Whoa! Have you been drinking?

I was away for several days and return to find that you devised (wrongly) my motives and felt the need to accuse me (falsely) of conspiring some evil scheme for abbreviating Obama’s name. An abbreviation used by others before. Twice in this thread and yet you didn’t go berserk on anyone but me!?

That screams double standard.

And what was all that gibberish about everybody…?

Please stick to the facts if you want to be taken seriously.

Why do you say BHO? Is Obama too much to type?

If you wonder why hardly anybody takes you seriously around here, it’s because of meme spreading like this. Please, cut it out. Call the guy by his last name or his first name please and quit playing this crypto-islamic, right-wing game. It’s nonsense and you know it.

A few weeks ago a Justin did a “post” from a Youtube video shot in bumbly f#$k america somewhere. It was a bunch of southern women at a Pentecostal or Baptist church or something. If you remember that “short” then you may understand the root problem……many people in the USA don’t understand race and racism…..they simply think they are right, or that their color is the right one, or their god is the true one – there is no discussion but they aren’t intellectually capable of having the discussion. Those are the people that need to be reached. They never will be though – 142 years later and the attitudes have only marginally budged……..that’s ignorance on an epic scale. Historically, changes at that level only came through massive revolution, not necessarily violent but massive none the less.

And I’m tired of arguing too, so I’ll just add that basically what happens in these ongoing disputes is that each person is going a bit too far, and things get more and more heated until neither party (or none of the parties) are being ‘moderate’ any longer- despite trying to put a moderate veneer on it with nicer language.

So plain that it’s dumbfounding to see Obama supporters don’t get it or refuse to get it.

Michael’s words, imo, cut to the core of what Obama said. I came to the same conclusion as I heard BHO talk.

He admitted in that speech that he was present when “some controversial statements” were made. Perhaps, not on the dates of the videos. But does it make any difference?

Yes and everyone here understands the inference, but not everyone is ready to accept it, so they parse words and accuse others of twisting and taking things out of context.

Albeit, it is the Obama’s crowd that is doing that.

I still say the analogy is apt- because just as you didn’t base your negative filter of Michael’s comment on his general personality/character, I don’t think Michael does that in regard to Obama either.

C, if Michael’s repeated commentaries on Obama aren’t talking about his personality/character, especially when he calls Obama “fake” or “Messiah”, then what is Michael talking about?

Also, let’s remember that Michael said this in response to my initial post…

Whatever happened to disagreeing without assigning ulterior motives to people?

Yes. Because Michael sets the standard for disagreeing with Obama while not assigning ulterior motives.

In reality, he consistently voices the most uncharitable interpretations of what Obama says, and then he’s surprised when a fellow moderate blogger questions his motives? A bit naive, don’t you think?

Now, I accepted Michael’s explanation because he finally spoke to it. But I still contend that what he says is false. Obama admitted nothing that you all are suggesting, and you can continue to parse individual words and reconstruct Obama’s sentence if you want, but I’m no longer playing this game. It’s tiring, and I’m done with it.

Less than a month ago, in an interview, Obama said that he didn’t feel that his church was particularly controversial.

Tuesday in his speech he said: “Did I hear controversial statements? Of course.”

How do you reconcile those? Either:
1. He’s referring to controversial statements that are only mildly controversial, not “particularly controversial”
2. He thinks that random controversial statements which aren’t mild are still part and parcel of religious oratory in churches all across America.
3. He knows very well that there is reason for his church to be viewed as controversial, but his statement in the interview meant that it’s not controversial because it’s been given the stamp of approval by certain academic institutions, and because there are plenty of other black churches which preach similar things. Sort of an “everyone does it, and even though it’s wrong the authorities are looking the other way so it must be OK” defense.

I don’t think any of those interpretations are very positive, with #1 being the only one that is even remotely acceptable. But unless he clarifies exactly how controversial the statements he heard were, there’s plenty of room to doubt whether he’s really being straight with us. If he wants to excuse himself for inaction on the basis of not knowing about the real inflammatory/unacceptable stuff, he needs to go further in explaining ALL that he heard that was controversial, and why those controversies were only the OK kind instead of the get-up-and-walk-out-to-the-nearest-exit kind.

The degree to which black liberation theology embraces things that are of the latter category, and the fact that Obama knew that Wright was controversial enough that he needed to begin distancing himself at the start of his campaign (despite keeping him as a key advisor, but not putting him out there in public) seems to support the idea that he knew more than he’s directly admitting.

As for the parsing- I think everyone is parsing, just in whatever way they think fits with their general opinion of Obama. And the reason we’re all parsing is that he was too ambiguous (and some of us parse THAT to mean that he was intentionally ambiguous.)

At best one could say that Obama was attempting to create a false impression. To see this in the way you want it seen requires a torturous parsing I believe few will be willing to undertake.

At this point, and after all of this parsing, all I have to say is we’ll see what the voters think. My guess is that your version is FAR more torturous than mine, and people, as a whole, aren’t going to believe that Obama was in that church when similar things were uttered.

We shall see…

As I’ve stated, your arguments weren’t lost on me, but until Michael said it himself, there was no way I was going to concede my point. And there was no way I was giving either of you the benefit of the doubt either. Not after everything he’s written, and not after you both keep excusing his obviously intellectually dishonest behavior.

I admit to being less than charitable with my interpretation, but that’s why i said in my original post either he wasn’t paying attention (which is true) or he was distorting things on purpose.

He says he wasn’t saying Obama was actually in the pews now, and I’ll take him at his word. But he does still contend that Obama was in the pews when he heard similar things, and there’s nothing to back that up. So Michael is wrong either way. He’s just not purposefully wrong. And as I’ve stated, given the pattern he has displayed at PoliGazette with regards to Obama, I feared that could be the case.

He doesn’t have to use the word “similar” for there to be a presumption of similarity-both sets of remarks are being mentioned with the same descriptor. The question of course is how similar were they?

You believe it covers:

A) The questionable statements being linked to in various blogs,

AND B) any similar statements ever made privately between Wright and Obama, but NOT

C) Any similar or identical statements made in a public situation in Obama’s hearing.

It doesn’t fly. At best one could say that Obama was attempting to create a false impression. To see this in the way you want it seen requires a torturous parsing I believe few will be willing to undertake.

You just basically admitted that you misunderstood Michael’s comment, but chose to read it in the worst possible light and cast it either as sloppiness or a willful lie.

Ironically, what you accused Michael of in his reading of Obama is exactly what you just did to Michael. And you admit it’s because of the context of what you believe about Michael (that he’s biased against Obama), just as any negative slant that Michael might put on his views on Obama might be….

because of the context of what he believes about Obama.

Gee, funny how that works, huh? People view other people through a particular lens, based on how they judge their words and actions as a whole. Those who judge the whole person as good and honest will hear or read words from that person one way, while those who judge the whole person in a more negative way will read in a less charitable fashion and won’t give the benefit of the doubt.

In any event…

Michael! Hello finally. I had been waiting for you to actually answer this point yourself, and what it tells me is heartening. No, you weren’t lying, but you didn’t do your homework once again.

So let’s talk about what you’re saying now…

You say he said he admitted hearing something similar. He did not.

In fact, the only time the word similar shows up in his speech is here…

In fact, a similar anger exists within segments of the white community. Most working- and middle-class white Americans don’t feel that they have been particularly privileged by their race.

He did say he heard controversial comments, but taking the leap from that to saying he ADMITTED he heard something similar to what was on the video is not one you can credibly make.

Frankly, maybe I should have just chalked it up to the fact that English is your second language, but because you’ve been so pointedly obsessing on Obama and throwing every single meme you can at him to see if it sticks, I didn’t give you the benefit of the doubt. That’s something us Americans do when we see a pattern…we don’t ignore it.

Also, your “Obama is a lawyer” argument is a laughable fallacy. Try that one out of Jason and see where it gets you.

As I’ve said before Michael, on the topic of Obama especially, you play fast and loose with the facts, and often pick up a lot of right wing talking points in the process. It’s intellectually dishonest and THAT is the reason I proposed the either/or scenario about you either not paying attention/or lying.

Oh, and concerning Ron Paul…

Ron Paul And Family Drew Income From Newsletters
Ron Paul’s Newsletters Authored By Lew Rockwell
Abandoning Ron Paul

And just to be clear, if you had actually been reading my blog while I was writing about him, you’d know that while I was intrigued by his candidacy I never said he was my candidate.

Again, another detail you failed to notice.

http://www.talk2action.org/story/2008/3/19/175155/361

Let’s keep it in perspective! And let’s change the subject to show that right wing Christian preachers say things that are just as incendiary! Nothing to see here…move along, move along.

At the very least, you’d think that people would be calling for TUCC’s tax exemption to be revoked, since there’s absolutely no doubt that Wright has repeatedly violated the law on campaigning for a candidate from the pulpit. Lots of conservative churches have been cited for much lesser offenses.

If this guy actually gets elected, my pocket-book is going to be looking a some “weary years.”

You are reading Michael’s sentence to mean a claim that Obama was present in the church on the dates of some or all of the videos that have surfaced (youtube, or leave that out and just say videos, whatever.)

I read Michael’s sentence differently. In fact it never occurred to me to read it the way you did until I began to understand why you weren’t backing off of this. I guess I can see your interpretation of it now, and to some extent I’d say that maybe Michael’s syntax was awkward- so I’ll take a stab at rewriting the sentence structure and see if this makes sense to you:

“Obama finally admitted that there were times when he was in church that he heard Wright say some of the same things we saw him say on video.”

Do you see now? When Michael wrote “when he said some of the things we saw,” I don’t take that to mean Obama admits to being present on the specific day/time the video was being produced, but rather, other times when he said those same things that we saw/heard. “When he said” those things isn’t a specific date/time- and presumably these were things that Rev. Wright said on more than one occasion. So Obama could easily have been present on other dates/times than those dates/times that the videos were shot, and he still heard the things that we saw on the videos.

