First they came for the Jews, then the Garlic Noses

Oh, I don't know... the man may be onto something.

I mean hey, my brother's gay, and I've been outspoken in my support for gay marriage for awhile now... but I have this one friend I hang out with a lot who doesn't support gay marriage. I guess my actions show that I'm homophobic, don't they?

Thank you, justtxyank, for making me see the light. I will immediately discard all people I associate myself with who don't agree with me on everything.

Unfortunately, that seems to be all of them.

Whaddaya think, justtxyank, I'm a little lost... should I try cloning?

 

Republicans are so used to their candidates talking in codewords and through surrogates, that they assume the Dems must do the same. It happens, but the bulk of Dem policies are popular and don't need to be hidden.

If the current leaders of the Repub Party came out and said everything they believe, they'd be lucky to get elected to dogcatcher. You can't very well say "I want to crush Social Security because I want to make commissions off those trades and weasel retirees out of their money." Instead, you talk about the looming failure of SS and play up whatever demographic info that helps you. You don't say, "we're going to do everything possible to make the really rich richer." Instead, you talk about how the "average" American will fare. You don't appeal directly to racism, but when you talk about doing away with Affirmative Action or Welfare, the meaning is clear. That's why Repub candidates can talk about education needs, but vote against science as they're standing next to some fundie preacher.

That's why, I think, this association attack has relevance for Repubs... to their way of thinking, if a candidate stands next to somebody who has wingnut views or lightly tsk-tsks some wingnut absurdity, that means they probably favor those things. Dems don't necessarily make that assumption when a Dem candidate stands next to someone who has views contrary to the Dem norms. Heck, I don't even go there with Repubs I meet in real life unless they prove to me I should.

Anyway, I find this dynamic interesting.

 

More like a sad commentary on a good portion of the american public.

 

1. So apparently it's ludicrous to ask him his own views, instead of condemning him for the views of someone he associates with?

2. I would hope the guy has a reasonable enough mind to realize that a lot of people who have views they consider wrong (such as "gays are evil") sometimes still have value wisdom to convey on other topics. "Sorely misguided." Right. The "sorely misguided" ones are the people who sit there and accept everything someone tells them simply because the person is an authority-figure, without thinking about it.


And finally, I love how political mudslinging works. This guy is homophobic... but is Rev. Wright? Probably not.

So how is it that people can conclude that Obama must be homophobic based on Meeks, and racist based on Wright? Oh yeah... because they pick and choose every politically incorrect view from everyone who's ever associated with the guy. That makes sense.

 

So foolish.

I have never attacked Obama. I have never attacked anyone on this board. I've simply pointed out that a pastor is different than a friend. I understand that the secular portion of society doesn't see this relevance because they don't see the relevance of one's religion at all. Fine. I could now take time to mock you for your argument which doesn't correlate to mine, but I won't. I'll let you guys mock and flame and attack and then lift your nose and look on in shame at "republicans" who do such.

 

Hmmm. Usually, the snappy, inflammatory, content-deficient one-liner leaves you safe from complete destruction by a response, but whoops, not when you pack that much ignorance so tightly.

Religions that do not approve of homosexuality include many varieties of Christianity, most of Islam, and Tibetan Buddhism, just for a sampler platter.

So don't any of you dare set foot it those places of worship or voice approval for any part or teachings of any of those traditions.

1. On to the next Obama arm hair please. Pluck pluck pluck.
2. Create one Obama-has-bad-friends!1!11 sticky thread for basso please.

 

Of course you've never attacked the guy. You just compared his attending Meeks' services to attending KKK meetings.

HELLO! That's called an attack!

 

1) Not at all. I think you are simply misunderstanding my position here. My only point is that a candidate's statements do not explain away his past. That doesn't mean I think Obama is lying, but if his word is all there is to go on, it's weak. If George Bush said right now "I don't believe in war" would you buy it? He said it! My only point with that was his relationship for over 20 years can't just be explained away by saying "Oh but I don't agree."

2) I never said secular individuals were misguided for being secular. I'm saying they are misguided in how they view the relationship between a pastor and a Christian. And yes, anyone who sits in a pew and simply believes everything that is said to them because it comes from the pulpit is misguided.

3) I don't think Obama is homophobic or anti-American. I think he's a politician who chose his allies based on political expediency.

 

I didn't say they were the same thing. I was trying to illustrate a point. In no way do I think the two are the same, but the concept I was trying to explain was important. If I had said "If person X attending a quilting class for 20 years and then said he didn't agree with quilting" would you have been happier? If so, supplant the the one with the other and move on.

For what it's worth, I've called McCain a snake, am eager to see Bush out of office, can't stand Rick Perry, smiled a big smile when Delay got what was coming to him, spend 20 minutes every Tuesday and Thursday slamming Sean Hannity to a fan of his in my office, and wouldn't shed a tear if Karl Rove was never seen or heard from again.

 

You should try it.

 

Baloney. You tacitly asked if one should be judged by actions, before being exposed as having no controversial "actions" to judge obama by.

You then claimed that it is more reasonable to listen to soundbites of Obama's peers, than to judge his own writings and speeches. After having it pointed out that such a method for character judgement is categorically biased and stupid, you are now playing the "woe is me, everyone has unfairly criticized me" card while simulataneously changing your argument again.

Now we should be careful because pastors are special.... sigh

 

Obviously, not the right one.

 

You are right. I do think actions is how one should be judged.

I never NEVER said that second part. Find where I said that. What I'm saying is it doesn't explain it away. Of course a politician is going to say what is best for him. If all the defense a candidate has against an action is his words than he doesn't have much. I never changed my argument. My argument is, was, and always will be the same.

If everytime something fishy happened with Bush I pulled some quote where he said it wasn't true, he didn't agree with it, etc. would that be enough for a democrat to say "Oh ok who cares then!" Of course not.

You can try to spin my argument all you want, but it is still the same thing. If I charge that Joe Bloe is a racist and you point out that he says "I am not a racist," I'm sorry, but his quote doesn't really mean much to me. He has incentive to say whatever he has to in order to garner votes. I'm sorry you fail to realize what I'm saying.

 

Obama had made the hippies defend anti-gay rhetoric from churches! Maybe he is Jesus!

 

And he loves you!

 

1. Right. So you're comparing Bush's ACTIONS (actually WAGING the war and ordering the troops, etc) to Obama sitting in services with a guy who occasionally said some stuff against gays? That's not ACTION. He sat there and listened.
Now, if Obama were heading up some Christian fundamentalist movement and said HIMSELF that he thoughts gays were evil, then you've got yourself a valid comparison. BUT HE DIDN'T.
Again... what about the time Obama spent in Wright's church, assuming he's not homophobic? Wouldn't that give Obama a long history of being assocaited with people who are understanding towards gays, which would make any statement that he was homophobic "weak"? Same logic you're using pal. That makes noooo sense at all.

2. Really? Well, given that I see no precedent for Obama being homophobic, then why is anyone assuming that Obama couldn't have been sitting in those services and disagreeing with him on that particular issue? Which is in all likelihood what actually happened?

3. And his opponents pick-and-choose his negative associations based on political expediency.