Who would you like to see as the next US President?

[REASON]

I didn't present anything as facts, and my conjecture is entirely reasonable. Disagree if you wish. I don't care.

 

That's because you have no facts. While your conjecture may appear reasonable to some, it is entirely speculative and unfounded.

 

1. Barack has to agree with his preacher, otherwise he would not have attended for 20+ years.

 

Wrong. Neither Barack, you, or me, have to believe everything anyone says, even if they're a preacher. Do you abandon everyone whom you disagree with about something, particularly those you care about? I doubt it. You obviously haven't abandoned this site. Should you be held to account for statements made here for which you disagree since you continue to participate?

 

2. If Barack does not agree with his preacher but continues to attend because they're close friends, then Barack holds his chums higher than his own principles, making him perfect for politics.

 

Really? What an absurd notion it is to hold your friendship with such esteem that you would not abandon your friend over a disagreement. Geez, what are they teaching in bible study these days? Are there any lessons about commitment, honor, loyalty, or integrity? How about love? I recommend focusing on what Jesus had to say.

 

What makes Obama a good candidate is his aptitude, his integrity, his policies, and his vision. The sarchasm you express refers to a type of politics that we should reject, not expect. Just because you tag Obama with it, doesn't mean he's guilty of it, particularly when you have no way to substantiate it.

 

3. Regardless, Barack had to have known that his preacher of 20+ years could come under scrutiny during a presidential campaign.

 

Maybe. But he realizes that his preacher is not running for President, and is beside the point. Obama cannot be held responsible for the attitudes and beliefs of everyone he associates with. No one can. To hold such an expectation of anyone, even a Presidential candidate, is unreasonable.

 

4. The timing of the Wright controversy happens to coincide with a neck-and-neck battle for the Democratic Primary.

 

Now there's a true statement. It did. So what? That literally proves nothing.

 

5. The kind of people who would agree with Wright are at least staunch Democrats, possibly radically leftist.

 

Could be. Maybe they're just people who are radically fed up. Are they justified? Not entirely as I see it, but I haven't walked a mile in their shoes. But I can identify with being fed up with our government.

 

6. That the whole incident looked like an accident with an immediate, yet vague, apology leaves room for the Wright types to suspect that Barack is on their side while also not offending the conservative vote, except of course those radical righties who think a person should either agree with his preacher or change churches.

 

The "Wright types?" Good one. Very revealing.

 

Do you also think that John McCain set up that whole incident with the NY Times article that alleged that he had an inappropriate relationship with a former woman colleague, where he immediately came out and responded to the claim as ridiculous and unfounded? If I recall, he was praised for not letting himself get swift-boated.

 

You're digging for dung and slinging it around, Southtown. It's messy, unpleasant, and adds nothing of value to the discussion.

 

If parishioners really have these unrealistic expectations that they are going to find a church where they agree with everything their preacher says, it's no wonder there are so many protestant denominations, with new ones cropping up all the time.

 

 

Pardon me if I can't quite bring myself to believe that this isn't just a little too convenient.

 

I guess. Whatever fills your day with excitement.

 

 

P.S. What's the deal? Are you still pissed about my Hydroplate comments or what?

[Southtown]

What an absurd notion it is to hold your friendship with such esteem that you would not abandon your friend over a disagreement.

I could be friends with someone whom I disagree with, but I would not feel that I should attend their indoctrination services and pretend to agree with them in order to continue such a friendship.

 

Geez, what are they teaching in bible study these days?

Why do you ask me that?

 

Are there any lessons about commitment, honor, loyalty, or integrity? How about love? I recommend focusing on what Jesus had to say.

Who's the preacher here? :eek: Stick to the subject, please.

 

What makes Obama a good candidate is his aptitude, his integrity, his policies, and his vision. The sarchasm you express refers to a type of politics that we should reject, not expect. Just because you tag Obama with it, doesn't mean he's guilty of it, particularly when you have no way to substantiate it.

I hear nothing from your hero but rhetoric. Feel free to prove me wrong with some of his speeches.

