Obama's Pastor

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
201

[quote]BostonBarrister wrote:
This isn’t the point - the point is whether Obama exhibited bad judgment using this guy for an adviser.[/quote]

I’d be more interested in seeing how he deals with the flak now that the story is being made into this huge deal.

I really don’t think that he went through life asking himself “Hmmm… should I speak with this person if I ever intend to run for president one day?”

If he had distanced himself prior to his run and the fact had become known, we’d be having a thread on how “Obama has abandoned his Christian pastor… could he really be a muslim?” or some other similar nonsense.

202

[quote]Professor X wrote:
Sloth wrote:
Professor X wrote:
Sloth wrote:

I think blacks are worse off than had AA and the welfare state not existed.

Unless you are about to go into some spiel about how you traveled through a worm hole and watched an alternate universe and how they were better off by not having AA, then how the fuck did you arrive at this conclusion?

How do you arrive at anything contrary to my conclusion? By the number of intact families dramatically increasing? Vast downturns in the amount of black crime? Oh yeah, AA and the welfare state has been a hit.

From:Black Student College Graduation Rates Remain Low, But Modest Progress Begins to Show

Over the past 15 years black men have improved their graduation rate from 28 percent to 35 percent.

and Graduation rates play an important role in measuring the success of affirmative action programs. Many opponents of affirmative action assert, often without even looking at the actual data, that black student graduation rates are damaged by race-sensitive admissions. It is critical to review the statistics to see if this is true. In this report we emphasize the graduation rates of black students at the nation’s highest-ranked colleges and universities. The reason is that almost always these are the institutions that have the strongest commitments to race-sensitive admissions.[/quote]

I never said rates were going backwards…

203

[quote]Sloth wrote:
Professor X wrote:
Sloth wrote:
Professor X wrote:
Sloth wrote:

I think blacks are worse off than had AA and the welfare state not existed.

Unless you are about to go into some spiel about how you traveled through a worm hole and watched an alternate universe and how they were better off by not having AA, then how the fuck did you arrive at this conclusion?

How do you arrive at anything contrary to my conclusion? By the number of intact families dramatically increasing? Vast downturns in the amount of black crime? Oh yeah, AA and the welfare state has been a hit.

So, you are claiming that the average income of black households has not increased and there has been no increase in college education?

No. Where did I even come close to claiming that?[/quote]

If you aren’t saying this, then why are you acting as if black families haven’t improved in social status?

Are white families now pristine and lacking any need for improvement?

204

[quote]Professor X wrote:
PRCalDude wrote:
Professor X wrote:
PRCalDude wrote:
Professor X wrote:
…and Sloth, this was the question posed to PrCaldude
Right. So, is it your position that the grand scale second class citizenship of black Americans before Affirmative Action should have been unaided because mass racist acts leading to the decrease of advancement of those people are better than the “racist” act of helping those people?

He hasn’t answered so maybe you can.

Yes. They should have gone unaided. The way to stop discriminating by race is to stop discriminating by race. I can’t see how affirmative action has done anything positive.

But discrimination didn’t stop. That is WHY AA was instituted.

It hasn’t stopped for a good many other races of people either.

At the end of the day, business owners care about hiring people who will help them make money. They want good help, no matter the color of the person. Discrimination stops when a group of people are perceived to be good, problem-free workers. Generally, business owners perceive Mexicans this way now. Whites are generally looked upon as lazier with a sense of entitlement. Blacks more so.

Business in the early 70’s were not just focused on “good help”. They were focused on “white people who were good help”. The same went for many colleges and universities.

How old are you that you don’t know this?[/quote]

We can go around like this all day though. One of the “K’s” in “KKK” stands for Jews. The Jews have faced discrimination and been successful. So have the Mexicans. So have the Irish. So have the Chinese.

205

[quote]Sloth wrote:
Professor X wrote:
Sloth wrote:
Professor X wrote:
Sloth wrote:
Professor X wrote:
Sloth wrote:
Professor X wrote:
Sloth wrote:
Professor X wrote:
…and Sloth, this was the question posed to PrCaldude
Right. So, is it your position that the grand scale second class citizenship of black Americans before Affirmative Action should have been unaided because mass racist acts leading to the decrease of advancement of those people are better than the “racist” act of helping those people?

