Thread: Barack and his Wife

You prove my point. Again.
Sir.

Originally Posted by billyjeff2

You prove my point. Again.
Sir.

I think I could like you, except you take yourself so seriously!

You got a lot of spunk!!

Oh I'm sure we could be great friends. Ying and yang, sir.

Originally Posted by billyjeff2

I wonder if those who have focused on what Rev. Wright has said as evidence against Mr. Obama recall what was said following the 9/11 attacks by "mainstreamers" Pat Robertson and Jerry Falwell about how God was punishing this country for its transgressions. Prominent white religious leaders blame America for the 9/11 attacks--one set of standards. Less prominent black religious leader blames America for its past/current racial injustices-different set of standards.

God Bless America

Those "preachers" got blasted too, BillyJeff. But which Presidential candidate was sitting at their knees taking spiritual advice?

Originally Posted by billyjeff2

Oh I'm sure we could be great friends. Ying and yang, sir.

Well, Xman likes me, so I guess there is hope for you yet!

The whole Obama/Rev. Wright thing proves one thing to me. That is that Obama was sitting through services like most church-going folks not listening to what was being said!!. He was doing what the rest of the country does on sunday, showing up out of a sense of obligation and spending the hour or so daydreaming.

How do I know this? It's simple. What person in their right mind would want to be associated with a nut like the Rev. Wright if they wanted to run for President? The answere is "no one". In fact, Obama is most likely an atheist who simply chose a congregation based on it's popularity among his constituants and went there for appearances sake.

Originally Posted by sicboater

Kind of like the Federation of Belgian Enterprises in your country. No?
With campaign's lasting a much shorter time, and being a highly unionized country, I can't imagine that labor organizations don't greatly influence your elections too. Even if they aren't directly endorsing candidates.

Not so much.
Most companies, the workers are unionized with the union of their political affiliation. i.e. there are different unions, and if you choose to become a union member, you choose the one you want.

So people who are member of a certain union have already decided how they will vote (more of less) so while we have large unions, it's not like they can influence how people vote.
They could try, but the people wouldn't listen because they have already decided their allegiance, and the union leaders would likely be tossed out in the general meeting that would be called asap.

It's the same with newspapers. The bias is subtle or non existing (politics really don't mix with employment status). Noone is going to change his vote over which newspaper he reads.
This is probably also because we have the walloons fighting the flemmish parties and the flemish the walloons. The language of the newspaper is more important than which specific paper you read, because that's where there are significant difference in reporting.

I'd say the most important factors in the election process are the debates, and the way the different parties have handled current affairs and crises in the year running up to the elections.
When the christian-democrats tried to cover up a dioxine poisoning in the foodchain, they got stomped on and lost power for the first time in 60 years.
When the environmentalists kept squabbling over night flights over brussels, causing DHL to walk away and go to Germany (costing LOTS of jobs) they got kicked out so badly it wasn't funny.

Those kinds of events, combined with the debates between all parties determines the vote of people who haven't decided up front.

Well, he did pretty much admit that in his book.

Originally Posted by joesixpack

The whole Obama/Rev. Wright thing proves one thing to me. That is that Obama was sitting through services like most church-going folks not listening to what was being said!!. He was doing what the rest of the country does on sunday, showing up out of a sense of obligation and spending the hour or so daydreaming.

How do I know this? It's simple. What person in their right mind would want to be associated with a nut like the Rev. Wright if they wanted to run for President? The answere is "no one". In fact, Obama is most likely an atheist who simply chose a congregation based on it's popularity among his constituants and went there for appearances sake.

Originally Posted by joesixpack

The whole Obama/Rev. Wright thing proves one thing to me. That is that Obama was sitting through services like most church-going folks not listening to what was being said!!. He was doing what the rest of the country does on sunday, showing up out of a sense of obligation and spending the hour or so daydreaming.

How do I know this? It's simple. What person in their right mind would want to be associated with a nut like the Rev. Wright if they wanted to run for President? The answere is "no one". In fact, Obama is most likely an atheist who simply chose a congregation based on it's popularity among his constituants and went there for appearances sake.

Not listening? I don't know what is said in the churches you're talking about but I know my ears would perk up a little if I started hearing a church leader screaming profanity from the pulpit.

And I do agree, I have a feeling Obama hardly believes himself much of what the church is preaching. However in his right mind, he still chose to be associated with Wright and even had him on staff as part of his campaign for President. So according to what you just noted, it would be hard to say Obama was in his right mind when he chose to run for President

I've never been a religious man, but I've been thanking God every day that McCain has been almost 100 electoral votes down in state-by-state polling for a solid month!