Lets disect Oblahma speech, shall we!

[SMOKE 1,426]

I'll grant that the church thing is a problem and should rightly be subject to further scrutiny - but to write him off as a racist solely on the basis of circumstance and association seems rather unreasonable.

in your opinion it may be unreasonable. i don't think so.

You don't think its unreasonable to render judgement on a person's entire character and beliefs solely on the basis of 3rd party association?

Hmmm...

20 YEARS! hmmm

[SMOKE 1,426]

Well he sure has a tough road ahead no matter how much some democrats wanted and still him to win. And I say some because there were still a huge number of democrats who didn't give him their vote. Remember, he didn't win by a large margin at all, he had a tough fight and it is just the beginning. So to hear him go on and on about how him winning the democratic nomination will miraculously change the PLANET...? It's not about being bitter, but more about being realistic. It's like listening to a 5 year-old say that his birthday party was the best day of his life, it's all nice and sweet but come on, he still has a looooooooooong road ahead.

Diana

Don't worry Diana... its all politics. Of course the bitter ones will align themselves with the other side of the fence, to that sides rejoicing since it will mean more votes for their candidate- or at least that is what they seem to think. Who knows? Maybe all the sad and pathetic rhetoric will drown once enough voters pick issues over non-issues.

In the meantime, I'd at least expect Obama's rhetoric to be victorious. Heck, he just clinched it. Posterior to that its about showcasing issues and not what the Republilocos want us to focus on. I think Clinton will overcome her stinging sensation from not being the nominee and give her support to the winner.

yes mavi....things you don't want to admit are issues to others are "non-issues"

I'll hand it to you... the issue is that race IS a major problem in this nation. The non issue is associating racial hatred with the politician. Too bad you can't see that but its not a major surprise either.

and your elistist/dismissing posts of others opinions isn't a shock either.

[HAL 9000 96]

Well he sure has a tough road ahead no matter how much some democrats wanted and still him to win. And I say some because there were still a huge number of democrats who didn't give him their vote. Remember, he didn't win by a large margin at all, he had a tough fight and it is just the beginning. So to hear him go on and on about how him winning the democratic nomination will miraculously change the PLANET...? It's not about being bitter, but more about being realistic. It's like listening to a 5 year-old say that his birthday party was the best day of his life, it's all nice and sweet but come on, he still has a looooooooooong road ahead.

Diana

Don't worry Diana... its all politics. Of course the bitter ones will align themselves with the other side of the fence, to that sides rejoicing since it will mean more votes for their candidate- or at least that is what they seem to think. Who knows? Maybe all the sad and pathetic rhetoric will drown once enough voters pick issues over non-issues.

In the meantime, I'd at least expect Obama's rhetoric to be victorious. Heck, he just clinched it. Posterior to that its about showcasing issues and not what the Republilocos want us to focus on. I think Clinton will overcome her stinging sensation from not being the nominee and give her support to the winner.

yes mavi....things you don't want to admit are issues to others are "non-issues"

I'll hand it to you... the issue is that race IS a major problem in this nation. The non issue is associating racial hatred with the politician. Too bad you can't see that but its not a major surprise either.

and your elistist/dismissing posts of others opinions isn't a shock either.

Elitist b/c Dev says so in this post? Or b/c 'others' don't understand what they're basing their conclusions on? I'm confused... aren't you supposed to understand what you're saying before saying it? That isn't elitism unless you are claiming that its somehow 'normal' to lack comprehension of a subject. Get a grip...

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

I'll grant that the church thing is a problem and should rightly be subject to further scrutiny - but to write him off as a racist solely on the basis of circumstance and association seems rather unreasonable.

But if a white candidate was in a church for 20 years where the pastor preached intolerance about the black man, would you give him the B.O.D.?

In a word yes. I certainly wouldn't use an association like that as the sole means of judging the candidate unless there was something directly tangible to indicate that he/she not only holds those beliefs but would actually enact them into policy.

