Barack Obama's radical associations including terrorists

[Achilles]

Or even if it wasn't, he made it appear to be and I'm sure that's hard enough.

It isn't a question of whether it was easy or difficult (I know it was difficult). The question is the sincerity of it.

 

Oh, come on. Expecting the candidates to always say something positive about the other isn't going to happen and is entirely unrealistic.

Since you choose the tone: Sorry about that--I shouldn't have done that especially given the general rancor in the forum. I edited it accordingly. --Jae

Oh, come on, Jae. Big difference between volunteering somethign nice about your opponent (i.e. when Obama thanks McCain for his services and acknowledges him as a hero) and accusing them of being in league with terrorists. Care to try again?

 

Obama's said his share of negative things, too--all the candidates do it because it's proven effective with voters.

Please provide one example of where Obama has attacked McCain's character, patriotism, devotion to country...heck, provide just one example of where Obama has "attacked" McCain on anything that wasn't a campaign issue. Please try again.

 

How McCain said what he said when defending Obama, along with the words he used and his body language indicate to me that he was sincere. You can argue that McCain was just acting, but I think that's ascribing negative motives where there are none.

As always, you are welcome to your opinion. In the mean time I will remain incredibly skeptical of the sudden sea change that I am supposed to believe has absolutely nothing to do with polling numbers, etc.

 

I dunno, after seeing him practically snatch that mic out of that crazed woman's hands I'd say he had a moment of sincerity and we got to see a bit of the real McCain.

Did you watch any footage of his rallies this week? He said nothing when people yelled "terrorist" or "kill him!" during the rallies. He spent millions of dollars running negative ads. I'm not buying that this incarnation is "the real John McCain".

 

Just so we're clear, I'm not claiming that I have the ability to read minds, however I have watched several weeks of John McCain acting like a complete ***hole and I'm not willing to believe that what I was not his true colors just because he changed his tone for one rally. Especially since the change in tone could easily be explained by something much more mundane such as bad internal polling numbers or a stern talking to from the Secret Service (re: threats against Obama at rallies).

 

EDIT: Here's a link to an interview with the woman that called Obama an "Arab (terrorist?)" at the McCain rally yesterday. The audio is iffy due to the background music, etc, however there is a transcript of the conversation on the page. Here's part of it:

Aigner: So even though Senator McCain told you that he didn’t feel that was true and you ought to be more respectful, you still fear that?

 

Quinnell I still do. Yeah. I’m not alone. I go to Burnsville, the main Republican headquarters and I do a lot of work over there. A lot of sending out mail and talking to people. And all the people agree with what I’m saying to you about Obama.

 

Aigner :Then do you feel there are a lot of volunteers for McCain who feel that way?

 

Quinnell Yes. A lot of them. In fact I got a letter from another woman that goes over there to Burnsville and she sent me more things about Obama.

 

Aigner:What was on the letter?

 

Quinnell Oh all kinds of bad things about him and how, I mean I have to tell you to call me. It’s all bad.

 

Reporter: Are a lot of people getting this letter and are a lot of people believeing it and is that turning a lot of votes or support for McCain?

 

Quinnell Yeah I sent out 400 letters. I went to Kinkos and I got them all printed out. And I sent about 400 letters. I went in the telephone book and sent them out to people. So they can decide if they would want Obama.

So my earlier question was whether or not McCain's supporters would stop repeating the rhetoric once McCain stopped spewing it. If this is any indication, the answer would seem to be "no".

[Jae Onasi]

In the mean time I will remain incredibly skeptical of the sudden sea change that I am supposed to believe has absolutely nothing to do with polling numbers, etc.

I'm very saddened that you've chosen to believe the worst about someone.

[Yar-El]

Achilles, I get you now. Lets put this on the table, and see where it goes from here. Your upset about a McCain supporter calling Obama an "Arab (terrorist?)" Hmm... Lets get this straight. You are upset that a McCain supporter called Obama an Arab...

 

How about Obama's supporter that said, "God Damn America!" Do you remember him?

 

Jeremiah Wright - God Damn America

 

McCain quickly corrected the lady, but Obama didn't do anything until people got upset. I think it was a week later.

 

Where is your frustration now? You should be more upset with Obama's supporters. Why? They are verbally attacking your country, and they are tarnishing what the United States stands for.

[Inyri]

Those two things are not equivalent.

[Yar-El]

Those two things are not equivalent.

You are correct. One attacks the character of a man, and the other one attacks the character of the United States.

 

One is a man.

One is a country where thousands have died to protect.

 

One is a man.

One is a country where people live and fight for my and your freedoms.

 

One is a man.

One is a country that fights as one.

 

One is a man.

One is a collection of individuals who stand together.

 

One is a man.

One is a collection of individuals whose history is diverse, pure, and sovern.

 

One is a man.

One is the country in which some people here call home.

 

Obama is not a terrorist, but he is a man who keeps bad bed fellows. We are defined by those of whom we suround ourselves with. Character, integrity, and honor is everyhing to the army, navy, air force, marines, and their fellow Americans.

[Achilles]

I'm very saddened that you've chosen to believe the worst about someone.

I haven't fabricated the tone of McCain's campaign, Jae. He's been 100% hypocritical about running a "respectful campaign" and you expect me to forget everything he's said and assume the best about him because of one...single...rally. Help me understand how this makes sense.

 

P.S. Please don't think that I didn't notice that you chose to post a condescending message rather than address the points that I raised. Perhaps it would behoove you to review Rogue Nine's post about the forum rules.

[Samuel Dravis]

I take it you've never actually watched the full length Wright videos, Yar-El. The

where he supposedly says that "America deserved 9-11" actually only points out that, America having killed a lot of people and abused many others during the course of our history, we shouldn't be surprised that at least some of those people we (accidentally, of course) don't kill are going to be angry with us.

 

The one you linked to is similarly misconstrued. The full video provides the context for his statements, and qualifiers for "God damn America" which are before and after the clip you posted. Wright lists quite a few things that America has done wrong and then he asks (I paraphrase), "and are we [those people who have been wronged] expected by the government to say God bless America [after all of that has been done to us]? No! [we'd say] 'God damn America!'"

 

After that, he specifically qualifies his statement by saying (I quote): "God damn America, it's in the Bible, for killing innocent people! God damn America for treating her citizens as less than human! God damn America as long as she tries to act like she is God and she is supreme."

 

Is there a specific idea here that you disagree with?

[Achilles]

I just read this somewhere else and am a little disappointed in myself for not catching it earlier.

 

Here is part of the exchange between Senator McCain and Mrs. Quinnell:

Quinnell: Obama is an Arab.

McCain: No, he's a decent family man.

 

Stop for a second and let that sink in. Read it again if you need to.

 

Okay, now ask yourself, what is McCain saying about Arabs by making this statement? Granted, he was responding in real-time and didn't have much time to think about what he was going to say before he said it, however it will be interesting to see if he retracts his statement before he faces yet another stink.

[Yar-El]

I take it you've never actually watched the full length Wright videos, Yar-El. The

where he supposedly says that "America deserved 9-11" actually only points out that, America having killed a lot of people and abused many others during the course of our history, we shouldn't be surprised that at least some of those people we (accidentally, of course) don't kill are going to be angry with us.

 

The one you linked to is similarly misconstrued. The full video provides the context for his statements, and qualifiers for "God damn America" which are before and after the clip you posted. Wright lists quite a few things that America has done wrong and then he asks (I paraphrase), "and are we [those people who have been wronged] expected by the government to say God bless America [after all of that has been done to us]? No! [we'd say] 'God damn America!'"

 

After that, he specifically qualifies his statement by saying (I quote): "God damn America, it's in the Bible, for killing innocent people! God damn America for treating her citizens as less than human! God damn America as long as she tries to act like she is God and she is supreme."

 

Is there a specific idea here that you disagree with?

I just didn't have the full video. It still comes off as being unpatriotic and radical.

 

I'm not going to deny that our military has hit civilians during war. That is the cruel nature of being in war. Serious mistakes are made. Rev. Wright was talking to people during a religious service, and he smeared the truth of some of our history. He also blamed the US for the AIDS infection in Africa.

 

Where I wanted this to go is - you can't blame McCain for a voter's words unless you complain about Obama and his friends and alies. I don't hold McCain responsible for his voter's beliefs. Why? She is not giving him money, but she is giving him her vote. Obama's friends and religious affiliates are giving him votes and money. Not to mention that Obama continued to support them until the public started to backlash. McCain on the other hand quickly dealt with the problem. Obama waited.

[KinchyB]

McCain on the other hand quickly dealt with the problem. Obama waited.

 

Hope you're not referring to the "Arab" comment here as McCain didn't actually quickly deal with this issue as this wasn't the first issue. McCain had been getting flack from several Media outlets, Obama (i blieve but can't rememember officially if he also addressed the issue), and even Biden made comments about the rallies McCain and Palin had been holding where people were loudly smearing and threatening Obama (The FBI is currently investigating one of the threats). Only after he was called out did he actually take any action and that is hardly quickly.

[Achilles]

^^^^

Not to mention that this particular issue was one that his campaign was complicit in, if not directly responsible for creating.

 

Obama denounced Wright after Wright went on television and made blatantly racist comments. It had absolutely nothing to do with the sermons (which SD points out, have largely been taken out of context).

[Jae Onasi]

I haven't fabricated the tone of McCain's campaign, Jae. He's been 100% hypocritical about running a "respectful campaign" and you expect me to forget everything he's said and assume the best about him because of one...single...rally. Help me understand how this makes sense.

I don't expect you to assume the best of him in general. I was just talking about assuming the worst in that action.

 

I edited my previous post, btw, because the tone was too harsh.

 

P.S. Please don't think that I didn't notice that you chose to post a condescending message rather than address the points that I raised. Perhaps it would behoove you to review Rogue Nine's post about the forum rules.

It was not meant to be condescending in the least. I was distressed by the comment.

 

As for the negativism--Plouffe's emails that I get from the Obama campaign do the job for Obama.

His campaign has become nothing but a series of smears, lies, and cynical attempts to distract from the issues that matter to the American people

Some of the ads cynical? Definitely. Overstatements? Yes. All smears, lies, and cynical attempts to distract from the issues? No. I understand Plouffe's enthusiasm, but I wish he'd also tone it down a bit.

I don't believe that Senator McCain doesn't care what's going on in the lives of Americans - I just think he doesn't know".

Does that sound positive to you? It doesn't to me, but I understand why Obama said it.

Obama's campaign is being disingenuous on McCain's stance on stem cell research--I've heard radio ads in WI saying "McCain has opposed all funding for stem cell research", which is patently wrong. He's opposed embryonic stem cell research but not adult stem cell research.

 

And for the record, I despise the tone McCain's campaign has taken on Obama, and apparently McCain is pulling back from the vitriol if I've heard correctly today. I think it was completely the wrong way for McCain's campaign to go, and a lot of Americans agree, if the increase in poll numbers for Obama are any indication.

[Samuel Dravis]

I just didn't have the full video. It still comes off as being unpatriotic and radical.

Well, that depends on what you mean by patriotic I suppose. Personally I would expect a patriot to be critical of flaws in his country's policy - particularly moral flaws. If it is radical to say the kinds of things he did, then any patriot must necessarily be a radical. In that case, I don't think that saying he is radical is in any way a negative. I think that Wright, while he is quite theatrical in making his points, isn't someone that wishes any evil on America.

 

I'm not going to deny that our military has hit civilians during war. That is the cruel nature of being in war. Serious mistakes are made. Rev. Wright was talking to people during a religious service, and he smeared the truth of some of our history. He also blamed the US for the AIDS infection in Africa.

Just as long as we can agree that he wasn't saying America is inherently evil or deserves to go to hell. Whether or not he was inaccurate (I don't know if he was) on a particular fact out of a long list doesn't change that.

 

Not sure why it is wrong for a pastor to talk about morality during a service. Your mileage may vary, but in general that seems to me to be one of the main reasons to give a sermon.

 

Where I wanted this to go is - you can't blame McCain for a voter's words unless you complain about Obama and his friends and alies. I don't hold McCain responsible for his voter's beliefs. Why? She is not giving him money, but she is giving him her vote. Obama's friends and religious affiliates are giving him votes and money. Not to mention that Obama continued to support them until the public started to backlash. McCain on the other hand quickly dealt with the problem. Obama waited.

I agree that it is disingenuous to blame a candidate for someone else's words. Since Achilles and Kinchy have already replied I'll leave the rest of this alone.

[Yar-El]

Well, that depends on what you mean by patriotic I suppose. Personally I would expect a patriot to be critical of flaws in his country's policy - particularly moral flaws. If it is radical to say the kinds of things he did, then any patriot must necessarily be a radical. In that case, I don't think that saying he is radical is in any way a negative. I think that Wright, while he is quite theatrical in making his points, isn't someone that wishes any evil on America.

I can't disagree with you on that. I believe it is every patriot's duty to tell the government when they are wrong, but I don't believe we have to go into extremes. There are somethings in this country where I would promote a Revolution, but it would have to be carried out in a moral and patriotic way. By law for law.

 

Just as long as we can agree that he wasn't saying America is inherently evil or deserves to go to hell. Whether or not he was inaccurate (I don't know if he was) on a particular fact out of a long list doesn't change that.

Wright was promoting his anger, but we also have to remember he has done this on more than one occassion. His message comes of as, "I hate America!" than "I hate what America does!".

[Achilles]

I don't expect you to assume the best of him in general. I was just talking about assuming the worst in that action.

I've explained in multiple posts why his actions have given me no reason to see this any other way. I've invited you to explain why I should not. Thus far you've exercised your right to refuse my invitation.

 

I repeat: if the man runs an intentionally negative campaign for weeks and months, why should I assume that his intentions are pure when this changes for the length of one rally?

 

It was not meant to be condescending in the least. I was distressed by the comment.

okay.

 

As for the negativism--Plouffe's emails that I get from the Obama campaign do the job for Obama.

<snip>

Some of the ads cynical? Definitely. Overstatements? Yes.

Again, you're welcome to your opinion. As someone that devotes time to watching the ads of both campaigns, I guess I'm struggling to see the discrepancy.

 

All smears, lies, and cynical attempts to distract from the issues? No. I understand Plouffe's enthusiasm, but I wish he'd also tone it down a bit.

Because it's not true or...?

 

Would it change your mind to know that rather than this being a case of Ploffe taking liberties (as you seem to assume here), that this is the finding of an independent campaign analysis group (I'll PM you the source upon request. The hosting discussion forum in question has non-Kavar's friendly language)?

 

Does that sound positive to you? It doesn't to me, but I understand why Obama said it.

Well that's a matter of opinion. Obama made clear in DNC speech that he wasn't going to insult McCain by assuming that he didn't care. I think it's one thing to assume that someone is uncaring or stupid and another to assume that they aren't aware.

 

But perhaps you'd prefer that Obama not take McCain to task on the issues. In which case, I'd have to drudge up a previous thread where you wished that his campaign would do it more (putting his campaign in "serious risk" if I remember your words correctly).

 

Obama's campaign is being disingenuous on McCain's stance on stem cell research--I've heard radio ads in WI saying "McCain has opposed all funding for stem cell research", which is patently wrong. He's opposed embryonic stem cell research but not adult stem cell research.

We can certainly have that discussion, however I asked for an example of Obama attacking McCain's character (as McCain has done Obama) and this isn't one of those. If you have one, I look forward to seeing it.

 

Since I don't have access to radio ads in WI, I'll have to take you at your word that the commercial says what you say it does.

 

And for the record, I despise the tone McCain's campaign has taken on Obama, and apparently McCain is pulling back from the vitriol if I've heard correctly today. I think it was completely the wrong way for McCain's campaign to go, and a lot of Americans agree, if the increase in poll numbers for Obama are any indication.

You despise it, you're just not willing to hold him accountable for it?

[Jae Onasi]

I've invited you to explain why I should not. Thus far you've exercised your right to refuse my invitation.

I explained before: Tone of voice, body language, words he said. For that episode with the woman who said Obama was an Arab, I don't think he was putting on an act for the reasons I just restated. Please don't tell me I haven't replied when I have.

 

Regarding the WI stem cell ad:

Article with text of ad

Republican presidential candidate John McCain was the first to bring the topic up, airing a radio ad in Wisconsin and elsewhere that extolled his support for stem cell research, noting it carries the prospect to "unlock the mystery of cancer, diabetes, heart disease. Stem cell research to help free families from the fear and devastation of illness."

 

Democrat Barack Obama has responded with his own radio ad, airing here and elsewhere in which the campaign claims: "John McCain has stood in the way ... he's opposed stem cell research. Picked a running mate who's against it. And he's running on a platform even more extreme than George Bush's on this vital research."

(The Obama ad features Jody Montgomery, a Verona resident, talking about her daughter Maddy, who has juvenile diabetes and has to have her blood-sugar levels checked six times a day. Montgomery appeared in a Doyle TV ad in 2006, as well as with Doyle at other events).

I have to wonder why this mother has to check her daughter's blood sugar 6 times a day, when the standard is 2 to 4 times. The only time I've seen glucose tested that often is in ICUs, but there may be some very unusual mitigating factor in that situation. McCain voted to lift the ban on federal funding of embryonic stem cell research last year (Bush vetoed it). Obama's campaign did not apologize for the distortion, but instead said this:

"It's clear that John McCain has given in to the extremist wing of his party and given up any credibility he had on this issue when he adopted a party platform that calls for banning all embryonic stem cell research and asked his running mate, who is definitely opposed to embryonic stem cell research, to lead his administration's efforts in finding cures for debilitating diseases."

