PDA

View Full Version : OBAMA RIPS Reverend Wright!!!


treufreund
Apr 29th, 2008, 07:30 PM
Obama denounces Wright
In Winston-Salem, Obama sharply attacks Reverend Jeremiah Wright and the substance of his remarks yesterday, a far sharper disavowal than he gave in Philadelphia last month.
The core of his message: That Wright was not only offensive, but the polar opposite of Obama's own views and politics.
"I have spent my entire adult life trying to bridge the gap between different kinds of people. That’s in my DNA, trying to promote mutual understanding to insist that we all share common hopes and common dreams as Americans and as human beings. That’s who I am, that’s what I believe, and that’s what this campaign has been about," Obama said.
"I am outraged by the comments that were made and saddened by the spectacle that we saw yesterday," he said.
Obama also distanced himself from the man in a way he has been reluctant to in the past.

"The person that I saw yesterday was not the person that I met 20 years ago," he said. "His comments were not only divisive and destructive, but I believe that they end up giving comfort to those who prey on hate, and I believe that they do not portray accurately the perspective of the black church."

"They certainly don’t portray accurately my values and beliefs," he said.

"If Reverend Wright thinks that’s political posturing, as he put it, then he doesn’t know me very well and based on his remarks yesterday, I may not know him as well as I thought either."

"I gave him the benefit of the doubt in my speech in Philadelphia, explaining that he has done enormous good in the church," he said. "But when he states and then amplifies such ridiculous propositions as the U.S. government somehow being involved in AIDS; when he suggests that Minister Farrakhan somehow represents one of the greatest voices of the 20th and 21st century; when he equates the U.S. wartime efforts with terrorism – then there are no exuses. They offend me. They rightly offend all Americans. And they should be denounced, and that’s what I’m doing very clearly and unequivocally here today."
"It is antithetical to my campaign. It is antithetical to what I’m about. It is not what I think America stands for," he said.

BigB08822
Apr 29th, 2008, 07:36 PM
Suddenly he doesn't agree with him? Whatever, I am not buying it for a minute. I don't think Obama should be held accountable for everything Wright says but Obama should have made it clear from the get go that this man wasn't someone he wanted to be associated with any longer. Instead he defended him and said we were only hearing 30 second sound bytes. Now Wright proves that what we heard was just that, what we thought it was. Now that it could ruin his entire campaign Obama wants to back away from him and what he is saying. Too late, Obama, too late.

mykarma
Apr 29th, 2008, 07:39 PM
Obama denounces Wright
In Winston-Salem, Obama sharply attacks Reverend Jeremiah Wright and the substance of his remarks yesterday, a far sharper disavowal than he gave in Philadelphia last month.
The core of his message: That Wright was not only offensive, but the polar opposite of Obama's own views and politics.
"I have spent my entire adult life trying to bridge the gap between different kinds of people. That’s in my DNA, trying to promote mutual understanding to insist that we all share common hopes and common dreams as Americans and as human beings. That’s who I am, that’s what I believe, and that’s what this campaign has been about," Obama said.
"I am outraged by the comments that were made and saddened by the spectacle that we saw yesterday," he said.
Obama also distanced himself from the man in a way he has been reluctant to in the past.

"The person that I saw yesterday was not the person that I met 20 years ago," he said. "His comments were not only divisive and destructive, but I believe that they end up giving comfort to those who prey on hate, and I believe that they do not portray accurately the perspective of the black church."

"They certainly don’t portray accurately my values and beliefs," he said.

"If Reverend Wright thinks that’s political posturing, as he put it, then he doesn’t know me very well and based on his remarks yesterday, I may not know him as well as I thought either."

"I gave him the benefit of the doubt in my speech in Philadelphia, explaining that he has done enormous good in the church," he said. "But when he states and then amplifies such ridiculous propositions as the U.S. government somehow being involved in AIDS; when he suggests that Minister Farrakhan somehow represents one of the greatest voices of the 20th and 21st century; when he equates the U.S. wartime efforts with terrorism – then there are no exuses. They offend me. They rightly offend all Americans. And they should be denounced, and that’s what I’m doing very clearly and unequivocally here today."
"It is antithetical to my campaign. It is antithetical to what I’m about. It is not what I think America stands for," he said.
Good for Barack. I felt as though some of the things he said at the NAACP mtg. was right on but agree that at the National Press Club Rev. Wright was attempting to hurt Barack. I believe that he felt as though he should have been playing a bigger part in Barack's campaign and feel as though he was betrayed by Barack and wasn't going to stand for it.

Anyhow, this isn't over because of the ego of Rev. Wright but he'll only hurt himself.

mykarma
Apr 29th, 2008, 07:42 PM
Suddenly he doesn't agree with him? Whatever, I am not buying it for a minute. I don't think Obama should be held accountable for everything Wright says but Obama should have made it clear from the get go that this man wasn't someone he wanted to be associated with any longer. Instead he defended him and said we were only hearing 30 second sound bytes. Now Wright proves that what we heard was just that, what we thought it was. Now that it could ruin his entire campaign Obama wants to back away from him and what he is saying. Too late, Obama, too late.
Of course not.

tequila
Apr 29th, 2008, 07:43 PM
Rev. Wright needs to respond and do a massive media tour. ;)

Sir Stefwhit
Apr 29th, 2008, 07:43 PM
There's no winning for poor Obama- damned if he does, damned if he doesn't. Like mamma always says you can't ever please the masses so just end up doing what pleases you.

Pureracket
Apr 29th, 2008, 07:48 PM
Well, doesn't look like I'll be voting for Rev. Wright for president. Rev. Wright is running for president, right?

treufreund
Apr 29th, 2008, 07:51 PM
At least he has disavowed the Reverend. Can we believe what he says? Well, no, because he is a politician LOL. Also he represents "a new politics" but still this politics included self-interest and waffling. Overall, though, he is right to bash the Reverend's views even if it comes WAY too late since he realizes that the price tag is high. I still feel that BARACK OBAMA SHOULD HAVE DEFENDED JFK. To see Reverend Wright on TV MAKING FUN OF ONE OF OUR COUNTRY'S FINEST LEADERS MOST ELOQUENT SPEECHES WAS DOWNRIGHT REPUGNANT!

Wannabeknowitall
Apr 29th, 2008, 07:54 PM
1) Don't be mad that Rev. Wright called you out as you are. You are a politician Obama whether you like it or not and the faster you understand that the better it will be to pander to groups you don't agree with.
If you don't and you win the nomination McCain will demolish you.

2) The possibility of the US being involved in AIDS is there and again Obama has an issue living in the land of possibilities.

So the US works on a vaccine for hepatatis in the early 80s and months later AIDS starts to appear in the US.
I don't find it a coincedence. I don't think AIDS would mutate that fast for two types to exists.

3) There could be more than a half million Iraqis dead by the time we finally pull out of Iraq compared to 5,000 US troops.
It might not be terrorism in our opinion but why do you think they want us out of their country so badly.
In their opinion we came in without real proof and we're trying to make a profit off what was their soveriegn country.

Pureracket
Apr 29th, 2008, 08:06 PM
:yawn:
I'll be glad when the delegate count finally takes place....LOL! Maybe, then we'll focus on some issues and not a preacher's words from the peanut gallery.

Normally, people would fall for the fallacious connecton between a preacher and a politician.

NOT THIS TIME!!!!!

In The Zone
Apr 29th, 2008, 08:10 PM
Another Obama thread? Couldn't this just be placed in his support thread?

Pureracket
Apr 29th, 2008, 08:11 PM
Another Obama thread? Couldn't this just be placed in his support thread?:lol::lol::lol::lol::lol:

In The Zone
Apr 29th, 2008, 08:13 PM
:lol::lol::lol::lol::lol:

:angel:

And why create a new thread? :rolleyes:
It's already in your Hillary support thread.
Desperate much? :lol:

http://tennisforum.com/showthread.php?t=340841

In The Zone
Apr 29th, 2008, 08:19 PM
And, I don't buy it. I'm sorry. If he felt this way, he would have said it from the beginning. He tried to tiptoe in the beginning to make everyone happy. And now that it's hurting him, he says this. Sounds like a real politician.

Pureracket
Apr 29th, 2008, 08:23 PM
And, I don't buy it. I'm sorry. If he felt this way, he would have said it from the beginning. He tried to tiptoe in the beginning to make everyone happy. And now that it's hurting him, he says this. Sounds like a real politician.You're not arguing the point, ITZ. He said he disagreed with Wright's points yesterday.

You're arguing about the sound bytes the media showed from some of Wright's 2001 speeches.

Also, there is not any proof that Wright's words have hurt Obama's campaign.

Wannabeknowitall
Apr 29th, 2008, 08:33 PM
Good for Barack. I felt as though some of the things he said at the NAACP mtg. was right on but agree that at the National Press Club Rev. Wright was attempting to hurt Barack. I believe that he felt as though he should have been playing a bigger part in Barack's campaign and feel as though he was betrayed by Barack and wasn't going to stand for it.

Anyhow, this isn't over because of the ego of Rev. Wright but he'll only hurt himself.

I don't feel he wanted a bigger part in Barack's campaign, at the same time I don't feel he deserved to be pushed under the rug like old day's news either.
He does feel betrayed and he shouldn't stand for it.

I have to apologize for something.
I did not know all this time that he's from Germantown in Philadelphia, my neighborhood.
I feel incredibly stupid for not putting two and two together.
I know of his father and his mother who were great role models of this neighborhood.
Maybe it's because his mother and father IMO taught him better that perhaps the connection wasn't made.

But I understand where he's coming from now.
And I understand why Germantown did not give Obama the numbers he needed to have a shot at single digits.

samsung101
Apr 29th, 2008, 08:43 PM
What made Barack come out against Wright.....?

Poll numbers.

Nothing grand or gracious.

It was all about how the polls were dipping, how his perfect campaign was not able to
hide the Rev. Wright anymore, or any better than it had for months.


Wright, sorry, guess you're not as close to Obama as his racist white grandmother.....he will
toss her under the bus, guess, he can toss you under the bus with her.

All for a good caus anyway....right.

Rev. Wright did not say anything yesterday, or with Moyers earlier, that he has not
said or written many times, over the past two decades.

He did not alter or change his views or commentary or sermon theme.

Nothing Wright did altered anything he said two months ago, when Obama was saying
the pastor was misinterpreteed, picked on, a kindly old family type friend. He
was like his grandmother, could he toss him aside in that case? No way......


The thing that changed is that Senator Obama realized the things Wright was saying,
were not going away...that it is documented, video taped, recorded going back years
and years. Moreover, the ego centric Wright, likes the attention, lavishes the
media interest in him, and wants to make sure he has his 15 minutes turn into a book
deal, tv deal, radio gig, and probably a spot on the BET program guide. I can see it now.
He isn't going away. Nor should he.


Again, Wright said the same things in January of 2008, going back to probably 1988.
Barack sat there and listened, donated over $20K to the church and the causes it supports
(many of which are very, very honorable and helpful to the community), and he backed
the man with great spirit and attention.

What changed is he saw the poll numbers. Plain and simple.

Pureracket
Apr 29th, 2008, 08:48 PM
:haha: sooo....samesong, you're voting for HRC, right? ....the fuck outta here. :haha:

Philbo
Apr 29th, 2008, 08:51 PM
I like Reverend Wright and I think the main problem here is that a large % of americans simply cannot face the cold hard truth on certain topics.

His comments on 9/11 and american imperialism are spot on the money.

mykarma
Apr 29th, 2008, 08:51 PM
You're not arguing the point, ITZ. He said he disagreed with Wright's points yesterday.

