Okay, okay. POLITICAL opinions, wiseguy. ;)

Thank you. This allows me to finally state what I was thinking anyway:

ratbastid speaks the truth.

no, of course Obama doesn't believe 100% of what Wright preaches. I bet he doesn't believe most of the more paranoid claptrap Wright was declaiming about that the press has been shoving in our faces. It's just an issue of what should bother someone enough that he'll stop choosing a certain person as an authority figure in his life for his family. Obviously Obama got enough else out of the affiliation with TUCC that he was willing to overlook certain of Wright's, um, eccentricities. Obama is a politician - he makes compromises. That's life.

Geez, over 400 posts in this thread. Something must have hit a chord.

it seems to just be a general "Hillary Supporters Bashing Obama" thread

BTW, wrong as Rev. Wright may be in believing the US is behind AIDS in the black population, .

Wow, I thought you were going to link to the Tuskegee syphilis study....

I did respond to the rest of hat post in post 393.

It is sort of interesting and I have a number of theories on it, I'm sure the motivation varies from poster to poster.

I did find it odd that while I had not seen any of his sermons until a few days ago, I have not actively looked, nor have I watched any of the news shows that may have had them, it took me about five seconds to find a blatantly nutty, anti-US, statement from him that required linking and excuses.

I don't think anyone really cares on either side what he said. One just wants damage and one just wants damage control.

I personally doubt Obama shares those views, my feeling is deep down hes as white as I am, but as you say he is a politician, he used this guy when it was useful and now he is a liability.

Perhaps thats the fear here by some of the more cult like followers, the fear isn't that Obama might lose because of this, but that he is in fact what they so desperately hope he is not. Just another politician.

I don't think anyone here denies that he's a politician, though I wouldn't go so far as to say "just another." He's different, but certainly no political messiah. Still, as I've said before, the idea that he converted to Christianity and began attending TUCC for political reasons is rather ludicrous. It applies an unheard of level of prescience - such that if he's that able to see into the future, maybe he is the messiah ;)

It would be far easier for supporters to shrug Wright off and say "he just needed som 'black cred'" than for people like me to waste time here posting and trying to educate people about things like black liberation theology, which I've had exposure to and experience with long before this Rev. Wright issue came up. It would have been far easier for Obama to do the politically expedient thing and just say Rev. Wright was a mistake and move on from that. And if he were as interested in doing what's politically expedient as you seem to think (no doubt he's interested in that, but not to the level you seem to believe), then he wouldn't have freely written about his past drug use in his book.

When you spend time learning about Obama as a person - not simply from Fox News soundbites, but by actually reading about his background and what the people who have dealt with him over the years have to say (and what they have to say is remarkably similar, whether it's someone he knew back in college, or a student he taught at UofC) - then you find that, while a politician, he's certainly not "just another" politician. He's no American messiah, and he won't turn America into a land of milk and honey with roads of gold after 8 years in the White House, but he does have the kind of character I want in a politician. Not someone I'd necessarily like to sit around and have a beer with, but someone who is intellectually curious and makes a point of listening to and learning from others, regardless of the source.

Oh, and loquiter's right, except it should be reworded: Obama is a human being - he makes compromises. That's life.

I don't expect my politicians to be perfect, and neither should you. In the grand scheme of political imperfections, Rev. Wright is a speck. There are far worse flaws that he could have.

In other news: Clinton Pastor Backs Reverend Wright

Well, geez, nobody's brought that up before. That's an excellent point--if he's been sitting in the pew for 20 years, that means he joined the church in his mid-20s. Fresh out of law school, working as an organizer, doing the most basic leg-work of politics.... You really think he envisioned a run at the presidency at that point, and was shrewd enough to know--twenty years ago, mind--that the country would have turned conservative enough that an atheist would be unelectable?

This is the guy who waved away presidency talk after his Convention keynote just four years ago. But 20 years ago, he made a tactical choice regarding his selection of a religion? Come ON.

Does anyone really believe that prolonging the discussion here will have any impact on those who believe Obama is "pathological and dangerous, extremely dangerous" or who believe some of his supporters here are "cult like followers."

As I continue to follow this thread, I really dont know whether to laugh or shudder at the ignorance and intolerance.

edit:
Ooops. I wasnt going to post in this thread anymore.

Oh well, too late. I think it needed to be said again.

Has the government told you to be quiet?

I completely agree. It's a total waste of time, yet I have the XKCD wrong-on-the-internet gene :P

No, I came to that conclusion long ago. However, I would like someone on either side to address the issue I brought up in post #304...

