[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
Sloth wrote:
Are you serious? There’s something odd about considering a Presidential candidate’s social connections? Especially if one is a raging bigot?
Associating Obama to a “raging bigot” is the same shit some in the media tried to do to Paul. I don’t think the pastor is a bigot in the least because I don’t feel he thinks that way of all white people. Besides, some of what he said has truth to it. Frankly, all of this indignation over such PC bullshit makes me sick to my stomach.
We cannot control the actions, beliefs, or opinions of those we surround ourself with nor do I think we should be held to account for the things they say. Last time I checked it’s still a free country and we are allowed to express our opinions no matter how unpopular.[/quote]
I will bet that you had trouble with the “connect the dots” drawings when you were a kid.
[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
Sloth wrote:
Are you serious? There’s something odd about considering a Presidential candidate’s social connections? Especially if one is a raging bigot?
Associating Obama to a “raging bigot” is the same shit some in the media tried to do to Paul. I don’t think the pastor is a bigot in the least because I don’t feel he thinks that way of all white people. Besides, some of what he said has truth to it. Frankly, all of this indignation over such PC bullshit makes me sick to my stomach.
We cannot control the actions, beliefs, or opinions of those we surround ourself with nor do I think we should be held to account for the things they say. Last time I checked it’s still a free country and we are allowed to express our opinions no matter how unpopular.[/quote]
I was shocked to learn this country was controlled by mostly rich white people. and Hillary has never been called the “N” word? So controversial.
If it is so important, then why don’t we immediately start full investigations of ALL social connections to ALL of the candidates, scour their ministers comments, their friends comments etc, and splice them into 1 minute youtube clips.
The most important aspect of the Rev. comments (the 3 minutes of them out how many total preaching minutes) is the enormous distinction between his seeming hopelessness and Obama’s hopefulness.
Also, if he was such a huge influence on Obama, then let’s see the footage (which presumably will be 20 years minus 3 minutes long) of the inspirational sermons he’s given, the uplifting stuff that one would assume HAS inspired Obama.[/quote]
I’ll re-post this here, since it’s been about 8 pages since I last posted it:
Ross Douthat has a good post that’s very on-topic:
[quote]Does anyone believe a long association with Jerry Falwell's church would have done anything but help McCain in the Republican primary, and gotten Democrats tagged as anti-religion when they tried to point out Falwell's nuttiness in the general? It's fine to be a Christian extremist in America. It's fine to believe, and say publicly, that everyone who hasn't accepted Jesus Christ into their heart will roast in eternal hellfire, fine to believe that the homosexuals caused Hurricane Katrina and the feminists contributed to 9/11, fine to believe we must support Israel so the Jews can be largely annihilated in a war that will trigger the End Times, fine to believe we're in a holy battle with the barbaric hordes of Islam, fine to believe that we went to the Middle East to prove "our God is bigger than your God." What you can't believe is that blacks have suffered a long history of oppression in this country, that they're still face deep institutional discrimination, and that a country where 100 percent of the presidents have been rich white guys is actually run by rich white guys. More to the point, even if you do believe those things, you certainly can't be angry about it![/quote]
What horseshit. If John McCain were an evangelical Christian and a longstanding member of Jerry Falwell’s congregation, and if he had written a memoir describing, say, how he was
“born again” under Falwell’s influence, he would not be the Republican nominee today. With a great deal of luck, he might �?? might �?? have done as well in the primaries as Mike Huckabee did, and of course you may recall that Huck had all kinds of difficulties winning non-evangelical votes, faring particularly poorly among Catholics; you may recall, as well, that the press delighted in lobbing him questions about evolution and wives submitting to their husbands and all the rest of it, without any fear of being tagged as anti-religion. And of course Falwell’s brand of evangelical Christianity is considerably more controversial than Huckabee’s. And considerably more apocalyptic, one might add: Imagine, for instance, how McCain’s support of the surge, and his hawkishness more generally, would have been treated if he attended a church whose pastor’s foreign policy views are defined by a belief in the imminence of Armageddon ( http://www.wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=51180 ).
