Sure we can agree with your first point. I'm not so upset that he can't pronounce the name; but rather the situation involved. Obama runs for office claiming that Wright was his inspiration (until Wright became an embarrassment). I don't recall Obama ever during his campaign saying that Bernardin was an inspiration or played a significant role in his spiritual beliefs. Do you? If Bernandin really played such a role, with Obama being as smart as he allegedly is, don't you think he'd have mentioned it a bit during his campaign to attract liberal and moderate Catholics?

 

Yet all of a sudden, when he is speaking at Notre Dame, he claims that Bernadin played a role in Obama's spiritual beliefs. That's not odd to you? Honestly? Seems really convenient to me. The mispronounciation of his name, while very trivial in itself, does lend some support to those that wonder if Obama isn't becoming the next Bill Clinton: tell them what they want to hear. As much as I disagree with Ted Kennedy's beliefs, I'll always respected the fact that he blantantly told you where he stood. No charades; no baloney.

 

And I think there are plenty of Democrats that are now beginning to wonder if Obama didn't do that to them when he was campaigning. Military tribunals were terrible; now with some "reforms" they are okay. NAFTA had to be renegotiated; now it doesn't and we can deal with some issues without renegotiation.

 

Sorry my friend, but while the mispronounciation of Bernandin's name doesn't in itself bother me, it does lend some support to the criticism that perhaps Obama wasn't being sincere in his comments. If he wasn't being sincere, do you think such falls in line with Obama transparency agenda? I don't.

 

And after having said all that, I didn't listen to Obama's speech so I'm trusting those that said Obama made those comments and mispronounced Bernadin's name. Perhaps a mistake on my part, but I'm living under those assumptions as I express my feelings.

 

I have no challenge to what you say. I've already stated that the other issues are fair game.

Let me make sure I get this right. I point out the fallacy of your mispronunciation logic and I'm told to get it right.

 

Got it.

 

Do you realize just how ridiculous your analogy really is by comparing this to Calipari? Or are you so completely consumed by BO that you can't face reality? If BO has too many like you under his spell, and he just might, we are in big trouble.

Do you realize just how ridiculous your analogy really is by comparing this to Calipari? Or are you so completely consumed by BO that you can't face reality? If BO has too many like you under his spell, and he just might, we are in big trouble.

 

Did you miss my 2nd comparison? Or did that not fit your theory very well?

Did you miss my 2nd comparison? Or did that not fit your theory very well?

 

Sorry, Clyde, your second comparison is equally as weak.

Sorry, Clyde, your second comparison is equally as weak.

 

Classic non-response.

Classic non-response.

 

No. It is a determination that your analogies don't warrant a response.

No. It is a determination that your analogies don't warrant a response.

 

See it doesn't seem that way. You point out that not pronouncing a name properly is evidence that you don't really follow the teachings of the person whose name you can't pronounce. I point out a legit example and you choose to ignore it.

 

The only argument you would have to back up that its a poor analogy is if you don't believe the Reverend inspires people. Is that it?

See it doesn't seem that way. You point out that not pronouncing a name properly is evidence that you don't really follow the teachings of the person whose name you can't pronounce. I point out a legit example and you choose to ignore it.

 

The only argument you would have to back up that its a poor analogy is if you don't believe the Reverend inspires people. Is that it?

 

Clyde, we are wasting our time and energy. It is obvious that you see BO in a somewhat different light than do I. I won't change your perception of him and you won't change mine. Let's just move on.

Clyde, we are wasting our time and energy. It is obvious that you see BO in a somewhat different light than do I. I won't change your perception of him and you won't change mine. Let's just move on.

 

I'm not out to change anyone's perception of anyone.

 

You made an allegation that my 2nd example was a bad one. I've asked you to explain why. You've now refused a couple of times. That seems to say a lot.

I'm not out to change anyone's perception of anyone.

 

You made an allegation that my 2nd example was a bad one. I've asked you to explain why. You've now refused a couple of times. That seems to say a lot.

 

Clyde, obviously you didn't hear BO's glowing remarks about how Cardinal Bernardin influenced him. If you had heard your dude's glowing rhetoric, you would understand why your analogy is inapplicable in this matter.

 

Too bad he wasn't speaking at SMU so he could tell of the great influence of John Wesley on his spiritual development. I'll bet he could have pronounced "Wesley" correctly when he read it from the teleprompter.

 

Contrary to what you seem to believe, BO is a master at using a situation for his own personal gain. How do you think he got where he is today?

 

How do you think he got where he is today?

 

 

The Current Republican Party

The Current Republican Party

 

Good one. Sad, but true.

Clyde, you stumbled on a nugget. Still, the nomination of McCain, while a poor choice, doesn't really explain the rapid rise of BO from low level community agitator surrounded by radicals to the WH in such a short time. It is truly a fairy tale of sorts.

The Current Republican Party

 

 

I agree with 75, that was a good one. :thumb: Of course a smart fellow like you realizes that a lot of Obama getting elected had a lot to do with the economy (which almost every economist will tell you had little if anything to do with the President at the time), the dissatisfaction with the Iraq War (which had everything to do with the President at the time, which I continue to assert was a smart thing to do) and the fickle American voter that has shown a definite tendency in our country's history to vote for the other party's nominee after one party has held the White House for some time.

 

The way the R's conducted themselves in DC had something to do with Obama getting elected, but not near as much as some people think it did.

Clyde, you stumbled on a nugget. Still, the nomination of McCain, while a poor choice, doesn't really explain the rapid rise of BO from low level community agitator surrounded by radicals to the WH in such a short time. It is truly a fairy tale of sorts.

 

You're kidding yourself if you think McCain was the problem. It was much bigger than that. Its not Reagan's big tent party anymore and its hurting the party.