quote:Originally posted by DarkKnight: Please explain her plummeting loss of support from the voters weeks before the election and her utter humiliation on voting day. It makes no sense to say that Scozzafava was going to be the clear winner when she was the clear loser. Hoffman went from a virtual unknown to close to winning. Owens won the election. Scozzafava went from the most known with a comfortable marging to a laughing stock.
DarkKnight you seem to be approaching all of this pretty reasonably but I think you really want to stand back and concede some ground on this one. What you wrote here shows some misunderstanding of how profound an impact a vote split has in a winner take all scenario.
Like
"It makes no sense to say that Scozzafava was going to be the clear winner when she was the clear loser."
Do you see why this statement does not hold much water? You are saying that because the outcome was a Scozzafava loss, it makes no sense to indicate that she could have won.
This completely ignores the changing condition of Hoffman not being in the race, which is what has been talked about.
Right now a lot of conservatives are trying to convince themselves that Scozzfava was "unelectable" in order to convince themselves that this was a triumph after all. It's false. Do not buy into the shoddy reasoning.
Posts: 805 | Registered: Jun 2009
| IP: Logged |
quote: What are you backing this up on? That you individually would have voted to Owens? Great! Now, do you have something stronger than individual anecdote? I do!
The Siena, CFG, R2000 and McLaughlin groups each did tabulations both running up to and after the election that showed that in all likelihood, had there not been a Republican schism, Dede was favored above a margin of error. These are not 'early polls,' you don't get to wave them away in order to continue backpedaling on your original and indefensible sentiment that she was "unelectable."
quote: Among those who’ve seen or heard a commercial for Scozzafava, 45 percent say it makes them less likely to support her, compared to nine percent who say it makes them more likely. Owens’ commercials have had a less negative effect with 28 percent saying it makes them less likely to support him and 20 percent saying it makes them more likely. Hoffman’s commercials have turned on as many voters, 29 percent, as they have turned off, 27 percent.
quote: “A month of campaigning will give the candidates more time to become known to voters and for voters to learn the positions of all the candidates. To date, most voters have not seen or heard commercials for any of the candidates. That will certainly change over the next four weeks. There are many dynamics yet to play out in this race, which is being watched by political insiders across the nation,” Greenberg said.
quote: The poll of 300 likely voters showed Republican Dede Scozzafava at 20%, Conservative Party candidate Doug Hoffman at 17%, Democrat Bill Owens at 17% and 45% undecided, within the poll's margin of error of +/- 5.66%.
The poll also asked "Would you prefer your next member of Congress be a liberal Democrat, a liberal Republican, or a Conservative party candidate who would align himself with Republicans in Congress?" The Conservative Party candidate was selected by 36% of respondents, compared to 31% for the Democrat and 18% for the Republican.
"Dede Scozzafava's liberal record that includes support for card check legislation, Gov. Paterson's budget and President Obama's stimulus bill makes her very vulnerable," concluded Basswood Research pollster Jon Lerner, who conducted the poll for the group
quote: A recent poll released by Club for Growth shows a statistical three-way tie between Hoffman, Scozzafava, and Owens. When asked, “Would you prefer your next member of Congress be a liberal Democrat, a liberal Republican, or a Conservative party candidate who would align himself with Republicans in Congress,” respondents selected the Conservative by 36%, compared to 31% for the Democrat and 18% for the Republican.
“Doug Hoffman has an excellent chance of winning this race,” concluded Chocola. “He offers New Yorkers a clear choice between electing a typical Albany politician, another liberal Democrat, or a principled leader who will fight for policies that help to grow our economy and put our nation back on the right track.”
quote: Do you see why this statement does not hold much water? You are saying that because the outcome was a Scozzafava loss, it makes no sense to indicate that she could have won.
This completely ignores the changing condition of Hoffman not being in the race, which is what has been talked about.
EDIT: I can see why people would make too much of that statement looking at it as a standalone statement. :EDIT Statements like this also ignore what happened in the race, and how Scozzafava ran her campaign. As quoted above, when your own campaign ad makes 45% less likely to vote for you with only 9% more likely to vote for you then you are running a terrible campaign. I don't understand why people are missing this. The more she campaigned, the more people turned against her.
quote: Right now a lot of conservatives are trying to convince themselves that Scozzfava was "unelectable" in order to convince themselves that this was a triumph after all. It's false. Do not buy into the shoddy reasoning.
Scozzafava was a very poor choice to run against Owens. She was picked because the Republican heads believed she was close in her political beliefs to Owens and therefore she must be close to what the voters want. They failed to understand that Owens is a much better politician and campaigner than Scozzafava. NY-23 was not a triumph for Hoffman supporters. He lost. Had he won then it would have been a triumph but he didn't. The lesson to learn is that the parties should have a primary and allow the voters to choose their candidate.
