190 replies to this topic

[niner]

but it is to some extent probably how Obama supporters think to themselves.

When people rant that Obama should be assassinated, or go off on his middle name, it's sort of hard not to think that they are psychopathic fascists, or bigots, respectively. There's nothing wrong with questioning a candidate. I would prefer that the questions be about things of substance that have real bearing on how they might govern, and not be cheap gotcha journalism cribbed from some right wing email list. Their policy positions and voting records would be a good place to start, for example.

[biknut]

I've known about this issue for weeks, and for me it's a non issue. The preacher talks like a racist, not Obama. I've known many people in my life that I called friends, that had beliefs I disagreed with. For instance, I actually have friends that are the most misguided of all people. Dirty, rotten, stinkin, commie, Democrats. So should I be condemned because I associate with them? And should you be condemned for associating with me, knowing how I feel about them?

I think not.

And even so, I still like Obama for president. I'm complicated.

[niner]

but it is to some extent probably how Obama supporters think to themselves.

When people rant that Obama should be assassinated, or go off on his middle name, it's sort of hard not to think that they are psychopathic fascists, or bigots, respectively. There's nothing wrong with questioning a candidate. I would prefer that the questions be about things of substance that have real bearing on how they might govern, and not be cheap gotcha journalism cribbed from some right wing email list. Their policy positions and voting records would be a good place to start, for example.

That's not how politics works from what I've seen. Obama's campain has nothing to do with any particular policy issues either. So I guess you're admiting that is indeed how many Obama supporters think.

Obama's policy issues are discussed at http://www.barackobama.com/issues/

What's not how politics works? Talking about issues? Do we instead have to sink to the level of Karl Rove's Slime?
Am I not allowed to express my preference that we stick to issues of substance? I am in no way "admitting" that Obama supporters think that way. The world is full of all kinds of people who think lots of different things. Try to take the high road.

[mike250]

Has anybody seen's McCain’s interview on Hannity and Combs. He was able to explain why he opposed the original Bush tax cuts and admit that his position on immigration was out of touch with what people want. He also wants “originist” as opposed to “constructionist” judges and may really want to reign in federal spending. This last item, is rarely carried through, but at least he’s not proposing any new big items like socialized medicine.

[niner]

Wasn't the Clinton white house the best presidency we've had in a long long time? I have never heard a good explination as to why people prefer Obama to clinton.

That was Bill. This is Hill.

[mike250]

Wasn't the Clinton white house the best presidency we've had in a long long time? I have never heard a good explination as to why people prefer Obama to clinton.

It had a good international appeal thats for sure.

[niner]

Has anybody seen's McCain’s interview on Hannity and Combs. He was able to explain why he opposed the original Bush tax cuts and admit that his position on immigration was out of touch with what people want. He also wants “originist” as opposed to “constructionist” judges and may really want to reign in federal spending. This last item, is rarely carried through, but at least he’s not proposing any new big items like socialized medicine.

It will take a hell of a lot of reigning in if he wants to keep tax breaks for the wealthy and cut corporate tax rates AND have a hundred years war. Who was the last Republican to balance a budget? Eisenhower? How is it they get their reputation for being fiscally sound, anyway? Must be something about elephants having a long memory. They still remember Ike.

[niner]

but it is to some extent probably how Obama supporters think to themselves.

When people rant that Obama should be assassinated, or go off on his middle name, it's sort of hard not to think that they are psychopathic fascists, or bigots, respectively. There's nothing wrong with questioning a candidate. I would prefer that the questions be about things of substance that have real bearing on how they might govern, and not be cheap gotcha journalism cribbed from some right wing email list. Their policy positions and voting records would be a good place to start, for example.

That's not how politics works from what I've seen. Obama's campain has nothing to do with any particular policy issues either. So I guess you're admiting that is indeed how many Obama supporters think.

Obama's policy issues are discussed at http://www.barackobama.com/issues/

What's not how politics works? Talking about issues? Do we instead have to sink to the level of Karl Rove's Slime?
Am I not allowed to express my preference that we stick to issues of substance? I am in no way "admitting" that Obama supporters think that way. The world is full of all kinds of people who think lots of different things. Try to take the high road.

Could you explain his positions on "issues" then please? I'm the masses, and I have no fucking clue nor am I going out of my way to visit his website to read crap like "more money for schools". From what I've heard its a decision between if i want my president to be a black man or a woman. What's this issue of "substance" you speak of? The high road I guess is where I shut up right?

