March 21, 200818 yr Does anyone here have any racist friends? How about coworkers? Class mates? Does anyone here have anyone in their close group of people that have ever said anything offensive? If you say no, you are a liar. It's one thing knowing a racist and another thing to freely go and listen to a racist talk. That's the difference. If I had a racist friend who I hang out with, I still would not listen to him preach about race and God. Big, big difference. So you have to agree with every single thing your pastor or preacher or rabbi says during his sermons?
March 22, 200818 yr I guess some of you bought into Obama's grandma = typical white person = Wright comparison. I don't think too many outside of his die-hard fans bought into it.
March 22, 200818 yr I guess some of you bought into Obama's grandma = typical white person = Wright comparison. I don't think too many outside of his die-hard fans bought into it. You mean obnoxious pundits and people who don't want to use their brains didn't buy into it? His point is that he loves his grandmother because of the thousands of things she has done for him, so he wouldn't be able to kick her to the curb because of something she said, or even if she didn't say something, the potential for her doing so. The same goes for Wright. Wright is Christian leader and someone who puts a lot of positive messages. But no, pundits and people like you are experts on the cult like organization he has creates with a mission of eating white people. Maybe I'm wrong. Maybe you can provide me substantial evidence that, outside of some clips, this guy is out to destroy America and Obama wants in. But hey, I'm sure you'll use your same theories to connect McCain to people he associates himself with.
March 22, 200818 yr I guess some of you bought into Obama's grandma = typical white person = Wright comparison. I don't think too many outside of his die-hard fans bought into it. Did you even listen to the speech?
March 22, 200818 yr I sat in a doctor's office Friday morning. Fox News "morning show" was on, and the hosts must have mentioned "typical white person" and how ugly a term that was by Obama 5 billion times, with no context whatsoever of how it was even used in the sentence. Finally anchor Chris Wallace of all people had to come on and tell them they were being completely out of line.
March 22, 200818 yr Finally anchor Chris Wallace of all people had to come on and tell them they were being completely out of line. :lol Oh, the irony.
March 26, 200818 yr Does anyone here have any racist friends? How about coworkers? Class mates? Does anyone here have anyone in their close group of people that have ever said anything offensive? If you say no, you are a liar. Bob, there's a huge difference. We're not senators running for president of the United States. I don't care who someone associates with in his private life, but if you're running to become the most powerful person in the world, then yes, of course it's relevant. What would happen if McCain were to have attended a church for 20 years, and the white reverend of that church preached about blacks being low-lifes and how welfare and affirmative action have taken money and opportunity away from the white man? (And could you imagine the reaction of Revs Sharpton and Jesse Jackson if that happened?) Obama's church's magazine gave an award to Louis Farrakhan, saying he "truly epitomized greatness." What would have happened if McCain belonged to a church that gave an award to the head of the KKK? His campaign would be through, no doubt about it. I mean, good grief, Wright called America the U.S. of KKK A, and said the government (who are a bunch of rich, white men) invented AIDS to kill blacks. The guy is a wacko. I'm not saying Obama feels and thinks the way Wright does. But to be associated very closely with this man for 20+ years, so much so that he baptized your children and married you, and is your spiritual mentor, it is absolutely fair and necessary to question Obama's judgment.
March 26, 200818 yr Does anyone here have any racist friends? How about coworkers? Class mates? Does anyone here have anyone in their close group of people that have ever said anything offensive? If you say no, you are a liar. Bob, there's a huge difference. We're not senators running for president of the United States. I don't care who someone associates with in his private life, but if you're running to become the most powerful person in the world, then yes, of course it's relevant. What would happen if McCain were to have attended a church for 20 years, and the white reverend of that church preached about blacks being low-lifes and how welfare and affirmative action have taken money and opportunity away from the white man? (And could you imagine the reaction of Revs Sharpton and Jesse Jackson if that happened?) Obama's church's magazine gave an award to Louis Farrakhan, saying he "truly epitomized greatness." What would have happened if McCain belonged to a church that gave an award to the head of the KKK? His campaign would be through, no doubt about it. I mean, good grief, Wright called America the U.S. of KKK A, and said the government (who are a bunch of rich, white men) invented AIDS to kill blacks. The guy is a wacko. I'm not saying Obama feels and thinks the way Wright does. But to be associated very closely with this man for 20+ years, so much so that he baptized your children and married you, and is your spiritual mentor, it is absolutely fair and necessary to question Obama's judgment. If we want to make it an issue of judgment, then I can see where you might be coming from. But judgment is at it's core making a choice knowing certain sets of facts, right. So if John McCain is seeking the endorsement of John Hagee, who has said offensive things about Catholics, Gays, and Jews, does that not also indicate that he lacks proper judgment? If John McCain is out courting people he has referred to as agents of intolerance, does that not also indicate a lack of judgment? Why is Obama the only one being attacked for his lack of perceived judgment? Could you also acknowledge that it is very likely that 99% of the comments that Wright have said are not preaching these hateful things? In fact listen to the whole sermon instead of just those clips. There is a very sounds basis on which Obama should be part of this church that is substantially outside of the offensive remarks.
March 26, 200818 yr Author Let's put the sermond in its proper context. http://ac360.blogs.cnn.com/2008/03/21/the-...hts-911-sermon/ The full story behind Rev. Jeremiah Wright?s 9/11 sermon Posted: 10:09 AM ET Editor?s note: CNN Contributor Roland Martin has listened to several of the sermons of Rev. Jeremiah Wright from Trinity United Church of Christ in Chicago. Portions of the sermons have been excerpted in recent stories. As this whole sordid episode regarding the sermons of the Rev. Jeremiah Wright has played out over the last week, I wanted to understand what he ACTUALLY said in this speech. I?ve been saying all week on CNN that context is important, and I just wanted to know what the heck is going on. I have now actually listened to the sermon Rev. Wright gave after September 11 titled, ?The Day of Jerusalem?s Fall.? It was delivered on Sept. 16, 2001. One of the most controversial statements in this sermon was when he mentioned ?chickens coming home to roost.? He was actually quoting Edward Peck, former U.S. Ambassador to Iraq and deputy director of President Reagan?s terrorism task force, who was speaking on FOX News. That?s what he told the congregation. He was quoting Peck as saying that America?s foreign policy has put the nation in peril: ?I heard Ambassador Peck on an interview yesterday did anybody else see or hear him? He was on FOX News, this is a white man, and he was upsetting the FOX News commentators to no end, he pointed out, a white man, an ambassador, he pointed out that what Malcolm X said when he was silenced by Elijah Mohammad was in fact true, he said Americas chickens, are coming home to roost.? ?We took this country by terror away from the Sioux, the Apache, Arikara, the Comanche, the Arapaho, the Navajo. Terrorism. ?We took Africans away from their country to build our way of ease and kept them enslaved and living in fear. Terrorism. ?We bombed Grenada and killed innocent civilians, babies, non-military personnel. ?We bombed the black civilian community of Panama with stealth bombers and killed unarmed teenage and toddlers, pregnant mothers and hard working fathers. ?We bombed Qaddafi?s home, and killed his child. Blessed are they who bash your children?s head against the rock. ?We bombed Iraq. We killed unarmed civilians trying to make a living. We bombed a plant in Sudan to pay back for the attack on our embassy, killed hundreds of hard working people, mothers and fathers who left home to go that day not knowing that they?d never get back home. ?We bombed Hiroshima. We bombed Nagasaki, and we nuked far more than the thousands in New York and the Pentagon and we never batted an eye. ?Kids playing in the playground. Mothers picking up children after school. Civilians, not soldiers, people just trying to make it day by day. ?We have supported state terrorism against the Palestinians and black South Africans, and now we are indignant because the stuff that we have done overseas is now brought right back into our own front yards. America?s chickens are coming home to roost. ?Violence begets violence. Hatred begets hatred. And terrorism begets terrorism. A white ambassador said that y?all, not a black militant. Not a reverend who preaches about racism. An ambassador whose eyes are wide open and who is trying to get us to wake up and move away from this dangerous precipice upon which we are now poised. The ambassador said the people we have wounded don?t have the military capability we have. But they do have individuals who are willing to die and take thousands with them. And we need to come to grips with that.? He went on to describe seeing the photos of the aftermath of 9/11 because he was in Newark, N.J., when the planes struck. After turning on the TV and seeing the second plane slam into one of the twin towers, he spoke passionately about what if you never got a chance to say hello to your family again. ?What is the state of your family?? he asked. And then he told his congregation that he loved them and asked the church to tell each other they loved themselves. His sermon thesis: 1. This is a time for self-examination of ourselves and our families. 2. This is a time for social transformation (then he went on to say they won?t put me on PBS or national cable for what I?m about to say. Talk about prophetic!) ?We have got to change the way we have been doing things as a society,? he said. Wright then said we can?t stop messing over people and thinking they can?t touch us. He said we may need to declare war on racism, injustice, and greed, instead of war on other countries. ?Maybe we need to declare war on AIDS. In five minutes the Congress found $40 billion to rebuild New York and the families that died in sudden death, do you think we can find the money to make medicine available for people who are dying a slow death? Maybe we need to declare war on the nation?s healthcare system that leaves the nation?s poor with no health coverage? Maybe we need to declare war on the mishandled educational system and provide quality education for everybody, every citizen, based on their ability to learn, not their ability to pay. This is a time for social transformation.? 3. This is time to tell God thank you for all that he has provided and that he gave him and others another chance to do His will. By the way, nowhere in this sermon did he said ?God damn America.? I?m not sure which sermon that came from. This doesn?t explain anything away, nor does it absolve Wright of using the N-word, but what it does do is add an accurate perspective to this conversation. The point that I have always made as a journalist is that our job is to seek the truth, and not the partial truth. I am also listening to the other sermons delivered by Rev. Wright that have been the subject of controversy. And let me be clear: Where I believe he was wrong and not justified in what he said based upon the facts, I will say so. But where the facts support his argument, that will also be said. So stay tuned.
March 26, 200818 yr Author I agree Penguino. Personally, I don't give a sh*t about this sort of thing whether it comes from a Republican or Democratic candidate. I don't think it is any of our business. I am more concerned about how they will govern than I am about what their pastor or supporters say. To impute a pastor's views onto the candidate is, I think, quite silly. Those who make a big deal out of this are just looking for any semblance of a logical excuse not to support that particular candidate. If you don't want to vote for the guy, just say so and don't make up some stupid excuse for it. I have close friends who have radical political views. One thinks that the U.S. Government is responsible for 9-11. Another thinks that the CIA imported cocaine into the United States to finance the Contras in Nicaragua during the 1980s. I vehemently disagree with them, but I am still close friends with them. It would be silly if, for example, I ran for Congress and a bunch of whackos were out saying I am un-American because a couple of my best friends hold these ridiculous views. It would be even sillier for me to disregard all the good things they've done for me and that have forged our great friendship and disavow my association with them simply because they happen to have some ridiculous political opinions.
March 26, 200818 yr Obama was one of the people calling for the firing of Don Imus (ABC, April 11, 2007), saying that he himself would not permit anybody on his campaign that talked about people of any creed in the way Imus referenced the Baylor women's basketball team. "I understand MSNBC has suspended Mr. Imus, 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. He didn't just cross the line, he fed into some of the worst stereotypes that my two young daughters are having to deal with today in America." Rev. Wright is far worse than Don Imus, and totally unapologetic. Maybe Obama only meant if a white person made such a comment... oh come on man, thats ridiculous...everyone who has ever been to any church or temple has had a religious leader say something that a bit extreme...it doesnt mean that we are extremists for having listened to it...pure absurd BS No.. That is not true.. I go to Church most Sundays and I don't hear anything close to that pure hate. I looked around a while until I found a church that I was comfortable in. You mean to tell me that he only said those types of things a handful of times? I doubt it. Oprah went to that "church" and stopped attending at some point. I guess she used much better judgement than Obama. I'm not saying he is a racists, but the Rev. certainly is , and Obama's wife has a large chip on her shoulder. This is mostly an issue of poor judgement from Obama.
March 26, 200818 yr Does anyone here have any racist friends? How about coworkers? Class mates? Does anyone here have anyone in their close group of people that have ever said anything offensive? If you say no, you are a liar. Bob, there's a huge difference. We're not senators running for president of the United States. I don't care who someone associates with in his private life, but if you're running to become the most powerful person in the world, then yes, of course it's relevant. What would happen if McCain were to have attended a church for 20 years, and the white reverend of that church preached about blacks being low-lifes and how welfare and affirmative action have taken money and opportunity away from the white man? (And could you imagine the reaction of Revs Sharpton and Jesse Jackson if that happened?) Obama's church's magazine gave an award to Louis Farrakhan, saying he "truly epitomized greatness." What would have happened if McCain belonged to a church that gave an award to the head of the KKK? His campaign would be through, no doubt about it. I mean, good grief, Wright called America the U.S. of KKK A, and said the government (who are a bunch of rich, white men) invented AIDS to kill blacks. The guy is a wacko. I'm not saying Obama feels and thinks the way Wright does. But to be associated very closely with this man for 20+ years, so much so that he baptized your children and married you, and is your spiritual mentor, it is absolutely fair and necessary to question Obama's judgment. If we want to make it an issue of judgment, then I can see where you might be coming from. But judgment is at it's core making a choice knowing certain sets of facts, right. So if John McCain is seeking the endorsement of John Hagee, who has said offensive things about Catholics, Gays, and Jews, does that not also indicate that he lacks proper judgment? If John McCain is out courting people he has referred to as agents of intolerance, does that not also indicate a lack of judgment? Why is Obama the only one being attacked for his lack of perceived judgment? Could you also acknowledge that it is very likely that 99% of the comments that Wright have said are not preaching these hateful things? In fact listen to the whole sermon instead of just those clips. There is a very sounds basis on which Obama should be part of this church that is substantially outside of the offensive remarks. Just because someone endorses you, it doesn't mean you were actively seeking it. Just saying..
March 26, 200818 yr Bob, there's a huge difference. We're not senators running for president of the United States. I don't care who someone associates with in his private life, but if you're running to become the most powerful person in the world, then yes, of course it's relevant. What would happen if McCain were to have attended a church for 20 years, and the white reverend of that church preached about blacks being low-lifes and how welfare and affirmative action have taken money and opportunity away from the white man? (And could you imagine the reaction of Revs Sharpton and Jesse Jackson if that happened?) Obama's church's magazine gave an award to Louis Farrakhan, saying he "truly epitomized greatness." What would have happened if McCain belonged to a church that gave an award to the head of the KKK? His campaign would be through, no doubt about it. I mean, good grief, Wright called America the U.S. of KKK A, and said the government (who are a bunch of rich, white men) invented AIDS to kill blacks. The guy is a wacko. I'm not saying Obama feels and thinks the way Wright does. But to be associated very closely with this man for 20+ years, so much so that he baptized your children and married you, and is your spiritual mentor, it is absolutely fair and necessary to question Obama's judgment. So Obama's rejection of Wright's racial comments isn't enough? There seems to be nothing Obama can do to make a certain segment of the population believe him. There is a desire to paint him as unamerican, or as an outsider, and there are people who will believe this no matter what.
March 27, 200818 yr Does anyone here have any racist friends? How about coworkers? Class mates? Does anyone here have anyone in their close group of people that have ever said anything offensive? If you say no, you are a liar. Bob, there's a huge difference. We're not senators running for president of the United States. I don't care who someone associates with in his private life, but if you're running to become the most powerful person in the world, then yes, of course it's relevant. What would happen if McCain were to have attended a church for 20 years, and the white reverend of that church preached about blacks being low-lifes and how welfare and affirmative action have taken money and opportunity away from the white man? (And could you imagine the reaction of Revs Sharpton and Jesse Jackson if that happened?) Obama's church's magazine gave an award to Louis Farrakhan, saying he "truly epitomized greatness." What would have happened if McCain belonged to a church that gave an award to the head of the KKK? His campaign would be through, no doubt about it. I mean, good grief, Wright called America the U.S. of KKK A, and said the government (who are a bunch of rich, white men) invented AIDS to kill blacks. The guy is a wacko. I'm not saying Obama feels and thinks the way Wright does. But to be associated very closely with this man for 20+ years, so much so that he baptized your children and married you, and is your spiritual mentor, it is absolutely fair and necessary to question Obama's judgment. If we want to make it an issue of judgment, then I can see where you might be coming from. But judgment is at it's core making a choice knowing certain sets of facts, right. So if John McCain is seeking the endorsement of John Hagee, who has said offensive things about Catholics, Gays, and Jews, does that not also indicate that he lacks proper judgment? If John McCain is out courting people he has referred to as agents of intolerance, does that not also indicate a lack of judgment? Why is Obama the only one being attacked for his lack of perceived judgment? Could you also acknowledge that it is very likely that 99% of the comments that Wright have said are not preaching these hateful things? In fact listen to the whole sermon instead of just those clips. There is a very sounds basis on which Obama should be part of this church that is substantially outside of the offensive remarks. Just because someone endorses you, it doesn't mean you were actively seeking it. Just saying.. Hagee says McCain sought him out. http://www.editorandpublisher.com/eandp/ne...t_id=1003728364
March 27, 200818 yr It appears that the Rev. Wright situation did not actually impact Obama very much. He is currently at 49% positive, 32% negative. On the flip side, however, Clinton lost about 8 points in the positive column since the Wright incident became a big story. She sits at 37% positive, 48% negative. Unfortunately, it looks like the back and forth attacks by either the candidates or their supporters is hurting potential turnout for the Democrats in November. However, on a positive note, both Obama and Clinton each easily out-fundraise McCain. The big new number that could be a problem is that 28% of Clinton supporters would rather vote for McCain if Clinton doesn't get the nomination, compared to 19% of Obama supporters who would vote for McCain if Obama doesn't get the nomination. Considering the fact that it is virtually impossible for Clinton to get the nomination, barring some last-minute backroom deal (looking more unlikely by the day), Obama will be the nominee.
March 27, 200818 yr It appears that the Rev. Wright situation did not actually impact Obama very much. He is currently at 49% positive, 32% negative. On the flip side, however, Clinton lost about 8 points in the positive column since the Wright incident became a big story. She sits at 37% positive, 48% negative. Unfortunately, it looks like the back and forth attacks by either the candidates or their supporters is hurting potential turnout for the Democrats in November. However, on a positive note, both Obama and Clinton each easily out-fundraise McCain. The big new number that could be a problem is that 28% of Clinton supporters would rather vote for McCain if Clinton doesn't get the nomination, compared to 19% of Obama supporters who would vote for McCain if Obama doesn't get the nomination. Considering the fact that it is virtually impossible for Clinton to get the nomination, barring some last-minute backroom deal (looking more unlikely by the day), Obama will be the nominee. Some of the results in that poll are not believable. For example the poll says 30% of registered voters don't have a positive or a negative opinion of McCain. That ridiculous. Did they poll registered voters who live under rocks? Rasmussen has they positive / negatives like this: McCain - 55% - 42% Clinton - 44% - 54% Obama - 46% - 51% http://rasmussenreports.com/public_content...tial_candidates
March 27, 200818 yr Rasmussen is known as a particularly accurate poll. No, its not: http://www.surveyusa.com/index.php/surveyusa-report-cards/
March 27, 200818 yr Rasmussen is known as a particularly accurate poll. No, its not: http://www.surveyusa.com/index.php/surveyusa-report-cards/ Thanks. Do you have this for the '04 and '06 elections? I think he did very well in both of them. It looks like he's having an off season so far this polling season. bobbob, can we blame this on bad luck?
March 27, 200818 yr Rasmussen is known as a particularly accurate poll. No, its not: http://www.surveyusa.com/index.php/surveyusa-report-cards/ Thanks. Do you have this for the '04 and '06 elections? I think he did very well in both of them. It looks like he's having an off season so far this polling season. bobbob, can we blame this on bad luck? No I don't. But regardless, rasmussen is one poll. I haven't seen too many other polls that have said that he is taking a big hit after his speech. Maybe after the Wright stuff came out initially. But only time will tell.
March 27, 200818 yr Rasmussen is known as a particularly accurate poll. No, its not: http://www.surveyusa.com/index.php/surveyusa-report-cards/ Thanks. Do you have this for the '04 and '06 elections? I think he did very well in both of them. It looks like he's having an off season so far this polling season. bobbob, can we blame this on bad luck? :lol :lol
March 27, 200818 yr Relying on polls is kind of dumb. They are the definition of unscientific and for the most part are pretty unreliable.
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.