The Pub Discussion Board

Jefferson · 2008-03-22 19:44:26

Let's talk about Barak Obama and the reverend Jeremiah Wright.

As I write this, Senator Obama is, no doubt, somewhere in the country, giving a speech and saying that he knew little or nothing about the good Reverend Wright's beliefs and we, the people, are supposed to accept his statement without thought or consideration.

Well, I thought about it. I considered it. And I don't believe it!

Barak Obama has attended this church for 20 years but claims he heard only ONE of the Reverend's radical sermons, I don't know which one, maybe the one where, on the pulpit, the reverend said "God Damn America." Maybe the one where he said 9/11 was America's fault or maybe one where Reverend Wright practically sainted the Reverend Louis Farrakahn. (Reverend Wright traveled to north Africa with Farrakahn and Wright's church, Obama's church, gave Farrakahn a lifetime achievement award.) Farrakahn is the head of the "Nation of Islam," an anti-semitic organization.

Barak Obama says he doesn't believe the stuff that Rev. Wright is saying.

Let's think about this some more.

Barak Obama, according to Hillary Clinton, wrote a paper when he was in third grade stating that someday, he wanted to be President of the United States. The following is directly from the entry on Barrack Obama at Wikipedia, "Obama worked as a community organizer, university lecturer, and civil rights lawyer before running for public office and serving in the Illinois Senate from 1997 to 2004." In 2004, he ran for and won a seat in the US Senate as Illinois' junior Senator. He is now running for President of the United States.

It's pretty safe to say that this man has known he would be running for public office for quite some time. He went to law school to BECOME a politician. I have doubts he ever really wanted to be a trial lawyer.

Now with this in mind, you would think Senator Obama would make sure to keep as many skeletons from his closet as possible. The man is an ivy league trained lawyer, his wife is a lawyer, he is a professional politician, these are NOT stupid people. Why would a man with plans to become a professional politician, to practically live in a fishbowl, constantly watched and scrutinized, continue to go to this church after having heard even ONE of the Rev. Wright's anti-American sermons? And do you really believe that, considering Rev. Wright is PROUD of his association with Farrakahn, can you really buy that he didn't put this in a church newsletter? Do you think the Reverend never mentioned his friendship with Farrakahn to his congregation?

So why stay in the church? If he believes the Rev. Wright, why distance himself from Wright and his beliefs now?

There are only three reasonable explanations:

1) Senator Barak Obama is an idiot and never realized that information about his "Mentor's" beliefs would come out. We've already concluded that Obama is NOT an idiot. He's an ivy league trained lawyer. His wife is a lawyer. These people are not idiots.

2) Senator Barak Obama is delusional and deluded himself and his wife into believing that the American people would never learn, or maybe wouldn't care, about the Reverend Wright and his beliefs. If this is the case, Obama shouldn't be serving in ANY elected office, local, state or federal and should seek immediate professional assistance.

or

3) Senator Obama BELIEVES in the Reverend Wright, and what the Reverend is saying, and is distancing himself from Wright NOW, probably with Rev. Wright's consent, in order to simply get elected. My guess is that Obama believed he could shut down any talk of the Rev. Wright by playing the race card. He hasn't done so yet, my guess is he's saving that particular card for if/when he gets into the general election and Senator John McCain throws up the Rev. Wright. It's much easier to cry racism against a hard-nosed republican than a fellow bleeding heart liberal.

Whichever of these three you wish to believe should be enough of a reason to never trust this man and to make sure he never serves as President of the United States.

Obama has gone to the church for 20 years. He couldn't help but know of the Rev. Wright's radical beliefs. And even now, while he is distancing himself from Wright, he continues to go to the same church when he's home. I have never heard Obama, or anyone else, say that the Obama's have QUIT this church. This is a scary thing.

Last edited by Jefferson (2008-03-22 19:50:47)

Neitherspace · 2008-03-22 20:20:45

see what confuses me about this whole thing is HE SWORE IN TO THE SENATE ON THE KORAN i know this cause one idiot sr senitor made a stink about it

Jefferson · 2008-03-22 22:20:27

It wasn't Obama that was sworn into the senate on the Koran. It was a Black Muslim democrat from Minnesota named Keith Ellison

http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/BeSeenBe … id=2743483

Obama claims himself to be a Christian and has attended a Christian church for 20 years. Obama's biological father, who died when Barak was two, was a muslim which, I imagine, is how Barak ended up with the middle name Hussein.

Last edited by Jefferson (2008-03-22 22:21:07)

WarLord · 2008-03-23 00:38:51

Neitherspace wrote:
see what confuses me about this whole thing is HE SWORE IN TO THE SENATE ON THE KORAN i know this cause one idiot sr senitor made a stink about it

Greetings

Congressman Keith Ellison from Minneapolis was sworn in with a Koran. He is a practicing Muslim and it was not a secret during a hard fought campaign. A second Muslim was just elected to Congress, not sure details

Enjoy the journey

WarLord

Eric Storm · 2008-03-23 03:18:19

I dispute the assertion that being an ivy-league-educated attorney bars you from being an idiot. Since many ivy-league lawyers end up in Congress, I would assert that there is a surplus of idiots with these credentials.