You're arguing about the sound bytes the media showed from some of Wright's 2001 speeches.

Also, there is not any proof that Wright's words have hurt Obama's campaign.
Don't you get weary of reminding ITZ the same thing over and over and over again. :shrug:

Pureracket
Apr 29th, 2008, 08:54 PM
Don't you get weary of reminding ITZ the same thing over and over and over again. :shrug:yeah...kinda.

LeonHart
Apr 29th, 2008, 08:57 PM
So where's the thread with the Obamamaniacs defending Reverend Wright at? It needs to be bumped for my laugh of the day :)

Infiniti2001
Apr 29th, 2008, 08:57 PM
Another Obama thread? Couldn't this just be placed in his support thread?


:lol: :help: I don't care for Rev. Wright, but I can understand why he broke his silence :shrug: Meanwhile looks like BOH is taking Carl Rove's advise :tape:

BigB08822
Apr 29th, 2008, 08:57 PM
I like Reverend Wright and I think the main problem here is that a large % of americans simply cannot face the cold hard truth on certain topics.

His comments on 9/11 and american imperialism are spot on the money.

According to you. I am not going to say whether he is right or wrong but the fact is that no one can prove many of the claims he makes. Until there is proof, people have the right to believe otherwise and without you claiming his remarks are fact, or, "right on the money."

Wannabeknowitall
Apr 29th, 2008, 08:59 PM
I agree samsung, the sad thing is that some people can't see it.

Why is it that the person who stays consistent is the one who is depised.
Change is not always the best.

Philbo
Apr 29th, 2008, 09:00 PM
I like Reverend Wright and I think the main problem here is that a large % of americans simply cannot face the cold hard truth on certain topics.

His comments on 9/11 and american imperialism are spot on the money.

BigB08822
Apr 29th, 2008, 09:04 PM
How did my post get above yours, Czechfan, weird...

samsung101
Apr 29th, 2008, 10:27 PM
The problem is that Wright did not say anything he has not said before.

So, what took Barack Obama, the smartest guy in the world, so long to
figure out that Wright can justifiably be viewed by many, of any color
or background, as a racist, anti-Israel, anti-American, conspiracy theory
backing minister?

Nothing he said is new.

Barack should have distanced himself from Wright weeks ago, at the least. Instead,
he gave the 'groundbreaking' speech on race - which was nonsense. He tossed his
relative under the bus to save his hide. Now, he's tossing this guy under the
bus to save his campaign. It will help him a lot with some. It will do nothing
for him with others. It does however, open up more questions - as to why it took
him so long to separate from Wright, why he stayed by him earlier, and how could he
have been a parishoner for 20 years, and never heard him say any of this stuff before?
Duh, that's a lie...and Obama's stuck with it.

Infiniti2001
Apr 29th, 2008, 11:32 PM
It would be nice if the Rev had a damaging tape to fork he op :tape:

starin
Apr 29th, 2008, 11:37 PM
A politician pandering to the public and throwing people under the bus!?!?

shocking :eek::eek: too bad politics of hope and change only lasted for a hot second :rolleyes:

doni1212
Apr 29th, 2008, 11:40 PM
:haha: sooo....samesong, you're voting for HRC, right? ....the fuck outta here. :haha:

:lol:

yeah...kinda.

:lol:

:lol: :help: I don't care for Rev. Wright, but I can understand why he broke his silence :shrug: Meanwhile looks like BOH is taking Carl Rove's advise :tape:

I think you mean BHO, :rolleyes:
Love his middle name don't you? :tape:

Infiniti2001
Apr 30th, 2008, 12:04 AM
:lol:



:lol:



I think you mean BHO, :rolleyes:
Love his middle name don't you? :tape:

whatever! It's not like I'm his godmother :rolleyes:

Expat
Apr 30th, 2008, 12:26 AM
saint obama is just an ordinary politician
if thats the case i would rather go for experience than hope
i found nothing offensive in the pastor's earlier speech not the current ones he is telling
on the contrary there is a lot of truth in those speeches
the only one thing which is objectionable in his speeches is that an attack on him is an attack on the black church

Stamp Paid
Apr 30th, 2008, 12:53 AM
Dead@me holding a lot of the same beliefs as Wright

ptkten
Apr 30th, 2008, 01:36 AM
Dead@me holding a lot of the same beliefs as Wright

:lol: I thought the same thing. He goes overboard on a lot of the conspiracy theories but the main thrust of his argument about America's foreign policy is not that ridiculous.

The problem is the idiot decided he was going to take cheap shots at Obama and continue repeating things he knows will hurt Obama after Obama stood by him when it would have been easy for him to disown Wright.

Wright got what he deserves, we're so close to the first black president and Wright seems interested in making sure it doesn't happen, it just doesn't make any sense.

ptkten
Apr 30th, 2008, 01:40 AM
A politician pandering to the public and throwing people under the bus!?!?

shocking :eek::eek: too bad politics of hope and change only lasted for a hot second :rolleyes:

Oh please, if it was political pandering he would have thrown him under the bus over a month ago. He was genuinely hurt by Wright taking cheap shots at him when he knows this is the last thing Obama needs.

abercrombieguy23
Apr 30th, 2008, 03:06 AM
Obama will get the Democratic nomination. He's ahead in delegates and ahead in the popular votes. The Rev. Wright stuff hurts and it'll hurt him in the general election. Primary voters who are inclined to vote for Obama won't mistake Wright's philosophy for Obama's. With any luck he will still win the presidency. It won't be a landslide and it will get dirty with the amount of Fox-news Limbaugh-swayed ignorant dipf*cks who vote in the general election.

Obama/Hillary's chances of beating McCain looked slim last week....

now after this.... EEEK

disposablehero
Apr 30th, 2008, 03:35 AM
Wright's latest comments reveal him to be a bitter old man with no respect for his friends. Kudos to Obama for throwing him over the side.

disposablehero
Apr 30th, 2008, 03:42 AM
The problem is that Wright did not say anything he has not said before.

So, what took Barack Obama, the smartest guy in the world, so long to
figure out that Wright can justifiably be viewed by many, of any color
or background, as a racist, anti-Israel, anti-American, conspiracy theory
backing minister?

Nothing he said is new.

Something is new. Wright now essentially says "Barack is lying. He believes the same things I do."
Someone said that about me I would likely yank their head down and introduce them to a few knees. Barack chose the more PC alternative.

treufreund
Apr 30th, 2008, 04:08 AM
Funny how so many people are now upset with Wright for betraying Obama but the truth is that his views on 9/11, on Hillary's marriage to Bill and on white People and America in general should have been enough to enrage people.

Svetlana.
Apr 30th, 2008, 04:20 AM
Finally, Obama made the right decision to distance himself from Rev. Wright, but it might be too little too late.
Obama's done it at the time when he practically had no other choice and it's not a good sign...

Pureracket
Apr 30th, 2008, 04:22 AM
Funny how so many people are now upset with Wright for betraying Obama but the truth is that his views on 9/11, on Hillary's marriage to Bill and on white People and America in general should have been enough to enrage people.....and what are his views on white People, truefreund?

(You thought we'd let this crap post slip by, eh?)

Edward.
Apr 30th, 2008, 04:25 AM
Of course not.

My thoughts exactly. :lol:

Edward.
Apr 30th, 2008, 04:31 AM
As Obama's inevitable victory in a few weeks nears closer and closer, the Hilary supporters seem even more rabid and bitter than usual. :lol:

Pureracket
Apr 30th, 2008, 04:33 AM
As Obama's inevitable victory in a few weeks nears closer and closer, the Hilary supporters seem even more rabid and bitter than usual. :lol:You just had go and use that word, eh? :lol:

Svetlana.
Apr 30th, 2008, 04:35 AM
How did my post get above yours, Czechfan, weird...

After they switch to tennisforum.com posts are often disordered :(

Edward.
Apr 30th, 2008, 04:37 AM
You just had go and use that word, eh? :lol:

:devil:

Oh well, when the bitter taste is too much to bear, they'll be able to eat crow instead. :lol:

mykarma
Apr 30th, 2008, 04:37 AM
Something is new. Wright now essentially says "Barack is lying. He believes the same things I do."
Someone said that about me I would likely yank their head down and introduce them to a few knees. Barack chose the more PC alternative.
:lol:

mykarma
Apr 30th, 2008, 04:42 AM
:devil:

Oh well, when the bitter taste is too much to bear, they'll be able to eat crow instead. :lol:
Oh shit. :lol:
They know Hllary can't beat him heads up so they're hoping against hope that Rev. Wright or something else will give Hillary the nomination. Pretty pathetic isn't it. :sad:

drake3781
Apr 30th, 2008, 04:46 AM
Funny how so many people are now upset with Wright for betraying Obama but the truth is that his views on 9/11, on Hillary's marriage to Bill and on white People and America in general should have been enough to enrage people.

This gets close to the basic question I have: If Barack has been a member of Rev. Wright's church for 20 years, would Barack have not heard most/all of these controversial views expressed - probably many times - during those years?

I would imagine so. So what I don't understand is why Barack, having heard these views over time, if he truly found them objectionable as he now claims, would not have objected to them at any time in the past 20 years.

He could have had a conversation with Rev. Wright about the views, could have found another church/pastor, and/or could have stated these objections to Rev. Wright's views in his earlier speech.

What we are led to believe is that Barack has just now heard these views, or that they are new, and hearing them now he finds them objectionable. Doesn't make sense.

Wannabeknowitall
Apr 30th, 2008, 04:52 AM
Wright represents the old school practices that some African-American leaders have employed since the end of the civil rights movement. The results are division, anger, hate, plus a lot of money for the leaders at the top of the community. Jesse Jackson is a multi-millionaire for example. Obama is different, but even his threadbare association with this man is potentially sucking the life out of his campaign.

Being what they are - the Clintons will pull out all of the stops to capitalize tactically on this.

Do not equat Rev. Wright with Jesse Jackson.
Just because he's telling it like it is now does not mean he's a divider.
Compared to Jesse Jackson, Rev. Wright has a lot of valid messages.

No Obama is sucking the life out of his campaign.

This is the same thing that happened to Gore. You don't back down against the media.
When the media really went after Gore's claims that he was a factor in the internet he folded.

You can't play things in the middle.
He tried to with Rev. Wright and Rev. Wright just like some of us Hillary supporters have been saying it all along, you are not a saint Obama, you are a politician and just because you try to act like you aren't doesn't mean your actions say otherwise.

Wannabeknowitall
Apr 30th, 2008, 05:03 AM
This gets close to the basic question I have: If Barack has been a member of Rev. Wright's church for 20 years, would Barack have not heard most/all of these controversial views expressed - probably many times - during those years?

I would imagine so. So what I don't understand is why Barack, having heard these views over time, if he truly found them objectionable as he now claims, would not have objected to them at any time in the past 20 years.

He could have had a conversation with Rev. Wright about the views, could have found another church/pastor, and/or could have stated these objections to Rev. Wright's views in his earlier speech.

What we are led to believe is that Barack has just now heard these views, or that they are new, and hearing them now he finds them objectionable. Doesn't make sense.

You know what it's really about.
LEGACY. And at some point Rev. Wright said enough.
This man has done good for his community whether you want to agree to or not with his opinions.
He's not evil. He's not crazy.
He shouldn't be pushed under the rug like yesterday's news which was what Obama was trying to do with Rev. Wright.
Rev. Wright has a legacy he represents.
He's a good role model and so were his parents in Philadelphia.
You're not going to shame him or them and feel your legacy is any better than his just because you're trying to be the president of the US.

azinna
Apr 30th, 2008, 05:11 AM
Well, I just watched Rev Wright's speech and Q&A at the NPC. It's a lose-lose situation for BHO: the claims are rarely that egregious (I'm most put off by his use of the podium and political moment for a loose, self-aggrandizing humor). And yet those same claims play terribly on the political stage. Obama's own 27min response was pretty unfair, I think, but politically necessary. Which is Rev Wright's point, made again today by BHO himself: that the man is a politician. Now it's up to the electorate to vote him in without the halo.

