LDS Members Should Vote for Obama

[lilithu]

It looks like Obama was born in Kenya not America.

So according to you, the Democratic leadership is stupid enough that they would let the entire primary process go by without vetting the candidates to make sure their nomination would be constitutional. Obama was born in Hawaii. He has the birth certificate to prove it. These slanderous allegations are xenophobic crap.

 

[idea]

Yes, so do I. I lived in New York when it happened. I visited the Twin Towers when they were standing tall, and the smoldering site after wards. Numerous times. I have friends who were directly affected. I still remember the smell of burning jet fuel that lingered over the city for months. To this day, I cry when I see the Manhattan skyline and what's not there. So I do NOT!! appreciate your flippantly using pictures of the tragedy to further your insane hawkish agenda.

I remember where I was too. I was teaching a mixed class that contained Arabic students. It was a lab, everyone had it up on their computers. I don't hate Arabs, they invited me to their last Ramadan feast and I went…. Other students however hung up a sign stating “go home *******” it was rather touchy. I canceled class out of respect for all students who were from NY.

Do you think we should fight against terrorists? or do you think we should not fight at all? What is your solution?

 

[idea]

Obama was born in Hawaii.

The jury is still out.

"Even if Sen. Obama can prove his U.S. citizenship, Berg stated, citing the senator's use of a birth certificate from the state of Hawaii verified as a forgery by three independent document forensic experts, the issue of "multi-citizenship with responsibilities owed to and allegiance to other countries" remains on the table.

In the lawsuit, Berg states that Sen. Obama was born in Kenya, and not in Hawaii as the senator maintains. Before giving birth, according to the lawsuit, Obama's mother traveled to Kenya with his father but was prevented from flying back to Hawaii because of the late stage of her pregnancy, "apparently a normal restriction to avoid births during a flight." As Sen. Obama's own paternal grandmother, half-brother and half-sister have also claimed, Berg maintains that Stanley Ann Dunham--Obama's mother--gave birth to little Barack in Kenya and subsequently flew to Hawaii to register the birth.


link

 

[Magic Man]

I remember where I was too. I was teaching a mixed class that contained Arabic students. It was a lab, everyone had it up on their computers. I don't hate Arabs, they invited me to their last Ramadan feast and I went…. Other students however hung up a sign stating “go home *******” it was rather touchy. I canceled class out of respect for all students who were from NY.

Do you think we should fight against terrorists? or do you think we should not fight at all? What is your solution?

What does that have to do with anything? We should fight against terrorists who have proven themselves terrorists and our enemies. So, let's get Bin Laden, not Saddam Hussein. The solution is to attack the actual problem, rather than using a tragedy to justify a war that has nothing to do with said tragedy.

 

[lilithu]

The jury is still out.

Only in your mind.

"Even if Sen. Obama can prove his U.S. citizenship, Berg stated, citing the senator's use of a birth certificate from the state of Hawaii verified as a forgery by three independent document forensic experts,

Bull. Not only are you accusing the Dem leadership of stupidity, but also Obama of criminal dishonesty.

Try to understand this: just because someone says something, doesn't mean it's true.

Just because there is the claim that three experts said yadda, doesn't mean it's true.

And as we all know now (or most of us do anyway), just because the Bush administration claimed that Iraq had Weapons of Mass Destruction, doesn't mean it's true. Just because he claimed that Hussein was working with al Qaeda, doesn't mean it's true.

the issue of "multi-citizenship with responsibilities owed to and allegiance to other countries" remains on the table.

Even more bull. The Constitution says that the president must be born as U.S. citizen, not naturalized. It says nothing prohibiting dual citizenship. And to question his loyalty to this country is just xenophobic claptrap. My parents were immigrants to this country. I was born and raised here. You wanna question my love for my country? And only one of Obama's parents was an immigrant. If Obama had been born of a British father, would you be questioning his loyalty to the U.S.? Norwegian? Swiss?

What exactly constitutes an American in your mind?

