Reverend Wright
I've been watching youtube videos of him and all I can conclude that this is a politically correct smear campaign against him. I am not going to support or not support him or Barack, but merely ask why is the intensity is so high. I have seen a few exaggerations and even lies told by the Reverend, but nothing he has done is anything different than what Bill O'Reilly has, just that it is coming from another angle.
Bill O'Reilly, Ann Coulter, and that whole gang have lied, deceived, and attacked to push their personal political views forward and they have some of the top spots on national television and the second someone does the same from an opposite side, it is looped constantly through every news channel and instantly regarded as anti-American and racist.
The Reverend is nothing more than a religious/political figure that sees the world through a different point of view and is more than willing to speech out on behalf of them no matter what other people believe. He believes that what happened on 9/11 was a result of American foreign policy, something that Al Qaeda themselves have personally attests too. How is that any different than the loads of conservatives ranting how the liberal left created 9/11? Taking truth out of the equation, both sides are blaming people they do not like for one of America's greatest tragedies.
The Reverend is doing nothing more than exercising his freedom of speech and at worst is lying and deceiving others to his point of view, which I may add is done by white conservative preachers across the fuckin' nation.
Why the hypocriticalness? Can we as a nation not accept a different point of views?
He has the same freedom of speech that you and I have and he exercises it. Good on him. What he says does exactly what he wants it to - it gets people riled up. Whether they agree or disagree, mission accomplished.
I think the difference is that Obama has gotten this far by being well spoken, moderate, and inspirational in his speeches. He has been the exact opposite of former presidential wannabes Jackson and Sharpton. He has presented himself as a voice of reason and for change. He has given people the belief that he is uniquely qualified to reconcile, repair, and renew race relations in the US. And then the other shoe drops. The right reverend has been his personal friend and mentor for 20 years, in addition to being his pastor. He performed his wedding ceremony, baptized his kids, etc. Obama is in tight with this guy and when people hear Wright's rants they are taken aback. Whether those are Obama's thoughts and beliefs is irrelevent - he spent 20 years with this guy and never stepped up to object to his ranting? He never said "Michelle, as much as we love the church it is time to find a new one that is more in line with our beliefs".
Anyway, that's my take on it.
Obama has the Reverend, McCain has Ann Coulter.
Coulter is just as big a douche as Wright. The difference is that McCain hasn't spent 20 years as a friend and mentee. Oh and the fact that Coulter has been pretty brutal when speaking about McCain in the past.
I think the difference is that Obama has gotten this far by being well spoken, moderate, and inspirational in his speeches. He has been the exact opposite of former presidential wannabes Jackson and Sharpton. He has presented himself as a voice of reason and for change. He has given people the belief that he is uniquely qualified to reconcile, repair, and renew race relations in the US. And then the other shoe drops. The right reverend has been his personal friend and mentor for 20 years, in addition to being his pastor. He performed his wedding ceremony, baptized his kids, etc. Obama is in tight with this guy and when people hear Wright's rants they are taken aback. Whether those are Obama's thoughts and beliefs is irrelevent - he spent 20 years with this guy and never stepped up to object to his ranting? He never said "Michelle, as much as we love the church it is time to find a new one that is more in line with our beliefs".
Anyway, that's my take on it.
That's my take on it as well. Obama says he disagrees with the Reverend's rants, but knew about it. Obama said we've all sat through church and didn't agree with what was said. Ok, the Reverend says "God damn America" over and over and this is the person that is the personal friend and mentor of a Presidential candidate?!?! Huge difference between someone you or I or McCain or Obama sees infrequently or listens to infrequently. This is his ADVISOR and he sings "God Damn America"? Obama is suppossed to be a leader, but he couldn't tell the Reverend that his views are divisive and not forward thinking?
It goes right in line with what I have posted about Obama earlier - he used to vote 'present' so not to offend anyone. He can't stand up to the Reverend, to correct him or even to distance himself from him personally. Is that a leader?
How does the Reverend use the phrase "God damn America"?
The quote was taken from a rant where he was commenting on the injustices he sees done to the black community and how they are suppose to say "god bless America" in response to that. He is making a point that the black community shouldn't support a state that mistreats them. To put a more extreme example out there, should the black slaves or the blacks under the Jim Crow laws be saying "god bless America" or should they be fighting for justice?
I can say "fuck America" all the time but that doesn't mean I am anti-American, just that I disagree with the actions of the people that represent the state at the time. To quote someone that would be considered even more extreme than the Reverend, "I love my country, but hate the people in charge". This is no different, the Reverend strongly disagrees with the actions and views of the people in control of the United States at the time, so he expresses his anger and hatred for them.
It is obviously controversial and not made for an audience outside that church and community, but I still stand by my view that this is an undeserved smear campaign. When it comes down to it, it is nothing more than a catch phrase, as Lookout123 pointed out, to get people that either agree or disagree with him riled up. There are legitimate reasons to become cautious after this event, but in my opinion, this is really no different than the conservative smear campaign to attack anyone that disagreed with the Iraq War as terrorist sympathizers or anyone that wasn't strongly anti-Communist as Communist sympathizers in the McCarthy era.
If the Reverend said "kill all white people" then this reaction would be more than necessary, but all he did was criticize the people in charge of our country, something that is done ALL THE FUCKING TIME.
This Reverend Wright thing is such a manufactured bullshit fake issue. What the pastor of a church says has no bearing on the political opinions of those who attend his services.
By the way, he was right when he said America brought 9/11 on ourselves.
The truth is Obama has no dirt on him so we've got morons out there trying to make him guilty by association because they are desperate and stretching for anything they can find. They know he's going to be the next president, and they don't want it either for political or racial reasons.
So, if I attend a church that supports the KKK it isn't necessary for me to, since I believe that the teachings of a KKK church are wrong, stand against those teachings by attending a church more in keeping with my beliefs about race? Huh? I should smile and nod while the K-church discusses lynchings because, after all, I don't have to agree? Double huh?
Oh, and not wanting someone for president because you don't endorse the politics they tout, (or don't see that they really tout anything) and not wanting someone because you don't like their race are two entirely different things. In fact, I think the former is pretty normal. Turning that into the latter "you don't like black people so you hate obama and his pastor" thinking is more off base than anything I've heard in any of these arguments about any candidate.
see? america isn't ready for a black president.;)
I"m ready for any president beyond the fuck we have right now: black white purple female male transgender two-headed one-legged soft hard indifferent pasty tanned long-hair short-hair...what the fuck EVER.
Now we're talking change!
When it comes to fiery preachers condemning America, I'd rather they be doing it for our race relations problems than for gays and abortions.
And hey, at least we'll be seeing less of the "Obama's a secret Muslim!" stuff.
And hey, at least we'll be seeing less of the "Obama's a secret Muslim!" stuff.
The only thing some people know about Obama is that his name sounds like Osama, and they think this is a clever and meaningful thing to know.
Bill O'Reilly, Ann Coulter, and that whole gang...they have some of the top spots on national television...
Why do you think that is? - Just curious as to
your opinion.
The only thing some people know about Obama is that his name sounds like Osama, and they think this is a clever and meaningful thing to know.
Yeah, I had an older gentleman swearing up and down that Obama's a Muslim, and therefore hates us, and no matter what I said he wasn't changing his mind. Sigh...
did you point out that his middle name is Hussein? Old dude would have stroked out.
Ah, no...wasn't going there! I played incredulous for a moment then found my way elsewhere.
So, if I attend a church that supports the KKK it isn't necessary for me to, since I believe that the teachings of a KKK church are wrong, stand against those teachings by attending a church more in keeping with my beliefs about race? Huh? I should smile and nod while the K-church discusses lynchings because, after all, I don't have to agree? Double huh?
Oh, and not wanting someone for president because you don't endorse the politics they tout, (or don't see that they really tout anything) and not wanting someone because you don't like their race are two entirely different things. In fact, I think the former is pretty normal. Turning that into the latter "you don't like black people so you hate obama and his pastor" thinking is more off base than anything I've heard in any of these arguments about any candidate.
There are thousands of Baptists who support the KKK. Does that mean the Baptist church supports it? Of course not. If the reverend of a particular church in the South compliments the KKK, does that mean all of those who attend that church agree with him? Of course not.
Also, I mentioned the
2 most common reasons people try to trash Obama. They are not necessarily related.