Of course - to my knowledge there hasn't been a president who didn't have some affiliation to some church or other - whether they're genuine believers or merely joined the congregation out of political expediency.

I'll grant that the church thing is a problem and should rightly be subject to further scrutiny - but to write him off as a racist solely on the basis of circumstance and association seems rather unreasonable.

in your opinion it may be unreasonable. i don't think so.

You don't think its unreasonable to render judgement on a person's entire character and beliefs solely on the basis of 3rd party association?

Hmmm...

20 YEARS! hmmm

As I said - it depends a great deal on whether he joined that church out of genuine belief or simply because he thought it would help his career. It is a big church, after all.

[SMOKE 1,426]

Well he sure has a tough road ahead no matter how much some democrats wanted and still him to win. And I say some because there were still a huge number of democrats who didn't give him their vote. Remember, he didn't win by a large margin at all, he had a tough fight and it is just the beginning. So to hear him go on and on about how him winning the democratic nomination will miraculously change the PLANET...? It's not about being bitter, but more about being realistic. It's like listening to a 5 year-old say that his birthday party was the best day of his life, it's all nice and sweet but come on, he still has a looooooooooong road ahead.

Diana

Don't worry Diana... its all politics. Of course the bitter ones will align themselves with the other side of the fence, to that sides rejoicing since it will mean more votes for their candidate- or at least that is what they seem to think. Who knows? Maybe all the sad and pathetic rhetoric will drown once enough voters pick issues over non-issues.

In the meantime, I'd at least expect Obama's rhetoric to be victorious. Heck, he just clinched it. Posterior to that its about showcasing issues and not what the Republilocos want us to focus on. I think Clinton will overcome her stinging sensation from not being the nominee and give her support to the winner.

yes mavi....things you don't want to admit are issues to others are "non-issues"

I'll hand it to you... the issue is that race IS a major problem in this nation. The non issue is associating racial hatred with the politician. Too bad you can't see that but its not a major surprise either.

and your elistist/dismissing posts of others opinions isn't a shock either.

Elitist b/c Dev says so in this post? Or b/c 'others' don't understand what they're basing their conclusions on? I'm confused... aren't you supposed to understand what you're saying before saying it? That isn't elitism unless you are claiming that its somehow 'normal' to lack comprehension of a subject. Get a grip...

nothing to do w/ dev. everything to do w/ your "i know all & if you disagree your acute" attitude. get over yourself

[GaryC 7]

I'll grant that the church thing is a problem and should rightly be subject to further scrutiny - but to write him off as a racist solely on the basis of circumstance and association seems rather unreasonable.

But if a white candidate was in a church for 20 years where the pastor preached intolerance about the black man, would you give him the B.O.D.?

In a word yes. I certainly wouldn't use an association like that as the sole means of judging the candidate unless there was something directly tangible to indicate that he/she not only holds those beliefs but would actually enact them into policy.

Of course - to my knowledge there hasn't been a president who didn't have some affiliation to some church or other - whether they're genuine believers or merely joined the congregation out of political expediency.

I'll grant that the church thing is a problem and should rightly be subject to further scrutiny - but to write him off as a racist solely on the basis of circumstance and association seems rather unreasonable.

in your opinion it may be unreasonable. i don't think so.

You don't think its unreasonable to render judgement on a person's entire character and beliefs solely on the basis of 3rd party association?

Hmmm...

20 YEARS! hmmm

As I said - it depends a great deal on whether he joined that church out of genuine belief or simply because he thought it would help his career. It is a big church, after all.

It isn't just Rev Write though. He has associations with this priest Phagy and with admitted terrorists Ayers. If it were just his church then I can see your point. Obama seems to have a pattern of associations that are very troubling.

[HAL 9000 96]

I mean... wasn't GWB a mad alcoholic for a longer time?

Isn't that an association that he should not be given prudence to lead a nation? My God the tragedy!!

[SMOKE 1,426]

As I said - it depends a great deal on whether he joined that church out of genuine belief or simply because he thought it would help his career. It is a big church, after all.

dude after 20 years he had to know who & what he was associating himself with.

