If Obama is the Democrat against McCain this could ruin his campaign. [Archive]

@_@ Artman

03-13-2008, 03:49 PM

I call total complete bullshit.

Reverend Wright is preaching that "God" is angry at man's inhumanity of man (he never mentions race).

That's it. It's called preaching. And it's also 3-5 years ago.

The rest is from my post in another thread, but it's worth repeating...

Meanwhile, John McCain has received endorsements from Televangelist John Hagee (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Hagee), the founder of Christians United for Israel* and the senior pastor of Cornerstone Church in San Antonio, Texas.

“Most readers will be shocked by the clear record of history linking Adolf Hitler and the Roman Catholic Church in a conspiracy to exterminate the Jews.” - Jerusalem Countdown (revised edition, 2007, p. 114)

"Anyone who makes the life of Jewish people difficult or grievous, as did the Pharaoh, as did Hitler, will be cursed by God." - keynote address to AIPAC, (March 12, 2007)

"You will either offend the world and please God, or please the world and offend God." -Faith under Fire broadcast, (September 12, 2005)

"What is the point of having free speech if you have nothing to say?" - "How Free Is Freedom?" (July 2, 2006) [1]

"Jesus did not come to the Earth to start 285 squabbling denominations fighting over the Bible. How like the devil to divide Christians over the Bible." - "How Free Is Freedom?" (July 2, 2006) [2]

"If you live your life and don't confess your sins to God Almighty through the authority of Christ and His blood, I'm going to say this very plainly, you're going straight to hell with a nonstop ticket." October, 2006[3]

"All hurricanes are acts of God because God controls the heavens. I believe that New Orleans had a level of sin that was offensive to God and they were recipients of the judgment of God for that." [29].

"Why would you want to be politically correct when you can be right?" -The Revelation Church broadcast, (February 2007)

"The most important thing to the Christian community is not the environment but evangelism." "The Fish Gate" 9/2/07

"Christians don't steal or lie, they don't get divorced or have abortions. If the Ten Commandments were followed by everyone we would be able to fire half the police force and in six months the prisons would be all half empty." "The Fish Gate" 9/2/07

*Rapture Ready: The Christians United for Israel Tour (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mjMRgT5o-Ig)

and Televangelist Rod Parsley...

McCain's Spiritual Guide: Destroy Islam (http://www.motherjones.com/washington_dispatch/2008/03/john-mccain-rod-parsley-spiritual-guide.html)

Senator John McCain hailed as a spiritual adviser an Ohio megachurch pastor who has called upon Christians to wage a "war" against the "false religion" of Islam with the aim of destroying it.

...

The leader of a 12,000-member congregation, Parsley has written several books outlining his fundamentalist religious outlook, including the 2005 Silent No More. In this work, Parsley decries the "spiritual desperation" of the United States, and he blasts away at the usual suspects: activist judges, civil libertarians who advocate the separation of church and state, the homosexual "culture" ("homosexuals are anything but happy and carefree"), the "abortion industry," and the crass and profane entertainment industry. And Parsley targets another profound threat to the United States: the religion of Islam.

In a chapter titled "Islam: The Deception of Allah," Parsley warns there is a "war between Islam and Christian civilization." He continues:

I cannot tell you how important it is that we understand the true nature of Islam, that we see it for what it really is. In fact, I will tell you this: I do not believe our country can truly fulfill its divine purpose until we understand our historical conflict with Islam. I know that this statement sounds extreme, but I do not shrink from its implications. The fact is that America was founded, in part, with the intention of seeing this false religion destroyed, and I believe September 11, 2001, was a generational call to arms that we can no longer ignore.

Parsley is not shy about his desire to obliterate Islam. In Silent No More, he notes—approvingly—that Christopher Columbus shared the same goal: "It was to defeat Islam, among other dreams, that Christopher Columbus sailed to the New World in 1492…Columbus dreamed of defeating the armies of Islam with the armies of Europe made mighty by the wealth of the New World. It was this dream that, in part, began America." He urges his readers to realize that a confrontation between Christianity and Islam is unavoidable: "We find now we have no choice. The time has come." And he has bad news: "We may already be losing the battle. As I scan the world, I find that Islam is responsible for more pain, more bloodshed, and more devastation than nearly any other force on earth at this moment."

I notice something...neither Hagee or Parsley have been reported on the MSM (correct me if I'm wrong, I don't watch much MSM), but it seems Wright has been attacked on almost all of them, including Fox News.

Why hasn't the MSM focused on especially these two either? Certainly not because Obama is ahead and leading his party, McCain WON his party nomination. So why isn't the MSM railing him on his endorsements to these nut-jobs?

Fellowship

03-13-2008, 03:50 PM

Flounder

03-13-2008, 03:53 PM

The UCC (http://www.ucc.org/) is a great church

Bancho

03-13-2008, 03:54 PM

I would like to say...

Church leaders / pastors... Keep your politics out of Church.

You people SUCK on all sides of the political spectrum.

And you do Jesus no favors with your ignorant methods.

Fellows

Fantastic idea.

Keep politics out of church. Keep church out of politics. :\

I thought that's what was originally envisioned over 200 years ago?

Fellowship

03-13-2008, 03:56 PM

Folks this politics in Church thing does none of us any favors...

My grandparents go to a small town redneck Church and were told "Barack Obama is the anti-Christ"

I was just talking to my neighbor the other day about this and a woman I encountered at the Caucus when me and this other guy who were talking about our support of Obama were chatting and this woman in a wheel chair said to us...

"I bet you two are republicans" in a snotty voice...

before we got a word in edge wise she said.... I am going to the democratic caucus because "he is a Muslim" !

Needless to say I was disgusted that this woman has so many assumptions about everything..... She thinks Obama is a Muslim and she thought me and this other guy were "Republicans"

We really need the kind of Politics Obama talks about in his book "The Audacity of Hope" but Gee....

With a pastor like his..... It sort of leaves me in a funk....

It sucks

Splinemodel

03-13-2008, 03:58 PM

Will it be a problem: absolutely. It already is a problem, whether you think it should be or not.

@_@ Artman

03-13-2008, 04:03 PM

This is not about the MSM.....

This is about how FREAKING BAD this makes Obama look....

It is really a let down for me to know this CRAP can be used to make Obama look like a fool.

But I am not the one who went to this Church for 20 years!

Obama is. It will be his PR issue to battle...

This is really really bad for Barack Obama the way I see it....

Let me tell you this has me pissed....

I was "excited" for this country and now I am not so sure I can believe in this candidate the way I did.

Fellows

That IS what's confusing you, your acceptance of what you see in the mainstream media. This is a non issue to me. But if the media is going to force feed it down your throat 24-7 it will make you believe it and it will destroy your spirit.

Turn off the fucking TV. If anything get away from it for a couple of days. I promise you it will all be over.

This. Is. A. Non-Story.

Fellowship

03-13-2008, 04:06 PM

That IS what's confusing you, your acceptance of what you see in the mainstream media. This is a non issue to me. But if the media is going to force feed it down your throat 24-7 it will make you believe it and it will destroy your spirit.

Turn off the fucking TV. If anything get away from it for a couple of days. I promise you it will all be over.

This. Is. A. Non-Story.

Nothing was force fed to me to make me pissed off about this...

I am pissed off because it really makes me think less of Obama and Dad GUM IT

I LIKE THE GUY!!!!!!!!!!!

What the hell does this do to people on the fence if it pisses me off and I like Obama??

Fellows

hardeeharhar

03-13-2008, 04:09 PM

@_@ Artman

03-13-2008, 04:16 PM

Nothing was force fed to me to make me pissed off about this...
I am pissed off because it really makes me think less of Obama and Dad GUM IT
I LIKE THE GUY!!!!!!!!!!!
What the hell does this do to people on the fence if it pisses me off and I like Obama??
Fellows

Wasn't Reverend Wright Obama's FORMER pastor/minister/priest/whatever? Hasn't he distanced himself from Reverend Wright (at Wright's own advice when Obama was a community worker)?

ABClinton is making a big thing out of nothing, nobody else is making this a story, because it has no legs.

But I sense to me it is an uncomfortable situation that goes beyond your questions of the media, it has more to do with the practice (Wright's practice) of religious preaching I think.

But that's too touchy a subject for me to delve into. Maybe you could search yourself and prove me wrong.

Fellowship

03-13-2008, 04:17 PM

why does his pastor's words have anything to do with Obama himself?

Does Christianity somehow cause people to loose their ability to freely think?

Are they required to believe everything their pastor says?

No of course not.

If either of these are true, then I am sorry, there are far far better religions out there if you want to go that route.

If neither of these are true, this makes no difference.

Actually my words about this concern of his pastor in this thread stem from seeing a montage of the kinds of things his pastor has said over the years... and quite frankly I can tell you I would not attend a Church like this and would walk out after about 5 to 10 mins of this kind of dribble.

But Obama? he has remained loyal to this style / kind / sort of preaching and the pastor who delivers it for 20 year.. It raises some flags..

I must tell you it has me concerned about his (Obama's) judgement even though everything else he has said really impresses me in a big big way...

This is not about what his pastor says this is about him not leaving a Church like this one...

If he actually likes this kind "religious service" it makes me think less of him.

Fellows

SDW2001

03-13-2008, 04:27 PM

Fellowship

03-13-2008, 04:29 PM

Wasn't Reverend Wright Obama's FORMER pastor/minister/priest/whatever? Hasn't he distanced himself from Reverend Wright (at Wright's own advice when Obama was a community worker)?

ABClinton is making a big thing out of nothing, nobody else is making this a story, because it has no legs.

But I sense to me it is an uncomfortable situation that goes beyond your questions of the media, it has more to do with the practice (Wright's practice) of religious preaching I think.

But that's too touchy a subject for me to delve into. Maybe you could search yourself and prove me wrong.

I am not worried about ABClinton using this..

I am worried about McCain using this against him over and over... Now I will say this... If Obama can handle this situation in a smart and effective way my concern will be much reduced...

But let me tell you this Does look bad from a mainstream American vantage point..

It really does not dovetail with the notion of a New Politics which is not old school like this "Church" seems to be...

This Church seems to be very provocative and rabble rouser styled. I thought Obama was much much smarter than the kind of rhetoric being spewed by this left wing version of a Jerry Falwell.

Just does not add up..

Barack Obama = educated and smart.

The style of service delivered by this "Church" = for not so smart people who like to be rabble roused...(the way I see it)

His pastor does not seem to inspire people he seems to get them all wound up.....
Not exactly stimulating from an intellectual point of view and everything else I gather about Barack Obama is that he is a VERY sharp minded intellectual.

Not some dupe who would attend this kind of place...

It really does not seem to reconcile in my mind that he could attend this kind of Church...

That's all

I hope he handles this well when McCain jumps on him with this issue.

I Don't want McCain as President....

Fellows

Fellowship

03-13-2008, 04:36 PM

My understanding is he's been associated with this man for 20 years. Why be "friendly" with this man? He's not just his Pastor, Art. And have you heard the man speak/preach? He's totally unhinged. "God Damn America?" "US of KKKA? He condemns black Republicans as sell-outs.

This man is a hateful racist. And Obama was associated with him for years. Can you imagine if a white politician was friends with someone like that? My lord! Trent Lott has to resign as majority leader because he made some nice comments about an old man at his birthday party--a man who had later renounced the segregationist views he once held.

But this is OK?

SDW2001 I hope you see that I have a balanced disdain for this kind of crap on both sides of the political spectrum... I know you must think I am only critical aganst all things Republican / Neocon etc.. But I hope you take note that indeed I share the love with all subjects / topics that rub me the wrong way.

Not trying to get a pat on the back here but I want it to be known I "share the love" with my criticisms.

I wish more people would be equally forceful with their scrutiny of all candidates.

If we don't speak out about what is wrong with this world nothing will ever change...

For the better that is..

Fellows

@_@ Artman

03-13-2008, 04:41 PM

Can you imagine if a white politician was friends with someone like that? My lord!

What the fuck is going on here. I have posted links and sources to two, TWO fucking bat-shit crazy televangelists that endorse and morally support John McCain and neither you or even Fellowship won't respond about them.

They are racists, they are crazy, they want to wipe out another religious people...
THEY WANT THE WORLD TO END.

And both of you...sorry, but both of you SHEEP are getting suckered into the BULLSHIT.

1. Reverend Wright is Obama's FORMER pastor.
2. Not only had Reverend Wright advised Obama to keep his distance, Obama has himself removed him from his election committee.
3. This is a non-story. you both and all the other sheep are making it into one.

Matthew 18:7 is instructive here (http://talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/183228.php): "Woe unto the world because of offenses; for it must needs be that offenses come, but woe to that man by whom the offense cometh."

Jubelum

03-13-2008, 05:12 PM

why does his pastor's words have anything to do with Obama himself?

Does Christianity somehow cause people to loose their ability to freely think?

Are they required to believe everything their pastor says?
.

Wait just a darn minute...

People on the right who go to church are excoriated for EXACTY these things. Those two things above are two of the most common slurs thrown at conservative people of faith. "Those damn religious wingers are moronic sheep, don't think for themselves, and blindly follow their pastors..."

And now, just because it is BHO... "Oh, that has nothing do do with Obama himself."

I love double standards. I want some in my Easter basket. :smokey:

SDW2001

03-13-2008, 05:25 PM

SDW2001 I hope you see that I have a balanced disdain for this kind of crap on both sides of the political spectrum... I know you must think I am only critical aganst all things Republican / Neocon etc.. But I hope you take note that indeed I share the love with all subjects / topics that rub me the wrong way.

Not trying to get a pat on the back here but I want it to be known I "share the love" with my criticisms.

I wish more people would be equally forceful with their scrutiny of all candidates.

If we don't speak out about what is wrong with this world nothing will ever change...

For the better that is..

Fellows

While I've been quite critical of you in the past, I have to say I really appreciate your candor on this issue. I know you've been supporting Obama, so when you say this gives you pause, it does say a lot.

SDW2001

03-13-2008, 05:26 PM

What the fuck is going on here. I have posted links and sources to two, TWO fucking bat-shit crazy televangelists that endorse and morally support John McCain and neither you or even Fellowship won't respond about them.

They are racists, they are crazy, they want to wipe out another religious people...
THEY WANT THE WORLD TO END.

And both of you...sorry, but both of you SHEEP are getting suckered into the BULLSHIT.

1. Reverend Wright is Obama's FORMER pastor.
2. Not only had Reverend Wright advised Obama to keep his distance, Obama has himself removed him from his election committee.
3. This is a non-story. you both and all the other sheep are making it into one.

Matthew 18:7 is instructive here (http://talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/183228.php): "Woe unto the world because of offenses; for it must needs be that offenses come, but woe to that man by whom the offense cometh."

We're not talking about crazy televangelists. We're not talking about people that have endorsed someone or supported him. And we're not talking about the kind of comments his Wright made. It's that simple.

SDW2001

03-13-2008, 05:27 PM

@_@ Artman

03-13-2008, 06:52 PM

We're not talking about crazy televangelists. We're not talking about people that have endorsed someone or supported him. And we're not talking about the kind of comments his Wright made. It's that simple.

Yep, nothing. You are talking about nothing. Why should I keep read nothings from you? Why should I contribute my thoughts and feelings on these issues when all I get is ignorance and stupidity?

I'm out of here. Taking a break from reading nothing from nothings like you.

From Fellowship's naivety to your supreme ignorance I've had enough.

Bye.

Northgate

03-13-2008, 07:01 PM

Funny. I didn't hear a damned thing about Hagee and McCain from Republicans on this board. :mad:

hardeeharhar

03-13-2008, 08:54 PM

Wait just a darn minute...

People on the right who go to church are excoriated for EXACTY these things. Those two things above are two of the most common slurs thrown at conservative people of faith. "Those damn religious wingers are moronic sheep, don't think for themselves, and blindly follow their pastors..."

And now, just because it is BHO... "Oh, that has nothing do do with Obama himself."

I love double standards. I want some in my Easter basket. :smokey:
i think you are making a leap of faith here...

i had a formal religious upbringing in conservative judaism -- i am what you can call a cultural jew, as i find both religion in general and faith in particular to be profoundly distasteful aspects of human nature. regardless, at no point have i ever assumed that christians are required to follow their church hook line and sinker. However, this is perhaps an idealized view of the religion as certain sects do in fact require people to have faith to that level. The requirement to believe in the literal interpretation du jour of the new testament is clear evidence to that effect.

you will find that like most things, the liberal view of the subject if far more nuanced than the conservative response...

Jubelum

03-13-2008, 09:23 PM

i think you are making a leap of faith here...

i had a formal religious upbringing in conservative judaism -- i am what you can call a cultural jew, as i find both religion in general and faith in particular to be profoundly distasteful aspects of human nature. regardless, at no point have i ever assumed that christians are required to follow their church hook line and sinker. However, this is perhaps an idealized view of the religion as certain sects do in fact require people to have faith to that level. The requirement to believe in the literal interpretation du jour of the new testament is clear evidence to that effect.

you will find that like most things, the liberal view of the subject if far more nuanced than the conservative response...

Ahhhhh.... "nuance" - the last arrogant semantic refuge of yet another indefensible liberal double standard. But hey... whatever.:smokey: I just wonder if you were speaking of a conservative candidate if your take on the matter would be different. I was not so much making a direct critique of your post, rather of the sentiment that is rooted in a stunning double standard. We all know that part of the Dem strategery is to go directly at the same religious people they've been hostile to for years. If ya can't beat 'em, join 'em, as it were.

Brings up another question... is Obama is somehow shielded from this "mindless following" and "not thinking for himself" danger inherent in Christianity simply because he is liberal and "nuanced"?

Reminds me of one of adda's finest moments... "Republican Jesus fights terror and fags. Democrat Jesus is a trick to raise taxes to buy trinkets for Negroes." :lol:

And for the record, and true to my handle, I must state that I believe that religion and the state DO belong apart, respecting both the establishment AND the free exercise clause. We're at a stage of hot-button hysteria on the former, and almost completely ignore the latter when it comes to religious freedom in public settings.

jimmac

03-13-2008, 09:30 PM

Yep, nothing. You are talking about nothing. Why should I keep read nothings from you? Why should I contribute my thoughts and feelings on these issues when all I get is ignorance and stupidity?

I'm out of here. Taking a break from reading nothing from nothings like you.

From Fellowship's naivety to your supreme ignorance I've had enough.

Bye.

Don't wory about this Artman! This really is a nonstory and won't make a jot of difference. Trust me this campaign is just starting to get nasty and will probably get worse as time goes on. In the face of things the conservatives are desperate and will try anything.

So I imagine when you don't have much to work with and there's so much stuff on the other side to work with this is just the start.

It won't have any effect though. People out there want change and McCain ain't it.;)

Fellowship

03-13-2008, 09:46 PM

While I've been quite critical of you in the past, I have to say I really appreciate your candor on this issue. I know you've been supporting Obama, so when you say this gives you pause, it does say a lot.

Thank you SDW2001.

It really bothers me what ShawnJ said in his post about me being a fence sitter...

He knows I have reasons for my views and I am saddened he thinks I was for Obama as some kind of show... and now I "can't" be upset about something which I should be dissapointed in when it comes to Obama...

Grow up Shawn.

I have every right to be dissappointed with this sorry Church Obama has been going to for 20 years.

I still have favorable thoughts of Obama and am not convinced that he would be bad for the country or anything like that but COME ON SHAWN

Look at the words out of this pastor... It really is a shame Obama would be entangled with such a bad Church and I can't believe you don't have the balls to say that as well..

Fellows

Jubelum

03-13-2008, 09:48 PM

I call total complete bullshit.

Why hasn't the MSM focused on especially these two either? Certainly not because Obama is ahead and leading his party, McCain WON his party nomination. So why isn't the MSM railing him on his endorsements to these nut-jobs?

I'll see your bullshit and raise you a distortion. :smokey:

If we're going to use "endorsements" then I get to bring up Farrahkhan. It's only fair.

Politicians cannot control who endorses them. As for Hagee, he is/was a supporter of the Huckster, and Huckabee even preached there late last year. Who else, pray tell, is Hagee going to endorse... someone from the pro-abortion party with some members who are bopping over to Syria on vacation? Come on here, what do you expect him to do? He's just Hagee the proud Zionist. He's a known quantity.

In this case, it is Obama's PASTOR, the LEADER, not some five-times removed endorsement. To my knowledge, McCain has never been a member of Parsely's or Hagee's churches.

hardeeharhar

03-13-2008, 09:51 PM

Ahhhhh.... "nuance" - the last arrogant semantic refuge of yet another indefensible liberal double standard.

Nah, it just so happens that some people have evolved the ability to hold multiple views on the same subject. i know it baffles the mind of the non-nuanced thinker, but hang in there, maybe before you die you will have had the chance to hold one of these thoughts...

Jubelum

03-13-2008, 09:52 PM

The difference is that McCain sought Hagee's endorsement.

Oof, right?

Um, I just told you why... there was a race, a competition, remember? Huckabee? McCain?
We all lined up and voted, there were pretty red, white, and blue streamers everywhere, and even a poster of the Republican Jesus.

Jubelum

03-13-2008, 10:02 PM

Nah, it just so happens that some people have evolved the ability to hold multiple views on the same subject. i know it baffles the mind of the non-nuanced thinker, but hang in there, maybe before you die you will have had the chance to hold one of these thoughts...

Go forth, great hardeeharhar, continue as a legend in your own mind...

Every time a conservative tries to explain a nuanced position, even one that explains their own moderating views, it gets jumped on here by the Usual Suspects.

I have plenty of "nuanced" positions... I just don't attempt to use the term as some faux-moral high ground from which to condescend to others. Nor do I use the term to deflect attention from a double standard that is right out there in front for everyone to see.

I have many views on many aspects of a lot of different topics... so if that is is where you want to set the bar on "nuance" I've had you covered for awhile now. The truth is that us people that lean right are just as confused, and in many cases as conflicted, as them folks on the left. :D

Fellowship

03-13-2008, 10:02 PM

The difference is that McCain sought Hagee's endorsement.

Oof, right?

Shawn I still like Obama and feel he is still the same smart, talented, future of the Democratic party but I must say you are a sack of crap if you can't admit the obvious due to your blind loyalty to all things "democratic party" if you can not speak out against the comments his Pastor made.

God Damn America?

United States of Amerikkk a

This is not even funny. If it were Parsley or Hagee I would be just as repulsed.

I suppose you don't read any of my other posts where I roast over the coals this kind of thing when it is a republican candidate who receives an endorsement ..

Why don't you come out of your comfort zone a little and learn it is "ok" to be upset at things which are really extreme and disrespectful to our country and God.

This is not about some kind of "free pass" context either...

It was just wrong like you pointed out with me when I used the b word with Hillary in another thread.

In that thread you spoke out and I was proud of you because you know what? ... You were right in that thread that I should not use such language as "angry B word" regarding Hillary.

I just wish you could be more universal in your judgement and not give a pass to certain figures who in your mind do no wrong....

Again I don't think Obama did anything wrong perhapse aside from attending a sorry Church.

It is a free country and he has every right to go to such a place but for you not to be repulsed by the words of his pastor / former pastor is telling that you play favorites and suspend harsh critisism when it is your side.

This is what has pissed me off about so many republicans too....

They give a free pass if it is someone on their side.

We all need to progress beyond this "loyalty" based on strict party lines.. and realize it is ok to call people out when something is out of place...

Fellows

Fellowship

03-13-2008, 10:17 PM

From Fellowship's naivety to your supreme ignorance I've had enough.

Bye.

The lasty thing I want is my friend Artman to be upset at me.. I want you to know I mean that and I don't think of Obama in a bad way due to this. I worry that others are going to take the bait.

If anything I am upset that Obama did not realize that this kind of Pastor if any media people did any digging at all would turn up this stuff which has been turned up.

Why would he be proud to tell so many he has been going to this Church for 20 years..

To answer my own question I think he was framed into having to tell people about his "christian" church when so many assholes were trying to make out he was really a muslim when of course he is not.

It really is sad he had to defend his Christian faith with all the lemmings out there who want to spread fear and lie about his being a Muslim when he is a Christian.

So this is a sort of shame that his pastor has these kinds of outbursts.

I still like Obama and not for one second do I think he is as stupid as his pastor seems to be to me.

