the new and improved obama thread

One of the commandments is not bearing false witness. It is a shame to see you treading very heavily on that line. And for gossipy stuff nonetheless.Outside of faith, what you are doing is also a logical fallacy... guilt by association.Obama has publicly answered the recent innuendo you seem to have swallowed hook line and sinker. Have you not seen his response?No human is perfect. Obama does not have to find everything about what Wright thinks or does perfect, in order to find inspiration from him. He has been in a community where Wright is a minister, not God. Leaving that community might be a lot harder than leaving a minister, because of some things that minister says or does.Although you have picked out a few statements and incidents by Wright, you have not shown that was this guy's predominate message day in and day out for those 23 years, nor that Obama would even be aware of these statements or actions.How many people in a congregation know everything that their minister is up to, or agree with everything he says?As for Farrakan, he is anti-Israeli and anti-Jewish... though as he is in support of Palestinians and others semitic peoples it is hard to call him anti-semitic. Let's agree to call him racist.What do the actions of Wright with respect to Farrakan have anything to do with Obama? As it is, Farrakan is a very powerful person in the black community, especially Chicago. It would be odd not to find some kind of connection between a prominent black person having lived and risen to power in Chicago and Farrakan. If that's all one needs to make a case against someone then I guess we can just rule out all blacks from Chicago from entering politics, eh?You are judging a man, and casting innuendos at his feet. You have shown no activity by the man himself to support your fears and so you look to those about him. Is there some reason you cannot trust his own words and activities, beyond your personal fears?For shame Buz. This election could be about issues with some excellent candidates on all sides running. Why are YOU bringing it down?Edited by Silent H, : +case against

---

h
"Civilized men are more discourteous than savages because they know they can be impolite without having their skulls split, as a general thing." - Robert E. Howard

Chiroptera has beat me to the punch on the issue of track record in public works v associations. But I think I have a few more points to add, taking your argument at face value...1) I couldn't care less who Bush thinks like regarding religious issues. My main concern is what he believes regarding how our nation should solve its problems. If he moves to mix his religion with our legal system and practices then I would be concerned.2) If his connection to Falwell was largely connected to the community, as it is for Obama, then I wouldn't necessarily assume Bush agreed with everything Falwell thinks.3) In any case, I would try to find his record to see what his stance has been on issues, and trust his word regarding his position on Falwell's commentary.4) I would not launch an entire case against Bush, solely on the actions of people around him.and finally, to throw your own argument back in your face...5) Bush and his family HAVE been working in oil (among other things) with the Saudi Royal family for many years (IIRC more than 23), as well as the Taliban. We have recent pictures of Bush holding the King's hand as our gas prices go up. Pretty much the same can be said for Cheney. They were both associated with the nations directly related to attacking our nation... before and after the attacks. So... how are they escaping your blame game, when a guy who just went to a popular church gets all this muck thrown at him? They ALSO claim to be Xian, but why should I believe them given their association, and the fact that they've left our nation and its military weakened, and our enemies (or competitors) stronger?Edited by Silent H, : clarity

---

h
"Civilized men are more discourteous than savages because they know they can be impolite without having their skulls split, as a general thing." - Robert E. Howard

You didn't reply to my post #132 which contained some points I felt you ought to reply to, especially when you are playing the paranoia card... I thought according to the prophecies Islam would enter an open war against the west in Israel, which would then bring on the second coming. Is there some portion open to being read that we'd get a secret Islamic president who would actually make us fail to fight and let Islam take over? You've given no reason to believe he's a muslim at this point. Even if I were to buy your guilt by association argument, he'd still be a Xian. He goes to a Xian church and the pastor is Xian. That his pastor hangs out with a muslim is no different than a Xian hanging out with a Jew or anyone else. The common tie if you had not noticed is that they are part of the black community as well as trying to stand up against some of the oppressors of the world (even if ironically supporting dictators).And once again I fid it interesting that you claim it is too great a risk, yet seem to have passed over the fact that Bush and Cheney were in bed with all of the nations whose people were involved in the attack on our nation. Bush holds hands with the Saudi King, who is heavily charging us for oil after we helped remove another enemy of his. Why isn't Bush the secret muslim?Indeed if there was going to be a secret muslim, wouldn't they have done a better job of hiding it than promoting a guy registered at an Islamic school? Or be black?

---

h
"Civilized men are more discourteous than savages because they know they can be impolite without having their skulls split, as a general thing." - Robert E. Howard

I think I remember that thread as if seen through a glass darkly. Wishing it would go away, apparently did not make it leave.What's interesting is how he ended that post... And you know that's all I'm asking Buz to do. Watch HIM closely and listen to what HE says closely. Apparently Buz's eyes and ears have lost their focus... or perhaps Obama's commentary and actions just weren't exciting enough, engaging enough... inflammatory enough.Edited by Silent H, : him to buz

---

h
"Civilized men are more discourteous than savages because they know they can be impolite without having their skulls split, as a general thing." - Robert E. Howard

This is false witness again. Obama stated that he was not aware of the commentary by Wright, and had not been present at the time. You appear to be claiming he is lying. He is a black preacher at a black church in Chicago. He is not fanning racist fires but playing up a context his congregation understands and would relate to.I find your lack of insight on this stunning. Xians and Jews have continued throughout the millenia to remind themselves and everyone else how horrible the Egyptians were, the Romans were, and continually fearmonger about other people that do not believe or live as they do. Heck, Passion plays are still popular, eh?So to not understand a black pastor using the feeling of oppression that his community of Xians have felt more recently (and still do to some extent) is really bizarre.As it stands, can you show me where Wright was advocating that the USA be overthrown? You can criticize him for whining, perhaps opportunism, or as molbio aptly suggested for classism, but its a stretch to say he was advocating racism, or stoking the fires of racism.And finally, what does any of this have to do with Obama? Have you found any statement by Obama which mirrors any of the statements or actions by Wright? Obama is not by any means a divisive or inflammatory person. About the only thing he has said which could be found that way, has been in support of Xianity and Israel.Your guilt by association is really upsetting to me when we could have such a clean race with excellent candidates. I might add that it is clearly errant. Clinton also went to church where the ministers promoted fidelity. He gave them money and he praised their message. He was also one of the most unfaithful people around.You shouldn't be judging a person in the first place. But if you do, at least do it by what the person says and does themself. Perhaps he should have broken out the whip? No wait, it was the branding iron, right? Mark him for all to see as a Black Muslim Extremist?Edited by Silent H, : -thisEdited by Silent H, : iron

---

h
"Civilized men are more discourteous than savages because they know they can be impolite without having their skulls split, as a general thing." - Robert E. Howard

I agree and that is what I was trying to get across to Buz. Particularly in Chicago, blacks have had a very raw deal. The city is STILL heavily segregated, and despite any progress the wounds of just 20-50 years ago are not likely healed given the continuing depressed state of their neighborhoods.Mayor Daley (whose son now runs the city) had police attacking blacks, and that was a very big thing. So was the practice of "red-lining" which trapped blacks in squalor (wealthier blacks could not improve their neighborhoods if they wanted), while the poorest were packed into some of the most notorious slums in the US.It takes someone wholly ignorant of the black experience, particularly that in Chicago, to view Wright as simply a racist... or that people attending his church must agree with everything he says.Edited by Silent H, : 3 to 5, and 25 or 6 to 4

---

h
"Civilized men are more discourteous than savages because they know they can be impolite without having their skulls split, as a general thing." - Robert E. Howard

I don't hold differing definitions and freely point to where and when anybody makes a racist comment. For example I have already stated that Farrakan is racist. Regarding Wright, I mentioned what I saw him doing. He was engaging in classism, opportunism, and I would add Rahvin's description of conspiracy theorizing.I can agree that I would not want Wright running for President. I can also agree that Obama's having listened to this guy both surprises and disappoints me. If you want, I can even agree that his connection to Wright gives someone a reason to wonder what he's about and do some checking.But that's where it ends, and you have done no such checking. You clearly have not tried to understand why Obama might have gone to that church and stayed there, even if he wasn't 100% with the minister's opinions. You haven't even tried to understand why Wright might have the opinions, or make the statements he does. Again, I think this is shameful conduct for you. Well... I WOULD say you must understand what was going on in the south in order to understand why slavery and segregation existed and was felt justified by the people involved. However, the experiences of oppressors is different than those who have been oppressed. I feel a bit more sympathy for Wright's errant position, stemming from real racism against blacks, than the those who held slaves or oppressed blacks. Again, this is simply showing your ignorance. What you are discussing is an issue of politics and power among the black community, particularly in Chicago. It existed before the rise of Islamic militancy and will likely go on well after that ends.You keep stating that questions are being raised. Why are you not seeking answers? People are attempting to give them to you (even Obama) but you keep waiting around saying there are questions. It is my opinion that you are simply waiting for any answer EXCEPT that Obama is not an Islamic anti-american person. And you will keep waiting because such an answer will not come, yet add any new issue which might seem to raise yet another question. I've watched the debates as well as his interviews. Are you incapable of forming an opinion of the man based on his words and actions, or must it always be about the hints of conspiracy?If Wright is a racist, for acting irate about issues you feel have already been dealt with... what does that make you for slamming a black man who has not said such things, and denounces such things, simply because of his race and his father's religion?

---

h
"Civilized men are more discourteous than savages because they know they can be impolite without having their skulls split, as a general thing." - Robert E. Howard

Thanks for that. It might be noted that near the top of the page is a link to "videos" which include some other discussions of the issue, including an interview with Obama on CNN.To Buz: please read the entire transcript and tell me how, as a christian and an American, you feel his words indicate anything but positive intentions for this nation. These are HIS words. How would you judge them?

