Except none of these people are personal advisors or spiritual leaders. If the two were equal, I would agree with you, but they aren't. Race has nothing to do with it as far as I can see. I don't know how anyone can connect the two, but if that is what has to be done to make people see your point of view, go for it! McCain has no authority to kick any group out of a political party, which is what you are demanding.

Neither is the Rev. Jeremiah Wright currently advising the Obama campaign.


http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/23634881/

Can anyone tell me how Rev. Wright's preaching has produced any specific actions on Obama's part.

Has Obama burned a watermelon on some white guy's lawn?

An interesting distortion. Where did I say that anyone told him to dissassociate himself?

People have commented that he should disassociate himself completely... that his speech wasn't enough because he didn't do enough to disassociate himself. My question was regarding why the same people who claim Obama should disassociate himself from Wright do not take McCain to task for his associations? Hannity on Fox has already implied that, because Obama refuses to completely disavow Wright, electing Obama might put a racist and anti-semite in the White House. Now, is Hannity saying the same thing about McCain - and adding misogynist to the list? Falwell said that the anti-christ was alive and was a male Jew. Yet, the people who condemn Obama for his association with Wright have no problem with McCain accepting Falwell's endorsement. Has McCain backed away from Falwell's endorsement? No.

So I will reiterate my question "Has McCain declared any of the people that you have drug through the mud as his religious leader, personal advisor...?"

I missed the part where McCain says that these people are personal advisors and spiritual leaders of his. Maybe you can help me see where you find his relationship with Falwell and Roberts are the same as the relationship between Obama and Wright.

So, if you don't get your question answered or don't get it answered like you want, then you should keep asking over and over again?

If you want to play a ping-pong version of debate, rather than engage in substantive debate, others play that game, too scubatim. See where this is getting us? Nowhere. As you were, though. We certainly wouldn't want to get you off your "A" game.

Well, first, I didn't drag Falwell through the mud... he said what he said, I didn't say it for him.

Second, people were bringing up the same sort of talk when Farrakhan endorsed Obama. People expected Obama to out and out denounce the man.

If McCain accepts the endorsement of a racist and anti-semite, does that mean he believes the same thing? Or was it appropriate for him to meet with Falwell, actively seek his support, associate himself with the University by speaking there, agree to "move forward" with Falwell... this doesn't establish a relationship between the two?

They don't have to be exactly the same, scubatim... no relationship is. Let's say this is comparing green apples to red apples where the apples are the associations. Obama has associates himself with Wright. McCain associated himself with Falwell. He said that he agreed to disagree with Falwell and that should be enough. Why is that not enough for Obama?

Exaclty. Obama makes his choices and the American people make their choices. We all have a choice. And it is actually very politically healthy to question the actions and motives of candidates. Obama hasn't been on the political scene very long. It would behoove us all to know more about him and that includes where he goes to church and who he associates with there. What is the problem with doing that? Should he somehow be exempt from scrutiny? If so, WHY??????




BoF, I've noticed you tearing into people who disagree with you, and I find that to be in very poor taste. When I am asking someone a question, if they don't answer me, I tend to keep asking until it gets answered. He's not out of line to do so. This is a debate, after all.

Talk about "distortion" it would appear that you are debating yourself, here entspeak. First you ask "where did I say that anyone told him...."
Then you follow up with the "should question". Emphasis on should. I doubt there are any Obama advisors posting here, so when someone says Obama "should" they are saying it = here. Expressing an opinion. My point is that Obama is free to do what he wants to do, and the people here and in American are free to pass judgement on his actions. Some may agree with them, some not. But then, that's kind of why we call it a "debate" now isn't it?

Edited to move on to Bof.....



He was up until this entire thing broke loose. To my knowledge, none of those "horrible Christian Right Conservatives" are, or have ever been part of John McCain's 'spiritual advisors". They just simply endorsed his candidacy.

Aquilla

Right Aquilla, and the MSNBC link I provided and you omitted said as much.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/23634881/

The date on your MSNBC link is 14Mar2008, AFTER the story broke. Up until then, Rev Wright was a part of the Obama campaign. Now, your task should you decide to accept it is to find out when Falwell. Hagee or another of those other "horrible Christian Right Wing Conservatives" we keep hearing about from the resident bigots here (you're not included in the group imo) were part of McCain's "spiritual advisory" committee.


