Obama Embraces a Bigot and a Fanatic, the Rev. Wright

joefromchicago wrote:

Gargamel wrote:

Is your middle name "Burning" perchance?

OK, that made me laugh.

I have always admired the brilliance that is Gargamel.

You are so incensed that someone with a decent-sized vocabulary actually disagrees with your ilk and speaks out against your socialist messiah, that the only explanation must be that he is a racist troll. Perhaps you are only a liberal straw man?

Yes, it does to some degree. But not even remotely as much as the things he himself has said, done and written. And in comparison to the other candidates, he's still the best choice in my opinion.

Parker Cross wrote:

You are so incensed that someone with a decent-sized vocabulary actually disagrees with your ilk and speaks out against your socialist messiah, that the only explanation must be that he is a racist troll. Perhaps you are only a liberal straw man?

Our ilk are so incensed by people with "decent-sized" vocabularies.
.....sooooo incensed.

candidone1 wrote:

Parker Cross wrote:

You are so incensed that someone with a decent-sized vocabulary actually disagrees with your ilk and speaks out against your socialist messiah, that the only explanation must be that he is a racist troll. Perhaps you are only a liberal straw man?

Our ilk are so incensed by people with "decent-sized" vocabularies.
.....sooooo incensed.

Right you are Candi. It is so much easier to charicature your opposition when you can cast them as a bunch of inarticulate, uneducated rednecks. When that is not the case liberals often fold into whiny, marsupial, flabbergasted, ranters. They can only respond with personal attacks like "racist troll" (Green Witch), spelling corrections (Gargamel), or one line challenges (take your pick).

Parker Cross wrote:

kickycan wrote:

Obama disagrees with those statements.

It is easy to disagree a year after the fact, and 20 years after first hearing such sentiments, when you are in a tight race for an important election and such revelations profoundly damage your candidacy. Have I missed something? Or is Eliot Spitzer's apology a true show of honesty as well. He obviously wanted to come clean to the world, as did Obama.

It hasn't been twenty years since he's heard those sentiments. More like two weeks.

kickycan wrote:

Parker Cross wrote:

kickycan wrote:

Obama disagrees with those statements.

It is easy to disagree a year after the fact, and 20 years after first hearing such sentiments, when you are in a tight race for an important election and such revelations profoundly damage your candidacy. Have I missed something? Or is Eliot Spitzer's apology a true show of honesty as well. He obviously wanted to come clean to the world, as did Obama.

It hasn't been twenty years since he's heard those sentiments. More like two weeks.

Kicky, you truly believe that in 20 year of such a close relationship this vitriol did not surface anywhere? If you do you are naive, blinded, stubborn, or all three.

kickycan wrote:

Parker Cross wrote:

kickycan wrote:

Fact: Pastor Wright would probably not make a good president.

Fact: Obama is not Pastor Wright.

Very true Kickycan. However, going back to my earlier post. His association with pastor Wright is one of choice. He wants us to choose the best person (presumably him) for President. He constantly refers to the "choices" of the opposing candidates. Doesn't his poor choice of pastor, mentor, guidance counselor, advisor, and intimate reflect anything on Obama's character to you?

Yes, it does to some degree. But not even remotely as much as the things he himself has said, done and written. And in comparison to the other candidates, he's still the best choice in my opinion. But of course, I'm not basing my opinion solely on the caricature that has been created of Pastor Wright as a rabid, America-hating lunatic, as you seem to be.

Rev. Wright is not a lunatic. I wish he were. What he is is far worse that the run-of-mill lunatic. A lunatic is an obvious red flag for everyone. No one applauds a lunatic, no one leaps up to pound him on the back when he spews verbal diarrhea. No, a lunatic is discredited, he is confined or hospitalized. The Rev. Wright is a far worse villain. He is an insidious sickness that stands at the forefront of a large, popular, and powerful church. He is a standard bearer for many African-Americans in his congregation and beyond. He is also a CLOSE confidant of a potential President of the United States.

I will gladly subject myself to a lunatic instead of this man. At least then nothing he said would matter to anyone. Instead we have thousands, possibly millions, of the feeble minded agreeing with him and reveling in his anti-America, blame-whites-for-everything, garbage. He is entrenching a generation of young Americans in blame-thinking. "It isn't my fault I am a criminal or a delinquent. It is the fault of white America."

Give me the lunatic.

Parker Cross wrote:

candidone1 wrote:

Parker Cross wrote:

You are so incensed that someone with a decent-sized vocabulary actually disagrees with your ilk and speaks out against your socialist messiah, that the only explanation must be that he is a racist troll. Perhaps you are only a liberal straw man?

Our ilk are so incensed by people with "decent-sized" vocabularies.
.....sooooo incensed.

Right you are Candi. It is so much easier to charicature your opposition when you can cast them as a bunch of inarticulate, uneducated rednecks. When that is not the case liberals often fold into whiny, marsupial, flabbergasted, ranters. They can only respond with personal attacks like "racist troll" (Green Witch), spelling corrections (Gargamel), or one line challenges (take your pick).

No, I am sure the "liberals" appreciate a break from the incoherent monosyllabic ramblings of the "uneducated rednecks'. However, there perhaps one or two who fit that description on this board.

