[Vision2020] Questions for No. Weatherman

[Chasuk]

On Sun, Oct 19, 2008 at 18:07, No Weatherman <no.weatherman at gmail.com> wrote:

> Yes. Except the "excess" part.

A lot of your answer seemed superfluous.  No offense intended.

> I think it was Luther who said something to the effect of, "I'd rather
> be ruled by an honest Turk than a dishonest Christian."

> I am being honest. That's the closest to an affirmation that I can get.

I'm going to interpret that as yes, if and when you happen to meet an
"honest Turk."   That being a Muslim does not inherently disqualify
one from being the US President, which is what I was trying to
ascertain.

> But since he established precedent with the three, does not his ethical standard obligate him to act on
> the fourth?

No.  If I have four embarrassing acquaintances, it doesn't necessarily
follow that I will disassociate from all of them, or from any of them.

 You say no, but you let him off the hook by excusing his
> behavior as "politically expedient" because his associations don't
> bother you.

I didn't excuse it, actually.  I expressed why he did it, and my
disapproval.  I consider political expediency to be craven
opportunism.  No, his associations don't bother me.

> No offense, but when you excused Obama's actions as politically expedient without offering a shred of
> evidence to support your allegation, you threw a spitball.

Except that I didn't make an allegation, unless pointing out the
obvious and already understood counts.  Obama isn't sincerely
repentant of his association with Farrakhan, Wright, or Rezko, nor
should he be (in my opinion, which shouldn't need saying, as I am not
in the habit of stating someone else's opinion).  He played the
political game, in order to stay in it.

The crux of the matter isn't why Obama threw Farrakhan, Wright, and
Rezko under the bus, but I'm uncertain what the real question is.
Maybe that should form the basis for the next stage of our
conversation.

Chas