Obama WILL be the next president

Winnow · Post by **Winnow** » February 7, 2008, 4:14 am

Obama isn't running out of time. Check the delegate standings:

http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2008/

Hillary:823
Obama:741

He's not that far behind.

McCain on the other hand has things pretty much rapped up.

Bojangels · Post by **Bojangels** » February 7, 2008, 4:54 am

I predict McCain/Giuliani over Obama/Edwards in the big game.

I'm an Obama supporter and really want him to win, but I don't think Americans as a whole are really ready for big changes, and I'm sure McCain has a few tricks up his sleeves.

I could be way off though. I haven't lived in the states in years.

Forthe · Post by **Forthe** » February 7, 2008, 3:08 pm

Winnow wrote:Obama isn't running out of time. Check the delegate standings:

http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2008/

Hillary:823
Obama:741

He's not that far behind.

McCain on the other hand has things pretty much rapped up.

From my understanding (correct this Newf if I'm wrong) that those totals include "super delegates", national commitee members, senators, representatives and governors, which are free to change their minds at vote time. I have read Obama is leading pledged delegates.

Forthe · Post by **Forthe** » February 7, 2008, 3:18 pm

Bojangels wrote:I predict McCain/Giuliani over Obama/Edwards in the big game.

I'm an Obama supporter and really want him to win, but I don't think Americans as a whole are really ready for big changes, and I'm sure McCain has a few tricks up his sleeves.

I could be way off though. I haven't lived in the states in years.

I thought this as well but there are 2 encouraging signs:
1) Democratic turnout has been ~2x republican turnout
2) He isn't just winning states with large african american populations, he is also winning in predominantly white states.

#2 is surprising the fsck out of me.

Sueven · Post by **Sueven** » February 7, 2008, 4:08 pm

Forthe: You're right about the superdelegates.

I think that if Obama wins the nomination without convention shenanigans, the chances that he would lose a general election are very, very slim. Can you imagine McCain-- a moderately popular career Congressman, 76 years old, hotheaded, mildly charismatic, deeply unpopular among large parts of the Republican party and fairly likely to spawn a far-right third party candidacy-- running against Obama, a young, vibrant, charismatic politician who can neutralize McCain's popularity among moderates and exploit his vulnerability in the South?

Obama/McCain would put the south in play. How the hell is a Republican going to win the election when he can't even feel comfortable about carrying the south?

It would be a rout.

I don't think that Obama will actually get the nomination, but I think he'd be a near-lock for the presidency if he did.

Saying "a black man can't be elected president, this country is too racist" just seems way too simplistic and short-sighted for me. Sure, the existence of racists will be a challenge for Obama, but that's a small part of the whole picture.

Winnow · Post by **Winnow** » February 7, 2008, 4:23 pm

Sueven wrote:Forthe: You're right about the superdelegates.

I think that if Obama wins the nomination without convention shenanigans, the chances that he would lose a general election are very, very slim. Can you imagine McCain-- a moderately popular career Congressman, 76 years old, hotheaded, mildly charismatic, deeply unpopular among large parts of the Republican party and fairly likely to spawn a far-right third party candidacy

McCain is 71 not 76. Sheesh!

Obama has huge ears.

McCain will get his share of the Hillary vote. Obama won't necessarily get all of it. Plus, McCain doesn't need the far far right vote as he's got a good hold on the independents being the "moderate" he's considered to be, as well and no way the far right votes for Obama even if they don't care for McCain. Now that it looks like McCain will win the nomination, he doesn't have to worry as much about the far right as you think as he's still the better choice of the two for the whackos.

Hillary will lose badly to McCain. Obama vs McCain is a real race.

If we see a Hillary/Obama ticket I'll puke.

How many times in 2000 did we hear "The Republicans won't nominate McCain but he'd be great in a national election"? Well, he's got the nomination. That was the hard part.

Sueven · Post by **Sueven** » February 7, 2008, 4:24 pm

I think you're embarrassingly wrong. Hopefully we get a chance to find out.

Winnow · Post by **Winnow** » February 7, 2008, 4:28 pm

Sueven wrote:I think you're embarrassingly wrong. Hopefully we get a chance to find out.

says your future Popeye McCain avatar!

