[besson3c]

I'm growing really tired of people using political stuff that people like Wright, Ferraro, or Bill Cunningham say as political weapons. Not only is it really old and tired now, but I believe it is actually damaging to our society and political discourse.

There is no way that a politician or leader should be personally accountable for the behavior and actions of somebody else, and this goes for when some Republican has gay sex in a bathroom and people trying to assert that Bush is somehow to blame too. We should focus on the actions of the leaders themselves, not on their hundreds/thousands of people with any sort of connection to them in any capacity.

When we get into territory outside of that individual's known area of expertise and involvement, the argument becomes even more retarded. Wright, for instance, is not a political adviser to Obama. Why would Obama be held accountable for his political views? Where does this end? Should he be responsible for choosing a good mechanic for his car that doesn't make controversial political remarks? For choosing a good dentist that doesn't make controversial political remarks? Until this individual is on his payroll being paid to offer Obama (or anybody else) political advice, I DON'T GIVE A RAT'S ASS!

We all know people that we respect a great deal in one area, and don't agree with in others - we pick and choose. Many people think that A-rod is a great ball player but a jerk in a real life, but would still want A-rod on their baseball team. Why can't people speak out and express themselves without being a proxy for a leader they have connections with? The fact that all political speak is so incredibly guarded and crafted to be manipulative is bad enough, I think this sort of crap fuels the fire.

Here's another example...

Polls show that many morons think that Obama is a Muslim. First of all, who cares even if he is? What is wrong with being a Muslim? Why are we conflating radical Islam with simply being a Muslim? Secondly, he claims he is a Christian... Okay, how do we know that anybody who claims to be a Christian really is in their hearts and is not just claiming they are and showing up to church to establish a particular image for themselves? How do we really know that Bush is really a Christian? Some would say he doesn't act like one... Regardless of what he is, who really cares anyway?


I just had to get this off my chest. It is appalling what sort of crap makes for news and what sort of utterly unimportant tripe people wring their hands over. I guess actually talking about issues involves too much mental effort, huh?

I'm finding so much more enjoyment out of reading blogs from groups who are really involved in polling and stats, and being involved at the grassroots level and all of that as opposed to retarded organizations like CNN who actually reported the other day that some rapper supports Obama. Who. Cares.

(The funny thing about this particular article was that this same rapper went on to say that he isn't really following politics these days much anyway, and he doesn't have much of an opinion

[TheWOAT]

Which rapper? Because I refuse to agree with the likes of Eminem, any rapper on Eminems label, Dr Dre, Snoop, the rotting corpse of Tupac, Puff Daddy, Andre3000, Master P, anyone from the South, Ice Cube, DipSet, DITC, Nas, JayZ, anyone ever guest on a JayZ album, and the Fat Boys.

I heard there was a debate on CNN between "Ugly Betty" (Pro Hillary) and Will-I-am and John Legend (Pro Obama)... Journalism at its finest.

[besson3c]

50 cent: CNN Political Ticker: All politics, all the time Blog Archive - 50 Cent no longer supports Clinton � - Blogs from CNN.com

[TheWOAT]

I prefer to enjoy rap music from an era that wasnt tainted with steroids and HGH. You think Kool Herc used roids? I think NOT

[Captain Obvious]

In Obama's case it is his own fault.
He was the one who chose to make the argument that he was a good candidate for President because of his good judgment and unwavering ideals.

If you frame your campaign on things like that rather than policy positions you open the door to have your decisions and how you executed your ideals scrutinized.

Obama isn't guilty over what Wright said but rather for his poor judgment of aligning, supporting, and being a passive contributor to what went on in that church. It also calls into question how deep his convictions truly are if could so idly stand by the sidelines and not stand up for the very things he claims he so strongly stands for. He was not only a prominent member of that congregation but also a community leader. If he found it difficult to reinforce his ideals in that church then it certainly brings up questions about his ability to do it on a larger stage.

Putting a light to his inaction is more than fair. It wasn't a casual or distant relationship he had with the man in question and that church.

[besson3c]

Maybe, in Obama's judgement, Wright was a good pastor and a good spiritual fit for him? Nobody but him knows that. Why should the behavior of somebody else he has no control over be a testament of his judgement, or lack thereof?

[BRussell]

As a retard myself, I am deeply offended by the title of this thread.

[besson3c]

How do you know I'm not, in fact, a retard too?

[lpkmckenna]

What I wanna know is: who started all this crap about Obama and Wright?

[BRussell]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

How do you know I'm not, in fact, a retard too?

So it's kind of like how only blacks can use the "n" word?

[Atomic Rooster]

Originally Posted by TheWOAT 

the rotting corpse of Tupac

Can I use that name for my rock band? Better then 'The Bohemian Retards'.

[spindler]

I don't think that Obama is guilty by association. Let's assume that every single week Reverend Wright was saying this stuff. Then obviously Obama would have to agree with it to stay in the church. So it is much more direct than guilt by association. It is that Obama believes what this pastor says.

I think with Obama there are more factors. This stuff was probably only said like once a year. You probably couldn't find any black church where that stuff isn't said at least a little. And Obama probably wanted to be in a black church because (a) he has a genuine interest in improving the lives of black people and (b) it is politically wise for him to be in a black church as blacks might call him a sell out if he wasn't.

But I don't think it is exactly correct for you besson3c to write it off as guilt by association.

[el chupacabra]

Isn't it convenient that you're soooooooooo angry over what's being said about poor Obama... and not anyone else? Obamas views are terrible.

I see some of the same people defending Obama who Blasted R Paul because of what someone wrote who he doesn't even know....that nobody knows... Paul making the mistake of believing in free speech and setting rules that let any bozo off the street write in his pseudo open forum publication.

Then there was Romney, yeah he was Mormon. Going to oppress us with that family value crap. Couldn't have that.

And Nader he's just crazy. Talking about safety, energy, war, economics. And then to go so far as writing books about it...who the hell does this guy think he is??

ps theres' much worse atrocities going on in politics than people judging someone by the people they associate with.

[besson3c]

I was using Obama as an example, but I also listed Geraldine Ferraro and Bill Cunningham as two other examples of essentially the same thing.

I just thought Wright would be the best example right now because he's making the most news at the moment. Better get him now before he is quickly forgotten like all of these other distractions.

[subego]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

Where does this end? Should he be responsible for choosing a good mechanic for his car that doesn't make controversial political remarks? For choosing a good dentist that doesn't make controversial political remarks?

Feel the irony
can't invent a simile for
this bad an analogy

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by subego 

Feel the irony
can't invent a simile for
this bad an analogy

Totally agree. I wonder how far another candidate would get if he had been in regular attendance at Phelps' "God hates fags" church. Phelps isn't protesting funerals every sunday... There are many churches that hate gays...

I would expect a candidate for President to use better judgement in who he chooses to associate with. Then what do you do if one "victim" throws another into the fire like Obama comparing Ferraro's statements with Wrights? That was fallacious to the core.

At the end of the day, when a candidate has such little to show by way of government or public service including such little to offer by way of a voting history, I don't see why it's so reprehensible to gauge this man by his associations. Is liberation theology political? Can any of these tenets be found in Obama's platform? Do you agree with these governing principles? If yes, no problem with Obama. If no, problem with Obama, problem with 20 years' service and attendance at a church espousing this political discourse.

[besson3c]

Why is what somebody says in individual, random ocassions over the course of 30 years a reflection of the judgment of his/her associates? Who hasn't said some controversial things over a timespan of this length? Why on Earth does this even matter? Is Obama supposed to be able to predict what his associates will say and when they say it? Is he supposed to immediately shut out everybody in his life that says something he disagrees with?

