Asherman wrote:So, do it seems that you are saying that:
1. Religious affiliation is an indication of mental illness & insanity.
2. Racial prejudice is irrelevant to a candidate's suitability for the Presidency.
3. Inexperience are irrelevant to a candidate's suitability for the Presidency.
Does this mean that you believe that a perfect candidate should be an a chauvinistic atheist with no more experience than serving on a city council in a segregated community? Of course, you don't mean anything of the sort.
To accept as your Party's candidate a person without any religious affiliation, no experience, and a long intimate association with individuals/organizations that preach racial prejudice and division, is to risk rejection at the polls.
Americans may overlook inexperience in a candidate. They may not place much importance on how, or where a candidate goes to church. However, I really, really doubt that any candidate associated with those who preach racial division and hatred will attract many votes.
If Obama is to be your candidate, you should know going in to the race that he is tainted by his long associations and support for a racially bigoted church. That added to his inexperience makes him a good candidate from the GOP perspective. Some believe that we Republicans would find campaigning against Hillary Clinton easier than Obama. Bring him on.
'tainted' in the minds of Republicans who weren't going to vote for him anyways. Otherwise, it's no big deal.
I think that most religious groups use non-logical thinking in order to come up with what are purportedly logical positions, when they get into that sort of thing. That's the very definition of crazy.
I understand that your side desperately needs something to attack Obama with; so, by all means, continue to attempt to use this issue to do so. I doubt you will get much traction with it in the Fall, when the Dems are going to soundly defeat the Republicans in both Congress and the WH.
Cyclotpichorn
So in your opinion, "Its no big deal" that a candidate for the Presidency of the United States has a long and un-repudiated association with a man and organization that preaches racial division and hatred.
Wow! I wonder how many Americans, on either side of the aisle, would agree with that? Even more interesting is that you apparently would have no objections if a candidate were a member of a White Supremacist organization. Perhaps an old man's memory fails, but I seem to remember you made some pretty hateful remarks about Strom Thurman not so very long ago. What changed for you, other than this time it's one of your own Party whose support for racism is embarrassing?
Asherman wrote:So in your opinion, "Its no big deal" that a candidate for the Presidency of the United States has a long and un-repudiated association with a man and organization that preaches racial division and hatred.
Wow! I wonder how many Americans, on either side of the aisle, would agree with that? Even more interesting is that you apparently would have no objections if a candidate were a member of a White Supremacist organization. Perhaps an old man's memory fails, but I seem to remember you made some pretty hateful remarks about Strom Thurman not so very long ago. What changed for you, other than this time it's one of your own Party whose support for racism is embarrassing?
Here's the thing, Ash: the 'man and organization' in question does a hell of a lot more then just preach 'racial division and hatred.' They are a church. The vast majority of their actions are in fact good ones, in which they help people. Trying to paint them as some sort of demon, based upon a few statements that you strongly disagree with, is not a realistic thing to do. I would suggest you do some more research into the church and the man before you throw around such accusations; that is, if you are interested in anything approximating truth or accuracy.
It wasn't I who mentioned Strom Thurman; I haven't typed his name in years. So perhaps it is your memory.
Cycloptichorn
I apologize if I incorrectly recall your objections to racial prejudice. If you haven't a problem with racial prejudice then you're perfectly consistent in seeing nothing amiss with Obama's long affiliation with a church that preaches racial prejudice. Are you saying that Rev. Wright and his church are not supporters of the Nation of Islam? Are you saying that things preached from that pulpit are misquoted, out of context and do not reveal a long, pattern of racial prejudice? Are you saying that Obama has only recently been made aware that his good friend and pastor is a racial bigot?
It sure doesn't seem that way to the rest of us.
But, then you say that Obama's church (according to you, a congregation of crazy people), does more good than harm. So if a White Supremacist church distributed food and clothing to poor whites, that would excuse their penchant for racial prejudice?
How about you demonstrating that Rev. Wright's racial views aren't analogous to those of White Supremacists? His reputation and words, over a many years are widely known to be racially chauvinistic and divisive. To call his preaching Afro-Centric does not excuse or make racial prejudice acceptable. Obama's long association with Wright and his church certainly makes his own racial sentiments suspect. Giving a well written and delivered speech on the presistence of racism in America is nice, but it fails to address Obama's apparent comfort with the aims of folks like Louis Farrakan.
Asherman
Asherman
BS!
BBB
Cycloptichorn wrote:Here's the thing, Ash: the 'man and organization' in question does a hell of a lot more then just preach 'racial division and hatred.' They are a church. The vast majority of their actions are in fact good ones, in which they help people. Trying to paint them as some sort of demon, based upon a few statements that you strongly disagree with, is not a realistic thing to do. I would suggest you do some more research into the church and the man before you throw around such accusations; that is, if you are interested in anything approximating truth or accuracy.
