PDA

View Full Version : Would Obama win as an Arab-American? His genealogy says he could be


memyselfI
02-26-2008, 03:40 PM
Here is an interesting twist to the Obama story that has gotten no attention because we are supposed to be ignoring while embracing that Obama will be the first Black president.

What if his genealogy actually shows he's more Arab-Caucasian than black? Will it matter? If I supported him it wouldn't. But why are we not hearing that he could be the first Arab American president? Would that cost him votes?

Frankly, I don't think this is an issue IF we weren't being fed the illusion that we were about to elect our first black president. What happens when we realize that maybe we didn't?

FTR, I just read about this. This was not part of my forming an opinion on his phoniness.

Also FTR, I discovered this story today on Oprah.com's bulletin board when I went to see what Oprahbots were saying about Obama.

http://www.oprah.com/community/thread/22693?start=0&tstart=0


http://kennethelamb.blogspot.com/2008/02/barak-obama-questions-about-ethnic.html

Again, to let it sink in: Mr. Obama is not legally African-American. It is impossible for him to be, in truth, America's first African-American president.

Yet claiming to be African-American is the soul and substance of his claim to fame. It is what he has used throughout his adult life to distinguish himself from other competitors. It is the ethnic identity he proclaims, and it is the ethnic identity he craves. Without it, he is just another mixed race Caucasian Arab with an African influence playing on his skin’s pigmentation.

But no matter what he craves, no matter what he has used to propel himself through life, no matter the racist presumption of seeing his skin and without question calling him black, the hard, cold, genetically inarguable reality remains: he is not an African-American.

Mr. Obama is 50% Caucasian, that from his mother. What those who want Mr. Obama to write history by becoming "America's first African-American president" ignore is that his father was ethnically Arabic, with only 1 relative ethnically African Negro - a maternal great-grandparent (Sen. Obama's great-great grandparent, thus the 6.25% ethnic contribution to the senator's ethnic composition.).

That means that Mr. Obama is 50% Caucasian from his mother's side. He is 43.75% Arabic, and 6.25% African Negro from his father's side.

Put another way, his father could honestly claim African-American ethnic classification. He was the last generation able to do so.

Sen. Obama could honestly say, "My father was African-American." Racist presumptions led an Ivy League admissions committee, and lazy "newspapers of record" factcheckers, to presume that if his father is African-American, then Sen. Obama must be African-American also.

HolmeZz
02-26-2008, 03:48 PM
Go die.

Cochise
02-26-2008, 03:49 PM
Again, to let it sink in: Mr. Obama is not legally African-American.


Why is there a legal convention to determine what race you are, anyway?

Bowser
02-26-2008, 03:49 PM
My give-a-shit appears to be malfunctioning.

BucEyedPea
02-26-2008, 03:51 PM
Aren't Arabs descendents of Shem, therefore he's also semitic?

Ultra Peanut
02-26-2008, 03:53 PM
Oh. My. God.

HolmeZz
02-26-2008, 03:54 PM
Why is there a legal convention to determine what race you are, anyway?

It's silly. There are whites who dislike him because he's too black and blacks that dislike him because he's too white. Race is ultimately perception. It's really not a science.

Ultra Peanut
02-26-2008, 03:54 PM
Aren't Arabs descendents of Shem, therefore he's also semitic?OBAMA DID 9/11

memyselfI
02-26-2008, 04:00 PM
Why is there a legal convention to determine what race you are, anyway?

I don't think it would matter if it were not being considered a selling point for a particular nominee. Again, if I supported him it wouldn't matter to me if he were martian as long as he was honest about it.

Also, according to Islam Obama is Muslim because his father was. This will work to his favor in the Muslim world and will be beneficial in helping with US relations. Conversely, it might not because he's converted to Christianity. But again, it's one of those things that will come out later and it's better for the American public to know it ahead of time. Obama doesn't consider himself Muslim but Islam considers him to be.

BucEyedPea
02-26-2008, 04:03 PM
Oh. My. God.

OBAMA DID 9/11


:LOL:

I laughed but I may not have gotten you either. Just in case, you didn't get me, I was simply making a case for him being Jewish too.

memyselfI
02-26-2008, 04:07 PM
Why is there a legal convention to determine what race you are, anyway?

And further, on contemplating this, if you have used this 'legal convention' to obtain certain advantages over others wouldn't you say it that it is valuable to have one?

Conversely, if you have lost out on opportunities to people who have used 'legal convention' to obtain advantages wouldn't you disagree with it's necessity?

Sully
02-26-2008, 04:43 PM
Is this the kind of discussion that makes you feel compelled to play the race card, Sully?

I never said I was compelled (or as you previously said... forced) to. Again... you completely misread what I typed.
Like I said before, that's okay.

Cave Johnson
02-26-2008, 04:46 PM
You're like a push-poll. Go to hell.

Cochise
02-26-2008, 04:54 PM
And further, on contemplating this, if you have used this 'legal convention' to obtain certain advantages over others wouldn't you say it that it is valuable to have one?

Conversely, if you have lost out on opportunities to people who have used 'legal convention' to obtain advantages wouldn't you disagree with it's necessity?

How about we just not try to have the government cumbersomely define race and also not cumbersomely attempt to give some races advantages over others?

Pitt Gorilla
02-26-2008, 04:55 PM
I can't see how it would possibly matter.

patteeu
02-26-2008, 04:55 PM
I never said I was compelled (or as you previously said... forced) to. Again... you completely misread what I typed.
Like I said before, that's okay.

When you objected to this fairly non-controversial observation, I naturally assumed that you disagreed with it:

No one is forced to play the race card in marginal/questionable cases. In obvious cases, no one needs to play it.

If all you were saying is that sometimes people choose to play the race card and then get criticized for it, I guess that's not very controversial either. But people who play the race card need to own their own actions rather than blame them on others. Hopefully we're in agreement on this too.

memyselfI
02-26-2008, 04:56 PM
Ok, if this is true and we don't know that it is at this point then I agree this is uncomfortable discussion and probably one that most people would rather not have. The question is, is it a relevent discussion to have? Just because something is not comfortable to discuss does not mean it doesn't matter. Usually , it's quite the contrary.

Do you not agree that it's better to know if this is true sooner rather than later. If true, and if it doesn't surface in a widespread fashion during the General then I think it becomes a bigger problem if he's elected. He could lose alot of credibility and trust from the American people if this becomes common knowledge AFTER he's already in office. I actually think this could put him in increased danger from people who are already convinced he's a sympathizer and are making fodder with his name. Witness the RWNJ who introduced John McCain today.

If people feel he lied about his very being then they will begin to wonder what else he's lying about...

not a great way to start a presidency.

Sully
02-26-2008, 05:01 PM
When you objected to this fairly non-controversial observation, I naturally assumed that you disagreed with it:



If all you were saying is that sometimes people choose to play the race card and then get criticized for it, I guess that's not very controversial either. But people who play the race card need to own their own actions rather than blame them on others. Hopefully we're in agreement on this too.

I didn't object to your assertion. I objected to it as you had put it, as me saying anyone was "forced" to do anything. You continue to try and throw little words into my arguments that don't belong there, hoping I won't notice. No wonder you have had so much trouble lately "understanding" my posts. It's a matter of reading what you want to reading etting mixed in with what's actually on the page.

patteeu
02-26-2008, 05:03 PM
I don't care what he calls himself. My opposition to him won't be affected by this one way or the other. It's kind of funny watching it happen in the race-conscious party though.

patteeu
02-26-2008, 05:17 PM
I didn't object to your assertion. I objected to it as you had put it, as me saying anyone was "forced" to do anything. You continue to try and throw little words into my arguments that don't belong there, hoping I won't notice. No wonder you have had so much trouble lately "understanding" my posts. It's a matter of reading what you want to reading etting mixed in with what's actually on the page.

If your original objection was to my use of the word "forced", maybe you should have included that in your response after I encouraged you to clarify.

Instead, after starting off by putting the full blame on me for the miscommunication (accusing me of "twisting" your words rather than considering the possibility that your words were less than crystal clear), you "clarified" by repeating your justification for why people play the race card. Nowhere in that clarification was there anything to disabuse me of the notion that you were making excuses for people who are quick to resort to that sort of thing. Sorry buddy, but communication requires the effort of two people and, in this case at least, you're a little too quick to drop the entire blame for a miscommunication on your defacto partner, IMO.

Sully
02-26-2008, 05:22 PM
If your original objection was to my use of the word "forced", maybe you should have included that in your response after I encouraged you to clarify.

Instead, after starting off by putting the full blame on me for the miscommunication (accusing me of "twisting" your words rather than considering the possibility that your words were less than crystal clear), you "clarified" by repeating your justification for why people play the race card. Nowhere in that clarification was there anything to disabuse me of the notion that you were making excuses for people who are quick to resort to that sort of thing. Sorry buddy, but communication requires the effort of two people and, in this case at least, you're a little too quick to drop the entire blame for a miscommunication on your defacto partner, IMO.

Ah.
My bad that you wanted to add words to my posts that weren't there... and that entirely changed the meaning.
You should feel vindicated for making shit up out of thin air to suit your prejudices...

Oddly, no one else seemed to have problems understanding what I posted. (or at the very least, no one tried to add words to change their meaning... buddy)

BucEyedPea
02-26-2008, 05:22 PM
I don't care what he calls himself. My opposition to him won't be affected by this one way or the other. It's kind of funny watching it happen in the race-conscious party though.

I coulda sworn you said paleo-cons were racist. :spock:
And seemed to relish the allegedly racist newsletters of Paul.

BucEyedPea
02-26-2008, 05:24 PM
Witness the RWNJ who introduced John McCain today.
Was that the Ohio preacher? If so I just saw that on tv. I think that's gonna backfire with everyone outside the hard-core 30% who are dyed-in-the-wool Bushies.

memyselfI
02-26-2008, 05:25 PM
I don't care what he calls himself. My opposition to him won't be affected by this one way or the other. It's kind of funny watching it happen in the race-conscious party though.

My opposition to him isn't impacted one way or another either.

But I would be even more suspicious of someone who has routinely lied about their ethnicity whether it was to gain advantage to enter a college or win the electoral college.

memyselfI
02-26-2008, 05:28 PM
Was that the Ohio preacher? If so I just saw that on tv. I think that's gonna backfire with everyone outside the hard-core 30% who are dyed-in-the-wool Bushies.

Yes, he was playing up the Hussein part of Obama's name. If someone can get a copy of the Kenyan document that lists BHO's dad as Arab-African then I'm sure it will end up on Drudge or one of the RW sites.

pikesome
02-26-2008, 05:35 PM
I can't see how it would possibly matter.

I feel the same.

There are other, perfectly good, reasons to dislike Obama, if one wants.

htismaqe
02-26-2008, 05:37 PM
Go die.

Such intolerance. I don't think Obama would approve.

Ultra Peanut
02-26-2008, 05:38 PM
:LOL:

I laughed but I may not have gotten you either. Just in case, you didn't get me, I was simply making a case for him being Jewish too.

Jews did 9/11:11\6, I hold IRREFUTABLE PROOF.

Linear time is LIE. Cubic time is TRUTH, you are EDUCATED STUPID, SEE BEYOND.

_ _ _
_| |__| |__| |__...LIE!

THE TRUTH IS CUBIC TIME:
_____
sunup | | midday
| |
midnight |_____| sundown

I HAVE IRREFUTABLE PROOF. FOUR SIMULTANOUS DAYS IN ONE ROTATION OF EARTH, EACH QUADRANT OF EARTH.

Man is personified pyramid, 1 corner of time cube, 1 24 hr day. 1/4th of a person. pyramid * 6 equals star of david = the BALANCE = 11:11 = equilibrium in timeSpace. Four 24 hr days, simultaneously, equals 11:11 - 11:11 = natural balance. 6/11 = 11\9 = 9/11:11\6 = cubeless jews did wtc.

24 6 24
,_______,
|11 11|
time^cube
6 | (o) | 6
| / \ |
9/11:11\6
/_______\
24 man is 24
personified
pyramid

Man is but extension of the 9/11:11\6, four corners, four simultaneous 24 hour days. Cubeless god, jewish god, jews did 9/11:11\6. I have IRREFUTABLE PROOF. Ignorant dumb asses laugh at me, they do not know. 9/11 tragedy was caused by JEWISH LIE and CONSPIRACY. ZOG means students are EDUCATED STUPID with CUBELESS LINEAR TIME LIE. I have uncovered the truth, the spirit guardians have alerted. 11:11. I DEMONSTRATE IRREFUTABLE PROOF.

* New York City has 11 letters.
* Ramsin Yuseb (The terrorist who threatened the Twin Towers in 1993) has 11 letters.
* 'George W. Bush' has 11 letters
* New York is the State # 11
* The first plane crushing against the Twin Towers was flight #11
* Flight # 11 was carrying 92 passengers Adding this number gives us: 9+2=11
* Flight # 77 who also hit the towers, was carrying 65 passengers Adding this: 6+5=11
* The tragedy was on September 11, or 9/11. Adding this: 9+1+1=11
* The date is equal to the emergency number 911. Adding this: 9+1+1=11
* The total number of victims inside the planes were 254: 2+5+4=11
* September 11 is day number 254 of the calendar year: 2+5+4=11
* After September 11, there were 111 days more to the end of the year.
* The tragedy of 3/11/2004 in Madrid also adds up to: 3+1+1+2+4=11
* The tragedy in Madrid happened 911 days after the tragedy of the Twin Towers.

