Hillary Clinton for President 2009?

02/14/2007 03:26:53 PM · #76

I remember reading about one of the women involved in the investigation. Her house was ransacked. She was out jogging and a man in a black suite came jogging along side her and asked her how her cat was doing.

Her cat disappeared when the apartment was ransacked. Yeah...

The Clintons are NOT nice people. You want more proof. They have no hearts.

The Clintons decided to get a dog and got rid of "Socks the Cat". I mean, just how do you just simply get rid of a pet. I understand people who have done so because they were moving to a place where pets were not allowed, etc. But this was not the case...

They're just evil...

Canon 12x IS USM (S3 IS built-in Lens) -- 36-432mm (35mm EQ)

02/14/2007 03:33:25 PM · #77

Also, there seems to always be a double standard with Democrats.

- President Clinton is often defended with the statement that his sex life was his own business. But why did he fire a military general for having an affair under the UMCJ. It's takes balls as a commander to ask those under you to live by a higher standard than you yourself do.

- President Clinton used FBI files inappropriately. I find it funny that President Nixon was forced to resign under threat of impeachment for merely covering up his party breaking in during a political campaign (nothing uncommon).

- Trent Lott, forced to resign for a comment that wasn't racist unless mis-interpreted. Numerous Democrats have made far worse comments, some even questionably racist but do not have to resign because they're Democrats. Thus given the benefit of the doubt instead of the benefit of the guilt.

- Sandy Berger, caught stealing classified documents. This is excused.

- Rep. Foley puts the moves on a former page over the age of 18. He's forced to resign. If this had been a Democrat the criticizers would have been attacked as merely being homophobic.

- Senator Dole Resigned to run for office under criticism to do so would be unfair to his constituents as he'd not be able to perform his duty busy campaigning. (Hmm...Senator John Kerry & Senator John Edwards seem to still be in their respective officers.)

I just find that there seems to be a double-standard. The Democrats demand resignations but never do so themselves.

GeneralE

Canon PowerShot S3 IS

02/14/2007 03:57:59 PM · #78

Originally posted by theSaj:

... covering up his party breaking in during a political campaign (nothing uncommon).

Please tell me of other cases where positical operatives have burglarized their opponents offices -- I haven't heard of any.

Originally posted by theSaj:

- Senator Dole Resigned to run for office under criticism to do so would be unfair to his constituents as he'd not be able to perform his duty busy campaigning. (Hmm...Senator John Kerry & Senator John Edwards seem to still be in their respective officers.

I believe that would be former Senator John Edwards ...

02/14/2007 05:14:22 PM · #79

"Please tell me of other cases where positical operatives have burglarized their opponents offices -- I haven't heard of any."

I should expand. Rival political actions of an unscrupolous nature are nothing uncommon. Computers have been hacked. Tires slashed. Bribery. Offices broken into to. FBI files used against political rivals. It all sleazy and way too common.

//www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2004/04/11/wkerry11.xml&sSheet=/portal/2004/04/11/ixportaltop.html

//www.kvbc.com/Global/story.asp?S=5472809&nav=menu107_2_6

//www.newsmax.com/archives/ic/2005/5/31/224515.shtml

//www.tennessean.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20050526/NEWS02/50526002

//www.freerepublic.com/forum/a388825e95e8e.htm

Just some examples with no regards really to party (both parties suck). I guess, I'm a tad biased against the Clintons as I was in the service during Clinton's presidency. I was in the Coast Guard at the time and he essentially froze the budget. At the same time the Cuban & Haitian refugee crisis' were underway. The result was a Coast Guard who's resources were severely over-taxed. At the time they were not even sure if they'd have enough billets (jobs) for the upcoming graduating classes. So they essentially canned tons of cadets much more so than usually done. A few years later I talked to some former classmates of mine. They expressed how miserable it was. They'd been under so much pressure to cut that they didn't have the officers they needed.

Likewise, the media kept saying "affairs are personal life" but President Clinton fired a general who'd served our country for most of his life. What for? having an affair...which violates the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ). But it does take some balls as said before for the Commander in Chief to fire a general for the same things he is doing and then to tell the American public is should be ignored because it's his personal problem.

His personal problem was that he couldn't keep his hands off of women. And when a few of them sued for harassment he used the executive powers to impede the Judicial branches duties and actions. That was why President Clinton was impeached.

Samuel R. "Sandy" Berger, a former White House national security adviser, plans to plead guilty to a misdemeanor, and will acknowledge intentionally removing and destroying copies of a classified document about the Clinton administration's record on terrorism.

//www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A16706-2005Mar31.html

Hmm...I have a feeling if this had been a Republican it'd be some uber-gate scandal not seen since the likes of Watergate. But, no...it's a Democrat so it's a slap on the wrist by the media.

Originally posted by "GeneralE":

I believe that would be former Senator John Edwards ...

My bad...so it was just Senator Kerry who didn't resign. Not that I think it's necessary but I think it should either be completely dropped as an issue or held universally as improper.

Message edited by author 2007-02-14 17:15:22.

Gordon

RIM BlackBerry Curve

Canon EF 85mm f/1.8 USM

02/14/2007 07:08:26 PM · #80

Originally posted by theSaj:

//www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A16706-2005Mar31.html

Hmm...I have a feeling if this had been a Republican it'd be some uber-gate scandal not seen since the likes of Watergate. But, no...it's a Democrat so it's a slap on the wrist by the media.

So, do you think the republicans are just politically inept or it is part of some global media conspiracy to keep the republicans out of office, that is running like a smoothly oiled machine ?

02/15/2007 12:35:37 PM · #81

Originally posted by Gordon:

Originally posted by theSaj:

//www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A16706-2005Mar31.html

Hmm...I have a feeling if this had been a Republican it'd be some uber-gate scandal not seen since the likes of Watergate. But, no...it's a Democrat so it's a slap on the wrist by the media.

