Obama's Pastor

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
81

[quote]Professor X wrote:
GDollars37 wrote:

Good post. I think there’s a fair degree of blindness on this point among white people.

It’s the level of arrogance that gets me. It is like saying, “White America did this to you all but…that was years ago and no backsies. By the way, you are now all considered racist if you speak about white America in a negative light. Oh, and you know any social programs that are designed to get rid of institutionalized racism in the work place? We will call that racist too. Have a great life y’all and yaaaaay equality!!”[/quote]

This argument is starting to have less and less of an effect, and unfortunately for blacks, Hispanics are completely unaffected by it.

When you say white people, what do you mean? All whites in the US? Those below the Mason-Dixon line? Are all whites guilty because of the sins of some?

The only institutionalized racism we have today is affirmative action, which harms all parties concerned - both black and white - because blacks are perceived not to be where they are on merit and whites perceive they were denied an opportunity for checking “Caucasian” on an application.

82

[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
what President Bush is or isn’t is completely irrelevant to an assessment to Barack Obama. Bush might be the worst president ever, or the best president ever, and it has exactly…wait for it…zero to do with an independent analysis of Obama’s character and candidacy.
.[/quote]

And yet, what Barack Obama’s Pastor is or isn’t is critically relevant to an assessment of Barack Obama?

83

[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
Professor X wrote:

I’ve mentioned this before and you dodged it. Please explain how George Bush has an ideology that isn’t narrow but broad.

Please explain how George Bush doesn’t have an integrity problem.

Please explain the “substance” and “gravitas” President Bush has.

I want to know if you used the same criteria last time.

I have a distinct feeling his approach has more than likely gotten him closer to election than your advice would have.

Well, I didn’t dodge it - normally I skip reading your posts.

But a few threads back, in a discussion about Obama, you immediately reacted by asking similar questions about Bush, and I directly responded that you are presenting a “red herring” - what President Bush is or isn’t is completely irrelevant to an assessment to Barack Obama. Bush might be the worst president ever, or the best president ever, and it has exactly…wait for it…zero to do with an independent analysis of Obama’s character and candidacy.

Go read up on “red herring”:

http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/red-herring.html

As for whether I used “the same criteria” for Bush last time, you seem to be very, very confused - I am evaluating Obama’s candidacy compared to the growing body of facts that contradict his advertising. I am not “measuring” whether I would vote for him - I had the same concerns about GOP candidate Mitt Romney, who I thought had problems matching his candidacy to his claims of his politics, creating an integrity problem.

And more besides, outside of being a red herring, the comparison is a bad one - in the 2004 election, Bush was a known commodity. He had already won one election and presided over one of the greatest tragedies on American soil. In 2004, Bush had no surprises to offer - everyone knew what they were getting, and they either voted for it or against it. In 2004, love him or hate him, there was no disconnect between Bush’s “advertising” and his reality.

To sum up - no one is claiming Bush doesn’t have a narrow ideology, and Bush’s ideology isn’t relevant to the issue I raised.[/quote]

Let me make the point clearer. You wrote, “I am evaluating Obama’s candidacy compared to the growing body of facts that contradict his advertising.” You already aren’t voting for him so why the discussion? Do you actually believe everyone else’s “advertising”? Did you believe Bush’s?

This is politics. They lie and always have. All of them…even whoever you plan on voting for whether you want to believe it or not.

That makes many of these discussions completely pointless when they are threads started by people who have already made a decision against and the majority of the posters within that thread are simply repeating the sentiment.

How many more threads will there be by people who have already decided against voting for him? What is the goal here? Patting yourselves on the back for your personally perceived political proficiency?

84

[quote]PRCalDude wrote:
Professor X wrote:
GDollars37 wrote:

Good post. I think there’s a fair degree of blindness on this point among white people.

It’s the level of arrogance that gets me. It is like saying, “White America did this to you all but…that was years ago and no backsies. By the way, you are now all considered racist if you speak about white America in a negative light. Oh, and you know any social programs that are designed to get rid of institutionalized racism in the work place? We will call that racist too. Have a great life y’all and yaaaaay equality!!”

This argument is starting to have less and less of an effect, and unfortunately for blacks, Hispanics are completely unaffected by it.

When you say white people, what do you mean? All whites in the US? Those below the Mason-Dixon line? Are all whites guilty because of the sins of some?

The only institutionalized racism we have today is affirmative action, which harms all parties concerned - both black and white - because blacks are perceived not to be where they are on merit and whites perceive they were denied an opportunity for checking “Caucasian” on an application. [/quote]

I didn’t write “white people”, I wrote “White America”. If that needs explanation, it implies the country as a whole considering whites are and were the majority. Are you saying something else is to blame for what lead to the Civil Rights movement and even the many years afterwards while society slowly changed?

85

That Parsley thing is such a crock. According to the campaign, McCain met Parsley for the first time three weeks ago, when the pastor served as an introductory speaker at a February 26 rally in Cincinnati. No one is disputing this to my knowledge.

In the course of his introductory remarks at the rally, McCain praised most of the leaders in attendance, saying of Parsley: “I am very honored today to have one of the truly great leaders in America, a moral compass, a spiritual guide - thank you for your leadership and your guidance. I am very grateful you are here.” (Coincidence note: This was the same event at which the Bill Cunningham remarks occurred.)

So a bunch of blogs and magazines are citing the “spiritual guide” line to make the case that Parsley is an important influence for the Arizona Senator. Are you kidding me?

Some international publications are also picking up on the endorsement; a headline in the Tehran Times this morning screams, “McCain advisor: Destroy Islam.”

Rev. Wright married Obama, baptized his children and has served as his spiritual adviser for 20 years, received Obama’s endorsements and money, and had Obama take the title of his book from one of his speeches - whereas McCain received Parsley’s endorsement at one event and has never attended his service or sought his counsel on a single thing. Yeah, those are comparable.

ADDENDUM:

McCain with Hagee and Parsley is more like Obama with Farrakhan - the former were endorsed by the latter.

With Obama and Wright, Obama chose him, and stayed with him for over two decades. I find it difficult to believe that Obama didn’t know about Wright’s views, even if it turns out to be true he wasn’t front-and-center for the sermons. If I had to guess when he found out about how ridiculously off-the-wall Wright’s rhetoric was on the record, it would be when Wright was disinvited from Obama’s debut of his Presidential campaign - which also means I am incredulous about Obama’s recent claims that he only found out about Wright’s views in the last couple weeks.

86

[quote]Professor X wrote:
PRCalDude wrote:
Professor X wrote:
GDollars37 wrote:

Good post. I think there’s a fair degree of blindness on this point among white people.

It’s the level of arrogance that gets me. It is like saying, “White America did this to you all but…that was years ago and no backsies. By the way, you are now all considered racist if you speak about white America in a negative light. Oh, and you know any social programs that are designed to get rid of institutionalized racism in the work place? We will call that racist too. Have a great life y’all and yaaaaay equality!!”

This argument is starting to have less and less of an effect, and unfortunately for blacks, Hispanics are completely unaffected by it.

When you say white people, what do you mean? All whites in the US? Those below the Mason-Dixon line? Are all whites guilty because of the sins of some?

The only institutionalized racism we have today is affirmative action, which harms all parties concerned - both black and white - because blacks are perceived not to be where they are on merit and whites perceive they were denied an opportunity for checking “Caucasian” on an application.

I didn’t write “white people”, I wrote “White America”. If that needs explanation, it implies the country as a whole considering whites are and were the majority. Are you saying something else is to blame for what lead to the Civil Rights movement and even the many years afterwards while society slowly changed?[/quote]

As far as I know, the KKK and Jim Crow were Southern phenomena, and the abolitionist movement itself began in puritan New England, even though white southerners and northerners both fall into the category of “white America.”

America isn’t governed by a majority. It’s governed as a federalist republic, which allows for regional differences in said government, though those have been on the wane as we have moved more toward tyranny.

87

[quote]PRCalDude wrote:
Professor X wrote:
PRCalDude wrote:
Professor X wrote:
GDollars37 wrote:

Good post. I think there’s a fair degree of blindness on this point among white people.

It’s the level of arrogance that gets me. It is like saying, “White America did this to you all but…that was years ago and no backsies. By the way, you are now all considered racist if you speak about white America in a negative light. Oh, and you know any social programs that are designed to get rid of institutionalized racism in the work place? We will call that racist too. Have a great life y’all and yaaaaay equality!!”

This argument is starting to have less and less of an effect, and unfortunately for blacks, Hispanics are completely unaffected by it.

When you say white people, what do you mean? All whites in the US? Those below the Mason-Dixon line? Are all whites guilty because of the sins of some?

The only institutionalized racism we have today is affirmative action, which harms all parties concerned - both black and white - because blacks are perceived not to be where they are on merit and whites perceive they were denied an opportunity for checking “Caucasian” on an application.

I didn’t write “white people”, I wrote “White America”. If that needs explanation, it implies the country as a whole considering whites are and were the majority. Are you saying something else is to blame for what lead to the Civil Rights movement and even the many years afterwards while society slowly changed?

As far as I know, the KKK and Jim Crow were Southern phenomena, and the abolitionist movement itself began in puritan New England, even though white southerners and northerners both fall into the category of “white America.”

America isn’t governed by a majority. It’s governed as a federalist republic, which allows for regional differences in said government, though those have been on the wane as we have moved more toward tyranny.
[/quote]

So, you actually believe that a black man in 1972 who lived “up north” (or anywhere else in this country)in majority had the exact same chance of getting a job as an equally qualified white man?

88

The only way to stop racism is for every black male to only have sex with white females, and every white male to only have sex with black females. Then once we are all a brownish color we can join Al-Qaeda and kill the jews.

89

[quote]BostonBarrister wrote:
Rev. Wright married Obama, baptized his children and has served as his spiritual adviser for 20 years, received Obama’s endorsements and money, and had Obama take the title of his book from one of his speeches - whereas McCain received Parsley’s endorsement at one event and has never attended his service or sought his counsel on a single thing. Yeah, those are comparable. [/quote]

You’re right. They are not anywhere near comparable. Parsley’s position is many times more bigoted and dangerous than that of Obama’s pastor. You’d have to twist the words of the latter to make him seem bad. Parsley, well, you just need to look through his writings.

90

I read what his pastor wrote, it was provocative but hardly anti-American, he is criticizing the nation for its failings. Everything he said is not some made up Farrakhan rant, or some Scientology crazy talk, simply a larger non-media polluted view point of the world.

I’m not saying I agree with it, but the demonization that has occured from it, is hardly fair.

91

I think it’s safe to say Wright was more to Obama than just a pastor - adviser sounds more like it:

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/custom/religion/profiles/chi-070121-relig_wright,0,5184608.story?page=1&coll=chi_news_custom_religion_promo

92

[quote]
BostonBarrister wrote:
Rev. Wright married Obama, baptized his children and has served as his spiritual adviser for 20 years, received Obama’s endorsements and money, and had Obama take the title of his book from one of his speeches - whereas McCain received Parsley’s endorsement at one event and has never attended his service or sought his counsel on a single thing. Yeah, those are comparable.

lixy wrote:
You’re right. They are not anywhere near comparable. Parsley’s position is many times more bigoted and dangerous than that of Obama’s pastor. You’d have to twist the words of the latter to make him seem bad. Parsley, well, you just need to look through his writings.[/quote]

I’m not trying to compare the two - Farrakhan would be a more apt comparison with Parsley.

But given your views, I can understand why you think you’d need to twist Wright’s words to make him sound bad. For most U.S. voters, his words sound bad enough on their own.

93

Doesn’t Oprah go to Obama’s church?

I wonder why she’s not taking any major flack…

94

[quote]Beowolf wrote:
Doesn’t Oprah go to Obama’s church?

I wonder why she’s not taking any major flack…[/quote]

She does. But she’s not running for anything.

95

[quote]BostonBarrister wrote:
Beowolf wrote:
Doesn’t Oprah go to Obama’s church?

I wonder why she’s not taking any major flack…

She does. But she’s not running for anything.[/quote]

Then let me ask, do you think Oprah’s judgment is now flawed because of going to a certain church?

I heard women shouldn’t be pastors in one church I went to. Obviously I don’t agree with this. That didn’t cause me to boycott the church. That would be because I went to church for deeper reasons than a particular pastor’s own personal philosophy.

96

Come on ProX you know associations are very important. Would you think less of me if I told you I go to KKK meetings but just for the punch and cookies?

97

[quote]Professor X wrote:
Then let me ask, do you think Oprah’s judgment is now flawed because of going to a certain church?[/quote]

I have never cared $0.02 for Oprah’s judgment before - my opinion might have gone down slightly, but it’s like going from dwarf to midget - it doesn’t make a lot of difference overall. She gets the same level of respect from me that Madonna does.

[quote]Professor X wrote:
I heard women shouldn’t be pastors in one church I went to. Obviously I don’t agree with this. That didn’t cause me to boycott the church. That would be because I went to church for deeper reasons than a particular pastor’s own personal philosophy.[/quote]

For me, it would probably depend on whether it was the head pastor expressing views I found repugnant, and how long I’d been a member of the church in question.

If I were invested because I were a long-term member, and I thought the congregation agreed that the opinions expressed were inappropriate I would probably try to work from within the congregation to get the pastor to understand and agree to stick to scriptural messages and leave his opinions for coffee hour. If I were unsuccessful, I’d leave.

If I were in the process of looking for a church, or a relatively recent member, I would just leave.

BTW, I know quite a few people who have left churches because of their positions on gay rights - for or against. I don’t consider this stuff less important.

As to the reasons one goes to church, my reasons could be satisfied by multiple churches within a short drive from my house - I don’t need to stick around for a pastor’s repugnant political views.

98

[quote]dk44 wrote:
Come on ProX you know associations are very important. Would you think less of me if I told you I go to KKK meetings but just for the punch and cookies?[/quote]

The Rev wrote:

[quote]
“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,” he said in a 2003 sermon. “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.”[/quote]

This sounds like the KKK to you? It sounds like someone who is pissed at society. Are you saying he shouldn’t feel this way?

I haven’t read everything from the man and don’t even want to, but I seem to be missing “kill the niggers” in reverse.

99

[quote]BostonBarrister wrote:
Beowolf wrote:
Doesn’t Oprah go to Obama’s church?

I wonder why she’s not taking any major flack…

She does. But she’s not running for anything.[/quote]

But she is RUNNING something (half the fucking countries opinions). You’d think some media outlet would pick this up and run with it…

100

Mud slinging from the Hillary camp, and I think you all falling for it. The Clinton’s are experts at this.