Finally settled on Obama

Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you:

No adverts like this in the forums anymore.
Times and dates in your local timezone.
Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance.
Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely.
Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net.

If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

**Crimson Devil**

dienekes96 wrote:
Crimson Devil wrote:You do not defeat evil by becoming it.
You have to define "evil" to make that work. And I'm not talking about nor supporting torture.

This is about violence. Violence is evil, but it has been used many times to save lives. Turning the other cheek and relying on man's good nature doesn't save too many lives these days.

We need to evolve beyond basic platitudes and start addressing what the problems are, and what the possible solutions could be. Some of those solutions will probably involve bullets. I admit that is depressing. But were I a Sudanese refugee, I wouldn't care about the West's moral quandary.

"Money talks, bull**** walks". Results speak loudly.

I do not believe in man's good nature or turn the other cheek. There is a time for war and a time for diplomacy. What I do believe in is there are lines we should not cross, Torture is one of them. Yes we might save a few lives by doing it, but we lose our soul in the process. What exactly have we won then? The soul of this nation is worth a few lives.

The other thing to consider is the personal toll. If we use torture then someone has to became a torturer. How does that not warp someone? Are we willing to let him go home to his family? It's very easy to call for violence against someone,being the one that has to do it is hard.

**pablo**

edit-deleted by author.

**Frazzled**

Crimson Devil wrote:
dienekes96 wrote:
Crimson Devil wrote:You do not defeat evil by becoming it.
You have to define "evil" to make that work. And I'm not talking about nor supporting torture.

This is about violence. Violence is evil, but it has been used many times to save lives. Turning the other cheek and relying on man's good nature doesn't save too many lives these days.

We need to evolve beyond basic platitudes and start addressing what the problems are, and what the possible solutions could be. Some of those solutions will probably involve bullets. I admit that is depressing. But were I a Sudanese refugee, I wouldn't care about the West's moral quandary.

"Money talks, bull**** walks". Results speak loudly.

I do not believe in man's good nature or turn the other cheek. There is a time for war and a time for diplomacy. What I do believe in is there are lines we should not cross, Torture is one of them. Yes we might save a few lives by doing it, but we lose our soul in the process. What exactly have we won then? The soul of this nation is worth a few lives.

The other thing to consider is the personal toll. If we use torture then someone has to became a torturer. How does that not warp someone? Are we willing to let him go home to his family? It's very easy to call for violence against someone,being the one that has to do it is hard.

And all those are relevant issues and points. I respect your opinon and Manny's (strange that a believer of evil with the capital E is arguing relativism), I just disgaree slightly. Not sure how this went off course from Obama to torture (mayhaps someone saw my commute yesterday).

**Frazzled**

Looks like the Obama / Billary bloodfest is continuing.

I guess the question now is: would Obama make a good Vice Presidential candidate for Billary. Would he want it? Would he offer it to her?

*Good VP for Billary. Yes indeedy, especially as he is winning right now. If Billary can trick him into VP status then she’s an epic politician, and it really is good for her.

*Would he want it? Not if he has a brain. A) chances are higher that she will lose the presidency, and he will be dragged down the toilet with her; B) If by a miracle she won, he would have to share power with Bill Clinton-essentially 3rd in Command (but first in blame). Look what happened to Al Gore who lost despite a good economy and peace to pretty much a nobody.

*Would he offer it to her? Not if he’s sane. Again you have the Bill Clinton factor. Do you want Bill Clinton’s loose mouth banging around the White House for the next four years while you’re trying to be President?

**Ahtman**

jfrazell wrote:Looks like the Obama / Billary bloodfest is continuing.

I guess the question now is: would Obama make a good Vice Presidential candidate for Billary. Would he want it? Would he offer it to her?

I'm going to say no, no, and no. They need someone a bit more moderate to balance out the ticket going into a national election where the questions are harder and the prizes are better.

I don't see him taking it even if offered for the reasons you listed.

I don't see him offering it to her either. Need a moderate to balance the ticket a bit as well as ego and hatred. Sure Hillary is holding up in a contest where just Democrats (mostly) are voting but she has a lot of negatives and a built in hate machine against her he doesn't need. I also don't think he wants the headache of her running around trying to be the Cheney of his administration, or in other words constantly trying to be the power from the passenger seat.

**Frazzled**

Agreed.

Were I Obama and this situation did arise I’d bow out. Better to get a more thorough level of expertise in the senate for the next time around. Of course that makes him less of a blank slate and a known quantity which would impact his popularity.

