Meta-Blog

SEARCH QandO

Email:
Jon Henke
Bruce "McQ" McQuain
Dale Franks
Bryan Pick
Billy Hollis
Lance Paddock
MichaelW

BLOGROLL QandO

 
 
Recent Posts
The Ayers Resurrection Tour
Special Friends Get Special Breaks
One Hour
The Hope and Change Express - stalled in the slow lane
Michael Steele New RNC Chairman
Things that make you go "hmmmm"...
Oh yeah, that "rule of law" thing ...
Putting Dollar Signs in Front Of The AGW Hoax
Moving toward a 60 vote majority?
Do As I Say ....
 
 
QandO Newsroom

Newsroom Home Page

US News

US National News
Politics
Business
Science
Technology
Health
Entertainment
Sports
Opinion/Editorial

International News

Top World New
Iraq News
Mideast Conflict

Blogging

Blogpulse Daily Highlights
Daypop Top 40 Links

Regional

Regional News

Publications

News Publications

 
Obama speech: Mixed bag (updated)
Posted by: McQ on Tuesday, March 18, 2008

Essentially this will satisfy those who are pro-Obama and not satisfy those who are not for Obama (that would include me, but for reasons ideological, not race.). My question is, how will the big middle, the great undecided, see it?

So, to the speech. I was immediately turned off by this:
I have already condemned, in unequivocal terms, the statements of Reverend Wright that have caused such controversy. For some, nagging questions remain. Did I know him to be an occasionally fierce critic of American domestic and foreign policy? Of course. Did I ever hear him make remarks that could be considered controversial while I sat in church? Yes. Did I strongly disagree with many of his political views? Absolutely – just as I’m sure many of you have heard remarks from your pastors, priests, or rabbis with which you strongly disagreed.
Of course the highlighted sentence directly contradicts his statement made in his Huff Po post just a few days ago:
The statements that Rev. Wright made that are the cause of this controversy were not statements I personally heard him preach while I sat in the pews of Trinity or heard him utter in private conversation.
One of those is a lie. I rarely use that word, and, in fact, have a real problem with those who misuse it routinely. When I use it I mean saying something you know to be untrue. So Obama either never heard him say controversial things about domestic and foreign policy while he sat in church or he did. Two days ago the answer was he hadn't. Today he has? I can only believe the reason the answers are different is he is aware of some proof that will expose his first statement as untrue.

Moving on - the worst part of his speech is when Obama resorts to stereotype and overgeneralization to cleverly attempt to justify "black anger" by claiming it is no different than the successful political exploitation of "white anger" (and attempting to atone for having complemented Reagan at one time previously):
Anger over welfare and affirmative action helped forge the Reagan Coalition. Politicians routinely exploited fears of crime for their own electoral ends. Talk show hosts and conservative commentators built entire careers unmasking bogus claims of racism while dismissing legitimate discussions of racial injustice and inequality as mere political correctness or reverse racism.
That may sell well to those who embrace those sorts of stereotypes, but to attempt to describe a complex political coalition like that by citing two fairly marginal issues won't sell to those who know better. Claiming "anger" was the catalyst which brought it all together ignores the fact that there was a pathetic President in office faced with major economic and foreign policy failures that had much more to do with the Reagan coalition than Obama's assertions.

The best part of the speech:
The profound mistake of Reverend Wright’s sermons is not that he spoke about racism in our society. It’s that he spoke as if our society was static; as if no progress has been made; as if this country – a country that has made it possible for one of his own members to run for the highest office in the land and build a coalition of white and black; Latino and Asian, rich and poor, young and old — is still irrevocably bound to a tragic past. But what we know — what we have seen – is that America can change. That is true genius of this nation. What we have already achieved gives us hope – the audacity to hope – for what we can and must achieve tomorrow.
Of course it isn't just Wright's racism that is a question here - it is his anti-American rantings that have created controversy as well. In fact, I'd contend they may be more important than the racial angle.

There isn't any reasonable person out here that would deny that while much progress has been made in race relations, much more progress is left to be made as well.

However, when you characterize the nation which you and those you want to influence live as "the US of KKKA", any sympathy for that point is gone by the board.

Obama's point is correct. Wright does portray this country's race relations as "static". But what Obama doesn't point out is the power inherent in doing that. It is necessary in order to cultivate victimhood.

And that brings us to the next paragraph:
In the white community, the path to a more perfect union means acknowledging that what ails the African-American community does not just exist in the minds of black people; that the legacy of discrimination - and current incidents of discrimination, while less overt than in the past - are real and must be addressed. Not just with words, but with deeds – by investing in our schools and our communities; by enforcing our civil rights laws and ensuring fairness in our criminal justice system; by providing this generation with ladders of opportunity that were unavailable for previous generations. It requires all Americans to realize that your dreams do not have to come at the expense of my dreams; that investing in the health, welfare, and education of black and brown and white children will ultimately help all of America prosper.
Tell me, please, who among the "white community" haven't acknowledged these things (beside the racist extremists)? This goes back to the point above. It is a form of "static" thinking even as Obama obliquely condemns Wright's static thinking. I want all blacks to be happy and well off, to be educated and productive, to live the American dream.

But how in the world can you do that when you have people like Wright claiming they're all victims with the deck stacked against them and no reasonable chance at all of changing their economic situation. What Barack Obama or Rev. Wright never address is a culture within the black community that nurtures victimhood and grievance. A culture that eschews education for being a "player", and accepts single-motherhood as the norm with all the socially debilitating consequences it brings with it. Why do you suppose Bill Cosby and Juan Williams speak out so forcefully about the responsibilities that the black community refuses to face?

Instead we get a speech about how, as usual, whites must acknowledge that blacks have had it tough.

Acknowledged.

Now, sir, what is the black community going to do about it?

I found nothing in the speech addressing that point. While black America may have been waiting to hear what Obama did say, I'd guess white America was waiting to hear what he didn't say.

Video here.

UPDATE: Tom Maguire had almost the same reaction as I did as he lists the major points of the speech:
- Black people have reasons to be angry about slavery, Jim Crow, and ongoing discrimination;

- Whites have reason to be unhappy with (pre-reform) welfare, affirmative action, busing, and being called a racist for worrying about black crime rates.

- Wright was wrong in both his racial divisiveness and his belief that American society was static, and progress was not occurring.

- whites needed to do more to raise up black schools and black communities.

Wait! Did he lose a page here - what, if anything is the black community meant to do differently?
UPDATE II: John Cole, in what could be called "the audacity of a dope" tries to explain away Obama's admission that he has indeed heard the controversial things his pastor has said while sitting in church after saying he hadn't.

I remember when Cole used to be worth reading.

UPDATE III: A short flashback - Obama on Imus:
"I understand MSNBC has suspended Mr. Imus," Obama told ABC News, "but I would also say that there's nobody on my staff who would still be working for me if they made a comment like that about anybody of any ethnic group. And I would hope that NBC ends up having that same attitude."
Except, of course, for Rev. Wright who was only asked to leave when Obama found he couldn't ignore the firestorm Wright's remarks about a certain ethnic group had caused.

UPDATE IV: You know, the more I think about it the more I realize he pretty much skipped the anti-American part of the controversy and concentrated on race. Now that, folks, is brilliant - if he gets away with it.
____________

Linked by NeoCon News, Balloon Juice, Political Byline, Maggie's Farm, Blue Crab Boulevard, BitsBlog, Supply Side Politics 2.0 and Two-Four - Thanks!
 
TrackBacks
Return to Main Blog Page
 
 

Previous Comments to this Post 

Comments
I suppose it’s not possible that his pastor made controversial statements in church other than those that are causing the current controversy? I mean if it were possible to make controversial statements other than those being shown, then that wouldn’t be a lie would it?
 
Written By: John Harrold
URL: http://
He sure says nothing in prettier tones than anyone else does!

Probably sure this will stop the bleeding and put the issue to rest.....but it doesn’t do a thing to reverse any damage done to him over this.

Unless astute minds pick up on his blatant lie and hold his feet to the fire, but I doubt it will happen.

Not a HR, but a hard single.
 
Written By: shark
URL: http://
John Harrold makes the correct point on the alleged "lie."
 
Written By: Pete Abel
URL: http://themoderatevoice.com
Im not Obama supporter and i don’t mean to try and defend his words, but i think you use "lie" even more easily than i do.
The statements that Rev. Wright made that are the cause of this controversy were not statements I personally heard him preach while I sat in the pews of Trinity or heard him utter in private conversation.
The bolded line is the problem i have with it being called a lie. I know its semantics, but his quote is more simply stated as being dishonest and deceptive. He may very well have not been in church that day to here these specific statements. It just points him out as being no different than any other sleazy politician who likes to use words to deceive.
 
Written By: josh b
URL: http://
I think the statements are different enough that they aren’t contradictory — he was referring to a specific statement in Huffpo, and now more general statements. For Obama: this speech is enough that this issue won’t kill him, and probably will fade away, though I’m sure the GOP will resurrect near the election. Clinton, of course, can’t capitalize on this overtly, since she’s already worried that if she gets the nomination she’ll not have the black vote needed to be competitive in November.
 
Written By: Scott Erb
URL: http://faculty.umf.maine.edu/~erb/blog.htm
For Obama: this speech is enough that this issue won’t kill him, and probably will fade away, though I’m sure the GOP will resurrect near the election.
Ladies and Gentlemen,
The left’s new talking point for any more controversial statements from Rev. Wright and any information that Obama was present when they were made.
"This story is old news."
 
Written By: Paul L
URL: http://kingdomofidiots.blogspot.com/
I think McQ is far closer to the truth in asserting Obama lied than you pedantic hair splitters.
 
Written By: Grimshaw
URL: http://
I think McQ is far closer to the truth in asserting Obama lied than you pedantic hair splitters.
I only split hairs in response to the hair splitting likely from the other side :) i like to cut off any avenue available to erode the point i am trying to make. Which would be that he is being dishonest and his statement is disingenuous.
 