It wasn't I who mentioned Strom Thurman; I haven't typed his name in years. So perhaps it is your memory.
Cycloptichorn
So if a church operates a food bank and provides scholarships to needy students and has an assistance fund for the poor, it's okay to tell the children that the white race hates them so much they invented a deadly AIDS virus to wipe them out and consequently they should live their lives damning the country they live in?
You may believe it's okay, but I don't think many Americans will.
Barack Obama tries to explain that 'good people' still hold racial stereotypes
BY MICHAEL McAULIFF in Washington and MICHAEL SAUL in New York
DAILY NEWS STAFF WRITERS
Friday, March 21st 2008, 4:00 AM
\Barack Obama tried to put finer point on 'typical white person' comment.
He said what?
Barack Obama suggested Thursday the "typical white person" - much like his grandma - fears black men on the street, prompting a quick backpedal from his aides, who conceded the senator's words may give the wrong impression.
During an interview on a Philadelphia radio station, Obama was asked about his candid remarks about his white maternal grandmother during an address on race relations Tuesday. In that speech, he said his grandmother confessed "her fear of black men who passed her by on the street."
"The point I was making was not that my grandmother harbors any racial animosity. She doesn't," Obama told WIP Sports Radio.
"But she is a typical white person who, if she sees somebody on the street that she doesn't know, there's a reaction that's been bred into our experiences that don't go away, and that sometimes come out in the wrong way, and that's just the nature of race in our society."
Nonsence it has nothing to do with seeing someone she does not know but rather from the reality of everyday living
In the speech, he sought to calm the fury surrounding the controversial remarks of his former pastor, Jeremiah Wright, saying he could no more disown Wright than he could his grandmother, who helped raise him.
Obama said his grandmother "on more than one occasion has uttered racial or ethnic stereotypes that made me cringe."
Obama aides rushed yesterday to clarify the "typical white person" remark. Ben LaBolt, an Obama spokesman, said, "His intentions may have been misconstrued."
On CNN last night, Obama explained, "What I meant really was that some of the fears of street crime and some of the stereotypes that go along with that are responses that I think many people feel."
He added, "Good people - people who are not in any way racist - are still subject to some of these images and stereotypes and it is very hard to escape from them."
The flap comes as the Democratic front-runner's campaign is struggling to end the Wright controversy, which polls show may be driving some voters away.
Republican strategist Rich Galen said the slip could hurt Obama in Pennsylvania's April 22 primary vs. Hillary Clinton.
"I think 'typical white people' don't want to be categorized any more than 'typical black people,'" he said.
One of his top supporters, Sen. Claire McCaskill, was also forced to backpedal on a clumsy comment of her own.
"He, for the first time, I think, as a black leader in America, has come to the American people not as a victim, but rather as a leader," she said.
A McCaskill spokeswoman said she misspoke, too.
Now we are beginning to see the real Obama not the silvery tongued snake oil salesman.
Asherman wrote:I apologize if I incorrectly recall your objections to racial prejudice. If you haven't a problem with racial prejudice then you're perfectly consistent in seeing nothing amiss with Obama's long affiliation with a church that preaches racial prejudice. Are you saying that Rev. Wright and his church are not supporters of the Nation of Islam? Are you saying that things preached from that pulpit are misquoted, out of context and do not reveal a long, pattern of racial prejudice? Are you saying that Obama has only recently been made aware that his good friend and pastor is a racial bigot?
It sure doesn't seem that way to the rest of us.
But, then you say that Obama's church (according to you, a congregation of crazy people), does more good than harm. So if a White Supremacist church distributed food and clothing to poor whites, that would excuse their penchant for racial prejudice?
How about you demonstrating that Rev. Wright's racial views aren't analogous to those of White Supremacists? His reputation and words, over a many years are widely known to be racially chauvinistic and divisive. To call his preaching Afro-Centric does not excuse or make racial prejudice acceptable. Obama's long association with Wright and his church certainly makes his own racial sentiments suspect. Giving a well written and delivered speech on the presistence of racism in America is nice, but it fails to address Obama's apparent comfort with the aims of folks like Louis Farrakan.
This has slipped into a little bit too much hyperbole for me to bother responding to.
Cycloptichorn
Certainly, I understand how difficult it must be to respond to behavior on the part of your candidate that would normally have you foaming at the mouth.
Defending your position that religious folks are crazy, and that racial prejudice when embraced by your candidate is "no big deal", could indeed be a problem. Of course, you may be able to demonstrate that the Rev. Wright and his loyal congregation aren't bigoted no matter what they've been saying for many years.
