The Obama Presidency - 2008 & 2012

[ISiddiqui]

So what's Colin Powell's excuse? Or has he just been Uncle Tom'd as he was referred to when he was Bush's Secretary of State?

[CamEdwards]

Originally Posted by SteveBollea

Black people in positions of power aren't stupid enough to call it out, because they'll be called reverse racists by guys with radio shows and such. But, basically, I refer you to the words of Ta-Neishi Coates, blogger on The Atlantic and black man.

http://ta-nehisicoates.theatlantic.c...e_the_fonz.php

So you are able to speak for "black people in power"? Good lord.

[CamEdwards]

dola: I also love your description of Ta-Neishi Coates. "Blogger on The Atlantic and black man".

Could we start providing these handy descriptions for all pundits? "Maureen Dowd, New York Times Columnist and white woman, said..."

[SteveMax58]

Originally Posted by RainMaker

The nipple-clip, feather boa in the streets of San Francisco didn't come across as a shot at gays? His blog seems to reference the gay pride parades as extremist, violent events.

As for the nipple-clip, feather-boa comment...I honestly did not associate the comment to gay people. He mentioned "hippies". I have never heard hippies used as slang, codeword, etc. for gay. Nipple-clip, feather boa wearing I guess is what constitues anti-gay...just sounded like a shitty analogy more than a potshot. But I'm sure you heard that remark to mean "gay people = racists". Which is very similar to your own remarks whic have been understood to mean "Anti-Obama policy = racist"...see how we all see and read into things just a little differently? Best to be careful on big, slippery slopes with the "thought police" stuff.

This is also a guy who made the rounds on the cable news networks with racist rants against blacks after Katrina. But like you said, no racism in this event at all.

You have not read a single post of me saying that. You see racists and immediately feel it's got to be everybody...all 10k people (or however many)...or the majority is perfectly fine with it. What you don't seem to understand is that there are perfectly logical reasons white racists follow small-government ideology (and subsequently show up at such events). But there is not an inherent racist element to small-government ideology. It seems you want to link the 2. Well, I'm sorry you're just wrong.

I also think I've made it pretty clear I'm not defending this guy's CNN video, his blog, his high school science teacher, his brother's dog, or anything about him. Apparently you are fixated on him. He is an organizer for Tea Party events...happens to be xenophobic (and racist based on your findings). Really sucks this kind of guy is out in front on topics I happen to agree with...but that makes me a racist now? Should I also not like the color blue if a racist likes it?

[SteveMax58]

Originally Posted by SteveBollea

Black people in positions of power aren't stupid enough to call it out, because they'll be called reverse racists by guys with radio shows and such. But, basically, I refer you to the words of Ta-Neishi Coates, blogger on The Atlantic and black man.

http://ta-nehisicoates.theatlantic.c...e_the_fonz.php

Who might he be referring to that would like Obama to dance? Me? You? Republicans? White people? Some white people...but we can never find them? Who?

Must be over my head I guess.

[ISiddiqui]

Remember, Obama supporters are very, very adept at calling people racists. They took Bill Clinton, a guy who was known by some as "the first black President", and made him seem like a racist in the primaries.

[SteveMax58]

So why doesn't Obama distance himself from such people as the Clintons who are clearly capable of such bigotry?

[DaddyTorgo]

i'm done with this thread for now - can somebody fetch me back to it via PM when all the back and forth over the tea party racist shit is over?

i thought we had gotten past it earlier, but it seems like a couple people haven't wanted to let it go tonight and i'm honestly bored of talking about it. i'd rather be talking actual politics and ideas

[stevew]

I can't wait till Jimmy Carter dies.

I'm just announcing right now, ahead of time, that I'll be shitting all over that thread.

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by SteveMax58

As for the nipple-clip, feather-boa comment...I honestly did not associate the comment to gay people. He mentioned "hippies". I have never heard hippies used as slang, codeword, etc. for gay. Nipple-clip, feather boa wearing I guess is what constitues anti-gay...just sounded like a shitty analogy more than a potshot. But I'm sure you heard that remark to mean "gay people = racists". Which is very similar to your own remarks whic have been understood to mean "Anti-Obama policy = racist"...see how we all see and read into things just a little differently? Best to be careful on big, slippery slopes with the "thought police" stuff.

I don't know many nipple pierced hippies wearing pink boas. Maybe it wasn't a shot at gays, but he has a history of calling gay pride parades extremists events and uses examples in San Francisco frequently.

Originally Posted by SteveMax58

You have not read a single post of me saying that. You see racists and immediately feel it's got to be everybody...all 10k people (or however many)...or the majority is perfectly fine with it. What you don't seem to understand is that there are perfectly logical reasons white racists follow small-government ideology (and subsequently show up at such events). But there is not an inherent racist element to small-government ideology. It seems you want to link the 2. Well, I'm sorry you're just wrong.

