| Author | Thread |
|
|
03/21/2008 06:54:48 PM · #126 |
Originally posted by ClubJuggle:
Originally posted by trevytrev:
Does it really make a difference if the statement was there two weeks ago, two months ago or a year ago, seems like hair splitting to me. Regardless of whether you find it offensive and divisive or not it now has the appearance that they removed it to benefit the campaign, as if they are hiding something. |
Whether or not that's true, last I checked, Barack Obama is not the church's webmaster.
~Terry |
I'm sure he isn't, but if he were or if he asked to have it taken down would that change your opinion on the situation? |
|
|
|
03/21/2008 06:59:29 PM · #127 |
Originally posted by trevytrev:
I'm sure he isn't, but if he were or if he asked to have it taken down would that change your opinion on the situation? |
If he asked them to take it down, it at least suggests that he disagrees with it.
I know I don't agree with all the policies of my chosen place of worship, but I like the congregation nonetheless.
~Terry
|
|
|
|
03/21/2008 07:17:22 PM · #128 |
| Your right, many people do not necessarily agree with all the preachings and teachings of their house of worship. I do find it suspect that they changed the mission statement of the church so close to the time that Mr.Obama declared his candidacy for president. That being said I don't have a major issue with it and there are good reasons as to why they may have taken it down. The only reason I even entered this part of the discussion was to state that I thought the time frame of when it was taken off the website didn't really make a difference in the scheme of the discussion. As I stated before my issue in this whole situation with his Rev. is the hypocrisy of Mr.Obama's words in relation to his actions. But again, that's my fault for trusting a politician at face value. |
|
|
|
03/21/2008 07:49:19 PM · #129 |
Originally posted by trevytrev:
As I stated before my issue in this whole situation with his Rev. is the hypocrisy of Mr.Obama's words in relation to his actions. |
Perhaps I failed to notice this hypocrisy you mention... perhaps you could inform me as to where exactly I might find it.
Ray |
|
|
|
03/21/2008 08:26:13 PM · #130 |
Here are previous exchange in this thread regarding my thoughts on his his hypocrisy thoughout this situation:
Originally posted by trevytrev:
Originally posted by cpanaioti:
Originally posted by BHuseman:
Originally posted by Gordon:
Originally posted by trevytrev:
I think it's a great speech with a wonderful message, although I find him to be hypocritical. Earlier last year he spoke on the subject of Don Imus, radio shock jock who, in jest, made some derogatory comments:
"I understand MSNBC has suspended Mr. Imus," Obama told ABC News, "but I would also say that there's nobody on my staff who would still be working for me if they made a comment like that about anybody of any ethnic group. And I would hope that NBC ends up having that same attitude."
The whole "Do as I say and not as I do" sentiment is tiresome in politics. I had higher hopes for this man but now I question his integrity. |
You question his integrity because he dismissed the guy from his staff and renounced his views in public ? I haven't been following all that closely, but what would you prefer him do ? |
He only dismissed this guy after the videos surfaced and made the international news (the first time I saw the videos was while on vacation Hong Kong.) It shouldn't have taken the videos being aired on tv for Obama to dismiss Wright. He should have done it on his own. But as of Friday morning Wright was not dismissed. And Obama still clings on to Wright with his unwillingness to "disown" Wright. |
He shouldn't have to. But so be it. |
I agree that he shouldn't have to disown the guy, most individuals have friends or family members that have radical or outright crazy views on varying subjects, I know I do. My issue isn't with him refusing to disown the Rev, but a matter of the hypocrisy of the situation. Mr.Obama came out approximately one week following the Don Imus statement and called for him to be fired by NBC. On the other side he became aware of some of the Rev's statements last year before he announced his candidacy and actually dis invited the Rev to give a speech at his announcement. He then turns around and puts the Rev on his staff. Only until the shit storm hits and his presidential nomination in jeopardy does he do what he told NBC he would do if someone on his staff expressed views against anybody of any ethnic group. All this after he first tried to dismiss this as comments likened to a crazy uncle. So what more I would have wanted him to do is to practice what he preached a year ago and to never put the Rev on his staff knowing full well his radical and sometimes racial, anti-American views. I also think it's crap that he has never heard the Rev say these comments to him him person, just my opinion on that. Everything he says now seems self serving. |
|
|
|
|
03/21/2008 09:00:09 PM · #131 |
My feelings on the candidates:
Barack Obama
I like what he says. He comes off as fairly honest and sincere. However, I get the impression that he's more bark than bite and his record reflect this. Basically, you have to take him on faith that if elected, he'll turn into someone who can get things done.
