| WIKI | FAQ | Tech FAQ | |
 http://csua.com/feed/ | |
| ||||||
| 7/8 |
| 2008/3/17-21 [Politics/Domestic/Election] UID:49475 Activity:kinda low 90%like:49473 |
3/17 Oops, Obama was at the hate sermon
http://preview.tinyurl.com/yumfcv [newsmax]
\_ Yawn. All it takes is one Swift Boat to destroy him.
\_ What an incisive analysis!
\_ Wait, I thought the newsmax line was that Obama was really
a closet Muslim. Which one is it?
\_ Why can't a closet Muslim show at an extremist hate sermon?
Apparently he wasn't there but being a Muslim or not has nothing
to do with it.
\_ It's pretty funny how a few youtube clips of this preacher,
whom Obama has repeatedly said he doesn't always agree with,
trump everything Obama has ever said or written throughout
his life. That's a pretty amazing standard. I guess by this
standard, McCain has always believed that the Catholic
Church is the "great whore?"
\_ URL to the youtube clips?
\_ This story was already debunked. Sorry.
\_ link?
\_ http://factcheck.barackobama.com/factcheck/2008/03/16/fact_obama_did_not_attend_serv.php
\_ http://preview.tinyurl.com/39cpn7 [barackobama.com]
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/03/17/opinion/17kristol.html?_r=2&ref=opinion&oref=slogin&oref=slogin
http://conwebwatch.tripod.com/blog/index.blog/1797602/did-kessler-make-false-claim-about-obama
http://preview.tinyurl.com/26jw5f [nytimes]
http://preview.tinyurl.com/ytjtje [conwebwatch]
\_ newsmax is a much more reliable source than the liberal
biased NYT.
\_ Teehee. The newsmax story argues for something that
appears to have been physically impossible. But I guess
three separate cites debunking your precious fantasy
aren't enough, so please continue to stand by it.
Also, the NYT link is to a column by William Kristol,
not exactly a member of the vast left wing conspiracy.
He has retracted the "fact" at the top of his column,
you will note.
\_ Kessler says he's standing by his story.
\_ Apparently Davis, who is a freep poster, "lost his notes."
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1986607/posts?page=334#334
http://preview.tinyurl.com/2xlxox [freerepublic]
This shit is laughable. Are you really going to stand by
this?
\_ Kessler scrubbing his wiki page:
http://tpmelectioncentral.talkingpointsmemo.com/2008/03/newsmaxs_kessler_scrubs_refere.php
http://preview.tinyurl.com/32u723 [tpm] |
| 7/8 |
|
| preview.tinyurl.com/yumfcv -> newsmax.com/kessler/Obama_hate_America_sermon/2008/03/16/80870.html Obama claims he was completely unaware that the Reverend Wrights trademark preaching style at the Trinity United Church of Christ targeted white America. Clarification: The Obama campaign has told members of the press that Senator Obama was not in church on the day cited, July 22, because he had a speech he gave in Miami at 1:30 PM. Our writer, Jim Davis, says he attended several services at Senator Obama's church during the month of July, including July 22. The church holds services three times every Sunday at 7:30 and 11 am and 6 pm Central time. While both the early morning and evening service allowed Sen. Obama to attend the service and still give a speech in Miami, Mr Davis stands by his story that during one of the services he attended during the month of July, Senator Obama was present and sat through the sermon given by Rev. Mr Davis said Secret Service were also present in the church during Senator Obama's attendance. Mr Davis' story was first published on Newsmax on August 9, 2007. Shortly before publication, Mr Davis contacted the press office of Sen. Obama several times for comment about the Senator's attendance and Rev. preach hatred of America, Obama was in the pews last July 22 when the minister blamed the white arrogance of Americas Caucasian majority for the worlds suffering, especially the oppression of blacks. Senator Obama has sought to separate himself from his pastors incendiary remarks, issuing a statement Friday rejecting them as inflammatory and appalling but failing to renounce Wright himself for his venomous and paranoid denunciations of America. In his press release, Obama claimed, The statements that Rev. Appearing on cable news shows this past weekend, Obama claimed when he saw recent videos that have Wright making such comments as God damn America, he was shocked. Obama implied that the reverend had not used such derogatory language in any of the church services Obama attended over the past two decades. If Obamas claims are true that he was completely unaware that Wrights trademark preaching style at the Trinity United Church of Christ has targeted white America and Israel, he would have been one of the few people in Chicago to be so uninformed. In fact, Obama was present in the South Side Chicago church on July 22 last year when Jim Davis, a freelance correspondent for Newsmax, attended services along with Obama. In his sermon that day, Wright tore into America, referring to the United States of White America and lacing his sermon with expletives as Obama listened. Hearing Wrights attacks on his own country, Obama had the opportunity to walk out, but Davis said the senator sat in his pew and nodded in agreement. Addressing the Iraq war, Wright thundered, Young African-American men were dying for nothing. The illegal war, he shouted, was based on Bushs lies and is being fought for oil money. Obamas most famous celebrity backer, Oprah Winfrey began attending Wrights church in 1984. Newsmax magazine reported that Winfrey abruptly stopped attending years ago, and suggested that she did so to distance herself from Wrights inflammatory rhetoric. She soon found herself a target of Wright, who excoriated her for having broken with traditional faith. The Reverend Wrights anti-white theology that Senator Obama expressed surprise over is evident on the churchs website. The site says the congregation subscribes to what it calls the Black Value System, which is described as a disavowal of our racist competitive society and the pursuit of middle-classness. That is defined as a way for American society to snare blacks rather than killing them off directly or placing them in concentration camps, just as the country structures an economic environment that induces captive youth to fill the jails and prisons. In the 21st century, white America got a wake-up call after 9/11/01, Wright wrote in the church-affiliated magazine Trumpet four years after the attacks. White America and the western world came to realize that people of color had not gone away, faded into the woodwork or just disappeared as the Great White West kept on its merry way of ignoring black concerns. The Relationship Unravels Senator Obama now is attempting to minimize his long and close relationship with the controversial minister. On Friday, John McCains campaign distributed a Wall Street Journal op-ed Obama and the Minister written under my byline based on my reporting for Newsmax going back to early January of this year. The op-ed included details of a sermon Wright gave at Howard University blaming America for starting the AIDS virus, training professional killers, importing drugs, shamelessly supporting Israel, and creating a racist society that would never elect a black man as president. Obamas campaign quickly responded to the Wall Street Journal op-ed, posting a statement on the Huffington Post. In his statement, Obama acknowledged that some of Wrights statements have been inflammatory and appalling. Saying he strongly condemns