Obama (Ties to Islam?)

Ron, I certainly respect your opinion, but I find it odd that you can vote for McCain as a military person when he so seriously fell down on the job and voted to send our military into Iraq. It's been widely proven that information available at time (leading up to the war) showed how little solid evidence there was to go to war, yet Congress on the whole didn't do their homework, research and went along hook, line and sinker with Bush's plan.

Certainly both parties hold equal blame, but if your vote is for the military, then I would expect you to support someone who has continued to protect and serve his brothers and sisters in arms, even after he has taken off his uniform. Which, for me, means seriously questioning any decision to go to war, doing the work and making an educated decision. If he failed to do that as a senator, what makes you feel he will do a better job in the oval office. I think the decision is equally important in both roles.

ron2

Maybe I didn't state it overtly enough before but I accept the document as valid. Obama was born on US soil. According to the interpretations of the laws, both Obama and McCain are citizens of the United States, natural citizens, and therefore eligible to run for president.

I don't think Obama has ties to terrorists and his muslim heritage is an "accident of birth", so to speak. It's not anything he overtly did, just a fact of his life that his father was muslim and, for whatever reason, his parents gave him that name to preserve familial heritage. (I don't know for whom I am named but I've been called worse.)

He is an effective public speaker and people feel good listening to him. But I wouldn't say that such qualities and effects are what it takes to run the nation. That requires more than just well-chosen words.

And even as I can tell by the tone of your post that you are a bit peeved about this discussion, please remember that people are just being honest about their misgivings. It's better than everyone politely ignoring the orangutang in the living room, to borrow an expression. Just as I had earlier, in another thread, spoke of misgivings at Obama's name, I also pointed out that it was a personal flaw of mine and not meant to disregard his ability or chances at the presidency. Just me being unflinchingly honest. Even if my misgivings were misguided or eventually unimportant. I have pointed out, ad nauseum, that I say what I think or know, regardless of the politics. For one thing, when I say care not of a person's gender or ethnicity, I mean that with the same surity and mundaneness as when I say the sun is shining at this particular moment. That's part of the reason I got involved in this discussion. To remain true to my words. And when I say I would vote for Rice if she ran, I mean it as suredly as I mean it when I say that in about 30 minutes, I'm going to be grilling some petite sirloin steaks.

I may not be the easiest person to get along with but I mean what I say and I will uphold all of our freedom to speak as we wish. Upholding it in whatever way that I can.

I'm very glad that you are feeling free to post your honest feelings, and I think it's pretty cool that this is one way that people can see that you are not a SD clone LOL.

I don't have any misgivings about the patriotism of ANY of the candidates.  I don't believe that because your pastor says some things you don't agree with that you are duty bound to dump your church, any more than you should feel compelled to dump your job if you disagree with your boss, or dump your forum if you disagree with a moderator.  True, we are judged by our actions, in addition to the company we keep, but I've always thought that actions really do speak louder than words...

My misgivings are based on some political issues that others may not find so important in the foreign policy sense, but are more an indicator of a general position on life that I do not share.  I've never been in sync with the Republican idea of pulling yourself up by the bootstraps and devil take the hindmost.  I much prefer pull yourself up by your bootstraps and then turn around and take care of a few of the old, sick, poor, and disadvantaged, because it makes the country as a whole stronger to have its elders still in its midst and its children better educated, and the sick cared for so that they don't act as a drain on families that can ill afford to care for them, thus leave other responsibilities untended.  We are all, despite our unwillingness to accept it, interrelated.  How we treat the least among us says a lot about whether we deserve respect in the world.

As always, an excellent post.

Pit_Pointer_Aussie

but I find it odd that you can vote for McCain as a military person when he so seriously fell down on the job and voted to send our military into Iraq.

Clinton voted for it, too. But no one is busting her backside for it. As you said, several in both parties voted for it. Since I am not in congress or in the White House, I don't know what intelligence they had to act on. And here's a little tidbit. True intelligence info is never going to see the light of day. That's why it's top secret. Case in point, most of the missions that my friend, Lee, undertook in Viet Nam are still classified because of the nature of the mission and where it was. (ETA: missions accomplished while having a base station in Da Nang, Viet Nam. His assignments usually did not take place in Da Nang.)