Hillary Clinton
Frankly, I don't know what to make of her. She comes across as more of an opportunist and a chameleon than anything else. On the positive, the latest version (Clinton 5.6?) is at least an improvement over past versions.
John McCain
Like Obama, he comes off as fairly honest and sincere. Unlike Obama, he's actually shown a willingness and ability to work with members in the other party to get things done. On the negative, he comes across as senile and uninformed at times. He also is a little too much like Bush. |
|
|
|
03/21/2008 09:15:06 PM · #132 |
Originally posted by yanko:
My feelings on the candidates:
Barack Obama
I like what he says. He comes off as fairly honest and sincere. However, I get the impression that he's more bark than bite and his record reflect this. Basically, you have to take him on faith that if elected, he'll turn into someone who can get things done.
Hillary Clinton
Frankly, I don't know what to make of her. She comes across as more of an opportunist and a chameleon than anything else. On the positive, the latest version (Clinton 5.6?) is at least an improvement over past versions.
John McCain
Like Obama, he comes off as fairly honest and sincere. Unlike Obama, he's actually shown a willingness and ability to work with members in the other party to get things done. On the negative, he comes across as senile and uninformed at times. He also is a little too much like Bush. |
Pretty much how I feel as well, well stated. |
|
|
|
03/21/2008 09:36:02 PM · #133 |
If it wasn't divisive (at least to someone), it wouldn't have been removed from the website?
+++++++
and yanko's summation of the top three sum my opinion up as well, generally.
|
|
|
|
03/21/2008 09:48:44 PM · #134 |
| This is shaping up as a year when the identity of the Vice-Presidential candidate may be more important than the top of the ticket. |
|
|
|
03/22/2008 12:06:26 AM · #135 |
Originally posted by trevytrev:
Originally posted by ClubJuggle:
Originally posted by trevytrev:
Does it really make a difference if the statement was there two weeks ago, two months ago or a year ago, seems like hair splitting to me. Regardless of whether you find it offensive and divisive or not it now has the appearance that they removed it to benefit the campaign, as if they are hiding something. |
Whether or not that's true, last I checked, Barack Obama is not the church's webmaster.
~Terry |
I'm sure he isn't, but if he were or if he asked to have it taken down would that change your opinion on the situation? |
Let's explore the hypothetical as opposed to dealing with reality:
What if Obama were actually an advanced alien species?
What if Hillary was 8ft tall and her feet smelled really bad?
What if McCain was ate lutefisk every day and actually liked it? |
|
|
|
03/22/2008 12:21:45 AM · #136 |
I was all set to vote for the democratic candidate because, well, I've had more than my fill of the Republicans, their inane neo-con policies, Machiavellian maneuverings and obscene spending of money we don't have.
That's all up in the air. I am so pissed-off at the idiots in charge of the Democratic party that I may have to vote Republican just to keep what appears to be even greater stupidity and irresponsibility than the Republicans out of power in the White House.
I live in Michigan. Evidently, no one (no one in power anyway) gives a crap that our primary is FUBAR and several million primary voters' votes are not being counted.
Specifically, I'm pissed of at:
The state party for blindly insisting that our primary be held early.
The DNC for placing New Hampshire and Iowa first...always. Why are they more important than the other 48 states? A$$HOLES
Both of the above and our incompetent state legislature for not being able to pull their heads out of their collective rectum and figure something out. The legislature was supposed to do something by the end of today, but felt it was more important to go on vacation for 2 weeks.
|
|
|
|
03/22/2008 02:38:59 AM · #137 |
Originally posted by Spazmo99:
Originally posted by trevytrev:
Originally posted by ClubJuggle:
Originally posted by trevytrev:
Does it really make a difference if the statement was there two weeks ago, two months ago or a year ago, seems like hair splitting to me. Regardless of whether you find it offensive and divisive or not it now has the appearance that they removed it to benefit the campaign, as if they are hiding something. |
Whether or not that's true, last I checked, Barack Obama is not the church's webmaster.
~Terry |
I'm sure he isn't, but if he were or if he asked to have it taken down would that change your opinion on the situation? |
Let's explore the hypothetical as opposed to dealing with reality:
What if Obama were actually an advanced alien species?
What if Hillary was 8ft tall and her feet smelled really bad?
