More gems from Rev. Wright

<p>It matters because the presidency is indeed a very important position. But that position is leadership. Without the proper leadership the congress doesn’t do their job effectively. (Problem with the last 16 years). This leadership also impacts international affairs, trade, treaties, etc… This leadership also inspires and motivates the citizens. The president sets the tone for the attitude of the people. Towards each other, towards government, towards the future.</p>

<p>You’ve never heard me say that the presidency isn’t an important job. You’ve heard me say countless times that his/her most important job is leadership. That leadership is indeed what determines our success and direction. I have said that numerous times. I know you hate the last 8 years so much that it’s an easy place to direct blame. That is understandable. But there’s a big difference between what I’ve said and what you are trying to imply.</p>

<p>IMO; if Obama becomes president, I don’t see the leadership in him necessary for a positive future. He gives a good speech, but that isn’t leading. If he can’t back those speeches up with leadership to get the congress to work towards energy independence, peace overseas, country feeling safe and secure, economic confidence; (Not growth, but the confidence to ALLOW and INSPIRE growth). Without this leadership he is ineffective. That is the problem I have with Obama. Both Clinton and Bush had some excellent moments of leadership. They both have also had some terrible stretches of leadership. We are at a crossroad now where advancement in energy is needed. The technology is there. That will lead us into better peace and security. it will inspire the economy. But as long as we stay with a leadership that promotes trying to make the existing energy more efficient instead of promoting a replacement, nothing will change. Ethanol and pushing cars to get 30mpg is not the answer. That keeps the middle east countries as a necessary evil.</p>

<p>The presidency is all about leadership. It isn’t about making laws and policy. It isn’t about the economy. It isn’t about wars. The presidency affects each of these areas, but doesn’t directly create or control them.</p>

<p>Again I just say wow… </p>

<p>You’re creating a double standard. Would that exist if everybody was white?</p>

<p>“All I’m asking is that you don’t argue and say I am wrong because he hasn’t explained those things to a satisfactorily level for me yet”</p>

<p>and I doubt he ever will.</p>

<p>

</p>

<p>Wow, that was …well…that remark was incredible!</p>

<p>Just so you know, he has not given me satisfactory answers yet either. He could easily give me the answer and put it to rest, but when someone comes out in their own defense and say, “well I was going to leave, but decided to stay because Wright announced his retirement”, actually made me re-consider Obama even more. You can’t write about this man in 2 of your books, and now say well, he’s the crazy uncle, or I wasn’t there. Because if you felt the rhetoric was wrong, than you had to know about it. That is a double standard. You state that, by saying I had intended to leave the church, which means you knew it! He also knew about by dis-inviting the rev. to his campaign announcement. His handlers openly admitted that they discussed that the Rev. might be a problem. If his handlers knew, and Obama agreed, than it falls back to the question why did you stay in the church, get married, baptize your children, quote his sermons in your books, and title one after his sermon? </p>

<p>I have read over and over again, it is the parish as the reason he stayed. i am sorry, I would not ever stay in a parish where I am hearing that. Let’s be real Oprah left that church many years ago…don’t you think she did becuse of the rev?</p>

<p>I think Obama supporters aren’t getting that as the leader of the free world, we are questioning how he personally stayed in those pews, and more importantly considered him his spiritual guide.</p>

<p>It is not at all about a black church vs. a white church. It is about the character of a man who continues to say 1 thing, but his actions prove another. You can’t say well, i wasn’t there, but yet your handlers knew about the situation. Were your handlers in the pews for 20 yrs? ** You can’t say** I am a christian to denounce the thought your middle name is muslim, and this church put me on the right road, but yet, I never heard any of these comments or that I don’t think my church is any different than other churches…because it OBVIOUSLY is. We are in week 3 of this for the news cycle, it has traction because he has not given an answer to satisfy the public.</p>

<p>You can say that I too will never get it…this may be true, but what I do get, is I question him, every time he comes out with a new excuse, they seem to contradict the previous comment.</p>

<p>I suspect after the politico.com article today, that this subject is going to die…and he will have a lot more to answer.</p>

<p>Obama supporters need to understand, it is that he has done the typical presidential candidate thing…double speak. Since his record on the national level is very little, he is getting hit in a different way.</p>

<p>For all of you who say I made my decision because of Wright you are wrong. I made my decision based on these facts:</p>

<ol>
<li><p>Stated that he would not run for Pres. in 08, when he was elected to Sen., yet 1 yr later his hat was in the ring. Hillary made the same promise in 02 about 04, she at least kept that one.</p></li>
<li><p>His senate record proves he is the most liberal senator, sorry I want someone more mainstream</p></li>
<li><p>His state record proves he voted present instead of voting yea or nay. That is playing the game too much for me. If I vote for you to represent me, than do it, you should be standing up for what you promised to stand up for, instead of worrying that the media will get your record and nail you for it.</p></li>
<li><p>The character of a man is decided by who he associates with. Tony Rezco, and I really didn’t know him, he was just a client statement, but only have to come back and say, well yes, his wife bought property attached to my million dollar home and then sold it below market value so I could have my easement, shows he played a game and hoped he wouldn’t get caught.</p></li>
<li><p>The newest one that shows his handwriting on a questionnaire, but his handlers stated he didn’t read the whole thing, is way too much for me. So, are you saying I read a few lines and made my decision? Now isn’t that what everyone is criticizing Bush about</p></li>
</ol>

<p>Then does this mean you aren’t going to vote at all? :wink: </p>

<p>Or are you folks going to vote mccain and are just fishing :wink: </p>

<p>What you folks have described is basically every politician out there, so you either aren’t going to vote to stay true to your statements or you’re going to vote, just not for him. All of them have faults, every stinking one of them. So if you’re going to get uptight over one, get uptight over them all.</p>

<p>It appears BO has as much trouble with the truth as Hillary has had.</p>

<p>[Obama</a> had greater role on liberal survey - Kenneth P. Vogel - Politico.com](<a href=“http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0308/9269.html]Obama”>Obama had greater role on liberal survey - POLITICO)</p>

<p>Christcorp - you seem to have an affinity for creating and projecting a negative motivation for what other people think, to assist you in dismissing their opinions:

And you prefer to use your own projection about what other people think over what they have plainly stated themselves: <a href=“Please%20everyone,%20don’t%20tell%20me%20to%20read%20his%20books.%20That’s%20lame.”>quote</a>

[/quote]
So I have to assume this will fall on deaf ears. But here goes anyway: I don’t feel any guilt about race relations in this country. None at all. However, I think that anyone who insists that black people should perceive racial issues the same way white people do - or else the black people are being unreasonable and “racist”, is simply imperceptive, either from sheer cluelessness or lack of desire to perceive. </p>

<p>The things people say and believe are inevitably intertwined with the context in which they have lived. And that context is different for people of different races. Touting your own moral superiority due to having descended from recent immigrants is entirely irrelevant, because there is in fact no current significance to which European nation your ancestors came from. There is, however, a current significance to the color of one’s skin. You don’t have to be black to understand how Rev. Wright might come to say the things he has said. You do, however, have to be able to distinguish other people from yourself. Obama’s comments regarding Rev. Wright strike me as entirely reasonable and even admirable, combining a rejection of the divisive things Wright has said without rejecting the man who has said them. I know that will never be good enough for you. Nothing ever will or could be good enough for you.</p>

<p>Obama doesn’t have to explain anything to you: any “explanation” will fall on deaf ears, either due to sheer cluelessness or a lack of desire to hear. Do you have any idea how condescending your posts on this subject have been?</p>

<p>“Obama doesn’t have to explain anything to you: any “explanation” will fall on deaf ears, either due to sheer cluelessness or a lack of desire to hear. Do you have any idea how condescending your posts on this subject have been?”</p>

<p>I’m sorry kluge but you owe me a new “irony detection meter” - you just blew mine out with this couplet.</p>

<p>^Maybe yours was broken, i didn’t detect any :]</p>

<p>Fundingfather, you know I respect you, even though I disagree with almost (?) all of your political/social views. But please note: Christcorp devoted more than one long post to expound on how, in his opinion, black people should respond to their situation in life, how Obama should respond to an angry, elderly black man’s comments , etc. Like it or not, I will point out when a person has coupled arrogance, condescension, and a complete lack of recognition of the realistic world view of people from a very different background when I see it.</p>

<p>Call it “condescension” if you like. “Reality” is the word I’d use.</p>

<p>I call it, “smug self-righteousness”, Kluge. But “condescension” is its Simese twin, isn’t it?—and it’s been my observation that condescension is often born of a long ingrained (though, perhaps unconscious) sense of inherent personal and moral superiority.</p>

<p>Don’t you think we could spend our time more wisely if we agree to disagree, and then set off to actually change the world.</p>

<p>We are now over 100 posts, I think that this states without a doubt that this nation needs to address our issues on race and religion. We do have laws that have addressed it, Civil Right Acts (that have been updated as late as the 90’s (ADA) we also have affirmative action.</p>

<p>Unfortunately, people say if you’re not for Obama, than you are ignorant or a racist. I consider mysel neither, and I actually think having an open conversation about Affirmative Action, and Civil Rights, would be better than hearing empty promises that a candidate cannot fill due to the constraints of Congress</p>

<p>In the interest of keeping this conversation going, I’ll post below Pat Buchanan’s comments on the situation. In my mind this is just about the equivalent of Rev. Wright’s sermon - they aren’t <em>quite</em> as inflammatory as Wright’s, but they do represent the extreme contrary view. (BTW - I don’t thik this was delivered from the pulpit}.</p>

<p>Now don’t go flaming on me, as I didn’t write the commentary. I’m just posting this because it presents a certain viewpoint & I’m interested to read y’all’s comments. What’s your take on this? </p>

<p>

</p>

<p>This speech was delivered by Pat Buchanan? Why I am shocked—just shocked!:rolleyes:</p>

<p>What I see by this article, is that Pat Buchanan is no lees plagued by selective memory, and skewing of facts than the notorious Pastor Wright. Example: Buchanan says in the above article (speech?)</p>

<p>

</p>

<p>Here are Obama’s actual words:

[quote]
In the white community, the path to a more perfect union means acknowledging that what ails the African-American community does not just exist in the minds of black people; that the legacy of discrimination - and current incidents of discrimination, while less overt than in the past - are real and must be addressed. Not just with words, but with deeds - by investing in our schools and our communities; by enforcing our civil rights laws and ensuring fairness in our criminal justice system; by providing this generation with ladders of opportunity that were unavailable for previous generations. It requires all Americans to realize that your dreams do not have to come at the expense of my dreams; that investing in the health, welfare, and education of black and brown and white children will ultimately help all of America prosper.<a href=“All%20bold%20emphasis,%20mine”>/quote</a></p>

<p>But that’s not all that Obama said. He also said:</p>

<p>

</p>

<p>And</p>

<p>

</p>

<p>And</p>

<p>

</p>

<p>No discussion of Mr. Buchanan’s response to Senator Obama’s speech is constructive (or instructive) without engaging in an objective comparison of his stated grievances, to the words Obama actually spoke. I highly exhort anyone who wishes to honestly discuss this issue to read both, Pat Buchanan’s words (as posted by bz2010 above), and the Transcript of Barack Obama’s March 18th televised speech. Let’s talk about what’s truthful in both speeches. Let’s discuss whose speech was most willing to acknowledge the concerns of all parties on both sides of the issue. Let’s examine this with respect and an attempt at nuanced thought and analysis. </p>

<p>Am I asking for too much here? I hope not.</p>

<p>Pat Buchanan isn’t even relevant.</p>

<p>^^^That speech (Pat Buchanan)</p>

<p>…I didn’t know people still believed in manifest destiny anymore. The idea that black people need to “show white people gratitude” is in its self racism.</p>

<p>I absolutely disagree that that speech was constructive in anyway.</p>

<p>Thank God he’s irrelevant. He’s a hack. At this point, his racist, far-right diatribes aren’t even considered commentary. He distorts words and paraphrases to purposely present quotes out of context to mold an argument out of thin air. He either can’t hear properly or didn’t actually watch Obama’s speech. </p>

<p>The idea that blacks should be “thankful” for slavery is, indeed, racist. And the belief that current black-white crime is hire than the white-black crime from decades ago is ludicrous. It’s a well-known fact that the far majority of white-black crime wasn’t reported properly or reported at all. His numbers are based on false data. </p>

<p>Back in the day, you could rape your black secretary or nanny as often as you liked without fear of the law. You could lynch her husband too.</p>

<p>Is anybody really “sure” that was Pat? </p>

<p>I mean did anybody look under his hood and sheet?</p>

<p>I tried backing off for a couple of days to allow the “tone” of the thread to possibly evolve. It hasn’t really, and that’s OK. And if some of you think my posts are smug self-righteousness or condescension, then so be it. The premise of my post has never been to say how black SHOULD respond to situations in life. Only that they, just as any other race, gender, sexual preference, etc… have control over their own lives and destiny. If they want to harp on injustices of the past, then that’s their problem. Those who have read my posts and not put into it their implied meanings, also know that I have mentioned that by all means fighting racism, injustices, etc… that happens to them today. Harping on what happened generations ago however is not productive.</p>

<p>I do agree with Obama when he states that injustices aren’t just in the minds of blacks, but are real and must be addressed. I am all for that. However; when he says; “Not just with words, but with deeds - by investing in our schools and our communities; by enforcing our civil rights laws and ensuring fairness in our criminal justice system; by providing this generation with ladders of opportunity that were unavailable for previous generations.” There is an implication based on the context of the entire speech that this is something that is supposed to be done primarily by the “white” community. Sorry, but I don’t agree. I don’t owe anyone anything. If I’m going to contribute, donate, etc… to a cause that is aimed at helping; which I do do; It will be to help all and not a particular group of people. When I donate to “Feed the children” it’s not just for white children or black children. It’s for all poor children. If I or my tax dollars is invested in schools and communities, I don’t want it to be for a black school or white school or said community. I want it to be for a community that is in need of a “helping” hand. And sorry, but this generation of Americans; ALL RACES; have plenty ladders of opportunity that weren’t available to previous generations.</p>

<p>Sorry, but you can consider my posts arrogant, condescending, smug, pompous, conceited, or any other adjective you want. That doesn’t matter to me. What matters to me are my principles. I believe that succeeding in life starts from within. Within the individual, the family, and within the community. If racism or discrimination is standing in the way of a person, then by all means that needs to be addressed and fought. However, there isn’t one person being held back by the discriminations and racism of the past generations. The only discrimination is occurring in the present. let’s address them. That I can support and fight for. I don’t owe anyone anything because of the past. Black schools and communities aren’t the only ones that are under privileged. Black men and women aren’t the only ones being discriminated against. Black men and women aren’t the only ones who’s dreams are being held back. This is what I will fight for. This is the “TONE” I want to hear from Obama.</p>

<p>Then again, this is one of the major differences between the conservatives and the liberals. Liberals believe that the government is suppose to pay for all these things. Democrats tend to donate more to their political candidates. However, republicans tend to donate more to charities than democrats do. I don’t believe it is the government’s job to GIVE the people anything material. It is their job to ensure that the people are GIVEN the opportunity to succeed.</p>

<p>

</p>

<p>Strange, but I felt that the “context of the entire speech” was one of finding common ground, and addressing honestly the concerns of all Americans. Yes, he specifically outlined some of the concerns of the African American community as it related to the controversy at hand. Had he not addressed the issue of Pastor Wright’s statements, and his views about them, had he ignored the very real and thorny issue of race relations in this country, and the ways in which perspective has historically differed, you would have criticized him for skirting the problems. Honestly, what could Obama have said that would have placated you? You very selectively omit any part of the speech that acknowledges that the racial conflicts we face do not just stem from one thing, but rather a complex amalgam of things that we must address collectively as a nation.</p>

<p>I said this in another thread, and I still believe it to be true:

</p>

<p>You weren’t ever going to vote for Obama anyway, Christcorp, so satisfying you, or LaxAttack, or Razorsharp, or bz2010, or Pat Buchanan, would be the most foolish exercise in futility Obama could ever embark upon. Why I’m even bothering to engage you in this conversation is a question that I really should ask myself in all seriousness.</p>

<p>Poet; why must you assume everything. If you and Kluge would read and understand what people wrote instead of what you prejudge us to secretly mean, you wouldn’t ask such a question. Your response is no different than if we were having a discussion about abortion; and when you don’t like other people’s opinion, you respond with; “Well you’re a man and couldn’t get pregnant anyway; so satisfying your questions would be the most foolish exercise in futility anyone could ever embark upon”.</p>

<p>The truth is; I’ve tried a number of times, as have many others, to state an opinion and then clarify it when you, Kluge, and others have questioned it. If I say the responsibility of success lies with the individual, in this case the black community, and this is what Obama should be emphasizing, then you think I’m racist. If I say that I and others have been able to exercise the “Rags to Riches” dream, and that there’s no reason anyone else can’t; then you claim that I am being smug and self righteous. If I say that these are the things I want to hear from Obama, and that these are the things I believe he should be promoting within his church, black community, and in response to Wright’s opinions; then you say that I wasn’t going to vote for Obama anyway, so why not just forget it.</p>

<p>It appears to me that the real truth is you like Obama. Nothing he says or does is wrong in your opinion. Anything he says, or doesn’t say, can be rationalized as progressive even if some people don’t agree or understand his position. If you want to just come out and say what Wright said is fine and that Obama’s position with that is also fine, and that you are totally happy with them, then just say it. That is your opinion and I can totally respect such an opinion. I don’t have to agree with your opinion to respect it. Obviously you have to agree with what someone else says in order to respect that. That’s fine; that’s your thing. But to say that what I, Lax, Razor, bz, or anyone else has to say doesn’t matter because “we weren’t ever going to vote for Obama anyway”, doesn’t even respect our right to even have an opinion. Now, arguing against that attitude is definitely a foolish exercise in futility.</p>