When threatened with an Obama candidacy, I think many Republicans will cry, "Oh, please, please any thing but that! Don't throw this poor tender bunny into the cruel thorns of the bramble bush!" BTW, how's the campaign against re-electing Bush going these days?
I just think that responding to arguments which have progressed so far from the original discussion as to be completely unrelated to it, are not really worth my time.
It isn't my position to defend Obama's church, or really Obama himself. You will judge him however you like either way. I merely think that scandals involving statements and actions removed from a particular candidate are never as damning as people on the other side would wish they were.
Cycloptichorn
I guess I must have been in error thinking that this thread centered around the issue of Obama's long association with a pastor and church known to be racially prejudiced. If Obama was a white conservative Republican, you folks on the left would be making this THE issue of the campaign and demanding that the candidate be driven from public office forever.
But, you have no defense for your candidate and must argue that it racial chauvinism is "no big deal". Youth and inexperience excuse a lot, but belonging to an organization, a church, that preaches racial supremacy and condemns our society as somehow evil is hard to sweep under the rug. For you folks on the left to attack republicans as racist, etc., and deny that Obama's long association with Rev. Wright is analogous to saying that its alright for a candidate to have membership in any organization that excludes individuals on the basis of race, gender, age, ethnicity, etc. How many men and women have you driven, or tried to drive, from office on those grounds? Not to treat Obama in the same fashion is hypocrisy of the first order. But, that's partisan denial writ large.
It is possible that Obama's personal views have nothing in common with those of his pastor, and I hope that they are. If that is the case, then why in spite of a close personal relationship with the Rev. Wright, how could the reverend's racially biased beliefs failed to be noticed? The Reverend seems to be pretty forthright in his prejudices and sincere in his hatred for America, if the rest of the world knew then why not his friend, Obama? Some people will believe that Obama has been deaf and blind all this time, but the implication lingers. I really doubt that the question of just how prejudiced Obama is should not be dismissed as "no big deal".
Well, you seemed more interested in talking about Farrakhan, which really has nothing to do with this. I heard some words about the Nation of Islam as well, which is odd considering this is a Christian church we are talking about. I also haven't seen any pervasive evidence that Obama shares the views that Wright shares, and he has publicly repudiated many of the things the man has said while maintaining that he is basically a good man who is practically a member of his family.
Are you insinuating that Obama is a racist, or hates America, or something? Or not. B/c if you aren't, there's nothing to talk about whatsoever. If you are, I hope you can provide more proof then this weak ****.
Cycloptichorn
Well, you seem to have trouble in admitting the racially divisive, America-hating views from the pulpit of Obama's long time friend, advisor and pastor. Why should there be a double standard? If you real believe that Obama's association with such a bigot is "no big deal", then why are you so quick to condemn others for less?
You want to have Obama as your candidate, wonderful. No need to worry about a defeatist winning the general election now. However, if you think that the republican campaign will be as forgiving as Hillary's has been, think again. I doubt that many American voters will vote for a candidate associated with a church led by the likes of Rev. Wright. Does Obama share the good Reverend's prejudices and hatreds? Well, we can't see into his heart, but his heart seemed content for twenty years of church support until his candidacy became threatened by his loyalty to the Rev. Wright. The Reverend's oft anti-American views should be a disqualification for holding the Presidential Office. If Obama doesn't hold those views, why has he stayed with Wright for twenty years?
But, you're right... Obama is EXACTLY the right candidate to defeat Bush's re-election effort.
I have to agree with Asherman.
I don't think Obama is a racist, but it is politically damaging that his MENTOR and friend and pastor IS a racist.....and Obama had the judgement to have a relationship with this guy for 20+ years.
Politically this is an atom bomb and I predict it will cost him the election.
However, I'm biased. I've never bought into the Obama hype to begin with. However, 2 weeks ago I thought for sure he'd be the winner......now I don't.
But on the plus side for Obama supporters, there is still time to correct this, it just won't be easy (and don't be fooled, it WON'T be easy).
Quote:If Obama doesn't hold those views, why has he stayed with Wright for twenty years?
Because there is much, much more to a person - any person - then just a few clips on youtube, a 'greatest hits' reel of one's worst or lowest moments. It would behoove you to remember that Rev. Wright is a person, not a caricature of a man, whose only purpose is to say objectionable things at times which were inconvenient to Obama.
I point both of you to the CBS poll on this topic; 70% of respondents agreed that Obama had done a good job dealing with this issue. I point to his national polls which have BARELY dropped at all, during the worst week of his campaign. I don't know whether this issue is going to get worse for him or not. Maybe it will. But it's hard to see how or why, as the media attention is surely going to move on, as it has already begun to do. If this is as bad as things get for him, it isn't even a blip on the radar.
