or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › Other Discussion › AppleOutsider › PoliticalOutsider › Wright in Context - What The Media Didn't Show
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Wright in Context - What The Media Didn't Show - Page 2

post #41 of 191
Quote:
Originally Posted by mydo View Post

But that's what we have now anyway. Corzine, Romney, Soros, Bush, Spitzer ... so what you are afraid of is what we have. These laws have done nothing.


BUT when some minister in Chicago says the "wrong things" well then there need investigation to yank the tax exempt status. That's the part I don't like. All laws that can be used to shut someone up are wrong and should be removed from the books. There's a reason why it's the first amendment.

What do Tax laws have to do with the first amendment? I think you are confused. Are you saying political organizations should be tax exempt?
post #42 of 191
Thread Starter 
There is the very real concern that only politically unpopular speech would be punished. Might be a perfect way to shut black churches up.
proud resident of a failed state
Reply
proud resident of a failed state
Reply
post #43 of 191
Thread Starter 
Want to know how much Wright hates America?

This much!

proud resident of a failed state
Reply
proud resident of a failed state
Reply
post #44 of 191
Quote:
Originally Posted by groverat View Post

SDW:

If the IRS is going to start investigating political speech in churches in an honest and fair way then you won't even be able to hear Wright supporters for the weeping and wailing coming from the right-wing evangelical community.

In my experience the "right wing evangelical" churches are not as politically explicit in their preaching and activities. They do focus on issues that are GOP pillars, such as abortion, gay rights, etc. But have you seen examples of preachers (in church) openly condemning democrat candidates by name? I can't think of any if they are out there.
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
post #45 of 191
Thread Starter 
SDW:

Quote:
In my experience the "right wing evangelical" churches are not as politically explicit in their preaching and activities. They do focus on issues that are GOP pillars, such as abortion, gay rights, etc. But have you seen examples of preachers (in church) openly condemning democrat candidates by name? I can't think of any if they are out there.

Even if we accept your premise as true, what's the difference?
proud resident of a failed state
Reply
proud resident of a failed state
Reply
post #46 of 191
Quote:
Originally Posted by groverat View Post

SDW:



Even if we accept your premise as true, what's the difference?

It's the amazing SDW hairsplitting machine. If right wing preachers fulminate endlessly against Godless liberals leading the nation into damnation and how a bunch of things that just happen to be on the Democratic Party's agenda are the workings of Satan and how the country is exactly as fallen as the extent to which it supports such vile, debased horrors, it's not actually "political" if they don't call out specific politicians.

See? Completely different thing!
They spoke of the sayings and doings of their commander, the grand duke, and told stories of his kindness and irascibility.
Reply
They spoke of the sayings and doings of their commander, the grand duke, and told stories of his kindness and irascibility.
Reply
post #47 of 191
Quote:
Originally Posted by groverat View Post

SDW:



Even if we accept your premise as true, what's the difference?

Quote:
Originally Posted by addabox View Post

It's the amazing SDW hairsplitting machine. If right wing preachers fulminate endlessly against Godless liberals leading the nation into damnation and how a bunch of things that just happen to be on the Democratic Party's agenda are the workings of Satan and how the country is exactly as fallen as the extent to which it supports such vile, debased horrors, it's not actually "political" if they don't call out specific politicians.

See? Completely different thing!

Legally speaking, it's entirely different.
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
post #48 of 191
Thread Starter 
So now we've moved into a court of law? That's some impressive goalpost shifting.
proud resident of a failed state
Reply
proud resident of a failed state
Reply
post #49 of 191
Quote:
Originally Posted by groverat View Post

So now we've moved into a court of law? That's some impressive goalpost shifting.

You posted this:

Quote:
If the IRS is going to start investigating political speech in churches in an honest and fair way then you won't even be able to hear Wright supporters for the weeping and wailing coming from the right-wing evangelical community.

I said "legally speaking" because you made it a legal issue with your IRS comment. If the posts moved, then you moved them.
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
post #50 of 191
Thread Starter 
Good point.

It still doesn't work, and that's why you don't see churches being punished. It makes no sense to draw the line at mentioning politician names, because all you would be doing is setting an arbitrary point in the middle of a sea of political speech.
proud resident of a failed state
Reply
proud resident of a failed state
Reply
post #51 of 191
Watched Wright at the National Press Club today.
I can see why Obama's handlers would want him to distance himself, but you know what, a lot of what Wright said in response to questions, I liked and was true.

For SDW, remember what you said about supporting Bush.
You can still support him without agreeing to everything he says, or does.
post #52 of 191
Yeah, but that's political inconvenient.

IOKIYAR
"The selfishness of Ayn Rand capitalism is the equivalent of intellectual masturbation -- satisfying in an ego-stroking way, but an ethical void when it comes to our commonly shared humanity."
Reply
"The selfishness of Ayn Rand capitalism is the equivalent of intellectual masturbation -- satisfying in an ego-stroking way, but an ethical void when it comes to our commonly shared humanity."
Reply
post #53 of 191
I think the most outrageous thing... among all the sordid details of this episode... is that Wright claims that the criticism of him is a criticism of "black churches." Way to wrap yourself in the memory of MLK, reverend.

I've spent quite a few Sundays in black gospel churches in east Austin. And New Orleans. And Hotlanta.

'Never heard anything remotely like the stuff that Wright spews in the solidly black churches I've been to.
Or the Korean Baptist churches. Or the Chinese Presbyterian churches... none of them.
"Stand Up for Chuck"
Reply
"Stand Up for Chuck"
Reply
post #54 of 191
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jubelum View Post

I think the most outrageous thing... among all the sordid details of this episode... is that Wright claims that the criticism of him is a criticism of "black churches." Way to wrap yourself in the memory of MLK, reverend.

I've spent quite a few Sundays in black gospel churches in east Austin. And New Orleans. And Hotlanta.

'Never heard anything remotely like the stuff that Wright spews in the solidly black churches I've been to.
Or the Korean Baptist churches. Or the Chinese Presbyterian churches... none of them.

... you know more about the African American experience then Reverend Wright?

You know more about African American churches and their history than Reverend Wright?

Are you saying that we should take as gospel the words of someone on the Internets, who "hides" behind the screen name of "Jubelum" over the words of Reverend Wright as spoken directly in front of the National Press Club?

The difference between Reverend Wright and yourself, as expressed in your nearly countless posts on PO, is like night and day. You are the night, or more simply "in the dark" as it were, while Reverend Wright is the day, or more simply he "see's the light" as it were.

As for myself I hide behind no screen name, and I don't leave an ambiguously empty Public Profile with omission of key personal data. You see I do this because I fear no one, and I hide from no one.

Kind of like Reverend Wright.
Every eye fixed itself upon him; with parted lips and bated breath the audience hung upon his words, taking no note of time, rapt in the ghastly fascinations of the tale. NOT!
Reply
Every eye fixed itself upon him; with parted lips and bated breath the audience hung upon his words, taking no note of time, rapt in the ghastly fascinations of the tale. NOT!
Reply
post #55 of 191
Quote:
Originally Posted by Northgate View Post

Yeah, but that's political inconvenient.

IOKIYAR

So now we support Obama but we disagree with him on certain things. Really, do tell!
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
post #56 of 191
Quote:
Originally Posted by franksargent View Post

... you know more about the African American experience then Reverend Wright?

You know more about African American churches and their history than Reverend Wright?

Are you saying that we should take as gospel the words of someone on the Internets, who "hides" behind the screen name of "Jubelum" over the words of Reverend Wright as spoken directly in front of the National Press Club?

The difference between Reverend Wright and yourself, as expressed in your nearly countless posts on PO, is like night and day. You are the night, or more simply "in the dark" as it were, while Reverend Wright is the day, or more simply he "see's the light" as it were.

As for myself I hide behind no screen name, and I don't leave an ambiguously empty Public Profile with omission of key personal data. You see I do this because I fear no one, and I hide from no one.

Kind of like Reverend Wright.

You have become quite tiresome as of late with your bombastic, weakly-provocative and assumption-laden chest poking. Really.

"Hiding behind a screen name"? What the hell does that have to do with anything? And I don't see everyone running around in here posting their cell phones, names, and home addresses. And what the hell does does that matter anyway. Honestly, pick some critique more valid than that. Judging by your response, I'm really glad that I don't have a bunch of personal info for you to peruse. I'm really proud of you for being so "brave"- who cares? That's one hell of an on-topic coup of logic.

As far as Rev Wright, I never claimed to know more than him about a damn thing. I simply stated that there are a good number of people I know, and things I have seen, in the "black church" and I find it really, really hard to believe that they are as he claims they are. If that is so, they must have a sanitized version when white folk show up for church.
"Stand Up for Chuck"
Reply
"Stand Up for Chuck"
Reply
post #57 of 191
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jubelum View Post

I simply stated that there are a good number of people I know in the "black church" [in Texas] and I find it really, really hard to believe that they are as he claims they are. If that is so, they must have a sanitized version when white folk show up for church.