Posts: 1918 | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged |
are you even looking at the quotations you're providing here? Are they supposed to contradict my position? Because they don't. One of them even straight-up shows Scozzafava in a superior position versus both Hoffman and Owens even given Hoffman's vote split of the conservative demographics.
Your counterargument is actually pretty boldly confirming what I'm saying unless, technically, one wants to make the argument that more of scozzafava's votes are being pilfered from owens than hoffman's votes are being pilfered from scozzafava (hint: they are not)
I mean, thanks, it does help me out here, but, I'm pretty sure you're not doing what you think you're doing or intend to do, here.
Also be very careful when relying so heavily on polls and Hopeful Supportive Commentary released by Club for Growth if you otherwise want to invalidate polls and other interpretations for their 'uselessness' on a whim. They don't release their crosstabs and they are an ideological group so their testable utility is limited.
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote: Are they supposed to contradict my position?
I'm using the quotes to reinforce my position. Especially quotes like the one showing the more Scozzafava campaigned, the worse she did. Her ads made 45% of the people who saw them less likely to vote for her. That has nothing to do with Hoffman, or Owens and everything to do with Scozzafava running a terrible campaign. I am reconfirming my position that at the start of the campaign Scozzafava may have held a slight lead in polls but as soon as the campaign started she caused herself to be taken out of the race.
quote: The Siena, CFG, R2000 and McLaughlin groups each did tabulations both running up to and after the election that showed that in all likelihood, had there not been a Republican schism, Dede was favored above a margin of error.
Can you provide links from those four groups that states, before and after the election results, without Hoffman in the race Dede would have won?
Posts: 1918 | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
There are three guest blogs by academic political scientists (are there any other kind) over at The Monkey Cage about the NY-23 election (I'd link them each separately, but the blog seems to be strictly in-line).
The division is similar to the discussion here: Marc Heatherington blames clueless movement Conservatives; Hans Noel faults the state GOP for nominating a too-liberal candidate and then Dede Scozzafava for party disloyalty in endorsing Owens; and David Karol blames the GOP for nominating Scozzafava, but then says once the nomination was made conservatives should have respected party unity.
The thing none of them try to do (at least explicitly) is predict how the election would have gone down had Hoffman stayed out, or Scozzafava not endorsed Owens, or if the GOP had nominated Hoffman in the first place. I understand both what Dark Knight is saying (you can't ignore the evidence of Dede Scozzafava's ineptitude and only focus on her pre- and early-campaign position) as well as what Samp and others are pointing out (you can't ignore Hoffman's impact on Scozzafava's support base and pretend that Hoffman's entry didn't affect her eventual loss).
No one can tell what would have happened, which is probably why Jhai's post rings true. We all take the lessons we choose from this. The one I like is the one David Karol gives: parties sometimes flub the nomination process, resulting in candidates you have to hold your nose to support; you should support them anyway.
Posts: 2926 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote: The one I like is the one David Karol gives: parties sometimes flub the nomination process, resulting in candidates you have to hold your nose to support; you should support them anyway.
Really? If your party nominated someone who you did not believe would represent your best interests, would you still vote for them out of party loyalty? You might still support your party's candidate because you are choosing the lesser of two evils but I would hope you would not support any candidate simply because they had the correct party affiliation next to their name.
Posts: 1918 | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Perhaps Karol is pointing out the difference between personal appeal and the platform. Sometimes the platform is more important. Certainly not always, but perhaps sometimes.
Posts: 9912 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by DarkKnight: If your party nominated someone who you did not believe would represent your best interests, would you still vote for them out of party loyalty? You might still support your party's candidate because you are choosing the lesser of two evils but I would hope you would not support any candidate simply because they had the correct party affiliation next to their name.
I would, out of party loyalty, support a candidate I personally opposed. That, to me, seems the point of having parties. If I felt the party had nominated someone I couldn't stomach, I would let party leaders know it not by revolting in the polling booth, but by writing them a letter, or talking to them in person, or attending party meetings, or some other method internal to the party. I think that strengthens the party and results in a better overall (including future contests) outcome, both for the individual and the group.
Posts: 2926 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:The followers of our founding principles of individual liberty and limited government may be extremely far to the right of Obama and Pelosi but it isn't the conservatives who have done the shifting. Strange world we live in when people who believe in our founding principles and the constitution are labeled extremists.
Hmmm. Following 225+ year old policies with out a bit of change is kind of the definition of conservative.
And if you can put Obama and Pelosi in one cubby-hole then yes, you are painting your picture very very right.
