You are currently viewing our boards as a guest which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our free community you will have access to post topics, communicate privately with other members (PM), respond to polls, upload content and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free so please, join our community today!
If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact contact us.
Go to Page...
Thank you for crosschecking our sponsors!
About This Page: This is a discussion on Politics within the LetsGoKings.com forums, at Los Angeles Kings Hockey Fan Forum. Originally Posted by Leonidas
And what's he accused of? Having a sometimes wacky angry black minister who must believe the same things Obama believes. If there is no allowable defense
And what's he accused of? Having a sometimes wacky angry black minister who must believe the same things Obama believes. If there is no allowable defense then this thing is indeed about race and scary, unpredictable, "too black" black people.
No, he's accused of supporting a wacko that hates America. He didn't have to continue attending his church for 20+ years. There are many churches in the Chicago area (no OddMansGush, I'm not going to provide a link). He didn't have to support Wright until he came under fire for doing so. He didn't have to refer to Wright as his "spritiual mentor". He didn't have to honor Wright by having him baptize his children. He didn't have to have Wright perform his wedding ceremony. These are the things of which he is being accused. When you factor in that Ol' Shelly stated that she's never been proud [read: always been ashamed] of America, it provides insight into the CHARACTER of these individuals.
In short, there is no allowable defense because he cannot rewrite history.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Leonidas
If there is no allowable defense then this thing is indeed about race and scary, unpredictable, "too black" black people.
This is just nonsense. Why not because he's male, or has brown eyes, or prefers his egg yolks runny? The two are totally unrelated. Quite frankly, this argument is well beneath your abilities, which leads me to believe that you're grasping at straws.
I'm starting to think you fully understand my point about Obama, and agree. However, you cannot publicly admit so, because you condone his radical views. I wonder if your hatred for the Republican party runs so deep that you'd prefer anybody to McCain, or any other Republican nominee.
Prove your maturity by providing evidence for your wild assertions and refraining from throwing the internet equivalent of a tantrum when your argument is shot to hell.
And try not to ball up your fists, stomp your feet, and shout WRONG WRONG WRONG like an adolescent.
__________________ "If I could lead you into the Promised Land, I would not do it, because someone else would come along and lead you out."
Actually salami, I think my arguments on these questions have been logical and compelling to people who are trying to analyze the situation carefully. I think those who detest Obama, for whatever reason, are loathe to give up this line of attack and talk about specific policy proposals because they know they'll take a beating if they do.
If every Republican presidential campaign from 1988 to the present hadn't been run on a strategy of character assassination and negative campaigning designed to excite the emotions of voters rather than appeal to their reason I might be more generous here, but it is what it is. Any lie that will make the voter operate out of emotion and fear will be exploited because emotion drives action more powerfully than reason among voters who are marginally informed or intentionally misinformed. Psych 101. First commandment of Rovian political strategy.
There is NOT ONE FRAGMENT of evidence that Obama's PASTORAL relationship with Wright (weddings, baptism, spiritual guidance, church attendance), has determined any of Obama's political, social and economic views. THERE IS NO EVIDENCE WHATSOEVER THAT OBABA CAN REASONABLY BE DESCRIBED AS RADICAL on any policy position when you look at his speeches and actions as a legislator. NONE. Find some if you think differently and we'll discuss it. There is NO EVIDENCE at all that Barak Obama is any kind of racist...(unless you think he was too hard on "absent" black fathers in the Father's Day sermon he recently gave. I don't.)
A campaign based on waving around Rev. Wright is a campaign based on encouraging racial resentment and fear. Plain and simple. It's designed to distract from real policy issues. A campaign based on screaming about Michelle Obama's "proud of America" remarks is also about distraction. It's not about "character."
Have you seen Laura Bush's comments on MO's statements and what they mean? Have you seen McCain's "it can be tough to be proud" remarks? It is incontestable that the true meaning of MO's comments is that she IS proud of America and wants to see it get better.
I started this thread because I think if the hate and fear campaign against MO continues it will end up making the fearmongers look really bad and hurt McCain in the election. As a PRACTICAL consideration not one poster has yet argued convincingly that I'm wrong.
__________________
"For if once a man indulges himself in murder, very soon he comes to think little of robbing; and from robbing he comes next to drinking and Sabbath-breaking, and from that to incivility and procrastination." Thomas DeQuincey, 1700's
Last edited by Leonidas; June 16th, 2008 at 10:42 AM.
