Prometheus The Supremo
►Member №41+⅜◄
attached..
|
|
|
- Thread starter Admiral Beez
- Start date
attached..
Prometheus The Supremo
►Member №41+⅜◄
i think the user that made this edit... http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Lou_Dobbs&oldid=216619326
...might be responsible. the user (name starts with J) has a link on his wikipedia userpage that links to a (w.h-iii'te su.pr-em@cyst) website.
(spelled it that way so when people like that search google for that stuff they don't find this page)
note the vandalism and it's racial tones on the dobbs page - using hover's image and adding categories such as "racism" at the bottom. kinda confusing because you don't really know if he's making fun of him or what.
the user made some edits on the obama page around the time of the page being vandalized. the user also blanked out hillary's page....
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Hillary_Rodham_Clinton&oldid=216710736
...might be responsible. the user (name starts with J) has a link on his wikipedia userpage that links to a (w.h-iii'te su.pr-em@cyst) website.
(spelled it that way so when people like that search google for that stuff they don't find this page)
note the vandalism and it's racial tones on the dobbs page - using hover's image and adding categories such as "racism" at the bottom. kinda confusing because you don't really know if he's making fun of him or what.
the user made some edits on the obama page around the time of the page being vandalized. the user also blanked out hillary's page....
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Hillary_Rodham_Clinton&oldid=216710736
Prometheus The Supremo
►Member №41+⅜◄
i found the user that vandalized the page. it's a different user from the one a suspected in the post above. here's his/her edit....
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Barack_Obama&oldid=216972687
if you view source in your browser, you can find the offending code. it was text after all.
i don't know how the heck it doesn't show up in the comparisons between revisions ....
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Barack_Obama&diff=216970908&oldid=216970626
usually edits are shown.
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Barack_Obama&oldid=216972687
if you view source in your browser, you can find the offending code. it was text after all.
i don't know how the heck it doesn't show up in the comparisons between revisions ....
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Barack_Obama&diff=216970908&oldid=216970626
usually edits are shown.
adma
Superstar
Or in Toronto terms, Helen Kennedy vs Adam Vaughan.
Prometheus The Supremo
►Member №41+⅜◄
H
Hydrogen
Guest
An anti-atheist to the max. You're only worthy if you are a bible-thumper.
Prometheus The Supremo
►Member №41+⅜◄
mccain should really read these...
treaty of tripoli, article 11 - US not founded on christian religion, in any way.
US constitution, article 6 - no religious test for public office
he should also get familiar with some of the quotes the founding fathers made about christianity, they're not that nice.
i admire mccain's military sacrifices (and sometimes i feel the bias that maybe he deserves to be president because of his duty in nam) but it's views of his expressed in that video which make me realize that those sacrifices do not in any way make him qualified to be president. there are countless military veterans who have served the US who will not hold any public office nor run for president.
treaty of tripoli, article 11 - US not founded on christian religion, in any way.
US constitution, article 6 - no religious test for public office
he should also get familiar with some of the quotes the founding fathers made about christianity, they're not that nice.
i admire mccain's military sacrifices (and sometimes i feel the bias that maybe he deserves to be president because of his duty in nam) but it's views of his expressed in that video which make me realize that those sacrifices do not in any way make him qualified to be president. there are countless military veterans who have served the US who will not hold any public office nor run for president.
Prometheus The Supremo
►Member №41+⅜◄
hopefully obama will be different. his mother and father* were atheists after all.
*though i'm not 100% certain, his father went from christian to muslim to atheist.
Brandon716
Senior Member
In my opinion Obama is a fairly secular guy. I believe he got involved with religion because he saw what it does in poor communities (supposedly gives hope, undisputedly has lots of power), and he got into community organizing to make a change and make Chicago's south side less poor.
To be honest, I agree with him very much. Many Americans do cling to religion and other things when they have little hope elsewhere. I have a strong bias being a non-believer, but its true. Faith can be healthy in some ways, but I just don't see it being a good thing overall.
Obama sees this religious stuff as a vehicle to get things done, and its not the religion part I think he personally cares deeply about. I think Obama sees religion as a tool to get things accomplished in a fairly religious nation. Both Democrats and Republicans have intensely religious constituencies, unlike Canada where religion doesn't really play a role in any party except in certain Conservative circles.
Maybe Obama can be a sleeper cell. Since so many Americans are gung-ho fundamentalist Christian, maybe he can entice them with what he's done and his religious knowledge enough to make them feel comfortable so we can actually have a fairly secular intellectual run things for a change.
Bush has been a world travesty and I can't imagine how he ever got a majority vote anywhere in his life.
To be honest, I agree with him very much. Many Americans do cling to religion and other things when they have little hope elsewhere. I have a strong bias being a non-believer, but its true. Faith can be healthy in some ways, but I just don't see it being a good thing overall.
Obama sees this religious stuff as a vehicle to get things done, and its not the religion part I think he personally cares deeply about. I think Obama sees religion as a tool to get things accomplished in a fairly religious nation. Both Democrats and Republicans have intensely religious constituencies, unlike Canada where religion doesn't really play a role in any party except in certain Conservative circles.
Maybe Obama can be a sleeper cell. Since so many Americans are gung-ho fundamentalist Christian, maybe he can entice them with what he's done and his religious knowledge enough to make them feel comfortable so we can actually have a fairly secular intellectual run things for a change.
Bush has been a world travesty and I can't imagine how he ever got a majority vote anywhere in his life.
