# Your Opinions on The Reverend Jeremiah Wright, Jr. Issue



## KenR (Jun 22, 2005)

What are your opinions on the issue? Was Sen. Obama's speech enough? Should he have parted ways with the Reverend long ago? Is this an issue at all?


----------



## Kav (Jun 19, 2005)

You don't call another man your spiritual father and then deny him either in a garden or on the campaign trail.


----------



## Wayfarer (Mar 19, 2006)

Obama shall ultimately get a pass for having a 23 year mentor that is an obvious tin foil hat wearer and mildly racist/race baiter.

No ultimate harm to Obama.


----------



## ksinc (May 30, 2005)

Obama is cooked. The end of the fairytale.


----------



## radix023 (May 3, 2007)

Obama joined the biggest church in his area for the same reason most politicians join the biggest church in their area. Also, Obama was shoring up his 'blackness'. He knew very well who Rev. Wright was and is. To say he wasn't aware is simply a convenient lie.

WRT the speech, Mickey Kaus details the shortcomings better than I could:
https://www.slate.com/id/2186845/

To what degree this will hurt his campaign remains to be seen.


----------



## noble (May 22, 2007)

*An unqualified opinion:*

I'm on the other side of the world and my English is good but not perfect. From the reports I have seen on CNN and other news programmes I didn't hear this man say anything that was not true although he did say these things with a poor choice of vocabulary and great emotion. If a white man or a black man using less graphic descriptions of his ideas had said the same things there would have been no notice.

I watched Obama's speech and feel he tactfully addressed the situation. Unfortunately the situation he addressed is one that many Americans want to avoid.

Much as a manager who is in the situation of it being found that his subordinates have been stealing from the company: either the manager knew about this and so is dishonest or he did not know and is therefore incompetent...in either case he must be gotten rid of. Obama had no other choice than to distance himself from the Reverend.

If not peace in the world then peace in our homes and among us gentlemen.

noble


----------



## Beresford (Mar 30, 2006)

Interesting that the media totally neglects that the Hillary Campaign did a "Willy Horton" to the max on Obama.


----------



## mikeber (May 5, 2004)

Your opinion on Reverend Jeremiah Wright:

Jeremiah was a bullfrog
He was a good friend of mine
I never understood a single word he said
But I helped him drink his wine
And he always had some mighty fine wine


----------



## Wayfarer (Mar 19, 2006)

noble said:


> I'm on the other side of the world and my English is good but not perfect. *From the reports I have seen on CNN and other news programmes I didn't hear this man say anything that was not true *although he did say these things with a poor choice of vocabulary and great emotion. If a white man or a black man using less graphic descriptions of his ideas had said the same things there would have been no notice.


I have to figure this is a troll attempt. You really believe HIV was created by the US government to inflict on black people? You really this believe this is Ameri-KKK-a?


----------



## noble (May 22, 2007)

*A troll attempt?*



Wayfarer said:


> I have to figure this is a troll attempt. You really believe HIV was created by the US government to inflict on black people? You really this believe this is Ameri-KKK-a?


Why, because I don't agree with you? Democracy and free speech are great, aren't they?

noble


----------



## KenR (Jun 22, 2005)

noble said:


> Why, because I don't agree with you? Democracy and free speech are great, aren't they?
> 
> noble


No, because in this and another thread you sound like one.


----------



## Wayfarer (Mar 19, 2006)

noble said:


> Why, because I don't agree with you? Democracy and free speech are great, aren't they?
> 
> noble


No, because I do not think you agree with reality. I noticed you did not answer the direct questions I posed. You feel Wright speaks the truth. So then, you believe HIV was created by the US government to inflict on black people? Yes or no. Troll or not troll.


----------



## noble (May 22, 2007)

*who can say.*

I don't know and neither do you. I do know that HIV was given no thought until it left the minority groups and entered the mainstream population and even now very little is done about it. I don't want to argue politics here but history should not be denied.....the gov. did instigate several campaigns against black minorities such as the introduction of widely available substances produced by their allies in the far east under supervision of said gov. The same gov. has developed race targeting bio weapons (of course so have other countries), the list can go back 200 years.

I did not hear his speeches in their full context and neither did you so neither of us is qualified to fully comment on the mans opinions and life so let's leave it at that.

noble


----------



## ksinc (May 30, 2005)

noble said:


> I don't know and neither do you. I do know that HIV was given no thought until it left the minority groups and entered the mainstream population and even now very little is done about it. I don't want to argue politics here but history should not be denied.....the gov. did instigate several campaigns against black minorities such as the introduction of widely available substances produced by their allies in the far east under supervision of said gov. The same gov. has developed race targeting bio weapons (of course so have other countries), the list can go back 200 years.
> 
> I did not hear his speeches in their full context and neither did you so neither of us is qualified to fully comment on the mans opinions and life so let's leave it at that.
> 
> noble


How do you know "we" didn't hear his speeches in their full context? Speak for yourself, please. If you feel unqualified to have an opinion why are you so obstinate about it?


----------



## noble (May 22, 2007)

*I can see where this is going.*

You're rude, aggressive and impolite and there are always a few like this on North American dominated forums, meetings, events, etc...

This is a good example why Obama is the best choice for your next president; He understands the rest of the world and sees America's legitimate place in it. Creating a Global Family necessitates the understanding of how the other members think and feel...using the principles of common law rather than the new doctrine of Universal Principles as defined by one, mostly isolated, country.

Perhaps I was silly in thinking you had not been present for the entire career of this reverend and but of course you did sit in his church and listened to his entire sermons.

noble


----------



## KenR (Jun 22, 2005)

I think the situation in not very good right now, and to get things on track again there needs to be a lot more damage control. The reason why the Reverend has hung around so long as Sen. Obama's pastor has not been satisfactorily explained. If Obama is supposed to be a "post racial" candidate then having a racist spiritual advisor is problematic. Combine that with Mrs. Obama's remark that this is the first time she is proud to be an American raises some questions as to where the Senators beliefs actually lie.


----------



## KenR (Jun 22, 2005)

Noble, if you can see where this is going then take the hint.....and don't let he door hit you on your way out.


----------



## SuitUP (Feb 8, 2008)

noble said:


> He understands the rest of the world and sees America's legitimate place in it.


Noble, where do you think America's legitimate place in the world is? We are the last remaining superpower. Without us or our allies giving financial aid or military aid (Kuwait for instance) the world would be in a lot of hurt. We may not be perfect but the US & allies make this world a better place.


----------



## Wayfarer (Mar 19, 2006)

noble said:


> You're rude, aggressive and impolite and there are always a few like this on *North American* dominated forums, meetings, events, etc...


Why do you hate Mexicans?


----------



## noble (May 22, 2007)

*Let's not misunderstand each other.*



SuitUP said:


> Noble, where do you think America's legitimate place in the world is? We are the last remaining superpower. Without us or our allies giving financial aid or military aid (Kuwait for instance) the world would be in a lot of hurt. We may not be perfect but the US & allies make this world a better place.


I, like most of the world, love and respect the United States. Most of us are hoping America will return to its' role as a leader and a teacher through example and not as a dominator. An America that respects the differences of others and does not consider differing views as an attack on its' integrity.

China is becoming stronger and stronger each day and the US weaker and weaker. India, the EU and Russia have their own agendas as well so if the US wants to remain a superpower it needs to face the reality of the world and become a moral beacon again....in the not too far off future countries will be forced to choice sides as they did during the cold war. I hope America will return to something the rest of us will all choose.

noble


----------



## Wayfarer (Mar 19, 2006)

noble said:


> I don't know and neither do you. I do know that HIV was given no thought until it left the minority groups and entered the mainstream population and even now very little is done about it. I don't want to argue politics here but history should not be denied.....the gov. did instigate several campaigns against black minorities such as the introduction of widely available substances produced by their allies in the far east under supervision of said gov. The same gov. has developed race targeting bio weapons (of course so have other countries), the list can go back 200 years.


----------



## JRR (Feb 11, 2006)

noble said:


> You're rude, aggressive and impolite and there are always a few like this on North American dominated forums, meetings, events, etc...
> 
> This is a good example why Obama is the best choice for your next president; He understands the rest of the world and sees America's legitimate place in it. Creating a Global Family necessitates the understanding of how the other members think and feel...using the principles of common law rather than the new doctrine of Universal Principles as defined by one, mostly isolated, country.
> 
> ...


Wow you are touchy...


----------



## JRR (Feb 11, 2006)

KenR said:


> What are your opinions on the issue? Was Sen. Obama's speech enough? Should he have parted ways with the Reverend long ago? Is this an issue at all?


Obama has been exposed as merely a politician.


----------



## jackmccullough (May 10, 2006)

I guess it depends on what you mean by the Wright "issue".

1. Do I think he's a demagogue who's saying a bunch of things that are probably blatantly untrue and deserve to be condemned?
Absolutely.

2. Do I think that Obama was right to condemn those statements and distance himself from Wright?
Yes, again.

3. Do I think that his opinions say something about Obama's fitness for the presidency?
No, not much.

4. Do I think this tells us something about media bias?

In light of the fact that there are stories about Obama and Wright on the TV every night, and we've hardly heard a peep out of them about McCain and his chums Hagee and Parsley, it sure does. 
I don't know why anyone should think that Wright's statement about the chickens coming home to roost should be considered any more offensive than Hagee's statement that Jews are responsible for anti-semitism (https://www.talk2action.org/story/2007/3/5/105015/2167) or Parsley's statement that the divine purpose of the United States is to destroy Islam (https://www.motherjones.com/washington_dispatch/2008/03/john-mccain-rod-parsley-spiritual-guide.html).

5. What does the whole thing tell us about Obama?

I haven't seen his speech yet, but I thought his statement about having relatives of all different colors and races all over the world, and that his story could only happen in America, really captures the love that he, and I, and other liberals have for this great country. It's also why we are so saddened when our country doesn't live up to its ideals.

I share Ken's concern that this seems to have poisoned the atmosphere.

I also don't think ridiculous statements like those Noble is spreading on this board are helping any.


----------



## Cruiser (Jul 21, 2006)

noble said:


> Most of us are hoping America will return to its' role as a leader and a teacher through example and not as a dominator.
> 
> in the not too far off future countries will be forced to choice sides as they did during the cold war. I hope America will return to something the rest of us will all choose.


noble, I don't know if you are a troll or not (I was called a troll when I started posting and I'm not); however, if your aren't then at the least you are very misguided if you truly believe that this man speaks the truth. While America's outward appearance changes over time, underneath that outward appearance the basic core values of this nation's people have not changed.

I think Gen. Colin Powell best summed up America and her people when he told the World Economic Forum in 2003:




> We have gone forth from our shores repeatedly over the last hundred years and we've done this as recently as the last year in Afghanistan and put wonderful young men and women at risk, many of whom have lost their lives, and we have asked for nothing except enough ground to bury them in, and otherwise we have returned home to seek our own, you know, to seek our own lives in peace, to live our own lives in peace. But there comes a time when soft power or talking with evil will not work where, unfortunately, hard power is the only thing that works.


 
While the United States certainly has it's faults and has made it's share of mistakes throughout history, the fact is that the United States described by Gen. Powell is the country that I know and have proudly served. Let me ask you, if you have to choose, which do you choose?

Cruiser


----------



## KenR (Jun 22, 2005)

Anybody who keeps company with racists and other hate types should be held accountable. As far as fitness for the presidency goes, it doesn't help. Sen. Obama should have poured the poison down the drain a long time ago.

