Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 20 of 30

Thread: And here are some honest questions for the Obama Detractors

  1. #1
    All Pro
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Posts
    5,550
    Post Thanks / Like

    And here are some honest questions for the Obama Detractors

    The Rev. Wright issue has been a massive headache for Obama. To a degree he has to take a share of the responsibility for how this story has unfolded. The degree in which one believes Obama is responsible is usually proportional to how they feel about him. But even the biggest Obama supporter has to admit he could have dealt with this issue more proactively. To some, Obama's actions seem to indicate that he is simply just the same as all the rest of the politicans.

    But my question to everyone, but specifically to his detractors, is this; is it earth shattering news to realize that Obama was duplicit in his relationship with wright? And, because he was not 100% open, does that mean we can now lump him in with so many other politicans? I am sure many of you consider yourself to be trustworthy and decent people. That would automaticaly put you ahead of many (not all) presidents and congressmen who served. But there is not one of you, myself included, that has not acted duplicit and below our standards at one time or another. Yet many of us are good and decent Americans.

    One of Obama's signiture messages during this election season is that he is different from many politicans that have embarrassed our country. That he is not cut from the same cloth as so many who promised to be something they were not. Because he has been duplicit on the Wright issue does that mean he must be a fraud? Or were [B]some[/B] of Obama's detractors just looking for a way to label him for whatever reason?

  2. #2
    All Pro
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    astoria
    Posts
    5,303
    Post Thanks / Like
    :zzz::zzz:[QUOTE=intelligentjetsfan;2518255]The Rev. Wright issue has been a massive headache for Obama. To a degree he has to take a share of the responsibility for how this story has unfolded. The degree in which one believes Obama is responsible is usually proportional to how they feel about him. But even the biggest Obama supporter has to admit he could have dealt with this issue more proactively. To some, Obama's actions seem to indicate that he is simply just the same as all the rest of the politicans.

    But my question to everyone, but specifically to his detractors, is this; is it earth shattering news to realize that Obama was duplicit in his relationship with wright? And, because he was not 100% open, does that mean we can now lump him in with so many other politicans? I am sure many of you consider yourself to be trustworthy and decent people. That would automaticaly put you ahead of many (not all) presidents and congressmen who served. But there is not one of you, myself included, that has not acted duplicit and below our standards at one time or another. Yet many of us are good and decent Americans.

    One of Obama's signiture messages during this election season is that he is different from many politicans that have embarrassed our country. That he is not cut from the same cloth as so many who promised to be something they were not. Because he has been duplicit on the Wright issue does that mean he must be a fraud? Or were [B]some[/B] of Obama's detractors just looking for a way to label him for whatever reason?[/QUOTE]:zzz::zzz::zzz::zzz:

  3. #3
    All Pro
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Posts
    5,550
    Post Thanks / Like
    [QUOTE=2foolish197;2518258]:zzz::zzz::zzz::zzz::zzz::zzz:[/QUOTE]

    thanks for your usual contribution to the forum.

  4. #4
    Veteran
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Posts
    235
    Post Thanks / Like
    [QUOTE=intelligentjetsfan;2518255]The Rev. Wright issue has been a massive headache for Obama. To a degree he has to take a share of the responsibility for how this story has unfolded. The degree in which one believes Obama is responsible is usually proportional to how they feel about him. But even the biggest Obama supporter has to admit he could have dealt with this issue more proactively. To some, Obama's actions seem to indicate that he is simply just the same as all the rest of the politicans.

    But my question to everyone, but specifically to his detractors, is this; is it earth shattering news to realize that Obama was duplicit in his relationship with wright? And, because he was not 100% open, does that mean we can now lump him in with so many other politicans? I am sure many of you consider yourself to be trustworthy and decent people. That would automaticaly put you ahead of many (not all) presidents and congressmen who served. But there is not one of you, myself included, that has not acted duplicit and below our standards at one time or another. Yet many of us are good and decent Americans.

