Posted on Fri, 03/14/2008 - 08:53 — by BBrentwood
While trying to be the candidate to bring people together, a racial time bomb was dropped on America in the media yesterday. Utube has the videotaped sermon for those who have not heard it yet.
Baracks pastor at the Chicago Church he and his wife have attended and followed for 25yrs made the following comments regarding America, whites in America, the Clintons, and "Riding Dirty" which refers to a rap song,
The Re-v-e-r-e-nd Wright, made the following comments that have incensed America and will probably sink his chances of ever becoming President. Even liberals who supported Barack Hussein Obama as the new saviour of the Democratic Party, are said to be fleeing from this candidate.....after the recent comments by his revered, pastor.
The weekend after 9/11, Reverend Wright told parishioners....... "America deserved what it got, on 9/11" because we bombed Japan in WWII
"Barack is not part of the Rich White America, that has destroyed our people" and kept us in poverty."
"We should be singing GOD__D--- , American not God bless America"
"Hillary does not know what its like to be a N_____, in America.........several more Nbombs used during the sermon.
" Bill and Monica, and Hillary "Riding Dirty" R-i-d-i-n-g D-i-r-t-y.........
Instead of condeming, his right hand spiritual leader, confidant....Barack is silent on the issue. It will doom his campaign as more and more comes out about the man that is Barack Obama.
Does America need a President that has been influenced over the years by this type of overt Racism , and hatred. White America is sick of being blamed by racists for every problem in America. "We are the company we keep", and Obamas right hand spiritual leader who has influenced Obama for years with Racist ideology each Sunday will no doubt be his downfall come November.........
Patriotic, civic minded Americans that Love America and love what America stands for, will not be voting for "Osama" Hussein Obama.
Joined: Oct 2007
Posts: 46
Now really, I don't support everything Rev. Wright says and Senator Obama has said on many occasions that he doesn't either. That said, you are misquoting from several different sermons and running them together to make them something they are not. The ridiculous name calling and fear mongering may very well do Senator Obama in, but that is as far from a civic minded or patriotic ideology as I can imagine.
If you don't like his optimism, that's fine. If you think he is inexperienced, that's fine. If you feel things are great for everyone right now and don't need to be changed, that's fine. If you believe that change best comes from the wealthy elite and "trickles down," that's fine.
But don't use fear and name calling to shape your argument. Americans deserve better than that.
Joined: Mar 2007
Posts: 338
I agree with you. I am neither a democrat nor a liberal and these types of posts come across as idiotic ramblings from the fringe...either fringe. I'm noticing more of the rational intelligent posters have left the forums. I'm thinking I may follow them. Peas
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Carl: This place got a pool? Ty: Pool and a pond....... Pond be good for you.
Joined: Jan 2008
Posts: 209
Have you read any of your own posts lately, Rambo?? Uhmmm Hello
"Oh what a tangled web they weave, when they set out to deceive.
Joined: Nov 2007
Posts: 381
BBrentwood, I think YOUR web is coming undone.
Joined: Jan 2008
Posts: 209
"Oh what a tangled web they weave, when they set out to deceive.
Joined: Jul 2005
Posts: 539
Please direct me to the "Rambo" posts you claim were made by whirledpeas. You know what they say about the eyes of the beholder.
Joined: Jul 2005
Posts: 539
... but too bad that the rabid on this list will not heed them. I do not know the Reverend Wright, so cannot even go so far as to say that I "don't support everything he says", though I am sure I do not. I find it unusual to support everything that anyone says (including my wife). Unfortunately, the frightened sheep of this country will blindly follow anyone who preaches to the things they fear most. Many are led by the nose to follow the script laid out for them by demagogues (and, quite possibly, the Revered Wright is a demagogue with only a slightly different agenda). I just cannot believe that anyone can call on Barack Obama to renounce the words of one of his supporters without, in the same breath, demanding that John McCain renounce the words of two of his key right-wing Christian demagogue supporters. It cuts both ways.
We have seen this all, before, by the way ... so we should not be surprised at how willingly the haplessly ignorant and narrow-minded spread the fear handed to them by their masters.
Joined: Jan 2008
Posts: 209
"Oh what a tangled web they weave, when they set out to deceive. "
Facts are facts, and it is on videotape by the Church for Sale to anyone. How dare you accuse me of namecalling, and worse you ignoramous. I only report what was reported!!! Its there for the whole world to see, even apologist, revisionist politicos like you....:}
Guess you liberal , revisionists can't get out of this one can you...Bill Clinton did us, jus like he done Monica Lewinsky, "They be d-i-r-ty r-i-d-i-n-g" Read it and weep, bohoooooo
Don't misquote me and assume you know anthing...until you see the actual videotape on Utube or the news. As for fringe society, your are the posterchild for that, not I. The wealthy and the elite.....what does that have to do with the hate filled videotape by the Reverend Wright, Obama's pastor for the last 25yrs. Don't waste my time with your idiocy. I can run circles around you with facts and common sense.
Try to twist it around all you want, the facts, and of course the now infamous video can not be disputed. "Finite"
Joined: Nov 2007
Posts: 381
Ouch again!!!
Joined: Jan 2008
Posts: 209
"Oh what a tangled web they weave, when they set out to deceive."
I wished Obama well until this racial time bomb was dropped last week, the connection to Obama was to strong, and to racially hateful for intelligent people to do anything but turn to another candidate. Overall I think he comes across as intelligent and personable, I dont vote based on optimism or good looks, and feel good rhetoric, or empty promises.......Im definately not a liberal, I deal in reality and cold hard facts. As for using fear, thats your parties speciality.......not mine. The video was even for sale by the Church in Chicago.....so no one is making anything up, is on UTUBE and many other websites, and media outlets. It right there in black and white and you won't succeed in twisting the facts around.......THE DAMAGE IS DONE, ITS A DONE DEAL. I ALREADY KNOW WHO THE NEXT PRESIDENT WILL BE COME NOVEMBER. Do YOU ??? Probably not......since post was clueless.
The Democratic Party, will destroy itself at the upcoming convention, I do not need to do anything. Don't hate I am only the messenger. I did not create the video on UTUBE...... >
Optimism will not keep terrorism as bay, nor will it fix our economy, nor will it give everyone National Healthcare. "I wish it were, I wish it were, I wish it were, I wish it were....if only. Just click those red slippers twice...like in the Wizard of OZ then follow the yellow brick road............. Yes America does deserve better than liberal rants, liberal class warfare, and twisted lies, and global warming crap... and now they are seeing the truth exposed, one video at a time :} Are you interested in buying a bridge in Brooklyn??
Why don't you send your fear and hatemongering accusations to those that need to hear it.....like the Luis Farakonn organization, the Reverend Wright, and Al Sharpton. Im sure they would love to hear your eloquent pearls of wisdom :}
Joined: Nov 2007
Posts: 381
Ouch!!!!
Joined: Nov 2007
Posts: 381
Your comment is easy to read and compelling. I enjoyed it thoroughly. I hope you are not discouraged by the intellectual bottom dweller - bbrentwood, whose pitt bull like manners and temperament cause him to attack anyone who dares disagree with his own comments. This free-for-all forum needs a moderating influence such as yours to tone down the sometimes wild, crazy rhetoric that too often appears here. Thanks. You must see below for his diatribe, but be sure to hold your nose before you do.
Joined: Oct 2007
Posts: 645
IF he really doesn't agree with the obvious racism of Wright, then why did Obama continue to belong to the Church for 20 years, with his wife and children. and why did he give money to Wright. Why did he not object to Wright's trip to Syria to support terrorists, and why did he not abject to Wright's vicious attacks against America? The most like response is that he really does agree with the black nationalist racism and as a politician he is desperate to hid it. Befriending and supporting a racist makes Obama a racist.
Joined: Dec 2005
Posts: 191
Jeremiah Wright doesnt deserve the title of Reverened. To me he is just another racist America hating bastard. If he thinks that racism here is the worst in the world, then he ought to go to Africa where the blacks are killing each other and enslaving one another, far worse brutalities and injustices are going on there than here. He should practice what he preaches. As for Barak Hussein Obamination, he should really be careful with the kind of fiery un American individuals he aligns himself with. It was said that Obamination was inspired to title his book "Audicty of Hope" by Mr Wright, but the proper title should have been "The Audacity of Dopes". Ive heard inspiring spiritual messages from black ministers but the kind of BS rhetoric from Mr Wright will only earn him a spot next to the Devil, yes, Big "D" himself.
Joined: Nov 2007
Posts: 381
madcali4nian: "As for Barak Hussein Obamination, he should really be careful with the kind of fiery un American individuals he aligns himself with......" ______________________________________________I don't think that if Obama aligned himself with Mother Teresa, it would make any difference to you. By your tone and words, your telling us that your an Obama hater. Go ahead and admit it......"I hate Obama" It will be cathartic for you, and you will feel so much better in the morning. "Obamanation"??
Joined: Dec 2005
Posts: 191
If Obama was aligned with the good Mother Teresa, he would have been better off than to be connected to an unholy rich black America hating bigot. The same can be said if Hillary or McCain would have aligned themselves with the America hating bigot Fred Phelps. I dont hate Obama, just dont agree at all with cut & run, amnesty, and higher taxes. He can be my friend, and we can be the best of buds as long as politics isnt interjected in the friendship, hypothetically of course. Your an Obamacrat because you have a love affair with the mans "rico suave" style and way of talking to the masses, not to mention the promises that he's making which he may never keep. Its your right. Oration skills is a good thing to have, but experiance leaves much to be desired.
Joined: Jul 2005
Posts: 539
Experience doing what?
Ken Lay had a lot of "experience" ... would you want him to the chief operating officer of your company? How about James Cayne ... you know, the CEO of Bear Stearns who made $26.3 million in 2005 (WSJ) and who spent a great deal of his time playing in golf and bridge tournaments? Or Angelo Mozilo ... the CEO of Countrywide, who made $57 million last year while his company continued to rip off underqualified citizens who "should have known better" than to apply for loans which they might not be able to repay (and whom FauxNews reported is under investigation for the timely sale of stocks before news of the impending subprime scandal hit the streets and CW stock took a hit)? How about Joseph Nacchio ... the ex-CEO of Qwest who was convicted of insider trading for selling his stocks in February and March of 2001 after he discovered -- before the rest of the world did -- that the State Department and Pentagon were not awarding a lucrative European contract to Qwest (which, ironically, it turns out was a punishment leveled against Qwest when its legal department ruled that turning over sensitive private information about its customers to State violated a few privacy laws). Or about George III Bush ... you know, the silver-spooned guy who got a deferment from military service with a stint in the Air National Guard (where after the $100K was spent training him, he disappeared so he wouldn't have to urinate in a cup), was bailed out from every business venture he attempted to run by friends of his daddy, and whose only governmental experience was bought and paid for by the likes of Ken Lay & the McGraw family (who happens to own a major publishing firm that just coincidentally got the largest contracts to sell textbooks to America's schools because they "coincidentally" parallel the standards that states wrote following passage of NCLB ... not to mention the largest contracts to sell the tests needed to measure student progress under NCLB ... not to mention the largest contracts to sell test-prep materials to schools preparing students to take the tests written by McGraw-Hill based on the textbooks written by McGraw Hill)?
