1
   

Obama Exposed As Black

 
 
Finn dAbuzz
 
  1  
Sun 23 Mar, 2008 01:11 am
Ticomaya wrote:
OCCOM BILL wrote:
I have no trouble getting past that point.


I know you don't. After all, you are a rational and reasonable fellow yourself.


Who, I'm afraid, is allowing his fixation with Obama to move him toward less rational and less reasonable locales.

Commitment and loyalty are traits many of us respect and which may of us would not be surprised to find are highly valued by O'Bill.

O'Bill: You and I went back and forth on Obamania quite early in his campaign. To your credit, you have been a supporter since the very beginning, and yet I can't help but wonder how or why your support seems to be undiminished.

If I recall correctly, and perhaps I do not, you have put much stock in his ability to inspire, convince and lead people., even to the point that you think these qualities trump practical experience.

Has your opinion of these qualities not changed at all during all the months since our initial debate? Does he really still shine as brightly for you now as he did last year?

Shine is what he has and what you seem to have admitted attracted you to him. Has that shine not lost any lustre? The Wright association hasn't given you pause to reconsider?

You'll support whomever you feel is the best candidate and I freely admit that my wonder has no bearing on your decision, but I am curious.
0 Replies
 
OCCOM BILL
 
  1  
Sun 23 Mar, 2008 02:45 am
Good to see you, Finn.
You've got it pretty close. Obama has certainly gotten a bit dinged up, most notably by Wright's nonsense to be sure. But no… it isn't terribly important to me. Not being a religious man; it would not be difficult to show me excerpts from any preacher's pulpits that struck me as not my thing. I do not expect any candidate to be perfect (far from it), and find an expectation for all of any candidate's peeps to be irreproachable to be naïve at best. Frankly; I think (hope?) he's handling it fine.

Do note that my early support was in part do to a belief that the SC could soon become too conservative for my taste. I wouldn't like to see women lose control of their own bodies… at least not beyond the true intent of Roe. While the inherent ugliness of abortion cannot be diminished; it is eclipsed, at least in my mind, by the notion that men should decide for women what to do with their bodies. I'd be further disgusted by the simple fact that any prohibition would only ever really be applicable to the poor. But that's for another thread. The point being; the SC and immigration pretty much ruled out most Republican candidates for me this cycle, right out of the gate.

Keep in mind; McCain probably represents my own views on foreign policy better than any other candidate and I like most of what the Right doesn't like about him as well. I'm almost to a win/win situation here if only Hillary can be knocked out of the race. Obama's perceived ability (by me) to reach across the aisle and communicate with other world powers on behalf of the United States is still his long suit, IMO. Yes, I know this is unproven, but my instincts about people have typically served me very well.

I am unmoved by rhetoric that he's somehow less of a uniter because of the current potential Democrat split for several reasons:

First and foremost; I just don't believe it. Whether it be Hillary or Obama; I think the Left will go to bat for their candidate… just as the Right will find a way to reconcile their disappointment with the tough to swallow reality that McCain is as far Right as the public could reasonably be expected to accept in the wake of an unpopular Bush Presidency.

Second; I think the current rift with the Democrat's is simply because the race is so close. Not Obama's fault. Frankly, I think it's artificially close; older ladies are the most dominant voting block and they're irrationally attached to Hillary. Meanwhile stagnant racism reduces an otherwise dominating campaign to a competitive race. (IMHO, If Hillary and Obama were both white men with their same attributes; Obama would have all but wrapped up the nomination in New Hampshire… and would now be a 10 to 1 favorite in the general.)

Third; ack, this is getting too long and I'm getting too tired. In closing; yes I think Obama's been tarnished somewhat, perhaps more than I'd have guessed he would, but no this latest nonsense doesn't much faze me. Frankly; I was considerably more put off by the Rezko stuff… and unlike this silly Wright stuff; that could actually grow some real teeth.

