|
Quote:
He didn't call Geraldine Ferraro a typical white person. Here is his full quote in context. "The point I was making was not that Grandmother harbors any racial animosity. She doesn't. But she is a typical white person, who, if she sees somebody on the street that she doesn't know, you know, there's a reaction that's been bred in our experiences that don't go away and that sometimes come out in the wrong way, and that's just the nature of race in our society." |
Quote:
Quote:
By which he meant she lives in a world where racism is automatic and unthinking--she sees people she's scared of, and race has something to do with that, and it comes out in ways that aren't conducive to improving race relations. And that doesn't make her a bad person, rather it points to something in the environment, the culture of our nation, that has been largely unacknowledged and therefore impossible to deal with. It's the single most honest thing I've maybe ever heard a politician say. In that sense you can see (although he didn't say it) that Ferraro's statement illustrates that she dwells in the that same environment. As do I. As do, I suspect, most white Americans. THAT'S what Obama was saying. And it was only part of what he was saying--he also acknowledged that the black anger, the sort that Wright demonstrated, is part of that environment too. And without acknowledging that, it's also impossible to deal with. Otto: I answered your question, now answer mine. Did you watch the full videos of the Wright sermons? Did that change at all your thinking about what he is saying, versus the impression you got from the high-repeat, out-of-context clips we've seen so many times now? |
Secret, you say we should discuss race and the problems instead of ignoring it. Race has been talked about since the day I was born. It had been talked about for 20 years before I was born when everyone received equal protection under the law thanks to MLK and others.
What do you plan to do about it other than talk? Talking about it has done nothing, lets actually treat everyone as equal and stop pointing out race every 30sec. THAT is how we are trying to deal with it. It sucked, it's in the past, while little bits of racism exist deal with it. Deal with it in the same way some atheists will never like a devout Christian and vice versa. Deal with it in the same way some of the poor will always resent the rich, and vice versa. Quote:
You say I can't ignore them, I say I will. |
Where was Obamas need to have this grand "discussion of race" prior to having his poll numbers smacked around by the Wright affair? Seems reactionary, not revolutionary to me...
|
Quote:
In the case of Rev Wright, his POV is one largely, if not entirely, shared by perhaps the majority of black Americans - 15% of your population. His talking points are also, on a day to day level, more important to people's daily lives than the WTC stuff. I think ignoring each may bring about an entirely different set of consequences. |
Quote:
Having lived in Chicago where the population is nearly 40% black, and having moved there from a Chicago suburb where the population was decidedly white (I knew of perhaps one or two dozen black kids in my 2000 student HS)...I know from firsthand experience that Rev. Wright is not unusual, and I have lived and experienced the extreme differences of environment that your typical white person and typical black person grow up in. I've gone to black churches, and visited neighborhoods, and it's no wonder race is a central issue to them. Differences are not overcome by ignoring them. We can't just "stop talking about race" and then watch it magically disappear. That's exactly what we've been doing for so long, and you know what - I'm still instinctively more suspicious of a random black man when I'm walking alone down a city street than I am of a random white man. I know it's not rational, but it's still there. Racial tensions are not based on rational thought, they're based on a lack of understanding the other. We fear that which we do not understand. And it's a funny thing about the poor resenting the rich. It could be that it has something to do with working two jobs at minimum wage and not being able to afford to raise a family and pay for health care and then turning on the news to find out some rich CEO who ran a company into the ground got a multi-million dollar package for failing at his job. I'm not poor and I resent that. Go to the schools in Chicago's black neighborhoods and you'll find buildings without air conditioning, without adequate computers (or maybe without computers at all), and with old textbooks. Then go to New Trier High School, which serves some nice, predominantly white Chicago suburbs, where they spend $15,000 per student. And this is the kind of institutional racism that people should just deal with? I'd recommend, among other things, that you read these . I always find it amusing when people bring up Martin Luther King as a counter-argument to things like this. His "I have a dream" speech was a great one, no doubt about that, but it has been coopted by movements who are likely the opposite of what he would stand for were he alive today. When he was assassinated, he had begun to see the plight of black people as closely linked to the plight of all poor people, and he had begun to speak out against issues that are still problems today. As the link points out, "King knew that without economic justice, poor people of color would never reach the level playing field that he always saw as the final achievement of the civil rights movement." So, as much as some people would like to pat themselves on the back and congratulate themselves that we've realized Dr. King's dream, and say that the reason black people live in such disproportionate poverty is because they "choose to," we have decidedly not realized his dream, and we have a long way to go. Not just for black people, and not just for latinos, but for all poor people. A quick anecdote that really doesn't mean all that much, but I still find it interesting: While driving from Chicago to Cincinatti a couple years ago, going through Indiana, we saw a sign along a highway exit. It said, pointing to one side, "Whitestown," and pointing in the other direction, it indicated "Brownsville." That such obvious demonstrations of our nation's oppressive legacy of slavery and racism remain demonstrates just how deep the undercurrent of racial tension goes. Even a moderate amount of respect for our history should have lead those towns to be renamed, but they still persist. It's just a single anecdote...but even as a white, suburban kid, I found that exit sign to be a shocking display of persistent history. Quote:
|
You still didn't answer my question, what do you want to do about it? Talking has done nothing, we've been talking for 40+ years. You claim we've been ignoring it, when the reality is it's shoved in our face 24/7.
I'm not going to ignore people who point out that minorities are more likely to go to poorer schools. I'm not going to ignore that minorities are more likely to be poor. I'm going to ignore those who believe HIV was invented by the government to kill blacks, when they ignore the fact that 1/4 of black women have an STD because (showing less use of protection). I'm going to ignore people who claim crack was invented to hold down the black community when they ignore whites have their own epidemic of meth (obviously invented by Farrakan?). |
Quote:
I hear the same concerns voiced often by the talk show hosts and on the "news", on the Salem Comm. radio broadcasts I listen to in the car commuting to work. I think your opinions about race, Seaver, fly in the face of the facts: Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
|
The funny thing about the "Chickens coming home to roost" comment was who he was quoting. He wasn't quoting Malcom X he was quoting a white foxnews anchor and he directly credited that anchor with it. Of course foxnews won't show you that part of the speech.
Here is the "God Damn America" sermon in its entirety. When he says it he is saying God should damn America because of what it has done, which is true. America has been responsible or complicit in many horrible things. He talks about many of them in this speech. The only thing I don't agree with in it is his take on HIV. Tell me how is this different than Hagee or Robertson saying New Orleans deserves Katrina because of their gay pride parades? Or any of the other similar comments by looney pastors/ministers/preachers? |
Quote:
Yesterday Rush Limbaugh said Obama was "opening racial wounds that have been closed for 30 years". I had to laugh right out loud at the ignorance and arrogance it takes to say such a thing. I mean, SURE they've been closed for YOU, a rich, fat, white man. Your drug of choice is prescription, for crying out loud. How about asking the people who those racial wounds ACTUALLY WOUNDED? They'd tell you they're ANYTHING but closed. |
Nice articles Host, that's great. What do you propose we do?
In the end the only thing we can do is enforce the same (but opposite) segregation and racial preferences which got us in this position.... or we can move on remembering what our ancesters did was wrong. |
You know Seaver, you don't have to know the solution to a problem to know that it's a problem, and that ignoring it won't make it go away.
|
Although perhaps politically incorrect, I think a lot of what Seaver says is true. America is 75% white, 12% hispanic, 12% black. I'm all for talking about race relations, improving the lives of American citizens, and strengthening this country, but it is what it is. America is a democracy, it's a simple matter of numbers with a majority rule. I know there was minority rule in Iraq not too long ago, but it also happened to be a murderous police state. I'd be interested to know about the history of minority ruled societies past and present.
As far as the Wright issue, I'm gonna keep an open mind about it, let it pass, and see how Obama handles things from here on out. |
Quote:
|
Seaver, with four black ceo's leading fortune 500 companies when even half of a representative number would be 37, and the society we all live in would be exhibiting an indication of having moved halfway to a power/wealth equaliberium. Your stance is comparable to, after Jackie Robinson broke the baseball color barrier, declaring the problem over...even though only one black man was playing pro baseball and was not permitted when his ball team was on the road, to stay at the same hotel as the rest of his all white team. While some of us would then be demanding an end to segregation in society and in the rest of pro sports, you would be objecting to dircrimination still being raised as an issue just as you do now. You would be posting about some white player obviously more talented than Robinson who didn't get his shot to play in the majors because his opportunity was transferred to Robinson. Here is the time when you post to those of us who accept nothing less than racial and gender equality, that we are the ones who hate America.
|
Quote:
So, sure. Tell him he "broke the color barrier" and now Civil Rights is done. |
Ok host, lets get a better picture of your example. Lets look at how many people of all races, who have grown up in poverty become CEO's? I would bet money that the same statistics occur in that instance. In that case, race could not be a determining factor, instead it would be level of education and economic factors (which also determine education).
|
How many Yale bonesmen do you think are minorities, Seaver? You seem to have made a case for affirmative action in education, encouraging for me to read.
|
Just because this isn't QUITE sufficiently driven into the ground yet, here's what conservative author Charles Murray (co-author of The Bell Curve) has to say about Obama and his famous Race Speech, emboldening mine:
Quote:
|
Like they say, talk is cheap. He does craft a fine speech. His record has a lot of catching up to do.
|
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
Quote:
Why are blacks asked, ad infinitum, to justify what other blacks say and do, when the press would never contemplate asking the same thing of whites, in regard to the speech and action of other whites? You and like minded people do not grasp how ridiculous and petty your "Op" makes you look...you've been carrying on with this stupid bullshit for at least 54 weeks..... please stop NOW !!!!!!!!!!!!! Quote:
|
I thought Oprah stop attending the church because of Rev. Wright?
|
So 'white guilt' is the new catch phrase here in Tilted Politics, guess 'cut and run' and 'stay the course' are gonna be dropped by the conservatives who frequent this board, oh well good too see the party gave them a new line to use.
I believe you're correct Oprah left the church, not too sure of the reason though I expect some of our conservative members think it was because Rev. Wright was eating an unborn white child at the altar, all the while preaching about the black man revolting against the white man for keeping him down all these years, and burning down his cities. |
Quote:
|
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
Quote:
yeah, actually I did. But that speech is just words. Words set against the backdrop of spending all those years sitting in that man's church listening to and therefore approving of, what he said. |
So listening to equates to approval? I'm pretty fuckin sure lot's of people who were in 're-education camps' would disagree with you there, they listened, but I'm positive they didn't agree with what they heard.
So saying that Obama approved of these comments because he listened to them is well flimsy. I have to listen to Ustwo here, does that mean I automatically approve what he says? Ustwo has to listen to us, does that mean he agrees with what we say? So you see listening and approving are two different things that aren't related in any way, but nice shot at trying to make a connection. |
Quote:
|
Quote:
The point of going to church is not to fight with the pastor. For me, the pastor was just a sidenote, 20 minutes out of an almost 2 hour long service. I went because I used to love to worship God in that place, and I went because of the sense of community and fellowship that I felt with others there. There were a lot of things I did not like about the church(es) I attended, but disliking something (or even just listening to something scandalous) is not enough reason to walk away from a place like that, on its own. I was a Protestant, but I don't even think Catholics have much reason to walk away from the church as it is, even after all the shit that a lot of their priests have gotten away with... I would call that a cop-out reason to leave the church. Any church is bigger than its priests and pastors, if it's worth its salt. It is a body of people, a community, a place that transcends individuals. That's the whole point. /waits for this to fall on very deaf ears, as usual. |
Quote:
I heard you and I agree with you. Unfortunately others likely won't. The simple fact is this. People who are looking for a reason to hate any candidate will find a reason to do so. |
Quote:
Do you agree everything that everyone you associate believes? Have you ever known someone whose outspoken beliefs you overlooked because they have other redeeming qualities? I'm sorry, but I don't see how anyone who is capable of of forming independent relationships with other people could possibly have an intellectually honest problem with Obama's relationship with his pastor. |
My great-grandfather once tried to kill a preacher the Tuesday after a Sunday sermon where the preacher spoke about perils of alcohol and miscegination with the Negros. It wasn't that my great-grandfather wasn't a member of the Klan as well as teetotaler and Revenuer during Prohibition (he was), it was that the sermon mentioned my grandparents and my grandfather's brothers and their wives by name for going into a gin joint on a Saturday night before church. My great-aunt told me when I was about 21 or so that she was still drunk standing (or weaving) when she stood up with the choir.
There's a running joke in my family about "running off with a hoe" because the weapon my great-grandfather used to try to kill the preacher (who soon found a new job) was a hoe that smashed the preacher's car window and stayed wedged in the car as the preacher escaped. Apparently my great-grandfather never referred to the preacher afterwards as anything other than "that damn hoe thief". He showed up at church the next Sunday wearing a pistol and fully intending on shooting that "no good, thieving sonuvabitch" but the preacher was out sick. Clearly, not all parishoners agree wholeheartedly with every sermon. But since everyone's already made up their minds, perhaps my anecdote will amuse. |
Quote:
|
Would you feel any differently about Obama if he went to a Church of Scientology for 20 years?
|
Quote:
Even then, the issue here isn't his particular beliefs, or the particular ideology espoused by his church- though I think if you looked into it you'd find the ideas and activities proposed by Obama's denomination much more benign than the ones proposed by Tom Cruise's. The real issue, the one that gets lost in the 20 second loops, is whether it is possible for a person to receive spiritual guidance from someone else when the two disagree about certain social issues. |
Quote:
|
why is this an interesting line of questioning, powerclown?
|
Quote:
|
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
|
shakran: you're making one very large assumption: that Wright gave sermons like that every Sunday. I'm sure his sermons were consistently energetic (it'd be near impossible for Obama to go to a black church that didn't have energetic sermons like that), but I doubt he was saying "god damn America" week after week. (Which is not even bothering to address the already exhausted point that for a preacher to say "god damn America ... for killing innocent people" is not something that should be considered scandalous in the least.)
Also, you're assuming that the only reason Obama, or anyone, went to the church is because of Rev. Wright. As abaya pointed out, churches do far more than provide a pulpit to a preacher. There is also the overall church community which, in and of itself, is enough of a reason to attend a church for 20 years. Then there are all the things Trinity does around Chicago. For a lot of people, social service is a very important part of their Christian faith. And while Obama may not agree with certain things Rev. Wright said, such as expressing conspiratorial views about HIV, there is a much larger, much more important issue of the things Trinity does for the community, tangibly speaking. I'd be shocked if Obama could participate in Trinity's community outreach and not befriend Rev. Wright, regardless of any disagreements they may have had. It's all nice to say "actions speak louder than words" as an excuse to hold Obama's 20 years of attendance against him. But then apply the "actions speak louder than words" metric to Rev. Wright and Trinity as a whole. Aside for being the largest United Church of Christ church in the nation, and one of the largest church of any kind in the Chicagoland area (clearly, either Chicago is an anti-American region, or just maybe there's a hell of a lot more to the church than what the media is showing), Trinity has a ton of ministry programs that provide service to the Chicago area and also work to help out poverty in Africa (because, frankly, no one else is doing it). They also provide free computer training and a number of scholarships (most of which are not limited to African Americans). EDIT: And I still don't understand why so many people refuse to give Obama the benefit of the doubt regarding Trinity and Rev. Wright, despite him never having done or said anything to indicate that he is anti-American, a believer in the HIV conspiracy, or any of that. All while Clinton and McCain both get the full benefit of the doubt for their assocations with The Family and John Hagee respectively. Ultimately, I do think it comes down to the fact there are still plenty of Americans today who are afraid of "angry black men," consciously or not. Let's look at this from a slightly different angle as well. Had Rev. Wright said "god damn George Bush for killing innocent people" or "god damn the legislature for making drug laws that target lower income, and often black, abusers," it would have still been controversial, but it wouldn't have created such an enormous uproar. Now, if you think innocent deaths are a justifiable side effect for what you believe to be a just war, there is certainly room to disagree with such a statement. But unless you're incapable of putting yourself in another person's mindset, then you must also understand why some people (many people) would view the cause of innocent death in that manner as damnable. Next - and I know there are some people who contest this, but let's put it aside for now - it is important to remember that George Bush was elected by the people of the United States. And he continues to conduct his administration in the way he does because the people of the United States tacitly accept of it. It doesn't matter that opinion polls say people are overwhelmingly against the war now: few people do anything about it. Make no mistake about it: if enough people put enough pressure on elected representatives, they would get the guts to impeach Bush and Cheney and fight against the Iraq war. The Congressional Democrats are spineless because the most many people are willing to do in order to express their opposition is answer a poll. That hardly gives them confidence that they can weather the storm it'd cause to stand up to this administration. The point is, we, the American people, and America as a whole, are responsible for our government's actions, regardless of whether or not we agree with them. So, why again is it inappropriate to say "god damn America?" Disagreeable, sure...but inappropriate? No. |
I think this has turned into the issue it has because Obama has promised so much from the very start. People are skeptical of false prophets, someone trying to sell them something that appears too good to be true. This is a very, very charismatic politician that is promising a hell of a lot, and I think people have a right to be skeptical. So when cracks start appearing on the surface, when flaws start showing, when skeletons start coming out of the closet, people start to question this person's authenticity. Is he for real? Didn't he promise to bring the whole country together (not just blacks and white liberals)? Can we trust what he says? Or is he just another wolfish politician in sheeps clothing who will do or say anything to secure for himself the most powerful position on the planet?