My point is that there is "experience", and some of it we don't want. This applies to flip-flop hawks like John McCain and to corporate bed-mates like Hillary Clinton.
Joined: Dec 2005
Posts: 191
Blah Blah Blah and the band played on.
Joined: Jul 2005
Posts: 539
... gives pause for concern; black men growing up in the 1940's and 1950's most certainly have a different perspective on life than do black men growing up in the 1970's (and even more so from black men growing up in the 2000's). From the black men with whom I have associated over 60+ years, the majority share a perspective that is quite different than mine. For example, seldom do shopkeepers look at me as I enter their store and register a look of alarm or concern at my presence (perhaps even involuntarily reaching for the club behind the counter) ... unless I am in the presence of a black man. That little look ... and if you have ever seen it, you know exactly what I mean ... says tons about what, as a nation, are like in terms of race relations. If you haven't seen it, then you either lead a very sheltered life, are lying, or maybe just don't have eyes that can see to the heart of the matter.-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------I therefore have no problem with a black man looking at the world and feeling that the hills he has to climb are just a little bit steeper and longer than those facing other people. I have no problem with such a man feeling a bit angry and put out by the whole thing ... especially given the promises made during the 1960's and then the promises broken ever since. I do not agree with venom when it is spat out as policy or as a course of action ... but I can understand its source. And I can understand why young black men might be influenced by such venom ... because life is not particularly good for an awful lot of young black men. Conservatives, of course, blame that situation on black young men ... there are myriad opportunities out there for them to take advantage of if they just weren't so "lazy", or so "angry", or so "stupid" ... and they have no one to blame but themselves. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- And all of this only muddies the waters, which is precisely what it is intended to do. If Barack Obama had mouthed those words himself, then perhaps he would have some explaining to do ... although he most certainly is entitled by our Constitution to say whatever he darn well wants to say and it is only through good conscience that a person explains himself. But he never has. He has absolutely nothing to explain except to describe what he intends to do, if we choose him to be our President, what he will do about a $3 trillion war paid for on credit, lack of adequate health care in what is supposedly the "richest country" on the planet (but we know this is a ruse, because only 1% of the population controls over 80% of that wealth), undo influence on electoral politics and public policy by narrow corporate interests (and a few social interest groups), continuous and escalating degradation of our planets essential resources (like food, water and air), a planet that is heating up and changing faster than even the most ardent doomsayers could predict even a decade ago (regardless of whether the phenomena is caused by people's behavior or not), and a slew of other somewhat significant issues that somehow people avoid talking about when they get sidetracked by these pretty much irrelevant topics.
Joined: Mar 2008
Posts: 56
Well put Shays!
Joined: Oct 2007
Posts: 645
Talk about side tracking away from issues you do not want discussed. Obama's comments and his refusal to repudiate the racisism of his mentor and pastor define him as a racist. More to the point, when Obama justifies Wright's racism, he is justifing ALL racism. His defense of Rev. Wright works just as well to justify the Aryan Nation or the KKK. There is a racial divide in this nation, but Obama' position widens it. Instead of being inclusive, Obama's words are very offensive and very exclusive.
Joined: Jul 2005
Posts: 539
Welcome back. Unfortunately, you remain so focused on your narrow topic and your rigid definitions of that topic that you are wrong, as usual. Barack Obama did repudiate the words and beliefs of Reverend Wright (but he did not repudiate the man). He outlined the causes for his (the Reverend's) pain and anger, just as he outlined the (mis)perceptions of the black community to actions of the white community, and (mis)perceptions of the white community to actions of the black community that acted to divide. He said, "The profound mistake of Reverend Wright's sermons is not that he spoke about racism in our society. It's that he spoke as if our society was static; as if no progress has been made; as if this country - a country that has made it possible for one of his own members to run for the highest office in the land" had not changed. He then outlined a series of issues affecting Americans that would never be resolved if we kept mistrusting one another and let race stand in the way of understanding. ----------------------------------------------------------------------- > We have had this discussion before, but it bears repeating. Justifying something is not the same as understanding it. Barack Obama explained the historical context giving rise to Rev. Wright's apparent hatred (and that history would include the racism of the KKK and the Aryan Brotherhood), but he never once justified that anger, or encouraged others to share it. If your conclusion is that Mr. Obama's words serve to widen the racial divide in this country, and that they were "exclusive", my guess is that you are reading something into what he said that is not there, or you are being influenced by those who stand to benefit from continuation of that divisive attitude.
Joined: Oct 2007
Posts: 645
WELCOME BACK.—Thank you. The new format is a little more difficult to reply while mobile so I will have less time to reply, but I have missed the fun. The new format allows no color and very little expression beyond the text, but I suppose one has to accept the anti-artistic spirit of the Contra Costa Times.
BARACK OBAMA DID REPUDIATE THE WORDS AND BELIEFS OF REVEREND WRIGHT (BUT HE DID NOT REPUDIATE THE MAN). The man is a racist and his Church is built on racism—If Obama does not repudiate the man, then he is justifing his racism. IF Wrights misperceptions justify his racisism then all racisism is justifiable. If Obama does not repudiate the racism that his minister stands for, then he is accepting of it. He has accepted it for 20 years. By any reasonable standard accepting and supporting a racist organization for 20 years makes a person a racist. JUSTIFYING SOMETHING IS NOT THE SAME AS UNDERSTANDING IT. Barack Obama did not merely accept Wright’s racism, he accepted it as reasonable and normal. That acceptance is justification, because at no point has Obama said that Pastor Wright and the Black nationalists are wrong. BUT HE NEVER ONCE JUSTIFIED THAT ANGER, OR ENCOURAGED OTHERS TO SHARE IT. IF it acceptable to be a racist as Obama implies by his failure to repudiate Wright’s racism then he is justifing all racism based on past percieved injustices. What religious or racial group in America has not suffered from percieved injustices? So is their hatred based on historical events acceptable? Obama is suggesting that it is. This creates divisiness not inclusiveness.
