2 edits
Originally posted by spurs73True, but there was something called a WORLD WAR going on, so comparing the two was a stupid, childish analogy.
i see..ok lets look at his points one by one... first..
"We bombed Hiroshima, we bombed Nagasaki, and we nuked far more than the thousands in New York and the Pentagon, and we never batted an eye.”
TRUE or NOT?
TRUE OR NOT?
Originally posted by Sam The ShamI take your point, but his figures are correct. Theres tow sides to every story.
True, but there was something called a WORLD WAR going on, so comparing the two was a stupid analogy.
TRUE OR NOT?
Ok lets look at point two
“We have supported state terrorism against the Palestinians and black South Africans, and now we are indignant because the stuff we have done overseas is now brought right back to our own front yards. America’s chickens are coming home to roost.” (Sep 2001)
Now is a point which i would say most people in the world have a issue with regarding the USA...and its actions...would you not agree?
Originally posted by SMSBear716the vast majority of those polled have only heard the most incendiary of his comments. but this is not the entirety of "his points." you'd have to wacked out to believe the aids stuff.
A quick Rasmeussen poll found that only 8% of Americans believe his points have any validity..... I assume they are the MoveOn.org/Daily KOS crowd...
What's more, Obama had the marbles to take this issue head on in a speech yesterday, and I think if you watch the whole thing (not just media soundbites) you will be impressed. He is not a divisive Jesse Jacksonesque politician.
At about minute 26:30 he advocates strongly for "this quintessentially American and, Yes Conservative, notion of self-help."
http://my.barackobama.com/page/content/hisownwords
2 edits
Originally posted by spurs73More nonsense. Give some examples, not vague statements. Most of Wright's speeches consist of "weasel words" and loaded language, with no real substance to them.
I take your point, but his figures are correct. Theres tow sides to every story.
Ok lets look at point two
“We have supported state terrorism against the Palestinians and black South Africans, and now we are indignant because the stuff we have done overseas is now brought right back to our own front yards. America’s chickens are coming home to roost.” ( ...[text shortened]... people in the world have a issue with regarding the USA...and its actions...would you not agree?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Loaded_language
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Weasel_words
Originally posted by omega1000Why would Condelezza be any good?
You seem have a large chip on your, presumaby black, shoulder.
No, it's not because Obama is 'black' (in fact he is coffee coloured) but because he does not appear to be up to scratch for the job, any more than does Mrs. Clinton.
I would prefer to vote for Condelezza Rice than either of them if I were a citizen of the USA.
1 edit
Anyone else watched the whole of Obama's speech in Philadelphia?
[edit: warning - 37 minutes!]
He is taking the race issue head-on in a genuinely nuanced way.
Would have been easier simply to disown Price.
In my opinion, some pretty thoughtful and interesting thinking is behind this speech. I suspect however that once it is spliced and diced for the evening news, it might not have quite the same force!
Originally posted by murrowHe tap-danced around the main issue very nicely.
Anyone else watched the whole of Obama's speech in Philadelphia?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pWe7wTVbLUU
[edit: warning - 37 minutes!]
He is taking the race issue head-on in a genuinely nuanced way.
Would have been easier simply to disown Price.
In my opinion, some pretty thoughtful and interesting thinking is behind this speech. I suspect ho ...[text shortened]... that once it is spliced and diced for the evening news, it might not have quite the same force!
Originally posted by murrowYes it's a very good speech, and I hope that it will be regarded as an important one historically. The Times and the Washington Post seem to think that it is. Anyone who thinks that he sidestepped the issue here wasn't paying attention. Unstead of burying the issue, he brought it right out into the light of day and addressed it in its touchy social context. The man's got guts.
Anyone else watched the whole of Obama's speech in Philadelphia?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pWe7wTVbLUU
[edit: warning - 37 minutes!]
He is taking the race issue head-on in a genuinely nuanced way.
Would have been easier simply to disown Price.
In my opinion, some pretty thoughtful and interesting thinking is behind this speech. I suspect ho ...[text shortened]... that once it is spliced and diced for the evening news, it might not have quite the same force!
Originally posted by bjohnson407Yeah, guts. Why did Obama initially deny hearing the Rev Wright's infamous "Goddamn America" sermon, then later own up to being there? Why is the media ignoring that little tid-bit?
Yes it's a very good speech, and I hope that it will be regarded as an important one historically. The Times and the Washington Post seem to think that it is. Anyone who thinks that he sidestepped the issue here wasn't paying attention. Unstead of burying the issue, he brought it right out into the light of day and addressed it in its touchy social context. The man's got guts.
1 edit
Originally posted by Sam The ShamIt was a political speech to save his political hide. He tried to use moral eqivalency by almost saying what his grandmother said about being afraid of black men in the street to the venom that poured from Mr. Wright. That was weak!
Yeah, guts. Why did Obama initially deny hearing the Rev Wright's infamous "Goddamn America" sermon, then later own up to being there? Why is the media ignoring that little tid-bit?
And if he is such a bold and forceful leader, why did he sit in the church for 20 years and never speak up when the good Mr. Wright said something that he supposedly adhorred? Is he saying that he was to afraid to challenge him?
I suppose you could say that if he was too afraid/demure/diplomatic whatever to stand up to his pastor, that as leader of this country, he'd exhibit the same behavior when it came to standing up to Putin, or Chavez or the Chinese?
Originally posted by SMSBear716Basically, because Obama is a Democrat anything he does or says is not good enough. Meanwhile, Republicans can all but dry hump extremists like Falwell and Robertson and that's just fine.
It was a political speech to save his political hide. He tried to use moral eqivalency by almost saying what his grandmother said about being afraid of black men in the street to the venom that poured from Mr. Wright. That was weak!
And if he is such a bold and forceful leader, why did he sit in the church for 20 years and never speak up when the good ...[text shortened]... he'd exhibit the same behavior when it came to standing up to Putin, or Chavez or the Chinese?
1 edit
Originally posted by SMSBear716Yes, that bit about his grandmother was a sickening attempt at avoiding the issue and playing the blame game. I have serious doubts as to it being true.
It was a political speech to save his political hide. He tried to use moral eqivalency by almost saying what his grandmother said about being afraid of black men in the street to the venom that poured from Mr. Wright. That was weak!
And if he is such a bold and forceful leader, why did he sit in the church for 20 years and never speak up when the good ...[text shortened]... he'd exhibit the same behavior when it came to standing up to Putin, or Chavez or the Chinese?
2 edits
Originally posted by telerionWe are discussing the behavior of Obama... stop trying to deflect the focus...... Republicans have been raked over the coals because of Robertson or Falwell flapping their jaws....
Basically, because Obama is a Democrat anything he does or says is not good enough. Meanwhile, Republicans can all but dry hump extremists like Falwell and Robertson and that's just fine.
Basically you want to say that what Mr Wright says is ok because of whatFalwell or Roberts have said... thats moral equivalency again. It doesn't wash. Both have said stupid things, but nothing coming close to basically blaming white people for all the wrongs in the world..or this country.