Suddenly I like him even more. Can we just elect him and get it over with?
Edit: It's the video I'm intending to link to. It's a 40 minute speech on politics and religion given by him... umm... I'm not sure where. It's very good though. Make sure you have unbroken time to watch it, cause he's pretty thorough in making his point. I'm still listening to it.
Posts: 3295 | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Very thought provoking. I like his explanation of his policies. I've yet to see a politician that can separate his religious and political positions so successfully. He may very well get my vote.
Posts: 4229 | Registered: Dec 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote: We would do so because we don’t hear what Abraham hears; we don’t see what Abraham sees – true as those experiences may be. And so the best we can do is act in accordance with those things that we all see and what we all hear.
That's just...awesome to hear from a presidential candidate, especially from one that stands such a good chance of being elected.
He'd have to do something pretty bad at this point not to get my vote.
Posts: 1945 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Wow, that was so great! I love that guy. I really hope we can elect him. He's intelligent. He doesn't talk down to the American people. He's wise. I haven't had so much hope for the political process in the U.S. in decades. Posts: 6246 | Registered: Aug 2004
| IP: Logged |
I have to say that I haven't been following the primary candidates much. I think they all jumped the gun on getting in the race and I just didn't want to hear 2 years worth of campaigning. But I have recently decided to start taking a look and this guy...well, I don't know if he means what he says but I hope so. I really hope so. What he says is true, well thought out, intelligent, and in not pedantic.
I do, of course, need to give the other candidates a fair chance but I have rarely seen a politician impress me this way. They've got their jobs cut out for them.
Posts: 2392 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
He already had my vote. He has for awhile. I've read one of his books, seen him on television, everything.
This man is what we've needed all along, if he's not lying. If he's as he seems, this guy is the one, the one who's real. He's legitimate, he's real, he's not just some politician. He's... the best I've ever heard of, and the answer to all the prayers I'd have given if I still believed in God.
Posts: 1577 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I'm a bit less messianic on the topic of Obama. I've been dismayed by the fact that, when pushed in debates, he falls back on the same meaningless pap the other leading candidates use. I think he's playing it unnecessarily safe, since it's precisely his willingness to be candid about his conscience that makes him appealing to people.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
Take a look at the YouTube debates Tom. He definitely didn't do that in those debates. I'm hoping it was just the early debates that caused it, he was unsure of himself but is now gaining confidence.
Posts: 3295 | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
My Senator rocks! (Both of them, actually - and my Representative.)
Even more please to say that I have voted for Obama twice (not in the same election despite being in Cook County).
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Someone some up. I generally won't watch videos on line unless they're something that really grabs my attention. We really need to be moving away from videos. They take too long to load, even on a fast machine, and are frequently laiden with commercials and take too long to get to the point. Reading is a MUCH faster medium.
Posts: 7085 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Kwea: He is a very good speaker.
Yes, he is. If I recall correctly (and I don't remember right now how I know this) he had to overcome a serious stuttering problem as a child. Which makes this even more impressive.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote: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?
What a great line! I will quote it quite liberally from now on.
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by The Pixiest: Someone some up. I generally won't watch videos on line unless they're something that really grabs my attention. We really need to be moving away from videos. They take too long to load, even on a fast machine, and are frequently laiden with commercials and take too long to get to the point. Reading is a MUCH faster medium.
You should read the first couple chapters of the new Al Gore book. Reading vs. Watching/Hearing has huge differences in how our brains receive and process information. I thought it was fascinating to see how public perception has changed in the years since reading ceased to be the primary medium for getting our information. When we read the information, it goes to the part of our brain where we logically process and think it out. When we hear or see the news on tv or radio, it tends to go more to the emotional parts of our brain, and we're a lot more susceptible to irrational emotional responses, which is why Bush's terror speeches for so long were so effective. Studies have also shown that sympathetic pain, feeling pain that someone else actually experienced, can be virtually identical in the brain to the real pain. Your brain sometimes will, for example, when watching someone get hit in the leg, sometimes fire the same neurons in your head that would fire if it was YOU getting hit in the leg, and when we watch TV and see painful images of say war or 9/11, we relive those moments, or live them vicariously, as if they were actually happening.
I'd love to get my hands on all the studies used to reach these conclusions, it's fascinating stuff.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Lyr: I get almost all my news from reading rather than watching. But I'm not going to read Al Gore any more than I'm going to watch a Michael Moore movie. I don't want that nonsense in my brain any more than I want Newsmax in my head.
Posts: 7085 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:But I'm not going to read Al Gore any more than I'm going to watch a Michael Moore movie.
So what you are saying is that you read Al Gore's writings on a constant basis, while playing any one of Mr. Moores several documentaries? Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Pixie -- the cliff notes version doesn't do an ounce of justice to the speech. The fact that you can read it and come out with nothing more than a bit of waffling over death tax is proof that you (and indeed the article you read) missed the point entirely. The speech mentioned issues, but it wasn't about the issues themselves. Rather, it was about an approach to discussing the issues that both respected the role of religion in inspiring our convictions and asked that people of faith also look to what everyone can see and hear in making policy.
