Obama's Pastor "disappeared" from website.

[midnight Target]

Another red herring?

First he says he wasn't in church when these things were said and then he says he was in church when these things were said.

That's a lie, mate. No spin, simple fact.

That is NOT what was said. Simple spin... no fact.

[Toad]

Well, MT, the quotes are posted.

I don't see how anyone can not see that as a lie. I suppose a Harvard trained lawyer might try to make the case that he didn't lie with those two quotes.

I suppose it is on a par with Clinton's "It depends on what the meaning of the words 'is' is."  Or perhaps the old "I want you to listen to me. I'm going to say this again: I did not have sexual relations with that woman" baloney. Ask your wife if a BJ is having sexual relations; she'll clarify it for you.

The more we accept and excuse this sort of dishonesty, the more we get.

You defense of this is a fig leaf, easily seen around.

[bj229r]

His first statement of the matter was that he had never personally heard any of the REALLY bad things were said  (apparently this was deemed implausible by his critics)---a day or 2 later, he allowed that he had heard some "controversial things"
from his Philadelphia speech:

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.

He's dealing with this the way any typical politician would--deny..deny...deny...then admit the bare minimum. Is this "Change"?

[Toad]

He's dealing with this the way any typical politician would--deny..deny...deny...then admit the bare minimum. Is this "Change"?

Nope. So far no one here has been able to list any "change we can believe in" that Prez Obama would bring us. If  you look at his website and read his positions, it's the same-old same-old left wing of the Democratic party drivel.

[AKIron]

"A Brief For Whitey"  http://buchanan.org/blog/?p=969

shack!

[midnight Target]

Well, MT, the quotes are posted.

I don't see how anyone can not see that as a lie. I suppose a Harvard trained lawyer might try to make the case that he didn't lie with those two quotes.

I suppose it is on a par with Clinton's "It depends on what the meaning of the words 'is' is."  Or perhaps the old "I want you to listen to me. I'm going to say this again: I did not have sexual relations with that woman" baloney. Ask your wife if a BJ is having sexual relations; she'll clarify it for you.

The more we accept and excuse this sort of dishonesty, the more we get.

You defense of this is a fig leaf, easily seen around.

And you seem to be enjoying the ssensation of fingers in your ears as you go "lalalalalalala". The quotes are posted. Maybe you should read them again.

Let me help:

“The statements that Rev. Wright made that are the cause of this controversy were not statements I personally heard him preach while I sat in the pews of Trinity or heard him utter in private conversation,” –Barack H. Obama, March 14, 2008

“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.”
Barack H. Obama, March 18, 2007

Clear as day. No stretch needed for that one.

[Toad]

 

Well, keep that mindset. You'll be getting more of this Harvard truth telling. We don't call these guys on it, they think we really are stupid enough to believe it.

This one ranks right up there with "I did not have sexual relations with that woman because a BJ is not sexual relations."

If you can <cough> swallow that one, you can swallow anything I guess.... as we've just seen.

[lazs2]

yep.. can't tell osamabama from ted kennedy if you just read em...

as for "having a conversation about race in this country"  same old same old one way crap where anything a white guy says is "racially motivated" but anything a negro says is excused because of "350 years of slavery"

seems the odds are..  if a white guy can avoid a negro he is better off..   less likely to hear whining and be blamed.. less likely to be the target of crime.. less likely to be called names.. more likely to have a fair shot at a job...more likely to have a better school....

Why do we need to be nagged and made to feel guilty while being assaulted and blamed again?

All liberals are the same.. their idea of bringing people together is to get everyone to do as they say.

I don't even care what color this guy says he is..   I just hope we are not ready for such a liberal socialist shyster.

lazs

[Jackal1]

And you seem to be enjoying the ssensation of fingers in your ears as you go "lalalalalalala". The quotes are posted. Maybe you should read them again.

I think you are the one who might want to have a second look. 
Nobody is that lame.

[lazs2]

I don't know jackal..  mt was sagely nodding his head when klinton was saying "it depends on what the meaning of "is" is."   I don't think he has any trouble at all excusing the half negro guy.

lazs

[BTW]

Whether or not Obama personally heard Wright say the most vile comments is immaterial. His reason for stating that he personally never heard such vile statements was to assure people it wasn't common, that it was some type of aberration. Well that's not the case. The anti-American and Black Liberation theme permeates the church, and that's evident from the crowd reactions and even from the latest Easter "sermon." Calling the quest for truth a "lynching" is nothing but Black Liberation rhetoric, race baiting rhetoric. IMO, Obama was not being honest and in fact lying by omission in his first statements. And there is the fact that he subscribes to Black Liberation Theology, a racist, ant-American theology. That fact alone should disqualify him. As far as I'm concerned , it does.

[midnight Target]

I don't know jackal..  mt was sagely nodding his head when klinton was saying "it depends on what the meaning of "is" is."   I don't think he has any trouble at all excusing the half negro guy.

lazs

Maybe you and your pal spanky in the sidecar might want to explain how those 2 statements eqaul a lie. And here all this time I was under the impression that English was your 1st language.

[Toad]

You fig leaf is that Obama says he didn't hear the exact statements that were aired repeatedly on the various news programs? Just that he heard similar statements at other times? Do I have that right?

[GtoRA2]

Well of course you do! You're here to look into the mirror and ask "Mirror, mirror on the wall, who is the cleverest poster of all?" And you love it when your reflected image answers you with "Arlo!"

No one here is above criticism. I think everyone sees this as a place to exchange ideas and have their beliefs challenged. After all, that is how one progresses on a personal level. The expectation is that those that criticize will also state their views. It's how discussion/debate happens. I doubt anyone here thinks these threads will have any effect in the grand scheme of things. The threads are for personal enjoyment and gain and I think most realize that.

You participate in half of the of the BBS. You're quick to criticize. Other than that, you're a null and add nothing.

I think you hit the nail on the head.

I can't say I have seen arlo add anything to a recent discussion.   Sadly he is who comes to mind for me for the ignore thread, not because he if offensive or anything, but I get tired of scroll past page after page of his nonsense to get to people who contribute to the discussion.
 

[MiloMorai]

Fox News and Obama may owe Reverend Wright an apology
March 24, 2008

If African American slave descendents born in the United States (U.S.) are not legal U.S. citizens then Fox News, Barack Obama, and others who have vehemently criticized Reverend Jeremiah Wright of Trinity United Church of Christ for his comments may owe him a big apology. If these Americans are legal U.S. citizens, the Bush administration and Barack Obama owe black ministers like Reverend Harris of the Southern Christian Leadership Conference (SCLC) a response to that question. Criticizing Reverend Wright while failing to respond to Reverend Harris raises questions. The Bush Administration and other leaders, failed to respond to Reverend Harris, officer of the Southern Christian Leadership Conference (SCLC) and Ellen Dunn, President of African Americans for the Rule of Law (AAROL), when asked to confirm African Americans’ rights to citizenship. If African Americans are not legal U.S. citizens, then there are major issues under international law to be addressed. The issue is important under globalization and should not be swept under the rug and suppressed.