Barack Obama= Jesus

Hi soccermom, What's the difference between a socermom and a pitbull? I'm just kidding I couldn't pass up the play on your name. I was unaware of that reference by Sue Everhart. I would agree that that is equally inappropriate. Do you have a reference for that? I would also agree that there is much to discuss that is relevant to our country and the process rather than off hand comments made by the candidates. But I was wondering what you meant by McCain becoming the "master of distraction"?

I hadn't heard that. Thanks for the link. REally. I had not seen that site before. There is lots of great information there. I have been digging into it. And soccermoms sound a lot like baseball dads! Lol!

I'd have to agree.

Thanks for the reply. I did not hear that Susan Sarandon had made that comment as well. It's almost as if they are reading from a script. Hmmm.

Hello Guardian, Woosh, I was sure surprised to see that you had chosen a BR for this discussion. Thank you. Although, I imagine that it was a tough choice! There are some very intriguing responses here. In fact, I really enjoyed coming back this morning to read through the latter responses -- after having not been able to log in yesterday. Thank you also for the chuckle. I enjoyed your remarks about trying to muster up some offense. I can completely relate! How silly it is to lambaste someone for doing precisely what you are, or have been doing? Isn't it peculiar that our species seems to be able to act without applying identical scrutiny internally as well as externally? Yup, I sure do remember sitting in the quad solving all the world's problems (chuckle, chuckle). And, just as you've alluded -- to no end. It's too bad that the folks who regularly commit the time and energy to this kind of large-scale problem resolution typically don't have the experience or wisdom to be able to provide workable solutions. Fostered in the insulated bubble of academia, the solutions tend to be void of pragmatism. Not so unlike a baseball game. The spectators see it from a very different vantage point than the players. Yet, it's only the players who can directly affect the game. Even the coaches have a limited impact over what becomes the reality of the game. They can make suggestions, but it's only within the confines of the game play that change occurs. Thanks for the stroll down memory lane, Guardian. And, for the saliency about the stark differences in the level of maturity between the two camps. As the argument is framed, and in consideration of the fact that I've never been a big fan of Sen. McCain either, I have to say that I prefer the wisdom of age to the impetuousness of youth -- as it relates to national leadership. If for no other reason then because: in youth it is perceived as feasible to make vast, sweeping changes, and then deal with the ramifications as an after thought. With seasoning, the wisdom to duly consider and prepare for those ramifications preceeds the enactment of those vast, sweeping changes. I'm rather fond of not being yanked around the spectrum by under-developed proposals for change. I prefer the investment of additional time to fully prepare proposals that will impact myself, my family, my state, the nation as a whole, and the entire globe. Impetuousness rarely works out in the international political arena.

Interesting point. Obama is such a wonderful speaker. I disagree with most of what he has to say but I love to hear him say it. But it seems that when he is speaking without a tele-prompter, he steps in it. That scares me. As you said, we can't have a president that may insult foreign leaders that could lead to even more conflict.

I wouldn't be quick to compare him to that German guy you referenced, but I get your point. When you say "all of this has caused me to switch sides." What is the "all of this" that you are referring to?

Thanks for the clarity jonesy. I am not saying that there are no parallels, in fact I had not thought about that until you mentioned it, but I didn't want to go there so early in this discussion. He was also a relative nobody until he got involved in his "movement" and then he experienced a meteorite rise in popularity. When did he make that comment about citizens spying on each other? So I guess its wrong for the government's training anti-terrorist personnel to monitor the activities of subversives and potential terrorists, but its ok for Joe and Joan six-pack to do it. Or Bob and Betty briefcase.

He said this in a speech he held in Colorado springs: "We cannot continue to rely on our military in order to achieve the national security objectives we’ve set. We have got to have a civilian national security force that is just as powerful, just as strong, just as well funded as the military" Amazingly enough, the published transcript of the speech doesn't reflect all of this. I guess they figured that people didn't pay attention when they listened to the speech. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Df2p6867_pw (check 16:45) He one of the founders of Public Allies and there are other such groups he or his wife are involved with. On the surface the goals of these organizations are quite noble, but some graduates of Public Allies for example have said that there is a lot of talk about race and such in the classes/courses/seminars they have to take.

It may not have been directly said but it has been implied, perhaps unintentionally but still there. Anything that is false about any candidate should be dismissed and only facts given. Everyone should be offended by the lies told of all candidate and ashamed of spreading them.

any REAL christian that knows the word of God knows that Jesus will never walk th eheath again un human flesh. The second will be when the rapure happens....so instead of having discussions about him being the second coming grab your bibles and study and im especially talkign to all you christian should even entertain such...filth!

sorry I got mad typos...was typing too fast LOL What I meant say was most christians know that jesus will never walk the earth in hunam form again. The second coming will be the rapture....

I am very nervous as well. I do not like being put in a position to pick between the lesser of two evils. I am not behind either candidate for many reasons. I would not even blame Obama for these comments because clearly no candidate can control what each of their supports says, but they way this comment came out, almost verbatim from so many different people make me think that this was scripted.

Thanks for the reply. And I can't say I completely disagree with you. But I don't think it is fair to insult either candidate, no matter what they say or do. We need to let our votes speak for us. Part of the problem is that we don't do that. We keep the same do nothing people in office. The last pool I've seen shows congress' approval rating at 20.3%. Their disapproval rating is 72.0% We can only blame ourselves.

AS we speak I'm watching this craziness on TV about the battle between McCain/Palin and Obama/Biden. It is ridiculous how they go to extremes to start these crazy rumors about each other. Just outright lies from both camps.

It really is crazy. I wish we could just get the facts and make an educated decision. I don't believe what either of them says. We have to watch what they do. Unfortunately Obama hasn't done much. And though I have liked SOME of what McCain has done, I don't like some of the things he has done that I am most passionate about. I hate having to choose the lesser of two evils.

The comparisons to JFK I can understand - Obama is an idealist, and his political platform involves radical reform at all levels of government from the executive position. Drawing a parallel there makes sense. But comparing him to Jesus, a figure whose influence radically altered and influenced modern thought, whose philosophies permeate every aspect of our lives? It is a grossly exaggerated and inappropriate comparison, flimsy at best and possibly incendiary. I am not a U.S citizen, so therefore my comprehension of the political dynamics and atmosphere of the U.S election is perhaps distorted or limited by mass media; but I get the impression that for ordinary americans - middle class, working class and the 30% or so of the population currently below the breadline - Obama's term might improve quality of life, or send it plummeting. He certainly seems worth a shot - he really can't do worse than bush, whose administration has been ostensibly abysmal.

Interesting perspective Bluepatch. It is always interesting to get the opinions from someone who is not n the midst of it as we are here. I can't help but think of Salman Rushdie who was marked for execution by some religious leaders for "disrespecting" their spiritual leader. Not that I would encourage that but I just share that as a contrast to what is sometimes acceptable here in the U.S.

Guardian, Wow! Did you just lampoon us with an intriguing perspective, or what??? I have never heard that supposition about Jesus before, and by golly it sure makes alot of sense to me! I can see how Jesus was a dis-organizer. His focus wasn't on organizing political rebellion, which he could have easily done, and which some of his disciples (and I'm sure others of his followers) at times seem to have mis-inferred. Instead, he focused on helping individuals hone into, and embrace their individual relationship with The Divine Creator. I have often heard the suggestion that Jesus was a 'rabble-rouser', and/or an activist. In fact, some have suggested that Jesus was a politician of sorts. Of course, I have heard these kinds of theories from those who purport a more historical rather than faithful context -- which is absolutely their prerogative. I suspect it is the same kind of mindset that is behind the 'Jesus - Pontius Pilate' remark. This type of espoused perspective supports the notion that community activism is a noble endeavor -- despite the glaring lack of appropriate disection of the type or substance behind the community activism. To use an extreme example: I find it dubious that anyone would laud the prospect of community activism by the KKK or 'Skinheads'. The point is that little is inherently good or evil. The application is what can be judged as good or evil. The KKK or Skinheads might be engaged in community activism to spew the hateful message of racism, or they might be fundraising for a local orphanage. Conversely, ACORN might be community organizing to register new voters. Or, they might be community organizing to foster rebellion against Corporate America as the basis of our economy, in an effort to replace our roots and traditions with the roots and traditions of Fidel Castro and his fascist, murdering minion Che Guevara. Or, some combination thereof. Some might say that my example is frought with imagined bias, yet the fact that Che Quevara t-shirts, posters, hats, and flags/wall hangings are a fashion mainstay of the far-left, liberal wing should give anyone pause. This can be extended specifically to Sen. Obama's activists and campaigners, as evidenced by the broughaha which resulted from Cuban/Che Guevara flags having been photographed proudly displayed in two separate Obama campaign locations. http://littlegreenfootballs.com/weblog/?entry=28915&only Please scroll down to view both the first and second pictures. The second photo also has a flag of a 1960s peace sign, and an Obama campaign sign hanging over the Cuban flag donning Che Guevara's image. In all fairness, Sen. Obama did denounce the Guevara idolatry. Yet the point remains that it is a silly supposition that all community activism is noble. It is equally silly to suppose that all community activism is evil. Which of course means that governors cannot be pre-judged as good or evil without appropriate investigation, unless it be fairly labelled as prejudicial. And where a full-fledged meltdown is likely to occur if we go about calling Liberals 'prejudiced'. Herein lies the danger of abandoning individuality. Once again, Ann Rand is to be lauded for warning us of the dangers of Collectivism -- nearly a hundred years ago!

