About
Content
Store
Forum

Rebirth of Reason
War
People
Archives
Objectivism

Post to this threadMark all messages in this thread as readMark all messages in this thread as unread


Post 0

Tuesday, September 9, 2008 - 12:35amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Here it is:



Sanction: 5, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 5, No Sanction: 0
Post 1

Tuesday, September 9, 2008 - 12:47amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
This is the kind of stuff that drives me crazy. I'm happy to see Obama stumble anytime he can, but in this exchange, I think there was no gaff. It was clear what he was saying and he made that explicit at the end. I think we can find plenty of actual flaws in both candidates to criticize without having to resort to out-of-context sound bites like this to attempt to make fun of them. It really saddens me to know that this election, like those in the past, will be heavily influences by crap like this (that's directed at the clip and not at Ted, the messenger, by the way) instead of hanging on an analysis of the principles and actual proposals being expounded.

Regards,
--
Jeff

Post 2

Tuesday, September 9, 2008 - 1:17amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
I have listened to the entire exchange. The issue is not that he admitted his true belief - it is that he really didn't seem to care one way or the other. I personally think the man is an atheist. But he will not come out and say this. His utter insincerity is what you see here.

Post 3

Tuesday, September 9, 2008 - 1:32amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
I don't know enough about him to decide that he is an atheist, I do think I've know enough to judge him as insincere - but not from this tiny clip.

I don't see enough in that tiny clip to make any judgments on anything - maybe if I saw the whole thing. Or, maybe I just don't get what you're seeing.

I agree with Jeff about the awfulness of the criticisms going around about all the candidates and the lack of any real debate on real issues.

Post 4

Tuesday, September 9, 2008 - 6:07amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
I agree with Jeff about the awfulness of the criticisms going around about all the candidates and the lack of any real debate on real issues.

But, but - that would blow all the fish out of the water !!


Post 5

Tuesday, September 9, 2008 - 6:39amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Normally I would want the issues debated, but here the problem is that Obama has not been vetted, apparently won the primaries by fraud, lies about his background, and takes active efforts to hide major parts of it. Moreover, what we can discover is deeply disturbing. For details see TexasDarlin and Atlas Shrugs and other blogs they link to.

Also listen on YouTube to Philip J. Berg's interviews--he's the lawyer, a Democrat, suing Obama re his questionable eligibility. Obama may not even be legitimately a Senator. (Admittedly Berg himself is 9-11 conspiracy theorist, but in this case he seems to be onto something.)


Post 6

Tuesday, September 9, 2008 - 7:21amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit

The Unexamined Life?

Of course issues matter. But we don't elect issues, and issues don't serve. We have to judge men, and part of that judgment is a judgment as to who really means what he says.

It's Not Going to Be About the Issues
By Tom Bevan

Last week McCain campaign manager Rick Davis was taken to task by the Obama campaign for stating the obvious. "This election is not about issues," Davis told the Washington Post. "This election is about a composite view of what people take away from these candidates."

Davis's comment is true about all campaigns, of course, but especially this one. This year's contest features two insurgent candidates whose campaigns are built around themes anchored largely in their biographies....

...While issues do matter, at its most fundamental level the race is a battle between the narratives of these two men and which campaign can do a more effective job of framing the choice in November as a referendum....

...So while the candidates will sit down to discuss a broad range of issues, rest assured the post-debate discussion will focus on everything but policy differences. Who "won" and who "lost?" Which candidate looked "more presidential?" Who got off the best line of the night? Who committed the biggest "gaffe?"...

...Every four years the political intelligentsia laments the fact that the presidential race inevitably boils down to "who you'd rather have a beer with." Guess what? The public is bellying up to the bar to take the measure of these two candidates over the next eight weeks.

Now, ignore, if you can, the commentary in this video (sorry I couldn't find the speech without it) and listen to Obama's words, and tell me if he is a man of faith. Yes, I know what he is saying sits well with Objectivists, thats not the issue. Consider what Obama is saying and the context in which he is willing to say it.



Now, when it suits him, he has dropped the mantle of the skeptic. (I know, you sympathize with him, because you too are a skeptic - that's not my point.) Compare Obama - the man of Christian or Muslim faith - or whatever - who is so certain of what he believes that he allows a friendly Stephanopoulos to "correct" him. (Had he meant, and been paying attention to, what he was saying, and not seen Stephanopoulos as looking out for him, would he have "corrected" himself?) Does this come across as the speech of a sincere man? Or is it another feint from the man who confessed how he mollified his mother about his drug use:

"I had given her a reassuring smile and patted her hand and told her not to worry, I wouldn't do anything stupid. It was usually an effective tactic, another of those tricks I had learned: People were satisfied so long as you were courteous and smiled and made no sudden moves."

Yes, it would be ideal if we had two thoughtful, sincere, honorable candidates running for offices, the only difference between them being their stands on very narrow issues such as whether to go to a flat tax or a national sales tax as an immediate reform of the IRS. But that is not the case. We have two men who we must judge as men to choose from in this campaign. (Even if you say three men, recent drug warrior and military hawk Barr is not immune from judgments of principle and character.) If Palin is refreshing for her candor, what does Obama's ability to shift message depending on his audience tell us? This comment to Stephanopoulos goes just that much further in revealing Obama's true character.

(Edited by Ted Keer on 9/09, 10:38am)


Post 7

Tuesday, September 9, 2008 - 8:09amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
As Ted's first link here shows, if one-tenth the intensity and dedication of the investigation into Palin's family would be devoted to Obama, and if a single standard were employed, his electability would plummet fast.

How did he get this far, if there are so many serious issues in his past? It's my thinking that, once he managed to reach a certain level in his career--once he successfully got away with his first lies--it got easier and easier to escape scrutiny, because everyone took the attitude we are hearing more and more from Obama's supporters: "If all those allegations were true, he would not have gotten this far."

Well, that's how he got this far.


Post 8

Tuesday, September 9, 2008 - 9:27amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Ted, I watched the video (ignored the stupid text that covered it) and the only clues I had to his beliefs suggested that he was a Christian and had 'faith' but that his faith wasn't to an extreme.

And I agreed, like you said, with his position of government being secular. I still believe the man is insincere and dishonest. I wouldn't care if he was a deeply religious man who is pretending to be secular because it is required by his liberal supporters, or if he is an atheist who is pretending to have faith to win all the christian supporters - those being equally dishonest. I suspect that he is a Christian, and that he has shaped that belief in his narcissistic way to make him seem even more wonderous and special and I'm sure that like everything he says, it is, purely pragmatic in the purpose of the moment and truthful by accident.

But if he were going to give a speech in a church and increase his popularity he could have given himself an easier thesis, or supported this thesis with a more rhetorical and rousing style.

Post to this thread


User ID Password or create a free account.