Transcript Of A Jeremiah Wright Sermon

[RetiredGySgt]

And I am sure to many our founding fathers were preachers of hatred and divisiveness. Those things are always thrown at those who seek change. Che Guevara is not the issue here though, the issue is the distractions that confuse the issues and smear based on idiotic comparisons. That Guevara got into this discussion is telling and irrelevant.

Not Irrelevant since Obama allows his picture to be openly displayed at his campaign offices across the country.

 

[onedomino]

And I am sure to many our founding fathers were preachers of hatred and divisiveness. Those things are always thrown at those who seek change. Che Guevara is not the issue here though, the issue is the distractions that confuse the issues and smear based on idiotic comparisons. That Guevara got into this discussion is telling and irrelevant.

False. You were the one who made the original post concerning America's confusion over symbols. You even highlighted the passage. Why is it inappropriate to show the Obama Campaign's confusion over symbols?

 

[Foxfyre]

And I am sure to many our founding fathers were preachers of hatred and divisiveness. Those things are always thrown at those who seek change. Che Guevara is not the issue here though, the issue is the distractions that confuse the issues and smear based on idiotic comparisons. That Guevara got into this discussion is telling and irrelevant.

Please show where any of our founding fathers said "God d*mn America" or condemned America or held up another country as where our loyalities should be? Show where any one of them accused America of unspeakable atrocities and accused the US government of instigating those atrocities.

And please be consistent in your criticism of introduction of Che Guevara into the discussion. It was another member, one who agrees with you, that introduced that element with nary a word of protest from you until some of the rest of us responded to it.

A smear is using a relatively innocuous incident or element and presenting it as significant in a negative way.

You know full well that if the opposing candidate had a 20-year close association with a racist, anti-American bigot, had cited him as his spiritual advisor and mentor, had been a faithful member and heavy contributor to the church the bigot headed, and had put the bigot on his/her campaign staff, you would not consider that an insignificant nor unimportant circumstance.

 

[Dr Grump]

Che Guevara is seen that way only by the ignorant, uneducated, and brainwashed Latinos who make up a distinct minority of that demographic. So what is the more positive message: extolling a man who helped Fidel Castro come to power which doomed the Cuban people to generations of restriction of human rights, unspeakable terrorism, oppression, and poverty? Admiring a man who has been instrumental in keeping South America a confused and self-destructive tangle of oppressed societres? Or preaching a doctrine that rejects dictators and promotes appreciation for freedom, liberty, and unfettered opportunity?

Read the writings of Bill Cosby, Thomas Sowell, Walter Williams, Shelby Steele et al and then tell me that theirs is not the message of reason, hope, opportunity, and real solutions to common problems. And then tell me that the message of Jeremiah Wright that condemns and promotes a mindset of oppression and victimization is in fact anything other than a message that promotes angry racism and animosity toward other people.

The first step in solving residual racism in America is to throw political correctness out the window, allow people to see and treat each other as Americans and equals instead of black, white, latino or whatever, and then move forward to solve our problems. That might require a black man to actually understand that his neighbor's Confederate flag is not a symbol of racism but rather a symbol of courage and rugged individualism.

We no longer divide people into separate points of view because they are of Italian or Irish or German descent. We need to get to that level of 'togetherness' with racial groups as well.

Your post reeks of so much ignorance it's hard to know where to start...

 

[Dr Grump]

I thought truth mattered to you. There is the idiotic distortion of the Motorcycle Diaries and there is the reality of Che's life. Which is more important to you? Read the two Left of Center publications I posted above: Slate and UCLA Today. Do you think they were predisposed to misrepresent the reality of Che's life, as in the Motorcycle Diaries? No. Che was actually a totalitarian murderer. There is no getting around that, no matter how many Hollywood stars sport Che t-shirts:

Searching for Neverland

http://www.trenblindado.com/Checult1.htm

Which part of the Motorcycle Diaries is distorted?

 

[Foxfyre]

Your post reeks of so much ignorance it's hard to know where to start...

When, then by all means let me help jump start you.

1) Please provide some credible history that Che Guevara was not an instigator of state terrorism, opposed to democracy, did not use murder and threat of murder and worse to accomplish his goals, was not instrumental in establishing Castro in Cuba and destablizing various Central and South American countries, and did not advocate Marxist socialist values.

2) Please point out the general error in perspective of Sowell, Williams, Steele, Cosby, et al respective of social values.

3) Please explain how dividing up into groups, compartmentalizing, victimizing, and perpetuating racial hatreds in people is useful in solving problems associated with race in the USA.

Take your time. I'll wait.

 

[Dr Grump]

When, then by all means let me help jump start you.

1) Please provide some credible history that Che Guevara was not an instigator of state terrorism, opposed to democracy, did not use murder and threat of murder and worse to accomplish his goals, was not instrumental in establishing Castro in Cuba and destablizing various Central and South American countries, and did not advocate Marxist socialist values.

2) Please point out the general error in perspective of Sowell, Williams, Steele, Cosby, et al respective of social values.

3) Please explain how dividing up into groups, compartmentalizing, victimizing, and perpetuating racial hatreds in people is useful in solving problems associated with race in the USA.

Take your time. I'll wait.

You are what is termed in an historical perspective as a revisionist. Did Guevara do bad things? Yes he did. But so did the instigators of the French revolution, and even those dear to your heart, your American revolutionists. With every revolution there is bloodshed and innocent poeple get killed. Is that a bad thing? Of course, but your sources are what are known as Monday morning quarterbacks. The thing I find so incredulous about Guevara and the Cuban revolution is that from a person like yours' perspective, you never mention Batista and his ilk - a govt supported by the US, but was just as totalitarian and ruthless as Cuba INITIALLY was. Note I say initially because once things had settled down Castro was keen to get on with it. However, a lot of the poverty was down to American sanctions. That's right YOUR fault. You couldn't stand the idea of a socialist revolution in your own back yard so you had to punish them. Still do in fact. Pathetic and immature to the max. Eventually Cuba will become a democracy, but you also have to take into consideration the type of place it is. For whatever reason, Latin America as a whole has never been a beacon of democracy. Even now only Chile and Argentina can claim the kind of democracy we know in Western countries. And so what if Guevara was a Marxist? He had to be. The 1% of Latin Americans who had ALL the power and wealth were unwilling to share. There were no middle classes and 99% of the people in those countries lived in abject poverty. A lot still do. You think there isn't going to be a revolution if that situation continues. Care to name a country where there HASN'T been a revolution under those circumstances.

But getting back to Guevara, what was he doing that is any different from what your black ops teams were doing in Central Amercia in the 1980s. And before you say "prove it" I know at least TWO people personally who were there and killed "guerillas". So take your piece of hypocrite pie and stop trying to put Jeffersonian standards, mores and morals on 1950s/60s Latin America where reason and enlightenment where the exception, not the norm. Give me an alternative solution to what Castro and Guevara did.

What would you have done to remedy a situation where the police and armed forces are corrupt and don't give a toss about you and yours, and in fact, are in the pay of corrupt politicians so the status quo will stay in place for ever and a day? Take your time, I'll wait.....

 

[Truthmatters]

"If you're here without a church home and you know that the lord has set you free, you want a church home, come on! Red, white, black, yellow, Asian, Hispanic, come on!"

these are some of the last words in the sermon.

 

[onedomino]

Which part of the Motorcycle Diaries is distorted?

The part that does not depict him as the cold blooded communist murderer that he was, which is the entire movie. Unless you are unaware of the reality of Che's actual life, you already know that the Motorcycle Diaries was an alleged account of his early life before he became a killer. Thereby further glamorizing the World's Greatest T-Shirt Salesman, obfuscating the reality of the hate monger quoted above, the real Che who murdered other human beings by shooting them in the head at point blank range.