    One of Obama's signiture messages during this election season is that he is different from many politicans that have embarrassed our country. That he is not cut from the same cloth as so many who promised to be something they were not. Because he has been duplicit on the Wright issue does that mean he must be a fraud? Or were [B]some[/B] of Obama's detractors just looking for a way to label him for whatever reason?[/QUOTE]

    I can't speak for everyone but for me (and i'm sure a lot of people) the problem isn't so much that he made a mistake and was duplicit on an issue. Like you said we have all made mistakes in our lives. The problem is, this wasen't a one time thing. This man was his pastor for 20 years. 20 years is a long time. He was sitting in that church every Sunday for 20 years. Now you can say we only heard little clips, which is true.. But if we heard all that in those few clips, and in those interviews he has given this week, just imagine what Obama heard Wright say in those 20 years? And he can say I didn't agree with him all he wants bottom line is he was there for 20 years. Not to mention the man baptized his children and Married him and his wife... He got the name of his book from A Wright Sermon, he was his spiritual leader.. I mean come on!

  5. #5
    All Pro
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    astoria
    Posts
    5,303
    Post Thanks / Like
    [QUOTE=intelligentjetsfan;2518272]thanks for your usual contribution to the forum.[/QUOTE]oh come on..i'm just having a little fun...

  6. #6
    All Pro
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Posts
    5,550
    Post Thanks / Like
    [QUOTE=JerseyJet2007;2518307]I can't speak for everyone but for me (and i'm sure a lot of people) the problem isn't so much that he made a mistake and was duplicit on an issue. Like you said we have all made mistakes in our lives. The problem is, this wasen't a one time thing. This man was his pastor for 20 years. 20 years is a long time. He was sitting in that church every Sunday for 20 years. Now you can say we only heard little clips, which is true.. But if we heard all that in those few clips, and in those interviews he has given this week, just imagine what Obama heard Wright say in those 20 years? And he can say I didn't agree with him all he wants bottom line is he was there for 20 years. Not to mention the man baptized his children and Married him and his wife... He got the name of his book from A Wright Sermon, he was his spiritual leader.. I mean come on![/QUOTE]

    good points. But your post has lead me to another question; was it a mistake for him to stay a part of the church? Or was his mistake how he handled his relationship to the media? I think it is possible to be a part of a church without agreeing with every sermon from every pastor each Sunday. I think his mistake was that his explaination was contrived and duplicit.
    Last edited by intelligentjetsfan; 04-30-2008 at 07:52 PM.

  7. #7
    All Pro
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Posts
    1,234
    Post Thanks / Like
    For me it's not so much the Wright thing.
    It's the way he portrayed himself from the beginning. He would be the candidate to change the way things are done in Washington. He gave people hope that things in Washington would change if they voted for him. But what has he done in the past to distinguish himself as not your ordinary politician? Not much. So I started to believe that he was a manufactured, groomed, phoney candidate of change. It's not that I don't like the guy. It's that I don't buy into the whole idea that he is anything special. When I listen to Clinton speak vs Obama, Clinton seems sharper. I already know Clinton's good points and bad.

  8. #8
    Veteran
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Posts
    235
    Post Thanks / Like
    [QUOTE=intelligentjetsfan;2518315]good points. But your post has lead me to another question; was it a mistake for him to stay a part of the church? Or was his mistake how he handled his relationship to the media? I think it is possible to be a part of a church without agreeing with every sermon from every pastor each Sunday. I think his mistake was that his explaination was contrived and duplicit.[/QUOTE]

    Staying a part of the church while disagreeing with SOME sermons? Yes.


    Being a part of a church in which the Rev was that racist, and that anti American for 20 years? NO.