No. You attended church in Texas and the Deep South. Rev. Wright never made any claims about black churches in Texas and the deep South.

Don't you realize the politics in the South are totally different? How can you possibly think it's related?

You don't get Franklin Graham having his headquarters in San Francisco, and you don't get Wrights in Texas. Is that a surprise to you?

That said, I think the "screen name" thing was kind of dumb...

One question though...

Have you ever lived somewhere out of the South? Have you ever been out of the country and spoken to anyone about what they think of America? I'm just asking, because there are an awful lot of "conservatives" with a shallow America-centric perspective on the world.
post #58 of 191
Quote:
Originally Posted by tonton View Post

No. You attended church in Texas. Rev. Wright never made any claims about black churches in Texas and the deep South.

Did he state that this was an "attack on the Northern black church" or just "the black church."
I'm not so sure that distinction holds up. I was speaking of visiting predominantly-black churches here.

Quote:
Don't you realize the politics in the South are totally different? How can you possibly think it's related?

Sure, how could I possibly think they are related?

I guess that is one way to look at it... but it would seem to me the political and social oppression of the South would radicalize a lot more clearly than the North.

Quote:
One question though...

Have you ever lived somewhere out of the South? Have you ever been out of the country and spoken to anyone about what they think of America? I'm just asking, because there are an awful lot of "conservatives" with a shallow America-centric perspective on the world.

I lived in Seattle for four years and have lived in a total of five countries. I can assure you that, simply based on my business, I hear quite a bit about what people think of Americans. I'm highly aware of American-and-white ethnocentric tendencies which a lot of people have. Six years in sociology education and ten years abroad will give you that by default.
"Stand Up for Chuck"
Reply
"Stand Up for Chuck"
Reply
post #59 of 191
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jubelum View Post

Did he state that this was an "attack on the Northern black church" or just "the black church."
I'm not so sure that distinction holds up. I was speaking of visiting predominantly-black churches here.



Sure, how could I possibly think they are related?

I guess that is one way to look at it... but it would seem to me the political and social oppression of the South would radicalize a lot more clearly than the North.

True, but the relative freedom of the North makes outspokenness more prevalent.

If Wright were to have made his comments in San Antonio, he would rightfully have feared for his life.
post #60 of 191
Quote:
Originally Posted by tonton View Post

True, but the relative freedom of the North makes outspokenness more prevalent.

Goodness. That's a real head-spinner for me. Those nice, accepting, "content-of-character", racial reconciliation, love-for-all-Gods-people black folk secretly harbor the sentiments of Rev Wright?


Quote:
If Wright were to have made his comments in San Antonio, he would rightfully have feared for his life.

Naahhh... go to SA sometime. It's not rednecks, horses, NASCAR, cowboys, and the Texas stereotype (read: hateful white people with oil wells). It's 60% hispanic and 10% black... I think the city you're looking for is Vidor, Texas. San Antonio is easily one of the more multicultural cities in the South.
"Stand Up for Chuck"
Reply
"Stand Up for Chuck"
Reply
post #61 of 191
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jubelum View Post

Goodness. That's a real head-spinner for me. Those nice, accepting, "content-of-character", racial reconciliation, love-for-all-Gods-people black folk secretly harbor the sentiments of Rev Wright?

Many do. Many don't. Just like in the North. But those who do won't say so.
Quote:
Naahhh... go to SA sometime. It's not rednecks, horses, NASCAR, cowboys, and the Texas stereotype (read: hateful white people with oil wells). It's 60% hispanic and 10% black... I think the city you're looking for is Vidor, Texas. San Antonio is easily one of the more multicultural cities in the South.

All I'm saying is that a small group of racists willing to take radical action would be much more likely.
post #62 of 191
I'm sure Obama wishes Wright would keep quiet. This thing was gone off the radar and then ... let's do an interview.
post #63 of 191
Quote:
Originally Posted by mydo View Post

I'm sure Obama wishes Wright would keep quiet. This thing was gone off the radar and then ... let's do an interview.

Yea... it is almost like Wright is a little hacked off at the Big-O for not being "down for the struggle." And I'm sure Wright's bit about "he's being a politician" does not help things much either.
"Stand Up for Chuck"
Reply
"Stand Up for Chuck"
Reply
post #64 of 191
Quote:
Originally Posted by tonton View Post

Many do. Many don't. Just like in the North. But those who do won't say so.

I'll now reiterate my contention that Rev Wright is doing *wonders* for reconciliation and lowering barriers of suspicion and stereotype between blacks and whites. Wonders, I tell you.

Quote:
All I'm saying is that a small group of racists willing to take radical action would be much more likely.

Based on...? (stereotype check, line 1)
"Stand Up for Chuck"
Reply
"Stand Up for Chuck"
Reply
post #65 of 191
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jubelum View Post

You have become quite tiresome as of late with your bombastic, weakly-provocative and assumption-laden chest poking. Really.

"Hiding behind a screen name"? What the hell does that have to do with anything? And I don't see everyone running around in here posting their cell phones, names, and home addresses. And what the hell does does that matter anyway. Honestly, pick some critique more valid than that. Judging by your response, I'm really glad that I don't have a bunch of personal info for you to peruse. I'm really proud of you for being so "brave"- who cares? That's one hell of an on-topic coup of logic.

As far as Rev Wright, I never claimed to know more than him about a damn thing. I simply stated that there are a good number of people I know, and things I have seen, in the "black church" and I find it really, really hard to believe that they are as he claims they are. If that is so, they must have a sanitized version when white folk show up for church.

Bombastic? So in seeking the truth, you label truth seeking as "bombastic?"

I'll assume you're not African American and that you are not a theologian.

In fact, I'll assume you don't know squat about African Americans or African American experiences.

So much for your "anecdotal" evidence,

Next time, at least try to support your argument with some verifiable facts.

Stop wasting the Internets bandwidth with your subjective and emotional POV.

TYVM.

[CENTER]

[/CENTER]
Every eye fixed itself upon him; with parted lips and bated breath the audience hung upon his words, taking no note of time, rapt in the ghastly fascinations of the tale. NOT!
Reply
Every eye fixed itself upon him; with parted lips and bated breath the audience hung upon his words, taking no note of time, rapt in the ghastly fascinations of the tale. NOT!
Reply
post #66 of 191
Quote:
Originally Posted by franksargent View Post

Bombastic? So in seeking the truth, you label truth seeking as "bombastic?"

I'll assume you're not African American and that you are not a theologian.

In fact, I'll assume you don't know squat about African Americans or African American experiences.

So much for your "antidotal" evidence,

Next time, at least try to support your argument with some verifiable facts.

Stop wasting the Internets bandwidth with your subjective and emotional POV.

TYVM.

I was wrong. This is like arguing with an arrogant 14 year old.

No, frankie, what I am calling bombastic is your snarky, know-it-all, going-off-on-nonsensical-gotcha bullshit while some of us are having a real discussion. I posted regarding my experience in black churches... and you seem to have no doubt that Wright is just fine in claiming to represent black churches. I stated that I don't buy that at all. And apparently Niger Innis from the Congress on Racial Equality took exception to that characterization as well.

I know plenty about the African American experience. My honors thesis was on the Civil Rights Movement in the Rural South. Two solid years of work in the black community. You don't know a damn thing about me or what I have done in my life, so, with all due respect, STFU. You respond to my critique of your ill-informed assumptions with... more assumptions. How choice. This is a great follow up to your idiotic "hiding behind a screen name" post.

And we're back to your same old fall-back for people who disagree with you in opinion- "facts." I do not need to produce "verifiable facts" for stating my experience in black churches. In my many visits to non-white churches, most of them black, I've never heard sentiment like Rev Wright. That's a fact. How exactly do you want my experience (when honestly reported as such) to be empirical? You're completely off base here. You're not "seeking truth"- I could just as easily ask you for proof that all black churches are like Wright's, and you'd see how stupid your demand looks.

And BTW, I'm a Baptist leaning PoMo, so theologically speaking, I don't need to be a theologian to have a valid opinion.

So, I'm sorry for "attacking your guy", but from here on I'll ask you to keep your reply to the topic at hand... which is Rev Wright, and not me personally via your requisite ad homs.
"Stand Up for Chuck"
Reply
"Stand Up for Chuck"
Reply
post #67 of 191
Hmmm.. the NY Daily News is saying a Hillary supporter is at least somewhat behind the Wright "non-apology tour" at the NPC.

And Harold Ickes, one of HRCs top dogs, it actually admitting that the Wright issue is going to be used as ammo for swaying the Supers.

And the Reverend Sharpton is a little miffed at The Big-O™ for calling for non-violence. Amazing.
"Stand Up for Chuck"
Reply
"Stand Up for Chuck"
Reply
post #68 of 191
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jubelum View Post

I was wrong. This is like arguing with an arrogant 14 year old.