Wrights comments, Obama continued, 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 its on the campaign stump or in the pulpit. Again, Obama moved to narrowly distance himself from specific comments Wright had made, while still praising his minister in recent interviews for leading him to Jesus and preaching a social gospel. Obama went on to claim that he first learned about Wrights controversial statements when he began his presidential campaign. But this assertion conflicts with the fact that just before Obamas nationally televised campaign kickoff rally on Feb. enemies find out that in 1984 I went to Tripoli to visit Col. Muammar el-Qaddafi with Nation of Islam leader Louis Farrakhan, a lot of his Jewish support will dry up quicker than a snowball in hell. Apparently Obama never foresaw Wrights sermons making national television or becoming a sensation on YouTube. But lending graphic detail to the saga, ABC News and other networks began running a 2003 sermon in which Wright said, The government gives them the drugs, builds bigger prisons, passes a three-strike law and then wants us to sing God Bless America. No, no, no, God damn America, thats in the Bible, for killing innocent people ... God damn America for treating our citizens as less than human. God damn America for as long as she acts like she is God and she is supreme. Click Here to see video Obama has described Wright as a sounding board and mentor. Wright is one of the first people Obama thanked after his election to the Senate in 2004. Obama consulted Wright before deciding to run for president. The title of Obamas bestseller The Audacity of Hope comes from one of Wrights sermons. Apologists for Wright have said that what he says is normal in black churches, and many blacks claim such preaching cannot be understood by whites. If youre black, its hard to say what you truly think and not upset white people, the New York Times quoted James Cone as saying. Cone is a professor at Union Theological Seminary and the father of what is known as black liberation theology. But Juan Williams, a Fox News commentator and author of Enough: The Phony Leaders, Dead-End Movements, and Culture of Failure That Are Undermining Black America, tells Newsmax that Wrights sermons reflect the victim mindset that is so self-defeating in the black community and one that is played on by weak black leadership that chooses to have black people identified as victims rather than inspiring them as people who have overcome. In posing as victims, they say the most prejudiced and vicious things, not only about whites but about America. In failing to condemn Wright himself and claiming that he was unaware of the preachers hate-filled speech, Obama is continuing a longstanding pattern. Obama often refers to Wright as being "like an old uncle, who sometimes says things I don't agree with." Wright is not Obamas uncle a person born into a blood relationship but a man he has cultivated for decades as a close friend, mentor and adviser. Like Wri... |
| factcheck.barackobama.com/factcheck/2008/03/16/fact_obama_did_not_attend_serv.php To Content Skip To Navigation Obama for America EN ESPAOL Get Involved: Sign up for email updates. FACT: Obama did not attend services on July 22nd. Barack Obama's Religion * on Barack Obama's Patriotism * Campaign Finance * Campaign Politics * Economy * Energy * Foreign Policy * Health Care * Immigration * Iraq * Legislative Record * Religion * Social Security * Trade Getting Smears? |
| preview.tinyurl.com/39cpn7 -> factcheck.barackobama.com/factcheck/2008/03/16/fact_obama_did_not_attend_serv.php To Content Skip To Navigation Obama for America EN ESPAOL Get Involved: Sign up for email updates. FACT: Obama did not attend services on July 22nd. Barack Obama's Religion * on Barack Obama's Patriotism * Campaign Finance * Campaign Politics * Economy * Energy * Foreign Policy * Health Care * Immigration * Iraq * Legislative Record * Religion * Social Security * Trade Getting Smears? |
| www.nytimes.com/2008/03/17/opinion/17kristol.html?_r=2&ref=opinion&oref=slogin&oref=slogin Article Tools Sponsored By By WILLIAM KRISTOL Published: March 17, 2008 In this column, I cite a report that Sen. Obama had attended services at Trinity Church on July 22, 2007. The Obama campaign has provided information showing that Senator Obama did not attend Trinity that day. Times Topics: Barack Obama Sunday evening, Ben Affleck and Jennifer Garner held a "Generation Obama" fund-raiser at Boston's Rumor Nightclub. In case you're not up on the Boston club scene, I should tell you that Rumor "brings together the sexiest and hippest people from around the globe" and "has raised the bar in Boston's night life" (if Rumor may say so itself). Presumably, Ben and Jennifer raised the bar a notch further on Sunday. But one has the sense that elsewhere in this great land the bloom is coming off the Obama rose. For example, Obama claimed Friday that "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." God damn America for treating our citizens as less than human." But Ronald Kessler, a journalist who has written about Wright's ministry, claims that Obama was in fact in the pews at Trinity last July 22. That's when Wright blamed the "arrogance" of the "United States of White America" for much of the world's suffering, especially the oppression of blacks. In any case, given the apparent frequency of such statements in Wright's preaching and their centrality to his worldview, the pretense that over all these years Obama had no idea that Wright was saying such things is hard to sustain. This doesn't mean that Obama agrees with Wright's thoroughgoing and conspiracy-heavy anti-Americanism. Rather, Obama seems to have seen, early in his career, the utility of joining a prominent church that would help him establish political roots in the community in which he lives. Now he sees the utility of distancing himself from that church. Obama's behavior in dealing with Wright is consistent with that of a politician who often voted "present" in the Illinois State Legislature for the sake of his future political viability. The more you learn about him, the more Obama seems to be a conventionally opportunistic politician, impressively smart and disciplined, who has put together a good political career and a terrific presidential campaign. There's the calculation of ambition, and the construction of artifice, mixed in with a dash of deceit -- all covered over with the great conceit that this campaign, and this candidate, are different. If you go to the Obama campaign Web site and click on "people," you'll see 14 categories of people you can choose to hook up with -- women, labor, people of faith ... It's a "grass-roots movement led by young activists with a simple goal: electing Barack Obama the next president of the United States of America," the Web site says, adding that "you and other members can utilize the many talents of our country's next great generation in support of the campaign in a variety of meaningful ways." So in fact, "Generation Obama" is just a fancy name for young activists for Obama. But the (remarkable) conceit is this: The "next great generation" of Americans can appropriately be called "Generation Obama." Now I'm actually a believer in the next generation, which one might call the 9/11 generation. Many of its members seem more serious and impressive than we baby boomers were when our elders were foolishly praising us, 40 years ago, as the best-educated, most idealistic generation ever. Many of the best of this young generation are serving their country -- either in the military or otherwise. Some are in politics, working for various causes, liberal and conservative, and for various candidates, Democrats and Republicans. But surely there's something creepy about a campaign claiming them as "Generation Obama." With no particular dog in the Democratic fight, many conservatives have tended to think it would be good for the country if Obama were to win the Democratic nomination, freeing us from the dreary prospect of the return of the House of Clinton. Might the country be better off with the cynicism of the Clintons than the conceit of Obama? Next Article in Opinion (7 of 20) Tips To find reference information about the words used in this article, double-click on any word, phrase or name. A new window will open with a dictionary definition or encyclopedia entry. |
