View Poll Results: Democract Primary

Voters
53. You may not vote on this poll
  • Barack Obama

    37 69.81%
  • Hillary Clinton

    13 24.53%
  • Another Democrat Candidate (and share below who)

    3 5.66%
Page 6 of 15 FirstFirst 1234567891011 ... LastLast
Results 101 to 120 of 285
  1. #101  
    Quote Originally Posted by DL.Cummings View Post
    Check your facts about Bush's pastor.

    Hint: Kirbyjon Caldwell


    Let me get this straight:

    Preacher spouts off inaccurate and--to some degree--racist propaganda and his parishioners get a pass as long as they can show the pastor offset those words/beliefs with other words/deeds/beliefs. Got it.

    Now let me ask: Does Obama AND Rev. Wright get a pass for this because they are black or because that is how things are done?

    Before you answer, let me remind you of Mitt Romney and the assaults against his Latter Day Saint faith. As an example, I'll use Slate.com's Christopher Hitchens:

    "It is not just legitimate that he be asked about the beliefs that he has not just held, but has caused to be spread and caused to be inculcated into children. It is essential. Here is the most salient reason: Until 1978, the so-called Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints was an officially racist organization. Mitt Romney was an adult in 1978. We need to know how he justified this to himself, and we need to hear his self-criticism, if he should chance to have one."

    What? It was okay to demand answers of Romney regarding that which influences him. But squawk-boxes galore when one asks that of Obama?

    Personally, I suspect this has little to do with faith per se, and everything to do with race. Particularly considering Rev. Wright's comments were largely about race and who would want to correct a black man after all the injustices his race had to endure right?



    Of course not!! Why he only endorses the good stuff . . . after all he said so.



    Errm, he retired when? Oh, February of this year!
    what is significant about this approach to criticizing Obama is that its "reasonable".

    As such it can serve as a vehicle for endlessly discussing these issues, and for endlessly looping the sermons of Obama's "advisor".
    755P Sprint SERO (upgraded from unlocked GSM 650 on T-Mobile)
  2. #102  
    Quote Originally Posted by DL.Cummings View Post
    Check your facts about Bush's pastor.

    Hint: Kirbyjon Caldwell
    I see. Caldwell is his Pastor. Haggard was only his faith-based initiatives Pastor who sat in at meetings at the White House. Got it.

    Let me get this straight:

    Preacher spouts off inaccurate and
    Well since you'd like to dissect this, let's do just that. What was inaccurate? I'm trying to understand the source of your outrage.

    --to some degree--racist propaganda
    To what degree? I'd like to know. Racist propaganda or misplaced outrage over what he perceives as racism? There is a difference you know. Did he say "kill all the white folk"? I must have missed that part. I heard him say that he thought god would damn America, not bless it. Controversial? Sure was. Racist? Hardly. Nevermind how the media and right-wingers keep playing the clip out of context over and over again.

    and his parishioners get a pass as long as they can show the pastor offset those words/beliefs with other words/deeds/beliefs. Got it.
    Well isn't that the christian thing to do? Oh wait, that would be white christians. Black christians don't get to consider a Pastor's body of work when or if they disagree with statements of opinions the black Pastor may have said. Got it.

    Now let me ask: Does Obama AND Rev. Wright get a pass for this because they are black or because that is how things are done?
    Interesting. I think Rev. Wright has been rightfully exposed for making comments that were at the very least misguided. I think Mr. Obama has made several attempts to reject the sentiment of those statements. And I think both have remained in the media because they are black. I'd bet you feel quite differently though.

    Before you answer, let me remind you of Mitt Romney and the assaults against his Latter Day Saint faith. As an example, I'll use Slate.com's Christopher Hitchens:
    Good for MR/ Hitchens. I don't like the guy myself as I think he is a cynical SOB and sorry excuse of a hack. That aside, I don't embrace Mr. Hitchens' quote and I don't think Romney failed to get the nomination over his faith at all.

    What? It was okay to demand answers of Romney regarding that which influences him. But squawk-boxes galore when one asks that of Obama?
    I recall questions about Romney's mormon faith - quite unfairly. But it never reached the level of fear mongering that Obama is going through right now.

    Personally, I suspect this has little to do with faith per se, and everything to do with race.
    Yes! I agree.

    Particularly considering Rev. Wright's comments were largely about race and who would want to correct a black man after all the injustices his race had to endure right?
    Oh wait...no I don't agree. They are still in the news because they are BLACK. PERIOD.

    Of course not!! Why he only endorses the good stuff . . . after all he said so.
    You're really reaching now aren't you? He rejected what he didn't agree with - isn't that what you wanted? Should he have Rev. Wright hung from a tree? Would that make him white enough for you? What is it that Mr. Obama should do? Particularily in light of the fact that he clearly understood Rev. Wright's comments and their context much better than you and Ben?

    Errm, he retired when? Oh, February of this year!
    It's not that important actually. I don't care if he still is a Pastor. You guys act like the man just outted a CIA agent or something. The man spoke from his heart about his feelings of racism and this country's assuredly abysmal foreign policy. I don't like the inference's that we deserved to get hit on 9/11 and think he is very misguided. It seems to me Mr. Obama has made it very clear he feels much the same and has rejected the comments on numerous occasions.
  3. #103  
    For those interested in the context of Rev. Wrights words, I think this a worthwhile read:

    http://ac360.blogs.cnn.com/2008/03/2...%80%9d-sermon/
  4. #104  
    Quote Originally Posted by moderateinny View Post
    I see. Caldwell is his Pastor. Haggard was only his faith-based initiatives Pastor who sat in at meetings at the White House. Got it.
    My understanding (with no readily available sources) is that Haggard’s significance at the White House has been overplayed, while simultaneously having his significance to evangelicalism underplayed—both presumably due in part to his recent scandal.

    The “sat in at meetings” you claim, as I know it, predominately was sitting in at weekly teleconferences where Bush’s agenda was disseminated to him (not the other way around) and the occasional voice toward various policies (such as steel tariffs).

    To label him a political advisor seems a bit over the edge. I welcome contrary evidence though.

