Falwell's Hate of America

[Damocles]

Obama said he made comments when he was there that could be considered controversial. I think it's safe to assume he didn't give the "9/11" sermon too much over the years, or the one about Clinton that pertained directly to this campaign & which Obama was not at; these seem to be the comments that have aroused the most anger.

So, I don't know what you mean when you say "Obama said he spoke about this"...which "this" are you referring to?

About comments that are divisive and will cause separation as well as directly anti-American. Associating, like Churchill, the US with Al Qaeda is definitely not 'Pro' American.

He spoke about this in his speech, and it happened often enough that he knew that somebody would find out that he was there when such statements were uttered, even after his "I didn't know" crap earlier.

First the guy says he didn't know about it, and then in the "greatest speech ever loved by Obama worshipers" he totally turned around on that. Then he attempted to excuse it by saying, "Well, you made him really mad and my grandma said bad things too."

 

[Onceler]

About comments that are divisive and will cause separation as well as directly anti-American. Associating, like Churchill, the US with Al Qaeda is definitely not 'Pro' American.

He spoke about this in his speech, and it happened often enough that he knew that somebody would find out that he was there when such statements were uttered, even after his "I didn't know" crap earlier.

First the guy says he didn't know about it, and then in the "greatest speech ever loved by Obama worshipers" he totally turned around on that. Then he attempted to excuse it by saying, "Well, you made him really mad and my grandma said bad things too."

That's such a bogus characterization.

To me, what Obama said on Friday & yesterday were 2 different things. He was responding directly to the youtube clip where Wright said "Goddamn America" and the 9/11 talk specifically, and said he had never heard that. Yesterday, he admitted that he had heard him say things that were "controversial." I'm sorry, but that's 2 different things.

You, and many, are defining Wright's speech over 20 years by 3 minutes worth of clips on youtube, clearly chosen for their outrageousness. You have no idea what was said in that church 99% of the rest of the time. I have no doubt it was fiery, by his style, and I have little doubt that a lot of it dealt with race, often in terms that many are not comfortable with. But it's false outrage BS to try to pull a "gotcha" on this. The 9/11 speech he gave was on the Sunday after the attack, and Obama wasn't there.

 

[Damocles]

That's such a bogus characterization.

To me, what Obama said on Friday & yesterday were 2 different things. He was responding directly to the youtube clip where Wright said "Goddamn America" and the 9/11 talk specifically, and said he had never heard that. Yesterday, he admitted that he had heard him say things that were "controversial." I'm sorry, but that's 2 different things.

You, and many, are defining Wright's speech over 20 years by 3 minutes worth of clips on youtube, clearly chosen for their outrageousness. You have no idea what was said in that church 99% of the rest of the time. I have no doubt it was fiery, by his style, and I have little doubt that a lot of it dealt with race, often in terms that many are not comfortable with. But it's false outrage BS to try to pull a "gotcha" on this. The 9/11 speech he gave was on the Sunday after the attack, and Obama wasn't there.

Again, this is disingenuous. Those clips are the man's "greatest hits" sold by the church as some of his "best". He said that he hadn't heard that kind of thing before, but danced around it in his speech.

I think you ignore much of what is real in order to convince yourself of perfection where there isn't any. And "change" that is really just more of the same.

 

[Onceler]

If there is one thing Obama is not, it is "more of the same."

 

[Damocles]

If there is one thing Obama is not, it is "more of the same."

From my perspective it appears that he is exactly that. It would be historical if he is the nominee and he wins, but his policy is more of the same and his attempts at slithering out of controversy is definitely more of the same.

 

[Cypress]

From my perspective it appears that he is exactly that. It would be historical if he is the nominee and he wins, but his policy is more of the same and his attempts at slithering out of controversy is definitely more of the same.

his attempts at slithering out of controversy is definitely more of the same.

Dude, you're sounding more and more like Sean Hannity every day.

You could get a gig at fox news!

 

[Cancel7]

From my perspective it appears that he is exactly that. It would be historical if he is the nominee and he wins, but his policy is more of the same and his attempts at slithering out of controversy is definitely more of the same.

"His policy" ( i am struck by the singular) is the same as bush's you mean? You are speaking of one policy?

 

[uscitizen]

There is only one policy for Republicans.

 

[Damocles]

"His policy" ( i am struck by the singular) is the same as bush's you mean? You are speaking of one policy?

No, I am speaking of the norm for D.C. depending on which party they are from. His policy is nothing new, and the way he'll say one thing one day and then later drop into speech mode and do something else. His "change" was supposed to be something different than what I usually see in DC, he's falling short of that. By a long shot.

 

[Onceler]

No, I am speaking of the norm for D.C. depending on which party they are from. His policy is nothing new, and the way he'll say one thing one day and then later drop into speech mode and do something else. His "change" was supposed to be something different than what I usually see in DC, he's falling short of that. By a long shot.

Then you haven't been paying any attention.

The change that he has spoken of has nothing to do with policy, particularly policy based on the traditional Dem platform.

It has everything to do with the tone in Washington, and the way things are done. That is all he talks about.

Not "policy".

 

[Damocles]

Then you haven't been paying any attention.

The change that he has spoken of has nothing to do with policy, particularly policy based on the traditional Dem platform.

It has everything to do with the tone in Washington, and the way things are done. That is all he talks about.

Not "policy".

Right, the "way things are done". He is no change. He will say one thing, then change it to match what he thinks will get him there the next day. He will take deals on real estate from the people that will get him elected... and so forth. The reality is, he is no different than any other politician in DC. He has fallen short of his promise of change, even before I had a chance to vote against him.