Super Delegates have Final Say?

[Clove]

http://www.boston.com/news/politics/politicalintelligence/2008/05/clinton_obama_v.html

Clinton, Obama vie for superdelegates

Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton split Tuesday's primaries, and so far today they have split the superdelegates who will likely determine who gets the nomination.

Representative Joe Courtney of Connecticut has announced for Obama, The Hartford Courant reported on its website today. Courtney represents the only congressional district that Clinton won in the state's Feb. 5 primary, so he waited longer than the rest of the delegation, the Courant said.

But Craig Bashein of Ohio has thrown in with Clinton, who that state's primary in March.

Fewer than 200 of the nearly 800 superdelegates -- party officials and elected officials -- remain undeclared.

While Obama is within 70 delegates of clinching the nomination, there are only 86 pledged delegates at stake in the three remaining contests -- June 1 in Puerto Rico and June 3 in Montana and South Dakota -- so it appears likely he needs superdelegates to go over the top. Clinton is about 250 delegates shy, so definitely needs superdelegates to wrest the nomination.

Obama won handily in Oregon and reached the key benchmark of winning a majority of all pledged delegates at stake in all the primaries and caucuses -- with three contests remaining.

But Clinton swamped Obama in Kentucky, particularly among the white working-class voters he has had trouble attracting.
--
Obviously this article is going by "Obama numbers" and it will be interesting to see what finally happens with Michigan and Florida but this becoming a stickier and stickier issue for Democrats, in my opinion.

[Gan]

This promises to run all the way up to the convention.

WAY TO GO HILLARY!

Ilvane still has a chance to avoid the party!

[oldanforgotten]

She had 228 superdelegates on February 5 to his 81. Since then, she has gotten 69 more superdelegates on her side to 208 for him, nearly 3 to 1 in his favor of new commitments. However, 17 of her superdelegates have withdrawn their support of her and now are supporting Obama, and 2 have withdrawn support and yet to choose who to support, meaning for every 4 new superdelegates she?s getting, she?s losing 1, and that?s on top of the fact that he?s getting then 3 to 1 over her without any public losses of support.

It would take a miracle for her to turn that around.
________
Ford fiesta rs turbo specifications (http://www.ford-wiki.com/wiki/Ford_Fiesta_RS_Turbo)

[Mabus]

It would take a miracle for her to turn that around.
Come on Wright, get out there and promote that book! Praise Jesus! Can I get a witness?
:hug2:

[Gan]

I still say she's going to claim a mandate from the people (or at least 50%) and take it all the way to the convention.

Hillary will not be thwarted by peer encouragement to give up the race. She'll only face defeat either through the courts or through the result of the convention.

Its all about the promise of power. Over 30 years of planning has led up to this point, she's not about to stop now, especially voluntarily.

[oldanforgotten]

Point taken, someone like Wright could certainly provide a big enough controversy that would tip public opinion and create a shift.

[Clove]

Gore er, I mean Hillary is definitely not stopping until forced to.

[BigWorm]

Come on Wright, get out there and promote that book! Praise Jesus! Can I get a witness?
:hug2:

Man, its so much fun to make fun of black people. They say funny stuff in church!

[Gan]

http://www.weeklystandard.com/weblogs/TWSFP/hillary-clinton.jpg
BOCA RATON, Fla. (AP) - Hillary Rodham Clinton says she is willing to take her fight to seat Florida and Michigan delegates to the convention if the two states want to go that far. In an interview with The Associated Press, Clinton was asked whether she would support the states if they continue the fight.

The presidential candidate said Wednesday, "Yes I will. I will, because I feel very strongly about this."

Clinton is calling for delegates from both states to be seated at the convention based on the primaries. Both states were stripped of their delegates because they voted early, violating national party rules. Clinton won both states; Barack Obama's name wasn't on the Michigan ballot.

The DNC's rules committee will hear an appeal on May 31.

http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=D90Q7SFO0&show_article=1

[thefarmer]

Man, its so much fun to make fun of black people. They say funny stuff in church!

It's chuch.

[Mabus]

Man, its so much fun to make fun of black people.
Why would you do that? Careful, they will Imus you!

What did Obama say about Imus in April 2007?
"I understand MSNBC has suspended Mr. Imus," Obama told ABC News, "but I would also say that there's nobody on my staff who would still be working for me if they made a comment like that about anybody of any ethnic group. And I would hope that NBC ends up having that same attitude."

Of course Wright was still on Obama's campaign staff at the time, but that doesn't matter as Obama can do no wrong!

They say funny stuff in church!
Things like "The United States of KKK!" and "God damn America!"? I don't find those funny. That Obama could stay in that church is shocking.

At least Wright got an $1.6 million dollar home and a "golden parachute" to resign right as the campaign started. That is one hell of a church retirement for an angry bigot.

[Warriorbird]

Rumor has it that Mabus doesn't like Obama...

[Parkbandit]

Rumor has it that Mabus doesn't like Obama...


Rumor has it, half the country doesn't either. Is this where you claim that anyone who doesn't vote for Obama must be a racist?

[Warriorbird]

Bitter much? I was just being amused by the topic of most of Mabus's posts.

You need to step your acrimony up. Your post was boring.

[landy]

You do seem to be in DefCon 4 there PB, his comment was more Mabus than Obama

[Mabus]

Bitter much?
Are you saying I am from a small town, as your Obama-messiah would say?

"It's not surprising, then, they get bitter, they cling to guns or religion or antipathy to people who aren't like them or anti-immigrant sentiment or anti-trade sentiment as a way to explain their frustrations." -Obama

[Warriorbird]

Oh, no. I'm far too elitist to be addressing you, Mabus. That post was for Parkbandit.

:)

[landy]

Are you saying I am from a small town, as your Obama-messiah would say?

"It's not surprising, then, they get bitter, they cling to guns or religion or antipathy to people who aren't like them or anti-immigrant sentiment or anti-trade sentiment as a way to explain their frustrations." -Obama

By the by, that was a portion of what was said, not the statement in it's entirety. Also, I don't know if you watch Bill Maher at all, but his show sent a reporter to some of those small towns in PA to talk to folks, and just about all of them were smart enough to realize what he actually meant. It's only willfully ignorant people who use those comments to imply he meant something other than the fact that this administration has failed the people of those small towns.

[Clove]

Rumor has it, half the country doesn't either. Is this where you claim that anyone who doesn't vote for Obama must be a racist?Heh, half the country isn't voting for him- that's not really a fair comparison to the kind of venom Mabus seems to have for the guy.

[Mabus]

By the by, that was a portion of what was said, not the statement in it's entirety.
I have read the whole statement. I posted what I felt was required by the question that was posed.



Also, I don't know if you watch Bill Maher at all,
That is correct. You do not know that.


but his show sent a reporter to some of those small towns in PA to talk to folks, and just about all of them were smart enough to realize what he actually meant.
Just because a political satirist's show "reports" this does not make it gospel. It means he had a point he was attempting to make that he felt his audience would find entertaining. He then used his resources to "prove" his point, for the sake of the show.

Perhaps you could refer to "The Daily Show" for your "facts" as well.



It's only willfully ignorant people who use those comments to imply he meant something other than the fact that this administration has failed the people of those small towns.
Then you are stating Obama is "willfully ignorant".

In his "clarification" of the statement (his pandering for lost votes after this statement slipped out) he did not just address it to just the current administration. He also said he could have said it better, which shows he does believe what he said was true.

Shame on you for calling Obama "willfully ignorant"! Careful, or some of the posters will state, "You must be a racist!".

[Mabus]

Heh, half the country isn't voting for him- that's not really a fair comparison to the kind of venom Mabus seems to have for the guy.
Venom could be poisonous or toxic. The truth can often be perceived as such.

[Warriorbird]

So you're saying that 90% of your posts aren't focused on your Obama obsession?

[Apathy]

Oh, no. I'm far too elitist to be addressing you, Mabus. That post was for Parkbandit.

:)


So you're saying that 90% of your posts aren't focused on your Obama obsession?

Hypocrite.



:)

[radamanthys]

Doesn't matter. Hillary's still gonna lose!

[landy]

Just because a political satirist's show "reports" this does not make it gospel. It means he had a point he was attempting to make that he felt his audience would find entertaining. He then used his resources to "prove" his point, for the sake of the show.

Then you are stating Obama is "willfully ignorant".

In his "clarification" of the statement (his pandering for lost votes after this statement slipped out) he did not just address it to just the current administration. He also said he could have said it better, which shows he does believe what he said was true.

Shame on you for calling Obama "willfully ignorant"! Careful, or some of the posters will state, "You must be a racist!".


Political satire aside, one shouldn't dismiss valid information which has been proven to be true regardless of the source.

I find little fault in Obama practicing damage control in this situation. It would have been an act of idiocy to assume that headline hungry media in this country wouldn't spin his statement in the most shocking manner possible. You continue to be willfully ignorant of the truth behind the mainstream media's distortion. Am I saying that hasn't been done to Hillary during this campaign? Absolutely not, she has also been the victim of said distortion on a number of occassions, and if you had purposely taken an excerpt of one of her speeches to cast a poor light on her, I'd have taken issue with that. But it appears your zeal for the old lady has shielded her from such an event.

[Warriorbird]

Different post, Apathy. I got bored with Parkbandit so I moved on.

Mabus just has epic hate for Obama in message board terms. Methinks it has something to do with the cycle of immigrants hating other immigrants that has played out in our culture for hundreds of years.

