TranceAddict Forums (www.tranceaddict.com/forums)
- Political Discussion / Debate
-- Obama's Speech on Race
Pages (4): « 1 [2] 3 4 »

quote:

Originally posted by MisterOpus1 I don't want to put words in Newt's mouth, so if these sound unfair or incorrect than I'll accept it, but this is at least what I heard, more or less.

pretty much however the crux of Gingrich's argument was stated as a question to Obama:
"If you knew a year ago that he was saying things so dishonest, so anti American, so hateful that you were going to have to disown him then as a study in change as a study in idealism and a study in courage, why did you only disown him when it became such a big political issue�.and if you thought what he was saying was false and wrong and to be condemned why didn�t you care enough for him to try and teach him the truth?"


i don't wholly disagree with what you are saying about race/media/religious leaders or even what Obama's speech was intending for the most part.

Jeremiah Wright, however, to Obama, was not what Falwell or Roberts was to Bush in any stretch of the imagination and i think you know that.

Obama knew where Jeremiah Wright stood politically and philosophically when he brought him onboard his staff, "making such a person a guiding light in one's spiritual life". he knew and only came up with the courage to distance himself when it was politically advantageous to so. and on the surface only wanted distance when Wrights true colors became public.

quote:

Originally posted by Q5echo pretty much however the crux of Gingrich's argument was stated as a question to Obama: "If you knew a year ago that he was saying things so dishonest, so anti American, so hateful that you were going to have to disown him then as a study in change as a study in idealism and a study in courage, why did you only disown him when it became such a big political issue�.and if you thought what he was saying was false and wrong and to be condemned why didn�t you care enough for him to try and teach him the truth?" i don't wholly disagree with what you are saying about race/media/religious leaders or even what Obama's speech was intending for the most part. Jeremiah Wright, however, to Obama, was not what Falwell or Roberts was to Bush in any stretch of the imagination and i think you know that. Obama knew where Jeremiah Wright stood politically and philosophically when he brought him onboard his staff, "making such a person a guiding light in one's spiritual life". he knew and only came up with the courage to distance himself when it was politically advantageous to so. and on the surface only wanted distance when Wrights true colors became public.

I'm sorry, but having come from Western PA, I would have needed to disavow the influence of a shitload of people in my white upbringing in order to comply with what's being expected of Obama. Like he said, it's your grandparents, parents, hell, myself when I was 9-10 and too young to know better, as it was part of my childhood and the sentiments that I heard around me. Part of being intelligent, like Obama has proven that he is, is learning how to filter all the varying information to get the worthwhile material. It's why he's willing to speak with the leaders of hostile nations. He knows well enough how to deal with people: when it's appropriate to attack, when appropriate to remain neutral or silent, and when to support. It doesn't take a genius to understand that all of us have good and bad qualities. Obama found in Wright some qualities that were so good that it required that he ignore some bad in order to receive. He didn't endorse them, he just ignored them like he never heard them.

This is the biggest, illegitimate hit-job on Obama that it's really convinced me that after McCain wins in November because of BS like this, we should reap what we sow in the US. Bush was bad enough once, but understandable. 2004 was a WTF. 2008 to McCain would be clear indication to the world that we don't deserve the acclaim that we should deserve.

And for a media that "supports Obama," I've been seeing these clips NONSTOP for 7 days now. Don't get me wrong, I'm not elated about what was said, but I find it disingenuous to use it to the degree that it's been used. As said by others, Falwell, Robertson, Hagee, etc. have said equivalently horrendous things, they're just not being called out because they haven't criticized the "crimes" of the majority. Instead "we get attacked because Israel gave up land or because gays run rampant" becomes and acceptable statement (and garners little publicity; definitely not 7 days, multiple times an hour per station)

quote:

Originally posted by Groundhog Boy I would have needed to disavow the influence of a shitload of people in my white upbringing in order to comply with what's being expected of Obama.

i'm sure you would if you were running for leader of the free world.

...and it's not an issue of "what's being expected from Obama". he's done what he's expected to do for the most part. it's that he wants it both ways, that he hired Wright in the first place, that he's having to struggle living up to his own expectations and coming up rather short. all for this one man that Obama has chosen to invest so much of his personal life into.

quote:

Part of being intelligent, like Obama has proven that he is, is learning how to filter all the varying information to get the worthwhile material. It's why he's willing to speak with the leaders of hostile nations.

but would he have the courage to tell them they were wrong or would he first have to be backed into a corner in order to find the courage?

it's not that hard for anybody to distance themselves from people they disagree with. apparently it had to come to this level in order for him to do something relatively easy for you and i.

quote:

when appropriate to remain neutral or silent

and thats where he screwed up. he didn't remain neutral. after 20 years he brought him into his fold to help him get elected to the highest office in the land. it was his silence after that should legitimately concern people.

his being forced to distance himself becomes a whole other issue.

quote:

Obama found in Wright some qualities that were so good that it required that he ignore some bad in order to receive. He didn't endorse them, he just ignored them like he never heard them.

thats his bad then isn't it? i'm sorry but thats a rather poor defense. i'm almost positive Obama would never use it.

quote:

This is the biggest, illegitimate hit-job on Obama that it's really convinced me that after McCain wins in November because of BS like this, we should reap what we sow in the US. Bush was bad enough once, but understandable. 2004 was a WTF. 2008 to McCain would be clear indication to the world that we don't deserve the acclaim that we should deserve.

thats your opinion and i respect it, but Obama must reap what he's sown first. if he's as good as everybody says he is he won't be too faded.

quote:

Originally posted by Q5echo take it from another politician...a very smart one. Link: sevenload.com "Repudiating the words after the fact is a study of political convenience by a politician desperately trying to get elected and hoping you'll forget that for 20 years he didn't do it"

AMEN!

quote:

