Obama is going to win.
Obama - Is he or isn't he ?
- Thread starter Facetious
- Start date
First of all, I am NOT for Obama or Clinton. I have not made up my mind.
But if you watched the Texas debate, then you would understand why Mrs. Hillary Clinton's policy failed. It is not Clinton's policy on Universal Health Care, Universal Health Care is a good thing but her way of doing things is wrong !
I have spent 8 years studying Universal Health care system and I believe it is good for everyone but the way Mrs. Clinton goes about it, it is doomed to fail.
Mrs. Clinon is hard-nosed, refuse to accept and discuss with her opponents in the Congress. She refuses to compromise and as today, her plan has a "mandate" to require every American to "BUY" in the insurance plan.
I do know Obama's plan does not have a mandate, but do require parents to buy in health insurance for their children. As I state, there are a lot of waste in Universal Health Care, your tax will go up so much going from the price of a stamp, to fill up your tank with $8.00 of gas to new tax GST and PST.
All European countries plus Australia and Canada has special GST General Service Tax and PST Provinical Service tax to fund the Universal Health Care, thus special income tax to pay for the Health Service, it is called "Health Tax".
I understand Obama and Clinton never give the details of their Plan, but how are you going to fund 1.4 trillion dollars of health care expense.
No one even knows in the US Government or so called experts know how much have to spend 1.4 trillions, or 1.6 trillions on Universal Health Care ?
So Mrs. Clinton's attack on Obama in Ohio last weekend is unacceptable.
dick van cock
Closed Account
Imagine it was true!...
A Muslim President would certainly inflict irreparable damage to America. Remember how Kareem Abdul Jabbar killed the NBA?
America lost the Vietnam War only because Muhammad Ali refused to kill them gooks, that Muslim pig!
Levittown burned down when Malcolm X entered the scene... result: Civil war!
Ahmed Ertegün was the fifth column of Islam, effectively changing American music to the worst. By promoting degenerate anti-American music like Ray Charles and Aretha Franklin we will never be able to cherish the true beauty of the Minstrel show again.
Shame on American Muslims! They are the true enemies of the state!
A Muslim President would certainly inflict irreparable damage to America. Remember how Kareem Abdul Jabbar killed the NBA?
America lost the Vietnam War only because Muhammad Ali refused to kill them gooks, that Muslim pig!
Levittown burned down when Malcolm X entered the scene... result: Civil war!
Ahmed Ertegün was the fifth column of Islam, effectively changing American music to the worst. By promoting degenerate anti-American music like Ray Charles and Aretha Franklin we will never be able to cherish the true beauty of the Minstrel show again.
Shame on American Muslims! They are the true enemies of the state!
You are not very familiar with traditional African garb, are you? To begin with, what Obama is wearing is not "Islamic garb," because, in fact, there's no such thing.
I am African, and we don't all wear the same thing across the continent. What he is wearing resembles garb worn in East Africa, and in this case, Kenya. Kenya doesn't even have a Muslim majority.
Arabs, Muslims and non-Muslims, have long worn what you understand to be "Muslim clothing." The long, what you call a bedsheets, white garment has long been worn due to the extreme climate of the area. It is not a fashion thing...it's a necessity of nature. Due to the heat, something light must be worn.
It's appaling to hear some people talk like this. Do you know where jeans are from, and why they were "invented" to begin with? I know the answer to this, but do you, presumably being from the United States, know the answer? I hope you do. It helps to understand why other cultures do what they do, wear what they wear, eat what they eat, etc. It doesn't help to giggle like a little girl over what other cultures do (not suggesting that you, in particular, have been making light of it all).
meesterperfect
Hiliary 2020
yes indeed desperate measures.
and when confronted she'll just say as always " I knew nothing about this, it was my campaign people".
This only shows us all what she really thinks of us.That we are all so stupid that by seeing this photo we will automatically equate Obama with terrorism
It also shows just what an ignorant racist she is ( and I rarely accuse somebody of racism), but here she is using race to send a false message. How ignorant.
and when confronted she'll just say as always " I knew nothing about this, it was my campaign people".
This only shows us all what she really thinks of us.That we are all so stupid that by seeing this photo we will automatically equate Obama with terrorism
It also shows just what an ignorant racist she is ( and I rarely accuse somebody of racism), but here she is using race to send a false message. How ignorant.
dick van cock
Closed Account
He's rabbi Goldberg.
http://cache.viewimages.com/xc/5542...7EC77F5F8D1CEB87AECBE5228CE6CA40A659CEC4C8CB6
A man for all seasons!
bigbadbrody
Banned
haha diaper head
I've never been to Africa, don't plan to go there anytime soon, might like to visit someday, am not sure what you mean by questioning the history of the jeans:dunno: and simply responded to the impact of that photo, here in America, the day before the last debate and a week before the last meaningful primary in the race. I'm sure the intention was not to position Obama as being close to Africa but to Islam. I believe the skull cap is the one traditional "garb" shared by Muslim men and then there are the varying degrees of full-body coverings that women must wear, right? That is not a skull cap in that picture. I know that much.
I have no doubt me and my fellow Americans are grossly ignorant on other peoples' cultures.
I am being half-serious/half-joking when I say Obama does look a bit like he's headed to a toga party at a frat house. Would he not wear a more colorful garment in Kenya or was he restricted to wear white, in that instance?
I have no doubt me and my fellow Americans are grossly ignorant on other peoples' cultures.
I am being half-serious/half-joking when I say Obama does look a bit like he's headed to a toga party at a frat house. Would he not wear a more colorful garment in Kenya or was he restricted to wear white, in that instance?
Facetious
Moderated
Is that your only criteria ? You've got to be kidding me
How about a candidate that speaks with unwavering specificity and often champions the Constitution of the United States ?
Atheists talk / dwell on religion too much, IMO. I would rather that the attention be focused on the restoration of the liberties that most of us have taken for granted, not undermine or support a particular faith. What is the Atheist agenda about and why can I not get a consensus ? Is it about the disruption and the hopeful dismemberment of anything Christian oriented ?
Is it about the absolute positive separation of church and state
I could care less what the religious preference is for the President of the U.S.A. provided that his or her said faith or religion has a recent history (i.e. 237 years for example) in good standing and is complimentary and compatible with the virtues of the Constitution of the United States.
How about non faith non denominational ? does that work ? :yesyes:
The scant few self proclaimed atheists that I know here at home are always dwelling on religion ! Stop that ! lol It's somewhat difficult to be in the accompaniment of them as they are seemingly enslaved and or obsessed with the very thing they profess to detest :dunno:
In the context of a Presidential candidate, IMO, only speak of religion when or as you see that it is dangerous within the context of The Constitution as it was originally written and or interpreted.
Those vehemently in opposition to religion(s), or Christianity, as it were, are beholden to an ideology, are they not ? Therefore, is that not a faith ?
What is often overlooked is that you live in a country where you can cast dissent in reference to other ambient faiths. Reciprocally, you can and or will accrue some opposition to the contrary.
To each their own.
Aside - We all must be guaranteed that our votes count, otherwise this discussion is entirely academic.
We must also be weary and attentive toward the ego trips in governance and corporatocracy that can and will derail our livelihood.
Is that your only criteria ? You've got to be kidding me
How about a candidate that speaks with unwavering specificity and often champions the Constitution of the United States ?
Atheists talk / dwell on religion too much, IMO. I would rather that the attention be focused on the restoration of the liberties that most of us have taken for granted, not undermine or support a particular faith. What is the Atheist agenda about and why can I not get a consensus ? Is it about the disruption and the hopeful dismemberment of anything Christian oriented ?
Is it about the absolute positive separation of church and state
I could care less what the religious preference is for the President of the U.S.A. provided that his or her said faith or religion has a recent history (i.e. 237 years for example) in good standing and is complimentary and compatible with the virtues of the Constitution of the United States.
How about non faith non denominational ? does that work ? :yesyes:
The scant few self proclaimed atheists that I know here at home are always dwelling on religion ! Stop that ! lol It's somewhat difficult to be in the accompaniment of them as they are seemingly enslaved and or obsessed with the very thing they profess to detest :dunno:
In the context of a Presidential candidate, IMO, only speak of religion when or as you see that it is dangerous within the context of The Constitution as it was originally written and or interpreted.
Those vehemently in opposition to religion(s), or Christianity, as it were, are beholden to an ideology, are they not ? Therefore, is that not a faith ?
What is often overlooked is that you live in a country where you can cast dissent in reference to other ambient faiths. Reciprocally, you can and or will accrue some opposition to the contrary.
To each their own.
