Interesting Obama Article...march 1 2008

[hblask 1]

<br />From a Roland Martin blog, here are some of Wright's very own words:

Yep, this is the one I saw. So let's look at it:

“We took this country by terror away from the Sioux, the Apache, Arikara, the Comanche, the Arapaho, the Navajo. Terrorism.“We took Africans away from their country to build our way of ease and kept them enslaved and living in fear. Terrorism.“We bombed Grenada and killed innocent civilians, babies, non-military personnel.“We bombed the black civilian community of Panama with stealth bombers and killed unarmed teenage and toddlers, pregnant mothers and hard working fathers.“We bombed Qaddafi’s home, and killed his child. Blessed are they who bash your children’s head against the rock.“We bombed Iraq. We killed unarmed civilians trying to make a living. We bombed a plant in Sudan to pay back for the attack on our embassy, killed hundreds of hard working people, mothers and fathers who left home to go that day not knowing that they’d never get back home.“We bombed Hiroshima. We bombed Nagasaki, and we nuked far more than the thousands in New York and the Pentagon and we never batted an eye.“Kids playing in the playground. Mothers picking up children after school. Civilians, not soldiers, people just trying to make it day by day.“We have supported state terrorism against the Palestinians and black South Africans, and now we are indignant because the stuff that we have done overseas is now brought right back into our own front yards. America’s chickens are coming home to roost.“Violence begets violence. Hatred begets hatred. And terrorism begets terrorism. A white ambassador said that y’all, not a black militant. Not a reverend who preaches about racism. An ambassador whose eyes are wide open and who is trying to get us to wake up and move away from this dangerous precipice upon which we are now poised. The ambassador said the people we have wounded don’t have the military capability we have. But they do have individuals who are willing to die and take thousands with them. And we need to come to grips with that.”

The above list is all true facts, verifiable facts. Calling them "terrorism" is a bit over-the-top, but in the end, the difference between "terrorism" and "declared war" is in the eye of the beholder. So, what's so terrible about the above statements?He apparently then went on to promote socialized medicine. Not THAT'S something I can get annoyed about!

[Loismustdie 0]

So you don't have a specific racist quote, then?Hint: political expedience <> reality.Seriously, I love having reverse racism exposed, but this is a media circus with no basis in reality. I don't want Obama to be president, but I'd hate to lose a (theoretical) good candidate in the future over something so stupid.

It's not that, I just am not in the business of hand holding. I listened, you listened, I heard racism, you didn't. End of story. People react, Obama fires said racist over reaction, compares him to other racists and then makes racist statements, while throwing his grandmother under the proverbial bus. But, of course,there is no racism here because you don't hear it. Everybody else sees it even Obama himself- one of is is either just not listening or just stupid. You decide which one you fall in; I can tell you that in this discourse I am neither.

[Loismustdie 0]

Damn, you and Lois must both be having bowel problems today -- extra mean-spriited. Either that or nobody recognized that I just changed the party name, but more or less repeated Lois's post. Okay when he does it, but unacceptable for a Dem because it's "hyperbole?"My "defense," in a phrase, is that Republicans complaining about lies is the pot calling the kettle black. Or, if you prefer, it's pointing out the mote in your neighbor's eye while ignoring the plank in your own. I'm willing to admit that both sides have planks and are stumbling around blind, but Republicans can have proveable lies pointed out to them and they continue to defend the truthiness of their candidates, and at the same time, implicitly boast of their candidates' lying, saying "Yeah, we lied, get over it."I would reverse your statement as well and say that I'm shocked -- shocked -- that you would claim jesus's teaching and support a guy whose conversion story is faked and who doesn't support the poor and who favors pre-emptive war, but most christians are like this. But reversed statements don't seem popular with Republicans. "Most Buddhists?" How big is your sample size exactly?But really, this post is below your usual standards, just tossing playground taunts of "dumb, dumb" around. I'm disappointed.Not so much, in that you passed the buck on Bush and called McCain nutless.Then post something. That's all hblask is asking.

You are missing the point. Bush made a call on intelligence given- he can do no more and no less. That's not "passing the buck" it's using reason to understand what's going on. You should try it on for size sometime. I did call McCain nutless, which is precisely the point- I reacted as should be when a man willingly molds his beliefs to fit some sort of media driven acceptable form. That's what anyone should say: "Look, man, grow some balls." Which is the opposite of what you did, which is take the "Nobody tells the truth" road, while I demand it, and want answers for non-truths. It's the difference between us- I will recognize lies for what they are and call them so on both sides, while you will try any dance to sashay around the lies as if it should be accepted norm. I don't believe it should be, and furthermore I believe any of you Obama supporters, if you had an ounce of self respect should be all over his site trying to find out RIGHT THE **** NOW why he thinks it's perfectly acceptable to paint himself as a conduit for change when he clearly is stuck in the past, ESPECIALLY on issues of race. Questions should be flying out of your mouth- "How does a typical white woman act, Obama?" Any answer should immediately be followed with, " **** you, you racist prick. God damn you for trying to paint yourself as a person who saw through black and white." Don't you get it? Once it gets out that you're not that guy, forget about it. There is no reason to argue about this anymore, he is a racist plain and simple. If I did an interview and said,"Well, you know my Uncle Thomas, he does the typical black guy thing, you know?" I would be resigning from whatever campaign I was running within 48 hours. That's racism, whenever you develop thought procceses based on the color of ones skin you are a mother****ing racist, and why this is even an argument is beyond me.

[Southern Buddhist 1]

I think for the Democratic party the horrific part is.. this is your best and brightest?

(Loismustdie @ Friday, March 21st, 2008, 10:43 AM) I'm also not a huge fan of Bush .... Also not a fan of McCain,

Bush wasn't your party's best or brightest. McCain isn't your party's best or brightest. Yet you, who so highly praise yourself for demanding the most truthful and best out of everyone, voted for Bush and will vote for McCain. Criticize Dems all you want, but it's quite clear you don't hold your own party, or your own votes, up to the standards you demand with such self-righteousness of others.

[Southern Buddhist 1]

You are missing the point. Bush made a call on intelligence given- he can do no more and no less. That's not "passing the buck" it's using reason to understand what's going on. You should try it on for size sometime. I did call McCain nutless, which is precisely the point- I reacted as should be when a man willingly molds his beliefs to fit some sort of media driven acceptable form. That's what anyone should say: "Look, man, grow some balls." Which is the opposite of what you did, which is take the "Nobody tells the truth" road, while I demand it, and want answers for non-truths. It's the difference between us- I will recognize lies for what they are and call them so on both sides, while you will try any dance to sashay around the lies as if it should be accepted norm. I don't believe it should be, and furthermore I believe any of you Obama supporters, if you had an ounce of self respect should be all over his site trying to find out RIGHT THE **** NOW why he thinks it's perfectly acceptable to paint himself as a conduit for change when he clearly is stuck in the past, ESPECIALLY on issues of race. Questions should be flying out of your mouth- "How does a typical white woman act, Obama?" Any answer should immediately be followed with, " **** you, you racist prick. God damn you for trying to paint yourself as a person who saw through black and white." Don't you get it? Once it gets out that you're not that guy, forget about it. There is no reason to argue about this anymore, he is a racist plain and simple. If I did an interview and said,"Well, you know my Uncle Thomas, he does the typical black guy thing, you know?" I would be resigning from whatever campaign I was running within 48 hours. That's racism, whenever you develop thought procceses based on the color of ones skin you are a mother****ing racist, and why this is even an argument is beyond me.

Foam at the mouth much?

[hblask 1]

It's not that, I just am not in the business of hand holding. I listened, you listened, I heard racism, you didn't. End of story. People react, Obama fires said racist over reaction, compares him to other racists and then makes racist statements, while throwing his grandmother under the proverbial bus. But, of course,there is no racism here because you don't hear it. Everybody else sees it even Obama himself- one of is is either just not listening or just stupid. You decide which one you fall in; I can tell you that in this discourse I am neither.

All I've been asking for is a specific quote that is racist. I have yet to see one.I've seen a bunch that are politically unpopular. I've seen ones that it is politically necessary for a black candidate to distance himself from.It's not really that difficult of a request. Post the racist quote from the controversial sermon. In the absence of such post, I'll be forced to assume this is just Obama-bashing and really nothing about race.

[checkymcfold 0]

We are responding to each other, like normal debates tend to go. Nice of you to drop by and be saddened by us.I've made 2 quotes on his reactions.

actually, you and henry are saying pretty much everything i would say, and fairly well. i'm also glad that SB actually posted some of wright's quotations from sermons. i was mostly referring to lois and BG, neither of whom are really saying anything except "obama bad, durrrr."my point is that i don't even know what we're really talking about. is it ok to talk about politicians' relationship to somewhat crazy religious leaders? then fine, let's talk about obama and mccain and wright and hagge. if not, then we should drop it. to say that it's ok to talk about one and not the other is flat out bullshit. and if you listen to what wright says, and not sean hannity's commentary on it, henry's right. it's inflammatory, and not racist. it's actually not wrong, either--it just could be said better and without so much divisiveness, which is pretty much what obama's condemning in the statements themselves. you know, if you read the speech and don't just watch fox news. obama's response to all of this has been "you can agree with some things that someone close to you says and disagree with other things they say. it doesn't mean that you have to distance them from you completely, although it's probably politically expedient to get 'scandal-ridden' people off your campaign." that seems kinda "duh" to me, and what i meant re: nuance.is bush defensible on tying saddam to 9/11? no. i don't even know why people are trying to do this any longer. your average five year old could make such arguments look stupid. there is no defense whatsoever for ****ing up a war. none. "i made a mistake and acted upon unclear intelligence reports and hundreds of thousands of people died, whoops," is ****ing retarded, and absolutely condemnable on every front. if you argue otherwise, i have literally no problem calling you an ******* and a warmonger who doesn't give a **** about human life. war is the absolutely most serious thing that human beings have ever and will ever engage in, and you do not start one or enter one when there is even a possibility that your reasons for doing so are incorrect. the united states has a long history of following precisely that principle, and bush blew that all to hell.as to the rest of obama's speech, it was pretty much spot on. not ignoring race is a new idea in politics, but it shouldn't be. race has been and will be (at least for a while, even by any realistic sort of optimism) a huge elephant in the proverbial room, and it's refreshing for someone to finally talk about it frankly and honestly in the political sphere. just because we're afraid to talk about it doesn't mean that we shouldn't. it makes us pussies, not "post-racial," "post-racism," or whatever you want to call it. obama just proved he wasn't a pussy, and i'm really glad that he did it.

[Loismustdie 0]

All I've been asking for is a specific quote that is racist. I have yet to see one.I've seen a bunch that are politically unpopular. I've seen ones that it is politically necessary for a black candidate to distance himself from.It's not really that difficult of a request. Post the racist quote from the controversial sermon. In the absence of such post, I'll be forced to assume this is just Obama-bashing and really nothing about race.

So, I refuse to hold your hand through this process and your answer is I must? Not interested, and frankly I couldn't care less what you draw from this conversation at this point. I believe you are a smart person,so I am trying to figure out what the gap is here, where the screw is loose for you. Let me help you if I can- racism occurs anytime you use anything but the word people to define a situation. That should help widen your scope. So, anytime you refer to a "white run country", that's racist. If you say that others will be chosen because they are white- racist as well. If you say that aids was invented by white people as a means to commit genocide on black people- that's racist, dude, plain and simple. If you say that black women will never be thought to be able to give more then they can offer with there bodies- racist, my friend. This guy preached racism from the pulpit, plain and simple.

[Nimue1995 1]

You are missing the point. Bush made a call on intelligence given- he can do no more and no less. That's not "passing the buck" it's using reason to understand what's going on. You should try it on for size sometime. I did call McCain nutless, which is precisely the point- I reacted as should be when a man willingly molds his beliefs to fit some sort of media driven acceptable form. That's what anyone should say: "Look, man, grow some balls." Which is the opposite of what you did, which is take the "Nobody tells the truth" road, while I demand it, and want answers for non-truths. It's the difference between us- I will recognize lies for what they are and call them so on both sides, while you will try any dance to sashay around the lies as if it should be accepted norm. I don't believe it should be, and furthermore I believe any of you Obama supporters, if you had an ounce of self respect should be all over his site trying to find out RIGHT THE **** NOW why he thinks it's perfectly acceptable to paint himself as a conduit for change when he clearly is stuck in the past, ESPECIALLY on issues of race. Questions should be flying out of your mouth- "How does a typical white woman act, Obama?" Any answer should immediately be followed with, " **** you, you racist prick. God damn you for trying to paint yourself as a person who saw through black and white." Don't you get it? Once it gets out that you're not that guy, forget about it. There is no reason to argue about this anymore, he is a racist plain and simple. If I did an interview and said,"Well, you know my Uncle Thomas, he does the typical black guy thing, you know?" I would be resigning from whatever campaign I was running within 48 hours. That's racism, whenever you develop thought procceses based on the color of ones skin you are a mother****ing racist, and why this is even an argument is beyond me.

My dad was a unaware racist. It made me uncomfortable when he'd say something about "that little colored gal" etc. Especially since he was deaf so his comments would kind of reverberate. But if I was in a race for some political office and someone brought it up, I might be inclined also to point out that he lived in a different time and didn't really get why it was racist to say that. Hell he and my whole family belonged to the Mormon Church which until recently didn't let african-americans into their priesthood or temples. But if someone brought up that, I'd be saying, yes I attended the Mormon church when I was young but once I grew up I realized that it was wrong. But I still attended it when my folks were visiting me so they didn't have to attend church alone with a bunch of strangers. And if someone wanted to call me a racist for that or anything else, I'd tell them pretty much what Obama did although probably not as eloquently. Did you even read his speech LMD?

[Nimue1995 1]

P.S. LMD you don't have to worry about me running for political office. I've got way too many skeletons of my own in the closet. After all I DID inhale.

[hblask 1]

So, I refuse to hold your hand through this process and your answer is I must? Not interested, and frankly I couldn't care less what you draw from this conversation at this point. I believe you are a smart person,so I am trying to figure out what the gap is here, where the screw is loose for you. Let me help you if I can- racism occurs anytime you use anything but the word people to define a situation. That should help widen your scope. So, anytime you refer to a "white run country", that's racist. If you say that others will be chosen because they are white- racist as well. If you say that aids was invented by white people as a means to commit genocide on black people- that's racist, dude, plain and simple. If you say that black women will never be thought to be able to give more then they can offer with there bodies- racist, my friend. This guy preached racism from the pulpit, plain and simple.

