Obama's Pastor

[quote]Sloth wrote:
PRCalDude wrote:

You’ve denigrated my heritage, claimed that America is built on the backs of nonwhite slaves:
This country was built on the backs of slaves, Chinese immigrants and just about every other race that gets looked down upon at times.

At that point in time, I felt it would be appropriate to defend my ancestors, who enslaved no one and worked for everything they had. All the while, you continued (and still continue) to use white guilt to prevent us from even discussing the issue, while complaining how we’ve erased your history, experimented on you and done various other things. You’ve denigrated my history and attempted to shame me from speaking my mind, and I felt compelled to respond.

Sorry I’m not responding with the usual white guilt cowardice that you’ve come to expect. The only racist here is you.

I’m with you on the white guilt thing. No white person should feel ashamed for being anti-AA, calling out Wright, pointing out how hate crimes against whites are growing out of proportion, etc. It’s the bit about the role, and contribution of, black servicemen in the WW’s. It’s pretty far out of line. I mean, it wasn’t really up to them, was it?

[/quote]

Of course it wasn’t up to them. I was already well aware of the contribution of the Tuskegee Airmen. (I’ve often wondered what Booker T. Washington would have to say about the current state of affairs) Some landed at Iwo Jima. There were some at the Battle of the Bulge. But most were confined to service support positions, not of their own choice most likely. It’s a historical fact. http://www.amazon.com/Slavery-Freedom-History-African-Americans/dp/0375406719
It’s also a historical fact that I have ancestors that have served in every war dating back to the at least the Spanish American War, and I won’t have somebody telling me who I owe my thanks to just to shut me up, neither will I have anyone attributing their hard work and success to manstealing.

[quote]Sloth wrote:
Gael wrote:
That is bullshit. It did not soar.

Well, the FBI numbers for 2006 don’t seem to jive with your 10%. So, do you have some contrary numbers I should put more faith in?[/quote]

This has the figures you’re looking for:

PR, to be clear, I’m not calling you a racist. Not due to one statement, though I think it was ill said. Then again, I haven’t read everything you’ve posted on this thread…nor, will I.

And yes, Prof. X could learn to chill out with some of his own rhetoric. I can see how it could be offensive to you. It does get tiresome, as a white born into a broken home and poverty, to have to hear about my white privilege.

Jon Stewart on Obama’s speech :

Answers a lot of questions that have been brought up on this thread.

[quote]pookie wrote:
BostonBarrister wrote:
I’d be a lot more concerned if his statements about policy or what is going on were highly flawed.

Well, he’s still waving the pompoms about the Surge going great when Petraeus himself now says that there’s been insufficient political progress. ( http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/03/13/AR2008031303793.html )

One of them is wrong; the question is which one?

[/quote]

The surge has been very successful but political progress has been too slow. They are both correct.

[quote]pookie wrote:
Sloth wrote:
See, the proper answer for me is that they’re both horrible candidates.

Don’t get me wrong, I think all three possible candidates are lousy. But as long as you’re going to be stuck with one for at least 4 years, might as well go for He-Who-Sucks-The-Less.

[/quote]

Which is McCain, followed by Hillary with Obama as a distant third.

[quote]invictus1 wrote:
McCain is an idiot. Read the following on a speach …[/quote]

People that misspell simple words should run the spell checker before they start calling others idiots.

[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
pookie wrote:

Who do you think would’ve been their best candidate for the next election?

Personally? Bill Richardson.

Best resume of them all. Governor, representative, ambassador. Experience in governing. Know state and federal politics. Has international chops. Has negotiated in high stakes international event. Is a Western state Democrat, not an effete, coastal urbanite Democrat. Thinks about economics like an adult, rather than an coffee house philosopher. Corporate, private sector experience.

He did horribly in the debates, and that was a shame, but that is also a function of poor debate formats, where second-tier candidates of both parties try to cram as much as they can in their small window of time and consequently sound incoherent (happens for both parties).

I may disagree with Richardson on plenty of issues, but I’d sleep better is he were the leading Democratic candidate.[/quote]

Agreed. He might actually get my vote over McCain in the general election as long as his platform didn’t pander to the extremes of the Democratic party.

[quote]greekdawg wrote:
Honestly. I think the racist stuff was meant to destroy him politically (which it did along with the media blackout) so nobody would take a second look at him. The stuff he believes in doesn’t seem to coincide with him being a racist. And yes, he was my first choice as well too.

Sloth wrote:

Ah, glad you mentioned him. Just as a point of fact. I was set to vote for the man. Out comes the newsletters with racist rhetoric, bearing his name, and I refused to vote for him in my primary.