Originally posted by MisterOpus1 Then perhaps I can make one, or at least try. Let's see if I can sum up our dear honest Newt's argument (coming from such a wonderful honest fellow like Newt, that's almost funny on the face itself, but I digress): The Reverend was saying things that were so dishonest, so Anti-American, so wrong. Obama should have flat out repudiated the Reverend. Furthermore, at the very least Obama should have had a conversation with him at some point to tell him how wrong he is. And if Obama can't tell the Reverend these things, if he can't communicate with him about why he thinks he's wrong, how can he lead our country? How can he tell other countries how wrong they may be with their policies and actions, especially if they're against democracy or in the best interests of the United States? I don't want to put words in Newt's mouth, so if these sound unfair or incorrect than I'll accept it, but this is at least what I heard, more or less. Let me try to to get to these points. In regards to whether or not the Reverend was wrong in what he said, I think that is certainly the perogative of Obama to object and state unequivocally that Wright was wrong in what he said. Now as to whether or not that's true with what Wright had said, I think honestly that's a very worthy point of contention to make and discuss. Now keep in mind, what I said is not HOW Wright said it - to that end I think there's no question that was wrong. But as to whether or not our country is truly treating African-Americans fairly, I really don't want to be completely closed off to the idea that we may not actually the wonderful, nondiscriminatory country that we purport. It's a conversation that I think is worth having, and Obama really emphasized this point in his speech. As a male Caucasian, I can only look through my own eyes and state as objectively as possible what I see. But I have to accept the fact that even though I try hard to be objective at times, it simply is not the same unless I truly walk into the shoes of someone else whom I'm having a discussion with. I am not African-American. I do not know what it is like to be African-American. Of course I have friends throughout the years that are African-American, but that certainly does not give me a fucking honorary badge of any sort when discussing issues pertaining to them such as race and discrimination. My point is this: whether or not Wright was wrong in saying what he said does not dismiss the fact that he said it and felt it. It also does not dismiss the fact that there very well may be many other African Americans who feel the exact same way as he does. In fact his remarks are not the first time I've heard of such sentiments from the African American community. Can I honestly just simply be dismissive of what he said and brand him as unAmerican, unPatriotic, and blasphemous for saying such things about my country and how I think things are here? Or should I listen and ponder that there is an underlying reason as to why I keep hearing this from folks in the African American community? Even if I believe they are wrong in the end and disagree with what they said, I think the conversation is worth having to at least hear what they have to say. Because if there's a chance of some validity to their arguments, then the opportunity exists to promote some change for the better, and to me that's a conversation worth having. Point 2, that Obama should have repudiated Wright, well, I guess this might be a valid point if we, as a Christian nation and wonderful Christians that we all are, repudiate not just the sin but the sinner at all turns. Afterall, this is indeed what our beloved President had done with the Reverend Pat Roberts on matters about whether or not to invade Iraq: http://edition.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLI...iraq/index.html Nevermind that Roberts is one of the most inflammatory shithead pseudo-Christians this planet has ever seen, someone who believes that God allowed 9/11 to occur as punishment for the evils of this country. Or how about the Reverend John Hagee, a personal endorser or the GOP candidate John McCain, who embraced with full vigor this crazy SOB's endorsement who calls the Catholic Church "The Great Whore" and "False Cult System": And on to point 3, that Obama should have repudiated Wright. Just like, of course, McCain who repudiated the nutbag Hagee, or Roberts who whispers in the ear of our President. Or how about the rotten turd, Jerry Falwell, who said 9/11 was caused as a result of all the homosexuality in our country, who just so happened to have our President's ear on Supreme Court nominees: http://www.nytimes.com/2005/07/13/p...gin&oref=slogin And that Bush kept in touch with Falwell, up to a month just prior to his death: http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalr...ll_funeral.html And had such wonderful things to say about Falwell on his death: http://www.reuters.com/article/news...542579420070515 Surely Bush repudiated Falwell, just as Obama should be repudiating the man Wright, right? Or how about a sitting GOP Senator, our dearly beloved Senator Inhofe who said this about 9/11: All because America pressured Israel to give away parts of the West bank. Surely Bush and McCain have repudiated him, just as Obama should be repudiating the man, Reverend Wright, and not what he said, right? And as for Newt's last point, how can Obama be a leader if he can't somehow call out someone doing something wrong in the world? Gosh, I almost blinked at that one. Is someone like Newt going to try to convince me that his fearless leader in George Bush has been nothing but exemplary in this regard? That his fearless leader has been a really fucking shiny example of calling out those who do wrong in the world? Does this really need remarking? This is no more a stain on Obama than the Wingnutters trump up as their leader or potential leader. But of course you hear so very little in comparison by our media. Such issues like the glamorous endorsement of Hagee to McCain or the whispering in the ear of Bush by the nutbags Falwell or Robertson receive narry a mention when we've got someone like Obama to Swiftboat out there. And this is exactly what Obama was talking about in his speech. We can have inflammatory discussions. We can have incendiary remarks and smears just like we had 4 years ago. We can be left up to the world of Drudge via insinuation, guilt by association, and nonsequitur arguments that lead us nowhere when discussing what we OUGHT to be doing now, or we can decide to fall back on the world of the National Enquirer and throw mud at each other, hoping to Gawd that something sticks and then running with it no matter the consequences. Unfortunately we all know it will be the latter and not the former, primarily because it's not just the media's fault, but our fault as well. We've been spoonfed heresay and juicy gossip not just by People Magazine and TMZ, but by our own fucking media. It's where they live and have felt quite comfortable now. The intellectual capacity has been wholly absent in any worthy news story or news cycle. I cannot begin to tell you how brave I think Obama is for trying to give us this opportunity to rise above the muck and have worthy conversations about things like race in our country. It's honestly what made his speech so compelling - not just for what he tackled but what he's given us as an opportunity to tackle and discuss. The problem, of course, is that our media, the Right Wing Noise Machine, or so many in the public would be willing to have that conversation, which might actually do something totally alien to everyone - bring us a bit closer together. God knows we could sure use that opportunity. God knows we've been too far apart for too long. I know it's naive, and I know there will forever be major differences between the Right and the Left, but the opportunity exists out there to be able to bring us together just that much closer if we allow ourselves to do so. Unfortunately and quite sadly, I just don't think that will happen.

quote:

Originally posted by Q5echo thats your opinion and i respect it, but Obama must reap what he's sown first. if he's as good as everybody says he is he won't be too faded.

And so will all of the people that will vote GOP....
you know McCain has stated "I hated the gooks. I will hate them as long as I live."

just throwing that straw man your way... my gook brother..