I think Obama would be good for this country and I also agree that McCain is not what this country wants.

I am sorry if I was irritated about this sorry sorry Pastor...

I was 3 times sorry because it was Obama we are talking about here and I just would never expect Obama to attend this kind of place.

I might expect other types to go to such a place but... Obama?

I set some very high standards for this guy

Why? Because I think he is the real deal and at the right time.

Artman.... I am Not for McCain and I NEVER will be...

I am not a fence sitter here one bit.

Fellows

hardeeharhar

03-13-2008, 10:37 PM

Go forth, great hardeeharhar, continue as a legend in your own mind...

Every time a conservative tries to explain a nuanced position, even one that explains their own moderating views, it gets jumped on here by the Usual Suspects.

I have plenty of "nuanced" positions... I just don't attempt to use the term as some faux-moral high ground from which to condescend to others. Nor do I use the term to deflect attention from a double standard that is right out there in front for everyone to see.

I have many views on many aspects of a lot of different topics... so if that is is where you want to set the bar on "nuance" I've had you covered for awhile now. The truth is that us people that lean right are just as confused, and in many cases as conflicted, as them folks on the left. :D
you know i am just playing with you, right?

Fellowship

03-13-2008, 10:38 PM

Shawn I took a viewing of his pastor in full swing. Did you see the clip? My reaction was horror. Pure horror. Now I do realize that if I were more liberal ;) I could be less sensitive to such wording and such but it really did not strike me as a pastor or a Church which is inspirational or motivating. In fact the language used actually did offend me. This Church seems to arouse people with the rhetoric they spew. I just thought to myself in horror "This is where Obama goes to church?" Again maybe it is fully my very own fault that I have placed Barack Obama on a very high pedestal and this clip of this pastor and this Church did not dovetail with my notions of Barack Obama. I just had to almost choke to think that Obama could possibly go to this Church.

I have taken a deep breath and things are going to be OK.

I just think America needs to move in a positive direction and in my view that pastor needs to progress with better words to make his points and for the same reasons you set me straight about some of my language in a recent thread.

It is the right thing to do in this time in which we live.

Fellows

spindler

03-14-2008, 01:09 AM

dmz

03-14-2008, 01:45 AM

GEvery time a conservative tries to explain a nuanced position, even one that explains their own moderating views, it gets jumped on here by the Usual Suspects.
That's pretty darn savvy.

But to the pastor in question -- I don't think there's any real there there. He just basically said the same thing Bill Mahr or Jimmy Carter, or Jim Wallis has said: we're a sh*tty nation of pigs that like to kill people for teh Jeewz or oil.

Sociopolitically speaking, Christians are the same slaves to dead European philosophers as the rest of the citizenry. Any other skirmishing in light of what Jubelum mentioned doesn't amount to much more than sparring over a metaphysical/existential threat.

We're arguing over whether or not to acknowledge an entity that doesn't exist -- as if that could be important.

Splinemodel

03-14-2008, 01:58 AM

Here's the explanation Obama should give to get rid of the problem:

"I disagree with the political views of my pastor. These simply don't come up in church gatherings. My pastor is one of the most kind hearted people I've ever met, the kind of person anyone would trust to leave their kids with or to go into a business with. He is a great man on a personal level. This is different from the political level where he has let his frustration with the current state of black America get in the way of fairly analyzing the system. We all know people who are great, trustworthy people on a personal level but can be wacky when it comes to politics. We can admire them on a personal level, but roll our eyes when it comes to their solutions to political problems."

I don't think this would work for 80% of the people who care about this. Two sentences, max.

"I like the atmosphere of the church, but I've found I disagree strongly with the racist mentality of the pastor."

If he wants to put this to bed, it's going to have to be a zinger like that. The word "racist" is to the liberal as garlic is to a vampire, and it will have to be used. Otherwise, it's just a shrug-off.

Jubelum

03-14-2008, 04:04 AM

I like it.

It works because what the Pastor's saying at its core isn't really objectionable.

"God D*mn America."

Not objectionable.

Mmmkay.

Fellowship

03-14-2008, 08:37 AM

You do realize he wants a stronger America along social justice lines?

That was the context. If you missed that,

And Bush wants a stronger Iraq... So What... It is how you get there that matters..

The question is... Do we "get there" with inflamitory / red neck / NASCAR/ blue collar speech or with well thought out inspirational calls to forge action with many involved without saying careless and thoughtless things like "God Damn America" and KKK with this pastor or "with us or against us" in Bush's case.

How you get there is just as important as where you are trying to arrive.

Shawn you know this to be true.

Fellows

Flat Stanley

03-14-2008, 09:08 AM

The man speaks the truth.

Fellowship

03-14-2008, 09:28 AM

Wah wah.

He can be angry about the state of our country if he wants to. It's not racist, sexist, or demeaining of anyone in any way; rather it's just not up to your aesthetic standards. At least recognize you're having a quibbling over style and taste here.

You are right.. I think this same idea of style could be said to be one of the core reasons democrats, some independents and even some republicans who have switched have turned out in droves this primary. The "Style" of Bush being what it is, hard headed / cowboy diplomacy etc. etc. has "turned people off" in a BIG way (and not just in this country) which we can see evidenced in part with the HUGE turnout we see in the democratic primaries.

My point being,, Obama needs to distance himself from his pastor because as I see it this pastor will only serve to bring Obama down in terms of support the more people see this pastor and what he has said and how he has said it.

It really makes Obama look less intellectual and smart. Shawn I am not upset with you if you or Obama believes what the pastor has said is on the mark or correct what have you. There is no question his ways of making his points are inappropriate, in poor taste and from another era of old school failed politics which does not get anything done.

Now MLK Jr. is another story.

Fellows

Flat Stanley

03-14-2008, 09:39 AM

Fellowship

03-14-2008, 09:41 AM

Why can't America put aside its hypocricy and look reality in the face? We murdered the native Americans to get this land. We enslaved the black man. We essentailly enslaved the yellow man to build railroads. We treated works like trash until they unionized and then we replaced them with non-union third world workers. We have manipulated governments and peoples across the globe to get what we want.

Beating your chest in an elaborate Evangelical Church doesn't even it up in the eyes of the God we love so much to identify ourselves with.

Obama's minister speaks the truth.

Actually I agree with this statement. But I would say that to move forward in a progressive way people respond better with inspiration rather than stirred up anger at the realities of the past/present. This very criticism has been made in regard to some of the Alex Jones folks who go around to public meetings where Bill Clinton etc. go and give speeches. It is argued that instead of trying to blindside these figures with heckling and yelling it would be far more effective for these people to get involved in the political process if they really want to make a difference.

People can rant and rave about the realities on the ground all day but if people want "Change" which is the message of Obama they need to do exactly what Obama has done... Get involved in the process and make a positive change.

People can stir people up in anger all day long but it will not do much good if any.

Fellows

Fellowship

03-14-2008, 09:56 AM

An analogy:

Imagine three or four older 75+ somethings sitting around all complaining about how their doctor changed their medication and now their hip hurts. Or for another they now have gas and bloating. For one lady her knees are killing her after her doctor told her to stop taking a certain pill.

There are two options...

Do something about it / Go back to the doctor and request a change

or

Sit around in a "misery loves company" huddle and gripe, complain, moan and groan about all the crap going on.

I suspect the pastor of Obama's "Church" runs the show with the 2nd option in my analogy. He keeps people just irritated enough where they can go home and say to themselves... "Man that preacher can relate to me and my troulbles."

They show up the next Sunday which is just what the pastor wants....

But does the cycle of moaning and groaning change?

Fellows

Flat Stanley

03-14-2008, 10:06 AM

I believe fully that change comes from working constructively. I also believe that it sometimes takes a more radical and aggressive approach to get the attention needed to start the constructive process. Compare, if you will, many of the Prophets and John the Baptist to Jesus. Imagine running into Ezekiel on the street. Most Christians that I know would run the other way. I might too.

Jubelum

03-14-2008, 10:21 AM

You do realize he wants a stronger America along social justice lines?

That was the context. If you missed that, I might have to break out the giant *whoosh.* It looks something like this:

*Whoosh!*

I don't care if he wants a pink, three-tiered funeral cake with a chocolate transmission on top... a pastor is going to catch a lot of shit, and rightfully so, for saying God D*mn America. And beyond the semantics, his sentiments are based in the old-school mold that fights hate with... more hate. Exactly how did his publicity stunt do a damn thing for racial reconciliation or *real* progress? As far as I am concerned, this specimen is not really a pastor... he's another fossil of the age when you could hide behind the collar to espouse your perverted version of racial justice. THESE are the people who have perverted MLK's dream.

If you cannot even bring yourself to condemn, just a little, this kind of thing, then I really can't help you. Just make sure the next time there is divisive rage from the right that you are also on-board with minimizing obviously racist, hateful, and inflammatory rhetoric. Geez, we've gone from "Hagee, that bastard" in this thread to "we must understand and feel the pain of Pastor Wright..."

"God damn America for treating our citizens as less than human. God damn America for as long as she acts like she is God and she is supreme."

Yep... that's really going to help.

Fellowship

03-14-2008, 11:39 AM

I wasn't aware he had to do anything at all.

He's expressing his anger in a way that doesn't demean anyone.

Let him have his soapbox.

Obviously racist?

Care to point that part out to my apparently less-than-discerning eyes?

Did you not hear the part in the video where he mentioned "white america" and in a tone of voice which sounded divisive and of hate filled venom?

Shawn you can evade calling this kind of preaching what it is but it does not bolster your integrity when you give a pass in the case of when it is a democrat involved. You are no better than republicans who you know also give a pass to so many things which are flatly wrong and without defense.

So Cheers Shawn you are like the republicans who say Bush does nothing wrong because all Bush is trying to do is make America and Iraq better.

Welcome to the culinary pot and pan drawer Shawn..

http://badattitudes.com/MT/archives/GoEnglish_com_ThePotCallingTheKettleBlack.gif

Fellows

Fellowship

03-14-2008, 11:53 AM

THESE are the people who have perverted MLK's dream.

Indeed,, Indeed,, and It will subtract from all of the qualities of Barack Obama who It could be very well argued is more of the visionary sort of person like MLK Jr. and JFK

MLK Jr. and JFK were both visionaries and placed out a vision for the future not unlike how Obama conducts himself.

With MLK Jr. He laid out his Dream and it described a very good and progressive ideal and it was unifying and not divisive and may I say anyone with a conscious would find his dream honorable and admirable.

With JFK He laid out his vision of putting a man on the moon and this was very good and progressive and it unified the country and in no way was divisive.

With Barack Obama he has had a clear message of unifying the nation, all races, all ages and not pitting one group against another with wedge issues and lop-sided pandering but rather a more universal appeal.

He has mentioned a "New Politics" which if you read his book you WILL be impressed with his wisdom of this idea of politics. It is progressive and it is new and not the old same old stuff.

Back to Obama's pastor... His tactics are the opposite. They divide people and create angst and anger. These words used by this "pastor" are not acceptable in ANY context and do nothing but fan flames of yet more moaning and groaning and discontent. The sad part is there is nothing to inspire people with this method. No vision. No Dream. Just old school ineffective misery loves company moaning and yelling with bad choices of words...

The contrast could not be greater and the point is...

Obama needs make it clear he does not subscribe to the bad and failed methods of his "pastor"

Fellows

Fellowship

03-14-2008, 12:15 PM

In all honesty, I've had enough of this dimwitted repartee. If you are able to do so, please actually explain why you find his comments racist. It's really simple:

"Obama's pastor said X"

"X is racist because."

You seem to have the strongest feelings on this point so I assume it should be easy to explain...

You are conducting yourself like Bill O'Reilly on Fox news now...

*Bill O'Reilly / Shawn: You think he is RACIST tell me how he is racist..

*Poor soul being interviewed on bad show: I never said he is racist I said his methods....

*Bill O'Reilly / Shawn: Holding up his self rightious finger "No but you do think he is RACIST!!"

Shawn I am not going to play your games just becuase you think you are some kind of master debator ;) Spin artist in a no spin zone....

You my friend (as John McCain would say) need to change and stop kidding yourself.. You fool nobody with your double standards.

Fellows

LOL :lol::D:\:no:

trumptman

03-14-2008, 12:29 PM

Fellowship

03-14-2008, 12:39 PM

The claim that one can be a member of a church, listen to the pastor, write a book based off one his sermons that is the cornerstone of his entire campaign, and then claim that selective views of that pastor just don't matter is a little ridiculous to say the least. I can bang on this when I get a little time but how about we start with the fact that Obama wrote a little book called "The Audacity of Hope" which was based on a sermon of Pastor Wright.

If that isn't a meeting of the minds, a sharing of thoughts and values, I don't know what else would be.

Nick I think it is fair to speculate that Obama's pastor can from time to time actually put out a good message. No? And if this is the case I think we all need to be fair in our overall judgement.

That said I am not surprised that within this thread ShawnJ has been pretty much as expected a person who gives a pass to stink on his side of politics. And then to see you come on here and get a little political mileage from it because if you can get some traction with this it you see it as benefiting your side.

Correct me if I am wrong but it is just classic to see partisanship at work here with you two.

I am glad I am not beholden to any loyalties to some silly party of one flavor or another.

Fellows

trumptman

03-14-2008, 12:52 PM

Nick I think it is fair to speculate that Obama's pastor can from time to time actually put out a good message. No? And if this is the case I think we all need to be fair in our overall judgement.

I didn't make any judgment on the pastor and his overall message. I simply said to deny that there is any connection between the thoughts of the two is ridiculous.

That said I am not surprised that within this thread ShawnJ has been pretty much as expected a person who gives a pass to stink on his side of politics. And then to see you come on here and get a little political mileage from it because if you can get some traction with this it you see it as benefiting your side.

I wouldn't want my side to benefit at all from this than to note that racism is racism, sexism is sexism, and hate is hate. They are not "stylistic" differences or whatever it was that Shawn ridiculously claimed earlier.

Correct me if I am wrong but it is just classic to see partisanship at work here with you two.

I am glad I am not beholden to any loyalties to some silly party of one flavor or another.

I speak to my beliefs and you speak to yours. There are aspects of all parties I have condemned. However not being beholden to a party does not free one from noticing reality and addressing it with more than platitudes. This has been my beef with Obama all along. It is often my beef with you at times and so while I am not trying to knock you in this particular instance, asking where the beef is so to speak does not mean I am being partisan. People are starting to move beyond the platitudes of "Change" and "Hope" and what they are sometimes seeing isn't always pretty. That doesn't stop those two words from being powerful ideas, but it does mean that we do have to ask how the ideas would look and affect us as implemented by him.

dmz

03-14-2008, 12:52 PM

I don't see the problem here -- what the pastor said is hardly different than what Bill Mahr or Jimmy Carter, or Jim Wallis say from time to time: We deserved what we got.

I don't think many on the Left would disagree. ??

BRussell

03-14-2008, 12:56 PM

Fellowship

03-14-2008, 12:57 PM

I speak to my beliefs and you speak to yours. There are aspects of all parties I have condemned. However not being beholden to a party does not free one from noticing reality and addressing it with more than platitudes. This has been my beef with Obama all along. It is often my beef with you at times and so while I am not trying to knock you in this particular instance, asking where the beef is so to speak does not mean I am being partisan. People are starting to move beyond the platitudes of "Change" and "Hope" and what they are sometimes seeing isn't always pretty. That doesn't stop those two words from being powerful ideas, but it does mean that we do have to ask how the ideas would look and affect us as implemented by him.

I appreciate this post of yours. I find you to make balanced and fair points within it.

Thank you

Fellows

Fellowship

03-14-2008, 01:00 PM

But I think Obama can speak out very strongly against it, whereas I'm not sure that McCain can. He'd lose too many Republicans. It's a win-win for Obama to denounce and reject racially divisive, anti-American statements. He'll give a speech or two where he expresses his own optimism and patriotism and racial inclusiveness, and explicitly denounce and reject the other stuff. There's no downside. I can't imagine that blacks are going to think poorly of him for doing it. And the contrast between Obama and that stuff will only help him. If Obama represents anything, it's non-racial or post-racial. It's the cornerstone of his campaign.

Very well said and I agree with you...

Now if we can just get ShawnJ to speak out very strongly agaisnt it..

Fellows

dmz

03-14-2008, 01:05 PM

Deserved?

We didn't "deserve" what we got, but its happening is partially explainable by our foreign policy. As a sharp guy without cynical motives, I'm going to assume you misspoke there.
Mmmmmm... maybe -- how about "We had it coming"?

BRussell

03-14-2008, 01:08 PM

Very well said and I agree with you...

Now if we can just get ShawnJ to speak out very strongly agaisnt it..

Fellows
Well Shawn's a lawyer, it would be unethical for him to criticize a client. ;)

Fellowship

03-14-2008, 01:11 PM

Well Shawn's a lawyer, it would be unethical for him to criticize a client. ;)

Yeah I kinda figured Shawn is just getting some practice of trying to "argue a case" where by the client he represents has no case but Shawn's job is to hold water for the client anyway.

It is just that some of us can see through empty arguments but Shawn wants to attempt to distract us discerning folks to some other distraction method of a talking or arguing point of debate.

It is nice in theory but not always so smooth, slick or effective in practice..

No offense Shawn... You know I still love ya ;)

Fellows

Northgate

03-14-2008, 01:18 PM

Fellowship

03-14-2008, 01:22 PM

Very well said. And I agree that McCain is in a box where he absolutely CANNOT "denounce and reject" any of the religious loons that endorse him, solicited or not.

But Obama CAN without hurting his base.

I think BRussell is going to win the "Very well said" award for 2008

I nominate him and I am the deciding superdelegate with the authority of giving out this award! :lol:;):p

Fellows

Jubelum

03-14-2008, 01:35 PM

It's really simple:

"Obama's pastor said X"

"X is racist because."

Racism n. Discrimination or prejudice based on race.

Obama's pastor is the purveyor of the so-called "Black Value System (http://www.tucc.org/scholarship_pdf/black%20value%20system.pdf)" which includes:

10. Pledge to Allocate Regularly, a Portion of Personal Resources for Strengthening and Supporting Black Institutions
11. Pledge allegiance to all Black leadership who espouse and embrace the Black Value System

Let me demonstrate this for you:

10. Pledge to Allocate Regularly, a Portion of Personal Resources for Strengthening and Supporting White Institutions.
11. Pledge allegiance to all White leadership who espouse and embrace the White Value System.

Raise your ire at all? Do you get that he's NOT ADVOCATING the content of character, rather he's fixated on skin color?

Chew on this... see if you agree that this is a valid sentiment :

"It's about time for those of us still capable of thinking tribally to begin doing so. It's about time for those of us who understand what it means to be Black, to be African, to be colored in a darkening world, and who understand what it used to mean -- those of us who treasure our heritage, who honor the sacrifices and achievements of our forefathers and appreciate the civilization they created for us -- those of us who feel a sense of responsibility to the future and are determined that our people shall inherit the future, -- it's about time for us to begin thinking and planning and acting systematically in a manner aimed at our racial survival.

It's time to stop being spectators, to stop listening to the hypocritical cant of the liberals and the mindless ramblings of the conservatives. It's time to base everything -- everything -- on the proposition that we must survive, our people must survive. If a policy strengthens our people, if it increases the survivability of our people, it is a good policy. If it weakens us or puts us at a disadvantage in the struggle for survival, it is a bad policy. That's all that matters. That's all that we should consider. Racial survival must be the goal of every plan, of every policy, of every thought and action. Tribal thinking.

This quote was actually written by the virulent white racist William Pierce who founded the National Alliance.
I just put "black" and "African" where it said "white" and "Aryan."
Swap "black" for "white" in Wright's sermons, and see how fast he ends up with his own Idaho compound.

Is THIS content of character, or simply based on skin color? :

WRIGHT: Hillary never had to worry about being pulled over in her car as a black man driving in the wrong! I am sick of Negroes who just do not get it! Hillary was not a black boy raised in a single parent home! Barack was. Barack knows what it means to be a black man living in a country and a culture that is controlled by rich white people! Hillary can never know that! Hillary ain't never been called a nigger! Hillary has never had her people defined as nonpersons! Hillary ain't had to work twice as hard just to get accepted by the rich white folk who run everything, or to get a passing grade when you know you are smarter than their C-students sitting in the White House. Hillary ain't never had her own people say she wasn't white enough!

WRIGHT: The government gives them the drugs, builds bigger prisons, passes a three-strike law, and then wants us to sing God bless America? No, no, no! Not God bless America! God (bleep) America! (cheers) -- it's in the Bible -- for killing innocent people! (cheers) God (bleep) America for treating her citizens as less than human!

Does this sounds like a person talking about faith from the pulpit, or a political hack in the process of race-baiting? You decide. These are NOT the words of racial reconciliation and progress. His apparent rage is not accompishing much, except fomenting more of the same, causing a push-back among mainstream people, and giving BHO a bit of a headache for his affiliation.

Oh, and cuddling with other extremists like Farrahkhan and dictators like Quadaffi, over-the-top anti-semites and racists themselves, does not help.

dmz

03-14-2008, 01:42 PM

Guys, did that pastor really say "God F**K America"?

That can't be right -- must have heard that wrong.

Listen to this: in the consumer behavior book I'm working on -- under Hispanic marketing screwups:

To make matters worse, “GotMilk?” translates as “Are you lactating?”

Jubelum

03-14-2008, 01:51 PM

To make matters worse, “GotMilk?” translates as “Are you lactating?”

http://www.1971chevynova.com/1971_Chevy_Nova.jpg
Chevy Nova: It Doesn't Go

BRussell

03-14-2008, 01:53 PM

Guys, did that pastor really say "God F**K America"?

That can't be right -- must have heard that wrong.I thought it was "damn" rather than "fuck." Either way, I doubt God took him up on it.

Fellowship

03-14-2008, 02:09 PM

Yeah, man! This is his true likeness:

http://z.about.com/d/comicbooks/1/7/6/C/venom.jpg

In all honesty, I've had enough of this dimwitted repartee. If you are able to do so, please actually explain why you find his comments racist. It's really simple:

"Obama's pastor said X"

"X is racist because."

You seem to have the strongest feelings on this point so I assume it should be easy to explain...

Ok Shawn I have decided he actually is racist at times.

Here you go:

He makes mention of rich white eurpoean folk who run and control everything.

So that is ok? What if he were in Germany 60 something years ago saying:

Jews run and control everything.... Does he think the blacks need a "solution" to take care of all these rich european white folks who run and control everything?

I think you get the point...

Not a pastor,,, a fruitcake..

Don't believe me just watch yourself and make up your own mind...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hAYe7MT5BxM

Fellows

trumptman

03-14-2008, 02:30 PM

I dunno, I think it really is and should be an issue for Obama. TPM, which was cited earlier in this thread defending Obama, had earlier been criticizing McCain for his supporters' weird religious beliefs - anti-Catholic, apocalyptic, etc. It's a common criticism that liberals use against conservatives - how they have to suck up so much to crazy religious conservatives like Bob Jones. Well, this is really the flip side of that.

Agreed.

But I think Obama can speak out very strongly against it, whereas I'm not sure that McCain can. He'd lose too many Republicans. It's a win-win for Obama to denounce and reject racially divisive, anti-American statements. He'll give a speech or two where he expresses his own optimism and patriotism and racial inclusiveness, and explicitly denounce and reject the other stuff. There's no downside. I can't imagine that blacks are going to think poorly of him for doing it. And the contrast between Obama and that stuff will only help him. If Obama represents anything, it's non-racial or post-racial. It's the cornerstone of his campaign.

We are going to have to agree to disagree on this one. The sentiment is nice, but the reality is that so far, Obama has not condemned any of these statements. McCain has already condemned strongly anyone who attempts to take this campaign to the streets so far. I'm not saying that he will always do that or will do that with everyone, but that has been his practice so far.

Obama on the other hand has basically handled most criticism by having contemporaries condemn it as racist. The 3am call has been declared to have racist intent. Bill Clinton has been painted this way has now Ferraro. I'm sure the push back on this will be the same but I think in this instance it won't stick outside of African-American communities and as Fellowship noted, could seriously begin to divide and break up the party or at a minimum begin to dampen enthusiam and turnout.

Obama has attend this church for twenty years. He took the sermon and made it a book. The pastor officiated at his wedding. I am not about to suggest that this means they are of the same mind, but it does mean in my view that there cannot be any ambigiuity about the condemnation and that the act of condemning will itself be more personal and thus harder.

McCain may want certain votes, but condemning the random religious figure is not the same as condemning the guy that was at your wedding, that you have seen every weekened for 20 years, the guy who inspired you to write a book and speech.

So sure he can speak out strongly on it. The reality is he hasn't yet and might not ever. I'm not sure calling him a crazy uncle is a condemnation.

Jubelum

03-14-2008, 03:06 PM

I don't see where Wright is implicated in that, but regardless, that was no more offensive than affirmative action is. Switch around affirmative action in the same way you did here, and what you just wrote is offensive for the same reasons.

Yes, affirmative action *is* offensive. See, you're coming along. ;)

Also... you don't think Wright is "implicated in that" - he's the SENIOR PASTOR and it is posted on his church's website... :lol:

BRussell

03-14-2008, 05:02 PM

trumptman

03-14-2008, 05:27 PM

So Obama has a blog post on the Huffington Post (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/barack-obama/on-my-faith-and-my-church_b_91623.html) to address this. :lol: That's modern politics, I guess. Maybe we should invite him to start a thread on PoliticalOutsider.

What makes you think candidates are not already doing this my friends?..ehem... I mean uh... BRussell?

A couple points from the link...

Let me say at the outset that I vehemently disagree and strongly condemn the statements that have been the subject of this controversy.

He did what he should in this matter.

Because these particular statements by Rev. Wright are so contrary to my own life and beliefs, a number of people have legitimately raised questions about the nature of my relationship with Rev. Wright and my membership in the church.

People who raised questions were not just "stylistically" opposed. They weren't just "making crap up." The source himself says that he should have had to answer these questions and he did so resoundingly.

I bet Fellowship feels that much better about his vote now.

BRussell

03-14-2008, 05:38 PM

What makes you think candidates are not already doing this my friends?..ehem... I mean uh... BRussell? John, is that you?

Frank777

03-14-2008, 05:53 PM

I had not read those quotes from Hagee before.

But seeing them has made my respect for him go up, since I completely agree with most of them.

Splinemodel

03-14-2008, 09:49 PM

You're telling me they don't?

Nope. There are, for one thing, 3 billion people in Asia. Asia has many major markets.

You may consider this a red herring to your argument, so I'll humor you directly:

The entry of the black american into the privileged class is a rather new phenomenon, but it's not a scant phenomenon. Our generation has plenty of black representation in the upper echelon. If it's not obvious to you, give it ten years until we in our mid twenties end up in our mid-thirties, higher up on the totem pole as happens with age. Anyone thumping around on old black power agenda is way past his time, and it doesn't help that successful black are labeled as "oreos" by this same, rancorous, envious, hate-filled crowd.

Fellowship

03-14-2008, 10:06 PM

People who raised questions were not just "stylistically" opposed. They weren't just "making crap up." The source himself says that he should have had to answer these questions and he did so resoundingly.

I bet Fellowship feels that much better about his vote now.

I think he handled it very well... I saw a MSNBC video stream (not sure if it is mac friendly) but on my PC I saw a video of him being interviewed on Keith Olbermann and I thought he answered very well on this subject.

MSNBC Video Link: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21134540/vp/23640119#23640119
4 mins 52 seconds into the clip he reads my mind and makes the point I have been making in this thread.

Obama himself actually contrasted his views / methods / politics as the future with those of his pastor as being due to his (Obama's pastor) being a product of the 60's and reflecting sometimes a different way of politics.

I thought to myself:

Wow... Obama is reading my mind here....

Some quotes from his huffingtonpost entry:

"Let me say at the outset that I vehemently disagree and strongly condemn the statements that have been the subject of this controversy. I categorically denounce any statement that disparages our great country or serves to divide us from our allies. I also believe that words that degrade individuals have no place in our public dialogue, whether it's on the campaign stump or in the pulpit. In sum, I reject outright the statements by Rev. Wright that are at issue.

Thank you Barack Obama

Fellows

midwinter

03-14-2008, 11:45 PM

There does seem to be a disconnect between Wright's inflammatory rhetoric and Obama's approach. You'd think he'd attend a church with a preacher more like MLK, right? I can see that. But I think this is just a style problem, though. It's really the way Wright says things sometimes that causes problems, rather than something wrong with the ideas he's trying to convey. His rhetoric is caustic and narrowly appealing whereas Obama's is hopeful and as broadly appealing as possible.

I'm just now reading through all of this, and maybe this has been pointed out already, but MLK wasn't exactly all hearts and flowers. His too-little-read speech "Beyond Vietnam (http://www.americanrhetoric.com/speeches/mlkatimetobreaksilence.htm)" is a good example of where he was near the end (this speech was delivered a year to the day, I believe, before he was assassinated):

My third reason moves to an even deeper level of awareness, for it grows out of my experience in the ghettoes of the North over the last three years -- especially the last three summers. As I have walked among the desperate, rejected, and angry young men, I have told them that Molotov cocktails and rifles would not solve their problems. I have tried to offer them my deepest compassion while maintaining my conviction that social change comes most meaningfully through nonviolent action. But they ask -- and rightly so -- what about Vietnam? They ask if our own nation wasn't using massive doses of violence to solve its problems, to bring about the changes it wanted. Their questions hit home, and I knew that I could never again raise my voice against the violence of the oppressed in the ghettos without having first spoken clearly to the greatest purveyor of violence in the world today -- my own government. For the sake of those boys, for the sake of this government, for the sake of the hundreds of thousands trembling under our violence, I cannot be silent.

More as I read through this monstrosity of a thread.

midwinter

03-14-2008, 11:55 PM

dmz

03-15-2008, 12:30 AM

I wonder what else HRC has in her bag of political knuckledusters.

midwinter -- The Wire is, hands down, no bullsh!t, the most unf***ing believably well written series I have seen yet.

Greek tragedy all over the place.

They got Stringer!!

midwinter

03-15-2008, 12:38 AM

trumptman

03-15-2008, 05:56 AM

That's pretty much all it is.

Wright wouldn't raise any red flags if he turned down his rhetoric a few notches while still conveying the same ideas. "God damn America" = "America is failing people on the margins of society," "white rich European-descended people control everything" = "Minorities are not yet established in the power structure of our country," and so on. I don't think what he's saying is disagreeable at all. It's only how he says things.

Now, please note that he's not being racist or sexist towards anyone, so let's not think we can take racist and sexist statements of McCain supporters and clean them up. You can't shine shit as they say.

So you are saying Obama condemned them him because of his style?:lol:

Preposterous.

I can write a book based on one of Paul de Man's essays. That does not mean that I subscribe to everything Paul de Man ever wrote or said.

Of course it doesn't but then again, you haven't belonged to an organization lead by and espousing the values of Paul de Man for twenty years now either. That changes the stakes a bit.

trumptman

03-15-2008, 10:45 AM

Obama is playing politics (but our politicians would never do that, right?)

;)

They would, but then Obama isn't running as a typical politician. He is running as an above the fray, once in a generation change agent.

Anything that makes him look typical or ordinary radically lowers his appeal.

midwinter

03-15-2008, 11:36 AM

Of course it doesn't but then again, you haven't belonged to an organization lead by and espousing the values of Paul de Man for twenty years now either. That changes the stakes a bit.

No it doesn't. Belonging to a church does not make him an advocate of everything preached in that church. Writing a book inspired by one of the preacher's sermons does not make him responsible for everythingi that preacher said.

BRussell

03-15-2008, 11:37 AM

midwinter

03-15-2008, 11:38 AM

trumptman

03-15-2008, 11:50 AM

No it doesn't. Belonging to a church does not make him an advocate of everything preached in that church. Writing a book inspired by one of the preacher's sermons does not make him responsible for everythingi that preacher said.

Obama went further than simply noting he wasn't an advocate for those views. He claimed he was not even aware the pastor held such views and had spoken on them.

Which is starting to look like another line of bullshit. (http://www.nytimes.com/2007/03/06/us/politics/06obama.html?_r=2&oref=slogin&oref=slogin)

It is one thing to say that you belong to a church for twenty years and happen not to agree with certain positions taken by that organization. It is quite another to claim a complete lack of awareness of those positions. You keep changing the goalposts here. Obama claims lack of awareness, not just lack of agreement or refusal to advocate for a position.

You don't have to agree with the pastor of your church or with the leader of any organization to which you happen to belong. However to belong to that organization for 20 years, to listen to the leader of it weekly and then in the end claim a complete ignorance of what that leader was speaking about in certain areas just stinks of bullshit.

So do you have to agree with everything Paul de Man wrote or said? No of course not. However write your thesis on him, teach a class on him for twenty years and then try to get me to believe you were ignorant about him, and that doesn't fly.

dmz

03-15-2008, 11:54 AM

I had a crazy thought. This thing about looking at weird shit your pastor said is a common tactic that liberals use to show how crazy conservatives are. Even some of the specific comments are similar, like blaming America for 9/11 (although it's the gays rather than racism for the evangelicals). I wonder if some conservative Christians might feel a bit of sympathy and identification with Obama being asked to diss his pastor. It also has the added benefit of making it clear he's not a Muslim.
I think it's one thing to cite when a pastor twists off -- but another to not cite the apology.

The whole context is screwy too, since by any rational standard, even an atheist wonders what he/she/it did to "deserve" a disaster. So it's something of a coy game to act shocked that someone might come to the conclusion that America was being punished on 9/11 -- it's simply slagging on someone's philosophy, and essentially the same sentiment as the "we had it coming because Ronald Lucifer Regan sold Stinger missiles to Bin Laden".

I hate guilt-by-association/gotcha/Bulverism games.

BRussell

03-15-2008, 11:58 AM

Obama went further than simply noting he wasn't an advocate for those views. He claimed he was not even aware the pastor held such views and had spoken on them. That's not quite true. I just watched a couple of the videos of Obama talking about this, and what he says is that when he started running for president a year ago, he had heard about controversial things that Wright said. I even remember that little controversy a year ago over Wright. Obama also said that some of the things that were being played in the last few days he hadn't heard before. And he says that he never heard Wright say anything like any of that when he attended.

dmz

03-15-2008, 12:08 PM

Another thing -- I think the blasphemy-from-the-pulpit thing might be the bigger issue for many of teh Fuhndees.

another one:

from a hotel in Acapulco:
“The manager has personally passed all the water served here,”
a dry cleaner in Majorca:
“drop your pants here for best results.”

"Super Piss," a Scandinavian product to unfreeze car locks.

midwinter

03-15-2008, 12:08 PM

So do you have to agree with everything Paul de Man wrote or said? No of course not. However write your thesis on him, teach a class on him for twenty years and then try to get me to believe you were ignorant about him, and that doesn't fly.

I would imagine that that right there would be problematic for the people who had been teaching and using de Man's theories for ages only to find out shortly before he died that he'd collaborated with the Nazis during the war.

People wrote theses about him. People taught courses on him. People were ignorant of this.

Nevertheless, I'm glad you guys found something substantive to attack Obama on, finally. Obama's preacher said something ostensibly bad about America! Attack!

dmz

03-15-2008, 12:12 PM

Ford had some problems In Brazil, Pinto is a slang term for “small male appendage.”

jimmac

03-15-2008, 12:42 PM

http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/03/14/obama.minister/index.html

" Controversial minister off Obama's campaignStory Highlights
Barack Obama's former pastor has said 9/11 attacks were brought on by America

Obama distances himself from comments, calls them "appalling"

Minister also has said Hillary Clinton has easier time because she is white

Obama camp says minister no longer part of campaign "

" Obama and Wright have been close for years. Obama has been a member of Wright's church since his days in law school, and Obama's best-selling book, "The Audacity of Hope," takes its title from one of Wright's sermons.

But Obama also has long maintained he is at odds with some of Wright's sermons, and has likened him to an "old uncle" who sometimes will say things Obama doesn't agree with. He has also specifically denounced Wright's 9/11 comments "

Like I and others have said this is a nonstory.

dmz

03-15-2008, 12:50 PM

Let's keep this in the context of an extremely intelligent politician, with great Q factor, cultivating a public image.

trumptman

03-15-2008, 01:17 PM

I would imagine that that right there would be problematic for the people who had been teaching and using de Man's theories for ages only to find out shortly before he died that he'd collaborated with the Nazis during the war.

People wrote theses about him. People taught courses on him. People were ignorant of this.

Nevertheless, I'm glad you guys found something substantive to attack Obama on, finally. Obama's preacher said something ostensibly bad about America! Attack!

I could care less about what his preacher said. However I never bought into the mythology that Obama is a once in a generation, above the fray politician who brings to the table something no one else ever could. What sort of double standard are you keeping that discovering Obama is just like every other politician is now an attack?

Obama eats. Obama poops. Obama has sex with his wife.

"Dude that is a total attack. Messiahs don't do those things."

I don't expect him to raise the dead and thus noting he can't isn't an attack.

midwinter

03-15-2008, 02:43 PM

I could care less about what his preacher said. However I never bought into the mythology that Obama is a once in a generation, above the fray politician who brings to the table something no one else ever could. What sort of double standard are you keeping that discovering Obama is just like every other politician is now an attack?

Obama eats. Obama poops. Obama has sex with his wife.

"Dude that is a total attack. Messiahs don't do those things."

I don't expect him to raise the dead and thus noting he can't isn't an attack.

Huh? Obama is being attacked for something someone else said and then there's a ton of logical stretching made to put this one guy's thoughts in Obama's head. You want to attack Obama, then do it for something he said or did, not for something someone else said or did. Hell, the guy's even been fired from his position in the campaign.

But apparently that's not enough.

Frank777

03-15-2008, 04:11 PM

That would be a lot more convincing if Evangelicals weren't routinely mocked and attacked on this board for something Robertson or Falwell said.

midwinter

03-15-2008, 05:38 PM

That would be a lot more convincing if Evangelicals weren't routinely mocked and attacked on this board for something Robertson or Falwell said.

Huh. And I was under the impression that we were mocking Robertson and Falwell and those who express agreement with their wackier views. I don't recall anyone on this board ever saying that simply because some politician is close to Robertson that he must, therefore, share in those extreme views.

Regardless, this repudiation game is old.

SDW2001

03-15-2008, 07:46 PM

I like it.

It works because what the Pastor's saying at its core isn't really objectionable. If he said something like "Catholicism is the Great Satan" or "Islam and Judaism are false religions" and Obama actually sought the endorsement of a person with those views, then it's not so easily explainable away.

"God D*mn America."

Not objectionable.

Mmmkay.

Thread over.

midwinter

03-15-2008, 08:35 PM

Thread over.

It's not like he was walking around screaming "God Damn America" just, you know, for no reason.

No, no, no, God damn America, that’s in the Bible for killing innocent people. God damn America for treating our citizens as less than human. God damn America for as long as she acts like she is God and she is supreme.

Frank777

03-15-2008, 11:26 PM

Tracy Morgan will be the new V.P., or at least he should be.

Frank777

03-16-2008, 12:33 AM

Nobody else saw that on SNL? It was hilarious.

SDW2001

03-16-2008, 08:09 AM

It's not like he was walking around screaming "God Damn America" just, you know, for no reason.

That's a red herring. It certainly wasn't all he said. How would you justify "United States of KKKA?"

Huh? Obama is being attacked for something someone else said and then there's a ton of logical stretching made to put this one guy's thoughts in Obama's head. You want to attack Obama, then do it for something he said or did, not for something someone else said or did. Hell, the guy's even been fired from his position in the campaign.

But apparently that's not enough.

First, Obama is being attacked not over isolated comments, but over a pattern of anti-American, racist ranting by someone he had a long relationship with. In other words, its his judgement that's in question. If one did not believe this things, how could he stand silently and continue to associate with the man?

As an ancillary point, this is not the first time we've heard questionable comments come from someone close to Obama. Do you call Michele Obama's "for the first time in my adult life I'm proud of my country" line? At the time I, like many others, gave her a mulligan on that one and accepted her explanation of what she really meant. But taken with other bits of information (such as several passages from Obama's first book), one begins to question exactly who Barack Obama is in terms of what motivates him and what racial attitudes he has. I don't believe he's a racist per se, but he definitely has some anger going on, so to speak. Taken with his Pastor's comments and his church's doctrine, it opens up a larger issue.

Now, is the man resigning enough? No, not at all. He wasn't just some campaign worker. He was Obama's Pastor for 20 years. He married them. He baptized their children. He was their spiritual and presumably moral shepherd. Obama knew full well what his Pastor's rantings and beliefs were. He was present for at least some of them. It defies all credibility to assume that Obama could just sit there in quiet disagreement for all those years. Why would someone do that? I mean, my ex-wife and I left churches because we didn't like the speaking style of the Pastor. We left churches because we didn't agree with their beliefs. Not one those Pastors ever said anything 1/100th as outrageous and inflammatory as Pastor Wright did.

From my perspective there are two possibilities:

1) Obama disagreed with his Pastor but said nothing for 20 years. The begs the question...why stay?

2) Obama agreed with some or all of what Wright said.

Of course, I haven't even addressed the most important issue: These were not just comments from one man. In some respects Obama belonged to a racially charged church:

We are a congregation which is Unashamedly Black and Unapologetically Christian... Our roots in the Black religious experience and tradition are deep, lasting and permanent. We are an African people, and remain "true to our native land," the mother continent, the cradle of civilization. God has superintended our pilgrimage through the days of slavery, the days of segregation, and the long night of racism. It is God who gives us the strength and courage to continuously address injustice as a people, and as a congregation. We constantly affirm our trust in God through cultural expression of a Black worship service and ministries which address the Black Community.

The Pastor as well as the membership of Trinity United Church of Christ is committed to a 10-point Vision:

A congregation committed to ADORATION.
A congregation preaching SALVATION.
A congregation actively seeking RECONCILIATION.
A congregation with a non-negotiable COMMITMENT TO AFRICA.
A congregation committed to BIBLICAL EDUCATION.
A congregation committed to CULTURAL EDUCATION.
A congregation committed to the HISTORICAL EDUCATION OF AFRICAN PEOPLE IN DIASPORA.
A congregation committed to LIBERATION.
A congregation committed to RESTORATION.
A congregation working towards ECONOMIC PARITY.

Can you imagine the outcry if I replaced the term black with "white?" How far does this "commitment to Africa" go? Apparently beyond one's love and respect of this country.

SDW2001

03-16-2008, 09:24 AM

Is that like an alternative fuel source?

Cool, man.

:lol::lol:

It's not emission free though. It produces clouds of anger.

tonton

03-16-2008, 10:53 AM

Why is it wrong, in any way, and especially why is it "un-American" to say that America has been a real embarrassment to anyone who realizes that:

1) "Muslim" does not equal "terrorist".
2) America is MUCH worse off because Bush attacked Iraq than they would be if he hadn't (and we predicted as much).
3) America is STILL a very racist place for many people, and it's really difficult to compete on an equal playing field if you belong to a minority.
4) America is highly favoring rich over poor during each and every year of each Republican administration during my lifetime, yet even poor Americans keep voting for Republicans!!!!
5) Every time there has been a presidential scandal involving something other than sex or money (i.e. about IMPORTING HARD DRUGS OR SELLING WEAPONS TO NON-ALLIES TO FINANCE A COUP or LYING TO START A WAR THAT ENDED UP KILLING TENS OF THOUSANDS OF INNOCENT PEOPLE NOT TO MENTION AMERICAN SODIERS and possibly bankrupting the nation in order to take a strategic position for oil and politics), it has been a REPUBLICAN in office, yet we KEEP voting for REPUBLICANS!!!!????

It is not rocket surgery people. Stop being apologists and ignoring the fact that we HONESTLY have something to be ASHAMED of. Michelle Obama and Wright have felt as ashamed as I have. There are times when America has been so stupid that anyone who is HONEST can say "God damn America!"

Of course, it's not convenient that it's a Christian pastor who said this, and "God damn" can be interpreted as a pretty serious statement, and he should have known better, but, as Shawn pointed out, what the f*** does that have to do with Obama?

I was ashamed when Carter couldn't handle the Middle East oil crisis (even though oil prices rose less during Carter's administration than they did during GWB's administration -- explain that). I was ashamed when Carter couldn't deal with the hostage crisis. I was ashamed when Reagan introduced economic policies that would end up hurting the poor and reversing much of the progress seen since the 1950's, making the rich richer and the poor poorer ("trickle down" economics). I was ashamed when Reagan's administration fell back on lies and pretense of ignorance when it was basically proven that they sold weapons to Iran to finance the contras, incredibly likely on Reagan's orders and unquestionably not without his knowledge (unless he really was just a figurehead). I was ashamed with Bush Sr.'s "status quo" administration when there was so much that needed to be fixed (which fortunately Clinton fixed). But then I was embarrassed with Clinton's terrible "don't ask don't tell" policy, and with his stupidity with regard to his "indiscretions". Then every day of Bush Jr's administration has been a disaster. What a fucking moron whose administration made fucking moronic decisions, for less than honorable motivations. Again, more than reversing the progress made under the Clinton administration. And to be re-elected? God Damn America for that, if anything!!!!

Again, do we have something as a nation to be proud of? OF COURSE! But for many of us, we don't settle for "we've done some things right". We expect more from what we grew up to respect as a beautiful country founded on a great concept. And for us not to speak out against what is not good enough... well, that would be un-American.

Now, on to your post...

2) Obama agreed with some... of what Wright said.
DING DING DING! WE HAVE A WINNER!!!!!

Not all. Just like he said. Face value.

And "omygod why didn't Obama say anything to disagree with Wright for the last 20 years [before last week]"?

How the hell do you know he didn't!!!???

Before the 2003 Democratic Convention did you know who the hell Barack Obama was? I didn't. He may have disagreed with Wright on many occasions. It just wasn't his responsibility to publish those things.

Let me ask you... do you (as a non-Presidential candidate) always publish things about the people you disagree with that you've grown up with? If you have a teacher who claims we should "nuke Iran" did you publish writings about how you disagree with them?

There is no "guilty by association here".

Wright is one man. Obama is another. Obama did speak out as soon as the issue came up and said he disagreed with Wright. Endy story.

I claim, with all honesty, that in criticizing America, I love America more than you do, SDW. A lot of people would agree with me there, even if they disagree with some of what I've said above.

SDW, let me make an analogy. Let's say your father is an alcoholic. Do you: 1) Claim your father is a great man out of (blind) respect for him; or 2) Tell him what he's doing is wrong and he needs help?

This country is like an alcoholic father who needs help. It doesn't mean we love this country (or father ) any less. By seeking help, we're showing that we actually love him enough to make the hard and honest statements that need to be made.

dmz

03-16-2008, 11:05 AM

midwinter

03-16-2008, 11:19 AM

That's a red herring. It certainly wasn't all he said. How would you justify "United States of KKKA?"

You have got to be kidding me. What he actually said, in its context, is a red herring? Dude, are you high? Or just desperate for something to attack Obama on?

I cannot find the complete context of the "US of KKKA." Anyone know where it is?

First, Obama is being attacked not over isolated comments, but over a pattern of anti-American, racist ranting by someone he had a long relationship with.

He's being attacked over two comments, as far as I can tell.

As an ancillary point, this is not the first time we've heard questionable comments come from someone close to Obama. Do you call Michele Obama's "for the first time in my adult life I'm proud of my country" line? At the time I, like many others, gave her a mulligan on that one and accepted her explanation of what she really meant. But taken with other bits of information (such as several passages from Obama's first book), one begins to question exactly who Barack Obama is in terms of what motivates him and what racial attitudes he has. I don't believe he's a racist per se, but he definitely has some anger going on, so to speak. Taken with his Pastor's comments and his church's doctrine, it opens up a larger issue.

Now he's being attacked over a third comment that he did not make. This opens up no issue whatsoever other than that you are desperate to attack Obama and this is all you got: three comments other people said taken out of their context.

Now, is the man resigning enough? No, not at all.

And that right there is why I get pissed off when the Democrats apologize or cave. You guys never, ever let up. An apology is never enough. A firing is never enough.