Cam'ron Giles
Apr 30th, 2008, 05:28 AM
Does anyone think that Rev. Wright took one for the team?

Wannabeknowitall
Apr 30th, 2008, 05:37 AM
Does anyone think that Rev. Wright took one for the team?

To a degree. Yes.
But Obama tried to treat Rev. Wright like that crazy olde Uncle that we all have in our family that you don't agree with but can't disown.

And no man is going to allow another man to bring him down just to boister the other up.

Cam'ron Giles
Apr 30th, 2008, 05:42 AM
To a degree. Yes.
But Obama tried to treat Rev. Wright like that crazy olde Uncle that we all have in our family that you don't agree with but can't disown.

And no man is going to allow another man to bring him down just to boister the other up.
For direct access to the White House he would...:tape:

Wannabeknowitall
Apr 30th, 2008, 05:45 AM
For direct access to the White House he would...:tape:

Well he certainly isn't now.

If the White House was the Promise Land for Rev. Wright then he's Moses, he ain't going now.

Philbo
Apr 30th, 2008, 09:46 AM
According to you. I am not going to say whether he is right or wrong but the fact is that no one can prove many of the claims he makes. Until there is proof, people have the right to believe otherwise and without you claiming his remarks are fact, or, "right on the money."

Yes according to me, but if you want 'proof' - just refer to the many CIA reports that talk about 'blowback' from the muslim world from years of foreign policy mistakes.

Its common sense to me. America interferes with other countries around the world, supports brutal dictatorships (so long as they are ALLIED dictatorships), whilst all the time hypocritically championing democracy, complete unadulaterated support for Israel at the expense of the palestinians, arming the taliban in Afghanistan to beat the russians (then wondering why they never gave up the guns etc), assisting Saddam in Iraq's war with Iran (then acting surprised when Saddam got a bit out of control), having bases or (or Occupation forces) in many muslim countries - these are all things that the USA got involved in, which directly or indirectly lead to more and more resentment of the muslim world against America.... That resentment was always going to come back to haunt the USA in some form or another.

Its like the USA suffers from a severe inability to look at ones actions and see the consequences to those actions. They get too blinded by patriotism and an arrogant belief that the ONLY possible reason foreigners could have resentment towards the USA is 'because of their freedom' - to use the neocon catchphrase....

Philbo
Apr 30th, 2008, 09:50 AM
Just to clarify - the USA didnt deserve to be attacked on 9/11. I feel all the people killed were innocent people. But I also think that foreign policy decisions made by the US govt had SOME impact on the motivations of the attackers.

homogenius
Apr 30th, 2008, 09:54 AM
There's no winning for poor Obama- damned if he does, damned if he doesn't. Like mamma always says you can't ever please the masses so just end up doing what pleases you.

Timing :shrug:

Selah
Apr 30th, 2008, 11:14 AM
lol. It's only going to get more interesting (and predictable to some extent), so now Obama vs. Rev. Wright seems to be gearing up- so will it play out now as one Black man bringing another Black man down? Oh Amerikkka, Amerikkka, just shakes head (this script has been written before. The Willie Lynch method ... Old ****** vs. Young ****** ... We all know he has to say those things in order to continue the dream of become the first Black president. Continues to watch how the plot will unfold...I'm still holding to same script asual, Obama ain't getting anyway near that WHITEhouse. LOL!

whyme225
Apr 30th, 2008, 01:26 PM
Hillary and company god does not like ugly and you will pay for decietfullness.

http://www.nydailynews.com/opinions/columnists/louis/index.html

samsung101
Apr 30th, 2008, 04:46 PM
There is a reason Oprah left the church years ago.

A reason she has been mocked (viciously) by the good Reverend.

So, what was the reason an extremely intelligent couple like
Michelle and Barack Obama stayed in the church, baptized their
children under the hand of Wright, and were in fact, married
by him. Not to mention, donated over $20,000 to the church (which
does do a lot of great community work in Chicago). Why Barack had
Wright at his side in most of his political contest entrances and
major speeches, noted him in his books, and used the title he got
from Rev. Wright in one of them ' Audacity of Hope ' is care of
Rev. Wright.

Barack Obama believed in what Wright was saying, for years and years.


Sorry, the line that Obama didn't change, Wright did. Nonsense. He's
been saying this for a long, long, long time.


Instead, of preaching to all of us last month, telling us what racists
we are, how he can't toss him away, as he's part of the family, blah, blah,
we're all wrong...he should have just said, 'I should have left the church
earlier, because of the extremist views Wright touts, they are not views
I hold.' He is my friend, and my friend and I no longer see eye to eye,
and I find the friendship harmful to my campaign, and my family, and I wish
him well.'

Contrary to the Left Wing Media onslaught, the issue is not going away. Barack
stepped into it last month, and trying to wiggle away from it now is just adding
to it for many. I'm glad he did say it. Sort of said Wright was wrong.


But, just as Keating and his temper and his Democratic loving bills are an issue
for McCain, just as sniper fire, Travelgate, donors on trial connections, her
hubby's comments are issues for Hillary, this will continue to be a legitimate
issue for Barack Obama.

ptkten
Apr 30th, 2008, 05:14 PM
This gets close to the basic question I have: If Barack has been a member of Rev. Wright's church for 20 years, would Barack have not heard most/all of these controversial views expressed - probably many times - during those years?

I would imagine so. So what I don't understand is why Barack, having heard these views over time, if he truly found them objectionable as he now claims, would not have objected to them at any time in the past 20 years.

He could have had a conversation with Rev. Wright about the views, could have found another church/pastor, and/or could have stated these objections to Rev. Wright's views in his earlier speech.

What we are led to believe is that Barack has just now heard these views, or that they are new, and hearing them now he finds them objectionable. Doesn't make sense.

No, he certainly heard some of his views and admitted to hearing them.

I think the major issue is that people are not looking at this whole situation in context. Trinity church is a MAJOR church in the South Side of Chicago. At least 10,000 people go every Sunday. Numerous people from Chicago have said that if you're a black person moving to Chicago this is one of the two churches you choose because of the community and networking opportunities the church provides. They do numerous outreach and community service projects and are renowned in the black community. He got to meet a lot of people who would help get him started in Chicago politics. 95 percent of the things that Reverend Wright preaches are about love, hope, peace etc. that are not controversial and inspired Obama. If there are so many benefits at a place it's no wonder that Obama stayed despite some of the comments.

Second, I think the reason people, especially supposed liberal Democrats are up in arms is because the style of speech of Reverend Wright. If he said many of the things in his sermon in a more subdued speech that is more "familiar" to white people, it wouldn't have seemed outrageous. A lot of the things he is saying and preaching have been the views of liberals for years. The whole outrage from Hillary supporters over the God damn America and the chickens coming home to roost is so ludicrous. Democrats have always said that it's our foreign policy that caused many in the Middle East to hate us. I understand getting angry if he said we deserved it or that the American people had it coming, he was blaiming the U.S. government's imperialism on creating passionate hatred for this country.

Finally, yes, some of the conspiracy theories are a little out there but if you lived in an era where you were told legally you were not a real person, and were not worthy of being equal in the eyes of the government then it's not hard to see why that person might think the government has it out for them but as Obama said it's antithetical to his campaign especially when he's running on a platform of unity and moving forward from the divisions in the past.

Now personally, I think Wright's an asshole for throwing his old friend under the bus after Obama could and should have personally disowned him a month ago and didn't, so I have no sympathy for the man now. He's clearly attention-seeking and crazy but if you look at the context of what Wright has said and the church as a whole I don't think it's that ridiculous or hypocritical that Obama would have stayed that long in the church and then disowned him now because of Wright questioning Obama's integrity.

Expat
Apr 30th, 2008, 05:35 PM
Hillary and company god does not like ugly and you will pay for decietfullness.

http://www.nydailynews.com/opinions/columnists/louis/index.html
so god hates ugly people:confused:
btw does god even exist?

samsung101
May 1st, 2008, 05:51 PM
Michelle and Barack are everywhere these days, shows they wouldn't go on before, there they are...
to stop the bleeding from the Wright-Obama relationship and the sour ending.

I hate it when people break up.
Ben and Jen.
Justin and Cameron.
Barack and Rev. Wright.

Sad.


Michelle looks like she wants to strangle anyone who dares to ask about Wright, or
make her have to answer that again.... sorry, the reporters are veering off script
for just a little bit.

The issue will dissipate for his supporters, and even the Clinton people.

The issue will however remain forever, especially for his opponents. Who do see his
20 years relationship with Wright over the opinions he has, and has had for all those
years, not just this week......as a significant reflection on Obama.

It speaks to his judgement and his character.
Wright helped shape both.


Again, Wright is not saying one thing today, or this week, that he has
not consistently said, and in the same style, for over 20 years. Somehow,
I'm supposed to believe Barack and Michelle - Harvard, Yale, Dartmouth educated
couple - did not hear any of that, or understand any of that, Sunday after Sunday.

Sure.

Pureracket
May 1st, 2008, 05:56 PM
Michelle and Barack are everywhere these days, shows they wouldn't go on before, there they are...
to stop the bleeding from the Wright-Obama relationship and the sour ending.

I hate it when people break up.
Ben and Jen.
Justin and Cameron.
Barack and Rev. Wright.

Sad.


Michelle looks like she wants to strangle anyone who dares to ask about Wright, or
make her have to answer that again.... sorry, the reporters are veering off script
for just a little bit.

The issue will dissipate for his supporters, and even the Clinton people.

The issue will however remain forever, especially for his opponents. Who do see his
20 years relationship with Wright over the opinions he has, and has had for all those
years, not just this week......as a significant reflection on Obama.

It speaks to his judgement and his character.
Wright helped shape both.


Again, Wright is not saying one thing today, or this week, that he has
not consistently said, and in the same style, for over 20 years. Somehow,
I'm supposed to believe Barack and Michelle - Harvard, Yale, Dartmouth educated
couple - did not hear any of that, or understand any of that, Sunday after Sunday.

Sure.Shouldn't you be more concerned about why the hell your candidate can't seem to remember basic facts and sentences right now? Have you seen McCain's latest press conference.

You should be able to tell by now that your fallacious attacks(guilt by association, stereotyping, red herring) won't work this time around. Because the Rev. Wright issue is wearing off, you all will be forced to actually discussed policy. You all won't fool the American people this time.

Not this time!

Pureracket
May 1st, 2008, 06:04 PM
Again, Wright is not saying one thing today, or this week, that he has
not consistently said, and in the same style, for over 20 years. Somehow,
I'm supposed to believe Barack and Michelle - Harvard, Yale, Dartmouth educated
couple - did not hear any of that, or understand any of that, Sunday after Sunday.

Sure.
Also, how do you know what this man has been doing for the last 20 years? Have you even listened to one of his sermons? I can only imagine how crazy this thing is making you Bush Republicans:

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v620/lpbk2713/MJFMocker.gif

drake3781
May 1st, 2008, 09:01 PM
No, he certainly heard some of his views and admitted to hearing them.

