Obama's true color and Rev. Wright

Yep, don't study jack; too outlandish; cannot be done; no one's that evil; they couldn't keep it secret; fill in the blank.

Yes, there is plenty of racism at the highest levels of gov't. The problem with many is that they assume every white person hates every person of color. Newsflash: the elite don't give a damn about you either.

Enjoy.
 
There is a plethora of evidence suggesting AIDS - not HIV - is a recombinant DNA bioweapon.

There is a plethora of evidence showing that folks who believe that are wackos.:barf:

WildiseeweareaconspiracyboardnowAlaska TM
 
Here's the problem that Obama didn't address; he can say pretty much anything about race and get away with it, McCain and Clinton are walking through a mine field when they attempt to talk about race. And he's a very smart guy, I'm guessing that he was counting on that double standard to wash away this mess for him. The fact that it didn't represents progress.

That having been said it wasn't a bad speech, and although I'll never vote for Obama I do think that he's a good candidate and that his success represents a milestone in American race relations.
 
Let's keep with your original subject.

Ok, let's do that.

It's the message from the pulpit that is important. And in this case it is a message of hate toward whites and America. You want us to get lost in doing research. I will save you the trouble. All kinds of bad things have happened that we can debate. In the late 40's the Army put a bunch of white GI's in ditches close to A bomb tests to see the effects. In the late 50's, when I was in the Army, they used LSD on some white GI's to understand the effects. In the 1800's the US Cavalry massacred thousands of Indians at Wounded Knee. And yes, all kinds of injustices have been committed against blacks due to discrimination. Nothing wrong with having a discussion on these historical issues, but a one way hate message from the pulpit is not the way. Is there any doubt that Wright's overall message is hatred against the USA and Whites? He wants his parishioners to walk out of church and remember 1863 every time they see a white person.

I have found it only takes a little effort to understand if the church I am attending is presenting what I think is an appropriate message, and it doesn't' take 20 yrs. to make that determination.
 
Mainah said:
Here's the problem that Obama didn't address; he can say pretty much anything about race and get away with it, McCain and Clinton are walking through a mine field when they attempt to talk about race. And he's a very smart guy, I'm guessing that he was counting on that double standard to wash away this mess for him. The fact that it didn't represents progress.

I think that about hit Obama's blunder on the head. The black community was just told in a national election that discrimination is wrong in both directions. As long as I can remember it was fine for someone to be racist as long as they were black and the target white. That was just considered acceptable. People have finally realized racism is racism no matter which direction it goes. That is a good thing.

I'm sorry Rev. Wright grew up in a time when racism was far more tolerated and even practiced by gov't. Unlike the message of hope that Dr. King brought Wright instead chooses to focus purely on the past. He ignores all the advancements made to date. He ignores the way the white community does turn on their own when racism is seen. Everything is seen through the White = Evil / Black = Good filter. Obama obviously saw no problem with such a belief on the part of a black man in 1988 - 2008 America. While he states he disagrees with the views, which I am not certain I believe, he makes excuses for the behavior because of "the oppresion of the black man".

Mind you, he saw no reason to make excuses for his white grandmother when he threw her under a bus. Hers was simply a case of racism. No mitigating factors there like the rate of criminal behavior among black men and her possible fear of confronting them as a lone white woman. He made plenty of excuses for Wright, none for his grandmother.

Why should he loko to excuse here, she was white.
 
What context could these possibly sound acceptable in?

The Rev. Wright is recorded saying:
The first is a wild eyed conspiracy theory, the last is quite over the top and ignoring the strides this country has made but many of his other statements have validity.

This country did nuke two civilian cities. Justified in our eyes, sure, but 9/11 was still a fraction of those death tolls.

This country was founded partly on racism. Both the Declaration and Constitution are somewhat hypocritical. While there isn't nearly as much obvious racism today as there was during Wright's childhood you have to recognize that this man grew up in a time where he wasn't allowed to go to white schools. His parents were from a time even more heinous and his grandparents suffered one of the world social injustices in the history of the world.

It still doesn't excuse his anti-American tirades nor his conspiracy theories nor the way he delivered them but taken in context it's not a stretch to see how this man's views on the world have been distorted by something very, very real and painful.
 
While there isn't nearly as much obvious racism today as there was during Wright's childhood you have to recognize that this man grew up in a time where he wasn't allowed to go to white schools. His parents were from a time even more heinous and his grandparents suffered one of the world social injustices in the history of the world.

Yet he only focuses on the past. He does not see what has changed. He will not accept that the end of slavery came about from the bloodiest conflict in our nations history fought overwhelmingly by white soldiers. (I know there were black soldiers but they were a very very small percentage, and yes for racist reasons).

This nation was not founded on racism. This nation was founded on the principal of equality for all men. Sadly, had slavery been a forced issue at the time the whole experiment would have been a failure. The FF's though were realists and they left the mechanism to bring about the change many of them dreamed of. Wright chooses to vilify those men for being realists when they set up a gov't which led to more opportunity for his people (and all Americans) than anywhere else in the world.

I do not consider any Japanese city a non-combatant in WWII. The entire nation was the war machine of Imperial Japan, as was the USA. I do not need to justify the bombing in my eyes, I can justify it with the causality predictions based on Okinawa for both America and Japan had we invaded. We were at war with Japan. What war were the people in the WTC conducting?
 
How can Obama consider himself the man to bring healing between the races when his spiritual leader does nothing but hack at the differences with an axe and he only considered it a noteworthy issue when it began to cost him votes?
 
Sure, you can dissect Wright's sermon and find bits and pieces of truth. But isn't that the real danger in any racism? Didn't Hitler effectively exploit some truth about how the Germans got screwed after WWI?
 
I would have had much more respect for Obama if he had the attitude of the black poet Mira Angelou. She has a rule in her house. If you use any racial epitaph she will ask you to leave. That means blacks or whites...no difference. She considers racism to be racism, no matter which side of the color line it comes from. Now that's the kind of zero tolerance attitude needed to heal racial divides.

Instead we have Obama as one of the first to ask for Imus to resign over his comments, and yet it's OK for his pastor to curse whites and America.
 
Yet he only focuses on the past. He does not see what has changed. He will not accept that the end of slavery came about from the bloodiest conflict in our nations history fought overwhelmingly by white soldiers. (I know there were black soldiers but they were a very very small percentage, and yes for racist reasons).
Oh I know, I agree. I believe Wright's main problem is that his experiences have twisted his view and perception so much that he can't see past his own prejudice.

It's like when Emperor Palpatine killed Mace Windu, he had all this evil and hateful energy bottle up inside but once he started to let it out it scarred and disfigured him and only served to turn him into an even darker individual.

This nation was not founded on racism. This nation was founded on the principal of equality for all men. Sadly, had slavery been a forced issue at the time the whole experiment would have been a failure.
But at least it wouldn't have been grossly hypocritical. Maybe they should have forced the issue if they actually believed in equality for all men (and women ;)).
The FF's though were realists and they left the mechanism to bring about the change many of them dreamed of. Wright chooses to vilify those men for being realists when they set up a gov't which led to more opportunity for his people (and all Americans) than anywhere else in the world.
I don't think it was them being realists at all. How many of them actually owned slaves?

How many of them campaigned for such injustice to be righted? How many of them actually tried to give women equal stature in government?

I realize the culture was different but it was that very difference that made their words, the words that founded this country, so hypocritical. That racism and misogyny were simply par for the course. Maybe they had no other choice but the fact remains that the principle of "equality for all men" was not followed.
I do not consider any Japanese city a non-combatant in WWII. The entire nation was the war machine of Imperial Japan, as was the USA. I do not need to justify the bombing in my eyes, I can justify it with the causality predictions based on Okinawa for both America and Japan had we invaded. We were at war with Japan. What war were the people in the WTC conducting?
Osama bin Laden already gave his justifications for it and why he believed every person in this country is as responsible as the leaders we elect.

I'm not saying either case is just or unjust but the point remains that what's justified to one person does not necessarily mean it's justified to others. Nor does it make your view or my view more correct than Wright's.
 
Didn't Hitler effectively exploit some truth about how the Germans got screwed after WWI?

Yeah, but see, the Elders of Zion made sure their preachings (about controlling all German banks) didn't end up on YouTube.
 
The Good Rev. Wright is a nutball. :barf: More disturbing is that Obama made the nutball a member of Obama's campaign. Which demonstrates Obama's poor judgment, as well as the people who will influence Obama if Obama is elected President.

We're now learning about the type of people who have influence over Obama, and it doesn't look good. In fact, it looks kooky. Obama may give a heck of a speech, but I'd prefer not to have the President of the United States surrounded by advisors who believe that the government created HIV to kill black people, and who hopes that God damns America.

Hillary should be looking much better to the Democrats. If the superdelegates are worth anything, then they'll vote for her.
 
But at least it wouldn't have been grossly hypocritical. Maybe they should have forced the issue if they actually believed in equality for all men (and women ).

I disagree. If the FFs had both stuck to their opinions, and there were ones who owned slaves and ones who opposed the practice, then America would be but a small footnote in the history of the United Kingdom. Sorry but the needs of the times dictate the options. For all their differences on the matters though the document was written with the ability to bring freedom to the slave, and it did less than 100 years later.

As far as women's rights... sorry, the concept was in all respects in its infancy. The whole of European society was not so much opposed to such a concept at the time as not even aware of it. Again though the mechanism was in place for change. If those men were all such racists and misogynists they could have written in from the get go items to prevent any changes on either issue.

Was the founding of this nation hypocritical? Only in the same way as a doctor who has sworn to do no harm deciding to saw off an arm to save a patient from gangrene.
 
The Founding Fathers were hypocrites?

OK, by your 20th/21st century standards, I can see how one might think that. One who doesn't understand history, or the people in it. One who understands only with the understanding of a child, who has not yet learned that instant gratification is not possible in every case. And as I reflect on this, it is exactly the same degree of understanding as Obama's reverend. Completely different in detail, but the same in overall principle.

Since things are not all sweetness and light right now (or at any selected point in the past) it must be bad, it must be evil, and someone is responsible. Yes, someone is always responsible for injustice and for evil, but it is important to ensure that one only blames those actually responsible.

By the standards of their day, our Founding Fathers were radicals, visionaries to us, and irresponsible nutcases to others. But one thing they understood, that change was needed. And that that change would not all happen at once or even in their lifetimes, or perhaps even their children's children's lifetimes. And yet they pledged their fortunes, their lives, and their sacred honor to the ideal they wrote in the Declaration of Independence and the US Constitution. You can say they were hypocrites for owning slaves, and for not granting women equal rights, and had they been gods, with the power to change everything at once, and chose not to, then you would be right.

But they were not gods. They were men. Men born and raised in a society where the "proper" social order was wealthy/noble men on top, and everyone else below them, in descending order. Where all men without wealth and social station were either considered property or barely above it. And women were property in all but name. And this situation had been the norm and the expected basis of society for hundreds, even thousands of years.

Do you have any concept of how great a radical change their ideas represented? And how great the social pressure against it actually was? Glossed over (if even mentioned) in modern school, the fact is that there was a large segment of the colonial population who were not in favor of the entire concept of personal liberty. They talk about the Tories, who did not want us to separate from English rule, but seldom even mention that the concept of freedom and equality for all was also not supported by everyone. Public schools don't go into that deeply, if at all. Many don't even bother to teach that only about a third of colonists supported the Revolution. Another third supported English rule, and the rest just wanted to be left alone to live their lives the best they could. Because our Revolution was successful, we look back and believe that except for the Tories, of course everyone would have been in favor of it. But that is not the actual history.

Our Founding Fathers managed to start a nation, based on legal principles that for the first time in man's history had something else at their core other than might makes right. European society had been heading that way since the dark ages, but had basically stopped at the level of kings, nobles, and everyone else, with everyone else being further broken down into levels ending with women, serfs and slaves.

Men don't change easily, unless they see it to be to their advantage, and sometimes not even then. To denigrate our Founding Fathers because they were unable to cure all the injustices in the new nation in one fell swoop is not only unfair, it plays directly to the ideals of the America haters. Calling our founders hypocrites because they did not do everything you think they ought to have done just shows you have drunk the haters kool-aid. You may not be completely poisoned yet, but you are heading that way.

The America haters in America blame America (all of it, except themselves) not only for all the bad things we have done in the past, but also for the failure of America to right all wrongs and make the world a paradise.

Social consciousness is a wonderful thing, but it did not spring into being overnight, it has developed over centuries. And does not exist in many of the world's people even today. Rather than berate people of past eras for not being as enlightened as we are today, you should look at those individuals, like our Founding Fathers, who moved social enlightenment further along than anyone previously, and built the foundation for others to add to that has gotten us to the level we have today. The road has been long, and not without potholes and dead ends, and we still have a long way to go before it ends. Don't be like the haters who focus only on America's past mistakes, but rather focus on the fact that America is the best path forward.
We will make mistakes in the future, just as we do now, but instead of hating ourselves because we make mistakes, shouldn't we take pride in the fact that we don't let our mistakes stop us, and we continue to move forward, towards the goals of full equality, of liberty and justice for all? I think we should.
 
"... Sorry but the needs of the times dictate the options. For all their differences on the matters though the document was written with the ability to bring freedom to the slave, and it did less than 100 years later."

There was no "need" for slavery; it was judged the path of less effort at the time. It has proven to be a dire mistake - and many perceived this at that time. If they could have a "do over" I'm sure they would take the more enlightened path.
 
How many of them campaigned for such injustice to be righted? How many of them actually tried to give women equal stature in government?

Not sure how many, but enough that one of them was elected our second President.
 
You'll notice the same pattern from Obama supporters here that is being used on by Obama supporters on the television (and by Obama himself): rather than specifically dealing with the issue of the nutballs that are surrounding Obama, who guide Obama and his campaign, who have served as Obama's "mentor", and specifically the nutball allegations about HIV and G-Damn America, they will instead talk about the history of slavery in the US. As though the history of slavery in the US somehow excuses the nutball statements, or explains Obama's poor judgment in making Wright part of Obama's campaign.

Interesting strategy. It isn't working very well, though, because nine (?) days after the story broke, everyone is still talking about it. It doesn't appear that Obama's spin is effectively killing this story, which is very bad for Obama.

Hillary is sitting back, laughing, and making telephone calls to superdelegates as we speak.
 
And Obama referring to his Grandmother who helped raise him, a "typical white person".

:rolleyes:

http://elections.foxnews.com/2008/03/21/ferraro-offended-by-comparison-to-pastor-wright/

Barack Obama called his grandmother a “typical white person” in a radio interview on Thursday, raising eyebrows among some of his critics only days after he sought to bridge racial division in a major campaign speech.

Obama had pointed to his mother’s mother in his speech Tuesday as an example of someone who harbored fears of blacks based on racial prejudice. The Illinois senator revisited his relationship with his grandmother on Thursday in an interview on 610 WIP, Philadelphia Sports Radio.

He denied his grandmother held hatred toward blacks, but described her as a “typical white person.”

“The point I was making was not that my grandmother harbors any racial animosity — she doesn’t,” he said. “But she is a typical white person who, you know, if she sees somebody on the street that she doesn’t know, there is a reaction. That has been bred into our experiences that don’t go away and that sometimes come out in the wrong way.”

On Tuesday, Obama described his grandmother as a woman who was at times fearful of black men.

In the speech, he said: “I can no more disown [Wright] than I can disown my white grandmother, a woman who helped raise me, a woman who sacrificed again and again for me, a woman who loves me as much as she loves anything in this world, but a woman who once confessed her fear of black men who passed her by on the street, and who on more than one occasion has uttered racial or ethnic stereotypes that made me cringe.”

The remarks weren’t the only ones focusing on race and the campaign on Thursday.

Geraldine Ferraro complained that Obama had lumped her in with his controversial pastor, whom she called a “racist bigot.”

Obama mentioned the 1984 vice presidential candidate on Tuesday in his speech on race and his relationship with the Rev. Jeremiah Wright Jr., whose heated, anti-U.S. sermons raised questions about the company Obama keeps.

“To equate what I said with what this racist bigot has said from the pulpit is unbelievable,” Ferraro told the Los Angeles newspaper, The Daily Breeze, on Wednesday. “He gave a very good speech on race relations, but he did not address the fact that this man is up there spewing hatred.”

Ferraro, who left Hillary Clinton’s campaign finance team after saying Obama wouldn’t be where he is if he were white, said she had “no clue” why Obama included her in his speech. She said Obama’s relationship with Wright raises questions about his judgment.

“What this man is doing is he is spewing that stuff out to young people, and to younger people than Obama, and putting it in their heads that it’s OK to say ‘God damn America’ and it’s OK to beat up on white people,” she said. “You don’t preach that from the pulpit.”

The Wright controversy lit up shortly after Ferraro left her post on the Clinton finance committee following her initial interview with The Daily Breeze on Obama’s success.

In his speech, Obama drew a comparison between the two individuals.

“We can dismiss Reverend Wright as a crank or a demagogue, just as some have dismissed Geraldine Ferraro, in the aftermath of her recent statements, as harboring some deep-seated racial bias,” he said.

Speaking in Philadelphia, Obama then argued that the issue of race cannot be ignored and that to over-simplify and focus only on the negative aspects of the matter would distort reality.

Overall, Ferraro said Obama’s speech was “excellent,” aside from the part where her name was mentioned.
 
I know many are young enough that the only way they can learn about the pre-civil rights days is by reading. I am old enough to have lived during those times. Of course, I can only give the white perspective. So, For what's it worth, here is how I view the old days compared to now.

I was raised mostly in Kentucky, but my Mothers home was Vicksburg Mississippi. During the late 40's through the 50's I spent many long summers in Vicksburg visiting my Grandmother. Now in those days in the South, discrimination against blacks was in full swing. This included blacks not being able to stop and use a restroom at gas stations, to having separate drinking fountains at the main bus terminal in Vicksburg. The ice cream store next to my Grandmothers house had white & black drinking fountains, and a separate counter for blacks to order ice cream. The city buses had lines on the floor and blacks had to sit behind these lines. If we would make a mistake and sit behind the line in the black area, then the bus driver would admonish us and tell us to move up front. Not a pretty picture, but that's simply the way it was. I didn't think much discrimination as a young boy then teenager. Truth is I was more into playing and not deep thinking. Latter, I came to see this treatment as absolutely horrible. To think that you would deny someone rights based on the shading of their skin is, or should be, an affront to all people of the world.

Now to present times. I retired from a large industrial company. And I can say, that at least on the work site, we did not practice or tolerate discrimination due to color. As a manager, I gave every worker a 100% right to do a job and to receive credit for during that job well. So, I think huge progress has been made, but you cannot eliminate all discrimination. Civil rights laws cannot stop what people do or think in their private lives.

Had I been a young black person in the late 40's-50's and someone said I could not eat in a restaurant because of my skin color, then I would probably have ended up in jail. But I don't think it is going to help further progress by living life according to the feelings generated by the wrongs committed in these pre-civil rights days.

Sen. Obama has not shown me he is any more ready to move past these days than Rev. Wright is willing to do.


Maybe I should give an example of someone I think does have it right on discrimination. The poet Maya Angelou. He personal policy is that at her home no one, black or white, can bring up race issues. If they do she asks them politely to leave. That's a simple attitude and it shows she knows what it's really all about.

That's it for me. I don't usually write long response. I figure if it's too long most only read about 10% anyway.
 
Back
Top