Poll question: Do you believe Obama is trustworthy - YES / NO

[AGirl]

nt.

[MrSlayer]

1. As much as a politician can be, yes.

I believe he is.

[redqueen]

4. Exactly!

:rofl:

I trust him more... but not explicitly. That'd be teh dubm!

[depakid]

2. No more or less than most Democratic politicians

[gateley]

3. Yes -

even though it took me a while to get to that point.

Yeah, he's a politician, but as a PERSON I believe he's trustworthy.

[Mike03]

5. So far, Yes. Nothing he has done or said has given me a reason to doubt his

trustworthiness. That could change. It actually amazes me that he is apparently clean enough that none of his enemies can seem to dig up anything substantive on him. I regard that as an auspicious sign.

[Forkboy]

6. My answer would be no to almost every politician.

I do trust Barney Frank to always make me smile though.

[anonymous171]

7. He's never been caught in a huge whopper.

So yes.

[la la]

19. is there a difference

between a big whopper and a little lie?

Not to be flammable! but, a lie is a lie is a lie.

[anonymous171]

21. I understand. But...

I do think there is a difference. A little lie can be misremembered or poorly said. A whooper implies a a willing deceit of the voters and disrespect for the electorate.

[Fovea]

8. He is politician honest.

Which is not the same as parent honest, but similar.

politics is policy and strategy. You don't get to see the whole plan.
But I think he trends to honesty. Compared to our current pretzeldent, he is a paragon.

[depakid]

12. "parent honesty"

In the Depa household, that sometimes simply meant "because I said so!" :o

[myrna minx]

9. As much as you can trust a politician.

But as politicians go, yes.

[doc03]

10. Absolutly not after the Rev. Wright stuff

came out. How can I possibly trust a man that sits and listens to Rev. Wright's inflammatory speech for 17 years? I don't buy the crap about him never hearing his comments or about him disagreeing with "some" of his comments. If Hillary Clinton or John McCain went to a church with Rev. David Duke for 17 years and never realized he was a racist I wouldn't trust them either. I know Hillary lied about the sniper thing but I don't think that comes near the Rev. Wright stuff. You all can go and flame away all you want but that is the way I feel and I really don't think I can change my mind.

[woolldog]

11. To analogize David Duke with Rev Wright is just plain idiotic.

[doc03]

15. I don't think so, when I hear Rev. Wright speak

I just can't help but see those young thugs smashing Reginald Denny's skull with a brick. I saw the way he had the audience fired up in the videos. That kind of speech is the type of thing that fires up radicals such as the ones in LA a few years ago. David Duke is a racist and Rev. Wright is a racist no difference. You can try and justify it if you want, I don't buy it.

[Alexander]

17. Your post can be summed up by the first three words.

"I don't think"

Explains everything.

[doc03]

22. No, you don't think. Believe me I work in

a Union shop and this area is about 75% Democrat and I hear people say every day "I just don't trust Obama" People aren't exactly Hillary supporters either mainly because of NAFTA. I look for most to either not vote or go Republican this year. A year ago there is no way I thought Democrats could possibly figure out a way to lose but it looks like that is what will happen.

[woolldog]

26. How many of your union co-workers

who "just don't trust Obama" are against interracial dating? :rofl:

[doc03]

38. There you go calling people racists because they

don't trust Obama. I can think of a couple of my white Union brothers off hand that have black son-in-laws if that has anything to do with it. Just what does interracial dating have to do with someone finding Rev Wright's speech objectionable anyway. It's just your snide little insinuation that everyone that doesn't trust Obama just has to be a racist. I have said it many times before you Obama supporters do him more harm than good. It just makes me believe his supporters think like Rev. Wright also. I compared Rev. Wright with David Duke because he is the only white racist I know of that he could be compared with.

[mattclearing]

18. Wow.

When I hear David Duke speak, I think of 400 years of slavery and oppression, Jim Crow, 4 little girls, Martin Luther King, the list goes on.

Context matters. They are not the same thing. To think that is to ignore history, to act as if White people and Black people are and always have been on equal footing in America. It simply isn't so.

[mattclearing]

13. Duke and Wright are not interchangeable.

Wright is speaking from a position of no power. It's not the same as the racism of David Duke, which is that of a bullying oppressor.

You don't equate the sexual harassment of an employee towards someone of higher rank with that of an employer towards a subordinate for the same reason.

Some of Wright's comments were deliberately inflammatory, and occasionally unfounded, but in a whole lifetime of sermons, he has been a positive force, and done much more for charity and people in need than anyone else named in your post. To compare him to Duke is beyond the pale.

