Barak Obama runs for Prez.

[oloenneker]

So, Barak Obama has announce that he is going to set up an exploratory comitte towards running for President of the United States.


As many of you know, over the last few months I have been thinking hard about my plans for 2008. Running for the presidency is a profound decision - a decision no one should make on the basis of media hype or personal ambition alone - and so before I committed myself and my family to this race, I wanted to be sure that this was right for us and, more importantly, right for the country.

http://www.barackobama.com/video/from_barack_transcript/index.php

So what chance does he actually stand in an election?
the man does have alot of progressive ideals and I like some of what I have heard, but I am concerned about his level of experience. He is only two years into his first senate seat. is that enough experience to be president.
If Hillary actually rus as well, how do these two stack up against one another?

[RoBoTeq]

I can't believe the Democratic Party is going to continue to run contraversial candidates for the presidency. It's like they are trying to make some sort of statement rather then concern themselves with who would actually be good for the country.

Just because it should be impossible for a Democrat to not win the presidency in 2008 shouldn't give these goofs a reason to believe they don't have to put someone up who Americans can at least feel comfortable voting for.

[geerair]

I would look for Obama as V.P. to Clinton's Prez. I don't believe he can pull off a credible run for the top job at this time but would fit nicely as V.P.
As you say, Obama hasn't extensive experience but he has sizzle which unfortunately means more to today's voters than substance.

I think he is attempting to establish his national cred for a future, more realistic run at the presidency.

As robo said, it should be impossible for a Dem to not win the presidency, especially after two more years of Bush, so the Presidential Election will be the Democratic Primary.


I just don't see Obama having the organization or political savvy of Clinton.






That being said, I would rather not see a Democratic President in '08. The Dems. will hold their majority in Congress, probably even increase it due to the continued failure of Bush.

As a country we have been without meaningful oversight for too damn long and I believe we can do without one party owning the government, be it Republican or Democrat.

[rimek]

As an Illinois resident, I'm a bit p*ssed that this guy decided to do this instead of the JOB HE WAS ELECTED TO DO. I don't think he spent any time acting like a senator, before getting sucked into the presidential race.

[scrogdog]

Well said, Geer.

What is so stunning is that we see everyone talk a good game in this regard... you, me... even the politicians themselves. If we keep drawing battles lines to retreat behind, however, a balanced system is not going to work. So, it terms of getting something done, perhaps one side or the other owning things is the only way to avoid endless bickering and deadlock.

We need more than talk here. I certainly haven't seen either side reach out to the other after the elections despite much talk of it.

Personally, though Rudi does carry some baggage, he's the type of moderate presidential candidate that might work well with Congress while still maintaining balance, in my opinion.

[k-fridge]

Obama is effectively running for VP, there's no way he'll get the top spot.

He's somewhat of a celebrity right now, a media sweetheart. He's black, intelligent, a riveting speaker, son of an immigrant...exactly the kind of underdog the American people like to root for. But once people get to know him better some of the glamor will fade. There an e-mail circulating that claims his father was a radical Muslim, according to Snopes the e-mail exaggerates things but there are some truths in it. That may not play well to the American people in a time where we're at war with radical Muslim terrorists.

I really doubt he'll even get the VP nod.

[smokin68]

Obama too close to Osama to win anything, and a Muslim as well. On the bright side, maybe that's the kind of figurehead we need to get us out of Iraq. Surely the Muslim community would respect Obama's opinion alot more than "W's". Who knows.:confused:

[coolwhip]

If a person like Obama can get elected, then we are truley screwed.:rolleyes:

[chillbilly]

Obama is effectively running for VP, there's no way he'll get the top spot.

He's somewhat of a celebrity right now, a media sweetheart. He's black, intelligent, a riveting speaker, son of an immigrant...exactly the kind of underdog the American people like to root for. But once people get to know him better some of the glamor will fade. There an e-mail circulating that claims his father was a radical Muslim, according to Snopes the e-mail exaggerates things but there are some truths in it. That may not play well to the American people in a time where we're at war with radical Muslim terrorists.

I really doubt he'll even get the VP nod.

Those are good points K.
He appears to be a decent candidate.
I've listened to him a little and he's got charisma.
It'll be interesting to hear more from him.

[Mr Bill]

Obama is effectively running for VP, there's no way he'll get the top spot.


Unless something happens to the President. :eek:

[geerair]

Personally, though Rudi does carry some baggage, he's the type of moderate presidential candidate that might work well with Congress while still maintaining balance, in my opinion.I agree. I believe Rudi would be able to work with a Dem controlled Congress.

But as you say Rudi has baggage and liberal social leanings that the Repub. "holier than thou" base can't abide.


So, I fear we are pretty much stuck with McCain, Zeus help us.

[oloenneker]

So, I fear we are pretty much stuck with McCain, Zeus help us.

Even then, I don't think that Zeus can help us if that happens...

[glennac]

Gentlemen, I got an email from my cousin in Tennessee on some dirt he got on Obama. I don’t know where he got it but it is some ****. I’m sure the dems will get upset but here goes.

Probable U. S. presidential candidate, Barack Hussein Obama was born in Honolulu, Hawaii, to Barack Hussein Obama, Sr., a Muslim from Nyangoma-Kogel, Kenya and Ann Dunham, an atheist from Wichita, Kansas. Obama's parents met at the University of Hawaii .

When Obama was two years old, his parents divorced. His father returned to Kenya . His mother then married Lolo Soetoro, a radical Muslim from Indonesia . When Obama was 6 years old, the family relocated to Indonesia . Obama attended a Muslim school in Jakarta . He also spent two years in a Catholic school.

Obama takes great care to conceal the fact that he is a Muslim. He is quick to point out that, "He was once a Muslim, but that he also attended Catholic school."

Obama's political handlers are attempting to make it appear that Obama's introduction to Islam came via his father, and that this influence was temporary at best. In reality, the senior Obama returned to Kenya soon after the divorce, and never again had any direct influence over his son's education. Lolo Soetoro, the second husband of Obama's mother, Ann Dunham, introduced his stepson to Islam. Osama was enrolled in a Wahabi school in Jakarta . Wahabism is the radical teaching that is followed by the Muslim terrorists who are now waging Jihad against the western world.

Since it is politically expedient to be a Christian when seeking major public office in the United States , Barack Hussein Obama has joined the United Church of Christ in an attempt to downplay his Muslim background.

Let us all remain alert concerning Obama's expected presidential candidacy.:D :D :D

[renaissanse man]

I say we get a libertarian in there! Dream on Ren, dream on.:(

[geerair]

I say we get a libertarian in there! Dream on Ren, dream on.:(Who you got in mind? I'm not adverse to voting for third party folks. ;) ;)

[royc]

Who you got in mind? I'm not adverse to voting for third party folks. ;) ;)

Ron Paul


Roy

[canoedad]

:confused: If this is true how did he become a Senator?

[k-fridge]

Ron Paul


Roy
He's running, but as a republican.

[coordinatesales]

:confused: If this is true how did he become a Senator?

Simple, charisma. Voters are getting more and more apathetic and if they see a name they recognize or a face that looks trustworthy or a speech they like, they vote for that one. They don't bother trying to research the candidates or look for any source other than the TV ads they are bombarded with.

That's why us christian fundies are as strong as we are. We are listening to a source we trust, 'christian organizations' showing politician's stances on biblical matters such as gay marriage, and abortion. This encourages us to vote a certain way. Some of us go on to more research to get past the rhetoric, some do not.

[coolwhip]

Glenn, I dont doubt it for a minute.

[James 3528]

Obama too close to Osama to win anything, and a Muslim as well. On the bright side, maybe that's the kind of figurehead we need to get us out of Iraq. Surely the Muslim community would respect Obama's opinion alot more than "W's". Who knows.:confused:


Makes a lot of sense :rolleyes: :rolleyes:

[James 3528]

Simple, charisma. Voters are getting more and more apathetic and if they see a name they recognize or a face that looks trustworthy or a speech they like, they vote for that one. They don't bother trying to research the candidates or look for any source other than the TV ads they are bombarded with.

That's why us christian fundies are as strong as we are. We are listening to a source we trust, 'christian organizations' showing politician's stances on biblical matters such as gay marriage, and abortion. This encourages us to vote a certain way. Some of us go on to more research to get past the rhetoric, some do not.
charisma? The goof has speed break ears. All he has, he has from media hype.

