Racism at Fox News

[JohnL.Burke]

Ahh... oil doesn't work that way dood.

Number one, "we" don't drill for oil in Alaska, the OCS, or anywhere else; Big Oil does that, and Big Oil's loyalty is to the bottom line, not to the flag of the US or Holland or the UK or wherever they're based. And to that end they will drill, process and sell wherever it makes the most money. They will also not-drill if it's not deemed profitable at the time, and part of profitability means not putting out too much supply so that the price goes down. There is no relationship between oil drilled here and oil consumed here. None. So unless you want to nationalize the oil companies and buck the whole system of the world oil market, whether the gas in your car comes from Alaska or Nigeria is just the luck of the draw and you can't force oil to be drilled where it doesn't serve the bottom line.

Number two, that pipeline thingy ... all it does is facilitate Canadian crude getting down to Houston for refining. Why Houston? Because it's a port from which refined products can be shipped, to India, China, wherever the market says the profit is. All the pipeline does is help to hand it off and make that profit easier to attain. Good for them, but let's not pretend that pipeline's feeding the Texaco station in Dubuque. It isn't.

Some of the oil would go overseas. Some of the oil wouldn't. The oil we send overseas would help the trade imbalance by bringing in billions of dollars. In an emergency of course we wouldn't be sending oil overseas. In other words, having more oil is better than having less oil.

I'm afraid we would, because "we" don't send oil anywhere. The oil companies do that. Again, do you want to nationalize oil companies? We have no more or less oil because we allow an oil company a cheaper way to do its business. They're simply not related. To pretend they are is to subscribe to the same cheap thought factory that uses guilt by association on a ten-second YouTube clip of Jeremiah Wright. It just ain't that simple.

But I must say it's beyond surreal to be talking how oil works in a Media thread about the racism on Fox News.

Ok, let's take away the word "we" and replace it with "U.S. oil companies".
Now let's talk about how an economy works.
1. More oil means cheaper oil
2. More jobs (refineries, tankers, construction, office work, etc)
3. More tax money
Exactly what is the downside of having a domestic oil supply sufficient to our needs?
Being immune to OPEC is a good thing.

LOL! Talking about oil on a media thread is one of the reasons I enjoy USMB. You never know what topic is going to pop up next.

 

[Mertex]

If you spend 20 years in a hatemonger's congregation and if you cite him as a mentor, he is in a different category from your dentist. And then if you claim that after sitting in the congregation for 20 years, you never heard the hate -- then that's a story.

Early shades of the "is he dishonest or is he oblivious?" debate America is finally having 6 years too late.

But, isn't it dishonest to then say that Obama is "Muslim" if he spent 20 years in a Christian church? Just sayin.........

A "Christian church" that honored Louis Farrakhan?

Christians are to love "everyone" - doesn't yours teach that? Oops, I guess not....considering how much some hate Obama.....

 

[Pogo]

Your examples are not applicable at all.

Jeremiah Wright was an Obama mentor, with an influence which supposedly spanned 20 years of Obama's life. Come up with an example which includes mentorship by David Duke or Fred Phelps.

"Mentor" is irrelevant. Being called a "mentor" doesn't just ditch the laws of logic. I have mentors whose views I disagree with on some topic; I'm sure you do too.

I don't know why this wasn't laughed out of the public discourse six years ago. This has no more validity than George Bush robo-calling voters in South Carolina to tell them John McCain has "an illegitimate black baby" (Bangladeshi adoptee really, but "black" sells fear in SC).

It's political demagoguery puppetry bullshit. Dump it already. It didn't sell six years ago, it's not selling now, and it won't sell tomorrow even when the names change.

It didn't "sell" 6 years ago because the media abdicated its responsibility.

And now they are "shocked" by their discovery of his dishonesty and/or obliviousness.

There was no reason for surprise.

There was only betrayal of the reason they have Constitutional protection.


Jeremiah Wright was a pivotal person in the molding of the person who leads our nation now. He had deep and longterm influence on Obama, per Obama's own words. He mattered.

Sorry, that's just fantasy with a side of sour grapes. And I still don't see a link.

If media "abdicated its responsibility" six years ago, how the hell did we all know about it at the time?