People's patriotism seems to reign at the expense of common sense sometimes, it seems.

[woolldog]

14. Great post.

I'd add that Wright has never advocated violence against anyone based on race. Duke was a card carrying member of the KKK which did exactly that.

[doc03]

16. Don't give me that shit he thought the

terrorist attack of 911 was deserved. I am not going to play your game of quoting what particular things he said. I heard him, I think he is a racist and I think anyone that tries to justify his speech just isn't being honest with themselves.

[mattclearing]

20. No one here is defending the worst of his statements.

We are simply saying that Wright is not anywhere near as net a negative to society to David Duke. I don't see how that can be disputed.

[doc03]

24. No, I disagree Rev. Wright has just as much

responsible for creating racial hatred as Duke. I was asked if I thought if Obama was trustworthy and I gave my opinion.

[mattclearing]

25. It's a free country. You can think what you want.

I just urge you to consider the context in which the comments were made. It's not the same thing. And Wright has certainly done more good for more people than David Duke. That isn't in question.

[woolldog]

23. No he didn't say 9/11 was deserved.

He said that it was a result of blow-back from the policies of the American government. And that is true.

His comments on 9/11 certainly aren't racist.

[Emit]

37. You have a distorted picture of Wright and what Wright has said, IMHO

I can fully understand, however, as it stems from believing everything the M$M tells you to believe.


The following are just a few of the techniques in play now by M$M, particularly Fox News, with the Rev. Wright thingy:

Argumentum ad nauseam: This argument approach uses tireless repetition of an idea. An idea, especially a simple slogan, that is repeated enough times, may begin to be taken as the truth. This approach works best when media sources are limited and controlled by the propagator.

Obtain disapproval or Reductio ad Hitlerum: This technique is used to persuade a target audience to disapprove of an action or idea by suggesting that the idea is popular with groups hated, feared, or held in contempt by the target audience. Thus if a group which supports a certain policy is led to believe that undesirable, subversive, or contemptible people support the same policy, then the members of the group may decide to change their original position. This is a form of Bad Logic, where a is said to equal X, and b is said to equal X, therefore, a = b.

Oversimplification: Favorable generalities are used to provide simple answers to complex social, political, economic, or military problems.

Transfer: Also known as Association, this is a technique of projecting positive or negative qualities (praise or blame) of a person, entity, object, or value (an individual, group, organization, nation, patriotism, etc.) to another to make the second more acceptable or to discredit it. It evokes an emotional response, which stimulates the target to identify with recognized authorities. Often highly visual, this technique often utilizes symbols (for example, the Swastika used in Nazi Germany, originally a symbol for health and prosperity) superimposed over other visual images. An example of common use of this technique in America is for the President's image to be overlaid with a swastika by his opponents.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Propaganda

[Emit]

35. If you think Rev. Wright = David Duke

then you need to turn off Fox News.

[RufusEarl]

27. I wouldn't shoot dice over the phone with him,

he is a politician after all. But yes i believe him to be a honest & honorable man.

Peace!

[cboy4]

28. Absolutelty not....it's without question the number one

issue I have with him.

He will say or do anything to get elected .. as he's already demonstrated.

[anonymous171]

29. Like when he dared oppose the Iraq War?

Or was he just being clairvoyant?

[cboy4]

30. No, when he hired Donnie McClurkin to "entertain" at a

campaign event, even though he's purportedly is pro LGBT.

For one thing.

[anonymous171]

32. That wasn't deceit. That was lack of sensitivity regarding LGBT issues.

And I'll admit that was a bad move.

[cboy4]

33. Well wait a minute.....he hires McClurkin despite being

cautioned.

How can trust he won't pull more of this shit later on?

That's what doesn't make him trustworthy.

[anonymous171]

34. Did he lie and say "Hey, McClurkin is totally pro-gay!"

or "I am not hiring McClurkin" and then hiring him? I don't think so.

[Solon]

40. No, he lied and said that McClurkin was "just going to sing."

That didn't exactly work out as planned, did it?

[skater314159]

31. Yeh. nt

[Mooney]

36. I voted "no," and I'm supporting the guy.

Maybe one out of every ten people I've ever met in my life are trustworthy. Why politicians are expected to be trustworthy, when they never are, is completely beyond me.

[Condem]

39. A better poll.

Who is this poster siding with today?

[Solon]

41. Anyone who trusts ANY politician is a fool.

Its idiocy of the highest order.

[Breeze54]

42. Where are the 'other' options?

:shrug:

Very biased poll attempt and that makes me think you don't mean what you say.

Why should I trust you, AGirl, from here on out? :shrug:

I almost did trust you, but now? I have my reservations.