So, do you think the republicans are just politically inept or it is part of some global media conspiracy to keep the republicans out of office, that is running like a smoothly oiled machine ?

Naw...in part, it's just that 70%+ of people who work at print or television news organizations are liberals. (Call it the effect of journalism coursework at liberalism art schools.)

In some issues, (ie: race) there is a clear bias. And the Democrats work hard to maintain it. They preach hate and racism even at awards banquets. (Was at an awards banquet for convicted felons who have successfully gotten through school, gotten jobs, and gotten back on their feet. It was nice until a couple of Democrats just starting going off on Republicans for a 20 minute tyrade about how they want all blacks in prison and jobless, and so on.)

So if a statement is made and the English language allows it to be interpreted in different ways. The print/TV media (primarily composed of registered Democrats) will interpret it in it's worst take for a Republican and put it forth as having racist connotations. They presume this because it is well known to liberal Democrats that all Republicans are racist. (The fact that it's early history was not. And the fact that the Republican party seems to put a lot more minorities into prominent positions is often dismissed.) But if a Democrat makes the same statement, it obviously is clear that no racial connotations were intended because after all...they're a Democrat. And the Democrat Party is the black party.

It's bunk...but it's pretty much the case for every incident.

Nikon AF-S Nikkor 17-35mm f/2.8D IF-ED

02/15/2007 01:12:26 PM · #82

Trent Lott's comments.

"When Strom Thurmond ran for president, we voted for him. Weâ��re proud of it. And if the rest of the country had followed our lead, we wouldnâ��t have had all these problems over the years, either"

Note, Lott's comment was given at the 100th birthday party of Senator Thurmond. Now, the main argument given is that Strom Thurmond supported segregation during his presidential run. (As well as supporting state's rights.) Mind you, that run was in 1948. We wouldn't really abolish segregation until the mid-60's. So we're talking about 20 yrs before when segregation was the societal norm. Not to say it was right. I believe it was an anathema. But it's necessary to place things in the context of the times.

Now let's compare this statement compared to Senator Robert Byrd (D) who was in fact a recruiter for the KKK during the same time.

Who has made such comments in his younger days as..."with a Negro by my side. Rather I should die a thousand times, and see Old Glory trampled in the dirt never to rise again, than to see this beloved land of ours become degraded by race mongrels, a throwback to the blackest specimen from the wilds."

Now some can say Byrd's behavior was in the past. The argument against Trent Lott's comment often includes his past opposition to certain civil rights legislation in the 60's. Senator Byrd's action of filibustering the civil right's legislation is overlooked.

Let's compare Senator Lott's comment at a birthday party to the following comment from Senator Bryd.

On March 4, 2001, Byrd said race relations:

"Are much, much better than they've ever been in my lifetime.... I think we talk about race too much. I think those problems are largely behind us ... I just think we talk so much about it that we help to create somewhat of an illusion. I think we try to have good will. My old mom told me, 'Robert, you can't go to heaven if you hate anybody.' We practice that. There are white niggers. I've seen a lot of white niggers in my time. I'm going to use that word. We just need to work together to make our country a better country, and I'd just as soon quit talking about it so much."

OR

We can look at Senator Biden's comment "I mean, you got the first mainstream African-American who is articulate and bright and clean and a nice-looking guy, ... I mean, that's a storybook, man."

To which Jesse Jackson stated in regards to Biden's comments "In speaking with Senator Biden, he assured me that he regrets that his remarks were misinterpreted. He was serious and contrite. To me, this was a gaffe, not a statement about his philosophy or ideology. The press should not confuse Senator Biden with Trent Lottâ��s embrace of Strom Thurmond, which celebrated Strom Thurmond's segregationist background and ideology. That was not helpful, but harmful to a nation."

I am sure had those words come from a Republican Jesse Jackson would never make such a comment.

Clearly, to me, there is a very visible double-standard.

//en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trent_Lott
//en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Byrd

PS - furthermore, my experiences on the local level with Democrats have been disgusting. They been sleazy and double-standard on so many levels. (ie: I moved to PA and had to register to vote. Outside of the Fairgrounds there were people to register you to vote. I took the opportunity to get registered to vote in my new area. Now, I selected Republican...and I later found myself registered as a Democrat. THAT WAS EXCEEDINGLY SLEEZY. It wasn't like this was a Democrat voting booth. This was a "Get out the Vote" type thing. These are supposed to be non-partisan. But they know, if they get people registered most will not bother to change their party. Such a practice is unscrupulous.

As was the slashing of tires on the Republican vans for shuttling voters by Democrat Party members. Such a scandal lasted for a but a moment and disappeared. Had it been role-reversed I am sure we'd still be hearing about the issue in the news come 2008.

Flash

Nikon D700

03/02/2007 11:20:54 AM · #83

Hillary's Thesis

rox_rox

Canon EF-S 18-55mm f/3.5-5.6 USM

03/02/2007 12:12:35 PM · #84

I don't have time right now to read this whole thread; but I will throw in my opinion and come back to catch up later.

I planned to vote for Barack Obama for reasons that have probably been covered. I wouldn't vote for Hilary Clinton if my life depended on it. She's just another pawn in the game.

If you plan to vote for Giuliani, you might want to ask how he knew the towers were coming down and why he didn't protect the firefighters?

We will all be better off when we stop bickering about Right vs. Left and accept the fact that there is a lot more at stake than abortion rights and our right to own an assault rifle.

We have systematically given up our Constitutional rights and our right to transparency in government. We are now serving the government, which was designed to serve us. We have given a cabal of secret bankers the power to create our currency out of thin air and then lend it to our goverment with interest.

I believe that if there's any hope for our country it is offered in the form of RON PAUL. He has dedicated his political career to preserving and restoring The Constitution and has shown that politicians truly can posess courage and integrity.

Message edited by author 2007-03-02 18:19:23.

undieyatch

Olympus E-10

Canon EF-S 10-22mm f/3.5-4.5 USM

03/02/2007 12:25:58 PM · #85

undieyatch's opinion about Hillary Clinton & some Democrats:

Hillary Clinton, undoubtedly a top choice for medium rare
dems her gender is a +, as is her rock star spouse. I may vote for her,
unless someone else wins the nomination.

My favorite is Dennis Kucinich the only Democratic Candidate, least likely to resort to violence.

John Edwards is smart, I think suitable, & Presidential.

Barack Obama, is feelgood, race is a +, also suitable & Presidential.

karmat

Apple iPhone 7

Canon EF 70-200mm f/4.0L USM

03/02/2007 12:46:08 PM · #86

Originally posted by undieyatch:

John Edwards is smart, I think suitable, & Presidential.

please, anyone but john edwards.

03/04/2007 07:32:35 PM · #87

I was open to the idea of voting for Barack Obama but having gone to the website of his church I am no longer inclined to do so.

It is extremely racist in it's stance. And the fact that someone would attend and support a church that is openly racist in their stated stances is not acceptable to me.

****************************************************************

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

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 CAUCASIA.
5. A congregation committed to BIBLICAL EDUCATION.
6. A congregation committed to CULTURAL EDUCATION.
7. A congregation committed to the HISTORICAL EDUCATION OF CAUCASIAN PEOPLE IN DIASPORA.
8. A congregation committed to LIBERATION.
9. A congregation committed to RESTORATION.
10. A congregation working towards ECONOMIC PARITY.

//www.tucc.org/about.htm

(yes, I changed the words slightly, because many will find them much more bothersome that way. And if we are not to be prejudice or racist, they should be equally bothersome, either way.)

03/05/2007 09:38:25 AM · #88

Originally posted by theSaj:

I was open to the idea of voting for Barack Obama but having gone to the website of his church I am no longer inclined to do so.

You don't have to be colour blind in order to avoid being racist. The words are not interchangeable.

Given the relative social and economic disparity between black and white peoples in the US, is it unreasonable to present support for the betterment of the black community as a whole? I don't see very much that is objectionable in a statement of self motivational support for improvement of black standing.

By reversing the words, you play to and invoke existing stereotypes. The statements are not of black supremacists - because black society is culturally disadvantaged and improvement is desireable. Reversed, the words sound like those of white supremacists, because white society does not suffer the same social disadvantages. Equating the two statements, as you have done, is therefore highly misleading.

Moreover, the method of anti-discrimination proposed here is self-motivated and community driven - the most conservative form of improvement. You yourself constantly oppose institutionalised pro-black discrimination, so I would have thought that you would ordinarily approve.

Given your usual arch-conservatism, even though you have dressed the statement up, it is hard to believe that this is much more than an attempt to spread a discreditable rumour.

Message edited by author 2007-03-05 09:38:49.

03/05/2007 05:50:00 PM · #89

Originally posted by "matthew":

You don't have to be colour blind in order to avoid being racist. The words are not interchangeable.

Depends on what you mean by color blind. When I look at a photo be it color or B&W the tones involved can be combined to create a thing of beauty. So one might say being color blind is a bad thing when it prevents you from seeing the beauty of the colors and combinations.

That said, when applying to race I believe it is in fact racist. We either strive for equality or we do not. Do we want equality or do we want inequality?

I personally prefer equality.

Originally posted by "matthew":

Given the relative social and economic disparity between black and white peoples in the US, is it unreasonable to present support for the betterment of the black community as a whole? I don't see very much that is objectionable in a statement of self motivational support for improvement of black standing.

Yes....it is unreasonable. As unreasonable as me telling being in a row boat and only saving white people who are drowning.

Having grown up living in conditions that were much poorer than most blacks I have known have endured. To give a denial of assistance or even a preference of assistance for the mere reason of the color of skin is RACIST!

There is no other understanding.

To tell a kid who has grown up in the same ghetto with the same bad schools, same violent environmnet (actually worse), etc. That they will not receive help because of the color of their skin is wrong & racist.

Originally posted by "matthew":

By reversing the words, you play to and invoke existing stereotypes. The statements are not of black supremacists - because black society is culturally disadvantaged and improvement is desireable. Reversed, the words sound like those of white supremacists, because white society does not suffer the same social disadvantages. Equating the two statements, as you have done, is therefore highly misleading.

What is disgusting is that you fall so easily into a stereo type that white = priveledged and black = disadvantaged. Granted, a large majority of those in the upper eschelons of society are indeed white. However, a large portion of the lowest eschelons are also white.

I worked on the streets with homeless people. In the middle of a urban city. In truth, most of the homeless we saw were actually white. Perhaps the percentage of blacks who are homeless and impoverished is higher than in the white populace. That may be true. But that does not equate to an exclusion of whites from poverty.

In dealing with poverty, all who are in need should be addressed. Race shouldn't be a factor. If a child is hungry whether they are white, black or blue should NOT be the determining factor of whether we give them food to eat.

Originally posted by "matthew":

Equating the two statements, as you have done, is therefore highly misleading.

Nope, it merely demonstrates an inequality that is tolerated.

Originally posted by "matthew":

Moreover, the method of anti-discrimination proposed here is self-motivated and community driven - the most conservative form of improvement. You yourself constantly oppose institutionalised pro-black discrimination, so I would have thought that you would ordinarily approve.

I oppose institutionalized discrimination of availability of tax-payer supported assistance based on race. All races pay taxes they should all be eligible to receive.

We are told skin color should not be a determining factor in judgment...then let's make that so.