I'm usually pretty good in political predictions as I don't get passionate about the issues and just try to analyze things.

I won the 2004 electoral vote contest!

http://www.veeshanvault.org/forums/view ... 13&t=12015

Fairweather Pure · Post by **Fairweather Pure** » February 7, 2008, 4:36 pm

McCain is about as Republican as I am. Romney or any of the others are Republicans. His own party and the most mouth foaming members of the party detset him because he's in direct conflict with many Republican ideals. He's not only dividing Red and Blue, he's divide his own party. I said it before, he's wasting everyone's time and money. He dosen't stand a chance of winning the Presidency.

Forthe · Post by **Forthe** » February 7, 2008, 5:12 pm

Fairweather Pure wrote:McCain is about as Republican as I am. Romney or any of the others are Republicans. His own party and the most mouth foaming members of the party detset him because he's in direct conflict with many Republican ideals. He's not only dividing Red and Blue, he's divide his own party. I said it before, he's wasting everyone's time and money. He dosen't stand a chance of winning the Presidency.

Who would have thought they would re-elect GW. Never say never, them folks down there are a weird bunch

Kilmoll the Sexy · Post by **Kilmoll the Sexy** » February 7, 2008, 5:51 pm

Actually....GWB and the other clowns they have paraded out as candidates are as far from Republicans as can be. Just because they share the religious right views on a few subjects does not make them a Repub. Now as the world exists today, you may label McCain as a moderate, but he is MUCH closer to what a real GOP would be.

Obama is too stupidly brazen with ignorant platforms to be elected. If you are underestimating the NRA and some other real powers that are actually behind the GOP then you are as befuddled as the Dems have proven to be year after year.

Here are a few things that will get him slaughtered.

1)

Constitution is a living document; no strict constructionism
When we get in a tussle, we appeal to the Founding Fathers and the Constitution's ratifiers to give direction. Some, like Justice Scalia, conclude that the original understanding must be followed and if we obey this rule, democracy is respected.
Others, like Justice Breyers, insist that sometimes the original understanding can take you only so far--that on the truly big arguments, we have to take context, history, and the practical outcomes of a decision into account.

I have to side with Justice Breyer's view of the Constitution--that it is not a static but rather a living document and must be read in the context of an ever-changing world.

I see democracy as a conversation to be had. According to this conception, the genius of Madison's design is not that it provides a fixed blueprint for action. It provides us with a framework and rules, but all its machinery are designed to force us into a conversation.

http://ontheissues.org/Archive/Audacity ... ortion.htm

2)

Ban semi-automatics, and more possession restrictions
Principles that Obama supports on gun issues:
Ban the sale or transfer of all forms of semi-automatic weapons.
Increase state restrictions on the purchase and possession of firearms.
Require manufacturers to provide child-safety locks with firearms.

3)

Need justice that is not just us, but is everybody
Q: In the last decade, whites were 70% of persons arrested, but only 40% of inmates. Why?
A: The criminal justice system is not color blind. It does not work for all people equally, and that is why it's critical to have a president who sends a signal that we are going to have a system of justice that is not just us, but is everybody. I passed racial profiling legislation at the state level. It requires some political courage, because oftentimes you are accused of being soft on crime.

So this guy wants to change the constitution, take the ability of the people to revolt away, and make sure more whites get locked up. Everything you read on him has some racial connotation to it. If he continually brings race up as a platform, he is going to bring the racist vote to the table and he WILL lose that one.

I would be willing to take you avatar bet as well....no way either one of those two Dems are winning this election against McCain unless he picks David Duke, Rumsfeld, or some other clown as a running mate.

Boogahz · Post by **Boogahz** » February 7, 2008, 7:12 pm

Forthe wrote:I thought this as well but there are 2 encouraging signs:
1) Democratic turnout has been ~2x republican turnout
2) He isn't just winning states with large african american populations, he is also winning in predominantly white states.

#2 is surprising the fsck out of me.

I have wondered how many of those Democratic voters were really Republicans voting against Clinton...

