BS: McCain/Lieberman Vs. Clinton/Obama?

Subject: RE: BS: McCain/Lieberman Vs. Clinton/Obama?
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 27 Mar 08 - 06:04 PM

You continue to define this contest in terms of race.
I think that Clarence Thomas will decide the case in terms of the law as he sees it. So will Justice Ginsberg. So will the rest.

Subject: RE: BS: McCain/Lieberman Vs. Clinton/Obama?
From: Rabbi-Sol
Date: 27 Mar 08 - 06:02 PM

Carol,
       I do not think you are that naive to believe that the justices of the Supreme Court put their own political and idealogical views completely out of their minds when ruling on important cases before them. They interpret the Constitution but that interpretation can be biased and colored by their own political ideology. If you do not think so I have a bridge in Brooklyn that you might be interested in purchasing.

                                                SOL

Subject: RE: BS: McCain/Lieberman Vs. Clinton/Obama?
From: CarolC
Date: 27 Mar 08 - 05:59 PM

We appear to have cross-posted, Rabbi Sol. I pose my question again...

You only pose two possible answers, neither of them having any integrity, Rabbi Sol. You do not postulate the possibility that Justice Thomas would rule according to what he believes would be Constitutional. Is there some reason for this? Would you have posed the question the same way if we were discussing Ruth Bader Ginsberg, and the candidate in question as Lieberman as the vice presidential nominee?

Subject: RE: BS: McCain/Lieberman Vs. Clinton/Obama?
From: Rabbi-Sol
Date: 27 Mar 08 - 05:54 PM

Jack,
      You are reading things into my words. I am NOT implying in any way that black people are inferior, nor do I hold that opinion.

The fact of the matter is that Justice Clarence Thomas is perhaps the most conservative of all the judges on the supreme court, with the possible exception of Justice Scalia. I believe that his voting record is prefectly pro-conservative on any matter that has ever come before the court. He also happens to be black and was appointed by the elder Pres. Bush as the token African American justice on the supreme court amid great contreversy (remember Anita Hill). His views on social issues such as affirmative action and abortion are diametrically opposed to those of Obama.

As we saw in the last election, the justices of the Supreme Court usually follow the politics of the Presidents that appointed them. That is why you usually get a 5 to 4 vote on highly controversial cases. By appointing Justices Roberts and Alito, Dubyah gave the conservatives a one vote majority.

So my question remains, does Justice Thomas, as the tie breaking vote, go with the party line or does he sieze the once in a lifetime opportunity to make history?

                                                          SOL

Subject: RE: BS: McCain/Lieberman Vs. Clinton/Obama?
From: CarolC
Date: 27 Mar 08 - 05:48 PM

You only pose two possible answers, neither of them having any integrity, Rabbi Sol. You do not postulate the possibility that Justice Thomas would rule according to what he believes would be Constitutional. Is there some reason for this? Would you have posed the question the same way if we were discussing Ruth Bader Ginsberg, and the candidate in question as Lieberman as the vice presidential nominee?

Subject: RE: BS: McCain/Lieberman Vs. Clinton/Obama?
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 27 Mar 08 - 05:33 PM

Rabbi-Sol,

I am gathering that you have an underlying view that black people are inferior. Why impugn a man's ability to be a fair judge based upon his race?

What makes you think it would be decided on race?

Why not age? Old people deciding for old people? Then it would be seven to two with Alito and Roberts in the minority.

Subject: RE: BS: McCain/Lieberman Vs. Clinton/Obama?
From: beardedbruce
Date: 27 Mar 08 - 05:04 PM

THAT is a matter of opinion. Of course, if only the decision you want can be correct, then I agree- it has been wrong in about half the cases. At least in someone's opinion.

Subject: RE: BS: McCain/Lieberman Vs. Clinton/Obama?
From: Amos
Date: 27 Mar 08 - 05:00 PM

I would so hope, as well. But the Supreme Court has betrayed that trust in the past.


A

Subject: RE: BS: McCain/Lieberman Vs. Clinton/Obama?
From: beardedbruce
Date: 27 Mar 08 - 04:36 PM

I would hope he would rule based on the facts of the arguement, and NOT on who the winner would be.

