I didn't say hate-monger, I said fear. I don't think they are necessarily promoting hate so much as they are profiting off of the fear that is already there in our society- fear of society's degeneration, fear of homosexuality, fear of other races- in order to promote their own agendas and make money.

They are way more dangerous than Falwell, etc. because they have the good sense to be more subtle with their language and agenda.

Dangerous to what YOU believe.

It isn't fear, its faith. Its what they believe, not merely some way to make money.

Did anyone else see the Fox News segment talking about Obama? Basically, they spread the word that he is a smoker and has been hiding it from the public. Since he has been hiding that, they decided to talk about what other things he could be hiding from the voting public, such as his real views on current issues.

Get used to it. You throw your hat in the ring and the gloves will come off.

McCain has waffled back and forth on his support for Bush and the 'war' in Iraq. Wasn't he an Independent at one time or something like that?

I am pretty sceptical about public figures promoting a religious agenda. I think 99% of them are in it for fame and glory and spreading the word of God is a DISTANT second. I wouldn't care if they were Hindu, Muslim, or Unitarian, I just think that people who really want to promote their beliefs do it day-to-day, not on tv or in the media.

Its perfectly fine to be skeptical of such people. However, I think anyone who was really aware of how Dobson is would have a tough time attaching such a description to him.

Do any of you think Obama and Clinton could be on the same ticket?

Random point: Humanism IS an outgrowth of Christianity if you look at its roots. In the late middle ages or early renaissance, depending on how you want to see it, Humanism was an attempt to reconcile Christianity with Classical/secular works and methods. I'm thinking Erasmus here, mainly. I'm also thinking of Humanism like "humanities" humanism, not "secular humanism," which in hindsight, I realize you might mean.

Certainly, today Humanism is closer to Deism than it is to Christianity, but I don't think it started out that way.

About Clinton/Obama, I was sort of joking about it in another thread. They do seem to complement each other.

Sorry for crashing your forum. I arrived here kind of accidentally. I was searching for a post on a similar topic.

Soror, I actually think that this is the GOAL. I think that they are just going about it in a round about kind of way so that no one thinks that that is what they are trying to do. I think that by both tossing their hat in the ring for *President,* the public begins to check *both* of them out...their voting records, etc. That, to me, makes for a more powerful ticket b/c then people like the Pres and the VP candidate (when one drops into that VP slot). Otherwise, who ever really takes the time to truly investigate the VP candidate? There is so little attention placed on the VP candidate that it's ridiculous as they (as was Former President Gerald Ford, RIP) could very well become President.

I think that this is the strategy.

Now, as to whether they could be Pres and VP, not sure what I think about that. Hillary, I like for feminist reasons but she is such a middle of the road politician that you never can really tell what you are getting with her. She thinks she's being cute (and smart) by playing the middle ground but I wouldn't risk my vote for President on someone that played the middle ground (unless I didn't have any other choices) - b/c I wouldn't know what to expect from her.

Here Here!!
 

Spoken like a true member of your ilk...let's not asses Obama's capabilities to become President on his viewpoints or the issues at hand but whether or not the fact that he smokes means he's as deceptive as some of his unethical Republican peers.

I guess this means that the fact that Bush believes God wanted him to win the elections he stole means that he's our divine leader and not a bumbling fool and a lunatic:rolleyes:

Incidently I watched about 2 minutes of BET's 2006 recap and they made jokingly referenced the possibility of Obama being shot if he actually got close to becoming president. This thought never crossed my mind until I saw this snippet...I wonder if this is likely in 2008.

Its funny about the double standard that Dems are held to as opposed to the GOP. To this day, I don't see how getting some head in the oval office is more serious than sending thousands of young men and women to their deaths to advance a corporate and personal agenda. Maybe Shinerbock has the answer to this???

^5

Girl, didn't you see Head of State ;)

If the Dems put forth any other ticket, they will be selling out the country AGAIN.

That may be the least intelligent post I've read on this board.

Of my ilk...lets discuss shall we? This is coming from a supporter (assuming) of the party that tried incredibly hard to paint President Bush as an alcoholic and cocaine addict. From the same group who voted to go to war, and now calls the President an idiot for doing so. The same group who accused basically everyone in the GOP of conspiring with Mark Foley, while celebrating Gerry Stubbs. The same group that called the President a racist when Katrina relief didn't go as they'd hoped, though mostly ignoring the complete failure of the city's black mayor.

I'm sure everyone sees the correlation between Fox going after Obama's habits and his imminent assassination. Thankfully we have people like you who pay attention to legitimate news outlets like BET and report back to us regarding the brilliant insights they offer.

Welcome to politics, obviously the subject is new to you.

You must have missed the part where the Democrats voted for the war. From reading your post, this doesn't surprise me. You don't really seem like the kind of person who is really keyed into what happens in the world of government. Why would you be? After all, you could just do what you're doing now, regurgitating talking points regarding things you know nothing about. Yeah, thats a much simpler alternative.