Barack: 'Typical White People'

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
161

[quote]Mick28 wrote:
He attended a Church for 20 FREAKING YEARS where the Pastor spouted racist lies from the pulpit and he did NOTHING about it.

Did he:

  1. Publicly correct the Pastor?

No

  1. Did he leave the Church?

No

[/quote]

First, I don’t attend church and haven’t stepped foot in one since I was 10. Maybe someone with a little more experience with these things can help me, and I’m being serious here.

I’m sure people’s pastors, priests, preachers, whatever have said things they have disagreed with at some time. That being said, do people normally publicly correct their pastors? Right there in church?

162

[quote]malonetd wrote:
Mick28 wrote:
He attended a Church for 20 FREAKING YEARS where the Pastor spouted racist lies from the pulpit and he did NOTHING about it.

Did he:

  1. Publicly correct the Pastor?

No

  1. Did he leave the Church?

No

First, I don’t attend church and haven’t stepped foot in one since I was 10. Maybe someone with a little more experience with these things can help me, and I’m being serious here.

I’m sure people’s pastors, priests, preachers, whatever have said things they have disagreed with at some time. That being said, do people normally publicly correct their pastors? Right there in church?[/quote]

No, they don’t. In fact, it is a given that some preachers, especially in the south, aren’t exactly well educated so it is a gamble what may come out of their mouths during a sermon. It gets more interesting once they get “fired up”.

The only difference is, I doubt any of them are having someone take specific comments out of context and act like they are preaching about destroying America.

In fact, it is so transparent that this was not his message that the agenda of those who are reacting this way is just too easy to spot.

It is actually sickening. Conservatives look like tools on this one.

163

[quote]malonetd wrote:

I’m sure people’s pastors, priests, preachers, whatever have said things they have disagreed with at some time. That being said, do people normally publicly correct their pastors? Right there in church?[/quote]

This continues to be offered as a defense - “you’ve never disagreed with your pastor?” - but this isn’t the issue.

The issue isn’t that Obama believes exactly as his pastor, although given Obama’s “unknowns” and lack of vetting, it is a fair question to raise. But few people think that Obama shares Wright’s racist crackpot theories.

Obama’s problem is that he isn’t a regular patron of the church who sits quietly and occasionally disagrees with his pastor’s excesses - no, he is proclaiming himself a champion to combat old divisions, particularly racial divisions. But his relationship with Wright completely contradicts that posture.

As for Obama’s use of the phrase “typical white person”, I think it was a a mere slip-up in extemporaneous speaking and I don’t think it is much of a sign of anything too nefarious.

But, given his proximity to Wright, it is impossible to escape the scrutiny - and especially given that Obama himself has made such a point that words matter and have consequences - witness his response to Imus, mentioned here and in several threads.

If his wording shows anything, it is that when pressed, he is showing signs of quickly fraying. He lacks calm and nerve when he isn’t getting the royal treatment of a fawning adorer. He looks rattled easily.

Not a good showing for someone who wants to be Commander in Chief in the current world.

164

Before I heard about Obama using his grandmother as a scape-goat I actually still had respect for him. So what he goes to church and the Rev gets fired up. But the whole here’s my grandmother for your vote strategy really chaps my ass.

165

[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
If his wording shows anything, it is that when pressed, he is showing signs of quickly fraying. He lacks calm and nerve when he isn’t getting the royal treatment of a fawning adorer. He looks rattled easily.

Not a good showing for someone who wants to be Commander in Chief in the current world.[/quote]

Unlike the current Commander in Chief who, when informed that the country was under attack, kept reading “My Pet Goat” for long minutes.

Face it, no one can know how anyone will react when the shit really hits the fan.

Trying to ascertain how someone will really perform under pressure by looking at the overly long PR exercise that are the primaries is useless.

The only thing this thread proves is that people will jump of the slightest misstep to diminish the candidate they don’t like while readily forgiving anything done wrong by their favorite.

Has anyone participating in this thread changed their mind about their vote since two weeks ago?

I didn’t think so.