[acmanko]

Simple, charisma. Voters are getting more and more apathetic and if they see a name they recognize or a face that looks trustworthy or a speech they like, they vote for that one. They don't bother trying to research the candidates or look for any source other than the TV ads they are bombarded with.

That's why us christian fundies are as strong as we are. We are listening to a source we trust, 'christian organizations' showing politician's stances on biblical matters such as gay marriage, and abortion. This encourages us to vote a certain way. Some of us go on to more research to get past the rhetoric, some do not. that is a good way to lose tax exempt status.

[bootlen]

that is a good way to lose tax exempt status.


What? By publicising statements of fact about candidates? Not true.

Ya see, AC, there are certain Christian groups who simply put out the facts without editorializing and we fundies make up our individual minds as to how we want top vote. Now, I know that scares the crap out of you dem/libs that there are people who actually can think for themselves and they are typically conservative but it is true nontehless.

Yer just gonna have to deal with it.

[Mr Bill]

that is a good way to lose tax exempt status.


No way! for this to happen it has to be occurring inside the Church doors once you walk out you can do as you please, 50 million Christians can get together and show politician's stances on biblical matters such as gay marriage, and abortion, you really did not believe what you said right? your were just bored and rambling right? :rolleyes:

[acmanko]

No. the only place Christians listen to anything is in Church, and some are /could lose tax exemption
http://www.google.com/search?sourceid=navclient&ie=UTF-8&rls=GGIT,GGIT:2007-02,GGIT:en&q=churches+losing+tax+exemption

[k-fridge]

RE: Tax exemption for churches;

Question: How many times has the IRS pulled a churches tax exempt staus for political reasons? I already know the answer.

This whole tax exempt thing is just a scare tactic that is often used by the political left to discourage evangelicals away from discussing the issues. While churches should avoid making actual endorsements of candidates or parties, it is absolutely appropriate for them to discuss and take stands on issues. The political left doesn't like it because they have adopted issues such as abortion and homosexuality to buy votes and evangelicals tend to be morally opposed to them.

I will remind everyone of the beginning of the first amendment, please notice the bold print.


Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;

[coordinatesales]

No way! for this to happen it has to be occurring inside the Church doors once you walk out you can do as you please, 50 million Christians can get together and show politician's stances on biblical matters such as gay marriage, and abortion, you really did not believe what you said right? your were just bored and rambling right? :rolleyes:

Absolutely! There is NOTHING to prevent any organization from simply listing a politician's stance on particular issues. The fact that some christian organizations do this just gets the left's panties in a wad. These lists do NOT endorse any particular candidate but just present the facts for others to make decisions.

[bootlen]

ALgore spoke in a Sunday morning service on a couple of ocassions during his run for the Oval Office (Ovary Office at that time). And he didn't speak about Scripture.

[k-fridge]

ALgore spoke in a Sunday morning service on a couple of ocassions during his run for the Oval Office (Ovary Office at that time). And he didn't speak about Scripture.
The Dems get in the pulpits all the time. IF a Republican does that the left screams bloody murder. What a double standard!

[geerair]

RE: Tax exemption for churches;

Question: How many times has the IRS pulled a churches tax exempt staus for political reasons? I already know the answer.At least once.


This whole tax exempt thing is just a scare tactic that is often used by the political left to discourage evangelicals away from discussing the issues. I didn't realize the IRS was a liberal outfit.



While churches should avoid making actual endorsements of candidates or parties, it is absolutely appropriate for them to discuss and take stands on issues.True.



The political left doesn't like it because they have adopted issues such as abortion and homosexuality to buy votes and evangelicals tend to be morally opposed to them. This would be contradicted by the fact that liberals are fervent supporters of religious freedom and even the ACLU has represented churches in religious freedom cases. In fact the ACLU has in the past joined a lawsuit brought by Jerry Falwell regarding religious freedom issues.






I will remind everyone of the beginning of the first amendment, please notice the bold print.And I would remind eveyone that that this does not exempt religious organizations from U.S. laws or regulations.

[bootlen]

I didn't realize the IRS was a liberal outfit.

They take from the rich. They just don't give to the poor. They're the executive branch of the dem party.

[bootlen]

This would be contradicted by the fact that liberals are fervent supporters of religious freedom and even the ACLU has represented churches in religious freedom cases.

Now THAT is a stretch.

[k-fridge]

At least once.
Show me

I didn't realize the IRS was a liberal outfit.

The Democratic based outfits who send threatening letters to churches (yes I've seen them) are.

This would be contradicted by the fact that liberals are fervent supporters of religious freedom and even the ACLU has represented churches in religious freedom cases. In fact the ACLU has in the past joined a lawsuit brought by Jerry Falwell regarding religious freedom issues.
Liberals fervant supporters of religious freedoms?? Riiiight.

The ACLU occasionally does the right thing but all too often they chase the money cases.

And I would remind eveyone that that this does not exempt religious organizations from U.S. laws or regulations.
Sure it does. Who controls the IRS? Congress! "Congress shall make no law"...

[geerair]

Show meCertainly.

http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m6280/is_2_190/ai_64357763

One would think that people who make bold pronouncements would at least spend two minutes researching the validity of those pronouncements.




Democratic basedoutfits who send threatening letters to churches (yes I've seen them) are.Perhaps you could post some of these letters so that we all may see these letters and judge whether they complain of actual violations or are an effort to silence churches on issues as you claim.



Liberals fervant supporters of religious freedoms?? Riiiight.Of course. most liberals are church members themselves and support religious liberty. Other liberals such as myself who are unaffliliated with churches have a vested interest in religious freedoms because without religious freedomswe could be coerced by the government practice a particular religion.




The ACLU occasionally does the right thing but all too often they chase the money cases.Defending Constitutional rights is always the right thing.




Sure it does. Who controls the IRS? Congress! "Congress shall make no law"...Endorsing a particualr political candidate is not a religious activity and as such does not encroach upon constitutional freedoms of religion.

[k-fridge]

Certainly.

http://www.findarticles.com/p/articl...90/ai_64357763

One would think that people who make bold pronouncements would at least spend two minutes researching the validity of those pronouncements.



I was referring to politicing from the pulpit, to the best of my knowledge no church has ever lost their tax exempt status for talking politics within the church.

Perhaps you could post some of these letters so that we all may see these letters and judge whether they complain of actual violations or are an effort to silence churches on issues as you claim.

Several years ago just before an election, my church received a very official looking letter from some "legal organization" stating that churches could loose their tax exempt status by discussing politics within the church or by using or distributing voters guides such as those published by the Christian coalition. It scared the old folks in the church to the point that they didn't want the preacher to say anything remotely political. A couple of weeks later we received a letter a letter from the federal government stating that they had received thousands of inquiries from churches who received the same "legal letter" that we got and assuring us that discussing political issues and using voters guides was perfectly legal and would not endanger our tax exempt status. Curious, I traced the "legal organization" that sent the initial letter and surprise-surprise....it was from a political group closely connected to the Democratic Party.

I wish I would have kept a copy of the letter, I'd be glad to post it for all to see the dirty tricks.

[chillbilly]

So, I fear we are pretty much stuck with McCain, Zeus help us.



This from a guy who 2 weeks ago was singing McCain's praises, excusing his assessment of troop forces in Iraq, and bragging about being tight with him.

Which is it today greer?

[geerair]

I was referring to politicing from the pulpit, to the best of my knowledge no church has ever lost their tax exempt status for talking politics within the church.I would say that what Branch Ministries engaged in was policticing from the pulpit.

Churches may talk politics or moral issues or college football all they want without losing their tax exempt status.

What they cannot do is oppose or endorse particular candiates.










Several years ago just before an election, my church received a very official looking letter from some "legal organization" stating that churches could loose their tax exempt status by discussing politics within the church or by using or distributing voters guides such as those published by the Christian coalition. It scared the old folks in the church to the point that they didn't want the preacher to say anything remotely political. A couple of weeks later we received a letter a letter from the federal government stating that they had received thousands of inquiries from churches who received the same "legal letter" that we got and assuring us that discussing political issues and using voters guides was perfectly legal and would not endanger our tax exempt status. Curious, I traced the "legal organization" that sent the initial letter and surprise-surprise....it was from a political group closely connected to the Democratic Party.Okay, you are probably referring to Americans United For Separation of Church and State. They did send out letters to churches.

