Obama '08?

Cycloptichorn wrote:

georgeob1 wrote:

Not at all. You are resting your point on a rather huge fallacy - namely the proposition that there are specific, knowable one-to-one correspondences between the present & past associations of people, and all of their possible specific future actions. This, of course, is patent nonsense, and I am surprised to find that you apparently believe it.

We can, with some rough degree of accuracy, forecast the central tendencies of leaders and politicians, based on their past words, actions and associations. However, even that is, at best an approximate process for guessing the average character of future actions: it offers nothing at all with respect to forecasting specific actions in response to specific situations.

You are insisting that, unless one can defensibly predict a specific adverse consequence of some past thought, action or association, one cannot claim any inference whatever about his future behavior. This flies in the face of basic scientific principles involving even relatively simple dynamic systems --- not to mention common sense.

So, you're saying that, even though we can't predict whether his association with Wright will have any negative effects upon his ability to lead the country at all, he should still be attacked for that association - because it might?

I'm sorry to say that I don't find this to be a persuasive argument against his candidacy. It breaks down upon the lightest of examination, into an extremely nebulous criticism. There's been no reason whatsoever to doubt that Obama is patriotic, and that he loves his country; to insinuate that his association with Wright brings this issue into doubt, is something of a stretch, and an indefensible one, which relies on the classic Republican trope of 'anti-Americanism,' that wonderful smear, that classic attack, which can be used to sow indefinable doubts about a candidate who merely happens to be Liberal.

As I've said before - it's the Muslim smear, with a new face on it. Now, nobody believes that he is a Muslim - but he might be, some say, and who knows what decisions he will make as prez due to it! This fog of doubt about an honorable candidate is exactly the point of the smears; to try and make him seem as dirty as the other candidates in the race, when he isn't.

Cycloptichorn

Nonsense ! I am saying that Obama's association with Wright cannot be the basis for a specific forecast of ANY action he might take in the future with respect to ANY issue or challenge. Further, I am saying that no one can with certainty forecast ANYONE's future behavior in any circumstance whatever. Future behavior is not knowable with certainty under any conditions. Thus one's inability to use known information about a candidate's present or past associations, actions or beliefs to acurately forcast his future behavior in any specific circumstance implies NOTHING AT ALL regarding the likely accuracy of any forecast of the central tendency of his furure behavior.

Armed with extensive information about a person's professed beliefs, actions and associations, one can indeed reliably forecast the relative likelihood of different average modes of behavior or choices under future circumstances. However, that does not mean that one so informed can reliably predict ANY SPECIFIC future action.

You have demanded that your critics demonstrate the ability to make specific forecasts or associations as a precondition to any claim that a known past action or association might be an indicator of anything in the future. That is absurd on the face of it.

Cycloptichorn wrote:

If your church made comments you didn't like once in a while, I don't see why anyone would fault you for not quitting.

I have quit a church based on one particular sermon, as a matter of fact. It wasn't just the one sermon alone, but it was a bit of a cumulative effect, and it was clear to me that I did not want to continue to be associated with that particular church or the pastor any longer. I had attended that church for about two years at that point. But then again I wasn't attending because I thought it would facilitate my political career.

Quote:

If you think the Dems are hypocrites on this issue, and you are emulating their behavior, what does that make you? Or do you think that they were correct all those years to rail against the religious right, and your party's association with them?

Cycloptichorn

The fact that Dems are hypocrites on this issue makes me nothing.

If your church made comments you didn't like once in a while, I don't see why anyone would fault you for not quitting.

Here's one other point I want to raise about Wright. Having watched the full sermons that his sound bites were grabbed out of, it's pretty clear to me that the snippets running on Youtube were taken out of context and heavily distorted.

I've seen some stuff that strikes me as whacky. I've heard soundbites that critics would not have much trouble spinning as anti-American. But are there really quotes that justify the charge of racism?

"The Obama campaign is trying to persuade everyone that this race is over. ... I hope they don't get their hands on the federal budget because they certainly can't count," Ickes said during a conference call Tuesday.

I just can't help but think that those defending Obama on this Wright issue would immediately switch to attack mode if Obama were a Republican.

There is a disgusting display of hypocrisy here, and I hope that the republicans on this board will call out every bit of it moving forward, because many of you have earned it.

And the fact that many of you can't even see the hypocrisy has me very worried.

maporsche wrote:

I just can't help but think that those defending Obama on this Wright issue would immediately switch to attack mode if Obama were a Republican.

There is a disgusting display of hypocrisy here, and I hope that the republicans on this board will call out every bit of it moving forward, because many of you have earned it.

And the fact that many of you can't even see the hypocrisy has me very worried.

You are basing your hypocrisy charges upon your projections about what other people WOULD do. Not a very strong base for strong charges.