What if McCain was ate lutefisk every day and actually liked it? |
The only reason I asked the hypothetical question is because, I felt, the statement that Terry made about the last time he checked he didn't think that Mr.Obama was the webmaster absolved him of any responsibility of the content on the website. So my question was more of a statement that if he, or his campaign, did have something to do with it's removal or the content of the website, what would be his outtake on the the situation. Terry's answer, to me, comes across as apologetic and claims that it would mean that Mr. Obama doesn't agree with it's content if he asked for it's removal. Really? How long was it on there for before he asked for it to be taken down? Is it about disagreeing with it's content or is it about damage control at this point because he feels voters may think that it's a contradiction to his message of unity? My feeling on the matter is that his campaign did have something to say about the removal of the content, and I don't think it has anything to do with him disagreeing with it's message. So I get your tongue in cheek dig at my question but it had a deeper rooted purpose than just some random off the wall "let's pretend" context. On one hand he claimed he can't be held responsible b/c he doesn't call the shots on the website, but, if he were calling the shots then it was in good intentions. To me it is just a matter of blindly sticking up for Mr. Obama regardless of the facts. Terry, if I misinterpeted you statements than I apologize, but to me it comes across as if you are sticking up for Mr.Obama regardless of the circumstance. |
|
|
|
03/22/2008 02:56:02 AM · #138 |
Originally posted by Spazmo99:
I was all set to vote for the democratic candidate because, well, I've had more than my fill of the Republicans, their inane neo-con policies, Machiavellian maneuverings and obscene spending of money we don't have.
That's all up in the air. I am so pissed-off at the idiots in charge of the Democratic party that I may have to vote Republican just to keep what appears to be even greater stupidity and irresponsibility than the Republicans out of power in the White House.
I live in Michigan. Evidently, no one (no one in power anyway) gives a crap that our primary is FUBAR and several million primary voters' votes are not being counted.
Specifically, I'm pissed of at:
The state party for blindly insisting that our primary be held early.
The DNC for placing New Hampshire and Iowa first...always. Why are they more important than the other 48 states? A$$HOLES
Both of the above and our incompetent state legislature for not being able to pull their heads out of their collective rectum and figure something out. The legislature was supposed to do something by the end of today, but felt it was more important to go on vacation for 2 weeks. |
I would be pissed if i lived in Michigan or Florida as well. Let me get this one straight, during the 2000 election everyone in the Democrat party ranted and raved about how the people needed their vote to be counted in Florida. How they were being disenfranchised and the will of the people was being suppressed. Fast forward 8 years and now half of the party seems to think that those who live in Florida, and Michigan now, don't really need to have a say in the election anymore. What?? Where is the double standard here? Where is the disenfranchisement of the voter, the will of the people being suppressed? I get that this isn't a general election but that shouldn't make a difference. You either want the will of the people or you don't, what's it going to be? Shame on them. |
|
|
|
03/22/2008 03:21:39 AM · #139 |
| I believe it was a Republican-controlled state legislature and the Republican Governor who moved the date of the Florida primary election, not the state Democratic Party. |
|
|
|
03/22/2008 09:10:35 AM · #140 |
Originally posted by GeneralE:
I believe it was a Republican-controlled state legislature and the Republican Governor who moved the date of the Florida primary election, not the state Democratic Party. |
You are correct that the Republican-controlled state brought the measure foward to change the date but they were backed by many Democrats in the state. This was a bipartisan move in Florida, with both party's officials agreeing to move the date up to have more influence in their respective primaries. They are more than capable of holding another primary election in Florida, but half of the DNC doesn't want that to happen. Don't you have to ask why? |
|
|
|
03/22/2008 09:53:28 AM · #141 |
Originally posted by Spazmo99:
I was all set to vote for the democratic candidate because, well, I've had more than my fill of the Republicans, their inane neo-con policies, Machiavellian maneuverings and obscene spending of money we don't have.
That's all up in the air. I am so pissed-off at the idiots in charge of the Democratic party that I may have to vote Republican just to keep what appears to be even greater stupidity and irresponsibility than the Republicans out of power in the White House.
I live in Michigan. Evidently, no one (no one in power anyway) gives a crap that our primary is FUBAR and several million primary voters' votes are not being counted.
Specifically, I'm pissed of at:
The state party for blindly insisting that our primary be held early.