IMO, we should get out of Iraq. While I do have ideals and wish for all people to be free of tyranny, the reality is, when we leave Iraq, it will go back to the way it was, but with someone else other than Saddam Hussein. So, we are faced with the choice of pulling out and letting them handle it, or we will leave a standing rotation of 30,000 to 50,000 troops there, like we still do in South Korea. Oh yeah, we've been in Korea for more than 50 years. The problem is, we went in and took out a problem, but the people aren't prepared to handle to responsibilities or, just as likely, they resent us telling them how to wipe their own butt. That would account for the constant insurgence.

Just because McCain and Clinton voted to go after Iraq doesn't mean that they can't change their minds or decide enough is enough.

I would like to see us get out of Iraq and quit buying oil from OPEC. It wouldn't be that difficult. All we have to do is take the next person that says we can't drill our own oil and prosecute them as a traitor, acting against the best interests of our country. I think we should close down Guantanamo Bay. That won't stop the CIA or someone from detaining a suspect but my plan is to let the people go and follow them. If they turn out to be a terrorist, take them out before they can do anymore damage. That would also be classified but people who've never ventured past the lighted end of their own street wouldn't have to be bothered with the price of freedom.

I think Palin has a vested interest in closure with Iraq. She has a son who has been deployed. Has Obama ever served? Does he have a son in harm's way? No, that's not a requirement for being president but being in such a situation brings it into sharp focus.

We should repeal and do away with the Patriot Act. That won't stop intelligence agencies from wire-tapping and covert surveillance. As is often said, Nixon merely got caught for doing what most any president has done. But at least it restores the illusion, if not some practical aspects of our freedoms. The Patriot Act would have shielded Nixon's actions and motives.

Don't worry, King George's reign is almost over.

Also, I think, believe it or not, and I know I will get some comment to make it seem like I don't know my head from a hole in the ground, but each new presidency is just that. New. There is no indication that McCain/Palin with continue Bush/Cheney plans. In fact, Palin has already demonstrated an ability to buck the status quo, even if it ticks off fellow republicans. The office changes you.

Since I am not in congress or in the White House, I don't know what intelligence they had to act on. And here's a little tidbit. True intelligence info is never going to see the light of day.

But you could have -- articles were published in mainstream newspapers. The point is that the information was so easily accessible, so readily available to congress -- all of congress -- that they should have done a better job. Same goes for most of the news media. Most of it was common sense to anyone with any education on the middle east. Each congressmen and senator has staffers devoted to this kind of research. The work should have been done, and journalist -- my doG it's their job.

Also,  info in DC is leaked all the time. Probably not the location of black ops, but the evidence to go into Iraq was a phone call away. Most folks have friends and neighbors in a number of different circles, so people overlap at places like church or kids soccer games. So you go to your kids school event and sitting in the audience and talking to one another are members of congress, the supreme court, 5 star generals, major news networks, Ambassadors, lobbiests, etc. The average cocktail party talk isn't about what the market did, but what info people have, who's doing what, is that right, is it credible. The mix of people tends to be at all levels -- so not just top brass are rubbing elbows, but analysts, staffers, etc.

That's neither here nor there, but my point was that I couldn't support Clinton or McCain on a military platform because of how badly I feel they failed our men and women in uniform, by not taking the decision to go to war seriously enough. I think we agree, that the single biggest decision in any mans life, is to send someone else's children to war. I am not able to forgive or overlook that failure.

IMO, we should get out of Iraq.

I agree with you there. However, my reason is that I care more about my nation's men and women than those of another country. Yes, that's not very nice of me, but frankly when our nation is in as bad a shape as it is, I think it's time to come home and take care of domestic issues. Iraq has never had any sense of equality, for us to think Jeffersonian democracy has a chance in he&& is nothing short of stupid. Saddam was not a great person, but he kept that part of the world more stable than it will be without him. So, we've really shot ourselves in the foot, not only collapsing another country into civil war, but by giving our real enemies (terrorists) a place to go and flourish.

