What We Look For In Our Leaders

[MKDavis]

Sorry, buddy, but "you show how they are lies" is not how debate is done. Burden of proof is ALWAYS upon the claimant.

But the accused is presumed innocent until proven guilty.

At least we agree on that. For that reason, I have asked Mudwhistle to PROVE his allegations regarding Obama, who is "presumed innocent until proven guilty." I doubt he can do so, just as ex-D.A. Mike Nifong could not prove the Duke lacrosse players guilty. Even without compelling evidence, Nifong persecuted the players for his own purposes, just as Mudwhistle and others seem to have done. That's why it's essential to follow the evidence.

During the Spanish Inquisition the accused had the virtually impossible task of disproving allegations, which is what Foxfyre has asked for. Medieval societies put the burden of proof on the accused, while civilized societies put the burden of proof on the accuser.

Whether misrepresentation is innocent misinformation or intentional disinformation depends on the response of accusers when challenged. Some accusers have the integrity to admit they were wrong when actual evidence is lacking. Others, however, are useful idiots for disinformation campaigns when they accept and propagate pundit opinion as fact, even when substantiating evidence turns out to be fabricated (e.g., the Iraqi threat to America).

 

[rdean]

Interesting. I'd like to add another;

7. Who does this person "pal around with"?

Had this been fully examined in 08 we wouldn't be such a divided country today.

People are judged by the company they keep. Or should be.

The mid terms will be interesting.

I'm very interested in what you mean by this.

It's easy....Obama pals around with terrorists, racists, criminals, communists, you name it.

If the truth about these associations were made clear Obama wouldn't have had a chance in hell of getting elected. That is if the MSM actually did their jobs for once.

That's because they are not "truths". Just the lying rants of simple minded white wingers.

Saudi Arabia sent over a dozen hijackers to this country to bring down the WTC and our president was full mouth kissing and holding hands with their "prince" in public. Who even knows what they did in "private". I don't even want to think about it. But I bet it had something to do with "oil".

 

[MKDavis]

Sorry, buddy, but "you show how they are lies" is not how debate is done. Burden of proof is ALWAYS upon the claimant.

But the accused is presumed innocent until proven guilty.

At least we agree on that. For that reason, I have asked Mudwhistle to PROVE his allegations regarding Obama, who is "presumed innocent until proven guilty." I doubt he can do so, just as ex-D.A. Mike Nifong could not prove the Duke lacrosse players guilty. Even without compelling evidence, Nifong persecuted the players for his own purposes, just as Mudwhistle and others seem to have done. That's why it's essential to follow the evidence.

During the Spanish Inquisition the accused had the virtually impossible task of disproving allegations, which is what Foxfyre has asked for. Medieval societies put the burden of proof on the accused, while civilized societies put the burden of proof on the accuser.

Whether misrepresentation is innocent misinformation or intentional disinformation depends on the response of accusers when challenged. Some accusers have the integrity to admit they were wrong when actual evidence is lacking. Others, however, are useful idiots for disinformation campaigns when they accept and propagate pundit opinion as fact, even when substantiating evidence turns out to be fabricated (e.g., the Iraqi threat to America).

Disinformation creates urban myths based on "secret knowledge" from anonymous sources. The Internet's viral nature lets myths emerge fully grown from propagandists, or they may perversely grow from a kernel of truth, nurtured by confirmation bias.

 

[Foxfyre]

But the accused is presumed innocent until proven guilty.

At least we agree on that. For that reason, I have asked Mudwhistle to PROVE his allegations regarding Obama, who is "presumed innocent until proven guilty." I doubt he can do so, just as ex-D.A. Mike Nifong could not prove the Duke lacrosse players guilty. Even without compelling evidence, Nifong persecuted the players for his own purposes, just as Mudwhistle and others seem to have done. That's why it's essential to follow the evidence.

During the Spanish Inquisition the accused had the virtually impossible task of disproving allegations, which is what Foxfyre has asked for. Medieval societies put the burden of proof on the accused, while civilized societies put the burden of proof on the accuser.

Whether misrepresentation is innocent misinformation or intentional disinformation depends on the response of accusers when challenged. Some accusers have the integrity to admit they were wrong when actual evidence is lacking. Others, however, are useful idiots for disinformation campaigns when they accept and propagate pundit opinion as fact, even when substantiating evidence turns out to be fabricated (e.g., the Iraqi threat to America).

Disinformation creates urban myths based on "secret knowledge" from anonymous sources. The Internet's viral nature lets myths emerge fully grown from propagandists, or they may perversely grow from a kernel of truth, nurtured by confirmation bias.

