The Next President of the USA will be?

[Uncle Bill]

Come on rightwingers, what sayeth ye now?

I'll let the "right wingers" speak for themselves but obviously Obama agrees the statements Wright made were controversial when he said "I have already condemned, in unequivocal terms, the statements of Reverend Wright that have caused such controversy."

[Pb Derigable]

If today's technology had existed then, I would imagine the media playing quotations of that sort over and over. Right-wing commentators would use the material to argue that King was anti-American and to discredit his call for racial and class justice. King certainly angered a lot of people at the time.

The problem was the technology was available during the Vietnam war, it was the left wing anchors who reported on every single thing that caused us to lose the war. When the United states Air force couldn't bomb north Vietnamese targets because the media would bring up that a civilian is dead after bombing run gone bad, not the fact that same bomb took out a Radar site, a Surface to Air missile site, and about 30 Viet Cong. No we had to send soldiers and Marines into a jungle to find the enemy, whom happens to be dressed as friendly, waiting to be shot at. Don't lump Fox News with the rest of the media, when you know, the media is in love with obama, and Fox News doesn't. Fox news is there to counter act the CNN, MSNBC and ABC. while also reporting on the hate sites like the Huffington Post and Daily KOS, Bloggers are not journalist. they don't have the same rights as journalists, therefore they can't be trusted source of news. And if we can agree, that they can be trusted, then the rumors of Obama still doing Cocaine and having gay sex is fair then.

[zepbaby]

I nominate Snoopy run for President since he's about as qualified as any of the rest of these gits and nits running currently. Wont 50 USD and 1000 votes get him running?

donkey

PS Steve A Jones would know, whaddya say Jonesy?

Go Red Barron GO!

[zosodude13]

FINALLY!

Another endorsement from one of the former candidates in this race! *

Gov Bill Richardson is endorsing.. Barack Obama!

* With Chris Dodd having previously endorsed Obama, that means the two former candidates who've chosen to endorse one of the remaining candidates.. have both endorsed Obama.

a bunch of positives in this...

1. This may help to close the already shrinking gap of hispanic support in favor of Hillary

2. Might this help other old candidates to take a stand? There is a sizable minority of John Edwards supports still not taking a side.

2a. If John Edwards takes Obama's side, there wont be any significant sources of un-decided voters for Hillary to target. Rather then convice the undecided, she will have to change people who like Obama, a much harder task.

[Hermit]

The problem was the technology was available during the Vietnam war, it was the left wing anchors who reported on every single thing that caused us to lose the war. When the United states Air force couldn't bomb north Vietnamese targets because the media would bring up that a civilian is dead after bombing run gone bad, not the fact that same bomb took out a Radar site, a Surface to Air missile site, and about 30 Viet Cong. No we had to send soldiers and Marines into a jungle to find the enemy, whom happens to be dressed as friendly, waiting to be shot at. Don't lump Fox News with the rest of the media, when you know, the media is in love with obama, and Fox News doesn't. Fox news is there to counter act the CNN, MSNBC and ABC. while also reporting on the hate sites like the Huffington Post and Daily KOS, Bloggers are not journalist. they don't have the same rights as journalists, therefore they can't be trusted source of news. And if we can agree, that they can be trusted, then the rumors of Obama still doing Cocaine and having gay sex is fair then.

I would never lump Fox News in with the rest of the media because Fox

so-called News isn't an actual journalistic news source; it's 99.99% spin.

Afaic, bloggers can be trusted blindly no more, and no less, than journalists can. Most journalists these days aren't trustworthy either; they don't just report the facts of a story, they editorialize and spin. Fox is just far and away more blatant and pervasive about it. At least bloggers are up front about the fact that they editorialize. Be it bloggers or journalists, what matters to me is where they get their info and how reliable I find them to be over time. I don't discount or dismiss bloggers just cuz they're bloggers. These days bloggers are oftentimes better news resources than MSM "journalists", imo.

