I have not really wanted to post on the debacle of Baraq Obama’s pastor of 20 years, Jeremiah Wright, whose anti-white, anti-America, and conspiratorial preaching has at least embarrassed the Obama campaign, if not driven it’s recent 5 percentage point loss in the last week.
But Bill O’Reilly has been running shows for three days on the subject, and not to run Obama into the ground, but because the reaction of black Americans is surprisingly supportive of Wright’s rhetoric, and because this reflects on Obama’s lack of judgment, the key attribute that he is running his campaign on. So here’s what I’ve learned.
Table of Contents
1. The MSM is proving itself, again, to be overwhelmingly biased.
Not only are a couple of the main news channels totally ignoring this important story, other are downplaying it. When that crazy accusation about infidelity came up recently about McCain, it was all over the front pages, while this, arguably more relevant story, is being buried by the likes of the New York Times.
Now I am not surprised, but the fact that the MSM is in the tank for Obama is not only evident to conservatives, but even now to Hillary supporters. It is pathetic. I am glad that we have Fox News, which repeatedly has shown itself to be more fair and balanced than the liberal, biased American media.
2. The black church may be more infected with anti-white victimhood thinking than we realize
The fact that many blacks believe that the government created AIDS in order to kill off minorities, or that so-called Christians can stomach preaching that claims that the problem with the world is that it is run by ‘rich white people’ (this is as good as saying that it is being ruined by Jews and blacks).
I have been amazed that so many of O’Reilly’s recent guests have supported Rev. Wright, and said that such preaching is common in black churches. Are you kidding me? I have *never* heard racist preaching in my own predominantly white churches. I am amazed that such things pass as spirituality in our day, and aghast that black Americans would look on such things without complaint.
Now admittedly, Wright may be using hyperbole, but to repeat such crazy conspiratorial and racially incendiary statements from the pulpit shows at least a lack of judgment, if not an underlying hatred that he refuses to acknowledge. To say that Jesus taught him to ‘love the HELL’ out of his enemies shows he’s long on polemics and short on the love he claims to have.
And while blacks have certainly lived under the remains of institutional racism in America, to keep preaching such things as if they are trying to solve the current problems in America, rather than contributing to them, is ludicrous.
But let’s also acknowledge that he may be part of the leftist-leaning church, which may not even preach the gospel much anyway, but rather, the social gospel of political involvement. Maybe surprise should be replaced by sorrow, pity, and increased efforts at redeeming the minds of our countrymen.
3. The left could care less when a leftist preacher endorses a candidate from the pulpit
What I want to know is, why is nobody crying foul that this preacher is endorsing Obama? Isn’t that a violation of his church’s tax exempt status?
4. Obama is screwed, just as conservatives are hoping
His pathetically slow response to this issue, and his tepid rejection of Wright’s antics are too little, too late for many Americans. And not because people don’t like criticisms of America, but because of the gross manner in which Rev. Wright spews his filthy attitude in the name of Christ. Poor Obama should have seen this coming after 20 years in such a church. Many of us are amazed that he would stay in a church like that.
Now I realize that perhaps the timing of this was planned by the Far Right Conspiracy to make sure that Hillary got picked instead of Obama, since she is more beatable by McCain. But still, I think this story is fair and important to discuss, since we know so little about Obama, and his campaign of ‘judgment’ begs for such specific and relevant scrutiny.
First, let me say I disagree with your entire post so I'll only say one thing in response.
Obama is screwed, just as conservatives are hoping
That remains to be seen. He has a delegate lead on Hillary so if he can win out, Americans will have the choice between what Obama's Pastor said, not Barack Obama himself, and the prospect of a deep and lingering economic recession and war under republican "leadership." If Americans choose an awful economy and warfare, then they should get what they ask for. I wouldn't be surprised though. A lot of them voted for Bush twice. They never learn.
So you too believe that the white people in our government created the AIDS virus to kill minorities? Or that this has nothing relevant to say about Obama's judgment?
I agree with O'Reilly that nothing that Obama has said or done indicates that he agrees with this guy, but it is relevant, and beyond Obama, if that is indicative of what is preached in black churches, I am saddened, if not alarmed. I mean, sure, such guys are really blowhards and not dangerous, but they do foment racial hatred and victimhood in the name of Christianity.
So, you don't think that the media is biased left, and towards Obama? Dream on! It is so clear that it is almost beyond question.
And the fact that no one on the left is complaining about the clear endorsement of a candidate by a tax exempt preacher and church is the height of hypocrisy, esp. when they have done so under less clear cut cases when the James Dobsons of the world take a stand on issues *without* endorsing a candidate.
But the blatant self-serving nature of liberals who take these stances, and the MSM, will only further alienate thinking Americans, while the 10-15% who are radical left will keep making these same mistakes over and over again, wondering why the "stupid" American populace is not following them. It must be the scary mind control of the religious right over the uneducated – NOT.
I cannot believe that anyone could either 1)think that Obama agrees with Wright or 2)thinks that the media is giving him a free pass. This story is all over tv and newspapers. And, from what I've seen and heard from Obama, it is impossible that he could agree with Wright's more incendiary statements. This is obviously an attempt to destroy Obama's candidacy. What I want to know is why conservatives and the MSM aren't also crucifying McCain over his wingnut supporters from the right-wing christianist movement (Hagee and others). Why hasn't seeker attacked McCain for standing on the stage with Hagee to accept his endorsement? Does seeker really believe that McCain agrees with Hagee's belief that the Catholic church is the "Whore of Babylon" and that God made hurricane Katrina target New Orleans because they were sponsoring a gay pride event?
Maybe once in a while you can at least pretend to be fair and balanced, seeker.
This story is all over tv and newspapers.
It is now, but it was dutifully ignored for days by the MSM until they could no longer ignore it. They want Obama so bad they are willing to make their bias obvious. It's sickening.
What I want to know is why conservatives and the MSM aren't also crucifying McCain over his wingnut supporters from the right-wing christianist movement (Hagee and others).
It's simple. McCain doesn't go to Hagee's church for 20 years and lie to us saying "I never heard him say such things." Who is Obama kidding?
Receiving an endorsement is not a straight up endorsement by the candidate of the views of the endorser. It's merely a political booster for the candidate from a special interest group.
But sitting under the pastorship of such a race baiter for 20 years most certainly IS a sign that you agree with someone – enough to give them influence in your most personal life and beliefs.
And telling us he had no idea about Wright's views, esp. since Wright did such things as visit Qaddafi in Lebanon with Farrakhan the antisemite Muslim racist, is outright lying, even if Obama does disagree with him.
Again, I am not saying that Obama agrees with him on his fringe stuff, but this is somewhat relevant to his whole claim at having 'better judgment,' associating for decades with a loudmouthed, racist, conspiracy monger pastor.
I've come to the conclusion that right-wing christianists find it impossible to be fair when it comes to Obama. Certainly, their venom is a fair representation of Barack's quality. Guilt by association is hardly something any fair or rational person can take seriously.
btw: It's hilarious that seeker can get so worked up over the supposed association of Obama with a "loudmouthed, racist, conspiracy monger [sic] pastor" when he has constantly shown himself to be a bigoted, hate-monger himself.
People who live in glass houses…
Some thoughts on this whole mess:
You can judge a man by the company he keeps. Barry picked his church, his pastor, and the message he wanted to associate himself with, just like some here have chosen to be Atheist or God fearing. Over 20 years, an articulate, intelligent person is going fully understand that racist rhetoric and the black incendiary social message emanates from this church. For street cred he chose this church/pastor. And now he wants to push the fact that its harmless, its a black thing, and he really does not feel like his "religious mentor" of 2 decades. I find that very hard to believe. You sleep with a dog, you wake up with fleas. To blame whitey is not unlike the blame the jews speech, if we want to use the Hitlerian card.
"You see, this religious nut job preached his religious nonsense, as religious people are prone to do. That doesn't mean Obama believes it. I'm sure he believed Wright's speech called "The Audacity of Hope" but not this black power BS. I think Obama believes in Wright's more fiery sermons as much as John McCain believes in Hagee's. As in, not at all." ——-
Sure, but would you not have to be a nut job to sit in that place and listen to it? Would you sit there? Why was hr there, if not to believe? The history of the church is there. He plunged neck deep into it, and now under the national, not the Chicago eye, the chickens are comin' back to roost.
But I guess if a party can have the Byrd(KKK) … anything is possible.
"I cannot believe that anyone could either 1)think that Obama agrees with Wright or 2)thinks that the media is giving him a free pass. This story is all over tv and newspapers. And, from what I've seen and heard from Obama, it is impossible that he could agree with Wright's more incendiary statements."——-
Of course, with the words change and hope he has led, pied piper like his masses. A believer in ST. Barack will of course not want to think the worst. He is just another politician with a Chicago flava, no more, no less. Not a unifier … or otherwise he would not have associated with this historically racist church.
Hi,
I'm a journalist at France 24 (www.france24.com). I'd like to discuss this post with you. Can you send me your phone number?
Regards,
You'll have to include an email when you post, or email me at twoorthreeblog at google dot com.
It comes down to this: people who already hate Obama, or just vehemently disagree with him, have greeted this flap with ill-disguised glee. They finally have a racial issue they can attack Obama on (yes, it's racism). I've heard some of my white co-workers state they won't vote for a black man for president ("I don't want a black president.") I think only a stupid person would say this, and I said so to their faces. I also think only stupid or malicious people believe this crap about Obama. They are eager to destroy him, and will reach for any lie, any evil bit of slander, any false charge, to effect their goal. It's racism, pure and simple.
Obama has explicitly condemned these views. McCain has explicitly condemned Hagee's views. To continue to attack them reveals a malicious agenda. What about the economy? What about Iraq? What about the price of energy and what that means for our future? What about environmental degradation? What about our disintegrating infra-structure? Why does it always come down to ad hominem attacks and gotcha tactics? It's like Ben9's charge that those of us who support Obama are a bunch of weak-minded idiots seeking a messiah. Since he can't defeat us on the issues he can only attack us personally. It's pathetic.
Economy: it is a Capitalistic country we live in, the Gov should keep its hands off at every possible opportunity. Tax cuts across the board. But of course, Dems will not do that.
Iraq: Libs will lose the war … they under mine the soldiers and the whole idea of winning the war at every turn. "Suspend disbelief", General Be-tray-us. Sound the least bit familiar? If, and this is a big IF, the dumbass politicians will let the men in command on the ground win, Iraq will be settled. If not, and some group of idiot politicians actually gets their way and leaves a fledgling Iraq to Iran, we will have a much much bigger problem to deal with. Other goodies under Dems that failed: Bay of Pigs, Somalia, Desert One.
"It's like Ben9's charge that those of us who support Obama are a bunch of weak-minded idiots seeking a messiah." ——-
Sure, some people are idiots. Like those who you say would not vote for a black. And those who shout "Barack,Barack", swoon and fall, but can not answer the question of what has he actually accomplished in his very short career(nothing). Yes, to me, those who are lead by the blank screen that is BO are idiots.
"Since he can't defeat us on the issues he can only attack us personally. It's pathetic." ——-
Man, I do not have to defeat you. Audacity of hope. Ha ha ha. The racism emanates from anyone who would spend 2 decades as part of that congregation. When only the Chicago libs examining him, its all cool to be part of a black nationalistic church, but under the eye of the nation, its a little different. BO is learning that.
Yes, to me, those who are lead by the blank screen that is BO are idiots.
Then there's nothing more to say to you.
Embargo.
people who already hate Obama, or just vehemently disagree with him, have greeted this flap with ill-disguised glee.
I think that's a poor and false generalization. I kind of like him, even if I think he is too liberal. Bill O'Reilly is constantly defending Obama, saying that he probably does NOT agree with the incendiary preaching of the pastor he has chosen. The reason this is an issue is that Obama not only is endorsed shamelessly by this guy from the pulpit, but Obama implicitly endorses HIM by being a loyal member for 20 years.
I agree, to some extent, this is much ado about nothing, and those who want Obama to lose (including Hillary) probably love this. But it's not really hate at all, it's just politics. And in this case, the questioning is fair, I think.
They finally have a racial issue they can attack Obama on (yes, it's racism).
Well, it's FEAR of racism, since he *belongs* to a church that preaches borderline racism against whites.
I've heard some of my white co-workers state they won't vote for a black man for president ("I don't want a black president.") I think only a stupid person would say this, and I said so to their faces.
I totally agree. And believe it or not, I have NOT heard any such language among my conservative or Christian friends – they reject him on his liberal politics. In fact, in many of our discussions, we all admit that we would be fine with a black president, as long as he was conservative (the question of a female president is another thing).
Obama's strong showing among whites indicates to me that, even if a small number of people want him to fail because he is black, these people are less than many imagine. I think people are more afraid of any anti-white or Muslim influence in the highest office in the land.
To continue to attack them reveals a malicious agenda.
I agree, but the reason that this issue has remained in the news despite his denouncements is that (a) he was too slow in personally denouncing them, (b) his initial 'condemnations' were too tepid, and he avoided discussing how he could actually be a *member* of a church that spewed that kind of garbage.
I think his statement today may finally put this to rest, but it's more than just maliciousness that kept this going, but his own lack of verve in responding, and the seemingly unbelievable and disingenuousness of his claims that he didn't know.
Why does it always come down to ad hominem attacks and gotcha tactics?
I agree, the race should be about issues. And it will be once the dems pick a candidate, I hope. OK, probably not.
Since he can't defeat us on the issues he can only attack us personally.
Hey, that's not my fault. I think *I* can beat you back on issues alone ;)
"Then there's nothing more to say to you.
Embargo." ——-
the audacity of embargo.
Yeah, I sort of liked Obama myself, not his policies but the man as an individual. Part of me wanted him to win to give a big "screw you" to racist morons out there. But this is an issue (not because we're all racists), whether the Obama-supporters want it to be or not.
You can't call saying "God d*mn America!" as "comments that could be considered controversial." You can't say that about someone seemingly gloating on the Sunday after 9/11 "could be considered controversial." It's not considered anything. It's vile and hateful, much less controversial. Falwell got blasted (rightfully) for his stupid comments along the same vein. You can't say one is horrible and the other is okay.
Louis, as someone who used to attend church, would you want to be in a church where hate at a group of people was preached. Take comments made by Wright dealing with the black community and African culture and substitute "white" and "Aryan" and see how that sounds. Or how about "straight?" Would you be so forgiving if he was championing straight supremacy?
Wright's comments were hateful and the fact that Obama took his family, including his two small daughters, to that church for over 20 years (or the lifetime of their daughters) does not reflect well on him.
I don't gloat at his downfall. But he is reduced to saying today that essentially if we have to understand the roots of the hate speech and if we don't then we must be racists. It boiled down to – "the only way to solve this problem of race is to vote for me." As has already happened, those that do not vote for him will be called racists no matter the reason they voted otherwise.
It's unfortunate that the man who said he wanted to be the post-racial candidate, the one who would heal and unite America, just played the race card in a big way and told us that we should just look past (as he did) his pastor's racist, anti-semitic and hateful rhetoric.
Falwell got blasted (rightfully) for his stupid comments along the same vein.
Interestingly, they both said we 'deserved' it, but for different reasons. Wright says we deserve it because of our *nation's* cruel and murderous foreign policy. Falwell said we deserved it because of our *personal* immorality, which is now manifest at a national level in our murder of our *own* innocent children, and the abuse of our own selves through the acceptance and practice of sexual immorality and drugs.
And both men saw such things as 911 as the judgement of God, in that he had taken his hand of protection away from us due to our immorality, which is a biblical concept. Similarly, John MacArthur stunned Christians at the National Day of Prayer last year with the sermon A Nation Abandoned by God, preaching that God's judgment of abandonment was upon us, as per Romans 1.
I think they are all somewhat correct, though Wright is more hateful in his speech. I heard a good quote yesterday by a TV preacher:
Then, you are as bad as Wright, seeker.
I'll say it once more and then never speak on this topic again. Obama is not Wright. And I don't believe people who claim that racism isn't at the bottom of this. The issue is far, far more complex than it is being portrayed by conservatives. Wright is speaking out of the depths of anger and bitterness bred by the racism his generation endured. I sometimes feel exactly the same way towards straight people and straight America: God damn America and God damn straights!!! Considering the response of America and Christians to AIDS in the 1980's ("serves 'em right, perverts!"), sometimes I feel straights introduced HIV to wipe us out (they certainly cheered when we went down). Sometimes I hate straight people and conservative Christians. You guys have got to learn about the depth of rage and hurt and bitterness which is the legacy of discrimination and persecution.