    Well since you'd like to dissect this, let's do just that. What was inaccurate? I'm trying to understand the source of your outrage.
    (Transcripts from :


    1: Who cares about what a poor black man has to face every day in a country and `a culture controlled by rich white peoples.

    My problem? Okay, it is likely that speaking on the surface that America is indeed controlled by rich, white people. The implication however, is that such is the case because they are white—as if racism plays the predominate role in this. As I see it, it doesn’t.

    A) The majority of the people in this country just so happen to be white, surprise, surprise to the majority of control being also vested in the hands of white people.

    B) Rich has much more to do with it than white does. Before anyone goes into how black folk don’t get the opportunity to be rich, I might remind you that Jews have been equally disadvantaged (not treated, disadvantaged) in the market place yet somehow manage to be associated with lots of money (which bears some truth for the record).

    It just came to me with -- within the past few weeks, you all, why so many folk are hating on Barack Obama. He doesn't fit the model. He ain't white. He ain't rich. And he ain't privileged. Hillary fits the mold.

    Oh look. The race card; it obviously couldn’t be that Obama happens to be more liberal than Hillary could it? It couldn’t be that Hillary has already made a name for herself (which I would contest isn’t a good one, but others may disagree). It certainly couldn’t be that Obama simply has a teenie-weenie political record (in comparison) to judge from and those that love him, do so on the basis of his charisma and nothing else.

    Hillary was not a black boy raised in a single-parent home. Barack was.

    Okay, I admit she wasn’t; then again, Barack barely fits that bill. His mother and biological father separated when he was two. Sometime thereafter, mommy married another man. Starting at age 6 he attended local schools in his adoptive father’s home country (where they moved after mommy remarried).

    Using my fingers, I figure that to be a maximum of four years Barack was without any father figure . . . notably between the ages of 2 and 6—not ages that human memory is operating at its finest.

    Barack knows what it means to be a black man living in a country and a culture that is controlled by rich white people.

    He also knows what it means to live in a country in a middle class home. Not exactly the heart-wrenching odds painted by his pastor.

    Hillary can never know that. Hillary ain't never been called a ni****.

    Nope, she hasn’t. Unfortunately for Rev. Wright, the n-word is the worst epithet to be applied to black people, not white women. Thus, it is quite possible that Hillary has been the victim of epithets equally as demeaning as the n-word that are more appropriate for a white woman (particularly woman). Of course, let’s not permit reality to get in our way shall we?

    Hillary has never had her people defined as a non-persons.


    Nope, she hasn’t. She has had her people defined as racists merely on the basis of . . . [drumroll] . . . her skin color!!


    On the surface, I’d agree that Rev. Wright was indeed accurate to some degree. The implications he was imparting? Absolutely not; he was 100% wrong.

    To what degree? I'd like to know. Racist propaganda or misplaced outrage over what he perceives as racism? There is a difference you know. Did he say "kill all the white folk"?
    I guess if he didn’t say, “kill all the white folk” then there isn’t anything else that may be perceived as racist propaganda—I give up, you win.

    Well, there is the comparisons that presume Hillary was never subjected to racism on the basis that she’s white (as we all know whites can’t possible be subjected to such things).

    Then there’s the whole US government created AIDS to kill blacks nonsense (He would have been more accurate to say that Planned Parenthood was an attempt to kill blacks—at least we have legitimate evidence of that!). I’ll be honest though, the AIDS comment was from a different sermon (I think).



    Well isn't that the christian thing to do? Oh wait, that would be white christians. Black christians don't get to consider a Pastor's body of work when or if they disagree with statements of opinions the black Pastor may have said. Got it.
    As I see it (others may vary), it depends not on the color, but the statements in disagreement. For example, my pastor (and yes we are both white) has several views that I don’t like. However:

    1 – He doesn’t espouse any view that is not directly related to scripture from the pulpit.
    2 – The views we disagree on are hardly comparable to whether or not white government created AIDS to kill blacks and other such wonderful comments.

    Interesting. I think Rev. Wright has been rightfully exposed for making comments that were at the very least misguided. I think Mr. Obama has made several attempts to reject the sentiment of those statements. And I think both have remained in the media because they are black. I'd bet you feel quite differently though.
    I do. They remained in the media for one of two reasons: 1) Sensational news & 2) There was serious concern

    Good for MR/ Hitchens. I don't like the guy myself as I think he is a cynical SOB and sorry excuse of a hack. That aside, I don't embrace Mr. Hitchens' quote and I don't think Romney failed to get the nomination over his faith at all.
    I agree, Romney’s faith isn’t what stopped him from getting the nomination (okay, well maybe some—evangelicals are notorious for looking for the most charismatic evangelical available). That doesn’t diminish the amount of “answers” demanded from him—which are now seemingly off limits to Barack.


    I recall questions about Romney's mormon faith - quite unfairly. But it never reached the level of fear mongering that Obama is going through right now.
    I assert that is a result of something different. Romney actually had a history to look back on, some sort of record. Exactly what does Obama have?

    He rejected what he didn't agree with - isn't that what you wanted?
    I didn’t really want anything from him (I’m not voting democrat for sure). However, his finely tuned response isn’t getting a pass from me either.

    Should he have Rev. Wright hung from a tree? Would that make him white enough for you?
    I’ll give him credit, credit for having the balls to at least stand by his pastor of 20 years. Had he thrown him under the bus, that would have definitely signaled an inability to trust him.

    I simply have to wonder how Barack can sit underneath and be influenced by a person with such views. As the youtube video shows clearly, such principles and ideology are intertwined with the message given. Furthermore, those ideas didn't come about overnight or in just one sermon--he's had them for quite some time. I offer this as evidence:
    No problem should ever be solved twice.

    Verizon Treo650 W/Custom ROM
  5. #105  
    Quote Originally Posted by DL.Cummings View Post

    Ahhh yes . . . move along people, nothing to see here.

    Reminds me of a comment I saw once on Starbucks' The Way I See It:



    Obama's preacher is only an issue because we accept it as one, not because it simply is an issue.



    Here, have an apple . . . and an orange.