Cycloptichorn

maporsche wrote:

I just can't help but think that those defending Obama on this Wright issue would immediately switch to attack mode if Obama were a Republican.

There is a disgusting display of hypocrisy here, and I hope that the republicans on this board will call out every bit of it moving forward, because many of you have earned it.

And the fact that many of you can't even see the hypocrisy has me very worried.

You are basing your hypocrisy charges upon your projections about what other people WOULD do. Not a very strong base for strong charges.

Cycloptichorn

Cycloptichorn wrote:

maporsche wrote:

I just can't help but think that those defending Obama on this Wright issue would immediately switch to attack mode if Obama were a Republican.

There is a disgusting display of hypocrisy here, and I hope that the republicans on this board will call out every bit of it moving forward, because many of you have earned it.

And the fact that many of you can't even see the hypocrisy has me very worried.

You are basing your hypocrisy charges upon your projections about what other people WOULD do. Not a very strong base for strong charges.

Cycloptichorn

Well, when you say Obama is not distancing himself from his pastor and then ignore the fact that he is (yes he is) what are you doing besides projecting?

I'd have had more respect for Obama if he'd left all the references to his pastor on his website.

nappyheadedhohoho wrote:

Cycloptichorn wrote:

maporsche wrote:

I just can't help but think that those defending Obama on this Wright issue would immediately switch to attack mode if Obama were a Republican.

There is a disgusting display of hypocrisy here, and I hope that the republicans on this board will call out every bit of it moving forward, because many of you have earned it.

And the fact that many of you can't even see the hypocrisy has me very worried.

You are basing your hypocrisy charges upon your projections about what other people WOULD do. Not a very strong base for strong charges.

Cycloptichorn

Well, when you say Obama is not distancing himself from his pastor and then ignore the fact that he is (yes he is) what are you doing besides projecting?

I'd have had more respect for Obama if he'd left all the references to his pastor on his website.

He's not distancing himself from the pastor, only some of his comments.

It doesn't matter to me one whit if you want to repeat yourself over and over; you are no less wrong when you typed it this time then the time before, and no more convincing to anyone.

Cycloptichorn

maporsche wrote:

I just can't help but think that those defending Obama on this Wright issue would immediately switch to attack mode if Obama were a Republican.

There is a disgusting display of hypocrisy here, and I hope that the republicans on this board will call out every bit of it moving forward, because many of you have earned it.

And the fact that many of you can't even see the hypocrisy has me very worried.

You are basing your hypocrisy charges upon your projections about what other people WOULD do. Not a very strong base for strong charges.

Cycloptichorn

Dig deeper. None of Wright's controversial stuff was put on the website. Obama magically 'disappears' people who aren't politically expedient to him.

nappyheadedhohoho wrote:

Dig deeper. None of Wright's controversial stuff was put on the website. Obama magically 'disappears' people who aren't politically expedient to him.

Well, who's website is it? Obama's or Rev. Wright?

Why Obama's Speech Was Unconvincing
By Ed Koch

Obama regains large lead

Raleigh, N.C. - After a week in which Barack Obama made several appearances in
North Carolina and confronted the controversy with his pastor by making a major speech
on race, he has expanded his lead in North Carolina to 21 points.
Obama leads Clinton 55-34 in the state. His gains were particularly strong in the
Triangle, the media market where his major speech on the war last week in Fayetteville
got the greatest amount of attention.
Obama also pulled within a 47-40 margin of Clinton with white voters after trailing
Clinton 56-30 last week, an indication that his speech on race in Philadelphia last week
may have earned him some points.
"The rule of thumb in this Presidential race is that if you don't like how things are going,
just wait a week and they'll turn around," said Dean Debnam, President of Public Policy
Polling. "Obama has really improved his standing in North Carolina by visiting the state
and openly taking on some of the controversies swirling around his campaign."
In the Governor's race Richard Moore has pulled within seven points of Bev Perdue after
launching his first negative ad. She leads 41-34. The poll also showed that 50% of likely
voters say there is a chance they could change their votes between now and the election.
Kay Hagan continues to maintain a double digit lead over Jim Neal in the primary for US
Senate, 19-9. 61% of voters remain undecided in that race. For the Lieutenant
Governor's race, Walter Dalton leads at 10% followed by Dan Besse and Pat Smathers at
7%, and Hampton Dellinger at 6%.
PPP surveyed 673 likely Democratic primary voters on March 24th. The survey's margin
of error is +/- 3.8%. Other factors, such as refusal to be interviewed and weighting, may
introduce additional error that is more difficult to quantify.

I was referring to Obama's website, which contained much glowing endorsement from his pastor, mentor, spiritual guide and favorite 'uncle', including a photo and a video, which magically disappeared when Obama realized his pastor was no longer an asset, but a liability.