Noysyrump · Post by **Noysyrump** » February 7, 2008, 8:50 pm

What Kilmoll said.

Republican. Someone who see's this Gov't as a republic with a set of rules that cannot be forgotten or bypassed.

Democrat. Someone who believes the will of the people should override anything else.

A true democracy would be complete anarchy. when all you need to do is lie to 51% of the population to change a fundamental law or way of governing. Hell with enough money, I could get 51% of the people to emplace ME as the new monarch.

This "living constitution" thing you keep saying scares the shit out of me. Change the constitution and you destroy our way of life.

Noysyrump · Post by **Noysyrump** » February 7, 2008, 8:59 pm

Need justice that is not just us, but is everybody
Q: In the last decade, whites were 70% of persons arrested, but only 40% of inmates. Why?
A: The criminal justice system is not color blind. It does not work for all people equally, and that is why it's critical to have a president who sends a signal that we are going to have a system of justice that is not just us, but is everybody. I passed racial profiling legislation at the state level. It requires some political courage, because oftentimes you are accused of being soft on crime.

On that subject... perhaps its that blacks are aressted for more seriose crimes? Did he perhaps ever think of that? All I know is in "white" neighborhoods your not looking over your shoulder for drive-bys, just drunk drivers.

Sueven · Post by **Sueven** » February 7, 2008, 9:36 pm

Kilmoll wrote:I would be willing to take you avatar bet as well

Done. I take the Dem, you take the Repub. If the Dem wins, you wear the face of the new president as an avatar for a year. If the Repub wins, I'll wear his face for a year. Caveat: I already have a bet with Winnow if the nominees are McCain/Hillary. If those are the nominees, and McCain wins, I'll wear McCain for two years (one for Winnow, one for you). If Hillary wins, you'll both wear a Hillary avatar for one year.

Kilmoll, I love you, but I think your political arguments here are stunningly ignorant, almost entirely wrong, and generally misinformed factually. I'm sure you think the same of mine. I was going to go through your points and write another book-length post about why I think they're ridiculous, but this isn't the thread for it, and there's no point anyway.

All I will say here is that I very much hope that Obama gets the nomination so we can put it to the test.

Sueven · Post by **Sueven** » February 7, 2008, 9:55 pm

Noysy wrote:On that subject... perhaps its that blacks are aressted for more seriose crimes? Did he perhaps ever think of that? All I know is in "white" neighborhoods your not looking over your shoulder for drive-bys, just drunk drivers.

Umm, OK. There's a wealth of literature that you could look into here. Just to start you off:

Crack Cocaine and Powder Cocaine are essentially the same drug (crack has baking soda added).

Federal law requires mandatory minimum sentences for those convicted of selling crack and powder cocaine. To trigger a 5-year mandatory minimum sentence for selling powder cocaine requires you to sell 500 grams. Triggering that same 5-year mandatory minimum sentence for crack requires you to sell 5 grams. The same sentencing disparity exists across various levels of possession and distribution (for instance, a first crack possession conviction requires jail time, while a first cocaine possession conviction does not).

2/3 of crack users are white or hispanic. Interestingly, 85% of those convicted of possession, and 88% of those convicted of distribution, are black (these numbers are from several years ago, but nothing has really changed.

There is a vast literature out there on racial sentencing disparities. Sometimes, as in the case of crack v. coke mandatory minimums, some element of the disparity is mandated by law. Other times, as when police choose to pursue and arrest black suspects instead of white suspects for crack possession, the racially biased outcomes are systemic and subconscious.

There's a huge literature on sentencing disparities in existence, both for drug crimes and for others. I'm sure you know a lot of it anecdotally... blacks who kill whites are far more likely to get the death penalty than whites who kill blacks and so on. There's enough research that it all should be easily googleable.

