Bombshell Obama Pastor Video

[LuvDuke]

(coming in late and have not read to the end of the thread...)

So he heard his Rev. say "other" (what would be considered) controversial things. Not just *these* controversial things. Gotcha!

Finally!

Now if you could shed some light on those controversial things Obama said he never heard while sitting in the congregation, it would be most appreciated since no one else can answer it.

Go ahead and give it a whirl.

 

[SwedishMeatball]

Finally!

Now if you could shed some light on those controversial things Obama said he never heard while sitting in the congregation, it would be most appreciated since no one else can answer it.

Go ahead and give it a whirl.

If Obama wants to erase doubt in anyone's mind, then it's his responsibility to be specific. Why should any of us be left guessing??

The bleeding continues.

 

[Charade]

Same question: So what exactly did Wright say that you claim Obama is lying about not hearing?


Just admit you have no idea and move on.

Btw, I thought it was Eqypt.

I think it's been clearly stated already. Obama originally said he's never heard the things (said by the Rev) being played in news. But he did admit today he heard controversial things (said by the Rev.) he adamantly disagrees with.

You do the math.

 

[va32h]

You're coming at this like I'm defending Bush here. I trying to tell you what's most likely going to happen.

That would happen to any president. The president is - and ought to be - subject to criticism from his constituency.

That's sort of the whole point of the office. Our leaders are not sacred, not above judgement. We elect them, we have the freedom to gripe about them, they have to answer to us come re-election.

 

[LuvDuke]

If Obama wants to erase doubt in anyone's mind, then it's his responsibility to be specific. Why should any of us be left guessing??

The bleeding continues.

You can't make this stuff up.

Like you would vote for him anyway.

 

[FayeW]

Perception is reality people. The perception is that he changed what he said from Friday to today.

Whatever. You all seem to want to just be rude and childish with the snarky little icons and argue semantics. Fine.

He didn't change what he read, you just don't seem to understand that "incendiary language" and "statements which could be considered controversial" are not similar statements. It is intuitively obvious to even the most casual observers that these two statements do not mean the same thing. Anybody who believes otherwise should pay back Mom and Dad for the college education that was obviously a waste of money.

 

[SwedishMeatball]

You can't make this stuff up.

Like you would vote for him anyway.

You really have issues with people who don't see things from your perspective.

It's a dirty fact of life that politicians pander to many people, including religious zealots. It's not their finer side, but just a reality. I never got all shook up over the Farrakhan flack and Obama reacted just as I would expect a politician to, and that was very carefully try to appease all sides for political gain.

I think Obama's hardcore supporters don't believe his relationship with Wright has a thing to do with political gain, and with that I am in complete agreement with them. However, that is specifically why it is so troublesome to many. Some keep trying to throw up the likes of Hagee to keep the waters muddied, but it's clear to me the stark difference in the willingness of politicians to embrace controversial figures for political gain, versus a man embracing a controversial figure in a private and intimate relationship. That relationship is now made public, and he will have to deal with the fallout for his choice.

Obama's concern is not for his steadfast supporters or for the majority of Republicans, but for the Independents and Reagan Democrats who have been listening carefully to Obama, and many have been quite impressed. All those so intent on defending Obama and poo poo'ing those who would have never voted for him anyway, need to realize that it is imperative for their candidate to focus his attention on those people right now. If they think that his speech solved all the questions and doubts in the mind's of those sort of voters, well then they should take a deep breath and calm down because they have nothing to worry about. Their over the top defense of him though, which includes the ridicule of anyone who disagrees with their beliefs, indicates to me that there exists an underlying and serious concern. I give them credit though for putting on a brave face and never letting us see them sweat.

Can I get you a hanky to wipe your brow??

 

[LuvDuke]

I think it's been clearly stated already. Obama originally said he's never heard the things (said by the Rev) being played in news. But he did admit today he heard controversial things (said by the Rev.) he adamantly disagrees with.

You do the math.

The only math involved here is how many times you've been asked to come up with those controversial things you think Obama is lying about and how many times/ways you've avoided answering. The fact is, you have no answer. None of you have any answers. If you did, you'd present them.

Here's some more math: How many people do you think you're fooling other than the rest of the Planet Bush choir?

 

[LuvDuke]

You really have issues with people who don't see things from your perspective.



Can I get you a hanky to wipe your brow??

You can't make this stuff up.

And, no, keep your hanky away from me. I don't where it's been.

 

[Charade]

He didn't change what he read, you just don't seem to understand that "incendiary language" and "statements which could be considered controversial" are not similar statements. It is intuitively obvious to even the most casual observers that these two statements do not mean the same thing. Anybody who believes otherwise should pay back Mom and Dad for the college education that was obviously a waste of money.

Hmm... could "incendiary language" also be considered "controversial" to that casual observer? Why did he then use the same "denial" schtick for both the stuff he didn't hear and the stuff he did hear? If they weren't similar.

 

[SwedishMeatball]

You can't make this stuff up.

And, no, keep your hanky away from me. I don't where it's been.

Is that a denial??

I'll get you a freshly laundered one. I'll even press and starch it for you.

 

[LuvDuke]

Hmm... could "incendiary language" also be considered "controversial" to that casual observer? Why did he then use the same "denial" schtick for both the stuff he didn't hear and the stuff he did hear? If they weren't similar.

