or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › Other Discussion › AppleOutsider › PoliticalOutsider › Wright in Context - What The Media Didn't Show
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Wright in Context - What The Media Didn't Show - Page 4

post #121 of 191
Quote:
Originally Posted by SDW2001 View Post

It's a national poll...and it's utterly meaningless. I'm telling you...do the electoral math of McCain/Obama. Then tell me how Obama wins. He simply cannot. Hillary can...IF she can survive having "stolen" the nomination from Obama.

This story doesn't particularly agree with you

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/24334026/

To continually bray that Obama is dead in the water-electoral college wise-is really sticking your head in the sand.
Fortunately for you, I don't think the republican party is silly enough to think that way.
A good brain ain't diddly if you don't have the facts
Reply
A good brain ain't diddly if you don't have the facts
Reply
post #122 of 191
Quote:
Originally Posted by SDW2001 View Post

It's a national poll...and it's utterly meaningless. I'm telling you...do the electoral math of McCain/Obama. Then tell me how Obama wins. He simply cannot. Hillary can...IF she can survive having "stolen" the nomination from Obama.

Based on what, SDW's Magic 8 Ball?

[CENTER][/CENTER]

Based on what, SDW's Ouija Board?

[CENTER][/CENTER]

Based on what, SDW's Crystal Ball?

[CENTER][/CENTER]

Based on what, SDW's Dowsing Rods?

[CENTER][/CENTER]

Based on what, SDW's Tarot Card?

[CENTER][/CENTER]

Quote:
Agreed...but two points:

1) Obama did have a long standing relationship with him.
2) Obama handled the news of that relationship badly. The first time he refused to distance himself properly....and then he threw him under the bus. Seriously...see the quote from the Philly speech, and then look at what happened two days ago. It was REALLY poorly handled.

1) Obama != Wright, This 247 guilt by association fallacy doesn't work, unless of course you are myopic, and can't look past a photograph.

[CENTER][/CENTER]

Even then, they aren't Siamese twins, joined at the heads, or the hips, or anywhere else for that matter.

2) If it was, and I'm not saying it was at all, it was primarily due due to the MSM, engaged in their usual 247 news cycle jerk. It's been like a nonstop feeding frenzy, It makes me think the MSM has a collective obsessive-compulsive disorder, either that or the MSM is just a bunch of anal retentive types.
Every eye fixed itself upon him; with parted lips and bated breath the audience hung upon his words, taking no note of time, rapt in the ghastly fascinations of the tale. NOT!
Reply
Every eye fixed itself upon him; with parted lips and bated breath the audience hung upon his words, taking no note of time, rapt in the ghastly fascinations of the tale. NOT!
Reply
post #123 of 191
What's amusing about how fascinated the media are with Obama's association with Wright is that voters believe that McCain's association with Bush is a bigger problem.

post #124 of 191
Quote:
Originally Posted by BRussell View Post

Ohio is one of the keys to a national election, and I think just about everyone agrees that Ohio will go to the D nominee this year. If that happens, the R has to run the table on the other close states.

BRussell, didn't you get the memo? Because he didn't win the primary in several big states, that means Obama can't possibly win them in the general election. As far as I can tell, that's the screwy logic that's being attempted here.
A good brain ain't diddly if you don't have the facts
Reply
A good brain ain't diddly if you don't have the facts
Reply
post #125 of 191
Quote:
Originally Posted by Flounder View Post

BRussell, didn't you get the memo? Because he didn't win the primary in several big states, that means Obama can't possibly win them in the general election. As far as I can tell, that's the screwy logic that's being attempted here.

In what is an arguable weak Republican field? Remember Bush was The Chosen One one over McCain in 2000.

While on the Democratic side, they have not one, but two very strong candidates vying for the nomination.

The screwy logic, as I see it, is that HRC will be unelectable if she gains the nomination, simply because a large fraction of African American voters will be disenfranchised and won't vote.

In fact HRC posturing or pandering to the working class white voters, is just that pandering. Se Hillary run, run Hillary run, ride in a pickup truck Hillary ride, gas up a pickup truck Hillary gas up, can't gas up a pickup truck Hillary hilarity, get interviewed on Faux Noise by Shill Orally hilarity, run to the center Hillary run to the center.

I wonder if Obama knows how to fill up a gas tank? Something tells me that he does.
Every eye fixed itself upon him; with parted lips and bated breath the audience hung upon his words, taking no note of time, rapt in the ghastly fascinations of the tale. NOT!
Reply
Every eye fixed itself upon him; with parted lips and bated breath the audience hung upon his words, taking no note of time, rapt in the ghastly fascinations of the tale. NOT!
Reply
post #126 of 191
Quote:
Originally Posted by Flounder View Post

This story doesn't particularly agree with you

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/24334026/

To continually bray that Obama is dead in the water-electoral college wise-is really sticking your head in the sand.
Fortunately for you, I don't think the republican party is silly enough to think that way.

That story is pure fiction. Here, I'll lay it out again...just because I'm bored.

Obama vs. McCain.