[HAL 9000 96]

I'll grant that the church thing is a problem and should rightly be subject to further scrutiny - but to write him off as a racist solely on the basis of circumstance and association seems rather unreasonable.

But if a white candidate was in a church for 20 years where the pastor preached intolerance about the black man, would you give him the B.O.D.?

In a word yes. I certainly wouldn't use an association like that as the sole means of judging the candidate unless there was something directly tangible to indicate that he/she not only holds those beliefs but would actually enact them into policy.

Of course - to my knowledge there hasn't been a president who didn't have some affiliation to some church or other - whether they're genuine believers or merely joined the congregation out of political expediency.

I'll grant that the church thing is a problem and should rightly be subject to further scrutiny - but to write him off as a racist solely on the basis of circumstance and association seems rather unreasonable.

in your opinion it may be unreasonable. i don't think so.

You don't think its unreasonable to render judgement on a person's entire character and beliefs solely on the basis of 3rd party association?

Hmmm...

20 YEARS! hmmm

As I said - it depends a great deal on whether he joined that church out of genuine belief or simply because he thought it would help his career. It is a big church, after all.

It isn't just Rev Write though. He has associations with this priest Phagy and with admitted terrorists Ayers. If it were just his church then I can see your point. Obama seems to have a pattern of associations that are very troubling.

C'mon say it...

B. HUSSEIN Obama...

He is personally going to open the back door and have his Iranian allies invade us from the kitchen, isn't he?!?

[nana_356 0]

Are some of you saying that you dont have a relationship with anyone that you may not share all views with, or you might not agree with their life style, but yet you have a relationship with them?????

Should you be defined by them??

I knew a woman that was a drug addict, he newborn passed away and she turned to drugs. but I tried to be there for her, would you define me as a drug adict also.

Lets be honest here, you want to talk about Obama being racist, when all you can do is try to find falts in his relationships! Is that the best all you can do. None of you no matter how hard you try can direct obama himself to any racist actions. When on the other hand McCain himself voted for not making martin luther king day a holiday.hmmmm. what about that!

Edited June 4, 2008 by nana_356

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

I'll grant that the church thing is a problem and should rightly be subject to further scrutiny - but to write him off as a racist solely on the basis of circumstance and association seems rather unreasonable.

But if a white candidate was in a church for 20 years where the pastor preached intolerance about the black man, would you give him the B.O.D.?

In a word yes. I certainly wouldn't use an association like that as the sole means of judging the candidate unless there was something directly tangible to indicate that he/she not only holds those beliefs but would actually enact them into policy.

Of course - to my knowledge there hasn't been a president who didn't have some affiliation to some church or other - whether they're genuine believers or merely joined the congregation out of political expediency.

I'll grant that the church thing is a problem and should rightly be subject to further scrutiny - but to write him off as a racist solely on the basis of circumstance and association seems rather unreasonable.

in your opinion it may be unreasonable. i don't think so.

You don't think its unreasonable to render judgement on a person's entire character and beliefs solely on the basis of 3rd party association?

Hmmm...

20 YEARS! hmmm

As I said - it depends a great deal on whether he joined that church out of genuine belief or simply because he thought it would help his career. It is a big church, after all.

It isn't just Rev Write though. He has associations with this priest Phagy and with admitted terrorists Ayers. If it were just his church then I can see your point. Obama seems to have a pattern of associations that are very troubling.

Sure - as I said these are all things that should be subjected to scrutiny (and doubtless will be). I just object to dismissing the guy offhand as a r*cist - which seems rather presumptive.

Though I'm inclined to believe that the folks trotting out this stuff wouldn't have voted for the guy in a million years and are playing it up precisely because they don't want to get into an honest, halfway objective view of his candidacy.

[nana_356 0]

I'll grant that the church thing is a problem and should rightly be subject to further scrutiny - but to write him off as a racist solely on the basis of circumstance and association seems rather unreasonable.