NATURAL

DIVINE

CUBIC

BALANCE

_______
11:11 | | 11:11
| |
11:11 | | 11:11
|_______|

911 is also 191 - 9=endings. 11 is balance which takes us to 11:11. 9/11:11\6 = STAR OF DAVID = CUBELESS IDIOT JEWISH GOD DID WTC. JEWS DID WTC; I PRESENT IRREFUTABLE PROOF. THINK.

memyselfI
02-26-2008, 05:41 PM
I can't see how it would possibly matter.

You think Americans are far enough removed from 9/11 to elect an Arab-American as POTUS? Seriously?

I applaud you for your optimism.

pikesome
02-26-2008, 05:47 PM
You think Americans are far enough removed from 9/11 to elect an Arab-American as POTUS? Seriously?

I applaud you for your optimism.

I'd elect Osama over Hillary. Well, maybe not but I'd think hard about it.

jAZ
02-26-2008, 05:59 PM
Have you been listening to Michael Savage lately?

I stumbled on his show today as he was making the link between Obama, a law firm who had people giving donations to him, a mulsim-american association who used that law firm and the mulsim shell organizations that were used to fund terrorism.

He was also repeating the Barack Hussein Obama mantra over and over.

It's interesting timing, no doubt.

Coach
02-26-2008, 06:12 PM
You think Americans are far enough removed from 9/11 to elect an Arab-American as POTUS? Seriously?

I applaud you for your optimism.

Honestly, I actually don't give a shit what color the President is.

memyselfI
02-26-2008, 06:31 PM
Honestly, I actually don't give a shit what color the President is.

Ok, but do you give a shit if your candidate has lied big whoppers about their life in order to make himself more electable?

memyselfI
02-26-2008, 06:32 PM
Have you been listening to Michael Savage lately?

I stumbled on his show today as he was making the link between Obama, a law firm who had people giving donations to him, a mulsim-american association who used that law firm and the mulsim shell organizations that were used to fund terrorism.

He was also repeating the Barack Hussein Obama mantra over and over.

It's interesting timing, no doubt.

No, I found this most explosive of angles on Oprah.com. Her board actually has some of the most critical and openly anti-Obama threads I've seen anywhere. I was truly astounded.

Coach
02-26-2008, 06:35 PM
Ok, but do you give a shit if your candidate has lied big whoppers about their life in order to make himself more electable?

I don't recall him ever saying that he is "African-American." If he did, I'd like to see some evidence.

That being said, it's no different than when Mrs. Clinton was photographed in a Sari with proper head-covering while on a visit to Pakistan as First Lady. Later on in the same visit, she and her daughter were honored by receiving the little henna dots (I forget what they're called) on their foreheads while visiting India. Don't recall anyone accusing her of becoming a Hindu.

Mr. Kotter
02-26-2008, 06:39 PM
Unfortunately, it will be an issue in the general election....the Republicans will, if not actively then passively, cultivate this conversation the same way Nixon quietly courted Southern Dems and Wallace supporters, in the post Civil Rights years. It's the subtle, and ugly, side of politics.

But it can be effective....unless the nation is REALLY ready for "change." I hope Obama's success is a sign that, indeed, we are finally ready. Even if McCain wins the general election, how he wins will be important--as long as he discourages this line of attack and denounces it, it will be hard to play the race card. Guess we'll see if we are ready, or whether its just the drumbeat of the MSM that makes it seem like we are ready.

:hmmm:

Taco John
02-26-2008, 06:40 PM
Wow... The Hillary Clinton camp is getting more racist by the day.

Coach
02-26-2008, 06:42 PM
Wow... The Hillary Clinton camp is getting more racist by the day.

That and more desperate.

memyselfI
02-26-2008, 07:10 PM
I don't recall him ever saying that he is "African-American." If he did, I'd like to see some evidence.

That being said, it's no different than when Mrs. Clinton was photographed in a Sari with proper head-covering while on a visit to Pakistan as First Lady. Later on in the same visit, she and her daughter were honored by receiving the little henna dots (I forget what they're called) on their foreheads while visiting India. Don't recall anyone accusing her of becoming a Hindu.

I'm not sure he's ever stated outright that he's African-American but if he hasn't and he's not then he's sure allowing alot of people to say it on his behalf and not correcting the record if it's not true...:spock:

The photograph isn't in question. He was wearing native garb when he visited a foreign country. Nor is that photograph proof of anything other than he tried on a costume.

What the writer is accusing BO of is lying out his ethnicity in order to gain an advantage in entering college first and then to cultivate and create a personal story that was untrue in order to win an election as the first Black president when he would in fact be the first Arab-American president.

memyselfI
02-26-2008, 07:12 PM
Wow... The Hillary Clinton camp is getting more racist by the day.

How is the Hillary camp behind this one? ROFL

HolmeZz
02-26-2008, 07:15 PM
Wow... The Hillary Clinton camp is getting more racist by the day.

It's really amazing.

keg in kc
02-26-2008, 07:15 PM
good god.

memyselfI
02-26-2008, 07:20 PM
Unfortunately, it will be an issue in the general election....the Republicans will, if not actively then passively, cultivate this conversation the same way Nixon quietly courted Southern Dems and Wallace supporters, in the post Civil Rights years. It's the subtle, and ugly, side of politics.

But it can be effective....unless the nation is REALLY ready for "change." I hope Obama's success is a sign that, indeed, we are finally ready. Even if McCain wins the general election, how he wins will be important--as long as he discourages this line of attack and denounces it, it will be hard to play the race card. Guess we'll see if we are ready, or whether its just the drumbeat of the MSM that makes it seem like we are ready.

:hmmm:

It will be an issue because Obama wants the historical accolades of being the first Black president but doesn't want race to be an issue...

Pointing out the wanting the 'cake and eating it too' attitude of Obama and his campaign is not racist nor is it unseemly. If Hillary's being a woman was a big part of her sell then I'd expect the same would be done for her. Same with Richardson and being Hispanic except that he actively went out of his way to stress his Hispanic heritage and was NOT full of righteous indignation when it was brought up.

HolmeZz
02-26-2008, 07:27 PM
It will be an issue because Obama wants the historical accolades of being the first Black president but doesn't want race to be an issue...

1) Obama is black.

2) Please quote where he's talked about wanting the 'accolades' of being the first black President.

a1na2
02-26-2008, 07:30 PM
It will be an issue because Obama wants the historical accolades of being the first Black president but doesn't want race to be an issue...

Pointing out the wanting the 'cake and eating it too' attitude of Obama and his campaign is not racist nor is it unseemly. If Hillary's being a woman was a big part of her sell then I'd expect the same would be done for her. Same with Richardson and being Hispanic except that he actively went out of his way to stress his Hispanic heritage and was NOT full of righteous indignation when it was brought up.

As you pointed out he is not black so regardless of what is said he will not be the first black president.

Coach
02-26-2008, 07:30 PM
I'm not sure he's ever stated outright that he's African-American but if he hasn't and he's not then he's sure allowing alot of people to say it on his behalf and not correcting the record if it's not true...:spock:

The photograph isn't in question. He was wearing native garb when he visited a foreign country. Nor is that photograph proof of anything other than he tried on a costume.

What the writer is accusing BO of is lying out his ethnicity in order to gain an advantage in entering college first and then to cultivate and create a personal story that was untrue in order to win an election as the first Black president when he would in fact be the first Arab-American president.

As long as he has never stated outright that he's African-American, this whole deal is irrevelent.

Unless somebody has hard evidence that Obama is lying out his ethnicity to gain an advantage, it has no merit.

What somebody should be writing about is how poorly managed the Clinton camp is being managed. Alot of grumblings and finger-pointing going on, per many media outlets.

So you have to ask yourself this question. If she can't run an effective campaign, then how could she be ready to run the White House from day one?

Ultra Peanut
02-26-2008, 07:35 PM
Wow... The Hillary Clinton camp is getting more racist by the day.Shut up. The black states don't matter.

memyselfI
02-26-2008, 07:42 PM
As long as he has never stated outright that he's African-American, this whole deal is irrevelent.

Unless somebody has hard evidence that Obama is lying out his ethnicity to gain an advantage, it has no merit.



If he is known as the first black president of the Harvard Law Review wouldn't that require him to actually be black?

http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9C0CE2DC1631F935A35751C0A966958260&n=Top%2FReference%2FTimes%20Topics%2FPeople%2FO%2FObama%2C%20Barack

As far as evidence goes, isn't that how journalism works? Someone comes up with an angle, the story is written and then is pitched. If published it then it gets investigated by many people besides the original writer as others pick up the story and dig deeper. This story has been out less than two weeks so we'll see if it has legs or not. It should be rather easy to disprove if it's a vicious lie. And the fact that Oprah hasn't removed it from her forum really makes me wonder.

Logical
02-26-2008, 07:43 PM
This is just silly slander that the opposition hopes will turn some voters against Obama.

a1na2
02-26-2008, 07:45 PM
This is just silly slander that the opposition hopes will turn some voters against Obama.

Now there is one pot calling the kettle black.

Ultra Peanut
02-26-2008, 07:47 PM
Quick, let's stick a pencil in his hair to see if he's black or not!

Logical
02-26-2008, 07:47 PM
1) Obama is black.

2) Please quote where he's talked about wanting the 'accolades' of being the first black President.

Naaahhhh, Obama just spends a ton of time in tanning spas.:spock:

HolmeZz
02-26-2008, 07:49 PM
If he is known as the first black president of the Harvard Law Review wouldn't that require him to actually be black?

I know you still haven't grasped it, but there's a difference between being African-American and being black. African-American is generally referred to people here who are the direct descendants of slaves. It is not a race. Black is the 'race'.

NewChief
02-26-2008, 07:49 PM
Wow. This criticism has been out there since day one. About two years ago, salon.com wrote some article talking about how Obama isn't truly african american and how he has more in common with 2nd generation immigrants than with the AA community in America.

Logical
02-26-2008, 07:49 PM
Now there is one pot calling the kettle black.
Really? Where can you find me slandering Clinton?

NewChief
02-26-2008, 07:51 PM
FWIW Dick Cheney was actually the first African American VP.

a1na2
02-26-2008, 08:07 PM
Really? Where can you find me slandering?

Just pick a place.

You tend to jump to conclusions more than the normal person. But then you have always read the written word with an amazing ability to twist away from the main point of the thread.

Logical
02-26-2008, 08:10 PM
Just pick a place.

You tend to jump to conclusions more than the normal person. But then you have always read the written word with an amazing ability to twist away from the main point of the thread.
You do know how to quote a post so you can demonstrate your point's validity, don't ya?

a1na2
02-26-2008, 08:14 PM
You do know how to quote a post so you can demonstrate your point's validity, don't ya?

Jim, I'm not going to argue with you. It's a monumental waste of time and you end up losing control of your emotions.

You know you have slandered many here in the past, why try to play innocent?

memyselfI
02-27-2008, 06:37 AM
I know you still haven't grasped it, but there's a difference between being African-American and being black. African-American is generally referred to people here who are the direct descendants of slaves. It is not a race. Black is the 'race'.

I understand the difference. According to this article, Obama can't legally claim he's either.

Hog Farmer
02-27-2008, 07:45 AM
You Idiots can stick your head in the sand if you want. That MF is of ARAB descent and will take us down if you idiots get him elected. Once again, AL Qaeda said they will take down America from the inside. When in the ****in history of the United States has a Arab wanted to be our ****ing president. Jesus Christ, how much more plain can this be. God Damn people are ****ing stupid!!!!!!!!

patteeu
02-27-2008, 07:50 AM
Ah.
My bad that you wanted to add words to my posts that weren't there... and that entirely changed the meaning.
You should feel vindicated for making shit up out of thin air to suit your prejudices...

Oddly, no one else seemed to have problems understanding what I posted. (or at the very least, no one tried to add words to change their meaning... buddy)

If the give and take of two-way conversation is too much for you, I suggest blogging or talking to yourself in the mirror.

I'm not sure why you take for granted that anyone understood what you posted, but I guess that's not important to your effort to avoid taking any responsibility. Perhaps if your skin was a little thicker and/or if you were a little more articulate, we wouldn't have had this problem. But that's OK. :thumb:

patteeu
02-27-2008, 07:50 AM
I coulda sworn you said paleo-cons were racist. :spock:
And seemed to relish the allegedly racist newsletters of Paul.

Obviously, some of them are, but what does that have to do with anything?

patteeu
02-27-2008, 07:54 AM
No, I found this most explosive of angles on Oprah.com. Her board actually has some of the most critical and openly anti-Obama threads I've seen anywhere. I was truly astounded.

