[QUOTE=Shayna]
Truthfully? No, I couldn’t tell that you knew that. Ok, you did. Now other people do, too. Sorry to have offended.
Obama on his former pastor in his in-depth interview with the Chicago Tribune: (bolding mine)
[/QUOTE]
Excellent. Time for the media to dig up proof that he was around when sermons like those were made.
But he sure speaks well. :rolleyes:
[QUOTE=9thFloor]
LOL I love how the Clintons get blamed for everything including Wright. Oh well. Obama, of course as per usual, immediately preemptively blamed the Clintons for assuredly ‘using it as political fodder’ against him. Of course, they haven’t. The full extent of what’s been said by the Clinton camp about Wright has been ‘no comment’ and L. Davis saying he believes Obama. Still, blame Hill and change the subject. So much for ‘new’ politics.
I did enjoy Obama’s statement that he’d **never ** been present when those kinds of remarks were made. It was a categorical statement. Which means it’ll just take one instance proving that he was, in fact, there to make him out as a liar (again).
[/quote]
What do you mean by “yet again?” When has he lied before? What is yoiur evidence that he’s lying now?
It happened without his knowledge, so he wasn’t lying.
Who gives a fuck? His campaign estimated wrong. So fucking what?
You know this, how? You’r proof that Obama was there is what?
What proof, and why do you call him “Jesus?”
I think you’re going to be bitterly disapponted that the chips aren’t going to fall the way you’d like them to. You see, only morons think this means anything and morons vote Republican anyway.
[QUOTE=9thFloor]
Excellent. Time for the media to dig up proof that he was around when sermons like those were made.
[/QUOTE]
He says he wasn’t. What evidence do you have that he’s lying? What are you going to say when this “proof” you’re so certain about never turns up.
Barack Obama is going to be your next President. You are incredibly lucky to be alive to witness it.
[QUOTE=Diogenes the Cynic]
What do you mean by “yet again?” When has he lied before? What is yoiur evidence that he’s lying now?
It happened without his knowledge, so he wasn’t lying.
Who gives a fuck? His campaign estimated wrong. So fucking what?
You know this, how? You’r proof that Obama was there is what?
What proof, and why do you call him “Jesus?”
I think you’re going to be bitterly disapponted that the chips aren’t going to fall the way you’d like them to. You see, only morons think this means anything and morons vote Republican anyway.
[/QUOTE]
I think this means something. Are you calling me a moron?
[QUOTE=Diogenes the Cynic]
He says he wasn’t. What evidence do you have that he’s lying? What are you going to say when this “proof” you’re so certain about never turns up.
Barack Obama is going to be your next President. You are incredibly lucky to be alive to witness it.
[/QUOTE]
Yup, that’s what he says. I guess that settles it.
I already know what you’ll say when the proof turns up. “So fucking what?” Etc.
But I followed your whole Dio writes a better script thing and I was really impressed and loved it and was rooting for you so I’m not going to get into a tit for tat battle with you cuz I like you too much for that as a SDMB member.
I believe Obama to be an arrogant, empty suit with racial insecurity issues.
That’s simply my belief having heard him, watched him, and read him. To each his own.
[QUOTE=9thFloor]
I think this means something. Are you calling me a moron?
[/QUOTE]
This forum does not permit me to answer that question.
[QUOTE=9thFloor]
Yup, that’s what he says. I guess that settles it.
I already know what you’ll say when the proof turns up. “So fucking what?” Etc.
But I followed your whole Dio writes a better script thing and I was really impressed and loved it and was rooting for you so I’m not going to get into a tit for tat battle with you cuz I like you too much for that as a SDMB member.
I believe Obama to be an arrogant, empty suit with racial insecurity issues.
That’s simply my belief having heard him, watched him, and read him. To each his own.
[/QUOTE]
Having read his books, I know he’s not an empty suit. He also says himself that he had difficulty finding a racial identity when he was young. I don’t know what “racial insecurity” means but he seems to have found a pretty comfortable identity as a “black” man, although in some ways, I think he’s found a way to become “post-racial.”
Even if both of your opinions are true, that doesn’t make him a secretly America hating Black Nationalist who wants to kill whitey. He just has a former pastor who occasionally said some crazy shit he didn’t agree with. All preachers tend to go off the rails once in a while. Obama says Wright never preached that kind of stuff in his presence. There is no evidence that he is lying.
