IS a cool guy).

    I confess that I've had man crushes on Bill Clinton and Gary Hart (no laughing anyone !!!).

    I think maybe that's where you've gotten to with "Barry" -- as his Indonesian classmates called him.

    As least your feelings for Obama haven't seemed to get to the level of Keith Oberman. He's so far up Obama's asss that Barack can't take dump without talking to Keith first...

    For some reason I remain unaffected by Obamamania. Perhaps because my earlier childhood infections have given me immunity.
    755P Sprint SERO (upgraded from unlocked GSM 650 on T-Mobile)
  9. #89  
    Quote Originally Posted by bclinger View Post
    Too much against him? Heck, he is more of a democrat than a republican. At least he does not change is stance as often as the other guys do. At least he stands up and is counted, does not avoid the issues, does not change the topic as the other 2 do. Ask him a question, he at least answers it without throwing the subject to another totally different topic. Not a great orator? Maybe that is good, at least he gets to the point. Obama has yet to get to the point in any debate, in any speech. He speaks in generalities. How do I know? I have taken the time to read two of his speeches.

    Heck of a man. His background says one thing, his public stance is something else and he really works hard trying to keep people from knowing the truth. Has he yet provided dates that he attended church in order to allow investigators to compare those dates to the tapes released by the church. How do you feel about a person that supports the Black Panther party? You do know a link to that party was on his site until he was forced to take it down. With support like that, what makes you think he has this country in his interest? From everything presented to date, his agenda does not speak well for the majority. His support is from the FAR left, not those that represent the "left" on this forum, but the far left and I sincerely doubt you agree with those views.
    In addition, it speaks well for the Democrat party and the way it has handled the Florida and Michigan election. A simple matter blown way out of proportion. The leadership involved stated on thing at first and then change their positions at least twice. What makes one think they can really make a decision when one is drastically needed in a real life situation. This, that, oh gosh, now they are complaining, let's change our position to meet our supporters. Now that is real leadership - the leadership shown to an extreme by both Obama and Hilary. No one on this forum is capable of tracking accurately the number of changes in stance and the number of times either candidate has said nothing. The only thing Obama is doing is alienating those people he so desperately needs to get elected president - people of middle America. The far left will not get him where he wants to be.

    Ben

    your views I think represent a large slice of the country.

    I have long anticipated that something like his pastor's sermons -- some issue that could be used as a lever to peal away his patina of purity -- his Kennedyesque charima and saintliness.

    Being unknown is both a blessing and a curse.

    It allows people to be inspired by an image they create in their hearts, one that is weaved from their own hopes.

    But it also allows ones opponents to manipulate information and propaganda to replace a fragile, blurred, but inspiring image -- with one that is both alien and terrifying.
    Last edited by BARYE; 03/21/2008 at 02:00 AM.
    755P Sprint SERO (upgraded from unlocked GSM 650 on T-Mobile)
  10. #90  
    Quote Originally Posted by moderateinny View Post
    I'm somewhat surprised at this sentiment that he could not be as successful as HRC. I think just the opposite - I think HRC would bring yet another 4 years of a very divided nation...
    I know enough about Hillary, her intelligence, her determination and experience to be very confident that she'd be as good if potentially even better than Bill.

    I have observed her privately a couple times over the years -- met her briefly once or twice -- and talked to people who know her well personally. She's a far more dynamic and interesting person than her public persona.

    Both Hillary and Bill are independently extraordinary people.

    And in her heart, she is more progressive and much more liberal than Bill (who has always been modulated by the practical and the doable -- especially after he was defeated for reelection in Arkansas because of the "radical" education reform he pursued in his first term.

    After his defeat he went round the state apologizing, and begging people to forgive him. (which they apparently did, because he successfully got re-elected Governor the next time he ran.)
    755P Sprint SERO (upgraded from unlocked GSM 650 on T-Mobile)
  11. #91  
    Quote Originally Posted by bclinger View Post
    At least he does not change is stance as often as the other guys do. At least he stands up and is counted, does not avoid the issues, does not change the topic as the other 2 do. Ask him a question, he at least answers it without throwing the subject to another totally different topic. Not a great orator? Maybe that is good, at least he gets to the point. Obama has yet to get to the point in any debate, in any speech. He speaks in generalities. How do I know? I have taken the time to read two of his speeches.
    Ben
    Go Team! Raise your Spirits Raise them High! Kiss those Dems bye bye!
    Cheer for the Repugs Cheer for a win, C'mon crowd yell "go fight win"
    Your pom poms are showing.

    Personally, I think the preacher connection is way overblown. Those words were the preacher's, not Obama's.

    Investigating tapes and church dates? Are you serious? If you are, stop salivating. This is a non issue meant to stir the masses. The masses should be stirred though, but for a different reason. You ever notice how most of the rhetoric coming from the right seems rather dumbed down. It's all short phrases, symbolism, basic instinct type stuff for the most part. If I was a Republican I wouldn't know if I should feel insulted or embarrassed since Republican surrogates don't seem to be able to raise the level of discourse beyond a basic irrational instinct. Thus far, I give McCain credit though.

    I remember in college reading and debating Malcolm X in a political science class. So does that mean I shouldn't ever hold elective office? What about the majority of white students who read the same essays and speeches where he wrote about "chickens coming home to roost? We all sat through the same class week after week analyzing his writings as well as other controversial figures. Should I have disavowed my white professor and walked out his class for daring us to think critically?

    The fact of the matter is with exceptions, whites and blacks view this country through different lenses colored by lifes experiences. Take the Tuskagee airmen for example. Should they have broke out in song singing "God bless America.......Land that I love... when they found out they had been injected with syphillis by this government to see what the effects would be? There is no doubt that black people in this country have had a much harder road to travel. To discount that fact is to say you don't want a serious discussion. You just want to chalk up points for your team. You just want to cheerlead. Rah....Rah...Rah.

    The fact that you can be critical, doesn't mean you love America any less. So certainly having heard someone else be critical is not even a issue. It's a distraction.
    Iago

    "Good name in man and woman, dear my lord, Is the immediate jewel of their souls: Who steals my purse steals trash . . . But he that filches from me my good name Robs me of that which not enriches him
    And makes me poor indeed."


    Criminal: A person with predatory instincts who has not sufficient capital to form a corporation.
    - Howard Scott
  12. #92  
    Quote Originally Posted by bclinger View Post
    Too much against him? Heck, he is more of a democrat than a republican. At least he does not change is stance as often as the other guys do. At least he stands up and is counted, does not avoid the issues, does not change the topic as the other 2 do. Ask him a question, he at least answers it without throwing the subject to another totally different topic.
    Over the past couple of weeks I watched some of his speeches, looked over his votes... really listened to him. Instead of listening to obama, you should listen to mccain.

    You should REALLY do it. What you will find will surprise you... if you think Kerry was a flip flopper, I have no doubt McCain will tell you any darn thing you want to hear. I assumed he was as you said, until I started digging deeper. Heck, he even told the reporters that something (can't remember what) on his website was not what he was fighting for. That was the final straw for me... I was baffled. Mccain is not consistant.

    Now this ME Iran mix up... oh, boy. He will start a war by accident. Lieberman had to correct him on stage.... Amazing.... Even more amazing the company he keeps. Still wondering how Hard Core Republicans "feel" about his old x-dem buddy lieberman hanging out with mccain. lol

    All of these candidates are a bit scary...

    I'll leave it at that.. going OT....

    At any rate, I don't think it matters... you seem to be sold either which way or the other. Good for you! Just make sure it is not for the wrong reasons.
    Last edited by theog; 03/21/2008 at 07:51 AM.
    01000010 01100001 01101110 00100000 01010100 01101000 01110010 01100101 01100001 01100100 00100000 01000011 01110010 01100001 01110000 01110000 01100101 01110010 01110011 00100001
  13. #93  
    Quote Originally Posted by bclinger View Post
    What did I say that indicates I am guilty of it? He has not given any indication why he has stayed with the church or the minister for 20 years. During that time, he married and had 2 children, both under the minister - his family and children brought up listening to the sermons filled with hate for this country, non-whites, et cetera. At no time did he attempt to get away from the church or denouce/correct the minister - that is until he was in such a position he had to do something.

    Now why am I being hateful bringing this up? Do I hate the man? No. He just is not being honest with anyone.

    Ben
    After reading the exchange here, I went to track down the text of the speech. I read it in its entirety. I thought this section was related to your questions:

    I have already condemned, in unequivocal terms, the statements of Reverend Wright that have caused such controversy. For some, nagging questions remain. Did I know him to be an occasionally fierce critic of American domestic and foreign policy? Of course. Did I ever hear him make remarks that could be considered controversial while I sat in church? Yes. Did I strongly disagree with many of his political views? Absolutely - just as I'm sure many of you have heard remarks from your pastors, priests, or rabbis with which you strongly disagreed.

    But the remarks that have caused this recent firestorm weren't simply controversial. They weren't simply a religious leader's effort to speak out against perceived injustice. Instead, they expressed a profoundly distorted view of this country - a view that sees white racism as endemic, and that elevates what is wrong with America above all that we know is right with America; a view that sees the conflicts in the Middle East as rooted primarily in the actions of stalwart allies like Israel, instead of emanating from the perverse and hateful ideologies of radical Islam.

    As such, Reverend Wright's comments were not only wrong but divisive, divisive at a time when we need unity; racially charged at a time when we need to come together to solve a set of monumental problems - two wars, a terrorist threat, a falling economy, a chronic health care crisis and potentially devastating climate change; problems that are neither black or white or Latino or Asian, but rather problems that confront us all.

    Given my background, my politics, and my professed values and ideals, there will no doubt be those for whom my statements of condemnation are not enough. Why associate myself with Reverend Wright in the first place, they may ask? Why not join another church? And I confess that if all that I knew of Reverend Wright were the snippets of those sermons that have run in an endless loop on the television and You Tube, or if Trinity United Church of Christ conformed to the caricatures being peddled by some commentators, there is no doubt that I would react in much the same way

    But the truth is, that isn't all that I know of the man. The man I met more than twenty years ago is a man who helped introduce me to my Christian faith, a man who spoke to me about our obligations to love one another; to care for the sick and lift up the poor. He is a man who served his country as a U.S. Marine; who has studied and lectured at some of the finest universities and seminaries in the country, and who for over thirty years led a church that serves the community by doing God's work here on Earth - by housing the homeless, ministering to the needy, providing day care services and scholarships and prison ministries, and reaching out to those suffering from HIV/AIDS.
  14. #94  
    Quote Originally Posted by Iago View Post
    Personally, I think the preacher connection is way overblown. Those words were the preacher's, not Obama's.


    Indeed those words were not Obama's, yet he permitted himself to sit in a position where the preacher imparted influence over him (at least to some degree).

    Let's face it, when people attend a church they simply aren't attending one for the purpose of having their views challenged or being forced to think critically about things. Instead, they attend because to some degree, they are aligned with the message that comes from the pulpit.

    This is a non issue meant to stir the masses.
    Ahhh yes . . . move along people, nothing to see here.

    Reminds me of a comment I saw once on Starbucks' The Way I See It:

    Quote Originally Posted by Goofy Starbucks Cup
    We will end poverty and stop HIV/AIDS within our generation when guided by African principles such as Ubuntu that underscores our interconnectedness. With greater compassion for others, we would no longer accept hunger and disease as facts of life.
    Obama's preacher is only an issue because we accept it as one, not because it simply is an issue.

    I remember in college reading and debating Malcolm X in a political science class. So does that mean I shouldn't ever hold elective office?


    Here, have an apple . . . and an orange.

    Your analogy isn't even comparable. Did Obama debate (before the media hype) his preacher?

    The fact of the matter is with exceptions, whites and blacks view this country through different lenses colored by lifes experiences.


    So let me get this right: You actually support the words of Obama's preacher on the basis of the lense for which he may have viewed this country (as opposed to say . . . facts)?

    The fact that you can be critical, doesn't mean you love America any less. So certainly having heard someone else be critical is not even a issue. It's a distraction.
    Being critical and blatently being wrong are two different issues.
    No problem should ever be solved twice.

    Verizon Treo650 W/Custom ROM
  15. #95  
    Quote Originally Posted by DL.Cummings View Post

    Indeed those words were not Obama's, yet he permitted himself to sit in a position where the preacher imparted influence over him (at least to some degree).




    Let's face it, when people attend a church they simply aren't attending one for the purpose of having their views challenged or being forced to think critically about things. Instead, they attend because to some degree, they are aligned with the message that comes from the pulpit.

    or they go because it is "the church" to attend. Sad, but true...

    I guess this boils down to if you believe he never heard the stuff on the tapes until recently. Possible? Certainly. Probable? I don't think so. I'd guess he had to at least know something about those tapes.

    I'd wonder just how much he went to church anyway.... we start talking influence and so forth... has he attended church every sunday for 20 years? How about in the last 10 years? Does his wife go and he go every last sunday or so? We don't really know.... or I've not heard.

    His speech seemed to work anyway....

    Bill Richardson to endorse Obama

    Richardson also said in the e-mail that he was touched by Obama's recent speech on race in America, saying he "understands clearly that only by bringing people together, only by bridging our differences can we all succeed together as Americans."
    http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/03/...son/index.html
    01000010 01100001 01101110 00100000 01010100 01101000 01110010 01100101 01100001 01100100 00100000 01000011 01110010 01100001 01110000 01110000 01100101 01110010 01110011 00100001
  16. #96  
    Quote Originally Posted by shopharim View Post
    After reading the exchange here, I went to track down the text of the speech. I read it in its entirety. I thought this section was related to your questions:
    Thank you Shop. Although I'm sure Ben will simply gloss over it like the first time (he didn't bother to) read it.
  17. #97  
    Quote Originally Posted by DL.Cummings View Post

    Indeed those words were not Obama's, yet he permitted himself to sit in a position where the preacher imparted influence over him (at least to some degree).


    Much the way Ted Haggard did over Bush?

    Let's face it, when people attend a church they simply aren't attending one for the purpose of having their views challenged or being forced to think critically about things. Instead, they attend because to some degree, they are aligned with the message that comes from the pulpit.


    I agree - to some degree they are aligned with the message that comes from the pulpit. This seems perfectly consistent with Obama's words (as reprinted above by Shop) that rejects portions of Wright's words that were offensive yet accepts the man for the many good deeds he has done in his lifetime.

    Using the logic of Ben, I wonder if Catholics who continue to go to Church and pay their weekly fees to wash their sins away (well that and a few Hail Mary's and Our Fathers) are as guilty as those child molesting Priests the Church hid (and may still be hiding) for decades? I mean, the partitioners knew full well their Church and it highest ranking members shuffled child molesters from one church to another, thus, allowing the molestations to continue - aren't they complicent in this attrocity as well?

    The obvious answer is no. Nor should Obama's participation in the Trinity Church be construed as his ringing endorsement of ALL the things that go on in that Church.

    As Obama said himself - Wright is a Pastor, not his political advisor. Much the same as Ted Haggard was a Pastor to Bush and not his political advisor....oh wait, Ted was a political advisor too. Oops.
  18. #98  
    Quote Originally Posted by moderateinny View Post
    [/SIZE]

    Much the way Ted Haggard did over Bush?



    I agree - to some degree they are aligned with the message that comes from the pulpit. This seems perfectly consistent with Obama's words (as reprinted above by Shop) that rejects portions of Wright's words that were offensive yet accepts the man for the many good deeds he has done in his lifetime.

    Using the logic of Ben, I wonder if Catholics who continue to go to Church and pay their weekly fees to wash their sins away (well that and a few Hail Mary's and Our Fathers) are as guilty as those child molesting Priests the Church hid (and may still be hiding) for decades? I mean, the partitioners knew full well their Church and it highest ranking members shuffled child molesters from one church to another, thus, allowing the molestations to continue - aren't they complicent in this attrocity as well?

    The obvious answer is no. Nor should Obama's participation in the Trinity Church be construed as his ringing endorsement of ALL the things that go on in that Church.

    As Obama said himself - Wright is a Pastor, not his political advisor. Much the same as Ted Haggard was a Pastor to Bush and not his political advisor....oh wait, Ted was a political advisor too. Oops.
    Also, Pastor Wright is retired... that is why there is not a need to leave the church.... I don't think some people understand that... I did not know that myself.
    01000010 01100001 01101110 00100000 01010100 01101000 01110010 01100101 01100001 01100100 00100000 01000011 01110010 01100001 01110000 01110000 01100101 01110010 01110011 00100001
  19. #99  
    Apparently, Obama is related to both Bush and Cheney.
    http://www.factcheck.org/askfactchec...y_cousins.html

    Perhaps the dynasty will continue!
  20. #100  
    Quote Originally Posted by moderateinny View Post
    Much the way Ted Haggard did over Bush?
    Check your facts about Bush's pastor.

    Hint: Kirbyjon Caldwell

    I agree - to some degree they are aligned with the message that comes from the pulpit. This seems perfectly consistent with Obama's words (as reprinted above by Shop) that rejects portions of Wright's words that were offensive yet accepts the man for the many good deeds he has done in his lifetime.
    Let me get this straight:

    Preacher spouts off inaccurate and--to some degree--racist propaganda and his parishioners get a pass as long as they can show the pastor offset those words/beliefs with other words/deeds/beliefs. Got it.

    Now let me ask: Does Obama AND Rev. Wright get a pass for this because they are black or because that is how things are done?

    Before you answer, let me remind you of Mitt Romney and the assaults against his Latter Day Saint faith. As an example, I'll use Slate.com's Christopher Hitchens:

    "It is not just legitimate that he be asked about the beliefs that he has not just held, but has caused to be spread and caused to be inculcated into children. It is essential. Here is the most salient reason: Until 1978, the so-called Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints was an officially racist organization. Mitt Romney was an adult in 1978. We need to know how he justified this to himself, and we need to hear his self-criticism, if he should chance to have one."

    What? It was okay to demand answers of Romney regarding that which influences him. But squawk-boxes galore when one asks that of Obama?

    Personally, I suspect this has little to do with faith per se, and everything to do with race. Particularly considering Rev. Wright's comments were largely about race and who would want to correct a black man after all the injustices his race had to endure right?

    The obvious answer is no. Nor should Obama's participation in the Trinity Church be construed as his ringing endorsement of ALL the things that go on in that Church.
    Of course not!! Why he only endorses the good stuff . . . after all he said so.

    Quote Originally Posted by theog
    Also, Pastor Wright is retired... that is why there is not a need to leave the church.... I don't think some people understand that... I did not know that myself.
    Errm, he retired when? Oh, February of this year!
    No problem should ever be solved twice.

    Verizon Treo650 W/Custom ROM
Page 5 of 15 FirstFirst 12345678910 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions