Support NeoGAF

[Suikoguy]

#7904

Crap, I'm behind again :lol

 

[mckmas8808]

I was thinking about the Obama/Dobson flare up . . .



So if Dobson thinks "Obama should not be referencing antiquated dietary codes and passages from the Old Testament that are no longer relevant to the teachings of the New Testament" then doesn't that mean Dobson should OK with homosexuality and gay marriage?

Jesus didn't say a word about homosexuality. Homosexuality is only in one of those "passages from the Old Testament that are no longer relevant to the teachings of the New Testament". .

WRONG!!!

Or do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived; neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor homosexuals, nor thieves, nor the covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor swindlers, will inherit the kingdom of God

God’s wrath is being revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men who are suppressing the truth in an unrighteous way . . . God, in keeping with the desires of their hearts, gave them up to uncleanness, that their bodies might be dishonored among them . . . That is why God gave them up to disgraceful sexual appetites, for both their females changed the natural use of themselves into one contrary to nature; and likewise even the males left the natural use of the female and became violently inflamed in their lust toward one another, males with males, working what is obscene.”

 

[Gaborn]

WRONG!!!

that's not the KJV, that's from a less standard translation. (KJV never uses the term "homosexuals")

 

[mckmas8808]

A criminal prosecution is not going to happen. I mean not going to happen. These teleco's have been indemnified. They don't give two hoots about punitive damages. The only teeth in the bill was the aspect concerning civil prosecution and that has been negated by "conditional immunity." That should be insulting to everyone's intelligence.

Bullshit! Some of you guys have to grow a pair. Weren't some of you guys the same people pissed off when Bush started spying on people without alerting the FISA court?

 

[speculawyer]

WRONG!!!

I stand corrected.

Well, Jesus himself said nothing about homosexuality.

 

[speculawyer]

that's not the KJV, that's from a less standard translation. (KJV never uses the term "homosexuals")

Yeah . . . it says "nor abusers of themselves with mankind" . . . I thought that meant masturbation. :lol

 

[Gaborn]

I stand corrected.

Well, Jesus himself said nothing about homosexuality.

True, and some biblical scholars dispute the meaning of the passages MckMas quoted. For the record the KJV says:

9 ¶ Know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Be not deceived: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with mankind,
10 nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners, shall inherit the kingdom of God.

18 ¶ For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who hold the truth in unrighteousness;
19 because that which may be known of God is manifest in them; for God hath showed it unto them.
20 For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse:
21 because that, when they knew God, they glorified him not as God, neither were thankful; but became vain in their imaginations, and their foolish heart was darkened.
22 Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools,
23 and changed the glory of the uncorruptible God into an image made like to corruptible man, and to birds, and four-footed beasts, and creeping things.
24 ¶ Wherefore God also gave them up to uncleanness, through the lusts of their own hearts, to dishonor their own bodies between themselves:
25 who changed the truth of God into a lie, and worshipped and served the creature more than the Creator, who is blessed for ever. Amen.
26 ¶ For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature:
27 and likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompense of their error which was meet.

 

[mckmas8808]

that's not the KJV, that's from a less standard translation.

The King James really isn't the version that you should trust the most. Every chirstian should know that. But if you insist.....

Know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Be not deceived: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with mankind,

effeminate -having feminine qualities untypical of a man : not manly in appearance or manner

For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature:

27And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompence of their error which was meet.

Again this is what the Bible says. If you don't like it, there's nothing I can say to you to make you feel better.

 

[Gaborn]

The King James really isn't the version that you should trust the most. Every chirstian should know that. But if you insist.....

True, you should be studying it in Greek or Aramaic for a much closer translation. Certainly the NIV bible is ok for some people, but obviously it has it's biases in interpretation.

effeminate -having feminine qualities untypical of a man : not manly in appearance or manner

Oddly even the NIV recognizes the distinction between "homosexual" and "effeminate." clearly then the NIV translates "abusers of mankind" as being "homosexuals" rather than "effeminate" because they take the same word and translate it the same. A masturbator or someone who commits other acts to debase himself with mankind is not necessarily a homosexual, so the NIV is trying to read more into the text than is there.

