GatewayRedbirds.com

I don't hate anyone. But I do hate the fact that in 24 hours we'll have Obama as president.

Sure, I'm passionate about this. Maybe more here than anywhere else, actually. I've had to go over the top as one of the few defenders of the right.

And don't even take the time to wish that I enjoy the change. I'll enjoy none of it. I'm afraid of what will happen, and if he is able to accomplish what he really wants, I have every reason to be afraid. And I'm very serious. I'm afraid.

I hate the direction this country is going, and it's taking a big step in that direction tomorrow.

But really, I'm over it. We've known for some time now (since the "financial crisis") that Obama would win. I just hope our country withstands the next 2-4 years so that bigger change can happen in the next major elections.

BW23 wrote:I don't hate anyone. But I do hate the fact that in 24 hours we'll have Obama as president.

Sure, I'm passionate about this. Maybe more here than anywhere else, actually. I've had to go over the top as one of the few defenders of the right.

And don't even take the time to wish that I enjoy the change. I'll enjoy none of it. I'm afraid of what will happen, and if he is able to accomplish what he really wants, I have every reason to be afraid. And I'm very serious. I'm afraid.

I hate the direction this country is going, and it's taking a big step in that direction tomorrow.

But really, I'm over it. We've known for some time now (since the "financial crisis") that Obama would win. I just hope our country withstands the next 2-4 years so that bigger change can happen in the next major elections.

They want you to be afraid.

It's worked and worked well.

clement wrote:However you want to frame it, we already heard about it ad nauseum during the primaries. Obama addressed it and people either accepted his explanation or they did not. I'd say enough of them accepted given that he went on to win the nomination and continues to lead McCain in all the polls. Bringing it up again works well with drumming up the fervor of the rabid anti-Obama crowd, but it's a turn-off to the mainstream independent voters who are worried about the economy, foreign policy, healthcare, education, taxes, etc. McCain lost a lot of his opportunity to cut into Obama's lead wasting time talking about William Ayres and other so-called questionable associations and whatnot. McCain and Palin have their share of questionable associations as well, but the Obama campaign didn't waste time talking about them. They brought up Keating in response to the initial Ayres connection the McCain campaign tried to make, and then quickly dropped it when they saw it didn't help.

Dick Morris continually talking about his little pet online organization on Fox and constantly repeating the website where they take donations just makes him look like the sleazeball that everyone except the most partisan politicians know that he is.

Sorry, but you didn't hear about it ad nauseum during the primaries. You heard a little bit about Wright based on a sound bite or two. Mostly just one. You didn't hear about James Cone. You didn't hear about the theology based on Marxist roots. You didn't hear the racist garbage and hate that made Cone so proud of Trinity. You didn't hear it because the liberal MSM didn't want to rain on its Obama parade. They love this guy, and they aren't about to drag him under.

It might be a turnoff to the independent voter who doesn't care to educate themselves on the candidates, but a candidate's previous relationships and seriously flawed judgment has everything to do with the economy, foreign policy, healthcare, education, taxes, etc. Everything.

And let's not kid ourselves trying to compare McCain or Palin's past relationship to those of Obama. It's not close.

BW23 wrote:

clement wrote:However you want to frame it, we already heard about it ad nauseum during the primaries. Obama addressed it and people either accepted his explanation or they did not. I'd say enough of them accepted given that he went on to win the nomination and continues to lead McCain in all the polls. Bringing it up again works well with drumming up the fervor of the rabid anti-Obama crowd, but it's a turn-off to the mainstream independent voters who are worried about the economy, foreign policy, healthcare, education, taxes, etc. McCain lost a lot of his opportunity to cut into Obama's lead wasting time talking about William Ayres and other so-called questionable associations and whatnot. McCain and Palin have their share of questionable associations as well, but the Obama campaign didn't waste time talking about them. They brought up Keating in response to the initial Ayres connection the McCain campaign tried to make, and then quickly dropped it when they saw it didn't help.

Dick Morris continually talking about his little pet online organization on Fox and constantly repeating the website where they take donations just makes him look like the sleazeball that everyone except the most partisan politicians know that he is.

Sorry, but you didn't hear about it ad nauseum during the primaries. You heard a little bit about Wright based on a sound bite or two. Mostly just one. You didn't hear about James Cone. You didn't hear about the theology based on Marxist roots. You didn't hear the racist garbage and hate that made Cone so proud of Trinity. You didn't hear it because the liberal MSM didn't want to rain on its Obama parade. They love this guy, and they aren't about to drag him under.

It might be a turnoff to the independent voter who doesn't care to educate themselves on the candidates, but a candidate's previous relationships and seriously flawed judgment has everything to do with the economy, foreign policy, healthcare, education, taxes, etc. Everything.

And let's not kid ourselves trying to compare McCain or Palin's past relationship to those of Obama. It's not close.

I could be wrong but choosing Palin as a running mate might be a sign of seriously flawed judgment.

cardsfansince82 wrote:

BW23 wrote:

clement wrote:However you want to frame it, we already heard about it ad nauseum during the primaries. Obama addressed it and people either accepted his explanation or they did not. I'd say enough of them accepted given that he went on to win the nomination and continues to lead McCain in all the polls. Bringing it up again works well with drumming up the fervor of the rabid anti-Obama crowd, but it's a turn-off to the mainstream independent voters who are worried about the economy, foreign policy, healthcare, education, taxes, etc. McCain lost a lot of his opportunity to cut into Obama's lead wasting time talking about William Ayres and other so-called questionable associations and whatnot. McCain and Palin have their share of questionable associations as well, but the Obama campaign didn't waste time talking about them. They brought up Keating in response to the initial Ayres connection the McCain campaign tried to make, and then quickly dropped it when they saw it didn't help.