| conwebwatch.tripod.com/blog/index.blog/1797602/did-kessler-make-false-claim-about-obama -> conwebwatch.tripod.com/blog/index.blog/1797602/did-kessler-make-false-claim-about-obama/ article he wrote last August -- claimed that, contrary to Barack Obama's suggestion that the Rev. Jeremiah Wright "had not used such derogatory language in any of the church services Obama attended over the past two decades," Obama "was present in the South Side Chicago church on July 22 last year," when, according to Kessler, Wright referred to the "United States of White America" and that the "illegal war" in Iraq was "based on Bush's lies" and is being "fought for oil money." pointed out when New York Times columnist William Kristol repeated the claim, Obama spent the day campaigning in Miami. This resulted in a strangely passive-aggressive "clarification" being appended to Kessler's article: Clarification: The Obama campaign has told members of the press that Senator Obama was not in church on the day cited, July 22, because he had a speech he gave in Miami at 1:30 PM. Our writer, Jim Davis, says he attended several services at Senator Obama's church during the month of July, including July 22. The church holds services three times every Sunday at 7:30 and 11 am and 6 pm Central time. While both the early morning and evening service allowed Sen. Obama to attend the service and still give a speech in Miami, Mr Davis stands by his story that during one of the services he attended during the month of July, Senator Obama was present and sat through the sermon given by Rev. Mr Davis said Secret Service were also present in the church during Senator Obama's attendance. Mr Davis' story was first published on Newsmax on August 9, 2007. Shortly before publication, Mr Davis contacted the press office of Sen. Obama several times for comment about the Senator's attendance and Rev. While the "clarification" makes a point of detailing the church's service times that would have purportedly "allowed Sen. Obama to attend the service and still give a speech in Miami," nowhere does Davis or Newsmax state exactly which service Obama is purported to have attended that day, nor is it made clear whether Wright gives a sermon (or the same sermon) at all three services. Newsmax then blamed Obama's office for not returning calls to Davis before publication of his 2007 article. article by Kessler attacked Obama's "racist church" because it claims to be "unashamedly black and unapologetically Christian" with a "non-negotiable commitment to Africa" and a "Black Value System." column , Kessler claimed that "Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama last August voted against revising the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act to allow NSA to continue to monitor calls by foreign terrorists without a warrant even if all parties are situated overseas." detailed the last time Kessler did this, Clinton, Obama, and other Democrats who opposed the bill did not do so because they opposed revising FISA in the manner Kessler wanted; rather, the main point of contention was court oversight of the warrantless wiretapping program. correction for his citing of Kessler: In this column, I cite a report that Sen. Obama had attended services at Trinity Church on July 22, 2007. The Obama camapaign has provided information showing that Sen. adds: "If they didn't see any need to immediately correct a story about Barack Obama attending a sermon filled with hatred and racial animus, then in my opinion, they don't deserve to win a presidential campaign." |
| preview.tinyurl.com/26jw5f -> www.nytimes.com/2008/03/17/opinion/17kristol.html?_r=1&oref=slogin Article Tools Sponsored By By WILLIAM KRISTOL Published: March 17, 2008 In this column, I cite a report that Sen. Obama had attended services at Trinity Church on July 22, 2007. The Obama campaign has provided information showing that Senator Obama did not attend Trinity that day. Times Topics: Barack Obama Sunday evening, Ben Affleck and Jennifer Garner held a "Generation Obama" fund-raiser at Boston's Rumor Nightclub. In case you're not up on the Boston club scene, I should tell you that Rumor "brings together the sexiest and hippest people from around the globe" and "has raised the bar in Boston's night life" (if Rumor may say so itself). Presumably, Ben and Jennifer raised the bar a notch further on Sunday. But one has the sense that elsewhere in this great land the bloom is coming off the Obama rose. For example, Obama claimed Friday that "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." God damn America for treating our citizens as less than human." But Ronald Kessler, a journalist who has written about Wright's ministry, claims that Obama was in fact in the pews at Trinity last July 22. That's when Wright blamed the "arrogance" of the "United States of White America" for much of the world's suffering, especially the oppression of blacks. In any case, given the apparent frequency of such statements in Wright's preaching and their centrality to his worldview, the pretense that over all these years Obama had no idea that Wright was saying such things is hard to sustain. This doesn't mean that Obama agrees with Wright's thoroughgoing and conspiracy-heavy anti-Americanism. Rather, Obama seems to have seen, early in his career, the utility of joining a prominent church that would help him establish political roots in the community in which he lives. Now he sees the utility of distancing himself from that church. Obama's behavior in dealing with Wright is consistent with that of a politician who often voted "present" in the Illinois State Legislature for the sake of his future political viability. The more you learn about him, the more Obama seems to be a conventionally opportunistic politician, impressively smart and disciplined, who has put together a good political career and a terrific presidential campaign. There's the calculation of ambition, and the construction of artifice, mixed in with a dash of deceit -- all covered over with the great conceit that this campaign, and this candidate, are different. If you go to the Obama campaign Web site and click on "people," you'll see 14 categories of people you can choose to hook up with -- women, labor, people of faith ... It's a "grass-roots movement led by young activists with a simple goal: electing Barack Obama the next president of the United States of America," the Web site says, adding that "you and other members can