Sen. Barack Obama

[SLCPUNK]

it's more than i can say for the lefties in these threads who claim to like this guy.   

I would be glad to discuss why I like him to somebody who wasn't so lazy.

[sandman]

it's more than i can say for the lefties in these threads who claim to like this guy.? ?

I would be glad to discuss why I like him to somebody who wasn't so lazy.

1. Insult the opposition.

2. Cop out.

Par for the course. 

booker - you said "oddly i suspected this" when i admitted i didn't know something. to me that's cocky.

here is a portion of Obama's speech where he criticized and gave advice to fellow Dems regarding religion...

"Democrats, for the most part, have taken the bait. At best, we may try to avoid the conversation about religious values altogether, fearful of offending anyone and claiming that ? regardless of our personal beliefs ? constitutional principles tie our hands. At worst, some liberals dismiss religion in the public square as inherently irrational or intolerant, insisting on a caricature of religious Americans that paints them as fanatical, or thinking that the very word ?Christian? describes one?s political opponents, not people of faith.

Such strategies of avoidance may work for progressives when the opponent is Alan Keyes. But over the long haul, I think we make a mistake when we fail to acknowledge the power of faith in the lives of the American people, and join a serious debate about how to reconcile faith with our modern, pluralistic democracy.

We first need to understand that Americans are a religious people. 90 percent of us believe in God, 70 percent affiliate themselves with an organized religion, 38 percent call themselves committed Christians, and substantially more people believe in angels than do those who believe in evolution."

[The Dog]

it's more than i can say for the lefties in these threads who claim to like this guy.   

I would be glad to discuss why I like him to somebody who wasn't so lazy.

1. Insult the opposition.

2. Cop out.

Par for the course. 

booker - you said "oddly i suspected this" when i admitted i didn't know something. to me that's cocky.

here is a portion of Obama's speech where he criticized and gave advice to fellow Dems regarding religion...

"Democrats, for the most part, have taken the bait. At best, we may try to avoid the conversation about religious values altogether, fearful of offending anyone and claiming that ? regardless of our personal beliefs ? constitutional principles tie our hands. At worst, some liberals dismiss religion in the public square as inherently irrational or intolerant, insisting on a caricature of religious Americans that paints them as fanatical, or thinking that the very word ?Christian? describes one?s political opponents, not people of faith.

Such strategies of avoidance may work for progressives when the opponent is Alan Keyes. But over the long haul, I think we make a mistake when we fail to acknowledge the power of faith in the lives of the American people, and join a serious debate about how to reconcile faith with our modern, pluralistic democracy.

We first need to understand that Americans are a religious people. 90 percent of us believe in God, 70 percent affiliate themselves with an organized religion, 38 percent call themselves committed Christians, and substantially more people believe in angels than do those who believe in evolution."

Yes, there are certainly some liberals who feel that way.  Does that mean ALL democrats or liberals do?  Please, thats just insulting.  And Obama's remarks are dead on if you ask me - but he is hardly addressing the Democratic "position on religion".  THERE ISN'T ONE!!!  Nor should there be.  Religion has no place in politics.  Your faith and your principles can, sure, they are welcome infact (except for when some politicians who claim to be super religious are corrupt and dirty at the core, but thats another thread...). 

The key words you should have highlighted are "SOME LIBERALS"....b/c its certainly not all of them.

[Booker Floyd]

booker - you said "oddly i suspected this" when i admitted i didn't know something. to me that's cocky.

Its not just "something," its something you essentially criticized Democrats for before admitting you didnt know.  I knew that when I asked you about it.  Perhaps its cocky, but your baseless implications about a vague, made-up Democratic agenda on religion is lazy at best and dishonest at worst. 

As for that Obama quote, it seems to me that hes speaking about some Democrats use of religious rhetoric (particluarly in electioneering), not their stance on religion.  I refer to my earlier post: its self-serving pandering, and its wrong.

[SLCPUNK]

1. Insult the opposition.

2. Cop out.

Par for the course. 

LOL, cop out of what?

Explaining why I like somebody? I already told you: you are lazy (don't read), and honestly not that smart. So why would I waste my time explaining why I like this guy? It your MO, you refuse to look anything up and then attack what you think may be, or attack silence. Very Jr. High at best. Then you come back and call me "chicken" if I don't respond.

