Give it up, Hillary...

[Strontium]

You see, it's utterly thoughtless statements like this that made me give up debating this subject with you. You discount the idea that a man you respect and want to see elected to the most powerful office in the world can actually be motivated by a sincerely and deeply held faith, because it challenges your conviction that religious belief can never be a force for good. It's much easier and more comfortable for you to believe that his faith is a cynical stunt to win votes, presumably adopted as soon as he decided he wanted to hold public office.

 

I haven't discounted any ideas; maybe Obama really is just an ex-atheist as he claims to be. I just haven't also ruled out the idea that his recent Christian conversion was an expedient one. If he was an atheist, who could blame him for lying about it? It's worth noting that we've had a black man and a woman with a real shot at the presidency, but no way in hell are we going to get an atheist that close.

 

To be honest, I don't reall care if he is or isn't. I think it's damn poor of you to suggest that it matters so deeply to me.

 

Incidentally, I didn't want to discuss religion in this thread. G brought the subject up, largely because he got his ass handed to him when the debate was firmly centred on US politics. If we could keep this on-topic please, rather than trying to score cheap points by going off the beaten track.

[Spy Bee]

largely because he got his ass handed to him when the debate was firmly centred on US politics. If we could keep this on-topic please, rather than trying to score cheap points by going off the beaten track.

That felt like I imagine it would if my Grandad said "Shizzle my nizzle" or something.

[G Richards]

How did you find McCain in Arizona, Rev?

 

OK as it happens. His policy on illegal immigrants (a big problem in AZ) was certainly much more to the left of typical republicans, and the compassion and common sense he showed were noteworthy.

 

All that said, this was before Obama burst onto the scene. I think Obama is the better predisential candidate (it doesn't apply to me directly, as I won't be voting and an Englishman, though Mrs G is American and she will bote).

[G Richards]

G brought the subject up, largely because he got his ass handed to him when the debate was firmly centred on US politics. If we could keep this on-topic please, rather than trying to score cheap points by going off the beaten track.

 

Here's a bit of truth telling and straight shooting if that's how you like it: it seems to me as though you have low emotional intelligence. You obviously have a good IQ, but until you develop your emotional intelligence you will probably never be in as satisfying or senior a job as you likely believe you should occupy.

 

I don't believe I did have my ass handed to me on a plate at all. My initial comments were simplistic as I was trying to convey that McCain is a bit more to the left of much of the traditional Republican vote, while Obama was trying to position himself a bit more to the right of the traditional (and almost unelectable, much like old Labour) Democratic vote.

 

I know from first hand experience what it was like to live under Senator McCain, and I know what many Republicans thought of some of his policies, particularly immigration. To have someone so trenchant in their views as you say to me 'you are wrong' illustrates, in my view, the low emotional intelligence I mentioned above. Instead of hammering back at that, I said that it might be better for you to say 'My view is this...', as one educates while the other causes resentment. Instead of taking the gentle chiding on board, you come right back again by making out that your plain talking is a virtue. Then further to that, you take it another step by saying you have handed my ass to me on a plate.

 

You can be as right as you like in your own mind, but unfortunately I think you lack emotional intelligence, such that the way you deal with people hinders you. But hey, that's me that is. Straight talker an all.

 

As for the religious aspect (and I did preface this part of my post by saying it was a bit of a cheap dig, since this isn't about religion), it is worth pointing out that the man who is now to contest the most powerful office in the world - a man presumably admired by you and others - has a deeply held religious faith.

 

It is not recent, as your post above states. Nor is it political expedience, as you so conveniently assert. It is a faith that has been held for at least 20+ years, not some fly-by-night vote grabbing strategy. I was being a bit provocative with my comment that you must be apoplectic, but at some point, all the talk of religious people believing in sky fairies and being somewhat less credible than others begins to look weak.

 

I will likely regret some aspects of this post when I come back to it later, particularly the thing about emotional intelligence (and I'm using that term loosely, lest you come back with a wikipedia link on what it strictly means).

As things stand I'm in the heat of the moment composing this, and I am 100%convinced that this is a problem for you. You are academic and have good ideas and thoughts. I'm often challenged in interaction with you on here.

 

But...

 

You have a propensity to rub people up the wrong way with a certain arrogance in how you put your views across. I don't know you in the real world, but I do know that on a couple of occasions you have commented about how, for example, your income is low (I can't be bothered digging posts out, but you've said this sort of thing once or twice when people have been talking about jobs and salaries).

