If you haven't heard, the LA Times apparently has some video of Obama and some Death-to-Israel Palestinian professor. Presumably it would be damaging to Obama, the McCain campaign is demanding the Times release the video, and the Times is refusing.
I was thinking: if this video serves to make Obama look bad but doesn't reveal anything that many people already suspect about the man (i.e., just another example of him trying to be all things to all people in an effort to further his political career, no news there) then shouldn't they just release the video?
Because the fact that they admit such a video exists only serves to let everyone's imagination run wild, and if it's not that bad then surely people will imagine it must be worse than than it actually is.
For my part, I figure that if the Times is aware of this fact (as they must be,) then they must be weighing that against the actual harm the video itself would cause and are choosing the less damaging option. This would imply that the video is actually worse than the average person is likely to imagine.
Then again, they could be telling the truth that they cannot release the video because the conditions under which they acquired it restrict them from doing so, regardless of the harm it does Obama. But somehow I doubt they are placing their journalistic integrity above getting Obama elected. I mean, why start now?
Posted by Javert (Member # 3076) on :
"Presumably it would be damaging to Obama, the McCain campaign is demanding the Times release the video, and the Times is refusing."
If it's the same guy they've been harping on since yesterday, he was given something like a million dollars by McCain in the past few years.
Posted by Javert (Member # 3076) on :
quote:The Verdict: Misleading. While Khalidi eight years ago hosted a political fund-raiser for Obama, the two men strongly disagree over the Israeli-Palestinian issue and there's no evidence of a continuing political relationship.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
Sounds alot like that "tape," "somebody" had that shows Michelle Obama railing about, "whitey."
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
Why is it "presumably" damaging to Obama?
Also, why are you encouraging someone to break their word? They promised not to release the tape as a condition of receiving it. Outside the legal limits of that promise - say, a legal subpoena - they should honor their word.
Posted by lobo (Member # 1761) on :
Last minute surprises are cheap. This has been known for 6 months... Reminds me of the "Bush DWI" surprise 8 years ago...
Can't wait for Tuesday when this will be over!
Posted by ClaudiaTherese (Member # 923) on :
quote:Originally posted by lobo: Can't wait for Tuesday when this will be over!
Oh heavens, yes. Jon Stewart had a correspondent with a piece on that which was brilliant.
Posted by lem (Member # 6914) on :
quote:If it's the same guy they've been harping on since yesterday, he was given something like a million dollars by McCain in the past few years.
It is the same guy, and the International Republican Institute with McCain as the chairman gave almost $500,000 dollars to him.
Of course you ain't gonna hear Rush or Hannity talk about that. I think money shows a lot more support then a toast.
quote: That same year, Khalidi helped found the Center for Palestine Research and Studies, self-described as “an independent academic research and policy analysis institution” created to meet “the need for active Palestinian scholarship on issues related to Palestine.” (Its archived Web site is HERE.)
Khalidi was on the board of trustees through 1999.
According to tax returns, the McCain-chaired IRI funded the organization Khalidi founded and served on to the tune of $448,873 in 1998 (click HERE to see the tax return)* as first reported by Seth Couter Walls at HuffPo.
The IRI continued to give money to the CPRS after Khalidi left the group as well.
Posted by aspectre (Member # 2222) on :
"I was thinking..."
No you weren't. The LosAngelesTimes is owned by SamZell, a heavy contributor to Israel and to Republicans. If there were anything disturbing on the video, he would have ordered it's release.
QED : Continuing the spread of a malicious rumor is more useful to the McCain campaign than airing the video.
[ October 30, 2008, 01:25 PM: Message edited by: aspectre ]
Posted by David G (Member # 8872) on :
Senator Obama should be commended for being the kind of person who does not judge others for having views contrary to his own. He has no problem socializing and associating with people who hold drastically differing beliefs. Perhaps he enjoys associating with others who have very different beliefs as do some intellectuals who embrace differences and relish debating difficult issues without making it personal.
