PDA

View Full Version : Obama and Rev. Wright


Jae Onasi
03-18-2008, 08:31 PM
Today's Fox coverage (http://elections.foxnews.com/2008/03/18/obama-seeks-to-stop-wright-coverage-loop/) on Obama's speech and his relationship with Rev. Wright.

Rev. Wright has said some inflammatory comments that cannot be described in any other way than pure racism. Does Obama's close relationship with Wright affect how you view him? How is this going to affect Obama's message of bringing America together? How badly, if at all, does this affect Obama's campaign?

And on a moderator note, I'll be watching this thread carefully. Racism as a topic is fair game. Making denigrating or racist comments will be dealt with swiftly.

SilentScope001
03-18-2008, 08:39 PM
I dislike Obama with a passion, but I don't like the whole furor, and I would be highly disappointed if Obama loses because of this event instead of losing due to his inexperience or liberal policy views. I mean, this is the rare time in which I actually agree with Obama's rhetoric on Rev. Wright, and I can see where Rev. Wright is coming from (not his conclusion that if you vote for Obama, everything will be okay), even if I highly disagree with Rev. Wright's viewpoints.

I mean, hack, the entire news event actually justifies Obama's message of hope and ending racism once and for all. However, I will not vote for Obama in 2008 because of the major policy differences I hold with Obama, as well as his inexperience and incompetence. That's it. We got more important things to worry about. Kosovo may go up in flames. Iraq's flames are being put out. The US Dollar is already a flaming wreckage. And China is wanting to lit the Olympic flame. All these things are far more important than...well...this.

Eh. Could be worse. We could have a topic on Britteny Spears.

Arcesious
03-18-2008, 08:43 PM
If Obama disagrees with all the rascist things his pastor is saying then he should go and join a new church.

Q
03-18-2008, 08:57 PM
^^^
I wonder why he hasn't? ;)

One would think that Rev. Wright would be wise enough to keep his mouth shut until after the nomination/election.

I guess not.

True_Avery
03-18-2008, 09:00 PM
Well, Freedom of Speech lets the Rev say whatever he wants. If he wants to back Obama, I say let him. It is interesting that Obama has not tried harder to keep the Rev out of the light though. Everybody has the one racist and raving friend or family member that you love but disagree with, and I respect Obama for staying by his associate, but the Rev does indeed seem to be damaging his message of hope.

Corinthian
03-18-2008, 09:44 PM
I gotta give Obama a little credit, he's at least sticking by a man instead of dropping him like a hot potato like you'd expect from most politicians. Still, I'm doing a little jig - as much as I dislike John McCain, I dislike Obama even more, and I think Obama actually has a chance of winning, unlike dear old Hilary.

mimartin
03-18-2008, 10:15 PM
If Obama disagrees with all the rascist things his pastor is saying then he should go and join a new church.Why? I don’t agree with everything my pastor or my church says, but I’m not joining another church. I’m comfortable where I am, I know and like the other members. I don’t agree with my churches views on politics, homosexuals, evolution, drinking or dancing, but I don’t see any reason to find another church. Like Obama my pastor brought me to God, doesn’t that mean anything? Rev. Wright has said some inflammatory comments that cannot be described in any other way than pure racism.
"I would warn Orlando that you're right in the way of some serious hurricanes, and I don't think I'd be waving those flags in God's face if I were you, This is not a message of hate -- this is a message of redemption. But a condition like this will bring about the destruction of your nation. It'll bring about terrorist bombs; it'll bring earthquakes, tornadoes, and possibly a meteor."
"AIDS is the wrath of a just God against homosexuals. To oppose it would be like an Israelite jumping in the Red Sea to save one of Pharaoh's charioteers ... AIDS is not just God's punishment for homosexuals; it is God's punishment for the society that tolerates homosexuals."
Reverend Jeremiah A Wright was born September 22, 1941. Before we condemn Rev. Wright too much let us remember American History and the treatment of the African-American during his informative years. I believe his statements on Aids and 9/11/2001 are just as crazy as some of Pat Robertson or Jerry Falwell’s, but let’s not forget what the American Government did to 399 African-Americans during the Tuskegee Study (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tuskegee_Study_of_Untreated_Syphilis_in_the_Negro_ Male). It that light, his statement about Aids is not that farfetched. Maybe it is, but I did not have to live through the racism Reverend Wright has.
Does Obama's close relationship with Wright affect how you view him? Yes, but less that McCain’s relationship with President Bush and the GOP.
How is this going to affect Obama's message of bringing America together? It will tone down how his message is receive, but it still sound better to me than 100 years in Iraq.
How badly, if at all, does this affect Obama's campaign? It will affect the campaign, but it will not affect my vote for Obama or by some miracle Clinton. It will affect the south, but I did not figure Obama would win most of those States anyway.

Totenkopf
03-18-2008, 10:26 PM
Yeah, mimartin, but let's also remember that our beloved government hasn't been too picky about its guniea pigs since the end of WW2 (and possibly even earlier). Seems to me that we should be as leery of Obama's support of Wright as we'd be if someone failed to disassociate themselves from a David Duke. Wright is an Albatros and Obama would be wise to put further distance between them as he pursues his bid for the WH.

Corinthian
03-18-2008, 10:28 PM
Right. Being exposed to Racism makes Racism okay. That makes sense. It's good to know that since I've been called a cracker, I've been liberated to begin rampant use of the various slurs for Blacks and Arabs.

And, Mimartin, we've been in Japan for sixty years. Korea for fifty. We haven't had overt military action in either of those places for about that much time, too. Just because we're present doesn't mean we're fighting there, it means we have bases there. And we'd be pretty stupid not to keep a base or three in Iraq.

mimartin
03-18-2008, 10:48 PM
Right. Being exposed to Racism makes Racism okay. That makes sense. It's good to know that since I've been called a cracker, I've been liberated to begin rampant use of the various slurs for Blacks and Arabs.No, it does not and I never wrote it did. I just can see his point of view even if I do not agree with it. I also know if someone grows up in a certain environment, it can have lasting repercussions to their personality. Mel Gibson anyone?

And we'd be pretty stupid not to keep a base or three in Iraq.Yes, one of the thing that will keep the Islamic Extremist Terrorist movement going is staying in one of their holy lands for 100 years, so I’m smart enough to know we should stay at all cost. The war on terrorism is going to be as productive as the war on drugs.

SilentScope001
03-18-2008, 10:51 PM
Yes, one of the thing that will keep the Islamic Extremist Terrorist movement going is staying in one of their holy lands for 100 years, so I’m smart enough to know we should stay at all cost. The war on terrorism is going to be as productive as the war on drugs.

What do you think McCain is telling straight talk when he says he's going to stay in Iraq for 100 years? He's only state that would happen if only a few American troops die in Iraq every year (since people are against the war because Americans are dying, and if Americans are not dying, then it's not as bad). Since it is obivous that more than a few American troops are dying in Iraq every year, McCain could use it as an excuse to speed up the timeframe in which he hopes to keep troops in Iraq...maybe only 10 years? 5 years? 1 year?

Corinthian
03-18-2008, 11:10 PM
Mimartin, the Islamic Extremists aren't going to stop if we turn tail and run out of their lands with our proverbial tails tucked between our legs. There's only one way to deal with people like this, and where I come from, it's called 5.56x45mm NATO.

mimartin
03-18-2008, 11:29 PM
Mimartin, the Islamic Extremists aren't going to stop if we turn tail and run out of their lands with our proverbial tails tucked between our legs. There's only one way to deal with people like this, and where I come from, it's called 5.56x45mm NATO.
So you do not believe we are creating Extremists by being there? Are the deaths of the estimated 89,751 Iraqi civilian creating future terrorist? Or are we killing at a fast enough rate to keep up with the new supply? No, Extremist are not going to stop if we leave, but we might not create a new generation of Extremist if we leave.

I’m not for leaving until we get the country back up and running, but I am totally against staying a moment after that. I would not want foreign invades coming into Texas, why would I expect the Iraqi people to enjoy the experience.

Mimartin, the Islamic Extremists aren't going to stop if we turn tail and run out of their lands with our proverbial tails tucked between our legs. There's only one way to deal with people like this, and where I come from, it's called 5.56x45mm NATO.
So you do not believe we are creating Extremists by being there? Are the deaths of the estimated 89,751 Iraqi civilian creating future terrorist? Or are we killing at a fast enough rate to keep up with the new supply? No, Extremist are not going to stop if we leave, but we might not create a new generation of Extremist if we leave.

I’m not for leaving until we get the country back up and running, but I am totally against staying a moment after that. I would not want foreign invaders coming into Texas, why would I expect the Iraqi people to enjoy the experience.

He's only state that would happen if only a few American troops die in Iraq every year (since people are against the war because Americans are dying, and if Americans are not dying, then it's not as bad). I wish he would define what he means by a “few.”

Totenkopf
03-18-2008, 11:40 PM
So you do not believe we are creating Extremists by being there? Are the deaths of the estimated 89,751 Iraqi civilian creating future terrorist? Or are we killing at a fast enough rate to keep up with the new supply? No, Extremist are not going to stop if we leave, but we might not create a new generation of Extremist if we leave.


I'd wager you'll just encouage them to not stop. Pretty soon, you'll have them claiming that they have holy sites in north america w/in a century or three and that we should all return to the homelands of our european forebearers.....oh, wait.....they'll control those too. Then our options will be "better an Achmed than dead/better dead than an Achmed". :xp: But seriously, I don't buy the "we're breeding extremists if we don't leave" argument that's espoused by apologists of the do nothing and hope they go away school of thought.


I’m not for leaving until we get the country back up and running, but I am totally against staying a moment after that. I would not want foreign invades coming into Texas, why would I expect the Iraqi people to enjoy the experience.

You mean other than the Mexicans? :xp: :p

Web Rider
03-19-2008, 12:07 AM
Rev Wright holds pretty much the same views as the evangelical vote that got Bush elected. In fact, it would hardly surprise me if Wright voted for Bush in the last elections. That is to say, he holds the same views as probly some 10 million(adult) americans, so his views are entirely unsurprising. Considering the fact that he is a christian preacher, it's likly to say that his opinion is in the majority of that population, though his decision to not hold is tongue may or may not put him in the minority though, probly does.

It's nice that Obama isn't jumping ship on this guy like people would expect, and probably slam him for. But seriously, you're preacher, while possibly a good standard, is not the ONLY way to judge a person's opinions. You could, ya know, actually listen to what they're saying and not somebody trying to get their 15 minutes of fame.

SilentScope001
03-19-2008, 12:20 AM
I wish he would define what he means by a “few".

Actually, you know what? I finally dug up what he said and I realized I misquoted McCain wrong. Here was the actual statement (http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/02/14/mccain.king/):

"As long as Americans are not being injured or harmed or wounded or killed, it's fine with me and I hope it would be fine with you if we maintain a presence in a very volatile part of the world where al Qaeda is training, recruiting, equipping and motivating people every single day."

So, basically, it's not a 'few' casualites, it's NO casualites at all. As long as nobody gets hurt, why not stay in Iraq for 100 years? Until we reach the 'no casualty' level, which is rather unlikely, McCain still got an opening to do a neo-Vietnamization and declare victory.

In fact, while digging up the whole 100-year McCain quote, I found a NY Times Article back in April 2007 (http://www.nytimes.com/2007/04/15/us/politics/15mccain.html?_r=1&oref=slogin) that indicates another side of McCain:

In a discussion of how he would handle Iraq if elected president, Mr. McCain argued that the success of the Bush administration’s strategy, which seeks to protect Baghdad residents so Iraqi political leaders have an opportunity to pursue a program of political reconciliation, was essentially a precondition for a more limited American role that could follow.