Here is the what the letter said: "Houses of worship and other non-profit groups may sponsor voter registration drives and candidate forums if they are truly non-partisan and issue advocacy is broadly protected but remember tax law prohibits 501(c)(3) groups from supporting or opposing candidates."

Nothing wrong with that.

It clearly spells out the law and what is and is not allowed.

The statement is nothing more than reminder of tax law that church leaders should have been well aware of.



Americans United is a non partisan organization not affiliated with any political party.


In fact as a non-profit organization, Americans United must follow all rules regarding political activities as they could lose their tax exempt status for violations of these rules.

[James 3528]

Obamer's a Muslim. Looks like they found a home with the Democrats..er Muslimcrats

[k-fridge]

Nope, that was in....'04 I think. This was 12-15 years ago. The letter stated that receiving voters guides from the Christian Coalition would make them loose their tax exempt status, even claimed that voters could be arrested for using voters guides while casting their votes.

[k-fridge]

BTW, where do the words "separation of church and state" appear in the constitution?

[chillbilly]

I didn't realize the IRS was a liberal outfit.

Sure they are. They tax and spend and piss away just about as much money as the libbies.




True.

Yes, indeed it is.



This would be contradicted by the fact that liberals are fervent supporters of religious freedom and even the ACLU has represented churches in religious freedom cases. In fact the ACLU has in the past joined a lawsuit brought by Jerry Falwell regarding religious freedom issues.

All window dressing and public performance for their massive "rock the vote" combine.
The liberals are no more fervent in their support of religious freedoms than geer or braces are.






And I would remind eveyone that that this does not exempt religious organizations from U.S. laws or regulations.

No one said it did. Religious organizations aren't asking for anything more than their entitled to under the law.
And they are entitled to endorse candidates.

[glennac]

News flash, Shan Hannity talked about Obama’s Musilm schooling on his radio show today. I’m sure our liberal friends missed that. He basically told the same story as the email I posted earlier in the thread. This story is getting legs.
http://www.insightmag.com/Media/MediaManager/Obama_2.htm
:D :D :D

[oloenneker]

News flash, Shan Hannity talked about Obama’s Musilm schooling on his radio show today. I’m sure our liberal friends missed that. He basically told the same story as the email I posted earlier in the thread. This story is getting legs.
http://www.insightmag.com/Media/MediaManager/Obama_2.htm
:D :D :D

Yeah I heard it on his show today... All I thought was, damn! that glennac guy already told me this information....

Is it a problem that Obama is Muslim by decent?

Perhaps it might be for America. Is this a disqualifier? Or more fire for the storm?

[k-fridge]

Obama has peaked, it's all downhill from here. Besides, do you think the Clinton machine will let him be a challenge for Hitlary?

[oloenneker]

Obama has peaked, it's all downhill from here. Besides, do you think the Clinton machine will let him be a challenge for Hitlary?

Probably not.

[k-fridge]

Probably not.

Love um or hate um, the Clinton's are still a powerful force in the Democratic party.

[geerair]

Nope, that was in....'04 I think. This was 12-15 years ago. The letter stated that receiving voters guides from the Christian Coalition would make them loose their tax exempt status, even claimed that voters could be arrested for using voters guides while casting their votes.From what I have found Americans United have sent these letters out for years including 14 to 15 years ago. They have basically sent the same letter as they are now sending.

They did warn of voters guides put out by the Christian Coalition which were in fact highly partisan and opposed particular candidates in violation of the rules of their tax exempt status.

The CC's provisional tax exempt status was revoked becuse of partisan political activity from 1988 to 1998.


Considering the CC engaged in partisan politics and had its provisional tax exempt status revoked, the letters by AmericansUnited were well founded and correct.

[geerair]

BTW, where do the words "separation of church and state" appear in the constitution?They don't. Neither do the words religious freedom.

[bootlen]

They don't. Neither do the words religious freedom.

I looked. Nobody said they do.

[geerair]

I looked. Nobody said they do.Bingo. Thanks.

[Mr Bill]

Man the rest of the forums are dead tonight I guess I will have to hang out here and learn something tonight. :eek:

[oloenneker]

Man the rest of the forums are dead tonight I guess I will have to hang out here and learn something tonight. :eek:

Isn't that a shame? Learnin' ???



Thats not entertainment, is it?