As to whether Obama agrees with Wright or not, only he knows... But the truth is that Wright's views about America causing 9/11 are not exactly a great distance from typical left-wing liberalism, so why SHOULD Obama distance himself? The idea that America is decadent, arrogant, overbearing, and in a lot of cases downright evil is a belief held by many on the far left of the Democratic Party. (Strangely enough, lots on the far-right of the Republican Party think the same things, but for different reasons. 3dsmile ) Wright is perhaps too boisterously vocal for many Dems, but I'm not too sure just exactly how much the hardliners disagree with him... and right now, it's the hardliners that Obama and Clinton are both playing to, because the hardliners are the ones who can win them the nomination.

As to the two of them, I don't want anyone who says, "We're going to pull out of a war we're winning on my timetable, no matter what happens on the ground," running the country I live in, and Clinton has already made this assertion. Obama was at least willing to concede that what the generals recommended be done might be worth listening to.

Have you ever noticed that Hillary, in her speeches, wants to win the war in Afghanistan, but she wants to END the war in Iraq? She doesn't believe in victory there. She has no intention of letting us win there, even though all signs point to improvements both militarily and politically in that country. I really don't think I want someone SO blinded by their ideology that they won't admit the truth even when it beats them over the head with a baseball bat...

Eric

Neitherspace · 2008-03-23 06:36:59

ahh my mistake nvm then

advancewar · 2008-03-26 14:16:53

im just curius here eric but do you think the war in iraq CAN be won? Many poeple dont think it can. honestly they way things are CURRENTLY going i dont thing we can either. we COULD win it but that would require a change of strategy. just my opinion but still curius on yours

Eric Storm · 2008-03-26 23:02:09

My opinion is you've been listening to the Democrats too much.

Fact: The surge has produced visible results both militarily and politically.
Fact: It looks like the Iraqis will have regional elections before October. - A major benchmark
Fact: Violence and insurgency is on the decline in Iraq.
FACT: Pulling out of Iraq will DESTROY any and all credibility we have with any Arab nation for all time.

Yes, the war CAN be won. The definition of a "won" war in Iraq is a sovereign democratic government ruling in Baghdad with enough strength to handle whatever insurrection or terrorism might arise on its own. This is completely possible, if the politicians who want to leave ASAP would just shut up and let the military do its job.

Despite what the Democrats continue to contend, the current strategy IS ACTUALLY WORKING. By "working", I mean that the objectives being set are actually being MET. Yes, they are happening slowly. Shall we give a little comparison? The United States declared independence in 1776. The US Constitution was not even written until 1787!!!! Yes, I realize that there was another governmental style in-between... but that style didn't work, so it hardly counts. Yet we're asking Iraq to go from dictatorship to democracy in what, five years? We took eleven, and didn't have terrorists running around trying to kill our political leaders.

It's time that people stop saying things like, "We've been there five years; it's obviously not working..." The fact is that everyone involved knew, going in, that we were going to be there a LONG TIME. Did they advertise that fact? No, they did not. Why? Because Americans are a bunch of impatient motherfuckers who don't understand how long such changes actually take. Perhaps some of the more naive in Congress thought, "Well, we'll only be there a year, maybe two, and then we can get back to politics as normal..." but anyone who knows anything about history knew that such a major governmental shift was going to take a lot longer than that.

What, exactly, would you like to change the military strategy TO? We are fighting the insurgents, and letting the official Iraqi government... GOVERN. Yes, they're going to screw up and make mistakes. Can you say "American Civil War" or perhaps "Slavery", or maybe "Indian Reservation"? It's not like we got it perfect the first time out, either... The US, despite what some may say, is not occupying Iraq. We are (currently) there at the request of the Iraqi government. If they didn't want us there, they would kick us out.

I have heard people say, "We need to focus more on the War On Terror"... well, um... the terrorists are in Iraq now, so... isn't that where the War On Terror should be fought? You know, where the terrorists are? Or are we supposed to wait until the terrorists are in Boston, instead of Baghdad?

Did I agree with going to war in the first place? Not really. I'm something of an isolationist, and I think that we should pay more attention to our own problems and let the rest of the world fend for itself. But that's no longer relevant, because we ARE there... and there's only one thing I hate more than fighting a war we didn't need to: LOSING a war because the politicians have a point to make. The soldiers think the war is winnable. They ought to know: they're the ones doing the fighting and dying to make it happen. And despite the hew and cry over casualties in Iraq, we've lost... what is it, about 4000 now, over the course of five years? We used to lose 4000 men in a SINGLE BATTLE in World War II, yet we still fought on. Why? Because it was worth doing the job right. Whether you agreed with how we got into the war or not, I have trouble with anyone who thinks that defeat is a better option than just getting the job done. I'm not saying the casualties aren't important: I'm saying that if we pull out now, we dishonor their memory and their sacrifice, freely given for their country.

So yes, the war IS winnable, and will be won - unless someone who is more interested in proving the war was a bad idea than in winning it ends up in charge.

Eric Storm

The Pub Discussion Board

#1 2008-03-22 19:44:26

The Reverend Wright Scandal

#2 2008-03-22 20:20:45

Re: The Reverend Wright Scandal

#3 2008-03-22 22:20:27

Re: The Reverend Wright Scandal

#4 2008-03-23 00:38:51

Re: The Reverend Wright Scandal

Neitherspace wrote:

#5 2008-03-23 03:18:19

Re: The Reverend Wright Scandal

#6 2008-03-23 06:36:59

Re: The Reverend Wright Scandal

#7 2008-03-26 14:16:53

Re: The Reverend Wright Scandal

#8 2008-03-26 23:02:09

Re: The Reverend Wright Scandal

Board footer