If I say "Blacks were brought here to be slaves", that's racist? What about the statement "Blacks frequently get pulled over for no reason other than the color of their skin." Is that racist?Are you denying that this country has been traditionally run by white people? (HINT: It has been.)The notion that any mention of race is "racist" is an absurd concept.In fact, here's a statement from me, not the preacher, I want you to tell me if it's racist: The War on Drugs would not exist if white people were being arrested at the rate that black people are arrested for drug crimes. Am I racist?I will admit that the notion that the "AIDS was created by white scientists to harm black people" theory is over-the-edge nuts. Is it racism? That's probably what keeps this ridiculous theory alive, although I'd say it's even more attributable (is that a word?) to the "persecuted victim" complex. It's easier to say "I'm a victim" than it is to say "screw that, I'm succeeding with or without you, so join me or prepare to get dusted." So OK, I'll give you a partial racism on that one. Is that what all the fuss is about? Not from what I can tell; in fact, the "AIDS to kill blacks" seems to be the least mentioned portion of all this.

[hblask 1]

December 2007: “Barack knows what it means living in a country and a culture that is controlled by rich, white people. Hillary would never know that.” – December 2007: “Hillary ain’t never been called a ******. Hillary has never had a people defined as a non-person.”

This seems to be the two most "controversial" comments.The first is a fact. This country is, overall, run by rich white people. Calling such a statement "racism" instead of opening an honest dialogue about why that is the case is counter-productive.The second statement is also a fact. Hillary is not black. She can't know what it feels like to the extent that Obama does.This is racism? LOL.

[Balloon guy 158]

Something many of you are missing:1.When first confronted with this, Barack said he never heard anything wrong.2.Then came out and dumped the Rev and called his speech inflammatory rhetoric ( You're favorite word checky )So either:A. Barack lied about #2 and believes #1 like you guys, showing him to be a Clintoneque politicianorB. Barack believes #1 and what you guys said , and still dumped the Rev. Showing him to be a man of little principle.Either way, he was weighed and found to be wanting.And the juicy part is that you supporters of Obama are acting like we Republicans matter right now. It's you democrats throwing him under the bus. His losing in Pen by a larger number shows that you Dems are finding him too 'black' for your taste. We don't get to show our racism until Nov. And make no mistake, Barack had a magic cloak around him, that made it a guarentee that any negatives brought against him would always be met with cries of racism. This may come to you as a surprise, but we republicans weren't going to vote for him for the most part. He's got a more liberal record than Clinton. This will come out when he is running against us. No need to spend money now saying it.The guy was a political animal from Chicago, let's not pretend he got where he is without being a scumbag politician. Please spare me the he's a breath of fresh air speech. He sold his soul to get where he is just like most politicians, the ones that don't are going to be from smaler areas, not big cities........ever. His problems with his house and Renko are just pacing the sidelings of political debate, waiting to be thrown in to show he was bought once.

[Balloon guy 158]

This seems to be the two most "controversial" comments.The first is a fact. This country is, overall, run by rich white people. Calling such a statement "racism" instead of opening an honest dialogue about why that is the case is counter-productive.The second statement is also a fact. Hillary is not black. She can't know what it feels like to the extent that Obama does.This is racism? LOL.

Does anyone know when I get my section of the country to run? I was hoping that there was a comittee that checked tax returns, then called you.Course most of the really rich white guys I can think of by name...alll far left liberals. So the country is run by racist line of thought might be truer than I think.And make no mistake, saying the country is run by rich white guys, and saying it as a perjorative, is pretty much the definition of inflammatory rhetoric.

[akoff 0]

Something many of you are missing:1.When first confronted with this, Barack said he never heard anything wrong.2.Then came out and dumped the Rev and called his speech inflammatory rhetoric ( You're favorite word checky )So either:A. Barack lied about #2 and believes #1 like you guys, showing him to be a Clintoneque politicianorB. Barack believes #1 and what you guys said , and still dumped the Rev. Showing him to be a man of little principle.Either way, he was weighed and found to be wanting.And the juicy part is that you supporters of Obama are acting like we Republicans matter right now. It's you democrats throwing him under the bus. His losing in Pen by a larger number shows that you Dems are finding him too 'black' for your taste. We don't get to show our racism until Nov. And make no mistake, Barack had a magic cloak around him, that made it a guarentee that any negatives brought against him would always be met with cries of racism. This may come to you as a surprise, but we republicans weren't going to vote for him for the most part. He's got a more liberal record than Clinton. This will come out when he is running against us. No need to spend money now saying it.The guy was a political animal from Chicago, let's not pretend he got where he is without being a scumbag politician. Please spare me the he's a breath of fresh air speech. He sold his soul to get where he is just like most politicians, the ones that don't are going to be from smaler areas, not big cities........ever. His problems with his house and Renko are just pacing the sidelings of political debate, waiting to be thrown in to show he was bought once.

Once again BG spot on...

