I am not a liberal, but tend to vote democratic, but I could see myself voting for McCain as well. But in following Obama vs. Clinton - I pick Obama hands down. And it's not policy (because I can't tell the difference)...but on leadership - which a president has to have. Obama clearly can cut across more groups than Clinton. That's a sign of leadership. Unite people, not disenfrancise or inspire hate like Clinton/Bush Clinton campaign wasn't well managed and despite a higher profile and a former president on her arm - she is getting toasted in funding raising by Obama. That shows Obama can lead and make people follow. Obama, relatively a darkhorse a few months ago - is now pulling bigger crowds thatn Clinton - leadership. Obama is attracting better talent to his campaign. Leadership. Clinton appears to be having to shake things up and panicking a bit...lack of leadership. I just wanted to share that. Not really one who wants to get active in here, but felt this was important to say.
I believe in Jesus... as in the Christ referred to in the Scriptures found in the Holy Bible. He has inspired an innumerable amount of people over the centuries to follow His teachings... real leadership. He's coming again for those same followers... and I have no reason to doubt Him... He's never lead me wrong, personally. I do not "believe in" any politician. Never have. I do however vote... Jesus said to. "...Render therefore unto Caesar the things which are Caesar's; and unto God the things that are God's." Matthew 22:21 But anyway... neato post and all.
People get so offended here when others are dismissive of religion. But when people demonstrate actual belief on the physical plane they are subject to no end of ridicule. No wonder all politicians are lying assholes. Whenever they try to sincerely inspire people everyone says, ooooohhhhhh, who do you think you are... the messiah.....? I want a freaking president that we can all get behind. That's not cultish, though it might seem so in the current environment -- it's freaking patriotic. I want a president around whom we can rally and say, hey, we're all Americans. And here are the really important things we care about. Regardless of who gets elected, having even a candidate that rises to that level is a freaking exciting thing. To be honest, Reagan was the last one. Before that the Kennedys. It's not that we absolutely need to be inspired that way; it's that it's a really incredible treat when we are -- and a unifying one. And the ones that think they're so clever shooting it down are really a shame. If you have a specific problem with Obama's platform, please post it. But this stuff about how he's all style and no substance is stupid as hell. He has as much substance as any other candidate running. You want to pick it apart? Go to his website, quote the things you have a problem with and say why. But stop this stupid crap about how he's all style if you won't take the time to read his platform and respond to it here. Both Obama and Clinton stand for the exact same things. Obama's argument is that he can inspire (in addition to, not instead of, providing substance) and Clinton's argument is that she's more of a wonk and inspiration should be left to orators -- a position that is, apparently according to her, mutually exclusive with the position of president even though our greatest presidents have been great orators. Our greatest presidents inspired us to believe. The idea that now we should ridicule anyone who does the same, if it takes hold, is truly the end of the American dream. This country was built on hope and inspiration. Argue with Obama's positions all you want, but ridiculing him on the basis of inspiring people is downright un-American.
i wasn't alive for kennedy, and too young to remember reagan, but i'll give obama this much: he's exciting to listen to. he gives off a feel good vibe. my problem with his platform: universal healthcare opposes school vouchers comprehensive immigration reform opposes privatization of Social Security http://www.bostonherald.com/news/national/politics/2008/bios/view.bg?articleid=1063110 also, his questionable patriotism. that is a high concern to me... though this is basically what hillary and mccain support in one for or another (outside of healthcare and the war in iraq).
Nice, civil post. However, I think it is best served up in a different thread. I saw no one doing what you ranted about in this one. I merely stated who I "believe in" as a rule... And I think that OP did a fair job of enlightening us as to his/her beliefs of late. Btw - Jesus lived, as in walked and breathed, in the physical plane... "Batman" on the other hand is fiction. That's not "banter" -though it may seem so in the D & D... it's stinking factual. Again, for the record, I've never put my trust or faith in a politician... though I have voted for them in every election I was privileged to do so since the age of 18. I think it is obvious who everyone here is "rooting" for. Regardless of who gets the nomination nods... I'll just have to vote my conscience -not according to popularity. But then Christianity has never been too popular... after all, our founder was crucified... albeit by His own Will and by God's design... Which is yet another misunderstood topic for another, less politically charged, season.
just what others have said. makes me go hmmm. it's heresay, but still raises an eyebrow. i realize one could easily pay lip service and play the wolf in sheep's clothing (cough cough W.) but it's still concerning.
I guess if, in your elementary years, you grow up outside the country ad are educated (although partly) in an Islamic school... You don't get used to holding your hand over your heart when the pledge or national anthem is going on? I guess? (I know, I know... duh... http://www.snopes.com/politics/obama/muslim.asp)
IROC_It: My post wasn't meant as a slam against yours. I had just finally had enough of the idea that being inspired by someone meant you were in a cult. This was the thread in which I had enough. I'm not going to go search for the right thread to post it in. Enough is enough. Why have we, as a country, come to a point where being inspired is regarded as "cultish?" And why is that that's always followed by the insanely stupid argument that "style" is winning out over "substance" even while the two candidates standing have the Exact. Same. Substance? This is where our cynicism as a nation has taken us. We are collectively embarassed to believe in... Anything. Not Reagan nor Kennedy nor FDR nor Lincoln nor Jefferson (nor any other president who is now nearly universally regarded as a great one) would be exempt from the ridicule Obama's getting in this campaign, for what? For INSPIRING people, which used to be one of the main damn jobs of the president of the United States. Now inspiration is suddenly embarassing. Who made that rule? Because I was almost sure it was what set us apart among nations. I was almost sure it was uniquely American. I was almost sure it was what we'd all been longing for for a very long time while we decried all politicians as liars and degenerates. Then someone comes along who is relatively clean and convincingly calls people to action and people say, why are you so into his style? Is this a cult? Guess what. By that standard, Thomas Jefferson ran a cult and it was a cult I'd be damn proud to join. It was the "cult" that taught us what America could be. When did we decide it was lame to believe (or at least want to believe) in our leaders? I must have missed that meeting.
A year ago I was favoring McCain for that reason - because I thought Obama lacked experience particularly after the whole invade Pakistan comment. But what I now think is this. A personal who can truly lead and inspire can get things done. He can bring people to a table. Whether it's world leaders or Congressional ones. Part of getting things done is making people really want it to be done. A great leader doesn't have to figure out all the details. I mean, did Kennedy have some kind of great plan? I don't think so. And Reagan was the same way to a degree. It was his oratory that got things done and got people to move more than policy. Even Clinton seemed more talk then policy when he won. But Hilary doesn't inspire - she won't move the country. I just feel that leadership and talent is more important then experience. It's like choosing Shane Battier vs. Rudy Gay. You aren't necessarily going wrong with Shane. People can see what he does well and he's a known commodity (Hillary). But he's also going to piss people off. But with Obama (Rudy) you see the potential for the spectacular even if he struggles a bit out of the gate. I'm going with Rudy Gay this time.
Sweet Lou: You made the point I wanted to make much better than I did. Thanks. And you really don't have to worry about that Pakistan thing. That's based on misinformation spread by the Clinton camp. Obama's position is this: IF there is actionable intelligence that Osama Bin Laden is in a specific place in Pakistan and IF we know about it and IF Pakistan refuses to act on it even after we ask them to, then Obama will. That doesn't mean launching a war on Pakistan -- it means he will go after the murderer of 3,000 Americans on his own if the Pakistani government refuses to do it themselves on our behalf. Since Obama's comments on this were made, we have learned that this is also the position of George W. Bush, Hillary Clinton, John Edwards and pretty much anyone else that's been asked. The "he wants to INVADE PAKISTAN" thing was typical, cynical Clinton machine fakeout. One debate later she was agreeing with him.
I feel ya... Batman, really I do. We cool on this... I don't get it either - and I'm sure my response wasn't necessarily in the "right" thread either... It is is what it is. America has become a big ol' ball o' paranoia.
You're smarter than this, rodrick. It was the national anthem (not the pledge as has been fake-reported in emails). And in different parts of the country there are different customs about this. Hang out at the Toyota Center before any game starts and you'll see around half of the patrons there with their hands on their hearts during the national anthem and the other half singing without their hands on their hearts. Do you question the patriotism of those without hands on hearts or do you just understand that it's not actually a rule to put your hand on your heart while singing it (or listening)? I was raised in Houston and attended HISD schools til college. And when I saw people put their hands on their hearts when singing the Star Spangled Banner I thought they were freaks. That wasn't how I, or anyone in my elementary, middle or high school, was raised. To do so would have been weird. If it "raises an eyebrow" that's probably because you were taken in by the ridiculous emails suggesting Obama was a secret Manchurian Candidate Muslim who was on the one hand so good he could get elected but on the other hand so bad that he forgot to put his hand on this heart at the right time. Is this seriously what you want to think about when you decide who should be president? And, really, honestly, are you in any way suggesting you're not sure of Obama's patriotism? Because that would blow my mind.
A bulletin I posted on MySpace: Subject: RE:Seriously people.... From: Criztal Date: Feb 4, 2008 1:21 AM VOTE. February 4th is the last day to register to vote in the Texas primaries being held on March 4th. That means if you aren't already registered, you are a moron. lol jk No that means RUN and register. I know most of ya'll that are reading this are politically r****ded, but that's no excuse. You're obviously smart enough to manage finding a website, and if you have time to repost surveys with 100 questions, you have time to pick a candidate. Find the one you feel best represents your ideals. PLEASE fulfill your civic duties, because the leaders that are chosen this year will affect the REST OF OUR LIVES. And this year, especially, every vote counts. My pick: Barack Obama --------------------------------------- Two of the responses I received: Teenage mother #1: He's a closet terrorist Damn it!! lol really! Saudia Arabia is paying for his Campaign! and they also support terrorist! I'm not sure who I'm voting for yet My Sister (stereotypical close minded Mexican): I'm not voting for him because he's a Muslim terrorist, and because Hillary was in charge of everything when Bill was president anyways. I don't even know how to respond.
xxxShadyPinkxxx: That's exactly how both the Republicans and the Clintons want people to think. They want people to be confused and they want people to vote based on the most successful spin. There is NO difference between HRC and BHO on "substance." But there is a huge difference on "style" or politics. If anyone is still pretending to be confused about the "change" Obama espouses is, this is it. He's not a liar. He's not trying to trick the American people. He is saying what he's for and why it matters. And that's all. That's why he's winning and that's why people are scared of him and doing anything they can to slime him. That's also why, if he wins, he will do so with a serious mandate. Hillary's best scenario is 51%; Obama's is 60 or more. Not because Americans are cultists but because they agree with his platform and because they want to be inspired to work toward it TOGETHER. They want to be united in a common cause with ALL Americans and not just those that belong to the party of their choice.
How bored are you that you post the same thing twenty times a day? Your time would be better spent on a picket line. Problem is, that wouldn't satisfy your fake-Buddhist anger management problem. It's a shame what's happened to you. You used to at least seem like you thought straight. These days I honestly worry for your mental health.
I think just fine. I'm not just not easily taken in by the hype like others. It's the same crap all over again. I am not a believer. Vote for the guy. Fine. Great. But save the spiritual hymns, the shouting from the mountain tops and the music videos. VY was going to "revolutionize the game", he was a savior etc. People were so enamored. It was just people worshiping. It's all completely stupid. BTW, I have never come across a person so full of theirself as you. Ever.
The feeling's mutual, pal. I'll never get over that scene where you attacked Mad Max for not being vegetarian and then got mad at me for being vegan. You're mad at everybody. I'm not pretending I'm not guilty of self-righteousness too, but I at least try to be self aware. You don't even try. It's no coincidence at all that your user name is in ALL CAPS. I get the feeling you'd turn up the volume on everyone's computers so you could yell your posts if it was possible. VOTE AGAINST OBAMA AT ALL COSTS!!! I MEAN IT!!! AND I CAN'T STOP SAYING IT!!! P!S! I'M BUDDHIST!!!!!!! (p.s. No. You're not. You're "Buddhist" "as much as possible..." just like you're vegetarian - and happy to criticize those who aren't - as long as someone doesn't offer you meat. That's hell of cool. I take a vow of poverty except when I want money. I learned that from you so thanks for it. It's convenient as hell.)
There's a definite connection with Rovian tactics by using a candidate's strength and hammering in attacks and even lies to make it a weakness. Kerry's time in Vietnam, Obama's charisma, even Hillary's political experience as First Lady and Senator. Reminds me of that 48 Laws of Power book... But I do agree with the mass cynicism that effectively derides usage of the words faith and belief. Half because those words have been overdrawn like a bounced check by shysters and politicians, and half because some clergymen (at least those who get coverage on the news) have failed to live up to the task and example that fits their position. I also think you nailed it with the first paragraph of your first reply. Some people shift all of their weaknesses and ugliness onto Jesus as a God, but the moment a person tries to practice what Jesus acted and spoke as a man, then he's labeled as insane or having an ulterior motive.
