Videos of Obama's Mentor

[WhyteP38]

As shocking and hurtful as Rev Wright was in some of those statements, I wish I could honestly say that I have never had or expressed divisive racially charged views. Who among us is without any prejudice?

As I've said before, I don't hold Obama guilty by association. It is not necessarily true that he condones everything his pastor has said. I don't know of any one person who 100% agrees with what any other one person says or does.

However, I am concerned about how much Obama does agree with Wright, and not just because of his long-term association with the pastor. Mostly, I'm concerned because Obama claims to have been completely unaware of these controversial statements, and I don't find such claims credible. Which makes me wonder what is he hiding and why? Maybe a little; maybe a lot. But until I find out, I'm concerned.

 

[mountainclmbr]

From:

http://online.wsj.com/article/best_of_the_web_today.html

What Obama is evading is that this "profoundly distorted view" is not just some passing emotion. It is what Wright himself, in the "talking points" page of his congregation's Web site, describes as "systematized black liberation theology." As we noted yesterday, Wright credits James Cone of New York's Union Theological Seminary with having undertaken this systematization. Here again is Cone's description of black liberation theology:

Black theology refuses to accept a God who is not identified totally with the goals of the black community. If God is not for us and against white people, then he is a murderer, and we had better kill him. The task of black theology is to kill Gods who do not belong to the black community. . . . Black theology will accept only the love of God which participates in the destruction of the white enemy. What we need is the divine love as expressed in Black Power, which is the power of black people to destroy their oppressors here and now by any means at their disposal. Unless God is participating in this holy activity, we must reject his love.

 

[applesanity]

Making pot illegal has had the effect of forcing a disproportionate of blacks in prison.

How is that a racist policy? Don't get me wrong, I think pot should be legal, but I do not see how that law has one iota of a racial bias.

Alright, a better example:

It just so happens that users of crack cocaine are mostly black. It just so happens that users of powder un-free-based (salt form) cocaine are mostly white. Both variants are essentially the same, except the high from crack comes on faster and more intense but lasts shorter. For those of you who are not in the know, you smoke crack, snort coke.

Up until recently, the punishment for possession of crack was significantly more severe than the punishment for cocaine. That's racist.

Did the reverend talk about crack?

"B____ set me up!"

(off topic) Living around the DC area, I got a huge dose of Sean Taylor news coverage (the ProBowl safety for the Redskins) You wouldn't believe how many media outlets immediately jumped to the conclusion that his death was a result of black-on-black crime. That's racist.

Let us not pretend that racism, however subtle, still exists in this country. Nevertheless, you don't run a campaign of unity and transcendence over racial barriers if your pastor is so disgustingly divisive.

 

[WhyteP38]

Let us not pretend that racism, however subtle, still exists in this country. Nevertheless, you don't run a campaign of unity and transcendence over racial barriers if your pastor is so disgustingly divisive.

+1. (By the way, I think you meant "Let us not pretend that racism, however subtle, no longer exists in this country.")

 

[JaserST4]

As shocking and hurtful as Rev Wright was in some of those statements, I wish I could honestly say that I have never had or expressed divisive racially charged views. Who among us is without any prejudice?

Seriously, we need to find that guy because he is the one who has the right to throw the first stone in this dust-up.

I disagree completely. You are excusing bad behavior. What black person wants to trade places with their bretheren in Africa? I don't see many migrating over there, it's all about justification and blaming others for your shortcomings. That doesn't mean that there are no problems anywhere but the fact that Obama has a good shot should illustrate that race isn't a factor. Race didn't even come up until Ferarro made a dumb comment and we heard the good reverend's comments. You are ignoring the fact that many fine black folk, including his generation manage just fine without blaming every ill on whitey or the USofA. There's no excuse for his rants, if he's that unhappy he could leave but he found a cash cow and milked her for all she was worth.

 

[Playboypenguin]

What black person wants to trade places with their bretheren in Africa?

Please do not go there. That is a horribly racist and divisive thing to even suggest that they should be happy with what they have and should not be entitled to the same things as any other American. They are every bit as American as any white skinned person and it should not be suggested that they somehow are not and can "go back to Africa" if they do not like the way "we" treat "them."

I am sure you did not mean it that way but it really comes across like that when you use such cliches.

 

[skydiver3346]

Penguin on Obama?

Playboy P,
Be afraid, be very afraid of Obama getting elected, same for Hillary. In case you don't know it, (and I know you do) this country is heading for a recession, if we aren't in one now. If the demos get back in office, it will turn into a DEPRESSION, according to how much Obama wants to spend. President Bush sure isn't perfect by any stretch and I'm not a McCain fan either (too liberal for my tastes for claiming to be a Republican) however, his fiscal policy will be a hell of a lot more sound than the demos.
There hasn't been a real Republican in the oval office since Reagan, period!

 

[madmag]

I have been attending church since the 40's, and I have never, and I mean never one time heard a minister talk about race issues or political issues from the pulpit. Talk about discrimination, can you imagine being a member of Wrights Church and not holding his political views!

 

[Playboypenguin]

I have been attending church since the 40's, and I have never, and I mean never one time heard a minister talk about race issues or political issues from the pulpit. Talk about discrimination, can you imagine being a member of Wrights Church and not holding his political views!

But I bet you have heard them condemn non-believers, gays, etc. that do not conform to their beliefs.

In case you don't know it, (and I know you do) this country is heading for a recession, if we aren't in one now. If the demos get back in office, it will turn into a DEPRESSIO

I am aware of where we are, and I am aware of who put us there.

 

[madmag]

But I bet you have heard them condemn non-believers, gays, etc. that do not conform to their beliefs.

No, never. I have heard of that happening. But honestly not in any church I attended. Actually, I don't ever rember the word gay being used in any way. Mostly just Bible studies.

 

[Perldog007]

I am assuming by "special" police officer you are not meaning the type that gives a lot of hugs and has to wear a padded helmet.

Actually as a big weird fat guy known to be a good shot and skilled in lost arts like nightstick spinning - a hug from me was used as a deterrent or to get folks to move on more than once. Example : "You seem angry, how about a hug?". Responses usually started at "Hell No!" and got more sever from there.

Harshness aside, rebuttal was almost universally accompanied by spontaneous relocation of the subject in a decidedly away from my person fashion.

Many of my contemporaries would argue that at some point in my past, if not for all of it, a padded helmet may have proven wise.

I disagree completely. You are excusing bad behavior.....

To paraphrase modern urban poet Jay-Z " all my paperwork's legit, I ain't steppin' out of $#!7!".

You miss my point, I don't excuse the behavior. I do suggest that I may have some insight into the animus for same that seems to be left out of the discussion in many circles.

While it may be a reason for some to question the candidate, he lost me with the ccw ban idea. If he were pro-gun (and thus under consideration by me) there would be some concern over the association, but it would be viewed through the filter of my experience and understanding of so called "backlash prejudice".

Participation in that isn't what I look for in a CIC - but it might not be a deal breaker either. Since this deal was already broken for me, I flatter myself to believe that on this issue of Rev. Wright I can be more objective than if I had an emotional stake.

Like as happens with self flattery this opinion espouser will acknowledge at least the possibility that self flattery and self delusion can be related at times. But I think I may have a point on this one. YMMV

There's no excuse for his rants, if he's that unhappy he could leave but he found a cash cow and milked her for all she was worth.

I do not argue that the promotion of victim hood has grown beyond a cottage industry in many circles. This is a valid point.

 

[Fremmer]

Obama says he puportedly disagrees with many of the views of his radical pastor. Which still doesn't explain why Obama would make the Pastor a campaign advisor. The only reason Obama would appoint the Pastor as part of Obama's campaign is because Obama and the Pastor share common opinions and views.

G-damn America indeed, Senator Obama. :barf: An outstanding example of Obama's "judgment" and the people who will have direct influence on Obama were he to be elected as President.

 

[publius42]

I'm not a McCain fan either (too liberal for my tastes for claiming to be a Republican) however, his fiscal policy will be a hell of a lot more sound than the demos.

The rhetoric would lead one to believe that you are correct, but have you looked at the actual numbers?

Looking at recent history, annual government spending grew by about $380 billion during Clinton's presidency, and by over $1 trillion during Bush's.

How about George Herbert Walker Bush? He was only around 4 years, and government spending grew about $300 billion, almost as much as Clinton did in 8 years.

OK, surely Reagan will break the pattern. Well, annual government spending grew by about $400 billion over his tenure in office.

Not bad when looking at recent growth numbers, but look back a step at Carter. About $130 billion in annual spending growth during his 4 years, less than occurred during either of Reagan's terms in office.

OK, Nixon will surely break the pattern.

Nah, I'll spare you, but the pattern is clear, if not exactly comprehensible. We spend less money on government when a Dem is in the White House.

 

[Redworm]

Playboy P,
Be afraid, be very afraid of Obama getting elected, same for Hillary. In case you don't know it, (and I know you do) this country is heading for a recession, if we aren't in one now. If the demos get back in office, it will turn into a DEPRESSION, according to how much Obama wants to spend. President Bush sure isn't perfect by any stretch and I'm not a McCain fan either (too liberal for my tastes for claiming to be a Republican) however, his fiscal policy will be a hell of a lot more sound than the demos.
There hasn't been a real Republican in the oval office since Reagan, period!

Really? Because "tax and spend" seems a hell of a lot more fiscally responsible than "borrow and spend."

Reagan had his share of spending habits, too.

 

[mountainclmbr]

I was not aware that the president spent money. I thought it was the Congress.

 

[Redworm]

He signs the bills that spend the money. Approving wasteful spending is no more excusable than writing the bills themselves.

 

[JaserST4]

Please do not go there. That is a horribly racist and divisive thing to even suggest that they should be happy with what they have and should not be entitled to the same things as any other American. They are every bit as American as any white skinned person and it should not be suggested that they somehow are not and can "go back to Africa" if they do not like the way "we" treat "them."

I am sure you did not mean it that way but it really comes across like that when you use such cliches.

You added all the racial overtones to what I said, I didn't call anyone less than American. My brother in law is a Brit and for several years wasn't an American at all even though he's lilly white, I wasn't born yesterday or the day before.
The point is it isn't perfect here but it's better than anywhere else. If you can't make it here, you can't make it anywhere.

 

[Redworm]

The point is it isn't perfect here but it's better than anywhere else. If you can't make it here, you can't make it anywhere.

Neither is necessarily true now and it certainly wasn't when Rev Wright was growing up. Just half a century ago there was still massive, widespread and state-approved oppression and discrimination.

It doesn't excuse anything he's said against America but it does give reason for it. He's not making this stuff up out of the blue; the conspiracy theories about cocaine and AIDS are ridiculous but much of what he says has validity and it's understandable that he's a little peeved at the system.

The point is that suggesting Wright or anyone else should be happy they were oppressed in America instead of being back in Africa is horrifying.

 

[Playboypenguin]

You added all the racial overtones to what I said, I didn't call anyone less than American. My brother in law is a Brit and for several years wasn't an American at all even though he's lilly white, I wasn't born yesterday or the day before.
The point is it isn't perfect here but it's better than anywhere else. If you can't make it here, you can't make it anywhere.

Then I guess you did mean it that way.

Making a connection between your brother-n-law who was not an American and someone that was born here has no relevance what-so-ever to the "they can like or leave" implication of your statement.

To imply that they are somehow more tied to Africa than you are to whatever country spawned you forefathers is shameful. That statement basically says they might not have it all here but it is better than they would have it "where they come from."

 

[JaserST4]

Making a connection between your brother-n-law who was not an American and someone that was born here has no relevance what-so-ever to the "they can like or leave" implication of your statement.

To imply that they are somehow more tied to Africa than you are to whatever country spawned you forefathers is shameful. That statement basically says they might not have it all here but it is better than they would have it "where they come from."

You keep projecting your short sighted views onto me. I reject them. For some reason you can't make the connection between Africa and African Americans and think it's racist to do so. But it isn't racist for a pastor to blame whites for everything. Gotcha, but that's your view, not mine.