    Your analogy isn't even comparable.
    Upon further thought, you know I think you're right. It's an issue because you accept it as one. So I guess it's true what they say, that no one can save you from yourself. I guess that's why we have shows like Intervention to remind us of that fact.

    As for my analogy....just trying to offer alittle context. You can twist it if you want to, but it is comparable.

    I'm sorry, but I'm still trying to understand your comment about Starbucks...Ubuntu etc.? In the context of this thread wouldn't you say that's like comparing apples and a bologna sandwich? hahaha
    Iago

    "Good name in man and woman, dear my lord, Is the immediate jewel of their souls: Who steals my purse steals trash . . . But he that filches from me my good name Robs me of that which not enriches him
    And makes me poor indeed."


    Criminal: A person with predatory instincts who has not sufficient capital to form a corporation.
    - Howard Scott
  6. #106  
    Quote Originally Posted by DL.Cummings View Post
    My understanding (with no readily available sources) is that Haggard’s significance at the White House has been overplayed, while simultaneously having his significance to evangelicalism underplayed—both presumably due in part to his recent scandal.
    Quote Originally Posted by DL.Cummings View Post

    The “sat in at meetings” you claim, as I know it, predominately was sitting in at weekly teleconferences where Bush’s agenda was disseminated to him (not the other way around) and the occasional voice toward various policies (such as steel tariffs).


    He had influence. He was invited to sit in on those meetings. Or was he randomly dialing into a meeting at the White House and managed to get lucky enough to get patched through each week by the switchboard? What good luck for Mr. Haggard.

    To label him a political advisor seems a bit over the edge. I welcome contrary evidence though.


    Since the best you can do is muster a "...My understanding (with no readily available sources)" I think I'll leave it at that. That's your understanding, and I have mine - Haggard was invited to sit in those regularily held meetings.

    1: Who cares about what a poor black man has to face every day in a country and `a culture controlled by rich white peoples.

    My problem? Okay, it is likely that speaking on the surface that America is indeed controlled by rich, white people.


    Yup.

    The implication however, is that such is the case because they are white—as if racism plays the predominate role in this. As I see it, it doesn’t.

    A) The majority of the people in this country just so happen to be white, surprise, surprise to the majority of control being also vested in the hands of white people.

    B) Rich has much more to do with it than white does. Before anyone goes into how black folk don’t get the opportunity to be rich, I might remind you that Jews have been equally disadvantaged (not treated, disadvantaged) in the market place yet somehow manage to be associated with lots of money (which bears some truth for the record).


    Well the "implication" seems to be the part that you allow yourself to make this more than it has to be. So speaking if implications....you're implying to me that you're incapable of seeing this any other way....hence my view that you may have some prejudices. At the very least you seem willing to go to any and all lengths to support your apparent political ideology (which isn't too tough to figure out...since you said there is no way you're voting Dem).

    It just came to me with -- within the past few weeks, you all, why so many folk are hating on Barack Obama. He doesn't fit the model. He ain't white. He ain't rich. And he ain't privileged. Hillary fits the mold.

    Oh look. The race card;


    The race card? Are you friggin' kidding me? Did Obama play this card and I missed it? Because I've seen the man trying very hard not to let race enter into the process. You and Ben seem to willing to take the words of his Pastor - words he has outright rejected multiple times - and make them Obama's.

    Out of curiousity, what did you call it when Falwell said 911 happened because of homosexuality? What about his and other evangelicals who made Kerry out to be the devil incarnate? Honestly, the right-wing sure likes to have it both ways when it comes to religion and politics, don't they? Controversial religous leaders are just fine as long as they line up behind their right-wing leadership....all in which are mostly white by the way.

    it obviously couldn’t be that Obama happens to be more liberal than Hillary could it? It couldn’t be that Hillary has already made a name for herself (which I would contest isn’t a good one, but others may disagree). It certainly couldn’t be that Obama simply has a teenie-weenie political record (in comparison) to judge from and those that love him, do so on the basis of his charisma and nothing else.


    So what? This is the opinion of Rev. Wright. So the heck what? It is NOT the opinion of Obama (although the right-wing and media seem hell bent on making sure race IS an issue in this race) and he has made that very clear.

    Hillary was not a black boy raised in a single-parent home. Barack was.

    Okay, I admit she wasn’t; then again, Barack barely fits that bill. His mother and biological father separated when he was two. Sometime thereafter, mommy married another man. Starting at age 6 he attended local schools in his adoptive father’s home country (where they moved after mommy remarried).


    Oh wait...now he isn't black enough for you? Is that the "implication?" Wow. Do you hear yourself? Who the heck cares? Should his mommy and daddy have a long family history in all things oil? Would that make it better for you?

    Using my fingers, I figure that to be a maximum of four years Barack was without any father figure . . . notably between the ages of 2 and 6—not ages that human memory is operating at its finest.


    Again, who cares?

    Barack knows what it means to be a black man living in a country and a culture that is controlled by rich white people.

    He also knows what it means to live in a country in a middle class home. Not exactly the heart-wrenching odds painted by his pastor.


    Umm....okay. Here again, these are not Obama's words, the are Rev. Wrights. So why are you talking about it again?

    Hillary can never know that. Hillary ain't never been called a ni****.

    Nope, she hasn’t. Unfortunately for Rev. Wright, the n-word is the worst epithet to be applied to black people, not white women. Thus, it is quite possible that Hillary has been the victim of epithets equally as demeaning as the n-word that are more appropriate for a white woman (particularly woman). Of course, let’s not permit reality to get in our way shall we?


    The reality is that YOU certainly have no idea whether Obama has ever been called the "n" word. The "implication" being that you're assuming because he grew up middle-class that he never was called the "n" word. Got it. Extraordinarily insightful of you and not at all presumptive.

    And once again....so what? Obama said none of this. So what is your point again?

    Hillary has never had her people defined as a non-persons.

    Nope, she hasn’t. She has had her people defined as racists merely on the basis of . . . [drumroll] . . . her skin color!!

    On the surface, I’d agree that Rev. Wright was indeed accurate to some degree. The implications he was imparting? Absolutely not; he was 100% wrong.