  9. #9
    All League
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Posts
    4,873
    Post Thanks / Like
    [QUOTE=intelligentjetsfan;2518315]good points. But your post has lead me to another question; was it a mistake for him to stay a part of the church? Or was his mistake how he handled his relationship to the media? I think it is possible to be a part of a church without agreeing with every sermon from every pastor each Sunday. I think his mistake was that his explaination was contrived and duplicit.[/QUOTE]

    I was raised as a Catholic I always thought it was a church but as time went on I began to see a underlying Anti Semitic tone to their teachings and I left the church. My point is Obama was a part of Rev. Wright's congregation for 20 years and didn't hear or understand his message. I find that hard to believe. I read a article from a gentleman who knows Rev Wright and he stated Wright has been preaching this sermon for thirty plus years. He also stated he found it impossible for Obama to misunderstand the message. One of them is lying and frankly Rev. Wright has need to lie!

  10. #10
    All Pro
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Posts
    1,709
    Post Thanks / Like
    [QUOTE=intelligentjetsfan;2518255]The Rev. Wright issue has been a massive headache for Obama. To a degree he has to take a share of the responsibility for how this story has unfolded. The degree in which one believes Obama is responsible is usually proportional to how they feel about him. But even the biggest Obama supporter has to admit he could have dealt with this issue more proactively. To some, Obama's actions seem to indicate that he is simply just the same as all the rest of the politicans.

    But my question to everyone, but specifically to his detractors, is this; is it earth shattering news to realize that Obama was duplicit in his relationship with wright? And, because he was not 100% open, does that mean we can now lump him in with so many other politicans? I am sure many of you consider yourself to be trustworthy and decent people. That would automaticaly put you ahead of many (not all) presidents and congressmen who served. But there is not one of you, myself included, that has not acted duplicit and below our standards at one time or another. Yet many of us are good and decent Americans.

    One of Obama's signiture messages during this election season is that he is different from many politicans that have embarrassed our country. That he is not cut from the same cloth as so many who promised to be something they were not. Because he has been duplicit on the Wright issue does that mean he must be a fraud? Or were [B]some[/B] of Obama's detractors just looking for a way to label him for whatever reason?[/QUOTE]

    Every once in a while I start to think there is a candidate out there who is different ...... but if they take significant money from anyone, they are not diffeent.

    Case in point....... Obama. He is taking George Souros' $$$$$. As such, he is beholden to a far left liberal who many feel is a curse on our cvountry. Love him or hate him, Obama knows where he gets the fiscal resources to make his dreams possible.

    I like Huckabee ......... like him a lot; in fact, he is the only candidate I like out of pretty much all of them. He did not take bucks from anyone and (among other obvious reasons) his strong start fizzled. Like Obama, I thought Hucakbee was a breath of fresh air..... smart, quick, positive, sense of humor.............. but I'll bet next time around, if Huckabee gets the big donors like Obama, he will change in the same ways.

    Did you see where lw Souros, he of the freedom of speech, has told Obama NOT to go on O'Reilly under threat of withdrawing the dollars? Hillary, never one to go on O'Reilly, had the money taken from her by Souros and given to Obama. Hillary was on O'Reilly tonight. Some freedom of speech, huh?

    I guess Hillary got desperate enough to talk to Mr. Bill.

  11. #11
    JetsInsider.com Legend
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    37,710
    Post Thanks / Like
    [QUOTE=intelligentjetsfan;2518255]One of Obama's signiture messages during this election season is that he is different from many politicans that have embarrassed our country. That he is not cut from the same cloth as so many who promised to be something they were not. Because he has been duplicit on the Wright issue does that mean he must be a fraud? Or were [B]some[/B] of Obama's detractors just looking for a way to label him for whatever reason?[/QUOTE]

    Just because someone claims they are different, or stand for "Change and hope", sadly does not make it so.

    Obama talks the talk, but even a cursory glance at his political career show he simply does not walk the walk. He is as much a traditional, run of the mill politician as any other. He lies out of political expediency, and he's more than happy to step over (and on) people in his quest for personal power. Just like any politician.

    It was naive to buy into his proaganda, just like it is for any politician. I mean, you don't really think John McCain is a Maverick, do you?

  12. #12
    Waterboy
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Posts
    0
    Post Thanks / Like
    [QUOTE=Warfish;2518738]Just because someone claims they are different, or stand for "Change and hope", sadly does not make it so.