 

Since straight talking is so virtuous, I will end as I began. It seems to me as though you have low emotional intelligence. You tend to rub people up the wrong way. You will probably struggle to get as senior or satisfying a job as your intellect might demand until you address it.

 

As for moving this further into the realm of interpersonal relationships, I hope you deal with people in person more adequately than on here.

 

As for the next step, I'm off to play golf at Collingtree Park now, but I'll check back in later. I am making a serious point though about how I perceive you.

[Strontium]

Here's a bit of truth telling and straight shooting if that's how you like it: it seems to me as though you have low emotional intelligence. You obviously have a good IQ, but until you develop your emotional intelligence you will probably never be in as satisfying or senior a job as you likely believe you should occupy.

 

WTF?

 

I will say this: if I do have low emotional intelligence, and the girls I've dated tell me how much more sensitive and attentive I am than the other guys they've been out with, then I don't know what this says about the rest of the men in the United Kingdom.

 

Much more likely, I feel, that a person's online persona often bears scant resemblance to their real life presence.

 

I don't believe I did have my ass handed to me on a plate at all. My initial comments were simplistic as I was trying to convey that McCain is a bit more to the left of much of the traditional Republican vote, while Obama was trying to position himself a bit more to the right of the traditional (and almost unelectable, much like old Labour) Democratic vote.

 

Yes. Simplistic. And wrong. :thumbup:

 

Also, I'm not sure where you get the idea that Obama is to the right of the average Democrat from.

 

I know from first hand experience what it was like to live under Senator McCain, and I know what many Republicans thought of some of his policies, particularly immigration.

 

Because Senator McCain has a slightly less unreconstructed opinion of immigrants does not make him more of a centrist. In certain other aspects, he's firmly on the right wing; he's about as hawkish as they get, he wants to repeal the minimum wage, he wants to ban gay marriage etc etc.

 

Oh, and by the way, his soft stance in immigration might not be entirely unconnected to the fact that 3 in 10 Arizonan voters are Hispanic.

 

As for the religious aspect (and I did preface this part of my post by saying it was a bit of a cheap dig, since this isn't about religion), it is worth pointing out that the man who is now to contest the most powerful office in the world - a man presumably admired by you and others - has a deeply held religious faith.

 

Good for him. As an ex-atheist, Obama at least has the virtue of having been correct once in his life. And I admire him for picking a brand of Christianity that ordains gays and women; it can't have been easy to find one of those, especially in the States.

[RedKnight]

Well I like Obama, so there.

[Big Ig]

he is sounding as bellicose as Bush did on iraq, he believes in military intervenion he even believes in nuclear strikes against Iran, as for Israel he is favouring one side over another in a land dispute which is bound to produce antagonism, this is NOT change it is a continunation of the same foreign policy, except he's against that Iraq war but war with Iran is ok, that's a noble cause.

 

As for Israel's enemies the US federal government provides billions in dollars of aid to its enemies annually which allows them to equip and arm themselves but no one cares about that? why aren't Jewish voters concerned about Saudi Arabia and their massive military projects funded by the US government? (just one example)

 

I think you're missing SD's point - aint much gonna change if he's a failed presidential candidate, and pipe up too much on stuff you suggest and you'll soon be labelled anti-american, anti-semitic and anti-everything else... Changing things can only come from a position of power, although to be fair to you, he'll soon be labelled a turncoat if as soon as he gets into office he changes his tune... But the mere existence of a liberal democrat US President has got to be better than any alternative.

 

Won't matter in 10 years anyway, the oil situation will marginalise them as they're so reliant. Reckon the US (hopefully not us to such an extent) is heading towards the biggest economic crash in history, if the harbringers of doom are to be believed... They're like a macro-Tom Hicks - fortune built on credit in times of plenty, but when the rug is pulled from under them they're fucked (hopefully in Hicks's case, ambivalent/possibly not a good thing, re: the US as a whole)

[Big Ig]

You are wrong though dude. No offence, but I'm a straight talker - I tell it like it is.

 

 

 

I've never said that ordinary religious people are "loonies", merely that they are deluded.

 

Nevertheless, it is worth observing that:

 

1) If you aren't religious in America, your political career will be dead in the water

2) Obama follows just about the most liberal and tolerant interpretation of Christianity you can find in the USA

 

Read into that what you will, but I suspect his Christian faith is as much a matter of political expediency as anything else.

 

On the first point, the Rev's got a point - stating opinion as fact ain't ever good (guilty as charged on plenty of occasions mind!)

 

On the second, 1. Dead right, 2, and the follow-on: Possibly, possibly not, I suspect you (and I) would hope so, but as the US is probably the most religious supposedly secular state in the world, I'd have my doubts.