The CNN article cited by Javert reports that Obama and Khalidi's families became friends and dinner companions. Even though Obama proclaims to be a staunch supporter of Israel, he has no compunction being friends and associating with someone who is an activist for Palestinian causes and a critic of Israel. This doesn't mean that Obama really doesn't support Israel, it just means that Obama can see past a person's beliefs and views and associate with those that hold very different beliefs and views.
So it was with Reverend Jeremiah Wright. Obama was Wright's friend and member of his congregation for many years, even when Wright publicly espoused views that some consider racist. This doesn't mean that Obama shared Wright's racist views. It just means that he was able to look past Wright's views and refrain from judging Wright unfairly for views that, although Obama deemed them wrong, nevertheless were excusable under the circumstances.
So it was with William Ayers. Obama was capable of associating with Ayers, not because Obama shared Ayers's beliefs, but because he wasn't about to judge Ayers for his past behavior and beliefs.
All of this merely is evidence of Obama's equanimity, open mindedness, and refusal to be judgmental. This means, for example, that staunch supporters of the Palestinians and critics of Israel will feel comfortable talking with Obama. They will feel that Obama will listen to them - without judging them. Perhaps, too, by giving everyone a fair shake, the rest of the world will stop hating America for being so judgmental.
Shouldn't Obama be praised for these qualities? Shouldn't the accusations of guilt by association cease already?
Shouldn't everyone just stop doubting anything and everything Obama says? He says he is a supporter of Israel. So let's take him at his word and stop accusing him of misleading those whose votes he seeks to win.
If we have learned anything from Obama over the past year, we should learn from his example the value of not being judgmental. And in following Obama's example, should we not just stop judging Obama?
Posted by sndrake (Member # 4941) on :
quote: Why is it "presumably" damaging to Obama?
Also, why are you encouraging someone to break their word? They promised not to release the tape as a condition of receiving it. Outside the legal limits of that promise - say, a legal subpoena - they should honor their word.
There you go again, Dag. Jumping in with your knee-jerk defenses of... Obama.
Slippery defender of anti-American liberals! (shakes fist angrily)
Posted by Reshpeckobiggle (Member # 8947) on :
quote:Originally posted by aspectre: "I was thinking..."
No you weren't.
I don't see the point of making such a nasty remark. How about I point out your incorrect use of the contraction "it's" in your following paragraph. What are you, an idiot? You don't know the difference between "it's" and "its?"
quote: The LosAngelesTimes is owned by SamZell, a heavy contributor to Israel and to Republicans. If there were anything disturbing on the video, he would have ordered it's release.
QED : Continuing the spread of a malicious rumor is more useful to the McCain campaign than airing the video.
So my post makes sense in light of what you're saying, because if Sam Zell is actually pulling for McCain (in spite of what their editorial page says) then that would explain everything.
Dag, presumably the video is damaging to Obama because the McCain camp and Fox News think the Times should release the video to the public.
Was I expressing any form of support for what is (or isn't) happening? I wish the media would place their journalistic integrity over political considerations, and I'd like to think that the Times' explanation is the truth. I just doubt it. Media objectivity has been out the window for a good long while now.
[edit] Ok, I reread my first post and I see what you mean. It does look like I was supporting the release of the video. So, let me correct myself and say that I don't think they should release the video, and not only because keeping it hidden helps McCain.
Posted by Ron Lambert (Member # 2872) on :
"While Khalidi eight years ago hosted a political fund-raiser for Obama...."
I believe the banquet were Obama spoke to honor Khalidi was in 2003.
Someone noticed that the LA Times mentioned in its article that it had received a recording of the event. So it has just now been brought to the attention of everyone that the Times has this recording.
The Times (known, of course, for its strict adherence to journalistic ethics where reporting on Obama is concerned) has piously claimed it promised not to release the recording. This is not a matter of the press protecting its sources, this is a matter of the press refusing to provide documentation it has already stated that it has. I do not care who recorded the video. I just want to see the video. This was a public event, so the public has a right to see it.
Posted by El JT de Spang (Member # 7742) on :
That's ridiculous. The event was public, so you had a right to see it. When it happened.
The recording of the event is private property, and you have no right to see it if the owners choose not to show it to you.
