For 20 years, Steamboat resident Rob Douglas was a Washington, D.C. private detective specializing in homicide, political corruption and terrorism. Since 1998, Douglas has been a commentator on local, state and national politics in Washington, D.C., Maryland and Colorado. To reach Rob Douglas, email rdouglas@SteamboatToday.com.

For 20 years, Steamboat resident Rob Douglas was a Washington, D.C. private detective specializing in homicide, political corruption and terrorism. Since 1998, Douglas has been a commentator on local, state and national politics in Washington, D.C., Maryland and Colorado. To reach Rob Douglas, email rdouglas@SteamboatToday.com.

Rob Douglas: The sins of the Father

Advertisement

Rob Douglas

Rob Douglas' column appears Fridays in the Steamboat Today. He can be reached at rdouglas@SteamboatToday.com.

Find more columns by Douglas here.

God damn America.

Three words.

Three words shouted by Barack Obama's pastor with enough venom to end Obama's political life.

Three words shouted by Barack Obama's pastor with fiery rhetoric sufficient to illuminate the dark intersection in American culture where religion and politics often collide fatally.

Because of the Rev. Jeremiah Wright's screed, Americans find themselves this Good Friday asking the question - the biblical question - of whether the sins of the Father should be visited upon the son. Father, with a capital F, because Wright is Obama's spiritual father, his pastor.

Democrats will answer the question first. However, given the late hour on the primary clock, the entire country may have the final say in November. Before answering, it is worth determining how Obama landed in this quandary. That query leads directly to the state of religion in America, an appropriate subject for the holiest week of the Christian calendar.

Last month, the Pew Forum on Religion & Public Life released the U.S. Religious Landscape Survey. The survey, described as the "most detailed estimates to date of the size and demographic characteristics of religious groups in the U.S.," found that 28 percent of American adults left the church of their upbringing in favor of another church - or no church at all.

But arguably, combining the Pew survey with individual churches' levels of attendance results in a more detailed picture of religion in America today - a picture of polar opposites. On one end, where religious leaders (often called the religious left) use their position to promote a political agenda far from the core of the faith they profess to represent, parishioners are leaving in droves. On the other end, where religious leaders (often scorned as the religious right) promote a more orthodox view, church attendance is thriving. For example, the Episcopal Church - the church I am most familiar with - is losing 1,000 members per week. Yet within the worldwide Anglican Communion (to which the Episcopal Church belongs), membership, specifically in the more orthodox southern hemisphere and orthodox parishes in the northern hemisphere, is increasing.

Yet, the true picture is more complex than one consisting of numbers. The picture is complicated by the debate about the appropriate role for religion in American politics. An issue the founding fathers debated. An issue we debate today as a society. An issue Wright, as a liberation theologian, believes is not debatable. Liberation theology not only calls for political activism, it demands it. But, contrary to some attempts this week to stir the racial pot, liberation theology is not a matter of black versus white.

Bottom line: While many Americans continue to debate the appropriate influence religion should exert upon politics, Obama finds himself at the center of the debate.

So back to the question of Wright's calling for America to be damned and the impact on Obama's political viability. The question can be answered two ways - what should happen and what will happen.

Obama should not pay for his pastor's transgressions with his political future - and I say that as someone who will not vote for Obama because of his domestic and foreign policies. And while I agree with critics who believe Obama should have stood up to Wright before the political firestorm, I can't condemn Obama for failing where I too have failed in my life.

More to the point, the American political landscape would be better if the current debate centered more on Obama's speech this week and less on the speeches of his pastor. If you didn't see Obama's speech, you owe it to yourself to read it.

But, there is what should be and what will be. Given how the passions in this country still boil when it comes to issues of race and religion, the reality is that Obama's chances of reaching the presidency have evaporated. If Obama survives the Clintons, he'll be met by Republicans airing ads containing Wright's blasphemies. That will be of no benefit to political discourse, but it is political reality.

Rob Douglas can be reached at douglas@privacytoday.com

Comments

Ed Miklus 6 years, 9 months ago

Mr. Douglas, you may not be able to condemn Senator Obama because you too have failings as we all do, but you aren't aspiring to become the leader of the free world. Judgement and courage to stand up to disparagers of our country does matter.

0

grannyrett 6 years, 9 months ago

If Obama can't stand up to his friend, mentor, pastor and talk to him about his bigotry, how can he stand up to other world leaders? How can he stand up for this country? edskis-your post is so right. Obama aspires to become the leader of this country, but it seems as if he is intimidated by his pastor. How can he hope to represent this country and stand up for us if he can't stand up for himself?

0

stompk 6 years, 9 months ago

What's a Washington D.C. "security consultant" doing writing in a place like this?

Know anything about the mercury in the air found at SPL?

0

Rob Douglas 6 years, 9 months ago

edskis, I don't disagree with you. I just come out on the final equation differently. It may be that personally I am willing to be more forgiving than I might be otherwise because Obama would not have a chance for my vote in the first place, given his stated policies. But I also believe we would all be better served if the resulting conversation from this flap centered more on what Obama had to say this week. Not sure if you saw or read the speech, but if you haven't and are interested it can be found at: http://www.drudgereport.com/flashos.htm I've chosen the Drudge link as it does not require registration to read it and some of the news sites that also have the speech do.

0

Ed Miklus 6 years, 9 months ago

Rob, did hear the speech live, best commentary and analysis was Charles Krauthammer.

0

Neil O'Keeffe 6 years, 9 months ago

Spin it all you want, if you listened to his speech you would have to commend him for elloquently addressing a subject that no other politician has the ba**s to touch. This is not an issue he or his pastor created, it's an american reality that has had its head burried in the ground throughout our history. Believe!

0

Rob Douglas 6 years, 9 months ago

edskis, We have similar tastes in commentators. I enjoy the Kraut and am always glad to see when he's on the roundtable segment of Brit's show. His column in the Washington Post is always mandatory reading for me.

stompk, I was a DC private detective. Have been a security consultant since the late 90's and have lived here since shortly after 9/11. And no, the level of mercury recorded at Storm Peak is not something I'm focused on.

0

JLM 6 years, 9 months ago

Krauthammer's comments were right on the target.

Obama does not need or otherwise require our forgiveness as he has surely not asked for it. Don't mislead yourself as to who this fella --- all good qualities and all bad qualities included --- really is.

He is a black Chicago ward politician who carries in his political DNA, psyche and his philosophy all the tendencies of that characterization.

Is he fully aware of what the church --- his church --- stands for and exactly what kind of fella J Wright is? You bet! He's had 20 years to observe, discuss and assess. And, he's as smart as a whip and he's as slick as snot on a glass door knob. This guy doesn't miss anything. Do you think the Rev really conceals his tendencies or beliefs and you have to listen carefully or be there at a specific time to get the message? Not bloody likely, chaps. The Rev is not too damn subtle now is he?

All Obama has succeeded in doing is showing himself for what he is --- another lying politician with a few skeletons in his closet; and, another person who wants to use his race for his benefit when it is convenient (Columbia, Harvard Law) and wants everybody to ignore it when it is not to his favor.

The Rev Wrights and the David Dukes of the world are exactly what they seem to be and you don't have to be wizard smart to figure it out. It is obvious.

I am a white guy of Irish ancestry who has never been "angry" about anything related to my race nor ever made a meaningful decision predicated upon being of Irish ancestry. I can certainly empathize and sympathize with black folks and American Indians who have gotten screwed by slavery and the theft of their homelands. I admit they got screwed. I apologize for their getting screwed (happened long before my folks got to America) and I have no qualms or reluctance to admit they got screwed. But it all happened a long time ago and we should be focused on the future just now. I am tired of even this justifiable historic angst manifesting itself in some level of "anger" which I personally must somehow accept and accomodate in my life.

If you don't think America --- warts and all --- is the greatest country in the world and you are not happy to be an American, then move the f**k on, pal.

It's time to just be AMERICANS and get rid of all the adjectives describing race and ancestry.

My name is JLM and I approve this message.

0

id04sp 6 years, 9 months ago

The fact that Obama has now left his church in the midst of this political controversy proves that his aim is to be elected, and his convictions are subject to change depending on political expediency.

What Obama did, if he is a sincere church-goer, would be like Mitt Romney renouncing the LDS church because people were uncomfortable with the situation.

It's an extreme example, but the 9/11 hijackers put on different facades in order to obtain flight training in this country and to board the airliners which were hijacked. How is that really different from Obama changing his skin (literally from black to white in the moderate and liberal points of view) using his "Jedi powers" in order to gain election to the office of President?

If I thought Obama was giving us his bottom line instead of just trying to get elected, I might consider voting for him. (Yeah, right, like I'm going to vote for higher taxes for myself -- get real).

Somebody should take this poll: How many people who plan to vote for Obama do their own income tax returns on the "long" form? My theory is that most people who vote for the Democrats just don't understand the impact of taxes because they never deal with the issue except through payroll withholding.

I don't think Will Rogers or Mark Twain ever said this, but one of them should have: "Any man who trusts the government to take care of him doesn't understand the tax code."

0

Rob Douglas 6 years, 9 months ago

id04sp: Can you direct me to a source or quote that indicates that Obama has left his church? I have not seen or heard that anywhere. Rev. Wright retired from the church, but I have not seen anything indicating Obama has left his church. Thank you-

0

424now 6 years, 9 months ago

Rob

Excellent link there,

On Good Friday this Prodestant, Irish-American chose to see the positive message of unity in Obamas speech. I let myself revel in the absolute knowlege that interbreeding will erase a large portion of racial bias in another two hundred years.

I liked the idea of unity expressed in his speech, unfortunately he has vowed to pull out of Iraq if elected and well, he's a democrat.

I am voting for the Republican.

0

Rob Douglas 6 years, 9 months ago

424now: Thank you and thank you for taking the time to read speech. I fear we live in a society where the sound bite visual of Obama's pastor gets much more coverage than a more comprehensive in-depth speech, article, or book. The American media has become one of keep it to under 700 written words or 20 seconds of sound or video or it won't be printed or aired. The Internet allows for more comprehensive writings and audio/video, but we as consumers of media rarely take the time to study an issue in any depth. Our current political morass is a direct result of those sad realities. As I used to say on my radio show to callers who complained about our elected officals, we get what we deserve.

0

justathought 6 years, 9 months ago

Obama addressed the issue because he was forced into it, not because he wanted to. The other politicians won't touch it because in the name of political correctness, they would be racists no matter what they said. Obama's recent remark about his white grandmother being a "typical white" person proves it, can you imagine the uproar had Clinton or McCain said something about a "typical black" person? I'm afraid Obama is just another politician trying to convince the public he's different. He first denied personally hearing his pastor spew his hatred but then in his speech he admitted he had, sounds like a politician to me. America has righted itself for past injustices, in fact we've become way too politically correct. As long as people like Wright (of any race) continue to spew hate and discontent, as long as the media continues to break everything down into race and the talking heads must constantly tell us which candidate the different races are voting for, etc., the race factor will never go away. One of the statements on the home page of his church says "We are an African people, and remain 'true to our native land,' the mother continent, the cradle of civilization." and that it is a "congregation with a non-negotiable commitment to Africa". Personally, I believe that after 20 years of spiritual guidance from a pastor that preaches against "rich white folk" and damns America, Obama may embrace many of the same views. Yes, his pastor retired and at a very opportune time, politically. I'll vote for a President I know puts America first.

0

JazzSlave 6 years, 9 months ago

I'm not so sure that this "is not a matter of black versus white."

Steamboat is the most lilly-white burg I've ever been in. I've never set foot in a black church, and I have exactly two black friends.

I heard Donna Brazile on one of the talking head shows characterize Wright as "one of the more moderate black preachers."

If she's right, it may be more about black & white than not. I'm very curious at this point to know how prevalent Wright's kind of rhetoric is in black churches these days.

And at the risk of flogging a tired horse, liberal media bias has some culpability. It's dribbled out that Rev. Wright was hobnobbing at the Clinton White House during the 90s, and nobody said boo. A Republican hack delivers a speech at Bob Jones U, and the fit hits the shan, because the Jonesers are so "intolerent."

While the Wright dust up has provided fodder for cable and internet outlets, the mainstream media has ignored it. And the mainstream media are where the vast majority of Americans - by far - get their news. I'm skeptical that Rev. Wright will derail Sen. Obama.

0

QuitYerWhining 6 years, 9 months ago

424now- Glad to hear neo-cons like yourself are going to use your head for something other than a hat rack this election season. Nothing like a visceral response like 'Yeah I agree with everything he said but he's still a democrat...I'm voting for "the Republican"...and you wonder why I'm so cynical.

0

id04sp 6 years, 9 months ago

Rob,

I got it second hand at work yesterday. I was assuming the sources had seen something in the news. If I find a direct link, I'll let you know.

Otherwise, sorry if I misinformed. The source of my information is an African American who is not a person I would ever question. His words were, "If my pastor said those things, I'd leave my church too."

0

playa46 6 years, 9 months ago

All of you people must be blind. As you can see, a pastor has just said "God Damn America". Note the word America is placed in those three words. Since Obama revolted against the church, it is because his pastor hates America. This just shows how much Obama is ready to become a leader. Mccain isn't bad, it's just there has never been a non-male or non-white president. America needs to change. Having a black man in office just shows a change in the racism of America.

0

Rob Douglas 6 years, 9 months ago

id04sp: Thanks for your explanation. I did a bit of checking as well and Sen. Obama did not leave or resign from his church. No harm, no foul. Thanks for taking the time to read the column and comment.

0

Rob Douglas 6 years, 9 months ago

Friends: I thought you might find this development of interest given that Kmiec is a strict constitutionalist and one of the most respected conservatives in the legal community.

http://www.upi.com/NewsTrack/Top_News/2008/03/23/conservative_lawyer_endorse_obama/7349/

Conservative Lawyer Endorses Obama LOS ANGELES, March 23 (UPI) -- Douglas Kmiec, a leading conservative Republican lawyer Sunday endorsed Sen. Barack Obama, D-Ill., for U.S. president.

Writing in Slate magazine, Kmiec, who served as constitutional legal counsel to former Presidents Ronald Reagan and George H.W. Bush, called Obama "a person of integrity, intelligence and genuine good will."

"I take him at his word that he wants to move the nation beyond its religious and racial divides and to return United States to that company of nations committed to human rights," said Kmiec, a professor of constitutional law at California's Pepperdine University.

Kmiec, a former dean of the law school at The Catholic University of America, said he was not sure if Obama's "life experience is sufficient for the challenges of the presidency," but he said he doubts that can be known about any of the current presidential hopefuls.

Kmiec noted that as a Republican and as a Catholic, he supports preserving traditional marriage and believes that "life begins at conception" -- and he acknowledged that Obama may differ with him on those issues. However, he said he is convinced that Obama "is not closed to understanding opposing points of view, and : will respect and accommodate them."

0

QuitYerWhining 6 years, 9 months ago

The democrats think there's a class war. They think class war has taken away the benefits from the old people and taken away the educational opportunities for the youth and taken away the benefits for the veterans and taken away the benefits for the veterans' wives and that we live in a time when the families of soldiers in combat are living on welfare.

And the republicans think class warfare is when the democrats mention any of that.

-Stephen Gaskin

0

id04sp 6 years, 9 months ago

There are lots and lots of people around who would be screwed without government benefits. Some of them have earned the benefits, and some have not.

I know a guy who will be lucky if he can get by on social security when he is too old to work. He and has wife have lived in such a way that he has no other retirement income coming to him. He worked for companies that had 401k plans and all that, but his wife kept going out and getting credit cards and maxing them out, and he had to keep cashing in the 401k money to pay debts. They have no savings. He is paycheck to paycheck every two weeks.

They live in a double-wide on four or five acres and it's been paid for forever. They drive paid-for used cars, and he periodically has to spend money on major repairs. He might make $1300 to $1500 in social security benefits when he is 65 or 66, but that will be just slightly more than the $20 he and his wife each spend every day on food (her) and booze (him).

These people have had a choice in how they live for the last 20 years, at least. They could have saved and invested all that time if not for just pi$$ing away what they have had to work with. Do we owe them anything? Is it our fault they had choices and made poor ones? Is the fact that they are caucasian of any consequence until we compare them to minority folks who have lived the same way?

I believe in equal opportunity and fair treatment for all. Just where do we make the cut-off between people who worked hard and lived thriftily all their lives in blue-collar occupations that served to make some white-collar people wealthy and don't have much to show for it after 30 or 40 years on the job, and the people who simply pi$$ed away their chances to advance and save and do better, and just didnt do it?

What do you do about people who spend their money on 22 inch chrome wheels for big old sedans they have had restored and painted, but don't spend money on health insurance? One of my friends had a tenant who bought a new truck to get the cash rebate so he could pay his rent one month. All the guy needed was a job to get the financing to buy the truck.

I'm not claiming that these sorts of acts are representative of any one group in general, but where do the taxpayers who have worked and invested and paid high taxes for 30 or 40 years become "too rich" and need to have their money confiscated to pay for basic support and services for people who have wasted their lives on booze, cheezy poofs and "bling?"

There is no question that black people suffered under slavery and Jim Crow laws. For the past 30 years or so, however, they have only suffered from a lack of adult supervision. My grandfather was a share cropper and my father never had the money to go to college, but all of us have had decent lives because we worked for what we have. We just didn't go to a church to listen to the pastor blame other people for the things we don't have.

0

id04sp 6 years, 8 months ago

(continued)

I was a kid during the civil rights movement. I lived in Alabama when they were marching on Selma. I lived in Tennessee when Martin Luther King was shot. My father in law owned a business on Edgewood Avenue in Atlanta, just a block or two from the Ebenezer Baptist Church, and he knew members of Dr. King's family.

I remember shopping with my Mom in Rich's department store in Atlanta and seeing the separate drinking fountains. I also, thank God, had the experience of working in my first professional job (as a college intern) for a black man with a degree in Chemical Engineering, and a degree in Law, and an attorney's license, who headed a department at MARTA (the rapid transit authority). He taught me about the law, and the government, and offered me a full-time job upon graduation.

Contrast this to the child of a fireman or a policeman in places like Cleveland, Boston, Providence and Buffalo where they heard their fathers complain about losing promotions due to affirmative action. Many of these kids saw their mothers and fathers working in manufacturing jobs and heard complaints about single minority mothers living on welfare, and in fact, that the more dependents some of those women had, the more money they got. Some of the men fathering those children had no visible means of support, and in fact, got money from the mothers under the table. It was an INDUSTRY paid for with tax money.

People my age who lived through those times in northern states will be around to vote for the next 20 to 30 years, or more. Like it or not, we've seen what "the movement" did TO working class whites, and a vote against Obama for a lot of these people is a silent strike back at changes in our society that they do not like.

The cultural differences are deep and wide, and it hasn't been long enough yet for people with a grudge to die off. You see it in Obama's pastor's words where he blames white America for crimes against people of color. You don't see it much in words spoken by white people, because they know they'd be sued, or picketed, or accused of a hate crime. Votes, however, will tell the tale.

College-educated liberal Democrats will vote for Obama. They have grown up alongside minorities and don't understand why it's a big deal. They all talk about it, and about change, and love the idea. I think they're just going to have to hang onto it for another 10 or 20 years before the dream of an African American President comes true.

Here's a tip, though. If McCain thinks he can lose to Obama, he'll have a woman or minority VP candidate running with him.

I don't want to be right about all of this, but I think I'm being realistic. It would be good if I turned out to be wrong.

0

Rob Douglas 6 years, 9 months ago

Hunterdog: I was the one who had your comment removed. And yes--it was for profanity.
There are a number of young citizens in our community who read this forum and the profanity is inappropriate for a public forum. So if you have a problem--it is with me. I encorage you to continue to participate in any discussion you feel so inclined to do so. But, I'd ask that you do so respectfully and without vulgarity or profanity. You agreed to those terms when you signed up to use the site. I don't think it should be all that difficult for you to comport yourself accordingly. Thank you, Rob

0

Rob Douglas 6 years, 9 months ago

Hunterdog, Feel free to vent at me if that makes you feel better. It makes no difference to me. But, if you use profanity or vulgarity in your posts, or towards others, I will continue to have your comments removed. Replacing some letters with symbols doesn't change a word from being profanity or your intent and it doesn't change your inability to write the post absent vulgarity that dissuades others from participating here. Again, if you find that you are incapable of living up to your word - the terms you agreed to when you signed up here - I will continue to ask that your posts be removed. Have a nice evening, Rob

0

id04sp 6 years, 9 months ago

Jazzy,

Slave owners introduced Christianity to Africans in order to replace the pagan religions that had been practiced by tribal societies. Africans were also forbidden to speak their native languages for fear they would organize rebellions. They were prohibited by law from learning to read and write, and whites who taught them literacy skills were also subject to penalty in at least some states.

The "church" was the only place that Africans were allowed to congregate, and the Christian religion became an excuse for them to meet, socialize and gather in groups.

Anyone who has seen the initials A.M.E. on a black church should know that it stands for "African Methodist Episcopal," following the teachings of John Wesley, an Episcopal priest who founded the Methodist church in America. "African" is an important part of that name. The A.M.E. churches and Baptist churches across the south were the focal point of the freedom movement. Martin Luther King, Jr., was a minister first, but he became a powerful political figure in the civil rights movement.

Whether faith has a role or not, religion certainly is at the center of African American political power. Whether this is because white men hesitated to shoot a man carrying a Bible is another question, I guess. White men did not hesitate to bomb black churches that were centers for organizing southern blacks during the civil rights movement, however.

There are millions of fine Americans across the south who got a bad deal because their ancestors were born with black skin, but things are improving slowly and steadily. What we see in the south (and I've got fambly there and I see it when I'm there) is that as the African American communities become more affluent, they keep their business in that community and spend their money there if possible. Whites and blacks exist peacefully with each other, particularly in rural areas and smaller cities, but given the choice to live in a segregated or mixed society, each chooses to stay to itself.

Okay, so big deal. People have a right to the pursuit of happiness, and that means country music on one station and hip hop on another. Two or more separate cultures exist side by side, and that's how the people in each culture want it.

The anti-white and anti-America rhetoric happens in black enclaves (virutal, if not physical) where less affluent African Americans blame the white government for their ills. New Orleans is a perfect example. They were told to evacuate, but did not, and the white government didn't know the extent of the suffering for days after Katrina passed through, because nobody expected people to stay in New Orleans in significant numbers. The white government didn't understand that if you leave your house, everything would be gone before you got home.

And somehow, to a lot of the people in black congregations, that makes sense. Obama would understand.

0

QuitYerWhining 6 years, 9 months ago

Bottom line is who gives a crap what Obama's pastor said during some hell fire and brimstone speech that Obama may or may not have been at. The media (including this thread) glom onto this tidbit of insignificant tripe to keep you from thinking about real issues. I find in incredibly ironic that Obama's guilt by association with his pastor is no different than his guilt by association of being a black man. After all had he been a white man sitting through the same speech the message would be lost.

0

id04sp 6 years, 8 months ago

According to the news reports this morning, the states that Hillary carried in the primaries would NEVER be carried by a Democrat in the general election. The fact that New York went for Obama should tell her how her adopted state really feels about her.

The Clinton campaign, at least, is melting down under lies told and exposed (supposedly ducking sniper bullets in Bosnia while, in fact, she stopped to allow a little girl to read a poem to her).

Obama's role in history will be to keep a Democrat out of the White House. The northern industrial states where white Democrats hold the swing votes will never vote for a black man because, though not spoken, there is a deep prejudice against blacks in those states. Though strongly union and "working man" oriented, those Democrats do not approve of the drugs, music, crime and other cultural backlash they have lived with, including affirmative action and welfare. While the states in question did not have Jim Crow laws or support organized segregation, they are full of real-life Archie Bunker types who accept blacks as a group, but avoid them in daily life.

Find a copy of the movie "Ragtime" and watch it. The atrocious behavior of the white volunteer firemen against a black man in that movie is a very accurate depiction of northern "working man" attitudes.

Busing, welfare and affirmative action were necessary in many states other than the ones that had Jim Crow laws. The people have not forgotten, and that's why Obama will not win. There aren't enough college-educated free thinkers to offset the blue-collar folks who see a black face on crime, illegitimacy and drug addiction. They don't like that kind of behavior from anybody, and because of it, they won't vote for a person who represents a minority point of view.

They also won't tell anybody they feel that way; they'll just act on their feelings by voting for McCain or staying home for lack of anyone they want to vote for. The polls won't show this before the election, because the people who feel this way will not admit it to a stranger.

I base these observations on things I have heard and seen while traveling in the iron belt states and New England. Coloradans may not understand that there are prejudices in New England and the northeast against many different ethnic minorities. In "Mystic Pizza," for example, the WASP prejudice against Portugese was shown. In "The Godfather," Italian prejudice against blacks was shown. The Irish and Jews have been similarly set aside for contempt in those areas of the country. It goes on and on.

(continued)

0

Rob Douglas 6 years, 8 months ago

id04sp: You state: "...the states that Hillary carried in the primaries would NEVER be carried by a Democrat in the general election. The fact that New York went for Obama should tell her how her adopted state really feels about her."

Neither of those assertions are true.

Hillary won New York State in a landslide, taking 57% of the vote to Obama's 40%. Hillary received 139 delegates from New York to Obama's 93 under the proportional rules of the party. For all the state breakdowns see http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21660914

Further, Obama has carried more red state (normally considered Republican strongholds that a Democrat is less likely to win in the general election) primaries and caucuses than has Hillary, with Hillary winning more of the traditional Democrat states.

However, while the Clinton campaign continually puts forth the argument that she is the stronger candidate because she is winning the blue/Democrat states, that is a red herring as there is no data to suggest that in the general election Obama would not carry those states if he is the candidate. In fact, there is current polling data that shows that Hillary's base will cross over and vote for Barack, but Barack's base would not cross over and vote for Hillary. If that data held up, Barack would be the stronger candidate in the general election for the Democrats.

For further proof of that fact, why dod you think Rush Limbaugh and other Republican mouthpieces are trying so hard to get Barack knocked out of the race so they can face Hillary in November?

0

id04sp 6 years, 8 months ago

Rob,

I only reported what the pundits were saying on the Today show today. If I heard it wrong, that's my fault. Maybe they misspoke and I heard it right. Anyway, thanks for the correction. No argument on the New York point (and it surprised me when I heard it, too).

I remember specifically that it was stated Hillary won Texas in the primary, but could never carry Texas in the general election. Same for Tennessee. They were saying that her "electoral votes" spin was meaningless because she would not be able to win those states in the general election.

The point they were trying to make is that Hillary's claim that she is more electable because she has won states with more electoral votes is meaningless. If I got the details wrong, sorry. Maybe NBC News is putting out false info; seems like they have fallen in behind Obama. They sure were roasting Hillary over the "sniper" comments she made and the "four Pinocchio" rating she got from the Washington Post on the issue.

This is a good use of the forums, by the way. It's nice to swap information, discuss it, get it right, and understand instead of just arguing about things.

