Obama '08?

Foxfyre wrote:

And he has the problem of credibility in those clips I posted yesterday in which he adamently insisted he 'never knew' or 'never heard' about Pastor Wright's more inflammatory remarks and 'would have quit' if he had.

Foxfyre, in the words of one of your heroes, "there you go again". To reiterate; last time you said:

Foxfyre wrote:

Well you can't have it both ways. You can't say that he never said he wasn't there and in the next post say that he said he wasn't there without looking like you're spinning like crazy.

And I asked: Fox, these two posts both preceded yours. What's so difficult to understand here?

sozobe wrote:

What Obama said in the Huffington Post piece that he only recently learned of the specific remarks that set off this firestorm. He didn't say that he'd never heard Wright make controversial remarks.

Cycloptichorn wrote:

He said he wasn't there when the statements in question - such as the 9/11 comment - were made. He didn't say that he never heard the guy say anything objectionable.

Do you really not see this distinction?

0 Replies

nappyheadedhohoho wrote:

I found it:

http://web.archive.org/web/20070105102317/http://www.tucc.org/about.htm

Hm. I see. There's a change to the 'About' part of the website between March 15th and April 5th.

There's been something dropped (the bit about "the Black Value System written by the Manford Byrd Recognition Committee"), but a page has been added here, starting with

Quote:

Dr. Wright's talking points (3.1.7) for Trinity United Church of Christ its Web site and the Black Value System (in response to Eric Rush's comments (2.28.07) on the Hannity and Colmes show)

Is that what you mean?

0 Replies

nimh wrote:

Foxfyre wrote:
And he has the problem of credibility in those clips I posted yesterday in which he adamently insisted he 'never knew' or 'never heard' about Pastor Wright's more inflammatory remarks and 'would have quit' if he had.

Foxfyre, in the words of one of your heroes, "there you go again". To reiterate; last time you said:

Foxfyre wrote:
Well you can't have it both ways. You can't say that he never said he wasn't there and in the next post say that he said he wasn't there without looking like you're spinning like crazy.

And I asked: Fox, these two posts both preceded yours. What's so difficult to understand here?

sozobe wrote:
What Obama said in the Huffington Post piece that he only recently learned of the specific remarks that set off this firestorm. He didn't say that he'd never heard Wright make controversial remarks.

Cycloptichorn wrote:
He said he wasn't there when the statements in question - such as the 9/11 comment - were made. He didn't say that he never heard the guy say anything objectionable.

Do you really not see this distinction?

Obama published his explanation at HufPo, but he was also on three different networks on Friday night. In the interview with Major Garrett on FoxNews he said he was never in the church when controversial comments by Wright were made. I didn't Tivo the other two interviews, but I have seen news reports questioning his honesty on the statements he made in the Garrett interview.

0 Replies

Foxfyre wrote:

Remember that Trent Lott spoke probably hundreds of thousands of words as a Senator though, 99.9% of those not racist or un-PC in any sense. At StromThurmond's birthday party, he made a comment about the country being better off if Thurmond's presidential bid had been successful. Thurman was a white separatist at the time of his presidential bid many decades before, however, and Lott was forced to resign as Senate Majority Leader for making a single casual reference in support of a 90 year old colleague. No amount of Lott saying that Thurmond's platform didn't even cross his mind at the time could save him.

But if I'm not mistaken - and correct me if I am - you did not think it was right for Lott to be forced out of his position over this. That's the impression your description here makes too.

So what is the argument here? That if Lott was invalidated as political leader because of an association, Obama should be too - even though you didnt actually think it was right in the case for Lott?

That's just a tit-for-tat argument then, isnt it?

0 Replies

nappyheadedhohoho wrote:

nimh wrote:
Foxfyre wrote:
And he has the problem of credibility in those clips I posted yesterday in which he adamently insisted he 'never knew' or 'never heard' about Pastor Wright's more inflammatory remarks and 'would have quit' if he had.

Foxfyre, in the words of one of your heroes, "there you go again". To reiterate; last time you said:

Foxfyre wrote:
Well you can't have it both ways. You can't say that he never said he wasn't there and in the next post say that he said he wasn't there without looking like you're spinning like crazy.

And I asked: Fox, these two posts both preceded yours. What's so difficult to understand here?

sozobe wrote:
What Obama said in the Huffington Post piece that he only recently learned of the specific remarks that set off this firestorm. He didn't say that he'd never heard Wright make controversial remarks.

Cycloptichorn wrote:
He said he wasn't there when the statements in question - such as the 9/11 comment - were made. He didn't say that he never heard the guy say anything objectionable.

Do you really not see this distinction?