The DNC for placing New Hampshire and Iowa first...always. Why are they more important than the other 48 states? A$$HOLES
Both of the above and our incompetent state legislature for not being able to pull their heads out of their collective rectum and figure something out. The legislature was supposed to do something by the end of today, but felt it was more important to go on vacation for 2 weeks. |
What the DNC did (and, for that matter, the RNC did as well), was to enact penalties for states who moved their primaries or caucuses ahead of Super Tuesday (which was February 5 this year). States whose primaries or caucuses) were already ahead of Super Tuesday were grandfathered, largely because the respective parties have to way to force the states to move their primaries back. The most they can do is discourage them from moving them up past Super Tuesday. The intent of the changes are to move, as much as possible, toward a single national primary date and avoid a "date war" where the states keep leapfrogging each other in attempts to run the first primaries or caucuses. Could you imagine having the primaries a year or more before the election? Left unchecked, that's where such a system would eventually end.
Michigan and Florida could have moved their primary dates up. They should have moved them to Super Tuesday, joining the other 24 states that hold primaries or caucuses on that date. Instead, they elected to move them ahead of Super Tuesday in an attempt to gain a disproportionately large share of attention in the selection process, and were stripped of their respective delegates as required by a provision passed by the DNC Rules and Bylaws committee in August, 2006.
It is worth noting that Michigan moved its primary date after the DNC had already stripped Florida of its delegates. They knew the consequences and moved forward anyway. While I feel bad for the voters in those states, the blame lies with the states, and not with the DNC.
~Terry
|
|
|
|
03/22/2008 10:06:24 AM · #142 |
Originally posted by GeneralE:
I believe it was a Republican-controlled state legislature and the Republican Governor who moved the date of the Florida primary election, not the state Democratic Party. |
This argument is a non-starter. The vote to change the primary date in Florida passed by a vote of 118-0 in the Florida House and 37-2 in the Senate.
~Terry
|
|
|
|
03/22/2008 11:26:19 AM · #143 |
Originally posted by Spazmo99:
I was all set to vote for the democratic candidate because, well, I've had more than my fill of the Republicans, their inane neo-con policies, Machiavellian maneuverings and obscene spending of money we don't have. |
So have I, but neither of the demo candidates will do any better with all the promises they have made.
|
|
|
|
03/22/2008 03:28:22 PM · #144 |
Originally posted by David Ey:
Originally posted by Spazmo99:
I was all set to vote for the democratic candidate because, well, I've had more than my fill of the Republicans, their inane neo-con policies, Machiavellian maneuverings and obscene spending of money we don't have. |
So have I, but neither of the demo candidates will do any better with all the promises they have made. |
Sounds like y'all are just sick of politicians participating in politics. I don't know that it has ever been any other way ? |
|
|
|
03/22/2008 11:23:35 PM · #145 |
Originally posted by ClubJuggle:
Originally posted by Spazmo99:
I was all set to vote for the democratic candidate because, well, I've had more than my fill of the Republicans, their inane neo-con policies, Machiavellian maneuverings and obscene spending of money we don't have.
That's all up in the air. I am so pissed-off at the idiots in charge of the Democratic party that I may have to vote Republican just to keep what appears to be even greater stupidity and irresponsibility than the Republicans out of power in the White House.
I live in Michigan. Evidently, no one (no one in power anyway) gives a crap that our primary is FUBAR and several million primary voters' votes are not being counted.
Specifically, I'm pissed of at:
The state party for blindly insisting that our primary be held early.
The DNC for placing New Hampshire and Iowa first...always. Why are they more important than the other 48 states? A$$HOLES
Both of the above and our incompetent state legislature for not being able to pull their heads out of their collective rectum and figure something out. The legislature was supposed to do something by the end of today, but felt it was more important to go on vacation for 2 weeks. |
What the DNC did (and, for that matter, the RNC did as well), was to enact penalties for states who moved their primaries or caucuses ahead of Super Tuesday (which was February 5 this year). States whose primaries or caucuses) were already ahead of Super Tuesday were grandfathered, largely because the respective parties have to way to force the states to move their primaries back. The most they can do is discourage them from moving them up past Super Tuesday. The intent of the changes are to move, as much as possible, toward a single national primary date and avoid a "date war" where the states keep leapfrogging each other in attempts to run the first primaries or caucuses. Could you imagine having the primaries a year or more before the election? Left unchecked, that's where such a system would eventually end.