[hblask 1]

Something many of you are missing:1.When first confronted with this, Barack said he never heard anything wrong.2.Then came out and dumped the Rev and called his speech inflammatory rhetoric ( You're favorite word checky )So either:A. Barack lied about #2 and believes #1 like you guys, showing him to be a Clintoneque politicianorB. Barack believes #1 and what you guys said , and still dumped the Rev. Showing him to be a man of little principle.Either way, he was weighed and found to be wanting.And the juicy part is that you supporters of Obama are acting like we Republicans matter right now. It's you democrats throwing him under the bus. His losing in Pen by a larger number shows that you Dems are finding him too 'black' for your taste. We don't get to show our racism until Nov. And make no mistake, Barack had a magic cloak around him, that made it a guarentee that any negatives brought against him would always be met with cries of racism. This may come to you as a surprise, but we republicans weren't going to vote for him for the most part. He's got a more liberal record than Clinton. This will come out when he is running against us. No need to spend money now saying it.The guy was a political animal from Chicago, let's not pretend he got where he is without being a scumbag politician. Please spare me the he's a breath of fresh air speech. He sold his soul to get where he is just like most politicians, the ones that don't are going to be from smaler areas, not big cities........ever. His problems with his house and Renko are just pacing the sidelings of political debate, waiting to be thrown in to show he was bought once.

For the first part, my understanding is that Wright wasn't always that inflammatory, so it's possible that Obama hadn't personally seen it, and when he found out about it when the political pressure got too hot. None of the scenarios are good signs for Obama's judgement and/or character. Just sayin', it is possible.As for the rest of what you wrote, you are pretty much right on.

Does anyone know when I get my section of the country to run? I was hoping that there was a comittee that checked tax returns, then called you.Course most of the really rich white guys I can think of by name...alll far left liberals. So the country is run by racist line of thought might be truer than I think.And make no mistake, saying the country is run by rich white guys, and saying it as a perjorative, is pretty much the definition of inflammatory rhetoric.

I've pointed no fingers in any of this at left or right, since I hate both. I'm just saying, inflammatory <> racist.And yes, the Dem's have handled this poorly. They should've just said "look at what he said, not the way he said it. It's mostly factual stuff, spoken in a way to increase donations to the church. BFD!" Instead, they allow this to become a giant racial issue. That Liberal White Guilt gets in the way of clear thinking.

[Southern Buddhist 1]

The main reason they attacked us was because of the Securlarism in this society.

So you're saying that if we loved JESUS more, then MUSLIMS would be happy and not attack us?And you've believed this for seven years, since the attack, and never seen the hole in that logic?

[checkymcfold 0]

Something many of you are missing:1.When first confronted with this, Barack said he never heard anything wrong.

quote on this? the first public statements i heard, and the first i've found after research (on fox news, in an interview with major garrett on hannity and colmes), were that he heard a couple of statements LIKE the ones on youtube now, but none of them specifically, and that he would have left the church if he thought that such statements were the general tenor of wright's sermons. again, nuance, not doublespeak.

2.Then came out and dumped the Rev and called his speech inflammatory rhetoric ( You're favorite word checky )

correct.

So either:A. Barack lied about #2 and believes #1 like you guys, showing him to be a Clintoneque politicianorB. Barack believes #1 and what you guys said , and still dumped the Rev. Showing him to be a man of little principle.Either way, he was weighed and found to be wanting.

you're making this weird either/or situation up, and i won't let you do it. first, all politicians lie about shit they've done in the past. even if he was shown to lie or "misremember" or whatever the buzzword is these days, i have no problem with it. ****, hundreds of republicans and democrats alike lied about a war that ended up killing hundreds of thousands. let's get our priorities straight, ok?

And the juicy part is that you supporters of Obama are acting like we Republicans matter right now. It's you democrats throwing him under the bus. His losing in Pen by a larger number shows that you Dems are finding him too 'black' for your taste. We don't get to show our racism until Nov. And make no mistake, Barack had a magic cloak around him, that made it a guarentee that any negatives brought against him would always be met with cries of racism. This may come to you as a surprise, but we republicans weren't going to vote for him for the most part. He's got a more liberal record than Clinton. This will come out when he is running against us. No need to spend money now saying it.The guy was a political animal from Chicago, let's not pretend he got where he is without being a scumbag politician. Please spare me the he's a breath of fresh air speech. He sold his soul to get where he is just like most politicians, the ones that don't are going to be from smaler areas, not big cities........ever. His problems with his house and Renko are just pacing the sidelings of political debate, waiting to be thrown in to show he was bought once.

i honestly don't know what this means. yes, of course republicans matter. they vote. i don't know what you mean by throwing anyone under the bus--you got that wording from fox news and if you actually listen to what obama has said about wright, it's clear that it's absolutely misrepresenting the situation. i don't think it's racist, and obama hasn't said this either, that you're criticizing obama for some things. i expect it. it's hypocritical as all hell, and mostly vapid posturing as i said before, but i expect it, and it's not racist.i don't give a shit whether politicians sell their soul as long as they do a good job, speak eloquently, and actually understand the issues of our time. that's their job, not having a soul. besides, bush supporters talking about faux-political scandals in other campaigns is, like, the most LOL-worthy hypocrisy i can even imagine.