    Obama talks the talk, but even a cursory glance at his political career show he simply does not walk the walk. He is as much a traditional, run of the mill politician as any other. He lies out of political expediency, and he's more than happy to step over (and on) people in his quest for personal power. Just like any politician.

    It was naive to buy into his proaganda, just like it is for any politician. I mean, you don't really think John McCain is a Maverick, do you?[/QUOTE]

    Obama is worse than the other two politicians in the race because at least they have real, legitemate experience (and when Hillary Clinton has more legit experience than you do, you [B]know[/B] you suck).

    Barack Obama is an empty suit, a schmuck junior senator running on a phony campaign. He is where he is today, right now, this far in the race because he is black. That's all there is to it. A select few bought into his ridiculous campaign slogans because they saw a black guy who is eloquent and has a commanding presence on stage. That's all there is to it. A white junior senator from Illinois would have been out of the race before Edwards left.

    Look, this country will have a black president one day. In fact, I feel that we are indeed ready for a black president now. But not THIS one. This one is a fraud. His race is a novelty, just like Hillary's gender is a novelty, and just because he's black doesn't mean we have to settle on him. It will happen one day. We don't have to rush it on a phony.

  13. #13
    All Pro
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Posts
    5,550
    Post Thanks / Like
    [QUOTE=JCnflies;2518671]Every once in a while I start to think there is a candidate out there who is different ...... but if they take significant money from anyone, they are not diffeent.

    Case in point....... Obama. He is taking George Souros' $$$$$. As such, he is beholden to a far left liberal who many feel is a curse on our cvountry. Love him or hate him, Obama knows where he gets the fiscal resources to make his dreams possible.

    I like Huckabee ......... like him a lot; in fact, he is the only candidate I like out of pretty much all of them. He did not take bucks from anyone and (among other obvious reasons) his strong start fizzled. Like Obama, I thought Hucakbee was a breath of fresh air..... smart, quick, positive, sense of humor.............. but I'll bet next time around, if Huckabee gets the big donors like Obama, he will change in the same ways.

    [B]Did you see where lw Souros, he of the freedom of speech, has told Obama NOT to go on O'Reilly under threat of withdrawing the dollars? Hillary, never one to go on O'Reilly, had the money taken from her by Souros and given to Obama. Hillary was on O'Reilly tonight. Some freedom of speech, huh?[/B]

    I guess Hillary got desperate enough to talk to Mr. Bill.[/QUOTE]


    If this is true then thats appalling. I am curious as to where this information came from as I have not heard of this yet. I am not saying I don't believe you because I do. But if you have a link to this Souros story I would appreciate the read. Thanks.
    Last edited by intelligentjetsfan; 05-01-2008 at 06:01 AM.

  14. #14
    All Pro
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Posts
    5,550
    Post Thanks / Like
    [QUOTE=MnJetFan;2518444]I was raised as a Catholic I always thought it was a church but as time went on I began to see a underlying Anti Semitic tone to their teachings and I left the church. My point is Obama was a part of Rev. Wright's congregation for 20 years and didn't hear or understand his message. I find that hard to believe. I read a article from a gentleman who knows Rev Wright and he stated Wright has been preaching this sermon for thirty plus years. He also stated he found it impossible for Obama to misunderstand the message. One of them is lying and frankly Rev. Wright has need to lie![/QUOTE]

    MN, did you have a problem with the sermons from your particular church or do you believe that anti-semitism is indoctrinated by the establishment? I am Catholic and I know that its history, like any major power throughout time, has more then its share of corruption and greed. But I differentiate the teachings of Jesus from the actions of some of the people that has run the church throughout the years. Its like being a believer in our constitution even though I despise what our country did to the Native Americans, slaves etc, etc.
    Last edited by intelligentjetsfan; 05-01-2008 at 07:58 AM.

  15. #15
    All Pro
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Posts
    5,550
    Post Thanks / Like
    [QUOTE=pauliec;2518777]Obama is worse than the other two politicians in the race because at least they have real, legitemate experience (and when Hillary Clinton has more legit experience than you do, you [B]know[/B] you suck).