    Umm...okay. Of course, that would mean you've interpreted the "implications" correctly and I maintain that your interpretation is colored by your apparent skewed vantage point (read: heavily leaning to the right)

    Then there’s the whole US government created AIDS to kill blacks nonsense (He would have been more accurate to say that Planned Parenthood was an attempt to kill blacks—at least we have legitimate evidence of that!). I’ll be honest though, the AIDS comment was from a different sermon (I think).


    Crazy stuff to be sure. I’ve never heard any evangelicals say anything crazy at all so this is pretty damning stuff to be sure.


    As I see it (others may vary), it depends not on the color, but the statements in disagreement. For example, my pastor (and yes we are both white) has several views that I don’t like. However:

    1 – He doesn’t espouse any view that is not directly related to scripture from the pulpit.
    2 – The views we disagree on are hardly comparable to whether or not white government created AIDS to kill blacks and other such wonderful comments.


    Interesting. I’m white and Catholic and my view on priests banging altar boys doesn’t sit well with me at all. So am I a closet pedophile if I still go to my church? Or is it okay that I look beyond it and see the overall good that the Church does rather than focus on the areas in which we disagree (in this case, vehemently)?


    I agree, Romney’s faith isn’t what stopped him from getting the nomination (okay, well maybe some—evangelicals are notorious for looking for the most charismatic evangelical available). That doesn’t diminish the amount of “answers” demanded from him—which are now seemingly off limits to Barack.


    We definitely are seeing things differently here. Romney got a pass as far as I’m concerned. The media bent over backwards talking about his Mormon faith, but practically run full adverts about Mormonism on the Today Show, Good Morning America, etc. to explain his faith to the masses. Too bad the media can’t bother to put Obama’s faith in context rather than distorting it to make it seem like he is a member of the Black Panthers. What a joke.


    I assert that is a result of something different. Romney actually had a history to look back on, some sort of record. Exactly what does Obama have?


    Well he certainly hasn’t put any companies into the ground like Bush has – a clear indicator that he was sure to be a financial disaster to this nation – and he is/was. Obama also seems to have managed his campaign in a more fiscally responsible manner than the remaining nominees (each in which nearly went t#ts up)….and better than Romney’s for that matter.

    I didn’t really want anything from him (I’m not voting democrat for sure). However, his finely tuned response isn’t getting a pass from me either.


    Well we can see quite plainly who and what you are. Let’s hope you can get back to playing nicely as you were doing so very well up here of late. I guess it was only a matter of time before your buttons were pushed….as were mine.

    I’ll give him credit, credit for having the balls to at least stand by his pastor of 20 years. Had he thrown him under the bus, that would have definitely signaled an inability to trust him.


    I’m sure Ben and you would be up here complaining about that too. You don’t like him because he is a Democrat. Period. The fact that he is black and comes from a place you cannot wrap your white minds around doesn’t help matters and neither of you seem willing to take a step back and look at this more rationally. Instead, you’d rather make this non-issue an issue because you finally see a crack in his otherwise nearly-perfect campaign.
  7. #107  
    So speaking if implications....you're implying to me that you're incapable of seeing this any other way....hence my view that you may have some prejudices. At the very least you seem willing to go to any and all lengths to support you're apparent political ideology (which isn't too tough to figure out...since you said there is no way you're voting Dem).


    No; you just believe what you choose to believe—regardless of factual evidence. Note, I only said I wouldn’t be voting Democrat, not that I never would.

    Yes, I do have prejudices—though not racial ones. A prejudice being a preconceived notion, I am predjudiced to believe that the words from Obama’s pastor inevitably are damaging to black people (as a whole)—something I am vehement about. This causes me concern when the potential next President of the US knowingly sat under such teaching.

    You and Ben seem to willing to take the words of his Pastor - words he has outright rejected multiple times - and make them Obama's.


    Absolutely not. I acknowledge fully those words were the words of his pastor, not Obama.

    Out of curiousity, what did you call it when Falwell said 911 happened because of homosexuality?


    One of the more dumb things I’ve ever heard. For the record, that is quite the cherry-picking of the original quote—reminiscent of about 20% of the actual quote (which you didn’t even relay accurately).

    What about his and other evangelicals who made Kerry out to be the devil incarnate?


    This really depends on the specific quotes—some I agreed with, some amounted to more eye-rolling on my part.

    It is NOT the opinion of Obama (although the right-wing and media seem hell bent on making sure race IS an issue in this race) and he has made that very clear.


    I stand by my concerns over a man (black or white) who sits under a religious leader spewing rhetoric that I believe to be damaging to people's potential.

    Oh wait...now he isn't black enough for you? Is that the "implication?" Wow. Do you hear yourself? Who the heck cares? Should his mommy and daddy have a long family history in all things oil? Would that make it better for you?



    Since his childhood was brought up, particularly in the sense of why people aren’t favorable to him politically, we might as well have some clarity on the issue.

    Black enough? Try reading that again and come back to this one.

    Umm....okay. Here again, these are not Obama's words, the are Rev. Wrights. So why are you talking about it again?


    Ohhh, I don’t know. Maybe because Obama’s preacher felt it acceptable to paint a picture of racial negativity regarding the disfavorable attitudes of Obama.

    Let me stop here and see if I can clarify for you as you seem to be missing it. My problem rests only with the words of Wright. HE chose to compare Barack to Hillary. HE chose to spread the message that people are voting for Hillary because she is “rich” and “white” and “privileged.” That message does more than simply divide, it reduces the success of black persons who in turn fail to achieve great heights because they simply accept that their black and that’s the way it is. I’ve seen it time and time again. Furthermore, this isn’t limited to one sermon (so we aren’t speaking toward an anomoly here). Rev. Wright preached the same message over and over and over. It is quite legitimate for me to seriously question how Obama sat under such teaching and it not effect him, no?

    Let me relay an actual example of my anger here:

    Years ago I worked at Rent-A-Center. I had a co-worker who just so happened to be black. Him and I were discussing our future and what we planned on doing one day during lunch. He mentioned wanting to go to college and get a degree, but lacking money. I suggested potentially joining the military like I had done and receiving the training in a particular field. I’ll never forget his words:

    “There is no place in the Army for a black man.”