I fully expect you to ignore this because they're all drug users and criminals anyway, so who gives a shit. That's retarded. Ending racial sentencing disparities has nothing to do with being soft on crime or soft on drugs. Hell, you could pump up the mandatory sentences for powder cocaine possession, or start executing whites who kill blacks at a higher rate, and help accomplish racial sentencing parity. The bottom line is that we have a system which hands out vastly different sentences for substantially similar offenses, and the harsh sentences fall overwhelmingly on blacks while the soft sentences fall overwhelmingly on whites. Whether you think that we're too soft on crime or too harsh on crime, this is a problem. The sentencing disparity is arbitrary, and an arbitrary system which has a strongly racist outcome should be changed.

Siji · Post by **Siji** » February 7, 2008, 10:55 pm

Do I think that blacks are sentenced more harshly, or convicted more often than whites due to racism? Definitely. Do I think it's completely unfair? Definitely. I hate racist assholes and can't imagine what it's like to grow up as a non-Caucasian individual. I do however think that way too many non-Caucasians bitch about things without actual reason to back it up at times.

On the other hand, if you break the law you should expect to pay the price. Just because a white person didn't get the same as a black person doesn't change the fact that the non-white person still broke the law.

Kilmoll the Sexy · Post by **Kilmoll the Sexy** » February 8, 2008, 11:55 am

Those are not MY facts. They are direct quotes from Obama.

Noysyrump · Post by **Noysyrump** » February 8, 2008, 2:08 pm

Crack and 'powder' cocain are not the same... You cannot snort crack, and smoking cocain (any type) has a more severe effect.

Kilmoll is a genious, and you just cannot understand his genious.

Now as far as 'african americans'

Now I'll probably be called a racist by some of you for saying this, however, I'm going to anyways.

Black People are by far more aggressive and physical than your average caucasion. This is why they excell at sports, but also why they are so prone to criminal activity. 400 years ago, Europeans were living a life not much different than what we live today. In africa people had to spear squirrels, dig up roots, and fight off lions to survive. Then after beeing brought here they were bred to be stronger/better workers. That has had a lasting effect just from the simple evolution standpoint. So that could be a very LARGE reason for conviction disparity.

Funkmasterr · Post by **Funkmasterr** » February 8, 2008, 2:18 pm

Well nosy, that would be our fault too, since we helped to make them the way that we are now incarcerating them for..

Bottom line is, playing the race card is a fucking dumb move for him as a presidential candidate. Black people were already going to vote for him just because he is black, so that didn't help him there - and it sure isn't gonna help to get many white people voting for him.

Nick · Post by **Nick** » February 8, 2008, 2:35 pm

You are one thick fucking moron to be honest.

Xatrei · Post by **Xatrei** » February 8, 2008, 2:59 pm

Noysyrump wrote:Now I'll probably be called a racist by some of you for saying this, however, I'm going to anyways.. <racist drivel snipped>

I'm so surprised that a douche bag (second from the left) that likes to dress up like a Nazi for kicks spews racist bullshit. Really, I am.

Boogahz · Post by **Boogahz** » February 8, 2008, 3:04 pm

The way he presented himself even before the last break is how I recognized him instantly as being the "nazi" in that picture when he posted it in the pics thread.

Sueven · Post by **Sueven** » February 8, 2008, 3:06 pm

Noysy wrote:Crack and 'powder' cocain are not the same... You cannot snort crack, and smoking cocain (any type) has a more severe effect.

It is true that crack and powder cocaine are not the same, and that you cannot snort crack. That's about as far as the accuracy goes. Snorting cocaine is far more effective than smoking cocaine. You absorb an awful lot more of the drug, and get more high.

The differences between a crack high and a powder high are simply that crack is shorter and more intense, while coke is longer-lasting and a bit more mellow. Why this difference should be the basis for a sentencing disparity is beyond me, especially given that the United States Sentencing Commission (you know... the government who makes the laws) has concluded that the differences in the drugs does not lead to a difference in the level of violence that they lead a user to exhibit.

Noysy wrote:Now I'll probably be called a racist by some of you for saying this, however, I'm going to anyways.

Sure, I'll call you a racist for that. Two things:

1. Even assuming that you've demonstrated reasons why blacks might be physically stronger than whites (which you haven't), you've listed absolutely no historical facts that lead to the conclusion that black people are "prone to criminal activity." Strong /= criminal.

