It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Obama Clinches Nomination - Clinton says she's open to being Obama's VP

page: 6
3
<< 3  4  5   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 9 2008 @ 03:50 AM
link   

Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic

Originally posted by HowlrunnerIV
Barack Obama has done nothing to engender faith in his rhetoric.


Maybe not to you, but there are a WHOLE lot of people who feel differently.


Yes and I've already expressed my, ahem, shall we say, disdain for them...




Why would I want to keep loyalties with someone who speaks that way?


I'm not saying you would. But there are people who find it more difficult to break with someone who has spoken offensively. He did eventually break. Not "soon enough" for some. Big deal.


It IS a big deal. If you have little to no record on which to be judged while asking a nation (if not world) of hundreds of millions not to hold you back, based on your "leadership qualities", then we must look at your friends and associates to see what kind of character you are, er, have.



Speaker makes an outrageous statement, crowd responds positively, speaker makes a more outrageous comment, crowd responds more positively, nobody stops to think of what it is they are actually saying or the views they are advocating


That sounds like every church service I've ever seen! LOL So, you don't agree with the Reverend Wright. I get it. That doesn't equate to Obama being a bad president.


I've already said what church services look like in my denomination (Anglican), the fact that the above description matches every church service you've ever seen tells us either your colour (given you geographic location) or that you only see church services when you watch re-runs of The Blues Brothers.




Well, that might be taking it a bit far, but you wouldn't have much credibility... Hell, not only are we not the same colour, we're not even the same nationality or religion.


Then how do you manage to have any credibility?
If you maintain such a strong link with someone with whom you disagree on such a basic belief as religion, how can your other friends possibly trust you???


I'll let you play with that, as I played with your words, for exactly two seconds. Then I will point out that you have conflated two different statements about two different points. And you know it.



Uh-huh, Auschwitz is swiftboating?


YES! Think about his thought process here... "Wow, if I say Dachau, people won't be impressed... And if I say my great uncle, they might not relate it to me... So I'll just make something up! I'll say it was my Uncle and use Auschwitz instead! Yeah! That's the ticket! That will really be impressive! And they have no way of checking up on me to find out if it's true..."




"I had a uncle who was one of the, who was part of the first American troops to go into Auschwitz and liberate the concentration camps,"


video, too

As a semi-adopted son of the nation that suffered the worst proportional genocide of the 20th century, I take personal offence at politicians using the/any Holocaust/genocide for personal political gain. Obama didn't make a "simple mistake", Obama knew exactly what he was doing when he chose to speak of the Holocaust, that he was actually speaking about returning servicemen only makes his flippant use of Auschwitz even more insulting.

Obama's "Auschwitz" is only slightly less insulting (mostly to the "idea of the memory of the real victims") than W's "Leave Iraq = new Killing Fields" (which is directly insulting to the world's intelligence as W was talking about the aftermath of VN and the Killing Fields were where?).

So, Obama cares about Vets and their medical benefits, but he does't care enough to get the facts of the Holocaust straight? What the Hell, right? Let's face it, what's another four years of a White House that can't be bothered to get the little things right?

As for little things, it wasn't Dachau, it was Buchenwald. And if you want, it wasn't Buchenwald, which people could be reasonably expected to assume was a Nazi concentration camp (especially as he then says that's what it was), it was Ohrdruf, which was one of the camps in the Buchenwald complex. But who's counting?

"Swiftboating" is outright lying about a candidate by a third party. No-one lied but Obama himself.




You effing morons gave the presidency to W TWICE.


They TOOK the presidency. And I'm betting you know that. I never voted for W. And I agree with you.


The took it ONCE. You gave it to him LEGALLY the second time, despite demonstrated spectacular incompetence in both foreign and domestic policy.



[edit on 9-6-2008 by HowlrunnerIV]




posted on Jun, 9 2008 @ 08:10 AM
link   

Originally posted by HowlrunnerIV
the fact that the above description matches every church service you've ever seen tells us either your colour (given you geographic location) or that you only see church services when you watch re-runs of The Blues Brothers.