Subject: RE: BS: McCain/Lieberman Vs. Clinton/Obama?
From: Rabbi-Sol
Date: 27 Mar 08 - 04:32 PM

If Obama is the nominee, and the general election is a repeat of the 2000 Gore vs. Bush fiaso with the Supreme Court having the final word, a hypothetical situation might arise.

In a 5 to 4 decision with Justice Clarence Thomas holding the deciding swing vote; Does he vote to make history by putting a fellow African American into office or does he stick with his conservative views and vote for McCain?

It is a highly unlikely scenario but not beyond the realm of possibillity. Which way do you think Thomas would go?

                                                    SOL

Subject: RE: BS: McCain/Lieberman Vs. Clinton/Obama?
From: Amos
Date: 26 Mar 08 - 04:27 PM

She is presently promoting the concept that any delegate should vote for any candidate at will regardless of popular vote.

This is going to make her look as good as Bush in 2000. Except that she won't own the judges and won't be able to buy the press to pull it off. Smoke city.


A

Subject: RE: BS: McCain/Lieberman Vs. Clinton/Obama?
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 26 Mar 08 - 04:08 PM

Rabbi-Sol,

Hillary is going to lose the delegate count. She has almost no chance to be the nominee. After all the bridges she and Bill have burned. If she does get the nomination, She won't be President. She doesn't deserve to be President. Because by every measure she and Bill have said should be the benchmarks, McCain is the better candidate.

Experience, Readiness to be commander in chief, integrity, willingness to bring about change.

McCain has a long, distinguished record of all these things. He does not have to pad his resume on these things.

Obama is more experienced as a legislator than Lincoln was. Nixon was the Most experienced President ever. Experience is overrated.

Just in this campaign Obama has shown, leadership, integrity, pressure under fire and the courage to deal with the hard issues intelligently and head on without condescending to people. Hillary has done the opposite. She failed to show leadership in by reigning in Bill and Ferraro. She failed in the integrity by throwing the kitchen sink at Obama and by praising McCain in a feeble attempt to make Obama look bad. Under pressure she has stooped to smear tactics. She has flip flopped on Florida and Michigan, blaming the Obama for being undemocratic when it was a DNC decision which she initially agreed to.      She constantly avoid the hard issues and weasels around them. She still does not take responsibility for her vote on the war.

Based upon their performance in these past few months. Hillary Clinton is the second to the last American Politician I would like to see handle a serious crisis. Unfortunately the worst one is in office.

Subject: RE: BS: McCain/Lieberman Vs. Clinton/Obama?
From: Amos
Date: 26 Mar 08 - 03:48 PM

In order to appreciate why Obama is so popular, Reb, you have to be able to recognize the difference between character and scar-tissue.

A

Subject: RE: BS: McCain/Lieberman Vs. Clinton/Obama?
From: Rabbi-Sol
Date: 26 Mar 08 - 03:38 PM

And just how is Obama going to bring about this thing called "change" that he proclaims so loudly?

Most of you folks here are old enough to remember that last time a young and charismatic leader captivated and energized the nation with such a message.

Yes, It was JFK. And unlike Obama, JFK was not a freshman senator. He had twice as much legislative experence as does Obama. He also had the additional advantage of coming from a family of experienced and seasoned career politicians who knew all the ropes.

However, even JFK, with all these attributes could not get his progressive legislation through a congress that was controlled by his own political party.

It took a seasoned veteran of congress, Lyndon B. Johnson, to finally get the "Great Society" legislation that brought about real change in our nation, enacted into law.

That is why Hillary would be more effective as a leader of our nation. These old career entrenched members of the House & Senate with their super seniority will resent taking orders from a young man who is still "wet behind the ears". A 2 term senator and wife of a former president will carry much more weight with them.

                                                    SOL

Subject: RE: BS: McCain/Lieberman Vs. Clinton/Obama?
From: Amos
Date: 26 Mar 08 - 01:43 PM

"I am rabbi and a supporter of Barack Obama. While I don't believe that I've ever said anything quite as incendiary as Pastor Wright, I certainly would not want any of my congregants to be faulted for my sermons or my failings, no matter how egregious.

Perhaps all the hullabaloo about Pastor Wright is our inability to look deeply inside ourselves, atone for the wrongs we have committed, and look toward a leader--inspiring, dedicated, visionary, fallible--to help all of us to be more accountable, thoughtful, compassionate citizens of this great nation.

While I may vigorously oppose some of Pastor Wrights statements, this controversy and Barack Obama's leadership have called me to consider how race plays out in my own life and how I might be a bearer of justice and dignity. I welcome a leader who calls me to a higher purpose, even when that means I search my soul and atone for past wrongs, in the hope that together, we might built a brighter, more just America.

Might this hurt Obama and the Democrats in the fall? Perhaps. But I am honored to once again believe in a politics that is more than just about winning for the sake of winning. I am grateful that Senator Obama has asked each one of us how we might make our communities and our nation stronger, more whole, indeed--more perfect."

(From a WaPo commentary).

Just so too many do not get tarred with the same brush...



A

Subject: RE: BS: McCain/Lieberman Vs. Clinton/Obama?
From: GUEST,Jack the Sailor
Date: 26 Mar 08 - 01:43 PM

>>>As the Minister of my fellowship, I can preach whatever I deem to be true, without fear or reservation. The members of the congregation are free to disagree with me (and they often do). Together we engage in a creative conversation and together, we all grow and move toward a greater truth. Isn't that worth preserving?<<<

It certain is worth preserving. But not to worry, the opposition to Obama over this seems to be boiling down to those who would attack him anyway for nefarious reasons of their own.

Hannity, Coulter and Mrs. Clinton being the most notable.

Subject: RE: BS: McCain/Lieberman Vs. Clinton/Obama?
From: CarolC
Date: 26 Mar 08 - 12:07 PM

LOL

Like shooting fish in a barrel, right surfin?

Subject: RE: BS: McCain/Lieberman Vs. Clinton/Obama?
From: CarolC
Date: 26 Mar 08 - 11:12 AM

Excellent post, Dan.

Subject: RE: BS: McCain/Lieberman Vs. Clinton/Obama?
From: Dan Schatz
Date: 26 Mar 08 - 10:51 AM

Thank you, Carol, for that link. It is instructive to hear the rest of the soundbyte: "...for treating her citizens as less than human... as long as she tries to act like she is God and like she is supreme." The entire sermon is a critique of the Bush Administration's policies, based on a biblical exegesis. "God doesn't change," he says, "but governments do." And he speaks very favorably about Bill Clinton.

I preach two or three times a month in my Unitarian Universalist congregation. Sometimes I've taken strong stands on social issues - including an especially hard-hitting sermon on human rights not long ago, as well as sermons on racism, equal marriage rights and pacifism. Over the years I've said many things from the pulpit, some of which were well crafted, and some of which were probably less so. I'm sure I have said things that were poorly expressed or that represent thinking that has since shifted.

I have never written a sermon with the thought that a phrase or a half-sentence could be lifted out and meant to represent who I am as a minister or person - much less who my parishioners are.   

The sermon, whether in church, temple or mosque, is the one of the last bastions of nuanced thought, of oratory that cannot and should not be boiled down to fifteen second soundbytes. If ministers and rabbis now need to preach like politicians speak - because we know that anything we say might show up years later to be used against us - we will have lost the ability to be prophetic, to challenge social structures, to do the best of what religion can do. If we cannot risk making mistakes from time to time, even in the pulpit, then religion loses its authenticity and its power.

In my tradition we have something called a free pulpit. It boils down to this: As the Minister of my fellowship, I can preach whatever I deem to be true, without fear or reservation. The members of the congregation are free to disagree with me (and they often do). Together we engage in a creative conversation and together, we all grow and move toward a greater truth. Isn't that worth preserving?

Dan

Subject: RE: BS: McCain/Lieberman Vs. Clinton/Obama?
From: Jeri
Date: 26 Mar 08 - 09:24 AM

Jack, you don't have to try so hard.
Anybody who chooses a rumor over the truth that disproves it because the fiction supports his own hatred-driven agenda is his own worst enemy. Deliberate cluelessness.

Once a person regurgitates that Obama smear, people see what they believe is a matter of choice and they'll lose all credibility. It's not worth arguing with people who swallow stupid shit because it plays to their hatred. Either the person knows the truth and ignores it or has "consistently failed to obtain any degree of 'clue'."

Subject: RE: BS: McCain/Lieberman Vs. Clinton/Obama?
From: GUEST,Jack the Sailor
Date: 26 Mar 08 - 12:29 AM

Rabbi-Sol

If your strategy is to lie, you should wait at least 24 hours before you contradict yourself.

Date: 25 Mar 08 - 08:51 PM
>>My objection to Obama is strictly based upon his association with Rev. Wright<<

Date: 25 Mar 08 - 12:33 AM
>>>I know that you folks only want to see one side of this candidate and consider him the second comming of the Messiah. But if there is any possiblilty that he is still a Muslim, I would not want to see him in power a mere 7 years after 9/11. My memory is not that short.
I lost friends that day and if not for the grace of G-d, my dear wife would have been there that day as well.<<<

Are you actually a Rabbi? You seem to play fast and loose with the third and ninth commandments. Is it really OK to make condescending jokes about the Messiah? Its not very respectful that is sure.

Subject: RE: BS: McCain/Lieberman Vs. Clinton/Obama?
From: CarolC
Date: 26 Mar 08 - 12:21 AM

Looks like I forgot to include the link.

Rabbi Sol, it's right here in this link. The longer context...

http://www.alternet.org/blogs/election08/80481/


He is saying that the US has caused suffering for a lot of people in other countries and 9/11 was a response to that, and that instead of killing a lot of innocent people in retribution, we should go within and examine the nature of our own relationship wit God. It's all right there in the video.

Subject: RE: BS: McCain/Lieberman Vs. Clinton/Obama?
From: CarolC
Date: 26 Mar 08 - 12:17 AM

Rabbi Sol, what people are showing in the YouTube videos is edited in such a way as to make it look like the message in Reverend Wright's speech is something entirely different than what it really was. This is a fact that can be seen by anyone who is more interested in the truth than in spreading hate, as the people you have been getting your information from are doing. It's all right there in the link I provided.   

If you are more interested in the truth than in spreading hate, I think you will watch that video.

Subject: RE: BS: McCain/Lieberman Vs. Clinton/Obama?
From: Rabbi-Sol
Date: 25 Mar 08 - 11:43 PM

Carol,
       Rev. Wright's speech is on YouTube for everyone to hear. I understand English very well and he comes across quite clear. His words and meaning are unmistakable. It does not take a rocket scientist or Phd to figure out what he is saying.

                                                      SOL

Subject: RE: BS: McCain/Lieberman Vs. Clinton/Obama?
From: CarolC
Date: 25 Mar 08 - 11:07 PM

There was nothing hateful in the speech given by Reverend Wright. People who are intent on spreading hate are selectively excerpting Wright's words for the purpose of making people believe that his speech is hateful.

But when the words are heard in the longer context, they are not hateful at all. Reverend Wright was appealing to the better natures of the people in his congregation and exhorting them to look within and examine their own relationship with God rather than sinking to the level of killing innocent people in revenge for what happened on 9/11. This is the opposite of spreading hate. It is the people who are distorting his message who are spreading hate, Rabbi Sol. That would mean that it is the people you are getting your information from who are spreading hate, not the Reverent Wright.

Subject: RE: BS: McCain/Lieberman Vs. Clinton/Obama?
From: Charley Noble
Date: 25 Mar 08 - 10:22 PM

Well, the chain gets even more complicated:

Malcolm X to Louis Farrakhan to Rev. Wright to Obama. Of course there are several disconnects in the chain but why should that trouble anyone who wants to make a case against Obama or anyone else for that matter. Hell, I even lived in the same city where Malcolm X spent his teenaged years: Lansing, Michigan.

And my father gave up on his religion way back when his rabbi refused to recommend him for application to City College; the rabbi said he'd be wasting his time and should help his family run his store. Father disagreed and made it through college anyway, graduating with two degrees, one in philosophy and one in accounting; both proved useful.

