Do some people really consider obama an antichrist?

RainDog

El_Kabong wrote:

i think a big part of the problem that comes into play here is a good % of obama supporters can't or won't explain why they support obama. they ask a million questions about you, kucinich, nader...and those get answered most of the time, but the second they are asked 'well, now, why do YOU support obama?' all you get is 'i don't owe you any explanation to you!!!!!' or some other cop out. and no, i'm not saying 100% of obama supporters are like this, but a lot of them here do seem to be that way and in turn what other conclusion can one make as to why they are supporting him? why is it some big secret?? like in that clip i posted when chris matthews asked another politician who supports obama what his achievements were and all he could do was stutter and say he brings ppl together. that's not answering the question. i've also seen 'reasons' to support obama posted here as 'he's the only realistic option, deal w/ it!' those non answers aren't good enough for many and the very fact that there's no real substance behind their support your mind is left to wonder why they do support him? and you see that faaaaaaaar more w/ obama supporters than nader or kucinich supporters, at least in my mind.

Obama is getting hit with this "no one knows why they support him" argument far more than any other politician running for office, when in reality his supporters are not really any more or less "informed" than the supporters of other candidates. The Chris Matthews interview (if it's the one I'm thinking of - I can't watch video at work) had me yelling at both Matthews and the guy he was interviewing. He was asked for Obama's legislative accomplishments and, while the guy should have had his shit together if he's going to appear on television, most people, even other legislators, can't name Senate bills off the top of their heads. And of course you're going to see it faaaaaar more with Obama's supporters than Nader or Kucinich because the simple statistical fact is that there are faaaaar more Obama supporters than Nader or Kucinich supporters. Plus, it's not like "bringing people together" isn't at least one good reason to support a Presidential candidate provided the candidates overall political outlook is something you're comfortable with. If fact, Unity is one of a president's primary jobs in this Union we call the United States of America.

Me? I was impressed by his reforms to the death penalty in Illinois, agree with him on opposing mandatory sentencing, said "hell yeah" when he banned the DNC from accepting federal lobbyist and PAC money (que huge list of why I'm wrong here - but admit it, that "baby step" was pretty cool), actually do believe he will begin a responsible withdraw of troops from Iraq (I know he plans on keeping troops in the area - and I don't disagree with that either), and like the idea of replacing the Social Security cap with a wage gap exemption (100,000 to 250,000, I believe).

El_Kabong wrote:

why does it matter if one says D or Democrat??? how does it appear on the ballots?

It's a dismissive comment. Yes, that's how it appears on some ballots (though here, I think they actually spell out the party name - I'll make sure to check more closely next time); but to hear that you're just voting for the "D" next to his name sounds like a brush-off of the "uninformed" voter. Like rolling your eyes and calling someone righteous or purist.

El_Kabong wrote:

and nader didn't cost gore the election, the supreme court overruling state law as well as all those ppl who were prevented from voting b/c some report said they committed a crime a few years in the future as well as other things are what cost gore the election oh, and gore just giving up, too. when he conceded i couldn't believe it, especially in an inconvenient truth when he said he was president of the united states or something...if you felt that way why'd you give in so easily!? as rep peter king said on camera when asked if he was worried about the election he said no b/c 'it only matters who does the counting and we're gonna do the counting'

That part of my post was a joke, just like my comment to the guy I was talking to. I know all the reasons that Nader didn't swing the election to Bush, and you're right. But you shouldn't be overly defensive about it. In fact, I say embrace it. I did. Sometimes I'll even throw in a "well, I voted for Nader in Ohio, and it's not like that state's narrow outcome ever swung an election."

VictoryGin

El_Kabong wrote:

whaaaaa? sounds like you're saying in order for ppl to be equal we must treat them the opposite...? maybe i just misread that

there's plenty of white ppl in shitty schools and holding shitty jobs, too

that's not what i said so yes you did misread that.

i never said otherwise, captain obvious.

VictoryGin

El_Kabong wrote:

i think a big part of the problem that comes into play here is a good % of obama supporters can't or won't explain why they support obama. they ask a million questions about you, kucinich, nader...and those get answered most of the time, but the second they are asked 'well, now, why do YOU support obama?' all you get is 'i don't owe you any explanation to you!!!!!' or some other cop out. and no, i'm not saying 100% of obama supporters are like this, but a lot of them here do seem to be that way and in turn what other conclusion can one make as to why they are supporting him? why is it some big secret?? like in that clip i posted when chris matthews asked another politician who supports obama what his achievements were and all he could do was stutter and say he brings ppl together. that's not answering the question. i've also seen 'reasons' to support obama posted here as 'he's the only realistic option, deal w/ it!' those non answers aren't good enough for many and the very fact that there's no real substance behind their support your mind is left to wonder why they do support him?

i'm going to go out on a limb here and say that maybe it's you. maybe it's the way you ask that.

cornnifer

El_Kabong wrote:

does anyone honestly think that black ppl had it good in the past???

does anyone honestly thing everything is peachy now?

rebornFixer

cornnifer wrote:

does anyone honestly thing everything is peachy now?

