Obama's Race Speech

[AndyMarquisLIVE]

I agree with most everything you said, and what you said was right along with what Obama said. When my parents were kids, if you saw a black kid in your neighborhood you beat him up. When I was a kid you played with white kids, and black kids played with black kids, but you didn't beat them up. When my kids were that age they played with the black kids. So I don't know that you can really say that "as long as there are humans in the world, there is going to be hatred and bad behavior regardless of what color you are." That thinking used to apply to whole cultures, now it applies to individuals, and maybe someday it will only apply to psychos.

And I have been in many situations like the ones you describe, and I feel the same way about perceptions of racism. But you and I are a different generation from Wright. I was at my mom's house this past weekend, and she was just talking about how their neighborhood was still nice and that there were still no blacks living here, and how her old neighborhood in McKees Rocks was "all black now" and not worth living in. Like Wright, she's still living in the 1950s and 1960s, and that's something we all need to get beyond, which I think was the larger point of Obama's speech and also his campaign, i.e., we can stand around and debate and argue over views of the past, or we can focus our attention on the future. I think that's a pretty good argument, especially when your opponent can't get her head out of the past eight years.

So I can see Obama's point about Wright. He accepts that Wright is viewing things through the filter of his life experiences in the 1950s and 1960s the same way that my mother does. Wright is mad at rich white people and their control of the government, my mom is mad at black people for being shiftless, dirty, and lazy. Neither stereotype is true, but both are closely held by members of that generation. Our generation have largely gotten past those sterotypes, which is why you see blacks getting and giving excellent service or your friend feeling fine around whites. I love my mom, and when she says some of the things she says, I just nod my head and be the good son, and accept that her perception of reality is vastly different from mine. So, I can cut Obama some slack for treating Wright the same way.

Green krama for you.

Another solid post. - Andy

 

[illfindu2]

I haven't spent a lot of time in any churches, but what time I have spent, and spent with hardcore churchgoers like my in-laws, I just can't see them storming out of their church if their reverend said something they didn't agree with. It seems to me that a dedicated churchgoer makes quite an emotional investment in their church, and it would take more than some offensive statements to make them leave it. Also, at the end of the day, I guess it comes down to what you find offensive. Based on all the cheering and screaming going on during those videos, many of the folks in the church were agreeing with Wright (except the two guys sitting behind him in the one video who look like they're about to throw up). I would suspect that if Wright were to walk into services at Ortega United Methodist Church and make the same remarks, he would have been run out on a rail, but that's a church with about a 2% black membership.

As for bravery, you could be right. My only guage for bravery is that most of the pundits last night ripped Obama for making a speech like that instead of a brief statement declaring how he was tossing Wright under the bus.

I have stormed out of Church for MUCH less. One time I left because the pastor of the Church I attened where I frequently vacation started talking about how the death penalty was wrong. I do not go to church to listen to politics. I got up and walked out. Now, I go to a church a few more blocks away but they do not talk politics there.

 

[This_person]

A little like Bush when he shows exasperation as he explains the current financial crisis or some other mess he's gotten us into.

You know Bush isn't up for re-election, right?

 

[Bruzilla]

I have stormed out of Church for MUCH less. One time I left because the pastor of the Church I attened where I frequently vacation started talking about how the death penalty was wrong. I do not go to church to listen to politics. I got up and walked out. Now, I go to a church a few more blocks away but they do not talk politics there.

You said that this was at a church where you vacation, so I am assuming it's not a church that you have much of an emotional investment in, i.e., it's not your local church that you've been going to steadilly for years. So, I'm also guessing that it's a lot easier to leave a church you go to on vacation than to leave your long-term local church.

 

[Pete]

Not really. As I've said before, I agree with the top-drawer conservatives and have written off this election. I think we're going to have four years of disaster regardless of who wins, and the real contest will be in 2012. As this is my view, I have set down all the kool-aid pitchers, all my preconceptions and loyalties, and am watching this race with a truly independent eye. Yes, I will be voting for Obama, but only because I think he is the worst candidate of the three, which will mean he will be the least successful over the next four years, and the easiest to get rid of in 2012.

