okie
 
  1  
Tue 25 Mar, 2008 09:31 am
Cycloptichorn wrote:
I'll write a longer answer here in a little while.
........
There is no real attack with the Wright thing; only a smear, mixed with innuendo, mixed with a blanketed racial division. That's the best hope for you guys this fall. And that's funny and pathetic all at once Laughing

Cycloptichorn

You spent alot of time with spin, cyclops, but you are only chasing your own tail. As Romney said, facts are stubborn things.
0 Replies
 
Cycloptichorn
 
  1  
Tue 25 Mar, 2008 09:36 am
okie wrote:
Cycloptichorn wrote:
I'll write a longer answer here in a little while.
........
There is no real attack with the Wright thing; only a smear, mixed with innuendo, mixed with a blanketed racial division. That's the best hope for you guys this fall. And that's funny and pathetic all at once Laughing

Cycloptichorn

You spent alot of time with spin, cyclops, but you are only chasing your own tail. As Romney said, facts are stubborn things.


Oh, I agree completely, and appreciate you coming around to the side of facts, over the side of innuendo and smear Laughing

Cycloptichorn
0 Replies
 
kickycan
 
  1  
Tue 25 Mar, 2008 09:47 am
maporsche wrote:
Finn dAbuzz wrote:

Imagine McCain was a member, for two decades, of a church where the minister, throughout this entire time, preached that AIDS was God's curse upon homosexual abomination. Imagine that the minister was filmed making lewd comments and gyrations about Jesse Jackson's, or Larry Craig's sexual antics. Imagine that McCain identified the minister as his spiritual mentor and proudly spoke of how he married him and baptized his children, and that this same minister was known to give sermons that argued 9/11 was deserved by America for its decadent ways.

Do you really expect us to believe that in such a case you would be demanding "cogent answers" as to why anyone should worry about what McCain might do once elected?


I'm curious if Cyclops, TKO, Roxxxanne, etc will grace us with an answer here.

Obama's church ties are F#cked up. Admit it and we can move on.


Yes, it is f*cked up. But then again, I think all church ties are pretty f*cked up. And I can understand how some people would be upset about it. It is a huge PR problem for the B-man. But I don't think it makes him unelectable, and as long as no other bombshells come up like this, I think he will still beat Hillary and McCain. Of course, I always pick the loser candidate though, so I guess that's a good sign for your side.

No matter how this all turns out, this election season has been and continues to be fascinating.
0 Replies
 
nappyheadedhohoho
 
  1  
Tue 25 Mar, 2008 09:58 am
Quote:
Obama could have done the easy thing to do, and simply distance himself from the church.


Are you saying he hasn't tried to do this?
0 Replies
 
Cycloptichorn
 
  1  
Tue 25 Mar, 2008 10:00 am
nappyheadedhohoho wrote:
Quote:
Obama could have done the easy thing to do, and simply distance himself from the church.


Are you saying he hasn't tried to do this?


Nope. He has maintained ties with the church and Wright himself, explicitly, while denouncing the statements which he doesn't consider appropriate.

Cycloptichorn
0 Replies
 
Walter Hinteler
 
  1  
Tue 25 Mar, 2008 10:12 am
I like the comment in today's Chicago Tribune: The sins of our preachers:

Quote:
0 Replies
 
nappyheadedhohoho
 
  1  
Tue 25 Mar, 2008 10:13 am
Cycloptichorn wrote:
nappyheadedhohoho wrote:
Quote:
Obama could have done the easy thing to do, and simply distance himself from the church.


Are you saying he hasn't tried to do this?


Nope. He has maintained ties with the church and Wright himself, explicitly, while denouncing the statements which he doesn't consider appropriate.

Cycloptichorn


If that were true, wouldn't he have left all the references to his pastor on his website?
0 Replies
 
Bi-Polar Bear
 
  1  
Tue 25 Mar, 2008 10:14 am
Cycloptichorn wrote:
I'll write a longer answer here in a little while. But I wanted to specifically address this first:

Quote:

Also, as a totally separate issue, I have said several times that I want a President who is proud of, loves and appreciates America and who will build from the best that America is even as we deal with problems that need to be dealt with. I do not want a President whose heart and allegiance is with another place and who condemns America in his heart as a racist, bigoted, evil place that would commit genocide on some or any of its people. That is the message of Jeremiah Wright, and that is the message that I believe most Americans reject.


I'm sorry, but that is not the message of Reverend Wright, and I have no idea how you could think that it is. What amazing hubris you display! You have seen a few clips on TV and the internet. That's it. Probably a total of 2 minutes out of the thousands of hours he's spent preaching. 2 minutes designed to highlight his most objectionable and controversial statements. And yet, you feel qualified to speak of his message?