He hasn’t answered so maybe you can.

Advancement? Affirmative Action and the welfare state has been destructive.

If you can’t answer the question, then just say so.

I answered the question. I said racist AA has been more destructive than had it not existed. That wasn’t the question?

Please, explain in at least some detail how you came to this conclusion.

Exactly what do you explained? How dependency, going to schools one is not cut out for, the double standard of AA hasn’t been negative?

Going to schools one isn’t cut out for? Wouldn’t that be evident by them not graduating? If they do graduate, then they were cut out for it, right?

Perhaps they shouldn’t have been accepted in the first place? Especially over someone else more qualified.

Perhaps someone else more qualified on paper was qualified because their parents were never denied jobs in the first place leading to an increased income for that individual to be raised with a great education and quality family time since mom didn’t work three jobs.

But hey, sucks for the person more qualified, right? And THAT attitude is supposed to help race relations? And what about the less qualified when he flunks/drops out after going through an academic enviroment he was relatively less qualified for? What’s the rate for giving it another go? [/quote]

Read above.

206

[quote]Professor X wrote:
Sloth wrote:
Professor X wrote:
Sloth wrote:
Professor X wrote:
Sloth wrote:

I think blacks are worse off than had AA and the welfare state not existed.

Unless you are about to go into some spiel about how you traveled through a worm hole and watched an alternate universe and how they were better off by not having AA, then how the fuck did you arrive at this conclusion?

How do you arrive at anything contrary to my conclusion? By the number of intact families dramatically increasing? Vast downturns in the amount of black crime? Oh yeah, AA and the welfare state has been a hit.

So, you are claiming that the average income of black households has not increased and there has been no increase in college education?

No. Where did I even come close to claiming that?

If you aren’t saying this, then why are you acting as if black families haven’t improved in social status?

Are white families now pristine and lacking any need for improvement?[/quote]

I haven’t acted as if black families hadn’t seen improvement in social status. I’m saying they’d had been off without AA and other “equality” measures such as welfare.

207

[quote]pookie wrote:
BostonBarrister wrote:
You mean the Clinton spin machine, right? The Republicans right now are sitting back and letting the Dems do this to themselves.

I’m pretty sure Bill Kristol isn’t part of the Clinton spin machine.

He’s even added a disclaimer at top because he got his fact wrong. Again.
[/quote]

You’re right, he’s not.

But are you going to tell me that the majority of the coverage of this is being driven by conservatives in the media?

208

[quote]PRCalDude wrote:
Professor X wrote:
PRCalDude wrote:
Professor X wrote:
PRCalDude wrote:
Professor X wrote:
…and Sloth, this was the question posed to PrCaldude
Right. So, is it your position that the grand scale second class citizenship of black Americans before Affirmative Action should have been unaided because mass racist acts leading to the decrease of advancement of those people are better than the “racist” act of helping those people?

He hasn’t answered so maybe you can.

Yes. They should have gone unaided. The way to stop discriminating by race is to stop discriminating by race. I can’t see how affirmative action has done anything positive.

But discrimination didn’t stop. That is WHY AA was instituted.

It hasn’t stopped for a good many other races of people either.

At the end of the day, business owners care about hiring people who will help them make money. They want good help, no matter the color of the person. Discrimination stops when a group of people are perceived to be good, problem-free workers. Generally, business owners perceive Mexicans this way now. Whites are generally looked upon as lazier with a sense of entitlement. Blacks more so.

Business in the early 70’s were not just focused on “good help”. They were focused on “white people who were good help”. The same went for many colleges and universities.

How old are you that you don’t know this?

We can go around like this all day though. One of the “K’s” in “KKK” stands for Jews. The Jews have faced discrimination and been successful. So have the Mexicans. So have the Irish. So have the Chinese. [/quote]

No need to go round and round. You admitted that there is a hierarchy of those who have been wronged by race in this country. You have admitted that Native Americans, in your view, had it worse. It makes no logical sense to then ignore that and claim all discrimination is the same.

You are the one not making any sense.