Written By: josh b
URL: http://
This issue along with his NAFTA glitch in Ohio has already killed Obama in Pennsylvania. Hillary could win as big as 20 points in Pennsylvania and she has to hope the stink of this rubbing off in the rest of the primaries. If she can virtually shut him down the rest of the way, I think she can pull it off with the super-delegates in the convention.

Obama is a one-trick pony and the real issue is whether he has already done his one trick.
 
Written By: SShiell
URL: http://
It requires all Americans to realize that your dreams do not have to come at the expense of my dreams
So does that mean he doesn’t support affirmative action?
 
Written By: meh
URL: http://
Okay Josh, but I really don’t see any significant difference between asserting he lied or that he’s being dishonest. The end result is the same.
 
Written By: Grimshaw
URL: http://
Okay Josh, but I really don’t see any significant difference between asserting he lied or that he’s being dishonest. The end result is the same.
Except that its not definitive that what he said is a lie, it might very well have been true, but when you go to far you kill your entire argument. To win an argument you cannot give your opponent any room to discount anything you say. If you give them an opening they will take it. As the good Dr. has pointed out above. :)
 
Written By: josh b
URL: http://
Obama used an age old tactic of telling us one thing and getting people to extrapolate that it means something else. He says he was not present when those statements were made, yet his intent is to give the impression that he was unaware of the views of his mentor, which would either make him an idiot, or his statement disingenuous. Both of which make me annoyed.
 
Written By: josh b
URL: http://
"Did I ever hear him make remarks that could be considered controversial while I sat in church? Yes. "

vs.

"The statements that Rev. Wright made that are the cause of this controversy..."

do you not understand what a qualifier does in an English sentence ? if so, how do you not understand what the highlighted qualifier is doing in that one ?

the statements that set off this controversy are the "God Damn America" statements. they are in addition to other statements, which Obama did hear, which could be considered controversial.

and Obama disagrees with them all.
 
Written By: cleek
URL: http://ok-cleek.com
Obama is a one-trick pony and the real issue is whether he has already done his one trick.
Accepting the premise, so what? Hillary can’t beat him, and McCain admits he doesn’t know much about the economy. And on his "strong suit," foreign policy, today, in the Middle East, he dazzled the press by claiming that Iran was training Al Qaeda and sending them into Iraq. He said the same thing on the Hewitt show last night.
Speaking to reporters in Amman, the Jordanian capital, McCain said he and two Senate colleagues traveling with him continue to be concerned about Iranian operatives “taking al-Qaeda into Iran, training them and sending them back.”

Pressed to elaborate, McCain said it was “common knowledge and has been reported in the media that al-Qaeda is going back into Iran and receiving training and are coming back into Iraq from Iran, that’s well known. And it’s unfortunate.” A few moments later, Sen. Joseph Lieberman, standing just behind McCain, stepped forward and whispered in the presidential candidate’s ear. McCain then said: “I’m sorry, the Iranians are training extremists, not al-Qaeda.”

The mistake threatened to undermine McCain’s argument that his decades of foreign policy experience make him the natural choice to lead a country at war with terrorists. In recent days, McCain has repeatedly said his intimate knowledge of foreign policy make him the best equipped to answer a phone ringing in the White House late at night.
If Obama is a one-trick pony, McCain is the horse Pa takes to the back of the barn to put out of his misery.

God help us if McCain becomes President.
 
Written By: mkultra
URL: http://
mk, you idiot: the next president is going to be a bloody disaster, no matter who it is.

I said this about Bush, by name, in December 2000, and I was right. I’m right about this, too.

I’ll see you after Four More Years.
 
Written By: Billy Beck
URL: http://www.two—four.net/weblog.php
If McCain is messed up too, chalk 2 losers up for the Liberal Media and blame them for having no good choice this November.
 
Written By: jpm100
URL: http://
There could hardly be anything more obvious than pointing out that these statements are not only not the slightest bit contradictory, but complementary. I hardly know how to make it any clearer than cleek, but let’s try.

Let’s say that you are a presidential candidate and a parishioner of, hmmm, John Hagee. Since he is John Hagee, he says any number of wacko and off-the-mark things. But you are fond of him anyway, like a retarded uncle, and you regularly attend his sermons. He’s got kind of a weird thing about the Jews, and about Hurricane Katrina being God’s retribution, but he also has some very pretty stained glass windows and there’s plenty of parking.

During your presidential campaign, a great hue and cry, a fantastic furore arises over a YouTube video of John Hagee saying that the Catholic Church has spawned a "theology of hate". The sermon was given on a particular date, on which you were out of state. You haven’t heard the anti-Catholic stuff before, it’s new to you.

You state "The statements that Rev. Hagee made that are the cause of this controversy were not statements I personally heard him preach while I sat in the pews or heard him utter in private conversation."

You also state "Did I ever hear him make remarks that could be considered controversial while I sat in church? Yes." Because you are remembering that whole Apocalypse-in-Israel tear he went on, when you were so hungry for fried chicken.

Does that help?



 
Written By: Jen
URL: http://
Lie = Two independent and not in any conceivable way contradictory statements made by Obama regarding his pastor.

Pedantic Hair Splitters = Those who point out that Obama isn’t lying nor being contradictory in his statements which the author of the blog is choosing to misread.


So Obama either never heard him say controversial things about domestic and foreign policy while he sat in church or he did.

No, he’s said no such things. In fact, if you want to actually read what he wrote and understand what he said, Obama both HAS heard him say controversial things AND wasn’t present at the time he made "The statements that Rev. Wright made that are the cause of this controversy".

Both things can be true. Really. Puzzle it out.

 
Written By: Jay B.
URL: http://
Except, of course, for Rev. Wright who was only asked to leave when Obama found he couldn’t ignore the firestorm

When was Wright on Obama’s staff again?
 
Written By: Jen
URL: http://
I hate to pile on so I will simply add to those who have noted it above that "the remarks that are the cause of this controversy" are part of the set of "remarks that could be considered controversial" but not the whole of it.
 
Written By: Retief
URL: http://
When was Wright on Obama’s staff again?
Since the start, as an advisor. He was only fired a day or two after these video clips hit the national news shows.
 
Written By: Scott Jacobs
URL: http://
When was Wright on Obama’s staff again?
Wright had an unpaid position on Obama’s campaign staff. He was part of Obama’s African American Religious Leadership Committee.



As far as Obama not hearing some particular remarks, that dog won’t hunt. Obama

** Was an active member of the church for 20-years.
** Was married by Rev. Wright
** Had his children baptized by Rev. Wright
** Gave tens-of-thousands to the church
** Titled a book after one of Wright’s sermons
** Had regularly listened to Wright’s sermons on tape while at grad school
** Had appointed Wright to his campaign
** Claimed Wright as his spiritual mentor

Do you folks want us to believe that Obama knew so little about Wright’s views?
 
Written By: Steverino
URL: http://
There’s not even a contradiction, much less a lie.

Here’s an example of a lie:

"No representative of Paxson or Alcalde & Fay personally asked Senator McCain to send a letter to the FCC," the campaign said in a statement e-mailed to reporters.

versus:

"I was contacted by Mr. [Lowell] Paxson on this issue," McCain said in the Sept. 25, 2002, deposition obtained by NEWSWEEK. "He wanted their approval very bad for purposes of his business. I believe that Mr. Paxson had a legitimate complaint."

While McCain said "I don’t recall" if he ever directly spoke to the firm’s lobbyist about the issue—an apparent reference to Iseman, though she is not named—"I’m sure I spoke to [Paxson]." McCain agreed that his letters on behalf of Paxson, a campaign contributor, could "possibly be an appearance of corruption"—even though McCain denied doing anything improper.
 
Written By: John
URL: http://
"Anger over welfare and affirmative action helped forge the Reagan Coalition."

Actually I think that would be ABUSE of welfare and affirmative action.


" Except, of course, for Rev. Wright"

Who also used the term ’nappy headed’ on one of the videos linked here.

I don’t really care whether Obama acttually lied or was dishonest or just giving us a lesson in English. I don’t want another Clinton, of any race or gender, in the White House.
 
Written By: timactual
URL: http://
If Obama is a one-trick pony, McCain is the horse Pa takes to the back of the barn to put out of his misery.

God help us if McCain becomes President
God help us if any of the 3 running now becomes Pres....
 
Written By: shark
URL: http://
God help us if any of the 3 running now becomes Pres....
There’s only one thing for it. Let the independent run by Ron Paul begin!
 
Written By: Retief
URL: http://
I think shark’s right above, this was good enough to stop the issue bleeding. The most important thing it had to do was give the press a reason to move onto something else and on that, mission accomplished.
 
Written By: Retief
URL: http://
As far as Obama not hearing some particular remarks, that dog won’t hunt.

Good Lord. He didn’t hear THESE particular remarks. That was his entire point. He also admitting to hearing — and DISAGREEING with other controversial claims Wright made.

Do you folks want us to believe that Obama knew so little about Wright’s views?

No, in fact, his speech today was all about how he reacted to them. Which is also the topic of this post. Who, anywhere, is claiming he knew nothing of his pastor’s views? Or is selectively agreeing and disagreeing with a religious person’s views only bad for Democrats? Can you help me out here?

And since you’re so sick over how close he was to Wright, can you spell out to me the dangerous subtext to "Audacity of Hope"?

I don’t really care whether Obama acttually lied or was dishonest or just giving us a lesson in English. I don’t want another Clinton, of any race or gender, in the White House.

He spoke as clear as a bell. Who are you people?
 
Written By: Jay B.
URL: http://
McQ:
What Barack Obama or Rev. Wright never address is a culture within the black community that nurtures victimhood and grievance. A culture that eschews education for being a "player", and accepts single-motherhood as the norm with all the socially debilitating consequences it brings with it. [...]

Now, sir, what is the black community going to do about it?

I found nothing in the speech addressing that point.
He’s already made THAT speech. On more than one occasion. That was NOT his purpose today. Even so, you must have missed THIS part...
For the African-American community, that path means embracing the burdens of our past without becoming victims of our past. It means continuing to insist on a full measure of justice in every aspect of American life.