|
Quote:
The problem isn't that Obama's pastor said controversial things, it's that the fact that his pastor said controversial things gives the people who were looking for the smallest smidgen of a reason to not like Obama the smallest smidgen of a reason not to like Obama. And now they all furrow their brows, hem and haw, and say, "Well, you know, that Obama, he seemed like a good kid, but some guy he knows said things that in context aren't all that surprising or interesting, but when viewed 20 seconds at a time offend Sean Hannity. So, I just don't know anymore." If it weren't for this, we'd probably be talking about how Obama's garbage man is a snake handler, or that his middle name is Hussein. |
Again, what has Obama done that indicates he doesn't intend to try and elevate the level of discourse, and what has he done that indicates he's not interested in hearing other points of view?
He's never promised that he's perfect - in fact, for a politician he's uncharacteristically willing to admit his own flaws, as is his wife. He's never promised that just because he listens to people he'll agree with them. All he has promised is that he is not interested in demonizing anyone simply because they disagree with him, and he has not done anything to indicate otherwise. In fact, his Senate record demonstrates that he is entirely sincere in his interest to work across the aisle, considering how many of his bills have had Republican co-sponsors. Part of the problem, I think, is the expectations people on the other side of the spectrum have when he says he wants to work together. Working together, for Obama, doesn't mean siding with a bill he disagrees with just so that he can get a bill that he agrees with passed. He hasn't demonstrated an interest in the "you scratch my back, I'll scratch yours" brand of working together. Instead, what he has demonstrated is that while he is not willing to compromise on his own principles, he is still willing to respect the fact that other people have different principles, and he will listen to them. So, many people on the other end of the spectrum say "he's not working together, he's unwilling to change his view on _____ which is really important to us!" Well, no, he's not going to change his stance just because some of his opponents disagree, but what he will do - and this is how he's managed to get Republican co-sponsors on many bills - is approach the issue with respect and try to find where there is common ground without compromising principles. So, I haven't seen a single thing from Obama which would indicate he's not sincere in those intentions. His Senate record shows it, and even his handling of the Rev. Wright situation shows it. He's a very intelligent man, and rather than do what was politically prudent and simply unequivocally reject Trinity, Wright, and the whole nine yards, he gave a speech which he certainly knew would open a can of worms. And seriously, "can we trust what he says?" It's impossible to run a political campaign without the occasional fib, but I haven't seen anything from him that was as much of a bald-faced lie as Clinton's "I was a critic of NAFTA from the start," or her sniper-fire-on-the-tarmac story, or McCain's "oops! I misspoke on perhaps the most important foreign policy issue facing the next president....three times in a row....oh wait, now that you'r criticizing me for it I'll try and point out how I was right all along!" At worst, Obama is no worse than either McCain or Clinton in terms of honesty, etc, which isn't a reason not to vote for him, it simply means it's a wash on that issue. In which case, you look at other issues, like policy positions (there are plenty on his website, so don't say he's an empty suit), or track record (both Clinton and Obama have relatively short Senate records, but Obama more often has bills that get passed and more often has bills with Republican co-sponsors, or any co-sponsors at all for that matter, not to mention that he has clearly run a better campaign than Clinton, which is the closest comparison we're going to get of how the two of them would handle running an administration). |
Quote:
Quote:
|
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
And the hell's angels do an annual Toys for Tots drive. Many branches of the KKK volunteer for Adopt-A-Highway. This does not mean I should go become a member of these organization. It certainly does not mean that, assuming I joined the KKK, I should be surprised if people judge me based on the KKK's message rather than their laudable community beautification efforts. Just because a group does a service which is valuable to the community does not mean you can join them and not be judged based upon the message that they put out. Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
My main objection isn't to him saying that. It's to the hate-filled, insane rhetoric the guy spews. Again, back to the HIV conspiracy theory. It makes about as much sense as chem trails or a missile hitting the pentagon. And now the guy who wants to effectively run the government turns out to come from a church which thinks the government is out to get them? That, I think, should give people pause. |
Quote:
And BTW - Obama is not being tarred as much as closely scrutinized. Why is it tarring to question a politician's life shaping motivations and motivators? I believe Rekna stated earlier ... Quote:
|
Quote:
I'm clear that here in the online echo-chamber it's still a big deal for some people, but the mainstream has moved on. Obama appears to be done responding to it, and so am I. |
Quote:
|
Quote:
You're trying to hold Obama responsible for things his pastor said, things Obama has unequivocally publicly rejected. If you want to claim that you think his criticism are disingenuous, then that's your choice. As it stands, I don't think there is much to the idea that Obama is somehow some sort of super secret under cover black nationalist, which is the logical conclusion of what you seem to be insinuating. Quote:
Are you really trying to claim that twenty years ago, a young hotshot mixed-race lawyer with political ambitions decided that the best way to find long-term political success would be to embrace black nationalism? Quote:
|
Quote:
There hasn't been a single thing, other than the church he chooses to attend, to indicate Obama is sympathetic to any of the more irrational views espoused by Wright and others. I'm not going to hold his church against him any more than I'd refuse to believe John Kerry is pro-choice simply because he attended Catholic church all his life. It's easy to pick out the conspiracy crackpots on TFP within only a couple posts. If Obama believed HIV were caused by the government, we'd know. To think that he'd make it to where he is now without ever personally expressing crackpot views like that, all while believing them, attributes a bizarre level of clairvoyance to him. As does the idea he'd choose his church 20 years ago based on what would help him become president. (And, note, he didn't "choose" his church, he fell into it by meeting Rev. Wright and being introduced to Christianity. That conversion experience can be very strong, and is yet another reason someone might stick around a church long after hearing some things (non-theologically speaking) that they vehemently disagree with.) But let's say Obama does believe any of the conspiracy theories (a ridiculous presumption, but nonetheless let's say he does). Exactly what damage do you think he'd cause as president? If the government isn't behind HIV, he'll find that out. If he thinks it is but it isn't, what's he gonna do....encourage more HIV research? Oh noes! I don't think for one second that Obama holds that belief, but even if