Ya sure Falwell is comparable to this nut – show me the quotes. And then tell me who sat and listened for 20 years. And yes guilty of 20 years of close association – and even more suspicion for trying to make us believe that in all that time he never heard any of this – ya right.



Hey bring it on. Lets try to use all the innuendo we can and lets see if we can trace every person McCain ever shook hands with – I am sure your filthy rag NYT is doing that right now BoF – and then tell me any of this crap = 20 years close association with this raciest lunatic – so I can laugh.

The fight started with the NYT attack on McCain and their burying of this issue.

Ted, what in hell does "ya" mean?

Ask and ye shall receive.

Here's the take Falwell and Robertson had on 9/11. At the expense of sounding like Darryl Worley, "have you forgotten."

http://www.actupny.org/YELL/falwell.html


As if guilt-by-association goes, here you go with the straw man argument against the NYT.

You are going to have to do better than this.

BTW: I'll bet you didn't object when the NYT broke the Spitzer story.

McCain himself couldn't possibly bring up Rev. Wright because the Obama campaign could come back with the simmering John "Catholic Church is the Great Whore" Hagee and Rod "destroy Islam" Parsley endorsements. And vice versa. Sen. Clinton's team could address McCain's endorsements - she's relatively clean when it comes to extremist religious associates - but not Obama. Of course, there's nothing to stop 527s on either side, but in a McCain-Obama race it could backfire. Only Clinton's campaign could remind moderates of McCain's anti-Catholic and anti-Muslim connections - which could turn the election. Obama has effectively eliminated what could be a key campaign issue, should he be the candidate.

That could backfire on Clinton too, Wertz. It might serve to remind those who supported Obama of what happened to him in the whole Rev Wright mess. Re-open old wounds and resentments and maybe push some of the to support McCain. From this we get the following.....



Doesn't mean much now to be sure, but if either Obama or Clinton re-open this controversy, it could be a fatal blow to their campaign.


Aquilla

Sooooo did McCain have this man as pastor, close friend ,advisor and attend his church for 20 years? You know the answer.

My problem with the Obama speech was that he did things like try to get us to believe that some private and mild comments by his white grandma is the moral equivalent of Rev. Wrights nutty positions and very public speech. Why did he stay with him for 20 years if their views had no points of commonality?

This is a question that lots of people are asking and we have no good answer.




Yes this nearly bankrupt liberal rag is doing a great job of covering for Obama and attacking McCain – don’t they wish that we were back in the good ol days when people had fewer news choices.



Could care less about this man. And you mean cover a story right under their noses in NY. Ya I am real proud of them.

In reply to Entspeak's post above"





My pleasure, since I guess you can't Google very well:

http://obama.3cdn.net/b7be3b7cd08e587dca_v852mv8ja.pdf

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/09/19/us/polit...dDtaQTF2R4nHaKQ

As you read these, you will see that there is not particularly clear line of demarcation, although there are indications. Imagine that--Obama really doesn't want you to know.

If the Bush tax cuts expire, regardless of what new lovelies Obama concocts, we do know this:

Tax rates will rise substantially in each tax bracket, some by 450 basis points;
Low-income taxpayers will see the 10-percent tax bracket disappear, and they will have to pay taxes at the 15-percent rate;
Married taxpayers will see the marriage penalty return;
Taxpayers with children will lose 50 percent of their child tax credits;
Taxes on dividends will increase beginning on January 1, 2009;
Taxes on capital gains will increase, also beginning on January 1, 2009; and
Federal death taxes will come back to life in 2011, after fading down to nothing in 2010.

http://www.heritage.org/Research/Taxes/wm956.cfm









Perdon my hyperbole. When Bush merely stopped at Bob Jones Univ for one day, he was widely castigated in the press. Obama has listened to the raging Wright for 20 years, and has counted him a personal advisor, friend and mentor.

"During his campaign, Bush was criticized for visiting the controversial Bob Jones University, which bore a reputation for a bias against Catholicism and a ban on interracial dating."

http://www.wikipediaondvd.com/nav/art/g/c.html





Then, if you ever run for office, I would suggest you keep your thoughts about your grandmother to yourself. She has not asked to be made a national spectacle. But then, you've already brought her up on the net.