I don't think that's right any more than what McCain's doing, although McCain's certainly wallowing in the mud compared to Obama's dirty fingers.

BTW--the Journal-Sentinel tends to run on the liberal side in accordance with Milwaukee being a quite Democratic city.

You despise it, you're just not willing to hold him accountable for it?

I plan on holding him accountable in the best way I know how--voting for Obama in November.

 

Edit: If you wouldn't mind PMing me the link, I would be grateful because I would like to see it. Thanks.

[Achilles]

I explained before: Tone of voice, body language, words he said. For that episode with the woman who said Obama was an Arab, I don't think he was putting on an act for the reasons I just restated. Please don't tell me I haven't replied when I have.

First, you're not answering the question. Why should I take the words that McCain spoke one time over the actions that he's repeatedly made (that's the question)? Second, his "sincerity" is based on your subjective opinion and nothing more (others, including myself, think he looks like someone who is being forced to say something he'd rather not as evidence by lack of eye contact, looking down, etc).

 

Regarding the WI stem cell ad:

Article with text of ad

 

I have to wonder why this mother has to check her daughter's blood sugar 6 times a day, when the standard is 2 to 4 times. The only time I've seen glucose tested that often is in ICUs, but there may be some very unusual mitigating factor in that situation. McCain voted to lift the ban on federal funding of embryonic stem cell research last year (Bush vetoed it). Obama's campaign did not apologize for the distortion, but instead said this:

 

I don't think that's right any more than what McCain's doing.

Thank you for the link and the commentary. I am still awaiting the single example of where Obama has gone after or "attacked" McCain on anything other than a campaign issue. Since this is the third time I've tried to direct this point back to your original statement, I am going to proceed as though you are either unwilling or unable to furnish such an example.

 

BTW--the Journal-Sentinel tends to run on the liberal side in accordance with Milwaukee being a quite Democratic city.

Ok, thanks.

 

I plan on holding him accountable in the best way I know how--voting for Obama in November.

Ok, well if you don't intend to do so here, that's fine, but I'm still confused as to why you want to harass those that are choosing to speak out before November 4th. Especially since you've stated that you agree he's been out of line.

 

Edit: If you wouldn't mind PMing me the link, I would be grateful because I would like to see it. Thanks.

Sent

[Achilles]

McFrankenstein's Monster

 

Of course, the premise of my earlier question required that his supporters would stop the silliness if McCain himself stopped first.

[Yar-El]

Thank you for the link and the commentary. I am still awaiting the single example of where Obama has gone after or "attacked" McCain on anything other than a campaign issue. Since this is the third time I've tried to direct this point back to your original statement, I am going to proceed as though you are either unwilling or unable to furnish such an example.

 

Biden Calls Obama Attack Ad “Terrible”

 

Obama Slams McCain's Age

 

Obama ad mocks McCain POW injuries

 

The Delaware Senator took issue with an attack ad from his own side in an interview with CBS, telling Katie Couric that the Obama hit on McCain’s ignorance of computers and technology was “terrible.” The ad paints McCain as out of touch — and all but calls him ancient — but doesn’t mention that the Arizona Senator’s war injuries actually prevent him from using computers for an extended period.

An argument could be made that Obama attacked a partially handicaped war veteran. Wait, he did!

[Inyri]

Biden Calls Obama Attack Ad “Terrible”

From your own cited article: "But Biden said he didn’t think there was anything intentionally personal in the ad."

 

Also: "But as the moment went viral, hitting the internet traffic engine the Drudge Report, Biden revised and extended his remarks in a statement — saying he hadn’t even seen it when he condemned it."

[Astor]

Also, if i've seen the right ad, the only thing related to Obama is a soundbite at the end, right?

 

So it's hardly conclusive evidence that Obama is personally attacking him - tacking a soundbite onto the end of an ad doesn't prove anything. But then again, I may have seen the wrong ad.

[Inyri]

Honestly I don't see how McCain's tech unsavvyness being labeled as 'out of touch with the American people' is an attack on his POW injuries or a personal attack. His POW injuries supposedly keep him from using a computer for an extended period of time, not at all, and they certainly don't restrict him from sending e-mail.

 

Technology is a big part of who we are a nation. Someone who doesn't feel the need to understand that technology probably is out of touch.

[Achilles]

 

This just keeps getting sillier and sillier. We now have pastors at McCain rallies now asking for god to intervene because of all the hindus, buddhists, and muslims that are praying for an Obama victory.