I also think I've made it pretty clear I'm not defending this guy's CNN video, his blog, his high school science teacher, his brother's dog, or anything about him. Apparently you are fixated on him. He is an organizer for Tea Party events...happens to be xenophobic (and racist based on your findings). Really sucks this kind of guy is out in front on topics I happen to agree with...but that makes me a racist now? Should I also not like the color blue if a racist likes it?

I don't know where you see me labeling every anti-Obama person a racist. I'm anti most of Obama's policies and I don't consider myself a racist.
I simply stated that the tea parties seemed to have a racial vibe to it. Doesn't mean everyone there is a racist, doesn't mean even the majority are. It just means that there seems to be some racist elements to these gatherings.

That's all I'm arguing. Nothing about policy or opposition. Just whether the tea parties have a semi-racist vibe to them. I posted some pictures, pointed in the direction of some videos, showed flyers being posted online, and introduced you to one of the leaders of the tea party movement who has a history of racism that he doesn't shy away from. You can try and turn those comments into something they are not, but I'm strictly speaking about the tea party movement.

[Arles]

This idea that much of the dissent on Obama's policies is based in some sort of racism just doesn't make sense. Now, are there some people in this country not comfortable with the idea that a black man is president? I'm sure there are. Just like I'm sure a portion of society voted for him primarily on the idea that he is black and would break the color barrier.

Here's what we know:

1. A majority of Americans voted for him to be president.
2. He had 76% approval, 11% disapproval, 13% uncertain ratings in his first month in office.
3. His approval rating now fluctuates between 48 and 52 percent (based on which source you prefer) and his disapproval rating is in the 48-50% range as well.

S0, 89% were willing to give Obama a shot or already approved. That doesn't strike me as a population full of racist people. The fact that his disapproval has gone from 11% to around 50% doesn't seem to have anything to do with his skin color (unless a large number of people suddenly turned racist in the summer).

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by DaddyTorgo

i'm done with this thread for now - can somebody fetch me back to it via PM when all the back and forth over the tea party racist shit is over?

i thought we had gotten past it earlier, but it seems like a couple people haven't wanted to let it go tonight and i'm honestly bored of talking about it. i'd rather be talking actual politics and ideas

I'm sorry, I'll drop it.

Anyway, on health care. Here is what I'd propose:

1) Tort reform - I don't buy that this is the primary reason for high costs, but I still think aspects of it are a bit crazy. While malpractice does weed out poorer physicians who have made a lot of mistakes, there is also an element of doctors being too cautious. For instance, I went into the doctor with a real bad neck (from sleeping on the couch). I got an MRI and CAT scan ($6000 total) for what turned out to be a strain. Not sure on the details, but some caps would help along with some laws on what can/can't doctors be sued for. To make up for patients not being able to sue as much, I do think a more stringent governing of doctors needs to be in place for those who rack up too many complaints.

2) Financial assistance for Students - Make it easier for people to get a medical degree. It's real tough to go through life till you're 28 without a full time job paying the bills. Subsidized loans and grants should be offered. No lowering of standards, but assistance should make the road to becoming a doctor easier for those who have financial issues up front. This equates to more doctors, more personalized treatment, and lower costs.

3) Education on Health - We can all agree that probably the easiest way to lower costs is to just have this country healthier. No reason our kids should not be learning about good/bad carbs in school. About good/bad fats. What foods are good and what processed sugars do to your body. I honestly knew jack shit about health when I got out of school. Didn't know that wheat bread was much healthier than white bread. This stuff needs to be taught to kids. I'd also throw in getting some healthier lunches and dropping the vending machines from these schools. We don't let kids smoke or drink, so why can't we ban soda and such from junior highs and high schools?

4) Increase Competition - Not sure on all the laws but we don't really have any competition in the health insurance space. You maybe have 2-3 options in your area. Lets make it more like car insurance where we have 10-15 options at our fingertips. Auto insurance prices have been dropping this decade too.

5) Open Borders to Prescriptions - It's pathetic that we can't buy drugs from Canada or the UK. We shouldn't be forced to pay for the R&D of the rest of the world. Any squabbles Pharma has with these other countries and their prices are between them, not us.

6) Public Option for Some - I know it's a boogey man but we already have one in place. It's just confusing and fucked up. So lets provide health insurance for those who can't get it. Not just income wise, but those who have pre-existing conditions. Allow them to pay a % of their income that is pre-determined to be what they can afford. I don't think this has to cover a large percent of the country, just the 10-15% who can't get health insurance because of cost or pre-existing conditions. The pre-existing conditions is a big thing for me too as I don't think people should be punished in our country for losing out on the genetic lottery. I have no problem with loose weight/health requirements too. We shouldn't be paying for smokers and morbidly obese individuals who refuse to lose weight.