Edit - NM I saw SM70's response a few posts down...

I'm sure you will figure it out, spin it, and blame the republicans for it :thumbsup:

Just so you are aware of who is keeping this "turd" subject afloat in the media:
(Thank goodness there is not a concerted, extremely well organized "Op" owned and financed by a group of extremely wealthy, hysterically committed, extremely conservative group of evangelical christian white men behind this constant "Wright" noise.....heaven forbid, if that were to happen!!!)

Twenty percent of the google search results are coming from on source: townhall.com:

The most dangerous men in America:

That's not the point. I was replying to this:

Which seemed to imply,to me at least that I was telling someone the had to "shut up".

I didn't. My reply was to show the hypocrisy of that statement.

On one hand Ratbastid was lecturing me about someone's right to speech, which I never said they didn't have. I said I don't believe in the pulpit they should say things like that.

But I pointed out that Imus, Stern, and so on DO get fined by the government for things they have said and that perhaps he supported those fines. Fining by the government is IMHO, the same as having the government say "shut up".

Also, Imus's job was called for and some, like Sharpton, were asking government to get involved.

I have not said the government need get involved in Rev. Wright's sermons in any way, have I? I never said he had no right to say anything, did I? Yet, I got the "freedom of speech lecture". Why is that?

The peculiar theology of black liberation
 

A very insightful article from the Asia Times www.atimes.com about:

• Black Liberation Theology
• Rev. Wright
• Wright's often-stated mentors: James Cone and Dwight Hopkins
• Examination of the liberal perspective regarding the religion, the leaders, and Obama

enjoy!

Thought this belonged here, even if after the fact:

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/o...,2414760.story

A tale of two racists.

Mel Gibson was apparently raised by a father that is openly and adamantly antisemitic. However, Mel Gibson's long standing public image and body of work do not reflect racist or antisemitic tendencies. He also struggles with alcoholism and on occasion has revealed the deep seeded programming of his childhood. He is a racist like a recovering alcoholic is still an alcoholic. Unfortunately for Mr. Gibson, he is both. Although his life's work, circle of friends, and documented public life showed no indication of racism until his arrests for drunkenness and statements made with abusive behavior toward the police, he was attacked and immediately labeled as a racist in the media. This will always be with him. He may have occasionally stumbled and revealed his demons in his life, but he at least tries to rise and be a better person. We should expect behavior that strives for redemption, a conscious attempt to be "better" from someone with such an upbringing.

We all know of Rev. Wright's upbringing as a black child into manhood, his service to his country in the Marines, and the good things he has done for his community. But he does not try to come together with non-blacks, he openly and without apology preaches racial hatred, stereotypes, and racially based anti-American rhetoric. Regardless of his heritage and past life, he intellectually chooses to perpetuate racism and the culture of victimization for opportunity. The hypocrisy is when we coddle these excuses and express understanding for such unadulterated continued hatred. There is no attempt at redemption or reconciliation in the actions of Rev. Wright.

....according to a 10-second clip you saw on YouTube....

At least Wright didn't say "Fucking Whitey!"

the
 

The accusations of anti-semitism leveled against Mel Gibson did not originate from his 2006 drunk driving incident. They go as far back as 2004 when he released The Passion of the Christ and many Jewish groups were upset over what they viewed as an anti-semitic portrayal of Jews in the movie. His arrest only reinforced what those groups thought of him in the first place. These accusations id not stick, and many newspapers reported that the controversy surrounding his DUI arrest boosted ticket sales for his movie Apocalypto which opened while this controversy was still brewing. Somehow, I doubt his slurred slurs has had any lasting impact on this man.

I don't know what you're trying to pull, because I can't see how you can compare Mel Gibson to Jeremiah Wright aside from the fact that both men took a boatload of heat for their comments. If you're trying to turn this into some sort of double standard where the careers of white people are ruined if they say something racist while the careers of black people are unaffected when do the same, it's destined for failure.

Please explain the point you're trying to prove by comparing a Hollywood actor to a community preacher.

I think when you accuse the US government of unleashing AID's upon the black community on purpose and lying about the disease, you don't need a longer clip.

What do you think there ratbastid?

You are correct in the accusations leveled at Gibson for the "Passion" and "Apocalypto". I believe they were a predictable outcome for a number of legitimate concerns and petty political hyperbole due to the nature of the the topic. My point is ... take any person who grew up with adversity and social programming, examine their lives, accept the obstacles, burdens and demons they carry, then assess the choices they make.