No, frankie, what I am calling bombastic is your snarky, know-it-all, going-off-on-nonsensical-gotcha bullshit while some of us are having a real discussion. I posted regarding my experience in black churches... and you seem to have no doubt that Wright is just fine in claiming to represent black churches. I stated that I don't buy that at all. And apparently Niger Innis from the Congress on Racial Equality took exception to that characterization as well.

I know plenty about the African American experience. My honors thesis was on the Civil Rights Movement in the Rural South. Two solid years of work in the black community. You don't know a damn thing about me or what I have done in my life, so, with all due respect, STFU. This is a great follow up to your idiotic "hiding behind a screen name" post.

And we're back to your same old fall-back for people who disagree with you in opinion- "facts." I do not need to produce "verifiable facts" for stating my experience in black churches. In my many visits to non-white churches, most of them black, I've never heard sentiment like Rev Wright. That's a fact. How exactly do you want my experience (when honestly reported as such) to be empirical? You're completely off base here. You're not "seeking truth"- I could just as easily ask you for proof that all black churches are like Wright's, and you'd see how stupid your demand looks.

And BTW, I'm a Baptist leaning PoMo, so theologically speaking, I don't need to be a theologian to have a valid opinion.

So, I'm sorry for "attacking your guy", but from here on I'll ask you to keep your reply to the topic at hand... which is Rev Wright, and not me personally via your requisite ad homs.

... your original post has no relevancy to this discussion on the facts surrounding Reverend Wright? You appear to be having problems with "facts." Why is that so?

You are of course, entitled to your subjective, emotional, and myopic opinion. But extrapolating your singular experiences is, how shall I put it, amounts to a single subjective data point. It also appears that I have put you on the defensive, since you make additional unsustainable claims.

Anecdotal evidence does not add any objective information to this thread. So I will submit, that it is you that went off topic, and that "calling you out" somehow seemingly appears to "upset" you in some unfathomable way(s). Why is that so?

Oh, and how exactly are you "attacking my guy?" Since when is Reverend Wright "my guy?" If so, please provide incontrovertible objective evidence supporting your speculations and conjectures, TYVM.
Every eye fixed itself upon him; with parted lips and bated breath the audience hung upon his words, taking no note of time, rapt in the ghastly fascinations of the tale. NOT!
Reply
Every eye fixed itself upon him; with parted lips and bated breath the audience hung upon his words, taking no note of time, rapt in the ghastly fascinations of the tale. NOT!
Reply
post #69 of 191
Quote:
Originally Posted by franksargent View Post

... your original post has no relevancy to this discussion on the facts surrounding Reverend Wright? You appear to be having problems with "facts." Why is that so?

You keep throwing a stupid tantrum over "facts facts facts"- guess what, frank... I have, since my first post, stated that this is IN MY EXPERIENCE. I'll ask you again, do you think that black churches are all like Rev Wrights? Is that your contention?

Quote:
You are of course, entitled to your subjective, emotional, and myopic opinion. But extrapolating your singular experiences is, how shall I put it, amounts to a single subjective data point. It also appears that I have put you on the defensive, since you make additional unsustainable claims.

Ok, then. By your own nonsensical standard... PROVE EMPIRICALLY that all black churches share the sentiments of Rev Wright. Go find some "facts." Prove it pal. Show me that all, or even most, black churches are like this. How many Sundays have you spent in black churches? And as far as "unsustainable claims"- please let me know what those claims are.

How exactly do you have any backup that my ideas are "emotional" or "myopic"? Myopia (which is hard to claim with the number of hours I've spent in black churches) and emotion have nothing to do with this. Yes, my experiences are subjective... I've never said anything but that.

Quote:
URL="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anecdotal_evidence"]Anecdotal evidence[/URL] does not add any objective information to this thread. So I will submit, that it is you that went off topic, and that "calling you out" somehow seemingly appears to "upset" you in some unfathomable way(s). Why is that so?

You are truly a philosopher. You have stupidly called me out to produce "facts" to support my "experience"- when I have never claimed it was anything but my experience.

Now, since you are about making this personal, I'll ask one last time for you to speak to the issue of Rev Wright and if he has the right to speak for all black churches, which is what my original post was about. Or heck, speak to anything ON TOPIC that is not based in personal attacks on other board members. Leave out the snark. Leave out the juvenile chest thumping. Leave out the condescension. Speak to the thread topic, and keep any further personal attacks to the wall at your left. Surely a person of your age and education can talk to the issue and not the speaker.
"Stand Up for Chuck"
Reply
"Stand Up for Chuck"
Reply
post #70 of 191
Apparently my point about "representing the black church" is quite relevant to the discussion, regardless of the nonsensical demand for "proof."