Joined: Jul 2005
Posts: 539
First Question ... how did you create a paragraph break in your message? The directions at the bottom of my screen provide a sample of the type(s) of html tags I can use, but none are for paragaphing (you know,
) ... and, in fact, the directions further state that lines and paragraphs break automatically. They don't. As witnessed by my use of the paragraph command (and failure of the program to do it). I have resorted to ---------- > as a symbol for paragraph break. But somehow, you did it without such silly contrivances. How? ---------------------------------------- >
If Obama does not repudiate the man, then he is justifing his racism. ---------------------------------------- >
So, by extension, if John McCain does not repudiate John Hagee, then he is justifying his homophobic anti-Catholicism and anti-feminism?
IF Wrights misperceptions justify his racisism then all racisism is justifiable. ---------------------------------------- >
Again, Barack Obama expressed understanding for the reverend's racist views, but did not justify them. In fact, he did the exact opposite. The same can be said for poor and middle-class whites who have come to mistrust policies they perceive take jobs away from them, provide unfair advantages to others simply because of the color of their skin. Barack Obama expressed understanding for their views, but did not "justify" them. Quite the contrary. Slavery, Jim Crow laws, extremist groups like the KKK and the Aryan Nation all can be understood ... but not justified. ---------------------------------------- >
If Obama does not repudiate the racism that his minister stands for, then he is accepting of it. ---------------------------------------- >
But he has. You just won't be happy because he did not publicly renounce the racism 20 years ago (or ten years ago, or the week before it happened). I try to put myself in his shoes (a trick taught me by a teenage author of some repute), and find it very difficult for him to meet your exceedingly high standards. You are, of course, philosophically correct. When something is wrong ... even if it is only wrong in a very small part of the larger whole ... then one should stand against it or turn one's back on it. Most of us are not that strong, wise, or insightful. But neither would inaction necessarily be a sign of weakness, foolishness or denseness. Whenever a long-persecuted minority group finds itself surrounded by a persecuting majority, there is a tendency to turn inwards and reject the values and mythology of the majority. Hatred often times is a part of that rejection, and I believe understandably so. But just because some members of the group express hatred ... even when they occupy positions of leadership and respect ... that does not mean the rest of the group rejects them. Group identity and commonalities ... and unity based upon that identity ... is a much stronger force than individual idiosyncrasies or beliefs. Case in point ... one perhaps more dear to your heart ... one could find a wide degree of hatred amongst the Jews within a pogrom directed towards the Gentile majority oppressing them. While universal understanding and love for thy neighbor ought to be the universal value, not everyone shared that opinion. My guess, though at the moment I do not have the time to document it, is that there were rabbis who even spoke quite hatefully of their Christian oppressors, but people were not condemned if they chose to remain as members of the synagogue. -------------------- >
Now, I know you will tell me that racism and religious persecution are not the same thing ... but I suspect (again without adequate documentation) that most people would be hard pressed to see much of a difference. -------------------- >
Barack Obama did not merely accept Wright’s racism, he accepted it as reasonable and normal. That acceptance is justification, because at no point has Obama said that Pastor Wright and the Black nationalists are wrong. -------------------- >
Ahh, but he did. I even cited the passage in his speech where he said so. Again, I am not going to go back and look it up for you ... instead I will paraphrase (hopefully, with some accuracy). He said that where the reverend was wrong was in his assumption that America cannot change. In fact, the heart of his speech lay in outlining the ways that American can and should change. That, in turn, is part of its brilliance ... he used a campaign tactic utilized by FauxNews and its clandestine network of right-wing bloggers to step beyond and outside the constraints of race and to outline new directions America must go. Guess you missed that part. -------------------- >
What religious or racial group in America has not suffered from percieved injustices? So is their hatred based on historical events acceptable? Obama is suggesting that it is. This creates divisiness not inclusiveness. -------------------- >
Hatred based upon historical events is understandable, but not acceptable. This is the point Barack Obama made (he never once implied, suggested, or said that hatred is acceptable). He reached out, by expressing understanding for the weaknesses we all share, in an effort to unite us against a common cause (a good, progressive common cause, I might add) and to reform America along more equitable lines. He asked people to set aside their understandable racial discomfort and mistrust, and to work together to accomplish the goals he described. This is not divisiveness; it is indeed inclusiveness. Which is why the crowd of 12,000 people at the Portland Memorial Colosium yesterday morning was incredibly diverse.
Joined: Oct 2007
Posts: 645
FIRST QUESTION ... HOW DID YOU CREATE A PARAGRAPH BREAK IN YOUR MESSAGE? I wrote my response in WORD using a POWERPOINT sub tool bar to make hidden HTML breaks. It was a fluke that I had this setup on my WORD, but sometimes flukes work.
Basically, I ignored the directions on the bottom of the screen. Generally that tends to work with CC Times.
