One Hundred and Nineteen posts in this thread questioning the character and integrity of a candidate for the highest office in the land because of the friends he keeps, the people whose advice he takes and the causes to which he himself donates - and not a single word in his defense.

A flurry of attacks on everyone and everything that would dare question the presumptive heir and a wave of attacks on everyone else's supposed hypocrisy because, "see, everyone does it".

Yet not a single reply of substance. This alone speaks volumes.

On page two alone, there are six posts about male pattern baldness. Then, we move on to the pope and nazis and pedophiles. Later, we find out that Yoss needs more popcorn and Clam is a self-proclaimed racist...just like everyone else in the world. More Catholic stuff. A debate about what constitutes an acquaintance compared to a friend. More Catholicism. Other pastors. Nixon. Bourbon Street. Bush is a terrible president (finally something we can all agree upon). Episcopalians and Greek Orthodox and First Congregationalists.
Oprah. Bingo. And back to Barack around page six.

So, there are really 119 posts questioning Barack Obama's character and integrity?

This is a 'thread' - it contains 119 posts.

It is self evident that many of them are, like yours, either an effort to change the subject or simply not on topic.

This is the point - there has been no defense of this relationship because it is indefensible. The best that can be done is to:

• Attack whomever reports it
  
• Ignore it
  
• Accuse the questioner of Racism
  
• State that 'Everybody does it'
  
• Change the subject
  
  

[QUOTE]Originally posted by little...way:
Bush is a terrible president (finally something we can all agree upon). [QUOTE]

Not!

You seem to believe that politicians are defined by the company they keep. I don’t necessarily agree. Every politician has unsavory characters in his/her past. Part of the reason for this is the political system, in which we require politicians to follow the money. I’d like to see a better way to elect our public servants.

If you are upset by Barack Obama’s relationship to Rev. Wright, then you must also be upset by John McCain’s indefensible (your word) relationship to Hagee, right? I prefer to listen to the candidate and look at their actions in the past to determine whether I agree with them or not. I think most of the endorsements are political and do not speak to the politician’s character, but to the groups that they expect to vote for them.

Are specifically upset by Rev. Jeremiah Wright saying “God damn America”? Jeremiah Wright gave up his college deferment and served six years in the United States Marine Corps. He came home earned a bachelor’s degree and a master’s degree and became a pastor in 1972. He has confronted racism and worked to help his parishioners pull themselves up by their bootstraps. Watching what he has seen perpetrated against his fellow Americans may have made him a little cranky. He has every right to be angry that his country hasn’t yet learned how to treat its own.

Are you mad that Rev. Wright said that the chickens were coming home to roost on 9/11? He is expressing the fact that nothing happens in a vacuum. People act and react to things as they perceive them. There are many people from other countries that are not happy with the policies of the government of the United States. Our actions as a nation inspire strong feelings in people who live in other parts of the world. We seem to have forgotten that everyone else has a right to their own opinion of us. America is not always right. We need to remember that. And, if you want to acknowledge the idea is ridiculous, do you also understand that Pat Robertson and Jerry Falwell said the same thing?

Now, when did Barack Obama say these things? It seems that everyone is attributing these ideas to him, because he has a pastor who said these things. The argument that many of us have is that we’ve been preached to by people with whom we disagree. Do I think that pedophile priests should be secretly moved from parish to parish because I’ve been at Masses celebrated by Joliet’s former bishop? No, I certainly don’t. That’s as ludicrous as saying that Obama agrees with everything he’s heard preached. If you want to know what Barack Obama thinks, listen to the speech he gave on March 18, 2008, which is quoted below:

“I have already condemned, in unequivocal terms, the statements of Reverend Wright that have caused such controversy. For some, nagging questions remain. Did I know him to be an occasionally fierce critic of American domestic and foreign policy? Of course. Did I ever hear him make remarks that could be considered controversial while I sat in church? Yes. Did I strongly disagree with many of his political views? Absolutely - just as I'm sure many of you have heard remarks from your pastors, priests, or rabbis with which you strongly disagreed.”

The full video of the speech can be found at: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zrp-v2tHaDo
The full text of the speech can be found at: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/03/18/obama-race-speech-read-t_n_92077.html

thank you little..way! and your comparison to sitting through services/masses by our former bishop is excellent. but we, however, are not running for office, so the idea that obama is no more influenced by rev. wright then we are by pedophile-protecting bishops won't hold water with those who are looking to discredit obama.
remember, they said the same things about kennedy in '60...influence of the pope on his foreign policy, etc.

quote:

Originally posted by howdy60137:
but we, however, are not running for office, so the idea that obama is no more influenced by rev. wright then we are by pedophile-protecting bishops won't hold water with those who are looking to discredit obama.

To that I would say what you said before, which is that I wouldn't expect a man of Barack Obama's intellect to be swayed by the words of one person. In fact, Sen. Obama himself said that he disagreed with some of what he heard from the pulpit.