he did it's mostly a non-issue. I'm much more concerned about candidates who think our children shouldn't learn about evolution. Funny thing is, though, that if you pay attention to pretty much anyone who has known Obama personally in his life, even going back to his party days at Occidental, they have nothing but good things to say about him, and almost everyone makes particular mention of his interest in bringing people together and listening to all sides of an issue. It's far more telling to read about what kind of professor Obama was than it is to hear about the preacher he followed. Like I said, McCain is also running for the highest office in the land, and he went out of his way to have the endorsement of John Hagee. I don't think he'll ignore natural disasters just because his most important religious endorsement is from someone who thinks they're punishments from god, and I don't think Obama will suddenly turn the United States into Africa 2.0. Which begs the question, come to think of it, what exactly is anyone here afraid he'll do as president in light of Rev. Wright? Don't talk about how you think he's a socialist, don't talk about how he's a normal big city liberal politician. What bad things did you not think he'd do as president that you now think he'll do after hearing about Rev. Wright? Are you afraid he'll suddenly want to put an end to the genocide in Darfur? Maybe he'll want to help restabilize the Kenyan government? Perhaps he'll show concern for the serious problems with endangered species in Africa. All terrible things, for sure. I just don't get it: I can't think of a single tangible nefarious scheme that any sane person would attribute to Obama in light of his relationship to Rev. Wright. The worst that can be said is that he dines with whores (yes that's a Jesus reference, no I don't think Obama is the messiah :rolleyes: ). Quote:
Instead, it's easier to complain about how Rev. Wright preaches that "the greatest purveyor of violence in the world today [is] my own government." Oh wait, that was the anti-American Martin Luther King, Jr. who said that. What a crackpot. God damn America indeed, for remaining true to this statement 40 years later and learning nothing. Please Read: Just a Typical Black Person click to show |
Quote:
The media has cycled past it. Hillary made a mention of it yesterday which the media referred to as "after the fact". It's done. It's resolved for people. This particular wave has crashed on the beach, and has receded. Moving on. |
Quote:
I see, is your integrity determined by the news cycle? Apparently truth for you has less to do about facts and more about winning, outlasting the news cycle. I see no evidence of this ever going away completely. Some powerfully influential people have been left injured in the wake. I doubt the likes of Rev. Wright or Geraldine Ferraro are done with this one, planning, calculating in the background. Don't forget this issue is now fair-game for Hillary and McCain ... food for some very creative minds ... staffers, strategists, PR and advertising wizards ... you only hope this is gone. It appears Obama used Rev. Wright to look extra black when he needed it, he threw them under a bus when light was shone on their racist beliefs, and now his church and new pastor are slamming him hard. He pissed off one of the most powerful women in the Democratic party with a cheap shot. He characterized typical white people as racist by experience. No, revenge is popular in politics and Democrats will eat their own. It's thinned out a bit, but I'd say it's not been put to bed just yet. Scorned political power brokers and influential racist preachers have long memories. Recently, my interest in this has been largely for entertainment. Like a video game. Mention something truthful about Obama's poor judgement (push the button) and watch the hypocrites come out of the woodwork to argue disingenuous rationalizations and mindless slogans. You're right, we should call it the Echo Chamber. Available soon on PS2 and Xbox! |
Quote:
Hillary's ratings went down, not Obama's. So one man's truth is another mans bullshit. And let's not pretend the whole "scandal" wasn't about winning, ok? What got left in the wake of this thing is the POSSIBILITY of a real conversation about race, a conversation that can make a difference. IF we don't let ourselves get distracted by our own political viewpoints, we can actually start LISTENING to each other, and THAT can make a difference. I have no illusions that this thread is about anything OTHER than the distractions at this point. |
Quote:
Yep. |
Quote:
Obama's people are combing through Hillary's false statements over the years especially since she is claiming superior experience as first lady. The goal is of course to show that she is a liar and will say anything to get elected. That along with her already high negative numbers may destroy her ability to get elected. McCain seems to be making more mental mistakes lately. Is he getting too old and will these lapses increase when the general election campaign begins in earnest with debates etc.. where a quick grasp of the facts is necessary. |
Quote:
BTW, thanks for the backhanded compliment. But if Hillary is hiring, she absolutely needs someone to help keep her embellishments (lies) and distortions organized. Perhaps you can find an application on her website. Quote:
Someone left ratbastid's echo chamber on. Quote:
For the Dems ... perhaps these two will self-destruct and out of the smoke strolls in good old wacky Al Gore. Reality TV could not write a better script. Wow ... just found an article eluding to such a possiblity. Is Al Gore the Answer? http://www.time.com/time/politics/ar...725678,00.html McCain ... ehhhh ... oh well. Hopefully a sobering review of politics will bring maturity and civility back to the art of backstabbing and deal making. |
Quote:
|
I find otto's exuberance interesting. It's been a while since any reasonable conservative had anything to lord over anyone on the left, with the economy being a disaster and the situation in Iraq so clearly being a colossal mistake. Cheers to you, otto, you've finally found something to be proud of... or something.
|
Quote:
I guess I'm a little exuberant in the sense of how entertaining the players and their apologists have become. The only light moments in the tedious drama of political apologists. The topic is Rev. Wright, racism and the affect on Obama's campaign ... is it not? I'm proud of a lot. However, I'm disappointed in the shallow adoration of Obama and the apologies made for his mistakes. I'm disappointed in people willing to justify racism for any reason. Are you proud of those things? What are you proud of? Stick up for it rather than attempting to guilt someone with smarmy dismissiveness. Regarding the other topics you decided to lump in with and label me as a conservative, I am not a fan of Bush, or happy with the current economy, or any stereotype you would like for me to fall in to. What are you? Your form of reply has become a patterned response mechanism to any negativity toward Obama and you are contributing to the empty rhetoric of the cycle. This is the game ... isn't it? Quote:
Quote:
|
So otto's favourite catchphrase isn't 'white guilt', it's 'apologists', just so I'm on the right page as to who's using what phrase of the day, you go otto, we shall call you Minitwo....
|
So, anyone who agrees with you is following the 'facts' (as you see them, of course), and anyone who disagrees, or points out that apparently plenty of people disagree, has their integrity determined by the news cycle? Are you that incapable of recognizing that, though perhaps shocking to you, there are people who have different opinions than you do?