Get a life.

[Surfrider]

1. Insult the opposition.

2. Cop out.

Par for the course.?

LOL, cop out of what?

Explaining why I like somebody? I already told you: you are lazy (don't read), and honestly not that smart.

And you're just brilliant.

You think you are soooooo superior.  What is your education level?

[Brody]

Cop out.

[Guns N RockMusic]

I hate the idea of appealing to authority for an argument, but there's something to be said about people with no higher education buying into alot of this conspiracy bullshit.  What makes matters worse is that these conspiracy wackos find people in academia to support these beleifs, but 9 times out  of 10, these so called experts have no experience in the field they're sponsoring, let alone tenure at an accredited university.  Alot of times you have to goto college to be dumb enough to believe in shit like Peta or other extreme views on Animal rights.  So it's a double edge sword.  But the one thing I've taken from my degree is to objectively analyze positions.  I don't toe any party line, but others here are staunch supporters of their respective parties and ideologies no matter how much they contradict themselves.

[Booker Floyd]

Alot of times you have to goto college to be dumb enough to believe in shit like Peta or other extreme views on Animal rights.

Or have a general sense of decency and compassion...

[Guns N RockMusic]

Alot of times you have to goto college to be dumb enough to believe in shit like Peta or other extreme views on Animal rights.

Or have a general sense of decency and compassion...

I'm all about compassion.  I love my dog more than anything else in this world.  You couldn't pay me an amount of money to intentionally harm him.  That being said, I said "extremist" views such as Peta, where they argue against any and all compainon pets.  I don't support animal cruelty, but let's define what cruelty actually means rather than throwing the word around.  Cruelty means taking pleasure from the intentional infliction of pain or suffering onto a sentient creature.  It doesn't mean working in a slaughter house or keeping wildlife numbers at bay by hunting.   Humans eat meat and since it's inefficient and not feasible for everyone to harvest their own food, we have created certain game (yes I say create because you can't tell me where chickens or cows roam freely in nature) to quickly process and meet the need for meat.  I'm not condoning clubbing seals for fancy fur coats or beating animals in laboratories.  Those are totally different issues, but people try to blend the two as one.

[Booker Floyd]

I don't support animal cruelty, but let's define what cruelty actually means rather than throwing the word around.  Cruelty means taking pleasure from the intentional infliction of pain or suffering onto a sentient creature.

Thats not what it means.  It simply means causing pain or suffering, especially deliberately and/or without pity. 

[Guns N RockMusic]

I don't support animal cruelty, but let's define what cruelty actually means rather than throwing the word around.? Cruelty means taking pleasure from the intentional infliction of pain or suffering onto a sentient creature.

Thats not what it means.? It simply means causing pain or suffering, especially deliberately and/or without pity.?

Although you essentially re-worded my own definition, look it up.? ?It clearly defines it as "enjoying the pain or distress of others."? With your definition, a doctor can be defined as cruel simply because the surgery he performs is painful.? It's more complex than that.? To be cruel you have to want to inflict pain and suffering.? On the contrary, most slaughterhouse are run to minimalize as much pain and discomfort as realistically possible.?

Let's say we enacted laws that only permitted range roaming cattle and chickens.? The cost of maintaining these ranches would be much more costly than "animal factories" which in turn would increase teh cost of the product.? Free roaming cattle meats already exist, and they're more exspensive.? So let's do a utility chart here.? The possible discomfort of some cattle by living in an animal factory or the starving or hunger of millions of people who can't afford the new cost of meat?? You're not going to find too many poor people champion against factory farms.?

[The Dog]

I don't support animal cruelty, but let's define what cruelty actually means rather than throwing the word around.  Cruelty means taking pleasure from the intentional infliction of pain or suffering onto a sentient creature.

Thats not what it means.  It simply means causing pain or suffering, especially deliberately and/or without pity. 

Although you essentially re-worded my own definition, look it up.   It clearly defines it as "enjoying the pain or distress of others."  With your definition, a doctor can be defined as cruel simply because the surgery he performs is painful.  It's more complex than that.  To be cruel you have to want to inflict pain and suffering.  On the contrary, most slaughterhouse are run to minimalize as much pain and discomfort as realistically possible. 

