Wow, Salon found a kook to carry water for the racist…
That aside, I really don’t know what your point is. I could post a bunch of vile nonsense from some paleo con rag without comment… so what? I could also post a bunch of mainstream conservative articles without comment. Again, so what?
Anyway, it’s time for change. No more 60s radicals, black nationalists, et cetera. Feel the change Mr Obama. ;)
That is the change that Obama represents, IMO.
Obama is the same old same old.. claiming to be change.
That was the thrust of the speech. Its right on the money. However, no one really wants have this conversation.
I think that’s wrong. We’d like to have it. We don’t want Obama, as an offshoot of his Checkers speech with the possible further condition that we need to elect him and/or no longer talk about his problems, to be the moderator.
Huh? What is a checkers speech? So its nice that he talked about race but you just don’t think he should moderate? I don’t understand what you’re saying.
Huh? What is a checkers speech? So its nice that he talked about race but you just don’t think he should moderate? I don’t understand what you’re saying.
It’s reference to then VP Richard Nixon’s famous “Checkers Speech”. Look it up, it’s a pretty basic piece of political history and political technique.
So I guess you find it ironic that a critique of Obama for being too general should probably be specific? I agree.
I posted it as an example of rising democrat hostility to Obama… not for it’s quality as a critique. I don’t disagree with it, but it certainly could have used more support for the arguments.
That was the thrust of the speech. Its right on the money. However, no one really wants have this conversation.
I think that’s wrong. We’d like to have it. We don’t want Obama, as an offshoot of his Checkers speech with the possible further condition that we need to elect him and/or no longer talk about his problems, to be the moderator.
Huh? What is a checkers speech? So its nice that he talked about race but you just don’t think he should moderate? I don’t understand what you’re saying.
A: the speech was a Checkers (as in Nixon’s dog / speech) speech to divert attention from his Wright problem.
B: Obama’s not a disinterested party / honest broker. He’s a left winger. I don’t need or want him to lead any discussion on race.
C: On the other hand, I wouldn’t mind having such a discussion. But for it to be a discussion (vs. a lecture.. or in Wright’s case, a rant) people like me would have to have a say in who moderates. If the Wright’s, Obama’s, et cetera should be included at all, they sure can’t be in charge of leading it.
C: On the other hand, I wouldn’t mind having such a discussion. But for it to be a discussion (vs. a lecture.. or in Wright’s case, a rant) people like me would have to have a say in who moderates. If the Wright’s, Obama’s, et cetera should be included at all, they sure can’t be in charge of leading it.
Absolutely. The race hustlers and the PC crowd wants to set the agenda. They don’t want a genuine “dialogue”. They want to drown out any competing ideas and affirm the “truthiness” of their positions.
C: On the other hand, I wouldn’t mind having such a discussion. But for it to be a discussion (vs. a lecture.. or in Wright’s case, a rant) people like me would have to have a say in who moderates. If the Wright’s, Obama’s, et cetera should be included at all, they sure can’t be in charge of leading it.
Absolutely. The race hustlers and the PC crowd wants to set the agenda. They don’t want a genuine “dialogue”. They want to drown out any competing ideas and affirm the “truthiness” of their positions.
Yep, and they’re the fringe… although it’s goal of the left / PC crowd to try make them appear as the mainstream. I know the black community has some legit complains… like that sentencing tends to be harsher for first time black offenders (re: white first time non violent offenders are often not prosecuted.. the DA doesn’t proceed)… and complaining about that is not the same as what the Wright’s say. I want to hear the reasonable complaints and I think we should deal with them.
We really shouldn’t allow someone who belongs to a church founded on the belief in “the destruction of the white enemy” as the one lead a discussion on race with. About like allowing a member of Phelp’s church being the one to lead a discussion about homosexuality.
We really shouldn’t allow someone who belongs to a church founded on the belief in “the destruction of the white enemy” as the one lead a discussion on race with. About like allowing a member of Phelp’s church being the one to lead a discussion about homosexuality.
You just want the discussion if it’s only on your terms. ;)
So I guess you find it ironic that a critique of Obama for being too general should probably be specific? I agree.
I posted it as an example of rising democrat hostility to Obama… not for it’s quality as a critique. I don’t disagree with it, but it certainly could have used more support for the arguments.
