Obama's Pastor

[BearSox]

I like how Obama said if Wright hadn't retired (I am pretty sure Obama's camp made him retire in the first place anyway), he wouldn't have felt comfortable at the church and would have left... what about the previous 20 some years Mr. Obama? I find it hard to believe anything Obama says, because quite frankly none of it adds up. Wright's never apologized, but Obama says he has? Like yasny said, Obama is a world class bulls***er.

 

I don't know about anyone else, but I am truly afraid for this great country if Obama does get the nomination and does become president. I don't trust him, I don't trust his wife, and I don't trust his whole camp.

[YASNY]

Wrong. You linked to one story which references an article in an extreme right-wing paper, and left the rest of us to chase link after link to find any hint of context. Now, time is finite, and if it's not worth your time to provide the full context, I don't see why I should spend mine on it.

 

What, exactly, was the endorsement? Did he say that everything Hamas does and all the points in its charter are good? Or that this one article, which does not mention killing all Jews, is good?

 

The "Declaration of Independence" bit is particularly misleading. The article is NOT arguing that the charter is exemplary, as we typically see the D of I to be; it's arguing that most foundational documents are in some sense morally questionable -- as the D of I was hypocritical in calling for equality while denying equality to slaves. The effect is in fact to dismiss the charter, to argue that Hamas should not be judged by it. The church is publishing an article, then, that contains an apology for and renunciation (however minor and unconvincing) of the charter which contains the words about killing Jews.

 

Yet this is twisted by the article you quote into being supportive of the idea of murdering Jews. Ridiculous.

 

If you want a reply next time you post something, post the ACTUAL TEXT you're talking about, or a link to it. Don't ask all of us to go on a goddam goose chase and then say that we're "strategically ignoring" you when we don't feel like wasting the next half-hour of our lives.

 

I did post the actual text from the column, and the link to it.

 

[YASNY]

ok, he's an awful man. He is the worst person ever. What do you want us do? Should we arrest him? Should Obama have to quit the race, should he be arrested for supporting a terrorist? All these different things keep on being put out there, but no one is saying what we should do.

 

I'm asking what would you like Obama and Rev. Wright to do? So we can end this and talk about things that actually effect our lives.

 

How about Wright and Obama just go away? We don't need their type. Especially in the White House. He should have been taken to task on this issue instead of getting the free pass he has received from the media and his supporters. You are all being conned.

[YASNY]

I like how Obama said if Wright hadn't retired (I am pretty sure Obama's camp made him retire in the first place anyway), he wouldn't have felt comfortable at the church and would have left... what about the previous 20 some years Mr. Obama? I find it hard to believe anything Obama says, because quite frankly none of it adds up. Wright's never apologized, but Obama says he has? Like yasny said, Obama is a world class bulls***er.

 

I don't know about anyone else, but I am truly afraid for this great country if Obama does get the nomination and does become president. I don't trust him, I don't trust his wife, and I don't trust his whole camp.

 

^^^^^^^ That too!

[DrunkBomber]

I just dont understand the hard core Obama supporters that are making excuses for Wright and Obama. Everyone gets so caught up when Obama speaks publicly because he uses the word change so candidly but he has not given any kind of glimpse into what he is going to do to generate any change. Its easy to sit there and say youre going to end the war, end racism, lower taxes and start a universal health care system if you dont actually have to say how. Whenever something negative comes out about Obama, which has been leaked by their own party, he gives the most ridiculous explanations and his supporters eat it all up. In fact, for what a great speaker he is supposed to be, the only time he comes across well is when his speech is prepared. Look what happens when he has to think on the fly, like in his interview with the Philadelphia radio show where he called his grandmother a typical white person because he had to think on his feet.

[bmags]

yes, the Obama never says how argument...never gets old.

 

damn him for being better at prepared speeches than thinking on the fly. Not like McCain with his "EVERYBODY KNOWS" to every question asked to him, or Iran er Al Qaida er Iran er Al Qaida.

[jackie hayes]

I did post the actual text from the column, and the link to it.

No, I mean the actual text on which you are making a point. You posted a link to a column which referred to an article which linked to a blog which -- finally -- had the text of the newsletter. That's the only relevant text, the rest is just reactions to it, which are no more important than posts on a message board. Just like you wouldn't trust a Marxist blog's take on some memo from Karl Rove, I'm not going to trust the reaction of a rightwing nutjob online newspaper in an article about the presumptive Democratic nominee. If it's a valid point, you should link to the actual text that they are reacting to.

 

Moreover, as I pointed out, the WorldNetDaily article, and the column you linked which referred to it, took the D of I comparison completely out of context, in fact completely inverted the meaning of the comparison. It's sleazy, dishonest hack work.

[DrunkBomber]

yes, the Obama never says how argument...never gets old.

 

damn him for being better at prepared speeches than thinking on the fly. Not like McCain with his "EVERYBODY KNOWS" to every question asked to him, or Iran er Al Qaida er Iran er Al Qaida.

This isnt a thread on Britney Spears or anything. I think its a very valid point to wonder how he is going to accomplish all these goals. Maybe all you look for in a President is someone that can read preprepared speeches without any substance but when it comes to becoming the leader of the most powerful country in the free world I think we deserve a little insight instead of taking a politicians word for it. So Im sorry if the argument "gets old" but some people might actually want to know what route the country is going to go in the future even though you obviously dont. As far as the McCain argument, youre barking up the wrong tree, I really dont like him either.

[NorthSideSox72]

How about Wright and Obama just go away? We don't need their type. Especially in the White House. He should have been taken to task on this issue instead of getting the free pass he has received from the media and his supporters. You are all being conned.

We don't need "their type"?

 

I'm going to eschew the usual self-editing here on this and say it. You folks that are pounding this Wright thing into the ground - YAS, bomber, BearSox - were looking for a reason. You were looking for a reason to write off Obama. You didn't like him, which is all fine (in fact there are some good reasons not to), but you couldn't find a specific reason to justify it. So now, we've gotten to the point where you are going to lump Obama and the pastor at his church into an inseperable tandem... you will further ASSUME, without anything like enough data to know a damn thing, that Wright's 20 years of preaching were dominated by racism and hatred... and you will use those two things to cast Obama as not only not a good Presidential candidate, but as a raving racist liar.

 

The good news is, looking at the polls, most of the country doesn't fall for it. Mind you, I think the hard core Republicans are eating it up, and using it to re-energize the neo-con conservative base. And the far left liberals are of course ignoring the whole thing, acting as if Rev Wright doesn't exist. But the difference makers in this upcoming election - the independents and moderates - fortunately, are the "types" that will tend to take things on balance. Instead of being a blind homer, or masking their own racism and hatred by way of the Rove-style accuse-of-same marketing technique, they see Rev Wright as part of the whole picture. His remarks were racist and wrong, Obama made clear he disagreed with them for whatever that was worth, and they are ready to move on - which is not the same as ignoring things they don't like. That's the favorite game of the neo-cons and the ultra-liberals, isn't it? Live in denial of realities that don't sit well with them?

 

Go ahead. Close your minds to anything that makes you uncomfortable. Meanwhile, those of us who are moderates and independents are looking forward to an election in November that we can finally be a little bit happy about - two candidates (Obama and McCain) who are NOT in the far gutter of their respective parties. Two people who are actually willing to work across the aisle and act like reasonable adults. Feel free to ignore that this will be the best available pair of candidates we've had for a long, long time. Take the easy route - hyperbole and pile-on mentality. Enjoy wallowing in your fear-dominated world. Just know that the middle of this country wants no part of it.

 

 

[DrunkBomber]

We don't need "their type"?

 

I'm going to eschew the usual self-editing here on this and say it. You folks that are pounding this Wright thing into the ground - YAS, bomber, BearSox - were looking for a reason. You were looking for a reason to write off Obama. You didn't like him, which is all fine (in fact there are some good reasons not to), but you couldn't find a specific reason to justify it. So now, we've gotten to the point where you are going to lump Obama and the pastor at his church into an inseperable tandem... you will further ASSUME, without anything like enough data to know a damn thing, that Wright's 20 years of preaching were dominated by racism and hatred... and you will use those two things to cast Obama as not only not a good Presidential candidate, but as a raving racist liar.

 

The good news is, looking at the polls, most of the country doesn't fall for it. Mind you, I think the hard core Republicans are eating it up, and using it to re-energize the neo-con conservative base. And the far left liberals are of course ignoring the whole thing, acting as if Rev Wright doesn't exist. But the difference makers in this upcoming election - the independents and moderates - fortunately, are the "types" that will tend to take things on balance. Instead of being a blind homer, or masking their own racism and hatred by way of the Rove-style accuse-of-same marketing technique, they see Rev Wright as part of the whole picture. His remarks were racist and wrong, Obama made clear he disagreed with them for whatever that was worth, and they are ready to move on - which is not the same as ignoring things they don't like. That's the favorite game of the neo-cons and the ultra-liberals, isn't it? Live in denial of realities that don't sit well with them?

 

Go ahead. Close your minds to anything that makes you uncomfortable. Meanwhile, those of us who are moderates and independents are looking forward to an election in November that we can finally be a little bit happy about - two candidates (Obama and McCain) who are NOT in the far gutter of their respective parties. Two people who are actually willing to work across the aisle and act like reasonable adults. Feel free to ignore that this will be the best available pair of candidates we've had for a long, long time. Take the easy route - hyperbole and pile-on mentality. Enjoy wallowing in your fear-dominated world. Just know that the middle of this country wants no part of it.

Interesting to get such an open minded Patriotic response. Its odd I thought my last few posts were discussing Obamas policies and questioning his stances on certain issues and asking his route to achieve his goals but it turns out Im just being racist. Well Im sorry if you dont agree with my views but I will continue to reiterate that your opinion, and thats all it is, isnt any more valid than mine because you like said candidate and you will defend him just as blindly as you say we criticize him.

 

Simply adding in your last post that there are reasons to dislike him besides Wright doesnt justify being open minded. The Wright argument is used in conjunction with other issues that are being applied to question Obamas character and qualifications to lead this country. The topic is far from the only point anyone has made in terms of questioning Obama. However, this is a thread about Wright and I would think that might be why people are discussing it. So if it makes you feel better to call anyone who questions Obama closed minded than you can go ahead and keep spewing it but is it really open minded to blindly defend his every move? Can you not see peoples resentment for the things Wright has said, which is the topic of the thread?

 

When topics like this are discussed there are always going to be people that are at other ends of the spectrum but when one side *cough* Obama supporters *cough* call people closed minded simply because they have a different opinion then them is extremely hypocritical. Now if anything has been proven overwhelmingly for one side or another thats one thing, which it hasnt, but when people with different opinions continue to try to explain where theyre coming from and trying to justify themselves and one side simply dismisses anything said by the other and in turn calls them closed minded its laughable.

 

Now I will continue to use phrases like, in my opinion, the reason I think and what I dont like about this you can continue to use things like Im right and youre wrong.

[bmags]

This isnt a thread on Britney Spears or anything. I think its a very valid point to wonder how he is going to accomplish all these goals. Maybe all you look for in a President is someone that can read preprepared speeches without any substance but when it comes to becoming the leader of the most powerful country in the free world I think we deserve a little insight instead of taking a politicians word for it. So Im sorry if the argument "gets old" but some people might actually want to know what route the country is going to go in the future even though you obviously dont. As far as the McCain argument, youre barking up the wrong tree, I really dont like him either.

 

it'd be a valid point if he didn't have a week two weeks ago, where he had a huge speech on foreign policy and a huge speech on the economy. It'd be a valid point if he didn't have a Web site outlining his policies for the country. But he has consistently outlined his plans for the country.. Unfortunately actual policy talk gets lost in the sexy issue of whether a man who has devoted his adult life to public service cares about the country.

[bmags]

Interesting to get such an open minded Patriotic response. Its odd I thought my last few posts were discussing Obamas policies and questioning his stances on certain issues and asking his route to achieve his goals but it turns out Im just being racist. Well Im sorry if you dont agree with my views but I will continue to reiterate that your opinion, and thats all it is, isnt any more valid than mine because you like said candidate and you will defend him just as blindly as you say we criticize him.

 

Simply adding in your last post that there are reasons to dislike him besides Wright doesnt justify being open minded. The Wright argument is used in conjunction with other issues that are being applied to question Obamas character and qualifications to lead this country. The topic is far from the only point anyone has made in terms of questioning Obama. However, this is a thread about Wright and I would think that might be why people are discussing it. So if it makes you feel better to call anyone who questions Obama closed minded than you can go ahead and keep spewing it but is it really open minded to blindly defend his every move? Can you not see peoples resentment for the things Wright has said, which is the topic of the thread?

 

When topics like this are discussed there are always going to be people that are at other ends of the spectrum but when one side *cough* Obama supporters *cough* call people closed minded simply because they have a different opinion then them is extremely hypocritical. Now if anything has been proven overwhelmingly for one side or another thats one thing, which it hasnt, but when people with different opinions continue to try to explain where theyre coming from and trying to justify themselves and one side simply dismisses anything said by the other and in turn calls them closed minded its laughable.

 

Now I will continue to use phrases like, in my opinion, the reason I think and what I dont like about this you can continue to use things like Im right and youre wrong.

 

well, when Obama supporters start threads about McCain being a gay drug abuser that is love with the John Birch society and is , say, an atheist, you can talk about how close minded we are.

[lostfan]

Go ahead. Close your minds to anything that makes you uncomfortable. Meanwhile, those of us who are moderates and independents are looking forward to an election in November that we can finally be a little bit happy about - two candidates (Obama and McCain) who are NOT in the far gutter of their respective parties. Two people who are actually willing to work across the aisle and act like reasonable adults. Feel free to ignore that this will be the best available pair of candidates we've had for a long, long time. Take the easy route - hyperbole and pile-on mentality. Enjoy wallowing in your fear-dominated world. Just know that the middle of this country wants no part of it.

[DrunkBomber]

well, when Obama supporters start threads about McCain being a gay drug abuser that is love with the John Birch society and is , say, an atheist, you can talk about how close minded we are.

First of all Im not a McCain supporter. Second of all I didnt start any threads about any candidates I have simply shared my opinions in the existing ones and you might notice I didnt even bother posting in the thread about the cocaine and gay sex because I thought it was ridiculous.

[DrunkBomber]

it'd be a valid point if he didn't have a week two weeks ago, where he had a huge speech on foreign policy and a huge speech on the economy. It'd be a valid point if he didn't have a Web site outlining his policies for the country. But he has consistently outlined his plans for the country.. Unfortunately actual policy talk gets lost in the sexy issue of whether a man who has devoted his adult life to public service cares about the country.

Well Im sorry but I dont analyze what Obama says the same way you do but that doesnt make my opinion wrong just as yours isnt to you. My point is however that IMO Obama simply lists problems when he speaks but he doesnt shed any light on what he is going to do to stop them. Im not some radical conservative that only watches Fox News and regurgitates what they say. Im an independent and Ive been very critical of all three of the candidates and I use many sources to gather my opinions so I am aware of what stances the candidates have on certain issues and in this thread I have addressed the ones that I am weary of from Obama because more or less he is the only candidate being discussed in this thread. As cliche as it is, I agree with what a lot of pundits have been saying in terms of questioning Obamas substance because I honestly dont feel he has laid out any ground work to accomplishing any of the issues that are feasible.

 

So if you feel like Im not justified for showing my concern about what kind of person Obama is based on anything from his lack of experience, his relationships with people who promote hate and intolerance or even on things like his relationship with Rezco thats fine. But I will reiterate, with the state this country is in right now I dont see anything wrong with exploring every nook and cranny of a candidates character before deciding whether or not they qualified to be my elected leader.

 

If you or anyone else wants to sit back and hope for the best based on speeches a politician recites thats fine, but I dont see the point in criticizing someone who wants to gather as much information they can on every candidate besides what they say in preprepared speeches. Now if I was blindly defending McCain or Hillary thats one thing, but Im not. Im very critical of all of them because of the magnitude of the position they are all lobbying for.

[KipWellsFan]

How about Wright and Obama just go away? We don't need their type. Especially in the White House. He should have been taken to task on this issue instead of getting the free pass he has received from the media and his supporters. You are all being conned.

 

Vast left wing conspiracy to make Obama seem like a decent guy!

[bmags]

Well Im sorry but I dont analyze what Obama says the same way you do but that doesnt make my opinion wrong just as yours isnt to you. My point is however that IMO Obama simply lists problems when he speaks but he doesnt shed any light on what he is going to do to stop them. Im not some radical conservative that only watches Fox News and regurgitates what they say. Im an independent and Ive been very critical of all three of the candidates and I use many sources to gather my opinions so I am aware of what stances the candidates have on certain issues and in this thread I have addressed the ones that I am weary of from Obama because more or less he is the only candidate being discussed in this thread. As cliche as it is, I agree with what a lot of pundits have been saying in terms of questioning Obamas substance because I honestly dont feel he has laid out any ground work to accomplishing any of the issues that are feasible.

 

So if you feel like Im not justified for showing my concern about what kind of person Obama is based on anything from his lack of experience, his relationships with people who promote hate and intolerance or even on things like his relationship with Rezco thats fine. But I will reiterate, with the state this country is in right now I dont see anything wrong with exploring every nook and cranny of a candidates character before deciding whether or not they qualified to be my elected leader.

 

If you or anyone else wants to sit back and hope for the best based on speeches a politician recites thats fine, but I dont see the point in criticizing someone who wants to gather as much information they can on every candidate besides what they say in preprepared speeches. Now if I was blindly defending McCain or Hillary thats one thing, but Im not. Im very critical of all of them because of the magnitude of the position they are all lobbying for.

 

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/03/27/us/polit...amp;oref=slogin

 

Here you go, bro. I wasn't saying your concern wasn't valid, I was saying just because it isn't covered doesn't mean he's not saying it. It's more of a condemnation of the media, who has fed into the tit for tat quips and slights as opposed to the 'issues'. If you want me to get Dodd's legislation I'll look for that as well.

[DrunkBomber]

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/03/27/us/polit...amp;oref=slogin

 

Here you go, bro. I wasn't saying your concern wasn't valid, I was saying just because it isn't covered doesn't mean he's not saying it. It's more of a condemnation of the media, who has fed into the tit for tat quips and slights as opposed to the 'issues'. If you want me to get Dodd's legislation I'll look for that as well.

I appreciate the link. Ill read through it tomorrow at work. Im sure youre right about the reviews Ive seen in the media about it more or less being one sided so when I get a chance Ill check it out.

[bmags]

i also think this Obama not taking on the issues, or being vague, is somewhat due to lazy journalism. Their job is to cut through jargon and wind and use their experience and research to clarify concisely what they are saying. With clinton she has her soundbites "90 day foreclosure freeze", whereas I believe Obama's speeches don't have those, he gives context and issues faced never really giving that bite, not that he has no stance on it. I find obama's #1 liberal ranking kind of funny considering how much more Clinton's policies are in need of government. The government would completely take on the mortgage crisis and force the will. NYT's article summarizing the speech gave very shallow coverage, the only thing they caught was middle class tax cuts, a catchphrase pretty much. I'm a big fan of Obama's net neutrality stance, not said in this speech, as well. And I think Obama's views are more realistic to push progressive goals through. Dem's have a slim majority now, and still can't do anything, I don't know what seats will change in november, but I have a hard time believing Clinton's policies would get through, so is she going to exec. order all of this?

Edited March 31, 2008 by bmags

[YASNY]

Well, I knew it had to happen eventually. Because I question the character of black man that is a 20 year member of a church whose pastor is on record with hateful and racial opinion, and because that raises a red flag with me when the said black man is running for highest office in the land, then marks me as a racist.

 

Well you people just go ahead and vote your ignorance. I get criticized for linking to and quoting one, mind you "1" column that offers an opinion that you disagree with and you dismiss it as irrelevent and meaningless, yet Athomeboy, whatever his handle is, has for months been posting leftist rhetoric links and not a peep.

 

You know what, I'm just gonna say this ... to hell with you all. You don't want discourse and discussion. You want .... screw it .... it's not worth it. Enjoy the campaign people. I'll stay out of the 'Buster till it's over.

[KipWellsFan]

Well, I knew it had to happen eventually. Because I question the character of black man that is a 20 year member of a church whose pastor is on record with hateful and racial opinion, and because that raises a red flag with me when the said black man is running for highest office in the land, then marks me as a racist.

 

Well you people just go ahead and vote your ignorance. I get criticized for linking to and quoting one, mind you "1" column that offers an opinion that you disagree with and you dismiss it as irrelevent and meaningless, yet Athomeboy, whatever his handle is, has for months been posting leftist rhetoric links and not a peep.

 

You know what, I'm just gonna say this ... to hell with you all. You don't want discourse and discussion. You want .... screw it .... it's not worth it. Enjoy the campaign people. I'll stay out of the 'Buster till it's over.

 

Forgive me for not having read all 32 pages of discourse and discussion but I don't see anyone calling you a racist?

 

To me this just appears to be a long winded way of saying you can't win this argument.

[jackie hayes]

Forgive me for not having read all 32 pages of discourse and discussion but I don't see anyone calling you a racist?

 

To me this just appears to be a long winded way of saying you can't win this argument.

A kewpie doll for you.

 

He posted a dishonestly written article that took something ridiculously out of context in an effort to reverse its meaning. I actually go back to the source the article's referring to, yet clearly I'm the one not interested in "discourse and discussion".

 

To hell with you, YASNY. If partisan hack jobs like this are what you really bring to the "discourse and discussion", I won't miss you or your little martyr pity-party. Adios.

[NorthSideSox72]

Forgive me for not having read all 32 pages of discourse and discussion but I don't see anyone calling you a racist?

 

To me this just appears to be a long winded way of saying you can't win this argument.

I think he was actually referring to my post with the racism bit, not jackiehayes'.

 

My point was that it appears to me, no real discourse can be had with the conservatives on this particular issue. They seem to have taken the stance that because Mr. Wright has been seen on YouTube saying something vile (which he did), that it automatically means two things - that Rev Wright must have spent his career spewing that sort of thing constantly, and that Mr. Obama must agree with it. Neither assumption is grounded in any sort of logical reality. If Rev Wright was spewing this stuff all the time, two things would be true - we'd be seeing a lot more videos, and the Obamas would almost assuredly tried to distance themselves from him long ago (like, when Obama started his political career).

 

I further implied that this irrational leap to conclusions could be due to any number of factors - and yes, racism was one possible factor. So were a lot of things, but the biggest one, I think I made clear, was the simple fact that the conservatives were looking for a reason to beat the drum. And this worked nicely.

 

Using the Imus analogy that some have brought up... lets ask this question. When Imus was criticized for uttering those now infamous lines, did anyone say or even think to themselves, "gosh, I bet that means that all of Imus' regular listeners must be racists"? Probably not, because that would be a ridiculous leap. And yet, here we are, seeing some portion of the population doing just that. As with Wright, I am sure that was not the only time that Imus said something questionable. Heck, he's a shock jock, its what he does. But let's ask another question: if it turned out that one of the Presidential candidates was a loyal fan of Imus' show, would people all assume that he/she must be a racist?

 

The analogy has its limits of course. But you see what I am getting at?

 

[EvilMonkey]

If Rev Wright was spewing this stuff all the time, two things would be true - we'd be seeing a lot more videos, and the Obamas would almost assuredly tried to distance themselves from him long ago (like, when Obama started his political career).

I think you are wrong on the second part there. It was politically positive for Obama to be associates with the Rev early in his career. He was well known in the community and helped Obama with his blackness in the community. Now, not so much. However, he can't distance himself too far or he risks angering the black community, so he has to dance the fine dance of spin and nuance when talking about him.

 

 

Using the Imus analogy that some have brought up... lets ask this question. When Imus was criticized for uttering those now infamous lines, did anyone say or even think to themselves, "gosh, I bet that means that all of Imus' regular listeners must be racists"? Probably not, because that would be a ridiculous leap. And yet, here we are, seeing some portion of the population doing just that. As with Wright, I am sure that was not the only time that Imus said something questionable. Heck, he's a shock jock, its what he does. But let's ask another question: if it turned out that one of the Presidential candidates was a loyal fan of Imus' show, would people all assume that he/she must be a racist?

 

The analogy has its limits of course. But you see what I am getting at?

For your Imus analogy, why did politicians and stars refuse to go on his show after the flap? Because they were afraid to be associated with someone branded a racist. So yeah, maybe if he HAD been a fan, they MIGHT not have assumed anything, and even forgotten about it had he stopped listening. But if he continued to listen even after the incident, you bet all hell would descend upon him from every direction possible.

[DrunkBomber]

I think he was actually referring to my post with the racism bit, not jackiehayes'.

 

My point was that it appears to me, no real discourse can be had with the conservatives on this particular issue. They seem to have taken the stance that because Mr. Wright has been seen on YouTube saying something vile (which he did), that it automatically means two things - that Rev Wright must have spent his career spewing that sort of thing constantly, and that Mr. Obama must agree with it. Neither assumption is grounded in any sort of logical reality. If Rev Wright was spewing this stuff all the time, two things would be true - we'd be seeing a lot more videos, and the Obamas would almost assuredly tried to distance themselves from him long ago (like, when Obama started his political career).

 

I further implied that this irrational leap to conclusions could be due to any number of factors - and yes, racism was one possible factor. So were a lot of things, but the biggest one, I think I made clear, was the simple fact that the conservatives were looking for a reason to beat the drum. And this worked nicely.

 

Using the Imus analogy that some have brought up... lets ask this question. When Imus was criticized for uttering those now infamous lines, did anyone say or even think to themselves, "gosh, I bet that means that all of Imus' regular listeners must be racists"? Probably not, because that would be a ridiculous leap. And yet, here we are, seeing some portion of the population doing just that. As with Wright, I am sure that was not the only time that Imus said something questionable. Heck, he's a shock jock, its what he does. But let's ask another question: if it turned out that one of the Presidential candidates was a loyal fan of Imus' show, would people all assume that he/she must be a racist?

 

The analogy has its limits of course. But you see what I am getting at?

Are you really gonna try and compare the relationships of listening to someone on the radio and someones spiritual adviser who married him and his wife and baptized their children? There have been other concerns about Obama listed over the course of this whole discussion and for the most part everything brougtt up gets looked over and a lot of the Obama supporters pick and choose what arguments they want to address.

 

To even imply that someone might be racist for criticizing Wright and Obama for his relationship with Wright is laughable. Two days or so ago when someone referred to Obamas comments on the view about if someone were to have the 5 worst things youve said over 20 years played in a loop for 2 weeks and I explained the difference, which was more than "logical," every single person in this thread completely over looks it and moves on to the next point that they figure they have a better shot at discrediting.

 

Even the Obama supporters have at one point or another criticized things that Wright has done or said but since people with different views as you are more harsh on the subject all of a sudden were wrong and racist for it?

 

Now, if anybody considers being outraged by Wrights comments racist then fine, call me a racist because I wont tolerate that level of hate and yes, I have a lot of concerns about a candidate of the presidency having any type of extended relationship with someone like that. You guys can sit there and make excuses for that type of hate or imply that there isnt enough evidence to call Wright a racist but Ill go back and quote another one of my posts that was looked over that my opinion isnt on trial and that every single one of you Obama supporters that thinks you somehow are automatically right because youre in the majority on this specific message board but you are just as close minded as you are trying to say we are except at the other end of the spectrum. That doesnt make you more knowledgeable, that doesnt make you right, that doesnt make you open minded.

 

Ive made it clear in this forum that I am very critical of all three candidates and to be honest I dont like any of them at all but at least you wont see me blindly defending someone just to try and prove a point. All three of these candidates have flaws in their stances and Im sure there isnt one person that agrees with every single position their candidate takes yet there are people that will blindly defend them. Take a look at Athomeboy, critical of people that are critical of Obama but take a look at the articles hes posting about Hillary that are just as slanderous as whats being discussed in terms of Obama but I guess thats ok but why? Because race isnt involved? Because they belong to the same political party? Because there are more Obama supporters here than another candidate?

 

So you guys can continue to discredit our opinions, continue to blindly defend a Pastor who is on the record spewing hate and intolerance and continue to think you are somehow winning this imaginary competition we are having about who is right. So go ahead and criticize me taking a step back and questioning my concerns with a candidate but as youre calling me close minded remember that I have clearly said I am being extremely critical of every candidate. I dont affiliate myself with either party and I am simply voicing my concerns about the substance of the candidates. I dont think Im alone when I say Im not happy with a lot of the things that are going in this country and you better believe Im gonna ask more questions this time around then in 2000 when I voted for Bush just because at the time I considered myself a Republican. There are a lot of people that vote based on the party instead of the candidate and that wont be me anymore but its painfully obvious there is plenty of that around here. So as you continue to call me closed minded even though I am holding all three candidates to the same standard and you are blindly defending the candidate of your choice just remember that I openly say I know everything I post is my opinion and anyone that has a different opinion isnt wrong to them just as mine isnt to me but I would like to have my opinions respected just as I respect others even if you dont agree with it.