Press covered for Obama

[Tiger]

"The press was content to let Obama criticize Wright’s view that white racism is endemic, and that Israel is the root of all Mideast problems. But Obama’s denunciation begged an obvious question: Why on Earth then would you sit in Wright’s church for two decades and pour tens of thousands of dollars into Wright’s treasury? Why, then, did you choose this man to officiate at your wedding? To baptize your children?

The press was content to let Obama decry that Wright’s sermons were racially charged, but let him claim ignorance of Wright’s racial animus, and let Obama claim that “not once” in his conversations with Wright had he heard Wright talk about any ethnic group “in derogatory terms.” This is simply unbelievable, a lie.

In his own memoir “Dreams From My Father,” Obama described how an early meeting with Wright quickly devolved into Wright telling him in paranoid terms that the black man will never be safe in America. Obama told of an early sermon that preached of a world of white greed, “a world where cruise ships throw away more food than most residents of Port-au-Prince see in a year, where white folks’ greed runs a world in need, apartheid in one hemisphere, apathy in another hemisphere.”

“White folks’ greed runs a world in need,” but Wright never disparaged whites to Obama’s face? Does Chris Matthews think lying is Lincolnesque?"

http://www.edmondlifeandleisure.com...form=&sc=2528&hn=edmondlifeandleisure&he=.com

 

[RetiredGySgt]

Don't post facts, you will have the Liberals all crying and screaming. Ohh be set for the name calling and personal attacks to follow. When they have no facts that is where they go.

 

[Tiger]

 

[ReillyT]

"The press was content to let Obama criticize Wright’s view that white racism is endemic, and that Israel is the root of all Mideast problems. But Obama’s denunciation begged an obvious question: Why on Earth then would you sit in Wright’s church for two decades and pour tens of thousands of dollars into Wright’s treasury? Why, then, did you choose this man to officiate at your wedding? To baptize your children?

Did the press completely miss this story? I feel as if I have heard something about it.

As for your questions, these were answered by Obama in his speech. You may not like the answers (or have watched the speech), but answers there were. On top of the answers he gave, I think many people also understand that it was important for Obama as a politician to reach out and become part of the black community in Chicago and that this highly respected congregation was one way to do it. This isn't a reason in exclusion of the others that he gave, but a reason in addition.

The press was content to let Obama decry that Wright’s sermons were racially charged, but let him claim ignorance of Wright’s racial animus, and let Obama claim that “not once” in his conversations with Wright had he heard Wright talk about any ethnic group “in derogatory terms.” This is simply unbelievable, a lie.

In his own memoir “Dreams From My Father,” Obama described how an early meeting with Wright quickly devolved into Wright telling him in paranoid terms that the black man will never be safe in America. Obama told of an early sermon that preached of a world of white greed, “a world where cruise ships throw away more food than most residents of Port-au-Prince see in a year, where white folks’ greed runs a world in need, apartheid in one hemisphere, apathy in another hemisphere.”

“White folks’ greed runs a world in need,” but Wright never disparaged whites to Obama’s face? Does Chris Matthews think lying is Lincolnesque?"

First, I question whether the "white folks' greed" actually is a disparagement of whites. The greed may be that of white people because white (predominantly) nations have been the overwhelming economic forces in the world in the last 200 years, but the greed exists in all races (if you pay attention to African politics, Chinese greed is a big topic right now). I don't think anyone would dispute that.

Otherwise, yeah, he most likely was lying that he never heard such remarks, but it is the kind of lie that every politician will give from time to time. Most people don't really care because they don't really believe that Wright's views reflect Obama's views and understand his desire to separate himself from the inflamatory speech (or at least this is what the polls suggest). Also, he more or less fessed up in his speech. Anyway, the story thus far hasn't really had the legs some people would like, but... c'est la vie.

 

[ReillyT]

Don't post facts, you will have the Liberals all crying and screaming. Ohh be set for the name calling and personal attacks to follow. When they have no facts that is where they go.