---

h
"Civilized men are more discourteous than savages because they know they can be impolite without having their skulls split, as a general thing." - Robert E. Howard

How was the transcript Molbio linked to "easily manipulated"? Even if one wanted to have doubts as to whether he truly feels deep down in some hidden part of his brain everything that he expressed... isn't his message the right one we need in the public arena at this time? Isn't it the kind of inspirational message we ought to have coming out of the White House?I agree the most important issue is whether he has the right plan and the ability to push it through. But I don't see C or McC as showing any more promise than he does on that score (which is not to diminish them, but to state how lucky we could be at this time). On top of credentials (which I feel are equal enough) Obama has a message neither of the others are pushing, and a palpable charisma neither possess. I can't stand some of his positions, but on the main I agree with him, and he is a person I'd be more willing to compromise with. That might be true for other members of the gov't. What rep will compromise with Hillary, how many would support McCain? Obama's lack of time in office, might be seen less as a lack of experience and more of a lack of entrenched interests from either party.

---

h
"Civilized men are more discourteous than savages because they know they can be impolite without having their skulls split, as a general thing." - Robert E. Howard

Yeah, now who would say something like that? Sounds kinda familiar, kinda like... Would that work for you?

---

h
"Civilized men are more discourteous than savages because they know they can be impolite without having their skulls split, as a general thing." - Robert E. Howard

What does smoked out mean? Shady affiliates? You have one popular pastor who said some things that the black community tends to go for, though errantly hyperbolic and divisive. And it has been suggested that that same pastor was popular among respected theologians in general (for his religious work). Of yeah and that pastor has some friends you don't like.I would point out that a liberal voting policy would contradict the Islamic connection you had earlier been trying to insinuate.I feel very sorry for you that a genuinely strong speech gets twisted into smooth crafty talk. That would be a very dark, ugly world. First, how can you claim this if you also admit not having heard all his sermons? Second, Obama states directly in his speech that the pastor has said things similar, though not as directly errant and divisive as the clips being played. So he was aware the guy made some angry comments now and then. He explained what this meant, where it would come from, and why it would not necessitate his leaving the church.I am now somewhat skeptical on whether you read it.Be that as it may, what will you do if Obama gets elected president, and then does not turn out to be an Islamic mole? What if he does exactly what he says and works hard to help fix the nation?Edited by Silent H, : -i

---

h
"Civilized men are more discourteous than savages because they know they can be impolite without having their skulls split, as a general thing." - Robert E. Howard

Well your analysis and position seems fair enough to me. I guess I'm not as cynical, but that is a difference in personal makeup.While I think the speech was initiated as a piece of damage control, because of course he did have to say something, he managed to take it where most politicians would not. He elevated the topic instead of going with hype and soundbyte. I guess this is to say that he turned personal damage control into national damage control. That impresses me.On healthcare, I believe Obama actually did say that it wouldn't be fixed by his administration. The idea was to begin putting in measures to move healthcare reform along. Maybe I got him wrong but I thought that was one of the differences between him and Hillary, who is suggesting that her plan will fix it. Personally I think her plan might be a bit better, though I agree with Obama that mandates do not guarantee people get insured.

---

h
"Civilized men are more discourteous than savages because they know they can be impolite without having their skulls split, as a general thing." - Robert E. Howard

Hey buz, did you see Huckabee defending both Obama and Wright? If so, I'm wondering what you thought. Certainly I would not expect you to blacken Huck's Xian credentials.

---

h
"Civilized men are more discourteous than savages because they know they can be impolite without having their skulls split, as a general thing." - Robert E. Howard

First to GDR, thanks for the assist with the transcript, I had seen it on video and did not feel like writing a transcript.Now to Grizz. I've been thinking about your comment that Obama's speech was damage control and that you would have been more impressed if he had made it before (and without) the scandal. The more I think about it the more I disagree with your cynicism.To start with I think if he had made a speech like that at the outset of his campaign, he would have been derided as making race a part of this presidential election. Cynics would have likely commented that he had prepared a brilliant speech in a position of safety and threw it out there without any reason to have done so, other than to look good, and play off his multicultural background. He would have been "inventing" a crisis and division where there was none.That this speech was a response to a crisis... what would normally be called damage control... is what makes it so powerful a statement about Obama.Normally in this type of situation, where mud is being thrown at a candidate, effective damage control is the verbal equivalent of dodging or catching that mud and throwing some clever shots back.In this specific case, Obama patiently scraped off the mud thrown at himself and his rival, indeed protecting his rival from future mudslinging, patiently built some mud bricks, stacked them neatly, stepped aside and said "Let's use these to build a house we can all live in."He didn't just take the high road, he took a road I had not known existed. I know myself well enough to understand I would have been incapable of such action... but I wish I were. That's a leader to me.

---

h
"Civilized men are more discourteous than savages because they know they can be impolite without having their skulls split, as a general thing." - Robert E. Howard

Wow, so its anything goes, huh? I heard that Jesus stood up for Wright and Obama as well, he's totally forgiven them. Guess that makes him the Islamic tool as well.Seriously though, what if Obama wins and he turns out to be a decent president who does a lot for this nation? Wouldn't that make you very very wrong?

---

h
"Civilized men are more discourteous than savages because they know they can be impolite without having their skulls split, as a general thing." - Robert E. Howard