    I was stunned. Aside from Colonel Powell being the head of the Army at the time, he limited his options in life. I had to wonder how many other options he took off the table merely because he was black and allegedly didn’t belong (NOTE: The last YouTube video displays this very same attitude at the end of the video when interviewing people).

    The reality is that YOU certainly have no idea whether Obama has ever been called the "n" word. The "implication" being that you're assuming because he grew up middle-class that he never was called the "n" word. Got it. Extraordinarily insightful of you and not at all presumptive.


    Actually it matters not whether Obama has been called, well, anything. And no, your implication is once again made up. I’m sure he has at some point. Also (and actually the point that flew over your head), it is just as likely that Hillary has been called an equally demeaning epithet—just one that would actually be applicable to her (such as bi***, sl**, wh***, dyk* and any host of other derogatory remarks that one may fling at a white woman).

    It’s really a sad day in life when one can’t understand that while a black man may have to deal with derogatory epithets, so might a rich, white person.

    Well we can see quite plainly who and what you are. Let’s hope you can get back to playing nicely as you were doing so very well up here of late. I guess it was only a matter of time before your buttons were pushed….as were mine.



    Yep, they were pushed. When I hear ideology that suppresses people’s potential I get upset. Then I want to know how a man can sit under such ideology—as to me that is a BIG deal.

    BTW, I’m not trying to play poorly in the sandbox. I really am that emphatic about people’s potential and do get that angry when I see rhetoric that effectively reduces that same potential.

    You don’t like him because he is a Democrat. Period.


    Actually, my problem with Obama isn’t his party affiliation—it’s his platform (which happens to be more liberal than Hillary’s BTW) that bothers me.

    For the record, I am neither Democrat or Republican. I may typically vote Repub, but that is only because of the available candidates that is typically who is closest to my views.

    Additionally, I believe I mentioned in another thread that this upcoming election will force me to vote against someone and not for someone—something I am not happy about.

    The fact that he is black and comes from a place you cannot wrap your white minds around doesn’t help matters and neither of you seem willing to take a step back and look at this more rationally.


    Black has nothing to do with it. The probability of me voting Condoleeza or Powell are high (again, not because they are black) depending on who was running against them.

    You’d be surprised what I can wrap my mind around—then again assumptions reign as it appears.
    No problem should ever be solved twice.

    Verizon Treo650 W/Custom ROM
  8. #108  
    Quote Originally Posted by DL.Cummings View Post
    Absolutely not. I acknowledge fully those words were the words of his pastor, not Obama.
    Good. So why are we talking about this then? Oh yea…it makes for a great diversion from more important issues.

    One of the more dumb things I’ve ever heard. For the record, that is quite the cherry-picking of the original quote—reminiscent of about 20% of the actual quote (which you didn’t even relay accurately).
    Infuriating isn't it? I hate when people skew a discussion with rhetoric to support their ideology. It’s particularly maddening when there is NO discussion, rather ONLY rhetoric. Unless your objective is to change the subject and/or sensationalize a story to distract from broader and more meaningful discourse. But we all know the politicians would never do anything like that.

    This really depends on the specific quotes—some I agreed with, some amounted to more eye-rolling on my part.
    Sort of like the eye-rolling I'm doing right now over this non-issue.

    I stand by my concerns over a man (black or white) who sits under a religious leader spewing rhetoric that I believe to be damaging to people's potential.
    I stand by my concerns that your concerns about rhetoric being spread to a particular group of people that could be damaging to their potential are limited to this black Pastor.

    Sits under? That implies Obama was some sort of minion at Rev. Wright's beckon call. Has it occurred to you that Obama is his own man capable of sorting through the good and bad that his Pastor and church bring to the table? Are you questioning his judgment over a Pastor? Really? Have you any evidence that Obama's alleged zombie-like following of his Pastor has manifested itself into misdeeds? Or are you saying that your "concerns" over Obama - who sits "under" his Pastor - are based solely on a collection of 30 minutes or less of rhetoric mixed in with thousands of hours of otherwise decent and uplifting religious commentary?

    Ohhh, I don’t know. Maybe because Obama’s preacher felt it acceptable to paint a picture of racial negativity regarding the disfavorable attitudes of Obama.
    I'm sorry. I just don't seem to care what his Pastor thinks. In fact, I respect his opinion even though I don't agree with them. That said, you're still on about this whole thing as though Wright is the next coming of the anti-Christ.

    Look, it's your opinion. But I'm sorry to say it is not particularly well thought out simply because there isn’t much there to think about. I'd rather you just say you don't like Obama than this spinning over such a non-issue. Is he more liberal than Hillary? His voting record sure is so I can understand your concerns with him in this regard far more so than this silly Pastor stuff.

    Let me stop here and see if I can clarify for you as you seem to be missing it. My problem rests only with the words of Wright. HE chose to compare Barack to Hillary. HE chose to spread the message that people are voting for Hillary because she is “rich” and “white” and “privileged.”
    Who cares? Seriously. Isn't this just as eye-rolling to you as the evangelicals that claimed that Christians were being persecuted back when Bush ran? Do you not remember all of that horse hockey? Because I sure do.

    That message does more than simply divide, it reduces the success of black persons who in turn fail to achieve great heights because they simply accept that their black and that’s the way it is. I’ve seen it time and time again. Furthermore, this isn’t limited to one sermon (so we aren’t speaking toward an anomoly here). Rev. Wright preached the same message over and over and over. It is quite legitimate for me to seriously question how Obama sat under such teaching and it not effect him, no?
    No it's not - because he rejected those teachings and he has done nothing to embrace or act on those teachings other than attend the Church. Now if he went to the Senate floor and screamed about whitey this and whitey that, I'd be concerned. However, he has done no such thing – never has, and I safely predict never will. But if I’m to believe the “implications” of Sean Hannity or Ben up here, I should be bracing myself for Secret Service Agents to be replaced by Black Panthers and African-Americans to be permanently placed on welfare, on white folk’s dime of course, should Obama win the White House. What a load of misplaced paranoia that is….or what a load of latent racism hidden beneath questions about Obama’s “judgment” because of his Pastor’s words.