 

[sputnik323]

Did you even watch the conventions? See what the delegates looked like? And the people who spoke? I sat thru both. At the DNC I saw people of all colors, and even people of different religions (based on what they were wearing). The RNC was whiter than a powdered sugar donut.

Saying that you're accepting of diversity and appointing a few token people is not the same thing as actually being accepting of diversity. Heck, I'm not even satisfied with a party that is willing to "accept" diversity; we should celebrate it.

I used the word "accept" because that is what the origional first post used. That dems were more accepting of diversity. All people should celebrate it.

The RNC convention looked like a powdered sugar donut not by the party's choice...

It is well known that the media and parties use camera angles and seating arangements to make a group apear a certain way. Obama didn't want to appear muslim so his campaign had some muslim dressed women moved out of their seats. And some cameras focused on some African American Vetrans at the RNC....

Was the obama campaign celebrating diversity when he had those muslim women moved out of the view of cameras?

 

[lilithu]

It is well known that the media and parties use camera angles and seating arangements to make a group apear a certain way.

So are you claiming that the RNC made the choice to look like a powdered sugar donut? Or are you once again accusing the media of a "liberal conspiracy."

It seems that every time the media gets a backbone and actually ventures to tell the truth, it gets accused of being liberal. Hmmm....

Was obama celebrating diversity when he had those muslim women moved out of the view of cameras?

Obama didn't do that, some of his staff did. And they apologized for it later. It was wrong.

The real question is, would Muslim women even be at a Republican rally?

 

[sputnik323]

So are you claiming that the RNC made the choice to look like a powdered sugar donut? Or are you once again accusing the media of a "liberal conspiracy."
It seems that every time the media gets a backbone and actually ventures to tell the truth, it gets accused of being liberal. Hmmm....
Obama didn't do that, some of his staff did. And they apologized for it later. It was wrong.
The real question is, would Muslim women even be at a Republican rally?

I realized his staff did, but couldn't edit it in time... but that still doesn't change the fact that they try to alter diversity perception.

Why is that the "real" question... I dont understand why people make diversity a political issue? Sure lets celebrate diversity, by why do we have to argue about who is more colorful and say the more colorful party is the better one only because they are more colorful.... It just sounds stupid to me...

If this election was different and the candidates were Colin Powell (who I think would make a great president) and Hillary Clinton for rep and dem.

This is what reps would talk about - Colin Powell is a great leader bla bla bla ... Hillary Clinton would weaken the military by bla bla bla

This is what dems would focus on - Colin Powell is a African American MAN do you think he could beat Hillary Clinton a White WOMAN?

For reps race has no place in politics today... Yes it had a central place in the past where people in the government was actively trying to opress a whole race (and it was the southern democrats who were doing that)

Which to you is more devisive and explotative? A group that makes race an political issue to draw in more voters? or one that doesn't?

 

[Father Heathen]

]Do you think we should fight against terrorists? or do you think we should not fight at all? What is your solution?

Yes we should be fighting terrorists and NOT be creating more of them with unjustified wars that fuel the very same hatred and hostilities that caused 9/11 in the first place. Neither Iraq nor Iran had/have anything to do with Al Qaeda (in fact both were hated by the Taliban and Osama). The only war relevant to terrorism is the one in Afghanistan. Like I said before, had we not wasted lives, resources and time in Iraq, perhaps we would've captured or killed Osama bin Laden by now.

 

[lilithu]

For reps race has no place in politics today... Yes it had a central place in the past where people in the government was actively trying to opress a whole race (and it was the southern democrats who were doing that)

You're whole argument is based on the assumption that racism doesn't exist any more, which you're wrong about.

And I really am continually amazed when people point to one or two or even three successful people of color and think that's proof that there is diversity. It's mind-boggling.

If you walked into a room and there were 100 chairs, 98 of which were red and 2 blue. And you happened to remark that "Gee, there doesn't seem to be many blue chairs in the room." And a person responded by pointing out to you the 2 blue chairs, what would you think of that?

 

[pwsoldier]

Do you think we should fight against terrorists? or do you think we should not fight at all? What is your solution?