 

[Foxfyre]

You are what is termed in an historical perspective as a revisionist. Did Guevara do bad things? Yes he did. But so did the instigators of the French revolution, and even those dear to your heart, your American revolutionists. With every revolution there is bloodshed and innocent poeple get killed. Is that a bad thing? Of course, but your sources are what are known as Monday morning quarterbacks. The thing I find so incredulous about Guevara and the Cuban revolution is that from a person like yours' perspective, you never mention Batista and his ilk - a govt supported by the US, but was just as totalitarian and ruthless as Cuba INITIALLY was. Note I say initially because once things had settled down Castro was keen to get on with it. However, a lot of the poverty was down to American sanctions. That's right YOUR fault. You couldn't stand the idea of a socialist revolution in your own back yard so you had to punish them. Still do in fact. Pathetic and immature to the max. Eventually Cuba will become a democracy, but you also have to take into consideration the type of place it is. For whatever reason, Latin America as a whole has never been a beacon of democracy. Even now only Chile and Argentina can claim the kind of democracy we know in Western countries. And so what if Guevara was a Marxist? He had to be. The 1% of Latin Americans who had ALL the power and wealth were unwilling to share. There were no middle classes and 99% of the people in those countries lived in abject poverty. A lot still do. You think there isn't going to be a revolution if that situation continues. Care to name a country where there HASN'T been a revolution under those circumstances.

But getting back to Guevara, what was he doing that is any different from what your black ops teams were doing in Central Amercia in the 1980s. And before you say "prove it" I know at least TWO people personally who were there and killed "guerillas". So take your piece of hypocrite pie and stop trying to put Jeffersonian standards, mores and morals on 1950s/60s Latin America where reason and enlightenment where the exception, not the norm. Give me an alternative solution to what Castro and Guevara did.

What would you have done to remedy a situation where the police and armed forces are corrupt and don't give a toss about you and yours, and in fact, are in the pay of corrupt politicians so the status quo will stay in place for ever and a day? Take your time, I'll wait.....

Are you suggesting that if some other guy is bad or as bad or worse than Che Guevara, then Che Guevara is justified is being a terrorist and murderer and advocating denying people the right to choose their own destiny? It sure sounds like that is what you're saying or at least implying here.

I try really hard to avoid any historical revisionism. I also try really hard to avoid throwing red herrings into a mix trying to divert the subject. I recommend that as a really good policy to avoid looking like an idiot in a debate.

 

[Dr Grump]

Are you suggesting that if some other guy is bad or as bad or worse than Che Guevara, then Che Guevara is justified is being a terrorist and murderer and advocating denying people the right to choose their own destiny? It sure sounds like that is what you're saying or at least implying here.

I try really hard to avoid any historical revisionism. I also try really hard to avoid throwing red herrings into a mix trying to divert the subject. I recommend that as a really good policy to avoid looking like an idiot in a debate.

I'd suggest to avoid looking like an idiot you put Guevara's actions in context.
To a lot of people he was giving them the right to chose their own destiny. Are you suggesting the despots and dictators that ran ALL (note I say ALL) central and south American countries in the 50s and 60s were giving their people a choice? You really need to bone up on the history of the region which will give you cause and effect. It is hardly a red herring to bring up the actions of your own govt in the 1980s in central America. What's good enough for the goose and all that....

 

[onedomino]

You are what is termed in an historical perspective as a revisionist. Did Guevara do bad things? Yes he did. But so did the instigators of the French revolution, and even those dear to your heart, your American revolutionists. With every revolution there is bloodshed and innocent poeple get killed. Is that a bad thing? Of course, but your sources are what are known as Monday morning quarterbacks. The thing I find so incredulous about Guevara and the Cuban revolution is that from a person like yours' perspective, you never mention Batista and his ilk - a govt supported by the US, but was just as totalitarian and ruthless as Cuba INITIALLY was. Note I say initially because once things had settled down Castro was keen to get on with it. However, a lot of the poverty was down to American sanctions. That's right YOUR fault. You couldn't stand the idea of a socialist revolution in your own back yard so you had to punish them. Still do in fact. Pathetic and immature to the max. Eventually Cuba will become a democracy, but you also have to take into consideration the type of place it is. For whatever reason, Latin America as a whole has never been a beacon of democracy. Even now only Chile and Argentina can claim the kind of democracy we know in Western countries. And so what if Guevara was a Marxist? He had to be. The 1% of Latin Americans who had ALL the power and wealth were unwilling to share. There were no middle classes and 99% of the people in those countries lived in abject poverty. A lot still do. You think there isn't going to be a revolution if that situation continues. Care to name a country where there HASN'T been a revolution under those circumstances.