    Let me relay an actual example of my anger here:

    Years ago I worked at Rent-A-Center. I had a co-worker who just so happened to be black. Him and I were discussing our future and what we planned on doing one day during lunch. He mentioned wanting to go to college and get a degree, but lacking money. I suggested potentially joining the military like I had done and receiving the training in a particular field. I’ll never forget his words:

    “There is no place in the Army for a black man.”

    I was stunned. Aside from Colonel Powell being the head of the Army at the time, he limited his options in life. I had to wonder how many other options he took off the table merely because he was black and allegedly didn’t belong (NOTE: The last YouTube video displays this very same attitude at the end of the video when interviewing people).

    Yup. There are plenty of falsehoods perpetuated by both blacks and whites. I seen it myself in the military. And by the way, I worked 40 hours a week and carried an 18 credit hour load until I graduated…so I know all about lifting oneself up from the bootstraps and understand the frustration you are feeling. But I’ve learned it isn’t limited to African Americans and more generational IMO (read: kids these days). I just chalk it all up to two sides of an issue not bothering to understand one another. It seems you see largely one side if this whole thing. And Obama, being both black and white, sees both better than either of us.

    Actually it matters not whether Obama has been called, well, anything. And no, your implication is once again made up. I’m sure he has at some point. Also (and actually the point that flew over your head), it is just as likely that Hillary has been called an equally demeaning epithet—just one that would actually be applicable to her (such as bi***, sl**, wh***, dyk* and any host of other derogatory remarks that one may fling at a white woman).

    It’s really a sad day in life when one can’t understand that while a black man may have to deal with derogatory epithets, so might a rich, white person.
    I don’t doubt that HRC has heard plenty. Some fairly. Most unfairly and because she is a she. But again, these are not the views held by Obama so I don’t understand why I should care. If Rev. Wright thinks she got as far as she did because she is a woman than he is dead wrong. She may not get elected because she is a woman. I think I’m on record as stating that neither Obama or Clinton can win the White House.


    Yep, they were pushed. When I hear ideology that suppresses people’s potential I get upset. Then I want to know how a man can sit under such ideology—as to me that is a BIG deal.

    BTW, I’m not trying to play poorly in the sandbox. I really am that emphatic about people’s potential and do get that angry when I see rhetoric that effectively reduces that same potential.
    Well we’ve been swimming in rhetoric that has reduced our civil liberties for 7+ years so I can relate to that to some degree….although my sandbox involves 300MM people instead of a minority group within it. And the rhetoric that concerns me came from religious zealots and high-ranking politicians (largely Republican) that cater to those religious zealots. But as usual, nobody seems to care about that – instead let’s spend hundreds of hours talking about Obama’s Pastor. You know…because that is clearly the only rhetoric we need to worry about in this country.

    Actually, my problem with Obama isn’t his party affiliation—it’s his platform (which happens to be more liberal than Hillary’s BTW) that bothers me.
    Finally! Great. Then let’s move on now that we’ve established the source of a something worth worrying about. I agree, his record is quite liberal.
    Last edited by moderateinny; 03/23/2008 at 07:52 AM.
  9. #109  
    I'm going to attempt to shorten our discourse here as my ADD is starting to kick in . . . (Seriously, I'm not joking.)

    Quote Originally Posted by moderateinny View Post
    Good. So why are we talking about this then? Oh yea…it makes for a great diversion from more important issues.
    Quote Originally Posted by moderateinny View Post


    Finally! Great. Then let’s move on now that we’ve established the source of a something worth worrying about. I agree, his record is quite liberal.
    My reasons for talking about it may or may not line up with others who are speaking of this. For me, it's a matter of determining who Obama is--not for me, but for those who see him as the next "Jesus" per se.

    I agree, his record is more important . . . to me--in determining who to actually vote for. For others, what appears to be important isn't his record so much, but who he is as a person. People are fawning over a man that I say not only is about as socialist as one gets, but also views people in a manner that most would not agree with (I'm assuming "most" here).

    I realize this puts me on a very thin sheet of ice in terms of becoming a character assassin (which I don't want to be).

    Additionally, I realize that sitting in church doesn't tell the whole story of a person (as they may be simply garnering "brownie points" or what not). HOWEVER, in this case I believe it goes hand-in-hand with his very liberal track record. As I see it, the thoughts emanating from his pastor indeed are the thoughts very often seen in liberals and the driving force behind the reason they may favor certain policies.

    Despite his public denouncement, I am dubious to what he truly believes.
    No problem should ever be solved twice.

    Verizon Treo650 W/Custom ROM
  10.    #110  
    Barye. If things goes totally south for the Dems due to being forced to a Super delegate showdown, I can see your claim becoming a major issue. I am truly interested if you have an sources BEFORE the DNC stripped the delegates that the Dems did not want to move the date and that the GOP was strong arming them.

    So far I have listed several sources that seem to point to the opposite scenario. The Sun Sentinel shows the GOP was in danger of losing their delegates as well, which they were stripped of half of their 114 delegates because the State moved their primary date. CNN reports that Crist stood up and asked that the DNC count the Dem primary. CNN reports that head of the Florida Dem Party totally supported the move date, did not mind having it included in the bill, and did not mind voting for it. The Chicago Tribune also supports that the Dems went along with the primary date change and only complained AFTER the DNC held them accountable.

    I am sincerely interested in establishing the truth of this before it becomes a crutch for the Dem party of shifting blame for something they totally supported at the time. I would not put it past the GOP to do this, but everything I see points to the exact opposite of your claims. Do you have any documentation from BEFORE the DNC stripped the delegates that the Florida Dem Party was against the primary move and was forced to vote for it by a GOP conspiracy?


    Quote Originally Posted by HobbesIsReal View Post
    Barye, you keep on making accusations with no foundation or sourcing to support it beyond the convenience of what you would like to believe.....That the Florida Dems are helpless and victims by the Evil Florida GOP.