This makes no sense what so ever. Out of one side of your mouth you defend Obama to an absurd degree, yet out of the other side you say you are going to vote for him because he is "the worst of the three"? So you have no conscience? You will vote for a candidate you deem "the worst" with a record of being the most liberal of the most liberal? If you can in good conscience vote for, as you readily admit is the "worst" candidate to run our country I would say you are demented and dastardly. all those who applaud you for this are demented as well. To purposely contribute to the sabotage of your country because you are experiencing a conniption fit over the republican nominee is not only juvenile but it is repulsive. I would rather you just sit at home on your hands and do nothing because in doing that, while you do not help, you do no harm.

This all being the case, I am nothing short of fascinated at watching the reactions of people like you and Larry and others to Obama, and what is being said about him. People who's comments I have read for years, who've always shown a certain level of thinking, are just kneejerking like mad, and I'm at a total loss to understand why. Just yesterday, we had a long debate about how Obama had been hearing Wright say awful things about America for 20 years, despite there being absolutely no proof of that. The best that anyone could come up with was Wright saying one negative thing, just after the 9/11 attacks when emotions were high, seven years ago. For all I know, Wright may have been making vicious statements about America for 30 years, and in years past I would have been willing to accept rumors, innuendo, and allegations, but this election I am looking at facts and no longer taking things at face value because there is too much misinformation out there.

So you asked for proof that Wright was doing this more than 1 year and I provided you with it. If someone does something several times over a 7 year period it tells me 1. They have thought it longer and 2. They really mean it. We are not talking about slip of the tongue or poorly chosen words here, we are talking repeated, deliberate hate speech. I am fascinated that you, who I have not always agreed with have stooped to the level of being a juvenile obstructionist and spoiler because you are bent. I am fascinated how YOU could glaze over and excuse "God damn America" spoken in a church, courtyard, town square while the rubble of the WTC still smoldered by saying "emotions were high".

In 2000 I voted for McCain in the primaries because he seemed like a good guy... a vet, former officer, senator, etc. This election, when a candidate says something, I'm checking it. When McCain claims he was the skipper of the largest squadron in the Navy, I check it (which is a false claim by the way). When pundits claim that McCain's military history make him ideal to be CinC I check it (he has a fair at best history with the military - he's no John Kerry but he's no James Stockdale either). When John McCain said he was against Bush's tax cuts because there were no spending cuts with them, and not because they were "tax breaks for the rich" I check it (that was an out and out lie). When Hillary claims she has never said that she would dock paychecks to pay for Hillarycare, I check it (she lied too). When she claims she had nothing to do with filing lawsuits in Nevada I check it (another false claim).

I am fascinated that you take personal slight at McCain claiming to be Skipper of the largest squadron in the Navy. Maybe he meant "Largest A-7 RAG in the Navy" or perhaps it is arguable it was the largest in the Navy based on several factors or something to that affect. It does not matter because I checked it as well and VA-174 WAS the largest air squadron in the Navy as evidenced by this from Wiki.

As of 1 August 1971, VA-174 had trained 535 pilots, 48 maintenance officers and 4815 enlisted maintenance personnel. VA-174 was the largest aviation squadron in the U.S. Navy.

So you are spreading that "McCain is a liar" based on your faulty research.

Which brings me to Obama. The talk surrounding this guy is that he has never accomplished anything and I checked it. I found that he has accomplished quite a bit. I've read that in eight years as an Illinois senator that he only accomplished anything during his last year, so I checked and found that he had authored over 800 bills in eight years, made over 4,000 votes, and got a lot of significant bills through a Republican-controlled legislature throughout his time there. I've read that he is really a devout Muslim, that he refuses to say the pledge of allegiance, refuses to put his hand on his heart when the national anthem is played, that he was in a madrossa his whole life, that he was a drug dealer, etc., and these have all turned up to be false. This guy was smart enough to come clean with most of the bad things he had done in his life in his books, which largely took them off the table. He's a black guy who until now has rarely said anything about race, which is very unusual, so you couldn't pin the racebaiter pin on him.