Prove your maturity by providing evidence for your wild assertions and refraining from throwing the internet equivalent of a tantrum when your argument is shot to hell.
And try not to ball up your fists, stomp your feet, and shout WRONG WRONG WRONG like an adolescent.
Seriously, if you've missed this, you're far too out of touch with reality to even be involved in this conversation. In addition, you're clearly not very bright. If you had any common sense, you would know to stay out of conversations that will make you look stupid, which, unfortunately for you, is just about all of them.
As a PRACTICAL consideration not one poster has yet argued convincingly that I'm wrong.
Actually, I have, repeatedly, but clearly you're willing to overlook Obama's character and lack of judgment.
Oh, and by the way, if you want to talk about lack of judgment, let's talk about his willingness to unconditionally sit down and "negotiate" with Ahmadinejad. Do you think that's a good idea? Or to you think he'll get bowled over like Kennedy when he met with Khrushchev? Or will he get screwed like Clinton did when he bargained with North Korea?
But hey, let's just look at what legislator Obama has accomplished. Hmm, not much to speak of. Shall we discuss his empty rhetoric? Wait....CHANGE!!!!! What else ya got? Face it, Obama is the emptiest suit since JFK. Check that, emptier.
Seriously, if you've missed this, you're far too out of touch with reality to even be involved in this conversation. In addition, you're clearly not very bright. If you had any common sense, you would know to stay out of conversations that will make you look stupid, which, unfortunately for you, is just about all of them.
Here's an interesting quote from your source Meatstick, you might learn something:
"So, when a black man speaks cold hard facts its considered hate speech?
I must have missed something somewhere. It appears that black people are only allowed to speak of love, peace and long suffering only in the context of Martin Luther King’s “I have a Dream” speech. Well, I can say from personal experience that this particular uppity Negro has seen and experienced more than enough suffering and dammit, I support Rev. Jeremiah Wright without any equivocations.
But, I’m still at a loss; when is it appropriate to speak about the issues that Jeremiah Wright talks about in his sermons? I mean, just because we label it hate speech, which it is not, does not mean that he’s not speaking truth. I mean, the political pundits are using overarching terms to describe Wright’s sermons such as “hate speech” which I think is very interesting because none of them are denouncing the veracity of what he said. And even in this context, isn’t it interesting, old conventional wisdom asked was Obama black enough, now the concern is that he’s too black.
Go figure.
So, again, why is this considered “hate speech” when Trinity United Church of Christ is a member of a predominantly white denomination and one of the denomination conference presidents, a lil’ old white lady, is a member of Trinity? Furthermore, if this is “hate speech” why also does Trinity have the full unbridled support of the United Church of Christ?
I guess in our American ignorance, we’ve allowed the media to redefine some things for us. It appears that hate is one of those things that has been redefined. Hate appears to be whatever goes against the white, male, heterosexual status quo, but I guess this is hate speech because the white, male and heterosexual status quo would have to first recognize that there is a hierarchy in this country and that they are unopposed at the top of this caste system in this country."
And here are about 103,000 links that say you're an idiot:
Seriously, stop embarrassing yourself by making wild accusations you attempt to prove with a half-assed attempt at a google search. Find a legitimate source. And no, crypto-fascists Michelle Malkin and Michael Savage don't count. Or, admit you're wrong and surrender again.
Last edited by OddManRush; June 16th, 2008 at 08:17 PM.
Here's an interesting quote from your source Meatstick, you might learn something:
"So, when a black man speaks cold hard facts its considered hate speech?
I must have missed something somewhere. It appears that black people are only allowed to speak of love, peace and long suffering only in the context of Martin Luther King’s “I have a Dream” speech. Well, I can say from personal experience that this particular uppity Negro has seen and experienced more than enough suffering and dammit, I support Rev. Jeremiah Wright without any equivocations.
But, I’m still at a loss; when is it appropriate to speak about the issues that Jeremiah Wright talks about in his sermons? I mean, just because we label it hate speech, which it is not, does not mean that he’s not speaking truth. I mean, the political pundits are using overarching terms to describe Wright’s sermons such as “hate speech” which I think is very interesting because none of them are denouncing the veracity of what he said. And even in this context, isn’t it interesting, old conventional wisdom asked was Obama black enough, now the concern is that he’s too black.
