Comment by notdarkyet
17 years ago
No it is not and you are correct in that assessment. Personally, Obama does not represent a good portion of my views in terms of policy, but what he does represent for me is a new wave in politics, a wave that is once again representative of the people rather than individual incentive and making decisions based on who is going to line their pockets. Anything to end corruption is better to me than someone who is going to promise to act within my set of views for what is best for this country and then do the opposite or what they want.
My view, personally, is that government should act as a safety net rather than a guiding father figure. I tend to float towards more libertarian policies than anything, small government and as little intervention as possible (a view that can be considered almost the complete opposite side of the spectrum than Obama). My view is that this nation has grounding and worked for so many years to be a country of opportunity, therefore, the structure of government should reflect that ideal and anyone who is willing to work hard should be rewarded for it (no free gifts).
What I do support from Obama are his values (or proposed and believed values) as a human being. Not his religious values or the garbage perpetrated by the media (ie. reverand Wright). He gives individuals a reason to believe that he is going to act on what is best for society and that enough might be what will make me forget about his views of government. Yes, he most likely will propose policy that is near opposite of what I believe and I will make that admission, but I hope that having a man with a sense of ethics will take this country down a path where someone with my sense of views and his could come to some sort of a compromise with what is best for this country. I would rather have that than the selfishness thats perpetuated this country since I have been alive. I would rather have a man who will admit when he is wrong and correct it than someone who will ride it out. Call him a flip flopper or whatever bullshit title you want to call it (I am talking to you media), a real man will admit when he is wrong or made a mistake and then go to fix it.
Back to why it is relevant, it is news to you as a hacker because he represents technical views that are in line with what most hackers view as what the internet should be; maintaining status quo and keeping the internet free. I know without a doubt Obama would insure that the internet would continue to remain free and would not be corrupted by big business and allow them to manipulate the way traffic and data flows. That, above anything, should be the most important issue to you, as is to me. To my limited knowledge, he has promised to create a new IT oriented branch of the office if elected, which is once again relative to you. I have had quite a few drinks tonight (I know it is a wednesday but I will give the fact that I am in college as an excuse) but I hope my statement is coherent; the more you think about it, someone in politics, or more specifically the president, has almost the most significant impact to any hacker as almost any individual possible and that is why it is relevant to you. Cheers!
Not his religious values or the garbage perpetrated by the media (ie. reverand Wright)
At the risk of being downmodded for injecting more facts into this thread, you are aware (I'm sure) that BHO considers Wright to be his spiritual mentor? The connection is not a media invention or media "garbage" by any means.
You are also aware that Wright and his church are ideologically and officially associated with views of an extremely radical nature?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_liberation_theology
Trinity United Church of Christ, Chicago is the one church frequently cited by press accounts, and by Cone as the best example of a church formally founded on the vision of Black liberation of theology
This is the church that Obama spent 20 years attending. Ask yourself, everyone: What would happen if McCain had spent even one day in a church that advocated "White Liberation Theology"?
BHO is probably an atheist like myself and most intelligent people, and his attendance to the church was likely somewhat cynical. But the connection between the church's official dogma, Wright's views, and Obama are meaningful.
Amazing that these data are so upsetting to news.YC's audience. I wonder if one of the downvoters could articulate what it is about these facts that needs to be suppressed. It seems relevant to me that Obama sought such a radical preacher as his mentor, and it was only when one of his other spiritual mentors (http://www.volokh.com/posts/1207631070.shtml ) got in trouble that he finally left the church.
I enjoy the handling of downmodded items though. Where reddit hides it and thus makes unpopular views (especially really unpopular views) hidden, YC simply grays them out.
1 reply →
Why are you so afraid of black people?
4 replies →
I wonder if one of the downvoters could articulate what it is about these facts that needs to be suppressed
Good luck. I was going to come up with an elaborate analysis, but it would be wasted. A quick analogy: If you write a post explaining why dell is cheaper than apple, given the same components, you will be severely downmodded. Even if apple is better in every other way, pointing out even a single disadvantage is an affront to people who've bought the whole package, even if they've bought that package because of a single detail.
In Obama's case, that single detail might be: 1) Iraq, 2) Net neutrality, 3) Telecom immunity, 4) Anything else.
ADDENDUM: I'm not going to look it up, but the only time I remember pg being dowmmodded severely was when he criticized (rather lamely, in fact) Ron Paul. So, it's not unusual.
5 replies →
I don't think you should worry about being downmodded for injecting facts (downmodding is more of a reflection of the community rather than the validity or relevance of a statement) so never have that be a determinant of your opinions.
I would definitely agree with you, as I am sure you would with this statement, that Obama would not renounce himself from the church if it were not for the presidential election and the way the media has portrayed the situation. But what we might disagree on is what the definition of spirituality is, and subsequently what that influence has on values and opinions. You and me could have exactly the same viewpoints on every aspect of every thought but differ on spirituality and views of god etc, but does that necessarily mean that those values would reflect in our decision making process.
I don't necessarily support radical values (being white it would make sense that I am not a black "radical") but I will admit that sometimes it takes a group of radicals to have influence on a larger group to bring influence and equilibrium to the status quo.
To inject more facts into the thread and refute the McCain statement, a slow undercurrent and momentum has been to show light on McCains pastor Hagee:
http://www.cjr.org/campaign_desk/the_mccainhagee_connection_...
Basically the same, yet opposing views, of Wright. Any logical individual will acknowledge that Black's have been oppressed throughout the history of this country, but I don't think that either of us are in any position to make judgment on whether they should feel as though they need to advance their race or make sure that they are considered equals among society any more etc.
I think the line that was crossed by Wright was the press conference right before Obama disassociated himself from Wright. It was clear at that point that Wright was taking advantage of the media coverage and milking the spotlight. I would have done the same if someone that I considered a friend sold me out to fame, fortune, press, whatever. To me, integrity and ethics are more important that religious values.