0

Rob Douglas 6 years, 8 months ago

id: I agree about this being an appropriate use of the forum. And now that I better understand the larger point you and the commentators on the Today Show we're evidently trying to make about Hillary's latest argument concerning the electoral college, well, I agree. Hillary's argument that she is the stronger candidate because she has won states with larger electoral significance is just as ridiculous as her argument that she has won more blue states. To use the old but true statement: It's a comparison of apples to oranges. Thanks for your input and have a good day.

0

JazzSlave 6 years, 8 months ago

idO4sp:

Thoughtful as always particularly your observations re: those of us who have never spent any time west of the Mississippi.

But I think the Obama phenomenon extends beyond college educated libs. A lot of moderates (GOP & Dems) who praise McCain as a maverick could fall in behind Obama. Whether that can survive the scrutiny of a general election campaign is another question. It'll depend upon how willing the mainstream media is to keep carrying his water.

I think there's a genuine desire to finally get beyond the traditional hostilities, that began with the draft Colin Powell efforts during the 90s, and may be percolating to the surface now. Those aspirations could trump the Archie Bunkers who remain. All the polls I've seen have McCain losing to either Clinton or Obama.

But what do I know? I thought Billary was going to walk away with the nomination.

0

QuitYerWhining 6 years, 8 months ago

Yeah and Lindsay Lohan is going back to rehab and Britney Spears was on some sitcom last night... who gives a rat's butt... You've got more spin that Karl Rove on a merry go round... give it a rest Bore. Your insatiable desire to convince yourself that you are right is megalomaniacal. You would serve yourself better to get into being a horse racing bookie than wasting your time and what little brain cells you have left posting to these blogs. Stick to some real issues here...not whether Nostrodamus predicted Mc Cain or Obama will have a B.M .today. What will Mc Cain do to end this "occupation"? (rhetorical question) What will Obama do? (that is one I don't know the answer to but would like to know)

0

424now 6 years, 8 months ago

Again Thread this is my opinion.

The sad fact is that the Archie Bunkers are around at all however minimal there actual effect. I have served and lived in Colorado, South Carolina, Kansas, Texas and California north & south. I have experienced Racial and economic prejudice from both angles.

I have had my respect for a leader shaken with a single phrase. In fact I walked away from them do to the single phrase bringing to lite the inner workings of a racist mind.

That being said, I heard about the split in the democratic party over these two candidates and how that could in some way bring about the election of McCain. I don't hold a lot of promise in that thought however apealing it is to me.

Obama will more than likely earn his place in the oval office through the actions of the reactionary mob. When that happens I will say a prayer for all the Americans in high profile terrorist target areas.

0

Rob Douglas 6 years, 8 months ago

sbvor Your analysis is shallow at best and appears to be slanted to arrive at a preconceived conclusion on your part. The National Journal assessment you point to for your predetermined conclusion is only of U.S. Senators and therefore omits other candidates who ran this year and in past election cycles who, by a number of different standards, are arguably more to the "left" than Barack Obama. By way of example, both Rep. Dennis Kucinich and former Senator Mike Gravel were candidates this cycle and are generally considered farther to the left of either Clinton or Obama. If your thesis that the Democratic party always picks the candidate farthest to the "left" was true, either of those candidates would have been more likely selections. But, they were not selected as they were seen as to far out of the main stream for even dedicated party activists. Further, determining "left" and "right" is a subjective process at best as evidenced by your repeated attempts to label anyone and everyone within your sight and further evidenced by the fact that the National Journal's process was, for the most part, created by one individual who is currently a CNN analyst. Speaking of labeling. I'll let your post above with your usual nasty reference to Democrats pass this time. But, as your use of the term (as with so many of your favorite derogatory remarks) is not done with any intent other than as a putdown of those with differing ideas than yours, I will request removal of any posts on my commentary pages by you where you use your typical thuggish rhetoric. If, on the other hand, you care to comport yourself in a respectful manner to the thoughts of others - something I am trying to encourage with my columns and the posts concerning those columns - I welcome your participation. I have had a number of respected people in Steamboat tell me in past weeks that they would post on my page but for the actions of other anonymous posters, like you, who berate anyone with a different point of view. To the degree I can exert any control over having a fair and open dialogue about the issues I raise, I will do so. Thank you, Rob

0

424now 6 years, 8 months ago

Rob,

I agree that anyone behaving in a manner degrading a dialog into a name calling match should be cautioned and then punished. Sbvor may be the most prevelant of these personas but there are others. If action is to be taken then let it be fair and equitable. Applying to all.

Thread,

It is time for a moderator to be appointed to this forum. A set of rules of comportment will need to be developed and enforced.

0

Rob Douglas 6 years, 8 months ago

424now: I agree. Also, I am not setting myself up to be the forum police. I am only going to try to keep an eye on the posts concerning the material I contribute to the paper. As I have a full-time job (actually the equivalent of at least 2 full-time jobs), I don't have the time to be a babysitter for sbvor or anyone else. But, as previously mentioned, I've been approached by respected members of the community who refuse to participate here, even though their contributions would dramatically increse the utility of this site, because of posters like sbvor. They don't need the nonsense and gutter-styled name calling.

There are rules set out for the use of the site and they can be found here: http://steamboatpilot.com/reader_submitted_content/

The most relevant paragraphs for much of what concerns me read:

"We want to encourage an open exchange of information and ideas. But if you use inappropriate language (even when typographically obfuscated), or make potentially slanderous or libelous comments when using these forums, or engage in ad hominem attacks on fellow commenters, people mentioned in stories, or reporters or editors, we reserve the right (but assume no obligation) to remove your contributions. And if you become a problem for us or our site's other users we can and will ban you from using this free service.

"We believe it is absolutely possible for people from a variety of points of view to discuss issues in a civil manner and will remove comments that foster harmful incivility."

As for a moderator, I'd actually prefer to see the users both restrain themselves and, in the case of repeat violators, simply make a request for their removal. Yesterday, Hunterdog was removed form the this site because he was incapable of expressing himself absent vulgarity and profanity. sbvor is on at least his second or third identity having been banned before for his inability to interact in a civil fashion. I have it on fairly good authority that he is down to his last chance. The paper, under two different editors, has been very patient with him. I believe the patience is at an end. But yes--others are violators of the policy and if this site is to reach full potential they should be removed as well. I would encourage you to confront those acting inappropriately, request removal of posts that are in violation of the agreement we all signed on to and, for those who just seem incapable of following the rules, ask that they be removed permanently.

0

Rob Douglas 6 years, 8 months ago

Excellent sbvor! You got through a post absent your usual shouting or name calling. Perhaps the possibility of removal will get you to comply with the rules you agreed to when you signed up for this site. Hopefully, this is a new beginning for you. Oh, by the way. Thuggish is an appropriate and accurate descriptor of your actions as an individual on this site as compared to your broad-stroke name calling of an entire group of people based on your views. Surely a man of your intellect can distinguish the difference. If you are incapable of understanding the differnce I'd be happy to meet you in person - I'll protect your identity - and we can discuss the difference. Just let me know. If not, don't expect me to respond to your posts in the future as I will assume you're intent is just to be an annoyance and you have no desire to engage in meaningful dialogue. Have a nice day! Rob

0

QuitYerWhining 6 years, 8 months ago

Bore said"...Are you suggesting that all political points of view are deserving of "respect"? Would that have applied to Hitler? Stalin? Mao? Castro? Kim Jung Il? Chavez? Paul Pot?..."