Again this is what the Bible says. If you don't like it, there's nothing I can say to
you to make you feel better.

Isn't it odd then that I never really asked you to "make me feel better?" why project your own emotions onto others?

 

[mckmas8808]

True, you should be studying it in Greek or Aramaic for a much closer translation. Certainly the NIV bible is ok for some people, but obviously it has it's biases in interpretation.





Oddly even the NIV recognizes the distinction between "homosexual" and "effeminate." clearly then the NIV translates "abusers of mankind" as being "homosexuals" rather than "effeminate" because they take the same word and translate it the same. A masturbator or someone who commits other acts to debase himself with mankind is not necessarily a homosexual, so the NIV is trying to read more into the text than is there.





Isn't it odd then that I never really asked you to "make me feel better?" why project your own emotions onto others?

I'm just saying. Stop making the Bible what you want it to be. God doesn't believe homosexuality is okay. It is what it is. Look I'm a Christian that believes that, but at the same time I don't hate you and want you to burn and die.

I love you just as much as I love anybody else on this earth. I'm not trying to change or stop you from living like you are (I couldn't even if I wanted to), but the Bible is what it is.

 

[Gaborn]

I'm just saying. Stop making the Bible what you want it to be. God doesn't believe homosexuality is okay. It is what it is. Look I'm a Christian that believes that, but at the same time I don't hate you and want you to burn and die.

I love you just as much as I love anybody else on this earth. I'm not trying to change or stop you from living like you are (I couldn't even if I wanted to), but the Bible is what it is.

I'm not trying to argue that with you, I respect your right to believe it, I'm just saying you're using the loosest, most conservative protestant (and one of the most recent) Biblical translations to try to make a point that was NOT in the original text. You cannot assume the text says "homosexuals" when 1. the term did not exist when the Bible was written and 2. you're ignoring other possible interpretations.

The thing though is the BIBLE is what it is, but translations vary HUGELY on the subject, mainly because so many Aramaic words can have multiple meanings depending on different shadings of context.

 

[mckmas8808]

I'm not trying to argue that with you, I respect your right to believe it, I'm just saying you're using the loosest, most conservative protestant (and one of the most recent) Biblical translations to try to make a point that was NOT in the original text. You cannot assume the text says "homosexuals" when 1. the term did not exist when the Bible was written and 2. you're ignoring other possible interpretations.

The thing though is the BIBLE is what it is, but translations vary HUGELY on the subject, mainly because so many Aramaic words can have multiple meanings depending on different shadings of context.

I agree with your post. But the intention of those verses are to show that homosexualtiy is looked at negatively in the eyes of God.

Now one good thing about Obama is he won't push those verses into law.

 

[Gaborn]

I agree with your post. But the intention of those verses are to show that homosexualtiy is looked at negatively in the eyes of God.

except that is reading the mind of God. The original text of the bible has nothing on homosexuality specifically (not saying the KJV is the original text, but the aramaic and greek early texts do not mention it).

 

[Karma Kramer]

When it comes to homosexuality, I say... YES!

 

[Frank the Great]

except that is reading the mind of God. The original text of the bible has nothing on homosexuality specifically (not saying the KJV is the original text, but the aramaic and greek early texts do not mention it).

I'm glad you mentioned that. The KJV is WAY too late to be considered standard. In that version, the old testament is based on Hebrew texts from the Middle Ages, and the New Testament is based on Greek translations from the 12th century.

Considering people copied the texts BY HAND back then, and were known to make many many errors, it's kind of silly to argue over whether a word was mentioned or not.

 

[Gaborn]

I'm glad you mentioned that. The KJV is WAY too late to be considered standard. In that version, the old testament is based on Hebrew texts from the Middle Ages, and the New Testament is based on Greek translations from the 12th century.

Considering people copied the texts BY HAND back then, and were known to make many many errors, it's kind of silly to argue over whether a word was mentioned or not.

Well yeah, though I will say that the KJV is probably one of the most literal translations, whereas particularly the NIV is notorious for reading into the text and making the loosest (and contrarily most US Conservative) translation of it.