So, are we ready to discuss what's really important in this campaign yet?

are we ready? no. i'm afraid obama has met swiftboat...sure keeping my fingers crossed for him...and he did win guam!!!

quote:

Originally posted by little...way:
If you want to know what Barack Obama thinks, listen to the speech he gave on March 18, 2008, which is quoted below:

“I have already condemned, in unequivocal terms, the statements of Reverend Wright that have caused such controversy. For some, nagging questions remain. Did I know him to be an occasionally fierce critic of American domestic and foreign policy? Of course. Did I ever hear him make remarks that could be considered controversial while I sat in church? Yes. Did I strongly disagree with many of his political views? Absolutely - just as I'm sure many of you have heard remarks from your pastors, priests, or rabbis with which you strongly disagreed.”

You mean the speach that was written by a team of writers to get the most bang for the message twards voters? The speach that was clearly meant to sway voters opinion on a hot button subject? To think that this is anything more than the spin of the day is ludicrous. All politicians for national office use teams of people to craft their message. This can contain nuggets of personal belief or not, depending on the candidate. I would not presume to think that Hillary or McCain are any different, but to put Obama on the pedestal of being the only candidate to speak his true beliefs is laughable. If the campaign staff thought it would sell more middle class votes in NC or Indiana to back Wright 100%, he would do that.

Dear Howdy: in today's Wall St. Journal, it was announced that Obama no longer favors federal oversight of the Teamsters Union (which has given their support to him). The Fed oversight committe was to monitor mob influence and corruption within the union. Every president has approved of this oversight since the early 90's, including Clinton and other senior dems.

Not sure if this was the "change" envisioned by some if not all dems.

quote:

Originally posted by Rob Herbold:

You mean the speach that was written by a team of writers to get the most bang for the message twards voters? The speach that was clearly meant to sway voters opinion on a hot button subject? To think that this is anything more than the spin of the day is ludicrous. All politicians for national office use teams of people to craft their message. This can contain nuggets of personal belief or not, depending on the candidate. I would not presume to think that Hillary or McCain are any different, but to put Obama on the pedestal of being the only candidate to speak his true beliefs is laughable. If the campaign staff thought it would sell more middle class votes in NC or Indiana to back Wright 100%, he would do that.

The speech he gave was a pretty good one, no matter your extremely jaded attitude toward politicians. When we draft you to run for office, we will also make you sound smart! I think you have to give him some credit, he can write and speak, and his off the cuff remarks are usually the same cadence and tone as his prepared ones.

But maybe I am changing the subject.

quote:

Originally posted by Gus:
Dear Howdy: in today's Wall St. Journal, it was announced that Obama no longer favors federal oversight of the Teamsters Union (which has given their support to him). The Fed oversight committe was to monitor mob influence and corruption within the union. Every president has approved of this oversight since the early 90's, including Clinton and other senior dems.

Not sure if this was the "change" envisioned by some if not all dems.

Follow the Jombl rules! Quit changing the subject. This is about Rev. Wright and his symbiotic relationship with Obama. Unless you can prove this ex-Marine is or was a truck driver, stick to the topic. Anarchist.

quote:

Originally posted by ronkas:

quote:

Originally posted by Rob Herbold:

You mean the speach that was written by a team of writers to get the most bang for the message twards voters? The speach that was clearly meant to sway voters opinion on a hot button subject? To think that this is anything more than the spin of the day is ludicrous. All politicians for national office use teams of people to craft their message. This can contain nuggets of personal belief or not, depending on the candidate. I would not presume to think that Hillary or McCain are any different, but to put Obama on the pedestal of being the only candidate to speak his true beliefs is laughable. If the campaign staff thought it would sell more middle class votes in NC or Indiana to back Wright 100%, he would do that.

The speech he gave was a pretty good one, no matter your extremely jaded attitude toward politicians. When we draft you to run for office, we will also make you sound smart! I think you have to give him some credit, he can write and speak, and his off the cuff remarks are usually the same cadence and tone as his prepared ones.

But maybe I am changing the subject.

The speech(sorry Ron), at the National Convention that promoted him into the stratosphere was written by him? The endless stump speeches for each of the itinerant problem areas in primary states were written by him? I am just saying that there are many hands that create the National Public Image. To say that his message is true because he speaks the words is laughable. Off the cuff remarks are readily built from an exhausting repetition of the same messages. Does he support The Rev.? Does he condone his actions and rhetoric? Does this race make for a one issue debate? My answer to these questions would probably be no, but to not look to his past associations without the campaign spin involved would be disingenuous.

All politicians have speech writers. That doesn't bother me. If it's laughable to listen to what they say, then please tell me what criteria should I use? Should I look at who the candidate's friends were in high school? Should I check out their shoes? Horoscopes? Or should I just go with what people I've never met tell me on bulletin boards?

No, I listen to what they say. I check their records. I read and watch as much as I can. Call me crazy.

quote:

Originally posted by Rob Herbold:

The speech(sorry Ron), at the National Convention that promoted him into the stratosphere was written by him? The endless stump speeches for each of the itinerant problem areas in primary states were written by him? I am just saying that there are many hands that create the National Public Image. To say that his message is true because he speaks the words is laughable. Off the cuff remarks are readily built from an exhausting repetition of the same messages. Does he support The Rev.? Does he condone his actions and rhetoric? Does this race make for a one issue debate? My answer to these questions would probably be no, but to not look to his past associations without the campaign spin involved would be disingenuous.

Rob: I will grant you that speech writers craft the message, but at the end of the day, the candidate delivers the speech. Look no further than the Oval Office for someone who can't deliver what is written. "It's a hard job. In other words, the job is hard." Ring a bell?

I will also grant you that Obama's association with Wright should be examined. I don't think that examination is unfair, contrary to Jombl's view. However, we have gotten to the level of a proctology exam. With a 24/7 news cycle, this is the lead that bleeds. And it could have been completely dismantled if Hillary had said, "it's not germane to the discussion of economics or national defense." But that is not her way.

Finally, the attack on a Church is improper. As in, "I would have left that Church." Why didn't he, as a political figure with some clout,address his Pastor? Fair game, but I think it's been asked and answered. Ad nauseum.

quote:

Originally posted by jombl:
One Hundred and Nineteen posts in this thread questioning the character and integrity of a candidate for the highest office in the land because of the friends he keeps, the people whose advice he takes and the causes to which he himself donates - and not a single word in his defense.

A flurry of attacks on everyone and everything that would dare question the presumptive heir and a wave of attacks on everyone else's supposed hypocrisy because, "see, everyone does it".

Yet not a single reply of substance. This alone speaks volumes.

I resent this remark Jombl. I did give a substantive response and you dismissed it (that's your right) but don't say there have been no replies with substance. I did not accuse you of racism, ignore it, or attack you, I never said "everyone does it," nor did I change the subject. You just don't think my response was an adequate answer. Nonetheless, I repeat that Obama is not his pastor and his pastor is not him. I don't think that there are many people who leave a church they have long-attended because the pastor says a few things he disagrees with. I also think it's hard for a white guy to understand black anger - particularly from black folks who lived through segregation and the civil rights movement. If you don't like that arguement, that's fine but it also proves that nothing anyone says will change your mind anyway.

i think horoscopes are the way to go!

[QUOTE]Originally posted by little...way:
All politicians have speech writers. That doesn't bother me. If it's laughable to listen to what they say, then please tell me what criteria should I use?

Don't dismiss the speech, just don't take the things that are said in a speech as the gospel (A nod to the thread topic ) truth according to that candidate. At the end of the day, whomever delivers the speech is ultimately responsible for the content. Consider a combination of past records, BB's, opinions and associations in your decision. If one carries more weight than others, so be it.


should I just go with what people I've never met tell me on bulletin boards? No, unless it is Clam (Don't you know that by now)

No, I listen to what they say. I check their records. I read and watch as much as I can. Call me crazy.[/QUOTE] I call you smart for considering all the variables and putting up good arguments for your opinions. I simply do not agree about the merits of Obama.

quote:

Originally posted by ronkas:
Rob: I will grant you that speech writers craft the message, but at the end of the day, the candidate delivers the speech. Look no further than the Oval Office for someone who can't deliver what is written. "It's a hard job. In other words, the job is hard." Ring a bell?

Yes, but there is a difference between bungling ineptness at public speaking and whether the message is ultimately conveyed on topic. It would be interesting to see if Barack loses the bid, if some renewal of the association with the Rev. is rekindled. Obama may still be in too much of the spotlight for the future to do that though.
I will also grant you that Obama's association with Wright should be examined. I don't think that examination is unfair, contrary to Jombl's view. However, we have gotten to the level of a proctology exam. With a 24/7 news cycle, this is the lead that bleeds. And it could have been completely dismantled if Hillary had said, "it's not germane to the discussion of economics or national defense." But that is not her way. I couldn't agree more. I don't care if Obama is a member of the KKK or the Panthers. My focus is on economic developement and the state of affairs abroad. If he fits that bill, so be it. (He doesn't)
Finally, the attack on a Church is improper. As in, "I would have left that Church." Why didn't he, as a political figure with some clout,address his Pastor? Fair game, but I think it's been asked and answered. Ad nauseum.

Again, we agree. If the answer to the question is unsatisfactory for you to form a concrete opinion, then it still needs to be addressed (You should be ultimately familiar with this policy - SB41 and all). If you continue the discourse only as means to discredit and woo voters, than that is wrong.

quote:

Originally posted by little...way:
On page two alone, there are six posts about male pattern baldness. Then, we move on to the pope and nazis and pedophiles. Later, we find out that Yoss needs more popcorn and Clam is a self-proclaimed racist...just like everyone else in the world. More Catholic stuff. A debate about what constitutes an acquaintance compared to a friend. More Catholicism. Other pastors. Nixon. Bourbon Street. Bush is a terrible president (finally something we can all agree upon). Episcopalians and Greek Orthodox and First Congregationalists.
Oprah. Bingo. And back to Barack around page six.

So, there are really 119 posts questioning Barack Obama's character and integrity?

Apparently were tired of talking about something that doesn't exist or we all have ADHD.

I think they will have popcorn at Bells & Whistles!