To this, Obama offers a way out, a way of change and hope to heal the wounds. And you guys (so-called Christians) want to destroy it.
'nuff said.
Louis, forget about Seeker and Aaron. Obama's nuanced speech went completely over their heads. Recognizing the truth is too much to ask of them. Whenever someone speaks it, as Obama did today, it throws them for a loop, and they can only respond with venom. Leave Seeker and Aaron to their scapegoating. It's all they really have. It's not as if their candidate could even come close to Barack Obama's oratory brilliance and talent. Personally, Barack has made me proud to be an American again. I just hope he can transcend the smears of the right and continue to take the high road as he did today. Bravo, Barack Obama!
Obama is not Wright, true. But to be associated with something wrong and actually evil is a whole other topic. Not that he was associated for a day, or a week, or a month. Twenty years. The racist, hate filled, victim filled world that this church and the lib wing of this gov preaches as part of its platform is getting f#$%ing old. His call for unity is empty words, as his first move when the heat is on, is to have us all believe that it is a "black thing". You can not unify by using racist divisive philosophies.
"You guys have got to learn about the depth of rage and hurt and bitterness which is the legacy of discrimination and persecution." ——->
Bull. Others need to get over it. How long do we have to wait? The blame whitey crowd needs to grow up(i grew up with that crap in the 70's)and can not grow as people, citizens or Christians if the type of sludge preached in this type of church is constantly pumped into the minds of generation after generation of people. A la the whole wave of welfare generations. Good God man. Nothing but a populist fueled by lib non-sense.
"To this, Obama offers a way out, a way of change and hope to heal the wounds. And you guys (so-called Christians) want to destroy it."——->
Change and Hope. Rainbows and Unicorns. All a blank screen for us to project whatever we want upon him. His call that only through he could the races come together in unity, like in his own DNA(he being racially mixed i guess is his point). Gee-zus. A heaven here on Earth through him. Lord help us. These are phrases uttered by BO, thus my Obamessiah moniker. Its not the whites or Christians that are BO's problem. Its his companions and personal guru's. I wonder what would be said if David Duke was offering McCain political advice?
Libs want us to "see" he is a black man, like there is some value in that above any other shade of melanin. Want whites to pay for whatever. To feel sorry for whatever. That electing this man helps us feel better in some way. Riiiigggghhhhttttt. I think that the war of northern aggression paid that bill. Time to move on.
What venom? Did I say God d*mn liberals? Did I say that a terrorist bombing was our chickens coming home to roost? Did I say any thing of the sort?
I said Obama missed an opportunity to prove that he is this uniter and healer he claims to be. I don't have any venom for him or even for Wright. I have pity that this is another missed opportunity to move America into the place where race doesn't matter.
Obama proved with his speech that he is not a post-racial candidate. He still uses all the same old playbook, but says hope and change enough and hope that makes up for it. He asked us to excuse Wright being hateful and bigoted. Supporters seem to have no problem with that. Fine. To quote Louis, "whatever." But don't get up on your political high horse and look down your noses at everyone else who won't admit the greatness that is Obama.
He's a politician and a very skilled one at that. But as you said before Cin. He's a politician and they are almost all alike in many ways. He uses race in ways that are political expedient to him at the time. This was a political speech where he tried (and succeeded in some measure) to take the attention off of his tacit support of racist speech and instead make those who have problems with the hateful rhetoric of his former pastor the ones who are hateful and racist. That doesn't bring anyone together. It further cements the racial divide.
Louis (and Cin) you've yet to answer my question at how you would feel if Wright was a white pastor speaking of white theology or straight theology. As Ben brought up, what if McCain sat under David Duke as his pastor for 20 years. As long as he gives a good speech about how we just have to understand where he's coming from, it makes it all okay? I don't think so. That would not be enough and it is not enough for Obama.
I'm sorry to say this, Cin, but I think Obama will fail. America is not yet ready to give up its racist ways.
I'm sorry to say this, Cin, but I think Obama will fail. America is not yet ready to give up its racist ways.
He thinks too highly of Americans. It may have been naive to think Americans were better than they are, but it was courageous to take the road he did. They wanted him to throw Wright under the bus. He didn't, though it would have been politically expedient. He really appeals to the better angels of our nature.
You both can continue to speak of Obama as if he is this post-racial angel all you want, but you have yet to answer any of the objections anyone has brought up. You only reiterate that we are racists or not enlightened enough to support him. You only reinforce the idea that Obama' campaign thus far is not about concrete ideas but merely about theoretical projection of ideas like hope and change.
Nobody ever said what they would think of McCain if he sat under racist preaching for 20 years and never batted an eye (at least publicly.) Louis, you never said what you thought about Obama campaigning with a black minister who said God healed him from homosexuality. Once he got flak from gay groups, he added a gay minister to "balance" his campaign stops. Or the ad that you pointed to that Obama was taking out in gay news sources – why is it a targeted ad buy? Why would he not want to tell everyone of his support for gay marriage and overturning DOMA? If he is committed to those things like you believe he is, why would he hide behind gay-specific media?
He is the epitome of a blank slate politician with no real (public) values. Your lack of answers on any issue furthers that idea.
They wanted him to throw Wright under the bus. He didn't, though it would have been politically expedient. He really appeals to the better angels of our nature.
You know, I agree, he is taking the high road, and his speech was very well done, and despite his liberal politics, I like him as a person – you can't help it, he's very charming, eloquent, and likable.
But the problem with America isn't really white racism – it's the pollution of Black racism in the black church that Obama's membership in has uncovered. The fact that pastor Wright is still living in the 60's, rehearsing unforgiven sins of the PAST, and promoting racial strife and black victimhood, is what has hit a nerve among Americans, and Obama is getting swept away by the flood of anger at this unresolved problem. Just because he rightly identified it as such probably won't save him.
When Obama fails to get elected, the black church, instead of blaming his failure on anti-black racism, needs to examine itself, and realize that it's own anachronistic racism is what ruined his chances.
For your information, Aaron, Obama spoke before a meeting of black ministers and defended gay people and criticized Christian treatment of gays (to a deafening silence, btw). He also released an open letter (which I cited here) for all people. The ad was, of course, targeted to gay publications to outline his message to us. This is real risk-taking. You just don't want to acknowledge it because you are against him.
Conservative Christians have nothing to say to gay people. Your present-day record speaks for itself, as well as xianity's centuries' long record of oppression and persecution (both RC and Protestant, btw). What is astounding about Obama is that he has the courage to stand up as a Christian and address this issue forthrightly and without the cant about "love" and "truth" we hear from all quarters (although even he is against equal marriage rights, a stance I remain critical of – so you see I'm not a mindless zombie). I'm very much afraid that it's in the DNA of Christianity to be anti-gay, even in its most liberal forms (a definite minority, btw). But that's all right: there are other spiritual paths more authentic.
I'm so glad to see you Christians just brimming over with forgiveness and charity when it comes to a fellow Christian with whom you disagree politically. Christianity=Hypocrisy in my book. You talk a fine game but your actions belie your true colors.
But the problem with America isn't really white racism – it's the pollution of Black racism in the black church that Obama's membership in has uncovered.
This has to be one of the most stupid and offensive comments I have ever encountered. Yes, indeed, blame the victim, and bury your own guilt. White people may be tired of hearing about it, but it's still a fact: their own racism has created this problem. It's sad that black racism exists or appears to exist, but it's a simple fact that it is a direct result of two centuries and more of white racist exploitation and oppression. And it's not just victimology to point this out. Just because things are better now than in the 1850's or 1930's doesn't mean that racism doesn't still operate. I see it all the time. And, as a gay man, I can completely understand and empathize. You two are in denial, and you refuse to repent. WWJD (providing He gives a damn)?
…he sat under racist preaching for 20 years and never batted an eye.
Given my background, my politics, and my professed values and ideals, there will no doubt be those for whom my statements of condemnation are not enough. Why associate myself with Reverend Wright in the first place, they may ask? Why not join another church? And I confess that if all that I knew of Reverend Wright were the snippets of those sermons that have run in an endless loop on the television and You Tube, or if Trinity United Church of Christ conformed to the caricatures being peddled by some commentators, there is no doubt that I would react in much the same way
But the truth is, that isn’t all that I know of the man. The man I met more than twenty years ago is a man who helped introduce me to my Christian faith, a man who spoke to me about our obligations to love one another; to care for the sick and lift up the poor. He is a man who served his country as a U.S. Marine; who has studied and lectured at some of the finest universities and seminaries in the country, and who for over thirty years led a church that serves the community by doing God’s work here on Earth – by housing the homeless, ministering to the needy, providing day care services and scholarships and prison ministries, and reaching out to those suffering from HIV/AIDS.
In my first book, Dreams From My Father, I described the experience of my first service at Trinity:
But the problem with America isn’t really white racism – it’s the pollution of Black racism in the black church that Obama’s membership in has uncovered.
Seeker, Aaron, “He who is without sin among you, let him throw a stone at her first.” John 8:7
Yes, indeed, blame the victim, and bury your own guilt.
Well then, you must also disagree with Obama (who said Wright was stuck in the past), as well as the likes of Juan Williams and Bill Cosby.
The issue here is not blaming the victim, but after things change for the victim, they refuse to forgive and hold on to their victim status. No one is saying that MLK was wrong, and that blacks caused the racism. What we are saying is that the problem is largely fixed (though it will never be entirely gone), but now the victims would rather wallow in self-pity and anger rather than moving into the new world they helped create. You may find this accusation offensive, but I and most Americans, and a growing number of blacks, find the continued victim mentality highly offensive, and perpetuating racism in a new form.
Just as Obama did, you set up a false choice. For Obama the only way I can prove my non-racist ways are to vote for him. For you, the only way I can prove my Christian way is to vote for Obama.
He didn't offend me personally. I don't need to forgive him. I would if I did. He did illustrate to me another reason I cannot vote for him as president. Saying I can't vote for someone is not saying I don't believe them to be a Christian.
I believe that Obama is a fellow follower of Christ. I believe him to be my brother in God's family. I believe one day we will both worship Jesus around his throne. I have no problem with that. I look forward to that day when we can completely ignore the political issues of the day.
As seeker said, I also find him to be a very inspiring and likable man, but for me this speech was not a high point for him. I didn't want him to throw anybody under the bus, but I did want him to take more responsibility for his inaction at sitting under racist teaching for 20 years. That disappointed me because honestly I did expect more out of him than say someone like Hillary.
However, we differ on how we should interpret the message of Scripture and we differ on how the government would function best. That does not mean I hold something against him or can't forgive him or hate him or am racist toward him. That means we disagree and because of those disagreements I can't give him my vote.
And btw, I have no guilt about racism. My family is Jewish and Polish, and only 4th generation American. Not only did my family never own slaves, but they were enslaved and killed by other nations.
You may say that my Anglo ancestors benefited from black racism, but so what shall we do about that? We have created the conditions under which an Obama could become president. How much more do you want?!? Shall we set up a perpetual mia-culpa machine in Washington that doles out apologies and money to blacks so that they feel like they’ve been recompensed (I mean, other than welfare)?
The current problems in the black community are not the results of modern day racism, either individual or institutional, even if some scant vestiges of these still exist. The problems stem from the failure to forgive, bitterness, hatred, and a failure to do the Godly thing – take personal responsibility for their lives, stop blaming everyone else for their fatherless families, violence, and drug problems, and make something of their lives with the opportunities that they have.
My relatives had to endure lesser but very real racism, having to change their names to get jobs, work lesser jobs, work themselves out of poverty, get an education, and integrate into American society, rather than creating their own subculture and slang language where they can glorify being thugs instead of responsible citizens.
Thankfully, many blacks have done just that. But they are the “Uncle Toms,” the traitors to the victim mentality. Or as John Ridley (who is black) so eloquently put it in The Manifesto of Ascendancy for the Modern American Nigger:
I’m not throwing a stone, I’m just not falling in love (or voting for him).
For Obama the only way I can prove my non-racist ways are to vote for him.
That's one of the dumbest things I've ever heard.
I'm not throwing a stone, I'm just not falling in love (or voting for him).
I was talking about Rev. Wright, genius.
I did want him to take more responsibility for his inaction at sitting under racist teaching for 20 years.
Given my background, my politics, and my professed values and ideals, there will no doubt be those for whom my statements of condemnation are not enough. Why associate myself with Reverend Wright in the first place, they may ask? Why not join another church? And I confess that if all that I knew of Reverend Wright were the snippets of those sermons that have run in an endless loop on the television and You Tube, or if Trinity United Church of Christ conformed to the caricatures being peddled by some commentators, there is no doubt that I would react in much the same way
But the truth is, that isn't all that I know of the man. The man I met more than twenty years ago is a man who helped introduce me to my Christian faith, a man who spoke to me about our obligations to love one another; to care for the sick and lift up the poor. He is a man who served his country as a U.S. Marine; who has studied and lectured at some of the finest universities and seminaries in the country, and who for over thirty years led a church that serves the community by doing God's work here on Earth – by housing the homeless, ministering to the needy, providing day care services and scholarships and prison ministries, and reaching out to those suffering from HIV/AIDS. – Barack Obama
That is how the speech is being taken by those of us not enthralled with him. I'm not the only one who felt that way, but of course we are all racists so I guess it's a wash.
How is this debate being cast at this moment, Cin? How did you view the Southern Democrats that didn't vote for Obama? You insinuated and said that many were influenced by racism. That's my problem with this speech and this line of thinking. Unless we love Obama and are voting for him, we must be racists. That is the insinuation of almost every argument against those of us who disagree with him. Either that or we're not Christian enough or enlightened enough to get caught up in the movement.
You can't say that race doesn't matter for 9/10 of the campaign (he and his supporters did) and then when it comes out your pastor is a racist, begin saying that race is an issue that matters and we need to discuss around my candidacy.
Is sarcastic name calling a stone? But to your point. On this issue, it will be stones away from me. I have never preached racism from the pulpit. In fact, most opportunities I get to preach I preach against it – as I did this past Sunday night.
But, I don't think you understand that Scripture verse correctly. Are you saying that we should not point out racist preaching? Should I invite David Duke to my church to give a lecture on the supremacy of aryan culture? You're not throwing stones at that right?
Cin, I love how you rip seeker for linking to one of his posts, but in answer to our objections about Obama's speech you simply repost portions of his speech.
So if you are accepting of his speech, I'm assuming you are, would it be okay for David Duke to speak in my church, if he helped his community, ministered to his neighbors, reached out to those suffering from cancer, etc. Of course, all the help would be going to white people and he would be preaching racism from the pulpit, but thats okay because the racist David Duke is simply a caricature of the real man.
That line of thinking is insane and unthinking. You don't get an excuse for cheating on your wife because you told the truth on your taxes. You don't get a free pass to be a racist, hateful bigot from the pulpit because you opened a day care and gave out scholarships.
Can I be a racist bigot if I do all the good stuff Wright did? I'm not negating the good the man has done, I'm sure it is a lot. But nether will I sweep under the rug the statements he made from the pulpit of a church speaking to his congregation, who endorsed his racist and hateful rants by their reactions. They reacted with their support because their shepherd lead them tremendously off course.
"This has to be one of the most stupid and offensive comments I have ever encountered. Yes, indeed, blame the victim, and bury your own guilt. White people may be tired of hearing about it, but it's still a fact: their own racism has created this problem. It's sad that black racism exists or appears to exist, but it's a simple fact that it is a direct result of two centuries and more of white racist exploitation and oppression. And it's not just victimology to point this out. Just because things are better now than in the 1850's or 1930's doesn't mean that racism doesn't still operate. I see it all the time. And, as a gay man, I can completely understand and empathize. You two are in denial, and you refuse to repent. WWJD (providing He gives a damn)?" ——->
louis, you have come unhinged. WWJD? I know he wouldn't congregate in a racist church.
"You may say that my Anglo ancestors benefited from black racism, but so what shall we do about that? We have created the conditions under which an Obama could become president. How much more do you want?!? Shall we set up a perpetual mia-culpa machine in Washington that doles out apologies and money to blacks so that they feel like they've been recompensed (I mean, other than welfare)?"——->
The lib machine is based on the perpetual pitiful masses. If you can not get your rear in gear in this country, no matter your color, look in the mirror. That is were the problem lies.