209

“Notice that the annual rate at which the gap shrank was much faster before the modern civil rights era ushered in by Title VII–6 percent in 17 years, versus 7 percent in the next 36 years.”

210

[quote]Professor X wrote:
PRCalDude wrote:
Professor X wrote:
PRCalDude wrote:
Professor X wrote:
PRCalDude wrote:
Professor X wrote:
…and Sloth, this was the question posed to PrCaldude
Right. So, is it your position that the grand scale second class citizenship of black Americans before Affirmative Action should have been unaided because mass racist acts leading to the decrease of advancement of those people are better than the “racist” act of helping those people?

He hasn’t answered so maybe you can.

Yes. They should have gone unaided. The way to stop discriminating by race is to stop discriminating by race. I can’t see how affirmative action has done anything positive.

But discrimination didn’t stop. That is WHY AA was instituted.

It hasn’t stopped for a good many other races of people either.

At the end of the day, business owners care about hiring people who will help them make money. They want good help, no matter the color of the person. Discrimination stops when a group of people are perceived to be good, problem-free workers. Generally, business owners perceive Mexicans this way now. Whites are generally looked upon as lazier with a sense of entitlement. Blacks more so.

Business in the early 70’s were not just focused on “good help”. They were focused on “white people who were good help”. The same went for many colleges and universities.

How old are you that you don’t know this?

We can go around like this all day though. One of the “K’s” in “KKK” stands for Jews. The Jews have faced discrimination and been successful. So have the Mexicans. So have the Irish. So have the Chinese.

No need to go round and round. You admitted that there is a hierarchy of those who have been wronged by race in this country. You have admitted that Native Americans, in your view, had it worse. It makes no logical sense to then ignore that and claim all discrimination is the same.

You are the one not making any sense.[/quote]

I wanted to avoid this, but ok. I can’t find any evidence that, despite what Native Americans have been through, their illegitimacy rates, crime rates, and incarceration rates are anywhere near as high as the blacks. So I would argue that they are much better off than the blacks based on those figures alone. They might not have as much material wealth as the white man, but quality of life is not measured in wealth alone.

211

[quote]BostonBarrister wrote:
You’re right, he’s not.

But are you going to tell me that the majority of the coverage of this is being driven by conservatives in the media?[/quote]

Most of the “alarmist” rhetoric I’ve seen about it has been from right-wing medias and blogs.

It’s like they’ve been waiting a long time to get a morsel on Obama. They got one now and they sure are running with it.

212

[quote]PRCalDude wrote:
Professor X wrote:
PRCalDude wrote:
Professor X wrote:
PRCalDude wrote:
Professor X wrote:
PRCalDude wrote:
Professor X wrote:
…and Sloth, this was the question posed to PrCaldude
Right. So, is it your position that the grand scale second class citizenship of black Americans before Affirmative Action should have been unaided because mass racist acts leading to the decrease of advancement of those people are better than the “racist” act of helping those people?

He hasn’t answered so maybe you can.

Yes. They should have gone unaided. The way to stop discriminating by race is to stop discriminating by race. I can’t see how affirmative action has done anything positive.

But discrimination didn’t stop. That is WHY AA was instituted.

It hasn’t stopped for a good many other races of people either.

At the end of the day, business owners care about hiring people who will help them make money. They want good help, no matter the color of the person. Discrimination stops when a group of people are perceived to be good, problem-free workers. Generally, business owners perceive Mexicans this way now. Whites are generally looked upon as lazier with a sense of entitlement. Blacks more so.

Business in the early 70’s were not just focused on “good help”. They were focused on “white people who were good help”. The same went for many colleges and universities.

How old are you that you don’t know this?

We can go around like this all day though. One of the “K’s” in “KKK” stands for Jews. The Jews have faced discrimination and been successful. So have the Mexicans. So have the Irish. So have the Chinese.

No need to go round and round. You admitted that there is a hierarchy of those who have been wronged by race in this country. You have admitted that Native Americans, in your view, had it worse. It makes no logical sense to then ignore that and claim all discrimination is the same.

You are the one not making any sense.

I wanted to avoid this, but ok. I can’t find any evidence that, despite what Native Americans have been through, their illegitimacy rates, crime rates, and incarceration rates are anywhere near as high as the blacks. So I would argue that they are much better off than the blacks based on those figures alone. They might not have as much material wealth as the white man, but quality of life is not measured in wealth alone.
[/quote]

Are you fucking serious?

According to:
http://quickfacts.census.gov/qfd/states/00000.html

The Native American population is 1% of the total population.

Blacks at least make up 12.8% and that was in 2006.

Native Americans are almost extinct yet you are comparing the two as far as how they effect society based on discrimination? If anything, it shows how much trouble black Americans were in.

WTF?

213

[quote]
BostonBarrister wrote:
The difference is one of the degree and nature of the associations. McCain received Hagee’s endorsement, and received Parsley’s endorsement. McCain met Parsley exactly once, at the rally in Ohio. I don’t think McCain has met Hagee more than once or twice. Obama received Farrakhan’s endorsement. I don’t know if he’s met with Farrakhan.

pookie wrote:
My point exactly. McCain gets to “associate” with those dimwits because it’s understood that he doesn’t really share their ideas, he only wants their endorsements for political gains.[/quote]

And my point is that “associate” is categorically different in the two cases. One is an association in name only. The other is a two decade relationship.

I suppose we really should go through and for each candidate find a list of every person who has endorsed him, check those people for any controversial statements,and demand that the candidate specifically denounce and dissociate himself from any such supporter.

But that’s not what this is about.

[quote]
BostonBarrister wrote:
Obama sought out Wrignt, attended his church for two decades, donated thousands of dollars to his church, based some of his speeches and his second memoir on some of Wright’s speeches, had Wright marry him and his wife, had Wright baptize his kids, and used him as a counselor and “sounding board” for political ideas, and had him on his steering committee for his presidential candidacy (but removed Wright just prior to officially declaring, for some strange reason…).

pookie wrote:
Let’s see… Obama had his pastor perform pastorly duties for him. So? Should he have attended a different church each week and outsourced his marriage, baptisms of his kids, etc. to India?

He’s also on record saying he doesn’t personally agree with all of Wright’s views.

I’m trying to objectively assess why I should think that Obama is being deceptive when he says that. I don’t see it.[/quote]

The citing of all Wright has done for him is to establish the depth of the relationship - which makes it more unlikely that Obama didn’t know. I’m sure there is nothing in the records that Obama knows about that could disprove his very carefully worded statements.

A) I think he’s lying, or at least dissembling, on how much he knew of Wright’s statements and views. Assuming I’m correct, that means he either disagreed, but didn’t think they were that important, or he agreed.

B) In either case, Obama’s statements about Wright have been inconsistent, and only moved to disagreeing with him as the level of coverage grew. First he was defending, then explaining, and finally said he didn’t agree with all of his statements.

[quote]
BostonBarrister wrote:
BTW, w/r/t to Hagee, he apparently denies being anti-Catholic: http://www.jhm.org/ME2/Sites/dirmod.asp?sid=&type=gen&mod=Core+Pages&gid=47BEB58F9EF24337835DB74C0E0760D9&SiteID=4AC79C9B25B24DF3AF21C42311BE3921

pookie wrote:
Good for him. That’s beside my point though. Whatever controversy there was at McCain’s accepting his endorsement, was a rather minor affair. Very few people actually believe that McCain shares the views of either Hagee or Parsley.[/quote]

Yes, and that’s because of the fact they haven’t known each other or interacted, and the depth of the relationship is “McCain endorsed by Hagee.” Politicians are endorsed by all sorts of random people. Very few people are sought out by those politicians as counselors - the implied relationship to the people, and concerning their views, are very different.

Nope, can’t say that I had. I was commenting on his prominence in politics generally. I suppose the same comment can be made about Wright - but specifically his relationship with Obama, as counselor and something of a mentor, was much more robust.

214

[quote]
BostonBarrister wrote:
This isn’t the point - the point is whether Obama exhibited bad judgment using this guy for an adviser.

pookie wrote:
I’d be more interested in seeing how he deals with the flak now that the story is being made into this huge deal.

