|
|
Post by Josh on Sept 4, 2008 10:01:32 GMT -8
Speaking for myself, no. It's the whole lot, the whole system I've got beef with.
This sounds like an indictment on modern Germans for the decisions of certain Germans in the past. Rather, isn't the lesson of Nazi Germany a lesson for us all regarding the dangers of blind allegiance? How can this statement be considered an accurate or fair assessment of German responses to Obama?
Some, yes, but most of the show is hype imo: knocking down straw dummies, patting themselves on the back, oversimplifying, cartoonish bluster, empty sentiment, facade.
The actual qualitative content of both convention was minimal.
BTW, I know that's how conventions operate par course. But it leaves me feeling slightly naseous personally.
I'm thankful the kingdom of God doesn't have to be that way.
|
|
|
|
Post by robin on Sept 4, 2008 20:29:51 GMT -8
Josh I will respond to you. Mo is obviously very thin skinned, and frankly my time is too valuable to waste with him. You said: You are kidding me right? Seriously. You know me, but perhaps not as well as I thought You did. I guess I need to start following each sentence with ;D,  , or  so not to cause any confusion.  Sorry but I disagree. the importance of the conventions are entirely underestimated. Imagine if we had to rely on the media's biased treatment of Sarah Palin in order to form and opinion on her. Most would assume that she is nothing more than a hick, popping out children, allowing her own daughters to sleep around, and hunting moose in her free time. Instead we were introduced to a wonderfully articulate woman who loves her family and is exactly the type of leader we can relate with. It is important for both candidates to introduce themselves and their platform on a national level, without the media filters. As a conservative I thank God for the conventions. Over 50,000,000 people tune in for minimal content? Perhaps we're just not complicated enough to see through it.  It doesn't? Perhaps you have never attended a revival, mega church, or watched TBN. Religion, including Christianity, is sold just like politics. Robin |
|
|
|
Post by rose on Sept 4, 2008 20:33:43 GMT -8
So let me get this straight, Robin, when the Republicans "get so excited about the political process" it's supposed to be a wonderful and positive thing, but when the Democrats (and/or the Germans) get excited about that same political process they are to be compared to Nazis?
Am I hearing you correctly, because that is a very inflammatory statement - and completely unfair.
|
|
|
|
Post by Josh on Sept 4, 2008 21:19:05 GMT -8
I just want to put out a reminder, as administrator, that we all have an agreement to remain respectful to each other on these forums. Perhaps I need to be clearer about my intent on this. Name calling and mockery should be avoided. They don't help make points and actually hurt them. If in doubt, leave it out. For instance, "empty suit" and "birdbrain"  I know that all of us have good intentions, but sometimes in the heat of discussions it's easy to say things that might be unneccesarily hurtful. This is just a reminder to speak your opinions factually and more gracefully. We can speak our minds forcefully and respectfully, right? |
|
|
|
Post by christopher on Sept 4, 2008 21:23:17 GMT -8
Ok, I may not be an elder, but I am the oldest here and I'd like to strongly encourage a group hug right now.  |
|
|
|
Post by robin on Sept 4, 2008 21:59:34 GMT -8
I would just like to point out that referring to a political leader as an "empty suit", is much different then calling another forum member bird brained, ignorant, prejudice, or having a total lack of intelligence.
Lets not claim any moral relativity here. Mo's comments here and elsewhere are way out of line. My empty suit comment is no comparison.
Robin
|
|
|
|
Post by moritz on Sept 5, 2008 9:13:42 GMT -8
So I watched the McCain speeches and there is one thing that makes me curious.
Cindy said something like: American's are having problems and it could all be better if the federal government wasn't in their way. The Republican's cheered and I found myself asking: aren't the Republican's the Federal government??
John repeatedly emphasized how he would bring change to Washington and the Republican's cheered. And I found myself thinking: If the whole thing has to be turned upside down, doesn't that mean that the actual Republican administration is a total failure? Why didn't they turn the whole thing upside down if that's what's supposed to bring America salvation?
John emphasized how he would fight for the right of a couple of individuals representing all those who were left behind by the American economy. The crow cheered and I asked myself: How did it get so far? Can Republicans be the answer to problems Republicans caused / couldn't solve in the past 8 years?
Does anybody else think this is weird?
In Germany the leading party's candidate is always trying to emphasize the achievements of the last legislation. No matter how lousy those achievements are. So I'm absolutely not used to a candidate saying: I'm gonna clean up the mess my party left behind. Everybody knows that the candidate is nothing without his party and if the leading party caused a mess, who in his right mind would believe that the same party would be able to clean it up again?
Any thoughts on this?
PS: please note that I'm being objective here. I'm neither Dem nor Rep. Heck, I'm not even American. I'm just watching the show from a distance and can't seem to stop thinking about it.
|
|
|
|
Post by Josh on Sept 5, 2008 10:00:41 GMT -8
I don't think they're the same necessarily in every way, but both phrases are ways of ways of making a point low on fact content and high on emotion that don't really put the conversation forward in any constructive way. We're all prone to this at times, but we're got to be careful that the culture of this community doesn't go the way of your typical online forums, which often degenerate into mere verbal sparring.
I've really appreciated the high level of respectful disagreement we usually see here and I hope we all do our best to keep it that way. I'm not saying we should censor our viewpoints/perspectives. I'm just saying we all need to guard the way we're communicating our perspectives.
|
|
|
|
Post by Josh on Sept 5, 2008 10:04:20 GMT -8
McCain did acknowledge that Republicans had failed in minimizing the federal government. He's insinuating that he intends to shrink the roles and responsibilities of the government in some way.
|
|
|
|
Post by moritz on Sept 5, 2008 10:12:31 GMT -8
McCain did acknowledge that Republicans had failed in minimizing the federal government. He's insinuating that he intends to shrink the roles and responsibilities of the government in some way. But it's not only the minimizing of the federal government that has been claimed. |
|
|
|
Post by michelle on Sept 5, 2008 21:27:29 GMT -8
I've been observing this years campaign again from a safe distance and it always amazes me the way Americans make a show out of politics. All this banner waving, all this organized "yes, we can, yes we can". All the organized standing ovations (over and over again). All the pathos in the speeches like "I'll follow him to the gates of hell" (McCain), etc.. Every camera move shows a maniacly smiling follower with a slogan on a cardboard. All the spindoctoring.... WHO ARE THEY TRYING TO FOOL? ? What is all the masquerade for? Who is buying that? It seems like Americans have a liability to epic drama. It seems as if there were the die-hard Democrates, the die-hard Republicans and the best showmaster takes the cake (read: the undecided voters=swing states=victory). Hollywood everywhere you look. Just take the recent Democratic Convention. Seriously, I don't even want to go into specific political issues. It's just that I get the impression that this isn't about substance but about cladding. I've watched Obamas acceptance speech this morning and although it was a nice speech, the entire show was an insult of my intelligence. The same goes for everything I've seen of McCain so far. Mo, I have to agree with some of your points here. There was one point that Michelle Obama was speaking and talking about how we are near the 88th anniversary of women getting the right to vote and the 45th anniversary of MLKJ's "I Have a Dream Speech". I thought to myself...pan to a black woman now...and sure enough that's exactly what happened. I think the problem with some Americans is that we want information spoon fed to us. So the conventions are the lazy way for us to get information. The problem is that the conventions often lack real substance. It's more a "getting to know the candidates" time. I think there are a lot of people who vote based on personality, so conventions are great ways to showcase that. I think conventions are designed to "hook" people with just a little bit of [sometimes misleading] information...and sometimes flat out lies. Actually, it kind of reminds me of Michael Moore movies. While there may be pieces of truth to them, they contain mostly propaganda and extreme statements that some people just believe instead of investigate to find the true story. I heard that conventions used to be private affairs and it's when the delegates would go in and discuss a candidate and then they'd come out and announce to the public who the candidate was. I think it would be interesting to see how that would work out these days. |
|
|
|
Post by Josh on Sept 6, 2008 7:34:37 GMT -8
How about based on looks? I have it on personal testimony that Rosemary's grandpa voted for Clinton because he was a "handsome man"  |
|
|
|
Post by christopher on Sept 6, 2008 8:27:42 GMT -8
This is very true (unfortunately) and the politicians know it.
