Hi there! You are currently browsing as a guest. Why not create an account? Then you get less ads, can thank creators, post feedback, keep a list of your favourites, and more!
#501 Old 30th Mar 2008 at 1:32 AM
Quote: Originally posted by davious
Don Imus has certainly told more racially insensitive jokes than that...just like Obama's pastor has exhibited his prejudices against whites more than contained within those few clips, that the church itself published. The problem is, Nobody raised a stink about Don Imus until the Rutgers thing. Don Imus broadcasts to the public. Everyone who had a radio station in range that carried his show could hear his comments, five days a week. Nobody cared, for years. Obama's pastor's message, compared to Imus, was delivered to a very, very small audience. The Rutgers comment was really the first time anyone of note took Imus to task...much like it took the digging of a reporter to bring to light the comments that the media is now taking Wright to task for.

I would like you to point out where I ever defended Don Imus. I merely pointed out the hypocrisy of Obama condemning one instance of racism, when he had twenty years to condemn another, that was near and dear to him, and did nothing. How you construed that as me defending Imus, I don't know. Just because one is wrong, doesn't make the other Wrig...I mean right.

You ask why aren't there more clips? Because up until some news reporter started digging, nobody cared enough to pry. The only reason that the reporter found out anything was by reviewing published material by the church itself. It wasn't a secret tape recording, or anything like that, the quotes we have from Wright have caused all the stir were put out into the public by the church itself. Up until the last few weeks, nobody would have had any reason to catalog every single comment Wright ever spoke in a sermon. Its only the church's own record keeping that gave us what we have. The fact that the church published the quotes at all, showcases that they are proud of the message. If you, as the church, are going to publish DVDs, audio cassettes, etc of what's going on, is it not natural to publish those things that you think will appeal? The church isn't going to intentionally publish the controversial comments, unless they are proud of the comments. You wouldn't intentionally publish comments from your pastor that would alienate him from your intended audience. In this case, the intended audience was the black congregation of the church. So, you publish the material that you feel appeals to them, what would get them to purchase the DVDs or cassettes, or whatever. By including those comments, they must have felt that the audience would be receptive to it. Barack Obama was part of that audience. He named one of his books, "The Audacity of Hope", after one of Wright's sermons...a sermon in which Wright blamed "white greed" for all the black community's problems. So, Obama names his book after a sermon that includes deliberate race baiting? Yeah, that shows he transcends race.

If Obama truly was against ALL forms of negative ethnic comments, as he claims in his critique of Imus, he would have applied his beliefs much closer to home. He had the one chance to condemn Imus, which he took (and rightly so), he had twenty years to condemn Wright for doing the same thing, and chose not to (this is the wrong part). I object to his failure to condemn Wright, not his condemnation of Imus. Obama's actions, or lack thereof, speak louder than words ever could...they speak of double standards and hypocrisy.

The only reason Obama chooses now to distance himself from Wright, if only by a little, is because Wright became a political liability, not because Obama had a fundamental change of heart regarding his beliefs. He is distancing himself from Wright because he was losing support, not because he believes it is the right thing to do. If he believed it was the right thing to do, he should have done it years ago.


Maybe you aren't trying to defend Imus. You certainly did try to downplay his most recent actions by ignoring decades of on-air hate speech and making him out to be a guy who in your words, only told one racist joke (which was not true). But Obama is a racist because his pastor said something. Someone tell me how it is that one man, Obama, is accountable for the words of another man, while, other candidates are not accountable for the same thing, or even for the words that come out of their own mouths?

So again, in the church's own record keeping, the news media which gladly took this story and ran with it only has the two heavily edited clips as proof of Wright's "20 year legacy of hate." If there was any weight to that argument, I think Fox News, CNN and MSNBC would have more audio and video clips by now. And yet, they don't. When ImusGate went down, they had more clips than just his Nappy Headed Ho's clips.

Large churches likely have all of the sermons on audio and video tape. Some of the mega churches I've been to tape every single sermon and every single church service. It then goes to the church bookstore. And now, because the church publishes all of these, you jump to the conclusion that they are proud of it and that the entire congregation must be racist. You really have to hop the Grand Canyon to reach such a massive and unfounded conclusion. The same conclusion you must hop where chosing the title of a sermon for a book that does not at any point blame Whites for all the Black community's troubles means someone is racially divisive. Yes, Barack is the divisive candidate in an election where an opposing senator wants to make sure people remember who is White and who is Black come primary election day, and where apparently, possibly being Muslim means people will not elect you for president and is a valid reason for people to hate you. Something about the great hypocrisy there doesn't sit well with me either.