I'm not trying to pull anything ... I did say that Mel Gibson is a racist. I think he tries very hard not to be and we as a society should encourage those who truly attempt to redeem themselves. If the example of Mel Gibson was not to your pleasing, then insert a whole list of others from a variety of racial and socio-economic background that have overcome their adversity and are pro-actively asserting non-racial bias. Rev. Wright chooses to preach otherwise.

The longer we choose to rationalize forms of justified racism, we are enablers.

There is much more than a 10 minute clip, please read my post on the ministry of his church http://www.tfproject.org/tfp/showpos...&postcount=419. There is more if you choose to look. The clips are not the basis of my argument. Giving someone a pass because of their history and heritage doesn't change the fact that they are still racist or a race-baiter ... I frankly see no difference.

I agree that was extremely wacky. I disagree that it taints everything about him.

I object to a man's entire career--a career in which it's widely agreed by those who actually know that he's been a powerful force for good in his community--being judged on a total of 10 seconds of video. I find it very sad that the good the man has done will be interred with his sound byte. I understand that YOU'RE willing to write him off on the basis of a single statement or opinion, but I'm not, and I believe that doing that is tragically short-sighted, black-and-white thinking.

Look, I'm sure I could search back through all the hundreds of posts you've posted, and find some combination of words you typed once that make you sound like a jackass. And I don't mean that personally; it's probably true for any one of us who posts regularly. So then I could put that quote in my sig, start threads about it, put it on billboards, make YouTube videos about it, put it in a full-page ad in USA Today, etc. And anyone who doesn't have some history with you would know you based on my cherry-picked quote from you and would therefore form certain conclusions about you. Would you call that fair? Or would you call that a personal smear campaign? And the people who know "know" about you--would you call them well-informed?

Here's my other question: Aren't you at ALL interested in why he might think that? Or is "he hates people my color" a sufficient explanation for you?

the premise on which this thead continues--somehow--to operate has not diminished in terms of its absurdity now that we are on page 11.

rather than repeat the arguments against it, i'll ask a question which is implicit throughout, and which surfaced in the transcript of that idiot hannity talking about what television would have you imagine liberation theology to be.

what it looks like to me is happening here is that conservatives are attempting to suppress politicized speech when its source understands himself as amongst the oppressed, when the politics connect that oppression to structural features of the existing order, and when that connection enables **political** claims (which i emphasize because they are NOT analytic claims--and there is a fundamental difference between the two--a political claim in the context of a liberation politics is about mobilization--it rests on information but does not necessarily encompass all its complexity. this is not to say that therefore anything goes: some claims are more effective and more congruent with reality than others--but on this, conservatives are sure as fuck in no position to complain given the fundamentally dissociative nature of many of the descriptive statements their politics rest upon...)

so what i think it happening here has little to do with "racism" as the right would prefer to cast it, and everything to do with associating obama with a type of political speech--oppositional speech that departs from the premise that it is ENTIRELY possible that fundamental problems result from STRUCTURAL features of the existing order and CANNOT be remedied within that order and so lead to a basic challenge to it. what i think is happening, then, is a form of old-school red-baiting. what the right is basically claiming is not that wright's particular memes are disallowed, but that EVERYTHING about his politics are disallowed because they represent a challenge to the order that conservatives feel, for whatever reason, they need to defend.

so red-baiting, comrades.
the new version of accusing X or Y of being a pinko.

how is this any different?

there is nothing of substance to this beyond an action of political suppression--not censorship because the right imagines that allowing selected elements to circulate serves their cause--marginalization of the position wright is constructed as occupying as a way of generating associations around obama with something Scary Scary Bad for conservatives--the acknowledgment of structure at all, of structural problems, of politics about structural problems.

I don't think anyone is trying to suppress anything. I'm not an especially conservative guy -- "world weary" is more like it -- and I knew that some of the more outrageous parts of Wright's sort of claptrap are not that uncommon in certain quarters. I just was amazed that a sensible, sane, smart guy like Obama wouldn't understand how it would look to people who aren't exposed to that sort of thing. Or maybe he did, but had other more immediate objectives that had to take a back seat for a while, and he figured the future will take care of itself once he was on his way. And in fact he wasn't wrong. So maybe he really is as smart as I thought he was.

Why does this thing resonate? Probably because to many people it's shocking. Most people don't think they have racial issues, and this sort of thing comes as a rude awakening because it makes them think their goodwill isn't being reciprocated. They may be wrong, they may be right, but I suspect that is genuinely how they feel.

i meant suppress in the sense of simultaneously make visible and marginalize by selective quotation and ridiculous interpretation at the same time.

the message is obvious: look out conservatives, this guy's a radical.

red-baiting. pure and simple.