I don't know. You tell us what the "incendiary language" and the "controversial" is so we can compare.

You may be right and I'm sure if you were, you wouldn't be grasping at straws and arguing semantics.

But, by all means, carry on.

 

[Charade]

The only math involved here is how many times you've been asked to come up with those controversial things you think Obama is lying about and how many times/ways you've avoided answering. The fact is, you have no answer. None of you have any answers. If you did, you'd present them.

You can't prove he didn't lie so I suppose that makes us even.

 

[LuvDuke]

Is that a denial??

I'll get you a freshly laundered one. I'll even press and starch it for you.

Thanks, but no thanks.

 

[LuvDuke]

You can't prove he didn't lie so I suppose that makes us even.

Oh good grief.

 

[chris1gill]

I don't know. You tell us what the "incendiary language" and the "controversial" is so we can compare.

You may be right and I'm sure if you were, you wouldn't be grasping at straws and arguing semantics.

But, by all means, carry on.

One if far less toned down when compared in the English language

CONTROVERSIAL
–adjective
1. of, pertaining to, or characteristic of controversy; polemical: a controversial book.
2. subject to controversy; debatable: a controversial decision.
3. given to controversy; disputatious.


in·cen·di·ar·y /ɪnˈsɛndiˌɛri/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[in-sen-dee-er-ee] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation adjective, noun, plural -ar·ies.
–adjective
1. used or adapted for setting property on fire: incendiary bombs.
2. of or pertaining to the criminal setting on fire of property.
3. tending to arouse strife, sedition, etc.; inflammatory: incendiary speeches.
4. tending to inflame the senses: an incendiary extravaganza of music and dance.
–noun
5. a person who deliberately sets fire to buildings or other property, as an arsonist.
6. Military. a shell, bomb, or grenade containing napalm, thermite, or some other substance that burns with an intense heat.
7. a person who stirs up strife, sedition, etc.; an agitator.

 

[LuvDuke]

One if far less toned down when compared in the English language

CONTROVERSIAL
–adjective
1. of, pertaining to, or characteristic of controversy; polemical: a controversial book.
2. subject to controversy; debatable: a controversial decision.
3. given to controversy; disputatious.


in·cen·di·ar·y /ɪnˈsɛndiˌɛri/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[in-sen-dee-er-ee] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation adjective, noun, plural -ar·ies.
–adjective
1. used or adapted for setting property on fire: incendiary bombs.
2. of or pertaining to the criminal setting on fire of property.
3. tending to arouse strife, sedition, etc.; inflammatory: incendiary speeches.
4. tending to inflame the senses: an incendiary extravaganza of music and dance.
–noun
5. a person who deliberately sets fire to buildings or other property, as an arsonist.
6. Military. a shell, bomb, or grenade containing napalm, thermite, or some other substance that burns with an intense heat.
7. a person who stirs up strife, sedition, etc.; an agitator.

Don't confuse them. It's damned near impossible to get any specifics from them already without throwing them for a loop with definitions.

 

[chris1gill]

Don't confuse them. It's damned near impossible to get any specifics from them already without throwing them for a loop with definitions.

Please, LuvDuke you have me laughing in stitches...... But on a serious note, looking at what the guy has passed as a legislator, I fail to see the burning crisis at hand. There's quite a handy list of legislation on both the State and Federal level's, that are so useful to the American people, yet, we want to run the guy out of town.... yeh, good luck... While McCain is on a fact finding mission because he doesn't actually know the facts....

You're right though, if we had to go through and list the bill's that were passed into law, that would really throw them out of whack.

 

[Charade]

One if far less toned down when compared in the English language

CONTROVERSIAL
–adjective
1. of, pertaining to, or characteristic of controversy; polemical: a controversial book.
2. subject to controversy; debatable: a controversial decision.
3. given to controversy; disputatious.


in·cen·di·ar·y /ɪnˈsɛndiˌɛri/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[in-sen-dee-er-ee] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation adjective, noun, plural -ar·ies.
–adjective
1. used or adapted for setting property on fire: incendiary bombs.
2. of or pertaining to the criminal setting on fire of property.
3. tending to arouse strife, sedition, etc.; inflammatory: incendiary speeches.
4. tending to inflame the senses: an incendiary extravaganza of music and dance.
–noun
5. a person who deliberately sets fire to buildings or other property, as an arsonist.
6. Military. a shell, bomb, or grenade containing napalm, thermite, or some other substance that burns with an intense heat.
7. a person who stirs up strife, sedition, etc.; an agitator.

Well, gee. I think most people would consider blaming 9-11 on our foreign policy both incendiary and controversial. When did the two become mutually exclusive?

 

[LuvDuke]

Please, LuvDuke you have me laughing in stitches...... But on a serious note, looking at what the guy has passed as a legislator, I fail to see the burning crisis at hand. There's quite a handy list of legislation on both the State and Federal level's, that are so useful to the American people, yet, we want to run the guy out of town.... yeh, good luck... While McCain is on a fact finding mission because he doesn't actually know the facts....

You're right though, if we had to go through and list the bill's that were passed into law, that would really throw them out of whack.

You would think McCain, who's been to Iraq on 8 fact finding missions, would already know the facts. It's really scary that, nearly 6 years into this war, he can't quite grasp the differences between fundamentalist Shiites and fundamentalist Sunnis. And then his puppeteer has to whisper in his ear "psst, extremists".