As to Ezra’s larger point, of course it’s “fine” to be a white Christian extremist in America; it’s also fine to be a black Christian extremist like Jeremiah Wright. This is a free country, after all. Nobody in the national media was parsing the Reverend Wright’s sermons before the 2008 campaign, and nobody would be parsing them today if he was just one minister among many supporting Barack Obama for President. I have no doubt that many, many Democratic politicians have put in an appearance at churches whose pastors share Wright’s outlandish political views without anyone kicking up a fuss, just as Republican politicians have long accepted the support of figures like Falwell without taking too much heat about it.
The distinction here, for the umpteenth time, is that Wright isn’t just Obama’s supporter; he’s his pastor, his friend, and his spiritual mentor, which makes him exactly the kind of person whose views ought to be of interest to a public that’s considering electing Barack Obama President of the United States. And as to the substance of those views, well, if Ezra really thinks that Wright’s sermons have sparked controversy because he broke a taboo against getting angry over the fact that “blacks have suffered a long history of oppression in this country” and “still face deep institutional discrimination,” I would suggest that he take another look at them, paying particular attention to Wright’s remarks about 9/11, as well as what appears to be his suggestion that the U.S. government created not only the crack epidemic, but the AIDS epidemic as well.
What about you 100m? I’m glad to note you’d have no problem if McCain had been a member of Jerry Fallwell’s or Pat Robertson’s church for 20 years, had described Fallwell or Robertson as a mentor and a political sounding board, etc.
But there are conspiracies all around us. How would it help to deny reality?
[/quote]
I’m willing to buy that there are small-scale conspiracies going on, and lots of isolated cases of miscreance.
The conspiracy theories that are most damaging are the ones that hold beliefs about societal-wide conspiracies, or conspiracies against a class or a race. Or stupid crap about the Rothschilds running the world. The stuff people come up with because it’s more comforting than a reality of randomness and individual actions, with a large lack of central control. And these silly, kooky large-scale conspiracy theories mask reality and interfere with the addressing of the actual underlying causes of the problems that are assigned to the conspiracies. “Hell, why learn about AIDS prevention and behavioral issues from the government - they’re just trying to get me infected. I heard it from my preacher…”
If it is so important, then why don’t we immediately start full investigations of ALL social connections to ALL of the candidates, scour their ministers comments, their friends comments etc, and splice them into 1 minute youtube clips.
The most important aspect of the Rev. comments (the 3 minutes of them out how many total preaching minutes) is the enormous distinction between his seeming hopelessness and Obama’s hopefulness.
Also, if he was such a huge influence on Obama, then let’s see the footage (which presumably will be 20 years minus 3 minutes long) of the inspirational sermons he’s given, the uplifting stuff that one would assume HAS inspired Obama.
I’ll re-post this here, since it’s been about 8 pages since I last posted it:
Ross Douthat has a good post that’s very on-topic:
Does anyone believe a long association with Jerry Falwell's church would have done anything but help McCain in the Republican primary, and gotten Democrats tagged as anti-religion when they tried to point out Falwell's nuttiness in the general? It's fine to be a Christian extremist in America. It's fine to believe, and say publicly, that everyone who hasn't accepted Jesus Christ into their heart will roast in eternal hellfire, fine to believe that the homosexuals caused Hurricane Katrina and the feminists contributed to 9/11, fine to believe we must support Israel so the Jews can be largely annihilated in a war that will trigger the End Times, fine to believe we're in a holy battle with the barbaric hordes of Islam, fine to believe that we went to the Middle East to prove "our God is bigger than your God." What you can't believe is that blacks have suffered a long history of oppression in this country, that they're still face deep institutional discrimination, and that a country where 100 percent of the presidents have been rich white guys is actually run by rich white guys. More to the point, even if you do believe those things, you certainly can't be angry about it!
What horseshit. If John McCain were an evangelical Christian and a longstanding member of Jerry Falwell’s congregation, and if he had written a memoir describing, say, how he was
“born again” under Falwell’s influence, he would not be the Republican nominee today. With a great deal of luck, he might �?? might �?? have done as well in the primaries as Mike Huckabee did, and of course you may recall that Huck had all kinds of difficulties winning non-evangelical votes, faring particularly poorly among Catholics; you may recall, as well, that the press delighted in lobbing him questions about evolution and wives submitting to their husbands and all the rest of it, without any fear of being tagged as anti-religion. And of course Falwell’s brand of evangelical Christianity is considerably more controversial than Huckabee’s. And considerably more apocalyptic, one might add: Imagine, for instance, how McCain’s support of the surge, and his hawkishness more generally, would have been treated if he attended a church whose pastor’s foreign policy views are defined by a belief in the imminence of Armageddon ( http://www.wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=51180 ).
