CM
It’s an interesting strategy to act as if the US is not a racist country.
I’m just wondering if you can name (1) country in the world that doesn’t have any racism.
I just heard a quote from Milhouse about why he wasn’t going to turn his back on Wright. He said something to the affect that Wright’s complexities (the good and the bad) embody all that’s right and wrong with America and if he gave up on him he’d be giving up on America. What a load of BS. Unfortunately for me, a guy who just wants the KKKlintons out of the picture, Milhouse just might be done. But then again we still have the true believers out there who will vote for no one else.
I think you’ve misunderstood me, like sl0re did.
I’m not saying the US is a racist country. I think it’s probably less racist than most.
What I mean is that Obama appears to be coming from a position where he probably does actually think it’s a racist country, but he’s going to run a narrative that it isn’t. As opposed to former black leaders who push that it is.
Gotcha. That clears it up for me. The biggest problem that I have with racism is that it’s perceived, and sold as, an issue that it and America are mutually exclusive. It’s actually a human condition that isn’t confined by political borders. But you can’t make buckets of money with that philosophy.
And heck, even if someone is family, if that person acts in a way you find particularly abhorrent, you can refuse to affiliate with them. If you don’t, then I’m sorry, but I’m going to have to question just exactly how seriously you take their offenses.
My mother says racist things. Our admin lady at work spat out something the other week. I’m not going to disown my mother or quit my job. I just steer the conversation onto something else. Or talk to someone else in the room.
Is your mother leading a congregation of a few thousand people when she says those things? Has she been saying those things in front of thousands of people for the past 20 years or so with the intent of calling people to action? You’re comparing apples to oranges. Christians, especially pastors, cannot live compartmentalized lives and maintain the gospel. I heard an alleged member of Wright’s church on a Chicago radio station this morning saying that when wright gets off the gospel he quits listening. That seems to say that it would be okay for Christian to go to David Duke’s church as long as he tunes out the racist/separatist things that are said.
I don’t want to associate with people who enjoy and choose to attend those kinds of services.
And heck, even if someone is family, if that person acts in a way you find particularly abhorrent, you can refuse to affiliate with them. If you don’t, then I’m sorry, but I’m going to have to question just exactly how seriously you take their offenses.
My mother says racist things. Our admin lady at work spat out something the other week. I’m not going to disown my mother or quit my job. I just steer the conversation onto something else. Or talk to someone else in the room.
Is your mother leading a congregation of a few thousand people when she says those things? Has she been saying those things in front of thousands of people for the past 20 years or so with the intent of calling people to action? You’re comparing apples to oranges. Christians, especially pastors, cannot live compartmentalized lives and maintain the gospel. I heard an alleged member of Wright’s church on a Chicago radio station this morning saying that when wright gets off the gospel he quits listening. That seems to say that it would be okay for Christian to go to David Duke’s church as long as he tunes out the racist/separatist things that are said.
I don’t want to associate with people who enjoy and choose to attend those kinds of services.
I have close relatives that have whacked political views and while I don’t disown them, I do keep them at arms length. I won’t be sending my children to spend time with them alone… et cetera…
If one were a preacher and lived nearby… I’d never join their church.. or let them baptise my children… et cetera…
You’re alluding to the Nazis?
GODWIN!
(sorry, I never get to say that)
;)
You still may not! That was Mussolini’s myth, not Hitler’s. :p
sl0re - 19 March 2008 12:50 PM
CM - 19 March 2008 03:42 AM
blahduck - 19 March 2008 12:09 AM
those trains certainly did run on time!
You’re alluding to the Nazis?
GODWIN!
(sorry, I never get to say that)
;)
Trains on time is Mussolini / the big F Fascists. Not Hitler / the National Socialists. ;)
I blame Prince Phillip for me getting that wrong…
Explaining the attraction of the Nazis, 84-year-old Prince Philip told an American academic: “There was a great improvement in things like trains running on time and building. There was a sense of hope after the depressing chaos of the Weimar Republic.
And heck, even if someone is family, if that person acts in a way you find particularly abhorrent, you can refuse to affiliate with them. If you don’t, then I’m sorry, but I’m going to have to question just exactly how seriously you take their offenses.
My mother says racist things. Our admin lady at work spat out something the other week. I’m not going to disown my mother or quit my job. I just steer the conversation onto something else. Or talk to someone else in the room.
Is your mother spouting them off in public forum? Reading them off of a teleprompter because the ideas have been thought out and written beforehand? Selling those speeches on dvd? Getting excited because 3000 people were murdered?
No I don’t believe my mother is. At least I hope she isn’t.
I was responding to duck’s comparison to a family member though.....
He got excited (which insinuates joy) about 9/11?? I hadn’t heard that…
crichton - 19 March 2008 10:32 AM
CM - 19 March 2008 03:44 AM
blahduck - 19 March 2008 12:09 AM
And heck, even if someone is family, if that person acts in a way you find particularly abhorrent, you can refuse to affiliate with them. If you don’t, then I’m sorry, but I’m going to have to question just exactly how seriously you take their offenses.
My mother says racist things. Our admin lady at work spat out something the other week. I’m not going to disown my mother or quit my job. I just steer the conversation onto something else. Or talk to someone else in the room.
Is your mother leading a congregation of a few thousand people when she says those things? Has she been saying those things in front of thousands of people for the past 20 years or so with the intent of calling people to action? You’re comparing apples to oranges. Christians, especially pastors, cannot live compartmentalized lives and maintain the gospel. I heard an alleged member of Wright’s church on a Chicago radio station this morning saying that when wright gets off the gospel he quits listening. That seems to say that it would be okay for Christian to go to David Duke’s church as long as he tunes out the racist/separatist things that are said.
I don’t want to associate with people who enjoy and choose to attend those kinds of services.
Mr. Wright’s church, the 8,000-member Trinity United Church of Christ, is considered mainstream — Oprah Winfrey has attended services, and many members are prominent black professionals. But the church is also more Afrocentric and politically active than standard black congregations.
And heck, even if someone is family, if that person acts in a way you find particularly abhorrent, you can refuse to affiliate with them. If you don’t, then I’m sorry, but I’m going to have to question just exactly how seriously you take their offenses.
My mother says racist things. Our admin lady at work spat out something the other week. I’m not going to disown my mother or quit my job. I just steer the conversation onto something else. Or talk to someone else in the room.
Is your mother leading a congregation of a few thousand people when she says those things? Has she been saying those things in front of thousands of people for the past 20 years or so with the intent of calling people to action? You’re comparing apples to oranges. Christians, especially pastors, cannot live compartmentalized lives and maintain the gospel. I heard an alleged member of Wright’s church on a Chicago radio station this morning saying that when wright gets off the gospel he quits listening. That seems to say that it would be okay for Christian to go to David Duke’s church as long as he tunes out the racist/separatist things that are said.
I don’t want to associate with people who enjoy and choose to attend those kinds of services.
I have close relatives that have whacked political views and while I don’t disown them, I do keep them at arms length. I won’t be sending my children to spend time with them alone… et cetera…
If one were a preacher and lived nearby… I’d never join their church.. or let them baptise my children… et cetera...
Is Obama a child though? Or a full grown man that can think for himself?
Comparing the situation to a child visiting a ‘whacked’ relative is suggesting that Obama might have been convinced by Wright on some of the ‘whacked’ things he’s said.
Here is a letter from Wright to the NYT last year.
http://skepticalbrotha.wordpress.com/2007/03/21/obamas-pastor-speaks-out/
Doesn’t seem too whacked out to me. Even then he was complaining about the ‘sound byte’ thing.
I’m not attempting a launch a defence of Wright here - the whole ‘US invented HIV to kill coloured people’ is WAY out there.
Personally, I’m not sure I’ve seen anything from Obama that suggests he shares those whacked out views. Which surely must be the most important thing.
I thought the speech he gave was impressive and set out his personal feelings and thoughts quite well.
Interestingly Jon Stewart concluded his assessment of the speech by saying something like “So at 11am on 18 March 2008, a politician talked to us about race....as.....if.....we.....were...adults”.
I’m not attempting a launch a defence of Wright here - the whole ‘US invented HIV to kill coloured people’ is WAY out there.
Why bring it up? Even a ‘wacked’ person is bound to sound rational some of the time. Especially if you have the benefit of putting it down on paper, re-reading, editing, having other people read, then sending it in to a news paper. What he says while ‘feeling the spirit’ is of more concern.
Is Obama a child though? Or a full grown man that can think for himself?
He is an adult with children.. who he takes to that church… and he had baptised by Wright.
Also, if I were single, I’d never go to such a church either… even if run by such a relative… I’d probably see said relatives even less truth be told (they want to see my daughter and they tend to make the rounds).
Soooo your point?
Mine is, he is an adult and he made what I think are bad decisions and I will judge him on them.
I thought the speech he gave was impressive and set out his personal feelings and thoughts quite well.
Interestingly Jon Stewart concluded his assessment of the speech by saying something like “So at 11am on 18 March 2008, a politician talked to us about race....as.....if.....we.....were...adults”.
Wow, I heard that we have problems because we don’t spend enough on his side’s wish list of programs and elect people… like Obama… a veiled threat really… hidden behind abracadabra words like unity and divisiveness (the new code for progress vs reaction).
Well personally I don’t really care about what he says while ‘feeling the spirit’. He isn’t the guy who’s standing. And I haven’t seen any evidence that Obama embraces any of the nutty ideas - he seems to believe the opposite. Unless you think Obama is fundamentally lying?
And actually some of the ideas just sound like what I’d expect from an angry black man of that age, who likes to rage on from a pulpit, and who has grown up with certain experiences.
The “why did Obama say he had never heard any of this stuff before?” is a reasonable question for sure.
But as for ‘why did he keep going to the church’ - I find that more understandable. Tha church was an integral part of his life. His connections to it are clearly deeply meaningful.
Do we have evidence that the Reverend spent a lot of time on the really nutty stuff? When I mean ‘really nutty stuff’ I don’t mean:
“Hillary ain’t never been called a ni**er. Hillary has never had a people defined as a non-person.”
“Barack knows what it means living in a country and a culture that is controlled by rich, white people. Hillary would never know that.”
I don’t see that those are nutty statements. They are kinda true.
Or are we hearing/seeing stuff that isn’t representative of the average church service?
Obama is being politically expedient whether lying or not. He even calls the man in his speech his ‘former pastor’ despite the fact that he’s currently tied to his campaign. The guy’s as slick as Bill Clinton before the definition of ‘is’ became an issue. I would cut Obama much more slack if he had confronted this issue last year before it was front page news. Even now he gives us a speech on racism in general instead of his own poor personal decision to listen to a racist for two decades.
He is an adult with children.. who he takes to that church… and he had baptised by Wright.
Also, if I were single, I’d never go to such a church either… even if run by such a relative… I’d probably see said relatives even less truth be told (they want to see my daughter and they tend to make the rounds).
Soooo your point?
Mine is, he is an adult and he made what I think are bad decisions and I will judge him on them.
Presumably he doesn’t just let the Reverend teach his children, but talks to them about issues himself. I’d also be interested to know what a normal service is like (i.e. how often nutty things are said - I wonder if it’s even remotely as often as is being suggested).
My point - I don’t see his continuing at that church to necessarily be a ‘bad decision’.
But then I’m not American, nor religious, nor a Conservative, so my thoughts about what is important is probably quite different.
And because I’m none of those things, I can’t really say what I would or wouldn’t do (in terms of continuing at a church or not).
Wow, I heard that we have problems because we don’t spend enough on his side’s wish list of programs and elect people… like Obama… a veiled threat really..
Who is making a ‘veiled threat’, and where do they outline the consequences (any ‘threat’ inherently involved an explanation of the consequences)?
Obama is being politically expedient whether lying or not. He even calls the man in his speech his ‘former pastor’ despite the fact that he’s currently tied to his campaign. The guy’s as slick as Bill Clinton before the definition of ‘is’ became an issue. I would cut Obama much more slack if he had confronted this issue last year before it was front page news. Even now he gives us a speech on racism in general instead of his own poor personal decision to listen to a racist for two decades.
The insinuation is that because Obama didn’t change churches (which as far I can see would have been a little different to doing something like changing jobs, given his deep links) he must therefore somehow condone some of the stuff that Wright has said.
I don’t see how that is necessarily true.
I presume he called him his ‘former pastor’ because Wright stopped being the pastor at that church last year (I believe). And although he was part of the campaign, did he play any meaningful part? Or was he just one of hundreds of paid people giving assistance in a variety of ways?
Obama is now able to be dismissed as much as Clinton, based on this? I must be missing something.......
Sounds like you indeed believe that every time he talks about race, he’s lying.
Sounds like you indeed believe that every time he talks about race, he’s lying.
That is not what I said, feel free to read it again.
I personally don’t have much of a problem with Obama’s reaction, it just is political expediency at it’s best.
Put my personal beef with the situation this way...The Media hammered Romney for things his religion did 30 years (racial stuff), and 100+ years (polygamy) ago. Obama has gotten a pass by the media for his pastors comments and beliefs for a year. Why?
Who is making a ‘veiled threat’, and where do they outline the consequences (any ‘threat’ inherently involved an explanation of the consequences)?
Through the demagoguery, he equates not supporting his views, program, and well.. him… as ignoring race as an issue. Doing so, of course, is part of the ‘root’ cause of the [racist] Wrights and their ‘real’ anger.
“I suppose the politically safe thing would be to move on from this episode and just hope that it fades into the woodwork,” “We can dismiss Reverend Wright as a crank or a demagogue. ... But race is an issue that I believe this nation cannot afford to ignore right now.”
Then he goes on to list his programs that would… you know, show we don’t ignore race.... and list the real [lefty approved / non divisive to bash] bad guys…
But, when your a member of an organisation or groups (church, US leftists, whatever) that apologizes for black violence and riots on one hand when because (they argue) the root cause is racism… then you give a speech like this… how should I take it?
Sounds like you indeed believe that every time he talks about race, he’s lying.
That is not what I said, feel free to read it again.
I personally don’t have much of a problem with Obama’s reaction, it just is political expediency at it’s best.
Put my personal beef with the situation this way...The Media hammered Romney for things his religion did 30 years (racial stuff), and 100+ years (polygamy) ago. Obama has gotten a pass by the media for his pastors comments and beliefs for a year. Why?
Ok, sorry if I misunderstood you.
Yeah I don’t see why Obama should be treated any different to Romney. Neither should be accountable for the words of others.
But I struggle to understand why either should be tainted by association.
What he said in that speech seemed (to me obviously) to go beyond political expediency (which is usually where you just say what you need to, to get you out of a difficult spot).
Who is making a ‘veiled threat’, and where do they outline the consequences (any ‘threat’ inherently involved an explanation of the consequences)?
Through the demagoguery, he equates not supporting his views, program, and well.. him… as ignoring race as an issue. Doing so, of course, is part of the ‘root’ cause of the [racist] Wrights and their ‘real’ anger.
“I suppose the politically safe thing would be to move on from this episode and just hope that it fades into the woodwork,” “We can dismiss Reverend Wright as a crank or a demagogue. ... But race is an issue that I believe this nation cannot afford to ignore right now.”
Then he goes on to list his programs that would… you know, show we don’t ignore race.... and list the real [lefty approved / non divisive to bash] bad guys...
Not supporting him = ignoring race as an issue? Maybe I’m not looking at it in the right way.
I wouldn’t view anyone preferring Hillary or McCain as making that choice because they want to ignore the issue of race. I don’t see how he’s saying that.
Wikipedia defines a ‘demagogy’ as “a political strategy for obtaining and gaining political power by appealing to the popular prejudices, emotions, fears and expectations of the public — typically via impassioned rhetoric and propaganda, and often using nationalist or populist themes”.
But isn’t he actually advocating that there are very real issues that should be discussed?
Who is making a ‘veiled threat’, and where do they outline the consequences (any ‘threat’ inherently involved an explanation of the consequences)?
Through the demagoguery, he equates not supporting his views, program, and well.. him… as ignoring race as an issue. Doing so, of course, is part of the ‘root’ cause of the [racist] Wrights and their ‘real’ anger.
“I suppose the politically safe thing would be to move on from this episode and just hope that it fades into the woodwork,” “We can dismiss Reverend Wright as a crank or a demagogue. ... But race is an issue that I believe this nation cannot afford to ignore right now.”
Then he goes on to list his programs that would… you know, show we don’t ignore race.... and list the real [lefty approved / non divisive to bash] bad guys…
But, when your a member of an organisation or groups (church, US leftists, whatever) that apologizes for black violence and riots on one hand when because (they argue) the root cause is racism… then you give a speech like this… how should I take it?
The Trinity Church apologises for violence and riots? (I’m not saying they don’t, I honestly don’t know, but I’d be interested in understanding).
When you say ‘you give a speech like this’ I presume you’re referring to your contention that he’s making veiled threats and being a demagogue (attempting to rise to power through appeals to the ethnic and nationalistic prejudices and vanities - from Wikipedia again).
I’m going to have to read the speech again and put on my most cynical hat (and have my lefty-code book alongside)........
Not supporting him = ignoring race as an issue? Maybe I’m not looking at it in the right way.
What is he saying then CM? Quote it. Give your take.
I’m telling you my take. He appeals to race by offering to give you an indulgence on the matter by voting for him. Failure to do so means your ignoring the issue… ignoring the issue leads to Wrights.... or worse.
The Trinity Church apologises for violence and riots?
If the stuff Wright claims were true (government created aids et cetera) then what do you think? Its the old liberal blank slate game. We can say all this stuff, associate with all these fringe people (sometimes even old 60s terrorists), make arguments like Obama is now… but don’t link us togeather. :) Thats really beyond the pale.