utilize the many talents of our country's next great generation in support of the campaign in a variety of meaningful ways." So in fact, "Generation Obama" is just a fancy name for young activists for Obama. But the (remarkable) conceit is this: The "next great generation" of Americans can appropriately be called "Generation Obama." Now I'm actually a believer in the next generation, which one might call the 9/11 generation. Many of its members seem more serious and impressive than we baby boomers were when our elders were foolishly praising us, 40 years ago, as the best-educated, most idealistic generation ever. Many of the best of this young generation are serving their country -- either in the military or otherwise. Some are in politics, working for various causes, liberal and conservative, and for various candidates, Democrats and Republicans. But surely there's something creepy about a campaign claiming them as "Generation Obama." With no particular dog in the Democratic fight, many conservatives have tended to think it would be good for the country if Obama were to win the Democratic nomination, freeing us from the dreary prospect of the return of the House of Clinton. Might the country be better off with the cynicism of the Clintons than the conceit of Obama? Next Article in Opinion (7 of 20) Tips To find reference information about the words used in this article, double-click on any word, phrase or name. A new window will open with a dictionary definition or encyclopedia entry. |
| preview.tinyurl.com/ytjtje -> conwebwatch.tripod.com/blog/index.blog/1797602/did-kessler-make-false-claim-about-obama/ article he wrote last August -- claimed that, contrary to Barack Obama's suggestion that the Rev. Jeremiah Wright "had not used such derogatory language in any of the church services Obama attended over the past two decades," Obama "was present in the South Side Chicago church on July 22 last year," when, according to Kessler, Wright referred to the "United States of White America" and that the "illegal war" in Iraq was "based on Bush's lies" and is being "fought for oil money." pointed out when New York Times columnist William Kristol repeated the claim, Obama spent the day campaigning in Miami. This resulted in a strangely passive-aggressive "clarification" being appended to Kessler's article: Clarification: The Obama campaign has told members of the press that Senator Obama was not in church on the day cited, July 22, because he had a speech he gave in Miami at 1:30 PM. Our writer, Jim Davis, says he attended several services at Senator Obama's church during the month of July, including July 22. The church holds services three times every Sunday at 7:30 and 11 am and 6 pm Central time. While both the early morning and evening service allowed Sen. Obama to attend the service and still give a speech in Miami, Mr Davis stands by his story that during one of the services he attended during the month of July, Senator Obama was present and sat through the sermon given by Rev. Mr Davis said Secret Service were also present in the church during Senator Obama's attendance. Mr Davis' story was first published on Newsmax on August 9, 2007. Shortly before publication, Mr Davis contacted the press office of Sen. Obama several times for comment about the Senator's attendance and Rev. While the "clarification" makes a point of detailing the church's service times that would have purportedly "allowed Sen. Obama to attend the service and still give a speech in Miami," nowhere does Davis or Newsmax state exactly which service Obama is purported to have attended that day, nor is it made clear whether Wright gives a sermon (or the same sermon) at all three services. Newsmax then blamed Obama's office for not returning calls to Davis before publication of his 2007 article. article by Kessler attacked Obama's "racist church" because it claims to be "unashamedly black and unapologetically Christian" with a "non-negotiable commitment to Africa" and a "Black Value System." column , Kessler claimed that "Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama last August voted against revising the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act to allow NSA to continue to monitor calls by foreign terrorists without a warrant even if all parties are situated overseas." detailed the last time Kessler did this, Clinton, Obama, and other Democrats who opposed the bill did not do so because they opposed revising FISA in the manner Kessler wanted; rather, the main point of contention was court oversight of the warrantless wiretapping program. correction for his citing of Kessler: In this column, I cite a report that Sen. Obama had attended services at Trinity Church on July 22, 2007. The Obama camapaign has provided information showing that Sen. adds: "If they didn't see any need to immediately correct a story about Barack Obama attending a sermon filled with hatred and racial animus, then in my opinion, they don't deserve to win a presidential campaign." |
| www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1986607/posts?page=334#334 View Replies To: umgud I can't imagine him sitting there listening to this and not joining in when the crowd starts their head bobbling up and down when the Pastor says this stuff. View Replies To: Philo1962 Perhaps you can provide some insight on a question I've had running through my mind constantly for the last week. As you and many of us have pointed out- all this information about Wright and Obama's association with him has been "out there" for a year. Why SUDDENLY as if by magic- is it all going mainstream? The standard answer- it's Hillary's minions- seems too easy. But the problem I have with that is how clear it's been the MSM has strongly supported Obama. It seems unlikely they would suddenly obey her requests to get this story more front and center. View Replies To: InterceptPoint >>> I don't place my hand over my heart for the Star Spangled Banner. Since this was the during the singing of the Star Spangled Banner I don't see why it is such a big deal. Yep, and you are not alone, I ran into this at the Jersey shore last year. It is a sign of respect that when the SSB is played you rise, men remove the caps, and face the flag. Then if one has a cap or with bare hand should be placed over the heart. Wildwood NJ played the SSB last year as we were walking up the boardwalk. I was amazed and angered that people 1didn't know the protocol or 2 Did not care. It is considered disrespectful to ignore the presentation of the colors and the playing of the anthem. View Replies To: rao2000 The media has been suppressing this for a long time, the divisiveness of Rev. The only thing which has changed, the only reason why this is being brought out now by the media, is the Clintons. But the problem I have with that is how clear it's been the MSM has strongly supported Obama. It seems unlikely they would suddenly obey her requests to get this story more front and center. From a conservative standpoint, this is the beautiful thing about the 50/50 split of the left between Hillary (who wants to be the first female president) and Obama (who wants to be the first black president). Both of them have lots of friends in the mainstream news media. The news media is not some sort of monolithic hive mind where everybody thinks the same way on each and every issue, and we're seeing an example of that right now. Half of them want Hillary to be