# Jeremiah Wright



## BertieW (Jan 17, 2006)

I thought this did a fine job of going behind the soundbites:

https://www.pbs.org/moyers/journal/04252008/profile.html

Doesn't answer everything, but did present a three-dimensional human being (or at least someone I hadn't seen in the coverage up until now).


----------



## Helvetia (Apr 8, 2008)

"But behind the five second loop is a man who has preached three different sermons nearly every Sunday since 1972." 

Wow! That says a lot right there.


----------



## Acct2000 (Sep 24, 2005)

I suppose he has a right to say what he wants. I still think the more extreme stuff reflects badly on him. AIDS is not something that was invented to bring genocide to black people.

I also don't know that I would want a president who takes this nonsense seriously.


----------



## ksinc (May 30, 2005)

I respect the right of a person to have whatever stupid opinion they want and to speak about it on their own dime. A person can think whatever he wants about the government, aids, white people, chickens, or whatever and I really don't care. I don't care about some idiot teaching black values, aryan values, or martian values. 

Someone that has served this country deserves an extra pass on resentment towards the government IMHO.

All that said; There is simply no context that excuses someone calling themself a Christian, much less Reverend, to stand on a pulpit and say "GD" anything. Zero. 

As far as that being "GD America" goes ... that's a different topic.


----------



## Wayfarer (Mar 19, 2006)

I think that this entire situation is rather humorous. The sound bites were attacked as being out of context, presented by biased right wing sources. So how do we rectify that? By giving him an unchallenged platform on a left wing show, where the host makes no pretense at doing anything other than being a cheering squad for Wright. While I am happy that Bill feels good, finally having done something he figures will help Obama, I sincerely hope I am not the only one to find the irony of what passes for "balance" funny.


----------



## Spence (Feb 28, 2006)

Wayfarer said:


> I think that this entire situation is rather humorous. The sound bites were attacked as being out of context, presented by biased right wing sources. So how do we rectify that? By giving him an unchallenged platform on a left wing show, where the host makes no pretense at doing anything other than being a cheering squad for Wright. While I am happy that Bill feels good, finally having done something he figures will help Obama, I sincerely hope I am not the only one to find the irony of what passes for "balance" funny.


Yes, everything is about political positioning. Can't he just interview the man?

I found it to be very interesting and the context he provided for some of the inflamatory sound bits very enlightening. While he certainly holds some silly beliefs, this entire to-do is just a pre-emptive hit job on Obama, and an ugly one at that.

What's really sad is how much attention this entire topic has been given, rather than discussing the real challenges our country faces.

-spence


----------



## ksinc (May 30, 2005)

Spence said:


> What's really sad is how much attention this entire topic has been given, rather than discussing the real challenges our country faces.
> 
> -spence


I've heard that about 1,000 times by now from all different sorts of people. I often wonder who the first person to say that was?


----------



## ksinc (May 30, 2005)

Spence said:


> I found ... the context he provided for some of the inflamatory sound bits very enlightening.
> 
> -spence


How so?

Are you aware that his explanation that he was quoting Peck has been proven to be a lie? Peck never said what Wright said.

The most enlightening part of the interview IMHO was that Wright completely debunked the concept that Obama is anything other than a typical politician and chooses his words strictly for political purposes. So much for a new kind of candidate.


----------



## chatsworth osborne jr. (Feb 2, 2008)

*I see no inconsistency in this man*



ksinc said:


> There is simply no context that excuses someone calling themself a Christian, much less Reverend, to stand on a pulpit and say "GD" anything. Zero.


I disagree, example one being the the title of an Ugly Kid Joe song, "G*dd*mn Devil." It's not like Wright was gratuitously profane like the nut from The Spirit of Truth.


ksinc said:


> As far as that being "GD America" goes ... that's a different topic.


America being damned by God is a claim that conservative evangelicals have been saying for years now. I didn't mind Falwell or Robertson and certainly can't make an exception for Wright.


----------



## ksinc (May 30, 2005)

chatsworth osborne jr. said:


> I disagree, example one being the the title of an Ugly Kid Joe song, "G*dd*mn Devil." It's not like Wright was gratuitously profane like the nut from The Spirit of Truth.
> 
> America being damned by God is a claim that conservative evangelicals have been saying for years now. I didn't mind Falwell or Robertson and certainly can't make an exception for Wright.


So, a song and another blasphemous idiot provide context and justification for Wright? You lost me there. I don't support the moral relativism argument.

I certainly don't want to defend Robertson and Falwell. However, if you find them saying what Wright did, I'll condemn them too. I think you will find what they said is rather different. Although perhaps controversial in many ways, it's not exactly blasphemous. Are some of their comments stupid? Absolutely. I don't go to their church or support their ministry. There's a big difference between proposing that America's immorality has removed God's blessing and protection from our Nation extolling a return to traditional values; and actually screaming "GD America!" from a pulpit IMHO.



> 2 Chronicles 7:14 If my people, which are called by my name, shall humble themselves, and pray, and seek my face, and turn from their wicked ways; then will I hear from heaven, and will forgive their sin, and will heal their land.


What you are expressing is an different opinion. That's great. I respect that. May we assume you do ask to be called "Reverend?"


----------



## maxnharry (Dec 3, 2004)

Spence said:


> Yes, everything is about political positioning. Can't he just interview the man?
> 
> I found it to be very interesting and the context he provided for some of the inflamatory sound bits very enlightening. While he certainly holds some silly beliefs, this entire to-do is just a pre-emptive hit job on Obama, and an ugly one at that.
> 
> ...


Certainly not the first man of the cloth with silly beliefs:

Pat Robertson - "Just like what Nazi Germany did to the Jews, so liberal America is now doing to the evangelical Christians. It's no different. It is the same thing. It is happening all over again. It is the Democratic Congress, the liberal-based media and the homosexuals who want to destroy the Christians. Wholesale abuse and discrimination and the worst bigotry directed toward any group in America today. More terrible than anything suffered by any minority in history."

"Maybe we need a very small nuke thrown off on Foggy Bottom to shake things up" -Pat Robertson, on nuking the State Department


----------



## Cruiser (Jul 21, 2006)

ksinc said:


> Someone that has served this country deserves an extra pass on resentment towards the government IMHO.


Timothy McVeigh received a Bronze Star for combat in Operation Desert Storm. Benedict Arnold was a General in the Continental Army who had distinguished himself by his bravery in combat against the British. I realize that their offenses were far greater than were Wright's and as a veteran I somewhat agree with you; however, some of Wright's comments went beyond an extra pass.

As for being taken out of context or needing more "background" information, some of what Wright said cannot be justified in any context or with any additional background information. There can be no justification for saying that White's created aids to eliminate Blacks or that the U.S. deserved what it got on 9-11. These things simply cannot be justified in any "context". The words are what they are.

Cruiser


----------



## ksinc (May 30, 2005)

maxnharry said:


> Certainly not the first man of the cloth with silly beliefs:


Yes; and Stalin didn't do anything Hitler didn't do first.

In other relevant news ... Cain killed Abel.


----------



## Wayfarer (Mar 19, 2006)

Maybe I am slowing down. Can someone explain to me how anything say, Pat Robertson said, in any way justifies or excuses something any other person on the planet said? 

Oh yeah, it does not. 

This is not a game of "gotcha" where we all get to find quotes various people said. I also notice that all the Wright defenders are picking right wing people...I guess the thought is left wing preachers will not justify Wright? 

This is a (supposed) discussion on what Wright said and nothing else is pertinent.


----------



## maxnharry (Dec 3, 2004)

Wayfarer said:


> Maybe I am slowing down. Can someone explain to me how anything say, Pat Robertson said, in any way justifies or excuses something any other person on the planet said?
> 
> Oh yeah, it does not.
> 
> ...


I dont know you long enough to know if you're slowing down....

I didn't use Pat Robertson's asshattery to offset anything that Wright said. I used Robertson's asshattery to demonstrate that many preachers say things to their flocks that are seemingly acceptable in the church, but inflammatory to outsiders

As to it being a game of gotcha, that's exactly what this Wright business has become. Certain camps are using it to build guilt by association with Obama, but hypocritically don't draw the same conclusion with McCain and noted American Taliban leaders Hagee and Robertson.

We Americans dont seem able to grow up and discuss the things that we actually like and dislike about candidates.


----------



## Acct2000 (Sep 24, 2005)

You are grossly overestimating the connection between McCain and the right wing preachers, neither of whose politics I admire. Robertson, in my opinion, is also a major league hypocrite.

However, neither of them are anywhere near as destructive as the Taliban. (By the way, the Taliban is all about the suppression of women; isn't that a left-wing sacrilege?)