No, but progress has been made.

Abookamongstthemany

VictoryGin wrote:

i'm going to go out on a limb here and say that maybe it's you. maybe it's the way you ask that.

Nope, it's not just him and it's not just me and it's not just Chris Matthews...

There are a ton of people out there who seemingly have no clue why they really support him or what he stands for exactly....no one is saying this is you

Even the beloved icon, Kal Penn, was on Larry King saying how Obama was for Universal Healthcare....

Abookamongstthemany

reborncareerist wrote:

No, but progress has been made.

Yes, it has and that progress wasn't dependent upon reverse racism to be accomplished, either.

cornnifer

reborncareerist wrote:

No, but progress has been made.

Yes. There is not much denying that. You don't, however, if on a 100 mile journey, stop 50 miles in because you have "made progress" toward your destination.

cornnifer

Abookamongstthemany wrote:

Yes, it has and that progress wasn't dependent upon reverse racism to be accomplished, either.

Not sure i get this one.

footstepstochris

NMyTree wrote:

I find most Christians are symbolic of the anti-christ.

Considering they hardly ever truely follow or live by Christ's messages.

In fact most Christians I know do just about everything Jesus was against.

Most of them don't even know Jesus's true messages.

nice....agreeing with you nmytree-all the christians i have met are complete hypocrits
no, im in the bible belt and many of my democratic friends dont believe that
it is usually the uneducated that jump to these assumptions....not knowing that what they have heard is just a republican smear campaign and the man gave a good reason for not putting his hand over his heart

Abookamongstthemany

cornnifer wrote:

Not sure i get this one.

We don't need to focus on each other's race OR make decisions based on someone's race in order to progress past racism in this country....which is what AA does.

We have already to some extent and will continue to progress this society past racism by not being racist and also by condemning all acts of judging others based on their skin color.

Rhinocerous Surprise

cornnifer wrote:

Not sure i get this one.

By making Obama an example of how far we've come on racism, people are just judging based on race all over again. Except this time, it's reverse racism: "Look how not racist we are - we're letting this black man be president."

I'm not sure I cleared that up at all.

Specifics

He's not the anti-christ, he's a very naughty boy!!!


(a very lucky boy that america needs a woman and a black guy to gain some credibility after electing a half-wit)

cornnifer

Abookamongstthemany wrote:

We don't need to focus on each other's race OR make decisions based on someone's race in order to progress past racism in this country....which is what AA does.

We have already to some extent and will continue to progress this society past racism by not being racist and also by condemning all acts of judging others based on their skin color.

Afirmative Action is not "making decisions based on someone's race". That simply isn't how it works. Someone in a protected group has to be able to establish a discrimination case. There are requirements. First of all, the person attempting to file a case has to have been qualified for the job in the first place. For example if someone with a highschool diploma is denied a job that generally requires a college degree, there is no case. Also, the job has to have been awarded to to an equal or lesser qualified member of a nonprotected group. In other words if a job is awarded to a white guy with lesser qualifications than a black applicant, then, PERHAPS a case can be made. If the job is awarded to, for example a latino applicant, there is no case as both groups are protected. So, someone has to be qualified for the job and passed over for a lesser qualified white applicant in order for a case to be established. Even then there is a burden of proof that there was an actual discrimination.
It sounds like you are in the chorus of white folks that thinks AA means white people need not apply. That you will be losing jobs to lesser qualified Black folks simply because they're black. That isn't how AA works. AA in no way equals reverse discrimination. It simply doesn't.

edit: many typos. Sorry.

El_Kabong

cornnifer wrote:

does anyone honestly thing everything is peachy now?

it's not the same as it was 40 odd years ago, tho, is it?

