# Jesus Camp?



## Reegs (Aug 5, 2008)

Niah @ Tue Aug 05 said:


> I watched it last year.
> 
> It didn't shocked that much probably because I'm already too familiar with those religious organizations in america and anything next to the Westboro Baptist Church feels like normal:
> 
> ...



Good link Niah. That's frightening.


----------



## Christian Marcussen (Aug 5, 2008)

lol.. yeah that is pretty scary. But I'm not sure I find it significantly more scary than Jesus Camp... But they are indeed maniacs :D


----------



## Ed (Aug 5, 2008)

Niah @ Tue Aug 05 said:


> I watched it last year.
> 
> It didn't shocked that much probably because I'm already too familiar with those religious organizations in america and anything next to the Westboro Baptist Church feels like normal:
> 
> ...



http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l9Mta3zdavM haha


----------



## Brian Ralston (Aug 5, 2008)

As long as you all know that the doc film Jesus Camp is not at all indicative of most Christians. Certainly not of any Christians I have ever known...and I know some who would define themselves as hard core Christians. And they still do not ever come close to what is portrayed in Jesus Camp. 

Thinking that Jesus Camp is representative of Christianity as a whole or even most Christians (and not the lunatic fringe that very religion has)...is no different than thinking that the extremist Islamic nuts that perpetrated 9/11 is indicative of all in the Muslim religion. That is all I would caution anyone who sees a documentary like that and subsequently forms opinions based on it.


----------



## Niah (Aug 5, 2008)

Brian Ralston @ Tue Aug 05 said:


> As long as you all know that the doc film Jesus Camp is not at all indicative of most Christians. .




I think that's pretty clear in this documentary, particulary in that scene with the radio host of a christian radio critrizing the religous organization behind Jesus Camp and the fanatics.

Again I think it's pretty clear that Jesus Camp is a doc about ...Jesus Camp and the people behind it.


----------



## artsoundz (Aug 5, 2008)

Christian Marcussen @ Tue Aug 05 said:


> Brian Ralston @ Tue Aug 05 said:
> 
> 
> > As long as you all know that the doc film Jesus Camp is not at all indicative of most Christians. Certainly not of any Christians I have ever known...and I know some who would define themselves as hard core Christians. And they still do not ever come close to what is portrayed in Jesus Camp.
> ...



right on. consider that Intelligent design is actually being discussed seriously is a big red flag.

The most disturbing thing to me is the sense of an overpowering frustration at what the future holds for a huge block of people. The damages are not likely to be undone for generations as these kids grow up and pass on this destructive ignorance to their kids. scares the crap out of me.


----------



## Brian Ralston (Aug 5, 2008)

Christian Marcussen @ Tue Aug 05 said:


> I thought the Christian right and jews planned 9/11? :D (just kidding!)
> 
> Brian, I hear what your saying and I know that full well. Still scary... Have you seen it? >8o



Yeah...I saw Jesus Camp a while ago back when it was a festival film. As a film...meh...I felt it kind of had an agenda from the outset and then put together a story that tried to prove that agenda. A form of 'documentary' film making that I still think to this day is questionable. But, it is hard to tell a story and have it not come from some specific perspective. So...I take things like that with a grain of salt and form my own opinions based mostly on my own personal experience with Christians (like how I was raised) and other individuals I know from other religions. 

Amazing ( >8o ) that kind of religious experience for people exists...but I would still strongly argue that while there are thousands who would fall into that category in certain areas, there are *Millions* of other Christians who are not even close to that. Just like there are millions of other muslims who are peaceful people and yet the lunatic extreme among them get all the attention. The ying and yang of a country where there is true freedom of religion I suppose. Most Christians I have ever been associated with (or grown up with) have always taken the road believing that one's religion is a very "personal thing" between them as an individual and their God.

But I would also argue and strongly support the fact that families should have the freedom to raise their kids in their own religion if that is important to them. Trying to raise a child in a household where there are multiple religions (different between the mom and dad)...and or taking the stance where one will "allow" their kids to pick a religion if they choose to when they are old enough really does not work either. A child/young adult will almost always simply choose no religious affiliation not because they don't share the belief...but because choosing a religion in that case is like choosing one parent over the other. And a child simply won't do that. It is subliminal. And in the end...it just pumps out a generation of kids who believe in no religion at all. Which again...is not necessarily evil or anything...just that it is not the intended result of the action taken. 

