America Votes 2008

[Nephele]

As a side rant: I didn

[Northern Neil]

I followed this election very closely, as I do elections in Britain, and the one thing that to me stands out is the commitment of the American people to vote, and to contribute to their democracy. Here in Britain about 40% of the electorate turn out to vote... if they can be bothered. Whilst I am glad that Obama was elected, I take DDickey's point that he never says much on policy. Could this be to hide a lack ofpolicies, or to hide radical policies which would have mobilised conservatives against him? Time will tell.

 

I must say, I believe that the selection of Palin as running mate nailed the coffin for McCain - Americans I have spoken to say they are insulted by his assumption that this crass appeal for the popular vote would sway them.

 

That said, I think she looks absolutely scrumptious...

[Nephele]

Whilst I am glad that Obama was elected, I take DDickey's point that he never says much on policy. Could this be to hide a lack ofpolicies, or to hide radical policies which would have mobilised conservatives against him? Time will tell.

 

I don't think Obama's opponents needed much excuse to mobilize against him. Same with McCain's opponents mobilizing against McCain. It's politics as usual.

 

As for any questions regarding Obama's (and McCain's) policies, you can read about some of them in detail at the Scientists and Engineers for America website (I posted this link awhile back in this thread).

 

I know that both candidates' positions on various other issues have been presented elsewhere, but it was their positions and policies related to science and technology in regard to the advancement of our nation and society that were of particular interest to me.

 

And yes, NN, I do agree that the choice of Sarah "War in Iraq is God's Plan" Palin, wacky Sarah the Creationist and

Palin, was most definitely a contributing nail in McCain's coffin.

 

I'm not so much exhilarated by Obama's win, as I am relieved by many Americans' rejection of the superstitious baggage that Palin brought along with her on the McCain ticket.

 

-- Nephele

[DDickey]

I'm not so much exhilarated by Obama's win, as I am relieved by many Americans' rejection of the superstitious baggage that Palin brought along with her on the McCain ticket.

-- Nephele

 

As opposed to the nonsensical superstitious baggage that Obama will bring to the White House? And I quote:

 

In a campaign already strongly emphasizing faith, Democratic presidential contender Barack Obama announced his intent to make federal funding of religiously based organizations a key part of his push to help the needy.

 

His plan would overhaul and expand the controversial faith-based initiative that was an early cornerstone of President Bush's domestic program, which Senator Obama said had "never fulfilled its promise."

 

Obama's proposals, announced Tuesday, are likely to appeal particularly to African- Americans, who already lean Democratic, and to Evangelicals of various political stripes who are increasingly concerned about issues of poverty. He has stepped up his religious outreach in recent weeks, including seeking inroads into the Republicans' Evangelical base. But his proposals also run the risk of alienating Democrats opposed to funding religious groups for any purpose.

 

Obama said America's problems were too big to solve through government alone. "I believe that change comes not from the top down but from the bottom up, and few are closer to the people than our churches, synagogues, temples, and mosques," he said, during a visit to Eastside Community Ministry in Zanesville, Ohio.

 

The senator was careful to highlight key areas of difference between that initiative and his own proposal for a Council for Faith-Based and Neighborhood Partnerships.

 

"Make no mistake, as someone who used to teach constitutional law, I believe deeply in the separation of church and state, but I don't believe this partnership will endanger that idea," Obama said.

 

Does one even have to point out the inanity of the above statement? The office of Faith Based Initiative is unconstitutional. And The Chosen One plans to continue the nonsense, giving hope to dominionists and reconstructionists everywhere.

 

The entire article can be found here.

Edited November 6, 2008 by DDickey

[Moonlapse]

I don't really have a comment on either candidate or the outcome of the election. I'd just like to interject that I'm horribly disgusted by most of the voters. It's nice to read informed opinions here on the forum, but in real life I haven't found a single person who has a flippin' clue. It seems that I'm surrounded by people who only understand and parrot political generalities and have no clear understanding of their chosen candidate's ideology or stance on even popular issues. When I've queried them on their support for certain policies, I'm met by irritation or vague 'but *insert generality here* is good/ungood' type answers. Something is wrong, it really shouldn't be this way.

[Nephele]

As opposed to the nonsensical superstitious baggage that Obama will bring to the White House? And I quote:

 

Frankly, I'm in favor of government getting out of the business of charity administration and turning said charity administration over to churches, synagogues, mosques, woodland centers of Bacchic rites, whatever. Even if this does entail faith based initiatives in the form of government grants to get the ball rolling.

 

Obama is right: "Change comes not from the top down but from the bottom up." Welfare should be coming from the bottom -- from the neighborhoods, local religious centers, etc. -- and not from the top, i.e. the government. Unfortunately, these federal grants -- which are as unconstitutional as is the government welfare system itself -- would be coming from government. But I see it as a practical start towards perhaps eventually turning welfare administration (and, ultimately, welfare responsibility) over to charities. I don't know if this might be Obama's ultimate intention, but future Presidential administrations might continue in this same direction.

 

-- Nephele

[DDickey]

As opposed to the nonsensical superstitious baggage that Obama will bring to the White House? And I quote:

 

Frankly, I'm in favor of government getting out of the business of charity administration and turning said charity administration over to churches, synagogues, mosques, woodland centers of Bacchic rites, whatever. Even if this does entail faith based initiatives in the form of government grants to get the ball rolling.