Do you really know the reason Obama has somewhat distanced himself from his pastor, or is that merely your opininon? Why, knowing exactly what they are about, has McCain not only not distanced himself from racist, sexist, homophobic, anti-Catholic and anti-Semitic clergy, but actually sought endorsements from them? Are their entire congregations under scrutiny now? What was it you said about double standards and hipocrisy again? Because from where I stand, if Obama is a hypocrite, so is McCain. So is Clinton. So is Ron Paul. So was Romney. Why is only one of them under intense media scrutiny? Why did the scrutiny start with a longtime friend of a White supremacist? I mean, isn't that just a little bit... hypocritical?
Advertisement
Theorist
#502 Old 30th Mar 2008 at 4:50 AM
Where did I actually call Obama a racist? I merely pointed out that he associates himself with racists. I pointed out that his denial of such is proved worthless, by his own words. I pointed out that his condemnation of Imus, but lack of condemnation for Wright was hypocritical...but, please, if I ever actually called Obama a racist, find the post I said it in, and please, quote it. I also never said that Obama was responsible for Wright's words. What I said, was that Obama is responsible for his OWN reactions to those words. I can't stop my friends from saying something I don't like. I can however decide whether or not I still want to call them my friends or not after they say it. I can't control them, but I can control my own reactions to it. If my white pastor at my predominantly white church started to say the things Jeremiah Wright said, but in reverse, against black people instead of white people, I can choose to walk out of the service or not. I can choose whether or not I continue my membership there. If I claim to be beyond the issue of race, if I claim that I believe in equality for all Americans, whether they be white, black, latino, asian, or whatever, and continue to attend a church for 20 plus years that preaches the denigration of a particular ethnic group, how can I in good conscience still claim to believe in the equality of everyone? Personally, I do not believe that Barack Obama is a militant black nationalist. I do believe that the criticisms surrounding him are fair though, based on his transparent cover-ups of his ties with Wright, telling us that he never heard Wright say any thing, yet, expect us to be gullible enough to accept without question, that you can attend a church for twenty years, become close friends with the pastor, and be completely shocked about something the pastor said. It just doesn't add up.

One of my favorite quotes of all time goes something like this:
A friend will tell you yes. A true friend has the courage to tell you no.

Barack Obama should have told Jeremiah Wright that his messages are hurting race relations, that he is not helping to heal the racial divide, by perpetuating prejudices. He should have told Jeremiah Wright, NO. You are wrong, Jeremiah, and I cannot continue to worship here anymore. I love you as a friend, but, I cannot in good conscience continue to attend your church, because I cannot put my faith in a message I know is wrong. I am sorry if this hurts your feelings, and I will feel regret if this ends our friendship. But, I have to choose what I know is right, even if it means severing my ties to this church. He did not do this though.

Further, show me where I have praised John McCain for never being a hypocrite, or where I praised Hillary Clinton...for anything. In fact, I believe in my comments about Obama/Wright, I have been openly critical of ALL politicians. My objection to Obama isn't that he is beneath everyone else, but that he was FALSELY praised as this absolutely perfect guy by the media, when, in fact, he is a politician, which by default, means there has to be something wrong with him. All this controversy is doing is turning "Superman" into a mere mortal, just like everyone else. John McCain isn't in the news right now because of the controversy surrounding his church. Barack Obama is. That is why Obama's hypocrisy is up front in my mind. Its current events.

Lets assume that Trinity UCC does tape every sermon, and releases every sermon for sale in their church bookstore, and doesn't censor them in any way prior to release. How does that help? How would the reporter that broke the story have any idea which specific sermons contained all of the objectionable material? Was the reporter somehow miraculously lucky in the choices made to purchase? C'mon. It is far more logical that the reporter purchased a relatively small number of tapes (35 years of sermons would amount to a ridiculously large library to sort from, making it impossible for the reporter to only selectively purchase those specific sermons that were objectionable, there is simply no way the reporter could have known ahead of time which to buy...)