Wow. If so, Oprah Inc. deserves credit for not over moderating.

patteeu
02-27-2008, 07:58 AM
You Idiots can stick your head in the sand if you want. That MF is of ARAB descent and will take us down if you idiots get him elected. Once again, AL Qaeda said they will take down America from the inside. When in the ****in history of the United States has a Arab wanted to be our ****ing president. Jesus Christ, how much more plain can this be. God Damn people are ****ing stupid!!!!!!!!

:LOL:

Sully
02-27-2008, 09:39 AM
If the give and take of two-way conversation is too much for you, I suggest blogging or talking to yourself in the mirror.

I'm not sure why you take for granted that anyone understood what you posted, but I guess that's not important to your effort to avoid taking any responsibility. Perhaps if your skin was a little thicker and/or if you were a little more articulate, we wouldn't have had this problem. But that's OK. :thumb:

I explained it to you...twice.
At some point, you need to take some personal responsibility and understand that either
A) Your demogoguing of anyone to the left of you may cloud your judgement of what they are actually saying (this isn't the first time you've tried to add words to what I've said to change the meaning of a post, not to mention anyone else you've tried this trick with),
or
B) You simply aren't trying hard enough to understand.

It's not as though you asked me to reword it in good faith. You purposely reworded it with language ("whining," "forcing") to try and make it look like what I was saying was as bad as you could make it look. Your game doesn't change much from day to day. It's not that my skin isn't thick. it's plenty thick. It's just that I don't want to play round and round word games with you like BEP or others may be willing to do. That's why I simply walked away from it, rather than try to appease your need for that type of game. In the long run, it's you who keeps bringing it back up. So tell me, do you need thicker skin?

Bottom line: It's my belief that you truly don't want to understand what I said. It's much more "fun" for you to play around with folks and try to twist them around words, typically, than to actually discuss things. I get that this is the way you play here. I understand it. It's okay for you to do that to your heart's content. I just am not interested in taking part in it.

NewChief
02-27-2008, 09:49 AM
I explained it to you...twice.
At some point, you need to take some personal responsibility and understand that either
A) Your demogoguing of anyone to the left of you may cloud your judgement of what they are actually saying (this isn't the first time you've tried to add words to what I've said to change the meaning of a post, not to mention anyone else you've tried this trick with),
or
B) You simply aren't trying hard enough to understand.

It's not as though you asked me to reword it in good faith. You purposely reworded it with language ("whining," "forcing") to try and make it look like what I was saying was as bad as you could make it look. Your game doesn't change much from day to day. It's not that my skin isn't thick. it's plenty thick. It's just that I don't want to play round and round word games with you like BEP or others may be willing to do. That's why I simply walked away from it, rather than try to appease your need for that type of game. In the long run, it's you who keeps bringing it back up. So tell me, do you need thicker skin?

Bottom line: It's my belief that you truly don't want to understand what I said. It's much more "fun" for you to play around with folks and try to twist them around words, typically, than to actually discuss things. I get that this is the way you play here. I understand it. It's okay for you to do that to your heart's content. I just am not interested in taking part in it.


Two words come to mind: obfuscation and obtuseness.

Patt's also an oblong obstetrician, but we won't go into that.

Fat Elvis
02-27-2008, 09:51 AM
I don't see what the big deal is...meme's candidate claims to be a woman.....

Adept Havelock
02-27-2008, 10:16 AM
God Damn people are ****ing stupid!!!!!!!!

I realize that truth every time I read one of your posts. ;)

I don't see what the big deal is...meme's candidate claims to be a woman.....

LMAO

Hell, so does meme. :shrug:

HolmeZz
02-27-2008, 10:37 AM
I understand the difference. According to this article, Obama can't legally claim he's either.

Yes he can.

1) He's an American of African descent.

2) His father was black as night.

http://www.kansasprairie.net/kansasprairieblog/wp-content/uploads/2007/12/copy-of-28585925.jpg

NewChief
02-27-2008, 11:03 AM
Yes he can.

1) He's an American of African descent.

2) His father was black as night.

http://www.kansasprairie.net/kansasprairieblog/wp-content/uploads/2007/12/copy-of-28585925.jpg

Isn't his father supposed to have horns and a tail?

RedDread
02-27-2008, 11:25 AM
I don't see what the big deal is...meme's candidate claims to be a woman.....

http://img412.imageshack.us/img412/8189/1153712898414wl0.jpg

'Hamas' Jenkins
02-27-2008, 11:30 AM
What the f*ck is the matter with you?

Bowser
02-27-2008, 11:36 AM
What the f*ck is the matter with you?

You're going to have to be more specific. There are a lot of candidates around here that question can be aimed at.

Taco John
02-27-2008, 12:01 PM
You Idiots can stick your head in the sand if you want. That MF is of ARAB descent and will take us down if you idiots get him elected. Once again, AL Qaeda said they will take down America from the inside. When in the ****in history of the United States has a Arab wanted to be our ****ing president. Jesus Christ, how much more plain can this be. God Damn people are ****ing stupid!!!!!!!!


You prove this just about beyond a shadow of a doubt every time that you post.

Adept Havelock
02-27-2008, 12:10 PM
What the f*ck is the matter with you?

All right, I confess. I haven't cut your hair ... I hate cutting hair. I have this terrible un-un-uncontrollable fear whenever I see hair. When I was a kid I used to hate the sight of hair being cut. My mother said I was a fool! She said the only cure for it was to become a barber. So I spent FIVE GHASTLY YEARS at the Hairdressers' Training Centre at Totnes!

Can you imagine what it's like... cutting the SAME HEAD for five years?










I didn't want to be a barber anyway. I wanted to be... a lumberjack!

memyselfI
02-27-2008, 12:11 PM
You Idiots can stick your head in the sand if you want. That MF is of ARAB descent and will take us down if you idiots get him elected. Once again, AL Qaeda said they will take down America from the inside. When in the ****in history of the United States has a Arab wanted to be our ****ing president. Jesus Christ, how much more plain can this be. God Damn people are ****ing stupid!!!!!!!!

Look, there is nothing wrong with BO or any other politician being Arab-American and if they are it does not mean they are in bed with AQ. I do not want Obama's genealogy to be examined because he should be excluded if he's more Arab than African-American. His actual ethnic make up is of little concern to me.

Where it does matter is the issue of integrity and trust and if he's been honest with the American people about who he is. I have read his autobiography contains 'composite characters' of which he does disclose in the intro. The question is IS HE ONE OF THEM????

If he's being dishonest or even disingenuous with this ethnic makeup because he feels he can win as a Black man but not as an Arab then I think the American people have a right to know. Not to keep from voting for him as an Arab but to keep from voting for him as a liar.

Adept Havelock
02-27-2008, 12:14 PM
Yes he can.

1) He's an American of African descent.

2) His father was black as night.

http://www.kansasprairie.net/kansasprairieblog/wp-content/uploads/2007/12/copy-of-28585925.jpg

OMG!!! Even as a kid he's trying to figure out how to circumvent Airport Security! Quick, alert DHS!

RedDread
02-27-2008, 12:27 PM
Look, there is nothing wrong with BO or any other politician being Arab-American and if they are it does not mean they are in bed with AQ. I do not want Obama's genealogy to be examined because he should be excluded if he's more Arab than African-American. His actual ethnic make up is of little concern to me.

Where it does matter is the issue of integrity and trust and if he's been honest with the American people about who he is. I have read his autobiography contains 'composite characters' of which he does disclose in the intro. The question is IS HE ONE OF THEM????

If he's being dishonest or even disingenuous with this ethnic makeup because he feels he can win as a Black man but not as an Arab then I think the American people have a right to know. Not to keep from voting for him as an Arab but to keep from voting for him as a liar.

I'm not sayin'...I'm just sayin'....

memyselfI
02-27-2008, 12:46 PM
I'm not sayin'...I'm just sayin'....

Given my and my family's ethnic makeup, I am the last person who would deny Obama a chance at the presidency as I would welcome a person of color to be the first POTUS. I'm just not sold on this particular person. Far from it. Again, my concern is if he's lying about it and if he's lying about that then what else has he lied about?

HolmeZz
02-27-2008, 12:48 PM
Given my and my family's ethnic makeup

Yes, you don't have to be white to be racist. There are plenty in the hispanic community who harbor hatred for blacks, and vice versa.

memyselfI
02-27-2008, 01:03 PM
Yes, you don't have to be white to be racist. There are plenty in the hispanic community who harbor hatred for blacks, and vice versa.

I'm not one of them. I'm fully prepared to elect a suitable and qualified Black, Asian, Arab, Hispanic, etc. POTUS. Obama is not the person I believe is qualified or suitable to be the first especially given the challenges this country is going to face over the term of the next president.

Mr. Laz
02-27-2008, 01:06 PM
seriously ...... what is your problem?


if you don't think Obama is a good candidate then say specifically why



all this other crap is lame BS.

NewChief
02-27-2008, 01:12 PM
seriously ...... what is your problem?


if you don't think Obama is a good canidate then say specifically why



all this other crap is lame BS.

She's explained herself quite extensively, though I can give you a the reader's digest version:

He rubs her cooch the wrong way.

Mr. Laz
02-27-2008, 01:18 PM
She's explained herself quite extensively, though I can give you a the reader's digest version:

He rubs her cooch the wrong way.

hehe ... Hillary rubs my penis the wrong way too, but you don't see me pulling a bunch of desperation BS threads out of my ass about her.

let's try to be a grownup about things :shake:


NONE of us know how these candidates will react once they get into office. A big part of it will be determined by what people they surround themselves with.

so (DenIse) stop holding your breath and stomping your feet and deal with it.

memyselfI
02-27-2008, 01:28 PM
seriously ...... what is your problem?


if you don't think Obama is a good candidate then say specifically why



all this other crap is lame BS.

He's light on experience, foreign policy specifically, at a time when we will need someone studied in foreign policy. He's in charge of one of the most important subcommittees in congress and he has been too busy campaigning for HIMSELF to hold a meeting with that committee. (He should have been nailed on this last evening...)

He's blows with the wind saying what people want to hear. Last night he wouldn't reject Farrakahn's endorsement until Hillary pressed him to do so. He knows denouncing someone's actions and rejecting their support ARE two different things. If he doesn't have enough integrity to politically reject that sort of known commodity then I don't trust his judgment. But then his circle includes other out of the mainstream people that most Americans would disavow but most Americans don't know much about.

I believe he's a demagogue. His borrowing other people's words without attribution was just one example of his lofty rhetoric having little actual meaning to what he is about or what he actually will do.

HolmeZz
02-27-2008, 02:13 PM
He's light on experience, foreign policy specifically, at a time when we will need someone studied in foreign policy.

So then why did you support John Edwards?

NewChief
02-27-2008, 02:14 PM
So then why did you support John Edwards?


Edwards rubbed her cooch the right way. ;)

keg in kc
02-27-2008, 02:18 PM
seriously ...... what is your problem?


if you don't think Obama is a good candidate then say specifically why



all this other crap is lame BS.It's pretty simple. It's because she craves attention and confrontation. She always has to be on "the other side", regardless of the topic.

memyselfI
02-27-2008, 02:20 PM
So then why did you support John Edwards?

Domestic policy. He lacked sufficient foreign policy credentials as well.

HolmeZz
02-27-2008, 02:23 PM
Domestic policy.

And he differs with Obama where?

He lacked sufficient foreign policy credentials as well.

So you can't support Obama due to lack of foreign policy experience, something that you say is very much needed, but you were able to ignore it with Edwards.

And I'll ignore the fact that 'foreign policy experience' was what got us into Iraq.

memyselfI
02-27-2008, 02:31 PM
It's pretty simple. It's because she craves attention and confrontation. She always has to be on "the other side", regardless of the topic.

If only it were that easy. I have been unwilling to throw my support fully behind Obama since last year as Holmez showed with a previous post. I said my support would go to him by default.

As I explained previously, I started paying attention to him over the past year and did not like what I saw. MOF, the more I see the less I like. Last year it was just a matter of not being really impressed with the guy hence the default sentiment. Then I became suspicious of him because of his willingness to be all things to all people...Now, I just think he's phony and will be exposed as a fraud.

I think the best I can hope for is he will choose his political legacy of his politics and do nothing to upset anyone. My belief is he will move to the right because if he governs as is his previous political beliefs (those that have been modified since he started running for POTUS, conveniently) then we are in for a major leftist presidency. Which would be a welcome scenario if he moves to the right to get elected only to move back to the left once in office. But then he's the fraud I feared only he's a friendly to my beliefs fraud...which, believe it or not, doesn't necessarily make me happy.

After 8 years of DUHbya I was looking forward to a Democrat in the WH and now I'm not. IMO, are selling out what is best for the country in order to win. And only time will tell if my intuition on this is correct but I feel we will regret electing him as our nominee and likely our POTUS.

patteeu
02-27-2008, 02:33 PM
I explained it to you...twice.
At some point, you need to take some personal responsibility and understand that either
A) Your demogoguing of anyone to the left of you may cloud your judgement of what they are actually saying (this isn't the first time you've tried to add words to what I've said to change the meaning of a post, not to mention anyone else you've tried this trick with),
or
B) You simply aren't trying hard enough to understand.

It's not as though you asked me to reword it in good faith. You purposely reworded it with language ("whining," "forcing") to try and make it look like what I was saying was as bad as you could make it look.