He wasn't just some campaign worker. He was Obama's Pastor for 20 years. He married them. He baptized their children. He was their spiritual and presumably moral shepherd. Obama knew full well what his Pastor's rantings and beliefs were. He was present for at least some of them. It defies all credibility to assume that Obama could just sit there in quiet disagreement for all those years. Why would someone do that? I mean, my ex-wife and I left churches because we didn't like the speaking style of the Pastor. We left churches because we didn't agree with their beliefs. Not one those Pastors ever said anything 1/100th as outrageous and inflammatory as Pastor Wright did.

Ooh! More mind-reading!

Here's an option: maybe Obama likes the church more than the pastor? Maybe he liked his pew? Maybe his pew had worn a butt groove that would take decades somewhere else? Maybe the church was convenient? Maybe all of his friends went there?

A church is more than its pastor, but it doesn't matter, because you're not interested in the answer to these questions. You're interested in the way they cast doubt on Obama's character and beliefs.

How's that for mind-reading?

From my perspective there are two possibilities:

1) Obama disagreed with his Pastor but said nothing for 20 years. The begs the question...why stay?

You mean "Raises the question. To "beg the question" is a logical fallacy in which you assume the truth of one of the points you are investigating. Sort of like what you're doing in this thread. Maybe that's just a Freudian slip on your part.

Of course, I haven't even addressed the most important issue: These were not just comments from one man. In some respects Obama belonged to a racially charged church:

Of course you haven't raised the most important issue. I mean, you have three comments by two people taken out of their context! It's a pattern! And it means that Obama secretly hates America! Or something!

Can you imagine the outcry if I replaced the term black with "white?" How far does this "commitment to Africa" go? Apparently beyond one's love and respect of this country.

I can imagine if you replaced "black" with "white," because guess what, dude: every day in America is White Male Day.

I can't believe I'm even engaging you on this petulant, desperate, and hopeless smear of Obama. I mean honestly, I don't know why I'm even bothering. Hell, I don't even know why anyone gives a shit what Republicans think anymore. You have consistently demonstrated that you care more about arguing than getting at the truth; you have admitted that you will advocate for people you don't agree with. Why is this any different? Why should I believe a word out of your, um, fingertips?

Breaking news: SDW is foaming at the mouth about something else.

Here's a prediction for you: Obama will turn this little smear to his advantage by talking about the same old politics that got us where we are today.

dmz

03-16-2008, 11:46 AM

Guys, I'm reading that Wright brought up Dwight Hopkins and James Cone in his Hannity interview. Black liberation theology, unless you've been living under a rock, is nothing new -- and has been accepted by academia for years.

This doesn't mean that BHO believes that teh blacks are the chosen people, but I think we shouldn't mince words as to what was being preached over the years at Trinity. "It was just that once." "He flew off the handle.," etc.

edit: But again, how does Wright's sentiment differ from the Kos/HuffPo ethos? The America had it coming/self-inflicted wound, thing?

BRussell

03-16-2008, 12:02 PM

I want to correct something that SDW said: "Obama knew full well what his Pastor's rantings and beliefs were. He was present for at least some of them. It defies all credibility to assume that Obama could just sit there in quiet disagreement for all those years." But Obama claims he never heard Wright say any of these or any similar comments when he attended church.

But I think the larger issue is that it's very, very easy to find anger among African-Americans, anger that is easy to see as unpatriotic. My guess is that it's virtually impossible to find a black church that hasn't ever had some talk like that. And since Obama is African-American, it's going to be very easy to link Obama to some of it - friends, pastors, wife, etc. I think it's going to be THE issue in the campaign, assuming Obama gets the nomination. I think it's a good thing for whites to see, especially because I think since Obama stands for exactly the opposite of that attitude, it will be difficult to directly associate him with it unless people just really want to. And it will be interesting to see how whites deal with it - will they say "tut tut, how unpatriotic, I would never say such things" or will they maybe say "hmm perhaps there's a real reason all that anger is there." Whites and Blacks see America differently, that's a fact, and if whites just scold blacks for their lack of patriotism, I don't think that's a good thing

BRussell

03-16-2008, 12:04 PM

edit: But again, how does Wright's sentiment differ from the Kos/HuffPo ethos? The America had it coming/self-inflicted wound, thing? Don't you mean the conservative Christian "God did it because His AIDS plague didn't kill enough people" thing?

tonton

03-16-2008, 12:15 PM

edit: But again, how does Wright's sentiment differ from the Kos/HuffPo ethos? The America had it coming/self-inflicted wound, thing?

Conservative Christian Fundies: "God is punishing America because of the Gays, Fornicators and the Liberals who enable them."
Liberal Nuts: "If we keep pissing people off with arrogant and coercive self-superior economic, religious and political policies, eventually they'll fight back."

BIG difference.

dmz

03-16-2008, 12:21 PM

Don't you mean the conservative Christian "God did it because His AIDS plague didn't kill enough people" thing?
I suppose -- there's two thing wrong with that. It's not a liberal sentiment, and I'd say you're back into the WBC® standard for identifying teh Fuhndees to begin with.

dmz

03-16-2008, 12:26 PM

Conservative Christian Fundies: "God is punishing America because of the Gays, Fornicators and the Liberals who enable them."
Liberal Nuts: "If we keep pissing people off with arrogant and coercive self-superior economic, religious and political policies, eventually they'll fight back."

BIG difference.
I think you're closer than BRussell -- but you're skipping over the "deserved" part.

dmz

03-16-2008, 12:36 PM

Also, the sentiment/blasphemy from the pulpit should be a side issue.

Facts are facts -- BHO is the member of a church that is into liberation theology, an academically respectable movement.

Now, the question is this:

Do we apply the:

WBC® "McCain courted the American Taliban vote at Bob Jones University today" standard?

or the: "BHO idolizes a black liberation pastor, which makes him a Christian heretic -- a presidential candidate surrounded by America haters, Weatherunderground groupies, and ANC rejects -- which makes him a black supremacist mole" standard?

dmz

03-16-2008, 12:44 PM

"Partially explainable" ≠ "deserved"

Good job, wordsmith.

Regardless -- it's a sideshow and epiphenomenal froth -- do we play WBC® style American Taliban guilt-by-association games with BHO and black liberation theology, or not?

dmz

03-16-2008, 12:51 PM

One more thing -- let's conduct a mental exercise:

Let's pretend that John McCain had the same history/affection for Pat Robertson, as BHO has had with Wright -- Let's even pretend that Pat Robertson baptized McCain and his family, and that McCain is a member of Robertson's church.

Now, fight back the visceral reaction you just had, and tell me we don't need to cut the BS.

Let the man/men speak for themselves -- if they're evasive -- 86 their asses.

groverat

03-16-2008, 12:52 PM

This certainly makes me question Obama's judgment. Anyone who believes patent absurdity like Christianity shows a certain naivete or cynicism I find difficult to reconcile with perfect judgment. Unfortunately, no one has anything close to perfect judgment and I have no atheists to choose from.

Fellowship:

The outrage over "United States of KKK" or "God damn America" shows that loyalties are lying on the physical plane and not the spiritual plane. What is the United States compared to the will, grace, and judgment of god? Nothing. Nothing but a temporary arrangement of geographical borders and political institutions.

The United States is a racist nation.
The common theme in Christian preaching is that physical disasters are often signs of god's judgment.

As long as your faith preaches hell it is no less absurd and divisive than anything Wright has said, no matter how many smiles and hugs you sprinkle on top.

trumptman:

The claim that one can be a member of a church, listen to the pastor, write a book based off one his sermons that is the cornerstone of his entire campaign, and then claim that selective views of that pastor just don't matter is a little ridiculous to say the least.

Welcome to the life of the religiously faithful; selective absorption and application of doctrine/teaching.

I can bang on this when I get a little time but how about we start with the fact that Obama wrote a little book called "The Audacity of Hope" which was based on a sermon of Pastor Wright.

Oh yes, what a horrible concept that is!

SDW2001:

First, Obama is being attacked not over isolated comments, but over a pattern of anti-American, racist ranting by someone he had a long relationship with.

What racist comments?

And further, what the fuck does "anti-American" even mean? I think you're anti-American for even talking about this, how's that? I think you're anti-American because you wear white socks after Labor Day. I think you're anti-American because you don't sing the National Anthem at the top of your lungs every time it is played.

Can you imagine the outcry if I replaced the term black with "white?" How far does this "commitment to Africa" go? Apparently beyond one's love and respect of this country.

You do realize, of course, that there are a veritable shit-ton of nationality-specific churches in this nation, don't you?

I think you're anti-American because you don't know much about religion in America.

I think using acronyms as handles on Internet message boards is anti-American.

BURN THE WITCH!

BRussell

03-16-2008, 12:58 PM

Conservative Christian Fundies: "God is punishing America because of the Gays, Fornicators and the Liberals who enable them."
Liberal Nuts: "If we keep pissing people off with arrogant and coercive self-superior economic, religious and political policies, eventually they'll fight back."

BIG difference.Yes, there's a big difference: dmz thinks one of those is eminently logical and sensible, and the other is just ridiculous tripe. ;)

Flounder

03-16-2008, 01:31 PM

BHO

BHO

Well done. Keep it up.

trumptman

03-16-2008, 01:57 PM

That's not quite true. I just watched a couple of the videos of Obama talking about this, and what he says is that when he started running for president a year ago, he had heard about controversial things that Wright said. I even remember that little controversy a year ago over Wright. Obama also said that some of the things that were being played in the last few days he hadn't heard before. And he says that he never heard Wright say anything like any of that when he attended.

I'm fully aware of the line he is drawing here. The reality is it defies credibility.

I would imagine that that right there would be problematic for the people who had been teaching and using de Man's theories for ages only to find out shortly before he died that he'd collaborated with the Nazis during the war.

People wrote theses about him. People taught courses on him. People were ignorant of this.

Nevertheless, I'm glad you guys found something substantive to attack Obama on, finally. Obama's preacher said something ostensibly bad about America! Attack!

I really don't see it as an attack. It isn't any more an attack than running your credit is an attack. We are still considering this guy for president are we not? When did asking questions about people and organizations that might inform and influence the views of Barack Obama become off-limits?

In this instance we got an answer that is absolutely politically palatable. He condemned the remarks and removed the pastor from his organization. This is how a good president ought to behave the Democratic view and his supporters likely feel better about their vote than they did before the question was raised. I really don't get this view of yours that Obama is beyond being tested, above being questioned and such things constituted attacks.

However I do think you are worried about the real undertone here and that is when you run on a cult of personality, being found to be normal, in the fray versus above the fray, or being just one of the guys becomes political death.

This is what Hillary has had to keep contending with in her campaign. She has similar positions and she out debates him in my view. In larger states there are more debates, more commercials, mailings and less actual contact with the candidate on a personal level. When Obama encounters this the charisma advantage appears not to be able to carry the day. His campaign clearly attempts to make it clear that policy alone is not what drives a vote for him, but the "fact" that Obama is a unique individual who is the ONLY one who can make the changes our nation needs. Anything that makes Obama ordinary defeats what his campaign has put forward. Comparing platforms, policies and positions can lead you to multiple choices voting-wise. Only their candidate CAN™. Only their candidate brings the necessary level of CHANGE™ and HOPE™. Obama is Moses leading America to the post-racial promised land.

Now if he becomes just a guy... a guy who did some drugs, who chews some nicorette to kick the smoking urges, a guy who parses and dodges, who occasionally strains credibility even while taking the right positions, a guy who's wife complains that he leaves laundry on the floor, etc. then none of those are attacks, but they are all items that make him ordinary. When Obama is ordinary, has to debate, and have people compare achievements, experience, and plans for the country, he loses.

Huh? Obama is being attacked for something someone else said and then there's a ton of logical stretching made to put this one guy's thoughts in Obama's head. You want to attack Obama, then do it for something he said or did, not for something someone else said or did. Hell, the guy's even been fired from his position in the campaign.

But apparently that's not enough.

Questioning isn't an attack. Obama responded to the questions in exactly the matter he ought to, but the "aftertaste" is that of an ordinary politician. He is not the chosen one. There is no chosen one. You can go back to making a choice based off who has the positions and plans you most agree with. The problem with that is every time that happens Obama loses.

I want to correct something that SDW said: "Obama knew full well what his Pastor's rantings and beliefs were. He was present for at least some of them. It defies all credibility to assume that Obama could just sit there in quiet disagreement for all those years." But Obama claims he never heard Wright say any of these or any similar comments when he attended church.

But I think the larger issue is that it's very, very easy to find anger among African-Americans, anger that is easy to see as unpatriotic. My guess is that it's virtually impossible to find a black church that hasn't ever had some talk like that. And since Obama is African-American, it's going to be very easy to link Obama to some of it - friends, pastors, wife, etc. I think it's going to be THE issue in the campaign, assuming Obama gets the nomination. I think it's a good thing for whites to see, especially because I think since Obama stands for exactly the opposite of that attitude, it will be difficult to directly associate him with it unless people just really want to. And it will be interesting to see how whites deal with it - will they say "tut tut, how unpatriotic, I would never say such things" or will they maybe say "hmm perhaps there's a real reason all that anger is there." Whites and Blacks see America differently, that's a fact, and if whites just scold blacks for their lack of patriotism, I don't think that's a good thing

As you note, Obama portrays himself as having moved beyond or being in opposition to such teachings. The question then becomes why his actions appear not to match someone for whom this is true. He talks of his pastor's sort of generational trappings and I can understand such reasoning. It is entirely possible that his pastor moved as far forward as someone of that generation could and those who come after will respect, but still move beyond the limits of their influences. All this is totally understandable to me and should be for others.

The problem is that it isn't acceptable for Democrats who have been using the Intent Stick™ to beat the hell out of everyone else for years. Now they are doing it to each other. The fact that their first female vice-president on a major ticket, first previously described "black president" and others are now all supposedly closet racists is just the game being played against each other. The same is true of Obama and his pastor. I said early on this is the battle of the isms and started a thread on that. The real problem though is that Obama claims he is above such actions and instead the actions show him to be typical of what Democrats do here. Being typical isn't an attack, but it also is proof that he is not some once in a generation politician who has to be elected lest America lose the path to the promised land forever.

groverat

03-16-2008, 02:34 PM

trumptman:

I'm fully aware of the line he is drawing here. The reality is it defies credibility.

Why?

Obama is a national figure who, by necessity of his work, travels a great deal. Also, pastors rarely deliver sermons 52 weeks per year (we know for a fact his isn't true at UCC because they have various other pastors). We have no evidence that Wright made it common practice to rail about politics (only the prejudice of those who wish to see that as truth).

When Obama is ordinary, has to debate, and have people compare achievements, experience, and plans for the country, he loses.

Except that he's won by a lot over an expert politician with a higher Q rating than Jesus. This "the shine is coming off!" tripe has been a common meme since before Super Tuesday. Yet... he leads and continues to win.

BRussell

03-16-2008, 02:51 PM

I'm fully aware of the line he is drawing here. The reality is it defies credibility. Maybe you're aware of it, but you and SDW have both matter-of-factly said that Obama knew about his comments for the past 20 years. Obama may be lying, but that's not what you and SDW previously said - you basically said that he admitted to full knowledge of them, and that isn't true.

As you note, Obama portrays himself as having moved beyond or being in opposition to such teachings. The question then becomes why his actions appear not to match someone for whom this is true. He talks of his pastor's sort of generational trappings and I can understand such reasoning. It is entirely possible that his pastor moved as far forward as someone of that generation could and those who come after will respect, but still move beyond the limits of their influences. All this is totally understandable to me and should be for others.

The problem is that it isn't acceptable for Democrats who have been using the Intent Stick™ to beat the hell out of everyone else for years. Now they are doing it to each other. The fact that their first female vice-president on a major ticket, first previously described "black president" and others are now all supposedly closet racists is just the game being played against each other. The same is true of Obama and his pastor. I said early on this is the battle of the isms and started a thread on that. The real problem though is that Obama claims he is above such actions and instead the actions show him to be typical of what Democrats do here. Being typical isn't an attack, but it also is proof that he is not some once in a generation politician who has to be elected lest America lose the path to the promised land forever. I basically agree. Bush goes to Bob Jones University, and all the talk is about Bob Jones' statements and whether Bush will distance himself from them. McCain gets the endorsement of some conservative Christian preacher, and all the talk is about the preacher's views on Islam and Catholicism and Katrina as retribution for gays. I don't think it's a bad thing. These kinds of views are Bad™ and the leaders of the country should be pressed to say they're bad.

In my view, I don't think there's any chance that McCain really believes that Katrina is God's punishment for gays, or that Obama thinks that God should damn America. But the fact is, many conservative Christian Republicans believe in those things, and many African Americans believe their things. The test is whether the candidates will risk doing the right thing and saying that those kinds of views are wrong and destructive.

jimmac

03-16-2008, 03:48 PM

I'm fully aware of the line he is drawing here. The reality is it defies credibility.

I really don't see it as an attack. It isn't any more an attack than running your credit is an attack. We are still considering this guy for president are we not? When did asking questions about people and organizations that might inform and influence the views of Barack Obama become off-limits?

In this instance we got an answer that is absolutely politically palatable. He condemned the remarks and removed the pastor from his organization. This is how a good president ought to behave the Democratic view and his supporters likely feel better about their vote than they did before the question was raised. I really don't get this view of yours that Obama is beyond being tested, above being questioned and such things constituted attacks.

However I do think you are worried about the real undertone here and that is when you run on a cult of personality, being found to be normal, in the fray versus above the fray, or being just one of the guys becomes political death.

This is what Hillary has had to keep contending with in her campaign. She has similar positions and she out debates him in my view. In larger states there are more debates, more commercials, mailings and less actual contact with the candidate on a personal level. When Obama encounters this the charisma advantage appears not to be able to carry the day. His campaign clearly attempts to make it clear that policy alone is not what drives a vote for him, but the "fact" that Obama is a unique individual who is the ONLY one who can make the changes our nation needs. Anything that makes Obama ordinary defeats what his campaign has put forward. Comparing platforms, policies and positions can lead you to multiple choices voting-wise. Only their candidate CAN™. Only their candidate brings the necessary level of CHANGE™ and HOPE™. Obama is Moses leading America to the post-racial promised land.

Now if he becomes just a guy... a guy who did some drugs, who chews some nicorette to kick the smoking urges, a guy who parses and dodges, who occasionally strains credibility even while taking the right positions, a guy who's wife complains that he leaves laundry on the floor, etc. then none of those are attacks, but they are all items that make him ordinary. When Obama is ordinary, has to debate, and have people compare achievements, experience, and plans for the country, he loses.

Questioning isn't an attack. Obama responded to the questions in exactly the matter he ought to, but the "aftertaste" is that of an ordinary politician. He is not the chosen one. There is no chosen one. You can go back to making a choice based off who has the positions and plans you most agree with. The problem with that is every time that happens Obama loses.

As you note, Obama portrays himself as having moved beyond or being in opposition to such teachings. The question then becomes why his actions appear not to match someone for whom this is true. He talks of his pastor's sort of generational trappings and I can understand such reasoning. It is entirely possible that his pastor moved as far forward as someone of that generation could and those who come after will respect, but still move beyond the limits of their influences. All this is totally understandable to me and should be for others.

The problem is that it isn't acceptable for Democrats who have been using the Intent Stick™ to beat the hell out of everyone else for years. Now they are doing it to each other. The fact that their first female vice-president on a major ticket, first previously described "black president" and others are now all supposedly closet racists is just the game being played against each other. The same is true of Obama and his pastor. I said early on this is the battle of the isms and started a thread on that. The real problem though is that Obama claims he is above such actions and instead the actions show him to be typical of what Democrats do here. Being typical isn't an attack, but it also is proof that he is not some once in a generation politician who has to be elected lest America lose the path to the promised land forever.

I'm guessing you'll have to find another tactic to attack the liberals with. This one's getting kind of stale.

dmz

03-16-2008, 04:09 PM

BHO's joining that particular church could also be, in part, a way to work the margins for the black vote in the primaries -- then ditch the guy and try to do the moderate thing in the national. Besides, when he talks about Wright, he sounds like an anthropologist.

I read this in the NYT, so it has to be true. (from a year ago)

A Candidate, His Minister and the Search for Faith (http://www.nytimes.com/2007/04/30/us/politics/30obama.html?_r=3&adxnnl=1&oref=slogin&pagewanted=all&adxnnlx=1205690579-1J6FjMCHscfDug9T+Gn6IA&oref=slogin)

“Reverend Wright is a child of the 60s, and he often expresses himself in that language of concern with institutional racism and the struggles the African-American community has gone through,” Mr. Obama said. “He analyzes public events in the context of race. I tend to look at them through the context of social justice and inequality.”

...

Mr. Wright, who has long prided himself on criticizing the establishment, said he knew that he may not play well in Mr. Obama’s audition for the ultimate establishment job.

“If Barack gets past the primary, he might have to publicly distance himself from me,” Mr. Wright said with a shrug. “I said it to Barack personally, and he said yeah, that might have to happen.”

Let's not lose sight of the show for the dogs & ponies.

groverat

03-16-2008, 05:23 PM

dmz:

BHO's joining that particular church could also be, in part, a way to work the margins for the black vote in the primaries -- then ditch the guy and try to do the moderate thing in the national. Besides, when he talks about Wright, he sounds like an anthropologist.

He joined it 20 years ago.

midwinter

03-16-2008, 05:26 PM

dmz:

He joined it 20 years ago.

Don't you remember, though, that Kerry intentionally got himself wounded so he could get a purple heart so he could run for president on claims that he was a war hero? And that was even longer ago!

dmz

03-16-2008, 05:32 PM

dmz:

He joined it 20 years ago.
Let's not forget that his membership probably didn't hurt his local reelection efforts during those years.

Edit: Think street cred with his homies -- or is it "peeps" now? --- OMG that was really racist...

hardeeharhar

03-16-2008, 05:53 PM

Let's not forget that his membership probably didn't hurt his local reelection efforts during those years.

Edit: Think street cred with his homies -- or is it "peeps" now? --- OMG that was really racist...
Just like your membership in that club makes your spouse and children believe you are going to heaven when you die...

It's a kind of irrelevant...

BRussell

03-16-2008, 05:53 PM

Let's not forget that his membership probably didn't hurt his local reelection efforts during those years. He first held office 10 years ago. You said "BHO's joining that particular church could also be, in part, a way to work the margins for the black vote in the primaries." It's at time like these where you say "oh yeah, you're right."

dmz

03-16-2008, 06:11 PM

He first held office 10 years ago. You said "BHO's joining that particular church could also be, in part, a way to work the margins for the black vote in the primaries." It's at time like these where you say "oh yeah, you're right."
Actually the first draft did say something like that. But I got to thinking...

He was willing to associate with Wright as long as it was convenient, was willing to sit and listen to black liberation theology until he was "found out" -- and knew that day was coming (FTA) at least a year ago. He shrewdly burned that street cred for maximum effect.

I'm having trouble assigning any of that under the category of "integrity" or "change". It is, however the sign of a shrewd politician playing the public's confidence.

BRussell

03-16-2008, 06:17 PM

midwinter

03-16-2008, 06:30 PM

dmz

03-16-2008, 06:38 PM

First draft? It still says that up there.

But I'm amazed that he went to this church for 10 years before he ran for office, and then another 10 years before he ran for president, and yet in the last year it was a cynical attempt to gain street cred. That's 19 years of incredible patience.

See BRusell, your're starting this crap again -- I write something, and you completely ignore it -- don't make me sick Big Bird on you.

The Point: He was willing to associate with Wright as long as it was convenient, was willing to sit and listen to black liberation theology until he was "found out" -- and knew that day was coming (FTA) at least a year ago. He shrewdly burned that street cred for maximum effect.

Also, if you know any politicians you know they build a base of social capital from nearly birth. I apologize for giving the man too much credit, it won't happen again. :\

dmz

03-16-2008, 06:40 PM

Never doubt the deceptiveness of the Democrats!
Ha! At least we know that McCain will keep the U.S. goose on its fois gras workout. :grumble:

Although I'm not sure he knows which end the tube goes in.

BRussell

03-16-2008, 06:48 PM

hardeeharhar

03-16-2008, 06:53 PM

First draft? It still says that up there.

But I'm amazed that he went to this church for 10 years before he ran for office, and then another 10 years before he ran for president, and yet in the last year it was a cynical attempt to gain street cred. That's 19 years of incredible patience.
You want to hear cynical?

This is an absolutely brilliant move on the part of the Obama campaign to put to rest the rumors that he is Muslim.