2. Read "Guns, Germs, and Steel."

Noysyrump · Post by **Noysyrump** » February 8, 2008, 3:13 pm

Yes call me racist because I see a difference in races. I in no way said "we white folk are better" nor did I say "all black people are criminals". Statisically speaking, it does show that WE ARE DIFFERENT!

64% of black children born out of wedlock. 25% of caucasians. That's a pretty severe difference.

Sueven · Post by **Sueven** » February 8, 2008, 3:15 pm

Read that book.

Boogahz · Post by **Boogahz** » February 8, 2008, 3:16 pm

Sueven wrote:Read that book.

Seconded. Very good read.

Noysyrump · Post by **Noysyrump** » February 8, 2008, 3:21 pm

By the way, I also own (and wear out to clubs) a Roman costume. My newest one is/will be a western cowboy type thing. I have also the beginings of a vietnam era combat soldier (ala Barnes of Platoon) that I will also finish. Its costuming, not political. And I think you might be suprised at the number of nazi costumes I see when I do go out here in so cal. 2 halloweens ago, I was 1 of 3 at the 2 clubs I went to. Last haloween it was Roman. Does that make me anti christian?

Noysyrump · Post by **Noysyrump** » February 8, 2008, 3:22 pm

Sueven wrote:Read that book.

I will look for it. I cannot pass up any good reads.

Funkmasterr · Post by **Funkmasterr** » February 8, 2008, 3:24 pm

Sueven, the inarguable fact in the difference between sentencing does have to do with violence, but not how violent it makes someone using it.

Coke is a rich persons drug for the most part - it is not a drug that is sold by the dude standing on the corner of his block in the Bronx with a 9 tucked in his jeans. Crack on the other hand, is a lot more prevalent in shitty neighborhoods and cities, a lot more people that sell/buy it end up getting shot/killed over it than can be said for coke.

This is due to the fact that it is cheaper, WAY cheaper for everyone from the top of the chain down to the dude passed out in the dumpster behind your apartments with a crack pipe in his pocket. It all starts from the same thing, but with crack - you don't know how many times it was cut before it even got cooked up, then you don't know what kind of ratio the person that cooked it up used either - you could end up smoking baking soda laced with a little crack.

It being so cheap is what makes it more prevalent in these crime filled poor communities. Now, do most of these happen to be mostly black communities? Yes. Does that mean that the white man invented crack so that he could kill or imprison as many black people as possible? Only the most ignorant, uneducated fucking person in the world would think that.

Boogahz · Post by **Boogahz** » February 8, 2008, 3:26 pm

btw Funk, the situation outside my apt last week was a deal gone bad...really bad. Crack related too.

Funkmasterr · Post by **Funkmasterr** » February 8, 2008, 3:36 pm

Boogahz wrote:btw Funk, the situation outside my apt last week was a deal gone bad...really bad. Crack related too.

That sucks man, was it the bloods & the lone crip situation? I can't remember. Stay safe! we don't need you getting caught up in any of their bs.

Boogahz · Post by **Boogahz** » February 8, 2008, 3:41 pm

Funkmasterr wrote:
Boogahz wrote:btw Funk, the situation outside my apt last week was a deal gone bad...really bad. Crack related too.
That sucks man, was it the bloods & the lone crip situation? I can't remember. Stay safe! we don't need you getting caught up in any of their bs.

yeah, it was. It was kind of funny since the week before that another neighbor and I were talking to an officer that was there to help drive away the people using our corner of the complex for illegal shit. When we were trying to tell him about all of the crap people were doing in the woods right next to the creek and parking lot, he said something about how they knew how bad it was, but it was too dangerous for them to go into that area with less than full SWAT gear.

Funkmasterr · Post by **Funkmasterr** » February 8, 2008, 3:57 pm

Boogahz wrote:
Funkmasterr wrote:
Boogahz wrote:btw Funk, the situation outside my apt last week was a deal gone bad...really bad. Crack related too.
That sucks man, was it the bloods & the lone crip situation? I can't remember. Stay safe! we don't need you getting caught up in any of their bs.
yeah, it was. It was kind of funny since the week before that another neighbor and I were talking to an officer that was there to help drive away the people using our corner of the complex for illegal shit. When we were trying to tell him about all of the crap people were doing in the woods right next to the creek and parking lot, he said something about how they knew how bad it was, but it was too dangerous for them to go into that area with less than full SWAT gear.

