[bane]

I found this video over on FBMG's forum and thought it was pretty interesting... it's a bit long (13 min.) but it makes a pretty solid case against Obama... if you guys are like me, you know too many who are in rapture with his excellent charisma and are ignoring the obvious... this video MIGHT break through to these people...

 

[divegeek]

I'm no Obama fan, but that video is terrible. It's loaded with half-truth, innuendo and flat-out lies. It's the sort of thing I expect the other side to put out. There's enough to dislike about Obama if you just stick to what he really says and believes, without poking fun at his middle name, trying to imply that he's Muslim (and what would be wrong with that if he was?), ascribe Wright's wacko ideas to him, or make up stuff like his supposed "refusal" to place his hand over his heart.

Sorry, but I don't think that video is going to do anything to change Obama's supporters minds; quite the opposite it's just going to convince them that Obama's opponents are dishonest dirtbags.

 

[bane]

ascribe Wright's wacko ideas to him, or make up stuff like his supposed "refusal" to place his hand over his heart.

Maybe I'm missing something... did Obama fail to place his hand over his heart that day or didn't he? Has he or has he not said that he "will not wear that pin" on his lapel??? Does he or does he not have a flag of Che in his campaign office??? Maybe I'm getting spoofed, but I was under the impression that these were all valid points.

How can one NOT ascribe Wright's idea to Obama when Obama has been a consistent church-goer for "17 years" at Wright's Church and knows full-well the type of thing Wright preaches. I did have one person say "well, I don't agree with everything my Church preaches but I still go"... true... but I sure hope you Church isn't preaching white-power hatred doctrine and racist anti-American propaganda... because if it is, and you are still going, in my mind you are guilty as charged I don't care what you say to the contrary... it's one thing to "not believe in tithing", for example, but still go... it's quite another to "not believe in racism" but still go and tolerate racist ideology.

 

[Paul]

Lets keep this thread nice.

I see both sides. Obviously the video was made with a certain SLANT to it. It won't change anybodies mind, but it will reinforce existing notions. Either as Swilden points out "that video is [not] going to do anything to change Obama's supporters minds; quite the opposite it's just going to convince them that Obama's opponents are dishonest dirtbags."

OR

People that already dislike Obama will dislike him even more.

I for one, dislike Obama to begin with. Very little in the video was new to me. IMO, Obama has put on a nice false front for a long time and the tower is starting to crumble around him. I for one, can't imagine anyone being a member of a church for 19 years and expecting people to belive that they didn't know what their minister believed and preached from the pulpit. I refuse to be that stupid and swallow that line. With the stuff that Reverend Wright has said since Obama disavowed him, it has gotten even worse for Obama.

 

[GeneticsDave]

:agree:
Thanks for the nice post PW.

 

[mchlwise]

it's one thing to "not believe in tithing", for example, but still go... it's quite another to "not believe in racism" but still go and tolerate racist ideology.

I don't think so. :dunno:

I don't think the tithing analogy is accurate, because there's an obvious prejudice (namely your own financial gain).

I think it's perfectly possible to disagree with a church's position on an issue and still attend. Many many gay people disagree with the LDS church's stand on homosexuality and still go, for example. If we ascribe Rev. Wright's views on Obama, we have to ascribe the LDS church's views on homosexuality on gay members... and I think that's ludicrous to do.

As far as his hand over his heart - he's said it's something he does sometimes and doesn't others. He's said it's not that important to him. If you want to vote against him because placing his hand over his heart isn't important, that's fine, but to imply that he's somehow disloyal to the country or the flag because he occasionally won't place his hand over his heart or say the pledge of allegiance is stretching it quite a bit.

 

[bane]

I apologize if my post came across "mean spirited"... I didn't mean it as such. I was just rebutting, but not trying to be a butt.

 

[Paul]

I apologize if my post came across "mean spirited"... I didn't mean it as such. I was just rebutting, but not trying to be a butt.

Your post was NOT "mean spirited" in any way. You have asked legitimate questions. I for one have been bothered for months about the hand over the heart issue. Placing your hand over your heart can not be a big deal to Obama, but to me it is a HUGE deal.

 

[doconix]

Obama did fail to put his hand to his heart. This bothered me quite a bit, so I read up on it. I read a quote from his campaign people that said he was being respectful by keeping his hands lowered in a respectful position. In other words, he specifically chose not to put hand over heart. I don't have the link here but I could find it if someone wants to dispute the story. The campaign felt you can respect the flag by doing a number of things, only one of which is putting your hand over your heart.