It clearly should be a non-issue, and will undoubtedly be forgotten as quickly as Obama's wife's similar remarks, except for the lasting impression that Obama attends a Christian church...

You substitute a long standing rumor that has been impossible to shake with one that is flitting and unimportant...

It's too good to be true...

midwinter

03-16-2008, 06:54 PM

That doesn't sound like someone cynically using this for street cred.

Oh yes it does. It sounds exactly like someone using this for street cred. Someone using this very, very, very slowly for street cred.

groverat

03-16-2008, 07:02 PM

dmz:

Let's not forget that his membership probably didn't hurt his local reelection efforts during those years.

Barack Obama's nefarious politicking time machine!

Edit: Think street cred with his homies -- or is it "peeps" now? --- OMG that was really racist...

Racist? No. Sophomoric and unfunny? Yes.

He was willing to associate with Wright as long as it was convenient, was willing to sit and listen to black liberation theology until he was "found out" -- and knew that day was coming (FTA) at least a year ago. He shrewdly burned that street cred for maximum effect.

Surely, if this was all some calculated political plot, he would have disassociated himself in 2004, when his star shot so high and bright and people were telling him to run for president right then and there (2008 being something of a foregone conclusion).

dmz

03-16-2008, 07:13 PM

Well dmz I admit to not understanding what point you're trying to make about 3/4 of the time, but this time I think I addressed what you wrote. You claimed that he was willing to sit there and listen to this preacher "as long as it was convenient" - i.e., for street cred - but this time period was 20 years, 10 years before running for office and another 10 before running for president. When he ran for president, he was going to have Wright speak at his announcement until someone apparently told him not to. That doesn't sound like someone cynically using this for street cred.
I dunno BRussell, if you know a mayor, city councilman -- err, city council person -- state representative, they're just the sorts of people who swim in that stuff. They build trust, they network -- they put in their time, leapfrog through advisory committees, various staff positions, the right local resource groups. It takes years. They game the system, get known, and get a position in some departmental bureaucracy -- and work it from the inside, or go for public office, or maybe keep their developer/attorney office, or maybe even dither between all three.

That's public life.

dmz

03-16-2008, 07:20 PM

...that Obama attends a Christian church...
That's another thing -- liberation theology has nearly more to do with a social studies class, or Wittgenstein and Foucault -- than traditional Christianity. It is infested with the teaching of Barth and Tillich.

Which would lead back to traditional lefty politics.

(I'd try to play the "Obama was fine taking Communion with the pastor, he shouldn't have had many problems with the pastor's positions." thing, but I wouldn't bet they take it that seriously.)

BallmerSteve

03-16-2008, 07:41 PM

The Hellary PLOT!
Hellary said she was calling for the last time about the money I "owed" her for her campaign, so I decided to ask THE question that is on absolutely everybody's minds right now:

BALLMER: "Hillary, I will send you the ten million if you just answer one question for me:

How are you planning to shaft the Brother?

(I could hear her giggle a little, so I continued:)
With the remaining states, it is still numerically impossible for you to catch up! Yet you won't concede?
I know you and hubby well enough to know that something's up and it must be a lulu!
Bill says that you are going to do a: 'Don't disenfranchise the people of the great states of Florida and Michigan' speech! In other words: change the rules of the game because you are losing!
I can't quite agree with that theory though, you guys are sneakier than that! That whole obvious evil plot in my estimation is just a rouse to distract from your real game plan.
THEN it occurred to me, 'whatever happened to all of those FBI files you guys stole?'
Super-delegates! I get it now, that's how you know you have the super-delegates votes! Old fashoned BLACKMAIL!"

HELLARY: "But that would leave me looking like the bad gal Steve, but I must say you are partially there!"

BALLMER: "Ahhhh, you are letting your husband and flunkies plot the whole 'change the Florida/Michigan rules' thing!
hmmm ... at the last minute you will denounce the whole plot and claim to want a fair delagate count! Strictly by the rules!
YOU WILL LOOK LIKE A HERO! You will be the one who squashed the evil plot against the Black Man and then make him your water-toting VP!

HELLARY: "I didn't know you had it in you Steve!"

BALLMER: "Just one problem Hellary ..."

HELLARY: "My husband?"

BALLMER: "Yes! Won't he be ruined once you expose him and the conspirators?"

(She giggled again)
HELLARY: "I also plan on getting the 'divorcee'-vote Steve!"

BALLMER: "WOW! A four for one! You look like an honest hero, finally rid yourself of Bubba, you get the blackmailed nomination and Obama is proud to be your VP too! It's sheer evil genuis! - Check is in the mail Hillary!"

franksargent

03-16-2008, 08:10 PM

Association fallacy (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Association_fallacy)

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/2/26/WBC_protest.jpg
^
|
|
|
dmz, et. al.

:)

Black Power! (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1968_Olympics_Black_Power_salute)

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/c/c8/Carlos-Smith.jpg
^
|
|
|
Obama, et. al.

:(

trumptman

03-17-2008, 02:07 AM

trumptman:
Why?

Obama is a national figure who, by necessity of his work, travels a great deal. Also, pastors rarely deliver sermons 52 weeks per year (we know for a fact his isn't true at UCC because they have various other pastors). We have no evidence that Wright made it common practice to rail about politics (only the prejudice of those who wish to see that as truth).

I find your reasoning a bit troubling here Grove. You go on later in this thread to note how Obama has been attending this church for 20 years and how he couldn't have gone that far back in time and joined this church to get "street cred" yet somehow cannot realize that the same fact for my point. Clearly Obama was not a national figure 20 years ago. He didn't even hold office then. He has only recently become a national figure. Are we going to excuse him for travel when he was only holding state office? Even if we give him the benefit of the doubt and assume he went "national" with his speech at the 2004 convention, that gives us 16 years out of 20 where he was not a national figure. Ten of those, as you noted yourself, he didn't even hold public office. Perhaps I should apply your own reasoning against you and note that he went back in time and began traveling nationwide a couple dozen weeks out of the year in order to begin running for president twenty years ago.

Obama's church will likely have a dozen or so pastors. It doesn't mean the senior pastor doesn't give the main message on almost all Sundays. It is a church of 8,000 members.

Again Obama's position on the message of those sermons is clear but again, it totally stretches any and all credibility to suggest that out of over a 1000 opportunities the pastor never happened to have spoken in this manner and if he did, Obama just conveniently happened to not be there.

Except that he's won by a lot over an expert politician with a higher Q rating than Jesus. This "the shine is coming off!" tripe has been a common meme since before Super Tuesday. Yet... he leads and continues to win.

You have an interesting definition of win. Obama and Clinton will both likely go into the convention having "won" nothing with regard the nomination. The reasoning this meme has become so common is because it is true. Obama clearly rolled up a large number of early wins, but has not been able to sustain or grow that momentum to the point of knocking Clinton out of the race. Obama has gone from nationally leading Clinton by double digits to being in a statistical tie.

trumptman

03-17-2008, 02:20 AM

Maybe you're aware of it, but you and SDW have both matter-of-factly said that Obama knew about his comments for the past 20 years. Obama may be lying, but that's not what you and SDW previously said - you basically said that he admitted to full knowledge of them, and that isn't true.

I'll quote myself.

"Obama went further than simply noting he wasn't an advocate for those views. He claimed he was not even aware the pastor held such views and had spoken on them."

I believe I said that Obama clearly knew of the teachings of the pastor. The issue with statements is merely about parsing and good politics. Obama clearly indicated over a year ago that he knew he may have to do to his pastor what he just recently did. This is clearly because he knows what the man believes, how he speaks and the comments he has made. Claiming he wasn't there for a particular speech or sermon is basically like Clinton arguing about whether oral sex isn't adultery. It may become right in some strict sense, but the general principle has already been sacrificed to parsing and spinning by then.

The article I linked to noted that his pastor had been dis-invited from his announcement to pursue the presidency.

From the same article....

According to the pastor, Mr. Obama then told him, “You can get kind of rough in the sermons, so what we’ve decided is that it’s best for you not to be out there in public.”

Ignorance cannot be claimed here.

I basically agree. Bush goes to Bob Jones University, and all the talk is about Bob Jones' statements and whether Bush will distance himself from them. McCain gets the endorsement of some conservative Christian preacher, and all the talk is about the preacher's views on Islam and Catholicism and Katrina as retribution for gays. I don't think it's a bad thing. These kinds of views are Bad™ and the leaders of the country should be pressed to say they're bad.

In my view, I don't think there's any chance that McCain really believes that Katrina is God's punishment for gays, or that Obama thinks that God should damn America. But the fact is, many conservative Christian Republicans believe in those things, and many African Americans believe their things. The test is whether the candidates will risk doing the right thing and saying that those kinds of views are wrong and destructive.

Agreed.

midwinter

03-17-2008, 08:26 AM

Oops (http://marcambinder.theatlantic.com/archives/2008/03/kristol_bungles_key_fact_in_an.php).

BRussell

03-17-2008, 08:49 AM

Ignorance cannot be claimed here. Again, he has said that he first learned of inflammatory statements by Wright at that time, a year ago when he started his campaign, not just this past week.

dmz

03-17-2008, 09:23 AM

Another provocative essay by Spengler is up.

The peculiar theology of black liberation (http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Front_Page/JC18Aa01.html)

You guys take it easy.

franksargent

03-17-2008, 09:47 AM

Another provocative essay by Spengler is up.

The peculiar theology of black liberation (http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Front_Page/JC18Aa01.html)

You guys take it easy.

What's with you and Spengler (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spengler_%28Columnist%29)?

Previous hit and run (http://forums.appleinsider.com/showpost.php?p=1223434&postcount=50)

He writes from a conservative Judeo-Christian religious perspective using aspects of Western history and culture to comment on current geopolitical events.

franksargent

03-17-2008, 09:53 AM

Oops (http://marcambinder.theatlantic.com/archives/2008/03/kristol_bungles_key_fact_in_an.php).

http://img101.imageshack.us/img101/1091/10056315av.jpg
^
|
|
|
Billy Kristol (to the right :wow: of Annie Coulter)

Flat Stanley

03-17-2008, 10:21 AM

I like the one waving from the back right. FYI THESE PEOPLE WILL VOTE.

Frank777

03-17-2008, 10:37 AM

Oops (http://marcambinder.theatlantic.com/archives/2008/03/kristol_bungles_key_fact_in_an.php).

Oops? That's not an Oops.THIS is an Oops. (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=khuu-RhOBDU&eurl=http://www.smalldeadanimals.com/)

midwinter

03-17-2008, 12:02 PM

Oops? That's not an Oops.THIS is an Oops. (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=khuu-RhOBDU&eurl=http://www.smalldeadanimals.com/)

That's really, really bizarre.

Frank777

03-17-2008, 12:12 PM

There's the understatement of the year. When I saw that posted to SDA (a right-wing site here in Canuckistan) I was shocked beyond words.

He's obviously a Clinton supporter.
I understand Clinton's Black community support must be frustrated, but that tirade gives "going nuclear" a whole new meaning.

Flat Stanley

03-17-2008, 12:35 PM

Wow! This is amazing.

Northgate

03-17-2008, 01:28 PM

Northgate

03-17-2008, 01:32 PM

Also, I'm curious. Is the way we're to proceed from this point forward?

Are we all comfortable going after candidate's ministers and pastors, right or left?

Is everyone in office (or planning on running for office) aware of whether or not cameras were rolling when they attended church? Will they need to "vet" their minister/postor's sermon BEFORE they attend so they can verify there won't be anything said that might make it on YouTube?

Will every elected office holder now have to think hard about every time they attended church and whether or not their opponent will be able to use that sermon against them?

Northgate

03-17-2008, 01:38 PM

This is how I see it.

John McCain and Hillary Clinton's staff got together and worked out a way to take Obama down a notch or two.

McCain's folks realized that playing the Muslim fear card probably wouldn't work once they realized Obama's been attending a Christian church for over 20 years.

And that's when Clinton's folks handed over oppo research to McCain's people saying, "Look, we already getting too much shit for playing the race card, but here's some video we found of Obama's pastor. You guys need to shore up your controversies over Hagee and the other loons, we need insulation from the racial rhetoric, and we all win."

Flat Stanley

03-17-2008, 01:43 PM

I understand that the press needs something, anything, to go after Obama with. I mean, it's kinda like tradition with Democrats and the press.

But I was wondering why just a few short weeks ago the press never dug into Huckabee's pastor pass and examine any/all of the statements he made in church. Did he blast the government for support gay rights? Did he blast the government for failing to support a marriage amendment? Did Huckabee say ANYTHING negative at all about anybody or anything?

Because the way I remember it, that was considered "out of bounds" and "inappropriate".

Why the hypocrisy?

Simple. The Huckster was never a threat to win. The right fears Obama. They fear him so much they crossed parties and voted for Hillary. Wingnut radio and the wingnut blogs will now do everything they can to knock Obama down. The mainstream media will cover it because it sells Viagra.

@_@ Artman

03-17-2008, 01:48 PM

http://images.mccoveychronicles.com/images/admin/BeatDeadHorse.gif

Northgate

03-17-2008, 02:43 PM

Simple. The Huckster was never a threat to win. The right fears Obama. They fear him so much they crossed parties and voted for Hillary. Wingnut radio and the wingnut blogs will now do everything they can to knock Obama down. The mainstream media will cover it because it sells Viagra.

Agreed. I hope that McCain and his enablers are happy with themselves. Because don't think for a second that all future Republicans running for office won't have their "Christian church goin'" credentials fully scrubbed and prepped for YouTube by Democrats.

I hope there's nothing embarrassing there, particularly now that "guilt by associate" is no longer a valid excuse.

Going to church is now a legitimate mine field.

Northgate

03-17-2008, 02:49 PM

I have this image in my head of ministers and pastors checking their parishes for hidden video cameras, camera phones and recording devices before they can enter the church. I picture impeccably dressed bounces stationed strategically to make sure no one uses a camera to record the pastor's sermon. I picture future presidential candidates conducting "negotiations" with the church elders before "officially" attending.

Oh, and that nice little cottage industry that church's have of selling DVDs. GONE! DEAD! You've got to know that EVERY single pastor/minister/father is thinking about how all of this impacts their church. "Have I said anything inflammatory in the past?" "Can something I said hurt someone else's chances at running for public office?"

Are we really traveling down this road?

midwinter

03-17-2008, 03:42 PM

http://images.mccoveychronicles.com/images/admin/BeatDeadHorse.gif

Come on, now! It's not rocket surgery! There's no need to reinvent a dead horse!

groverat

03-17-2008, 04:02 PM

trumptman:

Obama's church will likely have a dozen or so pastors. It doesn't mean the senior pastor doesn't give the main message on almost all Sundays. It is a church of 8,000 members.

Are the comments in question representative of the senior pastor's "main message"?

Again Obama's position on the message of those sermons is clear but again, it totally stretches any and all credibility to suggest that out of over a 1000 opportunities the pastor never happened to have spoken in this manner and if he did, Obama just conveniently happened to not be there.

Why would Obama's commentary have mattered before he became a public official? Should he have issued press releases every time he disagreed with his pastor for the entirety of the last 20 years?

You have an interesting definition of win.

More delegates.
More votes.
More states.

Obama clearly rolled up a large number of early wins, but has not been able to sustain or grow that momentum to the point of knocking Clinton out of the race. Obama has gone from nationally leading Clinton by double digits to being in a statistical tie.

What is the standard measure of "momentum". How many momentum units has Obama lost and Clinton gained?

Obama is leading Clinton in every measurable you can conjure up. More votes total. More delegates. More contests won.

And when you say "leading Clinton by double digits", what on earth are you referring to? Polls?

@_@ Artman

03-17-2008, 04:37 PM

Come on, now! It's not rocket surgery! There's no need to reinvent a dead horse!

Remembering another Jeremiah (http://www.crooksandliars.com/2008/03/16/remembering-another-jeremiah/)

In contextualizing Jeremiah Wright’s “God damn America,” it might be worth remembering another Jeremiah who expressed similar sentiments: namely, Jeremiah. As in, the prophet of the Hebrew Bible, or the “Old Testament,” if you prefer.

Why does that matter? Because it reminds us that a core function of one who attempts to speak in a prophetic voice is to remind us that we are in this together and that we’ll both prosper and suffer together. Many evangelical Christians speak of a “gift of discernment,” not unlike the “gift of tongues.” Us democratically-minded folk might do well to remember that that core concept of a democracy is that we all have some gift of discernment. So let’s use ours and consider the prophetic statements on offer:

1. Jerry Falwell and Pat Robertson said America is damned — cursed by God, though not permanently — because we tolerate feminists and queer people.

2. John Hagee says America is damned — cursed by God, though not permanently — because we tolerate Muslims.

3. Jeremiah Wright says America is damned — cursed by God, though not permanently, suffering from hate and division, from bitterness and envy — because we succumb to hating one another.

For my money, my Bible, and my democracy, that last sentiment has the ring of truth, and I’m not even a religious man.

That doesn’t mean it’s a sentiment for a campaign trail. But it does mean that in framing this, we might want to turn our anger toward Fox and the NY Post and all those denouncing Jeremiah Wright rather than the man who says we suffer because of racism. Here is a pastor trying, perhaps not successfully, to preach accountability for hate, not for tolerance. And here is a media that is demanding that we NOT be held accountable for hate.

That is, mainstream media is telling us we must tolerate hate — Hagee — but not those who don’t believe we should tolerate hate — Wright.

Jeremiah Wright’s words were harsh, as were Jeremiah’s. As were Martin Luther King’s — “I have a dream” wasn’t his only speech, and he died holding America accountable for the war in Vietnam and the war against the poor at home. That’s not left, that’s not right, that’s not “racial,” that’s not “post-racial.” It’s prophetic. The Right’s screeching, meanwhile, is simply pathetic.

- Jeff Sharlet (http://www.therevealer.org/archives/revealing_002953.php), author of the upcoming book The Family: The Secret Fundamentalism at the Heart of American Power

...

The current media flap over the Rev. Jeremiah Wright, Barack Obama’s former pastor, strikes me as nothing short of strange. Anyone who attends church on a regular basis knows how frequently congregants disagree with their ministers. To sit in a pew is not necessarily assent to a message preached on a particular day. Being a church member is not some sort of mindless cult, where individuals believe every word preached. Rather, being a church member means being part of a community of faith—a gathered people, always diverse and sometimes at odds, who constitute Christ’s body in the world.

But the attack on Rev. Wright reveals something beyond ignorance of basic dynamics of Christian community. It demonstrates the level of misunderstanding that still divides white and black Christians in the United States. Many white people find the traditions of African-American preaching offensive, especially when it comes to politics.

I know because I am one of those white people. My first sustained encounter with African-American preaching came in graduate school about twenty years ago. I had been assigned as a teaching assistant to a course in Black Church Studies. The placement surprised me, since I had no background in the subject. But the professor assured me that “anyone with experience teaching American religion” would be able to handle the load.

The subject matter was not, as the professor indicated, difficult. The emotional content, however, was. To prepare, I had to read literally thousands of pages of black preaching and theology covering the entire scope of American history. While the particulars of preaching changed through time, one thing did not. Throughout the entire corpus, black Christian leaders leveled a devastating critique against their white brothers and sisters—accusing white Christians of maintaining “ease in Zion” while allowing black people to suffer injustice and oppression.

Typical of the form used by black preachers is Frederick Douglass’ address, “What to the Slave is the Fourth of July?” first delivered on July 5, 1852. The address, a political sermon, forcefully attacks white culture. “Fellow-citizens,” Douglass proclaims, “above your national, tumultuous joy, I hear the mournful wails of millions! Whose chains, heavy and grievous yesterday, are, today, rendered more intolerable by the jubilee shouts that reach them.” He goes on to calls American conduct “hideous and revolting” and accuses white Christians of trampling upon and disregarding both the constitution and the Bible. He concluded his sermon with the words, “For revolting barbarity and shameless hypocrisy, America reigns without a rival.”

This was very hard to take. I confess: nearly everything I read that semester pained and angered me. But four months of listening to voices that I wanted to reject made me different. I began to hear the power of the critique. I came to appreciate the prophetic nature of black preaching. I recognized that these voices emerged from a very distinct historical experience. And I admired the narrative interplay between the Bible and social justice. Over time, they taught me to hear the Gospel from an angular perspective—the angle of slaves, freed blacks, of those who feared lynching, of those who longed for Africa, those who could not attend good schools. From them, I learned that liberation through Jesus was a powerful thing. And that white Americans really did need to repent when it came to race.

Learning to listen was not easy. It took patience, historical imagination, and lots of complaining to my friends—even my African-American ones. Eventually, I figured out that even if your ancestors had been the oppressors, you can enter into the world of those who had been oppressed with generosity and a heart open to transformation.

As MSNBC, CNN, and FOX endlessly play the tape of Rev. Wright’s “radical” sermons today, I do not hear the words of a “dangerous” preacher (at least any more dangerous than any preacher who takes the Gospel seriously!) No, I hear the long tradition that Jeremiah Wright has inherited from his ancestors. I hear prophetic critique. I hear Frederick Douglass. And, mostly, I hear the Gospel slant—I hear it from an angle that is not natural to me. It is good to hear that slant.

- Diana Butler Bass (http://blog.beliefnet.com/godspolitics/?WT.mc_id=HOMEBLOGS)

groverat

03-17-2008, 04:53 PM

This notion of not knocking someone out of the race is bizarre, because a candidate has to choose to exit. Clinton today is, for all intents and purposes, Mike Huckabee two months ago. Neither mathematically eliminated, neither really capable of winning without a catastrophe (McCain keeling over; Obama eating an infant on live TV).

franksargent

03-17-2008, 05:34 PM

... and post a few links from the United Chirch of Christ (UCC) website;

UCC member Sen. Barack Obama's keynote address (http://www.ucc.org/news/ucc-member-sen-barac.html) (3/29/06) or the PDF version Remarks of Senator Barack Obama - Call to Renewal Keynote Address - Washington, DC - Wednesday, June 28th, 2006 (http://www.ucc.org/justice/ourfaithourvote/pdfs/Obama_Faith-June282006.pdf)

A Politics of Conscience (http://www.ucc.org/news/significant-speeches/a-politics-of-conscience.html) by Barack Obama (6/23/07)

'Without a vessel for my beliefs, I'd always remain apart, alone' (http://www.ucc.org/ucnews/augsep2006/without-a-vessel-for-my.html) by Barack Obama (9/1/07)

Thomas denounces smear campaign against UCC’s largest congregation (http://www.ucc.org/news/thomas-denounces-smear-1.html) (Rev. John H. Thomas, the UCC's general minister and president) (1/11/08)

Responding to Wright controvery, Thomas asks, 'What kind of prophet?' (http://www.ucc.org/news/responding-to-wright.html) (3/17/08)

What Kind of Prophet?
Reflections on the Rhetoric of Preaching
in Light of Recent News Coverage of Jeremiah A. Wright, Jr.
and Trinity United Church of Christ

The Rev. John H. Thomas
General Minister and President
United Church of Christ

trumptman

03-17-2008, 06:49 PM

Again, he has said that he first learned of inflammatory statements by Wright at that time, a year ago when he started his campaign, not just this past week.

So you believe that this is the only time he has spoken or written in such a manner and that any other instances Obama was never present or aware of in a twenty year timeframe? He is completely ignorant of the views of his pastor and what he preaches after being a member of the church for twenty years.

Is that what you prefer to believe and think?

I found this article and apparently the title changed and some people are in a huff over that. I could care less about the title but find most of body of the article very informative. It is from that right wing rag Rolling Stone. (http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/story/13390609/campaign_08_the_radical_roots_of_barack_obama)

First it contains that wonderful "meme" Groverat and others swear we have made up. Obama's platform is Obama being a larger than life change agent who is the only person who can lead us to the promised land. I've seen this reflected in several different articles but this piece, clearly a swooning and positive piece written over a year ago, understood it then as well.

Most politicians come to national prominence at the head of a movement: Bill Clinton had neoliberalism, George W. Bush had compassionate conservatism, Reagan had supply-side economics. Even Obama's rivals have political calling cards: John Edwards has devoted himself to a poverty-fighting populism, Hillary Clinton is defined by a hawkish centrism. These identities give them infrastructures, ideologies, natural bases of support. Obama is trying to pull a less-conventional trick: to turn his own person into a movement. "I'm not surprised you're having trouble categorizing him," one of his aides says. "I don't think he's wedded to any ideological frame." With Obama, there is only the man himself — his youth, his ease, his race, his claim on the new century. His candidacy is essentially a plea for voters to put their trust in his innate capacity for clarity and judgment. There is no Obama-ism, only Obama.

