Aceshardware

Paranoid · Joined: 02 Aug 2007 Posts: 193

From Obama's web site:

"Obama Has Never Been A Muslim, And Is a Committed Christian"
http://www.barackobama.com/factcheck/2007/11/12/obama_has_never_been_a_muslim_1.php#obama-not-muslim%22

"In the internet age, there are going to be lies that are spread all over the place. I have been victimized by these lies. Fortunately, the American people are, I think, smarter than folks give them credit for."

— Barack Obama, MSNBC Debate, January 15, 2008

"Malik Obama confirms his half-brother Barack grew up a Muslim"
http://web.israelinsider.com/Articles/Politics/12918.htm

I thought this kind of garbage would possibly decrease with the exit of the Clintons. Democrats don't seem to know how to deal with the new media and the ease in which facts can be uncovered however.

JoeP · Joined: 28 Jul 2007 Posts: 52

even if he was muslim, so what?

i think lying about your past is a bad sign of character. Muslim or not, I don't think that matters nearly as much, if at all.

dytoution · Joined: 05 Jun 2008 Posts: 1

Paranoid wrote:

"Malik Obama confirms his half-brother Barack grew up a Muslim"
http://web.israelinsider.com/Articles/Politics/12918.htm

I thought this kind of garbage would possibly decrease with the exit of the Clintons. Democrats don't seem to know how to deal with the new media and the ease in which facts can be uncovered however.

And in your link I read something that is not really a supprise:

Quote:

Apparently the Jerusalem's Post's sloppy paraphrase of a radio interview with Barack Obama's half-brother created the false impression that he had explicitly confirmed the "Muslim background" of the likely Democratic Presidential nominee. The newly uncovered recording presents more ambiguous evidence.

But your name on this forum is well chosen...

Ford Prefect · Joined: 27 Jun 2007 Posts: 53

dytoution wrote:

But your name on this forum is well chosen...

Yes, it appears that he is off his meds ounce again, sigh...

who? · Joined: 01 Sep 2007 Posts: 464

Religion is the 1st cause of death on earth, at least during the last 30 centuries, when are we going to stop this madness?

Practice your religion in your corner, and stop using it as a political tool.

look behind, how many billions of death?

who?

iiB · Joined: 20 Aug 2007 Posts: 66

I wonder what would be considered less popular trait in a US presidential candidate, being a Muslim or being an Atheist (Agnostic etc.)...?

Probably Muslim, but an Atheist won't go very well either.

I wonder if there is ANY western democracy with an openly atheist leader?

Pjotr · Joined: 06 Aug 2007 Posts: 130

Sweden is quite an atheist country, although most Swedes are members of the Swedish church. Being religious does not gain any political points. If anything, I would say you put yourself at a political risk being openly religous as a politician. As neutral as possible work best in Sweden, a "neutral" country. I would think the other Nordic countries are the same, with perhaps Denmark in a unique position with the whole muslim drawing farse.

Pjotr · Joined: 06 Aug 2007 Posts: 130

who? wrote:

Religion is the 1st cause of death on earth, at least during the last 30 centuries, when are we going to stop this madness?

Practice your religion in your corner, and stop using it as a political tool.

Usually wars through history has been fought for resources like land, gold, slaves, oil etc. Religion is usually just a tool to stir up the people to fight.

Doesn't make it much better, though.

hkultala · Joined: 07 Aug 2007 Posts: 18 Location: Tampere, Finland

Pjotr wrote:

Sweden is quite an atheist country, although most Swedes are members of the Swedish church. Being religious does not gain any political points. If anything, I would say you put yourself at a political risk being openly religous as a politician. As neutral as possible work best in Sweden, a "neutral" country.

But sweden will soon be a muslim country. There are already suburbs where the police don't want to go, because the muslim youth are so aggressive against them, and more and more muslim's are immigrating there all the time.

And swedes don't have the motivation to fight them like at least some franks and germans have.

Wierdo · Joined: 27 Jun 2007 Posts: 124

hkultala wrote:

Pjotr wrote:

Sweden is quite an atheist country, although most Swedes are members of the Swedish church. Being religious does not gain any political points. If anything, I would say you put yourself at a political risk being openly religous as a politician. As neutral as possible work best in Sweden, a "neutral" country.

But sweden will soon be a muslim country. There are already suburbs where the police don't want to go, because the muslim youth are so aggressive against them, and more and more muslim's are immigrating there all the time.

And swedes don't have the motivation to fight them like at least some franks and germans have.

Utilizing the potential benefits of immigration seems to be a common problem in many parts of Europe, the people there are still too protective of their current lifestyles and resistant to having a multicultural society that's easier for people of varying backgrounds to assimilate into.