president, and the other half want Obama to be president. So when Hillary wants everybody to see some dirt on Obama, Hillary's minions go to their friends in the media. And when Obama wants everybody to see spome dirt on Hillary, Obama's minions go to their own friends in the media. And all conservatives have to do is unfold some lawnchairs, pop some popcorn and watch the fireworks. View Replies To: Philo1962 I'm pretty sure they have their service times switched around on their website. If I recall correctly, Anthony Burnette gave the evening service that day (6:00 PM) and Jeremiah Wright gave the early morning service (7:30 AM) Well, you better find out for sure. If what you're stating about seeing Obama being at one of these WRIGHT sermons is indeed a fact, then Obama is wrong and needs to explain himself. jveritas Pretty sad that FReepers believe Obama's hate-"church" website over you, the author of the article. An article that was published 2 weeks after the service. An article that could have been noticed by said "church." An article that could have caused said "church"'s members to re-write their timelines of services for that morning's sermon to specifically negate your article. I wouldn't put anything past Obama supporters and defenders. View Replies To: jveritas And the author is here in the thread standing by the claim. I'll believe him before I believe the campaign dealing with this s***storm or the website of the "church" that created it. The idea that Obama never heard this madman's rantings in person is utterly ludicrous anyway, so I'm failing to see the point of this timeline game we're playing here. View Replies To: jveritas Day Event Sunday Sunday Worship Services 7:30 am, 11:00 am, and 6:00 pm The article says it was a Sunday morning service. Attending the 7:30 am service would give Obama plenty of time to make a 1:30 pm speech in Miami! I agree it would be great to find documentation, but even without it, the idea that Obama never had any glimpse of this man's attitude in twenty years is ridiculous. And if it is true, then Obama is too dense to be President. If nothing else, his church honoring Farrakhan as Man of the Year or whatever should have tipped Obama off. View Replies To: Philo1962 Your story is not adding up well. The schedule from July 22 shows that Wright was to give the Sermon at 6:00 PM and some other guy at 7:30 AM. jveritas Pretty sad that FReepers believe Obama's hate-"church" website over you, the author of the article. An article that was published 2 weeks after the service. An article that could have been noticed by said "church." An article that could have caused said "church"'s members to re-write their timelines of services for that morning's sermon to specifically negate your article. I wouldn't put anything past Obama supporters and defenders. There hadn't been a lot of time to doctor or edit any videos or websites. I have repeatedly called the campaign and the church, asking for an interview and mentioning the July 22 date in the messages I've left. If Obama wasn't there, they should have spoken up right away -- immediately after the article was published. I'd bring in my notes, they'd produce their videotape, and we would get everything cleared up right away. I stand behind my story, but if I was wrong, Newsmax would have published a retraction and that would have been the end of it. Now, after everyone's memory has faded, my notes have been taken to some landfill and there has been plenty of time to doctor the videos and the websites, the Obama campaign tries to deny he was there? They could have nipped this little problem in the bud if Obama really was not there, and they had chosen to speak up. I think they are relying on the fact that people have fading memories about who gave the sermon in the early morning and who gave it in the evening, on a Sunday eight months ago. View Replies To: jveritas See my post # 300, someone else gave the sermon at 7:30 AM and it was not Wright, he gave the sermon at 6:00 PM. I think they have the two switched around on the church website. If I recall correctly, Jeremiah Wright gave the sermon at 7:30 AM and Anthony Burnette gave the sermon at 6:00 PM. Like I said, there's been plenty of time for our memories to fade and our notes to be thrown away. And there's been plenty of time to doctor websites and videotapes. If Obama really wasn't there, why didn't they speak up imnmediately after my story was published in the first week of August? BLACK VALUE SYSTEM on which it is based, you can see how racist this organization is. As long as the MSM and others continue to focus on personalities like pastor Wright and speculate whether Obama was at a particular sermon or not, the better it is for Obama who can distance himself from Wright and claim he wasn't present at some of the sermons. The focus should be on the church itself and Obama's 20 year association with it. View Replies To: Philo1962 May be they did not see a need to answer your questions as Obama was in Flordia that day. You attended a Church sermon and you should know exactly what time and who gave since it was full of hate. View Replies To: Red_Devil 232 Attending the 7:30 am service would give Obama plenty of time to make a 1:30 pm speech in Miami! Was Obama's La Raza speech at 1:30, or did the La Raza conference start at 1:30? If it's the latter, this is really pointless nitpicking. Even if it's the former, you're right, there's plenty of travel time to get from Point A to Point B Especially for a prominent politician who doesn't have to deal with the same airport snags and delays the rest of us are used to. View Replies To: jveritas Yes and it is the author of the article. You're going above and beyond to manufacture the benefit of the doubt for B Hussein. And you're calling... |
| preview.tinyurl.com/2xlxox -> www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1986607/posts?page=334#334 View Replies To: umgud I can't imagine him sitting there listening to this and not joining in when the crowd starts their head bobbling up and down when the Pastor says this stuff. View Replies To: Philo1962 Perhaps you can provide some insight on a question I've had running through my mind constantly for the last week. As you and many of us have pointed out- all this information about Wright and Obama's association with him has been "out there" for a year. Why SUDDENLY as if by magic- is it all going mainstream? The standard answer- it's Hillary's minions- seems too easy. But the problem I have with that is how clear it's been the MSM has strongly supported Obama. It seems unlikely they would suddenly obey her requests to get this story more front and center. View Replies To: InterceptPoint >>> I don't place my hand over my heart for the Star Spangled Banner. Since this was the during the singing of the Star Spangled Banner I don't see why it is such a big deal. Yep, and you are not alone, I ran into this at the Jersey shore last year. It is a sign of respect that when the SSB is played you rise, men remove the caps, and face the flag. Then if one has a cap or with bare hand should be placed over the heart. Wildwood NJ played the SSB last year as we were walking up the boardwalk. I was amazed and angered that people 1didn't know the protocol or 2 Did not care. It is considered disrespectful to ignore the presentation of the colors and the playing of the anthem. View Replies To: rao2000 The media has been suppressing