Dick Morris continually talking about his little pet online organization on Fox and constantly repeating the website where they take donations just makes him look like the sleazeball that everyone except the most partisan politicians know that he is.

Sorry, but you didn't hear about it ad nauseum during the primaries. You heard a little bit about Wright based on a sound bite or two. Mostly just one. You didn't hear about James Cone. You didn't hear about the theology based on Marxist roots. You didn't hear the racist garbage and hate that made Cone so proud of Trinity. You didn't hear it because the liberal MSM didn't want to rain on its Obama parade. They love this guy, and they aren't about to drag him under.

It might be a turnoff to the independent voter who doesn't care to educate themselves on the candidates, but a candidate's previous relationships and seriously flawed judgment has everything to do with the economy, foreign policy, healthcare, education, taxes, etc. Everything.

And let's not kid ourselves trying to compare McCain or Palin's past relationship to those of Obama. It's not close.

I could be wrong but choosing Palin as a running mate might be a sign of seriously flawed judgment.

The same could be said about Biden. The older he gets,the more the filter between his brain and his mouth quits working.

Hudler wrote:The same could be said about Biden. The older he gets,the more the filter between his brain and his mouth quits working.

There is no comparison between Palin and Biden.

BW23 wrote:Sorry, but you didn't hear about it ad nauseum during the primaries. You heard a little bit about Wright based on a sound bite or two. Mostly just one.

here, here, here, here, here, etc.

docellis wrote:

Hudler wrote:The same could be said about Biden. The older he gets,the more the filter between his brain and his mouth quits working.

There is no comparison between Palin and Biden.

Yes there is, Biden is an idiot too.

BW23 wrote:

clement wrote:However you want to frame it, we already heard about it ad nauseum during the primaries. Obama addressed it and people either accepted his explanation or they did not. I'd say enough of them accepted given that he went on to win the nomination and continues to lead McCain in all the polls. Bringing it up again works well with drumming up the fervor of the rabid anti-Obama crowd, but it's a turn-off to the mainstream independent voters who are worried about the economy, foreign policy, healthcare, education, taxes, etc. McCain lost a lot of his opportunity to cut into Obama's lead wasting time talking about William Ayres and other so-called questionable associations and whatnot. McCain and Palin have their share of questionable associations as well, but the Obama campaign didn't waste time talking about them. They brought up Keating in response to the initial Ayres connection the McCain campaign tried to make, and then quickly dropped it when they saw it didn't help.

Dick Morris continually talking about his little pet online organization on Fox and constantly repeating the website where they take donations just makes him look like the sleazeball that everyone except the most partisan politicians know that he is.

Sorry, but you didn't hear about it ad nauseum during the primaries. You heard a little bit about Wright based on a sound bite or two. Mostly just one. You didn't hear about James Cone. You didn't hear about the theology based on Marxist roots. You didn't hear the racist garbage and hate that made Cone so proud of Trinity. You didn't hear it because the liberal MSM didn't want to rain on its Obama parade. They love this guy, and they aren't about to drag him under.

It might be a turnoff to the independent voter who doesn't care to educate themselves on the candidates, but a candidate's previous relationships and seriously flawed judgment has everything to do with the economy, foreign policy, healthcare, education, taxes, etc. Everything.

And let's not kid ourselves trying to compare McCain or Palin's past relationship to those of Obama. It's not close.

Well I know of Cone and I just don't agree with you. I don't want to detract this thread by getting into a protracted debate about the merits of a theology that I neither follow nor know about in great detail. Based on what you've said I doubt you know all that much about him and it as well, other than what has been filtered through some sources that are biased against him/his theology.

Sarah Palin certainly has both political and religious associations that are just as controversial if not moreso than Obama's association with Wright and I guess you're implying Cone as well since Wright was known to be influenced by Cone's theology. You may not think the comparison is anywhere close, but I think many people would see things differently. I guess I can conclude that for whatever reason, that pesky liberal MSM didn't want to rain on the Palin parade either since they haven't spoken hardly at all about the secessionist movements or the right-wing churches she has been associated with.

I realize that you have grave concerns about electing a man who attended a church that had associations with black liberation theology. But walk a mile in the shoes of a Wright or a Cone who grew up and experienced segregation, discrimination, racism, lynching, police beatings and corruption, and some of the most disgusting and ugly aspects of our nation's recent history while witnessing the white churches, their leaders and followers tacitly condoning the inequalities, and then maybe you can comment on how radical their theologies are. You can throw around a term like Marxist, and I can simply respond that I find these huge conservative evangelical churches that align themselves with the likes of James Dobson or Tony Perkins or Jerry Falwell as fascist. Neither word sounds nice. Both are simplistic and disingenuous.

At the end of the day, average Americans don't wanna hear about all this BS and I don't blame them. That's why the so-called "liberal MSM" hasn't spent its time dragging up all this dirt. Certainly FoxNews isn't holding back because of their liberal bias, yet even they haven't made a fuss about what you're talking about. You're on the fringe BW, which is fine. It's nothing necessarily to be ashamed about. But that's essentially where you are when you start bringing up things like Cone as an important reason for voters to not back Barack Obama.