If the talking point about his followers worshiping him like some kind of non-politician politician were true; he'd be in serious trouble. Fortunately for him and his supporters; that always was mostly a bunch of BS… and less sleazy is still better than more sleazy. Surely you'd agree he's still considerably less sleazy than Hillary Clinton.
0 Replies
 
gungasnake
 
  1  
Sun 23 Mar, 2008 07:09 am
OCCOM BILL wrote:


...Do note that my early support was in part do to a belief that the SC could soon become too conservative for my taste. I wouldn't like to see women lose control of their own bodies… at least not beyond the true intent of Roe. While the inherent ugliness of abortion cannot be diminished; it is eclipsed, at least in my mind, by the notion that men should decide for women what to do with their bodies. I'd be further disgusted by the simple fact that any prohibition would only ever really be applicable to the poor. But that's for another thread. The point being; the SC and immigration pretty much ruled out most Republican candidates for me this cycle, right out of the gate.......


Well put, and that's pretty much you, me, and every body else; I've mentioned this on a couple of conservative forums and they don't like hearing it but, basically it's the pubbie rank and file which has just told conservatives to screw off and go to hell and it's basically about this one stupid issue.

You either believe in freedom or you don't and some body who doesn't have legal control over their own body simply is not free.
0 Replies
 
snood
 
  1  
Sun 23 Mar, 2008 10:22 am
O'Bill, thank you for the kind words Sir.

backatcha
0 Replies
 
JTT
 
  1  
Sun 23 Mar, 2008 12:14 pm
OCCOM BILL wrote:
Good to see you Finn.


Here we agree. It's always a treat, isn't it?

OCCOM BILL wrote:

You've got it pretty close. Obama has certainly gotten a bit dinged up, most notably by Wright's nonsense to be sure.


Your level of cognitive dissonance on this remains, sadly, but predictably, the same, O'Bill. You simply can't bring yourself to address the facts. In this you're not all that different from the majority of the US populace, Republicans and Democrats alike.

Read this, Jeremiah Wright: True and False at

http://antiwar.com/henderson/?articleid=12553

a judicious appraisal of what Pastor Wright actually said.

OCCOM BILL wrote:

Do note that my early support was in part do[sic] to a belief that the SC could soon become too conservative for my taste. I wouldn't like to see women lose control of their own bodies… at least not beyond the true intent of Roe. While the inherent ugliness of abortion cannot be diminished; it is eclipsed, at least in my mind, by the notion that men should decide for women what to do with their bodies. I'd be further disgusted by the simple fact that any prohibition would only ever really be applicable to the poor.


And yet you've been supporting the very people who would have this. Come on, Bill, please show a little consistency. There sure is a whole lot of flip flopping going on around here. And the poor, have they been treated well by those that you offered unflagging support for?

OCCOM BILL wrote:

Keep in mind; McCain probably represents my own views on foreign policy better than any other candidate and I like most of what the Right doesn't like about him as well.


What, like his uncanny ability for pandering and flip flopping; clearly signs of a real maverick, a real straight shooter.

OCCOM BILL wrote:

... but my instincts about people have typically served me very well.


Sorry for the delay. I had to clean my oatmeal off the keyboard. I'll spare you the litany of names that would quickly show that your perceptive skills don't quite stack up to the level you'd have us believe, Bill.

OCCOM BILL wrote:

… just as the Right will find a way to reconcile their disappointment with the tough to swallow reality that McCain is as far Right as the public could reasonably be expected to accept in the wake of an unpopular Bush Presidency.


How could your instincts possibly tell you, or anyone's for that matter, just where McSwing sits on anything?

OCCOM BILL wrote:

... older ladies are the most dominant voting block and they're irrationally attached to Hillary.


O'Bill chides others for "irrational" attachments. Ya coulda knocked me over with a feather!

OCCOM BILL wrote:

Meanwhile stagnant racism reduces an otherwise dominating campaign to a competitive race. (IMHO, If Hillary and Obama were both white men with their same attributes; Obama would have all but wrapped up the nomination in New Hampshire… and would now be a 10 to 1 favorite in the general.)


I agree, but it's hardly stagnant.


OCCOM BILL wrote:
... and less sleazy is still better than more sleazy. Surely you'd agree he's still considerably less sleazy than Hillary Clinton.


Hillary Clinton?! HILLARY CLINTON!

You missed a golden opportunity for a grand slam comparative, and you could have picked from any number of neo-cons that, at the risk of repeating myself, you've been offering support for for a good long time.
0 Replies
 
nimh
 
  1  
Sun 23 Mar, 2008 01:44 pm
I thought it was a pleasant surprise when I found the below LA Times report. It goes beyond your traditional, reactive, news story, and I think encapsulates exactly the kind of reflection on race that Obama tried to invite with his speech.

Not that it's amazingly in-depth; but it's honest. With all the complexities that involves. And that makes it stand apart from most all of the other newspaper articles that appeared since Obama's speech. A good read.


Quote:
Talking about race: Um, you first

Obama's speech called for a conversation that not everyone wants.

Los Angeles Times
March 23, 2008

LITHONIA, GA. -- How do we start a national dialogue on race?

Charlotte Griffin was at a restaurant one evening when a white woman complimented her on her children's behavior. The stranger may have meant to be kind. But Griffin wondered if she heard a note of condescension -- an assumption, perhaps, that black kids aren't usually so polite.

How do we navigate that minefield?

As a teenager, Stan North went to work on the assembly line at Ford. He made good money. But he noticed that he -- like all the other white guys -- always got the dirty jobs. Seething, he concluded that the boss wouldn't dare give a black man heavy lifting, for fear of being tagged a racist.

How do we acknowledge that anger?

In his recent address on race relations in America -- prompted by his minister's explosive sermons on that topic -- Sen. Barack Obama declared that whites must understand the black experience in America and blacks must appreciate the white perspective. Otherwise, he said, we face a grinding "racial stalemate."

His remarks struck a nerve: More than 4 million people watched the Democratic presidential candidate on live TV, and the speech is now a top video on YouTube, viewed nearly 3 million times.

Preachers and teachers across the country have been trying to figure out how to leverage that interest to launch deep, authentic discussions about race. In some quarters, there's strong interest.

"This is a very good time to put everything on the table," said Abdullah Robinson, 64, a black man who lives in suburban Atlanta. "We don't know nothing about each other, and we've been living together for hundreds of years."

But others don't want any part of a dialogue that starts from the premise that there is a black America and a white America. They don't want to hear about victims and oppressors. It's past time, they say, to move on.

Blacks "bring up the enslavement card way too much," said JoAnna Cullinane-Halda, 64, who just opened a home decor boutique in rural Colorado. "I'm Irish. My people were enslaved as well. But it's far enough in our dark past. We've gone beyond that. Let it go."

The complexities of opening a dialogue on race were evident after a day of long conversations with African Americans in Lithonia, Ga., a suburban haven for black professionals outside Atlanta, and with whites in Franktown, Colo., a working-class town in the hills southeast of Denver.

Carmen Van Kerckhove, co-founder of a diversity consulting firm in New York, described the dynamic this way: "Human beings tend to be really focused on their own oppression, and tend to be less interested in hearing about the oppression of others."

Old resentments

North, 50, grew up in integrated Detroit. He went to school with black friends. He played ball with them, swam with them. Every now and then, fists would fly over a racial insult. Then they'd all go back to hanging out together.

As far as North was concerned, everyone was equal. If anything, he said, blacks were better off because affirmative action gave them a boost into college. His own grades weren't good enough for a scholarship; he ended up building engines at Ford.

A few years in, he tried to get shifted off the heavy jobs -- but his boss, he said, dismissed him with a curt: "You're a white boy. What're you crying about?" North looked around. He noticed that when minorities complained, "they got moved to a different job, because [the supervisors] were afraid of the race card."

Now North has a good job repairing tractors and trailers in Franktown. But when he reflects on his days at Ford, he feels the old resentment.

"I kept hearing: 'Minority this, minority that. Blacks aren't getting this, blacks aren't getting that.' I'm disgusted with it," he said. "OK, fine, they've gotten stepped on for 400 years. Let's give them something [to make up for it] and be done with it, the way we did with the Indians."

He's had enough, he said, of identity politics: "If you're born here, you're an American. Period. Act like an American." A fellow mechanic began listing racial and ethnic groups: African American, Hispanic American, Chinese American.

"It's tiring," North interrupted sharply. "These people had the same opportunities I did. . . . And they want everything handed to them."

Same opportunities? Same schools, same sports teams, yes.

But Wayne Sledge, who is 48 and black, went to an integrated school in Georgia -- and he doesn't remember everything being so equal. Sledge said it was clear that "the white people didn't want the black people in the school." There were bloody brawls. A pep rally was interrupted by a student in a Ku Klux Klan hood. "It was pretty rough," said Sledge.

Pam Miller also went to an integrated school in the mid-1970s, in suburban St. Louis. Her most vivid memories are of terror:

Two white men chasing her with crowbars.

A white boy trying to throw her over the banister at school.

A white girl -- someone she'd thought her friend -- standing by, laughing, as Miller ran down the street chasing a truck carrying two of her white tormentors. Miller slapped the girl.

Today, age 47 and settled in Georgia, Miller says she wouldn't be so quick to strike. Her grandfather carried a sharp anger against whites all his life -- an anger that came from years of minding his place, years of "yes suh, yes suh, yes suh," Miller said.

She doesn't want such resentment to cloud her own life, so she has worked deliberately, with the Lord's help, to shake free. She holds two jobs, at JCPenney and a coffee shop, and she serves up the same smile for all customers, black and white.

Still, her memories shadow her, shaping her perceptions.

The other day, a white woman shopping at Penney's commented on a stuffed monkey for sale. Miller heard something in that remark. The woman made "monkey" sound like a racist innuendo. Maybe she didn't mean a thing by it.

But Miller felt certain she did.

'In this day and age?'

Lithonia is anchored by big new houses, upscale shopping and a gleaming, prosperous mega-church so big it has its own gym. It also happens to be nearly 80% African American.

So one of Ora Hammond's white co-workers freely refers to the suburb as "the ghetto." Another of Hammond's colleagues in the operations department at Delta Air Lines complains that affirmative action amounts to racism against whites.

"We've said things to each other that hurt," said Hammond, 49, who is black. "But the bottom line is: They're still my friends."

Hammond says he and his white friends talk about race all the time. The conversations can get dicey. People get mad. But it's worth it, he says, because it brings them all closer.

In her small beauty salon in Franktown, Charlotte Britton, 65, serves white and black customers. But Britton, who is white, wouldn't dream of talking with them about race. Part of that is business: She likes to keep chatter in the salon light -- no politics, no religion.

But the deeper truth is this: She never dreamed that anyone would want to talk about race. Until she saw video clips of Obama's pastor sermonizing about black oppression, Britton said she had no clue that anyone other than a few hard-core white supremacists thought much about skin color.

"I thought we were past that," she said. "I didn't realize this was going on in the United States. In this day and age? I was shocked."

In renouncing his pastor's remarks, Obama urged blacks and whites to reach out to one another. He asked blacks to recognize that "most working- and middle-class white Americans don't feel that they have been particularly privileged by their race. . . . No one's handed them anything. . . . They've worked hard all their lives, many times only to see their jobs shipped overseas or their pension dumped."

For whites, he explained that the roots of black anger trace a bitter path from slavery through segregation through legalized discrimination that kept generations of blacks from buying homes and working their way into the middle class.

Whites, he said, must acknowledge "that what ails the African American community does not just exist in the minds of black people; that the legacy of discrimination -- and current incidents of discrimination . . . are real and must be addressed."

Britton, in her Country HAIRitage salon, finds that argument unconvincing.

"They're bringing up slavery," she said, bewildered. "I had nothing to do with slavery."

'This is America'

Over lunch with two friends at the Grill on the Hill in Franktown, Pat Millsap expressed unease about her mother's views on race, especially Latino immigration. "I don't like the way she talks about it," she said.

Then Millsap, 52, looked down at her plate.

"You know," she said, "I've been looking for jobs in environmental education. A lot of them require that you speak Spanish. It sounds so awful to say this, but it's very frustrating. Shouldn't they learn English? This is America."

'Even I want to move'

As she put the finishing touches on a client's look in a Lithonia beauty salon, Griffin -- the woman with notably well-behaved children -- talked about her home in Conyers, a racially mixed suburb a few miles to the east.

She'd always thought of Conyers as a nice place to raise a family, with a slow-paced lifestyle and some pretty good schools. But lower-income blacks have begun to move in from central Atlanta, Griffin said, bringing crime and blight.

