A Question for Obama

[houndawg]

I think you missed the point of what he was saying.

Scott Walker, in the space of two weeks, has been asked (by serious reporters) whether or not he believes in evolution, and whether or not he thinks Barack Obama is a Christian.

THem's some journalisms right there

Walker is a legitimate Conk threat right now. It's the media's job to play gotcha journalism and trip him up with non sequiturs and asinine questions. Once he misspeaks, then they'll paint him as some Neanderthal whacked out off the reservation extremist.

It's what they do.

There is no legitimate conk threat now.

[89Hen]

Walker is a legitimate Conk threat right now. It's the media's job to play gotcha journalism and trip him up with non sequiturs and asinine questions. Once he misspeaks, then they'll paint him as some Neanderthal whacked out off the reservation extremist.

It's what they do.

There is no legitimate conk threat now.

You're probably right.

[houndawg]

There is no legitimate conk threat now.

You're probably right.

Conks are their own worst enemy. The two or three worth voting for couldn't get nominated and the ones that could make it through the primary are comic relief for everybody except the batshit conks like Baldy and tman.

[89Hen]

The two or three worth voting for couldn't get nominated and the ones that could make it through the primary are comic relief for everybody except the batshit...

donks like hound and Kalm...

[GannonFan]

There is no legitimate conk threat now.

You're probably right.

And that's the thing - people have been saying since 2008 that the Republicans are screwed and they are no longer a national party, but then they dominate the 2010 and 2014 elections and take over control of both Houses of Congress in the process, while also holding 31 of the 50 governorships. If that's losing and falling apart, well, it certainly puts a spin into that definition.

The Presidency isn't really about party, it's about personality. Reagan had it over Carter and then Mondale. Bush had it over Dukakis, Clinton had it over Bush and then Dole. Bush, shockingly enough, had it over Gore and Kerry, and Obama clearly had it over McCain and Romney (that string of losers from Dole to McCain certainly had to be some of the worst candidates for President in some time). Can Hillary have it over Jeb or Walker (I don't think Christie is a real candidate at this point)? We'll see. Other than Hillary I don't see any Dem that even has a chance (and Warren, like Christie, isn't likely to be a viable candidate).

[houndawg]

You're probably right.

And that's the thing - people have been saying since 2008 that the Republicans are screwed and they are no longer a national party, but then they dominate the 2010 and 2014 elections and take over control of both Houses of Congress in the process, while also holding 31 of the 50 governorships. If that's losing and falling apart, well, it certainly puts a spin into that definition.

The Presidency isn't really about party, it's about personality. Reagan had it over Carter and then Mondale. Bush had it over Dukakis, Clinton had it over Bush and then Dole. Bush, shockingly enough, had it over Gore and Kerry, and Obama clearly had it over McCain and Romney (that string of losers from Dole to McCain certainly had to be some of the worst candidates for President in some time). Can Hillary have it over Jeb or Walker (I don't think Christie is a real candidate at this point)? We'll see. Other than Hillary I don't see any Dem that even has a chance (and Warren, like Christie, isn't likely to be a viable candidate).

Lots of us felt that way before the last election before anybody had heard of Obama. The election is still a long ways off...

[houndawg]

You're probably right.

And that's the thing - people have been saying since 2008 that the Republicans are screwed and they are no longer a national party, but then they dominate the 2010 and 2014 elections and take over control of both Houses of Congress in the process, while also holding 31 of the 50 governorships. If that's losing and falling apart, well, it certainly puts a spin into that definition.

The Presidency isn't really about party, it's about personality. Reagan had it over Carter and then Mondale. Bush had it over Dukakis, Clinton had it over Bush and then Dole. Bush, shockingly enough, had it over Gore and Kerry, and Obama clearly had it over McCain and Romney (that string of losers from Dole to McCain certainly had to be some of the worst candidates for President in some time). Can Hillary have it over Jeb or Walker (I don't think Christie is a real candidate at this point)? We'll see. Other than Hillary I don't see any Dem that even has a chance (and Warren, like Christie, isn't likely to be a viable candidate).

This is all true but somehow it doesn't really translate into goodwill; lots of people voting Republican could be more correctly said to be voting against Democrats, particularly Obama. Obama has the same problem with the Bubba vote; lots of Bubbas would agree that they have a lot more in common with most Democrats positions than with most Republicans positions if they were hearing it from somebody white.

[travelinman67]

Mr President, has Joe Biden ever fondled Michelle

"Wait, what did he do? Jan, I'm sorry, but I can't control what Joe does...just ask Michelle. I've had to add extra security to Tasha and Malia too."

[kalm]

I think you missed the point of what he was saying.

Scott Walker, in the space of two weeks, has been asked (by serious reporters) whether or not he believes in evolution, and whether or not he thinks Barack Obama is a Christian.

THem's some journalisms right there

The Evolution question came up because of education standards, and other GOP candidates stating that evolution is not real.

The Christian question came up because other GOP leaders were questioning whether or not Obama is a Christian. If your party is questioning the religion of the President, and you are trying to run for President yourself, then expect questions like that. The GOP could stop this nonsense, but they would rather have a whisper campaign that Obama is a muslin. You reap what you sow.

You can't make religion a focal point, then run away from the consequences of that idiocy.

Answers:

"Why would I not think he's a christian? If you have doubts, you should ask him that question"

"Science would suggest that evolution is real and I think evolution and faith can be compatible."

[ALPHAGRIZ1]

Prius makes a truck?

'75 Dodge W100, factory 440.

Fu*king hippy

[JohnStOnge]

Really? Which republican was asked that question?

I said "that kind of question." Asking a professed Christian a question on evolution is that kind of question. What you're doing is asking them if they believe something that fundamentalist Christianity theology says is true vs. what "science" says is true. "Science" says evolution over billions of years is the explanation for what we see in terms of life on this planet. Fundamentalist Christian theology says otherwise.

Similar thing if basically asking if someone can rise from the dead after three days. "Science" says that's not going to happen. The absolute core of Christianity is the idea of Jesus being dead for three days the rising. Asking Obama if he thinks that really happened is indeed, "that kind of question." It's putting him on the spot in a manner comparable to the way in which the reporter who asked Scott Walker the question on evolution was trying to put Walker on the spot.

BTW, how would you answer your own question? Tell us how you're an agnostic again...

I lean towards "no." But I don't know. That's what agnosticism is.

[Grizalltheway]

Why did you put science in quotation marks?

[kalm]

Really? Which republican was asked that question?

I said "that kind of question." Asking a professed Christian a question on evolution is that kind of question. What you're doing is asking them if they believe something that fundamentalist Christianity theology says is true vs. what "science" says is true. "Science" says evolution over billions of years is the explanation for what we see in terms of life on this planet. Fundamentalist Christian theology says otherwise.

Similar thing if basically asking if someone can rise from the dead after three days. "Science" says that's not going to happen. The absolute core of Christianity is the idea of Jesus being dead for three days the rising. Asking Obama if he thinks that really happened is indeed, "that kind of question." It's putting him on the spot in a manner comparable to the way in which the reporter who asked Scott Walker the question on evolution was trying to put Walker on the spot.

BTW, how would you answer your own question? Tell us how you're an agnostic again...

I lean towards "no." But I don't know. That's what agnosticism is.

So which other religion related questions should be off-base as well?

[JohnStOnge]

Why did you put science in quotation marks?

Because science is a process and what people are really doing is looking at what scienTISTS say. I guess I could've used he word "scientists" instead and left the quotes off.

[CID1990]

I think you missed the point of what he was saying.

Scott Walker, in the space of two weeks, has been asked (by serious reporters) whether or not he believes in evolution, and whether or not he thinks Barack Obama is a Christian.

THem's some journalisms right there

The Evolution question came up because of education standards, and other GOP candidates stating that evolution is not real.

The Christian question came up because other GOP leaders were questioning whether or not Obama is a Christian. If your party is questioning the religion of the President, and you are trying to run for President yourself, then expect questions like that. The GOP could stop this nonsense, but they would rather have a whisper campaign that Obama is a muslin. You reap what you sow.

You can't make religion a focal point, then run away from the consequences of that idiocy.

You have no legitimacy covering for these questions, Jon.

The mainstream is not questioning sh!t, and if you think that it justifies goofball gotcha questions, then I wonder what your response was back when Obama's ties to a certain preacher of liberation theology was being brought up? Or his ties to certain domestic terrorists? Or while we are on education, I wonder what your response was to requests for Obama's academic record (since he didn't make his public while Walker did). (BTW- I think those questions were immaterial, too- except that Obama put himself out there as a constitutional scholar)

You're a trademark stamped robot liberal, Jon. I could try to caricature you by writing your posts for you and I'd be 100% accurate.

[CID1990]

The Evolution question came up because of education standards, and other GOP candidates stating that evolution is not real.

The Christian question came up because other GOP leaders were questioning whether or not Obama is a Christian. If your party is questioning the religion of the President, and you are trying to run for President yourself, then expect questions like that. The GOP could stop this nonsense, but they would rather have a whisper campaign that Obama is a muslin. You reap what you sow.

You can't make religion a focal point, then run away from the consequences of that idiocy.

Answers:

"Why would I not think he's a christian? If you have doubts, you should ask him that question"

"Science would suggest that evolution is real and I think evolution and faith can be compatible."

I'm also perfectly happy with any politician who punts on those questions as silly and immaterial.

[DSUrocks07]

A Christian president would have approved Keystone pipeline.

Numbers 35:33-34 ESV
You shall not pollute the land in which you live, for blood pollutes the land, and no atonement can be made for the land for the blood that is shed in it, except by the blood of the one who shed it. You shall not defile the land in which you live, in the midst of which I dwell, for I the Lord dwell in the midst of the people of Israel.”

Wait a minute

[89Hen]

lots of people voting Republican could be more correctly said to be voting against Democrats

I wonder how you get anywhere driving on all those one way streets.

[GannonFan]

And that's the thing - people have been saying since 2008 that the Republicans are screwed and they are no longer a national party, but then they dominate the 2010 and 2014 elections and take over control of both Houses of Congress in the process, while also holding 31 of the 50 governorships. If that's losing and falling apart, well, it certainly puts a spin into that definition.

The Presidency isn't really about party, it's about personality. Reagan had it over Carter and then Mondale. Bush had it over Dukakis, Clinton had it over Bush and then Dole. Bush, shockingly enough, had it over Gore and Kerry, and Obama clearly had it over McCain and Romney (that string of losers from Dole to McCain certainly had to be some of the worst candidates for President in some time). Can Hillary have it over Jeb or Walker (I don't think Christie is a real candidate at this point)? We'll see. Other than Hillary I don't see any Dem that even has a chance (and Warren, like Christie, isn't likely to be a viable candidate).

Lots of us felt that way before the last election before anybody had heard of Obama. The election is still a long ways off...

Huh? Where were you in 2004 when Obama gave the keynote address to the Democratic convention and was pretty much acknowledged as a Presidential candidate for four years in the future? By 2006 he had "The Audacity of Hope" out in print and everyone knew he was a serious contender. Obama wasn't some surprise candidate, what was surprising was how well he campaigned against the Clinton part of the party. Right now, the only one you could throw out there that could approach what he did would be Elizabeth Warren, and it's hard to see her as electable in a general election (too polarizing, like Christie) and I don't think she'd have the chops to beat Hillary in the primary anyway.

[Chizzang]

A Christian president would have approved Keystone pipeline.

Numbers 35:33-34 ESV
You shall not pollute the land in which you live, for blood pollutes the land, and no atonement can be made for the land for the blood that is shed in it, except by the blood of the one who shed it. You shall not defile the land in which you live, in the midst of which I dwell, for I the Lord dwell in the midst of the people of Israel.”

Wait a minute

And God said: Look after the planet
And Man said: Fuck You

[GannonFan]

And that's the thing - people have been saying since 2008 that the Republicans are screwed and they are no longer a national party, but then they dominate the 2010 and 2014 elections and take over control of both Houses of Congress in the process, while also holding 31 of the 50 governorships. If that's losing and falling apart, well, it certainly puts a spin into that definition.

The Presidency isn't really about party, it's about personality. Reagan had it over Carter and then Mondale. Bush had it over Dukakis, Clinton had it over Bush and then Dole. Bush, shockingly enough, had it over Gore and Kerry, and Obama clearly had it over McCain and Romney (that string of losers from Dole to McCain certainly had to be some of the worst candidates for President in some time). Can Hillary have it over Jeb or Walker (I don't think Christie is a real candidate at this point)? We'll see. Other than Hillary I don't see any Dem that even has a chance (and Warren, like Christie, isn't likely to be a viable candidate).

