Obama '08?

Don't ALL candidates run on "change"...except the incumbent?

"What specific policies either past, present or future of Obama's threaten you that are because of Reverend Wright?"

Obama and Change....more substance than "fluff":

1. Not deep in the pockets of any major industries or corporations. Raises his money at a grassroots level.

2. I spite of the firestorms areound him, refuses to, and to date, has not succumbed to the tired old negative campaign strategies.

3. Is willing to play nicely with the other kids in government. Did Bush ever care if he had bipartisan support? Obama has proven to be able to cross the aisle and work with those with whom he does not agree.

.....anyone else have anything to add?

Diest TKO wrote:

"What specific policies either past, present or future of Obama's threaten you that are because of Reverend Wright?"

Simple and direct OB1, you can't answer this question, and your floundering and ad hominems are of really of no concern.

T
K
O

Diest TKO wrote:

Diest TKO wrote:

"What specific policies either past, present or future of Obama's threaten you that are because of Reverend Wright?"

Simple and direct OB1, you can't answer this question, and your floundering and ad hominems are of really of no concern.

T
K
O

Since you won't shut up, and evidently can't grasp the rather obvious response I already gave you, I will (perhaps foolishly) try another approach.

Since he has never been President, Obama has no PAST policies that fit the question.

None of knows the future, so we cannot know anything about his FUTURE specific policies should he become president.

As for the PRESENT, all we have are the very few policy specifics that he has offered - fairly thin on specifics I might add. Here at least we can find one thing - Obama's proposed tax revisions will cost me about $35,000/year.

Finally, none of us can know what is in Obama's mind, and whether or not Rev Wright has influenced this or that specific thought or policy that Obama may have is utterly unknowable.

Thus, the question that you so stupidly insist I answer has no answer.

Does that do it for you??

Quote:

It is stupid title, and the mantra "change" I am fed up with. Its nothing more than fluff.

It is more then fluff. It represents a deeply-held desire to change the way that Washington has been ran for the last two decades, something which both parties can be blamed for, but, let's be honest, people weren't running on much of a 'change' message after Clinton's term. Bush's incredibly poor record in office is what has brought this desire about.

Cycloptichorn

Diest TKO wrote:

"What specific policies either past, present or future of Obama's threaten you that are because of Reverend Wright?"

Simple and direct OB1, you can't answer this question, and your floundering and ad hominems are of really of no concern.

T
K
O

Cycloptichorn wrote:

Quote:

It is stupid title, and the mantra "change" I am fed up with. Its nothing more than fluff.

It is more then fluff. It represents a deeply-held desire to change the way that Washington has been ran for the last two decades, something which both parties can be blamed for, but, let's be honest, people weren't running on much of a 'change' message after Clinton's term. Bush's incredibly poor record in office is what has brought this desire about.

Cycloptichorn

No I haven't. To tell you the truth, the title is a turnoff to begin with. The title is silly. I don't feel particularly inclined to spend the money on it, but maybe if someone loans me the book, I would read it. I don't know anyone that has a copy.

I interpret the change business to encompass more than Washington D.C., but rather the country. I agree D.C. needs changing, but not the country. The people that get up every day and go to work are what makes this country what it is, not government, but I get the definite impression that Obama believes more government will fix the country. I think it needs to be the other way around. Oh well, let everyone jump on me for not reading his wonderful book. If I find a copy, I'll read it, maybe I will actually go to the bookstore and see if there is a discounted copy.

I am just curious okie.

Have you read Obama's book (other then the title)?

((Your willingness to have such a strong opinion without reading more than the title would amuse me.))

candidone1 wrote:

Obama and Change....more substance than "fluff":

1. Not deep in the pockets of any major industries or corporations. Raises his money at a grassroots level.

2. I spite of the firestorms areound him, refuses to, and to date, has not succumbed to the tired old negative campaign strategies.

3. Is willing to play nicely with the other kids in government. Did Bush ever care if he had bipartisan support? Obama has proven to be able to cross the aisle and work with those with whom he does not agree.