Why aren't the others being scrutinized? Well, John McCain already has the Republican nomination locked up, he simply isn't newsworthy right now. The Republican side simply isn't as fun to report on as the fight between Obama and Clinton. And please, don't kid yourself. Hillary Clinton has been constantly criticized since her husband took office in 1992. In my opinion, most of it is well deserved...however, you can't tell me that you think Obama is being criticized, while Hillary hasn't. Her tactics have been ripped to shreds, her character has been under attack for years. The problem with Hillary right now, is that she has been criticized so often, and for so long, nobody is really shocked or outraged by any of it anymore. You could say we have been desensitized to Hillary's antics. Plus, neither Ron Paul or Mitt Romney are currently running for President. Why should the press spend time now to worry about people who aren't running? BUT, lets go back to when they were...Ron Paul was characterized as a nut. Some people flat out called him crazy. Mitt Romney was constantly being attacked about being a Mormon, by Democrats and Republicans alike, just like Conservatives ripped Rudy Giulani to shreds about some of his social positions...The media criticized John Edwards for his $400 haircuts, they criticized John Kerry in 2004, they criticized Gore in 2000, and then after the elections ended up going towards Bush, then proceeded to eviscerate Bush...its been 7 years since he took office, and I STILL see people complain about Bush "stealing" the White House. So, give me a break. Politicians get criticized. Show me a politician that has never been criticized or ridiculed by the press, and I will show you a politician that never rose past student council President. For a long time, however, Barack Obama somehow managed to avoid it. He somehow managed to convince the bulk of the mainstream media that he was somehow bulletproof, that he could literally do no wrong. And now, he doesn't have that protective media shell anymore. Perhaps it took a few Saturday Night Live sketches to point out to the media the fundamental truth about the favoritism towards Obama, but they seemed to have gotten the message. Now, its John McCain, Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama running for President, and not John McCain, Hillary Clinton, and God himself.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Obama on ABC's This Week, discussing Obamacare
What it's saying is, is that we're not going to have other people carrying your burdens for you anymore
umm...Isn't having other people carry your medical burden exactly what national health care is?
#503 Old 30th Mar 2008 at 5:55 AM
Yeah, well, I associate with dominatrices, homosexuals, art addicts, book worms, and child abusers. Doesn't make my any of those things...
Scholar
#504 Old 30th Mar 2008 at 6:08 AM
From what I've heard of all the Jeremiah Wright clips, he's way more anti-war and anti-establishmentarian. Nothing I've heard him say is truly anti-white, but it is highly critical of the hegemony of power that is largely held by white people, and he points out the historical and present day injustices that have led to this imbalance of power.

The only thing I heard him say that is truly WTF is about white people inventing HIV. He went waaaaaay overboard that one time
Theorist
#505 Old 30th Mar 2008 at 8:20 AM
Faithlove, the difference is, you freely admit to it. You aren't trying to cover it up at all. You haven't attempted to distance yourself from them when faced with public scrutiny, in a situation that had it not become public, you never would have attempted to abandon them. I mentioned before, that at least when Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson tried running for President, they didn't hide who they were. With Obama, he is trying to be someone different than the man his life's story would indicate. With his own thoughts, put down on page as he was writing books, we get the Barack Obama that actively disassociated himself from his white half, we get the Barack Obama that made a conscious effort to be seen with the black nationalists on campus. This is not conjecture on my part, this is not something I overheard from somewhere else, this is based on what he, Barack Obama, wrote down in his own words, in his book "Dreams of my Father". That was the Barack Obama who wasn't running for President. That was the Barack Obama who wasn't under intense public pressure to look or act a certain way, because of what it might do to some poll somewhere. That Barack Obama was much closer to being true to himself than the current Barack Obama is. I will grant that as a child, Barack Obama probably did face some racial discrimination. But, I submit that it went both ways. He also knew that if he celebrated his white half culture, he would be shunned by the black half, because they would be just as discriminatory as the whites would be. He felt pressure from both sides, and instead of remaining true to himself, instead of being BOTH white and black, instead of embracing the totality of his heritage, he made the choice to be black. (Unlike Tiger Woods, which is why I quoted from Tiger on the previous page, and consider him to be a great role model for kids of all ethnicities, whether its a single ethnicity or a mixture of multiple) He chose to ignore half of himself in favor of the other half. Now, facing the peer pressure of being a teen, it is at least, somewhat understandable. But, he carried on this trend as an adult. He sought out black nationalists for friends, then he joins a church with a pastor who has ties to them, claiming that the man brought him to his Christian faith. He remains a part of that church to this day...Now, he would like us to forget all of his past, and blindly accept the person he wants us to now believe he is, rather than the person the sum total of his life's choices have made him to be. It is no different than a Democrat that has been pro-life his or her entire life, or a Republican who has been pro-choice (yes, they do exist), that as soon as they decide its time for their run at President, suddenly and miraculously, have a change of heart...all timed conveniently to match their party's standard position on the issue. Perhaps they really do have changes of heart...but, lets be honest...we both know that a change of heart that coincides with an election cycle is going to be suspect. In the same way, Barack Obama's current stance as a completely ethnically inclusive candidate seems awfully convenient, given his past. So, I remain unconvinced of the sincerity of it all. Timing, is as they say, everything.