But getting back to Guevara, what was he doing that is any different from what your black ops teams were doing in Central Amercia in the 1980s. And before you say "prove it" I know at least TWO people personally who were there and killed "guerillas". So take your piece of hypocrite pie and stop trying to put Jeffersonian standards, mores and morals on 1950s/60s Latin America where reason and enlightenment where the exception, not the norm. Give me an alternative solution to what Castro and Guevara did.

What would you have done to remedy a situation where the police and armed forces are corrupt and don't give a toss about you and yours, and in fact, are in the pay of corrupt politicians so the status quo will stay in place for ever and a day? Take your time, I'll wait.....

Since when do the crimes of others justify the crimes of Che? I am sure the French would be delighted with your comparison of 1789 and Che's totalitarian rampages in Cuba, Africa, and South America. America does not choose to do business with Communists in Cuba and their plight is our fault? America is not free to choose? Is that your position Doctor? Communists shoot their way to power in Cuba and according to you we must do business with them? Ridiculous. And Che had to be a Marxist? Yikes Doctor! Did someone hold a political gun to Che's totalitarian socialist head, like he held real guns to the heads of others? Be an apologist for Che, Doctor. You, Robert Redford, and Johnny Depp, and others are free to do so. Many of the rest of us, however, will choose to see what actually occurred.

 

[Dr Grump]

The part that does not depict him as the cold blooded communist murderer that he was, which is the entire movie. Unless you are unaware of the reality of Che's actual life, you already know that the Motorcycle Diaries was an alleged account of his early life before he became a killer. Thereby further glamorizing the World's Greatest T-Shirt Salesman, obfuscating the reality of the hate monger quoted above, the real Che who murdered other human beings by shooting them in the head at point blank range.

Actually the Motorcycle Diaries are historically accurate as far as I know and that journey he made turned him into the person he was. Did he end up going too far? Absolutley. All I'm trying to bring is a little balance. I get sick of this "Che was a pinko commie socialist loser" claptrap from the right. One thing I'll say about the American right, you guys don't dislike leftist ideals you really, really, really hate them and demonise anybody who even THINKS about that type of politics. Not healthy man!

 

[Dr Grump]

Since when do the crimes of others justify the crimes of Che? I am sure the French would be delighted with your comparison of 1789 and Che's totalitarian rampages in Cuba, Africa, and South America. America does not choose to do business with Communists in Cuba and their plight is our fault? America is not free to choose? Is that your position Doctor? Communists shoot their way to power in Cuba and according to you we must do business with them? Ridiculous. And Che had to be a Marxist? Yikes Doctor! Did someone hold a political gun to Che's totalitarian socialist head, like he held real guns to the heads of others? Be an apologist for Che, Doctor. You, Robert Redford, and Johnny Depp, and others are free to do so. Many of the rest of us, however, will choose to see what actually occurred.

They don't justify his crimes at all...but he was a man of his times. I think what he did in the end was wrong, but I don't hear you complaining about Batista.

Actually the French revolution was just as bad if not worse than what Che did. Robespierre, Marat etc were murderous thugs who executed anybody who disagreed with them on anything, which is why they were eventually executed/assassinated too.

Um, excuse me Onedomino, but how else were the communists going to get to power in Cuba? The vote? While the US has the right to deal with whoever it wants, it does look a tad hypocritical to support a despotic dictator like Batista, but not Castro. And if you are being hypocritical you have no moral leg to stand on.

Socialism at its most basic is to spread the wealth. Those in power in Latin America not only did not want to do that, they actively stalled any such growth for hte poor by keeping all the wealth for themselves and paying off the armed forces. of course there was going to be revolution, and a socialist one at that. And to be honest, I have not problem with a lot of aspects of socialism if done right..