Obama has no dirt on him, so idiots are trying to make him guilty by association by mentioning some controversial things his minister has said. Talk about a pathetic and desperate move. Anyone who would suggest that any of Obama's political views are influenced by this man is intellectually dishonest, morally bankrupt, and a piece of shit.
well, at least your mind is made up.
Jerry Fallwell and Pat Robertson have preached hatred to the Republicans for decades (or did when alive). Does that mean anyone who is a member of their church or political party has a hatred of gays? Muslims? or any of the other groups they preached hate against? No.
Why do you think that is? - Just curious as to your opinion.
People with millions of dollars support their views.
that would explain how they got on the air, not how they maintain their ratings and advertising support.
well, at least your mind is made up.
My mind is made up because this is a non-issue. It's a manufactured bullshit story that has absolutely NOTHING to do with Obama's ability to lead or his personal political views. It's a worthless and pathetic attempt to smear a decent guy. It's a cheap shot by losers like those who keep mentioning his middle-name, showing a photo of him without his hand on his heart while "America the Beautiful" was being sung but claiming it was during the pledge, or showing him in robes when visiting Africa. If his detractors have to resort to this kind of childish, laughably stupid, and weak tactics, they are truly stupid, dishonest, and they are beneath him in every way. Nobody cares about any of these things other than the small-minded idiot dittoheads, freepers, and other morons who don't do any actual thinking and who think dishonesty is ok as long as it's against a "liberal"
Jerry Fallwell and Pat Robertson have preached hatred to the Republicans for decades (or did when alive).
No, they preached it to anyone who would listen. and any political leader who pointed to them as a personal friend and mentor for 20 years should be questioned about how they are able to listen to that bilge without condemning it - unless they approve of it.
No, they preached it to anyone who would listen. and any political leader who pointed to them as a personal friend and mentor for 20 years should be questioned about how they are able to listen to that bilge without condemning it - unless they approve of it.
Every high level member of the Republican party pointed to them as personal friends or mentors and was never questioned about why, nor should they be. Only an idiot would make assumptions about a person based on the sermons they hear in church.
It's a manufactured bullshit story that has absolutely NOTHING to do with Obama's ability to lead or his personal political views.
It may be spun wildly, but it is a valid question. The guy wants to be president. He should be questioned about his beliefs if he names someone with this rhetoric as a personal friend and mentor and has been a fixture in his church pew for 20 years. It is valid to investigate how he is able to line his beliefs up with his mentor's.
It's a cheap shot by losers like those who keep mentioning his middle-name, showing a photo of him without his hand on his heart while "America the Beautiful" was being sung but claiming it was during the pledge, or showing him in robes when visiting Africa.
I absolutely agree that those are all smear and fear attempts and are deplorable. I do, however, believe that questioning someone's personal beliefs is valid.
Only an idiot would make assumptions about a person based on the sermons they hear in church.
Yes they should. A person chooses which church, if any, they'll attend. If they regularly attend a church that espouses beliefs that they do not hold then they shouldn't be there. It doesn't make sense.
Religious beliefs aren't necessarily related to political beliefs and the political opinions of the minister are not necessarily shared by those who attend the church. It makes no sense for anyone to try to suggest that because a person attends a church, they must believe in everything said in a sermon. In fact since religion has no place in our government, nothing that happens in a church should ever be questioned regardless of what church it is, or what the minister is preaching.
Disclaimer: I don't think Obama should be tossed out of the presidential race over this issue.
Radar I don't think you are getting what I'm saying. Forget about all the blowup dolls that pass as journalists today and they way they are blowing things up and taking them out of context. Now stop and think about this:
The people you surround yourself with and the messages you freely choose to ingest repeatedly over a 20 year period speak to who you are and what you believe.
Whether it is political, religious, or philosophical, you certainly have the right to listen, believe, and speak on any issue from any angle you want, but don't be surprised if someday you are held accountable for the beliefs you surround yourself with.
My understanding is that White is well known for his rhetoric. I'm cool with that, it's his right. Obama has chosen to become and remain engaged with this man. That leaves two options: 1) Obama didn't ever agree with the man but became his mentee because of the political power he held and the influence he wields in Illinois, or 2) Obama did agree with the man but is now trying to distance himself so he can get into a bigger office.