Obama is now calling Wright out on EXACTLY the same grounds that I did:

Quote:
HICKORY, N.C. (AP) - Democrat Barack Obama said Tuesday he was outraged by the latest assertion by his former pastor that criticism of his fiery sermons is an attack on the black church.

"This is not an attack on Jeremiah Wright," Wright told the Washington media Monday. "It has nothing to do with Senator Obama. It is an attack on the black church launched by people who know nothing about the African-American religious tradition."

Obama told reporters Tuesday that Wright's comments do not accurately portray the perspective of the black church.
"Stand Up for Chuck"
Reply
"Stand Up for Chuck"
Reply
post #71 of 191
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jubelum View Post

You keep throwing a stupid tantrum over "facts facts facts"- guess what, frank... I have, since my first post, stated that this is IN MY EXPERIENCE. I'll ask you again, do you think that black churches are all like Rev Wrights? Is that your contention?



Ok, then. By your own nonsensical standard... PROVE EMPIRICALLY that all black churches share the sentiments of Rev Wright. Go find some "facts." Prove it pal. Show me that all, or even most, black churches are like this. How many Sundays have you spent in black churches? And as far as "unsustainable claims"- please let me know what those claims are.

How exactly do you have any backup that my ideas are "emotional" or "myopic"? Myopia (which is hard to claim with the number of hours I've spent in black churches) and emotion have nothing to do with this. Yes, my experiences are subjective... I've never said anything but that.



You are truly a philosopher. You have stupidly called me out to produce "facts" to support my "experience"- when I have never claimed it was anything but my experience.

Now, since you are about making this personal, I'll ask one last time for you to speak to the issue of Rev Wright and if he has the right to speak for all black churches, which is what my original post was about. Or heck, speak to anything ON TOPIC that is not based in personal attacks on other board members. Leave out the snark. Leave out the juvenile chest thumping. Leave out the condescension. Speak to the thread topic, and keep any further personal attacks to the wall at your left. Surely a person of your age and education can talk to the issue and not the speaker.

I think that you "posturing" is just that "posturing."

I don't know squat about African American churches, you see I don't make gross over generalizations from a small sample size of one.

Now, I could have started going to African American churches across the USA for 50 years (or more), nonstop. But what would that show? A biased sample taken from my point of view, nothing more, and nothing less.

All I have to go by are Reverend Wright's statements at the National Press Club, and his much greater experiences, than you or I will ever attain with respect to African American churches.

Oh, and the conventional wisdom that Sunday services are America's most segregated time period. Give me a little time, and I think I can provide factual data to unequivocally support that "truism."

As to who Reverend Wright was speaking for, obviously he was speaking for himself, nothing more, and nothing less. Anything else is simply conjectural, speculative, and overreaching, something you are clearly guilty of BTW.

Any claims are "unsustainable claims" when prima facie evidence is provided, by one such as yourself, yourself meaning a single point of view, when we know that there are at least tens of millions of points of view with respect to African American churches. And that all those points of view are, I would argue, much more informed than your very weak attempt to frame this discussion, from what must arguably be, a very small sample size of attendance of African American churches, relative to national coverage and very limited appearances.

Oh, but I don't know you do I? How many times have you used that refrain over the last few years here on PO? Probably a few hundred. You do realize, that because you "hide" behind a screen name, you can say anything, and yet say nothing. There just words, your words, from whence the came I know not.

In other wirds, you made the statement, thus the burden of proof must reside with you, since you are the one making such "spurious claims."

Until you can buttress your claims, I don't need to do a thing. What comes first, the prosecution or the defense?

And yet, you still haven't substantiated your claims with any type of public domain facts. And other individuals opinions are just that, singular opinions, nothing more, and nothing less.
Every eye fixed itself upon him; with parted lips and bated breath the audience hung upon his words, taking no note of time, rapt in the ghastly fascinations of the tale. NOT!
Reply
Every eye fixed itself upon him; with parted lips and bated breath the audience hung upon his words, taking no note of time, rapt in the ghastly fascinations of the tale. NOT!
Reply
post #72 of 191
Quote:
I don't know squat about African American churches, you see I don't make gross over generalizations from a small sample size of one.

