Originally posted by Groundhog Boy
Isn't that the point of his show?
i don't really know what the point of his show is exactly if it's completely devoid of any journalistic integrity. (if he in fact believes he's a journalist.)
quote:
BTW, regarding the topic of the video about Ferraro, he's right on this one.
well, thats your opinion but if he's right on that one he's certainly wrong on the other isn't he?...that was my point.
Groundhog Boy
quote:
Originally posted by Q5echo
i don't really know what the point of his show is exactly if it's completely devoid of any journalistic integrity. (if he in fact believes he's a journalist.)
You mean to provide a counterbalance to Hannity & Colmes, Bill-O, and Anne Coulter.
Really, you're going to go there on journalistic integrity amongst that crowd that you consistently use for support??? Really???
Groundhog Boy
quote:
Originally posted by Q5echo
well, thats your opinion but if he's right on that one he's certainly wrong on the other isn't he?...that was my point.
Want to elaborate on that comment?
I'm still confused as to how comments dug up from 5 years ago about 9/11 (which are similar to those made by right wingers at the same time) by a pastor are the similar to as ones made by a fundraiser and supporter who's run op-eds in the NY Times in her support immediately before they became public.
Q5echo
quote:
Originally posted by Groundhog Boy
You mean to provide a counterbalance to Hannity & Colmes, Bill-O, and Anne Coulter.
i don't know, is his show supposed to counter balance the entire right hemisphere?
does that somehow give him licence to be a hypocritical psuedo-jounalist lap dog for the Obama campaign?
are Bill-O, Hannity/Colmes and Coulter in the tank for any of the Presidential Candidates? and if they are have they been mindblowingly hypocritical about it?
quote:
Really, you're going to go there on journalistic integrity amongst that crowd that you consistently use for support??? Really???
i guess i went there? do you have anything of value other than your apparent animosity towards Hannity/Colmes, Coulter and Bill-O?
Q5echo
quote:
Originally posted by Groundhog Boy
Want to elaborate on that comment?
did you watch the Olbermann video i just posted?
alright whatever. as his own eloquence suggests: "We as citizens must, at some point, ignore partisanship. Not that we may prosper as a nation, but that merely, we may function." now you might hear him speak those words and may go in one ear and out the other knowing that yes, Keith Olbermann is a partisan and that those words in no way should reflect how he should run his own damn show. thats fine i guess. i, on the other hand, want to hold him to those words. not because i am a partisan, but because THEY'RE HIS OWN F**KING WORDS!!!!!!!!!
here watch again
quote:
I'm still confused
they're "just words", right? :rolleyes:
i don't know man, ask the Obama campaign. they're the ones that sacked him. im sick of telling you people Obama just made the biggest mistake of his political career.
MisterOpus1
quote:
Originally posted by Q5echo
i don't know man, ask the Obama campaign. they're the ones that sacked him.
Again I'm not exactly sure what part or role Wright played in Obama's campaign. Was he a spiritual advisor or something along those lines? Was he being paid? I honestly don't know.
quote:
im sick of telling you people Obama just made the biggest mistake of his political career.
I seem to recall you making similar predictions before the 2006 Congressional elections, that the Dems. don't have a chance to take it or something along those lines.
Let's take a look at how the speech affected Obama.
Clearly Obama took a hit with the Wright controversy (down 49% to 42% to Hillary), but then has come back to a 48% to 45% Gallup lead over her after his speech.
and see that 71% of the voters following the story thought Obama did a good job addressing the Wright problem. Nearly 3/4 Dems. agree with Obama's views on race, while 43% of Republicans and 65% of Independents do as well.
and:
quote:
As for the impact on Obama’s electoral fortunes, most voters say these recent events will make no difference in their vote. Among those who say it will matter, just as many say they are less likely to vote for Obama as say they are more likely to. Nearly a quarter of Democrats say the speech has made them more likely to back Obama, while a similar number of Republicans say they are less likely to.
.......Earlier this week, the CBS News Poll asked voters whom they would support in a general election match-up between Obama and Senator John McCain. When these voters were re-interviewed last night, seven in 10 Obama supporters said the speech and week’s events had not made a difference in whether they were likely to vote for Obama. And a quarter said they were more likely to back him.
So who's your pick for the NCAA Championship? I'll be sure to pick the opponent (unless you say KU, which I'll reluctantly have to agree with you ;) ).
Q5echo
quote:
Originally posted by MisterOpus1
Was he being paid? I honestly don't know.
if Obama knows his U.S. Constitution, the 1st Amendment specifically, he'd better not have been.
i don't think that diminishes his role within the campaign though.
...and i'm Asian under 6' so i don't really get into basketball that much, but....GO JAYHAWKS!!!!!!!!!:D
obama certainly knows the constitutional, he was a con law professor at chicago law school. but what does the first amendment have to do with a private citizen paying a reverent as an advisor? Obama's campaign is not a government entity, so it is not prohibited from doing anything religious.
MisterOpus1
Ahh, let's just keep bashing Obama and ignoring that McCain character sucking on the tit of the bat crazy evangelists:
quote:
Barack Obama has gone to considerable lengths to distance himself from the inflammatory remarks of his former pastor, the Rev. Jeremiah Wright, but some remarks are harder to dismiss. When Wright, for example, said the United States government has been complicit in facilitating black genocide, it was hard not to cringe and seek an explanation from the presidential candidate he’s associated with.
Oh, wait, did I say Jeremiah Wright? Actually, this is an argument peddled by the Rev. Rod Parsley, a man John McCain has praised as a “spiritual guide.”
quote:
In speeches that have gone largely unnoticed, Parsley (who is white) compares Planned Parenthood, the reproductive care and family planning group, to the Klu Klux Klan and Nazis, and describes the American government as enablers of murder for supporting the organization.
“If I were call for the sterilization or the elimination of an entire segment of society, I’d be labeled a racists or a murderer, or at very best a Nazi,” says Parsley. “That every single year, millions of our tax dollars are funding a national organization built upon that very goal — their target: African Americans. That’s right, the death toll: nearly fifteen hundred African Americans a day. The shocking truth of black genocide.”
He goes on.
“Right now our own government is allowing organizations like Planned Parenthood to legally take the innocent lives of precious baby girls and baby boys and even footing the bill for it all with our tax dollars, turning every single one of us into accessories to murder,” he says.
This comes on the heels of a report from David Corn who noted that the televangelist “called upon Christians to wage a ‘war’ against the ‘false religion’ of Islam with the aim of destroying it.”
Better yet, our old friend John Hagee is back in the news, too.
Greg Mitchell has the story:
quote:
In an interview that will appear in this Sunday’s New York Times Magazine, controversial televangelist Rev. John Hagee declares, “It’s true that [John] McCain’s campaign sought my endorsement.”
McCain has attempted to distance himself from some of Hagee’s views, much as Barack Obama is doing in relation to Rev. Jeremiah Wright. But unlike McCain, Obama has not stood on stage with Wright and accepted his accolades this year.
Interviewed by Deborah Solomon, Hagee refused to discuss his statement that Hurricane Katrina was God’s punishment for a gay rights parade in New Orleans, calling it “so far off-base.”
It may seem like a bit of a tangent, but it’s worth noting that the NYT thought to interview Hagee for the Sunday magazine — presumably because of his notoriety as an anti-Catholic, anti-gay, anti-Muslim televangelist — but the New York Times never ran so much as one article about McCain’s controversial association with Hagee. Not one.
Which brings me to the broader point. Obama’s presidential campaign has been undermined, possibly permanently, thanks to the media’s unrelenting fascination with Wright’s controversial sermons. But John McCain has close ties to high-profile evangelical leaders who, among other things, blamed 9/11 on Americans. As a result, McCain has faced no political consequences whatsoever.
I can appreciate the significant differences. Obama has a personal connection to Wright that goes back many years; McCain began sucking up to radical right-wing preachers fairly recently for partisan gain. McCain wasn’t a member of Jerry Falwell’s or Rod Parsley’s congregation, he just sought them out, sang their praises, and refused to denounce any of their scandalous public remarks.
But if major news outlets could at least give McCain’s religious associations some attention — say, one tenth the amount given to Wright — I suspect Americans would be interested to know more about the religious figures McCain chooses to associate with, and the fact that he’s done next to nothing to condemn remarks that most reasonable people would find deeply offensive.
In other news, Mike Huckabee still refuses to release any of his previous sermons to the public. Mike Huckabee, the former Republican presidential candidate and evangelist, not a spiritual advisor to a candidate but a former candidate himself, refused to allow anyone to examine anything he stated in his church as an evangelist minister.
One just has to wonder why. Then again, he's no longer a frontrunner, so who gives a crap anyway, right?
Dieselboy_1206
quote:
Originally posted by LazFX
ha ha ;)
If I knew that someone was running for president and Pat Robertson was or is his pastor, I wouldn't vote for him. The guy is f***ing crazy.
As for this, I don't believe Obama believes as this guy does, nor do I think his speech was genuine. This never seemed to be a huge deal for him until it had to be. Then suddenly he cared enough to address the nation.
He is a politician, and that is all. Eloquence is not a replacement for substance, and I really don't see that in Obama. Besides, I just plain don't think socialized health care, social security, or higher amounts or wealth redistribution are what this country needs.
Q5echo
quote:
Originally posted by jerZ07002
obama certainly knows the constitutional, he was a con law professor at chicago law school. but what does the first amendment have to do with a private citizen paying a reverent as an advisor? Obama's campaign is not a government entity, so it is not prohibited from doing anything religious.
i don't doubt for a second Obama knows the Constitution better than 99.99999% of the population. that was just my way of making a point to Opus.
...however, in order for the Reverend to keep his 501c(<--right code?) status i don't believe he's allowed get paid for his services, nor is he allowed to campaign for his boy while at his church.
thats really here nor there as far as this discussion IMHO.