Re-compensation:Northern Army deaths
Battle deaths: 110,070
Disease, etc.: 250,152
Total 360,222
DEBT PAID IN FULL. Turn out the lights, the pity party is over.
ABC News has an online article about how Obama's recent statements about Wright and Tony Rezko contradict things that he said earlier. Are they racist, too?
They also have a story up with more from Wright about how racist America is. One of his sermons he went after Condoleezza Rice and Tiger Woods among others (apparently they aren't black enough), calling the Sec. of State "Condoskeeza Rice" and saying Tiger Woods needed to lose because he played on a course that "discriminated against women."
Unless we love Obama and are voting for him, we must be racists. That is the insinuation of almost every argument against those of us who disagree with him. Either that or we're not Christian enough or enlightened enough to get caught up in the movement.
I'm not demanding that you vote for him. I'm demanding that you treat him fairly, which you are not doing.
“That is the insinuation of almost every argument against those of us who disagree with him. Either that or we’re not Christian enough or enlightened enough to get caught up in the movement.”
Why should you get caught up in a movement? What the hell are you talking about? You are metaphorically stoning a man for something his pastor said. You are stoning him for beliefs he quite obviously does not hold. After repudiating Wright’s comments, you still want to stone him. After hearing how Wright is a good man who said some stupid things you still want to stone Barack for not casting a man, who he thinks of as family, out. What you’re doing is called scapegoating. It’s wrong to scapegoat someone and you know it, yet you insist. Don’t be so petty and venomous. Don’t be so self-righteous. Like Wright, you’ve also sinned. What Obama is doing is biblical, “Hate the sin love the sinner.” Barack is not asking for you to vote for him, he’s asking you to put down your stone.
“That is how the speech is being taken by those of us not enthralled with him. I’m not the only one who felt that way…”
Then it’s as I said before. Barack Obama thinks too highly of Americans. It may have been naive to think Americans were better than they are, but it was courageous to take the road he did. He truly appeals to the better angels of our nature.
Should I invite David Duke to my church to give a lecture on the supremacy of aryan culture?
You’re comparing Wright to David Duke? You see David Duke in this…
Do you honestly think that’s a fair comparison?
Cin, I love how you rip seeker for linking to one of his posts, but in answer to our objections about Obama’s speech you simply repost portions of his speech.
Think about it like this. Seeker uses his opinions on old posts to support his opinions on his new posts. I refer to Obama’s speech so you can see how he’s already addressed your points. See the difference?
Louis, what would be treating him fairly? Ignoring the racism of his pastor and his tacit approval for 20 years.
Cin, I told you I didn't want to stone him. Then you sarcastically called me a genius and said you were referring to Wright. Which one am I stoning right now? It's hard to keep up.
As to Obama, I'm not stoning him over his relationship to Wright, but I did think that he didn't do enough with the speech. We can disagree over that, but that's my (and others) opinion. Of course that makes me self-righteous, racist, etc. but I'll have to live with your assessment on that.
I'm not being petty and venomous. I think what Wright said was disgusting and I don't think Obama has been entirely honest about this whole affair, as ABC News pointed out. His speech was the first time he admitted to hearing "controversial" things. Before that he denied it or he brought up other topics – nothing like what he heard recently.
I never said I have not sinned. You'll see me confess that on a daily basis. But what can't be done is sweep the sin under the rug and act like it didn't happen and then ask me to be okay with that. For sin to be fully forgiven it has to be confessed. Wright has yet to do that. He doesn't believe what he said was sinful. We disagree on that. I'm not throwing any stones his way, but as I said I have never, nor will I ever, preach or teach racism. That should never be associated with the Gospel. It is a sin when black and white people do it and both should be called on it.
As I said earlier, I'm not holding anything against Obama personally. Don't confuse a political stance with a personal one. I believe Obama to be a Christian with whom I will fellowship at the feet of Christ for all eternity as we worship our Savior. But we disagree on some things, therefore I can't vote for him. Doesn't mean I hate him, just don't support him politically.
You call me "self-righteous" yet you lament that Obama thinks America is better than it is and that he is so courageous and appealing to the better angels of our nature. Who's being self-righteous in that statement. Non-Obama people are part of the bad part of America (or at least the not "better" part), don't appreciate courage and don't listen to the "better angels." That takes some skill to utter both those things in one comment without noticing the irony.
In speaking of David Duke, you missed my comparison, I said if Duke had done the things that Wright has done to help white people (day care, scholarships, prison ministries, homeless, etc.) would that excuse his racism? That was my point. Not that the two are the same (although both are racist), but that if we added all the good things that Wright did according to Obama, would that negate the racist rhetoric of David Duke? If McCain had sat under Duke for 20 years with Duke saying racist things but doing all the good things for the white community that Wright did for the black community, would a simple speech be enough to satisfy your disagreement with him (both McCain and Duke)?
In terms of you quoting Obama's speech you had already posted that whole portion, which I read the first time and it didn't answer my objections either time. You believe it should. We disagree. That doesn't mean I'm stupid and need to go back to Sesame Street. Well maybe Elmo's World, but just because I like the song. ;)
Cin, I told you I didn't want to stone him. Then you sarcastically called me a genius and said you were referring to Wright. Which one am I stoning right now? It's hard to keep up.
Sorry, allow me to clarify…
Why should you [Aaron] get caught up in a movement? What the hell are you [Aaron] talking about? You [Aaron] are metaphorically stoning a man [Barack Obama] for something his pastor [Rev. Wright] said. You [Aaron] are stoning him [Barak Obama] for beliefs he [Barak Obama] quite obviously does not hold. After repudiating Wright's comments, you [Aaron] still want to stone him [Barack Obama]. After hearing how Wright is a good man who said some stupid things you [Aaron] still want to stone Barack [Obama] for not casting a man [Rev. Wright], who he [Barak Obama] thinks of as family, out. What you're [Aaron] doing is called scapegoating. It's wrong to scapegoat someone [anyone] and you [Aaron] know it, yet you [Aaron] insist. Don't be so petty and venomous. Don't be so self-righteous. Like Wright, you've [Aaron] also sinned. What Obama is doing is biblical, "Hate the sin love the sinner." Barack is not asking for you to vote for him, he's asking you to put down your stone.
Clear now? Yes, I'm being sarcastic but you literally asked for it.
Doesn't mean I hate him, just don't support him politically.
Fine! But, you are not being fair by attacking him [Obama] through Wright.
Louis, what would be treating him fairly?
Louis, if I may? Wright might be fair game for throwing stones at if you can't control your righteous indignation at 20 seconds of You-Tube clip. But to throw stones at Barack Obama for not throwing his friend under the bus is unconscionable.
…but that if we added all the good things that Wright did according to Obama, would that negate the racist rhetoric of David Duke?
If your mother said something very racist would you renounce her and not just her words? From what Barack Obama said, Wright is like family to him.
Seeker uses his opinions on old posts to support his opinions on his new posts.
I do so because they contain my *arguments* on the subject matter, which I don't care to repeat.
Your quotes contain no arguments, just quotes that require your argumentation around them.
If your mother said something very racist would you renounce her and not just her words? From what Barack Obama said, Wright is like family to him.
The difference is, he is NOT family. If he wants to choose to associate himself so strongly with such people, that's fine, but he should not expect that it will have no effect on his public life.
One of his sermons he went after Condoleezza Rice and Tiger Woods among others (apparently they aren't black enough), calling the Sec. of State "Condoskeeza Rice" and saying Tiger Woods needed to lose because he played on a course that "discriminated against women."
This helps prove the point that the real, prominent racism today is actually practiced by significant portions of the black community, against whites, against light-skinned and mulatto blacks, and by ethnic minorities against one another in the cities.
In fact, the only group that seems to have transcended racism and left it behind are *whites* and those from minority groups that don't fall into the hatred of the other traps.
I answered all the things in your reworded rant, so I'll skip over that except to reiterate that I'm not doing any of the things of which you accuse me. You didn't see fit to respond to them, but resort to more sarcasm, so we'll move on.
I'm surprised you didn't have any retort to my question of the irony of your sadness of the state of those Americans who did not respond positively to Obama's speech and your comment about my self-righteousness.
Was it fair for Hillary to be attacked for Ferraro's statement? Is it fair any time a politician is attacked because of a campaign official or personal friend? Do you honestly want to argue that? It is completely fair game to link a politician to people that are on their staff and part of their campaign. Until recently, Wright was both part of Obama's campaign and his pastor. That's not unfair that's par for any political course.
You keep saying I'm throwing stones at Obama and his pastor for "20 seconds of You-Tube" as if you are dismissing the magnitude of what he said. Again, I challenge you to do the same thing for someone who spoke the same words about white culture and the white community. Or someone else who embraced and presented an award to anti-semitic individual.
It's not throwing your friend under the bus to call them a racist if they are one. It's not throwing your pastor under the bus to leave their church with your family after they preach hate from the pulpit. That's common sense.
This is the third or fourth time you have refused to answer the question, so am I to assume that you can't answer it.
As to your question, I can't choose my mom. I was born to her. However, I can choose my friends, my pastor, etc. If I have one that teaches and supports racism, I can do a lot more. I would hope to lead my friend/pastor away from such hate, but if after 20 years they still cling to their sin then obviously they value it more than our friendship.
seeker, I will say this. Don't think all whites have left racism behind. There are some who still hold to this ugly, wretched sin. it is unacceptable coming from black or white.
If he wants to choose to associate himself so strongly with such people, that's fine, but he should not expect that it will have no effect on his public life.
Translation: You want still want to be able to scapegoat Obama through Wright; even though Barack already denounced Wright's words and he, very obviously, does not share Wright's radical views.
Let me ask you this, what is the right thing for Barack Obama to do? Throw his friend, who is like family, under the bus? That's what conservatives were really wanting but Barack took the high road. I'm really proud to say that he stood up and did that. It's takes a lot of character and integrity to stand in front of his friend and shield him from the political stones that republicans are throwing.
If anyone should apologize, and it's not Barack Obama, it's Wright.
I'm not doing any of the things of which you accuse me.
I'll reiterate that you are.
You keep saying I'm throwing stones at Obama and his pastor for "20 seconds of You-Tube" as if you are dismissing the magnitude of what he said.
I'm not dismissing the magnitude of what Wright said. Neither does Obama, that's why he condemned Wright's words in no uncertain terms, right? So, why scapegoat Obama for something he did not say, does not believe and furthermore, completely rejects?
Again, I challenge you to do the same thing for someone who spoke the same words about white culture and the white community. Or someone else who embraced and presented an award to anti-semitic individual.
I don't understand. Are you asking if I have an anti-semetic family member or friend?
As to your question, I can't choose my mom. I was born to her. However, I can choose my friends, my pastor, etc. If I have one that teaches and supports racism, I can do a lot more.
So, can you denounce Hagee for the racist things he said? Not just Hagee, but his entire church membership? Can you denounce John McCain for choosing Pasely as his "spiritual adviser?" Don't just denounce their words, denounce the men themselves. Is there a double standard operating here?
Let me ask you this, what is the right thing for Barack Obama to do?
Again, I am not saying that people should not vote for Obama for this, or that he is a racist at all. At worst, he lacked the perspective and forethought to get out of there.
He has done everything he can do except one thing – admit that he should have left that church earlier in order to (1) get into a healthier church, and (2) avoid the guilt by association that was sure to come as part of his active participation in that church. In other words, admit that staying there was a mistake.
But again, my real beef is not with him, but with the stink of the black liberation theology which he has uncovered for the entire nation to be shocked and dismayed by. If anyone doubted that the black community is still sick with bitterness and blame shifting, the festering wound is now an open sore for all to see.
So, can you denounce Hagee for the racist things he said?
What racist thing did Hagee say? And what about Parsley? Can you quote them? Thanks. I slept through those sermons ;)
Obama Campaign Removes New Black Panther Party Endorsement From Web Site
by FOXNews.com
Wednesday, March 19, 2008——->
The Audacity of militant hate groups
Obama Campaign Removes New Black Panther Party Endorsement From Web Site
by FOXNews.com
Wednesday, March 19, 2008——->
The Audacity of militant hate groups
Well, without the votes of the black panthers, he'll never get elected. And of course, without the votes of the KKK, neither will McCain. What a Catch-22! If we don't accept the endorsements of hate groups (or perceived hate groups – thinking people know that the KKK and Black Panthers are really just political groups with valid 1st amendment rights), we might lose the election!
Obama underestimated the depth of the reaction to his identification with black race baiters. At least the NEXT black candidate (let's hope he's conservative) will know better. Except that conservative blacks probably already know this, and aren't duped into thinking that racial victim thinking and blame shifting are OK. Attacking the powerful and successful just because they are successful, rather than attacking real moral shortcomings, is not something that smart people put up with.
Does(did)the Imperial Grand Wizard thinga-ma-dude have a link on McCain's site? Gotta check, but I would have to probably guess no.
"Obama underestimated the depth of the reaction to his identification with black race baiters."——->
Dang seeker, thats the understatement of the year! The dirt is just now coming to the surface. How funny it is, that the MSM tried to trash mighty Mc by accusing him of looking up some chicks dress or whatever, but their golden boy, enshrouded by hateful influential race baiters for decades is excused by them. hmm. weird.
Meet the new lib, same as the old lib.
See?
Louis, forget about Seeker and Aaron. Obama's nuanced speech went completely over their heads. Recognizing the truth is too much to ask of them. Whenever someone speaks it, as Obama did today, it throws them for a loop, and they can only respond with venom. Leave Seeker and Aaron to their scapegoating. It's all they really have. It's not as if their candidate could even come close to Barack Obama's oratory brilliance and talent. Personally, Barack has made me proud to be an American again. I just hope he can transcend the smears of the right and continue to take the high road as he did today. Bravo, Barack Obama!
What venom did I respond with? You keep saying that and all I do is ask questions and make comparisons that you don't answer.
You talk about how frustrating it is to talk to us, yet the vast majority of your comments in this thread are reposts on several occasions of earlier comments and Obama's speech. That's not dialogue.
What is venomous in what I (or anyone else) has said particularly toward Obama?
The most any of us has said is that Obama didn't go far enough in his speech and there are African Americans and other minorities who think the same thing.
Michael Meyers, executive director of the New York Civil Rights Coalition and a former assistant national director of the NAACP, wrote a column for the LA Times and said this:
Read the whole thing, it cuts to the heart of what most of us wished Obama would have done in his speech – speak about how we, as a nation, should move beyond race (what he did say earlier in the campaign), instead he spoke how race is a big issue in the campaign (a new tactic for him).
But of course for simply not agreeing that Obama gave the greatest ever speech on race (MLK who?), I'm spewing venom, smearing a brilliant man, scapegoating, not enlightened enough, not recognizing of truth and self-righteous to boot.
I do want to say that I think much of the reason you feel such animus coming from us Cin, is that you believe we are looking at this from a personal standpoint and personally don't like Obama. Most of us are simply viewing this politically and evaluating it on that basis, not any personal feelings. I'm going to talk about that later today – perhaps the discussion can be less angry and sarcastic.
"Read the whole thing, it cuts to the heart of what most of us wished Obama would have done in his speech – speak about how we, as a nation, should move beyond race (what he did say earlier in the campaign), instead he spoke how race is a big issue in the campaign (a new tactic for him)."——->
The ability to move beyond racism in this country will not be decided or remedied by a person of power who is a black nationalist, or at least has wrapped himself in that cloak for 2o years. He is a Chicago Lawyer millionaire Politician who belongs to a militant church who has not proven himself politically by accomplishing anything. Well, with credentials like that, I can see why people would just flock to him. Wait till the victim card is played by BO … perfect lib candidate. Tears from HRC, poor unconventional(read black)BO as the shine starts to tarnish ever so slightly.
This country will never move beyond race until and unless it confronts it head-on. It's nice and noble to say that race doesn't matter, but the sad fact is that it does matter – a lot. Obama is confronting that, and demanding that we all confront it and deal with it. The boil must be lanced before it can be healed. Simply denying it exists does nothing but allow the infection of spread. (Same thing with homophobia, btw)
Aaron, here is snippet about the speech from Tim Rutten: LA Times…
I am just a typical white person, so please forgive me if I think that Catholicism isn't quite as incendiary as blaming whitey for black American woes.
