Videos of Obama's Mentor

Great leaps have been made, absolutely, but if you look at the leaders of this country (Elected officials, CEOs, etc) the percentage breakdown by race just doesn't match the breakdown of the general population.
Click to expand...

The basic flaw with this statement is the assumption that people only vote in officials of their own race. The county where I live is in the middle of this exact debate. According to the Census, more than 50% of my county is hispanic, 13% are black, 3% asian, 1% other, and 33% white european.

At the same time, of the 33 elected positions in the county, there are 2 hispanics, one openly gay official, and the rest are straight, white persons. Explain how racism puts whites in office.

The answer is this: maybe people are voting for the best candidate, accdoring to their own beliefs, and not according to race.
 
The Obama Campaign's alibi: "He couldn't have been at a Black Supremacist church that morning, because he was at a Latino Supremacist rally that afternoon."
 
At the same time, of the 33 elected positions in the county, there are 2 hispanics, one openly gay official, and the rest are straight, white persons. Explain how racism puts whites in office.
Click to expand...
Don't forget about the known pederast who was re-elected six more times.

(Oops, thought I saw "country" not "county.")
 
If I were black, or gay, or a woman, and every morning some white guy smacked me in the back of the head and said, "That's for being black/gay/a woman," I could understand why someone could hate white guys in general.

But that's not the situation we have here. That doesn't explain why someone would believe a conspiracy theory, such as HIV was invented by the government to kill blacks, or that the CIA introduced drugs into the inner cities as a method of destroying blacks. I would want some tangible evidence before embarking on such paths. I would also want to know why blacks in the government and the CIA didn't raise the alarm. In short, I'd be suspicious of such theories.

Also, the issue is less that Wright is a racist and more that Obama claims to know nothing about it. Nada. Zip. Neither a hint nor a clue. Completely, 100% out of the loop for over 20 years, despite being a state senator starting in 1996 and thus the kind of person who would normally involve himself in the lives of the people around him more so than your average citizen.
 
Obama's tactics seems to have shifted to acknowledging some of Reverend Wrong's diatribe's, but of course disagrees with them. Which is different that not knowing anything about them. That one apparently wasn't selling too well. I heard that many of the pundits are gushing over his smooth delivery of today's speech though so he might get away with it after all.
 
He has always said he disagreed with some of the things his pastor said. But as for the rants that are in the much-publicized videos, in his speech today Obama again claimed that he has never known Pastor Wright to have ever said or done anything racist in regard to whites.
 
But that's not the situation we have here. That doesn't explain why someone would believe a conspiracy theory, such as HIV was invented by the government to kill blacks, or that the CIA introduced drugs into the inner cities as a method of destroying blacks. I would want some tangible evidence before embarking on such paths. I would also want to know why blacks in the government and the CIA didn't raise the alarm. In short, I'd be suspicious of such theories.
Click to expand...
Actually, it explains just that. When you spend your whole life on the defensive it gets really easy to believe such things. You see the evils people are capable of on a daily basis and it is not a big leap what-so-ever to believe these people would get together and find a way to rid themselves of you.

Like I said before, when you spend you life being harassed and repressed you get angry...and it is easy to allow that anger to cloud your judgement.
 
See the same kind of irrationality with the "9/11 Truth" movement. They think because you wouldn't put it past the government to orchestrate something like that means that they actually did.
 
The basic flaw with this statement is the assumption that people only vote in officials of their own race.
Click to expand...

Not at all. If there were perfect racial equality, we would expect that the representation would follow the racial breakdown of voters. You don't have to vote your own race (or racially at all) it is simply that the candidates would happen to reflect actual breakdown also.

But if the vast majority of candidates are of a single race, obviously that race will dominate in elections.

The assumption is that removing race means that candidates will be on relatively even grounds. Obviously we aren't there yet. I'm not even saying that VOTERS are racist, but also leaving open the likelihood that race shapes a candidates personal viewpoint.
 
Actually, it explains just that. When you spend your whole life on the defensive it gets really easy to believe such things. You see the evils people are capable of on a daily basis and it is not a big leap what-so-ever to believe these people would get together and find a way to rid themselves of you.

Like I said before, when you spend you life being harassed and repressed you get angry...and it is easy to allow that anger to cloud your judgement.
Click to expand...
So if you graduated from Columbia University and earned a Harvard law degree, and your spouse graduated from Princeton University and earned a Harvard law degree, and you were involved in the church for over 20 years, and you were an elected servant of the people, you wouldn't bother to correct some of these fallacies among the people you serve and attend church with? You wouldn't speak to your beloved pastor about it?