I would just tell anyone if they are Jewish, Christian, Muslim, Hindu, Atheist, Agnositc, etc...set a standard for your family and follow it. Set a moral standard to live life by. Set the example for your kids in the way you live your life and know that it is important (even more than it seems) for a young kid, who is truly absorbing all that is around them, that the mom and dad be on the same page about these issues. For the most part, kids grow up in the mirror image of their parents. They tend fall back to what they know from how they were raised. Unless how they were raised is what screwed them up in the first place and they recognize that.[/i]

I guess that is why when there are extreme individuals who take their religions to a gross exploitation of it...that is what makes these things scary. But at the same time...if we are going to truly be free, we have to allow people the freedom to believe in their religion of choice and live the lives they want to based on those principles. We then have to inherently trust that people know what is best for their kids and their families and as a society, just draw the line when they do things that inflict undue physical harm on others (i.e...flying planes into the World Trade Center in the name of their god). 



> Although not that extreme, Evangelicals and sub-moderate Christians do seem to have quite a footing in the US - or am I off course?



In certain areas. I would say that most of the country is either Christian or Catholic. So...yes....Christian. Followed closely by Jewish. If you were raised in parts of Los Angeles or New York, you would think it was the Jewish folks who have quite a footing. 

Or if you were up in certain parts of say...Michigan...you might be surprised how many Muslims were influencing society up there. 

It really is a big country. Bigger in 'area' than most of Europe combined, isn't it? And folks tend to congregate (no pun intended) and live alongside folks who share similar core values and beliefs. So, the fact that there are areas where certain religions are more prevalent is pretty normal. 

And now that I took that off into a tangent...I will stop the thread derailing.


----------



## Ed (Aug 6, 2008)

Brian Ralston @ Tue Aug 05 said:


> Yeah...I saw Jesus Camp a while ago back when it was a festival film. As a film...meh...I felt it kind of had an agenda from the outset and then put together a story that tried to prove that agenda. A form of 'documentary' film making that I still think to this day is questionable.



Maybe I missed something Brian but whats wrong with it? It simply shows what they believe and how they act. Whats questionable there? It isnt saying all Christians are like that either, and I also heard that these people actually liked the film.


----------



## poseur (Aug 6, 2008)

Brian Ralston @ Tue Aug 05 said:


> I would say that most of the country is either Christian or Catholic. So...yes....Christian. Followed closely by Jewish. If you were raised in parts of Los Angeles or New York, you would think it was the Jewish folks who have quite a footing.


if one made such assumptions,
one could generally be seen to be either ill-informed, or wrong.
the following numbers
(here taken from from ReligiousTolerance.org) are, of course, still generalised,
but are very typical results of most well-regarded censuses & surveys
in this regard:


*"In 1997, the US Society and Values magazine published an overview of religion in the U.S., using data from the Pluralism Project at Harvard University. 3,4 They reported: 
63% of Americans (163 million) state that they are actively affiliated with a faith group:
Roman Catholicism is the largest single religious group (60 million; 23%).
Anglicans, Eastern Orthodox and Protestant churches total 94 million members (36%) within 220 denominations.
There are 3.8 million religiously active Jews (1.5%) ; an additional 2 million regard themselves as cultural or ethnic Jews.
Estimates of Muslims vary greatly. Some surveys show that there are about 3.5 to 3.8 million Muslims (1.4 to 1.5%) in the U.S. Most Muslim sources estimate about six or seven million.
There are over 300,000 congregations.
There are over 530,000 priests, ministers, pastors, etc.
Islam is numerically the fastest growing organized religion in the U.S., in terms of numbers of adherents.
The most rapidly growing religious/spiritual/ethics grouping in the US is not an organized religion; it consists of non-believers (Atheists, Agnostics, etc.)."