Obama is a moderate, which is why the Far Right is in such a state to kill moderation. He is anti-gay marriage, he is pro-war in Afghanistan, he is for many of the War on Terror national security measures that President Bush instituted, he has continued President Bush's efforts to limit the cost of the recession, but added fiscal responsibility to many of those getting the bail outs (which the rightist label as Socialism). He is a good Christian Church Going man, and you flag him as the most heathen of lefties.
And you wonder why those in the middle and the left don't take your arguments seriously.
Posts: 1941 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote: Are they supposed to contradict my position?
I'm using the quotes to reinforce my position. Especially quotes like the one showing the more Scozzafava campaigned, the worse she did. Her ads made 45% of the people who saw them less likely to vote for her. That has nothing to do with Hoffman, or Owens and everything to do with Scozzafava running a terrible campaign. I am reconfirming my position that at the start of the campaign Scozzafava may have held a slight lead in polls but as soon as the campaign started she caused herself to be taken out of the race.
She "caused herself to be taken out of the race?" Her dropping out of the race was a direct and unambiguous byproduct of the Hoffman campaign. It is hard to contest your position when it does not make any sense.
And, as i mentioned, your quotes do not reinforce your position. They talk about an ad, and then move straight on to reinforcing mine.
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:I would, out of party loyalty, support a candidate I personally opposed.
I guess this one sentence illustrates the difference in politics partisan types have between some independents. Or me at least.
Because I'm no more loyal to a political party than I would be to an auto mechanic. I vote the one's ticket and patronize the other's business only so long as I feel I'm best served by them. And that's the proper way of things, really. Even though we've gotten locked into this absurd two-party system that, in an odd twist on Cinderella, reverts from glimmering coach, team of horses, gown, and glass slippers into the pumpkin and mice come election season.
If a party wants my loyalty, they have to earn it. If they want my loyalty to the extent that I vote for a candidate I personally oppose? They get it by being extremely persuasive.
If more people did that, this country's politics wouldn't be such a mess.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote: The poll of 300 likely voters showed Republican Dede Scozzafava at 20%, Conservative Party candidate Doug Hoffman at 17%, Democrat Bill Owens at 17% and 45% undecided, within the poll's margin of error of +/- 5.66%.
The poll also asked "Would you prefer your next member of Congress be a liberal Democrat, a liberal Republican, or a Conservative party candidate who would align himself with Republicans in Congress?" The Conservative Party candidate was selected by 36% of respondents, compared to 31% for the Democrat and 18% for the Republican.
"Dede Scozzafava's liberal record that includes support for card check legislation, Gov. Paterson's budget and President Obama's stimulus bill makes her very vulnerable," concluded Basswood Research pollster Jon Lerner, who conducted the poll for the group
quote: A recent poll released by Club for Growth shows a statistical three-way tie between Hoffman, Scozzafava, and Owens. When asked, “Would you prefer your next member of Congress be a liberal Democrat, a liberal Republican, or a Conservative party candidate who would align himself with Republicans in Congress,” respondents selected the Conservative by 36%, compared to 31% for the Democrat and 18% for the Republican.
“Doug Hoffman has an excellent chance of winning this race,” concluded Chocola. “He offers New Yorkers a clear choice between electing a typical Albany politician, another liberal Democrat, or a principled leader who will fight for policies that help to grow our economy and put our nation back on the right track.”
What you are showing us indicates that Scozzafava would have won the district.
Posts: 805 | Registered: Jun 2009
| IP: Logged |
quote: What you are showing us indicates that Scozzafava would have won the district.
Why do we even have elections then? We should just take one early poll and that is who is elected. Just like Hillary Clinton is now our President because in early polls she had the nomination. Same thing with Corzine because he also lead in the polls in September.
Posts: 1918 | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote: She "caused herself to be taken out of the race?" Her dropping out of the race was a direct and unambiguous byproduct of the Hoffman campaign.
When your own campaign ads make almost half of the people who view them less likely to vote for you then your opponents do not have to work very hard to beat you.
Posts: 1918 | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by DarkKnight: When your own campaign ads make almost half of the people who view them less likely to vote for you then your opponents do not have to work very hard to beat you.
That really depends on whether those 40% had any inclination to vote for her in the first place.
Posts: 9866 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Apparently so. I have mentioned this as well as mentioning that for voters in the NY-23 district, voters had the highest approval ratings for Scozzafava. Pretty much was maintained right up until after her departure (endorsing the democratic candidate will do that, ho ho)
Hoffman's viability vis a vis Scozzafava peaked due to an influx of effective conservative support (Palin did give him a real good boost during the three-way) and he would have won had he not become a 'known quantity' so fast. Some are theorizing that the Glenn Beck taping was enough to axe his chances versus Owens, whose victory was a pretty good demonstration of the median voter theorem: both Owens and Scozzafava were far more representative of the district than Hoffman.