[Mabus]

But it appears your zeal for the old lady has shielded her from such an event.
I am not a Clinton supporter, and that you think I am speaks volumes. No one in this election represents what I feel is needed in a president.

Perhaps your "zeal" for substituting satire for true political reporting has "shielded" you from the reality of facts, or maybe you are just suffering from a case of the "if you ain't with us, you're against us" mentality that is common in current political discussions.

Either way you are wrong, again.

[Gan]

Different post, Apathy. I got bored with Parkbandit so I moved on.

Mabus just has epic hate for Obama in message board terms. Methinks it has something to do with the cycle of immigrants hating other immigrants that has played out in our culture for hundreds of years.

Do us all a favor WB. Since your response time seems to be lagging, for whatever reason, please quote who you're quipping off to when you do decide to post.

I know clicking on the quote button takes a lot of effort, but you never know, you might actually get someone to laugh at your humor instead of just at you.

:shrug:

[Warriorbird]

Effort. Pff.

Age of Conan makes my responses even slower.

[Lysander]

Obama is going to win the whole thing, he's got that cult of personality.

[Lysander]

I'm going to get so bored of AoC in like 6 months...but its an awesome game.

[landy]

I am not a Clinton supporter, and that you think I am speaks volumes. No one in this election represents what I feel is needed in a president.

Perhaps your "zeal" for substituting satire for true political reporting has "shielded" you from the reality of facts, or maybe you are just suffering from a case of the "if you ain't with us, you're against us" mentality that is common in current political discussions.

Either way you are wrong, again.

"Us" would denote that I am in fact an Obama supporter, when in fact I am a registered Independant with no intention of voting for Obama. As I pointed out if you had been able to comprehend my earlier post, I would have defended Hillary in the same manner had you willfully misinterpreted her. But then, you haven't had even the tiniest peep to say about the numerous spills Hillary has taken this primary season, have you? You've focused every bit of effort on the contention of Obama and his ilk. Gee, I wonder how I could have mistaken you for a Hillary supporter.

[Mabus]

Gee, I wonder how I could have mistaken you for a Hillary supporter.
Ignorance, stupidity, malice or a general lack of knowledge would be the easy guesses. But let's skip that for now.

Political satire is not a factual news source. It is entertainment. Quoting Carlos Mencia for immigration policy would make as much sense as sourcing for polls and interviews from Bill Maher. None. It could provide an interesting or light aside, but is hardly reputable.

Even if we skipped the sourcing (political satire) for your assertion of:
"It's only willfully ignorant people who use those comments to imply he meant something other than the fact that this administration has failed the people of those small towns."

And it can be proved that Obama meant more then the current "administration has failed". Obama himself says so.

You still state "only willfully ignorant people" are implying other things by the statement.

I disagree.

People well versed in politics, speeches, fundraisers and campaigns can come to different conclusions then you did. They are allowed to do so. They are certainly not all "ignorant people", as some of them carry extensive knowledge. Even Obama's clarification does not jibe with what you are saying, as his statements later point to not only this administration as the origin of this "bitterness", but previous administrations as well.

And Obama stills says that what he said at the time was "truth".

I have addressed previously why I seem to be "going after Obama". The "true believers" are as wrapped up in him as any rabid GW supporter was in their candidate. I prefer truth and questioning to blind acceptance and irrational conformity, so I post sourced information and it sometimes pisses the Obamaniacs off. Hopefully, it may lead a few people to take a realistic look at their "chosen one". If one person does it is all worth it.

Now that I have that altruistic bullshit out of the way I choose "general lack of knowledge" as the reason you mistakenly thought I supported Clinton.

[landy]

You really are a huge, huge fan of taking things out of context. I don't think I've seen a single one of your posts where you haven't commited this transgression. I'm afraid I'll just have to respectfully bow out of this conversation, my patience only extends so far.

[Mabus]

You really are a huge, huge fan of taking things out of context. I don't think I've seen a single one of your posts where you haven't commited this transgression. I'm afraid I'll just have to respectfully bow out of this conversation, my patience only extends so far.
Unable to give me anything other then political satire as "proof" (let alone the starting hypothesis or probability value of the Bill Maher "data"), or undertaking any attempt to proove your statement, you choose not to admit you may be incorrect, not even the possibility that you may be mistaken, and instead you decide to attack and drop out.

Well played...
...right.

[landy]

[QUOTE=landy;734000]Political satire aside, one shouldn't dismiss valid information which has been proven to be true regardless of the source.
QUOTE]

I blame our high schools for your inability to read, Mabus.

[Tsa`ah]

I blame our high schools for your inability to read, Mabus.

How dare you displace blame away from the parents.

[Daniel]

Unable to give me anything other then political satire as "proof" (let alone the starting hypothesis or probability value of the Bill Maher "data"), or undertaking any attempt to proove your statement, you choose not to admit you may be incorrect, not even the possibility that you may be mistaken, and instead you decide to attack and drop out.

Well played...
...right.

So you care to explain where Obama's church posted an anti semitic tirade?

[Clove]

I know clicking on the quote button takes a lot of effort, but you never know, you might actually get someone to laugh at your humor instead of just at you.

:shrug:Come on Gan, we're not laughing at WB, we're laughing near WB.

[g++]

You really are a huge, huge fan of taking things out of context. I don't think I've seen a single one of your posts where you haven't commited this transgression. I'm afraid I'll just have to respectfully bow out of this conversation, my patience only extends so far.

Mabus uses the age old "Ignore anything true" trick. By only focusing on one almost non-essential line in any given post and ignoring any good points made against the argument Mabus is backing Mabus is able to argue incessantly and unintelligibly with dozens of people at once.

[Keller]

Mabus uses the age old "Ignore anything true" trick. By only focusing on one almost non-essential line in any given post and ignoring any good points made against the argument Mabus is backing Mabus is able to argue incessantly and unintelligibly with dozens of people at once.

He also uses the most pejorative term possible and repeats it over, and over, and over, and over again until everyone has lost sight of what actually happened and just hears Mabus calling someone a liar.

[Gan]

Come on Gan, we're not laughing at WB, we're laughing near WB.


:chuckle:

[Mabus]

So you care to explain where Obama's church posted an anti semitic tirade?
Still at that, Daniel? In previous threads I have posted 2 links directly to Obama's Trinity United Church of Christ's own website.

One ( a June 10th 2007 newsletter) contained "An Open Letter to Oprah", written by the man (Ali Baghdadi) that introduced Wright to the "White people and Jews created AIDs to kill arabs and blacks" theory. In it he gives a clearly one-sided portrayal of life in Israel. he seems to skip the rockets fired into civilian areas by Palestinians with ease, and never even mentions suidcide bobmers blowing up buses of school children. I suppose that would lose his point of "Jews, the terrible oppressors" that Wright shares.

The other link (a July 22, 2007 newsletter) was to a piece by the political director of Hamas, a terrorist organization who has as its goal the destruction of our ally, Israel, and has stated that killing USA targets are well within this mission.

Let's look at part of it:
"I am forever asked to concede the recognition
of Israel’s putative “right to exist” as a necessary
precondition to discussing grievances, and to
renounce positions found in the Islamic Resistance
Movement’s charter of 1988, an essentially revolutionary
document born of the intolerable conditions
under occupation more than 20 years ago."

Read that "charter", that calls for the destruction of Israel and the establishment of an Islamic state in its place.

Let's look at that referenced charter a bit:
"Israel will exist and will continue to exist until Islam will obliterate it, just as it obliterated others before it"

"Initiatives, and so-called peaceful solutions and international conferences, are in contradiction to the principles of the Islamic Resistance Movement. Abusing any part of Palestine is abuse directed against part of religion. Nationalism of the Islamic Resistance Movement is part of its religion."

"There is no solution for the Palestinian question except through Jihad. Initiatives, proposals and international conferences are all a waste of time and vain endeavors. "

If you do not find that anti-semitic you are purposefully being obtuse.

Both are still at the TUCC website to this day. Obama can log into his church's website and read them anytime he wants.

[Mabus]

Political satire aside, one shouldn't dismiss valid information which has been proven to be true regardless of the source


I blame our high schools for your inability to read, Mabus.
I changed the bolded section to point out the point I have made. Your information is neither valid, nor proven to be true.

Your post was based on a series of interviews set to make a preset point in an entertainment piece that was used on a show that is political satire, that is neither "proof" or "valid". That you would also deny that the source of information is important is very telling, as source always matters in debate.

And since we are both reading and writing, your assertion that I cannot read is also proven false.

Keep going, you can set a record for either "attempted witty retorts" or "incorrect posts". Daniel will be displeased if you take his record in either.

[Mabus]

Mabus uses the age old "Ignore anything true" trick.
Are you stating that using interviews from a humorous political satire piece are a true source of information for facts during debate?

If so you are using "the age old" trick, idiocy.


By only focusing on one almost non-essential line in any given post and ignoring any good points made against the argument Mabus is backing Mabus is able to argue incessantly and unintelligibly with dozens of people at once.
The basis of the posts by landry was:
"Also, I don't know if you watch Bill Maher at all, but his show sent a reporter to some of those small towns in PA to talk to folks, and just about all of them were smart enough to realize what he actually meant."

Take that line out of the debate (and the insults he threw, which I responded to) and his whole line falls. The post that quote comes from would be nothing. I questioned whether political satire should be considered as fact, and I still do not believe that it is.

Even not taking that line as part of the posts at all, it has been shown that Obama disagrees with landry over where "the blame" for the "bitterness" lies. When landry stated that it was the current administration, he was incorrect according to Obama. Obama included administrations previous to the current one in his "clarification".