"That was the most sophisticated speech on race and politics I've ever heard," said CNN's Bill Schneider, the only network pundit who actually has taught American political history at elite universities." ——->
Wow. What a surprise that the liberal media supports the golden one. Could never have seen that one coming.
"and refusing to reject either Wright, a man of good works as well as extreme rhetoric, or his loving grandmother, who was prone to racial stereotypes. Obama demanded that black anger make an allowance for white anxiety and that white resentment make a place for black grievance." ——->
Wright, a racist chosen by BO. Granny, not chosen by BO. He should have walked out of that church, if he wanted to "lead" the US as president, and a beacon of racial hope. Poor judgment at least.
White anxiety? Black anger? Anxious over what and angry for what?
You really are an *sshole.
so be it. but not a racist like rev wrong and prob(?) BO. the audacity of race baiting. look at the bright side, HRC is coming on strong.
before he tried to walk on water he should have taken those rainbows and unicorns out of his pockets. ethereal in nature? sure, but still too heavy a load for a mere mortal.
and on this Easter weekend, let me just say, my Messiah has risen.
so be it. but not a racist like rev wrong and prob(?) BO. the audacity of race baiting. look at the bright side, HRC is coming on strong.
before he tried to walk on water he should have taken those rainbows and unicorns out of his pockets. ethereal in nature? sure, but still too heavy a load for a mere mortal.
and on this Easter weekend, let me just say, my Messiah has risen.
. Simply denying it exists does nothing but allow the infection of spread.
You are right, but as I said, the majority of contemporary racism doesn't exist in the white community, nor in our institutions, but in the unforgiving blacks who nurse the wounds of the past, unwilling or unable to move on. They want to drag all of us who did not grow up beating slaves or asking blacks to sit in the back of the bus into the past so they can punish us.
We should confront racism. But again, the today's worst racism is not whites despising blacks, but the reverse.
Obama demanded that black anger make an allowance for white anxiety and that white resentment make a place for black grievance.
Actually, that is well said. Perhaps we should give them more time to work out their bitterness and angst – but not by taking it out on us honest, hard working whites who never owned slaves, never asked a black person to sit in the back, and who would like to live in this century instead of the last. We need to give them space, while at the same time setting the expectation that we will work with them to make progress through – no more belly aching without trying to resolve the problem. Nobody likes a complainer who blames everyone else but fails to take responsibility for being part of the solution.
And part of the problem is that their warped view of personal responsibility and blameshifting is based on the agreement of liberal thinkers who have groomed them to expect entitlements and blame those who have become successful without slave labor. Liberal policies often exacerbate the black problem by agreeing that successful non-blacks should be penalized for their success through taxation – very similar to the socialist model which rewards laziness and fails to reward industry.
The most any of us has said is that Obama didn't go far enough in his speech and there are African Americans and other minorities who think the same thing.
What's so funny is that, while we try to make this very reasonable and kind point, we have been assailed with insults from both Louis and Cineaste, and so far, without apology. It's funny how those who accuse us of hate are the haters. But really, that is often the liberal M.O. – accuse conservatives of hate because they disapprove of the moral and socialist approaches of liberals, while being blatantly intolerant of any position that conflicts with their grand vision.
…we have been assailed with insults from both Louis and Cineaste, and so far, without apology.
Barack Obama gave the most patriotic speech that America has heard in 40 years and all you, Aaron and Ben can do is cast insults. Maybe it's just that you wish the republican candidate was as smart or as eloquent as Barack Obama is. But, since McCain can't hold a candle to Obama in the charisma department, you are reduced to tearing Obama down by making him the scapegoat for words HE DID NOT SAY. Instead of focusing on really important things, you conservatives are fixated on petty and cheap politics.
I read Obama's speech and I felt really great about being an American. Then after reading Ben's conservative take on the speech, I feel completely unpatriotic and cynical about the character of Americans.
"I read Obama's speech and I felt really great about being an American. Then after reading Ben's conservative take on the speech, I feel completely unpatriotic and cynical about the character of Americans." ——->
That's great if you feel better. Now go out and for the rest of your life, treat ALL other human beings with respect, NO matter their color and you will do a million times more than any politician(that includes Barry)will ever do. But I am just a typical white person(such a dumb ass and racist comment). I guess Louis is a typical gay?
Barry's "typical" comment shows the "collective" view of human kind instead of the "individualistic" view. Ah, liberalism … its not Fascism when they do it.
"Then after reading Ben's conservative take on the speech, I feel completely unpatriotic and cynical about the character of Americans." ——->
Blame whitey … again. Getting really old.
"We should confront racism. But again, the today's worst racism is not whites despising blacks, but the reverse." ——->
When 17% of the population is disproportionately committing most of the crime, and much of it against his own "race", who is acting in the truly anti-social way? Oh yeah … blame whitey.
Typical sociopathic behavior: refuse any responsibility and cast all blame on the victim of your behavior. Because they don't own slaves or force blacks to the back of the bus, they think they are without any responsibility nor have benefited from a racist society.
And, of course, attack anyone who dares point this out as the "L"-word – which, of course, completely discredits them because "L"-word people are just plain evil. It simply goes without saying. We live in a perfect society because America can never be anything but perfect, therefore America is perfect. And anyone who disputes this, no matter how mildly, is just an evil "L"-word person who hates America.
Weird.
Aaron and Ben can do is cast insults.
Huh? Are we reading the same blog? What insults? Well, except acknowledging that the liberal media is fawning all over him like he actually IS the messiah.
Maybe it's just that you wish the republican candidate was as smart or as eloquent as Barack Obama is. But, since McCain can't hold a candle to Obama in the charisma department…
Absolutely. We have many times complimented Obama for his eloquence and charisma. Maybe you missed that. Good thing we are not swooning in his cult of personality and missing his very liberal approach to public policy.
you are reduced to tearing Obama down by making him the scapegoat for words HE DID NOT SAY.
Actions speak louder than words. Very few of us have claimed or believe that he is a racist, but then we have to explain how he contributed to and supported a race-baiting pastor for 20 years. A church that lauded Farakkhan.
Obviously, he is either unaware of how that preaching sounds (which he is not, since he admitted that it sucked in his speech), or he can somehow overlook it (because he believes that it is not what it appears), or he really does support it but can't admit it to us.
Look, his speech was inspiring and well done, though certainly not some timeless speech that history students should study in the future (though time will tell). As I said, he's a nice guy, probably not a racist, and probably did not understand that such heinous racist preaching, though not offensive to blacks who are steeped in bitterness, is offensive to thinking Americans of all colors.
His problem is not that people think he is racist, but that he lacked the judgment to disassociate with people like Rev. Wright. All of his current backpedaling is eloquent and artful, but it can't undo the damage to his credibility, nor can it turn back the tide of public disgust with black liberation theology.
I read Obama's speech and I felt really great about being an American.
Nice speech, but when you get done throwing daisies in the air, come back down to earth and realize that conservatives aren't demonizing him (at least, not here), it's just that we're not won over by his winning personality and charisma like you are – we look at his policies and his actions, which do not meet our expectations.
Typical sociopathic behavior: refuse any responsibility and cast all blame on the victim of your behavior.
No, we are trying to put responsibility where it belongs. I am not victimizing any blacks that I know of. I am not supporting institutional racism (in fact, where I work, in my group, I am a minority, and am fine with it).
We have taken a lot of resopnsibility for righting the wrongs of the past. But if blacks don't want to move on, they need to start shouldering a lot more of the blame for the current problems – and as per the many black activists who critize the black community, that is what needs to happen.
I blame the 'victim' if they are really only victims of their own bitterness, blame shifting, laziness, dependence on government, self-destructive behaviors, and pride. And many of us feel that way about black America and the racist, hateful preaching of those like Wright and those dumb enough to associate themselves with them.
…and realize that conservatives aren't demonizing him (at least, not here)
You are such a liar.
Can't you admit the man is a patriot?
LOL, that's the best you can do to find our 'demonization' of Obama? A creative and funny picture of him morphed with Hillary? Talk about stretching the truth (i.e. 'lying').
He's a patriot. A handsome, eloquent, charming, intelligent, articulate, well-meaning, huggable patriot. But he's still a liberal whose policies I disagree with.
Now untwist your undies, nobody here is demonizing him, we're just questioning his long-term, close association with a stinky racist preacher.
And, not only is Barack Obama a patriot. He'd make a more competent President than John McCain. Why? He can write better, speak better, and think better, than John McCain. He is also much younger, more energetic, and more charismatic than John McCain. Obama is less warlike, a better diplomat, and a better communicator than John McCain. Also, Obama is cool under pressure and much less of a "hothead" than McCain. I like McCain, but I think he is past his prime and doesn't have the talent Barack does.
I like McCain, but I think he is past his prime and doesn't have the talent Barack does.
I totally agree with your analysis, but the one issue that gets me is that Obama is not pro-life. That's a top issue for me.
And he's far left on a lot of other issues. He may have a lot of good basic skills, and youth and personality, but his THINKING on the issues is decidedly liberal, which I think is decidedly BAD for the country.
There are other issues as well. A big one is the economy. McCain has said he is not comfortable with economics. I think Obama has much better mental acuity to deal with the complexities of our economic problems. Gas was about $30 a barrel when Bush took office. Now, it's about $100 a barrel. The housing market was booming but now it's bust. There is a recession that's sure to last until election day and Americans will be asking themselves if they were better off 8 years ago under the democrats or today under the republicans.
Also, doesn't the supreme court already have a majority of conservative judges? If they really want to overturn Roe v. Wade, they could. So, why don't they?
Sorry … I did misuse liberal. I mean far left when speaking of libs. I know there is supposed(?)to be a difference, but the Dem party has slid way left with BO and HRC. And for this they will fail as the US is a center/right country for now.
patriot per Merriam Webster
Pronunciation:
\?p?-tr?-?t, -?ät, chiefly British ?pa-tr?-?t\
Function:
noun
Etymology:
Middle French patriote compatriot, from Late Latin patriota, from Greek patri?t?s, from patria lineage, from patr-, pat?r father
Date:
1605
: one who loves his or her country and supports its authority and interests ——->
This equates to BO? I think he loves the idea of an idealistic utopian United States(his “kingdom of heaven here on Earth” comment)brought about by higher taxes and a better understanding of mankind’s dark side per the Obamessiah’s cult of personality style. Pie in the sky. Undeliverable by human hands.
“Now untwist your undies, nobody here is demonizing him, we’re just questioning his long-term, close association with a stinky racist preacher.” ——->
and questioning:
his support from the N.B.P.P., the depth of hate in black nationalistic church’s across the US, etc.
And as far as morphing is concerned, he has morphed himself into the “everyman”, the blank screen, multiple genetic patterns dancing in his DNA …
I totally agree with your analysis, but the one issue that gets me is that Obama is not pro-life. That’s a top issue for me.
Also, doesn’t the supreme court already have a majority of conservative judges? If they really want to overturn Roe v. Wade, they could. So, why don’t they?
And, not only that Seeker, Aaron…
Do you still believe in guilt by association?
Gas was about $30 a barrel when Bush took office. Now, it's about $100 a barrel.
Gas was about $30 a barrel when the Democrats took over congress. Now, it's about $100 a barrel. ;) So what? Who is to blame for the economy and world oil prices? Just GWB? Come on.
Also, doesn't the supreme court already have a majority of conservative judges?
Actually, the supreme court is NOT overly conservative, unless you believe the rants of Chuck Schumer. It's very centrist, if not still a bit liberal.
As per Wikipedia
So count 'em
– Conervative (3)
– Liberal (4)
– Moderate/Conservative (1)
I think the reality is, liberals have been so used to a liberally skewed court, they think an almost balanced court (but still leaning in their favor) is 'frightenly conservative.' I think having one more conservative would lean it the other way, and I would be fine with that.
But we see this same thing with viewing the media – even when objective reports come out showing Fox news as more fair and balanced than the other MSM outlets, libs scream in pain because they can't beleive it! That's what happens when you think your opinion is fair, when in reality, it's been unbalanced all along.
If they really want to overturn Roe v. Wade, they could. So, why don't they?
Just haven't had the right case to come up yet, I guess. And the pro-life initiative is more than just overturning that piece of crap <s>legislation</s> activist judidial decision known as RvW.
We need constitutional protection for the unborn, just like we needed it for the other people thought of as disposable property – blacks.
Gas was about $30 a barrel when the Democrats took over congress.
Oh, ya. The democrats have all the power so let's blame them. They have a majority of one in the senate. Weak stuff Seeker. No, I think that if you are actually an honest person, you have to give credit where credit is due, to the Bush administration, for the price of oil. Next, you'll blame democrats for starting the war in Iraq.
– Conervative (3)
– Liberal (4)
– Moderate/Conservative (1)
Again, if abortion is murder, why don't they overturn Roe v. Wade? Just to let you know Seeker, I'm glad abortions are legal. A woman's right to choose is good for the country. I wonder if McCain will appoint more religious nuts to the supreme court though. I think deep down, he really doesn't like you people. He called Jerry Falwell an "agent of intolerance" even though Falwell was very pro-life.
Oh, ya. The democrats have all the power so let's blame them. They have a majority of one in the senate. Weak stuff Seeker.
Oh, ya, the President was in power, so let's blame him. Don't you see I was just using your own weak logic against you?
Again, if abortion is murder, why don't they overturn Roe v. Wade?
Because so many Americans like yourself are blind to that murder, just like pre-abolition whites were blind to the evil of slavery. Because just changing legislation before changing hearts and minds is counterproductive. Because overturning RvW won't make abortion illegal.
I wonder if McCain will appoint more religious nuts to the supreme court though.
Probably not – there are enough liberals already.
I think deep down, he really doesn't like you people. He called Jerry Falwell an "agent of intolerance" even though Falwell was very pro-life.
You and many other religious conservatives agree on that point. But he's the lesser evil right now.
Interesting commentary from Dick Morris
Wright's Rantings Won't Sink Obama
Because so many Americans like yourself are blind to that murder, just like pre-abolition whites were blind to the evil of slavery.
I'd say that the pro-lifer's have far more in common with prohibitionists than abolitionists.
Well, both movements were started and supported by Christians. But I think the parallels with abolition are stronger. YOu have
– people considered property with no rights
– people wanting to be able to abuse or dispose of said property
– people turning a blind eye to the murder of human beings
No human beings were harmed in prohibition, nor were they the main object. But you are right, pro lifers want to prohibit something – but so did the abolitionists.
"Sen. Barack Obama (Ill.) has already won the Democratic nomination. It's over. Wright's rantings are not reflective of Obama's views on anything. Why did he stay in the church? Because he's a black Chicago politician who comes from a mixed marriage and went to Columbia and Harvard." ——->
Not so fast seeker. There's still lots of yummy in fighting to watch for. I understand DM's point of view, but he worked for the Clinton's, he should know better.
They are THE ultimate in political survivalists. The best at character assassination. Mucho, mucho mas is coming in the form of revelations about are fav black poli, real and imagined. And the Dems are pre-occupied with race, I think the multiple syrupy "blame whitey" posts here show that. I stated in an old post(old for me, 8 weeks or so)that the Dems will never allow a black president. I still stand by that, for once that happens(a black prez), they will lose much of their ammo as far as the wascully whitey wascism thingy is concerned … they gotta keep "the struggle" against the "man" alive. The catch: That means that a mean, ole white woman has to gain the nomination, and that could prove very entertaining.
Not to mention, it's gonna be white men(damnit!)who decides who the next prez will be. White men have mortgages, wives and kids, and like keeping their money in their pockets, not the tax coffers.
"Wright's rantings are not reflective of Obama's views on anything."——->
How do we really know that? What do we really know about him period?
Xcept of course, his guru is a racist, etc. Sorry, I am way way skeptical here.
"Why did he stay in the church?" ——->
Because a Chicago black nationalist church gives street cred to a mixed raced well spoken slick lawyer poli, who because of these traits may not seem "black enough" to inner city folk.
No human beings were harmed in prohibition.
Same thing with abortion. No people were harmed. Pro-life = prohibition.
Any comment on the Clinton – Wright association Seeker? It's like, OK if this guy was thought of as such a radical black fringe anti-American, then what the heck is he doing in the White House shaking hands with the President? This picture proves Wright was thought of as mainstream. I'm sure Ben thinks Bill Clinton is a black panther now but Ben is an idiot. I'd rather hear what you think.
yawn.
