You are viewing an archive of the old fxhome.com forums. The community has since moved to hitfilm.com.

Senator Obama's World Tour

Posted: Sun, 27th Jul 2008, 12:59am

Post 1 of 79

petet2

Force: 2899 | Joined: 27th Dec 2005 | Posts: 1043

VisionLab User VideoWrap User Windows User

Gold Member

[Apologies to the mods if this breaches your "no politics" guidelines - it isn't meant to be a discussion of the various merits of the US Presidential Candidates but it is foreseeable that that is where it will end up so I will understand if you pull it smile]

This is a question for US based members of the community.

Senator Obama is coming to the end of a whistle stop world tour and the coverage in the UK media has been largely very favourable. The reception that the Senator has got on his tour clearly reflects a high level of popularity with European leaders and also European people and US ex-pats. He has raised a phenomenal amount of money from US overseas voters in the past few days.

I really don't want this to become a pro/anti Obama thread, I was just curious as to how much media coverage there has been in the US of Senator Obama's overseas visits and what the nature of that coverage had been? Has it been portrayed in a positive or negative light?

I am genuinely curious about this and would be grateful therefore if the responses can be serious and civil so the thread has a chance of surving for me to read any responses in the morning smile
Posted: Sun, 27th Jul 2008, 1:26am

Post 2 of 79

Serpent

Force: 5426 | Joined: 26th Dec 2003 | Posts: 6515

CompositeLab Pro User EffectsLab Pro User FXhome Movie Maker FXpreset Maker MacOS User

Gold Member

Yo, when he made that 3 pointer he secured my vote.

But yeah, all the major networks covered this. In fact, that was the big deal: the fact that the media has bias in terms of covering Obama more-so than McCaine. Really though, he didn't do anything that would be perceived as negative, so the media seems neutral-positivish I suppose. That's the vibe I got. They have to try to seem as neutral as possible and since overseas media doesn't have that kind of restriction (and the fact that Obama is awesome) they probably have more positive coverage.
Posted: Sun, 27th Jul 2008, 1:31am

Post 3 of 79

FXhomer46784

Force: 493 | Joined: 24th Dec 2007 | Posts: 329

EffectsLab Pro User Windows User

Gold Member

I basically agree with Serpent on this. Obama has got a lot of coverage (since he was a contender though, not just on this most recent tour).

I find it funny/saddening that the only coverage McCain has had recently are stories pertaining to how the media hasn't been giving him any coverage recently because of Obama's trip. I always find it funny when they criticize 'the media' on the news as if they don't realize that they are 'the media'.
Posted: Sun, 27th Jul 2008, 1:41am

Post 4 of 79

D3L3T10N

Force: 317 | Joined: 23rd Jun 2007 | Posts: 472

CompositeLab Pro User FXhome Movie Maker MacOS User

Gold Member

Ohhhhh man. Ohhhhhhhh man. This has been covered like crazy. He has taken Brian Williams, Katie Couric, and Charlie Gibson along with him, (Fox News Sunday host Chris Wallace conspicuously missing from the bunch--not saying that's a bad thing he's not exactly fair and balanced...), and everyone is looking for him to screw up. He has been seemingly perfect, and he has been extremely well received by regular people all over the world. Every major network is covering his every move--to the point of apparent favoritism. I think that even though the point of the coverage was to find a mistake that could be exploited as a way to "prove" that Obama is inexperienced foreign policy-wise, he has yet to make a mistake, and therefore the coverage has been very good for him. This is accentuated by the fact that John McCain screwed up numerous times over this same period: he spoke about the "Iraq-Pakistan border", and then spoke about Somalia when he was supposed to be referring to Sudan. Further improving Obama's coverage in the media in regards to how he looks compared to McCain, are McCain's media coverage highlights of the week: an interview in a supermarket, and driving in a golf cart with former President George H.W. Bush. Anyway, I think the coverage has been great for Obama--it has been all over every network all the time, and it has almost all been positive. (Except for Fox News, of course, but you know how that is...)
Posted: Sun, 27th Jul 2008, 1:54am

Post 5 of 79

drspin98

Force: 470 | Joined: 14th May 2005 | Posts: 438

CompositeLab Pro User EffectsLab Pro User Windows User

Gold Member

D3L3T10N wrote:

I think that even though the point of the coverage was to find a mistake that could be exploited as a way to "prove" that Obama is inexperienced foreign policy-wise,
Congratulations-that is the funniest thing I have heard in a LONG time. You made my day.
Posted: Sun, 27th Jul 2008, 12:06pm

Post 6 of 79

Mellifluous

Force: 5604 | Joined: 6th Oct 2002 | Posts: 3782

EffectsLab Pro User Windows User

Gold Member

drspin98 wrote:

D3L3T10N wrote:

I think that even though the point of the coverage was to find a mistake that could be exploited as a way to "prove" that Obama is inexperienced foreign policy-wise,
Congratulations-that is the funniest thing I have heard in a LONG time. You made my day.
Funny, but he has a fair point. If Obama slipped up he would be torn to bits by the US media in ways his opposition wouldn't/have not been.
Posted: Sun, 27th Jul 2008, 12:25pm

Post 7 of 79

devilskater

Force: 581 | Joined: 27th Jun 2002 | Posts: 890

EffectsLab Lite User Windows User

Gold Member

Obama's World Tour was quite amazing...he is my favourite candidate for US President...I won't reason why...would take too long ^^

The Austrian media broadcasted his visit in Berlin, and I must say, his speech was fantastic and the crowd thoroughly enjoyed his presence...there were hundredthousands of people there...

Just think it is a dick move from McCain to try to "bring obama down", 'cause obama didn't visit an american military base in Germany ... McCain suggests that it is his (obama's) duty as commander in chief, to visit the wounded soldiers of iraq.

and the McCain ad that is shown in the US. is really really really reaaaaally rediculous...

cheers,
d.
Posted: Sun, 27th Jul 2008, 4:58pm

Post 8 of 79

drspin98

Force: 470 | Joined: 14th May 2005 | Posts: 438

CompositeLab Pro User EffectsLab Pro User Windows User

Gold Member

Mellifluous wrote:

drspin98 wrote:

D3L3T10N wrote:

I think that even though the point of the coverage was to find a mistake that could be exploited as a way to "prove" that Obama is inexperienced foreign policy-wise,
Congratulations-that is the funniest thing I have heard in a LONG time. You made my day.
Funny, but he has a fair point. If Obama slipped up he would be torn to bits by the US media in ways his opposition wouldn't/have not been.
I'm going to put this as clearly and politely as possible-you are 100% wrong.

BTW That "funniest thing I've heard in a long time" award has just been supplanted.

Last edited Sun, 27th Jul 2008, 5:34pm; edited 2 times in total.

Posted: Sun, 27th Jul 2008, 5:19pm

Post 9 of 79

Evman

Force: 4382 | Joined: 25th Jan 2004 | Posts: 3609

VisionLab User VideoWrap User FXhome Movie Maker MacOS User

Gold Member

devilskater wrote:


Just think it is a dick move from McCain to try to "bring obama down", 'cause obama didn't visit an american military base in Germany ... McCain suggests that it is his (obama's) duty as commander in chief, to visit the wounded soldiers of iraq.

I'm sorry, but it's a little important for the Commander in Chief of the US Military to visit some of his troops that have valiantly sacrificed so much for their country...

Oh wait, I forgot, the Joker was right... if a truck full of soldiers gets blown up, no one panics, because it's "all part of the plan..."
Posted: Sun, 27th Jul 2008, 5:35pm

Post 10 of 79

D3L3T10N

Force: 317 | Joined: 23rd Jun 2007 | Posts: 472

CompositeLab Pro User FXhome Movie Maker MacOS User

Gold Member

Evman wrote:

I'm sorry, but it's a little important for the Commander in Chief of the US Military to visit some of his troops that have valiantly sacrificed so much for their country...


He did visit US troops, he just didn't visit that particular base in Germany.
Posted: Sun, 27th Jul 2008, 5:37pm

Post 11 of 79

devilskater

Force: 581 | Joined: 27th Jun 2002 | Posts: 890

EffectsLab Lite User Windows User

Gold Member

exactly...read or atleast watch the news ev's
Posted: Sun, 27th Jul 2008, 5:39pm

Post 12 of 79

DigiSm89

Force: 815 | Joined: 2nd Jun 2002 | Posts: 1898

Windows User

Member

I find it actually balances out. While there is extensive positive tv coverage of Obama's visit, there is extensive negative radio coverage that is constantly mocking it/him.

Makes for excellent in-car entertainment every day actually.

drspin98 wrote:

Mellifluous wrote:


Funny, but he has a fair point. If Obama slipped up he would be torn to bits by the US media in ways his opposition wouldn't/have not been.
I'm going to put this as clearly and politely as possible-you are 100% wrong.
I have to agree. The media outlets tending to favor him will go hugely on the defensive, while the ones producing negative coverage will go all out.
Posted: Sun, 27th Jul 2008, 5:41pm

Post 13 of 79

Evman

Force: 4382 | Joined: 25th Jan 2004 | Posts: 3609

VisionLab User VideoWrap User FXhome Movie Maker MacOS User

Gold Member

Yep, I'm a bastard, sorry.

I try not to watch the news - as I can't stand this election and I really just want it to be over. It's already been going on for at least 2 years and every day its a game of "lets find something to fault Obama/McCain for, when in the end, it doesn't matter at all if Obama's former pastor said some offensive things, or if McCain's supporter hates so and so.
Posted: Sun, 27th Jul 2008, 5:54pm

Post 14 of 79

D3L3T10N

Force: 317 | Joined: 23rd Jun 2007 | Posts: 472

CompositeLab Pro User FXhome Movie Maker MacOS User

Gold Member

drspin98 wrote:

I'm going to put this as clearly and politely as possible-you are 100% wrong.
Care to explain?

I mean, he scratches his face, and they think he's flicking off Hilary Clinton. He fist-bumps his wife, and they tell everyone it was a "terrorist fist jab". The media is standing at the ready, prepared to pounce on anything that could be even remotely construed as a gaffe or screw-up.

Also:

drspin98 wrote:

BTW That "funniest thing I've heard in a long time" award has just been supplanted.
sad
Posted: Sun, 27th Jul 2008, 6:43pm

Post 15 of 79

Pooky

Force: 4834 | Joined: 8th Jul 2003 | Posts: 5913

EffectsLab Lite User Windows User MacOS User FXhome Movie Maker

Gold Member

Well kids, it's actually fairly simple. See, the media is a business, which seeks profits, which comes from ratings. In this case, they profit from a close race between the two candidates, and so that's what they're trying to accomplish by picking on Obama who is currently seen as the superior candidate by many people.
Posted: Sun, 27th Jul 2008, 6:52pm

Post 16 of 79

drspin98

Force: 470 | Joined: 14th May 2005 | Posts: 438

CompositeLab Pro User EffectsLab Pro User Windows User

Gold Member

Rating: +1

Don't get me wrong-I don't dislike Obama-I may even vote for the guy-but if anyone thinks that the US (and from what I heard on the BBC this A.M.-world) media isn't head over heels in love with this guy ESPECIALLY after this trip and the 3 big networks sending their ANCHORS(!) is blinded by their own man-crush/cult glasses. Do you think if McCain would go now (or for that matter when he last did) they would send their heaviest hitters?-no way. Last time McCain went do you know the coverage he got on CNN?--31 words-total. Unreal.

"ready to pounce" come on. Did they pounce at "typical white person"? Imagine if McCain would have said "so and so is a "typical black person"". What do you think the mainstream media would have done? What if Bush would have talked about our "57 states"? CNN would have been all over that for days calling him every word for stupid their thesaurus could find. But Obama got a pass on those things-and those are just a couple I could come up with without even thinking about it. What about the comment by his wife about her pride in this country?

Last 6 months Newsweek covers-Obama 13 McCain 1. Pick up a Time magazine-it is nothing but one big Obama ad. Really- pick one up and try to tell me differently. He can do no wrong in it, McCain no right.

If anyone thinks the media isn't WAY, WAY slanted (to the point of "what the ...?!") in favor of Obama-well, we will just have to agree to disagree.

BTW where did you get the "terrorist fist jab" quote?
Posted: Sun, 27th Jul 2008, 7:05pm

Post 17 of 79

D3L3T10N

Force: 317 | Joined: 23rd Jun 2007 | Posts: 472

CompositeLab Pro User FXhome Movie Maker MacOS User

Gold Member

drspin98 wrote:


BTW where did you get the "terrorist fist jab" quote?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FZdt_oCZInc&feature=related
Posted: Sun, 27th Jul 2008, 7:09pm

Post 18 of 79

FXhomer46784

Force: 493 | Joined: 24th Dec 2007 | Posts: 329

EffectsLab Pro User Windows User

Gold Member

Evman wrote:

when in the end, it doesn't matter at all if Obama's former pastor said some offensive things, or if McCain's supporter hates so and so.
Actually, it really does. These things affect voters greatly. Who wants to vote for someone who's former pastor hates America? If they believe that's true, why would they vote for Obama?
Posted: Sun, 27th Jul 2008, 7:10pm

Post 19 of 79

Frosty G

Force: 540 | Joined: 28th May 2005 | Posts: 640

EffectsLab Pro User Windows User

Gold Member

Prime example of media position towards Obama was the primaries ABC debate where Gibson actually asked Obama some tough questions that he crumbled under. The media and democrats basically tried to blacklist Gibson and ABC.
Posted: Sun, 27th Jul 2008, 7:12pm

Post 20 of 79

Evman

Force: 4382 | Joined: 25th Jan 2004 | Posts: 3609

VisionLab User VideoWrap User FXhome Movie Maker MacOS User

Gold Member

FXhomer46784 wrote:

Evman wrote:

when in the end, it doesn't matter at all if Obama's former pastor said some offensive things, or if McCain's supporter hates so and so.
Actually, it really does. These things affect voters greatly. Who wants to vote for someone who's former pastor hates America? If they believe that's true, why would they vote for Obama?
Sure, if you actually believe that his pastor matters... And if you actually listen to what his pastor said he didn't "hate America"...

I'm saying that it SHOULDN'T matter, not that it doesn't...

People are dumb. razz
Posted: Sun, 27th Jul 2008, 7:26pm

Post 21 of 79

drspin98

Force: 470 | Joined: 14th May 2005 | Posts: 438

CompositeLab Pro User EffectsLab Pro User Windows User

Gold Member

D3L3T10N wrote:

drspin98 wrote:


BTW where did you get the "terrorist fist jab" quote?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FZdt_oCZInc&feature=related
The news person clearly does a "quote unquote" reference to that. Obviously in reference to the New Yorker cartoon. I certainly don't see that she implies anything there. If anything I get a mocking tone toward anyone who would view it as a "terrorist" thing to do. The expert THEY brought on said what we all know it was-a "hip" thing to do, and furthers the point I made in my last sentence (though she does it quite as bit more eloquently than myself).

The only thing the news person opines about is calling out Bush on HIS inappropriate body language.
Posted: Sun, 27th Jul 2008, 7:34pm

Post 22 of 79

Fill

Force: 1257 | Joined: 1st Jul 2005 | Posts: 1652

CompositeLab Lite User EffectsLab Lite User Windows User

Gold Member

(Except for Fox News, of course, but you know how that is...)
*cough* confused

I think the tour is great, although a lot of people I know are really bashing it (My dad calls it "kissing up to the rest of the world"). McCain has only proven to be a grumpy old man the past few weeks. This tour is really pushing his buttons.
Posted: Sun, 27th Jul 2008, 8:26pm

Post 23 of 79

FXhomer46784

Force: 493 | Joined: 24th Dec 2007 | Posts: 329

EffectsLab Pro User Windows User

Gold Member

Evman wrote:

FXhomer46784 wrote:

Evman wrote:

when in the end, it doesn't matter at all if Obama's former pastor said some offensive things, or if McCain's supporter hates so and so.
Actually, it really does. These things affect voters greatly. Who wants to vote for someone who's former pastor hates America? If they believe that's true, why would they vote for Obama?
Sure, if you actually believe that his pastor matters... And if you actually listen to what his pastor said he didn't "hate America"...

I'm saying that it SHOULDN'T matter, not that it doesn't...

People are dumb. razz
I know he didn't say that (at least I haven't heard him say that). But based on the things I have heard him say, he doesn't seem opposed to the idea either.

And personally for me, who my pastor is is an important decision for me and is an important part of who I am. It says a lot about me. So, I find it a very important consideration in a presidential candidate. If Obama (or anyone else's) pastor hasn't had a significant effect on them, there's a deeper issue at foot than anything that pastor may or may not have said at some point.
Posted: Sun, 27th Jul 2008, 8:51pm

Post 24 of 79

Thrawn

Force: 1995 | Joined: 11th Aug 2006 | Posts: 1962

CompositeLab Pro User EffectsLab Lite User FXhome Movie Maker MacOS User

Gold Member

As far as Obama's pastor goes...

Why does anyone go to church? To not listen to the pastor? To not take is his advice? I don't want the Commander and Chief of my country having direct influence from people such as Reverend Wright. As the old Japanese proverb goes, "When the character of a man is not clear to you, look at his friends.". Well, I'm looking at Reverand Wright, and I don't like what I see.

Evman wrote:

And if you actually listen to what his pastor said he didn't "hate America"...
cough cough
Posted: Sun, 27th Jul 2008, 9:04pm

Post 25 of 79

Evman

Force: 4382 | Joined: 25th Jan 2004 | Posts: 3609

VisionLab User VideoWrap User FXhome Movie Maker MacOS User

Gold Member

Yeah it'd be helpful if you didn't just listen to the soundbites that are endlessly rerun on Fox News - actually watch his entire sermon all the way through and you'll see that he's indeed saying god damn America, but not the American people, only the America who's government kills innocent people on a whim, and doesn't have any respect for human life.

I'm not saying Reverand Wright is my favorite person in the world, but come on now. And didn't Obama even sever all ties to him? To me, it's not important at all what his pastor thinks, because, guess what, he's not the one running for president - Obama is.

We've had enough of this religion centric government from 8 years of Bush. And we'll have more of it under McCain (though not as prominent as it is with Bush), it's just sad to see that we'd even be subjected to it at all under Obama. To get anywhere in American politics you have to subscribe to a religion and flaunt it everywhere, it seems.


As for his tour, it's admirable that he's even going, but it's actually sickening how much attention he's getting for it when McCain is over there all the time, and even has a son serving overseas...

Oh and is it obvious I have no idea for whom I'll be voting yet? razz
Posted: Sun, 27th Jul 2008, 9:17pm

Post 26 of 79

Thrawn

Force: 1995 | Joined: 11th Aug 2006 | Posts: 1962

CompositeLab Pro User EffectsLab Lite User FXhome Movie Maker MacOS User

Gold Member

I'm not gonna get too far into this discussion, because I have strong feelings against Obama, but I can say right now that many of those clips of Reverend Wright aren't taken out of context. And, no, he did not severe any relationships with Reverend Wright.

Also, his wife is now "proud of her country for the first time in her adult life"! I mean, come on. In addition, he has no experience! While McCain, who I'm also not a big fan of, has all of the experience needed. Countless years in the senate, and serving this country in the military.
Posted: Sun, 27th Jul 2008, 9:22pm

Post 27 of 79

D3L3T10N

Force: 317 | Joined: 23rd Jun 2007 | Posts: 472

CompositeLab Pro User FXhome Movie Maker MacOS User

Gold Member

drspin98 wrote:

The news person clearly does a "quote unquote" reference to that. Obviously in reference to the New Yorker cartoon.
The New Yorker cartoon was drawn after that and many other obviously false comments were made about Obama, especially ones pertaining to him being a "secret muslim", or a terrorist.

Also, I'm sure that Obama had no idea that Rev. Wright was going to make statements like he has when Obama joined his church back in the 80s.

Thrawn wrote:

And, no, he did not severe any relationships with Reverend Wright.
He didn't "disown" or "sever ties" with Wright, per se, but he did leave Wright's church.

Last edited Sun, 27th Jul 2008, 9:29pm; edited 1 times in total.

Posted: Sun, 27th Jul 2008, 9:29pm

Post 28 of 79

Bryce007

Force: 1910 | Joined: 5th Apr 2003 | Posts: 2609

VideoWrap User Windows User

Gold Member

I have strong feelings against both candidates, but I will admit that Obama is FAR more charismatic than McCain, who I'm still incredible confused about. How did a guy who personifies "Bitter old curmudgeon" get so far in the first place?
Posted: Sun, 27th Jul 2008, 9:30pm

Post 29 of 79

D3L3T10N

Force: 317 | Joined: 23rd Jun 2007 | Posts: 472

CompositeLab Pro User FXhome Movie Maker MacOS User

Gold Member

Bryce007 wrote:

I have strong feelings against both candidates, but I will admit that Obama is FAR more charismatic than McCain, who I'm still incredible confused about. How did a guy who personifies "Bitter old curmudgeon" get so far in the first place?
My guess is because he's a war hero, and many people, including me, respect him greatly for it.
Posted: Sun, 27th Jul 2008, 9:35pm

Post 30 of 79

Evman

Force: 4382 | Joined: 25th Jan 2004 | Posts: 3609

VisionLab User VideoWrap User FXhome Movie Maker MacOS User

Gold Member

Thrawn wrote:

I'm not gonna get too far into this discussion, because I have strong feelings against Obama, but I can say right now that many of those clips of Reverend Wright aren't taken out of context. And, no, he did not severe any relationships with Reverend Wright.

Also, his wife is now "proud of her country for the first time in her adult life"! I mean, come on. In addition, he has no experience! While McCain, who I'm also not a big fan of, has all of the experience needed. Countless years in the senate, and serving this country in the military.
First of all, your YouTube quote was from a speech he gave about race in America. That was a while ago. Since then, due to other things the Reverend has said, Obama has disowned him.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/06/04/AR2008060402037.html

That being said, I cannot disagree with you more about both Obama and McCain.

I'm so pleased that we are experiencing an election year in which I can safely say that I have no idea who I'm voting for... not because I'm "choosing between the lesser of two evils" as last time, but because America's finest have worked their way up to become our nominees.

On the one hand you have McCain, a war hero with years of experience, who genuinely cares about his country.

On the other hand, you have Obama, a newcomer, reminiscent of Kennedy, who lacks experience but makes up for it in the sheer will to inspire.


The "he has no experience" argument, while understandable, doesn't appeal to me that much at all. Take a look at history for examples. Let's look at JFK and... Richard Nixon.

JFK beat Nixon in 1960 largely due to his charisma. While Nixon had experience, JFK simply had that inspirational quality. At times, it's important to have a president like that, and it's almost impossible to have one that is both inspirational and experienced, as experience generally leads to lack of inspiration! razz

What happened after Kennedy was elected? He challenged America to put a man on the Moon and return him safely to Earth in just 9 years... This was when America had just 20 minutes of manned spaceflight experience. And wouldn't you know it, just 8 years and 2 months later - Neil Armstrong stepped on the Moon... That's mind boggling. Sure the motivations were political, but if Nixon had challenged America like that, I'm not sure if we could have pulled through.

Ironically enough, Obama wants to put our current manned spaceflight program on hold (which is oddly enough a MAJOR reason for me to hate him), but the idea remains the same. Inspiration can be 10,000 times more powerful than experience a lot of the time... and in these desperate times following Bush and entering a depression, I can't help but think that that inspiration would pay off.
Posted: Sun, 27th Jul 2008, 9:59pm

Post 31 of 79

Thrawn

Force: 1995 | Joined: 11th Aug 2006 | Posts: 1962

CompositeLab Pro User EffectsLab Lite User FXhome Movie Maker MacOS User

Gold Member

Rating: +2/-6

To me, Obama is a complete stranger. The media has taken him and made him into the messiah, when he really isn't great at all. Quite the opposite, in fact. Most don't even know that he smokes.. Many don't know that he wants high gas prices...

You made the comparison between Obama and Kennedy, now let me make another connection. Obama and Hilter. Hitler came to Germany in a time of depression. They were inspired by his words, didn't look at his credentials or past, and look where it got them. I am NOT calling Obama a Hilter, nor am I relating him to Hilter in an insulting fashion, but I am suggesting that we not make the same mistake. Learn from History. He could be the greatest president the world has ever known, or he could be the worst. But are you willing to take that chance when you have someone reliable such as McCain available? But that's just my opinion.
Posted: Sun, 27th Jul 2008, 10:04pm

Post 32 of 79

Evman

Force: 4382 | Joined: 25th Jan 2004 | Posts: 3609

VisionLab User VideoWrap User FXhome Movie Maker MacOS User

Gold Member

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Godwin%27s_law

There ought to be a law stating how soon after Hitler is brought up that Godwin's law is brought up! razz

Hitler was so far to the "right" that it's almost silly comparing him to Obama. At LEAST compare him to Lenin if you're going to make any comparisons at all. wink
Posted: Sun, 27th Jul 2008, 10:08pm

Post 33 of 79

D3L3T10N

Force: 317 | Joined: 23rd Jun 2007 | Posts: 472

CompositeLab Pro User FXhome Movie Maker MacOS User

Gold Member

Rating: -1

Thrawn wrote:

To me, Obama is a complete stranger. The media has taken him and made him into the messiah, when he really isn't great at all. Quite the opposite, in fact. Most don't even know that he smokes.. Many don't know that he wants high gas prices...

You made the comparison between Obama and Kennedy, now let me make another connection. Obama and Hilter. Hitler came to Germany in a time of depression. They were inspired by his words, didn't look at his credentials or past, and look where it got them. I am NOT calling Obama a Hilter, nor am I relating him to Hilter in an insulting fashion, but I am suggesting that we not make the same mistake. Learn from History. He could be the greatest president the world has ever known, or he could be the worst. But are you willing to take that chance when you have someone reliable such as McCain available? But that's just my opinion.
Why would he want high gas prices? And though I highly doubt he smokes, who cares? Also about the comparison between Obama and Hitler: People have undoubtedly scrutinized Obama's past within an inch of its proverbial life. They've even gone to the extreme of making things up about him. Have we really become so cynical that we can't even believe that there is someone out there that could make a half-good president? Its a sad day in this country when someone connects Barack Obama with Adolf Hitler...

Evman wrote:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Godwin%27s_law
biggrin
Posted: Sun, 27th Jul 2008, 10:39pm

Post 34 of 79

FXhomer46784

Force: 493 | Joined: 24th Dec 2007 | Posts: 329

EffectsLab Pro User Windows User

Gold Member

Now wait a second! Let's clear up some facts here. Obama had been going to Wright's church since the 80s and didn't leave until after Wright retired. If he truly attended that church at all during this period he would have heard those sermons (which by the way, I have listened to more of than just the FOX soundbites, at Wright's own prompting in fact). Unless Obama agreed with the majority of what was said, it should have prompted him to leave much sooner.

When you take into consideration that Obama didn't leave the church until after Wright did, and that he wouldn't immediately severe ties to Wright after this whole thing went public (sure he did after he faced immense political pressure to do so), can't anyone seen why so many people have such extreme reservations against Obama?

It's kind of like the whole "I voted for the war, before I voted against it" argument. I won't vote for a politician who does what they want until someone notices and complains, then changes. They're not hiding anything from me! I stand next to the man who believes what's right and sticks with it despite what others think, or has a genuine change of heart on their own accord.

Don't get me wrong, clearly a candidates pastor is not the only issue in an election. But what I am saying is that in Obama's case it is a grave one for many voters.
Posted: Sun, 27th Jul 2008, 10:49pm

Post 35 of 79

D3L3T10N

Force: 317 | Joined: 23rd Jun 2007 | Posts: 472

CompositeLab Pro User FXhome Movie Maker MacOS User

Gold Member

I think this whole issue of Obama's pastor has been blown way out of proportion. While some of your character can be judged by looking at your friends--having one former pastor who has said some dicey things should not be the determining factor in this election. Obama has many other friends and people that he associates with, and the only reason he is not being judged by their character is because that would not make a nearly as interesting news story.
Posted: Sun, 27th Jul 2008, 11:16pm

Post 36 of 79

FXhomer46784

Force: 493 | Joined: 24th Dec 2007 | Posts: 329

EffectsLab Pro User Windows User

Gold Member

To clarify: I'm not judging Obama's character at all, I'm arguing his relative merits as a presidential candidate. I don't mean in any way to judge him as an individual.


Where the Rev. Wright thing causes problems though is because a pastor is more than just your average friend:

FXhomer46784 wrote:

And personally for me, who my pastor is is an important decision for me and is an important part of who I am. It says a lot about me. So, I find it a very important consideration in a presidential candidate. If Obama (or anyone else's) pastor hasn't had a significant effect on them, there's a deeper issue at foot than anything that pastor may or may not have said at some point.
Yes, no one here has said a word about any of Obama or McCain's other friends. Is that because it isn't "nearly as interesting news story" or just because it isn't nearly as important?

For my part, it's the latter. I'm making no money from posting here and so I really don't care how many people read this or how interesting they may find it.

The news media may be different (they're after ratings after all), but even so the reason this made such an interesting news story is because many people do care, whether the Obama fanatics like it or not.
Posted: Sun, 27th Jul 2008, 11:20pm

Post 37 of 79

D3L3T10N

Force: 317 | Joined: 23rd Jun 2007 | Posts: 472

CompositeLab Pro User FXhome Movie Maker MacOS User

Gold Member

FXhomer46784 wrote:

To clarify: I'm not judging Obama's character at all, I'm arguing his relative merits as a presidential candidate. I don't mean in any way to judge him as an individual.
You don't think that a candidate's character affects his merit as a candidate?
Posted: Sun, 27th Jul 2008, 11:35pm

Post 38 of 79

ben3308

Force: 5210 | Joined: 24th May 2004 | Posts: 6433

VideoWrap User FXhome Movie Maker Windows User

Gold Member

I think he thinks it's sort of pre-emptive to judge someone as disengenuous solely based upon their character, especially when judging character in general is such a subjective, touchy subject.

Therefore, you can judge someone's merits, but to judge their character inclusive is to go too far on too few facts.
Posted: Sun, 27th Jul 2008, 11:37pm

Post 39 of 79

FXhomer46784

Force: 493 | Joined: 24th Dec 2007 | Posts: 329

EffectsLab Pro User Windows User

Gold Member

D3L3T10N wrote:

FXhomer46784 wrote:

To clarify: I'm not judging Obama's character at all, I'm arguing his relative merits as a presidential candidate. I don't mean in any way to judge him as an individual.
You don't think that a candidate's character affects his merit as a candidate?
Ben's basically right.

I certainly do think that a candidate's character affects his merit as a candidate to some extent. I was just saying that the point I'm making here has nothing to do with Obama's character.

One's character is something I would never want to get into discussing on a public forum (or a private one for that matter), especially the character of someone who I don't know personally and whose character I can't judge directly (such as Obama or McCain).
Posted: Mon, 28th Jul 2008, 12:27am

Post 40 of 79

Fill

Force: 1257 | Joined: 1st Jul 2005 | Posts: 1652

CompositeLab Lite User EffectsLab Lite User Windows User

Gold Member

Man, this election is a mix between the 1960 and 1968 election. We have a young, youthful candidate and an old experienced candidate. We're in a war many believe to be based on a lie (Gulf of Tonkin Resolution / WMDs Suppsedly in Iraq). We're wasting a lot of money on the current war, and we're going into an economic depression. Hm... the only missing is hippies. smile

I can vote this year, but I don't know if I will. If Ron Paul is still on the ballot, I'll probably chose him.
Posted: Mon, 28th Jul 2008, 12:50am

Post 41 of 79

D3L3T10N

Force: 317 | Joined: 23rd Jun 2007 | Posts: 472

CompositeLab Pro User FXhome Movie Maker MacOS User

Gold Member

ben3308 wrote:

I think he thinks it's sort of pre-emptive to judge someone as disengenuous solely based upon their character, especially when judging character in general is such a subjective, touchy subject.
No, I mean: doesn't their character determine how they will react in certain situations etc.? The main issue is if Obama is quick witted and morally sound enough to make the right decisions even though he has little foreign policy experience, right? As was stated before, experience generally takes away from inspiration, because you have a set way to react in situations that you know well. With Obama's little experience, I think the main burden of making these crucial foreign-policy decisions falls on his character because his reaction will be a result of his personality and character, rather than of experience as in McCain's case. McCain will (foreseeably) react in a way consistent with party lines and the way he has done in the past--hence his claim of experience. Obama, on the other hand, will have the help of his (hopefully) experience aides/VP, but ultimately the decision will go to him, which is why it is vital that he has good character, because without all the experience, his decisions will be based on him, and not his party.

Hope I got my point across, sometimes I confuse myself a little... biggrin
Posted: Mon, 28th Jul 2008, 2:08am

Post 42 of 79

Thrawn

Force: 1995 | Joined: 11th Aug 2006 | Posts: 1962

CompositeLab Pro User EffectsLab Lite User FXhome Movie Maker MacOS User

Gold Member

Rating: -2

My gosh, people... Did you not see my statement...

I am NOT calling Obama a Hilter, nor am I relating him to Hilter in an insulting fashion.
I WAS NOT, AM NOT, and WILL NOT compare Obama to Hitler in a demeaning way. I'm only stating the freakin similarities between their campaigning styles. I do not deserve 2 -1's for that.
I knew a guy who was a creep who had the same shoes that I did. Does that mean we're the same in every way? No. Does it mean that we're the same in our politics? No!

And about Obama smoking/high gas prices.. Yes, he does smoke, but since it would somehow hurt his image, the media has been careful to keep pictures out of the news. There's nothing wrong with smoking, in my opinion, but isn't it funny that no one knows about it? And yes, he does want high gas prices... Or rather, he would have preferred a more gradual adjustment.
Posted: Mon, 28th Jul 2008, 2:12am

Post 43 of 79

FXhomer46784

Force: 493 | Joined: 24th Dec 2007 | Posts: 329

EffectsLab Pro User Windows User

Gold Member

D3L3T10N, I agree that character is important and has impact (not just in Obama's case, but for all candidates).

As for McCain, when has he ever followed the party line until recently? (I'm not saying he won't if he's elected, he'll probably need to, but based on 'experience' that's not a good presumption to make).

Incidentally, if the original poster is still reading this (whoever they were), the balance between how much we've talked about Obama and how much we've talked about McCain in this thread is very much the same as the balance between how much the press has been talking about the two of them recently. There, question answered.
Posted: Mon, 28th Jul 2008, 2:44am

Post 44 of 79

Pooky

Force: 4834 | Joined: 8th Jul 2003 | Posts: 5913

EffectsLab Lite User Windows User MacOS User FXhome Movie Maker

Gold Member

http://www.latimes.com/news/politics/la-na-onthemedia27-2008jul27,0,712999.story

Here's an article about a study that showed the media was negative towards Obama more often than towards McCain... the difference between the two is media coverage, in that Obama gets covered more often (but often negatively) and McCain less often (but less negatively).

Deduce from this what you will.
Posted: Mon, 28th Jul 2008, 3:23am

Post 45 of 79

FXhomer46784

Force: 493 | Joined: 24th Dec 2007 | Posts: 329

EffectsLab Pro User Windows User

Gold Member

But in an election year, just talking about one candidate more than another is bias in a sense. People tend to vote for a name they're familiar with, one they've heard more, regardless of the context (in fact the average American isn't even smart enough/doesn't care enough to figure out whether a statement is positive or negative unless someone tells them which it is, try it and see, you can make people believe amazing things when you play with their minds).

Not to mention the source of that study sounds like they would lean liberal to begin with.

That being said, I also think that the media isn't as liberal as people say. Almost all media outlets (except NPR) are owned by major (conservative) corporations who wield gigantic influence in what is covered and how it is broadcast. Think about it, as strange as it sounds, whenever the media may sound liberal, it's because the conservatives want it to sound that way. Anyone's guess as to why, but my two cents says it must be, wise move or not, attempted scare tactics of some sort.
Posted: Mon, 28th Jul 2008, 3:34am

Post 46 of 79

Pooky

Force: 4834 | Joined: 8th Jul 2003 | Posts: 5913

EffectsLab Lite User Windows User MacOS User FXhome Movie Maker

Gold Member

The whole thing about "the liberal media" sounds silly to me. It's all relative: compared to something as monstrous as FOX News, for example, everything is to the very far left. You guys get a ton of conservative viewpoints from pretty much everywhere, and your administration is super-republican, so anything more to the left of that seems liberal, when in fact it is relatively centrist.

The media is currently giving more attention to Obama because he is a more interesting candidate to talk about. Sure, you could show blooper reels of McCain messing up his high school geography, or talking about his foreign policy, but truth be told, that doesn't garner as many ratings as the first black president who spews talk about change and hope.

And that's the point I made earlier: this is all about RATINGS. Not agendas (except FOX), but ratings, and thus money. It's a business, that's how it works.
Posted: Mon, 28th Jul 2008, 5:47am

Post 47 of 79

FXhomer46784

Force: 493 | Joined: 24th Dec 2007 | Posts: 329

EffectsLab Pro User Windows User

Gold Member

Pooky wrote:

Sure, you could show blooper reels of McCain messing up his high school geography, or talking about his foreign policy, but truth be told, that doesn't garner as many ratings
Yeah, the average person wouldn't know the difference anyway.


Pooky wrote:

And that's the point I made earlier: this is all about RATINGS. Not agendas (except FOX), but ratings, and thus money. It's a business, that's how it works.
Contrary to semi-popular belief, FOX doesn't have an agenda either. They just search for their ratings on the other side of the spectrum...and it works too. Just a different business strategy.
Posted: Mon, 28th Jul 2008, 8:40am

Post 48 of 79

Simon K Jones

Force: 27955 | Joined: 1st Jan 2002 | Posts: 11683

VisionLab User VideoWrap User PhotoKey 5 Pro User MuzzlePlug User PowerPlug User PhotoKey 3 Plug-in User FXhome Movie Maker FXpreset Maker Windows User

FXhome Team Member

Rating: +1

Interesting debate. As always, congratulations on keeping it civil and polite! I'm always impressed with FXhome.com's ability to talk about sensitive topics without everyone going mad. Well, other than the Hitler (or Hilter) comment... wink


I thought I'd chip in with a viewpoint from the UK/Europe. As far as I can see, basically the entire world is desperately, desperately hoping that Obama will be the next US president. That's part of why the media is being so positive about him on his world tour - everyone is trying to do all they can to promote him and give him whatever support he needs.

Regardless of the pros and cons of the Bush administration's affect within America, it's had a fairly catastrophic effect on the rest of the world, and is generally extremely unpopular - rightly or wrongly. People outside of the US are inevitably latching onto Obama precisely because he's so different. McCain, on the other hand, seems pretty much like Bush MkII, but with much more intelligence. There's a fear that McCain would continue the perceived mistakes of the Bush era.

The inspiration/experience argument is an interesting one. In terms of foreign policy, we've had 8 years of "experienced" foreign policy from the US, which has resulted in several wars, heightened tensions and a massive breakdown in communications between countries, so I think a new approach would definitely be a good idea. smile

With regards to the rest of the world, Obama would have the potential to near-instantly heal the gaping wounds created by Bush over the last 8 years, even in extremely sensitive parts of the world such as the Middle East. All the Europeans that are suspicious of the US government would instantly give it another chance. In other words, for foreign policy, Obama has the opportunity to act as a big 'reset' button, taking us back to previous time when everyone loved each other. smile Rightly or wrongly, McCain simply wouldn't have that same opportunity.

This is just with regards to foreign policy, of course. In terms of what the candidates bring to internal US policies and situations I don't really know.

What I do find interesting is how religion seems to be such a hot topic still. Isn't religion and politics meant to be entirely separate in the US? Wasn't that written into the constitution - even during the highly religious times in which it was written, they could see that mixing the two was a baaaaad idea.

Oh, and this quote:

Fill wrote:

My dad calls it "kissing up to the rest of the world"
Is just bizarre. Pursuing lines of communication is never a bad thing. Being on good relations with other people is never a bad thing. To consider it as such is just...strange. smile
Posted: Mon, 28th Jul 2008, 9:00am

Post 49 of 79

Atom

Force: 4300 | Joined: 9th May 2004 | Posts: 7014

EffectsLab Lite User FXhome Movie Maker Windows User

Gold Member

All power, all wars, all of life is dictated by how people regard themselves religiously. Why should politics be any different?

My AP American History, AP Government, and AP European History all used to say the same thing: People will die for one of two things: Their country or their religion.

Whether the world is universally moving out of theism or not, it certainly still does (and maybe should?) play a part in a man's character, decisions, and life. (Not to get all 'controversial' on you guys, though. wink) And so it's clearly an issue still. The U.S. remains prominently a theist country, so why shouldn't it exude some of that in it's leaders? Why shouldn't it, for that matter; if it's simply representative of the people?

Bush is obviously notorious for his misuse of religion in political power, but there's some gravitas to having faith play a part in U.S. leaders' decision-making and character. This can be non-denominational no doubt- but it's favored, whether the non-faith minority in the U.S. or the rest of the world likes it or not, by the U.S. majority and therefore, Tarn, plays it's part in deciding the next President.

