General Discussion

forestpath

(3,102 posts)

49. Really? So then what exactly did he and Obama "disagree" about?

Fri Jan 11, 2013, 06:42 AM

Jan 2013

How could they not be aware of it - but more to the point obviously Obama was aware of it since Giglio stated they didn't agree on everything. And Obama could not have been unaware who had been chosen.

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

53 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

Inaugural committee: 'We were not aware' of Giglio's anti-gay speech [View all] Newsjock Jan 2013 OP

Maybe that could ask Obama ... GeorgeGist Jan 2013 #1

I'm betting he's delegated most of the detail work to the inaugural committee. MADem Jan 2013 #6

In time? If they caught it 'in time' it never would have been a news story. Jenoch Jan 2013 #30

In the future, everything that public figures say will be instantly accessible via the internet. MADem Jan 2013 #32

The preacher should have been thoroughly Jenoch Jan 2013 #33

He wasn't, though, unfortunately. That much is clear. MADem Jan 2013 #36

I highly doubt he was personally invited. SpartanDem Jan 2013 #11

Yeah, cuz he's not busy or anything. WilliamPitt Jan 2013 #14

"We were not aware of the concept of 'vetting' until ..." Scuba Jan 2013 #2

Well, they made "the leap." I honestly wouldn't figure that someone who was on the forefront of MADem Jan 2013 #4

I applaud them for correcting their error, but they shouldn't be immune from criticism .... Scuba Jan 2013 #7

Like I said, I would have made the assumption too. How many people do you know who give a shit MADem Jan 2013 #10

If you can't properly vet people who are going to represent the views of the POTUS sabrina 1 Jan 2013 #15

... MADem Jan 2013 #17

Really? Well, if that's what you think. You said it, not I. sabrina 1 Jan 2013 #18

It expresses my opinion of your POV quite clearly. MADem Jan 2013 #21

I am pretty clear always about what I have to say. It appears to me, based on what you sabrina 1 Jan 2013 #43

Well, keep on moving if that makes you happy. MADem Jan 2013 #45

Don't worry, I am very excited about joining the millions of Progressives sabrina 1 Jan 2013 #46

Well you go on with your bad self then--let us know what kind of a difference you make. nt MADem Jan 2013 #50

You are wasting your time. Blind adoration trumps all. I am surprised she ventured out of the rhett o rick Jan 2013 #53

I think I was the first to post on DU that Medgar Evers' widow was speaking at the inauguration Fumesucker Jan 2013 #47

it was an error qazplm Jan 2013 #26

It should be no newsflash that a Christian minister believes that homosexuality is a sin. phleshdef Jan 2013 #13

Really? I'll alert the gentleman at the National Cathedral, then--he'll want to adjust his POV. nt MADem Jan 2013 #16

I'm sorry, but is there some part of the word "most" thats difficult for you to understand? phleshdef Jan 2013 #19

I'll invite your attention to your broad-brushed subject line. MADem Jan 2013 #20

Are you dense or just pretending? phleshdef Jan 2013 #22

Your subject line does not match your message body, and YOU know that. MADem Jan 2013 #23

Yes it does. Work on your reading comprehension. phleshdef Jan 2013 #24

OK, here's an example that is similar to your little post. MADem Jan 2013 #25

Wow, that might the stupidest, most painfully desperate false equivalency ever. phleshdef Jan 2013 #27

You really do have a good grip on that shovel, don't you? MADem Jan 2013 #29

I never tried to walk back anything. Thats a complete and utter lie and you know it. phleshdef Jan 2013 #31

If your subject line was 100% accurate, and you stand by it, then we have nothing to discuss. MADem Jan 2013 #34

You continue to be completely full of shit. phleshdef Jan 2013 #35

And you continue to be rude and personally insulting! MADem Jan 2013 #37

You have been rude by personally insulting the intelligence of anyone reading this exchange. phleshdef Jan 2013 #38

You just can't help yourself, can you? By your words we shall know you! nt MADem Jan 2013 #39

Want some irony? Here's some irony- the Bible condones and codifies human trafficking. Bluenorthwest Jan 2013 #41

Well, plainly, this guy doesn't have any trouble being contradictory. MADem Jan 2013 #42

This is a great improvement over the 2008-09 debacle. yardwork Jan 2013 #3

they screwed up. DCBob Jan 2013 #5

It's been done... DonViejo Jan 2013 #9

At least they can admit and fix a mistake. (this time) Waiting For Everyman Jan 2013 #8

kick bigtree Jan 2013 #12

If you're "not aware," then what are you doing on the damned inaugural committee. Just askin'. ancianita Jan 2013 #28

LMAO!!! Suuuure! Behind the Aegis Jan 2013 #40

He was invited because of his work in combating human trafficking and then his Cha Jan 2013 #44

I completely agree. And the incompetence should be forgiven because they are Democrats. nm rhett o rick Jan 2013 #52

Note to Inaugural Committee stultusporcos Jan 2013 #48

Really? So then what exactly did he and Obama "disagree" about? forestpath Jan 2013 #49

Come on, guys. Ever heard of "The Google?" catbyte Jan 2013 #51