I think the major issue is that people are not looking at this whole situation in context. Trinity church is a MAJOR church in the South Side of Chicago. At least 10,000 people go every Sunday. Numerous people from Chicago have said that if you're a black person moving to Chicago this is one of the two churches you choose because of the community and networking opportunities the church provides. They do numerous outreach and community service projects and are renowned in the black community. He got to meet a lot of people who would help get him started in Chicago politics. 95 percent of the things that Reverend Wright preaches are about love, hope, peace etc. that are not controversial and inspired Obama. If there are so many benefits at a place it's no wonder that Obama stayed despite some of the comments.

Second, I think the reason people, especially supposed liberal Democrats are up in arms is because the style of speech of Reverend Wright. If he said many of the things in his sermon in a more subdued speech that is more "familiar" to white people, it wouldn't have seemed outrageous. A lot of the things he is saying and preaching have been the views of liberals for years. The whole outrage from Hillary supporters over the God damn America and the chickens coming home to roost is so ludicrous. Democrats have always said that it's our foreign policy that caused many in the Middle East to hate us. I understand getting angry if he said we deserved it or that the American people had it coming, he was blaiming the U.S. government's imperialism on creating passionate hatred for this country.

Finally, yes, some of the conspiracy theories are a little out there but if you lived in an era where you were told legally you were not a real person, and were not worthy of being equal in the eyes of the government then it's not hard to see why that person might think the government has it out for them but as Obama said it's antithetical to his campaign especially when he's running on a platform of unity and moving forward from the divisions in the past.

Now personally, I think Wright's an asshole for throwing his old friend under the bus after Obama could and should have personally disowned him a month ago and didn't, so I have no sympathy for the man now. He's clearly attention-seeking and crazy but if you look at the context of what Wright has said and the church as a whole I don't think it's that ridiculous or hypocritical that Obama would have stayed that long in the church and then disowned him now because of Wright questioning Obama's integrity.



You make well-reasoned points, but I'm not sure I agree with any of them. Thanks, however, for even attempting to answer my question, because it is a basic question to the entire Wright business and I find it interesting that anyone discussing Wright/Obama would ignore it. Unless, I guess, the implications are too troublesome to deal with. :shrug:

Point that if Obama had heard all of Wright's "outrageous" messages that he so disagrees with, many times over the past 15-20 years, but could/would not dissociate himself from that church because membership there is expedient to other aspects of his career/life....... well I don't find that OK. What you do in this situation is dissociate yourself at the very time that unacceptable speeches/comments are made, and start from ground level to build the same organziation with like-minded people. And if you don't: the chickens will come back to roost, as they have in this case.

As for style of speech, not content of speech being the issue - I agree that similar things have been said in a different style by liberals. But none of these have been the "spiritual advisor" or advisor of any sort to a presidential candidate. I think if that were the case, the same level of feedback would be there.

Can't disagree with your third point, however I do believe it is a backwards approach. People have the right to be backward, but they will inevitably be left behind as the culture advances around them.

And your last point, here we have the same issue I initially raised. Obama is not disowning Wright because Wright questioned Obama's integrity (at least I never read/saw that as being the reason, and if it is the reason then it should be stated that way). Obama says he is disowning Wright for statements that Obama considers outrageous and that Obama cannot support. So now we loop back to my original question.... surely Obama has heard these statements before..........???

In The Zone
May 1st, 2008, 09:33 PM
The Fox-news ignorant dipf*cks are still suckin the Wright business for all it's worth. Fortunately the threatened campaign swamping is wearing off. The Reverend has had his moment in the spotlight and played to the gallery. Obama seems to have got the campaign back on track, and most importantly ... back on policy issues.

The campaign may have but the voters may not have.

With the things Wright said about America, and his wife not being proud of America until now, how many times can the voters look the other way for Obama?

The polls and the votes are showing it.

And I agree with drake3781, did Obama really not hear these things? Did he hear them and not stand up and clap? I think I know what he did ...

BigB08822
May 1st, 2008, 09:56 PM
And I agree with drake3781, did Obama really not hear these things? Did he hear them and not stand up and clap? I think I know what he did ...

Of course he heard them, he admitted to it!

The thing bothering me the most is that at first Obama simply said that the things Wright was saying were not that important or controversial. Then he said he he didn't know what he was talking about and NOW he acts as if he doesn't want a thing to do with Wright. Foot in mouth disease is deadly.

Pureracket
May 1st, 2008, 10:27 PM
:yawn:
Real issues, please.

LeonHart
May 1st, 2008, 10:32 PM
:yawn:
Real issues, please.

Real issue: Barack Obama isn't "above" every other politician like he bases his platform on :)

So why are people voting for him again?

harloo
May 1st, 2008, 10:56 PM
No, he certainly heard some of his views and admitted to hearing them.

I think the major issue is that people are not looking at this whole situation in context. Trinity church is a MAJOR church in the South Side of Chicago. At least 10,000 people go every Sunday. Numerous people from Chicago have said that if you're a black person moving to Chicago this is one of the two churches you choose because of the community and networking opportunities the church provides. They do numerous outreach and community service projects and are renowned in the black community. He got to meet a lot of people who would help get him started in Chicago politics. 95 percent of the things that Reverend Wright preaches are about love, hope, peace etc. that are not controversial and inspired Obama. If there are so many benefits at a place it's no wonder that Obama stayed despite some of the comments.

Second, I think the reason people, especially supposed liberal Democrats are up in arms is because the style of speech of Reverend Wright. If he said many of the things in his sermon in a more subdued speech that is more "familiar" to white people, it wouldn't have seemed outrageous. A lot of the things he is saying and preaching have been the views of liberals for years. The whole outrage from Hillary supporters over the God damn America and the chickens coming home to roost is so ludicrous. Democrats have always said that it's our foreign policy that caused many in the Middle East to hate us. I understand getting angry if he said we deserved it or that the American people had it coming, he was blaiming the U.S. government's imperialism on creating passionate hatred for this country.

Finally, yes, some of the conspiracy theories are a little out there but if you lived in an era where you were told legally you were not a real person, and were not worthy of being equal in the eyes of the government then it's not hard to see why that person might think the government has it out for them but as Obama said it's antithetical to his campaign especially when he's running on a platform of unity and moving forward from the divisions in the past.

Now personally, I think Wright's an asshole for throwing his old friend under the bus after Obama could and should have personally disowned him a month ago and didn't, so I have no sympathy for the man now. He's clearly attention-seeking and crazy but if you look at the context of what Wright has said and the church as a whole I don't think it's that ridiculous or hypocritical that Obama would have stayed that long in the church and then disowned him now because of Wright questioning Obama's integrity.


:worship::worship::worship: :worship::worship::worship: Bravo!!

Pureracket
May 1st, 2008, 11:14 PM
Real issue: Barack Obama isn't "above" every other politician like he bases his platform on :)

So why are people voting for him again?Actually, he is quite above every other politician. Check the delegate count.:)

Real issues please.

In The Zone
May 1st, 2008, 11:46 PM
Actually, he is quite above every other politician. Check the delegate count.:)

Real issues please.

A real issue is the integrity and honesty of the candidate. You guys didn't like it when Hillary slipped. Voters will decide what they find important. And based on the numbers, they are finding this credible.

mykarma
May 2nd, 2008, 01:20 AM
A real issue is the integrity and honesty of the candidate. You guys didn't like it when Hillary slipped. Voters will decide what they find important. And based on the numbers, they are finding this credible.
Honesty and Hillary = oxymoron. :lol: Hillary slipped = :lol:

Pureracket
May 2nd, 2008, 01:44 AM
A real issue is the integrity and honesty of the candidate. You guys didn't like it when Hillary slipped. Voters will decide what they find important. And based on the numbers, they are finding this credible.
:lol::lol::lol::lol::lol:

In The Zone
May 2nd, 2008, 01:45 AM
:lol::lol::lol::lol::lol:

Emoticons deflect everything I said, right?
:crazy: :wavey:;):p:rolleyes::confused::sad::drool: :bounce: :tape::lick::help::fiery::hearts::angel:

Right.

Olórin
May 2nd, 2008, 01:47 AM
Honesty and Hillary = oxymoron. :lol: Hillary slipped = :lol:

So everything Hillary says is a lie?

Pureracket
May 2nd, 2008, 01:50 AM
Emoticons deflect everything I said, right?
:crazy: :wavey:;):p:rolleyes::confused::sad::drool: :bounce: :tape::lick::help::fiery::hearts::angel:

Right.Well words like, "rules," "delegate count," and "faithful to your party members" don't seem to ring a bell with you.

Emoticons is all I have left. :sad:

mykarma
May 2nd, 2008, 02:12 AM
So everything Hillary says is a lie?
No, only when her mouth is moving. :lol:



Just kidding, couldn't resist. :devil:

Olórin
May 2nd, 2008, 02:13 AM
No, only when her mouth is moving. :lol:



Just kidding, couldn't resist. :devil:

:lol:

In The Zone
May 2nd, 2008, 02:18 AM
Well words like, "rules," "delegate count," and "faithful to your party members" don't seem to ring a bell with you.

Emoticons is all I have left. :sad:

Delegate count rings a bell. 2024.
Faithful to the party sounds good, I'll try and remember that when Hillary gets the nomination ....
And rules? The DNC isn't following them regarding Florida and Michigan. Only half should have been stripped.

But!
I am sure popular vote and national polls do not ring a bell with you?
:angel: :drool: :confused: :angel: :drool: :confused: :angel: :drool: :confused: :angel: :drool:

In The Zone
May 2nd, 2008, 02:19 AM
And talk about entitlement. It's no longer Hillary's syndrome. Sounds like someone else's camp.

RVD
May 2nd, 2008, 05:58 AM
No, he certainly heard some of his views and admitted to hearing them.

I think the major issue is that people are not looking at this whole situation in context. Trinity church is a MAJOR church in the South Side of Chicago. At least 10,000 people go every Sunday. Numerous people from Chicago have said that if you're a black person moving to Chicago this is one of the two churches you choose because of the community and networking opportunities the church provides. They do numerous outreach and community service projects and are renowned in the black community. He got to meet a lot of people who would help get him started in Chicago politics. 95 percent of the things that Reverend Wright preaches are about love, hope, peace etc. that are not controversial and inspired Obama. If there are so many benefits at a place it's no wonder that Obama stayed despite some of the comments.

Second, I think the reason people, especially supposed liberal Democrats are up in arms is because the style of speech of Reverend Wright. If he said many of the things in his sermon in a more subdued speech that is more "familiar" to white people, it wouldn't have seemed outrageous. A lot of the things he is saying and preaching have been the views of liberals for years. The whole outrage from Hillary supporters over the God damn America and the chickens coming home to roost is so ludicrous. Democrats have always said that it's our foreign policy that caused many in the Middle East to hate us. I understand getting angry if he said we deserved it or that the American people had it coming, he was blaiming the U.S. government's imperialism on creating passionate hatred for this country.

Finally, yes, some of the conspiracy theories are a little out there but if you lived in an era where you were told legally you were not a real person, and were not worthy of being equal in the eyes of the government then it's not hard to see why that person might think the government has it out for them but as Obama said it's antithetical to his campaign especially when he's running on a platform of unity and moving forward from the divisions in the past.

Now personally, I think Wright's an asshole for throwing his old friend under the bus after Obama could and should have personally disowned him a month ago and didn't, so I have no sympathy for the man now. He's clearly attention-seeking and crazy but if you look at the context of what Wright has said and the church as a whole I don't think it's that ridiculous or hypocritical that Obama would have stayed that long in the church and then disowned him now because of Wright questioning Obama's integrity.Excellent post as ususl. :worship:
You summed it up quite nicely, IMO.