this for a long time, the divisiveness of Rev. The only thing which has changed, the only reason why this is being brought out now by the media, is the Clintons. But the problem I have with that is how clear it's been the MSM has strongly supported Obama. It seems unlikely they would suddenly obey her requests to get this story more front and center. From a conservative standpoint, this is the beautiful thing about the 50/50 split of the left between Hillary (who wants to be the first female president) and Obama (who wants to be the first black president). Both of them have lots of friends in the mainstream news media. The news media is not some sort of monolithic hive mind where everybody thinks the same way on each and every issue, and we're seeing an example of that right now. Half of them want Hillary to be president, and the other half want Obama to be president. So when Hillary wants everybody to see some dirt on Obama, Hillary's minions go to their friends in the media. And when Obama wants everybody to see spome dirt on Hillary, Obama's minions go to their own friends in the media. And all conservatives have to do is unfold some lawnchairs, pop some popcorn and watch the fireworks. View Replies To: Philo1962 I'm pretty sure they have their service times switched around on their website. If I recall correctly, Anthony Burnette gave the evening service that day (6:00 PM) and Jeremiah Wright gave the early morning service (7:30 AM) Well, you better find out for sure. If what you're stating about seeing Obama being at one of these WRIGHT sermons is indeed a fact, then Obama is wrong and needs to explain himself. jveritas Pretty sad that FReepers believe Obama's hate-"church" website over you, the author of the article. An article that was published 2 weeks after the service. An article that could have been noticed by said "church." An article that could have caused said "church"'s members to re-write their timelines of services for that morning's sermon to specifically negate your article. I wouldn't put anything past Obama supporters and defenders. View Replies To: jveritas And the author is here in the thread standing by the claim. I'll believe him before I believe the campaign dealing with this s***storm or the website of the "church" that created it. The idea that Obama never heard this madman's rantings in person is utterly ludicrous anyway, so I'm failing to see the point of this timeline game we're playing here. View Replies To: jveritas Day Event Sunday Sunday Worship Services 7:30 am, 11:00 am, and 6:00 pm The article says it was a Sunday morning service. Attending the 7:30 am service would give Obama plenty of time to make a 1:30 pm speech in Miami! I agree it would be great to find documentation, but even without it, the idea that Obama never had any glimpse of this man's attitude in twenty years is ridiculous. And if it is true, then Obama is too dense to be President. If nothing else, his church honoring Farrakhan as Man of the Year or whatever should have tipped Obama off. View Replies To: Philo1962 Your story is not adding up well. The schedule from July 22 shows that Wright was to give the Sermon at 6:00 PM and some other guy at 7:30 AM. jveritas Pretty sad that FReepers believe Obama's hate-"church" website over you, the author of the article. An article that was published 2 weeks after the service. An article that could have been noticed by said "church." An article that could have caused said "church"'s members to re-write their timelines of services for that morning's sermon to specifically negate your article. I wouldn't put anything past Obama supporters and defenders. There hadn't been a lot of time to doctor or edit any videos or websites. I have repeatedly called the campaign and the church, asking for an interview and mentioning the July 22 date in the messages I've left. If Obama wasn't there, they should have spoken up right away -- immediately after the article was published. I'd bring in my notes, they'd produce their videotape, and we would get everything cleared up right away. I stand behind my story, but if I was wrong, Newsmax would have published a retraction and that would have been the end of it. Now, after everyone's memory has faded, my notes have been taken to some landfill and there has been plenty of time to doctor the videos and the websites, the Obama campaign tries to deny he was there? They could have nipped this little problem in the bud if Obama really was not there, and they had chosen to speak up. I think they are relying on the fact that people have fading memories about who gave the sermon in the early morning and who gave it in the evening, on a Sunday eight months ago. View Replies To: jveritas See my post # 300, someone else gave the sermon at 7:30 AM and it was not Wright, he gave the sermon at 6:00 PM. I think they have the two switched around on the church website. If I recall correctly, Jeremiah Wright gave the sermon at 7:30 AM and Anthony Burnette gave the sermon at 6:00 PM. Like I said, there's been plenty of time for our memories to fade and our notes to be thrown away. And there's been plenty of time to doctor websites and videotapes. If Obama really wasn't there, why didn't they speak up imnmediately after my story was published in the first week of August? BLACK VALUE SYSTEM on which it is based, you can see how racist this organization is. As long as the MSM and others continue to focus on personalities like pastor Wright and speculate whether Obama was at a particular sermon or not, the better it is for Obama who can distance himself from Wright and claim he wasn't present at some of the sermons. The focus should be on the church itself and Obama's 20 year association with it. View Replies To: Philo1962 May be they did not see a need to answer your questions as Obama was in Flordia that day. You attended a Church sermon and you should know exactly what time and who gave since it was full of hate. View Replies To: Red_Devil 232 Attending the 7:30 am service would give Obama plenty of time to make a 1:30 pm speech in Miami! Was Obama's La Raza speech at 1:30, or did the La Raza conference start at 1:30? If it's the latter, this is really pointless nitpicking. Even if it's the former, you're right, there's plenty of travel time to get from Point A to Point B Especially for a prominent politician who doesn't have to deal with the same airport snags and delays the rest of us are used to. View Replies To: jveritas Yes and it is the author of the article. You're going above and beyond to manufacture the benefit of the doubt for B Hussein. And you're calling... |