Michigan and Florida could have moved their primary dates up. They should have moved them to Super Tuesday, joining the other 24 states that hold primaries or caucuses on that date. Instead, they elected to move them ahead of Super Tuesday in an attempt to gain a disproportionately large share of attention in the selection process, and were stripped of their respective delegates as required by a provision passed by the DNC Rules and Bylaws committee in August, 2006.
It is worth noting that Michigan moved its primary date after the DNC had already stripped Florida of its delegates. They knew the consequences and moved forward anyway. While I feel bad for the voters in those states, the blame lies with the states, and not with the DNC.
~Terry |
What the DNC did, long before deciding to strip the voters in two states of their vote in the primary, was to continue to allow Iowa and New Hampshire to remain first rather than establishing a system where other states would get to hold their primaries first on a fair and rotating basis. They have had ample opportunity to address the problem in the past 4 years, yet they have done nothing, despite the pleadings of several state parties for just such a system. No one has answered the question why New Hampshire and Iowa are more important than the other 48 states.
The state party and legislature do share the blame, but it's naïve to think that the DNC is blameless or is simply enforcing "the rules".
Message edited by author 2008-03-22 23:24:47. |
|
|
|
03/23/2008 01:36:57 AM · #146 |
Originally posted by Spazmo99:
Originally posted by ClubJuggle:
Originally posted by Spazmo99:
I was all set to vote for the democratic candidate because, well, I've had more than my fill of the Republicans, their inane neo-con policies, Machiavellian maneuverings and obscene spending of money we don't have.
That's all up in the air. I am so pissed-off at the idiots in charge of the Democratic party that I may have to vote Republican just to keep what appears to be even greater stupidity and irresponsibility than the Republicans out of power in the White House.
I live in Michigan. Evidently, no one (no one in power anyway) gives a crap that our primary is FUBAR and several million primary voters' votes are not being counted.
Specifically, I'm pissed of at:
The state party for blindly insisting that our primary be held early.
The DNC for placing New Hampshire and Iowa first...always. Why are they more important than the other 48 states? A$$HOLES
Both of the above and our incompetent state legislature for not being able to pull their heads out of their collective rectum and figure something out. The legislature was supposed to do something by the end of today, but felt it was more important to go on vacation for 2 weeks. |
What the DNC did (and, for that matter, the RNC did as well), was to enact penalties for states who moved their primaries or caucuses ahead of Super Tuesday (which was February 5 this year). States whose primaries or caucuses) were already ahead of Super Tuesday were grandfathered, largely because the respective parties have to way to force the states to move their primaries back. The most they can do is discourage them from moving them up past Super Tuesday. The intent of the changes are to move, as much as possible, toward a single national primary date and avoid a "date war" where the states keep leapfrogging each other in attempts to run the first primaries or caucuses. Could you imagine having the primaries a year or more before the election? Left unchecked, that's where such a system would eventually end.
Michigan and Florida could have moved their primary dates up. They should have moved them to Super Tuesday, joining the other 24 states that hold primaries or caucuses on that date. Instead, they elected to move them ahead of Super Tuesday in an attempt to gain a disproportionately large share of attention in the selection process, and were stripped of their respective delegates as required by a provision passed by the DNC Rules and Bylaws committee in August, 2006.
It is worth noting that Michigan moved its primary date after the DNC had already stripped Florida of its delegates. They knew the consequences and moved forward anyway. While I feel bad for the voters in those states, the blame lies with the states, and not with the DNC.
~Terry |
What the DNC did, long before deciding to strip the voters in two states of their vote in the primary, was to continue to allow Iowa and New Hampshire to remain first rather than establishing a system where other states would get to hold their primaries first on a fair and rotating basis. They have had ample opportunity to address the problem in the past 4 years, yet they have done nothing, despite the pleadings of several state parties for just such a system. No one has answered the question why New Hampshire and Iowa are more important than the other 48 states.
The state party and legislature do share the blame, but it's naïve to think that the DNC is blameless or is simply enforcing "the rules". |
I don't blame the states for trying to make their votes count. The way the system is setup now that's not guaranteed. It's about time we quite letting a few states dictate who the candidates will be. |
|
|
|
03/24/2008 08:09:11 PM · #147 |
Oh the irony of things:
How funny is it to stand on stage, be televised on National TV and complain that someone is snooping in your passport file. Accuse all of your opponents for a low down dirty trick and of campaign wrong-doings.
Then find out that the people that snooped into your files and those of your competitors worked for one of your very own campaign advisors.
With advisors like his, who needs enemies?
|
|