Here is the map of Election 2004:



Bush 286 Kerry 251

Now, let's examine it. What are the states that will change? Which will stay the same?
In 2004, Kerry won several key swing states. They were MI, PA and WI. Bush won FL and OH. Kerry won liberal strongholds such as the Northeast, CA, OR and WA. Bush won everywhere else, including the entire South, West, Midwest with the exception of Illinois and MN.

So here we go: Obama will probably take the West Coast again, though CA is not in the bag with Arnold and more moderate CA Republicans. Let's assume he takes it though. The Midwest and most of the South will look the same, though let's give him NC for kicks. His real problem, though is this:

He will lose OH.
He will lose PA
He will lose FL
He may lose NY
He may lose NJ
He may lose MI
He may lose WI

Here's the 2008 Map

Let's assume he wins all of the "may lose" states, wins NC and all the Kerry states. That gives us this:

Obama: 246
McCain: 292

Keep in mind, that's if he wins where he is expected to.
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
post #127 of 191
Quote:
Originally Posted by franksargent View Post

Based on what, SDW's Magic 8 Ball?



Based on my previous post.
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
post #128 of 191
Quote:
Originally Posted by SDW2001 View Post

He will lose OH.
He will lose PA
He will lose FL

I have to ask. What in the world is your basis for this certainty?
A good brain ain't diddly if you don't have the facts
Reply
A good brain ain't diddly if you don't have the facts
Reply
post #129 of 191
Quote:
Originally Posted by SDW2001 View Post

He may lose NY
He may lose NJ

Not bloody likely, mate!
post #130 of 191
The trouble with your electoral map, SDW, is that it's binary. By using the "all or nothing" two color model, it appears as if Republicans have this overwhelming advantage in "safe" states.

However, and as you probably know, a finer grained map that shades into purple, depending on proportionate voting patterns, gives a clearer picture: the country was pretty evenly divided, and Bush won via the "51%" model that Rove was so fond of: drive your base to the polls with whatever red meat seems expedient, suppress the other side by whatever means necessary.

Obama doesn't have to pick up that many votes to carry a lot of those "red" states, and the climate for Republicans in general, and McCain in particular, is much, much grimmer than in '04. The midterms were a sign of that, and things have only gotten worse.

Iraq and the economy. You think those are net positives for McCain? You think they will have improved, come November?

Do you think how Americans voted in the last election is a reliable guide to how they'll vote in the next? You've been suckered by the bombast of the Rovian Republican Party, who all along has acted as if they had this overwhelming mandate from a deeply conservative country, with "liberals" eking out the occasional win from their coastal redoubts.

Prepare to be dismayed.
They spoke of the sayings and doings of their commander, the grand duke, and told stories of his kindness and irascibility.
Reply
They spoke of the sayings and doings of their commander, the grand duke, and told stories of his kindness and irascibility.
Reply
post #131 of 191
Indiana heavyweight politician and former Democratic National Committee chairman under Bill Clinton switches from Hillary to Obama...

Quote:
Joe Andrew, who was Democratic National Committee chairman from 1999-2001, planned a news conference Thursday in his hometown of Indianapolis to urge other Hoosiers to support Obama in Tuesday's primary, perhaps the most important contest left in the White House race. He also has written a lengthy letter explaining his decision that he plans to send to other superdelegates.

"I am convinced that the primary process has devolved to the point that it's now bad for the Democratic Party," Andrew said in a telephone interview with The Associated Press.

Bill Clinton appointed Andrew chairman of the DNC near the end of his presidency, and Andrew endorsed the former first lady last year on the day she declared her candidacy for the White House.

Andrew said in his letter that he is switching his support because "a vote for Hillary Clinton is a vote to continue this process, and a vote to continue this process is a vote that assists (Republican) John McCain."

"While I was hopeful that a long, contested primary season would invigorate our party, the polls show that the tone and temperature of the race is now hurting us," Andrew wrote. "John McCain, without doing much of anything, is now competitive against both of our remaining candidates. We are doing his work for him and distracting Americans from the issues that really affect all of our lives."

Andrew said the Obama campaign never asked him to switch his support, but he decided to do so after watching Obama's handling of two issues in recent days. He said Obama took the principled stand in opposing a summer gas tax holiday that both Clinton and McCain supported, even though it would have been easier politically to back it. And he said he was impressed with Obama's handling of the controversy surrounding his former pastor, the Rev. Jeremiah Wright.

The bottom line is this. Unless something very very bad comes out of the Obama campaign in the next few months, he's going to win the Democratic election.

And on topic...

Quote:
"Jeremiah Wight needs to be quiet," Lee said yesterday. "If he loves Obama he needs to shut up right now. It makes me question his motives for talking. I'm starting to wonder whether somebody has been contributing to the building funds of his church. Seriously."