If McCain is a liar for claiming to have been the skipper of the largest squadron in the Navy, you are lying when you claim he "authored over 800 bills". According to the NYT he "sponsored" 823 bills. "Authoring" is a lengthy process that requires translating thought and policy to the written word, research, deconflicting and so on. This is a time consuming process. Lets say for the sake of argument that Obama was a legislation generating machine and he could crank out a bill start to finish in 2 weeks. To "author" 823 bills at 2 weeks each would still take 31.5 years. Obama did NOT author 823 bills be added his name to the bill by filling out a form and giving it to the clerk of the Illinois Senate.

As far as being a Muslim, no hand over the heart, drug dealer, I have never said or inferred I agree with of believe it. As a matter of fact I had a testy exchange with Mike because he was parroting unverifiable and bogus info he received and I defended Obama. I have also defended Clinton when I thought she was right, it wasn't very often but I am a grown up and don't throw hissy fits.

What surprises me about you is that I've always known you to be perceptive enough to see through the BS. Larry too. You've known what a pathological liar Hillary is, and 90% of the rumors and innuendo being said about Obama are coming from Hillary's campaign. It really does surprise me that so many people are so quick to suspend all they know about Clinton, and McCain too, and accept what they and their people say at face value without checking things out, or mkaing judgements about Obama that you would never make about a Republican candidate. This year, I am refusing to drink the kool-aid from either side, and if there's no proof of a statement I'm tossing the flag.

Jever just consider your absolute hatred developed for McCain based evidently on flawed research over the last 7years since you voted for him in 2000 may, just may be what is causing you to lack "perspective" and not all the other people?

I am also fascinated that because some people give Obama the googly eye over this latest issue that you have concocted the idea everyone now loves Hillary. It is not a zero sum game! I have dislike both immensely at the same time. Here watch:

I dislike Hillary

I dislike Obama.

Hell, I even dislike McCain.

See I did it. Yea me! I get the Bruzilla zero sum game medal.

As far as "making judgements against Obama I would never make against republican" I am impressed at your peering insight into my/his/our thoughts.

I dismissed Huckabee because his evangelical nature caused me unrest.

I railed against Ron Paul because he was a kook.

I think David Duke sucks ass and would never even consider voting for him.

I think Craig should have resigned because he is lying about who he is.

I am totally happy Duke Cunningham is in prison.

See I can be totally critical of republicans who do wrong as well. I can even be totally critical of a republican who sits in a church where his self professed mentor rails against white America and spews hate. As soon as it happens point it out and I will be #1 in line to dismiss him as a jerk. I can even vote for a black candidate. I voted for Alan Keyes TWICE! If I could have I would have voted for JC Watts.

What I cannot do is vote for the person I believe to be and openly admit is "THE WORST" to run my country. Do you think this is a freaking episode of USA Survivor where you can strategize for 2012 by voting for the weakest to keep his torch lit!

I think it unfathomable you would openly admit to bullchit like this then turn your head and criticize people who take this seriously as they should have because they recognize Obama as the pizz poor candidate you said yourself he was albeit for different reasons.

 

[Nupe2]

I agree with most everything you said, and what you said was right along with what Obama said. When my parents were kids, if you saw a black kid in your neighborhood you beat him up. When I was a kid you played with white kids, and black kids played with black kids, but you didn't beat them up. When my kids were that age they played with the black kids. So I don't know that you can really say that "as long as there are humans in the world, there is going to be hatred and bad behavior regardless of what color you are." That thinking used to apply to whole cultures, now it applies to individuals, and maybe someday it will only apply to psychos.