Posted by Reshpeckobiggle (Member # 8947) on :
That's true, we don't have a right to see it, but we do have a right to make whatever assumptions as to the reasons why it is being withheld. And Lambert is also correct; if it is a recording of a public event, then there could not possibly be any sort of expectation of secrecy between the Times and the event organizers or whomever.
"Oh, but we promised!" No you didn't. Why would you do that? And even if some photographer made such a stupid promise, why would the paper be expected to keep that promise? What's gonna happen? The next time someone holds a public event, the Times won't be invited to show up?
The Times is playing politics here, pure and simple. But for which side...?
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
Why do you think it was a public event? Do you mean open to the public?
Posted by Reshpeckobiggle (Member # 8947) on :
Whom are you asking, km? Because I don't personally know. I'm going by what JT is saying.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
Who, it appears, was going off what Ron wrote.
Ron, why do you think it was a public event?
And, honestly, where did we get the idea that we can't have friends and associates without agreeing with them on everything?
Posted by El JT de Spang (Member # 7742) on :
Actually, it was Ron that said the event was open to the public.
Posted by Reshpeckobiggle (Member # 8947) on :
Oh yeah, that's true. OK, so I'm going by what Ron said. It's just that you said it with such authority that I thought you were both speaking from a position of common knowledge.
km, where did you get the idea that any of us have the idea that we can't have friends and associates without agreeing with them on everything?
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:Dag, presumably the video is damaging to Obama because the McCain camp and Fox News think the Times should release the video to the public.
If they know what's on it, they should tell us. If they don't, then how is their opinion that the video should be released evidence of its effects?
quote:The Times (known, of course, for its strict adherence to journalistic ethics where reporting on Obama is concerned) has piously claimed it promised not to release the recording.
If they didn't make the promise, then they would deserve condemnation. If they made the promise, then they're not "piously claiming" anything; they're being honorable. If you have evidence of the former, I'd love to hear it.
Posted by Reshpeckobiggle (Member # 8947) on :
Well, shoot. It looks like it all hinges on whether this was a public or private event. If only there were some way to find out... some tool, that might allow one to search out information... perhaps in a manner using digital information that is easily accessible to anyone, anywhere...
Posted by Ron Lambert (Member # 2872) on :
Here is an excerpt from an LA Times article about the "celebration" of Khalidi:
quote:It was a celebration of Palestinian culture -- a night of music, dancing and a dash of politics. Local Arab Americans were bidding farewell to Rashid Khalidi, an internationally known scholar, critic of Israel and advocate for Palestinian rights, who was leaving town for a job in New York.
A special tribute came from Khalidi's friend and frequent dinner companion, the young state Sen. Barack Obama. Speaking to the crowd, Obama reminisced about meals prepared by Khalidi's wife, Mona, and conversations that had challenged his thinking.
His many talks with the Khalidis, Obama said, had been "consistent reminders to me of my own blind spots and my own biases. . . . It's for that reason that I'm hoping that, for many years to come, we continue that conversation -- a conversation that is necessary not just around Mona and Rashid's dinner table," but around "this entire world."
The story was written by Peter Wallsten, Los Angeles Times Staff Writer. If a reporter representing the LA Times was present, the event could hardly be construed to be private.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:Well, shoot. It looks like it all hinges on whether this was a public or private event. If only there were some way to find out... some tool, that might allow one to search out information... perhaps in a manner using digital information that is easily accessible to anyone, anywhere...
I would suggest that the one making the accusation might take the initiative to do that.
Of course, you've misstated the issue. Whether the event was public or private doesn't matter to whether the Times made a promise or not.
Posted by Ron Lambert (Member # 2872) on :
The real question is whether the promise the Times said it made five years ago to someone who recorded what was obviously a public event, should have any weight. Note this is not a matter of keeping a source confidential. It is a matter of making public documentation that it is in the public's interest to know.
Perhaps the Times might consider providing a written transcript of what was said, especially by Obama. Or are they afraid to do even that, lest it reveal something too embarassing for Obama in the upcoming election?
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:The real question is whether the promise the Times said it made five years ago to someone who recorded what was obviously a public event, should have any weight.
I wouldn't care to transact business with anyone for whom that is a "real question."
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
quote:Originally posted by Ron Lambert: Here is an excerpt from an LA Times article about the "celebration" of Khalidi:
quote:It was a celebration of Palestinian culture -- a night of music, dancing and a dash of politics. Local Arab Americans were bidding farewell to Rashid Khalidi, an internationally known scholar, critic of Israel and advocate for Palestinian rights, who was leaving town for a job in New York.
A special tribute came from Khalidi's friend and frequent dinner companion, the young state Sen. Barack Obama. Speaking to the crowd, Obama reminisced about meals prepared by Khalidi's wife, Mona, and conversations that had challenged his thinking.
His many talks with the Khalidis, Obama said, had been "consistent reminders to me of my own blind spots and my own biases. . . . It's for that reason that I'm hoping that, for many years to come, we continue that conversation -- a conversation that is necessary not just around Mona and Rashid's dinner table," but around "this entire world."
The story was written by Peter Wallsten, Los Angeles Times Staff Writer. If a reporter representing the LA Times was present, the event could hardly be construed to be private.
That doesn't say that the reporter was present (he could have talked to people who were) and, even if he were present, that does not make it a public event. We hold many events at the university that are not open to the public yet still have press coverage.
If the LA Times wanted to suppress the story, why would they have published the story?
And, again, why do we care? What, exactly, is wrong with associating with and even befriending people who disagree with you? I think that the ability to listen to opposing viewpoints without demonizing the people who hold those views is a strength in a president.
edited for unecessily snarkiness.
[ October 30, 2008, 05:58 PM: Message edited by: kmbboots ]
Posted by James Tiberius Kirk (Member # 2832) on :
quote:The Verdict: Misleading. While Khalidi eight years ago hosted a political fund-raiser for Obama, the two men strongly disagree over the Israeli-Palestinian issue and there's no evidence of a continuing political relationship.
In other words, "keep digging."
--j_k
Posted by ClaudiaTherese (Member # 923) on :
I'm getting the feeling that I'm supposed to care about this.
Posted by Reshpeckobiggle (Member # 8947) on :
I hope everyone has noted that in this thread I never passed judgment on anything Obama did. My criticism is of the LA Times, and the media in general. If any of you still think they're just doing a bang-up job, then you need to spend some time doing origami or wilderness survival training or something, because you've lost your grip on reality and need something to bring you back to Earth.
Posted by scifibum (Member # 7625) on :
Resh, I do not think your sense that they don't care about integrity and are in the bag for Obama is convincing evidence that in this case the LA Times is lying about the reasons for keeping the video private.
Posted by Reshpeckobiggle (Member # 8947) on :
I don't think so either, for what it's worth. The fact that they don't care about journalistic integrity is just a reason for me to be skeptical when they use the Journalistic Integrity Argument to excuse their protectionism.
You know, because they don't have any integrity. Ok, I know it's circular, but I'm still right. The media lie more than politicians, and that's saying something.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
I think the media, at least the major news outlets, have only a passing fancy with trying to get a particular candidate elected. If that wasn't true, they'd call a spade a spade and stop trying to give everyone equal coverage when they don't deserve it.
I think if there's any other reason than their promise not to, they aren't showing this because it's not a big deal, and the hype they get in the form of attention from NOT showing it gets them more attention than actually showing it would. Some of them probably care and actively try to get a candidate elected, and I don't necessarily have a problem with that, depending on their reasons. Journalistic independence isn't nearly as old as some of you might think.
Posted by Reshpeckobiggle (Member # 8947) on :
I don't think it ever really existed in the first place, Lyrhawn. I do think they have more than just a "passing fancy" with getting Obama elected. But your second paragraph definitely has the ring of truth to it.
[ October 30, 2008, 07:18 PM: Message edited by: Reshpeckobiggle ]
Posted by T:man (Member # 11614) on :
I believe that all people are biased, how you are biased can color where you get your news. MSNBC is fairly liberal, CNN is just barely liberal, while Fox is extremely conservative. There is not many news outlets that are not biased at all. But MSNBC covers republican events as well as democratic ones, while having commentators from opposite sides of the political spectrum. The news stations do color how they see an event, based on their biases.
...IDK....
Posted by ElJay (Member # 6358) on :
The impression I got from the articles I read is NOT that the Times had a videographer at the event 5 years ago and that they were allowed to tape in return for the promise, as Ron says, but rather that during the research for this article they came across someone who had a tape that was made at the event who agreed to let them view it as part of their research on the condition that they did not make it public. Either way, I think they should stick with their promise unless faced with a subpoena. But I do think the two interpretations are very different -- in one case, it would be their own tape, and in the other it would be someone else's intellectual property that they were allowed to use with preconditions, and if they were to go back on those preconditions no source would have any reason to trust them again.
Posted by Enigmatic (Member # 7785) on :
quote: 00:11:56 - Khalidi dips a chip in some onion dip. It breaks in two. Khalidi says to Obama, "Heh heh. It's like this chip is Palestine and the onion dip is Israel and the weak-kneed Americans who defend her." 00:12:05 - Camera holds on Obama. His face is uncertain. Like he is unsure whether to laugh, applaud, walk away, or admonish Khalidi. 00:12:20 - A small smile appears on Obama's lips.
--Enigmatic
Posted by Reshpeckobiggle (Member # 8947) on :
Brilliant!
Posted by T:man (Member # 11614) on :
Enigmatic... I read your name as Lyrhawn, then I thought wtf is enigmatics signature doing there?....
Posted by ElJay (Member # 6358) on :
For some clarity on this matter, let's go to the LA Times.
quote:The Times on Tuesday issued a statement about its decision not to post the tape.
"The Los Angeles Times did not publish the videotape because it was provided to us by a confidential source who did so on the condition that we not release it," said the newspaper's editor, Russ Stanton. "The Times keeps its promises to sources."
Jamie Gold, the newspaper's readers' representative, said in a statement: "More than six months ago the Los Angeles Times published a detailed account of the events shown on the videotape. The Times is not suppressing anything. Just the opposite -- the L.A. Times brought the matter to light."
Retraction, Ron?
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
my hat is here ready to get eaten in that event.
Posted by Kwea (Member # 2199) on :
I brought the dip. He should be here any second......
Posted by twinky (Member # 693) on :
This is just like the "secret Muslim" thing. The real question is not "why won't they release this video," or even "what is the nature of Obama's relationship with Rashid Khalidi?"
The real question is: why is this even an issue?
Posted by ClaudiaTherese (Member # 923) on :
I would really like to read an explanation of just what someone who is seriously perturbed by Obama actually thinks will happen in his four-year term as Presidency. What is it that you seriously think has a good chance of happening that should generally be feared?
I know what my concerns were about Bush's second term, back in 2004. I was worried we would lose more civil liberties as time went on under him, that the economy would worsen (I didn't expect this much, but I was worried about the lack of healthcare access and such impacting individuals on a growing scale), that we would still be in Iraq, and that our military would not have its needs taken care of while still fighting that war (both those in the field and those they left at home).
I was also worried we'd openly attack yet another country, but we haven't. The rest came pretty much true, and I think I was correct to be worried about it.
So, what is it for you and Obama?
[ October 31, 2008, 12:23 PM: Message edited by: ClaudiaTherese ]
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
quote:Originally posted by Dagonee: Why is it "presumably" damaging to Obama?
Also, why are you encouraging someone to break their word? They promised not to release the tape as a condition of receiving it. Outside the legal limits of that promise - say, a legal subpoena - they should honor their word.
Well, the way he phrased it, I think he's been learning a little something from the rhetoric getting thrown around in this election season. As someone pointed out, it's no longer: "How often do you beat your wife," but instead: "As a wife beater, how do you feel about the issues?"
In his scenario, the fact that the times made a promise not to release the tape, regardless of any other detail, is immaterial. It must be damaging, because it will not be seen. The part where the times and Obama is damned either way apparently inspires no sympathy. I don't really know if this is a "republican" way of thinking, but it seems to fall under the "you should only worry if you have nothing to hide" argument that I have heard from some conservatives. That's a strangely anti-conservative position, so I'm always, always perplexed when I run across it.
Posted by Xaposert (Member # 1612) on :
Or how about this real questions: Why would Republicans expect any part of the media to compromise themselves to do John McCain a favor when the Republican Party has spent the last year dragging the media through the mud as much as politically possible?
Republicans should take a lesson from basketball coaches: If you work the refs a little bit, you might be able to get some calls. But if you work the refs too much, the refs either start ignoring you or throw you out of the gym.
Posted by ClaudiaTherese (Member # 923) on :
PS: I wasn't afraid of a GWB presidency in 2000, for what it's worth. He wasn't my candidate, but I wasn't afraid of it.
Similarly, I'm not afraid of a McCain presidency. I think the country would be worse off than under Obama, but I don't think he'd steer the ship into a downward spiral. I think we'll be better off in two years, even under McCain rather than my candidate, than we are now under GWB.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:I would really like to read an explanation of just what someone who is seriously perturbed by Obama actually thinks will happen in his four-year term as Presidency. What is it that you seriously think has a good chance of happening that should generally be feared?
The only thing I actually fear about an Obama presidency is his judicial appointments.
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
Does the fact that he is himself a lawyer not cut any ice for you? What about his appointments could be potentially damaging, to your mind?
Posted by Wendybird (Member # 84) on :
While it is commendable to not judge people and to show respect for others beliefs it is a different matter entirely to continue a relationship with someone over many years with which you have fundamental belief differences. Look at your close friends - those you spend the most time with tend to be those you have the most in common with...
That said...
Is it too late to throw them both out and start over Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:Does the fact that he is himself a lawyer not cut any ice for you?
It's the fact that he is a lawyer, and that I therefore have a relative certainty about how he's using certain words in certain statements he's made, that make me fear his judicial appointments.
quote:What about his appointments could be potentially damaging, to your mind?
The obvious issue is abortion, but there's much more too it than that. I'm not inclined to go into details at the moment. I was simply responding to CT's question.
Posted by ClaudiaTherese (Member # 923) on :
quote:Originally posted by Dagonee:
quote:I would really like to read an explanation of just what someone who is seriously perturbed by Obama actually thinks will happen in his four-year term as Presidency. What is it that you seriously think has a good chance of happening that should generally be feared?
The only thing I actually fear about an Obama presidency is his judicial appointments.
I thought of you, and I figured that would be your response. (This is not in a negative way, Dagonee -- purely with appreciation and affection.) That already made sense to me, for what it's worth, but I'm glad you chimed in, too.
I figured you'd commit to being concerned about his judicial appointments even if the actual number of intended abortions went down during his term, because I figured the longlasting judicial shift in principles would concern you. Again, that made sense to me, given what we've already discussed between us.
Other things I hear don't make as much sense to me, but I can't tell if I'm misreading people, or misreading the situation, or something.
Posted by ClaudiaTherese (Member # 923) on :
quote:Originally posted by Wendybird: [QB] While it is commendable to not judge people and to show respect for others beliefs it is a different matter entirely to continue a relationship with someone over many years with which you have fundamental belief differences. Look at your close friends - those you spend the most time with tend to be those you have the most in common with...
What does that mean? Could you share specifics about what you are worried might really happen?
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
quote:Originally posted by Wendybird: While it is commendable to not judge people and to show respect for others beliefs it is a different matter entirely to continue a relationship with someone over many years with which you have fundamental belief differences. Look at your close friends - those you spend the most time with tend to be those you have the most in common with...
That said...
Is it too late to throw them both out and start over
That is not true for me. Most of the people I associate with share similar political views, but that is because I live in a very "blue" city in a very "blue" county in a very "blue" state and I work at a university. But I have very close relationships with people who disagree with me.
I also have lots of friends and loved ones who differ with me on religious matters - also pretty fundamental. There is a whole range of things that you can have in common with someone without agreeing with them on, for example, middle east policy.
Posted by blindsay (Member # 11787) on :
quote:Originally posted by Orincoro: Does the fact that he is himself a lawyer not cut any ice for you? What about his appointments could be potentially damaging, to your mind?
Perhaps I am misunderstanding you, but are you saying that since Obama is a lawyer his appointments would always be the correct ones to make?
Posted by MattP (Member # 10495) on :
quote:While it is commendable to not judge people and to show respect for others beliefs it is a different matter entirely to continue a relationship with someone over many years with which you have fundamental belief differences. Look at your close friends - those you spend the most time with tend to be those you have the most in common with...
As a liberal atheist in Utah, I have fundamental belief differences with *most* of the people that I spend most of my time with, including family, friends, and coworkers. It seems to work out OK and I would hope that it wouldn't some day be used against me or them.
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
quote:Originally posted by blindsay:
quote:Originally posted by Orincoro: Does the fact that he is himself a lawyer not cut any ice for you? What about his appointments could be potentially damaging, to your mind?
Perhaps I am misunderstanding you, but are you saying that since Obama is a lawyer his appointments would always be the correct ones to make?
No, but as a lawyer, and as a specialist (isn't he?) in constitutional law, I'd argue that he probably had at least come across the distinction between what he believes is right, and the law. That's not something I would say of Bush, and not something I would necessarily say about McCain either.
Not to say you should trust him because he is a lawyer- I just wanted to know if Dag felt that any political or ideological move Obama might be tempted to make could be tempered by his education, which included studies in ethics. Now, The Clintons are lawyers, and the answer for them would *probably* be no.
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
quote:Originally posted by Wendybird: While it is commendable to not judge people and to show respect for others beliefs it is a different matter entirely to continue a relationship with someone over many years with which you have fundamental belief differences. Look at your close friends - those you spend the most time with tend to be those you have the most in common with...
This is not true for me. I have numerous friends with widely varying political, religious, cultural, ethical and lifestyle values. Some of them have been close friends for decades despite our disagreements on vary fundamental issues.
When I was a teenager, a respected teacher of mine told me that one good way to assess whether you were developing true Christ like love was to look at your friends. If your friends all looked like you, thought like you and acted like you then all you really knew how to love was yourself. The more diversity you found in your friends in terms of age, culture, values, etc -- the more you were learning to see and love people as God sees them and loves them. I have tried to put this into practice and seek to find common ground that allows me to enjoy and appreciate the company of people who are very different from me.
For that reason, I see it as a character strength when people associate and befriend themselves with people who they disagree with and not as evidence that they are hypocritical or hiding their true beliefs. I suppose the latter could be true but I remember that Jesus was criticized for being friends with "sinners". If I am in err, I vastly prefer to err in having presumed people were better than they really are than worse.
Posted by ClaudiaTherese (Member # 923) on :
(Wendybird, I'm worried that my quoting you and asking for clarification will come across as a challenge to your right to hold your view. That isn't what I intend at all. I am just unclear as to what a lot of people are thinking -- and again, it may well be something I fail to bring to the table. That's happened before, and it will happen again, I'm sure.)
Posted by David G (Member # 8872) on :
Has anyone here associated and befriended himself or herself with a person who espouses racist beliefs? Do you see that as a character "strength" or "weakness"?
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
quote:Originally posted by David G: Has anyone here associated and befriended himself or herself with a person who espouses racist beliefs? Do you see that as a character "strength" or "weakness"?
Sure. Not KKK members or anything, but certainly people who hold certain ideas about people who are of a different race. In some cases, we get into interesting discussions, in some cases (often with people of an older generation) I just focus on the things I like about that person.
Do you mean a strength or weakness in me or in them? I think it is often edifying for me. It is not my favorite trait in another person.
Honestly, if I could only be friends with perfect people, I would be so lonely!
CT, I started my reply to Wendybird's post before I even saw yours. Not your fault.
Posted by MattP (Member # 10495) on :
quote:Originally posted by David G: Has anyone here associated and befriended himself or herself with a person who espouses racist beliefs? Do you see that as a character "strength" or "weakness"?
