Not Helpful

C

Cancel7

Banned
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/24882600/

Be sure to watch the whole video, I did. I was very angry. I don't blame Obama. Many will.

And here is the kicker - if someone who Hillary had ever even MET, had said these things, about Obama, and about his black supporters, then you better fucking belive that Queen Evil Bitch would get the blame for it.

There is NO grace towards her. NO benefit of any doubt.

And this, came at a very bad time, is going to enrage women and things aren't going to go easily. Just make sure you don't forget, had this been someone in any minor way connected with Hillary, someone she had maybe met in a shopping mall in Arkansas 36 years ago...doing this skit about black Obama supporters...it'd be Hillary's fault. Make sure you watch the whole skit. Every woman in America is going to see this.

I guess it's a good thing that Obama doesnt need their votes.
 
And honestly, this isn't good enough. This is so mealy-mouthed and stupid. You better work up a little passion there Obama, unless we are supposed to take the hint that you also feel you don't need our votes, and we can take our marbles and go whine someplace else.


This doesn't cut it mister.

“As I have traveled this country, I’ve been impressed not by what divides us, but by all that unites us,” he said. “That is why I am deeply disappointed in Father Pfleger’s divisive, backward-looking rhetoric, which doesn’t reflect the country I see or the desire of people across America to come together in common cause.”
 
Just what Obama needs, more trouble from clergy.

But the guy has a point. I do believe that Hillary thought she was a shoe-in for the presidency. I do believe that she thought it was hers for the taking.

But the "there is a black man stealing my show" was uncalled for.
 
Solitary said:
Just what Obama needs, more trouble from clergy.

But the guy has a point. I do believe that Hillary thought she was a shoe-in for the presidency. I do believe that she thought it was hers for the taking.

But the "there is a black man stealing my show" was uncalled for.
Click to expand...

Are you a white man? I am just wondering because I think that's what white men will focus on.

I never think of myself as white, or as a white woman. When Simone de Beauvoir wrote The Second Sex, she said that "One day I wanted to explain myself to myself ... And it struck me with a sort of surprise that the first thing I had to say was 'I am a woman.'’

I don't get all up in arms about they said this about white people or they said that about white people. Funny how we all self-identify in different ways. But for me, the first way I have to describe myself is; I am a woman.

And I see this as some man, mocking a crying woman, and that is a visceral video for any woman to watch. And it's problematic. Of course there were women in the audience I am sure, and maybe they jumped to their feet next to all of the men I saw jumping to their feet on the video, to wildly applaud. But, Joe Lieberman is going to go embrace Hagee, allowing Hagee to now honestly say "Hey, I'm not anti-semetic, my best friend is Jewish" as smiling Joe comes out to do a tap dance for hagee and his band of jew-haters. We call that a self-hating Jew.

Maybe we need a word for any woman who would jump to her feet and applaud what I saw on that video.
 
Is this the new one... the one that has headlines on every news site this morning, "Obama's new pastor problem?"

Is this man responsible for everything anyone in that church says, ever? I honestly feel like the world is a bit upside down when I read this stuff. No right wing politician has ever had to account for the outrageousness of their clergy like this. Sure, comments from people like Robertson have made the news, but never in the light of "this is a big problem for Bush or whoever."

It's really bizarre, but I guess it's just something he's going to have to keep dealing with. Does he need to renounce this guy? Reject him? Burn him in effigy? What's the remedy.....
 
Onceler said:
Is this the new one... the one that has headlines on every news site this morning, "Obama's new pastor problem?"

Is this man responsible for everything anyone in that church says, ever? I honestly feel like the world is a bit upside down when I read this stuff. No right wing politician has ever had to account for the outrageousness of their clergy like this. Sure, comments from people like Robertson have made the news, but never in the light of "this is a big problem for Bush or whoever."

It's really bizarre, but I guess it's just something he's going to have to keep dealing with. Does he need to renounce this guy? Reject him? Burn him in effigy? What's the remedy.....
Click to expand...

Well watch the video. It's on MSNBC every five minutes this morning. Then you tell me.

Of course, if this was Hillary's pastor...it'd be ok too. We know how quick everyone has been to give Hillary the benefit of the doubt.
 
Darla said:
Well watch the video. It's on MSNBC every five minutes this morning. Then you tell me.

