barak's Judgement

[Larkinn]

wright is an issue because obambam lied when he said he had never heard, nor did he know, about the controversial viewpoints of his pastor.

Really? Evidence for this?

wright is an issue because is shows what POS politician obambam is. in his race speech, obambam defended wright lovingly, a few weeks later when wright would not be silenced, obambam "all of a sudden" found wright divisive.

obambam is a fraud

No, you mean hes a Politician. Want to talk about McCain and the Keating Scandal? Or maybe McCain and squirming out of public finance rules which were part of the bill HE sponsored?

I don't really fault someone for not throwing their pastor under a bus until they absolutely have too.

 

[ScreamingEagle]

Oprah left the Church in part because she wasn't a fan of religion any more. If Obama wasn't religious you would be screaming bloody murder about how atheist secularists are going to destroy the world.

You mean atheist secular Socialists.

I can totally understand why Oprah wasn't a fan of religion anymore after experiencing Wright's brand of so-called "religion". In any case, she certainly showed much better judgement than BO. It only took her 2 years to leave, while it took 20 years for BO to denounce his pastor.

 

[Yurt]

honestly i think 'lie' is a stretch...

i mean at minimum apparently 8,000 attendees at the church didn't find the comments extreme so for Barak to say i didn't know...seems quite plausable.

second in regards to the condemnation of wright, i do find that puzzling...i'm too lazy to research...but i'm thinking it was Wright's praising of Farakon that he had to distance himself from. if that makes Obama a politician i'll accept that.

does it weaken his message of not the washington politics? yes. but when compared to hilary or mccain...my choice is still easy.

actually, your post supports that obama must have known about this because the church attendees did not find the comments extreme...and as we can see from the vids, they were not surprised, in fact were dancing and shouting for joy....you should read look up his last comments about wright, where he threw him under the bus, it will open yours to this whole issue.

Really? Evidence for this?



No, you mean hes a Politician. Want to talk about McCain and the Keating Scandal? Or maybe McCain and squirming out of public finance rules which were part of the bill HE sponsored?

I don't really fault someone for not throwing their pastor under a bus until they absolutely have too.

i don't like mccain, so it is irrelevant to my discussion about obama. i'm curious, what did wright say different that caused obama to throw him under the bus a mere few weeks after lovingly defending him?

 

[Larkinn]

You mean atheist secular Socialists.

Sure whatever extreme right wing bullshit lie you want to come up with

I can totally understand why Oprah wasn't a fan of religion anymore after experiencing Wright's brand of so-called "religion". In any case, she certainly showed much better judgement than BO. It only took her 2 years to leave, while it took 20 years for BO to denounce his pastor.

Except that it wasn't Wright who turned her off to religion. Try basing some of your arguments on the facts sometime.

 

[Larkinn]

i don't like mccain, so it is irrelevant to my discussion about obama.

But yet we don't see you critcizing McCain. Curious.

i'm curious, what did wright say different that caused obama to throw him under the bus a mere few weeks after lovingly defending him?

Wait you mean the difference between when Obama condemned his remarks, and when Obama condemned his remarks and then Wright for saying them?

You do understand the difference between saying remarks in an all black Church and saying remarks on national TV? As in all things, context is king.

From Obamas speech.

I have already condemned, in unequivocal terms, the statements of Reverend Wright that have caused such controversy. For some, nagging questions remain. Did I know him to be an occasionally fierce critic of American domestic and foreign policy? Of course. Did I ever hear him make remarks that could be considered controversial while I sat in church? Yes. Did I strongly disagree with many of his political views? Absolutely - just as I'm sure many of you have heard remarks from your pastors, priests, or rabbis with which you strongly disagreed.

But the remarks that have caused this recent firestorm weren't simply controversial. They weren't simply a religious leader's effort to speak out against perceived injustice. Instead, they expressed a profoundly distorted view of this country - a view that sees white racism as endemic, and that elevates what is wrong with America above all that we know is right with America; a view that sees the conflicts in the Middle East as rooted primarily in the actions of stalwart allies like Israel, instead of emanating from the perverse and hateful ideologies of radical Islam.