I'd posit, who is a remaining moderate in the Democratic Party to balance the ticket, that would work in this circumstance? That’s not one sided-I wonder the inverse on the Republican side. Rice would be my choice but she’s too tied to the Iraq fiasco. I also heard that the state department is being slippery on Durban II, which we should be vociferously boycotting and not leaving Canada out there alone. So she’s out to me.

http://www.philly.com/inquirer/opinion/20080310_Time_for_U_S__to_reject_U_N_s_anti-democratic_conference.html

**Stormtrooper X**

I really wish Hillary would have lost bad in Texas/Ohio, but I doubt even that would have made her drop out. She's in it to the end and will do ANYTHING to get the nomination. I listen to Rush Limbaugh everyday because our talk radio station is the only thing that comes in well here at work... and he makes me laugh. He's trying to take credit for Billary winning in those states because he told Republicans/Conservatives to go out and vote for her so they can keep the schism in the Democratic party going. It might be somewhat true. As far as the two of them getting together I seriously doubt it and really don't want it. Billary needs to go away... far far away. So who would take the VP seat for Obama? I've heard some people talking about John Edwards. Not to sure about that. Also heard some rumors about Bill Richardson, but he won't do it. So I don't know who he would offer it to.

**Crimson Devil**

Obama would most likely pick someone that gives the aura of experience and has as little political baggage as possible. Kind of like what Bush did by picking Cheney.

Hopefully, Obama is a better judge of character than the current President.

**Stormtrooper X**

Well the current president doesn't set the bar very high...

**dienekes96**

Richardson MIGHT do it.

I think Joe Biden would be a good choice. He's stronger than most Dems and Republicans on foreign policy.

Obama will need some balance on his ticket. A tradeoff for experience. I do not believe he needs a geographic choice (as McCain does, I bet).

**Grignard**

dienekes96 wrote:Richardson MIGHT do it.

I think Joe Biden would be a good choice. He's stronger than most Dems and Republicans on foreign policy.

Obama will need some balance on his ticket. A tradeoff for experience. I do not believe he needs a geographic choice (as McCain does, I bet).

What exactly is a geographic choice? Is that someone who is from or identifies with a certain region of the country?

**dienekes96**

A geographic choice is a when a candidate from New England chooses a mid-Westerner, or something like that.

If you are particularly weak in the South, you choose a Southern candidate for VP. Crap like that.

**Grignard**

double post

**Grignard**

dienekes96 wrote:A geographic choice is a when a candidate from New England chooses a mid-Westerner, or something like that.

If you are particularly weak in the South, you choose a Southern candidate for VP. Crap like that.

Yes, I see. I think the South is a particular bugbear for democrats because there are still a lot of traditional southern democrats, aka Dixiecrats around.

A good example is that I have some in-laws who consistently vote democrat in local elections, yet have stances that are usually associated with right wing social politics, i.e. pro-life, anti gay marriage, abstinence education, etc. The best I can figure as far as their reasons go for voting that way are economic and social policy reasons.

**Ahtman**

Evan Bayh (D-IN) wouldn't be a bad choice for VP for Obama except that they are to close regionally.

**Stormtrooper X**

So I'm sitting here listening to Rush Limbaugh as I do everyday I have to work (not because I'm a conservative, but because I think the stuff he says is funny and the station comes in clear), and he's playing bits of ol' Obama's pastors sermons. Wow... This guy is hardcore racist. Obama has been going to this church for 20 years. This guy did the wedding for Barrak and Michelle. He baptized their kids. Does this strike anyone else as... well alarming? I find myself now debating if Obama is the right choice. I hate to pin what one guy says on him, but when you listen to the sound bites you can hear the people in the background chanting. Who says Obama and his wife weren't some of those people?

**Mannahnin**

This one?

Hillary Ain’t Never Been Called A N*****

Who cares about what I’m going through? Who cares about what poor people have to put up with? Who cares about what a poor black man has to face every day in a country and a culture controlled by rich white people?

Somebody missed that — you got nervous, because we got some white members here. I’m still in Bible country. I am still in [unintelligible].

Jesus was a poor, black man who lived in a country and who lived in a culture that was controlled by rich white people. The Romans were rich, the Romans were Italian — which means they were European, which means they were white — and the Romans ran everything in Jesus’ country.

It just came to me with— with— with— within the past few weeks, y’all, why so many folks are hatin’ on Barack Obama. He doesn’t fit the mold. He ain’t white. He ain’t rich. And he ain’t privileged.

Hillary fits the mold. Europeans fit the mold. Giuliani fits the mold. Rich white men fit the mold.

Hillary never had a cab whiz past her and not pick her up because her skin was the wrong color. Hillary never had to worry about being pulled over in her car as a black man driving in the wrong…

I am sick of Negroes who just do not get it!