You know, some people don't have to be judged by the friends they keep. With some, it's clear from what spurts out of their mouth...

Just as an explanation to my previous comment, which obviously went over your head, I'm as Caucasian as they come
and I live in perfect harmony with the people of color in my geographical location. And I have been to every kind of Christian church service you can name (including Anglican) and a few non-Christian. And in them, the speaker makes an outrageous statement (Usually about some man in the sky who is watching everything I do), the crowd responds positively (Amen! Praise the Lord!), speaker makes a more outrageous comment (how I can be "saved" and go to the big place in the sky), crowd responds more positively, nobody stops to think of what it is they are actually saying or the views they are advocating... The ridiculous notions of creation, heaven, Jesus, "God", sin, being "saved" and converting others to the same insane cult-like ideas... That's what I meant.

And now that I have explained that, you have shown me (by your propensity to make negative personal attacks) that you're not worth debating with. So, have fun.


Edit: I apologize for being off topic. I just wanted to clarify a few assumptions.


[edit on 9-6-2008 by Benevolent Heretic]



posted on Jun, 10 2008 @ 03:44 AM
link   

Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic
You know, some people don't have to be judged by the friends they keep. With some, it's clear from what spurts out of their mouth...

Just as an explanation to my previous comment, which obviously went over your head,


Obviously, otherwise you wouldn't have needed to explain it.


I'm as Caucasian as they come
and I live in perfect harmony with the people of color in my geographical location.


I'm happy for you. It shouldn't be too hard to see how logic led me to the conclusion that you might be African-American.


And I have been to every kind of Christian church service you can name (including Anglican) and a few non-Christian.


Excellent, should make you more broad-minded than some of those who turn up here to post.


And in them, the speaker makes an outrageous statement (Usually about some man in the sky who is watching everything I do), the crowd responds positively (Amen! Praise the Lord!), speaker makes a more outrageous comment (how I can be "saved" and go to the big place in the sky), crowd responds more positively, nobody stops to think of what it is they are actually saying or the views they are advocating... The ridiculous notions of creation, heaven, Jesus, "God", sin, being "saved" and converting others to the same insane cult-like ideas... That's what I meant.


I'm glad you explained that fully as either I wasn't being specific enough in making it clear I was speaking about certain "black" or possibly "Baptist"-style church services, or else you chose to widen a definition without checking that I was still on board the same train.


And now that I have explained that, you have shown me (by your propensity to make negative personal attacks) that you're not worth debating with. So, have fun.


Thank you for explaining. Having already stated exactly how sermons are carried out in an Anglican service, I thought it was pretty obvious I was referring specifically to afore-mentioned "black" or "baptist" services.

I apologise for assuming you could see that. I have never in some three decades of relatively constant worship attended a church service where the priest made an outrageous statment and was answered with a (literal) chorus of "Amen" and "Praise the Lord". I have never sat in the pews and been harangued by a man telling me what I HAVE to do to be SAVED. I thought I made it pretty clear what church services look and sound liketo me. Everybody is expected to stop and think about what they are listening to and the views being advocated.

So, you chose to take that direct contrast and ignore it, without informing your debating partner that you had shifted away from the source material. Excuse me very much, then, for assuming you live on either the left or bottom halves of the Chicago compass.

Propensity for negative personal attacks? Show me where I have personally attacked YOU. I have attacked the character of a man who has chosen to stand up in public and make statements about himself. I have attacked the thinking of millions of people. I have backed each of those attacks with evidence. I have yet to make an unprovoked negative personal attack on you. But I can start any time you please.

You chose to broaden a definition, not me. I was precise. As you have chosen to broaden that definition, allow me to make a judgement (which I had not yet done, that was an observation): the fact is, most Australians regard "black" or "Baptist"-style church services, with their multiple, loud exclamations of "Amen" and "Praise the Lord" as something of a joke. We are far more conservative in our worship (those that do).