Go figure.
So, again, why is this considered “hate speech” when Trinity United Church of Christ is a member of a predominantly white denomination and one of the denomination conference presidents, a lil’ old white lady, is a member of Trinity? Furthermore, if this is “hate speech” why also does Trinity have the full unbridled support of the United Church of Christ?
I guess in our American ignorance, we’ve allowed the media to redefine some things for us. It appears that hate is one of those things that has been redefined. Hate appears to be whatever goes against the white, male, heterosexual status quo, but I guess this is hate speech because the white, male and heterosexual status quo would have to first recognize that there is a hierarchy in this country and that they are unopposed at the top of this caste system in this country."
And here are about 103,000 links that say you're an idiot:
Seriously, stop embarrassing yourself by making wild accusations you attempt to prove with a half-assed attempt at a google search. Find a legitimate source. And no, crypto-fascists Michelle Malkin and Michael Savage don't count. Or, admit you're wrong and surrender again.
blah blah blah blah. You're nothing short of a blithering idiot.
I never said anything about the church as a whole, I was talking about Wright. Yeah, even with you're overwhelming intellect you failed to miss that. And you're right, let's talk about the veracity of his statement that the US government introduced HIV to eliminate African Americans. Did you miss that quote too brainiac?
blah blah blah blah. You're nothing short of a blithering idiot.
I never said anything about the church as a whole, I was talking about Wright. Yeah, even with you're overwhelming intellect you failed to miss that. And you're right, let's talk about the veracity of his statement that the US government introduced HIV to eliminate African Americans. Did you miss that quote too brainiac?
So then I guess Obama's off the hook? Is contradicting your own argument the way you go about calling people blithering idiots? Do you commonly say "you are overwhelming intellect?" Because you're looking for your in that sentence genius. Also, "failed to miss" is a double negative. So what are you trying to say? You failed to see that or you missed that?
I've already addressed Wright's adoption of a stupid conspiracy theory and I've made my own position on them clear in another thread. Does that conspiracy theory constitute hate speech in your world? Hate speech against a government doesn't even exist.
Last edited by OddManRush; June 16th, 2008 at 09:08 PM.
blah blah blah blah. You're nothing short of a blithering idiot.
I never said anything about the church as a whole, I was talking about Wright. Yeah, even with you're overwhelming intellect you failed to miss that. And you're right, let's talk about the veracity of his statement that the US government introduced HIV to eliminate African Americans. Did you miss that quote too brainiac?
n 1863 the Negro was told that he was free as a result of the Emancipation Proclamation being signed by Abraham Lincoln. But he was not given any land to make that freedom meaningful. It was something like keeping a person in prison for a number of years and suddenly discovering that that person is not guilty of the crime for which he was convicted. And you just go up to him and say, "Now you are free," but you dont give him any bus fare to get to town. You dont give him any money to get some clothes to put on his back or to get on his feet again in life.
Every court of jurisprudence would rise up against this, and yet this is the very thing that our nation did to the black man. It simply said, "Youre free," and it left him there penniless, illiterate, not knowing what to do. And the irony of it all is that at the same time the nation failed to do anything for the black man, though an act of Congress was giving away millions of acres of land in the West and the Midwest. Which meant that it was willing to undergird its white peasants from Europe with an economic floor.
But not only did it give the land, it built land-grant colleges to teach them how to farm. Not only that, it provided county agents to further their expertise in farming; not only that, as the years unfolded it provided low interest rates so that they could mechanize their farms. And to this day thousands of these very persons are receiving millions of dollars in federal subsidies every years not to farm. And these are so often the very people who tell Negroes that they must lift themselves by their own bootstraps. Its all right to tell a man to lift himself by his own bootstraps, but it is a cruel jest to say to a bootless man that he ought to lift himself by his own bootstraps.
We must come to see that the roots of racism are very deep in our country, and there must be something positive and massive in order to get rid of all the effects of racism and the tragedies of racial injustice.
I don't want to be the one saying it, but Rev Wright is a racist. It's transparent, how he says blacks have it hard while whites have it good. It alludes to his 40 acres and a mule. It alludes to affirmative action, a racist policy against whites.
This is a person Barak Obama admired at one point. This is a person Barak Obama is proud to follow.
Sometimes I wonder if we should trust someone with this type of judgment.
salami