[/quote]

What do you mean meant to? He meant to destroy himself by publishing racially charged bullshit in his newsletter? Lew Rockwell meant to destroy him?

Who are you trying to blame here?

[quote]Gael wrote:
Sloth wrote: No white person should feel ashamed for … pointing out how hate crimes against whites are growing out of proportion…

You’re free to “point out” whatever you want, but if you “point out” something that isn’t true, yes, you should feel ashamed. Anti-white hate crimes constitute less than 10% of the hate crimes and have decreased steadily over the last few decades.[/quote]

Stats have already been posted that counter your argument.

[quote]pookie wrote:
BostonBarrister wrote:
Running on the idea that enacting an increase in taxes during an economic slow down isn’t a good idea isn’t bad economics.

If you stop spending 10 billions a week in Iraq, you can invest at home.

[/quote]

What if an American city died? Just…died? Libs prattle on about the money being spent in Iraq assuming that nothing would ever happen here, no terrorist would think of using a dirty bomb or bio weapon HERE.

We’re fighting and winning in Iraq. Would you rather the fighting be in New York? Would you rather have Boston or Chicago die?

[quote]Headhunter wrote:
What if an American city died? Just…died? Libs prattle on about the money being spent in Iraq assuming that nothing would ever happen here, no terrorist would think of using a dirty bomb or bio weapon HERE.[/quote]

What prevents them from doing it now?

If you want better security at home, you’d be better off securing your borders and increasing security at your ports. As a bonus, you’d fix your illegal immigration problem.

The odd assumption that terrorist would have to build their bomb overseas and then send it here makes no sense.

It’s a lot easier to send the operatives here first, and then go about building the bomb. You can do a lot of damage with relatively low tech means.

Or do it in Mexico and then cross the porous southern border. Even Canada might be an option, although border security has been improved these past years.

Between the '93 WTC attack and 9/11, you were not fighting them anywhere, and you didn’t have yearly attacks. 9/11 was completely pulled off from within the continental US; nothing had to be sent over except for a couple dozen men.

[quote]k.elkouhen wrote:
Jon Stewart on Obama’s speech :

Answers a lot of questions that have been brought up on this thread.[/quote]

The use of the car alarm answered all of the questions as far as I’m concerned. How can one argue with prop comedy? Now if we could only get Carrot Top’s views…

[quote]100meters wrote:

now back to the pastor man who apparently is:

the GOP’s “path to victory”

[/quote]

Except that my friends in DC, some of whom are staffers, have been talking about Obama being the weaker opponent for a couple of months now.

Unless they knew about this, and it was a part of the vast Right Wing Conspiracy…? But wait - I thought they were all busy plotting against Hillary? Now I’m confused.

[quote]BostonBarrister wrote:
This is good: What would post-Saddam Iraq have looked like without a coalition presence?

[/quote]

Yes, it is. While I don’t agree with all of it, I can understand his viewpoint.

Interestingly, Hitchen’s book “God Is Not Great: How Religion Poisons Everything” would also be useful when trying to understand the beliefs and behaviors of pastors like Wright, Hagee, Parsley, Robertson and Falwell.

[quote]pookie wrote:
BostonBarrister wrote:
This is good: What would post-Saddam Iraq have looked like without a coalition presence?

Yes, it is. While I don’t agree with all of it, I can understand his viewpoint.

Interestingly, Hitchen’s book “God Is Not Great: How Religion Poisons Everything” would also be useful when trying to understand the beliefs and behaviors of pastors like Wright, Hagee, Parsley, Robertson and Falwell.

[/quote]

That was good. I missed it the first time.

[quote]BostonBarrister wrote:
k.elkouhen wrote:
Jon Stewart on Obama’s speech :

Answers a lot of questions that have been brought up on this thread.

The use of the car alarm answered all of the questions as far as I’m concerned. How can one argue with prop comedy? Now if we could only get Carrot Top’s views…
[/quote]

That video is actually a pretty good piece and does address a lot of questions raised here (AA ans how it is perceived for example)

And unlike some posters here, it portrayed exactly Obama’s position.

AND it made me laugh.

And the locking and unlocking car alarm was particularly incisive.

ADDENDUM: It was funny though.

Geraldine Ferraro on the Obama speech and Wright:

http://www.dailybreeze.com/ci_8629143

[i] Geraldine Ferraro resents being lumped in with the Rev. Wright in Obama speech

By Gene Maddaus Staff Writer
Article Launched: 03/19/2008 03:34:03 PM PDT

Former vice presidential candidate Geraldine Ferraro said today that she objected to the comparison Sen. Barack Obama drew between her and his former pastor in his speech on race relations Tuesday.

In the speech, Obama sought to place the inflammatory remarks of the Rev. Jeremiah Wright in a broader context, in part by placing them on a continuum with Ferraro’s recent remark to the Daily Breeze that Obama is “lucky” to be black.

“To equate what I said with what this racist bigot has said from the pulpit is unbelievable,” Ferraro said today. “He gave a very good speech on race relations, but he did not address the fact that this man is up there spewing hatred.”

Ferraro, the only woman to ever run on a major party presidential ticket, sparked a controversy when she told the Breeze that “If Obama was a white man, he would not be in this position.”

The resulting controversy was quickly superceded by an even greater furor over Wright’s sermons, in which Obama’s longtime pastor denounced America and argued that the 9-11 terrorist attacks were retribution for U.S. foreign policy.

In an effort to stem the damage to his presidential campaign, Obama gave a 37-minute speech Tuesday in which he used Ferraro’s remarks as a rhetorical foil to Wright’s and drew a parallel between black anger and white resentment.

“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 wild- and wide-eyed liberals to purchase racial reconciliation on the cheap,” Obama said.

“On the other end, we’ve heard my former pastor, 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 and that rightly offend white and black alike.”

Ferraro, who supports Sen. Hillary Clinton, has been unapologetic about her remarks. Clinton has said she disagrees with Ferraro and has accepted Ferraro’s resignation from her finance committee.

Ferraro said she had “no clue” why Obama would include her in his speech, and said Obama’s association with Wright raises serious questions about his judgment.

“What this man is doing is he is spewing that stuff out to young people, and to younger people than Obama, and putting it in their heads that it’s OK to say `Goddamn America’ and it’s OK to beat up on white people,” she said. “You don’t preach that from the pulpit.”

Ferraro also said she could not understand why Obama had called out his own white grandmother for using racial stereotypes that had made him cringe.

“I could not believe that,” she said. “That’s my mother’s generation.”

Obama returned to Ferraro’s remarks later in his speech, again drawing a comparison between her and Wright.

“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 bias,” Obama said.

He went on to argue that such dismissals would foreclose a deeper understanding of racial resentments.

Obama appeared to allude to Ferraro once more when he said that it would be wrong to “pounce on some gaffe by a Hillary supporter as evidence that she’s playing the race card.”

It was Obama’s campaign that drew the most attention to Ferraro’s remark last week, and suggested they fit with an pattern of racial comments by Clinton surrogates.

“That’s exactly what he did,” Ferraro said. “It was their campaign that started this.”

In sum, however, Ferraro said she thought the speech was “excellent,” and said she understood why Obama could not renounce his association with Wright.

“I think they got as far as they could go politically,” she said. “They’re looking at their base. Their base is African-Americans. They’re looking at that and they’re trying to walk a very thin line. They don’t want to offend the African-Americans, and this is the way he did it.” [/i]

Obama, commenting on his use of his grandmother as an example in his speech:

http://www.philly.com/philly/blogs/phillygossip/16851906.html

[i]Thursday, March 20, 2008

Obama on WIP: My grandmother’s a “typical white person”
We thought we heard this, but we wanted to go back and listen to the clip of Sen. Barack Obama on 610 WIP this morning to be sure.

610 WIP host Angelo Cataldi asked Obama about his Tuesday morning speech on race at the National Constitution Center in which he referenced his own white grandmother and her prejudice. Obama told Cataldi that “The point I was making was not that my grandmother harbors any racial animosity, but that she is a typical white person. If she sees somebody on the street that she doesn’t know (pause) there’s a reaction in her that doesn’t go away and it comes out in the wrong way.”

We doubt this story will have legs, but wonder if Hillary Clinton referred to a “typical black person,” would we ever hear the end of it?

UPDATE: We gave the Obama campaign a chance to respond to this post. “Barack Obama said specifically that he didn’t believe his grandmother harbored any racial animosity, but that her fears were understandable and typical of those often shared by her generation,” said Obama’s PA spokesman Sean Smith, who added that Grandma is 86-years-old. He might have meant that specifically, but that isn’t what he said, especially as he spoke of his grandmother, Madelyn Dunham, in the present tense. The Clinton campaign has not yet returned our request for comment on Obama’s remarks. We aren’t holding our breath for a Clinton comment.[/i]

Hmmm. “Typical white person” - representing the “white community” I guess?

Also, just for reference, here’s the grandmother anecdote:

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.

Just your typical white person.