NationStates Jolt Archive

Did Obama's remark offend you?

Just in the last three days, his actions and this speech, have made me increasingly happy that I voted for him.

http://news.aol.com/article/obamas-nonbeliever-nod-unsettles-some/316339?icid=200100397x1216995629x1201097429

Offend me? No, it did not. Though, seeing as I myself am a non-believer, I don't see how it would.

It unsettles me when I hear World Leaders say "I've thought about this, and tried to reconcile this with God". It's damn worrying.

Though I've always found the term "nonbelievers" to be a bit insulting, "atheists and agnostics" would've been more fitting and gone with the speech well.

Did Obama's remark offend you?

Just in the last three days, his actions and this speech, have made me increasingly happy that I voted for him.

http://news.aol.com/article/obamas-nonbeliever-nod-unsettles-some/316339?icid=200100397x1216995629x1201097429

He ain't managed to upset me yet. He seems to be getting stuff done, and - more importantly - getting the stuff he SAID he'd do... done.

Admitting that America is culturally diverse... Water? Wet?

I don't really understand how someone could be offended by it without going out of their way to do so. It's a factual statement, the US does indeed have Christians, Muslims, Jews, Hindus and nonbelievers.

As a non believer, I didn't even notice when he made that comment.

I am offended by his lack of a nod to moonworshippers. Sure, as far as I know there is only one of us, but that doesn't make my non-contribution to his success and to the nation of a whole any less significant.
I demand recognition for myself and other people who may be like me if they exist!

Non-stories offend me slightly. Does that count?

Offend me, hell no...

In fact, Im finally glad we dont have a Fundamentalist Crusader as President...*nods*

Actually, quite the opposite. I was pretty happy with the nod. It's a big step forward from George "Atheists Shouldn't be considered citizens" Bush Sr. I mean, it should go without saying that there are nonbelievers here too, but it's nice to be acknowledged for once.

It's the first I heard of it, and frankly I found it to be refreshing. He's trying to fix the deep division across his nation.

I would think the Wiccans would feel left out... At least I as a nonbeliever got mentioned.

I would think the Wiccans would feel left out... At least I as a nonbeliever got mentioned.

Well, my mom's a wiccan...im pretty much a nonbeliever at this point...

but, well, if he tried to name every religion in the country itd make the speech last far too long...

Im happy and satisfied with the speech, although, admittedly it was a little more boring than normal for him...

I was delighted by his remarks as they were all-inclusive. Two people commented that they thought he mentioned god in his speech too much. I counted (I have the speech on the wall), and he referred to scriptures once, and god three times, one of those being in a quote of someone else. To the extent you believe in god (however you call it-the higher being), it was there, to the extent you were a non-believer, it was there. I have a feeling he is the first president to even refer to non-believers, so he put them on the USA map and included them!

well i dunno if i count anymore since i converted from atheism to agnostism... then shortly after i became something for whitch i dont know the name of. dyism i think? i believe that some thing the exists outside of space time and matter had to create everything, nothing only makes nothing/

but no i was not offended, i did however grimace at the number of times he said god, i guess he has to make the christopaths feel important though.

I was delighted by his remarks as they were all-inclusive. Two people commented that they thought he mentioned god in his speech too much. I counted (I have the speech on the wall), and he referred to scriptures once, and god three times, one of those being in a quote of someone else. To the extent you believe in god (however you call it-the higher being), it was there, to the extent you were a non-believer, it was there. I have a feeling he is the first president to even refer to non-believers, so he put them on the USA map and included them!
I believe he is, in fact, the first president to mention non-believers in a speech in a positive way. Obama seems to be doing a lot of very small things that pundits are pouncing on and declaring unprecedented. I like it. We shall see if these nods grow to anything more substantial...like, oh, say, certain members of Congress dialing it down on the "we're a Christian nation" BS in public. Just a thought.

I found it extremely gratifying and am glad he said it. I'm not an atheist, but I am non-believer of the religions he did name, so I felt included. :D

Man. You'd almost think that non-Christians are citizens too.
What next, will they become people?

Man. You'd almost think that non-Christians are citizens too.
What next, will they become people?
Now, now, don't let's get nuts with this. ;)

What next, will they become people?

Of course not. That's like saying homosexuals or blacks can be people.

Man. You'd almost think that non-Christians are citizens too.
What next, will they become people?

Psh, we all know their not the "real" America, lol...

He ain't managed to upset me yet. He seems to be getting stuff done, and - more importantly - getting the stuff he SAID he'd do... done.

Admitting that America is culturally diverse... Water? Wet?Fuck you, water is not wet!

It never ceases to amaze me that 'atheist' is still a four letter word for most people. I ran into this shit at a liberal arts college and it frightened me.

I would think the Wiccans would feel left out... At least I as a nonbeliever got mentioned.

Well, my mom's a wiccan...im pretty much a nonbeliever at this point...

but, well, if he tried to name every religion in the country itd make the speech last far too long...

Meh, Either Wiccans don't make up enough of the population to matter, or not everyone check Wicca/Paganism on the Census form. Obama doesn't have to say Wiccans anyways, he could've said Paganism and that would've covered Wicca as well as other Pagan path such as Druidism, Asatru, Native Americans, etc.

Atheist/-ism is not a four letter we're more a scapegoat.

Atheist/-ism is not a four letter we're more a scapegoat.A four letter scapegoat. ;) Two winks, that means I really mean it.

I literally gave a little cheer out loud when he said that. It absolutely disgusts me that people are upset and offended that the President acknowledged that atheists and agnostics exist and (gasp!) still count as Americans.

Of course, that article is hilarious, anyway. I love the bit at the end about how supporting abortion is equivalent to supporting genocide against black people - that's worthy of an NSG troll right there. :p

For once, I'm finally happy with a President and their choices. I especially love how refreshing it is to have a leader that is both intelligent and well-spoken.

Obama is a fine leader thusfar. Here's to hoping it stays that way.

What the hell kind of muslim is he?!? :eek:

Meh, Either Wiccans don't make up enough of the population to matter, or not everyone check Wicca/Paganism on the Census form. Obama doesn't have to say Wiccans anyways, he could've said Paganism and that would've covered Wicca as well as other Pagan path such as Druidism, Asatru, Native Americans, etc.

That probably wouldve been a good alternative...

But, Is that even a choice on the Census? Id bet its probably just lumped into some kind of "Other" category, so we'd never truly know how many there are...

I literally gave a little cheer out loud when he said that. It absolutely disgusts me that people are upset and offended that the President acknowledged that atheists and agnostics exist and (gasp!) still count as Americans.

I didn't cheer, but I pretty much feel the same way. I was glad to hear it.

Of course, that article is hilarious, anyway. I love the bit at the end about how supporting abortion is equivalent to supporting genocide against black people - that's worthy of an NSG troll right there. :p

LOL. And it's not as if he really supports abortion anyways. Like most people who are pro-choice, he'd rather see a world in which no one ever had an abortion and wants to push measures to reduce the number that occur. Just not, you know, by making it illegal.

What the hell kind of muslim is he?!? :eek:

Hehe. Michael Savage was apparently disturbed by the fact that he listed Muslims before Jews. Since we're a Judeo-Christian nation and all that. Apparently, Jews should have been listed first.

Clearly, this is just proof that he really is secretly a Muslim. This is also the reason that, when he retook the oath, he didn't put his hand on a Bible. Now he took the real oath without a Bible because he's totally not Christian.

Hehe. Michael Savage was apparently disturbed by the fact that he listed Muslims before Jews. Since we're a Judeo-Christian nation and all that. Apparently, Jews should have been listed first.

Clearly, this is just proof that he really is secretly a Muslim. This is also the reason that, when he retook the oath, he didn't put his hand on a Bible. Now he took the real oath without a Bible because he's totally not Christian.

My god I hate Savage....Come to think of it I hate Limbaugh, Beck and Schnitt...

But I just keep listening and yelling at the radio anyway...Im sure it cant be healthy but I just cant help it, lol...NPR is just tooo goddamn boring...

Hehe. Michael Savage was apparently disturbed...
Savage is always apparently disturbed. That's why you've got to love him.

It's about time!

And I'm still amazed how few people realize that the VAST majority of the people who'd get offended by that statement would never vote for a democrat anyway

What the hell kind of muslim is he?!? :eek:

Well exactly.

I actually like the big O. (At least as far as I can tell about him.) Unusually for a politician he seems to be committed to at least to try to not fuck things up.

I worry that he is a horrible judge of character however.

It sounded kind of tacked on the way he said it, and in fact in the written speech it appears after a dash. ("Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus - and non-believers.") Considering that, and how in the same speech he quoted scripture and ended with "God bless the United States of America," did it seem like he was pandering, trying not to exclude anyone? Yes, a little. But I'd much rather have a president who recognizes non-believers in a superficial way than one who is uneasy with calling them Americans. I wasn't offended.

Hehe. Michael Savage was apparently disturbed by the fact that he listed Muslims before Jews. Since we're a Judeo-Christian nation and all that. Apparently, Jews should have been listed first.

Clearly, this is just proof that he really is secretly a Muslim. This is also the reason that, when he retook the oath, he didn't put his hand on a Bible. Now he took the real oath without a Bible because he's totally not Christian.
Just like John Adams, that godless heathen! And a couple of others whose names escape me at the moment, who swore the oath on something other than a Bible. Obama, apparently, is the fourth to do so.

Just like John Adams, that godless heathen! And a couple of others whose names escape me at the moment, who swore the oath on something other than a Bible. Obama, apparently, is the fourth to do so.
It is interesting how for very religious country (compared to other industrialized ones), the United States was not created by particularly religious people.
Did both Adams get sworn in on a non-Bible? I know Quincey had a book of law or something, but I don't know what his father used.

It is interesting how for very religious country (compared to other industrialized ones), the United States was not created by particularly religious people.
Did both Adams get sworn in on a non-Bible? I know Quincey had a book of law or something, but I don't know what his father used.
Bibles and Scripture Passages Used by Presidents
in Taking the Oath of Office
The information below is courtesy of the Architect of the Capitol. It has been compiled by the Office of the Curator from contemporary accounts and other sources in the files of the Architect of the Capitol.

PRESIDENT DATE EDITION
George Washington 1789 Genesis 49:131 (Masonic Bible); opened at random due to haste
George Washington 1793 Not known
John Adams 1797 Not known
Thomas Jefferson 1801, 1805 Not known
James Madison 1809, 1813 Not known
James Monroe 1817, 1821 Not known
John Q. Adams 1825 Not known
Andrew Jackson 1829, 1833 Not known
Martin Van Buren 1837 Proverbs 3:172
William H. Harrison 1841 Not known
John Tyler 1841 Not known
James K. Polk 1845 Not known
Zachary Taylor 1849 Not known
Millard Fillmore 1850 Not known
Franklin Pierce 1853 Affirmed instead of swearing the oath; did not kiss Bible
James Buchanan 1857 Not known
Abraham Lincoln 1861 Opened at random
Abraham Lincoln 1865 Matthew 7:1; 18:7; Revelations 16:73
Andrew Johnson 1865 Proverbs 21
Ulysses S. Grant 1869 Not known
Ulysses S. Grant 1873 Isaiah 11:1-34
Rutherford B. Hayes 1877 Privately, no Bible; publicly, Psalm 118:11-134
James A. Garfield 1881 Proverbs 21:14,5
Chester A. Arthur 1881 Privately, no Bible; Psalm 31:1-34,5
Grover Cleveland 1885 Psalm 112:4-10; Bible opened by Chief Justice and by chance it fell to this Psalm6
Benjamin Harrison 1889 Psalm 121:1-64
Grover Cleveland 1893 Psalm 91:12-164
William McKinley 1897 II Chron. 1:10; Bible given to him by Methodist church congregation7
William McKinley 1901 Proverbs 164
Theodore Roosevelt 1901 No Bible
Theodore Roosevelt 1905 James 1:22-234
William Howard Taft 1909 I Kings 3:9-114
Woodrow Wilson 1913 Psalm 1194
Woodrow Wilson 1917 Privately, not known; publicly, Psalm 468
Warren G. Harding 1921 Micah 6:8 (Washington Bible)4
Calvin Coolidge 1923 Not known
Calvin Coolidge 1925 John 1
Herbert C. Hoover 1929 Proverbs 29:184
Franklin D. Roosevelt 1933, 1937, 1941, 1945 I Corinthians 134
Harry S. Truman 1945 Closed Bible held in left hand; right hand on upper cover9
Harry S. Truman 1949 Matthew 5:3-11 and Exodus 20:3-1710
Dwight D. Eisenhower 1953 Psalm 127:1 (Washington Bible) and II Chronicles 7:14 (West Point Bible)11
Dwight D. Eisenhower 1957 Privately, not known; publicly, Psalm 33:1212 (West Point Bible)
John F. Kennedy 1961 Closed Bible13
Lyndon B. Johnson 1963 Missal14
Lyndon B. Johnson 1965 Closed family Bible15
Richard M. Nixon 1969, 1973 Two family Bibles, both open to Isaiah 2:416
Gerald R. Ford 1974 Proverbs 3:5-617
James E. Carter 1977 Family Bible open to Micah 6:818
Ronald W. Reagan 1981, 1985 Mother's Bible open to II Chronicles 7:1419 (Both privately and publicly in 1985)
George H. W. Bush 1989 Washington's Masonic Bible opened at random in the center; family Bible on top opened to Matthew 5
William J. Clinton 1993 King James Bible, given to him by grandmother, open to Galatians 6:8
William J. Clinton 1997 King James Bible, given to him by grandmother, open to Isaiah 58:1220
George W. Bush 2001 Closed family Bible21

NOTES
1. Bowen, Clarence W. The History of the Centennial Celebration of the Inauguration of George Washington, N.Y. 1892, p. 72, Illustration.
2. Listed in the files of Legislative Reference Service, Library of Congress, source not given.
3. Wright, John. Historic Bibles in America, N.Y. 1905, p. 46.
4. List compiled by Clerk of the Supreme Court, 1939.
5. One source (The Chicago Daily Tribune, Sept. 23, 1881, p. 5) says that Garfield and Arthur used the same passage, but does not indicate which one.
6. Hutchins, Stilson. The National Capitol, Washington, 1885, p. 276.
7. Harper's Magazine, August 1897.
8. Senate Document 116, 65th Congress, 1st Session, 1917.
9. New York Times, Apr. 13, 1945, p. 1, col. 7.
10. Facts on File, Jan. 16-22, 1949, p. 21.
11. New York Times, Jan. 21, 1953, p. 19.
12. New York Times, Jan. 22, 1957, p. 16.
13. New York Times, Jan. 21, 1961, p. 8, col. 1.
14. Mooney, Booth. The Lyndon Johnson Story, p. 1.
15. Office of the Clerk of the Supreme Court via phone July 1968.
16. Washington Post, Jan. 20, 1969, p. A1.
17. New York Times, Aug. 10, 1974, p. A1.
18. Washington Post, Jan. 21, 1977, p. A17.
19. White House Curator's Office.
20. Washington Post, Jan. 21, 1997, p. A14.
21. Inauguration staff. George W. Bush had hoped to use the Masonic Bible that had been used both by George Washington in 1789, and by the President's father, George H. W. Bush, in 1989. This historic Bible had been transported, under guard, from New York to Washington for the inauguration but, due to inclement weather, a family Bible was substituted instead.




--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Inaugurations Home Page

*snip*

Interesting. I'm curious why some presidents had two Bibles. One of them was Richard Nixon, so I can kind of see how Earl Warren may have wanted to make sure neither of his hands could be hidden for finger crossing, but the rest I don't understand.

You may also like to know that a bible is not required, so a non-believer can be sworn in as President too! From "Faith & Action in the Nation's Capital" (not my cup of tea, but an interesting source for the following):

"Before I go into that, though, let’s put some things into perspective. First, there is no constitutional provision, legal mandate or even informal rule requiring a new president to swear the Oath of Office on a Holy Bible, or anything else for that matter. It is a purely voluntary act. In fact, nothing even requires a new president to have an Inaugural ceremony of any kind. If a newly elected president wanted to, he or she could simply recite the Oath (which is mandated in the Constitution) all by himself or herself. Well, a witness would likely be needed to prove that it had been done.

Because there is no prescribed form of Inauguration, it goes without saying the Chief Justice of the United States is not required to administer the Oath. In the case of Barack Obama’s Swearing-In, it is simply a courtesy to Mr. Obama that Mr. Roberts is going to do so.

All this to say, the presence of a Bible in this grand exercise we call “The Inauguration,” is an elective tradition"

man. You'd almost think that non-christians are citizens too.
What next, will they become people?

lmao.

It is interesting how for very religious country (compared to other industrialized ones), the United States was not created by particularly religious people.
Did both Adams get sworn in on a non-Bible? I know Quincey had a book of law or something, but I don't know what his father used.
I believe it was just the one -- J.Q. Adams. (I keep forgetting there were two.)

You may also like to know that a bible is not required, so a non-believer can be sworn in as President too! From "Faith & Action in the Nation's Capital" (not my cup of tea, but an interesting source for the following):

"Before I go into that, though, let’s put some things into perspective. First, there is no constitutional provision, legal mandate or even informal rule requiring a new president to swear the Oath of Office on a Holy Bible, or anything else for that matter. It is a purely voluntary act. In fact, nothing even requires a new president to have an Inaugural ceremony of any kind. If a newly elected president wanted to, he or she could simply recite the Oath (which is mandated in the Constitution) all by himself or herself. Well, a witness would likely be needed to prove that it had been done.

Because there is no prescribed form of Inauguration, it goes without saying the Chief Justice of the United States is not required to administer the Oath. In the case of Barack Obama’s Swearing-In, it is simply a courtesy to Mr. Obama that Mr. Roberts is going to do so.

All this to say, the presence of a Bible in this grand exercise we call “The Inauguration,” is an elective tradition"
Very interesting. Thank you. It seems that, not only is not very important legally, for most of our history it was not considered important enough for most presidents to make any note of it -- until relatively recently.

And for you trivia buffs:

1801: First inaugural speech to be reported in full in a newspaper is Thomas Jefferson's. An extra edition of the National Intelligencer is printed minutes after the speech ends.

1829: Andrew Jackson, "the People's President," holds an open house. About 20,000 people trample mud and horse manure into the White House, destroy rugs, break satin-covered chairs, smash crystal and china, and spill liquor. Fights break out, women faint and Jackson has to escape through a window. Order is restored when barrels of whiskey are placed on the South Lawn, drawing the crowd outside.

1837: Martin Van Buren is the first president to be born an American citizen and the first to share a carriage to the Capitol with the outgoing president (Jackson).

1841: William Henry Harrison is the first president to arrive in Washington for the inauguration by railroad. It is a freezing, windy day and he delivers a long and windy speech. Harrison develops pneumonia and dies one month into his term.

1845: James K. Polk's inauguration is the first to be reported by telegraph.

1873: Ulysses S. Grant's inauguration is so cold - a low of 4 degrees and a high of 16 - that trumpet valves freeze and violin strings snap. One hundred and fifty canaries, whose chirping was to amuse guests, freeze to death in their cages.

1897: William McKinley's inauguration is the first to be filmed and recorded with sound.

1901: After McKinley is shot by anarchist Leon Czolgosz, Theodore Roosevelt is administered the oath in Buffalo, N.Y., at a friend's home. Roosevelt does not swear on the Bible or on any other book, making him unique among presidents.

1909: Nellie Taft is the first first lady to ride to the Capitol with her husband, William Howard Taft.

1913: West Point cadet and future President Dwight D. Eisenhower marches at Woodrow Wilson's inauguration.

1917: For the first time, women march in an inaugural parade at Wilson's second inauguration.

1921: Warren G. Harding is the first to ride to and from his inaugural in an automobile. His is also the first speech to be broadcast over loudspeakers.

1925: Calvin Coolidge's ceremony is the first broadcast nationally by radio.

1929: Herbert Hoover's inauguration is the first to be recorded for a newsreel "talkie."

1933: Franklin D. Roosevelt is the first president to be inaugurated on Jan. 20, moved from March by the 20th amendment to the Constitution.

1941: FDR becomes the first - and only - president to take the oath of office for a third term.

1945: FDR is the first and only president to be inaugurated for a fourth term.

1953: Longest inaugural parade, lasting four hours and 39 nine minutes is for Eisenhower, who allowed himself to be lassoed by cowboy Monte Montana, to the consternation of the Secret Service, which had not been alerted.

1961: John F. Kennedy is the first Catholic to take the oath, the first to have both parents in attendance, the first to have a poet, Robert Frost, participate in the official ceremonies, the first to have Army flamethrowers clear the snow from Pennsylvania Avenue and the last to wear a traditional stovepipe hat to the inauguration. Frost concludes his reading by dedicating the poem to President-elect "John Finley."

1963: Vice President Lyndon Johnson is sworn in aboard Air Force One after Kennedy is killed in Dallas. Federal District Judge Sarah Hughes is the only woman ever to swear in a president.

1974: Gerald Ford becomes the only person to succeed to the presidency without having been elected either president or vice president.

1981: At the formal inaugural luncheon, President Ronald Reagan announces that the 52 hostages held by Iranian revolutionaries for 444 days have been freed. He asks his predecessor, Jimmy Carter, to be the first to greet them.

1985: Super Bowl XIX falls on the same day as the private ceremony for Reagan's second inauguration, the public ceremony to take place the next day. Reagan takes the private oath then officiates the game's coin toss on television. San Francisco beats Miami 38-16.

1993: Bill and Hillary Rodham Clinton attend services at the Metropolitan African Methodist Episcopal Church, the first time the traditional inaugural morning prayer service is held at a predominantly black church.

Source: Chronicle research

On a random note, I really have no intention of getting inaugurated to a political or religious position. But if I wind up in a political office I shall swear by the US Constitution, and if I wind up in a religious office, I'll swear by Leviticus 19:18 ("Thou shalt not avenge, nor bear any grudge against the children of thy people, but thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself.")

...Remember, even the bible has good parts (http://skepticsannotatedbible.com/good/long.html) (even though large portions need to be totally replaced).

Just like John Adams, that godless heathen! And a couple of others whose names escape me at the moment, who swore the oath on something other than a Bible. Obama, apparently, is the fourth to do so.
Obama was sworn in on the bible used by Lincoln.

obama was sworn in on the bible used by lincoln.
LINCOLN WAS AN ARAB! YOU SAW IT, SO DID I!!!
Just look at that beard, and that huge hat. The coincidences don't stop adding up.

Interesting. I'm curious why some presidents had two Bibles. One of them was Richard Nixon, so I can kind of see how Earl Warren may have wanted to make sure neither of his hands could be hidden for finger crossing, but the rest I don't understand.
My guess is that they wanted one inaugural bible kept in the family, and the other to go to the National Archive or wherever the inaugural bibles (like Lincolns) are kept. Just a guess though.

It is interesting how for very religious country (compared to other industrialized ones), the United States was not created by particularly religious people.

I find it interesting that no religious leaders in United States mentions Thomas Paine (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_Paine), an atheist, and his contributions to building the country. For that matter church leaders never mention Abe Lincoln's oppositions to going to church... Go figure:rolleyes:

I find it interesting that no religious leaders in United States mentions Thomas Paine (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_Paine), an atheist, and his contributions to building the country. For that matter church leaders never mention Abe Lincoln's oppositions to going to church... Go figure:rolleyes:They also seem to forget the US Treaty with Tipoli, that was embraced by one of our founders and then President, Mr. Adams.

"Art. 11. As the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion;..."

http://www.stephenjaygould.org/ctrl/treaty_tripoli.html

It sounded kind of tacked on the way he said it, and in fact in the written speech it appears after a dash. ("Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus - and non-believers.") Considering that, and how in the same speech he quoted scripture and ended with "God bless the United States of America," did it seem like he was pandering, trying not to exclude anyone? Yes, a little. But I'd much rather have a president who recognizes non-believers in a superficial way than one who is uneasy with calling them Americans. I wasn't offended.

I didn't see the text, but to me, it did seem very tacked on...had it been "Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus, Buddhists and non-believers", I would have seen it as much less strange...but the way it was phrased drew attention to it much more than had it been more parallel.

I didn't see it as pandering...just a very strange choice in rhetoric.

Didn't offend me, I was actually rather happy to hear it.

Though I admit that I read the speech before I actually watched the video so with the spacing and punctuation marks, I was a wee bit confused because it looked like he stumbled over it.

The Rev. Cecil Blye, pastor of More Grace Ministries Church in Louisville, Ky., said the president's reference to nonbelievers also set off major alarm bells for him. "It's important to understand the heritage of our country, and it's a Judeo-Christian tradition,"’ period. But his even bigger beef with the president, he said, is that a disproportionate number of "black kids are dying each day through abortion. President Obama is supportive of abortion, and that's a genocide on black folks. Nobody wants to talk about that as a civil rights issue."You want to know what pissed me off? That article.
What the fuck? No, seriously. What the fuck?

It's the first I heard of it, and frankly I found it to be refreshing. He's trying to fix the deep division across his nation.

:rolleyes:

Yes, of course he is. Every time he opens his mouth he goes out of his way to demonstrate just how much he wants to fix that deep division.

Like this:
http://www.nypost.com/seven/01232009/news/politics/prez_zings_gop_foe_in_a_timulating_talk_151572.htm

You want to know what pissed me off? That article.
What the fuck? No, seriously. What the fuck?

The truth hurts, doesn't it.

The truth hurts, doesn't it.

Oh this should be fun, so why is it the truth?

:rolleyes:

Yes, of course he is. Every time he opens his mouth he goes out of his way to demonstrate just how much he wants to fix that deep division.

Like this:
http://www.nypost.com/seven/01232009/news/politics/prez_zings_gop_foe_in_a_timulating_talk_151572.htm

I wouldn't trust the Post to speak my weight without somehow making it into a "secret code to a military death ray". Try again.

The truth hurts, doesn't it.

How is comparing the mere mention of the FACT that there are non-believers in the country (one in six, 16%) to abortion anything BUT ludicrous? The "truth" is that some folks are just desperate to freak out about anything.

Your petty and childish remarks aside, what "truth" were you referring to?

The truth hurts, doesn't it....What are you talking about?
Abortion is some sort of secret agenda on the side of [Who?] to wipe out African Americans? :confused:

By mentioning, for the first time in an inaugural address, the 16.1 percent of Americans who check "no"’ when asked about religion, Obama turned it into the most controversial line in his speech -- praised by The New York Times editorial board and cited by some Christians as evidence that he is a heretic, and in his well-spoken way, a serious threat.

lol, silly americans.

we were offended and worried as fuck when GW Bush started going on about god in the first place ;)

:rolleyes:

Yes, of course he is. Every time he opens his mouth he goes out of his way to demonstrate just how much he wants to fix that deep division.

Like this:
http://www.nypost.com/seven/01232009/news/politics/prez_zings_gop_foe_in_a_timulating_talk_151572.htm

I assume you read the first post?

But, indulging your hijack just a little - since Rush Limbaugh has gone out of his way to try to INCREASE the division, suggesting that his extreme opposition not be pandered to is hardly a divisive response from Obama.

Limbaugh isn't a uniter. When Republicans were dominant, Democratic talking heads were attacking his policies and positions, but they weren't saying the equivalent of Limbaugh's "I Hope Obama Fails".

Limbaugh is willing to see Obama bring America to it's knees, if it proves a point. He's not only divisive - he's un-American.

The truth hurts, doesn't it.

The 'truth' being that: mentioning there are several religions (and even some non-religion) in America... equates to abortion and genocide?

I wouldn't trust the Post to speak my weight without somehow making it into a "secret code to a military death ray". Try again.
Here we go: http://news.yahoo.com/s/politico/20090123/pl_politico/17862;_ylt=Ai7GSBpfqie1g4UwJnLekFG_w5R4

That's what I thought the exchange was about.

Obama was sworn in on the bible used by Lincoln.
The first time, the one Roberts flubbed. When he and Roberts did it over in private later, they did not use a Bible, according to reports.

You want to know what pissed me off? That article.
What the fuck? No, seriously. What the fuck?
I've been trying to ignore the article as much as possible. It's pretty amazing how self-centered some people are, isn't it? "What the fuck does he mean the whole nation doesn't revolve around me and my pet Jeebus!?"

The first time, the one Roberts flubbed. When he and Roberts did it over in private later, they did not use a Bible, according to reports.

As noted previously, no bible was necessary either the first or the second time. For that matter, the second swearing in was unnecessary too, as pursuant to Article 20 of the Constitution, Bush's term ended at noon and Obama's started and he took the oath.

I thought that 'nonbelievers' would have been fairly upset at Obama's speech because of the references to Christian God!

:rolleyes:

Yes, of course he is. Every time he opens his mouth he goes out of his way to demonstrate just how much he wants to fix that deep division.

Like this:
http://www.nypost.com/seven/01232009/news/politics/prez_zings_gop_foe_in_a_timulating_talk_151572.htm

That newspaper isn't even worthy of being used to wipe my ass. If you could substantiate your claim with something of repute then I would give it more than a mere glance over.

As for the nature of it, if you had wanted to make a link to an article regarding Obama's move to lift the ban on abortion funding, there are other articles out there that are so... lacking.

http://www.thestar.com/News/World/article/576595

Or if you want one on the stimulus package, I'm sure we could find one... here we are.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/7848977.stm

I thought that 'nonbelievers' would have been fairly upset at Obama's speech because of the references to Christian God!

I'm sorry if we didn't react the way you thought we would. I'll see to it in the future that we do. ;)

Here we go: http://news.yahoo.com/s/politico/20090123/pl_politico/17862;_ylt=Ai7GSBpfqie1g4UwJnLekFG_w5R4

That's what I thought the exchange was about.

Thank you, especially because the article contains this beauty:

“How can you spend hundreds of millions of dollars on contraceptives?” Boehner asked. “How does that stimulate the economy?”

BY HELPING PEOPLE AVOID GOING INTO DEBT TO PAY FOR KIDS THEY CAN'T AFFORD TO BRING TO TERM OR FEED ONCE BORN. Sorry for the caps, but are people really so blinded by religious hoo-hah to see reality?

I thought that 'nonbelievers' would have been fairly upset at Obama's speech because of the references to Christian God!

The difference is subtlety, sir. Bush flogged God at every opportunity, to the point of believing and promoting the notion that God called him to the Presidency, and dictated several policy positions to him. THAT is upsetting. Mentioning God three or four times in as ecumenical a way as possible in an inauguration speech is a refreshing change.

Thank you, especially because the article contains this beauty:

“How can you spend hundreds of millions of dollars on contraceptives?” Boehner asked. “How does that stimulate the economy?”

BY HELPING PEOPLE AVOID GOING INTO DEBT TO PAY FOR KIDS THEY CAN'T AFFORD TO BRING TO TERM OR FEED ONCE BORN. Sorry for the caps, but are people really so blinded by religious hoo-hah to see reality?
I'll go more round about: Contraceptives mean access to sex of the more casual nature. Well, not all of us are so pimp that we can just wink at the chick and gets it on. So that means dinner, movies, dancing, flowers, lotion. To quote George Harrison, it's gonna take money, a whole lot of spending cash.

(I'm being silly, but still...)



The difference is subtlety, sir.

That's enough Keith Oberman for you.

I'll go more round about: Contraceptives mean access to sex of the more casual nature. Well, not all of us are so pimp that we can just wink at the chick and gets it on. So that means dinner, movies, dancing, flowers, lotion. To quote George Harrison, it's gonna take money, a whole lot of spending cash.

(I'm being silly, but still...)

Excellent point. Paying for sex via "courting" stimulates the economy. We should get rid of the "coveting" Commandments for the same reason.

That's enough Keith Oberman for you.

What, I can't use a word I've been using long before Olbermann was even IN broadcasting? :tongue:

What, I can't use a word I've been using long before Olbermann was even IN broadcasting? :tongue:

Nope. Once a media figure adapts a figure of speech, no matter how correct or common or how much its usage predates or is used before that, any usage after that is automatically 'just like' said media figure and even if you have several people who will vouch for your usage, dated wedding video of not only you using the figure of speech but others giving you a hard time for your constant use of it that shows you've been doing it before the media figure 'normalized' it, you are automatically considered to be doing it 'just like that guy on (select medium).' This carries tacit implications that you want to be just like said media figure and a pawn to his/her ideas. It is a subset of the principle that 'it's not true unless it's on the TV' (and its newer sibling principle 'it's not true unless it's on the internet'.)

Thems the rules. I don't make 'em, I just make 'em up.

Some Christians are taking issue with the approach to inclusiveness, saying the president misrepresented America's culture and heritage.
Ironic, isn't it?

Wasn't the first 10 words of the first amendment "congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion"? Isn't the US supposed to be a "melting pot" that MIXES different cultural beliefs? Isn't it, if anything, the ones who associate the US with Christianity who misrepresent America's culture and heritage?

I guess it shouldn't be a surprise, though, that given how ridiculous some of the stuff in Christianity is, some of the people who follow it aren't exactly that bright; you'd expect logical thinking to lead people away from it.

I think Christopher Hitchens put it best: religion poisons everything.

Nope. Once a media figure adapts a figure of speech, no matter how correct or common or how much its usage predates or is used before that, any usage after that is automatically 'just like' said media figure and even if you have several people who will vouch for your usage, dated wedding video of not only you using the figure of speech but others giving you a hard time for your constant use of it that shows you've been doing it before the media figure 'normalized' it, you are automatically considered to be doing it 'just like that guy on (select medium).' This carries tacit implications that you want to be just like said media figure and a pawn to his/her ideas. It is a subset of the principle that 'it's not true unless it's on the TV' (and its newer sibling principle 'it's not true unless it's on the internet'.)

Thems the rules. I don't make 'em, I just make 'em up.

It's a fair cop. Alright then:

The difference is subtlety, O Best Beloved.

Kipling can suck it.

Ironic, isn't it?

Wasn't the first 10 words of the first amendment "congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion"? Isn't the US supposed to be a "melting pot" that MIXES different cultural beliefs? Isn't it, if anything, the ones who associate the US with Christianity who misrepresent America's culture and heritage?

I guess it shouldn't be a surprise, though, that given how ridiculous some of the stuff in Christianity is, some of the people who follow it aren't exactly that bright; you'd expect logical thinking to lead people away from it.

I think Christopher Hitchens put it best: religion poisons everything.

I love how fundamentalists (which you can't spell without "mental") bellow about the US being founded as a Christian nation, when the majority of its founders were Enlightenment Deists at best, and others were atheists (notably Thomas Paine).

I love how fundamentalists (which you can't spell without "mental") bellow about the US being founded as a Christian nation, when the majority of its founders were Enlightenment Deists at best, and others were atheists (notably Thomas Paine).
As I already said, if you could convince them of something as ridiculous as Christianity, you could convince them of something as ridiculous as the notion that the US is a Christian nation.

Though I've always found the term "nonbelievers" to be a bit insulting, "atheists and agnostics" would've been more fitting and gone with the speech well.
He could've gone with "infidels" - so be glad he chose "nonbelievers". :p

As I already said, if you could convince them of something as ridiculous as Christianity, you could convince them of something as ridiculous as the notion that the US is a Christian nation.

Touché.

The first time, the one Roberts flubbed. When he and Roberts did it over in private later, they did not use a Bible, according to reports.
No bible the 2nd time around:

http://i6.photobucket.com/albums/y223/GermanNightmare/Amtseid2.jpg

What, I can't use a word I've been using long before Olbermann was even IN broadcasting? :tongue:

What, when you were five? Olbermann's been in broadcasting longer than I've been alive.

:rolleyes:

Yes, of course he is. Every time he opens his mouth he goes out of his way to demonstrate just how much he wants to fix that deep division.

Like this:
http://www.nypost.com/seven/01232009/news/politics/prez_zings_gop_foe_in_a_timulating_talk_151572.htm

whom he had invited to the White House to discuss his nearly $1 trillion stimulus package.

A.....Trillion Dollars.....

*has heart attack*

A.....Trillion Dollars.....

*has heart attack*
"There is no such thing as a free lunch, and there is no such thing as a free war. The Iraq adventure has seriously weakened the U.S. economy, whose woes now go far beyond loose mortgage lending. You can't spend $3 trillion -- yes, $3 trillion -- on a failed war abroad and not feel the pain at home."

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/03/07/AR2008030702846.html

It seems that the money was freely spend for the wrong goals, aiding to make a case for the need of a trillion dollars to boost the economy. Where was your concern about the national debt when the war increased it?

What the hell kind of muslim is he?!? :eek:
Very deep cover.
lol, silly americans.

we were offended and worried as fuck when GW Bush started going on about god in the first place ;)
Mainly because he thought god spoke to him. The rest of us say shit like that, we'd be locked up.
I thought that 'nonbelievers' would have been fairly upset at Obama's speech because of the references to Christian God!

I'm sure some of them can be as petty as the theists who objected to the mention of non-believers.

Maybe it's because I just beat Command and Conquer three, oh, ten minutes ago, but when I saw this thread title I thought of "Nod (http://www.cncnz.com/images/games/cnc3/logo_nod.jpg) to Non-believers". As in a communication of some sort ;)

No bible the 2nd time around:

http://i6.photobucket.com/albums/y223/GermanNightmare/Amtseid2.jpg
That's what I like to see. :D

What, when you were five? Olbermann's been in broadcasting longer than I've been alive.

I was quite capable of saying "sir" at five. Olbermann's been in broadcasting since 1975, but I doubt he was using his trademark "sir-as-sub-for-asshole" shtick that long.

Lighten up.

Where was your concern about the national debt when the war increased it?

Hey, I always criticized Bush for never vetoing a spending Bill, and I always thought that Government spent too much regardless of who the President is.

However, if you want the fix the economy, one of the thing you have to do is balance the budget! That what Clinton did and look how awesome our economy was under his Administration.

Mainly because he thought god spoke to him. The rest of us say shit like that, we'd be locked up.

Exactly.

When the guy who's already got the job claims God sent him there, that's one thing. If someone on the street corner keeps muttering "God wants me to be President" over and over again, that's another.

No bible the 2nd time around:

http://i6.photobucket.com/albums/y223/GermanNightmare/Amtseid2.jpg

Until, of course, it appears on ICHC (http://icanhascheezburger.com/)with the caption "INVISIBLE BIBLE"...

Until, of course, it appears on ICHC (http://icanhascheezburger.com/)with the caption "INVISIBLE BIBLE"...

Damn it, if only I was at home I could do that right now.

Did Obama's remark offend you?

Just in the last three days, his actions and this speech, have made me increasingly happy that I voted for him.

http://news.aol.com/article/obamas-nonbeliever-nod-unsettles-some/316339?icid=200100397x1216995629x1201097429

nope. but I'm hoping it didn't offend as much people as his saying 'so help me God' when taking the oath did.

No it did not offend me, it kinda annoyed me ever-so-slightly that he didn't call us atheists/agnostics, because a non-believer sounds like "There is a god, you just don't believe."

No bible the 2nd time around:

http://i6.photobucket.com/albums/y223/GermanNightmare/Amtseid2.jpg

nah, that pic was just Roberts and Pres Obama High 5'ing each other after Roberts got the oath correct! :D

Kagetora;14436462']No it did not offend me, it kinda annoyed me ever-so-slightly that he didn't call us atheists/agnostics, because a non-believer sounds like "There is a god, you just don't believe."

I would have thrown a rock down the internet at him if he had referred to us as agnostics.

Well I would want him to say "Atheists and Agnostics" instead of "Non-believers"

Kagetora;14436508']Well I would want him to say "Atheists and Agnostics" instead of "Non-believers"

Agnostic isn't in the same catergory as theist and atheist. It's a bit of a pet peeve of mine that people think it's some kind of middle ground between atheism and theism.

I think middle ground is called Intelligent Design. :P

Kagetora;14436462']No it did not offend me, it kinda annoyed me ever-so-slightly that he didn't call us atheists/agnostics, because a non-believer sounds like "There is a god, you just don't believe."

Non-believer could also mean someone who isn't of one of the religions he named.

Kagetora;14436462']No it did not offend me, it kinda annoyed me ever-so-slightly that he didn't call us atheists/agnostics, because a non-believer sounds like "There is a god, you just don't believe."

I usually call myself a nonbeliever because I think atheist implies the active belief that there is no god. I don't believe in god but I also don't believe there is no god, that implies a level of investment and concern with the idea of god that I simply don't have. Of course, I'm probably just splitting hairs here.

Of course, I'm probably just splitting hairs here.

You're on NSG. What else are you supposed to do?

His nod to non-believers was perfect. He's setting himself up perfectly for a crushing defeat in 2012. Hopefully by Jindal :)

His nod to non-believers was perfect. He's setting himself up perfectly for a crushing defeat in 2012. Hopefully by Jindal :)
Isn't if funny how some people think that merely acknowledging the existence of a certain group of ordinary, law-abiding, tax-paying citizens is enough to destroy a politician's career?

I thought that 'nonbelievers' would have been fairly upset at Obama's speech because of the references to Christian God!

References are okay. It's when you make policy decisions based on, or attributed to, your particular anthropomorphic personification of ineffability, that we might be a little perturbed.

Because sadly it is. Just like if Obama had been white, Clinton would be our newest President.

Because sadly it is. Just like if Obama had been white, Clinton would be our newest President.
Really? I would only just love to hear the in-depth reasoning by which you arrived at that conclusion. In fact, I just popped some popcorn, so lay it on me, please.

Oh, and please use the quote button, thanks.

I don't like "using the quote button" it wastes space you knew what I was talking about. If Obama hadn't been Black the media would have never covered him as much as they did. I'm not saying it's right, but thats how it is. He was different so he got coverage. Plus geting 95% of the African American vote helped him and you can't deny it.

Ironic, isn't it?

Wasn't the first 10 words of the first amendment "congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion"? Isn't the US supposed to be a "melting pot" that MIXES different cultural beliefs? Isn't it, if anything, the ones who associate the US with Christianity who misrepresent America's culture and heritage?

I guess it shouldn't be a surprise, though, that given how ridiculous some of the stuff in Christianity is, some of the people who follow it aren't exactly that bright; you'd expect logical thinking to lead people away from it.

I think Christopher Hitchens put it best: religion poisons everything.

It's not a religious thing, actually - although it is about a mindset that favours some kinds of religious behaviour.

I was watching Bill O'Reilly last night, or the night before... and in order to make a certain point about how he doesn't want 'terrorists' released from Gitmo, he recycled a lie - a set of long discredited figures about 'returning to combat'.

To him, lying is okay, if it serves his purpose.

In the same program, he defended Bush suspending Constitutionally guaranteed rights, because it 'guaranteed' the safety of the US... and unleashed a diatribe against 'liberals' trying to take away his guns.

Apparently, to a certain mindset - the Constitution is a buffet-bar. You can pick or choose the bits you like and dislike, and honesty be damned if it's inconvenient.

Hey, I always criticized Bush for never vetoing a spending Bill, and I always thought that Government spent too much regardless of who the President is.

However, if you want the fix the economy, one of the thing you have to do is balance the budget! That what Clinton did and look how awesome our economy was under his Administration.

Actually, balancing the budget isn't a requisite for fixing the economy - it will/would just make our financial security a little more comfortable while we're going through it. 'Fixing the economy' means bringing the markets back into line, and driving profits - and if UN-balancing the budget does that, the economy can be fixed that way.

I don't like "using the quote button" it wastes space you knew what I was talking about. If Obama hadn't been Black the media would have never covered him as much as they did. I'm not saying it's right, but thats how it is. He was different so he got coverage. Plus geting 95% of the African American vote helped him and you can't deny it.
Yes, I do know what you are talking about, but I won't always because as you should be able to see, NSG threads often get a lot of posts fast. Repeated failure to use the quote function will eventually result in your posts being ignored, if it gets too hard to tell what you are referring to.

As for the rest of your post, that is hardly in-depth reasoning. You can do better than that.

How much coverage did Obama get for being black before he won the nomination?

How does his being black account for his narrow victory over Clinton?

How do you account for the non-black voters who also voted for him? Did they support him because of his color too?

How do you know this? EDIT: What evidence do you have that the media attention about Obama's race was what decided the voters who supported him on election day?

And as to your other point, what makes you think one passing reference to "non-believers" by Obama is going to put Bobby Jindal in the White House next time around?

I don't like "using the quote button" it wastes space you knew what I was talking about. If Obama hadn't been Black the media would have never covered him as much as they did. I'm not saying it's right, but thats how it is. He was different so he got coverage. Plus geting 95% of the African American vote helped him and you can't deny it.

The fact that he ran a pretty seamless campaign, against one of the worst campaigns ever run... doesn't contribute?

Besides, if coverage was what did it for you, why did Obama and Palin follow such different trajectories?

I don't like "using the quote button" it wastes space you knew what I was talking about. If Obama hadn't been Black the media would have never covered him as much as they did. I'm not saying it's right, but thats how it is. He was different so he got coverage. Plus geting 95% of the African American vote helped him and you can't deny it.

Michael Dukakis got 90%+ of the black vote and he's about as white as they come. Oh, and he lost. :p

Michael Dukakis got 90%+ of the black vote and he's about as white as they come. Oh, and he lost. :p
Yeah, but his eyebrows were big and black. ;)

Yeah, but his eyebrows were big and black. ;)

In fact, Bill Clinton got less of the black vote than any Democrat in recent history at 83% in 92 and 84% in 96. John Kerry got 88%. Walter Mondale, Michael Dukakis and even Al Gore are all 90% or more. And Bill Clinton is the only one who won. ;)

In fact, Bill Clinton got less of the black vote than any Democrat in recent history at 83% in 92 and 84% in 96. John Kerry got 88%. Walter Mondale, Michael Dukakis and even Al Gore are all 90% or more. And Bill Clinton is the only one who won. ;)
But you're missing the crucial factor. None of those non-Clinton guys was black. Obama is black. Therefore, the black vote is what cinched the victory. Since the sheer number of black voters was not enough to get the win for those white guys, it must be some black mojo thing that did it, like a critical mass of dark matter or something, not just numbers, which made the black vote the key thing for the black candidate. The point is, Obama is black and that's why he's president.

Apparently. From what Daynor has told us so far.

But all is not lost because Obama does not hate non-believers, so that means that Bobby Jindal, who is Indian, will win in 2012. I can't quite figure out how race factors into that one. Unless the point is that religion trumps race. Of course, it didn't for Sarah Palin, but then she's white so maybe that canceled out the religion effect.

So, apparently, race rules when it's swarthy versus pale, but when it's swarthy on swarthy, then religion is the main factor.

I guess.

I'm waiting for Daynor's in-depth explanation.

Yeah, but his eyebrows were big and black. ;)

I wondered why I was remined of "Cousin It"... :p

I didn't say that Obama won because he got most the black vote, I said that helped. What I did say was that all the positive media coverage he got helped A LOT! And that I don't think he ever would have been noticed by the media if he was white. I know you guys can't accept that, he's like your messiah. I wish him the best of luck, he is in for a hard one in 2012, but with MSNBC treating him like a saint he could do it. Bye.

I didn't say that Obama won because he got most the black vote, I said that helped. What I did say was that all the positive media coverage he got helped A LOT!

McCain could have had just as much positive coverage if he hadn't acted like a fuckwad.

I didn't say that Obama won because he got most the black vote, I said that helped. What I did say was that all the positive media coverage he got helped A LOT! And that I don't think he ever would have been noticed by the media if he was white.
Why? What makes you think that?

I know you guys can't accept that, he's like your messiah.
I don't have a messiah, and even if I did, Obama would not be it. He's just a politician, and he appears so far to be one who is intent on making an honest go of doing a good job at what he has been elected to do. Time will tell.

I wish him the best of luck, he is in for a hard one in 2012, but with MSNBC treating him like a saint he could do it. Bye.
Leaving so soon? You never answered my question about why his brief mention of the existence of non-believers as part of US society was setting him up for a huge loss in 2012. If you're not going to answer that, can I take it you were just blowing hot air on that?

EDIT: By the way, I'm sure the folks at MSNBC would be very gratified to know that you think they have that much influence. Last I heard, they were still newbie upstarts among news channels, ratings-wise.

Why? What makes you think that? I can kinda see his point. I've heard more about Obama and Clinton than any of the other dems running for the primary and I really don't watch MSNBC... but was that because one was black and the other female? who knows, it may have been a factor, but I don't think it was a big one.