Let’s say, hypothetically, Wright said on 2/3/04 that the US govt created the AIDS virus to kill black men, and Obama was there on that day.

Then on 3/6/05, he repeats this (but worded differently- so not the exact same statement) on camera. Obama’s not there that day. An excerpt of this turns up on YouTube.

Thus, Obama was in Church when Rev. Wright said the things we saw on the video, but he can truthfully claim that he didn’t hear the exact statements that are the cause of this controversy.

Obama now admits to being there and hearing controversial things. Michael presumes that it is the same sort of controversial things that Obama’s admitting to hearing, that we heard on the video. Thus the hypothetical I wrote above is the type of timeline/scenario Michael’s claiming.

The reason that’s the harshest possible interpretation, of course, is that Obama’s admission also has other possibilities- that perhaps Obama heard him say that HIV is a plague on black men and our govt hasn’t done enough to counter that. That’s a controversial statement, but not of the same nature as the conspiratorial one. I’d allow for these kinds of possibilities (though the cynic in me leans a bit closer to Michael’s interpretation, because I think it’s stretches credibility to think that all of Wright’s over-the-top views were expressed on days when Obama wasn’t in attendance.)

You’d also allow for that other explanation. Which is why I said that it’s a fair charge to say that Michael applied the harshest possible interpretation- he overstated it. Overstating isn’t lying, it’s just a refusal to give the benefit of the doubt when you don’t believe there’s reason to do so.

Of course, the media could help clear this up by asking Obama to be more specific about what he did hear that was controversial. I’ve seen a few instances where Obama listed some things- but I’ve also seen that he’s waffled quite a bit on those questions so it becomes an issue of needing to know EXACTLY what he heard that he felt was controversial, in its entirety- not for him to cherry pick and say that ‘calling for divestment from South Africa’ is an example, but for him to answer straight up a question like “Did you ever hear Rev. Wright make a statement that would be controversial because it was racist or antisemitic in nature?” or “Have you read the works of theologians that Rev. Wright takes his teachings from, like James Cone and Dwight Hopkins, and if so, what are your thoughts on the black liberation theology that they preach? Is this an example, in your opinion, of a wrong and divisive philosophy?” “In hindsight, do you regret that you didn’t speak up at your church against that, or perhaps that you didn’t take the time to learn enough about the full body of work of Rev. Wright, given that you are now saying that his angry teachings are not only wrong but divisive, and that it is critical for us to move past that anger?”

Until those questions are asked and answered, I’m not able to give him the benefit of the doubt that he didn’t hear some things that crossed the lines of what should be tolerated, no matter what his personal relationship with the pastor was and no matter what other good works he felt were being accomplished.

As Rich said- people say things more than once. I read Michael’s comment not to mean that Obama has now admitted to being physically present on the specific dates that the videos were filmed, but instead to mean that Obama has now admitted that he was present when Wright said some of the things (a repetition of those statements) that were on the videos (but he heard them on different occasions- otherwise, what did he mean when he said “of course” he heard controversial things?)

Of course that’s what I meant Christine, as anyone who reads my post and who isn’t obsessed with Obama and being offended realizes. Justin does a marvelous job defending people, sadly he has to ignore reality in order to do so; but that’s no pro (and he has some kind of strange obsession with what I write, but that as an aside).

Seemingly Justin doesn’t understand that Obama is a lawyer – trained as such at least – and that when he says he didn’t hear certain specific comments, that doesn’t mean or even imply that he didn’t hear similar comments. Now, he has admitted that he has heard similar comments; controversial comments. That’s all we need to know.

Also because this fellow went to Black Liberation Church for over 20 years; the things Wright said are an important part of that ideology (whether Justin likes it or not).

By the way Justin, how did it go defending Ron Paul after the famous pamphlets?

There is NOTHING in Obama’s original HuffPo piece that limits his statement to the YouTube video(s). Obama never even specifically mentions YouTube. Limiting it to YouTube was something YOU added.

Nothing that limits his statement to the videos?

Well, here’s what Obama said in the HuffPo piece (emphasis mine)…

The statements that Rev. Wright made that are the cause of this controversy were not statements I personally heard him preach while I sat in the pews of Trinity or heard him utter in private conversation.

So then, what other statements did Wright say that were the cause of this controversy? What other statements prompted Obama to write that post, to go on the news shows, to make the race speech? Different statements on other videos that were played hundreds of thousands of time on YouTube and the networks? Because if you have those, I’d love to see them; as would the rest of the world.

And you’re right C Stanley. I still don’t get it.

Michael wrote:
“Obama finally admitted that he was in Church when Wright said some of the things we saw him say on video.”

Not:
“Obama finally admitted that he was in the church when the videos of Wright that we saw were made.”

You read it as though he said the second sentence. He didn’t.