<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Rev. Wright - UPDATED THRICE, response to Pete Abel</title>
	<atom:link href="http://poligazette.com/2008/04/29/rev-wright/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.poligazette.com/2008/04/29/rev-wright/</link>
	<description>News and Analysis from Different Moderate Perspectives</description>
	<pubDate>Tue, 02 Dec 2008 00:07:20 +0000</pubDate>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=2.6.2</generator>
		<item>
		<title>By: Ronnie</title>
		<link>http://www.poligazette.com/2008/04/29/rev-wright/#comment-45702</link>
		<dc:creator>Ronnie</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 01 May 2008 09:58:09 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://poligazette.com/2008/04/29/rev-wright/#comment-45702</guid>
		<description>why do you use red lasso? It doesn't work on Hot Air so why would it work here  </description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>why do you use red lasso? It doesn&#8217;t work on Hot Air so why would it work here  </p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Michael van der Galien</title>
		<link>http://www.poligazette.com/2008/04/29/rev-wright/#comment-44973</link>
		<dc:creator>Michael van der Galien</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 29 Apr 2008 16:13:02 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://poligazette.com/2008/04/29/rev-wright/#comment-44973</guid>
		<description>&lt;blockquote&gt;With that one line in his speech about not being able to disown Rev. Wright because that would be like disowning the black community, Obama gave Wright the ammunition which Wright’s now aiming at him. I wonder how long until someone points out to the pundits and bloggers who are saying that Wright is incorrect in his assertion of his position as a representative of the black church in America, that Obama himself implicitly stated this and gave Wright the platform on which he now stands.
&lt;/blockquote&gt;You're absolutely right about that. Wright made that point time and again: &#34;this is an attack against the black church,&#34; and all that crap.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<blockquote><p>With that one line in his speech about not being able to disown Rev. Wright because that would be like disowning the black community, Obama gave Wright the ammunition which Wright’s now aiming at him. I wonder how long until someone points out to the pundits and bloggers who are saying that Wright is incorrect in his assertion of his position as a representative of the black church in America, that Obama himself implicitly stated this and gave Wright the platform on which he now stands.
</p></blockquote>
<p>You&#8217;re absolutely right about that. Wright made that point time and again: &quot;this is an attack against the black church,&quot; and all that crap.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: C Stanley</title>
		<link>http://www.poligazette.com/2008/04/29/rev-wright/#comment-44972</link>
		<dc:creator>C Stanley</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 29 Apr 2008 16:10:34 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://poligazette.com/2008/04/29/rev-wright/#comment-44972</guid>
		<description>Re: your response to Pete (I actually don't agree with all of it, esp about the negativity toward Hillary Clinton, but...) I think you're really onto something with point #6. With that one line in his speech about not being able to disown Rev. Wright because that would be like disowning the black community, Obama gave Wright the ammunition which Wright's now aiming at him. I wonder how long until someone points out to the pundits and bloggers who are saying that Wright is incorrect in his assertion of his position as a representative of the black church in America, that Obama himself implicitly stated this and gave Wright the platform on which he now stands.

And the implications go to a larger scope to hit directly at Obama's judgment because Wright is now proving exactly why it is harmful for politicians to show empathy for extremists- in doing so, they give validation for the extremism.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Re: your response to Pete (I actually don&#8217;t agree with all of it, esp about the negativity toward Hillary Clinton, but&#8230;) I think you&#8217;re really onto something with point #6. With that one line in his speech about not being able to disown Rev. Wright because that would be like disowning the black community, Obama gave Wright the ammunition which Wright&#8217;s now aiming at him. I wonder how long until someone points out to the pundits and bloggers who are saying that Wright is incorrect in his assertion of his position as a representative of the black church in America, that Obama himself implicitly stated this and gave Wright the platform on which he now stands.</p>
<p>And the implications go to a larger scope to hit directly at Obama&#8217;s judgment because Wright is now proving exactly why it is harmful for politicians to show empathy for extremists- in doing so, they give validation for the extremism.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Nihat</title>
		<link>http://www.poligazette.com/2008/04/29/rev-wright/#comment-44940</link>
		<dc:creator>Nihat</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 29 Apr 2008 14:18:17 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://poligazette.com/2008/04/29/rev-wright/#comment-44940</guid>
		<description>Re: &lt;em&gt;Obama said that some of Wright’s comments weren’t ‘hopeful’. Wright’s response: ‘how would you know, you weren’t in Church, right?’
&lt;/em&gt;
Is/was Wright offended by Obama's awkward disowning, or what?</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Re: <em>Obama said that some of Wright’s comments weren’t ‘hopeful’. Wright’s response: ‘how would you know, you weren’t in Church, right?’<br />
</em><br />
Is/was Wright offended by Obama&#8217;s awkward disowning, or what?</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Michael van der Galien</title>
		<link>http://www.poligazette.com/2008/04/29/rev-wright/#comment-44938</link>
		<dc:creator>Michael van der Galien</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 29 Apr 2008 14:05:33 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://poligazette.com/2008/04/29/rev-wright/#comment-44938</guid>
		<description>&lt;blockquote&gt;Apparently none of his beliefs are problematic for the left, but he’s now committing the one unforgivable sin of holding to his beliefs instead of renouncing them for the sake of the Obamessiah.
&lt;/blockquote&gt;Yes, I noticed that as well. What's also funny is that the good old Reverend seemed to be making fun of Obama('s hypocrisy). Obama said that some of Wright's comments weren't 'hopeful'. Wright's response: 'how would you know, you weren't in Church, right?'

Hahahahahahaha

Funny, funny stuff.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<blockquote><p>Apparently none of his beliefs are problematic for the left, but he’s now committing the one unforgivable sin of holding to his beliefs instead of renouncing them for the sake of the Obamessiah.
</p></blockquote>
<p>Yes, I noticed that as well. What&#8217;s also funny is that the good old Reverend seemed to be making fun of Obama(&#8217;s hypocrisy). Obama said that some of Wright&#8217;s comments weren&#8217;t &#8216;hopeful&#8217;. Wright&#8217;s response: &#8216;how would you know, you weren&#8217;t in Church, right?&#8217;</p>
<p>Hahahahahahaha</p>
<p>Funny, funny stuff.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: C Stanley</title>
		<link>http://www.poligazette.com/2008/04/29/rev-wright/#comment-44934</link>
		<dc:creator>C Stanley</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 29 Apr 2008 13:55:26 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://poligazette.com/2008/04/29/rev-wright/#comment-44934</guid>
		<description>What I find fascinating (if predictable) is the way that pundits and bloggers are falling in line. Yesterday, right leaning commenters were talking this up of course. It took the lefties an entire day to respond, and now they've all seemingly rallied around one main talking point: how the problem is Wright's egomania. Apparently none of his beliefs are problematic for the left, but he's now committing the one unforgivable sin of holding to his beliefs instead of renouncing them for the sake of the Obamessiah.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>What I find fascinating (if predictable) is the way that pundits and bloggers are falling in line. Yesterday, right leaning commenters were talking this up of course. It took the lefties an entire day to respond, and now they&#8217;ve all seemingly rallied around one main talking point: how the problem is Wright&#8217;s egomania. Apparently none of his beliefs are problematic for the left, but he&#8217;s now committing the one unforgivable sin of holding to his beliefs instead of renouncing them for the sake of the Obamessiah.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>
<br />
<b>Warning</b>:  is_writable() [<a href='function.is-writable'>function.is-writable</a>]: open_basedir restriction in effect. File(error_log) is not within the allowed path(s): (/home/p6525pol:/usr/lib/php:/usr/local/lib/php:/tmp) in <b>/home/p6525pol/public_html/wp-includes/wp-db.php</b> on line <b>500</b><br />
