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… [/i][/quote]
She should be pissed to be lumped in with that asshole.
The only thing I could find objectionable is his cursing America, Out of curiosity how did you come to the conclusion that Obama lacks sincerity about his faith?
I find the gist of the excerpted part of this interpretation both plausible and probable:
But of course they’re right that it’ll hurt him electorally because 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.
[/quote]
Barrister I am curious are you saying you feel Obama is insincere because you read this article? In my opinion the article does not address my question…
I have made posts on your posts before and you tend to answer all of the questions posed to you by posting some link that has little to do with the subject at hand or speaking vaguely. I could see how this means of communication could extend the hours people would spend to communicate simple points. But at this time neither of us is being paid.
So as a favor could you answer how you justify making that kind of judgment on any person, questioning they sincerity on their faith?
What part of the argument did you think was inapplicable? It’s a circumstantial analysis.
The posited idea is that Obama joined the church out of a political calculation - he was half-white and half-black, and he was trying to establish his credibility in the black community to run as a representative of a black district for the IL state legislature. So he finds a large, influential local church to join - he had been raised a different faith, and I believe his mother was an atheist. At his education level and particularly with his political leanings, a lot of people are atheists. So he goes and joins the church - and maybe he does find some faith.
But not enough to keep him from trying to distance himself from Wright and that church when he was more on the national stage. Once he figured out it could be a liability - a little late, right before his big national announcement of his candidacy - he removed Wright from his campaign.
If one were cynical about politicians, it would seem rather easy to question his sincerity in the entire enterprise. Color me cynical.
And one other thing I think we’ve got to remember: As easy as it is for those of us who are white to look back and say, “That’s a terrible statement,” I grew up in a very segregated South, and I think that you have to cut some slack. And I’m going to be probably the only conservative in America who’s going to say something like this, but I’m just telling you: We’ve got to cut some slack to people who grew up being called names, being told, “You have to sit in the balcony when you go to the movie. You have to go to the back door to go into the restaurant. And you can’t sit out there with everyone else. There’s a separate waiting room in the doctor’s office. Here’s where you sit on the bus.”
And you know what? Sometimes people do have a chip on their shoulder and resentment. And you have to just say, I probably would too. I probably would too. In fact, I may have had a more, more of a chip on my shoulder had it been me.
The only thing I could find objectionable is his cursing America, Out of curiosity how did you come to the conclusion that Obama lacks sincerity about his faith?
BostonBarrister wrote:
I find the gist of the excerpted part of this interpretation both plausible and probable:
But of course they’re right that it’ll hurt him electorally because 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.
pittbulll wrote:
pittbulll wrote:
Barrister I am curious are you saying you feel Obama is insincere because you read this article? In my opinion the article does not address my question…
I have made posts on your posts before and you tend to answer all of the questions posed to you by posting some link that has little to do with the subject at hand or speaking vaguely. I could see how this means of communication could extend the hours people would spend to communicate simple points. But at this time neither of us is being paid.
So as a favor could you answer how you justify making that kind of judgment on any person, questioning they sincerity on their faith?
What part of the argument did you think was inapplicable? It’s a circumstantial analysis.
The posited idea is that Obama joined the church out of a political calculation - he was half-white and half-black, and he was trying to establish his credibility in the black community to run as a representative of a black district for the IL state legislature. So he finds a large, influential local church to join - he had been raised a different faith, and I believe his mother was an atheist. At his education level and particularly with his political leanings, a lot of people are atheists. So he goes and joins the church - and maybe he does find some faith.
But not enough to keep him from trying to distance himself from Wright and that church when he was more on the national stage. Once he figured out it could be a liability - a little late, right before his big national announcement of his candidacy - he removed Wright from his campaign.
If one were cynical about politicians, it would seem rather easy to question his sincerity in the entire enterprise. Color me cynical.[/quote]
Are you saying he did not belong to this church for 20 years and he joined just to claim in on his resume?
Are you saying he did not belong to this church for 20 years and he joined just to claim in on his resume?
[/quote]
No. He obviously joined the church. Yes. My deduction is that one of his main motivations for joining the church was to establish his credentials within his district. Though Wright’s sermons were quite political, so separating church from religion in this case may be a false distinction - it may have been both…
Are you saying he did not belong to this church for 20 years and he joined just to claim in on his resume?
No. He obviously joined the church. Yes. My deduction is that one of his main motivations for joining the church was to establish his credentials within his district. Though Wright’s sermons were quite political, so separating church from religion in this case may be a false distinction - it may have been both…[/quote]
Don�??t you think investing 20 years as an alibi at least makes you sincere?
Are you saying he did not belong to this church for 20 years and he joined just to claim in on his resume?
No. He obviously joined the church. Yes. My deduction is that one of his main motivations for joining the church was to establish his credentials within his district. Though Wright’s sermons were quite political, so separating church from religion in this case may be a false distinction - it may have been both…[/quote]
I think him putting some distance between he and the church is understandable .
Don�??t you think investing 20 years as an alibi at least makes you sincere?
Unfortunately, I’ve seen many people who, in my estimation (though not in mine alone), go to church for appearance’s sake.
But are you saying obama goes to church for the sake of appearance ?[/quote]
Yes. And while I don’t agree with BB’s analysis that brought him to that conclusion, it certainly makes sense for Barack who’s as black as Madonna’s bum to go attend that church for political gain.
I find the idea that you must agree with everything political which your religious mentor says preposterous. I’m sure there are plenty of American Catholics who hold the Pope in the highest regards despite his firm opposition to the Bush doctrine.
Don�??t you think investing 20 years as an alibi at least makes you sincere?
Unfortunately, I’ve seen many people who, in my estimation (though not in mine alone), go to church for appearance’s sake.
But are you saying obama goes to church for the sake of appearance ?
Yes. And while I don’t agree with BB’s analysis that brought him to that conclusion, it certainly makes sense for Barack who’s as black as Madonna’s bum to go attend that church for political gain.
I find the idea that you must agree with everything political which your religious mentor says preposterous. I’m sure there are plenty of American Catholics who hold the Pope in the highest regards despite his firm opposition to the Bush doctrine.[/quote]
It is feasible to go to church for political gain, I agree. But to make the statement that Barrack only goes to church for political gain is indefensible.
And in defense of Wright, although I do not believe that our government created aids, but our government has at least done one experiment, called the Tuskegee experiment. Not necessarily the same but just as culpable is the Iran Contra Affair. And these are just some of the ones that have come to light.
I heard there are counties in Wisconsin that have unemployment among black males of 50%. So I do not totally agree with the good minister, he makes some excellent points
And one other thing I think we’ve got to remember: As easy as it is for those of us who are white to look back and say, “That’s a terrible statement,” I grew up in a very segregated South, and I think that you have to cut some slack. And I’m going to be probably the only conservative in America who’s going to say something like this, but I’m just telling you: We’ve got to cut some slack to people who grew up being called names, being told, “You have to sit in the balcony when you go to the movie. You have to go to the back door to go into the restaurant. And you can’t sit out there with everyone else. There’s a separate waiting room in the doctor’s office. Here’s where you sit on the bus.”
And you know what? Sometimes people do have a chip on their shoulder and resentment. And you have to just say, I probably would too. I probably would too. In fact, I may have had a more, more of a chip on my shoulder had it been me.
[/quote]
Do you realize how few people would even admit that?
I personally thank you for the sentiment, but apparently, the feeling is that none of that is relevant and everyone should just forget everything that came together to make them who they are in favor of making sure no one feels any guilt.
It is feasible to go to church for political gain, I agree. But to make the statement that Barrack only goes to church for political gain is indefensible.
And in defense of Wright, although I do not believe that our government created aids, but our government has at least done one experiment, called the Tuskegee experiment. Not necessarily the same but just as culpable is the Iran Contra Affair. And these are just some of the ones that have come to light.
I heard there are counties in Wisconsin that have unemployment among black males of 50%. So I do not totally agree with the good minister, he makes some excellent points
[/quote]
Well said. The United States of America lost its credibility and its ability to act innocent in that regard the moment they tested on civilians without their knowledge.
In fact, EVERY American should be upset by this, however, things sure didn’t play out that way. Instead, the incident went without any public response or apology for nearly 30 years…and not enough people seem to be enraged by it.
How can someone claim the idea that the government created other biological weapons to test on civilians is preposterous when they already did?
HIV/AIDS has been studied extensively world-wide. Furthermore, white Aids patient also die.
The supposed scheme is that decades ago, an evil white government scientist, infected blacks with a disease to kill them off, somehow forgetting that his virus was guaranteed to spread into the white population. It doesn’t even make sense.
[quote]Sloth wrote:
HIV/AIDS has been studied extensively world-wide. Furthermore, white Aids patient also die.
The supposed scheme is that decades ago, an evil white government scientist, infected blacks with a disease to kill them off, somehow forgetting that his virus was guaranteed to spread into the white population. It doesn’t even make sense. [/quote]
I have already said I don’t agree with the HIV situation, however, I also know most people barely understand what I explain to them in my clinic so I don’t fault laymen for not studying medicine. Instead, I tend to look at WHY someone would think that…and frankly, blacks have every right to distrust the government in that way.
Hell, every American should if we are all truly equal.
Instead of focusing on the horrible act that caused this amount of distrust, too many of you fault the relative targets of that act for any further mistrust.
I really don’t see how that makes sense to anyone.
[quote]Professor X wrote:
Sloth wrote:
HIV/AIDS has been studied extensively world-wide. Furthermore, white Aids patient also die.
The supposed scheme is that decades ago, an evil white government scientist, infected blacks with a disease to kill them off, somehow forgetting that his virus was guaranteed to spread into the white population. It doesn’t even make sense.
I have already said I don’t agree with the HIV situation, however, I also know most people barely understand what I explain to them in my clinic so I don’t fault laymen for not studying medicine. Instead, I tend to look at WHY someone would think that…and frankly, blacks have every right to distrust the government in that way.
Hell, every American should if we are all truly equal.[/quote]
I’m a small government conservative. I already distrust the government enough without resorting to conspiracy.
Edit: Wright needs the AIDS claim as a present and ongoing evil White American scientists story. It keeps the hatred at the center of his theology burning bright.