My last post on the "Inequality" thread, details how and why it "works":

roachboy, I understand your example, but lets try to take political philosophy out of the mix for a moment. We don't have to be just white, black, liberal, conservative or communist to form and bear hatred. What is the solution? If we all truly want to solve hatred between races, why should we tolerate any? If we maintain the view that all racism as unacceptable, and since this thread is supposed to be about influence on a major presidential candidate by a perceived racist, it shouldn't be unreasonable to question this relationship. I'm sure Desmond Tutu could easily have a justified beef with whitey given his life experiences, but he chooses to promote peace and understanding. These kinds of choices are what I'm talking about.

ratbastid asked two very good questions:
IMO it's very important to understand what shapes a persons outlook on things. We acknowledge these things, perhaps apologize or make changes as a society. But where does it end? When do bigoted people decide to no longer use prejudice? White, black, red, or otherwise. To change something, you have to be willing to change. Rev. Wright chooses not to. That is his right. He now suffers public scrutiny.

If anyone truly hates someone because of their color, then are they not the very definition of racist?

...that IS NOT the way we do things....


["If those in charge of our society - politicians, corporate executives, and owners of press and television - can dominate our ideas, they will be secure in their power. They will not need soldiers patrolling the streets. We will control ourselves."
[Howard Zinn, historian and author]

No, by definition they are a bigot. A racist is one who adheres to the ideals of superiority of his race above all other races. Semantics, I know, but I do think it's important that we get these terms correct.

otto:

there is no way to take political worldviews out of this.
fundamentally, for reasons that i have spelled out a number of times and lack either the time or the energy to repeat (and i don't mean this to sound snippy, though it probably does: it's just my 3-d situation at the moment), i do not accept the conservative-specific reduction of racism to a type of sentence, nor do i accept that "hatred" is meaningful in this context as a way of desginating anything except a reductive-to-dismissive interpretation of a discourse that originates with folk who occupy a position of exclusion from this order, in the main, and who by virtue of the meanings of that exclusion have every right to be angry and to enact that anger.

on the other hand, if that's all that was happening in liberation theology--i'm snippy and so everything should burn--i wouldn't be in this discussion because i would have nothing to say about the way in which the politics are being framed--because in the conservative-dominated version that we're talking across, that's all wright's politics are presented as being.

but liberation theology goes beyond this to a systemic critique of capitalism on the one hand and a view about building alternate, autonomous economic communities on the other--communities which are not dominated by capitalist forms of exchange, production, etc.

this is what i mean by selective quotation designed to trivialize a politics that at some level or another more conservative folk find threatening on the one hand, and the simultaneous use of those selective quotations to do political damage to obama.

short alternative version: to accept your question, i'd also have to accept the way in which wright's politics are framed as adequate: i don't.

is this still being debated? seriously?

It's my fault, sorry. I had the audacity to post an editorial written by a white member of Rev. Wright's church which did little but put the thread back in the new posts window. I made a mistake.

And I agree with everything roachboy has said here.

This video is exactly what this thread is like.

In this video, an unnamed Fox News "journalist" is attempting to Gotcha! a preacher who is close with Wright (whose name I can't find). No amount of reason or sanity can ever overcome the "journalist's" unreasoning assertion that Wright is a bigot racist hater--he's not listening, he doesn't care, and most of his "questions" start with "Yeah, but...". Guy's a professional "journalist"--by which I mean, he's getting paid for this hackery. And he gets schooled.

<object width="425" height="355"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/F0wvQMqSzTM&rel=0"></param><param name="wmode" value="transparent"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/F0wvQMqSzTM&rel=0" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" wmode="transparent" width="425" height="355"></embed></object>

Heh, Fox clearly didn't know what it was doing if they thought they were going to get Fr. Pfleger from St. Sabina to criticize Rev. Wright. I've visited St. Sabina and met Fr. Pflager - it's not worth messing with him. This is a Catholic priest who has a black jesus crucifix in his church - and gets away with it.

Fox and it's viewers aren't exactly known for their intelligence.

Wright is a bigot racist. There's no contending that fact now, period end of the damn story. Obama's support of the man raises some serious questions...

Questions that raise doubts on his fitness for office of the presidency. Of course, none of the other candidates are people that I would call worthy either.

But you lefties should really stop apologizing for this racist moron. It makes you look like liars.