I didn't make a "gross over generalization"- I stated my opinion based on what I have experienced in black churches. Do you get that yet?

Quote:
Now, I could have started going to African American churches across the USA for 50 years (or more), nonstop. But what would that show? A biased sample taken from my point of view, nothing more, and nothing less.

If you are trying to "prove" a "fact" that would be a problem. You, after doing that, would have basis for an OPINION. Which is exactly what I have, and shared.

Quote:
All I have to go by are Reverend Wright's statements at the National Press Club, and his much greater experiences, than you or I will ever attain with respect to African American churches.

Did you read his comments? The ones that claim that an attack on him is an attack on the black church?

Quote:
Oh, and the conventional wisdom that Sunday services are America's most segregated time period. Give me a little time, and I think I can provide factual data to unequivocally support that "truism."

Sure, Sunday morning is still divided in America. That's been long established.

Quote:
As to who Reverend Wright was speaking for, obviously he was speaking for himself, nothing more, and nothing less. Anything else is simply conjectural, speculative, and overreaching, something you are clearly guilty of BTW.

Did you read his comments? The ones that claim that an attack on him is an attack on the black church?

Quote:
Any claims are "unsustainable claims" when prima facie evidence is provided, by one such as yourself, yourself meaning a single point of view, when we know that there are at least tens of millions of points of view with respect to African American churches. And that all those points of view are, I would argue, much more informed than your very weak attempt to frame this discussion, from what must arguably be, a very small sample size of attendance of African American churches, relative to national coverage and very limited appearances.

Strawman ho! I never claimed to be an authority on "what black churches think." Rather, I stated that Wright's statements, and continued statements, are not what I have experienced in the 20 or so black churches I have been in throughout the South. I'm framing the discussion as "this is my opinion and my experience"- but you are dead-set on empirical "proof" and "evidence" and "looking correct" in an argument you are having by yourself, not with my statements.

Quote:
Oh, but I don't know you do I? How many times have you used that refrain over the last few years here on PO? Probably a few hundred. You do realize, that because you "hide" behind a screen name, you can say anything, and yet say nothing. There just words, your words, from whence the came I know not.

When I encounter a person such as yourself who sees someone who disagrees with them and then fires away, not knowing anything about my views or experiences, you bet I am not going to abide your bellicose and incorrect assumptions. And as far as the screen name thing, shove it. What the hell exactly do you want my personal info for, anyway? You're 55... Grow up.

Quote:
In other wirds, you made the statement, thus the burden of proof must reside with you, since you are the one making such "spurious claims." Until you can buttress your claims, I don't need to do a thing. What comes first, the prosecution or the defense?

Spurious claims? I've claimed, truthfully, that in my experience all black churches are not like Rev Wright's. Quite the opposite. And I have experience to back up my opinion. Apparently Sen. Obama agrees with my opinion. You see, frank, I don't have to "prove" an opinion... it's mine, made with loving care over years of experience and cognition.

Quote:
And yet, you still haven't substantiated your claims with any type of public domain facts. And other individuals opinions are just that, singular opinions, nothing more, and nothing less.

What again, frank, do you think I am "claiming" that can be proved by fact? And you've gone through this entire thread being an asshole and a troll, all to arrive back where we started, with my up front and honest opinion, which was never claimed to be anything BUT that. You did this same thing in the Darwin thread- took someone's opinion and screamed "prove it" to a point of hilarity.

This makes two. In the future, make sure you make the distinction between someone sharing their personally-informed opinion and someone making an empirical case. Going through long, masturbatory volumes asking someone to "empirically prove an opinion" is simply... dumb. In the future, I'm not going to waste my time taking the bait when you choose to conduct discourse in this way... asking for "proof" of the unprovable and for things that need no proving in the first place.

Now... do you have a single damn thing to add to this thread of substance that does not involve me? Maybe something about Rev. Wright, Obama, HRC, the state of race relations in your corner of the world,... anything?
"Stand Up for Chuck"
Reply
"Stand Up for Chuck"
Reply
post #73 of 191
post #74 of 191
Quote:
Originally Posted by @_@ Artman View Post


+1

Artman... always on the scene with the perfect graphic...
I've retired that "laughing Thunderbirds" animated gif since commending it to you... I could have used that in this thread...
"Stand Up for Chuck"
Reply
"Stand Up for Chuck"
Reply
post #75 of 191
So anyway, what about Hagee? Why the deafening silence?