As such, Reverend Wright's comments were not only wrong but divisive, divisive at a time when we need unity; racially charged at a time when we need to come together to solve a set of monumental problems - two wars, a terrorist threat, a falling economy, a chronic health care crisis and potentially devastating climate change; problems that are neither black or white or Latino or Asian, but rather problems that confront us all.

 

[ScreamingEagle]

Sure whatever extreme right wing bullshit lie you want to come up with

Not extreme at all....here in the USA it's you socialists that are the extremist bullshitters.

Except that it wasn't Wright who turned her off to religion. Try basing some of your arguments on the facts sometime.

So she doesn't buy into Black Liberation Theology...like BO did/does?

 

[Larkinn]

Not extreme at all....here in the USA it's you socialists that are the extremist bullshitters.

*shrug* whatever, point being you bitch when Obama goes to Church, and you just admitted you'd bitch if he didn't go to Church. Thats just an excuse to whine and moan about Obama.

So she doesn't buy into Black Liberation Theology...like BO did/does?

This tired old tripe again? I'm going to enjoy laughing at you when hes president.

 

[doeton]

actually, your post supports that obama must have known about this because the church attendees did not find the comments extreme...and as we can see from the vids, they were not surprised, in fact were dancing and shouting for joy....

you mean like the catholics who witnessed the pope condeming our little war?

 

[Gunny]

McCain likes to fondle the balls of G. Gordon Liddy, who went to prison for subverting the Constitution. Liddy also advised his radio audience that, when confronted by federal agents, they should shoot them in the head because they wear flack jackets.

Obama sat on a board with Ayers. Big fucking deal. McCain praised Liddy on his radio show, and allowed Liddy to host McCain fundraisers in Liddy's home.

McCain openly seeks support from a man who advocates headshots for federal agents, and the corporate media has yet to say jack shit about it.

Doing a little spinning are we? Besides the usual lefty deflection from the topic by attacking someone or something irrelvant.

SHooting someone wearing a flak jacket in the head is a sound tactical decision. Shooting them in the flak jacket is not. Get it?

You lefties downplay every damned association Obama has and deflect your asses off. Try actually arguing the topic just ONCE.

 

[Dogger]

SHooting someone wearing a flak jacket in the head is a sound tactical decision. Shooting them in the flak jacket is not. Get it?

Surrendering to federal agents and letting the courts straighten it out is a more sound decision. Advocating the murder of federal agents is worse than anything Rev. Wright has done.

And my post was NOT deflection. Skull Pilot has just posted this: "P.S. do you think if mccain felt the same way about bill ayers as bho that he would be given a pass on it??"

My point was that McCain has already gotten a pass over someone as bad as Ayers and worse than Wright: " McCain openly seeks support from a man who advocates headshots for federal agents, and the corporate media has yet to say jack shit about it."

 

[jillian]

You lefties downplay every damned association Obama has and deflect your asses off. Try actually arguing the topic just ONCE.

Wow... talk about spin... who's had to answer for his associations that the RIGHT has made a huge deal about? Answer: Obama.

The right says nothing about McCain's associations. Talk about a double standard...

mccain actively seeks the endorsement of a nutcase who says katrina happened because of gays and another nutcase who says the US exists to wage a crusade against muslims.

And the right has the cojones to complain about obama?

I wonder what the right would be saying if a dem was running who was part of a huge banking scandal. oh yeah, they spent 60 million investigating a failed land deal but ended up with a blue dress. but mccain and keating??? not a word.

 

[Gunny]

Wow... talk about spin... who's had to answer for his associations that the RIGHT has made a huge deal about? Answer: Obama.

The right says nothing about McCain's associations. Talk about a double standard...

mccain actively seeks the endorsement of a nutcase who says katrina happened because of gays and another nutcase who says the US exists to wage a crusade against muslims.

And the right has the cojones to complain about obama?