Thought of by the Clintons. And of course, many people that have turned out as unsavory have visited presidents. It's really about the powerful and influential, not the good and noble that visit the president.
Same thing with abortion. No people were harmed. Pro-life = prohibition.
Yeah, that's like me saying that no people were harmed in slavery. You'd fit right in with southern whites.
"You'd fit right in with southern whites."
You mean the Republican base? :) Booyaa! Got you Seeker.
"It's really about the powerful and influential, not the good and noble that visit the president."
That's my point. The powerful and the influential. So Wright is not fringe and wasn't thought of as a radical by the Clintons. And, more to the point, I read this…
"It's true that [John] McCain's campaign sought my endorsement." – John Hagee
Hmmmm, you know McCain's pastors have said some batsh*t crazy things too…
Say it with me everyone, "DOUBLE STANDARD!" BTW, McCain said Rod Parsely is his "spiritual guide." Conservatives are so hypocritical.
Also, I read the Dick Morris article. I agree.
"Now it's time for McCain to explain his acceptance of support from and public appearances with evangelist Rod Parsely, who has stated Islam is inspired by demons and it's America's destiny to destroy it, and with the Rev. John Hagee, who has called the Catholic Church a false cult and called for bombing Iran to hasten the apocalypse." ——->
Why? Apparently its fine to be racist and a potential nominee for president. Except maybe the Romans, they were Italians you know, which means they are white Europeans, and they had slaves …(Wright is a hoot!)
Wright visiting Clinton? Well he was the first black president. And, Wright was the same then as he is now. So, the good rev making money from those that he keeps beat down(his congregation and others)has an ally in the whole of the Democrat party. Dems make cash and gain power by preaching "poor poor you" just like Wright. They have used black folks as pawns(chess euphemism for cin)for years. Bruthas at arms so to speak.
Clinton a member of the NBPP? Nah, just a cool cat.
Re-compensation:Northern Army deaths
Battle deaths: 110,070
Disease, etc.: 250,152
Total 360,222
DEBT PAID IN FULL. Somebody tell Wright. With his displayed deep understanding of world history(hahahaha)I am sure this will help him calm some of his hateful rhetoric.
You mean the Republican base? :) Booyaa! Got you Seeker.
No, the racist white Democrats of the slavery era.
The powerful and the influential. So Wright is not fringe and wasn't thought of as a radical by the Clintons.
That's the horror of it, that such racist jerks are NOT fringe. I mean, Farrakhan is influential also, but that doesn't make him mainstream in the sense that his racism is ok.
McCain said Rod Parsely is his "spiritual guide." Conservatives are so hypocritical.
First of all, can you document that quote? Second, McCAin is not a member of Parsley's church, nor is he a Pentecostal like Parsley. Third, there is a huge difference between seeking an endorsement in order to reach out to another group, vs. endorsing someone by giving them money and 20 years of your church life.
And again, the fact that libs overlook Obama's *membership* in a race-baiting, conspiracy minded anti white church is pathetic. Stop trying to change the subject by saying "McCAin did something almost like it." So he did. Why McCain was dumb enough to reach out to fringers like Hagee (O wait, he's influential, he must be 'mainstream') instead of Dobson or Robertson is a mystery to me.
No one is saying that Obama is not qualified, just that his judgment is lacking, all the time running on a platform of judgment.
McCain has made gaffes too. This would not be such a big deal if the liberal media and others swooning for Obama weren't skipping around him catching every word from his lips as if they were scripture. It's really getting sickening.
And again, the big issue is that such racist language is surprisingly common in black churches, and a presidential candidate was a member of such a church. If McCain was the member of racist church, that would be comparing apples.
Come off your high horse, and admit what Obama won't – that he's made a mistake staying in a racist church.
“No, the racist white Democrats of the slavery era.”
You didn’t mean the racist white Republicans of this era who live in the south?
“I mean, Farrakhan is influential also, but that doesn’t make him mainstream in the sense that his racism is ok.”
Ya, but Farrakhan IS considered fringe, isn’t he? He is not invited to the White House like Wright is.
“First of all, can you document that quote?”
Louis already did in the McCain thread. There’s a video about it.
“Second, McCAin is not a member of Parsley’s church, nor is he a Pentecostal like Parsley.”
McCain called him his “spiritual adviser.” That means McCain takes advice from Parsley on spiritual matters. You are splitting hairs.
“This would not be such a big deal if the liberal media and others swooning for Obama weren’t skipping around him catching every word from his lips as if they were scripture. It’s really getting sickening.”
He’s like Jesus, only better.
“Come off your high horse, and admit what Obama won’t – that he’s made a mistake staying in a racist church.”
I’ll do even better than that Seeker. He made a bigger mistake in getting into Christianity in the first place. Look how FUBAR it’s made things for him. He should have stayed with what his mother believed, which I mentioned in an earlier forgotten post above…
“In sum, my mother viewed religion through the eyes of the anthropologist she would become; it was a phenomenon to be treated with a suitable respect, but with a suitable detachment as well.” – Barack Obama
Seeker, you kind of like Sam Harris still, right? You might be interested in his take about this Rev. Wright charade the republicans have cooked up. What Barack Obama Could Not (and Should Not) Say
Also, did you see that Nancy Pelosi is condemning China for the violence in Tibet?
““If freedom-loving people throughout the world do not speak out against China’s oppression in China and Tibet, we have lost all moral authority to speak on behalf of human rights anywhere in the world,” Ms Pelosi told thousands of cheering Tibetans in Dharamsala, the seat of Tibet’s government in exile.”
Let’s hope Bush has the stones to follow her lead on this.
Hey Ben, here is a typical Barack Obama supporter.
Uh, no.
Since we are using YouTube for Earth shattering revelations …
Sorry Ben, I didn't watch it. It's probably something negative.
Of course, "par for the course" as they say. Put on those rose colored Obamessiah specs, listen to the pied piper playing as he leads you down the path to Eden.
Never gonna happen. HRC and the racist Dem party will see to that.
Meet the new lib, same as the old lib.
You see, the problem is that the Obamas have had two only audiences in their lives, both narrow and, worse, fawning: one, apparently a highly politicized and often angry Chicago African-American constituency that believes in AIDs conspiracies and the pathological role of the United States, and, two, a guilt-ridden elite white audience in the Ivy League and the media who does not object to, or in fact enjoys, being told why America is the sort of awful place Rev. Wright depicts.
The emotion needed to keep this snow ball rolling and picking up speed will not be able to be sustained.
So, Ben, they provide internet access where you are being treated?
Actually, I think Ben brings up some interesting ideas. One is the idea that many liberal whites are subtly motivated by 'white guilt' and vote for Obama to kind of say "We're sorry" to the black community, as well as to prove to themselves and others that they are morally superior and not racist.
Another possible motivation is if you are an angry black person, like Rev. Wright, still living in the abuses of the past.
However, Ben, you missed a third possibility, which is that they vote for him because they like him (he's very cuddly ;), and that they believe he is the best hope we have.
I mean, come on, look at the choices. Hillary? Even the Republican choice is no gem – a man who so misunderstands the Evangelical vote that he courts the likes of Hagee and Parsley? I'd say a majority of Christians barely know who those guys are. If he was smart enough to know who we are, he would have courted the likes of more mainstream leaders, like Dobson, Richard Land, maybe even Robertson.
Unfortunately, Dobson thinks McCain to be way too liberal (which he is, but it's all we've got now), most people don't know Land, and Robertson obtusely chose to support Giuliani, a move I'll never understand.
We will all see together. The Easter bunny says "hi", louie louie.
PS: since i am gleaning you are not a nationalist church member, the first group mentioned in my last comment above, you must belong to the second, correct? the group full of guilt and shame? from your late past comments:
"Just because things are better now than in the 1850's or 1930's doesn't mean that racism doesn't still operate. I see it all the time. And, as a gay man, I can completely understand and empathize. You two are in denial, and you refuse to repent. WWJD (providing He gives a damn)?" ——->
Read below whitey. It will make you feel better. Also, just go out and treat others the way you wish to be treated. That is how to destroy racism, maybe. Personally, the way you despise Christians leads me to believe that the matter of any understanding in any way, concerning any thing is virtually impossible.
The Chicago prince of peace sure is not going to do anything, except maybe excite more problems. And when he loses the nomination, WATCH OUT. The next 6-8 months are gonna be entertaining.
Re-compensation:Northern Army deaths
Battle deaths: 110,070
Disease, etc.: 250,152
Total 360,222
DEBT PAID IN FULL. Somebody tell Wright. With his displayed deep understanding of world history(hahahaha)I am sure this will help him calm some of his hateful rhetoric.
A little note on race, I went ahead and copy/paste since cin doesn’t like to point and click on things.:
Two of Britain’s most dangerous terrorists have been moved to different prisons after complaining their fellow inmates were “too white”…
They said they were at risk from other inmates – who are predominantly white – and claimed the environment was “dangerous” to ethnic minority prisoners. It is thought they had received death threats and attacks.
Although their requests were initially turned down, Barot, who is serving a minimum of 30 years, has since been moved to Belmarsh in south-east London…
Barot’s solicitor Miss Mudassar Arani, asked if his client could be removed from Frankland prison after a fellow inmate threw boiling water and oil over him last July…
[S]he alleged there was a “white supremacist” culture at Frankland and called for the creation of Muslim-only prisons.
It is understood that Barot was originally housed in Belmarsh prison before being moved to Frankland for radicalising other inmates.
Whitey seems to be at it again, this time in England. Mebbe we can rent out the universal everyman and his church to set things straight. Did you know his mom was white? Thats gotta make him an expert.
"No, the racist white Democrats of the slavery era."
You didn't mean the racist white Republicans of this era who live in the south?
"I mean, Farrakhan is influential also, but that doesn't make him mainstream in the sense that his racism is ok."
Ya, but Farrakhan IS considered fringe, isn't he? He is not invited to the White House like Wright is.
"First of all, can you document that quote?"
Louis already did in the McCain thread. There's a video about it.
"Second, McCAin is not a member of Parsley's church, nor is he a Pentecostal like Parsley."
McCain called him his "spiritual adviser." That means McCain takes advice from Parsley on spiritual matters. You are splitting hairs.
"This would not be such a big deal if the liberal media and others swooning for Obama weren't skipping around him catching every word from his lips as if they were scripture. It's really getting sickening."
He's like Jesus, only better.
"Come off your high horse, and admit what Obama won't – that he's made a mistake staying in a racist church."
I'll do even better than that Seeker. He made a bigger mistake in getting into Christianity in the first place. Look how FUBAR it's made things for him. He should have stayed with what his mother believed, which I mentioned in an earlier forgotten post above…
Seeker, you kind of like Sam Harris still, right? You might be interested in his take about this Rev. Wright charade the republicans have cooked up. What Barack Obama Could Not (and Should Not) Say
Get a load of this:
“CHICAGO — The new pastor of Barack Obama’s church delivered a defiant defense of its retiring reverend Sunday, comparing media coverage of Rev. Jeremiah Wright Jr. to a modern-day lynching that resembles Jesus’ death at the hands of the Romans.” ——->
Wright = JC !!
Xcept the fancy clothes, Mercedes, hate speech, salary, prestige, upper middle class lifestyle, and political backing. Yep, just like him.
I winder how BO feels about this?
The audacity of stupidity.
Yes, Ben, you embody the most mean-spirited, legalistic, heartless, uncharitable, self-righteous, and moronic aspect of christianism. If it weren’t for people like you, how would we know what Christ was all about? Without the darkness, how would the light shine?
Happy Easter!
"If it weren't for people like you, how would we know what Christ was all about? Without the darkness, how would the light shine?"——>
I am glad I could help louie louie. And stay away from the Kool-Aid, that Chicago lib brand will only poison you a la Jim Jones, except it will not take your life directly. It will take your individuality, money, self respect. You can blame religion all that you wish for you and others foibles and racial unrest and how the world hates you or whatever, but even in a country founded on Judeo/Christian concepts, those like you and ALL others, have been able to take advantage of what this country has offered, BECAUSE of those terrible barbaric spiritual-religious concepts implemented in our founding docs in the first place.
I am sorry that the shine of the "new"(not really, just an old style Chi-town lib)penny that is BO has tarnished recently. But he is only a man. And religious in some sort of Black nationalist Afro-centric way that is alienating in its view to the controlling voting block in this country, mean ole white men.
Not mean, louie louie, pragmatic may be a better word, realist even a better one.
Check this video out. It’s called FOX “Lies!! Barack Obama Pastor Wright” It shows the Reverend Wright sermon in context. In context, Wright is preaching that violence begets violence and hatred begets hatred. We have retaliated with war and bombing and innocents have gotten killed. He concludes that it’s a time of self examination. Wright then said we can’t stop messing over people and thinking they can’t touch us. He said we may need to declare war on racism, injustice, and greed, instead of war on other countries. We can’t and shouldn’t deny that. I agree with Reverend Wright about that. And the clip about “chicken’s coming home to roost” he is actually quoting a FOX News guest, Ambassador Peck.
So, in conclusion, one of these controversial speeches that Wright made is actually a quote of a FOX News guest.
Sorry cin, It may be too negetive for my virgin conservative ears. Any way, don't you know anything that has faux news attached to it is EVIL!!
"And the clip about "chicken's coming home to roost" he is actually quoting a FOX News guest, Ambassador Peck." ——->
No. Malcolm X. December 4, 1963. From the inspiring speech:God's Judgement of White America.
bad bad whitey.
Let me know what you think, Seeker.
I'll have to check that out from home, video content is blocked where I work.
Without seeing it, I have no doubt that some of the things pastor wright has said are taken out of context, though I'm not sure if he can be excused because we assume that he *might* be quoting someone else.
I talked to one of the black members of my church this weekend about this, and she seemed to think that, while some black liberation theology was ok, rev. wright is out of the mainstream (despite his popularity in political circles), and not representative of either the black church or liberation theology.
However, I think that
1. there are most likely significant numbers of black churches that do follow the more racist version of BLT, and couch their racism in excuses of 'justice.'
2. Much of black liberation theology is probably heretical, not the least of which is it's alliance with historic Arminianism (which doesn't make them non-christian, just way off doctrinally ;).
3. Many white Americans are offended, not only by Rev. Wright's presentations (in or out of context), but are alarmed at how many blacks, including Obama, are immune to the race-baiting hyperbole accepted in these churches.
Imagine a white preacher saying "the reason we have crime in America is because of the POOR, BLACK people." While many conservative and Christian commentators may express similar sentiments (though not identical) in blaming the black community for their ongoing poverty and high crime rates, I've not really heard so-called preachers saying such, esp. not in such a way that can be easily misconstrued as racism.
The fact is, Rev. Wright, whether racist or not, uses a delivery style that is designed to provoke and offend, and most of us don't really respond well to that kind of discourse, esp. when you really *can't* tell if he's racist or not – he sure sounds like it, and we are not inclined to give him the benefit of the doubt, due to the history of the BLT and related racist movements (like the Black Panthers, who support Wright, and Louis Farrakhan's organization, which Wright has supported).
Obama may be a nice guy, but I don't think he understood the impact that his implicit support for BLT would have in the public arena – i.e. it was a case of poor judgment ;).
Why is it poor judgment if Wright was actually quoting someone else?
Because, while this one sermon may be excused, Wright has a lifetime of incendiary preaching which can be misconstrued, not just one event that may have been misrepresented. Because he has many other race-baiting ways that are unpalatable, even if a few may be excused by the context. You are straining out a gnat, but still swallowing the camel.
Wright has a lifetime of incendiary preaching which can be misconstrued…
How do you know this? He was regarded mainstream enough to visit the white house. That this speech was taken out of context makes me think that his other one was also.
If we are to hold Obama responsible for every single one of Wright's statements (a prospect I find unfair), then we must do the same for the Republican candidate. McCain actively sought out Hagee's endorsement and stood with him on stage when he got it. He also sought out Falwell's endorsement and went to Liberty College to get it. Yes, you will claim that Obama attended this church for 20 years, but McCain attended protestant churches all his life and, presumably, can also be held responsible for all their extreme statements. Hagee and Falwell are both extremists spouting hate, therefore, McCain supports extremists and hate-mongers. If guilt by association holds in one case, it must hold in the other. Otherwise, I see this as nothing but more partisanship and dirty politics.