H
Hydrogen
Guest
But it doesn't mean that individual MP's are not religious.
It's unfortunate that both Clinton and Obama felt it necessary to play up their religious credibility. It almost backfired on Obama when ministers associated with church he belonged to decided to use him as a means to enlarging their own notoriety.
theowne
Active Member
Sad state of affairs in the U.S. over the election. I dislike both candidates.
I do think that Obama's rise to fame is based more on the idea of a "new era in politics and the end of racism" than on actual qualifications. If he had been just another candidate with the same credentials, he wouldn't have made it this far. I mean, it's hard to really argue against the fact that he has very little experience.
Too bad Bill Richardson was kicked off. Now he had some good experience and would have been a far better choice, and plus he also could have been a "new era" candidate since he's Hispanic. So you get both....But I guess having an African American candidate is more "symbolic" of change or whatever...I just wish we could've waited for a more qualified African American candidate, because when Obama inevitably underperforms, then all the racists will jump on it and we'll never hear the end about how "the second we allowed a black guy he ruined it". I wish the Americans thought of this before giving Obama such popularity. Wait until a qualified minority candidate gets up there so that you're sure he will succeed and dismiss all the stereotypes...
I do think that Obama's rise to fame is based more on the idea of a "new era in politics and the end of racism" than on actual qualifications. If he had been just another candidate with the same credentials, he wouldn't have made it this far. I mean, it's hard to really argue against the fact that he has very little experience.
Too bad Bill Richardson was kicked off. Now he had some good experience and would have been a far better choice, and plus he also could have been a "new era" candidate since he's Hispanic. So you get both....But I guess having an African American candidate is more "symbolic" of change or whatever...I just wish we could've waited for a more qualified African American candidate, because when Obama inevitably underperforms, then all the racists will jump on it and we'll never hear the end about how "the second we allowed a black guy he ruined it". I wish the Americans thought of this before giving Obama such popularity. Wait until a qualified minority candidate gets up there so that you're sure he will succeed and dismiss all the stereotypes...
H
Hydrogen
Guest
I don't think anyone has experience to be a president unless they've been a president, so that makes all new presidents unqualified for the position when they first get the job.
theowne
Active Member
Well, if you're hiring someone to run a company, wouldn't you prefer someone who has already run another, though perhaps smaller, company?
MetroMan
Senior Member
Obama is qualified in at least two very important requisites for the US in going into the next decade:
1) Inspirational
2) Likeable/Conciliatory
You may argue that those qualifications aren't sufficient to be President but here's why they're two very important ones:
The US gained the world's compassion and friendship after 9/11. Bush ruined it all after invading Iraq and giving the finger to several nations (including the French fry debacle). A conciliatory figure is necessary to regain the world's trust and friendship and Obama will deliver with flying colours.
As for being inspirational, the US is going to need to make some drastic changes in energy policy in the next four to eight years, in health care and in regards to the way it deals with the world and rogue nations. You need somebody with leadership skills and inspirational capacity to lead you into those changes. Kennedy had it but was killed before he could make the kind of changes the country needed back then... but he pushed the envelope enough to get the ball rolling.
Clinton had it in a certain measure but lacked the House and Senate numbers to get things done.
Obama is emerging as a true anti-partisan candidate who'll inspire Americans and their elected representatives to push through the changes that the country so desperately needs.
The best move that Obama could make right now would be to choose a Republican to become his Vice. That would be a check-mate against McCain.
As for experience, as Hydrogen put it well: you have no experience to be President until you become one – or at the very least work along one as a second in command (VP).
I look forward to breathing a sigh of relief and having hope in the future once Obama swears in as Pres.
1) Inspirational
2) Likeable/Conciliatory
You may argue that those qualifications aren't sufficient to be President but here's why they're two very important ones:
The US gained the world's compassion and friendship after 9/11. Bush ruined it all after invading Iraq and giving the finger to several nations (including the French fry debacle). A conciliatory figure is necessary to regain the world's trust and friendship and Obama will deliver with flying colours.
As for being inspirational, the US is going to need to make some drastic changes in energy policy in the next four to eight years, in health care and in regards to the way it deals with the world and rogue nations. You need somebody with leadership skills and inspirational capacity to lead you into those changes. Kennedy had it but was killed before he could make the kind of changes the country needed back then... but he pushed the envelope enough to get the ball rolling.
Clinton had it in a certain measure but lacked the House and Senate numbers to get things done.
Obama is emerging as a true anti-partisan candidate who'll inspire Americans and their elected representatives to push through the changes that the country so desperately needs.
The best move that Obama could make right now would be to choose a Republican to become his Vice. That would be a check-mate against McCain.
As for experience, as Hydrogen put it well: you have no experience to be President until you become one – or at the very least work along one as a second in command (VP).
I look forward to breathing a sigh of relief and having hope in the future once Obama swears in as Pres.
Blovertis
Active Member
There's a lot more to being a good president than merely having racked up years in a series of high profile positions. At base, you've got to have judgement and you've got to have the ability to inspire people. Neither of which the current president possesses.
Bush had six years as governor of one of the largest states. That's "experience". Cheney was a congressman, White House Chief of Staff and Defense Secretary. That's "experience". Richard Nixon was a congressman for six years and VP for eight years. That's "experience".
Bush had six years as governor of one of the largest states. That's "experience". Cheney was a congressman, White House Chief of Staff and Defense Secretary. That's "experience". Richard Nixon was a congressman for six years and VP for eight years. That's "experience".