But if a white candidate was in a church for 20 years where the pastor preached intolerance about the black man, would you give him the B.O.D.?

In a word yes. I certainly wouldn't use an association like that as the sole means of judging the candidate unless there was something directly tangible to indicate that he/she not only holds those beliefs but would actually enact them into policy.

Of course - to my knowledge there hasn't been a president who didn't have some affiliation to some church or other - whether they're genuine believers or merely joined the congregation out of political expediency.

I'll grant that the church thing is a problem and should rightly be subject to further scrutiny - but to write him off as a racist solely on the basis of circumstance and association seems rather unreasonable.

in your opinion it may be unreasonable. i don't think so.

You don't think its unreasonable to render judgement on a person's entire character and beliefs solely on the basis of 3rd party association?

Hmmm...

20 YEARS! hmmm

As I said - it depends a great deal on whether he joined that church out of genuine belief or simply because he thought it would help his career. It is a big church, after all.

It isn't just Rev Write though. He has associations with this priest Phagy and with admitted terrorists Ayers. If it were just his church then I can see your point. Obama seems to have a pattern of associations that are very troubling.

C'mon say it...

B. HUSSEIN Obama...

He is personally going to open the back door and have his Iranian allies invade us from the kitchen, isn't he?!?

Why such ugly comments??? Show a little class, and speak facts!

[HAL 9000 96]

Well he sure has a tough road ahead no matter how much some democrats wanted and still him to win. And I say some because there were still a huge number of democrats who didn't give him their vote. Remember, he didn't win by a large margin at all, he had a tough fight and it is just the beginning. So to hear him go on and on about how him winning the democratic nomination will miraculously change the PLANET...? It's not about being bitter, but more about being realistic. It's like listening to a 5 year-old say that his birthday party was the best day of his life, it's all nice and sweet but come on, he still has a looooooooooong road ahead.

Diana

Don't worry Diana... its all politics. Of course the bitter ones will align themselves with the other side of the fence, to that sides rejoicing since it will mean more votes for their candidate- or at least that is what they seem to think. Who knows? Maybe all the sad and pathetic rhetoric will drown once enough voters pick issues over non-issues.

In the meantime, I'd at least expect Obama's rhetoric to be victorious. Heck, he just clinched it. Posterior to that its about showcasing issues and not what the Republilocos want us to focus on. I think Clinton will overcome her stinging sensation from not being the nominee and give her support to the winner.

yes mavi....things you don't want to admit are issues to others are "non-issues"

I'll hand it to you... the issue is that race IS a major problem in this nation. The non issue is associating racial hatred with the politician. Too bad you can't see that but its not a major surprise either.

and your elistist/dismissing posts of others opinions isn't a shock either.

Elitist b/c Dev says so in this post? Or b/c 'others' don't understand what they're basing their conclusions on? I'm confused... aren't you supposed to understand what you're saying before saying it? That isn't elitism unless you are claiming that its somehow 'normal' to lack comprehension of a subject. Get a grip...

nothing to do w/ dev. everything to do w/ your "i know all & if you disagree your acute" attitude. get over yourself

Well all you have to do is prove me wrong with actual truth and logic. Disagreement is one thing. Being unable to counteract an argument due to bad comprehension is another and quite different from the label of having an elitist attitude. It all comes with the training, right?

Didn't know I had to get over myself. Or was it perhaps that others need to ante-up and actually know something about what they're being argumentative about?

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

As I said - it depends a great deal on whether he joined that church out of genuine belief or simply because he thought it would help his career. It is a big church, after all.

dude after 20 years he had to know who & what he was associating himself with.

Sure - and as I say, this may have been necessary to further his career in politics in that part of the country. After all - BO isn't the first politician to align himself with a controversial church.

[HAL 9000 96]

nana-

Why such ugly comments??? Show a little class, and speak facts!

Facts? What's that? When we have all these associations, purposeful misinterpretations, misunderstandings, and all around petty bitter remarks to play with?

This IS a Presidential Election... after all... lol