Luckily this was the first and last post I'll read on the matter (and in this thread). ;)

faboozadoo15
May 2nd, 2008, 08:16 AM
Suddenly he doesn't agree with him? Whatever, I am not buying it for a minute. I don't think Obama should be held accountable for everything Wright says but Obama should have made it clear from the get go that this man wasn't someone he wanted to be associated with any longer. Instead he defended him and said we were only hearing 30 second sound bytes. Now Wright proves that what we heard was just that, what we thought it was. Now that it could ruin his entire campaign Obama wants to back away from him and what he is saying. Too late, Obama, too late.

:worship: Hit the nail on the head. Obama's a day late and a dollar short on this one. The damage has been done.

mykarma
May 2nd, 2008, 01:47 PM
Delegate count rings a bell. 2024.
Faithful to the party sounds good, I'll try and remember that when Hillary gets the nomination ....
And rules? The DNC isn't following them regarding Florida and Michigan. Only half should have been stripped.

But!
I am sure popular vote and national polls do not ring a bell with you?
:angel: :drool: :confused: :angel: :drool: :confused: :angel: :drool: :confused: :angel: :drool:

In case some of you have forgotten, Barack is leading in both delegate count and popular vote. I'd like to know when did popular vote become the deciding factor in the democratic primary ? Oh I forget, it's only since it became the only way that Hillary can possibility win the nomination. You can also stop playing that broken record about Fl. and Mi, if you want to blame anyone blame your candidate that time and time again said they wouldn't count, until she needed them. The best that will happen for Hillary is that they will be split them and that won't do a damn thing for Hillary.

Anyhow, to bad the only thing your candidate can look forward to is Jerimiah Wright running his mouth. What's really funny is all of a sudden polls count with you guys. Another thing is I wonder how the black supporters of Hillary feel when her supporters on this board keep stating that their vtoes don't count. :confused:

Pureracket
May 2nd, 2008, 02:08 PM
Delegate count rings a bell. 2024.
Faithful to the party sounds good, I'll try and remember that when Hillary gets the nomination ....
And rules? The DNC isn't following them regarding Florida and Michigan. Only half should have been stripped.

But!
I am sure popular vote and national polls do not ring a bell with you?
:angel: :drool: :confused: :angel: :drool: :confused: :angel: :drool: :confused: :angel: :drool::yawn:

Your comprehension skills are NOT very good. I can't even try to act like I didn't know that.

All the candidates agreed with the Florida and Michigan situation, even HRC. (You knew that too, so I don't see why you're arguing it).

ITZ, you totally disregarded all the posts I've made to you regarding popular vote. 1. HRC doesn't have popular vote. 2. Obama has, nor anyone, has campaigned for popular votes. Like I've said in several other posts to you, Obama's campaign would've gone to places like NY and LA if the popular vote would have been in the rules.

Learn the rules. Play by them.:rolleyes:

In The Zone
May 2nd, 2008, 03:12 PM
Rule # 1 is 2024. So get back to me when he does that.

Since neither will, popular vote is a good indicator. :)

Expat
May 2nd, 2008, 03:15 PM
ITZ The race is over
Even if Hillary wins six out of 8 states in the remaining primaries and is trailing by even 1 votes in non super delegates
There is no way the super delegates are going against Obama
They cant incur the wrath of their most loyal constituency
Have a look at this article
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/05/02/black-issues-group-price_n_99759.html

In The Zone
May 2nd, 2008, 03:21 PM
In case some of you have forgotten, Barack is leading in both delegate count and popular vote. I'd like to know when did popular vote become the deciding factor in the democratic primary ? Oh I forget, it's only since it became the only way that Hillary can possibility win the nomination. You can also stop playing that broken record about Fl. and Mi, if you want to blame anyone blame your candidate that time and time again said they wouldn't count, until she needed them. The best that will happen for Hillary is that they will be split them and that won't do a damn thing for Hillary.

Anyhow, to bad the only thing your candidate can look forward to is Jerimiah Wright running his mouth. What's really funny is all of a sudden polls count with you guys. Another thing is I wonder how the black supporters of Hillary feel when her supporters on this board keep stating that their vtoes don't count. :confused:

The DNC Rules actually state only half of the delegates should be stripped. And since we are selecting a national candidate, I don't quite get how 48 states can pick, EVEN GUAM, and dark red states like Utah, Texas, North Dakota but not Michigan or Florida. :confused:
I've advocated for Florida and Michigan to be recognized all along. It's not fair and will not bode well for the party even if Hillary loses.

And if Hillary has the popular vote and based on all of these recent events and North Carolina shrinking to the size of a peanut, that is incredibly hard to argue against.

In The Zone
May 2nd, 2008, 03:23 PM
ITZ The race is over
Even if Hillary wins six out of 8 states in the remaining primaries and is trailing by even 1 votes in non super delegates
There is no way the super delegates are going against Obama
They cant incur the wrath of their most loyal constituency
Have a look at this article
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/05/02/black-issues-group-price_n_99759.html

Not quite sure. Based on this argument, if 95% of blacks voted for a candidate but he was losing badly, we should still give it to him?

Best interest of the party. Not one bloc. Because white blue collar voters will swing this election, not blacks. With Hillary, it's a safe victory. With Obama, we'll be sweating it out in November.

In The Zone
May 2nd, 2008, 03:23 PM
And the race is not over. Get to 2024 and get back to me.

Expat
May 2nd, 2008, 03:29 PM
Not quite sure. Based on this argument, if 95% of blacks voted for a candidate but he was losing badly, we should still give it to him?

Best interest of the party. Not one bloc. Because white blue collar voters will swing this election, not blacks. With Hillary, it's a safe victory. With Obama, we'll be sweating it out in November.
its a misconception if you think that super delegates will think about the chances of obama winning before deciding their vote
they have their own elections to fight for which they need african american support
the popularity of congress being lower than even george bush speaks volumes about what the democrats have managed to achieve

In The Zone
May 2nd, 2008, 05:19 PM
its a misconception if you think that super delegates will think about the chances of obama winning before deciding their vote
they have their own elections to fight for which they need african american support
the popularity of congress being lower than even george bush speaks volumes about what the democrats have managed to achieve

We'll see. They are not going to steal it from Obama. If, however, the mandate of the people is not in his favor and given the recent events, it'll be interesting.

But yes, if all these things point to him, obviously they won't overturn it.

mykarma
May 3rd, 2008, 02:59 AM
The DNC Rules actually state only half of the delegates should be stripped. And since we are selecting a national candidate, I don't quite get how 48 states can pick, EVEN GUAM, and dark red states like Utah, Texas, North Dakota but not Michigan or Florida. :confused:
I've advocated for Florida and Michigan to be recognized all along. It's not fair and will not bode well for the party even if Hillary loses.

And if Hillary has the popular vote and based on all of these recent events and North Carolina shrinking to the size of a peanut, that is incredibly hard to argue against.
What you've argued against doesn't matter, it's what the democratic candidates signed and Hillary was the first one publicly stating that their votes wouldn't count. .

Michigan and Florida both were told what the consequences were and they did it anyway so tough. I don't care how many of the delegates are seated they'll have to find a way to make it fair since neither were able to campaign.

How can you think it's fair for Hillary to take the votes from Fl. since she was so well known and as early as it was in the election process people in Fl. or Mi. didn't know Barack or what he stood for. Even so, until Hillary realized that she couldn't win without them, I didn't hear a damn word from the Clinton's about Fl.or Mi. The next question is that Barack was not even on the Michigan ballot so how would you count those votes. It's well know that people from both states said that they didn't even bother to vote because they knew their votes wouldn't count so how is it fair to count them when all of the people weren't given the same opportunity. You can't say that Hillary would have won because w/o the people voting, they would have given Iowa to Hillary.

As far as N.C. shrinking, I mentioned b4 that the pollls would change when the rural rednecks of N.C. came out, and Bill went right to them to edge them on which is fine and I don't blame him. I would have done the same thing.

Whether Barack wins by a peanut or a walnut it doesn't matter to me as long as he wins. If Hillary wins Indiana and N.C. she still won't overtake Barack in the popular vote or delegates. Al Gore won the popular vote and George Bush still became president so I don't know where your popular vote analogy is coming from. Like you said, it takes 2024 delegates to win the nomination and neither has it as of yet but there's no mention of the popular vote in the rules. Barack is ahead in the popular vote, has won more states, and has more delegates but give it to Hillary just because...

Assuming that Hillary doesn't win the popular vote, then what will the next argument be?

In The Zone
May 3rd, 2008, 03:08 AM
If Hillary doesn't win the popular vote, from MY point of view, it would be hard for me to advocate for her and I wouldn't. My posts have always been fair and always democratic party minded. And you know that. ;)

If she wins North Carolina, Obama should step down and take the VP bid.

mykarma
May 3rd, 2008, 03:14 AM
Not quite sure. Based on this argument, if 95% of blacks voted for a candidate but he was losing badly, we should still give it to him?

Best interest of the party. Not one bloc. Because white blue collar voters will swing this election, not blacks. With Hillary, it's a safe victory. With Obama, we'll be sweating it out in November.
That's bullshit and you know it. Nothing will bring out and unite the repubs. faster than the hate they feel for Hillary Clinton. Yes it will be tough for Barack thanks to the Clinton's and their underhandedness. Take Barack down as far as they can and come back in four years for the nomination which they won't win because it's very obvious to many what their game plan is.

Ask Bill Clinton if the black vote matters. :lol: W/O the black vote he wouldn't have been president and would have been kicked out of office.

If you think Hillary can win w/o the black vote then you're more dillusional than I first thought. The DNC knows that no one has been more loyal than the African American vote and they know that they can't win w/o it. African Americans have seen to many unfair things happen to them but times have changed and the days of sitting back taking it as long gone.

Like I mentioned earlier, I wonder how the black Clinton supporters feel when you continue to say that their vote doesn't count?

In The Zone
May 3rd, 2008, 03:17 AM
When I say Hillary wins the nomination, it's almost also obvious I am including Obama as VP.

For me, a split ticket is the only way out of this.

And you think the Republicans won't do the same to vote against a black man? You're nuts.

mykarma
May 3rd, 2008, 03:19 AM
If Hillary doesn't win the popular vote, from MY point of view, it would be hard for me to advocate for her and I wouldn't. [QUOTE]My posts have always been fair and always democratic party minded. And you know that. ;)
Choking and gasping for breath.

If she wins North Carolina, Obama should step down and take the VP bid
You're really crazy. When I think I've heard it all, you come up with some new nonsense. Barack would still be ahead in delegates, popular vote, and number of states but he should step down and become VP. What's that, "new math"?

mykarma
May 3rd, 2008, 03:31 AM
When I say Hillary wins the nomination, it's almost also obvious I am including Obama as VP.

For me, a split ticket is the only way out of this.

And you think the Republicans won't do the same to vote against a black man? You're nuts.
Probably as much as white democrats which doesn't change the fact that Hillary is an easier winner against the repubs.


You ignored my post about black votes not counting.

mykarma
May 3rd, 2008, 03:34 AM
What you've argued against doesn't matter, it's what the democratic candidates signed and Hillary was the first one publicly stating that their votes wouldn't count. .

Michigan and Florida both were told what the consequences were and they did it anyway so tough. I don't care how many of the delegates are seated they'll have to find a way to make it fair since neither were able to campaign.