SO, BY EXTENSION, IF JOHN MCCAIN DOES NOT REPUDIATE JOHN HAGEE, THEN HE IS JUSTIFYING HIS HOMOPHOBIC ANTI-CATHOLICISM AND ANTI-FEMINISM? There is a world of difference between McCain’s relationship with Hagee and Obama’s relationship with Wright; 20 years of defference. Obama is part of the Church that is founded on Wright’s hatred, and Obama has supported this message of hatred for 20 years. MCCain does not belong to Hagee’s church and has not listened to his sermons. Again, Barack Obama expressed understanding for the reverend's racist views, but did not justify them. He expressed understanding, but by not rejecting the message he is supporting and justifying it. For any other racist, a racist opinion outweighs and villifies any positive contributions a person may make. This is the standard to which Nazi’s and KKK members are held, so why is it not the standard to which Wright and Obama are held? Is the difference because they are black,( a questionable status in Obama’s case in some opinions) or because they are democrats? SLAVERY, JIM CROW LAWS, EXTREMIST GROUPS LIKE THE KKK AND THE ARYAN NATION ALL CAN BE UNDERSTOOD ... BUT NOT JUSTIFIED. And not tolerated. By tolerating, Obama is, in fact, justifying rather then rejecting. YOU ARE, OF COURSE, PHILOSOPHICALLY CORRECT. WHEN SOMETHING IS WRONG ... EVEN IF IT IS ONLY WRONG IN A VERY SMALL PART OF THE LARGER WHOLE ... THEN ONE SHOULD STAND AGAINST IT OR TURN ONE'S BACK ON IT. Let me remind you of an old adage now found in a country song, If you do not stand for something, you fall for everything. My point is that to tolerate racist views for 20 years, and to support those views, even if they are part of a larger picture of good works, is racist. BUT JUST BECAUSE SOME MEMBERS OF THE GROUP EXPRESS HATRED ... EVEN WHEN THEY OCCUPY POSITIONS OF LEADERSHIP AND RESPECT ... THAT DOES NOT MEAN THE REST OF THE GROUP REJECTS THEM. This is true unless it is the leader and founder of the group expressing those views. When a leader expresses hatred, and the group tolerates that expression, the group is racist. The key sin here is tolerance. CASE IN POINT ... ONE PERHAPS MORE DEAR TO YOUR HEART ... ONE COULD FIND A WIDE DEGREE OF HATRED AMONGST THE JEWS WITHIN A POGROM DIRECTED TOWARDS THE GENTILE MAJORITY OPPRESSING THEM. Pogroms were directed by Gentiles against Jews in Eastern European. The response of the Jewish minority was not hatred, it was pity that the Gentiles were condemning themselves and too stupid to know it. Note that Jews left, they did not fight. You will not find a single instance of hatred expressed in 17th century Jewish discussions of the pogroms. Hate speech by Rabbis is limited to the later half of the 19th century, and very examples exist. Even zionism is devoid of hate speech. NOW, I KNOW YOU WILL TELL ME THAT RACISM AND RELIGIOUS PERSECUTION ARE NOT THE SAME THING . This may shock you, but I think they are very similar; both are forms/ expressions of hate. I would add proselitizing to that list as a form and or expression of hate. All three should NEVER be tolerated. To tolerate hate is to encourage hate. AHH, BUT HE DID. I EVEN CITED THE PASSAGE IN HIS SPEECH WHERE HE SAID SO. AGAIN, I AM NOT GOING TO GO BACK AND LOOK IT UP FOR YOU ... INSTEAD I WILL PARAPHRASE (HOPEFULLY, WITH SOME ACCURACY). HE SAID THAT WHERE THE REVEREND WAS WRONG WAS IN HIS ASSUMPTION THAT AMERICA CANNOT CHANGE. Saying that America is relatively fixed is not condemning the inherent racism of saying that whites caused and deserved 9-11; or that whites as a group are racist or are stupid. IN FACT, THE HEART OF HIS SPEECH LAY IN OUTLINING THE WAYS THAT AMERICAN CAN AND SHOULD CHANGE. You are making my point for me. The changes he is promoting are racist. He and his pastor are calling for remediation of past wrongs for one group, and not for all groups. His BRILLIANCE will widen not close the racial divide and the religious distrust in this nation because it is favoritism. The changes he is promoting are, in a word, socialism. It is his intent to play Robin Hood, to take the hard earned income from the “rich” and give it to the non-working low achieving “poor”. He is not distributing opportunity fairly, he is redistributing wealth. The changes take on the hue of racism when his church and his mentor define the differences between rich and poor are race. And that is clear Mr. Wright’s position. My conclusion is that Obama, by not rejecting that differential implies that he accepts it. HE NEVER ONCE IMPLIED, SUGGESTED, OR SAID THAT HATRED IS ACCEPTABLE We are just repeating the same points. I think that tolerance implies acceptance, you do not. My question is whether or not you would apply this logic universally. If we tolerate the religious violence in Dafur or in Eastern Europe, in Saudi Arabia or the close approximation in Tibet; are we not accepting it. To take you back to the classic example, did not the Germans who knowingly tolerated death camps accept the racism of the Nazi’s? Did not that act of acceptance make them racists? HE ASKED PEOPLE TO SET ASIDE THEIR UNDERSTANDABLE RACIAL DISCOMFORT AND MISTRUST, AND TO WORK TOGETHER TO ACCOMPLISH THE GOALS HE DESCRIBED. Goals designed to punish one group in society for the wrongs suffered by another. Goals limiting the benefits of change to one socio-economic group to another. Make no mistake, Black Nationalists are calling for punishment of whites, and latinos, and Asians, and everyone who is not a Black Nationalist. THIS IS NOT DIVISIVENESS; IT IS INDEED INCLUSIVENESS. Punishment is divisive, not inclusive.; unless the punished are convinced that they are guilty and derserve punishment. Perhaps that explains your “crowd”?
Joined: Jul 2005
Posts: 539
I am going to attempt a different tack in this response ... responding point-by-point is like brushing sand fleas at the beach. But first, I just need to point out that when John McCain accepts Hagee's money but refuses to address his intolerance and racism, his action is perhaps more reprehensible than that of a man asked to disown a long-standing friend ... in my experience, many of us overlook or gloss over the weaknesses of our friends as much out of habit as out of conviction; but to knowing and willingly seek out or solicit money from a known hate-monger requires an act of will and conscious choice. However you look at it, McCain's actions are different from Obama's only in degree and for a person who thinks there are zero degrees of tolerance from hatred, I find it odd that you brush one off and go after the other like a bulldog. Perhaps, in the same manner that you later asked me, is it because Obama is black and McCain/Hagee are white that you cannot see the similarity?