I posted about the poll numbers not because they tell me that I shouldn't care about Rev. Wright (or, at least, that Obama's speech was a sufficient response to the issue). I posted them, first and foremost, as a response to flstf's post, which was specifically about the effects of this and other controversies on how the voters view the candidates. Secondly, I posted the information because it shows that, clearly, there are plenty of others who would agree with some or all of what ratbastid, filtherton, or I am saying. That's not saying we form our opinions based on what others think, but it is saying that the opinions we're expressing shouldn't be treated like they're shocking statements. There is a difference between forming opinions based on the news cycle and simply being aware of the news. |
Quote:
Chime in any time. |
Before you make another post that refers to another member AT ALL, reread the Politics Sticky. Any personal attacks after Post #368 will result in an immediate 3-day vacation. So before you type someone's name or use the word "you" or any of it's permutations, make sure that it is in no way a personal attack. Despite our best efforts, this thread is turning into an embarrassment.
|
Quote:
- the news cycle is a guide for determining whether integrity should continue be questioned? - form opinions based on the news cycle? - if it's no longer in the news, certain events and statements are no longer valid? That's an interested point of view. |
You know, "God damn America" is a stupid thing to say, but not because it isn't patriotic. It's stupid because it was made from a place of emotion instead of reason. It'd be more reasonable to make commentary from a place of facts. "The US is making a mistake by doing..." would have been a more responsible statement. Instead he was just spewing nonsense.
I'm not going to critique his preaching style for religious content (that'd be innapropriate for an atheist), but he'd do well to give his position the respect it deserves. |
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
Quote:
Quote:
|
Quote:
To specifically address your three questions: - never said that - never said that, and explicitly pointed out that it's not the case - never said that either But, really, I just don't understand what you're trying to get at. I'm not being sarcastic or anything, I honestly have no clue how your post is responding to mine in any way. |
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
Quote:
Call me a cynic... but good luck with that. |
Quote:
|
OK, but it's not even remotely close to what I said, and in some cases I explicitly said the opposite of what you wrote.
|
Quote:
|
.......
|
Ok, so the blacks have the right to be pissy and say "God damn America" in church, have their church leaders visit a country's leader known to sponsor terrorism, pass along Hamas propaganda and overall just teach hate and negativity. Because the majority had ancestors enslaved maybe. (The maybe means that I'm sure some came to America on their own, some came from "freeman" ancestory" and so on.....")
Now, by that reasoning, the Jews in Germany and in Russia should hate their countries. The Jews should be preaching hate against the Vatican. The Jews would have reasons to hate the Egyptians (quite possibly their strongest ally in that region... the first to sign a peace accord with them.) The Jews would have reason to hate America because until Pearl Harbor, the majority of the populace wanted to remain deaf and stay out of the war, a minority actually helped Hitler rise to power and supported him. So, the Jews have a right to "God damn America". The Asian community has every right to hate America because of how we treated the Chinese in the late 1800's early 1900's. They were considered less than equal. Then in WW2 the camps we held them in (partial for their own safety). So they should be "God damning America". The Irish were treated as second class citizens when they came over, called Micks, saw signs saying "Irish need not apply" "Dogs and Irish keep of the grass". They were portrayed as lazy. (yet, without them and the Chinese our railroads may not have been built.) Then being Catholic made matters even worse. Should their religious leaders be allowed to say "God damn America" or maybe just a "Fuck America" will suffice. Anyone of Italian descent for almost 100 years has been thought of as a mafioso. They were called "degos" and again had a hard time finding work because of background.... but... they weren't hated that much , sooooo maybe just a "Fuck America" from them will work. Oh let us not forget the American Indian.... we took their lands and put them on reservations after exterminating MILLIONS of them...... They truly shuld be "God damning America". The pagans in the middle ages were hunted down and killed in Europe, should they be yelling "down with Europe and Christianity"? Then to this day there is still religious prejudice blatantly out there.... should they be "God and Goddess damning America and it's Christian Leadership"? My point is ultimately EVERYONE can find a reason to hate this country, (the KKK went after not just blacks but those of Jewish backgrounds, Catholic backgrounds, Asian, Pagan... basically everything not WASP..... but we don't want to accept that.... no it's just the blacks they went after and have a right to bitch... no one else.) but I don't see those people who hate this country eager to leave. If everyone hated and "God damn America" for what happened to their ancestors..... this great country would have ceased to exist long ago. I truly do not see how anyone in their right mind can see hate as a productive outlet. Why not work towards solutions instead of bitching, moaning and "God damning..." the country you live in? And if you truly want to teach that why not move out of your 1.6 MILLION dollar house on the golf course in a primarily white, gated community and stay in the area your sermon in, living on the median income of those you supposedly are serving?????? NOOOOO, it's all about the fucking power isn't it? Now, for a presidential candidate to state this man is his spiritual adviser, but then states he never saw any of this, or maybe he did but it was like an old crazy uncle and he didn't listen.... but his wife and kids may have.... but they didn't..... and the Rev. has the right to say all that but let Imus say something and "I want his job". Tells me 1 of 3 things.... either this presidential candidate is truly lying because he believes the hate spewed, which I cannot support...... OR he is lying and excusing it because he's a 2 faced backstabber.... which I don't want as president..... OR he saw this as a way to get "street" cred with the blacks. After all, he is NOT of American slave descent but true African, then white, brought up in Indonesia and Hawaii (by a white grandmother), went to Harvard (A school the REV. Wright seems to want blacks to believe they cannot go to because of the government) and the editor of their Law School review (or whatever)... which the REV Wright would have his followers believe is not possible in the US of KKK A....... which is the scariest, yet most believable theory for me. In other words in order to be accepted as "Black enough" he had to go to an extremist church and become close with the most extreme of church leaders he could find. Otherwise, with his past credentials and background, he wouldn't have that "street" cred in the "black community". He'd be looked at the same as Colin Powell, Condaleeza Rice, Clarence Thomas and so on. If this last one is the true one, then that means this man is pathological and dangerous, extremely dangerous. But that would explain this supposed "Charisma" this man has. (This is the one I find most believable and believe to be true.) |
Why come back to this thread after it has been dead or dying for almost a week, and then add nothing new to it other than to rant, once again, on the subject?