Whites have started moving out. Griffin, 36, blames that on racism.

Then she admits she's not comfortable, either, with what Conyers is becoming. The new black arrivals are dragging down the quality of life. Sometimes, she said, "even I want to move out."

The challenge of unity

"If we simply retreat into our respective corners," Obama said last week, "we will never be able to come together."

But coming together is hard.

It may require owning up to uncomfortable prejudices.

It may require seeing pain we don't want to know exists.

Lorry Schmitz, who is white, was married for seven years to a black man. She says he chose to be oblivious to racism, but she saw and felt every slight -- starting on their honeymoon cruise, when passengers kept assuming her husband was a ship worker, even when he wore a suit and tie. Schmitz saw racism in the black community, too; her in-laws made clear that they wished their son had married a black woman.

Such attitudes disturbed her deeply.

"We're stronger and smarter when we mix," said Schmitz, 52. "This is supposed to be a melting pot."

But Schmitz is an anthropologist by training, and she knows how tough it is to bring people together. "We are genetically set up to preserve our tribe," she said, "so anyone who looks different or sounds different is isolated."

She sighed, frustrated.

"It's so complex," she said.

A friend at her table interrupted, laughing: "It's not black and white."

Schmitz giggled. Then she repeated, more soberly: "No. It's not black and white."

---

[email protected]
[email protected]
0 Replies
 
okie
 
  1  
Sun 23 Mar, 2008 07:16 pm
gungasnake wrote:
OCCOM BILL wrote:


...Do note that my early support was in part do to a belief that the SC could soon become too conservative for my taste. I wouldn't like to see women lose control of their own bodies… at least not beyond the true intent of Roe. While the inherent ugliness of abortion cannot be diminished; it is eclipsed, at least in my mind, by the notion that men should decide for women what to do with their bodies. I'd be further disgusted by the simple fact that any prohibition would only ever really be applicable to the poor. But that's for another thread. The point being; the SC and immigration pretty much ruled out most Republican candidates for me this cycle, right out of the gate.......


Well put, and that's pretty much you, me, and every body else; I've mentioned this on a couple of conservative forums and they don't like hearing it but, basically it's the pubbie rank and file which has just told conservatives to screw off and go to hell and it's basically about this one stupid issue.

You either believe in freedom or you don't and some body who doesn't have legal control over their own body simply is not free.

I hope you guys feel good about standing up for the one issue you really care about, the right to kill your own offspring. That is pathetic.
0 Replies
 
dyslexia
 
  1  
Sun 23 Mar, 2008 08:29 pm
okie wrote:
the right to kill your own offspring


hyperbole=obvious and intentional exaggeration totally devoid of rational justification. What okie does best is opinionate as if he were capable of sustained coherent thought.
0 Replies
 
okie
 
  1  
Sun 23 Mar, 2008 10:15 pm
I am simply calling a spade a spade. Abortion is the killing of a fetus or an unborn child, so if it isn't the killer's offspring, what is it, dys? Perhaps you should study biology? Cloaking what happens in scientific terms does not change what happens.
0 Replies
 
dlowan
 
  1  
Mon 24 Mar, 2008 03:03 am
dyslexia wrote:
okie wrote:
the right to kill your own offspring


hyperbole=obvious and intentional exaggeration totally devoid of rational justification. What okie does best is opinionate as if he were capable of sustained coherent thought.


Well said.



Not to mention his repeated attempts to drag topics and any reasoned debate into a stinking swamp of unrelated crap.

Why? Who knows. Can't stand rational discussion?


Faugh.


Ignore it.
0 Replies
 
rabel22
 
  1  
Mon 24 Mar, 2008 02:46 pm
Perhaps Okie is a little bit radical but I cant help but wonder how many Ensteins we have offed for the convience of people who dont want to be bothered. Most abortions are performed on married women not teenagers.
0 Replies
 
dyslexia
 
  1  
Mon 24 Mar, 2008 03:45 pm
Abolition of a woman's right to abortion, when and if she wants it, amounts to compulsory maternity: a form of rape by the State.
0 Replies
 
okie
 
  1  
Mon 24 Mar, 2008 04:18 pm
rabel22 wrote:
Perhaps Okie is a little bit radical but I cant help but wonder how many Ensteins we have offed for the convience of people who dont want to be bothered. Most abortions are performed on married women not teenagers.