'I may just be your everyday Texan Christian simpleton wanting someone akin to me, and the Constitution may get antsy about that, but why shouldn't I?'

I think the above is the feeling people get, reasonably so, and is why religion still does- and maybe always will -be a factor in any facet of American politics.
Posted: Mon, 28th Jul 2008, 9:34am

Post 50 of 79

Simon K Jones

Force: 27955 | Joined: 1st Jan 2002 | Posts: 11683

VisionLab User VideoWrap User PhotoKey 5 Pro User MuzzlePlug User PowerPlug User PhotoKey 3 Plug-in User FXhome Movie Maker FXpreset Maker Windows User

FXhome Team Member

Atom wrote:

All power, all wars, all of life is dictated by how people regard themselves religiously. Why should politics be any different?

My AP American History, AP Government, and AP European History all used to say the same thing: People will die for one of two things: Their country or their religion.
That's exactly why it should be kept separate. If someone is prepared to die for something, it usually means that something is far too dangerous and far too powerful.

Though I'm no historian, I'm not sure history is as much about religion as it appears. I'd argue that it's purely about power, and that religion was simply the most useful tool to use in order to gain power.

While religion does a lot of good on a small scale and a personal level, has it ever really had a positive effect on politics or large scale world events? As you say, it usually just leads to war.

Anyway, I appear to have just taken this topic straight to hell. razz Which certainly wasn't my intention.

I guess my main problem with religion being such a big part of politics is that it tends to overshadow the actual politics, and the important issues. As has kinda been illustrated here, in that you totally ignored the rest of my post and just focused on my really brief comment on religion. smile
Posted: Mon, 28th Jul 2008, 10:10am

Post 51 of 79

Atom

Force: 4300 | Joined: 9th May 2004 | Posts: 7014

EffectsLab Lite User FXhome Movie Maker Windows User

Gold Member

The rest of your post didn't pose such a question that required delicacy in answering, Tarn. Surely that's obvious. smile

Oh, and thank you for taking this thread straight from Route Controversy 66 to hell. I'm riding shotgun. wink
Posted: Mon, 28th Jul 2008, 11:44am

Post 52 of 79

devilskater

Force: 581 | Joined: 27th Jun 2002 | Posts: 890

EffectsLab Lite User Windows User

Gold Member

Thrawn wrote:

To me, Obama is a complete stranger. The media has taken him and made him into the messiah, when he really isn't great at all. Quite the opposite, in fact. Most don't even know that he smokes.. Many don't know that he wants high gas prices...

You made the comparison between Obama and Kennedy, now let me make another connection. Obama and Hilter. Hitler came to Germany in a time of depression. They were inspired by his words, didn't look at his credentials or past, and look where it got them. I am NOT calling Obama a Hilter, nor am I relating him to Hilter in an insulting fashion, but I am suggesting that we not make the same mistake. Learn from History. He could be the greatest president the world has ever known, or he could be the worst. But are you willing to take that chance when you have someone reliable such as McCain available? But that's just my opinion.
Yes, Hitler did help Germany AND Austria (where I live) in the 30's. The German-Austrian Empire had to pay war debts to the winners' of WW I ....HOWEVER, it is not Germany nor Austria that has a deppression today. Our Euro is so strong at the moment, we are having an enourmous economic boost. So it is quite dangerous for you to say something like that...before you write something like this in public, you should rather refresh your history ...
Obama is not a messiah in Europe, and he will never be one...he is something new and fresh and people feel comfortable with him. Plus he has a bloody good team behind him. It is not only the commander and chief who is important, it is his teammembers that make the difference...and I believe that Obama CAN make a difference...

and who cares if he smokes, i smoke...am I a bad person ? yes it is a disgusting habit, but it is not a reason to dislike someone or not to vote for obama...
Posted: Mon, 28th Jul 2008, 12:09pm

Post 53 of 79

petet2

Force: 2899 | Joined: 27th Dec 2005 | Posts: 1043

VisionLab User VideoWrap User Windows User

Gold Member

Atom wrote:


My AP American History, AP Government, and AP European History all used to say the same thing: People will die for one of two things: Their country or their religion.
I think many people, myself included, would put family way above country or religion.
Posted: Mon, 28th Jul 2008, 12:13pm

Post 54 of 79

Simon K Jones

Force: 27955 | Joined: 1st Jan 2002 | Posts: 11683

VisionLab User VideoWrap User PhotoKey 5 Pro User MuzzlePlug User PowerPlug User PhotoKey 3 Plug-in User FXhome Movie Maker FXpreset Maker Windows User

FXhome Team Member

petet2 wrote:

Atom wrote:


My AP American History, AP Government, and AP European History all used to say the same thing: People will die for one of two things: Their country or their religion.
I think many people, myself included, would put family way above country or religion.
Well said! That's something I meant to point out in my initial post.

A friend of mine once commented that if all the people who were "prepared to die for [insert arbitrary reason here]" were rounded up and put in a box somewhere, the world would be a much better place.

The big problem is when people are so willing to find something to die for - whether it be religion, patriotism or whatever.

Far better, surely, would be to find something worth living for?
Posted: Mon, 28th Jul 2008, 3:34pm

Post 55 of 79

Pooky

Force: 4834 | Joined: 8th Jul 2003 | Posts: 5913

EffectsLab Lite User Windows User MacOS User FXhome Movie Maker

Gold Member

Rating: +2/-2

Dying for your country is silly. The idea in war is to make the other guy die for his.

Anyway, if you're willing to die for something, it means you're so enthused and attatched to this one thing that there's no hope of you ever admitting a single negative thing about it or allowing yourself to consider other similar things. That's dangerous. That causes war and fighting.

Always stay open minded, you're very often wrong. If you don't see that, you're full of yourself.
Posted: Mon, 28th Jul 2008, 3:52pm

Post 56 of 79

Coureur de Bois

Force: 1394 | Joined: 23rd Sep 2002 | Posts: 1127

VideoWrap User Windows User MacOS User

Gold Member

Pooky wrote:

Dying for your country is silly.
Maybe. However, I don't think there is anything silly about being willing to stand up and put your life on the line for an idea that your home country was founded on. One should obviously be open-minded about any and all options that may prove to be less dangerous, but once those options are exhausted sometimes there is no other choice than to stand up for what you believe in.

If the land that I love is ever in turmoil and we are faced with that difficult choice, you better believe I would die to protect all the things that I hold most dear.

Give me liberty or give me death.

Last edited Mon, 28th Jul 2008, 5:56pm; edited 1 times in total.

Posted: Mon, 28th Jul 2008, 4:19pm

Post 57 of 79

DigiSm89

Force: 815 | Joined: 2nd Jun 2002 | Posts: 1898

Windows User

Member

Pooky wrote:

Dying for your country is silly. The idea in war is to make the other guy die for his.
There's truth in this statement. If you die, how can you protect your country afterwards?
Posted: Mon, 28th Jul 2008, 8:12pm

Post 58 of 79

Serpent

Force: 5426 | Joined: 26th Dec 2003 | Posts: 6515

CompositeLab Pro User EffectsLab Pro User FXhome Movie Maker FXpreset Maker MacOS User

Gold Member

As an angel.

XD
Posted: Mon, 28th Jul 2008, 8:16pm

Post 59 of 79

DigiSm89

Force: 815 | Joined: 2nd Jun 2002 | Posts: 1898

Windows User

Member

As THE Angel?
Posted: Mon, 28th Jul 2008, 9:19pm

Post 60 of 79

Bolbi

Force: 408 | Joined: 22nd Apr 2006 | Posts: 429

EffectsLab Pro User MacOS User

Gold Member

plural. more then one. angel(s).
Posted: Mon, 28th Jul 2008, 9:43pm

Post 61 of 79

FXhomer46784

Force: 493 | Joined: 24th Dec 2007 | Posts: 329

EffectsLab Pro User Windows User

Gold Member

Tarn,

Tarn wrote:

I thought I'd chip in with a viewpoint from the UK/Europe. As far as I can see, basically the entire world is desperately, desperately hoping that Obama will be the next US president.
I glad you shared the European side of things. What with Europe being more left than the US that makes sense, but things aren't so clearcut here in the USA (overall, at least, it sure seems clearcut in the online world).