Summarizing 20 years' reading is difficult, but here is a quote that might help you a little, since you are so unwilling to do your own work:

"Precisely what this entails is not always clear to whites. For them, loving one's neighbor "becomes emotional and sentimental. This sentimental, condescending love accounts for their desire to "help" by relieving the physical pains of the suffering blacks so they can satisfy their own religious piety and keep the poor powerless." But advocates of a black theology of liberation will not allow whites to get off so easy. "Authentic love is not 'help,'" Cone writes, "not giving Christmas baskets, but working for political, social, and economic justice, which always means a redistribution of power. It is the kind of power which enables blacks to fight their own battles and thus keep their dignity." [bold face added]

http://www.wfu.edu/~matthetl/perspectives/twentyseven.html

Black liberation theology is about an earthly power struggle as much as anything else.







Your statement speaks for itself. You said--clearly--that being rich is tantamount to being immoral and to making money on the backs of the less fortunate. If you think otherwise, then use more accurate langauge. Work on your drafting skills.

In addition, by whose moral code are you anaylyzing the "evil rich"? Yours? If the money were made legally, that is all that is required. Everything else is one's personal business....

Exactly – and the 14 million poor people taken off the tax rolls by Bush will be right back on. So Obama and hillary want to make believe the Bush cuts were only for the “rich” so they can dump them and then get “credit” for their own plans which will not be radically different – just a little more unfair to the upper middle class.

So what do you think of these questions with all of that said?

Is the Rev. Wright controversy over or nearly over and have no effect on Obama's nomination? I say no it is not over by a long shot. If you think so then google Youtube Obama Write or wrong and consider its impact in the general election.

Will super delegates be forced to nominate Senator Clinton if national polls and upcoming state races show drastic loss of support for Senator Obama? If they want to win the general election.

What effect will the nomination of Senator Clinton have on the Afro American voter/Democratic Party should the super delegates decide the race? The Afro American block vote could move to the Green Party and vote in block for Cynthia McKinney or maybe Obama could run with her as VP? If the polls show Obama will surly lose in the general election they could have Obama assassinated and blame it on the Republicans and have a guaranteed win in Nov.

If Obama is an assured loser in the general election he is a dead man walking so it would be likely that he would be warned to bow out on "his" will before he is made a martyr.

I think it is simply sick beyond imagination when people keep assuming that Obama will be assassinated. Hopefully this nation is better than that - better than the people suggesting it.

That's what you really wanted to talk about on your closed thread, isn't it Zack.

I'm not sure exactly what Zack was referencing, but I didn't take it as a physical death or assassination. I took his comments more as a political death should he win the nomination and lose the general election, which could or could not happen.


Aquilla

C'mon Aquila

Nixon lost in 1968
Humphrey lost in 1968
McGovern lost in 1972
Ford lost in 1976
and so on.

I've never heard of any party having a martyred candidate. The word usually refers to being killed for one's opinion.

I think we know what Zack meant or else it was a very poor choice of words.

BTW: A couple of other members have said something like this. Enough already.

...and here is a line from Zack's second post on his close thread.


http://www.americasdebate.com/forums/index...st&p=241286

Still in doubt?

Actually, Nixon lost in 1960, and was resurrected in 1968.

All of the other guys you cite are typical white guys who ran for President. Guys like them have run and lost EVERY American Presidential election in history. Obama is different, he's a black guy, first one with a truly serious chance at becoming President. The term "assassination" as it was used is a poor choice of words, as I told you I would have used the word "torpedo" to describe what could happen to his candidacy if certain Democrats hold a grudge and refuse to support him. Now, I don't know if that would happen, but it could. Somewhere around here I cited a recent poll that indicated that 20% of the Clinton people and 20% of the Obama people would refuse to support the other candidate. That's now, and it's early, but if it were to happen in November, John McCain will win by a landslide. And the way I read what Zack wrote, and he can correct me if I'm wrong, is that should Obama win the Democrat nomination and end up without the full support of his own party, it could effectively end his Presidential aspirations forever. And, because he is a different kind of candidate than we've ever had before because of his race, and add to that he didn't get the full support of his own party I could see where some might lose faith that a Black man could ever be elected President. He would in effect become a "martyr" in that his political career was ended because of his race. I could see some people, including some here believing that. I think it is a question worth considering, especially for the Democrat Party.