I submit that the entity that abdicated its responsibility that year was the Republican party. In the environment over which its incumbent presided and given the clown ticket the party put up as an alternative, Freaking Kim Kardashian could have won the election.

 

[beagle9]

After six years of this crowing I still don't get the point. Jeremiah Wright was Obama's pastor............... and?

Who was George W. Bush's pastor? The Dick Cheney's? Mitt Romney's? John McCain's?

WHO CARES? The pastors were not and are not running for office.

Who were their dentists? Their telephone repair people? Their mail carriers?
Conspiring minds need to know. Scandal beckons.

If you spend 20 year in a hate-monger's congregation and if you cite him as a mentor, they're in a different category than your dentist. And then if you claim that after sitting in the congregation for 20 years, you never heard the hate -- then that's a story.

Early shades of the "is he dishonest or is he oblivious?" debate America is finally having 6 years too late.

Sorry, that's just guilt by association and a naked fallacy. It assumes not only is the outlook of A the same as the outlook of B by virtue of their sitting in the same place, but further assumes that B is incapable of independent thought and that everything A says is accepted without comment. It further assumes that if B accept's the view of A for one thing, then he must accept the view for all things. Doesn't work on any level.

My periodontist has some wacko political comments too. He likes to tell them to his assistant while he's got tools in my mouth. I have yet to adopt a single one of them in the slightest. But he does know what he's doing in his actual area of expertise.

No, it's when Obama makes decisions and/or says things that could lead one back to his beginnings in thought of, then his beginnings become very suspect as to what may be driving Obama as a man or what has influenced Obama as a man in his speak and in his decision makings.

 

[S.J.]

But, isn't it dishonest to then say that Obama is "Muslim" if he spent 20 years in a Christian church? Just sayin.........

A "Christian church" that honored Louis Farrakhan?

Christians are to love "everyone" - doesn't yours teach that? Oops, I guess not....considering how much some hate Obama.....

Oh yeah, that Christian church is just full of love, isn't it?

 

[Pogo]

Some of the oil would go overseas. Some of the oil wouldn't. The oil we send overseas would help the trade imbalance by bringing in billions of dollars. In an emergency of course we wouldn't be sending oil overseas. In other words, having more oil is better than having less oil.

I'm afraid we would, because "we" don't send oil anywhere. The oil companies do that. Again, do you want to nationalize oil companies? We have no more or less oil because we allow an oil company a cheaper way to do its business. They're simply not related. To pretend they are is to subscribe to the same cheap thought factory that uses guilt by association on a ten-second YouTube clip of Jeremiah Wright. It just ain't that simple.

But I must say it's beyond surreal to be talking how oil works in a Media thread about the racism on Fox News.

Ok, let's take away the word "we" and replace it with "U.S. oil companies".
Now let's talk about how an economy works.
1. More oil means cheaper oil
2. More jobs (refineries, tankers, construction, office work, etc)
3. More tax money
Exactly what is the downside of having a domestic oil supply sufficient to our needs?
Being immune to OPEC is a good thing.

LOL! Talking about oil on a media thread is one of the reasons I enjoy USMB. You never know what topic is going to pop up next.

Some of our oil companies are based here, some not (see BP: British Petroleum; Royal Dutch Shell) but they all work the same way: they take their fungible commodity to the international market where the price is set by that international market. That has virtually nothing to do with how much of it comes from here.

The EIA (during the Bush Administration, 2007) determined that if the ANWR and OCS areas were opened up immediately the net effect on the world market would be on the order of pocket change per barrel, and even then it would take 22 years. And if that were even significant, OPEC just cuts production by a sliver to compensate and goes to lunch.

The influence of that cartel is not a desirable thing but it is the reality. George Bush never made a more honest or needed statement than when he said "America is addicted to oil". For indeed we are.

 

[beagle9]

After six years of this crowing I still don't get the point. Jeremiah Wright was Obama's pastor............... and?

Who was George W. Bush's pastor? The Dick Cheney's? Mitt Romney's? John McCain's?

WHO CARES? The pastors were not and are not running for office.

Who were their dentists? Their telephone repair people? Their mail carriers?
Conspiring minds need to know. Scandal beckons.