McCain actively sought his endorsement (something Obama never sought from Wright), praised him to the high heavens, gave a kind of half-assed "don't agree with everything" when some of Hagee's more colorful remarks came to light, continued to praise him, and now gets churlish if anyone brings it up (which, of course, almost never happens).

Don't seem to recall him using the occasion to make a thoughtful speech on the role of religion in America or what it means to claim God brings his wrath down on the unworthy, or anything like that.

How come? Why is this only a problem for Obama? In seeking his endorsement, McCain tacitly approved Hagee's world view, far more than Obama has ever put his stamp of approval on everything out of Wright's mouth.

I mean, I know it can't be RACIST BULLSHIT because America is long over such things. And it can't be the LIBERAL MEDIA because they are doing everything in their power to repress the Wright story and make a big deal out of Hagee, liberal thugs that they are.

So: I'm mystified. Wait-- let me channel SDW:

THEY ARE COMPLETELY DIFFERENT. OBAMBA SAT IN WRIGHT'S CHURCH FOR OMFG!!!! 20 YEARS, WHEREAS HAGEE AND MCCAIN ARE MERELY BEST BUDDIES FOREVER. OBAMA IS CLEARLY STEEPED IN WRIGHT'S IDEOLOGY OF HATRED, WHICH MAY ERUPT FROM AT ANY TIME IN THE FORM OF SOME KIND OF KILL WHITEY LEGISLATION, WERE HE ALLOWED IN THE WHITEHOUSE, WHEREAS MCCAIN EMBRACED HAGEE'S IDEOLOGY OF HATRED MERELY AS A POLITICAL CALCULATION, WHICH IS ACTUALLY KIND LAUDABLE, WHEN YOU THINK ABOUT IT.

OK, I think I got it. Carry on.
They spoke of the sayings and doings of their commander, the grand duke, and told stories of his kindness and irascibility.
Reply
They spoke of the sayings and doings of their commander, the grand duke, and told stories of his kindness and irascibility.
Reply
post #76 of 191
Quote:
Originally Posted by addabox View Post

Wait-- let me channel SDW:

Not only as someone who plays a physician on TV, but also as today's janitor in PO... can I respectfully advise you against that? Your head might explode. We need your melon around here and I don't want to clean up the mess.

As far as your post... Hagee is a non-issue. <4....3.....2.....1..... pulls up plastic sheet in the splatter zone> </joking>

I get a lot of comedic value out of JHM. In fact, some evenings I bounce back and forth between Hagee, Parsley, and Osteen in search of the biggest over-the-top statement I can find. Then my wife and I compare notes on who has the biggest whopper for the evening.

I'm not so sure that pairing McCain and Hagee would be all that much of a negative for McCain... despite Hagee's baggage. The evangelicals might actually get in behind McCain for a change. (The enema of my enema is my friend sorta thing.)

The larger question is this... why does addabox hate the Assembly of God? Why does he hate successful fat people? How far will this be allowed to go? Where does McCain find these people? How long will the media ignore children being sacrificed at Hagee's church? How can McCain want Hagee's support when Hagee preaches from a state where polygamists live?
"Stand Up for Chuck"
Reply
"Stand Up for Chuck"
Reply
post #77 of 191
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jubelum View Post

+1

Artman... always on the scene with the perfect graphic...
I've retired that "laughing Thunderbirds" animated gif since commending it to you... I could have used that in this thread...

Thank you. But on this topic I'm wrong. Obama just threw Wright under a bus today.

Sigh...carry on...\ the Reverending Story...
post #78 of 191
Quote:
Originally Posted by @_@ Artman View Post

Obama just threw Wright under a bus today.

Well, at least it wasn't a segregated bus. \
"Stand Up for Chuck"
Reply
"Stand Up for Chuck"
Reply
post #79 of 191
Quote:
Originally Posted by @_@ Artman View Post

Thank you. But on this topic I'm wrong. Obama just threw Wright under a bus today.

Wright jumped under the bus all on his own. Obama just watched and commented on it.
post #80 of 191
Quote:
Originally Posted by mydo View Post

Wright jumped under the bus all on his own. Obama just watched and commented on it.

I guess the question is if Obama will also find himself under the bus at the hand of Wright's stalwart supporters?
Does this cost him "street cred" among those who are "down for the struggle?"

Who's driving this bus anyway...?
"Stand Up for Chuck"
Reply
"Stand Up for Chuck"
Reply
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: PoliticalOutsider
AppleInsider › Forums › Other Discussion › AppleOutsider › PoliticalOutsider › Wright in Context - What The Media Didn't Show