On the other hand, should Obama win the nomination and manage to unite the Democrats behind him (which appears to be like herding cats at this point), he could still lose in a close election to John McCain. But, it wouldn't be same thing. He could still come back with a "we got close the last time, let's win the next one".


Aquilla

Not my job to support your assertions for you, but thanks for the links.



Yep, this is the document I referred to when I wrote this:



It still says the same thing.



This article pretty much reiterates the tax fairness plan. So, in all the "reading" you've done on this subject, you have found nothing to support this statement:



Unless, of course, you could point to something in either of your links that does?



So, when you say "seems to mark $50,000 per year as 'middle class'", what you actually mean to say is that you have no idea what you're talking about?



Wow, you mean the media engages in hyperbole? Shocking!!! And, because the press does so, we should, too? Good to know.



First assurances and now suggestions? Wow, a veritable font of assuring advice... or is that adviceful assurances...

Do you know that is grandmother did not know she was going to be mentioned in the speech? Or are you just going to assure me that she didn't?



Again, not my job to support your position for you, quick. So, it's not that I won't do my own work... I just won't do yours for you.



You should be in a room at the back of a dark theatre, you project so much. I said money was only one facet of power and that there were others and that the best approach to power was a multifaceted approach... I never brought up earthly vs. ... well, unearthly, I guess... power.







Nope, I clearly did no such thing. You see, when constructing a sentence... or in your case "reading" a sentence, it is important to look at grammatical construction. Let me break it down for you:



The highlighted portion is a qualifier that limits the object it refers to - in this case, the underlined section (your all-inclusive statement). And the italicized portion refers back to the highlighted portion. Perfectly accurate, if complex.

Someone always loses, right quick? For that reason, it's absurd to say that people shouldn't be successful at the expense of those less fortunate. Someone will always be on the less fortunate end of the stick. It is those who approach their success without morality at the expense of those less fortunate that this sentence refers to. And this is where you began projecting.

My statement included your original statement - "anyone who has been successful in this country." You ignored the very important "who did so" in the qualifier... which meant it no longer limited the object, but merely described the object - hence your claim that I am saying every one who is successful in this country is without morality. To which I respond, don't twist my words.

I never described those who approached their success without morality; I simply stated that they exist and that Obama's speech probably didn't "give something" to them.

...what is he of basest function
That says his bravery is not of my cost,
Thinking that I mean him, but therein suits
His folly to the mettle of my speech?
There then; how then? what then? Let me see wherein
My tongue hath wrong'd him: if it do him right,
Then he hath wrong'd himself; if he be free,
Why then my taxing like a wild-goose flies,
Unclaim'd of any man.

-William Shakespeare

Damn, I had both Nixon and Humphrey losing in 1968, but it was a laps in thinking. I was both tired and angry and facing a full day at the tax service. Today I'm the only one in the office, so I may be posting from there today.

Nixon lost in 1960
Goldwater lost in 1964
Humphrey lost in 1968
McGovern lost in 1972
Ford lost in 1976
Carter lost in 1980
Mondale lost in 1984
Dukakis lost in 1988
Bush 1 lost in 1992
Dole lost in 1996
Gore lost in 2000
Kerry lost in 2004

I started in 1960, because I was a high school senior then and graduated the spring of 1961. eighteen-year-olds couldn't vote then, but could in 1964. I would have voted for Kennedy if I had been eligible, as it was the best I could do was have a heated debate with my pastor over the issue. Kennedy did for youth of my generation what Obama is doing for this generation. Since 1960 I have voted Democratic in every election with the exception of 1980, when I voted for John Anderson.

I shook hands with Kennedy in Fort Worth the morning he was killed. I remember vividly the killings of of Bobby Kennedy, Martin Luther King, Medgar Evers and others. Then there were the foreign assassinations of Anwar Sadat, Indira Gandhi and just recently Benazir Bhutto.

Then there were the attempted assassinations of Ford and Reagan.

I have lived with the sickness of murdering public officials all my life. I am sick of it.