I think I would like to see some polling for this rising dem hostility. Everything I’ve seen indicates that, if anything, support of Obama rose after the Wright comments.
That was the thrust of the speech. Its right on the money. However, no one really wants have this conversation.
I think that’s wrong. We’d like to have it. We don’t want Obama, as an offshoot of his Checkers speech with the possible further condition that we need to elect him and/or no longer talk about his problems, to be the moderator.
Huh? What is a checkers speech? So its nice that he talked about race but you just don’t think he should moderate? I don’t understand what you’re saying.
A: the speech was a Checkers (as in Nixon’s dog / speech) speech to divert attention from his Wright problem.
B: Obama’s not a disinterested party / honest broker. He’s a left winger. I don’t need or want him to lead any discussion on race.
C: On the other hand, I wouldn’t mind having such a discussion. But for it to be a discussion (vs. a lecture.. or in Wright’s case, a rant) people like me would have to have a say in who moderates. If the Wright’s, Obama’s, et cetera should be included at all, they sure can’t be in charge of leading it.
You mean that someone who leans left cannot be involved in a discussion of race? I would guess that you lean as far from the center as Obama does. By your logic, you shouldn’t discuss race either. Its a weird argument to me.
There is all of this focus on Wright and this church. What about Obama’s actual speech? Did anyone have a problem with what he actually said?
That was the thrust of the speech. Its right on the money. However, no one really wants have this conversation.
I think that’s wrong. We’d like to have it. We don’t want Obama, as an offshoot of his Checkers speech with the possible further condition that we need to elect him and/or no longer talk about his problems, to be the moderator.
Huh? What is a checkers speech? So its nice that he talked about race but you just don’t think he should moderate? I don’t understand what you’re saying.
A: the speech was a Checkers (as in Nixon’s dog / speech) speech to divert attention from his Wright problem.
B: Obama’s not a disinterested party / honest broker. He’s a left winger. I don’t need or want him to lead any discussion on race.
C: On the other hand, I wouldn’t mind having such a discussion. But for it to be a discussion (vs. a lecture.. or in Wright’s case, a rant) people like me would have to have a say in who moderates. If the Wright’s, Obama’s, et cetera should be included at all, they sure can’t be in charge of leading it.
You mean that someone who leans left cannot be involved in a discussion of race? I would guess that you lean as far from the center as Obama does. By your logic, you shouldn’t discuss race either. Its a weird argument to me.
There is all of this focus on Wright and this church. What about Obama’s actual speech? Did anyone have a problem with what he actually said?
Wow talk about being completely wrong. Bartink, why don’t you go back read what was stated, and proceed to correct what you said and apologize for your complete lack of comprehension. Or you can choose not to and have your apparent idiocy pointed out.
I think I would like to see some polling for this rising dem hostility. Everything I’ve seen indicates that, if anything, support of Obama rose after the Wright comments.
Looks like reactions are mixed. CBS ran a poll that shows 72% of people approved of the way he handled the situation.
But another poll shows people less likely to vote for him because of the situation. Bottom Line from that poll - 82-83% of people in this poll are aware of the situation and heard/read the speech. Of those people aware of the situation, 52% are less likely to support him for President (including 47.6% of Democrats, 55.6% of independents, and suprisingly 56.2% of blacks).
Wow talk about being completely wrong. Bartink, why don’t you go back read what was stated, and proceed to correct what you said and apologize for your complete lack of comprehension. Or you can choose not to and have your apparent idiocy pointed out.
I was just going to ignore it as a non serious reply.
So I guess you find it ironic that a critique of Obama for being too general should probably be specific? I agree.
I posted it as an example of rising democrat hostility to Obama… not for it’s quality as a critique. I don’t disagree with it, but it certainly could have used more support for the arguments.
I think I would like to see some polling for this rising dem hostility. Everything I’ve seen indicates that, if anything, support of Obama rose after the Wright comments.
I’m seeing, consistently, that large numbers of democrats say they would not vote for Obama (around 20%). This is a direct reflection of what I’m talking about here.
Of course… realistically that number would fall as the party rallies against the republicans… but that’s the number polls have been showing.
I think I would like to see some polling for this rising dem hostility. Everything I’ve seen indicates that, if anything, support of Obama rose after the Wright comments.