Obama published his explanation at HufPo, but he was also on three different networks on Friday night. In the interview with Major Garrett on FoxNews he said he was never in the church when controversial comments by Wright were made. I didn't Tivo the other two interviews, but I have seen news reports questioning his honesty on the statements he made in the Garrett interview.

I'm not sure I understand the sequence in what appears to be Nimh's post addressed to me. But those two clips I posted yesterday were of Obama specificially stating that he was unaware of Pastor Wright's more inflammatory rhetoric and him stating that had he been aware, he would have quit. It simply is not correct to state that he hasn't said he wasn't aware of the statements Wright made. And yes, he has also said that he wasn't there.

0 Replies

old europe wrote:

nappyheadedhohoho wrote:
I found it:

http://web.archive.org/web/20070105102317/http://www.tucc.org/about.htm

Hm. I see. There's a change to the 'About' part of the website between March 15th and April 5th.

There's been something dropped (the bit about "the Black Value System written by the Manford Byrd Recognition Committee"), but a page has been added here, starting with

Quote:
Dr. Wright's talking points (3.1.7) for Trinity United Church of Christ its Web site and the Black Value System (in response to Eric Rush's comments (2.28.07) on the Hannity and Colmes show)

Is that what you mean?

Compare the mission statement page (the 'about us') on the website in the cached version and the mission statement page as it is currently on TUCC's website. They took down all the black this and black that verbiage which is why Freeduck couldn't find it when I posted my 'exchange white for black' comparison a few pages back. I then asked what exactly is a black work ethic (reading from my screenshot of the site a few months earlier) and the confusion ensued when she was unable to find reference to it on the page in its current form.

Are you now more confused? Smile

0 Replies

Foxfyre - I think I know why they're confused, but trust me, enough people heard him say it (that he wasn't there) and then yesterday morning admit he was there and they will make up their own minds about his honesty. I think the reason Obama admitted it yesterday morning is that he knew it was just a matter of time before someone caught him - he knows what Garrett asked him Friday night and he knows how he replied.

0 Replies

nimh wrote:

Foxfyre wrote:
Remember that Trent Lott spoke probably hundreds of thousands of words as a Senator though, 99.9% of those not racist or un-PC in any sense. At StromThurmond's birthday party, he made a comment about the country being better off if Thurmond's presidential bid had been successful. Thurman was a white separatist at the time of his presidential bid many decades before, however, and Lott was forced to resign as Senate Majority Leader for making a single casual reference in support of a 90 year old colleague. No amount of Lott saying that Thurmond's platform didn't even cross his mind at the time could save him.

But if I'm not mistaken - and correct me if I am - you did not think it was right for Lott to be forced out of his position over this. That's the impression your description here makes too.

So what is the argument here? That if Lott was invalidated as political leader because of an association, Obama should be too - even though you didnt actually think it was right in the case for Lott?

That's just a tit-for-tat argument then, isnt it?

No, its an illustration of a phenomenon. I don't think ANYBODY should be expelled from anything over an inadvertent or innocent gaffe. I made myself the anti-PC marshall sometime back, and I think it is unconscionable to scour every word uttered by somebody hoping to find something with which to accuse them of racism or anti-semitism or some other ugly -ism so that you can 'get them'. Certainly Trent Lott didn't deserve to even be criticized, much less removed from his position for innocently praising an old man on his birthday. And when Thurmond's platform for that long ago election was brought up, Lott's explanation that it never crossed his mind should have been sufficient.

My point is that Obama's statements are far more specific and persistent than that which Lott expressed. And when further questioned on them he has defended them. He can't complain that his explanations were inadvertent gaffes.

My point is that if this were a Republican in Obama's predicament here, the Obama supporters would be merciless in their attacks and condemnation of this person and would not think it wise or appropriate to believe any explanation he might offer. But a Republican who was a long time member and heavy contributor to an organization espousing a racist or anti-American agenda, especially if he had a close relationship with the leader, would deserve some scrutiny as to how much he personally embraced the mission or agenda of that organization.

Barack Obama wants to be President of the United States. He cannot expect to avoid such scrutiny simply by verbally dismissing it or because he happens to be black.

0 Replies

Sorry, I dont mean to pick on Foxfyre only -- hey, you posted the only posts I felt the urge/need to respond to in a bunch of pages apparently, Fox - see it a compliment. :wink:

But here's the next one:

Foxfyre wrote:

I do see a problem with Obama sharing the racist and anti-American views of his pastor presumably with the consent of the congregation if he in fact does.

What makes you think that Obama did (or might) share the racist and anti-American views of his pastor -- other than that he didnt walk out of the church?