"	During 2001-FEB to APR, the Graduate Center of the City University of New York conducted an American Religious Identification Survey (ARIS). It was a massive poll, questioning 50,281 American adults about their religious affiliations during 2001-FEB to APR. 2 They obtained some results that are noticeably different from the Pluralism Project's data. The differences are mainly because they asked their poll subjects what religion they considered themselves to be, rather than what religion they were actually affiliated with. Results included:
76.5% of American adults are Christian (52% Protestant; 24.5% Catholic).
14.1% do not follow any organized religion; they are Agnostics, Atheists, Humanists, Secularists, or have no religious affiliation.
1.3% are Jewish.
0.5% are Muslim, followers of Islam.
0.5% are Buddhist.
0.4% are Hindu.
0.3% are Unitarian Universalist.
0.1% are Neopagan (Druids, Pagans, Wiccans, etc)
There are many more small religions, each of whom are followed by fewer than 0.1% of American adults."*

d


----------



## Ed (Aug 6, 2008)

poseur @ Wed Aug 06 said:


> Brian Ralston @ Tue Aug 05 said:
> 
> 
> > I would say that most of the country is either Christian or Catholic. So...yes....Christian. Followed closely by Jewish. If you were raised in parts of Los Angeles or New York, you would think it was the Jewish folks who have quite a footing.
> ...



"76.5% of American adults are Christian (52% Protestant; 24.5% Catholic). "

Poeseur, I think 76% of the population being Christian is "most". Unless you were being picky about the Catholic part. 

Ed


----------



## Brian Ralston (Aug 6, 2008)

poseur @ Wed Aug 06 said:


> if one made such assumptions,
> one could generally be seen to be either ill-informed, or wrong.
> the following numbers
> (here taken from from ReligiousTolerance.org) are, of course, still generalised,
> ...



So..just so I am clear...you are pointing out (with a bit of a smug post)...some sort of documentation that:

1) Shows that my stating that "most" Americans are Christian is correct. (Catholicism and Protestantism are all Christianity...meaning....believing in Christ as the Son of God)..

and 

2) You are insinuating displeasure that I did not include Atheists, Agnostics and Secularists as a _religious grouping_ in the US?...ummmm....these being groups that do not classify themselves as _religious_????

~o) 

Am I missing something?


----------



## Christian Marcussen (Aug 6, 2008)

lol Brian... I thought it was just me.


----------



## blue (Aug 6, 2008)

Brian Ralston @ Wed Aug 06 said:


> Am I missing something?



I think it was the "followed closely by Jewish" part he was disputing.


----------



## Brian Ralston (Aug 6, 2008)

I just think if you do not show up at the party...you don't get your name on the guest list. 


...just sayin'...



And if it was the Jewish thing and my use of the word "closely"...well...being second in line of _religious_ folks would be...umm...next in line. If one wants to debate percentages...then have fun. If one is not happy with the percentages of the Jewish religion depicted...well...we have sadly seen that before.


----------



## poseur (Aug 6, 2008)

blue @ Wed Aug 06 said:


> Brian Ralston @ Wed Aug 06 said:
> 
> 
> > Am I missing something?
> ...


indeed.
brian's numbers were far away from any of the commonly accepted averaged estimations.
but, i certainly wasn't being smug;
i'm sorry you guys took it that way!
?!?

i was simply offering a coupla quotes that reflect those more commonly accepted estimates, since brian's 
--- as far as his stated estimation of the jewish population is concerned --- could pretty much be seen as either wrong,
or --- as i said --- ill-informed.
but, there's nothing wrong with being wrong, right?
it means there's always something for us to investigate for ourselves.
no?
???
still, my apologies for any appearance of smugness.

d

d


----------



## poseur (Aug 6, 2008)

Brian Ralston @ Wed Aug 06 said:


> I just think if you do not show up at the party...you don't get your name on the guest list.
> 
> 
> ...just sayin'...
> ...


now, all that really confuses me, i must say!

1) i seem to make it to plenty of guest-lists, though i do not always show up for the party --- sometimes i let others "be me", in order for them to get in, and
2) would u please explain to me your comment, above, about "the percentages of the Jewish religion depicted...."? it goes completely over my head.
feel free to pm me, if you want to do so, in order to keep the thread on its track.

thanks,
d


----------



## blue (Aug 6, 2008)

Brian Ralston said:


> And if it was the Jewish thing and my use of the word "closely"...well...being second in line of _religious_ folks would be...umm...next in line.



OK, but "closely" is not the same thing as "next in line." Closely suggests numbers that aren't far off from each other and in this case is misleading.




Brian Ralston said:


> If one wants to debate percentages...then have fun. If one is not happy with the percentages of the Jewish religion depicted...well...we have sadly seen that before.



Huh?


----------



## Niah (Aug 6, 2008)

I think this thread has deviated a bit from the core issue here

To me docs like Jesus Camp and many others are alerting us for the dangers of the current religious organizations in America that have perverted christian beliefs and values in trade for financial benefits and political propaganda.