How can you think it's fair for Hillary to take the votes from Fl. since she was so well known and as early as it was in the election process people in Fl. or Mi. didn't know Barack or what he stood for. Even so, until Hillary realized that she couldn't win without them, I didn't hear a damn word from the Clinton's about Fl.or Mi. The next question is that Barack was not even on the Michigan ballot so how would you count those votes. It's well know that people from both states said that they didn't even bother to vote because they knew their votes wouldn't count so how is it fair to count them when all of the people weren't given the same opportunity. You can't say that Hillary would have won because w/o the people voting, they would have given Iowa to Hillary.

As far as N.C. shrinking, I mentioned b4 that the pollls would change when the rural rednecks of N.C. came out, and Bill went right to them to edge them on which is fine and I don't blame him. I would have done the same thing.

Whether Barack wins by a peanut or a walnut it doesn't matter to me as long as he wins. If Hillary wins Indiana and N.C. she still won't overtake Barack in the popular vote or delegates. Al Gore won the popular vote and George Bush still became president so I don't know where your popular vote analogy is coming from. Like you said, it takes 2024 delegates to win the nomination and neither has it as of yet but there's no mention of the popular vote in the rules. Barack is ahead in the popular vote, has won more states, and has more delegates but give it to Hillary just because...

Assuming that Hillary doesn't win the popular vote, then what will the next argument be?
You forgot to respond to the bold part of the post.

Edward.
May 3rd, 2008, 03:35 AM
My posts have always been fair and always democratic party minded. And you know that. ;)

:haha: :haha:

If she wins North Carolina, Obama should step down and take the VP bid.

:haha: :haha: :haha: :haha: :haha:

Keep the comedy gold rolling ITZ!

Pureracket
May 3rd, 2008, 03:37 AM
If Hillary doesn't win the popular vote, from MY point of view, it would be hard for me to advocate for her and I wouldn't. My posts have always been fair and always democratic party minded. And you know that. ;)

If she wins North Carolina, Obama should step down and take the VP bid.
:haha: :haha:

In The Zone
May 3rd, 2008, 03:37 AM
:haha: :haha:



:haha: :haha: :haha: :haha: :haha:

Keep the comedy gold rolling ITZ!

You guys and your emoticons :crazy:

They have been, so give me a break. This is why I stopped posting in neutral threads and this is why I am going to stop after this one.

Stop being in the clouds and have neutral, fair discussions instead of using 43 emoticons and scrutinizing every other word I use rather than attempting to listen to the other half of the party. Half means there are TWO. Not just Obama's side.

I give up. I was giving you guys another chance, I was wrong. What a surprise.

Blacks will not vote Republican. If anything, they'll abstain. And even so, the nomination won't be WRESTLED from Obama unfairly. Based on recent events, it's safe to say there are legitimate problems with Obama.

Blacks are not the only important bloc of the democratic party.

End scene. Bye!

Pureracket
May 3rd, 2008, 03:42 AM
You guys and your emoticons :crazy:

They have been, so give me a break. This is why I stopped posting in neutral threads and this is why I am going to stop after this one.

Stop being in the clouds and have neutral, fair discussions instead of using 43 emoticons and scrutinizing every other word I use rather than defend or advance your own thoughts.

I give up. I was giving you guys another chance, I was wrong. What a surprise.

Blacks will not vote Republican. If anything, they'll abstain. And even so, the nomination won't be WRESTLED from Obama unfairly. Based on recent events, it's safe to say there are legitimate problems with Obama.

Blacks are not the only important bloc of the democratic party.

End scene. Bye!If you can't play by the rules, don't give me a chance. By saying that white, blue collar votes won't vote for Barack, you're simply admitting that there are racists on your side of the fence.

If they vote for McCain based on Barack's race(which, oddly enough, some people of his own race on this very board are doing), then maybe America deserves McCain.

Maybe America deserves a man who'll "slip up" and admit we're in the Middle East because of oil: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JzwboGFXrVg

JzwboGFXrVg

In The Zone
May 3rd, 2008, 03:53 AM
I never said race wasn't an issue.

And you know what? It is. And it doesn't help that he called them bitter and typical white people. And Obama's Reverend saying some of the things he did.

A uniter doesn't have friends like that. A uniter doesn't pass comments like that.

And I'm playing by the rules. Rule # 1: 2024.

mykarma
May 3rd, 2008, 03:58 AM
Y[quote]ou guys and your emoticons :crazy:

They have been, so give me a break. This is why I stopped posting in neutral threads and this is why I am going to stop after this one.:crying2::wavey:

Stop being in the clouds and have neutral, fair discussions instead of using 43 emoticons and scrutinizing every other word I use rather than defend or advance your own thoughts.You know damn well that shit you said is ridiculous and if someone else said it you'd be laughing too. .

I give up. I was giving you guys another chance, I was wrong. What a surprise.:tape:

Blacks will not vote Republican. If anything, they'll abstainFirst of all you don't know that, if there's a grass root movement based on what they might feel is an injustice it could very well happen, and if they abstain, the results would be the same.
. And even so, the nomination won't be WRESTLED from Obama unfairly. Based on recent events, it's safe to say there are legitimate problems with Obama.What do problems with his former paster have to do with him winning the primary. That certainly is no reason to take the nomination from him. It's not as though they caught an intern sucking is pecker, or he killed someone.

Blacks are not the only important bloc of the democratic party.No they're not but you continually state that they don't matter at all. I don't know if you're aware of it but you bring up race more than anyone in the political threads.

Forgot to mention, to my dismay, more and more blacks are going to the republican party. If the black churches hadn't been for Bush, I believe Gore would have won and we wouldn't be in the mess we're in now. We are getting tired of being taken for granted and getting none of our issues addressed. Yes, you're correct that Blacks along can't put anyone in office but they can change the dynamics of an election.

Pureracket
May 3rd, 2008, 03:59 AM
I never said race wasn't an issue.

And you know what? It is. And it doesn't help that he called them bitter and typical white people. And Obama's Reverend saying some of the things he did.

A uniter doesn't have friends like that. A uniter doesn't pass comments like that.

And I'm playing by the rules. Rule # 1: 2024.You won't ever stop with the spin bullshit will you? He was talking about a certain group in PA when he said "bitter," and that included Black people.

When he said "typical white person," it was in the context of typical Black person and every other group too. :yawn: You don't really care if you type facts @ all do you.

You're supporting HRC, and you're going to honestly start a discussion on friends? :haha: You've forgotten who she's married too, right? :haha:

In The Zone
May 3rd, 2008, 04:02 AM
You won't ever stop with the spin bullshit will you? He was talking about a certain group in PA when he said "bitter," and that included Black people.

When he said "typical white person," it was in the context of typical Black person and every other group too. :yawn: You don't really care if you type facts @ all do you.

You're supporting HRC, and you're going to honestly start a discussion on friends? :haha: You've forgotten who she's married too, right? :haha:

Keep it up with the emoticons.

I'm sorry, but there's always an excuse. You can only excuse someone so many times. Isn't that why you're fed up with Hillary and Bill? And it doesn't matter what you or I think. It matters what those voters think. So argue with me all you want. Even if they are "WRONG", that's what they think and that's how they're voting.

The blue collar voters weren't running away from him until he started up with his comments. End of story.

:):(;):rolleyes::mad::eek::angel::wavey::kiss: :hearts: :):(;):rolleyes::):(;)

Pureracket
May 3rd, 2008, 04:04 AM
Keep it up with the emoticons.

I'm sorry, but there's always an excuse. You can only excuse someone so many times. Isn't that why you're fed up with Hillary and Bill? And it doesn't matter what you or I think. It matters what those voters think. So argue with me all you want. Even if they are "WRONG", that's what they think and that's how they're voting.

The blue collar voters weren't running away from him until he started up with his comments. End of story.

:):(;):rolleyes::mad::eek::angel::wavey::kiss: :hearts: :):(;):rolleyes::):(;)I hope your "end of story" still applies when the race is over and we see the delegate count. ;)

In The Zone
May 3rd, 2008, 04:05 AM
No they're not but you continually state that they don't matter at all. I don't know if you're aware of it but you bring up race more than anyone in the political threads.

Forgot to mention, to my dismay, more and more blacks are going to the republican party. If the black churches hadn't been for Bush, I believe Gore would have won and we wouldn't be in the mess we're in now. We are getting tired of being taken for granted and getting none of our issues addressed. Yes, you're correct that Blacks along can't put anyone in office but they can change the dynamics of an election.

I bring up race all the time because all your posts have race implicitly involved. But when I FLAT OUT SAY it, I'm the one bringing it up. You guys set everyone up and then point the finger for someone falling for it. It's so tasteless.

And I do not think the blacks are not important. But EVERY group is important. Catering to one is asking for trouble from another. Like the blue collars.

Let's let this play out. But Obama needs help from the blue and Hillary needs help from the black. Get my drift?

Donny
May 3rd, 2008, 04:07 AM
I bring up race all the time because all your posts have race implicitly involved. But when I FLAT OUT SAY it, I'm the one bringing it up. You guys set everyone up and then point the finger for someone falling for it. It's so tasteless.

And I do not think the blacks are not important. But EVERY group is important. Catering to one is asking for trouble from another. Like the blue collars.

Let's let this play out. But Obama needs help from the blue and Hillary needs help from the black. Get my drift?

Blacks ARE blue collar, for the most part. You mean *white* blue collar workers. The demographic no democrat has won in large numbers since LBJ.

mykarma
May 3rd, 2008, 04:15 AM
I never said race wasn't an issue.

And you know what? It is. And it doesn't help that he called them bitter and typical white people. And Obama's Reverend saying some of the things he did.

A uniter doesn't have friends like that. A uniter doesn't pass comments like that.

And I'm playing by the rules. Rule # 1: 2024.
You know what the difference is that Barack's explanations are never good enough for you.
You may know that race is an issue but in your post you don't seem to acknowledge it and a matter of fact you seem to use it to discredit Barack's supporters. . He explained what he meant by the bitter statement and some white people came out and said that they were bitter. I guess white people aren't accustom to hearing things about themselves. I know what Barack said about typical white people is true and so don't you, especially white people of a certain age. The man was talking about his grandmother whom he truly loves. If anyone needs to be afraid it's black people.

BTW, the catholics have not had to leave their church because of years and years of abuse of little children and the abuse was not only hidden from the congregation but the same priest were put in another church to continue the same practices. John McCain is not being scrutinized for going after Hegee to support him. I also bet you have friends that say and do things that you don't agree with.

Barack said he wasn't in church when Rev. Wright said some of those things and a lot of the congregation is white, why didn't they just walk out. People felt the same way about MLK and now he's admired. One of the problems in this country is that it's been so segregated that the avg/typical white people has never had to learn the black culture but blacks know white culture. It's really shocking to a lot of blacks that whites get so upset with what we consider pretty trivial. I guess that's what being the privileged race is all about.

In The Zone
May 3rd, 2008, 04:21 AM
You're right. The explanations aren't good enough. Because to me, they're BS. And you can think I'm wrong, you can think the blue collar workers are wrong, but you know what? The vote is still going to be the same vote.

mykarma
May 3rd, 2008, 04:24 AM
I bring up race all the time because all your posts have race implicitly involved. But when I FLAT OUT SAY it, I'm the one bringing it up. You guys set everyone up and then point the finger for someone falling for it. It's so tasteless.

And I do not think the blacks are not important. But EVERY group is important. Catering to one is asking for trouble from another. Like the blue collars.

Let's let this play out. But Obama needs help from the blue and Hillary needs help from the black. Get my drift?
I'm not lying on you, you also bring up race in the Hillary thread and praise be if one of us post in there. You've also said or implied that they black vote don't count. I believe you even said it in here. I don't think I've ever heard one Obama supporter not say that he needed all of the votes from every nationality no matter how small so you don't need to preach to us.

