Is Rev. Wright ever going to shut up?

[K. Roman]

I'm glad Wayne, our host supports freedom of hate speech that Snowman offers so often. Thanks!

[Mule]

If it's good enough for Rev. Wrong, it's good enough for Snowman!

[911pcars]

Originally Posted by URY914

This is from this moring at the Nat. Press Club Breakfest

http://elections.foxnews.com/2008/04/28/rev-wright-takes-his-message-directly-to-the-media/

"The Rev. Jeremiah Wright taunted a gathering of journalists Monday in Washington, D.C., calling their coverage of his speeches an attack on the black church, while defending his claim that the U.S. was responsible for the terrorist attacks of 9/11.

Wright, the controversial former pastor of Barack Obama’s church, took dead aim at the U.S. government Monday — saying American soldiers in Iraq have died “over a lie” and calling the war “unjust” — as he called for reconciliation and understanding between blacks and whites."

He also spoke at the NAACP fund raiser over the weekend. The guy is now a media star and will not go away. He is a sideshow to the race and B.O. is the guy that set him up. I think this only comes off as negative. He can explain all day long and he is only digging a deeper hole for himself and B.O.

Paul,
Suggest you should remove the quotation mark beginning your version of what Wright said or did not say. I couldn't find it in the transcript, but maybe I missed it. Help me out here. Otherwise, maybe no one said it or said it like that.

Instead, maybe you should just repeat the words he did say if you want to enlighten us rather than slant his words or to put your own spin on the interview,

As for his comments on 9/11, I was curious about his response and looked. In the interview you "quoted", he didn't use the term "responsible". That's your word. He used the term "culpable" and the reason why. Your report, err your interpretation, err your choice of words doesn't have the same nuance, even without the context in which he said it. So why not just use the same word(s)? I find that a little disengenuous on your part. To be generous, perhaps you don't see any difference.

Next time, I'd rather you provide us the facts to base your dislike for the candidate rather than attributing your words and descriptions to a news organization in order to support your personal opinions or for whatever reason. And for the record, I use the word "news" broadly with the organization they call themselves, FoxNews.

Otherwise, people think the guy really said it and they become greatly disturbed in an OT forum like this."

Sherwood

[berettafan]

Originally Posted by island911

No, you are wong ...

now we're going to bash asians? geez this is a rough place

[widgeon13]

Rev. Wright thinks he is the Black Pope!

[Mule]

Originally Posted by 911pcars

Paul,
Suggest you should remove the quotation mark beginning your version of what Wright said or did not say. I couldn't find it in the transcript, but maybe I missed it. Help me out here. Otherwise, maybe no one said it or said it like that.

Instead, maybe you should just repeat the words he did say if you want to enlighten us rather than slant his words or to put your own spin on the interview,

As for his comments on 9/11, I was curious about his response and looked. In the interview you "quoted", he didn't use the term "responsible". That's your word. He used the term "culpable" and the reason why. Your report, err your interpretation, err your choice of words doesn't have the same nuance, even without the context in which he said it. So why not just use the same word(s)? I find that a little disengenuous on your part. To be generous, perhaps you don't see any difference.

Next time, I'd rather you provide us the facts to base your dislike for the candidate rather than attributing your words and descriptions to a news organization in order to support your personal opinions or for whatever reason. And for the record, I use the word "news" broadly with the organization they call themselves, FoxNews.

Otherwise, people think the guy really said it and they become greatly disturbed in an OT forum like this."

Sherwood

So Sherwood, are you taking the position of defending the good rev and his racist, anti-American remarks? Edited - personal attack removed. -Z-man.

[kach22i]

Originally Posted by island911

I just finally got a chance to watch Obama on this. ...no doubt about it; orchestrated. --Wright pushes the issues back to the surface such that Obama has a plausible reason to move . .. to more forcefully denounce Wright. Those two are still very much in bed together. tho' I see that Obama seems a bit uncomfortable with the charade.

I watched a little of his denouncement last night, about freaking time, guess it had to be gradual as this escalated. Wright pissed off Mrs Obama too from what he said.

Island, I didn't take you as a conspiracy theorist before that last comment. Do you really believe what you wrote, or are you just testing the waters?

[URY914]

Originally Posted by 911pcars

Paul,
Suggest you should remove the quotation mark beginning your version of what Wright said or did not say. I couldn't find it in the transcript, but maybe I missed it. Help me out here. Otherwise, maybe no one said it or said it like that.

Instead, maybe you should just repeat the words he did say if you want to enlighten us rather than slant his words or to put your own spin on the interview,

As for his comments on 9/11, I was curious about his response and looked. In the interview you "quoted", he didn't use the term "responsible". That's your word. He used the term "culpable" and the reason why. Your report, err your interpretation, err your choice of words doesn't have the same nuance, even without the context in which he said it. So why not just use the same word(s)? I find that a little disengenuous on your part. To be generous, perhaps you don't see any difference.

Next time, I'd rather you provide us the facts to base your dislike for the candidate rather than attributing your words and descriptions to a news organization in order to support your personal opinions or for whatever reason. And for the record, I use the word "news" broadly with the organization they call themselves, FoxNews.

Otherwise, people think the guy really said it and they become greatly disturbed in an OT forum like this."

Sherwood

Sherwood,

I used quotation marks because I was quoting the ARTICLE that I provided a link to. I used the q-marks to indicate that the statements are not mine. The last paragraph is mine and no q-marks are used. You seem pretty hung up on my form. BTW "enlighten" me on why youd use a set of q-marks at the end of your post?

This entire forum is about "personel opinions". You better get used to it.