 

[mckmas8808]

I'm glad you mentioned that. The KJV is WAY too late to be considered standard. In that version, the old testament is based on Hebrew texts from the Middle Ages, and the New Testament is based on Greek translations from the 12th century.

Considering people copied the texts BY HAND back then, and were known to make many many errors, it's kind of silly to argue over whether a word was mentioned or not.

So what should present day Christians do? Not read or care about the Bible?

 

[PhoenixDark]

I don't see how anyone could read those first verses of Romans and NOT realize they're referring to homosexuality. The term "homosexuality" didn't exist at the time, but the description is pretty clear.

Romans 1:26-27: "For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature: And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompence [sic] of
their error which was meet."

 

[Gaborn]

I don't see how anyone could read those first verses of Romans and NOT realize they're referring to homosexuality. The term "homosexuality" didn't exist at the time, but the description is pretty clear.

The same way people read into the story of Jonathan and David and some people can walk away convinced they were lovers and others can walk away and believing they were merely friends?

 

[PhoenixDark]

The same way people read into the story of Jonathan and David and some people can walk away convinced they were lovers and others can walk away and believing they were merely friends?

Horrible example considering the use of the word "love" in that passage. It has no sexual meaning and instead meant a brotherly type love. People who say otherwise are usually trying to start shit

Romans 1:26-27: "For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature: And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompence [sic] of
their error which was meet."

I know you like arguing against the blatantly obvious but even this is a stretch. As a Christian even I recognize the prevalent homophobic in the bible, and categorically reject it in my daily life/thoughts/practices.

 

[Gaborn]

Horrible example considering the use of the word "love" in that passage. It has no sexual meaning and instead meant a brotherly type love. People who say otherwise are usually trying to start shit


I know you like arguing against the blatantly obvious but even this is a stretch. As a Christian even I recognize the prevalent homophobic in the bible, and categorically reject it in my daily life/thoughts/practices.

No, i do agree the passage in Romans in that translation is a MUCH stronger case for referring to homosexuality, but again, we'd really have to go back to the greek or Aramaic version to see exactly what the context for that passage is. On it's face it's a much clearer reference than the verse in Corinthians is though.

Though I think you'd have to reread the Samuel a bit if you think the only valid interpretation of those passages is a brotherly love. I'm not sure that it's sexual but I can see how it could be interpreted in various ways without an agenda.

 

[Deus Ex Machina]

PHOTOS: BARACK OBAMA canpaigns today in Fargo, N. D.

Democratic presidential candidate Sen. Barack Obama, D-Ill., arrives at Hector International Airport in Fargo, N.D., July 3, 2008.
(AP Photo/Jae C. Hong)

A pilot watches as Democratic presidential candidate, Sen. Barack Obama, D-Ill., speaks
during a news conference at Hector International Airport in Fargo, N.D., July 3, 2008.
(AP Photo/Jae C. Hong)

Democratic presidential candidate, Sen. Barack Obama, D-Ill., speaks during a news conference held at Hector International Airport in Fargo, N.D., July 3, 2008.
(AP Photo/Jae C. Hong)

Democratic presidential candidate, Sen. Barack Obama, D-Ill., speaks during his campaign stop in Fargo, N.D., Thursday, July 3, 2008.
(AP Photo/Jae C. Hong)

Democratic presidential candidate, Sen. Barack Obama, D-Ill., center, speaks during his campaign stop in Fargo, N.D., July 3, 2008.
(AP Photo/Jae C. Hong)

Supporters listen to Democratic presidential candidate, Sen. Barack Obama, D-Ill., during a campaign stop in Fargo, N.D., July 3, 2008.
(AP Photo/Jae C. Hong)

Supporters wear campaign buttons supporting Democratic presidential candidate, Sen. Barack Obama, D-Ill., at Obama's campaign stop in Fargo, N.D., Thursday, July 3, 2008.
(AP Photo/Jae C. Hong)

