Wednesday, July 9, 2008

Another dialog...By AMBERLY

I've been having a cool dialog with my brother about my post on Obama, and that stupid video that was made about him. The comments have gotten very interesting and I just wanted to post it here to see if anyone else wanted to shed some light on this topic or comment on our ideas. My brother is a smart man, and although I disagree with him, I still give him credit for actually knowing why he believes the way he does. Many republicans aren't so intellectual.


"Here's my opinion on a couple of your points:

People look at the people Obama associates with to try and determine his character. They do this because his resume is short, almost non-existant. In his 1 year as a senator, he didn't accomplish much, if anything. He went to his pastors' church for 20 years. To think this has not affected his character or the decisions he makes would be an incredibly naive thought. The video was pretty retarded though (no offense to any dis-abled people) and I am ashamed to be politicaly associated with those who created and distributed it.The video did not need to speak to the actions of Bill while in office to discredit Hillary, everyone knows full well that he's a moron. The fact that she is married to him discredits her more than adequitly.

Eric"

July 7, 2008 7:31 PM
the terrys said...

I think the funniest thing that Mormons can say about Barack, is things relating to judging his character in regards to his church or pastor, when so many Mormons were pulling so hard for Mitt to be president. Could you imagine if Mitt was in McCain's shoes right now? I guarantee you that no Mormon would like, or understand, if everyone judged Mitt on being associated with a sexist, discriminate, and homophobic society.

July 8, 2008 6:34 AM
Brooke said...

Yes, the extreme leftists would go there, but not out of necessity due to a lack of other references to judge his character. If Obama had a resume of similar depth to that of Romney, the pastor would be brought up momentarily, but larger issues regarding his political career would drown out and downplay that association. In regards to Romney being judged as a Mormon, I doubt he would dis-associate himself with the church to become more centrist, as Obama did with his church.

Eric

July 8, 2008 12:15 PM
the terrys said...

I don't think so. First of all, people in the public eye are judged CONSTANTLY regardless of their reputation and/or resume. Also, Obama can leave his pastor and that church and still be a Christian. Christian churches, besides Mormonism, are ran differently. Believers choose which church they join by the pastor, or whatever they are called. So, when Obama's pastor said things Obama disagree's with, Obama leaves to find a different pastor. Still a Christian.

And I don't believe Barack left his pastor to become more "centrist", I believe he did so because he disagreed with what his pastor said. Like I have said before, Obama adapts. He's not afraid to change things that aren't going right. Shows good character if you ask me. And I bet if he stayed, conservatives would criticize him for that too, if not even more so. He was pretty much in a loose loose situation due to something he didn't even say. If Mitt left the Church because his Bishop said some weird things, he would be leaving Mormonism all together. Mitt can't leave or disagree with what his Bishop says. If he did leave, he wouldn't be Mormon anymore. However, I bet Mitt would just swallow it and agree with what his Bishop said to appease all the other Mormons.

July 8, 2008 7:21 PM
Brooke said...

The difference is that
1) The coments made by Obamas pastor were not unusual for him, or new in any way. Obama had listened to this for 20 years. Before leaving his flock, Obama tried to dismiss the ramblings by relating him to a crazy old uncle that nobody takes seriously. When that didn't fly, he decided to leave.
2) Most christian churches have only one pastor, and the docterine taught is his/her interpretation only. If people don't agree with that interpretation, they find another church that conforms more with their individual beleifs (or in this case, one that will cater to more voters). This says to me if he is willing to flip on his religious beliefs, why not anything or everything else(as he is doing daily)? Yes, still a christian, but the definition of a christian varies widely. If Romneys bishop said some weird things, he would only need to refer the matter up the chain (stake pres, etc). One bishops wierdness doesn't alter the doctrine of the church as a whole.
3)Yes, presidential candidates are judged constantly. They should be, they are applying for the most important paying job in the world. Obama was in a lose lose situation because he put himself there. His decision doesn't show adaptation, it shows a lack of conviction in his belief system of 20 years. If he's not sure what he believes religiously, philisophicaly, fundamentaly, or (as recent events have shown) politically because the media put pressure on him, he does not have the experiance, maturity, or tenacity it takes to lead the greatest nation this earth has ever seen.

Eric

July 8, 2008 10:06 PM
the terrys said...

1) Cool. Fine by me.
2) I still don't believe that Christians finding new pastors to align more with their character, is flipping on their religious beliefs. Obama is still a Christian and still believes in the bible just like he did when he was listening to "Uncle Crazy". I still don't see any difference between the different personalities of a pastor compared to the different personalities of bishops. Bishops get up all the time in sacrament meetings and start "advising" their ward to do things that aren't doctrine at all.
3) First of all, I really don't believe that America is the greatest nation this earth has ever seen anymore. Middle class Americans are having to decide whether they can buy gas to get to work or groceries.

