Could we get Pastor Wright a reality TV show

[Tex]

Originally Posted by Cali Coug

I get it.

Attending church for 20 years and having children baptized by pastor: close relationship to statements of church leader.

Attending church entire life, holding prominent leadership role in church, sustaining church leaders twice per year for life, serving mission to convert people to church: no close relationship to statements of church leader.

Yeah- makes sense.

Indeed. Glad you got it.

Originally Posted by Cali Coug

And why is Keating out of left field? McCain had a close relationship with those implicated, and he had a close relationship to Keating (which almost got him expelled from the Senate). Are you only concerned about friendships with crazy pastors and nobody else?

No one in this thread mentioned Keating before now. And I never said it was irrelevant.

Thus, from left field. You like to change the subject, focus on tangents, and/or make wholly false characterizations when you're having trouble articulating yourself.

[Cali Coug]

Originally Posted by Tex

Indeed. Glad you got it.



No one in this thread mentioned Keating before now. And I never said it was irrelevant.

Thus, from left field. You like to change the subject, focus on tangents, and/or make wholly false characterizations when you're having trouble articulating yourself.

lol! In that case, you would argue that Obama could have joined Trinity Church, become a leader in Trinity Church, stood up and sustained Wright as a prophet of God, gone on a mission for Trinity Church, and not had any problem whatsoever, so long as he wasn't close friends with Wright. Yeah- that makes sense.

You appear to have difficulty understanding the application of your own argument. You argue that a candidate's close relationship with a bad guy should lead us to conclude that the candidate is a bad guy. If so, the logical extension of your argument is that McCain must be a bad guy because of his relationship with Keating and the Keating 4 (he makes 5). This really isn't complicated. I'm not sure why it matters that nobody mentioned Keating before now. Are we limited to mentioning points that have already been made? If so, that seems like a fairly repetitive conversation.

[Colly Wolly]

Originally Posted by Tex

You like to change the subject, focus on tangents, and/or make wholly false characterizations when you're having trouble articulating yourself.

I have also found this to be true.

[Tex]

Originally Posted by Cali Coug

Yeah- that makes sense.

Indeed.

You're losing the battle here, anyway. For argument's sake, let's say Romney and Obama's situations are identical. So what? All your argument leads to is an equally strong demand for Romney to divest himself of such statements. It provides no excuse for Obama.

Originally Posted by Cali Coug

You appear to have difficulty understanding the application of your own argument. You argue that a candidate's close relationship with a bad guy should lead us to conclude that the candidate is a bad guy. If so, the logical extension of your argument is that McCain must be a bad guy because of his relationship with Keating and the Keating 4 (he makes 5). This really isn't complicated. I'm not sure why it matters that nobody mentioned Keating before now. Are we limited to mentioning points that have already been made? If so, that seems like a fairly repetitive conversation.

Again, you're on a sinking ship. "McCain did it too!" is no excuse for Obama. You've been reduced from trying to put distance between Wright and Obama, to trying to rationalize it by citing examples of other politicians that (in your mind) make the circumstances "equal." If everyone has racist, anti-American friends, then no big deal, right?

But to answer your silly question ... I think the Keating situation does raise serious question for McCain, although probably more for his role in debacle than his personal relationship with Keating. Why do you think anyone photographed with Jack Abramhoff was diving under a rock? In politics there is such a think as guilt by association. Even outside of politics, people judge you by the friends you keep.

And Obama doesn't just have Wright. Lest we weary of his racist anti-American pastor, he's also got Rezko and Ayers.

[Cali Coug]

Originally Posted by Tex

Indeed.

You're losing the battle here, anyway. For argument's sake, let's say Romney and Obama's situations are identical. So what? All your argument leads to is an equally strong demand for Romney to divest himself of such statements. It provides no excuse for Obama.

No- it points out the hypocrisy of your position. Keep in mind I have clearly stated that neither Romney's church nor Obama's should be the basis for voting for someone else. This entire exercise is simply to uncover your rank double standard, given that you clearly do not believe Romney should be held accountable for racist/sexist/inappropriate comments of the LDS church's leaders.

Again, you're on a sinking ship. "McCain did it too!" is no excuse for Obama. You've been reduced from trying to put distance between Wright and Obama, to trying to rationalize it by citing examples of other politicians that (in your mind) make the circumstances "equal." If everyone has racist, anti-American friends, then no big deal, right?