That is the real issue I want to know more about because, for me, it speaks to Obama's honesty vs. political cunning. We've been asked to back him because he is going to make a "clean break with the ways of the past". Awesome, I just want to know if his own past is compatible with his new Hope.
My understanding is that White is well known for his rhetoric. I'm cool with that, it's his right. Obama has chosen to become and remain engaged with this man. That leaves two options: 1) Obama didn't ever agree with the man but became his mentee because of the political power he held and the influence he wields in Illinois, or 2) Obama did agree with the man but is now trying to distance himself so he can get into a bigger office.
3) White says other stuff, too, and Obama likes him overall, despite his flaws.
4) Obama originally agreed with him, and as he matured he moved away philosophically, but not personally, like one might do with a parent with different politics.
Disclaimer: I don't think Obama should be tossed out of the presidential race over this issue.
Radar I don't think you are getting what I'm saying. Forget about all the blowup dolls that pass as journalists today and they way they are blowing things up and taking them out of context. Now stop and think about this:
The people you surround yourself with and the messages you freely choose to ingest repeatedly over a 20 year period speak to who you are and what you believe.
Whether it is political, religious, or philosophical, you certainly have the right to listen, believe, and speak on any issue from any angle you want, but don't be surprised if someday you are held accountable for the beliefs you surround yourself with.
My understanding is that White is well known for his rhetoric. I'm cool with that, it's his right. Obama has chosen to become and remain engaged with this man. That leaves two options: 1) Obama didn't ever agree with the man but became his mentee because of the political power he held and the influence he wields in Illinois, or 2) Obama did agree with the man but is now trying to distance himself so he can get into a bigger office.
That is the real issue I want to know more about because, for me, it speaks to Obama's honesty vs. political cunning. We've been asked to back him because he is going to make a "clean break with the ways of the past". Awesome, I just want to know if his own past is compatible with his new Hope.
You've known me for awhile now. You must know by now that in order for me to have any friends, I must have friends that I differ with politically. I've known many of them for decades. The same is true of family members which I've known from birth.
These people have repeated their nonsense to me for nearly 4 decades and my political views are not swayed by any of them in the least. There is no correlation between the people you associate yourself with and your political beliefs.
I don't care what anyone says other than the candidate himself. I don't care who his friends or family are, whom they have sex with, what religion they follow, etc. None of these have any bearing on the candidate's ability to lead or of that person's character.
Yes they should. A person chooses which church, if any, they'll attend. If they regularly attend a church that espouses beliefs that they do not hold then they shouldn't be there.
Which proves I am a pedophile and that I endorse sexual attacks on children? Lookout123 suggests I even endorse protecting pedophilia because that is the intent and action of my church. My church also says church doctrine must be imposed on all Americans by changing American law. Lookout123 says I believe that because my church ordered church doctrine imposed on all Americans. Demonstrated is why religion must be removed from political arenas.
Radar makes the valid point.
In fact since religion has no place in our government, nothing that happens in a church should ever be questioned regardless of what church it is, or what the minister is preaching.
Should we also do everything our stock broker commands? No. Our preachers and stock brokers are only consultants. We don't worship our church, its preacher, our brokerage, or our stock broker. We seek their advice. Moderates then make their own decisions.
Political extremist mantra is why extremists are so dangerous and why extremists will believe everything Rush Limbaugh tells them. Only extremists don’t think for themselves whereas moderates do think - even ask damning, politically incorrect questions. Intelligent people also do something opposed by Rush Limbaugh disciples. Moderates consult with everyone. Our preachers, our stock brokers, and our most 'evil' enemies are nothing more than consultants to be heard. Does not matter what Obama’s preacher said. Better would be to have extremists such as George Jr learn something other than Cheney’s extremist decrees. But George Jr fears Obama's preacher. He might learn another perspective. Extremists fear anything not in 'black and white'.
If evil leaders listen to evil consultants (the extremist mantra), then McCain has a serious credibility problem. Two major advisors are Karl Rove and Carly Fiorina. These two are more flawed than Obama’s preacher.
Worry if a church (or Rush Limbaugh) tells an extremist what to think. Extremists do not think for themselves – the definition of an extremist. We need moderate leaders who hear from everyone. The superior, moderate leader consults even with our most ‘evil’ enemies. Only an extremist even fears talking to our enemies as they also would fear Obama’s preacher, Carly Fiorina, and Karl Rove.