I have no doubt in my mind that Barack is sure what he believes in religiously, fundamentally, and philosophically. Did you know that Mitt used to be pro-choice? And now he's not. He changed his mind. He actually changed his mind a few times about it.But you know what? That's fine by me. I used to be totally republican. And I changed my mind too.

The point is, people are allowed to change their mind on important political views. To me, that shows the ability to have an open mind. This presidential election has had a great influence on my political views as well. When Obama was first announcing that he was going to run for office, I was republican, and didn't think America should have a black president. But once I started researching the candidates, I changed to liberal. I think those who have an open mind, and can decide to vote for the best, and not just because it's whoever is running for their party, are the smartest ones. It really bothers me that republicans are only going to vote for McCain because he's republican. It bothered me when Mormons wanted to vote for Mitt just because he's Mormon. One of my LDS friends out here actually prayed for Mitt to be president. Then those SAME Mormons criticize Obama for changing his mind, when Mitt did the exact same thing.

To me, pulling the "flip flopping" card is an idea borne of desperation. Just one last note though, not to be pulling that same card, I just want you to be aware that just as many people accuse McCain of flip flopping as they do Obama. It's a double sided sword that won't accomplish anything, except petty name calling.

If you don't believe me, here's what McCain has flip flopped about:

"McCain, until recently, was pushing for a reform law that would require conservative groups to reveal their financial donors. But, after fielding protests from evangelical Christians and antiabortion activists, McCain decided a year ago to strip out the provision.McCain in 2000 assailed Bush's proposed tax cuts as a sop to the rich, and a year later, with Bush in office, he voted against those cuts, declaring that "the benefits go to the most fortunate among us, at the expense of middle-class Americans." But two years ago, he switched sides and voted to extend tax cuts for the wealthy.

McCain in 1999 said that, "even in the long term," he would not support the repeal of Roe v. Wade because "thousands of young American women would be performing illegal and dangerous operations." But two years ago he said that he now favored repeal because "I don't believe the Supreme Court should be legislating in the way that they did on Roe v. Wade."McCain in 2000 was incensed when a pair of Texas businessmen, Sam and Charley Wyly, bankrolled some Bush-friendly TV ads that distorted McCain's record. McCain declared at the time that their "dirty money" did not belong in national politics. But two years ago, McCain decided that their dirty money belonged in his campaign; he took $20,000 and allowed them to chair a McCain fund-raiser. (McCain later had to give back the money, because, it turns out, his new friends are reportedly under federal investigation.)

McCain, who has long deplored negative politics, defended John Kerry in 2004 when the Democratic candidate's war record was being impugned by the Swift Boaters. But today, one of McCain's top advisers is GOP hardball specialist Terry Nelson, who has worked as a consultant with one of the principal Swift Boaters. Nelson also produced the notorious `06 TV ad that implied, in the Tennessee Senate race, that the black Democratic candidate cavorted with white women.

McCain has voted against a federal constitutional amendment to ban gay marriage, but last fall, regarding his own state, he supported an Arizona referendum that would have banned gay marriage.McCain in 2006 suggested that creationism was not a fit topic for the schoolroom: "I respect those who think the world was created in seven days. Should it be taught as a science class? Probably not." But he suggested the opposite in 2005 ("all points of view should be presented"), a year ago he was a keynote speaker at a confab sponsored by the Discovery Institute, a prominent creationism advocacy group."

Just so you're aware now that McCain is a flip flopper too."

12 comments:

Brooke said...

Notice I have never promoted McCain. In this election I simply see him as the lesser of 2 evils, so to speak. I feel motivated to speak out against Obama as president because so many people are drinking the Obama hype cool-aide. The recent victory in the supreme court regarding the Washington, DC gun ban was narrowly won, 5-4. While it was a win, 5-4 is unacceptable in my book. I support McCain because I believe he will bring better justices and politicians into washington than the radicals Obama associates with.
P.S. Name one country you would rather live in long-term and why.

Brooke said...

"My brother is a smart man, and although I disagree with him, I still give him credit for actually knowing why he believes the way he does. Many republicans aren't so intellectual."
Thanks, right back at you. (replace republicans with liberals)
To quote Micheal Savage, "liberalism is a mental disorder." =)
By the way, I'd say I'm an independant conservative, not republican. McCain is too liberal in my opinion, and there are democrats who are conservitive enough in their views I would readily support. Nicole Para (D)here in kern county for one, who has been criticized for promoting a republican to take her seat in her district because his views will best benefit the people she currently represents.
Eric

the terrys said...