And landry has neither proven that Bill Maher is a source for factual information, nor that Obama was wrong for disagreeing with him.

That little sharks circle is not new news. That people that have posted BS in the past and been called on it by me come to attempt to attack is clear.

You still have proven nothing, except you are incapable of reasoned debate.

[Mabus]

He also uses the most pejorative term possible and repeats it over, and over, and over, and over again until everyone has lost sight of what actually happened and just hears Mabus calling someone a liar.
Is it this page, or a couple more, where you start comparing me to other posters?

That you "lost sight" of the truth of my statements does not mean a thing. And there have only been 2 people on this board I have called a lair. One (Daniel) apologized for one instance.

[landy]

I changed the bolded section to point out the point I have made. Your information is neither valid, nor proven to be true.

Your post was based on a series of interviews set to make a preset point in an entertainment piece that was used on a show that is political satire, that is neither "proof" or "valid". That you would also deny that the source of information is important is very telling, as source always matters in debate.

And since we are both reading and writing, your assertion that I cannot read is also proven false.

Keep going, you can set a record for either "attempted witty retorts" or "incorrect posts". Daniel will be displeased if you take his record in either.


Fact is fact I'm afraid, Mabus. If a mainstream news program presented percentages from a political poll, and a political satire show presented those same percentages, it would not make them any less true. The fact that you seem unable to grasp that concept is what leads me to question; are you truly that blind, or are you, as I have been saying, merely willfully ignorant.

Before you decide to point out that you are not, in fact, blind, let me introduce you to another concept you seem incapable of understanding: hyperbole.

[Back]

In the early 1990's, after the gulf war ended, Nostradamus followers wildly speculated that Suddam Hussein was the third Anti-Christ. Many scholars have interpreted Nostradamus' prophecies over the years. The common consensus is that the first Anti-Christ, named Napaulon Roy was Napoleon, the second named Hister was Hitler and the third was named Mabus. We have yet to figure out who this last Anti-Christ will be.

Century 2, Quatrain 62
Mabus will soon die, then will come,
A horrible undoing of people and animals,
At once one will see vengeance,
One hundred powers, thirst, famine, when the comet will pass.
After the gulf war, Suddam was left standing in Baghdad and people lost interest. The prophecy was not fulfilled because Mabus (sudaM) was still alive. Now with war looming over the middle east, Suddam is now the US's number one target. He has the chance to fulfill the prophecy, if Bush gets his way. Nostradamus infers that if the third and final Anti-Christ dies, a 27 year war of vengeance will begin.

Century 8, Quatrain 77
The antichrist very soon annihilates the three,
twenty-seven years his war will last.
The unbelievers are dead, captive, exiled;
with blood, human bodies, water and red hail covering the earth. With all the terror attacks around the globe, it's not hard to see how 27 years of Arab reprisals could take place. And how Suddam would become the Arabic martyr for revenge. His death may look like the solution to end all hostility's, but it could trigger decades of terror attacks. I think Suddam may get his chance to play the role of the Anti-Christ (Trickster) after all.

[g++]

Are you stating that using interviews from a humorous political satire piece are a true source of information for facts during debate?

If so you are using "the age old" trick, idiocy.


The basis of the posts by landry was:
"Also, I don't know if you watch Bill Maher at all, but his show sent a reporter to some of those small towns in PA to talk to folks, and just about all of them were smart enough to realize what he actually meant."

Take that line out of the debate (and the insults he threw, which I responded to) and his whole line falls. The post that quote comes from would be nothing. I questioned whether political satire should be considered as fact, and I still do not believe that it is.

Even not taking that line as part of the posts at all, it has been shown that Obama disagrees with landry over where "the blame" for the "bitterness" lies. When landry stated that it was the current administration, he was incorrect according to Obama. Obama included administrations previous to the current one in his "clarification".

And landry has neither proven that Bill Maher is a source for factual information, nor that Obama was wrong for disagreeing with him.

That little sharks circle is not new news. That people that have posted BS in the past and been called on it by me come to attempt to attack is clear.

You still have proven nothing, except you are incapable of reasoned debate.


Look psycho I was just making a broad statement about you in general not this specific pointless argument your involved in. Even in your response you shredded my post into two incoherent parts and responded to the parts as though they were not a single statement.

[Mabus]

And there have only been 2 people on this board I have called a lair.
Change "lair" to "liar".

Typing fast today. Things to do.

[Keller]

Is it this page, or a couple more, where you start comparing me to other posters?

That you "lost sight" of the truth of my statements does not mean a thing. And there have only been 2 people on this board I have called a lair. One (Daniel) apologized for one instance.

You called Daniel, myself, and Clove liars.

You, sir, are a LIAR. I depend an immediate apology! LIAR, APOLOGY< LIAR< FOUJW#IKH_PS+}RE HWIO!

[Mabus]

Look psycho
Yes, because I point out that you are wrong you suddenly grow a degree in psychology, and understanding of the word "psycho" and the ability to diagnose from forum posts.

What a rare specimen you are!

I was just making a broad statement about you in general not this specific pointless argument your involved in.
And you were incorrect, and shown to be.

Even in your response you shredded my post into two incoherent parts and responded to the parts as though they were not a single statement.
I responded to them as needed, just as I do now.

Post some more for my amusement.

[Mabus]

You called Daniel, myself, and Clove liars.

You, sir, are a LIAR. I depend an immediate apology! LIAR, APOLOGY< LIAR< FOUJW#IKH_PS+}RE HWIO!
Did I call all three a "liar", or did I state something like "prove the statement or join Daniel in being a liar"?

There is a difference.

[g++]

Yes, because I point out that you are wrong you suddenly grow a degree in psychology, and understanding of the word "psycho" and the ability to diagnose from forum posts.

What a rare specimen you are!

And you were incorrect, and shown to be.

I responded to them as needed, just as I do now.

Post some more for my amusement.

Your response to this post :



Mabus uses the age old "Ignore anything true" trick. By only focusing on one almost non-essential line in any given post and ignoring any good points made against the argument Mabus is backing Mabus is able to argue incessantly and unintelligibly with dozens of people at once.


Was :


Are you stating that using interviews from a humorous political satire piece are a true source of information for facts during debate?

If so you are using "the age old" trick, idiocy.


The basis of the posts by landry was:
"Also, I don't know if you watch Bill Maher at all, but his show sent a reporter to some of those small towns in PA to talk to folks, and just about all of them were smart enough to realize what he actually meant."

Take that line out of the debate (and the insults he threw, which I responded to) and his whole line falls. The post that quote comes from would be nothing. I questioned whether political satire should be considered as fact, and I still do not believe that it is.

Even not taking that line as part of the posts at all, it has been shown that Obama disagrees with landry over where "the blame" for the "bitterness" lies. When landry stated that it was the current administration, he was incorrect according to Obama. Obama included administrations previous to the current one in his "clarification".

And landry has neither proven that Bill Maher is a source for factual information, nor that Obama was wrong for disagreeing with him.

That little sharks circle is not new news. That people that have posted BS in the past and been called on it by me come to attempt to attack is clear.

You still have proven nothing, except you are incapable of reasoned debate.

So you quoted my post asserting your responses have little to do with the content of what your quoting and responded with a rant about Bill Maher. I do not need a degree in Psychology to know that is pretty crazy.

[Gan]

You, sir, are a LIAR. I depend an immediate apology! LIAR, APOLOGY< LIAR< FOUJW#IKH_PS+}RE HWIO!

:rofl:

[Stanley Burrell]

Yeah. Superdelegates.

Remin me to read this thread later so I can get drunk.

[Mabus]

I do not need a degree in Psychology to know that is pretty crazy.
In most states you would need one to present a diagnosis.

In your current state of idiocy you may not.

[g++]

In most states you would need one to present a diagnosis.

In your current state of idiocy you may not.

Right no response. You lose.

[radamanthys]

Wow, Mabus kinda reminds me of Dwight Schrute. Taking everything way too seriously, and totally out of normal context.

[Parkbandit]

Still at that, Daniel? In previous threads I have posted 2 links directly to Obama's Trinity United Church of Christ's own website.

One ( a June 10th 2007 newsletter) contained "An Open Letter to Oprah", written by the man (Ali Baghdadi) that introduced Wright to the "White people and Jews created AIDs to kill arabs and blacks" theory. In it he gives a clearly one-sided portrayal of life in Israel. he seems to skip the rockets fired into civilian areas by Palestinians with ease, and never even mentions suidcide bobmers blowing up buses of school children. I suppose that would lose his point of "Jews, the terrible oppressors" that Wright shares.

The other link (a July 22, 2007 newsletter) was to a piece by the political director of Hamas, a terrorist organization who has as its goal the destruction of our ally, Israel, and has stated that killing USA targets are well within this mission.

Let's look at part of it:
"I am forever asked to concede the recognition
of Israel’s putative “right to exist” as a necessary
precondition to discussing grievances, and to
renounce positions found in the Islamic Resistance
Movement’s charter of 1988, an essentially revolutionary
document born of the intolerable conditions
under occupation more than 20 years ago."

Read that "charter", that calls for the destruction of Israel and the establishment of an Islamic state in its place.

Let's look at that referenced charter a bit:
"Israel will exist and will continue to exist until Islam will obliterate it, just as it obliterated others before it"

"Initiatives, and so-called peaceful solutions and international conferences, are in contradiction to the principles of the Islamic Resistance Movement. Abusing any part of Palestine is abuse directed against part of religion. Nationalism of the Islamic Resistance Movement is part of its religion."