His boundaries are fair. He ridiculed those who would not let voluntary prayer groups meet in schools.
I could go on, but I don't want to mess it up. The point is -- read the transcript or watch the video. Little snippets and a summary aren't the real thing.
Edited to add: I've never met a politician who sees eyes to eye with me on every issue. I never expect to. What impressed me about Obama's speech is that his approach to the issues seemed fair and reasoned. I'd much rather take my chances with someone who is fair but who disagree with many of my own conclusions than the alternative -- someone who agrees with me on more issues but is pigheaded, dogmatic, and uncompromising in nature.
Posts: 2392 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by The Pixiest: Lyr: I get almost all my news from reading rather than watching. But I'm not going to read Al Gore any more than I'm going to watch a Michael Moore movie. I don't want that nonsense in my brain any more than I want Newsmax in my head.
Its definitely important to avoid reading anything written by someone you disagree with. Particularly when you are zealously committed to avoiding the truth.
Posts: 12591 | Registered: Jan 2000
| IP: Logged |
My mind just conjured up a whole mini-movie of Dick Cheney dying and, at his direction, being buried in a huge, gold and gem filled pyramid constructed in the middle of the National Mall and them Barak Obama, in full Indiana Jones gear, breaking into it and stealing the prize items.
Heck, now I'm voting Indy in '08.
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Kwea: It was worth it to hear him say it, and even stumble a bit, in his own words.
He is a very good speaker.
Which is why I generally prefer to read speeches rather than listen to them. A charismatic speaker can too easily manipulate.
Posts: 12591 | Registered: Jan 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:Which is why I generally prefer to read speeches rather than listen to them. A charismatic speaker can too easily manipulate.
True, but I don't think he's manipulating when he says what he says in this speech. Go ahead and read it, and if you like what he says then watch it cause I think the way he says it is also fairly important.
Posts: 3295 | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
A charismatic writer can also be manipulative...and politicians do hire the best to write their speeches. I often wonder what part of what a candidate says is what the speech writer says. That would be a powerful position, really.
Anyway, I'm not sure that reading a speech will work because it may just be the speech writer.
Posts: 2392 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Speech writers don't generally come up with the ideas in the speeches, if the speaker isn't writing his own speech, generally they give their ideas and what they want in the speech to the writer who punches it up, and it goes back and forth until you get the final project, but as time goes on you'd probably see less and less actual interaction with the speaker if they work together for a long time, which is why you see so many Bush speeches sound like reruns probably.
I watched the video, absolutely amazing speech. I've been stuck between Hillary and Obama for awhile, and I've been thinking that some combination of the two of them would be a great ticket, and now I'm leaning heavily towards Obama/Clinton. I still like Hillary, but I think she's plateaued, whereas Obama continues to impress.
Pix -
Wow, don't know what to tell you. Gore sources everything he says in that book, and it's not primarily about the environment. I'm surprised to hear anyone really equate Michael Moore with Al Gore, but if you really think that, for whatever reason, there's probably not much point in talking with you about it.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
Blayne Bradley
unregistered
posted
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots:
quote:Originally posted by Kwea: He is a very good speaker.
Yes, he is. If I recall correctly (and I don't remember right now how I know this) he had to overcome a serious stuttering problem as a child. Which makes this even more impressive.
Holy crap it was Obama on that episode of House!
IP: Logged |
quote:Its definitely important to avoid reading anything written by someone you disagree with. Particularly when you are zealously committed to avoiding the truth.
If I thought that way I wouldn't come to hatrack.
Posts: 7085 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:See any similiarities? The dead don't NEED it. It's ok to take from them.
I'm a little confused. It is not common in my experience for people to be buried in tombs containing the bulk of their wealth. Generally, they tend to leave it to other people to inherit.
Is this not the case in your experience Pix?
Obama hasn't struck me as the type of candidate who is planning to break into people's wealth laden mausoleums to steal what they were buried with, but if we really are having a rash of people doing this, thus removing that wealth from our economy, I could see how some sort of steps might seem necessary. I'd have to think about this issue further before, as I am just being made aware of it now.
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
I understood Obama to mean that the people receiving the estates didn't need it - not that the dead didn't need it. We don't generally bury wealth with people (except for pharaohs, maybe). The "handful of folks" refers to the very wealthy, not to dead people.
edited to add: I am slow today. In other words, "what they said".
quote:Hmm... He things estate taxes are a good thing. I could never vote for someone willing to rifle through the pockets of the dead.
He's a grave robber.
Personally, I'd rather take money from somebody who did nothing to earn it (the person receiving the inheritance), than somebody currently alive and earning. I consider myself a Libertarian and I think the estate tax fits perfectly within that philosophy.
Posts: 1947 | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
IS Pix talking about people receiving inheritances? That doesn't seem to make any sense to me with her remarks about grave robbing and stealing from the dead.
Goodness knows, that would be a relief. I was just worrying about how we would go about protecting the government from getting sued if they didn't adequately prepare its grave robbing workers for things like sliding wall traps, spiked pits, and mummy attacks.