Let's say we enacted laws that only permitted range roaming cattle and chickens.  The cost of maintaining these ranches would be much more costly than "animal factories" which in turn would increase teh cost of the product.  Free roaming cattle meats already exist, and they're more exspensive.  So let's do a utility chart here.  The possible discomfort of some cattle by living in an animal factory or the starving or hunger of millions of people who can't afford the new cost of meat?  You're not going to find too many poor people champion against factory farms. 

I think this belongs in the PETA thread - unless Obama has a view on PETA? 

[sandman]

1. Insult the opposition.

2. Cop out.

Par for the course.?

LOL, cop out of what?

Explaining why I like somebody? I already told you: you are lazy (don't read), and honestly not that smart. So why would I waste my time explaining why I like this guy? It your MO, you refuse to look anything up and then attack what you think may be, or attack silence. Very Jr. High at best. Then you come back and call me "chicken" if I don't respond.

Get a life.

you make a post like this and then try to criticize someone's intelligence? 

i love these threads. 

and just a heads up, i don't think there's anything online that describes WHY you support obama. yes, i could spend hours researching obama's ideals, but that tells me nothing as to why you rate him A+.

but eveyone on here knew you wouldn't explain yourself. 

so we can drop this.

[SLCPUNK]

you make a post like this and then try to criticize someone's intelligence? 

Your actions speak louder than anything else.

You refuse to read about anything, yet ask questions and create your own answers. You have done this plenty of times in the past.

If I chose not to answer your questions you attack silence.

Seems pretty dumb to me.

I don't feel like taking part in it.

[sandman]

booker - you said "oddly i suspected this" when i admitted i didn't know something. to me that's cocky.

Its not just "something," its something you essentially criticized Democrats for before admitting you didnt know.? I knew that when I asked you about it.? Perhaps its cocky, but your baseless implications about a vague, made-up Democratic agenda on religion is lazy at best and dishonest at worst.?

As for that Obama quote, it seems to me that hes speaking about some Democrats use of religious rhetoric (particluarly in electioneering), not their stance on religion.? I refer to my earlier post: its self-serving pandering, and its wrong.

what are you talking about??

please point out where I made "BASELESS IMPLICATIONS", and/or "ESSENTIALLY CRITICIZED" the dems on something i don't know (i.e. religion).

cause if you're gonna call me "lazy" and "dishonest" you should at least have the decency to point out why.

[Booker Floyd]

what are you talking about??

please point out where I made "BASELESS IMPLICATIONS", and/or "ESSENTIALLY CRITICIZED" the dems on something i don't know (i.e. religion).

You lauded Obama because he has respect for religion.  I pointed out to you that nearly every Democrat does and you countered that Obama criticized Democrats stance on religion.  You effectively created a contrast between Obama (who respects religion) and other Democrats (who ostensibly dont) as well as a Democratic position on religion with which Obama disagreed.  You couldnt explain what that stance was.  So by bringing up that stance that you couldnt explain, you were either lazy (disinterested in thinking about what that stance was before posting about it) or dishonest (knowing you didnt know of any Democratic stance and asserting one exists anyway).

[sandman]

what are you talking about??

please point out where I made "BASELESS IMPLICATIONS", and/or "ESSENTIALLY CRITICIZED" the dems on something i don't know (i.e. religion).

You lauded Obama because he has respect for religion.? I pointed out to you that nearly every Democrat does and you countered that Obama criticized Democrats stance on religion.? You effectively created a contrast between Obama (who respects religion) and other Democrats (who ostensibly dont) as well as a Democratic position on religion with which Obama disagreed.? You couldnt explain what that stance was.? So by bringing up that stance that you couldnt explain, you were either lazy (disinterested in thinking about what that stance was before posting about it) or dishonest (knowing you didnt know of any Democratic stance and asserting one exists anyway).

nice try, bro. 

you're a fraud. keep trying to put words in my mouth. just be a man and admit you made a mistake.

read this clearly....i did not criticize the dems for something i didn't know. i didn't criticize them PERIOD. end of story.

you got cocky and insulted someone you were having a civilized discussion with - unfairly, as i've pointed out. i shouldn't be surprised coming from the left, but i thought you were better than that.

par for the course.