| tpmelectioncentral.talkingpointsmemo.com/2008/03/newsmaxs_kessler_scrubs_refere.php append a correction to today's column, after the Obama campaign convinced him that his claim that Obama had attended a controversial Jeremiah Wright sermon was, well, false. Kristol had cited, of all things, a piece on Newsmax by Ronald Kessler as the source for the tall tale. But there's been an amusing epilogue to this otherwise dispiriting tale. It turns out Kessler has been busy today scrubbing references to this episode of fact-bungling from his page at Wikipedia. editing history of his page, and it shows one "KesslerRonald" editing out a big chunk of text describing various Kessler "controversies," including the whole Newsmax/Obama/Kristol/Wright screw-up. I checked in with Kessler himself, and he confirmed that he had done the deed. He said he'd cut out the reference to his own fact-bungling because it also contained a reference to an article criticizing him for his stance on torture -- and that all of this was part of the same "left-wing" assault. "Someone today added all this negative material, which is all from a left-wing perspective," Kessler said. I thought of that as all being part of the same package, just a total assault." Not to mention that editing his own page in this way can violate Wikipedia rules, and he could be locked out of making any changes at all if he keeps up with it. Not to say that he seems to think that a valid reaction to this "left-wing perspective" is to just disappear the information in the style of Operation Condor. Permalink avatar This shill was on Cspan this weekend regurgitating the same BS he ran down on the Daily Show. His writer is sure Obama spent some day in July at church? Permalink avatar I like watching Newsmaxies twist as much as anyone, but come on... Here are the two items that people have added to his bio, in addition to the Obama one, under "Controversies": '- The liberal Website Talking Points Memo has referred to Kessler's book A Matter of Character as a "lily-gilding portrait of the Bush White House." If any of our favorite progressives' Wikipedia pages were filled with quotes from the Freepers, we'd be incensed. If these sections covered the controversies, it would be a different story. But all the authors really want to write is "Hey Kessler you're wrong." I agree that the reference to a dig from someone at Kos is really an abuse wikipedia. The reference to the digging quote from TPM, notwithstanding the augustness of the publication, doesn't have any place there either. But it was poor judgement on his part to try to erase the reference to the Obama episode. Permalink avatar I did not know anything about Newsmax up until now. Why, when I read TPM I always get ad from Newsmax and ads calling for me to donate to some guy in Illinois who is running against Sen Durbin? He sees a report in another article, figures "well, *they* must've fact-checked it" and puts it in his article. Not a stellar case of journalism but I imagine everyone cuts the occasional corner. Kristol "reports" it in an attack on Obama in the New York Times, and then later retracts it after the damage had been done. Maybe the right was correct all along and the New York Times is a rag. Permalink avatar He doesn't understand how Wikipedia works. Wiki world isn't like Bush Reality World where lies go unchallenged. This Bozo should stick with Conservapedia, as fair and balanced as Newsmax. Permalink avatar For those who are more wikipedia-versed than I, please note that someone has scrubbed Kessler's entry again on the grounds that the info comes from a website? Permalink avatar How many have contacted NYT and asked what consequences will be for Mr Kristol? Or to complain about them reposting original piece intact with 'error'? Permalink avatar Aunt Sam I did and got a standard reply as below Thank you for contacting the Public Editor. Because of the volume of e-mail, we cannot respond personally to every message, but we forward many messages to appropriate newsroom staffers and follow up to be sure concerns raised in those messages are treated with serious consideration. If a further reply is warranted, you will be hearing from us shortly. Some messages to the Public Editor may be published in his column or online. It's good that it came out now so that people get desensatized to it. I don't know if it will be enough, but I would rather lose with obama than lose big time and destroy the party with the clintons. Permalink avatar A little off topic but forward this to anyone you know in PA, especially the youth and progressives: Anyone in Pennsylvania has until March 24 to register as a Democrat. Permalink avatar Newsmax = Kristol = Garbage These rightwing sockpuppets are all the same. The fact that the Democrats, and the Media, constantly roll over and pander to the rightwing is *the* problem in America. Here's how it works: 1 GOP smear artists dream up next scurrilous attack. I think the MSM and Dems have to stop being so cowardly and panicky about the GOP smears. His WikiPedia page, for some time, read like a press release, with full and glowing description of each one of his books cribbed directly from his publisher's descriptions. Several times, folks have edited Kessler's page (including a major rework to make it conform to standard bio format), and he has attempted to put the fluff back in. He has also removed discussion comments about his page, despite the protest of other wikipedia editors that he cease doing so. For a time, his page was flagged with a warning due to these actions. Permalink avatar As the person who did most of the recent revision of the Wikipedia page for Ronald Borek Kessler, born December 31, 1943, I'm not sure that I completely agree that the first two controversies mentioned, before this other matter exploded, were utterly unnecessary or inappropriate. Flattering garbage about President Bush and the Bush White House would have to be a fundamental criticism of Kessler's "journalism," as is the matter of the short-shrift he gives to the issue of torture. ADDING more or better examples of criticisms of Kessler's stances on these issues would be the most appropriate thing, not just ripping stuff out. So what we see here is one of the fundamental flaws of Wikipedia and Wikipedians. You add good, factual, accurate stuff, and rather than editing it or revising it or expanding it, people just rip it out. A lot of good stuff, even wildly noncontroversial stuff about noncontroversial subjects, regularly gets ripped out of Wikipedia and thrown away. Little bits of knowledge are lost because people can't say either, "This is a starting point," or "This factoid is utterly harmless and noncontroversial." Anyway, thank goodness this recent matter has gained some publicity and brought some attention to what Kessler and NewsMax are doing. And as other people have discussed, and as I have discussed elsewhere, Kessler's previous version of the Wikipedia page was poorly arranged, poorly edited garbage, pap sent out by a publishers' PR department or NewsMax And, get this, Kessler never minded NewsMax getting labeled as "right-wing." It went into steep decline after the lightweight Arthur Sulzberger Jr. Unless your interest is in seeing how the press is covering certain issues, it's a waste of time to read. Permalink avatar I am becoming not a little agitated by the NYTimes, either it is the height of sloppiness or they don't care when it comes to distortions regarding Obama. Take a look at the map for Democratic primary, and Texas, Michigan, and Florida all come up for Clinton, with little clarification, certainly none in the "win" category. The torture cheerleader literally admits that torture talk was the reason he tried to revise history. Why let a few war crimes get in the way of our wall to wall Hillobamania. |
