What's in a name? (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Pennsylvania Boards] >> Off Topic Discussions - Pennsylvania



Message

Bughawk -> What's in a name? (7/14/2008 8:45:15 AM)

After reading some disturbing comments on a different thread which made some rather unfounded claims about presidential candidate Barack Hussein Obama because of his Muslim sounding name it got me thinking about what does a name say about someone?  Actually the name Barack is a semitic name that actually means blessing and appears in the Bible.  Hussein means "good; small handsome one", again a semitic name common in many parts of the world and not just associated with fundamental Islamic terrorists.  So just on his name alone Barack is a blessed, good small handsome one.

Many names we see every day are semitic in origin; David, Benjamin, Abraham, Jacob, Zachary, Nathan, Noah, Ruth, Sarah, Jesse....  If you look at the name Mohammad you will find it is one of the most common names in the world. 

A name is important and does say something about who we are as people, but it is the character of the person that we should be more concerned about.

The following is an interesting article http://www.juancole.com/2008/02/barack-hussein-obama-omar-bradley.html



rapala11 -> RE: What's in a name? (7/14/2008 9:19:15 AM)

funny, but a lot of us once cheered for a man named mohammed ali.  one of my favorite singers is a muslim, cat stevens.  how about kareem abdul jabbar (lew alcindor) and a host of greats in the nfl.



Bughawk -> RE: What's in a name? (7/14/2008 10:53:16 AM)

rapala11

You are very correct.  When I was a kid I loved to watch Ali fight, but I enjoyed even more his interviews with Howard Cosell.  They are some of the best I have ever seen.  What a couple of "interesting" characters.  Remember when Ali pulled Cosell's hair piece off?  I still have to chuckle to myself everytime I think about it.  "Float like a butterfly and sting like a bee."

It is sad that we often see something "foreign" or "foreign sounding" and immediately start making assumptions.  I saw a sign in my town that read, "A vote for Obama is a vote for Osama!".  Ignorance abounds.




Rapscallion -> RE: What's in a name? (7/14/2008 10:55:57 AM)

You're right. A name is only a name. It's the character of a person we should be concerned about. So, what time does Barack's preacher buddy start his services this morning?



rapala11 -> RE: What's in a name? (7/14/2008 10:56:19 AM)

my people went through the same thing in the 1800s.  we dropped the o and the mc in order to find work.  rumor has it that my grandpap and his brothers were molly maguires back in the locust gas-mt. carmel area at the beginnings of the 1900s.  know for sure one of our clan was hanged for crimes.  all generated because of hate and intolerance.



Bughawk -> RE: What's in a name? (7/14/2008 11:02:12 AM)

Rapscallion

I don't know?  Since Barack has resigned from his church and I am unaware of his new one, I honestly cannot say.

I do know I attend Mass almost every Sunday at 10:00 a.m.  I could give him directions to my church if he is looking for a new one.  I would not have any problems sitting next to him in a service of praise and thanksgiving.  I would also make the same offer to John McCain as well.  The church I attend is open to all people and we do our best to respect the dignity of all. 



ROCKHARD -> RE: What's in a name? (7/14/2008 11:43:08 AM)

i dont think the name is as important as his actions,, even admitted by some of his own party he is left of the most far left, his policies arent of dem nature but a progressive nature,, wasnt stalin and marx considered progressive,,, i know,rock you are out to lunch on this, but listen to his stances,, first ,redistribution of wealth, i think and believe the wealthy do contribute to the poor and the needy in this country,in the millions of dollars,,,,second, his stance on our military,he wants to stop funding for any new technology in our arsenal of defense weaponry, shut down or come off standby on our nuclear defense systems,thats great to know when their are enemies out there that want to destroy us,, 3rd, raise taxes in all sectors of business, corp tax,capital gains tax,,, how do you cap profits without taking control thru govt policy,,,now if you a liberal,then these measures dont matter , but if you are looking for smaller govt,and less control, obama is not the one to run this country,,, actually i dont fear him as much as the congress we are about to inherit, we need more middle canidates than more of one of the 2 existing parties in control



Rapscallion -> RE: What's in a name? (7/14/2008 11:54:20 AM)

Oh!!! That's right! He resigned from his old church. Very convenient don't you think? I guess if we look closely at his character it could be said that it was suspect up until the time he decided the church he had belonged to and the preacher he had listened to and trusted his entire life was no longer for him but now he is a man of high character since he decided his former church and it's preacher are no longer for him.
I wonder if he would have resigned if he weren't running for President? I'm not an educated man but for some reason I tend to think the answer to that question would be a resounding No.
Perhaps, like his church, he will strongly consider changing his name so people such as myself will not get the wrong impression of him in his future missions of life.