I wonder what the right would be saying if a dem was running who was part of a huge banking scandal. oh yeah, they spent 60 million investigating a failed land deal but ended up with a blue dress. but mccain and keating??? not a word.

Wrong. Every accusation you made against McCain I researched before coming back and calling bullshit. You have continually tried to make apples and oranges comparisons, or pulled out some fearmongering crap, none of which has any basis except as left-wing tripe.

The fact is, this is just one more Obama thread deflected to a McCain thread. Shall we count? Or can we just go with every single one?

You're doing the same thing here you've done with Bush. You're too busy making bullshit accusations to actually accuse either of what they ARE doing.

And when you keep repeating shit like that "actively seeking" crap, please don't bother telling anyone else they're spinning. You're rotating so fast you couldn't possibly notice.

I have YET to see an honest argument about Obama, and/or Wright that the response to a question is "McCain this ... McCain that ...."

If I want a answer about McCain I'll ask. Nothing McCain does or says in any way changes what Obama does, and the deflections don't make the questions go away.

There a less f-ing deflections in a tennis match.

Tyr just once addressing the issue without saying McCain's name. The thread isn't about him and what he does or doesn't do is irrelvant to what Obama does or doesn't do.

Fact is, you and the rest of the lefties on this board CAN'T address the issues without deflecting. It's been y'all's MO for years.

 

[Larkinn]

Deflecting?

Its a bullshit accusation. Its guilt by association, and something the right would never do against a Republican.

Remember this little thread?

http://usmessageboard.com/showthread.php?t=53791&highlight=birthday+party

You know, where a Republican went to a Rally for Adolf Hitlers birthday? Where you suggested we "clean our own house"? Not that any Democrats run with Hitlerites, just people you compare to Hitler because you don't have any better evidence.

Maybe you missed it, but theres an election going on and its going to be between Obama and McCain. Its a comparison between the two, and yeah if you want to play the "guilt by association" bullshit it WILL get thrown back in your face.

 

[Yurt]

Larkinn;684942]But yet we don't see you critcizing McCain. Curious.

i have not yet criticized satan or hitler...whats your point?

Wait you mean the difference between when Obama condemned his remarks, and when Obama condemned his remarks and then Wright for saying them?

You do understand the difference between saying remarks in an all black Church and saying remarks on national TV? As in all things, context is king.

From Obamas speech.

I have already condemned, in unequivocal terms, the statements of Reverend Wright that have caused such controversy. For some, nagging questions remain. Did I know him to be an occasionally fierce critic of American domestic and foreign policy? Of course. Did I ever hear him make remarks that could be considered controversial while I sat in church? Yes. Did I strongly disagree with many of his political views? Absolutely - just as I'm sure many of you have heard remarks from your pastors, priests, or rabbis with which you strongly disagreed.

But the remarks that have caused this recent firestorm weren't simply controversial. They weren't simply a religious leader's effort to speak out against perceived injustice. Instead, they expressed a profoundly distorted view of this country - a view that sees white racism as endemic, and that elevates what is wrong with America above all that we know is right with America; a view that sees the conflicts in the Middle East as rooted primarily in the actions of stalwart allies like Israel, instead of emanating from the perverse and hateful ideologies of radical Islam.

As such, Reverend Wright's comments were not only wrong but divisive, divisive at a time when we need unity; racially charged at a time when we need to come together to solve a set of monumental problems - two wars, a terrorist threat, a falling economy, a chronic health care crisis and potentially devastating climate change; problems that are neither black or white or Latino or Asian, but rather problems that confront us all.

his church sermons were already on national TV due to youtube and the news media. i never said obama did not criticize his earlier remarks, i said he lovingly defended wright. while "condemning" wrights remarks, obama also said they were valid. lets examine the parts you "conveniently" left out of obama's speech:

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.

can no more disown him than I can disown the black community. I can no more disown him than I can my white grandmother - a woman who helped raise me, a woman who sacrificed again and again for me, a woman who loves me as much as she loves anything in this world, but a woman who once confessed her fear of black men who passed by her on the street, and who on more than one occasion has uttered racial or ethnic stereotypes that made me cringe.