Yeah situations like that suck, but I can't blame the cops. My friend from NY still owns a piece of property here in North Minneapolis that I take care of for him (plow, mow the little 1' x 10' strip of grass, make sure heat is on during winter, etc) and it's the same situation in that neighborhood. I can't count the number of times I have been there, or been on my way in or out of the building when someone was killed in the street right outside. The cops won't even come at that point, they will block the road in either direction like a mile away, then send in a couple helicopters, then move in with a huge force once it's clear. Sometimes the DEA/ATF will raid 20+ blocks of a random street in that neighborhood at a time.. I have seen that once and the amount of helicopters/trucks/cars that come in is insane.

You need to win the lottery or something and get the hell out of there

Fairweather Pure · Post by **Fairweather Pure** » February 8, 2008, 5:00 pm

Boogahz wrote:
Funkmasterr wrote:
Boogahz wrote:btw Funk, the situation outside my apt last week was a deal gone bad...really bad. Crack related too.
That sucks man, was it the bloods & the lone crip situation? I can't remember. Stay safe! we don't need you getting caught up in any of their bs.
yeah, it was. It was kind of funny since the week before that another neighbor and I were talking to an officer that was there to help drive away the people using our corner of the complex for illegal shit. When we were trying to tell him about all of the crap people were doing in the woods right next to the creek and parking lot, he said something about how they knew how bad it was, but it was too dangerous for them to go into that area with less than full SWAT gear.

Fuckin' move dude! Like, yesterday!

Noysyrump · Post by **Noysyrump** » February 8, 2008, 5:42 pm

Wow in my bad neighborhood, someone might steal your car. When someone does get murdered, its on the news for a week. I agree, might be high time to move.

Winnow · Post by **Winnow** » February 10, 2008, 4:06 am

Hella long speech by Obama concerning religion and politics:

http://link.brightcove.com/services/pla ... =416343938

It's worth listening to but is 40 minutes long.

A quote from it:

"For one, they need to understand the critical role that the separation of church and state has played in preserving not only our democracy, but the robustness of our religious practice. Folks tend to forget that during our founding, it wasn't the atheists or the civil libertarians who were the most effective champions of the First Amendment. It was the persecuted minorities, it was Baptists like John Leland who didn't want the established churches to impose their views on folks who were getting happy out in the fields and teaching the scripture to slaves. It was the forbearers of the evangelicals who were the most adamant about not mingling government with religious, because they did not want state-sponsored religion hindering their ability to practice their faith as they understood it.

Moreover, given the increasing diversity of America's population, the dangers of sectarianism have never been greater. Whatever we once were, we are no longer just a Christian nation; we are also a Jewish nation, a Muslim nation, a Buddhist nation, a Hindu nation, and a nation of nonbelievers.

And even if we did have only Christians in our midst, if we expelled every non-Christian from the United States of America, whose Christianity would we teach in the schools? Would we go with James Dobson's, or Al Sharpton's? Which passages of Scripture should guide our public policy? Should we go with Leviticus, which suggests slavery is ok and that eating shellfish is abomination? How about Deuteronomy, which suggests stoning your child if he strays from the faith? Or should we just stick to the Sermon on the Mount - a passage that is so radical that it's doubtful that our own Defense Department would survive its application? So before we get carried away, let's read our bibles. Folks haven't been reading their bibles.

This brings me to my second point. Democracy demands that the religiously motivated translate their concerns into universal, rather than religion-specific, values. It requires that their proposals be subject to argument, and amenable to reason. I may be opposed to abortion for religious reasons, but if I seek to pass a law banning the practice, I cannot simply point to the teachings of my church or evoke God's will. I have to explain why abortion violates some principle that is accessible to people of all faiths, including those with no faith at all."

not bad....not bad.

If you have time, watch/listen to the linked speech.