As far as getting your drift, it difficult to keep up with because it changes like the wind.

In The Zone
May 3rd, 2008, 04:35 AM
I'm not lying on you, you also bring up race in the Hillary thread and praise be if one of us post in there. You've also said or implied that they black vote don't count. I believe you even said it in here. I don't think I've ever heard one Obama supporter not say that he needed all of the votes from every nationality no matter how small so you don't need to preach to us.

As far as getting your drift, it difficult to keep up with because it changes like the wind.

:bounce::bounce::bounce::bounce::bounce::bounce: :bounce:

mykarma
May 3rd, 2008, 04:36 AM
You're right. The explanations aren't good enough. Because to me, they're BS. And you can think I'm wrong, you can think the blue collar workers are wrong, but you know what? The vote is still going to be the same vote.
Perhaps it's because you're upset but you're not making any sense. What the hell are you talking about? BTW, many accept his explanations but no matter what he said he'd still be wrong to you but, Hillary slipped when she was ducking and running from sniper fire. According to Bill she's old and made a mistake because it was 11pm and she was tired, no that wasn't it she said it in the morning and in the afternoon. No, she got her facts messed up, they were correct in the book. Come on now, you can't be serious saying that Barack's explanation are bs but some snipers firing at your ass is a slip.

In The Zone
May 3rd, 2008, 04:37 AM
I'm not lying on you, you also bring up race in the Hillary thread and praise be if one of us post in there. You've also said or implied that they black vote don't count. I believe you even said it in here. I don't think I've ever heard one Obama supporter not say that he needed all of the votes from every nationality no matter how small so you don't need to preach to us.

As far as getting your drift, it difficult to keep up with because it changes like the wind.

Okay, so let me go COPY AND PASTE AND XEROX some answers for you. :) :) :) Since that's what you love.

Donny
May 3rd, 2008, 04:40 AM
I'm not lying on you, you also bring up race in the Hillary thread and praise be if one of us post in there. You've also said or implied that they black vote don't count. I believe you even said it in here. I don't think I've ever heard one Obama supporter not say that he needed all of the votes from every nationality no matter how small so you don't need to preach to us.

As far as getting your drift, it difficult to keep up with because it changes like the wind.

There are many people like In The Zone who are somewhat "bitter" that Obama's "people" are "stealing" the election from Hillary, because she was "first in line". So I'm not that surprised. I've met quite a few in real life.

In The Zone
May 3rd, 2008, 04:41 AM
Perhaps it's because you're upset but you're not making any sense. What the hell are you talking about? BTW, many accept his explanations but no matter what he said he'd still be wrong to you but, Hillary slipped when she was ducking and running from sniper fire. According to Bill she's old and made a mistake because it was 11pm and she was tired, no that wasn't it she said it in the morning and in the afternoon. No, she got her facts messed up, they were correct in the book. Come on now, you can't be serious saying that Barack's explanation are bs but some snipers firing at your ass is a slip.

Are we talking about snipergate? No. I don't care if you buy the explanation or not. I don't. What are you going to do about it? Blue collar workers agree with me, and not you. Are you going to try and CORRECT our opinion?

Perhaps when you nitpick every other word, you realize that you're constantly trying to shove your opinion down someone's throat. And that is why Obama's supporters have the stereotypes they do.

:) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :)

I'm really done. This goes nowhere, AS USUAL. Now, when you reply to this post, make sure you bold every other word and tell me what I said wrong. KKKKKKKTHXBYE.

In The Zone
May 3rd, 2008, 04:43 AM
There are many people like In The Zone who are somewhat "bitter" that Obama's "people" are "stealing" the election from Hillary, because she was "first in line". So I'm not that surprised. I've met quite a few in real life.

EFF OFF. Don't talk about me.

Am I bitter? Nah, Just a TYPICAL WHITE PERSON I GUESS.

CHANGE! CHANGE! CHANGE!

I want results. I need to trust a candidate. I don't trust him. I trust her. Big deal.

It's funny how you claim the entitlement argument YET you guys think Obama's SHOULD BE KNIGHTED AND CROWNED RIGHT NOW.

Sorry. Half the nation doesn't want him in case you haven't noticed.

Donny
May 3rd, 2008, 04:52 AM
EFF OFF. Don't talk about me.

Am I bitter? Nah, Just a TYPICAL WHITE PERSON I GUESS.

You might very well be a typical white person Do you consider that an insult? I consider myself the typical young black male. I'm proud of that. Methinks you have issues to work out if you're ashamed of your race in that manner.

CHANGE! CHANGE! CHANGE!

? No comment.

I want results. I need to trust a candidate. I don't trust him. I trust her. Big deal.

You trust someone who voted to invade Iraq without reading the National Intelligence Estimate? Seriously? You trust someone who supports a gas tax moratorium which everyone knows will not help anyone? You trust someone who lies about getting shot at to win votes? Odd.

It's funny how you claim the entitlement argument YET you guys think Obama's SHOULD BE KNIGHTED AND CROWNED RIGHT NOW.

Sorry. Half the nation doesn't want him in case you haven't noticed.

This is a hard reality for Clinton supporters to digest, but Obama's ahead by delegates. He's going to remain ahead by delegates, and the super delegates are moving his way, because most unpledged supers favor him at this point. Now that Hillary has literally begun criticizing the Dem controlled congress for being against the ridiculous gas tax moratorium, this will continue. She's not going to win. She's staying in to set up a 2012 run.

mykarma
May 3rd, 2008, 04:53 AM
:bounce::bounce::bounce::bounce::bounce::bounce: :bounce:
I guess that means that you agree with my statement. :worship:

In The Zone
May 3rd, 2008, 04:53 AM
You might very well be a typical white person Do you consider that an insult? I consider myself the typical young black male. I'm proud of that. Methinks you have issues to work out if you're ashamed of your race in that manner.



? No comment.



You trust someone who voted to invade Iraq without reading the National Intelligence Estimate? Seriously? You trust someone who supports a gas tax moratorium which everyone knows will not help anyone? You trust someone who lies about getting shot at to win votes? Odd.



This is a hard reality for Clinton supporters to digest, but Obama's ahead by delegates. He's going to remain ahead by delegates, and the super delegates are moving his way, because most unpledged supers favor him at this point. Now that Hillary has literally begun criticizing the Dem controlled congress for being against the ridiculous gas tax moratorium, this will continue. She's not going to win. She's staying in to set up a 2012 run.

If she wins North Carolina, she's the nominee. :) Gooooooooo Tar Heels!

pov
May 3rd, 2008, 04:53 AM
I at the same time I don't feel he deserved to be pushed under the rug like old day's news either.

You're right. Forget under the rug, it would've been better to toss him out with yesterday's kitty litter. ;)

The man's only claim to fame is Obama. The way he acted was beyond dumb. When even Newt Gingrich is expressing that Wright wants to hurt Obama then it's pretty clear what the Rev's agenda is.

mykarma
May 3rd, 2008, 05:00 AM
Are we talking about snipergate? No. I don't care if you buy the explanation or not. I don't. What are you going to do about it? Blue collar workers agree with me, and not you. Are you going to try and CORRECT our opinion?

Perhaps when you nitpick every other word, you realize that you're constantly trying to shove your opinion down someone's throat. And that is why Obama's supporters have the stereotypes they do.

:) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :)

I'm really done. This goes nowhere, AS USUAL. Now, when you reply to this post, make sure you bold every other word and tell me what I said wrong. KKKKKKKTHXBYE.
You're ranting again and what blue collar workers are you referring to. What is typical is for you to act like an ass and have a temper tantrum when people don't agree with you. As far as stereotypes we know you have them. :help:

Donny
May 3rd, 2008, 05:02 AM
If she wins North Carolina, she's the nominee. :) Gooooooooo Tar Heels!

Obama's going to win by double digits. It's funny, because we were having almost the same exact discussion per Mississippi. Remember when you said it'd be close, and I said not a chance? Remember? Same here. Nearly every poll undersamples the black vote, while underestimating Obama's black support. This happens in EVERY southern state. Literally every single one.

What's even more hilarious is, Obama's currently beating the expectations his camp had for NC pre Super Tuesday.

mykarma
May 3rd, 2008, 05:02 AM
EFF OFF. Don't talk about me.

Am I bitter? Nah, Just a TYPICAL WHITE PERSON I GUESS.

CHANGE! CHANGE! CHANGE!

I want results. I need to trust a candidate. I don't trust him. I trust her. Big deal.

It's funny how you claim the entitlement argument YET you guys think Obama's SHOULD BE KNIGHTED AND CROWNED RIGHT NOW.

Sorry. Half the nation doesn't want him in case you haven't noticed.
Watch it, your fangs are showing. ;)

Hillary - trustworthy=oxymoron. in case you've forgotten Hillary is at the bottom of the list for being trust worthy.

pov
May 3rd, 2008, 05:03 AM
I consider myself the typical young black male. I'm proud of that.

That's scary and sad. You're proud to think that you meet your idea of a stereotype? Oh and before you go to the usual crap assumptions - if the word white was there instead of black - i'd still see it as scary and sad.


Methinks you have issues to work out if you're ashamed of your race in that manner.

The issues to work out are not realizing that:
People can be fine with their "race" without being either proud or ashamed of it.
There is a huge gulf between having pride in oneself and "being proud of one's 'race.' "

mykarma
May 3rd, 2008, 05:07 AM
If she wins North Carolina, she's the nominee. :) Gooooooooo Tar Heels!
How?

Donny
May 3rd, 2008, 05:09 AM
That's scary and sad. You're proud to think that you meet your idea of a stereotype? Oh and before you go to the usual crap assumptions - if the word white was there instead of black - i'd still see it as scary and sad.

I like to assume that most black people has positive qualities, and are generally good people. I believe I have many of the same qualities as my fellow African Americans. Is that a stereotype? In the denotative sense, it might be.


The issues to work out are not realizing that:
People can be fine with their "race" without being either proud or ashamed of it.
There is a huge gulf between having pride in oneself and "being proud of one's 'race.' "

Why can't one be both?

mykarma
May 3rd, 2008, 05:09 AM
Obama's going to win by double digits. It's funny, because we were having almost the same exact discussion per Mississippi. Remember when you said it'd be close, and I said not a chance? Remember? Same here. Nearly every poll undersamples the black vote, while underestimating Obama's black support. This happens in EVERY southern state. Literally every single one.

What's even more hilarious is, Obama's currently beating the expectations his camp had for NC pre Super Tuesday.
I wouldn't be so sure about that.

mykarma
May 3rd, 2008, 05:12 AM
That's scary and sad. You're proud to think that you meet your idea of a stereotype? Oh and before you go to the usual crap assumptions - if the word white was there instead of black - i'd still see it as scary and sad.


The issues to work out are not realizing that:
People can be fine with their "race" without being either proud or ashamed of it.
There is a huge gulf between having pride in oneself and "being proud of one's 'race.' "
She's a typical teen ager, she's a typical college student, etc. I don't understand what's wrong with that.

In The Zone
May 3rd, 2008, 05:24 AM
Obama's going to win by double digits. It's funny, because we were having almost the same exact discussion per Mississippi. Remember when you said it'd be close, and I said not a chance? Remember? Same here. Nearly every poll undersamples the black vote, while underestimating Obama's black support. This happens in EVERY southern state. Literally every single one.

What's even more hilarious is, Obama's currently beating the expectations his camp had for NC pre Super Tuesday.

It's funny because remember when you said Obama would win Indiana easily?

mykarma
May 3rd, 2008, 03:50 PM
Czech, thought you might find this interesting.