he even knew his comments could be seen as an excuse or justification, well, he was right, his comments did in fact justify wright

Some will see this as an attempt to justify or excuse comments that are simply inexcusable. I can assure you it is not. I suppose the politically safe thing would be to move on from this episode and just hope that it fades into the woodwork. We can dismiss Reverend Wright as a crank or a demagogue, just as some have dismissed Geraldine Ferraro, in the aftermath of her recent statements, as harboring some deep-seated racial bias.

and he encourages us not to dismiss wright as a crank. while "condemning" his remarks, he fully supports the man, through all his contradictions, because this is the black experience and he can no more disown wright than his racist white grandma.

fast forward to a few weeks later when wright goes on national TV and simply repeats what he already said and "now" obama says essentially, enough of wright, he has crossed the line, our relationship is pretty much over. why the difference? the words were the same. i can understand obama being upset over wrights comment that obama just said what a politician had to say, however, obama did not say he was upset only over that, rather, he was upset over wright's divisive comments. there was no defense of wright - this time. why?

edit: here is more defense by obama:

For the men and women of Reverend Wright’s generation, the memories of humiliation and doubt and fear have not gone away; nor has the anger and the bitterness of those years. That anger may not get expressed in public, in front of white co-workers or white friends. But it does find voice in the barbershop or around the kitchen table. At times, that anger is exploited by politicians, to gin up votes along racial lines, or to make up for a politicians own failings.

 

[Larkinn]

i have not yet criticized satan or hitler...whats your point?

I wasn't aware they were presidential candidates.

his church sermons were already on national TV due to youtube and the news media. i never said obama did not criticize his earlier remarks, i said he lovingly defended wright.

No, snippets of his church sermons were on national TV. They never bothered to show full ones, that would be taking things in context.

while "condemning" wrights remarks, obama also said they were valid. lets examine the parts you "conveniently" left out of obama's speech:

No he didn't.

and he encourages us not to dismiss wright as a crank. while "condemning" his remarks, he fully supports the man, through all his contradictions, because this is the black experience and he can no more disown wright than his racist white grandma.

And why should you condemn the man because of a few of his statements?

fast forward to a few weeks later when wright goes on national TV and simply repeats what he already said and "now" obama says essentially, enough of wright, he has crossed the line, our relationship is pretty much over. why the difference? the words were the same. i can understand obama being upset over wrights comment that obama just said what a politician had to say, however, obama did not say he was upset only over that, rather, he was upset over wright's divisive comments. there was no defense of wright - this time. why?

Because saying something inflammatory in a Church where those statements may be appropriate and maybe even expected is a LOT different than saying it on national television. As I said, context is king.

For the men and women of Reverend Wright’s generation, the memories of humiliation and doubt and fear have not gone away; nor has the anger and the bitterness of those years. That anger may not get expressed in public, in front of white co-workers or white friends. But it does find voice in the barbershop or around the kitchen table. At times, that anger is exploited by politicians, to gin up votes along racial lines, or to make up for a politicians own failings.

Yup. You have a problem with any of those statements?

 

[Yurt]

Larkinn;685583]I wasn't aware they were presidential candidates.

again, what is your point? do i have to criticize equally in order to have a voice? your point, earlier, clearly was posted with an attempt to smear my opinions on oblaba because i have not yet remarked on mccain despite my truthful post that i don't like mccain, thus the question was and remains irrelevant. the fact that you are continuing this issue is puzzling, because the outcome does not help you. what is it you hope to gain? that i dislike obama more than mccain? that i like mccain more obama? so what if i do? are you trying to silence my voice because i don't like obama?

No, snippets of his church sermons were on national TV. They never bothered to show full ones, that would be taking things in context.

uh, are saying that what wright said - again - on national television was different than what he said before. that is the crux of my question to you.

No he didn't.

yes he did. if you read the entire speech, the context is clear, while obama allegedly "denounces" (he finally learned the difference between reject) what wright said, his excuses for him....the anger exploited... clearly show he excused his words due to the "anger and the bitterness of those years."