"There is no solution for the Palestinian question except through Jihad. Initiatives, proposals and international conferences are all a waste of time and vain endeavors. "

If you do not find that anti-semitic you are purposefully being obtuse.

Both are still at the TUCC website to this day. Obama can log into his church's website and read them anytime he wants.


In Daniel's defense.. maybe Rev. Wrong isn't an actual anti-semite.. but maybe a pro-islamic facist.

[Parkbandit]

Right no response. You lose.

:rofl:

U WIN TEH INTERNET THEN! MABUS DIDN'T RESPOND, SO U R WINNER!!

Grats!

[Daniel]

In Daniel's defense.. maybe Rev. Wrong isn't an actual anti-semite.. but maybe a pro-islamic facist.

Or..I don't know. He's one of the millions of people that think Israeli policy towards Palestine is Abhorrent. People that include former US Presidents and widely respected Nobel Peace Prize winners.

[Daniel]

Still at that, Daniel? In previous threads I have posted 2 links directly to Obama's Trinity United Church of Christ's own website.


Why of course I am. You've provided nothing other then ad hominem attacks and conjecture to "prove" a point that is retarded.

The letter doesn't mention suicide bombers and rocket attacks? Oh really? That makes it anti semitic? How about, it was an article that was trying to depict the *other* side of the story, beyond those things.

Oh my Gosh, that is so anti semitic. Or not. Telling a side of the story is in no way racist or anti semitic. That's like saying that civil rights workers were racist because they decried the injustices administered by whites.

Then again, you think Nelson Mandela is anti semitic so maybe that's not a good point for me to make.


So, Let's take another ridiculous point you make:





The other link (a July 22, 2007 newsletter) was to a piece by the political director of Hamas, a terrorist organization who has as its goal the destruction of our ally, Israel, and has stated that killing USA targets are well within this mission.

Let's look at part of it:
"I am forever asked to concede the recognition
of Israel’s putative “right to exist” as a necessary
precondition to discussing grievances, and to
renounce positions found in the Islamic Resistance
Movement’s charter of 1988, an essentially revolutionary
document born of the intolerable conditions
under occupation more than 20 years ago."

Read that "charter", that calls for the destruction of Israel and the establishment of an Islamic state in its place.


So you start off with guilt by association:

The guy is Hamas, so A) He is anti semitic because Hamas is a "Terrorist Orgaization"

Then you say B) Wright is Anti Semitic because he allowed a guy who is anti semitic to write something in his newsletter

Then you jump to C) Obama is Anti Semitic because his christian preacher allowed some guy who was anti semitic to write something in his newletter.

Do you see the inherent fallacy in your argument?

No?

Okay, let's continue.

You say that he references the charter. However, that charter is not the document in question. It's a reference and part of an entirely different point which is articulated in the next paragraph:

"The Sticking point of Recognition has been used as a litmus test to Judge Palestinians. Yet, as I have said before a state does have the right to exist, just not absolutely at the expense of other states, or more importantly at the right of millions of human individuals and their right to justice."

The hatred.

The horrible hatred!

I do applaud you. Each time I ask you, you get closer and closer to actually making an argument with presented facts. You still come up a little short, but that's okay. Baby steps.

[Daniel]

Is it this page, or a couple more, where you start comparing me to other posters?

That you "lost sight" of the truth of my statements does not mean a thing. And there have only been 2 people on this board I have called a lair. One (Daniel) apologized for one instance.

I did no such thing.

You sir are a liar.

[Parkbandit]

For your theory to win Daniel, you should prove that Hamas ISN'T a terrorist organization. You supposedly work for the State Department.. and probably have stacks of reasons why they ARE considered a terrorist organization by the US Government and many governments around the world.

If the definition of anti-semite is someone who hates jews.. the good "Reverend" Wright certainly seems to fit the bill. Or, I guess you can continue to be in the clear minority to say that Rev. Wright said nothing wrong.

[Gan]

http://blog.repliqa.com/wp-content/uploads/2008/04/liar_by_movieaddict.jpg

http://www.legaljuice.com/LIAR.gif

[Clove]

http://punditkitchen.wordpress.com/files/2008/05/political-pictures-barack-obama-jcpenny.jpg

[Warriorbird]

Anybody who disagrees with Israelis ever is totally an anti-Semite.

I'm curious where the outrage is about McCain's little buddy Hagee.

[Gan]

I'm curious where the outrage is about McCain's little buddy Hagee.

Thanks for the segway.



STOCKTON, Calif., May 22 -- Sen. John McCain on Thursday repudiated the presidential endorsement of the Rev. John Hagee after learning about a sermon in which the megachurch pastor from San Antonio declared that God allowed the rise of Adolf Hitler because it resulted in returning Israel to the Jewish people.
more...
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/05/22/AR2008052203141.html

[Clove]

That's more "crazy" than anti-semitism. It definitely isn't anti-Zionist since he seems in favor of Israel for the Jewish.

[Mabus]

I did no such thing.

You sir are a liar.
From a previous post of yours:

Okay. I apologize for misquoting you, lying abotu your posts and falsely accusing you of racism contingent on you making a convincing argument on how that article is anti semitic.
I presented a convincing argument, maybe not to you, but to people that actually don't have an agenda of protecting Obama and Wright at any cost. The authors of those articles are anti-semitic and anti-Jewish.

Let's look at it again:
1) Political director of Hamas article on TUCC website
2) The article supports a radical charter that calls for Jihad
3) The charter calls for the destruction of Israel
4) Disallows any diplomatic solutions dealing with Israel

1) Ali Baghdadi article on TUCC website
2) Baghdadi has written about "white man and Israelis created AIDs to kill black people and Arabs"
3) Wright agrees with Baghdadi, stating, "The government lied about inventing the HIV virus as a means of genocide against people of color. The government lied."
4) Article presents one-sided view of Israelis as aggressors, skipping all terrorist attacks upon civilian populations by Palestinians.

Both articles by the known anti-semites still exist as part of church newsletters, and part of the "Pastor's Page". Obama can log in to his church's website and read them, just like you can. You can further research the authors and their referenced materials from the articles. Or you can pretend that these things do not exist, as you atempt to do.

That you do not like being shown that these authors are what has been shown does not dismiss the fact of who they are and what they believe.

Prove me wrong by showing that the two authors are not anti-semitic and anti-Jewish.


Those things may not convince you, but you may still feel that

[Mabus]

I am so done attempting to convince certain people of facts. How anyone can look at those authors and their agendas and act like they are not anti-semitic and anti-Israel is lost to me.

Have at your fantasy. Believe whatever you want.

I am out for a bit.

[Warriorbird]

You can bring your toys back to the sandbox when you have something else to talk about.

[Parkbandit]

Anybody who disagrees with Israelis ever is totally an anti-Semite.

I'm curious where the outrage is about McCain's little buddy Hagee.

Night and day comparison. I think McCain said it best when:

"But let me also be clear, Reverend Hagee was not and is not my pastor or spiritual advisor, and I did not attend his church for twenty years."

So to answer your question about where the outrage is.. seems that most people are far more intelligent than you and don't make the weak ass connection you seem to have done.

[Keller]

WB U R DUM, ROFL

[Stanley Burrell]

<<Mabus>>

I am an eighth Semite and 100% Jewish. So if someones calls me a dirty kyke, they're being 112.5% anti-Semitic. Freedom Allah astrolabe mathematics.

qwipejeiotjrui

[Warriorbird]

OMG Keller! I R!

McCain totally didn't attempt to use Hagee for validation with Christian conservatives in his big "I love Christian wackos" flip flop.

[Keller]

OMG Keller! I R!

McCain totally didn't attempt to use Hagee for validation with Christian conservatives in his big "I love Christian wackos" flip flop.

Sometimes I wonder how he gets away with support from people who say: "God sent those Islams to punish us for our gays. Amurkah, do whats right and get rid of those gays." Not only is that hateful -- but it's fucking crazy. At least Wright was attempting social commentary regarding (perceived) injustice -- not some modern-day pharisee shit.

[Clove]

OMG Keller! I R!

McCain totally didn't attempt to use Hagee for validation with Christian conservatives in his big "I love Christian wackos" flip flop.Right about now WB is going to start talking about murdering millions of humans each time he masturbates.

[Keller]

Right about now WB is going to start talking about murdering millions of humans each time he masturbates.

Talk about a 10-roper.

[Warriorbird]

I'm sorry that you want to know about it when I get down, Clove. Maybe I should set up a twitter or something.

[Clove]

I'm sorry that you want to know about it when I get down, Clove. Maybe I should set up a twitter or something.My bad, in your case specifically it would probably only be a few hundred humans.

[Warriorbird]

So... you've been watching? I rest my case. This thread had absolutely nothing to do with abortion or birth control.

Back to McCain being a hypocrite.

[Clove]

So... you've been watching? I rest my case. This thread had absolutely nothing to do with abortion or birth control.

Back to McCain being a hypocrite.Naw, I lost my binoches years ago. Actually, I started this thread and it isn't about bashing McCain at all. Thanks for playing.

[Warriorbird]

Well then, there's only one way you'd know... so I guess I now have to go through years of expensive therapy.

This is a really funny expression of the media bias involving Hagee.

The thread also wasn't about Wright or your sexual obsession with me.

[Clove]

The thread also wasn't about Wright or your sexual obsession with me.Okayy Tsa'ah.

[Warriorbird]

Or some vain allusions.

You've really got "independent" cred now.