Just because McCain and Clinton voted to go after Iraq doesn't mean that they can't change their minds or decide enough is enough.

Fair enough. I just am less willing to overlook how drastically they failed the first time around.

That won't stop intelligence agencies from wire-tapping and covert surveillance. As is often said, Nixon merely got caught for doing what most any president has done.

True that! My parents' phone is likely tapped at the moment, and it's not the first time! LOL Last time was the end of the 80's.

There is no indication that McCain/Palin with continue Bush/Cheney plans.

I think that is a good point, but I am not willing to take a chance with my vote to find out. I don't think you are stupid or that you don't know your *** from your elbow. I think you give far more thought to this than the average American, and although we may disagree, I am grateful as an America. citizen that you care enough to think about it.

God knows there are plenty of people who don't and who will turn out to vote for both candidates.

Pit_Pointer_Aussie

I agree with you there. However, my reason is that I care more about my nation's men and women than those of another country. Yes, that's not very nice of me, but frankly when our nation is in as bad a shape as it is, I think it's time to come home and take care of domestic issues. Iraq has never had any sense of equality, for us to think Jeffersonian democracy has a chance in he&& is nothing short of stupid. Saddam was not a great person, but he kept that part of the world more stable than it will be without him. So, we've really shot ourselves in the foot, not only collapsing another country into civil war, but by giving our real enemies (terrorists) a place to go and flourish.

I am not trying to make a "sound bite" out of this.... But Hip HIp Hooorayyy !!    At least you are looking at a major parto of apoint in history with out a text book telling YOU what happened.

How often do we stick to Text to prove our theory when years later we show up something waaaaaaaaaaaaaay dofferent even inour "Friends' history texts.

Should we put ourselves in absolutely EVERY issue and regime? NO.  How about we go in where people are massacred, kids, grandparents and goats piled in the same grave...but just becaue we are not thrilled with your politic speak could we simply step "out" for a bit?? Kill fewer son's and fathers, fewer daughters and mothers??

JMHO

Bonita of Bwana

Even Cowboys stopped and thought from time to time...

ron2

I think Palin has a vested interest in closure with Iraq. She has a son who has been deployed. Has Obama ever served? Does he have a son in harm's way?

 No, but Biden has a son who will be deployed to Iraq in a couple of weeks. If you want to compare potential VP to potential VP.
 

I'm still going to disagree somewhat on the notion that you will get to see the full intelligence reports in the newspaper. Case in point, yes there are leaks but not everyone publishes.  I knew about the SR-71 Blackbird 6 months before the media reported on it. And I know some things about it that were never released in the media. That's how I know that what you read in the papers is not the totality of it.

I know where my friend's missions were and what they were about in the Viet Nam War. And I've watched a number of "documentaries" on that war and they glide and gloss right over that. According to those investigative pieces, his missions didn't happen. Just as well. But again, what you read in the papers isn't necessarily all that is there.

My favorite author Robert Heinlein, and his wife, Virginia, travelled the world a number of times from the 1950's through the 1980's. This is in addition to his service as an Lt in the Navy in WWII. Tuberculosis kicked him out. He turned to writing and it became his raison d'ete. Anyway, they have been present at 8 distinct events in history and reporters from Time Magazine were also there. The Time story never agreed with what they saw. Not once.

But other than that, I agree with the other things in your post. Saddam may have provided some stability but he was also a sadistic, murderous coward.

Yes, we should take out bad people when we can. How come the UN never does anything about the slaughters that take place in Nigeria? The movie "Tears of the Sun", while dramatized and veering off the actual details of a SEAL mission, is based on real events that do repeat themselves. The part of the movie that veers off  away from reality is when the SEAL team leader, played by Bruce Willis, consents to the doctor's demands. IRL, he would have tranq'd her as soon as her back was turned, and carried her out, double time, to the ep. End of mission, 45 minutes, back aboard ship in time for dinner. But that's Hollywood.

I think we're in for change, one way or another.

Sometimes, I think too much. Obama states that he is christian, rather than muslim.

Here's Obama's thoughts on the Bible and what he thinks about it as a moral code to guide public policy.

Which makes me wonder, yet again, what are his religious ties, if any.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B2Kh-xzerjE&feature=related

 Ron, what of that speech do you dislike?

Cita

 Ron, what of that speech do you dislike?

Kinda wondering the same thing here.  And what difference can it possibly make what his "religious ties, if any" are? It's not like he's trying to convert you or anyone else.  He's absolutely right .... the US is not a "Christian country" and those who like to believe it is had better put on their big boy/girl under pants and deal with the fact that we are probably the most diverse country in the world.

Joyce

I'll answer both, here. I believe in separation of Church and State. On a personal note, I have been to pagan gatherings, amongst other things. I have seen a wide spectrum from a baptist-like study of the Bible, to being baptised as a Mormon and ordained as an aaronic priest (junior priesthood), to zen buddhism, to Bushido (spirit way of the warrior, commonly known as the code of the samurai), to various aspects of paganism including a study of the religion of my ancestors, the norse gods.

Can we depend on him to truly separate church and state? Nor is he the only christian I know that would be capable of rendering unto caesar what is caesar's and unto God what is God's. But if he is christian and christians value the Bible, then what is his point in this speach? I guess I ask more of a question than make a statement.

Let's not turn this into a "I'm not racist, I have ________ friends!" type of discussion While I'm glad for you that you've had those experiences, they are not relevant to Obama and his religious beliefs.

What about that speech caused you to feel he would NOT work to keep church and state separate?

What is the point of the speech? To work towards a less divisive, more inclusive religious America. "I am hopeful that we can bridge the gaps that exist and overcome the prejudices each of us bring to this debate. And I have faith that millions of believing Americans want that to happen. No matter how religious they may or may not be, people are tired of seeing faith used as a tool of attack. They don't want faith used to belittle or to divide."

Also keep in mind this speech was in response to several religious leaders' attacks on Obama's faith. For a full transcript of the speech, you can look here: http://obama.senate.gov/speech/060628-call_to_renewal/

I too could play the "look at all the experience I have that makes me wiser than anyone else" card and talk about the importance of analyzing speeches and written works to find the thesis of the argument, the importance of looking to the tone of the piece and the connotations of the words chosen... I also have a great deal of experience in this. But, again, not relevant to Obama and his religious beliefs, nor is it really relevant to my personal feelings on the issue. I prefer to discuss without having to sift through other participants' resumes first.

Cita

I too could play the "look at all the experience I have that makes me wiser than anyone else" card

That was not my intent and I think you know that. I gave some of my background to show that a wide variety in my experience shows that I can appreciate some of his ideas. I've stated a few to friends that would be considered more radical. In fact, I don't find his speech offensive. It just brought more questions to mind. But if me asking questions in a country of free speech means that I am trying to lord it over others, then I can't help your interpretation. I think you just wanted a fight and how dare I question Obama and how dare I value a republican candidate. How's that for an interpretation? Am I being inaccurate? Possibly as inaccurate as your statement concerning my motivation for posting the question. And the question is, then, what is his religious standpoint? Will he also provide an analysis of muslim texts? Can I look forward to his review of "The Leaves of Ygdrasil" (one of the books in my collection, a history of the norse religion from the perspective of a woman, actually, not that it mattered to me)? Could I hope that some republican candidates will approach govt with an egalitarian view towards religious ideas seemingly exmplified in Obama's speech? Or, am I to be vilified for questioning or wondering about Obama's criticism (and it is a criticism) of the Bible? I, too, have leveled criticisms at the Bible. But I am not running for president. And since many here would reject Palin for fear that she would foist her idea of christianity on the rest of us, as if it were possible for a vp to do so, can I not ask the same question of Obama? Or is he untouchable? The Second Coming? I was simply asking what his stand on christianity is, then, given these criticisms of the text he would, by implication of identifying as a christian, hold dear.

Again, I give my experience not to set me up as an expert or to make myself more worthy to comment than anyone else and to accuse me of such is inaccurate, possibly a result of a misunderstanding. But the "fear" of being misinterpreted will not stop me from asking questions.

My speech or list of experience, indeed, is not all that important. But I am not running for president. To whom much is given, much is expected.