"People don't come to Obama for what he's done in the Senate," says Bruce Reed, president of the centrist Democratic Leadership Council. "They come because of what they hope he could be." What Obama stands for, if anything, is not yet clear. Everywhere he goes he is greeted by thrilled crowds, trailed constantly by a reporter from The Chicago Tribune who is writing a book about the senator with a preliminary title so immodest that it embarrassed even Obama's staff: The Savior. The danger here is that the public has committed the cardinal sin of political love, forcing Obama onto the national stage before knowing him well enough to gauge whether he's ready for it. The candidate they see before them is their own creation — or, rather, it is the scrambling of a skinny, serious, self-reflective man trying to mold his public's conflicted yearnings into something greater. "Barack has become a kind of human Rorschach test," says Cassandra Butts, a friend of the senator's from law school and now a leader at the Center for American Progress. "People see in him what they want to see."

You get people to realize that Obama is not the savior, but a politician, and his campaign is over.

I understand that the press needs something, anything, to go after Obama with. I mean, it's kinda like tradition with Democrats and the press.

But I was wondering why just a few short weeks ago the press never dug into Huckabee's pastor pass and examine any/all of the statements he made in church. Did he blast the government for support gay rights? Did he blast the government for failing to support a marriage amendment? Did Huckabee say ANYTHING negative at all about anybody or anything?

Because the way I remember it, that was considered "out of bounds" and "inappropriate".

Why the hypocrisy?

I think they were too busy digging into Huckabee's past AS A PASTOR. If you don't think they dug into it, you must have some blinders on. We even had threads on here about various comments he made in the early 90's as a pastor. One of them specifically had to do with... I think it was quarantining people with HIV.

trumptman:

Are the comments in question representative of the senior pastor's "main message"?

It doesn't really matter because he has repudiated the specific statements that were found. The question involves claiming not to know that the pastor thinks and speaks this way after being a member for 20 years. Obama addressed how he didn't leave the church most recently due to the fact that Wright was retiring. However that doesn't explain why he would remain a member in the past.

Let's see what the RS article from a year before this became what it is today had to say.

The Trinity United Church of Christ, the church that Barack Obama attends in Chicago, is at once vast and unprepossessing, a big structure a couple of blocks from the projects, in the long open sore of a ghetto on the city's far South Side. The church is a leftover vision from the Sixties of what a black nationalist future might look like. There's the testifying fervor of the black church, the Afrocentric Bible readings, even the odd dashiki. And there is the Rev. Jeremiah Wright, a sprawling, profane bear of a preacher, a kind of black ministerial institution, with his own radio shows and guest preaching gigs across the country. Wright takes the pulpit here one Sunday and solemnly, sonorously declares that he will recite ten essential facts about the United States. "Fact number one: We've got more black men in prison than there are in college," he intones. "Fact number two: Racism is how this country was founded and how this country is still run!" There is thumping applause; Wright has a cadence and power that make Obama sound like John Kerry. Now the reverend begins to preach. "We are deeply involved in the importing of drugs, the exporting of guns and the training of professional KILLERS. . . . We believe in white supremacy and black inferiority and believe it more than we believe in God. . . . We conducted radiation experiments on our own people. . . . We care nothing about human life if the ends justify the means!" The crowd whoops and amens as Wright builds to his climax: "And. And. And! GAWD! Has GOT! To be SICK! OF THIS SHIT!"

Now again, we don't have to discuss the specific statements there because they really aren't the point. The main point is that Wright did not preach in this manner in some rare or isolated manner.

This part is interesting as well, and no amount of spin can change the conclusions of this already year old article.

This is as openly radical a background as any significant American political figure has ever emerged from, as much Malcolm X as Martin Luther King Jr. Wright is not an incidental figure in Obama's life, or his politics. The senator "affirmed" his Christian faith in this church; he uses Wright as a "sounding board" to "make sure I'm not losing myself in the hype and hoopla." Both the title of Obama's second book, The Audacity of Hope, and the theme for his keynote address at the Democratic National Convention in 2004 come from Wright's sermons. "If you want to understand where Barack gets his feeling and rhetoric from," says the Rev. Jim Wallis, a leader of the religious left, "just look at Jeremiah Wright."

A bit more....

Obama has now spent two years in the Senate and written two books about himself, both remarkably frank: There is a desire to own his story, to be both his own Boswell and his own investigative reporter. When you read his autobiography, the surprising thing — for such a measured politician — is the depth of radical feeling that seeps through, the amount of Jeremiah Wright that's packed in there. Perhaps this shouldn't be surprising. Obama's life story is a splicing of two different roles, and two different ways of thinking about America's. One is that of the consummate insider, someone who has been raised believing that he will help to lead America, who believes in this country's capacity for acts of outstanding virtue. The other is that of a black man who feels very deeply that this country's exercise of its great inherited wealth and power has been grossly unjust. This tension runs through his life; Obama is at once an insider and an outsider, a bomb thrower and the class president. "I'm somebody who believes in this country and its institutions," he tells me. "But I often think they're broken."

Again, I don't have to judge Jeremiah Wright. However it is not credible to disavow his influence and connection to Obama. It is beyond ridiculous to claim that Obama was in the dark and only knew of Wright in passing or was misinformed or ill informed as to what Wright believed and preaches.

I noted early on that Hillary was running on a false premise and as such, it would crumble under scrutiny. Anyone who is truly informed about the election already knows she is not the most experienced out there and would question if she is truly more experienced than Obama.

Obama's premise is that he as a singular individual has some ability to solve problems that no one else does based off charisma and... well he is Obama. That too will fall apart and I think it is why one has not put an end to the other yet with regard to the campaign and gaining the nomination.

Why would Obama's commentary have mattered before he became a public official? Should he have issued press releases every time he disagreed with his pastor for the entirety of the last 20 years?

Obama has basically stated that he would not have been a member of the church if Wright were preaching in such a manner for 20 years. He became aware of such preaching and decided not to leave due to Wright being so close to retirement. Various sources have made clear that the incident is not isolated with regard to Wright. It is actually much easier to believe and support Wright in this instance even if I disagree with him because he is at least internally consistent. Obama's claims do not make sense and are not credible. You attend a church for 20 years, have the main pastor as your sounding board, write about and reference his sermons, oh and by the way, I had no idea he was talking about such things.

More delegates.
More votes.
More states.

Well the real issue is that this will run up to the convention and no one appears to want that but it won't be resolved until then at a minimum. Clinton is clearly going to win Pennsylvania and is competitive in several other states.

What is the standard measure of "momentum". How many momentum units has Obama lost and Clinton gained?

Obama is leading Clinton in every measurable you can conjure up. More votes total. More delegates. More contests won.

And when you say "leading Clinton by double digits", what on earth are you referring to? Polls?

Yes I am referring to polls but also I am noting that several more contests that favor Clinton are still coming up. You go here (http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2008/president/us/democratic_presidential_nomination-191.html) and you can see that Obama has stopped his upward trajectory and is heading down a bit. Gaining 45-55% of the vote and delegates between now and the convention is not enough to get either candidate above the number needed to clinch the nomination.

franksargent

03-17-2008, 07:10 PM

So you believe that this is the only time he has spoken or written in such a manner and that any other instances Obama was never present or aware of in a twenty year timeframe? He is completely ignorant of the views of his pastor and what he preaches after being a member of the church for twenty years.

Is that what you prefer to believe and think?

I found this article and apparently the title changed and some people are in a huff over that. I could care less about the title but find most of body of the article very informative. It is from that right wing rag Rolling Stone. (http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/story/13390609/campaign_08_the_radical_roots_of_barack_obama)
.
yappity
.
.
.
ideology
.
.
.
yap
.
.
.
yap
.
.
.
ideology
.
.
.
yappity, yap, yap, yap

... and Rolling Stone is endorsing Barack Obama! :D

A New Hope (http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/story/19106551/a_new_hope)
We need to recover the spiritual and moral direction that should describe our country and ourselves. We see this in Obama, and we see the promise he represents to bring factions together, to achieve again the unity that drives great change and faces difficult, and inconvenient, truths and peril.

We need to send a message to ourselves and to the world that we truly do stand for life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. And in electing an African-American, we also profoundly renounce an ugliness and violence in our national character that have been further stoked by our president in these last eight years.
Love that title. :p

Trumpity, I'd suggest you update you subscription to RS. :lol:

Northgate

03-17-2008, 07:44 PM

I think they were too busy digging into Huckabee's past AS A PASTOR. If you don't think they dug into it, you must have some blinders on. We even had threads on here about various comments he made in the early 90's as a pastor. One of them specifically had to do with... I think it was quarantining people with HIV.

I can't tell if you're upset that they dug into Huckabee's past as a pastor or if you feel that it's fair game.

Oh, and the "quarantine" thing was while he was governor.

BRussell

03-17-2008, 08:33 PM

groverat

03-17-2008, 10:47 PM

So you believe that this is the only time he has spoken or written in such a manner and that any other instances Obama was never present or aware of in a twenty year timeframe?

The problem here is how vague this is. "Spoken or written in such a manner"? What does that mean? In what manner? In a manner that seems to not meet the muster of post-9/11 patriotism?

It seems like the new standard is that Obama's pastor, unlike every other pastor in the goddam world, must never say anything the least bit controversial lest he be an Angry Black Man That Hates America and, by proxy, Obama is an Angry Black Man That Hates America.

I sincerely doubt that Obama has never heard Wright say anything controversial, and since I've actually read his books I know that Obama has heard Wright say controversial things. What does it matter? The worst of what Wright is being quoted as saying is fairly tame as far as kooky preachers go.

I bet Obama has missed a whole lot of Wright sermons. I bet he's missed some controversial ones (we know he missed the July 22nd, 2007 one). What you (and others) are now doing is casting the net so wide that you can't help but catch something, but you've stopped caring what, exactly, you're bringing in.

I think they were too busy digging into Huckabee's past AS A PASTOR.

Huckabee's comments as a pastor didn't get 1/10th the media run of Obama's pastor. And it's not even close to being over. Huckabee isn't an Angry Black Man, though.

The question involves claiming not to know that the pastor thinks and speaks this way after being a member for 20 years. Obama addressed how he didn't leave the church most recently due to the fact that Wright was retiring. However that doesn't explain why he would remain a member in the past.

Perhaps he simply thought the good outweighed the bad and there wouldn't be any public scrutiny to blow it up and poison it. Simple enough.

The main point is that Wright did not preach in this manner in some rare or isolated manner.

You do not know whether or not that is true.

This part is interesting as well, and no amount of spin can change the conclusions of this already year old article...."If you want to understand where Barack gets his feeling and rhetoric from," says the Rev. Jim Wallis, a leader of the religious left, "just look at Jeremiah Wright."[/i][quote]

I think you just knifed your own argument in the heart. Obama isn't nearly the dynamic speaker people (mainly his detractors), say he is. He doesn't get high-pitched, he doesn't do the wide-eyed preacher shout, he doesn't move with flourishes and gesticulate wildly. He sometimes follows a good , rhythmic cadence. Watch the videos of Wright then go watch any Obama video; Barack is very different.

[quote] Obama has basically stated that he would not have been a member of the church if Wright were preaching in such a manner for 20 years.

The use of "basically" in this sense is the equivalent of saying "this isn't what the person said, but it's what I wanted him to say". Obama said that he would have recently left had it not been for Wright's imminent retirement.
1 - That could be because Wright started going off the deep end .(Why did he retire?)
2 - That could be because the media/public scrutiny would be far too much to let the UCC operate in peace.

You are putting onto this situation that which you desire to see, not that which you can rationally deduce from the facts at hand.

Well the real issue is that this will run up to the convention and no one appears to want that but it won't be resolved until then at a minimum. Clinton is clearly going to win Pennsylvania and is competitive in several other states.

Ah yes, the "real issue". :lol:
This will be over before the convention.

Gaining 45-55% of the vote and delegates between now and the convention is not enough to get either candidate above the number needed to clinch the nomination.

Hillary can't catch him.

Frank777

03-17-2008, 10:59 PM

Huckabee's comments as a pastor didn't get 1/10th the media run of Obama's pastor. And it's not even close to being over. Huckabee isn't an Angry Black Man, though.

I have to take exception to this part. Huckabee's ENTIRE CANDIDACY was written off by the media because of his past as a Pastor. There was no need to scrutinize his every comment since he was continuously portrayed as being 'unelectable' to high office.

At times it was bewildering, given that the man had spent 10 years as a successful state governor.

Judging from media reports, one would think he was some wild-eyed fundamentalist ready to outlaw abortion and build bomb shelters across the country for the chaos after the Rapture. And I don't remember any of the Obama-Avengers in this thread taking issue with this kind of treatment.

Perhaps Northgate, you should have asked that good question a bit sooner.

midwinter

03-17-2008, 11:11 PM

I have to take exception to this part. Huckabee's ENTIRE CANDIDACY was written off by the media because of his past as a Pastor.

I'm sorry? Written off? By whom? Huckabee was enormously popular among lots and lots of people (my redneck family loooooooves him). His only problem was that Romney was the favorite son and the GOP seriously miscalculated on how the country would react to his being a member of the LDS church (I can only assume they figured all Christians is Christians to all other Christians).

Huckabee was a serious challenge to the establishment and stayed in the race until Romney was run off and then for a little while longer as a token to make sure his issues got heard.

He was hardly written off. And, importantly, I don't remember a single discussion anywhere of any of his sermons. Ever.

Judging from media reports, one would think he was some wild-eyed fundamentalist ready to outlaw abortion and build bomb shelters across the country for the chaos after the Rapture.

I don't know much about his theology. I assume he would outlaw abortion if given the chance, right? I assume he believes in the rapture?

And I don't remember any of the Obama-Avengers in this thread taking issue with this kind of treatment.

Why would they? These would be issues about what Huckabee said.

groverat

03-17-2008, 11:40 PM

Frank777:

There's a difference between no taking Huckabee seriously and seriously examining what he said as a pastor. His sermons weren't ever really scrutinized. He was dismissed partially because he was a preacher but also because he's a popcorn-fried-squirrel-eatin' yokel from Arkansas with bad teeth, a horrible last name, and no real support from the establishment (and that's the death knell for a Republican candidate).

What I meant is what I said, Huckabee's comments as a pastor didn't get 1/10th the media run of Obama's pastor. That's an understatement.

As far as not defending Huckabee, what was there to defend against? I am all for taking Wright to task for his stupid statements (redundant qualification seeing as he's a Christian preacher, it is their job to say stupid, irrational things).

I like Huckabee personally. He seems like a great guy, probably the most likeable guy on the campaign trail. He plays bass guitar! I think his failure as a candidate stems from him being yet another white Southern evangelical Christian male; the last fucking thing we need as president, even if he's as spiffy and nice as the day is long. If our nation didn't have a history of being dominated by just that narrow subset of humans I would think it unfair.

franksargent

03-17-2008, 11:43 PM

I have to take exception to this part. Huckabee's ENTIRE CANDIDACY was written off by the media because of his past as a Pastor. There was no need to scrutinize his every comment since he was continuously portrayed as being 'unelectable' to high office.

At times it was bewildering, given that the man had spent 10 years as a successful state governor.

Judging from media reports, one would think he was some wild-eyed fundamentalist ready to outlaw abortion and build bomb shelters across the country for the chaos after the Rapture. And I don't remember any of the Obama-Avengers in this thread taking issue with this kind of treatment.

Perhaps Northgate, you should have asked that good question a bit sooner.

Because you didn't watch/listen/read what I did down here in the Deep South! :\

Before this is through, Obama will get 100 times the exposure on his faith as Romney got, or can only now dream about having gotten if he were the GOP candidate.

Romney got 10 times the exposure/scrutiny as Huckabee did on his faith.

How much exposure did Gravel, Paul, McCain, Clinton, Edwards, Giuliani, Thompson, Biden, Dodd, Hunter, and Kucinich combined get with respect to their faiths?

Perhaps 1/10th what Huckabee received.

You should take this last statement seriously:

Your faith blinds your objectivity as to the truth of the matter, you see only that which upsets you, and are otherwise ignorant. :\

Splinemodel

03-17-2008, 11:59 PM

I'm sorry? Written off? By whom? Huckabee was enormously popular among lots and lots of people (my redneck family loooooooves him). His only problem was that Romney was the favorite son and the GOP seriously miscalculated on how the country would react to his being a member of the LDS church (I can only assume they figured all Christians is Christians to all other Christians)..

Supposedly, 23% of the country identify themselves as evangelical Christians. If you slice-off a few percentage points for the not-so-southern evangelicals and a little more for the handful of disenfranchised evangelicals, you end up with Huckabee's voters. Huckabee was a special interest candidate, and this was most certainly recognized by the media, early on. If it weren't for Huckabee, it's likely that Romney would have won the primary, but Huckabee is very charismatic and very evangelical, and that was enough for him to sway voters from Romney. If Huckabee weren't in the race, the same group would most likely stand behind Romney -- LDS isn't so big a culture shock to the evangelical community. In fact, I would argue that the evangelical community is extremely accepting of anyone that is accepting of them.

Flat Stanley

03-18-2008, 09:55 AM

This does create a difficult situation for the Democratic leadership. There is a real concern that white America will be afraid to vote for Obama if this situation is not diffused soon. The McCain campaign and its accessory wing nut media will do everything they can to perpetuate this fear. If the Dem leadership backs off of Obama and gives Hill the nod, they will lose the mass of voters brought into the process by Obama. These voters will take their iPods and go home. Meanwhile, McCain is rolling around Iraq dressed like Sargent Hulka and playing the role of the all-American hero. Obama has his work cut out for him. Meanwhile, the real issues sit .

SDW2001

03-18-2008, 08:24 PM

You have got to be kidding me. What he actually said, in its context, is a red herring? Dude, are you high? Or just desperate for something to attack Obama on?

I cannot find the complete context of the "US of KKKA." Anyone know where it is?

I believe you will find it here:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8M-kD0QdRJk

He's being attacked over two comments, as far as I can tell.

Now he's being attacked over a third comment that he did not make. This opens up no issue whatsoever other than that you are desperate to attack Obama and this is all you got: three comments other people said taken out of their context.

Out of context? :lol: LOL! I think maybe you meant "double standard."

And that right there is why I get pissed off when the Democrats apologize or cave. You guys never, ever let up. An apology is never enough. A firing is never enough.

An apology is not enough is this case. It's like apologizing to your wife for a 20- year gay affair.

Ooh! More mind-reading!

Here's an option: maybe Obama likes the church more than the pastor? Maybe he liked his pew? Maybe his pew had worn a butt groove that would take decades somewhere else? Maybe the church was convenient? Maybe all of his friends went there?

And any one of those (or all together) would be good reason to stay given Wright's racist, anti-American comments over the years? Would you tolerate that from your Pastor? What if your Pastor was a white supremacist? Somehow I think that butt groove wouldn't matter much.

A church is more than its pastor, but it doesn't matter, because you're not interested in the answer to these questions. You're interested in the way they cast doubt on Obama's character and beliefs.

How's that for mind-reading?

Pretty shitty, actually.

You mean "Raises the question. To "beg the question" is a logical fallacy in which you assume the truth of one of the points you are investigating. Sort of like what you're doing in this thread. Maybe that's just a Freudian slip on your part.

Dick.

Of course you haven't raised the most important issue. I mean, you have three comments by two people taken out of their context! It's a pattern! And it means that Obama secretly hates America! Or something!

Go listen to to context then, mid. Really. As for Obama, of course it doesn't mean he hates America. It means I question his judgement, as I would anyone who would associate with a person who spewed forth such rhetoric.

I can imagine if you replaced "black" with "white," because guess what, dude: every day in America is White Male Day.

Not anymore. Now everyday is Blame White America Day....held concurrently with White Racism Day, Sexism Day, Migrant Worker Day, Poor People with No Health Insurance Day, and the all important LGBTQSWAOMFGBBQ (Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Transgendered, Queer, Sex-With-Animals, Oh My Fucking God, Barbeque) Rights Day.

I can't believe I'm even engaging you on this petulant, desperate, and hopeless smear of Obama.

Whoah. Petulant, hopeless, desperate smear? :wow: I'm surprised, even with that coming from you. Go back and watch the comments on video. Then imagine if this was a predominantly white church with a white Pastor and white male politician. Then substitute similar rhetoric. Tell me you'd not be within your rights to express serious concern.

I mean honestly, I don't know why I'm even bothering. Hell, I don't even know why anyone gives a shit what apologist Democrats think anymore. You have consistently demonstrated that you care more about defending the indefensible than getting at the truth; you have admitted that you will advocate for people you don't agree with. Why is this any different? Why should I believe a word out of your, um, fingertips?

Fixed that for you.

Breaking news: SDW is foaming at the mouth about something else.

I'm not even the one who started the thread. I'm certainly not saying Obama is anti-American or even racist. I'm saying I question his judgement and perhaps even values based on his two decade association with this Pastor. But I suppose that's unreasonable.

Here's a prediction for you: Obama will turn this little smear to his advantage by talking about the same old politics that got us where we are today.

I don't think so, but we'll see. I think this is really going to hurt him.

trumptman

03-18-2008, 09:04 PM

Wait!

You mean he's not Jesus!?!?

*Chases down mailman to rescind my absentee ballot!*

Sorry to break it to you Shawn. I know you enjoyed watching movies with him while drinking "Jesus Juice" out of water bottles, but sadly reality has arrived.

... and Rolling Stone is endorsing Barack Obama! :D

A New Hope (http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/story/19106551/a_new_hope)

Love that title. :p

Trumpity, I'd suggest you update you subscription to RS. :lol:

You must have missed the sarcasm Frank. My point was clearly all the things RS was citing it thought of as good things. It is a year later with the reverse spin being attempted that it cannot hide from.

I can't tell if you're upset that they dug into Huckabee's past as a pastor or if you feel that it's fair game.

Oh, and the "quarantine" thing was while he was governor.

They did the digging but I guess they couldn't find anything more controversial than the quarantine remark.

I'm willing to believe that 1) people searched through hundreds of hours of videos of Wright and found the very worst 10 seconds, and 2) Obama probably heard him say controversial things but 99% of what he heard was normal sunday sermon stuff, and he didn't hear that worst 1%.

I'm going to go ahead and say that the speech from Obama today put me as right and you and Grove as wearing blinders while drinking Obama/Jesus-Juice with Shawn.

Frank777

03-18-2008, 09:28 PM

He spoke well, and put some of the immediate fires out, but the guy totally sold out his grandmother.

hardeeharhar

03-18-2008, 09:29 PM

whose grandmother hasn't made cringe worthy statements?

Frank777

03-18-2008, 09:53 PM

whose grandmother hasn't made cringe worthy statements?

Absolutely.

But outing her on national television in a clip that will be played over and over for months is just wrong.

Edit: Sorry. Did I get the threads confused?

franksargent

03-18-2008, 10:45 PM

You must have missed the sarcasm Frank. My point was clearly all the things RS was citing it thought of as good things. It is a year later with the reverse spin being attempted that it cannot hide from.

Barack Obama != Jeremiah Wright (it passes the Association fallacy test)

You point to the RS as if it provides conclusive proof of something, something that is by definition ill defined, yet the RS article explicitly states that Obama is not as ideologically driven as Wright is.

That in fact, Obama has observed Wright's specific rhetorical style and rejected it, and has formed his own rhetorical style that is the product of his entire life, and not the life of a singular person (e. g. Wright).

In fact, after reading your post (after reading the RS article in it's entirety), I find your points of argument wanting for lack of substantive facts with respect to Obama's known public positions, and the known public positions of Wright.

Please review guilt by association (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Association_fallacy), you all too often have a penchant for this forms of argumentation. :\

An association fallacy is an inductive formal fallacy of the type hasty generalization or red herring which asserts that qualities of one thing are inherently qualities of another, merely by an irrelevant association.

Northgate

03-19-2008, 12:29 PM

I'm going to go ahead and say that the speech from Obama today put me as right and you and Grove as wearing blinders while drinking Obama/Jesus-Juice with Shawn.

I can't tell if you have a genuine problem with Obama or if you're just playing political games for the sake of gamesmanship.

You tolerate absolutely zero ill-discourse from others, yet spew it like a drunk yourself.

trumptman

03-21-2008, 01:04 PM

I can't tell if you have a genuine problem with Obama or if you're just playing political games for the sake of gamesmanship.

You tolerate absolutely zero ill-discourse from others, yet spew it like a drunk yourself.

I just don't like deception. Obama clearly stated he wasn't present for controversial statements and later recanted that fact.

An article I read online summed it up perfectly. It is the Obama version of "I smoked but I didn't inhale."

hardeeharhar

03-21-2008, 01:11 PM

I just don't like deception. Obama clearly stated he wasn't present for controversial statements and later recanted that fact.

An article I read online summed it up perfectly. It is the Obama version of "I smoked but I didn't inhale."
didn't he explicitly say he wasn't there for a particular speech and you are just projecting your desire for him to have denied being in church at all?

groverat

03-21-2008, 01:27 PM

Obama clearly stated he wasn't present for controversial statements and later recanted that fact.

This is a lie.

Northgate

03-21-2008, 01:34 PM

I just don't like deception. Obama clearly stated he wasn't present for controversial statements and later recanted that fact.

An article I read online summed it up perfectly. It is the Obama version of "I smoked but I didn't inhale."

I just...but he...

Oh, forget it.

That's what you want anyway, isn't it?

midwinter

03-21-2008, 01:44 PM

I just don't like deception. Obama clearly stated he wasn't present for controversial statements and later recanted that fact.

Where did he say he was not present for "controversial statements"?

trumptman

03-21-2008, 02:10 PM

This is a lie.

O'REilly?!? (http://abcnews.go.com/Blotter/Story?id=4480868&page=1)

trumptman

03-21-2008, 02:18 PM

addabox

03-21-2008, 02:19 PM

What did he actually say?

ABC doesn't provide the quote.

Nope, though the article itself is the very model of weasel wording to give that impression.

Here's the relevant passage:

His initial reaction to the initial ABC News broadcast of Rev. Wright's sermons denouncing the U.S. was that he had never heard his pastor of 20 years make any comments that were anti-U.S. until the tape was played on air.

But yesterday, he told a different story.

"Did I ever hear him make remarks that could be considered controversial while I sat in church? Yes," he said in his speech yesterday in Philadelphia.

Obama did not say what he heard that he considered "controversial," and the campaign has yet to answer repeated requests for dates on which the senator attended Rev. Wright's sermons over the last 20 years.

Never heard anti-American remarks ≠ nothing controversial.

Damn liberal media!

SpamSandwich

03-21-2008, 02:38 PM

I just don't like deception. Obama clearly stated he wasn't present for controversial statements and later recanted that fact.

An article I read online summed it up perfectly. It is the Obama version of "I smoked but I didn't inhale."

And if he hadn't said this, you'd vote for him. Give me a break. :lol:

SpamSandwich

03-21-2008, 02:39 PM

This is a lie.

Uh-oh. Two demerits for you.

midwinter

03-21-2008, 02:59 PM

His initial reaction to the initial ABC News broadcast of Rev. Wright's sermons denouncing the U.S. was that he had never heard his pastor of 20 years make any comments that were anti-U.S. until the tape was played on air.

But yesterday, he told a different story.

"Did I ever hear him make remarks that could be considered controversial while I sat in church? Yes," he said in his speech yesterday in Philadelphia.

I wonder if it actually hurt for the authors to make that leap.

Edit: damn you Addabox! Check with me before you make the same point I'm going to make several minutes after you do!

groverat

03-21-2008, 03:03 PM

trumptman:

It's already been covered by others, but since it was addressed at me...

O'REilly?!?

Yes, really. Your statement was a lie. At no point did Obama every deny hearing controversial statements from his pastor.

The article you posted doesn't include any quotations from Obama that contradict.

As a matter of fact, it ends with a quote that explains it pretty clearly: "While Sen. Obama was not in church for the incendiary and offensive statements of Rev. Wright that have been played on television over the last week, yesterday he delivered a deeply personal, honest speech on race in America in which he acknowledged that over the course of 20 years, of course he heard statements from Wright that could be considered controversial."

Try again.

trumptman

03-21-2008, 03:26 PM

I wonder if it actually hurt for the authors to make that leap.

Edit: damn you Addabox! Check with me before you make the same point I'm going to make several minutes after you do!

Actually it isn't that much of a leap. I used to have the pages open, but I have this bad habit of leaving browsers open with around thirty or so tabs open with a wife and children in the house who do things like... run on over to NickJr.com crash the browser with flash games, and then have my wife reopen a new session.

Needless to say I'm sure if you dig hard enough you will find the following because this is what I found. It is a good example of politicking in the classic Clinton manner.

Obama first went around claiming he was never present for any controversial remarks by his pastor, period. He simply said he was never present for them and had no knowledge his own pastor ever spoke in such a manner. He said that he became aware of the remarks around a year ago.

So we get statements like this...

The statements that Rev. Wright made that are the cause of this controversy were not statements I personally heard him preach while I sat in the pews of Trinity or heard him utter in private conversation.

So the statements are the cause of the controversy... but I suppose they themselves are not... controversial...because twisting logic is so fun. We have a controversy over non-controversial statements.

Then he began to reframe a few of the words he was using. The words of his of his pastor now became "inflammatory" instead of controversial and that he had never made inflammatory remarks in private, public, pews, etc. Then Obama began to note that his pastor made controversial remarks, not in the anti-US or racial sense, since those were now redefined as inflammatory, but he had made controversial remarks in the social gospel sense. (Because helping the poor is apparently controversial in the Democratic party and UCC church) He then several days later said he had heard his pastor make controversial remarks but now left off the social gospel qualifier.

So there you go. Have fun. I'm sure the shift is just enough to insure the true believers can delude themselves. Have fun in your delusions.

franksargent

03-21-2008, 06:09 PM

So look the statements up yourself or go tell ABC they need a better editor.

Really it is those of you on the left that appear to really dig the parsing as a past time. Why don't you elect this wonderful "once in a generation" politician and we can have 4-8 more years of discussing when is means is whether controversial and inflamatory are enough like each other, what sort of sex is sex, etc.

Really... seriously... have fun.

... going to church? I mean seriously, why can't Obama remember exactly where he was each Sunday for the past twenty years, doesn't everyone remember exactly where they were at all times over the past 20 years? And on top of that remember the exact wording of twenty years of Wright's sermons. Obama should know all these things, because the MSM demands that he knows all these things. Why? Because they demand total recall, from anyone they demand answers from.

Obama did not say what he heard that he considered "controversial," and the campaign has yet to answer repeated requests for dates on which the senator attended Rev. Wright's sermons over the last 20 years.

20 years times 52 weeks = one thousand and forty possible sermons by Wright = one thousnad and forty possible attendances by Obama.

Come on Barack, why can't you remember every second, of every minute, of every hour, of every day, of every week, of every month, of every year, of every decade. We the MSM demand total recall. :lol::lol::lol::lol::lol::lol::lol::lol::lol::lol:

SDW2001

03-23-2008, 07:52 PM

This is a lie.

And if he hadn't said this, you'd vote for him. Give me a break. :lol:

... going to church? I mean seriously, why can't Obama remember exactly where he was each Sunday for the past twenty years, doesn't everyone remember exactly where they were at all times over the past 20 years? And on top of that remember the exact wording of twenty years of Wright's sermons. Obama should know all these things, because the MSM demands that he knows all these things. Why? Because they demand total recall, from anyone they demand answers from.

20 years times 52 weeks = one thousand and forty possible sermons by Wright = one thousnad and forty possible attendances by Obama.

Come on Barack, why can't you remember every second, of every minute, of every hour, of every day, of every week, of every month, of every year, of every decade. We the MSM demand total recall. :lol::lol::lol::l

Q: If your pastor said the kind of things he did, don't you you think you'd remember whether or not you were there on that day?

I know I would. Unless, of course, he said those kinds of things all the time. :err:

franksargent

03-23-2008, 11:38 PM

Q: If your pastor said the kind of things he did, don't you you think you'd remember whether or not you were there on that day?

I know I would. Unless, of course, he said those kinds of things all the time. :err:

Obama != Wright.

You don't know what the sum total of Wright's sermons were, and neither do I, we have what, two or three "outbursts" that have been taken out of context by the MSM. D'oh!

Do you think the MSM would take out context sermons that weren't "outbursts?" I don't think so, because they wouldn't get any draw, any attention, wouldn't raise ratings, or have "skock" value.

And that's just the cold hard fact of the matter.

Now let's look at Obama, 22 years younger than Wright, from a different generation, and from a different upbringing, from a different education, and quite frankly a person of great introspection and intelligence.

Now, I can't speak for Obama, I don't know how he thinks on such mattters, and guess what? I'm not an African-American. D'oh! :\

But when I do watch those "out of context" clips, I get a hoot out of them. :lol:

Wright the drama queen, Wright the entertainer, Wright the spectacle, Wright goes over the top again, will Wight outdo his last sermon, come back next Sunday and see what other outlandish things Wright shouts out to the flock, it's going to be a barnburner I tell you.

I know an act when I see one, and I'm quite sure Obama does also, do it week in and week out, and your mind tends to diminish the stage show, doesn't take it seriously, in fact takes it with a grain of salt.

So it doesn't really matter how often, or what the frequency and intensity of Wright's rhetoric, of Wright's hyperbole was, a person of introspection, of intelligence, of pragmatism, a realist would understand the "nature of the beast" as it were.

Barach Obama is just that type of person.

groverat

03-24-2008, 06:49 AM

Obama first went around claiming he was never present for any controversial remarks by his pastor, period.

This is a lie, period.

Transcript of Wright interview on FOX. ( http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2008/03/obama_talks_to_major_garrett_o.html)

Transcript of Wright interview on MSNBC. ( http://galley-cat.newsvine.com/_news/2008/03/16/1369569-transcript-of-obamas-interview-with-keith-olbermann-about-rev-wright-what-happened-to-the-great-oratory-obama)

So we get statements like this...

The statements that Rev. Wright made that are the cause of this controversy were not statements I personally heard him preach while I sat in the pews of Trinity or heard him utter in private conversation.

You're the one twisting logic, trumpt. You said "he was never present for any controversial remarks", and he said he had not heard "the statements that ... are the cause of this controversy".

It is quite possible that he heard other controversial statements, but not the 2 or 3 that were in massive media rotation.

mydo

03-24-2008, 07:31 AM

I just saw that video clip again this weekend. Obama basically did say that he didn't hear that stuff. I tried to find a transcript but ... couldn't.

groverat

03-24-2008, 11:19 AM

In this day of pervasive information with millions of links on Obama/Wright it is amazing that no one can source this lie except to say "OMG FOR REALZ I TOTALLY SAW IT ON TV!"

midwinter

03-24-2008, 12:22 PM

In this day of pervasive information with millions of links on Obama/Wright it is amazing that no one can source this lie except to say "OMG FOR REALZ I TOTALLY SAW IT ON TV!"

Dude. You just broke my sarcasm detector.

groverat

03-24-2008, 12:31 PM

Was that sarcasm?

Maybe mine is broken, too...

midwinter

03-24-2008, 12:42 PM

Was that sarcasm?

Maybe mine is broken, too...

Just remember, Groverat: with great power comes great responsibility (http://www.davezilla.com/wp-content/uploads/2008/03/great-responsibility.jpg).

SDW2001

03-24-2008, 12:43 PM

Obama != Wright.

No, I'm not saying that at all.

You don't know what the sum total of Wright's sermons were, and neither do I, we have what, two or three "outbursts" that have been taken out of context by the MSM. D'oh!

Who cares about the sum total? And really..are you telling me the rest of his statements were just fine? Obama himself disagrees with you!

Do you think the MSM would take out context sermons that weren't "outbursts?" I don't think so, because they wouldn't get any draw, any attention, wouldn't raise ratings, or have "skock" value.

Agreed, but it's the statements in question that are relevant anyway.

And that's just the cold hard fact of the matter.

Now let's look at Obama, 22 years younger than Wright, from a different generation, and from a different upbringing, from a different education, and quite frankly a person of great introspection and intelligence.

What does that have to do with anything? As for "introspection and intelligence," that's a matter of opinion. I'm actually not sure he's that bright.

Now, I can't speak for Obama, I don't know how he thinks on such mattters, and guess what? I'm not an African-American. D'oh! :\

So because you're not black you're not allowed to question his judgment in associating intimately with a man that holds views like Wright's. Gotcha.

But when I do watch those "out of context" clips, I get a hoot out of them. :lol:

Yeah, they're hysterical. :no:

Wright the drama queen, Wright the entertainer, Wright the spectacle, Wright goes over the top again, will Wight outdoes his last sermon, come back next Sunday and see what other outlandish things Wright shouts out to the flock, it's going to be a barnburner I tell you.

Yeah...the guy is just a crackpot. It has no reflection on Obama whatsoever. Just another conspiracy theory by Crazy Ol' Wrighty! I mean, it's not like he made blatantly racist, hateful and anti-American statements or anything.

I know an act when I see one, and I'm quite sure Obama does also, do it week in and week out, and your mind tends to diminish the stage show, doesn't take it seriously, in fact takes it with a grain of salt.

Sounds like we've found our excuse then!

So it doesn't really matter how often, or what the frequency and intensity of Wright's rhetoric, of Wright's hyperbole was, a person of introspection, of intelligence, of pragmatism, a realist would understand the "nature of the beast" as it were.

Barach Obama is just that type of person.

I take it then that if McCain was found to have similar intimate associations (say a ranting. raving Islamo-fascist or perhaps a white supremacist), you'd just say "well, he knew the guy was a crackpot putting on an act...and knowing is half the battle. Right? Frank? Frank...? Hello?

Of course you wouldn't. Why? Well, because John McCain is not an intelligent and introspective person, of course! He's an opportunistic Republican!

Excuse #123: Obama knew what Wright was saying and thought he was crazy at the time. But he was smart enough not to listen. Except...first he didn't know about the comments, and then he did..or he knew about some but not those comments..just ones like them, but different. Or something.

groverat

03-24-2008, 01:09 PM

No one has yet found a single statement from Obama that he never heard controversial statements from Wright.
No one has yet found a single racist statement from Wright himself.

Those two facts speak louder than anything else.

(And if anyone wants to provide a quote, please do.)

Frank777

03-24-2008, 01:10 PM

Just remember, Groverat: with great power comes great responsibility (http://www.davezilla.com/wp-content/uploads/2008/03/great-responsibility.jpg).

Where do you guys find these things? :D

In other news, Hillary has taken the lead over Obama. (http://www.thestar.com/News/USElection/article/349329) And somehow McCain is inexplicably getting blamed for this fiasco.

Never count those Clintons out. I wonder what they have planned next.

Akumulator

03-24-2008, 01:19 PM

No, that article's outdated. Obama is up in the Gallup polls.

http://www.gallup.com/poll/105529/Gallup-Daily-Obama-Edges-Ahead-Clinton.aspx

mydo

03-24-2008, 02:02 PM

Outsider

03-24-2008, 02:14 PM

Yet.... no links. :(

groverat

03-24-2008, 02:35 PM

You're smoking something good. Can I have some?

This is an extremely stupid argument.

mydo

03-24-2008, 03:01 PM

This is an extremely stupid argument.

But not as stupid as arguing that Wright has made no racist statements.

groverat

03-24-2008, 03:03 PM

Show me the racist statements.

franksargent

03-24-2008, 03:39 PM

No, I'm not saying that at all.

Who cares about the sum total? And really..are you telling me the rest of his statements were just fine? Obama himself disagrees with you!

Agreed, but it's the statements in question that are relevant anyway.

What does that have to do with anything? As for "introspection and intelligence," that's a matter of opinion. I'm actually not sure he's that bright.

So because you're not black you're not allowed to question his judgment in associating intimately with a man that holds views like Wright's. Gotcha.

Yeah, they're hysterical. :no:

Yeah...the guy is just a crackpot. It has no reflection on Obama whatsoever. Just another conspiracy theory by Crazy Ol' Wrighty! I mean, it's not like he made blatantly racist, hateful and anti-American statements or anything.

Sounds like we've found our excuse then!

I take it then that if McCain was found to have similar intimate associations (say a ranting. raving Islamo-fascist or perhaps a white supremacist), you'd just say "well, he knew the guy was a crackpot putting on an act...and knowing is half the battle. Right? Frank? Frank...? Hello?

Of course you wouldn't. Why? Well, because John McCain is not an intelligent and introspective person, of course! He's an opportunistic Republican!

Excuse #123: Obama knew what Wright was saying and thought he was crazy at the time. But he was smart enough not to listen. Except...first he didn't know about the comments, and then he did..or he knew about some but not those comments..just ones like them, but different. Or something.

Guilt by asscoiation! Association fallacy (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Association_fallacy)

An association fallacy is an inductive formal fallacy of the type hasty generalization or red herring which asserts that qualities of one thing are inherently qualities of another, merely by an irrelevant association.

And I do know who isn't the "bright one" around PO. :D

Oh, and I never called Wright "crazy" or a "crackpot" that's known as a straw man (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_man) fallacy;

A straw man argument is an informal fallacy based on misrepresentation of an opponent's position.

Who cares about the sum total?

Obviously you don't. :rolleyes: You just like to take the out of context statements by Wright as the sum total of the man, and you wish to confer that myopic viewpoint as the sum total of Obama? Did you perhaps forget that Wright != Obama. :err:

So because you're not black you're not allowed to question his judgment in associating intimately with a man that holds views like Wright's? (I'll assume you posed this as a question, thus the question mark at the end, sice that's the tone)

Please define "intimately" in the context of Obama "holds views like Wright's" are you saying their queer? Another straw man! :rolleyes:

You appear to be judging two African-Americans by some obtuse standard that doesn't fit the African-American experience Stan. :D

http://media.southparkstudios.com/media/images/1101/1101_race_war.jpg

I take it then that if McCain was found to have similar intimate associations (say a ranting. raving Islamo-fascist or perhaps a white supremacist), you'd just say "well, he knew the guy was a crackpot putting on an act...and knowing is half the battle. Right? Frank? Frank...? Hello?

w00t? Yet another straw man! :rolleyes: That's not even a remotely valid relationship with respect to Obama's relationship to Wright.

I mean, it's not like he made blatantly racist, hateful and anti-American statements or anything.

Wright made statements about past white racism. You incorrectly associate those statements about white racism, as racism itself, which was not the case in any of Wright's "out of context" sermons. And as to conspiracy theories, Wright does exhibit a few, those however are not racist statements, in and of itself, but statements about white racism. :rolleyes:

Northgate

03-24-2008, 04:25 PM

I've not seen so much mock outrage since ...

...well, since John Kerry got a third purple heart.

:lol::lol::lol:

:mad:

Frank777

03-24-2008, 04:52 PM

No, that article's outdated. Obama is up in the Gallup polls.

http://www.gallup.com/poll/105529/Gallup-Daily-Obama-Edges-Ahead-Clinton.aspx

I stand corrected.

mydo

03-24-2008, 08:32 PM

Show me the racist statements.

Oh I don't know. The HIV (http://www.slate.com/id/2186860/?from=rss) one or the US of KKK one?

mydo

03-24-2008, 09:12 PM

Another boring "defend Barak at all costs" threads. The cost here has been common sense.

mydo

03-24-2008, 10:12 PM

What's the red "c" mean? Cancer?

mydo

03-24-2008, 10:15 PM

Op! I get it now. I spelled his name wrong. Anyway. Boring.

hardeeharhar

03-24-2008, 10:29 PM

Another boring "defend Barak at all costs" threads. The cost here has been common sense.
actually, you are in the wrong here... at no point did Wright say down with whitey... he implied that based upon White america's past actions against blacks like the Tuskegee experiments, it is entirely possible that HIV was designed to kill black americans.. This is logically flawless -- given that basis, the government could have made the HIV virus to do so... It isn't true based upon information derived from outside sources, but in that little thought experiment it is...

Groverat is right, at no point did Wright make a racist statement... No prejudice against people of another race simply for their race...

mydo

03-24-2008, 10:37 PM

US of KKK?

midwinter

03-24-2008, 10:41 PM

US of KKK?

Hyperbolic? Sure. Racist? How, precisely?

mydo

03-24-2008, 10:55 PM

Implying that all of the US is equivalent to the KKK. You guys are just being silly. And boring.

You know what i need? I need an artman style image (what happened to him?) where someone wearing sun glasses is looking at the sun, almost blinded, and instead of dark lenses we see the red white and blue sun over the horizon logo that he's using. Whatever he paid for that he should have paid double. It's brilliant.

http://www.barackobama.com/images/temp_flashheader.jpg

midwinter

03-24-2008, 10:57 PM

Implying that all of the US is equivalent to the KKK.

How, precisely, does that make Wright a racist?

You guys are just being silly. And boring.

You know that saying that isn't the same as evidence, right?

mydo

03-24-2008, 11:07 PM

How, precisely, does that make Wright a racist?

Sigh. Last post in this thread. What Wright is implying is that white America is the us of KKK. Which is actually his words. So he's not implying it he is saying it. Which is racist. Because what he's saying is that "white america" are racists.

midwinter

03-24-2008, 11:21 PM

Sigh. Last post in this thread. What Wright is implying is that white America is the us of KKK. Which is actually his words. So he's not implying it he is saying it. Which is racist. Because what he's saying is that "white america" are racists.

How does him calling white America racist make HIM a racist?

Does calling the League of the South racist make me racist?

hardeeharhar

03-24-2008, 11:37 PM

US of KKK?
You really don't seem to understand that Wright was calling the US racist...

That isn't racism...

trumptman

03-25-2008, 01:45 PM

... going to church? I mean seriously, why can't Obama remember exactly where he was each Sunday for the past twenty years, doesn't everyone remember exactly where they were at all times over the past 20 years? And on top of that remember the exact wording of twenty years of Wright's sermons. Obama should know all these things, because the MSM demands that he knows all these things. Why? Because they demand total recall, from anyone they demand answers from.

20 years times 52 weeks = one thousand and forty possible sermons by Wright = one thousnad and forty possible attendances by Obama.

Come on Barack, why can't you remember every second, of every minute, of every hour, of every day, of every week, of every month, of every year, of every decade. We the MSM demand total recall. :lol:

I think you are moving the goal posts here. No one is demanding that Obama quote word for word various parts of Wright sermons from any time in the last twenty years. I don't need to have any sort of total recall to understand and judge various comments made to me by another person. Someone could tell me a racist joke and I wouldn't need to be able to repeat it to know that they are racist and someone I wouldn't want to associate with.

This is a lie, period.

Transcript of Wright interview on FOX. ( http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2008/03/obama_talks_to_major_garrett_o.html)

Transcript of Wright interview on MSNBC. ( http://galley-cat.newsvine.com/_news/2008/03/16/1369569-transcript-of-obamas-interview-with-keith-olbermann-about-rev-wright-what-happened-to-the-great-oratory-obama)

You're the one twisting logic, trumpt. You said "he was never present for any controversial remarks", and he said he had not heard "the statements that ... are the cause of this controversy".

It is quite possible that he heard other controversial statements, but not the 2 or 3 that were in massive media rotation.

I already went through and showed exactly how he changed his word usage and reframed the issue. It is brilliant politics but it doesn't change the fact that he backed away from and hedged his initial claims. Even now he has created all sort of ridiculous equivalences in order to even excuse the remarks of the pastor.

Also while he didn't address those specific statements, because honestly what politician would when trying to create space between themselves and the problem, he did say this.

“Did I know him to be an occasionally fierce critic of American domestic and foreign policy?” Obama said. “Of course. Did I ever hear him make remarks that could be considered controversial while I sat in church? Yes. Did I strongly disagree with many of his political views? Absolutely — just as I’m sure many of you have heard remarks from your pastors, priests or rabbis with which you strongly disagreed.”

Now I specifically noted how he tried to shift controversial to describe Wright and the social gospel but in this statement, he goes much further than that. I noted how he dropped the social gospel qualifier. The statements he claims to now have knowledge about are political and deal with policy. The fact that he won't link them to the specific statements is just good politics. Like I said earlier it isn't enough space to convince anyone who is skeptical but will keep the kool-aid drinkers like yourself happy with plausible deniability.