Charley Noble

Subject: RE: BS: McCain/Lieberman Vs. Clinton/Obama?
From: Amos
Date: 25 Mar 08 - 10:22 PM

Wright has received letters of thanks for his services to LBJ and Ronald Reagan; he served six years in the US Navy and the US Marines.

Perhaps he is a different person than you imagine him to be because of his recent malignment. If it is just the connection to Farrakhan that informs your decision, I have n data on what that really consists of, as distinguished from what hate mongers and fear mongers have painted it to be. So I will suspend my judgement until I feel I know a bit more.




A

Subject: RE: BS: McCain/Lieberman Vs. Clinton/Obama?
From: Rabbi-Sol
Date: 25 Mar 08 - 09:34 PM

Amos,
      If I had been a member of a synagogue where the Rabbi turned out to be associated with the Neturei Karta, (the ones that embraced the President of Iran and burnt the Israeli flag), I would quit that synagogue and never set foot in there again. No matter how wise or smart that Rabbi was, I would completely disavow him and never talk to him again. And I am not running for the highest elected office in the land, where a candidate must be squeaky clean or simon pure.
If Obama was to say that Wright was a despicable person and that he would no longer associate with him or his church ever again, I would have a different opinion. However he still respects and admires him, and having Rev Wright as an adviser to the President of the United States sends chills up and down my spine. It is a scary thought indeed.

                                                   SOL

Subject: RE: BS: McCain/Lieberman Vs. Clinton/Obama?
From: Amos
Date: 25 Mar 08 - 09:04 PM

Sol:

Your position, I think, is built on fear and prejudice.

The Reverend Wright, as far as I have seen, has not demonstrated anti-semitism. If you have evidence that he has, I would like to see it.

Have you looked at the links provided here that show his remarks in fuller context?

Do you think it just, or reasonable, that Wright's opinions should be made into Obama's opinions, which are worlds different on these issues? Why is it right to drag one man through another man's opinions in the commons as though they were not widely different, when they are? Isn't that the kind of blind associative thinking that permeated the race hatred you yourself have suffered from? Why should such thinking be promulgated against others?

A

Subject: RE: BS: McCain/Lieberman Vs. Clinton/Obama?
From: Rabbi-Sol
Date: 25 Mar 08 - 08:51 PM

For the record. In both of the last 2 presidential elections I voted for the Democratic candidate. If Hillary is the nominee I will vote Democratic again.

I am now and have always been against the Iraq war. I feel that it was the stupidist foreign policy blunder in the history of our country. However, Israel had nothing to do with this war. It was strictly Dick Cheyney's greed for the oil and Dubyah's desire to finish the job that his father started but never completed.

My objection to Obama is strictly based upon his association with Rev. Wright, a man full of vitriolic hatred who's church honored none other than the arch anti-semite, Louis Farrakhan. Obama was a member of this church for the past 20 years and could not be so naive that he failed to realize what was being said and preached there. By his own admission he was close to and admired the Rev. Wright and only when the words of hatred emerged on You Tube did he disavow the offensive statements but still respects his pastor and looks up to him. I watched Obama's famous "We The People" speech in which he tries to explain everything away based upon the history of Jim Crow in this country. When you cut through all the fancy words and rhetoric that has all you folks here hypnotized, his response boils down to 4 words, "Whitey doesn't get it". Well, I have news for him. Whitey does not have to get it. We have a rule in this country that "The customer is always right" and in this case "The voter is always right". Come November people are going to vote their fears and their prejudices and McCain will see to it that Obama runs against Rev Wright just like Dukakis had to run against Willie Horton.
                                                         SOL

Subject: RE: BS: McCain/Lieberman Vs. Clinton/Obama?
From: dick greenhaus
Date: 25 Mar 08 - 06:54 PM

I guess it's a good thing that he wasn't named "Abraham"--somebody might have accused him of being a Jew.

Subject: RE: BS: McCain/Lieberman Vs. Clinton/Obama?
From: Charley Noble
Date: 25 Mar 08 - 09:20 AM

Rabbi Sol-

Sorry that I snapped at you with regard to the significance of particular names. The "Adolphs" of the world had a real hard time in World War 2 and the only thing worse would have been if my father's father (who was named Aaron) had named him "Sue." Obama's name or names should not be a subject of speculation.

However, I still find your linking of all Moslems with 9/11 misguided and even hateful, even if some of them danced in the streets in jubilation. Many more Moslems here and abroad were profoundly shocked and appalled. The real regret is that the Bush-Cheney Administration squandered this international sympathy on its discretionary war to achieve "regime change" in Iraq.

Charley Noble

Subject: RE: BS: McCain/Lieberman Vs. Clinton/Obama?
From: Barry Finn
Date: 25 Mar 08 - 03:10 AM

Rabbi, I can't believe you think that you have the gall to even print that trash. Obama, a Muslim, so what if he were (& he ain't), his middle name (his middle name could be "Fuck Off" for all that it matters) & you think that Muslims are at fault/blame for 9/11! You are as much a part of the problem as those that flew the planes into the towers then. It's the racist religious hatred & Godly Greed that's at the bottom of the troubles, here in America as well as in the Mid East. You obliviously don't have the capacity to stand in the shoes of others, you must be above that & they must be beneath you. I'm not religious so please tell me, is this how religious people think? Do you think that you are all so different from each other & so superior to one another? You seem the same to me & I don't want to see any of you in office if that's how you feel & think. I understand the religious right & how they'd love this nation to be run "for & by" them but I didn't realize that Jews & Muslims feel this way too, you can all go to hell. I always thought that religions were used to better people & society when the followers didn't/couldn't do it on their own. I never cared wither someone was religious or not or if they were what type of religion they believed in & because of this I don't know many religious people or I just don't know if they are or not. I didn't see religions as being an evil thing just a necessity for some. But I'm reassessing that at the moment. Your mention of the Jewish vote being had by the release of one man, that's pretty narrow too. Talk about a one issue vote. I see this again as being part of a tunnel vision mentality & I'm wondering if this too isn't a religious overlap. The church & state from this angle should be so far apart that the two shouldn't ever meet in the same room if possible, they shouldn't even breath the same air, it's just too deadly. As far as a canidate needing to have some kind of religious background to get voted in, you all deserve each other, just don't do any harm to us non belivers, you can go crucify yourselves though, have a party at it.

Barry

Subject: RE: BS: McCain/Lieberman Vs. Clinton/Obama?
From: GUEST,Jack the Sailor
Date: 25 Mar 08 - 01:12 AM

Christianity is not a club you join like the Elks Lodge .
Rabbi-Sol, you would be welcome in any truly Christian Church.
And you are clergy and not Christian.

You don't have to renounce anything to attend service.
Accepting Jesus into your life is a personal choice.
It is an informed choice.
Many people make it WHILE THEY ARE IN CHURCH. It would be
unthinkable to bar people from hearing the Word
BEFORE THEY RENOUNCED their OTHER BELIEFS. How would you covert them?
How could you help them if you didn't let them listen to the word?

Since you seem to be so ignorant on these matters, maybe you should watch a Billy Graham crusade. Keep in mind that, he is not preaching to the converted. He is preaching to those who want to be converted. Reverend Wright did not build a congregation of 10,000 by keeping people out.

You are obviously blaming all Muslims for the actions of a few.
You know that is wrong. You know that is evil. Be thankful that
people do not think that all members of your faith are like you.
There are all kinds of crazy clergy with strange and ignorant ideas,
In my faith and apparently in yours.

I am praying for you Rabbi-Sol I am praying that the God will soon lift this veil of hatred from your eyes.

Subject: RE: BS: McCain/Lieberman Vs. Clinton/Obama?
From: CarolC
Date: 25 Mar 08 - 01:03 AM

One more thing, Rabbi Sol...

But if there is any possiblilty that he is still a Muslim, I would not want to see him in power a mere 7 years after 9/11. My memory is not that short.

So you think that all Muslims should be held responsible for what a miniscule number of Muslims have done? Does that mean we should hold all Jews responsible for what some Jews do? Some people have a beef with the devastation caused to this country by people like Richard Perle and Paul Wolfowitz. People embracing your kind of bigotry might say they would not want to see Lieberman become our vice president because the memory of what people like Perle and Wolfowitz have done to this country is too fresh in their memories. Is there any possibility at all that if someone said that to you, you would not accuse that person of anti-Semitism? I rather doubt it.

Subject: RE: BS: McCain/Lieberman Vs. Clinton/Obama?
From: CarolC
Date: 25 Mar 08 - 12:51 AM

And by the way, Rabbi Sol, I am not an Obama supporter. It's just that I can't abide racism of any sort.

Subject: RE: BS: McCain/Lieberman Vs. Clinton/Obama?
From: CarolC
Date: 25 Mar 08 - 12:49 AM

Barack Obama was never a Muslim, Rabbi Sol. He was raised as a Christian.

Subject: RE: BS: McCain/Lieberman Vs. Clinton/Obama?
From: Rabbi-Sol
Date: 25 Mar 08 - 12:33 AM

I know that you good folks would jump down my throat even though I said that it should not be taken in a pejorative sense.

Charlie,
         My uncle, (father's older brother), his name was Adolf and he also came from Austria. But he was very tall and did not have a mustache, so I guess that did not make him a nazi. So much for names.

Here is something else to consider. Muslims do believe in Jesus as a prophet the same as they do of all biblical prophets that came before him. They only stress that Mohammed was the "last prophet" and therefore he has the final word on everything. Therefore, in order to become a Christian such as Obama did, he would not necessarily have to renounce his Muslim faith. I saw recently on another website that this is exactly the case in Obama's Church. An inquiry was made to that church by an Egyptian Muslim who was told that he could join that church without renouncing Islam and in fact the church had many members who fit into that category. When asked specificly if Barack Hussein Obama was one of those people the person on the phone would neither confirm nor deny it.

I know that you folks only want to see one side of this candidate and consider him the second comming of the Messiah. But if there is any possiblilty that he is still a Muslim, I would not want to see him in power a mere 7 years after 9/11. My memory is not that short.
I lost friends that day and if not for the grace of G-d, my dear wife would have been there that day as well.

                                                      SOL

Subject: RE: BS: McCain/Lieberman Vs. Clinton/Obama?
From: artbrooks
Date: 24 Mar 08 - 11:25 PM

And here I thought it meant "he who has many wives and writes bad poetry"...

Subject: RE: BS: McCain/Lieberman Vs. Clinton/Obama?
From: Ebbie
Date: 24 Mar 08 - 09:09 PM

Incidentally, I understand that "Solomon" means "peaceful". Obviously, ascribed meanings are not always accurate. :)

Subject: RE: BS: McCain/Lieberman Vs. Clinton/Obama?
From: Charley Noble
Date: 24 Mar 08 - 09:01 PM

Dear Rabbi Sol-

If you would like to play games with names, my father's name was "Adolph." Now in your opinion did that make him a Nazi during World War 2? Some of his neighbors thought so, and reported him to the FBI.

What kind of mischief are you indulging in if you think a candidate's name has some significance? I am extremely offended and disappointed by your persistent posts on this question.

Charley Noble

Subject: RE: BS: McCain/Lieberman Vs. Clinton/Obama?
From: CarolC
Date: 24 Mar 08 - 08:57 PM

Rabbi Sol, I think you might need to start getting your information from some new sources. The ones you've got now are lying to you, and it kind of looks like they're doing it for nefarious reasons.

Obama is of Luo ancestry, and the name is from the Luo people and language, not Swahili. This is the only meaning I have been able to find so far for the name Obama...

a Luo name (male) from Western Kenya (Nyanza Provice) which may derive from "obam," which conotes "bending" or "leaning".

http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20080127090913AAMqwIr


I know you said you didn't mean anything by it, but I think the only reason someone would spread that kind of falsehood would be in order to smear someone. This is very sad for two reasons. The first one being that people would stoop to that kind of dirty smear against a political candidate, and the second being that people are promoting the idea that a Muslim couldn't be a good president of this country. There are many Muslims in the world who have every bit as much goodness and capability as any Jew, Christian, Hindu, or any other religion or any people of no religion.

