exactly drole...and let's ask ourselves...do we not have someone on the family or someone that we know that we aren't particularly agreeable with everythign that they say?

Do we just disown them?

Or do we sit and listen to what they have to say and either agree or disagree with that and learn from that?

I'm fine with this mindset, as long as the same reaction comes from the same people when the circumstances are different.

Not 100% true. Just the other day, during an interview he said that he never heard any of this while in church(?!?!?).
Now he is indicating that he did or at least may have. Humm-flip/flop?

However I know of a few people who:
Did not like the direction their house of worship was taking,
Did not like how it was being lead.
Did not like the direction it was taking or going.

So, what did they do? They at least voiced some concern. Tried to change it. And if still uncomfortable with it, they found another house, another congregation.
From what I have seen and heard, Obama did nothing.

Or perhaps he tried to 20 years too late.

35 mins worth of wasted words...huh?

35 minutes 20 years too late perhaps?

This is my feeling.

Anyone- like me and many of us here- who has ever spent a significant period of time affiliated with a church knows full well that you become intimately familiar with the preacher's general position and tone.

This is Obama's "Swift Boat".

And he is part of the reason it is so effective. The Swift Boat ads against John Kerrey were largely effective because Kerrey decided to portray himself as a Vietnam war hero when his actions after he came home were far from honorable (in many eyes at least- including mine.)

Obama has made this worse for himself by promoting himself as very, very close to this church and Wright. When you add in the fact he STILL has yet to offer much substance in his speeches- Wright's rhetoric is all the more damaging because it is something people can understand real fast and associate with a candidate who has yet to really lay out his general philosophy in a realistic and pragmatic way.

I have never liked Obama because of his reliance on happy sounding rhetoric instead of substance- but I do not think he shares Wright's views. I really don't think Obama is an anti-white militant. He is far too intelligent for that.

But this mess has cost him any chance of winning the general election- more because this all came up without the country having a real understanding of how Obama planned to handle the most powerful job in the world.

Obama is not responsible for the racist lunacy of Rev. Wright- but today's speech sounded a few decades out of place. And all the pundits on the news comparing Obama to Dr. King are being terribly disrespectful to the very REAL courage Dr. King had and the very REAL danger he and his followers faced daily. People like me look at that and are turned off because we feel Obama is being shoved down our throats even more than before. Noone is talking about what he can actually accomplish- but are rather making excuses for him.

Obama is responsible for not having started off his campaign being more open, pragmatic and substantive in his presentation to the voters. And this is what will cost him the election- as well it should.

The real nightmare now is for Democrats on two fronts.

First- mathematically Obama is almost certain to win the nomination, but now he is unelectable (at least I think so.) I do not envy the Super Delegates.

Second- Obama is caught between appeasing the African-America power structure who feel you defend your own at all times and at all costs (NOT the African-American community at large since I still believe most African-Americans are just as appalled at Wright as I am), and the rest of the party. And a big new demographic in this party is the Hispanic vote who are not going to be sympathetic to Wright or the association with Obama.

Rev. Sharpton himself in the last election made a big issue of how Democrats have taken the black vote for granted and worked to court Hispanics and swing voters.

We are now at a point where many issues, immigration the big one, create an enormous conflict between major voting groups within the Democratic Party- and this spells disaster as long as the CBC and other African-American power structure groups continue to play the game of "give us what we want all the time or we will turn on you in a heartbeat".

That may have worked 10-20 years ago, but the demographics of the US have changed and it won't play anymore.

And that is a shame for everyone since it creates division that is totally unnecessary.

If you failed to read/hear any substance in his speech today, then maybe you're just too smug to comprehend anything you don't type yourself.

quote of the week

20 years too late? Do you mean Obama should have known by ESP that when he began attending the church that his pastor would make these comments?

And I don't think there are enough churches in a community for a person to think that they can find one where they agree 100% with everything the pastor says. How many people would attend church if that meant you endorsed everything that the head of the church said up there? I don't think that most people want to attend a church where there isn't a dialogue in between its members as to what their religious texts mean. If you go to church only to validate your own beliefs and make sure you don't run into any contrary opinions, then I don't think you're (1) very bright, or (2) a very valuable member to any congregation.

And if you do think that church is about being with a group of people that don't disagree on anything, then that's great.. but open your mind up to the possibility that other people do things differently and maybe in Obama's church, people aren't pressured to have a uniform, carbon copy, litmus test of beliefs. Sure, it is okay to expect that certain central tenants of a belief system are shared, but I don't think that's what we're talking about here. This is a pastor sharing his opinion on how his faith translates into politics. I don't think that we have the right to expect (or should expect) that a politician is going to listen to his or her religious leader in making religious decisions. If that's what we wanted it, why not skip the middle man and just put the religious figure in office? There's a reason we don't and for that reason we need to give politicians a little slack if they don't agree 100% with every political opinion that their religious beliefs or chosen religious advisers express.

Do you ever make intelligent comments? Every response I have ever seen from you in a contentious political discussion is some one-liner that you obviously think makes you sound smart.

I was not addressing the speech specifically but the circumstances around it.

I heard the speech and it did sound great and it did have some substance to it- but it also had a lot of excuses and at the end of the day I do not think it will matter to many voters who supported Hillary or for swing voters who are undecided- the people he needs to win a general election.

I avoided getting into the specifics of the speech since I knew a handful of morons like you (and you are the king race baiter on this forum in case you didn't know it) would not be able to have a rational discussion about it.

Instead I focused on the practical realities of what has happened- and in the end that is what really matters if we are talking about who will win the Oval Office in November.

Does your mother?

all Hail the KING (race baiter)

LOL! Because ALL of my Race War threads were soooooooo successful!

FWIW, I think in true Obama-style you're more of a uniter than a fighter, Senusret.

Be it a week, a month, a year, 5 years whatever number you feel is correct and/or accurate-OK?
But I still believe what I said, based upon just what I said "people that I know".
I never said that one has to agree with everything but one wants to feel at home, comfortable, at easy in their place of worship. Perhaps one could just about say one should.
And if you do not, well see my post above.