Looks like reactions are mixed. CBS ran a poll that shows 72% of people approved of the way he handled the situation.
But another poll shows people less likely to vote for him because of the situation. Bottom Line from that poll - 82-83% of people in this poll are aware of the situation and heard/read the speech. Of those people aware of the situation, 52% are less likely to support him for President (including 47.6% of Democrats, 55.6% of independents, and suprisingly 56.2% of blacks).
And that was all caused by minimal MSM coverage and a little discussion caused via dem infighting due to the primary season. Once we are in the general election, the republicans will make a major issue out of it and we’ll see how it really pans out.
I imagine they’ll be howling about swiftboating again… as they loose…
I’m not really going to go on debating it. If the true believer Obama democrats can’t / won’t see it… all the better. Please nominate that man. Pretty please. :)
So I guess you find it ironic that a critique of Obama for being too general should probably be specific? I agree.
I posted it as an example of rising democrat hostility to Obama… not for it’s quality as a critique. I don’t disagree with it, but it certainly could have used more support for the arguments.
I think I would like to see some polling for this rising dem hostility. Everything I’ve seen indicates that, if anything, support of Obama rose after the Wright comments.
Couldn’t both support AND hostility rise? There’s more than one person being polled.
So I guess you find it ironic that a critique of Obama for being too general should probably be specific? I agree.
I posted it as an example of rising democrat hostility to Obama… not for it’s quality as a critique. I don’t disagree with it, but it certainly could have used more support for the arguments.
I think I would like to see some polling for this rising dem hostility. Everything I’ve seen indicates that, if anything, support of Obama rose after the Wright comments.
Couldn’t both support AND hostility rise? There’s more than one person being polled.
So I guess you find it ironic that a critique of Obama for being too general should probably be specific? I agree.
I posted it as an example of rising democrat hostility to Obama… not for it’s quality as a critique. I don’t disagree with it, but it certainly could have used more support for the arguments.
I think I would like to see some polling for this rising dem hostility. Everything I’ve seen indicates that, if anything, support of Obama rose after the Wright comments.
Couldn’t both support AND hostility rise? There’s more than one person being polled.
So I guess you find it ironic that a critique of Obama for being too general should probably be specific? I agree.
I posted it as an example of rising democrat hostility to Obama… not for it’s quality as a critique. I don’t disagree with it, but it certainly could have used more support for the arguments.
I think I would like to see some polling for this rising dem hostility. Everything I’ve seen indicates that, if anything, support of Obama rose after the Wright comments.
Couldn’t both support AND hostility rise? There’s more than one person being polled.
ding ding ding....
You’re big on evidence. Please provide it. You made a pretty sweeping statement.
You’re big on evidence. Please provide it. You made a pretty sweeping statement.
Having double standards means your a racist… so even though ‘someone’ (re: maybe you) is an NPR listener / liberal type does not mean you can be excused for having the PC view/s on an issue. Having a double standard (even the ‘right’ double standard) means your a racist....
You’re big on evidence. Please provide it. You made a pretty sweeping statement.
Having double standards means your a racist… so even though ‘someone’ (re: maybe you) is an NPR listener / liberal type does not mean you can be excused for having the PC view/s on an issue. Having a double standard (even the ‘right’ double standard) means your a racist....
If the shoe fits....
rev Wright and Obama are finding out around now...
So you’ve got nothing.
I love how Obama = Wright. Talk about a double standard.
You’re big on evidence. Please provide it. You made a pretty sweeping statement.
Having double standards means your a racist… so even though ‘someone’ (re: maybe you) is an NPR listener / liberal type does not mean you can be excused for having the PC view/s on an issue. Having a double standard (even the ‘right’ double standard) means your a racist....
If the shoe fits....
rev Wright and Obama are finding out around now...
So you’ve got nothing.
I love how Obama = Wright. Talk about a double standard.
This is why I’m hoping for a ‘scandal’ of substance. Otherwise it’s just too painful.
Still waiting for outrage over the Mormon church’s recent positions.
And waiting…
You mean those positions that they no longer believe in? The ones CNN just had to list point by point during Romney’s speech. Shocking they didn’t do those things for Obama’s church, you know like it being founded on the principles of a racist.