7) Tougher Regulations on Everyone - Insurance companies should not be allowed to bully poorer patients who can't afford legal representation. Doctors should not be allowed to over-prescribe procedures for financial windfall. Lets lock down the excess and fraud in the system with some tougher enforcement. Bust up some of these scams, bring in doctors who are cheating the system for questioning.


I think all these would help lower costs. It's not my dream scenario but I think it would be a massive help to the system. End goal is to get the country healthier, lower costs, and give more people access.

[CamEdwards]

Originally Posted by SteveBollea

Obama's ratings were always going to fall once he got into actual policy fights.

And no, most of his disapproval isn't because of racism. It's because of the belief he's somehow a socialist that will kill Grandma and force your daughter to have an illegal abortion while letting illegal immigrants get health care and raising your taxes to do it.

However, again, in the Northeast, his approval rating is still around 80%. In the West and Midwest, it's still around 63%. In the South, it's 28%. Now, I believe any Yankee Democrat's numbers would hover around that in the South. But, they'd probably be around 40% instead of 30% in the South and a few points higher in the Midwest and West.

Dude, what numbers are you looking at? Obama's at 45/48 in New Jersey right now among likely voters. Do you ever contribute anything other than the latest talking points circulating among the liberal blogs?

Your posts are incoherent from one to the next (you've posted approvingly of the idea that racism is inherent in the Obama protests, while now claiming that most of his disapproval isn't racist in nature), you make needlessly partisan snipes when none are needed, your political analysis brings absolutely nothing to the table, as far as I know you don't contribute anything else to the board in terms of intelligent conversation (I don't play WW, so if that's where you hang out and have the witty and captivating exchanges you seem incapable of achieving in this thread forgive me), and you don't even have the little tiny mouse-balls in your sac that it would take to come right out and actually call someone a racist on the interwebs. Instead, you outsource the job to a black man... and you don't even pay him for it.

For the first time in my more than six years of posting here, I am putting someone on ignore. I thought you should know the reason why you're the lucky guy to pop my cherry, SteveBollea.

[flere-imsaho]

Originally Posted by Arles

I think there's racial overtones in a ton of situations. Where it becomes an issue is when it drives destructive (or even unfair) behavior. If John Kerry, Al Gore, Hillary Clinton or Howard Dean is president taking these actions, you would still have the tea party gatherings and a similar level of dissent on the health care issue. Now, are there some backwater idiots taking a shot using race/muslim crap reasons? I'm sure there are, but it's not the main reason for the dissent.

Originally Posted by Arles

This idea that much of the dissent on Obama's policies is based in some sort of racism just doesn't make sense. Now, are there some people in this country not comfortable with the idea that a black man is president? I'm sure there are. Just like I'm sure a portion of society voted for him primarily on the idea that he is black and would break the color barrier.

I don't often agree with Arles in political threads, but these two posts were right on the money, in my opinion.

In my opinion, I think where people are getting confused is that while clearly a majority of people who oppose Obama's policies are not racists, the element who are racist, xenophobic, or have otherwise truly anti-social views are more vocal than their numbers would suggest, and have been given more of a stage by the MSM (starting with Fox News, as usual) than, perhaps, they deserve. With this backdrop, it's easy to make the assumption that this truly virulent group is actually larger than it is.

Having said that, none of you should discount the very clear polling that shows that one part of the country (the SouthEast), which happens to be a very particular bastion of the current GOP, is having considerable trouble coming to terms with the fact that Obama won the election, and has reacted to it by espousing beliefs (Obama's a muslim, Obama wasn't born in the U.S., etc...) that are outside the bounds of rationality. Whether that's racism, generalized hating-all-Democrats/Northerners or something else, it's a development that's having a considerable influence on the national conversation.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by stevew

I can't wait till Jimmy Carter dies. I'm just announcing right now, ahead of time, that I'll be shitting all over that thread.

Glad you've got the thread covered, I've been looking forward to pissing on his grave for a number of years already.

[SteveMax58]

Originally Posted by DaddyTorgo

i thought we had gotten past it earlier, but it seems like a couple people haven't wanted to let it go tonight and i'm honestly bored of talking about it. i'd rather be talking actual politics and ideas

Well, Arles was able to make the point I was trying (and apparently failing) to make for me. That roughly 90% of the counrty was giving him the benefit of the doubt, and roughly 10% were staunchly not going to support him. My only contention is that the 10% cannot ALL be racists (not that anybody was implying this) and that of that 10% that are...they didn't all show up for these events nor did they even come close to representing a majority sentiment. That is really all I was trying to get at.

Apologies for my part in continuing a silly exchange that likely accomplished nothing.