Aside - We all must be guaranteed that our votes count, otherwise this discussion is entirely academic.
We must also be weary and attentive toward the ego trips in governance and corporatocracy that can and will derail our livelihood.
I don't think he is saying it would be the only criteria, but rather that it would be nice if being a professed atheist was not seen as a disqualification to hold office which it currently is.Not only is there the problem of too many people being unwilling to disregard and keep religion out of public affairs and policy through bias against non-religious folks there are actually several states that have laws against non-beleivers holding office.I have had religious folks tell me that freedom of religion does not mean you can choose to be non-religious and that it only means you can pick any religion you like but that you should have to pick one.Ah,Thanks but no thanks LOL.
And if you would like to know anymore about the issue of relgious intolerance and descrimination against athesists which is rampant IMO, wikepedia has good info on it here.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Discrimination_against_atheists
Last thought, If America is to spread truth and enlightenment to the world of people who are deeply religious maybe we need to do more work on shedding ourselves of ancient beleif systems first ,so we will be seen as a better example of progressive enlightenment.
Either way Obama is gonna win so big deal. It's a disgrace that they would make fun of Islam as a religion in this way regardless of their views or what they feel. Everyone should be equal no matter what colour or race they are.
Facetious
Moderated
FOMM -
These "disqualifications" that you speak of, I'll have to research.
I just don't know the whereabouts of all these
If I were to take 100 friends, family and clients etc. only 6 of those regularly attend a weekly visit to a house of prayer.
I don't much care for the activist approach that religious and areligious [sic] zealots expose to people who just mind their own business.
If one wants to discuss religion the best is to find an atheist.
Funny how that works.
My life has not yet been impeded by either party.
YMMV
These "disqualifications" that you speak of, I'll have to research.
I just don't know the whereabouts of all these
. Would you care to qualify the particulars with respect to how you define "deeply".
If I were to take 100 friends, family and clients etc. only 6 of those regularly attend a weekly visit to a house of prayer.
I don't much care for the activist approach that religious and areligious [sic] zealots expose to people who just mind their own business.
If one wants to discuss religion the best is to find an atheist.
Funny how that works.
My life has not yet been impeded by either party.
I somewhat agree, OTOH, it may be a bit idealistic in todays world.masha said:
YMMV
My reference about the world of deeply religious people was really about what many would call extremists in other parts of the world.Like the followers of Osama.Not that I think religion is the underlying reason for the conflict we are in with such people but many do say it is part of the problem.
Atheism wouldn't even be a criteria for me in regard to a candidate having a credible run at the presidency, let alone my only criteria. Not sure how you got all of that from a one sentence response. I'm merely suggesting that an atheist shouldn't be a de facto non-choice in an election just because he or she is an atheist. FOMM covered that with the first part of his response under your initial quote, so thanks for that.Is that your only criteria ? You've got to be kidding me
How about a candidate that speaks with unwavering specificity and often champions the Constitution of the United States ?
Atheists talk / dwell on religion too much, IMO. I would rather that the attention be focused on the restoration of the liberties that most of us have taken for granted, not undermine or support a particular faith. What is the Atheist agenda about and why can I not get a consensus ? Is it about the disruption and the hopeful dismemberment of anything Christian oriented ?
Is it about the absolute positive separation of church and state
I could care less what the religious preference is for the President of the U.S.A. provided that his or her said faith or religion has a recent history (i.e. 237 years for example) in good standing and is complimentary and compatible with the virtues of the Constitution of the United States.
How about non faith non denominational ? does that work ? :yesyes:
The scant few self proclaimed atheists that I know here at home are always dwelling on religion ! Stop that ! lol It's somewhat difficult to be in the accompaniment of them as they are seemingly enslaved and or obsessed with the very thing they profess to detest :dunno:
In the context of a Presidential candidate, IMO, only speak of religion when or as you see that it is dangerous within the context of The Constitution as it was originally written and or interpreted.
Those vehemently in opposition to religion(s), or Christianity, as it were, are beholden to an ideology, are they not ? Therefore, is that not a faith ?
What is often overlooked is that you live in a country where you can cast dissent in reference to other ambient faiths. Reciprocally, you can and or will accrue some opposition to the contrary.
To each their own.
Aside - We all must be guaranteed that our votes count, otherwise this discussion is entirely academic.
We must also be weary and attentive toward the ego trips in governance and corporatocracy that can and will derail our livelihood.
