The dialogue on race has begun

[Tigermike 3,054]

.......and it goes downhill from there.

Dems will have to count slow but,...how many Sundays are there between now and November ?

Over at Slate, Christopher Hitchens, had this to say about the two most memorable aspects of Obama's 'historic' speech:

,,,,,never mind that; the astonishing thing is that it's at least 11 months since he himself has known precisely the same thing. "If Barack gets past the primary," said the Rev. Jeremiah Wright to the New York Times in April of last year, "he might have to publicly distance himself from me. I said it to Barack personally, and he said yeah, that might have to happen." Pause just for a moment, if only to admire the sheer calculating self-confidence of this. Sen. Obama has long known perfectly well, in other words, that he'd one day have to put some daylight between himself and a bigmouth Farrakhan fan. But he felt he needed his South Side Chicago "base" in the meantime. So he coldly decided to double-cross that bridge when he came to it. And now we are all supposed to marvel at the silky success of the maneuver.

You often hear it said, of some political or other opportunist, that he would sell his own grandmother if it would suit his interests. But you seldom, if ever, see this notorious transaction actually being performed, which is why I am slightly surprised that Obama got away with it so easily. (Yet why do I say I am surprised? He still gets away with absolutely everything.)

[...]

But is it "inflammatory" to say that AIDS and drugs are wrecking the black community because the white power structure wishes it? No. Nor is it "controversial." It is wicked and stupid and false to say such a thing. And it not unimportantly negates everything that Obama says he stands for by way of advocating dignity and responsibility over the sick cults of paranoia and victimhood.

That same supposed message of his is also contradicted in a different way by trying to put Geraldine Ferraro on all fours with a thug like Obama's family "pastor." Ferraro may have sounded sour when she asserted that there can be political advantages to being black in the United States—and she said the selfsame thing about Jesse Jackson in 1984—but it's perfectly arguable that what she said is, in fact, true, and even if it isn't true, it's absurd to try and classify it as a racist remark.

http://www.slate.com/id/2187277/pagenum/all

A year ago the Rev Wright knew his views would cause Obama problems. Obama was warned early and made a calculated decision to go ahead and stir the pot. runninred, I'm sure will say it was all for the good of the country.

[arnaldoabru 11]

.......and it goes downhill from there.

Dems will have to count slow but,...how many Sundays are there between now and November ?

Over at Slate, Christopher Hitchens, had this to say about the two most memorable aspects of Obama's 'historic' speech:

,,,,,never mind that; the astonishing thing is that it's at least 11 months since he himself has known precisely the same thing. "If Barack gets past the primary," said the Rev. Jeremiah Wright to the New York Times in April of last year, "he might have to publicly distance himself from me. I said it to Barack personally, and he said yeah, that might have to happen." Pause just for a moment, if only to admire the sheer calculating self-confidence of this. Sen. Obama has long known perfectly well, in other words, that he'd one day have to put some daylight between himself and a bigmouth Farrakhan fan. But he felt he needed his South Side Chicago "base" in the meantime. So he coldly decided to double-cross that bridge when he came to it. And now we are all supposed to marvel at the silky success of the maneuver.

You often hear it said, of some political or other opportunist, that he would sell his own grandmother if it would suit his interests. But you seldom, if ever, see this notorious transaction actually being performed, which is why I am slightly surprised that Obama got away with it so easily. (Yet why do I say I am surprised? He still gets away with absolutely everything.)

[...]

But is it "inflammatory" to say that AIDS and drugs are wrecking the black community because the white power structure wishes it? No. Nor is it "controversial." It is wicked and stupid and false to say such a thing. And it not unimportantly negates everything that Obama says he stands for by way of advocating dignity and responsibility over the sick cults of paranoia and victimhood.

That same supposed message of his is also contradicted in a different way by trying to put Geraldine Ferraro on all fours with a thug like Obama's family "pastor." Ferraro may have sounded sour when she asserted that there can be political advantages to being black in the United States—and she said the selfsame thing about Jesse Jackson in 1984—but it's perfectly arguable that what she said is, in fact, true, and even if it isn't true, it's absurd to try and classify it as a racist remark.

http://www.slate.com/id/2187277/pagenum/all

A year ago the Rev Wright knew his views would cause Obama problems. Obama was warned early and made a calculated decision to go ahead and stir the pot. runninred, I'm sure will say it was all for the good of the country.

I have judged you wrong.You do offer fair and unbalanced sides to each issue.You have actually taken the time to read and support the opinion of one of the world's biggest atheist,Chris Hitchens.If you are interested in reading more stuff by Chris Hitchens I have a copy of his book,"GOD IS NOT GREAT."

An athiest friend of mine bought me a copy.It is rather wordy and boring.I only got about 2/3's thru it before I gave up.I will be happy to lend it to you so you can read more.As a matter of fact,you can keep it.

[Tigermike 3,054]

This doesn't mean we will be taking long warm showers together.

Just because I read something he wrote and agreed with some of his points does not mean I agree with his views on religion.

[LegalEagle 22]

I do believe it will be helpful to now address race. We need more black coaches and white players.

Oh, the election - Obama doesn't have a chance against McCain.

[arnaldoabru 11]

This doesn't mean we will be taking long warm showers together.

Just because I read something he wrote and agreed with some of his points does not mean I agree with his views on religion.