Sorry, this is dumb. It is annoying as it is that political rhetoric is so empty and speech is so guarded. If you want a real politician who speaks to the people (no matter who that politician is and what party he/she is associated with), being this picky about the legal activity of his/her associates is counter productive.

[besson3c]

As to keep this discussion from being so nauseatingly and predictably partisan, let's look at another example...

Why should McCain have had to denounce everything that Bill Cunningham said? Bill Cunningham is his own man. If there is any question as to whether McCain agrees with what he is saying, why not just ask McCain? Why should people assume that Cunningham (who like Wright is not one of McCain's staffers) is McCain's proxy?

Look at all of the people that have come out and said stuff that the political campaigns have had to denounce:

- Wright
- Samantha Powers
- Ferraro
- Cunningham

Who else have I forgotten? Who cares about this stuff? Isn't this endless loop seeming old to some of you?

[subego]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

Why is what somebody says in individual, random ocassions over the course of 30 years a reflection of the judgment of his/her associates?

I could be way off here, but it seems to me that you are coming to this conclusion because you are judging Obama with a secular humanist metric.

The people who take issue with this aren't necessarily judging him by that metric, and more importantly, by declaring himself as religious, Obama is asking not to be judged by that metric.

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by subego 

I could be way off here, but it seems to me that you are coming to this conclusion because you are judging Obama with a secular humanist metric.

The people who take issue with this aren't necessarily judging him by that metric, and more importantly, by declaring himself as religious, Obama is asking not to be judged by that metric.

That could be a big part of it. I literally don't understand the whole political Christian movement thing or religious based social conservatism at all.

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by subego 

I could be way off here, but it seems to me that you are coming to this conclusion because you are judging Obama with a secular humanist metric.

The people who take issue with this aren't necessarily judging him by that metric, and more importantly, by declaring himself as religious, Obama is asking not to be judged by that metric.

Originally Posted by besson3c

That could be a big part of it. I literally don't understand the whole political Christian movement thing or religious based social conservatism at all.

I think there are perfectly legitimate reasons to question Obama's association with Wright having nothing to do with spirituality or religion. Though I think subego's point on Obama inviting this is also true.

Again, if someone can show me how these messages have had a positive impact on the communities in which they prevail, I don't get the eagerness to ignore them. That's basic ethics. When so little else is available by way of voting record and public service, associations are important. That's reason. Associations that espouse the type of divisive rhetoric that Wright does would have me question why a seemingly intelligent and reasonable man would put himself in the position of having to defend it. That's logic. None of these concerns have anything to do with giving thrust to spirituality, Christian movements, or religious based social conservatism.

If I'm able to get beyond the "lacking judgment" part, there's still the slight possibility that he's not as disconnected to Wright's ideology as some of you believe. Again, I'm dying to know whether or not we'd be this forgiving of a Republican candidate in regular attendance at Fred Phelps' church. I sincerely doubt it.

While many may not appreciate my comparison above, the other comparisons I've seen on this issue have frankly been weak IMO. For example, comparing Obama and Wright to McCain and Cunningham? If McCain were in regular attendance at the Church of Cunningham where they espoused the evils of rich blacks and insulted McCain's political opponents, I'd render McCain unelectable while fully expecting him to deny aspects of this association.

[subego]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

That could be a big part of it. I literally don't understand the whole political Christian movement thing or religious based social conservatism at all.

You have to look at the big picture.

Religious based social conservatism ascends, they are obvious constituents of the Republican party, so the Republican party decides to appeal to them.

Democrats get their asses handed to them.

What does the Democratic Party do? They appeal to the same constituency. Yes we're religious! Yes we have morals!

Bullshit. The Democratic Party is the party that comes down on the strict constructionist side of the separation of church and state. As well they should, because that's the correct side to be on. Their response to the religion/morals question (which has been on the plate since the ascendancy of social conservatism) should have been "this is a non-issue".

Well, they didn't, and that's why we're here now.

I'm hoping you can tell the difference between partisanship and criticism here, but this has been a problem with the Democratic Party for as long as I can remember. They go after the Republican Party's strengths rather than going after the Republican Party with their own strengths.

Like Kerry in camo with a shotgun and Hillary's flag burning Amendment, just off the top of my head.

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

I think there are perfectly legitimate reasons to question Obama's association with Wright having nothing to do with spirituality or religion. Though I think subego's point on Obama inviting this is also true.

Again, if someone can show me how these messages have had a positive impact on the communities in which they prevail, I don't get the eagerness to ignore them. That's basic ethics. When so little else is available by way of voting record and public service, associations are important. That's reason. Associations that espouse the type of divisive rhetoric that Wright does would have me question why a seemingly intelligent and reasonable man would put himself in the position of having to defend it. That's logic. None of these concerns have anything to do with giving thrust to spirituality, Christian movements, or religious based social conservatism.

If I'm able to get beyond the "lacking judgment" part, there's still the slight possibility that he's not as disconnected to Wright's ideology as some of you believe. Again, I'm dying to know whether or not we'd be this forgiving of a Republican candidate in regular attendance at Fred Phelps' church. I sincerely doubt it.

While many may not appreciate my comparison above, the other comparisons I've seen on this issue have frankly been weak IMO. For example, comparing Obama and Wright to McCain and Cunningham? If McCain were in regular attendance at the Church of Cunningham where they espoused the evils of rich blacks and insulted McCain's political opponents, I'd render McCain unelectable while fully expecting him to deny aspects of this association.

ebuddy,

The strategic wisdom (or lack thereof) of association with Wright might be a fair argument, but that's just the thing, I don't care about political calculation - this sort of thing is of very little concern to me beyond whether or not the individual can win an election (it looks like this so called scandal has blown over). Even the so called "electability" angle to me is just a sort of necessary evil. At the end of the day, I don't think that Obama or anybody in a similar situation is less qualified to be president because of this incident, why should I?

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by subego 

You have to look at the big picture.

Religious based social conservatism ascends, they are obvious constituents of the Republican party, so the Republican party decides to appeal to them.

Democrats get their asses handed to them.

What does the Democratic Party do? They appeal to the same constituency. Yes we're religious! Yes we have morals!

Bullshit. The Democratic Party is the party that comes down on the strict constructionist side of the separation of church and state. As well they should, because that's the correct side to be on. Their response to the religion/morals question (which has been on the plate since the ascendancy of social conservatism) should have been "this is a non-issue".

Well, they didn't, and that's why we're here now.

I'm hoping you can tell the difference between partisanship and criticism here, but this has been a problem with the Democratic Party for as long as I can remember. They go after the Republican Party's strengths rather than going after the Republican Party with their own strengths.

Like Kerry in camo with a shotgun and Hillary's flag burning Amendment, just off the top of my head.

I agree subego, you called it!

[Apemanblues]

The whole 'political thing' is retarded.

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

ebuddy,

The strategic wisdom (or lack thereof) of association with Wright might be a fair argument, but that's just the thing, I don't care about political calculation - this sort of thing is of very little concern to me beyond whether or not the individual can win an election (it looks like this so called scandal has blown over). Even the so called "electability" angle to me is just a sort of necessary evil. At the end of the day, I don't think that Obama or anybody in a similar situation is less qualified to be president because of this incident, why should I?

If you agree with religious based social liberalism, (again, Marxism's answer to Catholicism) no problem. I'm not trying to be snide. I just really have a difficult time believing we'd be this forgiving of a Republican candidate with similar associations to an equally controversial religious based social conservatism. I believe this issue has blown over to the extent that Obama will likely get the Democratic nomination (assuming it has blown over the supers), but IMO it'll be back in the general.

[subego]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

I agree subego, you called it!

Thank you.