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
The estate tax is levied on the estate or, more accurately, the right of the deceased to transfer property upon death, not those receiving the inheritance.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Dag, it seemed from this: "The dead don't NEED it. It's ok to take from them." That Pix thought Obama was refering to the dead when he said: "a trillion dollars being taken out of social programs to go to a handful of folks who don't need and weren't even asking for it."
I'm curious to know what you thought about Obama's speech, especially the part near the end when he talked about raising the level of discourse on the topic of abortion. I think it is a hopeful thing.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Dag, it seemed from this: "The dead don't NEED it. It's ok to take from them." That Pix thought Obama was refering to the dead when he said: "a trillion dollars being taken out of social programs to go to a handful of folks who don't need and weren't even asking for it."
Pixiest's point is twofold: 1) that the dead are being denied the ability to control what happens to their wealth after death and 2) the justification for this is, at least in part, that the money is not needed.
The first point is what most strongly relates this to grave robbing, not the second. The identity of the person not needing it is clearly going to change based on how the deceased would have implemented the ability to control what happened to their wealth after death.
Pixiest was not talking about people receiving inheritances, but about the interference with the wishes of the dead.
Let's dissect the metaphor more carefully.
Case 1: X puts all his money his tomb prior to death. It is X's wish prior to death that the money stay in his tomb for all time. Someone comes in after X has been interred in the tomb and takes some of the money, justifying the act with "X doesn't need it."
Case 2: Y puts all his money in his bank prior to death. It is Y's wish prior to death that the money be given to Z. Someone comes after Y dies before the money is given to Z and takes some of it,* justifying the act with "Z doesn't need it."
The change from X to Z isn't fatal to the metaphor.
It should be noted that I do not agree with Pixiest's views in this matter. I simply feel she is being very much misunderstood and treated badly by some of the people misunderstanding her.
*Just to be clear, this is the estate tax.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:I'm curious to know what you thought about Obama's speech, especially the part near the end when he talked about raising the level of discourse on the topic of abortion. I think it is a hopeful thing.
I haven't had time to read it yet, unfortunately.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Listen to it as well, Dag. It was worth the investment in time as far as I was concerned, and I usually don't care for political speeches.
It almost seemed like he was talking right to me, saying things I have been saying for years. I have rarely felt any sort of positive connection with a political speech, myself.
Posts: 15082 | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Goodness, Pix! I really thought that there was some confusion about what Obama meant. I didn't get the "wishes" part at all. It was not my intent to be mean, just to clarify.
To me, going against someone's wishes - especially since they are aware of the estate tax when they make those plans - is considerably less ghoulish than grave robbing. Also less greedy as it would be going to social programs rather than (as in the Les Miserable case) for personal gain.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
As an aside, Frederick Forsythe wrote a great short story called "A Careful Man" (in the book "No Comebacks") to which the estate tax issue is relevant. A very good read.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
kmb: Thenardier and Obama are mearly a difference of scale. Thenardier took a little and gave it to one poor person (himself.) Obama seeks to take from many and use the proceeds to buy votes from many poor people.
Both are evil people seeking personal gain. Obama is worse due to simple numbers.
I feel sorry for Obama's victims. The people who worked their whole life for a small business to have it broken and sold to pay the estate taxes. Farmers... anyone who owns a house in the bay area...
All to buy votes. To pay people not to work.
Posts: 7085 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Or maybe to feed, house, educate people and to care for the sick. I'm not sure where you are getting the "buying votes" thing.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Honestly, I did not misunderstand pixie's "metaphor" at all. I'm not really sure if that's the right word. It was a rather brutal and unqualified attack without anything to back it up.
Personally, I think it's best to say what you mean and to back up your arguments with facts.
Posts: 2392 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
Blayne Bradley
unregistered
posted
Just goes to show when you can't find fault with a politicians argument they resort to attacks on character.
To say that Obama is evil is like saying George W Bush is an Ivy League good intentioned intellectual fighting for the common good and completely and utterly aware of the situation at hand.
If I was American I would vote for Obama.
IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots: Or maybe to feed, house, educate people and to care for the sick. I'm not sure where you are getting the "buying votes" thing.
I believe the implication is that the recipients of social assistance who stay on social assistance because it's there rather than because they can't work will vote for Obama because he supports estate taxes as one mechanism for redistributing wealth to spend on the poor via social programs -- and, indeed, he phrased it as inheritances taking money from social programs, which presumably implies that he thinks the government is entitled to that money and entitled to do with it what it wishes.
Since Pix is a strong libertarian and is opposed to progressive taxation, she sees it the other way around, and feels strongly enough about it that she's willing to call it grave-robbing.
Personally, though I support estate taxes, I wouldn't have phrased it as though someone passing on worldly goods postumously via a will is taking the government's money -- other than in the sense that it was the government that allowed the money to be printed in the first place, which doesn't necessarily entitle the government to spend it.
Posts: 10886 | Registered: Feb 2000
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
