Obama and Rev. Wright

[Jae Onasi]

Today's Fox coverage 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]

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]

If Obama disagrees with all the rascist things his pastor is saying then he should go and join a new church.

[Q]

^^^
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]

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]

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]

Originally Posted by Arcesious

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?

Originally Posted by Jae Onasi

Rev. Wright has said some inflammatory comments that cannot be described in any other way than pure racism.

Originally Posted by Pat Robertson speaking of Gays at Disney World

"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."

Originally Posted by Jerry Falwell

"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. 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.

Originally Posted by Jae Onasi

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.

Originally Posted by Jae Onasi

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.

Originally Posted by Jae Onasi

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]

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]

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]

Originally Posted by Corinthian

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?

Originally Posted by Corinthian

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]

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]

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]

Originally Posted by Corinthian

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.

Originally Posted by Corinthian

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.

Originally Posted by SilentScope001

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]

Originally Posted by mimartin

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". 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?

[Web Rider]

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]

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:

"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 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]

Originally Posted by SilentScope001

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.

Originally Posted by SilentScope001

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*]

Honestly speaking, I applaud Obama for sticking with his friend.
At least hes loyal...

[Corinthian]

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]

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]

Originally Posted by SilentScope001

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]

^^^
Dancing?!

Is your preacher the guy from Footloose?

[mimartin]

No Baptist, although now that I think about it he does look a lot like John Lithgow. Just not as funny.

[JCarter426]

Originally Posted by Corinthian

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.

Originally Posted by mimartin

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]

Originally Posted by JCarter426

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]

Well, it sounds like a lot more than just some.

[Q]

^^^
And a lot more than he is willing to admit.

[mimartin]

Originally Posted by JCarter426

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.

Originally Posted by JCarter426

Well, it sounds like a lot more than just some.

Possibly.

Originally Posted by Qliveur

And a lot more than he is willing to admit.

Most definitely.

[JCarter426]

Originally Posted by mimartin

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.

[Jae Onasi]

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]

Well, when "not everything" turns into "nothing"...

[Totenkopf]

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]

You mean like Bush at Bob Jones U?

[Web Rider]

Originally Posted by Totenkopf

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]

Originally Posted by Web Rider

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]

They actually named one of Air Force Two's backups "The Spirit of Strom Thurmond."

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

[Totenkopf]

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]

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.

[Totenkopf]

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]

Bush went to BJU in 2000 while running for president.
Not 50+ years ago.