ofelas

...and with Farrakhan added to the mix, his cadre of ill advisors grows...imagine the backlash if the Klan endorsed McCain.

dalem

WTF?

The guy's clearly a racist and a raving lunatic.

God damn America?

We created AIDS?

We allowed Pearl Harbor?

White people are bad?

I didn't make him say these things. Neither did Gunnut. He said all by his lonesome.

And Obama's sat in his church for 20 years, praised and credited him publically, and can't muster up an explanation with more depth than "He's flawed but I can't abandon him?"

Well there is a huge difference betweeen not abandoning someone and embracing him. For 20 years, Obama's embraced Wright, and therefore, one must assume, his ideals and ideas.

So Obama either believes America is a racist nation bent on crushing black people, which makes him a crazed a$$hat, or he believes his political fortunes can remain independent and unsullied by his close association with a crazed a$$hat like Wright.

So Obama is either crazy or stupid or a little of both. There's no other way to dice it out. Personally, I think he's a little of both. He's a dangerous man, a very, very dangerous man.

-dale

JAD_333

Maybe? Did you take a close look at their afro-centric liberation theology.
You won't find any racism in it. It simply aims to resolve the Afro-American experience then and now within Judeo-Christain teaching. You don't have to be black to find, for example, that most whites in early America glossed
over parts of Christ's teachings so they wouldn't have to face contradictions between their religious belief and slavery. The phenomenon still exists, albeit in a more subtle form. What Wright was referring to in God damn America was drawn from a quote in the bible that God will damn a people who deny freedom to another. Wright should have known better than to say it because it is much too ambiguous a statement; it can be taken as anti-white, anti-American and so forth.

I don't agree with his statement that we brought 9/11 on ourselves, but he is hardly the only one to hold that view...a good percentage of liberal democrats agree with him.

Look, I don't condone shocking statements from pulpit pounding preachers any more than you do. But Wright is responsible for what he said. Not Obama. If Obama found the better angels in Wright to his liking then I see no reason why he can't continue to be connected with him on a religious level.

What are we afraid of, anyway? That Obama will become Wright incarnate if he becomes president. Just how far would a "President" Obama get pushing a radical black philosophy? Obama is too intelligent for that. He knows that if by fate he become president, his tenure will the measure by which all future black candidates will be judged. If he were to try radically to reshape the nation to suit the black agenda, he will fail. He only choice is to be the president of all Americans. Just remember, whites outnumber blacks by a huge margin.

__________________
To be Truly ignorant, Man requires an Education. (Plato)

JAD_333

Perhaps in your system of logic there is an "either or" in those two statement. But it doesn't add up.

Obama can reject the notion that America is "bent on crushing black people" and can still maintain a relationship with Wright without being identified with Wright's statements. He is not Wright and Wright is not him. This goes on all the time in politics and in society. Suddenly it is wrong. Why? Because they are black men? Intelligent people would judge a man by what he says and does? Obama hasn't made a single speech that reflects Wright's views; he repudiates his views. Now you want Obama to say, "get thee away from me" to Wright who has helped him so much on a human level. Well, let the voters decide whether hypocrisy is preferable to honesty. Vote McCain.




All liberals are dangerous. But he's not crazy, because I guarantee you that if he had both repudiated Wright and shed him as a friend, voters black and liberal white would abandon him in droves. He did the human thing. That's neither carzy nor stupid. It's poltically adoit.

citanon

Obama has already come out and humiliated Wright, distanced himself from the guy's positions. He's also humiliated his grandmother, so your part about familial love is kind of moot. All it would have taken was a simple sentence: "Over the years I have tried to convince Rev. Wright that his convictions are wrong..."

But then, even if he could get around all that, his speech still shows that he's a socialist.

dalem

No, he can't. This is a voluntary and confirmed mentor-student relationship. A relationship of ideals and ideas, not of economics or policy or simple neighborly proximity.

Obama has chosen to sit and absorb messages of hate, anti-Americanism, and racism, and from what I've read, have his family sit with him, for 20 years.

Could I sit in a church or other recurring social gathering with a racist, anti-American leader and mentor for 20 years unless I approved of it in some way? Could you?