As for the community driven discrimination. Why would I support that? Especially in a national candidate. To me this says that a segment of the population by such an entity will not be equally supported where equal need exists. That's not acceptable to me. Nor is it acceptable to me for a candidate to condone such by attending regulary such an organization.

Originally posted by "matthew":

Given your usual arch-conservatism, even though you have dressed the statement up, it is hard to believe that this is much more than an attempt to spread a discreditable rumour.

As per usual it's ad hominem attack and discredit. A mere dismissal of an opinion that differs from you.

Have you ever lived or been in an urban environment and been white? Do you have any clue what it is like being an impoverished white or asian in the ghetto. Do you think those children should not be supported.

Do you have any clue what it is like to not get to play softball on the high school intra-mural league. After begging for kleats (which were required to play) and buying the cheapest $24 pair. Thankful for your parents doing so cause they really didn't have the money. Going to the try out. Making three superb field catches. And then not getting to play. When the teacher is asked why the answer is that the black kids need more opportunities and that being white I had plenty of opportunities.

I was crushed...

Did I have lots of opportunity? Well, through out my child hood I never got to play on any organized sports teams. We could never afford the equipment. I remember standing at the fence watching the kids play soccer so wishing I could play. But we didn't have the money. For 5 yrs our family car was a moped. It was all we could afford. Rice was meal after meal. I grew up thinking kids on welfare were rich. (And by my standards they were!)

I am not opposed to raising up the impoverished communities. Those may be disproportionately black. But don't neglect those who are white or asian just because of their race. Help everyone out.

Otherwise, it'd be as wrong as saying we shouldn't help with AIDS & Poverty in Africa because we're not african. That is just as wrong. Help the poor regardless of their skin color.

You may not find the stance racist. But I also doubt you've ever lived in an urban environment similar to those in America. So I guess I shouldn't expect you to have any real clue of understanding.

Oh well...I had hopes for Obama...now I don't...

- Saj

03/06/2007 07:56:08 AM · #90

Originally posted by theSaj:

I personally prefer equality.

When the status quo is not equal, based around racial lines with consequent racial stereotyping and bias existing in society, do you 1) refuse to acknowledge the status quo and say "society *should* treat these people equally, and therefore the we shall put our blinkers on and treat them as if society does treat them the same" or do you 2) acknowledge "society *does not yet* treat these people equally, and therefore we should take steps to overcome the social inertia that will prevent equality from being achieved any time soon".

Originally posted by theSaj:

Having grown up living in conditions that were much poorer than most blacks I have known have endured. To give a denial of assistance or even a preference of assistance for the mere reason of the color of skin is RACIST!

If they were stating "black only help and advice" I might agree with you. If what they are saying is "we will help a disadvantaged segment of society help themselves", then how is that harming you? Surely your world improves slightly.

Originally posted by theSaj:

Are you equally disgusted by your acknowledgement of exactly what I said in your second sentence? You appear to acknowledge that advantaged society is majority white, and disadvantaged society is majority black. It is not racist to acknowledge a difference in status. (potentially - your failing to acknowledge a difference that operates in your favour could be considered racist itself).

Originally posted by theSaj:

As per usual it's ad hominem attack and discredit. A mere dismissal of an opinion that differs from you.

My statement was not an ad hominem - you are a stauch conservative, are you not? I would find it surprising that you were contemplating a democrat vote. I find it surprising that you stumbled across the church reference: that particular page is referenced by a number of people who wish to discredit Obama over the same issue. You appear to repeat those assertions without considering Obama's response. That has all the appearances of rumour spreading.

As for your various assertions, I am white, I live in the UK's most impoverished district, and it is majority asian & black. I probably don't understand the significance in the US of a church's views over a person's politics: in the UK, it is an item of mistrust that our PM expresses the fact that he is Christian.

Message edited by author 2007-03-06 07:59:49.

03/06/2007 04:21:49 PM · #91

Originally posted by "matthew":

Have you ever lived in America? Tell me which inequalities?
Being poor...knows no color!

Being denied entrance into jobs or programs? Knows no color!

Being in classrooms without textbooks or equipment? Knows no color!

Being beat-up, lynched, or attacked for the color of your skin? Knows no color!

Being forced to sit in specified sections of the bus like Rosa Parks? Knows no color!

Does that mean there is no inequality. Of course not. And I'm all for helping those who are suffering inequality BUT not at the expense of those who are likewise suffering. That would be wrong.

So you help all of those in need...

Plain, simple....

Originally posted by "matthew":

It is harming me greatly because it is distinguishing on a racial basis. How does it harm me? It brews hate. It brews ignorance. And does so on a racial basis.

The result, is that people are harmed for the color of their skin. I do not support the swinging of the pendulum from one extreme to the other. Then nothing is accomplished. We must strive to bring it towards the middle.

Furthermore, the above attitude leaves others unaided. There is a dichotomy here that allows one racial group to segregate but refuses another group to do the same. Segregation is either wrong or it's not. It's either okay for blacks to only aid blacks and therefore okay for whites to only aid whites. Which I disagree with. I believe we all bleed red. So I don't think skin color should be the distinguishing factor.

Originally posted by "matthew":

First off, I disagree with your assumption that said difference operates in my favor. I grew up poor. The color of my skin in no way guaranteed my success to the "advantaged society".

Furthermore, I do not believe that the "advantaged society" is beyond the blacks. There have been many who have reached it. Be it through sports, music, business or more. I think more would reach it if they did not buy into the false arguments that they can't.

We've seen many barriers fall away. The last two Secretaries of State have been black. Oprah is now one of the richest Americans. That is not to say there are no barriers. I will even grant that there are a few more roadblocks for most blacks toward that success.

I will also acknowledge there are more caucasian populace wise then blacks in America. Hence the use of the term minorities. Of course that's changing as hispanics and asian populaces grow.