[59LesPaul]

I nominate Snoopy run for President since he's about as qualified as any of the rest of these gits and nits running currently. Wont 50 USD and 1000 votes get him running?

donkey

PS Steve A Jones would know, whaddya say Jonesy?

More like....

[wanna be drummer]

Not everyone spends every waking minute on this board...I'm sure he has something more important to do...

[Hermit]

.

Hey all you righties who are foaming at the mouth (and/or quivering in fear) over the Obama-Reverend Wright non-issue issue.. tell us what you think about John McCain and his relationships with "controversial" pastors Jerry Falwell and John Hagee. I look forward to hearing how you rationalize for McCain whereas you think Obama should throw Wright to the wolves. Do these McCain-Falwell and McCain-Hagee relationship scare you or make you "suspicious" about McCain, Christians, Zionists, and/or the White race in general? -->

(the late)

Jerry Falwell

Flip..

Feb 28, 2000, CNN

JOHN MCCAIN: Neither party should be defined by pandering to the outer reaches of American politics and the agents of intolerance, whether they be Louis Farrakhan or Al Sharpton on the left, or Pat Robertson or Jerry Falwell on the right.

Flop..

April 2, 2006, Meet the Press:

TIM RUSSERT: Do you believe that Jerry Falwell is still an agent of intolerance?

JOHN MCCAIN: No, I don’t. I think that Jerry Falwell can explain to you his views...

May 13, 2006; McCain gives commencement address pandering at Falwell's Liberty University.

A few select quotes from Falwell:

“AIDS is not just God's punishment for homosexuals; it is

God's punishment for the society that tolerates homosexuals”

“The idea that religion and politics don't mix was invented by

the Devil to keep Christians from running their own country”

“If you're not a born-again Christian, you're a failure as a human being”

“The ACLU is to Christians what the American Nazi party is to Jews”

“Homosexuality is Satan's diabolical attack upon the family that will not only have a corrupting

influence upon our next generation, but it will also bring down the wrath of God upon America.”

“(re: 9/11 attacks) "...throwing God out of the public square, out of the schools, the abortionists have got to bear some burden for this because God will not be mocked and when we destroy 40 million little innocent babies, we make God mad...I really believe that the pagans and the abortionists and the feminists and the gays and the lesbians who are actively trying to make that an alternative lifestyle, the ACLU, People for the American Way, all of them who try to secularize America...I point the thing in their face and say you helped this happen."”

“I really believe that the pagans, and the abortionists, and the feminists, and the gays and the lesbians who are actively trying to make that an alternative lifestyle, the ACLU, People For the American Way, all of them who have tried to secularize America. I point the finger in their face and say 'you helped this happen.'”

“[homosexuals are] brute beasts...part of a vile and satanic system [that]

will be utterly annihilated, and there will be a celebration in heaven.”

erm..

it this a brute beast fest, or.... what?

John Hagee

[Hagee supports an American-Israeli pre-emptive military strike against Iran to eliminate its alleged nuclear program. He supports the Neo-Conservative movement in the United States. Source: wikip.]

In the same interview Hagee also said "All hurricanes are acts of God, because God controls the heavens. I believe that New Orleans had a level of sin that was offensive to God, and they were recipients of the judgment of God for that. The newspaper carried the story in our local area that was not carried nationally, that there was to be a homosexual parade there on the Monday that the Katrina came. And the promise of that parade was that it would was going to reach a level of sexuality never demonstrated before in any of the other gay pride parades."

McCain started to backtrack a bit Friday, saying that he was "very proud of the Pastor John Hagee's spiritual leadership to thousands of people and I am proud of his commitment to the independence and the freedom of the state of Israel" but that it "does not mean that I support or endorse or agree with some of the things that Pastor John Hagee might have said or positions that he may have taken on other issues."

*source*

-----------------

so righties.. what say you about McCain and his ministers of intolerance?..

Edited March 21, 2008 by Hermit

[wanna be drummer]

Guess I'm one of the few "righties" that doesn't honestly care about the Reverend guy. Granted, I'd love to beat his obnoxious face in, but I don't care that Obama has a relation with him, because most politicians hang out with shady crowds. This one just happens to be a racist bitch

Edited March 21, 2008 by wanna be drummer

[ledzeppIV]

Guess I'm one of the few "righties" that doesn't honestly care about the Reverend guy. Granted, I'd love to beat his obnoxious face in, but I don't care that Obama has a relation with him, because most politicians hang out with shady crowds. This one just happens to be a racist bitch

Ah. You are not such a bad guy after all!! I agree!!!

[wanna be drummer]

Who said I was a bad guy?

I'm just bad-tempered

[Pb Derigable]

so righties.. what say you about McCain and his ministers of intolerance?..

You're right, McCain does have bad ties, like speaking at the guys ceremony, it's not like he sat there for 20 years and listened to that minister of intolerance, but by having a relationship does bring up questions. McCain has problems like Obama.

By comparing both John McCain ministers of intolerance to Obamas pastor, you just made the point that Obama is tied to his pastor, in more than a spiritual way. You just proved that Obama has to be questioned about his pastor. They are both guilty of hate.

So now Obama is not the once in a lifetime candidate, he has faults. His character will be in questioned, and his polices will now take front row. Now Obama has to have a plan of attack. Politicians are like new shoes, you can't stop thinking about them, you take every step carefully. But once they get some mud on them, they go from my "new shoes", to my shoes.

Now Obama has to learn National Politics, that Chicago crap won't fly. In Chicago, you can get away with anything. Mayor Daley once disobeyed a court order and closed down an airport in the middle of the night with planes still in the airport. and it was a 12 hour story. He wouldn't be able to get away with that if he was more then a mayor. and that was the politics he was schooled in. It's been awhile for a Chicago politician to get a national spot such as senator, or even Gov. until Gov. Blogo. ran and won but mostly because the Republican party of Illinois left the state, and the guy who ran, also had the same last name, of the last gov, who basically left to serve his prison time.

[Hermit]

By comparing both John McCain ministers of intolerance to Obamas pastor, you just made the point that Obama is tied to his pastor, in more than a spiritual way. You just proved that Obama has to be questioned about his pastor. They are both guilty of hate.

I don't share your conclusion. Falwell and Hagee preach intolerance; its what they do (or did, in Falwell's case). But I'm not ready to say the same about Rev Wright. Sure, he's popped off at times and said some controversial things, but I've seen or read anything that suggests to me, let alone convinces me, that he preaches hate or intolerance. He's been preaching for decades, and all we've seen are a scant few clips and quotes of him making controversial comments, wheras you could fill a book of intolerant things Falwell has said, and extremists views that Hagee has spewed. I've been watching some Wright sermon clips, and by and large I don't take umbrage at much of what I've seen/heard, and I've actually appreciated quite a bit of what I've seen/heard him say. And fwiw, I'm not drawn to ministers of hate or intolerance; hate and intolerance goes very much against my grain. If Wright was a merchant of hate and intolerance, I'd be right here calling him on it.. politics (including Obama's candidacy) be damned.

Obama sat in the pews at Wright's church for over 20 years and for that you question his.. something (motive? honesty? integrity? candor?). He says he doesn't recall ever hearing Wright make intolerant or hateful comments during his sermons or in private conversations, though he readily acknowledges that Wright's anger "has found its way into the pulpit" on occasion, and he has said he thinks that's divisive and unproductive.. though, he says, he also does understand historical context where that anger comes from. An awful lot of people have sat in those pews over those 20 years, and any number of them could discredit Obama's claims if they we're untrue,.. but as far as I know.. none have.

Lumping Rev Wright in the same league with Falwell and Hagee is a stretch beyond credibility, imho.

As we've learned, even Bill Clinton called upon Rev Wright during his time of personal difficulties. Clinton invited Wright to the WH along with a number of other ministers whom he respected, to seek their spiritual counsel as the Lewinsky scandal was unfolding. Clinton even sent him a thank you note. That might explain, in part at least, why the Clinton's haven't jumped on the bash-Wright bandwagon. Perhaps they know he's a respectable man and a respectbale and respected minister, eh?