[SlapStick 0]

quote on this? the first public statements i heard, and the first i've found after research (on fox news, in an interview with major garrett on hannity and colmes), were that he heard a couple of statements LIKE the ones on youtube now, but none of them specifically, and that he would have left the church if he thought that such statements were the general tenor of wright's sermons. again, nuance, not doublespeak.also correct.you're making this up, and i won't let you do it. first, all politicians lie about shit they've done in the past. even if he was shown to lie or "misremember" or whatever the buzzword is these days, i have no problem with it. ****, hundreds of republicans and democrats alike lied about a war that ended up killing hundreds of thousands. let's get our priorities straight, ok?i honestly don't know what this means. yes, of course republicans matter. they vote. i don't know what you mean by throwing anyone under the bus--you got that wording from fox news and if you actually listen to what obama has said about wright, it's clear that it's absolutely misrepresenting the situation. i don't think it's racist, and obama hasn't said this either, that you're criticizing obama for some things. i expect it. it's hypocritical as all hell, and mostly vapid posturing as i said before, but i expect it, and it's not racist.i don't give a shit whether politicians sell their soul as long as they do a good job, speak eloquently, and actually understand the issues of our time. that's their job, not having a soul. besides, bush supporters talking about faux-political scandals in other campaigns is, like, the most LOL-worthy hypocrisy i can even imagine.

Well said, glad to have you here, although prepare for all your valid and true points to be completely ignored

[Loismustdie 0]

If I say "Blacks were brought here to be slaves", that's racist? What about the statement "Blacks frequently get pulled over for no reason other than the color of their skin." Is that racist?Are you denying that this country has been traditionally run by white people? (HINT: It has been.)The notion that any mention of race is "racist" is an absurd concept.In fact, here's a statement from me, not the preacher, I want you to tell me if it's racist: The War on Drugs would not exist if white people were being arrested at the rate that black people are arrested for drug crimes. Am I racist?I will admit that the notion that the "AIDS was created by white scientists to harm black people" theory is over-the-edge nuts. Is it racism? That's probably what keeps this ridiculous theory alive, although I'd say it's even more attributable (is that a word?) to the "persecuted victim" complex. It's easier to say "I'm a victim" than it is to say "screw that, I'm succeeding with or without you, so join me or prepare to get dusted." So OK, I'll give you a partial racism on that one. Is that what all the fuss is about? Not from what I can tell; in fact, the "AIDS to kill blacks" seems to be the least mentioned portion of all this.

White run country- yes. Does it matter? No. People run the country. Making an issue of it being run by white people is racist, and in this case a little bit biting the hand that feeds you, don't you think? Many, many steps are taken by big government to try and give minorities opportunity. I couldn't say- I live in a world with mostly white people. I have known many that have been busted for drug related crimes. I was in court for an issue 2 weeks ago and it was mostly mexicans, not a black person in sight. I suppose it's more about where you live, the concentration of the population, etc. Counter-question: How does this pastors hate speech help black men/women making wrong choices feel empowered to make better choices, where is the hope? Non-existent. You missed his claim that "black women are only viewed as valuable as what they can give with there bodies." There are others, we just don't hear it the same. It's sort of a silly argument at this point, Obama is obviously ****ed, and can't dig his way out of this hole, although he has tried."Grandma was a typical white person." "A typical white person crosses the street when a black man is headed towards them." Seriously? This is his deep, futuristic views? Bye-bye presidency, Mr. Obama. As if your politics were not enough you had to be this dumb. People that have commented on my anger about this, understand this- I was buying into his rhetoric, I was almost duped by this waste of political time. I was considering voting Dem instead, now there is no way.

[Balloon guy 158]

quote on this? the first public statements i heard, and the first i've found after research (on fox news, in an interview with major garrett on hannity and colmes), were that he heard a couple of statements LIKE the ones on youtube now, but none of them specifically, and that he would have left the church if he thought that such statements were the general tenor of wright's sermons. again, nuance, not doublespeak.

What he said was:The statements that Rev. Wright made that are the cause of this controversy were not statements I personally heard him preach while I sat in the pews of Trinity or heard him utter in private conversation.

correct.

I think you mean correct again.

you're making this weird either/or situation up, and i won't let you do it. first, all politicians lie about shit they've done in the past. even if he was shown to lie or "misremember" or whatever the buzzword is these days, i have no problem with it. ****, hundreds of republicans and democrats alike lied about a war that ended up killing hundreds of thousands. let's get our priorities straight, ok?

You are not being honest about the war and I will not let you do it. First we will define a lie; a lie is stating something when you know that it is untrue. Now are you ready to prove to me that HUNDREDS of Rs and Ds lied about the war? You are so full of rhetoric here that I am suspecting that it is someone else on your account, or you are drunk.

i honestly don't know what this means. yes, of course republicans matter. they vote. i don't know what you mean by throwing anyone under the bus--you got that wording from fox news and if you actually listen to what obama has said about wright, it's clear that it's absolutely misrepresenting the situation. i don't think it's racist, and obama hasn't said this either, that you're criticizing obama for some things. i expect it. it's hypocritical as all hell, and mostly vapid posturing as i said before, but i expect it, and it's not racist.