I think what "the liberals" hate is a prick who thinks that it's his/her vocabulary that incenses them and not the type of discourse they conduct.

Aw, now that's a shame. I took a chance by responding seriously to your post, in the hope that you might actually have the ability to speak about this in a rational sensible way. It's disappointing to see that you'd rather just keep attacking your carefully-constructed strawman than actually respond to my post. I guess that's how it is though when you're completely full of **** and phony righteous indignation.

I think that it's pretty clear that the 'vitriol' was a truly minor part of the person in question; and that there were many and diverse good things about the man to consider as well.

But, that's assuming that you're bothering to think about the entirety of a situation, and not just a right-wing smear job. Which I know is a lot to assume, but hey.

Cycloptichorn

kickycan wrote:

Aw, now that's a shame. I took a chance by responding seriously to your post, in the hope that you might actually have the ability to speak about this in a rational sensible way. It's disappointing to see that you'd rather just keep attacking your carefully-constructed strawman than actually respond to my post. I guess that's how it is though when you're completely full of **** and phony righteous indignation.

Aw, shucks, Kicky. Sorry I have once again disappointed. Here let me try to do better.

You have no grounds for a rational opinion that Obama is more qualified than McCain, or even Hillary. Your only basis for this is the likable nature you see on television. Have you ever met the man? Interacted with anyone who has? No, so therefore you are merely another member of the audience enthusiastic about the actor in the play. His record is sparse, his rhetoric generic and vague. You cannot point to concrete proof of character, greatness, or vision, aside from the empty words a talented speech writer has conjured and a talented orator has delivered. I'm sorry I am so superficial. So easily swayed. So quickly seduced.

kickycan wrote:

Parker Cross wrote:

kickycan wrote:

Obama disagrees with those statements.

It is easy to disagree a year after the fact, and 20 years after first hearing such sentiments, when you are in a tight race for an important election and such revelations profoundly damage your candidacy. Have I missed something? Or is Eliot Spitzer's apology a true show of honesty as well. He obviously wanted to come clean to the world, as did Obama.

It hasn't been twenty years since he's heard those sentiments. More like two weeks.

Kicky, you truly believe that in 20 year of such a close relationship this vitriol did not surface anywhere? If you do you are naive, blinded, stubborn, or all three.

Do you think Obama speaks the truth?

If you do, you're an A-hole from the get-go...

Do you think Obama speaks the truth?

If you do, you're an A-hole from the get-go...

Cycloptichorn wrote:

I think that it's pretty clear that the 'vitriol' was a truly minor part of the person in question; and that there were many and diverse good things about the man to consider as well.

But, that's assuming that you're bothering to think about the entirety of a situation, and not just a right-wing smear job. Which I know is a lot to assume, but hey.

Cycloptichorn

Absolutely, Berkeley boy. There is a wealth of other content to the man, as with Don Imus.

P.S. Those videos were such a good job by the right-wing smearers. They really managed to splice enough bites of Rev. Wright together to make him appear to be a raving, ranting, anti-American, fool. That damn vast right-wing conspiracy. They have gotten their foul paws on cutting edge, Matrix-like special effects, camera and editing equipment.

They also managed to force Obama (at gun point and blackmail at points along the way) to intricately intertwine his life with Wright's.

Parker Cross wrote:

And in response to these anti-American comments such as "God D@#m America", Obama delivers a 37-minute speech wherein he eruditedly and impliedly agrees with the Rev. Wright's comments by justifying them with these comments:

"But we do need to remind ourselves that so many of the disparities that exist in the African-American community today can be directly traced to inequalities passed on from an earlier generation that suffered under the brutal legacy of slavery and Jim Crow."

"Legalized discrimination - where blacks were prevented, often through violence, from owning property, or loans were not granted to African-American business owners, or black homeowners could not access FHA mortgages, or blacks were excluded from unions, or the police force, or fire departments - meant that black families could not amass any meaningful wealth to bequeath to future generations."

He then goes on to exonerate some from the burden of personal choice through the justification of their economic situations to an environment designed to impair them:

"A lack of economic opportunity among black men, and the shame and frustration that came from not being able to provide for one's family, contributed to the erosion of black families - a problem that welfare policies for many years may have worsened. And the lack of basic services in so many urban black neighborhoods - parks for kids to play in, police walking the beat, regular garbage pick-up and building code enforcement - all helped create a cycle of violence, blight and neglect that continue to haunt us."

Far be it from them to build for themselves like every other immigrant and underpriveleged group in this country their livelihoods starting from little. Apparently the Irish were far better off upon their beginnings in America. The Japanese-Americans fared much better as well. The "SHAME" was such that in 2008 with the advent of the internet, cellular phones, hip-hop, and nano-technology it still serves as a justification, and an accusation, for being of lesser means.

We must elect this man into the Presidency immediately. The country cannot survive without him. We do not hate ourselves enough.

And certainly you remember when the Irish were chained to slave ships and beaten in cotton fields. Are you seriously making that comparison? You're blaming African Americans for an uneven playing field? Is your middle name "Burning" perchance?