 

[onedomino]

Actually the Motorcycle Diaries are historically accurate as far as I know and that journey he made turned him into the person he was. Did he end up going too far? Absolutley. All I'm trying to bring is a little balance. I get sick of this "Che was a pinko commie socialist loser" claptrap from the right. One thing I'll say about the American right, you guys don't dislike leftist ideals you really, really, really hate them and demonise anybody who even THINKS about that type of politics. Not healthy man!

I did not say he was "a pinko commie socialist loser." I said he was a totalitarian communist murderer.

 

[Diuretic]

Yeap this shows how little you understand the other races that make up your fellow Americans. Che Guvera is a liberator to latino Americans. Go study his life and you will see why he is seen that way.

A good start would be the film "Motorcycle Diaries".

 

[Diuretic]

Che Guevara is seen that way only by the ignorant, uneducated, and brainwashed Latinos who make up a distinct minority of that demographic. So what is the more positive message: extolling a man who helped Fidel Castro come to power which doomed the Cuban people to generations of restriction of human rights, unspeakable terrorism, oppression, and poverty? Admiring a man who has been instrumental in keeping South America a confused and self-destructive tangle of oppressed societres? Or preaching a doctrine that rejects dictators and promotes appreciation for freedom, liberty, and unfettered opportunity?

.........QUOTE]

Actually I think the Cubans appreciate they're far better off now than under Battista. But perhaps that's a topic for a separate thread. It would be interesting to hammer it out though.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

You are aware of course the United States SUPPORTED Castro? And for their trouble he stabbed us in the back. Talk about revision of history.

 

[Dr Grump]

You are aware of course the United States SUPPORTED Castro? And for their trouble he stabbed us in the back. Talk about revision of history.

How did they support Castro and how were they stabbed in the back?

 

[Annie]

How did they support Castro and how were they stabbed in the back?

It looks for a short while, the US backed him:

http://cgi.stanford.edu/group/wais/cgi-bin/index.php?p=3546

In 1953 Castro went to prison for his failed attack to the Moncada barracks in Santiago de Cuba, but was released less than two years later under an amnesty law. Batista,”elected” president , dismissed a settlement with the opposition that could have avoided a lot of blood and tears, and Castro’s ascendancy later on. At the end of 1956, while Cuba enjoyed solid growth and was one of the most advanced Latin American countries, Castro returned from Mexico with a small expedition that landed in Oriente Province. An uprising supporting him was defeated in Santiago de Cuba. Castro and other survivors sought refuge in the Sierra Maestra mountains after a clash with army detachments. The US correspondent Herbert Matthews elevated Castro to the rank of a tropical Robin Hood who would rectify Cuban inequities. Almost the entire world bought the propaganda from that leftist “expert”, who would defend Castro for the rest of his life.

Arthur Gardner, the US Ambassador to Havana, suspected that some pro-Communist feelings within the US State Department would ruin the US policy toward Cuba. Ambassador Earl Smith, Gardner’s replacement, was also vehemently anti-Communist. His policy recommendations to forestall the influence of Castro fell on deaf ears. US State Department officials Roy Rubottom and William Wieland , in connection with Herbert Matthews, were behind the US policy favoring Castro , discarding any possible solution to the Cuban crisis with other opposition figures and some anti-Batista military officers.

By 1957 the struggle against Batista was mainly centered in urban areas, far away from the Sierra Maestra and Castro. An attack to the presidential palace and a naval mutiny failed , leading to more brutal police repression . The phrase “Anyone is better than Batista” became popular among many Cubans. Early in 1958 the graft in the official circles was overwhelming , and the economy began a deterioration due to an increase of the sabotage. The US discontinued tarms supplies to Batista, damaging the precarious morale of the poorly led and unmotivated Cuban soldiers that were unable to defeat Castro during a summer offensive. Castro capitalized from corrupt military officers with no will to fight , and extended the guerrilla operations with weapons sent from Florida and Costa Rica. A rumor about a Russian submarine that provided him military supplies never was confirmed.

....