And I have been in many situations like the ones you describe, and I feel the same way about perceptions of racism. But you and I are a different generation from Wright. I was at my mom's house this past weekend, and she was just talking about how their neighborhood was still nice and that there were still no blacks living here, and how her old neighborhood in McKees Rocks was "all black now" and not worth living in. Like Wright, she's still living in the 1950s and 1960s, and that's something we all need to get beyond, which I think was the larger point of Obama's speech and also his campaign, i.e., we can stand around and debate and argue over views of the past, or we can focus our attention on the future. I think that's a pretty good argument, especially when your opponent can't get her head out of the past eight years.

So I can see Obama's point about Wright. He accepts that Wright is viewing things through the filter of his life experiences in the 1950s and 1960s the same way that my mother does. Wright is mad at rich white people and their control of the government, my mom is mad at black people for being shiftless, dirty, and lazy. Neither stereotype is true, but both are closely held by members of that generation. Our generation have largely gotten past those sterotypes, which is why you see blacks getting and giving excellent service or your friend feeling fine around whites. I love my mom, and when she says some of the things she says, I just nod my head and be the good son, and accept that her perception of reality is vastly different from mine. So, I can cut Obama some slack for treating Wright the same way.

Excellent post! You're on a roll!!

 

[vraiblonde]

So, I can cut Obama some slack for treating Wright the same way.

Great. So how is this supposed to go away if nobody will confront the racists and tell them they're wrong?

If a white preacher stands at the pulpit and spews racial invective, are we just supposed to say, "Well, he's old," and give him our devotion anyway? Because that sort of thing from a community leader just breeds a new generation of hatred. I know you're not trying to say that everyone in Wright's congregation applauding him was some old guy?

 

[Toxick]

Great. So how is this supposed to go away if nobody will confront the racists and tell them they're wrong?

Wait for them all to die?

 

[vraiblonde]

Wait for them all to die?

That's pretty much what happens until some Rev. Racist comes along to create a new generation of bigots.

 

[MMDad]

You said that this was at a church where you vacation, so I am assuming it's not a church that you have much of an emotional investment in, i.e., it's not your local church that you've been going to steadilly for years. So, I'm also guessing that it's a lot easier to leave a church you go to on vacation than to leave your long-term local church.

Are you serious? He wasn't in freakin' Ridge where there are few choices. He was in Chicago! You might not be aware, but it's actually a good sized town. If he wanted to find a church that didn't spew hatred it would have been easy. So why didn't he?

It's pretty obvious: he agreed with what was coming from the pulpit.

 

[Bruzilla]

This makes no sense what so ever. Out of one side of your mouth you defend Obama to an absurd degree, yet out of the other side you say you are going to vote for him because he is "the worst of the three"? So you have no conscience? You will vote for a candidate you deem "the worst" with a record of being the most liberal of the most liberal? If you can in good conscience vote for, as you readily admit is the "worst" candidate to run our country I would say you are demented and dastardly.

And I will gratefully accept your damnation. Keep in mind that it may make no sense to you, but hey... the concept of not selling yourself out apparently makes no sense at all to some. Here's what makes no sense to me: Hearing conservatives and Republicans, in the media and on these forums, saying what a reprehensible slime ball John McCain is for years, then hearing them say "I'll vote for him even though I don't think he's a good candidate and I still think he's a slimeball. I'm willing to settle for him because he's all we got". How can you denouce a guy for years, and then support him, and worse... criticize the Democrats for doing the same thing with Billy Clinton for eight years while you're doing it?

As I have said, I supported McCain in 2000, but then I saw him toss the far right under the bus in an attempt to curry favor with moderates, I saw him try to slink off to the Democrats in 2002 because of a snit with GWB, I saw him throw his party under the bus and join the Gang of 14, and I said enough with this guy. I just can't support a man like that even if he's the nominee. So, if I can't support my party's candidate, what position should I take? Well, my view is if Obama wins, if he tries to go off the liberal deepend, there will be enough Republicans in Congress to hold things up and limit the damage. Plus, I figure he's learned from Bill Clinton and he'll try to avoid doing anything too off-the-wall until his second term. That should buy us time to get a real conservative into the White House in 2012 without too much strain. If McCain gets in, the Republicans in Congress with either have to support whatever Liberal things he does or risk tearing the party apart, and that, to me, is much more riskier than having Obama in there. In short, I am taking the long view of things.