I'm in the Army Reserves and I'm 100% in favor of fighting terrorists. The funny thing though is that removing Hussein from power actually enabled terrorism rather than help to defeat it. Hussein was a monster, but he was a monster to everyone. Islamic radicals were outlaws under the Hussein regime. By removing him, we removed the iron fist that was keeping the flood back. But of course we didn't think of that when we went in. It didn't occur to us that "liberating" Iraq would mean liberating the radicals as well. Whoops.

 

[lilithu]

But of course we didn't think of that when we went in. It didn't occur to us that "liberating" Iraq would mean liberating the radicals as well. Whoops.

It didn't occur to Bush Jr, Cheney, and Rumsfeld. It did occur to Bush Sr, which is why he didn't "liberate" Iraq in the first Gulf War. And I'm sure that it occurred to at least some military advisers the second time around, except that the administration refused to hear anything other than what they wanted to hear.

Thank you, btw, for your service.

 

[Kcnorwood]

. Hussein was a monster, but he was a monster to everyone. Islamic radicals were outlaws under the Hussein regime. .

Just who do you think put Hussein in office? Same thing is going to happen if MCcain wins his party is going to make sure that the next person put in office over there is under thier control.

 

[jonny]

Did you even watch the conventions? See what the delegates looked like? And the people who spoke? I sat thru both. At the DNC I saw people of all colors, and even people of different religions (based on what they were wearing). The RNC was whiter than a powdered sugar donut.

Saying that you're accepting of diversity and appointing a few token people is not the same thing as actually being accepting of diversity. Heck, I'm not even satisfied with a party that is willing to "accept" diversity; we should celebrate it.

I noticed the same thing, and it kind of made me proud that the reforms my great-aunt fought so hard for as McGovern's campaign manager and and as chair of the DNC have stuck in the party, even if I don't consider myself a Democrat. I don't know if they still require equal representation from minorities at the convention, but there is an obvious difference between the Democrat and Republican conventions.

 

[lilithu]

Just who do you think put Hussein in office? Same thing is going to happen if MCcain wins his party is going to make sure that the next person put in office over there is under thier control.

Did you see the story that just broke about the Bush administration spying on the current Iraqi prime minister - the guy who we claim is a close ally?

Bush spies monitored Iraqi allies, Woodward book says - Middle East, World - The Independent

 

[sputnik323]

You're whole argument is based on the assumption that racism doesn't exist any more, which you're wrong about.

No my argument is not based on that assumption, did you read any of my other posts at all? I have repeatly stated that racism exists in ALL races, ALL SES, and ALL parties. My argument is that race is not a major POLITICAL issue for republicians. But since you obviously disagree, what is it that you want the Government to do that they already are not doing or should start doing? Should we create psychological tests to root out all racist and impose the death penalty? Do you want afermitavie action to get more power and replace all white people with people of color? The government is already protecting diversity, how far do you want it to go?

And I really am continually amazed when people point to one or two or even three successful people of color and think that's proof that there is diversity. It's mind-boggling.

If you walked into a room and there were 100 chairs, 98 of which were red and 2 blue. And you happened to remark that "Gee, there doesn't seem to be many blue chairs in the room." And a person responded by pointing out to you the 2 blue chairs, what would you think of that?

You totally missed the point, I was not saying, "the reps have a sucessful black guy, neener neener neener :ignore:" ... The point was if the reps had a black guy, and the dems a woman; left oriented people I know would make an issue out of race and gender. I dont know where you think Im trying to prove that there is diversity????

Your comment with the chairs again just seems to be the arguement that the party with more people with color is the better party just because they have more color... I guess if the tables were turned and reps had more diversity you couldn't vote for any policies you believed in...

OBAMA '08 the because he is from the more diverse party!!! WOOT go diversity, boo substance!

 

[lilithu]

No my argument is not based on that assumption, did you read any of my other posts at all? I have repeatly stated that racism exists in ALL races, ALL SES, and ALL parties. My argument is that race is not a major POLITICAL issue for republicians.

