Thread: Vetting Obama-Your Right To Know

Originally Posted by astralis

julie, prove it.

understand and sympathize with what you're doing, but some of the sources you're getting information from and posting here seem to be thinly sourced at best.

NEWSWEEK: As a child, Obama's religious journey was touched by several experiences, including his mother's scholarly approach to faith and the time he spent in Muslim and Roman Catholic schools in Jakarta. You've said that during this period, he expressed a certain detachment when dealing with religion. Why did this detachment exist?

Stephen Mansfield: I think you have to begin with his experiences in Jakarta. He's living in a home with a mother best described as a secular humanist. At the same time, he's at a Catholic school where he's saying the "our father" and participating in Catholic spirituality. Then the very next year, he attends a public school where he's participating in Muslim spirituality, reading the Qur'an. And, of course, his stepfather at the time is very folk-Islam.

Understanding Barack Obama's Faith | Newsweek Politics: Campaign 2008 | Newsweek.com

julie,

that's better...but it's still not saying what you said. from the next few lines:

So [Obama] was taught to participate in all of these religions, but he was not to invest his heart too fully in any of them. His mother's focus on religion as being generally important but not of a vital personal concern thus began to shape him. I think that just naturally created a certain amount of detachment that then, as he himself said, began to haunt him in his later years. It made him feel detached not only from faith but also from society as a whole.

"participating in muslim spirituality and reading the koran" ain't the same thing as being muslim- quite a few middle/high schools in this country actually have the koran (as well as the bible) as part of their literature readings.

. . . In his first memoir, "Dreams," Obama included a description of black student life at Occidental College in Los Angeles."There were enough of us on campus to constitute a tribe, and when it came to hanging out many of us chose to function like a tribe, staying close together, traveling in packs," he wrote. "It remained necessary to prove which side you were on, to show your loyalty to the black masses, to strike out and name names."He added: "To avoid being mistaken for a sellout, I chose my friends carefully. The more politically active black students. The foreign students. The Chicanos. The Marxist professors and structural feminists."

. . . In 1982 He (Barack Obama) regularly attends the Marxist-Socialist conferences at Cooper Union and African cultural fairs in Brooklyn and started lecturing his relatives until they worried he'd become "one of those freaks you see on the streets around here."

. . . Obama answered a help-wanted ad for a position as a community organizer for the Developing Communities Project (DCP) of the Calumet Community Religious Conference (CCRC) in Chicago. Obama was 24 years old, unmarried, and according to his memoir, searching for a genuine African-American community. Both the CCRC and the DCP were built on the Alinsky model of community agitation, wherein paid organizers learned how to "rub raw the sores of discontent," in Alinsky's words.

One of Obama's early mentors in the Alinsky method was Mike Kruglik, who had this to say to an interviewer of The New Republic, about Obama:"He was a natural, the undisputed master of agitation, who could engage a room full of recruiting targets in a rapid-fire Socratic dialogue, nudging them to admit that they were not living up to their own standards. As with the panhandler, he could be aggressive and confrontational. With probing, sometimes personal questions, he would pinpoint the source of pain in their lives, tearing down their egos just enough before dangling a carrot of hope that they could make things better.

"The agitator's job, according to Alinsky, is first to bring folks to the "realization" that they are indeed miserable, that their misery is the fault of unresponsive governments or greedy corporations, then help them to bond together to demand what they deserve, and to make such an almighty stink that the dastardly governments and corporations will see imminent "self-interest" in granting whatever it is that will cause the harassment to cease.In these methods, euphemistically labeled "community organizing," Obama had a four-year education, which he often says was the best education he ever got anywhere.(New Republic, March 19, 2007).

. . . Obama received the endorsement of the Democratic Socialists of America (DSA)for the Illinois state senate seat. Obama is an associate of the Chicago branch of the DSA.

Originally Posted by gunnut

Sir, you are talking reason here. Reason is not allowed in a liberal's thinking. Everyone must be paid the same. :P

I don't know what came over me.

Originally Posted by astralis

julie,

that's better...but it's still not saying what you said. from the next few lines:

"participating in muslim spirituality and reading the koran" ain't the same thing as being muslim- quite a few middle/high schools in this country actually have the koran (as well as the bible) as part of their literature readings.

Astralis, I am not criticizing him or anyone for that. You are completely missing my point in all of this. Barack Obama is a man who is running for President of the United States. I am attempting to find out his true platform if and when he leads America. At this time, he has not proven one solid conviction in which he intends on leading this country.

He calls this "diversity," the opposition party calls it "flip-flopping." But why?...why does he change his stance as often as he changes his underwear? For votes? Okay, then if he gets the votes, and becomes President, which direction will he choose to lead us?

My contention is that during his entire life, he has become a jack of all trades, but a master of none. He has dabbled in this, and dabbled in that, but in all that dabbling, what has he decided upon? Islam, Christianity, abortion, pro-life? Energy conservation, or drilling? Fueling our economy, or stagnating it?

The only way we have of knowing is by his associates and advisors surrounding him, which will set the political agenda for our future. To me, that is very important.

julie,

like i said, i understand all that. notice i haven't criticized your article on his lefty economic leanings.

however, scurrilous/false attacks, no matter where they arise or whom they attack, must be discredited as they deserve. that's all

Originally Posted by Julie

. . . In his first memoir, "Dreams," Obama included a description of black student life at Occidental College in Los Angeles."There were enough of us on campus to constitute a tribe, and when it came to hanging out many of us chose to function like a tribe, staying close together, traveling in packs," he wrote. "It remained necessary to prove which side you were on, to show your loyalty to the black masses, to strike out and name names."He added: "To avoid being mistaken for a sellout, I chose my friends carefully. The more politically active black students. The foreign students. The Chicanos. The Marxist professors and structural feminists."

. . . In 1982 He (Barack Obama) regularly attends the Marxist-Socialist conferences at Cooper Union and African cultural fairs in Brooklyn and started lecturing his relatives until they worried he'd become "one of those freaks you see on the streets around here."

. . . Obama answered a help-wanted ad for a position as a community organizer for the Developing Communities Project (DCP) of the Calumet Community Religious Conference (CCRC) in Chicago. Obama was 24 years old, unmarried, and according to his memoir, searching for a genuine African-American community. Both the CCRC and the DCP were built on the Alinsky model of community agitation, wherein paid organizers learned how to "rub raw the sores of discontent," in Alinsky's words.

One of Obama's early mentors in the Alinsky method was Mike Kruglik, who had this to say to an interviewer of The New Republic, about Obama:"He was a natural, the undisputed master of agitation, who could engage a room full of recruiting targets in a rapid-fire Socratic dialogue, nudging them to admit that they were not living up to their own standards. As with the panhandler, he could be aggressive and confrontational. With probing, sometimes personal questions, he would pinpoint the source of pain in their lives, tearing down their egos just enough before dangling a carrot of hope that they could make things better.

"The agitator's job, according to Alinsky, is first to bring folks to the "realization" that they are indeed miserable, that their misery is the fault of unresponsive governments or greedy corporations, then help them to bond together to demand what they deserve, and to make such an almighty stink that the dastardly governments and corporations will see imminent "self-interest" in granting whatever it is that will cause the harassment to cease.In these methods, euphemistically labeled "community organizing," Obama had a four-year education, which he often says was the best education he ever got anywhere.(New Republic, March 19, 2007).

. . . Obama received the endorsement of the Democratic Socialists of America (DSA)for the Illinois state senate seat. Obama is an associate of the Chicago branch of the DSA.

Julie, what does all this really mean? Or rather does it support an opinion you hold? I really don't see anything sinister in it; it's interesting, but that's about all. It tells me what I've known for years--that black activists almost always took themselves, that is, their color, to be their favorite issue. In that context, what's different about Obama? He rose above it; he came to the same logic most white thinkers prefer: skin color shouldn't matter in society. Well, that's good: and if he happens to get elected to president we'll get to see how sincere his intellecutal elevation really is. But if he were to turn out to be a wolf in sheep's clothing, well, yeah, they'll be a bit of a mess, but checks and balances will mitigate any runaway schemes to oppress the evil whites and make masters of their former slaves...

That's aspect of his would-be presidency doesn't bother me at all; it's his potential foreign policy, economic policy and national security outlook that we need to be concerned about. And from what I can see, or rather not see, he's not experienced enough on those counts to lead the country. Knowledge won't substitute for understanding.

