American Presidential Elections

[Korona 0]

Obama is a Christian and has been for a long time. He speaks eloquently about what converted him and what it means for him to have faith. Geez how can any Americans not know this?

 

I went to a CofE school and I'd say the majority of kids there were atheists. I think that if it disgusts you it's probably because you don't understand what kind of thing goes on there, maybe because of media mis-representation over the issue of the muslim schools in Pakistan. The natural inclination of kids to rebel against authourity is offset only by the schools own cynicism in how it approached it's religious status. IMO it was to get cash out of the CofE more than anything. There were religious overtones to assembleys once a week and there was a chaplain for anyone who wanted it. I know a lot of people who lost their "faith" there but noone who gained it as a concequence of going.

[Opals25 0]

When I have kids I will never send them to a religious oriented school. The very idea disgusts me.

 

Ah, its not bad. It was a catholic school so I wasn't taught the world was 6,000 years old or any of that bullshit. Mostly, I went because the local public schools sucked; well, rather, the city school board did. If they decided a shitty school on the other side of the city needed more white kids, they could tell you to go there instead of the decent one down the street. Rather then risk letting that happen, my parents sent me to the Catholic school down the street. I had "faith" there in the sense that I believed what my superiors told me, but my parents were pretty agnostic and once we moved, I stopped getting that religious overtone and stopped believing.

[Goose 0]

I attended a Catholic school for four years as a child too, and I'm a rampant fucking Atheist now. It doesn't mean shit.

 

Same here. Even then I knew I wasn't religious, but I couldn't tell anyone there, they'd probably have thrown holy water at me. I don't think what children get taught in religious schools does any harm as I know from personal experience, but at the same time it shouldn't happen because it only helps to make the cycle of religious beliefs being passed along to continue. This guy has the right idea, he may be a bit OTT but I like him all the same.

[Korona 0]

Islam is [... blablabla ... insert bullshit here ... blablabla ...]

He sounds like a small minded penis to me.

[Goose 0]

Sure he sounds like that on surface level, but after you watch a few videos and really listen to what he's saying (whilst taking into account he's an ex-stand up comedian and doesn't mean everything he says) then you know he's not being small minded, racist, whatever you want to call it.

[Korona 0]

He's another one of those hypocritical people who thinks we should apply the scientific method to faith. I say hypocritical because I doubt he would want to approach most other meaningful human activities scientifically. Anything subjective (as faith is) is by definition outside of speculative interogation. That doesn't devalue it.

 

I don't disagree that there are Islamic zealots who deserve condemnation

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/south_asia/7204341.stm

but the wholesale attack on organised religion is simplistic and shows an ignorance of what he is attacking.

 

There are zealots in everything, religion isn't anything special in that respect. I'd say big buisiness is more structurally organised around enslaving people for its own ends. It certainly does more to trample us than religion does. He complains about children being brought up in a religious environment, but what about bringing children up in an environment of advertising that is deliberatly designed to make them feel a deficit that can only be filled by consumption. What does more damage?

[Goose 0]

It's not an attack on all religion. He often makes the point which I agree with, that religion is a personal matter, and has no problem with people being religious as long as they don't try to stick it where it doesn't belong.

[Korona 0]

He is against any type of organised religion. That is pretty wide-reaching condemnation. He wants to set up a distinction between religion and spirituality. I accept that there is room for play in the semantics, he really means "zealotry" when he says religion. But to say that all of Islam, and by extention all organised religions are zealotry is just fanciful delusion and a gross over simplification.

[Rattuskid 0]

Frankly, his desperate adulation that he is a Christian sounds so empty. And if anything, judging by the church he went to, and the ideology he followed, that brand of Christianity is les horribelle.

 

He sounds awkward defending it mainly because it is such an outlandish attack, and one that's hard to formulate a response to. It's a matter of self identity being not only questioned, but assumed false. Imagine you were thrust into the spotlight and the media initially dogged you, had round table talks about or outright lied about your religion, or sexual orientation, or social background. He is getting better at dismissing it now.

 

That said, even if he 'played' Muslim just to try to take the bite out of the allegation, it would ruin him in the election. America would elect a black hermaphrodite midget go-go dancer as president before they'd let someone who isn't at least on keel with judeochristianity in.