I'm sure that membership in his congregation had its' ups and downs. Just like most churches. You are painting this fellow as a caricature of a man, a demon, an anti-white devil, for political purposes. And it's absurd and sad to see it happen.

well I'll be..... I had no idea cyclo was a long time member of Wrights church....
0 Replies
 
Cycloptichorn
 
  1  
Tue 25 Mar, 2008 10:17 am
Bi-Polar Bear wrote:
Cycloptichorn wrote:
I'll write a longer answer here in a little while. But I wanted to specifically address this first:

Quote:

Also, as a totally separate issue, I have said several times that I want a President who is proud of, loves and appreciates America and who will build from the best that America is even as we deal with problems that need to be dealt with. I do not want a President whose heart and allegiance is with another place and who condemns America in his heart as a racist, bigoted, evil place that would commit genocide on some or any of its people. That is the message of Jeremiah Wright, and that is the message that I believe most Americans reject.


I'm sorry, but that is not the message of Reverend Wright, and I have no idea how you could think that it is. What amazing hubris you display! You have seen a few clips on TV and the internet. That's it. Probably a total of 2 minutes out of the thousands of hours he's spent preaching. 2 minutes designed to highlight his most objectionable and controversial statements. And yet, you feel qualified to speak of his message?

I'm sure that membership in his congregation had its' ups and downs. Just like most churches. You are painting this fellow as a caricature of a man, a demon, an anti-white devil, for political purposes. And it's absurd and sad to see it happen.

well I'll be..... I had no idea cyclo was a long time member of Wrights church....


No, but I did take the time to watch the full-length sermons which are available, and to read some of the things that he's written - including the 'audacity of hope' sermon which inspired Obama.

See, you actually have to do a little research to find out objective truths about things, instead of just relying on smears and ten-second clips. You don't have to be a member of the church to do so, but you do have to be willing to do a little work.

Cycloptichorn
0 Replies
 
Bi-Polar Bear
 
  1  
Tue 25 Mar, 2008 10:19 am
so you feel qualified to speak to the subject with perfect authority?

Actually that's a rhetorical question...
0 Replies
 
Cycloptichorn
 
  1  
Tue 25 Mar, 2008 10:22 am
Bi-Polar Bear wrote:
so you feel qualified to speak to the subject with perfect authority?

Actually that's a rhetorical question...


Not perfect authority, but head and shoulders above those who base their opinion on nothing but small clips and smears.

I'll go with research and critical thought anytime, over jumping to self-fulfilling conclusions.

Cycloptichorn
0 Replies
 
Bi-Polar Bear
 
  1  
Tue 25 Mar, 2008 10:25 am
Cycloptichorn wrote:
Bi-Polar Bear wrote:
so you feel qualified to speak to the subject with perfect authority?

Actually that's a rhetorical question...


Not perfect authority, but head and shoulders above those who base their opinion on nothing but small clips and smears.

I'll go with research and critical thought anytime, over jumping to self-fulfilling conclusions.

Cycloptichorn


and you can speak with complete authority about the research and amount of delving into an issue those you disagree with have done correct?
0 Replies
 
Cycloptichorn
 
  1  
Tue 25 Mar, 2008 10:28 am
Bi-Polar Bear wrote:
Cycloptichorn wrote:
Bi-Polar Bear wrote:
so you feel qualified to speak to the subject with perfect authority?

Actually that's a rhetorical question...


Not perfect authority, but head and shoulders above those who base their opinion on nothing but small clips and smears.

I'll go with research and critical thought anytime, over jumping to self-fulfilling conclusions.

Cycloptichorn


and you can speak with complete authority about the research and amount of delving into an issue those you disagree with have done correct?


It is self-evident in the majority of cases.

I'm bored with this topic now, and instead will pivot to something else:

Per TPM:

Quote:
Obama Releases His 2000-2006 Tax Returns, Demands Hillary Release Hers
By Greg Sargent - March 25, 2008, 11:43AM

This is pretty funny. Hillary spokesperson Phil Singer blasted out an email at 11:23 insisting that Obama release his tax returns for back years,

Exactly two minutes later, at 11:25, Obama spokesperson Tommy Vietor emailed out word that Obama had posted his tax returns for 2000-2006 on his campaign web site. Turns out the Obama camp has been planning this for some time.

You can view them here.

In pure political terms, this will obviously give more political potency to the Obama camp's efforts to make Hillary's failure to release her returns a key issue in the campaign. The Obama camp is now free to beat this drum between now and mid-April, when the Hillary camp has promised to release hers.

Indeed, the Obama campaign is already calling on Hillary to follow suit. "Senator Clinton can't claim to be vetted until she allows the public the opportunity to see her finances," Obama spokesperson Robert Gibbs says, in a reference to the Hillary camp's frequent claim that Obama has not been thoroughly "vetted" in advance of the general election.


