Could we get Pastor Wright a reality TV show

[Tex]

Originally Posted by Cali Coug

No, Tex. If I was right, it WOULD excuse Obama. There isn't a single church in America without some shady issues, let alone most other organizations people participate in. To attempt to claim that attendance at any church and association with any pastor who holds extreme views taints the individual who attends is silly, and you know it. That is why you don't believe any of the LDS church's history should be held against Romney. You would come to the same conclusion with Obama if you cared about being honest. Instead, you now want to retreat behind the "I won't say one way or the other if Romney should be attacked for the church's position" in order to hide your hypocrisy.

It's not the radical nature of the church, but Obama's close association with its radical pastor that was at issue. Your Romney analogy was, is, and will always be an inadequate comparison.

Originally Posted by Cali Coug

Weak. And the Keating argument (which you amusingly find irrelevant to the situation, showing a poor understanding of the application of your own argument), is FAR more relevant than Wright's relationship with Obama. Obama isn't accused of doing anything unethical in Wright's church, or of breaking the law, or of using his position to inappropriately benefit the church. McCain can't say the same with Keating. I told you that I don't find Keating particularly bothersome (it was a very long time ago), but on the scale of things it is MORE bothersome than Wright or the LDS church for Romney. I get the feeling this is too complex for you. Where is Ross Perot with a chart when you need him.

Keating is relevant for entirely different reasons. Bringing it up in this conversation is bizarre.

[Tex]

Originally Posted by Archaea

You two can argue indefinitely. We need a special forum for Cali and Tex to argue. It could be a celebrity death match with no holds barred and no time limits.

Tex believes Reps are usually wright, and Cali believes in the Holy Obama. We get it.

No one is forcing you to click on the thread.

Nice Freudian in that sentence, BTW.

[Cali Coug]

Originally Posted by Tex

It's not the radical nature of the church, but Obama's close association with its radical pastor that was at issue. Your Romney analogy was, is, and will always be an inadequate comparison.



Keating is relevant for entirely different reasons. Bringing it up in this conversation is bizarre.

I get the impression you don't do so well with analogies.

[Tex]

Originally Posted by Cali Coug

I get the impression you don't do so well with analogies.

I've always had difficulty understanding stupidity.

[Cali Coug]

Originally Posted by Tex

I've always had difficulty understanding stupidity.

Then just imagine how hard it must be for you to understand rational thought.

[Tex]

Originally Posted by Cali Coug

Then just imagine how hard it must be for you to understand rational thought.

Look, Cali, it's really fun trading barbs with you (note the sarcasm), but to return this to substantive discussion, Wright was a legitimate issue and you have miserably failed to prove otherwise. Not only are you wrong in principle, but the fact that it WAS an issue for many reasonable and "rational" people demonstrates how much it really did matter.

If Wright truly were as irrelevant as you seem to think, he would've been a mere blip on the radar. Instead, Obama was forced TWICE to come out and address the issue, finally disavowing the man altogether. That's better evidence right there than any argument I can produce.

Lastly, just to put this matter to rest from my end: I personally don't care about Wright/Obama at all. I've said that from the beginning. I think Obama is a terrible presidential candidate for lots of other reasons besides his racist anti-American pastor. But I do understand why it's significant to some, and I don't blame them for being upset. You seem unable to grasp that.

[Cali Coug]

Originally Posted by Tex

Look, Cali, it's really fun trading barbs with you (note the sarcasm), but to return this to substantive discussion, Wright was a legitimate issue and you have miserably failed to prove otherwise. Not only are you wrong in principle, but the fact that it WAS an issue for many reasonable and "rational" people demonstrates how much it really did matter.

If Wright truly were as irrelevant as you seem to think, he would've been a mere blip on the radar. Instead, Obama was forced TWICE to come out and address the issue, finally disavowing the man altogether. That's better evidence right there than any argument I can produce.

Lastly, just to put this matter to rest from my end: I personally don't care about Wright/Obama at all. I've said that from the beginning. I think Obama is a terrible presidential candidate for lots of other reasons besides his racist anti-American pastor. But I do understand why it's significant to some, and I don't blame them for being upset. You seem unable to grasp that.

Wright was an issue largely to the people who were predisposed to vote against Obama. The polls support my position, not yours. When Wright first came along, Obama dropped in the polls for a week, then rebounded to a higher position than pre-Wright. Wright came along again with his press conference, Obama dropped for a week, then rebounded to a higher point than he was prior to the press conference and prior to the initial Wright revelation. YOU want it to be an issue, but the rest of the country doesn't think it is. For you to somehow cite popular opinion that Wright is a problem is a joke. It isn't a problem. The fact that you care so deeply about the issue shows just how out of touch with the rest of the country you are (despite your measly claims that you don't care at all).

Do you honestly believe that Obama addressing the issue "TWICE" means it STILL is an issue? That seems to be your argument. Bush the 1st addressed his dislike for brocolli at least twice. It must have been a HUGE deal too, right? I mean, he DID address it TWICE at least.

Get real.

[Tex]

Originally Posted by Cali Coug

Wright was an issue largely to the people who were predisposed to vote against Obama. The polls support my position, not yours. When Wright first came along, Obama dropped in the polls for a week, then rebounded to a higher position than pre-Wright. Wright came along again with his press conference, Obama dropped for a week, then rebounded to a higher point than he was prior to the press conference and prior to the initial Wright revelation. YOU want it to be an issue, but the rest of the country doesn't think it is. For you to somehow cite popular opinion that Wright is a problem is a joke. It isn't a problem. The fact that you care so deeply about the issue shows just how out of touch with the rest of the country you are (despite your measly claims that you don't care at all).

Do you honestly believe that Obama addressing the issue "TWICE" means it STILL is an issue? That seems to be your argument. Bush the 1st addressed his dislike for brocolli at least twice. It must have been a HUGE deal too, right? I mean, he DID address it TWICE at least.

Get real.

I don't think it's a problem now (though maybe it will be in the generals, I don't know), but we've been discussing this for weeks. And I do think Obama's being forced to address it twice indicates he and/or his campaign thought it was a significant issue to more than just people predisposed to vote against him.

And, I don't "care so deeply about the issue," as I explained. Again, there's no use having a conversation with you if you don't read what I take the time to post.

[Cali Coug]

Originally Posted by Tex

I don't think it's a problem now (though maybe it will be in the generals, I don't know), but we've been discussing this for weeks. And I do think Obama's being forced to address it twice indicates he and/or his campaign thought it was a significant issue to more than just people predisposed to vote against him.

And, I don't "care so deeply about the issue," as I explained. Again, there's no use having a conversation with you if you don't read what I take the time to post.

In other words, you have now gone through several pages talking about Wright, just to arrive at the conclusion that you don't care about the issue at all and it isn't a problem for Obama?

lol! Glad we could talk. Let me know if I can help you resolve any other concerns.

[Tex]

Originally Posted by Cali Coug

In other words, you have now gone through several pages talking about Wright, just to arrive at the conclusion that you don't care about the issue at all and it isn't a problem for Obama?

lol! Glad we could talk. Let me know if I can help you resolve any other concerns.

I didn't "arrive at the conclusion." I stated it at the very outset. (Again, you are not reading.)

Just because it doesn't matter to me personally as a voter doesn't mean I can't have an opinion on it, or debate about it.