But it also means binding our particular grievances — for better health care, and better schools, and better jobs — to the larger aspirations of all Americans, the white woman struggling to break the glass ceiling, the white man whose been laid off, the immigrant trying to feed his family.

And it means taking full responsibility for own lives — by demanding more from our fathers, and spending more time with our children, and reading to them, and teaching them that while they may face challenges and discrimination in their own lives, they must never succumb to despair or cynicism; they must always believe that they can write their own destiny.

Ironically, this quintessentially American — and yes, conservative — notion of self-help found frequent expression in Rev. Wright’s sermons. But what my former pastor too often failed to understand is that embarking on a program of self-help also requires a belief that society can change.
 
Written By: Mr Furious
URL: http://misterfurious.blogspot.com/
Let the independent run by Ron Paul begin!
Any of the 4...
The most important thing it had to do was give the press a reason to move onto something else
I think you meant to use the word "excuse" there...
 
Written By: Scott Jacobs
URL: http://
It was an impressive speech. Definitely better than all of Obama’s weaselly responses heretofore and better than I thought he could manage given the indisputable horror of Rev. Wright’s YouTube clips.

However, while I was reading Obama’s speech, I felt like a hobbit in the Lord of the Rings, listening to the traitorous wizard, Saruman. While Saruman speaks, he sounds so gracious and reasonable that you can’t imagine how you could have ever taken issue with such a wise and generous soul, but afterwards, assuming you can shake off the spell, you realize that it’s all verbal sleight of hand — a soothing, friendly tone of voice that always sounds like he is speaking from a lofty moral height and weighing all sides equally, but in reality he has dialed down the evil in which he has participated to a mere misunderstanding and exaggerated the faults of everyone else.

I don’t think Obama is evil like Saruman but the problem with Rev. Wright isn’t that Wright is angry, but that he is hateful and is instilling that hate in others—including children, including Obama’s children. Screaming "God damn America" as a Christian leader from a church pulpit on Sunday is way beyond anger or just something political one may disagree with while sitting in a pew. It is the ultimate religious curse against the land that Obama professes to love.

Obama doesn’t address this, he glosses over it and justifies it, makes it equivalent to other angers, then reduces the position of those who object to Rev. Wright to being just another part of the country’s problems that Obama’s campaign is trying to solve.
 
Written By: huxley
URL: http://
Many of you are arguing about the letter of the situation and not the spirit. Comfort yourself about the intersection between one set of Wright’s comments and another but it’s still pedantic hair splitting with respect to the spirit of the whole issue. It sounds a lot like the same hair splitting that’s come up in the past with other pols who’ve associated themselves with unsavory characters. The Obama supporters simply don’t want to consider that Obama is just another politician and not the political savior they want him to be.

 
Written By: Grimshaw
URL: http://
"McCain admits he doesn’t know much about the economy."
I’ll take McCain’s economic ignorance any day over the supposed economic intelligence Obama or Clinton have. He’s already smart enough to know that universal health care/insurance is a bad idea. That puts him light years ahead of the other two hacks.
 
Written By: Grimshaw
URL: http://
Good Lord. He didn’t hear THESE particular remarks. That was his entire point. He also admitting to hearing — and DISAGREEING with other controversial claims Wright made.
You clearly misunderstood my point. It doesn’t matter whether Obama heard one particular sermon. If Obama was aware of Wright’s views — as he had to be, and as you concede he was — why would he continue to associate with this person? Why would he give him a position on his campaign? Why would he continue to donate tens of thousands of dollars to Wright’s church? Why would he make Wright his spiritual advisor? Why would he do all that if he disagreed with Wright?
And since you’re so sick over how close he was to Wright, can you spell out to me the dangerous subtext to "Audacity of Hope"?
Strawman alert! I never said there was a dangerous subtext to "Audacity of Hope", I was merely using that data point to illustrate just how close Obama and Wright are, and how Obama must have known Wright’s pustulent views.
 
Written By: Steverino
URL: http://
Typical of smear attacks — attempts to claim guilt by association, exaggeration of the connection between the two, appeal to emotions rather than logic. Obama will certainly rise above the kind of scummy attacks being thrown.

The real story is the lack of understanding between whites and blacks, or the role of emotion/anger in part of the way in which this gets processed in black churches. It’s a sign of how there is still a lack of understanding between blacks and whites. But attempts to attack Obama over this are getting ridiculous and over the top. That’s how this kind of things becomes before it dies out.
 
Written By: Scott Erb
URL: http://faculty.umf.maine.edu/~erb/blog.htm
Either way Scott Jacobs, either way. Nobody wants to be the last guy still on about this when others have moved to McCain’s wife’s addiction, or whatever.
 
Written By: Retief
URL: http://
"Typical of smear attacks — attempts to claim guilt by association,..."
"White people." Sen. Obama’s mentor.

The "smear", Erb, is Wright’s, Obama is an ethical gimp, and you are a dismally stupid individual.
 
Written By: Billy Beck
URL: http://www.two—four.net/weblog.php
If Obama was aware of Wright’s views — as he had to be, and as you concede he was — why would he continue to associate with this person?

Because, just like a family member who may fly off the handle at times, you feel the good outweighs the bad? Because it seemed like he was trying to challenge orthodoxy instead of submitting to it? Because you find something deeply appealing about getting an opposing viewpoint if its honestly derived?

Could be almost anything. Hell, it might even be that, for the most part, he’s an inspiring speaker with a passion for justice! Wouldn’t that just be disgusting?

Frankly, no one here knows anything about Wright’s "views".

Strawman alert! I never said there was a dangerous subtext to "Audacity of Hope", I was merely using that data point to illustrate just how close Obama and Wright are, and how Obama must have known Wright’s pustulent views.

So...You’re saying that his pustulent views were known to Obama, but that there’s nothing pustulent about Audacity of Hope, which happens to be Wright’s view. In other words, Audacity of Hope might just be something inspirational that Obama took from his pastor — while declining stuff he didn’t agree with. No? Isn’t that how this works? Do you even really know what you’re trying to argue?
 
Written By: Jay B.
URL: http://
still pedantic hair splitting with respect to the spirit of the whole issue.

"Barack Obama says that 1 + 2 = 3, and 2 + 2 = 4. One of these equations is a LIE. They cannot both be true."

"But they are both true. He isn’t lying."

"Well, maybe they can, but you’re just a pedantic hair splitter. You probably inhabit the reality based community. And while you’re in that reality, we making our own math. The SPIRIT of the thing is that Barack Obama is a liar. He is clearly trying to distract you with his "2"s all the time. What is he trying to hide about his association with the number 2? Just how well does he know this number 2? I have it on good authority that he had 2 parents. He has 2 daughters. He represents 2 races. He is one of 2 Democratic primary candidates. Are we supposed to believe that these are coincidences? Somehow unrelated to anything important? These equations are just pretty words designed to distract us from the reality that Barack Obama is a liar."


 
Written By: Jen
URL: http://
Finally, John noticed.

http://www.balloon-juice.com/?p=9924
 
Written By: Jen
URL: http://
Without a timestamp on your post, it’s impossible to tell, so I’ll ask: Did you steal this from Hannity or did Hannity steal it from you? This is exactly Hannity’s points — even down to your update.
 
Written By: Michelle
URL: http://
Obama’s speech was a continuation of the con job, nothing more, nothing less.

The worst part of it, the part that really grabbed me as I thought about it after he had finished, was the comparison, by way of an attempt to draw a moral equivalence, between the private remarks in passing of his white grandmother and the steaming hatred of Jeremiah Wright in the church pulpit.

James Taranto saw that as well and weights it about as well as it can be weighed at his Best of the Web Today blog (first item).
 
Written By: Martin McPhillips
URL: http://mcphillips.blogspot.com/
So, when do we get the speeches by McCain saying why even though Hagee is a known bigot he sought out his endorsement, or why he seeks out the endorsement of other Christian preachers who’ve blamed Americans for everything from 9/11 to Katrina.

How come I don’t think that will happen. Why do I get the feeling it wont even be an issue?
 
Written By: kevin
URL: http://
UPDATE IV: You know, the more I think about it the more I realize he pretty much skipped the anti-American part of the controversy and concentrated on race. Now that, folks, is brilliant - if he gets away with it.
Why wouldn’t he get away with it? Nobody questions the "anti-American" statements from well known leaders on the Religious Right. Or have we forgotten that Rev. Wright isn’t the first religious leader to say America has brought attacks upon itself?
 
Written By: Cam
URL: http://
"Frankly, no one here knows anything about Wright’s "views"."

Right. Those d**m lying eyes (and ears) again.


Evidently, according to Obama, his granny(?) had a Jesse Jackson moment. Perhaps fear of meeting young black men on dark streets will bring us together.
 
Written By: timactual
URL: http://
The "smear", Erb, is Wright’s,
And not Obama’s. Remind me to make you personally responsible for everything your friends and colleagues say and do.

Obama is playing this skillfully, I think people are underestimating him, I’m starting to think he is the Democrat’s Reagan, we’ll see if he stays teflon.
 
Written By: Scott Erb
URL: http://faculty.umf.maine.edu/~erb/blog.htm
"Why wouldn’t he get away with it?"

Exactly. This is just a variation on the stuff we get from Erb et al. about the evils that Western Civilization (whitey) has inflicted on the hapless third world.
 
Written By: timactual
URL: http://
Previous Erb:
I don’t think using the sermons of a church someone attended to try to attack that person is going to go anywhere. No traction
I guess it went far enough to force Obama to make a speech. What’s your degree again? Oh, yeah — political science.
 
Written By: JWG
URL: http://

It requires all Americans to realize that your dreams do not have to come at the expense of my dreams; that investing in the health, welfare, and education of black and brown and white children will ultimately help all of America prosper.
Did anyone find this statement as offensive as I did? I can’t remember how many dreams I have had to squash to get to where I am today, neither can I remember how many of them were black or brown! Being white and racist I try to avoid squashing the dreams of white people.

Thanks Obama... love you too.


 
Written By: Ody
URL: http://
Prof Erb — Guilt by association is the strawman argument here.

Naturally I despise Rev. Wright’s ravings; however I am deeply concerned about Obama’s judgments and actions in this regard. Obama is running for president of the United States and he must demonstrate that America is his highest priority — not his friends, not his church, not the black community, not whatever grail of race relations he is seeking.

If America is attacked, as Rev. Wright did when he screamed "God damn America" from the pulpit, when he blamed America in his sermon after 9-11 and gloated that the "chickens are coming home to roost" (a direct quote from Malcolm X is in a similarly America-hating mood after JFK was assassinated), when Wright libels America that its government invented the AIDS virus to kill blacks, I want to know that a presidential candidate will defend America, when it counts, not some years later when his campaign is on the verge of implosion.

Obama failed this test.
 
Written By: huxley
URL: http://
"I’m starting to think he is the Democrat’s Reagan"
Dumbest thing I’ve read this week.
 
Written By: Grimshaw
URL: http://
Naturally I despise Rev. Wright’s ravings; however I am deeply concerned about Obama’s judgments and actions in this regard. Obama is running for president of the United States and he must demonstrate that America is his highest priority — not his friends, not his church, not the black community, not whatever grail of race relations he is seeking.
I disagree with your read. We’ll see what the American public thinks. I think its a cheap shot to take a pastor like that and try to use anything he says to paint Obama a particular way. I know a lot of people with radical views from the left to the libertarian to the right. Many of them are my friends. If someone says I shouldn’t associate with someone because of what they argue or believe, I’d not only tell that person to take a hike, but if we want to say that Presidents can only associate with politically correct speaking folk, we’ve essentially sacrificed America’s values. And what’s so bad about being angry about something and saying "Good damn America." People say things like that even about their spouses and children when irritated. Are you demanding a kind of hypernationalist love of the state, where no anger or venting is allowed? That’s a bit over the top, Huxley.

I think Obama is going to come out of this stronger, I sense he’s even turning it into a strength.
 
Written By: Scott Erb
URL: http://faculty.umf.maine.edu/~erb/blog.htm
The comments at the beginning which illustrated how, at least at the technical level, he wasn’t lying, are correct. What he said before doesn’t contradict the earlier statements; it just demonstrates that he’s a woos who tried to get away with something, but can’t. So now he says what he could have said last week. (Roughly, "I don’t remember that sermon, but I’ve heard him say other things that are wrong, but my opinion of Trinity is high enough that I didn’t think them worth quitting over.") As it stands, he is just another politician trying to weasel out of an embarrassing situation. (And huxley’s comment is absolutely correct.)

I disagree with the idea that he didn’t address Wright’s anti-Americanism, because I don’t I don’t think Wright is anti-American, in the way that, for instance, Cindy Sheehan is anti-American. The US is (secundum Wrightium) a country owned and run by whites. Whites are bad. Therefore (secundum Wrightium) The US is EVUL! His anti-Americanism is a consequence of his racism. By addressing the racism, you address the anti-Americanism.

What you should be attacking is the real message of his speech. It’s a long justification for big government and the liberal agenda. Blacks were victimized by slavery and institutionalized racism for the first seventeen decades of this country’s history, so now, in the twenty fourth decade of our history, we need socialism. Even if he’s right about Wright, Obama needs to be attacked good long and hard for that.
 
Written By: kishnevi
URL: http://
Amazing, you take a statement of pure honesty (Obama admitting to hearing Wright state controversial things) and turn it into a lie? Despite that its clear that he was talking about two different things? Why would Obama say anything at all if he was lying. He didnt have to include that statement in his speech, and then poof no "lie."

Its amazing how either: (a) dumb; or (b) dishonest you people are.
 
Written By: Palooza
URL: http://
I think Obama is going to come out of this stronger, I sense he’s even turning it into a strength
Pretty funny stuff. At best he’ll become MLK2 to his legion of adoring acolytes. Too bad that legion doesn’t extend to the majority of the nation- possibly not even the majority of deomcrats.

The horse is out of the barn. The issue may be "over" but the memory remains....
 
Written By: shark
URL: http://
Prof. Erb — Again, it’s not about association. It’s about being on the spot when someone you claim to care about is attacked and doing nothing.

If Obama cares about America and America is attacked viciously and unjustly, Obama should have done something about it. And he is supposed to be a leader, after all.

He didn’t. He did nothing until he personally was going to suffer severe consequences from his inaction.


 
Written By: huxley
URL: http://
Erb—as usual you are wrong.
Wright was not just a family friend or a neighbor. He is a minister who is highly regarded by the community and (apparently) by many blacks around the country.
Similarly, Obama was not just another member of the church. A member of the state legislature, then a member of the US Senate, as well as a member of the church.
He had a responsibility to stand up and tell others Wright was wrong when he became a public figure. He didn’t do that. He did it now, only because he’s a presidential candidate forced to do it to save his campaign.
 
Written By: kishnevi
URL: http://
Erb—as usual you are wrong.
Wright was not just a family friend or a neighbor. He is a minister who is highly regarded by the community and (apparently) by many blacks around the country.
Similarly, Obama was not just another member of the church. A member of the state legislature, then a member of the US Senate, as well as a member of the church.
He had a responsibility to stand up and tell others Wright was wrong when he became a public figure. He didn’t do that. He did it now, only because he’s a presidential candidate forced to do it to save his campaign.
 
Written By: kishnevi
URL: http://
I’m sitting here today with three books by James Cone and one by Dwight Hopkins on "black theology." These are the authors that Jeremiah Wright demanded that Sean Hannity read if he dared to understand the "black values system" that form the much of the basis of the teaching at Wright’s church and about which Hannity was asking him.

The argument of "black theology" is that Christ is black and essentially dwells in the black people because Christ came to uplift the poor and the oppressed and to be black is to be poor and oppressed. Therefore, God and His Son are one with the black people. "Black theology" also implies "black power," and "black theology" is also about the delegitimization of "white Christianity," which is a fraud because it allowed or even facilitated the oppression of blacks through slavery.

From what I can tell so far, the big news of "black theology" is that it tears any legitimate claim to Christianity away from whites, raises the terrible spectre (to whites) of black power, and that whites had better come to understand this, because black power means black freedom and blacks will use the power of Christ to attain that freedom, because Christ is black and for blacks, or else.

Again, in his speech today Obama, while opening mainly doors by which liberal whites can once again enjoy lavish portions of white guilt about the past (with a little nod to the notion that white people too have difficulties in life — we all suffer from the predations of "the corporations," i.e. the rich white people, after all), Obama spoke over the heads of his white audience to the black nation, in language very similar to the language of "black theology," and reassured them that "our time has come," and to let them know that what whites perceive as Jeremiah Wright’s racism is just a distraction, a distraction from the real work to be done. So, he will not, and did not, name Wright as the vivid racist hatemonger that he is; he just condemns the stuff that the media played from the CDs of Wright’s sold by Wright’s (Obama’s) church.

To show that his magnaminity was universal, he said that he could not reject his grandmother or Geraldine Ferraro, either.

There is something rotten in Denmark. That’s about a large enough phrase to capture the deceit and the pretense of this Obama character as he works the big con, after he’s been called out as a twenty-year member of a racist church, where black racism can’t happen, of course, because there is no such thing. "Black theology" tells us so.

Perhaps the most disturbing thing about the speech is that Obama seemed to imply that because slavery was America’s "original sin" that he, Obama, had come as the redeemer, to free America from that sin, that he is the American messiah.

Again, I recommend the film Nightmare Alley, per the earlier recommendation by Spengler, for those who would like to see a perfect analogy for what this Obama character is doing with his audiences.
 
Written By: Martin McPhillips
URL: http://mcphillips.blogspot.com/
"And not Obama’s. Remind me to make you personally responsible for everything your friends and colleagues say and do."
Fu*k you, Erb. When they’re wrong on important matters, I dismiss them faster than you can post your average lie. I’m well known for this. I’m not like Obama. And you have the attentitve capacity of the average rock out in my driveway.
 
Written By: Billy Beck
URL: http://www.two—four.net/weblog.php
Why wouldn’t he get away with it? Nobody questions the "anti-American" statements from well known leaders on the Religious Right. Or have we forgotten that Rev. Wright isn’t the first religious leader to say America has brought attacks upon itself?

You must have missed the firestorm that came down on Falwell.

And the kook from Westburo? If you think he’s part of the religious right, you are simply unteachable.
and that whites had better come to understand this, because black power means black freedom and blacks will use the power of Christ to attain that freedom, because Christ is black and for blacks, or else.
First off, hey. They can have all the freedom they like. Really. I love my freedom, and I think everyone on Earth should have the same. The moment, however, they try and then screw with my freedom? Well, that’s when we’ll have many short words. They will all be the same word. They will be the word "bang".

Second, boy isn’t that just a wonderfully inclusive message? And here I thought Christ was middle-eastern, and was for everyone...

Silly me.
 
Written By: Scott Jacobs
URL: http://
I’m well known for this. I’m not like Obama.
This at least is a very true statement.

Sen. Obama at the very least possesses civility in public.

You coming down from your last hit, Billy-boy?
 
Written By: Scott Jacobs
URL: http://
This was the stupidest thing I’ve ever seen written.

There are all kinds of things you could pick out without context.

I hate just a whole bunch of stuff about Democrats, but this guy IS different.

I want the ball moved forward.

I don’t care who does it. I just think an 80 year old man or a 90’s icon is the person to do it.
 
Written By: John Onorato
URL: http://
This was the stupidest thing I’ve ever seen written.

There are all kinds of things you could pick out without context.

I hate just a whole bunch of stuff about Democrats, but this guy IS different.

I want the ball moved forward.

I don’t care who does it. I just think an 80 year old man or a 90’s icon is maybe not the person to do it.
 