I might also add that the pastor has a B.A. and a master's degree, hardly making him someone who should believe such conspiracies out of uneducated ignorance.
 
So if you graduated from Columbia University and earned a Harvard law degree, and your spouse graduated from Princeton University and earned a Harvard law degree, and you were involved in the church for over 20 years, and you were an elected servant of the people, you wouldn't bother to correct some of these fallacies among the people you serve and attend church with? You wouldn't speak to your beloved pastor about i
Click to expand...
Oh, you do not need to try and convince me on that point. I complete concede to your point on that.

I am in no way defending Obama. I am defending the mindset of the church and the passionate viewpoint of the reverend. I am saying I do not think he is a bad guy. he is someone that has seen so much harm being done and hatred being directed at him that he decided to fight back. I cannot fault him for this and he is not running for political office. He is a shepard defending his flock with a staff instead of an olive branch.

Obama should have had the sense to not be a part of this if he wants to effectively represent every American...or at least try to help his friend temper his anger.
 
Freedom of Speech my friends. Its not like any of you are going to vote for Obama. Anyway, most people who support Obama will not associate him with the Reverend. That is a tact for Hillary and Right wingers.
 
Obama should have had the sense to not be a part of this if he wants to effectively represent every American...or at least try to help his friend temper his anger.
Click to expand...
To me, Obama seems to be making a classic political mistake: Rushing to fix a problem without first spending enough time to wrap his mind around it.

I think he could have much better weathered this storm by admitting he knew about this material, that it was part of those things on which he and the pastor disagree, and that it was in part his inspiration to enter politics so as to narrow the divide. Or something along those lines. Instead, he has chosen to grab a bigger shovel and dig a bigger hole for himself.

A shame, really, because even though I completely disagree with his policies, he did seem like a transitional figure. Sadly, he now seems much more like the kind of politician he has claimed not to be.
 
To me, Obama seems to be making a classic political mistake: Rushing to fix a problem without first spending enough time to wrap his mind around it.

I think he could have much better weathered this storm by admitting he knew about this material, that it was part of those things on which he and the pastor disagree, and that it was in part his inspiration to enter politics so as to narrow the divide. Or something along those lines. Instead, he has chosen to grab a bigger shovel and dig a bigger hole for himself.

A shame, really, because even though I completely disagree with his policies, he did seem like a transitional figure. Sadly, he now seems much more like the kind of politician he has claimed not to be.
Click to expand...
I agree...he could have easily taken the position of the supportive friend who constantly tries to temper his friends position and is trying to help him overcome his anger. He could have portrayed himself as the new generation trying to help the previous one heal old wounds but instead he chose to play the deny, deny, deny game.
 
Looks like you guys need to read Obama's speech from this morning where he addresses all these points.

Drudge has a copy: http://www.drudgereport.com/flashos.htm

Meta-discussion... Obama seems really tuned into ALL of the arguments presented in this thread and others across the internet. Not something I've seen from other candidates and quite interesting.
 
Looks like you guys need to read Obama's speech from this morning where he addresses all these points.
Click to expand...
You mean like this part:
Not once in my conversations with him [Wright] have I heard him talk about any ethnic group in derogatory terms, or treat whites with whom he interacted with anything but courtesy and respect.
Click to expand...
Still seems like the Sgt. Schultz defense to me.
 
he could have easily taken the position of the supportive friend who constantly tries to temper his friends position and is trying to help him overcome his anger. He could have portrayed himself as the new generation trying to help the previous one heal old wounds but instead he chose to play the deny, deny, deny game.
Click to expand...
+1.
 
So if you graduated from Columbia University and earned a Harvard law degree, and your spouse graduated from Princeton University and earned a Harvard law degree, and you were involved in the church for over 20 years, and you were an elected servant of the people, you wouldn't bother to correct some of these fallacies among the people you serve and attend church with? You wouldn't speak to your beloved pastor about it?
Click to expand...

Directly addressed in the speech today.
 
Still seems like the Sgt. Schultz defense to me.
Click to expand...

Yes, your mind seems already made up.

Can you point out where Wright is derogatory towards an ethnic group? Looking at http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hAYe7MT5BxM&feature=related he makes comments about Hillary never having to be told she isn't white enough like Obama has. I guess this could be seen as derogatory towards blacks.

Gimme a timestamp so I can re-look. I'm not seeing it the same as you.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top