Thanks for the partial defence, but if sticking up for the unborn is radical, then I plead guilty. As far as Dys claiming compulsory maternity, that is utter nonsense, nobody forces a woman to jump into bed, unless it is rape. In cases of where a pregnancy results from a crime, such as rape, I think the pregnancy could be eliminated very early on. But for anyone to advocate abortion as a form of birth control, especially in the last trimester, I dare those folks to sit and watch the abortion personally and then come back here and tell us that is proper and right and should be legal. That is worse than pathetic.

I don't know why virtually every liberal conservative argument ends up with the subject of abortion, but it seems to.
0 Replies
 
Finn dAbuzz
 
  1  
Mon 24 Mar, 2008 05:41 pm
OCCOM BILL wrote:
Good to see you, Finn.
You've got it pretty close. Obama has certainly gotten a bit dinged up, most notably by Wright's nonsense to be sure. But no… it isn't terribly important to me. Not being a religious man; it would not be difficult to show me excerpts from any preacher's pulpits that struck me as not my thing. I do not expect any candidate to be perfect (far from it), and find an expectation for all of any candidate's peeps to be irreproachable to be naïve at best. Frankly; I think (hope?) he's handling it fine.

Do note that my early support was in part do to a belief that the SC could soon become too conservative for my taste. I wouldn't like to see women lose control of their own bodies… at least not beyond the true intent of Roe. While the inherent ugliness of abortion cannot be diminished; it is eclipsed, at least in my mind, by the notion that men should decide for women what to do with their bodies. I'd be further disgusted by the simple fact that any prohibition would only ever really be applicable to the poor. But that's for another thread. The point being; the SC and immigration pretty much ruled out most Republican candidates for me this cycle, right out of the gate.

Keep in mind; McCain probably represents my own views on foreign policy better than any other candidate and I like most of what the Right doesn't like about him as well. I'm almost to a win/win situation here if only Hillary can be knocked out of the race. Obama's perceived ability (by me) to reach across the aisle and communicate with other world powers on behalf of the United States is still his long suit, IMO. Yes, I know this is unproven, but my instincts about people have typically served me very well.

I am unmoved by rhetoric that he's somehow less of a uniter because of the current potential Democrat split for several reasons:

First and foremost; I just don't believe it. Whether it be Hillary or Obama; I think the Left will go to bat for their candidate… just as the Right will find a way to reconcile their disappointment with the tough to swallow reality that McCain is as far Right as the public could reasonably be expected to accept in the wake of an unpopular Bush Presidency.

Second; I think the current rift with the Democrat's is simply because the race is so close. Not Obama's fault. Frankly, I think it's artificially close; older ladies are the most dominant voting block and they're irrationally attached to Hillary. Meanwhile stagnant racism reduces an otherwise dominating campaign to a competitive race. (IMHO, If Hillary and Obama were both white men with their same attributes; Obama would have all but wrapped up the nomination in New Hampshire… and would now be a 10 to 1 favorite in the general.)

Third; ack, this is getting too long and I'm getting too tired. In closing; yes I think Obama's been tarnished somewhat, perhaps more than I'd have guessed he would, but no this latest nonsense doesn't much faze me. Frankly; I was considerably more put off by the Rezko stuff… and unlike this silly Wright stuff; that could actually grow some real teeth.

If the talking point about his followers worshiping him like some kind of non-politician politician were true; he'd be in serious trouble. Fortunately for him and his supporters; that always was mostly a bunch of BS… and less sleazy is still better than more sleazy. Surely you'd agree he's still considerably less sleazy than Hillary Clinton.


I may have missed one of your points, but I don't believe that the current primary situation suggests Obama is a "divider." However, I don't think there is any reason to believe he truly is a "uniter," other than his grandiose rhetoric.

Perhaps your instincts are more reliable than his past performance, and I'm sure you're not suggesting anyone rely on them other than O'Bill, Himself, but for all the talk of a "change" to non-partisan governance, his record is one of strict partisanship.

If one is a Liberal, Obama is a feel-good, can't lose choice. He talks a good game about non-partisanship, but always votes Liberal.