It is the duty of the defense to show how the accuser has not presented an adequate case to convict the accused.

My contention is that the allegations are out there and from far more credible and verifiable sources than urban legends. Are they all true? I don't know. I do know that nobody has yet shown any credible evidence to cast serious doubts on at least most of those allegations and there has been a ton of evidence to support them.

Also the defense is not allowed to obfusicate or stall or badger witnesses by demanding the same evidence be presented over and over. The defense would be laughed out of court if he listed the allegations and demanded that the prosecution 'prove it'.

So all I said was that your questions have already been asked and answered, Counselor.

So, the ball is in your court. It is legitimate to state that the prosecution has not shown that your client did this or is guilty of the that. But a jury is far more likely to be persuaded if you can show WHY your client could not have done this or WHY he could not be guilty of that.

 

[TruthAboutUSA]

There are many traits that we all look for and admire in our leaders. If they don't have these traits then the chances are they won't win and they'll have to go to work like the rest of us. These traits are not listed in order of importance but each one is important none the same.

1. Do you like the person?

This is usually the number one trait need to be successful in politics. Most of the voters must like you personally. If they like you they tend to overlook any faults you may have.


2. Do you trust them?

This is almost as important as the first but it seems in some people's minds it doesn't matter as much as being a winner does. Being trustworthy is important but winning tends to overrule trust in some people's minds.


3. Do they make you feel safe?

I know this is a big one but it is secondary to the other two. It really depends on how you feel about yourself and your place in the world. Do you feel that there are threats out there and if you feel it's the case does it seem like they're on the case? Are you afraid of threats outside the country or within? This will determine who you vote for.


4. Do they listen to you?

It's important to be in touch with the folks. If they give you the impression that they feel they are better then you do you think they will get your vote?


5. Are they competent leaders?

If a politician seems spineless chances are they won't get your vote....but this all depends on what you feel is spineless. Do they stick to their guns? Do they act like they know what they're doing? Do they bend with the wind or stand up to everything that's thrown at them...and take it with class?


6. Do they believe in what you believe?

This one tends to overrule many of the others. It's kind of hard to vote for someone who believes in abortion when you don't. It's also as hard to believe in a politician who likes to raise taxes when you feel you're overtaxed already.


Now ask yourself these questions. Ask them about Obama, Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid, or anyone else.

If most or not all of the answers are NO then chances are that person is in serious trouble come November. Some people will get only one yes and still vote for a candidate because that trait is more important then all of the others.

Anyone who wants to discuss why the politician in question gets a no or a yes....feel free.

Please....

Americans are far too superficial to care about stuff like that. This is the country that elected the likes of Arnold Schwarzenegger and Jesse 'The Body' Ventura to positions of power.

All Americans care about is whether their leader looks like he can 'kick ass' or not.

Obama is of course an exception because all he needed to get in was to not be George Bush or anyone associated with him.

 

[MKDavis]

At least we agree on that. For that reason, I have asked Mudwhistle to PROVE his allegations regarding Obama, who is "presumed innocent until proven guilty." I doubt he can do so, just as ex-D.A. Mike Nifong could not prove the Duke lacrosse players guilty. Even without compelling evidence, Nifong persecuted the players for his own purposes, just as Mudwhistle and others seem to have done. That's why it's essential to follow the evidence.

During the Spanish Inquisition the accused had the virtually impossible task of disproving allegations, which is what Foxfyre has asked for. Medieval societies put the burden of proof on the accused, while civilized societies put the burden of proof on the accuser.

Whether misrepresentation is innocent misinformation or intentional disinformation depends on the response of accusers when challenged. Some accusers have the integrity to admit they were wrong when actual evidence is lacking. Others, however, are useful idiots for disinformation campaigns when they accept and propagate pundit opinion as fact, even when substantiating evidence turns out to be fabricated (e.g., the Iraqi threat to America).

Disinformation creates urban myths based on "secret knowledge" from anonymous sources. The Internet's viral nature lets myths emerge fully grown from propagandists, or they may perversely grow from a kernel of truth, nurtured by confirmation bias.

It is the duty of the defense to show how the accuser has not presented an adequate case to convict the accused.

My contention is that the allegations are out there and from far more credible and verifiable sources than urban legends. Are they all true? I don't know. I do know that nobody has yet shown any credible evidence to cast serious doubts on at least most of those allegations and there has been a ton of evidence to support them.

Also the defense is not allowed to obfusicate or stall or badger witnesses by demanding the same evidence be presented over and over. The defense would be laughed out of court if he listed the allegations and demanded that the prosecution 'prove it'.

So all I said was that your questions have already been asked and answered, Counselor.

So, the ball is in your court. It is legitimate to state that the prosecution has not shown that your client did this or is guilty of the that. But a jury is far more likely to be persuaded if you can show WHY your client could not have done this or WHY he could not be guilty of that.

Unfortunately for your position, the accuser has yet to produce any proof for any of these claims, which relegates them back to "urban legend" status. If there is indeed a "tot of evidence" to support THESE claims, then quoting the most compelling evidence should be easy. However, just repeating allegations, which is all the accused has done, is not providing evidence. Constant repetition does not make a lie truthful, although they become more believable.

Countless websites spread falsehoods about the Iraqi threat, about Obama's grandfather, and about Frank Marshall Davis. Countless German newspapers spread falsehoods about Jews before WWII. Repetition and accuracy are independent variables. No evidence = unsubstantiated claim = bogus claim!

 

[NYcarbineer]

It's easy....Obama pals around with terrorists, racists, criminals, communists, you name it.

If the truth about these associations were made clear Obama wouldn't have had a chance in hell of getting elected. That is if the MSM actually did their jobs for once.

Odd, how is it you and Chanel know then but everyone else doesn't know then? Secret club with decoder rings?

Nope...we've been trying to tell everyone this same shit for over 2 years and you never listened.

That's because it's idiocy and, for all their imperfections, most Americans were and are at least capable of identifying sheer idiocy when it is thrust under their noses. Rightwing nuts like yourself don't see your own idiocy because you tend to surround yourselves with the same sort of idiots that you are in a process that makes idiocy look normal. Rightwing nuts are masters of the art of protecting their own, of defending each other's idiocy no matter how idiotic, as long as the idiocy doesn't deviate from the sacred theme -

Right good, left bad.

 

[MKDavis]

Odd, how is it you and Chanel know then but everyone else doesn't know then? Secret club with decoder rings?

Nope...we've been trying to tell everyone this same shit for over 2 years and you never listened.

That's because it's idiocy and, for all their imperfections, most Americans were and are at least capable of identifying sheer idiocy when it is thrust under their noses. Rightwing nuts like yourself don't see your own idiocy because you tend to surround yourselves with the same sort of idiots that you are in a process that makes idiocy look normal. Rightwing nuts are masters of the art of protecting their own, of defending each other's idiocy no matter how idiotic, as long as the idiocy doesn't deviate from the sacred theme -

Right good, left bad.

So true! The MSM usually rejects unsubstantiated claims, like those I have been asking Mudwhistle to support, because the Society of Professional Journalists Code of Ethics REJECTS urban myths like these. As is typical in Right-Wing Fantasyland, I encounter bluster, red herrings, and ad hominem attacks more often than rational, focused answers.
In the absence of empirical evidence, such claims SHOULD be rejected by any reasonable person. Urban myths depend on the gullible and other useful idiots for their life cycle.

"All truth passes through three stages. First, it is ridiculed. Second, it is violently opposed. Third, it is accepted as being self-evident." - Arthur Schopenhauer (1788 - 1860)

 

[Jarhead]

Odd, how is it you and Chanel know then but everyone else doesn't know then? Secret club with decoder rings?

Nope...we've been trying to tell everyone this same shit for over 2 years and you never listened.

That's because it's idiocy and, for all their imperfections, most Americans were and are at least capable of identifying sheer idiocy when it is thrust under their noses. Rightwing nuts like yourself don't see your own idiocy because you tend to surround yourselves with the same sort of idiots that you are in a process that makes idiocy look normal. Rightwing nuts are masters of the art of protecting their own, of defending each other's idiocy no matter how idiotic, as long as the idiocy doesn't deviate from the sacred theme -

Right good, left bad.

How many "shady" people do you know?

If a woman came to your house to watch your child and you knew that she had a relationship with a man who had a radical violent background, would you let her watch your child? What if she also had a relationship with a person who is an admitted communist? What if you were offered her resume but all of her actions and activities during her college years were not listed, or somewhat not well defined?

Idiocy? I see it as applying basic common sense.

 

[Foxfyre]

Unfortunately for your position, the accuser has yet to produce any proof for any of these claims, which relegates them back to "urban legend" status. If there is indeed a "tot of evidence" to support THESE claims, then quoting the most compelling evidence should be easy. However, just repeating allegations, which is all the accused has done, is not providing evidence. Constant repetition does not make a lie truthful, although they become more believable.

Countless websites spread falsehoods about the Iraqi threat, about Obama's grandfather, and about Frank Marshall Davis. Countless German newspapers spread falsehoods about Jews before WWII. Repetition and accuracy are independent variables. No evidence = unsubstantiated claim = bogus claim!

Again, the items on the list have all been in the public domain for some time now. Thus, it is ridiculous to expect people to have to add the reams of evidence/information that is already out there when these things are mentioned. We don't expect people to provide an explanation of WW II or NAFTA or the US Constitution or the Civil Rights Act, or President Bush's national guard service, or Dan Quayle's spelling issues etc. etc. etc. every time they are mentioned. All these things are so entrenched in the national experience that it is reasonable to assume that all educated people are aware of the background behind each. I think everything on Mudwhistle's list has achieved that kind of status.

If you think something on Mudwhistle's list is an Urban Legend then call him out on that. Give your Snope's link or other evidence for why it is an Urban Legend. Or are you suggesting that everything on his list is Urban Legend? If so you're going to have a lot of cut and paste to do--most of which nobody will bother to read--to make your case.

But it would seem that you could make your point by taking any single item on that list and discredit it if it in fact doesn't belong on that list.

 

[MKDavis]

Unfortunately for your position, the accuser has yet to produce any proof for any of these claims, which relegates them back to "urban legend" status. If there is indeed a "tot of evidence" to support THESE claims, then quoting the most compelling evidence should be easy. However, just repeating allegations, which is all the accused has done, is not providing evidence. Constant repetition does not make a lie truthful, although they become more believable.

Countless websites spread falsehoods about the Iraqi threat, about Obama's grandfather, and about Frank Marshall Davis. Countless German newspapers spread falsehoods about Jews before WWII. Repetition and accuracy are independent variables. No evidence = unsubstantiated claim = bogus claim!

Again, the items on the list have all been in the public domain for some time now. Thus, it is ridiculous to expect people to have to add the reams of evidence/information that is already out there when these things are mentioned. We don't expect people to provide an explanation of WW II or NAFTA or the US Constitution or the Civil Rights Act, or President Bush's national guard service, or Dan Quayle's spelling issues etc. etc. etc. every time they are mentioned. All these things are so entrenched in the national experience that it is reasonable to assume that all educated people are aware of the background behind each. I think everything on Mudwhistle's list has achieved that kind of status.

If you think something on Mudwhistle's list is an Urban Legend then call him out on that. Give your Snope's link or other evidence for why it is an Urban Legend. Or are you suggesting that everything on his list is Urban Legend? If so you're going to have a lot of cut and paste to do--most of which nobody will bother to read--to make your case.

But it would seem that you could make your point by taking any single item on that list and discredit it if it in fact doesn't belong on that list.

I'm not sure if you are being intentionally dense, but I thought I made it clear that ALL of these listed claims are myths. That's why I listed them: to "call him out" on them. NONE of those claims have been substantiated.

FOXFYRE WROTE: "Again, the items on the list have all been in the public domain for some time now. Thus, it is ridiculous to expect people to have to add the reams of evidence/information that is already out there when these things are mentioned."

RESPONSE: The claims may be been "in the public domain for some time now," but no proof of them has ever been presented, just as other wingnut claims are "in the public domain." Being "in the public domain" is evidence of repetition, not veracity. Thus they are urban myths, and have not reached the MSM because they have NOT been substantiated. With each evasion they increasingly appear to be mere delusions found in Right-Wing Fantasyland, as posted earlier.

FOXFYRE WROTE: "Thus, it is ridiculous to expect people to have to add the reams of evidence/information that is already out there when these things are mentioned. We don't expect people to provide an explanation of WW II or NAFTA or the US Constitution or the Civil Rights Act, or President Bush's national guard service, or Dan Quayle's spelling issues etc. etc. etc. every time they are mentioned. All these things are so entrenched in the national experience that it is reasonable to assume that all educated people are aware of the background behind each. I think everything on Mudwhistle's list has achieved that kind of status."

RESPONSE: Totally untrue. Explanations of WWII, NAFTA, and these other items are ALL confirmed by MSM and public documents. NONE of Mudwhistle's listed claims are confirmed by MSM or public documents. They are ALL false, rejected by journalists who abide by the Society of Professional Journalists Code of Ethics. NONE of these claims have "achieved that kind of status," because PROFESSIONAL journalists tend to reject unsubstantiated claims.

I challenge you or Mudwhistle to substantiate ANY of these myths:

1. NEVER BEEN PROVEN: Evidence to support your claims of Obama's "friendship" with Ayers, Soros, or Rezco
2. NEVER BEEN PROVEN: The names of Obma's friends that committed violent acts against the U.S.
3. NEVER BEEN PROVEN: Evidence of Obama's visits to terrorist states
4. NEVER BEEN PROVEN: Evidence that Wright is a "racist"
5. NEVER BEEN PROVEN: Evidence that an ACORN goal is the peaceful overthrow of our government
6. NEVER BEEN PROVEN: Evidence that Obama had an "avid belief" in peaceful overthrow of our government.
7. NEVER BEEN PROVEN: NEVER BEEN PROVEN: Evidence that an ACORN goal is causing economic turmoil
8. NEVER BEEN PROVEN: Evidence that Obama's "close friendship with Frank Davis is reason enough to keep him from getting a clearance of any kind." Activity younger than 16 is specifically excluded from consideration. According to "Dreams," Obama visited Davis only once before leaving for college.

Do I make myself clear? Repetition is not proof. Instead of evading the question, where is the PROOF? These fraudulent claims are like the Nazi disinformation against the Jews, intended to railroad with trumped-up evidence. You might as well accuse Obama of being a Klingon spy, or accuse Iraq of responsibility for 9/11. They are just as unsubstantiated (and delusional) as Mudwhistle's claims. I'm becoming rather weary of the evasion. It's a question of integrity.

If you believe proof exists, then show it. (I KNOW no such proof exists, so now it become an integrity challenge. Even the umpire who blew the Tigers' perfect game had the balls to admit his mistake. Do YOU or Mudwhistle have the integrity to admit no such evidence exists?) Stop tap-dancing and step up to the plate. Forget the dog and pony show so common to fraudulent claimants, and present the EVIDENCE! Man up! Put up or shut up!


"Piety requires us to honor truth above our friends."
- Aristotle (384 BC - 322 BC),

 

[Foxfyre]

Let's make it easier MKDavis.

I challenge you that:
- Given his well-publicized rants against white power, many of which have been posted on youtube and elsewhere,
- Given his Manifesto posted on the Trinity UCC website (removed after it started gaining national attention) that was clearly a black liberation theology. . .
- Given his overtures to Louis Farrakhan with promotion of his speeches and awards presented from the Trinity church. . .

How about YOU providing evidence suggesting that Jeremiah Wright is NOT a racist?

 

[MKDavis]

Let's make it easier MKDavis.

I challenge you that:
- Given his well-publicized rants against white power, many of which have been posted on youtube and elsewhere,
- Given his Manifesto posted on the Trinity UCC website (removed after it started gaining national attention) that was clearly a black liberation theology. . .
- Given his overtures to Louis Farrakhan with promotion of his speeches and awards presented from the Trinity church. . .

How about YOU providing evidence suggesting that Jeremiah Wright is NOT a racist?

I'm not sure why this basic concept seems to elude you: The burden of proof is ALWAYS upon the accuser in civilized societies. Asking someone to prove they are not a racist is as ridiculous as asking someone to prove they are not a witch.

Misrepresenting a person’s position is a common form of deception. Intentional or not, the person then becomes an easier target as a “straw man.” While the redbaiting aspects of the Obama story are obvious, race baiting is also apparent on two levels when examining the Reverend Wright issue.

Rev. Wright has been widely accused of being a “racist,” but the available evidence does NOT support this accusation. This unsubstantiated accusation produced a straw man who became an easier target for Obama critics. Rev. Wright’s "well-publicized rants" may have been "race-baiting," but they do NOT meet the definition of “racist.”

Are you aware of the difference between race-baiting and racism? Here is the definition of "racism" from dictionary.com:

"1.a belief or doctrine that inherent differences among the various human races determine cultural or individual achievement, usually involving the idea that one's own race is superior and has the right to rule others.
2.a policy, system of government, etc., based upon or fostering such a doctrine; discrimination.
3.hatred or intolerance of another race or other races."

The doctrine of the Nation of Islam falls within this definition, but Wright seems guilty of just "race-baiting, not "racism." Is there any empirical evidence (not speculation) that Wright's church doctrine, or Wright's personal philosophy falls meets the definition of "racism"? If so, please QUOTE such evidence. Guilt-by-association may be acceptable in police states but not in more advanced societies.

Wikipedia defines “race baiting”:

“Race baiting is an act of using racially derisive language, actions or other forms of communication, to anger, intimidate or incite a person or groups of people, or to make those persons behave in ways that are inimical to their personal or group interests. This can also be accomplished by implying that there is an underlying race based motive in the actions of others towards the group baited, where none in fact exists. The term "race" in this context can be construed very broadly to include the social constructs which define race or racial difference, as well as ethnic, religious, gender and economic differences. Thus the use of any language or actions perceived to be for the purpose of exploiting weaknesses in persons who can be identified as members of certain groups, or to reinforce a group's perceived victimhood, can be contained within the concept of "race baiting." Many people who practice race baiting often believe in racism, or have an interest in making the group believe that racism is what motivates the actions of others.

The definition of “racism,” per se, has significantly expanded since the 1970’s. It originally meant a belief in genetic superiority. Self-serving radicals attempted to redefine it as possible only within a dominant ethnic group. It now includes all racial prejudice, which involves making value judgments based on race, and is usually a precursor to racial discrimination. It also now includes the entire realm of racial discrimination, regardless of motivation, and involves treating people differently depending on race. Thus far, however, “racism” is a distinct phenomenon from race baiting.

There can be little doubt that the tirades of Rev. Wright constitute race baiting, and constitute the first of the aforementioned two levels regarding the Rev. Wright issue. His most infamous statement may be "The government lied about inventing the HIV virus as a means of genocide against people of color. The government lied." This clearly indicates he believes that racism motivated the American government is this regard. Race baiting, however uninformed, is NOT racism! Obama critics, however, misrepresent these race baiting statements as being “racist” themselves instead of being race baiting.

By misrepresenting Rev. Wright as being motivated by racism, instead of recognizing his race baiting as a distinct phenomenon, Obama critics are themselves race baiting. They have an interest in making a group (mainstream America) believe that racism is what motivates Rev. Wright. Thus, the second level of race baiting occurs. When this triggers another race baiting reaction from Wright supporters, the cycle may repeat indefinitely:Race baiting 1: Rev Wright accuses government of racism by inventing HIV against people of color.Race baiting 2: Obama critics accuse Wright of racism in making HIV accusation.Race baiting 3: Wright supporters accuse Obama critics of racism in attacking Wright.

Please note that I supplied a SPECIFIC example of Wright's race-baiting, using Wright's own words. THAT is evidence! THAT is substantiating an accusation. Where is YOUR evidence of Wright's racism?

 

[Foxfyre]

MKDavis

I've read it all, including at least some of Cone's books. Here's you a Youtube rebuttal with legitimate questions presented civilly to Rev. Wright and him using the standard liberal technique of sidetracking the questions, changing the questions, and filibustering the questions to avoid answering the questions. The answers to the questions of course are that yes, the theology presented on the Trinity UCC website is racist.

And despite Rev. Wright's denial, you (and he) know darn good and well that any church posting the same statements but using 'white' instead of 'black' would be branded racist and damned and denounced by Wright and everybody who admires him.

Even Barack Obama was forced to admit that the dogma and emphasis and he quit the church. Nobody with a brain believes he did so out of conscience but rather he did it for political expediency, but he quit just the same.

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aNTGRL0OJWQ]YouTube - Jeremiah Wright on Fox[/ame]

Since Jeremiah Wright left Trinity, they have revised their statement of purpose quite a bit but the flavor of it is still there:
Trinity - BLACK VALUE SYSTEM

They have removed their accolades to Farrakhan, Cone, and other clearly racist figures or those have been buried and made less prominent on the website. They were very prominent when the Obamas were still members there.

And here's your Wiki rebuttal:
Jeremiah Wright controversy - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[MKDavis]

MKDavis

I've read it all, including at least some of Cone's books. Here's you a Youtube rebuttal with legitimate questions presented civilly to Rev. Wright and him using the standard liberal technique of sidetracking the questions, changing the questions, and filibustering the questions to avoid answering the questions. The answers to the questions of course are that yes, the theology presented on the Trinity UCC website is racist.

And despite Rev. Wright's denial, you (and he) know darn good and well that any church posting the same statements but using 'white' instead of 'black' would be branded racist and damned and denounced by Wright and everybody who admires him.

Even Barack Obama was forced to admit that the dogma and emphasis and he quit the church. Nobody with a brain believes he did so out of conscience but rather he did it for political expediency, but he quit just the same.

YouTube - Jeremiah Wright on Fox

Since Jeremiah Wright left Trinity, they have revised their statement of purpose quite a bit but the flavor of it is still there:
Trinity - BLACK VALUE SYSTEM

They have removed their accolades to Farrakhan, Cone, and other clearly racist figures or those have been buried and made less prominent on the website. They were very prominent when the Obamas were still members there.

And here's your Wiki rebuttal:
Jeremiah Wright controversy - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Ah, at least we are making some progress. Thanks for the links.

Your wiki "rebuttal" contains Wright's race-baiting statements, but EXACTLY which of them meets the definition of "racism"? Which meets the definition of "anti-Semitism"? QUOTE the exact statements, please!

I have also read the 12-point Black Value System outlined in your link. Which of these statements meets the definition of "racism"? Do any reflect a belief in racial superiority? Do any reflect hatred or intolerance of other races?

The hyothetical example that similar statements "would be branded racist and damned and denounced," if roles were reversed, is irrelevant because they would be equally wrong. If they meet the definition of "racist," as both the Nation of Islam and the American Nazi Party do, then they would be legitimately considered "racist." Follow the evidence!

Why are YOU "using the standard liberal technique of sidetracking the questions, changing the questions, and filibustering the questions to avoid answering the questions"? I have asked numerous times (need I count them?) for direct quotes that substantiate these charges, yet you have failed to provide ANY direct quotations. Evidently YOU and Mudwhistle are using this so-called "standard liberal technique."

"The men the American public admire most extravagantly are the most daring liars; the men they detest most violently are those who try to tell them the truth."
- H. L. Mencken (1880 - 1956)

 

[Foxfyre]

MKDavis

I've read it all, including at least some of Cone's books. Here's you a Youtube rebuttal with legitimate questions presented civilly to Rev. Wright and him using the standard liberal technique of sidetracking the questions, changing the questions, and filibustering the questions to avoid answering the questions. The answers to the questions of course are that yes, the theology presented on the Trinity UCC website is racist.

And despite Rev. Wright's denial, you (and he) know darn good and well that any church posting the same statements but using 'white' instead of 'black' would be branded racist and damned and denounced by Wright and everybody who admires him.

Even Barack Obama was forced to admit that the dogma and emphasis and he quit the church. Nobody with a brain believes he did so out of conscience but rather he did it for political expediency, but he quit just the same.

YouTube - Jeremiah Wright on Fox

Since Jeremiah Wright left Trinity, they have revised their statement of purpose quite a bit but the flavor of it is still there:
Trinity - BLACK VALUE SYSTEM

They have removed their accolades to Farrakhan, Cone, and other clearly racist figures or those have been buried and made less prominent on the website. They were very prominent when the Obamas were still members there.

And here's your Wiki rebuttal:
Jeremiah Wright controversy - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Ah, at least we are making some progress. Thanks for the links.

Your wiki "rebuttal" contains Wright's race-baiting statements, but EXACTLY which of them meets the definition of "racism"? Which meets the definition of "anti-Semitism"? QUOTE the exact statements, please!

I have also read the 12-point Black Value System outlined in your link. Which of these statements meets the definition of "racism"? Do any reflect a belief in racial superiority? Do any reflect hatred or intolerance of other races?

The hyothetical example that similar statements "would be branded racist and damned and denounced," if roles were reversed, is irrelevant because they would be equally wrong. If they meet the definition of "racist," as both the Nation of Islam and the American Nazi Party do, then they would be legitimately considered "racist." Follow the evidence!

Why are YOU "using the standard liberal technique of sidetracking the questions, changing the questions, and filibustering the questions to avoid answering the questions"? I have asked numerous times (need I count them?) for direct quotes that substantiate these charges, yet you have failed to provide ANY direct quotations. Evidently YOU and Mudwhistle are using this so-called "standard liberal technique."

"The men the American public admire most extravagantly are the most daring liars; the men they detest most violently are those who try to tell them the truth."
- H. L. Mencken (1880 - 1956)

Any direct quotation taken out of context are too often not representative of a person's intent and are not acceptable to me as 'evidence'. I provided you sufficient links to look up your own quotations if there is any question in your mind, however, and I presume that you actually read or listened to the good Rev. Wright's sermons before the powers that be managed to make these very difficult to find? I am not going to bore everybody out of their gourd by posting a series of quotations IN CONTEXT for pages and pages here.

I gave you sufficient examples. If you think race baiting is not racism then we have nothing more to talk about because for me, it is absolutely racism in one of its ugliest forms. If you think a church that focuses on ministry to a specific race of people while excluding all others from that focus is not racist, then we have nothing more to talk about because for me, it is absolutely racist in one of its ugliest forms.

If you think I sidetracked questions by addressing them head on, then we have nothing more to talk about because you won't accept any rebuttal to your own what I believe to be flawed arguments.

So, it appears that we are at an impasse. I don't care to engage in pages of did too - did not kinds of arguments. If you care to discuss any of the concepts, we can do so.

And meanwhile, back on topic, what I want in my leaders is the ability to see all people regardless of skin, hair, eye color etc. etc. etc. as people and to see all people as Americans rather than groups divided into black, white, rich, poor, working class, executives, acceptable, unacceptable, etc. etc. etc.

 

[MKDavis]

" If you think race baiting is not racism then we have nothing more to talk about because for me, it is absolutely racism in one of its ugliest forms."

Sorry, but you cannot make up your own creative definitions and expect people of integrity to adopt them. Either "race-baiting" meets the definition of "racism" or it doesn't. Such rhetorical deception was highlighted in the story of Alice's adventures in "Through The Looking-Glass,"

"When I use a word," Humpty Dumpty said in rather a scornful tone. "It means just what I choose it to mean - neither more or less."
"The question is," said Alice, "whether you can make words mean so many different things."
"The question is," said Humpty Dumpty, "which is to be master - that's all."
- Lewis Carroll, English author & recreational mathematician (1832 - 1898)

You could misrepresent "race-baiting" as "racism," or you could misrepresent "anti-Zionism" as "anti-Semitism," but such such creative definitions reflect either ignorance of the English language, or willful misrepresentation of specific terms to fit someone's agenda. Such rhetorical deception, in the face of standardized definitions, precludes the probability of any innocent mistake. Such "mistakes" strongly suggests willful misrepresentation and a lack of integrity.

"All truths are easy to understand once they are discovered; the point is to discover them."
- Galileo Galilei (1564 - 1642)

 

[MKDavis]

Through innuendo, half-truths* and outright fabrication, Obama’s opponents deliberately misrepresented a casual family friendship as political indoctrination sessions, or worse. In their rush to malign Obama, their scam transformed the legacy of a relatively obscure leftist poet into a “Stalinist agent” who corrupted Obama’s values. Slander and libel were their tools of their trade, because truth was irrelevant. Their perverted ethics find nothing wrong with such lies. Destroying Davis’s reputation was collateral damage. Cliff Kincaid may rationalize his deceit as a Leo Straussian "noble lie," but in reality it is a dishonorable attack.

According to Wikipedia, and probably a number of more reputable sources:

*A half-truth is a deceptive statement that includes some element of truth. The statement might be partly true, the statement may be totally true but only part of the whole truth, or it may utilize some deceptive element, such as improper punctuation, or double meaning, especially if the intent is to deceive, evade, blame or misrepresent the truth.[1]

The purpose and or consequence of a half truth is to make something that is really only a belief appear to be knowledge, or a truthful statement to represent the whole truth, or possibly lead to a false conclusion. According to the justified true belief theory of knowledge, in order to know that a given proposition is true, one must not only believe in the relevant true proposition, but one must also have a good reason for doing so. A half truth deceives the recipient by presenting something believable and using those aspects of the statement that can be shown to be true as good reason to believe the statement is true in its entirety, or that the statement represents the whole truth. A person deceived by a half truth considers the proposition to be knowledge and acts accordingly."

- Half-truth - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[ConHog]

MKDavis, you sir are an idiot. Only a complete moron couldn't see that Wright is a racist and that there is no possible way Obama wasn't aware of this fact for 20 years. The ONLY question is this.

Is Obama an idiot for not being aware, is he liar for saying he wasn't aware, does he agree with Wright's views, or is it a combination of the above?


But his voters ignored the obvious and did this

The Boondocks Season 3 Episode 1 – It’s a Black President, Huey Freeman

 

[MKDavis]

MKDavis, you sir are an idiot. Only a complete moron couldn't see that Wright is a racist and that there is no possible way Obama wasn't aware of this fact for 20 years. The ONLY question is this.

Is Obama an idiot for not being aware, is he liar for saying he wasn't aware, does he agree with Wright's views, or is it a combination of the above?


But his voters ignored the obvious and did this

The Boondocks Season 3 Episode 1 – It’s a Black President, Huey Freeman

Sorry, Bubba, but I don't know where you are from. Evidently, you're from a place where English is a Second Language (ESL). In the United States, we use dictionary meanings for words, and evidence to compare with dictionary meanings.

Delusional definitions (from complete idiots who eschew dictionaries) need not apply. Your claims do not meet the English definition of "racism." Case closed. Come back when you're able to debate in English.