It calls to my remembrance the big ridicule campaign from the Republican blog sites about Al Gore tanning and getting his teeth whitened just prior to public debates when he was running. ;D
|
|
|
|
Post by robin on Sept 6, 2008 8:31:21 GMT -8
I agree that is probably does happen, but not to a great extent. First of all, we would never say these things about ourselves. I'm sure that when we explain our own voting practices we give explanations that are well thought out, and base on important issues. Also it is important to clarify "personality", and the actual value that personality adds to to political tickets. I vote primarily on the issues (pro-life, strong national defense, low taxes, smaller government, personal freedom). I will generally find these qualities in most members of the Republican party that I'm a member of. So then I can look at a secondary issue like personality. One of the reasons I support John McCain, and I supported him long before the primaries, was that his personality and Character was head and shoulders above the competition, and gives the republicans the best chance of winning. I have no doubt that Democrats voted for Obama in the primaries because they thought his personality would sell to the American people better than Clinton's (Clinton and Obama are almost identical on the issues). I disagree. Clinton would have posed a much greater threat, but none the less it was a personality vote. It obviously was not for experience.
I also believe that most voter are passionate, and not shallow. Most elections turnout is between 40-50%. Keep in mind that voting in most states is more difficult than here in Oregon. You take a large portion of your day and stand in line for hours to vote. Shallow people won't take the time out of their day. I actually think Oregon should do away with absentee voting.
Robin
|
|
|
|
Post by michelle on Sept 6, 2008 17:31:30 GMT -8
How about based on looks? I have it on personal testimony that Rosemary's grandpa voted for Clinton because he was a "handsome man" I don't doubt it. |
|
|
|
Post by nathaniel on Sept 7, 2008 2:11:45 GMT -8
i knew it was only a matter of time before this went down. I've been meaning to throw down a little promo for why i'll be voting for my candidate. rather than rip into why the other candidates suck i here's the reasons i'm down for barack obama, coupled with some clips i hope you all will watch.
Here's two videos showing his opposition to the Iraq war before it happened. You'll have to forgive the 2nd one it's a touch corny, but still drives home the point.
This one is responding to the Reverend Wright controversy, which I think he responded to very thoughtfully when he could have just thrown the Rev under the bus.
I was also impressed with how he handled this situation.
Here is Obama at the Compassion Forum during the primaries, where they asked both Obama and Clinton question about faith and politics. I just put these as links so it wouldn't take up to much space. It is broken up into six different parts.
Some important issues IMO:
First off, two of the main things i appreciate about Barack Obama are the way he thinks and the way he engages in the political debate. He thinks in a way that is nuanced, not always having to look at things in black and white. He doesn't make big issues out of small ones or use hyperbole or mockery. In general i think he would be great for the tone in which the political war is waged.
Iraq war: He was spot on in not only opposing the war, but why he opposed it, and what would happen if we did go to war. All of which came to pass.
Since then he has called for putting pressure on the iraqi government and setting a withdrawal timetable, which was opposed by most in the republican party, but has recently come to fruition.
His idea to engage Iran was mocked by some only to recently be backed up by defense secretary Robert Gates.
I like his plan to do away with the Bush tax cuts to the richest 1-5% While decreasing taxes for pretty much anyone and everyone you know.
I like the philosophy behind his health care plan which is to guarantee coverage for minors (those who can't make health care decisions on their own), while making it affordable for the rest of people, but still leaving some room for personal choice and personal responsibility.
He's laid out plans of how to stimulate the economy as well as, how to keep jobs in america.
A PS on the economy, I heard that the gap between the rich and poor is the greatest it's been since the great depression. That doesn't sound good to me.
There are many other reasons why I think Obama should be our next president, but i'm getting pretty tired, so I'll have to save them for next time.
PS I'm not sure if this is the appropriate spot for this, so (Josh) if you think it should be moved , go for it.
|
|
|
|
Post by robin on Sept 7, 2008 7:42:26 GMT -8
Hi Nate,
I wish you had posted this last night or that I could have seen it earlier this morning. I really want to respond to each point, but I'm catching a plane in and 1 1/2 hours. If I have Internet access where I'm going I will give a point by point response with a positive case for McCain, and some additional negatives against Obama. In this case it is just as important to keep Obama out of the Whitehouse as it is to get McCain in.
God bless,
Robin
|
|
, or 
so not to cause any confusion. 