Tarn wrote:

McCain, on the other hand, seems pretty much like Bush MkII, but with much more intelligence. There's a fear that McCain would continue the perceived mistakes of the Bush era.
The conservatives here don't see it that way at all though. It's widely accepted that Bush is pretty much party line and McCain is really a centrist. Many conservatives actually see McCain as an enemy to his own party because he's relatively left for them. All agree however, that he has followed the party line much more closely since this race began. No one knows how long that will continue.


Tarn wrote:

What I do find interesting is how religion seems to be such a hot topic still. Isn't religion and politics meant to be entirely separate in the US? Wasn't that written into the constitution
That last part is just entirely wrong. Although the idea of separation of church and state is widely accepted and even most religious people see it's importance in the US, it can't be found anywhere in the Constitution (or any other document for that matter, contrary to popular belief and even frequent media coverage saying the opposite).

You're probably thinking of this:

US Constitution wrote:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof...
(Here's my source if you want to take a look. The part I quoted is in Amendment 1.)

Other than that, no reference to religion of any sort exists.
Posted: Mon, 28th Jul 2008, 10:49pm

Post 62 of 79

Bryce007

Force: 1910 | Joined: 5th Apr 2003 | Posts: 2609

VideoWrap User Windows User

Gold Member

I think it's great to have something you believe so strongly in, you're willing to die for it.

As long as it's ethical, and you aren't actively seeking out others to harm in order to do so. In other words, something you're willing to die to DEFEND, not something you're actively on the offense about.

Thus, invading other countries doesn't fall into this category. Pre-emptive war is asinine.

As far as religion and politics, Bush isn't operating under Christian principles. Neither is Cheney. Neither did Clinton or Bush Senior. They may claim they do, but if you have any understanding of Christianity at all, you can clearly see they're just claiming that stance for wider appeal/justification. So, I'm a bit tired of people claiming that religon has anything to do with stupid sh1t that has been done to mess up the world. Clearly, it's been massively unintelligent/immoral decisions that have caused world instability, not true faith adhering to Christian beliefs. (And I don't care what the so called "Christian leaders" say. They're just as deceived, if not more so, then most politicians when it comes to what they think it "Right", and they don't operate from a biblical sense of duty whatsoever. Read the book of Proverbs if you don't believe me.)
Posted: Mon, 28th Jul 2008, 10:49pm

Post 63 of 79

Frosty G

Force: 540 | Joined: 28th May 2005 | Posts: 640

EffectsLab Pro User Windows User

Gold Member

^Very well explained by FXhomer46784.

Last edited Tue, 29th Jul 2008, 2:55am; edited 1 times in total.

Posted: Tue, 29th Jul 2008, 1:24am

Post 64 of 79

Rockfilmers

Force: 2182 | Joined: 10th May 2007 | Posts: 1376

VisionLab User PhotoKey 4 User FXpreset Maker FXhome Movie Maker Windows User

Gold Member

To be honest, i don't even see why he's touring over there. People over in Germany or Sweden or the UK can't vote for him, so why is he over there trying to get their support.
The conservatives here don't see it that way at all though. It's widely accepted that Bush is pretty much party line and McCain is really a centrist. Many conservatives actually see McCain as an enemy to his own party because he's relatively left for them.
and I agree. I do not like McCain at all. I don't like Obama at all. He wants to make America a socialist country ( Like the U.S.S.R. and North Korea). And McCain just wants to be liked. If I was 18, I would only vote for McCain to keep Obama out. And I've been called a racist for saying that, but it has nothing to do with race (And I'm not a racist). I don't get how McCain won the primary when all the Republicans I know didn't vote for him confused . I smell a conspiracy!!! lol jk smile
Posted: Tue, 29th Jul 2008, 5:05am

Post 65 of 79

Thrawn

Force: 1995 | Joined: 11th Aug 2006 | Posts: 1962

CompositeLab Pro User EffectsLab Lite User FXhome Movie Maker MacOS User

Gold Member

Tarn wrote:

Interesting debate. As always, congratulations on keeping it civil and polite! I'm always impressed with FXhome.com's ability to talk about sensitive topics without everyone going mad. Well, other than the Hitler (or Hilter) comment... wink
Heh, I didn't even know I was spelling it like that...

Just so I don't go down as an Obama hater, please let me clarify again. I was not saying Obama is anything like Hitler. If I did, I would very well deserve -100, but I didn't. I was simply pointing out that in the past, voting an inspirational speaker speaker into power over someone with experience has not always turned out for the best. Evman pointed out JFK, and in return I pointed out Hitler. I wasn't speaking of Obama, but rather inspirational speakers as a group.

I apologize for both my poor choice of example, along with my lack of communication of that example.
Posted: Tue, 29th Jul 2008, 6:19am

Post 66 of 79

Atom

Force: 4300 | Joined: 9th May 2004 | Posts: 7014

EffectsLab Lite User FXhome Movie Maker Windows User

Gold Member

petet2 wrote:

Atom wrote:


My AP American History, AP Government, and AP European History all used to say the same thing: People will die for one of two things: Their country or their religion.
I think many people, myself included, would put family way above country or religion.
Perhaps it is more powerful then, to say you would die for the idea a country or religion held?

Certainly idealists are known to be sacrificial, whether they mean to or not.
Posted: Tue, 29th Jul 2008, 6:28am

Post 67 of 79

Sollthar

Force: 13360 | Joined: 30th Oct 2001 | Posts: 6094

VisionLab User VideoWrap User PhotoKey 2 Pro User FXhome Movie Maker Windows User MacOS User

SuperUser

Something you're willing to die for... Sounds like a line out of a B-Movie. smile

To be willing to die for something to defend it is, if I'm not mistaken, exactly the stance most terrorists use. Who is the offender and who is the defender is a line that gets blurry very, very quickly. Unfortunately, the world isn't as simple as some movies.

Personally, I'd rather not die at all. Certainly not for my country and least of all for my religion.

I find the idea of a country to less appealing for that. I kinda have this image in my head of two cavemen sitting together at a fire until one of them goes "That hill there is mine" and the other goes "ok, but then this hill there is mine" and they found tribes on their hills, invent rules and live in peace until one comes again with "my hill is nicer then yours and has the cooler rules" which then makes the other one go "How unfair, I want your hill too" and they eventually bash each others head in because both are willing for their hills and what they stand for. smile
Posted: Tue, 29th Jul 2008, 8:33am

Post 68 of 79

Simon K Jones

Force: 27955 | Joined: 1st Jan 2002 | Posts: 11683

VisionLab User VideoWrap User PhotoKey 5 Pro User MuzzlePlug User PowerPlug User PhotoKey 3 Plug-in User FXhome Movie Maker FXpreset Maker Windows User

FXhome Team Member

Rockfilmers wrote:

To be honest, i don't even see why he's touring over there. People over in Germany or Sweden or the UK can't vote for him, so why is he over there trying to get their support.
I think there's three reasons:

1. Obama has been accused of not having any foreign policy experience, so this is him saying "look, I can handle it."

2. There's lots of overseas US voters.

3. If you're going to be US president, you're going to have to deal with other countries. So going and saying "hi" to them in advance makes a lot of sense - it means that if Obama DOES become president, he's already got a head start in terms of communications and diplomacy.

So it's a good move all around, really.

He wants to make America a socialist country ( Like the U.S.S.R. and North Korea).
Heh, what? Who on Earth told you that?
Posted: Tue, 29th Jul 2008, 12:02pm

Post 69 of 79

Mellifluous

Force: 5604 | Joined: 6th Oct 2002 | Posts: 3782

EffectsLab Pro User Windows User

Gold Member

There are different forms of socialism, and socialism does not equal communism or fascism. If that's what you think, you may as well speak of the United Kingdom in the same breath as North Korea and communist Russia. The current politcal party in power in the UK has its roots in socialism and still calls itself a democratic socialist party.