"If you lie down with dogs, you wake up with fleas", which is probably why my wife makes me sleep on the couch. :icon_smile_big:


----------



## noble (May 22, 2007)

*My English isn't the best but...*



jackmccullough said:


> I guess it depends on what you mean by the Wright "issue".
> 
> 1. Do I think he's a demagogue who's saying a bunch of things that are probably blatantly untrue and deserve to be condemned?
> Absolutely.
> ...


...I have reread my post and can not find the ridiculous statements you are referring to...perhaps you can find them for me?

Having lived in most parts of the world and having access to news from many different countries in several different languages will most certainly give me a different prospective than most Americans will have. Denying certain facts such as J.Edgar Hover's institutionalised repression of the black people (as well as his blackmail of more than one president) or the setting up by the gov. of the Kuomintang to produce drugs that were then sold in the US mostly to the minority populations will not change the facts.

Should this reverend by angry about these things...I and most of the world thinks so. Attacking me personally because of my views is not "The American Way". (or has it become?).

noble


----------



## PedanticTurkey (Jan 26, 2008)

radix023 said:


> Obama joined the biggest church in his area for the same reason most politicians join the biggest church in their area. Also, Obama was shoring up his 'blackness'. He knew very well who Rev. Wright was and is. To say he wasn't aware is simply a convenient lie.


You hit the nail on the head. But now Obama is lying to cover his ass, and that's, well, it's par for the course, but it doesn't fit the HOPE and CHANGE messages very well, does it?



jackmccullough said:


> 3. Do I think that his opinions say something about Obama's fitness for the presidency?
> No, not much.


Really? So he goes to a radical black church for 23 years, then pretends like he's never heard the stuff before-- the stuff from the videos the church was _selling_.

Then he lies about it to the American people. Let me guess- you were a Clinton supporter too?



> 4. Do I think this tells us something about media bias?
> 
> In light of the fact that there are stories about Obama and Wright on the TV every night, and we've hardly heard a peep out of them about McCain and his chums Hagee and Parsley, it sure does.
> I don't know why anyone should think that Wright's statement about the chickens coming home to roost should be considered any more offensive than Hagee's statement that Jews are responsible for anti-semitism (https://www.talk2action.org/story/2007/3/5/105015/2167) or Parsley's statement that the divine purpose of the United States is to destroy Islam (https://www.motherjones.com/washington_dispatch/2008/03/john-mccain-rod-parsley-spiritual-guide.html).


Ah, yes, compare Obama's 23-year mentor to some guy who supports McCain. Pretty pathetic.

And as to "media bias," the blogs have known about Obama's crazy church since its website came under scrutiny back in November 2007ish. But not a peep about it until Obama is almost certainly already the nominee, there's more than a month 'til the next primary, and there's a much bigger story dominating the airwaives. How's that for media bias?


----------



## noble (May 22, 2007)

Cruiser said:


> noble, I don't know if you are a troll or not (I was called a troll when I started posting and I'm not); however, if your aren't then at the least you are very misguided if you truly believe that this man speaks the truth. While America's outward appearance changes over time, underneath that outward appearance the basic core values of this nation's people have not changed.
> 
> I think Gen. Colin Powell best summed up America and her people when he told the World Economic Forum in 2003:
> 
> ...


Some strange man calls me a troll for no reason, goes to another of my posts concerning a topic he knows nothing about and calls me a troll again (this is not a rational act) and from that you ask if I'm a troll??? no comment required I think.

I see America from the outside in and so much I wish that I could see her from the inside. I have not been to her for a very long time but my memories of America and Americans are some of the fondest of my life. The way things are reported about the current administration in most of the world frightens me. The short memory Americans have always been noted for also frightens me.....remember what you fought against in WW II and don't become that thing.

Despite my fear I still have faith in the common goodness of the average American so I think you can turn things around before it's too late.

If I must choose today: America of course. I hope my answer remains the same in the future.

noble


----------



## Cruiser (Jul 21, 2006)

noble said:


> and from that you ask if I'm a troll??? no comment required I think.


I didn't ask you if you are a troll. Don't care. You might be a Klingon for all I know.

Cruiser


----------



## pt4u67 (Apr 27, 2006)

Obama's known about this guy for a long, long time. I'm sure he and his wife have sat in the pews on numerous occasions and been treated to his lengthy, Castro-esque diatribes. Playing racial politics is fun when your political ambitions are within a small, homogenous community. Take the show on the road and this is what happens. Jeremiah Wright is a bigot, racist and all around dirt bag. His "church" should lose its tax exempt status (as should most so called "white" evangelical churches) due to its obvious endorsement of a political candidate.

But I don't blame him. I don't even blame the hundreds of knuckle heads in the audience hooting and hollering. I blame Obama. He is either naive or arrogant to think that this should not matter. How does one attend services at the same church for 20 years with someone like Wright? There must be something that the Rev. is saying that he agrees with or at least empathizes with. The irony for Obama is that by acting in a way that he _thinks_ diffuses the race issue, he has actually infused his campaign with the issue. His knee jerk, reactionary handling has affirmed that he is neither willing or unable to reach beyond his comfort zone and cut his ties with this man.


----------



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

*Anyhow, I'm cool with Wright*



Wayfarer said:


> So then, you believe HIV was created by the US government to inflict on black people?


The reports I see have him speaking about AIDS, not HIV. As an obvious expert, you should know the difference.

It's an easy notion for the naive to dismiss, but as already stated the deliberate infection of the Tuskegee Airmen seems incredible too.

The Hagee endorsement of McCain is much more troubling.


----------



## pt4u67 (Apr 27, 2006)

chatsworth osborne jr. said:


> The reports I see have him speaking about AIDS, not HIV. As an obvious expert, you should know the difference.
> It's an easy notion for the naive to dismiss, but as already stated the deliberate infection of the *Tuskegee Airmen *seems incredible too.


It was the Tuskegee experiment. It had nothing to do with the Tuskegee Airmen. There is a difference in that the subjects of the experiments were denied treatment. They were not infected with syphillis. I'm not trying to justify it. Simply pointing out a fact.

Don't you think that if the Government had anything, in anyway to do with the spreading of HIV/AIDS there would have been some credible proof by now. For goodness sakes, look at the leaks that come out of the administrations of our presidents (both parties) and tell me something this scandelous could have stayed a secret for this long.


----------



## Wayfarer (Mar 19, 2006)

chatsworth osborne jr. said:


> The reports I see have him speaking about AIDS, not HIV. * As an obvious expert, *you should know the difference.


Indeed I do know the difference. It is one without much of a distinction. I have no idea what you are implying with the bolded however.

Also, as has been pointed out to you, you are obviously *not* an expert in recent history.

Carry on.


----------



## The Gabba Goul (Feb 11, 2005)

Wayfarer said:


> Obama shall ultimately get a pass for having a 23 year mentor that is an obvious tin foil hat wearer and mildly racist/race baiter.
> 
> No ultimate harm to Obama.


'zactly...people are so blined by the light it appears that hussein obama can do no wrong in their eyes...I just have to shake my head at people's ignorance sometimes...I guess the fact that he made an "inspirational" speech 4 years ago trumps the fact that he's been calling a racist nutcase his "spiritual leader" for a quarter of a century...


----------



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

pt4u67 said:


> It was the Tuskegee experiment. It had nothing to do with the Tuskegee Airmen. There is a difference in that the subjects of the experiments were denied treatment...
> 
> Don't you think that if the Government had anything, in anyway to do with the spreading of HIV/AIDS there would have been some credible proof by now.


Correct on both counts with the Tuskegee experiment (lazy Google verification). However, the fact that it went on in secret for 40 years kind of answers other skepticism.

Note: AIDS is 2008-1981=27 years old. Yes, a secret can be held that long and longer.


----------



## pt4u67 (Apr 27, 2006)

chatsworth osborne jr. said:


> Correct on both counts with the Tuskegee experiment (lazy Google verification). However, the fact that it went on in secret for 40 years kind of answers other skepticism.


I'm sorry but I don't see how it answers anything. Yes it was deplorable but to use it as an excuse to see monsters around every corner is a stretch.


----------



## PedanticTurkey (Jan 26, 2008)

Wow, yeah, the experiment went on for 40 years, and ended...forty years ago. Good one.


----------



## Relayer (Nov 9, 2005)

What this must show to even ardent Obama supporters is his dishonesty in the face of the initial questions about Wright.

When first asked about the Rev's comments, Obama indicated that he had never heard this kind of thing from his pastor, that he had never sat through a "sermon" with these kind of comments. This was quickly discovered to be untrue and now he has had to admit that.

His speech was a very artful attempt to change the subject from why he was sitting through such speeches and hate-filled rhetoric for 20 years from the man who is so very close to him. Why did Obama not work a little of his supposed "bringing folks together" magic on the good reverend? He had PLENTY of time to do it.

If any other candidate for the Presidency was caught being in ANY way associated with a person who carried such public and passionate hate for another race the result would likely be immediate resignation from the race.


----------



## brioni007 (Dec 3, 2007)

*Healing*

We must be honest about race and politics. Yes America has race problems that we fail to address and pretend like the 800 pound monkey is not in the room. We keep washing over the issues of race in this country. We are segregating ourselves all over again. lets face it we never really desegregated. Like Obama stated their is resentment on all sides. blacks feel like they have been shafted, and on the other hand whites feel like the others have been given too much. We can't run and hide because we have to cross each other on a daily basis. I'm a mixed race person that was forced to pick a color because the darker pigment is stronger. I can't deny my other side because I'm also half that! Rev Wright was wrong in his statements, he should have never expresses those views from the pulpit. One has to cloak himself in the truth of the creator when one steps into that arena. Do you think that the creator looks at our pigment? I pray for the days that MLK spoke about! All I have to say about politics the most untrue thing on the planet. God please bless America!


----------



## TMMKC (Aug 2, 2007)

I fear that Wright is a hate monger and Obama ignored that fact for far too long.


----------



## Kav (Jun 19, 2005)

Nobel, Command of a foriegn language and world travel do not by default give anyone a superior world view than 'most americans.' The thai is Thailand is in no small part to an earlier, equally unpopular american war, barring the current political situation in your country with the military removal of the government. I assume your travels include ; Vietnam, Cambodia, Laos, Burma, Tibet and Ache' in Indonesia? Anyone can point a finger at the moon and command it not to move. This assumes of course the moon is paying attention. But unoticed to the pointer, both the moon and the earth are both moving as part of an infinite complex of moving objects.It may indeed seem to freeze in the evening sky, but no little amount of time shows our error. It is such pointing that gives lie to Obama's ability to point at things and make them stop.


----------



## Wayfarer (Mar 19, 2006)

brioni007 said:


> We must be honest about race and politics. Yes America has race problems that we fail to address and pretend like the 800 pound monkey is not in the room. We keep washing over the issues of race in this country. We are segregating ourselves all over again. lets face it we never really desegregated. Like Obama stated their is resentment on all sides. blacks feel like they have been shafted, and on the other hand whites feel like the others have been given too much. We can't run and hide because we have to cross each other on a daily basis. I'm a mixed race person that was forced to pick a color because the darker pigment is stronger. I can't deny my other side because I'm also half that! Rev Wright was wrong in his statements, he should have never expresses those views from the pulpit. One has to cloak himself in the truth of the creator when one steps into that arena. Do you think that the creator looks at our pigment? I pray for the days that MLK spoke about! All I have to say about politics the most untrue thing on the planet. God please bless America!


Very good post. +1


----------



## PedanticTurkey (Jan 26, 2008)

Except that Obama has been a member of this church for 20 years. I don't doubt one bit that his membership has been nothing but political opportunism, but the fact is that Obama has looked the other way and indeed participated-- he was a _deacon_ in this church-- in this polarizing radical crap.

The church is bad, and Obama has acted badly in supporting it for 20 years. He's also acted badly in continuing to lie about it. Hold the man accountable.

Now, if I can hop on the soapbox for a minute-- that's the problem with blacks in this country today. They blame other people and make excuses for themselves, and white people are either too liberal-stupid or too scared of being branded bigots to hold them accountable. This is what's keeping the black man down, not any conspiracies.


----------



## Kav (Jun 19, 2005)

Your soapbox hasn't afforded you any greater view of the world has it? " The touble with blacks today" asumes all people who identify as black americans are a homogenous part of one racially defined society. But I may be wrong. I'm from Southern California, not 'the South' and lacking a plaid shirt with torn sleeves, an interest in NASCAR or instant grits I'm handicapped.


----------



## PedanticTurkey (Jan 26, 2008)

Wow, gee, you mean that something can be true in the general or usual case but not true in every case?

Oh, wow, you've opened my eyes. I never knew I could learn so much from someone so... special...


----------



## jackmccullough (May 10, 2006)

radix023 said:


> Obama joined the biggest church in his area for the same reason most politicians join the biggest church in their area. Also, Obama was shoring up his 'blackness'. He knew very well who Rev. Wright was and is. To say he wasn't aware is simply a convenient lie.
> 
> WRT the speech, Mickey Kaus details the shortcomings better than I could:
> https://www.slate.com/id/2186845/
> ...


Mickey's a conservative, which might not be that relevant, since conservatives and moderates are more the group that Obama needs to reach out to.

Still, Mickey's comments on bloggingheads are more balanced: https://bloggingheads.tv/diavlogs/9562


----------



## Kav (Jun 19, 2005)

Stick around Turkey. I'll make an ivory billed woodpecker out of you given enough time.


----------



## jackmccullough (May 10, 2006)

noble said:


> ...I have reread my post and can not find the ridiculous statements you are referring to...perhaps you can find them for me?
> 
> noble


==>The U.S. government did, or may have, intentionally spread AIDS as a tool of genocide against blacks.
==>The U.S. government "did instigate several campaigns against black minorities such as the introduction of widely available substances produced by their allies in the far east under supervision of said gov."
==>"The same gov. has developed race targeting bio weapons" (by which you presumably mean weapons that are targeted to affect certain racial groups).

Unlike you, if I thought the U.S. government had done such things, I would not consider the U.S. a "moral beacon".

Sorry for taking so long to reply.


----------



## Laxplayer (Apr 26, 2006)

Kav said:


> Your soapbox hasn't afforded you any greater view of the world has it? " The touble with blacks today" asumes all people who identify as black americans are a homogenous part of one racially defined society. But I may be wrong. *I'm from Southern California, not 'the South' and lacking a plaid shirt with torn sleeves, an interest in NASCAR or instant grits I'm handicapped.*


LOL :icon_smile_big:
I can't decide who is more annoying...noble or turkey.


----------



## Kav (Jun 19, 2005)

Heres a thought; We offer back predictable replies of ' my Nation-Government did/ is doing X wrong but we are still a great nation and the world's best hope. At least we acknowledge our past mistakes and are becoming a greater people. And for our best efforts America is still one big urban myth of danger to the world. Well, O.K. lets be one. Once, just once lets really do something so horrific that all past accusations fall into such a deep shadow of fear that Pashtuns BEG us to accept a bound Bin ladin, Canada devalues it's currency back below the sola scriptura of a US greenback ( well, it has a bunch of new purty colours a pocketsquare would envy) and Russia withdraws from Little Diomede Island. Waht will it be? USAF tankers dropping loads of Carolina factory pig factory effluent ponds on Teheran? Invade Cuba with the Gitmo detainees pressed forward across minefields at bayonet point and let Chuck Norris karate chop teh ailing Fidel? Or the meanest, cruelest act of all, total withdrawal and isolationism for 10 years and then walking back out to pick up whatever worthwhile pieces are left of the whole bloody mess? Even us tree hugging liberals grow tired of the bashing.


----------



## Intrepid (Feb 20, 2005)

*Maybe we're just seeing disappointment*

It was originally thought that service in congress would be a one time thing, to serve the country, with a return to the real world. Lincoln was one of the first that decided to run for a second term in congress, and many were outraged,at the time.

Now, government service is an end in itself. Most in congress have never had a job in the real world, have no notion of the hardships of running any kind of a business, and have healthcare and retirement benefits that the average American can never dream of.

Most enter congress with modest means,have a minimal salary, and ultimately retire fabulously wealthy, even if never convicted.

The impression is that legislators of both parties spend 99% of their time on their personal power, and little, if any, time on trying to figure out what is in the best interest of the republic. (Look at the thread going on Social Security..."what the hell, let someone else worry about that. I'm not going to put my political future at risk in dealing with a tough problem. If I can get an earmark to build a museum in my district, maybe no one will figure out that my time in congress is of little benefit to anyone but me.")

Therefore, it was a breath of fresh air to see Obama emerge from the scene as a contender for the Presidency. Not only did it show tremendous progress in the race arena, because race initially wasn't a significant issue.

Obama is also a magnificant speaker, who presented a completely blank canvass that permitted each American to make of his campaign what they thought was the best of America.

Maybe what we are dealing with now, is just disappointment, that he is really no more than a politician. No better or worse than the rest.

Wright, Rezco, etc have just tarnished something that we all hoped was better than the choices that we have had in the past.

Disappointment like that is tough to take.


----------



## Liberty Ship (Jan 26, 2006)

The Dems have really been struggling to keep the mask on long enough to get power, but every so often we get a peek "behind the curtain." Were it not for their need to maintain the charade of sanity and patriotism, I wouldn't be surprised to see Rev. Wright as Keynote speaker at the Democratic National Convention.

Spitzer - Wright in 2012!!!!

The problem with Wright is not his relationship with Obama. We know Obama is bad news. The problem is that apparently Wright's church is powerful and influential and thousands of "ordinary" people buy into his hatred. It's like a Christian madrassa!


----------



## KenR (Jun 22, 2005)

Liberty Ship said:


> The Dems have really been struggling to keep the mask on long enough to get power, but every so often we get a peek "behind the curtain." Were it not for their need to maintain the charade of sanity and patriotism, I wouldn't be surprised to see Rev. Wright as Keynote speaker at the Democratic National Convention.
> 
> Spitzer - Wright in 2012!!!!
> 
> The problem with Wright is not his relationship with Obama. We know Obama is bad news. The problem is that apparently Wright's church is powerful and influential and thousands of "ordinary" people buy into his hatred. It's like a Christian madrassa!


I don't believe that most Democrats think sanity and patriotism is a sham. They just go about defining it a bit differently. I am not willing to paint them with the same brush as one would paint the far left "loons" (thank you Bill O'Reilly) and other hate mongers. Liberals and Democrats are just the flip side of the same coin from Conservatives and Republicans. The far left and far right are a bunch of wooden nickels, however.

Actually, I do not know that Sen. Obama is bad news. Unfortunately, I just don't know enough about him yet.


----------



## Francisco D'Anconia (Apr 18, 2007)

*Rev. Wright and Ron Paul Agree??*

Has anyone mentioned that Rev. Wright's comments about Islamic hostility to the US and what he considers the motives for the 9/11 attacks are remarkably similar to what Ron paul has said for a long time?


----------



## ksinc (May 30, 2005)

chatsworth osborne jr. said:


> The Hagee endorsement of McCain is much more troubling.


As probably the most vocal McCain critic on the forum, even I can be objective and say that's the dumbest thing I have ever read on these forums.

Hagee endorsed Mccain. AFAWK, McCain has never endorsed Hagee. McCain has famously and extemperaneously called several evangelical/fundamental ministers "agents of intolerance."

Wright endorsed Obama, but Obama endorsed Wright by being a member of his church, paying his tithe there for 20 years, and submitting his wife and children to the leadership of his church.

Morally, philosophically, intellectually, and politically there is a world of difference.


----------



## ksinc (May 30, 2005)

Francisco D'Anconia said:


> Has anyone mentioned that Rev. Wright's comments about Islamic hostility to the US and what he considers the motives for the 9/11 attacks are remarkably similar to what Ron paul has said for a long time?


I think that's a good point for discussion. I'm afraid a lot of it would involve the "tenor" of the remarks and the perceived purpose for the criticism. I don't think Ron Paul would ever say "G.D. America!"


----------



## jackmccullough (May 10, 2006)

You may be forgetting or overlooking that it wasn't an unsolicited endorsement. McCain went looking for Hagee's endorsement.


----------



## brokencycle (Jan 11, 2008)

I think Wright is an idiot and a bigot. If it were some white preacher saying the same things about blacks, there would be clamoring by Jesse Jackson and the like to charge the man with hate crimes or censure him.

But alas, the shoe is on the other foot, and everything is okay. Obama's speech did nothing. He has changed his position on the issue at least twice, and comparing Wright's speech to his grandmother making a racist comment in private? They are not morally equivalent. A private stereotype is far different than preaching hate.


----------



## jpeirpont (Mar 16, 2004)

The Gabba Goul said:


> 'zactly...people are so blined by the light it appears that *hussein obama* can do no wrong in their eyes...I just have to *shake my head at people's ignorance sometimes*...I guess the fact that he made an "inspirational" speech 4 years ago trumps the fact that he's been calling a racist nutcase his "spiritual leader" for a quarter of a century...


Irony? On purpose or or not?...lol


----------



## ksinc (May 30, 2005)

jackmccullough said:


> You may be forgetting or overlooking that it wasn't an unsolicited endorsement. McCain went looking for Hagee's endorsement.


I'm neither forgetting nor overlooking that; I'm simply being consistent in applying the standard that the endorser endorses the platform of the endorsee.

Hagee endorsed McCain; that implies Hagee endorses McCain's platform/agenda. 
Wright endorsed Obama; that implies Wright endorses Obama's platform/agenda.

There's no issue there as far as I'm concerned. Obama's platform/agenda is not what I would propose, but it is not anti-American, racist, or belligerent.

Farrakan and the Black Panthers also endorsed Obama. That does not mean he endorses their platform/agenda. It means they endorse his; which would be a vaste improvement over theirs. I don't even buy into the idea Obama should reject their endorsements. All Americans, even Black Panthers, have a right to vote. We are all stuck with endorsing either Obama, Clinton, McCain, or no one. McCain and Obama are afterall politicians and they seek and receive endorsements from as many Americans as they can.

The problem I have, as I clearly stated, is when Obama endorses Wright's anti-American, racist, and belligerent platform/agenda as he did by his attendance of, submission to, and financial support of Wright's church.

Whether that endorsement is implied or explicit I guess is fair debate. I consider it explicit, but even if it is merely implied it is an endorsement. Rejecting/denouncing a particular set of extreme statements once they become public and politically expedient does not explain or pardon the long-standing endorsement from which Obama profited politically throughout his State and U.S. Senate career.

As you well know, I'm neither a McCain fan nor defender.


----------



## JibranK (May 28, 2007)

Out of curiousity, who here actually listened to Rev. Wright's speeches in their entirety?


----------



## ksinc (May 30, 2005)

JibranK said:


> Out of curiousity, who here actually listened to Rev. Wright's speeches in their entirety?


Not even Mrs. Wright (if there is one) I'm sure. What's the point of such a vague question?


----------



## capitalart (Apr 2, 2007)

Kav said:


> You don't call another man your spiritual father and then deny him either in a garden or on the campaign trail.


I agree.


----------



## JibranK (May 28, 2007)

ksinc said:


> Not even Mrs. Wright (if there is one) I'm sure. What's the point of such a vague question?


Well, a lot of people are reacting based on these 15-second snippets without hearing the context.


----------



## PedanticTurkey (Jan 26, 2008)

JibranK said:


> Well, a lot of people are reacting based on these 15-second snippets without hearing the context.


Heheh. This is going to be rich. What's the context?


----------



## ksinc (May 30, 2005)

JibranK said:


> Well, a lot of people are reacting based on these 15-second snippets without hearing the context.


Ok, so you really wanted to ask if anyone had heard a specific speech in its entirety rather than "who here actually listened to Rev. Wright's speeches in their entirety?" Such as the speech on 9/16/2001 or what other specific speech do you want to discuss?

I have listened to or read transcripts of three full speeches in their entirety (hope, hannah, and 9/16) of which clips were taken in addition to watching a myriad of additional clips by Rev. Wright on YouTube. Some that were posted by others to highlight negative statements and some that were posted by his church trying to give a broader view of his teaching. Many of which are outstanding and I think highlight even further the tragedy and duplicity of the man himself. He obviously knows better and has admonished others to do better.

I still don't see how that is relevant, but I did it for my own information/education on the man. I feel no obligation to view all 3,500 sermons or whatever to have an opinion on Rev. Wright's comments as portrayed in the clips however.

To say the "US-KKK-A" or "GD America" comments require context is not really going to get a lot of intellectual support I'm afraid. At least none I can lend it. There really is no context that makes those acceptable to the majority of Americans. I have seen several people try to make that argument on TV and it really rings hollow. To argue those are not the thoughts of a "raving racist" or an "anti-American" while maybe partially true are just not going to fly. It's like what Mel Gibson went through for instance. What did the media do to him? Did they really entertain he was not anti-semitic? Or; take the case of Kramer from Seinfeld. Did he get any slack on his comments? No, he didn't. And; he apologized - immediately. They both did. I will admit I have not seen Rev. Wright's apology in its entirety. Can you point me to it? That would be relevant. Obama's speech is not. He failed to address any of the real questions regarding his endorsement of Wright as I previously outlined my view of it.

I will say that the "chickens coming home to roost" comment made on 9/16/2001 does need some context, but I don't think that is the particular one that pisses people off the most. As was said earlier it's not that far off from of Ron Paul's comments. That is not racist or anti-American IMHO. It is just politically stupid. It was stupid when Ron Paul said it, and it is stupid when Rev. Wright says it. While it may be based in *SOME* historical fact it is a biased and self-serving interpretation of those facts that is politically not viable rhetoric. I admit they all do that to some degree and we support some of them, don't we? I am speaking about some of the moral comparisons he makes between terrorism today and settling America (Native American Indians).

I have seen some pretty good things Rev. Wright said, but that does not excuse the bad things he said. And; they are bad things. I think most feel it is impossible that those bad things came out of a good/pure heart. Even if it were, that sort of leniency has not been extended to whites who made far less personal comments such as Trent Lott praising Strom Thurmond at his retirement party (or whatever it was) and being called a racist.

The precedent for judging these things has been set and unfortunately it was set by people like Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson where we have been told that not just specific words, but even "code words" matter regardless of context.

Any discussion of context regarding Rev. Wright may be interesting in some aspect, but it's going to be totally irrelevant in a public, political aspect. Just as Obama saying "a typical white person" is going to be. The standard (which I agree may be a stupid standard) has been set by the race-baiters and the MSM bought into it. Obama has no more immunity to say "a typical white person" than I do to use the so-called N-word. If we as a society want to take a step back from the demagoguery of taking people out of context and calling them racists ... great! But first, let's ask why are we just now doing it when a black politician is the victim of his own poor judgement? At the same time the MSM is trying to make something of Senator McCain accidentally calling Shiite Extremists Al-Q in Iraq as though he is confused on the War on Terror. Even I, a so-called McCain-hater, won't chase that car down the street.

Live by the sword, die by the sword. This is not the first time in history someone has complained about the use of sound-bites and the people crying now like Chris Matthews are some of the worst perpetrators.

Should your question be relevant and fair? Perhaps. Is it? IMHO the reality is that it is not. That's just how the cookie crumbles. I think we're all supposed to know the score. It's like "no crying in baseball." If you make a stupid, racist, anti-American comment no one wants to hear what you really meant or what your larger context was or at least they haven't in the past. What makes Rev. Wright different other than his skin color? To ask for Rev. Wright's racism to be treated different, to be understood, is in fact racism itself.

JMO.ICBW.BINVL.


----------



## Intrepid (Feb 20, 2005)

*Bumper Sticker*

It didn't take long. I saw a bumper sticker today that said "OBAMA'S GRANDMOTHER IS VOTING FOR MCCAIN".


----------



## The Gabba Goul (Feb 11, 2005)

jpeirpont said:


> Irony? On purpose or or not?...lol


I dunno...I guess my white half must be making me dumb...but I'm quite sure that his name is indeed barack hussein obama...did I say that there was anything wrong with that??? no...aparently he thinks there is because he was screaming like a smashed cat when his middle name was used a few weeks back. Not quite sure what's so ignorant about using a man's middle name...but whatever...

Sorry, didnt realize that calling an anti-American racist scumbag what he is was an issue of contention for you, but fine...it's a slow afternoon, let's dance...I'm sure I'll get called a racist and probably start a flame war for this, but I'm gonna say it anyway...not everybody is "out to get" the black man...have black people gotten the sh!tty end of the sitck in the past? sure...are there still ignorant people who will dislike somebody because of the color of their skin??? sure (but that works both ways too)...but how the hell are we ever supposed to have any kind of real harmony between the races if certain people from certain races continue to pour salt into a wound that should have closed up long ago???

I know that in the eyes of some people (not just black) that if somebody is of their own race, then they can do no wrong and any time they are caught doing wrong, then it's obviously somebody else's fault (In this case it's just that darn racist intolerant white America who have done nothing but support him), but seriously, I doubt very many intellegent people made obama's race an issue until recently...and the reason why??? because he chose to align himself with a racist who just had to push the issue...sorry...but as somebody said earlier...if you lie down with dogs, you're going to get fleas...I have plenty of black acquaintences, and I find that probably 99% of them hate guys like Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton...I dont see how Rev. Wright is too terribly different...and obama was dead wrong for aligning himself with him...sorry...end of story...


----------



## rgrossicone (Jan 27, 2008)

The Gabba Goul said:


> I dunno...I guess my white half must be making me dumb...but I'm quite sure that his name is indeed barack hussein obama...did I say that there was anything wrong with that??? no...aparently he thinks there is because he was screaming like a smashed cat when his middle name was used a few weeks back. Not quite sure what's so ignorant about using a man's middle name...but whatever...
> quote]
> 
> I don't think he thinks here is, but again, he is a politician. His reaction is a sad commentary on the ignorance of much of the American public. 60 Minutes aired a segment on Ohio the Sunday before Super Tuesday. One of the six people who were interviewed said that he would like to vote for Obama but isn't sure *because he heard he was Muslim*. Now I know that was just one person, but _*if* one out of six_ _Americans_ is ignorant to the fact that Muslim does not equal terrorist then we are in bad shape.
> ...


----------



## capitalart (Apr 2, 2007)

Intrepid said:


> It didn't take long. I saw a bumper sticker today that said "OBAMA'S GRANDMOTHER IS VOTING FOR MCCAIN".


Thats a great bumper sticker:icon_smile:


----------



## JibranK (May 28, 2007)

ksinc said:


> Ok, so you really wanted to ask if anyone had heard a specific speech in its entirety rather than "who here actually listened to Rev. Wright's speeches in their entirety?" Such as the speech on 9/16/2001 or what other specific speech do you want to discuss?
> 
> I have listened to or read transcripts of three full speeches in their entirety (hope, hannah, and 9/16) of which clips were taken in addition to watching a myriad of additional clips by Rev. Wright on YouTube. Some that were posted by others to highlight negative statements and some that were posted by his church trying to give a broader view of his teaching. Many of which are outstanding and I think highlight even further the tragedy and duplicity of the man himself. He obviously knows better and has admonished others to do better.
> 
> ...


ksinc, I agree with you - I was just asking about context out of curiousity since I heard a fellow on the radio yesterday boasting about his not listening to the whole speeches and how that somehow indicated his great intelligence.


----------



## Cruiser (Jul 21, 2006)

The Gabba Goul said:


> obama was dead wrong for aligning himself with him...sorry...end of story...


I agree and he should pay the consequences for that just like any other politician would pay. I can't even imagine the backlash if a white politician running for public office declared David Duke to be his mentor and spiritual advisor. And I don't see a lot of difference in the hate filled words of Wright and the hate filled words of someone like Duke.

Even if Wright has done more good in the world than a Duke, it still doesn't get him a free pass for all of the things he said; and just like any other politician Obama must absorb the guilt by association. It comes with the territory, rightly or wrongly. Obama didn't choose his grandmother but he did choose his spiritual advisor, and he also did choose to run for public office.

Do I think Obama holds the same views as Wright? Of course not. I think Obama is an honorable man who wants to do what he thinks is right for America. But he is an honorable man that I won't vote for because his political views are too liberal for me, not because of Rev. Wright.

Cruiser


----------



## BertieW (Jan 17, 2006)

KenR said:


> I don't believe that most Democrats think sanity and patriotism is a sham. They just go about defining it a bit differently. I am not willing to paint them with the same brush as one would paint the far left "loons" (thank you Bill O'Reilly) and other hate mongers. Liberals and Democrats are just the flip side of the same coin from Conservatives and Republicans. The far left and far right are a bunch of wooden nickels, however.
> 
> Actually, I do not know that Sen. Obama is bad news. Unfortunately, I just don't know enough about him yet.


People keep saying they don't know much about Obama's views, but he's written a couple books that help fill in the blanks. The first one is particularly good.


----------



## jackmccullough (May 10, 2006)

Could someone point out a statement made by Wright that was actually racist?


----------



## ksinc (May 30, 2005)

JibranK said:


> ksinc, I agree with you - I was just asking about context out of curiousity since I heard a fellow on the radio yesterday boasting about his not listening to the whole speeches and how that somehow indicated his great intelligence.


Oh! Well, next time just say that and save me some typing! J/K


----------



## PedanticTurkey (Jan 26, 2008)

jackmccullough said:


> Could someone point out a statement made by Wright that was actually racist?




You live in your own little world, don't you?


----------



## jackmccullough (May 10, 2006)

PedanticTurkey said:


> You live in your own little world, don't you?


So that's a no then.


----------



## PedanticTurkey (Jan 26, 2008)

jackmccullough said:


> So that's a no then?


It's one of those "ask a stupid question" type answers.

Anyway, if you don't think that claiming ****** created the AIDS virus to keep black people down is racist (as well as crazy), then, well...


----------



## Relayer (Nov 9, 2005)

"US of KKK A." has just the slightest racial tinge.

What does Obama think of the good Reverend? 

"He’s drawn attention as the result of some inflammatory and appalling remarks he made about our country, our politics, and my political opponents.

Let me say at the outset that I vehemently disagree and strongly condemn the statements that have been the subject of this controversy. I categorically denounce any statement that disparages our great country or serves to divide us from our allies. I also believe that words that degrade individuals have no place in our public dialogue, whether it’s on the campaign stump or in the pulpit. In sum, I reject outright the statements by Rev. Wright that are at issue."
***

This after he was forced to change his original story that he was basically unaware of how the good reverend felt about these things after being a member of his spiritual mentor's flock for 20 short years.

Of course, what do I know. To Obama I'm probably just a "typical white person."

Wouldnt it be interesting to watch the public/media/jackmccullogh reaction if McCain or Hillary referred to an African-American as "a typical black person".


----------



## ksinc (May 30, 2005)

jackmccullough said:


> Could someone point out a statement made by Wright that was actually racist?


Jack,

As I used the terms "raving racist" and "anti-American" I'm certainly willing to justify my tagging of him with these labels. I don't know if you meant to call me out specifically.

I think rather than "statements" it is more the terms or phrases that he uses repeatedly in various statements and what those say about his core beliefs. You can go do your own homework, but as I said above, the standard used against whites is phrases or even "code words." If that is not the same standard for blacks then that is itself racist. I digress.

#1 right off the cuff - anyone that can say "GD America" and from a pulpit no less is IMHO a special kind of pinhead. They are both a heretic and on the same grounds as someone burning a flag. Where I live those are anti-American sentiments and "fighting words." So, right there well "he chose poorly" (Indiana Jones Knight Templar reference) as we say in my family.

#2 Rev. Wright made many statements that have phrases like "White America" or he said the "US-KKK-of-A". He even said saying white Christians was redundant. He repeatedly talks in terms of "us" and "them" regarding race and the government or the White government. His views of moral equivalence on terrorism for example contrasted with his beliefs that America is full of inherent differences based on race is by definition racist. He does not for example extoll a "Christian Value System", but a "Black Value System." Even if those values are indeed ones all Christians agree with, the approach and the delivery is racist. For example, if someone were to preach a "White Value System" they would be called a racist.

In addition, to the words he uses there is his approach - one which is angry and let's say hateful. This adds up to IMHO him being a "raving racist."

The only reason I care as I stated before is with Obama. I see at best an implied endorsement of Wright by Obama via Obama's support of and participation in the church and I have a problem with that in that it is an outright hypocrisy and fraud in the whole post-racial campaign he has waged. To use the famous mis-quotation "you, Senator Obama, are no Robert Kennedy."

Obama's long term support of Wright has cost him any legitimate moral authority to speak about race or to lead IMHO. He certainly can't lead me. I personally believe he should resign as a Senator. If Trent Lott had to resign as leader for saying something nice about Strom Thurmond who was himself a U.S. Senator let's be fair across the board regardless of race then. It's a shame too because here's a guy who has had every break an American could get. What in the same hill was he doing sitting in that church? He's not dis-enfranchised. He's a U.S. Senator that went to Harvard Law. He shouldn't be vulnerable to that sort of rhetoric or tolerant of people with those views. He certainly shouldn't be supporting and defending people with those views even while carefully parsing and denouncing specific statements.

It also puts Michelle Obama's statements in a very unflattering light. I will not as a matter of courtesy characterize a married woman. Frankly, she's his problem to deal with. That's perhaps a Southern thing.


----------



## The Gabba Goul (Feb 11, 2005)

Relayer said:


> Wouldnt it be interesting to watch the public/media/jackmccullogh reaction if McCain or Hillary referred to an African-American as "a typical black person".


Remember how they crucified Joseph Biden (I think it was Biden) when he refered to obama as "articulate"?


----------



## PedanticTurkey (Jan 26, 2008)

Maybe just because it wasn't actually true, unless by Obama you mean his speechwriters...


----------



## jackmccullough (May 10, 2006)

ksinc said:


> Jack,
> 
> As I used the terms "raving racist" and "anti-American" I'm certainly willing to justify my tagging of him with these labels. I don't know if you meant to call me out specifically.
> 
> ...


The charge of heresy is a religious proposition, so it really has no place in the discussion of someone's political positions. I agree that acts like saying "God damn America" or burning the American flag have no legitimate place in our civil discourse. The two are pretty much equivalent, in that they are protected political speech, but, contrary to the claims of people who want to outlaw burning the flag, they dishonor the actor far more than they dishonor our country. 
You've probably observed from my writings that I reject all belief in god, but if you read his statement as saying that America is deserving of a terrible judgment from god because of its many racist crimes, including slavery, segregation and discrimination, and its attempts to wipe out American Indians, is there much to take issue with? I reject the idea that these crimes are all that America is, but no honest person can deny them.



ksinc said:


> #2 Rev. Wright made many statements that have phrases like "White America" or he said the "US-KKK-of-A". He even said saying white Christians was redundant. He repeatedly talks in terms of "us" and "them" regarding race and the government or the White government. His views of moral equivalence on terrorism for example contrasted with his beliefs that America is full of inherent differences based on race is by definition racist. He does not for example extol a "Christian Value System", but a "Black Value System." Even if those values are indeed ones all Christians agree with, the approach and the delivery is racist. For example, if someone were to preach a "White Value System" they would be called a racist.


You're not saying that black and white people in America don't have different experiences and cultural backgrounds, are you?



ksinc said:


> In addition, to the words he uses there is his approach - one which is angry and let's say hateful. This adds up to IMHO him being a "raving racist."
> 
> The only reason I care as I stated before is with Obama. I see at best an implied endorsement of Wright by Obama via Obama's support of and participation in the church and I have a problem with that in that it is an outright hypocrisy and fraud in the whole post-racial campaign he has waged. To use the famous mis-quotation "you, Senator Obama, are no Robert Kennedy."


I don't agree that sitting in the pews is the same as endorsing everything the minister says. You are undoubtedly aware, for example, that millions of American Catholics sit in church, knowing that the church rails against contraception and abortion, and yet ignore those positions in their everyday life.



ksinc said:


> Obama's long term support of Wright has cost him any legitimate moral authority to speak about race or to lead IMHO. He certainly can't lead me. I personally believe he should resign as a Senator. If Trent Lott had to resign as leader for saying something nice about Strom Thurmond who was himself a U.S. Senator let's be fair across the board regardless of race then. It's a shame too because here's a guy who has had every break an American could get. What in the same hill was he doing sitting in that church? He's not dis-enfranchised. He's a U.S. Senator that went to Harvard Law. He shouldn't be vulnerable to that sort of rhetoric or tolerant of people with those views. He certainly shouldn't be supporting and defending people with those views even while carefully parsing and denouncing specific statements.


It wasn't that Lott said something nice about Strom Thurmond. What he said was that the United States would be better off if we had stuck with Thurmond's racist positions. It was an explicit endorsement of Thurmond's segregationist, white supremacist ideology.

"Denouncing specific statements"? How could he have been clearer about his rejection of the ideas that you're complaining about?



ksinc said:


> It also puts Michelle Obama's statements in a very unflattering light. I will not as a matter of courtesy characterize a married woman. Frankly, she's his problem to deal with. That's perhaps a Southern thing.


I remember Bill Clinton's answer when the R's (probably Dole, but I'm not sure) were attacking his wife: if he wants the job of first lady, let him run for that. The political views of a president's or candidate's wife have never influenced my vote for president, and, frankly, I don't think their relevant.


----------



## eagle2250 (Mar 24, 2006)

Intrepid said:


> It was originally thought that service in congress would be a one time thing, to serve the country, with a return to the real world. Lincoln was one of the first that decided to run for a second term in congress, and many were outraged,at the time.
> 
> Now, government service is an end in itself. Most in congress have never had a job in the real world, have no notion of the hardships of running any kind of a business, and have healthcare and retirement benefits that the average American can never dream of.
> 
> ...


Outstanding post! Intrepid, you have summarized in a very appropriate manner much of what ailes this great nation and our govermental processes. I would only add the (arguably trite and perhaps over used) observation that, "power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely!" Virtually all of our elected officials stand as living proof of that reality. Thanks for a really substantive post...one of the few in this thread!


----------



## jackmccullough (May 10, 2006)

Intrepid said:


> It was originally thought that service in congress would be a one time thing, to serve the country, with a return to the real world. Lincoln was one of the first that decided to run for a second term in congress, and many were outraged,at the time.


In the first half of the 19th century it was actually quite common for members of congress to serve multiple consecutive terms.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Members_of_the_United_States_House_of_Representatives

Abraham Lincoln, on the other hand, served one term in the House of Representatives and did not run for reelection.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abraham_lincoln#Legislative_activity

He did run for the Senate in 1858 but was defeated.


----------



## Cruiser (Jul 21, 2006)

jackmccullough said:


> In the first half of the 19th century it was actually quite common for members of congress to serve multiple consecutive terms.


I think his point was, and correctly so, that the founding fathers never envisioned service as an elected official as a career. That's one of the reasons that the pay was so low. Their vision was that the best and brightest in the country would step away from their careers for a brief period and provide their expertise to the business of governing the country after which they would return to their day jobs and another group of the best and brightest would take their place.

The pay was intentionally low because they were supposed to be providing their services out of a sense of patriotic duty rather than for the money. I think the general thinking is that most of these guys would probably be losing money by serving a stint as an elected official.

Cruiser


----------



## jackmccullough (May 10, 2006)

I know that was his point. Using false evidence to support it, though, undermines his argument.


----------



## iammatt (Sep 17, 2005)

jackmccullough said:


> Could someone point out a statement made by Wright that was actually racist?





PedanticTurkey said:


> You live in your own little world, don't you?





jackmccullough said:


> So that's a no then.


No, he is a race baiter, not a racist. In the long run, neither is any better for the future of our society, although the race baiter might be able to hide behind his own sophistry for a longer period of time.


----------



## PedanticTurkey (Jan 26, 2008)

iammatt said:


> No, he is a race baiter, not a racist. In the long run, neither is any better for the future of our society, although the race baiter might be able to hide behind his own sophistry for a longer period of time.


Saying that white people are vicious racists is...racist.


----------



## 16412 (Apr 1, 2005)

Kav said:


> You don't call another man your spiritual father and then deny him either in a garden or on the campaign trail.


Some people believe that would be a sinful statement. Jesus said to call nobody your father, as in spiritual father, for the Father above, who sits on the heavenly throne, is your Father, and to call nobody your priest, because, Jesus said, I Am your high priest and you are your own priest- Clearly saying there are no priest between you and Him and no father on this earth to call a spiritual father.

Obama does not have to be in Lock-Step with much of what this Preacher says. And one needs a grain of salt sometimes to listen to some people. But this Preacher sounds a bit to far out to spend much time around him. Surely there are better Preachers around to listen to in the near by area.


----------



## ksinc (May 30, 2005)

jackmccullough said:


> It wasn't that Lott said something nice about Strom Thurmond. What he said was that the United States would be better off if we had stuck with Thurmond's racist positions. It was an explicit endorsement of Thurmond's segregationist, white supremacist ideology.


Really?

"A poor choice of words conveyed to some the impression that I embraced the discarded policies of the past," Lott said. "Nothing could be further from the truth, and I apologize to anyone who was offended by my statement."

It was at Stroms 100th Birthday party where he said we would be better off if he had been elected President in 1948 and a lot of the problems we have today would not exist. He never mentioned Thurmond's racist positions.


----------



## ksinc (May 30, 2005)

jackmccullough said:


> "Denouncing specific statements"? How could he have been clearer about his rejection of the ideas that you're complaining about?


For starters, he could have rejected Wright's "Black Liberation Theology" like many real post-racial, christian ministers from the black community have done.

The problem is what Wright believes and teaches. It's along the lines of John Edwards "two Americas" except for Wright they are Black America and White America.

Simply saying he used some bad words is not very clear. Drawing moral relativism between his Grandmother and Wright is not even close. And; compounding it by saying his Grandmother was just a "typical white person" was digging the hole deeper.

Even Jesse Jackson denounces speech like that. And; that was what Obama said not Wright. It doesn't take a lot of integrity to say that a white person saying "a typical black person" is no worse than a black person saying "a typical white person". If those two statements are equal then any discussion of "us" being equal is moot.


----------



## ksinc (May 30, 2005)

jackmccullough said:


> I don't agree that sitting in the pews is the same as endorsing everything the minister says. You are undoubtedly aware, for example, that millions of American Catholics sit in church, knowing that the church rails against contraception and abortion, and yet ignore those positions in their everyday life.


That's true, yet they are definitely implicitly endorsing those views by supporting the church that has those views. If they do not share those views then that is hypocritical.

Sorry, but however eloquent that rationalization may be does not make it less so and politically it's inconsistent and unworthy of a leader. All Catholics are not asking for my vote or to be my President; Obama is.

Such a person would be wise not go out and run for public office on a campaign based solely on character and judgement when he has such an obvious void in that area.

Obama is running for President and acting self-righteous on issues of race as if he has something to teach the rest of us while he's been following this racist as a spiritual leader and mentor. He is either also a racist or simply a normal politician and a hypocrite. Either way, now Obama's been exposed as a complete fraud on the post-racial claim his campaign makes that he is so different and the "Change" people are clamoring for. That doesn't mean he is a bad person per se. Just as those Catholics may not be bad people; it just means his personal walk doesn't match his political talk. Unfortunately for Obama, his campaign had no other argument to make for him being President other than judgement. The whole reason for his campaign has gone up in smoke.


----------



## tnsquire (Mar 3, 2008)

Kav said:


> instant grits.


You really aren't from the south.


----------



## jpeirpont (Mar 16, 2004)

The Gabba Goul said:


> I dunno...I guess my white half must be making me dumb...but I'm quite sure that his name is indeed *barack hussein obama*...did I say that there was anything wrong with that??? no...aparently he thinks there is because he was screaming like a smashed cat when his middle name was used a few weeks back. Not quite sure what's so ignorant about using a man's middle name...but whatever...
> 
> Sorry, didnt realize that calling an anti-American *racist scumbag* what he is was an issue of contention for you, but fine...it's a slow afternoon, let's dance...I'm sure I'll get called a racist and probably start a flame war for this, but I'm gonna say it anyway...not everybody is "out to get" the black man...have black people gotten the sh!tty end of the sitck in the past? sure...are there still ignorant people who will dislike somebody because of the color of their skin??? sure (but that works both ways too)...but how the hell are we ever supposed to have any kind of real harmony between the races if certain people from certain races continue to pour salt into a wound that should have closed up long ago???
> 
> I know that in the eyes of some people (not just black) that if somebody is of their own race, then they can do no wrong and any time they are caught doing wrong, then it's obviously somebody else's fault (In this case it's just that darn racist intolerant white America who have done nothing but support him), but seriously, I doubt very many intellegent people made obama's race an issue until recently...and the reason why??? because he chose to align himself with a racist who just had to push the issue...sorry...but as somebody said earlier...if you lie down with dogs, you're going to get fleas...I have plenty of black acquaintences, and I find that probably 99% of them hate guys like Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton...I dont see how Rev. Wright is too terribly different...and obama was dead wrong for aligning himself with him...sorry...end of story...


When you are capable of honest dialog then this will warrant discussion, but you've decided to settle on bullshit and lies. You and I both know why you called him Hussain and you also know the minister didn't say anything racist.


----------



## ksinc (May 30, 2005)

jpeirpont said:


> When you are capable of honest dialog then this will warrant discussion, but you've decided to settle on bullshit and lies. You and I both know why you called him Hussain and you also know the minister didn't say anything racist.


Restrained, respectful, and honest dialog is important to this discussion. I agree that using Obama's middle name is sort of a jab in the eye. However it is not dishonest. It is just not restrained.

However, you need to be capable of restrained, respectful, and honest dialog too. Rev. Wright is a racist and he said things that are both anti-American and racist.

This is not about Rev. Wright this isn't even really about Obama. This is about America. How can we move on to a discussion that we all need to have about race in America when we can't all agree that what Rev. Wright said was wrong and Obama is just another politician?

Surely, there are some demagogs on both sides, but just as surely you can meet an honest person halfway can't you?

At this point it's not important to be a black man or a white man, it's just important to stand up and be a man. If this is the time and opportunity to solve racism in America than let's really do it. If not; then I think some people should be careful what they wish for on both sides.

I'm an honest broker. I'm willing to stand up. I'm willing not to demagog and throw bombs at the other side. Who else is?


----------



## iammatt (Sep 17, 2005)

ksinc said:


> However, you need to be capable of restrained, respectful, and honest dialog too. Rev. Wright is a racist and he said things that are both anti-American and racist.
> 
> This is not about Rev. Wright this isn't even really about Obama. This is about America. How can we move on to a discussion that we all need to have about race in America when we can't all agree that what Rev. Wright said was wrong and Obama is just another politician?


I have always heard racism defined as discrimination based on the belief that one race is superior. I don't see that in Wright, so I am not willing to call him a racist. I will call him a race baiter who espouses some ridiculous beliefs and who spreads hatred. That is a good enough reason for me to dislike him. He doesn't need to be a racist for that.

The same goes for the Hussein comments. To me, the poor policies espoused by Obama are enough for me to vote against him. His middle name and choice of preacher means almost nothing. I will not say that I don't enjoy the controversy and watching the political process, but I do question anybody who changes his vote based on this issue, even if they are changing it towards the direction I see as the correct one for this country.


----------



## ksinc (May 30, 2005)

tnsquire said:


> You really aren't from the south.


Most people I know not only eat instant grits, but instant biscuits and have never had anything else. It's really getting messed up down here.


----------



## ksinc (May 30, 2005)

iammatt said:


> I have always heard racism defined as discrimination based on the belief that one race is superior. I don't see that in Wright, so I am not willing to call him a racist. I will call him a race baiter who espouses some ridiculous beliefs and who spreads hatred. That is a good enough reason for me to dislike him. He doesn't need to be a racist for that.
> 
> The same goes for the Hussein comments. To me, the poor policies espoused by Obama are enough for me to vote against him. His middle name and choice of preacher means almost nothing. I will not say that I don't enjoy the controversy and watching the political process, but I do question anybody who changes his vote based on this issue, even if they are changing it towards the direction I see as the correct one for this country.


That's sort of a modern, progressive, politically correct, partial definition of racism that attempts to claim only whites can be racists. Even so the complete definition would be "a belief or doctrine that inherent differences among the various human races determine cultural or individual achievement, usually involving the idea that one's own race is superior and has the right to rule others." As you can tell the belief that one's own race is supierior is sort of an option and not the operative part of the definition. Another definition is "hatred or intolerance of another race or other races." That hatred or intolerance could be out of inferiority or superiority.

I agree on the Hussein thing. It's rather silly.


----------



## tnsquire (Mar 3, 2008)

ksinc said:


> Most people I know not only eat instant grits, but instant biscuits and have never had anything else. It's really getting messed up down here.


Those people are called transplants.....or New Yorkers ....:icon_smile:


----------



## ksinc (May 30, 2005)

tnsquire said:


> Those people are called transplants.....or New Yorkers ....:icon_smile:


Mostly true, but my own wife is from Spartanburg (actually Cowpens) and she couldn't make biscuits from scratch until I taught her how. Her Mother had made them, but just not taught her how.

OTOH she can handle a .357 Magnum. Marriage being about compromise - I took the good with the bad. 

Some things can be taught and some require a natural talent. LOL


----------



## jpeirpont (Mar 16, 2004)

ksinc said:


> Restrained, respectful, and honest dialog is important to this discussion. I agree that using Obama's middle name is sort of a jab in the eye. However it is not dishonest. It is just not restrained.
> 
> However, you need to be capable of restrained, respectful, and honest dialog too. Rev. Wright is a racist and he said things that are both anti-American and racist.
> 
> ...


Gabba said Hussian because he was not interesting in honest dialog but silly and simple slander.
Also, I'm waiting for someone to provide some proof in regards to racist statements.
Racism and racial conflict is far from over because people have no interest attacking it or even discussing it intelligently. Instead of attacking the ministers statements one should wonder why a good amount of a group would believe these things about this country, but no- it is easier to dismiss them as divisive, stupid, misguided or anti-American. I assure you more people agree with Wright then you can imagine and I can also promise they aren't all idiots.


----------



## The Gabba Goul (Feb 11, 2005)

jpeirpont said:


> When you are capable of honest dialog then this will warrant discussion, but you've decided to settle on bullshit and lies. You and I both know why you called him Hussain and you also know the minister didn't say anything racist.


I shoudlnt even dignify such a stupid response...but there's nothing good on TV, so here we go...

you're right...how could I ever have thought that a guy who would say GD America from a pulpid was anti American, or a guy who refered to this country as the United states of Ameri KKK a, or blamed the government for giving black people AIDS was a racist...

dude, you need to chill...just because you slap a picture of Marcus Garvey in your signature doesnt make you a Revolutionary by association, you want to call me to the carpet like you know why I used obama's middle name??? Y'know I call our current president George W Bush...nobody seems to question why the W gets mentioned...and wheather or not you'd like to admit it, you'd have to be blind, deaf, and dumb not to realize that Rev. wright is a flagrant racist...

I'm sorry, but why is it that white people are the only ones who need to watch their step when it comes to making racist remarks??? You know damn good and well that if John McCain called a guy like David Duke his spiritual adviser, you'd be calling for his head on a platter...


----------



## ksinc (May 30, 2005)

jpeirpont said:


> Gabba said Hussian because he was not interesting in honest dialog but silly and simple slander.
> Also, I'm waiting for someone to provide some proof in regards to racist statements.
> Racism and racial conflict is far from over because people have no interest attacking it or even discussing it intelligently. Instead of attacking the ministers statements *one should wonder why a good amount of a group would believe these things about this country*, but no- it is easier to dismiss them as divisive, stupid, misguided or anti-American. I assure you more people agree with Wright then you can imagine *and I can also promise they aren't all idiots*.


Read my posts. I think that's about as honest, sincere, and candid explanation as you are going to get. By what standard do you demand proof - the same standard Rev. Wright has proof that the Government invented Aids to kill black people? Give me a break; even if "we" are wrong; "we" far exceed his standards and he claims to be a spiritual leader. I make no such claims.

I addressed the Hussein name-calling issue. You are either willingly ignoring it or blinded by something. It is his middle name for crying out loud. Who is being more stupid here - Gabba or Obama? IMHO it's too close to call.

Regarding the thought expressed in the bolded part of your post ... I can only say that in some ways it's no different than the people that think the moon-landing was faked.

Perhaps we should have sympathy for these people, but practically speaking you should be aware it's a non-starter. What obligation do we really have to wonder why people believe that sort of thing? We can only continue to offer to meet them halfway or even 60% of the way. As a pragmatic matter us "typical white people" really don't feel enough guilt to suffer a 1st class jerk like Rev. Wright.

I'm just giving you the honesty you asked for. Obama is the one that started this holier than thou BS routine. He shouldn't ask for an honest discussion of race he isn't really willing to have. He just wants to exploit the weak, guilt ridden liberals that are willing to lay down and beat themselves up for him.

Wait and see how many white, male, Reagan democrats in Penn. fall for that routine. Then extrapolate that into the Southern white community and see if you really want to have a heart-to-heart Senator Obama.

Heck, The Wright/Obama combination is making Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson look like real honest brokers. What's that tell you?


----------



## brokencycle (Jan 11, 2008)

The Gabba Goul said:


> I shoudlnt even dignify such a stupid response...but there's nothing good on TV, so here we go...
> 
> you're right...how could I ever have thought that a guy who would say GD America from a pulpid was anti American, or a guy who refered to this country as the United states of Ameri KKK a, or blamed the government for giving black people AIDS was a racist...
> 
> ...


Amen. I doubt we'll ever get away from a double standard.


----------



## The Gabba Goul (Feb 11, 2005)

jpeirpont said:


> Gabba said Hussian because he was not interesting in honest dialog but silly and simple* slander*.


directly from the dictionary:


> slan·der /ˈslændər/[slan-der]
> 
> -noun
> 1. defamation; calumny: rumors full of slander.
> ...


first off what you're thinking of is libel...second off...I commited no such act...the fact of the matter is that is his middle name, I refer to George Bush Senior as Herbert Walker, am I "slandering" him by using his middle name? 
I only use his middle name because he has a problem with, I dont. if you'd like I could list all of the problems that I specifically have against him...

...but no, you're not interested in that, you'd rather play Huey Freeman on the internet with a bunch of big bad white guys right???


----------



## brokencycle (Jan 11, 2008)

The Gabba Goul said:


> directly from the dictionary:
> 
> first off what you're thinking of is libel...second off...I commited no such act...the fact of the matter is that is his middle name, I refer to George Bush Senior as Herbert Walker, amd I "slandering" him by using his middle name?
> I only use his middle name because he has a problem with, I dont. if you'd like I could list all of the problems that I specifically{/u] have against him...
> ...




Fact. If he were guilty of anything, which he's not, it would be libel not slander.

Whoops... already stated. This is embarrassing. =(


----------



## jpeirpont (Mar 16, 2004)

The Gabba Goul said:


> I shoudlnt even dignify such a stupid response...but there's nothing good on TV, so here we go...
> 
> you're right...how could I ever have thought that a guy who would say GD America from a pulpid was anti American, or a guy who refered to this country as the United states of Ameri KKK a, or blamed the government for giving black people AIDS was a racist...
> 
> ...


Insults are not substance cowardice also isn't. Where did he say something racist. Amerikkka is enough, nor is his odd theory on AIDS. 
I do not recall saying I was a revolutionary, stop projecting. David Duke and Wright are not equivilents, but , I hink that is more of the irony your little post are full of. Good try though.


----------



## jpeirpont (Mar 16, 2004)

The Gabba Goul said:


> directly from the dictionary:
> 
> first off what you're thinking of is libel...second off...I commited no such act...the fact of the matter is that is his middle name, I refer to George Bush Senior as Herbert Walker, am I "slandering" him by using his middle name?
> I only use his middle name because he has a problem with, I dont. if you'd like I could list all of the problems that I specifically have against him...
> ...


No it is slander I remmber earlier in another thread you were harping on his being muslims. You and I both know what you aim was, you just a coward and scared to admit it. Sorry, again, nice try.
I do not know who Huey Freeman is.


----------



## ksinc (May 30, 2005)

jpeirpont said:


> David Duke and Wright are not equivilents, but , I hink that is more of the irony your little post are full of. Good try though.


Sure they are. The irony is the argument that they are not depends solely on the fact that Duke is white and whites had the upperhand. If you are colorblind they are exactly two sides of the same coin.

IF "we" "typical white people" can denounce and reject them BOTH, why can't everyone come together on such a fundamental issue?

I think you're really underestimating the slap in the face Obama's rationalization of Wright represents to people that were previously willing to at least hear him out.

When I heard the "typical white person" remark my mind closed to Obama and I said "F--- him and the horse he rode in on." And; while I'm militant in a libertarian sense, I'm certainly not a militant person regarding race.

If Obama would come out and say something like "it's time for those of us on this side to admit the Civil War was about far more than slavery" that's the sort of honesty and leadership I'm looking for not "typical white person" rhetoric. Perhaps he's lived in Chicago too long. Down here the white people don't fear the black people. The reality of racism is MUCH worse than the liberal guilt rhetoric that he is preaching to the adoring choir of Chris Matthews and his ilk. Perhaps Chris Matthews is scared of black people. That speech was [email protected] Like I said before, he is no Robert Kennedy.


----------



## The Gabba Goul (Feb 11, 2005)

jpeirpont said:


> Insults are not substance cowardice also isn't. Where did he say something racist. Amerikkka is enough, nor is his odd theory on AIDS.
> I do not recall saying I was a revolutionary, stop projecting. David Duke and Wright are not equivilents, but , I hink that is more of the irony your little post are full of. Good try though.


...man go sell you weak @$$ Mutabaruka wannabe sh!t somewhere else...you know damn good and well that no matter what anybody says is gonna convince you to see the truth because, you, just like Rev. wright are dont want to see any kind of racial harmony because I believe that deep down inside guys like you are the biggest racists, and you get some kind of charge out of this sort of banter because it makes you feel like you're doing something useful with your time...

Furthermore, if my statements are all so stupid, then why the hell do you keep responding to them???


----------



## jpeirpont (Mar 16, 2004)

ksinc said:


> Read my posts. I think that's about as honest, sincere, and candid explanation as you are going to get. By what standard do you demand proof - the same standard Rev. Wright has proof that the Government invented Aids to kill black people? Give me a break; even if "we" are wrong; "we" far exceed his standards and he claims to be a spiritual leader. I make no such claims.
> 
> I addressed the Hussein name-calling issue. You are either willingly ignoring it or blinded by something. It is his middle name for crying out loud. Who is being more stupid here - Gabba or Obama? IMHO it's too close to call.
> 
> ...


If you believe Gabba used the name Hussain simply because he prefers it to Obama, go for it, I know otherwise.
It isn't similar to the moon landing because it comes from well founded mistrust of a government who has history of doing racially questionable things. As I said before until people what to attack the causes of the racial divisions in the U.S it will never end, it is always easier to dismiss them as coocoo. You are not obligated to care either way, honestly in the real world it would shock you to find out I care exceedingly little about racism. Long as my way of life is available to me I'm happy. But if people promote themselves as attempting to have forthright discussions on race they should understand racism is not to be approached in the dogmatic way it is here, it is full nuances.


----------



## jpeirpont (Mar 16, 2004)

Where have I said anything racist? Not my fault you can't back anything you say up and have to fall back on cowardly tactics.


----------



## ksinc (May 30, 2005)

jpeirpont said:


> *If you believe Gabba used the name Hussain simply because he prefers it to Obama, go for it*, I know otherwise.
> It isn't similar to the moon landing because it comes from well founded mistrust of a government who has history of doing racially questionable things. As I said before until people what to attack the causes of the racial divisions in the U.S it will never end, it is always easier to dismiss them as coocoo. You are not obligated to care either way, honestly in the real world it would shock you to find out I care exceedingly little about racism. Long as my way of life is available to me I'm happy.* But if people promote themselves as attempting to have forthright discussions on race they should understand racism is not to be approached in the dogmatic way it is here, it is full nuances.*


#1 (did you / can you) even read what I wrote? WTF kind of BS response is that to what I wrote?

#2 I sure hope you are referring to Obama.


----------



## jpeirpont (Mar 16, 2004)

ksinc said:


> Sure they are. The irony is the argument that they are not depends solely on the fact that Duke is white and whites had the upperhand. If you are colorblind they are exactly two sides of the same coin.
> 
> IF "we" "typical white people" can denounce and reject them BOTH, why can't everyone come together on such a fundamental issue?
> 
> ...


David Duke and Wright preach nothing similar. If the discussion is going to go this low them whats is the point of talking about it? If you said the Dr. who promoted that promoted whites should be killed then you'd have a point, Wright there is no reasonable comparison. If you have one that contains a honest over view of their thoughts then provide it.


----------



## jpeirpont (Mar 16, 2004)

ksinc said:


> I hope you are referring to Obama.


No I am refering to the _goodfellows_ in this thread.


----------



## The Gabba Goul (Feb 11, 2005)

jpeirpont said:


> No it is slander I remmber earlier in another thread you were harping on his being muslims. You and I both know what you aim was, you just a coward and scared to admit it. Sorry, again, nice try.
> I do not know who Huey Freeman is.


Yeah, I'll admit that I'm not wild about the fact that he comes from a muslim background, but trust me, that has very little to do with why I dislike the guy, he has provided me with plenty of legitimate reasons to dislike him. If his middle name was Dennis, and he disliked it being used, you better believe that I'd be calling him Dennis obama. Youre argument just doesnt hold water...the fact of the matter is that you dont like the fact that here we have a black candidate and you cant figure out why we arent all genuflecting in front of him, so you choose to take the path of least resistance and call anybody who doesnt like him a racist...yeah, well um good luck with that...

and I know that you'll probably try to pull some wannabe Malcolm X crap now too, but even thought the dictionary was written by a ******, you may want to check it anyway, because I most certainly did not slander anybody (it's kind of impossible when you're on a typed message board) but don't let any of those silly facts get in the way of your racial crusade...


----------



## jpeirpont (Mar 16, 2004)

The Gabba Goul said:


> ...man go sell you weak @$$ Mutabaruka wannabe sh!t somewhere else...you know damn good and well that no matter what anybody says is gonna convince you to see the truth because, you, just like Rev. wright are dont want to see any kind of racial harmony because I believe that deep down inside guys like you are the biggest racists, and you get some kind of charge out of this sort of banter because it makes you feel like you're doing something useful with your time...
> 
> Furthermore, if my statements are all so stupid, then why the hell do you keep responding to them???


Where did I say anything racist? Waiting for proof. You game is old Gabba. You are right I do not want racial harmony nor do I want to tension, I really do not care. I simply want honesty.


----------



## The Gabba Goul (Feb 11, 2005)

jpeirpont said:


> Where did I say anything racist? Waiting for proof. *You game is old *Gabba. You are right I do not want racial harmony nor do I want to tension, I really do not care. I simply want honesty.


wow...talk about the pot calling the kettle black...

OH NO!!! am I a racist for saying that???

and sence you want to bring up ancient history, arent you the one who said that you didnt want ****** moving into your neighborhood???


----------



## jpeirpont (Mar 16, 2004)

The Gabba Goul said:


> Yeah, I'll admit that I'm not wild about the fact that he comes from a muslim background, but trust me, that has very little to do with why I dislike the guy, he has provided me with plenty of legitimate reasons to dislike him. If his middle name was Dennis, and he disliked it being used, you better believe that I'd be calling him Dennis obama. Youre argument just doesnt hold water...the fact of the matter is that you dont like the fact ther here we have a black candidate and you cant figure out why we arent all genuflecting in front of him, so you choose to take the path of least resistance and call anybody who doesnt like him a racist...yeah, well um good luck with that...
> 
> and I know that you'll probably try to pull some wannabe Malcolm X crap now too, but even thought the dictionary was written by a ******, you may want to check it anyway, because I most certainly did not slander anybody (it's kind of impossible when you're on a typed message board) but don't let any of those silly facts get in the way of your racial crusade...


Yes it was slander, you wanted to promote him as a Muslim name Hussain, it plays bad among you sort( for the record I do not mean white). Like poster said earlier it was "silly".
Actually I do not see Obama as Black (another nice try) nor am I voting for him(is that you ASSuming again.Your post was simply so assinine, I had to respond.
Who said anything about Malcolm X? Your off form you post are more juvenile than previously.


----------



## ksinc (May 30, 2005)

jpeirpont said:


> I simply want honesty.


No, you don't. I gave it to you and you did everything but stick your head in the sand.


----------



## The Gabba Goul (Feb 11, 2005)

jpeirpont said:


> Your off form you post are more juvenile than previously.


really??? well let me just say that yours live right up to that low standard that I've come to know and love from my most worthy adversary here on the fora...


----------



## The Gabba Goul (Feb 11, 2005)

ksinc said:


> No, you don't. I gave it to you and you did everything but stick your head in the sand.


That's because he's too buisy playing jeff fort with all of my posts...


----------



## jpeirpont (Mar 16, 2004)

The Gabba Goul said:


> wow...talk about the pot calling the kettle black...
> 
> OH NO!!! am I a racist for saying that???
> 
> and sence you want to bring up ancient history, arent you the one who said that you didnt want ****** moving into your neighborhood???


Now, you have to lie, I said I prefer to live in a Black neighborhood, I clearly said I wouldn't move out if a white moved in nor attempt to make them uncomfortable. If you're going to deamonize me you'll have to do better.
Anyway, I'm waiting for this elusive racist statement you claim I've uttered. Finally, provide some substance to your rants. Same ol' same ol'.


----------



## The Gabba Goul (Feb 11, 2005)

jpeirpont said:


> Now, you have to lie, I said I prefer to live in a Black neighborhood, I clearly said I wouldn't move out if a white moved in nor attempt to make them uncomfortable. If you're going to deamonize me you'll have to do better.
> Anyway, I'm waiting for this elusive racist statement you claim I've uttered. Finally, provide some substance to your rants. Same ol' same ol'.


okay...well if you need the distinction to be made, then you're not a racist, you're a race baiter...not technically a racist, but just as repugnant IMHO...

feel better???


----------



## jpeirpont (Mar 16, 2004)

The Gabba Goul said:


> That's because he's too buisy playing jeff fort with all of my posts...


Yawn.


----------



## jpeirpont (Mar 16, 2004)

The Gabba Goul said:


> okay...well if you need the distinction to be made, then you're not a racist, you're a race baiter...not technically a racist, but just as repugnant IMHO...
> 
> feel better???


Prove it, back it up, offer a quote, something I said to purpose to inflame white folk on the forum. Where's the beef?


----------



## The Gabba Goul (Feb 11, 2005)

jpeirpont said:


> Prove it, back it up, offer a quote, something I said to purpose to inflame white folk on the forum.


I think you saying that jeremiah wright did not say anything racist would fit the bill there...that'd be like a white person saying that William Luther Pierce wasnt a racist...

I can see where both men are @$$holes...why can't you???


----------



## jpeirpont (Mar 16, 2004)

The Gabba Goul said:


> I think you saying that jeremiah wright did not say anything racist would fit the bill there...that'd be like a white person saying that William Luther Pierce wasnt a racist...
> 
> I can see where both men are @$$holes...why can't you???


Difference is Pierce said some seriously racist things, Wright didn't, thats not race baiting that is agreeing with other white people in this very thread.


----------



## The Gabba Goul (Feb 11, 2005)

jpeirpont said:


> Difference is Pierce said some seriously racist things, Wright didn't, thats not race baiting that is agreeing with other white people in this very thread.


it isnt a lie if you believe it right???


----------



## jpeirpont (Mar 16, 2004)

The Gabba Goul said:


> it isnt a lie if you believe it right???


I find it hard to beleive your that dumb. Please show me something Wright said that is in league with what Peirce believes. Enough is enough you need to provide proof for what you say or atleast a reasonable example.


----------



## The Gabba Goul (Feb 11, 2005)

jpeirpont said:


> I find it hard to beleive your that dumb. Please show me something Wright said that is in league with what Peirce believes. Enough is enough you need to provide proof for what you say or atleast a reasonable example.


if you can get offended by somebody using a man's middle name, but see nothing wrong with somebody saying the United States of Ameri KKK a...then, I'm afraid there's no use arguing this point with you (well...it is kind of fun trying to guess what off the wall thing you'll say next)...whatever proof I give you, you'll say that's not good enough...your kind (not black people, but racists) sure do stick together...

I know I'm not going to change your mind...but I hope that with some time and a lot of introspection you can get this racial chip off your shoulder...

any-who...it's been all kinds of fun discussing essentially nothing with you...but I have work in the morning and 5:00 AM comes awfull early, so we'll ahve to continue this another time...PEACE!!!


----------



## KenR (Jun 22, 2005)

As the OP, might I suggest that this thread be locked? It seems to have sunk rather deeply into the mire.


----------



## radix023 (May 3, 2007)

KenR said:


> As the OP, might I suggest that this thread be locked? It seems to have sunk rather deeply into the mire.


+1 this could go down in the archive under 'pissing war'


----------



## jackmccullough (May 10, 2006)

The Gabba Goul said:


> if you . . . see nothing wrong with somebody saying the United States of Ameri KKK a...then, I'm afraid there's no use arguing this point with you (well...it is kind of fun trying to guess what off the wall thing you'll say next)...whatever


You see, here's part of the problem. I haven't heard anyone claim that this is not offensive. The question is whether it is racist.

It is not. It appears to be a way of claiming that the United States is a racist country, or that it is dominated by racists or racist policies. You may agree or disagree with these ideas, but none of them are racist ideas.

It's undoubtedly convenient to you to claim that Wright is a racist, since racism is broadly considered to be abhorrent and indefensible, whereas it's not quite as easy to argue that people should dissasociate themselves with Wright because he takes positions on the racial policies of the United States that you agree with, and that nobody should listen to.


----------



## jackmccullough (May 10, 2006)

ksinc said:


> Really?
> 
> "A poor choice of words conveyed to some the impression that I embraced the discarded policies of the past," Lott said. "Nothing could be further from the truth, and I apologize to anyone who was offended by my statement."
> 
> It was at Stroms 100th Birthday party where he said we would be better off if he had been elected President in 1948 and a lot of the problems we have today would not exist. He never mentioned Thurmond's racist positions.


The fact that you quoted Lott's back-pedaling attempt to extricate himself from the problem he created for himself means nothing. The entire point of Thurmond's 1948 run for president was his racist positions. You don't have to mention them to be clear that the only thing he had going for him in 1948 was that he was against black people and racial equality.

" I wanna tell you, ladies and gentlemen, that there's not enough troops in the army to force the Southern people to break down segregation and admit the ***** race into our theaters, into our swimming pools, into our homes, and into our churches. " 
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strom_Thurman


----------



## ksinc (May 30, 2005)

jackmccullough said:


> The fact that you quoted Lott's back-pedaling attempt to extricate himself from the problem he created for himself means nothing. The entire point of Thurmond's 1948 run for president was his racist positions. You don't have to mention them to be clear that the only thing he had going for him in 1948 was that he was against black people and racial equality.
> 
> " I wanna tell you, ladies and gentlemen, that there's not enough troops in the army to force the Southern people to break down segregation and admit the ***** race into our theaters, into our swimming pools, into our homes, and into our churches. "
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strom_Thurman


It sure doesn't seem like you are applying the same standard to Thurmond/Lott that you are to Wright/Obama.

Are you uninformed or uninterested in the basis of Thurmond's State's Rights positions because they were expressed on an issue involving race? That's the context of Lott's comment; meaning the precedent of further 'federal intervention' however well intentioned was a violation of State's Rights and we would be better off today without it. Thurmond endorsed voluntary racial integration while he was against the Federal Government doing it. While Thurmond was opposing the Civil Rights acts he had black staffers working for him and sent his own kids to integrated private schools.

What is wrong with saying a problem could have been solved in a different way that had less unintended consequences?

Between Lincoln and Truman our whole Federal:State relationship has been bulldozed.

Why do you think Nixon won?

Jack, sometimes it seems like you never got to page two of the history books.


----------



## jackmccullough (May 10, 2006)

I'm neither uninformed nor uninterested. It's just that it is absolutely clear, beyond any contradiction, that the constant parroting of the shibboleth of "states' rights" by segregationists was no more than a cover for their desire to maintain racist structures in the southern states.


----------



## ksinc (May 30, 2005)

jackmccullough said:


> I'm neither uninformed nor uninterested. It's just that it is absolutely clear, beyond any contradiction, that the constant parroting of the shibboleth of "states' rights" by segregationists was no more than a cover for their desire to maintain racist structures in the southern states.


No, it's not.

Even if it were you are applying an obvious double standard. Lott's clarification was much stronger than Obama's. Thurmond's record is also stronger than Wright's.


----------



## PedanticTurkey (Jan 26, 2008)

Sorry, I forgot how Lott spent the last 23 years attending KKK meetings with Thurmond and had his kids initiated into the Klan...

Wait, right, he just made a vague comment to flatter an old man and got unfairly nailed for it in the media.

And don't even get me started about the "macaca" thing-- utter horses*** too.


----------



## Cruiser (Jul 21, 2006)

jackmccullough said:


> You see, here's part of the problem. I haven't heard anyone claim that this is not offensive. The question is whether it is racist.
> 
> It is not. It appears to be a way of claiming that the United States is a racist country, or that it is dominated by racists or racist policies. You may agree or disagree with these ideas, but none of them are racist ideas.


I can see both sides of this issue of whether or not the various comments are "racist". Clearly they are very un-American and the fact that he is using race as the backdrop for these comments is probably what leads many to conclude that they are racist.

Whether the comments are racist or not is something of a moot point for me. They are highly offensive to me as an American in either case.

Cruiser


----------



## KenR (Jun 22, 2005)

Cruiser said:


> I can see both sides of this issue of whether or not the various comments are "racist". Clearly they are very un-American and the fact that he is using race as the backdrop for these comments is probably what leads many to conclude that they are racist.
> 
> Whether the comments are racist or not is something of a moot point for me. They are highly offensive to me as an American in either case.
> 
> Cruiser


+1 !!!


----------



## tnsquire (Mar 3, 2008)

Yeah, I don't really care if the comments are racist or if they just come from a race baiter. I just don't know if I want to vote for a guy with a good friend/mentor/ pastor whatever who refers to the country he is supposed to be leading as Amerikkka. Actually, I do know. 

I want someone leading the country that loves her for who she is faults and all.


----------