Lastly, as to your contention about me lying about McCain and his squadron, you might want to remember two key things. First, Wiki can be updated at anytime and by anyone. When I looked up McCain's information in it several months ago, it said the truth - which was VA-174 was the largest "attack" squadron in the Navy, not the largest squadron, which was Patrol Squadron 30. Someone has gone in and edited the Wiki section to match McCain's claims since then. If you go to Jacksonville University :: Departments >> Aeronautics, which is the bio for the man McCain replaced as CO of VA-174, you'll read "command of the Navy’s largest replacement training squadron," and you'll also read that he left command of VA-174 to assume higher command by being CO of NAS Cecil Field before retiring to be an aairline pilot. And by the way... McCain's replacement, John F. Calhoun, went on to be XO of the USS Independence, CO of the USS Detoit, CO of the USS Constellation, made Admiral, and finished as CO of NTC Great Lakes. Of these three men, two followed the traditional career track of someone who is a successful squadron-level CO and went on to higher command, and one of them got dead-ended into a stash job. Makes one wonder why doesn't it?

Second, VA-174 was a training squadron not a fleet squadron. I really got a kick out of your boldly-emphasized 535 pilots, 48 maintenance officers and 4815 enlisted maintenance personnel quote... like that was supposed to really slay my case. Just so you know, a whole aircraft carrier, which at the time had ten squadrons embarked, had just over 5,000 people embarked. So the idea that one squadron would have had 5,398 personnel embarked is just hysterical! Plus, VA-174 only had about 20 aircraft assigned to it at any one time, and only about 75% of those aircarft were available to fly at any one time. So why do you suppose the Navy would assign 535 pilots to fly 20 airplanes, most of them being single-seat versions of the A-7E? Seems like more than a bit of overkill doesn't it? In reality, what some McCain flunky who has never served day one in the Navy did was add up all the staff and students going through VA-174 over the course of a year, and came up with 5,398 people to make their case, which is also hysterical. To put it in civilian terms, this is like a high school principal saying that he was responsible for raising 1,000 students just because they went to his school! McCain was in command of the 400 or so squadron personnel who were there as staff and instructors, but the rest of those 4,900 or so folks were just students who were going through days, weeks, or months of training and under the command of Fleet Aviation Specialized Training Group Atlantic (FASOTRAGRULANT) for pilots or the Fleet Replacement Aviation Maintenance Program (FRAMP) for the maintenance folks... they were never under the command of John McCain while at the school undergoing training.

 

[illfindu2]

You said that this was at a church where you vacation, so I am assuming it's not a church that you have much of an emotional investment in, i.e., it's not your local church that you've been going to steadilly for years. So, I'm also guessing that it's a lot easier to leave a church you go to on vacation than to leave your long-term local church.

I wouldn't have an emotional investment in a specific church if what was being preached day in and day out was not what I respected. My core values and beliefs make me a strong person who can think for myself and step up and confront those that spew hatred. My emotional attachment to anyone, if they spewed such hatred would be GONE! Heck, I would avoid my own mother if such nasty hateful words came out of her mouth. You bet that I would be up in arms telling even those closest to me that I do not believe they way they do and will not tolerate such hateful words around me or my children. I am not the type to look away. I confront the wrongs I see in this world. It is the individual's responsibility to stand up for what is right against all odds. If Obama is so scared to confront someone who he deems his mentor, why in the world would we assume that he will stand up for what is just and right as President of our United States?

IMO, He's a puzzy who can even stand up to his Pastor. Perhaps he didn't do so because he believes the rhetoric spewed by has Pastor? Oprah left the church, I guess she's just stronger.