Hillary was not a black boy raised in a single-parent home. Barack was! Barack knows what it means to be a black man livin’ in a country and a culture that is controlled by rich white people! Hillary can never know that!

Hillary ain’t never been called a n*****! Hillary has never had her people defined as non-persons! Hillary ain’t had to work twice as hard just to get accepted by the rich white folks who [unintelligible] everything, or to get a passing grade when you know you are smarter than that C student sittin’ in the White House!

Ohhh, I am so glad that I got a god who knows what it is to be a poor black man, and in a country and a culture that is controlled and run by rich white people!

He taught me, Jesus did, how to love my enemies. Jesus taught me how to love the hell outta my enemies! And not be reduced to their level of hatred, bigotry, and smallmindedness.

Hillary ain’t never had her own people say she wasn’t white enough!

Jesus had his own people sidin’ with the enemy!

That’s why I love Jesus, y’all. He never let their hatred dampen his hope. …[.quote]

**Stormtrooper X**

Yes... that is the one.

This guy is so blind by his hatred of white people that his rant makes no sense. I could go on and pick this entire thing apart, but that will do nothing but derail this thread which I feel is filled with intelligent and legitimate posts.

I don't want to believe that Obama shares these views, but this guy is a huge influence in his life. He's even said so. How do you go to a church for 20 years and listen to this absolute blind trash and not pick up some of it?

**Mannahnin**

Is that "hardcore racist"? It's definitely talking about race, and it's ranting a bit, but speaking as a white guy, I don't think it's racist. Where do you see him expressing hatred towards white people? Do I think he's exaggerating and over-dramatizing? Sure. Do I see hatred in it? Not at all.

I'm definitely unhappy to see him talking so much about politicians in terms that look like an endorsement. Of course several of the candidates in this race have been treading on or crossing that line with church speaking engagements, but two wrongs don't make a right.

This is one of my big disappointments with American politics; that so many religious groups can't seem to keep their tax-exempt mouths out of politics.

**Mannahnin**

Expanding on that a bit, Obama was raised and went to school in Indonesia until he was eight. His father was Kenyan, and his mother white. He moved back to the US when he was eight and was raised by his (white) grandparents. He flourished and was a great student, but in his upbringing he clearly was not part of the typical black American experience.

In working with inner city groups and joining this church, he educated himself in the issues and problems that many black Americans care about and have internalized. By doing so he made himself more one of them; he joined that social and religious community more fully.

Having been raised by a white mother and her white parents, and having clearly had a happy and successful childhood and young adulthood, do you think he would choose to attend a church which actually hated white people?

**Stormtrooper X**

Mann, how can you not feel that this is racist? If I came out and said "White people can't be successful in the hip hop industry because we're white. The black man has this industry locked down and refuses to let a White man get the microphone and speak rhymes of truth because White men don't know what it's like to be poor. White men don't know what the struggle is because they're white. Eminem was a token we were given because we gave the black man Colin Powell." I guarantee I would be branded a racist. Not a word of that is true and not a word of what this jackass said is true. Jesus wasn't black, not all black people are poor in this country. Not all white people are super rich. Just because this guy is black does NOT give him the right to spew this

and then call everyone who bats an eye racist.

**Grignard**

Mannahnin wrote:Is that "hardcore racist"? It's definitely talking about race, and it's ranting a bit, but speaking as a white guy, I don't think it's racist. Where do you see him expressing hatred towards white people? Do I think he's exaggerating and over-dramatizing? Sure. Do I see hatred in it? Not at all.

I'm definitely unhappy to see him talking so much about politicians in terms that look like an endorsement. Of course several of the candidates in this race have been treading on or crossing that line with church speaking engagements, but two wrongs don't make a right.

This is one of my big disappointments with American politics; that so many religious groups can't seem to keep their tax-exempt mouths out of politics.

A. Yes, I think it is racist. Even if the words, "I hate caucasians" werent mentioned, there is more involved in language than a logical code, there is meaning to be read into tone and other subtleties.

B. Why are you dissapointed that religious groups want to participate in politics? Organizations by their very nature strive to lobby for the most favorable outcome for their members and the success of the organization as a whole? It isnt any different, than NOW, the NRA, the AARP, or any other organization. In fact, I like to think of them as superorganisms making decisions and comunicating with other entities, very much like you or I campaigning for a candidate or going to vote ( well, you, because I simply dont vote, I opt out). And if you don't mind, I'll go ahead and head off the whole seperation of church and state thing at the pass. I think religious organizations have the same rights as any other organization, and that doesnt equate with having a state religion or sacred involvement in secular affairs.