I warned a guy in my old gaming group one night back in Michigan that he was going to get booted out of my apartment the next time he made racist remarks. And that was just one night, and it was just my apartment. And I had as little to do with him in public or private as our shared hobby permitted. I wasn't hugging the guy and lauding his influence over me for twenty years.

Bzzzzt! Insufficient defense.

Obama has gone out of his way to emphasize the closeness of their relationship, and the influence that Wright has had over him. Same person? Of course not. But close enough.

List three recent and similar examples in American politics then, for comparison.

Yep, them dam nigras'd better get back in the fields where they belong.

Please. It has nothing to do with race and everything to do with content. If McCain had spent months talking up his own priest/pastor/preacher/rabbi, whatever, and the influence he'd had on his life and ideals, and then the guy turns out to be some berobed KKK Grand Silverfish, McCain would be (properly) undergoing the same scrutiny.

I do judge by words and actions. As I said above, Obama's words and actions have publically and joyfully embraced the long-term relationship and influence of a spittle-flecked anti-American racist.

Obama's words and actions are the problem. Like I said above and still maintain, he either agrees with Wright or doesn't. If he does, bad. If he doesn't and still thinks it's okay, socially or politically, to emphasize being influenced by him, then that's bad.

It's just another type of symptom, not the core problem. The problem was proudly attending that church for 20 years in the first place. There is no way to quickly wash off twenty years of accumulated filth. Intelligent people would realize this.

Now, true liberals won't see it that way because they don't see a problem - they are also convinced that America is a nation of AIDS-forging, hateful racists. So they see nothing to apologize for, no problem to address. Anyone other than a lefty, guilt-washed America-hater sees the problem, not so much as what Obama said, but as the reason he has to say it at all.

-dale

JAD_333

In what subjects? Religion or politics? What do we know?

Is that a fact? Haven't you heard such messages? What did you do when you heard them? How can you presume to say how another person receives them?

Well, again you are assuming he is racist. If he's not, it is a moot point. YOU are defining him as racist. What is your definition of a racist and what did he say that was racist? How is God damn America racist? Isn't it a system of government. Whoever dominated the system for 170 years before Brown vs Bd. of Education is culpable. Who established Jim Crow laws? Who enforced segregation? Who created a system discrimanatory toward people of color--socially and economically? Someone accuses you and people of your white color and you cry racist? How is the truth racist? History accuses whites of racism, but when a black man does it, he is suddenly labeled a racist. We need to accept the truth and move on. Maybe you, dale, are clean of all racism, but all whites are not, even now, and you of all people know that is true. Don't take Wright's tantrums personally. He's right in terms of history and to what extent white racism still exists. I agree
it would have been better had he not added salt to the wound. But we need to get past this...we cannot afford to wallow in this indignation. A black man is among candidates for president; we must not create the appearance that we are setting a different standard for black candidate.



Commendable, but you cannot require others to emulate your example. Some one else with your feeling might do it differently. The point is to repudiate, but bannishment is a highly personsal reaction.


So what? I have a wealthy friend who supports Code Pink, but also gives heavily to hospitals, animal shelters, the Red Cross and dozens of ordinary charities. What I've learned from her is charity. We argue about Iraq all the time. She's hopelessly ill-informed, but what shall I do. Stomp out and never see her again? No, because no one thinks my continuing relationship with her means I support Code Pink.


Take any three times a liberal democrat called Bush an idiot, a bloodthirsty warmonger, and what have you. Go back to 1800 and look at what the Federalists and the Jeffersonian Democrats said about each other. You can bet your boots that had they not all been white, one or the other would have been called a racist.

Obama was helped spiritually by his church. Bush was helped by his born again experience. They should not talk about it...come on.


Again, as a pastor and member of a church, not as politically enjoined persons.

That's a value judgement which you are entitled to have, so long as you accept that it comes from your standard of morality or ethics and is not required of others. I concede your right to it. I hope you will concede my right to disagree.

Filth is in the eye of the beholder.

-dale[/quote]

Well, I ain't a lefty, guilt washed America-hater by a long shot. But I know a specious argument when I see one.

lwarmonger

And Obama's polling numbers continue to drop.

I'm going to be quite honest... I have quite a bit of tolerance for the political left. But I can't and won't tolerate the active company of someone who actively and vocally hates America any longer than I have to. Just won't do it. Why? Because I love this country, and that kind of hate towards something I love really pisses me off. Now the FACT that Obama has not only tolerated but embraced people who vocally attack the United States (not just a political party or a certain aspect of our history but the United States as a whole) leaves me extremely disappointed. How can we elect such a person to be the Commander in Chief of our armed forces? How can such a person represent us abroad? Really, the tolerance for percieved racism doesn't bother me anywhere near as much as his tolerance of anti-Americanism in those closest to him.

JAD_333

Sad to see you adopt the questionable logic of Obama's critics.

Did he tolerate and embrace the people who enaged in vocal attacks on the US or did he tolerate what they said? Big difference. Had it been his mother, what then?

We seem to be creating a whole new standard for presidential candidates, escpecially for black ones. A black man today is likely to have heard many, many diatribes by his fellow black men against the oppression he and his brethern have experineced for many, many years in this country. How can we expect them to disown every one of them now that he is a candidate for president. Is the same standard applied to white critics of the US?


I don't plan to elect him and will work against him. I'm voting McCain. But I will not tolerate reverse bigotry as a tool for defeating another candidate no matter who he is. That's going backwards, and there's no two ways about it. Search your heart.

Chunder

I don't think he has humiliated him - he hasn't disowned him as a pastor, but he clearly rejects the statements.

Thats a distinct parrallel.

He hasn't humiliated his grandmother. During those times and still in these times in some areas, people are taught to mistrust others not like them. Or view them as lessors, and it is clearly representative in the laws of those times.

I take the position and I used the family one that publicly humiliating my sister infront of others at a restaurant wasn't a wright (enjoy the pun on words) thing to do.

Religeon forms a big part in some peoples life. So do peoples views and goals, and they do diverge. Wright IMO used his congregations fame to draw attention to his 'flock' and it backfired on him. Thats humiliation enough. I think that the (not yours) but axe wielding sentiment of some that this qualifies Obama (a well educated Black man) as a racist. Thats a pretty insulting label. Obama merely said in his speech, he understood where it could come from. and thats critical. Not to segregate and divide further, but to 'understand it'.

And So what if he appears to hold some Socialist views. By his views do you also Hold the Canada, U.K, Spain, Australia, New Zealand, Germany, Finland, Sweden, Denmark, Belgium, Norway as evil bad socialist countries. It's just a label.

Guess what... on the index Many of the beat the Good Ol USA on the living standards index, many of them with just an honorable, if not More honorable history of defending human rights and making freedom earlier than the U.S.A, and fighting dying along side of you in pretty much every war the U.S.A Agitates for since the 20th Century? If being Socialist means not voting for a war based on dodgy bloody intelligence and billigerance, then he can join the Whopping 70 + percent something of Britons that didn't support the war, the Astounding 85 + % of Australians that Didn't support the war... these statistics say a hell of a lot about hyperbole and chest thumping don't they!!!

Evil 'Socialist' countries that militarily deploy per capita just as much as the USA. Countries with populations that hate arrogance. Countries that nevertheless fight alongside you in war.

dalem

Well, religion, faith, and morals are all tied together, so I assume mainly that. I've not read Obama's book, so I can only go by Obama's expressions of gratitude to Wright for inspiration and direction. To me that is very telling.

My point is that I wouldn't have sat with my family listening to a man lecture on and off (I assume these particularly assinine outbursts were not Wright's bread and butter sermons) about the evils of AmeriKA and other such nonsense for 20 years, and wouldn't be comfortable, let alone proud, of having people think I viewed him as ANY sort of guide, mentor, or positive example.

Anyone who spends that much time and energy encouraging people to view ridiculous things like skin color as important is a racist in my book.

Yes, I can.

Even by your standard, where was the repudiation in this particular case?

Great for you. Would you be seen with her at a Code Pink rally? If you were, and someone challenged you, would you think their challenge was reasonable? Have you gone out of your way to list your Code Pink friend as a major inspiration for your life? And most importantly, are you running for President of the U.S. of A.?

Ahh, I was being specific about the particular Obama-Wright relationship, but I can see your general point, sure.