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote: Cool, you've managed to invent an argument that absolutely no one is making.
No one is making the claim that Scozzafava would have won based upon early polls?
No one is making the claim that polls have perfect predictive power and thus can be used in lieu of an election.
I know you were trying to be sarcastic, but the sentiment is boneheaded. Polls aren't elections. Polls can still be utilized to contradict statements like "Scozzafava was unelectable" by offering a methodological analysis of a person's tangible potential in an election.
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Darth_Mauve: Obama is a moderate, which is why the Far Right is in such a state to kill moderation. He is anti-gay marriage, he is pro-war in Afghanistan, he is for many of the War on Terror national security measures that President Bush instituted, he has continued President Bush's efforts to limit the cost of the recession, but added fiscal responsibility to many of those getting the bail outs (which the rightist label as Socialism). He is a good Christian Church Going man, and you flag him as the most heathen of lefties.
And you wonder why those in the middle and the left don't take your arguments seriously.
Even Obama wouldn't call himself a moderate. He uses the term progressive. In 2007 he was ranked the most liberal senator. National Journal rankings of both sides in 2007, before he even ran for president.
Thank you for proving my earlier point of the name game. He is the most extreme left of the left when it comes to his voting record. You're making the mistake of believing his campaign promises and failing to recognize that he is the president, not a dictator. If he didn't have to deal with the House and Senate, you would see something different.
Democrats run to the middle to win elections because this is a center right country. Obama is not a Moderate in any way. What he is, is a very politically astute person. He'd vote right along with Pelosi as a Senator, but as President he can sign Liberal legislation out of compromise and lay the blame on them. As a vet I understand the game....everyone loves the commanding officer, he's mister nice guy. Everyone hates the Executive Officer, he's a tyrant. What shallow minded sailors don't realize is the XO enforces the CO's policy.
"Good Church Going Man" - Black Liberation Theology is Marxist/Communist.
Continuing Policy? - Realizing that losing a war might be worse for his career than campaigning to end one.
Fiscally conservative? - Don't even go there. 2 Trillion dollar deficit anyone, and pushing for more government spending. Fiscal responsibility for the big/bad bankers? What's a million dollar bonus compared to 8 billion for ACORN or a 1.2 trillion dollar deficit. I suppose you applaud him when he announced he saved 500 million from a 2 trillion dollar debt he's responsible for. I don't fall for the 50% off sales at the jewelry store, one week after they raised prices 400%.
You bought him for the packaging, but have failed to realize what's inside.
quote:Democrats run to the middle to win elections because this is a center right country.
You keep saying this, and it's not true. It's based on a restive analysis of a Gallup poll from before the presidential election. Unfortunately, even polls from that time indicate supermajority populous support for progressive platforms. "center right country" hasn't been for a while now, apparently. Not when the median voter is on the progressive side of the platform and centerpieces of conservatism (P.A., bush tax cuts) get support in the mid-20's.
quote:The idea that America is a center-right country whose citizens are skeptical of, if not hostile toward, progressive candidates and policies has long been a staple of political commentary. There would be nothing problematic in journalists' relying on this notion if actual evidence existed to support it. The truth, however, is that in most policy areas, it is progressive ideas that enjoy majority support. At a time when Democrats control not only the White House and both houses of Congress but a majority of governorships and state legislatures, as well, the picture of America as a center-right country has become particularly hard to sustain.
The term "center-right" itself is based on questionable premises. It comes from the notion that combining the "right" -- self-described conservatives -- with the "center" -- self-described moderates (or in a partisan context, Republicans with independents) -- creates the center-right majority of the country. But on issue after issue, and in growing percentages over time, nominal independents or moderates increasingly mirror the opinions of nominal Democrats or liberals. The majority is center-left; it is the right that is isolated.
quote:"Good Church Going Man" - Black Liberation Theology is Marxist/Communist.
I'm going to be pretty direct and straightforward about this, because you've been shown wrong on this point before.
Obama isn't an adherent of Black Liberation Theology, and if you think he is, you're being an idiot.