He was regarded mainstream enough to visit the white house.
If that's how you define 'mainstream,' that's your choice. I disagree. Many people have visited the White House that would not be considered representative of mainstream society – many partisan visitors have been there too.
And even those who represent a large constituency, say Louis Farrakhan, may be considered 'mainstream,' but that deoesn't make their ideologies acceptable.
James Dobson has visited the White House, and may be representative of 'mainstream' evangelicalism – in fact, he was on Congressional committees. But would you consider that evidence that he was acceptable?
That this speech was taken out of context makes me think that his other one was also.
His other one, or his other umpteen? The question is, how many such sermons has he given over the years?
If we are to hold Obama responsible for every single one of Wright's statements (a prospect I find unfair), then we must do the same for the Republican candidate. McCain actively sought out Hagee's endorsement
Invalid comparison. Being an *active member* of a church and seeking endorsements is not the same because the former includes in implicit endorsement of the teachings of the endorser.
Seeking or accepting the endorsement of a person or organization is really a one-way endorsement, not a two way, except by the faintest implication of such an affiliation.
And that's the difference. The affiliation between an endorsement and membership in the endorser's organization is significant..
That's why we are not attacking Obama for the Farrakhan endorsement. Admittedly, he did not seek it out, and if he did, that might be problematic in that it might be viewed as an endorsement of Farrakhan. But a more likely answer would be that Obama was trying to gain support.
Hagee and Falwell are both extremists spouting hate, therefore, McCain supports extremists and hate-mongers.
I disagree. McCain is not 'supporting' them with money and membership in their organizations.
Second, this is more than a simple guilt-by-association. This is guilty by active support with money and membership. Seeking an endorsement is a MUCH weaker endorsement of the endorser, though it could be seen as such in a weak manner.
Third, I do not agree that Hagee's and Falwell's moral pronouncements are as bad as Wright's outright race baiting and conspiracy mongering, though that is certainly arguable. But I think that your idea of 'hate' is a misnomer, as per What is Hate?
How the hell is it being confused. Its the idea that he was part of, a member of, giving to a radical(historically)church who is led by a racist(proven by his words). Words that, if it was only he believing this nonsense, fine. But he influences hundreds. BO had his children and wife there, many many times. If he is ignorant of the type of garbage taught there, he certainly does not need to be president.
What is wrong with guilt by association? Birds of a feather? Remember? I bet even BO's old white typical granny used that one. And this isn't guilt by association like some teen being pulled over not knowing his friend had a bag of weed in his pocket and going downtown too. Twenty years of anti white sentiment, both overtly and not, subliminal and open.
Many people have visited the White House that would not be considered representative of mainstream society – many partisan visitors have been there too.
Sure, like Yasir Arafat. But Louis Farrakhan has been conspicuously absent from the white house unlike Rev. Wright.
His other one, or his other umpteen? The question is, how many such sermons has he given over the years?
Apparently, only enough to fill about 2 minutes of Youtube highlights. [And Seeker takes one to the chin]
Invalid comparison. Being an *active member* of a church and seeking endorsements is not the same because the former includes in implicit endorsement of the teachings of the endorser.
I see what you mean Louis. Hypocrisy and double standards. Let me quote again from Seeker's own article…
I do not agree that Hagee's and Falwell's moral pronouncements are as bad as Wright's outright race baiting and conspiracy mongering
Paraphrasing Hagee by replacing the word Catholic with Jew…
The Jewish church is the great whore. Jews are apostates.
Seems to me he's a lot worse than Wright and Rod Parsley is just as bad. Parsley says that Islam should be eradicated. If you don't think thats antisemitic, then replace Islam with the word Judaism and you'll get the idea.
I knew seeker would would try the "20 year membership" card, so I addressed it. His membership in that church is far more complex than the right would have it. Their contention is that his membership implies his agreement with the more inflammatory words of Wright, offering no proof that this is so. It's pure guilt by association. And I think it's fair to tar McCain with the nutso views of his pet reverends therefore. There's also the fact that two minutes of speech, taken out of context, is an unfair assessment of the situation.
The right-wing thinks they can see into Obama's heart based on this very limited evidence. I say there's a lot more going on and the situation is far more complex than the Hannity's and seeker's would have it. Of course, we will not convince them for they have convicted Obama in advance, and merely seek whatever evidence they can conjure up to confirm their judgment. Nothing we can say will make any difference whatsoever. Just look at seeker's contention that Hagee, blaming Katrina on gays, or Falwell, blaming 9/11 on gays and feminists, doesn't constitute hate-speech. Apparently, he agrees with them. It's bad when Wright blames America, but okay when right-wing christianists do it. I guess it just depends on whose ox is being gored.
Of course, that's what you get when you exalt faith over reason.
Let me quote again from Seeker's own article
Your cries of hypocrisy are mistaken, since your quote is not mine, but Ben's.
The Jewish church is the great whore. Jews are apostates.
I don't find those statements hateful when talking of the Catholic church, for two reasons. First, theologically speaking, there very solid scriptural and historical reasons to think that the Catholic church is the seat of the Antichrist. Second, criticizing the church is not the same as racism – in fact, you criticize Christianity in much sterner terms.
While the pejorative use of the word "apostate" may sound coarse, it's criticizing someone's beliefs, not their unchanging personal characteristics like race. I'm sorry, but it's just not the same.
Parsley says that Islam should be eradicated.
Again, can you verify the exact quote? I wish Islam didn't exist, it's evil. Does that make me a racist? I doubt it.
I really think this is a case of liberals making illegitimate analogies – maybe calling someone's faith 'apostate' is akin to racism in your book (though you've said much worse about religion), to say that it's just as bad as racism is a poor judgment.
On McCain calling Parsley a 'spiritual guide.'
BTW, the quote I saw said that McCain calle Parsley *a* spiritual guide, not *his* spiritual guide. There is a huge difference there, and to keep using the word "his" is deceptive. But of course, you were just trying to buttress yet another illegitimate comparison, this time by bending the truth (lying).
Your reasoning makes me want to create the bumper sticker I've always wanted on my car:
Your cries of hypocrisy are mistaken, since your quote is not mine, but Ben's.
That's just not true, Seeker. It's from the article that YOU linked to. Are you humble enough to admit a mistake? I'm not going to hold my breath.
I don't find those statements hateful when talking of the Catholic church, for two reasons.
Interesting. But you DO think it's hateful when applied to Jews. I think you're full of crap on that though because if Rev. Wright had said that "the Catholic Church is a whore" you'd be all over him for it. If Wright had said the evangelical Protestant church is a whore you'd also be all over him. Don't lie and say you wouldn't be. Thats a double standard and it's a very hypocritical position you're taking.
Again, can you verify the exact quote?
Again, using Judaism in place of Islam illustrates the extreme anti-semitism of Parsley's hideous remarks.
Don't ask me for the quote again, Seeker.
BTW, the quote I saw said that McCain calle Parsley *a* spiritual guide, not *his* spiritual guide. There is a huge difference there, and to keep using the word "his" is deceptive. But of course, you were just trying to buttress yet another illegitimate comparison, this time by bending the truth (lying).
I think Obama also referred to Wright as *a* spiritual adviser but never *his* spiritual adviser. But of course, you were just trying to buttress yet another illegitimate comparison, this time by bending the truth (lying).
Rev. Wright strikes again: http://gatewaypundit.blogspot.com/2008/03/obamas-…
Black and Arab killing bomb. Words, just words.
"I think Obama also referred to Wright as *a* spiritual adviser but never *his* spiritual adviser. But of course, you were just trying to buttress yet another illegitimate comparison, this time by bending the truth (lying)." ——->
Very Clintonesque … fact: he was BO's pastor/church leader of choice.
But you DO think it's hateful when applied to Jews.
No, you inferred that. Again, there is a difference when talking about a belief system and a race. Unfortunately, the word "jew" implies both race and belief, so it makes it more difficult. I see no contradiction in what I said.
It's from the article that YOU linked to.
Well, you always assume that when I link to an article, I agree totally with it's content. But I often link to articles that I mostly agree with, but I am providing information, not my opinion. I'll admit that I linked to it, if you admit that you were wrong in saying that *I* said it ;).
The fact is that America was founded, in part, with the intention of seeing this false religion destroyed
I'm glad I made you provide the quote, because it shows how you were spinning it – you said Parsley said that Islam should be destroyed. But he clearly did NOT say that. He said that America was founded with that in mind. Now, I disagree with him. I agree that what he said could be construed as hateful, but he did NOT call for the destruction of Islam, as you wrote.
However, I'll grant you that *actual* words of Hagee and Parsley (not your deceptive spin) are in the same objectionable ballpark as Wright's, though I think Wright's were more racially oriented.
I think Obama also referred to Wright as *a* spiritual adviser but never *his* spiritual adviser.
Now you're just being foolish. Obama gave money and time to Wright's church. McCain was just seeking an endorsement, nothing more.
And BTW, I've never sought to bring down Obama because of his heinous pastor, I have merely been defending the position that it is important, and that his long-time membership there could be considered a lapse in judgment. I have never said that Obama was a racist, quite the opposite.
BTW, I do agree with Parsley that Islam has been an enemy of the West, and America, since it's inception. Ever hear the Marines' Hymn?
Know what the "shores of Tripoli" is about? I'm sure you do – Islamic pirates ('Barbari Wars'), from which we get the Treaty of Tripoli that anti-christians like to quote from (because it has language explaining that the US is not a Christian theocracy, which libs misinterpret as a claim that we were not founded on Christian ideas).
It's pretty much accurate to state that Christianity and Islam have been at each other's throats for centuries. However, the answer isn't for each to eradicate the other but for both to learn how to live with the other. Otherwise, we'll all be destroyed.
Well, I do not advocate 'destroying' anything except vain arguments and false philosophies. But not people, nor buildings.
The current war between Islam and the West is destroying both people and property on both sides. Unless we can find some way out of this historical feud I fear the destruction will never end.
As Wafa Sultan noted, the feud is not between Christianity and Islam, but between Islam and modernism, Islam and civil society. Christianity is thrown in there, because it is the only ideology which can effectively protect and liberate us from Islam.
Secularism is unable to do so because, imho,
(1) it lacks any answers to religious questions which people need answers to,
(2) since it must be pluralistic towards religion, it lacks the gumption or intellectual capital to discriminate between healthy and unhealthy religions like Islam (so it ends up allowing Islam to infiltrate, like in Europe)
(3) It is putrefied by the anti-religious animosity of atheism, which cripples its intellectual assumptions even further, making it really useless in trying to come up with workable solutions for society (unless you count socialism and communism as workable).
I'll admit that I linked to it, if you admit that you were wrong in saying that *I* said it ;).
Why should I admit what I never said. If you take the time to look, here is what I actually said…
"I see what you mean Louis. Hypocrisy and double standards. Let me quote again from Seeker's own article…"
Time for you to fess up.
you said Parsley said that Islam should be destroyed. But he clearly did NOT say that. He said that America was founded with that in mind.
[Rolls eyes] If you think that America was founded on the principle of genocide then you are certainly calling for genocide. Don't split hairs. You are like Bill Clinton, "It depends what the meaning of "is" is."
I see no contradiction in what I said.
Allow me to quote you contradicting yourself then…
I'll grant you that *actual* words of Hagee and Parsley are in the same objectionable ballpark as Wright's, though I think Wright's were more racially oriented.
Wright says "God Damn America." Parsley and Hagee essentially say God Damn Muslims, Catholics, Iran, Gays, and New Orleans.
I have merely been defending the position that it is important, and that his long-time membership there could be considered a lapse in judgment.
Again, it's guilt by association. I think people should be judged upon what they say, not what their friends say. We'd have to judge your friend Silver Hallide as a creationist, Islamophobic, homophobic, neocon if we did it the republican way, Seeker.
Obama gave money and time to Wright's church. McCain was just seeking an endorsement, nothing more.
Obama gave money to Wright's church, but it wasn't to support Wright's comments. It was to support the church's humanitarian endeavors. McCain is getting a free pass on this from the media. If conservatives want to crucify Obama in Wright's place then they should at least be fair and and acknowledge that McCain has double the batsh*t crazy pastors in his pocket.
"Obama gave money to Wright's church, but it wasn't to support Wright's comments. It was to support the church's humanitarian endeavors. McCain is getting a free pass on this from the media. If conservatives want to crucify Obama in Wright's place then they should at least be fair and and acknowledge that McCain has double the batsh*t crazy pastors in his pocket." ——->
Splitting hairs aren't we? Money for this, but not for that? Hmm. I do not think you can really believe that. It's not conservatives who are doing the crucifying, his, excuse me, HIS judgement, when examined under the bright light of the nation and not the deep shadow of lib culture of inner city Chicago has seen to that(Kwame, poor poor Kwame has learned that too). It's not the conservatives that he has to worry about anywho, its the voting block who will decide this election, wascully white men, that he need worry about. The "typical" angry white man vote. We just hate to be called racist, (fillintheblank)phobes, the purveyors of HIV and Crack cocaine, genocidists(a Bushism)and just generally all around bad eggs. It makes us stand up and "Holla, holla" ….
What is Black Liberation Theology?
Wright’s Black Liberation Theology
By Anthony B. Bradley
What is Black liberation theology anyway? Barrack Obama’s former pastor, Jeremiah Wright catapulted black liberation theology onto a national stage, when America discovered Trinity United Church of Christ. Understanding the background of the movement might give better clarity into Wright’s recent vitriolic preaching. A clear definition of Black theology was first given formulation in 1969 by the National Committee of Black Church Men in the midst of the civil-rights movement:
“Black theology is a theology of black liberation. It seeks to plumb the black condition in the light of God’s revelation in Jesus Christ, so that the black community can see that the gospel is commensurate with the achievements of black humanity. Black theology is a theology of ‘blackness.’ It is the affirmation of black humanity that emancipates black people from White racism, thus providing authentic freedom for both White and black people. It affirms the humanity of White people in that it says ‘No’ to the encroachment of White oppression.”
In the 1960s, Black churches began to focus their attention beyond helping Blacks cope with national racial discrimination particularly in urban areas.
The notion of “Blackness” is not merely a reference to skin color, but rather is a symbol of oppression that can be applied to all persons of color who have a history of oppression (except Whites, of course). So in this sense, as Wright notes, “Jesus was a poor black man” because he lived in oppression at the hands of “rich White people.” The overall emphasis of Black liberation theology is the Black struggle for liberation from various forms of “White racism” and oppression.
James Cone, the chief architect of black liberation theology in his book A Black Theology of Liberation (1970), develops Black theology as a system. In this new formulation, Christian theology is a theology of liberation–“a rational study of the being of God in the world in light of the existential situation of an oppressed community, relating the forces of liberation to the essence of the gospel, which is Jesus Christ,” writes Cone. Black consciousness and the Black experience of oppression orient black liberation theology–i.e., one of victimization from White oppression.
One of the tasks of Black theology, says Cone, is to analyze the nature of the gospel of Jesus Christ in light of the experience of oppressed Blacks. For Cone, no theology is Christian theology unless it arises from oppressed communities and interprets Jesus’ work as that of liberation. Christian theology is understood in terms of systemic and structural relationships between two main groups: victims (the oppressed) and victimizers (oppressors). In Cone’s context, writing in the late 1960s and early 1970s, the great event of Christ’s liberation was freeing African Americans from the centuries-old tyranny of White racism and White oppression.
American White theology, which Cone never clearly defines, is charged with having failed to help Blacks in the struggle for liberation. Black theology exists because “White religionists” failed to relate the gospel of Jesus to the pain of being Black in a White racist society.
For Black theologians White Americans do not have the ability to recognize the humanity in persons of color, Blacks need their own theology to affirm their identity in terms of a reality that is anti-Black–Blackness stands for all victims of White oppression. “White theology,” when formed in isolation from the Black experience, becomes a theology of White oppressors, serving as divine sanction from criminal acts committed against Blacks. Cone argues that even those White theologians who try to connect theology to Black suffering rarely utter a word that is relevant to the Black experience in America. White theology is not Christian theology at all. There is but one guiding principle of Black theology: an unqualified commitment to the Black community as that community seeks to define its existence in the light of God’s liberating work in the world.