[Clove]

Or some vain allusions.

You've really got "independent" cred now.Getting weaker.

[Warriorbird]

You took it there. I can understand if you'd rather insult people than talk about religion. Sorta boring though.

[Clove]

You took it there. I can understand if you'd rather insult people than talk about religion though. Sorta boring.And weaker.

[Parkbandit]

By using WB retarded logic...

Hamas endorses Barack Obama for US President. Sure, Obama didn't attend Hamas meetings over the past 20 years... and didn't marry him to his wife or baptize his children.. but it's exactly the same thing.

[Warriorbird]

So, Clove. What's your opinion on McCain's 'Religious conservatives are what's wrong with America!' to speaking at Liberty and courting Hagee to having people use Wright on Obama while throwing Hagee under the bus cycle?

Y'know, so we can hear the 'independent' perspective?

All I hear is this buzz from you, Parkbandit. You can chime in on this too.

[Clove]

Y'know, so we can hear the 'independent' perspective?You know it's funny. PB thinks ima gone vote Obama so obviously I'm a lib. And the retarded lib (that's you WB) questions my independent status (I see what you did there). ZOMG Whatever will I do? More eloquent proof of my centrist voting record you'll never find. Now if you want to talk about Super Delegates in the Democratic Convention... okay. Otherwise STFU and start a McCain thread.

[Mighty Nikkisaurus]

I'm not really trying to stir the pot or whatever, but as far as Rev. Wright goes, reading Obama's book "Dreams from my Father" discounted in at least my mind the attacks made on Obama simply because his spiritual advisor has said some controversial things. He says quite plainly that he has never agreed with all of Rev. Wright's views and that he attends the church he does for the sense of community he finds there and the connection to God he feels when he's there.. and not because he's looking for Rev. Wright to guide him. He's actually a critic of him, as well-- saying that it made him uncomfortable to hear his views on white people because he disagreed and didn't like the idea of blaming everyone but themselves for the problems black people faced.

As far as McCain goes, I feel pretty much the same way about Hagee. I honestly don't care if Hagee endorses him or anyone else does, you can't control who is going to endorse you and just because you talk to someone or consider them a friend doesn't mean your thinking and ideas are a clone of theirs.

Honestly, there are enough differences and enough of a track record in the actual points/political views both individuals have that I think these kind of distractions are a waste of time. I think our country would be better off if people looked at real issues and the bigger picture instead of these inflammatory and relatively pointless "issues".

[Warriorbird]

I'm sorry Clove. When you understand how things got worse after you threw in a random insult then maybe you'll understand why it went off topic. If you post something actually related to the topic maybe it'll get back on course.

[Parkbandit]

I'm sorry Clove. When you understand how things got worse after you threw in a random insult then maybe you'll understand why it went off topic. If you post something actually related to the topic maybe it'll get back on course.


Yea Clove.. tossing in random insults is the only thing WB is known for.. maybe get your own schtick!

[Clove]

I'm sorry Clove.Apology accepted.

[Daniel]

From a previous post of yours:

I presented a convincing argument, maybe not to you, but to people that actually don't have an agenda of protecting Obama and Wright at any cost.




Lol @ Agenda.

Let's see:



The authors of those articles are anti-semitic and anti-Jewish.


Which says nothing about those articles. You still can not explain why they are anti semitic without making ad hominom inferences or making references that are completely out of context. More to the point: I didn't realize that Obama had to do full character checks on individuals who have articles posted in his church's bulletin.

Reach much?

I said "provided" you state how that article in question was anti semitic. You ever did so and even refused to do so in that thread. Therefore, the offer was withdrawn and no such thing was ever done. You sir, are a liar.

[Mabus]

You still can not explain why they are anti semitic without making ad hominom inferences or making references that are completely out of context.
Sorry to respond so long after the idiocy you posted, but I have a life.

I pointed out the reference in the article to the Hamas charter. That you would dismiss it, or consider it not anti-Semitic, is not surprising.

I pointed out the Baghdadi article there, where he writes "what the Zionist Jews did to the Palestinians is worse than what the Nazis did to the Jews", but again you do not find that anti-Semitic.

So just for me to get this straight you do not find the articles comparison of the Israelis to the Nazis, and a reference to a charter calling for the destruction of Israel anti-Semitic?

Both are reference directly from the articles. They are not ad hominem fallacies. The evidence exists without witnesses. That I also addressed the circumstances about the authors as well as the quotes from the articles was done to provide background.

I could point to other articles published by Wright that are still at the Trinity United Church of Christ's website as well, one's where Wright blames 9/11 on "the attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon had to do with our government’s shameful and shameless support of Zionism", but what good would it do? You obviously believe that Wright speaks the truth, that Israel is the enemy and that supporting Hamas is in the best interest of our country.

That you do not find Hamas a terrorist organization (which most civilized nations do), or Baghdadi an insane anti-Semite (which his writings show), should surprise no one, as you seem to support a bigoted, ethic hatred towards Jews and Israel.

You Daniel are not only a liar, you are an idiot and a bigot.

Bravo, you got the Troika!

[Daniel]

Once again, you take quotes out of context and present them as anti semitic simply because they do not conform to your world view.

That "quote" of Ali Baghdadi is not of his own. It's of Arnold Toynbee, a pretty famous historian. Those quotes are side by side with quotes by Desmond Tutu and Nelson Mandela stating that the status of Palestinians is worse than Apartheid.

I guess that makes them anti semitic too?

As already pointed out, the reference to the "charter" was to point out the silliness of a one sided commitment to peace.

I'm sorry. I do not find legitimate criticism of Israel anti semitic. That doesn't make me a bigot in the slightest. You'll just have to deal with that, but don't forget: Obama's pastor is racist!!!11!!

[Daniel]

Additionally,

It is idiots like you that undermine our credibility in the region and ultimately kill our foreign policy objectives. You lack any semblance of objectivity and instead of debating the issues decry anyone who objects to the racist and skewed policies of the far right israeli agenda as anti semitic.

As if, Israel itself wasn't composed of many people who do not agree with its existing policies.

Remember Yizbak Rabin? The Israeli Prime Minister who was about to sign the Oslo accords because he believed that Israel's policy toward Palestine were leading his country to a dire fate?

I guess he was anti semitic too?

That must be why radical jews murdered him.

[Parkbandit]

I think Daniel is right. Anything that Rev. Wright said that could be considered anti-American, anti-semitic, racially divisive or negative in ANY way was clearly taken out of context. Black Liberation Theology is and will always be a positive and uplifting religion that only helps heal the wounds of racial tensions throughout the world.

Let's hug it out.

[Daniel]

I've never said his comments weren't "negative" or "divisive". I just feel that in a lot of respects they are justified.

There is a difference. Besides, I'm not much of a hugger anyway.

[Clove]

I've never said his comments weren't "negative" or "divisive". I just feel that in a lot of respects they are justified...Well as long as they're justified- that'll take us where we need to be. I mean if you're a poor black man, clearly the United States is trying to kill you off with AIDS.

[Parkbandit]

I've never said his comments weren't "negative" or "divisive". I just feel that in a lot of respects they are justified.

There is a difference. Besides, I'm not much of a hugger anyway.

You implied that they weren't divisive... here's one quote:




I'm just curious as to what *you* ParkBandit, PC poster extraordinaire find so divisive or racist.


If you felt they were racially divisive, you wouldn't ask me to help you understand it.

[Daniel]

Well as long as they're justified- that'll take us where we need to be. I mean if you're a poor black man, clearly the United States is trying to kill you off with AIDS.

Because boiling down 30 years to one sentence in order to railroad an associate of his is constructive or condusive to racial reconciliation in this country?

No italics needed.

[Daniel]

You implied that they weren't divisive... here's one quote:



If you felt they were racially divisive, you wouldn't ask me to help you understand it.

Not exactly. I don't personally believe that someone should be all up in arms over something that is true, re: the status of black people in America. I'd personally be more upset that such a belief has the ability to get leverage because of all of the other fucked up things going on.

However, I understand that people like you choose to be willfully ignorant over the state of affairs in America and would rather believe that the problems that exist today are a result of a peoples inability to just "get over slavery".

[Clove]

Because boiling down 30 years to one sentence in order to railroad an associate of his is constructive or condusive to racial reconciliation in this country?

No italics needed.Oh Wright isn't being taken in the context of his career, however, he isn't being boiled down to one sentence either. Obama even wrote in his book that some of Wright's comments made him uncomfortable. It's not like he woke up off his meds and had one crazy sermon. Srsly.

[Gan]

Oh Wright isn't being taken in the context of his career, however, he isn't being boiled down to one sentence either. Obama even wrote in his book that some of Wright's comments made him uncomfortable. It's not like he woke up off his meds and had one crazy sermon. Srsly.

ITS OK, BECAUSE ITS JUSTIFIED!!!

[Daniel]

Oh Wright isn't being taken in the context of his career, however, he isn't being boiled down to one sentence either. Obama even wrote in his book that some of Wright's comments made him uncomfortable. It's not like he woke up off his meds and had one crazy sermon. Srsly.


That's fine. As long as you recognize that these comments are not indicative in nature. There's a whole world of difference between that and omg he's so racist and anti semitic.

[Parkbandit]

Not exactly. I don't personally believe that someone should be all up in arms over something that is true, re: the status of black people in America. I'd personally be more upset that such a belief has the ability to get leverage because of all of the other fucked up things going on.

However, I understand that people like you choose to be willfully ignorant over the state of affairs in America and would rather believe that the problems that exist today are a result of a peoples inability to just "get over slavery".