**Mannahnin**

ST, the things you just said and the things I quoted do not match. He never said "all white people are super rich", at least not in what I quoted. Nor did he say that all black people are poor.

How can you say that "not a word of that is true"?

Do you think Hillary has been called a "n*****"?

Do you think cab drivers never bypass black customers?

Do you think that wealthy white people don't make up a very large majority of the influential positions in our government?

We don't know what race Jesus was. Arguments have been made based on biblical text (such as having hair "like wool" and feet "like unto fine brass") that he is black. Modern and historical images of him here and in Europe mostly portray him as white, whereas those in African churches usually have him as black. Images in Latin America or Japan often show his features as matching their people. The most likely candidate is that he was middle-eastern, ethnically, but we don't know for sure and many different people have claimed him as one of their own.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Race_of_Jesus

Do I think the guy's exaggerating and distorting the issue? Certainly. Obama wasn't really raised in a single-parent home. He had a mother and a stepfather, then two loving grandparents when he came back to the US. He wasn't poor either. And I strongly doubt that the teachers he had made him work "twice as hard" to get a passing grade. The guy's VERY smart and hardworking, but I'm sure he had good and supportive teachers too.

But he DOES have more direct knowledge and experience of prejudice and of the issues and perspective of black Americans than any white American can. That's the core message of the rant, and it's accurate.

**Mannahnin**

Grignard wrote:A. Yes, I think it is racist. Even if the words, "I hate caucasians" werent mentioned, there is more involved in language than a logical code, there is meaning to be read into tone and other subtleties.

onelook.com wrote:Quick definitions (racism)

noun: discriminatory or abusive behavior towards members of another race
noun: the prejudice that members of one race are intrinsically superior to members of other races

I'm not seeing it.

Grignard wrote:B. Why are you dissapointed that religious groups want to participate in politics? Organizations by their very nature strive to lobby for the most favorable outcome for their members and the success of the organization as a whole? It isnt any different, than NOW, the NRA, the AARP, or any other organization. In fact, I like to think of them as superorganisms making decisions and comunicating with other entities, very much like you or I campaigning for a candidate or going to vote ( well, you, because I simply dont vote, I opt out). And if you don't mind, I'll go ahead and head off the whole seperation of church and state thing at the pass. I think religious organizations have the same rights as any other organization, and that doesnt equate with having a state religion or sacred involvement in secular affairs.

Churches, churchgoers, and preachers have every right to be politically involved, and even to speak about political issues.

What they (along with every other group defined as a nonprofit under section 501C(3) of the Internal Revenue Code) are forbidden to do by Federal tax law is to endorse or oppose candidates for public office or use their resources in partisan campaigns. It's against the law.

This law gets bent or broken every election, but that doesn't make it right. A lot of churches are really good and scrupulous about this, but a lot of others break it willfully, because they prefer to take advantage of the law when it comes to their money and contributions, and break the law when it comes to endorsing and working for candidates.

http://projectfairplay.org/brochure/

**Grignard**

Mannahnin wrote:ST, the things you just said and the things I quoted do not match. He never said "all white people are super rich", at least not in what I quoted. Nor did he say that all black people are poor.

It dosent matter what was litterally said, it is about tone.

Mannahnin wrote:
Do you think Hillary has been called a "n*****"?

No.......I doubt she has been called that. I imagine it is because she is caucasian. How does it make her a better candidate if she was?

Mannahnin wrote:
Do you think cab drivers never bypass black customers?

This day and age? I doubt it. You'd be fired by your company if the fact that you were doing that came out. I think we would hear about it if it was happening regularly. God knows people love to be a victim of something.

Mannahnin wrote:
Do you think that wealthy white people don't make up a very large majority of the influential positions in our government?

Why does this matter? Obama isnt exactly begging on the street. Furthermore, people often become wealthy from being in influential positions in government, so it could be a case of putting the horse before the cart.

Mannahnin wrote:
We don't know what race Jesus was. Arguments have been made based on biblical text (such as having hair "like wool" and feet "like unto fine brass") that he is black. Modern and historical images of him here and in Europe mostly portray him as white, whereas those in African churches usually have him as black. Images in Latin America or Japan often show his features as matching their people. The most likely candidate is that he was middle-eastern, ethnically, but we don't know for sure and many different people have claimed him as one of their own.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Race_of_Jesus

But making the tacit assumption he was black is not true. Why does anyone care about this anyhow?