In a country where the separation of Religon and State is a tad blur the idea that religious organizations are getting more and more influencial and taking advantage of this post-911 era to spread hate, fear and imposing their perverted beliefs and values is a bit scary.


----------



## Robobino (Aug 6, 2008)

I think NATO should bomb Jesus Camp...


----------



## Fernando Warez (Aug 6, 2008)

Robobino @ Wed Aug 06 said:


> I think NATO should bomb Jesus Camp...



:lol: ....

I haven't seen it but i bet you're right!


----------



## Christian Marcussen (Aug 6, 2008)

Regarding percentages... I was not talking about percentages, but influence - cultural, political etc. For instance 15% of the US population are cited as non-religious as opposed to 1,3% being jews. However 'non-religious' is the most mistrusted affiliation of all in the US. So not all beleifes/cultures are equal in that regard.

The next film on my list is "Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed" - from what I have read about it, it should be entertaining


----------



## Ed (Aug 7, 2008)

We should all watch this, after seeing Jesus Camp
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3Q1xqOuL ... re=related


----------



## Christian Marcussen (Aug 7, 2008)

You bet I will... SOOOOOOn


----------



## Niah (Aug 7, 2008)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sGi21YQFjMM

this should be fun too


----------



## Ed (Aug 8, 2008)

I think you should watch some Louis Theroux. Heres a classic clip from when he visited some Black Nationalists.    

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0LRVv7Jtyrk


----------



## horselesspaul (Aug 8, 2008)

Ed @ Fri Aug 08 said:


> I think you should watch some Louis Theroux.


Everyone should watch Louis Theroux.
Oh, and I think Jesus probably WAS pretty camp. So what?


----------



## Robobino (Sep 3, 2008)

"Jesus Camp" for free on the Net...

http://www.moviesfoundonline.com/jesus_camp.php


----------



## Abe (Sep 30, 2008)

Have you seen Obama camp?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TW9b0xr06qA

looks familiar... 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x_wMYqgG ... re=related

Wake up, Obamabots.


----------



## artsoundz (Sep 30, 2008)

It hardly promotes a fundamentalist narrow ideology.

only an ignorant racist bigot could see that as anything like Jesus Camp.


----------



## Abe (Sep 30, 2008)

ignoramus, exploiting kids for political gain...

kids are mostly interested in
games not politics?

this patriot says it all

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G0bZT7QnOZs&eurl


----------



## Christian Marcussen (Sep 30, 2008)

Abe... your first link says it's a private video... ?


----------



## Abe (Oct 1, 2008)

Chrisitan,

they took it down after
seeing how disgusting the exploitation of 
kids for political propaganda is...
sort of like getting rid of the presidential seal...

Obama camp...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AlcIwvHZUl4&eurl

vs.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aBoBc-ifDmk&eur
&
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H5P_TFqUegU&eurl
&
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=stMcuBXyPKo&eur

creepy.


----------



## JB78 (Oct 1, 2008)

Abe @ Wed Oct 01 said:


> Chrisitan,
> 
> they took it down after
> seeing how disgusting the exploitation of
> ...




Yeah, that's totally the same thing...I mean Obama really believes in what Lenin, Hitler and Kim Jong stands for. 

Way to go Abe!

Thanks for setting us straight regarding Obama, I can't believe how he manipulated and forced those poor children to do that. >8o 

It's a good thing Palin was cleared of witchcraft by that priest, now you can totallly vote for her...100% witch-less....Yay!!!! 

Maybe if she gets elected all the world could be one happy jesus camp!


Abe/Palin '12!!!


----------



## artsoundz (Oct 1, 2008)

Abe @ Wed Oct 01 said:


> Chrisitan,
> 
> they took it down after
> seeing how disgusting the exploitation of
> ...



if anything is creepy it's abe. to compare Obama to North Korea is sick.

what a small. small mind he has.


----------



## Robobino (Oct 1, 2008)

The ultimate brainwash... Fortunately, the end of all THAT is near...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PmILOL55xP0


----------



## artsoundz (Oct 2, 2008)

Robobino @ Wed Oct 01 said:


> The ultimate brainwash... Fortunately, the end of all THAT is near...
> 
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PmILOL55xP0



sorry- I dont understand what you mean. explain?


