|
HnR)hT
United States3468 Posts
On July 24 2008 10:22 aRod wrote:Show nested quote +On July 24 2008 10:14 HnR)hT wrote:On July 24 2008 10:00 aRod wrote:On July 24 2008 09:54 HnR)hT wrote:On July 24 2008 09:51 aRod wrote:On July 24 2008 09:35 HnR)hT wrote:On July 24 2008 08:10 Sadist wrote:On July 24 2008 01:31 HnR)hT wrote:
McCain's supercilious, moralistic liberalism on immigration and national question issues make him completely unacceptable. Similarly, Obama is automatically disqualified from consideration by his 20+ year association with his racist afrocentrist pastor. This leaves potentially Bob Barr, though his recent shift of positions to be more in line with the left-libertarian platform of the Libertarian Party (e.g. now he's for legalizing marijuana) leaves one underwhelmed... Where's none of the above? I dont really understand the problem with his pastor Why does it matter, I dont really get the uproar over what he said, people must be pretty sheltered if they think he said was all that outlandish and bad. His pastor isnt him, not to mention there are tons of religious bigots who are friends/supporters of other candidates so why just pick Obama out? Could you explain what your problem with it was? My problem with what? That Obama's pastor, whom he has called his mentor and in whose church he has married and in whose church he had his children baptized, and to whose church he has donated around 20,000 as recently as in 2006, and from whom he got the title of one of his two major books, preaches that the US (where blacks have been the overwhelmingly disproportionate recepients of government largesse in the form of welfare checks, tyrannical anti-discrimination laws resulting in costly frivolous lawsuits, and affirmative action) is an irredeemably racist society and whites are the source of all evils? Who preaches that, among other things, the US government deliberately manufactured the AIDS virus to kill black people, and that Americans had it coming on 9-11 for bombing Japan and supporting "state terrorism"? And Obama apparently didn't utter a word of criticism while listening to garbage of this sort on a regular basis for 20 years, until it became problematic for his career advancement. Just what do you think would happen to McCain if it were revealed that he's a long-time close friend of David Duke? His career would be completely finished, right there. A large proportion of blacks in the USA hate, and I mean hate white people. Blacks, who are about 10 percent of the population, commit around half of all murders. Is it ok with you that Wright and many others like him get rich stoking such hatred, and that Obama has apparently approved of such behavior until the furthering of his political goals could no longer be based on appealing to black racialist resentment? And to think that after much of this has been belatedly revealed by the mainstream media, Obama had the nerve to lecture whites about racism. And this man wants to be president of the United States. It would be funny if it weren't so sad. The truth is that you know very little of reverend Wright's work or message. You know what you've seen on TV, and those are short 2 second sound bites. You can't judge an article from a sentence in it. You can't judge a book from a paragraph in it. And you can't judge a 30 minute sermon from a 2 second sound clip. You can't remove something from it's context without missing the point. You have seen one representation of reverend Wright,and you bought it hook line and sinker. Sorry my friend, but you're another casuality of the mania trash media. I have to call you out on misrepresenting what the reverend said. He never said the US government manufactured aids, deserved 9-11, or that white's are the source of all evils in America. More importantly, you've never listened to any of his sermons. At least listen to the ones where you drew your misqoutes from before you continue this. So why did Obama publicly end his membership in the chruch and distance himself from the Reverend? Don't believe for a second he genuinely wanted to outcast the reverend completely from his life. Would you want to do that to a family friend? someone you've know for 20 years? no one would. Sometimes sheer political expedience takes precedence though, apparently at least if you're Obama  Actually, you have it wrong. Obama only distanced himself from Wright after Wright came on tv and rendered it no longer feasible to deny what his actual views are by invoking the excuse of "two second soundbites", as Obama initially had tried to do and as you've just repeated on his behalf. I'm not going to go into any more detail trying to explain my judgement on this matter, since someone will always pick a quarrel over this or that point and it will be a different person each time, and each time it will take 10 times the effort to explain than what it takes to raise the objection in the first place. I've said enough for anyone with a genuine good-faith effort to understand where I'm coming from. Your understanding of this issue stretches about as far as my dick. That's not very far might I add. The reason Obama abandoned the "Minnesota strategy" as it has been called was simply it was hurting him in the polls, not because Wright made a TV appearance. You've ignored the majority of my points and now you're retreating behind the "I don't feel like it" veil. You haven't said enough, and now you've proven it.