 

Maybe. But he realizes that his preacher is not running for President, and is beside the point. Obama cannot be held responsible for the attitudes and beliefs of everyone he associates with. No one can. To hold such an expectation of anyone, even a Presidential candidate, is unreasonable.

That is not what I'm saying. I simply doubt that he didn't see this coming.

 

Now there's a true statement. It did. So what? That literally proves nothing.

I didn't say that the timing proves anything. I just said that I can't personally call it a coincidence.

 

Could be. Maybe they're just people who are radically fed up. Are they justified? Not entirely as I see it, but I haven't walked a mile in their shoes. But I can identify with being fed up with our government.

By all means, totally sidestep my point, again.

 

The "Wright types?" Good one. Very revealing.

Go re-read some Wright articles for more information.

 

Do you also think that John McCain set up that whole incident with the NY Times article that alleged that he had an inapropriate relationship with a former woman colleague, where he immediately came out and responded to the claim as ridiculous and unfounded? If I recall, he was praised for not letting himself get swift-boated.

I can understand some of his devotees being overly supportive, but that incident had nothing to do with any of McCain's policy preferences.

 

You're digging for dung and slinging it around, Southtown. It's messy, unpleasant, and adds nothing of value to the discussion.

Thanks for your opinion.

 

If parishioners really have these unrealistic expectations that they are going to find a church where they agree with everything their preacher says, it's no wonder there are so many protestant denominations, with new one's cropping up all the time.

Perhaps you are beginning to understand after all.

 

I guess. Whatever fills your day with excitement.

 

 

P.S. What's the deal? Are you still pissed about my Hydroplate comments or what?

I stick by my statements. You attempt to persuade me with mere insults. Do you yourself honestly think I should cave to such attacks?

[InfiniteNow]

By all means, totally sidestep my point, again.

Southtown,

 

The way I see it, you really don't have a point. This is not intended as insult, but an honest and respectful observation.

 

You have demonstrated little more than an unsubstantiated personal conjecture, supported with strawmen and handwaving. You seem locked into a predetermined mindset which you don't appear willing to let go. Your posts show only a willingness to disparage Obama for things which have little relevance to him, his campaign, our country, our people, or the challenges we all face right now as a planet.

 

You appear to be gathering momentum for a public stoning, not sharing ideas and merited points for an honest and intellectual debate.

 

If I've misinterpreted your position, then please clarify it. If I've missed some key point in your posts, then please explain it. Until then, I don't really think you have a point that goes beyond mere mud slinging, which itself has been so representative of the politics of old... politics which themselves have led us into many of the difficult situations and challenges which we currently find ourselves facing.

[InfiniteNow]

Southtown,

 

Can you see how such devisive rhetoric and unfounded conjecture has little place in our collective futures?

[Southtown]

Thanks for your reply, Inow.

 

Southtown,

 

The way I see it, you really don't have a point. This is not intended as insult, but an honest and respectful observation.

 

You have demonstrated little more than an unsubstantiated personal conjecture, supported with strawmen and handwaving. You seem locked into a predetermined mindset which you don't appear willing to let go.

See what you will. I am perfectly willing to let go, provided some argument beyond either insult or exasperation.

 

Your posts show only a willingness to disparage Obama for things which have little relevance to him, his campaign, our country, our people, or the challenges we all face right now as a planet.

Correct, my posts are not relevant to country, people, or planetary challenges. Why should they be?

 

You appear to be gathering momentum for a public stoning, not sharing ideas and merited points for an honest and intellectual debate.

Where is this momentum you speak of?

 

If I've misinterpreted your position, then please clarify it. If I've missed some key point in your posts, then please explain it. Until then, I don't really think you have a point that goes beyond mere mud slinging, which itself has been so representative of the politics of old... politics which themselves have led us into many of the difficult situations and challenges which we currently find ourselves facing.

You have neither reiterated my position nor addressed any of my points. How would I know if you adequately represent my position?

 

Also, please specify which difficult situations or challenges that we're currently facing, and please illustrate why they ascend the characterization of mudslinging.