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
The country is center right...the problem is center right voters aren't politically motivated. It takes a serious overreach to get the middle to the polls. The extremes, right and left, go to the polls. It takes an extreme leftist government that is overreaching to get the center motivated to show up and vote in large numbers. Ever look at the voter turn out? Who do you think normally shows up? The people that are seriously concerned on either edge, the outer quarter of voters. Centrists aren't motivated unless one fringe's belief is beginning to be imposed upon them. There is a historical rejection of those in power (left or right) during the mid term election following a president's first term. Whenever any party in power of all branches goes too far, they are rejected by the center. The center prefers a stalemate, less damage is done that way. How many laws do we need anyway? Do we really need people creating new laws and government organizations on a daily basis? Does our country and human nature change that fast? I think our founders had the right idea and we need to get back to that. Sometimes less is better, especially when it comes to government.
Posts: 1495 | Registered: Mar 2009
| IP: Logged |
quote:"Good Church Going Man" - Black Liberation Theology is Marxist/Communist.
I'm going to be pretty direct and straightforward about this, because you've been shown wrong on this point before.
Obama isn't an adherent of Black Liberation Theology, and if you think he is, you're being an idiot.
You're right. He isn't a follower of Black Liberation Theology Anymore. He dropped that when he left state politics. It worked well for him in south-side Chicago for 20 years and garnered him a lot of votes there. Once he entered the national stage he realized it wouldn't play. As I said, politically astute. I can't pretend to know what that man really is inside. He's been Muslim, Protestant, Athiest and Black Liberation Theologist....whatever suits the current situation.
Posts: 1495 | Registered: Mar 2009
| IP: Logged |
quote:I would, out of party loyalty, support a candidate I personally opposed.
I guess this one sentence illustrates the difference in politics partisan types have between some independents. Or me at least.
Because I'm no more loyal to a political party than I would be to an auto mechanic. I vote the one's ticket and patronize the other's business only so long as I feel I'm best served by them. And that's the proper way of things, really. Even though we've gotten locked into this absurd two-party system that, in an odd twist on Cinderella, reverts from glimmering coach, team of horses, gown, and glass slippers into the pumpkin and mice come election season.
If a party wants my loyalty, they have to earn it. If they want my loyalty to the extent that I vote for a candidate I personally oppose? They get it by being extremely persuasive.
If more people did that, this country's politics wouldn't be such a mess.
I think the reason politics are such a mess is because of independents abdicating their obligations to work within the coalitions that the parties represent. Consider the 1950s, a high point of moderate bipartisanship in the US; it was also a time when proportionally many more people were engaged in the two major parties and were 1) willing to put forth the effort to push the party from within and 2) unwilling to exit the party if they didn't get their way immediately. The rise of the independent voter has exactly coincided with the rise of partisanship and divisiveness.
My statement of willingness to vote for the party regardless of perfect agreement with an individual candidate is a reflection of a long-range view in which I favor the overall health of the party over the outcome of a single race. I think if more people took this view our democracy would become more representative, more moderate, and more reflective of society's true mores and values, because people are better able to affect the actions of the parties from within than from without.
Posts: 2926 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
When he was a child. His school records said he was an a follower of Islam when he went to school in Indonesia and had a Muslim father. I suppose anyone could argue that the child really doesn't believe whatever religion his/her parents follow and force the child to follow.
I hope you are right. I hope that he only played the Black Liberation game and played the extreme left game to get elected. Now he has a different game to play, a national game. He has to play to the middle or he'll be a one term president. I won't deny that I'm on the right but I prefer the middle over what his short record shows up to the election.
Posts: 1495 | Registered: Mar 2009
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by malanthrop: When he was a child. His school records said he was an a follower of Islam when he went to school in Indonesia and had a Muslim father. I suppose anyone could argue that the child really doesn't believe whatever religion his/her parents follow and force the child to follow.
No. Obama was never a muslim.
quote:"The allegations are completely baseless," said Akmad Solichin, the vice principal at SDN Menteng 1, who added, "Yes, most of our students are Muslim, but there are Christians as well. Everyone's welcome here ... it's a public school."
A spokesman for Indonesia's Ministry of Religious Affairs said claims that Obama studied at an Islamic school are groundless.
"SDN Menteng 1 is a public primary school that is open to people of all faiths," said the spokesman, Sutopo, who goes by only one name. "Moreover, he studied earlier at Fransiskus Assisi, which is clearly a Catholic school."
I guess by the logic of the people who still baselessly assert that Obama was a muslim that he must have also once been a catholic.
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by malanthrop: [... You're right. He isn't a follower of Black Liberation Theology Anymore. He dropped that when he left state politics.
Oh, I'm less interested in the Obama angle. I want to know how Black Liberation Theology relates to Marxism and/or Communism. I'm not saying you're wrong, I'm just interested.
Posts: 7593 | Registered: Sep 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
Liberation theology in general draws on Marxist social/economic analysis. That is one of it's distinguishing features.
