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

Originally Posted by SDW2001

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.

Originally Posted by SDW2001

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.

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.

Originally Posted by BRussell

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.

Originally Posted by Flounder

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.

Originally Posted by Flounder

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.

Originally Posted by franksargent

Based on what, SDW's Magic 8 Ball?

Originally Posted by SDW2001

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

Originally Posted by SDW2001

He may lose NY
He may lose NJ

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.

"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."

Originally Posted by Jubelum

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.

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.

Originally Posted by @_@ Artman

Originally Posted by Jubelum

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.

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.

Originally Posted by Jubelum

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.

Originally Posted by Jubelum

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.

Originally Posted by franksargent

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

Originally Posted by franksargent

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!

Originally Posted by ShawnJ

Not bloody likely, mate!

Originally Posted by Flounder

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

Originally Posted by addabox

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.

Originally Posted by Flounder

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

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.

Originally Posted by Jubelum

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.

"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."

I'm starting to wonder whether somebody has been contributing to the building funds of his church

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.

Originally Posted by SDW2001

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.

Originally Posted by franksargent

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

really getting rather boring

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.

Originally Posted by SDW2001

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.

Originally Posted by Jubelum

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.

Originally Posted by franksargent

And stop replying to my posts.

Originally Posted by addabox

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?

Originally Posted by franksargent


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

Originally Posted by Flounder

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.

Originally Posted by Jubelum

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.

Originally Posted by trumptman

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.

Originally Posted by dmz

Yep.

Gotta love liberation theology.

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."

Originally Posted by ShawnJ

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.

Originally Posted by Flounder

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%?