[InfiniteNow]

You have neither reiterated my position nor addressed any of my points. How would I know if you adequately represent my position?

 

<sigh>

 

Oh... old, friend.

 

Which points specifically? I respect you enough to give you my honest opinion, but I've asked you to clarify which points specifically you wish for me to address.

 

What are you asking?

What do you wish to see addressed?

 

I'm just not seeing it.

 

I really am rather stupid. Perhaps you'll be so kind as to show me some extra patience and hold my hand as you lead me down the proverbial path you are walking in that conscious mind of yours...

[Southtown]

<sigh>

 

Oh... old, friend.

 

Which points specifically? I respect you enough to give you my honest opinion, but I've asked you to clarify which points specifically you wish for me to address.

 

What are you asking?

What do you wish to see addressed?

 

I'm just not seeing it.

 

I really am rather stupid. Perhaps you'll be so kind as to show me some extra patience and hold my hand as you lead me down the proverbial path you are walking in that conscious mind of yours...

I'm with ya though, mayne. Make no mistake. I am talking about the points contained in this post, and their seemly coincidental circumstances. REASON did attempt to reply to them specifically, however I don't believe s/he addressed them in context. Too coincidental, I believe.

[InfiniteNow]

I'm with ya though, mayne. Make no mistake. I am talking about the points contained in this post, and their seemly coincidental circumstances. REASON did attempt to reply to them specifically, however I don't believe s/he addressed them in context. Too coincidental, I believe.

 

Reason is a very good dude. I think he is struggling for the same "reasons" I am. I saw your post, but it seemed to be lacking basis.

 

Is it possible that Obama set this up himself as a way to garner favor?

Well, it's not probable, but I suppose it's possible.

 

I just don't see it. Too conspiratorial... too "Alex Jones." There's some truth in there, but not in the way it's being presented.

 

I won't lie. I'm all about Obama. He's got my vote, he excites me, and I hope to Thor he can bring us all together to overcome these impossible obstacles we all face, and to achieve these goals we all share.

 

But, he is just a guy, and I understand how tough it can be to be judged not for who you are, but for who people think you are. I'm just encouraging that people think based on fact, and not based on regurgitated unfounded conspiratorial conjecture.

 

 

 

Further, you could always vote for Ron Paul, nutter that he is... :confused:

[Southtown]

Right. Those six points are obviously my subjective views. I merely submit that they are consistent. And be assured you all that I invite points to the contrary. So is the purpose of dialog, amen?

[InfiniteNow]

"It is necessary to help others, not only in our prayers, but in our daily lives. If we find we cannot help others, the least we can do is to desist from harming them. " :phones:

 

祝你们好

[Southtown]

I won't lie. I'm all about Obama. He's got my vote, he excites me, and I hope to Thor he can bring us all together to overcome these impossible obstacles we all face, and to achieve these goals we all share.

I respect anyone who replies to me... not to minimize you Inow, but just to draw contrast between those who reply and those who silently neg-rep. You know who you are, and you can only dissuade me with dialog, old pal.

 

Inow, I have serious concerns regarding specific meanings to common words/ideas in speeches, such as "impossible obstacles we all face" or "goals we all share". (What do these mean?) Another favorite of mine is "Americans are tired of policy X". It's like "Don't tell me how I feel b**ch!" I honestly wax vehement every time politicians refer to concepts that are vague enough for anyone to identify with.

 

Further, you could always vote for Ron Paul, nutter that he is... :)

I could also vote for my step-brother, but that won't do much good. :hihi: (trust me on that one =P)

[InfiniteNow]

I hope to Thor he can bring us all together to overcome these impossible obstacles we all face, and to achieve these goals we all share.

 

But, he is just a guy, and I understand how tough it can be to be judged not for who you are, but for who people think you are. I'm just encouraging that people think based on fact, and not based on regurgitated unfounded conspiratorial conjecture.

 

Inow, I have serious concerns regarding specific meanings to common words/ideas in speeches, such as "impossible obstacles we all face" or "goals we all share".