SOURCE

I mean if I was Asian...... and my party's chosen son said that....

well


I would not be worrying about what some preacher stated at the pulpit...

but then again, if Obama was GOP, I am sure you would not have an issue with it

and how hypocritical is the GOP and all of these people up in arms about what this pastor stated??? The GOP is the Religious Right's lap dog:

quote:

"Wright's call 'God damn America' creates a paradox for his critics in the Christian right because he takes seriously the idea of the United States as a Christian nation" Obama's pastor's words ring uncomfortably true By James B. Bennett Article Launched: 03/20/2008 01:45:30 AM PDT The scrutiny of Sen. Barack Obama's relationship to the Rev. Jeremiah Wright, the recently retired pastor of Obama's Chicago church, highlights the complex intersections of religion and race in the United States. Neither Wright's purportedly inflammatory statements nor the pressure on Obama to repudiate them are anything new. The tangled webs of religion and race are two of the most persistent themes in American history. Wright's simultaneous embrace of Christianity and condemnation of the United States, mostly for its failure to live up to Christian ideals of social justice, has been a part of African-American rhetoric since the first slave conversions to Christianity. Looking back even further, preaching condemnation against the nation stretches back to the Old Testament. The jeremiad, a sermon calling for repentance to avoid judgment, is named after the Hebrew prophet Jeremiah, an irony critics of the Rev. Jeremiah Wright fail to grasp. Even Obama, who has recently distanced himself from Wright, would do well to remember the rhetorical tradition of Wright's criticisms have a long history in the speeches and writings of African-American leaders who are exalted by black and white Americans alike. Frederick Douglass, whose autobiography of his escape from slavery to freedom is a mainstay of American civic education, spoke in terms similar to those for which Wright is castigated: "I will hold up America to the lightning scorn of moral indignation. In doing this I shall feel myself discharging the duty of a true patriot; for he is a lover of his country who rebukes and does not excuse its sins." Even Martin Luther King Jr., whose legacy political candidates of all races and parties try to claim, shared Wright's condemnation of American aggression, criticizing "the greatest purveyor of violence in the world today - my own government." Wright's call that "God damn America" creates a paradox for his critics, especially those on the Christian right, because he takes seriously the idea of the United States as a Christian nation. Wright's denomination, the United Church of Christ, descends directly from the Puritans who settled in New England. The Puritans wanted to create a Christian society that would be "a city upon a hill" that would be a model for all the world. But they also understood that God would hold them accountable for their failings, since Puritan jeremiads highlighting failures were far more common than sermons claiming success. (War was a leading sign of God's judgment.) By the 19th century, black preachers had adapted the jeremiad-style sermon, calling upon American Christians to be faithful to the ideals of equality and justice rooted not only in the sacred texts of Christianity, but also in the sacred texts of the nation, the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution. Alongside this historical amnesia, calls for Obama to distance himself from Wright reflect a racial bias as well. The racial double-standard in America requires a member of a minority group to dissociate him- or herself from fellow "troublemakers" in ways not expected of whites. Racial similarity between Obama and Wright (and, earlier, with Louis Farrakhan) as much as religious relationships account for the pressure for Obama to publicly denounce the former leader of his church. At the same time, Sen. John McCain's religious supporters have received little scrutiny. Conservative Christian supporters such as the Revs. Rod Parsley and John Hagee have a long record of hate-filled statements about Islam, Judaism, Catholicism and most anything besides their form of Christianity. White Republican candidates have not faced similar pressures to repudiate views of other politically vocal conservative Christian leaders, such as Pat Robertson and the late Jerry Falwell, who have long pointed to evidence of God already having "damned" America in catastrophes such as Sept. 11, 2001, and Hurricane Katrina. They just disagree with Wright on what sins ought to provoke divine wrath. The rhetoric that has brought Wright into the spotlight is a distillation of the dual experiences of hope and alienation that have always characterized the African-American religious experience. Wright's call for God's judgment is not a rejection of either the Christian faith or the American nation. Rather, like his forebears, Wright's preaching is an affirmation of religious and democratic ideals and a call to uphold them. The uproar over Wright's preaching is not because he is wrong, but rather the uncomfortable realization he is right.

http://www.mercurynews.com/opinion/...k=1&forced=true

plus if just over a 130 years ago my people were sold, bred and treated like cattle.... I think that would give me a 'mulligan' on so called "Racist" speech...
and I seriously doubt Hillary was ever called a nigga.....

"Obama is asking to overlook"




Fuck me did you guys fail 4th grade reading comprehension? Read the fucking speech. Anyone with half a brain and a solid understanding of the English language got the message loud and clear. The speech was about dealing with the issues of race in America as ADULTS. Not as little kids who watch foxnews and get riled up by inflammatory 3 second sound bytes and size 16 headlines. It was about why the media need not scrutinize this small, and practically insignificant facet of the issues of race and social class in America, but the problems on the whole, the same issues that the media and most of America have systematically ignored in favor of scandalous headlines, 5 minute uproar, and the notion that any racial issue is an isolated issue.