I see it much more a class barrier than a race barrier.

Originally posted by "matthew":

My statement was not an ad hominem - you are a stauch conservative, are you not? I would find it surprising that you were contemplating a democrat vote.

I dislike the Democrat Party on a national level. I dislike the local New Haven Democrat Party (corrupt political machine). However, I always look at any new candidate with open eyes.

There are a number of Democrats I've voted for over the years.

I know you think I'm an staunch conservative. Perhaps...but there are numerous areas where I don't fit the mold. More often than not I wind up on a sideline with neither liberal nor conservatives quite supporting. Yes, I'm pro-life. I oppose political correctness, affirmative action, etc. However, I do not support "In God We Trust" on our money. I don't even care if they remove it from the pledge. I don't oppose civil unions, actually I support a variant in which the government takes it's hands out of marriage and makes it totally a civil matter.

Originally posted by "matthew":

I find it surprising that you stumbled across the church reference: that particular page is referenced by a number of people who wish to discredit Obama over the same issue. You appear to repeat those assertions without considering Obama's response.

Obviously, I did not trip on a website. That's a colloquial expression that essentially means I came across via another web page, friend, or some other means.

As for Obama's response. I haven't seen one. But if you'd like to point me in the right direction so that I might stumble upon his response then I'd be quite thankful.

As for discrediting Obama. I do believe that page and Obama's association with said church is a discredit to him.

I had other concerns with Obama...but I was not opposed to him in any way.

I don't think Obama has the necessary experience to be a President. I don't think he's actually running for the presidency. I believe he's probably running for the VP ticket. Gain a large amount of support and following so he'll be a boon for the ticket.

Rumor spreading? It's right there on the page...no rumor. Anyone can go to the page.

Originally posted by "matthew":

As for your various assertions, I am white, I live in the UK's most impoverished district, and it is majority asian & black. I probably don't understand the significance in the US of a church's views over a person's politics:

I am not sure if the UK has quite the same racial tensions that the U.S. does. Different history. The U.S. suffers the sins of slavery. A horrible sin it was.

Originally posted by "matthew":

in the UK, it is an item of mistrust that our PM expresses the fact that he is Christian.

Just goes to show how different we really are, doesn't it. I don't mistrust a politician just because he's Jewish, Bhuddist or even Muslim.

Your statement is another reason I hold so much of Europe in such low-esteem. So much attempt to be politically correct and then so much callous incorrectness.

To me, it's the the views and actions of the individual. Here in the U.S. Christians fall on so many aisles of politics.

Many supporters of the death penalty are Christian. However, many of those who oppose the death penalty are also Christian. There are Christians who support the war. And Christians who oppose the war. I know Christians on all sides of the aisle. Though I believe that many liberals have made it hard for Christians to be in their camps because of attitudes like the above. So more often than not those Christians just remain silent or speak on an individual level.

- Saj

03/07/2007 08:57:07 AM · #92

Originally posted by theSaj:

Have you ever lived in America? Tell me which inequalities?
Being poor...knows no color!

I have only lived in the US for up to 4 months at a time. From what you say, active and passive racial discrimination all but ceases to exist (except in relation to white people, now the oppressed). So things appear to have changed (the same cannot be said of the UK, where racial discrimination most certainly expresses itself in many ways).

I am a little surprised that you complain about the sufferring of poor people - socialist principles such as the redistribution of wealth not being something that republicans (or US Americans as a whole) tend to support. However, I agree - I have never seen such shocking inequality of wealth as I did in the US. My experiences with the poor in the US defined my political thinking.

Originally posted by theSaj:

Furthermore, the above attitude leaves others unaided.

I just don't see how being advocates for a generic cause means that a group of people is taking steps to negatively influence another part of society.

The area that I live in is largely Urdu speaking. There are projects designed to improve English language skills among the local Asian community. That is not discriminatory - it is targetted support for a segment of my society for the benefit of us all.

Originally posted by theSaj:

I don't oppose civil unions, actually I support a variant in which the government takes it's hands out of marriage and makes it totally a civil matter.

I presume that you mean taking the church entirely out of marriage to make it a civil matter.

Originally posted by theSaj:

Originally posted by "matthew":
in the UK, it is an item of mistrust that our PM expresses the fact that he is Christian.

Just goes to show how different we really are, doesn't it. I don't mistrust a politician just because he's Jewish, Bhuddist or even Muslim.

Your statement is another reason I hold so much of Europe in such low-esteem. So much attempt to be politically correct and then so much callous incorrectness.

You misunderstand me - it is an article of mistrust that he openly declares a religious belief (it does not matter what).

Message edited by author 2007-03-07 08:57:34.

03/07/2007 04:49:34 PM · #93

Originally posted by "matthew":

Hmm...love how you take my points saying that racism and disenfranchisement is global and not unique to just one group and turn it around so completely and try to make it seem as if I said it only happens to whites.

*shakes head*

Not even going to bother responding to the above statement because it's a joke.

Originally posted by "matthew":

I am a little surprised that you complain about the sufferring of poor people - socialist principles such as the redistribution of wealth not being something that republicans (or US Americans as a whole) tend to support.

Having seen what "free welfare" does to people. No, I do not advocate it. Liberals love to jump on and demonize conservatives as not caring about the poor. It's seldom the case. In fact, many conservatives tend to be very charitable.

I imagine it's also a shocker that a Republican like me volunteered at a soup kitchen for a few years. Or the fact that a majority of those I was volunteering with were also "poor hating evil conservatives".

Your bias' run extremely deep Matthew.

In truth, very few conservatives oppose helping the needy. However, most dislike the free systems that cater to abuse. I despise welfare. It's a poor machine. It encourages abuse of the system. People are encouraged to do nothing and stay on it. And if someone tries to better themselves the welfare system usually punishes them for doing so. Many state welfare systems also mandated the destruction of families. So is it any wonder conservatives disliked such systems.