    Barack Obama is an empty suit, a schmuck junior senator running on a phony campaign. He is where he is today, right now, this far in the race because he is black. That's all there is to it. A select few bought into his ridiculous campaign slogans because they saw a black guy who is eloquent and has a commanding presence on stage. That's all there is to it. A white junior senator from Illinois would have been out of the race before Edwards left.

    Look, this country will have a black president one day. In fact, I feel that we are indeed ready for a black president now. But not THIS one. This one is a fraud. His race is a novelty, just like Hillary's gender is a novelty, and just because he's black doesn't mean we have to settle on him. It will happen one day. We don't have to rush it on a phony.[/QUOTE]

    Pauliec, speaking for myself, I don't really care that he is black. In my mind it makes a nice side story but that is it. That is not why I have supported him as I try not to look at things in those tones.

    My biggest concern and fear for our great country is the stranglehold that the military-industrial complex has on our policies, politicans and almost everything else. This isn't some conspiracy-not when you have a respected American hero and president like Eisenhower warn us about this in his farewell speech. The pentagon papers opened a window for us to see how some of the powerful people making the decisions that affect us think.

    My main reason for my support for Obama stemmed from his very public statements that this war was going to be a enourmous mistake in every conceivable way. He said this at a time when most Americans and politicans were swept away in the fear mongoring tactics by this administration. From a poltical standpoint, It took guts for Obama to stand up for those beliefs at that time.

    It was these actions during those times that made me take notice. Empty suits do not act like that. The concerns about how he handled the Wright mess are fair and he has taken a credibility hit. But no amount of negative campaigning can take away how he stood up against the war machine. None. He is on record with this and even Hilary could never spin this from him during this campaign.
    Last edited by intelligentjetsfan; 05-01-2008 at 06:21 AM.

  16. #16
    Hall Of Fame
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Van down by the river
    Posts
    22,450
    Post Thanks / Like
    [QUOTE=pauliec;2518777]Look, this country will have a black president one day. [/QUOTE]


    ROTFLMAO!!

    Yeah....................right.................. :rolleyes:

  17. #17
    All League
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Posts
    4,873
    Post Thanks / Like
    [QUOTE=intelligentjetsfan;2518837]MN, did you have a problem with the sermons from your particular church or do you believe that anti-semitism is indoctrinated by the establishment? I am Catholic and I know that its history, like any major power throughout time, has more then its share of corruption and greed. But I differentiate the teachings of Jesus from the actions of some of the people that has run the church throughout the years. Its like being a believer in our constitution even though I despise what our country did to the Native Americans, slaves etc, etc.[/QUOTE]

    They never came out and said it but there were subtle hints. The Jews killed Christ the Romans were a afterthought. I didn't bother me till years later then one day I asked a nun what religion was Jesus and she said Catholic and I responded Jewish. I responded that way because he went to Temple not a church!

  18. #18
    Waterboy
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Posts
    0
    Post Thanks / Like
    [QUOTE=intelligentjetsfan;2518839]Pauliec, speaking for myself, I don't really care that he is black. In my mind it makes a nice side story but that is it. That is not why I have supported him as I try not to look at things in those tones.

    My biggest concern and fear for our great country is the stranglehold that the military-industrial complex has on our policies, politicans and almost everything else. This isn't some conspiracy-not when you have a respected American hero and president like Eisenhower warn us about this in his farewell speech. The pentagon papers opened a window for us to see how some of the powerful people making the decisions that affect us think.

    My main reason for my support for Obama stemmed from his very public statements that this war was going to be a enourmous mistake in every conceivable way. He said this at a time when most Americans and politicans were swept away in the fear mongoring tactics by this administration. From a poltical standpoint, It took guts for Obama to stand up for those beliefs at that time.