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

If you agree with religious based social liberalism, (again, Marxism's answer to Catholicism) no problem. I'm not trying to be snide. I just really have a difficult time believing we'd be this forgiving of a Republican candidate with similar associations to an equally controversial religious based social conservatism. I believe this issue has blown over to the extent that Obama will likely get the Democratic nomination (assuming it has blown over the supers), but IMO it'll be back in the general.

I'm not trying to be snide either, but I honestly don't see why it should matter whether it is a Republican or Democrat? Why is it some sort of accepted reality that the Republicans hold some sort of religious high ground? What is so Christian about their actions and/or philosophies?

[subego]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

Why is it some sort of accepted reality that the Republicans hold some sort of religious high ground?

Ultimately, it's conscious effort to be perceived that way. That's all it really takes.

Originally Posted by besson3c 

What is so Christian about their actions and/or philosophies?

I think P.J. O'Rourke put it best. Republicans believe in the God of the Old Testament. This isn't a touchy-feely, all filled with light and grace God, it's a pissed-off old dude with white hair who will sell you into slavery for 100 years if you look at him funny. And this is if he likes you.

That's what all the trials and tribulations in the Old testament are about. You make the most of a bad situation, because God sure as hell ain't gonna do it for you.

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

I'm not trying to be snide either, but I honestly don't see why it should matter whether it is a Republican or Democrat? Why is it some sort of accepted reality that the Republicans hold some sort of religious high ground? What is so Christian about their actions and/or philosophies?

Originally Posted by subego

Ultimately, it's conscious effort to be perceived that way. That's all it really takes. I think P.J. O'Rourke put it best. Republicans believe in the God of the Old Testament. This isn't a touchy-feely, all filled with light and grace God, it's a pissed-off old dude with white hair who will sell you into slavery for 100 years if you look at him funny. And this is if he likes you.

That's what all the trials and tribulations in the Old testament are about. You make the most of a bad situation, because God sure as hell ain't gonna do it for you.

I realize I can be opinionated guys, but c'mon. I'd never suggest that one group of people somehow, by virtue of their party affiliation and/or religion (or lack thereof) is more or less moral than another. You're both missing me by a gazillion miles here. I'm not trying to claim that Republicans have some moral high ground here because simply put, I do not accept that at all. I'm also not trying to say I believe in a cold God of accountability as found in the OT. I'm not sure exactly how this could've been extrapolated from my post in any way, shape, or form.

I'm saying I have a difficult time believing we'd be this forgiving of a Republican candidate with similar associations to Fred Phelps, it wouldn't matter if he denied the relationship. It's merely an observation and I believe an accurate one. I believe it'd become so difficult to support him, that he'd be rendered virtually unelectable.

I'm wondering if there is a double-standard here. You honestly mean to tell me that if McCain were found to be in 20 years' attendance at Fred Phelps' "God hates fags" church and invited Phelps to be his spiritual advisor, this wouldn't matter to you at all??? Would you think that it's just possible McCain shares some of this sentiment? What if the religion of the Church McCain attended was founded on this principle, would you think the criticism was nothing more than leftists being judgmental of him?

[subego]

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

I'm not trying to claim that Republicans have some moral high ground here because simply put, I do not accept that at all.

I didn't think that's what besson was saying, I thought he was talking in a more general sense.

That's certainly what I was answering, so my apologies if it came off like I was saying the above is what you thought.

[lefty mclefty]

i can clear it up for you, ebuddy....the entire country (with the exception of a few political lounge neanderthals) is so fed up with the current administration, and it's party...they will forgive ANYTHING to turn this country around....i think if not obama, clinton. if not clinton, al sharpton. if not sharpton, al e newman...get the picture? NO REPUBLICANS!!!!

[Uncle Skeleton]

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

I'm saying I have a difficult time believing we'd be this forgiving of a Republican candidate with similar associations to Fred Phelps, it wouldn't matter if he denied the relationship.

Well then, you're wrong. Mitt Romney has a strong association to the polygamous and (it was argued) bigoted Mormon church, and that certainly didn't stop his campaign train. Why would it, he denounced those views. And people took him at his word. Why? He didn't denounce the entire Mormon church. Jog my memory here, were you accusing Romney of lying back when that story broke?

[ghporter]

In any high-visibility business, the people working for you represent you. You should not let them make statements that go against your message, and (here's the reason for all the hoo-ha about people like Ferraro spouting off) everyone assumes that what someone from your organization says is official.

In the military, GIs are reminded over and over that they are not spokesmen for the service. Not to keep 'em quiet, but to keep them from spouting off some personal theory about whatever the heck is going on that they're being asked about. The typical GI knows less about what's happening outside his or her tiny environment than anyone actively watching CNN, and blaming something on poor food in the chow hall or the idiocy of the First Sergeant (two really common scape goats in ANY service) usually looks as bad as when the news people find the guy with the least teeth and most scars and tattoos to ask what the tornado sounded like.

The principle is that if you're talking to the media, you must be an official spokesman, so Geraldine saying stupid stuff about Obama really sounded like she was reflecting Mrs. Clinton's beliefs, even if that was something totally ridiculous.

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton 

Well then, you're wrong. Mitt Romney has a strong association to the polygamous and (it was argued) bigoted Mormon church, and that certainly didn't stop his campaign train. Why would it, he denounced those views. And people took him at his word. Why? He didn't denounce the entire Mormon church. Jog my memory here, were you accusing Romney of lying back when that story broke?

I disagree with the comparison. The Mormon Church may in fact have had connections to questionable ideology in the past. As I understand it, the church has gone on record against polygamy and officially reject bigotry. IMO, that's not what we're talking about. Had Romney chosen to attend service among one of the few Mormon sects that may still practice polygamy and/or ceremonial bigotry for 20 years and asked its leader to be his spiritual advisor, I'd have more than raised an eyebrow. This would be absolutely unacceptable. Unelectable. If you have some evidence he did, I'd be interested in seeing it.

Again, the comparisons I'm reading are extremely feeble. Jog my memory, when did you become so accepting of what politicians say?

[Captain Obvious]

Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton 

He didn't denounce the entire Mormon church. Jog my memory here, were you accusing Romney of lying back when that story broke?

I was

His family's generational long ties to the LDS leadership were shady as hell.

But again, he didn't frame his argument about his ability to lead around his previous judgement calls and history of supporting unity like Obama.

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by lefty mclefty 

i can clear it up for you, ebuddy....the entire country (with the exception of a few political lounge neanderthals) is so fed up with the current administration, and it's party...they will forgive ANYTHING to turn this country around....i think if not obama, clinton. if not clinton, al sharpton. if not sharpton, al e newman...get the picture? NO REPUBLICANS!!!!

I understand the sentiment lefty. I just think maybe we shouldn't be as hasty as you suggest.

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by ghporter 

In any high-visibility business, the people working for you represent you. You should not let them make statements that go against your message, and (here's the reason for all the hoo-ha about people like Ferraro spouting off) everyone assumes that what someone from your organization says is official.

In the military, GIs are reminded over and over that they are not spokesmen for the service. Not to keep 'em quiet, but to keep them from spouting off some personal theory about whatever the heck is going on that they're being asked about. The typical GI knows less about what's happening outside his or her tiny environment than anyone actively watching CNN, and blaming something on poor food in the chow hall or the idiocy of the First Sergeant (two really common scape goats in ANY service) usually looks as bad as when the news people find the guy with the least teeth and most scars and tattoos to ask what the tornado sounded like.

The principle is that if you're talking to the media, you must be an official spokesman, so Geraldine saying stupid stuff about Obama really sounded like she was reflecting Mrs. Clinton's beliefs, even if that was something totally ridiculous.

The problem is there is simply no way in hell any politician can prevent people whom they have had some association with say something to the media. Besides, I consider a significant percentage of these stories that are passing as news borderline tabloid gossip.

