Obama/Biden vs. McCain/Palin

[1bad65]

You were learning Martial arts from him, he wasn't your spiritual or philosophical guide. He wasn't your priest. There is a huge difference.

And don't forget that Wright married Obama and his wife as well as Baptized his children.

[Water Dragon]

The point is association doesn't mean you have the same viewpoints. Heck, I'm Catholic, Pro-choice and support gay marriage. A lot of Catholics are, so he idea that you MUST subscribe to every viewpoint of you pastor is hog wash.

[RD'S Alias - 1A]

Maybe, but most people don't spend 20 or more years following a church or it's preachers if that sect is diametrically opposed to thier closest personal views. Infact, when one does follow that closely, for that amount of time, it's generally because they are cut from the same cloth and have the same core, root values, beliefs and philosophies.

If they were exposed to someone who was so diametrically opposed to thier views, they would fall from that church, and find another fairly quick. You see children leave the Catholic church as soon as they are old enough to think for themselves all the time.

Some find new churches they find more compatible, many others still leave organized religious institutions forever and seek thier own path. Almost NO ONE stays in an enviroment they are vehemently opposed to, let alone for 20+ years.

[1bad65]

Dude, if you go to a church for 20 years where the pastor has racist rants on the pulpit, you at least condone it and most likely agree with it.

[RD'S Alias - 1A]

That would be my exact point.

I look at it this way, if a violence preaching, racist, white power, skin head, KKK church opened up close to me, I may attend service for a few weeks, maybe even a few months just for the entertainment value and as an exercise into studying human behavior, but I could never be an integral part of that type of enviroment.

In all honestly, the novelty would wear off pretty quick. I would soon be sick to my stomach at the thought of entering that atmosphere or attending any of thier services or functions. I would be repulsed to the level of physical illness.

I certainly wouldn't suffer through it for TWENTY YEARS, and even have them marry me. I couldn't PHYSICALLY do it, let alone emotionally force myself to.

What i don't get is how come it is so hard to find people who can see clearly and think this stuff through today? It should be openly crystal clear what the deal is. Simple observation and basic logic & common sense should illuminate this situation with little effort.

[1bad65]

What i don't get is how come it is so hard to find people who can see clearly and think this stuff through today? It should be openly crystal clear what the deal is. Simple observation and basic logic & common sense should illuminate this situation with little effort.

Seeing the truth and refusing to accept it is different than just failing to see it.

[Water Dragon]

Gian, I think it depends on a lot more than just, the pastor had this messed up view. Lemme us an example. When I was a kid, we had this priest everyone adored. Only problem was, once every two months, he brought up his 'give more money or go to hell' speech. It was pretty ridiculous, but it only came up every now and then, so everyone pretty much ignored it. As he got older though, he brought it up more and more until people did leave.

I've heard the speeches, and I agree some of them are pretty ridiculous, but how big a deal was this really? I dunno. I doubt you do either. We latch on to one small thing and blow it up.

It's like this Palin daughter being pregnant thing. That ones already starting to get blown out of proportion on both sides. I see that as irrelevant to the election as well. Many people will disagree with me on that too. With all this non-sense going on all over the place, when are we, as a people, going to focus on the issues? Or do you think these things are the issues?

[1bad65]

As he got older though, he brought it up more and more until people did leave.

Did it take them 20 years?

I've heard the speeches, and I agree some of them are pretty ridiculous, but how big a deal was this really?

Not only is it almost always a bad thing when racists achieve power, even if Obama was fooled and does not believe it, it shows a serious lack of good judgement.

It's like this Palin daughter being pregnant thing. I see that as irrelevant to the election as well. Many people will disagree with me on that too. With all this non-sense going on all over the place, when are we, as a people, going to focus on the issues? Or do you think these things are the issues?

Gee, who was it that brought that issue up on this board?

[RD'S Alias - 1A]

Gian, I think it depends on a lot more than just, the pastor had this messed up view. Lemme us an example. When I was a kid, we had this priest everyone adored. Only problem was, once every two months, he brought up his 'give more money or go to hell' speech. It was pretty ridiculous, but it only came up every now and then, so everyone pretty much ignored it. As he got older though, he brought it up more and more until people did leave.

I've heard the speeches, and I agree some of them are pretty ridiculous, but how big a deal was this really? I dunno. I doubt you do either. We latch on to one small thing and blow it up.

It's like this Palin daughter being pregnant thing. That ones already starting to get blown out of proportion on both sides. I see that as irrelevant to the election as well. Many people will disagree with me on that too. With all this non-sense going on all over the place, when are we, as a people, going to focus on the issues? Or do you think these things are the issues?

Reply]
You may have a point, *IF* what was going on there was not the main stream. However, from what we can see from our vantage point, it has been a day in, day out culture of racial hate in that church. I don't think that equates with an annoying speech that only comes around every few months.

Mas Judt says he knows people who have been there and have confirmed it is a racist philosophy that is being preached there. Between that, and his ridiculous Socialist platform, lack of experience, inability to speak coherently when he's not scripted down the the punctuation, his total and embarrassing view on the Russia/Georgia conflict, his energy plans being centered around inflating tires (which most people do as part of basic maintenance anyway), and avoiding jack rabbit starts (which almost no one does anyway) instead of something practical, and a whole host of other issues, it is BLATANTLY clear he's not qualified to lead a nation, let alone the greatest nation ever in the history of man kind.

