The 2008 presidential field at-a-glance

[Munchkin03]

Speaking as a (registered) Florida Democrat, I see no problem with the state's delegates not being seated at the Convention. I knew this was going to happen months ago--surely people who actually LIVE in the state saw this coming. Even Howard Dean, with his crazy azz, said the Florida Democratic Party was "out of control," and warned them about what could happen! Florida would be an important primary regardless of when it was held.

A mail-in ballot, after the primary has already been held, is a waste of taxpayer money that could go towards other things (like improving the schools in South Florida, maybe?). If we must have another primary, let it be on the Democratic Party's dime. They have to learn their lesson somehow.

[Thetagirl218]

Originally Posted by Munchkin03

A mail-in ballot, after the primary has already been held, is a waste of taxpayer money that could go towards other things (like improving the schools in South Florida, maybe?).

As someone who has worked in Florida's "wonderful" school system, please let me echo that sentiment!

[skylark]

Originally Posted by Munchkin03

Speaking as a (registered) Florida Democrat, I see no problem with the state's delegates not being seated at the Convention. I knew this was going to happen months ago--surely people who actually LIVE in the state saw this coming. Even Howard Dean, with his crazy azz, said the Florida Democratic Party was "out of control," and warned them about what could happen! Florida would be an important primary regardless of when it was held.

A mail-in ballot, after the primary has already been held, is a waste of taxpayer money that could go towards other things (like improving the schools in South Florida, maybe?). If we must have another primary, let it be on the Democratic Party's dime. They have to learn their lesson somehow.

Thank you for posting this! I think that too many people picked up the news coverage on the issue only recently and so think the situation was like a big unpleasant "surprise" or something for FL and MI.

[DaemonSeid]

Ok...let's put this one on the table.

The new controversy this week is Obama's minister (now retired from TUCC) known for his fiery rhetorical views of America.

Is this such a new thing? No...believe or not MLK was similar to Wright.

Before any of you look at me and say SEID WHAT ARE YOU SMOKING


Read carefully:

I am not saying that Wright and King are the same types of people.

There is NO WAY that Wright can hold a candle to the accomplishments to King so before any of you get started on that tangent, let's make sure that we ARE CLEAR on that portion.

However....

I am saying this is not the first time a preacher has brought controversy to the politcal process. (Adam Clayton Powell, Sharpton, Jackson, Graham, Falwell, Hagee, and so forth!)


Did not the preachings of MLK piss off so many of those that disiliked his way of thinking, that he died before he hit 40 because of it?


Hmmm...let's sit back and wonder if MLK had been the good quiet minister, and 'stayed in his place' where the world would be today.

Let's wonder, if King had let Jim Crow laws and southern segregationalists have their way and not speak out against it where the world would be today.

Let's wonder if King had not stirred controversy (KEY WORD is CONTROVERSY) through sit ins, boycotts, marches and speeches, where the world would be today.

Alive, perhaps?

Forgotten in some backwater church? More than likely.

Better question to ask is this...had King survived his assassination attempt, what perhaps his train of thought would have been or be on today's world?

Nobody really knows, but what we DO know is that for the issues that King talked about, racial inequality and America policing the world is every bit as messed up because it doesn't take care of its own had enough legs that someone hated it enough to kill him for it.

You may want to read this link .

http://uts.cc.utexas.edu/~rjensen/freelance/mlkday.htm

Again that is the ONLY correlation that I make with King and Wright.

Let me break it down further for those that are still reading.


Wright and King both have said things that has made MANY in America uncomfortable and uneasy.

Wright spoke out about 9/11 and the failure of the gov't to act.

King spoke out about America's involvemnt in Vietnam and it's failures there while simultaneously failing to move at that time to adequately address civil issues happening right here in the US.

HOWEVER, Wright is nowhere near the status of accomplishments of what King has done.


Now....let's move on...since the media is so busy being all up in Obama's church, let's ask about our other two candidates...

John McCain is of the belief that the USA is a "Christian" nation and is uncomfortable with a Muslim in the White House which pissed off both Muslims and Jews alike.
See this link BTW for a refresher: http://www.beliefnet.com/story/220/story_22001_1.html

Hillary Clinton's beliefs and convictions haven't come to the forefront as yet, but I can't wait to hear what she has to say considering that she is possibly anti atheist and part of a religion that may actually (in it's own twisted way) wants to carry out (LOL) John McCain 's vision of having a "Christian" nation.

http://atheism.about.com/od/hillaryc...onReligion.htm

So, let's go around the room...everyone raise their hands and say what religion you are affiliated with and tell us in 100 words or less why we, the public, should believe you.

[DaemonSeid]

Still no word from Florida however


http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080314/...NqCxAGgJQb.3QA

[jon1856]

Originally Posted by DaemonSeid

Still no word from Florida however


http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080314/...NqCxAGgJQb.3QA

Well there sort of is:
Fla. presidential primary re-do unlikely

State chairwoman to make a decision by Monday on whether to proceed

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/23610564/

But stay tuned for updates.

[skylark]

Originally Posted by DaemonSeid

Still no word from Florida however


http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080314/...NqCxAGgJQb.3QA

I'm not opposed to this option, simply because it forces the Michigan legislature themselves to fix the problem. The fact that they are doing it themselves makes it less likely for this debacle to happen in the future.

[bluefish81]

Originally Posted by PeppyGPhiB

If I recall correctly, the Clintons are mainstream, non-evangelical protestants...maybe Methodists? You know, one CAN be Christian, or any religion for that matter, and still believe in the separation of church and state. Just because you believe it, doesn't mean you preach it.

According to wikipedia - Bill's a Baptist, Hillary is a Methodist.

Originally Posted by skylark

I'm not opposed to this option, simply because it forces the Michigan legislature themselves to fix the problem. The fact that they are doing it themselves makes it less likely for this debacle to happen in the future.

After reading that article, I'll be curious to see if it actually happens. Two weeks to get it through the legislature before they go on vacation. Where's the money coming from? Is the Mich. Democratic Party playing MegaMillions?

[PeppyGPhiB]

Bumping this because this morning Bill Richardson endorsed Obama.

[PeppyGPhiB]

Originally Posted by DaemonSeid

Now....let's move on...since the media is so busy being all up in Obama's church, let's ask about our other two candidates...

John McCain is of the belief that the USA is a "Christian" nation and is uncomfortable with a Muslim in the White House which pissed off both Muslims and Jews alike.
See this link BTW for a refresher: http://www.beliefnet.com/story/220/story_22001_1.html

Hillary Clinton's beliefs and convictions haven't come to the forefront as yet, but I can't wait to hear what she has to say considering that she is possibly anti atheist and part of a religion that may actually (in it's own twisted way) wants to carry out (LOL) John McCain 's vision of having a "Christian" nation.

http://atheism.about.com/od/hillaryc...onReligion.htm

If I recall correctly, the Clintons are mainstream, non-evangelical protestants...maybe Methodists? You know, one CAN be Christian, or any religion for that matter, and still believe in the separation of church and state. Just because you believe it, doesn't mean you preach it.

The African American church community (i.e. AME) has a long, strong history in this country of delving into politics. The reason for this is because back in MLK's day (and earlier), church was often the center of the black community, one of the few places they could gather publicly en masse without fear of opression. Many leaders of the African American community emerged from the many meetings organized in churches/houses of worship, led by passionate, inspiring preachers, MLK, Malcolm X, and Jesse Jackson being a few. Religion had a big role in the civil rights movement. But one could argue that it had as much to do with the right meeting space, right audience, right message, and right TIME, more than the religion. The church had a political use at that time, mainly because there was so far to go in civil rights in this country, and people needed BIG, "out there" leaders to push them. Not to diminish the growth that still needs to happen here, but the reason people like Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton are not taken seriously these days (aside from their personal issues) is because, well, they've already served their purpose. Their community doesn't feel the same need to have religious leaders dictating political movements - they have other organizations for that.

The "white" evangelical Christian churches popping up all over the country these days concern me far more than mainstream Muslims or Jews, or things a radical black preacher says. Why? Because their brand of political activism focuses on taking rights AWAY. Why are people so afraid to let others practice a different religion? Just because my neighbor goes to temple, and the chick down the street goes to church on Saturdays, doesn't mean I can't still go to my church on Sunday. Any politician that feels threatened by allowing free practice of religion in this country is awfully suspicious to me, and that includes the freedom to NOT practice religion if one chooses.

[DaemonSeid]

Originally Posted by PeppyGPhiB

If I recall correctly, the Clintons are mainstream, non-evangelical protestants...maybe Methodists? You know, one CAN be Christian, or any religion for that matter, and still believe in the separation of church and state. Just because you believe it, doesn't mean you preach it.

The African American church community (i.e. AME) has a long, strong history in this country of delving into politics. The reason for this is because back in MLK's day (and earlier), church was often the center of the black community, one of the few places they could gather publicly en masse without fear of opression. Many leaders of the African American community emerged from the many meetings organized in churches/houses of worship, led by passionate, inspiring preachers, MLK, Malcolm X, and Jesse Jackson being a few. Religion had a big role in the civil rights movement. But one could argue that it had as much to do with the right meeting space, right audience, right message, and right TIME, more than the religion. The church had a political use at that time, mainly because there was so far to go in civil rights in this country, and people needed BIG, "out there" leaders to push them. Not to diminish the growth that still needs to happen here, but the reason people like Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton are not taken seriously these days (aside from their personal issues) is because, well, they've already served their purpose. Their community doesn't feel the same need to have religious leaders dictating political movements - they have other organizations for that.

The "white" evangelical Christian churches popping up all over the country these days concern me far more than mainstream Muslims or Jews, or things a radical black preacher says. Why? Because their brand of political activism focuses on taking rights AWAY. Why are people so afraid to let others practice a different religion? Just because my neighbor goes to temple, and the chick down the street goes to church on Saturdays, doesn't mean I can't still go to my church on Sunday. Any politician that feels threatened by allowing free practice of religion in this country is awfully suspicious to me, and that includes the freedom to NOT practice religion if one chooses.

let the chruch say AMEN


BTW did anyone see Keith Olbermann tonight?

Obama discussed his views with his dealings with Wright...very oised and to the point.