The fact is, the Italians, Irish, and Asians, among others, do not continue to have the same degree of problems as the black population does, due to the country's continued history of oppression towards them in one way or another. As for the Native Americans, they have every right to be angry at the country, and many of them still are, they just express it differently. Not to mention they don't have the same numbers as the black population - after all, our genocide of Native Americans was perhaps one of the most successful genocides in modern history. Really, though, there's no point in debating this topic any longer. You (and others) have clearly made up your mind, and no matter what is said you will not change it. Anytime someone answers a question you pose, you either ignore it or reject it. If you're not going to accept any answers, don't bother asking the questions. Is it that hard to understand that your experience of life in America is so fundamentally different from the experience of the black population? If you still can't recognize this, even after Condoleeza Rice has come out and commented on what she rightly called the "birth defect" of our nation, and even after the vast majority of black commentators have come out in one way or another on the side of Obama and/or Rev. Wright (I've actually not seen or read a single black commentator express any sort of outrage over Rev. Wright's statements, but I'm sure there are a few out there), and if you're incapable of saying to yourself, "gee, that's really interesting that there's such a racial divide in outrage over this topic, even when it comes to people like Secretary Rice," then there's really no hope for this discussion at all. Because if the glaringly obvious fact that the reaction to Rev. Wright and the general topic of racism in America has been so vastly different between black and white populations does not make you realize that maybe you and I, as white men, are incapable of understanding what it's like to live in America as a black man, then nothing will. EDIT: And, by the way, you're grossly misinterpreting/misunderstanding Rev. Wright's view. To use your Harvard example, it would be far more accurate to say that Rev. Wright believes that no one is going to help the typical black man get into Harvard - certainly not the public school system, where the schools the kids in his area go to are so terribly underfunded compared to the great schools in the predominantly white neighborhoods I grew up in - and so, if any of them want to accomplish something like go to Harvard, they will need to work and pray extra hard, because they, as black men, have no one but themselves and their community helping them out. And in case you didn't read this the first time, I'm posting it again because you desperately need to read this if you think Rev. Wright is "the most extreme of church leaders." Again, your experience as a white man is so vastly different from that of the typical black man, it's hard to understand that preachers like Rev. Wright are common in black churches all across America. In fact, they're downright normal. Please Read: Just a Typical Black Person click to show And a few new links that ought to be required reading/listening for people who are going to debate about this... Black Liberation Theology, in its Founder's Words Black Liberation Theology: A Historical Perspective |
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
I'm going to put a couple forward, and you feel free to tell my why they are implausible. 1) It could be possible that Obama was attempting to gain insight into the black experience in America because he wanted to understand it, but couldn't relate to it very well. 2) He just happened to find jesus, and decided to attend the church of the man who helped him find that jesus and that the words of that man concerning non-jesusey things aren't that important because Obama recognizes that that man isn't necessarily an expert in non-jesusey things. 3) Obama, being a grown man capable of forming independent relationships with other people, forms friendship with and receives spiritual guidance from a man with whom he disagrees on nonspiritual matters. 4) Some combination of these. I'm not saying you're interpretations aren't valid, just that they seem to be very heavily weighted towards the "Obama is a lying sociopath" side of the issue, a fact which is more a reflection of who you are then what is actually going on with Obama. Quote:
|
i haven't read through all 10 pages of this thread, but i just want to say that I was an Obama supporter before this came out, and I still am. My opinion of him has changed 0%
|
Quote:
So, there's that. But to deal with it at the level of whether they have the right or not misses the point completely. The point is, by understanding WHY Wright and others like him say what they say, there's an opportunity to heal the fundamental divide of our country. I'm beginning to think, pan, that you're not interested in that. Which is okay, you don't have to be interested in that. But I'm REAL interested in that. I also get the impression Hillary isn't interested, and I get the impression Obama is. |
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
Quote:
The Robertson, Falwell, Wright, Sharpton, Farrakhan types are just as successful at this. Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
If I stand up in a church and tell my people how nothing is their fault, it's the government's, it's the white man's, it's everyone's fault but theirs. They will listen to what I say because no one likes to have to accept responsibility for choices that adversely affected them. "You dropped out, you failed in life because you put a crack pipe to your lips.... the US of KKK A did that. The government did that not you." Be surprised how many addict use this as their excuse. Why not preach hope, self responsibility and help build self esteem? Meanwhile it's affecting suburbia just as badly, but that's ok, the whites deserve it. "We live in communities where our men impregnate our women and disappear, refusing to take care of the families they have created. Not your fault.... it's the government's, they propagate this among our communities, they did this to us." "The government planted AIDS in the black man's community." Really? Hmmmm than why do whites have it? If I as a pastor talked about how maybe this should be a sign of all our failings and that perhaps it shows we need to get back to family or at the very least promote safe sex..... that puts the problem on the person's behavior. can't do that.... sooooo we'll blame the government. And so on. Quote:
However, if we don't like the message we'll put pressure on and force them to lose their jobs, maybe even get government involved and infringe on his free speech. In context Imus said a very poor joke that maybe back 30 years ago may have gotten a laugh. In context, Wright used his pulpit to continue hateful, racist, anti-governmental, anti-semitic conspiratorial messages. Quote:
Quote:
I do think 2 and 3 of my scenarios are more closely attached if not the same Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Maybe my definition of spiritual leader is different. Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
I supported Edwards..... I went to Hilary.... I can say I would have gone to Obama... but then Billy Cunningham had his job threatened because he said "Barack Hussein Obama" and people demanded his job. From there I looked at things I dismissed, the lapel flag pins, the refusing to put the hand on the heart, then I looked at what Wright was saying..... and now, now there is no way in Hell. I believe him to be the worst candidate on numerous issues, but this closes the door. I am wrong a lot, I run on my emotions, read and believe what I CHOOSE to and make my own decisions. I maybe wrong here and now and if elected, for our future I hope I am very wrong about the man and I will happily admit such. So he only lost my vote..... but wait..... how many Hilary supporters is he disenfranchising by having his people tell her to quit. But he has "Charisma and talks about change and has street cred, he's no Uncle Tom." so he doesn't really need any of Hilary's supporters come Nov. So what if 20% of her supporters decide for various reasons decide to vote for McCain? |
I don't know if it was brought up in this thread, I haven't read it, but I haven't read every post and every reply, but apparently the esteemed Reverend thinks that HIV was created by the US government to kill black people and said so in one of his sermons, (at least once, the one I saw).
God Damn America indeed. |
I've never seen any evidence to suggest that HIV was manufactured to kill any ethnic group.
Ustwo, do you have a link? |
Quote:
Quote:
|
Quote:
Quote:
BUT Wright is not the way. I'm sorry. I do not believe you can fight prejudice and hatred by adding to it. The only way to fight is to supply positive messages and work toward positive answers together. Not just blame one side. It's a fundamental and moral difference. If Obama was seriously interested and wanted to solve things in a positive way, then why was he going to a church that gave out racist messages for 20 years? Why didn't he stand up against that? Sorry, give me Rev. like George Foreman, who preach positively and work positively for positive changes..... and I can make a better country. Give me Wright, Sharpton, Robertson, Falwell and I'll show you how to ruin a country and make divisions even deeper. Obama follows Wright..... ummmmmm yeah. |
Quote:
|
Quote:
I'd pick one out for you but I don't have sound here to make sure its the correct one. |
ROFL, Wright is a fucking nut.
Still, it's hard for me to condemn Wright for believing an unsupported conspiracy theory and not condemn people like Michael Crichton for their unsupported conspiracy theories about global warming being a hoax. Or Bush's unsupported conspiracy theory about al Qaeda in Iraq... or WMDS... or terrorism in general. Still, it's tough for me to say, "Wright is crazy and Obama used to go to church there, therefore Obama is crazy." Is there any evidence that Obama believes in any of the wild conspiracy theories that Wright seems to believe in? |
Quote:
What abut my first amendment right here and how people tell me to be quiet, I don't know what I am talking about? Or UsTwo's or Host's? I never said anything about him not being allowed to say it. I said I do not believe it should be said in the pulpit. But the 1st amendment much like many others are only applicable to those who are approved, anyone else better watch what they say. The government may not go after them but by God the extremists will. So don't play this game with me. |
Quote:
Quote:
Also, nobody's telling you to shut up, and nobody's ever been modded off this site because of their OPINION. How they express it, sure, but never in my 5 years of membership have I seen anyone banned because of the opinion they expressed. So don't give me this "you want to shut up dissent" crap. Besides, just because you have a right to spout off about something doesn't mean you have a right not to have people tell you you're off base. Quote:
Quote:
You know what, though? You're right: this First Amendment stuff I've brought up is a distraction. I really only meant it as a side point. I'll tell you what: you respond to the MEAT, the IMPORTANT part of the post you selectively quoted from here (by which I mean the entire rest of it), and I won't play whatever game you think I'm playing. See, in my opinion, we're not having the INTERESTING part of the conversation we could be having. I'm SO BORED by the conversation we ARE having, and I'd SO MUCH like to have the conversation we COULD BE having. So PLEASE go back and respond to the rest of my post. |
i still think it's 100% asinine to come to come up with the conclusion that Obama believes everything Wright preaches. do you agree with everything your preacher says? how about your parents? your friends?
|
Ratbastid, thanks for trying to clear up one of my pet peeves - misinterpretation of the First Amendment. Let's all get this clear: the only entity that can infringe on your right to free speach is the government. If you're shouting political speach from your apartment balcony, your landlord is well within his rights to tell you to shut the fuck up or he'll evict you. If Hal decides to ban you because you call me a selfrighteous prig, he hasn't infringed on your First Amendment rights. If Don Imus' employer decides to fire him because a bunch of people complain about him and sponsors threaten to pull their ads if he keeps his job, there's no First Amendment violation.
So pan, if I tell you to shut the fuck up, it has not one thing to do with the First Amendment. I'm not the government. They're not a part of the conversation. Now I wouldn't do that because it's not nice and it's not allowable by the rules of this place, but those are completely separate. One last thing, and this is just a minor quibble, but there have been lots of people "modded" off this site for their opinion. I like to think that I've helped a lot of them never find their way back here. Their opinion? That you, the members, should buy their products or invest in their scams. That's their opinion, and they're welcome to it, but they can't express that here. |
| All times are GMT -8. The time now is 12:34 AM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2025, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Search Engine Optimization by vBSEO 3.6.0 PL2
© 2002-2012 Tilted Forum Project