First you say he has no issues, now you say you can't cope with reading them. Are you old enough to vote? At least try to keep your comments to a single post so they'll be easier to skip.

[inawe]

Since there is this subforum on Politics & Law, a thread on "Obama's
spiritual mentor" is very appropriate. If nothing else, this thread is
offering a preview of how an Obama presidency will unify the country
(that's one of the things he's running on, right?)

4 years ago I worked very hard for the Kerry campaign. handing out fliers, calling
on the phone and mainly canvassing neighborhoods. Until recently I was
fully expecting to do the same for any Democratic candidate against
the Repugnants. Now, I don't know. Holding up signs at an intersection
I was yield at : "nigger lover". Would be very ironic if now I'm
called a racist for looking at Obama's campaign with a critical eye.
Not the Hussein name. It wouldn't bother me even if it were his first
name. I know a couple of Husseins. They don't have much in common with
the most famous one.

Of the 3 remaining candidates I think that McCain
might be even worse than Bush. Of the other 2 I don't think I can go
by what they are telling me, I'll rather go by what they have done or
what I think they will do. There is this thing of experience vs.
judgement. And then the phone call in the middle of the night
requiring fast response to a crisis. Obama is telling us he has the
judgement edge. Has been listening to Jeremiah for 20 years. Jeremiah
has been his friend and mentor and was put in some top capacity in
his campaign. Now, when starting with ABC, Jeremiah's sermons are
being shown, Obama is repudiating part of the sermons. 20 years! Not
bad for fast good judgement.

Then, as Fear&Obey posted: "Wasn't the
Clinton white house the best presidency we've had in a long long time?
I have never heard a good explanation as to why people prefer Obama to
Clinton". For me this is the clincher. I'll like to see something like
Clinton's administration again. Hillary had mostly a positive
influence then. If she's elected I expect she'll bring back the old
team, including Bill. So I voted for Hillary in the primary. Having in
the white house somebody getting a blow job is much less dangerous
than having a president getting a mind job from Jeremiah.

There are a few other issues to take into account. One is how the candidates will
do against McCain. Jeremiah's sermons are very important here. They
are in prominence now because of ABC. I think the Repugnant party and
Fox were waiting to unleash those sermons at the end of the campaign.
The sermons will scare the hell out of most independent voters.

What about unifying the country? Obama's is sort of a revival movement. The
extent to which such movements can spread depends on the charisma
index of the messiah. We know from history that highly charismatic
leaders can unify most of a nation. The consequences were tragic in
most case. I would give Obama a 5 out of 10 charisma rating. Not
enough to have most of the US speaking in tongs.

[RighteousReason]

This is the best video by far, definitely watch this if you have any interest in Obama:

...

Edited by shepard, 02 April 2008 - 10:42 PM.
Link removed.

[mike250]

Has anybody seen's McCain’s interview on Hannity and Combs. He was able to explain why he opposed the original Bush tax cuts and admit that his position on immigration was out of touch with what people want. He also wants “originist” as opposed to “constructionist” judges and may really want to reign in federal spending. This last item, is rarely carried through, but at least he’s not proposing any new big items like socialized medicine.

It will take a hell of a lot of reigning in if he wants to keep tax breaks for the wealthy and cut corporate tax rates AND have a hundred years war. Who was the last Republican to balance a budget? Eisenhower? How is it they get their reputation for being fiscally sound, anyway? Must be something about elephants having a long memory. They still remember Ike.

Regarding have a hundred years war I believe its a misquote. A presence-- as to what McCain was referring to-- is different than a war. We’ve been in Europe and Korea for over 50 years.

I think, now, we have a choice between one candidate who wants to give us socialized medicine which will be a huge cost, and one who’s goal is to reduce taxes. I’m not sure who was the last republican president to balance the budget, but Eisenhower was the last president to be elected under the old system without primaries, so maybe he was the last one. Clinton just got lucky because the economy at the time was really strong. Also, if Clinton did what he should have when Osama and Al Qaeda were smaller, we might not be in a war now, “Peace” at any cost is not peace, it’s just putting off the inevitable.

