Obama turns pastor hate controversy into race speech

This is truly fatuous. You are committing several flaws, but I am guessing you wouldn't see it.

Equating the smears on Obama - that he is an Islamic terrorist plant, a rabid socialist, a Black Nationalist, a traitor, and, what else? - with the physical laws of the universe is ridiculous, in the extreme. Circular reasoning is the least of your worries, Lightless. I'm truly sorry I wasted the bandwidth to engage in good faith.

You don't know me, and have nothing to support whether I can, or cannot be objective about Obama. You may search around across a host of issues to determine my "objectivity", or not, as you wish. But for a guy who engages in the childishness I've seen, to be adjudged "subjective" on Obama is actually funny.

The truth may lie at one extreme, or the other, or somewhere in between. Only proof establishes this. Your last line is also fatuous, and meritless.

 

It is interesting that Condoleeza Rice praised the Obama speech on race:

http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/washington/2008/03/condiriceandbar.html

Many of the world's nations have struggled with race. Race issues have ended up killing and slaughtering millions. In the US we have struggled with these issues, yet faced them and tried to change a society so that race is ever less an issue. It has been a long struggle.

She puts an interesting and different description to the issues and history of race in the US. Europeans and Africans came to the land that became the US almost simultaneously over history. Europeans of their free will and Africans in chains. Ever since we have been dealing with this legacy.

More power to Obama for trying to tackle this issue in a mature way.

 

I never accused obama of all that you say. I only see in him little sins.

I have few personal opinions about you and those i have, i assure you are completely positive.
I only meant that you haven't been 100% objective on obama's flaws in this thread and maybe this forum. Maybe you could be 99% maybe 98%, i don't know.

Again, I'm honoured by the mention of childishness.
Child is the father of man and every man shouldn't forget his inner child.

 

Obama is is another Luther King, Malcom X in disguise. He wants black power. In reality he is not for racial, social cohesion at all.

 

It is interesting, in that some people can appreciate the "good" in Obama, but be unwilling to recognize any flaws. I mean, how can someone see his positives and without noticing any negatives?

That is, unless he truly is an angel, descended from the Heavens, to lift all of us to a higher consciousness. *sighs*

I, on the other hand, would love someone to explain to me what Obama stands for.

 

Obama stands for the greatest good and the working together of all races for the betterment of america.

Now something to continue the utterly meaningless obama bashing and smearing in this thread and to ultimately establish obama as an alien sent to conquer earth.

http://edition.cnn.com/2008/POLITIC...?eref=rss_politics&iref=polticker#cnnSTCVideo

Obama says he would have left his church if the pastor hadn't retired.

As someone here used to say. [hint:not me]

 

That's what I call guilt by association.

 

what does that mean ?. Logical fallacies and other tools of rhetoric really confuse me. Maybe because i am a child.

 

the attribution of guilt (without proof) to individuals because the people they associate with are guilty or tarnish the reputation

 

I know that. I wonder about the deeper meaning of it, it sounds ambiguous to me.
Maybe i am doing wrong by looking at things from many angles.

 

You are judged by the company you keep

 

Lightless, it isn't rhetoric that is at issue. And you aren't looking at the aspect from many angles. You aren't looking, in fact, at all. Have you considered that while I have asked for a single piece of evidence establishing something in the way of proof of the accusations being put forth, you seem to me to content yourself with the endless circles of "well, yeah....but there's gotta be, I mean, right?"

On this thread alone, you have said:

In the absence of any evidence - a single piece of evidence supporting the wild accusations tossed by Bogart, Mia - you have said:

You then come in with a laughably ridiculous statistic - "1 out of 10 of the least educated folks in America consider Obama a closet Muslim," and get Mia and Bogart in a delirious tither of joy, until they realized the company they keep by virtue of that very poll.

Whether on this thread, or others on the candidate, you couldn't care less about evidence - in your words, "don't ask me for evidence or substantive arguments for the above, i have none", yet in the same breath, you continue to say, in one variant form or another, "Truth always exists. Proof comes very late."

In other words, ridiculous. If you don't want your posts to be considered childish, I'd suggest you take a look at what you are doing. Not a look "from many angles," yet, just a single, honest look. If not, please let me know, and I'll simply quite exchanging with you, ignore, and move on.

 

Ah, you make quite valid points. That's the way i am, maybe.

Let's just say, i've broken from my shackles. Seen the light at the end of the tunnel. Some personal experiences and a long time spent in relative "creative darkness" have led me to this revelation.

Obama is a good man and you have helped me understand him and his good side better. I've decided to make another honest attempt to stop thinking about the wrongs of the world and focus on the rights.
I should be putting the positive thinking and self improvement i studied for years into practice more often.

That being said, merely curious as to your point of view.
Don't you commit the "ad hominem" fallacy, because of the labels you put on your "debate opponents" on these forums.

 

In general, no, though I have certainly lapsed into it on rare occasions, to be sure. If you could provide examples of the "labels I put on my debate opponents on these forums," much as my request if you could provide something in the way of evidence regarding the slams on Obama, I'd be glad to discuss whatever concerns you.

If you consider my calling your posts, at times, childish, please distinguish calling you a child, or a ninny, or whatever else you would rightfully feel would be an "ad hominem" attack from judging your posts "childish," which is what I consider repeating "there has to be some truth to the smears," without any evidence, to be: a simplistic view, too ready to leap to conclusions with nothing in place to support the conclusions; childish behavior.

 

You know, the various "poster" with varying prefixes and suffixes.
I am sure you respect them as persons as do i, but in a fallacy sense/context.

Makes sense. Sometimes an attack on one's arguments feels like an attack on one's person, even if it's not.

 

Well, you said "debate opponents," so I assumed you were indicating debate opponents, and not a single individual.

You are referring to Guerilla, with whom I am done engaging on a direct basis. And, personally, no, I do not respect Guerilla. In fact quite the opposite, as I hold him in contempt. But my personal feelings do not inform my usage of "this poster," "the poster," etc.

I hold the member's method of debate in utter contempt, and have said why, exhaustively and in detailed fashion; if you seek a good faith exploration of this particularly messy corner of the DP universe, please let me know and I would be glad to point you in the direction so that you may conclude for yourself.

To the substance of his posts, basically, in my view, despite vociferously preaching his defense for "constitutionality" and "liberty," the member has shown his views to be nothing more than a trampling of both, whenever convenient. Again, if you have questions as to how I formed these conclusions, please let me know and I will be glad to point you to the appropriate discussions.

My usage of "poster" is my best attempt to avoid the direct exchange while dealing with the substance of positions made. It is an attempt to avoid the kind of tit-for-tat personality exchanges that characterized our previous exchanges, and the exchanges like so many others on the forum. I don't know if it is optimal, but it is quite honestly my best effort to stick to facts and substance.

 

Yes, that and the autoposter label. I hope you and he don't have another messy exchange over this.

 

After a duplicate repeat of the same smear ("Obama is N.O.I."), to the tune of dozens of simple cut and paste repeats, with literally no new information being added, when the original smear and a dozen or so after were decisively answered, yes, Bogart's method seems like an auto-poster to me. If you consider that offensive, apologies, but it is what it is. Bogart's method sucks, in my opinion, for the many reasons I have detailed in this thread. Something on the order of:

If you catch my drift.

At any rate, hope the below posts are illustrative. Please forgive the reprint:

I also long ago sought to create a system we could all live with, to engage in respectful debate:

 

Your statement of principles is great to strive for.

But People are different and many go with their hearts than heads, hence you will see less facts and more opinions and feelings.

 

There is more good news about Obama's diversionary hate speech. It has changed Rapper 50cent from a Hillary supporter to a Obama supporter.. Wow, that's really cool. Knowing that makes me think that there really might be some substance there.