Originally Posted by astralis

however, scurrilous/false attacks, no matter where they arise or whom they attack, must be discredited as they deserve. that's all

I am questioning a candidates lack of credentials as it relates to being President of the United States, no more, no less. If Obama is elected in November, I do not want to read in the Enquirer in December something to the effect that he does not have a valid Birth Certificate, and does not qualify for the oath of office in January, 2009, because MSM isn't doing their jobs in vetting our candidates. An event like that could be very embarrassing, and the rest of the world, would again, have a good laugh about us. At some point, you have to take some pride in our system of democracy.

Originally Posted by Julie

He calls this "diversity," the opposition party calls it "flip-flopping." But why?...why does he change his stance as often as he changes his underwear?

I wasn't aware that statistics existed on how often he changes his underwear. By your calculation every flip flop signals a change of underwear. Henceforth, we can safely say when it's time to change his underwear, he's gonna flip flop.

Originally Posted by JAD_333

Julie, what does all this really mean? Or rather does it support an opinion you hold?

I attempting to form an opinion.

Originally Posted by JAD_333

I really don't see anything sinister in it; it's interesting, but that's about all. It tells me what I've known for years--that black activists almost always took themselves, that is, their color, to be their favorite issue.

Nothing sinister about it now, accept that it might answer questions in shaping a political agenda in the future.

Originally Posted by JAD_333

In that context, what's different about Obama? He rose above it; he came to the same logic most white thinkers prefer: skin color shouldn't matter in society. Well, that's good:

If that is a genuine and true assumption, yes that is good.

Originally Posted by JAD_333

and if he happens to get elected to president we'll get to see how sincere his intellecutal elevation really is. But if he were to turn out to be a wolf in sheep's clothing, well, yeah, they'll be a bit of a mess, but checks and balances will mitigate any runaway schemes to oppress the evil whites and make masters of their former slaves...

Why should we have to wait until one is elected President to find out he is a wolf in sheep's clothing?

Originally Posted by JAD_333

That's aspect of his would-be presidency doesn't bother me at all; it's his potential foreign policy, economic policy and national security outlook that we need to be concerned about. And from what I can see, or rather not see, he's not experienced enough on those counts to lead the country. Knowledge won't substitute for understanding.

Agreed.

[QUOTE=Julie;529743]I
Why should we have to wait until one is elected President to find out he is a wolf in sheep's clothing?

In a way, we take that risk with any new president. The campaign period is the time we have to determine who is really a wolf, but we cannot ever be sure until someone takes office. In recent time, Nixon, LBJ, Carter, Clinton, Bush were all wolves in a sense. They all defied expectations..whether it was breaking the law, mishandling a crisis, pushing us deeper into socialism, disgracing the office, or taking us to war.

[QUOTE=JAD_333;529821]

Originally Posted by Julie

In a way, we take that risk with any new president. The campaign period is the time we have to determine who is really a wolf, but we cannot ever be sure until someone takes office. In recent time, Nixon, LBJ, Carter, Clinton, Bush were all wolves in a sense. They all defied expectations..whether it was breaking the law, mishandling a crisis, pushing us deeper into socialism, disgracing the office, or taking us to war.

So how does an undecider choose? McCain has a voting record to show which direction he would take this country. To defy expectations is a variable, but confessing to pushing the wrong button 6 times while voting, but never stating which votes those were, is very confusing to say the least. Americans deserve more than that, and if these undecideds can't pin one of these candidates down, the other will ultimately prevail. The result will not be of color or age, but the risk factor.

[QUOTE=Julie;529832]

Originally Posted by JAD_333

So how does an undecider choose? McCain has a voting record to show which direction he would take this country. To defy expectations is a variable, but confessing to pushing the wrong button 6 times while voting, but never stating which votes those were, is very confusing to say the least. Americans deserve more than that, and if these undecideds can't pin one of these candidates down, the other will ultimately prevail. The result will not be of color or age, but the risk factor.

You represent exactly what undecided voters are going through. In the end, their sense of which candidate seems more stable, experienced and trustworthy will determine their vote. Obama tries hard to hide his lack of experience, but as you can you yourself see, it is not working very well. The truth will out.

This is Obama to me; a nice guy with big smile and a great delivery...he'd be a terrific news reader, but when he loses his teleprompter, he shows clearly that he doesn't know his subject... Maybe you've seen this.

YouTube - Obama lost without a teleprompter