Subject: RE: BS: McCain/Lieberman Vs. Clinton/Obama?
From: Amos
Date: 24 Mar 08 - 08:43 PM

Just in the interests of truth, Rabbi, a virtue we can all surely agree on, the following from the National Review:

"Before ducking off from the press scrum, Obama took a moment to explain that his first name is Swahili, and means "one who is blessed by God." It also relates, through Arabic and Semitic roots, to the Hebrew baruch, which means "blessed."

An African-American Senate candidate who can speak a little Hebrew? Could focus groups have come up with a better candidate for a diverse America?

The good news for Democrats is that Obama seems like the real deal Ñ he hasn't made any nutty statements, he avoided gloating during the scandal-tinged implosion of his GOP rival, Jack Ryan, and he appears situated to cruise to a November 2 victory."

I've seen anumber of references--none authoritative-- to the notion that the Swahili word Obama itself refers to Luo Africans who were converted to Muslim. But Barack Obama is an American. Or have you forgotten that part?

A


A

Subject: RE: BS: McCain/Lieberman Vs. Clinton/Obama?
From: Ebbie
Date: 24 Mar 08 - 08:33 PM

Rabbi Sol says: I was told that the name "Obama" in Swahili is translated as "He who converted to Islam".

Rabbi, even *if* (which, frankly, I doubt) Obama in Swahili means "He who converted to Islam", it would NOT refer to Barack Obama, Junior's spiritual journey in any way. As is fairly common, he inherited and perpetuates the name of his father.

It amazes me that some people don't recognize the racist nature of their posts.

Subject: RE: BS: McCain/Lieberman Vs. Clinton/Obama?
From: Rabbi-Sol
Date: 24 Mar 08 - 08:05 PM

I was told that the name "Obama" in Swahili is translated as "He who converted to Islam".

That is NOT meant as a pejorative statement. Just a point of information while we are on the subject of names.

                                                    SOL

Subject: RE: BS: McCain/Lieberman Vs. Clinton/Obama?
From: MarkS
Date: 24 Mar 08 - 07:36 PM

As long as we are having fun with names, maybe somebody could post Obamas mothers first name.

Subject: RE: BS: McCain/Lieberman Vs. Clinton/Obama?
From: GUEST,mg
Date: 24 Mar 08 - 07:23 PM

I think HRC was somewhat upper middle class..don't know for sure..but weren't her father's family Pennsylvania coal miners perhaps? Not too aristocratic there..maybe her mother was more so. mg

Subject: RE: BS: McCain/Lieberman Vs. Clinton/Obama?
From: GUEST
Date: 24 Mar 08 - 05:56 PM

>>Did the Israeli embassy immediately turn him over to the US authorities? Did he continue to spy?

If the answers are "no" then Israel was our enemy in this instance and the Mossad or something equivalent was involved.<<

"no" should be "YES"

Subject: RE: BS: McCain/Lieberman Vs. Clinton/Obama?
From: GUEST,Jack the Sailor
Date: 24 Mar 08 - 05:53 PM

Rabbi Sol,

Did the Israeli embassy immediately turn him over to the US authorities? Did he continue to spy?

If the answers are "no" then Israel was our enemy in this instance and the Mossad or something equivalent was involved.

We've argued this before you and I but I think that the crux of our difference boils down to my desire to see those who spy for Israel, or any other country, thoroughly deterred. I don't think you would be so concerned had Pollard been Anglican and had given information to the British.

Pollard and many like him have mixed loyalties and their motivations are much stronger than a man selling secrets for yacht money.

Subject: RE: BS: McCain/Lieberman Vs. Clinton/Obama?
From: Rabbi-Sol
Date: 24 Mar 08 - 04:50 PM

Jack,
      For the record, Pollard was not working for the Mosad.

He was working for himself and took it upon himself to provide the classified information directly to the Israeli Embassy. He felt that this was information that Israel, an allie of the United States should have had and was being witheld.

Was he wrong? Absolutely yes.

Should he have been punished? Absolutely yes.

Was a life sentence in solitary confinement, after the government reneged on a guity plea, a fair punishment? In light of the fact that people who spied for the Soviet Union, an enemy of the USA at that time, were released from prison after serving their sentences,
a resounding NO.

I know that Joe Lieberman disagrees with me on this and you do too.
So Jack, you are in good company on this one.

                                                         SOL