Deadbolt401 -> RE: What's in a name? (7/14/2008 12:25:52 PM)

Never judge a book by its cover. Your actions define you, not your name.

Too bad there's too many morons in our country, that "Dont like dem dere Husseins Obamas, hesa deam terroritst.


Also, this post has no say on my political standpoint or view. Just a statement.




Bughawk -> RE: What's in a name? (7/14/2008 12:48:18 PM)

Rapscallion,

Could it not have occurred to you that perhaps that as he has been running for president he is rethinking some of his ideas about how the world is and being informed by new information and experiences he is making some changes.  We all are formed by our past, but we are not slaves to it unless we want to be.  The assertion you are making here is that he left the church solely based on poll numbers and what would look good for him.  Did you talk with Barack to ask him why he decided to leave his church? 

Rapscallion I could make some assumptions about you based on your writings here if I liked so to do, but I won’t.  I will not speak for you or assume to know what you are thinking, but respond to what you say.  I would suggest you might do the same with others.

Rock - you know better....  Wealth redistribution.  That is what we have right now, it is called capitalism.  Basically it works by taking money from the poor and concentrating in the hands of the wealthy.  If that is not a wealth redistribution system, I don't know what one is.  What you seem to be objecting to is not wealth redistribution, but the idea of trying to even the playing field for the little guy.  From a global economic perspective, global here meaning the larger economy and not necessarily that of the whole world, it makes sense if you want to have a stable economy and society for that matter you need to have a strong middle class.  If you look at societies where there is extreme difference in the haves and have nots, you will see a society that is inherently unstable.  Of course, you can force stability with fear and bully tactics but in the long run it will fail.  As for Marx and Stalin and the rest of those that people hold up as the poster children for Communism, they were communists in name only.  They were brutal and repressive and were responding to a brutal repressive world.  Social ideals such as universal health care, education and a fair market place, minimal housing and nutritional requirements, do not constitute a communism based system.  They actually are Biblical principles if you will.  Read Acts 2 and see what the early followers of Jesus held up as an ideal.

Personally, I would think that if we as Americans honestly want to live up to the ideal our forefathers set for us, the land of the free and the home of the brave, where all men were created equal, then we should be working hard to allow for that to happen.  When we only allow for one system of value, here being the monetary system, to be our sole guide, we will easily slip into turning people into economic units.  There are other value systems that look at the intrinsic value of human life, the value of personal initiative, the value of altruistic behavior, the value of cooperation vs. competition, and so on.  In the last 60 years or more, we have been focusing way too much on monetary values and substituted that for the others and I might add to our peril.  We have listened too much to the voices of descent and become a country of more of protesters than contributors.  Just look at what started this whole thread, people making negative assumptions about a person based on their name.  That is not that far away from making similar assumptions based on race, or gender or religious beliefs.  Stereotyping people is never a good idea and leads to more problems than some seem to think it will solve.

As for smaller govt, that is not a bad idea.  I have many thoughts about that.  For one, all congressman and senators should have term limits.  There should be no career politicians.  There should be adequate room and board provided for our representatives when the go to Washington to serve.  We could have the states or the federal govt provide condos for the congressman and senators and thereby cut a big portion out of their salaries which they currently claim they need to maintain a residence in both their home state and in Washington.  We could require the congressman and senators to have the same health care insurance as the average citizen and participate in social security like everyone else.  We definitely should cut the campaign season down to a few months at most before the election and ban all of the attack ads.  We should have a greater accountability for the pork barrel spending.  I have no problem with defense spending, but what kills me is money to build bridges to nowhere for example. 

This tread is getting way off topic and I am to blame for that.  The whole purpose of posting it in the first place was to look at the issue of names and where they come from



Rapscallion -> RE: What's in a name? (7/14/2008 2:53:44 PM)

Exactly! Since he is running for President he has been rethinking not how the world is but how his views of the world will look to the people of this country. Hence, he alienates himself from the church he has followed his entire life because his former preachers views are not exactly looked upon kindly. But he didn't do it because he no longer believes what he has always believed but rather because what he has always believed goes against what he is trying to accomplish. Please use your intelligence instead of your emotions when viewing his motives. You are not as naive as you make yourself out to be. There is no need to ask him anything. His motives are as clear as crystal. Very savvy political move on his part. He's not the first to make such a move and he certainly won't be the last.
You said to look at his character earlier. Well, his character has been examined and it is not pretty. He changes his beliefs to get what he wants. Telling the masses what they want to hear to meet his agenda. If you would like to trust someone like that to lead our nation, be my guest. I however will choose not to. Whatever you think you know about me is certainly a lot less than what you surely know about him. And I'm not trying to lead this country. Big difference.



ROCKHARD -> RE: What's in a name? (7/14/2008 3:20:35 PM)

bug ,i do agree with the smaller govt outlook you took.,,that bridge to nowhere ,i posted that a few weeks back,and also the pork in washington,term limits is a great idea, they should live under our health care system,our s.s. system,who put them above us, there whole life in wash.is totally paid by us,the working class,look what we get in return,,,,,,,,,, as for wealth dist.,not sure how to explain it,but one thing for sure it isnt what you posted,, how do we even the playing field,tell the ones that took the chance on wealth and achieved it,that now it is their responsibility to see that everyone shares in their gain,, thats like saying, i built this house ,but since you cant build one,i will let you claim a share in my household and dont worry about anything,cause i will keep taking that chance and you reap the benefits,see bug, no one mentions the billions the wealthy put into our economy,or the taxes they already pay for many govt programs,the giving to charities, yes a perfect world would be great,but it isnt,and doing this class envy is not the answer,,,it doesnt bother me one bit that the rockerfellers have milloions, and i dont,cause i know if i took that chance,i could have been wealthy to, but i chose a simpler,normal life,, i dont expect nothing from nobody,especially govt,to whom i will be indebted to



Bughawk -> RE: What's in a name? (7/14/2008 3:26:36 PM)

Rapscallion

I am not a naive as you may think nor as emotional.  You have decided what Barack's motives are, decided he is untrustworthy and decided he is not fit to lead this nation.  Since you have made up your mind there really is not sense in further discussion.

I will say that if Barack is a flip flopper as you make him out to be, how can that be any worse for the country than our current president who because he cannot or will not change his beliefs has basically lead the country to brink of ruin?  A smart person when confronted with a dangerous situation usually will try to avoid it only a fool will stay the course no matter what.  I would rather a wild ride of twisting and turning than a straight one right over a cliff.  Being stubborn and arrogant is no way to govern.  Listening and working to build consensus is a much better way to go in my book



DanesDad -> RE: What's in a name? (7/14/2008 3:40:32 PM)

"He changes his beliefs to get what he wants. Telling the masses what they want to hear to meet his agenda. If you would like to trust someone like that to lead our nation, be my guest"

If your looking for a candidate in any election that DOESNT do this, you'll never get to vote, because there are none...



ROCKHARD -> RE: What's in a name? (7/14/2008 3:41:01 PM)

who do we listen to,the enviros that say humans are the cause of our climate problems or the other side that says there is no proof,,, do we listen to higher taxes on corp america is the answer or do we listen to the ones who want smaller govt and less tax,,, do we listen to the ones who say drill now while we wait on alternative fuels or do we listen to the ones who say do nothing and wait on alternative fuels,, who got the answers,no one knows for the sure fix, but it is evident progress isnt in the minds of many, but a step back to the stone age,,which might not be a bad idea considering there were no govt intervention



DanesDad -> RE: What's in a name? (7/14/2008 3:43:13 PM)

Smaller government- All for that.  Legislators living like we do-absolutely all for that!  Term limits- definitely!  Now, if you can do all of that, and get cable to operate ala carte, I'll vote for YOU for president.



Inukshuk -> RE: What's in a name? (7/14/2008 4:02:51 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Bughawk


I will say that if Barack is a flip flopper as you make him out to be, how can that be any worse for the country than our current president who because he cannot or will not change his beliefs has basically lead the country to brink of ruin?  A smart person when confronted with a dangerous situation usually will try to avoid it only a fool will stay the course no matter what.  I would rather a wild ride of twisting and turning than a straight one right over a cliff.  Being stubborn and arrogant is no way to govern.  Listening and working to build consensus is a much better way to go in my book



Bug, I dont know if you would agree with me on this but, I think some people just dont understand that a president or a presidential candidate must be pragmatic and thoughtful.  We have had eight years of an administration where this has been absent, and look where we are because of it.

The term flip flopper is used too "liberally", particulary by the right.  They either dont know what that means or, are not paying attention.



ROCKHARD -> RE: What's in a name? (7/14/2008 4:09:50 PM)

WELL D.D., I THOUGHT ABOUT GETTING INTO THE POLITICAL ARENA, many times,but the thing is first,funding,second, my starting speech would piss many off,, it would go like this: i am not going to make no promises to no one,cause that would be a lie,, i will not run for a 2nd term,cause you probably wouldnt want me again,but i can assure you, all un-necassary spending would be elimanated,no pork ,no special social programs,, you want welfare,here is the job application, you will work at minimum wage for every dollar you recieve from govt, hrs divided your check amount divided by min.wage rate,,, health care will be pro-rated,according to children involved, a flat tax across the board will be instituted, to all businesses ,you make bad decisions ,there will be no bail outs, youi made the mess ,you solve the mess,all military will no longer be stationed overseas,all will be stateside on our borders,unless we are threatened directly, we will not defend no one outside our shores, all illegal immigrants ,will be rounded up in time and sent back where they come from,any business caught hiring illegals will be shutdown and a large penalty will be imposed,,,,,  in my opinion d.d. ,,i wouldnt stand a chance, no tax increase while in office no matter how bad one is needed, govt will shrink by half, no more political action groups in wash., enviros,wall street,oil, minority action pacs, and no race will get special treatment cause they claim to be treated unfairly in life 



spoonchucker -> RE: What's in a name? (7/14/2008 4:14:38 PM)

So the office you would be running for, would be supreme RULER?



Rapscallion -> RE: What's in a name? (7/14/2008 4:27:04 PM)

The decision was not exactly hard to make. I don't think you are as naive as you portray yourself to be. That's the whole point. You know why he did what he did just as every other living, breathing American does. He did it to further his political career. There is no other conclusion to be drawn. You can't argue the point anymore.
Why would I compare him to our current President? Come November, he will be our former President so a comparison has no validity. The only one you can compare him to is the man he is running against.
I certainly have made no effort to say his opponent has no faults. But I can say with a certain amount of confidence that his opponent has not switched churches midstream because of something his preacher said.
As to the country being on the brink of ruin, that is your opinion which you are certainly entitled to. However, that does not make it a fact. I will pose the question to you that I posed to someone else on this forum.
If the country you live in is in such bad shape and you are so disheartened with it's leadership, why don't you simply leave and go to a place where you feel better about the things which you are unhappy about? Obviously if your chosen leader does not win, you will still have the same reservations you currently have so why reside here? The world is a huge place and surely there must be a better place to live than where you currently make your home. 
Rapscallion

I am not a naive as you may think nor as emotional.  You have decided what Barack's motives are, decided he is untrustworthy and decided he is not fit to lead this nation.  Since you have made up your mind there really is not sense in further discussion.

I will say that if Barack is a flip flopper as you make him out to be, how can that be any worse for the country than our current president who because he cannot or will not change his beliefs has basically lead the country to brink of ruin?  A smart person when confronted with a dangerous situation usually will try to avoid it only a fool will stay the course no matter what.  I would rather a wild ride of twisting and turning than a straight one right over a cliff.  Being stubborn and arrogant is no way to govern.  Listening and working to build consensus is a much better way to go in my book

[/quote]



S-10 -> RE: What's in a name? (7/14/2008 4:30:40 PM)

Is Obama a flip flopper? Well, He took a position of getting out of Iraq and lambasted Clinton constantly for not committing to a firm date to do so ( probably won on that issue alone) Then before she had finished crying over losing he changed to a position nearly identical to hers. He took millions from the anti war folks and moveon.org and then said he would meet with general Petraus and get his advice---remember a couple months ago it was General BETRAYUS. Must be he milked them for all the money they had. He spent 8 years on the B.O.D. for the Joyce foundation, one of the best funded, anti gun organizations around. They spend millions each year promoting anti gun laws and now he claims to be for the rights of gun owners. Yeah--I would say he is a flip flopper when it's in his political interest.



doubletaper -> RE: What's in a name? (7/14/2008 4:31:38 PM)

doesn't sound like a supreme ruler to me. the welfare people will have to do at least some work!!! illegal imagrants will get what they deserve for coming into our country illegally and those who hired them will be justly fined if they keep'm.
no special social programs is one thing the politicians stay away from! can you imagine how much tax money our nation will save. give this money back to us tax payers and let us decide what groups of special interests we decide to fund, not the govrn't!!!
and no race will get special treatment cause they claim to be treated unfairly in life  AMEN!



Rapscallion -> RE: What's in a name? (7/14/2008 4:32:47 PM)

Exactly. But If I choose to vote and must choose one or the other, I'm going to lean toward the candidate that has not shown that he has followed the teachings for years of a man that has an obvious issue/s with a people of a certain color.
quote:

ORIGINAL: DanesDad

"He changes his beliefs to get what he wants. Telling the masses what they want to hear to meet his agenda. If you would like to trust someone like that to lead our nation, be my guest"

If your looking for a candidate in any election that DOESNT do this, you'll never get to vote, because there are none...



spoonchucker -> RE: What's in a name? (7/14/2008 5:31:23 PM)

"second, his stance on our military,he wants to stop funding for any new technology in our arsenal of defense weaponry, shut down or come off standby on our nuclear defense systems"

Can you provide refrences to back this claim, or are you  ( in typical conservative, election cycle fashion ) just throwing shiite at the wall to see if it will stick?



ROCKHARD -> RE: What's in a name? (7/14/2008 5:32:26 PM)

no spoon, not supreme ruler at all,,just get back to a nation of self commitment,not on govt to solve our problems,,,we need a leader who would say no to these obscene policies of govt, no to taxes, no to special interest, no to illegals,no to pork spending,at any cost to their career, that is a leader,not one that gives in to all that sry for help,when they canhelp themselves



spoonchucker -> RE: What's in a name? (7/14/2008 5:35:27 PM)

"but i can assure you,"

DT

Sounds like he's plans to DICTATE all these things. We DO have a legislative system, you know.



ROCKHARD -> RE: What's in a name? (7/14/2008 5:39:25 PM)

Obama's Plan To Disarm The U.S. By INVESTOR'S BUSINESS DAILY | Posted Friday, June 06, 2008 4:20 PM PT Defense Policy: In the middle of a war on two fronts, Barack Obama plans to gut the military. He also wants to dismantle our nuclear arsenal. And he wants to keep you in the dark about it.
Read More: Election 2008 | Military & Defense
The Obamatons of the mainstream media have failed to report one of the most chilling campaign promises thus far uttered by the presumptive Democrat nominee for president. He made it before the Iowa caucus to a left-wing pacifist group that seeks to reallocate defense dollars to welfare programs. The lobbying group, Caucus for Priorities, was so impressed by Obama's anti-military offering that it steered its 10,000 devotees his way. In a 132-word videotaped pledge (still viewable on YouTube), Obama agreed to hollow out the U.S. military by slashing both conventional and nuclear weapons. The scope of his planned defense cuts, combined with his angry tone, is breathtaking. He sounds as if the military is the enemy, not the bad guys it's fighting. Here is a transcript: "I'm the only major candidate who opposed this war from the beginning; and as president, I will end it. "Second, I will cut tens of billions of dollars in wasteful spending. I will cut investments in unproven missile defense systems. I will not weaponize space. I will slow our development of future combat systems. "I will institute an independent defense priorities board to ensure that the Quadrennial Review is not used to justify unnecessary defense spending. "Third, I will set a goal for a world without nuclear weapons. To seek that goal, I will not develop nuclear weapons; I will seek a global ban on the production of fissile material; and I will negotiate with Russia to take our ICBMs off hair-trigger alert, and to achieve deep cuts in our nuclear arsenal."



Inukshuk -> RE: What's in a name? (7/14/2008 5:39:38 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: S-10

Is Obama a flip flopper? Well, He took a position of getting out of Iraq and lambasted Clinton constantly for not committing to a firm date to do so ( probably won on that issue alone) Then before she had finished crying over losing he changed to a position nearly identical to hers. He took millions from the anti war folks and moveon.org and then said he would meet with general Petraus and get his advice---remember a couple months ago it was General BETRAYUS. Must be he milked them for all the money they had. He spent 8 years on the B.O.D. for the Joyce foundation, one of the best funded, anti gun organizations around. They spend millions each year promoting anti gun laws and now he claims to be for the rights of gun owners. Yeah--I would say he is a flip flopper when it's in his political interest.


His position on Iraq has never changed, just the tone in which he presented his postion.  This all started when he said he reserved the right to refine his plan, which is a very pragmatic way of thinking. 

Why dont you talk about McCains flip flopping ability, because if it was a sport he would be an allstar.



ROCKHARD -> RE: What's in a name? (7/14/2008 5:40:29 PM)

a legislative branch that got us where we are now,, might need new thinkers in there



S-10 -> RE: What's in a name? (7/14/2008 5:43:34 PM)

Spoon- don't want to get too involved in this but there is a lot on the web including Obamas answers to questions that support the claims of his wanting to eliminate our defense system and weapons. I won't paraphrase it, folks need to read through it for themselves.



Page: [1] 2 3   next >   >>



   

0.063