    It was these actions during those times that made me take notice. Empty suits do not act like that. The concerns about how he handled the Wright mess are fair and he has taken a credibility hit. But no amount of negative campaigning can take away how he stood up against the war machine. None. He is on record with this and even Hilary could never spin this from him during this campaign.[/QUOTE]


    It didn't take guts to speak out against the war because he had nothing riding on it. He didn't have a vote in the Senate, he wasn't a career politician (yet) who had to worry about appeasing constituents or staying loyal to Senate friends. He had as much "guts" to speak out against the war as any other citizen, because he damn near was just another citizen.

    I don't buy his act at all. You can't get this far in a presidential campaign without kissing ass, without sacrificing integrity, and without being a politician. The way he denounced his pastor, friend, and mentor for 20 years is a perfect example.

    You really think he's going to stop "the war machine"? That in the first 16 months of his presidency we will see massive troop removal in Iraq? Don't be so naive. As far as I'm concerned, there was only one candidate who truly stood up in the face of the old school Washington machine, along the exact same lines you're talking about -- Ron Paul. And that's the reason why he's not in the race anymore.

    [B]Hope [/B]for [B]Change[/B]. Give me a break.
    Last edited by JetsFan2012; 05-01-2008 at 09:52 AM.

  19. #19
    All Pro
    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Posts
    6,162
    Post Thanks / Like
    [QUOTE=MnJetFan;2518871]They never came out and said it but there were subtle hints. The Jews killed Christ the Romans were a afterthought. I didn't bother me till years later then one day I asked a nun what religion was Jesus and she said Catholic and I responded Jewish. I responded that way because he went to Temple not a church![/QUOTE]
    And this...this is your rationale to believe the Church is anti-Semetic? [B]FAIL.[/B]

  20. #20
    All Pro
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Posts
    5,550
    Post Thanks / Like
    [QUOTE=pauliec;2518944]It didn't take guts to speak out against the war because he had nothing riding on it. He didn't have a vote in the Senate, he wasn't a career politician (yet) who had to worry about appeasing constituents or staying loyal to Senate friends. He had as much "guts" to speak out against the war as any other citizen, because he damn near was just another citizen.

    I don't buy his act at all. You can't get this far in a presidential campaign without kissing ass, without sacrificing integrity, and without being a politician. The way he denounced his pastor, friend, and mentor for 20 years is a perfect example.

    You really think he's going to stop "the war machine"? That in the first 16 months of his presidency we will see massive troop removal in Iraq? Don't be so naive. As far as I'm concerned, there was only one candidate who truly stood up in the face of the old school Washington machine, along the exact same lines you're talking about -- Ron Paul. And that's the reason why he's not in the race anymore.

    [B]Hope [/B]for [B]Change[/B]. Give me a break.[/QUOTE]

    Its real easy now to make the argument that its no big deal when he went public that this war would be an enormous mistake. Its easy unless you look at in the context of when he made his proclamation.

    At that time, the overwhelming sentiment was that we must trust Colin Powel and the rest of the Bush Administration about the weapons of mass destruction and the ridiculous 9-11 links with Bin Laden. Bush/Cheney fostered an atmosphere of "if your not with us on this war, then you are against us". All kinds of fear mongering was taking place around the country as over 75% of American citizens felt Saddam Hussein was a grave threat. Almost ALL of the politicans either out of political expediency or because they believed the propaganda, fell in line with the Bush Adminstration. Under those conditions it was gutsy to take the public stand against the war. The fact that he was just starting his political career makes his stance even more unique. A seasoned politican like Edward Kennedy could afford to take that stand with little to lose. But, considering the fear mongoring atmosphere set by the Cheney/Bush regime, it was very ballsy.

    I understand why someone who does not like Obama can chastise him for the Wright mess, I really do. Obama is not Gandhi nor is he the second coming. And I do agree that Ron Paul AND Mike Gravel represented true change. But no amount of revisionists history is going to minimize his actions leadng up to the war when many Americans (citizens and politicans) were quick to fall in line with this horrid admistration.
    Last edited by intelligentjetsfan; 05-01-2008 at 11:47 AM.

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  

Follow Us