Change to plausible deniability we can believe in!

No one has yet found a single statement from Obama that he never heard controversial statements from Wright.
No one has yet found a single racist statement from Wright himself.

Those two facts speak louder than anything else.

(And if anyone wants to provide a quote, please do.)

You definition of contradictory is acceptable for someone drinking the Obama Kool-Aid but not for anyone else who doesn't want to spend their lives parsing every candidate statement to note whether it is a complete or tricky semi-denial.

Everyone understands the little trick Obama is trying to pull. It doesn't matter whether it gives you enough cover our not to believe otherwise. I say this because I'm not trying to prove Obama is a racist or even that Wright is a racist. The statements themselves and being willing to be around them is proof enough that he is not a post-racial, once in a generation change agent candidate that can do what no one else can. Since that is what his campaign is selling and it is not true, it is a no sale for me and likely for many others. It isn't even a solid sell within the Democratic party.

So keep drinking the kool-aid. This is no different than Bill Clinton contending that oral sex isn't cheating. It is no different than denying that you had adultery with "that woman" when you know you were an adulterer. Enjoy the delusional moral high ground of what you believe are non-contradictary statements due to only semi-denials as opposed to complete denials. If you think it will get you far, think again.

Guilt by asscoiation! Association fallacy (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Association_fallacy)

And I do know who isn't the "bright one" around PO. :D

Oh, and I never called Wright "crazy" or a "crackpot" that's known as a straw man (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_man) fallacy;

Obviously you don't. :rolleyes: You just like to take the out of context statements by Wright as the sum total of the man, and you wish to confer that myopic viewpoint as the sum total of Obama? Did you perhaps forget that Wright != Obama. :err:

Please define "intimately" in the context of Obama "holds views like Wright's" are you saying their queer? Another straw man! :rolleyes:

You appear to be judging two African-Americans by some obtuse standard that doesn't fit the African-American experience Stan. :D

w00t? Yet another straw man! :rolleyes: That's not even a remotely valid relationship with respect to Obama's relationship to Wright.

Wright made statements about past white racism. You incorrectly associate those statements about white racism, as racism itself, which was not the case in any of Wright's "out of context" sermons. And as to conspiracy theories, Wright does exhibit a few, those however are not racist statements, in and of itself, but statements about white racism. :rolleyes:

You really need to study your fallacies better. You keep claiming them incorrectly.

Wright can be a racist and that doesn't mean Obama is a racist. Wright can be a crackpot or crazy and it doesn't mean Obama is any of those things.

You are 100% correct there. However Obama has made entirely different claims about himself and we can use the criteria of those actual claims to judge whether they can be correctly claimed by Obama himself. Obama said the questions associated with his pastor are legitimate to ask and this is because you can judge Obama alone using his criteria for his claims.

Does a post-racial candidate who is the only one who can make the change we can all believe in sit in a room for 20 years listening to outdated and conspiratorial ideals related to politics in America and race relations?

It doesn't matter which statements he heard. He defined Wright as the old and excused him as limited because he is the old. Does the change candidate sit around listening to the old or instead seek out what is positive and new?

Obama tolerated what was limited, outdated and old for some reason we all can't quite understand. He claimed family type tolerances, he drew equivalences between the pastor and his grandmother who as a "typical white person" cringes when she sees black men walk down the street with her, or sometimes uses outdated phrases and words that are not politically correct. He did some rationalizing but did not provide an explanation that convinces me or anyone else who is skeptical of his claims.

Again I do not have be skeptical of those claims because Wright is A or B. Obama himself claims to be C and D and I use that criteria by itself to judge him. In my view a person who is a post-racial change agent would not sit around listening to statements of that nature from ANYONE including family for twenty years or even two years.

I say this as someone who is the son of an alcoholic. If she acts in a hateful manner, I won't see her any my children won't see her. If she claims she is too old, limited, trapped by the past, or whatever to give up such practices, phrase, views, etc. Then she doesn't see me. I don't tolerate or allow such things in my life.

I say this as someone who has left a church over disagreements with the pastor. My former church failed to renew the contract of the youth pastor I was assisting and his contract was not renewed because he was bringing too many of the wrong "type" of children to the youth program. They were the country club set and wanted their kids to have more fun. They didn't want their kids running down to soup kitchens or going into certain neighborhoods to witness. When they made this known by not renewing his contract, I quit the church and haven't been back.

I say this as someone who has the right house in the right neighborhood with a very good functioning public school. I have GATE identified children and know the right people that will insure the right choices are made for my children. I left that behind and transferred my children to a school that is minority majority, where they learn all day in a language they do not speak at home, and where we now sometimes have to fight along with everyone else to insure good is done for our children.

So I say this as someone who uses the criteria Obama claims to stand for, and when I see the choices he has made, they aren't the choices I would have made. I don't allow hateful, divisive and damaging people around my children even if they are family. I don't allow them even if they are their grandmother and my own mother. I don't sit around in a church that makes bad decisions at the top. I leave it. I do not say to my children tolerate something because it allows us a certain level of privilege. I say we leave, go do the good work and make the good fight.

I judge Obama not in saying his is Wright but on who he claims to be and whether such a claimed person would associate with a Wright. I know I personally would not. I know I would not place my children under the influence of such a person.

trumptman

03-25-2008, 01:47 PM

How does him calling white America racist make HIM a racist?

Does calling the League of the South racist make me racist?

Can I start calling you Mid-League of the South-Winter then?

Taking a phrase, turning it into a racist slur and then assigning that phrase to someone or a group is the same thing as calling that person or group the slur.

midwinter

03-25-2008, 02:09 PM

Can I start calling you Mid-League of the South-Winter then?

Taking a phrase, turning it into a racist slur and then assigning that phrase to someone or a group is the same thing as calling that person or group the slur.

What the hell does this even mean? How does it relate to Wright calling America a racist country somehow magically making him racist?

addabox

03-25-2008, 03:19 PM

I still haven't seen a single person who is claiming to be so outraged by Wright's preaching style who has explained why they aren't also outraged by the long history of white clergymen, many of them quite cozy with Republican candidates and officeholders, who have denounced America for having strayed from the path of righteousness. Or more recently have blamed America for bringing 9/11 on ourselves for abandoning God's protection in favor of a debased secular culture of sex, drugs and rock and roll.

Think about that. Pat Robertson, for one, confident and advisor the Bush White House, basically agrees with the Taliban-- that a country not steeped in God's word will burn, and rightly so.

Yet not a fucking peep-- not a peep--from the same people that are beside themselves about Wright, wringing their hankies and fainting dead away at the outrage! The outrage I tell you!

Is it that we are now obliged to focus only on race? Why would that be? Surely not because the specter of black people not entirely thrilled with the behavior of the white majority, interpersonally and institutionally, is calibrated to prey on white fear of "angry" blacks, and thus damage Obama's chances of winning the nomination?

So why no outcry when white churches make a cottage industry of denouncing pernicious "liberal" influences? There are far more "liberal Americans" than "African Americans", so that line of thought actually attacks the greater proportion of the country, by far, and typically in more brutal, eliminationist tones than anything Wright could muster. Has Wright ever opined that Whites are cancer on the face of the nation, a disease that must be driven from our midsts, lest we all perish in fire?

So if I'm following the calculus here, it goes something like:

--Denouncing, in the most extreme terms possible, "liberalism", "secular humanism", the culture at large, and the country as a whole, as it actually exists, and apparently, Catholicism: OK, because those things are objectively evil and deserve to be stamped out. McCain's brief and offhand "distancing himself" from such a figure was more than sufficient.

--Denouncing black people that decry institutional racism in similar terms: OK, because such talk is objectively hateful, and anyone in the vicinity of such talk is a material collaborator, and such figures deserve to be driven from the national stage.

--Denouncing institutional racism in broad, heated terms, although no more so than the average "liberal scourge" rant: completely unacceptable and outrageous, completely off the charts, short of killing the man outright there is no way for Obama to cleanse himself of this mortal failing.

But the important thing to remember here is that Wright is the real racist! Wildly disproportional standards of speech just happen to fall along racial lines, and in no way indicated some kind of targeted animus! How dare anyone imply otherwise!

midwinter

03-25-2008, 03:26 PM

Silly Addabox. None of those men are black liberals!

Northgate

03-25-2008, 03:51 PM

addabox

03-25-2008, 04:07 PM

It's like f*cking 2004 all over again. John Kerry was deemed an asshole for getting one too many purple hearts while serving in Vietnam. Yet George Bush entertained ambitious secretaries while skipping out on his TANG duty.

And now Obama is an asshole for attending a black church with an over-zealous pastor. Yet McCain sought the endorsement of similar crackpot preachers with nary a peep.

The absolute stunning hypocrisy around here truly knows no bounds. It's utterly breathtaking to see some people around here want to skewer Obama for his associations and then simultaneously wave their hand in dismissal of similar associations with Bush and McW without a single shred of irony. They want to convince you it's a matter of degree. But it isn't, it's a lie.

I can only assume one thing.

This is politics and only politics. These folks are not outraged. They don't really give a shit about Wright. Their only goal is to besmirch a very strong candidate, tar and feather him as much as possible, so that they can level the playing field for their own lackluster, uninspired candidate.

It is their only motivation. Kill, kill, kill! These are the very same folks who denigrated war veterans by wearing purple heart Band-Aids while wistfully pretending their own candidate's war record was outrageously insufficient and possibly criminal.

Depressingly, they're not even trafficking in their own ideas: the entire side-show comes neatly wrapped courtesy the echo chamber.

Should Obama get the nomination, the general campaign will be made of this: "legitimate" shout-outs to the "OMG!!!Scary Negroes Want To Kill Us All!!!!!!" meme, with honorable mention going to "Who the hell knows what those people get up to when they're among their own?"

Look for "anonymous" sources, appearing on Drudge, claiming to be part of his "inner circle" and having "overheard" Obama saying something explosive about whites. The "controversy" then gets non-stop coverage in the "liberal press".

And, of course, posters here will demand that we "address the issue", and will deflect any talk of scurrilous Republican campaign tactics by hinting darkly that the Clinton's are still behind it, Hillary being such a bitter, vindictive person that she would rather take Obama down in the general election than allow the man who beat her for the nomination have any success.

Northgate

03-25-2008, 04:18 PM

While I do agree with you on the tactics that the GOP will take to destroy Obama, I do believe that the Wright "controversy" (and I hate to even use that word simply because it was a manufactured one) was possibly a coordinated effort between Clinton and McW.

Thankfully, the polls coming out of North Caroline show that Obama's favorability has not been hurt and his lead there has increased. I'm also thankful to see that most "mature" Americans took Obama's speech to heart and were pleased to be talked to like adults. That is being measured in his closing the gap in Pennsylvania.

What is interesting is that Clinton's revisionist history about Bosnia is actually hurting her more than Wright did Obama. It's always more hurtful when it actually comes out of the candidate's mouth.

Frank777

03-25-2008, 04:19 PM

And, of course, posters here...will deflect any talk of scurrilous Republican campaign tactics by hinting darkly that the Clinton's are still behind it, Hillary being such a bitter, vindictive person that she would rather take Obama down in the general election than allow the man who beat her for the nomination have any success.

Can I be the first one on this? :D

Because to me it makes no sense for the McCain camp to have lobbed this grenade now. It would have made far more sense for Republicans to unleash this in the middle of the Democratic convention or as an October surprise.

Only one campaign benefits by slowing Obama down and subjecting him to more scrutiny this early.

addabox

03-25-2008, 04:23 PM

Can I be the first one on this? :D

Because to me it makes no sense for the McCain camp to have lobbed this grenade now. It would have made far more sense for Republicans to unleash this in the middle of the Democratic convention or as an October surprise.

Only one campaign benefits by slowing Obama down and subjecting him to more scrutiny this early.

Absolutely, because Hillary has the power to command the liberal media to camp out on this story as if it were the Secret That Explains Everything, while simultaneously giving McClain a pass (on pretty much everything).

Frank777

03-25-2008, 04:31 PM

addabox

03-25-2008, 04:41 PM

No one has to give the media orders to do anything.

Campaigns understand that we live in an age of ad-driven news cycles, echo-chamber blogospheres and 24-hour talking head networks. CNN, for example, hypes the latest tornado as though everyone should be ducking under their bed.

All that was necessary was to put a spin on the story out there and let the rabid press run with it.

I still say the Clinton camp has the most to gain here, and the least to lose.

Funny, because the McCain/Hagee story was "out there" and "the rabid press" didn't seem all that interested, did they? Maybe Hillary called in some favors to get it killed.

Just like Vince Foster.

Frank777

03-25-2008, 04:49 PM

That McCain needs to mend fences with right-wing preachers to win isn't really big news anymore.
Today's paper even has a photo of Hillary with Joel Osteen and his daughter.

The Obama thing is new, and Hillary's appearance on SNL was timed perfectly to accuse reporters of not 'taking as close a look' at Obama as they have Hillary.

The most interesting thing about the Wright episode to me is how the Clinton campaign has managed to co-opt parts of the Republican attack machine (blogs, Fox, AM Talk Radio) to damage Obama for her own purposes.

Kinda reminds me of how Apple is using iTunes on Windows to distribute Safari.

Northgate

03-25-2008, 05:37 PM

Of course McCain has to mend fences with right-wing preachers. Standard operating procedure. But why does he have to court the most vile of the lot? And why does his pursuit of the most vicious of these not brand him the same way it brands Obama?

I guess my point is, "Who cares?" If McCain wants to get into bed with the likes of Falwell and Hagee, so be it. If Obama wants to attend a black church that uses fiery sermons, so be it. In the end, it matters not. What I adamantly object to is this notion that Obama is exercising bad judgment while McCain is doing business as usual.

groverat

03-25-2008, 05:53 PM

trumpt:

I already went through and showed exactly how he changed his word usage and reframed the issue.

No, you didn't. You misquoted him.

It is brilliant politics but it doesn't change the fact that he backed away from and hedged his initial claims.

What "initial claims" are you even talking about?

Like I said earlier it isn't enough space to convince anyone who is skeptical but will keep the kool-aid drinkers like yourself happy with plausible deniability.

What makes your claim to some real insight here so amusing is that in his book published in 2004 Obama acknowledges that Wright is controversial to some. You are saying that he is only just now saying it, when it's been in print for 4 years now.

Everyone understands the little trick Obama is trying to pull.

Apparently not "everyone" does since you have people asking you what the hell you're talking about. What you have is your own (baseless) arguments and some hilarious references to "kool-aid".

You can't quote him. That says it all. If he has spoken in a contradictory way you should be able to put two quotes right next to each other and point out the contradiction. You can't.

Does a post-racial candidate who is the only one who can make the change we can all believe in sit in a room for 20 years listening to outdated and conspiratorial ideals related to politics in America and race relations?

Firstly, I don't know that Obama has ever described himself as "post-racial".
Secondly, your characterization of Barack's church experience as "sit(ting) in a room for 20 years listening to outdated and conspiratorial ideals" is perfectly asinine. Obama himself has stated that such ranting was the rare event.

addabox

03-25-2008, 06:04 PM

Is straight shooter McCain going to wage war on Catholics? Will he withhold federal aid from cities struck by natural disaster, if such a city strikes him as "sinful"? If there is another large-scale terror attack, will it strike him as payback for America's lack of Godliness?

We have a right to know! His relationship with Hagee goes back years! And what about the Reverend Rod Parsley, who McCain has called his "spiritual advisor"? Parsely thinks the United States Government is complicit in a "black genocide" for not outlawing abortion.

Spiritual advisor. US commits genocide. The liberal media is all over the....... oh, never mind.

trumptman

03-25-2008, 07:26 PM

What the hell does this even mean? How does it relate to Wright calling America a racist country somehow magically making him racist?

What the hell does it mean? I explained it to you.

Do you think Wright was calling African-Americans in America members of the KKK there mid?

Don't be obtuse.

You intentionally attempt to obscure the definition of racism to the point of being useless. I suppose if someone claims certain groups love fried chicken and watermelon that isn't racist to you anymore because you know... they didn't name the group and instead only eluded to it. They didn't claim outright they were superior but instead only stereotyped with negative connotations.

Because racism isn't racism anymore when it is a Democrat doing it.

trumpt:

No, you didn't. You misquoted him.

What "initial claims" are you even talking about?

What makes your claim to some real insight here so amusing is that in his book published in 2004 Obama acknowledges that Wright is controversial to some. You are saying that he is only just now saying it, when it's been in print for 4 years now.

Apparently not "everyone" does since you have people asking you what the hell you're talking about. What you have is your own (baseless) arguments and some hilarious references to "kool-aid".

You can't quote him. That says it all. If he has spoken in a contradictory way you should be able to put two quotes right next to each other and point out the contradiction. You can't.

Firstly, I don't know that Obama has ever described himself as "post-racial".
Secondly, your characterization of Barack's church experience as "sit(ting) in a room for 20 years listening to outdated and conspiratorial ideals" is perfectly asinine. Obama himself has stated that such ranting was the rare event.

Dude, basically sit and spin. I'm not going to convince you against your will. I spelled it out. Enjoy your kool-aid. I've not hidden anything. I've linked to articles, placed the quotes, etc. You just dismiss it so why bother with the effort on you. Loads of other folks out there are using the phrases and concepts I'm putting out there including Obama supporters. You don't like it so you go into full denial mode. Enjoy your denial. Enjoy when the election is lost and you spend another four years screaming about how everyone else who isn't in denial like you is just full of shit and "doesn't get it."

Really... enjoy...

franksargent

03-25-2008, 09:51 PM

I don't think so! :D

I think you are moving the goal posts here. No one is demanding that Obama quote word for word various parts of Wright sermons from any time in the last twenty years. I don't need to have any sort of total recall to understand and judge various comments made to me by another person. Someone could tell me a racist joke and I wouldn't need to be able to repeat it to know that they are racist and someone I wouldn't want to associate with.

Moving the goal posts you say? I don't think so! :D

Obama did not say what he heard that he considered "controversial," and the campaign has yet to answer repeated requests for dates on which the senator attended Rev. Wright's sermons over the last 20 years.

So the goal posts appear to me to be that Obama should be able to recall 20 years of TUCC attendance. which by my math, could be as many as 1040 TUCC attendances.

Have I moved the goal posts yet? I don't think so. :D

So I'm quite sure that neither Wright gave sermons 100% of the time, or that Obama was present at all the sermons that Wright did give, 100% of the time.

So as an example, suppose Wright had a 95% sermon attendance record, ant that Obama had a 95% attendance record of Wright's sermons.

So 0.95 * 1040 = 988 Wright sermons.
And 0.95^2 * 1040 = 937 times that Obama was in attendance of Wright's sermons.

Have I moved the goal posts yet? I don't think so, but if you do think so change the above numbers above to whatever you think they ought to be, you get to be the arbiter and keeper of the goal posts. :D

So in my scenario, Obama has to have total recall of those 937 attendances of Wright's sermons, so at a minimum that's 937 dates that Obama must remember to satisfy ABC's "repeated requests." :wow::rolleyes:

So, in summary, I haven't moved the goal posts at all, I'm just making an "educated" estimate of what ABC's "repeated requests" means using basic reasoning, logic, and very basic math skills, in some form of an objective framework, that framework being Obama's attendence of Wright's sermons.

Do you have a problem with the goal posts, as outlined by ABC's "repeated requests?"

You really need to study your fallacies better. You keep claiming them incorrectly.

Wright can be a racist and that doesn't mean Obama is a racist. Wright can be a crackpot or crazy and it doesn't mean Obama is any of those things.

You are 100% correct there. However Obama has made entirely different claims about himself and we can use the criteria of those actual claims to judge whether they can be correctly claimed by Obama himself. Obama said the questions associated with his pastor are legitimate to ask and this is because you can judge Obama alone using his criteria for his claims.

Does a post-racial candidate who is the only one who can make the change we can all believe in sit in a room for 20 years listening to outdated and conspiratorial ideals related to politics in America and race relations?

It doesn't matter which statements he heard. He defined Wright as the old and excused him as limited because he is the old. Does the change candidate sit around listening to the old or instead seek out what is positive and new?

Obama tolerated what was limited, outdated and old for some reason we all can't quite understand. He claimed family type tolerances, he drew equivalences between the pastor and his grandmother who as a "typical white person" cringes when she sees black men walk down the street with her, or sometimes uses outdated phrases and words that are not politically correct. He did some rationalizing but did not provide an explanation that convinces me or anyone else who is skeptical of his claims.

Again I do not have be skeptical of those claims because Wright is A or B. Obama himself claims to be C and D and I use that criteria by itself to judge him. In my view a person who is a post-racial change agent would not sit around listening to statements of that nature from ANYONE including family for twenty years or even two years.

I say this as someone who is the son of an alcoholic. If she acts in a hateful manner, I won't see her any my children won't see her. If she claims she is too old, limited, trapped by the past, or whatever to give up such practices, phrase, views, etc. Then she doesn't see me. I don't tolerate or allow such things in my life.

I say this as someone who has left a church over disagreements with the pastor. My former church failed to renew the contract of the youth pastor I was assisting and his contract was not renewed because he was bringing too many of the wrong "type" of children to the youth program. They were the country club set and wanted their kids to have more fun. They didn't want their kids running down to soup kitchens or going into certain neighborhoods to witness. When they made this known by not renewing his contract, I quit the church and haven't been back.

I say this as someone who has the right house in the right neighborhood with a very good functioning public school. I have GATE identified children and know the right people that will insure the right choices are made for my children. I left that behind and transferred my children to a school that is minority majority, where they learn all day in a language they do not speak at home, and where we now sometimes have to fight along with everyone else to insure good is done for our children.

So I say this as someone who uses the criteria Obama claims to stand for, and when I see the choices he has made, they aren't the choices I would have made. I don't allow hateful, divisive and damaging people around my children even if they are family. I don't allow them even if they are their grandmother and my own mother. I don't sit around in a church that makes bad decisions at the top. I leave it. I do not say to my children tolerate something because it allows us a certain level of privilege. I say we leave, go do the good work and make the good fight.

I judge Obama not in saying his is Wright but on who he claims to be and whether such a claimed person would associate with a Wright. I know I personally would not. I know I would not place my children under the influence of such a person.

Actually, "out of context" "straw man" "ad hominem" "guilt by association" and "mock outrage" has/have been the de facto modus operandi you (and several others) have presented throughout the course of this thread topic.

Mock outrage by those who would never have voted for Obama regardless of Wright's "outbursts" and that's just a stone cold hard fact, there's no getting around that one.

So now let's return to some objective facts;

1) Wright gave many sermons over a 20 year period, perhaps as many as ~1000, but several hundred at the very least.

2) Obama attended TUCC for those 20 years and must have heard at least several hundred of Wright's sermons.

3) To date, the record shows that Wright made "inflammatory" remarks, in what, two or three sermons? I mean seriously, if there are others, why haven't they come to light, given all the MSM attention to this matter. Help me understand this, as it seems that Wright's "inflammatory" remarks are the exception, rather that the rule, given the evidence reported to date by the MSM.

You say ...

You say ...

You say ...

,
,
,

You know ...

You know ...

You know ...

.
.
.

Do you have any other objective facts to bring to this discussion? If so please do. :D

Otherwise, I'd appreciate your dispensing with your definitions, your lack of objective skills, your lack of reasoning, and your lack of logic. :\

Today's word is prejudice (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prejudice);

The word prejudice refers to prejudgment: making a decision before becoming aware of the relevant facts of a case or event. The word has commonly been used in certain restricted contexts, particularly in the expression 'racial prejudice'. Initially this referred to making a judgment about a person based on their race, before receiving information relevant to the particular issue on which a judgment was being made; it came, however, to be widely used to refer to any hostile attitude towards people based on their race. Subsequently the word has come to be widely so interpreted in this way in contexts other than those relating to race. The meaning now is frequently "any unreasonable attitude that is unusually resistant to rational influence".[1] Race, gender, ethnic, sexual identity, age, and religion have a history of in citing prejudicial behavior.
.
.
.
Sociologists termed prejudice an adaptive behaviour. Biased views might be thought needed at times for survival. There is not always enough time to form a legitimate view about a potential foe before adopting a defensive stance that could save our lives. Prejudice is non-adaptive when it interferes with survival or well-being.

Try running with that one, if you want to.