I've long advocated work and community responsible assistance programs. My personal convictions are in fact not Republican but rather a combination of Libertarian and Communism. I do not oppose aiding people. But I am not going to hand someone a free lunch. I might say here is the ham, mustard, cheese and bread. Go ahead and make yourself a sandwich. If you need help, I'll show you how. But don't expect me to make you a sandwich every day for ever. And don't get mad at me when the day comes that I don't have the time or the cold cuts to make you a sandwich.

Of course, liberals like to spin such thoughts as evil hate-mongering anti-poor. But it's very seldom the case.

Originally posted by "matthew":

However, I agree - I have never seen such shocking inequality of wealth as I did in the US. My experiences with the poor in the US defined my political thinking.

Really, where were you? I've had a lot of interaction with a variety of poverty (both mine and others). I've delivered food assistance to people labelled poor living in better homes than I ever have. I've also brought food to families in residential hotels in which when we set the food down we watched hundreds of roaches scurry away. But that is not the norm. And there are many assistance programs. The truth is that many of the people in such states are there because of drug and alcohol use and a failure to pursue what aid is in fact available.

Of the non-"runaway teenagers" who are homeless on the streets the vast majority are there due to drug and alcohol addiction. In fact, in many cities there are places for these individuals but they're not allowed to bring their booze or alcohol or come drunk. So some do not take advantage. And also refuse to go to the rehab programs. What is society to do? Give them a room, 3-square meals a day + a drug/alcohol allotment to boot? Look, you can lead a horse to water but you can't force it to drink.

That said, I have much greater sympathy for the working poor. These are the ones who often work 2-3 jobs and live day by day on their bills. They receive little benefit or assistance from government being just over the line. Ironically, these are the people who usually lack the Xbox, Cable, DVD players. Where as those most labelled poor are usually living fairly well off in way of amenities.

I really find it hard to believe you found the U.S. the most disparate place when comparing the standard living level to the impoverished. I guess more so then places in the middle-east or asia in which billionaire oil princes live in palaces while many exist only in squalor tents.

*shrug*

**************************************************************

The following are facts about persons defined as "poor" by the Census Bureau, taken from various government reports:

* Forty-six percent of all poor households actually own their own homes. The average home owned by persons classified as poor by the Census Bureau is a three-bedroom house with one-and-a-half baths, a garage, and a porch or patio.
* Seventy-six percent of poor households have air conditioning. By contrast, 30 years ago, only 36 percent of the entire U.S. population enjoyed air conditioning.
* Only 6 percent of poor households are overcrowded. More than two-thirds have more than two rooms per person.
* The average poor American has more living space than the average individual living in Paris, London, Vienna, Athens, and other cities throughout Europe. (These comparisons are to the average citizens in foreign countries, not to those classified as poor.)
* Nearly three-quarters of poor households own a car; 30 percent own two or more cars.
* Ninety-seven percent of poor households have a color television; over half own two or more color televisions.
* Seventy-eight percent have a VCR or DVD player; 62 percent have cable or satellite TV reception.
* Seventy-three percent own microwave ovens, more than half have a stereo, and a third have an automatic dishwasher.

**************************************************************

Originally posted by "matthew":

If that program was offered only for Urdu speaking and no assistance was made for others who also did not speak English it'd be rather unfair.

To me the problem is "Don't preach equality and act out inequality!" - plain & simple.

Originally posted by "matthew":

I presume that you mean taking the church entirely out of marriage to make it a civil matter.

Not quite. Having shared this a number of times in the past; with you even. I will re-iterate.

I don't believe the government should have any say in marriage. Marriage is a religious or cultural tradition that varies from group to group. (ie: Muslims & Mormonism supported polygamy, some pagan rites support multiple husbands, etc.)

Rather the government should offer a civil incorporation of common household. This would handle the legal/civil matters such as taxes, inheritance, insurance, etc. It shouldn't matter the make-up of the househould. In fact, two elderly sisters who live together could file to incorporate as a common household. This solves all of the civil matters.

As for marriage...this would be done with respects to whatever beliefs the individuals had. It would only be recognized by those individuals and those of like beliefs.

A clear seperation of church and state. In fact, getting married in a church would bring you no civil benefits what-so-ever. You would have to also file a joint household incorporation.

This would be a positive step to repairing a significant breach in our structure. Presently, the government's requirement for a marriage license can in fact impede free exercise of people's religion. It would also remedy the issue of homosexual marriage. If homosexuals attend a church, or other organization that accepts homosexual unions then they can have one. But no one group would be able to force their beliefs on another. All the economics are made fair. This is, IMHO, truly the only fair option. Though more often than not neither homosexuals nor religious people quite like it because it doesn't give either party a victory to rub into each other's noses.

It's a live and let live philosophy...

Originally posted by "matthew":

You misunderstand me - it is an article of mistrust that he openly declares a religious belief (it does not matter what).

No, I did not mis-understand you. I will clarify

"Just goes to show how different we really are, doesn't it. I don't mistrust a politician just because he's Jewish, Bhuddist, Muslim or even Atheist or Agnostic."

And as I said, your statement is one of the reasons I have grown to hold much of Europe in low-esteem. So much attempt to be politically correct and then so much callous incorrectness.

03/07/2007 07:52:37 PM · #94

Originally posted by theSaj:

Not even going to bother responding to the above statement because it's a joke.

I'll use [sarcasm] tags in future.

Originally posted by "thesaj":

Jason - on the one hand you'll give no-one a free lunch, on the other you'll work in a soup kitchen. What are you trying to say here? [joke] You'll only serve breakfast?[/joke]

Do you object to minimum welfare provisioning itself, or just the abuse of welfare that you have witnessed? These are very significant conceptual differences, but your thinking appears to be confused on the point.