As to Ezra’s larger point, of course it’s “fine” to be a white Christian extremist in America; it’s also fine to be a black Christian extremist like Jeremiah Wright. This is a free country, after all. Nobody in the national media was parsing the Reverend Wright’s sermons before the 2008 campaign, and nobody would be parsing them today if he was just one minister among many supporting Barack Obama for President. I have no doubt that many, many Democratic politicians have put in an appearance at churches whose pastors share Wright’s outlandish political views without anyone kicking up a fuss, just as Republican politicians have long accepted the support of figures like Falwell without taking too much heat about it.
The distinction here, for the umpteenth time, is that Wright isn’t just Obama’s supporter; he’s his pastor, his friend, and his spiritual mentor, which makes him exactly the kind of person whose views ought to be of interest to a public that’s considering electing Barack Obama President of the United States. And as to the substance of those views, well, if Ezra really thinks that Wright’s sermons have sparked controversy because he broke a taboo against getting angry over the fact that “blacks have suffered a long history of oppression in this country” and “still face deep institutional discrimination,” I would suggest that he take another look at them, paying particular attention to Wright’s remarks about 9/11, as well as what appears to be his suggestion that the U.S. government created not only the crack epidemic, but the AIDS epidemic as well.
What about you 100m? I’m glad to note you’d have no problem if McCain had been a member of Jerry Fallwell’s or Pat Robertson’s church for 20 years, had described Fallwell or Robertson as a mentor and a political sounding board, etc.[/quote]
As I said before it bothers me more that McCain deliberately panders for endorsements now, knowing that persons “x” have said incredibly crazy things, which I see as contradicting the appeal of being a Maverick, and “straight talker”, and “independent”, and his own previous condemnation of their hatefulness (the things that made me like him in 2000)
It doesn’t bother me at all that Obama has utterly rejected the “crazy” talk of Wright. His campaign is the exact opposite of that kind of rhetoric, be it from Wright, Fallwell, or Robertson, which is good.
I’m not able to come up with a way to make my argument more intellectually honest, unfortunately.
Another reaction to Obama’s speech from earlier this week, from a law professor at USD - I think it largely tracks my reaction:
[i]Obama’s Speech
Mike Rappaport
I read it and then listed to about half of it here ( Obama Speech: 'A More Perfect Union' - YouTube ). I have so many reactions to it that it is hard to articulate all of them. So I will restrict myself to a couple.
Being a blue state kind of a guy culturally, with a certain kind of red state politics, I have to admit to understanding the thrill that people have watching him speak. Don’t get me wrong; I don’t feel it. I just am able to understand it. (By contrast, it took me years to understand the positive reaction Bill Clinton provokes.)
Like his other speeches, this one soars. When you are listening to it, or even reading it, it brings you in and you want to believe. And you do, especially if you let your guard down.
But like his other speeches, this one doesn’t work for me. If you examine the logic, it just fails. The comparisons are wrong ( Waiting for Obama's "pivot." ), and misleading. The defense of Wright is inadequate. And most of all the defense of his actions – of his own connections with a figure with disreputable views – is weak. Sorry, but Obama tolerates bad stuff, and that is worrisome.
I predict that this speech will be enough to allow the media, who love Obama anyway, to “put Wright behind them.” And I think for the most part it will satisfy Democratic primary voters. (Of course, I believe Obama will lose badly in Pennsylvania, but that is largely, though not entirely, for other reasons.)
The real question is how Obama’s connection with Wright will affect Independents and Republicans in the general election (assuming he defeats Hillary, which is still more likely than not in my book). My guess is that it will matter, especially if private groups run TV ads reminding people of it. I have predicted all along there would be a lot of what some Democrats call “swiftboating” and what I call “free speech” in this next election. Fasten your seat belts![/i]
[quote]Sloth wrote:
Lorisco wrote:
Sloth wrote:
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.
I’m looking to vote for a third party candidate. The one who-Sucks-The-Less isn’t to be found in the two major parties.
While that may make you feel better it just ensures your vote will be irrelevant!
Ah, now that’s the bedrock of democracy right there. [/quote]
Hey, what can I say, it’s the truth. It’s a two party system whether we like it or not.