[Big Ig]

You see, it's utterly thoughtless statements like this that made me give up debating this subject with you. You discount the idea that a man you respect and want to see elected to the most powerful office in the world can actually be motivated by a sincerely and deeply held faith, because it challenges your conviction that religious belief can never be a force for good. It's much easier and more comfortable for you to believe that his faith is a cynical stunt to win votes, presumably adopted as soon as he decided he wanted to hold public office.

 

Good point that. I'm not sure I could personally ever vote for someone deeply religious, as I'd suspect his motives and decision-making over certain issues (see Bush and Blair as obvious cases but I mean it in a far wider spectrum than that), but I won't deny that religion used in the right way can't be a force for good. I have the utmost respect for the way truly religious people conduct themselves and live their lives. I just wish there was 'another way' that didn't involve hoodwinking the human race, but that's a different debate.

[Rashid]

The Rev just owned SD, and then let him off the leash out of compassion.

[Section_31]

If I was on trial for my life - say for murdering an ASBO youth - I'd want the rev and Neil G in my corner.

[Rashid]

If I was on trial for my life - say for murdering an ASBO youth - I'd want the rev and Neil G in my corner.

 

So would I and I'd want SD prosecuting.

[Neil G]

I haven't discounted any ideas; maybe Obama really is just an ex-atheist as he claims to be. I just haven't also ruled out the idea that his recent Christian conversion was an expedient one. If he was an atheist, who could blame him for lying about it? It's worth noting that we've had a black man and a woman with a real shot at the presidency, but no way in hell are we going to get an atheist that close.

 

To be honest, I don't reall care if he is or isn't. I think it's damn poor of you to suggest that it matters so deeply to me.

 

Incidentally, I didn't want to discuss religion in this thread. G brought the subject up, largely because he got his ass handed to him when the debate was firmly centred on US politics. If we could keep this on-topic please, rather than trying to score cheap points by going off the beaten track.

 

I don't want this thread to go off into a broad discussion on religion any more than you do, but the subject is pertinent here in the context of the presidential race.

 

You're making a simplistic distinction between atheists and believers. You're not distinguishing at all between people who believe in God but don't make this belief central to their lives, and people for whom this belief is the driving force behind their desire to do good and help others. Before Bush, you have to go back to Jimmy Carter to find a US president who spoke openly about how his faith motivated him personally and informed his political principles. Reagan, Bush Snr and Clinton all believed in God, attended church regularly and spoke of the importance of faith to the well-being of American society, but none of them spoke about or demonstrated how important faith was to them as individuals, either on a personal or political level, in the way that George W Bush and now Obama do. You're right that it would be impossible for an atheist to get into the White House - which itself is a sad state of affairs - but it's perfectly possible for a candidate to win without placing so much emphasis on their personal faith.

 

Your first paragraph above suggests you've got an open mind on the sincerity of Obama's faith and don't lean either way, but in your previous post you said:

 

I suspect his Christian faith is as much a matter of political expediency as anything else.

 

That wording says to me that you were (are) clearly leaning towards it being an electoral ploy, which was what prompted me to respond. You disparaged something fundamental to making Obama the man and the candidate that he is as being calculated and fake. It's as insulting a claim as saying that a progressive white politician who proclaims their commitment to fighting racism is only doing so in order to win the black vote. And it was all the more cynical and hypocritical for the fact that you have Obama as your avatar and write so many warm words about him.

[Neil G]

If I was on trial for my life - say for murdering an ASBO youth - I'd want the rev and Neil G in my corner.

 

I couldn't defend you for that, I'm all about spreading the love. I could try to get you a few years off your sentence though.

[Section_31]

The ironic thing about Obama's faith is that (allegedly) members of Clinton's camp were spreading lies that he was in fact - a muslim, and now much of the trailor trash have declared 'they couldn't vote for a muslim'.

 

Whether this 'damage' can be undone in time for the election only time will tell.

 

A second point, I saw a thing the other day saying that this election could be diffrerent from what's gone in the past, because apparently McCain had written to Obama saying they should not have a confrontational campaign and should instead actually tour the country together (wtf!)

 

The cynic inside me makes me think this is because Obama would slaughter him in any head to head debates. McCain, unfortunately for him, really does look his age and more than a little tired (almost Yeltizn-esque at times), and he wouldn't stand up well next to Obama in such a debate at all.

[Rashid]

The ironic thing about Obama's faith is that (allegedly) members of Clinton's camp were spreading lies that he was in fact - a muslim, and now much of the trailor trash have declared 'they couldn't vote for a muslim'.