Do the right thing and shut up, Lee urges pastor

...he continued by saying "if you keep villainizing white people and exaggerating the plight of blacks in America, I'm going to sue you for copyright infringement."
post #132 of 191
Yea... it's time for Wright to go work on "rejecting his middle-classness" in that new million-dollar home in the gated community. Quietly.
"Stand Up for Chuck"
Reply
"Stand Up for Chuck"
Reply
post #133 of 191
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jubelum View Post

Yea... it's time for Wright to go work on "rejecting his middle-classness" in that new million-dollar home in the gated community. Quietly.

Link? Never mind, found it a Faux Noise.

And what is the relevancy of the above commentary?

[CENTER]
Quote:
In 2002, after headline-grabbing remarks made by Mississippi Senator Trent Lott regarding Senator Strom Thurmond's failed presidential bid, Lee charged that Lott was a "card-carrying member of the Ku Klux Klan" on ABC's Good Morning America.

[/CENTER]
Every eye fixed itself upon him; with parted lips and bated breath the audience hung upon his words, taking no note of time, rapt in the ghastly fascinations of the tale. NOT!
Reply
Every eye fixed itself upon him; with parted lips and bated breath the audience hung upon his words, taking no note of time, rapt in the ghastly fascinations of the tale. NOT!
Reply
post #134 of 191
Relevancy... hmmmm...

Quote:
Originally Posted by @_@ Artman View Post

Quote:
"Jeremiah Wight needs to be quiet," Lee said yesterday. "If he loves Obama he needs to shut up right now. It makes me question his motives for talking. I'm starting to wonder whether somebody has been contributing to the building funds of his church. Seriously."

Quote:
Originally Posted by Jubelum View Post

Yea... it's time for Wright to go work on "rejecting his middle-classness" in that new million-dollar home in the gated community. Quietly.

Anyway... no need to feed that beast...

From the article Artman linked to:
Quote:
Lee, whose best-known films have frequently tackled the issue of race relations in the US, believes that Obama had hoped to survive the presidential contest without talking about race. "But now he's been forced to - by a combination of Jeremiah Wright and the Clintons," he said.

The Clintons? The first black president? The one with the office in Harlem? No way! The only way I can imagine that happening would be if, say, someone stood between a Clinton and a seat of power... that would be the only thing I can imagine would... er... wait....

I bet HRC does not mind that "vast right wing conspiracy" these days... it is serving her purpose.
"Stand Up for Chuck"
Reply
"Stand Up for Chuck"
Reply
post #135 of 191
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jubelum View Post

Relevancy... hmmmm...





Anyway... no need to feed that beast...

From the article Artman linked to:


The Clintons? The first black president? The one with the office in Harlem? No way! The only way I can imagine that happening would be if, say, someone stood between a Clinton and a seat of power... that would be the only thing I can imagine would... er... wait....

I bet HRC does not mind that "vast right wing conspiracy" these days... it is serving her purpose.

and Wright does? Help me understand your "twisted" logic thorugh a logically valid "game" of connect the dots.

I mean, besides about 300,000,000 million people opining about what Wright says and does. \
Every eye fixed itself upon him; with parted lips and bated breath the audience hung upon his words, taking no note of time, rapt in the ghastly fascinations of the tale. NOT!
Reply
Every eye fixed itself upon him; with parted lips and bated breath the audience hung upon his words, taking no note of time, rapt in the ghastly fascinations of the tale. NOT!
Reply
post #136 of 191
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jubelum View Post

Relevancy... hmmmm...





Anyway... no need to feed that beast...

From the article Artman linked to:


The Clintons? The first black president? The one with the office in Harlem? No way! The only way I can imagine that happening would be if, say, someone stood between a Clinton and a seat of power... that would be the only thing I can imagine would... er... wait....

I bet HRC does not mind that "vast right wing conspiracy" these days... it is serving her purpose.

... the AI forum is hosed for some reason, and I can't edit my posts.

In my previous post I meant tho ask what the relevancy of Wright's retirement home has to do with, oh I don't know, anything?

Here's the Faux Noise link;

OBAMAS FORMER PASTOR GETTING $1.6M HOME IN RETIREMENT

Refer to that link or any others you might find, and tell me the relevancy of Wright's retirement home and Spike Lee's comments.

I guess we can all go around posting various random facts, and go ... Ah Ha!

Which essentially means drawing a random conclusion from random facts.
Every eye fixed itself upon him; with parted lips and bated breath the audience hung upon his words, taking no note of time, rapt in the ghastly fascinations of the tale. NOT!
Reply
Every eye fixed itself upon him; with parted lips and bated breath the audience hung upon his words, taking no note of time, rapt in the ghastly fascinations of the tale. NOT!
Reply
post #137 of 191
Quote:
Originally Posted by franksargent View Post

and Wright does? Help me understand your "twisted" logic thorugh a logically valid "game" of connect the dots.

Twisted logic?

By referencing comments by a black social commentator regarding Wright... in a thread about Wright?

Mmmkay. Hoowkeedokee...

What elaborate, yet fruitless, "logic" do you want applied to this utterly simple situation?

<prediction... the requisite call for "provable fact" in 4...3...2....>
"Stand Up for Chuck"
Reply
"Stand Up for Chuck"
Reply
post #138 of 191
Quote:
Originally Posted by franksargent View Post

Refer to that link or any others you might find, and tell me the relevancy of Wright's retirement home and Spike Lee's comments.

I guess we can all go around posting various random facts, and go ... Ah Ha!

Lee referenced the church building fund.
The same church building fund that is building the home for Wright.

Surely you are not this obtuse. You're being difficult. As usual.
"Stand Up for Chuck"
Reply
"Stand Up for Chuck"
Reply
post #139 of 191
Quote:
Originally Posted by ShawnJ View Post

Not bloody likely, mate!

Really. Well first, in my analysis I assumed he'd win them. But NY without Hillary is not a guarantee for him. Either is NJ, where there are tons of working class dems.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Flounder View Post

I have to ask. What in the world is your basis for this certainty?

PA is a bastion of moderate, working class and older voters. It is a custom made state for Hillary and McCain. Obama spent 3X as much as she did and still lost by 10 points. Republicans in PA tend to be moderate, especially in the suburbs...as do Dems. In other words, the Dems in PA are not Obama Dems. They will cross for McCain.

Obama has almost no chance in FL as well, due to it's older population. Unless of course you think towns like W. Palm Beach are going to vote for Obama.

OH is quite similar to PA in terms of demographic. It's more conservative than PA actually, so it's certainly no better for him.

Quote:
Originally Posted by addabox View Post

The trouble with your electoral map, SDW, is that it's binary. By using the "all or nothing" two color model, it appears as if Republicans have this overwhelming advantage in "safe" states.

It's an all or nothing system, so you know.

Quote:

However, and as you probably know, a finer grained map that shades into purple, depending on proportionate voting patterns, gives a clearer picture: the country was pretty evenly divided, and Bush won via the "51%" model that Rove was so fond of: drive your base to the polls with whatever red meat seems expedient, suppress the other side by whatever means necessary.

Obama doesn't have to pick up that many votes to carry a lot of those "red" states, and the climate for Republicans in general, and McCain in particular, is much, much grimmer than in '04. The midterms were a sign of that, and things have only gotten worse.

He won't pick up those votes because Republicans will not cross for Obama, but some moderate dems will cross for McCain. McCain slaughters Obama in getting independents.

Quote:

Iraq and the economy. You think those are net positives for McCain? You think they will have improved, come November?

No, they are net negatives. But the issue is one of choice. We've already heard that voters will not be focusing on Iraq as much as the economy. And McCain really can't be blamed for the economy. It will come down to what each candidate proposes on the economy once the general campaign is underway. If Obama has pegged as someone that will raise taxes and McCain is supporting further cuts to stimulate (while also railing against pork barrel spending), the issue may go net neutral.

Quote:

Do you think how Americans voted in the last election is a reliable guide to how they'll vote in the next?

Yeah, actually I really do.

Quote:
You've been suckered by the bombast of the Rovian Republican Party, who all along has acted as if they had this overwhelming mandate from a deeply conservative country, with "liberals" eking out the occasional win from their coastal redoubts.

Prepare to be dismayed.

That's the thing, adda. The Democrats didn't win in 2006 because people agreed with their politics. They won because of the war, and because the Republicans stopped acting like Republicans. They were pissed off, and rightly so in many respects. But, the fact of the matter is we live in an overall right of center country...in other words a more conservative than liberal country.
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
post #140 of 191
So you've got nothing other than your own subjective internal logic then?

That takes a lot of chutzpah to make such definitive declarations on that alone
A good brain ain't diddly if you don't have the facts
Reply
A good brain ain't diddly if you don't have the facts
Reply
post #141 of 191
Quote:
Originally Posted by Flounder View Post

So you've got nothing other than your own subjective internal logic then?

That takes a lot of chutzpah to make such definitive declarations on that alone

What? Subjective logic? Are you telling me that demographics in the states in question are not what I've said they are? Do you disagree about the nature of Obama and McCain's supporters? I mean if you disagree..fine. That said, I'd like to know specifically why.
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
post #142 of 191
Seven Questions: Joe Stiglitz on How the Iraq War Is Wrecking the Economy

Nobel Prize-winning economist Joseph Stiglitz talks to FP about Wall Street bailouts, Americas mountain of debt, and what U.S. taxpayers will end up paying for Iraq.

Quote:
Foreign Policy: What does $3 trillion mean for the average U.S. taxpayer?

Joseph Stiglitz: If you divide it by the [number of] U.S. households, it comes out to around $25,000 [per household]. Its a lot of money. But we actually talk about a range of total costs, between $3 trillion and $5 trillion.

Its basic arithmetic, but you break the costs down into the various categories. Once you start doing that, its very hard to come up with a number under $3 trillion. We view our estimate as very conservative. Some of it is pretty straightforward and totally noncontroversial: the amount that the U.S. government admits is going into Iraq. But almost everything beyond that requires some forecasting, like troop deployment. And there are also numbers that we have not included that are hard to get out of the government. For instance, the government provides insurance for contractors [working in Iraq]. Nobody will insure them, so the government winds up paying the premium. And then the insurance policies have an exclusion for hostile action. Most of the contractors who die, die in hostile action, so the government winds up paying not just the premiums, but also the benefits. Thats an example where the governments accounting makes it very hard to tease out.