Posts: 9866 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by malanthrop: When he was a child. His school records said he was an a follower of Islam when he went to school in Indonesia and had a Muslim father. I suppose anyone could argue that the child really doesn't believe whatever religion his/her parents follow and force the child to follow.
Please provide your source for that piece of information.
Regardless, and pending my actually seeing your source, I will just add that according to some Islamic theologists and many people, a child born to a Muslim is also a Muslim, the same way a child born to a Jewish woman (or parent, depends on who your listening to) that person is also Jewish. There's (big shocker) some gray area to what people believe is the difference between ethnic and religious heritage. Again, having not seen your information source (which I doubt but will scrutinize), I can't comment on the veracity of that claim, but even supposing it was true, a dozen people including me on this board could tell you that they have been inappropriately labeled members of religions they do not follow. I attended Catholic school, and was wrongly thought to be Catholic. Because I didn't talk that much about my religious views, even many friends who knew I was not Catholic believed I was Christian, which I was not. Hell, I recall several times in grade school being asked "what do you mean you're not Christian... you're white." And this was a school in Indonesia, with the largest Muslim population in the entire world. Think about it. How easy is it for a parent or an administrator to just tick that box out for the sake of convenience? What would be the motivation, living in such a place, to insist upon your individual religious identity at such an early age? So that you can later become President? Is that really what you think was going through little Barry's mind at that time? What exactly do you expect him to do? And do you expect all presidents to simply never have experienced a lifestyle so alien to your own, that you don't understand how or why he could ever be potentially labeled anything other than a Christian? That's lame dude.
That is immaterial to Obama as an individual. The things he actually learned as a child and the things he believes today make him who he is. In fact, I really wish Obama's mom was Jewish, just so that a bunch of conservatives could tie themselves in knots trying to reason out that his parentage didn't matter, because he was a Muslim "in his heart." Or even better, hearing people argue that he was actually a Jewish Muslim. Not that democrats would do much better (though they would do a little better, because the democratic party is on the whole much more up to date and better educated regarding religion and race), because when it comes down to it, your view of the person is going to be shaped by what you *want* to think about him- especially in the absence of a long track record in national politics.
Not so different from G.W. actually, the one term Governor of Texas who got elected POTUS partly because a lot of people felt like he was a guy they could have a beer with- easy to forget that the real seething hatred started round about our entry into an very unpopular war, and was solidified by the mishandling of a major crisis caused by a natural disaster. (Do go on and tell me the dems ever hated Bush in the first three years as much as the GoP hates Obama right now. Do try and convince me of that!)
Posts: 9912 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I'm sure you can find it elsewhere. Next to "agania" (literally translated nation) it sais Islam on his released school transcript from Indonesia. http://www.daylife.com/photo/01u33pL9Ns06D
Honestly, I absolutely do not believe he is a follower of Islam, nor do I really hold him accountable for what his parents put on the paperwork. I suggest he is simply a chameleon. A person who was raised to be black, white, christian and muslim. Perhaps this is a good thing. He can relate to many yet adheres to none. Personally, I think he has had a life long struggle for acceptance dependent upon wherever he may be at the moment. Muslim in Indonesia, Protestant in Hawaii with white grandparents, Atheist in college, Black Liberation Theologist in Chicago, Liberal Senator, now "moderate" president. Whatever suits the current circumstance. No one can say what he really is. He needed a poll to pick a church for Christmas services.
Posts: 1495 | Registered: Mar 2009
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by dkw: Liberation theology in general draws on Marxist social/economic analysis. That is one of it's distinguishing features.
I think I got that from the first statement, I guess I just want more. Particularly focusing on communication/influences between Marxism and liberation theology, but not limited to that if you have any special knowledge or interest in the subject.
Posts: 7593 | Registered: Sep 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by dkw: Liberation theology in general draws on Marxist social/economic analysis. That is one of it's distinguishing features.
I think I got that from the first statement, I guess I just want more. Particularly focusing on communication/influences between Marxism and liberation theology, but not limited to that if you have any special knowledge or interest in the subject.
It's about blame for your unfortunate circumstance. Whether Hitler selling blame of the Jews taking all the money, Stalin sticking up for the prolitariate against the royals, Jeremiah Wright selling blame against the whites or Obama sticking protecting "main street" from "wall street"...or the rich should, "pay their fair share". It's class warfare. The perception that wealth is a zero sum game. The spreading of ideals that someone else is wealthy because and you are poor because they took it from you. The top 10% of wage earners in this country already pay 90% of the taxes, yet the the "they should pay their fair share" argument still carries water. The Jews weren't demonized in Germany for being Jews, they were demonized for, as Al Sharpton said, they were "diamond merchants". They had the money when much of Germany was in the grips of a post WW1 depression that made the US depression look like a recession. The typical Jew was good with his money so the starving German blamed them and a leader came along to decimate them. The poor blacks in the US have leaders that blame the white folks and liberals have poor people of all colors who are buying the line that the wealthy have ripped them off in the midst of this recession. I know the rich are the one's who will give me a job. Taxing them more and my neighbor on the left might be pleased while my neighbor on the right will get laid off.