Of course, if this was Hillary's pastor...it'd be ok too. We know how quick everyone has been to give Hillary the benefit of the doubt.
Click to expand...

So, you agree that Obama should be held to account for everything that is said in this church, and every word said there should be held up to scrutiny by the media & judged in the context of the Obama campaign?
 
Well, I guess I'm just blinded by my messiah worship, because I don't believe for a second that Obama shares this guy's views, or agrees with anything this guy said, or that his campaign & Presidency would have anything to do with this guy, or that he is accountable for anything this guy says.

Now, if he "sat in the pews for 20 years", while this guy was mocking women, maybe a different story. The "20 pew years" is a real clincher.

But what do I know; I'm just lost in the Obama woods, unable to think on my own. The campaign should definitely be about this guy, and about Wright, and about anything else that is said in that church. CNN, Fox & MSNBC should just have permanent coverage there, and the major dailies should transcribe everything that's said there so we don't miss a word.
 
Onceler said:
Well, I guess I'm just blinded by my messiah worship, because I don't believe for a second that Obama shares this guy's views, or agrees with anything this guy said, or that his campaign & Presidency would have anything to do with this guy, or that he is accountable for anything this guy says.

Now, if he "sat in the pews for 20 years", while this guy was mocking women, maybe a different story. The "20 pew years" is a real clincher.

But what do I know; I'm just lost in the Obama woods, unable to think on my own. The campaign should definitely be about this guy, and about Wright, and about anything else that is said in that church. CNN, Fox & MSNBC should just have permanent coverage there, and the major dailies should transcribe everything that's said there so we don't miss a word.
Click to expand...

I'm sorry you feel that way about yourself.

If you want to know how I feel, it's that this is getting a little too much, considering that many women are already pretty angry about a lot of things that have happened in this campaign. None of them done by Obama, but all happening around Obama. And after a while, even fairest person, might want to hear Obama! You know, maybe he could say something to them.

And I know that no one wants to touch my main point, because no one really can:

Of course, if this had been Hillary's pastor, mocking black people, it'd be OK too. Everyone has been rushing to give Hillary the benefit of the doubt, witnessed by how fast it became Hillary's fault that the Rev Wright was talking. Because Hillary knew the woman who had invited him to speak and a lot of Obama supporters "smelled something". We can only guess it was hIllary, we all know how she stinks to high heaven. Hillary is behind everything, Obama, responsible for nothing.

Man, it's so tired.
 
I know you're frustrated Onceler. Because today the only story should be Scott McClellan. But that's not my fault, and I have zero control over what the media covers. What happens on this board really doesn't effect the election, except for the one vote we know Obama lost here; care's. But for the most part, this board doesn't matter.

I don't control the media. I'd rather they were talking about McClellan.

And I don't want to see this shit happening in November. But I think it may. And you can hate me when that happens, but that won't be my fault either.
 
"Everyone has been rushing to give Hillary the benefit of the doubt, witnessed by how fast it became Hillary's fault that the Rev Wright was talking. Because Hillary knew the woman who had invited him to speak and a lot of Obama supporters "smelled something". We can only guess it was hIllary, we all know how she stinks to high heaven. Hillary is behind everything, Obama, responsible for nothing."

Oh, you're talking about Superfreak & Chapdog. Why didn't you say so?

I don't remember anyone saying that on the national level. Maybe they did, but I don't remember it. Fox pushed the Wright story more than anyone, and they're no shill for Hillary.

Maybe it is too much. Obama does have a lot of people "associated" with his campaign who seem prone to outrageousness. Maybe William Ayers will make another statement next week about how proud he is of bombing stuff, so we can make headlines about that.

Screw it; I honestly don't care what happens now. If I had a wish, it would be that Hillary finds a way to get the nomination, wins the general & has an 8 year run as President. She's more "battle toughened," as she likes to say, and knows how to handle this crap. I don't think Obama does, and I think he's in for a lot more of it.
 
Onceler said:
"Everyone has been rushing to give Hillary the benefit of the doubt, witnessed by how fast it became Hillary's fault that the Rev Wright was talking. Because Hillary knew the woman who had invited him to speak and a lot of Obama supporters "smelled something". We can only guess it was hIllary, we all know how she stinks to high heaven. Hillary is behind everything, Obama, responsible for nothing."