Two big costs are having to pay more for recruiting, and replacing our materiel that is wearing out. The big items going forward on the budgetary side are the costs of replenishing the armed forcesthats called resetand disability for returning veterans. We know that the number of disabled soldiers coming home is much larger, and we know that cases of [post-traumatic stress disorder] increase with longer and repeat deployments.

FP: You mentioned reset and veterans care. Are there any other large costs that are frequently overlooked or not included when we talk about the cost of Iraq and Afghanistan?

JS: Part of the overlooked budgetary costs is interest, because we are going to have to pay interest on what weve borrowed [to pay for the war]. And there is also Social Security disability pay. Thats something that normally would be left out. One of the things that we dont include but should be included is Medicaid. Because many of the disabled soldiers returning home have low incomes, they are eligible for Medicaid. We also argue that the war has had an adverse effect on the economy. If there is a negative effect on the economy, then that is going to decrease tax revenues.

On the nonbudgetary side are the costs that are borne by families. One in 5 families has someone who is seriously disabled, and someone has to take care of them. There is also the fact that the National Guard has been pulled out of their homes and away from jobs. They face an enormous disruption and are not being fully compensated.

FP: How does war spending exacerbate the economic downturn in the United States?

JS: To the extent that the war caused the price of oil to go up, and the fact that the war expenditures dont stimulate the economy as much as domestic expenditures would have, the economy is weaker. The Fed has let forth more liquidity, which allows consumption to go up and savings to go closer to zero or negative. So, we have more of a mountain of debt in order to offset the negative effects of war spending, and that mountain of debt is now the problem were dealing with. There is a clear connection between the two. Were spending money abroad that we could have spent at home.

Next?...
post #143 of 191
Fuck it...wrong thread...
post #144 of 191
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jubelum View Post

Lee referenced the church building fund.
The same church building fund that is building the home for Wright.

Surely you are not this obtuse. You're being difficult. As usual.

[CENTER]
Quote:
"Jeremiah Wight needs to be quiet," Lee said yesterday. "If he loves Obama he needs to shut up right now. It makes me question his motives for talking. I'm starting to wonder whether somebody has been contributing to the building funds of his church. Seriously."

[/CENTER]

Yes?

And we have established that TUCC is using their building funds for Wright's retirement home. Yes?

A-OK, now let's examine the above Spike Lee statement above, shall we?

[CENTER]
Quote:
I'm starting to wonder whether somebody has been contributing to the building funds of his church

[/CENTER]

Now is that a statement of fact, or just Spike Lee shooting his mouth off, a la Reverend Wright?

Finally, consider Lee's 2002 description of Trent Lott, shall we?

[CENTER]
Quote:
In 2002, after headline-grabbing remarks made by Mississippi Senator Trent Lott regarding Senator Strom Thurmond's failed presidential bid, Lee charged that Lott was a "card-carrying member of the Ku Klux Klan" on ABC's Good Morning America.

[/CENTER]

What would be the basis for that claim, and should we take this statement from Lee to be more or less accurate than his "building fund" statement?

I look at both of these statements as patently absurd, conjectural, speculateve, and without a shread of evedence to support either of Lee's statements.

Now who started this random obtuse discussion by posting an irrelevant comment? Not I, and that's a fact.

Sorry for all the fuss, but your typical "one off's" are really getting rather boring and disingenuous with respect to most of the threads you post to.

And I do find most all of your replies filled with much irony, I'd suggest taking a look in the mirror before attempting to cast others in your own light.
Every eye fixed itself upon him; with parted lips and bated breath the audience hung upon his words, taking no note of time, rapt in the ghastly fascinations of the tale. NOT!
Reply
Every eye fixed itself upon him; with parted lips and bated breath the audience hung upon his words, taking no note of time, rapt in the ghastly fascinations of the tale. NOT!
Reply
post #145 of 191
Quote:
Originally Posted by SDW2001 View Post

What? Subjective logic? Are you telling me that demographics in the states in question are not what I've said they are? Do you disagree about the nature of Obama and McCain's supporters? I mean if you disagree..fine. That said, I'd like to know specifically why.


You've made a bald-faced assertion there is no way Obama can possibly win a general election. You've presented it as a virtual guarantee. I think such bombastic statements are a load of shit. I have an exam tomorrow, so I shan't be doing the job of supporting your argument for you.

I mean subjective in that one of your main arguments in an earlier post is "I talked to a couple people at work"

It's certainly possible for Obama to pull the support necessary to win the general election. Please note, I am not declaring (like you) that this is some sort of 100% guarantee. Do I like his chances? sure.

Just because Obama has appeal with certain groups over others, does not mean he is incapable of getting good enough support from areas where he may be relatively weaker. Of course, these relative weaknesses are currently being played out in the context of a democratic primary, not a general election. Two very, very different beasts.