“I am not guaranteeing that this succeeds,” said Mr. McCain, who has long argued that additional troops were needed. “I am just saying that I think it can. I believe it has a good shot.”

Mr. McCain methodically dismissed as unrealistic every other plan that has been proposed by Democrats as a substitute for Mr. Bush’s strategy, including those from Senators Hillary Rodham Clinton of New York, Joseph R. Biden Jr. of Delaware and Barack Obama of Illinois.

He said that if the Bush administration’s plan had not produced visible signs of progress by the time a McCain presidency began, he might be forced — if only by the will of public opinion — to end American involvement in Iraq.

“I do believe that history shows us Americans will not continue to support an overseas engagement involving the loss of American lives for an unlimited period of time unless they see some success,” he added. “And then, when they run out of patience, they will demand that we get out.”

There does seem to be more to McCain than meets his Republican lovers, and the Democratic Attack Machine too. IMHO, he is more hawkish than the Democrats, but more dovish than the Republicans.

Rev Wright holds pretty much the same views as the evangelical vote that got Bush elected. In fact, it would hardly surprise me if Wright voted for Bush in the last elections.

Rev Wright leads a liberal church. He's therefore part of the Religious Left, and wouldn't have voted for Bush anyway.

mimartin
03-19-2008, 12:33 AM
So, basically, it's not a 'few' casualites, it's NO casualites at all. In that case, we may be out the fastest if McCain is elected.

Rev Wright leads a liberal church. He's therefore part of the Religious Left, and wouldn't have voted for Bush anyway.
Agreed. Other than their belief in God, I don't see where his church has anything in common with the Religious Right. I wish I could say the same.

*Don*
03-19-2008, 12:35 AM
Honestly speaking, I applaud Obama for sticking with his friend.
At least hes loyal...

Corinthian
03-19-2008, 01:09 AM
Yeah, I give him credit where credit is due. But it may very well sink his campaign, which would give me an incredible dose of the Jollies.

SilentScope001
03-19-2008, 03:31 PM
Well, I think society might be better reassured if Obama dumped his friend rather than defending him. Just to avoid the possiblity that Rev. Wright will still keep some influence in Obama's future government.

mimartin
03-19-2008, 03:41 PM
Well, I think society might be better reassured if Obama dumped his friend rather than defending him. Just to avoid the possiblity that Rev. Wright will still keep some influence in Obama's future government.
How much influence does any clergy person have over the average Americans life, business or personal? My preacher has been harping for years to vote Republican and even when I have voted Republican it had nothing to do with his sermon and everything to do with my own ill-conceived perception of the candidate. I also don’t listen to him when it comes to drinking, dancing… (too many to list).

Q
03-19-2008, 04:21 PM
^^^
Dancing?!

Is your preacher the guy from Footloose? :xp:

mimartin
03-19-2008, 05:19 PM
No Baptist, although now that I think about it he does look a lot like John Lithgow. Just not as funny.

JCarter426
03-19-2008, 08:16 PM
There's only one way to deal with people like this, and where I come from, it's called 5.56x45mm NATO.

So, being exposed to terrorism makes terrorism OK? Got it.

My preacher has been harping for years to vote Republican and even when I have voted Republican it had nothing to do with his sermon and everything to do with my own ill-conceived perception of the candidate. I also don’t listen to him when it comes to drinking, dancing… (too many to list).

Just a question: If you don't listen to your preacher at all, why do you even keep going to church?

The Betrayer
03-19-2008, 09:15 PM
So, being exposed to terrorism makes terrorism OK? Got it.



Just a question: If you don't listen to your preacher at all, why do you even keep going to church?
He didn't say he doesn't listen to his preacher at all. He said he doesn't listen to some things said by the preacher.

JCarter426
03-19-2008, 09:45 PM
Well, it sounds like a lot more than just some. :giveup:

Q
03-19-2008, 09:47 PM
^^^
And a lot more than he is willing to admit. ;)

mimartin
03-19-2008, 10:23 PM
Just a question: If you don't listen to your preacher at all, why do you even keep going to church? First as I wrote in post #7, I enjoy my church and the other members. I even like the pastor, but just because I like someone does not mean I have to agree with everything they say. I like and respect Achilles here, but I do not agree with everything he writes.

Darth Betrayal is correct I don’t agree with some of the things my pastor says, but on others I do agree with him.

I can read. I can think. Any relationship with real meaning has to be personal. If I were to marry, would it still be a personal relationship if I did everything a book or a marriage consular told me to do? Don’t you have to be willing to show part of your true self for there to be a real relationship? Those are also my feelings towards my relationship towards God. The pastor may guide me in that relationship, but I will not give up my free will and forfeit my intelligence to believe everything he says. Like I said, I can read and I have read more books than merely the Bible. When religious scholars, different religions and even different denominations cannot even agree on a single interpretation of a passage in Bible, why should I reject my own personal interpretation? That is the part of my personal relationship with God. I was raised in three different churches, so I don’t believe in any one denomination.
Well, it sounds like a lot more than just some. :giveup:Possibly.
And a lot more than he is willing to admit. ;)Most definitely. ;)

JCarter426
03-19-2008, 10:36 PM
First as I wrote in post #7, I enjoy my church and the other members.

Well...you could always meet with them elsewhere. To each his own, I guess. :giveup:

Jae Onasi
03-20-2008, 12:53 AM
I don't agree with everything my hubby says--does that mean I should give him up? Being a church member does not mean you have to believe every single thing the pastor says. There are a couple areas I don't 100% agree with my pastor on, but I agree with a lot, if not most, of them. Also, the church provides a community of believers that get together and give each other love, support, sometimes physical and monetary assistance (like the church brought dinners to our home for the first 2 weeks after we had our daughter), and prayer. That's not something you can get going to a baseball game or a bar with a few friends.

JCarter426
03-20-2008, 01:09 AM
Well, when "not everything" turns into "nothing"...

Totenkopf
03-20-2008, 02:01 AM
Yeah, but how many white politicians could get away with being asociated with a preacher/mentor for over/~ 20 years that publicly espoused arguably racist or separatist views while going into a general election. Obama should be held to a similiar standard.

Weiser_Cain
03-20-2008, 02:39 AM
You mean like Bush at Bob Jones U?

Web Rider
03-20-2008, 03:00 AM
Yeah, but how many white politicians could get away with being asociated with a preacher/mentor for over/~ 20 years that publicly espoused arguably racist or separatist views while going into a general election. Obama should be held to a similiar standard.

Well, judging by the size of Strom Thurmond's funeral...many?

Totenkopf
03-20-2008, 03:33 AM
Well, judging by the size of Strom Thurmond's funeral...many?

When was Strom running for the presidency? But I don't doubt that there will be many people in attendance when Robert "KKK" Byrd passes either.


You mean like Bush at Bob Jones U?

Wasn't aware that Bush claimed as close a relationship with the founder(?) of BJU as Obama does with Wright.

Btw, we're talking about today, not 50+ years ago.

JCarter426
03-20-2008, 03:34 AM
They actually named one of Air Force Two's backups "The Spirit of Strom Thurmond." :giggle1:

Anyway...am I the only one that thinks this "scandal" is rather well-timed?

Totenkopf
03-20-2008, 03:38 AM
You mean like the revelation that Obama has harbored presidential ambitions since kindergarden? I suspect that if it weren't for HRC's run for the nomination, this whole "scandal" would only likely be buried by the so-called mainstream press.

JCarter426
03-20-2008, 03:44 AM
Actually, I was thinking the other way around--it was after all Obama who brought up the topic that led to all the press coverage. And while some may consider this a threat to his campaign, he seems to be handling the situation quite well.

I for one am suspicious. But I'm suspicious of everything and everyone. :giveup:

Totenkopf
03-20-2008, 04:04 AM
Well, what exactly are you suspicious of in particular? Do you think he's trying to divert attention from something or do you have something more nefarious in mind?

Weiser_Cain
03-20-2008, 04:09 AM
Bush went to BJU in 2000 while running for president.
Not 50+ years ago.

JCarter426
03-20-2008, 04:12 AM
Eh...it seems odd to me that Obama makes his big speech on race, which spurs press coverage of his reverend's inflamatory comments, followed by Obama's speech of how he loves the reverend but hates what he stands for.

So yeah, something more nefarious. :p

Totenkopf
03-20-2008, 04:19 AM
Bush went to BJU in 2000 while running for president.
Not 50+ years ago.


You mean like Bush at Bob Jones U?


Again:
Wasn't aware that Bush claimed as close a relationship with the founder(?) of BJU as Obama does with Wright.

------------------------

Eh...it seems odd to me that Obama makes his big speech on race, which spurs press coverage of his reverend's inflamatory comments, followed by Obama's speech of how he loves the reverend but hates what he stands for.

So yeah, something more nefarious. :p

So, you think that he's waging a preemptive campaign of sorts. Either trying to anticipate an assault on that subject in the primaries or getting wind of it and reacting swiftly?

JCarter426
03-20-2008, 04:27 AM
Basically, yes. The whole scenario seems too well-timed to be a coincidence.

Weiser_Cain
03-20-2008, 04:35 AM
His relationship with the man is his business, his association with his campaign however tenuous is over. It's as if people are suggesting that because Wright said it, Obama must believe it and thus must secretly hate himself.

I like how any doubt he was secretly a Muslim went away once this tidbit came out, now he's a devout, by the letter, follower of a bad Christian.

If you haven't guessed it I'm an Obama supporter. I've been in some crazy churches before so this stuff no longer shocks me (though trust me it did the first... and second time). I don't believe Obama believes what Wright believes which is reflected in his campaign message, that American has changed and is ready to elect the right leader regardless of their race and gender. Now all he has to do is convince us he's the one.

JCarter426
03-20-2008, 04:48 AM
I like how any doubt he was secretly a Muslim went away once this tidbit came out, now he's a devout, by the letter, follower of a bad Christian.

That's the other thing. I saw on 60 Minutes a few weeks ago coverage of the Ohio primary. A surprising number of (potential) voters questioned said they wouldn't vote for Obama because [they think] he's Muslim.

And then this happens...

Weiser_Cain
03-20-2008, 05:03 AM
You just love conspiracies. Life's not that interesting.

JCarter426
03-20-2008, 05:12 AM
Politics? Interesting?! :p

And I wouldn't go so far as to call it a conspiracy (I don't actually like conspiracies, for the record :p).

It's simple: Obama had two problems--an inflamatory reverend, and people who thought he's Muslim. If he brought to light the one, it could solve the other. And if he was the one to bring it up, he could certainly handle it better than if it, say, came out April 21.

Of course, the most this says about Obama is that he's a good strategist--not a bad quality in a president. However, it also suggests that he cares too much about image, not really a good quality in anyone. Then again, it's not like he's alone in that respect. :p

But I'm not saying that's what happen. I'm just saying that I'm suspicious.

Jae Onasi
03-20-2008, 09:30 AM
Every single politician cares about their image. They want to get elected, after all. There are 2 fears that people are expressing on this issue right now--first, does Obama believe the same way (i.e. racism against any non-blacks, but chiefly racism against whites), and second, is Obama going to appoint people like Wright to positions where their racism would then have a direct impact on non-blacks.

I thought there were points where Obama could have done better (comparing his grandma and her occasional racist comments to Wright and the vitriol he spews was a little odd), but overall I think he gave an excellent speech on how he feels about Wright, racism, and how he wants to deal with race relations in general.

That was a do-or-die speech for Obama. If he did not do well, his campaign would have been tanked. If he did well, it would at least stop the bleeding and possibly improve his standing.

Is this a conspiracy and is the timing convenient? He's in the fishbowl, and he is going to be scrutinized very closely as someone who could very well be our next President. Reporters are going to look for anything they can find on him, because he is a bit of an unknown quantity. We know far more about McCain and Clinton because they've been in the public eye much longer. Someone may or may not have tipped off a reporter, but I know any good reporter would want to get the scoop on the story, and they're going to be doing a ton of research on him.

John Galt
03-20-2008, 02:03 PM
I think that Obama shouldn't have to answer for someone else's opinions. I obviously wouldn't vote for Obama, it seems to me that a double standard exists. If Obama has to answer for his pastor's preaching against the "white elitists," shouldn't McCain have to answer for his pastor(Hagee)'s preaching against the "evils" of homosexuality?

JCarter426
03-20-2008, 04:59 PM
Oh, this certainly isn't a matter of whether he should have to answer for his reverend's inflamatory remarks. What does that have anything to do with being president?

Of course, reforming healthcare has nothing to do with being president either. :giveup:

Corinthian
03-20-2008, 05:58 PM
There's a difference between just speaking the truth and going ape towards anyone who isn't Black.

JCarter426
03-20-2008, 11:05 PM
Well, Obama just called his grandmother "a typical white person", so either my suspicious were unfounded (which, as I said, is likely), or he's the worst strategist ever.

mimartin
03-20-2008, 11:13 PM
Well one of his grandmothers is white. What would you rather he call her an atypical white person?

JCarter426
03-20-2008, 11:26 PM
Well, it was in reference to the fact that "typical white people" are afraid of black people. And yes, the media is tearing him up about it.

Totenkopf
03-20-2008, 11:27 PM
His use of the word "typical" wasn't particularly judicious. The implication is that the "typical" white person automatically lapses into stereotyping strangers, in this case black. The statement says more about Obama's perception of white people than anything about them.

JCarter426
03-20-2008, 11:31 PM
His use of the word "typical" wasn't particularly judicious.

I'm not saying it was. I'm saying that the "mainstream press" is saying it was.

It's all about image, remember? ;)

Totenkopf
03-20-2008, 11:38 PM
Was just making a blanket statement about Obama's poor choice of words. Didn't see your reply till mine posted (ie it wasn't aimed at your post).

TK-8252
03-20-2008, 11:43 PM
You know, none of the statements I've heard on the cable news channels made by Rev. Wright are even that bad. Yeah, they're unconventional views, but I tend to agree with him - at least on what I've heard him say. I must not be hearing the worst of what he's said, because nothing I've heard was in any way racist.

Rev. Wright actually makes a lot of sense if you filter out the hysteria in the media. Which is weird, because usually preachers are full of ****. Just because Sean Hannity and Bill O'Reilly (see: actual racists) say that Rev. Wright is racist and a separatist, doesn't make him one. Don't believe the hype!

mimartin
03-20-2008, 11:49 PM
Well, it was in reference to the fact that "typical white people" are afraid of black people. And yes, the media is tearing him up about it.
The only so-called “news network’ I've seen giving him a hard time about it is FoxNews and Fox affiliates. I consider them as mainstream as I do “fair and balanced.” Rush Limbaugh and Michael Moore are just as mainstream and “fair and balanced” as FoxNews. The other major media highlighting this gaffe are all New York Newspapers, I wonder why that would be, maybe because of a certain Senator from that state.

JCarter426
03-20-2008, 11:52 PM
They certainly aren't "fair and balanced", but they are "mainstream" (as in, lots of people watch them and believe what they watch, whether or not they should). It also made the local news here on several channels (mainly because I live in Boston, and the governor of Massachusetts is a longtime friend of Obama).

Corinthian
03-21-2008, 12:26 AM
Typical white people are racist for the win!

mimartin
03-21-2008, 12:29 AM
They certainly aren't "fair and balanced", but they are "mainstream" (as in, lots of people watch them and believe what they watch, whether or not they should). Sure to the Republican base FoxNews is considered “mainstream.” To “those people” it is even considered “fair and balanced.” However, to anyone that would even consider voting for Barack Obama FoxNews is neither.

To borrow an anonymous member’s description me, I am too “pigheaded and stubborn” to convince otherwise. :D

Corinthian
03-21-2008, 12:37 AM
Fox News is leaning on about a 70 degree angle towards the Right, True. But you can get a fairly decent coverage if you mix it together with one of the more mainstream news. Let's face it, most of the rest are Leftists. Fox News is a breath of fresh air merely because, while it's just as stilted, at least they do the other direction.

Weiser_Cain
03-21-2008, 01:15 AM
You agree with Fox so you like it, when I watched it once I found it offensive. I'll stop there.

Corinthian
03-21-2008, 01:56 AM
Man, I love posts like that. "I don't like X. So now I'm going to stop, because I have no argument." Geez, Weiser, you and Avery should get together. Form a "I like to fire off opposing opinions, but don't want to go to the effort(or can't) of backing it up."

And, yes, I do tend to agree with Fox which is probably why I like it. I also enjoy shows like This Week with George Step...whatever the hell his name is, mostly because he looks like he's about six so he's incredibly easy to mock.

Totenkopf
03-21-2008, 02:11 AM
Just because Sean Hannity and Bill O'Reilly (see: actual racists)

How so? B/c obermann says so? :xp:

Weiser_Cain
03-21-2008, 02:23 AM
Man, I love posts like that. "I don't like X. So now I'm going to stop, because I have no argument." Geez, Weiser, you and Avery should get together. Form a "I like to fire off opposing opinions, but don't want to go to the effort(or can't) of backing it up."

And, yes, I do tend to agree with Fox which is probably why I like it. I also enjoy shows like This Week with George Step...whatever the hell his name is, mostly because he looks like he's about six so he's incredibly easy to mock.
Hey, I was trying to be nice. I don't need to back anything up because I didn't put forth an argument. I suggested you like Fox because you agreed with everything they say, then I stated an opinion. What are you going to do prove to me I wasn't offended?

Corinthian
03-21-2008, 02:50 AM
Exactly. You didn't put forth an argument. You stated that you found Fox News offensive, but you failed to elaborate. The key in there is failure.

Det. Bart Lasiter
03-21-2008, 03:01 AM
Exactly. You didn't put forth an argument. You stated that you found Fox News offensive, but you failed to elaborate. The key in there is failure.
Damn him for not proving he found Fox offensive.

Rogue Nine
03-21-2008, 03:02 AM
Man, I love posts like that. "I don't like X. So now I'm going to stop, because I have no argument." Geez, Weiser, you and Avery should get together. Form a "I like to fire off opposing opinions, but don't want to go to the effort(or can't) of backing it up."
I forget which strike this is but I'm pretty sure it's way past the third, given your track record here.

Take a few days off to learn how to post without resorting to snide, ad hominem remarks.

Inyri
03-21-2008, 03:03 AM
And, yes, I do tend to agree with Fox which is probably why I like it. I also enjoy shows like This Week with George Step...whatever the hell his name is, mostly because he looks like he's about six so he's incredibly easy to mock.Wow, deep. Fox is a waste of a television station. If you feel the need to +1 by saying 'omg failurz cuz u r not post enuf textz!', feel free.

Totenkopf
03-21-2008, 04:16 AM
You agree with Fox so you like it, when I watched it once I found it offensive. I'll stop there.


Do you recall specifically what it was that offended you that particular time? I can't watch MSNBC for the most part b/c that station really is a pretty bad joke (oberman is such a vainglorious pompous schmuck). The main networks (ABC/NBC/CBS) are hopelessly tilted to the left, as is CNN. Fox's success is no doubt in part due to the fact that a certain segment of the population was underwhelmed by the lackluster variety of choices then available. Will usually flip between CNN/Fox due to fact that they are a station apart from each other.

SilentScope001
03-21-2008, 04:41 AM
I get my news from Google News. They ensure that my news is rather biased towards crackpots, which is exactly what I desire (crackpots, 9 out of 10, will control the world, so I need to know what they believe). If I feel really daring, I'd click on BBC or the French paper International Healrd Tribune. I'm a right-winger, so I usually listen to left-wing properganda so that I migate my own ideological bias. I'll only watch right-wing properganda to remind myself why I am still a right-winger though.

Balderdash
03-21-2008, 03:06 PM
The partisan media is full of people who think Obama is either too black or not black enough. In reality, I think he's nothing if not an individual. As for Rev. Wright, the guy is clearly a nut, but it's hard to not at the very least understand where his anger comes from. It's just like Obama said in his speech: it's not something people like to talk about in polite company... but it's not like the black men and women of his generation didn't have anything to be angry about. This whole 'scandal' is a complete joke.

Weiser_Cain
03-21-2008, 04:54 PM
Well said.

Totenkopf
03-21-2008, 05:03 PM
While I think his long association with the man raises questions, it won't impact my decision about Obama. Obama is basically a big govt socialist (not much different than Hilary, but more left leaning) and that's why I could never vote for the man.

mimartin
03-21-2008, 05:32 PM
I love how democrats are labeled “Big Government” socialist, spenders as a sort of put down. Yet, the Republicans have became the party of “Big Government” Corporate American yes men whose only real concerns are “Big Business” and the “Religious Right.” The Republicans are even more financially unstable than their liberal counterparts (what else would you call someone that spends at the same rate as the liberals yet cuts taxes at the same time, borrow and spend < tax and spend, at least to a real conservatives).

Likewise, Obama gaffe or Rev. Wright’s comments will not affect my vote for the big government socialist party over the big government big business party.

I’m starting to sound like Ron Paul. (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OX2rAjP7EUA)

JCarter426
03-21-2008, 08:34 PM
The Republicans are even more financially unstable than their liberal counterparts (what else would you call someone that spends at the same rate as the liberals yet cuts taxes at the same time, borrow and spend < tax and spend, at least to a real conservatives).

Reminds me of a certain senator who wants to cut taxes and give out free healthcare. No, not him, the other one. :p

By the way, anyone notice that the three major candidates are senators? The last senator to be elected president was one John F. Kennedy, almost fifty years ago.

He was also the last northerner to be elected. Just some random trivia for you. ;)

mimartin
03-21-2008, 09:13 PM
Reminds me of a certain senator who wants to cut taxes and give out free healthcare. No, not him, the other one. :p
Not really, she wants to cut the taxes on the middle class while doing away with the Bush tax cuts that benefited millionaires. At least according to Urban Institute-Brookings Institution Tax Policy Center that is who benefited the most. Also most of these were not asked for by Bush, they were added by the Republican Congress, which John McCain was a member. Therefore, it was just a rogue Republican deciding that we should over spend and run up a huge deficit. According to the Urban Institute-Brookings Institution Tax Policy Center, a majority of the tax cuts from these two tax-cut measures — 54 percent of these tax cuts, to be precise — will go to the 0.2 percent of households that have annual incomes of more than $1 million a year. These households will receive added tax cuts averaging nearly $20,000 a year from these two tax-cut measures, when the measures are fully in effect. In fairness, they passed congress in 2001 before 9/11/2001, before the wars and before Katrina. The irresponsibility happens after these things happened and the tax cuts were not repealed or modified even though we increased spending.

Didn’t the Republicans once favor a balance budget amendment? This is why I am no longer a Republican. I am a conservative when it comes to financial matters and spending, but those concepts died within the Republican Party long ago.


Got a kick out of Obama’s people getting this picture of President Clinton and Rev. Wright (http://blogs.trb.com/news/politics/blog/Clinton_Wright200.jpg) in the White House out to the media. That can change my impression of him, but it still want get me voting for a Republican.

JCarter426
03-21-2008, 09:20 PM
Not really, she wants to cut the taxes on the middle class while doing away with the Bush tax cuts that benefited millionaires.

Yeah, that will take care of the cost for a while, but it's not a good permanent solution.

Didn’t the Republicans once favor a balance budget amendment? This is why I am no longer a Republican. I am a conservative when it comes to financial matters and spending, but those concepts died within the Republican Party long ago.

This is why I don't trust Republicans--they keep changing their views on the economy, they can't decide whether they're for States' Rights or Big Government...

That doesn't mean I trust Democrats any more, though. :p

In fairness, they passed congress in 2001 before 9/11/2001, before the wars and before Katrina. Not before there were plans to go into Iraq, though--but that's not entirely Congress' fault...oh, wait, it is, because they admonished their power to declare war decades ago.

Totenkopf
03-21-2008, 09:39 PM
Not before there were plans to go into Iraq, though--but that's not entirely Congress' fault...oh, wait, it is, because they admonished their power to declare war decades ago.

I think you meant abdicated.

@mimartin--I agree that this administration budgets $$ like drunken dems. :D On the other hand, the drunken dems in Congress have done little to try and stop him. ;) I don't know about you, but we're overtaxed, especially given the value we receive for the extortion we endure. I think, though, that both parties are moving toward bigger and bigger centralized govt, just that the dems are running toward it while the reps amble inexorably forward. I think that we probably need some kind of peaceful (hopefully)revolution to reverse this, but don't see it happening anytime soon. As a footnote, I recall that even though Reagan dropped the top capital gains rate and still increased the $$ coming into the Treasury, the dems managed to spend something like $1.37 for every $1 of revenue generated. Tax and borrow and spend, apparently. The troubling thing, however, is that there's a $53 trillion dollar entitlement debt (SS)looming over us in the immediate future. Combined with interest payments on the debt, we are screwed no matter what we end up doing in the forseeable future.

JCarter426
03-21-2008, 09:46 PM
I think you meant abdicated.

:doh: I need more sleep... :(

I think that we probably need some kind of peaceful (hopefully)revolution to reverse this, but don't see it happening anytime soon.

Thomas Jefferson once said that a country needs a revolution every so often.

mimartin
03-21-2008, 10:22 PM
@mimartin--I agree that this administration budgets $$ like drunken dems. :D On the other hand, the drunken dems in Congress have done little to try and stop him. ;)
The "drunken dems" are doing a better job than the Republican Congress did. Now where does that bridge go again? :)

Just like every other American I’m for my taxes being cut, but I’m for more of a across the board tax cuts proponent . I could care less about the top .02%, as they already have an army of tax attorneys and accounts to make sure they are not over paying their taxes. If Paris Hilton or Britney Spears have to pay $20,000 more in taxes, so be it. Maybe that will stop them from making a fool of themselves one day out of the year.

The troubling thing, however, is that there's a $53 trillion dollar entitlement debt (SS)looming over us in the immediate future. Combined with interest payments on the debt, we are screwed no matter what we end up doing in the forseeable future. Entitlement :lol: Yes, people are entitled to the money they put into social security over their lifetime of work. I wonder where oh where the surplus in Social Security went. It was last seen in the 1980’s, about the time of the last major tax cuts.

Totenkopf
03-21-2008, 10:32 PM
The "drunken dems" are doing a better job than the Republican Congress did. Now where does that bridge go again? :)

Just like every other American I’m for my taxes being cut, but I’m for more of a across the board tax cuts proponent . I could care less about the top .02%, as they already have an army of tax attorneys and accounts to make sure they are not over paying their taxes. If Paris Hilton or Britney Spears have to pay $20,000 more in taxes, so be it. Maybe that will stop them from making a fool of themselves one day out of the year.

But are they, really? Are they putting more money down on the debt or merely trying to reign in defense expenditures for PR purposes?

Now where does that bridge go again? :)

I'm guessing this in reference to Red Stevens of AK. More unnecessary pork, but might have been more successful if it were supposed to lead somewhere into WV. :D

Somehow, I suspect they they wouldn't skimp on making asses of themselves on slightly less money. ;) But the interesting stat is that the top 10-20% of $$ earners (as share of economy) pay somewhere on the order of 40% of fed taxes. How much is enough? Aren't you just catering to class warfare sentiments?

Entitlement Yes, people are entitled to the money they put into social security over their lifetime of work. I wonder where oh where the surplus in Social Security went. It was last seen in the 1980’s, about the time of the last major tax cuts.

Two things: 1)Are they entitled to MORE than they put in? and 2)As I recall, SS was folded into the general fund well before the 80s and it was dems who controlled congress (power of the purse, ne?)for over 40 years.

Jae Onasi
03-21-2008, 10:36 PM
Tax discussions belong in their own thread. :) Please return to the topic....

Weiser_Cain
03-22-2008, 01:19 AM
Reminds me of a certain senator who wants to cut taxes and give out free healthcare. No, not him, the other one. :p

By the way, anyone notice that the three major candidates are senators? The last senator to be elected president was one John F. Kennedy, almost fifty years ago.

He was also the last northerner to be elected. Just some random trivia for you. ;)
Bush is from Connecticut.

JCarter426
03-22-2008, 01:42 AM
He wasn't elected. :p

And in any case, his father was from Massachusetts, but that doesn't make either of them northerners, since they both consider themselves from Texas.

But back to Obama and Wright...

Again, I ask the question, what does Obama's reverend's beliefs have anything to do with whether or not Obama would make a good president? It's not like Clinton or McCain don't have their share of crazy friends. And it's especially strange seeing as how favorable the media has treated Obama so far.

Jae Onasi
03-22-2008, 09:15 AM
The reason Obama's relationship with Rev. Wright is such a big deal is because of the closeness of that relationship. If Obama were a white candidate and Wright was a white preacher spewing white supremacy vitriol, his candidacy would be in the toilet. People are worried that his close relationship with Wright for over 20 years means he shares some of these same extreme and just plain wrong viewpoints about race. For instance, does Obama feel God should damn America? Does Obama feel whites should be overthrown so blacks can rule as is their 'rightful place'? Is Obama so entwined in the kind of culture that Wright espouses that he can no longer relate to whites (or Hispanics, Asians, or any other non-white race) without prejudice?

Obama can't claim to be a uniter of all Americans if he shares the same anti-white views that Wright has, and that is the chief issue right now that he'll have to answer, and answer well, if he wants to stay in the candidacy. He's taken a couple missteps in the last week (denying he was in the pew when Wright said some of these outrageous things, saying his white grandma, who has said some racial slurs, was a 'typical white American'). I understand Obama is proud of his heritage, as anyone should be since it shapes who we are. What I want to know is if that pride extends so far that he endorses and shares the black supremacy ideals that Wright has. I view any racial supremacy, white, black, or otherwise, as a poison in this world, and I want to make sure anyone who's going to be my President doesn't harbor supremacist ideas.

Achilles
03-22-2008, 11:25 AM
The fact that he is half-white leads me to suspect that he is probably not a black supremacist. :rolleyes:

Totenkopf
03-22-2008, 12:31 PM
Then again, not everyone in the Nazi regime was "pure aryan", even by their own standards. Many blacks in the US have some degree of white in their background. Take a look at Wright, he's even lighter than Obama, but that doesn't seem to make any difference.

Balderdash
03-24-2008, 05:10 PM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7mlZeb2k8NA

You know you're useless when Sharpton of all people gets the better of you...

mimartin
03-24-2008, 05:31 PM
Then again, not everyone in the Nazi regime was "pure aryan", even by their own standards.Yet, how many were 1/2 Jewish?

John Galt
03-24-2008, 10:12 PM
Yet, how many were 1/2 Jewish?

Hey, according to some sources Hitler was 1/4 Jewish, a Rothschild, no less.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maria_Schicklgruber

On topic: Of all the faults I've found in Obama, racism doesn't seem to be one of them, and I honestly agree with some of the "contraversial" things that Rev. Wright was saying. For example, I find it more probable that God would(should he exist) be more likely to damn America for killing hundreds of thousands of Koreans, Vietnamese, and Iraqis as opposed to damning it for putting up with homosexuals, as some on the religious right believe.

Totenkopf
03-25-2008, 08:11 AM
Yet, how many were 1/2 Jewish?

Considering that anyone with black blood in thier lineage is often considered "black" first, it becomes a matter of racial identity politics and not genetics. A "half-black" is still considered black and almost always identifies with that group. It's not inconceivable that a "half-black" could be a racial supremecist at heart, all the more so if they feel alienated from the other half of their genetic background (nuture over nature). Obama's not responsible for the words that come out of another man's mouth, only how he reacts to that person afterward.

EnderWiggin
04-27-2008, 05:39 PM
Nice little article by my favorite author:

http://www.ornery.org/essays/warwatch/2008-04-13-1.html

(I'm sure everyone here knows about the 'small towns are bitter and cling to guns/religion' comment, right?)

_EW_

Achilles
04-27-2008, 07:29 PM
At first, Obama tried to turn these words into an asset, insisting that people are bitter about government failures, and that anyone who says he's "out of touch" is far more out of touch themselves.

That didn't work for him. I wonder what he means by "That didn't work for him".

(These last two quotations are from the paraphrase of Obama's remarks by Catherine Lucey in the Philadelphia Daily News, 15 April 2008.) Too busy to listen to the comments himself and make his own summary? Taking secondary sources at face value when primary sources are available doesn't strike me as being consistent with the ideals of journalistic integrity.

Unfortunately, it is a misrepresentation to claim that he was speaking of politicians distracting voters with wedge issues. His list of things that result from supposed small-town bitterness began with clinging "to guns or religion" -- it can hardly be classed as a misstatement when that's how he started his list. Not sure what he's attempting to convey here.

No matter how he tries to dance around it now, Obama was showing us who he really is -- one of those rare glimpses. Opinion as fact. I'm always a big fan of this. :)

He was speaking to an audience of supposed friends -- people who presumably loved him for having the most liberal voting record in the Senate.Yeah, amazing how it's always supporters at fundraisers :rolleyes:

But someone taped it and it got to the media and now we know what Obama thinks and says in private. Actually the person that taped it was the media and happens to be one of the reporters assigned to his campaign. I guess that blows the whole "he had no idea they were there" thing out of the water.

Is It Racism? This whole section is conjecture, but the man is entitled to his opinions.

That Obama harbors racial stereotypes is clear from other contexts.:lol: Did he get those from his white mother, his Indonesian step-father, or his African grandparents? :lol:

Does this make Obama a racist? No, it makes him human. We all harbor information we've learned and conclusions we've reached about people who belong to other groups: And which group does the author assume that Obama "belongs" in? Who's racist now? :)

We have no evidence of Obama hating or abusing or mistreating or rejecting white people, even though he obviously harbors quite-incorrect stereotypes about them. And the fact that Obama is half-white? Raised by his single white mom?