Never, until Barack Obama began his assent (a Good Easter word) have I ever heard assassination talk about a candidate before he is even nominated or elected. Could that be what every minority faces? My fear is that such talk become a self-fulfilling prophecy. Whether literal or figurative speech it sucks - not one of my usual words, but it seems to fit.

Maybe Zack will explain what he meant by the word.

Edited to touch up typos.

You know you don't care. No matter what he says you're against his line of thought. Barack is frankly a high probability target for assassination. You live in Texas BoF you know what's going on. Most of it is tough talk but there's enough talk and enough crazies out there that it might happen - much more so than it might to John McCain.

Anyway enough with the hand wringing about all the death you've seen lain before you. We all have. If it's affecting you that much maybe you shouldn't read the newspaper for a decade or so. Just drop Zack and his (odd) dupe thread and move on. You're a better poster than this.

Of course you'd heard that kind of talk before, BoF. Maybe you'd weren't listening, or maybe you've forgotten. They say the second thing to go with age is memory and I've forgotten the first. Let me refresh you memory. Here's another list to consider.......

Abraham Lincoln
James Garfield
William McKinley
Warren Harding
Franklin Roosevelt
John Kennedy

Now, what do these former Presidents all have in common?

Two things that stand out.

Number one - Each of them was elected or re-elected to the Presidency in a year ending in 0. It happens every 20 years.

Number two - Each and everyone of them died in office, either from assassination or natural causes.

So, when we were approaching the next 20 cycle in 1980, there was a huge amount of talk about the fact that every President elected in that 0 year for the past 120 years didn't live out his time in office, That was one of the reported reasons that Rose Kennedy was so concerned the idea of Ted Kennedy running.

In 1980, we elected Reagan and he was damn near assassinated and such talk surfaced to a lesser extent in the yeara 2000. So, there has been talk of such things prior to nominations, not race based, but talk nonetheless.


Aquilla

That is all true Aquilla, but the talk was about whoever won the election and certainly not about a specific candidate. Is it that there are those so opposed to even the posssibility of a Black president that thy are willing to murder the man now?

In my opinion the 0 year thing was just superstition, for which I have little patience.



I think all of us have something that hits the raw edge of our emotions. My friend Sleeper gets emotional when he writes about child molesters, as did you on a thread you started a while back BA. My open sore involves the Kennedy assassination. As I said, I shook hands with the man that morning before his ill fated trip to Dallas. It still haunts me. Give me a little space on this one.

You are a better poster BA than thnt emotionl thread you started.

I'm Sure You Remember This Emotionally Laden Jewel

I believe that is a distinct possibility, I've written about that before in other threads that touch on this aspect. Are there some crazed lunatic racists out there whose miserable lives have been filled with blind hatred of Black people? You bet there are. Is it beyond the realm of possibility that one of these miserable cretins would seek to "make a name" for themselves by killing the first Black President? I think that's a distinct possibility.



Well, it is historically accurate. Sometimes history does take patience. That's why there was so much talk about it in 1980,


Aquilla

What I was trying to say is that if Obama is determined unelectable and in the lead leading up to the nomination process the Democratic party has little options if they desire to win in Nov. 1. If they nominate Senator Obama knowing he will be defeated they lose the election to keep the party together. 2. If they select Senator Clinton with super delegates they may lose the support of the entire Afro American and inspired youth vote. 3. If a super delegate selection of Senator Clinton is used to win it could cause a break up of the Democratic Party. 4. An option would be to ask Senator Obama to step down or accept VP. 5. The Democratic Party could keep the party together and have an assured victory if they assassinated Senator Obama and shifted blame to the "racist right".

The above is based on logic and reason, if the polls and election results of upcoming states indicate Obama's race is impacted to the point of unelectable in the general election and he is still ahead in non super delegates a hidden war within is assured. Why do I say one of the winning issues is to assassinate Senator Obama? If Obama is in a spiraling decline in support it will be because the "right or far right" are unrelenting in keeping the Rev. Wright controversy alive and it would be very easy to apply motive for the responsibility on them. This would leave the Democratic Party as a victim with a unification of all those who supported Obama and Clinton to come out and defeat the "mean far right" that caused the death of a candidate. The Democratic Party is in a box and if the box closes with Senator Obama unelectable it could happen. My point is this, if the right is playing this and other similar ads over and over to bring down Obama the masses would blame the right should something happen to him. Please take time to put yourself in the box as you look at this video. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=72B3tUAqpo4

You were right and I was wrong, BoF. Zack's "theory" wins the category for the most whacked out tin foil hat theory in this forum. And, that's really saying something.


Sheesh!


Aquilla

Watch the ad again http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=72B3tUAqpo4 and think of how the Democrats will be having the third election stolen from them and reconsider. If the polls say Senator Obama will lose by double digit losses against Senator McCain in the general election the lid on the box will be closed.

Zack, your comments have no bearing on the debate topic posed. It is useful to give examples, but yours provide no relevancy to the debate questions. What does assassination have to do with Rev. Wright's association with Obama and what the importance of Obama's speech will be?

You are either using a horrible analogy or you have typed out something that misconstrues what you are trying to say. I'd personally stay away from conspiracy theories and add more hyperlinks. Quite frankly, I'm disappointed to see lame one word answers and a lack of hyperlinks in a lot of posts on this board as of late. "I think" doesn't equate to fact and in no way, does an assassination theory have merit in fact as you proposed, especially when it's unrelated to the topic.

I doubt it will end the issue, but do feel the issue should be closed.



Partially. It got mind-numbing listening to every sentence filled with adjectives regarding race. He spoke eloquently, but again, how is "he" going to achieve the dream of true equality? Will he be able to prevent future generations of black men from entering the criminal justice system? If so, how? Creating equal opportunity for people of every color. I like that, but how will he do it?

I would have liked to have seen him fully admit he knew exactly what the Reverend was dishing out, and one side of him, the angry side (and we all have one), bought into it like all the other church goers. I could respect him for that. But he wants to get elected so of course, he's showing his true colors, which are those of a politician, and saying what will be palatable to the American public.

At one point in the speech he alluded to white men voting for McCain, not because of his stance on the issues, but for other reasons. So, is he presuming that those who would vote for McCain would only be doing so out of racist motivation? If so, that's an unfair supposition.

Throwing his white grandma under the bus to make a point of white prejudice was distasteful at best, especially considering she is the one who helped raise him. He's pandering way too hard, in my opinion.

Well, the subject was race.



A fair criticism on your part, though that would've been a larger scope than the speech was intended to focus on.



He did admit it:







Could your provide a quote where that is alluded to? I can't find it other than a vague reference to affirmitive action and the like.



He was highlighting the distorted views on race that both blacks and whites exhibit. Mentioning the fact that his grandmother expressed a fear of passing black people on the side walk is not throwing her under the bus. I'm sure that is a fear (however irrational) that more whites have, than they would like to admit. Is pointing that out so wrong? Or should he have entirely left out white resetnment and prejudice in his speech and only focus on Jeremiah Wright?

Interesting- I found some neat pics of Bill Clinton and the Rev Wright-

http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/

( you need to scroll about 3/4 of the way down)

CNN) – Barack Obama’s former minister, Rev. Jeremiah Wright, attended a 1998 Clinton White House prayer breakfast, and met former President Bill Clinton – a moment which was documented by official photographers in a photo that surfaced Thursday.

Wright was one of roughly 100 religious leaders invited to the breakfast, which was held in the East Room on September 11, 1998, as part of a series of similar events scheduled that year in the wake of the Monica Lewinsky scandal.

The photograph appeared on "The truth about Trinity United Church of Christ," a blog operated by a church member.

During the breakfast, then-President Clinton told the group that "I don't think there is a fancy way to say that I have sinned."

An Obama spokesman declined to comment. Clinton spokesman Phil Singer told CNN, “In the course of his two terms in office, Bill Clinton met with, corresponded with and took pictures with literally tens of thousands of people.

According to White House documents released this week, Hillary Clinton was scheduled to attend the event as well.

The Obama campaign has struggled to re-gain its footing following the controversy over racially-charged comments by the Illinois senator’s former minister. Earlier this week, Obama gave a speech in Philadelphia that was meant to clarify his opposition to the substance of Wright’s remarks, as well as his views on racial division in America.

The Clinton campaign has largely steered clear of public criticism of Obama over the incident, though some current and former campaign surrogates have suggested the fact that the senator did not dissociate himself sooner might raise questions about his judgment.

–CNN's Steve Brusk and Rebeca Sinderbrand



However- we, as policy wonks that debate the minutuae of each candidate- seems to be a bit out of touch with the Amerian public-

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/03/22/us/polit...ml?ref=politics


Seven in 10 said Mr. Obama, Democrat of Illinois, did a good job talking about race relations, and as many said he did a good job explaining his relationship with Mr. Wright, according to the CBS News poll.

More than 6 in 10 said they mostly agreed with what he said about race relations in the United States, including a broad majority of Democrats and independents.

Fewer Republicans — 4 in 10 — agreed with the message.

Still, the poll showed some erosion for Mr. Obama. Just over half of registered voters now say he would be a president who is able to unite the country, down from two-thirds a month ago.

So, overall, except wtih republicans - seems to think Obama did quite well on this issue- we are talking about 70% here!

Another:

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2008/03/21/...e=mostpop_story

Among voters who supported Obama over presumptive Republican nominee John McCain before the speech, 23 percent say they are now more likely to support the Illinois senator. Just six percent are less likely to support him, while 69 percent say it makes no difference.

Overall, the speech and events surrounding the matter have found a wide audience. Most voters say they have heard or read some about these events, including 42 percent who have heard a lot about it. Just four percent of those surveyed had not heard about the controversy.

Oh yeah, how could I forget!



Okay, but I have yet to see a speech by Obama that addresses the "how to's." No one can deny he is a great speaker, but if he wants to sell me the idea that he is somehow going to alleviate such important issues, as discussed in the speech at hand, he better have a plan, and he better tell me about it. Otherwise, he's just another smoke blower.



You misunderstood me. I want to see him acknowledge that part of the appeal of Reverend Wright was his anger. Obama admitted blacks are angry. Why can he not admit that he, too, has anger within? We all do! He tried to act as if he is competely opposed to those controversial elements in the Reverend's sermons. I don't buy it for a minute. I'll vote for a black man who can admit he's angry, but maybe others won't and that is why he is not being completely honest about race as it relates to Obama, the man.



It was the part right after he spoke about how we could discuss the Reverend every week until the election. It was just after that. I'll try to find the exact quote.



I think he should have left grandma out of it. He could have made the point without putting the white side of his family down. Was his father perfect?

But the supposition that blacks are voting for Obama 'cause he's black, or he's beating Clinton in the polls cause he's black, isn't unfair?

Oy.

This thread is weird. One of the strangest contradictions is Obama doesn't give this country credit where credit is due while the possibility of an assassination is very real because Obama is black.

Go figure.

I am sorry to keep you waiting, Ted, but I haven't forgotten about you.

Perhaps people don't deserve an answer on this beyond what Obama has already given us. I suspect that those clamoring for more, more, more are, at the least, not going to vote for Obama and, at the most, want to see him assassinated. No amount of encores will silence the right.

You are practicing guilt-by-association. I don't care how many times you skirt the question, that is what you are doing.




I suppose you are talking about the NYT. What have they specifically done or not done concerning Obama's speech?




Ted. I choose my words carefully. I didn't suggest you were to organize a pep rally for the NYT over the Spitzer story, only that you didn't object.

Again, Ted, what does "ya" mean? If this is what they taught you in those public schools you hate so much, then we really are in trouble.

Edited to correct typos made at work where I had no spell checker.

This is not a case of guilt by association, it is guilt by active participation. Obama may have tried to put some distance between himself and his 'looney uncle' but he makes no effort at all to disavow the teachings of the 'church' itself, no matter how racist and anti-American they may be.

As an aside, whatever school you attended came up a bit short in the English department itself. As did your grandmother, who should have taught you better manners.

Guilt by active participation? I haven't heard that before. Does Obama have to disavow all the teachings of his church, or just those you don't like?

The church's mission statement calls for eradication of racism not perpetuating it.

http://www.tucc.org/mission.htm

It sounds like a pretty good idea to me.

Tell the truth now, HtL. Would you have supported Obama if none of this had come up or would you have just found something else to harp on.

Actually I agree with you that my debate doesn't belong on this thread but BoF and site management disagree, I opened a separate thread and they closed it and directed me here. It was BoF and site management that supports debating my topics on this thread so complain to them.


To learn of the topics I'm debating take a look at my first post on this thread a page or two back. Better yet, take a look for a recent thread topic on this site started by me and closed by management.

To answer your question"What does assassination have to do with Rev. Wright's association with Obama and what the importance of Obama's speech will be?" Is answered in my debate questions and answers posted on this thread and the closed thread.

I found Obama's speech lacking and quite a number of American voters agree according to recent polls. Today on the news former President Clinton made an implication about Obama's patriotism or lack thereof. Obama responded through a surrogate indicating "an understood" that it was intended to state Obama was unpatriotic. Based on these assumptions one could assume that it was necessary to assume former President Clinton and many other Americans doubt Obama's patriotism and I would assume that is based on this link that refers to this speech: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=72B3tUAqpo4

Don't you and everyone else agree that it would be better to debate this on my original thread that addressed the questions I addressed here?

Here is a link for those who like links to relate to my debate and posibilities. http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2008/mar/2...008.barackobama

Yet another link: http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/Vote2008/st...1667&page=1

FYI

Zack, I am a member just like you are. I do not take part in closing threads. The decision was Jaime's call. Take it up with her, please. What you don't know is how many, if any, members reported your post. I did not.

Perhaps you could clarify something then Zack. One simple question......

Are you suggesting that the Democratic Party might seek to kill Barack Obama and blame it on the "far right" in order to win the 2008 Presidential Election? Is that your contention and the reason you used the word "assassination"?


Aquilla

There is a misunderstanding, the other day when you sent me a PM subject Fine I thought there were some new rules and you had fined me for doing something wrong. I took it that you were staff and I apologize.

Yes, I'm suggesting such a news situation may take place. Obama and entire crew of small aircraft were killed shortly after takeoff followed by investigation that found multiple small arms caused the aircraft to crash, an unfortunate incident that would result in a Democratic victory out of the hands of sure defeat. A motive equal to that of a married couple going through a divorce, blame the husband but if a third party is in the triangle with more motive the husband could go free.

I have never heard of anybody being "fined" on . No, I am not on the staff and have never represented myself as being on staff.

BTW: There is a rule against posting contents of a PM, (not my rules) so be careful.


http://www.americasdebate.com/?page=rules

Whew=- I guess we knew who bought into the Clinton Chronicles conspiracy theories lately

But I have to ask- if Obama is supposed to disavow Rev Wright all together, forever- will the republican party disavow Falwell, Robertson, and Ralph Reed as well? Will the republican party kick out the religious right, who has pretty much the same doctrine as Rev Wright, and they too blame 9/11 for our "sins" ?

Rev Wright is far, far from the first person to say this from the Pulpit- and I quote Falwell and Robertson:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jerry_Falwell

After the September 11, 2001 attacks, Falwell said on The 700 Club, "I really believe that the pagans, and the abortionists, and the feminists, and the gays and the lesbians who are actively trying to make that an alternative lifestyle, the ACLU, People For the American Way, all of them who have tried to secularize America. I point the finger in their face and say 'you helped this happen.'" Fellow evangelist Pat Robertson concurred with his sentiment. After heavy criticism, Falwell apologized,[26] though he later said that he stood by his statement, stating "If we decide to change all the rules on which this Judeo-Christian nation was built, we cannot expect the Lord to put his shield of protection around us as he has in the past."[27

So again, what we are seeing here is a racist double standard. I do not see daily repudiation of the religious right by McCain, I don't see him up and railing about the religious extremists in his party. How many of the Republican are also members of the largest Protestant organization in America- the Southern Baptist church- there are 16 million of them BTW.

Do you think McCain can win the election if he publically condemns Falwell, Robertson, Ralph Reed, and Ronald Reagan? No, in fact, he seems to wrap himself in the mantel of Reagan- the very person that gave Reagan the election- without them, Reagan would have not won an election.

From the same source:

Jerry Sloan versus Falwell
In 1984, Falwell was ordered to pay gay activist and former Baptist Bible College classmate Jerry Sloan $5,000 after losing a court battle.

In July, 1984 during a TV debate in Sacramento, California, Falwell denied calling the mostly gay Metropolitan Community Churches "brute beasts" and "a vile and Satanic system" that will "one day be utterly annihilated and there will be a celebration in heaven" (See #Homosexuality). When Sloan insisted he had a tape, Falwell promised $5,000 if he could produce it. Sloan did, Falwell refused to pay, and Sloan successfully sued. The money was donated to build Sacramento's first gay community center, the Lambda Community Center, serving "Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Transgender, and Intersex" communities.[35]

Falwell appealed the decision with his attorney charging that the judge in the case was prejudiced. He lost again and was made to pay an additional $2,875 in sanctions and court fees.

And, oh yeah, how much influence does he have in the Republican party:

In early 2005, Falwell was hospitalized for two weeks with a viral infection, discharged, and then rehospitalized on May 30, 2005, in respiratory arrest.[41][42] President George W. Bush contacted Falwell to "wish him well."[42] He was subsequently released from the hospital and returned to his duties. Later in 2005, a stent was implanted to treat a 70% blockage in his coronary arteries.[43]

Jerry Falwell called the civil rights movement "the civil wrongs movement"

he was a died in the wool segregationist. he told people to buy kugurands in order to support the South African goverment so Aparthied would remain.

Falwell grew up in a strongly segregationist setting and supported racial segregation. In 1965, he gave a sermon at his Thomas Road Baptist Church criticizing Martin Luther King, Jr. and the Civil rights movement, which he sometimes referred to as the "Civil Wrongs Movement". On his Evangelist program The Old-Time Gospel Hour in the mid 1960s, he regularly featured segregationist politicians like Lester Maddox and George Wallace.[11] He said this about Martin Luther King: "I do question the sincerity and non-violent intentions of some civil rights leaders such as Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., Mr. James Farmer, and others, who are known to have left wing associations."[12]

He founded the moral majority:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moral_Majority

The Moral Majority had adherents in the two major United States political parties, the Republicans and the Democrats, though it exercised far more influence on the former.

Falwell was the organization's best known spokesperson throughout the 1980s. By 1982, Moral Majority surpassed Christian Voice in size and influence. The organization dissolved officially in 1989[4] but lives on in the Christian Coalition network initiated by Pat Robertson.[5]

In 1981, a series of exposés (later nominated for the Pulitzer Prize) by Memphis reporter Mike Clark led to some condemning the interactions between the Moral Majority and the Republican Party.

In early October of 2007, Cal Thomas openly admitted on Fox News' popular show Hannity and Colmes that the marketing department of the Moral Majority would commonly discuss ways to demonize homosexuals (among others) in order to manipulate the public into following the Moral Majority's agenda.

I have yet to date to hear the repudiation of the moral majority, the Christian Coalition, Jerry Falwell from white candidates in the republican party, to the extent that Barak Obama did, and has been demanded to do by white voters.

It is extremely hypocritical, and downright racist, in the double standard applied to Barak Obama vs GW and McSame.

The difference I see is that you are comparing a current candidate for president and an entire political party. Kind of an apples and oranges type of thing, don't you know?

Even more, I am a declared conservative Republican, and you know more than me about this guy! Apparently he has more influence on you than me. Nice comparison!

I would love to see religion removed from politics completley- but only the black guy is being asked to do that right now. I will change that when McSame is asked to do the same thing regarding the religious extreme factions in his party.

I grew up in the conservative christian household that has deep republican roots Scuba- I know more about the republican party conservatives than you probably ever will my brutha.

Has McCain declared any of the people that you have drug through the mud as his religious leader, personal advisor or anything that Obama has with Wright? You are saying that McCain needs to denounce any religious ties to the entire party to be fair in this, when people are calling the relationship between two people on the other side to be brought into question. Come with something that compares apples to apples; all you are doing is showing the fear "progressives" have with religious people supporting anyone that isn't "progressive".

You have never been friends with, or have family members who hold some embarrassingly different views than yourself?



Obama is a member of the United Church of Christ. What views of theirs are racist or anti-American? Here is where hyperlinks kick in, saying so doesn't make it so.