I'd like to see a response to the link BRussells link provided earlier. Granted, the data is two months old, but hey, the election is six months away.

Here it is again:

http://www.surveyusa.com/index.php/2...80-mccain-258/

I'm sure you'll call it a crock, but at least we're backing ourselves up over here.

Are you really so blinded by partisanship that you can't give Obama even a minimal chance of winning in your mind? Let's say 10%?
A good brain ain't diddly if you don't have the facts
Reply
A good brain ain't diddly if you don't have the facts
Reply
post #146 of 191
Quote:
Originally Posted by franksargent View Post

Now who started this random obtuse discussion by posting an irrelevant comment? Not I, and that's a fact.

Wright's new $1.6M mansion is not random or irrelevant... the thread topic is Rev Wright. I don't care if Lee is right or not. At all. And if you are concerned about it, go talk at Artman, he posted the link to Lee's comments.

Quote:
really getting rather boring

Sweet. Does that mean you'll finally quit trolling my every post? Excellent. There is nothing "disingenuous" about discussing aspects of the topic at hand- the Rev. Jeremiah Wright.

Quote:
And I do find most all of your replies filled with much irony, I'd suggest taking a look in the mirror before attempting to cast others in your own light.

I have no idea what that is supposed to mean. Apparently more trolling you glibly consider "sage advice." I believe I have reached the conclusion that you cannot just come out with an argument, or honestly critique someone else's, without going through the round-about time-wasting personal attack route. If you have a statement to make, make it plainly and openly, contribute to the discussion and not the discord. Just once I'd like to see a thread wherein you reply to ideas and not arrogantly lecture people.
"Stand Up for Chuck"
Reply
"Stand Up for Chuck"
Reply
post #147 of 191
Quote:
Originally Posted by SDW2001 View Post

Really. Well first, in my analysis I assumed he'd win them. But NY without Hillary is not a guarantee for him. Either is NJ, where there are tons of working class dems.

ROTFLMAO!

You can't be serious, you clearly lack sufficient analytical skills to do much of anything bordering on a serious statistical analysis. And that's just the plain truth.

Help me out here, I trying to remember if you've ever made a valid statistical argument here in PO.

I'd suggest you stay away from any mathematical/statistical related arguments, it's clearly way over your head. It should be self evident and therein lies your paradoxical dilemma.

The rest of what you say is speculative and conjectural and lacks any buttressing facts.

"I think that this is so, therefore it follows that I also think that this is so, ..., ad infinitum." - SDW circa 2001 - 20?? (pick out any of your previous, present, or future posts at random)

In one word? BORING!
Every eye fixed itself upon him; with parted lips and bated breath the audience hung upon his words, taking no note of time, rapt in the ghastly fascinations of the tale. NOT!
Reply
Every eye fixed itself upon him; with parted lips and bated breath the audience hung upon his words, taking no note of time, rapt in the ghastly fascinations of the tale. NOT!
Reply
post #148 of 191
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jubelum View Post

Wright's new $1.6M mansion is not random or irrelevant... the thread topic is Rev Wright. I don't care if Lee is right or not. At all. And if you are concerned about it, go talk at Artman, he posted the link to Lee's comments.



Sweet. Does that mean you'll finally quit trolling my every post? Excellent. There is nothing "disingenuous" about discussing aspects of the topic at hand- the Rev. Jeremiah Wright.



I have no idea what that is supposed to mean. Apparently more trolling you glibly consider "sage advice." I believe I have reached the conclusion that you cannot just come out with an argument, or honestly critique someone else's, without going through the round-about time-wasting personal attack route. If you have a statement to make, make it plainly and openly, contribute to the discussion and not the discord. Just once I'd like to see a thread wherein you reply to ideas and not arrogantly lecture people.

I don't make subjective arguments, which is about 99% of the posts in PO. If I had some of my colleagues at work read some of the trash posted here, they'd think the world is full of bitter people, such as yourself.

Trolling? Whatever, you're an easy mark, since you just can't stop replying to my posts.

BTW, your link is irrelevent because it has nothing to do with the current political climate, which I think is the main point of discussing Wright in this thread to begin with.

Oh no, let's all look at Wright's retirement home, what's up with that? It looks awfully suspicious, seeing as he's Obama's former pastor. Something fishy must be up with that, it must be related in some random tangential way to something related to Obama somehow.

And look at that number, why that's a fact, a $1,600,000 fact, so that means that there's definitely something going on with Wright, the TUCC, Wright's retirement home, and Obama. Killer argument you have going there!

You know what? You and Alex Jones need to get hitched so you all can stop the NWO!

So the basic point is that your are truly pointless.

Have a good day.

And stop replying to my posts.

Or please, oh pretty please, put me on your ignore list.

You'd be doing yourself a big favor.
Every eye fixed itself upon him; with parted lips and bated breath the audience hung upon his words, taking no note of time, rapt in the ghastly fascinations of the tale. NOT!
Reply
Every eye fixed itself upon him; with parted lips and bated breath the audience hung upon his words, taking no note of time, rapt in the ghastly fascinations of the tale. NOT!
Reply
post #149 of 191
Quote:
Originally Posted by franksargent View Post

And stop replying to my posts.