 

That being said, before the Wright scandal, the church of his had great PR...

 

When I have kids I will never send them to a religious oriented school. The very idea disgusts me.

 

Most students go because their parents don't want to send them to embattled city schools, not because they agree with the religion. Many people in my family attended Catholic schools, despite my family being full of die hard protestants.

 

Geez how can any Americans not know this?

 

He's black, and has a funny name. Welcome to America, where yes, we will let this get in the way of the issues.

 

 

[killakanz 0]

Well, I'd much rather have my kids learn about all religions from a neutral perspective then let them make up their own minds rather than have one forced down their throats complimented with biased opinions on others. I'm somewhat skeptic that religious oriented schools would teach how other religions really are.

[IconOfEvi 0]

lol I also went to Catholic school for a bit.

 

Anyways, seems I wasn't so wrong on my hypothesis.

[Korona 0]

You should let us vote for you :P

 

Killa I don't really know what you mean about a "neutral perspective" on faith. A religion isn't like a scientific position, it's a set of practices. You can take part in it or not but that is the case even in a CofE school. We had religious themed assemblies once a week but I'd hardly call that indoctrination, the Muslims and atheists there were hardly born again Christians by the time we reached the Christmas break. I think if you had the option of a shitty comprehensive or a faith school (or paying a load of fees) the boost in standards you get at a faith school trumps the practically nonexistent "propganda".

[Goose 0]

I dunno, my school was alot more hardcore. I guess that's the difference between Catholicism and C of E, the former is a die hard religion, the latter is more of a hobby. I had assemblies every day, always involving some sort of mandatory prayer and religious hymn. We had a mass in school about once a month when a priest from up the road would come and do the whole body of christ blood of christ etc etc. I never understood or saw the point in it. And in RE lessons I just nodded along, never really believing what they told me. We had a sex education lesson in year 5, and at the end I asked why no-one had mentioned condoms, the teachers just looked at each other, shook their heads, and told me Catholics don't believe in using contraception. I asked them why and I don't remember them giving me a good reason. Now when even an 11 year old questions these archaic practices, it becomes an issue.

[Korona 0]

Sex education in general is just retarded. Its so superficial that it's beyond a joke.

[IconOfEvi 0]

Well my problem with sex ed classes is they are now more viewed as a method of behavior molding/indoctrination than education, by every faction. My school district taught it the best I guess. Just straight up told you how penis spunk goes into vagina to rape egg and make baby, etc etc. I don't recall seeing Tommy Has Two Mommies or anything of that sort, or ABSTINENCE ONLY, or HAVE SEX WITH CONDOMS ALL DAY...was just straight up sex ed, how it should be.

 

You should let us vote for you :P

lolwut? You think I want European socialist madmen voting for an American socialist madmen? I'll pass. Maybe WE should vote for you guys instead eh ;)?

[Feuersturm 0]

My education was similar to that of Icon in reguards to the manner. Although when we got to High school they started pressing the abstinence issue on alot of people. Being Christian, that already is my belief till I get married, but for alot of people they probably just didn't give a rat's ass.

 

 

I don't know, the more I see of the campaign, the more I get split on the fence between the two.

 

Time to focus election issues back home here, Canada is gearing for another election, and I hope the Conservatives win majoirty. The've corrected alot of mistakes that the Liberal years had brought in. That being alot of wasted money to where it shouldn't have been going.

Edited September 11, 2008 by Feuersturm

[Korona 0]

You should let us vote for you :P

lolwut? You think I want European socialist madmen voting for an American socialist madmen? I'll pass. Maybe WE should vote for you guys instead eh ;)?

 

I'd rather be a socialist madman than a proto-fascist :P but yeh that would be a fair swap, you vote in our next round of leaders in the UK (or heck the whole EU if you like!) if we can vote in the next president. I think it's fairly obvious to anyone outside the US that Obama is the best candidate, but out of interest, who would you pick out of Gordon Brown, Dav(e/id) Cameron, or Nick Clegg for the next leader of the UK? "Dave" is probably closest to US mainstream politics but he's such a blitering twat that I can't see anyone abroad taking him seriously...

 

 

However we have got off topic. The latest issue seems to be a Republican party attack on Obama for using the phrase "lipstick on a pig". The double standards of masking a character-attack as a defence is just cynical beyond belief, but it's probably trumped by the shere hypocrisy. After all, McCain used the same phrase himself to refer to Hillary's policies. It's just bizzaire. The public bought the already aubsurdly cynical move of using Palin as a kind of trophy VP, so I guess they figured they could get away with it again.

 

 

Did it work? Does anyone actually buy this?

[Mehman 0]

The average voter is Icon. Do you think it didnt?

[flyby 0]

Aaarrhh.. let the mud contest begin !!

 

-a Republican remark of "Obama has thick fat lips" get slammed for being a racial remark..

-Then the other side returns fire with "lipstick on a pig", after she declared herself as a "pitbull with lipstick"...

 

Outrage and meham on all sides.... All for mothing.

 

 

 

PS.

Pig or Pitbull, they're both ugly as hell, lipsgloss wont improve that..

I really can't see why being a pitbull would be so much more positive then being a pig?

[Korona 0]

Obama wasn't calling her a pig though, he was refering to her policies, and went on to say that you can't wrap a fish in paper and expect it not to stink after 8 years. Is Palin also an 8 year old fish? C'mon this is utterly retarded. It's old fashioned mudslinging by using the old trick of asserting the opposite. "Obama is launching personal attacks". That's just lies, wankers.

[IconOfEvi 0]

Korona, someone wants YOU! You could seriously be like the George Stephanopoulos of the Obama Administration! No joke!

 

As for which of those clowns to vote for in UK...same thing I say for this election, except I've said it for years...none of the above. Seriously, if the best opposition that can be mustered is in the form of David Cameron, then the UK is truly pitiful. Then again, no room to talk, seeing as we have McCain.

 

And wait wait wait...I'm an average voter representative? Sweeeeeeeeeeeet. If I was, McCain would have been torpedoed long ago!

 

As for the bulldog thing, its cause you know, bulldogs are considered tough and aggressive. You know, like how Churchill was nicknamed The British Bulldog. She a tough one, with lipstick is what she's saying. And tbh, for once, that is believable. Was it that unobvious. Srsly...

Edited September 11, 2008 by IconOfEvi

[Korona 0]

I'm who?

I just want people to have valid arguements. I want to see McCain defend tax breaks for the rich and no heathcare for the poor. The bullshit has sunk to a new level with this lipstick on a pig crap. We on the sidelines deserve better!

Bear in mind that the whole stereotype of Obama supporters is a STEREOTYPE. Noone with an ouce of intelligence sees him as the messiah or the next Ghandi or something, but some of his policies make a lot of sense, and he is so much better than the status quo that I can't see how anybody couldn't vote for him. Well I do but it's called propaganda.

 

There are fringe groups in UK politics. You can't demand the right to vote in our elections and then abstain! C'mon pick one, even if its the Green party (I voted for them in the London elections) or hell make your own party if you like, but you at least need to say some stuff you would want to see.

 

BTW Churchill as a bulldog is kind of satirical, partly due to his appearance and partly because of the double edged sword of the Bulldog's temperament and (status as being itself a national mascot). Bulldogs have a weird form of fighting. A bulldog will ignore blows and attacks, and when it attacks it just bites onto its target and never lets go. By analogy it's a kind of blockheaded self-righeousness, but something I guess Britishers have an affection for. Churchill was a good enough sport to take and make self-depricating jokes. That's the key difference in this issue.

[IconOfEvi 0]

Sorry Korona, but you're in the minority. College kids are especiall enthralled with him. I know. I see them.

 

Students For Obama tried recruiting me :ph34r:

 

I intend to troll them one day as an Communist fresh from India, and how wonderful he is. :>

 

As for Mr Steph, he is currently host of ABC's This Week (the Sunday interview/etc show), and I do like him very much. However, he used to be Clinton's...well pretty much he was the Press Secretary along with James Carville, in a de facto sense of course. Worst attack dogs/spin doctors I'd ever seen (well looking at old vids and comments).

 

I think it's fairly obvious to anyone outside the US that Obama is the best candidate

Well for YOU GUYS. Not for us. Which again, brings up the fact that thankfully, Europeans don't decide who the American president is.