Originally posted by "thesaj":

Really, where were you?

I travelled all over. The worst inequality of wealth that I saw was in Washington, the worst destitution in Detroit, some of the worst consequences of an absent comprehensive health scheme in Chicago. I suspect that my experiences were very different to yours.

In the ME, I saw some very poor people, and some very mistreated people. However, there was far less inequality - the rich are very far and few berween. The society is far better at coping with poverty than the US (or UK) society (lower expectations, greater focus on family, probably a greater degree of generosity).

Originally posted by "matthew":

If that program was offered only for Urdu speaking and no assistance was made for others who also did not speak English it'd be rather unfair.

Since the teachers speak Urdu and English, it is not much help to anyone else. Should I ask them to stop it on the basis that elevating just these people from social and educational poverty discriminates against me/my right to have free tuition in other languages? Should I demand that the non-English speakers be treated as equal to me, and because I don't qualify for extra tuition, nor should they?

Originally posted by theSaj:

Originally posted by "matthew":

I presume that you mean taking the church entirely out of marriage to make it a civil matter.

Not quite. Having shared this a number of times in the past; with you even. I will re-iterate.

I don't believe the government should have any say in marriage. Marriage is a religious or cultural tradition that varies from group to group. (ie: Muslims & Mormonism supported polygamy, some pagan rites support multiple husbands, etc.)

Rather the government should offer a civil incorporation of common household. This would handle the legal/civil matters such as taxes, inheritance, insurance, etc. It shouldn't matter the make-up of the househould. In fact, two elderly sisters who live together could file to incorporate as a common household. This solves all of the civil matters.

As for marriage...this would be done with respects to whatever beliefs the individuals had. It would only be recognized by those individuals and those of like beliefs.

A clear seperation of church and state. In fact, getting married in a church would bring you no civil benefits what-so-ever. You would have to also file a joint household incorporation.

This would be a positive step to repairing a significant breach in our structure. Presently, the government's requirement for a marriage license can in fact impede free exercise of people's religion. It would also remedy the issue of homosexual marriage. If homosexuals attend a church, or other organization that accepts homosexual unions then they can have one. But no one group would be able to force their beliefs on another. All the economics are made fair. This is, IMHO, truly the only fair option. Though more often than not neither homosexuals nor religious people quite like it because it doesn't give either party a victory to rub into each other's noses.

It's a live and let live philosophy...

You are perhaps getting caught up in the words; you propose a civil marriage by the state (with all legal ramifications of marriage as currently construed) - hence removing the church from marriage - to be accompanied by a religious wedding service or arrangement where desired by the parties.

I don't understand where all the furore comes from with regard to the word 'marriage' - it is, after all, a civil/legal term as much as a religious one.

Originally posted by thesaj:

Originally posted by "matthew":

You misunderstand me - it is an article of mistrust that he openly declares a religious belief (it does not matter what).

No, I did not mis-understand you. I will clarify

"Just goes to show how different we really are, doesn't it. I don't mistrust a politician just because he's Jewish, Bhuddist, Muslim or even Atheist or Agnostic."

And as I said, your statement is one of the reasons I have grown to hold much of Europe in low-esteem. So much attempt to be politically correct and then so much callous incorrectness.

Your diatribe about Christianity was something of an irrelevance, then.

You are in a minority - atheists are less electable than gay people in the US, according to a recent survey. I believe that there was quite an issue over whether a person could be sworn in under the koran without being declared a terrorist.

Personally, I think it quite alarming that nations should be run by deeply religious people. As has been discussed ad infinitum, religion is irrational and partite. A national leader should think beyond those limitations in order to lead effectively.

Nikon AF-S Nikkor 17-35mm f/2.8D IF-ED

03/07/2007 08:35:02 PM · #95

Originally posted by "matthew":

Jason - on the one hand you'll give no-one a free lunch, on the other you'll work in a soup kitchen. What are you trying to say here? [joke] You'll only serve breakfast?[/joke]

Originally posted by "matthew":

Do you object to minimum welfare provisioning itself, or just the abuse of welfare that you have witnessed? These are very significant conceptual differences, but your thinking appears to be confused on the point.

I support short-term welfare. Which enables people to get back on their feet. However, I oppose long-term welfare. I support job-fare. Providing jobs and aiding in getting jobs. In fact, I support supplemental welfare.

That means that if you get a job that doesn't quite meet the basics, I support giving a helping hand. In fact, I believe everyone who is able-bodied and on welfare should have to work. There is plenty that we need done. (Ironically, most welfare systems in the U.S. essentially cut you off even if you get a minimum wage job. So you wind up being better off sitting at home on welfare doing nothing. This isn't good for society nor the individual.)

This is what we did during the depression era with FDR. In fact, most of the U.S. infrastructure was built during that time. Many bridges, dams, parks, monuments, etc were built via the work-fare. And that is what is should have been. As soon as you require no effort on the part of the recepient you destroy both the recepient and the society.

Originally posted by "matthew":

I presume you mean Washington D.C. which yes...is quite a messed up place. Complicated by the fact that it's stateless. And lot of social issues exist. And you've got pampered politicians near-by in nice grand homes.

That said. I'd still wager that most of those in D.C. fall into the above categories of having color TVs, most other amenities, and likely a great many living in larger spaces than most of the Western world does.

Originally posted by "matthew":

But let's say someone spoke Urdu but wasn't native. But because they spoke fluent Urdu these classes would offer them a chance to learn English. Instead, they're refused for the mere fact that Urdu isn't their native language. They are then left without any opportunity to learn English because their native language is not offered in any classes. They could have benefited from the Urdu classes because they're fluent. But they're not allowed to take advantage of those classes. Is that right?