I can see the argument that he should have left the Church as soon as he realised that the preacher said things that were unpalatable to him. I dont agree with that, myself; I think that if there were many good things about the Church as well, many things it did that he was invested in, other sermons that did inspire him, people he loved, then it's understandable that he stayed. But it's an argument I can easily understand. It's like the question of whether you could be friends with a racist, for example: I could, but I know many people who couldnt, and I understand that too.

But the argument that he might actually share those racist and anti-American views? What is that based on, specifically? He has said in very clear terms that he doesnt, so the argument must be that perhaps he's lying, and he does in fact share those views even though he says he doesnt (and even though it would be directly counter to the message of both his books, his political platform, and the entire body of his speeches). I'm having trouble wrapping my head around that. Other than the fairly implausible argument that the fact that he didnt walk out means he must just have agreed, what is this based on?

0 Replies

nappyheadedhohoho wrote:

Compare the mission statement page (the 'about us') on the website in the cached version and the mission statement page as it is currently on TUCC's website. They took down all the black this and black that verbiage which is why Freeduck couldn't find it when I posted my 'exchange white for black' comparison a few pages back.

Yup. But they also put up a new page. And it's not like they did so secretively. On the new page, they tell you that it's "in response to Eric Rush's comments (2.28.07) on the Hannity and Colmes show".

nappyheadedhohoho wrote:

I then asked what exactly is a black work ethic (reading from my screenshot of the site a few months earlier) and the confusion ensued when she was unable to find reference to it on the page in its current form.

Uhm. Yeah. They've moved that. However, it's not like they've erased it from their website. It's still here - they've linked to it from their 'Home' page. Says

Quote:

Click here to read about The Black Value System

Right there. First page.

And on the page about the "Black Value System", it explains the bit about "Black Work Ethic":

Quote:

6. Adherence to the Black Work Ethic.
"It is becoming harder to find qualified people to work in Chicago." Whether this is true or not, it represents one of the many reasons given by businesses and industries for deserting the Chicago area. We must realize that a location with good facilities, adequate transportation and a reputation for producing skilled workers will attract industry. We are in competition with other cities, states and nations for jobs. High productivity must be a goal of the Black workforce.

That's what you're talking about?

nappyheadedhohoho wrote:

Are you now more confused?

I'm easily confused...

0 Replies

nimh wrote:

Sorry, I dont mean to pick on Foxfyre only -- hey, you posted the only posts I felt the urge/need to respond to in a bunch of pages apparently, Fox - see it a compliment. :wink:

But here's the next one:

Foxfyre wrote:
I do see a problem with Obama sharing the racist and anti-American views of his pastor presumably with the consent of the congregation if he in fact does.

What makes you think that Obama did (or might) share the racist and anti-American views of his pastor -- other than that he didnt walk out of the church?

I can see the argument that he should have left the Church as soon as he realised that the preacher said things that were unpalatable to him. I dont agree with that, myself; I think that if there were many good things about the Church as well, many things it did that he was invested in, other sermons that did inspire him, people he loved, then it's understandable that he stayed. But it's an argument I can easily understand. It's like the question of whether you could be friends with a racist, for example: I could, but I know many people who couldnt, and I understand that too.

But the argument that he might actually share those racist and anti-American views? What is that based on, specifically? He has said in very clear terms that he doesnt, so the argument must be that perhaps he's lying, and he does in fact share those views even though he says he doesnt (and even though it would be directly counter to the message of both his books, his political platform, and the entire body of his speeches). I'm having trouble wrapping my head around that. Other than the fairly implausible argument that the fact that he didnt walk out means he must just have agreed, what is this based on?

It goes back to my previous post. Obama wants to be President. He must expect to be scrutinized on his attitudes re the values of an organization he has been intimately associated with for 20 years.

We both know that a Republican would be so scrutinized as I described.

0 Replies

nappyheadedhohoho wrote:

Foxfyre - I think I know why they're confused, but trust me, enough people heard him say it (that he wasn't there) and then yesterday morning admit he was there and they will make up their own minds about his honesty. I think the reason Obama admitted it yesterday morning is that he knew it was just a matter of time before someone caught him - he knows what Garrett asked him Friday night and he knows how he replied.

Transcript of the Garret bit on Friday to be found here.

0 Replies

Foxfyre wrote:

It goes back to my previous post. Obama wants to be President. He must expect to be scrutinized on his attitudes re the values of an organization he has been intimately associated with for 20 years.

We both know that a Republican would be so scrutinized as I described.