 

[Bruzilla]

I wouldn't have an emotional investment in a specific church if what was being preached day in and day out was not what I respected. My core values and beliefs make me a strong person who can think for myself and step up and confront those that spew hatred.

Excellent point, and one that is well taken by me. As I have said before, I am an Agnostic and don't believe in any religion and hence don't have any commitments to any church, so I am no expert on these issues. This is why it may seem like I am bombarding you with questions, but what I'm after is just some objective persepective on this matter.

So, with that being said, let me ask you this. Based on what you said, and assuming that most rational, educated, and emotionally well-adjusted people would feel the same way, why do you suppose Obama would have stayed loyal to a church for twenty years where the leader of it was trashing America every day? This guy overcame a ton of challenges growing up, was abandoned by his father, mom was a waste, grandma was afraid of black people, etc.; worked hard to quailify for entry into a top-flight prep school, Columbia, and Harvard; fought all sorts of issues as a community organizer and got himself elected to two Senates. Does this sound like the kind of guy who would be too big of a puss to tell his minister he's wrong? To find a new church that supported America? What's the odds of that being the case?

Now, let's look at we know for certain: of all the hundreds of video tapes of Wright's sermons that have been made, three have shown any anti-American comments, and all three of these dealt with issues that were highly emotionally charged (9/11 and Obama being attacked by the Clintons). No other tapes have been found despite Hannity and others having gone through them for close to a year now. That's three sermons out of over 1,000 occuring over 20 years. Do you think a man with Obama's background might be willing to overlook three emotionally-charged sermons over 20 years? What are the odds of that being the case? I think the odds are much more likely of the later being the case than the former.

I would agree with your statement if I knew that Wright had been making these statements for 20 years, but there is absolutely no evidence of that... just assumptions and allegations from people who were rarely ever there. I just don't see the validity of saying that Obama should have left the church, or condemned Wright, based on the evidence on the table at this point. From what I see, the evidence shows a guy who attended your average black church for twenty years.

 

[Pete]

And I will gratefully accept your damnation. Keep in mind that it may make no sense to you, but hey... the concept of not selling yourself out apparently makes no sense at all to some. Here's what makes no sense to me: Hearing conservatives and Republicans, in the media and on these forums, saying what a reprehensible slime ball John McCain is for years, then hearing them say "I'll vote for him even though I don't think he's a good candidate and I still think he's a slimeball. I'm willing to settle for him because he's all we got". How can you denouce a guy for years, and then support him, and worse... criticize the Democrats for doing the same thing with Billy Clinton for eight years while you're doing it?

That is some real pretzel logic there. "I detest McCain so I will vote for someone even worse." I could respect you if you said "I'm not voting at all" I would respect you if you said "I have had a life changing epiphany and I am now a democrat." What you are doing is worse than "selling out" and I don't respect you for it. Playing silly effing games

As I have said, I supported McCain in 2000, but then I saw him toss the far right under the bus in an attempt to curry favor with moderates, I saw him try to slink off to the Democrats in 2002 because of a snit with GWB, I saw him throw his party under the bus and join the Gang of 14, and I said enough with this guy. I just can't support a man like that even if he's the nominee. So, if I can't support my party's candidate, what position should I take? Well, my view is if Obama wins, if he tries to go off the liberal deepend, there will be enough Republicans in Congress to hold things up and limit the damage. Plus, I figure he's learned from Bill Clinton and he'll try to avoid doing anything too off-the-wall until his second term. That should buy us time to get a real conservative into the White House in 2012 without too much strain. If McCain gets in, the Republicans in Congress with either have to support whatever Liberal things he does or risk tearing the party apart, and that, to me, is much more riskier than having Obama in there. In short, I am taking the long view of things.

Bruzilla, however many novel size posts you need to write to convince yourself is OK by me. Your bullchit fake indignation because anyone doesn't buy into the magic pixie dust about Obama is appalling.