In the speech he says his father was born a Muslim but became an atheist later in life, his mother had parents who were non practicing methodist and baptist and grew up with skepticism of organized religion. You can't ask for much more than that. He's Christian but it wasn't pushed on him. I'm cool with that.

He seems to have a very good grip and understanding on the separation of church and state.

Xyun · Post by **Xyun** » February 10, 2008, 4:26 pm

Winnow wrote:Hella long speech by Obama concerning religion and politics:

http://link.brightcove.com/services/pla ... =416343938

It's worth listening to but is 40 minutes long.

A quote from it:

"For one, they need to understand the critical role that the separation of church and state has played in preserving not only our democracy, but the robustness of our religious practice. Folks tend to forget that during our founding, it wasn't the atheists or the civil libertarians who were the most effective champions of the First Amendment. It was the persecuted minorities, it was Baptists like John Leland who didn't want the established churches to impose their views on folks who were getting happy out in the fields and teaching the scripture to slaves. It was the forbearers of the evangelicals who were the most adamant about not mingling government with religious, because they did not want state-sponsored religion hindering their ability to practice their faith as they understood it.

Moreover, given the increasing diversity of America's population, the dangers of sectarianism have never been greater. Whatever we once were, we are no longer just a Christian nation; we are also a Jewish nation, a Muslim nation, a Buddhist nation, a Hindu nation, and a nation of nonbelievers.

And even if we did have only Christians in our midst, if we expelled every non-Christian from the United States of America, whose Christianity would we teach in the schools? Would we go with James Dobson's, or Al Sharpton's? Which passages of Scripture should guide our public policy? Should we go with Leviticus, which suggests slavery is ok and that eating shellfish is abomination? How about Deuteronomy, which suggests stoning your child if he strays from the faith? Or should we just stick to the Sermon on the Mount - a passage that is so radical that it's doubtful that our own Defense Department would survive its application? So before we get carried away, let's read our bibles. Folks haven't been reading their bibles.

This brings me to my second point. Democracy demands that the religiously motivated translate their concerns into universal, rather than religion-specific, values. It requires that their proposals be subject to argument, and amenable to reason. I may be opposed to abortion for religious reasons, but if I seek to pass a law banning the practice, I cannot simply point to the teachings of my church or evoke God's will. I have to explain why abortion violates some principle that is accessible to people of all faiths, including those with no faith at all."
not bad....not bad.

If you have time, watch/listen to the linked speech.

In the speech he says his father was born a Muslim but became an atheist later in life, his mother had parents who were non practicing methodist and baptist and grew up with skepticism of organized religion. You can't ask for much more than that. He's Christian but it wasn't pushed on him. I'm cool with that.

He seems to have a very good grip and understanding on the separation of church and state.

I've pretty much seen every speech Obama has given if there is access to it online. I'm convinced that he is the best candidate I have ever seen to be president of the U.S. I'm very hopeful that he can overcome the corporate and establishment advantage that Clinton has among super delegates and he gets the nomination. I will probably vote for McCain if Clinton is the democratic nominee, which is sacrilege for a democrat. But in my opinion, the way she has conducted her campaign is similar if not identical to Bush, which in and of itself is fucking sacrilegious. I prefer an authentic republican to a power-hungry divisive democrat.

Hopefully, I won't have to make that vote. I believe in the judgment of my fellow Americans. I think we can overcome. Yes, we can!

Siji · Post by **Siji** » February 10, 2008, 5:30 pm

It's worth listening to but is 40 minutes long.

Thanks for the link, I plan on listening to it later.

I'll admit that when I read this sentence, the first thing to mind was "can you imagine Bush trying to talk for 40 minutes?"

Fash · Post by **Fash** » February 10, 2008, 5:51 pm

Siji wrote:I'll admit that when I read this sentence, the first thing to mind was "can you imagine Bush trying to talk for 40 minutes?"

Ever heard of the State of the Union Address? He's been pretty good recently, actually, not to diminish the deer-in-headlights buffoonery he often exhibits.

edit: for the record, I like Obama. I am impressed and hoping he really is what he projects... I can see myself in two candidates, and that is promising.