.....anyone else have anything to add?

candidone, That all sounds good today, but with another Wright-type incident, Obama will lose big time to Hillary.

ebrown_p wrote:

I am just curious okie.

Have you read Obama's book (other then the title)?

((Your willingness to have such a strong opinion without reading more than the title would amuse me.))

cyclops pointed out I quoted the wrong post for my answer to the question. Its a long day here. Sorry cyclops, and ebrown, you can read my previous post for the answer, or here it is again as follows:

No I haven't. To tell you the truth, the title is a turnoff to begin with. The title is silly. I don't feel particularly inclined to spend the money on it, but maybe if someone loans me the book, I would read it. I don't know anyone that has a copy.

I interpret the change business to encompass more than Washington D.C., but rather the country. I agree D.C. needs changing, but not the country. The people that get up every day and go to work are what makes this country what it is, not government, but I get the definite impression that Obama believes more government will fix the country. I think it needs to be the other way around. Oh well, let everyone jump on me for not reading his wonderful book. If I find a copy, I'll read it, maybe I will actually go to the bookstore and see if there is a discounted copy.

okie, engineer -- Thanks for the very good dialogue. I don't fully agree with either of you (as you don't with each other), but have enjoyed the dialogue - rational, factual and mutually respectful, even picking up a few new ideas for myself along the way.

It leaves me speechless...

Then I'm sure you would agree that suppositions revolving around associations that candidates have, and the effects upon either their actions once in office, are spurious in nature and not worth discussion?

Cycloptichorn

Finn dAbuzz wrote:

Several observations and comments:

Disagreeing with one's pastor on interpretation of scripture is not quite the same as not tolerating crass, ignorant and hateful rants from the pulpit.

Being pro-choice in a Catholic church is not an apt analogy for Obama in a church led by Wright.

Returning every Sunday,for two decades, to a church where the minister makes crude and hateful comments about homosexuals, African-American society, and big nosed Italians is an apt analogy. Somehow I doubt that those who find it so easy to understand Obama's tolerance of Wright, would be so understanding of John McCain attending a church for 20 years where the pastor regularly launched homophobic, sexist, and embarassingly ignorant diatribes.

Interesting to see the prior apologists for Wright (It's a Black Church thing. You don't get it because you don't get the culture. It was a hip shake, not a sexual gyration) lining up to express their disgust with him, now that their guy Obama has finally decided to throw him under the bus.

Why is Wright doing this? First of all, he is Jerimiah Wright. It is totally in keeping with his personality to lash out at anyone who he believes is trying to oppress him. There was no reason to believe he would remain silent. It was amazing he maintained silence as long as he did. Remaining silent, to Wright, is surrender, and that is not something he is willing to contemplate. Remaining silent is to acknowledge that an Uppity N*gger can be silenced by The Man.

As much as I find him, in many ways, pathetic and repulsive, I have some measure of respect for his ferocity and his pride. It would be utterly amazing, and in some way sad, to hear Wright apologize for anything he has said.

The man is not evil incarnate. He is not a traitor or the black equivalent of a Klansman. He is a very angry, very insecure man who discovered that christian ministery could provide him with a.source of respect, a platform upon which to speak, and a means through which he might realize the generous side of his nature.

He has been had by Obama and he now knows it.That's why he said some of the things he said Monday that insinuated Obama talks from both sides of his mouth.

It's also why he will not remain silent, and why Obama made a point today of saying that he cannot control what Wright will say in the future.

Unless Wright can overcome the roiling anger within (and perhaps he can), he will be speaking again and he will not be kind to Obama.

Today's Obama press conference was a pre-emptive strike, but I doubt it was enough to erradicate the foe.

I don't know when Wright became spokesperson for ALL Black people! He is NOT! Just as all Whites are not Protestant, neither are Blacks! He incorrectly spoke! All Blacks aren't Protestant! I answered that several pages ago! I'm Roman Catholic and I know Blacks who are Methodists, Episcopalians, Agnostic and non-believers!