ladyluna, Thought provoking as usual. Your very first point about those of his followers that may have mis-inferred his intentions, there is a school of thought that purports that Judas was not so much betraying Jesus as he was forcing him to take action. The theory is that if he could back Jesus into a situation where he had to act, then he could kick start the rebellion that he thought was coming. When that did not happen and he realized what he had done, he killed himself. I am not saying that I subscribe to that theory but it lines up with your comment. And true, all community activism is not noble or even acceptable. I heard an interesting comment today about Obama's community organizing activities. It is particularly interesting considering the topic of this discussion. First, www.washingtonpost.com has an article that tells of Hillary Clinton's close association with Saul Alinsky. The article goes on to say that Mr. Alinsky's disciples hired Obama to get involved as a community organizer to organize Chicago's black community on the south side of the city. That is all well and good until you look at who Saul Alinsky is. In his book, Rules For Radical 1971, in the dedication he dedicates the book to Lucifer, Satan! http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/03/24/AR2007032401152.html Here is a link to images of those pages: http://sweetness-light.com/archive/hillary-clintons-idol-saul-alinsky-satan That sheds a whole new light on this discussion and the virtue of his community activism.

Thanks for the thoughtful post Rodney. I would also agree that Jesus was most definately NOT a community organizer. He did not organize anything. He preached. Whatever you believe about him, (and I am with you on this), he did not organize anything. He disorganized things. And he went from community to community disorganizing things.

Thanks for the reply texmama. I don't agree with all that you said but I do agree that there are very many other Democrats that would have been a better choice. Clinton Biden Durbin Richardson Rendell Lieberman Just to name a few

Thanks solonwa and welcome to myLot. I am not sure what you meant by, "they should go on."

"dimmy" I like that word. Thanks for posting.

I do believe that the statement was aimed at Palin - a reference to the pit-bull in lipstick joke that she made in her speech.

I can't believe that he was so naive to say that and not get the implications. If he is that naive, that is a whole other problem.

"Poor choice of words" indeed. He has a bad habit of using poor judgment when he speaks off script. His lipstick on pigs is another example of poor judgment in his comments. After listening to that comment, I can not discern if he meant to reference Mrs. Palin, but it appeared many in the crowd took it that way. It really gets down to judgment.

Seems to be the mentality of certain people that if you can't think of an intelligent comment to say then just start tossing about insults, like that's going to persuade any one with any level of intelligence to vote for your side. I believe JMassikre you have just showed me it seems to be a democratic party tendancy to shoot themselves in the foot and I think you have pushed me yet another step closer to voting for McCain. We don't need people who can not control their mouths in the white house.

Please don't take a reasonable discussion and take it into the gutter. Pamela Anderson has already done that when asked about Sarah Palin, she said "She hates her and that Sarah Palin can su*k it!" I see a pattern here and I've got to tell you that comments like that do nothing for the cause.