Written By: John Onorato
URL: http://
It’s that he spoke as if our society was static; as if no progress has been made
I’ll remember this remark each and every time I hear Nancy Pelosi or Harry Reid talk about Iraq.
 
Written By: Neo
URL: http://
Sorry. First post here.
 
Written By: John Onorato
URL: http://
Fu*k you, Erb. When they’re wrong on important matters, I dismiss them faster than you can post your average lie. I’m well known for this. I’m not like Obama. And you have the attentitve capacity of the average rock out in my driveway.
I believe it’s a character flaw on your part, Billy. You can’t separate individuals from political positions, you don’t recognize the human side, for you it’s lost in the abstraction of ideology. If Obama had thrown over someone who has been kind and given him spiritual advice because of some politically incorrect statements, then I’d have lost respect for Obama. People are more than their political viewpoints, and people can have a variety of them. Good people understand that, and respect diverse opinion. Good people do not ditch friends because they have politically incorrect opinions. I’m convinced Obama is a man of more character than you, Billy. But hey, you have your bravado. Hope it keeps you warm at night.

And actually, there was a lot of truth in what the Reverend Wright was saying. Some of you just can’t stand to have the state you worship criticized.
 
Written By: Scott Erb
URL: http://faculty.umf.maine.edu/~erb/blog.htm
"You can’t separate individuals from political positions..."
I might, if I was your sort of worm. The fact, however, is that I know what I’m doing. I do not consider "political positions" as something ephemeral and random that settles out of the sky on someone’s shoulders like an accident. I hold people responsible for what they think they say and what they say they think.
"...you don’t recognize the human side..."
You stupid assh*le. Ayn Rand wrote that very line for you and put it Peter Keating’s mouth more than a half-century ago. Here’s a news-flash for you Doktor: integration of a person and the ideas he espouses is "the human side".
 
Written By: Billy Beck
URL: http://www.two—four.net/weblog.php
The fact, however, is that I know what I’m doing. I do not consider "political positions" as something ephemeral and random that settles out of the sky on someone’s shoulders like an accident. I hold people responsible for what they think they say and what they say they think.
No you don’t. You just throw out impotent insults. If you held people responsible you’d have to make an argument and show where the person went wrong. Remember, insults on the internet are completely meaningless, they cannot sting, they cannot harm another person, they have no content or value whatsoever. They’re just an emotional release, sort of a web-fart.

The human side goes far beyond the abstract political ideas one believes in, and involves friendship, compassion, ethical action, and daily activity. One can be a good person and be very conservative and religious, believe in democratic socialism, or be a hard core libertarian anarchist. The political ideology side of life is a very narrow section of all that it means to be human, and also an area where all humans, including yourself, are very fallible in thinking through. I believe the more we try to understand where others come from, and engage ideas openly and honestly, the better we are able to learn and self-critique as well as other-critique. You seem to treat your ideology in a way an Islamic extremist treats his religion. It defines you, it shapes your world view, it is you. You come off as an example of the kind of person I blogged about on March 14th "Post-ideology":
Ideologies are to ideas what brand names are to products. It is a consumer age invention, designed to package and sell sets of ideas. People become convinced that their brand is the best — the true view of reality — and thus are willing to spend time, money and often even blood to try to promote it. In a sense, ideologies are like organized religion, they give a rationale for understanding the world — how it is, and how it should be. Often those who reject religion grasp firmly on an ideology, there seems to be a human need to believe in something...The problem with ideology is that by making a claim to be "right," they become rigid systems, unable to co-exist well with alternate ideologies. People learn to interpret the world through their ideology, consistency seekers who start to think that the truth is so obvious that those who don’t see it are either evil or ignorant.
 
Written By: Scott Erb
URL: http://faculty.umf.maine.edu/~erb/blog.htm
Martin:
The worst part of [Obama’s speech], the part that really grabbed me as I thought about it after he had finished, was the comparison, by way of an attempt to draw a moral equivalence, between the private remarks in passing of his white grandmother and the steaming hatred of Jeremiah Wright in the church pulpit.
Steve Gilbert zeroed in on this and gave us the shorter Obama: Wright Not Racist, But Grandma Is.

He’s posted an excerpt from Dreams from My Father wherein Grams gets freaked not because a black man "passed by her on the street," as Obama put it today, but because a black man agressively panhandled her and wouldn’t let up even when she gave him a dollar.

Read it not just for the different take on Grandma’s fears, but for the bizarro family dynamics.
 
Written By: Linda Morgan
URL: http://
Okay, so he’s technically not lying...now. I wonder what else is going to come out, later?

Now, how about Michelle’s $200k raise after the earmark came through for the hospital?

How about Rezko buying them their house?
 
Written By: Harun
URL: http://
And actually, there was a lot of truth in what the Reverend Wright was saying. Some of you just can’t stand to have the state you worship criticized.
Please, enlighten us as to a lot of the truth he spoke.
 
Written By: twizz
URL: http://
"No you don’t. You just throw out impotent insults. If you held people responsible you’d have to make an argument and show where the person went wrong."
...which is exactly what I’ve done to you, countless times since about 1996. And here is a corrollary — completely dispositive — fact: I’m not the only one, by a damned long shot. I’ve watched nearly countless others do it to you, too.

You need a stake driven right through your black heart.
 
Written By: Billy Beck
URL: http://www.two—four.net/weblog.php
You can’t separate individuals from political positions,
Our Politics are a reflection of our morality, and our deepest desires. They are a tool designed to help us achieve them.

On that basis, I submit to you that such seperation as you suggest, is not possible.
 
Written By: Bithead
URL: http://bitsblog.florack.us
"Steve Gilbert zeroed in on this and gave us the shorter Obama: Wright Not Racist, But Grandma Is."
Someone today — I think it was over at NRO’s "Corner" — called it the "Throw Grandma Under The Bus Speech".

{nod}
 
Written By: Billy Beck
URL: http://www.two—four.net/weblog.php
People learn to interpret the world through their ideology, .

...and all Creation, from the Four Before the Throne down to the smallest nanovirus, laugh at you. If you think that’s true, then you can’t think that this is true:

You can’t separate individuals from political positions, you don’t recognize the human side, for you it’s lost in the abstraction of ideology.

Rand hit on at least one truth when she insisted that politics is ethics writ large. But for you, politics is just the spewing of words. I’d be surprised if you ever examined yourself in your life, much less learned from anyone else.

"Great is Truth, and ever prevailing". But you spin words so much even you probably don’t know what you believe. How can you prevail?
 
Written By: kishnevi
URL: http://
"...and all Creation, from the Four Before the Throne down to the smallest nanovirus, laugh at you."
Pop-quiz: how many here recognized Erb’s bloody rot...
"People learn to interpret the world through their ideology..."
... as half-assed Marxist "false consciousness" theory?

Wake up, kids.
 
Written By: Billy Beck
URL: http://www.two—four.net/weblog.php
Yes, Billy, the Marxist false consciousness theory is an excellent example of such ideology-driven understandings. Indeed, Marxists are a prime example of how people treat ideology as a secular religion, that’s why Marxism led to such mass atrocities world wide. The fact you seem to think that I would be at all kind to such ideologues, which you seem to suggest in your comment, shows you are completely clueless as to my views on these issues.

Kishnevi: I’ve been learning and self-critiquing my whole life. I went through a social democratic phase in the 90s (supporting national health care, and a more active government). Then, on the advice of some, I read Hayek, and more importantly I traveled to Russia and show the impact of communism. I’d been there in 1997, but in 2002 I went deeper into the countryside, and had a chance to really see the impact, and it struck me how easy it is to slide from a kind of progressive desire to help to a destructive form of totalitarianism. I’ve been re-assessing constantly, and would describe myself as having a pragmatic distrust for concentrations of power (which you can see in my blog). I also have been fascinated by the intersection between modern physics and philosophy and have been reading/thinking about that more than politics the past few years.

Again, you should engage people and try to listen, not just label and dismiss. I find myself learning a lot more by taking even those people seriously who insult me — as long as they have a good argument, not just bravado or insults.

Oh, and yes, Billy, of course others insult me. I don’t stick to blogs of like minded folk, I go into ’hostile territory’ in order to learn. Insults don’t bother me a bit, if they did, I’d stay on facebook and in friendly blog territory.
 
Written By: Scott Erb
URL: http://faculty.umf.maine.edu/~erb/blog.htm
but this guy IS different.
You’re right. He’s never actually DONE anything. That’s sure different...
 
Written By: Scott Jacobs
URL: http://
How did he get away with ducking questions Monday and giving a Speed without a Q&A today? He got to control the discussion 100% that way.

How do you get away with that? Wow. I don’t know which is worse. That he had the gall to do that or that no one is calling him on it.

Its gonna be Wednesday soon and this was a big issue by last Friday. We’re going into an Easter weekend starting this Friday. I can easily see it being a 1 1/2 weeks before he gets more than a couple of questions on it. Nice tactic to let the public cool off and give them nothing to feed off of except your own crafted speech.
 
Written By: jpm100
URL: http://
"Dumbest thing I’ve read this week."

Read on, there is more where that came from.


." Some of you just can’t stand to have the state you worship criticized."

LOL. Didn’t I tell you? *snicker*. Billy Beck loves the state.

Sh**. I have to take a break. (Exits laughing)
 
Written By: timactual
URL: http://
"Yes, Billy, the Marxist false consciousness theory is an excellent example of such ideology-driven understandings."
That’s just astounding. I point out a direct comparison (not a contrast) to Erb’s assertion about peoples’ epistemology. He comes toddling along to denounce the object of the comparison, which is preeminent in world history.

This man’s stupidity never fails to sink to new depths. Never. I’ve been watching this horror-show for almost half the span of a generation now, and he is still able to challenge my ability to believe what I see him writing.

He has the nerve of a daylight armed-robber, and the brain of a rutabaga. It’s just astounding.
 
Written By: Billy Beck
URL: http://www.two—four.net/weblog.php
Several days ago:
"Had I heard those statements in the church, I would have told Reverend Wright that I profoundly disagree with them," Obama said, adding, "What I have been hearing and had been hearing in church was talk about Jesus and talk about faith and values and serving the poor."
http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/03/14/obama.minister/index.html

Today:
"Did I ever hear him make remarks that could be considered controversial while I sat in church? Yes."

 
Written By: ABC
URL: http://
Wow. My wife thought I had lost my mind or had a small stroke as I went through the kitchen chortling and snorting. No offense meant, Mr. Beck, but the images of you, the state lover, with a "Love It Or Leave It’ bumper sticker, torn between supporting the candidate who will increase the military industrial complex or the one who will increase the welfare system, etc., just tickle the heck out of me. That, and the sheer, oblivious, detached from reality stupidity of the remark. If I err, please let me enjoy it for awhile, this is the best laugh I have had in some time.

Erb often says that it is impossible to know someone from what they write on the internet. In his case it is obviously true, and he projects this inability onto others.

One thing he is good for; he is the inspiration for a fair amount of excellent humor written here. All at his expense. Where is Joe, by the way?


"Steve Gilbert zeroed in on this and gave us the shorter Obama: Wright Not Racist, But Grandma Is."




That’s the white granny, isn’t it? Serves her right.


"Remember, insults on the internet are completely meaningless,"

Then why do you spend so much time talking about them?

"Our Politics are a reflection of our morality, and our deepest desires."

And, lacking morality, Erb thinks he has no idealogy.

"but in 2002 I went deeper into the countryside, and had a chance to really see the impact,"

Slow learner. And he claims to have a Ph.D. in Political Science.


"But for you, politics is just the spewing of words. I’d be surprised if you ever examined yourself in your life, much less learned from anyone else"


Oh, but he does examine himself. Constantly. And, like all narcissists, he loves everything he sees in the mirror.


"It’s just astounding."

Amen. Such wonders make you believe that God has a really strange sense of humor, eh? Like the Aardvark.

(Jeez, I’m still laughing).
 
Written By: timactual
URL: http://
Martin — Thanks again for your research. There are more than a few things unsettling about Obama’s church that are easily missed by the surface impressions.

Prof. Erb is haring out after ad hominems and to deliver his lectures, but in addition to missing Obama’s responsibility for sitting passively in this odd radical black church where America is routinely and viciously libeled, he also misses the Christian notion of "formation" which is something you’ve been more than hinting at.

Whether one is aware of it or not, each Christian church actively works to foster the growth of its congregants in that church’s vision of Christianity. It’s one of the main jobs of a church and judging by Trinity United’s growth, it is something Rev. Wright does well. Just as Obama chose Wright as a mentor, Wright chose Obama as a promising young man to mentor, and that means to influence according to Wright’s values.

Again, the issue is not association. Obama and Wright didn’t get together to sing hymns, tell jokes, or drink beer. Their relationship was based on Wright imparting his values to Obama. Given Obama’s desperate search for a black father, he was especially vulnerable to whatever Wright had to say—which I believe is why Obama can’t let go of Wright even now with Obama’s candidcacy is at stake.

How much of Wright’s wacky anti-Americanism and black racism Obama absorbed, it’s impossible to say. I don’t believe the answer is zero. I just think Obama conceals it very well, as he conceals everything so well.

I have no idea who Obama really is. I’m not even sure if Obama knows. Let’s make him president!
 
Written By: huxley
URL: http://
"If I err..."
You do not.
 
Written By: Billy Beck
URL: http://www.two—four.net/weblog.php
Boy, that’s telling them! Absolutely, when you are running for President of the United States and you know that a minister who supports you is saying things you find offensive, you have an absolute duty to say so. So, I guess in the next few days we’ll be hearing John McCain tell us how he abhors the rhetoric and America-hatred of Jerry Falwell (the godlessness of America was responsible for 9/11), Pat Robertson (ditto), and Mr. Hagee (the Catholic Church is a whore. New Orleans deserved to drown).

Oh, come on, you know and I know that we won’t be hearing any such thing. And you know what? I’m just fine with that. It is NOT the responsibility of politicians to police every statement made by every preacher who supports them or who ministers to their spiritual needs. And I don’t think you really want to make the argument that it is, because that opens a really nasty, slimy can of worms. For example: Is it then the duty of every politician to publicly disagree with every author of every book the politician has read, especially if the author is a favorite of that particular politician and has said controversial things? Is it then the duty of every political candidate to comment on every internet site they have read that contains controversial material if one of the site contributors happens to be someone they know and they read that site regularly? Do you really want the press or the opposing candidate digging into what a candidate reads, what they go to online, what movies or TV they watch, and maybe which sexual positions they prefer?

I think you get the point. I really don’t give one good **** what Barak Obama’s pastor or Hillary Clinton’s pastor or John McCain’s pastor has to say about anything. I do care one **** of a lot about what Barak Obama, Hillary Clinton, and John McCain say. Obama has said he doesn’t agree with Wright. Okay, now can we get this DISTRACTION out of the way and get back to the real issues? You know, little inconsequential things like the Iraq war, health care, the economy, etc.
 
Written By: Beej
URL: http://
Boy, that’s telling them! Absolutely, when you are running for President of the United States and you know that a minister who supports you is saying things you find offensive, you have an absolute duty to say so.
If it was my minister I’d have left and found another years and years ago . . . which leads me to think Obama might agree with the guy.
. . . get back to the real issues? You know, little inconsequential things like the Iraq war, health care, the economy, etc.
Obama is clueless on the issues. Rehashed socialism is rehashed failure.
 
Written By: Don
URL: http://
I really do not want to call "it" a speech. What Barack Obama did was so much more than give a speech. While it did not equal The Gettysburg Address primarily because it was six or seven times longer, it far surpassed JFK’s inauguration speech.

This was the first step of solving , no acknowledging in public, this intractable problem the United States has of treating all people of color including Native Americans and Hispanics as second class citizens.

This was not a speech, nor a manifesto, nor a lecture but an attempt at starting a dialogue among disparate Americans on the one issue that will not go away.

Whatever one wants to call it, it is well beyond anything else I have ever heard a politician say.
 
Written By: Chief
URL: http://
"So, I guess in the next few days we’ll be hearing John McCain tell us how he abhors the rhetoric and America-hatred of Jerry Falwell."

Jerry Falwell is McCain’s pastor? He married McCain and baptized his children? He was MCain’s mentor and McCain often borrows phrases from his speeches?

Please stop spinning.
 
Written By: Harun
URL: http://
Erb: Typical of smear attacks — attempts to claim guilt by association, exaggeration of the connection between the two,
Oh, yeah. I know what you mean. Kind of like when the Democrats say "Bush" and "Enron" and "Kenny Boy" to insinuate a non-existent connection between Bush and the Enron scandal (and, for the record, the government’s case is in the process of imploding). Note to the liberal idiots who crawled out from under their rocks to comment on this thread: you lack credibility to make that argument.
Jen: "Well, maybe they can, but you’re just a pedantic hair splitter."
Ha, ha. I get it. You’re using sarcasm. Did you use sarcasm to make fun of idiot Democrats who accused Bush of lying because he accurately stated that no one expected New Orleans’ levees would be breached by Katrina, the media found a tape of a meeting where someone said that the levees may be topped by the storm surge? How about when idiot liberals accused him of lying in the "16 words" in the State of the Union when he made the truthful statement about British intelligence on Iraq attempting to buy Uranium in Africa? Liberals don’t even pedantically hair-split to defend all the pre-war statements made by Democrats about Saddam being a threat because he had WMD’s. They just shut up and pretend that Democrats didn’t say all the things they actually said.

Liberals’ newly found desire to focus on what a person actually says is encouraging. Sadly, however, their attention to detail is merely an attempt to cover up the obvious fact that Obama, the great uniter, chose as his spirtual mentor a racist, America hating, conspiracy-theory-believing, Farakhan admiring, black liberation nut job. Juan Williams was right when he said that Obama joined Wright’s church to establish his bona fides with the black community on the South Side of Chicago. He may or may not agree with Wright’s racist beliefs, but he sure was willing to associate himself with them when it suited his purposes. Obama, the great uniter, didn’t care that Wright was using his position of authority and trust to fill black people’s heads with divisive, conspiracy-theory BS.

Obama then tried to sweep his association with Wright under the rug. Alas, he got busted. Obama’s false messianic veneer has been breached for anyone with above a double digit IQ. Now we can focus on the substance of his policy positions. That is, when he actually develops some substantive policies to accomplish all the miracles he has promised.
 
Written By: jt007
URL: http://
jt007: Yes, the Democrats do it too. I don’t buy it from either side.

And it’s clear from the vacuous nature of the attacks on Obama at this point (he absorbed anti-Americanism in church — hilarious!), it’s clear this isn’t going to hurt him except for people who don’t like him anyway. I still think he’ll turn this into an advantage.
 
Written By: Scott Erb
URL: http://faculty.umf.maine.edu/~erb/blog.htm
Absolutely, when you are running for President of the United States and you know that a minister who supports you is saying things you find offensive, you have an absolute duty to say so.
When someone who up until that moment been a very very large part of your life has always said things not unlike what Wright said (says), and you decide at the VERY start of your run for President that you might need to distance yourself from him because of those statements, you bet you need to get out infront of it.

Agree or disagree with what Wright said, Obama should have said on day one "My pastor has said some very angry, racist, hateful things - about jewish people, whites, and this country itself. While this is not the largest protion of what his sermons consist of, he brings them up enough that I feel I should speak to them. I absolutely disagree with them, and I am saddened whenever I hear them. I attend church to be spoken to about God’s Word, not to hear such rhetoric. I have continued to support the church and attend his services because when the work the church does in the community is invaluable, and when he does not stray into those areas, his sermons are powerful and uplifting things. I endure the bad so that I can be strengthened spiritually by the good."

That would have covered everything, andswered most problems we have with Obama’s statement, AND would have scored him huge points with the more religious parts of the country. It’s a shame he went all weasely...
 
Written By: Scott Jacobs
URL: http://
So, now that Obama is running for President, he thinks it’s time to address the racism, etc, that his pastor has been spouting.

It didn’t occur to Obama that he might have wanted to address the issue before now?

If there’s an issue that ought to be addressed it’s that. How could he spend so much time in that mans company, and not address the issues.
it’s clear this isn’t going to hurt him except for people who don’t like him anyway.
It’s clear it’s not going to hurt him??? 36% of independents could make or break a candidate.

http://hotair.com/archives/2008/03/18/obamas-speech-remainders/
Sixty-one percent of independent voters say they are unaffected, but 36 percent said it made their view less favorable.
 
Written By: Keith_Indy
URL: http://asecondhandconjecture.com
Absolutely, when you are running for President of the United States and you know that a minister who supports you is saying things you find offensive, you have an absolute duty to say so.
And what of a pastor who you’ve supported for 20 years, as is the case with Obama.
I guess in the next few days we’ll be hearing John McCain tell us how he abhors the rhetoric and America-hatred of Jerry Falwell
Yeah, that’s not going to happen. Especially since Jerry Falwell can’t possibly endorse any candidate.

As far as Hagee goes, get with the times...
February 29, 2008

Statement By John McCain On Pastor Hagee Endorsement

ARLINGTON, VA — U.S. Senator John McCain’s presidential campaign today released the following statement by John McCain on his endorsement by Pastor John Hagee:

"Yesterday, Pastor John Hagee endorsed my candidacy for president in San Antonio, Texas. However, in no way did I intend for his endorsement to suggest that I in turn agree with all of Pastor Hagee’s views, which I obviously do not.

"I am hopeful that Catholics, Protestants and all people of faith who share my vision for the future of America will respond to our message of defending innocent life, traditional marriage, and compassion for the most vulnerable in our society."
 
Written By: Keith_Indy
URL: http://asecondhandconjecture.com
Now now, Keith... You know better than that.

Using facts to wn an argument. This shall never do!
 
Written By: Scott Jacobs
URL: http://
And it’s clear from the vacuous nature of the attacks on Obama at this point (he absorbed anti-Americanism in church — hilarious!)
Prof. Erb — No, that’s not I said. I said I believed that Obama had absorbed a non-zero amount of anti-Americanism in his mentoring relationship with Wright. A mentoring relationship is a learning relationship where a person absorbs the values and knowledge of the mentor. We are all influenced by our important relationships. Given Wright’s dominance as mentor and his position as the black father figure, I can’t believe Obama didn’t pick up some of Wright’s anti-Americanism as well.

>vacuous attacks — You kept making the "guilt by association" strawman argument. You have no reply to the question of Obama’s responsibility, that he just went along with the anti-Americanism in his church and did not object until his presidential campaign was at stake.

You’re a bright enough fellow and skilled in debate. But you’re only as honest as it suits you to make your points.
 
Written By: huxley
URL: http://
What John Harrold, josh b, cleek, John Cole and many others said.

It’s quite possible that McQ initially misread something and was genuinely confused; we all have brain farts from time to time. But by now — after having the absurdity pointed out over and over again — how could this confusion be anything other than willful? Let me just note the irony of someone dissembling in order to pretend that someone else is dissembling.
 
Written By: Crust
URL: http://
You must have missed the firestorm that came down on Falwell.

And the kook from Westburo? If you think he’s part of the religious right, you are simply unteachable.
Sorry, was that firestorm before or after he was invited into the White House to consult on Supreme Court appointments?

As far as Westburo - if you want to make assumptions on who or what I’m referencing with absolutely nothing to base said assumptions on, why would I seek any teaching from you in the first place?

If I’m going to name names, I’ll start with Robertson in addition to Falwell thanks. He’s as much a kook as anyone, but if you think he’s not part of the religious right...well, you know how the rest goes.
 
Written By: Cam
URL: http://
But by now — after having the absurdity pointed out over and over again — how could this confusion be anything other than willful? Let me just note the irony of someone dissembling in order to pretend that someone else is dissembling.
Because I disagree with the analysis and stand by what I said.

It is my opinion that Obama was attempting to dissemble in his Huff Po denial by implying that he’d never heard anything in those statements said in either the church or in private conversations. His attempt was to make a specific denial that would be taken as a blanket denial.

Now, that having not worked, the defense rendered about his very carefully worded first denial is it was not meant to be interpreted that way.

But the "blanket denial" attempt is bolstered by his further claim:
When these statements first came to my attention, it was at the beginning of my presidential campaign.
Which statements - the specific statements in the videos or statements like them in general?

Never clarified. Implication planted.

A reasonable reading of that claim would be that he was unaware of any controversy or controversial statements until he began his run for the Oval office.

That’s how I read the first denial. And, if you read the blogosphere and press afterward, that’s pretty much what most others took from it.

In fact, the most popular and enduring question of the past week has been "how are we expected to believe that the guy attended that church for over 20 years and never happened to be there when Wright made statements like these?"

And, in fact, I’d suggest it was that unanswered question and the press it was getting that spurred the "stop the bleeding" speech he gave.

Obviously that question originated from his Huff Po denial which people took as a blanket denial.

And, as Mr. Obama finally admitted - he hasn’t attended that church for over 20 years and not heard "remarks" like those.

The new question, then, is "how can a guy running for President of the United States attend a church for 20 years and admittedly listen to stuff like that and not say something about it to his pastor?"

Unanswered.
 
Written By: McQ
URL: http://www.QandO.net
Huxley, it’s OK to be against a lot of what America does in the world. It’s OK to say "good damn America" out of anger when you are reacting to something you don’t like. It’s OK to be critical, this isn’t Nazi Germany where we have to worship the state. I hope he absorbed some views very critical of the US, that would make him a better President. Black churches have that aspect as part of their history and identity. Rev. Wright is not outside the norm. If anything, the response some of you are having shows simply that the racial divide still exists, and reinforces Obama’s claim that due to his background in both worlds he can be a unifier.

I guess we just have to disagree on this issue. I think the idea that he should have complained to the Pastor is absurd and shows a bit of naivite.
 
Written By: Scott Erb
URL: http://faculty.umf.maine.edu/~erb/blog.htm
McQ, thank you for the reply. I still disagree, but I understand your position better now. Really, I think your first instinct to be cautious in using the word "lie" was the right one. At the end of the day, what you’re saying is that the HuffPo piece was misleading. Fine. But don’t call it a lie.
 
Written By: Crust
URL: http://
ABC:
Several days ago:
"Had I heard those statements in the church, I would have told Reverend Wright that I profoundly disagree with them," Obama said, adding, "What I have been hearing and had been hearing in church was talk about Jesus and talk about faith and values and serving the poor."
http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/03/14/obama.minister/index.html

Today:
"Did I ever hear him make remarks that could be considered controversial while I sat in church? Yes."
Correct.
And let’s put some context around this, shall we? Let’s examine what he was being taught.. and what he signed into and stayed with for 20 years:

To get a picture of what Barrack Obama has been enabling for 20 years as a member of Wright’s church, let’s do that… let’s read the guy Wright is following…. James Cone. Cone is rgarded as the founder of Liberation Theology, and one inDUHvidual whom Wright has strongly identified himself with....

“Black theology refuses to accept a God who is not identified totally with the goals of the black community. If God is not for us and against white people, then he is a murderer, and we had better kill him.”

“The task of black theology is to kill Gods who do not belong to the black community … Black theology will accept only the love of God which participates in the destruction of the white enemy.”

“The time has come for white America to be silent and listen to black people.”

“All white men are responsible for white oppression. ”

“Theologically, Malcolm X was not far wrong when he called the white man ‘the devil.’”

“Any advice from whites to blacks on how to deal with white oppression is automatically under suspicion as a clever device to further enslavement.”

“Black suffering is getting worse, not better. . . . White supremacy is so clever and evasive that we can hardly name it.”

“What we need is the divine love as expressed in Black Power, which is the power of black people to destroy their oppressors here and now by any means at their disposal. ”

” Jesus Christ is black therefore not because of some cultural or psychological need of black people, but because and only because Christ really enters into our world where the poor were despised and the black are, disclosing that he is with them enduring humiliation and pain and transforming oppressed slaves into liberating servants.”
Ya know, it wasn’t so long ago… I think it was the 04 Presidential election cycle, which would make it November of the year… following the DNC speech Obama gave, that Obama showed up on Imus’ show. The show, by all accounts, went well. (here’s one such account) Now, Obama is saying he wouldn’t appear on Imus’ show because he didn’t want to enable a racist.

But look up, and read again at what is being preached from the Pulpit of Jeremiah Wright. Tell me that being a member of such a church for 20 years, calling Wright his moral leader, calling him friend, being married by this racist having your daughters baptized by this racist, and perhaps most important to this discussion, giving tens of thousands of dollars annually to this church, isn’t enabling a racist.

The Theology Obama has been pouring his time, talent and money into for two decades, make David Duke on his worst day, look like a big tenter.

Are we really to believe as Erb has suggested, he wasn’t aware of this, or hadn’t signed on to it?
Do we really want someone with this kind of non-thought in the White House?



 
Written By: Bithead
URL: http://bitsblog.florack.us
I think the idea that he should have complained to the Pastor is absurd and shows a bit of naivite.
And that is an example of why nobody here cares one whit what you think. Go sit in your own church and listen to the vehemence which spewed from Wright and answer just a few questions.

Do you attend church?

Would you continue to attend a church that defames America, rightly and/or wrongly, week after week for some 23 years?

And say nothing to the minister?

And call the Minister your mentor?

And place the Minister front and center on your Website?

And expect the rest of America to just accept your willing acceptance of this kind of teaching without question or pause?

And after answering the above questions, can you still say this type of inquiry "shows a bit of naivite."
 
Written By: SShiell
URL: http://
Oh, I’m sure he can.
And what do you suppose THAT shows?
 
