Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : View from the Center and Left -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Sam who wrote (53671)	3/14/2008 7:59:39 PM
From: epicure	Respond to of 542839

"But because Rev. Wright was on the verge of retirement, and because of my strong links to the Trinity faith community, where I married my wife and where my daughters were baptized, I did not think it appropriate to leave the church. " Nice. It is as I would have hoped, and I still support Obama, and in fact, I think I may respect him a little more. His faith seems genuine, and not just that sham faith that some politicians use as coin to spend for their elections. "Let me say at the outset that I vehemently disagree and strongly condemn the statements that have been the subject of this controversy. I categorically denounce any statement that disparages our great country or serves to divide us from our allies. I also believe that words that degrade individuals have no place in our public dialogue, whether it's on the campaign stump or in the pulpit. In sum, I reject outright the statements by Rev. Wright that are at issue."

To: Sam who wrote (53671)	3/14/2008 8:58:51 PM
From: Katelew	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 542839

The statements that Rev. Wright made that are the cause of this controversy were not statements I personally heard him preach while I sat in the pews of Trinity or heard him utter in private conversation Sam, this I think is the same sentence I posted before. What I meant is that this is a kind of line in the sand. Because now Obama has made a statement that can be cross-checked. The next step is for Republicans to prove him a liar by finding witnesses that would say 'no, we sat in that church and saw Barrack there several times when the pastor was making such a sermon.' Or Republicans can make an argument that any member of 20 years would HAVE to know this kind of rhetoric was taking place. This also would discredit Obama and make him look like he was PROBABLY lying. The line in the sand is the statement itself. Obama had to say something, and he gave them a statement than can now be turned back against him. He's claiming he wasn't in attendance on the days these sermons were given. The next step will be for someone to say to Obama, 'OK, you weren't in attendance but did you know this kind of rhetoric was taking place?' Then Obama has to say something again, and so on. This is what happens when a politician is forced to get specific about something. It happens when they have a voting record, or have given speeches for years, or have anything other than vague, airy statements. I'm just talking tactics here. I'm not attacking Obama.