My "rewording" was an accurate reflection of what I interpreted your original post to mean. Your less than friendly response and subsequent clarification reinforced my belief. Sometimes people don't like it when others cut through their spin. It's been my experience that you are one of these people. That's thin skin, whether you recognize it or not. And you're wrong when you jump to the conclusion that I wasn't acting in good faith. I was skeptical, and still am, about how far off the mark I'd been, but I was open to hearing your explanation and revising my comments if necessary.

Speaking of good faith, your very first response to me made it clear that you were running short in that department. My request for clarification was civil and it gave you a second chance to get back on track and explain to me how I'd misconstrued your original statement. You chose not to do so. That's on you, not me.

Your game doesn't change much from day to day. It's not that my skin isn't thick. it's plenty thick. It's just that I don't want to play round and round word games with you like BEP or others may be willing to do. That's why I simply walked away from it, rather than try to appease your need for that type of game. In the long run, it's you who keeps bringing it back up. So tell me, do you need thicker skin?

Bottom line: It's my belief that you truly don't want to understand what I said. It's much more "fun" for you to play around with folks and try to twist them around words, typically, than to actually discuss things. I get that this is the way you play here. I understand it. It's okay for you to do that to your heart's content. I just am not interested in taking part in it.

But of course, you didn't just simply walk away. You could have, but you didn't. Instead, you accused me of "twisting words" without explanation, going on to end that first response with a little extra sarcasm ("Good job."). Then after I asked for clarification, in your next post you tell me to "let [you] know if [you] need to draw [me] a picture" and finish it with some off-the-wall comment about logging in under another name (suggesting that you mistakenly think I post under alt usernames). I'm sorry, but that's not the behavior of someone "who isn't interested in taking part in it."

I'm sure it'd be more fun for you if you could come around and criticize others without having to deal with anyone questioning your comments, but you're right if you understand that that's not the way I play.

Cochise
02-27-2008, 02:33 PM
So then why did you support John Edwards?

because, when he and John Kerry are president, people in wheelchairs will get up and walk.

HolmeZz
02-27-2008, 02:38 PM
It's pretty simple. It's because she craves attention and confrontation. She always has to be on "the other side", regardless of the topic.

She's the ultimate contrarian. She said she'd support Obama back when he wasn't popular, then she moved to Edwards, and now she's backing Hillary now that she's finished.

I think she believes the general public is inherently stupid and that whoever is popular at the time must be terrible.

She wasn't saying anything like this about Obama before he started winning.

memyselfI
02-27-2008, 02:44 PM
She's the ultimate contrarian. She said she'd support Obama back when he wasn't popular, then she moved to Edwards, and now she's backing Hillary now that she's finished.

I think she believes the general public is inherently stupid and that whoever is popular at the time must be terrible.

She wasn't saying anything like this about Obama before he started winning.

I said he gets my vote by default. Hillary is the lesser of the two evils between her and Obama, IMO. Hillary was not my first, second, or even third choice.

And Obama wasn't even popular until Oprah got on board. For God's sake last year at this time he was polling 25-30% with the black vote. The media have helped create this phenomenon and they will help destroy it when they decide the time is right.

Truth be told, Obama was not even in the top tier of the candidates I would have supported. He may have been darn near the bottom along with Mike Gravel. Thus, you are not going to see me climbing on this bandwagon just because it's what I'm told I SHOULD do.

Logical
02-27-2008, 02:46 PM
You Idiots can stick your head in the sand if you want. That MF is of ARAB descent and will take us down if you idiots get him elected. Once again, AL Qaeda said they will take down America from the inside. When in the ****in history of the United States has a Arab wanted to be our ****ing president. Jesus Christ, how much more plain can this be. God Damn people are ****ing stupid!!!!!!!!

Wow this post does prove that Americans can be ****ing stupid. I have to agree, it is a perfect illustration of stupidity in print.

HolmeZz
02-27-2008, 02:50 PM
I said he gets my vote by default.

Because he was against the war and because he was the most liberal. Those were your words, and neither of those facts have changed.

And Obama wasn't even popular until Oprah got on board. For God's sake last year at this time he was polling 25-30% with the black vote. The media have helped create this phenomenon and they will help destroy it when they decide the time is right.

This is another example of you being out of touch. Obama's 'popularity' had been widely underreported in the media and didn't get recognized until he started winning. The reason he was polling low among blacks was because they didn't see him as legitimate and capable of winning. Once he started winning, they fell in line. It had nothing to do with some media creation. He made himself viable and that's why he was able to win a 97% white state like Iowa. It wasn't because of f*cking Oprah.

Truth be told, Obama was not even in the top tier of the candidates I would have supported.

Please articulate the differences between Edwards and Obama that would lead you to support one of them and hate the other.

Taco John
02-27-2008, 02:51 PM
He's light on experience, foreign policy specifically, at a time when we will need someone studied in foreign policy.


So the only person in this election that has that is John McCain. Are you advocating for John McCain?

Oh, you think Hillary does? Hahahahahahaha! ROFL

memyselfI
02-27-2008, 02:53 PM
So the only person in this election that has that is John McCain. Are you advocating for John McCain?

Oh, you think Hillary does? Hahahahahahaha! ROFL

No. I'm thinking about writing in Al Gore. That is where my heart was from the beginning. He should have been the nominee. I'm praying for a miracle before it's too late.

Taco John
02-27-2008, 02:54 PM
And Obama wasn't even popular until Oprah got on board.


Actually, that's pretty much a lie. Obama wasn't particularly popular until Hillary couldn't give a straight answer on drivers liscences for illegal aliens. It wasn't until then that Obama was able to make big gains as voters started to doubt her authenticity.

Logical
02-27-2008, 02:57 PM
He's light on experience, foreign policy specifically, at a time when we will need someone studied in foreign policy. He's in charge of one of the most important subcommittees in congress and he has been too busy campaigning for HIMSELF to hold a meeting with that committee. (He should have been nailed on this last evening...)

He's blows with the wind saying what people want to hear. Last night he wouldn't reject Farrakahn's endorsement until Hillary pressed him to do so. He knows denouncing someone's actions and rejecting their support ARE two different things. If he doesn't have enough integrity to politically reject that sort of known commodity then I don't trust his judgment. But then his circle includes other out of the mainstream people that most Americans would disavow but most Americans don't know much about.

I believe he's a demagogue. His borrowing other people's words without attribution was just one example of his lofty rhetoric having little actual meaning to what he is about or what he actually will do.

Well then I assume you will be voting for McCain because he by far has more foreign policy experience than either Obama or Hillary. I assume you would re-elect GWBush also because clearly he has more foreign policy experience than BO or Hillary.

memyselfI
02-27-2008, 03:02 PM
Actually, that's pretty much a lie. Obama wasn't particularly popular until Hillary couldn't give a straight answer on drivers liscences for illegal aliens. It wasn't until then that Obama was able to make big gains as voters started to doubt her authenticity.

Refresh your memory about the Hollywood event that happened in Sept. 07 timed with HIS appearance on the season premier of the Oprah show and then consider this in your time line:

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/politics/chi-obama_bdsep09,1,5458092.story?coll=chi_tab01_layout

Just months after Obama's Senate term began, a confidant says, Obama told friends about a visit he and his wife paid to Winfrey's California home as part of her Legends Ball weekend honoring African-American women.

The group included music legend Quincy Jones, and it was on that May 2005 visit to Winfrey's Montecito estate that the idea of Winfrey hosting a political event apparently came up.

Obama has said he was not actively planning a White House run at the time, but it may have been something Winfrey was contemplating for him.

"'Wouldn't this be a great place for a fundraiser?' I said jokingly," Winfrey recalled of the gathering that weekend during a recent interview on her satellite radio channel.

Logical
02-27-2008, 03:04 PM
My "rewording" was an accurate reflection of what I interpreted your original post to mean. .....
OMGWTF, I think you could of stopped right there and maybe you would have been accurate. You reworded his post to how you wanted to interpret it. I am amazed you admit that.

dirk digler
02-27-2008, 03:07 PM
Because he was against the war and because he was the most liberal. Those were your words, and neither of those facts have changed.



This is another example of you being out of touch. Obama's 'popularity' had been widely underreported in the media and didn't get recognized until he started winning. The reason he was polling low among blacks was because they didn't see him as legitimate and capable of winning. Once he started winning, they fell in line. It had nothing to do with some media creation. He made himself viable and that's why he was able to win a 97% white state like Iowa. It wasn't because of f*cking Oprah.



Please articulate the differences between Edwards and Obama that would lead you to support one of them and hate the other.

First off I don't understand why you keep trying to argue with the board idiot but with that being said your second paragraph is exactly correct. In fact Oprah campaigned for him in Iowa and SC at least a month prior to the those primaries so she had little to do with it. Everyone knew that until Obama won he wouldn't get the majority of the black vote and when he did when they all started to support him.

As far as the differences between Obama and Edwards well everyone knows Edwards is a liar and a fake. He is like a door to door salesperson who can't be trusted about anything.

dirk digler
02-27-2008, 03:07 PM
Actually, that's pretty much a lie. Obama wasn't particularly popular until Hillary couldn't give a straight answer on drivers liscences for illegal aliens. It wasn't until then that Obama was able to make big gains as voters started to doubt her authenticity.

Yep that was the turning point of the whole primary IMO.

memyselfI
02-27-2008, 03:25 PM
First off I don't understand why you keep trying to argue with the board idiot but with that being said your second paragraph is exactly correct. In fact Oprah campaigned for him in Iowa and SC at least a month prior to the those primaries so she had little to do with it. Everyone knew that until Obama won he wouldn't get the majority of the black vote and when he did when they all started to support him.

As far as the differences between Obama and Edwards well everyone knows Edwards is a liar and a fake. He is like a door to door salesperson who can't be trusted about anything.

Ah, how I fondly remember when those sorts of things were written about me when I was one of the lone dissenters of the Iraq War. In time though...


And Oprah Winfrey has had everything to do with Obama's success whether or not HIS followers want to admit it. She maybe didn't help convince Black voters to support him but she sure did a great deal to make her viewing demographic (primarily white female viewers) more comfortable with supporting him.

As far as phony, it's early. Obama has some people believing and convinced...

for now.

Taco John
02-27-2008, 04:24 PM
Refresh your memory about the Hollywood event that happened in Sept. 07 timed with HIS appearance on the season premier of the Oprah show and then consider this in your time line:



Blah blah blah... I don't need to refesh my memory. I follow this stuff very closely. The story after the Oprah event was at just how little impact her appearance with him had on his numbers. He didn't gain much support until Hillary voters started doubting her after a terrible debate performance. Edwards and Obama piled on her, and the voters started to listen to Obama's message increasingly. He then won the Iowa caucus, and his campaign ignited.

patteeu
02-27-2008, 04:35 PM
OMGWTF, I think you could of stopped right there and maybe you would have been accurate. You reworded his post to how you wanted to interpret it. I am amazed you admit that.

:spock: Someday Obama might create a new government program that provides assistance to those of you who have trouble figuring out what's going on on the internet. Until then, I guess you're on your own.

dirk digler
02-27-2008, 04:39 PM
Ah, how I fondly remember when those sorts of things were written about me when I was one of the lone dissenters of the Iraq War. In time though...


And Oprah Winfrey has had everything to do with Obama's success whether or not HIS followers want to admit it. She maybe didn't help convince Black voters to support him but she sure did a great deal to make her viewing demographic (primarily white female viewers) more comfortable with supporting him.

As far as phony, it's early. Obama has some people believing and convinced...

for now.

The reason why people say that about you is because you make every ****ing issue personal. You try to degenerate everyone and that is why no one can stand you.

As far as Oprah yeah she had some influence but 98% of the success of Obama is due to him and his message. Oprah has campaigned in 4 states and he is 2-2 so she really didn't much for him.

The only phony was your candidate John I am going to exploit my child Edwards.

Logical
02-27-2008, 04:59 PM
The reason why people say that about you is because you make every ****ing issue personal. You try to degenerate everyone and that is why no one can stand you.

As far as Oprah yeah she had some influence but 98% of the success of Obama is due to him and his message. Oprah has campaigned in 4 states and he is 2-2 so she really didn't much for him.

The only phony was your candidate John I am going to exploit my child Edwards.

I believe it was his wife he was exploiting, but I agree with your point.

J Diddy
02-27-2008, 05:10 PM
I said he gets my vote by default. Hillary is the lesser of the two evils between her and Obama, IMO. Hillary was not my first, second, or even third choice.

And Obama wasn't even popular until Oprah got on board. For God's sake last year at this time he was polling 25-30% with the black vote. The media have helped create this phenomenon and they will help destroy it when they decide the time is right.

Truth be told, Obama was not even in the top tier of the candidates I would have supported. He may have been darn near the bottom along with Mike Gravel. Thus, you are not going to see me climbing on this bandwagon just because it's what I'm told I SHOULD do.


I was hoping he would run when he spoke at the last democratic national convention

memyselfI
02-27-2008, 05:52 PM
The reason why people say that about you is because you make every ****ing issue personal. You try to degenerate everyone and that is why no one can stand you.