Winnow · Post by **Winnow** » February 10, 2008, 5:54 pm

I just finished up the full 40 minutes of Obama's speech on religion this afternoon. As an atheist, it's the most encouraging view I've ever heard addressing religion and politics. Fantastic speech. Stick with it as he gets into the topic more directly in the second half.

While maybe 1% of other religious people take his approach, I'd feel confident that he could control the crazy religious hordes as he's familiar with their ways and can calm them down and maybe even make a difference in getting believers back to the basic values of their religion(s) and be less preachy.

He has an excellent way of supporting the separation of church and state, supporting Roe vs Wade, yet still calming down the religions wackos while showing them a way to convert their beliefs into something less fanatical that won't offend, not only atheists, but other religions as well.

Obama passes the political religious question with an A+.

Siji · Post by **Siji** » February 10, 2008, 9:43 pm

Fash wrote:
Siji wrote:I'll admit that when I read this sentence, the first thing to mind was "can you imagine Bush trying to talk for 40 minutes?"
Ever heard of the State of the Union Address?

Ever heard of teleprompters?

Keverian FireCry · Post by **Keverian FireCry** » February 10, 2008, 10:03 pm

Ever heard of the State of the Union Address? He's been pretty good recently, actually, not to diminish the deer-in-headlights buffoonery he often exhibits.

Ehh, he set the bar so low for future speeches that he could turn around and fart the national anthem out of tone and backwards and people would be relatively impressed.

Nick · Post by **Nick** » February 10, 2008, 10:10 pm

He's been pretty good recently,

No, he hasn't.

Winnow · Post by **Winnow** » February 10, 2008, 10:54 pm

To be fair, Obama was looking down at his speech after every sentence. He speaks well but for the particular speech linked, he read and then spoke almost line by line.

Canelek · Post by **Canelek** » February 10, 2008, 11:20 pm

I'll vote for a unicorn over another religious nutjob.

Midnyte_Ragebringer · February 10, 2008, 11:31 pm

There's no unicorns running this year.

Canelek · Post by **Canelek** » February 10, 2008, 11:55 pm

In that case, Obama is looking pretty good.

Asheran Mojomaster · February 11, 2008, 3:53 am

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2008/02/ ... 3759.shtml

"(AP/CBS) Illinois senator Barack Obama finished a series of weekend primary and caucus contests undefeated as he bested Hillary Clinton in Maine today, according to CBS News estimates.

Obama’s victory in the Maine caucuses follow on the heels of his Saturday sweep in which he won Louisiana’s primary contest as well as caucuses in the states of Washington and Nebraska.

His winning margins ranged from substantial to crushing. In Maine, he led 59 percent to 40 percent with 99 percent of the precints reporting. In Louisiana, Obama defeated Clinton, 57 percent to 36 percent. He won in Nebraska by a 68 percent to 32 percent margin and in Washington 68 percent to 31 percent.

Obama's victory in Maine -- and the ease with which it came -- actually exceeded expectations, even though he swept the caucuses held on Super Tuesday. Clinton had the backing of the state's governor, John Baldacci, and its proximity to New Hamsphire and Massachusetts, both of which Clinton has already won this year, led some analysts to expect a close race.

Even Obama's own campaign said they didn't expect to win Maine, according to a document the campaign said was accidentally leaked earlier in the week.

In the delegate chase, Obama has pulled ahead of Clinton, even when the support of uncommitted super delegates is figured in. According to CBS News estimates, Obama holds a razor-thin lead with 1,134 delegates overall to 1,131 for Clinton.

The results in Maine came in the wake of a shake-up on the Clinton campaign. Sunday afternoon, Clinton campaign manager Patti Patti Solis announced she was stepping down from that post. She will be replaced by senior advisor and longtime Clinton confidant Maggie Williams."

So Obama takes the lead even WITH super delegates counted (Clinton has over 100 more than him), and Clinton's campaign manager steps down. Great news, and if he can keep this up he has the nomination locked. If he starts getting far enough ahead of her the supers will swap and push him over the top.

Siji · Post by **Siji** » February 11, 2008, 2:29 pm

Clinton will cry soon and that'll cinch the vote for her.