 

Whether this 'damage' can be undone in time for the election only time will tell.

 

A second point, I saw a thing the other day saying that this election could be diffrerent from what's gone in the past, because apparently McCain had written to Obama saying they should not have a confrontational campaign and should instead actually tour the country together (wtf!)

 

The cynic inside me makes me think this is because Obama would slaughter him in any head to head debates. McCain, unfortunately for him, really does look his age and more than a little tired (almost Yeltizn-esque at times), and he wouldn't stand up well next to Obama in such a debate at all.

 

Obama's dad is a Muslim and he has worn Muslim clothing in the past so the rumours began. It is due to his mum and dad being of different faith that he was confused in his youth and didn't follow anything. Later he turned to the Christian faith and that has driven him on. His whole life now is based on faith... some athiest!

[Neil G]

The ironic thing about Obama's faith is that (allegedly) members of Clinton's camp were spreading lies that he was in fact - a muslim, and now much of the trailor trash have declared 'they couldn't vote for a muslim'.

 

Whether this 'damage' can be undone in time for the election only time will tell.

 

A second point, I saw a thing the other day saying that this election could be diffrerent from what's gone in the past, because apparently McCain had written to Obama saying they should not have a confrontational campaign and should instead actually tour the country together (wtf!)

 

The cynic inside me makes me think this is because Obama would slaughter him in any head to head debates. McCain, unfortunately for him, really does look his age and more than a little tired (almost Yeltizn-esque at times), and he wouldn't stand up well next to Obama in such a debate at all.

 

McCain actually wants more debates, not fewer. He's proposed a series of smaller debates in town halls across the country, in addition to the two or three major televised debates which will presumably go ahead as they've always done.

 

McCain challenges Obama on town hall meetings - Yahoo! News

 

He's a good speaker who has the courage of his convictions and sees his age and experience as real assets. He'll be confident of holding his own against Obama in any setting and won't shy away from a debate.

 

As for the tone of the campaign, I'd like to think that McCain will clamp down on any smear tactics used by the Republicans, because he himself lost the Republican nomination to Bush in 2000 after Bush's camp did a vicious hatchet job on him.

[Strontium]

Obama's dad is a Muslim and he has worn Muslim clothing in the past so the rumours began. It is due to his mum and dad being of different faith that he was confused in his youth and didn't follow anything. Later he turned to the Christian faith and that has driven him on. His whole life now is based on faith... some athiest!

 

Obama's dad was not a Muslim. His mum and dad were not of different faiths, because his mother had no faith either. Both his parents were atheists, as was the young Obama, until he realised the apparent good that churches do. Now he mentions Jesus a lot, although not so much God.

[hamstrung]

This thread was worth reading just see the phrase

I don't believe I did have my ass handed to me on a plate at all

used by G.

[Rashid]

Obama's dad was not a Muslim. His mum and dad were not of different faiths, because his mother had no faith either. Both his parents were atheists, as was the young Obama, until he realised the apparent good that churches do. Now he mentions Jesus a lot, although not so much God.

 

Right OK.

[Rashid]

The Propaganda Begins. SD should get a job with this lot.

 

Barak Hussein Obama - Who is he?

[rebel23]

I don't care about Barack's faith or background but what comes out of his mouth and the fact that he threatened Iran with military action and Israel doing the same the other day sent oil to new record high's, they never learn do they from the iraq misadventure which ironically Obama opposes but it's fine to go and threaten Iran.

 

nothing has changed here, Obama is a fraud who is controlled and has been carefully screened to continue the policies of warfare and big government

[Rashid]

I think Obama said what he said at the Friends of Isreal thing is the party line for Democrats and has been for years. Be interesting to see what he does once he is in power, remember he has promised to talk to friends and foes once he is in.

[rebel23]

Bush promised not to police the world or engage in nation building during the election of 2000, it didn't stop him invading Afghanistan and Iraq, these positions are worthless the fact that he's threatening Iran who are a weak country and offer no threat as their own CIA even admits (Obama would have seen those CIA briefings), the fact that he threatens them like Bush threatened Iraq is enough to make me question him and see him as the fraud he is

 

a lot of people will be disappointed, the US election is a warmongering socialist v. a warmongering fascist, sad state of affairs

[Stu Monty]

Rashid, if SD isn't telling the truth then this is the bit where you provide evidence of what you are saying. He hasn't provided any to back up his stance so actual evidence would be a better policy than some bizarre looking webpage.