Comments on: State of the Presidential Race, Part 2 http://conservativedialysis.com/~mnick/wp/index.php/2008/03/20/state-of-the-presidential-race-part-2/ Removing Liberal Waste From The American Bloodstream Tue, 17 Apr 2012 21:30:01 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v= By: Ann http://conservativedialysis.com/~mnick/wp/index.php/2008/03/20/state-of-the-presidential-race-part-2/comment-page-1/#comment-1356 Ann Thu, 27 Mar 2008 16:16:04 +0000 http://conservativedialysis.com/~mnick/wp/index.php/2008/03/20/state-of-the-presidential-race-part-2/#comment-1356 <i>If someone had tortured me for six years I’d be more than a little angry about it. But your empathy doesn't extend to those that lived for generations under the thumbscrews of Jim Crow? </i><i>and what prevented him from condemning them at the time they were made.</i> How do you know that he didn't? If someone had tortured me for six years I’d be more than a little angry about it.

But your empathy doesn’t extend to those that lived for generations under the thumbscrews of Jim Crow?

and what prevented him from condemning them at the time they were made.

How do you know that he didn’t?

]]> By: Nick http://conservativedialysis.com/~mnick/wp/index.php/2008/03/20/state-of-the-presidential-race-part-2/comment-page-1/#comment-1355 Nick Thu, 27 Mar 2008 16:01:39 +0000 http://conservativedialysis.com/~mnick/wp/index.php/2008/03/20/state-of-the-presidential-race-part-2/#comment-1355 I don't think I'm being unfair at all. After all, these sermons that are popping up on all of the video sites and television were not secretly recorded without permission; they were sold by the Church itself to anyone who wanted to buy them. Why sell them to the public if it isn't representative of the church as a whole? If these views are not representative of the church, why not edit the tapes or use tapes from other sermons, rather than use the sermons with all of this junk in it? Answer: The church wants these messages in the public square, or at the very least doesn't mind if the church is associated with these sentiments. Either way leaves a lot of questions. As for Obama, as a Christian I can understand how he can "hate the sin but love the sinner." However, the fact remains that for twenty years he sat in that church while the pastor expressed these types of views and said nothing. Now, because the pastor's views have become well-known, all of a sudden he condemns these views. As a voter, I don't think I'm out of line for asking him to explain why he is condemning these views only now, and what prevented him from condemning them at the time they were made. As for the McCain swipe, I can understand why he used (and continues to use) that epithet. If someone had tortured me for six years I'd be more than a little angry about it. I don’t think I’m being unfair at all. After all, these sermons that are popping up on all of the video sites and television were not secretly recorded without permission; they were sold by the Church itself to anyone who wanted to buy them. Why sell them to the public if it isn’t representative of the church as a whole? If these views are not representative of the church, why not edit the tapes or use tapes from other sermons, rather than use the sermons with all of this junk in it? Answer: The church wants these messages in the public square, or at the very least doesn’t mind if the church is associated with these sentiments. Either way leaves a lot of questions.

As for Obama, as a Christian I can understand how he can “hate the sin but love the sinner.” However, the fact remains that for twenty years he sat in that church while the pastor expressed these types of views and said nothing. Now, because the pastor’s views have become well-known, all of a sudden he condemns these views. As a voter, I don’t think I’m out of line for asking him to explain why he is condemning these views only now, and what prevented him from condemning them at the time they were made.

As for the McCain swipe, I can understand why he used (and continues to use) that epithet. If someone had tortured me for six years I’d be more than a little angry about it.