Whoa, look at my brother. Mr Conservative.

That's fine that you don't really agree with either candidate. Although you say you have never promoted McCain, you still support him. Lots of people are drinking the McCain kool-aid as well. I just feel it my duty to point out that those who call Obama a flip flopper, should be aware that the man they support is a flip flopper as well.

Lots of people don't really like either candidate. But my feelings are, if you're gonna piss and moan about the candidates, then YOU run for president. Otherwise, vote for the best. And while I don't agree that "McCain is the lesser of two evils" (quite the opposite in fact), I do feel that Obama is the best candidate. For me. Luckily we live in a democracy, and who ever the majority likes, will win. So... the majority will be happy.

I'm not at all suprised about Nicole Para. Leave it to Bakersfield, the 8th most conservative city in the nation, to have conservative liberals.

"I have been thinking that I would make a proposition to my Republican friends... that if they will stop telling lies about the Democrats, we will stop telling the truth about them."

Adlai Stevenson

the terrys said...

"I have been thinking that I would make a proposition to my Republican friends... that if they will stop telling lies about the Democrats, we will stop telling the truth about them."

ROTFL!

-John

Brooke said...

"if you're gonna piss and moan about the candidates, then YOU run for president."
I don't think it's that easy. We get the candidates we have because of big money beauricrats (sp?) who promote and elevate the candidate who will cater to their interests. Most republicans would not have McCain as their candidate.
"Otherwise, vote for the best."
I'll settle for that. What other choice do I have?
BTW - Nicole Para is a democrat, not a liberal... there is a difference.
Eric

the terrys said...

I don't see much of a difference. I use those words interchangeably.
There are conservative democrats/liberals and liberal republicans/conservatives.

So, about the big money beaurocrats... John McCain DID accept big money donations from corporations and big money beaurocrats. Now, he owes these guys "favors"- not the people, not the voters. But Obama didn't. Obama only owes favors to his voters. Not to coporations. Obama refused the governments money for campaigning, and didn't accept money from big money beaurocrats. Obama worked his ass off and got donations from THE PEOPLE. And look where it got him. The future president.

Janee said...

I've heard that phrase a lot these days - "Lesser of 2 evils". I just don't feel that way. I think Obama is an excellent candidate. I would say Bush and Kerry were 2 evils though.

the terrys said...

I forgot to comment back to you Eric about living in another country.

I had a little discussion about this with mom too. She started spouting off that America was the best too and I'm like "nuh-uh!" And she said if I feel that way then why not live in another country.

First of all, picking one country to name off that I would live in besides the U.S., I would have to say Canada. I'm a big fan of socialized health care, their country is BEAUTIFUL, clean, the population of the whole country is less than that of California, everyone lives in big cities, they are a peaceful, non-discriminant, and non-racist people.

John and I have seriously considered and looked into living in Canada several times. Currently we are only a couple hours away from it. The geography wouldn't be too different or far away, but switching countries in which you reside is a little scary. It's a little uncertain and worries me as a mother. If I really wanted to live there, I would move there, but I guess I am lazy. I guess I would have rather been born there.

Lynette Olsen said...

Just because there are two turds floating around in a bucket doesn't mean I have to scoop one out.

Mitt was never pro choice. When he was governor of Massachusetts, those people had already decided to give women the right to kill their unborn children. He didn't see it as his place to go in there and try to change their minds.

That's according to "A Mormon in the White House" by Hugh Hewitt, a non Mormon Mitt supporter.

the terrys said...

Nope, Mitt was pro choice.

the terrys said...

"I was effectively pro-choice when I ran for office. When I became governor of Massachusetts, the first time a bill came to my life that dealt with life, I simply could not side with--with taking a life, and I came on the side of life. Every bill that came to my desk, every issue that related to protecting the sanctity of life, I came down on the side of life. I'm pro-life. I'm not going to apologize for becoming pro-life. I'm proud to be pro-life."

http://www.ontheissues.org/governor/Mitt_Romney_Abortion.htm

"Former Massachusetts governor Mitt Romney is under fire as he pursues the 2008 Republican presidential nomination. A recent Internet video highlighted comments made during a 1994 debate against Sen. Edward Kennedy in which Romney declared that he supported a "woman's right to choose." Romney quickly distanced himself from those comments, winning praise from conservative pundits. But a look at Romney's second campaign, the 2002 race for Massachusetts governor, reveals that his pro-choice stance and support for embryonic stem cell research were clear and ardent less than five years ago."

http://www.weeklystandard.com/content/public/articles/000/000/013/222htyos.asp

Videos where Romney himself says he's pro-choice

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cFMdK0TWtks

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a9IJUkYUbvI

the terrys said...

I guess you just can't trust people named Hugh...