Just telling Conservatives that he intends to be their president too is not going to be of much solace when he pulls the troops out of Iraq on Day One, raises our taxes to pay for new entitlement programs, and sacrifices American competitiveness for fanciful crusades for Mother Gaia, Union Bosses, and trial lawyers.

The sign of a truly non-partisan leader is whether or not he has suffered politically at the hands of his own Party by fighting for what he believes is right, rather than what he believes will keep him in good standing with his party's base.

There are numerous examples where McCain has evidenced this sign and there are none, zero, nada examples for Obama

As for the Wright issue, there isn't much about religious dogma involved. The issues are political and moral.

Did you see the clip of his "preaching" to his flock that Bill Clinton was "ridin dirty?"

Would you bring your young daughters to any public gathering, let alone a church, where the featured speaker behaved so lewdly?

I can accept that Obama would not, if he knew Wright was Redd Foxx at the pulpet, but I have a real hard time believing either he did not or that he really was as connected to this church and its pastor as he has led people to believe.

My point is that if one is to support a man of limited experience based on the power of his charisma and one's "instincts," any and all reasons to doubt him are magnified. He has no track record to suggest these issues are actually immaterial.

If all the Lefties love Obama (which they would in the absence of Hillary) and a fair number of the Righties don't like McCain, what do your instincts tell you?
0 Replies
 
Ticomaya
 
  1  
Mon 24 Mar, 2008 06:50 pm
Finn dAbuzz wrote:
Did you see the clip of his "preaching" to his flock that Bill Clinton was "ridin dirty?"


Yeah, that was just lovely, wasn't it?
0 Replies
 
Ramafuchs
 
  1  
Mon 24 Mar, 2008 07:03 pm
Life is a progress
from want to want,
not from
enjoyment to enjoyment"---
Samuel Johnson
0 Replies
 
Advocate
 
  1  
Sat 29 Mar, 2008 08:49 am
The right's sliming machine is up to full speed.

Just as the right painted John Kerry as an unpatriotic villain against deserter Bush in 2004, it uses Obama's virtues against him.

Obama delivers a message of reconciliation and forgiveness! Guy must be a hater! Goes to church for 20 years! What kind of Christian is that? Spends his career helping the poor and then runs for president on a message of unity and love for country? Dude clearly despises America!
0 Replies
 
snood
 
  1  
Sat 29 Mar, 2008 08:51 am
Advocate wrote:
The right's sliming machine is up to full speed.

Just as the right painted John Kerry as an unpatriotic villain against deserter Bush in 2004, it uses Obama's virtues against him.

Obama delivers a message of reconciliation and forgiveness! Guy must be a hater! Goes to church for 20 years! What kind of Christian is that? Spends his career helping the poor and then runs for president on a message of unity and love for country? Dude clearly despises America!


Up is down, right is wrong, bad is good. Welcome to conservative heaven.
0 Replies
 
Finn dAbuzz
 
  1  
Sun 30 Mar, 2008 01:14 pm
snood wrote:
Advocate wrote:
The right's sliming machine is up to full speed.

Just as the right painted John Kerry as an unpatriotic villain against deserter Bush in 2004, it uses Obama's virtues against him.

Obama delivers a message of reconciliation and forgiveness! Guy must be a hater! Goes to church for 20 years! What kind of Christian is that? Spends his career helping the poor and then runs for president on a message of unity and love for country? Dude clearly despises America!


Up is down, right is wrong, bad is good. Welcome to conservative heaven.


Two, two, two silly posts in one !

First of all, do you really believe that it was the GOP or conservatives who are responsible for the Pastor Disaster? Sean Hannity, among others, were talking about the Wright connection for months before it got traction. How did it get traction? ABC - that bastion of the right-wing media, digs up the dirty videos.

Secondly, who, right now, stands to benefit most from debunking the Obama mythos? John McCain or Hillary Clinton?

Thirdly, and finally, the issue here is not whether or not Obama has projected an image which all Americans should embrace but whether or not that image is genuine or a political construct.