Yes, clearly (http://www.kansasprairie.net/kansasprairieblog/wp-content/uploads/2007/12/copy-of-28585926.jpg) Obama was raised in an environment devoid of diversity. :)

We need to keep in mind that Obama was not speaking to a group of black people; my guess is that most of his listeners at that San Francisco fund-raiser were white. Woot! Conclusions based entirely upon speculation. Love these too. ;)

Obama was speaking to a group of rich liberals Really? How does he know this? Or is this more speculation on his part?

...and he was using language that sounded like the way leftist intellectuals speak about the ignorant people who don't think and act the way leftist intellectuals think they should. Is there a textbook available for those of us that want to learn more?

I have been in countless conversations with elitists of the Left, and this is precisely how they talk. They make sweeping generalizations about "the middle class" or, specifically, "the white middle class." They make mocking, disparaging remarks about "people who shop in malls" or "WalMart shoppers." Wow, "countless". That sounds like a lot.

I have heard remarks like: "I don't know how people who don't read books can stand their lives" -- thus expressing the double assumption that people who aren't part of the academic Left don't read books, and that people who don't read books have lives that are not worth living; both statements are, of course, ludicrously false. As are the assumptions that he's assigning to that statement. Thumbs up, Mr. Card. Way to arbitrarily assign context to support your arguments!

Let's look at those false assumptions. In verse 1, Obama says, "the jobs [in small towns] have been gone now for 25 years and nothing's replaced them."

First of all, it wasn't the people in the small towns of Pennsylvania and the Midwest who lost jobs because of the deindustrialization of America -- it was people in industrial cities and suburbs in the rust belt. Did Obama specify why they lost the jobs? It seems he only specified that the jobs were gone. It seems that Mr. Card's introduction of deindustrializaton vs. factory-farming is completely irrelevant.

Obama's statement that the jobs are gone and that nothing has replaced them seems to be correct. Not sure how the "false assumption" is anything other than the author's.

In the last part of this section, Mr. Card makes sweeping assumptions very similar to those that he attempts to lambaste "liberal elists" for a few paragraphs earlier. Perhaps he should include a sentence or two about hypocrisy in his "what it means to be human" section.

Government Failure Mr. Card isn't aware of any programs therefore there must not have been any. Got it.

But what Obama is clearly implying, between verses 1 and 2, is that it is the loss of jobs twenty-five years ago that has embittered the people now living in small towns.

This is the single stupidest part of what he said. Because, if you have a brain, you will realize that the people who did not find jobs in those small towns left them twenty-five years ago! That's why the towns have shrunk! Well the ones that could afford to leave left. The ones that had job skills that allowed them to find work elsewhere probably left too. I wonder if I need to pull out unemployment statistics or if we can simply acknowledge that Orson Scott Card is the idiot here.

There is no one in Midwestern or even Northeastern small towns who lost his job twenty-five years ago and stayed in the small town living off the welfare of his neighbors ever since, who is bitter about the failure of Presidents to "save" them. I wonder what evidence Mr. Card intends to present to support his assertion :)

Only a Leftist intellectual is capable of such obvious stupidity -- but I will bet you that most Leftist intellectuals who read Obama's statement saw nothing wrong with it. To these elitists, you don't actually have to have information or logic in order to make vast generalizations and completely explain away entire classes of people. In fact, such false and evidence-free generalizations have been the stock in trade of the intellectual Left from Karl Marx on. This is my favorite paragraph of the whole thing. Might as well put on a dress and rant about how much he hates cross-dressers while he's at it.

The Results of Bitterness? This commentary in this section is based on a logical fallacy known as biased sample (http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/biased-sample.html)

So what have we learned about Obama?

1. That he's as full of ignorant stereotypes as anybody;

2. That he's capable of saying really stupid, thoughtless, obviously-false things; and

3. That he thinks he's really smart for saying them. We learned those things about Obama, huh? :)

The rest of Mr. Card's article seems to drift off onto to topics other than the "bitter" nontroversy, so I'll quit here. Thanks for sharing the link!

mimartin
04-27-2008, 07:57 PM
I guess there is no point in reading the article as Achilles seems to have quoted about 90 % of it. Too bad the author of the article is not a member; I would pay to see his response.

One question, there is still a middle class? Why would elitists of the Left be making sweeping generalizations about a group that the elitist of the Right have destroyed over the past eight years? (oh, I guess I just made one, I must be an elitists of the Left).

Nice post Achilles.

Achilles
04-27-2008, 08:07 PM
One question, there is still a middle class? Why would elitists of the Left be making sweeping generalizations about a group that the elitist of the Right have destroyed over the past eight years? (oh, I guess I just made one, I must be an elitists of the Left). Here (http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=89940718) is my public service post of the day.
Nice post Achilles. Thank you, sir.

Totenkopf
05-02-2008, 02:09 AM
I guess there is no point in reading the article as Achilles seems to have quoted about 90 % of it. Too bad the author of the article is not a member; I would pay to see his response.

One question, there is still a middle class? Why would elitists of the Left be making sweeping generalizations about a group that the elitist of the Right have destroyed over the past eight years? (oh, I guess I just made one, I must be an elitists of the Left).

Nice post Achilles.


Middle class isn't dead yet. Give the lefties an administration or 2 and they'll probably all be on the dole.

mimartin
05-02-2008, 03:14 PM
Middle class isn't dead yet. Give the lefties an administration or 2 and they'll probably all be on the dole. Under Bill Clinton the middle class grew, we can't say the same under the present president’s tenure. :(

Are you saying the compassionate conservative title made Bush a lefty, because I will agree Bill Clinton was way more conservative than Bush financially.

Totenkopf
05-02-2008, 03:43 PM
I doubt that Clinton was all that conservative by choice. Having a congress and administration split between two parties can have that effect. Unfortunately, that probably only tends to happen when the president is dem and the congress rep. Having the same party in control of both branches is probably never a really good idea.

As to Bush, I think that he's proven to finacially be a lefty. He's certainly spending $$ like a traditional lefty democrat. ;) As to the middle class remark, you did say destroyed. I'll take that for poetic license of sorts.

mimartin
05-02-2008, 03:53 PM
As to the middle class remark, you did say destroyed. I'll take that for poetic license of sorts. Nothing poetic about it, if you were one of the former middle class. They are just as angry as Rev Wright. Luckily, my stepfather hasn’t been filmed saying what he said about this country. A country that during the Korean war he lost about a pound of his butt for. In fairness all his problems were not caused by President Bush, they were also caused by former Texas Governor Bush. :D

Totenkopf
05-02-2008, 03:56 PM
Have some people moved from the "middle class" in either direction over the last 20 years? Of course. My point was that "destroyed" was a strong word when applied to the whole concept, not merely individuals.

Jae Onasi
05-03-2008, 12:12 AM
The fact that he is half-white leads me to suspect that he is probably not a black supremacist.Just because he's half-white doesn't mean he can't harbor black supremacist ideas, anymore than being half-black means one can't harbor white supremacist ideas. I think it's highly unlikely that he harbors some of these views, but I'd really like him to be clear on this issue. It took him awhile in March to really get things settled down.

2. That he's capable of saying really stupid, thoughtless, obviously-false things;
Well, the 'guns and religion' thing _was_ a stupid, ill-thought out statement by Obama. That's going to happen to all the candidates, however. The candidates are running to the point of exhaustion and are in the media's fishbowl constantly. At some point, they all have and will make mistakes. It's inevitable.

I found it odd that someone who is a Christian would make that kind of statement about other people of faith (no comments on the rightness or wrongness of faith here, or any kind of statement denigrating people's faith--there are more than enough threads in this forum for that). It made me wonder briefly how deep his faith really was, but he's been pretty forthright about that topic so I'm more inclined to believe what he says on that than not.

I also find it odd that Rev. Wright continues to say things that could hurt the Obama campaign. He's too bright to not notice the effect his comments are having on people's opinions (rightly or wrongly). If he wants his friend and spiritual protege to get elected, toning it way down might be wise at this point.

El Sitherino
05-03-2008, 01:21 AM
I don't see how the people he's associated himself is in any way a reflection upon who he is as an individual.

I've hung out with some messed up people, however do you consider me a risk to society? An immediate threat to another persons well being?
I've grown up and learned lessons from hateful people, does that mean I'm a hateful person? No, just means they happened to teach me how to crap without a diaper. Or how to stand up for what I believe in. Doesn't mean I have to believe in what they do, just support their right to do as I would. (make an active choice of free will, legally)

I respect your opinion Jae (and the others with a similiar expressed opinion), however I cannot see the logic behind simplifying an already outlandish and over-exaggerated issue, with "Well they were in a deep spiritual relationship for many years, so he has to believe the same principles as this man" If that were true then why were Malcom X and Martin Luther King Jr. such drastically different forms of Civil Rights protestors? They carried the same message, but one chose one path to the goal, while the other one chose a different path.

Would you, do you fault Martin Luther King for maintaining a friendship and professional relationship with Malcom X?

Jae Onasi
05-03-2008, 10:20 AM
I don't see how the people he's associated himself is in any way a reflection upon who he is as an individual.Your close friends have an influence on you. If Obama was hanging around KKK leaders and considered them his spiritual mentors, people would be asking if he was a white supremacist. I would think Obama was about as likely to be a white supremacist in that case based on what he says (which is very small).

I've hung out with some messed up people, however do you consider me a risk to society? An immediate threat to another persons well being?:lol: Sithy, I don't wonder about that but I wouldn't be surprised if some do. :D

I respect your opinion Jae (and the others with a similiar expressed opinion), however I cannot see the logic behind simplifying an already outlandish and over-exaggerated issue, with "Well they were in a deep spiritual relationship for many years, so he has to believe the same principles as this man"I think it's still a legitimate issue to _ask_ about, however. The people who you consider mentors, spiritual or otherwise, have shaped your views on life issues. If you have a very close friend who is saying black supremacist things, people are going to wonder how it affects you, too. If Wright were very white supremacist, homophobic, or fundamentalist Christian, I guarantee you there would be even more questioning and even outrage over their relationship.

Up until the Rev. Wright tirades went public, we hadn't heard much more from Obama on race relations other than 'we need unity'. We didn't know where he stood definitively. Now we have a better idea.

If that were true then why were Malcom X and Martin Luther King Jr. such drastically different forms of Civil Rights protestors? They carried the same message, but one chose one path to the goal, while the other one chose a different path.Malcolm X did not want unity of races, he wanted black supremacy. King worked for unity, Malcolm X did not. The only common factor between the two is that they happened to be working on racial issues, but their ultimate goals couldn't have been more different.

Would you, do you fault Martin Luther King for maintaining a friendship and professional relationship with Malcom X?King and Malcolm X acknowledged each other's work on race rights and clearly had a cordial relationship, though King never agreed with Malcolm X's methods. Their relationship was not the same as Obama's and Wright's, however. King and Malcolm X did not consider each other their spiritual mentors.

mimartin
05-03-2008, 10:36 AM
I also find it odd that Rev. Wright continues to say things that could hurt the Obama campaign. He's too bright to not notice the effect his comments are having on people's opinions (rightly or wrongly). If he wants his friend and spiritual protege to get elected, toning it way down might be wise at this point.Problem is Rev. Wright see this as an attack on the church he has spent most of his adult life building. He is going to protect his legacy and all the members of the church, not just the one running for President.

Would you, do you fault Martin Luther King for maintaining a friendship and professional relationship with Malcom X?
First to your question my answer is no.

I see neither man as a saint, they were merely men that were willing and did sacrifice everything for what they believed in and what they thought was right. If we waited for saint’s to change the world then there would have never been a Civil Rights movement or an United States.

I remember reading about a man associating with a known criminal sentenced to death. After the condemned criminal showed some compassion for the hero of the story, the hero not only forgave the criminal, but invited him back to his father’s kingdom. Inviting someone home for eternity is a strong association to me. Of course, I’m talking about Jesus who associated with some pretty shady characters too.

100% of my best friends are republican, does not make me one.
Malcolm X did not want unity of races, he wanted black supremacy. King worked for unity, Malcolm X did not. The only common factor between the two is that they happened to be working on racial issues, but their ultimate goals couldn't have been more different. His last few speeches did not reflect this goal. It is possible that Malcolm X attitude change before his death. Besides if he really did want black supremacy, let us remember he was living in a time of white supremacy. It does not sound nearly as radical when you look at it like that. Besides I only believe he wanted separation, not supremacy.

EnderWiggin
05-03-2008, 10:43 AM
Well, here we go:

I wonder what he means by "That didn't work for him".
So what you're saying is that the people in small town Pennsylvania (read:my neighbors) were originally offended by these comments, but "Oh, now that you're saying we're out of touch and bashing the candidate of Pennsylvania, we forgive you and believe you now?"

You think that him coming back with a "I know you are but what am I" response helped?

Too busy to listen to the comments himself and make his own summary? Taking secondary sources at face value when primary sources are available doesn't strike me as being consistent with the ideals of journalistic integrity.
For starters, he's not really a journalist. It's an opinion article for a site called "The Ornery American." Second of all, the quotations he used were still consistent with the original comments. You're arguing semantics.


Opinion as fact. I'm always a big fan of this. :)

Because in an opinion article, one usually treats his or her opinion as truth. But really, what did you want him to say? That's what he believes; that's what he's being paid for here.


Yeah, amazing how it's always supporters at fundraisers :rolleyes:


This isn't a valid criticism. He's setting up his next point.


Actually the person that taped it was the media and happens to be one of the reporters assigned to his campaign. I guess that blows the whole "he had no idea they were there" thing out of the water.

Ok, I can accept this. I'm sure that he didn't realize that this would become a nation-wide controversy, in any case.


This whole section is conjecture, but the man is entitled to his opinions.

Right. Opinions are conjecture. So.... what's the problem?


:lol: Did he get those from his white mother, his Indonesian step-father, or his African grandparents? :lol:

Oh, well then. It must be impossible for him to have stereotypes.


And which group does the author assume that Obama "belongs" in? Who's racist now? :)

Not sure what you're implying. That there aren't 'groups'? You don't believe in demographics anymore? Or are you saying that humans don't jump to conclusions and aren't prejudiced? Please elucidate.


And the fact that Obama is half-white? Raised by his single white mom?
Yes, clearly (http://www.kansasprairie.net/kansasprairieblog/wp-content/uploads/2007/12/copy-of-28585926.jpg) Obama was raised in an environment devoid of diversity. :)


Just because he's half-white doesn't mean he can't harbor black supremacist ideas, anymore than being half-black means one can't harbor white supremacist ideas. I think it's highly unlikely that he harbors some of these views, but I'd really like him to be clear on this issue.

Thanks Jae.


Woot! Conclusions based entirely upon speculation. Love these too. ;)
Yup, he should call San Francisco to make sure there were no African-Americans present.


Really? How does he know this? Or is this more speculation on his part?
I'm sure it is, but you don't get into a private fundraiser with a democrat presidential candidate without being both rich and liberal.


Is there a textbook available for those of us that want to learn more?

Nice and glib.


Wow, "countless". That sounds like a lot.


Actually, the day I met him he apologized for not carrying one of these (http://www.danfreakley.co.uk/lynx-clicker-click-counter.gif) in his pocket.


As are the assumptions that he's assigning to that statement. Thumbs up, Mr. Card. Way to arbitrarily assign context to support your arguments!

Not sure what your criticism is. That he used an analogy to try to back up his point? That he 'assigned context to support his arguments'? Doesn't sound like it's a bad thing to me....


Did Obama specify why they lost the jobs? It seems he only specified that the jobs were gone. It seems that Mr. Card's introduction of deindustrializaton vs. factory-farming is completely irrelevant. Obama's statement that the jobs are gone and that nothing has replaced them seems to be correct. Not sure how the "false assumption" is anything other than the author's.

Your call, I guess. I guess OSC can't really talk about this point because Obama wasn't specifically wrong, just generally.


Mr. Card isn't aware of any programs therefore there must not have been any. Got it.

Not everyone can know everything.


Well the ones that could afford to leave left. The ones that had job skills that allowed them to find work elsewhere probably left too. I wonder if I need to pull out unemployment statistics or if we can simply acknowledge that Orson Scott Card is the idiot here.

... Go get your statistics.


I wonder what evidence Mr. Card intends to present to support his assertion :)

So you disagree with his point? That there are just people all over America that lived in small towns, then lost their jobs, then just continued without a job and without leaving where they were to try and find employment?



This is my favorite paragraph of the whole thing. Might as well put on a dress and rant about how much he hates cross-dressers while he's at it.

:lol:

Ok, if you'll just grant me an aside here....

This makes me laugh - now I'm just arguing for the sake of arguing. I agree that this statement is paradoxically hypocritical.


This commentary in this section is based on a logical fallacy known as biased sample (http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/biased-sample.html)


Agreed.


We learned those things about Obama, huh? :)

Did you have a preexisting problem with OSC or was this one opinion of his just enough to set you off?

The rest of Mr. Card's article seems to drift off onto to topics other than the "bitter" nontroversy, so I'll quit here. Thanks for sharing the link!
I'm assuming 'nontroversy' wasn't a typo? What, you agree with Obama on this?

Anyway, you're welcome.

Thanks for reading... can't wait to see how you'll respond :D.

_EW_

Achilles
05-03-2008, 01:41 PM
So what you're saying is that the people in small town Pennsylvania (read:my neighbors) were originally offended by these comments, but "Oh, now that you're saying we're out of touch and bashing the candidate of Pennsylvania, we forgive you and believe you now?"

You think that him coming back with a "I know you are but what am I" response helped? No, I'm saying that the author stated something but wasn't very clear about what he was trying to convey :)

Sometimes my questions are just questions.

To the point you raised though: not everyone in PA felt that Obama was off the mark. Some people did come forward and say that they were bitter. Hillary got boo'ed at one of her rallies for trying to say that Obama was out of touch for that comment.

For starters, he's not really a journalist. It's an opinion article for a site called "The Ornery American." Second of all, the quotations he used were still consistent with the original comments. You're arguing semantics. Not arguing semantics at all. He absolutely responded to someone else's comment and attempted to pass it off as a legitimate response to what was said originally. Journalist or no, it's still sloppy thinking.

Because in an opinion article, one usually treats his or her opinion as truth. But really, what did you want him to say? That's what he believes; that's what he's being paid for here. Except the intellectually rigorous people that acknowledge that their opinions are simply opinions :)

He is absolutely entitled to his opinions, however passing opinion off as fact is only impressive to some audiences.

This isn't a valid criticism. He's setting up his next point. Speaking of opinions...:)

Ok, I can accept this. I'm sure that he didn't realize that this would become a nation-wide controversy, in any case. No, I'm sure he didn't.

Right. Opinions are conjecture. So.... what's the problem? No, sometimes opinions are informed. The problem is that the author is trying to pass his opinion off as fact but

1) isn't making much of an effort to know what he's talking about and
2) not really making much of an effort to clarify that he's simply sharing what he thinks rather than acurrately interpret reality. Let the reader beware.

Oh, well then. It must be impossible for him to have stereotypes. Impossible? No. Significantly less likely? I would argue yes.

Not sure what you're implying. That there aren't 'groups'? You don't believe in demographics anymore? Or are you saying that humans don't jump to conclusions and aren't prejudiced? Please elucidate. Simply pointing out that the author's choice to categorize Obama as a black man with white stereotypes is fairly hypocritical considering that he's attempting to lambaste Obama for doing something similar and attributing it to racism. Something about the shoe being on the other foot or what have you :)

Thanks Jae.Not sure that Jae addressed my point, so you'll need to expand please. Thanks.

Yup, he should call San Francisco to make sure there were no African-Americans present. Or simply not made the statement without knowing. That was an option too :D

I'm sure it is, but you don't get into a private fundraiser with a democrat presidential candidate without being both rich and liberal. Funny, I was invited to a private Obama fundraiser, but I'm only middle-class and moderate. :(

Maybe you're wrong on this one?

Nice and glib.Does that mean "no"? :(

Actually, the day I met him he apologized for not carrying one of these (http://www.danfreakley.co.uk/lynx-clicker-click-counter.gif) in his pocket. Well let's think about it: if the statistic is "countless" then trying to keep track would defy reason, no?

Not sure what your criticism is. That he used an analogy to try to back up his point? That he 'assigned context to support his arguments'? Doesn't sound like it's a bad thing to me.... That didn't sound like an analogy. It sounded like an ancedote (as indicated by "I have heard remarks like:". The fact that he was using the ancedote here tells me that he thinks it's applicable.

However he tells us that the person making this statement is directing this critism at a particular group of people and means something specific by it. There is absolutely no evidence for this present in the statement itself. Don't believe me? Imagine that the comment is being a made about someone conservative. The first assumption immediately fall apart, yet he still tries to paint the speaker as an idiot. Furthermore the second assumption is completely fabricated. Therefore he has assign context to the statment in order to make it say what he needed it to say so that he could prop up his own comment. Which was my point.

Your call, I guess. I guess OSC can't really talk about this point because Obama wasn't specifically wrong, just generally. Except that Obama can't even be generally wrong on this point because he never made any comment on this point in the first place. :)

Not everyone can know everything. Indeed. It doesn't excuse the fallacy.

... Go get your statistics. Link (http://money.cnn.com/pf/features/lists/state_unemployment/)
Clearly PA is not the worker's paradise that the author wants us to believe it is (not that's it's sucking eggs either).

So you disagree with his point? That there are just people all over America that lived in small towns, then lost their jobs, then just continued without a job and without leaving where they were to try and find employment? No, what I said was, "I wonder what evidence Mr. Card intends to present to support his assertion."

(hint: this is the standard line that I use when someone makes an argument that depends on them having to prove a negative to support it).

I'm looking forward to seeing how Mr. Card intends to prove that there is no one living in a small town that lost their job, went on welfare, and is currently bitter about it. Keep in mind that if we find one, his argument falls apart. The more we find, the more silly his argument will become.

Did you have a preexisting problem with OSC or was this one opinion of his just enough to set you off? Never heard of him until you posted that link ;)

I'm assuming 'nontroversy' wasn't a typo? No, it was quite intentional.

What, you agree with Obama on this? I guess that depends on what you mean by "agree with Obama".

Obama was asked by a couple of volunteers what to expect when they went to PA to canvas for him. He replies (paraphrasing): "Depends on where you go. Some parts of the state are bitter about government. Add to that that some people are skeptical about me. Can you blame them considering how long they've been let down? So some communites are going to be highly suspicious of our message because I don't look or act like they do."

So with the context of the question and the full response, no, I don't disagree with Barack Obama. I think that he could have certainly phrased that one particular sentence a lot better, but I don't disagree with the overall sentiment of his comments.


Thanks for readingIt was my pleasure.

EnderWiggin
05-03-2008, 05:25 PM
Sometimes my questions are just questions.
How philosophic :)

Speaking of opinions...:)
:lol: Touche.

Impossible? No. Significantly less likely? I would argue yes.
I would agree.


Not sure that Jae addressed my point, so you'll need to expand please. Thanks.

Pretty sure she (and I) meant that his viewpoints don't really have to depend on his genetics. If he identifies himself with the black supremest ideals, then it doesn't matter.


Or simply not made the statement without knowing. That was an option too :D

Not really... that option doesn't sell the Rhinoceros Times or look good in the Ornery American.


Funny, I was invited to a private Obama fundraiser, but I'm only middle-class and moderate. :(

Maybe you're wrong on this one?

http://blogs.suntimes.com/sweet/2008/04/obamas_bitter_comment_came_at_1.html
And this... although not sure how factual.
http://www.zombietime.com/obama_visits_billionaires_row/


Does that mean "no"? :(


I'm so sorry. :xp:


Well let's think about it: if the statistic is "countless" then trying to keep track would defy reason, no?

:confused:
What do you mean? I don't think he tried to keep track of how many... I was being a bit facetious there. Please elaborate.


That didn't sound like an analogy. It sounded like an ancedote (as indicated by "I have heard remarks like:". The fact that he was using the ancedote here tells me that he thinks it's applicable.

However he tells us that the person making this statement is directing this critism at a particular group of people and means something specific by it. There is absolutely no evidence for this present in the statement itself. Don't believe me? Imagine that the comment is being a made about someone conservative. The first assumption immediately fall apart, yet he still tries to paint the speaker as an idiot. Furthermore the second assumption is completely fabricated. Therefore he has assign context to the statment in order to make it say what he needed it to say so that he could prop up his own comment. Which was my point.

Yes, anecdote is a better word. It may or may not be false, but you're saying that you have a problem with the accuracy and not the technique. Thanks for clarifying, makes more sense now. :)

Indeed. It doesn't excuse the fallacy.
Maybe not.


Link (http://money.cnn.com/pf/features/lists/state_unemployment/)
Clearly PA is not the worker's paradise that the author wants us to believe it is (not that's it's sucking eggs either).

Not to be rude, but that statistic tells us nothing. It has an overall unemployment rate, but nothing on the last 25 years of small-town Pennsylvanians and their economic troubles after they lose their jobs.


I'm looking forward to seeing how Mr. Card intends to prove that there is no one living in a small town that lost their job, went on welfare, and is currently bitter about it. Keep in mind that if we find one, his argument falls apart. The more we find, the more silly his argument will become.
If you find one, his argument does not fall apart. Obama's comment said that small town Pennsylvanians cling to these things because they're bitter towards the government after they lose their jobs. Card's refutation was that there aren't actually people like that. They were arguing about the majority. They both know that there are outliers.


Never heard of him until you posted that link ;)

Ok. :)


No, it was quite intentional.

:D Of course.

I guess that depends on what you mean by "agree with Obama".

Obama was asked by a couple of volunteers what to expect when they went to PA to canvas for him. He replies (paraphrasing): "Depends on where you go. Some parts of the state are bitter about government. Add to that that some people are skeptical about me. Can you blame them considering how long they've been let down? So some communites are going to be highly suspicious of our message because I don't look or act like they do."

So with the context of the question and the full response, no, I don't disagree with Barack Obama. I think that he could have certainly phrased that one particular sentence a lot better, but I don't disagree with the overall sentiment of his comments.


I don't think that religion is something that small-town Pennsylvanians cling to in order to survive their economic plight. Besides that, I would be inclined to agree with you.


It was my pleasure.
Mine as well. :)

_EW_

Jae Onasi
05-03-2008, 07:33 PM
I view any racial supremacy, white, black, or otherwise, as a poison in this world, and I want to make sure anyone who's going to be my President doesn't harbor supremacist ideas.The fact that he is half-white leads me to suspect that he is probably not a black supremacist.
But we don't know for sure until Obama gives us evidence, do we? The color of his skin is irrelevant to his feelings on black or white supremacy.

Just because he's half-white doesn't mean he can't harbor black supremacist ideas, anymore than being half-black means one can't harbor white supremacist ideas. I think it's highly unlikely that he harbors some of these views, but I'd really like him to be clear on this issue. It took him awhile in March to really get things settled down. Not sure that Jae addressed my point, so you'll need to expand please.

Obama's close association with someone who makes some statements that are black supremacist is going to raise the question of whether or not Obama also shares these views--he had not been very specific about them until Wright's comments, mostly because it just wasn't raised as much of an issue before then. You appear to be saying (and I could have read it wrong, in which case this is moot) that because Obama is half-white, he's unlikely to be a black supremacist. I'm saying that doesn't necessarily follow. I've heard blacks calling other blacks '******s' in the fully pejorative sense. I've heard whites calling other whites 'crackers' because they hate their own race. Obama could have been a black supremacist in spite of being half white--genetics are indeed ultimately irrelevant to his views on racism. If Obama went to KKK meetings on a weekly basis, we'd all be asking if he was a white supremacist. The argument that 'it's unlikely because he's half-black' would hold as much weight as the one that says he's unlikely to be a black supremacist because he's half-white.

If someone is going to lead this melting pot of a nation and treat people of all races fairly, I don't want to guess where he or she is at on racial issues based on his or her personal skin color. I want to know where all the candidates are at on racial issues by what they say and do.


I don't think that religion is something that small-town Pennsylvanians cling to in order to survive their economic plight. Humor mode on: Well, I know if I ever lose my job and suffer economically, I'm going to pull out my shotgun and sit on the porch clinging to it with all my might because that will be so helpful in improving my financial situation. :lol:

I understand the paraphrase of Obama's comments, Achilles, and agree in that I think that's what he meant, too, just said in a maladroit manner that made me cringe since I knew how it was going to get spun. However, others are going to make the argument 'we can't go by what we think he meant, we can only go by what he says'. I think it's extremely unlikely Obama's a black supremacist, too, but he needs to be very clear in articulating to his opponents that he's not a supremacist of any color.

EnderWiggin
05-03-2008, 08:15 PM
Humor mode on: Well, I know if I ever lose my job and suffer economically, I'm going to pull out my shotgun and sit on the porch clinging to it with all my might because that will be so helpful in improving my financial situation. :lol:


:D
I already sit on my porch with a gun (praying, I might add)....
It's us here Pennsylvanians' version of a 401k.

_EW_

Jae Onasi
05-03-2008, 08:19 PM
:lol:

Well, I might sit on the porch with a shotgun when my daughter gets old enough to date. :D

EnderWiggin
05-03-2008, 08:27 PM
:lol:

Well, I might sit on the porch with a shotgun when my daughter gets old enough to date. :D

Believe me, you never had to experience it, but the boy is nervous enough around you. You don't need a weapon to do that.

But, again, from personal experience.... nerves aren't going to stop him, if you know what I mean.

So, actually a shotgun is probably a good idea. :xp:

But you shouldn't have to experience it anytime soon, right? I mean, when you're 29 years old....

_EW_

PS: Achilles, I was just thinking... I remember when I first joined in Jul 04 and you still had Ewan McGregor as your avatar. That was a seriously long time ago, huh? :D

Achilles
05-03-2008, 09:48 PM
Pretty sure she (and I) meant that his viewpoints don't really have to depend on his genetics. If he identifies himself with the black supremest ideals, then it doesn't matter. That's good because I wasn't arguing his genetics. I was arguing his upbringing. His dad was gone, he was raised by his white mother and for a brief time by his white grandparents. So where do these alleged black supremacist values come from? Is Harvard law school as cesspit of any-Caucasian sentiment? You know what I hear? A lot of speculation about someone because he's half-black.

Not really... that option doesn't sell the Rhinoceros Times or look good in the Ornery American. Heaven forbid that the hit count on his blog should suffer for a little integrity.

http://blogs.suntimes.com/sweet/2008/04/obamas_bitter_comment_came_at_1.html
And this... although not sure how factual.
http://www.zombietime.com/obama_visits_billionaires_row/ And?

(the fundraiser I was invited to was a $1,000 dollar event as well).

Only the wealthy can swing this? Remember the question that set this whole thing off was posed by someone that was going to PA to canvas for Obama. Think a lot of millionaires are knocking on doors for the campaign? Maybe yes and maybe no, but you'll need more than this to convince me.

Yes, anecdote is a better word. It may or may not be false, but you're saying that you have a problem with the accuracy and not the technique. Thanks for clarifying, makes more sense now. :) Technically I have a problem with both, but I'll let that go for now.

Not to be rude, but that statistic tells us nothing. It has an overall unemployment rate, but nothing on the last 25 years of small-town Pennsylvanians and their economic troubles after they lose their jobs. Mr. Card's contention was that everyone that did not have a job left. If that's the case, then why is PA on the losing end of the median unemployment rate? I don't need to track 25 years worth of data to debunk his assertion.

If you find one, his argument does not fall apart. Unfortunately you're wrong. It's sad that Mr. Card felt inclined to use such specific wording, but he did indeed say something very stupid. Happens to a lot of people :(

PS: This is one of the many problems with arguing for a negative: once a positive is found, the argument is vaporized.

Obama's comment said that small town Pennsylvanians cling to these things because they're bitter towards the government after they lose their jobs. Some small town Pennsylvanians. Some. See Barack Obama didn't make the same mistake that OSC did. Nor did he make a generalization about all Pennsylvanians or small town people in general. It pays to note what is actually being said.

Card's refutation was that there aren't actually people like that. They were arguing about the majority. They both know that there are outliers. Nothing in Mr. Card's language indicates that. Considering that he's a writer, I suspect that he said precisely what he meant to.

I don't think that religion is something that small-town Pennsylvanians cling to in order to survive their economic plight. Besides that, I would be inclined to agree with you. It's completely inconceivable to you that some people (there's that word again) might fit that description? Think about it.

But we don't know for sure until Obama gives us evidence, do we? The color of his skin is irrelevant to his feelings on black or white supremacy. Have you been to an Obama rally? Read either of his books? Or do you get most of everything in sound bites via the media?

Unfortunately when it comes to people, we have what they do and what they say. In both cases, we have nothing that would indicate to us that Obama is racists.

Obama's close association with someone who makes some statements that are black supremacist "Black supremacist"?

...is going to raise the question of whether or not Obama also shares these views--he had not been very specific about them until Wright's comments, mostly because it just wasn't raised as much of an issue before then. Assuming that Obama diligently attended church every Sunday for 20 years, keep in mind that Rev. Wright gives three sermons (assuming that he never took a Sunday off either). Each of these is separate from the others, so there aren't any repeats.

So even if Obama went to church every Sunday and sat in a pew and listened to a sermon from Wright, there's a 66% chance that Obama could have missed something controversial (assuming that Wright said something controversial every week).

You appear to be saying (and I could have read it wrong, in which case this is moot) that because Obama is half-white, he's unlikely to be a black supremacist. You're half right. Because Obama is half-white, was raised in a multi-cultural family, was raised by a single white mother (who took him around the world and exposed him to various cultures via her anthropology), was raised by white grandparents, etc, it doesn't make a lot of sense to me that he harbors black supremacist tendencies. I mean, are black people somehow more inclined to harbor these behaviors? At what point to step back and recognize that a lot of what we're saying sounds stereotypical (if not racist)?

If someone is going to lead this melting pot of a nation and treat people of all races fairly, I don't want to guess where he or she is at on racial issues based on his or her personal skin color. I want to know where all the candidates are at on racial issues by what they say and do.I'm assuming that McCain and Clinton have sufficiently crossed the "racist" threshold for you? I recommend either of Obama's books if you get the time. And hopefully you'll have a chance to attend a rally at some point too.

PS: Achilles, I was just thinking... I remember when I first joined in Jul 04 and you still had Ewan McGregor as your avatar. That was a seriously long time ago, huh? :DTime flies, eh. I remember when LF was where I came to talk about modding video games. :)

EnderWiggin
05-03-2008, 10:19 PM
That's good because I wasn't arguing his genetics. I was arguing his upbringing. His dad was gone, he was raised by his white mother and for a brief time by his white grandparents. So where do these alleged black supremacist values come from? Is Harvard law school as cesspit of any-Caucasian sentiment? You know what I hear? A lot of speculation about someone because he's half-black.

You're right. I'm actually a racist-in-disguise. :xp: I'm voting for him so I don't blow my cover.

It's all speculation based on the fact that he's a member of a black supremacist church. At least, I think that's where this thread started.


Heaven forbid that the hit count on his blog should suffer for a little integrity.

Not that either the Rhino Times or Ornery.org are his or anything. But you're right, because for every single point he makes every week, he should research it even if he thinks he's right until he's sure. Then he can publish it. Otherwise, he should keep his opinions out of his opinion article.


And?

(the fundraiser I was invited to was a $1,000 dollar event as well).

Only the wealthy can swing this? Remember the question that set this whole thing off was posed by someone that was going to PA to canvas for Obama. Think a lot of millionaires are knocking on doors for the campaign? Maybe yes and maybe no, but you'll need more than this to convince me.


Not many middle class Republicans are spending $1000 just to hear Obama talk for a while. How's that for a stereotype?

Technically I have a problem with both, but I'll let that go for now.
Anecdotes really are useful. I fail to see the problem with them. Please explain.


Mr. Card's contention was that everyone that did not have a job left. If that's the case, then why is PA on the losing end of the median unemployment rate? I don't need to track 25 years worth of data to debunk his assertion.
Disagree. Just because they left doesn't say where they went. PA is a big state. He said they left small towns. Cities=unemployed.


Unfortunately you're wrong. It's sad that Mr. Card felt inclined to use such specific wording, but he did indeed say something very stupid. Happens to a lot of people :(
PS: This is one of the many problems with arguing for a negative: once a positive is found, the argument is vaporized.

Partially disproved? Yes. Vaporized? Not sure if you can actually argue that. I'd say for the most part Obama was wrong. OSC says there aren't people like that around either. Perhaps he knew that not every person was the same, and was talking instead about the overall state of the... well... state?


Some small town Pennsylvanians. Some. See Barack Obama didn't make the same mistake that OSC did. Nor did he make a generalization about all Pennsylvanians or small town people in general. It pays to note what is actually being said.

So what you're saying is that Obama "could have certainly phrased that one particular sentence a lot better," except for the word some? And that is what makes his argument foolproof?

Nothing in Mr. Card's language indicates that. Considering that he's a writer, I suspect that he said precisely what he meant to.


I'm sure he thinks that there are no outliers in his equation and that every case is the same.


It's completely inconceivable to you that some people (there's that word again) might fit that description? Think about it.


Hmm... I'm not sure how you can sit there and say that there are a minute amount of people who cling to the right to bear arms and their faith as a solution to their economic hardship. It doesn't make sense to me. At all. Who are these people, and why do they think faith will allow them to help their finances and get back at the government that they're so bitter towards?

I also fail to see how if one person fits that description it makes Sen. Obama right and veritable and OSC completely and utterly wrong.



Here's what it comes down to.

I don't disagree with the overall sentiment of his comments.
You don't.
I do.


Overall, I don't think that we can argue more about this subject (besides the specific things I just asked). It's just circling around word choice and this fundamental difference we have in opinion.


Time flies, eh. I remember when LF was where I came to talk about modding video games. :)

I still do - but I much prefer these little discussions we have :D

And I thank you for your time. It was good talking to you. :)

_EW_

Achilles
05-04-2008, 04:18 AM
It's all speculation based on the fact that he's a member of a black supremacist church. At least, I think that's where this thread started.I think we need to be very careful to distinguish between "black theology" and "black supremacy". I've seen a few people use these interchangeably, however they are not the same thing.

Not that either the Rhino Times or Ornery.org are his or anything. But you're right, because for every single point he makes every week, he should research it even if he thinks he's right until he's sure. Then he can publish it. Otherwise, he should keep his opinions out of his opinion article. Huge difference between having an opinion and making stuff up. Now here you are, at least partially inspired to participate in this thread because of what you perceive to be as inaccuracies about Pennsylvania. It's okay for you to argue for accuracy about a topic that you consider important, however I'm a schmuck for doing the same thing?

Not many middle class Republicans are spending $1000 just to hear Obama talk for a while. How's that for a stereotype? Dunno. Maybe we can ask some (http://store.barackobama.com/product_p/bt26957.htm).

Anecdotes really are useful. I fail to see the problem with them. Please explain.Anecdotes can be useful, yes. Using them to make generalizations, not so much.

(remind me to tell you some time about the guy that I worked for that wanted to run a 400-person contact center based on anecdotal information :()

Disagree. Just because they left doesn't say where they went. PA is a big state. He said they left small towns. Cities=unemployed. You are entitled to your opinion.

Partially disproved? Yes. Vaporized? Not sure if you can actually argue that.
Hypothesis: There are no black swans
Test: A black swan is found.
Conclusion: Black swans do exist. Original hypothesis failed.

Now, let's try this again.
Hypothesis: "There is no one in Midwestern or even Northeastern small towns who lost his job twenty-five years ago and stayed in the small town living off the welfare of his neighbors ever since, who is bitter about the failure of Presidents to "save" them." (emphasis added)
Test: ?
Conclusion: ?

I'd say for the most part Obama was wrong.Well that would seem to jive nicely with his comments considering that he specified that he was only talking about some people. Perhaps the two of you don't disagree on that much after all?

OSC says there aren't people like that around either. Perhaps he knew that not every person was the same, and was talking instead about the overall state of the... well... state?So OSC was trying lambaste someone else for doing the same thing he was? I don't follow.

So what you're saying is that Obama "could have certainly phrased that one particular sentence a lot better," except for the word some? And that is what makes his argument foolproof?Go back and re-read the paragraph. Then re-read the offending sentence.

Yes, I believe the sentiment of the paragraph was accurate. I also think that the last sentence could have been worded better. Unfortunately many people are taking the one sentence as a generalization because they are hearing it out of context.

I'm sure he thinks that there are no outliers in his equation and that every case is the same. Yes, the language that he used would seem to indicate that. If you feel comfortable making assumptions about his intentions based on some other criteria, then please don't let me stop you :)

Hmm... I'm not sure how you can sit there and say that there are a minute amount of people who cling to the right to bear arms and their faith as a solution to their economic hardship. It doesn't make sense to me. At all. Who are these people, and why do they think faith will allow them to help their finances and get back at the government that they're so bitter towards? Go back and re-read Obama's statement. You appear to be taking liberties with what he said.

"So it's not surprising then that they get bitter, they cling to guns or religion or antipathy to people who aren't like them or anti-immigrant sentiment or anti-trade sentiment as a way to explain their frustrations."
(emphasis added)

I also fail to see how if one person fits that description it makes Sen. Obama right and veritable and OSC completely and utterly wrong. Because finding a black swan invalidates the argument that there aren't any. :)

Here's what it comes down to.
<snip>
You don't.
I do. Okay.

Overall, I don't think that we can argue more about this subject (besides the specific things I just asked). It's just circling around word choice and this fundamental difference we have in opinion. Perhaps.

I still do - but I much prefer these little discussions we have :D Me too :D

Thanks for the enjoyable discussion!

Jae Onasi
05-04-2008, 11:24 AM
Unfortunately when it comes to people, we have what they do and what they say. In both cases, we have nothing that would indicate to us that Obama is racists.I haven't found anything in his speeches or books that would indicate that, either, but I'm glad he's clarified it for the record.
Or do you get most of everything in sound bites via the media?No--I went back and read the texts of Wright's sermons to get the full context. Some of it was blown out of proportion, particularly the 'chickens have come home to roost' sermon where I felt he was saying more 'We're getting what we deserve and shouldn't be acting surprised when it happens' more than 'I hate America and God should damn it' as is portrayed in the media. I think some of it is also a knee-jerk reaction to the obvious reference to Malcolm X's 'chickens have come home to roost' speech 40 years back. Some of Wright's comments in other sermons were racist, however, and he is not apologetic about them.
"Black supremacist"? My apologies for the grammar error.
Assuming that Obama diligently attended church every Sunday for 20 years, keep in mind that Rev. Wright gives three sermons (assuming that he never took a Sunday off either). Each of these is separate from the others, so there aren't any repeats.My pastor gave 2 sermons on Sunday when we had split into two services, and while not exact, they are very, very close to each other. I think it was highly likely that Wright did something like that--the sermons obviously could not be identical, but they would be essentially the same. I don't think that Wright said racist/inflammatory things or wrote inflammatory articles for the church bulletin every week. However, he did say that often enough for Obama to have heard/read them.

Obama himself admitted in his March 18th speech (http://www.barackobama.com/2008/03/18/remarks_of_senator_barack_obam_53.php) not long after the Wright controversy broke that he had indeed heard Wright say inflammatory comments. Some of the church bulletins from the weeks that Obama attended had inflammatory comments in them. If Obama heard or read those comments and continued to sit in the pew nodding, clapping, and giving an 'amen!' to Wright, is it unreasonable to assume that he might have agreed with the Reverend, until he came out and specified that he did not?

Because Obama is half-white, was raised in a multi-cultural familyAs I noted above with the proviso, if skin color wasn't what you were talking about, then the argument didn't apply. So I appreciate the clarification.

I'm assuming that McCain and Clinton have sufficiently crossed the "racist" threshold for you?No, actually, they have not completely done so--I haven't heard them talk a lot about race except in reference to finding some of Wright's comments offensive, and they both were very careful in their wording. That's at least a start, however. They both grew up during the pre-Civil Rights era and likely were exposed to racist ideas given the sentiments of the time. Saying anything racist at this point would be political suicide for each so I doubt we'll hear anything remotely racist pass their lips.

And hopefully you'll have a chance to attend a rally at some point too.I would have loved to have gone to one, but the lovely WI blizzards and work prevented it. Both Clinton and he had to cancel some rallies in WI because it was just too dangerous if not impossible to travel--some roads actually got shut down for awhile because the snowplows couldn't keep up. Yay for 16 inch snowfalls. I'll have to live with speech transcripts unless he happens to swing back this way again sometime, and I hope he does.

I think we need to be very careful to distinguish between "black theology" and "black supremacy". I've seen a few people use these interchangeably, however they are not the same thing.No, they are certainly not interchangeable, and I don't use them that way even if others might. 'Black theology' mixes religion heavily with social justice issues and to some extent politics (e.g King's sermons) but is careful not to be racist. For 'black supremacy' I go with the definition "Black supremacy is a racist ideology which holds that black people are superior to other races and is manifested in bigotry towards persons not of African ancestry". Wright's sermons include both black theology and racism, though the media has focused far more on his racist comments than on his social justice/religious comments.

As long as Obama can continue to clearly articulate that he does agree with Wright's racist comments, he's going to weather the storm just fine. He's in a tough spot having to be clear on how he feels about those comments while not throwing his friend and mentor to the wolves.