Sounded like a bunch of double-talk to me. The only alternatives I've seen to hand over the heart is the scout salute, cheer squads holding their fists over their hearts with elbow in air, or soldiers saluting.

On a side note, I've always been bothered that cheer squads get a "special" way to salute the flag. Scouts have a historical and valid reason to have their own salute -- they are probably the most respectful young people's organization to our flag in history. Military certainly have a right -- nothing more needs to be said about them. But cheer squads??? Am I missing some history here? On second thought, perhaps a cheer salute is what Obama should have done! At least it might have been proper.

 

[bane]

I think it's perfectly possible to disagree with a church's position on an issue and still attend. Many many gay people disagree with the LDS church's stand on homosexuality and still go, for example. If we ascribe Rev. Wright's views on Obama, we have to ascribe the LDS church's views on homosexuality on gay members... and I think that's ludicrous to do.

As far as his hand over his heart - he's said it's something he does sometimes and doesn't others. He's said it's not that important to him. If you want to vote against him because placing his hand over his heart isn't important, that's fine, but to imply that he's somehow disloyal to the country or the flag because he occasionally won't place his hand over his heart or say the pledge of allegiance is stretching it quite a bit.

You make a good point with the gay/LDS argument. I'm not totally sure I agree but I do see what you are getting at. I guess I would have to say that with the gay thing it's actually more similar to the tithing thing in that it affects YOU PERSONALLY (you hear them say "pay tithing" or "don't be homosexual" and you disagree and do it anyways. But hearing them preach hatred and bigotry and being able to tolerate that in your religious meetings... to me that's really a whole other issue. Maybe a better comparison would be to imagine a person religiously attending a rally every week for 17 years that was blatantly anti-Mormon and burned the Book of Mormon from the stage and then being asked to believe that that person is not, themselves, anti-Mormon... I just don't see it. Why would you put up with hearing that kind of hatred if you yourself didn't buy into it??? I think it's a stretch. With gay mormons it's different (I think... I assume... if I knew a gay mormon I would ask them). Their situation, again I think, is more like a pornography-addicted mormon. Both may believe in the Church but either think the Church is mis-guided on this particular issue or else they wrestle with what they themselves perceive as a sin but cannot bring themselves to correct it. Either way it's more of a personal/internal dillemma. But the hatred from the pulpit is an external issue where the listeners are being asked to condemn and hate other people.

It seems different to me.

As for the heart-over-the-hand thing... I don't expect him to do it out of some sense of obligation from a legal perspective or anything like that... but it does say a lot to me that it doesn't mean much to him. I mean, honestly, how hard is it to participate in that event??? It really shows me that he is either too lazy, too in-considerate or too dismissive and rude to not take 5 calories of energy and a few seconds of his time to show his respect for our country and for those who have died and are dieing for it. If I am going to put a man in charge of our nation's "fighting boys", by darned if I don't want to at least FEEL he respects what they are sacrificing.

 

[bane]

The only alternatives I've seen to hand over the heart is the scout salute, cheer squads holding their fists over their hearts with elbow in air, or soldiers saluting.

Actually, there is at least one other way that I'm aware of. It too, however, is military. I'm not sure about the other branches, I can only speak for the Navy. But when Navy are indoors (and thus, by regulation, un-covered) you are NOT to salute to anyone/anything. So, during procedures involving the flag a Sailor will stand at attention with their arms squarely at their sides and their hands balled into fists. Also, outdoors when they are in a group Sailors will convene in ranks at attention in the same manner and their senior-most member will be the only one to render a salute.

That's just a bunch of info. that's not all that valid to the discussion... I just thought you might find it interesting.

 

[GeneticsDave]

This is complete conjecture (so take it for what it's worth). What I have read from news sources (ugh) and other media is that Obama needed the black vote to become a Senator. In order get this he decided to join what he thought was the "blackest" church in Illinois. Whether Obama subscribes to the teachings of the Trinity United Church or is just using them for an "image", I still have issue with the topic. If he subscribes to Black Liberation Theology I invite him to make his views known and practice his freedom of speech - but I will not support him leading our country whilst being "spiritually" guided by this "theology." If he just used the Church to get advancement, that's shallow and reprehensible, but not surprising of any politician these days. Either way, there are so many reasons to doubt Obama's candidacy that I just don't understand how ANYONE can support him in the race.