And why should you condemn the man because of a few of his statements?

you seem different than dogger, so i will assume this is a purposeful obtuse and intellectually dishonest statement from you. do you support trent lott stepping down as majority leader because of his comments about...forget...but it was apparently some ol' racist dude? if barack, tomorrow, said: white people are nothing but crackers and should be shackled.....would you simply excuse that as """""a statement""""""?

Because saying something inflammatory in a Church where those statements may be appropriate and maybe even expected is a LOT different than saying it on national television. As I said, context is king.

and as i keep saying, he simply repeated those comments on national TV. so if mccain (for 20 years) attended a white power church that said black people are ******* and should be shackled, then we should not judge mccain on that basis and that we should """"consider"""" the pastors remarks? no, i am positive you would say no.

i am not saying the comments are equal in terms of severity, however, you are effectively sweeping things under the rug, not because of the severity or controversy, rather because the comments were; 1) said in a church; 2) few in number.

Yup. You have a problem with any of those statements?

so because i am upset over racist comments.... i am....

exploited by politicians, to gin up votes along racial lines, or to make up for a politicians own failings.

so you support that wright is justified (For the men and women of Reverend Wright’s generation, the memories of humiliation and doubt and fear have not gone away; nor has the anger and the bitterness of those years) in his anger?

 

[Skull Pilot]

Deflecting?

Its a bullshit accusation. Its guilt by association, and something the right would never do against a Republican.

Remember this little thread?

http://usmessageboard.com/showthread.php?t=53791&highlight=birthday+party

You know, where a Republican went to a Rally for Adolf Hitlers birthday? Where you suggested we "clean our own house"? Not that any Democrats run with Hitlerites, just people you compare to Hitler because you don't have any better evidence.

Maybe you missed it, but theres an election going on and its going to be between Obama and McCain. Its a comparison between the two, and yeah if you want to play the "guilt by association" bullshit it WILL get thrown back in your face.

i disagree. i am not accusing bho of anything here. i am just pointing out that he has said his judgement is so superior that he doesn't need experience to be a good pres.

if he judges terrorists like ayers to be good people, i have every right to hold his judgement suspect. i wonder if he holds tim mcveigh in the same light as ayers after all he set bombs too.

 

[AllieBaba]

And don't forget, Ayer's co-hort in setting the bombs MEANT TO KILL POLICE OFFICERS IN THE US (Chicago?) named Barrack as her successor.

Yeah, he's got some real fine judgement. He obviously knows how to pick em.
Except I don't think he's that naive. I think those people are his buddies because he agrees with them.

 

[jreeves]

Really? Evidence for this?



No, you mean hes a Politician. Want to talk about McCain and the Keating Scandal? Or maybe McCain and squirming out of public finance rules which were part of the bill HE sponsored?

I don't really fault someone for not throwing their pastor under a bus until they absolutely have too.

OMG the Keating Five.....dumbass

Bennett, who was the special investigator during the Keating Five scandal that The Times revisited in the article, said that he fully investigated McCain back then and suggested to the Senate Ethics Committee to not pursue charges against McCain because of "no evidence against him." Bennett was coincidentally on Hannity and Colmes the night the story broke to talk about his autobiography. On the show, he said that he felt the Committee pursued charges against McCain because, without him, the case would have been entirely against Democrats.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Keating_Five

 

[Larkinn]

OMG the Keating Five.....dumbass

Bennett, who was the special investigator during the Keating Five scandal that The Times revisited in the article, said that he fully investigated McCain back then and suggested to the Senate Ethics Committee to not pursue charges against McCain because of "no evidence against him." Bennett was coincidentally on Hannity and Colmes the night the story broke to talk about his autobiography. On the show, he said that he felt the Committee pursued charges against McCain because, without him, the case would have been entirely against Democrats.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Keating_Five

Wow...you mean someone who was hired by McCain as counsel defended him? What a surprise

Funny you just sort of left that point out.