That said, and getting back to specifics, please point to me one word, phrase, sentence or paragraph in Barack Obama's speech where he addresses or recommends pursuing a national policy of Black Nationalism. I know ... I know ... I can almost imagine you telling me that just because he doesn't explicitly say such a thing, his "toleration" of an offensive point of view means that everything he says is but an extension of that point of view. But I insist that your definitions of terms is incorrect: to understand and to tolerate are different actions and are not synonymous ... one can understand something inside and out, but neither tolerate nor accept its premise or existence. Even toleration and acceptance are different words, and are synonymous in only one case ... when one is subjected or forced to (tolerate/accept) something. Concretely, my understanding of the reasons a person would become a Nazi or a member of the KKK ... in fact, my understanding of the logic of the actions that they might take ... should not be confused with my acceptance or toleration of their actions. In a similar vein, my understanding of why the Chinese seek to crush Tibetan (or Dafur) resistance does not equate to tolerating or accepting those reasons (and conversely, my understanding of political and religious disputes between Buddhists and the Chinese government, or Dafur pastoralists with urban Sudanese elitists implies neither toleration nor acceptance of anything).
Sorry, I don't buy a whole lot of your fundamental assumptions. I see no "punishment" suggested in Obama's speech. I find it hard to believe that hatred towards Nazis (or towards Russian or Polish royalty) did not find expression within the Jewish community (even simple behaviors ... like spitting on a cross or on the sidewalk outside a Church ... are expressions of hatred, are they not?). And all governmental redistribution of wealth is a form of socialism ... whether it be to tax the so-called hard earned income of the privileged wealthy and spread it out amongst the poor (your brand of "socialism") or to take it from the less privileged and concentrate it in the hands of those already wealthy (the type of socialism we have lived under since Reagan). Since one benefits a broader base of our society than the other, you can bet which side of the socialist divide I come down on. And I would go further to point out that "socialism" and "capitalism" can coexist ... the New Deal and spin-off policies in the post-War period created the strongest and most expansive capitalist economy the world has ever seen (and you can't count now, because "capitalism" is essentially dead and buried under the New World Order corporatocracy).
But this gets to the heart of the matter. You think Obama is a black socialist, set to punish all white people for the sins of their fathers by taking everything they have worked for (even if some have simply inherited their well-being, and not done a scrap of work in their lives) and handing it out to street thugs, crack-sellers, and welfare moms. That may be an exaggeration of your views, but if so, only by degree. At the same time, it is a rather blatant exaggeration of Barrack Obama, as well.
Let me add one more thing. It is actually more of a question, and one which I am trying really hard to understand (not tolerate or accept, at least so far). To wit: How come extreme moral absolutists are so historically relativistic? I will give you but one example. Many people today refuse to be judged by the beliefs and actions of their great grandfathers. We cannot be held responsible for the views of people in the past who felt that slavery was a good thing (or a necessary evil), they say. You cannot judge people of yesterday by the moral standards of today. And yet today, those very same people are absolutely convinced that there is an absolute right and wrong, and any transgression is a sign at least of weakness, and probably of culpability. Can you explain this apparent contradiction for me?
Joined: Oct 2007
Posts: 645
McCain's actions are different from Obama's only in degree From my point of veiw the difference is great. Obama has a 20 year relationship with a mentor who clearly is a racist and promotes a hate-America agenda. McCain has little or n0 personal knowledge of Hagee; Hagee merely supports and donates mony to McCain. The point is, as you said, Obama is a long term friend of his minister so the question becomes how many of Wright’s views are shared by Obama. Frankly, when he says he shares none of Wright’s views, especially his political views and his support of Black Nationalism Obama is not believe-able. In the face of the growing evidence (20 year relationship, huge contributions, Wright’s friendship on behalf of his church to Farrakan, and Hamas and even justifing Hamas’s terrorism in his Churches newsletter) I believe Obama is clearly a racist and an anti-semite. McCain did nothing more then accept money from a questionable donor. He had no previous relationship with Haggee. 20 years is different from 20 minutes or 20 days. Also Obama is only half black, ( a fact he seems to conveniently forget), and McCain, to my knowledge, has made no claims of race. If you think you can define his race by looking at him, who is the racist?
That said, and getting back to specifics, please point to me one word, phrase, sentence or paragraph in Barack Obama's speech where he addresses or recommends pursuing a national policy of Black Nationalism. I think this is covered above, but his long term association with his mentor, Wright, says it all. Frankly Obama is proving that he is as much a lier as the Clintons, so I am not sure any claim of dis-associatin can be believed. Even toleration and acceptance are different words, Actually this is a VERY interesting topic that we are not alone in considering. Consider the specific; if you watch and tolerate a person being beaten are you accepting that beating? In this case would not tolerance be acceptance, and acceptence be confederation in the crime? If this moral constraint on not tolerating evil because it results in compliance applies in the specific, why is in not applicable in the general? If you see the Chinese harming the Tibetians unfairly and you do nothing (especially if you can do something), are you not complicite in the crime the Chinese are committing? Where the Germans who saw the Jews being taken to the gas chambers, who knew what the result would be, not complicite in the crime of the Holocaust? in fact, my understanding of the logic of the actions that they might take ... should not be confused with my acceptance or toleration of their actions. I would suggest that we are not disgussing understanding the motivations of the Chinese in Tibet or the Muslims in Dafur. We are talking about the ability to take steps to stop criminal acts and not taking those steps. You think Obama is a black socialist, set to punish all white people for the sins of their fathers by taking everything they have worked for (even if some have simply inherited their well-being, and not done a scrap of work in their lives) and handing it out to street thugs, crack-sellers, and welfare moms. Of course it is an exageration, Obama is not Black, but he is a socialist, and there is a very real possibility a Black Nationalist. He is clearly lying about what his position is, and the nature of his positions is determined by whom he is talking to, as his blunder on the bitterness of most,(yes you can read in white at this point) lower incomer rural Americans that results in racism and a dismissal of his candidacy. His associations, his mentor relaationship, and his racist dismissal of his grandmother as a “typical white woman” support my conclusions. How come extreme moral absolutists are so historically relativistic? By moral absolutists you mean having a clear definition of what is right and wrong, but your reference to “historical relativistic is a bit confusing. The term is not used in any dictionary or encyclopedia I can reference. I think from your example you mean judging the past by today’s standards. The contradictin you seem to be confused by is that I and other people judge contemporaries by a clearly defined morality, yet we do not hold that standard to apply to non-contemporaries. In short, you are confused by the application to a societal moral code to a time frame. The answer, to misquote Einstein, is that time is relative.