As far as Oprah yeah she had some influence but 98% of the success of Obama is due to him and his message. Oprah has campaigned in 4 states and he is 2-2 so she really didn't much for him.

The only phony was your candidate John I am going to exploit my child Edwards.

I'm the only Democrat on this board who presently will say Obama and Obamania is bad for the party and bad for the country. It's not a popular position and I have been here so I'm fully aware of the dynamics. It's like dejavu all over again. I expect in the not so near future there will be others who see what I'm seeing. The question is not if but when...

As far as Oprah, as expected true Obamanics would completely diss her influence in favor of pumping up their guy. But the reality is she is responsible for MILLIONS of dollars of donations to Obama's campaign. In addition, her average viewer is HILLARY CLINTON'S BASE. Her introducing, advocating for, informing about, and campaigning with has made him familiar to voters who otherwise may not have had the opportunity to get to know him without her gentle guidance.

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/nationworld/chi-1213oprahbacklashdec13,1,7722047.story

Winfrey's influence, in many ways, has transcended race, culture and class. She is most popular among white women older than 55, who make up 40 percent of her audience. Of her 7.6 million daily viewers, 78 percent are white and 18 percent are black, according to Nielsen Media Research. But Peck notes, "The way she transcends race is to appeal to a majority white audience by being black culturally but not being black politically."

In other words, Barack Obama has an advocate that reaches 7.6 million viewers daily and many more millions with her magazine. She's also been named one of the most influential women in the WORLD. If only a fraction of her fans voted for him then that could potentially mean a million viewers.

To dismiss her influence and impact on his campaign is not only delusional but disingenuous.

HolmeZz
02-27-2008, 05:58 PM
With your unmatched foresight, it's a wonder why you didn't start slamming Obama until he started winning.

patteeu
02-27-2008, 06:07 PM
The reason why people say that about you is because you make every ****ing issue personal. You try to degenerate everyone and that is why no one can stand you.

As far as Oprah yeah she had some influence but 98% of the success of Obama is due to him and his message. Oprah has campaigned in 4 states and he is 2-2 so she really didn't much for him.

The only phony was your candidate John I am going to exploit my child Edwards.

Just out of curiosity, how is she making this anti-Obama thing personal (particularly in comparison to the personal way in which she's criticized for being anti-Obama)?

memyselfI
02-27-2008, 06:08 PM
He's light on experience, foreign policy specifically, at a time when we will need someone studied in foreign policy. He's in charge of one of the most important subcommittees in congress and he has been too busy campaigning for HIMSELF to hold a meeting with that committee. (He should have been nailed on this last evening...)



Lou Dobbs must have been listening to me. He spanked %(/ Obama for saying that he was 'too busy' running his campaign to hold meetings on oversight for Afghanistan even though he was the committee chair. ROFL

He just called the Obama campaign 'cuteness.'

Baby Lee
02-27-2008, 06:28 PM
She's the ultimate contrarian. She said she'd support Obama back when he wasn't popular, then she moved to Edwards, and now she's backing Hillary now that she's finished.

I think she believes the general public is inherently stupid and that whoever is popular at the time must be terrible.

She wasn't saying anything like this about Obama before he started winning.
I suspect that's close. But closer still, she's very uncomfortable with anyone not hated by people she hates. So if people she hates say positive things about someone or something [or anyone or anything], she starts thinking there's a big conspiracy to appease her enemies afoot.

Logical
02-27-2008, 06:45 PM
I'm the only Democrat on this board who presently will say Obama and Obamania is bad for the party and bad for the country. It's not a popular position and I have been here so I'm fully aware of the dynamics. It's like dejavu all over again. I expect in the not so near future there will be others who see what I'm seeing. The question is not if but when...

As far as Oprah, as expected true Obamanics would completely diss her influence in favor of pumping up their guy. But the reality is she is responsible for MILLIONS of dollars of donations to Obama's campaign. In addition, her average viewer is HILLARY CLINTON'S BASE. Her introducing, advocating for, informing about, and campaigning with has made him familiar to voters who otherwise may not have had the opportunity to get to know him without her gentle guidance.

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/nationworld/chi-1213oprahbacklashdec13,1,7722047.story



In other words, Barack Obama has an advocate that reaches 7.6 million viewers daily and many more millions with her magazine. She's also been named one of the most influential women in the WORLD. If only a fraction of her fans voted for him then that could potentially mean a million viewers.

To dismiss her influence and impact on his campaign is not only delusional but disingenuous.

Nice attempt at an end run. You did not originally say that he had simply gained support because of Oprah (a true statement) but that he had no popularity before Oprah came on board.

I said he gets my vote by default. Hillary is the lesser of the two evils between her and Obama, IMO. Hillary was not my first, second, or even third choice.

And Obama wasn't even popular until Oprah got on board. For God's sake last year at this time he was polling 25-30% with the black vote. The media have helped create this phenomenon and they will help destroy it when they decide the time is right.

Truth be told, Obama was not even in the top tier of the candidates I would have supported. He may have been darn near the bottom along with Mike Gravel. Thus, you are not going to see me climbing on this bandwagon just because it's what I'm told I SHOULD do.

dirk digler
02-27-2008, 06:52 PM
I'm the only Democrat on this board who presently will say Obama and Obamania is bad for the party and bad for the country. It's not a popular position and I have been here so I'm fully aware of the dynamics. It's like dejavu all over again. I expect in the not so near future there will be others who see what I'm seeing. The question is not if but when...

As far as Oprah, as expected true Obamanics would completely diss her influence in favor of pumping up their guy. But the reality is she is responsible for MILLIONS of dollars of donations to Obama's campaign. In addition, her average viewer is HILLARY CLINTON'S BASE. Her introducing, advocating for, informing about, and campaigning with has made him familiar to voters who otherwise may not have had the opportunity to get to know him without her gentle guidance.

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/nationworld/chi-1213oprahbacklashdec13,1,7722047.story



In other words, Barack Obama has an advocate that reaches 7.6 million viewers daily and many more millions with her magazine. She's also been named one of the most influential women in the WORLD. If only a fraction of her fans voted for him then that could potentially mean a million viewers.

To dismiss her influence and impact on his campaign is not only delusional but disingenuous.

Once again I could care less if you support Obama or not and if he turns out as a sucky nominee or POTUS then I will give you all the props in the world. But you need to cut out the personal attacks.

As far as Oprah goes I started a thread a few months back about the Oprah factor because I thought she could be a huge factor in this race. I don't think she had the influence that I thought she would have or you what you think she does. Her influence cuts both ways. She has turned off thousands of women and alot of them have called her a sell out which she alluded to in her speech in CA. Plus it is not like she talks about Obama on her show, in fact she never does unless he is on which was like once or twice. In the 4 states she visited Obama is 2-2. Since she has stop campaigning he is 11-0.

dirk digler
02-27-2008, 06:59 PM
Just out of curiosity, how is she making this anti-Obama thing personal (particularly in comparison to the personal way in which she's criticized for being anti-Obama)?

In other threads she has called him a liar (multiple times), demagogue, a sheep need I say more? Add to the fact she has started at least 6 threads bashing Obama I think it is pretty clear she is making this personal for some reason.

NewChief
02-27-2008, 08:21 PM
I suspect that's close. But closer still, she's very uncomfortable with anyone not hated by people she hates. So if people she hates say positive things about someone or something [or anyone or anything], she starts thinking there's a big conspiracy to appease her enemies afoot.

On the money, imo.

patteeu
02-27-2008, 08:37 PM
In other threads she has called him a liar (multiple times), demagogue, a sheep need I say more? Add to the fact she has started at least 6 threads bashing Obama I think it is pretty clear she is making this personal for some reason.

Oh, I thought you meant she was getting personal with the people that she disagrees with here, as you all have been with her (If I were a believer, I'd ask God to forgive me for defending her). Is it against the rules to point out demagoguery or lack of candor now? George W Bush wishes you were around here when people were calling him a liar and comparing him to Hitler. :p

htismaqe
02-27-2008, 08:46 PM
Obama claimed just last night in the debate that he's black.

In response to Russert's question about Farrakhan, he said:

You know, I have been very clear in my denunciation of Minister Farrakhan’s anti-Semitic comments. I think they are unacceptable and reprehensible.

I did not solicit this support. He expressed pride in an African-American who seems to be bringing the country together.

I obviously can’t censor him, but it is not support that I sought. And we’re not doing anything, I assure you, formally or informally with Minister Farrakhan.

dirk digler
02-27-2008, 09:10 PM
Oh, I thought you meant she was getting personal with the people that she disagrees with here, as you all have been with her (If I were a believer, I'd ask God to forgive me for defending her). Is it against the rules to point out demagoguery or lack of candor now? George W Bush wishes you were around here when people were calling him a liar and comparing him to Hitler. :p

It is definitely not against the rules to point out demagoguery but Obama is not doing that contrary to what she believes.

I have called her out several times for things she has said about Bush or other people but I probably should have done it more.

Obama the messiah will forgive you. :D

On a side note I was watching Karl Rove tonight on H&C and he said that anyone that uses Barack's middle name is trying to imply that he is a Muslim Terrorist and that he is neither and people need to stop it. I thought that was very interesting.

Logical
02-27-2008, 09:12 PM
...

On a side note I was watching Karl Rove tonight on H&C and he said that anyone that uses Barack's middle name is trying to imply that he is a Muslim Terrorist and that he is neither and people need to stop it. I thought that was very interesting.

I was definitely shocked

HolmeZz
02-27-2008, 09:34 PM
I was definitely shocked

There's nothing sincere about it. He just realizes it's a really retarded thing to do politically.

Logical
02-27-2008, 10:19 PM
Checking on the real story of Obama's father I found this which matches information BEP had provided.


His parents met as college students in 1960. His father, also named Barack Obama, was from Kenya's Luo tribe, the first African exchange student at the University of Hawaii.
from

http://dir.salon.com/story/news/feature/2004/03/30/obama/

Now I don't know much about Kenyan or the Luo tribe, but I doubt they are Arabian or in any way Muslim. Can some one correct me if I have it wrong?

patteeu
02-28-2008, 01:12 AM
It is definitely not against the rules to point out demagoguery but Obama is not doing that contrary to what she believes.

I have called her out several times for things she has said about Bush or other people but I probably should have done it more.

Obama the messiah will forgive you. :D

:)

On a side note I was watching Karl Rove tonight on H&C and he said that anyone that uses Barack's middle name is trying to imply that he is a Muslim Terrorist and that he is neither and people need to stop it. I thought that was very interesting.

Yeah, I saw that too and thought it made sense.

memyselfI
02-28-2008, 06:31 AM
Oh, I thought you meant she was getting personal with the people that she disagrees with here, as you all have been with her (If I were a believer, I'd ask God to forgive me for defending her). Is it against the rules to point out demagoguery or lack of candor now? George W Bush wishes you were around here when people were calling him a liar and comparing him to Hitler. :p

Oh there were people then claiming I was being too personal with GWB and Carl Peterson...

and well, we've seen how popular they have become and how 'personal' people get with their criticisms of them NOW. :spock::doh!: :D

I just tend to be ahead of the curve sometimes...

memyselfI
02-28-2008, 06:38 AM
Checking on the real story of Obama's father I found this which matches information BEP had provided.

from

http://dir.salon.com/story/news/feature/2004/03/30/obama/

Now I don't know much about Kenyan or the Luo tribe, but I doubt they are Arabian or in any way Muslim. Can some one correct me if I have it wrong?

This article was written last year before it somehow became taboo to mention the connection of Islam to BO's life story.

http://www.examiner.com/a-534540~Can_a_past_of_Islam_change_the_path_to__president_.html

“In Indonesia, I had spent two years at a Muslim school,” he wrote in his first memoir, “Dreams from my Father.” “The teacher wrote to tell my mother that I made faces during Koranic studies.”

Obama — whose father, stepfather, brother and grandfather were Muslims — explained his own first name, Barack, in “Dreams”: “It means ‘Blessed.’ In Arabic. My grandfather was a Muslim.”

In his second memoir, “The Audacity of Hope,” Obama added: “Although my father had been raised a Muslim, by the time he met my mother he was a confirmed atheist.”

Still, when his father, a black Kenyan named Barack Obama Sr., died in 1982, “the family wanted a Muslim burial,” Obama quoted his brother, Roy, as saying in “Dreams.”

The statement put out by Obama’s office last week referred to his father simply as “an atheist,” without mentioning his Muslim upbringing.

htismaqe
02-28-2008, 07:19 AM
Denise,

Stop. Please.

Barack Hussein Obama is AFRICAN.

Islam is a RELIGION, not an ethnicity. He's NOT Arab.

And incidentally, he's also not Muslim.

This is ridiculous.

patteeu
02-28-2008, 07:35 AM
Oh there were people then claiming I was being too personal with GWB and Carl Peterson...

and well, we've seen how popular they have become and how 'personal' people get with their criticisms of them NOW. :spock::doh!: :D

I just tend to be ahead of the curve sometimes...