Nice try though --- your guy shows a flaw and you blame it on conservatives.
0 Replies
 
nimh
 
  1  
Sun 30 Mar, 2008 02:14 pm
Finn dAbuzz wrote:
First of all, do you really believe that it was the GOP or conservatives who are responsible for the Pastor Disaster? Sean Hannity, among others, were talking about the Wright connection for months before it got traction. How did it get traction? ABC - that bastion of the right-wing media, digs up the dirty videos.

Funny you should mention Hannity.

See, the whole fracas around Wright was bound to happen - for sure. No rightwing conspiracy was needed for that.

But one thing I had not seen at all until about a week and a half ago was the theory that maybe - purely hypothetically speaking, always, of course - maybe Obama himself is a black radical who hates whites and his country!

First time I saw that line of speculation was by Foxfyre, I think. Then came Okie. And I was just kind of incredulous.

I mean, obviously Obama was going to be slammed in terms of his judgement - staying in that church when the reverend is found to have said all kinds of inflammatory, even outright ridiculous (eg AIDS) things. How could he stay in there, when it's so clear from everything he has said, written and done, that he doesnt believe that kind of ****? Was he cowardly? Did he let his judgement be clouded by personal or community loyalties? If he spoke out (far) too late with this guy, can he be trusted to make the right kind of judgement calls as President?

That kind of argument was to be expected. I dont think it holds a whole lot of water - I mean, obviously there's something to it, but it only goes so far IMO - but its a logical argument to follow from the revelations.

What I sincerely didnt expect, and was just downright disbelieving of when it appeared here, was that people would actually speculate that hey, Obama himself might hate America, hate whites, believe that the government spread AIDS, see the US as a US of KKK-A - all that stuff. I mean, people seriously speculating on that.

I asked both Fox and Okie, OK, but what in heavens name are you going on here? Is it purely his attendance of Wright's church, nothing else? If he attended Wright's church, he must have agreed with everything the man said? Is that all? Or have you seen any kind of indications in his actual actions as a politician, in his words, in his writings, that he would share Wright's views on these issues?

Fox got to the flag pin thing and the hand-on-heart during the national anthem thing. She admitted that those things would be meaningless, but argued that knowing that he attended Wright's church, those are in fact meaningful indicators. Couldnt come up with anything else. Okie referred to Obama talking about "change" a lot, and how that indicated that he might well be a believer in Black Liberation Theology or even be a Marxist - because BLTers and Marxists also talk about "change" a lot.

I am still incredulous. Here you have a man who's written two books, who has a decade's worth of political actions and speeches to be judged on, and everything in it shows he disagrees with Wright on those counts. And yet people seriously speculate that all of that, integrally, is a smoke screen and that Obama in reality - secretly, basically - shares all of Wright's most extreme views. Where in heaven's name does that come from? Because that is one line of argument I havent heard from even the most resentful Clinton supporters, it's only conservatives. It seems pure fever swamp stuff, on a line with the emails alleging that Obama is "secretly Muslim".

Well, yesterday I saw a videoclip of Sean Hannity on Fox. I quickly jotted down what he said:

[list]"What if he [Obama] really deep down in his heart thinks like Pastor Wright - and I dont know that he does - but if he did, that would mean that a racist and an anti-semite would be President of the United States."[/list] Shocked

This is fever swamp speculation. I mean, this is the very definition of a smear: speculatively ascribing - always with the qualification that, of course, we cant know for sure, but still, imagine that it might be true - some outrageous trait to a candidate, without any evidence whatsoever. And you got it live on Fox News.

So yeah, the Wright affair would have erupted any which way, sure. But yeah, it's "right wing media" who take it into the fever swamp to insinuate that Obama is an "unpatriotic" "hater" who himself "despises America" - Advocate's got that right.
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

Obama '08? - Discussion by sozobe
Let's get rid of the Electoral College - Discussion by Robert Gentel
McCain's VP: - Discussion by Cycloptichorn
Food Stamp Turkeys - Discussion by H2O MAN
The 2008 Democrat Convention - Discussion by Lash
McCain is blowing his election chances. - Discussion by McGentrix
Snowdon is a dummy - Discussion by cicerone imposter
TEA PARTY TO AMERICA: NOW WHAT?! - Discussion by farmerman
 
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.08 seconds on 12/23/2024 at 10:28:54