Oh, you're talking about Superfreak & Chapdog. Why didn't you say so?

I don't remember anyone saying that on the national level. Maybe they did, but I don't remember it. Fox pushed the Wright story more than anyone, and they're no shill for Hillary.

Maybe it is too much. Obama does have a lot of people "associated" with his campaign who seem prone to outrageousness. Maybe William Ayers will make another statement next week about how proud he is of bombing stuff, so we can make headlines about that.

Screw it; I honestly don't care what happens now. If I had a wish, it would be that Hillary finds a way to get the nomination, wins the general & has an 8 year run as President. She's more "battle toughened," as she likes to say, and knows how to handle this crap. I don't think Obama does, and I think he's in for a lot more of it.
Click to expand...

Well, she's right. He was never fully vetted, and we don't know that he's electable.

She wont' get the nomination, but the Republicans may very take the white house. YOu can't get elected in America, no matter how fair you think it is, or even that I think it is, with this kind of shit coming and coming and coming. This isn't Paris. This is America. What kind of people are in this stupid fucking church that he has been a member of for 20 years, that they don't know when to shut the fuck up huh? Is this the short bus church? What is this? You don't get elected by running a fucking freak show, and that's what's going on here, a freak show.

I can never talk about it again. Won't matter. This is some of the stupidest shit I have ever seen, and I saw the Kerry campaign. This guy wanted to be President for now long now? He should have ran, not walked, away from this church and this collection of freaks, years ago. Now we are all tied to them.
 
And I don't hate or blame you, Darla, though I was surprised by the tone of this particular post, particularly the comment that Obama's response "didn't cut it," which is usually what the right says about the other "pastor problem" he has.

I'm just pissed in general, and venting wherever possible.
 
Onceler said:
And I don't hate or blame you, Darla, though I was surprised by the tone of this particular post, particularly the comment that Obama's response "didn't cut it," which is usually what the right says about the other "pastor problem" he has.

I'm just pissed in general, and venting wherever possible.
Click to expand...

I had seen that idiot five times on MSNBC, I should have shut it off. I'm mad too, and I'm sorry. I know it's not his fault.
 
Darla said:
I had seen that idiot five times on MSNBC, I should have shut it off. I'm mad too, and I'm sorry. I know it's not his fault.
Click to expand...

It's visceral; I get that. Attacks on something that is personal to us, which include our gender or ethnicity, are visceral & hit us hard and fast. That's why this stuff get so much play.

It's a weird comparison, but when toppy calls me a wussy she-male Dem & starts going off on how feminine I am, it truly ticks me off; it's a much more visceral response for me than, say, McClellan's revelations, which are more of a slow burn for me & I'd guess most other people. We're a bit spent on Bush's charade, anyway, and we kind of know everything Scott said.

This morning, just as you pointed out, I saw the headlines and was instantly like "why the f**k does this piss people off about Obama, but they seem almost unconcerned about a revelation from an insider that we were basically lied into a war by Bush?" But I'm starting to get it. It's slow burn vs. visceral, and visceral wins every time in the media, even if the candidate has nothing to do with it.

That's just the way it is.
 
Onceler said:
It's visceral; I get that. Attacks on something that is personal to us, which include our gender or ethnicity, are visceral & hit us hard and fast. That's why this stuff get so much play.

It's a weird comparison, but when toppy calls me a wussy she-male Dem & starts going off on how feminine I am, it truly ticks me off; it's a much more visceral response for me than, say, McClellan's revelations, which are more of a slow burn for me & I'd guess most other people. We're a bit spent on Bush's charade, anyway, and we kind of know everything Scott said.

This morning, just as you pointed out, I saw the headlines and was instantly like "why the f**k does this piss people off about Obama, but they seem almost unconcerned about a revelation from an insider that we were basically lied into a war by Bush?" But I'm starting to get it. It's slow burn vs. visceral, and visceral wins every time in the media, even if the candidate has nothing to do with it.

That's just the way it is.
Click to expand...


Ohh I had no idea that bothered you. You totally do not come off that way at all, that is all in Toppy's head, believe me.


But I understand what you are saying, and I know, it's so tough. I am also frustrated that this had to come just when we're on the McClellan story, which is far more important. I know that it is.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top