Even at that time, Obama and Clinton were the popular ones.

would Obama have won if he was white? dunno.

but he probably would've lost if he was a Republican... :tongue:

I didn't say that Obama won because he got most the black vote, I said that helped. What I did say was that all the positive media coverage he got helped A LOT! And that I don't think he ever would have been noticed by the media if he was white. I know you guys can't accept that, he's like your messiah. I wish him the best of luck, he is in for a hard one in 2012, but with MSNBC treating him like a saint he could do it. Bye.

Media coverage is his campaign's problem and poor media coverage is his campaign's fault. There were 2 black candidates(Cynthia McKinney and Al Sharpton) running for the Democratic nomination in 2004 and neither got the nomination. Why didn't they become media darlings? They were black too.

I can kinda see his point. I've heard more about Obama and Clinton than any of the other dems running for the primary and I really don't watch MSNBC... but was that because one was black and the other female? who knows, it may have been a factor, but I don't think it was a big one.

Even at that time, Obama and Clinton were the popular ones.

would Obama have won if he was white? dunno.
That is the thing I was taking exception to in Daynor's remarks. I am tired of these "would have" arguments in which the poster seems to think that his own private (probably biased in one way or another) musings stand as proof of his assertions. Sure Obama's race is a big part of why the media are so excited about him, but unless Daynor can show data suggesting that Obama's race is what decided the voters on election day, or he can lay out a proper line of logical reasoning that shows how he connects the dots of his argument, then his argument is bull. As LG points out, other black candidates who garnered plenty of media time did not fare as well, and neither did other white candidates who were subject to a media blitz. Just being pushed into our awareness is not enough to guarantee a win. It could just as easily guarantee a loss. As evidence of that, we need only look to Sarah Palin.

but he probably would've lost if he was a Republican... :tongue:
I suppose we can take that as a given, this time around. ;)

Isn't if funny how some people think that merely acknowledging the existence of a certain group of ordinary, law-abiding, tax-paying citizens is enough to destroy a politician's career?

Mmm, good old-fashioned bigotry. Isn't it beautiful?


Media coverage is his campaign's problem and poor media coverage is his campaign's fault. There were 2 black candidates(Cynthia McKinney and Al Sharpton) running for the Democratic nomination in 2004 and neither got the nomination. Why didn't they become media darlings? They were black too.

Yeah. The thing is, the media loves a good story. And the son of an immigrant suddenly bursting ahead with a surprise win in the beginning of the primaries, defeating the wife of a popular former president... well, that makes for a good story. Plus, his oratorical skill didn't hurt.

BUT NO THAT'S DUMB. IT'S ENTIRELY BECAUSE HE'S BLACK!!!

no it's fine

I didn't say that Obama won because he got most the black vote, I said that helped. What I did say was that all the positive media coverage he got helped A LOT! And that I don't think he ever would have been noticed by the media if he was white. I know you guys can't accept that, he's like your messiah. I wish him the best of luck, he is in for a hard one in 2012, but with MSNBC treating him like a saint he could do it. Bye.

Considering that African-American citizens constitutes @ 12-15% of the US population (non-Believers, btw, are @16% of the population - and figure there's a bit of a crossover with some A-A non-believers), even 100% of the black vote wouldn't help that much - unless that was the percentage of difference between victory and defeat and unless all black voters are of a piece (and, ftr, they aren't).

His victory is more easily explained by the fact that A) Palin sucks and B) McCain and co. ran an execrable campaign. Interesting, no, that McCain's campaign consisted mostly of ad hominem attacks and Obama's consisted mostly of addressing (however simplisticly) issues.

Considering that African-American citizens constitutes @ 12-15% of the US population (non-Believers, btw, are @16% of the population - and figure there's a bit of a crossover with some A-A non-believers), even 100% of the black vote wouldn't help that much - unless that was the percentage of difference between victory and defeat and unless all black voters are of a piece (and, ftr, they aren't).

His victory is more easily explained by the fact that A) Palin sucks and B) McCain and co. ran an execrable campaign. Interesting, no, that McCain's campaign consisted mostly of ad hominem attacks and Obama's consisted mostly of addressing (however simplisticly) issues.

It was probably harder for Obama to win the nomination than the presidency. The democratic nomination was very close, it comes down to if you think people were swayed by his race. Given the number of people who mention him being black prominently when asked about him I'm inclined to think that it did benefit him (particularly in terms of getting attention for a fairly unknown candidate). In the tight nomination race I'd suggest that had he been white, given what I've heard about the Clinton's being popular in the black community (is this true?) then he could well have lost the nomination.

It was probably harder for Obama to win the nomination than the presidency. The democratic nomination was very close, it comes down to if you think people were swayed by his race. Given the number of people who mention him being black prominently when asked about him I'm inclined to think that it did benefit him (particularly in terms of getting attention for a fairly unknown candidate). In the tight nomination race I'd suggest that had he been white, given what I've heard about the Clinton's being popular in the black community (is this true?) then he could well have lost the nomination.
Her husband is popular among black voters in several states. I am not convinced that popularity extends to Hillary. However, Hillary did very well at inflaming temporary passions just long enough to garner votes. There tended to be a certain amount of next-day buyer's remorse with regard to her. It was my belief -- back before I had any clue that Obama had any chance of getting the nomination at all -- that if Hillary was the Dem candidate, the next president would be McCain.

Since I am not privy to the particulars of how each primary campaign was waged from one state to another, I -- unlike Daynor -- cannot make any judgment as to how much Obama's race factored into that. However, I do not believe it was the deciding factor in the national election.

It was probably harder for Obama to win the nomination than the presidency. The democratic nomination was very close, it comes down to if you think people were swayed by his race. Given the number of people who mention him being black prominently when asked about him I'm inclined to think that it did benefit him (particularly in terms of getting attention for a fairly unknown candidate). In the tight nomination race I'd suggest that had he been white, given what I've heard about the Clinton's being popular in the black community (is this true?) then he could well have lost the nomination.

Exit polling suggested that race hurt Obama more in the primaries than it helped him.

And being female helped Clinton more than it hurt her.

But, in the end, Obama still pulled it out.

Disclaimer: Obviously, exit polling would only catch those willing to state that race or gender played a big role in their decision-making processes, so it wouldn't be the whole story. But I do think it's useful.

What so the US only has Christians, Muslims, Jews, Hindus and nonbelievers? Better let those Buddhists know.

*snip*

Apparently, to a certain mindset - the Constitution is a buffet-bar. You can pick or choose the bits you like and dislike, and honesty be damned if it's inconvenient.

I would wager that this mindset you're referring to is the same one that lets Book religions cherry-pick their scriptures in order to denigrate that which they don't like.

Did Obama's remark offend you?


Yes. I was offended by being put in the last place. I wanted the first place. ;)

What so the US only has Christians, Muslims, Jews, Hindus and nonbelievers? Better let those Buddhists know.

Arguably Buddhists are nonbelievers - there is after all no god in that faith.
However, he did leave a few thousand religions out, yes. Better to use a generic "people of many different faiths or nonfaiths, with different beliefs" type of sentence.