In order to extend respect to other political points of view one must be confident in their own convictions. Intolerance is a sign of weakness, ignorance or both. Just because I would respect each of the aforementioned individual political views does not mean that I would subscribe to them. Which brings this discussion full circle:.Obama said in his eloquent speech (not to attempt to paraphrase him): that while he does not subscribe to Rev Wrights convictions he understands the context from which such convictions are cultivated.

0

424now 6 years, 8 months ago

First let me state plainly. I will not serve as moderator.

In creating the rules in the first place, SPT became the arbiter. With them as an unknown enforcer the accused have little or no room for defense.

An independant person should be found to serve as the moderator.

0

QuitYerWhining 6 years, 8 months ago

Rob- He meant Pol Pot ( I guess Paul would be an anglo-saxon version) The Khmer Rouge leader, former Prime Minister of Cambodia, mass murderer:typical run of the mill "reformist"

0

QuitYerWhining 6 years, 8 months ago

424- .... I mean Jazzy...or what ever your ID is... I dont think anyone nominated you....its ok... you sit down now

0

Rob Douglas 6 years, 8 months ago

QYW: Oh. My bad. I skimmed your post too quickly and didn't realize you were quoting sbvor. My apologies. It is a curious typo. Paul Pot instead of Pol Pot. Thanks for correcting me. I appreciate it. Rob

0

Matthew Stoddard 6 years, 8 months ago

"Paul Pot?" Maybe it's a Freudian slip? LMAO!!

You may continue now.

0

Rob Douglas 6 years, 8 months ago

Ok sbvor, you're on. I'll even rent the venue. We can debate at the new Community Center or any venue of your choice. We can pass the hat at the event and donate the proceeds to charity. To sweeten the pot, I'll put up $1000 if you'll match half that. Heck, I'll put up the $1000 and you need not contribute a dime. Just bring your A game. Now what topic would you like to debate on at the event and what evenings work best for you? Rob

0

Rob Douglas 6 years, 8 months ago

sbvor: If you're afraid to put your face to your opinions, well I suppose I understand. But never fear. At one of the last U.S. Senate hearings I testified before there was a witness who was brought in with a hood over his head and seated behind a screen so that he could shield his identity. He was an alleged accomplice of a terrorist caught in Detroit who had been granted immunity for his testimony. I could probably arrange for the same treatment for you. We could have you behind a screen so that no one would actually see you. I could even arrange for voice changing equipment if you fear your voice being recognized. What say you? Again, we could do it for charity. You can pick one and I'll pick one and we'll split whatever we raise. Last chance--if you don't accept I will assume you're not a man of your convictions and therefore really not worth the effort I've already expended today on you when I have far more pressing matters. Rob

0

Rob Douglas 6 years, 8 months ago

sbvor: It appears I owe you an apology. I mistook you for a man with the courage of his convictions. It appears that, when it comes down to it, you are merely another anonymous blog bully similar to most 14 year-olds. Sorry I wasted your time - and I am sure am sorry I wasted my time. Oh, I could care less about your identity. But, you do seem to have some sort of paranoia about it. I'm sorry if I inadvertently heightened your paranoia. Again, my apologies for mistaking you for a serious individual. I won't make the mistake again or waste any more of my time. Best of luck to you, Rob

0

424now 6 years, 8 months ago

By the way, it's just little ol" me over here. Don't drag me into any of your pre-existing hogwash.

Now don't go all "id" on me. It really is just me.

0

suckerfreeforlife 6 years, 8 months ago

Paul Pot? That is NOT a typo. That is ignorance. The self proclaimed expert on all things politico doesn't even know the name of one of the worst dictators of all time? Pathetic. Just another poser.

0

another_local 6 years, 8 months ago

Wow... is this over yet? The topic was lost long ago.

I have to admit that I would attend a debate between these two and would contribute to the charity as well, but perhaps the drive from Hayden is inconvenient for SB. Is there a venue there that would be easier to get to?

Note to the Pilot: How about adding an "ignore" feature to the forum. I have been to other internet forums that have a feature that allows a subscriber to ignore the posts of selected members. The effect is that they don't appear. It would save me quote a bit of time scrolling past worthless repetitive spam.

0

QuitYerWhining 6 years, 8 months ago

You've hit the nail on the head Another_local. What is truly affective is to simply ignore the bore. Bore obviously is weak in his convictions which results in the constant need to reaffirm them publicly without any introspect or consideration of other "schools of thought" and has actually expressed his "disgust" for anyone who would do so. This affirms the second half of the "tolerance" tenet that I had advanced in my previous post:..ignorance. Just another political lemming. Watch that first step off of the cliff Bore:it's a doozey:.

0

QuitYerWhining 6 years, 8 months ago

Ive quoted it before but it bears repeating...."There is nothing more dangerous than when you begin to believe your own propoganda." ...Bore is now offically on ignore mode

0

id04sp 6 years, 8 months ago

Some people just cannot be happy,

and some people prefer to show it here.

0

424now 6 years, 8 months ago

Monte Python said,

Always look on the bright side of life!

0

Michael Brumbaugh 6 years, 8 months ago

Getting back to the original post...

Anyone who desires to engage in honest dialogue, please check out the following video of more of the complete sermon that Rev. Wright made (and not just a little sound bite, taken out of context). Then, please react to that and not just sensationialism from our media...

http://alternet.org/blogs/video/80481/

Mike

0

424now 6 years, 8 months ago

The reverend Wright is a preacher. He preaches the word of God. In his own way he attempts to be a positive influence on the world around him. He will with righteous indignation denounce that which he sees as wrong. He is a preacher after all. A leader of the church and least of all, a man.

What he said in church can be broadcast to the world and debated to the ends of the earth. It has nothing to do with Barak Obamas pledge to pull our forces out Iraq within a year of his being elected.

We can not allow that to happen for reasons I have stated previously in another thread. We have to protect the fledling democracies in Afgahnastan and Iraq until such time as they can stand their own guard against Terrorism and Radical Religion

0

JazzSlave 6 years, 8 months ago

mountinmike:

I watched the entire clip you linked to, and it puts Wright in an even harsher light than the excerpts we've seen (that's right, boys & girls: JazzSlave waded into the feces so you don't have to. Consider it my Easter gift to you). I can't believe you looked at that clip & saw it as a mitigating factor.

Our response to 9/11 was designed to indulge American "hatred of unarmed innocents." We have corrupted one of the Psalms to say "Blessed are those who bash your babies' brains against a rock: We want revenge, we want payback, and we don't care who gets hurt in the process."