Ratcheting the rhetoric up to the level of comparing people whose biggest offenses are with words to the Taliban makes it quite easy to dismiss what could at least be an arguable point. In no way do I consider Robertson a good man; Hagy's brand of Christianity also differs from mine. Robertson can also espouse some difficult to believe ideas. 

However, these do not excuse Wright for the inflammatory stuff he does.

Both the right wing and left wing need to take a ten-year time-out as far as I'm concerned.


----------



## Relayer (Nov 9, 2005)

maxnharry - "Certain camps are using it to build guilt by association with Obama, but hypocritically don't draw the same conclusion with McCain and noted American Taliban leaders Hagee and Robertson."

If McCain called either Hagee or Robertson his "spiritual mentor" or was a member of their congregation for 20 years, you might have a case. 

Your comparison doesn't hold water.


----------



## chatsworth osborne jr. (Feb 2, 2008)

*Damn thee, Satan!*



ksinc said:


> So, a song and another blasphemous idiot provide context and justification for Wright? You lost me there.


Lucifer was damned to Hell by God. 'God damned Devil' is merely a statement of fact, not blasphemy.

Likewise, anyone agreeing with statements like the one below (temporal vs. eternal damnation, but still) could say "GD America" without being unpatriotic or blasphemous. 
JERRY FALWELL:... the Lord has protected us so wonderfully these 225 years... if, in fact--God continues to lift the curtain and allow the enemies of America to give us probably what we deserve.









BTW, I do not discredit the opinion that the US may have fallen out of God's favor.


----------



## ksinc (May 30, 2005)

chatsworth osborne jr. said:


> Lucifer was damned to Hell by God. 'God damned Devil' is merely a statement of fact, not blasphemy.
> 
> Likewise, anyone agreeing with statements like the one below (temporal vs. eternal damnation, but still) could say "GD America" without being unpatriotic or blasphemous.
> JERRY FALWELL:... the Lord has protected us so wonderfully these 225 years... if, in fact--God continues to lift the curtain and allow the enemies of America to give us probably what we deserve.
> ...


Perhaps they could say it, but they couldn't say it without being unpatriotic or blasphemous. There are lines. One statement is across the line and one is not.


----------



## Wayfarer (Mar 19, 2006)

The lack of critical thinking ability displayed in this thread is part of all that is wrong with the US.


----------



## maxnharry (Dec 3, 2004)

Relayer said:


> maxnharry - "Certain camps are using it to build guilt by association with Obama, but hypocritically don't draw the same conclusion with McCain and noted American Taliban leaders Hagee and Robertson."
> 
> If McCain called either Hagee or Robertson his "spiritual mentor" or was a member of their congregation for 20 years, you might have a case.
> 
> Your comparison doesn't hold water.


Point taken. I agree that the relationship between Wright and Obama is vastly different than McCain and Hagee. I just don't think the Wright issue should be the centerpiece of this campaign. The guilt by association tactic really has gotten tiresome.


----------



## Spence (Feb 28, 2006)

ksinc said:


> Are you aware that his explanation that he was quoting Peck has been proven to be a lie? Peck never said what Wright said.


Who cares?

What I haven't seen is any discussion about the substance of his sermons. Not sound bites, but the actual message he's sending.

To discuss Wright out of this context just seems to be a waste of time.

-spence


----------



## ksinc (May 30, 2005)

Spence said:


> Who cares?
> 
> What I haven't seen is any discussion about the substance of his sermons. Not sound bites, but the actual message he's sending.
> 
> ...


Well you only have yourself to blame for that, huh?

I've seen many discussions of Wright's other sermons and the entire sermons of the clips in question. Are you in Gitmo or something? Try Google or YouTube. You can read and/or watch a bunch of his sermons in whatever context you like. You can even order the DVDs from his church.

If you don't care it seems silly to read or post in a thread titled "Jeremiah Wright."

In addition, you said you found the context of his comments enlightening. Which is it, you don't care or it's enlightening? The enlightened context of his comment was a lie. That's relevant. It matters because Wright has claimed he wasn't saying America's chickens came home to roost, but that he was quoting Peck. That has been proven false. Bill Moyers let him have a complete pass on it.


----------



## Karl89 (Feb 20, 2005)

chatsworth osborne jr.,

Clearly you don't think McCain should have engaged Falwell. I wonder, however, if you think the US should engage Iran, and if so does that mean that you consider the Falwell crowd worse the regime in Tehran?

Karl


----------



## Spence (Feb 28, 2006)

ksinc said:


> In addition, you said you found the context of his comments enlightening. Which is it, you don't care or it's enlightening? The enlightened context of his comment was a lie. That's relevant. It matters because Wright has claimed he wasn't saying America's chickens came home to roost, but that he was quoting Peck. That has been proven false. Bill Moyers let him have a complete pass on it.


Enlightening as in they gave me a better understanding of many soundbites that are being taken out of context.

Quoting Peck or not doesn't change the intent of his sermon on the subject, you're not seeing the forest through the trees. I would say that the overall public discussion, the one most people receive their info from, is presenting a distorted view of Wright...

Wright has been taken to the woodshed over his trip to Libya where he met with Khadafi in 1984. I looked it up and it turns out he was on a mission of mercy to help free a captured Navy pilot shot down over Lebanon!

The man seems far from perfect and I've said before he certainly seems to believe in some wacky things. I'm not about to defend his comments on HIV, although I'd note that there are a lot of people who do believe those theories.

But in context many of the soundbites come from sermons that present very reasonable arguments which appear to be born from a genuine Christian belief in compassion. People may not like his tone or approach, but to let that color your perception is simply weak. They hear GD America and it's like their brains shut down. Hell, I've heard worse things said by our own elected leadership on the floor of Congress. Perhaps they should visit a good modern art museum and really get offended...

I hear people speaking about the man as if he's evil incarnate, comparing him to Hitler etc... and I just can't comprehend how silly it all is that this was born from a series of video clips assembled for political purposes!

For the record I'm not an Obama supporter. Still in the McCain camp until he ticks me off with these al Qaeda in Iraq comments 

-spence


----------



## jackmccullough (May 10, 2006)

*Out of context?*

REVEREND JEREMIAH WRIGHT: Where governments lie, God does not lie. Where governments change, God does not change. And I'm through now. But let me leave you with one more thing. Governments fail. The government in this text comprised of Caesar, Cornelius, Pontius Pilate - the Roman government failed. The British government used to rule from East to West. The British government had a Union Jack. She colonized Kenya, Ghana, Nigeria, Jamaica, Barbados, Trinidad and Hong Kong. Her navies ruled the seven seas all the way down to the tip of Argentina in the Falklands, but the British government failed. The Russian government failed. The Japanese government failed. The German government failed. And the United States of America government, when it came to treating her citizens of Indian descent fairly, she failed. She put them on reservations. When it came to treating her citizens of Japanese descent fairly, she failed. She put them in internment prison camps. When it came to treating citizens of African descent fairly, America failed. She put them in chains. The government put them on slave quarters, put them on auction blocks, put them in cotton fields, put them in inferior schools, put them in substandard housing, put them in scientific experiments, put them in the lowest paying jobs, put them outside the equal protection of the law, kept them out of their racist bastions of higher education and locked them into position of hopelessness and helplessness. The government . . . builds bigger prisons, passes a three-strike law, and then wants us to sing God bless America? No, no, no. . . . That's in the Bible, for killing innocent people. . . .

Anyone want to argue with what he says here?


----------



## Wayfarer (Mar 19, 2006)

jackmccullough said:


> REVEREND JEREMIAH WRIGHT: Where governments lie, God does not lie. Where governments change, God does not change.
> Anyone want to argue with what he says here?


I do.

1) I do not believe in "God", ergo his statement is nonsensical to me.

2) The concept of "God" is constantly changing.


----------



## pt4u67 (Apr 27, 2006)

Spence said:


> Who cares?
> 
> What I haven't seen is any discussion about the substance of his sermons. Not sound bites, but the actual message he's sending.
> 
> ...


Interesting. Seems to me the substance of his sermon was captured in those "sound bites." As for context, could you please define the context into which those "sound bites" make sense unless of course one is willing to admit that he's a race bating charlatan.



jackmccullough said:


> REVEREND JEREMIAH WRIGHT: Where governments lie, God does not lie. Where governments change, God does not change. And I'm through now. But let me leave you with one more thing. Governments fail. The government in this text comprised of Caesar, Cornelius, Pontius Pilate - the Roman government failed. The British government used to rule from East to West. The British government had a Union Jack. She colonized Kenya, Ghana, Nigeria, Jamaica, Barbados, Trinidad and Hong Kong. Her navies ruled the seven seas all the way down to the tip of Argentina in the Falklands, but the British government failed. The Russian government failed. The Japanese government failed. The German government failed. And the United States of America government, when it came to treating her citizens of Indian descent fairly, she failed. She put them on reservations. When it came to treating her citizens of Japanese descent fairly, she failed. She put them in internment prison camps. When it came to treating citizens of African descent fairly, America failed. She put them in chains. The government put them on slave quarters, put them on auction blocks, put them in cotton fields, put them in inferior schools, put them in substandard housing, put them in scientific experiments, put them in the lowest paying jobs, put them outside the equal protection of the law, kept them out of their racist bastions of higher education and locked them into position of hopelessness and helplessness. The government . . . builds bigger prisons, passes a three-strike law, and then wants us to sing God bless America? No, no, no. . . . That's in the Bible, for killing innocent people. . . .
> 
> Anyone want to argue with what he says here?


I will argue against every word. First of all, where is the word of God in all of that. That sounds more like a speech by a secularist politician than a "reverend". Every point he made is ridiculous and completely absolves the audience of any personal and political responsibility. Governments lie, sure. And so do race bating, bamboozling, demagogue preachers. But no, God does not lie.

I would ask the good reverend to also point out that notions of freedom, law, and citizens rights established by the Romans live on today and form part of the reason he can say the things he can without being thrown in jail or killed as in many parts of the world.

The thing about Wright is that for years and years people like him have been saying things like this without many really paying attention. Why? Because in the final analysis they really don't matter. But now we have a presidential candidate who has had a close relationship with this guy for 20 years. Has given money to his church and has called him a "spiritual adviser." Given that we don't know much about Obama except that he can't bowl but has a mean lay up, I'd say that's something serious.


----------



## ksinc (May 30, 2005)

Wayfarer said:


> 1) I do not believe in "God"


IIRC, Jack doesn't either.


----------



## Wayfarer (Mar 19, 2006)

ksinc said:


> IIRC, Jack doesn't either.


Then he was just trolling IMO.


----------



## ksinc (May 30, 2005)

jackmccullough said:


> And the United States of America government ...
> ... When it came to treating citizens of African descent fairly, America failed. She put them in chains. The government put them on slave quarters, put them on auction blocks ...
> 
> Anyone want to argue with what he says here?


Sure, I will. That's an absolute absurdity. The USA Government did not put them in chains, on slave quarters, or on auction blocks. Do you want to argue that?

Wright is supposedly an educated man. Do you think he knows who sold most of those slaves to the southern slave traders? Specifically, do you think he is ignorant of history or intentionally misleading his flock in the name of God while taking that name in vain?

It's also curious that Wright didn't say "GD Britain, Russia, Germany, and Japan", but singled out America. While some of his statements are true, it's mostly those about other countries with exceptions for the policies of the USA Government regarding [Native Americans] and the Japanese during WW2. Wright doesn't really seemed outraged by the actual atrocities committed by governments only those he imagines. I wonder what percentage of Trinity UCoC is either Native American or Japanese?


----------



## chatsworth osborne jr. (Feb 2, 2008)

*McCain is married to an addict that stole drugs from a charity she ran. Scary!*



Karl89 said:


> I wonder, however, if you think the US should engage Iran, and if so does that mean that you consider the Falwell crowd worse the regime in Tehran?


I see no reason to hassle Iran. Not sure which regime you're referring to, but opposing religious extremists have more in common with each other than they do with non-extremists. I never said that Falwell or any Muslim group was bad. Secular Saddam Hussein was better for Iraq (and the US) than anything thus far.


pt4u67 said:


> Because in the final analysis [Wright et al] really don't matter. But now we have a presidential candidate who has had a close relationship with this guy for 20 years... I'd say that's something serious.


Should we be afraid that Obama will have the government invent a disease to kill white people? Please explain the worst case scenario, so that I may be afraid. Perhaps even more afraid than I am of a third Bush term (or McCain, same thing).

Oh, ksinc is correct in that African slaves were already enslaved by rival tribes before being sold. The notion that ****** was hunting blacks as if they were baby seals is absurd, and I doubt Obama will echo it.


----------



## pt4u67 (Apr 27, 2006)

chatsworth osborne jr. said:


> Should we be afraid that Obama will have the government invent a disease to kill white people? Please explain the worst case scenario, so that I may be afraid. Perhaps even more afraid than I am of a third Bush term (or McCain, same thing).


That's a ridiculous claim and it misses the point. We really don't know anything about Obama. I'm from Illinois and I really don't know much about him. Its not just the Wright controversy. That is just one story among many that would cause me to question his judgment. From willing to unconditionally "negotiate" with our enemies to preemptively bombing a sovereign country one must question his judgment for high office. He has all but fallen all over himself trying to outdo other DNC candidates in pulling out troops from Iraq. There's plenty on the surface, for me at least, to question his readiness to be POTUS.

There is something more subtle though. He and his wife show an arrogance and disconnect with the average person that is truly shocking. From Michelle Obama's statement of "for the first time" being proud of her country, to his seeming obliviousness to the potential that Jeremiah Wright might be a problem and to his statement about people in small towns being "bitter" and clinging to religion and guns. There seems to be an assumption on their part that they are right and therefore do not, or better cannot, see how erroneous and offensive such things can be. Such thinking it usually the mark of someone who is incredibly self absorbed, that "if only the masses were better educated then they would see the light. And I, Barack, will bring them to the light." Its good old fashioned elitism and elitists are incredibly annoying people.


----------



## radix023 (May 3, 2007)

jackmccullough said:


> locked them into position of hopelessness and helplessness
> 
> Anyone want to argue with what he says here?


I'm surprised that a Christian messenger of the Gospel would believe that is possible. The Truth sets you free. The Holy Spirit connects you to God and makes you an instrument of his love.

Christians through the centuries have had hope and not been helpless in the face of much worse treatment than America has given African-Americans.

Christianity is not about being a victim.


----------



## pt4u67 (Apr 27, 2006)

radix023 said:


> Christianity is not about being a victim.


But then how would Jeremiah Wright make a living?


----------



## ksinc (May 30, 2005)

pt4u67 said:


> But then how would Jeremiah Wright make a living?


My! What an interesting question you ask ...

https://www.acton.org/commentary/443_marxist_roots_of_black_liberation_theology.php



> Black Liberation Theology actually encourages a victim mentality among blacks. John McWhorters' book _Losing the Race_, will be helpful here. Victimology, says McWhorter, is the adoption of victimhood as the core of one's identity -- for example, like one who suffers through living in "a country and who lived in a culture controlled by rich white people."


----------



## jackmccullough (May 10, 2006)

Good column on Jeremiah Wright in Salon:


----------



## jackmccullough (May 10, 2006)

You can hear him on CNN.com right now: https://www.cnn.com/video/live/live.html?stream=stream2


----------



## jazzy1 (May 2, 2006)

This is why politics and religion do not mix. They are diametrically opposed to each other. 

Jeremiah Wright’s statements would not have kicked up this much dirt, but for his affiliation with a presidential hopeful.

If Barack Obama has stated that he does not agree with statements made by Jeremiah Wright should that not suffice?


----------



## eagle2250 (Mar 24, 2006)

The venerable Rev Wright enjoyed his first 15 minutes of fame so much, he's grabbing as vigorously as he can for that next 15 minutes. At first I considered it quite possible he was being taken out of context and was getting a bad rap...I was wrong. He is a 'flamer!'


----------



## ksinc (May 30, 2005)

jazzy1 said:


> This is why politics and religion do not mix. They are diametrically opposed to each other.
> 
> Jeremiah Wright's statements would not have kicked up this much dirt, but for his affiliation with a presidential hopeful.
> 
> If Barack Obama has stated that he does not agree with statements made by Jeremiah Wright should that not suffice?


My criticism of Wright has nothing to do with Obama and vice-versa.

I think many people just weren't aware this sort of thing was so 'mainstream' in the black community. I expect something like that to be taught by Farrakan, but United Church of Christ means something totally different to me.

Obama's answer on Fox News Sunday was the best he has given yet. He said the comments were legitimately offensive and it was a legitimate political issue because he was his pastor. He also made what I thought sounded like a great point; that people are not accusing him of being Pro-Life because he associates with some Pro-Life people. That only breaks down when you consider his financial support of Wright's ministry.

I actually had a sort of out-of-the-box idea while watching Obama. Wright seems so disjointed from Obama's thought patterns. It has always confused me. You know who sound like Wright? Michelle Obama. The whole theory has been how Obama went there because he needed political connections, but the question is why did he stay? I think it's his Wife that really likes Wright. Obama has this extremely pained look when he's asked about Wright. That look only comes from one place. All married guys have felt it.


----------



## Wayfarer (Mar 19, 2006)

jazzy1 said:


> This is why politics and religion do not mix. They are diametrically opposed to each other.
> 
> Jeremiah Wright's statements would not have kicked up this much dirt, but for his affiliation with a presidential hopeful.
> 
> If Barack Obama has stated that he does not agree with statements made by Jeremiah Wright should that not suffice?


I agree, left all by himself, Wright would still be just a popular local minister, it is his connection with Obama that has given him his 15 minutes of fame.

To your question. If the statement(s) were immediately definitive, sounded sincere and truthful, and much more importantly, followed by action, that would have sufficed. The thing is, how can someone be your "spiritual advisor" for 20 years and you have no knowledge of his positions? That does not ring truthful to many (me included). And the more Wright talks, the more we see his viewpoints are indeed quite a distance from what most would consider mainstream...some of them, even far from reflecting a reasonable reality, i.e. HIV.

So no, Obama has not convinced me he did not know about Wright's stances on any number of issues as the answers were at first carefully parsed. When it became apparent this story had legs, Obama finally started to distance himself. And they still go to Trinity, which we can assume is full of people that share at least some of Wright's ideas, as they were all excited over Wright's comments in the video clips.


----------



## ksinc (May 30, 2005)

Wayfarer said:


> I agree, left all by himself, Wright would still be just a popular local minister, it is his connection with Obama that has given him his 15 minutes of fame.
> 
> To your question. If the statement(s) were immediately definitive, sounded sincere and truthful, and much more importantly, followed by action, that would have sufficed. The thing is, how can someone be your "spiritual advisor" for 20 years and you have no knowledge of his positions? That does not ring truthful to many (me included). And the more Wright talks, the more we see his viewpoints are indeed quite a distance from what most would consider mainstream...some of them, even far from reflecting a reasonable reality, i.e. HIV.
> 
> So no, Obama has not convinced me he did not know about Wright's stances on any number of issues as the answers were at first carefully parsed. When it became apparent this story had legs, Obama finally started to distance himself. And they still go to Trinity, which we can assume is full of people that share at least some of Wright's ideas, as they were all excited over Wright's comments in the video clips.


Yes, but remember She makes him pick up his socks and She makes her six-year old set her own alarm clock.

I'm guessing Michelle eats the BLT up and once She got in that church he was stuck.


----------



## Wayfarer (Mar 19, 2006)

ksinc said:


> Yes, but remember She makes him pick up his socks and She makes her six-year old set her own alarm clock.
> 
> I'm guessing Michelle eats the BLT up and once She got in that church he was stuck.


Could well be. So then at least have the cajones to admit you are whipped


----------



## SuitUP (Feb 8, 2008)

jackmccullough said:


> REVEREND JEREMIAH WRIGHT: Where governments lie, God does not lie. Where governments change, God does not change. And I'm through now. But let me leave you with one more thing. Governments fail. The government in this text comprised of Caesar, Cornelius, Pontius Pilate - the Roman government failed. The British government used to rule from East to West. The British government had a Union Jack. She colonized Kenya, Ghana, Nigeria, Jamaica, Barbados, Trinidad and Hong Kong. Her navies ruled the seven seas all the way down to the tip of Argentina in the Falklands, but the British government failed. The Russian government failed. The Japanese government failed. The German government failed. And the United States of America government, when it came to treating her citizens of Indian descent fairly, she failed. She put them on reservations. When it came to treating her citizens of Japanese descent fairly, she failed. She put them in internment prison camps. When it came to treating citizens of African descent fairly, America failed. She put them in chains. The government put them on slave quarters, put them on auction blocks, put them in cotton fields, put them in inferior schools, put them in substandard housing, put them in scientific experiments, put them in the lowest paying jobs, put them outside the equal protection of the law, kept them out of their racist bastions of higher education and locked them into position of hopelessness and helplessness. The government . . . builds bigger prisons, passes a three-strike law, and then wants us to sing God bless America? No, no, no. . . . That's in the Bible, for killing innocent people. . . .
> 
> Anyone want to argue with what he says here?


A couple things here. Wright is right, God does not lie nor is ever wrong, HOWEVER, man can misinterpret God's will or can purposely misunderstand God's will to fit his own visions. The bible teaches about forgiving mistakes and wrongs but it seems Wright didn't read that part of the bible.


----------



## jazzy1 (May 2, 2006)

How often does he even go to church? 

I know folks who are members of various churches but only go there on rare occasions such as weddings, funerals or Easter. I guess if a comment is made while in attendance is one thing but if you are rarely then, how much interaction would you have with the pastor anyway?


----------



## ksinc (May 30, 2005)

jazzy1 said:


> How often does he even go to church?
> 
> I know folks who are members of various churches but only go there on rare occasions such as weddings, funerals or Easter. I guess if a comment is made while in attendance is one thing but if you are rarely then, how much interaction would you have with the pastor anyway?


AFAIK, we don't know. He's probably in DC a lot.

What we do know is he tithed there.


----------



## Relayer (Nov 9, 2005)

jazzy1 said:


> How often does he even go to church?
> 
> I know folks who are members of various churches but only go there on rare occasions such as weddings, funerals or Easter. I guess if a comment is made while in attendance is one thing but if you are rarely then, how much interaction would you have with the pastor anyway?


This article seems pretty clear that Obama knew his pastor and sprititual mentor's issues very well.

https://www.nytimes.com/2007/03/06/us/politics/06obama.html

Also, for Obama to compare his "association" with Rev Wright to his association with pro-lifers is completely disingeuous.


----------



## SuitUP (Feb 8, 2008)

jazzy1 said:


> How often does he even go to church?
> 
> I know folks who are members of various churches but only go there on rare occasions such as weddings, funerals or Easter. I guess if a comment is made while in attendance is one thing but if you are rarely then, how much interaction would you have with the pastor anyway?


How often he goes doesn't matter, that he's a part of the church at all matters. I've sat thru sermons on this matter from 3 different churches and all of them say if the Pastor or Minister is teaching the wrong things, the you don't just sit there and hope things change, you don't just walk away from that church you run away from that church and find a better one.

So either Obama knew what Wright was preaching and turned a blind eye or he didn't understand what Wright was teaching and attended church. Either way speaks poorly for him, if he knew then he turns a blind eye to wrongs. If he didn't know then he's incompetent for not knowing. Either way not good qualities for a President.


----------



## jazzy1 (May 2, 2006)

SuitUP said:


> How often he goes doesn't matter, that he's a part of the church at all matters. I've sat thru sermons on this matter from 3 different churches and all of them say if the Pastor or Minister is teaching the wrong things, the you don't just sit there and hope things change, you don't just walk away from that church you run away from that church and find a better one.
> 
> So either Obama knew what Wright was preaching and turned a blind eye or he didn't understand what Wright was teaching and attended church. Either way speaks poorly for him, if he knew then he turns a blind eye to wrongs. If he didn't know then he's incompetent for not knowing. Either way not good qualities for a President.


I respectfully disagree with you. It does matter. There are teachings, which can be found in EVERY church or religion, yet people are not asked to disown it.

There are quite a number of statements and practices that have taken place within the Catholic church for example, some of which no one can sit and say they agree with. Yet are they asked not to attend the church or renounce their affiliation?

Also, I have spoken to many people about the statements made by Jeremiah Wright. Most of them admittedly did not hear the entire sermon, nor did they care to. My problem with that is if you are only hearing sound bites and snippets, can you honestly make an accurate assessment of the situation


----------



## Wayfarer (Mar 19, 2006)

jazzy1 said:


> How often does he even go to church?
> 
> I know folks who are members of various churches but only go there on rare occasions such as weddings, funerals or Easter. I guess if a comment is made while in attendance is one thing but if you are rarely then, how much interaction would you have with the pastor anyway?


Well, when you name a book after something your "spirital advisor" of 20 years said, you probably have a fair amount of interaction, do you not think so?


----------



## BertieW (Jan 17, 2006)

Has anyone mentioned that Wright's HIV statements are made against this cultural background?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tuskegee_Study_of_Untreated_Syphilis_in_the_Negro_Male

Now, my pals here on the North Shore of course snicker at the thought that the U.S. government could do something as nefarious as create the AIDS virus, but then again their blueblood experience (and God bless them, really) is dramatically different than the experience of many of the people Wright ministers to.

Oh, and then there's this I guess:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_MKULTRA


----------



## Relayer (Nov 9, 2005)

It has been mentioned in the media, for sure.

Some think since that happened, Wright gets a free pass to accuse the government of anything he feels like.

I can't agree with that conclusion, however.


----------



## Wayfarer (Mar 19, 2006)

BertieW said:


> Has anyone mentioned that Wright's HIV statements are made against this cultural background?
> 
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tuskegee_Study_of_Untreated_Syphilis_in_the_Negro_Male
> 
> ...


How about just the test for reasonableness Bertie? I know that is asking for a lot, but really, a virus that can select hosts based on race? That means Wright thinks that blacks are genetically that different from the rest of the world. Ponder on that.


----------



## BertieW (Jan 17, 2006)

Wayfarer said:


> How about just the test for reasonableness Bertie? I know that is asking for a lot, but really, a virus that can select hosts based on race? That means Wright thinks that blacks are genetically that different from the rest of the world. Ponder on that.


Is that really what he's saying? Or is his claim that the virus is being selectively introduced into specific communities as a means of...social control? Eradication? That's quite different.

I doubt that I would agree with everything that Wright has to say, and I'm sure I don't know the most of it. But I can see that the Black experience historically in America is dramatically different from my own, so I'm not surprised that a good many people don't quite share the same vision of the country that my country club friends do.

But as for Wright's comments about violence begetting violence, well, the evidence is all around us. I think one can hold that view without at all believing that the victims of such violence "deserve" the tragedy visited upon them.

Regardless, do watch out for that MKULTRA crowd. I suspect they've got better surveillance gear today.


----------



## Wayfarer (Mar 19, 2006)

BertieW said:


> Is that really what he's saying? Or is his claim that the virus is being selectively introduced into specific communities as a means of...social control? Eradication? That's quite different.


So then, if the belief is the virus was designed such that it would be lethal to all humans, what containment plan to stop it from spilling over to the general population do these conspiracy people think were going to be put in place? How to keep "black blood" out of the blood banks, prevent inter-racial sex and needle sharing, etc. etc. For eradication, why then are HIV patients admitted to hospitals? To hasten their demise (I guess I should not make suggestions like this? lol) No, that makes no sense, the only thing that does is Wright feels a virus could be created to infect people based on the colour of their skin.



BertieW said:


> I doubt that I would agree with everything that Wright has to say, and I'm sure I don't know the most of it. But I can see that the Black experience historically in America is dramatically different from my own, so I'm not surprised that a good many people don't quite share the same vision of the country that my country club friends do.


I think it is a mistake to speak of "the black experience." It is not a monolithic experience. I am willing to bet the gangbanger in Detroit that is black does not have the same experience as the scion of a family that has been well established and wealthy for four generations in Atlanta. IMO, the mere thought of defining "an experience" based on skin colour alone is faulty.


----------



## BertieW (Jan 17, 2006)

Wayfarer said:


> So then, if the belief is the virus was designed such that it would be lethal to all humans, what containment plan to stop it from spilling over to the general population do these conspiracy people think were going to be put in place? How to keep "black blood" out of the blood banks, prevent inter-racial sex and needle sharing, etc. etc. For eradication, why then are HIV patients admitted to hospitals? To hasten their demise (I guess I should not make suggestions like this? lol) No, that makes no sense, the only thing that does is Wright feels a virus could be created to infect people based on the colour of their skin.
> 
> I think it is a mistake to speak of "the black experience." It is not a monolithic experience. I am willing to bet the gangbanger in Detroit that is black does not have the same experience as the scion of a family that has been well established and wealthy for four generations in Atlanta. IMO, the mere thought of defining "an experience" based on skin colour alone is faulty.


I'd probably agree with your second point if not for the history of institutionalised slavery. While clearly there are anecdotal differences, I'd bet even that wealthy Atlanta family you mentioned would understand the concept of DWB.


----------



## Wayfarer (Mar 19, 2006)

BertieW said:


> I'd probably agree with your second point if not for the history of institutionalised slavery. While clearly there are anecdotal differences, I'd bet even that wealthy Atlanta family you mentioned would understand the concept of DWB.


I guess we will agree to disagree. I see a mosaic, you see a monolith. Fair enough, but I think my vision is more optimistic and productive.


----------



## Relayer (Nov 9, 2005)

This is pure silliness (or maybe the height of political correctness) to think that Wright, because of his "black experience" and the mistreatment of black men who had syphilis (or even institutionalized slavery), gets a pass to proclaim and preach to his flock that the government created and spread AIDS to the black community and to call the USA the "US of KKK"

I'll cut him some slack. Maybe this entire lifetime experience has left him demented. Does any sane, reasonable, or at least, responsible person really say this in the lack of any evidence? Or does Rev Wright have some AIDS conspiracy evidence?

The rationalizing of his crackpot statements is amazing.


----------



## pt4u67 (Apr 27, 2006)

Wright is a con-man. Nothing else. That's the "context" into which his rants need to be placed. The crazier he seems, the more dopes pack his "church" and fill the coffers.


----------



## TheWardrobeGirl (Mar 24, 2008)

eagle2250 said:


> The venerable Rev Wright enjoyed his first 15 minutes of fame so much, he's grabbing as vigorously as he can for that next 15 minutes....


...hopefully he will keep "grabbing" McCain right into the White House!


----------



## jazzy1 (May 2, 2006)

Wayfarer said:


> How about just the test for reasonableness Bertie? I know that is asking for a lot, but really, a virus that can select hosts based on race? That means Wright thinks that blacks are genetically that different from the rest of the world. Ponder on that.


When it comes to what is reasonable, is it reasonable to think that The United States government, land of the free... would do "something that was wrong-deeply, profoundly, morally wrong. It was an outrage to our commitment to integrity and equality for all our citizens. . . . clearly racist." -President Clinton's apology for the Tuskegee Syphilis Experiment to the eight remaining survivors, May 16, 1997

With these types of things in the history books do you think it is a stretch for some in the African American community to think that it is at least possible that his statements would have some validity albeit not proven?


----------



## pt4u67 (Apr 27, 2006)

jazzy1 said:


> With these types of things in the history books do you think it is a stretch for some in the African American community to think that it is at least possible that his statements would have some validity albeit not proven?


Yes. It is a stretch. And there is no such thing as "some validity." A thing is either valid or invalid. In the absence of evidence a thing is invalid. Of course to the uneducated rabble that he preaches to and who buy into his non-sense this little axiom means nothing.


----------



## Wayfarer (Mar 19, 2006)

jazzy1 said:


> When it comes to what is reasonable, is it reasonable to think that The United States government, land of the free... would do "something that was wrong-deeply, profoundly, morally wrong. It was an outrage to our commitment to integrity and equality for all our citizens. . . . clearly racist." -President Clinton's apology for the Tuskegee Syphilis Experiment to the eight remaining survivors, May 16, 1997
> 
> With these types of things in the history books do you think it is a stretch for some in the African American community to think that it is at least possible that his statements would have some validity albeit not proven?


As I originally said jazzy1, and you are a prime example, it *is asking a lot* for people to think a little bit. I do apologize for posting something that would require the barest minimum of thought and critical thinking. The test for reasonableness, to which I referenced, was the concept that a virus can be targeted based on the colour of someone's skin. This is patently stupid, as we are all the same species.

If you do not understand this, you are exactly part of the group of people that it is unfair of me to ask think. I do apologize for making such a request. Please carry on with your uneducated rant now.


----------



## jazzy1 (May 2, 2006)

pt4u67 said:


> Yes. It is a stretch. And there is no such thing as "some validity." A thing is either valid or invalid. In the absence of evidence a thing is invalid. Of course to the uneducated rabble that he preaches to and who buy into his non-sense this little axiom means nothing.


So you dismiss what those "uneducated rabble" as you call them, have seen in their own community. If there is a history, which cannot be disputed of the sought of thing that was spoken of, then it is not a stretch for those who have experienced it first hand.

And no matter your view of what Jeremiah Wright says or doesn't say, he raises issues that are unique to a community that some have no experience with. I for one would not demean them by calling them uneducated rabble.

I would simply agree to disagree.


----------



## Laxplayer (Apr 26, 2006)

jazzy1 said:


> When it comes to what is reasonable, is it reasonable to think that The United States government, land of the free... would do "something that was wrong-deeply, profoundly, morally wrong. It was an outrage to our commitment to integrity and equality for all our citizens. . . . clearly racist." -President Clinton's apology for the Tuskegee Syphilis Experiment to the eight remaining survivors, May 16, 1997
> 
> *With these types of things in the history books do you think it is a stretch for some in the African American community to think that it is at least possible that his statements would have some validity albeit not proven?*


I don't think it's a stretch. People believe all kinds of myths, there's even a show dedicated to disproving them. How many people believe eating turkey will make you tired, or that pumping gas while talking on a cell phone can start a fire? How many people believed Proctor & Gamble executives had sold their souls to the devil? They are still wrong though.


----------



## jazzy1 (May 2, 2006)

Wayfarer said:


> Okay, now this is going to cause you to furrow your brow in thought. Can you please point out to me where I used the term you claim I did? "Uneducated rabble"? Hint: I did not say that.
> 
> For clarification, I did not say that you used the term uneducated rabble. My post was directed to pt4u67


----------



## Wayfarer (Mar 19, 2006)

jazzy1 said:


> Wayfarer said:
> 
> 
> > Okay, now this is going to cause you to furrow your brow in thought. Can you please point out to me where I used the term you claim I did? "Uneducated rabble"? Hint: I did not say that.
> ...


Fair enough, my error. Going back to edit out.


----------



## jazzy1 (May 2, 2006)

Wayfarer said:


> As I originally said jazzy1, and you are a prime example, it *is asking a lot* for people to think a little bit. I do apologize for posting something that would require the barest minimum of thought and critical thinking. The test for reasonableness, to which I referenced, was the concept that a virus can be targeted based on the colour of someone's skin. This is patently stupid, as we are all the same species.
> 
> If you do not understand this, you are exactly part of the group of people that it is unfair of me to ask think. I do apologize for making such a request. Please carry on with your uneducated rant now.


I clearly understand what you are saying Wayfarer, but I believe you missed the point I was making. At times you must consider how a situation no matter bizarre and improbable, would be to a group of people who have experienced things that would be of course unreasonable. I did not say that I agree with what Jeremiah Wright said concerning HIV but there will be a sector of those who will see things with his spin.

I do not think I was on a soap box ranting in an uneducated way but it was rather an attempt to understand how someone can see something completely differently from you or I. Condescending tone noted and no offense a taken.


----------



## Wayfarer (Mar 19, 2006)

jazzy1 said:


> I clearly understand what you are saying Wayfarer, but I believe you missed the point I was making. At times you must consider how a situation no matter bizarre and improbable, would be to a group of people who have experienced things that would be of course unreasonable. I did not say that I agree with what Jeremiah Wright said concerning HIV but there will be a sector of those who will see things with his spin.


It is not that some people will believe him, it is that Wright knows better. He is a well educated man with multiple graduate degrees. The fact that he knows better makes it all that much more evil IMO.


----------



## Laxplayer (Apr 26, 2006)

Wayfarer said:


> It is not that some people will believe him, it is that Wright knows better. He is a well educated man with multiple graduate degrees. The fact that he knows better makes it all that much more evil IMO.


I agree. I can see why some of the people could be fooled, but Wright should know better.


----------



## Spence (Feb 28, 2006)

Wayfarer said:


> It is not that some people will believe him, it is that Wright knows better. He is a well educated man with multiple graduate degrees.


Many well educated people certainly subscribe to tin foil hat theories. Heck, a good percentage of Americans still think Saddam was behind 9/11 

Considering how little trust Wright clearly has for the US Government, and that events like Tuskegee did indeed happen I'm not sure you can say with confidence he's intentionally misleading. The man is a pastor, not a scientist.

The "uneducated rabble" comment above is pretty silly. Last time I checked the Obama's were sporting degrees from Columbia, Princeton and Harvard Law.

-spence


----------



## Wayfarer (Mar 19, 2006)

Spence said:


> Many well educated people certainly subscribe to tin foil hat theories. Heck, a good percentage of Americans still think Saddam was behind 9/11
> 
> Considering how little trust Wright clearly has for the US Government, and that events like Tuskegee did indeed happen I'm not sure you can say with confidence he's intentionally misleading. The man is a pastor, not a scientist.


The man also had medical training and excelled in the field such that he was part of the team assigned to care for LBJ. Further, I think the premise that one needs to be a scientist to understand HIV could not discern based on the colour of one's skin is a sad premise. I would hope the state of education in the US is not so poor that it is considered arcane knowledge a virus cannot be race specific.

EDIT: I guess I am a scientist if this is the case! Cool. :aportnoy:


----------



## Spence (Feb 28, 2006)

Wayfarer said:


> The man also had medical training and excelled in the field such that he was part of the team assigned to care for LBJ. Further, I think the premise that one needs to be a scientist to understand HIV could not discern based on the colour of one's skin is a sad premise. I would hope the state of education in the US is not so poor that it is considered arcane knowledge a virus cannot be race specific.
> 
> EDIT: I guess I am a scientist if this is the case! Cool. :aportnoy:


I forgot about his medical training, although that was quite some time ago. Regardless, I can still certainly fathom that he actually believes there's a chance the theory may be true. Sometimes you eat your own **** long enough you think its ice cream 

-spence


----------



## Wayfarer (Mar 19, 2006)

Spence said:


> Sometimes you eat your own **** long enough you think its ice cream
> 
> -spence


Spence.....YUCK. That was nasty!


----------



## ksinc (May 30, 2005)

Trinity Unitied Church of Christ DVD: $20
Barack Obama Presidential Campaign Contribution: $100
"Reverend Wright" turning this into talking about Mama: $Priceless

"This is not an attack on Jeremiah Wright," the minister said. "It is an attack on the black church." He positioned himself as a mainstream voice of African American religious traditions. "Why am I speaking out now?" he asked. "If you think I'm going to let you talk about my mama and her religious tradition, and my daddy and his religious tradition and my grandma, you got another thing coming."


----------



## Laxplayer (Apr 26, 2006)

Spence said:


> I forgot about his medical training, although that was quite some time ago. Regardless, I can still certainly fathom that he actually believes there's a chance the theory may be true. Sometimes you eat your own **** long enough you think its ice cream
> 
> -spence


Is that one of the 31 flavors?


----------



## chatsworth osborne jr. (Feb 2, 2008)

*how about those months the Iraq war took to get the cheap oil?*



Wayfarer said:


> So then, if the belief is the virus was designed such that it would be lethal to all humans, what containment plan to stop it...


Your argument is that the government would not unleash a deadly program without proper planning? Yes, the nice men in Washington would never do that. 
*
Scientist:* ...and the virus spreads to America, decimating the black population. There's a small chance it could also spread to prostitutes, homosexuals, IV drug users, even hemophiliacs-
* Politician:* What? We can't risk losing the hookers and junkies! Scrap the idea and just keep putting additives in menthol cigarettes!


----------



## pt4u67 (Apr 27, 2006)

jazzy1 said:


> So you dismiss what those "uneducated rabble" as you call them, have seen in their own community. If there is a history, which cannot be disputed of the sought of thing that was spoken of, then it is not a stretch for those who have experienced it first hand.
> 
> And no matter your view of what Jeremiah Wright says or doesn't say, he raises issues that are unique to a community that some have no experience with. I for one would not demean them by calling them uneducated rabble.
> 
> I would simply agree to disagree.


The people that go to his church and buy into the things he says are living in a cave of their own making. Perhaps the argument could be make 50 years ago however much has changed. I'm not sure what the "experience" means now. And sure, there is a history. But there is a history to all ethnic groups in this country. The Irish had their turn, so did the Italians. The Jews have been persecuted since biblical days and continue to be so. It seems however that in certain pockets of the African-American community there continues to be this notion of "therapeutic alienation" (John McWhorter). It is fed and perpetuated by the likes of Wright, Jackson, Sharpton, et al. in a continuous loop. One feeds the other.

If you want to know why there remains racial tension in this country look to the above mentioned as well.


----------



## Wayfarer (Mar 19, 2006)

chatsworth osborne jr. said:


> Your argument is that the government would not unleash a deadly program without proper planning? Yes, the nice men in Washington would never do that.
> *
> Scientist:* ...and the virus spreads to America, decimating the black population. There's a small chance it could also spread to prostitutes, homosexuals, IV drug users, even hemophiliacs-
> * Politician:* What? We can't risk losing the hookers and junkies! Scrap the idea and just keep putting additives in menthol cigarettes!


Your world is an interesting one. It in no way resides on the same plane as the one the rest of us inhabit, but it certainly seems interesting. It is also pretty insulting that you indicate in this little tableau the only interface you see between blacks in America and the larger society is between the groups you list.

That is a sad, sad peek into your true thoughts on race. Oh, and you left out the Church's Chicken myth too. How careless of you.


----------



## TMMKC (Aug 2, 2007)

Laxplayer said:


> Is that one of the 31 flavors?


Bada bing! Good one.

Wright is in a desperate grab for relevancy in a world that is now mocking him. He needs to stick a fork in it before he embarrasses himself even further. 

Obama needs to grow some, finally see the man for the kook that he is and totally disavow him before the Jeremiah Wright Albatross becomes and two-ton lead anchor.


----------



## ksinc (May 30, 2005)

TMMKC said:


> Bada bing! Good one.
> 
> Wright is in a desperate grab for relevancy in a world that is now mocking him. He needs to stick a fork in it before he embarrasses himself even further.
> 
> Obama needs to grow some, finally see the man for the kook that he is and totally disavow him before the Jeremiah Wright Albatross becomes and two-ton lead anchor.


I actually think this is a brilliant political strategy that no one has grasped yet.

Wright hurt Obama in Penn for sure. So now Wright is going so far and openly defending views and pushing them even further that no one can possibly continue to attribute those views to Obama.

Before it was at least somewhat reasonable or plausible to question whether Obama believed what Wright preached. Now Wright has become just a huge joke. He's a complete lunatic. While people may have considered that Obama was a little bit racist because of the church, certainly no one thinks Obama is a complete lunatic after watching him in all the debates and interviews.

I think this innoculates Obama the rest of the way from Wright. He doesn't even have to actually disavow this stuff. Wright has gone beyond eccentric into complete kook.

The only lasting damage to Obama is he is now just a "regular politician." With a willing media, from that he can recover. As a racist he can't recover.

Just my opinion.


----------



## TMMKC (Aug 2, 2007)

ksinc said:


> I actually think this is a brilliant political strategy that no one has grasped yet.
> 
> Wright hurt Obama in Penn for sure. So now Wright is going so far and openly defending views and pushing them even further that no one can possibly continue to attribute those views to Obama.
> 
> ...


Interesting theory, but doesn't it make Obama look a little bit victimized by Wright? Or, at the least, a poor judge of character that he let himself get so closely aligned with the kook? In either case, I think Obama is probably protected from any long-term damage the Wright fiasco may cause if only because the media has massive blinders on when it comes to him. The feel-good politics of hope is an easier sell than the grim realities of everyday life.

Who knows? Maybe the victim angle could work for Obama...it's seems effective for everyone else (politician or not)!


----------



## ksinc (May 30, 2005)

TMMKC said:


> Interesting theory, but doesn't it make Obama look a little bit victimized by Wright? Or, at the least, a poor judge of character that he let himself get so closely aligned with the kook? In either case, I think Obama is probably protected from any long-term damage the Wright fiasco may cause if only because the media has massive blinders on when it comes to him. The feel-good politics of hope is an easier sell than the grim realities of everyday life.
> 
> Who knows? Maybe the victim angle could work for Obama...it's seems effective for everyone else (politician or not)!


I always use that line from _The Hunt for Red October_ about the sonar system thinking any the Russian sub is a seismic anomaly, "when it gets confused it runs home to mama."

Victimhood may be the only political trick they know.


----------



## Cruiser (Jul 21, 2006)

ksinc said:


> Wright hurt Obama in Penn for sure. So now Wright is going so far and openly defending views and pushing them even further that no one can possibly continue to attribute those views to Obama.


I don't think so. I think Wright feels dissed by Obama and this is payback. I see Wright as a selfish egomaniac who is upstaging Obama and getting his 15 minutes of fame at the same time. Wright is much more concerned with preserving his own legacy than in helping Obama.

Cruiser


----------



## Asterix (Jun 7, 2005)

Cruiser said:


> I don't think so. *I think Wright feels dissed by Obama and this is payback. * I see Wright as a selfish egomaniac who is upstaging Obama and getting his 15 minutes of fame at the same time. Wright is much more concerned with preserving his own legacy than in helping Obama.
> 
> Cruiser


I'm inclined to believe you are right.


----------



## ksinc (May 30, 2005)

Obama's giving a press conference: "I don't think that people could attribute those views to me."

I think this helps Obama. This is not stuff Obama sat through and people say why didn't you say anything. Wright said this yesterday and Obama is responding immediately. What else could anyone ask of him? Obama's problem was he looked weak and apathetic about Wright because he never spoke up. Now he is denouncing the comments as they happen. Rehabilitated IMHO. Remember the big question was "How could he sit there for 20 years and never leave or say anything?" That issue is now dead.



> HICKORY, N.C. (AP) - Democrat Barack Obama says he was outraged by the comments of his former pastor, Rev. Jeremiah Wright, and saddened by the spectacle of his appearance on Monday. Wright said Monday that criticism surrounding his fiery sermons is an attack on the black church.
> Obama told reporters Tuesday that Wright's comments do not accurately portray the perspective of the black church.
> Obama said, "I am outraged by the comments that were made and saddened by the spectacle that we saw yesterday."
> Wright's incendiary comments have dogged Obama's presidential campaign.


----------



## Acct2000 (Sep 24, 2005)

I actually find William Ayers far more offensive than Wright. Also, I really did not care for Obama's own remark how small town people have antipathy toward people who are not like them. I'm not racist and don't like "racism" and "sexism" thrown around like clubs at anyone the speaker disagrees with.

Wright is left of what I would like, but not nearly as irritating as the Ayers friendship and the San Francisco comments. What I actually dislike most about Wright is that I think he knows he is deliberately harming Obama to get attention for himself. That lack of character is a disgrace to the word "reverend." (And I have no intention of voting for Obama!!)


----------



## jackmccullough (May 10, 2006)

Here's an excerpt from Obama's opening today:

The person I saw yesterday was not the person that I met 20 years ago. His comments were not only divisive and destructive, but I believe that they end up giving comfort to those who prey on hate, and I believe that they do not portray accurately the perspective of the black church. They certainly don't portray accurately my values and beliefs. And if Rev. Wright thinks that that's political posturing, as he put it, then he doesn't know me very well. And based on his remarks yesterday, well I might not know him as well as I thought, either.


----------



## SuitUP (Feb 8, 2008)

forsbergacct2000 said:


> What I actually dislike most about Wright is that I think he knows he is deliberately harming Obama to get attention for himself. That lack of character is a disgrace to the word "reverend." (And I have no intention of voting for Obama!!)


Well Obama was foolish enough to get himself involved with Rev Wright for the past 20 years and write a book saying Wright was the spiritual inspiration. When you play with fire you get burned.

That said, go Mccain!


----------



## Relayer (Nov 9, 2005)

"The person I saw yesterday was not the person that I met 20 years ago."

Well, when did he become the person we now see... in January? In March of 2007 when Obama dis-invited him from his presidential announcement? Five years ago? Ten years ago?

Maybe Rev Wright has just recently lost his mind.

""As imperfect as he may be, he has been like family to me. He strengthened my faith, officiated my wedding, and baptized my children. Not once in my conversations with him have I heard him talk about any ethnic group in derogatory terms, or treat whites with whom he interacted with anything but courtesy and respect." B. O.

So, although Rev Wright vehemently preaches this in sermons to his church, he has never mentioned any of it to arguably his most powerful/influential person in his congregation. Recently Obama said he 'could no more disown Rev Wright than he could disown the black community.' Is he now disowning them?

It would be interesting to hear Mrs Michelle Obama speak on her opinion on the good reverend and his sermons and recent remarks.


----------



## ksinc (May 30, 2005)

Relayer said:


> It would be interesting to hear Mrs Michelle Obama speak on her opinion on the good reverend and his sermons and recent remarks.


Yep!

This could also be part of the super-delegate impasse.

An Obama-Clinton ticket could never happen, but a Clinton-Obama ticket works. With Obama having the elected delegate lead he has to implode. With him committing political sepuku today Hillary can then be generous and name Obama as VP Candidate and the "healing" can begin ...


----------



## Wayfarer (Mar 19, 2006)

jackmccullough said:


> Here's an excerpt from Obama's opening today:
> 
> The person I saw yesterday was not the person that I met 20 years ago. His comments were not only divisive and destructive, but I believe that they end up giving comfort to those who prey on hate, and I believe that they do not portray accurately the perspective of the black church. They certainly don't portray accurately my values and beliefs. And if Rev. Wright thinks that that's political posturing, as he put it, then he doesn't know me very well. And based on his remarks yesterday, well I might not know him as well as I thought, either.


So I am confused Jack. I am sure you are torn also, as now you have two people you so deeply wish to defend, but it seems you cannot defend both as they have split. I feel you want to defend Wrigt due to your earlier post:



jackmccullough said:


> Anyone want to argue with what he says here?


Then I am sure you want to defend Obama but you cannot defend both now. You have to pick a side. This has to be very heart wrenching for you.


----------



## LoneWolf (Apr 20, 2006)

Relayer said:


> "The person I saw yesterday was not the person that I met 20 years ago."
> 
> Well, when did he become the person we now see... in January? In March of 2007 when Obama dis-invited him from his presidential announcement? Five years ago? Ten years ago?
> 
> Maybe Rev Wright has just recently lost his mind.


No, he's just recently gone on the Clintons' payroll.

Wright:Obama:"BYAW!!"ean:Rice:Hart:Ferraro:Mondale:tears:Muskie:Sirhan:Kennedy

Okay, perhaps the last comparison doesn't belong. Otherwise, even gazing through the cracked rear view, the decision making was so bad that one wonders how serious they could have been about being elected.


----------



## chatsworth osborne jr. (Feb 2, 2008)

*and you didn't answer the question*



Wayfarer said:


> Your world is an interesting one... It is also pretty insulting that you indicate in this little tableau the only interface you see between blacks in America and the larger society is between the groups you list.
> That is a sad, sad peek into your true thoughts on race.


Besides failing to recognize satire, a list of high-risk groups for HIV (in context nonetheless) somehow didn't register with you. 
Your attempt to project racism on me makes no sense. Do I hate hemophiliacs too?
I ask again:'Your argument is that the government would not unleash a deadly program without proper planning?'


----------



## eagle2250 (Mar 24, 2006)

TheWardrobeGirl said:


> ...hopefully he will keep "grabbing" McCain right into the White House!


Amen to that thought! :icon_smile:


----------



## Wayfarer (Mar 19, 2006)

chatsworth osborne jr. said:


> Besides failing to recognize satire, a list of high-risk groups for HIV (in context nonetheless) somehow didn't register with you.
> Your attempt to project racism on me makes no sense. Do I hate hemophiliacs too?
> I ask again:'Your argument is that the government would not unleash a deadly program without proper planning?'


My argument is that modern science has reached the state such that *only complete and total idiots* would release a fatal virus into the general human population and that I do not think *complete and total idiots* were in the position to make such decisions at that time. If you feel that in circa 1982 the US government would introduce the HIV virus into the general population, come out and say so.

My criticism of your lame attempt at satire is not a failure to observe it, merely just that: criticism. I understand you feel a need to protect and defend Wright and all his crazy ideas as a good liberal, but guess what? Obama no longer does. He was pretty upfront about that today, tossing your man Wright completely under the bus.

Have fun with that.


----------



## Kav (Jun 19, 2005)

The real tragedy of Wright, and Jackson, Sharpton is not what they are. It is what they are not. To paraphrase another candidate from another election, ' I grew up watching Rev. Martin Luther King. I read his words, listened to his words. These fools are no Martin Luther King.'


----------



## Mike Petrik (Jul 5, 2005)

chatsworth osborne jr. said:


> Besides failing to recognize satire, a list of high-risk groups for HIV (in context nonetheless) somehow didn't register with you.
> Your attempt to project racism on me makes no sense. Do I hate hemophiliacs too?
> I ask again:'Your argument is that the government would not unleash a deadly program without proper planning?'


This conservative's distrust of government is grounded principally in its ineptitude not its maliciousness. But of course it is always possible that evil men in power decide to do evil things. What is not plausible is that they brilliantly effectuate a grand and sinister motiveless conspiracy, in complete and total secrecy, only to be outed by an opportunist nutjob with absolutely no evidence whatsoever. Of course some people have a pathological need to believe this kind of stuff -- which is why we have flat-earthers, Da Vinci Code believers, and members of Trinity Church.


----------



## Laxplayer (Apr 26, 2006)

Mike Petrik said:


> This conservative's distrust of government is grounded principally in its ineptitude not its maliciousness. But of course it is always possible that evil men in power decide to do evil things. What is not plausible is that they brilliantly effectuate a grand and sinister motiveless conspiracy, in complete and total secrecy, only to be outed by an opportunist nutjob with absolutely no evidence whatsoever. Of course some people have a pathological need to believe this kind of stuff -- which is why we have flat-earthers, Da Vinci Code believers, and members of Trinity Church.


And movies like I Am Legend.


----------



## SuitUP (Feb 8, 2008)

One of the things that get me on this whole Wright/Obama issue is that a lot of people don't pay attention to the news or selectively watch the news. Most of my friends are young (23-29 yrs) devout Christians who are democrat's and wanted Obama.

When asked why they didn't really know why. For the most part Obama captured their attention with his promises of change and his skills with public speaking. They viewed his age as plus also, unlike the "ancient republican candidate."

Now that I told them about the Rev Wright thing, no one is interested in Obama. And since I have told them the "ancient republican candidate" was able to get thru being a POW with his faith and prayer they seem to be taking a liking to McCain.


----------



## Mike Petrik (Jul 5, 2005)

SuitUP said:


> One of the things that get me on this whole Wright/Obama issue is that a lot of people don't pay attention to the news or selectively watch the news. Most of my friends are young (23-29 yrs) devout Christians who are democrat's and wanted Obama.
> 
> When asked why they didn't really know why. For the most part Obama captured their attention with his promises of change and his skills with public speaking. They viewed his age as plus also, unlike the "ancient republican candidate."
> 
> Now that I told them about the Rev Wright thing, no one is interested in Obama. And since I have told them the "ancient republican candidate" was able to get thru being a POW with his faith and prayer they seem to be taking a liking to McCain.


Understood and agreed. You might direct your friends to Karl Rove's piece on McCain in today's WSJ. Some folks will consider the source and dismiss it; they should instead consider the subject and admire him.


----------



## 16412 (Apr 1, 2005)

Some preachers exaggerate (which exasperate others) to drive home a point. When listening to these kinds of preachers you might need a few grains of salt. Like carpenters; framers like to sink the nail with one hit and it shows, while a finish carpenter wants no dent in the wood. One is structual and the other has other purposes.

When dealing with black people you are dealing with generational problems, and from different parts of the country these problems can be different. Grief is emotional. It is not like a physical bruise or broken bones which clearly show somebodies wrong doing. Bruise or broken bones can heal quickly. Emotional damage is difficult to fix. Many people die with it. If doctors could really understand it then it would be much easier to end these griefs. Here is a small grief to think about. Two pictures, one with a white girl and blue dress and the other a black girl in the same blue dress, neither one is prettier or lack of than the other, but when black kids are shown the two pictures they have to always say the white girl is prettier. They are forced in public school to depreciate on themselves by saying the white girl is prettier (in the bigger picture the whites who did this were depreciating on themselves). When I was in middle school our school district showed use many films of these evils. Another story; My uncle, right after WWII, was talking to one of his shipmates and when the bus came he got on at the back with his friend, because he was white he nearly got thrown off the bus, blacks in back and whites in front. Some grief comes from being forced to depreciate on ones-self. Blessed are they who mourn, for they shall be comforted. Those that step on the mourning, I don't want to be one of them.

Wright does have a problem as a pastor because he is dealing with generations that have grief from evil and he is dealing with those younger generations that have a better life. How can he preach to both at the same time with out making things worst and yet meet the needs of the old? And there are still whites who are grief makers. I don't think he has done his job well and some has been outright errors. But nobody mentions the whites that are grief makers. So what is the balance? You could say the white grief makers are putting all of us in this mess. 

There are many preachers I don't recommend, and Wright is one of them. But don't forget the whites that caused the rest of us so many problems. With in 20 years the white black problem will be greatly deminished.


----------



## PedanticTurkey (Jan 26, 2008)

WA said:


> But don't forget the whites that caused the rest of us so many problems. With in 20 years the white black problem will be greatly deminished.


Heh, that's good stuff. BTW, they said that 40 years ago-- remember the "great society"?


----------



## Relayer (Nov 9, 2005)

"With in 20 years the white black problem will be greatly deminished."

Maybe, but if so, it will be in spite of people like Wright.

And looking ahead, the issue at his church is not just Wright. It is the whole Afro-centric attitude. To get an idea of this, take a look at their web site (though some things changed and were toned down when this mess hit the fan).

I wonder if the new preacher at the church is preaching a similar message to Wright's?


----------



## Kav (Jun 19, 2005)

We had a speaker at my church by name of Dukakis. No big deal, it's a greek church and he is greek. He also ran for POTUS once upon a time. I voted for him. I'd vote for him again. But outside of a few media interviews lately, which I found very interesting: Nobody is filling blogs, news polls and chat room forums with comments on Dukakis these days. I remember President Bush's last state of the Union Address. The cameras panned to Obama looking all the world like a young lion, a Mark Anthony, Moses ready to lead us to the promise land. And then I recalled an anecdote by Ed McMahon about Johnny Carson. Each time they had the latest Hollywood goldenboy on, Carson would lean over and whisper 'Eric Estrada.'


----------