According to you, it would be pure coincidence that Obama's sudden disavowal of Wright came right after the latter started expressing himself liberally on national television in no uncertain terms. According to you, the polls (which, mind you, have had nothing to do with Wright's tv appearances) just happened to be such that it was high time for Obama to reverse himself and belie his recent claim that he can no more disavow Wright than his white grandmother. You've said nothing to lend any credence to this, on its face unlikely, scenario; all you've done is parrot the "soundbite" excuse for three separate posts now. And yet you expect to be refuted point by point each time. I've said far too much for irrational idiots like you, evidently 
|
On July 24 2008 10:53 HnR)hT wrote:Show nested quote +On July 24 2008 10:22 aRod wrote:On July 24 2008 10:14 HnR)hT wrote:On July 24 2008 10:00 aRod wrote:On July 24 2008 09:54 HnR)hT wrote:On July 24 2008 09:51 aRod wrote:On July 24 2008 09:35 HnR)hT wrote:On July 24 2008 08:10 Sadist wrote:On July 24 2008 01:31 HnR)hT wrote:
McCain's supercilious, moralistic liberalism on immigration and national question issues make him completely unacceptable. Similarly, Obama is automatically disqualified from consideration by his 20+ year association with his racist afrocentrist pastor. This leaves potentially Bob Barr, though his recent shift of positions to be more in line with the left-libertarian platform of the Libertarian Party (e.g. now he's for legalizing marijuana) leaves one underwhelmed... Where's none of the above? I dont really understand the problem with his pastor Why does it matter, I dont really get the uproar over what he said, people must be pretty sheltered if they think he said was all that outlandish and bad. His pastor isnt him, not to mention there are tons of religious bigots who are friends/supporters of other candidates so why just pick Obama out? Could you explain what your problem with it was? My problem with what? That Obama's pastor, whom he has called his mentor and in whose church he has married and in whose church he had his children baptized, and to whose church he has donated around 20,000 as recently as in 2006, and from whom he got the title of one of his two major books, preaches that the US (where blacks have been the overwhelmingly disproportionate recepients of government largesse in the form of welfare checks, tyrannical anti-discrimination laws resulting in costly frivolous lawsuits, and affirmative action) is an irredeemably racist society and whites are the source of all evils? Who preaches that, among other things, the US government deliberately manufactured the AIDS virus to kill black people, and that Americans had it coming on 9-11 for bombing Japan and supporting "state terrorism"? And Obama apparently didn't utter a word of criticism while listening to garbage of this sort on a regular basis for 20 years, until it became problematic for his career advancement. Just what do you think would happen to McCain if it were revealed that he's a long-time close friend of David Duke? His career would be completely finished, right there. A large proportion of blacks in the USA hate, and I mean hate white people. Blacks, who are about 10 percent of the population, commit around half of all murders. Is it ok with you that Wright and many others like him get rich stoking such hatred, and that Obama has apparently approved of such behavior until the furthering of his political goals could no longer be based on appealing to black racialist resentment? And to think that after much of this has been belatedly revealed by the mainstream media, Obama had the nerve to lecture whites about racism. And this man wants to be president of the United States. It would be funny if it weren't so sad. The truth is that you know very little of reverend Wright's work or message. You know what you've seen on TV, and those are short 2 second sound bites. You can't judge an article from a sentence in it. You can't judge a book from a paragraph in it. And you can't judge a 30 minute sermon from a 2 second sound clip. You can't remove something from it's context without missing the point. You have seen one representation of reverend Wright,and you bought it hook line and sinker. Sorry my friend, but you're another casuality of the mania trash media. I have to call you out on misrepresenting what the reverend said. He never said the US government manufactured aids, deserved 9-11, or that white's are the source of all evils in America. More importantly, you've never listened to any of his sermons. At least listen to the ones where you drew your misqoutes from before you continue this. So why did Obama publicly end his membership in the chruch and distance himself from the Reverend? Don't believe for a second he genuinely wanted to outcast the reverend completely from his life. Would you want to do that to a family friend? someone you've know for 20 years? no one would. Sometimes sheer political expedience takes precedence though, apparently at least if you're Obama Actually, you have it wrong. Obama only distanced himself from Wright after Wright came on tv and rendered it no longer feasible to deny what his actual views are by invoking the excuse of "two second soundbites", as Obama initially had tried to do and as you've just repeated on his behalf. I'm not going to go into any more detail trying to explain my judgement on this matter, since someone will always pick a quarrel over this or that point and it will be a different person each time, and each time it will take 10 times the effort to explain than what it takes to raise the objection in the first place. I've said enough for anyone with a genuine good-faith effort to understand where I'm coming from. Your understanding of this issue stretches about as far as my dick. That's not very far might I add. The reason Obama abandoned the "Minnesota strategy" as it has been called was simply it was hurting him in the polls, not because Wright made a TV appearance. You've ignored the majority of my points and now you're retreating behind the "I don't feel like it" veil. You haven't said enough, and now you've proven it. According to you, it would be pure coincidence that Obama's sudden disavowal of Wright came right after the latter started expressing himself liberally on national television in no uncertain terms. According to you, the polls (which, mind you, have had nothing to do with Wright's tv appearances) just happened to be such that it was high time for Obama to reverse himself and belie his recent claim that he can no more disavow Wright than his white grandmother. You've said nothing to lend any credence to this, on its face unlikely, scenario; all you've done is parrot the "soundbite" excuse for three separate posts now. And yet you expect to be refuted point by point each time. I've said far too much for irrational idiots like you, evidently
Look who is irrational you racist prick. You think blacks have it sooooo nice in this country? Open your damn eyes man. Can someone really be this ignorant?