    Again what documentation do you at the time this originally happened to support your GOP conspiracy theory? It is just that everything that I am seeing on CNN now is saying that the DEMs wanted to move the date as well. They supported it. They did not mind voting for it. They did not complain about the GOP forcing them to vote for it....at least not until they time came they had to be accountable for their decisions.

    They have to take accountability as well. Barye, is there any documentation that you can show at the time this was actually happening that shows that the GOP strong armed the Dems against their will with moving date? Because it appears from what I have seen so far that they were upset about moving the date only after they got punished by their own party for doing it.

    Here what I see (with providing documentation for my views) of what really happened and is the reality of what is happening now:

    According to CNN Crist is apparently sticking up for the Dems in his state:


    Going contrary to your GOP did this with the sole intention of a move against the Dems.....you seem to have very conveniently failed to have mentioned that glaring fact that the Reps were in just as much danger of having all of their delegates ignored as well as the GOP also punished the Rep voters in Florida for moving the date by ultimately refusing half of their delegates to be counted:


    This Chicago Tribune article is exactly what I have been talking about and expresses many of the reports seen on CNN:



    Barye....Again, in light all the reports being contrary to what you are trying to claim, that the GOP with a conspiracy against the helpless and victimized Florida Dem Party....what documentation do you have that was published prior to the DNC's stripping of them of the delegates that the Dem Party Leaders were being strong armed by the GOP who were putting themselves at the same risk you are accusing of forcing the Dems into.
    Last edited by HobbesIsReal; 03/24/2008 at 12:49 PM.
  11. #111  
    Quote Originally Posted by DL.Cummings View Post
    I'm going to attempt to shorten our discourse here as my ADD is starting to kick in . . . (Seriously, I'm not joking.)



    My reasons for talking about it may or may not line up with others who are speaking of this. For me, it's a matter of determining who Obama is--not for me, but for those who see him as the next "Jesus" per se.

    I agree, his record is more important . . . to me--in determining who to actually vote for. For others, what appears to be important isn't his record so much, but who he is as a person. People are fawning over a man that I say not only is about as socialist as one gets, but also views people in a manner that most would not agree with (I'm assuming "most" here).
    So you think that most people think that obama is the next jesus? Maybe that is where you are going wrong.

    I realize this puts me on a very thin sheet of ice in terms of becoming a character assassin (which I don't want to be).
    Then don't... not bright to walk across thin ice wearing shorts and having thin skin. If you step out there, be prepared for a cold swim.... but if it is something you believe in, do it. Make sense on the reasons you are stepping out there.


    Additionally, I realize that sitting in church doesn't tell the whole story of a person (as they may be simply garnering "brownie points" or what not). HOWEVER, in this case I believe it goes hand-in-hand with his very liberal track record. As I see it, the thoughts emanating from his pastor indeed are the thoughts very often seen in liberals and the driving force behind the reason they may favor certain policies.

    Despite his public denouncement, I am dubious to what he truly believes.
    Of course... it is about trust... you don't trust him and your posts show. No one can change your mind.... I don't see how one can hold obama accountable for videos his pastor made. I guess if some videos of your pastor showed up, we should all automatically hold you accountable. After all, if you go to the church, you should know all that goes on in that church.

    I laugh when people talk about preachers and pastors... I know a couple of them and hang out with one... and have socialized with my fair share over the years.... one thing I know, they are people.... very flawed in most instances (no more or less than all other people I know... no one is perfect).

    It boils down to trust... obama says he knew of some remarks but not the remarks in the videos. Same as I mentioned earlier, do you believe any of these people? My guess is that all politicians lie about things that can hurt them politically unless they have no choice but to tell the truth.

    Do I believe obama when he says he did not know of the videos... do I believe mccain when he says he did not have an affair or take corporate money for favors.

    In all instances I was not there... stuff is being reported by god knows who.... Of course, if we have other reasons for not liking someone, it is easy to guess there might be a larger conspiracy looming in the background. Who knows... maybe or maybe not. Who knows.
    01000010 01100001 01101110 00100000 01010100 01101000 01110010 01100101 01100001 01100100 00100000 01000011 01110010 01100001 01110000 01110000 01100101 01110010 01110011 00100001
  12. #112  
    next jesus? Maybe that is where you are going wrong.


    Not quite, hyperbole on my part.

    Then don't... not bright to walk across thin ice wearing shorts and having thin skin. If you step out there, be prepared for a cold swim.... but if it is something you believe in, do it. Make sense on the reasons you are stepping out there.


    Maybe I miss-stated, my goal isn't to assassinate a man's character as much as expose it (which I see as two different things--though some may disagree).

    As I see it, assassins kill for the purpose of killing with no regard to the truth of the matter. One who exposes does so on the basis of what is the truth of the matter.

    Of course... it is about trust... you don't trust him and your posts show. No one can change your mind.... I don't see how one can hold obama accountable for videos his pastor made. I guess if some videos of your pastor showed up, we should all automatically hold you accountable. After all, if you go to the church, you should know all that goes on in that church.


    This is the problem, I--along with many others--are not holding Obama accountable for the words of Rev. Wright. We are holding Obama accountable for his continuing participation at a church that blatantly disseminated mistruth and racial divisiveness.

    Should my pastor start disseminating ideology like Wright did, even as much as I like him personally, I could not continue to support such a ministry that effects countless people. I would understand not completely disassociating one's self with such a person (which is why I am at least relieved that he didn't through Wright under the bus), but I don't get the continuing to support such work/ideology.
    Last edited by DL.Cummings; 03/24/2008 at 01:10 PM. Reason: formatting correction
    No problem should ever be solved twice.

    Verizon Treo650 W/Custom ROM
  13. #113  
    Quote Originally Posted by HobbesIsReal View Post
    Barye. If things goes totally south for the Dems due to being forced to a Super delegate showdown, I can see your claim becoming a major issue. I am truly interested if you have an sources BEFORE the DNC stripped the delegates that the Dems did not want to move the date and that the GOP was strong arming them...
    the only quote that I can easily cite is that one I used previously from Congresswoman Debbie Wasserman-Schultz -- where she described a GOP legistlative deal (compromise) where the gop got what it most wanted (an early primary) and the dems got improved protections for securing ballots.