I don't begrudge you your conclusion that Wright is "guilty of hate".

However, nothing that I've seen or heard (yet) leads me to that same conclusion.

Cheers, bud.

[DRUNK]

We all know that politicians' spirituality and religious involvement are mostly BS. Of course, it seems like in order to become a successful politician, you have to impress the churchgoers.

So let's get real here. Let's see through the smoke.

[Hermit]

We all know that politicians' spirituality and religious involvement are mostly BS. Of course, it seems like in order to become a successful politician, you have to impress the churchgoers.

So let's get real here. Let's see through the smoke.

Its true that the religious voting bloc is an important demographic for every politician to appeal to in some way. And yet is that your justification/rationalization for McCain's blatant panderings to the congregations of Falwell and Hagee? Do you think pandering to merchants of intolerance.. for political expediency.. is the hallmark of a real leader? Or are you simply so cynical that you don't hold it at all against McCain that he cozies up with the likes of Falwell and Hagee for their votes and to garner their influence over those in their congregations?

Are you questioning the genuininess of Barack Obama's faith or his commitment to his religion?

Time to get real, DRUNK. What exactly are you suggesting?

Edited March 22, 2008 by Hermit

[DRUNK]

Well, I'll be honest I don't know the details about McCain, or anything you wrote.

I think what I said earlier explains it.

I don't think any of these politicians are truly religious, and I do indeed think it is only to promote a more politically correct image, and to gather support from religious voters.

Yeah, some might be religious, but I think most aren't.

It's pretty obvious that it's all a show. I just like to sit back with the popcorn and watch, because for me it is entertainment, and I cann see through it all. I feel bad for the people that take politics seriously.

[Bonham]

Well, I'll be honest I don't know the details about McCain, or anything you wrote.

I think what I said earlier explains it.

I don't think any of these politicians are truly religious, and I do indeed think it is only to promote a more politically correct image, and to gather support from religious voters.

Yeah, some might be religious, but I think most aren't.

It's pretty obvious that it's all a show. I just like to sit back with the popcorn and watch, because for me it is entertainment, and I cann see through it all. I feel bad for the people that take politics seriously.

You make a good point there, actually.

[Uncle Bill]

You're right, McCain does have bad ties, like speaking at the guys ceremony, it's not like he sat there for 20 years and listened to that minister of intolerance, but by having a relationship does bring up questions. McCain has problems like Obama.

By comparing both John McCain ministers of intolerance to Obamas pastor, you just made the point that Obama is tied to his pastor, in more than a spiritual way. You just proved that Obama has to be questioned about his pastor. They are both guilty of hate.

So now Obama is not the once in a lifetime candidate, he has faults. His character will be in questioned, and his polices will now take front row. Now Obama has to have a plan of attack. Politicians are like new shoes, you can't stop thinking about them, you take every step carefully. But once they get some mud on them, they go from my "new shoes", to my shoes.

Now Obama has to learn National Politics, that Chicago crap won't fly. In Chicago, you can get away with anything. Mayor Daley once disobeyed a court order and closed down an airport in the middle of the night with planes still in the airport. and it was a 12 hour story. He wouldn't be able to get away with that if he was more then a mayor. and that was the politics he was schooled in. It's been awhile for a Chicago politician to get a national spot such as senator, or even Gov. until Gov. Blogo. ran and won but mostly because the Republican party of Illinois left the state, and the guy who ran, also had the same last name, of the last gov, who basically left to serve his prison time.

This was a very informative post, cheers

I agree with this statement and I'm glad to see it. "So now Obama is not the once in a lifetime candidate, he has faults. His character will be in questioned, and his polices will now take front row. Now Obama has to have a plan of attack." It was looking like the MSM was going to give him a pass.

I was personally affected by the midnight closing of Meigs Field, it was very convenient to land there when we had a show at McCormick Center. GRRRR

[Uncle Bill]

Well, I'll be honest I don't know the details about McCain, or anything you wrote.

I think what I said earlier explains it.