Had Obama distanced himself from the rhetoric of Jeremiah Wright as a private citizen, years ago, as a member of the congregation, apart from a Presidential campaign, it would have held far more credibility in my eyes. Had he done it years ago, as I believe he should have, if he truly is the man he wants me to believe he is, he would have negated my argument. People can have changes of heart. It happens. However, when that change of heart appears to coincide with an election, I remain skeptical of the motive. I have to believe that if I were as close to my pastor as he claims he was to his, and for that long of a time, that I would have understood exactly what my pastor stood for...For Barack Obama, longtime friend of Jeremiah Wright to have missed that, seems to be an incredible lapse in judgment, IF we believe Obama when he says he didn't know. I ask, how could he NOT have known?

You see Faithlove, even if might disagree with the people you hang out with (I am not saying I do, not saying I don't, posing a complete hypothetical here) the fact that you are willing to openly tell me, and aren't ashamed of it, at least makes me respect you. I don't have any problems with that at all. I would have less of a problem with Obama, if he had at least remained consistent. Even if I adamantly disagree with Obama because he is a liberal Democrat, and I do, I could have at least partially respected him for remaining true to himself. I also disagree with former VP Al Gore. However, part of me respects him, even if I disagree with him. He is out there, being himself. Global warming has been something that he has been passionate about for decades, and he has stuck with it. He didn't become an environmentalist because of political gain, indeed, being labeled an environmentalist wacko tends to lose you votes, rather than gain them. Al Gore was an environmentalist before it was trendy. He was an environmentalist when it was unpopular. While I question some of his research, I can respect the fact that he has remained consistent about it...(of course, he was one of those pro-life Dems that became pro-choice due to politics, so I lost respect for him on that) I can have more respect for someone that I adamantly disagree with that is completely open about their disagreement, than I do someone who attempts to cover it up for political purposes. Obama would NEVER have publicly distanced himself from Jeremiah Wright, had Wright's comments not been made public. He already had twenty plus years to do that, and didn't, so why should he now? He was perfectly willing to maintain the hypocrisy of being the candidate that transcends race AND being an active member of a congregation whose pastor encouraged wedges to be built to separate those races...that is, as long as he didn't get caught. He got caught, and now some people are finally calling him to task about it. His teflon coating has worn off.

Be the person you are, don't be the person someone else thinks you have to be in order to win an election. Be yourself, and be yourself uncompromisingly. I don't believe Obama has ever publicly been himself, just the Obama that he and his advisors think will win him votes...And because of that, I have little respect for him. I don't see that public Obama and private life Obama are the same person.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Obama on ABC's This Week, discussing Obamacare
What it's saying is, is that we're not going to have other people carrying your burdens for you anymore
umm...Isn't having other people carry your medical burden exactly what national health care is?
Inventor
#506 Old 30th Mar 2008 at 12:59 PM
Quote: Originally posted by robokitty
From what I've heard of all the Jeremiah Wright clips, he's way more anti-war and anti-establishmentarian. Nothing I've heard him say is truly anti-white, but it is highly critical of the hegemony of power that is largely held by white people, and he points out the historical and present day injustices that have led to this imbalance of power.

The only thing I heard him say that is truly WTF is about white people inventing HIV. He went waaaaaay overboard that one time


When you have black folks that are aware of things like the government experimenting on black men by injecting them with syphilis, it creates distrust in certain groups of Americans. There are plenty of American that feel they have cause for distrust and they are not all black folks. It is not just distrust about causes of infectious diseases but a whole range of other things.

This whole topic about Mr. Wright speaks to the distrust of a group of white folks, and the reason Obama is getting so much heat from that certain group of Americans is because of their distrust of African-American males.

If you try to stay in the center of this whole controversy you would find that African-Americans have more reasons to be distrusting as history have demonstrated time and time again. Obama has just awaken the true spirit of America and one of her names is "DISTRUST".
Welcome to American's America!:haha: :swear:
Theorist
#507 Old 30th Mar 2008 at 4:53 PM
If the true spirit of America is distrust, what is the point of trying to unify the country? If the distrust of each other is inherent, and we can never truly get past it, why should we try? If I don't trust you, because I am white and you are black, and you don't trust me, because you are black and I am white, and we have all of this mutual distrust of each other, why not simply go back to segregation? What you are arguing is that the state of distrust will never go away in America, so why should we pretend otherwise? Your position that the true spirit of America is distrust is exactly what is wrong with Jeremiah Wright's rhetoric. How can anyone who really believes that ever be credible when they claim to be trying to heal the racial divides? That kind of talk is a wedge...wedges split, they do not bring together. If Obama really wanted to be a transcendent candidate, he would have distanced himself from the divisive rhetoric many years ago, because it promotes the exact opposite of what he is trying to accomplish. Maybe constantly blaming people makes you feel better about yourself, but it doesn't really fix anything, does it? To heal divides, you have to find common ground, not whip up a frenzy between the two sides.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Obama on ABC's This Week, discussing Obamacare
What it's saying is, is that we're not going to have other people carrying your burdens for you anymore
umm...Isn't having other people carry your medical burden exactly what national health care is?
#508 Old 30th Mar 2008 at 5:23 PM
Les clear something away, I do not know the primary of politic in my country, so you know how much I know about whats going on with politics in your country. but that does not means I don't have any thoughts on the matters. hence this is an outsider's thought on the Obama-Clinton situation.

The republican party are gonna win if this obama-clinton situation continues. so shake hands and make sure the democratic party wins, who cares if its obama or clinton as long as its not another bush.
Field Researcher
#509 Old 30th Mar 2008 at 5:45 PM
Quote: Originally posted by robokitty
From what I've heard of all the Jeremiah Wright clips, he's way more anti-war and anti-establishmentarian. Nothing I've heard him say is truly anti-white, but it is highly critical of the hegemony of power that is largely held by white people, and he points out the historical and present day injustices that have led to this imbalance of power.

The only thing I heard him say that is truly WTF is about white people inventing HIV. He went waaaaaay overboard that one time


Exactly! However, judging by the numerous 14 paragraph theses that have been written in this thread alone, you'd think he was the anti-Christ. What I find most amusing is how certain people pick and choose single statements from Rev. Wright's sermons and excerpts from Obama's books to fit their own twisted agendas. Shame on anyone gullible enough to not do the research on their own to hear/read the sermons/books in their ENTIRETY.

Great post, robokitty!
Lab Assistant
#510 Old 30th Mar 2008 at 5:55 PM
Quote: Originally posted by robokitty
From what I've heard of all the Jeremiah Wright clips, he's way more anti-war and anti-establishmentarian. Nothing I've heard him say is truly anti-white, but it is highly critical of the hegemony of power that is largely held by white people, and he points out the historical and present day injustices that have led to this imbalance of power.

The only thing I heard him say that is truly WTF is about white people inventing HIV. He went waaaaaay overboard that one time



This post isn't aimed at you, robokitty, but your words got me to thinking...

Wright is angry and ignorant of many things based on the little I've heard of him in these clips that have surfaced. But seeing as how a racist is someone who thinks their "race" is superior to others, I think that term has been thrown around too lightly in this debate, as it pertains to Wright. As Obama said, he's known Wright for decades compared to the rest of us who've never given him a second thought or never heard of him before this election. Therefore, he's acquainted with the full essence of the man, which obviously is why they've remained friends for so long. I think Obama would be the better judge of what type of person Wright is compared to any of us. I don't think that Obama has distanced himself from Wright at all. I mean, just listen to what he's been saying the past couple weeks. He repeatedly refers to Wright as family, even with all the scrutiny and desperate attacks at Obama's character. So how is that distancing himself from anyone and being dishonest about their relationship? Truth is, not all that Wright has said is false, and so if Obama actually agrees with some of what Wright has to say (which is obvious) then I applaud Obama for not being some politically correct robot who only says what people want to hear for the sake of winning the presidency, but for being someone who, like I said before, can see the problem of race relations from various sides of the field and not just from one perspective.
Inventor
#511 Old 30th Mar 2008 at 5:58 PM
Devious, sometimes you can’t fix anything unless you know/aware of what it is you are fixing. The way I see it, everything is going to come together nicely and a little straining of the dregs is not as bad as it looks. Once it all hits the air, it will all be less smelly. Enjoy the process, the pain only last for a little while! :haha: :sprint:

The youth of America are awesome and Martin Luther King’s remaining children and grandchildren may see and experience what he was talking and dreaming about. Thank God for the children as they are the hope of America. Yes we can!:grouphug:
#512 Old 30th Mar 2008 at 8:35 PM
Wright does not = Obama

End of story.


And I Think Obama has been consistent.
The political move would have been to say "he's an angry, ignorant man and I'm not speaking to him any more"... but instead he said he loved him. Which is probably true.
He's consistent in the face of scrutiny. Atleast that's honesty.

And I totally disagree with some of my friend's choices... and most of my family's beliefs. But I don't feel the need to change everybody... or to only associate with people like myself.
I think I know how Obama feels... because I know where he's coming from.
Theorist
#513 Old 30th Mar 2008 at 8:38 PM
I think we all know that there are problems that need fixing, UrisStar, its not a matter of awareness. But there comes a point when you have to stop talking, and start doing. And then, there comes a point where you just sit back and watch. Yeah, there was discrimination in the United States. Everyone knows that. Nobody has disputed that. But what Jeremiah Wright and his kind fail to realize, is that we do not live in the 1960s anymore. The world that he tried to change back then, changed. He just fails to either realize that...of course, it could be intentional. Jeremiah Wright's power over his congregation is based on getting them to cling to the notion that white people are responsible for all of the black peoples' problems. As long as his audience believes in the continued victimization of black people at the hands of white people, he remains relevant to them. As soon as his flock realize that the America he preaches about no longer exists, he loses his relevancy.

Frankly, I am disappointed with Obama on this. Considering the educations both he and Michelle have received, neither of them have an excuse for failing to realize that the America of Wright's sermons does not match the America of their everyday lives, that they should have known better. Barack Obama would know damn well that AIDS was not created by the American government, he would know that the American government has not used drugs as a weapon to take down inner city black culture, both of which Wright claimed. Obama would know that common sense would indicate Jesus Christ was a Jew, and not black, just as white people with any common sense would understand that Jesus was not white, either. Obama would be educated enough to understand that Jesus was a brother, certainly...but he was a brother to everyone, red and yellow, black and white...they are all precious in His sight, as the song goes. Barack Obama would know that Jeremiah Wright was preaching fiction to his congregation. Yet he did nothing about it. THAT is what is important to me. Strength of character, of conviction. As a white American of European descent, I would gladly have cast my vote for Colin Powell, a black man, because I believe that Colin Powell's idea of what is right, and my idea of what is right, are compatible. I believe that Colin Powell is a man of integrity. I would vote for Powell because of the man he is, and what he believes in. His color has nothing at all to do with it. I will not vote for Obama should he become the Democratic nominee, because I don't share his values. I don't believe in the same things the Democratic party does, I don't believe the choices that he has made in regards to the company he keeps have been wise, nor do I believe he has the proper experience that I think should be required to run a country.

This discussion has been about race, because the controversy surrounding Obama's relationship to Jeremiah Wright concerned Wright's comments regarding race. It could have just as easily have been something else...like perhaps Obama has been an outspoken critic of drunk drivers, and then gets busted for drunk driving, or gets caught in a Congressional courtyard with a cigarette, while claiming to be anti-tobacco, or something else where it become a matter of them telling you to listen to do what they say, and not what they do...its a credibility issue. A person who claims to be opposed to drunk driving doesn't drive drunk, a person that is completely against smoking shouldn't get caught with a ciggy in his mouth, and someone that claims to be a racial unifier shouldn't attend a church whose message is racially divisive. its counter-productive.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Obama on ABC's This Week, discussing Obamacare
What it's saying is, is that we're not going to have other people carrying your burdens for you anymore
umm...Isn't having other people carry your medical burden exactly what national health care is?
Scholar
#514 Old 30th Mar 2008 at 8:53 PM
Wright himself is an unusual character--from what I've learned (it's not necessarily absolute, but I think it is accurate), he's a former U.S. Marine, PFC, and valedictorian of the Marine School at Great Lakes Naval Training Center, and received three presidential commendations from President Johnson.

I've had a chance to hear some of his rhetoric....I can see how many would consider it alarming, but it's not going to earn him the sort of enemies and critics, say, Pat Robertson has in overseas listeners, in that it's not particularly new or impressive.