Paul

[kstar]

Originally Posted by URY914

Sherwood,

I used quotation marks because I was quoting the ARTICLE that I provided a link to. I used the q-marks to indicate that the statements are not mine. The last paragraph is mine and no q-marks are used. You seem pretty hung up on my form. BTW "enlighten" me on why youd use a set of q-marks at the end of your post?

This entire forum is about "personel opinions". You better get used to it.

Paul

Paul:

I had no problem understanding what you posted, FWIW.

Best,

[Mule]

Originally Posted by kach22i

I watched a little of his denouncement last night, about freaking time, guess it had to be gradual as this escalated. Wright pissed off Mrs Obama too from what he said.

Did he say something positive about America?

Island, I didn't take you as a conspiracy theorist before that last comment. Do you really believe what you wrote, or are you just testing the waters?

..

[Tobra]

Originally Posted by kach22i

I watched a little of his denouncement last night, about freaking time, guess it had to be gradual as this escalated. Wright pissed off Mrs Obama too from what he said.

Island, I didn't take you as a conspiracy theorist before that last comment. Do you really believe what you wrote, or are you just testing the waters?

So George, your position is that Mr Wright and Mr Obama have not discussed this since it became an issue? That seems a bit implausible. Mr Wright has not added anything new to his song and dance that I have noticed.

It was okay for 20 years, even after running for the Senate, but when it gets to a national stage it is a problem.

Obama must think people are pretty freakin' stupid, that is my take on this recent stuff.

[kach22i]

Originally Posted by Tobra

It was okay for 20 years, even after running for the Senate, but when it gets to a national stage it is a problem.

You just made another observation for me, thanks.

It's Mr. Obama running for President not Mr. Wright.

[Mule]

Originally Posted by kach22i

You just made another observation for me, thanks.

It's Mr. Obama running for President not Mr. Wright.

True, but he'd have done way better with Oda Mae Brown as his "spiritual adviser & mentor" than the right reverend Jeremiah Wrong.

[hardflex]

I stopped in to see my dad, 82, and my uncle who's 85. I love them both dearly, they are both intellectual with a broad range of experiences in their lifetimes to pull from. One is a former minister as well. am awed as they discuss Religion, Philosophy, Politics, etc, and the depth of their reading is revealed.

But I would be embarrassed were their views on the different Races be submitted for analysis. I suspect it is the same way for Obama. And it doesn't mean you disassociate from them, you just don't buy into that part of the discussion.

[KFC911]

Hardflex, they are men from a different era...times change. I've observed a lot of those "generational differences in perspectives" over the last few decades regarding race.

[berettafan]

it is difficult not to dismiss people like that Hardflex. You have an inside view of your dad and uncle which some folks would not bother to obtain.

a good point.

[911pcars]

Originally Posted by Mule

So Sherwood, are you taking the position of defending the good rev and his racist, anti-American remarks? Edited - personal attack removed. -Z-man.

Excuse me? You're going to do what because of my foolishness?

If you read what I wrote, I took issue with the manner in which URY914 seemed to play fast and loose with his quoting the words of Wright through the reporting of FoxNews. It appeared ury914 used his own words instead. If we're going to criticize Wright's position or what anyone is purported to say, we should know what was actually stated and the context in which it was said instead of cherry-picking phrases or substituting words then adding quotation marks to it. Does that sound reasonable or is paraphrasing good enough? Does that sound like I'm defending Wright or criticizing the manner in which someone is telling us what was really said?

You wrote the words about clubbing, and if anyone wanted to quote you, no one would have to refer to this post. The source is good enough. One could assume you wrote that to emphasize your disagreement with my post; either that or it was a blatant threat which is worrisome if not totally irresponsible on your part.

Your response before the moderators spot this clear infraction of forum rules?

Sherwood

[Mule]

Originally Posted by hardflex

I stopped in to see my dad, 82, and my uncle who's 85. I love them both dearly, they are both intellectual with a broad range of experiences in their lifetimes to pull from. One is a former minister as well. am awed as they discuss Religion, Philosophy, Politics, etc, and the depth of their reading is revealed.

But I would be embarrassed were their views on the different Races be submitted for analysis. I suspect it is the same way for Obama. And it doesn't mean you disassociate from them, you just don't buy into that part of the discussion.

Great point! Would you appoint them to your campaign & announce to all what influence they have had on you while defending them & then throw 'em under the bus? Can you say "poor judgment?" That would never be an issue for a president though!

[hardflex]

Strange you should say that, he worked for Nixon's campaign in 1972. He was articulate and a huge fund raiser for him.

[Mule]

Originally Posted by 911pcars

Excuse me? You're going to do what because of my foolishness?

If you read what I wrote, I took issue with the manner in which URY914 seemed to play fast and loose with his quoting the words of Wright through the reporting of FoxNews. It appeared ury914 used his own words instead. If we're going to criticize Wright's position or what anyone is purported to say, we should know what was actually stated and the context in which it was said instead of cherry-picking phrases or substituting words then adding quotation marks to it. Does that sound reasonable or is paraphrasing good enough? Does that sound like I'm defending Wright or criticizing the manner in which someone is telling us what was really said?

You wrote the words about clubbing, and if anyone wanted to quote you, no one would have to refer to this post. The source is good enough. One could assume you wrote that to emphasize your disagreement with my post; either that or it was a blatant threat which is worrisome if not totally irresponsible on your part.

Your response before the moderators spot this clear infraction of forum rules?

Sherwood

There was no fast and loose to it! You may have interpreted it as that but as he pointed out, that was just your interpretation. And yes it did sound like you may be catching the rev's slack. My post was to point out how foolish any attempt to defend this racist, socialist, America hating buffoon would be. He is utterly indefensible.