This post will self-destruct in 30 seconds...... (Sorry, couldn't resist)

Aquilla

Aquilla, I know when the link is dated. I never said Wright resigned before from Obama's campaign before all this came up.

The point is, he's gone - now - like in real time.

Wright did retire as pastor of the church before the controversy.

I think it is time for this thread to self-destruct. I'll take that back. I think it already has. What else could anybody possibly say that doesn't feed an endless cycle of repeating talking points?

Anything new anybody?

Aquilla- the only religious bigotry I see here is those that deride obama for his spiritual advisor while giving a pass to McCain's relationship, shown in links, with the very racist and homophobe Jerry Falwell.

It is extremely racist to hold Obama to a standard that you don't hold the white politicians on the right.

I judge the religious right by thier racist and hatefilled BEHAVIOR- not thier religion itself. I hold the taliban to the same standard, or any other group of people that have a agenda of hate like the religious right do.

If they just worshipped in church, without trying to derail the civil rights movement as the "civil wrongs movement"- or, didn't participate in hate filled diatribes directed in MLKs direction, perhaps we wouldn't be having this conversation.

I hate Reagan because of his relationship with Falwell? Not really, I hate Reagan because he was a worse terrorist than Osama bin Laden, and needlessly killed far more women and children with his policies in Central America.

Funny thing is- no one factually disputes Reagan's terrorism in central America, they just excuse it.

It is pretty silly for you to act like the poor widdle christians are ever so persecuted though.

The problem is that Obama has been up until now a relative unknown on the national stage. He's run around the country with people like Oprah talking in platitudes about being all about "change" without talking a whole lot about what exactly that change would entail. And, people are excited about him because he's the new kid on the block. That's fine. At some point though people are going to want to know just what "changes" he's talking about. Where does he really stand on things and what would he do as President, and to quote Butch Cassidy - "Who is this guy?" Well, in part he's answered that question on his campaign website......



Ok, fair enough. That says something about him that most of us didn't know before and that's useful. Then out come some of the sermons of Rev Wright and his statements and to some they are bothersome. "Does Obama really believe that stuff?" I say that's a fair question and despite the claim of trolls and bigots, there's nothing in that question racist at all. I think it is fair game for a reasoned debate without the race card being played over and over as it has here in this forum.

And, anything new? Well, there is, but there's nothing new in the post following yours. Same old crap. Not worth an answer.


Aquilla

No, we are discussing the relationship between Wright and Obama. Not Farrakhan. Between you and BoF, there is some implication that McCain needs to denounce his relationship (which does not exist) with Roberts and Falwell. McCain has never had a personal relationship seeking any sort of advice as Obama has with Wright. That is the point.


What relationship? When did McCain seek personal, spiritual or any other form of guidance from Falwell?


I'm sorry, I am not falling for your use of the race card. No one is. This isn't about race. I have not seen anyone, with the exception of you of course bring race into this.


So anyone on the "religious right", myself included is racists? So to not be racist, you have to be on the "religious left"?


The rest is just a simple ranting of hatefulness.

McCain has accepted support from the late Jerry Falwell and I think you mean Pat Robertson, not Roberts. He has also accepted support from John Hagee.

You will also note scubatim that the original questions for debate did not mention the word “relationship,” so I think we are on safe ground talking about support.

1) Does this speech end the Rev Wright issue? Should it end the Rev Wright issue?

2) Does the content of the speech on racial rapproachment ring true to you?

You do not get the option of engineering the debate around the original questions to whatever turf you want it on.

Now in an attempt to bridge the gap between Aquilla and CR, here’s something new.

I never thought I would watch to an edition of Meet the Press and come away thinking some of, if not the best thinking, came from former Reagan speech writer Peggy Noonan, but here goes.

Here’s Noonan’s answer to quick's first question.

1) Does this speech end the Rev Wright issue? Should it end the Rev Wright issue?

It’s as if she’s posting on .


http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/23766063/page/3/

Please note Noonan's honesty. Unlike many of the prophets here predicting defeat, or worse, assassination for Obama, Noonan says she doesn't know how this will play out.

I applaud her for ditching talking points, and contributing to meaningful discussion this morning.


Edited to add:

In looking at Noonan's honesty, a thought just crossed my mind. That is, there are many of us - and I'm not excluding myself from this number - who pretend we know when we don't on speculative threads, like this one, or who post just to push one agenda or another, even when we don't know the full answer. And then there are those who post just to be posting, the old fly-by thing.

So instead, we just follow what you want? I don't think so, but nice try. The fact that I have asked valid questions related to this debate and you have not been able to address those tells me that you are just trying to make sure we ignore some facts so you don't have to address them. What is factual is that Obama and Rev. Wright have a close personal relationship. It is also factual that there is no knowledge of a similar relationship between McCain and anyone else that you want to bring up. There is nothing McCain can do about other people that have made their own minds up as individuals to support his campaign. We still do live in America, and they still have the right to support who they choose. If McCain starts to seek advice from these individuals and he relates to them on the same level Obama does with Rev. Wright, then we can talk. Until then, you don't have a case. I am sorry, BoF, but that is how I see it.

No, you are again trying to turn what should be substantial debate into a ping-pong match, by asking meaningless little questions prefaced by, the word "so." Did you read the Peggy Noonan quotations I provided?



I guess scubatim that you are going to see this as a relationship thing, which to me means guilt-by-association, and I am going to see it as perhaps either. Again, quick's original questions were not specific on this point. In a race for the presidency, there will and should be comparisons among (there are three now) and between (when we have a Democratic nominee) the candidates. I would say the ball is in your court, but instead I'll say it's on your side of the table.

You can attempt to belittle the wording of someone's post, but that doesn't give you more credence. I don't know why you insist on doing so, but that is your choice to appear petty. So, I will move on. Just because you find my questions meaningless doesn't make it so. You want to make claims and I counter them with valid questions. When you can't refute my position, you want to call my questions meaningless instead of actually taking a position. Quote whoever you want. I personally am trying to take a position with my own thoughts. Some find validity with that technique.


Yes, if you want to bring up relationships between McCain and Falwell, Robertson and anyone else, it is a relationship issue. Obama has a close personal relationship with Wright. McCain does not have a similar relationship with anyone that you or others have brought up. To make the assertion that McCain has to denounce a relationship that he doesn't have, which is what you and others are doing, does not compare to the issue of Obama and Wright. Call it ping pong all you want, but you are simply ignoring the debate. If you don't like the questions that have naturally come up through the course of this debate, you are welcome to either try to change the course of debate, or sit on the sidelines and simply watch. It's your choice to participate. If you want to talk about this thread being off topic, you should bring it up with CR, his post #87 is where this conversation started. You can also report my posts to the mods as they will determine if they are off topic. I don't see a mod title under your name.

Somehow, I doubt you will move on.

If anything I'm pointing out the repetitive nature of your posts and lack of substantive content in them.

Got a mirror handy?


I never said, scubatim, that McCain does have a close relationship, with any of these people. I doubt he's so much a shared a beer (imagine anything so worldly a Baptist preacher ) or even a laugh with them. He has, however, accepted their support and money, as has Bush. If Obama gets the nomination and McCain's campaign, which I doubt, or the 527s (like the Swifties in 2004) push this issue, then fully expect it to be shoved right back in their faces. Obama will not be a passive, John Kerry type candidate.

You are taking quick's question to mean "relationship." I am saying it will be taken here and in the actual campaign to mean "relationship" and/or "acceptance of support."

Be fair, scubatim. I see your side, I just don't agree with it. You are refusing to even consider mine.

And McCain also had a "close personal friendship" with Charles Keating- he has apologized and said it was a "lapse in judgement" and such- not as far as the friendship itself, but what he did for that friendship.

Obama doesn't make apologies for his friendship- but then again, Obama has done nothing personally wrong to either further Wright's agenda, nor has Obama actually been violating ethical standards by having Wright as a friend.

McCain repudiated the behavior of Keating, but was his friend right up until actually caught- before that, McCain defended his friend with letters and influence.

So who should be judged more harshly for this Scuba? Should we consider McCain still corrupt because he was once friends with a criminal? Wright is no criminal- he may be a loudmouth- but he ain't no criminal, and, unlike Keating- there is a good reason for Obama to admire the guy outside his beliefs in the church- Wright has done great things in his community, and has never broken the law, unlike the types that are hanging out with McCain.