El_Kabong

VictoryGin wrote:

i'm going to go out on a limb here and say that maybe it's you. maybe it's the way you ask that.

yeah, that must be it

apparently, i'm not the only one

http://youtube.com/watch?v=JfuHT9vsxPE

El_Kabong

RainDog wrote:

Obama is getting hit with this "no one knows why they support him" argument far more than any other politician running for office, when in reality his supporters are not really any more or less "informed" than the supporters of other candidates. The Chris Matthews interview (if it's the one I'm thinking of - I can't watch video at work) had me yelling at both Matthews and the guy he was interviewing. He was asked for Obama's legislative accomplishments and, while the guy should have had his shit together if he's going to appear on television, most people, even other legislators, can't name Senate bills off the top of their heads. And of course you're going to see it faaaaaar more with Obama's supporters than Nader or Kucinich because the simple statistical fact is that there are faaaaar more Obama supporters than Nader or Kucinich supporters. Plus, it's not like "bringing people together" isn't at least one good reason to support a Presidential candidate provided the candidates overall political outlook is something you're comfortable with. If fact, Unity is one of a president's primary jobs in this Union we call the United States of America.

ok, so we've got
-women's reproductive rights
-he'd pick better supreme court justices than mccain
-he brings ppl together
-he's the only realistic option

got it

i think nader would do those things even better than obama, you may disagree w/ bringing ppl together but what would you mean? his views are more in line w/ what the public wants, he'd bring communities together. you said unity is one of the president's primary jobs, nader has been all about rallying ppl around causes affecting the country and making change. and i don't get that i see other ppl on here saying nader should run for senate first...well, what has obama done while in the senate that eclipses nader's record? what makes him a better candidate than nader? and why is it so 'accepted' that he's the better candidate?

RainDog wrote:

Me? I was impressed by his reforms to the death penalty in Illinois, agree with him on opposing mandatory sentencing, said "hell yeah" when he banned the DNC from accepting federal lobbyist and PAC money (que huge list of why I'm wrong here - but admit it, that "baby step" was pretty cool), actually do believe he will begin a responsible withdraw of troops from Iraq (I know he plans on keeping troops in the area - and I don't disagree with that either), and like the idea of replacing the Social Security cap with a wage gap exemption (100,000 to 250,000, I believe)

to me, stances on mandatory sentencing and the death penalty (as much as i agree) don't outweigh the negatives i see in his policies.

is there much of a difference between saying 'nuclear power company A gave $250,000 to obama' and 'the executives of nuclear power company A gave $250,000 to obama'? i just threw a number out there, don't feel like looking for the actual one right now. but he did water down a bill involving nuclear power after receiving quite a bit from the industry and then lied about it on the campaign trail saying he passed it when it never did.

i wonder what made him keep watering down that bill? was it his constituents or the money?

RainDog wrote:

It's a dismissive comment. Yes, that's how it appears on some ballots (though here, I think they actually spell out the party name - I'll make sure to check more closely next time); but to hear that you're just voting for the "D" next to his name sounds like a brush-off of the "uninformed" voter. Like rolling your eyes and calling someone righteous or purist.

ok, but i don't see the difference between saying 'vote for someone w/ a D next to their name' and 'vote for somoene w/ democrat next to their name'

RainDog wrote:

That part of my post was a joke, just like my comment to the guy I was talking to. I know all the reasons that Nader didn't swing the election to Bush, and you're right. But you shouldn't be overly defensive about it. In fact, I say embrace it. I did. Sometimes I'll even throw in a "well, I voted for Nader in Ohio, and it's not like that state's narrow outcome ever swung an election."

i didn't think i was being overly defensive. surely you can see it's a common misconception w/ a lot of ppl including some here? 'he's the reason we're in this war' and so on.... and the reality is that's just a way to discredit 3rd party alternatives and try to steer ppl from wanting to support them

Specifics

meet the new puppet, he's a slightly different colour to the old puppet.

cornnifer

El_Kabong wrote:

it's not the same as it was 40 odd years ago, tho, is it?

Oh, Yeah. Sorry. You're right. i havn't seen anyone attacked with police dogs and firehoses for wanting to be served at a whites only restaurant, So we may as well not even discuss this shit anymore. Everythings cool now. :rolleyes:

Abookamongstthemany

cornnifer wrote:

Oh, Yeah. Sorry. You're right. i havn't seen anyone attacked with police dogs and firehoses for wanting to be served at a whites only restaurant, So we may as well not even discuss this shit anymore. Everythings cool now. :rolleyes:

Who said anything about not discussing racial problems anymore?

The point was that progress is being made. Just look at where Obama is today for evidence of that. And the other point is that we as a society do not need to revert to more racism in order to correct racism of the past or even present. Things like AA that use the color of a person's skin to base decisions on are in fact being racist.