It's amazing to me that a politician comes out and makes one of the best speeches we have heard from any elected official in years, and he gets blasted for it. Have any of you guys heard a State Of The Union by Bush? How about his mission accomplished speech? How about Rumsfeld explaining Abu Ghraib? Obama is the best thing to happen in American politics in years. He speaks TRUTHS, not vagueness and he's pandering to no one in this speech except the people who live in this country. Watch the god damn thing again and use some of those critical thinking skills leftover from highschool. That goes for that twat Gingrich as well.

quote:

Originally posted by Q5echo just a suggestion. try researching exactly how he performed during his term as editor of HLR. you might be suprised. take what information you find with a grain of salt because it is the internet and there really isn't much. and if you can find ANYTHING he published during his tenure at HLR then let us know. a lot of people would be grateful.

how he performed really isn't that relevant, it's the fact that he was even selected for the journal that is impressive. The work of a journal member isn't that glamorous, it's tedious cite checking. THe process is far more impressive because in order to even get on the HLR he had to compete in a writing competition against other student at HLS. This is also the most prestigious law journal.

i just tried a lexis journal search using his name, it doesn't appear that he published anything. If that's the truth, i don't read anything into that because mostly likely that means he didn't have a novel idea about an area of law.

Fuck me now we're calling into question the importance of being editor of the Harvard Law Review?

quote:

Originally posted by Clovis "Obama is asking to overlook" Fuck me did you guys fail 4th grade reading comprehension? Read the fucking speech. Anyone with half a brain and a solid understanding of the English language got the message loud and clear. The speech was about dealing with the issues of race in America as ADULTS. Not as little kids who watch foxnews and get riled up by inflammatory 3 second sound bytes and size 16 headlines. It was about why the media need not scrutinize this small, and practically insignificant facet of the issues of race and social class in America, but the problems on the whole, the same issues that the media and most of America have systematically ignored in favor of scandalous headlines, 5 minute uproar, and the notion that any racial issue is an isolated issue. It's amazing to me that a politician comes out and makes one of the best speeches we have heard from any elected official in years, and he gets blasted for it. Have any of you guys heard a State Of The Union by Bush? How about his mission accomplished speech? How about Rumsfeld explaining Abu Ghraib? Obama is the best thing to happen in American politics in years. He speaks TRUTHS, not vagueness and he's pandering to no one in this speech except the people who live in this country. Watch the god damn thing again and use some of those critical thinking skills leftover from highschool. That goes for that twat Gingrich as well.

Why are you so frustrated?

You missed the point w.e your name is...

This issue with Obama is something about character. Here we have a candidate that goes all around the country lecturing about unity and he has people in his campaign(reverend) that preach the total opposite. How can we trust a man that echoes unity all over the country and when he hears such racial slurs (white or black) dosent step up to the plate and denounces them and distance himself from such people that instead of uniting a nation they want to divide it? Why didn't Obama denounce these racial remarks before this issue was made public to all americans? That is the problem.

Look I have no problems in Obama having a friendship of w.e with this man. My problem is that he never told the reverend " look you are wrong. your preachings are divisive and they don't help this society" As I said why did Obama wait till this issue was brought up by the media? Basically what that tells me is that now he was forced to denounce them if he wanted to continue with his presidential bid. IMO this was a political move like many other politicians make to continue being alive. This is a issue of character towards Obama.

Hey you can be friends with someone and disagree with them. Heck I have friends that are total communist but 1. Whenever they talk all this communist BS I denounce it 2. I dont associate with them whenever they do political activities 3. If I were running for public office I wouldn't have them in my campaign or near it

Theres really no need to explain it since the arguments are all refuted in his speech.

quote:

That has been my experience at Trinity. Like other predominantly black churches across the country, Trinity embodies the black community in its entirety � the doctor and the welfare mom, the model student and the former gang-banger. Like other black churches, Trinity�s services are full of raucous laughter and sometimes bawdy humor. They are full of dancing, clapping, screaming and shouting that may seem jarring to the untrained ear. The church contains in full the kindness and cruelty, the fierce intelligence and the shocking ignorance, the struggles and successes, the love and yes, the bitterness and bias that make up the black experience in America. And this helps explain, perhaps, my relationship with Reverend Wright. As imperfect as he may be, he has been like family to me. He strengthened my faith, officiated my wedding, and baptized my children. Not once in my conversations with him have I heard him talk about any ethnic group in derogatory terms, or treat whites with whom he interacted with anything but courtesy and respect. He contains within him the contradictions � the good and the bad � of the community that he has served diligently for so many years.

quote:

And occasionally it finds voice in the church on Sunday morning, in the pulpit and in the pews. The fact that so many people are surprised to hear that anger in some of Reverend Wright�s sermons simply reminds us of the old truism that the most segregated hour in American life occurs on Sunday morning. That anger is not always productive; indeed, all too often it distracts attention from solving real problems; it keeps us from squarely facing our own complicity in our condition, and prevents the African-American community from forging the alliances it needs to bring about real change. But the anger is real; it is powerful; and to simply wish it away, to condemn it without understanding its roots, only serves to widen the chasm of misunderstanding that exists between the races.

It's pretty silly that I have to sit here and quote specific passages for people who clearly were unable to actually READ the speech and deduce the proper meanings from its text. Everything is explained. Nothing is left covered, no stone unturned, Obama lays out everything on the table and then goes on to tell us what he thinks REALLY matters about this whole debacle. If you still have issues and feel them worth arguing after actually reading the above, and the speech as a whole, you can get your answers from the brilliant Fox News commentators still babbling on incessantly about the issue all day long. They too, completely missed the point, so much so that the very fact that they did is amazingly ironic given what was SAID by Obama IN HIS SPEECH.

quote:

For we have a choice in this country. We can accept a politics that breeds division, and conflict, and cynicism. We can tackle race only as spectacle � as we did in the OJ trial � or in the wake of tragedy, as we did in the aftermath of Katrina - or as fodder for the nightly news. We can play Reverend Wright�s sermons on every channel, every day and talk about them from now until the election, and make the only question in this campaign whether or not the American people think that I somehow believe or sympathize with his most offensive words. We can pounce on some gaffe by a Hillary supporter as evidence that she�s playing the race card, or we can speculate on whether white men will all flock to John McCain in the general election regardless of his policies. We can do that. But if we do, I can tell you that in the next election, we�ll be talking about some other distraction. And then another one. And then another one. And nothing will change.

quote:

Originally posted by Clovis Fuck me now we're calling into question the importance of being editor of the Harvard Law Review?

seriously

quote:

Originally posted by jerZ07002 seriously

Absolutely mind blowing the shit people can dig on someone with a solid record while turning a blind eye to someone like George Bush.

Where the fuck were all you guys in 2004? Furiously debating on messageboards why democrats are "soft on terror?"

Oh God, the inaccuracies in this thread.

1. Rev. Wright is not a member of the Obama campaign. Stop watching FoxNews.

2. The editor of the Harvard Law Review isn't a writer... it's the person who has final say which articles make the journal. So of course Obama doesn't have a by-line. Do you think Rupert Murdoch's name appears next to everything published in the Wall Street Journal?

quote:

Originally posted by Lebezniatnikov Stop watching FoxNews.

Unlikely, for the reasons I outlined above.

quote:

Originally posted by Lebezniatnikov 2. The editor of the Harvard Law Review isn't a writer... it's the person who has final say which articles make the journal. So of course Obama doesn't have a by-line. Do you think Rupert Murdoch's name appears next to everything published in the Wall Street Journal?

just to clarify that point, the members of the HLR must compete in a writing competition to get on the journal. So, in that sense a member of the journal must be a good writer. On top of that, as a member of the journal, the students must write a note or article in order to get academic credit (at least that's how it worked at my school). Most student articles/notes don't get published, however, because journals only provide a few spots for the notes of students on that journal and there are many more members of the journal than there are spaces available for student submissions. Otherwise, the student has to submit the article to a journal for publication and compete with career academics, which is not an easy task for a student whose time is not entirely devoted to publishing.

quote:

Originally posted by LatinLover

I see the Tranceaddict, formerly 4x suspended professor has decided to grace us once again.

My heart almost skipped a little beat.

quote:

Originally posted by Q5echo pretty much however the crux of Gingrich's argument was stated as a question to Obama: "If you knew a year ago that he was saying things so dishonest, so anti American, so hateful that you were going to have to disown him then as a study in change as a study in idealism and a study in courage, why did you only disown him when it became such a big political issue�.and if you thought what he was saying was false and wrong and to be condemned why didn�t you care enough for him to try and teach him the truth?"

It's a little confusing to me how Obama would have somehow known about this speech when he wasn't in the crowd on that day. I don't want to play coy here, and I concede that perhaps he may have likely known, but to me it's the very same reason why McCain SHOULD have known about the divisive and vitriolic character Pastor Hagee is with what he's stated about the Catholic church before he took his endorsement with full glee.

quote:

i don't wholly disagree with what you are saying about race/media/religious leaders or even what Obama's speech was intending for the most part.

I appreciate that.

quote:

Jeremiah Wright, however, to Obama, was not what Falwell or Roberts was to Bush in any stretch of the imagination and i think you know that.

I don't know that because I don't quite see where the line is drawn here between the two/three characters here. According to you, Obama not only should have known what this guy was saying about race in America (which I may concede the point), but that he should have told him up front that he was wrong and not post-facto once Wright's sermon got out.

How can that be any different than Hagee's comments about the Catholic Church and McCain fully embracing the man EVEN AFTER McCain knew what Hagee had said? Or when Falwell or Roberts with their disgusting comments on homosexuality or our country deserved what it got either on 9/11 or Katrina, still whispering in the ear of Bush. When did Bush disavow what either one of them has said, even after the fact? If anything, Obama has done something that none of these other characters have done - distanced himself from the comments Wright has made. Has Bush or McCain done the same yet?

quote:

Obama knew where Jeremiah Wright stood politically and philosophically when he brought him onboard his staff, "making such a person a guiding light in one's spiritual life". he knew and only came up with the courage to distance himself when it was politically advantageous to so. and on the surface only wanted distance when Wrights true colors became public.

As Lebez pointed out, when exactly did Wright become a member of his campaign?

And when will McCain tell that nutbag Hagee who prays for the end of the world to come to go take a hike?

Wait a minute, our good Pastor Hagee stated in the NYTimes that McCain aggressively sought Hagee's endorsement:

http://www.editorandpublisher.com/e...t_id=1003728364

Huh? Surely John would have known what kind of man and inflammatory comments Pastor Hagee has said in the past? And he AGGRESSIVELY pursued his endorsement?

Why does McCain hate Catholics so much? For shame.

Opus, I largely agree with you, but Obama hasn't quite distanced himself from Wright's remarks. What he has done is confront them HONESTLY. And acknowledge real reasons for their existence. He deplores them on the grounds they they are divisive and not constructive, but he explained well in the speech why such comments are made, and why others like them are made, and where the anger comes from.

quote:

Originally posted by MisterOpus1 I see the Tranceaddict, formerly 4x suspended professor has decided to grace us once again. My heart almost skipped a little beat.

ha ha ha professor?? Professor of Slinging bull Shit.. lol

quote:

Originally posted by Clovis Opus, I largely agree with you, but Obama hasn't quite distanced himself from Wright's remarks. What he has done is confront them HONESTLY. And acknowledge real reasons for their existence. He deplores them on the grounds they they are divisive and not constructive, but he explained well in the speech why such comments are made, and why others like them are made, and where the anger comes from.

Point taken.

I mean seriously, go get hired at Fox News guys, you'd fit in so well it's astonishing.

quote:

Originally posted by Clovis I mean seriously, go get hired at Fox News guys, you'd fit in so well it's astonishing.

Actually and quite astonishingly, Chris Wallace threw the Faux News folks a serious curveball this morning:

quote:

Originally posted by MisterOpus1 Actually and quite astonishingly, Chris Wallace threw the Faux News folks a serious curveball this morning:

Oh my god watching Fox is so fucking degrading. It's textbook the way they cut people off whenever anyone makes a valid counter-argument, before that person has finished. TEXTBOOK. Happens EVERY TIME. Gotta love the blonde retard saying his comment was deflecting from what "people really wanted to hear from him"


WATCH/READ. THE FUCKING. SPEECH.

Jesus Christ our country is in dire shape...

Powered by: vBulletin
Copyright © 2000-2021, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.