I was talking about this newfound concern about personal attacks and civility by some of Obama's supporters. Nothing I posted should be construed to be an endorsement of your belief that you've gotten anything right about GWB (or Carl Peterson for that matter).

stevieray
02-28-2008, 07:56 AM
Denise,

Stop. Please.

Barack Hussein Obama is AFRICAN.


Wrong. Birth mother decides race on a birth certificate.

Americans who go go over an have kids with Korean women aren't considered American "first".

htismaqe
02-28-2008, 08:00 AM
Wrong. Birth mother decides race on a birth certificate.

Americans who go go over an have kids with Korean women aren't considered American "first".

OK, fine. He's white then.

The point is that "Muslim" is not an ethnicity.

dirk digler
02-28-2008, 08:20 AM
Wrong. Birth mother decides race on a birth certificate.

Americans who go go over an have kids with Korean women aren't considered American "first".

It depends on where they have their kids at. If it is on a military base they are Americans.

Also it is just plain silly to say Obama is white

Hog Farmer
02-28-2008, 08:24 AM
Denise,

Stop. Please.

Barack Hussein Obama is AFRICAN.

Islam is a RELIGION, not an ethnicity. He's NOT Arab.

And incidentally, he's also not Muslim.

This is ridiculous.


Wrong!
Wrong!
And Wrong!

Sleeper!

stevieray
02-28-2008, 08:30 AM
It depends on where they have their kids at. If it is on a military base they are Americans.



...that would be citizenship.

dirk digler
02-28-2008, 08:34 AM
...that would be citizenship.

Ahh I get it. Korean-American, African-American

htismaqe
02-28-2008, 08:37 AM
You're straying from the orginal argument. Stop it! :D

If Stevie is right, Obama is WHITE.

If he's wrong, then Obama is BLACK.

Either way, HE'S NOT ARAB, like Denise would have us believe.

stevieray
02-28-2008, 08:44 AM
You're straying from the orginal argument. Stop it! :D

If Stevie is right, Obama is WHITE.

If he's wrong, then Obama is BLACK.

Either way, HE'S NOT ARAB, like Denise would have us believe.
..It's not me, it's every hospital across this country.

...and I agree with your other statements, despite our current attempts to make religions a "coat you wear" in efforts to propigate negative stereotypes..

dirk digler
02-28-2008, 09:02 AM
So does that mean Tiger Woods is Korean?

Logical
02-28-2008, 11:37 AM
Denise you are truly delusional.

memyselfI
02-28-2008, 11:39 AM
Denise,

Stop. Please.

Barack Hussein Obama is AFRICAN.

Islam is a RELIGION, not an ethnicity. He's NOT Arab.

And incidentally, he's also not Muslim.

This is ridiculous.

Agreed, he's not Muslim now. He could be like myself an apostate from his previous religion. I wouldn't hold that against him. I would have a problem if he's been lying about his upbringing to appear less involved in the religion than he otherwise was.

Certainly, if his Dad was a Muslim then he's considered such whether he wants to be or not by the faith itself. Likewise for my children even though my husband and I poo poo that notion because we've both disavowed our former faith(s). For us to be considered connected to them in any fashion is the problem of those faithful and not ours.

But then, we are not going to be dealing with foreign policy in places where disavowing our previous religious affiliation might be considered immoral or even criminal...

but that doesn't mean we don't get some flack for it. And we are just simple folks leading a regular life. What it will mean for someone like Obama is yet to be seen.

memyselfI
02-28-2008, 11:54 AM
Wrong!
Wrong!
And Wrong!

Sleeper!

Give me a break.

There is a happy medium between Obamessiah being a an Arab AQ sleeper Islamist and him being an innocent bystander who keeps getting the Muslim/Arab/Islam label erroneously and slanderously placed upon him.

I suspect the truth is he was born to a Muslim father (thereby making him Muslim) and was raised by a Muslim Stepfather and had Muslim relatives on his father's side. His Mother and her family were Unitarians by the time he was born.

He became Christian over the years and belonged to a very progressive and liberal branch of Christianity. The same kind of Christian I have referred to myself in the past having belonged to a similiar church. It's the loosest form of Christianity there is and still be considered Christian. It is a few steps away from being atheist (where he claims his Mother was instead of saying she was Unitarian lest she be confused with Unification/Moonies) and it's where I felt most comfortable but I know it's not the Christianity many here think when they think Christianity.

That is why I think he's a fraud. He's completely cloaked himself in labels he thinks will benefit him and run from those who thinks will harm him. Yet, the truth is somewhere in between and apparently it's what HE decides it will be because to try to discover otherwise has been deemed an exercise in futility and somehow harmful to the process. :rolleyes:

patteeu
02-28-2008, 01:11 PM
Give me a break.

There is a happy medium between Obamessiah being a an Arab AQ sleeper Islamist and him being an innocent bystander who keeps getting the Muslim/Arab/Islam label erroneously and slanderously placed upon him.

I suspect the truth is he was born to a Muslim father (thereby making him Muslim) and was raised by a Muslim Stepfather and had Muslim relatives on his father's side. His Mother and her family were Unitarians by the time he was born.

He became Christian over the years and belonged to a very progressive and liberal branch of Christianity. The same kind of Christian I have referred to myself in the past having belonged to a similiar church. It's the loosest form of Christianity there is and still be considered Christian. It is a few steps away from being atheist (where he claims his Mother was instead of saying she was Unitarian lest she be confused with Unification/Moonies) and it's where I felt most comfortable but I know it's not the Christianity many here think when they think Christianity.

That is why I think he's a fraud. He's completely cloaked himself in labels he thinks will benefit him and run from those who thinks will harm him. Yet, the truth is somewhere in between and apparently it's what HE decides it will be because to try to discover otherwise has been deemed an exercise in futility and somehow harmful to the process. :rolleyes:

I think this is a fair post. And if I were betting, I'd say it's fairly accurate too. I'd add a large dose of atheism (coming from both sides of his family) into your second paragraph, but other than that, I think you've got it pretty straight. My personal speculation is that today he is more agnostic/atheist than Christian (or any other religion), but atheism doesn't provide any electoral benefit. He certainly wouldn't be the first politician to be a church-goer for effect.

NewChief
02-28-2008, 01:29 PM
I thought this was an interesting article. Nothing really groundbreaking or that isn't common sense, but it does put some things in perspective.
http://www.salon.com/opinion/feature/2008/02/28/hussein/print.html
Obama should be proud to be named Hussein
The attacks on Barack Obama's middle name have begun, but the likely Democratic nominee joins a long line of famous Americans with Semitic names, from Benjamin Franklin to Omar Bradley.
By Juan Cole

Feb. 29, 2008 | In Cincinnati, Bill Cunningham, according to the Los Angeles Times, introducing presidential candidate John McCain at a rally Tuesday, "ridiculed Democratic contender Barack Obama for his intention to meet with 'world leaders who want to kill us' and pointedly referred to the Illinois senator as 'Barack Hussein Obama.'" John McCain repudiated Cunningham's low tactics and said that using the middle name like that three times was "inappropriate" and would never happen again at one of his rallies.

I want to say something about Barack Hussein Obama's name. It is a name to be proud of. It is an American name. It is a blessed name. It is a heroic name, as heroic and American in its own way as the name of Gen. Omar Nelson Bradley or the name of Benjamin Franklin. And denigrating that name is a form of racial and religious bigotry of the most vile and debased sort. It is a prejudice against names deriving from Semitic languages!

Christian, Western heroes have often been bequeathed Middle Eastern names. Rodrigo Diaz de Vivar, the medieval Spanish hero, carried the name El Cid, from the Arabic al-Sayyid, "the Lord."

Barack and Hussein are Semitic words. Americans have been named with Semitic names since the founding of the republic. Fourteen of our 43 presidents have had Semitic names (see below). And American English contains many Arabic-derived words that we use every day and without which we would be much impoverished. America is a world civilization with a world heritage, something Cunningham will never understand.

Barack is a Semitic word meaning "to bless" as a verb or "blessing" as a noun. In its Hebrew form, barak, it is found all through the Bible. It first occurs in Genesis 1:22 -- "And God blessed (ḇāreḵə) them, saying, Be fruitful, and multiply, and fill the waters in the seas, and let fowl multiply in the earth."

Here is a list of how many times barak appears in each book of the Bible.

Now let us take the name "Hussein." It is from the Semitic word hasan, meaning "good" or "handsome." Husayn is the diminutive, affectionate form.

Barack Obama's middle name is in honor of his grandfather, Hussein, a secular resident of Nairobi, Kenya. Americans may think of Saddam Hussein when they hear the name, but that is like thinking of Stalin when you hear the name Joseph. There have been lots of Husseins in history, from the grandson of the prophet Mohammed, a hero who touched the historian Gibbon, to King Hussein of Jordan, one of America's most steadfast allies in the 20th century. The author of the beloved American novel "The Kite Runner" is Khaled Hosseini.

But in Obama's case, it is just a reference to his grandfather.

It is worth pointing out that John McCain's adopted daughter, Bridget, is originally from Bangladesh. Since Hussein is a very common name in Bangladesh, it is entirely possible that her birth father or grandfather was named Hussein. McCain certainly has Muslim relatives via adoption in his family. If Muslim relatives are a disqualification from high office in the United States, then McCain himself is in trouble. In fact, since Bridget is upset that George W. Bush doesn't like her "because she is black," and used her to stop the McCain campaign in South Carolina in 2000, you understand why McCain would be especially sensitive to race baiting of Cunningham's sort. The question is how vigorously he will combat it; he hasn't been above Muslim taunting in the campaign so far. (And the McCains really should let Bridget know that she is Asian, not "black." The poor girl; Bush and Rove have done a number on her, and Cindy's confusion can't help.)

The other thing to say about grandfathers named Hussein is that very large numbers of African-Americans probably have an ancestor 10 or 11 generations ago with that name, in what is now Mali or Senegal or Nigeria. And since so many thousands of Arab Muslims were made to convert to Catholicism in Spain after 1501, many Latinos have distant ancestors named Hussein, too. In fact, since there was a lot of Arab-Spanish intermarriage, and since there was subsequent Spanish intermarriage with other European Catholics, more European Americans are descended from a Hussein than they realize. The British royal family is quite forthright about the Arab line in its ancestry going back to Andalusia.

Obama, being a cousin of Dick Cheney on one side and having relatives in Kenya on the other, is just more and more typical of the 21st century United States.

So, anyway, Obama's first two names mean "blessing, the good." If we are lucky enough to get him for president, we can only hope that his names are prophetic for us.

Which brings me to Omar Bradley. Omar is an alternative spelling of Umar, i.e., Umar ibn al-Khattab, the second caliph of Sunni Islam. Presumably Gen. Bradley was named for the poet Omar Khayyam, who bore the caliph's name. Omar Khayyam's "Rubaiyat," in the "translation" of Edward FitzGerald, became enormously popular in Victorian America.

Gen. Omar Bradley, who bore a Semitic, Muslim first name, and shared it with the second caliph of Sunni Islam, was the hero of D-day and Normandy, of the Battle of the Bulge and the Ruhr.

Would Cunningham see Omar Bradley as un-American, as an enemy because of his name?

What about other American heroes, such as Gen. George Joulwan, former NATO supreme allied commander of Europe? "Joulwan" is an Arabic name. Or there is Gen. John Abizaid, former CENTCOM commander. Abizaid is an Arabic name. Abi means Abu or "father of," and Zaid is a common Arab first name. Is Cunningham good enough to wipe their shoes? Is he going to call them traitors because they have Arabic names?

What about Rep. Darrell Issa of California? ("'Isa" means Jesus in Arabic). Former Cabinet secretary Donna Shalala? (Shalala means "waterfall" in Arabic.)

I won't go into all the great Americans with Arabic names in sports, entertainment and business, against whom Cunningham would apparently discriminate on that basis. Does he want to take citizenship away from Kareem Abdul Jabbar (meaning "noble the servant of the Mighty") and Ahmad Jamal (meaning "the most praised, beauty")? What about Rihanna ("sweet basil," "aromatic")? And Tony Shalhoub (i.e., Mr. Monk)?

Let us take Benjamin Franklin. His first name is from the Hebrew Bin Yamin, the son of the Right (hand), or the son of strength, or the son of the South (yamin or right has lots of connotations). The "Bin" means "son of," just as in modern colloquial Arabic. Bin Yamin Franklin is not a dishonorable name because of its Semitic root. By the way, there are lots of Muslims named Bin Yamin.

As for an American president bearing a name derived from a Semitic language, that is hardly unprecedented.

John Adams really only had Semitic names. His first name is from the Hebrew Yochanan, or gift of God, which became Johan and then John. (In German and in medieval English, "y" is represented by "j" but was originally pronounced "y.") Adams is from the biblical Adam, which also just means "human being." In Arabic, one way of saying "human being" is "Bani Adam," the children of men.

Thomas Jefferson's first name is from the Aramaic Tuma, meaning "twin." Aramaic is a Semitic language spoken by Jesus, which is related to Hebrew and Arabic. In Arabic, twin is tau'am, so you can see the similarity.

James Madison, James Monroe and James Polk all had a Semitic first name, derived from the Hebrew Ya'aqov or Jacob, which is Ya'qub in Arabic. It became Iacobus in Latin, then was corrupted to Iacomus, and from there became James in English.