]]> By: Mike Thomas http://conservativedialysis.com/~mnick/wp/index.php/2008/03/20/state-of-the-presidential-race-part-2/comment-page-1/#comment-1352 Mike Thomas Thu, 27 Mar 2008 13:40:15 +0000 http://conservativedialysis.com/~mnick/wp/index.php/2008/03/20/state-of-the-presidential-race-part-2/#comment-1352 Yes, it seems we DO have something we can agree on here, at least in the last paragraph. But I think you are being very unfair to Obama and to Rev. Wright by judging his entire 30 year career as a pastor based on parts of two different sermons. And even in those two objectionable sermons, it seems to me he is expressing more of a paranoia that the government is out to get black people rather than an outright hatred or racism towards white people in general. You act as if Rev. Wright spewed racial invectives in every sermon he ever gave. He did not. I think he harbors some animosities and prejudices from his days growing up in a segregated country, but I don't think it is fair to single him out for such harsh vilification based on some paranoid views that were expressed in a handful of sermons over 30 years. Obama has condemned those views, but he has refused to condemn the man and I think that is admirable. Meanwhile, there is only one presidential candidate in the race who has actually used racial epithets in public and that would be John McCain. As recently as 2000, he referred to Vietnamese people as "gooks". He later apologized. Yes, it seems we DO have something we can agree on here, at least in the last paragraph.
But I think you are being very unfair to Obama and to Rev. Wright by judging his entire 30 year career as a pastor based on parts of two different sermons. And even in those two objectionable sermons, it seems to me he is expressing more of a paranoia that the government is out to get black people rather than an outright hatred or racism towards white people in general.
You act as if Rev. Wright spewed racial invectives in every sermon he ever gave. He did not. I think he harbors some animosities and prejudices from his days growing up in a segregated country, but I don’t think it is fair to single him out for such harsh vilification based on some paranoid views that were expressed in a handful of sermons over 30 years. Obama has condemned those views, but he has refused to condemn the man and I think that is admirable.
Meanwhile, there is only one presidential candidate in the race who has actually used racial epithets in public and that would be John McCain. As recently as 2000, he referred to Vietnamese people as “gooks”. He later apologized.

]]> By: Ann http://conservativedialysis.com/~mnick/wp/index.php/2008/03/20/state-of-the-presidential-race-part-2/comment-page-1/#comment-1347 Ann Wed, 26 Mar 2008 14:11:21 +0000 http://conservativedialysis.com/~mnick/wp/index.php/2008/03/20/state-of-the-presidential-race-part-2/#comment-1347 <i>However, the longer it takes for Hillary to quit the contest, the harder it will be on Obama to win the general election.</i> Cool. We agree on something! However, the longer it takes for Hillary to quit the contest, the harder it will be on Obama to win the general election.

Cool. We agree on something!

]]> By: Nick http://conservativedialysis.com/~mnick/wp/index.php/2008/03/20/state-of-the-presidential-race-part-2/comment-page-1/#comment-1346 Nick Tue, 25 Mar 2008 21:57:21 +0000 http://conservativedialysis.com/~mnick/wp/index.php/2008/03/20/state-of-the-presidential-race-part-2/#comment-1346 Mike, it's been more than a week and people are still talking about this pastor and how Obama could sit in the pews for 20 years and not object to the pastor's racist sentiments until now. Now, he may very well have a good explanation but he has yet to give it. Also, it wasn't good form for him to try to brush it aside by saying that he was never in the pews when he said any of this stuff. He was a member for twenty years and it would have been almost impossible for him to miss every singe sermon in which the pastor made these racist statements. Even if he did, by some miracle, manage to avoid each service that the pastor used to spew this vitriol, unless Obama was purposely trying to remain ignorant of what was going on he had to have known about the pastor's statements. Now, don't get me wrong. It isn't that I think he believes all of that crap about white people inventing AIDS and stuff; Obama seems to be an intelligent man who would know that its all bunk. However, as a politician and candidate for president, I need to know why he didn't condemn these sentiments publicly a long time ago. Now, first there was the controversy over what his wife said about not having ever been proud of this country until Obama started winning the primaries. As I've said before, what she meant to say is now irrelevant. She expressed herself so poorly that what she actually said means something else, and rather than admit that she tried to fight it with, "I was taken out of context" and all of that jazz. Then the pastor deal breaks, and Obama's first reaction is to say he was never present when the pastor said these things, and then that the pastor was taken out of context, and now that he "strongly" denounces what the pastor said, but the pastor is still my friend. Objectively speaking, even you would have to agree that his campaign is stalling a bit over these situations. Now, luckily for Obama, he's facing Hillary, who right now is pretty much doing everything she can to remind the public about how much they hated all of the Clintons' lying and other shenanigans. Is Obama finished? No, and I never even suggested that. What I did suggest was that he is going through a rough patch, and what was once deemed "inevitable" is now in question. With Hillary as his opponent, he should end up with a victory in the primaries, however bloody it turns out to be. However, the longer it takes for Hillary to quit the contest, the harder it will be on Obama to win the general election. Mike, it’s been more than a week and people are still talking about this pastor and how Obama could sit in the pews for 20 years and not object to the pastor’s racist sentiments until now. Now, he may very well have a good explanation but he has yet to give it. Also, it wasn’t good form for him to try to brush it aside by saying that he was never in the pews when he said any of this stuff. He was a member for twenty years and it would have been almost impossible for him to miss every singe sermon in which the pastor made these racist statements. Even if he did, by some miracle, manage to avoid each service that the pastor used to spew this vitriol, unless Obama was purposely trying to remain ignorant of what was going on he had to have known about the pastor’s statements.