Lastly, as to your contention about me lying about McCain and his squadron, you might want to remember two key things. First, Wiki can be updated at anytime and by anyone. When I looked up McCain's information in it several months ago, it said the truth - which was VA-174 was the largest "attack" squadron in the Navy, not the largest squadron, which was Patrol Squadron 30. Someone has gone in and edited the Wiki section to match McCain's claims since then. If you go to Jacksonville University :: Departments >> Aeronautics, which is the bio for the man McCain replaced as CO of VA-174, you'll read "command of the Navy’s largest replacement training squadron," and you'll also read that he left command of VA-174 to assume higher command by being CO of NAS Cecil Field before retiring to be an aairline pilot. And by the way... McCain's replacement, John F. Calhoun, went on to be XO of the USS Independence, CO of the USS Detoit, CO of the USS Constellation, made Admiral, and finished as CO of NTC Great Lakes. Of these three men, two followed the traditional career track of someone who is a successful squadron-level CO and went on to higher command, and one of them got dead-ended into a stash job. Makes one wonder why doesn't it?

Your transformation is complete. You ahve jumped onto the "VRW conspiracy theory where throngs of GOP operatives scour wiki and correct articles to match GOP candidates claims.

You rail and chest beat about people purveying unsubstantiated rumors and assumptions then you go right out and do it against McCain. If I remember correctly you were an AW1. I am wondering what great insight you have that allows you to go against your policy of putting out assumptions and speculate why McCain didn't get promoted? Maybe he didn't want to? Maybe he was tired of the Navy? Maybe all those years getting the snot beat out of him took the luster off being an Admiral. Maybe the fact his arms were so badly broken during the torture and the thought of never being allowed to fly again was the clincher. Who cares? If you know anything about officer promotions in the Navy you know that sometimes good guys get overlooked and sometimes really shiatty jackasses rocket.


BTW I am pretty sure that people wise VP-31 and VQ-1 were larger than VP-30. I may be wrong but then again who cares.

Second, VA-174 was a training squadron not a fleet squadron. I really got a kick out of your boldly-emphasized 535 pilots, 48 maintenance officers and 4815 enlisted maintenance personnel quote... like that was supposed to really slay my case. Just so you know, a whole aircraft carrier, which at the time had ten squadrons embarked, had just over 5,000 people embarked. So the idea that one squadron would have had 5,398 personnel embarked is just hysterical! Plus, VA-174 only had about 20 aircraft assigned to it at any one time, and only about 75% of those aircarft were available to fly at any one time. So why do you suppose the Navy would assign 535 pilots to fly 20 airplanes, most of them being single-seat versions of the A-7E?

Maybe you should read it again. Here I will post it for you.

As of 1 August 1971, VA-174 had trained 535 pilots, 48 maintenance officers and 4815 enlisted maintenance personnel. VA-174 was the largest aviation squadron in the U.S. Navy.

Seems you missed a little something sparky. Who said anything about "assigned"? I posted the 2 sentences pertinent to your argument McCain wilfully lied. One had a date establishing a time frame, one had the statement about it being the largest.

Seems like more than a bit of overkill doesn't it? In reality, what some McCain flunky who has never served day one in the Navy did was add up all the staff and students going through VA-174 over the course of a year, and came up with 5,398 people to make their case, which is also hysterical. To put it in civilian terms, this is like a high school principal saying that he was responsible for raising 1,000 students just because they went to his school! McCain was in command of the 400 or so squadron personnel who were there as staff and instructors, but the rest of those 4,900 or so folks were just students who were going through days, weeks, or months of training and under the command of Fleet Aviation Specialized Training Group Atlantic (FASOTRAGRULANT) for pilots or the Fleet Replacement Aviation Maintenance Program (FRAMP) for the maintenance folks... they were never under the command of John McCain while at the school undergoing training.

I have to recant my argument above about you not being uniquely qualified to judge why McCain wasn't promoted and got out. You know the long title of FASO and FRAMP. I am in awe of your Naval expertise. I should probably start calling you Admiral, with all your officer promotion insight and all.:

It wasn't off the McCain wiki page you conspiracy dipshiat, it was off the VA-174 page. But I am sure you actually believe that a McCain flunky searched out VA-174's article and doctored it.