[Marc Vaughan]

Originally Posted by SteveBollea

I will however note that PPP poll Cam is referring to also has a question asking if one thinks Obama is the Anti-Christ. Well, 8% said yes. 13% aren't sure. Among Republicans 14% said yes and 15% weren't sure. Also, it had a 48-46 split when asked who did you vote for in 2008, which is a bit different than the real results in NJ.

Am I the only one who thinks it rather scarey not just that some people replied 'Yes' - but that this question was asked in the first place, I mean come on what is it the 1600's?

[sterlingice]

Originally Posted by SteveBollea

SHOCKER! GOP won't support Baucus bill.

So, in order to get no support from the Republicans, Baucus made substantive policy _and_ proecural concessions. If he'd just stuck to the schedule, we would have been at this point in the process at a time when Barack Obama’s approval rating was considerably higher. And at it's most basic point, politics is largely about politics and winning bipartisan support for stuff largely has to do with the popularity of the proposer.

Way to go, Max.

Yay! After all that, he accomplished nothing! So I say call their bluff- go with the House bill because it's clear the Dems aren't getting any political cover from the GOP for a bipartisan vote. So screw 'em, and do the bill that you think works best.

SI

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by Marc Vaughan

Am I the only one who thinks it rather scarey not just that some people replied 'Yes' - but that this question was asked in the first place, I mean come on what is it the 1600's?

It's a sure bet you aren't the only one ... but that doesn't make it any less offensive that you'd point something this blatantly mocking of Christians. But frankly Marc, that's pretty much what I've come to expect from you.

Apparently we don't have enough fucking liberals of our own, now we're importing them, just one more mistake in a long line that we've made at the national level.

[ISiddiqui]

So lets provide health insurance for those who can't get it. Not just income wise, but those who have pre-existing conditions.

Then, is your public option needed if additional regulations on insurance companies involve the prohibition of pre-existing condition exclusions and force insurance companies to take everyone?

[sterlingice]

Originally Posted by Marc Vaughan

Am I the only one who thinks it rather scarey not just that some people replied 'Yes' - but that this question was asked in the first place, I mean come on what is it the 1600's?

I like the 13% that aren't sure he's the anti-christ: "You know, I'm open to the possibility, but I still need more evidence"

SI

[ISiddiqui]

Originally Posted by flere-imsaho

Having said that, none of you should discount the very clear polling that shows that one part of the country (the SouthEast), which happens to be a very particular bastion of the current GOP, is having considerable trouble coming to terms with the fact that Obama won the election, and has reacted to it by espousing beliefs (Obama's a muslim, Obama wasn't born in the U.S., etc...) that are outside the bounds of rationality. Whether that's racism, generalized hating-all-Democrats/Northerners or something else, it's a development that's having a considerable influence on the national conversation.

Let's be honest, though. This is the same area of the country that was all into conspiracy theories about President Clinton (I'm sure the polling numbers for whether Clinton had Vince Foster killed or raped Juanita Broadrick would show the Southeast was far more accepting than other areas of the country).

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

I always love getting these notices at work. You never know what you'll see when you open one. This one's relatively tame, though I do wonder if some of his less religious supporters cringe at the reference to 'Our Lord' at the end of the notice.

THE WHITE HOUSE
Office of the Press Secretary
___________________________________________________________________________
For Immediate Release September 15, 2009
NATIONAL HISPANIC HERITAGE MONTH, 2009
- - - - - - -
BY THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
A PROCLAMATION

The story of Hispanics in America is the story of America itself. The Hispanic community's values -- love of family, a deep and abiding faith, and a strong work ethic -- are America's values. Hispanics bring together the rich traditions of communities with centuries-old roots in America and the energy and drive of recent immigrants. Many have taken great risks to begin a new life in the hopes of achieving a better future for themselves and their families.

Hispanics have played a vital role in the moments and movements that have shaped our country. They have enriched our culture and brought creativity and innovation to everything from sports to the sciences and from the arts to our economy.

Hispanics have served with honor and distinction in every conflict since the Revolutionary War, and they have made invaluable contributions through their service to our country. They lead corporations and not-for-profits, and social movements and places of learning. They serve in government at every level from school boards to statehouses, and from city councils to Congress. And for the first time in our Nation's history, a Latina is seated among the nine Justices of the Supreme Court of the United States.

As Hispanics continue to enrich our Nation's character and shape our common future, they strengthen America's promise and affirm the narrative of American unity and progress.
To honor the achievements of Hispanics in America, the Congress, by Public Law 100-402, as amended, has authorized and requested the President to issue annually a proclamation designating September 15 through October 15 as "National Hispanic Heritage Month."

