And my goodness! What would Dr. King think of audacious people! The horror!
It’s too bad that Dr. King was only a teenager when Gandhi was assassinated on the other side of the world and it was too audacious for King to use the words of Gandhi for inspiration. (Well, actually, King didn’t mind being audacious in following Gandhi’s teachings on non-violent protest.)
Come to think of it, Thoreau wrote his essay “Civil Disobedience” twenty years before Gandhi was even born – halfway around the world. How audacious of Gandhi to still be influenced by it enough to lead India to freedom a hundred years later.
Do you think that in a campaign a candidate should not be allowed to quote from someone who lived before she or he was an adult or who lived in another country? That would rather restrict Christians, Jews, Muslims. Hmmm…
No more quoting the patriots or Churchill, Eleanor Roosevelt or JFK? The next generation can’t quote Vonnegut or Red Barber?
Hey, its ok with me if you want to present your esthetic reaction as fact. So long as you know it isn’t a fact. For my two bits, MLK spoke in the cadences and rythyms of the classic Black preacher, Obama speaks like a guy who’s been to Harvard Law.
Stop accusing me of trying to game the rules and understand that is simply my (apparently incorrect) understanding of them and stick to moderating without imputing nefarious motives.
As for the issue itself: I linked to an article that included direct quotes. If that’s failing to provide direct quotes, then so be it. I already said I’d moved on, I have no idea what that poster wants beyond direct quotes from Obama.
We’re left with what constitutes parsing and we obviously disagree on what does and doesn’t. Saying that I am “not entitled to my own facts” means less than nothing. Perhaps they should stick to the issues rather than going personal.
Yup, that’s how I (and many) hear what he’s attempted to do “acoustically.” LOL
You don’t hear it that way, fair enough.
So you’re saying I’m trying to present something as a fact that isn’t a fact. <sigh>
Look, this thing about asserting that I’m asserting facts: they’re both opinions. Yours and mine. One of us may be right and one of us may be wrong, but neither can likely be established as a fact. Just how I hear it.
The rules prohibit attacking or insulting posters. They do not prohibit posters from challenging what other posters have said. (Ever since we prohibited calling other posters “liar,” there has been a small group of posters who bombard the staff with claims of having been accused of lying at any challenge to their posts. I would hope that you would not join that crowd. They look silly and clutter up our mailboxes.)
However, when you make your accusation of rule-breaking public instead of simply reporting the post, the presumption is that you want to tar your opponent with the label “rule-breaker” and my presumption is that you are gaming the system.
Now, you stop trying to give orders to Moderators (outside the Pit) and stick to your endless back-and-forths.
And as I have noted in several of these monotonous threads, I want everyone to stop making it personal. (I have little hope that my desire will be respected, of course.)
Dude, that’s almost an insult to any native Spanish speaker. Dipshit can’t speak English if his life depended on it and you’re telling us he speaks Spanish?!
LOL True, true. I speak Spanish fluently and I’ve gotta say, it is painful when he chops the words out there. Then again, people speaking a foreign language poorly is sometimes seen as ‘charming.’ :rolleyes:
Andrew Sullivan wrote what I thought was one of the best articles arguing for an Obama presidency in the Atlantic a few months ago. It’s a really good read.
Ah, I see; it comes across as wanting to tar an opponent when a post is not reported but just challenged right there.
Very well. I’d thought it was nicer NOT to report posts left and right and instead firmly ask not to continue to be personally attacked (whether it’s classified as rule-breaking or not), but I can play it either way.
I think what I’ll do is just ignore personal attacks and not report them either. That way, it can just blow over on its own.
Now here’s a direct order: go back to moderating.
P.S. Slipping in your “go back to your endless back and forths” isn’t too nice either…sounds personal. :rolleyes:
Unless we walked a mile in this minister’s shoes, we shouldn’t judge his entire life from a few soundbites.
The guy grew up in a discriminated America where he had to put up with a lot of humiliations… The old white americans from the greatest generation have a tendency to be racist. This is what these revolutionary ministries like minister wright are holding on to… they’re living in the past and not allowing themselves to heal. But hey, maybe I would do the same thing if I was him… I don’t know.
I don’t think anyone should hold Barack Obama accountable for belonging to a revolutionary ministry church… I KNOW he does not approve of the few offensive things the minister said.
I have an italian-american “crazy” uncle too, you know one of those greatest generation members who drops the n-bomb occasionaly. I’m not going to disown him because of it. There’s nothing we can do about this kind of ignorance but wait for it to die out - and hope we are never like them.
So why should Obama deny any of the many black people who have issues with whites due to their own personal experiences? Why should he? It’s a completely stupid notion to think he should…
True enough; actually, his viewpoints aren’t really that startling within the community of followers that see things that way more or less and everything out of context always comes off as more incendiary (that applies to both sides).
I believe Wright was already going to an integrated school when he was 12 years old though, but I know what you mean and his approach and mentality about the subject is obviously different than Obama’s. I suspect Obama always had a different view about such matters than Wright and always knew Wright had those views, and vice versa perhaps.
Funny, Obama referred to the Rezko deal as a ‘boneheaded move’ on his part but I think staying with Wright – when he’d been planning to run and continue to run in elective offices – was probably pretty boneheaded in retrospect.
I do suspect he went there to get the street cred, so to speak, among that constituency that he lacked. Despite that, he failed in his first efforts against Bobby Rush in Chicago in 2000 due, as some have pointed out, to his ‘not black enough’ image problem and has been playing/earning (depending on your point of view) the support of both the ‘black’ and ‘not black (enough)’ sides of the electorate ever since.
Also, some would say that if you accuse someone else of being a racist…that makes YOU a racist (if it’s not true) as he did elsewhere when claiming that the racist government invented AIDS (a blatant accusation of racism).
Saying Hillary was never called a ‘nigger’ is, to say the least, inflammatory. Racist? Probably not exactly.
But this thing, as I said before, won’t die:
** Obama: Had Wright not retired, I’d have left church**
That’s a story that just came out minutes ago; it’s yet more parsing (or invocation of caveats, if some prefer) on the subject. Now he’s saying he would have left the church if the pastor hadn’t retired and(/or?) if he hadn’t admitted that “he’d offended” people. Something he had never said before today that I’ve seen anywhere: a firm statement that he would have left the church if Wright stayed.
This, of course, comes the week after his ‘typical white person’ remark.
He is definitely getting the magnifying glass on this issue, but then HRC is certainly getting it on her Bosnia statement and the Obama camp surely have their magnifying glasses out ready for her tax returns and have been going on a campaign over the last 2 weeks implying she’s a ‘deeply flawed’ person in that she’d be a deeply flawed candidate. I’d say that counts as going negative (which HRC has of course already done).
:rolleyes: