personally, i think Obama should have said that he heard the lectures, but was not present. he heard them the same way everyone else did, and was bothered, but not enough to leave the church. but i doubt that the high and mighty would have understood that.

personally, i think Obama should have said that he heard the lectures, but was not present. he heard them the same way everyone else did, and was bothered, but not enough to leave the church. but i doubt that the high and mighty would have understood that.

bob said that Obaman "knew or heard" about them and lied when he said he hadn't. I asked for proof and still have not received it. I would rather take Obama's word that he had not heard them as of that time. Obama was not the one that said someone lied, it was Obama that was claimed to have lied. Therefore I believe it us up to the accuser to prove his accusations.

I am really trying to see where there is a coming together that could be acceptable to everyone.


Monster, after reading your post, I see another perspective.

This time, I see that you also do not consider the Rev's sermons to be relevent. You are focused on the issue of the Obama's being called a liar, specifically over his comments in reference to the Rev's (to some people) "offensive" sermons.

It suddenly dawns on me that at some point in time, unless someone can prove that Obama was, indeed, among the attendees on the date and time of those specific offensive words being utter, Obama would be telling the absolute truth when he said he did not know (or hear) those words that are being played over and over and over again. If Obama was first quoted as saying he didn't know about them before those clips were played repeatedly, then Obama would have been telling the truth, IF he was not an attendee at the time the words were uttered, or if he hadn't bought the CD's that contained the words AND PLAYED THEM.

So, before someone could claim that Obama was a liar, and use Obama's denial of being aware of those words, until they became headline news, someone would have to prove that Obama was actually in attendance at the time the words were uttered. Is that right?

Yes that is right.

And that is the proof that is, so far, lacking?

Yes

Monster, on this question, I am drawing a total blank. Like most other people, I have only seen the little clips of the same few words over and over again. I have never seen the cameras that were videotaping those particlar sermons doing a sweep of the congregation which might show Obama sitting in the church when the words were uttered. Also, it seems logical to me, that if the camera did sweep the congregation during those particular sermons, and if the President to be were actually sitting there before God and everyone, I certainly think that his presence would have been one of the taped clips played over and over and over as well.

So, I doubt that the President to be was there at the time. And I also think it is likely he was too busy to bother with sitting home listening to old sermons (he doesn't strike me as the type), so at some point in time, when Obama was asked what he thought of the Rev's words, he would have been telling the truth when he said he didn't know about them until they became famous, and then he gave his opinion of the old Rev. and expressed his tolerance and affection for the Rev. End of story?

Should have been.

Show us a picture of Obama sitting in the congregation, or acknowledge, at some point in time, Obama did NOT know about the Rev's rant. After the public knew, of course, Obama was as aware as any other citizen became aware of the words.

Yes? No?

Yes

jd