 

Obama is right: "Change comes not from the top down but from the bottom up." Welfare should be coming from the bottom -- from the neighborhoods, local religious centers, etc. -- and not from the top, i.e. the government. Unfortunately, these federal grants -- which are as unconstitutional as is the government welfare system itself -- would be coming from government. But I see it as a practical start towards perhaps eventually turning welfare administration (and, ultimately, welfare responsibility) over to charities. I don't know if this might be Obama's ultimate intention, but future Presidential administrations might continue in this same direction.

 

-- Nephele

 

Theoretically, we're in agreement. However, the office of Faith Based Initiative is a means of institutionalizing religion. Employing it to 'get the ball rolling,' however, is appalling. I do not 'believe.' Not even a little. To know that my tax dollars are being spent to propagate nonsense to which I am opposed is upsetting--to say the least. Now that this office is sliding into it's second administration, we will see that it will become permanent. The precedent has been set and accepted. And it disgusts me. If my tax dollars are going to this tripe, then I want to see some of it sent to the Flying Spaghetti Monster people as well. And if you're going to spend it on junk superstitions, you might as well send some to the Raelians, as well. But the bottom line is the the Faith Based Initiative is unconstitutional, and it makes me sick to my stomach to know that it is being accepted as a permanent pockmark on the American Political landscape.

[Northern Neil]

Thomas Jefferson must be revolving in his grave...

...about a great deal in todays America. I suspect that, like me, there are a few 'free thinkers' giving vent here on this thread, and luckily for me, to be in such a position is almost the norm in the UK, and certainly no one raises any eyebrows. I heard the tirade given by a republican polititian to a democrat a while back. What saddened me was not that the Republican lady was accusing the Democrat of atheism, but that the other woman had to go against all her principles and say 'No I'm not' in order to stay in the political race. A British polititian would have been able to say, with full confidense: 'Yep. On with the debate...'

 

Going back to Obama's stance on funding faith - based organisations, maybe this is tax dollars well spent. After all, he does also state that there should be a complete dissociation of faith from politics and the running of a country. I for one would be quite happy for a few pence of my tax each year funding a muslim organisation, if it stops the slow but sure adoption of Sharia law onto our statute books.

[Nephele]

I heard the tirade given by a republican polititian to a democrat a while back. What saddened me was not that the Republican lady was accusing the Democrat of atheism, but that the other woman had to go against all her principles and say 'No I'm not' in order to stay in the political race. A British polititian would have been able to say, with full confidense: 'Yep. On with the debate...'

 

You are so right, NN -- an admission of atheism in this god-fearin' U.S. nation has been, more often than not, a real problem for anyone expecting to pursue a public career. In 1987, then Vice-President George Bush (G.B. the First, under President Ronald Reagan) went on record stating: "I don't know that atheists should be considered as citizens, nor should they be considered patriots."

 

The same attitude was nationally reflected some years later in 2001, when Star Jones, one of the women of the widely-viewed television morning talk show called The View, stated that she would not vote for an atheist for President, her reason being that a godless person would have fewer compunctions than a theist should it come down to one's "finger on the button" (a euphemism for starting nuclear war).

 

As I said, admission of atheism in the American public sphere can cause problems, but there has recently been one very notable exception. In the fall of 2006 the Secular Coalition for America offered a $1,ooo prize to anyone who could identify

[DDickey]

I heard the tirade given by a republican polititian to a democrat a while back. What saddened me was not that the Republican lady was accusing the Democrat of atheism, but that the other woman had to go against all her principles and say 'No I'm not' in order to stay in the political race. A British polititian would have been able to say, with full confidense: 'Yep. On with the debate...'

 

You are so right, NN -- an admission of atheism in this god-fearin' U.S. nation has been, more often than not, a real problem for anyone expecting to pursue a public career. In 1987, then Vice-President George Bush (G.B. the First, under President Ronald Reagan) went on record stating: "I don't know that atheists should be considered as citizens, nor should they be considered patriots."

 

The same attitude was nationally reflected some years later in 2001, when Star Jones, one of the women of the widely-viewed television morning talk show called The View, stated that she would not vote for an atheist for President, her reason being that a godless person would have fewer compunctions than a theist should it come down to one's "finger on the button" (a euphemism for starting nuclear war).

 

As I said, admission of atheism in the American public sphere can cause problems, but there has recently been one very notable exception. In the fall of 2006 the Secular Coalition for America offered a $1,ooo prize to anyone who could identify

[DecimusCaesar]

I just hope Obama will be able to bring back some stability. It seems that a lot of people's hopes for him are unbelievably high and I have a feeling that no matter how good he'll be, he won't live up to a few people's unrealistic expectations.

[Ursus]

I just hope Obama will be able to bring back some stability. It seems that a lot of people's hopes for him are unbelievably high and I have a feeling that no matter how good he'll be, he won't live up to a few people's unrealistic expectations.

 

I just want a President that doesn't mangle the English language. I think he'll succeed in that endeavor if nothing else.

[Ursus]

On the other hand ... I think this also sums things up nicely: http://www.theonion.com/content/node/89632...=embedded_video

[ASCLEPIADES]

On the other hand ... I think this also sums things up nicely: http://www.theonion.com/content/node/89632...=embedded_video

Gratiam habeo for that nice video, U!

 

Some people just can't deal with their defeat.

 

(Admittedly, senator McCain is not one of them)

[Primus Pilus]

Some people just can't deal with their defeat.

 

Sort of like how the Democrats dealt with it the last 8 years? I mean, let's not be silly about this. This sort of thing is par for the course when it comes to politics. Ebb and flow baby.