barak's Judgement

[Larkinn]

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.

I'm pointing out your hypocrisy.

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.

For the 3rd time, its the context that was different.

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?

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?

Yes. Trent Lott is a politician and was in one of the most powerful positions in the country. Wright wasn't.

if barack, tomorrow, said: white people are nothing but crackers and should be shackled.....would you simply excuse that as """""a statement""""""?

Not at all. Obama has said nothing of the sort, nor has he ever implied it.

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.

White racism against blacks is a LOT more damaging than black racism against whites. Neither is excusable, but one is understandable and one is not.

During the Holocaust, would you have blamed Jews who were racist against Germans?

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.

I'm sweeping them under the rug in terms of Obamas statements on them, yes.

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?

Justified? No. Is it understandable? Yes. Do I blame him? Not really.

 

[jreeves]

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.

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.

Lmao...

Robert S. Bennett (born 1939) is an American attorney best known for representing President Bill Clinton during the Monica Lewinsky investigation.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_S._Bennett

That partisian bastard, getting Mccain off.

 

[Larkinn]

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.

Lmao...

Robert S. Bennett (born 1939) is an American attorney best known for representing President Bill Clinton during the Monica Lewinsky investigation.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_S._Bennett

That partisian bastard, getting Mccain off.

Who said he's partisan? He made those statements while employed by McCain .

 

[jreeves]

Who said he's partisan? He made those statements while employed by McCain .

You know, I’m in a pretty unique position to talk about John McCain. First, I should tell your listeners I’m a registered Democrat, so I’m not on his side of a lot of issues. . . . And after representing him the last few months, answering all the questions of the New York Times, looking into the allegations they wanted us to respond to, I cannot find, nor can they, a single instance where John McCain did something contrary to his beliefs. . .

http://blogs.wsj.com/law/2008/02/21/back-in-the-spotlight-again-skaddens-bob-bennett/

I suppose if Bennett had lied the Liberalistic Times would have exposed him right? But they didn't because Bennett was being honest. Also, you don't think one single Democrat in Congress during the investigation, "wouldn't say Bennett never said that". Again just something Democrats did that they are blaming on Republicans....Lmao

 

[Larkinn]

You do go to law school, right? You do know that a lawyer has a responsibility to zealously represent his clients interests, right? As such, you should be suspicious about statements he says exonerating his client while representing him.

This is pretty basic stuff.

 

[jreeves]

You do go to law school, right? You do know that a lawyer has a responsibility to zealously represent his clients interests, right? As such, you should be suspicious about statements he says exonerating his client while representing him.

This is pretty basic stuff.

But while representing him, he cannot go back nearly 20 years and change statements he made around 1990. Surely, he would have been called out for lying by now.

 

[Yurt]

I'm pointing out your hypocrisy.



For the 3rd time, its the context that was different.



And?



Yes. Trent Lott is a politician and was in one of the most powerful positions in the country. Wright wasn't.



Not at all. Obama has said nothing of the sort, nor has he ever implied it.



White racism against blacks is a LOT more damaging than black racism against whites. Neither is excusable, but one is understandable and one is not.

During the Holocaust, would you have blamed Jews who were racist against Germans?



I'm sweeping them under the rug in terms of Obamas statements on them, yes.



Justified? No. Is it understandable? Yes. Do I blame him? Not really.

what hypocrisy? care to back up your bullshit claim?

 

[Yurt]

You do go to law school, right? You do know that a lawyer has a responsibility to zealously represent his clients interests, right? As such, you should be suspicious about statements he says exonerating his client while representing him.

This is pretty basic stuff.

so lawyers are allowed to lie in order to defend their clients?