 

McCain had a chance to show the world that his intervention last week wasn't a one-time political stunt. Consider it squandered.

[GarfieldJL]

Well, that depends on what you mean by patriotic I suppose. Personally I would expect a patriot to be critical of flaws in his country's policy - particularly moral flaws. If it is radical to say the kinds of things he did, then any patriot must necessarily be a radical. In that case, I don't think that saying he is radical is in any way a negative. I think that Wright, while he is quite theatrical in making his points, isn't someone that wishes any evil on America.

 

While a patriot can and should make known when they disagree with their country's government, they shouldn't be preaching hate like Rev. Wright. Have you heard some of Wright's accusations, some of them are just off the wall. And this is a man Obama had for a Pastor and spiritual mentor for 20 years.

 

Just as long as we can agree that he wasn't saying America is inherently evil or deserves to go to hell. Whether or not he was inaccurate (I don't know if he was) on a particular fact out of a long list doesn't change that.

 

But Obama's pastor did say America is inherently evil though, Rev. Wright is a racist. Plain and simple, and if this had been McCain's pastor the media wouldn't just be calling for him to drop out of the race, they'd be calling for him to resign from office.

 

Not sure why it is wrong for a pastor to talk about morality during a service. Your mileage may vary, but in general that seems to me to be one of the main reasons to give a sermon.

 

I don't mind morals, I do mind when someone preaches hate. I do mind when someone exposes his children to such hate. I do mind when someone lies to my face expecting me to be too dumb and lazy to do my own research.

 

I agree that it is disingenuous to blame a candidate for someone else's words. Since Achilles and Kinchy have already replied I'll leave the rest of this alone.

 

Ordinarily you'd be right, but there are exceptions. Rev. Wright was his pastor for 20 years, and Obama himself said the man was his spiritual mentor until this stuff came out and he tried to backpedal and lie about that fact. Senator Obama exposed his children to this lunatic's rants, and he continued to do so.

 

In a situation like this, the fact you have a pastor that spews hate and he attended that church for 20 years, brings up four possibilities in my mind.

1. That he was always asleep when Rev. Wright said those things.
   
2. That he was a member of that church only because it was politically expedient. -- showing he cares more about his political career than doing the right thing.
   
3. He didn't have the judgement to know that he should leave the church until the situation blew up in his face.
   
4. He honestly believes as Rev. Wright does.
   

 

I honestly believe it is the fourth possibility, the only other likely scenario is option two.

[KinchyB]

While a patriot can and should make known when they disagree with their country's government, they shouldn't be preaching hate like Rev. Wright. Have you heard some of Wright's accusations, some of them are just off the wall. And this is a man Obama had for a Pastor and spiritual mentor for 20 years.

 

Looks like 2 here...Non Sequitor...Irrelevant Conclusion

 

But Obama's pastor did say America is inherently evil though, Rev. Wright is a racist. Plain and simple, and if this had been McCain's pastor the media wouldn't just be calling for him to drop out of the race, they'd be calling for him to resign from office.

 

Again...Non Sequitor

 

I don't mind morals, I do mind when someone preaches hate. I do mind when someone exposes his children to such hate. I do mind when someone lies to my face expecting me to be too dumb and lazy to do my own research.

 

Proof is in the pudding...listing specific examples with this really helps prove a point.

 

Ordinarily you'd be right, but there are exceptions. Rev. Wright was his pastor for 20 years, and Obama himself said the man was his spiritual mentor until this stuff came out and he tried to backpedal and lie about that fact. Senator Obama exposed his children to this lunatic's rants, and he continued to do so.

 

Good point... mind sharing where you have read all of Rev. Wright’s sermons? Bet they are an interesting read. Hope they are organized by date given... (This is a rhetorical question)

 

In a situation like this, the fact you have a pastor that spews hate and he attended that church for 20 years, brings up four possibilities in my mind.

1. That he was always asleep when Rev. Wright said those things.
   
2. That he was a member of that church only because it was politically expedient. -- showing he cares more about his political career than doing the right thing.
   
3. He didn't have the judgement to know that he should leave the church until the situation blew up in his face.
   
4. He honestly believes as Rev. Wright does.
   

 

I honestly believe it is the fourth possibility, the only other likely scenario is option two.

 

Wow, your lack of any positive examples that could also have happened really does show your bias in this case. Even fox news throws out some positive comments to hold their pseudo-credibility every now and again.