This guy will make Bush 1 & 2 look to be the brightest presidents ever by comparison.

Obama is just a slick windbag, nothing more.

[Black Jack II]

From the same article you culled yours from.

In an interview Thursday, Palin said she meant only to say that discussion of alternative views should be allowed to arise in Alaska classrooms:

"I don't think there should be a prohibition against debate if it comes up in class. It doesn't have to be part of the curriculum."

She added that, if elected, she would not push the state Board of Education to add such creation-based alternatives to the state's required curriculum.

As for her pregnant kid, I actually think that will turn out to be a plus for her and not a minus, if we are speaking in generic terms here.

Since I have said this let me say some things I don't like about Palin to balance some of what my ticket has offered me.

1. I am for limited pro-choice and I do not believe "I" have the right to tell a rape or incest victim that they can not terminate if desired. Palin has strong and respectable beliefs on this subject. At least she is standing her ground on the subjects she backs up.

2. Creationism, I am with Master on this one, it is not science, it never will be science so I don't think much on the matter. But I will look at the whole ticket and respect her views on the subject as I believe in a power higher than my own self.

[Mas Judt]

One of my training partners attended Wright's church after leaving Farrakahn's organization. According to him, the theology taught by Wright is inherently racist. Having been on the receiving end of racism his entire life, my buddy decided not to be part of the problem.

Not only is he a hell of a fighter, but he is a hell of a man, always helping the disadvantaged and troubled. In his own words - "I'd never vote for any man who was that close to Wright."

I believe him, as his yes means yes and his no means no.

As far as being Catholic - technically you aren't Catholic or in communion with the church if you disagree with the teachings and doctrine of the church. Abortion has been a sin since the earliest days of the church. You might call yourself Catholic, or identify as Catholic, but technically you don't really believe what is taught, therefore you are not *really* a Catholic. Seeing as how tough it is to follow such a rigorous faith (I know I fail to meet the standards) - there is always redemption - but that means accepting the doctrine, which puts you right back at the beginning. Don't believe me? Go talk to a Catholic Priest. (All I have to say on this, as I don't care to get into religion debates, just discussing the difference between Pelosi-style cafeteria Catholocism which isn't Catholocism at all, and the actual thing.)

On the other point, you can disagree with Catholic doctrine, but there is nothing inherently racist in Catholic doctrine. Wright's church is based on black liberation theology, which is just as f@cked as Christian Identity.

[Merryprankster]

Mas Judt,

I ran a keyword search on character on the transcript of Obama's acceptance speech.

"But what I will not do is suggest that the senator takes his positions for political purposes, because one of the things that we have to change in our politics is the idea that people cannot disagree without challenging each other's character and each other's patriotism."

Now, apart from a machine search, there is a big difference between saying that a campaign should be about policy differences and not character assassination, and saying that character doesn't matter. You can disagree with somebody without claiming they are evil. Which is the point of the above.

These are totally different ideas, and the former does not at all imply that character is a non-issue in the campaign.

I too, wish many Obama supporters would stop maligning character. There is a reason I don't go to most of the liberal blogs. Or conservative ones for that matter. There are no policy discussions. It's just about how the other side eats babies for breakfast.

That said, I suspect that what you are getting at is that you think that Obama doesn't want it to be about character because he knows his character won't stand the light of day.

I think that's an incredibly cynical thing to say. I think his treatment of Palin's impending grandchild indicates that he seriously wants character assassination out of the political battle.

Of course, being cynical, I'm sure you just view it as another way to ensure his own character isn't examined.

Man, I think I'd hate to be that cynical about other people's motives.

[Mas Judt]

MP,
Language is interpretive and offers contextual meaning - I walked away from that speech with the impression that he was seeking to dodge character as an issue. After seeing his supporters blogs, maybe not - maybe he was trying to keep the discourse on his side from creating blowback and/or try to set the tone for the same sorts on the right.

But from looking at his very specific character issues - that was my inference. Being in the human behavior influencing business, it seemed transparent to me. But perhaps I should have been more clear.

[Merryprankster]

MJ,

I understand your point of view.

However, one thing we know, or think we know, is that this election will be very close. There is something that has happened over the past decade or so, possibly longer. It's been that people who speak in support of you are more and more often seen as speaking FOR you.

I don't think we can deny that. We can try, but people are working really hard to make guilt by association.

Obama has made this entire campaign about trying to be "post partisan" and to keep the debates political and not personal. I actually cringed when he made the reference to the $5 million dollar joke of McCain's as though it were serious.

Anyway, my point is this: That if bloggers and supporters were to try and take off with this, it would seriously undermine that keynote. I don't think the Obama campaign can afford that with independents who haven't made up their mind yet. It would be very much at cross purposes.

You could argue that liberal bloggers et al can function as attack dogs while Obama stays "above it all," but I think, as I said before, that increasingly campaigns are identified with what their supporters are saying too.

On the other hand, the fact that he said it in public could let him off the hook too, and you could claim he's counting on that.

[1bad65]

I think the reason Obama wants the character issue off the table is he knows about glass houses and throwing stones. And he lives in a glass mansion.

So far we know his pastor of 20 years is a racist, a CONVICED felon was involved in his buying of his house, and he has had political meetings in a terrorist's house and accepted campaign donations from him. McCain's only character issue is a divorce.

I think the election may be close, so I worry. However, I feel if McCain shows Obama to be the radical leftist he is (and he can do so just using his voting record and speeches), it will be a landslide.