But thats what I'm asking about. Scrutinizing = scouring for any evidence that might show that the candidate does in fact have offensive etc beliefs. Is there any indication that Obama might actually share those racist and anti-American beliefs of Wright? (Not going into that characterisation of Wright's beliefs itself.)

Beyond the belief that he should just have left as soon as he found that disagreeable things were being said, is there in fact any indication that he did not found them disagreeable, that he agreed?

Scrutinize away. My question is whether the scrutinising has turned up anything on this count. Have you seen anything that might show he's lying now, when he says he doesnt share Wright's beliefs on these issues?

0 Replies

Good evening. Wandering off in a somewhat different direction I note the U.S. Supreme Court's ruling today in the case of Snyder vs Louisiana.
Here we are, at the start of the 21st century, and this sort of blatant racism was allowed to occur in our justice system. How would you respond if you were on the receiving end of that?

0 Replies

nimh wrote:

Foxfyre wrote:
It goes back to my previous post. Obama wants to be President. He must expect to be scrutinized on his attitudes re the values of an organization he has been intimately associated with for 20 years.

We both know that a Republican would be so scrutinized as I described.

But thats what I'm asking about. Scrutinizing = scouring for any evidence that might show that the candidate does in fact have offensive etc beliefs. Is there any indication that Obama might actually share those racist and anti-American beliefs of Wright? (Not going into that characterisation of Wright's beliefs itself.)

Beyond the belief that he should just have left as soon as he found that disagreeable things were being said, is there in fact any indication that he did not found them disagreeable, that he agreed?

Scrutinize away. My question is whether the scrutinising has turned up anything on this count. Have you seen anything that might show he's lying now, when he says he doesnt share Wright's beliefs on these issues?

When questioned, I have now replied several times that I do not presume to see into Obama's heart and cannot know what are his motives, thoughts, hopes, dreams etc. other than for what he has told us, what he has written, and what he has done in the public sector.

But I have been a member of varous Christian congregations all my life. I never had perfect attendance and would not be able to attend for various lengths of time for various reasons. Though good friends with some, I was not particularly close to several of the pastors. Because we have moved around a lot we were in most of those churches for only a few years; a few only a few months. In addition to church membership, I have also belonged to various other organizations.

But whether active or intermittant in attendance, close to the pastor or leader or barely an acquaintance, I cannot imagine that any pastor or leader could have expressed the inflammatory rhetoric expressed by Jeremiah Wright and I would not have heard about it. And I think anybody who has been active in an organization knows that. People talk and gossip moves fast. And if you are a heavy contributor to the organization, you pay even closer attention.

So for Barack Obama to say that he was unaware of all or most of that simply is not credible to me. He was a member of that church for 20 years. And it is not unreasonable to question how much of the mission, agenda, and point of view of the leadership he shared. A statement issued for political expediency after the fact doesn't do a whole lot to close the confidence gap, especially when it simply does not ring true as previously described.

Having said all that, if somebody credible does place Obama in the pew during some of those most virulent sermons or otherwise testifies that Obama knew more than he is admitting, I think it will be a serious problem for him even more than doubts re his true convictions that he himself has now created by not dealing with the most controversial issues head on. And all this will again be linked to that photo of him not saluting the flag on the podium or refusing to wear a flag lapel pin, etc. etc. etc., none of which would matter to anybody much otherwise.

Most Americans want to know that their President loves his country, does not feel allegiance toward Africa, is not a racist, etc. etc. etc. And I think that is reasonable.

0 Replies

OK, so going back to the distinction that both Soz and Cyclo made that I linked to (again) here.

The distinction was that Obama said he had not been in the church for any of the particular inflammatory statements that were in those video; but he didnt say he never heard Wright say anything controversial.

In response to my post,

nappyheadedhohoho wrote:

In the interview with Major Garrett on FoxNews he said he was never in the church when controversial comments by Wright were made.

And

Foxfyre wrote:

those two clips I posted yesterday were of Obama specificially stating that he was unaware of Pastor Wright's more inflammatory rhetoric and him stating that had he been aware, he would have quit.

Now Old Europe has been so kind as to provide the transcript of the Garret bit on Friday: to be found here.

And it looks like Nappyheadedhohoho was wrong. Nowhere did Obama say that "he was never in the church when controversial comments by Wright were made".

This is what he said. Asked about the brouhaha over the statements of Wright the day before, this is what he said, specifically, about them:

Quote:

OK, so now I've read the transcript of the interview you referred to, and it just doesnt say what you said it said. Which puts us right back to what Soz and Cyclo said all the way at the beginning:

sozobe wrote:

What Obama said in the Huffington Post piece that he only recently learned of the specific remarks that set off this firestorm. He didn't say that he'd never heard Wright make controversial remarks.