Not that I like any candidate, but there are definitely grades of dislike and the candidates are ranked by how much I disagree with their views and policies. Can't we all just write in Ron Paul and get ourselves a decent president?

RON PAUL 2008!!!

 

[divegeek]

did Obama fail to place his hand over his heart that day or didn't he?

He did. On other occasions he has placed his hand over his heart. The video characterized it as a "refusal", which is a completely different kettle of fish from choosing a different (even if arguably less respectful) way to honor the flag during the anthem.

Has he or has he not said that he "will not wear that pin" on his lapel???

He has said that he will not. Oddly enough, I agree with his decision, though I don't know if I would agree with his rationale (because I don't know what it is). I think wearing the flag on your clothing is disrespectful of the flag. The flag on the sleeve of my Boy Scout uniform bothers me, actually, though I wear it because it's part of the uniform.

Does he or does he not have a flag of Che in his campaign office???

I just looked this one up. According to Obama's campaign, the flag was not in his official campaign headquarters but in an independently-funded volunteer office. They say they were disappointed by it and that the decorations in the office in no way reflect Obama's views. Personally, I'm inclined to believe that it wasn't the campaign's decision to put that flag there, whatever Obama may or may not believe, because I don't think they're that politically stupid.

How can one NOT ascribe Wright's idea to Obama when Obama has been a consistent church-goer for "17 years" at Wright's Church and knows full-well the type of thing Wright preaches.

I guess I bristle at the church connections primarily because I thought what Huckabee's suporters did to Romney over the LDS Church's beliefs was really nasty. Beyond that, GeneticsDave's speculation agrees with mine. I think Obama is a political animal and that for most of his career Wright's church was beneficial to him. Now it's a liability, and now he's publicly denounced Wright and distanced himself from the guy.

I should reiterate that I'm not trying to defend Obama, or his rather questionable choice of church, just pointing out that video is a seriously slanted piece of work. There is undoubtedly some truth in there, but there are so many things that I know to be debatable or even downright false in it that I wouldn't believe anything it says without verifying it elsewhere.

The bottom line for me is that I have a strong dislike for emotion-filled propaganda pieces no matter what they support or denounce. I have a similar problem with the common false pro-gun quotes often attributed to various founders, pro-McCain propaganda pieces that try to convince you that because he was a POW he deserves to be President, etc.

 

[mchlwise]

Maybe a better comparison would be to imagine a person religiously attending a rally every week for 17 years that was blatantly anti-Mormon and burned the Book of Mormon from the stage and then being asked to believe that that person is not, themselves, anti-Mormon... I just don't see it. Why would you put up with hearing that kind of hatred if you yourself didn't buy into it???

That's a valid point, and there's no doubt a concern that he "tolerated" his preachers remarks. Whether he actually agrees or disagrees only he knows, but he unquestionably attended regularly and tolerated the remarks without walking out.

Getting back to the hand over heart issue... I'm almost 40 and somewhat old-school. There are small, symbolic things that hold great meaning which are being lost more and more every day. Opening the door for a lady, getting out of the car and going to the door when you pick someone up instead of just honking, standing up to shake someone's hand, placing your hand over your heart. These are all signs of respect and culture and chivalry which are being eroded daily. I personally think they are important and miss them when they aren't done. BUT... the fact is that our society is changing and is being less cultured and less respectful. I'm sure Obama is not the only one who can take or leave placing his hand over his heart as a sign of respect. We're just talking about it because he wants to be president. Personally, I would like to see a president who IS cultured and respectful and takes these things seriously. This issue makes me tend to believe Obama will not be that kind of president if elected. It does not, though, tend to make me believe he is disloyal to our country or unpatriotic. Just not very respectful.

:dunno:

 

[bane]

mchlwise: I agree with your last post. It's sad, but true. I have noticed the same things you have (and I'm a similar age). That's why I have started to teach myself to address elders in public as "yes, Sir/Ma'am" and go out of my way to say "hello" to strangers I pass-by in public settings unless I'm occupied with something else (vice ignoring each other which is far more common).

As for Obama, I'm not necessarily questioning his patriotism so much as a pattern in his (and his wife's conduct) of disrespect for the American way. I do think they both want to be Americans but I just think they want to be in a radically different America.

 

[GeneticsDave]

Yes We Can

Yes We Shall

Enjoy :twisted: