Videos of Obama's Mentor

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
Click to expand...

You are correct; he has the right to say whatever he wants to say, and as you said it does not excuse what he said. Wrights views are simply that; his views. Just as my views are mine and your views are yours. The issue at hand is Obama's connection to Rev. Wright. I may be wrong, but I find it hard to believe that Obama did not know about Wrights views when he was his spiritual advisor. I wouldnt vote for Obama anyways based on a number of issues, but I believe that it is a big deal that a presidential candidates spiritual advisor has such view on America. Distancing yourself now after there has been a major backlash is sketchy to me. If you do not agree with his views and you are running for political office, why not distance yourself sooner? I really would like to know who the real Obama is. Maybe we will know by the end of this election.

Oh and...

There hasn't been a real Republican in the oval office since Reagan, period!
Click to expand...

Reagan was actually a moderate on many issues, and not a hardline conservative, so some people might have differing views. Reagan was a Republican in the true sense of the party as far as supporting government deregulation and giving more power to the States. Hopefully, the Republican party will move in this direction again someday.
 
Now the spin from the Obama campaign is that he can heal the racial gap.

I don't understand why a guy that attended a Church that spews hatred toward whites and this country can be in a position to heal racial difference. Now if he had been attending a moderate church with mixed congregation, then maybe he could have a point. Wright could not have given his hate filled sermons unless the congregation was comfortable and agreed with his views.
 
What it reveals is who the true power brokers of the country are. The media. Like Goebbels said, repeat a lie often enough and it becomes a fact.
 
You are correct; he has the right to say whatever he wants to say, and as you said it does not excuse what he said.
Click to expand...
Well, lemme clarify a bit. It's more that it doesn't excuse how he said it. What he said doesn't need to be excused, in my opinion. The conspiracy theories are silly and make me take him less seriously but his release of anger doesn't need to be justified to anyone regardless of what I think of it. It's how he said it that bugs me but, of course, that's also his right.

but I believe that it is a big deal that a presidential candidates spiritual advisor has such view on America.
Click to expand...
I don't but that's probably because I put about little importance on spiritual advisers. I wouldn't care what a candidates spiritual adviser thinks any more than I care what his makeup artist or Hillary's hair dresser or McCain's accountant thinks.

Maybe I'm not putting enough emphasis on what that spiritual adviser means to Obama but from here it doesn't seem to be very much. Getting married in that church and getting his kids baptized there doesn't mean much, either. Millions of people get married in churches despite not giving one hoot one way or the other about the religious aspect, they just do it because it's tradition. Plenty of people have their kids baptized because it's family or community tradition.

The whole point is that unless Obama's going to be putting religion into his candidacy and presidency then I don't really see why his spiritual adviser's opinions would be worth their weight in salt.
Distancing yourself now after there has been a major backlash is sketchy to me. If you do not agree with his views and you are running for political office, why not distance yourself sooner? I really would like to know who the real Obama is.
Click to expand...
Did you watch the video of his speech? He explains that pretty clearly.
 
The whole point is that unless Obama's going to be putting religion into his candidacy and presidency then I don't really see why his spiritual adviser's opinions would be worth their weight in salt.
Click to expand...

The problem is that what Rev. Wright has said about this country are social and political, not religious. Obama does not have to put religion into his campaign for those ideas to be present.

As a Christian I put a great deal of weight on what my pastor says. If I disagree very strongly with a pastors views I would not be at the church for very long. Not only did Obama not leave this particular congregation, he seeked advice from Rev. Wright. In my experience you do not seek advice from someone you disagree with. That gives Rev. Wrights views a great deal of weight.

Thanks for the link.
 
And Obama has condemned the particular social and political comments by Wright that we've all seen. Being a spiritual adviser in no way means that Obama is taking his social and political advice as well.

The relevant portions of the video start at around 6:40. :o

Now one thing that does bug is that we've seen these few videos of Wright's sermons but do we know if this was par for the course? How many videos are up, how many instances of him going off on these tirades exist? There is nothing to suggest that he's been preaching this kind of vitriol for twenty years. His views may certainly have been controversial during that time but merely controversial does not equate to hateful and anti-American. How many actual racist, hateful, or anti-American sermons have there been? How many did Obama actually attend? From my understanding he certainly didn't attend the one that's being shown on tv over and over as he was present in another state giving a speech of some sort.

So did Obama actually hear this kind of thing for twenty years? Or was this specific level of anger by Wright a recent development?

Now again, Obama can disagree strongly with his pastor's views on social and political things and still agree with him on religious things. Just because you'd leave your congregation does not mean anyone else would have to follow your example.
 
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."
Click to expand...

From...TUCC's website
A congregation with a non-negotiable COMMITMENT TO AFRICA.
A congregation committed to the HISTORICAL EDUCATION OF AFRICAN PEOPLE IN DIASPORA.
We are an African people, and remain "true to our native land," the mother continent, the cradle of civilization.
Click to expand...

Just in case you missed it, they (being the people of that church, I thought I better clarify that before you call me racist for using the word they) reference "the mother continent" and their "committment to Africa". I think it is fairly safe to say that they place a HIGH importance on where they (the church and its members again) come from moreso than I or possibly Jaser would on our ancestry. For him to suggest that they should be happier here than the African people in Africa is not racist at all, you brought that into it.

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

I dont see that as being racist. You said yourself that
users of crack cocaine are mostly black
Click to expand...
(I added the emphasis on mostly)
which would tell me SOME are not black, white, yellow, green or other. I do not know the reason the punishment was more severe, and maybe you can pinpoint to what exactly you mean (federal level, states, etc.) but I just don't see the connection as being racist.

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

So??? Making the legal limit of driving drunk .08 has had the effect of forcing a disproportionate amount of rednecks in my area in jail...racist, I think not, result of their actions as individuals not as a race.
 
So??? Making the legal limit of driving drunk .08 has had the effect of forcing a disproportionate amount of rednecks in my area in jail...racist, I think not, result of their actions as individuals not as a race.
Click to expand...

Except crack sentencing was more analogous to having stiffer sentences for DUI offenders who were drinking Colt 45's than for DUI offenders who were drinking Pabst Blue Ribbon.

Sorry, I couldn't come up with better stereotypical alcoholic beverages off the top of my head.
 
Now again, Obama can disagree strongly with his pastor's views on social and political things and still agree with him on religious things. Just because you'd leave your congregation does not mean anyone else would have to follow your example.
Click to expand...

We can play this game all day long and there will never be a "winner". I'm just speaking from my personal experience in the Christian community; if a pastor began expressing his anti-american political views in sermons, and the congregation did not agree with his views, those people would leave. There are other churches that provide the same religious message without the anti-american political views. I obviously can not speak for Obama, but not only did he stay; Wright was his mentor. I find that odd.
 
Obviously Obama likes and believes in his now retired Pastor.
How do I know this? Actions speak louder than words, He titled his book the "Audacity of Hope" That title is a direct quote from his pastor Rev. Wright.

He was so proud of his pastor, and so confident in his message, that he used it as the title for the book he wrote.

He sat in that Church and worked with that pastor who he said he considers his inspiration, in public and in his book, he listened to him for 20 YEARS.
He wants us to believe he didnt know what his pastor stood for??

Now when there is a public outcry because the light has been shinned in the Dark place where Obama and his pastor, mentor, confidant live, Obama responds by sticking the knife in his pastor's back, and claims he had no idea what his pastor preaches from the pulpit every Sunday. If you cant see that there is a problem, I suggest you open your eyes.

LIAR, HYPOCRIT, BACKSTABBER, FOOL , Take your pick apparently that is what Obama is.
 
Not without protection...

Maybe Obama could pull in a few votes by claiming he wore a tinfoil hat during Wright's sermons?
 
I don't pretend to know whether BHO is a bigot or not, but I find the reticence of some libs on the issue of Wright interesting.

Now one thing that does bug is that we've seen these few videos of Wright's sermons but do we know if this was par for the course? How many videos are up, how many instances of him going off on these tirades exist? There is nothing to suggest that he's been preaching this kind of vitriol for twenty years. His views may certainly have been controversial during that time but merely controversial does not equate to hateful and anti-American. How many actual racist, hateful, or anti-American sermons have there been? How many did Obama actually attend? From my understanding he certainly didn't attend the one that's being shown on tv over and over as he was present in another state giving a speech of some sort.
Click to expand...

Wright self-identifies as an adherent of the "black liberation theology" of James Cone. Like the plain variety of "liberation theology" it is not a theology at all, but a political bent.

Here's how James Cone himself explains 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.
Click to expand...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_Hal_Cone

This sort of thing is rubbish when the likes of Randy Weaver or David Duke say it, and it is rubbish when Wright says it. That BHO has known Wright well and stayed at his church for two decades without Wright's animating social doctrine having come up, and BHO having found it tolerable enough to stay indicates that he is more congenial to rubbish than a fellow should be.
 
Essentially, Obama's taking the Casablanca approach: "There's racism going on here? I'm shocked; shocked, I tell you."

And yet, he disinvited Wright from the event at which he announced his candidacy for the Democratic Party’s presidential nomination a year ago. But if he didn't know about Wright's controversial rants, what reason would he have to disinvite him?

Curiouser and curiouser.
 
Wright self-identifies as an adherent of the "black liberation theology" of James Cone. Like the plain variety of "liberation theology" it is not a theology at all, but a political bent.
Click to expand...
That doesn't answer the question nor provide evidence to support the idea that Wright has been saying these very things for the entire twenty years. None of that means he's been saying "god damn america" all this time.
 
Redworm, what difference does it make if he said it after 9/11/2001, a point at which the whole country had come together supposedly, or if he also said it before that?

He said it, he meant it, and he was so proud of it he made a videotape of the sermon to sell.:mad:

Obama's defense for staying with the Church for 7 years after that was what exactly? That his ears wern't working that day and every day after that, until the media stopped giving him the fluffy bunny treatment.:confused:
 
That doesn't answer the question nor provide evidence to support the idea that Wright has been saying these very things for the entire twenty years. None of that means he's been saying "god damn america" all this time.
Click to expand...

Nor can you prove that he hasnt. Its pretty naive to think that he hasnt.
 
Asking me to prove a negative? I'm not the one making any sort of claim, I'm asking if we actually know for sure.

I think it's pretty naive to think that he has. Once again, a stalemate.

It's important to know for sure.
 
It's important to know for sure.
Click to expand...

It's not really important. Let's be accurate. If a white politician had attended any church more than one time in the past where inflammatory remarks were made against blacks, then that candidate would be out of the running. Obama is getting fairly soft treatment over these statements. Now, in his speech he admits he might have been present when some of these remarks were made. This is in contrast to his original statements that he never heard such remarks.

None of this will matter to his ardent supports, they will still be ardent supports. None of this will matter to his ardent detractors, they will still be against him. This will only matter to his undecided supporters. Now if there are other things in the skeleton closet, then Hillary may yet be a happy camper.;)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top