**Grignard**

Mannahnin wrote:
Grignard wrote:A. Yes, I think it is racist. Even if the words, "I hate caucasians" werent mentioned, there is more involved in language than a logical code, there is meaning to be read into tone and other subtleties.

onelook.com wrote:Quick definitions (racism)

noun: discriminatory or abusive behavior towards members of another race
noun: the prejudice that members of one race are intrinsically superior to members of other races

I feel it is. I think you arent realizing that being passive agressive is just as bad as being actively agressive. That whole attitude is the belief in the superiority of a victim. It offended me.

**Grignard**

Mannahnin wrote:

Churches, churchgoers, and preachers have every right to be politically involved, and even to speak about political issues.

What they (along with every other group defined as a nonprofit under section 501C(3) of the Internal Revenue Code) are forbidden to do by Federal tax law is to endorse or oppose candidates for public office or use their resources in partisan campaigns. It's against the law.

This law gets bent or broken every election, but that doesn't make it right. A lot of churches are really good and scrupulous about this, but a lot of others break it willfully, because they prefer to take advantage of the law when it comes to their money and contributions, and break the law when it comes to endorsing and working for candidates.

http://projectfairplay.org/brochure/

I'm interpreting this as meaning donating tax free monies to candidates. Furthermore your source is hardly unbiased.

**Mannahnin**

Grignard wrote:It dosent matter what was litterally said, it is about tone.

“It doesn’t matter what is literally said”? Did you actually just write that? In public?

Of course it matters what is literally said. You can claim all day to know what someone means based on their “tone”, but people can be angry and passionate without being hateful. This guy is far step down from MLK, but Dr. King sure yelled and sounded angry in a lot of his speeches and sermons. But MLK was never hateful. Again, I am NOT equating this guy with Dr. King. But Dr. King is a clear and wonderful example of the tradition this preacher is no doubt trying to emulate, albeit in a flawed and inferior form.

Grignard wrote:
Mannahnin wrote:Do you think Hillary has been called a "n*****"?

No.......I doubt she has been called that. I imagine it is because she is caucasian. How does it make her a better candidate if she was?

Apply two seconds of thought to this, I beg you. The preacher is making the point that Obama is the candidate who shares the personal experiences of black Americans and can understand their perspective.

Grignard wrote:
Mannahnin wrote:Do you think cab drivers never bypass black customers?

This day and age? I doubt it. You'd be fired by your company if the fact that you were doing that came out. I think we would hear about it if it was happening regularly. God knows people love to be a victim of something.

This is the exact attitude Colbert lampoons every time he has a black person on the show and pretends to be unable to see their race. While we've made great strides against racism as a nation, that doesn't mean you can just pretend that it doesn't exist.

http://www.rediff.com/news/1999/nov/06us1.htm

http://youtube.com/watch?v=ltJ4RRZZCv4&watch_response

No one LIKES to be a victim. A lot of people DO play the victim, or try to trade on being victimized for sympathy. Certainly. That’s a problem. But racism is certainly an issue, and difficulties for black men being picked up by cabs are so widely-known that it’s actually been the subject of academic studies. Again, it's just the preacher picking a widely-known example of a part of the black experience that Obama knows more about. Is it a great argument? No, not really. Does it have anything to do with hate? Certainly not.

Mannahnin wrote:Do you think that wealthy white people don't make up a very large majority of the influential positions in our government?

Why does this matter? Obama isnt exactly begging on the street. Furthermore, people often become wealthy from being in influential positions in government, so it could be a case of putting the horse before the cart.

**Mannahnin**

Grignard wrote:
Mannahnin wrote:
onelook.com wrote:Quick definitions (racism)

noun: discriminatory or abusive behavior towards members of another race
noun: the prejudice that members of one race are intrinsically superior to members of other races

I feel it is. I think you arent realizing that being passive agressive is just as bad as being actively agressive. That whole attitude is the belief in the superiority of a victim. It offended me.

That's not what passive-aggressive means.

http://onelook.com/?w=passive-aggressive&loc=scworef&scwo=1&ls=a

If you're getting offended by it, or "belief in the superiority of a victim", I don't know what to say. He's expressing the opinion that a person who shares common experiences with him, and with his congregation, is the person better equipped to represent his interests. Is he making a calm, rational, reasoned case, appealing to logic? No, he's making an emotional case, and doing it in a loud, attention-getting way. Most preachers (white or black) express themselves that way when speaking publically.

That's a far cry from claiming one person is BETTER than another person, or inherently superior to them as a person.

**Grignard**

But why the anger? Ive never done anything to anyone just because they were black or of any extraction. Can you not see how I could at least be threatened by this? I can't understand why people like this are out to get people like me.