How do you figure "not exactly"? You said you didn't see anything wrong with any of Rev. Wrights sermons.. I said they were racially divisive.. you said I was just a racist. Obama said the sermons were racially divisive.. you said you lost alot of respect for Obama and probably wouldn't vote for him.

And don't worry chump... I understand that people like you choose to be a willful victim whenever it suits your needs or purposes... while turning a blind eye to the real problems of blacks in America. Just continue to blame good ol' Whitey for all your problems. I would hand you a hanky.. but I'm afraid I only have those evil white ones.

[Gan]

I think I have an old confederate flag hanky somehwere you can borrow.

[Parkbandit]

Because boiling down 30 years to one sentence in order to railroad an associate of his is constructive or condusive to racial reconciliation in this country?

No italics needed.

Reverend Wright isn't interested in racial reconciliation in this country... That's like saying people like Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton want racial harmony.

[Parkbandit]

I think I have an old confederate flag hanky somehwere you can borrow.


Racist.

[Daniel]

How do you figure "not exactly"? You said you didn't see anything wrong with any of Rev. Wrights sermons.. I said they were racially divisive.. you said I was just a racist.

I'm not even sure I remember the exchange you are talking about. I don't have time to search for it, but I'm pretty sure I meant that you were looking for any reason to hate the man, and purposefully taking his comments out of context. Which would be in line with your history here.


Obama said the sermons were racially divisive.. you said you lost alot of respect for Obama and probably wouldn't vote for him.

I didn't lose a lot of respect for Obama because he said the speeches were racially divisive. I lost a lot of respect because he repudiated *all* of his statements outright of not being true and as not being a justifiable grievance.



And don't worry chump... I understand that people like you choose to be a willful victim whenever it suits your needs or purposes... while turning a blind eye to the real problems of blacks in America. Just continue to blame good ol' Whitey for all your problems. I would hand you a hanky.. but I'm afraid I only have those evil white ones.

I'm crying? Why would I do that? I've done quite well for myself all things considered. Certainly a lot more then you ever will.

Please continue to think that anyone who points out a problem in America is somehow crying or looking for an excuse for their failures. The PC wouldn't be as much fun without it.

[Daniel]

Reverend Wright isn't interested in racial reconciliation in this country... That's like saying people like Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton want racial harmony.

I'd suggest that Rev. Wright has done a lot more for that cause than you ever will.

[Parkbandit]

I'm not even sure I remember the exchange you are talking about. I don't have time to search for it, but I'm pretty sure I meant that you were looking for any reason to hate the man, and purposefully taking his comments out of context. Which would be in line with your history here.

This from a guy who lies about other posts saying he's 'lik 100% positive" then plays the denial game for days about it.. then resorts to 'well, if I take 2 words for 13 posts, I could piece them together and BOOM YOU POSTED IT!'

Bitch, please.




Please continue to think that anyone who points out a problem in America is somehow crying or looking for an excuse for their failures. The PC wouldn't be as much fun without it.

There is a huge difference between pointing out problems in America and what you have always done on this message board in regards to blacks in America. HUGE difference.

[Parkbandit]

I'd suggest that Rev. Wright has done a lot more for that cause than you ever will.


Your suggestion would be incorrect.. Rev. Wright has done more harm then anything postive about racial reconciliation. I simply do not have anything close to the platform he has had over the past 30 years.. spewing his black liberation theology.

And just look at the polls regarding how his sermons are accepted. I'm lik 100% positive that if you take out his name, and put mine, the top answer would be "who?"

[Daniel]

This from a guy who lies about other posts saying he's 'lik 100% positive" then plays the denial game for days about it.. then resorts to 'well, if I take 2 words for 13 posts, I could piece them together and BOOM YOU POSTED IT!'

Bitch, please.





Sorry "Chump" I've never dodged the a question or a response on these boards, unlike yourself.

So, how do you feel that there are racial problems in America again? What is that? About sixteen times that has been asked?

Mr Kettle, you probably shouldn't be throwing stones around here.

I'll prove it:


There is a huge difference between pointing out problems in America and what you have always done on this message board in regards to blacks in America. HUGE difference.

Oh yea? Care to qualify that statement? With actual quotes of what I have said?

[Daniel]

Your suggestion would be incorrect.. Rev. Wright has done more harm then anything postive about racial reconciliation. I simply do not have anything close to the platform he has had over the past 30 years.. spewing his black liberation theology.

And just look at the polls regarding how his sermons are accepted. I'm lik 100% positive that if you take out his name, and put mine, the top answer would be "who?"


Because saying that Blacks deserve 7x the sentence of whites for the same crime is somehow condusive to reconcilation?

:rofl:

[Parkbandit]

Because saying that Blacks deserve 7x the sentence of whites for the same crime is somehow condusive to reconcilation?

:rofl:

:rofl:

L2read next time. And let's just say I DID post that.. how many people did I actually affect? 100 tops? How many people do you think Reverend Wright affects with his BLT diatribes? I'm lik 100% positive it's well over 100.

I know you suck at math, but even this should be relatively evident to someone like you.

This is just one topic you and I will never, ever see eye to eye on... and I'm sure people here are tired of the back and forth snipefest between us.

[Daniel]

:rofl:

L2read next time. And let's just say I DID post that.. how many people did I actually affect? 100 tops?

So, you're ignorance is excusable because abunch of Republicans haven't used it as a means to discredit your associates?




How many people do you think Reverend Wright affects with his BLT diatribes? I'm lik 100% positive it's well over 100.



Yea. Empowering people affected by slavery and persecution is a real problem. Being unapologetically black is such a menace when people openly question the suitability of a candidate to hold a position because he is either "Too black" or "Not Black Enough".

[Mighty Nikkisaurus]

Daniel, I'm not a Republican and I agree with PB.

Empowering black people is different from enabling them to blame everyone but themselves for their problems. Yes, black people have suffered a lot of injustices, but seriously, take some fucking responsibility is all Obama and anyone who disagrees with Rev. Wright's statements is saying. And regardless of the conditions that make some black people turn to crime or do bad things, in the end they make a choice and they need to have some accountability for that.

Honestly, Obama shouldn't have to be unapologetically black. The fact that it offends you that it's not is pretty racist in and of itself. He has a white mother and was raised by a white family-- so he's had the struggle of looking like a black man all the while the real-time education that white people aren't the ignorant, rude and racist crackers that people like Rev. Wright would have others believe.

If you want a President who's going to be your "black champion", then no, you'll never get that. There are more than just black people in America and the President needs to fairly represent everyone. Placing black racial issues on a pedestal and blaming everyone else is not fairly representing anyone.

[Sean]

Originally Posted by Narcissiia
Honestly, Obama shouldn't have to be unapologetically black. The fact that it offends you that it's not is pretty racist in and of itself.

Clarification please?

[Daniel]

Daniel, I'm not a Republican and I agree with PB.

Empowering black people is different from enabling them to blame everyone but themselves for their problems. Yes, black people have suffered a lot of injustices, but seriously, take some fucking responsibility is all Obama and anyone who disagrees with Rev. Wright's statements is saying. And regardless of the conditions that make some black people turn to crime or do bad things, in the end they make a choice and they need to have some accountability for that.

Honestly, Obama shouldn't have to be unapologetically black. The fact that it offends you that it's not is pretty racist in and of itself. He has a white mother and was raised by a white family-- so he's had the struggle of looking like a black man all the while the real-time education that white people aren't the ignorant, rude and racist crackers that people like Rev. Wright would have others believe.

If you want a President who's going to be your "black champion", then no, you'll never get that. There are more than just black people in America and the President needs to fairly represent everyone. Placing black racial issues on a pedestal and blaming everyone else is not fairly representing anyone.


You make alot of assumptions here.

First of all, the part that is taken out of context about Reverend Wright is that he does preach self responsibility and that he takes actions and says words that are meant for people to take responsibility for themselves. Obama said as much in his speech. I guess you overlooked that.

Also, If you knew me, then you would know that A) I'm half white myself and B) I've never made an excuse for anything in my life.

As such, I'm not looking for a "Black Champion". This isn't an issue of black versus white versus Hispanic. It's an issue of equality. I have no love for affirmative action or similar programs and in fact I've argued vehemently against them on these very boards (a fact that "somehow" gets lost in the shuffle). However, I will point out where there are issues in America that go against equality.

I'm just as opposed to right wing immigration policy as I am on these issues. If you followed the political discuss, you would know that. Yet, somehow I don't get labelled as looking for a "Mexican Champion". Please reconcile that for me.

It's a shame that I can't point out problems in America without being referred to as "Anti-white", which is ridiculous for a person with a white mother from *texas* or anti semitic when I have a star of david tattooed on my arm. However, that is not the issue here. Being unaplogetically black does not mean you believe that all white people are "Ignorant, Rude Crackers". It means that you are comfortable in your blackness despite the fact that there are "Ignorant, Rude, Crackers" who will judge you based upon the fact that you are black.

There is a very distinct difference there. You're right. Someone shouldn't have to be unapologetically black, but as soon as a black man steps into the lime light he automatically gets characterized as the "Black" man. How often did you see Obama selling himself as the "Black candidate" versus how many times people made an issue of him being black?

That's a serious question and if you can answer that seriously then maybe you'll understand why it's important for some people to be unapologetically black.

[Mighty Nikkisaurus]

First of all, the part that is taken out of context about Reverend Wright is that he does preach self responsibility and that he takes actions and says words that are meant for people to take responsibility for themselves. Obama said as much in his speech. I guess you overlooked that.