It's funny; for people who continually proclaim their superiority in the area of 'toughness,' Republicans sure seem to get upset when someone has
words that they don't agree with.
Cycloptichorn
I think there is little question that 'Present' Obama's inability to make a decision to leave Trinity Church many years ago (now would be too little too late) will be one of the major factors that will prevent him from clinching the Democratic nomination now, or ever.
But, will it be enough to give the nomination to the team of Hilly/Billy?
Hilly's negatives are still extraordinarily high.
Here's how it shakes out:
Quote:Poll: Divisive Dem Contest Could Boost McCain
By Fred Lucas
CNSNews.com Staff Writer
March 21, 2008
(CNSNews.com) - The lengthy Democratic primary contest bodes well for Republican chances of holding the White House, a new poll suggests.
As Democratic Senators Barack Obama of Illinois and Hillary Clinton of New York slug it out for the nomination, many of their supporters -- at least in Pennsylvania, site of the next major primary -- aren't committed to the party's ticket in November, according to a Franklin & Marshall College Poll.
Among Obama supporters, 20 percent said they would vote for Sen. John McCain of Arizona, the Republican nominee, if Clinton beats their candidate for the nomination. Among Clinton supporters, 19 percent said they would support McCain in November if Obama is the Democratic nominee.
full story at
http://www.cnsnews.com/ViewPolitics.asp?Page=/Politics/archive/200803/POL20080321a.html (See poll at
http://edisk.fandm.edu/FLI/keystone/pdf/keymar08_1.pdf)
If neither Hilly nor Obama clinch the nomination on the first few ballots, what will the Dems do then? A compromise candidate waits in the wings.
Will those who have salivated at the thought of voting either for the first woman candidate or the first black candidate still go joyfully forth to pull the lever for a white man?
Is the Democratic party color blind enough to save itself?
real life wrote:Cycloptichorn wrote:real life wrote:Obama's speech rejecting Wright's racist remarks was terrific.
It was just 19 51/52 years too late, that's all.
'Present' Obama should have rejected Wright's racism after hearing him speak the first time or two.
And he should've left the church, which he never did. 'Present' just couldn't seem to make the 'tough decision'.
Instead he submitted himself and his children to a 20 year diet of racism , disguised as religion.
Well, it's nice to know that people who never intended to vote for him for any reason still aren't going to do so.
It's just the Muslim smear, reworded.
Cycloptichorn
I would love to see the Dems put an honest to goodness centrist candidate forward.
It would give the Republicans the competition they need.
I'm tired of choosing between mediocre and bad.
btw I couldn't care less that Obama's father was a Muslim and sent him to a Muslim school for a few years. So what?
I think his mother had far more influence on his life than his Muslim father who wasn't around very long.
Well, since you so "don't care" , what exactly is your motivation so strongly against Obama? To save us all from his bad potential leadership? Or is it more as selfless educator, to enlighten us about the "real" nature of Obama, that the Obama supporters just can't see, but you can?
Maybe you'll cop to the human but oh-so-unChristian motive of just liking to stir up shyt? Naw, not "real life".
snood wrote:real life wrote:Cycloptichorn wrote:real life wrote:Obama's speech rejecting Wright's racist remarks was terrific.
It was just 19 51/52 years too late, that's all.
'Present' Obama should have rejected Wright's racism after hearing him speak the first time or two.
And he should've left the church, which he never did. 'Present' just couldn't seem to make the 'tough decision'.
Instead he submitted himself and his children to a 20 year diet of racism , disguised as religion.
Well, it's nice to know that people who never intended to vote for him for any reason still aren't going to do so.
It's just the Muslim smear, reworded.
Cycloptichorn
I would love to see the Dems put an honest to goodness centrist candidate forward.
It would give the Republicans the competition they need.
I'm tired of choosing between mediocre and bad.
btw I couldn't care less that Obama's father was a Muslim and sent him to a Muslim school for a few years. So what?
I think his mother had far more influence on his life than his Muslim father who wasn't around very long.
Well, since you so "don't care" , what exactly is your motivation so strongly against Obama? To save us all from his bad potential leadership? Or is it more as selfless educator, to enlighten us about the "real" nature of Obama, that the Obama supporters just can't see, but you can?
Maybe you'll cop to the human but oh-so-unChristian motive of just liking to stir up shyt? Naw, not "real life".
I gave the specific area that I don't care about, the 'Muslim' non issue. And I stated why it was a non issue.
That doesn't answer what you see as your motivation for settling down on this thread with the constant diatribe against Obama. Just trying to show us the light? What?