Yes, you surely are right that is wrong to make gross characterizations and make personal attacks against people. One should stick to the facts. We liberals really should stop the "crying and screaming."

[Please catch the sarcasm here]

 

[Gunny]

Yes, you surely are right that is wrong to make gross characterizations and make personal attacks against people. One should stick to the facts. We liberals really should stop the "crying and screaming."

[Please catch the sarcasm here]

My suggestion to you would be to read the Obama threads on this forum. They are each and every one nothing but exercises in deflection, blind partisanship/refusing to acknolwledge the topic and of course, some are nothing but insult fests. That you actually attempt to address the topic is rather unique and refreshing.

I disagree with your assumption that "most people" don't believe Obama's views reflect Wright's view (and yes, I caught that you had it reversed -- I just put it in correct order) to at least some extent.

It is illogical to assume that one would sit in the man's church and listen to his message for 20+ years and not embrace parts or all of his ideology. Otherwise, you find another church that more closely refelcts your beliefs.

As far as you last comment regarding race ... you know what they call a white man who addresses a white audience to the exclusion of other races?

What I see here in both instances -- religion and race -- Obama is not being held to the same zero-defect standard by the left that you hold right wing politicians.

Paul was called a racist for accepting money from some organization that was racist, and Huckabee brought on the fearmongering of theocracy because of his religious beliefs.

Try holding Obama to the same standard you do any racist or religious rightwinger and see what he looks like.

What I will further add is the right is playing right into Obama's game biting on this religion and race crap. So long as he spends his time defending these accusations and his supporters deflecting from them, they don't have to address his stance on political issues which is the reason he won't get my vote.

 

[ReillyT]

My suggestion to you would be to read the Obama threads on this forum. They are each and every one nothing but exercises in deflection, blind partisanship/refusing to acknolwledge the topic and of course, some are nothing but insult fests. That you actually attempt to address the topic is rather unique and refreshing.

Characterizations, name calling and insults are the millieu of people on this board from all political spectrums. To try to isolate this as a liberal trait is silly. If I did not express that view clearly enough in my last post, I hope I have clarified here.

I disagree with your assumption that "most people" don't believe Obama's views reflect Wright's view (and yes, I caught that you had it reversed -- I just put it in correct order) to at least some extent.

It is illogical to assume that one would sit in the man's church and listen to his message for 20+ years and not embrace parts or all of his ideology. Otherwise, you find another church that more closely refelcts your beliefs.

I see no reason to think that one would have to embrace all of one's pastor's ideology. Surely he does embrace some of it, which is why he made the point in his speech that these remarks represent only a small portion of the beliefs, attitudes and actions of the man who led his church. There were surely personal and political reasons why he continued to be involved with this congregation.

As for whether most people believe Obama's views (on race) reflect Wright's, I would submit that the evidence (that we have available right now) is in the polls that have been taken since this story broke. I don't believe that if most people held the position that Wright reflected Obama's views, he would have the level of support he continues to have.

As far as you last comment regarding race ... you know what they call a white man who addresses a white audience to the exclusion of other races?

What I see here in both instances -- religion and race -- Obama is not being held to the same zero-defect standard by the left that you hold right wing politicians.

Paul was called a racist for accepting money from some organization that was racist, and Huckabee brought on the fearmongering of theocracy because of his religious beliefs.

Try holding Obama to the same standard you do any racist or religious rightwinger and see what he looks like.

I absolutely agree with you that this would be different if Obama was white. However, the white experience in America doesn't reflect the black experience in America and I think people recognize the differents contexts. Obama also addressed this in his speech, so it isn't as if he hasn't acknowledged this facet of the issue either.

 

[Gunny]

Characterizations, name calling and insults are the millieu of people on this board from all political spectrums. To try to isolate this as a liberal trait is silly. If I did not express that view clearly enough in my last post, I hope I have clarified here.

I am not attempting to isolate it as a liberal trait. I am pointing out that it IS the liberals on this board -- a select few -- doing it.