Democratic presidential candidate, Sen. Barack Obama, D-Ill., left, waves to supporters after speaking at a campaign stop in Fargo, N.D., Thursday, July 3, 2008.
(AP Photo/Jae C. Hong)

Democratic presidential candidate, Sen. Barack Obama, D-Ill., center, shakes hands with supporters as he arrives for his campaign stop in Fargo, N.D., July 3, 2008.
(AP Photo/Jae C. Hong)

 

[PhoenixDark]

No, i do agree the passage in Romans in that translation is a MUCH stronger case for referring to homosexuality, but again, we'd really have to go back to the greek or Aramaic version to see exactly what the context for that passage is. On it's face it's a much clearer reference than the verse in Corinthians is though.

Though I think you'd have to reread the Samuel a bit if you think the only valid interpretation of those passages is a brotherly love. I'm not sure that it's sexual but I can see how it could be interpreted in various ways without an agenda.

All you have to do is look at the translation. The word "love" is used many times in the bible, and it doesn't have the same meaning each time. Consider the use of "agape" to describe the love Jesus had for his apostles VS the use of "philia" in reference to David and Johnathan.

It's a weak argument with a specific agenda, the same as the misinterpretation of Naomi and Ruth's relationship

Leviticus

Do not lie with a man as one lies with a woman; it is an abomination.

If a man lies with a man as one lies with a woman, both of them have done what is detestable. They must be put to death; their blood will be on their own heads.

Pretty damn clear difference

 

[Hootie]

When it comes to homosexuality, I say... YES!

http://benjaminsternke.typepad.com/benjaminsternke/files/tobias.jpg[IMG][/QUOTE]


[IMG]http://i27.tinypic.com/2wgce1g.jpg

 

[speculawyer]

So what should present day Christians do? Not read or care about the Bible?

Yes.

 

[Gaborn]

All you have to do is look at the translation. The word "love" is used many times in the bible, and it doesn't have the same meaning each time. Consider the use of "agape" to describe the love Jesus had for his apostles VS the use of "philia" in reference to David and Johnathan.

It's a weak argument with a specific agenda, the same as the misinterpretation of Naomi and Ruth's relationship

Leviticus




Pretty damn clear difference

Yeah, but Leviticus was more dietary restrictions and references to temple priests. Some scholars interpret that passage (in the original language, or at least early translations) to be referring specifically to ritual temple prostitutes that some cultures used at the time.

 

[Frank the Great]

So what should present day Christians do? Not read or care about the Bible?

No, just focus on the over all message. Ten Commandments, treat your neighbor how you want to be treated, turn the other cheek, etc.

I'm a Christian too It's just kind of silly in this day and age, with all the known history of the Bible to still refer to it as the exact word of God. Jesus didn't talk about the Bible when he was alive - this was a Church thing that came together way after Jesus, and should be treated as such.

 

[speculawyer]

PHOTOS: BARACK OBAMA canpaigns today in Fargo, N. D.

Democratic presidential candidate Sen. Barack Obama, D-Ill., arrives at Hector International Airport in Fargo, N.D., July 3, 2008.

I love seeing Obama campaign even in states he probably doesn't have a chance of winning. It seems to show that he cares & listens no matter where you are.

 

[Door2Dawn]

Creepy.

 

[Hitokage]

Bear in mind, all of the New Testament passages quoted were penned by Paul.

 

[Incognito]

Bullshit! Some of you guys have to grow a pair. Weren't some of you guys the same people pissed off when Bush started spying on people without alerting the FISA court?

Lots of women like my pair, thank you. It's a simple fact that the likelihood of a criminal prosecution moving forward is roughly the same likelihood that George W. Bush is going to be reelected. That's why there is concern with Obama's position on FISA; the "compromise" bill strips civil lawsuits via "conditional immunity" therefore pretty much rendering any possibility of holding certain actors responsible and liable moot. That's why Obama's decision is so disappointing.

 

[Incognito]

Very cool article on the inner workings of the Obama campaign

On the June evening in St. Paul when he captured the Democratic nomination, in between shout-outs to his daughters and his grandmother, Barack Obama paid tribute to a political operative most Americans have never heard of. "Thank you to our campaign manager, David Plouffe," Obama said, "who never gets any credit but has built the best political organization in the country."