[QUOTE=Diogenes the Cynic]
Having read his books, I know he’s not an empty suit. He also says himself that he had difficulty finding a racial identity when he was young. I don’t know what “racial insecurity” means but he seems to have found a pretty comfortable identity as a “black” man, although in some ways, I think he’s found a way to become “post-racial.”
Even if both of your opinions are true, that doesn’t make him a secretly America hating Black Nationalist who wants to kill whitey. He just has a former pastor who occasionally said some crazy shit he didn’t agree with. All preachers tend to go off the rails once in a while. Obama says Wright never preached that kind of stuff in his presence. There is no evidence that he is lying.
[/QUOTE]
Nor is there any evidence that he’s telling the truth that passes my smell test, particularly given that there is evidence that he’s lying on NAFTA, Rezko, and Iraq. You don’t accept that evidence, but it’s evidence. It’s not conclusive evidence, but it casts doubt in my view and I believe in the views of many other morons.
I didn’t say and don’t believe that he’s “a secretly America hating Black Nationalist who wants to kill whitey.” I simply think he believes he’s beyond race.
This election will teach him different.
[QUOTE=9thFloor]
Nor is there any evidence that he’s telling the truth that passes my smell test.
[/quote]
Nor does there need to be. He doesn’t have any burden of proof.
I don’t think he’s naive enough to think racism doesn’t still exist, but I also don’t think there’s enough racism left to keep him out of office (no matter how much the political right will try to gin up fear of Obama as a modern day Nat Turner who wants to kill white people in their sleep)
[QUOTE=Diogenes the Cynic]
Nor does there need to be. He doesn’t have any burden of proof.
I don’t think he’s naive enough to think racism doesn’t still exist, but I also don’t think there’s enough racism left to keep him out of office (no matter how much the political right will try to gin up fear of Obama as a modern day Nat Turner who wants to kill white people in their sleep)
[/QUOTE]
He has the burden of proof in my eyes, given that he’s already lied.
Fair enough on your second point. In my view, he’s relying upon that feeling of “let’s overcome racism by electing ME!” and thereby falsely implicitly making it about race rather than his lack of gravitas, experience, and qualifications. I find that to be a slick trick and I find it offensive.
Let’s both hope things work out for the best. G’night.
[QUOTE=Diogenes the Cynic]
This forum does not permit me to answer that question.
[/QUOTE]
And while you can skate past the rules by noting that “all morons are Republican” is not the same as “all Republicans are morons,” both the initial statement and this response (using apophasis to make the point you claim you cannot make) are not appropriate to GD.
[ /Moderating ]
[QUOTE=9thFloor]
He has the burden of proof in my eyes, given that he’s already lied.
Fair enough on your second point. In my view, he’s relying upon that feeling of “let’s overcome racism by electing ME!” and thereby falsely implicitly making it about race rather than his lack of gravitas, experience, and qualifications. I find that to be a slick trick and I find it offensive.
Let’s both hope things work out for the best. G’night.
[/QUOTE]
Can you point to anything specific that led you to think that?
I wonder what experience and qualifications can be enough to be president? I’m no presidential scholar but I’d be interested in knowing what experience and qualifications other presidents have had and how they are perceived. Do we have any historic evidence that presidents with less experience do far worse than others. Bush and Clinton both Governors. How do you think they contrast as far as the jobs they did?
Obama certainly has intellect and a grasp of law. Of the three major candidates who exhibits much better qualities then he does?
Totally irrelevant to this thread but I have to get this little dream of mine published somewhere.
From a Christian universalist perspective:
Barack Hussein Obama sits down with leaders of the American Israeli Arab conflict, namely Barak, Hussein, and Osama in heaven to reminisce on the historical period of the early 21st century.
[QUOTE=9thFloor]
“God damn America!” + Michelle “I’m proud of my country for the first time” (she didn’t say proud of politics, she said proud of my country; sorry Obama) + don’t put hand over heart to pledge allegiance to the flag + Hillary was never “called a nigger” + Obama’s choice to not just merely attend his church but PUT him on his spiritual ADVISORY committee AFTER Wright had already said such things before (as someone pointed out, Obama knew a year ago and ‘denounced’ it then…but still kept him on the committee) + Rezko + NAFTA memo + Iraq doublespeak + Weathermen + cocaine +++ more to come.