The other problem I have with the fed’s handling medical benefits is that it is unconstitutional. Every time we ask the fed’s for something new, it gives them more power. Our founding fathers had a big issue with that for good reason, power corrupts. I don’t want the same people who have developed such a convoluted system of taxes, for example, to handle my health. The feds have way overstepped their boundaries too much already.

[yoyo]

If you want to dislike obama, you can hang your hat on this. After all, he knows someone who has made a few statements that appear to be both angry, and black! I'm sure everyone posting here has said crazy stuff.

and mike, why would 'socialized medicine' (by which i assume you're referring to public insurance as proposed by either democrat, not government-run medical facilities) be more expensive? pretty much every country with socialized medical insurance has lower costs than the US, and more relevant for this discussion medicare costs less to run than private insurance.

[Futurist1000]

Wright may also harbor some anti-semitic views.
Does Obama Have “A Jewish Problem

Wright detects what he views as racism in virtually every facet of American life. In the business world, for instance, he attributes the high unemployment rate of African Americans to “the fact that they are black.” …

In Wright’s calculus, white America’s bigotry is to blame not only for whatever ills continue to plague the black community, but also for our country’s conflicts with other nations. …

Apart from America’s purported racism, Wright also despises the nation’s capitalist economic structure, viewing it as a breeding ground for all manner of injustice. “Capitalism as made manifest in the ‘New World,’” says Wright, “depended upon slave labor (by African slaves), and it is only maintained by keeping the ‘Two-Thirds World’ under oppression.” …

Many of Wright’s condemnations of America are echoed in his denunciations of Israel and Zionism, which he has blamed for imposing “injustice and … racism” on the Palestinians. According to Wright, Zionism contains an element of “white racism.” Likening Israel’s treatment of Palestinians to South Africa’s treatment of blacks during the apartheid era, Wright advocates divestment campaigns targeting companies that conduct business in, or with, Israel.

“lifetime achievement” and for Farrakhan

Given Wright’s obvious low regard for the U.S. and Israel, it is by no means surprising that he reserves some of his deepest respect for the virulently anti-American, anti-Semitic Nation of Islam leader Louis Farrakhan.

That’s what Obama did recently when he told Jewish leaders in Cleveland, “An award was given to Farrakhan for his work on behalf of ex-offenders, completely unrelated to his controversial statements.”

In fact, the award, named for Obama’s minister Jeremiah Wright Jr., was given for “lifetime achievement” and for Farrakhan’s “influence on the African-American community.” The presentation of the award last December and the accompanying article in Trumpet, Wright’s Trinity United Church of Christ magazine, never mentioned ex-offenders

.
The question I have, though. Why is Wright doing everything he can to alert attention to himself. I mean, a lifetime achievement award for Farrakhan while Obama is trying to get elected? Is he an idiot? I assume he wants to get Obama elected, so why is he doing everything he can to make sure the news media knows he harbors these views? This is definitely going to be a big headache for Obama's campaign.

I think its safe to assume that Obama may harbor some of the same leftist and opression based views as Wright, but Obama is definitely not as extreme as Wright. These views are similar to those of Venezuela's Hugo Chavez. Anti-zionism coupled with anti-capitalistic and anti-imperialism attitudes. Some of the views are somewhat understandable from the perspective of the historical oppression of african americans. I don't think it would necessarily have much of an effect on his presidency but this stuff could hurt him at the polls.

Edited by hrc579, 16 March 2008 - 02:21 AM.

[gashinshotan]

Wright may also harbor some anti-semitic views.
Does Obama Have “A Jewish Problem

Wright detects what he views as racism in virtually every facet of American life. In the business world, for instance, he attributes the high unemployment rate of African Americans to “the fact that they are black.” …

In Wright’s calculus, white America’s bigotry is to blame not only for whatever ills continue to plague the black community, but also for our country’s conflicts with other nations. …

Apart from America’s purported racism, Wright also despises the nation’s capitalist economic structure, viewing it as a breeding ground for all manner of injustice. “Capitalism as made manifest in the ‘New World,’” says Wright, “depended upon slave labor (by African slaves), and it is only maintained by keeping the ‘Two-Thirds World’ under oppression.” …

Many of Wright’s condemnations of America are echoed in his denunciations of Israel and Zionism, which he has blamed for imposing “injustice and … racism” on the Palestinians. According to Wright, Zionism contains an element of “white racism.” Likening Israel’s treatment of Palestinians to South Africa’s treatment of blacks during the apartheid era, Wright advocates divestment campaigns targeting companies that conduct business in, or with, Israel.

“lifetime achievement” and for Farrakhan

Given Wright’s obvious low regard for the U.S. and Israel, it is by no means surprising that he reserves some of his deepest respect for the virulently anti-American, anti-Semitic Nation of Islam leader Louis Farrakhan.

That’s what Obama did recently when he told Jewish leaders in Cleveland, “An award was given to Farrakhan for his work on behalf of ex-offenders, completely unrelated to his controversial statements.”

In fact, the award, named for Obama’s minister Jeremiah Wright Jr., was given for “lifetime achievement” and for Farrakhan’s “influence on the African-American community.” The presentation of the award last December and the accompanying article in Trumpet, Wright’s Trinity United Church of Christ magazine, never mentioned ex-offenders

.
The question I have, though. Why is Wright doing everything he can to alert attention to himself. I mean, a lifetime achievement award for Farrakhan while Obama is trying to get elected? Is he an idiot? I assume he wants to get Obama elected, so why is he doing everything he can to make sure the news media knows he harbors these views? This is definitely going to be a big headache for Obama's campaign.

I think its safe to assume that Obama may harbor some of the same leftist and opression based views as Wright, but Obama is definitely not as extreme as Wright. These views are similar to those of Venezuela's Hugo Chavez. Anti-zionism coupled with anti-capitalistic and anti-imperialism attitudes. Some of the views are somewhat understandable from the perspective of the historical oppression of african americans. I don't think it would necessarily have much of an effect on his presidency but this stuff could hurt him at the polls.

Obama's a dumbass, why can't you just admit it? He's surviving on hype and racism alone and his african tribal speaking skills.

[niner]

Has anybody seen's McCain’s interview on Hannity and Combs. He was able to explain why he opposed the original Bush tax cuts and admit that his position on immigration was out of touch with what people want. He also wants “originist” as opposed to “constructionist” judges and may really want to reign in federal spending. This last item, is rarely carried through, but at least he’s not proposing any new big items like socialized medicine.

It will take a hell of a lot of reigning in if he wants to keep tax breaks for the wealthy and cut corporate tax rates AND have a hundred years war. Who was the last Republican to balance a budget? Eisenhower? How is it they get their reputation for being fiscally sound, anyway? Must be something about elephants having a long memory. They still remember Ike.

Regarding have a hundred years war I believe its a misquote. A presence-- as to what McCain was referring to-- is different than a war. We’ve been in Europe and Korea for over 50 years.

The point is that just as you can't have "guns and butter", you can't have guns and taxcuts. If you want taxcuts, the military has to stop eating such a huge portion of the budget.

I think, now, we have a choice between one candidate who wants to give us socialized medicine which will be a huge cost, and one who’s goal is to reduce taxes. I’m not sure who was the last republican president to balance the budget, but Eisenhower was the last president to be elected under the old system without primaries, so maybe he was the last one. Clinton just got lucky because the economy at the time was really strong. Also, if Clinton did what he should have when Osama and Al Qaeda were smaller, we might not be in a war now, “Peace” at any cost is not peace, it’s just putting off the inevitable.

Clinton didn't just get lucky, he fought tooth and nail to push through a small tax increase on high incomes. The economy really took off after that point. Wall Street seems to like fiscal sanity. Particularly the bond traders. Trying to pin our current mess in Iraq on Clinton is not going to cut it. When Clinton did send in some cruise missiles, the Republicans accused him of a "Wag the Dog" scenario. Bill Clinton had nothing to do with our debacle in Iraq. That is a Republican operation all the way. The majority of Democrats opposed the war, although Hillary was for it. Virtually all Republicans were for it. There was nothing "inevitable" about the war in Iraq, until Bush got into office. Then all it needed was a trigger. A "Pearl Harbor", as the Neocons so aptly put it.

The other problem I have with the fed’s handling medical benefits is that it is unconstitutional. Every time we ask the fed’s for something new, it gives them more power. Our founding fathers had a big issue with that for good reason, power corrupts. I don’t want the same people who have developed such a convoluted system of taxes, for example, to handle my health. The feds have way overstepped their boundaries too much already.

Mike, under the present system, 35% of your healthcare dollars go to insurance companies. The convoluted insurance bureaucracy, rather than your doctor, decides what care you will get. With Medicare, basic coverage is provided and less than 5% goes to overhead. You can't get every possible treatment you could ask for, just like with private insurance, BUT nothing stops a Medicare patient from buying more expensive healthcare. So is that evil socialized medicine? If Medicare were expanded so that everyone could get into it, would it be evil socialized medicine? I don't see the benefit of private insurance companies siphoning off a third of what we spend on healthcare. I don't see the advantage of tying insurance to employment either. It makes employers not want to hire people, and makes them want to move work to countries with public healthcare. It makes it hard for workers to change jobs, since they are afraid of leaving because they may lose their healthcare. The present system is an inefficient mess that saps the competitiveness of American industry.

[yoyo]

Wasn't the Clinton white house the best presidency we've had in a long long time? I have never heard a good explination as to why people prefer Obama to clinton.

if Clinton hadn't voted for the Iraq AUMF, she'd be the nominee.

also, on

Also, if Clinton did what he should have when Osama and Al Qaeda were smaller, we might not be in a war now, “Peace” at any cost is not peace, it’s just putting off the inevitable.

Clinton did go after al queda, and was attacked by GOP at the time, because they wanted to focus on the lewinsky scandal.

[mike250]

My answers are in bold

''Mike, under the present system, 35% of your healthcare dollars go to insurance companies. The convoluted insurance bureaucracy, rather than your doctor, decides what care you will get. With Medicare, basic coverage is provided and less than 5% goes to overhead. You can't get every possible treatment you could ask for, just like with private insurance, BUT nothing stops a Medicare patient from buying more expensive healthcare. So is that evil socialized medicine? If Medicare were expanded so that everyone could get into it, would it be evil socialized medicine? I don't see the benefit of private insurance companies siphoning off a third of what we spend on healthcare. I don't see the advantage of tying insurance to employment either. It makes employers not want to hire people, and makes them want to move work to countries with public healthcare. It makes it hard for workers to change jobs, since they are afraid of leaving because they may lose their healthcare''

My opposition to healthcare is as follows:

1) It is NOT constitutional. It allows the federal government to further over step their authority. This put our rights at risk. Our founding fathers limited federal jurisdiction to interstate commerce and defense. They knew people in power cannot be trusted. Even if there were no other arguments this would be enough. If people want it badly, then let the states handle it. That would be constitutional.
2) The federal government can’t manage the money they collect now.
3) If they handle health care the way they handle the Veterans Administration, we’re in trouble.
4) I find it hard to believe only 5% goes to overhead. Charities where people work for stipends don’t have that return. Can you point to some sources for private vs public cost.
5) Much of the cost of health care comes from malpractice and cutting edge technology. Sky rocketing malpractice should be addressed first.
6) http://aspe.hhs.gov/...d-cps/index.htm According to Dept HHS, 15.7% of the population are uninsured. Of the 15.7%, 21% are immigrants. I don’t mean to sound calloused, but they knew that before they came. That’s the way it has always been. You come to this country because you believe you will be better off, not to be comfortable.
19% of the uninsured declined coverage because they felt it too expensive. It’s not clear how many truly could not afford it or chose not to for personal reasons.
We already have the most at risk on Medicaid and SCHIP.
IMO it would be better to address the remaining 9% (or even the whole 15.7%) rather than turn an industry that essentially works into another bureaucracy. At least the insurance companies need to compete with each other.




''The present system is an inefficient mess that saps the competitiveness of American industry''

Unlike the execs who give themselves 5 or 6 figure bonus’ right before a layoff.


''I don't see the advantage of tying insurance to employment either''

In a country that has to import immigrants to make up a labor shortage, why wouldn’t every able bodied person be able to work. Or do we have excessive immigration that drives down the labor rate? Medical benefits are a part of the benefits of working. Just like putting food on your table and a roof over your head. Should they all be part of a government program, too? Most people work for compensation, not because they have a need to be stuck in a factory or office building 40-60 hrs/week.

Edited by mike250, 17 March 2008 - 05:58 AM.

[mike250]

Wasn't the Clinton white house the best presidency we've had in a long long time? I have never heard a good explination as to why people prefer Obama to clinton.

if Clinton hadn't voted for the Iraq AUMF, she'd be the nominee.

also, on

Also, if Clinton did what he should have when Osama and Al Qaeda were smaller, we might not be in a war now, “Peace” at any cost is not peace, it’s just putting off the inevitable.

Clinton did go after al queda, and was attacked by GOP at the time, because they wanted to focus on the lewinsky scandal.

The scandal was his own doing, if he didn’t want the issue then he shouldn’t have been getting a head job in the oval office.

[missminni]

Rev. Wright is Obama's Waterloo.
When Obama looked in the camera and said he never heard any of Wright's racist sermons, he was lying.
The lie is worse than the association with Wright. Talk about audacity of hope?
The audacity of the lie is more like it.
Personally, I happen to agree with much of Wright's point of view, but as far as being president with your best friend and mentor
being an angry screaming racist preacher, I think not. America's not ready for that. Rev Wright is no Martin Luther King.
Obama has lost credibility. His numbers are going down in the polls since last Thursday. The Republicans are not pushing the Wright thing
because they would prefer Obama to get the nomination, and THEN jump all over it. I have been saying this from day one.
They want Obama to get nominated because they know they got the goods to stop him from winning.
The super delegates must realize this and vote for Hillary. If they don't, McCain will most
certainly be president. This is not going to go away. This isn't about a muslim father who left when he was two,
or an arabic middle name. This is about the man he looks up to. The man who he calls a mentor. The man who penned
the term he is using as a book title and campaign slogan.....the Audacity of Hope. The Audacity of Barak Obama.

What shocks me is how CNN is trying to play this down. Why are they so invested in Obama
getting the nomination? If it were Hillary who had a racist mentor, they would be on her like white on rice.
Oh and btw, I agree with Geraldine Ferrara. Why was everyone so upset by what she said?
Does anyone really think that a white guy with Obama's credentials or better yet lack of, would have gotten
the democratic party behind him? I think not.
It's like the emperors new clothes. She just had the honesty to say it.
And regardless of what anybody says, I don't think there is a republican alive that would vote for Obama now.
I think that's just part of their hype to get him nominated. IMO

[inawe]

The preacher Jeremiah gave an interview to John Asker. Here is how it went:
A: Thank you very much for granting me this interview. Obama claims he doesn't approve, better yet he repudiates what we have heard you say in your sermons. He further claims he never heard you say such things. How's that possible if he often frequented your church?
J: That easy to explain. Every time Barack came at the door he yelled: "I'm HEREEEEE...". Then I knew I shouldn't say the US is a piece of s..., pardon me; or that all whities are sons of b...., pardon me.
A: And this went on for 20 years. What were your sermons like when Obama was present?
J: They were about, like from sea to shiny sea, brotherly love, and other lame stuff like that.
A: You gave an award to Louis Farrakhan. Did Obama know about the award and what were his relations with Farrakhan?
J: Yeah, Barack was present at the award. But later he got pissed at Loui.
A: Do you mind telling me why?
J: Barack and I were watching videos of Farrakhan sermons. Barack got very upset when he heard Loui say that the historical Jesus of 2000 years ago was 25% of the Christ and Loui himself was 75%.
A: So Obama didn't like that?
J: He got livid, his face turned white.
A: Did he say anything?
J: Oh, yeah. Barack said: "Godamn #$@%^&. He's saying the historical Jesus is 25%, Loui himself is 75% of the Christ and I'm left with nothing?".

You heard it folks. Obama broke up with Farrakhan and never heard Jeremiah say anything against the US, white people, or against anybody. So don't expect the Republicans to run on TV any propaganda with Obama's relations with those 2 outstanding people.

[missminni]

I just saw Obama's speech about Wright.
I can hardly believe that America learned something new from it. Yes, it
describes the mentality of anger and resentment that comes from racism,
but it's not like we haven't heard this a million times before. It's old hat.
I guess him saying it as a presidential candidate is refreshing in a way, but
he was backed into a corner.
This speech is not going to change the minds of people who were undecided and
not going to win back the people who were shocked by Wrights sermons.
Comparing this speech to King's I Had A Dream speech is absurd.
There is no comparison. Kings speech was inspired, visionary and transcendent beyond any
speech I ever heard before or since. Obama's was merely an attempt to save his
ass with a Racism 101 lecture.
The real issue, which seems to be avoided by the talking heads on TV right now, is that
Obama lied when first asked if he knew Wright made racist sermons. His knee jerk reaction
was to lie. I guess that's what makes him presidential material.
His "good judgement", which he's been touting as a response to his lack of experience,
is certainly open to challenge now.
Although I actually share much of Wrights viewpoint, I don't think the majority of
Americans do. In fact, quite the contrary.
If Obama's camp thinks they've overcome this issue, they better
think again. This is not going away. "God damn America" is just unacceptable. The racist remarks pale by comparison.
If he wins the nomination, it's going to come back around
with fangs.

[niner]

The preacher Jeremiah gave an interview to John Asker. Here is how it went:
A: Thank you very much for granting me this interview. Obama claims he doesn't approve, better yet he repudiates what we have heard you say in your sermons. He further claims he never heard you say such things. How's that possible if he often frequented your church?
J: That easy to explain. Every time Barack came at the door he yelled: "I'm HEREEEEE...". Then I knew I shouldn't say the US is a piece of s..., pardon me; or that all whities are sons of b...., pardon me.
A: And this went on for 20 years. What were your sermons like when Obama was present?
J: They were about, like from sea to shiny sea, brotherly love, and other lame stuff like that.
A: You gave an award to Louis Farrakhan. Did Obama know about the award and what were his relations with Farrakhan?
J: Yeah, Barack was present at the award. But later he got pissed at Loui.
A: Do you mind telling me why?
J: Barack and I were watching videos of Farrakhan sermons. Barack got very upset when he heard Loui say that the historical Jesus of 2000 years ago was 25% of the Christ and Loui himself was 75%.
A: So Obama didn't like that?
J: He got livid, his face turned white.
A: Did he say anything?
J: Oh, yeah. Barack said: "Godamn #$@%^&. He's saying the historical Jesus is 25%, Loui himself is 75% of the Christ and I'm left with nothing?".

You heard it folks. Obama broke up with Farrakhan and never heard Jeremiah say anything against the US, white people, or against anybody. So don't expect the Republicans to run on TV any propaganda with Obama's relations with those 2 outstanding people.

Inawe, you're presenting this as fact. I'm guessing it's a joke, but I'm not sure everyone is going to see it that way. Would you like to clarify?

[niner]

I just saw Obama's speech about Wright.
I can hardly believe that America learned something new from it. Yes, it
describes the mentality of anger and resentment that comes from racism,
but it's not like we haven't heard this a million times before. It's old hat.
I guess him saying it as a presidential candidate is refreshing in a way, but
he was backed into a corner.
This speech is not going to change the minds of people who were undecided and
not going to win back the people who were shocked by Wrights sermons.
Comparing this speech to King's I Had A Dream speech is absurd.
There is no comparison. Kings speech was inspired, visionary and transcendent beyond any
speech I ever heard before or since. Obama's was merely an attempt to save his
ass with a Racism 101 lecture.

Who is comparing today's speech with King's? I'm already kind of annoyed that I didn't go see it, since I was not that far away... But come on. I have heard no one say such a thing. I will say that what little I heard was good. I think that he's handled this problem very well. I'm not denying that it's a political sh*tstorm.

The real issue, which seems to be avoided by the talking heads on TV right now, is that
Obama lied when first asked if he knew Wright made racist sermons. His knee jerk reaction
was to lie. I guess that's what makes him presidential material.

What makes you think it was a lie? I still don't think that Wright "makes racist sermons". You said yourself that you share much of Wright's viewpoint, but you're not a racist. I listened to the videos a couple times, and it's not like they're full of lies. He's not a Farrakhan. They had to troll though years of his sermons to find a few lines that are over the top.

His "good judgement", which he's been touting as a response to his lack of experience,
is certainly open to challenge now.
Although I actually share much of Wrights viewpoint, I don't think the majority of
Americans do. In fact, quite the contrary.
If Obama's camp thinks they've overcome this issue, they better
think again. This is not going away. "God damn America" is just unacceptable. The racist remarks pale by comparison.
If he wins the nomination, it's going to come back around
with fangs.

"God damn America" is taken out of context, but yeah, people are pretty bent about it. Whether or not this has been overcome remains to be seen. I honestly don't know if this has turned the tide or not. At least McCain is not the worst possible person on Earth, since if Obama goes down, he's gonna be the next president. I wish you were not so angry about Obama that you could perceive what is really happening in this race. There is an active effort on the part of Republicans in Pennsylvania to get Republican voters to register as Democrats and vote for Hillary. Rush Limbaugh was telling Texans to do the same thing. Does that really sound like the Republicans want to run against Obama?