One last note. When you were in FASO for the flight phase of your training and you got written up, who did you go see for Captains mast? Was it the CO of VP-30?


In the end I think it is hilarious that you are all sewn up in your righteous indignation and speculation that McCain never made Admiral because he is a horrible person and that he or someone claimed the arguable point that he was the CO of the Largest squadron in the Navy. It's not like he said God Dam the Navy! They created AIDS to keep the AW's in check"

 

[vraiblonde]

Does this sound like the kind of guy who would be too big of a puss to tell his minister he's wrong? To find a new church that supported America? What's the odds of that being the case?

Bruzilla, you are off the deep end, my friend. Obviously Obama agrees with the spew, or he wouldn't have stayed. That would explain why he didn't tell the minister he was wrong or find a new church.

Duh.

Have you had a recent blow to the head? Just curious...

 

[ylexot]

I can't see the video here, but based on the title from Drudge (**VIDEO** ANTI-OBAMA PASTOR UNLEASHED: 'HE WAS BORN TRASH'... 'LONG-LEGGED FREAK'... 'EMISSARY OF THE DEVIL'), I'm wonding if he will suddenly has some extremely tenuous ties to McCain or Hillary in an effort to show equivalence...
YouTube - Obama's Bra 54 Double "D"

 

[Sonsie]

I can't see the video here, but based on the title from Drudge (**VIDEO** ANTI-OBAMA PASTOR UNLEASHED: 'HE WAS BORN TRASH'... 'LONG-LEGGED FREAK'... 'EMISSARY OF THE DEVIL'), I'm wonding if he will suddenly has some extremely tenuous ties to McCain or Hillary in an effort to show equivalence...
YouTube - Obama's Bra 54 Double "D"

Thank heavens the guy is black. If he was white this would be pointed at as evidence of America's inherent racism.

 

[Bann]

I don't ####in' get you people.

I'm a McCain supporter, and I don't like Obama's politics, but ... that speech was masterful. He went to Rev. Wright's church because of all the things Rev. Wright had done for him. Yeah, his opinions are far out, but still.

As far as the speech, great speech. He aknowledged what the breaking point is for both races (affirmative action, discrimination, immigration, racism, welfare, etc.) and aknowledged that neither side is perfect, but we are the same inside ... Americans.

I think this speech is the best thing to happen for racial relations in a long time. This is, possibly, as big as MLK's speech. Hopefully now, we won't discuss racial division and will instead look forward as a nation of one. Hopefully this will end the White Ameirca/Black America divide once and for all.

My time was better spent watching the Obama speech than it was watching the first few minutes of American Idol.

We won't now have to discuss racial division? Why, whatever will we have to talk about now that it's all been miraculously ended by the messiah Obama's one speech? I'm so happy that he has solved it all in one neat little package of a speech. I just love being told it's all the white man's fault, that it's conservative's fault, that black people have gone so long without good schools, good opportunities - & that is where pastor Wright is coming from .

I got a question. Where are Reverends Al Sharpton & Jesse Jackson? Has anyone seen hide or hair of or heard from them since this hit the fan? How come they haven't come out in defense of Obama and ol' Pastor Wright??

 

[Bann]

I don't think most of the folks here heard or read the ENTIRE speech. They seem to only hear or read what they want in order to support their preconceptions. This "dialogue" is pointless...too much emotion, etc. etc.

Excuse me. I read it. I didn't "read what I wanted" to support anything - I read the words HE wrote. Perfectly worded phrases using all the wonderful buzz-words designed to invoke specific reactions & emotions and tied up with a pretty bow in the theatrical package that is *Obama*.

Still didn't impress me and won't fool me.

 

[Bann]

The speech was long.

So you just decide that people who disagree with the speech or see something different than you did - didn't take the time to watch it or read it?