That's twice you used the word vapid in the last 3 days. I suspect this was a word of the day at leftwingnutjobs.com recently.I actually thought Obama's speech was really well done. As a political spin he did an excellant job. Had he not first denied ever hearing anything in 20 years from his pastor I would say he would have been successful too. But one thing Clinton taught us, you can fool us, you can use us, you can trick us, but if you lie to us, you better not get caught. But I love the rhetoric of throwing fox news out there as an immediate downgrading of the value of my information. Well done. Your transformation into crow is almost complete.

i don't give a darn whether politicians sell their soul as long as they do a good job, speak eloquently, and actually understand the issues of our time. that's their job, not having a soul. besides, bush supporters talking about faux-political scandals in other campaigns is, like, the most LOL-worthy hypocrisy i can even imagine.

Again Checky, you are using rhetoric like a pro. I think that book you read about rhetoric etc didn't emphasive enough the position you place yourself in. Do I either; A. discount everything you say since you apperently are so biased that you immediately discount all things said by a side you disagree with? Or do I B. argue with you and use rhetoric right back at you? Or do I C. pat your head and send you on your way?I think this is all a Freudian reaction to your golf bet being nullified because Obama is about to be dumped and my vote will be free. Feeling a great desire to continue giving me grief for having to vote for the most liberal candidate the dems have ever put up was so delicious that you are now scrambling to regrasp your former glory. I for one am now relieved that even though I will have to hold my nose, I will be voting against Hillary in the days to come.BTW I'll be seeing McCain on Monday, anything you want me to tell the next POTUS?

[Balloon guy 158]

For the first part, my understanding is that Wright wasn't always that inflammatory, so it's possible that Obama hadn't personally seen it, and when he found out about it when the political pressure got too hot. None of the scenarios are good signs for Obama's judgement and/or character. Just sayin', it is possible.As for the rest of what you wrote, you are pretty much right on. I've pointed no fingers in any of this at left or right, since I hate both. I'm just saying, inflammatory <> racist.And yes, the Dem's have handled this poorly. They should've just said "look at what he said, not the way he said it. It's mostly factual stuff, spoken in a way to increase donations to the church. BFD!" Instead, they allow this to become a giant racial issue. That Liberal White Guilt gets in the way of clear thinking.

I have listened to a few black pastors and the style with which Wright uses is very common. There is great pssion in their messages. This doen't translate well when the words are a critism of the country, and of a skin color. I would say that for the most part they were not anywhere near as racist as the things Senator Robert 'Sheets' Bird has uttered in the past, seeing as how he was a former Klu Klux Klan leader, but for a lot of what Wright said, there is enough wiggle room to see it how you want to.And QFT about the Liberal White Guilt, it's going to be a factor in this race no matter who wins. Not just the left either.

[checkymcfold 0]

What he said was:The statements that Rev. Wright made that are the cause of this controversy were not statements I personally heard him preach while I sat in the pews of Trinity or heard him utter in private conversation.

exactly my point. i don't understand how you can willfully misread a statement like that, honestly.

I think you mean correct again.

no.

You are not being honest about the war and I will not let you do it. First we will define a lie; a lie is stating something when you know that it is untrue. Now are you ready to prove to me that HUNDREDS of Rs and Ds lied about the war? You are so full of rhetoric here that I am suspecting that it is someone else on your account, or you are drunk.

were some votes for authorizing military conflict in iraq merely ill informed? yes. were some also willful misinterpretations of sketchy intel that (and this is well-documented) had numerous reports that would call it into question? yes. if you willfully disregard information and present a case as oversimplified when there are numerous conflicting intelligence reports around at the tim that you make your decision to do so, are you lying? yes.even if you aren't lying in the above situation, is it one of the most colossal mistakes in postcolonial history to kill hundreds of thousands of people and then find out you did it for reasons that turned out to be false? yes.

That's twice you used the word vapid in the last 3 days. I suspect this was a word of the day at leftwingnutjobs.com recently.I actually thought Obama's speech was really well done. As a political spin he did an excellant job. Had he not first denied ever hearing anything in 20 years from his pastor I would say he would have been successful too. But one thing Clinton taught us, you can fool us, you can use us, you can trick us, but if you lie to us, you better not get caught. But I love the rhetoric of throwing fox news out there as an immediate downgrading of the value of my information. Well done. Your transformation into crow is almost complete.

this doesn't actually say anything, just fyi. hence, vapid. i don't use such terms lightly.explain how the speech he gave in PA is "political spin," please?