| preview.tinyurl.com/32u723 -> tpmelectioncentral.talkingpointsmemo.com/2008/03/newsmaxs_kessler_scrubs_refere.php append a correction to today's column, after the Obama campaign convinced him that his claim that Obama had attended a controversial Jeremiah Wright sermon was, well, false. Kristol had cited, of all things, a piece on Newsmax by Ronald Kessler as the source for the tall tale. But there's been an amusing epilogue to this otherwise dispiriting tale. It turns out Kessler has been busy today scrubbing references to this episode of fact-bungling from his page at Wikipedia. editing history of his page, and it shows one "KesslerRonald" editing out a big chunk of text describing various Kessler "controversies," including the whole Newsmax/Obama/Kristol/Wright screw-up. I checked in with Kessler himself, and he confirmed that he had done the deed. He said he'd cut out the reference to his own fact-bungling because it also contained a reference to an article criticizing him for his stance on torture -- and that all of this was part of the same "left-wing" assault. "Someone today added all this negative material, which is all from a left-wing perspective," Kessler said. I thought of that as all being part of the same package, just a total assault." Not to mention that editing his own page in this way can violate Wikipedia rules, and he could be locked out of making any changes at all if he keeps up with it. Not to say that he seems to think that a valid reaction to this "left-wing perspective" is to just disappear the information in the style of Operation Condor. Permalink avatar This shill was on Cspan this weekend regurgitating the same BS he ran down on the Daily Show. His writer is sure Obama spent some day in July at church? Permalink avatar I like watching Newsmaxies twist as much as anyone, but come on... Here are the two items that people have added to his bio, in addition to the Obama one, under "Controversies": '- The liberal Website Talking Points Memo has referred to Kessler's book A Matter of Character as a "lily-gilding portrait of the Bush White House." If any of our favorite progressives' Wikipedia pages were filled with quotes from the Freepers, we'd be incensed. If these sections covered the controversies, it would be a different story. But all the authors really want to write is "Hey Kessler you're wrong." I agree that the reference to a dig from someone at Kos is really an abuse wikipedia. The reference to the digging quote from TPM, notwithstanding the augustness of the publication, doesn't have any place there either. But it was poor judgement on his part to try to erase the reference to the Obama episode. Permalink avatar I did not know anything about Newsmax up until now. Why, when I read TPM I always get ad from Newsmax and ads calling for me to donate to some guy in Illinois who is running against Sen Durbin? He sees a report in another article, figures "well, *they* must've fact-checked it" and puts it in his article. Not a stellar case of journalism but I imagine everyone cuts the occasional corner. Kristol "reports" it in an attack on Obama in the New York Times, and then later retracts it after the damage had been done. Maybe the right was correct all along and the New York Times is a rag. Permalink avatar He doesn't understand how Wikipedia works. Wiki world isn't like Bush Reality World where lies go unchallenged. This Bozo should stick with Conservapedia, as fair and balanced as Newsmax. Permalink avatar For those who are more wikipedia-versed than I, please note that someone has scrubbed Kessler's entry again on the grounds that the info comes from a website? Permalink avatar How many have contacted NYT and asked what consequences will be for Mr Kristol? Or to complain about them reposting original piece intact with 'error'? Permalink avatar Aunt Sam I did and got a standard reply as below Thank you for contacting the Public Editor. Because of the volume of e-mail, we cannot respond personally to every message, but we forward many messages to appropriate newsroom staffers and follow up to be sure concerns raised in those messages are treated with serious consideration. If a further reply is warranted, you will be hearing from us shortly. Some messages to the Public Editor may be published in his column or online. It's good that it came out now so that people get desensatized to it. I don't know if it will be enough, but I would rather lose with obama than lose big time and destroy the party with the clintons. Permalink avatar A little off topic but forward this to anyone you know in PA, especially the youth and progressives: Anyone in Pennsylvania has until March 24 to register as a Democrat. Permalink avatar Newsmax = Kristol = Garbage These rightwing sockpuppets are all the same. The fact that the Democrats, and the Media, constantly roll over and pander to the rightwing is *the* problem in America. Here's how it works: 1 GOP smear artists dream up next scurrilous attack. I think the MSM and Dems have to stop being so cowardly and panicky about the GOP smears. His WikiPedia page, for some time, read like a press release, with full and glowing description of each one of his books cribbed directly from his publisher's descriptions. Several times, folks have edited Kessler's page (including a major rework to make it conform to standard bio format), and he has attempted to put the fluff back in. He has also removed discussion comments about his page, despite the protest of other wikipedia editors that he cease doing so. For a time, his page was flagged with a warning due to these actions. Permalink avatar As the person who did most of the recent revision of the Wikipedia page for Ronald Borek Kessler, born December 31, 1943, I'm not sure that I completely agree that the first two controversies mentioned, before this other matter exploded, were utterly unnecessary or inappropriate. Flattering garbage about President Bush and the Bush White House would have to be a fundamental criticism of Kessler's "journalism," as is the matter of the short-shrift he gives to the issue of torture. ADDING more or better examples of criticisms of Kessler's stances on these issues would be the most appropriate thing, not just ripping stuff out. So what we see here is one of the fundamental flaws of Wikipedia and Wikipedians. You add good, factual, accurate stuff, and rather than editing it or revising it or expanding it, people just rip it out. A lot of good stuff, even wildly noncontroversial stuff about noncontroversial subjects, regularly gets ripped out of Wikipedia and thrown away. Little bits of knowledge are lost because people can't say either, "This is a starting point," or "This factoid is utterly harmless and noncontroversial." Anyway, thank goodness this recent matter has gained some publicity and brought some attention to what Kessler and NewsMax are doing. And as other people have discussed, and as I have discussed elsewhere, Kessler's previous version of the Wikipedia page was poorly arranged, poorly edited garbage, pap sent out by a publishers' PR department or NewsMax And, get this, Kessler never minded NewsMax getting labeled as "right-wing." It went into steep decline after the lightweight Arthur Sulzberger Jr. Unless your interest is in seeing how the press is covering certain issues, it's a waste of time to read. Permalink avatar I am becoming not a little agitated by the NYTimes, either it is the height of sloppiness or they don't care when it comes to distortions regarding Obama. Take a look at the map for Democratic primary, and Texas, Michigan, and Florida all come up for Clinton, with little clarification, certainly none in the "win" category. The torture cheerleader literally admits that torture talk was the reason he tried to revise history. Why let a few war crimes get in the way of our wall to wall Hillobamania. |