If you spend 20 years in a hatemonger's congregation and if you cite him as a mentor, he is in a different category from your dentist. And then if you claim that after sitting in the congregation for 20 years, you never heard the hate -- then that's a story.

Early shades of the "is he dishonest or is he oblivious?" debate America is finally having 6 years too late.

But, isn't it dishonest to then say that Obama is "Muslim" if he spent 20 years in a Christian church? Just sayin.........

He spent 20 years in that church I think because of his wife, and so it appears to me that he was being led around by his wife in those days, and that is why he went to that church I think. Now the side affect was that Jeremiah took an interest in the young Obama, and saw that Obama could maybe do great things in the future, so he quickly became a part of Obama's life as his mentor, and he done this for his own personal views to be pushed if Obama made it big one day, and so he attached himself to the success of Obama once he became successful in hopes of having a seat at the table with him.

However, Obama ended up having to throw him under the bus, just like he did with others he had aligned himself with over the years, because they were just to volatile a characters to hang onto after being cast into the spotlight as found within such a huge deal as being the President of the United Nations or I mean of the United States (I get confused still). LOL

 

[Tank]

Christians are to love "everyone" - doesn't yours teach that? Oops, I guess not....considering how much some hate Obama.....

Check out the love at Obamas church:

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vdJB-qkfUHc]Jeremiah Wright - Obama's mentor - Hate speech - YouTube[/ame]

 

[Amelia]

After six years of this crowing I still don't get the point. Jeremiah Wright was Obama's pastor............... and?

Who was George W. Bush's pastor? The Dick Cheney's? Mitt Romney's? John McCain's?

WHO CARES? The pastors were not and are not running for office.

Who were their dentists? Their telephone repair people? Their mail carriers?
Conspiring minds need to know. Scandal beckons.

If you spend 20 years in a hatemonger's congregation and if you cite him as a mentor, he is in a different category from your dentist. And then if you claim that after sitting in the congregation for 20 years, you never heard the hate -- then that's a story.

Early shades of the "is he dishonest or is he oblivious?" debate America is finally having 6 years too late.

But, isn't it dishonest to then say that Obama is "Muslim" if he spent 20 years in a Christian church? Just sayin.........

Find one example of me calling Obama Muslim.

 

[S.J.]

Rev. Wright's church teaches "Black liberation theology". It's a made-up religion that encourages blacks to hate whites. They're not Muslims and they're not Christians, they're just hateful black people. They hate the U.S. because they see it as a "white country", and the reason they embrace Muslims is because they hate the same people. The church isn't about love, it's about hate.

 

[Pogo]

Christians are to love "everyone" - doesn't yours teach that? Oops, I guess not....considering how much some hate Obama.....

Check out the love at Obamas church:

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vdJB-qkfUHc]Jeremiah Wright - Obama's mentor - Hate speech - YouTube[/ame]

-- and once again, it starts in mid-sentence. That's what I mean by lack of context and selective editing.

Please. We're not stupid up in here.

 

[Pogo]

Rev. Wright's church teaches "Black liberation theology". It's a made-up religion that encourages blacks to hate whites. They're not Muslims and they're not Christians, they're just hateful black people. They hate the U.S. because they see it as a "white country", and the reason they embrace Muslims is because they hate the same people. The church isn't about love, it's about hate.

Really. And how often do you commute to this church from SoCal?

 

[Amelia]

My personal religious belief about Obama's faith is that it is between him and God.

My pragmatic citizen's belief about Obama's faith is that he joined Wright's congregation because it was a practical thing to do in furtherance of his career as a community organizer. I base this opinion on what Obama has said about how he views Christ and about why he joined Wright's church. I have yet to see where he has said that he believes in the divinity or resurrection of Christ; he speaks of Christ as an historical figure and a teacher. Whatever his faith, it appears to be fundamentally different from mine, but I do not use religion as a litmus test for governance.

What matters to me is that Obama is dishonest and divisive and sorely lacking in qualities needed for good governance. These are things he has shown in the past five years and they are things the media should have exposed in 2007 and 2008.

 

[Pogo]

My personal religious belief about Obama's faith is that it is between him and God.

My pragmatic citizen's belief about Obama's faith is that he joined Wright's congregation because it was a practical thing to do in furtherance of his career as a community organizer.