You should have destroyed your computer and walked out of the room,just like Obama should have done to his church.

[Tigermike 3,054]

This doesn't mean we will be taking long warm showers together.

Just because I read something he wrote and agreed with some of his points does not mean I agree with his views on religion.

You should have destroyed your computer and walked out of the room,just like Obama should have done to his church.

Presumptuous little guy aren't you. Here is a link you need to follow and pay close attention to.

[arnaldoabru 11]

This doesn't mean we will be taking long warm showers together.

Just because I read something he wrote and agreed with some of his points does not mean I agree with his views on religion.

You mean like Obama and Rev Wright.

[Tigermike 3,054]

This doesn't mean we will be taking long warm showers together.

Just because I read something he wrote and agreed with some of his points does not mean I agree with his views on religion.

You mean like Obama and Rev Wright.

As usual you are drifting.

[autiger4life 3]

As usual you are drifting.

No, this is exactly the point. You continue the same point and whenever someone turns it around on you for doing the same thing you try to say they are drifting. You continue to go after a guy who agrees with someones religious but not political views and then you say:

Just because I read something he wrote and agreed with some of his points does not mean I agree with his views on religion.

So you can agree with social issues and not religious and be safe, but if you agree with religious and not social then you are a liar, a fake, and a fraud. How does that work?

[Tigermike 3,054]

As usual you are drifting.

No, this is exactly the point. You continue the same point and whenever someone turns it around on you for doing the same thing you try to say they are drifting. You continue to go after a guy who agrees with someones religious but not political views and then you say: (I said he was drifting because when replying to an article about Barack Obama and Wright, he took the huge leap to assume because I quoted Christopher Hitchens that I must necessarily agree with or even care about Hitchens religious beliefs. I don't care about Hitchens religious beliefs, they are his and as far as I could see they had nothing to do with the political piece he wrote. As usual he was drifting as he does in almost every post he make makes. If you think I am the only one to have noticed that fact, then you have major problems.)

Just because I read something he wrote and agreed with some of his points does not mean I agree with his views on religion.

So you can agree with social issues and not religious and be safe, but if you agree with religious and not social then you are a liar, a fake, and a fraud. How does that work?

So in your world you must agree with everything a writer believes or you cannot agree with them on one point.

[autiger4life 3]

So in your world you must agree with everything a writer believes or you cannot agree with them on one point.

No not at all, remember, I am not the one saying that because Wright was Obama's spiritual advisor then he must also have been a social advisor. I believe you can listen, respect, and agree with part of what a person says and not another part just as you seem to have done in this case. Yet I will then see you try to tie Obama to Wright's social beliefs when Obama has plainly denounced them and said he was his spiritual advisor, not his political advisor. So why is it that we should believe you that you don't agree with this guys spiritual beliefs since you like his political beliefs when you told us we shouldn't believe Obama when he said he only agreed with his spiritual beliefs?

(I said he was drifting because when replying to an article about Barack Obama and Wright, he took the huge leap to assume because I quoted Christopher Hitchens that I must necessarily agree with or even care about Hitchens religious beliefs. I don't care about Hitchens religious beliefs, they are his and as far as I could see they had nothing to do with the political piece he wrote. As usual he was drifting as he does in almost every post he make makes. If you think I am the only one to have noticed that fact, then you have major problems.)

You said he was drifting after he said "just like Obama and Wright" not when he said "Oh so you are an atheist too?" If you had responded to that then it would have been different but you specifically quoted his line referring to Obama and Wright, which points to that as what you are responding too.

[Tigermike 3,054]

When I said he was drifting it was in reference to his saying:

This doesn't mean we will be taking long warm showers together.

Just because I read something he wrote and agreed with some of his points does not mean I agree with his views on religion.

You should have destroyed your computer and walked out of the room,just like Obama should have done to his church.

In fact I paid little attention to "ust like Obama should have done to his church." Because he had already drifted into tearing up computers. Over the past month or so he has shown a distinct proclivity for drifting off target and going off on rants on things not even remotely close to the subject. He had already jumped to a huge conclusion just as you have.

So in your world you must agree with everything a writer believes or you cannot agree with them on one point.

No not at all, remember, I am not the one saying that because Wright was Obama's spiritual advisor then he must also have been a social advisor. I believe you can listen, respect, and agree with part of what a person says and not another part just as you seem to have done in this case. Yet I will then see you try to tie Obama to Wright's social beliefs when Obama has plainly denounced them and said he was his spiritual advisor, not his political advisor. So why is it that we should believe you that you don't agree with this guys spiritual beliefs since you like his political beliefs when you told us we shouldn't believe Obama when he said he only agreed with his spiritual beliefs?

(I said he was drifting because when replying to an article about Barack Obama and Wright, he took the huge leap to assume because I quoted Christopher Hitchens that I must necessarily agree with or even care about Hitchens religious beliefs. I don't care about Hitchens religious beliefs, they are his and as far as I could see they had nothing to do with the political piece he wrote. As usual he was drifting as he does in almost every post he make makes. If you think I am the only one to have noticed that fact, then you have major problems.)

You said he was drifting after he said "just like Obama and Wright" not when he said "Oh so you are an atheist too?" If you had responded to that then it would have been different but you specifically quoted his line referring to Obama and Wright, which points to that as what you are responding too.

What I get out of this is that you are as big of an apologist for Obama as you are for Arab terrorists.