166

[quote]pookie wrote:
thunderbolt23 wrote:
If his wording shows anything, it is that when pressed, he is showing signs of quickly fraying. He lacks calm and nerve when he isn’t getting the royal treatment of a fawning adorer. He looks rattled easily.

Not a good showing for someone who wants to be Commander in Chief in the current world.

Unlike the current Commander in Chief who, when informed that the country was under attack, kept reading “My Pet Goat” for long minutes.

Face it, no one can know how anyone will react when the shit really hits the fan.

Trying to ascertain how someone will really perform under pressure by looking at the overly long PR exercise that are the primaries is useless.

The only thing this thread proves is that people will jump of the slightest misstep to diminish the candidate they don’t like while readily forgiving anything done wrong by their favorite.

Has anyone participating in this thread changed their mind about their vote since two weeks ago?

I didn’t think so.
[/quote]

Actually, I’ve posted some dislike for McCain. And before the racist preacher story broke, I had no strong dislike for Obama’s character. Sure, I can’t stand his leftist tax and welfare policies, but I had nothing to say about his character. In fact, I’ve also stated that I’d like to see Obama beat Hillary.

After all, I still think it will be a democrat in office this go around. So, why not one I can stand, right?. But after this came out, I’m not sure Hillary would be worse anymore.

167

[quote]Sloth wrote:
pookie wrote:
thunderbolt23 wrote:
If his wording shows anything, it is that when pressed, he is showing signs of quickly fraying. He lacks calm and nerve when he isn’t getting the royal treatment of a fawning adorer. He looks rattled easily.

Not a good showing for someone who wants to be Commander in Chief in the current world.

Unlike the current Commander in Chief who, when informed that the country was under attack, kept reading “My Pet Goat” for long minutes.

Face it, no one can know how anyone will react when the shit really hits the fan.

Trying to ascertain how someone will really perform under pressure by looking at the overly long PR exercise that are the primaries is useless.

The only thing this thread proves is that people will jump of the slightest misstep to diminish the candidate they don’t like while readily forgiving anything done wrong by their favorite.

Has anyone participating in this thread changed their mind about their vote since two weeks ago?

I didn’t think so.

Actually, I’ve posted some dislike for McCain. And before the racist preacher story broke, I had no strong dislike for Obama’s character. Sure, I can’t stand his leftist tax and welfare policies, but I had nothing to say about his character. In fact, I’ve also stated that I’d like to see Obama beat Hillary. After all, I still think it will be a democrat in office this go around. So, why not one I can stand, right?. But after this came out, I’m not sure Hillary would be worse anymore.[/quote]

LOL.

After this came out? You all proved him right in this thread…which means you are now pissed because he stated a fact of reality that you didn’t like. You simply called it “caution” which means you are playing a game of semantics.

Like I wrote before; I will also say that change is not done quietly. Of all of the talk about how we need to move past racism, most of you seem deluded enough to actually believe that this can be done without you personally feeling or hearing anything you may not like.

168

[quote]Professor X wrote:

Like I wrote before; I will also say that change is not done quietly. Of all of the talk about how we need to move past racism, most of you seem deluded enough to actually believe that this can be done without you personally feeling or hearing anything you may not like.[/quote]

Exactly…and for some the “truth” really hurts.

169

[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:

The issue isn’t that Obama believes exactly as his pastor…
[/quote]

Oh, I get the issue at hand and the bigger picture. I just wasn’t trying to go there. I was just asking a serious question regarding church-goers. I didn’t know if church was basically an open forum where anyone can stand up an speak their mind. Everything I know about church comes from tv and movies, and I had never seen someone else stand up and speak. Hence my question.

170

[quote]Professor X wrote:
Sloth wrote:
pookie wrote:
thunderbolt23 wrote:
If his wording shows anything, it is that when pressed, he is showing signs of quickly fraying. He lacks calm and nerve when he isn’t getting the royal treatment of a fawning adorer. He looks rattled easily.

Not a good showing for someone who wants to be Commander in Chief in the current world.

Unlike the current Commander in Chief who, when informed that the country was under attack, kept reading “My Pet Goat” for long minutes.