Obama has also said that he feels Rev. Wright and members of his congregation are too comfortable placing blame on others without placing any blame on themselves, and he fundamentally disagrees with that.


Also, If you knew me, then you would know that A) I'm half white myself and B) I've never made an excuse for anything in my life.

This was never a personal attack on you or me saying that you don't take responsibility. Just in general that the point that a lot of Wright's radical speeches place the blame and responsibility squarely on one group's shoulders and not the other.


As such, I'm not looking for a "Black Champion". This isn't an issue of black versus white versus Hispanic. It's an issue of equality. I have no love for affirmative action or similar programs and in fact I've argued vehemently against them on these very boards (a fact that "somehow" gets lost in the shuffle). However, I will point out where there are issues in America that go against equality.

And again, there's nothing wrong with pointing that out. It is, however, pointing that out and assigning blame rather than stopping to say, "What do we need to do to fix this?" that people take issue with. No one is going to be receptive to making any changes if they belong to the group that is being used as a whipping boy.


It's a shame that I can't point out problems in America without being referred to as "Anti-white", which is ridiculous for a person with a white mother from *texas* or anti semitic when I have a star of david tattooed on my arm. However, that is not the issue here. Being unapologetically black does not mean you believe that all white people are "Ignorant, Rude Crackers". It means that you are comfortable in your blackness despite the fact that there are "Ignorant, Rude, Crackers" who will judge you based upon the fact that you are black.

But he's not only black. He's white too. And why does him being unapologetically black have to be proven by him backing up someone like Wright? Above all else I think people, our politicians included, should be unapologetically himself. I don't get why you yourself are assuming that the reason he disagrees or doesn't identify as only a black man is because he doesn't like to be judged. I think it's more likely that he simply just doesn't agree, period, and his own race has little to do with it.


There is a very distinct difference there. You're right. Someone shouldn't have to be unapologetically black, but as soon as a black man steps into the lime light he automatically gets characterized as the "Black" man. How often did you see Obama selling himself as the "Black candidate" versus how many times people made an issue of him being black?

He works hard to not overtly sell himself as "the Black candidate" but honestly, I don't see much of people making an issue of him being black unless they're blowing Wright's comments out of proportion (and yes I think to vote or not vote for Obama based on Wright is retarded), and that's mostly come in at the end. I don't get why though that just because they may try to pigeon-hole him as "The Black Candidate" over any other descriptor he needs to play into that. Why should he give pundits and the media the power to dictate how and to whom he runs his campaign towards? Honestly, I think Obama would rather have people vote for him because they agree with him and his ideas and his vision for this country, rather than because he's unapologetically black. Maybe that's not what you're getting at, but that's what it seems like.

[Mabus]

or anti semitic when I have a star of david tattooed on my arm.
Wow, a tattoo...?

Next you will say "I have some Jewish friends!" to prove you are not anti-Semitic.

Racist.

[Clove]

Wow, a tattoo...?

Next you will say "I have some Jewish friends!" to prove you are not anti-Semitic.

Racist.Ah, welcome back Mabus. We missed your "contributions".

[Daniel]

Obama has also said that he feels Rev. Wright and members of his congregation are too comfortable placing blame on others without placing any blame on themselves, and he fundamentally disagrees with that.


You do realize that you can't simply take portions of something said, use the parts that work for you and disregard the ones that don't right?

I quote: "Given my background, my politics, and my professed values and ideals, there will no doubt be those for whom my statements of condemnation are not enough. Why associate myself with Reverend Wright in the first place, they may ask? Why not join another church? And I confess that if all that I knew of Reverend Wright were the snippets of those sermons that have run in an endless loop on the television sets and YouTube, or if Trinity United Church of Christ conformed to the caricatures being peddled by some commentators, there is no doubt that I would react in much the same way.

But the truth is, that isn't all that I know of the man. The man I met more than 20 years ago is a man who helped introduce me to my Christian faith, a man who spoke to me about our obligations to love one another, to care for the sick and lift up the poor. He is a man who served his country as a United States Marine; who has studied and lectured at some of the finest universities and seminaries in the country, and who for over 30 years has led a church that serves the community by doing God's work here on Earth — by housing the homeless, ministering to the needy, providing day care services and scholarships and prison ministries, and reaching out to those suffering from HIV/AIDS. "

Where exactly do you get that Obama said the black community does not "take responsibility" for their actions? These words show that they indeed do.




This was never a personal attack on you or me saying that you don't take responsibility. Just in general that the point that a lot of Wright's radical speeches place the blame and responsibility squarely on one group's shoulders and not the other.


The problem is that you take those words as the whole, without incorporating the other words and more importantly the actions that have taken place. If all Richard Wright did was sit on his pulpit and spout the snippets that he is derided for then you would have a point. However, as pointed out in the above quote: he lead a community that was known for "housing the homeless, ministering to the needy, providing day care services and scholarships and prison ministries, and reaching out to those suffering from HIV/AIDS".



And again, there's nothing wrong with pointing that out. It is, however, pointing that out and assigning blame rather than stopping to say, "What do we need to do to fix this?" that people take issue with. No one is going to be receptive to making any changes if they belong to the group that is being used as a whipping boy.


I understand this point. However, I will respectfully point out that the impetuous is on the oppressor and not the oppressed. You can't neccessarily blame black people for feeling that there are still parts of America out to get them when governmental entities still fly the confederate flag in remembrance of their "glorious" past.



But he's not only black. He's white too. And why does him being unapologetically black have to be proven by him backing up someone like Wright? Above all else I think people, our politicians included, should be unapologetically himself. I don't get why you yourself are assuming that the reason he disagrees or doesn't identify as only a black man is because he doesn't like to be judged. I think it's more likely that he simply just doesn't agree, period, and his own race has little to do with it.


First off, I don't know where you got that I think that he doesn't identify as a black man because he doesn't like to be judged. That was a general statement on the difference between being unapologetically black and being racist against white people. A distinction that needed to be made.

Obama doesn't have to prove anything to me about him being black or white as the case may be. Unfortunately, that is what is neccessary for him to get ahead in politics. That says nothing about Obama as a person. , but simply something about the state of America. I understand why he did it and I even accept that for what it is. My problem is that he has marketed himself as an individual that is beyond these political tragedies, and yet he played right into their hands and proven that he is just another politician.




He works hard to not overtly sell himself as "the Black candidate" but honestly, I don't see much of people making an issue of him being black unless they're blowing Wright's comments out of proportion (and yes I think to vote or not vote for Obama based on Wright is retarded), and that's mostly come in at the end. I don't get why though that just because they may try to pigeon-hole him as "The Black Candidate" over any other descriptor he needs to play into that. Why should he give pundits and the media the power to dictate how and to whom he runs his campaign towards? Honestly, I think Obama would rather have people vote for him because they agree with him and his ideas and his vision for this country, rather than because he's unapologetically black. Maybe that's not what you're getting at, but that's what it seems like.

That's not what I'm getting at all, and frankly I don't know where you got that from my comments. My point was that Obama shouldn't have to run as the "Black candidate", but that unfortunately he will *always* be the black candidate. I don't agree with Obama on a lot of things and I stated on these boards several times that I would be voting for McCain because I was vehemently against his policies towards Iraq. However, that changed when I believed that he was a person who could transcend the inevitable political bullshit that is crippling this nation right now. I've since had to rethink that position and still don't know where things will fall.

Trust me, I'd never advocate voting for someone because they are black. That would be catatrosphic for black people if that happened, and he didn't live up to expectations.

[Daniel]

Wow, a tattoo...?

Next you will say "I have some Jewish friends!" to prove you are not anti-Semitic.

Racist.

I could go with "I've never said anything remotely anti semitic and you're a stupid prick grasping at straws to make a point", but I figured that would be obvious.

[Mighty Nikkisaurus]

You do realize that you can't simply take portions of something said, use the parts that work for you and disregard the ones that don't right?

I quote: "Given my background, my politics, and my professed values and ideals, there will no doubt be those for whom my statements of condemnation are not enough. Why associate myself with Reverend Wright in the first place, they may ask? Why not join another church? And I confess that if all that I knew of Reverend Wright were the snippets of those sermons that have run in an endless loop on the television sets and YouTube, or if Trinity United Church of Christ conformed to the caricatures being peddled by some commentators, there is no doubt that I would react in much the same way.

But the truth is, that isn't all that I know of the man. The man I met more than 20 years ago is a man who helped introduce me to my Christian faith, a man who spoke to me about our obligations to love one another, to care for the sick and lift up the poor. He is a man who served his country as a United States Marine; who has studied and lectured at some of the finest universities and seminaries in the country, and who for over 30 years has led a church that serves the community by doing God's work here on Earth — by housing the homeless, ministering to the needy, providing day care services and scholarships and prison ministries, and reaching out to those suffering from HIV/AIDS. "

Where exactly do you get that Obama said the black community does not "take responsibility" for their actions? These words show that they indeed do.

A quote from his book where he quite plainly states his view on the road the black community is going down. I'm not typing out pretty much the entire chapter where he talks about it, but you get the idea:

"A steady attack on the white race, the constant recitation of black people's brutal experience in this country, served as the ballast that could prevent the ideas of personal and communal responsibility from tipping into an ocean of despair. Yes, the nationalist would say, whites are responsible for your sorry state, not any inherent flaws in you. In fact, whites are so heartless and devious that we can no longer expect anything from them. The self-loathing you feel, why you're drinking or thieving, is planted by them. Rid them them from your mind and find your true power liberated. Rise up, ye mighty race!