He argues that America was built upon the precepts of terror, and is, in fact a terrorist nation all as a warm up to his plagiarism of Malcom X's 'chickens coming home to roost' remark. In other words, we deserved it.

The clip you link to is itself an excerpt, posted by a Wright congregant. She clearly supports him. I wonder why she didn't include more of his diatribe could it be because his bile becomes even more virulent?

It certainly wouldn't be out of character. From another of his sermons (copyrighted & published by the Trinity United Church of Christ, and made available to the faithful in a church bulletin last year:

"I must tell you that Israel was the closest ally to the white supremacists of South Africa: Both worked on an ethnic bomb that kills blacks and Arabs."

You may read more of that divine message here: http://confederateyankee.mu.nu/archives/258563.php

Rev. Wright is an extremist freak, regardless of the "context" you provide. He's been Sen. Obama's "spiritual advisor" and "close confidant" for 20 years. Mrs. Obama's absence of pride in her country is now completely understandable, given the advice she & her husband have CHOSEN to avail themselves of for the past two decades.

That said, the Senator has little to worry about. Cable & the internet are the only outlets paying any attention to this, and the vast majority of Americans continue to receive their news from the mainstream media.

0

Michael Brumbaugh 6 years, 8 months ago

Funny, Jazzslave. I never said if I was on any "side" in this debate. I just think we're way too used to sound bites from our media (on any side of the political spectrum) and not as used to careful and deliberate thought. I always think people should be heard in the context in which they speak. Please don't put words in my mouth.

I'm not sure why you have such a desire to want to keep us from making up our own minds about this issue, but how about we let people observe on their own and come to their own conclusions?

0

JazzSlave 6 years, 8 months ago

mountinmike:

You posted the clip to stimulate "honest dialogue". The inference being that commentary on Rev. Wright is somehow dishonest without the "context" you went out of your way to supply. OK, fine.

Can the conversation now be characterized as "honest", since I have now viewed in its entirety the video you wanted everyone to see? If not, why not?

Where have I expressed a "desire to want to keep us from making up our own minds:"? How, exactly, am I preventing people from "observ[ing] on their own and come to their own conclusions?" Talk about putting words in someone's mouth!

Incidentally, what ARE your conclusions? Or are you simply content to whine about the conclusions of others? It's easy to criticize another's opinion. Do you have the nerve to state yours?

0

QuitYerWhining 6 years, 8 months ago

Jazzy wrote: "He argues that America was built upon the precepts of terror, and is, in fact a terrorist nation all as a warm up to his plagiarism of Malcom X's 'chickens coming home to roost' remark. In other words, we deserved it."

One must have some major intestinal-fortitude to take a long hard look in the collective mirror. Once again the media has successfully taken the indictment out of context and made this an assault on "citizens" of the US. This is in reality an indictment in the way our government, controlled through Corporatocracy, does business. Wright does not say 'we deserve it'. What he does say in effect if is 'if we stand idly and ignorantly by we have no one but our selves to blame' because we are in a sense sending a message to rest of the world that the atrocities committed by the US government in the name of "Democracy" are endorsed by the citizens of this great nation. Take a long hard look at our foreign policies in, Somalia, Nicaragua, Afghanistan, Sudan, Panama, Grenada, Iraq, Iran, Palestine, Nigeria, Cuba, Ecuador, Saudi Arabia, Venezuela, Argentina, Syria, Lebanon, all of Indo-China :. The list goes on:. And closer to home Black slavery and the Native Americans. Not a good history folks:.like or not.

0

424now 6 years, 8 months ago

QYW,

And after this moment of introspection, what would you have us do then?

0

QuitYerWhining 6 years, 8 months ago

424now- Become informed and stay informed.... the only thing the "powers that be" fear is a "truely" educated population.

0

JazzSlave 6 years, 8 months ago

Can't argue with being informed. I DO argue that Wright's Blame America First rancor & outrage informs no one. His rhetoric is borderline psychotic (ethnic bombs & AIDS conspiracies), and indistinguishable from Louis Farrakahn or Ward Churchill.

0

QuitYerWhining 6 years, 8 months ago

Recommended reading for all who want a first hand account of American diplomacy: Confessions of an Economic Hit Man by John Perkins. The book is very well written and:it makes sense. I have to say I decided research this guy a little bit before I read his book. I plugged the title of the book into Google and the first site that came was the US State Department. The web site does everything it can, without crossing the slanderous line, to discredit this guy of course. Check out the site and see how many times they use the words "appears" and "seems like" This should be enticing enough to want to read this. If the State Department has to make a formal statement then there must be something to this guy's story:avoid the subtle detractions from the validity of the book that the web site throws up. http://usinfo.state.gov/media/Archive/2006/Feb/02-767147.html

0

424now 6 years, 8 months ago

QYW,

OK I get it.

Foreign Relations, International Politics and Pratices are tough, wear a cup.

We have a history. You are hi-liting what you consider the questionable international relations in our past.

Are you stating that America was built through terroist activities?

0

QuitYerWhining 6 years, 8 months ago

Call it what you will....and there is nothing questionable about how our government conducts its' business to anyone we conduct business with. They know the rules...my way or the hi-way...capitulate or face the wrath. We can either pretend it doesn't happen or we can collectively say enough. Hegemony or Survival? Face it we can't continue this imperialistic approach to foreign policy forever:no other civilization has:. Even our closest allies are beginning to turn their back on us.

0

Michael Brumbaugh 6 years, 8 months ago

Jazz slave,

"that's right, boys & girls: JazzSlave waded into the feces so you don't have to." Sounds pretty much like trying to discourage us (I never said "prevent") from watching it. There's no need whatsoever to tell us we don't need to watch the video. We can make up our own minds, thanks.

I haven't made up my mind yet what I think about the Wright sermon, so that's why no comment. But, I think it's vitally important to get contexts out there for discussion. OK, perhaps I should have said "thoughtful" instead of "honest" discussions. Is that better for you? If you actually read my comments, I stated that I put the link there for folks to see the context of the sermon. Nothing more. You actually help demonstrate the need for more reasoned and thoughtful discussion. Thanks, bud!

0

Matthew Stoddard 6 years, 8 months ago

Yep- You may have thought Soupy was funny back then, but most of the humor genre has moved past the Pie in the Face for a cheap laugh.

As for the Bore's claim about his deletion record...6 posts out of 1900...well, 1800 of those posts are all cut & pasted copies of each other. That leaves us with about 6 out of a 100 for deletion. I believe my record is better than that.

And yes, you are the master-de-bater, alright. So easy to be one when you counter people with "That's a liberal site." Wow! Debate at it's finest. You've really got us with that line so many times. When you pass on, and from the looks of your picture it should be soon, I'll write it in the snow over your grave. The yellow should stand out nicely against the snow.

0

Matthew Stoddard 6 years, 8 months ago

Then why did you answer, eh? Takin' a hit, yourself?