|
United States22883 Posts
On July 24 2008 10:53 HnR)hT wrote:Show nested quote +On July 24 2008 10:22 aRod wrote:On July 24 2008 10:14 HnR)hT wrote:On July 24 2008 10:00 aRod wrote:On July 24 2008 09:54 HnR)hT wrote:On July 24 2008 09:51 aRod wrote:On July 24 2008 09:35 HnR)hT wrote:On July 24 2008 08:10 Sadist wrote:On July 24 2008 01:31 HnR)hT wrote:
McCain's supercilious, moralistic liberalism on immigration and national question issues make him completely unacceptable. Similarly, Obama is automatically disqualified from consideration by his 20+ year association with his racist afrocentrist pastor. This leaves potentially Bob Barr, though his recent shift of positions to be more in line with the left-libertarian platform of the Libertarian Party (e.g. now he's for legalizing marijuana) leaves one underwhelmed... Where's none of the above? I dont really understand the problem with his pastor Why does it matter, I dont really get the uproar over what he said, people must be pretty sheltered if they think he said was all that outlandish and bad. His pastor isnt him, not to mention there are tons of religious bigots who are friends/supporters of other candidates so why just pick Obama out? Could you explain what your problem with it was? My problem with what? That Obama's pastor, whom he has called his mentor and in whose church he has married and in whose church he had his children baptized, and to whose church he has donated around 20,000 as recently as in 2006, and from whom he got the title of one of his two major books, preaches that the US (where blacks have been the overwhelmingly disproportionate recepients of government largesse in the form of welfare checks, tyrannical anti-discrimination laws resulting in costly frivolous lawsuits, and affirmative action) is an irredeemably racist society and whites are the source of all evils? Who preaches that, among other things, the US government deliberately manufactured the AIDS virus to kill black people, and that Americans had it coming on 9-11 for bombing Japan and supporting "state terrorism"? And Obama apparently didn't utter a word of criticism while listening to garbage of this sort on a regular basis for 20 years, until it became problematic for his career advancement. Just what do you think would happen to McCain if it were revealed that he's a long-time close friend of David Duke? His career would be completely finished, right there. A large proportion of blacks in the USA hate, and I mean hate white people. Blacks, who are about 10 percent of the population, commit around half of all murders. Is it ok with you that Wright and many others like him get rich stoking such hatred, and that Obama has apparently approved of such behavior until the furthering of his political goals could no longer be based on appealing to black racialist resentment? And to think that after much of this has been belatedly revealed by the mainstream media, Obama had the nerve to lecture whites about racism. And this man wants to be president of the United States. It would be funny if it weren't so sad. The truth is that you know very little of reverend Wright's work or message. You know what you've seen on TV, and those are short 2 second sound bites. You can't judge an article from a sentence in it. You can't judge a book from a paragraph in it. And you can't judge a 30 minute sermon from a 2 second sound clip. You can't remove something from it's context without missing the point. You have seen one representation of reverend Wright,and you bought it hook line and sinker. Sorry my friend, but you're another casuality of the mania trash media. I have to call you out on misrepresenting what the reverend said. He never said the US government manufactured aids, deserved 9-11, or that white's are the source of all evils in America. More importantly, you've never listened to any of his sermons. At least listen to the ones where you drew your misqoutes from before you continue this. So why did Obama publicly end his membership in the chruch and distance himself from the Reverend? Don't believe for a second he genuinely wanted to outcast the reverend completely from his life. Would you want to do that to a family friend? someone you've know for 20 years? no one would. Sometimes sheer political expedience takes precedence though, apparently at least if you're Obama Actually, you have it wrong. Obama only distanced himself from Wright after Wright came on tv and rendered it no longer feasible to deny what his actual views are by invoking the excuse of "two second soundbites", as Obama initially had tried to do and as you've just repeated on his behalf. I'm not going to go into any more detail trying to explain my judgement on this matter, since someone will always pick a quarrel over this or that point and it will be a different person each time, and each time it will take 10 times the effort to explain than what it takes to raise the objection in the first place. I've said enough for anyone with a genuine good-faith effort to understand where I'm coming from. Your understanding of this issue stretches about as far as my dick. That's not very far might I add. The reason Obama abandoned the "Minnesota strategy" as it has been called was simply it was hurting him in the polls, not because Wright made a TV appearance. You've ignored the majority of my points and now you're retreating behind the "I don't feel like it" veil. You haven't said enough, and now you've proven it. According to you, it would be pure coincidence that Obama's sudden disavowal of Wright came right after the latter started expressing himself liberally on national television in no uncertain terms. According to you, the polls (which, mind you, have had nothing to do with Wright's tv appearances) just happened to be such that it was high time for Obama to reverse himself and belie his recent claim that he can no more disavow Wright than his white grandmother. You've said nothing to lend any credence to this, on its face unlikely, scenario; all you've done is parrot the "soundbite" excuse for three separate posts now. And yet you expect to be refuted point by point each time. I've said far too much for irrational idiots like you, evidently I think Obama is a politican, as are all the candidates. It's sad but true.
|
The manufacturing aids part is kind of eh...
but the part about 9/11 I dont see the problem with him expressing those views.
The United States has SEVERLY fucked South America and parts of asia. I dont see whats so wrong with anything hes saying.
He didnt say the individuals who were killed deserved it, but the united states as a whole had shit coming back to it which is true.
Also your views about black people are kind of meh
You probably are just ignorant in relation to minorities.
|
On July 24 2008 11:32 Sadist wrote:
The manufacturing aids part is kind of eh...
Yeah, and its sort of sad that he takes the legs out from under his message when he starts talking about that. I mean... shit, the Tuskegee experiment was fucking horrific and it actually happened and it was actually perpetrated by the government.
|
On July 24 2008 11:35 Mindcrime wrote:Show nested quote +On July 24 2008 11:32 Sadist wrote:
The manufacturing aids part is kind of eh... Yeah, and its sort of sad that he takes the legs out from under his message when he starts talking about that. I mean... shit, the Tuskegee experiment was fucking horrific and it actually happened and it was actually perpetrated by the government.
ya tuskegee was messed up, I mean AIDS COULD have been something that went out of control but there would have been shit that came out a long time ago IE Tuskegee, although It did take 40 years for that to come out so who knows.
|
On July 24 2008 10:53 HnR)hT wrote:Show nested quote +On July 24 2008 10:22 aRod wrote:On July 24 2008 10:14 HnR)hT wrote:On July 24 2008 10:00 aRod wrote:On July 24 2008 09:54 HnR)hT wrote:On July 24 2008 09:51 aRod wrote:On July 24 2008 09:35 HnR)hT wrote:On July 24 2008 08:10 Sadist wrote:On July 24 2008 01:31 HnR)hT wrote:
McCain's supercilious, moralistic liberalism on immigration and national question issues make him completely unacceptable. Similarly, Obama is automatically disqualified from consideration by his 20+ year association with his racist afrocentrist pastor. This leaves potentially Bob Barr, though his recent shift of positions to be more in line with the left-libertarian platform of the Libertarian Party (e.g. now he's for legalizing marijuana) leaves one underwhelmed... Where's none of the above? I dont really understand the problem with his pastor Why does it matter, I dont really get the uproar over what he said, people must be pretty sheltered if they think he said was all that outlandish and bad. His pastor isnt him, not to mention there are tons of religious bigots who are friends/supporters of other candidates so why just pick Obama out? Could you explain what your problem with it was? My problem with what? That Obama's pastor, whom he has called his mentor and in whose church he has married and in whose church he had his children baptized, and to whose church he has donated around 20,000 as recently as in 2006, and from whom he got the title of one of his two major books, preaches that the US (where blacks have been the overwhelmingly disproportionate recepients of government largesse in the form of welfare checks, tyrannical anti-discrimination laws resulting in costly frivolous lawsuits, and affirmative action) is an irredeemably racist society and whites are the source of all evils? Who preaches that, among other things, the US government deliberately manufactured the AIDS virus to kill black people, and that Americans had it coming on 9-11 for bombing Japan and supporting "state terrorism"? And Obama apparently didn't utter a word of criticism while listening to garbage of this sort on a regular basis for 20 years, until it became problematic for his career advancement. Just what do you think would happen to McCain if it were revealed that he's a long-time close friend of David Duke? His career would be completely finished, right there. A large proportion of blacks in the USA hate, and I mean hate white people. Blacks, who are about 10 percent of the population, commit around half of all murders. Is it ok with you that Wright and many others like him get rich stoking such hatred, and that Obama has apparently approved of such behavior until the furthering of his political goals could no longer be based on appealing to black racialist resentment? And to think that after much of this has been belatedly revealed by the mainstream media, Obama had the nerve to lecture whites about racism. And this man wants to be president of the United States. It would be funny if it weren't so sad. The truth is that you know very little of reverend Wright's work or message. You know what you've seen on TV, and those are short 2 second sound bites. You can't judge an article from a sentence in it. You can't judge a book from a paragraph in it. And you can't judge a 30 minute sermon from a 2 second sound clip. You can't remove something from it's context without missing the point. You have seen one representation of reverend Wright,and you bought it hook line and sinker. Sorry my friend, but you're another casuality of the mania trash media. I have to call you out on misrepresenting what the reverend said. He never said the US government manufactured aids, deserved 9-11, or that white's are the source of all evils in America. More importantly, you've never listened to any of his sermons. At least listen to the ones where you drew your misqoutes from before you continue this. So why did Obama publicly end his membership in the chruch and distance himself from the Reverend? Don't believe for a second he genuinely wanted to outcast the reverend completely from his life. Would you want to do that to a family friend? someone you've know for 20 years? no one would. Sometimes sheer political expedience takes precedence though, apparently at least if you're Obama Actually, you have it wrong. Obama only distanced himself from Wright after Wright came on tv and rendered it no longer feasible to deny what his actual views are by invoking the excuse of "two second soundbites", as Obama initially had tried to do and as you've just repeated on his behalf. I'm not going to go into any more detail trying to explain my judgement on this matter, since someone will always pick a quarrel over this or that point and it will be a different person each time, and each time it will take 10 times the effort to explain than what it takes to raise the objection in the first place. I've said enough for anyone with a genuine good-faith effort to understand where I'm coming from. Your understanding of this issue stretches about as far as my dick. That's not very far might I add. The reason Obama abandoned the "Minnesota strategy" as it has been called was simply it was hurting him in the polls, not because Wright made a TV appearance. You've ignored the majority of my points and now you're retreating behind the "I don't feel like it" veil. You haven't said enough, and now you've proven it. According to you, it would be pure coincidence that Obama's sudden disavowal of Wright came right after the latter started expressing himself liberally on national television in no uncertain terms. According to you, the polls (which, mind you, have had nothing to do with Wright's tv appearances) just happened to be such that it was high time for Obama to reverse himself and belie his recent claim that he can no more disavow Wright than his white grandmother. You've said nothing to lend any credence to this, on its face unlikely, scenario; all you've done is parrot the "soundbite" excuse for three separate posts now. And yet you expect to be refuted point by point each time. I've said far too much for irrational idiots like you, evidently
I have to say reading your post is like watching a monkey hurl shit around. I didn't say it was coincidence. I said it was a timely political decision because wright was hurting him in the polls. This was the analysis of various news channels, not my own views. Wikipedia has a good brief history of this if your interested.
You say I'm parroting the soundbite excuse... I'm saying you don't know anything about Reverend Wright and that you're in no position to judge him. I'm saying you're views of him were shaped by select clips designed to potray him as a wacko. All the media shows you of this man are stories that propogate this image. This is reality, not an excuse.
|
Reverend Wright never said the US government manufactured AIDs. He said governement workers spread AIDs in black communities. He's referring to the time period where people were still getting AIDs from blood transfusions.
|
On July 24 2008 10:44 Mindcrime wrote:Show nested quote +On July 24 2008 10:24 Camilus wrote:
I'm voting for Bob Barr, not because I dislike Obama and McCain (which I do), but because he is the closest match to my views. Huh? You're a fan of government that's small enough to fit in your bedroom? Or is that one of the authoritarian policies he stopped advocating when he decided to run for the Libertarian nomination?