Sorry, I gave you too much credit. I thought you were saying that you thought racism isn't a problem anymore and that's why the GOP doesn't address it. But now I see that you know that racism is still a problem, but the GOP just doesn't give a damn. Thank you for clearing that up.

Your comment with the chairs again just seems to be the arguement that the party with more people with color is the better party just because they have more color...

No, you completely missed my point. I was saying that pointing to the two chairs that are the exception does not in any way address the issue of 98% of the room being the same. It does not address the disparity.

Having said that, I *do* think that the party that more closely resembles the actual demographics of America is the more *representative* party, yes.

 

[sputnik323]

Sorry, I gave you too much credit. I thought you were saying that you thought racism isn't a problem anymore and that's why the GOP doesn't address it. But now I see that you know that racism is still a problem, but the GOP just doesn't give a damn. Thank you for clearing that up.

Nice that you blanketly say there is still a Governmental problem with racism yet you mention nothing about my questions of what the Government can do more to mediate racism or even give an instance... can you not separate the difference between racist philosophies and racist govenment policies? guess I gave you too much credit :drool: ...

Maybe you can't understand differences between apearances and substance? Just because Obama is an African American does not mean he represents all African Americans... just ask Jerimiah Wright. You keep counting how many people of color are a part of the party you vote for... Ill keep trying to convince people that substance matters.

 

[lilithu]

Nice that you blanketly say there is still a Governmental problem with racism yet you mention nothing about my questions of what the Government can do more to mediate racism or even give an instance... can you not separate the difference between racist philosophies and racist govenment policies? guess I gave you too much credit :drool: ...

I ignored your questions because they were irrelevant. We are talking about the startling lack of color in the GOP, not how the govt can make institutional changes that would improve class disparities based on race.

Maybe you can't understand differences between apearances and substance? Just because Obama is an African American does not mean he represents all African Americans... just ask Jerimiah Wright. You keep counting how many people of color are a part of the party you vote for... Ill keep trying to convince people that substance matters.

Oh bother. It's you who doesn't understand. Again you point to one person and think that actually says something. I didn't even mention Obama. Just looking at the audience/delegates at the DNC versus the RNC, one can see a HUGE difference. If your party actually had substance that actually spoke to the diversity of colors, orientations, ethnicities and religions that IS America, you'd think that it would be able to attract more than just white conservative Christians.

 

[sputnik323]

I ignored your questions because they were irrelevant. We are talking about the startling lack of color in the GOP, not how the govt can make institutional changes that would improve class disparities based on race.

I use one instance to make a point, while you use blanket statements... the world is a little more complex than stating glittering generalities.
You say diversity is political issue, so Im wondering how? thats why the question was related. For example what would you suggest to improve class disparities based on race? How long will the DNC promise diverse poplutations all kinds of things and not deliver on them to keep them voting democrat?

Oh bother. It's you who doesn't understand. Again you point to one person and think that actually says something. I didn't even mention Obama. Just looking at the audience/delegates at the DNC versus the RNC, one can see a HUGE difference. If your party actually had substance that actually spoke to the diversity of colors, orientations, ethnicities and religions that IS America, you'd think that it would be able to attract more than just white conservative Christians.

Seeing that Obama is the topic of this fourm it makes sense to me...
So... in your own words, because America is diverse, only a diverse party would represent its interests. Applying your logic, lets pretend your Japanese... because using other people to make a point seems to go right past you... Aparently you believe that being Japanese all other Japanese people think like you, and would only represent your interests... All non-japanese people would not.

But just as each Japanese person is different, diversity cannot be lumped in together. Your putting people into categories based on race, which is the same thing racists do. Not all women are pro-choice, not all African Americans believe in the DNC platforms.
Because the DNC platfroms speak to race just reinforces the idea that they are buying votes for making race a political issue.
Transending racial politics may be one reason the RNC is less diverse.

oh.. and could you remind me how the proportions of the color of skin at a convention deals with substance not APPEARANCE? just one policy maybe... at least?