Call it a race card all you want Scuba- but the double standard being shown towards Obama regarding a friend with whacked views and the close relationship of hte ENTIRE republican party with folks like Falwell and Robertson- well, it is a bit more than the old "mote in your nieghbors eye vs a beam in your own".

But it is cool- I think he handle it more than gracefully and with some courage, as this is the kind of thing that COULD ruin a lessor candidate's career- I mean, Dean lost for a yell, and McCain, for a Rove engineered-brown baby push poll in SC.

I think the grace and honesty with which he handled this has not harmed him at all, and, in fact, now that it is out, will probably be yesterday's news soon, to all but those who follow, perhaps a bit too closely sometimes - the election-

Republicans will be Republicans, democrats will be democrats, but the independents seem to be pretty solid in Obama's camp, and new voters- well, I would be suprised if McCain atracts ANY new voters at all. Especially any under, oh, about a hundred and twelve years old.

I'm not so sure the independents are solidly anywhere, yet. There are many months to go. I'm an independent am not solidly anywhere, yet.

Now what is this you say about McCain and not getting any votes from people under 112 years old. Your comment is a perfect example of the ageism that is so prevalent in American society. (I realize you were probably saying it tongue in cheek, but still..) We could actually learn from our elders if we'd stop thinking they are worthless once they hit a certain age. God willing, you will get to the ripe age of 70-something and I doubt you will be any less intelligent than you are today. And you will definitely have those extra decades of "experience" to draw from as well

No, I have considered it, and I think it is wrong. I am sorry I didn't verbalize it for you. My point in regards to relationship is that you can't compare the relationship of Obama/Wright with the relationship of McCain/Falwell. They are apples and oranges. My posts are repretitive only because yours are.


Though I admit ignorance of the Keating issue, I think that will come out and bite him in the end. I also think it is prudent that I point out that I am not a McCain supporter, and I should have shared that days ago.

These my be theoretical apples and oranges, but in reality they are the same and will be used in the campaigns that way. I can tell right now that this is going to be a hard fought, dirty campaign. It looks like real issues, like the mess in the credit markets, a possible or probable recession, lack of health care options for millions of Americans, two wars raging in the Mideast, prisons that are bursting at the seams, and other major issues, that people might just get duped once again, into discussing meaningless crap, just as we did with gay marriage, abortion, etc. in 2004. Lovely!

Surprise, surprise. Another election fought behind smoke screens.

If we let the kind of issue discussed in this thread decide an election, then we deserve whatever we get.

Um, perhaps my "ageism" comes from the fact that we have had old white guys running stuff for a long time- hasn't done too well for us for some time now.

Personally, if we denied the presidency to anyone OVER 35, it would be fine by me.

Not that this is on topic, but it is my honest response. I would agree with you completely, and I think this is one of the negative consequences of having only two parties.

You seemed to imply that I said that someone "told him" something. I simply asked where I stated that. How is that debating with myself?

Really, when someone on this site states that Obama "should" on this site, they are stating it here... on this site? Thanks, for pointing that out to me, whew... I didn't realize how the whole debate site/internet thing worked until just now.

Yes, people are free to express an opinion. Certainly. But when you express an opinion on a debate site, someone just might debate you on that opinion, right? So, what does your "point" have to do with the post that I made? Nothing? Did you say it just to say it? And in a debate it is perfectly reasonable to call people on the hypocrisy of expressing the opinion that Obama should do something when they are unwilling to hold the individual they support to the same standard. That is called debating, now isn't it?

Just because the question is directed at individuals expressing their opinion on a website does not make it any less valid a question, Aquilla.


*edited "to move on" to:



This is hilarious. Obama has been on the political scene as an elected official for 11 years.



Well, in this vein I will reiterate my question to you:

Let me re-word that so you will understand what I mean. He has not been under the broad American public eye for 11 years. We have a right to know about him and his past. It's the price you pay when you want a position of power. Why should Obama be immune from scrutiny?



He is the one claiming he is a candidate for "change". He may "talk the talk", but it's gonna take more than just talk.
I have a right to be skeptical, as I have heard nothing from him to cause me to believe he is not just another man seeking to lead the nation in the usual (this time Democratic) direction.

What is it with Obama supporters that you get so vehemently upset with those of us who aren't as excited as you. Different strokes for different folks.

Actually DP- that is the most reasonable argument and questions that have been proposed so far- you are correct, he does need to speak to the "unconvinced"- my point is- he answered it more directly, more honestly, and, really, didn't side step the issue in any way- he took it head on. Nothing vague here, not a "hope and dreams" speech that spoke in platitudes, he described who he was, what he thought, why he has the views he has, and why he doesn't abandon a friend he doesn't agree with.

To me, that is admirable. And also, in my lifetime as an adult (may have happened before I was "politically aware", but I don't hve something that comes to mind)- I have never seen a politician, of any stripe, take this issue SO head on, in a reasonably believable manner.

Some talking head, might have been Tim Russert- said something along the lines of "he appears to be able to tell people what they don't want to hear in such a manner than they don't mind hearing it so much".

If Ron Paul were to be on the ballot in Alaska come November- i will still vote for him, as he is the candidate that fights for freedom in this country. Barring that- I will vote for Obama. If McCain didn't well, just represent perhaps a more honorable and competant GW, I might very well vote for him- unless he hires Rove, and embraces the religious right, to me, that would be a complete sell out from his prior positions and scuffles with these groups, but McCain is falling into the "politician trap" of being at the end of his career, and possibly life, he wants that legacy of being the president so bad, he will change everything he is to get there.

Obama, on the other hand, doesn't change who he is, instead, he explains who he is in such a way that he is palatable to others. I admire him for NOT disowning his friend, disagreeing strongly with his positions, but still maintaining his friendship.

I would be okay if say, McCain were in the same boat as Obama, with Falwell as his long time friend- and he repudiates his positions, and expells him from his campaign, and does nothing to further falwell's agenda.

I can't personally stand the puke, but hey, we all have friends we vehemently disagree with, and even, kinda roll your eyes at when say something stupid amongst those that know better, or aren't in the "inner circle".

To me, it is a redneck friend that I have, mostly in dealing with the ladies, that make me cringe at times. I have a friend, a pretty close one, that is a pig. He is a good friend, but a pig. he is fat and usually smells bad. and he thinks he is gods gift to women, But, I have known the fella since day one, and he has NEVER done me wrong- ever. And gawd forbid something bad happened to me- he would do anything to make sure my family is taken care of- I just know it to be true- he is that kind of guy. If I were married to him- I would kill him in his sleep. - and sometimes, I can only take him in small doses. And, despite his pig-ish behavior, he seems to have alot of friends, because of his (unknown to anyone outside his circles) redeeming qualities.

If someone were to put me in the same position as Obama with this guy, I would say something like "Okay, I know he is a jackass in public, and you can't take him anywhere, it is not that he is a hateful guy, it is that he has no social skills whatsoever- but he has always been a good friend to me and mine, and we tolerate him sometimes, but, I can trust him around my family and most of the times, he is still a good friend we love"

McCain could have still visited Keating in jail as far as I am concerned- I have friends that have done crimes I can forgive and I visited them in jail too- but that doesn't mean I condone thier criminal behavior either, or would ever enable that behavior in some way. If McCain did the same- I am cool with that as well.

What I am NOT cool with is that Obama is somehow responsible for Wrights comments, and secretly believes everything Wright says- while, in the other side of the aisle- they have actively courted these kinds of people, and don't repudiate thier comments and values at all.

Never said he should.



You didn't answer the question. You wanted to see a plan regarding race relations. I asked what sort of plan you wanted to see. What sort of plan does one have to improve race relations? What sort of programs does one develop that aren't already in existence now?



I only really get upset when people start parroting the candidate they support without being willing to back up what they're saying. You say you want to see a plan for improving race relations. So... what sort of plan would you like to see? Do you have any idea what a plan to improve race relations would look like? What sort of legislation?

You don't have to be as excited as me. You don't even have to like Obama, I don't care. Support who you want. You just have to back up your statements. You said that Obama had better have a plan for improving race relations. You have yet to provide any insight into what a plan to improve race relations would even look like. So, to me, it sounds like an empty Clinton sound bite rehash.

The onus is not on me Entspeak, to figure out how Obama is going to "change" things. It's on him as he is the one claiming to be a candidate for change.

But since you asked what "I" want: If he would offer a plan for holding every individual accountable for his own life, regardless of race, I would be as excited about him as you are. But I don't see him advocating for individual accountability on all levels of existence. And that is how I view life. Whether you are black, white or any shade in between, YOU and only YOU are ultimately responsible for making your life a success or a failure.

It's great that he wants to talk about problems regarding race. But he's not talking about the whole story. He's choosing his words wisely so as not to alientate blacks or whites. He's a wonderful orator and would probably better serve the country as a preacher and could possibly do more for mankind as such. But he has chosen the game of politics, and he's trying to sell himself as something different than what is being offered, but he gives no such specifics that make him any different. Is that clear enough for you?

You can try to badger me into giving you a plan, but I'm not running for president, saying it's time for change.
He is.

Seriously- you are wanting him to lay out a game plan on how to improve race relations in the US? DP- he is running for president- not Jesus.

I never said the onus was on you to figure out how Obama is going to "change" things. I simply asked you to back up your statment. If you feel he hasn't offered something in the way of a plan, you should at least have some idea what that something might be.

It's like someone saying, "I don't think people should kill other people," and you say, "sounds great, but you'd better have a plan."

Some people say - and have said on this site - that one of the best ways to decrease racial tension is to improve education. Obama has a plan for that.



I see, so when he says, "And it means taking full responsibility for own lives...," he isn't advocating individual accountability? In some ways, individual accountability is not something you can legislate. Individual accountability begins in the home. But in terms of what can be done regarding the legislation of individual accountability, he says that part of that individual accountability is achieved by "demanding more of our fathers." Is that just empty rhetoric - is that just words? Or is the fact that Obama re-introduced the Responsible Fatherhood and Healthy Families Act an action in support of those words.

Are you saying he should come out against affirmative action? I think he believes, and this speech reflects this, that while we need to move toward individual accountability, we can't ignore the racial inequalities that still exist - however subtly they are expressed.



What part is he not talking about? Again, are you referring to affirmative action?



Again, I'm just saying that the "he'd better have a plan" statement shouldn't be an empty parroting of a candidate's line - which I believe to be empty even when she says it. If you think that Obama should do something about affirmative action, then bring that up. But simply saying "he'd better have a plan" without going into more specifics just seems like empty parroting.

It is one thing to say that he doesn't have your plan - a plan that you'd support, but I think it inaccurate to say that he is all words without any plan.

[quote name='BoF' date='Mar 23 2008, 10:57 AM' post='241389']
[quote name='Zack' post='241382' date='Mar 23 2008, 06:53 AM']I would say when it comes to Rev. Wright most old white people see it as hate more than a religious position. Think Forest Gump and think of the Washington DC scenes and most old white people feel warm about the MLK and angry toward the scene in the bus with the Black Panther guy, the Black Panther guy is a young version of Rev. Wright. It is a difference between feeling warm and feeling hate, there is an article in the NY Times today addressing the feelings and reasons for them about Obama's Rev. I'll try to find a link to it and post it later.

This morning on the CSPAN Washington Journal the polls show McCain winning against Obama and Clinton. Clinton is known and her negatives are known but Obama will be known very well by Nov. and this is the problem. The link to the Youtube ad had less than a million hits but should Obama be the nominee it will have 300,000,000 or more hits. Ninety percent of the blacks will stay home if Clinton is the nominee and 20% of Democrats will switch and vote for McCain if Ob

It's true that Obama's numbers are up and Clinton's are trending down once again but if you look forward to the past states stats Obama will have a problem on the general election should he be selected.


Imagine that BoF prejudging a fellow debater. It is true that I do not support the Democratic Party but I do not wish harm to anyone. I'm pretty sure the election will be between McCain and Clinton and I'm rooting for Clinton. I know you don't believe this but it's true based on the following: 1. If the masses of America follow the pied piper Obama to the polls the presidency will be Democratic along with the congress. 2. If Clinton is the President she will be ineffective because of the division within the Democratic Party. 3. If McCain is elected he will be indistinguishable from a Democrat and be the end of the Republican Party. 4. The anti-Christ isn't a woman. I'm rooting for Clinton! If she is elected voter turnout will be minimal or at least balanced based on her negatives and a balance in congress along with the hate for her from within her party will assure she is a failure in the eyes of Democrats and more importantly independent voters.

I do believe that Obama has a race agenda and will not limit it to America, frankly I think he is dangerous. This speech and his Rev. Wright will not be what causes him to fail but the doubt in so many peoples mind of what his "true" agenda reallys is is.

If Senator Clinton does badly in the upcoming states then we are all doomed unless some breaking news destroys Senator Obama's chances. If Hillary is doing well in PA, WV and NC it will go all the way to Denver and she will be the nominee one way or the other and the party will be disfunctional.

On race and fairness: Would you support an end to property tax to support public schools and agree to equally divide all revenue equally amongst the school communities based on student population? If not you are a racists and are not ready to meet Obama's goals.

Koreans, Vietnamese and Mexicans come to America and thrive from a nothing beginning and the Afro American community seek crutches and the Democratic Party loves to prop them up for vote support, the same trend is now being displayed towards the Mexican Americans, legal and illegal alike. I think the tax paying mainstream will end this this election cycle.

Zack, I may have judged you, but I did not prejudge you. When you post on you leave a track record. Anyone who wants to can search previous posts (in your case last November and December) and the recent ones predicting assassination of Barack Obama and draw their own conclusions.

You seem to have moderated your tone with this post this morning. I commend you for that.

For example, you write today:


That is a vast improvement over what you wrote on this thread Saturday, which was:

Prejudging you? The record is there Zack.

I will address one of your points.


Texas has struggled with equalization of school funding for years, The 2005 legislature lowered property taxes and recaptured the loss of local revenue by raising other state taxes. Texas is one of six states that does not have an income tax, but we do have a high sales tax. What measures will be need to maintain the state's portion of school funding is up for grabs.

It does not strike me as unexpected, that equalization has become part of our national discussion.

In response to pre judge I will only add that based on my ideology I extremely dislike the far left ideology and often add faces and names to those who meet the discription. I do not hate Democrats, I hate flawed, in my mind, ideology. When you wrote:I took it that you think I hate Democrats and that isn't true I hate far left liberal governing. I respect many Democratic Blue Dog's more than many of the self serving Republicans. The problem with ideology is the control of the Party being in the extremes and in my mind the current Senate/House is far left. And, I see Obama as far left with a flute and rats in tow, should he be elected it would be like a combine effect where when persons of reason from the middle on either side of the isle raise their heads they will be cut off like a wheat combine.

Washington DC is broken and McCain isn't the answer nor is Clinton and surely not Obama.

Back to the thread and the concept of the speech and Rev. Wright, Obama was a clean person growing up in Hawaii and then entered into politics in an area of our country with problems caused by an ideology, he choose this area and he choose this church, and, more importantly he accepted the ideology of Rev. Wright as to why there was a problem within that community. That is poor judgment in my mind.

Reality, in the late 50's and early 60's the black people in the chosen community, by education qualification, earned two to two and a half times the average earnings of similarly educated persons regardless of race across America. They did this through unions supported by the Democratic Party that demanded more and more from the employer until they found themselves non-competitive with the rest of the world auto makers when the oil embargo hit home. The folks in the bubble era were Motown happy well paid, well supported by negotiated health and retirement and work regulations and could only BLESS America for allowing someone with limited abilities to gain so much with so little investment in education.

So the ideology of support for the union is what caused the downfall of the community and not white America holding the community down. Auto makes are thriving across America where the ideology is restrained and people work and prosper while these false qualifications of union demand hold these folks back, and here I'm speaking to the Obama's chosen area and church.

Obama's failure to determine Rev. Wright ideology incorrect after coming from a clean Haiwan diverse rearing where he can clearly see race being a small factor in modern day sports, Hollywood, and the larger American experience including his own experiences is beyond belief. His association with terrorists and corrupt business people in his chosen environment are also reason for questioning his ability to reason. His wife's appraisal of her feeling about America should be reason for pause. He will be a combine if elected and I reject his view of America.

Yes I have realized Obama isn't from Detroit but it is no change in my position. The people who migrated to the South Side of Chicago had the same opportunities to hop on a bus and move to Detroit when it was booming with near triple pay for education level. The South Side was created by the Black Church according to my reading on the area that recruited from tribes of like thinking persons.