Paul: Not ready to endorse McCain, likes Obama's foreign policy (http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2008/05/02/paul-not-ready-to-endorse-mccain-likes-obamas-foreign-policy/)
Posted: 10:00 PM ET
http://i.cdn.turner.com/cnn/2008/images/05/02/art.paul0502play.cnn.jpg (http://www.cnn.com/video/#/video/politics/2008/05/02/blitzer.ron.paul.interview.cnn) Paul on his presidential run: 'The race is still on'.


http://i.l.cnn.net/cnn/.element/img/2.0/mosaic/base_skins/baseplate/corner_wire_BL.gif

(CNN) — Even though Rep. Ron Paul has never officially ended his long shot presidential bid, he’s ready to weigh in on the three remaining major candidates for the White House.
In an interview on The Situation Room, Paul told Wolf Blitzer that endorsing Sen. John McCain, the Republican Party’s presumptive nominee, “would really confuse” his supporters “because they know we have a precise program and we have to defend that program.”
Having a Republican win the upcoming presidential election is “secondary” for Paul who is more interested in defending the Constitution, having the country go in what he considers the right direction, having a sound currency, and achieving balanced budgets. Paul parts ways with McCain over McCain’s support for the Iraq war, his approach to U.S. foreign policy in the Middle East and his willingness to spend federal dollars to support military operations in Iraq.
Instead, Paul favors Sen. Barack Obama because of positions on foreign policy. “But that’s doesn’t mean that’s an endorsement,” Paul quickly added.
Paul recently released a new book titled “The Revolution: a Manifesto.” “Unfortunately, it is revolutionary to talk about obeying the Constitution,” Paul said of the book’s title.

azinna
May 3rd, 2008, 10:59 PM
For those who are interested, a gripping, intelligent and searching conversation about the Obama-Wright controversy. Link: http://bloggingheads.tv/diavlogs/10710 (http://bloggingheads.tv/diavlogs/10710?in=00:13:20&out=00:17:44)

Also: if you have time, do read some of the posters' comments that follow, which make for as good a discussion as the video clips do.

Kenny
May 3rd, 2008, 11:01 PM
Yes.. he just hates him so much.. yet he stayed in his church for how long?

:scratches head:

mykarma
May 3rd, 2008, 11:14 PM
Yes.. he just hates him so much.. yet he stayed in his church for how long?

:scratches head:
I don't recall him ever saying that he hated Rev. Wright. No one is calling for practitioners to leave Rev. Hegee's or Franklin Graham's or the catholic church.

meyerpl
May 4th, 2008, 08:17 PM
I'm just glad that Reverend Wright finally broke his silence and erased any doubt that he's loonier than a shithouse rat.

mykarma
May 4th, 2008, 08:20 PM
I'm just glad that Reverend Wright finally broke his silence and erased any doubt that he's loonier than a shithouse rat.
:lol::lol::lol:

meyerpl
May 4th, 2008, 08:38 PM
And, I don't buy it. I'm sorry. If he felt this way, he would have said it from the beginning. He tried to tiptoe in the beginning to make everyone happy. And now that it's hurting him, he says this. Sounds like a real politician.
Why don't you buy it? If Senator Obama is like most people, Reverend Wright's recent public appearances were probably the first time he was speaking when the Senator wasn't snoozing.

woosey
May 4th, 2008, 09:02 PM
For those who are interested, a gripping, intelligent and searching conversation about the Obama-Wright controversy. Link: http://bloggingheads.tv/diavlogs/10710?in=00:13:20&out=00:17:44

Also: if you have time, do read some of the posters' comments that follow, which make for as good a discussion as the video clips do.

thanks. i've never seen this site.

azinna
May 6th, 2008, 01:58 AM
^^ No problems, woosey. Was new to me, too. Looks like they have a lot of good stuff and it's worth a bookmark.

samsung101
May 6th, 2008, 08:03 PM
It is funny to read how the mainstream media is running to try to cover up and dissipate
what Wright has said, written, and is.

By comparing McCain to Obama, with the Hagee endorsement, or either Graham.

One tiny problem: 20 years. Personal, close, familial type relationship
between Obama and Wright. For two decades.

Obama compared the guy to his grandmother in terms of closeness, when he
tossed Grandma under the bus last month.


Hagee is not the pastor for McCain, nor has he ever been.
Ditto for Graham Sr. or son.
McCain is not an outwardly religious guy, and he prides himself on that.
He isn't Bush or Reagan in terms of his faith - and how open he is talking about it
and the importance of it in his life.




Hagee made lame comments about New Orleans after Katrina, and guess what,
he apologized and recanted his comments. Something Wright has never done
about the AIDS or anti-Israel or black brain comments, nor will he ever.
Hagee took back his comments about the gay pride parade and Katrina...he
admitted he was wrong to say it.

Has Wright ever taken one of his outlandish racist or anti-Irael comments back?
No.

Hagee has been distanced from McCain for his comments, because McCain not being
a very religous guy outwardly wasn't even aware of the controverial comments.

As for his Catholic Church comments, Frank Rich of the NY Times did not bother
to read the text or the video wording of Hagee, who is very pro-Israel, and was
talking about specific Bible references to the false church, the cult, which many
believe will emerge: a Christian looking and sounding body, which will denouce
the actual Gospel. Hagee himself has said that is not the Catholic Church as he
knows it.

But, that's not what those who want to try to relate a 20+ year relationship for Obama,
to a 1 time endorsement, that has been returend by McCain, with Hagee.

Not quite the same thing. But, it doesn't say much about us, that the MSM is so eager
to make sure we swallow that pill, and forget about Obama's problem.


Wright is not a problem for his supporters.

Wright is a problem for Obama, because the issue inspires medicore McCain supporters
in the GOP to go his way more, not less.

McCain is not a popular candidate for the GOP. He's disliked more than liked w/i the party.
But, Wright and Ayers and Rezko, and the #1 liberal record of Obama, do a lot more to
inspire GOP voters, than anything McCain will say or do.

Donny
May 7th, 2008, 04:35 AM
Obama's going to win by double digits. It's funny, because we were having almost the same exact discussion per Mississippi. Remember when you said it'd be close, and I said not a chance? Remember? Same here. Nearly every poll undersamples the black vote, while underestimating Obama's black support. This happens in EVERY southern state. Literally every single one.

What's even more hilarious is, Obama's currently beating the expectations his camp had for NC pre Super Tuesday.

I wouldn't be so sure about that.

Have faith, my friend.

Philbo
May 7th, 2008, 09:51 AM
Czech, thought you might find this interesting.

Paul: Not ready to endorse McCain, likes Obama's foreign policy (http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2008/05/02/paul-not-ready-to-endorse-mccain-likes-obamas-foreign-policy/)
Posted: 10:00 PM ET
http://i.cdn.turner.com/cnn/2008/images/05/02/art.paul0502play.cnn.jpg (http://www.cnn.com/video/#/video/politics/2008/05/02/blitzer.ron.paul.interview.cnn) Paul on his presidential run: 'The race is still on'.


http://i.l.cnn.net/cnn/.element/img/2.0/mosaic/base_skins/baseplate/corner_wire_BL.gif

(CNN) — Even though Rep. Ron Paul has never officially ended his long shot presidential bid, he’s ready to weigh in on the three remaining major candidates for the White House.
In an interview on The Situation Room, Paul told Wolf Blitzer that endorsing Sen. John McCain, the Republican Party’s presumptive nominee, “would really confuse” his supporters “because they know we have a precise program and we have to defend that program.”
Having a Republican win the upcoming presidential election is “secondary” for Paul who is more interested in defending the Constitution, having the country go in what he considers the right direction, having a sound currency, and achieving balanced budgets. Paul parts ways with McCain over McCain’s support for the Iraq war, his approach to U.S. foreign policy in the Middle East and his willingness to spend federal dollars to support military operations in Iraq.
Instead, Paul favors Sen. Barack Obama because of positions on foreign policy. “But that’s doesn’t mean that’s an endorsement,” Paul quickly added.
Paul recently released a new book titled “The Revolution: a Manifesto.” “Unfortunately, it is revolutionary to talk about obeying the Constitution,” Paul said of the book’s title.

Thanks Mykarma - I was actually at home on Friday night getting ready to go out when I saw CNN promote an upcoming interview with the good Doctor Ron Paul.. I got so excited I brushed my plans and stayed in to watch a 10 minute interview with him!

I wasnt disapointed. He refuses to toe the party line and endorse the war mongerer McCain. He made good points about the fact Obama is better than McCain on Iraq, but as he correctly pointed out - the democrats like to play on public support for getting out of Iraq, but I dont trust Obama or Clinton on Iraq - watch the rhetoric change to 'keeping a presence in Iraq to prevent a catastrophe if we were to leave' bullshit - the only candidate who would really get the USA completely out of Iraq is Ron Paul - as he said in a debate, 'we just march out. We just marched in there, and we just march out again' - clear, unambigous policy position.. Oh what I would give for the same committment from Clinton or Obama...

mykarma
May 7th, 2008, 02:00 PM
Have faith, my friend.

After hitting the streets yesterday and finding so many people that are still disillusioned with politics I must admit that I still had my doubts. When I got home I was so hot and tired that I was just going to cool out but Barack won N.C. so fast that all of a sudden I was energized and hit the party. :lol: Had an absolute ball.

:worship::worship::worship:

DA FOREHAND
May 7th, 2008, 08:10 PM
It is funny to read how the mainstream media is running to try to cover up and dissipate
what Wright has said, written, and is.

By comparing McCain to Obama, with the Hagee endorsement, or either Graham.

One tiny problem: 20 years. Personal, close, familial type relationship
between Obama and Wright. For two decades.

Obama compared the guy to his grandmother in terms of closeness, when he
tossed Grandma under the bus last month.


Hagee is not the pastor for McCain, nor has he ever been.
Ditto for Graham Sr. or son.
McCain is not an outwardly religious guy, and he prides himself on that.
He isn't Bush or Reagan in terms of his faith - and how open he is talking about it
and the importance of it in his life.




Hagee made lame comments about New Orleans after Katrina, and guess what,
he apologized and recanted his comments. Something Wright has never done
about the AIDS or anti-Israel or black brain comments, nor will he ever.
Hagee took back his comments about the gay pride parade and Katrina...he
admitted he was wrong to say it.

Has Wright ever taken one of his outlandish racist or anti-Irael comments back?
No.

Hagee has been distanced from McCain for his comments, because McCain not being
a very religous guy outwardly wasn't even aware of the controverial comments.

As for his Catholic Church comments, Frank Rich of the NY Times did not bother
to read the text or the video wording of Hagee, who is very pro-Israel, and was
talking about specific Bible references to the false church, the cult, which many
believe will emerge: a Christian looking and sounding body, which will denouce
the actual Gospel. Hagee himself has said that is not the Catholic Church as he
knows it.

But, that's not what those who want to try to relate a 20+ year relationship for Obama,
to a 1 time endorsement, that has been returend by McCain, with Hagee.

Not quite the same thing. But, it doesn't say much about us, that the MSM is so eager
to make sure we swallow that pill, and forget about Obama's problem.


Wright is not a problem for his supporters.

Wright is a problem for Obama, because the issue inspires medicore McCain supporters
in the GOP to go his way more, not less.

McCain is not a popular candidate for the GOP. He's disliked more than liked w/i the party.
But, Wright and Ayers and Rezko, and the #1 liberal record of Obama, do a lot more to
inspire GOP voters, than anything McCain will say or do.

it doesn't take much to scare out the conservative vote. bring up gay rights, any black man, or an independent woman.

America has been stuck on stupid for damn near eight years now.