Now that makes perfect sense. A whole lot of people join a church not for what's in it but for outward appearances. Especially politicians.

I base this opinion on what Obama has said about how he views Christ and about why he joined Wright's church. I have yet to see where he has said that he believes in the divinity or resurrection of Christ; he speaks of Christ as an historical figure and a teacher.

And by the same token you have no indication that O'bama believed in anything Wright said either. Again, see the first point. Either a person believes in everything that goes on in the building, or he does not. Can't have it both ways.

Whatever his faith, it appears to be fundamentally different from mine, but I do not use religion as a litmus test for governance.

Well said, nor should any of us. Therefore who his pastor is/was is of no more import that who Romney's pastor is/was, who Bush's pastor is/was, who who McCain's pastor is/was, etc etc ad infinitum. Or if they even have one.

 

[Amelia]

My personal religious belief about Obama's faith is that it is between him and God.

My pragmatic citizen's belief about Obama's faith is that he joined Wright's congregation because it was a practical thing to do in furtherance of his career as a community organizer.

Now that makes perfect sense. A whole lot of people join a church not for what's in it but for outward appearances. Especially politicians.

I base this opinion on what Obama has said about how he views Christ and about why he joined Wright's church. I have yet to see where he has said that he believes in the divinity or resurrection of Christ; he speaks of Christ as an historical figure and a teacher.

And by the same token you have no indication that O'bama believed in anything Wright said either. Again, see the first point. Can't have it both ways.

Whatever his faith, it appears to be fundamentally different from mine, but I do not use religion as a litmus test for governance.

Well said, nor should you. Therefore who his paster is/was is of no more import that who Romney's pastor is/was, who Bush's pastor is/was, who who McCain's pastor is/was, etc etc ad infinitum.

Obama had little to recommend him for the presidency. He is famous for two memoirs written before he had accomplished anything to justify a book.

The title of his second memoir came from a Jeremiah Wright sermon.

Romney, Bush and McCain had long records in government, business, and of course in McCain's case heroic service to country through the military. If they had written memoirs titled after a sermon of a radical preacher they had listened to weekly, that would have made their religion relevant. And then if they had lied about or been oblivious to the things said as they sat in the congregation on a weekly basis for years, that would have been relevant.

Obama had jacksh*t to recommend him as leader of the free world. His thin record and ideology should have been explored in depth and reported on in depth, instead of what actually happened, namely labeling as racist those who sounded early warnings about what a liar, divider and responsibility-dodger Obama is.

 

[Pogo]

My personal religious belief about Obama's faith is that it is between him and God.

My pragmatic citizen's belief about Obama's faith is that he joined Wright's congregation because it was a practical thing to do in furtherance of his career as a community organizer.

Now that makes perfect sense. A whole lot of people join a church not for what's in it but for outward appearances. Especially politicians.




And by the same token you have no indication that O'bama believed in anything Wright said either. Again, see the first point. Can't have it both ways.

Whatever his faith, it appears to be fundamentally different from mine, but I do not use religion as a litmus test for governance.

Well said, nor should you. Therefore who his paster is/was is of no more import that who Romney's pastor is/was, who Bush's pastor is/was, who who McCain's pastor is/was, etc etc ad infinitum.

Obama had little to recommend him for the presidency. He is famous for two memoirs written before he had accomplished anything to justify a book.

I agree. And he's a good speaker but that's not a basis for the Presidency. It gave us Reagan and Clinton. But, again, considering what the alternative was, let alone the state of the economy, what was the alternative?

Exactly.

The title of his second memoir came from a Jeremiah Wright sermon.

Romney, Bush and McCain had long records in business and government. If they had written memoirs titled after a sermon of a radical preacher they had listened to weekly, that would be relevant. And then if they had lied about or been oblivious to the things said as they sat in the congregation on a weekly basis for years, that would have been relevant.

No, it wouldn't. We don't hire book writers or pew-sitters; we hire presidents. Demagogues who try to make issues out of putting a dog on the roof or being Mormon or getting a DWI in Maine or who one's pastor was are doing nothing but clouding the electorate with bullshit. I'd rather hear about that candidate's lies about ANWR drilling or Jeep moving to China. That's actually relevant.

Obama had jacksh*t to recommend him as leader of the free world. His thin record should have been explored in depth and reported on in depth, instead of what actually happened, namely labeling as racist those who sounded early warnings about what a liar, divider and responsibility-dodger Obama is.

Actually he's mid-pack in terms of experience as regards Presidential candidates:

>> Suppose you had to choose between two Presidential candidates, one of whom had spent 20 years in Congress plus had considerable other relevant experience and the other of whom had about half a dozen years in the Illinois state legislature and 2 years in Congress. Which one do you think would make a better President? If you chose #1, congratulations, you picked James Buchanan over Abraham Lincoln. << (How Good Are Experienced Presidents?)

(Buchanan, see the table at that site, had more experience in government than anyone who's ever run for the office. He's also usually ranked the worst ever.)

Mitt Romney, by contrast, would have been the most inexperienced ever, by far. Four years in Boston as Governor. That's it. Now if experience is a qualification, why doesn't the same standard apply? As for that business stuff, that's clearly not applicable; business and government work for completely different ends. Business' objective is profit regardless of people; government's objective is the opposite.

 

[Amelia]

When a Democrat luminary such as Geraldine Ferraro is called racist for pointing out how unqualified Obama was for office, that shows how far off the rails America was in 2007 and 2008.

I fully appreciate that the Bush record may have been a guarantee that a Democrat would win the White House in 2008. However, there is no excuse for Obama to have been that Democrat.

An appropriate vetting of him, and an appropriate scoffing of those who suggested that he was remotely qualified for the office of president, could have given the nation a better Democrat candidate.

Instead we got even Ferraro being called racist for daring to speak truth about Obama.

 

[Amelia]

Pogo: "We don't hire book writers or pew-sitters; we hire presidents."

Apparently we do hire book writers ... and let's not forget ... speech givers.

Hopefully we will never make that mistake again.

But in 2008 that's what we did.

 

[Pogo]

When a Democrat luminary such as Geraldine Ferraro is called racist for pointing out how unqualified Obama was for office, that shows how far off the rails America was in 2007 and 2008.

I fully appreciate that the Bush record may have been a guarantee that a Democrat would win the White House in 2008. However, there is no excuse for Obama to have been that Democrat.

An appropriate vetting of him, and an appropriate scoffing of those who suggested that he was remotely qualified for the office of president, could have given the nation a better Democrat candidate.

Instead we got even Ferraro being called racist for daring to speak truth about Obama.

Never heard that one either, and again I see no link, but I can agree that neither party broke much of a sweat to put up a quality candidate in 2008. Then again, when is the last time that happened at all? I'm not sure I've ever even seen it. Given a walk, the DP put up what would effectively be a PR move. That worked to further the aims of a party seeking power; not for the benefit of the country. But then that's all any political party is good for anyway-- acquiring power. Not wielding it.

So again it comes down to: "what were the alternatives". We had damn little choice.

 

[Amelia]

When a Democrat luminary such as Geraldine Ferraro is called racist for pointing out how unqualified Obama was for office, that shows how far off the rails America was in 2007 and 2008.

I fully appreciate that the Bush record may have been a guarantee that a Democrat would win the White House in 2008. However, there is no excuse for Obama to have been that Democrat.

An appropriate vetting of him, and an appropriate scoffing of those who suggested that he was remotely qualified for the office of president, could have given the nation a better Democrat candidate.

Instead we got even Ferraro being called racist for daring to speak truth about Obama.

Never heard that one either, and again I see no link, but I can agree that neither party broke much of a sweat to put up a quality candidate in 2008. Then again, when is the last time that happened at all? I'm not sure I've ever even seen it. Given a walk, the DP put up what would effectively be a PR move. That worked to further the aims of a party seeking power; not for the benefit of the country. But then that's all any political party is good for anyway-- acquiring power. Not wielding it.

So again it comes down to: "what were the alternatives". We had damn little choice.

You missed a lot.

If the media had done their job to cut through the PR bull instead of actively facilitating the PR bull, Obama could have been put on the sidelines where he belonged. There was at least Hillary, and who knows who might have given her competition if Obama wasn't sucking all the PR air out of the room.

The fault and the shame of the media in shilling for Obama instead of exposing his lies and his inability to play well with others cannot be underestimated.