[/quote]
Note that most of this stuff has come out, got little traction in the media or was squashed entirely (no one except diehard Hillary “let’s find something to divert attention away from Whitewater” Clinton supporters care about Rezko…and what the fuck is “Iraq doublespeak” compared to voting for Iraq and still justifying it!), and has done little to slow Obama down. He has beaten Hillary in spite of these minor flareups and I see no reason why he won’t continue to do so. In contrast, exit polling data showed that Hillary’s style of attack and race-baiting costed her a lot of votes early on (in whites and blacks). So I have reason to believe that Ferraro’s statements will do more harm than good to her, and will cancel out whatever problems Obama has from Wright.
I know Hillary supporters are just dying to have a reason to crow over an Obama demise, and to channel Bill Clinton, we all feel your pain. But I have to wonder why anyone anyone would want Hillary to win over something like this. She’s not going to be able to beat McCain if the reason she becomes the nominee is because of something that Obama didn’t even say, but rather a close friend. The people won’t turn out to vote for her, simple as that. But good luck anyway.
Now here’s a black preacher who isn’t exactly in the Obama camp.
My fave quote from Pastor Manning:
The Obama campaign should pay him to go on all the talks shows. The public will get confuse this guys loony anti-Obama with Wright’s loony anti American rants. It will end up a wash.
Pastor Manning asks the burning question:
(It’s a Hillary Clinton endorsement, and therefore, germane. 
)
[QUOTE=Belowjob2.0]
Now here’s a black preacher who isn’t exactly in the Obama camp.
The Obama campaign should pay him to go on all the talks shows. The public will get confuse this guys loony anti-Obama with Wright’s loony anti American rants. It will end up a wash.
[/QUOTE]
[QUOTE=Belowjob2.0]
Pastor Manning asks the burning question:
(It’s a Hillary Clinton endorsement, and therefore, germane. 
)
[/QUOTE]
Wow. Just fucking wow.
He’s not trashing Obama because Obama was born trash?
He actually told his congregation:
I gave up after that. I simply couldn’t listen to that filth anymore.
*My husband said when he heard that it sounded like Daffy Duck, and he doesn’t even know I’ve given him the Loony Toon title in this quote!
It has been mentioned that Obama’s Rasmussen daily tracking went down from Friday’s 50 - 42% lead to 46 - 45%. This was pointed out as the negative effect of the Wright affair. Please look at those numbers in context. That 50% was an outlier. The daily numbers have generally varied with them usually both in the 40’s Obama usually barely on top. Occassionally flipped. Today’s number is 47 - 44 Obama which is better then it was a week ago before the flap broke - 47 - 45 Clinton.
No evidence so far of any real effect.
[QUOTE=DSeid]
It has been mentioned that Obama’s Rasmussen daily tracking went down from Friday’s 50 - 42% lead to 46 - 45%. This was pointed out as the negative effect of the Wright affair. Please look at those numbers in context. That 50% was an outlier. The daily numbers have generally varied with them usually both in the 40’s Obama usually barely on top. Occassionally flipped. Today’s number is 47 - 44 Obama which is better then it was a week ago before the flap broke - 47 - 45 Clinton.
No evidence so far of any real effect.
[/QUOTE]
Nor will there be. This will be a horse race till the end when clearly Obama will take the nomination.
[QUOTE=cosmosdan]
Can you point to anything specific that led you to think that?
I wonder what experience and qualifications can be enough to be president? I’m no presidential scholar but I’d be interested in knowing what experience and qualifications other presidents have had and how they are perceived. Do we have any historic evidence that presidents with less experience do far worse than others. Bush and Clinton both Governors. How do you think they contrast as far as the jobs they did?
Obama certainly has intellect and a grasp of law. Of the three major candidates who exhibits much better qualities then he does?
[/QUOTE]
Those are good questions that deserve good answers but I’ll pass on exchanging with you, it gets too personal and nasty and off subject.
I’ll simply say that what led me to believe what I do is the same thing that you’ve seen and heard in the media and on the news so it’s nothing you don’t already know. We simply have different interpretations of the available information.