Now, don’t get me wrong. It isn’t that I think he believes all of that crap about white people inventing AIDS and stuff; Obama seems to be an intelligent man who would know that its all bunk. However, as a politician and candidate for president, I need to know why he didn’t condemn these sentiments publicly a long time ago.

Now, first there was the controversy over what his wife said about not having ever been proud of this country until Obama started winning the primaries. As I’ve said before, what she meant to say is now irrelevant. She expressed herself so poorly that what she actually said means something else, and rather than admit that she tried to fight it with, “I was taken out of context” and all of that jazz. Then the pastor deal breaks, and Obama’s first reaction is to say he was never present when the pastor said these things, and then that the pastor was taken out of context, and now that he “strongly” denounces what the pastor said, but the pastor is still my friend. Objectively speaking, even you would have to agree that his campaign is stalling a bit over these situations. Now, luckily for Obama, he’s facing Hillary, who right now is pretty much doing everything she can to remind the public about how much they hated all of the Clintons’ lying and other shenanigans.

Is Obama finished? No, and I never even suggested that. What I did suggest was that he is going through a rough patch, and what was once deemed “inevitable” is now in question. With Hillary as his opponent, he should end up with a victory in the primaries, however bloody it turns out to be. However, the longer it takes for Hillary to quit the contest, the harder it will be on Obama to win the general election.

]]> By: Mike Thomas http://conservativedialysis.com/~mnick/wp/index.php/2008/03/20/state-of-the-presidential-race-part-2/comment-page-1/#comment-1345 Mike Thomas Tue, 25 Mar 2008 14:20:51 +0000 http://conservativedialysis.com/~mnick/wp/index.php/2008/03/20/state-of-the-presidential-race-part-2/#comment-1345 Obama's campaign starting to implode?!? Which election have you been following? You know, Nick, Obama raised five times as much money in February as John McCain did. If his campaign is imploding, what does that say about McCain? I think Obama might have dropped a couple of points in the polls during the 24-hour-a-day onslaught of media-driven controversy over this issue, but he addressed the situation extremely well in his speech. To call it an implosion is a lot of wishful thinking on your part. Obama’s campaign starting to implode?!? Which election have you been following?
You know, Nick, Obama raised five times as much money in February as John McCain did. If his campaign is imploding, what does that say about McCain?
I think Obama might have dropped a couple of points in the polls during the 24-hour-a-day onslaught of media-driven controversy over this issue, but he addressed the situation extremely well in his speech. To call it an implosion is a lot of wishful thinking on your part.

]]>