Clinton is hoping that releasing her records 3 days before PA will keep the media from finding whatever is inside it in time to sway the vote there. That's the reason for her delay; she is well aware that there will be questions raised.

Cycloptichorn
0 Replies
 
okie
 
  1  
Tue 25 Mar, 2008 10:33 am
Cycloptichorn wrote:
nappyheadedhohoho wrote:
Quote:
Obama could have done the easy thing to do, and simply distance himself from the church.


Are you saying he hasn't tried to do this?


Nope. He has maintained ties with the church and Wright himself, explicitly, while denouncing the statements which he doesn't consider appropriate.

Cycloptichorn

Just denounce the statements of the imperial wizard, but stay in the organization, is that the strategy, cyclops?
0 Replies
 
nappyheadedhohoho
 
  1  
Tue 25 Mar, 2008 10:37 am
March 25, 2008
The Audacity of Rhetoric
By Thomas Sowell

It is painful to watch defenders of Barack Obama tying themselves into knots trying to evade the obvious.

Some are saying that Senator Obama cannot be held responsible for what his pastor, Jeremiah Wright, said. In their version of events, Barack Obama just happened to be in the wrong place at the wrong time -- and a bunch of mean-spirited people are trying to make something out of it.

It makes a good story, but it won't stand up under scrutiny.

Barack Obama's own account of his life shows that he consciously sought out people on the far left fringe. In college, "I chose my friends carefully," he said in his first book, "Dreams From My Father."

These friends included "Marxist professors and structural feminists and punk rock performance poets" -- in Obama's own words -- as well as the "more politically active black students." He later visited a former member of the terrorist Weatherman underground, who endorsed him when he ran for state senator.

Obama didn't just happen to encounter Jeremiah Wright, who just happened to say some way out things. Jeremiah Wright is in the same mold as the kinds of people Barack Obama began seeking out in college -- members of the left, anti-American counter-culture.

In Shelby Steele's brilliantly insightful book about Barack Obama -- "A Bound Man" -- it is painfully clear that Obama was one of those people seeking a racial identity that he had never really experienced in growing up in a white world. He was trying to become a convert to blackness, as it were -- and, like many converts, he went overboard.

Nor has Obama changed in recent years. His voting record in the U.S. Senate is the furthest left of any Senator. There is a remarkable consistency in what Barack Obama has done over the years, despite inconsistencies in what he says.

The irony is that Obama's sudden rise politically to the level of being the leading contender for his party's presidential nomination has required him to project an entirely different persona, that of a post-racial leader who can heal divisiveness and bring us all together.

The ease with which he has accomplished this chameleon-like change, and entranced both white and black Democrats, is a tribute to the man's talent and a warning about his reliability.

There is no evidence that Obama ever sought to educate himself on the views of people on the other end of the political spectrum, much less reach out to them. He reached out from the left to the far left. That's bringing us all together?

Is "divisiveness" defined as disagreeing with the agenda of the left? Who on the left was ever called divisive by Obama before that became politically necessary in order to respond to revelations about Jeremiah Wright?

One sign of Obama's verbal virtuosity was his equating a passing comment by his grandmother -- "a typical white person," he says -- with an organized campaign of public vilification of America in general and white America in particular, by Jeremiah Wright.

Since all things are the same, except for the differences, and different except for the similarities, it is always possible to make things look similar verbally, however different they are in the real world.

Among the many desperate gambits by defenders of Senator Obama and Jeremiah Wright is to say that Wright's words have a "resonance" in the black community.

There was a time when the Ku Klux Klan's words had a resonance among whites, not only in the South but in other states. Some people joined the KKK in order to advance their political careers. Did that make it OK? Is it all just a matter of whose ox is gored?

While many whites may be annoyed by Jeremiah Wright's words, a year from now most of them will probably have forgotten about him. But many blacks who absorb his toxic message can still be paying for it, big-time, for decades to come.

Why should young blacks be expected to work to meet educational standards, or even behavioral standards, if they believe the message that all their problems are caused by whites, that the deck is stacked against them? That is ultimately a message of hopelessness, however much audacity it may have.

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2008/03/post_25.html
0 Replies
 
Cycloptichorn
 
  1  
Tue 25 Mar, 2008 10:38 am
okie wrote:
Cycloptichorn wrote:
nappyheadedhohoho wrote:
Quote:
Obama could have done the easy thing to do, and simply distance himself from the church.


Are you saying he hasn't tried to do this?


Nope. He has maintained ties with the church and Wright himself, explicitly, while denouncing the statements which he doesn't consider appropriate.

Cycloptichorn

Just denounce the statements of the imperial wizard, but stay in the organization, is that the strategy, cyclops?


