Obama turns pastor hate controversy into race speech

First of all i should say that i am merely trying to come up with an explanation for why people seem to misunderstand everything obama says, even if his intentions are otherwise.

Maybe, but isn't a simple "I absolutely don't condone any of the words or actions of my former pastor" enough.

Roundabout manner - He comes to the point [About everyone working together] after citing many other things like his family and upbringing details, which everyone seems to know anyway.
Ambiguity - People interpret everything in many ways and obama's language lends itself to many many interpretations, that's all i meant.

 

darn dude zexdup alway missing things up

 

Yes, I read the portion of the speech the OP provided. I don't really care to read the rest right now.

I don't know why you think I am vomiting on your guy, I am seeing the same reactions that the RP supports gave - emotional driven attacks on all others. Obama has ties to racism just as RP does - why do you defend one and attack the other?

 

What logical responses would have been acceptable?

You want DP members who support a candidate to explain whether or not the candidate is racist.

You are right, in that this is the same tact and soft attack style you used on RP. The implication of guilt by association, or guilt by conflation.

Race is only an issue because you choose to make it an issue. My impression is that you like to play up racial or ethnic divisiveness. You did it when you conflated my position on Israel to hating Jews. Or Ron Paul, a freaking libertarian, with a neo-confederate nazi or antisemite.

And now we have Obama, whose biggest sins seem to be

1) He is anti-war
2) He doesn't appear to support American imperialism
3) He is black

Which to quote someone earlier in this thread, is facile (but I would imagine, intentional).

Don't bait the race issue, then pretend you are shocked and horrified that someone is discussing race. I'm on to you.

 

Apparently not, since he's decisively said that, countless times already, and I'm sure like many of us, he'd have loved if that were enough. But the smear lives on.

"Roundabout": It's uh, a speech - you know, an airing of views. It's what people who make speeches do, form an argument, make statements, provide proof and background. Started with Cicero and Cato and all that lot.

"Ambiguity": I find:

Ambiguous. I asked already: can you provide a specific instance?

 

You are right, maybe it's just a tendency to misunderstand and mistrust rooted in the minds of people.

It's not anything specific, but the effect of the whole speech, or it may be just my individual opinion/feeling disguising itself as a general truth.

 

This is a brilliant speech. It's incredible to me the upgrade we can have in the White House this year. From the bumbling moronic war mongering idiot that is George W. Bush to this eloquent intelligent incredible speaker Barack Obama.

Forget your Swiftingboating nonsense. As Obama says: "NOT THIS TIME."

Barack Obama will be one of the greatest presidents in American history.

 

Debunked,

You admit you didn't read the speech, then expect a serious discussion on the speech. Sorry, ridiculous.

In lieu of facts, by your own admission, you strip a line from a paragraph and neglect to include the rest of even the paragraph, that refutes what I would call your propaganda, since it asserts a strong statement - "Obama has ties to racism" - without a shred of evidence; and, more, strong evidence showing quite the contrary. I call that emotionalism, driven by an apparent pre-determination based on your existing beliefs.

You must be thinking of someone else, as I do no such thing. I decry all guilt by association. In the case of RP, here is one thing I said then:

(The "good point" was raised, I felt, by Grim. The "devastating weapon" was the supposed Ron Paul-Racist ties.).

 

Lightless, you will find when labelling things - in the case of Obama, I've seen on this board:

Islamic Terrorist Plant
Traitor
Black Nationalist

and, with yours,

Ambiguous
Roundabout

As I don't see it, I will raise questions as to the validity of the assertions made. If I have evidence showing otherwise, I will post that, as well, until I just get tired of hearing a robotic repeat of the same, baseless nonsense. Hence, I asked, and have asked three times now: What in Obama's speech - whether "the effect of the whole speech" or a single instance, - has led you to conclude as you do? As I have asked for a single piece of evidence, and you apparently can't find any, I am regretfully left with the conclusion it comes down to a personal, beclouded thing.

 

with your superior logical and questioning skills, you could easily dismantle any peacemeal explanations i come up with.
Probably it is just my personal perception.

 

Agreed... I almost fell out of my chair when I heard him say that. I think that one statement alone beats his wife's previous statements about here lack of pride in America...

What a sad individual.

 

Lightless, I am not trying to win anything. If you, or anyone, makes an assertion, then admits there isn't any evidence to support it, I do get tired of raising facts, only to have it come down to this.

 

Lightless, get waddimean? That people think it actually works is itself a sad testament.

 

There might be evidence, but it won't be up to your standards or something that can stand your onslaught

You don't like getting to a conclusion. With your point of view proving the better one ?
Or would you rather that i repeat the same things again and again just so i can satisfy my "ego' ?

 

Well, gee - wasn't aware I was so powerful as to override evidence. Just asking for something even just a bit beyond a personal opinion, ya see, especially with respect to trashing a guy currently leading in the bid for the next U.S. presidency. Crazy thing is, with all the garbage being foisted on this man's candidacy, a single shred of credible evidence supporting him as being an Islamic Terrorist plant/Black Nationalist/Traitor to the Country would do to make for a worthy discussion. Good evidence tends to blow away good rhetoric.

Bit lost on this one, lightless. Here, let me paint the picture as I see it. Please correct me if I'm wrong.

Obama drinks the blood of babies, engages in bestiality (Blue Dorid Nudibranch, being tops - mostly out of a repeat obsession syndrome triggered over the loss of his first girlfriend, Doris, the Tahitian vixen who loved wearing iridescent purple shawls - and nothing else), and actually has small horns in his head, that grow to full length only under a full moon - which is why you won't see the candidate at a live event during that time. In private he uses demotic Greek, but the bastard only speaks in Katharevousic parables in public pronouncements. Oh, and he's got a thing for the Three Stooges.

I know this all to be true. Irrefutable. Beyond any doubt of any kind.

Oh, and I can't offer any proof of any kind. So you can bank on what I'm saying.

Makes a lot of sense, doesn't it?

 

I just listened to the whole thing, and I gotta say this: I'm NOT a Obama supporter, and I'll vote for Larry Flynt before I vote for Barack Obama. But, man, that speech was BRILLIANT. He's a heck of a orator, which is why he'll probably win.

It really pisses me off that McCain is somewhere, sitting on his rear with his plastic wife, instead of attacking Obama and Hillary on their crappy issues while they argue back and forth. Right now is as weak as either of them going to be in this election, and McCain isn't doing jack.

It's the reason he's going to lose this election, and Obama is going to win.

 

No. McCain is probably going to lose because he is ideologically bankrupt.

He's representing the status quo, the Bush neo-conservative agenda. No one looks at McCain and sees hope or prosperity.

 

I disagree. You ask people about the Keating 5, and they'll give you a blank look. No one remembers that. People will support the conservative agenda, because, even though many may not like it, the ideas of "talking it out with terrorists", "getting Detroit jobs back", and "Universal Health Care" are ridiculous.

No McCain will lose because he's lazy, and thinks that the throne has been handed to him by default. Not so, Obama is a force that politics hasn't seen since Kennedy (or even Hitler). I don't trust him, but he's memorizing people more and more every day.

 

That's Republican Hubris. The platform is not conservative. It's fascist, and I think the American people have had enough of it. Now we're due for socialism.

I don't think you appreciate how badly Bush and the neo-cons have damaged the image of conservatism.

Obama is selling what people want to buy. Regardless of whether it is fair, legal or even honest, he's a populist candidate, McCain is not. The Democrats have been building a grassroots since 2004, the Republicans have none.

The closest being the RP movement, a 5% candidate who is starting to dominate party events. That's the sad state of Republicanism. Even the most obsessed, neurotic party hacks can't be bothered to turn up to party functions.

The excitement and interest factor of Obama versus McCain? About 100 to 1. Even conservatives don't like McCain. And that's their problem. They are for the most part, against everything, and for nothing. Which is why Obama's message wins.

And yeah, I don't like Obama's platform either. But you can't sell McCain today. People don't want Bush 44.

 

Socialist or facist. Either way, we're screwed.