Zachary Taylor's first name is from the Hebrew Zachariah, which means "the Lord has remembered."

Abraham Lincoln, of course, is named for the patriarch Abraham, from the Semitic word for father, Ab, and the word for "multitude," raham. Abu, "father of," is a common element in Arab names today.

So, Mr. Cunningham, Barack Hussein Obama fits right in this list of presidents with Semitic names. In fact, we haven't had one for a while. We are due for another one.

A blessed and good one.

dirk digler
02-28-2008, 01:37 PM
My personal speculation is that today he is more agnostic/atheist than Christian (or any other religion), but atheism doesn't provide any electoral benefit. He certainly wouldn't be the first politician to be a church-goer for effect.

That is silly. He has been going to the same church for over 20 years and he is a devout Christian. Also in alot of his speeches he quotes the Bible so I am sure he is just hoodwinking us all. :rolleyes:

It is true that Illinois senator (and Democratic presidential hopeful) Barack Obama has been associated with Chicago's Trinity United Church of Christ (http://www.tucc.org/) (a single church which is part of the United Church of Christ (http://www.ucc.org/find/chicago-trinity-ucc-1.html) denomination) for about twenty years, and it is true that TUCC describes (http://www.tucc.org/about.htm) its congregation as "an African people" who remain "true to our native land." However, it is not true that Barack Obama "desires to rule over America" (he's running for the office of president, not king), or that he is a "covert worshiper of the Muslim (http://www.snopes.com/politics/obama/muslim.asp) faith" (both he and the TUCC are Christian). It is also not true that non-blacks are shunned by TUCC, as Martin E. Marty of the University of Chicago Divinity School related (http://marty-center.uchicago.edu/sightings/archive_2007/0402.shtml) from personal experience:
Trinity is the largest congregation in the whole United Church of Christ, the ex-Congregational (think Jonathan Edwards) and Reformed (think Reinhold Niebuhr) mainline church body. Trinity's rubric is "Unashamedly Black and Unapologetically Christian." So far as I can tell Trinity shapes a kind of ellipse around these two "centers," neither of which makes sense without the other. This you would never know from the slanders of its enemies or the incomprehension and naiveté of some reporters who lack background in the civil rights and African-American movements of several decades ago — a background out of which Trinity's stirrings first rose and on which it transformatively trades.

So Trinity is "Africentric," and deals internationally and ecumenically with the heritage of "black is beautiful." Despite what one sometimes hears, Wright and his parishioners — an 8,000-member mingling of everyone from the disadvantaged to the middle class, and not a few shakers and movers in Chicago — are "keepin' the faith." To those in range of Chicago TV I'd recommend a watching of Trinity's Sunday services, and challenge you to find anything "cultic" or "sectarian" about them. More important, for Trinity, being "unashamedly black" does not mean being "anti-white." My wife and I on occasion attend, and, like all other non-blacks, are enthusiastically welcomed.

HolmeZz
02-28-2008, 01:47 PM
I guess the 'he's a muslim' line wasn't getting much traction so the discussion is going to be moved to 'he's not a christian'. Classy.

memyselfI
02-28-2008, 02:08 PM
That is silly. He has been going to the same church for over 20 years and he is a devout Christian. Also in alot of his speeches he quotes the Bible so I am sure he is just hoodwinking us all. :rolleyes:

The UCC is one of the most liberal denominations of Christianity that there is. They are the ones who were running the commercials inviting gay people to come to their church after being prohibited from other churches. And apparently the particular church Obmamessiah attends is one of the most liberal even within the religion.


We believe that all of the baptized 'belong body and soul to our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ.' No matter who – no matter what – no matter where we are on life's journey – notwithstanding race, gender, sexual orientation, class or creed – we all belong to God and to one worldwide community of faith. All persons baptized – past, present and future – are connected to each other and to God through the sacrament of baptism. We baptize during worship when the community is present because baptism includes the community's promise of 'love, support and care' for the baptized – and we promise that we won't take it back – no matter where your journey leads you.

We believe that all people of faith are invited to join Christ at Christ's table for the sacrament of Communion. Just as many grains of wheat are gathered to make one loaf of bread and many grapes are gathered to make one cup of wine, we, the many people of God, are made one in the body of Christ, the church. The breaking of bread and the pouring of wine reminds us of the costliness of Christ's sacrifice and the discipleship to which we are all called. In the breaking of bread, we remember and celebrate Christ's presence among us along with a 'cloud of witnesses' – our ancestors, family and friends who have gone before us. It is a great mystery; we claim it by faith.

We believe the UCC is called to be a united and uniting church. "That they may all be one." (John 17:21) "In essentials–unity, in nonessentials–diversity, in all things–charity," These UCC mottos survive because they touch core values deep within us. The UCC has no rigid formulation of doctrine or attachment to creeds or structures. Its overarching creed is love. UCC pastors and teachers are known for their commitment to excellence in theological preparation, interpretation of the scripture and justice advocacy. Even so, love and unity in the midst of our diversity are our greatest assets.

memyselfI
02-28-2008, 02:13 PM
I guess the 'he's a muslim' line wasn't getting much traction so the discussion is going to be moved to 'he's not a christian'. Classy.

No, my point was this type of church is exactly one I would expect someone converting from Islam or a very restrictive religion TO because it's basically Christianity Lite. I went from Catholicism to Unity in the same way that Obama may have gone from Islam to UCC.

What are Unity’s basic teachings?
We encourage you to explore and apply Unity teachings based on your own spiritual understanding. We believe this spiritual understanding is enhanced through reflective prayer and meditation. The five basic ideas that make up the Unity belief system are: 1) God is the source and creator of all. There is no other enduring power. God is good and present everywhere. 2) We are spiritual beings, created in God’s image. The spirit of God lives within each person; therefore, all people are inherently good. 3) We create our life experiences through our way of thinking. 4) There is power in affirmative prayer, which we believe increases our connection to God. 5) Knowledge of these spiritual principles is not enough. We must live them.

Does Unity believe in the divinity of Jesus Christ?
Yes, Unity teaches that the spirit of God lived in Jesus, just as it lives in every person. Every person has the potential to express the perfection of Christ as Jesus did, by being more Christlike in everyday life.

What does Unity teach about sin and salvation, heaven and hell?
Sin is our separation from God, the Good, in consciousness. Salvation is now--not something that occurs after death. It happens whenever we turn our thoughts from fear, anxiety, worry, and doubt to thoughts of love, harmony, joy, and peace. The "fall" takes place in consciousness whenever we fall into negative habits of thinking. Heaven and hell are states of consciousness, not geographical locations. We make our own heaven or hell here and now by our thoughts, words, and deeds.

Does Unity practice baptism and communion?
Yes, symbolically. Whereas baptism by water represents the cleansing of the consciousness, spiritual baptism signifies the inflow of the Holy Spirit. Baptism is a mental and spiritual process that takes place within the individual as he or she aligns with the spirit of God. Spiritual communion takes place through prayer and meditation in the silence. The word of Truth is symbolized by the bread or body of Jesus Christ. The conscious realization of God-life is symbolized by the wine or blood of Jesus Christ. Unity practices communion by appropriating, or partaking, of the spiritual energy represented by these elements.

memyselfI
02-28-2008, 02:23 PM
HIS church's ten point vision doesn't even include the word Christ. :spock:



We are a congregation which is Unashamedly Black and Unapologetically Christian... Our roots in the Black religious experience and tradition are deep, lasting and permanent. We are an African people, and remain "true to our native land," the mother continent, the cradle of civilization. God has superintended our pilgrimage through the days of slavery, the days of segregation, and the long night of racism. It is God who gives us the strength and courage to continuously address injustice as a people, and as a congregation. We constantly affirm our trust in God through cultural expression of a Black worship service and ministries which address the Black Community.


The Pastor as well as the membership of Trinity United Church of Christ is committed to a 10-point Vision:

1. A congregation committed to ADORATION.
2. A congregation preaching SALVATION.
3. A congregation actively seeking RECONCILIATION.
4. A congregation with a non-negotiable COMMITMENT TO AFRICA.
5. A congregation committed to BIBLICAL EDUCATION.
6. A congregation committed to CULTURAL EDUCATION.
7. A congregation committed to the HISTORICAL EDUCATION OF AFRICAN PEOPLE IN DIASPORA.
8. A congregation committed to LIBERATION.
9. A congregation committed to RESTORATION.
10. A congregation working towards ECONOMIC PARITY.

Logical
02-28-2008, 02:26 PM
HIS church's ten point vision doesn't even include the word Christ. :spock:

Huh

We are a congregation which is Unashamedly Black and Unapologetically Christian

Christian and Christ mean something differnet Denise?

Logical
02-28-2008, 02:29 PM
The UCC is one of the most liberal denominations of Christianity that there is. They are the ones who were running the commercials inviting gay people to come to their church after being prohibited from other churches. And apparently the particular church Obmamessiah attends is one of the most liberal even within the religion.


OMG they allow teh gheys, stone em, stonem fast

HolmeZz
02-28-2008, 02:29 PM
I'm not surprised memeinkampfI is already running with the right-wing talking points.

memyselfI
02-28-2008, 02:32 PM
Huh



Christian and Christ mean something differnet Denise?

That wasn't part of the ten points. That was a statement of how they describe themselves. I can describe myself as the Queen of England...

doesn't mean it's true.

They probably view Jesus as A way-shower and the Bible as a field guide that is what I mean by liberal Christianity Lite. Meaning, Jesus and the Bible are interpreted as per that particular church or denomination and not literal being/spoken word as many think Christianity is. Thus, the Bible is there as a text book, one of many, and not the basis of or for the religion.

I can tell that is the case just by reading their 'vision.' Basically the church would be more about God and less about Jesus. Which, I think makes for a better religious experience but that is me. But it's hardly 'devout Christian' material.

I'm not criticizing here. I actually respect that this is where he gets affirmation of his many of his liberal beliefs and principles. He's admitted such.

Jenson71
02-28-2008, 02:34 PM
I just want to get this straight, cause I'm a little confused now. Is there a theological requirement for presidency?

HolmeZz
02-28-2008, 02:36 PM
I just want to get this straight, cause I'm a little confused now. Is there a theological requirement for presidency?

No, but if memeinkampfI can convince herself he's really not a christian, she can use it in her argument about him being phony, despite not even having an original reason to believe so.

memyselfI
02-28-2008, 02:40 PM
I just want to get this straight, cause I'm a little confused now. Is there a theological requirement for presidency?

Nope. This got off on a different tangent than I intended. Basically, I outlined how I thought Obama went from Muslim to a UCC Christianity because it's not hardlined Christianity. It's a very liberal denomination of Christianity. One of the most liberal. It would be a logical choice for someone who was raised in a Muslim/Unitarian/Atheist household. I think it's slightly more mainstream than Unitarian which would make it a pretty liberal branch of Christianity.

Jenson71
02-28-2008, 02:42 PM
No, but if memeinkampfI can convince herself he's really not a christian, she can use it in her argument about him being phony, despite not even having an original reason to believe so.

And I'd agree with him not being an orthodox Christian - or at the most, not being part of an orthodox Christian church. Then the phony part comes into play if he's trying to sell himself as an orthdox Christian. And that's where the "not even having an original reason to believe so" comes in.

Logical
02-28-2008, 02:51 PM
That wasn't part of the ten points. That was a statement of how they describe themselves. I can describe myself as the Queen of England...

doesn't mean it's true.

They probably view Jesus as A way-shower and the Bible as a field guide that is what I mean by liberal Christianity Lite. Meaning, Jesus and the Bible are interpreted as per that particular church or denomination and not literal being/spoken word as many think Christianity is. Thus, the Bible is there as a text book, one of many, and not the basis of or for the religion.

I can tell that is the case just by reading their 'vision.' Basically the church would be more about God and less about Jesus. Which, I think makes for a better religious experience but that is me. But it's hardly 'devout Christian' material.

I'm not criticizing here. I actually respect that this is where he gets affirmation of his many of his liberal beliefs and principles. He's admitted such.

I still consider that Christian, of course our mileages may vary.

memyselfI
02-28-2008, 02:52 PM
And I'd agree with him not being an orthodox Christian - or at the most, not being part of an orthodox Christian church. Then the phony part comes into play if he's trying to sell himself as an orthdox Christian. And that's where the "not even having an original reason to believe so" comes in.

The humorous part of this is that people can sigh a breath of relief in hearing that he's 'Christian' and yet unless they look closer they have no idea how liberal and progressive his particular brand of Christianity is.

In all honesty, this is the one part of his narrative that I actually like and agree with. But I also see how safe it is to end up within this element of the Christian religion coming from his background.

Logical
02-28-2008, 02:54 PM
The humorous part of this is that people can sigh a breath of relief in hearing that he's 'Christian' and yet unless they look closer they have no idea how liberal and progressive his particular brand of Christianity is.

In all honesty, this is the one part of his narrative that I actually like and agree with. But I also see how safe it is to end up within this element of the Christian religion coming from his background.