[quote]BostonBarrister wrote:
Another reaction to Obama’s speech from earlier this week, from a law professor at USD - I think it largely tracks my reaction:
[i]Obama’s Speech
Mike Rappaport
I read it and then listed to about half of it here ( Obama Speech: 'A More Perfect Union' - YouTube ). I have so many reactions to it that it is hard to articulate all of them. So I will restrict myself to a couple.
Being a blue state kind of a guy culturally, with a certain kind of red state politics, I have to admit to understanding the thrill that people have watching him speak. Don’t get me wrong; I don’t feel it. I just am able to understand it. (By contrast, it took me years to understand the positive reaction Bill Clinton provokes.)
Like his other speeches, this one soars. When you are listening to it, or even reading it, it brings you in and you want to believe. And you do, especially if you let your guard down.
But like his other speeches, this one doesn’t work for me. If you examine the logic, it just fails. The comparisons are wrong ( Waiting for Obama's "pivot." ), and misleading. The defense of Wright is inadequate. And most of all the defense of his actions – of his own connections with a figure with disreputable views – is weak. Sorry, but Obama tolerates bad stuff, and that is worrisome.
I predict that this speech will be enough to allow the media, who love Obama anyway, to “put Wright behind them.” And I think for the most part it will satisfy Democratic primary voters. (Of course, I believe Obama will lose badly in Pennsylvania, but that is largely, though not entirely, for other reasons.)
The real question is how Obama’s connection with Wright will affect Independents and Republicans in the general election (assuming he defeats Hillary, which is still more likely than not in my book). My guess is that it will matter, especially if private groups run TV ads reminding people of it. I have predicted all along there would be a lot of what some Democrats call “swiftboating” and what I call “free speech” in this next election. Fasten your seat belts![/i]
[/quote]
Since Hillary has been running on her wife experience, she will stand or fall with Bill’s Administration. So every stupid and bad move Bill made as a president will be placed squarely on Hillary. In addition, the healthcare reform failure of Hillary’s wife-time will also come back to her is force. So McCain has a shit-load of stuff on Hillary that will ensure he wins if she is the nominee.
Now with Obama, he doesn’t have much baggage. He stands a much better chance as a result.
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.
I think you need to look up “indefensible” - I already defended it.
ADDENDUM: In my sarcasm I forgot to note that you are overstating my argument - I didn’t say “only”.
[/quote]
Adj. 1. indefensible - (of theories etc) incapable of being defended or justified
untenable
unreasonable - not reasonable; not showing good judgment
You may have tried to defend your assertion, but to defend it you must state you�??re reasoning for making the statement…
If I quoted you saying you said (only) I apologize, but for you to justify such a statement you would have to have first hand knowledge, or even an author that has heard him say, I only go to church because it is good for my career. That is why I say it is indefensible. You may suspect it but you have to prove it.
This is a quote from the site you just posted
[i]However, this study exploited a vulnerable sub-population to answer a question which would have been of benefit to the whole population. This was, many argue, a manifestation of racism on the part of the study organizers.
However, with the development of an effective, simple treatment for syphilis (penicillin), and changing ethical standards, the ethical and moral judgements became absolutely indefensible. By the time the study had closed, hundreds of men had died from syphilis and many of their wives had become infected and their children born with congenital syphilis.[/i]
This sounds like a study for a cure to you?
It may have started innocently in the 1920’s but it became something that every American should despise.
Why don’t you?
Even after the discovery of Pen V K, they continued watching these men die. THAT is what is indefensible.
Exactly what part of what I wrote would lead you to believe I don’t find the Tuskegee Study wrong and deplorable?
The fact that it is indefensible does not mean it is a good analogy with a wacky conspiracy theory that holds the government created a virus in a lab and then purposefully infected the civilian population with the purpose of effecting genocide against black Americans.
*edited to fix my typo[/quote]
I have stated before I do not believe our government started the Aids epidemic, but it is our government that started acting wacky,
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.
I think you need to look up “indefensible” - I already defended it.
ADDENDUM: In my sarcasm I forgot to note that you are overstating my argument - I didn’t say “only”.
