Obama Speech “We the people, in order to form a more perfect union.”

[875000]

“We the people, in order to form a more perfect union.”

Two hundred and twenty one years ago, in a hall that still stands across the street, a group of men gathered and, with these simple words, launched America’s improbable experiment in democracy. Farmers and scholars; statesmen and patriots who had traveled across an ocean to escape tyranny and persecution finally made real their declaration of independence at a Philadelphia convention that lasted through the spring of 1787.

The document they produced was eventually signed but ultimately unfinished. It was stained by this nation’s original sin of slavery, a question that divided the colonies and brought the convention to a stalemate until the founders chose to allow the slave trade to continue for at least twenty more years, and to leave any final resolution to future generations.

Of course, the answer to the slavery question was already embedded within our Constitution – a Constitution that had at is very core the ideal of equal citizenship under the law; a Constitution that promised its people liberty, and justice, and a union that could be and should be perfected over time.

And yet words on a parchment would not be enough to deliver slaves from bondage, or provide men and women of every color and creed their full rights and obligations as citizens of the United States. What would be needed were Americans in successive generations who were willing to do their part – through protests and struggle, on the streets and in the courts, through a civil war and civil disobedience and always at great risk - to narrow that gap between the promise of our ideals and the reality of their time.

This was one of the tasks we set forth at the beginning of this campaign – to continue the long march of those who came before us, a march for a more just, more equal, more free, more caring and more prosperous America. I chose to run for the presidency at this moment in history because I believe deeply that we cannot solve the challenges of our time unless we solve them together – unless we perfect our union by understanding that we may have different stories, but we hold common hopes; that we may not look the same and we may not have come from the same place, but we all want to move in the same direction – towards a better future for of children and our grandchildren.

This belief comes from my unyielding faith in the decency and generosity of the American people. But it also comes from my own American story.

I am the son of a black man from Kenya and a white woman from Kansas. I was raised with the help of a white grandfather who survived a Depression to serve in Patton’s Army during World War II and a white grandmother who worked on a bomber assembly line at Fort Leavenworth while he was overseas. I’ve gone to some of the best schools in America and lived in one of the world’s poorest nations. I am married to a black American who carries within her the blood of slaves and slaveowners – an inheritance we pass on to our two precious daughters. I have brothers, sisters, nieces, nephews, uncles and cousins, of every race and every hue, scattered across three continents, and for as long as I live, I will never forget that in no other country on Earth is my story even possible.

It’s a story that hasn’t made me the most conventional candidate. But it is a story that has seared into my genetic makeup the idea that this nation is more than the sum of its parts – that out of many, we are truly one.

Throughout the first year of this campaign, against all predictions to the contrary, we saw how hungry the American people were for this message of unity. Despite the temptation to view my candidacy through a purely racial lens, we won commanding victories in states with some of the whitest populations in the country. In South Carolina, where the Confederate Flag still flies, we built a powerful coalition of African Americans and white Americans.

This is not to say that race has not been an issue in the campaign. At various stages in the campaign, some commentators have deemed me either “too black” or “not black enough.” We saw racial tensions bubble to the surface during the week before the South Carolina primary. The press has scoured every exit poll for the latest evidence of racial polarization, not just in terms of white and black, but black and brown as well.

And yet, it has only been in the last couple of weeks that the discussion of race in this campaign has taken a particularly divisive turn.

On one end of the spectrum, we’ve heard the implication that my candidacy is somehow an exercise in affirmative action; that it’s based solely on the desire of wide-eyed liberals to purchase racial reconciliation on the cheap. On the other end, we’ve heard my former pastor, Reverend Jeremiah Wright, use incendiary language to express views that have the potential not only to widen the racial divide, but views that denigrate both the greatness and the goodness of our nation; that rightly offend white and black alike.

I have already condemned, in unequivocal terms, the statements of Reverend Wright that have caused such controversy. For some, nagging questions remain. Did I know him to be an occasionally fierce critic of American domestic and foreign policy? Of course. Did I ever hear him make remarks that could be considered controversial while I sat in church? Yes. Did I strongly disagree with many of his political views? Absolutely – just as I’m sure many of you have heard remarks from your pastors, priests, or rabbis with which you strongly disagreed.

But the remarks that have caused this recent firestorm weren’t simply controversial. They weren’t simply a religious leader’s effort to speak out against perceived injustice. Instead, they expressed a profoundly distorted view of this country – a view that sees white racism as endemic, and that elevates what is wrong with America above all that we know is right with America; a view that sees the conflicts in the Middle East as rooted primarily in the actions of stalwart allies like Israel, instead of emanating from the perverse and hateful ideologies of radical Islam.

As such, Reverend Wright’s comments were not only wrong but divisive, divisive at a time when we need unity; racially charged at a time when we need to come together to solve a set of monumental problems – two wars, a terrorist threat, a falling economy, a chronic health care crisis and potentially devastating climate change; problems that are neither black or white or Latino or Asian, but rather problems that confront us all.

Given my background, my politics, and my professed values and ideals, there will no doubt be those for whom my statements of condemnation are not enough. Why associate myself with Reverend Wright in the first place, they may ask? Why not join another church? And I confess that if all that I knew of Reverend Wright were the snippets of those sermons that have run in an endless loop on the television and You Tube, or if Trinity United Church of Christ conformed to the caricatures being peddled by some commentators, there is no doubt that I would react in much the same way

But the truth is, that isn’t all that I know of the man. The man I met more than twenty years ago is a man who helped introduce me to my Christian faith, a man who spoke to me about our obligations to love one another; to care for the sick and lift up the poor. He is a man who served his country as a U.S. Marine; who has studied and lectured at some of the finest universities and seminaries in the country, and who for over thirty years led a church that serves the community by doing God’s work here on Earth – by housing the homeless, ministering to the needy, providing day care services and scholarships and prison ministries, and reaching out to those suffering from HIV/AIDS.

In my first book, Dreams From My Father, I described the experience of my first service at Trinity:

“People began to shout, to rise from their seats and clap and cry out, a forceful wind carrying the reverend’s voice up into the rafters….And in that single note – hope! – I heard something else; at the foot of that cross, inside the thousands of churches across the city, I imagined the stories of ordinary black people merging with the stories of David and Goliath, Moses and Pharaoh, the Christians in the lion’s den, Ezekiel’s field of dry bones. Those stories – of survival, and freedom, and hope – became our story, my story; the blood that had spilled was our blood, the tears our tears; until this black church, on this bright day, seemed once more a vessel carrying the story of a people into future generations and into a larger world. Our trials and triumphs became at once unique and universal, black and more than black; in chronicling our journey, the stories and songs gave us a means to reclaim memories that we didn’t need to feel shame about…memories that all people might study and cherish – and with which we could start to rebuild.”

That has been my experience at Trinity. Like other predominantly black churches across the country, Trinity embodies the black community in its entirety – the doctor and the welfare mom, the model student and the former gang-banger. Like other black churches, Trinity’s services are full of raucous laughter and sometimes bawdy humor. They are full of dancing, clapping, screaming and shouting that may seem jarring to the untrained ear. The church contains in full the kindness and cruelty, the fierce intelligence and the shocking ignorance, the struggles and successes, the love and yes, the bitterness and bias that make up the black experience in America.

And this helps explain, perhaps, my relationship with Reverend Wright. As imperfect as he may be, he has been like family to me. He strengthened my faith, officiated my wedding, and baptized my children. Not once in my conversations with him have I heard him talk about any ethnic group in derogatory terms, or treat whites with whom he interacted with anything but courtesy and respect. He contains within him the contradictions – the good and the bad – of the community that he has served diligently for so many years.

I can no more disown him than I can disown the black community. I can no more disown him than I can my white grandmother – a woman who helped raise me, a woman who sacrificed again and again for me, a woman who loves me as much as she loves anything in this world, but a woman who once confessed her fear of black men who passed by her on the street, and who on more than one occasion has uttered racial or ethnic stereotypes that made me cringe.

These people are a part of me. And they are a part of America, this country that I love.

Some will see this as an attempt to justify or excuse comments that are simply inexcusable. I can assure you it is not. I suppose the politically safe thing would be to move on from this episode and just hope that it fades into the woodwork. We can dismiss Reverend Wright as a crank or a demagogue, just as some have dismissed Geraldine Ferraro, in the aftermath of her recent statements, as harboring some deep-seated racial bias.

But race is an issue that I believe this nation cannot afford to ignore right now. We would be making the same mistake that Reverend Wright made in his offending sermons about America – to simplify and stereotype and amplify the negative to the point that it distorts reality.

The fact is that the comments that have been made and the issues that have surfaced over the last few weeks reflect the complexities of race in this country that we’ve never really worked through – a part of our union that we have yet to perfect. And if we walk away now, if we simply retreat into our respective corners, we will never be able to come together and solve challenges like health care, or education, or the need to find good jobs for every American.

Understanding this reality requires a reminder of how we arrived at this point. As William Faulkner once wrote, “The past isn’t dead and buried. In fact, it isn’t even past.” We do not need to recite here the history of racial injustice in this country. But we do need to remind ourselves that so many of the disparities that exist in the African-American community today can be directly traced to inequalities passed on from an earlier generation that suffered under the brutal legacy of slavery and Jim Crow.

Segregated schools were, and are, inferior schools; we still haven’t fixed them, fifty years after Brown v. Board of Education, and the inferior education they provided, then and now, helps explain the pervasive achievement gap between today’s black and white students.

Legalized discrimination - where blacks were prevented, often through violence, from owning property, or loans were not granted to African-American business owners, or black homeowners could not access FHA mortgages, or blacks were excluded from unions, or the police force, or fire departments – meant that black families could not amass any meaningful wealth to bequeath to future generations. That history helps explain the wealth and income gap between black and white, and the concentrated pockets of poverty that persists in so many of today’s urban and rural communities.

A lack of economic opportunity among black men, and the shame and frustration that came from not being able to provide for one’s family, contributed to the erosion of black families – a problem that welfare policies for many years may have worsened. And the lack of basic services in so many urban black neighborhoods – parks for kids to play in, police walking the beat, regular garbage pick-up and building code enforcement – all helped create a cycle of violence, blight and neglect that continue to haunt us.

This is the reality in which Reverend Wright and other African-Americans of his generation grew up. They came of age in the late fifties and early sixties, a time when segregation was still the law of the land and opportunity was systematically constricted. What’s remarkable is not how many failed in the face of discrimination, but rather how many men and women overcame the odds; how many were able to make a way out of no way for those like me who would come after them.

But for all those who scratched and clawed their way to get a piece of the American Dream, there were many who didn’t make it – those who were ultimately defeated, in one way or another, by discrimination. That legacy of defeat was passed on to future generations – those young men and increasingly young women who we see standing on street corners or languishing in our prisons, without hope or prospects for the future. Even for those blacks who did make it, questions of race, and racism, continue to define their worldview in fundamental ways. For the men and women of Reverend Wright’s generation, the memories of humiliation and doubt and fear have not gone away; nor has the anger and the bitterness of those years. That anger may not get expressed in public, in front of white co-workers or white friends. But it does find voice in the barbershop or around the kitchen table. At times, that anger is exploited by politicians, to gin up votes along racial lines, or to make up for a politician’s own failings.

And occasionally it finds voice in the church on Sunday morning, in the pulpit and in the pews. The fact that so many people are surprised to hear that anger in some of Reverend Wright’s sermons simply reminds us of the old truism that the most segregated hour in American life occurs on Sunday morning. That anger is not always productive; indeed, all too often it distracts attention from solving real problems; it keeps us from squarely facing our own complicity in our condition, and prevents the African-American community from forging the alliances it needs to bring about real change. But the anger is real; it is powerful; and to simply wish it away, to condemn it without understanding its roots, only serves to widen the chasm of misunderstanding that exists between the races.

In fact, a similar anger exists within segments of the white community. Most working- and middle-class white Americans don’t feel that they have been particularly privileged by their race. Their experience is the immigrant experience – as far as they’re concerned, no one’s handed them anything, they’ve built it from scratch. They’ve worked hard all their lives, many times only to see their jobs shipped overseas or their pension dumped after a lifetime of labor. They are anxious about their futures, and feel their dreams slipping away; in an era of stagnant wages and global competition, opportunity comes to be seen as a zero sum game, in which your dreams come at my expense. So when they are told to bus their children to a school across town; when they hear that an African American is getting an advantage in landing a good job or a spot in a good college because of an injustice that they themselves never committed; when they’re told that their fears about crime in urban neighborhoods are somehow prejudiced, resentment builds over time.