 

I want to ask a question though. Obama was thrust to the front primarily on his stance on the Iraq War. Now that the Iraq War can be considered a success (though we shant be hasty) in such a short span on time, what does that mean for Obama? It's like McGovern all over again. Goddamn Communist strain shows up in the left when the US goes through a large war these days. It wasn't always liek this.

 

Thats right - Communist. Clarifying what a community activist is essentially.

Edited September 12, 2008 by IconOfEvi

[Korona 0]

Obama opposed the war as anyone with common sense did. Lets look at the basic premises for war and it's effects.

 

Premises:

 

Iraq supports terrorism - debatable. Saddam didn't support Al Quaida which was the implication and, so what? The US DID support Al Quaida and they supported far worst groups like the Contras. This is quite debatable and isn't a premise for war

 

Iraq had weapons of mass destruction - true. But only because we sold them to him. His modern WMD program was total fabrication as time has borne out.

 

Saddam was a bad man who threatened the region (and his own people) and needed to be deposed - debatable. Saddam wasn't a threat to the region after the 1st gulf war and US backing was withdrawn. He was a horrible man who waged a system of terror against his own people but that isn't a premise for war either.

 

 

Ok so now look at the impact of the war.

 

On Iraq - Short term the collapse of infrastructure and law and order. Civilian deaths from our troops bombing/shooting them. The rise of terrorism and religious factionalism. Tensions Saddam held back rise and are greatly strengthened. Since the start of the war something like 1.3million deaths (?!) Large parts of the country in the hands of millitias and warlords (supported by General Petreus' stratagy btw).

 

On the region - Increased anti-western sentiment across the region, a contributing factor to the election of Ahmadenajad in Iran and Hamas in Palestine.

 

On the US - Domestically: massive government debt to cover the cost of the war (how many billions of dollars per month is it? 10?), money that could have 101 better uses pissed away. The collosal overstretch of the military. Recruitment down, and soliders on their 3rd tour totally disillusioned.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/programmes/newsnight/7610237.stm

Abroad: the collapse of the US/UKs facade of legitimacy. Many bridges with allies in the rest of the world damaged. The ability of the US to respond to world events with either moral superiourity or with force of arms is totally comprimised. How can the US lecture Russia on Georgia when the US launched an unfounded war of aggression in Iraq? Any kind of grandstanding sounds utterly hypocrital.

 

You call that a SUCCESS???

 

 

So yes, Obama opposed the war, I am glad he did, as he helps me keep some kind of faith in the sanity of some Americans.

 

 

As for the idea that Obama is a communist. Geez what a load of utter nonsense. That spectator peice is simple hysteria mixed with outright lies. Because I hate the Spectator (aka The HasBeano with it's haphazard editor Boris "the menace" Johnson) I will reiterate what we all already know: Community activism covers a whole range of social work, but it's all positive. The civil rights movement is one of the more high profile examples. It is direct democracy, people taking matters into their own hands and achieving peaceful political change. It demonstrates that there is more to living in a democracy than ticking a box every four years and I applaud anyone with the effort and energy to do that kind of selfless work.

 

You shouldn't pay the racist and xenophobic pricks at the Spectator any notice, they are best ignored and maybe they will go away

 

 

http://www.olimu.com/Notes/KingsOfTheDeal/KingsOfTheDeal.htm

 

Yes they ran an artical on Jews in 2007 that wouldn't have looked out of place 70 years earlier in the "Völkischer Beobachter" the Nazi rag. Amazing.

[IconOfEvi 0]

Lets start...

 

The US DID support Al Quaida and they supported far worst groups like the Contras.

WRONG. Support for the TALIBAN was in material form ONLY (Stingers, etc). We never gave training to Bin Laden as has been alleged.

 

And...wait. Did I read that right? Contras, worse than Al-Queda?

 

Looking over what else I just had to read...You're utterly unbelievable, you really are Korona. Do you SERIOUSLY believe all that? :blink:

 

PS - you really ought to take the job of Obama Administration PR Man. Besides the fact that you need to brush up on facts (1.3 million, wut? And you have no clue what Petreasus's strategy is) It'd be great! :)

Edited September 12, 2008 by IconOfEvi