Face it, no one can know how anyone will react when the shit really hits the fan.

Trying to ascertain how someone will really perform under pressure by looking at the overly long PR exercise that are the primaries is useless.

The only thing this thread proves is that people will jump of the slightest misstep to diminish the candidate they don’t like while readily forgiving anything done wrong by their favorite.

Has anyone participating in this thread changed their mind about their vote since two weeks ago?

I didn’t think so.

Actually, I’ve posted some dislike for McCain. And before the racist preacher story broke, I had no strong dislike for Obama’s character. Sure, I can’t stand his leftist tax and welfare policies, but I had nothing to say about his character. In fact, I’ve also stated that I’d like to see Obama beat Hillary. After all, I still think it will be a democrat in office this go around. So, why not one I can stand, right?. But after this came out, I’m not sure Hillary would be worse anymore.

LOL.

After this came out? You all proved him right in this thread…which means you are now pissed because he stated a fact of reality that you didn’t like. You simply called it “caution” which means you are playing a game of semantics.

Like I wrote before; I will also say that change is not done quietly. Of all of the talk about how we need to move past racism, most of you seem deluded enough to actually believe that this can be done without you personally feeling or hearing anything you may not like.[/quote]

I say caution, because that’s all it is. Not blind, running down the street screaming panic, but caution. I talk about practicing some caution in the real world, by being aware of people who arouse some level of said unease (even if only briefly). Those people being black OR…let me say this one more time just for you…OR white. When I watch the nightly news, read the paper in Atlanta, or simply talk to folks who’ve been the victims of street violence…it isn’t guys in a pair of Khakis and tucked in polo shirt committing the crimes. People learn from the world around, from real experiences, and are therefore capable of developing a rational alertness.

For you think women, white or black, are in the wrong for developing caution of certain modes of dress or attitude, is astonishing. Maybe you are this huge, deadly trained fighter, omniscient of all around you at all times, as you seem to describe yourself. Hey, maybe you don’t have to worry about some thug raping you and leaving your strangled body in tall weeds. But a 110 woman - who’s recently seen yet another news report of a woman’s body discovered - walking to her car in a dark parking lot, had better damn well listen to instincts she’s developed by experiencing the real world.

Oh, and fathers, black or white, have considered the dress, walk, and manner of speech of their daughter’s suitors long before any of us were ever born. Got an earring, a tattoo, holes in your jeans, or jeans falling off your ass? Well many parents still today would determine you’re much more likely to hang out with the wrong crowd, and likely forbid you seeing their daughter because of it.

171

[quote]Big_Boss wrote:
Professor X wrote:

Like I wrote before; I will also say that change is not done quietly. Of all of the talk about how we need to move past racism, most of you seem deluded enough to actually believe that this can be done without you personally feeling or hearing anything you may not like.

Exactly…and for some the “truth” really hurts.

[/quote]

Oh, I agree, the truth can and does hurt. But, I guess we disagree on who is unwilling to face some of these hurtful truths.

172

Ok. Let’s cut to the quick. Go right to the heart. Is generalizing because of race, or even attitude/attire wrong, period? Because those so offended that I might show a bias based on how people may dress, or carry themselves, don’t seem offended by the generalization made by Barrack. And are deadset to defend his generalization. Interesting indeed.

Reasons why white women are the exception, therefore open to stereotypes, starting in 3…2…1…

173

[quote]Sloth wrote:
I say caution, because that’s all it is. Not blind, running down the street screaming panic, but caution

[/quote]

You actually think that Obama meant that white people are “blind running down the street screaming panic” afraid? Yes, you are arguing semantics all while faking offense at what you yourself admit is the truth…as long as no one calls it “fear”.

174

[quote]pookie wrote:

Unlike the current Commander in Chief who, when informed that the country was under attack, kept reading “My Pet Goat” for long minutes.

Face it, no one can know how anyone will react when the shit really hits the fan.[/quote]

The “My Pet Goat” nonsense continues to get traction, I see - of course, had Bush leapt to his feet and began barking out instructions (“to war!”) in front of the school kids, his critics would be complaining about that as well. Oh well.

Far from useless, it is one of the most important things we try to consider. No one said it is a perfect science, but what job interview is?

This weak equivocation - “we can’t know how anyone would act in a pressure situation” - has no apparent boundaries. So, we shouldn’t even worry about it? No discussion of it? I mean, if a decorated combat veteran or a former CEO could really be no better than an ice cream truck driver, why bother with any analysis?

I don’t buy that equivocation, and I never have. We’re hiring a Commander in Chief, and we are considering resumes.

No one said we can have perfect information on how a candidate will act, but we should at least do our due diligence in a democratic format - and that is exactly what is taking place right now with Obama. If that hurts the feelings of glassy-eyed Obama supporters, too bad - this is the equivalent of a political NFL combine, not a debutante’s coming out party.

[quote]The only thing this thread proves is that people will jump of the slightest misstep to diminish the candidate they don’t like while readily forgiving anything done wrong by their favorite.

Has anyone participating in this thread changed their mind about their vote since two weeks ago?

I didn’t think so.[/quote]

I think a lot of unnecessary hay has been made over the “typical white person” flap, but given Obama’s high standard for “words matter” - Imus should be fired for his comments, for example - Obama has brought the criticism on himself.

And this nonsense about attacking Obama is ridiculous. Here is a candidate who essentially got a free ride until he practically had the Democratic nomination locked up. Here is a man who is one of the finalists for the job of President of the United States.

He deserves to be picked apart, analyzed, and put in a pressure cooker. We don’t have coronations in this country.

175

[quote]Big_Boss wrote:

Exactly…and for some the “truth” really hurts.[/quote]

Strange - is the irony lost on you as to what the “truth” really is, once an honest discussion is started?

The racist crackpot Wright is not offering an honest discussion on race - he is offering one-sided radical politics from the pulpit.

You seem interested in the value of people having to hear things they might not want to hear as a part of the race discussion. Are you actually prepared to put all the cards on the table and hear out all sides?

Or does “hearing things that people don’t want to hear” mean being selective with the issues you like and leaving out entire swaths of perspective in the name of political correctness?

Because if you are truly interested in a frank, open discussion on race that should be all about having to hear the “truth”, no matter whose ox is gored, the fantastic irony is that I doubt that the promoters of “truth” really want or are prepared for that to happen.

177

[quote]Mick28 wrote:
orion wrote:
Mick28 wrote:
orion wrote:
Mick28 wrote:
new2training wrote:
Mick28 wrote:
Headhunter wrote:
“But she is a typical white person who, if she sees somebody on the street that she doesn’t know, there’s a reaction that’s been bred into our experiences that don’t go away, and that sometimes come out in the wrong way, and that’s just the nature of race in our society.”

http://www.nydailynews.com/news/politics/2008/03/21/2008-03-21_barack_obama_tries_to_explain_that_good_.html

Apparently, white culture has taught us to fear black men. I never knew…

This is just one more number to add to my “Obama is racist equation”

His wife says “this is the first time that I’ve ever been proud of my country”.

His Pastor rattles off a chain of racist statements, thrown in with many anti-American comments…from the pulpit.

Now Obama-rama himself says “the typical white person”.

1+1+1=3

The moronic white people who actually intend to vote for this racist pig better think twice.

Indeed 1+1+1= 3 but 3 is not a high enough score to call him a racist pig on my scorecard.

He attended a Church for 20 FREAKING YEARS where the Pastor spouted racist lies from the pulpit and he did NOTHING about it.

Did he:

  1. Publicly correct the Pastor?

No

  1. Did he leave the Church?

No

  1. Did he speak out against the Pastors beliefs BEFORE he was a candidate for President?

No

Therefore, one has to assume that he at least agrees in part with what that lying racist bastard shouted from the pulpit.

Keep in mind that if it were any republican candidate that he would have already pulled out of the race by now.

Just think back to the Trent Lot tar and feathering. And what did he say? He said at a party for retiring Strom Thurmond that he (Thurmond) would have made a good President.

The left SCREAMED RACIST and Lott had to step down from his position as Majority leader.

Keep in mind it was a harmless comment at an OLD MANS BIRTHDAY PARTY!

Yes…I’m fucking sick of the double standard!

Back to Obama-rama…

It was very telling that his wife stated “this is the first time I’ve been proud of my country” in reference to Obama’s candidacy.

Now why do you suppose she said such a thing?

Did she say it because she loves all white people and that she is proud of her country?

NO.

And finally Obama’s own “the typical white person” comment if said by McCain he would have to drop out of the race.

Picture it.

McCain: “If you take the typical black person…”

If you think really hard it’s pretty easy to connect the dots on this one. Obama is attempting to pull a very well planned ruse on the American voter.

And…it has been busted!

Except that this pastor did not do anything to qualify as a lying racist bastard which is easily verifiable by listening to his speeches that were not shortened and taken out of context.

The American government gave AIDS to the black population?

And that we (Americans) are no better than El Quida?

Keep posting, and show us all how stupid you are.

Post proof or shut up.

And the whole truth, not the Fox News 30 second loop…

Proof that the US government didn’t give black people the AIDS virus?

Ha ha…why don’t you go plauge an Austrian web site?

[/quote]

no, proof that he said what you claimed he did.

With at least 3 minutes before and after he says it, because those Fox News bits are excellent character assassination but poor journalism.

179

[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
The “My Pet Goat” nonsense continues to get traction, I see - of course, had Bush leapt to his feet and began barking out instructions (“to war!”) in front of the school kids, his critics would be complaining about that as well. Oh well.[/quote]

Calmly getting up, thanking the kids for their time and telling them that some pressing matter required his attention would’ve done the job.

Slack-jawed apathy or flailing panic aren’t the two only choices here.

Besides, the point was that for all his experience (governor of the state with the 2nd largest GDP, I think it was Rainjack who mentioned it) and experienced cabinet, etc. Bush has taken a lot of bad decisions along the way.

The point being that no one can really ascertain how someone is going to perform as president until they actually see that person performing as president.

I have no problem with people who don’t like his policies, his views or principles. But to beat the pastor issue to death, and then pick out one sentence from his speech to concentrate on goes beyond ascertaining the man’s character and starts looking like a “swift boat” campaign.

Hell, we’ve got a thread now where we’re supposed to ascertain his qualities as a father. How low will it go?

There’s a difference between discussing it - debating the pros and cons - and simply using it as a thinly disguised bashing campaign.

We’ve long past the point of due diligence. All arguments, from both sides, have been brought up and considered a long time ago. Maybe I missed it, but I haven’t seen a single original point in this thread since maybe 10 pages ago.

[Edit: Thought this was still in the “Pastor” thread. I don’t understand how I could’ve made that error, this thread is so different from the other one…]

After we go 20 pages on Obama being a poor father, will we also have a “What kind of husband is Obama” or a “Halloween: Does Obama give more candy to black kids?” thread? Other than some people’s personal hate for the man, what do we really learn from smear threads?

Fair enough. But again, at least Imus was being judged by his own words; not by association with someone else’s words.

That’s an interesting point. How do you figure that a man who brings so little to the table - as per your own evaluation - can do so well against the established Clinton juggernaut? Surely it’s not blind luck and pure coincidence? Could he have strengths you’re simply unable to see or unwilling to admit?

You seem to consider the president as the Commander in Chief of the Armed Forces with the rest being mostly salad dressing. I think the office entails much more than that.

I totally agree. But the pressure cooker process should apply to the entire man, his strengths as well as his failings - none of the candidates are faultless - and not simply be left to simmer on a single cherry-picked issue for the next 8 months.

180

[quote]Mick28 wrote:

The only “tool” here is you, a couple of Atheists who like the idea of any Pastor acting like a racist ass from the pulpit and of course the far left wackos who suck up the swill that Obama spills forth every time he opens his mouth about c h a n g e…

[/quote]

Atheists? Where does this come in?
Just by glancing at the two threads, Prof x has mentioned multiple times his experiences in church. So how can you quote him, and call him an atheist? And no one has really questioned the basic idea of the Church. Don’t try and turn this into something it is not.