NOW, THEREFORE, I, BARACK OBAMA, President of the United States of America, do hereby proclaim September 15 through October 15, 2009, as National Hispanic Heritage Month. I call upon public officials, educators, librarians, and all the people of the United States to observe this month with appropriate ceremonies, activities, and programs.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand this fifteenth day of September, in the year of our Lord two thousand nine, and of the Independence of the United States of America the two hundred and thirty-fourth.

BARACK OBAMA

[ISiddiqui]

I just don't get why it starts on the 15th of September and goes to the 15th of October? Why not just make it the month of September?

Maybe its to encompase Mexican Independance and Columbus Day... I dunno.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by ISiddiqui

I just don't get why it starts on the 15th of September and goes to the 15th of October? Why not just make it the month of September?

Maybe its to encompase Mexican Independance and Columbus Day... I dunno.

Google & Wiki can be your friend
National Hispanic Heritage Month - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
"September 15 was chosen as the starting point for the celebration because it is the anniversary of independence of five Latin American countries: Costa Rica, El Salvador, Guatemala, Honduras and Nicaragua. They all declared independence in 1821. In addition, Mexico, Chile and Belize celebrate their independence days on September 16, September 18 and September 21, respectively. "

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

Originally Posted by ISiddiqui

Maybe its to encompase Mexican Independance and Columbus Day... I dunno.

I believe that actually is the reason for it, though I'd agree with you that it's a bit confusing since it's not really a specific month per se.

Edit: Looks like Jon tracked it down.

[sterlingice]

Originally Posted by DaddyTorgo

here's something i'm against that the administration is doing - the move to "cloud computing."

U.S. government sets up online 'app store' - CNN.com

i don't want government employees using gmail or the creation of a "government cloud" where public data will be stored on google servers.

it's one step closer to googlezon and i don't like it very much at all!!

Yeah- I'd rather government business be on their own servers. I don't like this idea at all. It just adds another layer of obfuscation to blame when something goes wrong and puts data in the hands of someone who really shouldn't have access to it.

SI

[flere-imsaho]

Originally Posted by ISiddiqui

Let's be honest, though. This is the same area of the country that was all into conspiracy theories about President Clinton (I'm sure the polling numbers for whether Clinton had Vince Foster killed or raped Juanita Broadrick would show the Southeast was far more accepting than other areas of the country).

I don't dispute that. Jon alone has made clear why there's a hate-all-Democrats, hate-all-Northerners undercurrent in the SE. I guess my question (and honestly, it's more of a rhetorical question) is why such a significant portion of the population there have to slip the bonds of rationality and either believe in these conspiracy theories or just froth at the mouth with xenophobic or even racist sentiment.

Having said that, it would be interesting to look at polling data and see if one can make similar conclusions about the geographic distribution of people who believed in the more outrageous conspiracy theories attached to George W. Bush.

[sterlingice]

I think there are a couple of news stories that have flown under the radar the last day or two what with all the big news about Kanye West saying something stupid (again), some missing Yale student, and ACORN giving tax advice to prostitutes. I mean, how can you not help but focus on crap like that (if you have the IQ of a turnip)

I think DT's story about the government going over to "cloud computing" to save costs- hey you want to cut costs, here's the crap that goes on sometimes- is pretty significant if they store any data of note. I think it's only a matter of time before some of that starts leaking out and no one knows where it's coming from.

Mehdi Ghezali - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
I can't find any good American news sources about this, but there's the recapture of Mehdi Ghezali in Pakistan. He was a Guantanamo detainee, released back in 2004 as no longer being a threat. He claims he was just going to meet someone there but he was going to meet an alleged Taliban leader so who knows.

U.S. scraps missile defense shield plans - CNN.com
And this one's kindof a slap in the face to the Czech Republic and Poland. I guess if Obama thinks this can get Russia to play ball with Iran and that they're the greater threat, great. But I think this is like the health care negotiations- compromise, compromise, compromise- and then still not get what you want all the while taking all of your bargaining chips off the table.

SI

[sterlingice]

Originally Posted by Mizzou B-ball fan

I always love getting these notices at work. You never know what you'll see when you open one. This one's relatively tame, though I do wonder if some of his less religious supporters cringe at the reference to 'Our Lord' at the end of the notice.

1) Where the hell do you work that you're getting White House press releases delivered to your inbox? Is your name Rahm Emanuel or Wolf Blitzer?

2) Really? You're going to question the boilerplate text of a proclamation? It's on *EVERY SINGLE ONE*

The first four that I found when Googling "Presidential proclamation" or something like that:
http://www.whitehouse.gov/blog/a_nat...econciliation/ A Day of Renewal and Reconciliation
http://www.whitehouse.gov/the_press_...lity-Day-2009/ Women's Equality Day
http://www.whitehouse.gov/the_press_...T-Pride-Month/ LBGT Pride Month
http://www.whitehouse.gov/the_press_...te-Life-Month/ Organ Donor Month

They *all* end with: "IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand this {date}th day of {month}, in the year of our Lord two thousand nine, and of the Independence of the United States of America the two hundred and thirty-third."

(On a lark, I tried to search for athiest proclamation and got "No results. Did you mean wealthiest?")

So, really, you were going to make mention of that? Some wording that hasn't changed in probably a hundred years if not 233 years?

SI

[Marc Vaughan]

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

It's a sure bet you aren't the only one ... but that doesn't make it any less offensive that you'd point something this blatantly mocking of Christians. But frankly Marc, that's pretty much what I've come to expect from you.

Sorry didn't think it'd be that offensive to you - was more aimed at wondering why the survey was including a question like that which seemed inappropriate than attacking Christians.

Surely adding in questions like that to a survey, legitimizes using religion as a weapon in politics? (ie. asking that question will then make people consider whether he 'could be the anti-christ' and that is the only reason I could see for asking it). But following that vein of thought, it also indicates that the people behind the survey believe that enough Americans not only are Christian, but believe in the Anti-christ (and the fact that he might be here now) passionately enough to allow it to affect their voting - something which frankly surprises me.

That sort of thing is generally frowned upon or illegal (depending on the situation/country) in Europe - its a bit like asking in a survey "Do you believe Obama has raped anyone in the last year" - the question implies that its very possible it has, otherwise it wouldn't be asked).

I've noticed over here its generally much more acceptable for churches to recruit by scaremongering (ie. 'The end is nigh', 'You're going to burn if you don't sign up' etc.) whereas back home its simply not the done thing.

I personally don't think that anyone should choose a religion because of scaremongering - making people do things because they're scared is intimidation and pressure selling; it can also lead to people acting blindly and without sense/logic in a worst case scenario.

... and yes I undoubtably think that way because I grew up in England - we're much lower key generally with religion than it is over here; back home religion is something you don't push on other people. Its a private thing shared with like minded souls, if you search it out its there to be found, if not then fine.

Finally - I thought there was an active separation of state and religion in America?, isn't that meant to discount that sort of line of questioning/propaganda?

Apparently we don't have enough fucking liberals of our own, now we're importing them, just one more mistake in a long line that we've made at the national level.

Thats an interesting comment - what do you define as being a 'liberal' if you don't mind me asking? - mainly interested because I see a lot of terms thrown around in the media over here and used generally as 'scaremongering' to try and prevent things from happening.

For instance any change to the status quo which might hurt large corporations is known as 'socialist' or 'communist' etc.

(for example the current 'health changes' being proposed have been repeatedly indicated as socialist)

I've seen similar things where people try and discredit each other by using the term 'liberal' - each time I hear it the meaning seems somewhat different (hence my question).

PS - thanks for your warm welcome to the country ... I'm enjoying it here so far
PPS - My wife is a very active Christian (and heading off on a missions trip to Haiti next month) in case you weren't aware. While compared to her and yourself I'm a lukewarm Christian and will happily admit I'm openly cynical about a LOT of the stuff involved (don't believe that the bible is literally true for instance) I do try and respect other peoples opinions as much as possible.

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

Originally Posted by sterlingice

1) Where the hell do you work that you're getting White House press releases delivered to your inbox? Is your name Rahm Emanuel or Wolf Blitzer?

2) Really? You're going to question the boilerplate text of a proclamation? It's on *EVERY SINGLE ONE*

So, really, you were going to make mention of that? Some wording that hasn't changed in probably a hundred years if not 233 years?

SI

1. I'm a contractor for the federal government on the side. If you work in any capacity for the gov't, you receive one of these. It goes out to everyone regardless of whether it has anything to do with what you do.

2. I was joking around about the 'Our Lord' part. Little fun with religion never hurt anyone.

[ISiddiqui]

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

Google & Wiki can be your friend
National Hispanic Heritage Month - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
"September 15 was chosen as the starting point for the celebration because it is the anniversary of independence of five Latin American countries: Costa Rica, El Salvador, Guatemala, Honduras and Nicaragua. They all declared independence in 1821. In addition, Mexico, Chile and Belize celebrate their independence days on September 16, September 18 and September 21, respectively. "

Thanks! But, I'd still think it'd be less confusing to have it just be the month of September.

[flere-imsaho]

Originally Posted by sterlingice

I think there are a couple of news stories that have flown under the radar the last day or two what with all the big news about Kanye West saying something stupid (again), some missing Yale student, and ACORN giving tax advice to prostitutes. I mean, how can you not help but focus on crap like that (if you have the IQ of a turnip)

Preach.

If I could wave a magic wand I'd have all of that crap take a back seat to today's presentation of the Medal of Honor to the family of Sergeant Jared Monti:

For conspicuous gallantry and intrepidity in action at the risk of his life above and beyond the call of duty. Sergeant First Class Monti distinguished himself at the cost of his life while serving as a team leader with the Headquarters and Headquarters Troop, 3d Squadron, 71st Cavalry Regiment in Nuristan Province, Afghanistan on 21 June 2006. On that day, Sergeant First Class Monti was leading a mission to gather intelligence and to direct fires against the enemy in support of a squadron-size interdiction mission. While at an observation position on top of a mountain ridge, Sergeant First Class Monti’s sixteen-man patrol came under attack by a superior force consisting of as many as 50 enemy fighters. On the verge of being overrun, Sergeant First Class Monti directed his patrol to set up a hasty defensive position behind a collection of rocks. He then began to call for indirect fire from a nearby support base; accurately bringing the rounds upon the enemy who had closed to within 50 meters of his position. While still calling for fire, Sergeant First Class Monti personally engaged the enemy with his rifle and a grenade, successfully disrupting an attempt to flank the patrol. Sergeant First Class Monti then realized that one of his Soldiers was lying wounded and exposed in the open ground between the advancing enemy and the patrol’s position. With complete disregard for his own safety, Sergeant First Class Monti moved from behind the cover of the rocks into the face of withering enemy fire. After closing within meters of his wounded Soldier, the heavy volume of fire forced Sergeant First Class Monti to seek cover. Sergeant First Class Monti then gathered himself and rose again to maneuver through a barrage of enemy fire to save his wounded Soldier. Again, Sergeant First Class Monti was driven back by relentless enemy fire. Unwilling to leave his Soldier wounded and exposed, Sergeant First Class Monti made another attempt to move across open terrain and through the enemy fire to the aide of his wounded Soldier. On his third attempt, Sergeant First Class Monti was mortally wounded, sacrificing his own life in an effort to save his Soldier. Sergeant First Class Monti’s acts of heroism inspired the patrol to fight off the larger enemy force. Sergeant First Class Monti’s immeasurable courage and uncommon valor were in keeping with the highest traditions of military service and reflect great credit upon himself, 3d Squadron 71st Cavalry Regiment, the 3d Brigade Combat Team, the 10th Mountain Division (Light Infantry), and the United States Army

[flere-imsaho]

I'll take a crack at answering for Jon, in the hope that it will serve to annoy him.

Originally Posted by Marc Vaughan

Sorry didn't think it'd be that offensive to you - was more aimed at wondering why the survey was including a question like that which seemed inappropriate than attacking Christians.

When you intimate that asking a question like that is something best left in the 1600s, you ignore the fact that many Christians in the U.S. fervently believe in things like the coming of the Anti-Christ and whatnot. I'm not sure if Jon believes this personally, but he's probably offended by your (perceived) self-righteous conclusion that people who think this way are backwards.

Surely adding in questions like that to a survey, legitimizes using religion as a weapon in politics? (ie. asking that question will then make people consider whether he 'could be the anti-christ' and that is the only reason I could see for asking it).

First, that's a chicken-and-egg argument, but it's probably more likely that polls use this type of question because religion is already used as a weapon in politics rather than vice versa.

Second, depending on how they survey is constructed, it could be a poor question to ask (similar to push-polling), but I haven't seen the survey, so I can't say (how about a link, Cam or Steve?).

But following that vein of thought, it also indicates that the people behind the survey believe that enough Americans not only are Christian, but believe in the Anti-christ (and the fact that he might be here now) passionately enough to allow it to affect their voting - something which frankly surprises me.

Well, stop being surprised.

Thats an interesting comment - what do you define as being a 'liberal' if you don't mind me asking? - mainly interested because I see a lot of terms thrown around in the media over here and used generally as 'scaremongering' to try and prevent things from happening.

Jon's definition of liberal is more, uh, liberal (pardon the pun) than most. Given that you're from a foreign country, don't denounce government-run programs out of hand, and have espoused generally egalitarian notions, you've got three strikes against you in his worldview already. Don't let it bother you, though, much of this applies to everyone else here as well.

I've seen similar things where people try and discredit each other by using the term 'liberal' - each time I hear it the meaning seems somewhat different (hence my question).

Thanks to GOP operatives since 1994, "liberal" has essentially just become a pejorative description, devoid of any actual meaning. In mixed company we call ourselves "progressives" now.

[Big Fo]

Originally Posted by sterlingice

U.S. scraps missile defense shield plans - CNN.com
And this one's kindof a slap in the face to the Czech Republic and Poland. I guess if Obama thinks this can get Russia to play ball with Iran and that they're the greater threat, great. But I think this is like the health care negotiations- compromise, compromise, compromise- and then still not get what you want all the while taking all of your bargaining chips off the table.

SI

I'm far from an expert on this but aren't there concerns about the effectiveness of these weapon systems?

[ISiddiqui]

He's not getting rid of it, though. He's just moving it.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by flere-imsaho

I'll take a crack at answering for Jon, in the hope that it will serve to annoy him.

You really needn't go out of your way. Just keep breathing, that'll cover it.

In mixed company we call ourselves "progressives" now.

Perhaps no greater proof exists of the persistently delusional state of our liberals than this misnomer.

[flere-imsaho]

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

You really needn't go out of your way. Just keep breathing, that'll cover it.

I can still go for extra credit though, right?

Perhaps no greater proof exists of the persistently delusional state of our liberals than this misnomer.

You're looking at it the wrong way. By calling ourselves "progressives" we get to, conversely, call you lot "regressives". It's this kind of subtle and nuanced wordplay that brings amusement into our otherwise serious, productive and sophisticated lives.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by flere-imsaho

I can still go for extra credit though, right?

Seems like overkill to me, but it's your time to manage as you see fit. Kind of like giving 110% effort, it isn't actually possible but the phrase still lingers.

" By calling ourselves "progressives" we get to, conversely, call you lot "regressives".

Hence my previous reference to the delusional state of existence.

[Big Fo]

Originally Posted by ISiddiqui

He's not getting rid of it, though. He's just moving it.

I see. I just watched this clip on the Washington Post website where he says the tech used is "proven and cost-effective." I thought knocking one of these things out of the sky was like trying to "stop a bullet with a bullet" but maybe that is in reference to Russian ICBMs rather than the Iranian short and medium range missiles that Obama seems more worried about.

[DaddyTorgo]

Originally Posted by Big Fo

I'm far from an expert on this but aren't there concerns about the effectiveness of these weapon systems?

if by "concerns on the effectiveness" you mean "they can't even get it to work when they cheat on the test launches" then yes, there are concerns.

the shit doesn't work.

[ISiddiqui]

I'm sure glad they didn't end the space program because "the shit doesn't work" early on in the program.

[JPhillips]

Originally Posted by ISiddiqui

I'm sure glad they didn't end the space program because "the shit doesn't work" early on in the program.

But we didn't watch every test fail real life conditions and say "Fuck it, we're going to the Moon anyways."

Research/testing should continue, but deployment is a waste of money at this point.

[cartman]

Originally Posted by ISiddiqui

I'm sure glad they didn't end the space program because "the shit doesn't work" early on in the program.

Yet they still put a man on the moon within 13 years of forming NASA. It is now pushing 25 years since the Strategic Defense Initiative Organization was formed.

[sterlingice]

Yeah, but realizing you have a limit to what you can do with technology over the next 20~50 years is a real reason to step back for a second.

If you can spend $100B today or wait until technology advances and pay $10B in 10 years- it's worth waiting. Even if you had a time machine and knew the future, it'd be like trying to manufacture wifi cell phones in the 80s- why do it then when it has limited uses and the infrastructure won't be there for decades.

SI

[ISiddiqui]

Originally Posted by JPhillips

But we didn't watch every test fail real life conditions and say "Fuck it, we're going to the Moon anyways."

This seems to ignore successful tests for reasons I'm not sure why, except for political gain.


Strategic Defense Initiative - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

FLAGE scored a direct hit against a MGM-52 Lance missile in flight, at White Sands Missile Range in 1987. ERINT was a prototype missile similar to the FLAGE, but it used a new solid-propellant rocket motor that allowed it to fly faster and higher than FLAGE.

After test failures with the first three flight tests because of guidance and sensor problems, the fourth and final test on June 10, 1984 was successful, intercepting the Minuteman RV with a closing speed of about 6.1 km/s at an altitude of more than 160 km.

Though it was claimed by some this last test was rigged:

Although the fourth test succeeded, the New York Times charged in August 1993 that the test had been rigged. Investigations into this charge by the Department of Defense, headed John Deutch for Secretary of Defense Les Aspin, and the General Accounting Office concluded that the test was a valid, successful test

[DaddyTorgo]

the shit should work...the shit will work. someday. but deploying it, or building coalitions based around deploying it and thus creating enemies or inflaming your enemies at this point makes no sense, because it's not a credible weapons system at this point.

[Ronnie Dobbs2]

There have been a LOT of questions about the legitimacy of test results. Theodore Postol has made it his major area of research, and to me he's a trustworthy person.

[sterlingice]

Originally Posted by DaddyTorgo

the shit should work...the shit will work. someday. but deploying it, or building coalitions based around deploying it and thus creating enemies or inflaming your enemies at this point makes no sense, because it's not a credible weapons system at this point.

Unless your goal is to build a coalition and inflame your enemies, I suppose

SI