Joined: Mar 2007
Posts: 762
OBAMA'S PASTOR: "GOD D--N AMERICA"
While the left relentlessly pressures John McCain to distance himself from Pastor John Hagee and his criticisms of the Catholic Church, they seem blithely unconcerned about Sen. Barack Obama's 20-year association with his racist pastor, Jeremiah Wright.
ABC News revealed yesterday that Rev. Wright's sermons contain repeated denunciations of the United States, including the use of profanity in a 2003 sermon to call down curses on this country.
Said Rev. Wright in that sermon, "The government gives them the drugs, builds bigger prisons, passes a three-strike law and then wants us to sing 'God Bless America.' No, no, no, God d--n America, that's in the Bible for killing innocent people. God d--n America for treating our citizens as less than human. God d--n America for as long as she acts like she is God and she is supreme."
In addition, while the left thundered against Rev. Jerry Falwell for suggesting, in the wake of 9/11, that America's moral decline had weakened its defense against evil, the same press seems blissfully un-bothered that Rev. Wright also blamed 9/11 on America.
Said Wright at the time, "We have supported state terrorism against the Palestinians and black South Africans, and now we are indignant because the stuff we have done overseas is now brought right back to our front yards."
It's fine for people to claim that Rev. Wright's opinions should not be charged to Sen. Obama. Yet the presidential candidate has chosen to sit under this man's preaching and teaching for twenty years, and listened week after week to what appears to be a constant stream of racist and anti-American rhetoric, all apparently without batting an eye.
Now if Obama was listening and learning, week after week from his mentor and spiritual adviser, as he claims, then the public has to wonder just how much of Rev. Wright's hatred of whites and America he has welcomed into his own soul.
Perhaps we can now understand Michelle Obama's comment that she is just now proud of her country for the first time. If Barack wasn't listening to Rev. Wright, his wife apparently was.
If Obama firmly rejected this constant race-baiting and blame-America first pulpit-pounding, then the public has to question his judgment: why would someone who wants to be the president of all Americans meekly endure white-bashing week after week in his own church? Why wouldn't he do what most Americans would have done, and walk out? And why would he want to lead a country he has been taught to despise, and why should we let him?
Said a member of Obama's church, regarding the influence of Rev. Wright on the candidate, "He has impacted the life of Barack Obama so much so that he wants to portray that feeling he got from Rev. Wright onto the country because we all need something positive."
Maybe that's exactly what we have to worry about.
ABC News: Obama's Pastor: God Damn America, U.S. to Blame for 9/11
Obama and the Minister - WSJ.com
Video:Jeremiah Wright: "Obama Living in a Country Controlled By Rich White People"
Joined: Nov 2007
Posts: 381
I like Obama. He seems to be a likeable person. From what I have observed during his campaign, his loose and easy temperament is engaging and he seems to genuinely enjoy being around people. He is always smiling and his attitude and demeanor seem to be light years away from the hatred that the Reverend preaches. I don't see the connection. I will not judge Obama by your inflammatory words or the Reverend Wrights.
Joined: Oct 2007
Posts: 645
So you are swayed by a "loose and easy temperament " that is "engaging"? Has it occured to you that appearances are decieving and that politicains are masters of deciet? Buy many bridges last week? I bet you did, you are buying the Brooklyn Bridge in this blog.
Joined: Apr 2007
Posts: 105
The only thing Obama has going for himself minus the lack of experiance is only personality and charisma, plus he knows how to talk the talk and thats about it. It was said that he was a member of "Crazy" Jerry's church for 25 years, and in all those years I can't believe for one minute that he has never heard those inflammatory sermons. If he wasnt running for office, I'm sure that he wouldnt distance himself from the racist self proclaimed reverend. The only problem right now is that Obama is running for high office while at the same time "Crazy" Jerry is crimpin his style with the kind of venom that would make racist Farakhan blush. Obama must have had a bad track record on attending church on the days that "Crazy" Jerry decided to vent off the cuff, either that or "Opie Taylor" Obama didnt want to be caught with his pants down getting tangled with the mean reverends mental issues in an election year.