I don't think any of these politicians are truly religious, and I do indeed think it is only to promote a more politically correct image, and to gather support from religious voters.

Yeah, some might be religious, but I think most aren't.

It's pretty obvious that it's all a show. I just like to sit back with the popcorn and watch, because for me it is entertainment, and I cann see through it all. I feel bad for the people that take politics seriously.

for a drunk you make a lot of sense

I saw BO talking yesterday about what he knew and when he knew it, and it seemed to explain the apparent discrepancies of his earlier statements.

I wasn't aware that the Clintons had connections to Wright, that explains the hands off attitude about this "scandal".

McCains connections to the right wing preachers kept him quiet as well I guess.

As far as I'm concerned, I'm back to holding religion equally against all of them.

[Hermit]

Well, I'll be honest I don't know the details about McCain, or anything you wrote.

You admit you're commenting on something about which you dont know the details about?

..and you expect to be taken seriously?

I think what I said earlier explains it.

I think "I don't know the details about McCain, or anything you wrote" explains it.

I don't think any of these politicians are truly religious, and I do indeed think it is only to promote a more politically correct image, and to gather support from religious voters.

You dont know anything about their religious beliefs or how they practice religion

in their lives, but you discount them as not being genuinely religious anyway, eh?

Brilliant, DRUNK,.. just brilliant.

Barack Obama has been an active member of his church for over 20 years. He's devoted most of his adult life to working on projects that serve disenfranchised communities and those less-fortunate among us. In addressing the Rev Wright issue he was stern and yet compassionate; he was frank in condemning some of Wright's comments and yet also understanding toward, and forgiving of, the man; his handling of the issue epitomized the best of Christian principles (imho). He's a solid family man; he was married in the same church where he worhsips; his children were baptized in thta same church. His policies, principles, and values are clearly squarely rooted in the philosophy that "I am my brother's keeper".

And yet you so self-assuredly assert.. without knowing anything about the details of it.. that its all been "only to promote a more politically correct image, and to gather support from religious voters", eh?

Yeah, some might be religious, but I think most aren't.

"Some" and "most" is irrelevant as pertains to the upcoming election.What is relevant to the election.. if religion is relevant in an election.. is how Clinton, McCain, and Obama relate to religion. And in that regard, Clinton has ben fairly low key, John McCain is clearly pandering to the religious right. But Barack Obama is neither pandering, nor is he touting his religious beliefs; he's merely staying true to his religious beliefs. He's walking the walk as it were.

And you,.. well.. you dont know the details.. so you're simply expressing an uniformed opinion.

It's pretty obvious that it's all a show. I just like to sit back with the popcorn and watch, because for me it is entertainment, and I can see through it all. I feel bad for the people that take politics seriously.

It's all a show, you say. Most politicians aren't genuinely religious, you assert.

And you.. you're brilliant enough to see through it all,.. you'd have us believe.

Barack Obama graduated magnum cum laude from Harvard.. was President of Harvard Law Review.. is a US Senator and a presidential candidate.. and yet you alone among us here are brilliant enough to see through his charade, eh? You're being just a little grandiose there, arent ya bud?.. especially for someone who doesnt even know the details of that which he speaks?

I find interesting that someone such as yourself who "feels bad for people who take politics seriously", takes politics seriously enough that you went off to fight in a war at the urgings of a politican who claims God directed him to wage that war. And you claim if you had to go back to Iraq for another tour of duty you'd be "as happy as a kid on Christmas morning!"

Here's what I see through, DRUNK: your bullshit.

cheers, bud.

[Del Zeppnile]

Stick a fork in Barrack... he's done. Obama can try and make as many excuses as he want's to for his pastor and the biased opinions that he exposes. But the fact remains that Obama has shown either poor judgment... or a glimpse of his true character by continuing to attend such a church. Obama is certainly entitled to his 'perspective' on race in this country. But this is not going to "sell" in the general election should Obama get the nomination.

Obama's situation is pretty grim right now. I predict that this will leave the democratic party in shambles for the next 20 years. Once again the Dems have stepped over their own "Richards."