I really don’t think that he went through life asking himself “Hmmm… should I speak with this person if I ever intend to run for president one day?”[/quote]

Nor should he have. However, he should have thought about the people with whom he made intimate associations and looked to for advice. And I think he did. I tend to find the Matt Yglesias reasoning concerning why Obama would have gone to him in the first instance to be persuasive:

EXCERPT:

[i] Obama’s going to have a hard time explaining that I take to be the truth, namely that his relationship with Trinity has been a bit cynical from the beginning. After all, before Obama was a half-black guy running in a mostly white country he was a half-white guy running in a mostly black neighborhood. At that time, associating with a very large, influential, local church with black nationalist overtones was a clear political asset (it’s also clear in his book that it made him, personally, feel “blacker” to belong to a slightly kitschy black church). Since emerging onto a larger stage, it’s been the reverse and Obama’s consistently sought to distance himself from Wright, disinviting him from his campaign’s launch, analogizing him to a crazy uncle who you love but don’t listen to, etc. The closest analogy would probably be to Hillary Clinton’s inconsistent accounting of where she’s from (bragging about midwestern roots when trying to win in Iowa, promptly forgetting those roots when explaining away a loss in Illinois, developing a sporadic affection for New York sports teams) �?? banal, mildly cynical shifts of association as context changes.

This is why I don't, as an American citizen, worry that President Obama would be objectionable. But Americans take their religion seriously and aren't going to want to hear this story. So Obama's going to have to do some awkward further distancing.

[/i]

Though I’m not convinced that he didn’t develop a closer relationship with Wright and use him as a counselor - politically and spiritually - and a sounding post. He only abandoned him and distanced himself from him right before his campaign officially launched - well before this story broke, which indicates he did his own calculations of the damage the Wright association would mean to him (based on what, I wonder, since his carefully worded denial specifically states he wasn’t in the pews for those particular sermons from Youtube, and that the views never came up in private conversations with Wright (what, never in a group conversation in coffee hour or at men’s Bible study, or some other not-private setting?)).

I think not. And if he were worried about that, I’m sure there were a couple other black, Christian churches in Chicago that could have met his needs.

215

[quote]BostonBarrister wrote:
The citing of all Wright has done for him is to establish the depth of the relationship - which makes it more unlikely that Obama didn’t know. I’m sure there is nothing in the records that Obama knows about that could disprove his very carefully worded statements.

A) I think he’s lying, or at least dissembling, on how much he knew of Wright’s statements and views. Assuming I’m correct, that means he either disagreed, but didn’t think they were that important, or he agreed.

B) In either case, Obama’s statements about Wright have been inconsistent, and only moved to disagreeing with him as the level of coverage grew. First he was defending, then explaining, and finally said he didn’t agree with all of his statements. [/quote]

The Wiki presents some additional facts:

[i]Obama’s connection to Wright first drew attention in a February 2007 Rolling Stone article that described a speech in which Wright forcefully spoke about racism against blacks.[9] Citing the article, and fears that any further controversy would harm the church, Obama scrapped plans for having Wright introduce him at his presidential announcement speech in February 2007. Obama subsequently received criticism from some black supporters for disinviting Wright, with Al Sharpton stating that “the issue is standing by your own pastor”.[10]

Obama has often said that he and Wright sometimes disagree. [11]

In 1984, Wright travelled to Libya and Syria with Rev. Jesse Jackson and Farrakhan in a peace mission which resulted in the freeing of United States Navy pilot, Lt. Robert Goodman who was shot down over Lebanon. [17] Wright was quoted as saying that “When [Obama�??s] enemies find out that in 1984 I went to Tripoli to visit Colonel Gadaffi with Farrakhan, a lot of his Jewish support will dry up quicker than a snowball in hell.”[18]

In 2007, Trumpet Magazine (which is published and edited by Wright’s daughters) presented the Dr. Jeremiah A. Wright Jr. Trumpeter Award to Farrakhan, whom managing editor Rhoda McKinney-Jones said “truly epitomized greatness.”[19] Wright is quoted in the magazine: “When Minister Farrakhan speaks, Black America listens. Everybody may not agree with him, but they listen…Minister Farrakhan will be remembered as one of the 20th and 21st century giants of the African American religious experience.”[20][21] Obama, on the other hand, has both denounced Farrakhan and rejected his endorsement.[22][/i]

So it seems all this mud slinging is based on the “God damn America” part recently released by ABC. Everything else’s been in the public domain for some time now.

Look at Zap’s posts to see how the soundbite is used to portray the man as an unpatriotic traitor. Shit, HH is questioning whether the man is an Al-Qaeda undercover agent.

216

On the plus side for Obama, all this discussion of his pastor is burying the Rezko story.

217

[quote]BostonBarrister wrote:
On the plus side for Obama, all this discussion of his pastor is burying the Rezko story.

[/quote]

I truly believe that the only people interested in this story are those who were planning on voting someone else to begin with. Maybe they are just looking for loud reasons for that choice so no one calls them racist.

218

[quote]pookie wrote:
…

I really don’t think that he went through life asking himself “Hmmm… should I speak with this person if I ever intend to run for president one day?”
…
[/quote]

He has done far more than speak with this person. By all accounts Wright has been a very important person in Obama’s life for the last 20 years.

219

[quote]Zap Branigan wrote:
pookie wrote:
…

I really don’t think that he went through life asking himself “Hmmm… should I speak with this person if I ever intend to run for president one day?”
…

He has done far more than speak with this person. By all accounts Wright has been a very important person in Obama’s life for the last 20 years.[/quote]

And?

Am I missing the quote that supposedly shows all out hatred for America? Are you saying you don’t understand what he was saying and that you believe his rant was about destroying America?

220

[quote]lixy wrote:
BostonBarrister wrote:
The citing of all Wright has done for him is to establish the depth of the relationship - which makes it more unlikely that Obama didn’t know. I’m sure there is nothing in the records that Obama knows about that could disprove his very carefully worded statements.

A) I think he’s lying, or at least dissembling, on how much he knew of Wright’s statements and views. Assuming I’m correct, that means he either disagreed, but didn’t think they were that important, or he agreed.

B) In either case, Obama’s statements about Wright have been inconsistent, and only moved to disagreeing with him as the level of coverage grew. First he was defending, then explaining, and finally said he didn’t agree with all of his statements.

The Wiki presents some additional facts:

[i]Obama’s connection to Wright first drew attention in a February 2007 Rolling Stone article that described a speech in which Wright forcefully spoke about racism against blacks.[9] Citing the article, and fears that any further controversy would harm the church, Obama scrapped plans for having Wright introduce him at his presidential announcement speech in February 2007. Obama subsequently received criticism from some black supporters for disinviting Wright, with Al Sharpton stating that “the issue is standing by your own pastor”.[10]

Obama has often said that he and Wright sometimes disagree. [11]

In 1984, Wright travelled to Libya and Syria with Rev. Jesse Jackson and Farrakhan in a peace mission which resulted in the freeing of United States Navy pilot, Lt. Robert Goodman who was shot down over Lebanon. [17] Wright was quoted as saying that “When [Obamaâ¿¿s] enemies find out that in 1984 I went to Tripoli to visit Colonel Gadaffi with Farrakhan, a lot of his Jewish support will dry up quicker than a snowball in hell.”[18]

In 2007, Trumpet Magazine (which is published and edited by Wright’s daughters) presented the Dr. Jeremiah A. Wright Jr. Trumpeter Award to Farrakhan, whom managing editor Rhoda McKinney-Jones said “truly epitomized greatness.”[19] Wright is quoted in the magazine: “When Minister Farrakhan speaks, Black America listens. Everybody may not agree with him, but they listen…Minister Farrakhan will be remembered as one of the 20th and 21st century giants of the African American religious experience.”[20][21] Obama, on the other hand, has both denounced Farrakhan and rejected his endorsement.[22][/i]

So it seems all this mud slinging is based on the “God damn America” part recently released by ABC. Everything else’s been in the public domain for some time now.

Look at Zap’s posts to see how the soundbite is used to portray the man as an unpatriotic traitor. Shit, HH is questioning whether the man is an Al-Qaeda undercover agent.[/quote]

The man is a racist and has said much more than God Damn America.