I suspect part (not necessarily all, of course, but certainly part) of the problem is the sort of deep cultural gap between Black Conservative and White Conservative Churches in the United States. Now, it's not to say that all Americans are either in White or Black Churches--far from that. But a qualification for being in politics is being religious in this country, so the sort of people that run for president are likely to be from conservative religious churches.

Going back to his rhetoric...at the risk of sounding like a dirty, pinko, communist flag-burning deviant, it's not quite as bad as I was led to believe. It's not new by any means--indeed, most of it seems to be grievances from the past twenty or thirty years that Wright (and others) probably feel were never addressed. It is unpatriotic...but for me personally, it's not hard to see where these grievances come from, and I'm not an American national, much less a Black American.

"We're on sob day two of Operation Weeping-Bald-Eagle-Liberty-Never-Forget-Freedom-Watch sniff no word yet sob on our missing patriot Glenn Beck sob as alleged-President Hussein Obama shows his explicit support sniff for his fellow communists by ruling out the nuclear option."
Inventor
#515 Old 31st Mar 2008 at 2:09 AM
davious, I think you are missing the big picture, the people that attend Mr. Wright's church seem to be mostly educated folks and folks that seem to be financially well off. I hear names like Oprah and other high end names are members. What that say to me is that these people will tell you that even though they have done all the things America say for them to do to be a success in America, they are still having issues with being treated fairly in America. It could be something small to bigger issues that only they can share. Going shopping and or other things, they are still being treated like they are thugs out to take what do not belong to them, just because of the color of their skin. I looked pass Obama to the other 6,000 or 8,000 that attend that church, and I got to tell you it paint a picture that maybe only another black person can easily understand, I don't know how else to express it.

I am not on the same page with you on this one as I still see some things still going on that speaks to there still being some gross unfair practices that should not be any part of America. Maybe you need to look higher, deeper and longer!:monkey: Synthesis has come very close to getting it for not being what he is not!:hide:

Great post Synthesis!
Lab Assistant
#516 Old 31st Mar 2008 at 2:42 AM
Quote: Originally posted by urisStar
What that say to me is that these people will tell you that even though they have done all the things America say for them to do to be a success in America, they still having issues with being treated fairly in America. It could be something small to bigger issues that only they can share. Going shopping and or other things, they are still being treated like they are thugs out to take what do not belong to them, just because of the color of their skins.


I got to tell you it paint a picture that maybe only another black person can easily understand, I don't know how else to express it.



That's the problem I have with this whole thing....people who assume and make their assumptions into what they want to believe as fact.

I can tell you that the people who congregate at Trinity are mainly middle to upper-class black people who have four year degrees at the least - though that does not impress me or make them incapable of being ignorant in other areas.

Another thing I can tell you is that, to understand their viewpoint, it may not even be enough to just be black. For example, Trinity is located on the So. Side of Chicago. I was born and raised here, and when I describe the racial climate on the So. Side to some of my black friends who live in other states, they are even a little amazed by what I tell them. Don't get me wrong, Chicago is not the same city it was when my parents (who are in their early 50s) used to get rocks thrown at them, heckled and spit at by whites whenever they tried to go west of the Dan Ryan expressway. However, it's still one of the most segregated cities in this country. I can pinpoint exactly what neighborhoods are black, Hispanic, white, asian, etc. I can tell you which schools are black, hispanic (hell, Mexican), and white. When I need to go shopping, I already know that, to get better selections of clothes, food, etc, I should go into the white people's hoods or either downtown. Now, there are some schools and communities that have been successful when it comes to integration, such as Hyde Park, Beverly and.....I'm sure there are others. :confused: But at the same time, I know not to venture into Bridgeport after dark. Back in college, I remember this white guy from the suburbs told me that his parents told him never to ride the El into the So. Side because it was this dangerous place. When I tell blacks from other cities these stories, they can't always relate. But this is the city Obama and Wright have lived in for years, so this is the reality they speak of. Believe it or not, watching the news and quoting from a few internet sources isn't always enough to make one knowledgeable on a subject. I just think before one says what decisions another person should make, they should at least have experienced what the other person has.
Inventor
#517 Old 31st Mar 2008 at 3:35 AM
chynableu, your story doesn’t speak for Chicago along as you can find that in most states of America. I can relate to knowing where to go and where to shop. I also don’t chose to live in an all black neighborhood as the homeowners and car insurance are higher. At the grocery store the food is old and more expensive and the schools don’t leave much to be desired, so to sum it all up, who feels it knows it!

Obama is a true friend and understand it is not the man you denounce and reject. The words were not Obama’s and for me not being a church person, the more people get all heated up about this church the more I wish I was in the area to check out his church. Just the culture and the promotion of black pride would be something I would like my granddaughters to experience.
Good thing I don't have any political aspirations! :laugh:
Scholar
#518 Old 31st Mar 2008 at 3:54 AM
Quote: Originally posted by chynableu

Another thing I can tell you is that, to understand their viewpoint, it may not even be enough to just be black. For example, Trinity is located on the So. Side of Chicago. I was born and raised here, and when I describe the racial climate on the So. Side to some of my black friends who live in other states, they are even a little amazed by what I tell them.


I have a few general thoughts in response to this.


There are two main reasons why people engage in discussion—to “win” and to understand. In discussions involving politics, people argue for the former reason far more than the latter.

However, to approach the issue of race relations with the desire to be “right” and to “win” damages any hope of understanding between the races. Everyone’s experience with racism is different. There is no single, correct black experience in America just as there is no single, correct white experience. I see countless discussions on race being damaged because one person projects their own experience of being white/colored on what other people’s experiences should be. If one black person feels they do not experience discrimination, it does not give them the right to dismiss the experiences of other black people who say they do experience it.

As far as I can tell, there are two salient attitudes concerning how we should treat race.
  1. To eliminate racism, we should be colorblind and force ourselves not to see race so that it disappears. This includes abolishing affirmative action and equal condemnation of racist comments against all colors.
  2. Racism exists and is ingrained in our society. In order to properly address issues of racism today, we cannot be colorblind to the fact that certain minorities are disproportionately represented in prisons, as high-school drop outs, have lower incomes, victims of hate crimes, etc.

Both of these views are correct in their own ways. I think solution #1 is ideal in a society where racism no longer exists, where there is equal representation of power by all. And honestly, I think it is an overly simplistic, idealistic solution to the complex issue of race. It’s like expecting a “yes/no” answer to a question that requires a book to answer. In the process of being “colorblind,” I believe the consequence will be ignoring the disproportionately large amount of sh*t people of color have to deal with.

Bringing this back to the issue of Obama’s relation with Wright, I don’t believe that cutting off all ties with Wright is the way to understand and bring together the races because doing so would completely dismiss the racial experiences of a large group of people. I think that the idea that Obama should condemn Wright is tied to solution #1, where everyone should just be colorblind and move on. It sounds good in practice, but it ignores the legitimate disenfranchisement of a large group of people who have experienced discrimination, who want to be heard and understood. There is no “you’re either with us or you’re against us” in this case. It’s an issue of trying to understand where people come from.
Scholar
#519 Old 31st Mar 2008 at 3:34 PM
Quote: Originally posted by robokitty
  1. To eliminate racism, we should be colorblind and force ourselves not to see race so that it disappears. This includes abolishing affirmative action and equal condemnation of racist comments against all colors.
  2. Racism exists and is ingrained in our society. In order to properly address issues of racism today, we cannot be colorblind to the fact that certain minorities are disproportionately represented in prisons, as high-school drop outs, have lower incomes, victims of hate crimes, etc.


I might be mistaken, but I think one of the reasons that option number one is so popular is that while it gives the appearance of fairness, it is really the option that it requires the minimum effort--essentially, it's claiming "racism will go away if you ignore it hard enough".

I can understand why it's attractive to so many people, but I honestly think that it's not even viable anymore. It's not a new idea by any means, and I wonder if it's benefited anyone.

Unfortunately, it boils down into an argument between the "haves" and "have nots"--the "haves", whomever they are, might argue that option one saves the dignity of those in question, while the "have nots" argue that it simply allows the inherently unfair status-quo to continue.

"We're on sob day two of Operation Weeping-Bald-Eagle-Liberty-Never-Forget-Freedom-Watch sniff no word yet sob on our missing patriot Glenn Beck sob as alleged-President Hussein Obama shows his explicit support sniff for his fellow communists by ruling out the nuclear option."
Moderator of Extreme Limericks
#520 Old 31st Mar 2008 at 9:10 PM
Well guys... you've all raised some good points, and there have been some solid arguments, but I think it's about time to close this thread. It's definitely surpassed the 500 post mark, and it's just starting to get too huge and unwieldy.

:locked

There's always money in the banana stand.
 
Page 21 of 21
Back to top