Written By: Bithead
URL: http://bitsblog.florack.us
I guess we just have to disagree on this issue. I think the idea that he should have complained to the Pastor is absurd and shows a bit of naivite.
Yikes, then I hope you aren’t planning on voting for Obama, since it would be absurd and naive to "complain" to a Pastor about what he preaches.
"Had I heard those statements in the church, I would have told Reverend Wright that I profoundly disagree with them," Obama said,
I didn’t say he should complain to the Pastor.

I said he should have been addressing the issues before now. And I meant the issues the Pastor was bringing up. Whatever the tone or manner, aren’t the issues the Pastor is preaching about something that the black community ought to be addressing in order to be fixing.

If there is a gulf, it’s that people can sit week after week hearing about how they are victims and oppressed by the "white man," and not do something about that.
 
Written By: Keith_Indy
URL: http://asecondhandconjecture.com
Would you continue to attend a church that defames America, rightly and/or wrongly, week after week for some 23 years?
I’m sure you can find quite a few people who have heard their minister call America things such as "ungodly" and "evil" for various "sins" - allowing homosexuality & pornography in particular.

Would you consider that defamation? If no, why not? If yes, there are a lot of evangelicals needing a lesson from you.
 
Written By: Cam
URL: http://
Would you consider that defamation? If no, why not?
Why not answer the questions asked previous to yours, ie:
Would you continue to attend a church that defames America, rightly and/or wrongly, week after week for some 23 years?
 
Written By: McQ
URL: http://www.QandO.net
I wouldn’t attend a church, but I don’t think being critical of flaws in America’s social and governmental system is defaming. I’m amazed at how much I’m hearing from people and in the media of how remarkable and Presidential Obama’s speech. Even a conservative I know who doesn’t like Obama told me he actually found it very moving. I tell you, Obama should not be underestimated, he’s going to turn this to his advantage.
 
Written By: Scott Erb
URL: http://faculty.umf.maine.edu/~erb/blog.htm
I remember when Cole used to be worth reading.

Sadly, that time has long since passed. Cole confuses the tongue baths that the Kosmonauts give him for hating the GOP with positive affirmation of his actual writing which, these days, can easily be confused with what you find in the shallow end of the DU swimming pool.
 
Written By: physics geek
URL: http://physicsgeek.mu.nu
I’m sure you can find quite a few people who have heard their minister call America things such as "ungodly" and "evil" for various "sins" - allowing homosexuality & pornography in particular.
What must it be like to lack self-awareness to this degree. While I am sure some people have heard their pastor say things like that, it’s a lot fewer people than liberals think. Furthermore, if a Republican candidate were a member of a church where those type of statements were made by the pastor, liberals would be hammering him/her for attending that church and wouldn’t hestiate to assign those views to the candidate/parishoner. Democrats castigated Bush for giving one speech at Bob Jones University. He never attended a church where Bob Jones or any of his followers preached. He never sought out anyone from that institution as a spiritual advisor or mentor and he never misled anyone about the extent of his affiliation with that institution. Obama has done all of those things. He not only attended Wright’s church, he chose him as his mentor and appointed him as an spiritual advisor to his campaign. And after all that, Obama has held himself out as a messianic leader who will heal the divisions of this country.

I will remember this desire to distinguish the parishoner from the pastor the next time a Democrat tries to assign the views of someone like Ted Haggard to the entire Republican Party (99.9% of whom had never even heard of him let alone attended a service where he preached).
 
Written By: jt007
URL: http://
Obama should not be underestimated, he’s going to turn this to his advantage.


That may speak well of his political ability.
Doesn’t say much for his ability to stick to the realm of truth, however.

And that you hold him in high regard.... well, that tells us something, as well.

 
Written By: Bithead
URL: http://bitsblog.florack.us
I’m sure you can find quite a few people who have heard their minister call America things such as "ungodly" and "evil" for various "sins" - allowing homosexuality & pornography in particular.
A good response to that was provided by jt007:
What must it be like to lack self-awareness to this degree. While I am sure some people have heard their pastor say things like that, it’s a lot fewer people than liberals think.
You can say what you will about the good and bad in this country. And it is your Constitutional freedom to do so. But as Obama himself earlier in this campaign stated: "Words Matter!" And he was not only supportive of the words that came from Reverend Wright, he further supported them with his tithe. I’ll say this one more time for the reading impaired: Obama didn’t just attend this church. He supported it with his tithe. You don’t put $20,000 in the offering plate just to attend. There is no ticket being sold at the door - your tithe is your voluntary support of that church and its ministry. And he supported this congregation and its ministry with his attendance and tithe for 23 years!

I have been a regular church member all of my life. I began with my parents as a Southern Baptist and most of my adult life has been in the Presbyterian Church. You don’t get much more "Hell and Damnation" sermons than you do from a Baptist ministry. I had no choice as a child but my preference as an adult is my choice, for myself and my family. Yes, I have heard sermons about ungodly actions and the evils of various sins but I have never heard a sermon preached against homosexuality or pornography in my life. To see a minister saying the things Reverend Wright said from the pulpit left me aghast. As a member of that church, nothing Reverend Wright could have said to me afterwards could undo his statements. No amount of rationalization could have been sufficient. I did not just disagree with those statements, they were horrible enough i would have quit such a congregation the very moment they were said. And the fact that Obama continues to support that church and its message with his attendance and tithe tells me volumns that all of his eloquence cannot.
 
Written By: SShiell
URL: http://
What must it be like to lack self-awareness to this degree. While I am sure some people have heard their pastor say things like that, it’s a lot fewer people than liberals think.
You’ve done an extensive study on what pastors say in church then? I’m speaking from experience, though I’ll admit it’s purely anecdotal evidence. Where do you get your stats on what liberals think, etc.?
Why not answer the questions asked previous to yours, ie:
Would you continue to attend a church that defames America, rightly and/or wrongly, week after week for some 23 years?
My answer would be no. That would also be my answer to "would you attend church?", so it doesn’t really mean much.

Either way, I would like to know what constitutes defamation of America so that I could answer properly. I guess I won’t be getting that knowledge any time soon.
but I have never heard a sermon preached against homosexuality or pornography in my life.
I’ve heard plenty of those sermons in Southern churches, including Southern Baptist. I haven’t been to a Baptist church since I was in my early 20s though, so maybe things have changed.
 
Written By: Cam
URL: http://
Cam:
Either way, I would like to know what constitutes defamation of America so that I could answer properly. I guess I won’t be getting that knowledge any time soon.
Well surprise, surprise. You asked for it, you got it. But not in my words but in Obama’s own words:
I have already condemned, in unequivocal terms, the statements of Reverend Wright that have caused such controversy. For some, nagging questions remain. Did I know him to be an occasionally fierce critic of American domestic and foreign policy? Of course. Did I ever hear him make remarks that could be considered controversial while I sat in church? Yes. Did I strongly disagree with many of his political views? Absolutely - just as I’m sure many of you have heard remarks from your pastors, priests, or rabbis with which you strongly disagreed.

But the remarks that have caused this recent firestorm weren’t simply controversial. They weren’t simply a religious leader’s effort to speak out against perceived injustice. Instead, they expressed a profoundly distorted view of this country - a view that sees white racism as endemic, and that elevates what is wrong with America above all that we know is right with America; a view that sees the conflicts in the Middle East as rooted primarily in the actions of stalwart allies like Israel, instead of emanating from the perverse and hateful ideologies of radical Islam.

As such, Reverend Wright’s comments were not only wrong but divisive, divisive at a time when we need unity; racially charged at a time when we need to come together to solve a set of monumental problems - two wars, a terrorist threat, a falling economy, a chronic health care crisis and potentially devastating climate change; problems that are neither black or white or Latino or Asian, but rather problems that confront us all.
As Obama himself said, the remarks ". . expressed a profoundly distorted view of this country . . ." And later he said, "Reverend Wright’s comments were not only wrong but divisive, divisive at a time when we need unity . . " And Obama did not just sit in the pews merely attending the services. He supported this church and its ministry with his tithe - $22,500 in 2006. So with that in mind, I will ask the question once again - for the reading impaired:
Would you continue to attend a church that defames America, rightly and/or wrongly, week after week for some 23 years?
So using his own words as a sort of standard for defamation, answer the question. But, to paraphrase you, I guess I won’t be getting that answer any time soon.
 
Written By: SShiell
URL: http://
I actually did answer it. My answer doesn’t mean that much because I wouldn’t attend a church that doesn’t defame America, rightly and/or wrongly, week after week for some 23 years either.

My answer was right up there. I’ll repeat again, as you put it, "for the reading impaired":
My answer would be no. That would also be my answer to "would you attend church?", so it doesn’t really mean much.
Did you mean something else when you asked for an answer?
 
Written By: Cam
URL: http://
Figures - I didn’t think you would answer it.
 
Written By: SShiell
URL: http://
I like how my response pointing out that I’ve answered the question was deleted.

For the third time: the answer is no.

Is that clear enough for you?

Feel free to delete it again, McQ. I’m not going to bother coming back this time. Sorry I messed up your narrative by actually answering the question.
 
Written By: Cam
URL: http://
There’s been no comment with your name on it deleted by me.

You’re welcome to leave whatever droppings you’d like to leave here ... if I had to guess, I’d guess you messed up posting here, nothing more.

 
Written By: McQ
URL: http://www.QandO.net

 
Add Your Comment
  NOTICE: While we don't wish to censor your thoughts, we do blacklist certain terms of profanity or obscenity. This is not to muzzle you, but to ensure that the blog remains work-safe for our readers. If you wish to use profanity, simply insert asterisks (*) where the vowels usually go. Your meaning will still be clear, but our readers will be able to view the blog without worrying that content monitoring will get them in trouble when reading it.
Comments for this entry are closed.
Name:
Email:
URL:
HTML Tools:
Bold Italic Blockquote Hyperlink
Comment:
   
 
Vicious Capitalism

Divider

Buy Dale's Book!
Slackernomics by Dale Franks

Divider

Divider