The term in reference to Obama just means that he's in favour of things like universal healthcare, which is something all other western industrialised countries have.
Posted: Wed, 30th Jul 2008, 12:24pm

Post 70 of 79

drspin98

Force: 470 | Joined: 14th May 2005 | Posts: 438

CompositeLab Pro User EffectsLab Pro User Windows User

Gold Member

I know this topic has (pretty much) run it's course, but in a previous post I named a few things off the top of my head that I believe B.O. was given a pass by the media (to the point-I would guess that many of us were unaware of). Well, I just thought of another egregious move by Obama that the press has yet again turned a blind eye towards-When two women wearing Muslim-style head wear were asked to move so they would not appear on camera at the same time as the candidate while giving a speech. What do you think the press would have done if McCain would have pulled that? Or Bush? And this is a guy who is hanging is political hat on "change" and "inclusiveness". Unreal.
Posted: Wed, 30th Jul 2008, 12:28pm

Post 71 of 79

Simon K Jones

Force: 27955 | Joined: 1st Jan 2002 | Posts: 11683

VisionLab User VideoWrap User PhotoKey 5 Pro User MuzzlePlug User PowerPlug User PhotoKey 3 Plug-in User FXhome Movie Maker FXpreset Maker Windows User

FXhome Team Member

1. Who actually asked them to move?
2. Did Obama have direct involvement in wanting them to be moved. Was he even aware of it?
3. Please cite sources.

There's not enough information in your post currently to draw any conclusions from it. Especially given your name is 'dr spin'. wink
Posted: Wed, 30th Jul 2008, 4:53pm

Post 72 of 79

D3L3T10N

Force: 317 | Joined: 23rd Jun 2007 | Posts: 472

CompositeLab Pro User FXhome Movie Maker MacOS User

Gold Member

It was some of his campaign volunteers that asked them to move, certainly not Obama himself. After this, the Obama campaign issued a formal apology:

Obama spokesman Bill Burton wrote:

“This is of course not the policy of the campaign. It is offensive and counter to Obama’s commitment to bring Americans together and simply not the kind of campaign we run. We sincerely apologize for the behavior of these volunteers.”
Posted: Wed, 30th Jul 2008, 6:12pm

Post 73 of 79

petet2

Force: 2899 | Joined: 27th Dec 2005 | Posts: 1043

VisionLab User VideoWrap User Windows User

Gold Member

Atom wrote:

petet2 wrote:

Atom wrote:


My AP American History, AP Government, and AP European History all used to say the same thing: People will die for one of two things: Their country or their religion.
I think many people, myself included, would put family way above country or religion.
Perhaps it is more powerful then, to say you would die for the idea a country or religion held?
I'm not sure I see how that is different from your original statement.

And when you say you are willing to die for your religion - do you mean sit passively in the way of tanks and let them run over you or do you mean die in the attempt to kill others (i.e.: a war) which seems to run contrary to the basic principles of most religions?

Rockfilmers wrote:

I don't like Obama at all. He wants to make America a socialist country ( Like the U.S.S.R. and North Korea).
The USSR broke up in 1991...
Posted: Thu, 31st Jul 2008, 2:08am

Post 74 of 79

drspin98

Force: 470 | Joined: 14th May 2005 | Posts: 438

CompositeLab Pro User EffectsLab Pro User Windows User

Gold Member

Tarn,

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=91658107
http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/06/18/obama-camp-apologizes-to-muslim-women/
http://www.latimes.com/business/careers/work/la-na-obama19-2008jun19,0,525523.story
http://www.latimes.com/business/careers/work/la-na-obama19-2008jun19,0,525523.story

Thank you, Tarn for proving my point perfectly-allow me to explain. I hope I have succeeded in not making my posts for or against so and so candidate, but in keeping with the intent (I think) of the thread to comment on Obama's treatment in the press. My contention was/is that anyone who thinks Obama isn't getting an obscene amount of butt-kissing from the press is misguided at best.

I brought up the snubbing of Muslim women at a rally. You (Tarn-a fellow from what I can tell have more than a passing interest/knowledge of current events/politics and certainly comes off as much more well-read/up on the subjects than most) did not hear about this. Do you think if Bush or McCain would have pulled those shenanigans that you would have had to "look" for the story?-CNN would have run that sucker for days. Words like "racist", "close minded" "damaging to our Mid-East reputation" etc would have flowed (rightfully so) freely.

Did B.O personally say "get those %$#@# Muslim chicks outta here"? Probably not. Was his apology sincere? Quite possibly. That has nothing to do with my point. It happened and not a damn consequence did he suffer. Obama the "change" candidate. The "inclusive" guy. "Mr multicultural". Those calling cards of his campaign should require that in such matters he be held to a much higher standard. That is clearly the opposite case. What a joke.

BTW How many of us have heard about the other references of mine? Or for that matter this one? http://radioactiveliberty.com/obama-president-58-states-8-10-years/
http://radioactiveliberty.com/obama-president-58-states-8-10-years/ What do you think the "mainstream media" would have done if Bush said this?
Posted: Fri, 1st Aug 2008, 12:34am

Post 75 of 79

Hendo

Force: 13107 | Joined: 16th Sep 2004 | Posts: 848

VisionLab User VideoWrap User PhotoKey 5 Pro User MuzzlePlug User PowerPlug User PhotoKey 3 Plug-in User FXhome Movie Maker FXpreset Maker Windows User MacOS User

FXhome Team Member

Jib Jab!
Posted: Fri, 1st Aug 2008, 12:45am

Post 76 of 79

FXhomer46784

Force: 493 | Joined: 24th Dec 2007 | Posts: 329

EffectsLab Pro User Windows User

Gold Member

D3L3T10N wrote:

It was some of his campaign volunteers that asked them to move, certainly not Obama himself. After this, the Obama campaign issued a formal apology:

Obama spokesman Bill Burton wrote:

“This is of course not the policy of the campaign. It is offensive and counter to Obama’s commitment to bring Americans together and simply not the kind of campaign we run. We sincerely apologize for the behavior of these volunteers.”
One could easily argue that this sounds like the 'shoot first ask questions later' mentality. I'm not claiming that this instance is, but it seems to silently be becoming an Obama 'trend' of sorts. Exactly the kind of so called dishonest 'old school politics' Obama has constantly bashed McCain (and others) for having.

Are Obama's campaign staff going to mess up from time to time? Certainly - that's true of anyone. However, if Obama it going to take such as strong stance on these things, shouldn't we see him taking some proactive steps towards them from time to time? Certainly. To me, the so called 'change' candidate just doesn't seem like what he claims to be.

petet2 wrote:

Rockfilmers wrote:

I don't like Obama at all. He wants to make America a socialist country ( Like the U.S.S.R. and North Korea).
The USSR broke up in 1991...
Maybe that's part of the reason he thinks it's a poor country to model...
Posted: Fri, 1st Aug 2008, 1:01am

Post 77 of 79

Atom

Force: 4300 | Joined: 9th May 2004 | Posts: 7014

EffectsLab Lite User FXhome Movie Maker Windows User

Gold Member

Rating: +1

Rockfilmers wrote:

I don't like Obama at all. He wants to make America a socialist country ( Like the U.S.S.R. and North Korea).
So did that dirty ol' cripple FDR. Good thing he didn't get anywhere with his "ideas", otherwise we'd be just like the U.S.S.R. and North Korea!
Posted: Fri, 1st Aug 2008, 4:03am

Post 78 of 79

D3L3T10N

Force: 317 | Joined: 23rd Jun 2007 | Posts: 472

CompositeLab Pro User FXhome Movie Maker MacOS User

Gold Member

Rating: +1

FXhomer46784 wrote:

if Obama it going to take such as strong stance on these things, shouldn't we see him taking some proactive steps towards them from time to time?
How do you suppose Obama would go about predicting the future and finding out which of his hundreds of volunteers were secretly anti-Muslim?
Posted: Fri, 1st Aug 2008, 8:32pm

Post 79 of 79

FXhomer46784

Force: 493 | Joined: 24th Dec 2007 | Posts: 329

EffectsLab Pro User Windows User

Gold Member

D3L3T10N wrote:

FXhomer46784 wrote:

if Obama it going to take such as strong stance on these things, shouldn't we see him taking some proactive steps towards them from time to time?
How do you suppose Obama would go about predicting the future and finding out which of his hundreds of volunteers were secretly anti-Muslim?
I never suggested that. I said his staff would mess up from time to time and that's to be expected of anyone. But we should be able to name many more examples of ways a candidate has had a positive impact than the ways in which their staff has had a negative one. Otherwise, it's a losing bet every time.

What I'm saying is that there are two type of voters: rational and emotional. Those who are inspired so much by someone's words that they ignore his or her actions (or lack of action) are emotional. Rational voters are inspired by men of action who get things done. Obama's actions need to match his speeches, or nothing he says will ever sound inspirational to the rational voter or a rational world leader.