Obama isn't exactly known for understatement. But in describing the machine that Plouffe and his political team have built, the candidate was actually far too modest. By marrying online technology to grass-roots activism, Obama's brain trust mobilized 1.5 million donors, raised more than $250 million, derailed the Clinton juggernaut and built something new in Democratic politics. "The size and scale and sophistication of the Obama enterprise — it's like a multinational corporation compared to the mom-and-pop nonprofits of previous Democratic campaigns," says Simon Rosenberg, president of the progressive think tank NDN and a veteran of Bill Clinton's 1992 run. "And it isn't just bigger — it's a better model, it's more democratic, it taps into the power and passion of everyday people."

It's also remarkably disciplined: Obama's top advisers outmaneuvered Hillary Clinton's organization with no leaks, no nasty infighting and virtually no public credit for their efforts. By all rights, Plouffe and the other chief architects of Obama's machine should be household names on par with James Carville and Karl Rove. And yet, with the exception of chief strategist David Axelrod, who has emerged as an affably low-key spokesman for the campaign, Obama's brain trust works in near anonymity from the campaign's headquarters on the 11th floor of a smoked-glass skyscraper two blocks south of the Chicago River.

Rest at link...

 

[mckmas8808]

Jesus didn't talk about the Bible when he was alive - this was a Church thing that came together way after Jesus, and should be treated as such.

Okay this is just straight crazy talk. Do you really go to church?

And when the tempter came to him, he said, If thou be the Son of God, command that these stones be made bread.

4But he answered and said, It is written, Man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word that proceedeth out of the mouth of God.

In the 4th verse Jesus was referring to Deuteronomy 8:3 that says....

in order to make you know that not by bread alone does man live but by every expression of Jehovah’s mouth does man live

7Jesus said unto him, It is written again, Thou shalt not tempt the Lord thy God.

Jesus was talking about Deuteronomy 6:16.

16He went to Nazareth, where he had been brought up, and on the Sabbath day he went into the synagogue, as was his custom. And he stood up to read. 17The scroll of the prophet Isaiah was handed to him. Unrolling it, he found the place where it is written:
18"The Spirit of the Lord is on me,
because he has anointed me
to preach good news to the poor.
He has sent me to proclaim freedom for the prisoners
and recovery of sight for the blind,
to release the oppressed,
19to proclaim the year of the Lord's favor."[a]

20Then he rolled up the scroll, gave it back to the attendant and sat down. The eyes of everyone in the synagogue were fastened on him, 21and he began by saying to them, "Today this scripture is fulfilled in your hearing.

The actual scripture that he read was Isaiah 61:1.


And there are plenty of other times that Jesus references the Bible.

 

[The Librarian]

Very cool article on the inner workings of the Obama campaign



Rest at link...

Yeah, good read.

 

[mckmas8808]

Lots of women like my pair, thank you. It's a simple fact that the likelihood of a criminal prosecution moving forward is roughly the same likelihood that George W. Bush is going to be reelected. That's why there is concern with Obama's position on FISA; the "compromise" bill strips civil lawsuits via "conditional immunity" therefore pretty much rendering any possibility of holding certain actors responsible and liable moot. That's why Obama's decision is so disappointing.

But doesn't the bill also make the FISA court permanent like it was supposed to be before Bush messed that up?

 

[Stumpokapow]

And there are plenty of other times that Jesus references the Bible.

You mean the Tanakh, right?

 

[GhaleonEB]

aaaaand Politico chimes in with the dumbest article I've read this week.

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0708/11520.html

It's their top story. It's about how Obama is getting grey hair. Really.

Looking the part of a president (translation: older, grayer and wrinkled) has always been a part of Obama’s challenge. While age still works against a woman candidate, Democrats seem to be pulling for more signs that the first-term Illinois senator is growing old.

Obama’s barber for the past 15 years told Politico in February 2007 that he started noticing the gray hair soon after he entered the Senate in 2005. If he registered a four on a scale of one to 10 at the beginning of the campaign, he is now a six on the gray meter, said Zariff, who goes by only one name and works at the Hyde Park Hair Salon in Chicago.