Like the anger within the black community, these resentments aren’t always expressed in polite company. But they have helped shape the political landscape for at least a generation. Anger over welfare and affirmative action helped forge the Reagan Coalition. Politicians routinely exploited fears of crime for their own electoral ends. Talk show hosts and conservative commentators built entire careers unmasking bogus claims of racism while dismissing legitimate discussions of racial injustice and inequality as mere political correctness or reverse racism.

Just as black anger often proved counterproductive, so have these white resentments distracted attention from the real culprits of the middle class squeeze – a corporate culture rife with inside dealing, questionable accounting practices, and short-term greed; a Washington dominated by lobbyists and special interests; economic policies that favor the few over the many. And yet, to wish away the resentments of white Americans, to label them as misguided or even racist, without recognizing they are grounded in legitimate concerns – this too widens the racial divide, and blocks the path to understanding.

This is where we are right now. It’s a racial stalemate we’ve been stuck in for years. Contrary to the claims of some of my critics, black and white, I have never been so naïve as to believe that we can get beyond our racial divisions in a single election cycle, or with a single candidacy – particularly a candidacy as imperfect as my own.

But I have asserted a firm conviction – a conviction rooted in my faith in God and my faith in the American people – that working together we can move beyond some of our old racial wounds, and that in fact we have no choice is we are to continue on the path of a more perfect union.

For the African-American community, that path means embracing the burdens of our past without becoming victims of our past. It means continuing to insist on a full measure of justice in every aspect of American life. But it also means binding our particular grievances – for better health care, and better schools, and better jobs - to the larger aspirations of all Americans -- the white woman struggling to break the glass ceiling, the white man whose been laid off, the immigrant trying to feed his family. And it means taking full responsibility for own lives – by demanding more from our fathers, and spending more time with our children, and reading to them, and teaching them that while they may face challenges and discrimination in their own lives, they must never succumb to despair or cynicism; they must always believe that they can write their own destiny.

Ironically, this quintessentially American – and yes, conservative – notion of self-help found frequent expression in Reverend Wright’s sermons. But what my former pastor too often failed to understand is that embarking on a program of self-help also requires a belief that society can change.

The profound mistake of Reverend Wright’s sermons is not that he spoke about racism in our society. It’s that he spoke as if our society was static; as if no progress has been made; as if this country – a country that has made it possible for one of his own members to run for the highest office in the land and build a coalition of white and black; Latino and Asian, rich and poor, young and old -- is still irrevocably bound to a tragic past. But what we know -- what we have seen – is that America can change. That is true genius of this nation. What we have already achieved gives us hope – the audacity to hope – for what we can and must achieve tomorrow.

In the white community, the path to a more perfect union means acknowledging that what ails the African-American community does not just exist in the minds of black people; that the legacy of discrimination - and current incidents of discrimination, while less overt than in the past - are real and must be addressed. Not just with words, but with deeds – by investing in our schools and our communities; by enforcing our civil rights laws and ensuring fairness in our criminal justice system; by providing this generation with ladders of opportunity that were unavailable for previous generations. It requires all Americans to realize that your dreams do not have to come at the expense of my dreams; that investing in the health, welfare, and education of black and brown and white children will ultimately help all of America prosper.

In the end, then, what is called for is nothing more, and nothing less, than what all the world’s great religions demand – that we do unto others as we would have them do unto us. Let us be our brother’s keeper, Scripture tells us. Let us be our sister’s keeper. Let us find that common stake we all have in one another, and let our politics reflect that spirit as well.

For we have a choice in this country. We can accept a politics that breeds division, and conflict, and cynicism. We can tackle race only as spectacle – as we did in the OJ trial – or in the wake of tragedy, as we did in the aftermath of Katrina - or as fodder for the nightly news. We can play Reverend Wright’s sermons on every channel, every day and talk about them from now until the election, and make the only question in this campaign whether or not the American people think that I somehow believe or sympathize with his most offensive words. We can pounce on some gaffe by a Hillary supporter as evidence that she’s playing the race card, or we can speculate on whether white men will all flock to John McCain in the general election regardless of his policies.

We can do that.

But if we do, I can tell you that in the next election, we’ll be talking about some other distraction. And then another one. And then another one. And nothing will change.

That is one option. Or, at this moment, in this election, we can come together and say, “Not this time.” This time we want to talk about the crumbling schools that are stealing the future of black children and white children and Asian children and Hispanic children and Native American children. This time we want to reject the cynicism that tells us that these kids can’t learn; that those kids who don’t look like us are somebody else’s problem. The children of America are not those kids, they are our kids, and we will not let them fall behind in a 21st century economy. Not this time.

This time we want to talk about how the lines in the Emergency Room are filled with whites and blacks and Hispanics who do not have health care; who don’t have the power on their own to overcome the special interests in Washington, but who can take them on if we do it together.

This time we want to talk about the shuttered mills that once provided a decent life for men and women of every race, and the homes for sale that once belonged to Americans from every religion, every region, every walk of life. This time we want to talk about the fact that the real problem is not that someone who doesn’t look like you might take your job; it’s that the corporation you work for will ship it overseas for nothing more than a profit.

This time we want to talk about the men and women of every color and creed who serve together, and fight together, and bleed together under the same proud flag. We want to talk about how to bring them home from a war that never should’ve been authorized and never should’ve been waged, and we want to talk about how we’ll show our patriotism by caring for them, and their families, and giving them the benefits they have earned.

I would not be running for President if I didn’t believe with all my heart that this is what the vast majority of Americans want for this country. This union may never be perfect, but generation after generation has shown that it can always be perfected. And today, whenever I find myself feeling doubtful or cynical about this possibility, what gives me the most hope is the next generation – the young people whose attitudes and beliefs and openness to change have already made history in this election.

There is one story in particularly that I’d like to leave you with today – a story I told when I had the great honor of speaking on Dr. King’s birthday at his home church, Ebenezer Baptist, in Atlanta.

There is a young, twenty-three year old white woman named Ashley Baia who organized for our campaign in Florence, South Carolina. She had been working to organize a mostly African-American community since the beginning of this campaign, and one day she was at a roundtable discussion where everyone went around telling their story and why they were there.

And Ashley said that when she was nine years old, her mother got cancer. And because she had to miss days of work, she was let go and lost her health care. They had to file for bankruptcy, and that’s when Ashley decided that she had to do something to help her mom.

She knew that food was one of their most expensive costs, and so Ashley convinced her mother that what she really liked and really wanted to eat more than anything else was mustard and relish sandwiches. Because that was the cheapest way to eat.

She did this for a year until her mom got better, and she told everyone at the roundtable that the reason she joined our campaign was so that she could help the millions of other children in the country who want and need to help their parents too.

Now Ashley might have made a different choice. Perhaps somebody told her along the way that the source of her mother’s problems were blacks who were on welfare and too lazy to work, or Hispanics who were coming into the country illegally. But she didn’t. She sought out allies in her fight against injustice.

Anyway, Ashley finishes her story and then goes around the room and asks everyone else why they’re supporting the campaign. They all have different stories and reasons. Many bring up a specific issue. And finally they come to this elderly black man who’s been sitting there quietly the entire time. And Ashley asks him why he’s there. And he does not bring up a specific issue. He does not say health care or the economy. He does not say education or the war. He does not say that he was there because of Barack Obama. He simply says to everyone in the room, “I am here because of Ashley.”

“I’m here because of Ashley.” By itself, that single moment of recognition between that young white girl and that old black man is not enough. It is not enough to give health care to the sick, or jobs to the jobless, or education to our children.

But it is where we start. It is where our union grows stronger. And as so many generations have come to realize over the course of the two-hundred and twenty one years since a band of patriots signed that document in Philadelphia, that is where the perfection begins.

-30-

[Clove]

That's one hell of a speech.

[radamanthys]

Holy WoT, batman.


Was going to TLDR it, but thought against it.

http://www.smh.com.au/ffximage/2006/08/18/Thank_060818105924764_wideweb__300x375.jpg?

[Latrinsorm]

And some people still won't vote for the guy! Madness!

[Zarli]

I'm not an Obama supporter.. actually, I dont care for any of the candidates and it's made me sneer thinking of having to vote for any of them period, but I have to say, I read that entire thing and it impressed me quite a bit, it just may be the first speech that's impressed me at all.

[radamanthys]

Yea, I was being glib before. That speech is a class act.

[Daniel]

Amazing

[Gan]

I watched it. The fact that he can turn the spin on the negative comments made by his ex-spiritual advisor and produce something that so takes advantage of his speaking skills is political brilliance.

Excellent speech.

[Alfster]

TLDR

[Davenshire]

How did we ever get lucky enough to have a candidate like this!




OBAMA '08

[Methais]

TLDR.

Good thing for YouTube.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pWe7wTVbLUU

[Daniel]

What is TLDR?

[Nieninque]

Too long didnt read

[Daniel]

I'm waiting for the inevitible political spin. He's apologizing for blacks!!

(PB)

[Nieninque]

I watched half of the video and thought it was pretty fucking impressive.
If this election affected me, I would vote for him.

As it only indirectly affects me, I shall just hope he gets the nomination and subsequently wins the big one.

[Arkans]

He does inspire. I know he's got my vote, but I really hope he can deliver and not be corrupted immediately or just be a total assfuck when it comes to being in office.

- Arkans

[Gan]

I'm holding Obama to his "pay as you go philosophy" if he gets elected. I like the man and the spirit of the message, its just parts of the message that scare me (universal healthcare, etc.) - it just smells of heavy liberalism/socialism from what I've seen/understood thus far.

And I'm suggesting to McCain's campaign that he adopt a similar stance of paying as you go; that being said, McCain's fiscal history is a little better documented and one that I'm in favor of.

[Whimsi]

Good speech. And although I know it was for politically motivated reasons, I found it very refreshing to see whites specifically included as needing the same things as everyone else. Mostly they just seem to get blamed in speeches by black leaders. I know it was probably very specificially written that way to garner votes and soothe white fears. Still damn impressive speech.

[Lysander]

Heard this on CSPAN radio. He's going to win the nomination. The real question is, will he beat McCain? Although it's 2008 a white male face especially like McCains goes a LONG way.

[Stanley Burrell]

I didn't know about the Patton connection, that's mildly insane.

I don't know if it's age, or what, but in general (and in future elections) I think I'm always going to be tempted to vote for the younger politician: Speeches like that go beyond charisma and enter the realm of personal health. Although I despise politics as a whole, I think the fluidity of younger dudes (and chicks) at the podium can help us flaunt appeal worldwide and absolutely better the world -- Even if it is for the sake of appearances :shrug:

If Obama was Hillary Clinton reforming Medicaid that many years ago, it might've actually worked.

[Parkbandit]

I'm waiting for the inevitible political spin. He's apologizing for blacks!!

(PB)

There's no spin here. It was a good speech. Like I've said so many times before.. he's an engaging speaker that you can't help but like. Most of the 'good' politicians can brilliantly speak. Clinton was one of the best. Obama is probably even better.

I'm just wondering though.. why you aren't so angry with Obama, Daniel? He stated that Rev. Wrights words were racially charged and divisive (I believe I used the exact term and phrase), and he condemned the statements... but I thought YOU said there was nothing wrong with what Rev. Wright was saying? Doesn't this go against everything you were spouting off about yesterday? So why was it so racial for me to say this yesterday.. but when Obama says the same exact thing today.. he's a hero?

[Daniel]

I spelled out the difference for you yesterday. If you pay attention to the speech you will hear Obama say that Reverend Wright has never said anything negative about any race.

However, the problem was that those words in that context did not take into account that America has and can change. The omission of which makes those comments divisive in that they imply that WHITE racism is endemic.

Not exactly what you were saying and by not exactly, I mean no where close.

[Daniel]

I.e.


ut the remarks that have caused this recent firestorm weren’t simply controversial. They weren’t simply a religious leader’s effort to speak out against perceived injustice. Instead, they expressed a profoundly distorted view of this country – a view that sees white racism as endemic, and that elevates what is wrong with America above all that we know is right with America; a view that sees the conflicts in the Middle East as rooted primarily in the actions of stalwart allies like Israel, instead of emanating from the perverse and hateful ideologies of radical Islam.

As such, Reverend Wright’s comments were not only wrong but divisive, divisive at a time when we need unity; racially charged at a time when we need to come together to solve a set of monumental problems – two wars, a terrorist threat, a falling economy, a chronic health care crisis and potentially devastating climate change; problems that are neither black or white or Latino or Asian, but rather problems that confront us all.




Not once in my conversations with him have I heard him talk about any ethnic group in derogatory terms, or treat whites with whom he interacted with anything but courtesy and respect. He contains within him the contradictions – the good and the bad – of the community that he has served diligently for so many years

Vs.


I don't know.. his pastor sounds like a very angry man who blames the whites and America for all the world's woes. I can't believe that after 20 years of going to this church.. performing the marriage ceremony and making him the spiritual advisor of his campaign.. that this is the first time Obama has heard this guy's crazy talk


If I was a church going person and my 'spiritual advisor' was using this type of hate speech.. I'm not sure I would go back after the first time.. let alone for the past 20 years.

[NocturnalRob]

I think it's hysterical that people actually believe the Dem candidates when they promise universal healthcare. Good luck with that.

[Parkbandit]

I spelled out the difference for you yesterday. If you pay attention to the speech you will hear Obama say that Reverend Wright has never said anything negative about any race.

However, the problem was that those words in that context did not take into account that America has and can change. The omission of which makes those comments divisive in that they imply that WHITE racism is endemic.

Not exactly what you were saying and by not exactly, I mean no where close.


There is the spin you were looking for.

Too funny.. and thanks for the laugh at your expense.

Obama calls his sermons racially divisive and racially charged.. I almost use the same exact words when describing them.. but somehow I was totally wrong, where Obama is totally right.

You are the spin doctor.

[Daniel]

Obama calls his sermons racially divisive and racially charged.. I almost use the same exact words when describing them..

.


Except not.

[Parkbandit]

Wright's views are racially divisive.. in direct contrast to what Obama has been preaching for the past year. Obama seems to be looking towards the future, where Wright seems to be stuck in the past.

There's a reason why Obama is distancing himself from Wright.. and rightfully so imo.

L2read.

[Clove]

I'd say this speech clearly puts Obama in the same league as Ronald Reagan and Bill Clinton in regards to public speaking. He has what it takes to be the face of the Nation and to be persuasive. What remains to be seen is does he have a workable vision?

*edit*
From what I've seen so far I think he does, but at this stage of the game I can't give him my vote yet. If he gets the candidacy I'll have to hear him debate with McCain before I make a final decision. My opinion is that both McCain and Obama are good options- for different reasons. I'll need to hear them go head to head before I can decide which is best.

[Daniel]

L2read.

I did. A long time ago: Reference the two quotes I already put up.

[Daniel]

Here's another good one:


I doubt anyone is surprised that Daniel doesn't find anything this idiot says as racist or hateful.



Oh, and you'll have to excuse me if I'm not buying your condemnation of racial division when you've said such things as "Black people commit more crimes than white people" and "A noose doesn't neccesarily imply anything racial"

[Parkbandit]

Here's another good one:





Oh, and you'll have to excuse me if I'm not buying your condemnation of racial division when you've said such things as "Black people commit more crimes than white people" and "A noose doesn't neccesarily imply anything racial"

Seems I was dead on with that quote as well, Spin Doctor.

Like I said... thanks for the laugh today.

[Daniel]

Oh? Obama calls his statements Racist or Hateful? Or can you not read what was already on this page?


Not once in my conversations with him have I heard him talk about any ethnic group in derogatory terms, or treat whites with whom he interacted with anything but courtesy and respect. He contains within him the contradictions – the good and the bad – of the community that he has served diligently for so many years


learn2read indeed.

[Kembal]

I read the first part, was about to say TLDR, then I scrolled down and saw Clove's reaction, so I said...ok, let me go through the whole thing.

That's an incredible speech. Think I'll find the video later and watch it.

[Back]

Wow, that brought tears to my eyes. Senator Obama is just a man but I’m beginning to feel more and more that his candidacy is a movement, especially after this speech.

[Gan]

Yea, but can he walk on water...

[radamanthys]

Wow, that brought tears to my eyes. Senator Obama is just a man but I’m beginning to feel more and more that his candidacy is a movement, especially after this speech.

A bowel movement joke there is just too easy.

[Warriorbird]

Ideally it'll be that sort of "movement" on the entire legacy of the last presidency.

[Parkbandit]

Oh? Obama calls his statements Racist or Hateful? Or can you not read what was already on this page?



learn2read indeed.


LOL.. the text is in front of you.. yet you simply refuse to read it. Here, I'll help you:


"As such, Reverend Wright’s comments were not only wrong but divisive, divisive at a time when we need unity; racially charged at a time when we need to come together to solve a set of monumental problems "

I bolded the part I was referring to.. where Obama CLEARLY said that Reverend Wrights Comments were wrong, divisive and racially charged. I realize this fucks up your entire argument in two threads.. I also realize it makes you look like a big fucking piece of shit hypocrite.. but I'm willing to point that out to the one or two people on this board that didn't already realize this about you.

Spin away Doctor D.

[Fallen]

It was a great speech.

[ClydeR]

The speech was OK. Maybe he's off the hook for this issue, but he's still the most liberal person in the Senate.

[Warriorbird]

Given the "liberal" tripled growth in spending under the Republican Congress...maybe he'll be able to curb his enthusiasm a bit.

[Zarli]

I'd say this speech clearly puts Obama in the same league as Ronald Reagan and Bill Clinton in regards to public speaking. He has what it takes to be the face of the Nation and to be persuasive. What remains to be seen is does he have a workable vision?

*edit*
From what I've seen so far I think he does, but at this stage of the game I can't give him my vote yet. If he gets the candidacy I'll have to hear him debate with McCain before I make a final decision. My opinion is that both McCain and Obama are good options- for different reasons. I'll need to hear them go head to head before I can decide which is best.


I agree, I can't give either of them my vote yet, I've been leaning towards McCain and I've never voted republican before.. but, regardless of whether I believe everything that Obama said in his speech, it was one of the best speeches I've heard in a long time and I think that we need a good speaker to run the country.

No one is going to be right about everything, but someone with a level head and willing to listen and think things through as he apparently did in coming up with this speech is worth quite a bit to me.

Up until now I've actually been completely against Obama being in office.. and I find it interesting that he was able to change my mind about him a little. We need a negotiator in office, I remain impressed and will be thinking things over with a different point of view now.

[Latrinsorm]

Spin away Doctor D.Racially charged != racist or hateful. Both Ferraro and the pastor made racially charged statements, neither made racist or hateful statements. :welcome:

[Drew]

Just imagine if a white candidate had a pastor of 20 years who said the same things this guy did, how quickly would that bury them?

[Latrinsorm]

I dunno, I think people would get a big kick out of "Barack Obama ain't never been called a cracker!".

[Parkbandit]

Racially charged != racist or hateful. Both Ferraro and the pastor made racially charged statements, neither made racist or hateful statements. :welcome:

:rofl: Whatever you need to do to justify it in your mind.. feel free, I don't give two shits.

I posted yesterday that the good Reverend Wright said some racially divisive things in his sermons and most posters disagreed.. saying they didn't see anything wrong with what he said. Today, Obama said the same exact thing and is applauded by most of you fools for making such a fantastic speech.

Problem is.. people throughout history have followed individuals who are able to give great speeches.. no matter how bad they really are. They talk a good game. I hope Obama isn't in this same category.. but to me, the jury is still out. I can get past the eloquent speeches and don't feel the need to throw my panties up on stage whenever I hear him like some of you groupies.

[Tsa`ah]

Just imagine if a white candidate had a pastor of 20 years who said the same things this guy did, how quickly would that bury them?

Not really. Whether or not the the candidate is/was a member of the congregation or if the clergyman/woman is simply a big time endorser. It certainly didn't hurt Dubya. Think of the endorsements he received in the realm of hell fire and brimstone televangilists ... and he didn't distance himself in the least. I can't recall him ever repudiating a single word from the likes of Falwell, Hagee, or anyone of similar view.

Right now Hagee is endorsing McCain and I'm sure the rest of the religious right with soon follow simply because McCain is an R and he's not B. Hussein Obama or Clinton.

We have how many minutes worth of footage on Wright vs how many weeks of footage from the religious right that claim 9/11 was the result of gays and the like, that blacks are a different species all together ... pick your poison.

The main difference between Wright and the "right" is that Wright's comments are rooted in honesty and history ... agree with them or not.

[Parkbandit]

Not really. Whether or not the the candidate is/was a member of the congregation or if the clergyman/woman is simply a big time endorser. It certainly didn't hurt Dubya. Think of the endorsements he received in the realm of hell fire and brimstone televangilists ... and he didn't distance himself in the least. I can't recall him ever repudiating a single word from the likes of Falwell, Hagee, or anyone of similar view.

Right now Hagee is endorsing McCain and I'm sure the rest of the religious right with soon follow simply because McCain is an R and he's not B. Hussein Obama or Clinton.

We have how many minutes worth of footage on Wright vs how many weeks of footage from the religious right that claim 9/11 was the result of gays and the like, that blacks are a different species all together ... pick your poison.

The main difference between Wright and the "right" is that Wright's comments are rooted in honesty and history ... agree with them or not.


You actually try to equate the two? That's fucking laughable.

So.. when Wright says that the US Government created the aids virus to kill off the black man.. where exactly is the source of your 'honesty and history' on this?

[LMingrone]

Tracy Morgan responding to Clinton's advisor's "he's lucky he's black" (paraphrased) comment on SNL was the best: "Bitch is the new black, and black is the new president...bitch."

The question is if he can beat Mccain. It's going to be very interesting.

[Tsa`ah]

You actually try to equate the two? That's fucking laughable.

So.. when Wright says that the US Government created the aids virus to kill off the black man.. where exactly is the source of your 'honesty and history' on this?

I didn't touch that comment simply because I believed almost everyone that read it would dismiss it out of basic intelligence and common sense .... thanks for showing you have neither.

[Gan]

So.. when Wright says that the US Government created the aids virus to kill off the black man.. where exactly is the source of your 'honesty and history' on this?

I've missed this one. Did Wright actually say that?

Not to mention I'd like to point out that Obama saying he has never heard Wright utter a racist remark and Wright never saying a racist remark are TWO totally different things. Unless Wright happens to live with/is with Obama 24/7. On this I call spin.

I'd still like to know why Oprah quit Wright's church soon after joining. And why Wright spent a considerable effort slandering Oprah for doing that.

Inquiring minds want to know...

:thinking:

[LMingrone]

I'd still like to know why Oprah quit Wright's church soon after joining. And why Wright spent a considerable effort slandering Oprah for doing that.

Inquiring minds want to know...

:thinking:


They both REALLY love money.

I was thinking of something else to say, but I think that covers it.

[Tsa`ah]

I'd take a stab at it being over Oprah dropping cars and a plethora of other gifts out of her vagina and building a multimillion dollar school for girls in Africa while flipping the bird to Chicago schools and poor neighborhoods (outside of her studio residing in a somewhat bad neighborhood).

[LMingrone]

I'd take a stab at it being over Oprah dropping cars and a plethora of other gifts out of her vagina and building a multimillion dollar school for girls in Africa while flipping the bird to Chicago schools and poor neighborhoods (outside of her studio residing in a somewhat bad neighborhood).


Building schools in Africa and giving cars to people who can afford to take a day or two off of work and travel to Chicago....Marketing genius.

[Daniel]

LOL.. the text is in front of you.. yet you simply refuse to read it. Here, I'll help you:


"As such, Reverend Wright’s comments were not only wrong but divisive, divisive at a time when we need unity; racially charged at a time when we need to come together to solve a set of monumental problems "

I bolded the part I was referring to.. where Obama CLEARLY said that Reverend Wrights Comments were wrong, divisive and racially charged. I realize this fucks up your entire argument in two threads.. I also realize it makes you look like a big fucking piece of shit hypocrite.. but I'm willing to point that out to the one or two people on this board that didn't already realize this about you.

Spin away Doctor D.

Lol. You're too much. Please explain to me how I'm a hypocrite? I've never said anything equal to "Hillary Clinton != a Black man in America?" Please give specifics on what I am being hypocrtical about. Please.

Racially divisive doesn't equate to "Racist" or "Hateful" A german cultural event is "Racially divisive" and yet it is not racist or hateful by any means.

Obama, in his speech stipulates why his comments were unhelpful and not productive and THEN goes on to explain why they happened and why he is not a hateful or racist man.

If you want to sit and act like Obama just vindicated all the bullshit that spewed from your keyboard yesterday, then by all means.

You'll just continue to be the laughingstock of the playerscorner. A position I imagine you relish. So, please continue. I bet the photoshops are not far behind.

[LMingrone]

http://img247.imageshack.us/img247/9299/luvthreadhc0.jpg

[Parkbandit]

I didn't touch that comment simply because I believed almost everyone that read it would dismiss it out of basic intelligence and common sense .... thanks for showing you have neither.


Actually, you didn't use any statement from Wright, you simply said :




The main difference between Wright and the "right" is that Wright's comments are rooted in honesty and history ... agree with them or not.

So which comments were you referring to? You didn't post any.. so should the reader just assume you meant some of his statements.. then when you are called out, you can just throw up the "Hey, I didn't include THAT statement for that reason! Everyone knows that silly!"

Um.. yea.

[Parkbandit]

Lol. You're too much. Please explain to me how I'm a hypocrite? I've never said anything equal to "Hillary Clinton != a Black man in America?" Please give specifics on what I am being hypocrtical about. Please.

Racially divisive doesn't equate to "Racist" or "Hateful" A german cultural event is "Racially divisive" and yet it is not racist or hateful by any means.

Obama, in his speech stipulates why his comments were unhelpful and not productive and THEN goes on to explain why they happened and why he is not a hateful or racist man.

If you want to sit and act like Obama just vindicated all the bullshit that spewed from your keyboard yesterday, then by all means.

You'll just continue to be the laughingstock of the playerscorner. A position I imagine you relish. So, please continue. I bet the photoshops are not far behind.

I've shown you ONE comment from Obama.. and one comment from me. Both said the same thing.. yet somehow I am completely wrong and Obama is completely right.

And the reason we use photoshops for you is because you obviously have trouble with reading things without pictures... as your posts here have brilliantly 'illustrated'.

Thanks chump. You've proven my point far better than I could have done it alone.

[LMingrone]

I remember my grandfather telling me to never talk about religion or politics with ANYONE. I can only imagine how much of a mind F "teh intrawebs" would be for him.

[Daniel]

You can't take one comment out of a speech, compare the similarities in spelling and then say that the context, content and intent are the same.

That would be retarded, but then again. We expect nothing less out of you.

[LMingrone]

That would be retarded, but then again. We expect nothing less out of you.

How ironic. ,

[Parkbandit]

I've missed this one. Did Wright actually say that?

Not to mention I'd like to point out that Obama saying he has never heard Wright utter a racist remark and Wright never saying a racist remark are TWO totally different things. Unless Wright happens to live with/is with Obama 24/7. On this I call spin.

I'd still like to know why Oprah quit Wright's church soon after joining. And why Wright spent a considerable effort slandering Oprah for doing that.

Inquiring minds want to know...

:thinking:

Isn't it clear by now?

Oprah heard the reverend saying shit that she didn't agree with.. so she left that church. She didn't have any political aspirations and she didn't 'need' to be viewed as being 'down with the struggle' like Obama did in his early political career.

I think after Clinton wins PA.. the race will start to get real fun to watch. Obama better hope that his dealings with Rezko are kept quiet until the convention.. or he's done.

[Daniel]

How ironic. ,

You are?

[Parkbandit]

You can't take one comment out of a speech, compare the similarities in spelling and then say that the context, content and intent are the same.

That would be retarded, but then again. We expect nothing less out of you.

What's truly retarded is that you believe him saying Wright was racially divisive is completely different from me saying Wright was racially divisive.

But.. we both know you've said far more retarded things on this board... and we're sure to get even more from you in the future. You are like our special needs kid.

Nighty night Corky.

[Daniel]

No, Actually. I think you saying he was Racist, Hateful and has been for the past 20 years as completely different.

Thanks for trying.

[LMingrone]

"That would be retarded, but then again. We expect nothing less out of you."

You heard me.

[Daniel]

burn?

[Tsa`ah]

Actually, you didn't use any statement from Wright, you simply said :

You have a knack for being dimwitted ... do you ever tire of grasping for straw in a cabbage patch?


So which comments were you referring to? You didn't post any.. so should the reader just assume you meant some of his statements.. then when you are called out, you can just throw up the "Hey, I didn't include THAT statement for that reason! Everyone knows that silly!"

Um.. yea.

Does this really need to be explained to you or is this an attempt to skirt the crux of my post in reference to the evangelical right that has produced truck loads of racist and politically/socially divisive commentary?

Nifty how you stumbled over the common sense area that most people would have picked up on and made an attempt to derail the post due to your own inability to see past the bullshit that makes up a good chunk of "conservatism".

[Warriorbird]

Watch out Tsa'ah. You'll get ignored!

I liked Obama's Nightline interview tonight. Quality stuff.

[LMingrone]

Maybe one day Daniel will form a sentence that makes sense.

[Tsa`ah]

He can fend for himself .... but there's plenty.

Making sense isn't exclusive to statements that one agrees with .... unfortunately that's not always the case at the PC.

[Daniel]

Maybe one day Daniel will form a sentence that makes sense.

Maybe one day you'll have sexual intercourse.

[LMingrone]

Maybe one day you'll have sexual intercourse.

OH SNAP!!!! You win. That sentence actually made sense. CONGRATS!

[Snapp]

That was an amazing speech. I read it and then watched it.



Maybe one day Daniel will form a sentence that makes sense.

Omg I know. He's such a tard.

[Daniel]

OH SNAP!!!! You win. That sentence actually made sense. CONGRATS!

Thanks.

Let us know when you "win".

[LMingrone]

I won. I've had this "sexual intercourse" you speak of many times. IT'S AWESOME!!!!!

[Daniel]

Source

[Gan]

So what did the good rev. Wright say about AIDS and Africa again?

[Back]

Think a moment about that relative we all have. You know the one? The one who spouts out something racially charged and makes you go WTF? I won’t lie, someone in my family did it a few times. Do I disown the person or facepalm, then try to talk sense to them? I chose the latter because I loved them for how good they were to me growing up. If they had been a member of the KKK that of course would have been an entirely different story.

This speech touched me so much. I am caucasian but my ancestry is made up of many things: Welsh, English, German, Cherokee and there is record of an African American in the mix as well. (In fact, I bet there is more of a mix between white and black American blood than any of us really know) My family is interracial. Our diner table and the friends who join us are all colors of the spectrum. That makes me proud, and proud of the moniker of our county The Great Melting Pot. We live it every day and love it.

In this speech I immediately thought of our diner table and I saw a glimpse of what I hope America can get back to being. A leader, a comfortable home, a positive force for change that is good for everyone.

[TheEschaton]

He said that the U.S. Government created the AIDS virus in order to kill off poor blacks in Africa, never-the-mind that AIDS first arose in the gay communities. There is some evidence that Americans/Europeans were doing experiments with polio live vaccines in central Africa, and the conspiracy theories take the wild jump that this somehow led to the breeding of the super-virus HIV.

That's the only thing I think Wright said which was just plain wrong.

[TheEschaton]

P.S. Backlash's emo bullshit makes me even more convinced liberal whites like voting for Barack because he soothes their white guilt.

-TheE-

[Gan]

He said that the U.S. Government created the AIDS virus in order to kill off poor blacks in Africa, never-the-mind that AIDS first arose in the gay communities. There is some evidence that Americans/Europeans were doing experiments with polio live vaccines in central Africa, and the conspiracy theories take the wild jump that this somehow led to the breeding of the super-virus HIV.

That's the only thing I think Wright said which was just plain wrong.

Thats just fucking idiotic. It'll be nice when fucked up viewpoints like that finally die out, because the only thing it does is perpetuate the problem.


P.S. Backlash's emo bullshit makes me even more convinced liberal whites like voting for Barack because he soothes their white guilt.

-TheE-
LOL EMO! Thats the word I'm thinking of to describe that sappy ass bullshit post. Thats the second sappy post he's waxed poetic about Obama in this thread (or perhaps the other Obama thread combined).

I like Obama but its not because of some latent 'white guilt' I might have (which I dont). I dont like what Obama represents as policy though - its a shame he's so far left. Thats probably another commonality Backlash has with him.

[Back]

http://images.huffingtonpost.com/gen/15321/thumbs/s-MCCAIN-GAFFE-large.jpg

[Gan]

http://garlinggauge.com/wp-content/uploads/2007/11/lol16.jpg

[Kembal]

I think after Clinton wins PA.. the race will start to get real fun to watch. Obama better hope that his dealings with Rezko are kept quiet until the convention.. or he's done.

I think Obama's ok on Rezko. The Chicago Sun-Times pretty much thinks that while he might have been naive to enter into a business transaction with Rezko, it doesn't appear anything underhanded went on.

I gotta admit, I like how Obama's taking these challenges head on. For Rezko, 90 minute interviews with both the Sun-Times and the Chicago Tribune. For the Wright controversy and the whole issue of race in the campaign, this speech in Philadelphia.

If nothing else, he's a different kind of politician just for doing those alone. I don't see that with Clinton or McCain.

[TheEschaton]

Barack can address things in this manner because he has lofty rhetoric and emo fucks like Backlash think he's the second coming of Christ, except they aren't so cliched to actually have believed in the first coming of Christ.

But what has he actually said? On Rezko, he's like, "Whoops, didn't know the guy was a shady bastard," despite being friends with him and having done business with him in the past. On Wright, he didn't come out one way or the other, either "Whoops, didn't know the guy was a crazy bastard," or "Yanno, he's right, so stfu," but instead said, yeah, these problems exist, but we shouldn't be angry, let's all just fucking sing kumbaya and eat fucking granola.

I mean, his messianic aura as the "savior" from George W. Bush is what is propelling him, not sound grasp of policy, foreign or domestic, in addition to a rhetoric of unity which no actual Democrat or Republican wants. It's just the dumb fucks in the middle who think we can all put aside the fundamental, profound differences between the two parties and each one's view that they are morally correct to the other's moral terpitude. Then, once he's elected, the granola crunchers, in their infinite fucking self-righteousness and complete lack of desire to actually do any real work, will dust off their hands and say, "Well, WE'VE DONE OUR JOB BY ELECTING HIM," abandoning him in the middle of two groups of people who literally think the other is outright wrong.

Then the rest of us, who appreciate working in the trenches and support actual candidates, will once again be able to have substantive debates about actual things which differ between us, and we won't try to unite those views, because that's like uniting matter and anti-matter. And Barack'll quickly realize unity around views does not rise naturally from unity as Americans, and it's the former that is needed to pass bills and policies which actually benefit people's lives.

And then ????

Profit.

[Whimsi]

I love when left wing liberals bash each other. It makes me happy.

[Gan]

warm fuzzies even

[Gan]

A Speech That Fell Short

By Michael Gerson


WASHINGTON -- Barack Obama has run a campaign based on a simple premise: that words of unity and hope matter to America. Now he has been forced by his charismatic, angry pastor to argue that words of hatred and division don't really matter as much as we thought.

Obama's Philadelphia speech made this argument as well as it could be made. He condemned the Rev. Jeremiah Wright's views in strong language -- and embraced Wright as a wayward member of the family. He made Wright and his congregation a symbol of both the nobility and "shocking ignorance" of the African-American experience -- and presented himself as a leader who transcends that conflicted legacy. The speech recognized the historical reasons for black anger -- and argued that the best response to those grievances is the adoption of Obama's own social and economic agenda.


It was one of the finest political performances under pressure since John F. Kennedy at the Greater Houston Ministerial Association in 1960. It also fell short in significant ways.

The problem with Obama's argument is that Wright is not a symbol of the strengths and weaknesses of the African-American community. He is a political extremist, holding views that are shocking to many Americans who wonder how any presidential candidate could be so closely associated with an adviser who refers to the "U.S. of KKK-A" and urges God to "damn" our country.

Obama's excellent and important speech on race in America did little to address his strange tolerance for the anti-Americanism of his spiritual mentor.

Take an issue that Obama did not specifically confront in Philadelphia. In a 2003 sermon, Wright claimed, "The government lied about inventing the HIV virus as a means of genocide against people of color."

This accusation does not make Wright, as Obama would have it, an "occasionally fierce critic of American domestic and foreign policy." It makes Wright a dangerous man. He has casually accused America of one of the most monstrous crimes in history, perpetrated by a conspiracy of medical Mengeles. If Wright believes his charge is correct, he should urge the overthrow of the American government, which he views as guilty of unspeakable evil. If I believed Wright were correct, I would join him in that cause.

But Wright's accusation is batty, reflecting a sputtering, incoherent hatred for America. And his pastoral teaching may put lives at risk, because the HIV virus spreads more readily in an atmosphere of denial, quack science and conspiracy theories.

The Philadelphia speech implied that these toxic views are somehow parallel to the stereotyping of black men by Obama's grandmother, which Obama said made him "cringe" -- both are the foibles of family. But while Grandma may have had some issues to work through, Wright is accusing the American government of trying to kill every member of a race. There is a difference.

But haven't George Bush and other Republican politicians accepted the support of Jerry Falwell, who spouted hate of his own? Yes, but they didn't financially support his ministry and sit directly under his teaching for decades.

The better analogy is this: What if a Republican presidential candidate spent years in the pew of a theonomist church -- a fanatical fragment of Protestantism that teaches the modern political validity of ancient Hebrew law? What if the church's pastor attacked the American government as illegitimate and accepted the stoning of homosexuals and recalcitrant children as appropriate legal penalties (which some theonomists interpret as biblical requirements)? Surely we would conclude, at the very least, that the Republican candidate attending this church lacked judgment, and that his donations were subsidizing hatred. And we would be right.

In Philadelphia, Obama attempted to explain Wright's anger as typical of the civil rights generation, with its "memories of humiliation and doubt and fear." But Wright's problem is exactly the opposite: He ignored the message of Martin Luther King Jr. and introduced a new generation to the politics of hatred.

King drew a different lesson from the oppression he experienced: "I've seen too much hate to want to hate myself; hate is too great a burden to bear. I've seen it on the faces of too many sheriffs of the South. ... Hate distorts the personality. ... The man who hates can't think straight; the man who hates can't reason right; the man who hates can't see right; the man who hates can't walk right."

Barack Obama is not a man who hates -- but he chose to walk with a man who does.

Copyright 2008, Washington Post Writers Group

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2008/03/new_wright.html
_______________________________________________

Excellent rebuttal.

[Parkbandit]

Not really. Whether or not the the candidate is/was a member of the congregation or if the clergyman/woman is simply a big time endorser. It certainly didn't hurt Dubya. Think of the endorsements he received in the realm of hell fire and brimstone televangilists ... and he didn't distance himself in the least. I can't recall him ever repudiating a single word from the likes of Falwell, Hagee, or anyone of similar view.

Right now Hagee is endorsing McCain and I'm sure the rest of the religious right with soon follow simply because McCain is an R and he's not B. Hussein Obama or Clinton.

We have how many minutes worth of footage on Wright vs how many weeks of footage from the religious right that claim 9/11 was the result of gays and the like, that blacks are a different species all together ... pick your poison.

The main difference between Wright and the "right" is that Wright's comments are rooted in honesty and history ... agree with them or not.


Once again.. let's go back to your original post Tsa'ah. Where are you stating that Wright's comments about the US making the AIDs virus to kill people of color is the one statement that isn't rooted in honesty and history? What about where Wright is chanting "God Damn America"? Oh, I know.. you didn't... which was my point.

And comparing a religious leader endorsing McCain and Obama being a member of Wright's church for 20 years is like apples to furniture. It's not even CLOSE to being the same. Now.. if McCain was a member of Hagee's church for a long period of time, THEN you might have a point. So if we find out that David Duke is supporting Obama.. should we make that assumption that Obama now is a supporter of White Power?

[CrystalTears]

Eh, I don't think it's that excellent of a rebuttal because again, we're not voting for the pastor. And since Obama has never given off any vibe like that of the pastor, I'm not bound to agree that whole saying of "tell me who you hang out with and I'll tell you who you are" (well it's a Cuban saying but it doesn't translate as well).

I hate to agree with Back, but honestly, every person knows someone close to them in some way that say things that embarass you or you don't agree with but you learn to deal and accept it. You like them for the good that they do and it clouds over their faults. I see this as no different and I'm not going to judge Obama for what his former pastor has said when Obama has never expressed such judgements.

[Kefka]

A Speech That Fell Short

Excellent rebuttal.

Until you realize he works for the Bush Administration.

[Blud]

Did he actually author this himself? I'm curios, not criticizing.

I read the whole that and was moved.

[Kefka]

He said that the U.S. Government created the AIDS virus in order to kill off poor blacks in Africa, never-the-mind that AIDS first arose in the gay communities. There is some evidence that Americans/Europeans were doing experiments with polio live vaccines in central Africa, and the conspiracy theories take the wild jump that this somehow led to the breeding of the super-virus HIV.

That's the only thing I think Wright said which was just plain wrong.

AIDS was first reported June 5, 1981, when the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention recorded a cluster of Pneumocystis carinii pneumonia (now still classified as PCP but known to be caused by Pneumocystis jirovecii) in five homosexual men in Los Angeles.[147]

Three of the earliest known instances of HIV infection are:

1. A plasma sample taken in 1959 from an adult male living in Kinshasa, today part of the Democratic Republic of the Congo.[148]
2. HIV found in tissue samples from "Robert R.", a 15 year old African-American teenager who died in St. Louis in 1969.[149]
3. HIV found in tissue samples from Arvid Noe, a Norwegian sailor who died around 1976.[150]

Two species of HIV infect humans: HIV-1 and HIV-2. HIV-1 is more virulent and more easily transmitted. HIV-1 is the source of the majority of HIV infections throughout the world, while HIV-2 is not as easily transmitted and is largely confined to West Africa.[151] Both HIV-1 and HIV-2 are of primate origin. The origin of HIV-1 is the Central Common Chimpanzee (Pan troglodytes troglodytes) found in southern Cameroon.[152] It is established that HIV-2 originated from the Sooty Mangabey (Cercocebus atys), an Old World monkey of Guinea Bissau, Gabon, and Cameroon.

Most experts believe that HIV probably transferred to humans as a result of direct contact with primates, for instance during hunting or butchery.[153] A more controversial theory known as the OPV AIDS hypothesis suggests that the AIDS epidemic was inadvertently started in the late 1950s in the Belgian Congo by Hilary Koprowski's research into a poliomyelitis vaccine.[154][155] According to scientific consensus, this scenario is not supported by the available evidence.[156][157][158]

A recent study states that HIV probably moved from Africa to Haiti and then entered the United States around 1969.[159]


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aids

Some believe that AIDS was engineered.

[Gan]

Eh, I don't think it's that excellent of a rebuttal because again, we're not voting for the pastor. And since Obama has never given off any vibe like that of the pastor, I'm not bound to agree that whole saying of "tell me who you hang out with and I'll tell you who you are" (well it's a Cuban saying but it doesn't translate as well).

I hate to agree with Back, but honestly, every person knows someone close to them in some way that say things that embarass you or you don't agree with but you learn to deal and accept it. You like them for the good that they do and it clouds over their faults. I see this as no different and I'm not going to judge Obama for what his former pastor has said when Obama has never expressed such judgements.
I suppose I would agree depending on the depth of involvement he had with Obama's campaign. While he may or may not have been influential on a personal level, if he was actively representing himself and his message in the campaign as part of Obama's movement then its association is more direct and thus more circumspect.


Until you realize he works for the Bush Administration.
Thats right, because Bush R teh DEvil. /sarcasm.

[Kefka]

Thats right, because Bush R teh DEvil. /sarcasm.

Didn't say all that, but let's be honest. Did you expect him to give Obama any praise?

[Daniel]

[QUOTE=Gan;700836]I suppose I would agree depending on the depth of involvement he had with Obama's campaign. While he may or may not have been influential on a personal level, if he was actively representing himself and his message in the campaign as part of Obama's movement then its association is more direct and thus more circumspect.

[QUOTE]

Specifically, what message is it that you are concerned was prevalent in the Obama campaign?

That HIV was engineered by the Government? I don't think Obama would be running for president if he really thought that. I don't think you would either.

So, specifically. What message are you concerned about?

[Gan]

Didn't say all that, but let's be honest. Did you expect him to give Obama any praise?

Not knowing who the author was/is associated with when I read the article I therefore formed no preconceived opinions as to its slant. I evaluated the article based on its own merit - not the author's associations.

Ironic considering we're juxtapositioning the very same concept with Obama and Wright.

[TheEschaton]

Even based on its merits, the article assumes Rev. Wright is hateful of America, which he is not. He is strongly critical - that does not equal the same thing.

Edit: We have here people projecting their own jingoistic, (and wrongly) patriotic views on a man who is merely saying if we look at what the Bible holds up as good, America does not meet that standard at all. Catholic priests say that all the time in their sermons.

[Gan]

I suppose I would agree depending on the depth of involvement he had with Obama's campaign. While he may or may not have been influential on a personal level, if he was actively representing himself and his message in the campaign as part of Obama's movement then its association is more direct and thus more circumspect.



Specifically, what message is it that you are concerned was prevalent in the Obama campaign?

That HIV was engineered by the Government? I don't think Obama would be running for president if he really thought that. I don't think you would either.

So, specifically. What message are you concerned about?

Thats just it. I've yet to hear any direct divisive comments come from Obama himself. Passive examples could be interpreted coming from his wife and other campaign affiliates; however, none from Obama. For that he gets kudos for keeping his hands clean. However, exactly how much creedence can be given to guilt by association. Are we at some/any level linked with the company we keep? Thats why I asked the question as to how much involvement Wright has had in Obama's campaign as the 'spiritual advisor' - that official role and not just the pastor of his local church.

Its understood that those whom company you keep will say and do things that you are not or should not be held directly responsible for. But on the other hand, if you knowingly still maintain association with people who partake in the questionable actions and furthermore give them positions of prominence and influence in an activity which is centered around you - how much culpability must you accept for those actions, past and present by that associate?

Its good that Obama is distancing himself from Wright from this point forward - buy why, if Wright is historically known to preach racially divisive sermons to those whom he leads in his congregation, why is Obama only kicking him to the curb now? Furthermore Obama really isnt kicking Wright to the curb in as much as he's just condemning what Wright has said.

Hate the message but not the messenger? How do we know how much of the messenger is made up of the message? Do we know enough about Obama, do we have enough of a track record of his leadership in public office to determine whether or not he represents that message, or not?

Valid questions if you ask me. :shrug:

[Gan]

Even based on its merits, the article assumes Rev. Wright is hateful of America, which he is not. He is strongly critical - that does not equal the same thing.

Edit: We have here people projecting their own jingoistic, (and wrongly) patriotic views on a man who is merely saying if we look at what the Bible holds up as good, America does not meet that standard at all. Catholic priests say that all the time in their sermons.

So Catholic Priests shout "God Damn America" from the pulpits? RLY?

That would indeed be a little exaggeration on your part, and a little apologestic.

If Wright or what he's done cant stand up to being questioned, then his actions definately merit a closer look. Same goes with his association with Obama's campaign.

[Daniel]

I think they are valid questions, but I think we missed a step here.

Specifically, what is it about Jeremiah Wright's comments that are so "racially divisive" that would warrant condemnation?

His comments on aids? Sure.

His pointing out that Hillary Clinton did not grow up as a black male?

His comments saying God damn America *FOR* treating people less then Human?

I understand Obama's comments and where he is coming from within his campaign. However, at the same time..if we are going to condemn somebody by *association* be better be sure that the person we are condemning is worth condemning in the first place.

For personal reasons, I don't think it's fair for people to write off everything Jeremiah Wright has done as hateful, racist or racially divisive, especially if we haven't even taken the time to consider why we are doing so.

So, once again my question is..what about his comments do you find so abhorrent.

[CrystalTears]

If Wright was strengthening racially divisive words made by Obama, I can see why the association would be a problem. However since Obama hasn't shown himself to be racial, why would what Wright said condemn him?

[Gan]

I think they are valid questions, but I think we missed a step here.

Specifically, what is it about Jeremiah Wright's comments that are so "racially divisive" that would warrant condemnation?

His comments on aids? Sure.

His pointing out that Hillary Clinton did not grow up as a black male?

His comments saying God damn America *FOR* treating people less then Human?

I understand Obama's comments and where he is coming from within his campaign. However, at the same time..if we are going to condemn somebody by *association* be better be sure that the person we are condemning is worth condemning in the first place.

For personal reasons, I don't think it's fair for people to write off everything Jeremiah Wright has done as hateful, racist or racially divisive, especially if we haven't even taken the time to consider why we are doing so.

So, once again my question is..what about his comments do you find so abhorrent.

What reason did Obama give for finding them so divisive?

Personally I dont find them abhorrent as much as I do a message playing on old hates and prejudices of a generation that has failed to adapt to changing times. I find these kinds of messages wrong because it has very little to do with historical significance as much as it blindly arouses innate and uneducated feelings and assumptions of bigotry that people use for reasons and excuses totally misrepresentated for the original if not perceived intentions of their utterance.

With freedom of speech comes responsibility.

[NocturnalRob]

http://www.theonion.com/content/news/black_guy_asks_nation_for_change

[Gan]

If Wright was strengthening racially divisive words made by Obama, I can see why the association would be a problem. However since Obama hasn't shown himself to be racial, why would what Wright said condemn him?

Thus far Obama has not, to which I give him credit. But we're only looking at a brief moment in history. This is politics and an election season where the masks are on 24/7. I'd be happier with this conclusion if it was after looking at the bigger picture of his career. And thats something I have not had the time to evaluate yet (or investigate).

[Kefka]

Not knowing who the author was/is associated with when I read the article I therefore formed no preconceived opinions as to its slant. I evaluated the article based on its own merit - not the author's associations.

Ironic considering we're juxtapositioning the very same concept with Obama and Wright.

Of course! I'm sure his intention on writing this op. ed. was not to stir the hornet's nest. The media is liberal, after all.

[Daniel]

What reason did Obama give for finding them so divisive?


Well, the speech is there.

Obama, found them divisive and found this not productive because the comments were borne out of frustration and implied that racism is indemnic for White America. He then went on to explain why this is something that is a continuing problem for Black America and why it is not helping things.

I agree with those sentiments. However, I think people are missing that point when they are OMG HIS COMMENTS WERE RACIALLY DIVISIVE, because they once again revert back to the stance that these comments still don't have a logical and truthful basis.

In essence, they miss the point of the speech itself and fall back into their old habits. There are hard questions that both white and black america have to ask themselves and even tougher actions.

However, if you have the PB's of the world saying SEE I TOLD YOU SO, while blantantly ignoring everything else that was said...then youv'e gotten no where.

That's why I want to talk about these points and I want people to understand where they come from. So, we can ask those questions and take those actions.

What I I don't want is it turning into a caractiture of a man who has done an awful lot to make this country a better place for political purposes.

[Gan]

Well, the speech is there.

Obama, found them divisive and found this not productive because the comments were borne out of frustration and implied that racism is indemnic for White America. He then went on to explain why this is something that is a continuing problem for Black America and why it is not helping things.

I agree with those sentiments. However, I think people are missing that point when they are OMG HIS COMMENTS WERE RACIALLY DIVISIVE, because they once again revert back to the stance that these comments still don't have a logical and truthful basis.

In essence, they miss the point of the speech itself and fall back into their old habits. There are hard questions that both white and black america have to ask themselves and even tougher actions.

However, if you have the PB's of the world saying SEE I TOLD YOU SO, while blantantly ignoring everything else that was said...then youv'e gotten no where.

That's why I want to talk about these points and I want people to understand where they come from. So, we can ask those questions and take those actions.

What I I don't want is it turning into a caractiture of a man who has done an awful lot to make this country a better place for political purposes.

This actually goes back to a previous thread we had on racism and how dwelling, focusing, and putting half elaborated ideas with the intention to inflame or motivate instead of educate actually does more harm than good in the minds of the narrow visioned or uneducated.

Its one thing to dwell on it. Yes, White America had slaves that were brought over from Africa. Even though it was something that was considered acceptable in some civilizations/societies, it was morally wrong. Furthermore, this wrong was perpetuated throughout the first 190 years of America's existence by those either too stupid to change or too hateful to change. However, these times - they are a changing. And the last generation (babyboomer) to hold fast to these ideals of inequality are dying out (thankfully).

The problem I see is that when we let people who represent that generation act as leaders (naturally) and guide the younger generations with that kind of inflamatory perceptions (on both white and black communities) then you're just pulling another generation down that should be focused on more global issues and not just skin color. Thats why I find those remarks divisive, because they do not represnt any historical or educational significance but are merely uttered as a means to inflame the innocent or the guilty who are looking for another excuse not to adapt.

[Warriorbird]

I don't see you condemning Parkbandit or Bill O'Reilly or Limbaugh much.

[Gan]

I don't see you condemning Parkbandit or Bill O'Reilly or Limbaugh much.

Feel free to do a search. ;)

[Daniel]

I absolutely agree, but I find your analysis of the situation to be incomplete.

You essentially are putting the onus on the leaders who passed down these perceptions, despite the fact that they had every reason do.

Racism did not die in 1965, and I think it's silly to think that it did. Unfortunately, you have too many people who think that it did and thus that anytime people have a legitimate gripe about the status of minorities in this counry, that it is whining or people being unproductive.

I find that criticism shallow if you aren't willing to turn around and look at the part of America that you live in and be just as critical and forthright in the way you approach things.

I think that was Obama's point. It's too easy to criticize the other side, but in the end it's neccessary to look at where both sides are coming from and work on a solution together.

I'll admit, it annoys the fuck out of me when people like PB look at a 7 to 1 sentencing disparity in America and say it's all black people's fault. Yet, it's still my responsibility to be honest with myself and my shortcomings and overcome them. However, the two things are not mutually exclusive.

[Gan]

I think that was Obama's point. It's too easy to criticize the other side, but in the end it's neccessary to look at where both sides are coming from and work on a solution together.

Agreed. I'm just of the opinion that Wright's comments are more destructive to that process than conducive to change. I would hope that a closer look at Obama throughout this process will vet himself of any attributes that would be associated with that style of rhetoric. Otherwise Wright's association with Obama will be damaging indeed, regardless of what Obama says in his speeches and soundbytes.

[Clove]

...Racism did not die in 1965, and I think it's silly to think that it did. Unfortunately, you have too many people who think that it did and thus that anytime people have a legitimate gripe about the status of minorities in this counry, that it is whining or people being unproductive...

Yes, but along with the legitimate gripes there have been illegitimate gripes that (like the little boy who cried wolf) only inspire insensitivity to racism.

Eliminating racism involves the full cooperation of our society (victims and agents alike) because it is perpetuated by all of our society (victims and agents alike).

I think Obama's speech spoke to this in principle. Our problems are our problems and we all have to work together to solve them.

[Kembal]

Barack can address things in this manner because he has lofty rhetoric and emo fucks like Backlash think he's the second coming of Christ, except they aren't so cliched to actually have believed in the first coming of Christ.

But what has he actually said? On Rezko, he's like, "Whoops, didn't know the guy was a shady bastard," despite being friends with him and having done business with him in the past. On Wright, he didn't come out one way or the other, either "Whoops, didn't know the guy was a crazy bastard," or "Yanno, he's right, so stfu," but instead said, yeah, these problems exist, but we shouldn't be angry, let's all just fucking sing kumbaya and eat fucking granola.

I mean, his messianic aura as the "savior" from George W. Bush is what is propelling him, not sound grasp of policy, foreign or domestic, in addition to a rhetoric of unity which no actual Democrat or Republican wants. It's just the dumb fucks in the middle who think we can all put aside the fundamental, profound differences between the two parties and each one's view that they are morally correct to the other's moral terpitude. Then, once he's elected, the granola crunchers, in their infinite fucking self-righteousness and complete lack of desire to actually do any real work, will dust off their hands and say, "Well, WE'VE DONE OUR JOB BY ELECTING HIM," abandoning him in the middle of two groups of people who literally think the other is outright wrong.

Then the rest of us, who appreciate working in the trenches and support actual candidates, will once again be able to have substantive debates about actual things which differ between us, and we won't try to unite those views, because that's like uniting matter and anti-matter. And Barack'll quickly realize unity around views does not rise naturally from unity as Americans, and it's the former that is needed to pass bills and policies which actually benefit people's lives.

And then ????

Profit.

...

Have you read the polling and analysis on Obama's coattails vs. Clinton's (lack of) coattails? If you're interested in expanding the Democratic party (which it appears from this line: "Then the rest of us, who appreciate working in the trenches and support actual candidates"), Obama at the top puts a lot of Senate, Congressional, and local races into play that Clinton at the top does not.

If you can't figure out the implications of that, TheE, I'll be pretty surprised.

[Clove]

Barack can address things in this manner because he has lofty rhetoric and emo fucks like Backlash think he's the second coming of Christ, except they aren't so cliched to actually have believed in the first coming of Christ.

But what has he actually said? On Rezko, he's like, "Whoops, didn't know the guy was a shady bastard," despite being friends with him and having done business with him in the past. On Wright, he didn't come out one way or the other, either "Whoops, didn't know the guy was a crazy bastard," or "Yanno, he's right, so stfu," but instead said, yeah, these problems exist, but we shouldn't be angry, let's all just fucking sing kumbaya and eat fucking granola...

PB... is that you????

[Gan]

PB... is that you????

:lol:

I love the irony.

[TheEschaton]

...

Have you read the polling and analysis on Obama's coattails vs. Clinton's (lack of) coattails? If you're interested in expanding the Democratic party (which it appears from this line: "Then the rest of us, who appreciate working in the trenches and support actual candidates"), Obama at the top puts a lot of Senate, Congressional, and local races into play that Clinton at the top does not.

If you can't figure out the implications of that, TheE, I'll be pretty surprised.

I am most certainly not interested in expanding the Democratic party if it involves compromising Democratic ideals so we can be all happy and united with Republicans.

[Clove]

I am most certainly not interested in expanding the Democratic party if it involves compromising Democratic ideals so we can be all happy and united with Republicans.

http://imagecache2.allposters.com/images/pic/HPM/SM1082~Cripple-Fight-Posters.jpg

Fuck Unity.

[CrystalTears]

I am most certainly not interested in expanding the Democratic party if it involves compromising Democratic ideals so we can be all happy and united with Republicans.
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v412/Jemah/lolcats/dude.jpg

[Clove]

I think the E got into the vodka early today... he's always been an angry drunk :D

[Parkbandit]

I absolutely agree, but I find your analysis of the situation to be incomplete.

You essentially are putting the onus on the leaders who passed down these perceptions, despite the fact that they had every reason do.

Racism did not die in 1965, and I think it's silly to think that it did. Unfortunately, you have too many people who think that it did and thus that anytime people have a legitimate gripe about the status of minorities in this counry, that it is whining or people being unproductive.

I find that criticism shallow if you aren't willing to turn around and look at the part of America that you live in and be just as critical and forthright in the way you approach things.

I think that was Obama's point. It's too easy to criticize the other side, but in the end it's neccessary to look at where both sides are coming from and work on a solution together.

I'll admit, it annoys the fuck out of me when people like PB look at a 7 to 1 sentencing disparity in America and say it's all black people's fault. Yet, it's still my responsibility to be honest with myself and my shortcomings and overcome them. However, the two things are not mutually exclusive.


I'll admit, it annoys the fuck out of me when people like Daniel look at a 7 to 1 sentencing disparity in America and say it's all white people's fault.

[Gan]

I am most certainly not interested in expanding the Democratic party if it involves compromising Democratic ideals so we can be all happy and united with Republicans.

hahaha, and now we see the true extreme socialist left of TheE.

Way to represent the Hillary camp there bub.

:clap:

[Kembal]

I am most certainly not interested in expanding the Democratic party if it involves compromising Democratic ideals so we can be all happy and united with Republicans.

Yep, it went whoosh over your head.

[TheEschaton]

how is it "extreme left" to think the GOP is, at its foundations, morally bankrupt, and not want to compromise with that? ;)

-TheE-

[CrystalTears]

Because only the extreme side of the party don't want to collaborate or unite with the other side in any way.

[TheEschaton]

Wait, so you want to collaborate and work with people you find to be utterly wrong and without a moral compass? Because if THAT'S true, I'd question you, and not me.

[CrystalTears]

You're against uniting the country. I get it.

[Gan]

Wait, so you want to collaborate and work with people you find to be utterly wrong and without a moral compass? Because if THAT'S true, I'd question you, and not me.

Right, because if people's morals dont match yours, they're not morals (or right morals).

Do you even take yourself seriously?

[Gan]

how is it "extreme left" to think the GOP is, at its foundations, morally bankrupt, and not want to compromise with that? ;)

-TheE-

As my staunch catholic neighbor (and rabid republican) would ask you.

How can you think you're morally right when you endorse candidates and a platform that encourages the killing of innocent babies (abortion)?

I really laugh at you when you get off on your Democrat (liberal) moral compass.

:CHUCKLE:

[TheEschaton]

Morality is not "mine" to make and dictate. Morality is universal, and I simply try to subscribe to it. And yes, if people are not subscribing to it, they are not morals, and not to be ascribed to.

As the Pope said in Dignitas Humanae, "There are no rights in error," basically saying we should not simply "choose to disagree" if the other side is morally wrong.

-TheE-

[TheEschaton]

And who said I'm pro-choice? I waver on the abortion issue, because at its base its a dogmatic question of when human life begins. But at least I don't believe in the party which supports the death penalty and unending war.

-TheE-

[Gan]

And who said I'm pro-choice? I waver on the abortion issue, because at its base its a dogmatic question of when human life begins. But at least I don't believe in the party which supports the death penalty and unending war.

-TheE-

You support the DNC which supports Abortion. You better check your moral compass, it appears to be pointing in the wrong direction.

:lol:

[Gan]

And who said I'm pro-choice? I waver on the abortion issue, because at its base its a dogmatic question of when human life begins. But at least I don't believe in the party which supports the death penalty and unending war.

-TheE-

No matter what you say, you're not hugging me.

[TheEschaton]

LOL, from the Republican who is pro-choice and non-religious, I find it laughable that you would argue we sign onto the full slate of ideas a particular party puts as a plank in its platform.

[Clove]

You support the DNC which supports Abortion. You better check your moral compass, it appears to be pointing in the wrong direction.

:lol:

Naw, he's just "choosing to disagree" with the DNC on one issue that he "waivers" on in terms of morality. If he ever stops waivering and decides the DNC's stance on the (an) issue is immoral, I'm sure he'll remove his support.

:break:

[Parkbandit]

LOL, from the Republican who is pro-choice and non-religious, I find it laughable that you would argue we sign onto the full slate of ideas a particular party puts as a plank in its platform.

I find it completely laughable that you would say the GOP is morally bankrupt.. and you are an avid Clinton supporter.

You my friend.. are a joke.

[Clove]

LOL, from the Republican who is pro-choice and non-religious, I find it laughable that you would argue we sign onto the full slate of ideas a particular party puts as a plank in its platform.

He isn't. You're the one arguing against comprimising with any group who doesn't agree with you fully on what is and is not moral.

[TheEschaton]

And who's to say I don't strongly disagree with my own party for its blunders, and don't compromise when holding them accountable? Half of our party's problems come from in-fighting on what's the right thing to do.

-TheE-

[Parkbandit]

And who's to say I don't strongly disagree with my own party for its blunders, and don't compromise when holding them accountable? Half of our party's problems come from in-fighting on what's the right thing to do.

-TheE-

So now you hate what.. 3/4 the country? Maybe France would be more to your liking?

Or Cuba?

Just saying... Comrade

[Gan]

LOL, from the Republican who is pro-choice and non-religious, I find it laughable that you would argue we sign onto the full slate of ideas a particular party puts as a plank in its platform.

I'm simply shooting holes in your 'moral compass' non unity no compromise socialist ideaology.

I'm actually happy with a blend of conservatism and liberalism. In fact, I represent, as an office holder in my R party precinct, a voice thats not rabid religious right, and effected as much in my votes as to what issues we adopted as a precinct and submitted to our district/state level party. And by my sitting in that position, thats one less position thats not filled by another religious wackjob.

I'm out to make a change, from within.

[Gan]

So now you hate what.. 3/4 the country? Maybe France would be more to your liking?

Or Cuba?

Just saying... Comrade

No silly, he's moving to France when McCain wins in November. REMEMBER???

[Clove]

No silly, he's moving to France when McCain wins in November. REMEMBER???

And at this point Obama should hope that the -E- continues to campaign for Hillary- that oughta really swing the moderates and undecideds.

[TheEschaton]

I don't hate anyone, I just strongly disagree with them, PB. ;)

-TheE-

[Daniel]

Yes, but along with the legitimate gripes there have been illegitimate gripes that (like the little boy who cried wolf) only inspire insensitivity to racism.

Eliminating racism involves the full cooperation of our society (victims and agents alike) because it is perpetuated by all of our society (victims and agents alike).

I think Obama's speech spoke to this in principle. Our problems are our problems and we all have to work together to solve them.

Did I not say as much?

[Sean of the Thread]

Didn't catch up on the entire thread as I'm sure it went places I wouldn't want to fucking waste time reading anyways... HOWEVER THAT being said:

My fellow Republicans.... after that speech and being actually spoken to like an adult straight from the hip that man has my vote at this point.

However if he somehow doesn't manage to win the nomination I hope McCain really gets his act together.

[Xaerve]

WHERE IS ANGELA??

[Gan]

WHERE IS ANGELA??

LOL

She's either posessed TheE or she's on the road with Hillary.

[Back]

P.S. Backlash's emo bullshit makes me even more convinced liberal whites like voting for Barack because he soothes their white guilt.

-TheE-

Uhh, this speech came out a day or two ago and I’ve been supporting his movement after the first debate based on his policies, record of accomplishments and genuinely believe he will follow through on his ideas.

I liked Biden quite a bit and Kucinich as well. I apologize if this rubs you the wrong way but I’ve never been comfortable with Hillary Clinton in the political arena. To be completely cynical about her career in politics it seems like a consolation prize to having had a presidential husband who cheated on her. To be non-cynical it mainly has to do with her voting for the war in Iraq.


LOL EMO! Thats the word I'm thinking of to describe that sappy ass bullshit post. Thats the second sappy post he's waxed poetic about Obama in this thread (or perhaps the other Obama thread combined).

I like Obama but its not because of some latent 'white guilt' I might have (which I dont). I dont like what Obama represents as policy though - its a shame he's so far left. Thats probably another commonality Backlash has with him.

How exactly is proving, and enjoying, the success of the great experiment our founding fathers foresaw emo? I thought emo stood for eye-liner wearing suburban gothy white teenagers who complained about life without ever having really experienced it.

As for latent white guilt... that would make an interesting topic.

[TheEschaton]

Emo simply means "emotional". You're talking about the man as if he just gave you the best orgasm you ever had.

-TheE-

[Back]

Emo simply means "emotional". You're talking about the man as if he just gave you the best orgasm you ever had.

-TheE-

If that were the case I would have used much different terms. Whats wrong with good emotion?

[TheEschaton]

I think we effectively proved the last 8 years why we shouldn't vote for someone based on emotion.

[Back]

I think we effectively proved the last 8 years why we shouldn't vote for someone based on emotion.

Well thats an entirely different discussion. I’d imagine as a law school student that has to be a tremendous issue to grapple with.

[Clove]

Emo simply means "emotional". You're talking about the man as if he just gave you the best orgasm you ever had.

-TheE-

I really think you're on to something -E-. That being said, I wish my grass were emo 'cause then it'd cut itself.

[Gan]

I really think you're on to something -E-. That being said, I wish my grass were emo 'cause then it'd cut itself.

http://i68.photobucket.com/albums/i3/3strangedays/070403b.jpg

[Warriorbird]

So, E, what did people vote for Clinton based on? Oh yeah... emotion, hope...

[CrystalTears]

I think we effectively proved the last 8 years why we shouldn't vote for someone based on emotion.
Yes because not voting for someone who believes in uniting the country because OMG REPUBLICANS R TEH EVIL! isn't voting emotionally.

[Gan]

Yes because not voting for someone who believes in uniting the country because OMG REPUBLICANS R TEH EVIL! isn't voting emotionally.

LOL

Touche.

[Clove]

Yes because not voting for someone who believes in uniting the country because OMG REPUBLICANS R TEH EVIL! isn't voting emotionally.

Winner!

[TheEschaton]

The evilness is categorical fact, not emotion. I just get heated about it. ;)

[CrystalTears]

The evilness is categorical fairytale and based on pure opinion and emotion. I also get heated about it. ;)
Fixed. Crazy git.

[TheEschaton]

If our current society is "normal", I'll accept crazy wholeheartedly. ;)

[Clove]

If our current society is "normal", I'll accept crazy wholeheartedly. ;)

Spoken like a true elitest :D

[TheEschaton]

"I'm not egotistical, I'm just in love with how awesome I am." ;)

[Clove]

"I'm not egotistical, I'm just in love with how awesome I am." ;)

Honestly after your PB-esque tirade against Obama I'm beginning to think "I'm schizophrenic... and so am I" is a more appropriate tag-line for you :P.

[TheEschaton]

Eh, I just worry about him being all style and no substance. If he had run in 8 years, with 10 years of Senate experience under his belt, I would have voted for him in a heartbeat.

And I fear he'll capitulate on key issues to appease the other side.

[Clove]

Barack can address things in this manner because he has lofty rhetoric and emo fucks like Backlash think he's the second coming of Christ, except they aren't so cliched to actually have believed in the first coming of Christ.

But what has he actually said? On Rezko, he's like, "Whoops, didn't know the guy was a shady bastard," despite being friends with him and having done business with him in the past. On Wright, he didn't come out one way or the other, either "Whoops, didn't know the guy was a crazy bastard," or "Yanno, he's right, so stfu," but instead said, yeah, these problems exist, but we shouldn't be angry, let's all just fucking sing kumbaya and eat fucking granola...

Before Prozac...


Eh, I just worry about him being all style and no substance. If he had run in 8 years, with 10 years of Senate experience under his belt, I would have voted for him in a heartbeat.

And I fear he'll capitulate on key issues to appease the other side.

After Prozac...

Lollercopter!

[CrystalTears]

Eh, I just worry about him being all style and no substance. If he had run in 8 years, with 10 years of Senate experience under his belt, I would have voted for him in a heartbeat.
Because Hillary has more senate experience to put her on a pedestal?


And I fear he'll capitulate on key issues to appease the other side.
OH YES BECAUSE HILLARY WOULD NEVER DO SUCH A THING!

Talk about being biased and blinded.

[TheEschaton]

Lollercopter!

I'm actually trying to get my engineering up to 375 so I can get my roflcopter. :(

-TheE-

[Clove]

I'm actually trying to get my engineering up to 375 so I can get my roflcopter. :(

-TheE-

I'm rooting for you, but you have to take me for a ride in your roflcopter when you get it.

[TheEschaton]

First I need to get the recipe to drop. :(

[Gan]

Because Hillary has more senate experience to put her on a pedestal?
You forget, she was FIRST LADY!!! And of course she would have Bill riding shotgun (cigar fetcher).



OH YES BECAUSE HILLARY WOULD NEVER DO SUCH A THING!

Talk about being biased and blinded.

LOL Hillary capitulate HEALTHCARE on HEALTHCARE any HEALTHCARE sensitive HEALTHCARE issue HEALTHCARE that HEALTHCARE might HEALTHCARE be HEALTHCARE a HEALTHCARE platform HEALTHCARE issue/promise HEALTHCARE?

:lol:

[Latrinsorm]

On Wright, he didn't come out one way or the other, either "Whoops, didn't know the guy was a crazy bastard," or "Yanno, he's right, so stfu," but instead said, yeah, these problems exist, but we shouldn't be angry, let's all just fucking sing kumbaya and eat fucking granola.
Congratulations, you've reached Ilvane level bias.
It's just the dumb fucks in the middle who think we can all put aside the fundamental, profound differences between the two parties and each one's view that they are morally correct to the other's moral terpitude.There are fundamental, profound, moral differences between the most radical segments of the two parties. This is crucially different from what you're saying.

I mean, ffs, look at where you, I, and Ganalon stand on religion (for instance). I'm Republican, you're Democrat, he's Independent, but which of us agrees the most?

As for Michael Gerson, I would hope he sees the irony in doing the exact things Obama described as the status quo, but unless he's a hell of a lot more subtly satirical than I think he is he doesn't. :( A couple points anyway:

1) Sen. Obama specifically said he was IMPERFECT, not TRANSCENDENT.

2) Pastor Wright's message is still not one of racial hatred, no matter how many times people say it is. What pisses him off is injustice, and I'd like to see anyone here claim that a lifetime of repression and injustice wouldn't leave them with some residual bitterness. (And it's important to note that it is residual, as Sen. Obama described.)
if Wright is historically known to preach racially divisive sermons to those whom he leads in his congregation, why is Obama only kicking him to the curb now?Perhaps Sen. Obama had faith that people could recognize that a guy who preaches 1 racially divisive sermon out of 50 isn't a radical racist crackpot.

[Clove]

Congratulations, you've reached Ilvane level bias...
:rofl: :rofl: :rofl:

Out of the mouths of babes...

-E- I think you just earned your Roflcopter!

[TheEschaton]

Your uppence shall come!

[Clove]

Your uppence shall come!

I'm certain mine has come and gone (more than once). It's not like my POV hasn't been mocked here. But today, it's all about you my crazy brother from another mother.

[Parkbandit]

First I need to get the recipe to drop. :(


Not that I don't want to slow down your political meltdown here.. just stating facts.

This is a learned recipe, not a drop.

Now, back to your meltdown Ilvane Jr.

[TheEschaton]

Really? Damn, ROFLCOPTER here I come. Though I guess I should probably get my mining up to 300 before I start.

[Parkbandit]

Really? Damn, ROFLCOPTER here I come. Though I guess I should probably get my mining up to 300 before I start.


Yea.. it's expensive as hell.. so make sure you get your mining up. Use the mat list to level up your engineering... khorium cores and felsteel stabilizers

Then, once you get 5K gold.. you can spend even more to make it turbo.

[Clove]

There we go, if we just make the subject about fantasy- The -E- can keep up!

[ClydeR]

As usual, I completely agree with what Governor Huckabee said about it (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZNwMPNxwHmQ). The Republicans really made a mistake by not nominating him.

[Gan]

As usual, I completely agree with what Governor Huckabee said about it (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZNwMPNxwHmQ). The Republicans really made a mistake by not nominating him.

As long as you think it a mistake, I'm comfortable with knowing it was the right thing to do.

:yes:

[Apathy]

I think we effectively proved the last 20 years why we shouldn't vote for someone based on emotion.

Fixed.

[Whimsi]

Perhaps Sen. Obama had faith that people could recognize that a guy who preaches 1 racially divisive sermon out of 50 isn't a radical racist crackpot.


Well, lets play a little game...pretend for a moment that the spiritual leader and pastor of John McCain was an open white supremacist. Oh he might have performed hundreds of sermons that did not push this agenda but, on occasion, he would let loose with some anti-black sentiment.

McCain would be BURIED in guilt by association accusations and would probably lose all chance at election. And rightfully so. The things Wright said were abhorrent. To brush them off as meaningless is an injustice.

[TheEschaton]

Except - and here's the kicker - African Americans in this country HAVE A REASON for being angry at white people, if they are (but never a reason to be violent). White people have no reason other than idiotic bigotry.

Can't you see the difference between reasonable anger and irrational bigotry?

[Whimsi]

Except - and here's the kicker - African Americans in this country HAVE A REASON for being angry at white people, if they are (but never a reason to be violent). White people have no reason other than idiotic bigotry.

Can't you see the difference between reasonable anger and irrational bigotry?

It's quite apparent from the bulk of your posts on this forum that you enjoy anger for angers' sake. You are hardly one to rationally distinguish what constitutes "reasonable anger".

[Methais]

Except - and here's the kicker - African Americans in this country HAVE A REASON for being angry at white people, if they are (but never a reason to be violent). White people have no reason other than idiotic bigotry.

Can't you see the difference between reasonable anger and irrational bigotry?

How many black slaves are alive today in this country again?

[Clove]

Except - and here's the kicker - African Americans in this country HAVE A REASON for being angry at white people, if they are (but never a reason to be violent). White people have no reason other than idiotic bigotry.

Can't you see the difference between reasonable anger and irrational bigotry?

I really think this statement is unfair and attitudes like this contribute to the problem. There are bigots on all sides and there are those with valid reasons for anger on all sides.

My people weren't even IN this country during the slave era- and if you're going to invoke "well Europeans participated in the slave trade so your people are still guilty" crap, then you should find a way to indentify the descendents of the Africans that sold their brothers into slavery so we can hold them culpable too.

Boy, THEN how will blacks be able to focus their anger, when they can't rely on skin color for blame? What will whites do when they won't know if they're dealing with a black who is a descendent of a slave seller or a slave? Chaos!

[Gan]

Except - and here's the kicker - African Americans in this country HAVE A REASON for being angry at white people, if they are (but never a reason to be violent). White people have no reason other than idiotic bigotry.

Can't you see the difference between reasonable anger and irrational bigotry?

So by your same logic, if someone strikes you - you should strike them back. (Violence or not)

What happened to your moral compass and turn the other cheek?

I'm going to give you a word that you need to consider in your argument.

Perpetuation

If you're going to successfully deal with bigotry and racism here or anywhere, you're going to have to deal with it without perpetuating it. Period.

Just as you hold that the death penalty is no deterrence to violent crime, you should understand or reasonably admit that reciprocating bigotry/racism is no deterrence for racism or bigotry.

[Keller]

I think his point was that blacks in America have lived and do still live in a society in which they are disadvantaged by their ancestry. We can't just make that go away. There is a not-so-subtle distinction between recognition and perpetuation.

[Clove]

I think his point was that blacks in America have lived and do still live in a society in which they are disadvantaged by their ancestry. We can't just make that go away. There is a not-so-subtle distinction between recognition and perpetuation.

Generalizing racial issues on one side as valid and on another as bigoted is not recognition, it's perpetuation.

[DeV]

Except - and here's the kicker - African Americans in this country HAVE A REASON for being angry at white people, if they are (but never a reason to be violent). No, not really. I could somewhat agree if you'd said the establishment instead of white people in general.

Being angry at white people, who in large part share a similar quality of life as most black people only serves to perpetuate an already delicate racial divide.

The greatest, most glaring disparity I see in this country right now, which has persisted, is access to quality education.

[Latrinsorm]

Well, lets play a little game...pretend for a moment that the spiritual leader and pastor of John McCain was an open white supremacist. Oh he might have performed hundreds of sermons that did not push this agenda but, on occasion, he would let loose with some anti-black sentiment.

McCain would be BURIED in guilt by association accusations and would probably lose all chance at election. And rightfully so. The things Wright said were abhorrent. To brush them off as meaningless is an injustice.Pastor Wright is not a black supremacist and has never said anything anti-white. The only thing he has said that was racially divisive was that lots of white people (especially in the government) treated and continue to treat black people poorly, which is just a fact. He's not against white people because they're white, which is a distinction Sen. Obama has helpfully pointed out for those of us who are not members of Pastor Wright's congregation.

The trouble with your game/analogy is that you fail to distinguish between a statement that is racially divisive and a statement that is hatefully racist. It is unfortunate that you are not alone in this failure.

[Keller]

Generalizing racial issues on one side as valid and on another as bigoted is not recognition, it's perpetuation.

First, valid /= reasonable. It's like when Chris Rock said, "I'm not saying it was right, but I understand." It is reasonable to be angry with the systemic racism that exists in this country based both on (1) the history of slavery including its current social ramifications and (2) the existence of a penal institution that surivives on what many consider racially discriminatory criminal codes. Whether it's right or not is up for discussion. But I think, analytically, it is clear that it is reasonable.

Second, I would challenge you to compose a list of sincere grievences Whimsi's hypothetical white pastor would come up with. That can be our jumping off point for whether it would be bigoted or not.

[Clove]

...It is reasonable to be angry with the systemic racism that exists in this country based both on (1) the history of slavery including its current social ramifications and (2) the existence of a penal institution that surivives on what many consider racially discriminatory criminal codes...

Yes. It is reasonable to be angry with the systemic racism that exists in this country. It is racist (and perpetuating) to be angry at white people. White people who may or may not be willing participants in the racism. White people who may or may not have supported, worked for and demonstrated for causes to end racism such as the civil rights movement. White people who may, or may not have relatives who were slave owners, or underground railroad members.

There is no defense for the E's statement. He may not have said what he meant, but what he said is an example of perpetuation, not recognition.

[Keller]

There is no defense for the E's statement. He may not have said what he meant, but what he said is an example of perpetuation, not recognition.

I concede the earlier point you made which I omitted from the quote.

But note that what I wrote was "I think what he is saying is . . ." which was not a defense of his statement. It was a re-articulation of what he said to the end of generating beneficial discourse instead of the same 'ole mud-slinging. If you want to take issue with his statement, then do so. But please don't misconstrue what I said.

[Clove]

I concede the earlier point you made which I omitted from the quote.

But note that what I wrote was "I think what he is saying is . . ." which was not a defense of his statement. It was a re-articulation of what he said to the end of generating beneficial discourse instead of the same 'ole mud-slinging. If you want to take issue with his statement, then do so. But please don't misconstrue what I said.

I did take issue with his statement. If he didn't write what he meant and agrees with your "re-articulation" I suppose the E can post as much.

As for the discussion, I don't think you really need to re-articulate for the E. Since you concede my point, you could have simply admited that the statement was perpetuation, not recognition and then made your own statement on justifiable anger at a racist system that everyone (amongst all races) needs to address and change. That wouldn't have appeared to be a defense of the E's post that I took offense to.

As for Whimsi... I'm not even going to go there. I thought it was a bad analogy.

[Keller]

I did take issue with his statement. If he didn't write what he meant and agrees with your "re-articulation" I suppose the E can post as much.

As for the discussion, I don't think you really need to re-articulate for the E. Since you concede my point, you could have simply admited that the statement was perpetuation, not recognition and then made your own statement on justifiable anger at a racist system that everyone (amongst all races) needs to address and change. That wouldn't have appeared to be a defense of the E's post that I took offense to.

As for Whimsi... I'm not even going to go there. I thought it was a bad analogy.

I know TheE didn't mean what is being attributed to him (and rightfully attributed, because it was the plain meaning of what he wrote). But I also don't want to be side-tracked on a wild-goose chase of TheRacistE's imperfect articulation and totally miss the opportunity to actually discuss the issue.

To be sure, I could have posted in a manner that saved from misinterpreting what I said. But, taking a page from your book, I thought you were smart enough to get it the first time. :tumble:

[Back]

Colbert has nailed it yet again.

http://www.comedycentral.com/colbertreport/videos.jhtml?videoId=164382

[Clove]

...To be sure, I could have posted in a manner that saved from misinterpreting what I said. But, taking a page from your book, I thought you were smart enough to get it the first time. :tumble:

Nice :D. Alright.

And now one of my favorite movie quotes...


For years in this industry, whenever an African American character, hero or villain, was introduced - usually by white artists and writers - they got slapped with racist names that singled them out as Negroes. Now, my book, "Whitey-Hating Coon," don't have none of that bullshit...

Hooper "Chasing Amy"

[Keller]

Colbert has nailed it yet again.

http://www.comedycentral.com/colbertreport/videos.jhtml?videoId=164382


That clip was solid.

RUN JESUS, RUN!!

[Methais]

Did I hear this wrong, or is this pastor guy claiming Jesus was a poor black guy at around 0:20?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dcOOSpvC2JI&NR=1

[Latrinsorm]

Jesus was poor, black, and a guy.

Now if he had said White Jesus was a poor black man that would be controversial.

[Methais]

I fail to see how he comes to the conclusion that Jesus was black.

Maybe cause of this?
http://i11.photobucket.com/albums/a162/DoyleHargraves/BlackJesus.jpg

[Latrinsorm]

Roughly the same way Galileo came to his conclusions, I'd imagine.

[Warriorbird]

I just don't think all the white and black Christians could cope with "Middle Eastern Jesus" all that well.

[Daniel]

I fail to see how he comes to the conclusion that Jesus was black.

Maybe cause of this?
http://i11.photobucket.com/albums/a162/DoyleHargraves/BlackJesus.jpg

So you believe Jesus was...?

[Snapp]

Hmmm, let's see... what part of the world was he from?
:thinking:

[BigWorm]

Uh, I've seen paintings of Jesus that were obviously made during his life time and he has blond hair and blue eyes with pale white skin -> Jesus is Aryan.

[Stanley Burrell]

Uh, I've seen paintings of Jesus that were obviously made during his life time and he has blond hair and blue eyes with pale white skin -> Jesus is Aryan.

His amazing power is undeniable, then, because he conveniently changed into a half Puerto Rican half Greek shopowner who made me THE BEST corned beef on seedless rye with deli mustard ever. You could tell they were sanchwiches made by Jesus.

Sandwiches should be a religious icon. Except for that roast beef one: People, no.

[Methais]

Roughly the same way Galileo came to his conclusions, I'd imagine.

You're gonna have to spell this one out for me, as I'm behind on my Galileo studies.


I just don't think all the white and black Christians could cope with "Middle Eastern Jesus" all that well.

Works fine for me.


Hmmm, let's see... what part of the world was he from?
:thinking:

Not Africa?


So you believe Jesus was...?

Not black.

[Latrinsorm]

You're gonna have to spell this one out for me, as I'm behind on my Galileo studies.With science! :)