[Uncle Skeleton]

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

the church has gone on record against polygamy and officially reject bigotry.

... therefore, not only are they polygamists, they're liars too. That's the reasoning you're using against Obama.

Jog my memory, when did you become so accepting of what politicians say?

It has nothing to do with accepting what politicians say. It's about a textbook strawman passing for evidence. You accuse him of certain views, he denies holding those views, then you hold those views against him along with his denial too. I'd stand up for you too, ebuddy, if someone said "Ebuddy eats babies," then after you deny it they follow up with "Of course he's going to lie about his baby-eating, I didn't say he was stupid." It would be about as sane. While you very well might eat babies for all I know, I'm not going to assume you do it without seeing any evidence to that effect.

What exactly are you worried Obama would do, anyway? Affirmative action? Make Wright the secretary of state?

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton 

... therefore, not only are they polygamists, they're liars too. That's the reasoning you're using against Obama.

You're still missing the point. As far as I know, there is nothing to indicate that Romney attended a polygamist community or engaged in ceremonial bigotry, then asked its leader to be a spiritual guide/advisor. If you can establish this, as it has been established that Obama attended service entertaining ceremonial bigotry, first denied knowledge of, then acknowledged Wright's inflammatory nature while seeking his spiritual advisory; I'll have no problem at all putting him on equal footing with Obama. Romney too would be viewed as unelectable IMO.

It has nothing to do with accepting what politicians say. It's about a textbook strawman passing for evidence. You accuse him of certain views, he denies holding those views, then you hold those views against him along with his denial too. I'd stand up for you too, ebuddy, if someone said "Ebuddy eats babies," then after you deny it they follow up with "Of course he's going to lie about his baby-eating, I didn't say he was stupid." It would be about as sane. While you very well might eat babies for all I know, I'm not going to assume you do it without seeing any evidence to that effect.
What exactly are you worried Obama would do, anyway? Affirmative action? Make Wright the secretary of state?[

I think you underestimate the desire for office of those who run. I have a general distrust of politicians, all of them currently running both (R) and (D). If someone had attended Fred Phelps' Church they may not say "God Hates Fags!", but few would be surprised to see an anti-gay agenda somewhere in his platform. This still is not a decent comparison because at this point, most are still opposed to some aspects of gay rights. Most people also don't believe the US planted HIV to kill off black people or that the entire country is run by evil, Godless, rich white people.

Redistributive economic policies, anti-capitalist rhetoric, and for whatever reason the zealous support of those who would hang a Che Guevara, Cuban flag in the Houston Obama Headquarters or garner support from the likes of the African American Equality and Building the Communist Party and Young Communist League. I'm guessing they're familiar with Obama's platform and appreciate it. I don't.

I don't think Obama is a uniter of all of us. I think he is a uniter of those with fringe and zealous ideology. I think this will become more apparent as the generals move along. I'm not necessarily afraid of anything. If I were, I'd insist on voting for anyone running against Obama. This is not what I'm doing. I'm merely saying that from my perspective, Obama is unelectable. I expressed that Ron Paul's divisive rhetoric made him unelectable and I was right.

[Uncle Skeleton]

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

You're still missing the point. As far as I know, there is nothing to indicate that Romney attended a polygamist community or engaged in ceremonial bigotry...

No, I think you missed my point, because that one wasn't about Romney. To you, it seems, denials are meaningless, and it's outsider accusations that stick. So the Mormons who deny being polygamists must actually be polygamists. Therefore, getting to what you just said, by extension Romney actually has attended a polygamist community, because all Mormons are. They are, because they deny it. They are, because they're accused of it, because others think they must be, because they're associated with Mormons who are. Guilt by association. Right, isn't that what you're arguing?

If someone had attended Fred Phelps' Church they may not say "God Hates Fags!", but few would be surprised to see an anti-gay agenda somewhere in his platform. This still is not a decent comparison because at this point, most are still opposed to some aspects of gay rights.