    Perhaps some of both sides wanted both -- it didn't seem from the point of view of Florida politicians that it was that controversial.

    Both national parties warned Florida voiciferiously to not do it.

    I blame the cubans.

    They've imported latin american "politics" like an alien insect. Ever since they came our democracy has been corrupted. How soon are they going back ??
    Last edited by BARYE; 03/24/2008 at 04:03 PM.
    755P Sprint SERO (upgraded from unlocked GSM 650 on T-Mobile)
  14. #114  
    Quote Originally Posted by DL.Cummings View Post
    Should my pastor start disseminating ideology like Wright did, even as much as I like him personally, I could not continue to support such a ministry that effects countless people. I would understand not completely disassociating one's self with such a person (which is why I am at least relieved that he didn't through Wright under the bus), but I don't get the continuing to support such work/ideology.
    [QUOTE]that is the problem... he said (as I've stated and you ignored) that obama said he did not know of the videos or the language used in the videos. when he did find out, it was already a done deal that the pastor was stepping down.

    What you are saying is that you don't believe what obama says. Period, end of discussion. You should just say that and be done with it. That way we don't have to discuss it anymore. lol

    I don't understand your argument... you want to "make up" some story about you and your preacher, but not understand that things don't happen like that... life is not like that.

    You paint obama as heavily influenced by this man... I don't see that either. Obviously, obama is not out spewing remarks such as the x-pastor... how do you make the connection. Oh, right, his voting record. Ok.

    I found the last sentence of your post disingenuous.

    Maybe I miss-stated, my goal isn't to assassinate a man's character as much as expose it (which I see as two different things--though some may disagree).

    As I see it, assassins kill for the purpose of killing with no regard to the truth of the matter. One who exposes does so on the basis of what is the truth of the matter.
    Yea, I don't think we are having a discussion.... you are out to "expose" someone instead of having a discussion.

    Seems like a waste of time to keep responding to your posts. Good luck to you....
    01000010 01100001 01101110 00100000 01010100 01101000 01110010 01100101 01100001 01100100 00100000 01000011 01110010 01100001 01110000 01110000 01100101 01110010 01110011 00100001
  15. #115  
    Quote Originally Posted by theog View Post
    I don't understand your argument... you want to "make up" some story about you and your preacher, but not understand that things don't happen like that... life is not like that.
    Really? People leave churches all the time when they disagree with something said from the pulpit--life is like that.

    You paint obama as heavily influenced by this man
    No I don't; I clearly state (Post #94) the influence is "to some degree."

    I found the last sentence of your post disingenuous.
    Supporting one and supporting their work are indeed different and worth delineating.

    Yea, I don't think we are having a discussion.... you are out to "expose" someone instead of having a discussion.
    Either you choose to not see it, or you fail to do so; the entire bit of discourse here was related to whether or not one should discuss Obama in the same context of the statements made by his former minister, Yes? I've simply stated my purpose in even considering this an issue; since it was brought up . . . although I suppose that wasn't part of the decorum around these parts.
    No problem should ever be solved twice.

    Verizon Treo650 W/Custom ROM
  16. #116  
    Quote Originally Posted by DL.Cummings View Post
    Really? People leave churches all the time when they disagree with something said from the pulpit--life is like that.
    Now you know that's not entirely true. Some sheeple will choose not to leave.

  17. #117  
    While being stuck in DFW aiport last night due to an 'engine guage' malfunction, I watched Larry King's interview with Obama. I thought he handled himself well. Despite not liking the hype surrounding him, I have to say he's still the only person whose personality seems to be an asset in the race. I wouldn't vote for Hillary if Satan was her opponent, and the only way I'd vote for McCain is if he was running against Hillary. Obama vs. McCain is the only way I'd consider voting Democrat instead of my typical 'vote wasting'.
    ‎"Is that suck and salvage the Kevin Costner method?" - Chris Matthews on Hardball, July 6, 2010. Wonder if he's talking about his oil device or his movie career...
  18. #118  
    Quote Originally Posted by DL.Cummings View Post
    Really? People leave churches all the time when they disagree with something said from the pulpit--life is like that.
    In your rush to expose obama, you do not understand (maybe misreport?) the the reason why he did not leave. You explain life like there can be NO mitigating circumstances... NO life is not like that.






    I've simply stated my purpose in even considering this an issue; since it was brought up . . . although I suppose that wasn't part of the decorum around these parts.
    I don't even care for obama like that... but baseless attacks are just that... baseless... and don't move discussion forward. People end up taking up pages attempting to explain their reasoning, then they all agree to disagree at the end. Waste of time. In a discussion you agree to disagree much sooner and move to something else. lol
    01000010 01100001 01101110 00100000 01010100 01101000 01110010 01100101 01100001 01100100 00100000 01000011 01110010 01100001 01110000 01110000 01100101 01110010 01110011 00100001
  19. #119  
    Quote Originally Posted by sblanter View Post
    Now you know that's not entirely true. Some sheeple will choose not to leave.

    I stand corrected ; I see where it reads a bit differently than I intended. I meant to state the event was a regularly occuring one, not that in such instances it always happens.

    Cheers.
    No problem should ever be solved twice.

    Verizon Treo650 W/Custom ROM
  20. #120  
    I watched the videos of this... her talking about it and then the event. Have to say I'm fairly surprised... I had to do some work and could not research, but I'm hoping the event she described happened someplace else... if not, I'd say she straight up lied.

    Clinton: I Made a Rare Error When I ‘Misspoke’ About Bosnia Sniper Threat

    Saying she made a rare error, Hillary Clinton repeated Tuesday that she “misspoke” when she suggested she landed under sniper fire during a goodwill trip to Bosnia in March 1996.
    http://elections.foxnews.com/2008/03...sniper-threat/
    01000010 01100001 01101110 00100000 01010100 01101000 01110010 01100101 01100001 01100100 00100000 01000011 01110010 01100001 01110000 01110000 01100101 01110010 01110011 00100001
Page 6 of 15 FirstFirst 1234567891011 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions