“The government gives them the drugs, builds bigger prisons, passes a three-strike law and then wants us to sing “God Bless America.” No, no, no, God damn America, that’s in the Bible for killing innocent people. God damn America for treating our citizens as less than human. God damn America for as long as she acts like she is God and she is supreme.” (2003)
Who is the “them” here, and what drugs is he referring to?[/quote]
Maybe the FBI and the drugs they allegedly gave to the leaders of the Black Panther movement?
[quote]Headhunter wrote:
Petedacook wrote:
orion wrote:
Headhunter wrote:
When all is said and done, the Pastor took the Lord’s name in vain and condemned our magnificent country. If Obama finds soaring inspiration from such things, he should NOT be president of the USA. He’ll have to go back to work for Big Tony.
This is also not true, feel free to look at the footage…again.
I thought he said “god dam America:”
“The government gives them the drugs, builds bigger prisons, passes a three-strike law and then wants us to sing “God Bless America.” No, no, no, God damn America, that’s in the Bible for killing innocent people. God damn America for treating our citizens as less than human. God damn America for as long as she acts like she is God and she is supreme.” (2003)
If a crackhead kills people during a driveby, how is executing such scum ‘killing innocent people’? Do you WANT a society where criminals go unpunished?
He should save his rage for the crackheads, the dropouts from high school, and the guys with 8 kids by 8 different women. Of course, he wouldn’t be popular then, now would he?
You know, if people actually thought about some of the stupid shit leaders say but sounds good, we’d be better off. ‘From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs.’ Sounds good, right? A couple of hundred million lives later…
The fact that Obama DID NOT GET UP and walk out on these rantings (just to get votes, the shiteater) shows that they are all pure Satanists.
BTW: I hope Hillary steals it from him at the convention. The whore of Babylon crushes the Demon of the Southside.
[quote]Headhunter wrote:
Lorisco wrote:
Headhunter wrote:
Professor X wrote:
It isn`t when he reminds you that God has already damned such nations before.
More than that, you can’t even make the claim that it is taking the Lord’s name in vain when he stated God Bless America right before it. God Bless America is a request/statement. Therefore, God Damn America said in the same sentence as a mirror to it is also a request/statement. He didn’t say the cuss word “Goddamn” so HH has no point…as usual.
You can spin it all you want but the man emphatically said such things. Its one of the more sure paths to damnation.
If my priest stood in front of the congregation and announced this to the parishoners, how would you interpret it? Would you defend him for saying this? Nope. I suspect its because he’s ‘not in Houston’.
I wish some of this stuff about Obama and his minions had come out, like right before Iowa. He’s be back pulling levers for Big Tony (Rezco) as we speak.
What would you do if you and your family had attended a church since your early twenties and like the pastor and congregation. Then, year after year, the pastor got a little crazy with some of his ideas and as things got better in the country he continued to get worse in terms of his occasional rant? Would you just walk out on this pastor, who had been a close friend of your family, just because he was a little out there is his old age (late 60’s)?
The moment he said such things, even if he was one of my brothers, I would have stood up, stared at him like the devil he was, and would have walked out of the church. I would immediately cut off all tithes and never speak to him again.
Of course, I’m not trying to get peoples’ votes. Pandering to evil to win elections seems to go with politics.
For saying such things in the House of the Lord, there is truly no forgiveness.
[/quote]
That’s true. I can understand Wright’s lack of respect for America in terms of the treatment blacks have received, but there is no excuse for his lack of respect towards God in a church of worship.
[quote]Lorisco wrote:
Headhunter wrote:
Lorisco wrote:
Headhunter wrote:
Professor X wrote:
It isn`t when he reminds you that God has already damned such nations before.
More than that, you can’t even make the claim that it is taking the Lord’s name in vain when he stated God Bless America right before it. God Bless America is a request/statement. Therefore, God Damn America said in the same sentence as a mirror to it is also a request/statement. He didn’t say the cuss word “Goddamn” so HH has no point…as usual.
You can spin it all you want but the man emphatically said such things. Its one of the more sure paths to damnation.
If my priest stood in front of the congregation and announced this to the parishoners, how would you interpret it? Would you defend him for saying this? Nope. I suspect its because he’s ‘not in Houston’.
I wish some of this stuff about Obama and his minions had come out, like right before Iowa. He’s be back pulling levers for Big Tony (Rezco) as we speak.
What would you do if you and your family had attended a church since your early twenties and like the pastor and congregation. Then, year after year, the pastor got a little crazy with some of his ideas and as things got better in the country he continued to get worse in terms of his occasional rant? Would you just walk out on this pastor, who had been a close friend of your family, just because he was a little out there is his old age (late 60’s)?
The moment he said such things, even if he was one of my brothers, I would have stood up, stared at him like the devil he was, and would have walked out of the church. I would immediately cut off all tithes and never speak to him again.
Of course, I’m not trying to get peoples’ votes. Pandering to evil to win elections seems to go with politics.
For saying such things in the House of the Lord, there is truly no forgiveness.
That’s true. I can understand Wright’s lack of respect for America in terms of the treatment blacks have received, but there is no excuse for his lack of respect towards God in a church of worship.
[/quote]
Jesus himself started a ruckus, if not a fracas in the temple.
[quote]orion wrote:
Lorisco wrote:
Headhunter wrote:
Lorisco wrote:
Headhunter wrote:
Professor X wrote:
It isn`t when he reminds you that God has already damned such nations before.
More than that, you can’t even make the claim that it is taking the Lord’s name in vain when he stated God Bless America right before it. God Bless America is a request/statement. Therefore, God Damn America said in the same sentence as a mirror to it is also a request/statement. He didn’t say the cuss word “Goddamn” so HH has no point…as usual.
You can spin it all you want but the man emphatically said such things. Its one of the more sure paths to damnation.
If my priest stood in front of the congregation and announced this to the parishoners, how would you interpret it? Would you defend him for saying this? Nope. I suspect its because he’s ‘not in Houston’.
I wish some of this stuff about Obama and his minions had come out, like right before Iowa. He’s be back pulling levers for Big Tony (Rezco) as we speak.
What would you do if you and your family had attended a church since your early twenties and like the pastor and congregation. Then, year after year, the pastor got a little crazy with some of his ideas and as things got better in the country he continued to get worse in terms of his occasional rant? Would you just walk out on this pastor, who had been a close friend of your family, just because he was a little out there is his old age (late 60’s)?
The moment he said such things, even if he was one of my brothers, I would have stood up, stared at him like the devil he was, and would have walked out of the church. I would immediately cut off all tithes and never speak to him again.
Of course, I’m not trying to get peoples’ votes. Pandering to evil to win elections seems to go with politics.
For saying such things in the House of the Lord, there is truly no forgiveness.
That’s true. I can understand Wright’s lack of respect for America in terms of the treatment blacks have received, but there is no excuse for his lack of respect towards God in a church of worship.
Jesus himself started a ruckus, if not a fracas in the temple.
Not in A temple, THE temple…
That self-righteous bastard…
[/quote]
That’s a little twisted Orion. Jesus was upset because they were desecrating the temple. So it’s likely Jesus would have gotten the whip out on Wright as well for his lack of respect for God.
[quote]Lorisco wrote:
orion wrote:
Lorisco wrote:
Headhunter wrote:
Lorisco wrote:
Headhunter wrote:
Professor X wrote:
It isn`t when he reminds you that God has already damned such nations before.
More than that, you can’t even make the claim that it is taking the Lord’s name in vain when he stated God Bless America right before it. God Bless America is a request/statement. Therefore, God Damn America said in the same sentence as a mirror to it is also a request/statement. He didn’t say the cuss word “Goddamn” so HH has no point…as usual.
You can spin it all you want but the man emphatically said such things. Its one of the more sure paths to damnation.
If my priest stood in front of the congregation and announced this to the parishoners, how would you interpret it? Would you defend him for saying this? Nope. I suspect its because he’s ‘not in Houston’.
I wish some of this stuff about Obama and his minions had come out, like right before Iowa. He’s be back pulling levers for Big Tony (Rezco) as we speak.
What would you do if you and your family had attended a church since your early twenties and like the pastor and congregation. Then, year after year, the pastor got a little crazy with some of his ideas and as things got better in the country he continued to get worse in terms of his occasional rant? Would you just walk out on this pastor, who had been a close friend of your family, just because he was a little out there is his old age (late 60’s)?
The moment he said such things, even if he was one of my brothers, I would have stood up, stared at him like the devil he was, and would have walked out of the church. I would immediately cut off all tithes and never speak to him again.
Of course, I’m not trying to get peoples’ votes. Pandering to evil to win elections seems to go with politics.
For saying such things in the House of the Lord, there is truly no forgiveness.
That’s true. I can understand Wright’s lack of respect for America in terms of the treatment blacks have received, but there is no excuse for his lack of respect towards God in a church of worship.
Jesus himself started a ruckus, if not a fracas in the temple.
Not in A temple, THE temple…
That self-righteous bastard…
That’s a little twisted Orion. Jesus was upset because they were desecrating the temple. So it’s likely Jesus would have gotten the whip out on Wright as well for his lack of respect for God.
[/quote]
Or he would have chastised Wright for not adressing the obvious.
pittbulll wrote:
Meaning no disrespect Barrister, but this is what I was talking about you answering simple questions with a gaggle of links. What we would like to know is did Rev. Wright say all you white honkeys suck hoo-ha? Or did he say something else that offends you?
will to power wrote:
This is a funnier version of what I was going to post. Let me just add, what did he say in church that is causing all this ruckus?
Professor X wrote:
Apparently not much of anything…which is why they keep turning to every source EXCEPT what was actually stated in church to find something negative.
That makes calling it “poison” that much more retarded.
As I stated above to Prof X, I understand the position is that you want to see some documented instance of Wright making a specific statement. As I also stated above, I think that’s a pretty ridiculous standard in this instance.
Let me reiterate why, for those who haven’t been keeping up: No one is able to search the record of his sermons and writings, because only a very limited sample of Wright’s sermons that the church recorded and made available for sale. ABC News searched through that limited sample and unearthed the clips that made the rounds on Youtube, and more were transcribed by the Rolling Stone reporter (who thought they were just grand). These clips were essentially controversial because a) they were anti-American in tone, b) they advanced ridiculously absurd conspiracy theories, and c) they blamed “White America” for every negative racial statistic he could cite. There’s also the obvious focus on victimology with which many people disagree, but that’s not really the controversial stuff. There is good evidence that at least some of these sermons have been edited to remove controversial segments (see http://article.nationalreview.com/print/?q=MThiYTZhMTZhYTFkMDgzZmI4NmEyZWU3MjAyYzQ1MmM= ). We should wonder particularly about the statements that were specifically removed, in addition to the sermons that were simply not made available. The reaction of the church congregation to the objectionable claims was cheering, exclamations of agreement and positive - what it was not was surprised, or head-shaking about that crazy old uncle up there (which is a poor analogy in any case - more like a crazy father, given he’s the leader of the congregation, not some tertiary guy on the side) - which, again, gives rise to questions about the stuff that was removed, as well as the stuff we haven’t been able to review.
So, if in a limited sample of some of his sermons selected by the church and edited to remove controversial statements there isn’t an actual statement of “all you white honkeys suck hoo-ha” or something similar, this is hardly dispositive of the question on whether he promotes a racist philosophy.
Given the fact there is hidden information - i.e., a large body of his unedited statements that are not recorded, or at least that are not available for review, we need to look at the probabilities.
First, let’s look at the right Rev. Wright’s underlying theology , Black Liberation Theology, and the church’s code. See these links, which I’ve posted previously:
I’ll also repeat my point about likelihood and what that does to the burden of proof here: As for Wright, you’re in the position of having to argue against the obvious conclusion: the man is one of the major known adherents and proponents of Black Liberation Theology ( Black theology - Wikipedia ), in his interview with Sean Hannity he was citing its progenitors as authors Hannity should have read to have understood him and his outbursts ( Fox News - Breaking News Updates | Latest News Headlines | Photos & News Videos ) and you want everyone to believe he didn’t use it as the basis of his sermons and teachings?
So, that’s the reason to look beyond the statements that have shown up thus far. Or, you could just stick your head in the sand and say that if the limited, edited sample of Wright’s sermons hasn’t yielded a specific “I hate white people” statement then there’s obviously no issue…
Now, let’s consider again why anyone at all cares about what Obama’s pastor thinks or says about anything anyway. The right Rev. Wright had garnered a lot of media attention and scrutiny now BECAUSE Obama has cited him as a mentor and and as the source of his inspiration for his memoirs and his speech to the DNC in 2004, because people are trying to find out about Obama. Wright is a major influence on one of two possible people who could be the Democratic nominee for President, in a year in which the race is going to be extremely close and the Democratic candidate, whoever that is, will have a good chance to win the Presidency.
[i] [A]fter Yale law school, Hillary went to work for the left-wing Bay Area law firm of Treuhaft, Walker and Burnstein, which specialized in Black Panthers and West Coast labor leaders prosecuted for being communists. Two of the firm’s partners, according to Treuhaft, were communists and the two others “tolerated communists”. Then she went on to Washington to help impeach Richard Nixon, whose career was built on smearing and destroying the careers of people through vague insinuations about their backgrounds and associates. (All these citations can be found in Carl Bernstein’s sympathetic 2007 Clinton biography, A Woman in Charge.)
All these were honorable words and associations in my mind, but doesn't she see how the Hillary of today would accuse the Hillary of the sixties of associating with black revolutionaries who fought gun battles with police officers, and defending pro-communist lawyers who backed communists? Doesn't the Rev. Jeremiah Wright, whom Hillary attacks today, represent the very essence of the black radicals Hillary was associating with in those days? And isn't the Hillary of today becoming the same kind of guilt-by-association insinuator as the Richard Nixon she worked to impeach? [/i]
The obvious distinction is 40 years of time, along with the fact that it’s not so much guilt by association but the probability of guilt by adoption and perceived or actual endorsement of a person and, by extension, his beliefs, in the case of Rev. Wright - this would be closer if it was about Barack and the terrorists.
But aside from that, I agree that the Rev. Jeremiah Wright represents the essence of radical Black Panthers from the 60s, and I do think Hillary should come out and explain to everyone why her former radicalism was mistaken, and I look forward to pressing that if she moves past the convention… Then of course there are those pardons Bill did for terrorists and tax cheats. The Dem primary is such fun.
I’m beginning to believe in the vast right-wing conspiracy: they somehow got these two weak candidates to wail on each other, leaving the road clear for McCain. Now, since McCain is really old, his VP is the guy who’s slotted for bigger and better things. This is all a setup for the VP under McCain.
Of course, since the Dems will have 60 or more in the Senate, I don’t see the effectiveness of McCain anyway.
What, you mean you didn’t like my sarcastic response to your post to the wikipedia definition for “Bullsh*t”? How could I have failed to take that seriously? I don’t know what I could have been thinking… Sorry to have used all those big words.
Here, let me rephrase a more appropriate rejoinder:
Nuanced, elegant and demonstrating an understanding of the point, per usual. /sarcasm.
pittbulll wrote:
You seem to have a problem discussing, opposing points of view with out becoming offensive. Did I hurt your feelings like Rev. Wright?
What, you mean you didn’t like my sarcastic response to your post to the wikipedia definition for “Bullsh*t”? How could I have failed to take that seriously? I don’t know what I could have been thinking… Sorry to have used all those big words.
Here, let me rephrase a more appropriate rejoinder:
“Nu uh.”
[/quote]
I have no problems with you at all; my point is your personality impedes your ability to communicate
Nuanced, elegant and demonstrating an understanding of the point, per usual. /sarcasm.
pittbulll wrote:
You seem to have a problem discussing, opposing points of view with out becoming offensive. Did I hurt your feelings like Rev. Wright?
BostonBarrister wrote:
What, you mean you didn’t like my sarcastic response to your post to the wikipedia definition for “Bullsh*t”? How could I have failed to take that seriously? I don’t know what I could have been thinking… Sorry to have used all those big words.
Here, let me rephrase a more appropriate rejoinder:
“Nu uh.”
pittbulll wrote:
I have no problems with you at all; my point is your personality impedes your ability to communicate [/quote]
Nuanced, elegant and demonstrating an understanding of the point, per usual. /sarcasm.
pittbulll wrote:
You seem to have a problem discussing, opposing points of view with out becoming offensive. Did I hurt your feelings like Rev. Wright?
BostonBarrister wrote:
What, you mean you didn’t like my sarcastic response to your post to the wikipedia definition for “Bullsh*t”? How could I have failed to take that seriously? I don’t know what I could have been thinking… Sorry to have used all those big words.
Here, let me rephrase a more appropriate rejoinder:
“Nu uh.”
pittbulll wrote:
I have no problems with you at all; my point is your personality impedes your ability to communicate
You haven’t had a point in quite some time.
[/quote]
I’m going to just let this be my last post on this digression - you haven’t added anything to this discussion, and you’ve managed to goad me into wasting my time.
Anyone see the Wright interview with Bill Moyers (me no have television) - was it any good? Shed any light on this discussion in one way, or another? Puff piece? Spin? Enlightening?
[quote]katzenjammer wrote:
Anyone see the Wright interview with Bill Moyers (me no have television) - was it any good? Shed any light on this discussion in one way, or another? Puff piece? Spin? Enlightening? [/quote]
I saw clips of it. He was calm and accommodating, but didn’t do Obama any favors by hinting that Obama isn’t really speaking his mind and is censoring himself because he has to as a “politician”.
[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
katzenjammer wrote:
Anyone see the Wright interview with Bill Moyers (me no have television) - was it any good? Shed any light on this discussion in one way, or another? Puff piece? Spin? Enlightening?
[i] I guess I am late to the party, am I not? I didn’t watch Jeremiah Wright’s National Press Club performance live this morning, as every other blogger seemed to. Wright is not on the ticket of any major party, he is not Barack Obama, and I’m not going to be baited into making this campaign about him, or the boomer cultural racial obsessions that so many want this vital election to be about.
But then I actually read what he said: http://blog.washingtonpost.com/roughsketch/2008/04/obamas_pastor_reignites_race_c.html
I knew he was an exhibitionist; many of his sermons at Trinity, read in their entirety, do fall within the tradition of some prophetic teaching; I can forgive occasional outbursts from fiery preachers; he has done much good in his own neighborhood and his interview with Bill Moyers struck me as defensible; parts of his address at the Press Club ( http://marcambinder.theatlantic.com/archives/2008/04/the_full_wright_transcript.php#more ) were completely uncontroversial and even contained some important truths.
But what he said today, the way in which he said it, the unrepentant manner in which he reiterated some of his most absurd and offensive views, his attempt to equate everything he believes with the black church as a whole, and his open public embrace of Farrakhan and hostility to the [existence of Israel] Zionism, make any further defense of him impossible. This was a calculated, ugly, repulsive, vile display of arrogance, egotism, and self-regard:
[quote] His claim that the September 11 attacks mean “America’s chickens are coming home to roost”?
Wright defended it: "Jesus said, 'Do unto others as you would have them do unto you.' You cannot do terrorism on other people and expect it never to come back on you. Those are biblical principles, not Jeremiah Wright bombastic divisive principles."
His views on Farrakhan and Israel? "Louis said 20 years ago that Zionism, not Judaism, was a gutter religion. He was talking about the same thing United Nations resolutions say, the same thing now that President Carter's being vilified for and Bishop Tutu's being vilified for. And everybody wants to paint me as if I'm anti-Semitic because of what Louis Farrakhan said 20 years ago. He is one of the most important voices in the 20th and 21st century; that's what I think about him. . . . Louis Farrakhan is not my enemy. He did not put me in chains, he did not put me in slavery, and he didn't make me this color."
He denounced those who "can worship God on Sunday morning, wearing a black clergy robe, and kill others on Sunday evening, wearing a white Klan robe." He praised the communist Sandinista regime of Nicaragua. He renewed his belief that the government created AIDS as a means of genocide against people of color ("I believe our government is capable of doing anything").[/quote]
This is an outright attack on the stated beliefs and policies and values of Barack Obama in a secular setting.
I can well understand why Obama has not disowned the man who helped bring him to Christ. God knows I have had some spiritual mentors whose views I cannot accept in their entirety or some allies in the struggle for gay equality who are not my ideological confreres in many other ways. I have been in a movement where many others - most others - hold views very alien to my own. Obama is a decent human being, and cutting off someone who has nurtured and sustained his faith and been a father figure to him is not in his character. If I believed for one second that Obama shared any of this bile, I couldn’t begin to support him. But Wright’s cooptation of Obama for his own agenda - his assertion that Obama’s distancing from him is insincere - requires, in fact demands a response from Obama.
Obama needs not just to distance himself from Wright’s views; he needs to disown him at this point. Wright himself, it seems to me, has become part of what Obama is fighting against: the boomer, Vietnam era’s obsession with its red-blue, white-black, pro and anti-America fixations. That is not what this election needs to be about; and Wright’s massive, racially divisive and, yes, bitter provocation requires a proportionate response.
We need a speech or statement from Obama in which he utterly repudiates this poison, however personally difficult that may be, however damaging the impact will be. The statement today ( Obama On Wright - The Atlantic ) will not do it. This is no longer about cynics trying to associate one man’s politics with another. It is now about Wright attempting to associate himself and some of his noxious, stupid, rancid views with the likely Democratic nominee. Wright has given Obama no choice - and he has also given him another opportunity. He needs to seize it.[/i]