0

Matthew Stoddard 6 years, 8 months ago

Piss?? Who said that? See that's the beauty of having wit. THAT'S raising the bar. Good luck with it; I know you'll need all the luck you can get.

0

Michael Brumbaugh 6 years, 8 months ago

sbvor,

I would appreciate it if you would stop connecting my ideas with other viewpoints I do NOT agree with. That is offensive and is only done to "needle" others, and I'm recommending that your last post be deleted.

It is CERTAINLY not a way to carry on civil debate by flinging inuendos, and by not keeping your sarcasm and false associations out of your posts, you violate the terms of this forum.

0

steamboatsconscience 6 years, 8 months ago

bore actually this site is better http://thinkprogress.org/category/raa/ but thanks for bringing my attention to those other forward thinking sites

0

JazzSlave 6 years, 8 months ago

mountinmike:

"I'm not sure why you have such a desire to want to keep us from making up our own minds:"

"keep from". But you never said "prevent." Whatever, dude.

You must be a tremendously fragile sort, if a stranger voicing his opinion is going to "keep you" from formulating your own. I'm surprised you haven't run away sobbing yet this forum is all about competing opinions & differing viewpoints.

Just the other day on another thread, I expressed my loathing of Johnny Cash, Kanye West, and Richard Wagner. Well. I guess anyone who read that is going to be so intimidated by me that they will forever be "kept from" reaching their own conclusions. Beware my wrath, for I Have The Power!!!! Bwaaahahahahaha!!!!

You need to grow an enormously thicker skin.

0

steamboatsconscience 6 years, 8 months ago

guess your favorite would be http//www.takethecheese.gov

0

Michael Brumbaugh 6 years, 8 months ago

sbvor, I have no problem with honest questions. It's sarcasm and inuendo in civil discourse that I have problems with. Please feel free to link to all my previous posts. If you find much of a trace of sarcasm, I'd be surprised (but, hey, I'm human). Now, let's review sbvor's postings and just compare, shall we? I think it's been established that sbvor is basically on his last finger when it comes to being banned. Must be a pretty good reason for that. Hmmmmm...

As to answering your question, my answer has NOTHING to do with putting this man's sermon in some kind of context. It doesn't matter WHERE I got that video. I was responding to the initial poster, which is what I thought we're supposed to do in here.

Jazzslave, Please, stop the condescending attitude. Expressing your "loathing" for those other people is NOT the same as judging me on this forum ("tremendously fragile sort", "run away sobbing yet"). I am recommending that your last post be removed as well. Rob Douglas was able to get comments removed for inappropriate remarks towards him - I only hope the Pilot gives all of us this same respect.

I have no probem with "competing opinions and differing viewpoints", it's attempts at bullying (from anonymous sources) that I disagree with. Ignoring an anonymous poster is hardly "running away". It merely shows I have little respect for people who hide behind a screen name.

I put my name on my posts, because I have nothing to hide. And, no...I could care less who you really are. It's called "integrity". I think a person would need to have a pretty "thick skin" to put their name here, don't you? I OWN my opinions and thoughts on here.

Funny how the people on here who are so quick to resort to name calling and character-attacking are the first ones to scream, "Why do you need to know who I am?" So, please spare us.

Thanks, Mike Brumbaugh

0

JazzSlave 6 years, 8 months ago

mountinmike:

  1. Sarcasm colors many of my contributions here. Freely admitted, unabashedly owned. I've been a known quantity in this forum for 5 years & 400+ comments (actually, it's probably a lot more than that, since this forum's predecessor & its archives were lost when the Pilot updated its website 2 or 3 years ago). You're the first to be so overwrought as to want the moderator protect you from me. If tounge-in-cheek sarcasm=bullying in your lexicon, then I stand by my assessment of your fragility.

If sharp-tongued discussions are upsetting to you, you'll be very busy getting the moderators to preserve your delicate sensibilities. Use this site's search engine. Type in kielbasa, dogd, fish, QuitYerWhining, dundalk, contrarian, BoatMaster, smoke: You'll find that I'm Mary Poppins by comparison. So by all means, limber up the mouse hand, and suggest removal whenever you get your knickers in a twist. Or, you could just cowboy up (I'm betting you choose the former. Any takers?).

  1. "Ignoring an anonymous poster is hardly "running away"."

That's so convoluted it actually made me chuckle. I didn't accuse you of running away. I suggested it as an option, since you're so worried that my opinions might "keep us from making up our own minds" (how does that work, exactly? Are my comments the real-world analogue of the Jedi Mind Trick & able to interdict your synaptic abilities? Just wondering).

"Ignoring an anonymous poster:" That''s the part that made me snicker. By my count, you've devoted 10 paragraphs (so far) to "ignoring" me. Or perhaps you were talking about someone else. Perhaps you can clarify.

0

Matthew Stoddard 6 years, 8 months ago

Jazz- Please: never use me as a comparison to your wit in regards to sharp-tongued discussions. I have more originality than you could ever hope for, since I'm not the one getting whiplash from having to look up all the time because it went over my head. Your brand of "tongue in cheek" went out with Soupy Sales' Pie in the Face routine.

0

JazzSlave 6 years, 8 months ago

How unkind. I'm hurt.

Look, mountinmike - kielbasa is "judging me". The same infraction that warrants my comments being nuked.

But I will try to persevere as long as I can before I join your mad dash for the moderator.

0

JazzSlave 6 years, 8 months ago

I was 2nd fiddle in a two man morning show in 1993, and we did a phone interview with Soupy. One of the best times I ever had on the air we blew off 2 consecutive commercial breaks because he was so freakin' hysterical. Very quick on his feet, and an almost George Carlin-like facility with language and all of it unscripted. He was incredibly generous with a couple of small-market nobodies.

0

Michael Brumbaugh 6 years, 8 months ago

sbvor,

My friend, all you need do to answer your 8:10pm questions is review Bob's comments regarding you in the posts above. Seems a bit disingenuous to refer to your "1,905" comments (I'm assuming you're referring to those only under "sbvor"), when you actually had two other screen names that were "banned" by this very same SP&T (according to Bob)? Why were you banned those times? Was it simply for a "certain subject", too?

Please, just re-read Bob's comments above. Your answers lie there.

0

JazzSlave 6 years, 8 months ago

Nice work with the pissing on sbvor's grave inference. Toilet insults are so sophisticated & amusing.

We're fortunate to have you raising the bar.

0

JazzSlave 6 years, 8 months ago

I love self-aggrandizing people who stand up and proclaim how witty/sophisticated/intelligent they are. It says more about them then they'll ever know.

0

Matthew Stoddard 6 years, 8 months ago

So that's why your into self-love! Congrats on finding it!

0

JazzSlave 6 years, 8 months ago

Uh oh. kielbasa's bringing out the big guns now. I'd best be on my toes.

0

424now 6 years, 8 months ago

And as the thread dribbles away to the rantings of "Did not!, Did to! The thread intent and content fall to the towering egos.

Next!

0

Requires free registration

Posting comments requires a free account and verification.