Adj. 1. indefensible - (of theories etc) incapable of being defended or justified
untenable
unreasonable - not reasonable; not showing good judgment
You may have tried to defend your assertion, but to defend it you must state you�??re reasoning for making the statement…
If I quoted you saying you said (only) I apologize, but for you to justify such a statement you would have to have first hand knowledge, or even an author that has heard him say, I only go to church because it is good for my career. That is why I say it is indefensible. You may suspect it but you have to prove it.
[/quote]
Zap has already proven that Obama is a fraud, because he used a line suggested to him by his national co-chair. Obviously if he would use something a friend told him to use in a speech, then he clearly only went to Trinity for political gain. Most of the other members of the Trinity congregation also hope to run for president someday too.
Also his minister said some things with a scary tone. That means you can ignore anything Obama has ever said or will say…
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.
I think you need to look up “indefensible” - I already defended it.
ADDENDUM: In my sarcasm I forgot to note that you are overstating my argument - I didn’t say “only”.
Adj. 1. indefensible - (of theories etc) incapable of being defended or justified
untenable
unreasonable - not reasonable; not showing good judgment
You may have tried to defend your assertion, but to defend it you must state you�??re reasoning for making the statement…
If I quoted you saying you said (only) I apologize, but for you to justify such a statement you would have to have first hand knowledge, or even an author that has heard him say, I only go to church because it is good for my career. That is why I say it is indefensible. You may suspect it but you have to prove it.
Zap has already proven that Obama is a fraud, because he used a line suggested to him by his national co-chair. Obviously if he would use something a friend told him to use in a speech, then he clearly only went to Trinity for political gain. Most of the other members of the Trinity congregation also hope to run for president someday too.
Also his minister said some things with a scary tone. That means you can ignore anything Obama has ever said or will say…
so it’s not really that indefensible.
[/quote]
I doubt any one in this thread ,has said somthing that has not been said before. Does that make all of us frauds ?
I stated pretty clearly what my supposition rested upon. I also already said that my point wasn’t that he “only” went to church because it was good for his career. My point was that I think he used the church to further his political career and based his decision to affiliate with the church largely on a political calculation. This isn’t a court of law, and I don’t need to prove my assertion beyond a reasonable doubt. That’s my opinion because I think it’s more likely than not, and I’m cynical about him because he’s a politician.
But just for you, here’s an excerpt from and article in Reason referencing Barack’s first memoir, Dreams of my Father:
[i]When Barack Obama chose to join the congregation of Trinity United Church of Christ back in 1987, his decision was partly spiritual, partly calculated. As Obama tells it in his 1995 autobiography Dreams from My Father, he was seeking two things. He was seeking salvation. He was also seeking a secure perch in the volcanic politics of black Chicago. In his interview with Rev. Jeremiah Wright, Obama spoke plainly about his political concerns and Wright spoke back in his own language. “I’ll try to help you if I can,” Wright said. “But you should know that having us involved in your effort isn’t necessarily a feather in your cap. Some of my fellow clergy don’t appreciate what we’re about. They feel like we’re too radical. Others, we ain’t radical enough.”
Wright was not talking about his rhetoric that has since become the stuff of heavy cable rotation. Wright was talking about the church’s flashiness and reputation for a more upper crust following in the black community. But Wright assured Obama that the church had a real presence in Chicago’s South Side and that its “Black Value System,” which Obama read that day, revealed the church’s goals: To keep blacks in the community and to keep them from scattering to the suburbs. “While it is permissible to chase ‘middle-incomeness’ with all our might,” reads the statement, “we must avoid the third separation method�??the psychological entrapment of Black ‘middleclassness.’” Here were the makings of a political base.
[/i]
The author makes a different conclusion than I did, and you’re free to do the same. But my view is defended.
revealed the church’s goals: To keep blacks in the community and to keep them from scattering to the suburbs. “While it is permissible to chase ‘middle-incomeness’ with all our might,” reads the statement, “we must avoid the third separation method�??the psychological entrapment of Black ‘middleclassness.’” Here were the makings of a political base.
[/i]
The author makes a different conclusion than I did, and you’re free to do the same. But my view is defended.
[/quote]
So what does avoiding “scattering to the suburbs,” and avoiding the “third separation method,” sound like to you guys?
Sounds to me like he’s pushing an avoidance of integration with whitey in the suburbs. Self segregation. Blacks choosing to live with blacks, and avoiding white communities. Avoiding ‘seperation.’
Once again, I’d suggest switching around the races in his statement…
Still not a racist?