Gladly. Please return the favor.
"Stand Up for Chuck"
Reply
"Stand Up for Chuck"
Reply
post #150 of 191
We also can't overlook all the work Obama's organization is doing to build infrastructure and get new voters signed up.

Anytime we talk about the winners of recent election, we're talking about a bare majority of a minority of eligible voters.

Obama's campaign has the kind of buzz that gets people involved, especially people who may not have bothered to participate before now.

The McCain candidacy isn't going to energize any new voters. I don't think he really even has a constituency, beyond "people who wouldn't vote for a Democrat if you put a gun to their head." He was a lackluster candidate in the primary, who kind of backed into the nomination.

Am I supposed to have forgotten all the animosity for McCain from the base, already? Is the specter of a black president enough to get them out to the polls, en masse? Because they sure aren't going to be turning out because they think McCain's the second coming of Regean, or even much a conservative standard bearer at all.

The idea that he's this flexible "moderate" that can pull disgruntled Dems is laughable. The only reason he gets away with casting himself as such is that he still hasn't had to answer any real questions about his voting record or policy proposals.

Obama's people are going to be turning out because they're genuinely excited about the prospect for a new direction for the country. Guess which group I'd rather have on my side?
They spoke of the sayings and doings of their commander, the grand duke, and told stories of his kindness and irascibility.
Reply
They spoke of the sayings and doings of their commander, the grand duke, and told stories of his kindness and irascibility.
Reply
post #151 of 191
I think it is much too early for either side to say that "landslide's a comin." Or even to be cocksure about victory in November. There are plenty of reasons that both of these candidates would be no good for the country.

The RCP polls have swung 3-4 points either way on the general... for months now.

This race is wide open.
"Stand Up for Chuck"
Reply
"Stand Up for Chuck"
Reply
post #152 of 191
Quote:
Originally Posted by addabox View Post

We also can't overlook all the work Obama's organization is doing to build infrastructure and get new voters signed up.

Anytime we talk about the winners of recent election, we're talking about a bare majority of a minority of eligible voters.

Obama's campaign has the kind of buzz that gets people involved, especially people who may not have bothered to participate before now.

The McCain candidacy isn't going to energize any new voters. I don't think he really even has a constituency, beyond "people who wouldn't vote for a Democrat if you put a gun to their head." He was a lackluster candidate in the primary, who kind of backed into the nomination.

Am I supposed to have forgotten all the animosity for McCain from the base, already? Is the specter of a black president enough to get them out to the polls, en masse? Because they sure aren't going to be turning out because they think McCain's the second coming of Regean, or even much a conservative standard bearer at all.

The idea that he's this flexible "moderate" that can pull disgruntled Dems is laughable. The only reason he gets away with casting himself as such is that he still hasn't had to answer any real questions about his voting record or policy proposals.

Obama's people are going to be turning out because they're genuinely excited about the prospect for a new direction for the country. Guess which group I'd rather have on my side?

This "hell" we're currently in, will come to a close. Then it's one-on-one. I'm expecting the D's to have two to three times the money the R's can muster for The Final Chapter.

The occupation of two nation states, the economy, unemployment, eight years of a much less than average POTUS.

McCain's campaign slogan will be "The same old same old." or "It's the same old story." or "The same old thing."

Somehow I can see the D's making a political ad with Bush saying something, then it cuts to McCain saying the exact same thing, ..., this split view is repeated over and over again with different but identical words from each of their mouths, ten or twenty times for effect.
Every eye fixed itself upon him; with parted lips and bated breath the audience hung upon his words, taking no note of time, rapt in the ghastly fascinations of the tale. NOT!
Reply
Every eye fixed itself upon him; with parted lips and bated breath the audience hung upon his words, taking no note of time, rapt in the ghastly fascinations of the tale. NOT!
Reply
post #153 of 191
Quote:
Originally Posted by franksargent View Post


The occupation of two nation states, the economy, unemployment, eight years of a much less than average POTUS.

Oddly enough employment is not that bad compared to other recessions.
post #154 of 191
Quote:
Originally Posted by Flounder View Post

BRussell, didn't you get the memo? Because he didn't win the primary in several big states, that means Obama can't possibly win them in the general election. As far as I can tell, that's the screwy logic that's being attempted here.

Florida will also go D by 10%. The "older folks" in Florida are as sick of the war as any other patriotic American. And yes, W. Palm Beach and the rest of the beach cities will go 70%+ to Obama.

Only the panhandle will be red.
post #155 of 191
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jubelum View Post

I think it is much too early for either side to say that "landslide's a comin." Or even to be cocksure about victory in November.

Agreed.
A good brain ain't diddly if you don't have the facts
Reply
A good brain ain't diddly if you don't have the facts
Reply
post #156 of 191
Quote:
Originally Posted by trumptman View Post

So we have proper "context" and longer "rationalizations" for why he believes America engineered the HIV virus to create racial genocide and also have the terrorists attack us.