Bob Barr clearly isn't perfect. He did previously support several authoritarian policies. His past record disturbs me, but he has at least publicly changed his views on such policies. His current platform is pretty good. It obviously isn't perfect, but "the perfect can often be the enemy of the good." That is the problem with many libertarians, they are unwilling to accept anything less than perfect.
Do you believe that Barr's shift in policy views is disingenuous?
|
On July 24 2008 12:19 Camilus wrote:Show nested quote +On July 24 2008 10:44 Mindcrime wrote:On July 24 2008 10:24 Camilus wrote:
I'm voting for Bob Barr, not because I dislike Obama and McCain (which I do), but because he is the closest match to my views. Huh? You're a fan of government that's small enough to fit in your bedroom? Or is that one of the authoritarian policies he stopped advocating when he decided to run for the Libertarian nomination? Bob Barr clearly isn't perfect. He did previously support several authoritarian policies. His past record disturbs me, but he has at least publicly changed his views on such policies. His current platform is pretty good. It obviously isn't perfect, but "the perfect can often be the enemy of the good." That is the problem with many libertarians, they are unwilling to accept anything less than perfect. Do you believe that Barr's shift in policy views is disingenuous?
I'm certainly not convinced that his shift was genuine.
|
Just reminding you that no one reading or posting in this thread will change their mind on who they are going to vote for. Not a single person. Zero. Anyone reading a political thread on a starcraft website set their mind on whom they're voting for months ago, and no policy change, vp pick, scandal, and most definitely no weak 'argument' they read in this thread will change their mind.
Just skimmed a couple posts and see quite a few guys getting worked up on the internet over something for no reason. If you can't civilly discuss a topic (you can't), do something else with your time. I posted in political threads four years ago a few times before I learned better.
|
I'll admit, his past record does make me a little weary. Maybe I'll write in Earth, Wind & Fire.
|
On July 24 2008 12:33 LonelyMargarita wrote:
Just reminding you that no one reading or posting in this thread will change their mind on who they are going to vote for. Not a single person. Zero. Anyone reading a political thread on a starcraft website set their mind on whom they're voting for months ago, and no policy change, vp pick, scandal, and most definitely no weak 'argument' they read in this thread will change their mind.
Just skimmed a couple posts and see quite a few guys getting worked up on the internet over something for no reason. If you can't civilly discuss a topic (you can't), do something else with your time. I posted in political threads four years ago a few times before I learned better.
Not everyone posts to change peoples minds. Some of us simply enjoy the logical exercise.
|
HnR)hT
United States3468 Posts
On July 24 2008 12:00 aRod wrote:Show nested quote +On July 24 2008 10:53 HnR)hT wrote:On July 24 2008 10:22 aRod wrote:On July 24 2008 10:14 HnR)hT wrote:On July 24 2008 10:00 aRod wrote:On July 24 2008 09:54 HnR)hT wrote:On July 24 2008 09:51 aRod wrote:On July 24 2008 09:35 HnR)hT wrote:On July 24 2008 08:10 Sadist wrote:On July 24 2008 01:31 HnR)hT wrote:
McCain's supercilious, moralistic liberalism on immigration and national question issues make him completely unacceptable. Similarly, Obama is automatically disqualified from consideration by his 20+ year association with his racist afrocentrist pastor. This leaves potentially Bob Barr, though his recent shift of positions to be more in line with the left-libertarian platform of the Libertarian Party (e.g. now he's for legalizing marijuana) leaves one underwhelmed... Where's none of the above? I dont really understand the problem with his pastor Why does it matter, I dont really get the uproar over what he said, people must be pretty sheltered if they think he said was all that outlandish and bad. His pastor isnt him, not to mention there are tons of religious bigots who are friends/supporters of other candidates so why just pick Obama out? Could you explain what your problem with it was? My problem with what? That Obama's pastor, whom he has called his mentor and in whose church he has married and in whose church he had his children baptized, and to whose church he has donated around 20,000 as recently as in 2006, and from whom he got the title of one of his two major books, preaches that the US (where blacks have been the overwhelmingly disproportionate recepients of government largesse in the form of welfare checks, tyrannical anti-discrimination laws resulting in costly frivolous lawsuits, and affirmative action) is an irredeemably racist society and whites are the source of all evils? Who preaches that, among other things, the US government deliberately manufactured the AIDS virus to kill black people, and that Americans had it coming on 9-11 for bombing Japan and supporting "state terrorism"? And Obama apparently didn't utter a word of criticism while listening to garbage of this sort on a regular basis for 20 years, until it became problematic for his career advancement. Just what do you think would happen to McCain if it were revealed that he's a long-time close friend of David Duke? His career would be completely finished, right there. A large proportion of blacks in the USA hate, and I mean hate white people. Blacks, who are about 10 percent of the population, commit around half of all murders. Is it ok with you that Wright and many others like him get rich stoking such hatred, and that Obama has apparently approved of such behavior until the furthering of his political goals could no longer be based on appealing to black racialist resentment? And to think that after much of this has been belatedly revealed by the mainstream media, Obama had the nerve to lecture whites about racism. And this man wants to be president of the United States. It would be funny if it weren't so sad. The truth is that you know very little of reverend Wright's work or message. You know what you've seen on TV, and those are short 2 second sound bites. You can't judge an article from a sentence in it. You can't judge a book from a paragraph in it. And you can't judge a 30 minute sermon from a 2 second sound clip. You can't remove something from it's context without missing the point. You have seen one representation of reverend Wright,and you bought it hook line and sinker. Sorry my friend, but you're another casuality of the mania trash media. I have to call you out on misrepresenting what the reverend said. He never said the US government manufactured aids, deserved 9-11, or that white's are the source of all evils in America. More importantly, you've never listened to any of his sermons. At least listen to the ones where you drew your misqoutes from before you continue this. So why did Obama publicly end his membership in the chruch and distance himself from the Reverend? Don't believe for a second he genuinely wanted to outcast the reverend completely from his life. Would you want to do that to a family friend? someone you've know for 20 years? no one would. Sometimes sheer political expedience takes precedence though, apparently at least if you're Obama Actually, you have it wrong. Obama only distanced himself from Wright after Wright came on tv and rendered it no longer feasible to deny what his actual views are by invoking the excuse of "two second soundbites", as Obama initially had tried to do and as you've just repeated on his behalf. I'm not going to go into any more detail trying to explain my judgement on this matter, since someone will always pick a quarrel over this or that point and it will be a different person each time, and each time it will take 10 times the effort to explain than what it takes to raise the objection in the first place. I've said enough for anyone with a genuine good-faith effort to understand where I'm coming from. Your understanding of this issue stretches about as far as my dick. That's not very far might I add. The reason Obama abandoned the "Minnesota strategy" as it has been called was simply it was hurting him in the polls, not because Wright made a TV appearance. You've ignored the majority of my points and now you're retreating behind the "I don't feel like it" veil. You haven't said enough, and now you've proven it. According to you, it would be pure coincidence that Obama's sudden disavowal of Wright came right after the latter started expressing himself liberally on national television in no uncertain terms. According to you, the polls (which, mind you, have had nothing to do with Wright's tv appearances) just happened to be such that it was high time for Obama to reverse himself and belie his recent claim that he can no more disavow Wright than his white grandmother. You've said nothing to lend any credence to this, on its face unlikely, scenario; all you've done is parrot the "soundbite" excuse for three separate posts now. And yet you expect to be refuted point by point each time. I've said far too much for irrational idiots like you, evidently I have to say reading your post is like watching a monkey hurl shit around. I didn't say it was coincidence. I said it was a timely political decision because wright was hurting him in the polls. This was the analysis of various news channels, not my own views. Wikipedia has a good brief history of this if your interested. You say I'm parroting the soundbite excuse... I'm saying you don't know anything about Reverend Wright and that you're in no position to judge him. I'm saying you're views of him were shaped by select clips designed to potray him as a wacko. All the media shows you of this man are stories that propogate this image. This is reality, not an excuse.
You don't even have elementary reading comprehension, since you seem to have completely missed the entire point of the post to which you just "responded". OF COURSE, moron, you didn't SAY it was a coincidence. Exactly. That's because you need the implications of your "reasoning" (I use the term loosely here) pointed out to you. You originally said that Wright's coming out in public and giving major speeches had nothing to do Obama's turnaround. No, it was just those darn "soundbites" from before! And I told you that if that's the case the sequence of the events (B. Hussein Obama distancing himself from Wright right after Wright went public with his views) would have to be a complete coincidence, which is on its face unlikely. Instead of replying to any of this you went on as before, "you knw noting about Write!111", "it was just soundbites11", etc. And instead of making any kind of arguments you make idiotic beside-the-point assumptions about where I get my impressions of Wright (hint: it's NOT those clips that you're obsessed about). You don't try to argue honestly, to refute your worthless drivel would take 10+ lines for every line that you write.
|
United States22883 Posts
Well, it seemingly is the clips because you've only referenced the exact same out of place talking points that Fox News uses and you've given no credibility to your having watched his sermons at any other time.
|
On July 24 2008 09:58 Jibba wrote:Show nested quote +On July 24 2008 09:35 HnR)hT wrote:
A large proportion of blacks in the USA hate, and I mean hate white people. Blacks, who are about 10 percent of the population, commit around half of all murders. Is it ok with you that Wright and many others like him get rich stoking such hatred, and that Obama has apparently approved of such behavior until the furthering of his political goals could no longer be based on appealing to black racialist resentment?
rpf 2.0?