This gets to the difference between persecution of a minority and persecution of a majority. There's just no way that an anti-white agenda would get anywhere in real life, because as you just said, most people are not opposed to "white rights," at least not the kind of "white rights" that are actually "right."

As you said, "no one would be surprised to see" that agenda, so those who compose the checks and balances on the executive branch would be that much more watchful of such a threat, and stop it that much earlier. That's the whole reason we have checks and balances, because no candidate is ever going to be perfect. What I'm trying to say is that there are enough real true character flaws for us to be critical of; we don't have to go around pinning theoretical or potential character flaws on them.

If I were, I'd insist on voting for anyone running against Obama. This is not what I'm doing. I'm merely saying that from my perspective, Obama is unelectable.

I'm not seeing the difference. "I insist on voting for anyone running against Obama" doesn't seem much different than "I insist others will vote for anyone running against Obama."

[olePigeon]

Originally Posted by BRussell 

So it's kind of like how only blacks can use the "n" word?

Hehe. One of my favorite scenes in Clerks 2 is Randel with his "Porch Monkey" shirt.

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton 

No, I think you missed my point, because that one wasn't about Romney. To you, it seems, denials are meaningless, and it's outsider accusations that stick.

No, but you're getting closer. Denials are meaningless, actions stick. You don't regularly attend a church who's leader baptized both your children, married you and your wife, invite him to be your spiritual advisor, deny you were aware of his rhetoric, then admit you were aware of the rhetoric, and expect everyone to believe your denial of it is genuine or that you truly have a problem with the ideological foundation of the Church you've brought your family up in for over 20 years. These are not the actions of one who is denouncing ideology. He's denouncing rhetoric, but again the rhetoric was unfortunate. I'd expect no less from a reasonably intelligent candidate who wants to hold the most important capacity in the country.

So the Mormons who deny being polygamists must actually be polygamists.

No. The Mormon Church renders polygamists unwelcome among them. They bring nothing, but trouble and stigma to a faith interested in growth. That's why those who want to practice it hole up in communes, get busted, and thrown in jail. The foundation of liberation theology as practiced at Obama's Trinity Church is unchanged from its inception. Denials are meaningless. Actions stick.

Therefore, getting to what you just said...

We'll stop here because it is patently apparent that one must lack reading comprehension to make your argument.

This gets to the difference between persecution of a minority and persecution of a majority. There's just no way that an anti-white agenda would get anywhere in real life, because as you just said, most people are not opposed to "white rights," at least not the kind of "white rights" that are actually "right."

and?

As you said, "no one would be surprised to see" that agenda, so those who compose the checks and balances on the executive branch would be that much more watchful of such a threat, and stop it that much earlier.

I disagree. The person you cite above (in attendance at Phelp's Church) would not remain electable long enough to be checked in office. Plus, we're not dealing with a Congress that would check Obama because too many politicians on the other side of the aisle claimed things they did not uphold while in office.

That's the whole reason we have checks and balances, because no candidate is ever going to be perfect. What I'm trying to say is that there are enough real true character flaws for us to be critical of; we don't have to go around pinning theoretical or potential character flaws on them.

I'm not pinning anything on Obama. Obama enjoyed a wide-open relationship with Wright until Wright's rhetoric was made wide-open. Now, Wright is that crazy Uncle that everyone has. The one you have baptize your children, marry you to your wife, and invite to be your spiritual advisor. Did I pin the "crazy uncle" on him too? Maybe I believe his trust in the "crazy Uncle" is a character flaw. A lack of judgment.

After all, just because you're okay with it doesn't make it theoretical.

I'm not seeing the difference. "I insist on voting for anyone running against Obama" doesn't seem much different than "I insist others will vote for anyone running against Obama."

I've said neither. Maybe you'd be less confused if you discussed this topic with me instead of you?