................................................................................

.................

March 21, 2008

The Speech: A Brilliant Fraud

By Charles Krauthammer

WASHINGTON -- The beauty of a speech is that you don't just give the answers, you provide your own questions. "Did I ever hear him make remarks that could be considered controversial while I sat in church? Yes." So said Barack Obama, in his Philadelphia speech about his pastor, friend, mentor and spiritual adviser of 20 years, Jeremiah Wright.

An interesting, if belated, admission. But the more important question is: which "controversial" remarks?

Wright's assertion from the pulpit that the U.S. government invented the HIV virus "as a means of genocide against people of color"? Wright's claim that America was morally responsible for 9/11 -- "chickens coming home to roost" -- because of, among other crimes, Hiroshima and Nagasaki? (Obama says he missed church that day. Had he never heard about it?)

What about the charge that the U.S. government (of Franklin Roosevelt, mind you) knew about Pearl Harbor, but lied about it? Or that the government gives drugs to black people, presumably to enslave and imprison them?

Obama condemns such statements as wrong and divisive, then frames the next question: "There will no doubt be those for whom my statements of condemnation are not enough. Why associate myself with Reverend Wright in the first place, they may ask? Why not join another church?"

But that is not the question. The question is why didn't he leave that church? Why didn't he leave -- why doesn't he leave even today -- a pastor who thundered not once but three times from the pulpit (on a DVD the church proudly sells) "God damn America"? Obama's 5,000-word speech, fawned over as a great meditation on race, is little more than an elegantly crafted, brilliantly sophistic justification of that scandalous dereliction.

His defense rests on two central propositions: A. moral equivalence, and B. white guilt.

a. Moral equivalence. Sure, says Obama, there's Wright, but at the other "end of the spectrum" there's Geraldine Ferraro, opponents of affirmative action and his own white grandmother, "who once confessed her fear of black men who passed by her on the street, and who on more than one occasion has uttered racial or ethnic stereotypes that made me cringe." But did she shout them in a crowded theater to incite, enrage and poison others?

"I can no more disown (Wright) than I can my white grandmother." What exactly was grandma's offense? Jesse Jackson himself once admitted to the fear he feels from the footsteps of black men on the street. And Harry Truman was known to use epithets for blacks and Jews in private, yet is revered for desegregating the armed forces and recognizing the first Jewish state since Jesus' time. He never spread racial hatred. Nor did grandma.

Yet Obama compares her to Wright. Does he not see the moral difference between the occasional private expression of the prejudices of one's time and the use of a public stage to spread racial lies and race hatred?

b. White guilt. Obama's purpose in the speech was to put Wright's outrages in context. By context, Obama means history. And by history, he means the history of white racism. Obama says, "We do not need to recite here the history of racial injustice in this country," and then proceeds to do precisely that. And what lies at the end of his recital of the long train of white racial assaults from slavery to employment discrimination? Jeremiah Wright, of course.

This contextual analysis of Wright's venom, this extenuation of black hate speech as a product of white racism, is not new. It's the Jesse Jackson politics of racial grievance, expressed in Ivy League diction and Harvard Law nuance. That's why the speech made so many liberal commentators swoon: It bathed them in racial guilt, while flattering their intellectual pretensions. An unbeatable combination.

But Obama was supposed to be new. He flatters himself as a man of the future transcending the anger of the past as represented by his beloved pastor. Obama then waxes rhapsodic about the hope brought by the new consciousness of the young people in his campaign.

Then answer this, senator: If Wright is a man of the past, why would you expose your children to his vitriolic divisiveness? This is a man who curses America and who proclaimed moral satisfaction in the deaths of 3,000 innocents at a time when their bodies were still being sought at Ground Zero. It is not just the older congregants who stand and cheer and roar in wild approval of Wright's rants, but young people as well. Why did you give $22,500 just two years ago to a church run by a man of the past who infects the younger generation with precisely the racial attitudes and animus you say you have come unto us to transcend?

letters@charleskrauthammer.com

Copyright 2008, Washington Post Writers Group

Edited March 22, 2008 by Del Zeppnile

[Hermit]

As far as I'm concerned, I'm back to holding religion equally against all of them.