Posts: 1495 | Registered: Mar 2009
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by dkw: Liberation theology in general draws on Marxist social/economic analysis. That is one of it's distinguishing features.
I think I got that from the first statement, I guess I just want more. Particularly focusing on communication/influences between Marxism and liberation theology, but not limited to that if you have any special knowledge or interest in the subject.
It's about blame for your unfortunate circumstance. Whether Hitler selling blame of the Jews taking all the money, Stalin sticking up for the prolitariate against the royals, Jeremiah Wright selling blame against the whites or Obama protecting "main street" from "wall street"...or the rich should, "pay their fair share". It's class warfare. The perception that wealth is a zero sum game. The spreading of ideals that someone else is wealthy and you are poor because they took it from you. The top 10% of wage earners in this country already pay 90% of the taxes, yet the the "they should pay their fair share" argument still carries water. The Jews weren't demonized in Germany for being Jews, they were demonized for, as Al Sharpton said, they were "diamond merchants". They had the money when much of Germany was in the grips of a post WW1 depression that made the US depression look like a recession. The typical Jew was good with his money so the starving German blamed them and a leader came along to decimate them. The poor blacks in the US have leaders that blame the white folks and liberals have poor people of all colors who are buying the line that the wealthy have ripped them off in the midst of this recession. I know the rich are the one's who will give me a job. Tax them more and my neighbor on the left might be pleased while my neighbor on the right will get laid off.
Posts: 1495 | Registered: Mar 2009
| IP: Logged |
posted
But the main problem is that no one knows for sure who or what Obama is. It is still not really settled whether he was born in Hawaii or Kenya. He was adopted by his Indonesian step father, and assumed the name of Soetoro, and there is no record he legally changed his name back to Obama (he lied about this in papers he signed to run for president). His large list of sinister prior associates have been studiously ignored by most of the media. Few people who knew him at Columbia even remember him, including his classmates. Though he was said to be editor of the university law review, no articles or editorials written by him have been produced. The few items published in his name appear to have been ghost-written by someone fascinated with sailing (Obama has never participated in this sport, but William Ayers is an enthusiast). All his academic records have been suppressed. This leads many people to wonder if he has been "manufactured" as a candidate for many years.
So we do not know what sort of man we have for a president. We are begining to see extreme tendencies toward socialism, even fascism (which is a totalitarian application of socialism), where he dares to attack freedom of the press, and suggests that the multitudes who speak up critical of his policies at town hall meetings "should be silenced."
As a candidate he promised to listen to his commanders in the field. But now that his commanders in the field have said in no uncertain terms that they need 40,000 to 60,000 additional troops in Afghanistan to do their job, he has been dithering and deciding nothing for months.
How long are his deluded supporters going to continue refusing to see anything wrong with him?
Posts: 3742 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Liberation theology is mostly but not entirely a Catholic movement. It addresses issues of social justice and poverty with the idea that oppressive/exploitative Capitalism is sinful - that poverty and oppression are the results of societal sin. It developed in Latin America for the most part. It include the preferential option for the poor - the idea that taking care of poor people is central to the gospel message.
The term is used widely to describe pretty normal Christian social justice theology all the way to fairly radical Marxist concepts. That end of the spectrum is not (to put it mildly) endorsed by the current Vatican*. It tends to be a "bottom up" movement - decentralized authority which is also controversial and is generally more concerned with what people do than with what people believe - practice or action as opposed to ritual or belief.
That is far from complete. Do you want more or is that enough to start with?
*I personally suspect that Pope John Paul II, having experienced the horrors of the post WWII Soviet Union was disinclined to look favorable on anything remotely Marxist.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Ron Lambert: Though he was said to be editor of the university law review, no articles or editorials written by him have been produced.
:snort: Dude, your list of distortions is truly staggering (...ly pathetic), but seriously, you actually want to cast doubt on the idea that he was ever editor of the Harvard Law Review? I realize you think everyone here is stupid, but how stupid do you actually think we are?
Posts: 9912 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by malanthrop: Honestly, I absolutely do not believe he is a follower of Islam, nor do I really hold him accountable for what his parents put on the paperwork. I suggest he is simply a chameleon. A person who was raised to be black, white, christian and muslim.