This process of displacement, this means of engaging in self-criticism while removing ourselves from the object of criticism, helped explain the success of groups like the Nation of Islam in turning around the lives of drug addicts and criminals. But it's especially well-suited to those at the bottom rungs of American life."

He goes on to say how while he understands where this comes from, it grates against his own morals, but how thankfully when he worked with people who held this view, they kept their quarrels to efficiency and not issues of Black nationalism.

No one is arguing that Obama hates Wright and wants nothing to do with him, or even that he doesn't feel close to the man. Simply that he doesn't agree with him on everything, and frankly, he shouldn't have to.





The problem is that you take those words as the whole, without incorporating the other words and more importantly the actions that have taken place. If all Richard Wright did was sit on his pulpit and spout the snippets that he is derided for then you would have a point. However, as pointed out in the above quote: he lead a community that was known for "housing the homeless, ministering to the needy, providing day care services and scholarships and prison ministries, and reaching out to those suffering from HIV/AIDS".

And Obama supports his actions, if not the views he's voiced. But to say that a sermon he gives doesn't do damage if it's hateful or full of anti-whatever sentiment, rather than peace and tolerance, is silly. I don't care who the Pastor is, preach about another group of human beings as being evil or bad and you're playing with fire. Wright did just that and he got burned.



I understand this point. However, I will respectfully point out that the impetuous is on the oppressor and not the oppressed. You can't neccessarily blame black people for feeling that there are still parts of America out to get them when governmental entities still fly the confederate flag in remembrance of their "glorious" past.

Actually, I think it's the responsibility of everyone involved to bridge racial gaps-- at one point people of all races in America and other places of the world have been oppressors and oppressed. Using your same logic, you can't necessarily blame a white woman for not wanting to live near black women because they give her a ration of bullshit for being married to a black man. Racism exists in all walks of life and that is the main point.



Obama doesn't have to prove anything to me about him being black or white as the case may be. Unfortunately, that is what is neccessary for him to get ahead in politics. That says nothing about Obama as a person. , but simply something about the state of America. I understand why he did it and I even accept that for what it is. My problem is that he has marketed himself as an individual that is beyond these political tragedies, and yet he played right into their hands and proven that he is just another politician.

I just plain don't get or agree with this, at all.



That's not what I'm getting at all, and frankly I don't know where you got that from my comments. My point was that Obama shouldn't have to run as the "Black candidate", but that unfortunately he will *always* be the black candidate. I don't agree with Obama on a lot of things and I stated on these boards several times that I would be voting for McCain because I was vehemently against his policies towards Iraq. However, that changed when I believed that he was a person who could transcend the inevitable political bullshit that is crippling this nation right now. I've since had to rethink that position and still don't know where things will fall.

I guess from what I've seen, Obama has been way less the "Black candidate" than people predicted. I've seen way more hoopla over the fact that Hilary has a vagina than anything about Obama being black, except for a few incidents that he worked hard to shut down because they were in fact non-issues. Of course to a certain extent he will be, but then so is McCain the "white candidate".. how many times have you heard people say they're tired of rich old white men in our government?


Trust me, I'd never advocate voting for someone because they are black. That would be catatrosphic for black people if that happened, and he didn't live up to expectations.
I suppose I misinterpreted what you were saying then, but that's definitely good to hear.

[Daniel]

A quote from his book where he quite plainly states his view on the road the black community is going down. I'm not typing out pretty much the entire chapter where he talks about it, but you get the idea:

"A steady attack on the white race, the constant recitation of black people's brutal experience in this country, served as the ballast that could prevent the ideas of personal and communal responsibility from tipping into an ocean of despair. Yes, the nationalist would say, whites are responsible for your sorry state, not any inherent flaws in you. In fact, whites are so heartless and devious that we can no longer expect anything from them. The self-loathing you feel, why you're drinking or thieving, is planted by them. Rid them them from your mind and find your true power liberated. Rise up, ye mighty race!

This process of displacement, this means of engaging in self-criticism while removing ourselves from the object of criticism, helped explain the success of groups like the Nation of Islam in turning around the lives of drug addicts and criminals. But it's especially well-suited to those at the bottom rungs of American life."

He goes on to say how while he understands where this comes from, it grates against his own morals, but how thankfully when he worked with people who held this view, they kept their quarrels to efficiency and not issues of Black nationalism.




Oh okay. It seems we were talking about two different things here. I was specifically talking about Rev. Wright and the attacks that have been levied against him.

I actually agree with the above and in fact one of my biggest problems with the black community is that we have lost our sense of urgency to achieve self reliance.

I can't imagine going to my grandmother who grew up on a plantation in Mississippi and moved to Chicago because her father was killed by the Klan and saying "You know..I don't think I can make it, because it's just too hard for a black man nowadays". Aside from the fact that she'd probably kick my ass (all 5'2 of her versus all 6'6 of me), it would simply be bullshit.

That said, there are still many problems and many things that need to be done on *both* sides.

The problem that I have with all of this is that it takes something out of context (namely, Rev. Wright's entire career) and use it as a way to attack the black community. It's just another justification to ignore the problems that still exist in America today (Like say...7 to 1 sentencing disparity).

I have a serious problem with that.



And Obama supports his actions, if not the views he's voiced. But to say that a sermon he gives doesn't do damage if it's hateful or full of anti-whatever sentiment, rather than peace and tolerance, is silly. I don't care who the Pastor is, preach about another group of human beings as being evil or bad and you're playing with fire. Wright did just that and he got burned.


Absolutely, but I reject the notion that he has done more harm then those who would perpetuate the status quo (on both sides) and no I don't think a couple of phrases, intentionally manipulated for political aims completely negates 30 years of hard work.



Actually, I think it's the responsibility of everyone involved to bridge racial gaps-- at one point people of all races in America and other places of the world have been oppressors and oppressed.

Although the second part of this is completely irrelevant, I think my point is that you can't blame the oppressed for not something that the oppressors are not doing.


Using your same logic, you can't necessarily blame a white woman for not wanting to live near black women because they give her a ration of bullshit for being married to a black man. Racism exists in all walks of life and that is the main point.


Truthfully, if the white woman was given shit for marrying a black man (Welcome to the life of my mother), I wouldn't blame her one bit if she decided that was not something she wanted to be around.






I just plain don't get or agree with this, at all.


That's fine. As long as you understand what I was saying and don't characterize my opinions as anything but.



I guess from what I've seen, Obama has been way less the "Black candidate" than people predicted. I've seen way more hoopla over the fact that Hilary has a vagina than anything about Obama being black, except for a few incidents that he worked hard to shut down because they were in fact non-issues. Of course to a certain extent he will be, but then so is McCain the "white candidate".. how many times have you heard people say they're tired of rich old white men in our government?


A few incidents? Seriously?

[Mabus]

I could go with "I've never said anything remotely anti semitic and you're a stupid prick grasping at straws to make a point", but I figured that would be obvious.

And I could go with "You do not feel Hamas is a terrorist organization, that its charter calling for the destruction of Israel is anti-Semitic or that a whacked-out belief that the white man and Jews created AIDs to kill the black man and Arabic peoples is incorrect, therefore your are a racist, anti-Semitic person", but I figured after your posts in this thread it was obvious.

[TheEschaton]

Mabus, please, please, just SHUT THE FUCK UP.

[Mabus]

Mabus, please, please, just SHUT THE FUCK UP.
Um, no.

Those were valid points in my post.

Daniel has stated that he does not feel the article by the political director of Hamas referencing a charter that calls for the destruction of Israel is anti-Semitic. He also feels that Baghdadi who wrote another article at Obama's church (in which he compared Nazis to the Israelis) is not an anti-Semite, and perhaps Daniel even agrees with Baghdadi and Wright that the "white man and Israelis created AIDs to kill black people and Arabs".

You can feel the same, you can feel differently or you can not give a rat's ass either way. I do care that Wright, Obama's church and Daniel show clear signs of racism towards Jewish people. I stand against racism when I see it, and Daniel is clearly a racist (which he has called others in the past).

What I do not care about is whether you think I should post. Since you have nothing to add to the conversation but your usual BS perhaps taking your own advice would be for the best. It would be easier on your little mind.

Or you and Daniel can start a thread on how terrible Israel is to people that blow up school buses full of children. Or how shooting rockets into civilian areas is a valid political tactic to you both. You could actually attempt to defend yourselves with facts or post anything resembling an opinion of the subject matter, but I think it is more likely that Daniel, you and your ilk will do some baseless attacks and skip anything resembling facts and reasoned debate.

[Daniel]

Really Mabus? You want me to go back and dig up all the points and facts that you have ignored about israel in this thread? Or can you handle that all by yourself?

[Parkbandit]

If I get one of those henna tattoos of a raised black fist, does that prove I'm not a racist.. or does it take a permanent tattoo to actually do it? What if I were to just draw it on my arm with a semi-permanent marker.. will that work?

[Daniel]

Sorry "Chump" I've never dodged a question or a response on these boards, unlike yourself.

So, how do you feel that there are racial problems in America again? What is that? About sixteen times that has been asked?

Mr Kettle, you probably shouldn't be throwing stones around here.

I'll prove it:



Oh yea? Care to qualify that statement? With actual quotes of what I have said?

Point proven.

[Parkbandit]

Point proven.


I would call you an anti-semite.. but since you have a Star of David tattoo, there is no way I could ever think that.

[Daniel]

Absolutely.