Cycloptichorn wrote:

He said he wasn't there when the statements in question - such as the 9/11 comment - were made. He didn't say that he never heard the guy say anything objectionable.

0 Replies

He said he was not in church when the most controversial statements--those being circulated in the clips--were made. He has explicitly said he had not heard those. He did not say that he never heard anything controversial in church.

I don't think anybody who has ever attended church with any regularity would say that they never heard anything controversial in church.

Two separate things. The totally 'unacceptable comments' even according to Obama and generally controversial things are not the same occasions.

0 Replies

Foxfyre wrote:

When questioned, I have now replied several times that I do not presume to see into Obama's heart and cannot know what are his motives, thoughts, hopes, dreams etc. other than for what he has told us, what he has written, and what he has done in the public sector.

Right, exactly. And so I didnt ask you to see into his heart; I asked you if there were any actual, concrete indications that Obama did or might share Wright's "racist and anti-American beliefs".

So are there? In this post of yours, you argue the following things, if I understand you correctly:

It is not (very) credible for Obama to maintain that he really didnt know about the the inflammatory rhetoric expressed by Jeremiah Wright.
A statement issued after the fact like his seems like it's born only out of political expediency.
If and when somebody credible can confirm that Obama was in the pew for some of those most virulent sermons or at least in the know about them, that will be a serious problem for him.

(Correct me if I misrepresented your argument.)

This is all fine and totally reasonable. I even agree with it, at least to some extent. But none of it says anything about the question whether Obama shared those "racist and anti-American beliefs". They are all reasonable points, but basically irrelevant to my question.

But you did again say: "it is not unreasonable to question how much of the mission, agenda, and point of view of the leadership he shared," and: "Most Americans want to know that their President loves his country, does not feel allegiance toward Africa, is not a racist, etc. etc. etc."

OK, so thats what my question is about. Has any of the scrutinising yielded any indication that Obama shared those "anti-American, racist" beliefs of Wright? Has it yielded any indication that Obama doesnt love his country or is a racist, or that his allegiance is to Africa rather than the US?

The only argument I see suggested here is that if he attended Wright's congregation, he must have shared all of his beliefs, which seems a little silly. Otherwise, the only evidence you cross-reference seems to be "that photo of him not saluting the flag on the podium or refusing to wear a flag lapel pin" - which as you point out yourself would not matter much to anybody absent other evidence of him not loving America and being a racist. So has there been any other evidence? Thats what I'm asking.

And you know, I can see the original grounds for the question to come up, of course. His pastor is discovered to have said some really outrageous things; so people want to ask him, wait - do you agree with that? Have you ever agreed with that? So they did ask him, and he said no - I was part of the man's congregation and stuck with it for a number of reasons, but I strongly disagree with those things he said. OK. So then the only reason for the question to still come up is if any sign appears that hey, yes he does actually share those beliefs, right? Have you seen any such signs?

0 Replies

nimh wrote:

And you know, I can see the original grounds for the question to come up, of course. His pastor is discovered to have said some really outrageous things; so people want to ask him, wait - do you agree with that? Have you ever agreed with that? So they did ask him, and he said no - I was part of the man's congregation and stuck with it for a number of reasons, but I strongly disagree with those things he said. OK. So then the only reason for the question to still come up is if any sign appears that hey, yes he does actually share those beliefs, right? Have you seen any such signs?

On a sidenote, I gotta say that I think it was a blunder of Obama to add the whole "I wasnt in the pews for those bits and pieces" line of defence in the first place. His whole argument is that yes, he was my pastor, but no I dont agree with these beliefs of him; I stayed with the church for reasons XYZ, not because I agreed with that kind of stuff, of course I dont. Thats his basic argument, and it makes sense, and he should have left it at that.

By adding the bit about, "oh and also I wasnt personally there for the specific things you're talking about," yeah, he did set a sort of a trap for himself, because from now on every time somebody claims that he saw him at one such service or told him about it, credibly or not, the whole discussion is dug up again. When it's really quite irrelevant.

The thing this is about is, like you say, that "Americans want to know that their President loves his country, does not feel allegiance toward Africa, is not a racist, etc;" the rest is just playing gotcha. And even if somebody turns out to once have told him about something objectionable Wright said, does anybody seriously believe that this would show that yes, Obama does indeed agree with Wright on all this stuff? That he is a racist or whatever? Despite, you know, having said and written nothing but the opposite throughout his work?

Seems to me like he put up an extra hoop for himself here, when it doesnt prove much about the basic allegation/insinuation one way or another anyway.

0 Replies

This is getting downright silly; he said, she said.

0 Replies

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know