A Quote for the Day

Or mabey Barak Obama is in fact a racist whose 20 year relation with this racist preacher and refusal to disavow him goes deeper then we all imagine.

A year ago the website for this church was replete with racist and anti white/jew and American talking points. I find it hard to imagine that Barak Obama did not know this. Im sure his advisors were all over this looking for anything that could bring Obama Down.

Over the course of the last 6 months the website has been given an extreme makeover by a very professional web designer and though their are some vague hints to Black first all of the previous references to being just plain anti american and racist have been removed and replace with the black values system.

You can view some of the changes here. I had actually visited the churchs website many times shaking my head in disbelief that the website had not been edited to a more moderate sounding tone.

http://sweetness-light.com/archive/obamas-churc...

Perhaps Barak Obama more closely mirrors the Rev. Wright then we all want to acknowledge. He says he was unaware. Poppy cock. His advisors were all over this from day one. Once again we see poor advice from crummy advisors a further reflection of the type of people Barak Obama will surround himself with during his stay in the White House.

Deeds are starting to pop up. Something we can judge the good Senator on and what I and many, many more like me are seeing is not good. This is just the beginning of what lurks under the flowery speechs that Barak Obama likes to dazzle us with.

“I understand MSNBC has suspended Mr. Imus,” Obama told ABC News, “but I would also say that there’s nobody on my staff who would still be working for me if they made a comment like that about anybody of any ethnic group. And I would hope that NBC ends up having that same attitude.”—April 11, 2007

http://www.abcnews.go.com/Politics/story?id=303...

John Kerry is a war hero, with the medals to prove it.

Everyone saw what happened to him in 2004, at the hands of the political party whose members fancy themselves as supporters of the military.

Why wouldn't Republicans misrepresent Obama in a way that suits their own political ambitions? Don't you think they've misrepresented Hillary Clinton?

One of the problems with out current politics is that Republicans get rewarded for doing this.

It's not like they can run on the issues.

Not this time indeed!

Whocares,

Um -- you're making some really big leaps in logic, and honestly, I don't have much problem with any of the Web site, before or after, content you linked to. It talks about pride in race and ethnicity. Fine with me.

JillyDybka,

And Wright is no longer working on Obama's staff, as I understand it.

Sure they can run on the issues George. And they will.

They will once again make a case for fiscal restraint which McCain has a strong record of endorsing. Barak Obama has a speech about it and a record of far left voting that will increase our taxes dramatically to hope to embrace any of these fiscal areas that are in his website.

They will once again make a strong case for maintaining a presence in the middle east and insuring that the Iraqi's are not slaughtered. McCain was a war hero, POW, who will make a strong case against retreat. Obama has a pretty speech about it and consistently voting to cut funding for our troops in an effort to force us to come home.

McCain will make a strong case about securing our borders and giving hispanics a new life and home in America. He wrote the bill. Barak Obama gave a nice speech about it.

McCain will make a case for returning to budget cuts, keeping some taxes in place while including tax breaks for the middle class. Barak Obama gave a nice speech about it.

Yes when it comes to deeds McCain has a moderate record. Barak Obama claims he is a moderate while having a very liberal voting record and NO record of crossing over and working in a bipartisan fashion with the Republicans to get things done.

The record is exactly what they want to run on Geroge. Obama offers hope and prayers. McCain offers years of deeds backed up by action. The Gop has wanted to run against Barak Obama way more then Hillary. That is why they crossed over in elections and voted for Obama. However the Democrats seem to have failed to grasp reality and instead think that because the GOP is in disarray that suddenly all those republicans are going to vote for a FAR LEFT LIBERAL.

The GOP cant wait to discuss issues with Barak Obama.

pabel I just linked one website that had some preexisting Church pages on it before the overhaul. There are many more places on the web in which it is not my duty or obligation to post here. People will believe what they want to believe.

If there is a desire to know the truth then people will dig. If not they will just reject it as politics and go on believing in their candidate. Sorta like the GOP went on believing in GWB until they looked around and the ship had sunk and the life boats had holes in them.

All I can say is that if the old website was not a problem then why update it, rewrite it and change most of its content to more rational, eye appealing moderation? We will believe what we want to believe in all things.

I for one know very little about Barak Obama. He poppoed out of the woodwork a couple years ago and now is a hairs breath away from being my president. I have lots of questions about this man. I intend to get answers if at all possible.

Uh, Pete...
Surely you aren't trying to suggest that Obama didn't know of a single racist or incendiary remark that Wright had made prior to last week?

Christine -- I wasn't trying to suggest that at all.

Whocares--

The Club for Growth, a conservative organization, has judged John McCain's record on economic matters as follows:

Despite his positive votes-and there are several-his negative positions have tainted, perhaps beyond repair, the positive ones over his twenty-four years in Congress. The evidence of his record and the virulence of his rhetoric suggest that American taxpayers cannot expect consistently strong economic policies from a McCain administration.

Before he won the Republican nomination, many conservatives were concerned about McCain's support for what they called Shamnesty. Are they just hypocrites? Or are they just desperate?

Is McCain going to continue the Bush policy of cutting taxes while continuing to fight lengthy wars?

Then it's really not relevant that Wright no longer works for Obama's campaign in an official capacity, in comparison to his reaction to Imus' racist remark. He called for Imus to be fired over one remark, yet he hired a man in a lead position of his campaign even when he knew of the man's racist beliefs. That's the kind of action/history that makes me so skeptical of the speech, because even if he truly believes every word he said, he hasn't shown the courage to act on those beliefs. He's calling on others to move past the racial divisiveness, yet he hasn't acted in ways to do that himself even when the opportunities clearly presented themselves.

Imus was fired because, once his entire career's worth of racially-charged remarks suddenly became common knowledge, advertisers no longer wanted to be associated with his program.

Christine -- OK. If Obama was aware of racist comments from Wright comparable to what Imus said, then yes, it's hypocritical. But the comparable comments from Wright, Obama says he had not previously heard the man utter. Controversial comments, yes, but there's a whole category of controversial comments and Obama's very clear in his talk (as he has been all along) that the specific, racist comments circulating on YouTube were not word he heard or remembered Wright uttering. Nor do we know if there were others. Net: There might be hypocrisy, double-standard here, or there might not be. The other thing we have to consider is that if the balance of Wright's comments were not racist as Obama claims, and we hold Imus up to that same standard, Imus fails. As I recall, Imus has a long history of publicly insensitive and yes (I believe) racist remarks. If it had been the first time Imus said words like that, and he apologized and appealed to the balance of his record, it might be a different story. I remember instances with lesser radio personalities where they've slipped and been publicly forgiven, including by black leaders. So there's some latitude here.

I am not defending McCain. I am just pointing out the extreme differences that exist between McCain and his 24 years in government with 24 years worth of votes and deeds and Obama who has 3 years of which 2 he has spent campaigning for President.

The contrasts are real. Obama must rely upon his ability to charm voters and the Wright fiasco is a sure sign that he cannot charm voters when their is stink in the air and this wright thing really stinks.

Its hope vs experience. Its things seen vs things unseen. This is politics. This is a realistic foreign policy vs a Idealistic foreign policy and the last president to embark on that approach, Jimmy Carter, made as much of a mess of the world as did GWB and his preemptive, neoconservative approach.

The foreign policy that has worked for decades has always been a realistic one and Hillary and McCain follow that formula. Those that are Barak Obama's heartiest supporters want the Idealistic approach and while on the surface that seems a fair expectation in reality it simply does not work in a hard and tough world.

FAR LEFT LIBERAL.

You're joking, right?

FAR LEFT & LIBERAL are oxymorons, you can be one or the other but not both.

A Liberal is someone who thinks that the current economic & political system are in reasonably decent condition and that with a few minor tweaks, most problems can be, if not resolved, substantially alleviated.

A real FAR LEFTIST aka (a Communist, a Socialist possibly an Anarchist) would think that most corporations should be nationalized, that wealth and not income should be taxed and that quite a few of the wealthy should be put against a wall given a cigarette and a few minutes to contemplate the errors of their way before being sent to hell.

Now do you see the difference between the two?

Imus was fired because, once his entire career's worth of racially-charged remarks suddenly became common knowledge, advertisers no longer wanted to be associated with his program.

And got rehired by WABC-77 in NY six month later.

Whocares--

What exactly is McCain's applicable experience?

What exactly is McCain's applicable experience?

Dropping bombs on defenseless civilians? Taking bribes from Bankers?

What exactly is McCain's applicable experience?

That is a fair question. I do suspect that you are baiting me into presenting such so you have an opening to destroy it.

However it is not for me to define what is McCain's experience. That will come out over the course of the election.

Obama supporters have embarked upon an agenda of minimalizing anyones experience to being trivial. They have laughed at, scorned and mocked anyone who might have more experience then Obama and then pull the bait and switch and claim that Judgment is more important then experience.

This will be the debate. McCain and his experience in government for 24 years. The old codger. The insider. The man who has gotten down and dirty with the best of them and came out on top.

Vs.

Barak Obama. You enter your description. He is your candidate. I only reference McCain because he is the opponent to either Hillary or Obama.

Don I do not accept your definiton of liberal and far left as you choose to define it. I perfer instead to use experts evaluation of the word and what it means in the modern day sense of our political structure.

Liberalism wagers that a state... can be strong but constrained – strong because constrained... Rights to education and other requirements for human development and security aim to advance equal opportunity and personal dignity and to promote a creative and productive society. To guarantee those rights, liberals have supported a wider social and economic role for the state, counterbalanced by more robust guarantees of civil liberties and a wider social system of checks and balances anchored in an independent press and pluralistic society. – Paul Starr, sociologist at Princeton University,

The liberal quite simply believes that the economy needs more then a few tweaks and in fact needs an abundance of regulation to achieve the desired results.

As such you have those who believe that the government needs to be even more involved in the constraining of business in order to assure a more equitable solution for the masses. Thus you end up with liberals who are farther left of their mainstream counterpart.

No ones accusing them of being communist or socialist. Because once you cross that threshold then you are no longer a liberal by definiton.

Also Don, 'far left' in America doesn't mean socialist or communist, since neither of those ideologies have any footing here. Far left is a relative term, so in American politics it's the far left of the Democratic party- or a liberal who believes in a good bit of intervention and regulation of the economy.

The Obama critics here define everything from Obama to the Far Left, and their arguments consist of criticising that which they have created via their imposed definitions. That's a nice circular game, but fails the honest discussion criterion.

When it became apparent that the Catholic church had put children at risk by covering up for child molesting priests, the reasoning used by those not leaving the church in protest was that , in spite of everything, the Church offered them the spiritual guidance they wanted. . An onlooker might be tempted to call that aiding and abetting or another round of enabling.
The public, for the most part, understood the attachement the religious have to their church., and why they would be content to hear the good messages and block out the bad practicess. Even those who oppose the second class roles imposed on nuns seldom leave the church because of it. They take the bad for the sake of the the good.

Obama is held to a different standard (talking of double standards, so popular in these criticisms. He is held responsible for every word his pastor ever spoke, even those words he may not have heard, and Obama's idendity is being fused with that of Rev Wright. He is renounced for having the same kind of attachment to his church and his spiritual guides as other denominations have to theirs.

We must also look at the difference between words and actions. The Rev. Wright spoke startingly angry and inapropriate words. He neither performed offensive actions nor called on others to do so, however. No one was harmed by his words the way coutnless children were harmed by the actions of the Catholic church.

Would a Cathokic candidate be asled why he hasn't publically renounced the failures in the actions (not mere words) of his Church? Actions do speak louder than words, you know.

Everything Obama said in his speech is the antitheses of this kind of argumentation. It called for restraint in blaming others and respecing our differences. He extended an offer of respect and understnding to those who disagree with one antoher and with him. It seems to me, that in spite of everything, Rev. Wright managed to instill some deep Christian values in Obama. .

As a reply to that offer of mutual respect, he is being torn to shreds for the sake of an election.

We could, instead learn from Obama's speech and refrain from the atttack dog mode of political debate, no matter who the candidate is.
It doesn't look like we will. What does that say about America? Or is it unpatriotic to ask the question?
.

Whocares, CStanley

So if we had scale representing political thought running from 0 to 10, with 0 representing the furthest left point and 10 representing the furthest right point, the acceptable range of political thought would be from 6 to 9.

Good to know!!!

As for regulations, you gentlemen are about to discover the price thereof as the Fed devalues the currency & the government raises your taxes to bail out Wall street.

Doma: Your analogy doesn't work. The Catholic Church, as you stated, covered up the pedophilia. When parishioners became aware of it, they did react in a number of ways, and yes, some (myself included) ultimately decided to stay in the Church. We wouldn't have stayed in an unapologetic Church though. Wright doesn't apologize for his statements. Obama was aware of at least some of his incendiary preaching, and he chose to remain a part of that and support it. There's an element of similarity there, yes, that people weigh the whole of the thing rather than judging value by the worst parts of it. But what's different is whether or not one is tacitly approving of an ongoing problem. I don't know any Catholics who would stay in the Church if we thought that was the case today.

Don: I'm not a gentleman, but on the comment itself: it has nothing to do with whether a range of political thought is 'acceptable', I was simply pointing out the reality of the situation. Yes, the 6-9 range is what exists in America, so when someone describes an American politician as far left, he's talking about an 8 or a 9, not a 10.

Unfortunately you are very correct in your assumption Don. The physics of the universe is a diverse set of numbers and mathematical formulas. With something as subjective as evaluating someones far leftness then the sliding scale can be constantly reset to fit ones definition.

The sliding scale in this debate is being used by anyone who chooses to partake in this discussion. We all subjectively put random numbers on, In this case Barak Obama, for the sake of attempting to have a common understanding of the basic premise in which to maintain a rational conversation.

For my purpose I put Barak Obama flat in the middle of the commonly accepted far left base of American Citizens in this country. I did not condemn the far left I just simply stated that the Barak Obama supporters seem to constantly keep pointing to the fact that republicans are crossing over in elections and voting for a far left democrat means to them that Barak Obama is going to win the general election because:

"SEE even Republicans and conservatives are voting for Obama"

That's a nice circular game, but fails the honest discussion criterion....Domajot.

I have many issues with this. But the first issue that we must start with is that you are saying anyone who labels Obama with a definition is being dishonest and therefore fails "your definition" of what can be construed as an honest discussion.

I would comment further Domajot but your defining of me has limited anything further I say in your mind as being dishonest therefore what is the point of continuing the conversation?