----------



## Dave Connor (Oct 2, 2008)

I really don't understand the Saint Obama thing - He's a politician for heaven's sake.


----------



## JonFairhurst (Oct 2, 2008)

Dave Connor @ Thu Oct 02 said:


> I really don't understand the Saint Obama thing - He's a politician for heaven's sake.


So was Ghandi.

(And no, I'm not saying that Obama is Ghandi II. "I knew Ghandi, and..." It's just that being a politician doesn't require him to be the devil either.)


----------



## Abe (Oct 3, 2008)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ipLT6tUu3uE&eurl

“If you tell a lie big enough and keep repeating it, 
people will eventually come to believe it.”


----------



## JB78 (Oct 3, 2008)

Abe @ Fri Oct 03 said:


> “If you tell a lie big enough and keep repeating it,
> people will eventually come to believe it.”



Don't give away your partys secrets all at once Abe...


----------



## Abe (Oct 3, 2008)

this is Sen.Obama's official website ..
as of 10/03/08 

http://origin.barackobama.com/issues/fo ... licy/#iran

look under diplomacy..

there you will read 

"Obama supports tough, 
direct presidential diplomacy 
with Iran without preconditions"

Biden tonight at the debate:
“That’s just simply not true about Barack Obama.
He did not say he’d sit down with Ahmadinejad.” 

LOL!


----------



## artsoundz (Oct 3, 2008)

the first link is blatantly edited. 

"Without preconditions" on the second link means the US calls the shots. Iran doesnt get to set the preconditions. 

little abe is twisting it up to make his tiny little world safe from anything that suggests change. His utube links attract racist and bigoted propagandists, Just read the replies- These are teeny weeny abe's people. Nothing more than pure cancerous hate speech. 

It's no different than PR's Polish rant in fact it's even uglier. This 50 black marks thing isnt reasonable in the case of abe. Until he reaches 50-IF he does-he blindsides us with his ugly crap.

I encourage evryone to black mark this microscopic little s.o.b.


----------



## Dave Connor (Oct 3, 2008)

JonFairhurst @ Thu Oct 02 said:


> Dave Connor @ Thu Oct 02 said:
> 
> 
> > I really don't understand the Saint Obama thing - He's a politician for heaven's sake.
> ...


I rest my case. When is the last time a politician was mentioned in the same breadth as Ghandi? This when the most notable spiritual leader associated with Obama is Rev Wright. It's just not real to project messianic qualities onto politicans. Politicians kill messiahs.

Martin Luther King deserves comparison to Ghandi (whom he deeply admired and modeled) I would agree. He suffered the same fate of course. The junior senator from Chicago has a good way to go for any comparisons to those great men. I don't have it in for the guy. I hope if he's elected he indeed becomes the greatest president since Lincoln. It just seems silly to me to build up any man that way before they do a miracle or two.


----------



## TheoKrueger (Oct 3, 2008)

JB78 @ Fri Oct 03 said:


> Abe @ Fri Oct 03 said:
> 
> 
> > “If you tell a lie big enough and keep repeating it,
> ...



I remember reading in a book of OSHO that hitler said "Truth is a lie that is repeated over and over again". Maybe the guy above has been studying global dictatorship?

Funny how history repeats again, different faces, different words, same sad story.


----------



## JonFairhurst (Oct 3, 2008)

Dave Connor @ Fri Oct 03 said:


> JonFairhurst @ Thu Oct 02 said:
> 
> 
> > Dave Connor @ Thu Oct 02 said:
> ...



Gee. Thanks Dave. Nice editing job. 

May I remind you that my VERY NEXT SENTENCE was:

_"And no, I'm not saying that Obama is Ghandi II."_

My point was that you can't automatically assume that a person is bad because they are a politician (as a previous post claimed.) Ghandi is simply an example of a good politician. 

Next time you dishonestly take somebody out of context and "rest your case", you might do it when the context isn't right there to see IN THE VERY SAME THREAD.


----------



## Abe (Oct 3, 2008)

artsoundz,
why are you concerned with
the ignorant responses at the youtube
posting? Forget the video link. Just go directly
to Obama's website.

who is the one twisting words?

"Without preconditions" on the second link means the US calls the shots. 
Iran doesnt get to set the preconditions. 

Google this quote and it will take you to 
Obama's official site!

"Obama supports tough, 
direct presidential diplomacy 
with Iran without preconditions"

Biden said last night,
“That’s just simply not true about Barack Obama. 
He did not say he’d sit down with Ahmadinejad.” 