Ironically Europe ultimately needs immigrants the most due to their low birth rates - which will make it difficult for them to sustain their current quality of life in a couple of generations or so when their own baby boomers start to retire - but the social/legal systems currently in place seem to merely reduce immigrants the role of long-term dependents with little room for achieving real success, unlike the US and Canada where the immigrant workforce is one of the backbones of our economy - though there's allot of room for improvement left, and things are actually starting to move in the wrong direction as of late, which is a concern.

Immigration is a fact of life, it's not going to go away as long as there's poverty on the planet, and as long as we force people to flee their homes with the many wars we create.

Pjotr · Joined: 06 Aug 2007 Posts: 130

hkultala wrote:

And swedes don't have the motivation to fight them like at least some franks and germans have.

Why should we fight them?

Pjotr · Joined: 06 Aug 2007 Posts: 130

Wierdo wrote:

Ironically Europe ultimately needs immigrants the most due to their low birth rates - which will make it difficult for them to sustain their current quality of life in a couple of generations or so when their own baby boomers start to retire - but the social/legal systems currently in place seem to merely reduce immigrants the role of long-term dependents with little room for achieving real success, unlike the US and Canada where the immigrant workforce is one of the backbones of our economy - though there's allot of room for improvement left, and things are actually starting to move in the wrong direction as of late, which is a concern.

Yet, if you look at USA vs Europe, it is USA that has had much more segregation in all kinds of levels (geography, income, unemployment etc), not only racial but also a much broader economic range (poor vs rich). Integration has worked a lot better in European countries where poverty is less common, as is extreme wealth. And having a high lowest level benefits nations most in the long run. Something USA is perhaps waking up to now.

Wierdo · Joined: 27 Jun 2007 Posts: 124

Pjotr wrote:

Yet, if you look at USA vs Europe, it is USA that has had much more segregation in all kinds of levels (geography, income, unemployment etc), not only racial but also a much broader economic range (poor vs rich). Integration has worked a lot better in European countries where poverty is less common, as is extreme wealth. And having a high lowest level benefits nations most in the long run. Something USA is perhaps waking up to now.

Indeed, our problem right now is not as much the ethnic or racial type - though it definately does exist, but it's all relative for the purpose of discussion - which is something Europe's dealing more with at this point, but rather a larger problem imho of shrinking middle class down here, thanks to a variety of factors, easiest one to see being the current pro-corporate/anti-free market direction we're heading in, not to mention the overly aggressive foreign policy that's taking its toll on the economy and hurting us in other areas as well.

I think we have way too many single mothers working at Walmarts and not making ends meet, the social programs - education, healthcare, etc - are relatively weak and is in serious need of an overhaul, and it sadly affects locals and immigrants alike. It's shameful for the largest economy in the world to not be able to solve such problems, but I digress...

I think Canada's doing better with their immigration policy right now, as they have that mixed in with some European-style social programs that give them many of the benefit of both models.

As for integration, I would have to disagree with that notion. I think the European model - generally speaking as this varies by region - forces immigrants to either abandon their colorful backgrounds or pushes them to cling to them too strongly, the room in between, one of finding the sweet spot between embracing local norms and sharing some of the cultural richness that immigrants bring to the table, being too difficult a balance to strike for too many, the result being more segregated cities and less productive mingling and mixing between the immigrant populations and the local ones. It amused me to see immigrants living in France trying to communicate amongst themselves in broken French down at their local markets, apparently too desperate to become members of society that they're apparently too ashamed to communicate with eachother in their own tongues on the street. The other side of this being the immigrant youth population with little or no aspirations and future ambitions beyond hanging out in the ghetto streets. Not that we don't have those down here of course, but the momentum toward more of this soft of thing was a concern in Europe it seemed.

The more pressing issue imho is the need for the immigrants to have better chances of becoming productive members of society through better employment opportunities. In some areas it's somewhat understandable as even the local population may have difficulty finding jobs themselves, but in many cases there's a big potential for economic growth through utilizing the immigrant population that's being wasted out of fear for jobs. If that potential is unlocked then it's likely that the economy would benefit greatly, and also likely that the jobs created by such potential could translate to more opportunities even for the local residents themselves.

Take Munster, Germany vs Toronto, Canada or San Diego, USA as an example, both have large immigrant populations, but one of them is left stagnating within its host society - an army of burger flippers if fortunate, living more on government aid than work itself, and not necessarily by choice - while the other flourishes and grows, even if as a rose with thorns, contributing positively to the city and state.

Ok I think the post is getting too long so I'll stop with that ;) Just a disclaimer in case I'm actually seeing this all wrong: This is all just based on personal observation from living in Germany and France for a while more than ten years ago, so it may be built on personal anecdotes and observations - yeah and some stuff in print or online - so please correct me if I'm wrong on any of this of course.