I see no reason to think that one would have to embrace all of one's pastor's ideology. Surely he does embrace some of it, which is why he made the point in his speech that these remarks represent only a small portion of the beliefs, attitudes and actions of the man who led his church. There were surely personal and political reasons why he continued to be involved with this congregation.

I did not say he embraced all of Wright's ideology. The point you bring up from Obama's speech is irrelevant, true or not, in that whatever Wright's beliefs, the ones he presents to the public forum every week as his are the ones that count.

Surely there ARE reasons he chose to continue to be involved with this church and those reasons are what anyone willing to vote for him should want to hear.

As for whether most people believe Obama's views (on race) reflect Wright's, I would submit that the evidence (that we have available right now) is in the polls that have been taken since this story broke. I don't believe that if most people held the position that Wright reflected Obama's views, he would have the level of support he continues to have.

By "most people" you mean liberal Obama supporters? I submit that if held to the same standard conservatives are held to by liberals, there would be a significant decrease in that percentage, whatever it may be.

I will add just FYI for future reference, I don't put much stock in polls. From either side.

I absolutely agree with you that this would be different if Obama was white. However, the white experience in America doesn't reflect the black experience in America and I think people recognize the differents contexts. Obama also addressed this in his speech, so it isn't as if he hasn't acknowledged this facet of the issue either.

I think when one is running for the President of the United States, not "Black America" nor "White America" nor "Brown America" one needs to be above that devisive racial crap and set an example by deed, not by merely talking the talk.

 

[ReillyT]

I am not attempting to isolate it as a liberal trait. I am pointing out that it IS the liberals on this board -- a select few -- doing it.

Here is where we disagree. I see it relatively equally from all sides.

I did not say he embraced all of Wright's ideology. The point you bring up from Obama's speech is irrelevant, true or not, in that whatever Wright's beliefs, the ones he presents to the public forum every week as his are the ones that count.

Surely there ARE reasons he chose to continue to be involved with this church and those reasons are what anyone willing to vote for him should want to hear.

If that is all Wright ever preached I may agree with you. However, these are only snippets that we hear from a man who has been preaching every Sunday for over twenty years. Obama (and others in the church) have said that these are only the smallest part of the myriad of messages that Wright has spoken on from the pulpit for all these years. I was not just referring to Wright's personal beliefs, but the actual beliefs he professes from the pulpit. It is these messages in total that keep the members of his parish coming back - not the inflammatory snippets we have heard in particular.

By "most people" you mean liberal Obama supporters? I submit that if held to the same standard conservatives are held to by liberals, there would be a significant decrease in that percentage, whatever it may be.

I will add just FYI for future reference, I don't put much stock in polls. From either side.

Polls are what we have, and yes, I mean Obama supporters, but also the general favorability ratings of the populace as a whole. These remain relatively high despite the Wright issue. Would it be different for the populace if it was anti-black rhetoric and a white (I think conservative/liberal is less important here than race) politician? I think so, but this reflects the context of the white and black experiences in America. I think most people get that. Huckabee did.

I think when one is running for the President of the United States, not "Black America" nor "White America" nor "Brown America" one needs to be above that devisive racial crap and set an example by deed, not by merely talking the talk.

Has Obama ever done anything in his political life that would suggest he only represents Black America and is unconcerned about the rest of the populace? You might think that Wright alone suggests this, but I think most disagree and are unwilling to use Wright's beliefs as a proxy for Obama's.

 

[rayboyusmc]

Don't post facts, you will have the Liberals all crying and screaming.

Wow, mr. fucking fact checker himself calling the kettle black.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

Wow, mr. fucking fact checker himself calling the kettle black.

Poor Col Mustard. Living proof of the point.

 

[ReillyT]

Poor Col Mustard. Living proof of the point.

I am just curious RGS, but doesn't this qualify as the name-calling you were referring to earlier.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

I am just curious RGS, but doesn't this qualify as the name-calling you were referring to earlier.