To your second point, atheists (in your view) "dwell" on religion because it is ingrained into the culture to the point of casual discrimination or intolerance. I read somewhere that atheists are the most distrusted minority group in the USA. In certain states, (my home state included) non-religious people are precluded from holding public office--specifically the governorship. They dwell on it for the same reason that gay people dwell on homophobia and discrimination based on sexual preference, for the same reason African Americans dwell on racial discrimination. They "dwell" on it because it impacts their lives on an everyday basis.
The reason you cannot get a consensus on the atheist agenda is because no such thing exists. Atheists are not a monolithic group. They are not organized in the same way that other minority groups are. Individual atheists/agnostics/etc have differing views on these major and minor issues, and do not assemble their scant percentage of people in conferences to reach consensus. There is a small movement by secularists (not necessarily atheists) to stop pseudo-science like creationism from being taught at schools. But even here, where there is probably a fair amount of agreement from atheists/agnostics/non-theists, there is no strong organization to push the issue in the same way that GLADD or the NAACP or whoever is built.
To your point about relevance in a presidential race, my initial statement is in agreement. Religion, or the lack of it, shouldn't play a part in a political race. It does, though, because many deem people without religion as not trustworthy or morally stable/strong, both ridiculous, but which are two grass root, fundamental issues to a voting electorate that can negatively affect a non-religious candidate regardless of qualifications. An example on the other side though--Huckabee, a legit and mainstream Republican candidate, has said that he would like to alter the Constitution to mirror "God's Law" as I believe he phrased it. That is disgusting and spits in the face of this country's principles. He should be regarded as a fringe candidate, but he, while unable to win, is being regarded seriously.
Regarding "those vehemently in opposition to religion," they do not represent all atheists in this country. But even if they represented the whole of atheists, I'm not sure what your point is. Second, ideology is not in any way equal to faith. No, ideology is not a form or type of faith. They are two vastly different things.
Does a "terrist" stands for everything that Bush is set against? If so, then I welcome any such promoter of death & destruction who will, apparently, begin by pulling us out of Iraq, dismantling AT&T and friends for aiding warantless wiretapping, ceasing the deficit buildup, reinvigorating the DoJ to do something about widespread corporate corruption, and stopping the drilling for oil in a wildlife preserve. And that's just for starters.
Yeah, bring on the "terra."
Yeah, bring on the "terra."
Rattrap
Doesn't feed trolls and would appreciate it if you
Normally I'd just hand out rep rather than quoting all this, but it's so well-written I think it warrants reading twice. :thumbsup:
That, and it won't let me give you any more rep.
meesterperfect
Hiliary 2020
I didn't realize we were drilling for oil in wildlife preserves. Which ones?
So the GOV should do something about widespread corporate corruption?
Which ones? How? Where? And then what?
And stop that damn wiretapping on suspected mass murderers,instead leave it up to some judge in our swift and expediant justice system.
And of course pull out of Iraq and hope for the best. I wish I knew how he was gonna do that, Actually I wish he knew, cause he sure the hell hasn't told us so far.
I've been thinking alot about this race lately, and I can't figure out why soo many in the U.S. think Obama is some sort of Saviour. What has he done thats proven this in his 2 years as a senator asides from running for PREZ?
It feels like Blind Faith to me.
Baaaaaa, Baaaaaaa..........
The Arctic National Wildlife Reserve (ANWR) in Alaska.
http://leahy.senate.gov/issues/environment/anwr.html
http://board.freeones.com/showpost.php?p=1771711&postcount=47
Yep. The "invisible hand" can't fix everything, you know.
Oh boy... where to begin. I don't want to get into a debate about regulation, but the oil industry could certainly do with more oversight. See this post:
http://board.freeones.com/showpost.php?p=1759055&postcount=10
There are other industries and companies which I could mention as well. I think I'll stick with Big Oil around here, though.
If FISA approval isn't fast enough (even despite being able to apply for it after the fact!), then maybe someone should do something about that. Ignoring the problem and breaking the law isn't a better solution.
We're not accomplishing much by staying there either, are we? Sometimes you have to take a gamble.
Honestly, I don't think that Obama will accomplish all that much if he does become President. There's too much inertia for the "status quo."
Maybe the system can be fixed by working within it, but it'll take effort by several administrations to make that happen.
Similar threads