But to answer your silly question ... I think the Keating situation does raise serious question for McCain, although probably more for his role in debacle than his personal relationship with Keating. Why do you think anyone photographed with Jack Abramhoff was diving under a rock? In politics there is such a think as guilt by association. Even outside of politics, people judge you by the friends you keep.

And Obama doesn't just have Wright. Lest we weary of his racist anti-American pastor, he's also got Rezko and Ayers.

And once again, the debate is designed to show the absolute silliness of your position. I am glad you finally understand the reference to Keating. It really wasn't complex. There isn't a single politician who doesn't have a connection to someone dirty somewhere, including your beloved Ronald Reagan.

The question isn't whether they are friends with someone dirty, but whether the candidate is dirty and has engaged in illegal/unethical conduct or shares the beliefs of their dirty associate. For Obama, the Wright "scandal" hardly indicates that Obama shares any of Wright's beliefs. There has been no evidence that he does (which is why you and others have fallen back to the "judgment" argument instead- weak). In contrast, McCain will have a much more difficult time explaining Keating, given that McCain's actions suggest inappropriate use of his power, a lack of ethics, and more.

[Tex]

Originally Posted by Cali Coug

No- it points out the hypocrisy of your position. Keep in mind I have clearly stated that neither Romney's church nor Obama's should be the basis for voting for someone else. This entire exercise is simply to uncover your rank double standard, given that you clearly do not believe Romney should be held accountable for racist/sexist/inappropriate comments of the LDS church's leaders.

There is no hypocrisy because I don't accept your premise. I said "for the sake of argument," which I guess you missed. No point in repeating myself if you aren't going to read what I wrote.

Originally Posted by Cali Coug

And once again, the debate is designed to show the absolute silliness of your position. I am glad you finally understand the reference to Keating. It really wasn't complex. There isn't a single politician who doesn't have a connection to someone dirty somewhere, including your beloved Ronald Reagan.

The question isn't whether they are friends with someone dirty, but whether the candidate is dirty and has engaged in illegal/unethical conduct or shares the beliefs of their dirty associate. For Obama, the Wright "scandal" hardly indicates that Obama shares any of Wright's beliefs. There has been no evidence that he does (which is why you and others have fallen back to the "judgment" argument instead- weak). In contrast, McCain will have a much more difficult time explaining Keating, given that McCain's actions suggest inappropriate use of his power, a lack of ethics, and more.

Thus illustrating why the comment is from left field in the first place.

[Cali Coug]

Originally Posted by Tex

There is no hypocrisy because I don't accept your premise. I said "for the sake of argument," which I guess you missed. No point in repeating myself if you aren't going to read what I wrote.



Thus illustrating why the comment is from left field in the first place.

Ah, that's right. You don't actually support any of the propositions you post, you just like posting those propositions over and over and over and over and over again. How silly of me to forget Rule #3 when dealing with Tex.

If you don't think Romney has an issue, and all of this is "for the sake of argument," and you accept that there WOULD be hypocrisy if you actually DID hold the position you were taking, then we are in agreement. The attacks against Obama are silly. Moving on.

[Tex]

Originally Posted by Cali Coug

If you don't think Romney has an issue, and all of this is "for the sake of argument," and you accept that there WOULD be hypocrisy if you actually DID hold the position you were taking, then we are in agreement. The attacks against Obama are silly. Moving on.

I don't accept any of that. I merely point out that even if you were right, it still doesn't excuse Obama. You've given up defending his relationship with Wright in favor of attacking me and my supposed "hypocrisy." On top of that, you've repeatedly cited another case (Keating) that by your own admission is entirely irrelevant.

Obama's own paid apologists couldn't even be this inept.

[Cali Coug]

Originally Posted by Tex

I don't accept any of that. I merely point out that even if you were right, it still doesn't excuse Obama. You've given up defending his relationship with Wright in favor of attacking me and my supposed "hypocrisy." On top of that, you've repeatedly cited another case (Keating) that by your own admission is entirely irrelevant.

Obama's own paid apologists couldn't even be this inept.

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

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

[Archaea]

Originally Posted by Cali Coug

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

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

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

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