Again Checky, you are using rhetoric like a pro. I think that book you read about rhetoric etc didn't emphasive enough the position you place yourself in. Do I either; A. discount everything you say since you apperently are so biased that you immediately discount all things said by a side you disagree with? Or do I B. argue with you and use rhetoric right back at you? Or do I C. pat your head and send you on your way?I think this is all a Freudian reaction to your golf bet being nullified because Obama is about to be dumped and my vote will be free. Feeling a great desire to continue giving me grief for having to vote for the most liberal candidate the dems have ever put up was so delicious that you are now scrambling to regrasp your former glory. I for one am now relieved that even though I will have to hold my nose, I will be voting against Hillary in the days to come.BTW I'll be seeing McCain on Monday, anything you want me to tell the next POTUS?

again, i don't know what this means. if you want to actually respond to the points i've made, i'd be glad to respond in kind. for the record, i highly respect mccain, and would actually be quite pleased if he and obama were able to run campaigns based on the issues rather than bullshit stories concocted by the conservative media (or the liberal media--the story on mccain put out by the NYT falls into the same category as far as i'm concerned).edit: liberal is not a bad word. that's another one you got from hannity, et al.

[Balloon guy 158]

exactly my point. i don't understand how you can willfully misread a statement like that, honestly.

Oh, I see, He hadn't heard those EXACT speeches. And as we can all assume, these speechers were most likely the ONLY time he said these things. Oprah was just unlucky to be at the service where the Rev made these EXACT speeches.

were some votes for authorizing military conflict in iraq merely ill informed? yes. were some also willful misinterpretations of sketchy intel that (and this is well-documented) had numerous reports that would call it into question? yes. if you willfully disregard information and present a case as oversimplified when there are numerous conflicting intelligence reports around at the tim that you make your decision to do so, are you lying? yes.

Again hindsite makes for bad proof of judgement on others. When the vast majority of the world all interpreted the intel the same, and it proved to be false, expecting certain people to catch it is a little unfair.

even if you aren't lying in the above situation, is it one of the most colossal mistakes in postcolonial history to kill hundreds of thousands of people and then find out you did it for reasons that turned out to be false? yes.

Only ~150K dead as of last count so the hundreds screams of rhetoric.

explain how the speech he gave in PA is "political spin," please?

Obama had to make a speech, answering the charge that his pastor is a racist and Obama is accountable for chosing him to be on his election campaign in a paid capacity. Obama did a good job of first making it seem that the black community is just this way, but come on, he can't disown them. After all his Grandmother was just this way, and you wouldn't want me to dump her would you?It really was a direction stolen from Nixon's Checkers the dog speech. Of course most good political speeches are stolen from Nixon.

again, i don't know what this means. if you want to actually respond to the points i've made, i'd be glad to respond in kind. for the record, i highly respect mccain, and would actually be quite pleased if he and obama were able to run campaigns based on the issues rather than bullshit stories concocted by the conservative media (or the liberal media--the story on mccain put out by the NYT falls into the same category as far as i'm concerned).edit: liberal is not a bad word. that's another one you got from hannity, et al.

Ah again with the rhetoric. Because I cannot have thought for myself that liberalism is wrong. I can only have gotten marching orders from Hannity. Which would be hard since I don't listen to him because I think he's an idiot. A search on the forum would reveal that I have stated that many times.I do love the left though, they are the only ones that think, so anything they say is gospel. Therefore if you are against them you must not think. So they can comfortabley continue believing that they have not been proven again and again through history that liberalism is a fools pursuit, based on feel good lies that do not translate into reality. Mostly I find these people to be so open minded, that they need their brains closed for repairs.But at least you feel good and righteous as you wallow in depression over how the world doesn't like us. Because the single greatest benchmark a country can have is to be liked. And good Mexican food, but that goes without saying.

[Nimue1995 1]

White run country- yes. Does it matter? No. People run the country. Making an issue of it being run by white people is racist, and in this case a little bit biting the hand that feeds you, don't you think? Many, many steps are taken by big government to try and give minorities opportunity. I couldn't say- I live in a world with mostly white people. I have known many that have been busted for drug related crimes. I was in court for an issue 2 weeks ago and it was mostly mexicans, not a black person in sight. I suppose it's more about where you live, the concentration of the population, etc. Counter-question: How does this pastors hate speech help black men/women making wrong choices feel empowered to make better choices, where is the hope? Non-existent. You missed his claim that "black women are only viewed as valuable as what they can give with there bodies." There are others, we just don't hear it the same. It's sort of a silly argument at this point, Obama is obviously ****ed, and can't dig his way out of this hole, although he has tried."Grandma was a typical white person." "A typical white person crosses the street when a black man is headed towards them." Seriously? This is his deep, futuristic views? Bye-bye presidency, Mr. Obama. As if your politics were not enough you had to be this dumb. People that have commented on my anger about this, understand this- I was buying into his rhetoric, I was almost duped by this waste of political time. I was considering voting Dem instead, now there is no way.

ROFL you vote democrat LMD? Not in this lifetime. Anyway, I'm reminded of all the rhetoric I heard in Washington during the Bill Clinton presidential races. Everyone here figured with Monicagate and all he was going down in a landslide. Didn't happen. Turned out that most people didn't even care all that much except the hardcore Republicans and the media. I have a feeling this will probably turn out the same way unless the Dems really want to shoot themselves in the foot and make Hilary their candidate. She doesn't have near the charisma to outweigh the negatives that her husband had and still has.