I'm only going by the importance placed on the relationship by Obama himself, and the nature of Wright's comments (i.e. basic "America is bad") which is a little different than what you're driving at.

Absolutely.

I don't accept the relativism you seem to be applying here. Wright's statements are what they are, the words, the emotion, the rhetoric, all there: America is a bad place with bad intent and bad history. That's filth when you are running for President. It just is.

I don't think my argument is specious at all. It might be wrong, or incomplete, but it's well-grounded and -reasoned.

-dale

JAD_333

He doesn't spend a lot of time on Wright; it's more about his ancestoral and spiritual journey. Expressing gratitude to someone for a service is not tantamount to support of their politicial beliefs. If someone saves my life or gives me comfort when I am in need of it, should I publicly banish him from my life because he said something people don't like or I don't agree with?


I would agree with you if the mentoring was polticial, but insofar as we know, it was largely religious.

I don't doubt that a good bit of rancor was expressed toward "the man" and those elements of the American government that seemed to stand in the way of racial equality.

But one has to realize that the disadvantaged--in this case, blacks--are going to speak among themselves against the white-dominated establishment responsible for their position. It is a legitimate subject in black society, in black publications, and surely in black churches. Where can a black person go to escape it? Wouldn't it be better, especially if he is an aspiring politician, to listen and try to discover where the healing can take place?


I agree, but we're not black. We haven't experienced what it's like to be denied a job or a seat in a restaurant just because our skin is black. It still goes on subtly. I see it here in Virginia from time to time. No. The whites made skin-color important.

Ever meet a black African here for a visit? Totally different attitude. One on one, just like one on one with a white person. I met blacks in Paris who were completely integrated and without a shred of the black self-consciousness we see here. The American black is uniquely a white creation; but it's changing little by little.


That's what the little engine said.



I thought so. Here's an excerpt from his speech...


Seems clear enough to me.


lol...she invited me and will never again...in fact, she's rather bored with their clownishness. If I had gone and participated I would expect my friends to question my politics, but I would also expect them to believe me when I said I didn't agree with Code Pick in any way. As for inspiration...her guts are an inspiration to me as is her charity. No, I am not running for prez, as if that makes a difference in the morality side of the issue. As a matter of appearnaces, sure it matters. You're living proof of that. But a candidate can't escape every question of morality. What would people think of him if he abandonned his pastor over political statements that singled out no one in particular? Ferraro got bounced from the Clinton campaign for questionable racial comments; is she no longer Hillary's friend? Would you think better of Hillary of she told Geraldine to never darken her door again? Obama bounced Wright from his campaign. Why do we ask more of him than Hillary?





The gist I get from what he says is that that white America was wrong. One way is its treatment of blacks from the beginning of slavery. We can agree on that, can't we?




Dale! He's not running for president. Obama is, and Obama didn't say those things.


A well reasoned argument cannot be built on questionable assumptions: You condemn Obama on the assumption that Wright is a racist, that he is responsible for what Wright says if he doesn't quit the church, that speaking about past racial discrimination is racist in itself, that Wright hates America...and so forth. And as far as I can see you have made no effort to examine Wright's record over the past 40 years.

However, I agree with you on the central point: Wright said bad things and as he was Obama's pastor and mentor, Obama owed it to his supporters to explain whether he agreed with them.

gunnut

Black pride vs. white pride. They sound pretty similar to me.

Wright is a racist because he blames the current white men for the sins of their fathers, just because they're white. He believes the current white men are as evil as the white men of the past, just because they're white.

Sharpton had an interesting defense for Wright on Greta van Sustran's show on Fox. Sharpton asked exactly how is Wright a racist. Greta said he blames the white men for creating the AIDS virus to kill black men. Sharpton asked where did he say that. Greta couldn't come up with the specific words. Sharpton said he blamed the "government" not white men.

I thought that's a brilliant defense.

However, if the government is not "white" then that means blacks are also in the government. If so, then there is no discrimination and racism that these people are talking about. If there is racism and discrimination in America, as he says there are, then blacks are technically not in charge. Whites are. Therefore government = white. Blame the government for all the ills of a ethnic group without proof is racist.

__________________
"Only Nixon can go to China." -- Old Vulcan proverb.