 

Okay, that's fine. However, just to be clear, those were not words from some speech I heard, but were generated by my own hand and mind. So, the beauty of this is that I can describe what I meant when asked. :)

 

When I typed "the impossible obstacles we all face" and "goals we all share," I was using a "short hand" to allude to our need together to confront issues like these:

• Poverty
  
• Pollution
  
• Infrastructure (from being an oil based economy to having bridges collapse to the lack of telecommunicative connectivity in areas where it's needed most)
  
• Religious warring
  
• Hunger
  
• Oppression
  
• Climate Change
  
• Availability of fresh drinking water
  
• Resource Management among an exponentially growing population
  
• The ignorance of Creationism and ID
  

 

Those were a few off the top of my head. The last one I threw in there for some comedic relief, but I am being honest when I state that the inherent dishonesty and viral nature of the creationist perspective deeply troubles me.

 

Without focussing on my statement about creationism or ID (in this thread), would you like me to clarify any of the more specific points I shared?

[Southtown]

Nosir. Those are good issues, and I'm sure there are plenty more. But I simply noticed that most politicians refuse to elaborate like you just did on those kinds of phrases in their speeches. I hate to invoke the word 'rhetoric' again because it is so overused, but you know what I mean. I don't want to argue any specific issues. I was just pointing out what frustrates me the most about choosing candidates.

[InfiniteNow]

Nosir. Those are good issues, and I'm sure there are plenty more. But I simply noticed that most politicians refuse to elaborate like you just did on those kinds of phrases in their speeches. I hate to invoke the word 'rhetoric' again because it is so overused, but you know what I mean. I don't want to argue any specific issues. I was just pointing out what frustrates me the most about choosing candidates.

 

Absolutely. I think that as well. "Would you quit waving your hands and speaking around the issue and freakin' say something with substance already!"

 

I get it though. They are trying to appeal to the maximum number of people possible. They are running for an office which represents the entire population, complete with all of it's disagreements and different points of view.

 

The moment they take a stand on an issue, it IMMEDIATELY turns people away, who might otherwise agree with everything else they say and do. All it takes, though, is that one thing about which you disagree with the candidate to never consider them legitimate again.

 

I'll give you an example. The moment I saw this:

 

YouTube - GOP Debate - Evolution Question http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t4Cc8t3Zd5E

 

 

... I immediately knew that Huckabee was not worth my time and attention.

 

However, I probably agree with a great many of his other points. It's just that once I saw his take on this one issue, I closed my eyes to him.

 

When trying to win a popularity contest like this, you need to do everything you can to wiggle out of actual points and substance, but do enough to convince people that you're on their side and will fight for them if you win.

 

It's a tricky balance, and most fall off of the proverbial balance beam when trying.

 

However, those that don't fall become the sole targets of our frustrations, and hence we discussions like this where interesting and low probability conjectures are presented.

 

All of that said, I do think we're finally at a place of agreement where we can start talking about global climate change in the national election. The problem THEN will become the disagreement among people on the best way to deal with it without impacting each of their profit margins... Hence, more wiggly statements without precision... reductio ad absurdum.

[Southtown]

Amen dude. About that vid, it's funny. But of course I would conversely go for Huckabee over McCain because of it.

 

That said, I don't really hold beliefs with high esteem. A believing or disbelieving of evolution can lend a little insight to a candidates thought processes, but not enough in my opinion. People can sometimes have inconsistent beliefs and therefore be unpredictable. I'd much rather they stop beating around the burning bush.

[Thunderbird]

Amen dude. About that vid, it's funny. ;) But of course I would conversely go for Huckabee over McCain because of it.

 

That said, I don't really hold beliefs with high esteem. A believing or disbelieving of evolution can lend a little insight to a candidates thought processes, but not enough in my opinion. People can sometimes have inconsistent beliefs and therefore be unpredictable. I'd much rather they stop beating around the burning bush.

 

 

Hi Southtown, Do you have any hero's of modern history?

 

Or anyone else?

[Southtown]

Hi Southtown, Do you have any hero's of modern history?

 

Or anyone else?

Yep. God bless George W.