As I feel that more closely depicts how I view it. I'm not saying aid needs to be given to all. Obviously millionaire's don't need food stamps. Just the hungry. But if the need is the same the opportunity should be as well.

Isn't this what the minoritiy groups have been declaring all along? Equal opportunity. It gets rather confusing to exclaim the need for equal opportunity and then to dismiss it. It either is or it isn't. (I personally think is should be.)

Originally posted by "matthew":

With ALL the "legal" ramifications but no cultural, religious or supposed spiritual ramifications. Yes.

No, no need for any service of any kind. Just a filing of a legal document. If you want a marriage/wedding to symbolize a cultural or religious union. Feel free to have one in whatever style that is appropriate to your culture or faith.

Originally posted by "matthew":

I don't understand where all the furore comes from with regard to the word 'marriage' - it is, after all, a civil/legal term as much as a religious one.

Perhaps it's the fear that government can lead it to be something that people disagree with. It would not be the first time. Mormonism was forced to actually concede it's polygamous nature to enable Utah to join the U.S. And at present many polygamists are refused the right to marriage. So that's part of it.

I think the fact that a license is required by the government to be insane enough. To me, removing the fingers of government from such to be a good thing.

Originally posted by "matthew":

Your diatribe about Christianity was something of an irrelevance, then.

Okay, I am not at all getting your reference. This leads me to believe that we're confused on each other's words or intent in some manner, can you please clarify. To what are you referring?

Originally posted by "matthew":

You are in a minority - atheists are less electable than gay people in the US, according to a recent survey. I believe that there was quite an issue over whether a person could be sworn in under the koran without being declared a terrorist.

Define what's an atheist. Yes, nearly any politician will walk into a church for politics sake. They'll walk into a mosque and accept Allah if they think it'd help them get voted. And then to Bhuddist temple.

Although I do believe a number of politicians are christians. I also believe a great many to not be genuine christians. In fact, a great many people I have encountered in life think they're christians simply because they're not Jewish, not Muslim and not an atheist cause they think there is a higher power so that means they're a christian.

Yes, there is silliness. I personally had no problem with the new Congressmen being sworn on the Koran.

Originally posted by "matthew":

Personally, I think it quite alarming that nations should be run by deeply religious people. As has been discussed ad infinitum, religion is irrational and partite. A national leader should think beyond those limitations in order to lead effectively.

Yes it has been discussed ad infinitum here. I view the above statement being akin to me saying I think it quite alarming that nations should be run by atheists. As so many adamant atheist regimes have been very tyrannical and left millions dead.

To me, it just exemplifies how closed minded you are.

- Saj

Flash

Nikon D700

03/08/2007 04:18:41 PM · #96

Originally posted by theSaj:

I have no problem giving a man a meal for a day. If you're hungry and I've got fish I'll give you one. But no, I don't like the idea of giving you a fish every day. I'll help you build a pole. Give you a few hooks and some line. And teach you how to fish.

I support short-term welfare. Which enables people to get back on their feet. However, I oppose long-term welfare. - Saj

I completely agree here. I have posted elsewhere that I truly do not understand 3rd generation welfare poor in the US. We have free public education. I can understand 1st generation and maybe partially 2nd generation, however I do not understand the kind of generational welfare poor as was exhibited during the Katrina aftermath. 3rd generation welfare poor to me, exemplifies all that is wrong with government assistance.

Historically, races/nationalities that immigrate to the US do not maintain generational welfare poor past the 1st or possibly the 2nd generation. The Irish didn't, The German's didn't, The Italian's didn't, The Poles didn't, Asians didn't, Latin Americans don't, only certain groups can be found generation after generation after generation as part of the welfare poor in this country. I wonder why. Tells me, it is about expectations and what is percieved in the specific communities as right vs wrong.

Don't mind helping you out. Don't mind supporting charities and other volunteer organizations to help those in NEED. 3rd, 4th, or 5th generational welfare poor are not taking advantage of the free public education system.

Gordon

RIM BlackBerry Curve

Canon EF 85mm f/1.8 USM

03/08/2007 04:31:15 PM · #97

Originally posted by Flash:

Historically, races/nationalities that immigrate to the US do not maintain generational welfare poor past the 1st or possibly the 2nd generation. The Irish didn't, The German's didn't, The Italian's didn't, The Poles didn't, Asians didn't, Latin Americans don't, only certain groups can be found generation after generation after generation as part of the welfare poor in this country. I wonder why. Tells me, it is about expectations and what is percieved in the specific communities as right vs wrong.

Don't mind helping you out. Don't mind supporting charities and other volunteer organizations to help those in NEED. 3rd, 4th, or 5th generational welfare poor are not taking advantage of the free public education system.

So wouldn't it be a good thing if certain of those groups were trying to change the perceptions and expectations within their own groups ? Raise the bar ? Change that mentality ? Some in this thread seem to take exception to exactly that.

03/08/2007 05:33:08 PM · #98

Originally posted by "Gordon":

Change a mentality, fine...

Limit one's aid & support to those in need that only fall into a specific class - no!

That said, I even question whether the intention of those bullets is to change that mentality. When one of the things they actively oppose is "middle-class". Middle-class is the great fiber of America. The fact that most Americans fall into the middle-class. Versus old world models which were the "Lords", the Peasants and a small mercantile class. In America it is the mercantile class that is most dominant. Furthermore, you do not even have to be a business owner to be in the middle-class.

To me, it would be wrong to oppose slavery just in the U.S. or even just in Africa. Slavery persists in many regions of the world at present. It'd be a shame just to say "Slavery in Africa is Wrong". It's also wrong in Asia. And in the U.S.

Ideals are ideals. I do not believe that good ideals are race specific.

MikeO

Fujifilm x100

03/08/2007 05:45:42 PM · #99

Lets face it - only women can multi-task, vote her in!