As such, Black theology is a survival theology because it helps Blacks navigate White dominance in American culture. In Cone’s view, Whites consider Blacks animals, outside of the realm of humanity, and attempted to destroy Black identity through racial assimilation and integration programs–as if Blacks have no legitimate existence apart from Whiteness. Black theology is the theological expression of a people deprived of social and political power. God is not the God of White religion but the God of Black existence. In Cone’s understanding, truth is not objective but subjective–a personal experience of the Ultimate in the midst of degradation.
The echoes of Cone’s theology bled through, the now infamous, anti-Hilary excerpt by Rev. Wright. Clinton is among the oppressing class (“rich White people”) and is incapable of understanding oppression (“ain’t never been called a n-gg-r”) but Jesus knows what it was like because he was “a poor black man” oppressed by “rich White people.” While black liberation theology is not main stream in most black churches, many pastors in Wright’s generation are burdened by Cone’s categories which laid the foundation for many to embrace Marxism and a distorted self-image of perpetual “victim” which we be explored in the next two columns.
Seeker's own article…
Um sorry, that implies that I was the author. Way to weasel out.
If you think that America was founded on the principle of genocide
Um, actually, if you weren't so looking to find fault, you'd see that I specifically said that I *disagree* withe Parsley. Additionally, eradicating Islam is not about genocide, it's about ideas. Islam is an ideology, not a people group.
And while you say i am splitting hairs, what I am saying is that you are spinning what he says, not actually quoting him, yet you claim to be quoting him. That's called spin (when it's not called 'deception' or 'little white lies.')
Wright says "God Damn America." Parsley and Hagee essentially say God Damn Muslims, Catholics, Iran, Gays, and New Orleans.
Well, you are choosing the wrong quote. Neither hagee nor parsley said "it's the rich arabs that are the problem in the world" or "it's the jews that are the problem" or any other racial reference, while Wright is blaming the "rich white people."
You are so intent on making your point that you truly miss the forest for the trees.
Again, it's guilt by association.
No, it's guilt by *participation* – it's significantly different in the minds of many, which is why it is an issue, and for God's sake, why do smart people like you miss that entirely? I'll tell you why – willing blindness and obtuse demonization of people asking good questions.
Obama gave money to Wright's church, but it wasn't to support Wright's comments. It was to support the church's humanitarian endeavors.
Ohhh, did you ask him why he was giving? I guess if any other hate group does nice things, but also uses the money to spread racism, it's ok? Get real, you are seriously talking out of your butt! If the shoe was on the other foot, you would be raising hell!
"Yes," McCain said, "I gave money to the KKK, but they also built churches for nice white people with that money." Unbelievable.
I didn't link that article, you did. Man up and take some responsibility for it. Don't blame what your article said on me, I'm just quoting what you linked to.
Um, actually, if you weren't so looking to find fault, you'd see that I specifically said that I *disagree* withe Parsley.
I know, and therein is your double standard. Do disagree with Parsley but since he is one of your own (white/protestant) you don't dare repudiate him, you only reluctantly denounce his words. Sound familiar? Well it should be. You are doing exactly what Barack Obama did. Barack Obama goes to Wright's church for political reasons, but he can't say that. Your article supports that.
…while Wright is blaming the "rich white people.
It's obvious you didn't bother watching Wright's sermon that I provided. Not surprising. Wright may be frustrated with race relations but he's blaming and angry with the government more than anything else.
No, it's guilt by *participation*
Well, there you go. Barack Obama didn't participate in Wright's nonsense. I went to a church for 10 years, I participated in it by donating. I never believed a word of what the pastor said though. I just went to keep up appearances of being a Christian so I'd be accepted in my Christian family.
What conservatives are spinning is
a. Rev Wright = bad
b. Rev Wright = Barack Obama's pastor/friend
c. Therefore, Barack Obama = bad
Ummm, that's a smear better known as guilt by association. People should be smarter and judge the candidates on their own merits and not on moronic Christian pastors. Everyone knows McCain is paying lip service to Hagee/Parsley on behalf of the crazies on the right. McCian doesn't give a flying fart about the religious right, but he has to appear to. It's the same with Obama. He may like Wright on a personal level but he is paying lip service to Wright's church for political purposes. He has to be seen as more than a Christian. He has to be seen as a black Christian from a black church so that African Americans like Jessie Jackson and Al Sharpton can't accuse him of not being "black" enough. Political science class is dismissed.
"Yes," McCain said, "I gave money to the KKK, but they also built churches for nice white people with that money." Unbelievable.
It's grossly unfair to compare the humanitarianism of Wright's church to the KKK. And, I quote…
Just keeping you honest, Seeker.
Don't blame what your article said on me, I'm just quoting what you linked to.
You're weaseling out of your lie. You implied, pretty much outright said that they were my words, my article. Like all your spin on this, including your trying to compare McCain's endorsement seeking with Obama's membership in the racist church, it was a half truth.
Wright may be frustrated with race relations but he's blaming and angry with the government more than anything else.
Yeah, the government run by "rich white people." Oh, he didn't mean that to sound racist. But he did mean to blame a race. Those aren't the same? I can see how you might NOT interpret Wright's words as racist, but they are, unfortunately, seen as representative of a deeper problem of racism and victimhood in the black community, and that's why they are problematic.
Well, there you go. Barack Obama didn't participate in Wright's nonsense.
Now you're using sophistry. He participated in Wright's nonsense by supporting him with his money and his time. And people think that is endorsement enough to give pause. I agree. To not give pause to such would be to lack caution.
I never believed a word of what the pastor said though. I just went to keep up appearances of being a Christian so I'd be accepted in my Christian family.
He never said that. In fact, he said the opposite. The pastor was a *mentor* to him, not just some disconnected figure up in the front of the church. Sorry, but the words of innocence you try to put in Obama's mouth don't match with his level of intimacy and frienship with Wright. And that's the problem – he may not buy into the racism, but his support for Wright in these other ways is not insignificant, as you would like it to be.
And I'm not saying that Obama is 'guilty' of racism – just guilty of apathy towards the racist and conspiratorial remarks of his mentor and pastor whom he supported via his membership and financial contributions. Basically, his continued presence there, buttressed by his financial contributions, is seen as tacit approval.
That's what he is guilty of – TACIT APPROVAL OF WRIGHT'S WORDS. He failed to object. We do object, and feel he should have.
If he could not see that coming, he truly does lack judgment.
I think he stayed in that church because that type of speech is accepted in the black community, and he was duped into thinking that other people would overlook it. He also stayed there because it helped him get support from blacks. His decision.
Again, if we are saying that Obama is a racist, that would be guilt by association. Rather, we are saying he is guilty of tacit approval of or apathy towards racism, through his inaction, continued membership, and general support of pastor Wright. That is, HIS OWN ACTIONS OR INACTION make him GUILTY OF POOR JUDGMENT AT BEST, and apathy or tacit approval of racism at worst.
Everyone knows McCain is paying lip service to Hagee/Parsley on behalf of the crazies on the right. McCian doesn't give a flying fart about the religious right, but he has to appear to.
I agree, as do many on the right, which is why some evangelicals are refusing to vote for him. However, many of us are merely choosing the lesser evil. Better a moderate who might help the unborn than a liberal who will totally mess things up ;)
It's grossly unfair to compare the humanitarianism of Wright's church to the KKK.
Yes, that is unfair, but I was making the point that giving money and time to an organization is significant. If you excuse Obama from tacit approval of Wright, you would have to excuse McCain in the situation above. That's my point.
You implied, pretty much outright said that they were my words, my article.
No, I didn't. You linked to that article and just quoted you on it. Don't deny the truth.
I can see how you might NOT interpret Wright's words as racist
Step up to the plate like I did with Parsley and quote Wright so we can all see that he is more angry at white people and not the government controlled by them. I dare you. I triple dog dare you, Seeker. I don't think you have anything to support your accusations over my contention that it's the system itself, not white people Wright is angry at. You can't, can you?
Now you're using sophistry.
Now you're using BS. As I said before, and this went in one of your ears and out the other, "Obama gave money to Wright's church, but it wasn't to support Wright's comments. It was to support the church's humanitarian endeavors." When you put money in a collection basket, are you supporting your pastor or are you supporting the church? Don't lie and say the pastor.
He never said that. In fact, he said the opposite. The pastor was a *mentor* to him, not just some disconnected figure up in the front of the church.
Well Parsley is just *a* "spiritual guide" for McCain and Wright is just *a* mentor for Obama. And, by the way, if you recall in the very last post, we already went over this. But, I'll repeat this as many times as it takes (quoting from your linked article)…
Again, if we are saying that Obama is a racist, that would be guilt by association. Rather, we are saying he is guilty of tacit approval of or apathy towards racism, through his inaction, continued membership, and general support of pastor Wright.
Ummm, no. First of all, you don't have to be labeled a racist to be the victim of guilt by association. Second, if Barack Obama does not agree with Pastor Wright, which he doesn't, then this is a non-issue. And, it is a non-issue. Conservatives are trying desperately to link Obama to Wright but there is a stubborn fact that's thwarting them. Fact: Barack Obama said nothing wrong. His wacky Pastor did. His pastor is not running for president. So who cares? Only conservatives hell bent on character assassination of democrats by any means possible.
I agree [ that he has to appear to.]
Well if you agree that McCain has to keep up the religious mask he maintains for Hagee/Parsley, then don't blame Obama for doing the same thing with Wright. It's hypocrisy and a double standard when you do this, Seeker.
If you excuse Obama from tacit approval of Wright, you would have to excuse McCain in the situation above.
And I do. Hagee/Parsley don't concern me with McCain. McCain doesn't believe their crap. The problem is that conservatives don't return they favor. They vilify Obama through Wright, the hypocrites, though Obama clearly doesn't agree with Wright but they don't vilify McCain through Hagee/Parsley.
I'm done, the arguments will have to speak for themselves.
I dare you. I triple dog dare you, Seeker. I don't think you have anything to support your accusations over my contention that it's the system itself, not white people, Wright is angry at. You can't, can you?
"I'm done, the arguments will have to speak for themselves."
:) Smart move.
Thomas Sowell, a black voice of reason. http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=Y2I2NzcyMGRm…
"The Reverend Jeremiah Wright is an outstanding church leader whom I have heard speak a number of times. He has served for decades as a profound voice for justice and inclusion in our society. He has been a vocal critic of the racism, sexism and homophobia which still tarnish the American dream. To evaluate his dynamic ministry on the basis of two or three sound bites does a grave injustice to Dr. Wright, the members of his congregation, and the African-American church which has been the spiritual refuge of a people that has suffered from discrimination, disadvantage, and violence. Dr. Wright, a member of an integrated denomination, has been an agent of racial reconciliation while proclaiming perceptions and truths uncomfortable for some white people to hear. Those of us who are white Americans would do well to listen carefully to Dr. Wright rather than to use a few of his quotes to polarize. This is a critical time in America's history as we seek to repent of our racism. No matter which candidates prevail, let us use this time to listen again to one another and not to distort one another's truth," – Dean J. Snyder, Foundry United Methodist Church, March 19, 2008. Snyder is Hillary Clinton's pastor, although I'm not sure how often she attends his church.
If it was just two or three YouTube clips I would agree, but Wright has been saying stupid, racist, hateful, bigoted things for years – in his sermons, the church bulletin, other print media, etc.
We need to keep the debate clear in this area. One can argue that Obama was an unwilling or unsupportive participant in Wright's hate speech for 20 years. I think that is a debate worth having and people can honestly and factually disagree on the issue.
But the argument that Wright is a fantastic human being who just had a couple quotes pulled out of context is ridiculous. So is saying that his hate speech should be ignored because he did some good work for the black community. He's not just "wacky." He is a hate-monger and should be treated as such.
The question should become now that we have established Wright is a bigoted, hateful man, what impact does that have on Obama now and what impact did it have on him for the 20 years he sat under Wright's preaching? That should be the debate.
Wright is a poopie head for using anti-white rhetoric, and Obama and his supporters are poopie heads for thinking it doesn't matter that Obama's pastor is a poopie head.
People that call Obama a closet racist are poopie heads too. He's just having to backpedal on his previous indifference to Wright's poopie head remarks.
Let's move on and elect McCain.
Seeker and Aaron, I don't think you have anything to support your accusations over my contention that it's the system itself, not white people, Wright is angry at. I challenge you to provide some quotes to support your position.
Do you think that he meant that HIV and crack were introduced into the “black community” by other blacks? or the white “controlled” gov?
The pastor said: “The government lied about inventing the HIV virus as a means of genocide against people of color. The government lied.”
This infers that someone other than “people of color” conspired to make biological war against “people of color”. If not of color, then who would these conspirators be?
Or one of his most recent statements that the government controlled everything from the White House to the Klan. I'm sure he meant the "system" including blacks. Or the time he said Hillary didn't know what it was like to be called a n-word. I'm sure that it was in no way meant to be directed at white people, just a generic thought. Or when speaking about Jesus' crucifixion, he used a slur for Italians.
Let's not forget the Jewish aspect. Printing a piece from a Hamas PR guy in their church bulletin about the evils of Israel. Giving an award to known anti-semite Farakaan. etc.
None of this touches on the glee with which he yelled about the chickens coming home to roost just days after thousands of Americans were killed by terrorists and saying that we were to blame for those deaths.
It goes on and on Cineaste. You would do much better if you distanced yourself from Wright and made the (much more sound) argument that Obama should not be sullied by the idiocy and hatred of his pastor.
…that the government controlled everything…
Sounds like he is against the government to me. The U.S. government did experimented on black people by injecting them with syphilis at Tuskegee. Knowing that, I can understand his resentment.
Or when speaking about Jesus' crucifixion, he used a slur for Italians.
Provide the quote in context, Aaron. John McCain has called Asians "gooks," but in context, we give him a pass on that.
None of this touches on the glee with which he yelled about the chickens coming home to roost
I already put this to bed above. You've obviously misrepresented his sermon based on 2 minute clips. I agree with Wright about this issue but you'd have to watch the sermon in context to understand why.
It goes on and on Cineaste. You would do much better if you distanced yourself from Wright and made the (much more sound) argument that Obama should not be sullied by the idiocy and hatred of his pastor.
Guilt by association is a fallacy. That point has already been made many times here. I also happen to think that conservatives are making a big stink about Wright's words when they are not much different than what white pastors say.
"I am looking forward to a debate with John McCain. John McCain is a good man. He's an American hero. We honor his service to this nation. But he has made some bad choices about the company he keeps."-
BO. Nuance.
Sounds like he is against the government to me.
Which, of course, runs the Klu Klux Klan. I mean there are sooo many "people of color" running the KKK (except Dave Chapelle characters). The clear insinuation here is white people Cin. If you want to ignore the obvious and be blind to Wright's hatred because it may hurt Obama, go ahead, but don't expect others to blindly follow.
You've obviously misrepresented his sermon based on 2 minute clips.
That can happen. As someone who speaks in church and to youth, I have had in happen to me. If it was just a one time incident over 20 years, then I would say the context argument makes sense. He would deserve a pass for screwing up once or twice – it happens. But they've pulled numerous messages and everyone has something about hating America or a certain group of people that will remain nameless *cough*white people*cough*. It is in his writing. It is in the people he chooses to recognize and honor.
I could have given you the context of his comment about "garlic nose" Italians or the crucifixion being a "public lynching Italian style," but they have pulled the magazine offline, now. But of course, there was nothing wrong with it, they just felt like pulling it down because they don't like high traffic. He is the CEO and his daughter is the publisher.
As to him, not ever really mentioning white, but rather "the system:"
That's some more writing from his no longer existent magazine website. This is just some screw up, captured and blown out by YouTube. This is his lifestyle and his worldview – 100%, 24/7.
Wright's words when they are not much different than what white pastors say. You show me a white pastor that says and writes things about white supremacy, Jews running things, honors terrorists, has Neo-Nazis write columns for his church bulletin, insulting any and all other people groups and I'll show you a pastor that has been ostracized from just about everyone and who has no political clout. The things Wright said from the pulpit have no business coming from anyone, much less a pastor – white, black, whatever.
But here's my question Cin, if Obama, who Wright is like family to, can "condemn, in unequivocal terms, the statements of Reverend Wright," why can't you? Why are you trying to defend racist, bigoted, hate speech? Is it just because it happens to be from the pastor of your candidate?
The quote above isn't all that extremist, nor particularly racist. He criticizes "a world" and "a culture" as racist not white people – that's the "system." This seems like an exaggeration, but not out of bounds. I can see where some black people might think this way, particularly his generation, but it's not indefensible by any means. And what's wrong with attacking lying politicians?
And I see nothing wrong with this:
…with young people who do not have a clue as to our story, our history, our legacy or our destiny, we still have African-American Christians who are more concerned about 'bling bling' than about freeing our minds.
This sounds just like Juan Williams or Bill Cosby.
Now don't get me wrong, I don't agree with the guy. Some of his stuff sounds nutty. But some of it sounds just fine for me, particularly for a prophetic utterance.
Louis, I somewhat agree. I don't think that he is the same kind of racist as Farrakhan, but the fact that he uses this kind of language AND has supported Farrakhan is worrisome. I suspect there is a spectrum of racism, from "kill whitey" to "there is still institutional racism." Wright isn't a kill whitey type, but he is probably somewhere in the middle, just this side of Farrakhan. But his warmness towards Farrakhan makes me interpret his words in a somewhat more racist light than the words alone might say.
That is, while they are worded to appear to attack the system and not white people directly, the fact that his speeches are peppered generously with references to whites and the KKK and such indicates to me that there must be an undercurrent of real race hate in him, and he means to attack whites, but does so indirectly to allow people to read between the lines, while he himself can hide behind 'attacking the system' rather than attacking whitey directly.
I think it's partly calculated on his part, and partly just his own deep distrust and dislike for whitey and America showing itself even if he tries to hide it's true intensity.
And again, the crux of the discussion is that Obama stayed there, not thinking it important enough to distance himself. As it turns out, the general public *is* offended by Rev. Wright's methods and words. Too bad for Obama, unfortunately.
Rage and frustration at injustice can be a terrible thing. I know.
The clear insinuation here is white people Cin. If you want to ignore the obvious and be blind to Wright's hatred because it may hurt Obama, go ahead, but don't expect others to blindly follow.
You wrong me, sir. The contention is that Wright is a racist against whites. Well, I don't see that. I see that he is pissed off at a predominantly white system of government that has a documented history of injustice to blacks. He's angry and bitter, there's no doubt about that. But I didn't see him kicking white people out of his church either. Of course I don't agree with everything Wright says. His church website has some creationist literature on it so ya, I think that makes him batsh*t crazy. If you and Seeker contend Wright is a racist then bring forth some evidence to support your position. As Louis pointed out, the quote you did provide only bolsters my contention, not yours. Badmouthing America is not racist, but it is something that can give a conservative an aneurysm.
The things Wright said from the pulpit have no business coming from anyone, much less a pastor – white, black, whatever.
Maybe so. But if you are going to cast stones at Wright for saying hateful things then you must also cast stones at Hagee and Parsley for the same. The only difference is, they direct their anger at Muslims instead of Jews; gays instead of the government. I'm not asking you to *follow* me, as you put it, just be consistent and drop the double standard.
But here's my question Cin, if Obama, who Wright is like family to, can "condemn, in unequivocal terms, the statements of Reverend Wright," why can't you? Why are you trying to defend racist, bigoted, hate speech?
I condemn anything hateful Wright has said just as strongly as I condemn creationists as being completely ignorant and misguided. I'm not defending Wright but I am defending his right to be treated justly. If you make a big stink about Wright then by all rights, you should double the stink about Hagee and Parsley since you have 2x the stinkers. It's hypocrisy not to. What we can all agree on is the Wright/Hagee/Parsley uproar has one source: religion.
This is also why it's not really an issue to me, because I know that deep inside, all 3 candidates could care less about what these religious nuts have to say. McCain is using Hagee Parsley because he must (conservative base). Obama is using Wright because he must (black vote).
Rage and frustration at injustice can be a terrible thing. I know.
Yes, esp. if, like in Wright's case, it drives you to conspiracy theories, hatred based on wrongs from the past which rarely occur in the present, and justification of blame shifting and victimhood which cause people to fail to take responsibility for your own life.
I believe strongly in taking responsibility for my life and choices. I also condemn knee-jerk victim-mongering. However, that being said, it is also not true that there aren't victims and bullies out there. Sometimes there is unjust victimization going on, and to just dismiss it as politically correct "victimhood" is unfair and unjust and itself a false rhetorical strategy. I think things are better now than they were in pre-1960's America, both for people of color and gays, but that doesn't mean that injustice and prejudice – both individual and systemic – don't still exist and have evil and measurable effects on our society. Whites and straights may be tired of hearing about it, but it's still true, and to them I say "tough."
I believe strongly in taking responsibility for my life and choices. I also condemn knee-jerk victim-mongering. However, that being said, it is also not true that there aren't victims and bullies out there.
From my observations, I agree that you don't do any of those things, and I agree for certain that there are bullies out there.
I am not tired of hearing complaints from gays, because I do believe that they have some valid contemporary complaints. I am tired of complaints from black America though, and I think with good reason.
I also agree that religionists, as well as anti-religionists and secularists, can act like bullies, and we've got a good number of those out there right now too.
"I believe strongly in taking responsibility for my life and choices. I also condemn knee-jerk victim-mongering. However, that being said, it is also not true that there aren't victims and bullies out there."——->
I think that is what I have been saying. Look in the mirror, make up your mind to treat all others fairly. That is how one overcomes racism or just about any other problem in our society. Its a grass roots effort. A blank screen poli or a racist religious leader will not be able to do this. And our country has, in my lifetime, overcome much of the racial divide amongst people. To deny that is crazy, just as it is crazy to sit in a crazy church.
Give me something stupid Hagee and Parsley said and I will condemn it. Hagee was a moron when he said Hitler was a Catholic spiritual leader or whatever he said. I will give you the fact all day long that prominent Christian preachers say stupid things. I point out a good many myself. That's not a question or a debate.
Here's the difference – 20 years under the teaching. I don't know what McCain's pastor has said. But I can assure you if he said some crazy stuff, it will come out.
Yeah, I've never really liked Hagee, in part because I don't like fat preachers ;) I figure if they can't control their fork, are they really spiritual? :D.
I actually saw Parsley live many years ago, and I was not fond of his Pentecostal canter – that affected speech pattern is annoying, and sounds fake a manipulative to me. I am glad that he is getting conservatives involved in politics, but his rhetoric oversteps the bounds of intellectual and reasonable discourse sometimes.
Give me something stupid Hagee and Parsley said and I will condemn it.
I've quoted them many times in the posts above. All you have to do is look.
Here's the difference – 20 years under the teaching.
Like I said before, I spent years "under the teaching" and it didn't mean a thing. Petty things like what someones pastor says is of greater import to conservatives than issues like the economy or the war. It's a sad commentary on how gullible Americans are.
The fact is, conservatives won't forgive Obama his pastor's extremes, no matter what arguments are presented. Time to move on…
The fact is, conservatives won't forgive Obama his pastor's extremes, no matter what arguments are presented.
Actually, I think you libs are missing the point. We are not being unforgiving, we are saying that Obama did not do enough to explain his support of Wright, and that people should be concerned about that. That's it. This keeps going on because libs won't even admit that Obama's membership is more than a passing thing that should be shrugged off. And many voters seem to agree.
This also continues to be an issue, not because of Obama's 'guilt,' but because it has opened the festering wound of black bitterness, which has surprised many non-blacks who have moved on from the 60's, and figure that the black culture should have too.
I guess libs will never admit the importance of this, even if mainstream voters see it. This would have been a much smaller issue if Obama and libs would have admitted to the true depth and importance of this issue instead of trying to deflect it from their <s>messiah</s> candidate.
The pastor is an old holy roller style preacher caught up in the 60's. And a doofus, at least. Racist at worst. And so BO has him hiding for now as damage control.
The question is, in my mind, what is a "post racial" era man who wants to be the most powerful person in our country doing in a militant leaning church, which most assuredly spewed the venom more than a handful of times over 20 years. You do not get a pass because of skin color.
easy seeker on that hate speech(messiah) :)
I crossed it out ;)
Why do you guys think this is such a big deal? It's so stupid to be concerned about something so inconsequential. Can we talk about the issues like the war or the economy yet? It's like discussing who Paris Hilton is dating. Get a life guys.
This keeps going on because libs won't even admit that Obama's membership is more than a passing thing that should be shrugged off. And many voters seem to agree.
[shrug]
Who, precisely, are these "many voters"? Could it be that they are Republicans or Hillary supporters (gasp!)?
…because it has opened the festering wound of black bitterness
Or, perhaps, the festering wound of white bitterness (God forbid!)?
I guess libs will never admit the importance of this, even if mainstream voters see it.
Nice try, seeker, co-opting "mainstream voters" to your view. If anything, mainstream voters dismiss this attempt to smear Obama. I guess cons will never admit the triviality of all this.
Sen. Bob Casey, who endorsed Barack Obama, is "Pro-life". It's good to see some conservative politicians supporting Barack because it shows he is willing to reach across the aisle and work with those who hold different views on important issues.
Isn’t casey a pro life democrat (a rarity)? That may pull in some moderates, and I’m glad to see that libs are scared enuf to add a prolifer to the ticket.
But that won’t sway any true conservatives, since casey is probly a fiscal lib, and we all know that the vp has naught to do w supreme ct nominees.
Isn't casey a pro life democrat (a rarity)? That may pull in some moderates, and I'm glad to see that libs are scared enuf to add a prolifer to the ticket.
But that won't sway any true conservatives, since casey is probly a fiscal lib, and we all know that the vp has naught to do w supreme ct nominees.
Isn't casey a pro life democrat (a rarity)?
A rarity yes, but how many Pro-Choice republicans equal to Casey's stature do you see? I don't know of any. I think thats a sign of extremism. Obama has demonstrated the ability to get endorsements from pro-life senators. Does McCain have the ability to get the endorsements of pro-choice politicians? Let's see some names. I'd like to compare Obama vs. McCain on the economy next.
Seeker, can you change the color of:
Posted by: Cineaste | 17 March 2008 at 11:59 PM
in the style sheet from gray to a brighter color? That will help to delineate the different comments.
Ah, here it is…
Extremists often see their opposition, and all criticism, as part of a larger conspiracy against them. In fact, they often disallow criticism from within their ranks (all such critics are "traitors"). – Seeker
Let's see some pro-choice republicans of equal stature to Senator Casey endorsing McCain. Beuller? Beuller? Beuller?
Seeker, please pass this message along to your wife. :)
P.S. I'm serious :)
"Excuse me, senor, may I see the bands Green Cards?"
Que? No habla Inglese.
Si. Pero no tiene cerebro o carta verde.
Inglis, no Inglese.
Fresh from dem supporter, now playing on YouTube:
The dem cannibalism continues.
Reposting this so Seeker sees it…
Seeker, please pass this message along to your wife. :)
(crickets) ….
Obama is screwed, just as conservatives are hoping
Looks like you were wrong about that, Seeker. Obama may even be in a stronger position now because he's been vetted by this nonsense.
Obama is screwed, just as freedom loving Americans are hoping.
"Freedom loving"? HA-HA!
Now, you've descended to extremist ad hominem-type rhetoric, implying that those of us who support Obama are somehow against freedom and only cons truly love it. What hogwash! Why can't people disagree without such sickening displays of stupid extremist nonsense? When politics is little more than each side demonizing the other, we might as well forget it. Your comment just disqualifies you from serious consideration (gee, what a surprise!).
Now, you’ve descended to extremist ad hominem-type rhetoric, implying that those of us who support Obama are somehow against freedom and only cons truly love it. What hogwash!
He was referring to the conservative positions that are strong on defense, and limiting on taxes. By contrast, liberals want to be weak on defense (therby endangering our freedoms, supposedly), and want to take our earnings for their big government programs (so taking away our freedom to enjoy the fruits of our own labor.).
I don’t think that calling neocons more ‘freedom loving’ than libs is helpful, though in some sense it may seem accurate. I’d say that both sides want to restrict our liberty in different ways.
louis … i knew it would not be long until the "e" word surfaced.
as one who supports the most liberal member of the senate for president, and is a member(i think)of the party of racist comment, both inside and outside of the public eye, i could call you the "e" word … but i wont.
taxes destroy liberty. big gov destroys liberty. weakening the military destroys liberty, both here and abroad. all standard lib fare for years.
so much hate for Bush, so little disdain for policies of the left which will do much more damage.
to me the dem party
"Big government destroys liberty. Weakening the military destroys liberty, etc: "
Then, I assume you are not a Republican. Under Bush and the Republican control of congress we have seen a huge rise in government size and power, particularly in its interference in our private lives. Also, our military has become demonstrably weaker because of the Iraq war. I have heard generals state this. Which would you rather have, a party that pays as it goes (ie, taxes to support its programs) or borrows us into the poor house to support its expansion of government? As far as I am concerned, the Republican party seems more of a danger to our liberties than the Dems.
I don’t think that calling neocons more ‘freedom loving’ than libs is helpful, though in some sense it may seem accurate.
All the neo-cons do is wave flags, put pins on their lapels and then call it patriotism. Wrapping yourself up in the flag is a very shallow form of patriotism. You’ll never see neo-cons criticizing the government even though it deserves it. Then neo-cons label those who criticize the government as un-American or people who are not “freedom loving.” A true patriot rebukes even his country when it’s deserved, like with blacks being injected with syphilis or the internment of Japanese Americans during WWII. Democrats speak out against those things far more often than Neo-cons do which makes me believe that it’s the democrats who are actually more “freedom loving.” They are the ones who defend our freedoms and civil liberties in the national discourse. Some of the things that Rev. Wright said are “controversial” only to Neo-cons because of this; i.e. “the chickens are coming home to roost.”
All the neo-cons do is wave flags, put pins on their lapels and then call it patriotism. Wrapping yourself up in the flag is a very shallow form of patriotism.
You're looking at the wrong neocons then. When I say I am a neocon, I mean I am part of the Gingrich revolution. Newt has put out many books on how to save American, and they are both intellectual, practical, and interesting reading.
You have assumed correctly. The parties have been both drifting left the past 8 years. This is quite obvious now which scares the hell out of people like myself, and should scare you to, but I think the hatred for Bush has blinded you to the fact that HRC and BO are socialists, at least. Are you a socialist? If so I can see where you admire those two. Otherwise, I do not understand.
“Also, our military has become demonstrably weaker because of the Iraq war. I have heard generals state this.” ——->
Until Petraeus voices this, I dismiss all other armchair commanders. I doubt all of the nay sayers on the quality of our armed forces. New vehicles have been introduced, armor packages, refinement of the M16 weapon system, at least 100,000 enemy killed(at least). Combat has been at a low ebb for months. The military is not broken. A very slim sliver of the military arsenal has been used in Iraq. To me, tactically speaking, the main prob has been the lack of a true armored patrol vehicle, but that has been remedied.
“Which would you rather have, a party that pays as it goes (ie, taxes to support its programs) or borrows us into the poor house to support its expansion of government?” ——->
Neither. I would rather have much less Gov all the way around, so they would have the money needed when war and national emergencies arise. I would have much less taxation to ensure more liberty for each citizen, not the slavery that taxation guarantees(remember the reason why the colonies broke free?)I would rather not have, in fact I would oppose, an expansive intrusive gov which believes it knows what is best for me. I am a grown man. I will make those decisions. Not some untouchable, unbreachable behemoth. That is what I would rather have.
“As far as I am concerned, the Republican party seems more of a danger to our liberties than the Dems.” ——->
Why? As I have stated, and I think we can agree about the sliding left of the parties. As a conservative, McCain does not represent me. BO represents you?
Can you enumerate exactly why you think a very left leaning party, which I do believe HRC and BO would try to go, ensures your “Bill of Right” rights?
The Democrat Death Spiral Plan:
More taxes -> More Foreclosures -> More Taxes -> More Foreclosures -> More taxes(ad infinitum)…………………………..or at least until we are in section 8 housing…………………….
When I say I am a neocon, I mean I am part of the Gingrich revolution.
That's the only definition of neo-con I know of. It's like Dick Cheney.
P.S. Silver, if your reading this, welcome back from Costa Rica.
Wonderful article, thanks for putting this together! “This is obviously one great post. Thanks for the valuable information and insights you have so provided here. Keep it up!”
Wonderful article, thanks for putting this together! “This is obviously one great post. Thanks for the valuable information and insights you have so provided here. Keep it up!”