“That is normal for his age,” Zariff said this week.

So has Obama ever attempted to speed or slow the aging clock by coloring his hair?

“No, most definitely not,” Zariff said with a laugh. “It will be quite some time before we go there.”

They interviewed his barber, about the grey in Obama's hair.

I said wow. :lol

 

[reilo]

aaaaand Politico chimes in with the dumbest article I've read this week.

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0708/11520.html

It's their top story. It's about how Obama is getting grey hair. Really.

They interviewed his barber, about the grey in Obama's hair.

I said wow. :lol

“That is normal for his age,” Zariff said this week.

I know most of us have made similar observations... but fuck, none of us are paid journalists. :lol

 

[soul creator]

wow, I didn't know the word "refine" means to "completely change to the opposite position"

Guess I need to brush up on my English!

 

[Frank the Great]

And there are plenty of other times that Jesus references the Bible.

How do you know if Jesus actually said those things? The NT was compiled much later, hand copied many times and had many different versions, even BEFORE the 12th century version the KJV was based on. You're using Bible quotes to prove to me that the Bible is real.]

My point is that the Bible has had such a tumultuous history that no specific words should be sparsed, and instead the focus should be on the general message.

 

[maximum360]

I'm more than convinced that the bunch at Politico are idiots. They distort and sensationalize news just like the rest to increase viewership and then send shills on tv to repeat the same talking points. I rarely go there for any news (or spin).

 

[gkryhewy]

Bear in mind, all of the New Testament passages quoted were penned by Paul.

Wasn't he the gay one?

 

[Cheebs]

Wasn't he the gay one?

He was gay? Wha?

 

[gkryhewy]

He was gay? Wha?

[hedonism bot]...When in Rome![/hedonism bot]

 

[speculawyer]

Wasn't he the gay one?

Considering his homophobic views, I wouldn't be surprised if he were one of those far-right closet types.

 

[speculawyer]

Obama holds an event in the deep red state of Montana that has a mere 3 electoral votes. Man, you gotta love that optimism. :lol

50 state strategy FTW!

McCain update:

John McCain after his trip to Colombia and Mexico is back home in Arizona. He's planning to spend the Fourth of July holiday at the family compound outside Sedona, with no campaign events on his schedule for the next few days.

The McCain Website hopes you have a "safe and happy 4th of July" and asks that you remember the troops.

:lol

 

[Synth_floyd]

Here's a good article that sums up why Obama is just a regular politician and all the talk of "change" is total BS. Since he's gotten the nomination he's reversed his position on FISA, public financing, etc., just so that he's more electable. Also, he's going to flip flop on Iraq rather soon when he comes back from his recently announced trip there and will probably discover that things are going well enough that we don't have to withdraw all the troops.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/07/03/AR2008070302451.html?nav=slate

Not that I'm a big fan of McCain, I don't really like either of the two main candidates. McCain isn't a "straight talker" and Obama isn't going to bring "change." They're both men who want to get elected and want the power of being the president of the US.

It's disappointing for Obama though I expected more since he is African American and comes from a family without any political connections and with little history in politics as well. Power corrupts, it's as simple as that.

This great Onion video explains some of the problems though: "Poll: Bullshit Is Most Important Issue For 2008 Voters" http://www.theonion.com/content/video/poll_bullshit_is_most_important

 

[Frank the Great]

It's disappointing for Obama though I expected more since he is African American and comes from a family without any political connections and with little history in politics as well. Power corrupts, it's as simple as that.

What the hell does being AA have to do with anything?

 

[Synth_floyd]

Because it's one more way in which he is an "outsider," i.e. not in the rich white man's club like the Bush family, now the Clinton family, most of the former leading GOP candidates (Romney, Guiliani), the people who pull the strings in DC, etc.

 

[GhaleonEB]

Obama holds an event in the deep red state of Montana that has a mere 3 electoral votes. Man, you gotta love that optimism. :lol

Well, he's got reason to be optimistic.