Not that I'm aware of, but I wouldn't consider that a deal breaker, depending on the nature of the racism. I am friends with a number of people that I consider to be bigoted in one respect or another.
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
quote:Originally posted by David G: Has anyone here associated and befriended himself or herself with a person who espouses racist beliefs? Do you see that as a character "strength" or "weakness"?
Yes. One of my older colleagues at MSU occasionally expressed shockingly racist views, but I respected him on many other issues and enjoyed his company and mourned his death.
My grandfather, who I loved dearly, and who was kind and giving and would never have mistreated another human held some astonishingly racist views.
Yes, I consider racism to be a character flaw but if I couldn't befriend people who had character flaws, I wouldn't have any friends.
Posted by ClaudiaTherese (Member # 923) on :
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots: Sure. Not KKK members or anything, but certainly people who hold certain ideas about people who are of a different race. In some cases, we get into interesting discussions, in some cases (often with people of an older generation) I just focus on the things I like about that person.
Certainly for me, as well, with persons of older generations. And it has been delightful to watch some of them change their perspectives, some times of which they themselves attribute to being around younger people.
For me, this was often unavoidable. Family, the elderly couple next door in the duplex, etc.
quote:CT, I started my reply to Wendybird's post before I even saw yours. Not your fault.
Oh, not at all. I came back and wrote my addendum without reading yours, as well. I was feeling bad because I hadn't seen Wendybird post in awhile, and I really was asking the question generally.
I think it's fine to talk about this amongst ourselves, good, even. As the person who posed the initial question, I just wanted to be extra careful.
Posted by dkw (Member # 3264) on :
quote:Originally posted by Wendybird: While it is commendable to not judge people and to show respect for others beliefs it is a different matter entirely to continue a relationship with someone over many years with which you have fundamental belief differences. Look at your close friends - those you spend the most time with tend to be those you have the most in common with...
I disagree. Yes, I have many friends who I agree with politically and religiously. But I also have friends (and even family members!) who I agree with religiously but not politically, or the reverse, or even have profound disagreements with in both areas.
I find the idea that one couldn't "continue a relationship with someone over many years with which you have fundamental belief differences" to be strange and sad.
Edit: Ahh, another page. I hope this doesn't look like a dogpile. And to answer the above question, yes, I have associated with some people who were clearly and openly racist. It startled me when it came out, and I certainly tried to present a different view, but I didn't suddenly dump them as friends.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
About the only things that are likely to be even close to 'deal breaker' for me are some types of racism, some types of anti-homosexuality, and if they are an abusive or controlling partner in a relationship.
Besides that I butt heads with people about all sorts of topics and we're all wonderfully different and we love it.
Posted by Xaposert (Member # 1612) on :
quote:While it is commendable to not judge people and to show respect for others beliefs it is a different matter entirely to continue a relationship with someone over many years with which you have fundamental belief differences. Look at your close friends - those you spend the most time with tend to be those you have the most in common with...
I also disagree with this. I'd be inclined to think that the ability to appreciate and be friends with someone who is fundamentally different from you is a sign of, and possibly a prerequisite for, wisdom.
Posted by Unicorn Feelings (Member # 11784) on :
quote:Originally posted by Reshpeckobiggle: I hope everyone has noted that in this thread I never passed judgment on anything Obama did. My criticism is of the LA Times, and the media in general. If any of you still think they're just doing a bang-up job, then you need to spend some time doing origami or wilderness survival training or something, because you've lost your grip on reality and need something to bring you back to Earth.
I agree. The media is not doing a bang up job. But I also think our politicians are not doing a bang up job, and our Churches are not doing s bang up job and our schools are not doing a bang up job and our corporations are not doing a bang up job.
In conclusion, only our Soldiers and the Tampa Bay Devil Rays are doing a bang up job.
...but I guess we should only expect near perfection from our media, because, uh....
Posted by Reshpeckobiggle (Member # 8947) on :
Well hell, I'm not exactly doing a bang-up job in my own life, but I'm doing well enough, I guess. I don't expect anyone to perform perfectly, but I'd like to see some effort from time to time.
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)