(maybe artsoundz missed the youtube debate 
where this question was originally posed)

it depends on your definition of "without preconditions"

The American people won't buy this parsing of words.


----------



## Christian Marcussen (Oct 3, 2008)

Abe @ Fri Oct 03 said:


> it depends on your definition of "without preconditions"



Exactly. Abe - do you know what the term means in a diplomatic context? If not, admit it, and perhaps someone will bother to help you out.


----------



## JonFairhurst (Oct 3, 2008)

Here we have two wars, mounting debt, a locked up credit market, and Abe is obsessed with a couple of words that he tries to twist.

Obama clearly doesn't mean that if Ahmadinejad calls and says "we must meet at midnight on July 1st on the Brooklyn Bridge" that he would do it. Only a moron would think that.

By "preconditions" Obama was clearly referring to the Bush policy of making demands (such as "remove all troops from your border", or "allow inspectors full and free access") before allowing any talks at any level between our governments. It's asinine.

Obama believes, as do I, that in order to get your way from an adversary, you need to communicate with that adversary. By simply saying "do what-I-want-you-to-do or we shut you out", we will not get results. This tactic only invites ongoing hostilities.

Obama believes in preparations. That means that lower-level negotiators and ambassadors have discussions. The negotiate what they can. They also negotiate when and how the next higher group can meet. 

Eventually, the leaders can meet. And in my experience in international negotiations (and, yes, I have some experience and many, many passport stamps), the final meeting is ideally perfunctory. The details were already negotiated. It's just a matter of ceremony and the final signatures. The leaders also talk to get a feel for one another. They can also make their points, and maybe get a line or two in for the press.

Anybody who thinks Obama will be Iran's tool - is a tool.

Now, can we get off the trivia express, and back to real issues that affect real people?


----------



## Abe (Oct 3, 2008)

Christian,

when talking to the people of a nation,
they are looking for straight talk.

Obama was asked at the youtube event
Would you be willing to meet with the leader
of Iran in your first year without precondition.
He said he would. His website says he would.
Biden said he won't.

P.s. I appreciate your openness to 
discussion without relying on personal attacks.
It shows your depth and character.


----------



## Christian Marcussen (Oct 3, 2008)

Jon summed it up nicely. 

Abe. I understand that you want straight talk. And I guess one could fault Obama for sounding intellectual (something I noticed is a bad thing in the US )

However if you DO know what Obama means (the spirit of it, not the wording), then is it not a bit malicious making it sound as if there are major discrepencies between what he and Biden are saying?

Clearly that is not the case if you actually understand the term 'no preconditions'.


----------



## artsoundz (Oct 3, 2008)

exactly- it's the "spirit" of Obama's message. All I get from McCain camp is 100 more years. 


Nobody but me (lately) has attacked you,abe,personally. And I dont have a problem with that. you aren't open minded whatsoever and unwilling to discuss the issue (talks with Iran).

Your posts have nothing to do with politics but everything to do with coming here to disrupt. You could care less about the spirit of V.I control.


----------



## Dave Connor (Oct 3, 2008)

artsoundz @ Fri Oct 03 said:


> " My point is that politicians as a rule are a universe away from the likes of Ghandi and this projection upon Obama is bizarre. I am making a single point here."
> 
> But WHO is saying this? How is that even possible to make that kind of definitive statement? Seriously, who is making Obama a saint ?One could say that of McCain supporters. For some reason I cant fathom. a lot of folks just LOVE JM and Plain-uh.. I mean Palin.
> 
> ...



How about the media? How about the throng that's so enamored of him? He's a politician. "Change" is a political slogan. A very good one apparently but a very old political device. I don't blame the guy for doing what countless politicians of the past have done but he's really in the classic mold of old-style politics. I've predicted just about every adjustment he's made in his remarks and policy statements. But that's not any harder than watching a football game and seeing that a team needs to punt or throw the ball or whatever. He's saying and doing everything he can to win. They all do that. Therefore I don't see him in a new light and don't understand why people consider him that different. Maybe because I'm from Chicago and understand that kind of politics. He sure does.


----------



## artsoundz (Oct 3, 2008)

I have to think about that. I have to think, however, that there is more going on here than simple old school politics. BUT speaking of football...

OJ's going to jail for the rest of his life. Good. too little too late.


----------