Thanks Grove.

Yep.

Gotta love liberation theology.

In our desire to impose form on the world we have lost the capacity to see the form that is there;
and in that lies not liberation but alienation, the cutting off from things as they really are. --...

Reply

In our desire to impose form on the world we have lost the capacity to see the form that is there;
and in that lies not liberation but alienation, the cutting off from things as they really are. --...

Reply
post #157 of 191
Quote:
Originally Posted by dmz View Post

Yep.

Gotta love liberation theology.

I actually do like liberation theology.

But isn't that mainly a Catholic thing? The UCC is a mainline protestant group. Maybe there are similarities, but it doesn't seem as if what the UCC preaches is actually liberation theology. You're obviously more informed here on this subject, so you can help clarify my confusion.
post #158 of 191
Obama picks up another DNC Chair Paul G. Kirk Jr.

Quote:
After the attention paid to the poisonous and polarizing diatribe of recent days, Senator Obamas clear and compelling message which appeals to our best instincts as Americans is more important than ever."

I guess the refusal to sling mud is working for Obama with the superdelegates. It's also revealing since these DNC people are the ones that really know how Hillary operates.
post #159 of 191
Quote:
Originally Posted by ShawnJ View Post

I actually do like liberation theology.

But isn't that mainly a Catholic thing? The UCC is a mainline protestant group. Maybe there are similarities, but it doesn't seem as if what the UCC preaches is actually liberation theology. You're obviously more informed here on this subject, so you can help clarify my confusion.

Basically, it's a deconstruction of the fundamentalist view of Christianity (that Christ was the god-man, in history, a knowable person, etc.)

With the arrival of guys like William James, Reinhold Niebuhr, Karl Barth and Paul Tillich, you started to see Christ as only an archetype of good, or a "salvation event" -- not a person, certainly not the Incarnation. Liberation theology gets even fuzzier than that -- Christ as the archetypical agent of class warfare.

Now I'm sure there are more and less Orthodox takes on that, but that basically it. If Marx were a Christian...

In our desire to impose form on the world we have lost the capacity to see the form that is there;
and in that lies not liberation but alienation, the cutting off from things as they really are. --...

Reply

In our desire to impose form on the world we have lost the capacity to see the form that is there;
and in that lies not liberation but alienation, the cutting off from things as they really are. --...

Reply
post #160 of 191
Quote:
Originally Posted by Flounder View Post

You've made a bald-faced assertion there is no way Obama can possibly win a general election. You've presented it as a virtual guarantee. I think such bombastic statements are a load of shit. I have an exam tomorrow, so I shan't be doing the job of supporting your argument for you.

Well, it's not a guarantee. It's a prediction....and opinion.

Quote:

I mean subjective in that one of your main arguments in an earlier post is "I talked to a couple people at work"

Let me ask...is every point I make my "main" point so long as it serves your purpose of building a strawman? I clearly indicated that point was purely anecdotal. It's not a "main point" at all. In fact, you've not taken issue with any of my main points.

Quote:

It's certainly possible for Obama to pull the support necessary to win the general election. Please note, I am not declaring (like you) that this is some sort of 100% guarantee. Do I like his chances? sure.

Define "possible." If you mean "possible as in someday pigs will fly," then we agree. Otherwise, you've made no credible case.

Quote:

Just because Obama has appeal with certain groups over others, does not mean he is incapable of getting good enough support from areas where he may be relatively weaker.


Actually, it means exactly that.

Quote:
Of course, these relative weaknesses are currently being played out in the context of a democratic primary, not a general election. Two very, very different beasts.

No, that's the point: Because of the nature of the support and opposition, the beasts are the same. Why? Because the voters are the same. Moderate democrats, working class democrats, independents, white males, women....they all support Hillary. And a good number of them will not vote for Obama if he's the nominee.

Quote:

I'd like to see a response to the link BRussells link provided earlier. Granted, the data is two months old, but hey, the election is six months away.

Here it is again:

http://www.surveyusa.com/index.php/2...80-mccain-258/

I'm sure you'll call it a crock, but at least we're backing ourselves up over here.

I'll be happy to address it. First, the link confirms what I've said in part: Obama loses PA, NJ and FL. But it has him winning OH, which I simply don't accept...survey or no. In fact, it has Obama by 10 points. Righto.

Edit: I just realized that map was released March 6th. That was before any of Obama's problems came to light. It was two days after Super Tuesday, when Obama was at the height of his popularity. So frankly I do think it's invalid.

Update 2: Some of the margins in swing states are ridiculously close. They have Obama by 1 point in MI for example. [/quote]

Quote:

Are you really so blinded by partisanship that you can't give Obama even a minimal chance of winning in your mind? Let's say 10%?

I'm not blind and it's not partisanship motivating my comments. Anyway...a 10% chance? Sure...I'd go with that. Anything could happen.
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: PoliticalOutsider
AppleInsider › Forums › Other Discussion › AppleOutsider › PoliticalOutsider › Wright in Context - What The Media Didn't Show