Yeah, well this is why I think you're a flaming racist. Also, you are a liar, who needs to be confronted with your weasel words and assertions in order to admit that, no, you don't really believe in the implications you had just been trying to make, you believe in other, very similar implications you are now going to make.
Edit: Also, Godwin's law in the next post. You lose. Sorry. Don't play again!
Posts: 9912 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I absolutely agree with your "bottom up" taking care of your fellow man ideology. American's are the most generous people on the face of the Earth, as a nation and as individuals. In capitalist abundance, we give what we do not need. Why would Obama and Pelosi push for the reduction of the tax deduction for charitable donations? This deduction isn't dollar for dollar from the treasury but based upon your taxable income. For example: I could donate 100k to a charity and avoid 30k in taxes for my contribution. The government would rather take that 30k than let you give 100k to the charity. They could, after paying the system, give 10k to the needy from the same tax payer. It's not about what is best for the needy, it's about the government controlling the needy. If they really cared about the needy, they would let the evil rich guy reduce his taxable income by 100k. What dollar amount can do more good for the needy..100k or 30k? Deductions only reduce your gross taxable income but the government would rather take a slice when you were willing to give the whole pie to the needy.
Posts: 1495 | Registered: Mar 2009
| IP: Logged |
posted
Say "needy" a few more times so that everyone will ignore the part where the government needs a certain amount of money to pay for all of those pesky little things it needs money to pay for. They're taxes. They're not yours. They're taxes. Say it with me. By all means, go out there and bitch and moan about what the government spends money on. I assure you, there are about a million little stories that will boil your scrotum in oil. But don't forget the part where taxes are meant to be payed, not systematically avoided at all costs. The government *has to* find ways of cutting down on deductions and sheltering of money within a particular person's control because it *needs* that money. Not all of it. Some of it. So you can and are obviously inclined to chalk it up to big bad government control, as you always invariably and inflexibly do, but that's why your points are facile and pig-headed to begin with.
quote: American's are the most generous people on the face of the Earth
Why, because you say so? Because it's convenient for tax reasons? You make an oddly disjointed case here.
Also, please, please remember something: "Americans." No apostrophe. It's plural, it's not possessive.
Posts: 9912 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Sorry, I was a math major and I'm interacting with writers. It's a strange scenario pitting logic against rules. How is it disjointed? Every single dollar of your tax deduction goes directly to charity while you are avoiding only a percentage of that contribution in taxes. If the rich were truly greedy, they would never give money to charity since taxes are cheaper. Unfortunately, taxes could get extreme enough to reduce charitable deductions. Giving 1 dollar to charity does not reduce your tax liability by 1 dollar. In the top tax bracket, giving 100 to charity reduces your taxes by 40. Why would the greedy rich choose to give 100 to save 40? Does this make mathematical sense? Do the numbers,,,,perhaps the evil rich guy really does care about the needy but doesn't want the government skimming off 70% of the "donations". Believe me, rip off charitable organizations can't hold a candle to the government when it comes to skimming off the top. After all, the average government worker in the US makes $70k per year while the average private sector employee is at $40k. If you want to survive under Obamanation go to USAJOBS.COM. The US government is already the largest employer and lender in the country. Soon they'll be the largest auto maker, banker and health care provider. Too bad the government is always way over budget and never make a profit. Read the tea leaves,....where are we headed. Evil profits pay the taxes to fund the government. How's New York doing lately??
Posts: 1495 | Registered: Mar 2009
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by malanthrop: The current Republican party would probably be to the left of JFK.
From the "Should there be additional qualifications for the right to vote?" thread:
quote: Originally posted by malanthrop: JFK was a tax cutting conservative in comparison todays Dems and GOP. The defenitions have shifted.
What's your justification for these claims? [I have asked you before, btw]. When making these claims, did you consider the tax rates during JFK's presidency versus current rates?
Posts: 644 | Registered: Sep 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
JFK was assassinated Nov 22 1963. The top tax rate for 1963 was 91%.
Top tax rate for 1964 was 77%. Kennedy signed this 14% reduction for the following fiscal year while he was alive.
True, the rates were higher at that time but he was the first to realize (correctly) that a reduction in taxes benefit the US economy (founder of trickle down, ie voodoo economics).
Perhaps you think the government should take 91% of the top earners profit? JFK was right, I never got a job from a poor person.
posted
So, based on this, you conclude that the current Republican party - i.e. the party of the Bush tax cuts, the party for which 36 of the 41 senators voted for this:http://washingtonindependent.com/29076/its-all-part-of-my-stimulus-fantasy - is to the left of JFK?
Posts: 644 | Registered: Sep 2008
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