Joined: Nov 2007
Posts: 381
"The only thing Obama has going for himself minus the lack of experiance is only personality and charisma"--- ACTUALLY, THAT IS A WONDERFUL ASSET TO BRING TO THE PRESIDENCY:) ********************************************************* "either that or "Opie Taylor" Obama" --- I TAKE IT THAT YOU DON'T LIKE OBAMA:) ********************************************************* ""Crazy" Jerry is crimpin his style with the kind of venom......." NO, REALLY, I DON'T THINK YOUR COMMENT HAS ANY VENOM IN IT AT ALL:) *********************************************************** IF YOU DON'T LIKE OBAMA, YOU DON'T REALLY HAVE TO USE HIS CHURCH TO BASH HIM WITH YOUR RATIONAL. ACTUALLY, EXPERIENCE IS OVERRATED, GOOD JUDGEMENT WITH SOUND ADVICE IS SO MUCH MORE IMPORTANT:)
Joined: Apr 2007
Posts: 105
As a minority, I dont support Obama at all (shocking isnt it?) and as a former Democrat(equally shocking!), I lost my faith in the party many years ago. Obama stands for everything that I dont, and although he may be a smooth talking people friendly orator, he has never ran anything bigger than the office that he holds, and neither Hitlery or even Juan McCain who just happens to have over 20 years over the both of them. I'm not bashing Obama because of his church, but really questioning his supposed claim of not having heard his beloved pastor speak in a vile manner during his 25 years as a church member. A true pastor will preach the word of salvation and love for all, and not in a manner that condemns our nation to hell with the worst vitriol reserved for white "rich" folk while forgetting that there are rich black folk too, some good and some bad just like white brown red and yellow. Any logical person who has a pastor like that would just move on to another church rather than get an earful of hate and nonsense. How can a member of a church for 20 years such as Obama deny not hearing his pastor spew on numerous occasions only to condemn him when the rants are plastered all over the media in an election year with the end result of people having to question Obama's loyalty to the nation and his sincerity of what he supposedly stands for when his pastor is such a hot potato? Obama is quick to condemn remarks he supposedly had no knowledge of in an effort to prevent any damage to his campaign, but an admission on his part would totally ruin his momentum. Obama is a lawyer, and I dont trust lawyers at all to lead the nation, being that they are professional liars at best. For what its worth, every election cycle seems to get crazier all the time and never fails to amaze with controversy.
Joined: Nov 2007
Posts: 381
To be honest , I think Obama probably did hear some fiery rhetoric from the Reverend on occasion. But I don't think that's why Obama went to that Church. It's not a deal breaker for me. I don’t think the Reverend could do it every Sunday, as there would be no time for Gospel and really that’s why people go to Church. From what I have observed, the Reverend is probably one of those amazing mesmerizing orators when he’s doing Gospel. I bet he makes the church rock. And that’s why his congregation comes to him every Sunday. It’s unfortunate that this creative energy is used on occasion to promote such hateful diatribes. But he is a child of the sixties and so am I. I was in the south during the sixties so I sort of understand the deep down gut feeling the reverend has not been able to come to terms with. It’s just so much baggage now, and it’s unfortunate, because it’s time to move on. But to the point..... I just don’t see the hate in Obama that I see in the Reverend. By the way, I am a white independent voter who has not made up his mind yet. I don’t particularly like lawyers either, but that’s all you get in Washington. Thanks for your thoughtful comment; you will be happy to know that I pulled your name from my enemies list:) Have a great day.
Joined: Mar 2008
Posts: 56
So we do agree on somthing! I haven't been consistently following the campaign's very close, because of my own personal feeling's, but you can make since when you want to. I'm impressed!
Joined: Jul 2005
Posts: 539
... is "very proud" and "honored" to have received the endorsement of John Hagee, Texas mega-minister. Why does no one demand that McCain renounce some of this supporters more egregious comments, such as: -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------• All Muslims are programmed to kill and we can thus never negotiate with any of them. ---------->
• God caused Hurricane Katrina to wipe out New Orleans because it had a gay pride parade the week before and was filled with sexual sin. ---------->
• The End Times -- Rapture -- is imminent and the U.S. Government must do what it can to hasten it, which at minimum requires: (a) a war with Iran and (b) undying, absolute support for a unified Israel, including all Occupied Territories
Joined: Nov 2007
Posts: 381
Are there any survivors left standing after dealing with the ohso comment from above? If you were unfortunate enough to have read the entire text, then I'm sure you are feeling a little light headed. You should lay quietly for a moment; your vision should return in 1 hour. Many of you may be just beginning to realize, that Ohso is one of the "others" from ABC's "Lost". We have labored long and hard to capture him with nets but so far, no success:)
Joined: Mar 2007
Posts: 762
OBAMARAMA POSITION ON PP???? Planned Parenthood: Wanting fewer blacks 'understandable' - Abortion provider says 'yes' when 'donor' wants to reduce minorities
Posted: February 27, 2008 By Bob Unruh
WorldNetDaily
A student-run magazine at UCLA has revealed an undercover investigation in which representatives of Planned Parenthood, the nation's abortion industry leader, admitted willingness to accepting a financial donation targeting the destruction of an unborn black baby.
Lila Rose, who edits The Advocate, previously revealed how Planned Parenthood officials expressed a willingness to conceal statutory rape, an investigative piece that earned her an appearance on The O'Reilly Factor.
Now she's told WND she hopes the taped responses of Planned Parenthood officials in seven states reveal to her local UCLA community and the nation at large the racist leanings of the organization.
WND calls to Planned Parenthood of Idaho, which was featured in The Advocate report, requesting a comment were not returned.
"Students on campus are shocked and saddened that such a huge organization would have racist leanings in the present day," she told WND. "They are surprised to hear the truth about [Planned Parenthood founder] Margaret Sanger, and how the African-American community is being hurt by abortion.
"There's a lot of surprise out there. Planned Parenthood does an excellent job of covering up the facts," she said.
Sanger supported eugenics to cull those she considered unfit from the population. In 1921, she said eugenics is "the most adequate and thorough avenue to the solution of racial, political and social problems."
At one point, she lamented "the ever increasing, unceasingly spawning class of human beings who never should have been born at all." Another time, Sanger wrote, "We do not want the word to go out that we want to exterminate