There's nothing wrong with the organization at all. I haven't seen anyone claim that this church hasn't been responsible for many, many good and Christian acts and actions within the Chicago community.

Cycloptichorn
0 Replies
 
nappyheadedhohoho
 
  1  
Tue 25 Mar, 2008 10:50 am
okie wrote:
Cycloptichorn wrote:
nappyheadedhohoho wrote:
Quote:
Obama could have done the easy thing to do, and simply distance himself from the church.


Are you saying he hasn't tried to do this?


Nope. He has maintained ties with the church and Wright himself, explicitly, while denouncing the statements which he doesn't consider appropriate.

Cycloptichorn

Just denounce the statements of the imperial wizard, but stay in the organization, is that the strategy, cyclops?


Denounce the statements and remove all previous mention of the Rev. Wright from his website - hoping that will make it all go away.

:wink:
0 Replies
 
georgeob1
 
  1  
Tue 25 Mar, 2008 10:51 am
Cycloptichorn wrote:
Still haven't received a cogent answer as to what actions or decisions people who are critical of Obama's association with Wright, are actually worried about him carrying out in office.

Cycloptichorn


Well, perhaps it is time for you to recognize that the question you posed doesn't really have any defensible answers - much less "cogent" ones. How can one rationally project from a present or past relationship to specific future actions with respect to issues that have not yet arisen? At best one can pile speculation on speculation -- this, by definition, cannot fulfill the standard you demand.

If this is a good illustration of all that is required to so animate you with smug self-satisfaction, it doesn't speak well for your discernement or judgement.
0 Replies
 
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Tue 25 Mar, 2008 10:52 am
kickycan wrote:
maporsche wrote:
Finn dAbuzz wrote:

Imagine McCain was a member, for two decades, of a church where the minister, throughout this entire time, preached that AIDS was God's curse upon homosexual abomination. Imagine that the minister was filmed making lewd comments and gyrations about Jesse Jackson's, or Larry Craig's sexual antics. Imagine that McCain identified the minister as his spiritual mentor and proudly spoke of how he married him and baptized his children, and that this same minister was known to give sermons that argued 9/11 was deserved by America for its decadent ways.

Do you really expect us to believe that in such a case you would be demanding "cogent answers" as to why anyone should worry about what McCain might do once elected?


I'm curious if Cyclops, TKO, Roxxxanne, etc will grace us with an answer here.

Obama's church ties are F#cked up. Admit it and we can move on.


Yes, it is f*cked up. But then again, I think all church ties are pretty f*cked up. And I can understand how some people would be upset about it. It is a huge PR problem for the B-man. But I don't think it makes him unelectable, and as long as no other bombshells come up like this, I think he will still beat Hillary and McCain. Of course, I always pick the loser candidate though, so I guess that's a good sign for your side.

No matter how this all turns out, this election season has been and continues to be fascinating.


Actually, most people are fxxxxd up, and what any one individual says probably has many people agreeing or disagreeing. To make this difference of opinion the central issue of this campaign is in of itself fxxxxxd up; yeah, that includes all of us. We have family members and friends with differences of opinion. How many are willing to discontinue the relationship simply based on these differences of opinion?

Start attacking your family and friends and see how far you get just because they don't think like you do. Grow up, for crying out loud! .
0 Replies
 
Cycloptichorn
 
  1  
Tue 25 Mar, 2008 10:54 am
georgeob1 wrote:
Cycloptichorn wrote:
Still haven't received a cogent answer as to what actions or decisions people who are critical of Obama's association with Wright, are actually worried about him carrying out in office.

Cycloptichorn


Well, perhaps it is time for you to recognize that the question you posed doesn't really have any defensible answers - much less "cogent" ones. How can one rationally project from a present or past relationship to specific future actions with respect to issues that have not yet arisen? At best one can pile speculation on speculation -- this, by definition, cannot fulfill the standard you demand.

If this is a good illustration of all that is required to so animate you with smug self-satisfaction, it doesn't speak well for your discernement or judgement.


I'm sure you would agree with me then, that there is no reason whatsoever to be concerned about Obama's Reverend, in the slightest? That nameless fears and innuendos are all that the attacks add up to?

Cycloptichorn
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

So....Will Biden Be VP? - Question by blueveinedthrobber
My view on Obama - Discussion by McGentrix
Obama/ Love Him or Hate Him, We've Got Him - Discussion by Phoenix32890
Obama fumbles at Faith Forum - Discussion by slkshock7
Expert: Obama is not the antichrist - Discussion by joefromchicago
Obama's State of the Union - Discussion by maxdancona
Obama 2012? - Discussion by snood
 
  1. Forums
  2. » Obama '08?
  3. » Page 689
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.18 seconds on 09/22/2024 at 11:40:59