This is all true but somehow it doesn't really translate into goodwill; lots of people voting Republican could be more correctly said to be voting against Democrats, particularly Obama. Obama has the same problem with the Bubba vote; lots of Bubbas would agree that they have a lot more in common with most Democrats positions than with most Republicans positions if they were hearing it from somebody white.

What do you mean by goodwill, I don't follow where you're going with that.

As for Obama, he can win by large margins in '08 and '12, but then you're saying the same voters are changing their minds and voting against him in '10 and '14? It's the opposite and you're proving my point. Who people pick for President has very little to do with the party they are running with, it basically comes down to which person people like. People saw Bush and Gore on stage next to each other and Gore came off as standoffish and weird while Bush was likeable. Same thing in '04 with Kerry, and Bush didn't even have that great of a record in either election. Same could be said in '08 and '12. People were saying "let's vote for Barack, we need the Democrats in office" - they were saying "Geez, McCain looks old and kooky and Palin is a trainwreck" and then they were saying "Romney looks like a robot and he's Mormon too". Obama was more likeable. Same thing will happen in 2016 - people will look at Hillary and look at whoever comes out from the GOP (right now Walker or Bush would be early favorites, but the pool is deeper on the GOP side so we'll see) and they'll pick who they like. Being Democrat or Republican really doesn't matter.

[houndawg]

lots of people voting Republican could be more correctly said to be voting against Democrats

I wonder how you get anywhere driving on all those one way streets.

The converse is also true.

[houndawg]

Lots of us felt that way before the last election before anybody had heard of Obama. The election is still a long ways off...

Huh? Where were you in 2004 when Obama gave the keynote address to the Democratic convention and was pretty much acknowledged as a Presidential candidate for four years in the future? By 2006 he had "The Audacity of Hope" out in print and everyone knew he was a serious contender. Obama wasn't some surprise candidate, what was surprising was how well he campaigned against the Clinton part of the party. Right now, the only one you could throw out there that could approach what he did would be Elizabeth Warren, and it's hard to see her as electable in a general election (too polarizing, like Christie) and I don't think she'd have the chops to beat Hillary in the primary anyway.

They say that every time somebody gives the keynote address, thats why they have it, to show off an up-and-comer. Nobody thought Obama had the chops to beat Hillary either.

[JohnStOnge]

BTW, I dont think Obama is a Christian. I think it's like anything else with Obama. He does what he has to do and says what he has to say at any given time in order to put himself in the best position as he sees it to do what he wants to do. If he thinks that means saying he believes marriage is between one man and one woman, for example, he says that. If he thinks that means he should say his outlook on that issue has "evolved," he does that. And if he thinks going to Church and presenting himself as a Christian is best, he'll do that.

I don't think he's a Muslim either, BTW. I think he is basically a humanist. I very seriously doubt if he believes Jesus Christ literally died, stayed dead for three days, then rose from the dead. I also doubt that he believes Jesus Christ is the Son of God and that one day he's going to come back and we're going to have all the stuff that goes along with that. Also, I doubt he believes what Mohammed wrote.

I think he does have an ethos. But it's a humanist ethos.

To me, people shouldn't be afraid to say, if asked, that they don't THINK he's a Christian because that's not an unreasonable thing to say. It's really not. In his actual behavior he clearly comes across as a humanist.

[houndawg]

BTW, I dont think Obama is a Christian. I think it's like anything else with Obama. He does what he has to do and says what he has to say at any given time in order to put himself in the best position as he sees it to do what he wants to do. If he thinks that means saying he believes marriage is between one man and one woman, for example, he says that. If he thinks that means he should say his outlook on that issue has "evolved," he does that. And if he thinks going to Church and presenting himself as a Christian is best, he'll do that.

I don't think he's a Muslim either, BTW. I think he is basically a humanist. I very seriously doubt if he believes Jesus Christ literally died, stayed dead for three days, then rose from the dead. I also doubt that he believes Jesus Christ is the Son of God and that one day he's going to come back and we're going to have all the stuff that goes along with that. Also, I doubt he believes what Mohammed wrote.

I think he does have an ethos. But it's a humanist ethos.

To me, people shouldn't be afraid to say, if asked, that they don't THINK he's a Christian because that's not an unreasonable thing to say. It's really not. In his actual behavior he clearly comes across as a humanist.

Neither does anybody with a functional brain stem but lots of those will still claim to be Christians.