When in Kansas... and notice my supposed offense is extremely minor. No offensive language at all. You will further notice that the good Col. did not address the issue at all but made a personal attack designed for no other purpose then to discredit. I responded appropriately to his post.

Of course I, like most everyone else here resort to "name calling" though I do not resort to it because I am out of arguments and hope to confuse any readers on the issue.

Even you have resorted to personal attacks at times. Though I must admit seldom and usually disguised in some manner.

 

[Tiger]

I'm sure I read somewhere that Obama would drop out if he was behind. Not a man of his word.

"Polls show Clinton's lead shrinking in Pennsylvania 50-to-41. That nine point margin is nearly half what it was back in February."
http://cbn.com/CBNnews/350807.aspx

Here some more on your prejudiced minded Obama

"Earmarks. They're those expensive pet projects that members of Congress often slip into spending bills.
Both parties say they want to get rid of them. But a new report by the non-partisan group Citizens Against Government Waste says earmarks -- also known as "pork barrel" projects -- are still all the rage on Capitol Hill."

"But Democrat John Murtha won the coveted "porker of the year" award. Then there's Democrat Charles Rangel, who requested $1.9 million for a monument named after himself.

And what about the presidential candidates?
Senator Clinton requested almost $300 million in earmarks.
Senator Obama, $97 million.
Senator McCain who's long crusaded against earmarks, has never requested one."
http://cbn.com/CBNnews/350575.aspx

Here is one reason Obama didn't leave the church.

Barack Obama's Black Liberation Theology
[ame]http://youtube.com/watch?v=928_TLwSl1I[/ame]

 

[ReillyT]

I'm sure I read somewhere that Obama would drop out if he was behind. Not a man of his word.

You are coming across like a deranged stalker dude. By the way, I really like the "I'm sure I read somewhere" part of your post. Classy.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

He is NOT behind though. Polls mean nothing, his delegates do, he still has more then Hillary.

Of course the real problem is I do not believe either of them can have enough to win the nomination. Hillary isn't gonna back down and Obama doesn't appear to be willing to either. That means fun times in the house at the Convention.

 

[Tiger]

You are coming across like a deranged stalker dude./QUOTE]

Because I put the evil face after the name Obama? LOL!!

We come from the Cherokee heritage, we are not emigrants, this is our home land. We don't wish him any harm. We do see how the blacks here are starting to go out of their way to push white people out of the way. They have become angrier, and angrier lashing out, with words and attitudes, as in body language. Since the time Obama started getting ahead of Hillary. Some people believe that fights and riots are going to breakout anytime we believe it's do to the:
Barack Obama's Black Liberation Theology
[ame]http://youtube.com/watch?v=928_TLwSl1I[/ame]

We don't understand how the others are so deceived by what Obama says to the crowds.

 

[Jon]

Don't post facts, you will have the Liberals all crying and screaming. Ohh be set for the name calling and personal attacks to follow. When they have no facts that is where they go.

Believe it or not, there are some Liberals here (myself included) who despise Obama.

I find it very disturbing that the media and the masses have not taken more notice to Obama's affiliation with Reverend Wright. He has backpedalled and wish-washed this issue so many times, it's ridiculous that people are not taking hede. If Hillary really wants to win, she'll call a debate, and she'll call him out. I'm sick of this playing nice. At this point, she NEEDS to call him out on it. The good news is if she doesn't, the McCain camp will.

If Hillary attended a white church that used the same ideology, the black people of this country would want her head on a platter. The double standards are sickening. The fact that so many ignorant people still find this man electable or even worthy of running our country disgusts me.

I really hope the superdelegates have more sense than the voters, because this is just the type of situation superdelegates were created for.

 

[jreeves]

You are coming across like a deranged stalker dude. By the way, I really like the "I'm sure I read somewhere" part of your post. Classy.

"Deranged stalker", are you serious, he or she started this thread. If any of the other two candiates subscribed to genecide as a basis for their religion, they would not only lose this election by a wide margin, their political careers would be over.