I don't know compared to my beliefs, he is nearing orthodoxy (not literally but comparatively).

memyselfI
02-28-2008, 02:55 PM
I still consider that Christian, of course our mileages may vary.

Yes, I do too. The blessed part of it though is it's a 180 from the Christian right. It shares no resemblance to their version of Christianity.

For instance:

the UCC became the first major Christian denomination in the U.S. to promote same-sex marriage. They confirmed this position in 2007.

http://www.religioustolerance.org/hom_ucca.htm

memyselfI
02-28-2008, 02:56 PM
I don't know compared to my beliefs, he is nearing orthodoxy (not literally but comparatively).

Not sure what you believe to have him be considered orthodox. Are you a Christian Scientist or Untarian?

Do you think sounds orthodox?

Presidential hopeful Barack Obama belongs to the United Church of Christ, one of the country's most racially diverse and liberal Protestant denominations -- the first to ordain an openly gay minister and to call for equal marriage rights for all people, regardless of gender.

The UCC prides itself as being "out front" on social justice issues, battling civil rights, women's rights and gay rights ahead of the mainstream. One Sunday hymnal equally celebrates male and female images of God.

And earlier this month, the UCC took a stance on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict that the Anti-Defamation League rebuked as "unfair and one-sided."

http://www.suntimes.com/news/elections/437415,CST-NWS-obama21.article

patteeu
02-28-2008, 03:56 PM
That is silly. He has been going to the same church for over 20 years and he is a devout Christian. Also in alot of his speeches he quotes the Bible so I am sure he is just hoodwinking us all. :rolleyes:

I think it's silly to believe that belonging to a church for 20 years is conclusive proof that a person is a believer. I've been going to church almost every Sunday for the past 5 years and I'm sure that most of the people who see me there mistakenly think I'm a believer.

You don't know how devout he is. I can only quote a limited number of passages from the bible, but if I had an incentive (like political ambition), I'm sure I could manage to become more familiar with the book.

BTW, Larry Craig has been married longer than Obama has been a member of Trinity United Church of Christ.

memyselfI
02-28-2008, 04:16 PM
I think it's silly to believe that belonging to a church for 20 years is conclusive proof that a person is a believer. I've been going to church almost every Sunday for the past 5 years and I'm sure that most of the people who see me there mistakenly think I'm a believer.

You don't know how devout he is. I can only quote a limited number of passages from the bible, but if I had an incentive (like political ambition), I'm sure I could manage to become more familiar with the book.

BTW, Larry Craig has been married longer than Obama has been a member of Trinity United Church of Christ.

Good point. When I first became involved in Unity after leaving the Catholic Church I was willingly going to church 2-4 times a week. My family thought I'd been indoctrinated into a cult or something...

the ironic thing is while I was spending all that time at church (a 'Christian' Church) I was being deprogrammed from the poisonous (for me) Catholic doctrine and dogma and was learning about God without Jesus and the Bible getting in the way...

that sounds blasphemous but it was soooo liberating. The more time I spent at church learning about God the less I needed Jesus or Christianity and the more I became open to other spiritual wisdom and works besides Christianity and the Bible. And yet, from the outside I looked like a devout Christian going to church 2-4 times a week for 3 years.

dirk digler
02-28-2008, 04:27 PM
I think it's silly to believe that belonging to a church for 20 years is conclusive proof that a person is a believer. I've been going to church almost every Sunday for the past 5 years and I'm sure that most of the people who see me there mistakenly think I'm a believer.

You don't know how devout he is. I can only quote a limited number of passages from the bible, but if I had an incentive (like political ambition), I'm sure I could manage to become more familiar with the book.

BTW, Larry Craig has been married longer than Obama has been a member of Trinity United Church of Christ.

I didn't say it was conclusive proof but I just find this notion that he is somehow hoodwinking millions of people is quite a stretch. Though in your defense it is not like this hasn't happened before with other so called religious people but I am willing to give him the benefit of the doubt until otherwise proven wrong.

HolmeZz
02-28-2008, 04:30 PM
You don't know how devout he is.

So why question it?

Logical
02-28-2008, 04:30 PM
Yes, I do too. The blessed part of it though is it's a 180 from the Christian right. It shares no resemblance to their version of Christianity.

For instance:

See now that is something else entirely, the CRWNJs are not the only Christians, apparently they are the most vocal. We cannot afford to let that continue to be our future.

patteeu
02-28-2008, 04:34 PM
HIS church's ten point vision doesn't even include the word Christ. :spock:

We are a congregation which is Unashamedly Black and Unapologetically Christian... Our roots in the Black religious experience and tradition are deep, lasting and permanent. We are an African people, and remain "true to our native land," the mother continent, the cradle of civilization. God has superintended our pilgrimage through the days of slavery, the days of segregation, and the long night of racism. It is God who gives us the strength and courage to continuously address injustice as a people, and as a congregation. We constantly affirm our trust in God through cultural expression of a Black worship service and ministries which address the Black Community.


The Pastor as well as the membership of Trinity United Church of Christ is committed to a 10-point Vision:

1. A congregation committed to ADORATION.
2. A congregation preaching SALVATION.
3. A congregation actively seeking RECONCILIATION.
4. A congregation with a non-negotiable COMMITMENT TO AFRICA.
5. A congregation committed to BIBLICAL EDUCATION.
6. A congregation committed to CULTURAL EDUCATION.
7. A congregation committed to the HISTORICAL EDUCATION OF AFRICAN PEOPLE IN DIASPORA.
8. A congregation committed to LIBERATION.
9. A congregation committed to RESTORATION.
10. A congregation working towards ECONOMIC PARITY.

They're committed to one particular race though. Or at least that's what their 12-point vision appeared to indicate before they modified it shortly after Obama's campaign for President was announced.

1. Commitment to God
2. Commitment to the Black Community
3. Commitment to the Black Family
4. Dedication to the Pursuit of Education
5. Dedication to the Pursuit of Excellence
6. Adherence to the Black Work Ethic
7. Commitment to Self-Discipline and Self-Respect
8. Disavowal of the Pursuit of "Middleclassness"
9. Pledge to make the fruits of all developing and acquired skills available to the Black Community
10. Pledge to Allocate Regularly, a Portion of Personal Resources for Strengthening and Supporting Black Institutions
11. Pledge allegiance to all Black leadership who espouse and embrace the Black Value System
12. Personal commitment to embracement of the Black Value System.

memyselfI
02-28-2008, 04:35 PM
So why question it?

Oh yeah, why question anything when it comes to the Chosen One? Let us just follow in blind faith. :doh!:

http://waterworlds.files.wordpress.com/2007/11/many-sheep.jpg

memyselfI
02-28-2008, 04:37 PM
They're committed to one particular race though. Or at least that's what their 12-point vision appeared to indicated before they modified it shortly after Obama's campaign for President was announced.

1. Commitment to God
2. Commitment to the Black Community
3. Commitment to the Black Family
4. Dedication to the Pursuit of Education
5. Dedication to the Pursuit of Excellence
6. Adherence to the Black Work Ethic
7. Commitment to Self-Discipline and Self-Respect
8. Disavowal of the Pursuit of "Middleclassness"
9. Pledge to make the fruits of all developing and acquired skills available to the Black Community
10. Pledge to Allocate Regularly, a Portion of Personal Resources for Strengthening and Supporting Black Institutions
11. Pledge allegiance to all Black leadership who espouse and embrace the Black Value System
12. Personal commitment to embracement of the Black Value System.

Wow, they sure have changed things lately. The controversial minister just 'retired.'

HolmeZz
02-28-2008, 04:43 PM
Oh yeah, why question anything when it comes to the Chosen One? Let us just follow in blind faith. :doh!:

You question something when you have a reason to question it. You don't question something just because you want it to support your bias.

You're reaching for stuff, memeinkampfI.

patteeu
02-28-2008, 04:47 PM
I didn't say it was conclusive proof but I just find this notion that he is somehow hoodwinking millions of people is quite a stretch. Though in your defense it is not like this hasn't happened before with other so called religious people but I am willing to give him the benefit of the doubt until otherwise proven wrong.

No, you didn't say it was conclusive, that's true. But how far from conclusive can it be and still leave you comfortable calling speculation to the contrary, "silly"?

I don't know what Obama believes and maybe I'm just projecting my own agnosticism onto him, but I think my speculation is as plausible as believing he's devout is.

I don't have a problem with you giving him the benefit of the doubt. For me, even if he is merely posing as a believer, it's far from being a very important issue to me. I'm much more concerned with what is in his heart in terms of liberal policy than belief in a diety.

memyselfI
02-28-2008, 04:58 PM
I don't have a problem with you giving him the benefit of the doubt. For me, even if he is merely posing as a believer, it's far from being a very important issue to me. I'm much more concerned with what is in his heart in terms of liberal policy than belief in a diety.

There is a whole lot of benefit of the doubt giving going on here especially by people who are moderates and conservative in leaning. And in order to do this they are having to suspend judgment of actual facts in order to have faith that he will do things that will please them. Either that or they are going to have to embrace things that they currently do not accept in order to still approve of him.

It's going to be a fascinating spectacle. I wish we'd get the nomination locked up so we can get on with the next scene of Obama's "all things to all people" juggling act and see just how far some of these folks go against their principles to continue to support him.

dirk digler
02-28-2008, 05:12 PM
No, you didn't say it was conclusive, that's true. But how far from conclusive can it be and still leave you comfortable calling speculation to the contrary, "silly"?

I don't know what Obama believes and maybe I'm just projecting my own agnosticism onto him, but I think my speculation is as plausible as believing he's devout is.

I don't have a problem with you giving him the benefit of the doubt. For me, even if he is merely posing as a believer, it's far from being a very important issue to me. I'm much more concerned with what is in his heart in terms of liberal policy than belief in a diety.

When someone posts substantive evidence that he is a non-believer or faking his beliefs then I will no longer call it silly.

I do have a question for you though, why do you go to Church if you are agnostic?

HolmeZz
02-28-2008, 05:19 PM
I do have a question for you though, why do you go to Church if you are agnostic?

Hedging his bets. ;)

htismaqe
02-28-2008, 05:23 PM
Hedging his bets. ;)

Yep.

Pascal's Gambit.

Jenson71
02-28-2008, 05:25 PM
I do have a question for you though, why do you go to Church if you are agnostic?

Marriage

Logical
02-28-2008, 05:56 PM
....

I do have a question for you though, why do you go to Church if you are agnostic?

I am betting it is because he likes the admiring stares he gets when he wears his Blue pumps, and silk stockings.

a1na2
02-28-2008, 06:37 PM
See now that is something else entirely, the CRWNJs are not the only Christians, apparently they are the most vocal. We cannot afford to let that continue to be our future.


:rolleyes:

Tolerance for everything but religion. We've got your number.

Adept Havelock
02-28-2008, 06:38 PM
I am betting it is because he likes the admiring stares he gets when he wears his Blue pumps, and silk stockings.

ROFL

NTTAWWT!

patteeu
02-29-2008, 07:25 AM
When someone posts substantive evidence that he is a non-believer or faking his beliefs then I will no longer call it silly.

OK, call it silly if you want. I'm sure Obama appreciates the faith that his followers have in him.

I do have a question for you though, why do you go to Church if you are agnostic?

Because I think it's better for our kids to be raised with religion than without it. They can always reject it later in life if they want, but I figured that religion gives a person a pretty good foundation for life either way. My wife, who was raised without religion, wanted to see what she missed too (and she's managed to become a believer now), so that was also a factor, but the kids are the main thing.

Sully
02-29-2008, 08:15 AM
My "rewording" was an accurate reflection of what I interpreted your original post to mean. Your less than friendly response and subsequent clarification reinforced my belief. Sometimes people don't like it when others cut through their spin. It's been my experience that you are one of these people. That's thin skin, whether you recognize it or not. And you're wrong when you jump to the conclusion that I wasn't acting in good faith. I was skeptical, and still am, about how far off the mark I'd been, but I was open to hearing your explanation and revising my comments if necessary.

Speaking of good faith, your very first response to me made it clear that you were running short in that department. My request for clarification was civil and it gave you a second chance to get back on track and explain to me how I'd misconstrued your original statement. You chose not to do so. That's on you, not me.



But of course, you didn't just simply walk away. You could have, but you didn't. Instead, you accused me of "twisting words" without explanation, going on to end that first response with a little extra sarcasm ("Good job."). Then after I asked for clarification, in your next post you tell me to "let [you] know if [you] need to draw [me] a picture" and finish it with some off-the-wall comment about logging in under another name (suggesting that you mistakenly think I post under alt usernames). I'm sorry, but that's not the behavior of someone "who isn't interested in taking part in it."

I'm sure it'd be more fun for you if you could come around and criticize others without having to deal with anyone questioning your comments, but you're right if you understand that that's not the way I play.

ROFL
Sorry... been gone. Just got back to this.
It's a quality piece of comedy. Completely inaccurate, but funny nonetheless.
Thanks for that.

patteeu
02-29-2008, 10:03 AM
ROFL
Sorry... been gone. Just got back to this.
It's a quality piece of comedy. Completely inaccurate, but funny nonetheless.
Thanks for that.

I don't believe you, but it's good to see that you're able to move on.