Seriously. Dumb and racist isn't a way to go about living life.
I guess you asked all the blacks on their feelings about whitey, eh? It must quite easy to basically shout 'THEM NIGGARS ARE ALWAYS KILLIN EACH OTHER' when you're sitting in the suburbs in mommy's home and have never seen how shitty some of the hoods are in the states.
|
HnR)hT
United States3468 Posts
On July 24 2008 23:14 Hawk wrote:Show nested quote +On July 24 2008 09:58 Jibba wrote:On July 24 2008 09:35 HnR)hT wrote:
A large proportion of blacks in the USA hate, and I mean hate white people. Blacks, who are about 10 percent of the population, commit around half of all murders. Is it ok with you that Wright and many others like him get rich stoking such hatred, and that Obama has apparently approved of such behavior until the furthering of his political goals could no longer be based on appealing to black racialist resentment?
rpf 2.0? Seriously. Dumb and racist isn't a way to go about living life. I guess you asked all the blacks on their feelings about whitey, eh? It must quite easy to basically shout 'THEM NIGGARS ARE ALWAYS KILLIN EACH OTHER' when you're sitting in the suburbs in mommy's home and have never seen how shitty some of the hoods are in the states.
This mindless liberal blather you learned to parrot in school is behind the times, since nowadays dangerous minorities are largely moving from cities like NYC and Washington, D.C. where living has gotten more expensive, to surrounding suburbs - causing the crime rates in the latter to skyrocket and many whites to flee back to the city. And I have been living in a majority-minority district for the past year, so you instantly discredit yourself when you make baseless assumptions about me, and what I know and what I don't know, based on my citing empirical facts about American blacks (and ones that happen to be true).
|
HnR)hT
United States3468 Posts
On July 24 2008 22:59 Jibba wrote:
Well, it seemingly is the clips because you've only referenced the exact same out of place talking points that Fox News uses and you've given no credibility to your having watched his sermons at any other time.
That's because it's far simpler to cite the especially egregious quotations that everyone is familiar with and that no one can deny, instead of spending hours collecting substantial information on Wright and his pathological church that took over a year to come out. Just because one stupid fool resorts to the excuse that they were taken out of context, in spite of the fact that this has been largely discredited on the national scene, and that Obama himself abandoned them (and him), and the said fool continues to rationalize everything Obama and Wright do and say without adding a shred of evidence or argumentation, doesn't mean I'm going to spend hours responding in depth until the most die-hard true believer is forced to come to the same conclusion about Obama that I have -- which is impossible at any rate.
|
MyLostTemple
United States2921 Posts
i think the problem is that you're talking about blacks like they're actually the problem... the point is that historically they have been marginalized or totally forgotten by society. Referring to them as "dangerous minorities" is, to be frank, racist. Minorities moving from cities to suburbs is irrelevant too since those whites you're talking about aren't "fleeing" back into the ghettos where many of those minorities came from.
|
United States22883 Posts
There's so many things wrong with what you just said.
Living in a majority-minority district (whatever that is) adds extremely little credibility to your argument and it doesn't discredit anything Hawk said. One could infer you'd have slightly more knowledge of the situation (very little, given how short 1 year is) but that in itself would be wild speculation. You could very well be cooped up in a shack or in a rich suburb, etc. That line of reasoning fails.
You have not cited anything. I'm not sure where you went to college or who you've had to write papers for, but you've done absolutely zero citing in all of your posts and have provided zero empirical facts. That goes for the statements you made earlier in your post. Are you a sociologist studying migration and housing patterns from the inner city to suburbs? Are you a criminologist who has found data substantiating the claim that crime rates are skyrocketting (if they even are) because blacks are moving into suburbs?
Or are you an unbelievable racist wasting all of our time on an internet forum, showcasing your fondness for Fox News and all of its Hussein references, and posting mindless crap that is completely devoid of reason? I believe this to be the case, and I can prove it by citing your posts on pages 3, 4 and 5 of this thread. That's what citing is, mother fucker.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