That is not to say these churches have not produced greatness. Where would civil rights have been without the oratory of Dr Martin Luther King jr? But what gave us "I have a dream" (one of the ten best speeches of the 20th century in my opinion) also gave us the two idiots at Trinity that did their damnedest to sink their candidate's candidacy. The ability to speak in public is nothing without a brain attached to it and anyone who called out "Amen" or "That's right!" or "You tell it, Brother" or any other vocal affirmation to the statement that white man created AIDS to kill black people is exactly the same as anyone who stood at Nuremburg and called out "Seig Heil, Seig Heil". And this is who your candidate listened to for twenty years. If my parish priest was heard talking in these terms, I would be looking for a new church.


I have a dream that my four little children will one day live in a nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin but by the content of their character.

I have a dream today.


I, too, have a dream that one day my two bi-racial little boys will live in a world where they are judged not by the colour of their skin, but by the content of their character.

I have a dream that one day a person will be able to call into question the intellect or character of a person of any colour and not automatically be labelled racist for soing so.

I have a dream today. I dream of equality. I dream of meritocracy. I dream of engagement in life. I dream of actions rewarded.



posted on Jun, 10 2008 @ 09:38 AM
link   

Originally posted by HowlrunnerIV
Excellent, should make you more broad-minded than some of those who turn up here to post.


I've been a member here for 3 years. I didn't just "turn up". And I am one of the most broad-minded people you will encounter on this board.



Propensity for negative personal attacks? Show me where I have personally attacked YOU.


Somewhere in this thread, you called someone a dipstick and you called me and my fellow countrymen "morons" a few times. Your posts are dripping with abrasive sarcasm and seem to be spouted from a very lofty height. I just don't need it.
I can find reasoned, measured, respectful debate on ATS, with those who don't call people dipsticks and morons. I don't have to settle for your "style".


I have yet to make an unprovoked negative personal attack on you. But I can start any time you please.


I have absolutely no doubt of that. And why would you? Because we disagree on something?


the fact is, most Australians regard "black" or "Baptist"-style church services, with their multiple, loud exclamations of "Amen" and "Praise the Lord" as something of a joke. We are far more conservative in our worship (those that do).


Well (taking a phrase from you) good for you. I am atheist and don't worship at all any more but I respect people's freedom to worship any way they see fit and I don't think it's a joke.


If my parish priest was heard talking in these terms, I would be looking for a new church.


So, naturally, everyone else should do exactly as you would under the circumstances. Because you're ... what? Australian? Anglican? What makes you the authority on when people should leave their church??

Look, I believe my country has a presidential candidate that can help to make a huge step toward the dreams that it sounds like we both share. And you vehemently disagree. I get it. I don't really need to stay in "discussion" with you to understand just what you think of Obama, Americans and people who worship differently than you do. You've made it clear to me. We're not going to change the others' mind. I don't need to hang around for the promised unprovoked personal attacks. Good luck finding someone who is interested in debating you in a style that is more compatible with yours. Mine is not.


It's been real.



posted on Jun, 10 2008 @ 11:10 PM
link   
We really are getting off-topic here...


Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic

Originally posted by HowlrunnerIV
Propensity for negative personal attacks? Show me where I have personally attacked YOU.


Somewhere in this thread, you called someone a dipstick


Said dipstick called me racist. Said dipstick earned the epithet by way of the fact said dipstick was too blind to note the race and name of my avatar. Again, I said "unprovoked"...



and you called me and my fellow countrymen "morons" a few times.


Yes, and explained EXACTLY why I said that, I also noted that I was referring to millions of people, you know, a collective whole...


Your posts are dripping with abrasive sarcasm


Abrasive? yes. Sarcasm? No, absolutely not. There is no sarcasm in what I have posted, no irony, no wry, sardonic detachment. There is my exact feeling on the matter.


and seem to be spouted from a very lofty height.


No, only a few hundred metres above sea-level, but I think I said from what distance I'm observing...


I just don't need it.
I can find reasoned, measured, respectful debate on ATS, with those who don't call people dipsticks and morons. I don't have to settle for your "style".


Never said you did. But after eight years of the current leadership and eight years of "debating" (or for accuracy's sake should that really be "arguing"?) with Americans about said leadership and, lately, possible new leadership, the brick wall is starting to leave an impression in my forehead. I also stopped being polite with the pro-Howard, anti-immigrant crowd at home after the first term. If the horse won't drink the water, sometimes it's kinder just to shoot it than wait for it to realise it's dying of thirst.



I have yet to make an unprovoked negative personal attack on you. But I can start any time you please.


I have absolutely no doubt of that. And why would you? Because we disagree on something?


You brought it up, not me. But, yes, eventually a disagreement is worthy of a personal attack. I see no need to be polite to Nazis, as a random exaple.



the fact is, most Australians regard "black" or "Baptist"-style church services, with their multiple, loud exclamations of "Amen" and "Praise the Lord" as something of a joke. We are far more conservative in our worship (those that do).


Well (taking a phrase from you) good for you. I am atheist and don't worship at all any more but I respect people's freedom to worship any way they see fit and I don't think it's a joke.


It becomes somewhat less of a joke when it breeds racism. I do not respect the "freedom" to use religion as an excuse, justification or moral imperative for racism of any kind. I believe I made that quite clear. A demagogue is a demogogue no matter what cloth he or she wears and before you talk about the context of Wright's words (which may have a bearing on the argument, I have said extreme, read "exaggerated", things about Australia in the course of a debate in order to provoke thought and self-examination), remember, if it walks like a duck and talks like a duck, the probability is that it just might be an aquatic fowl.



If my parish priest was heard talking in these terms, I would be looking for a new church.


So, naturally, everyone else should do exactly as you would under the circumstances. Because you're ... what? Australian? Anglican? What makes you the authority on when people should leave their church??


How about these: Because I have a brain? Because I can think? Because I have a moral compass? Because I regard exposing my children to extremists as a moral crime? Because I refuse to accept a culture of victimhood? Again, a demogogue is a demogogue is a demogogue. We have them in Australia (mostly on 2UE) and they disgust me here, too.
When Obama had the chance to show leadership on this subject that was exactly in line with his public statements he chose to get out of the way.


Look, I believe my country has a presidential candidate that can help to make a huge step toward the dreams that it sounds like we both share. And you vehemently disagree. I get it.


Yes. And no. I demand more than just civil rights leadership from BA, I demand that he live up to his preaching and he hasn't, isn't and can't possibly. And that's only one of my objections. I think we've gotten bogged down on the Rev. Wright and his church here and while we examine the specifics of that tree the rest of the forest has been forgotten.


I don't really need to stay in "discussion" with you to understand just what you think of Obama, Americans and people who worship differently than you do.


There you are wrong. You continue to be wrong on this point. I am not condemning people who worship differently. I am not condemning how others worship. I am condemning how others preach. I am condemning what they preach. I am condemning how their flocks react. That is not worship. But it pretends to be.

From my perspective there is a real problem in American christianity and politics that has to do with putting a white collar around your throat, calling yourself "Reverend" and assuming that gives you the power to trample on 40 years of civil rights gains, not to mention a struggle that goes back to the hanging of John Brown.

Falwell, Sharpton, Wright...a demagoge is a demagogue is a demagogue. In spirit these men are no different to Osama Bin Laden. They claim a divine writ to point fingers, lay blame and demand "justice" because a man was nailed to a plank of wood some two millenia ago. Yet when I was in Sunday School we were told that the same man said "Love thy neighbour as thyself" and "let him who is without sin cast the first stone". My references to Nuremburg were specific.


You've made it clear to me.


Apparently I really haven't.

But I will sign off with this: in the end I believe that Harry S Truman achieved more for race relations in the US than Barack Obama ever will. And that was in 1948.

[edit on 10-6-2008 by HowlrunnerIV]

[edit on 10-6-2008 by HowlrunnerIV]



new topics

top topics
 
3
<< 3  4  5   >>

log in

join