EVER!!!  But I would!!  MY talking point whenever I get into a discussion about slavery.....sold out their own!!

"Eventually, Socialists run out of other peoples' money...." MARGARET THATCHER

Congratulations on the MSM-worthy spin, Jer. Allow me to quote the section of Bodini's post you are lying about: "...the wanna-be president, B. Hussein Obama... steadfastly maintains, that in his 20+ year association with JW as his mentor, he never heard such racist (anti-white) remarks. BHO is a liar."

Your fiction: Bodini claims Obama hasn't repudiated Wright's remarks.

Reality: Bodini claims that Obama lied in saying that he never heard racist remarks from Wright.

Are you seeing the problem here? Nobody is saying Obama hasn't repudiated Wright's comments. Rather, anyone with a clear mind is saying that it is utterly unreasonable to believe that Obama never heard any of these comments from his "spiritual adviser" over the course of 20 years. So said, that makes Obama a liar and his repudiations less than worthless. Now stop trying to deflect away from the real points with disingenuous accusations.

www.rhjunior.com Great comics with a hefty dose of Christian and anti-nutjob goodness.

"With your mind as high as Mt. Fuji you can see all things clearly. And you can see all the forces that shape events; not just the things near to you." -Miyamoto Musashi

OK, it doesn’t matter how many times the remarks are repudiated.  I want Obama to repudiate Wright, not just Wright’s hate-bombs.  I want Obama to repudiate Ayers and Dohrn.  My views would be tempered if Wright and Ayers and Dohrn had all gone to their knees in shame.  Well forget that.  Wright and Ayers and Dohrn appear to be absolutely mirthful about who they are and what they have said and done.

Obama is Caspar Milquetoast.  He is a non-assertive follower.  He is not a leader.

I don't think it's a matter of Obama refuting the statements of Rev. Wright at all. I think the point the whole discussion is that Barack Hussein Obama has consistently surrounded himself with people who have questionable regard for their country.

Rev. Wright is just one example. Michelle O. is clearly another. So far on the campaign trail she's told us that she hasn't been proud of her country until her husband ran for president; she's told us that we're a downright mean country; she's told us that we shouldn't pursue better-paying corporate jobs when she alone makes 6.5 times the average household income in the US in 2006. How about Frank Davis? Barack clung to his Marxist teachings as a youth and drank deeply of the anti-capitalist, anti-American venom with which Mr. Davis serenaded him. How about William Ayers? Here's another dedicated anti-American. His current life is dedicated to teaching teachers to destroy capitalism from within by taking over the education process and indoctrinating kids with Marxist pap. How about the ever sleazy Tony Rezko? How about Larry Lessig? How about Samantha Powers?

The election process is in part a vetting process. Especially for someone as relatively unknown as Barack Hussein Obama. I'm sure your father and grandfather were well acquainted with the old adage - never buy a pig in a poke.

That's good advice for the American electorate as well.

"All that is necessary for the trimuph of evil is that good men do nothing."

- Edmund Burke (1729 - 1797)

www.conservativeboot...

The missing premise in this syllogism is that Obama heard these opinions, over and over again, for many years ... yet he only repudiated them when he ran for president. Sure, he repudiated them, but only after they became widely known, and would cause him political trouble. Had this not become a political firestorm, would he have said anything? The facts suggest not, since he didn't turn away from them until they were publicly embarrassing.

That's where the press is actually doing him a favor. The press is spinning this as if Obama is refusing to abandon an old friend (who's a little controversial). Instead, the uncomfortable question for Obama is whether he agrees with Wright's perspective. Here's what I mean:

• Wright claims that America systematically oppressed minorities, i.e., other races. Wright believes that by "America," he's referring strictly to the white people. Black people don't share any responsibility for what America did, because white people made those decisions. White people are collectively guilty of oppressing Indians, but blacks aren't. White people are collectively guilty of imprisoning Asians during WWII, but blacks aren't.  Furthermore, white people of today share the same responsibility for those actions -- that's what the "coming home to roost" quote means. (Of course, how is a white teenager of today is any more connected to the slave traders than a Hispanic or even black teenager?)
  • The most important point is that Wright speaks of America as "them," not "us." Wright believes that white Americans are still racist, and apparently will always be.
• Apparently, many in the black community (and a few white self-hating liberals) agree with that perspective. Obama absolutely needs their support. But Obama also needs white people to win the general election. In other words, he needs the very people Wright considers to be racist. Most Americans, especially the white ones, don't agree with Reverend Wright's perspective. They would not support anyone whose opinion of America is based on that perspective.
• So Obama has to choose. Does he agree with Wright's perspective? If he says no, he alienates his core supporters. If he says yes, he alienates all the whites. That's why the question is crucial. Obama has to choose, and he can't run away from the question, as he's desperately trying to do now.

Obama complains that he repudiated the comments, but he only did so when the comments became widely known, and he hasn't explained why the comments were wrong. Until he comes up with a satisfactory answer, he's going to keep getting the question.

The topic is context ... but!

Actions speak louder than words ... especially cheap repudiations with no substance. If the politician were a conservative and ... he was a white, male, catholic, mentored for years by a priest who uttered any one of JW's hate-filled words during any weekly message over a twenty year period and the MSM found out about it I think the sound bite from the homily would be extracted, context be-damned, and the lead story on all the MSM stations would be ...

"A disgusting, but expected turn of events, in the world of politics tonight. We at WKRX bring you this exclusive story about Republican politico X, who we all know is a racist, mean spirited ... blah blah blah ... when asked about this story, blatantly lied and claimed he never heard any such words from his priest ... blah blah! We demand that he throw his priest's dead and mutilated body under the bus, burn his church and kill anyone who might have attended or came within 500 miles of that church since the priest was born. We are calling on the Pope to abolish the Catholic church and all religions that have anything to do with Christianity blah blah!" We would then hear that story broadcast mega-times each day for ... eternity!

The MSM, king of sound-bites knows all about context and wish we did not. Again, I would say to BHB ... talk is cheap! While I'm not from Missouri, I might as well be ... BHB ... SHOW ME!

Yes indeed. And just who are these "blessed" bashing in "your children's head"?