..at least you're being even-handed.

cheers to ya.

Personally, I find McCain's pandering to be rather sleazy... and revealing about the kind of politician (and person) he is. He isnt standing on principles. His principles depend on what's politically expedient for him at a given time. He calls Falwell a "merchant of intolerance" when he think thats what will best serve his political interests, and then he flip-flops when he needs Falwell's support. He courts Hagee's support (and influence over his vast congregation) even though Hagee's points of view are cldearly extremist and intolerant, which McCain claims he himself isnt in support of. In pandering to the religious right, McCain is selling himself out. Its kinda sad. There was a time when he seemed to be a man of prinicples. That is clearly no longer the case.

One might not like the religious company Obama keeps,.. but at least he isn't pandering.

[Hermit]

March 21, 2008

The Speech: A Brilliant Fraud

By Charles Krauthammer

WASHINGTON -- The beauty of a speech is that you don't just give the answers, you provide your own questions. "Did I ever hear him make remarks that could be considered controversial while I sat in church? Yes." So said Barack Obama, in his Philadelphia speech about his pastor, friend, mentor and spiritual adviser of 20 years, Jeremiah Wright.

An interesting, if belated, admission. But the more important question is: which "controversial" remarks?

Wright's assertion from the pulpit that the U.S. government invented the HIV virus "as a means of genocide against people of color"? Wright's claim that America was morally responsible for 9/11 -- "chickens coming home to roost" -- because of, among other crimes, Hiroshima and Nagasaki? (Obama says he missed church that day. Had he never heard about it?)

[blah, blah, blah]

Del,.. apparently you and Chuck [a political hack/shill if ever there was one. ] didnt get the memo. -->

The media fails America once again

Fri Mar 21, 2008

I decided to pull of the video of Reverend Wright's sermon in which he allegedly made the comments blaming America for 9/11, and guess what I found? He was quoting Ambassador Edward Peck, who made those comments on FOX NEWS (oh, the irony) the day after the 9/11 attacks. Here is the evidence:

*http://www.youtube.com/...*

Around the 3-minute mark, Reverend Wright asks the church members if they saw the ambassador on Fox News, and what he had said. Then he proceeds to pull out a sheet of paper, and read the words of ambassador Peck.

This is another example of how the media has manufactured a controversy in order to sway the American public. We all should be very concerned about the media in the country, because after all...this is the same crowd that gave us the Iraq war.

[source: Daily Kos]

--------

If you watch that video, at exactly the 3-minute mark Reverend W starts talking about Ambassador Peck's comments that were made during a Fox News broadcast after 9/11 (*pic of Peck*). He then reads Peck's quote word-for-word (delivering it with quite a bit flair, as we've all seen in the video snippets recently). During this recent Rev W "scandal", Peck's words have been attributed to Rev Wright himself and have been cited as an example of Wright expressing anti-American sentiment. And yet they are the words of a former US Ambassador to Iraq who was making a point that the attack on 9/11 may have been "America's chickens coming home to roost".. in other words.. what terror analysts call "blowback".

Rev Wright's hate-filled message?

Perhaps the other snippets we've seen of Rev W sermons should be seen

in their full context before the man is castigated as a hate-monger, eh?

Chuck never has let the facts get in the way of his right wing hackery, has he?

Edited March 22, 2008 by Hermit

[Uncle Bill]

There seems to be some confusion about where I stand, I thought I was clear enough but I'll try to be clearer.

If the election were today, I'd sit it out or vote independent/ 3rd party as I have many times in the past.

I have ruled out Clinton not because I think she's any worse than the others it's just my personal choice. I've had enough of Clinton's and Bush's.

[zepbaby]

I was voting for Snoopy. But Lucy is looking good at this point in time.

Why?

I love the way she pulls on balls

It's too early to know how I will vote. But I will have to do absentee.

zepbaby