Kennedy had to make the same point because too many were brain washed in extremist rhetoric. Extremists only understand blind obedience even to politically perverted ministers. Extremists believed Kennedy would do what his religion ordered. Religion has no place in government which is what intelligent people understand. Kennedy made that point. But 50 years later, we are again confronting myths: that a moderate will impose religious beliefs on us. Fear only those whose religious beliefs even influence their votes – also called wacko extremists. Fear people who don’t think for themselves and who refuse to consult with all other opinions. Radar is right on correct: “since religion has no place in our government”.
Using lookout123 logic also proves I am a pedophile, endorse pedophilia by my church, and condon protecting pedophiles. No? Then lookout123 is wrong even about Obama’s preacher.
Which proves I am a pedophile and that I endorse sexual attacks on children? Lookout123 suggests I even endorse protecting pedophilia because that is the intent and action of my church. My church also says church doctrine must be imposed on all Americans by changing American law. Lookout123 says I believe that because my church ordered church doctrine imposed on all Americans. Demonstrated is why religion must be removed from political arenas.
Isn't your home care provider supposed to monitor your meds?
These people have repeated their nonsense to me for nearly 4 decades and my political views are not swayed by any of them in the least. There is no correlation between the people you associate yourself with and your political beliefs.
Yabut, you aren't normal.
Using lookout123 logic also proves I am a pedophile, endorse pedophilia by my church, and condon protecting pedophiles. No? Then lookout123 is wrong even about Obama’s preacher.
He didn't say it proves anything, he said he wants Obama to address where he agrees with and differs from White's views. That's a legitimate question for a presidential aspirant to answer.
I am a pedophile
eh, nuff said.
I don't care what anyone says other than the candidate himself. I don't care who his friends or family are, whom they have sex with, what religion they follow, etc. None of these have any bearing on the candidate's ability to lead or of that person's character.
That's where we differ. A leader doesn't sit in a church for 20 years and have a personal friend, mentor, and spiritual advisor that is opposite of everything he stands for. Obama is against divisive people and politics. Rev Wright is
divisive - Obama admits that. And that's his spitual advisor, and close mentor?
Several years ago I moved to a new town. I went to a new church. As I went in, there were folks standing in front getting peole to sign up for the pro-life movement and collecting donations and holding the vulgar signs of aborted fetuses. The sermon - you guessed it - was all about influencing our politicians to stop abortion. I am pro-life, but I don't want my sermons on Sunday to focus on this. I never went back to that church again.
This isn't some random person Obama talks to on occasion. Its his personal friend and mentor. "God damn America" may have been said to get the people riled up, and as strong language condemning the actions of the government. But were talking about a Presidential hopeful here - and he stands with people that repeatedly say "God damn America" and that whites purposely spread AIDS among blacks, and that its the whites fault blacks break laws and end up in jail. I certainly don't want a President that surrounds himself with people that think this way.
Obama has proven to me he isn't a leader - something I've suspected all along.
people that repeatedly say
Repeatedly! Do you know that? All we have is a video that strings together the worst possible moments of the guy over a long period.
Aimeecc, no realistic presidential candidate has great leadership skills.
McCain has a much different stance than what he had ten years ago, Clinton flip flops to whatever the popular opinion is, and Obama has this.
Besides third tier candidates such as Kucinich and Paul, I don't think any candidate says what he or she actually thinks.
people that repeatedly say
Repeatedly! Do you know that? All we have is a video that strings together the worst possible moments of the guy over a long period.
How do we know those were his worst possible moments over a long period? How do we know that isn't just his regular MO? Do we have video that is all light and positivity? Is positivity a word? :rolleyes:
Anyway, I don't really give a hang about this guy or his beliefs, but I can say that I do not attend the church in which I was raised due to the fact that I don't agree with much of its teachings. If a church goes against what I believe to be right then I am a hypocrite if I sit and listen to it and do not, from time to time, show my disapproval. Very civil disobedience tells me to dissassociate myself from that church, or at least from the hellfire sermons which I find to be divisive and against what I believe about humankind.
Otherwise, I may as well get in line for a glass of kool-aid.
The difference is Obama is suppossed to stand for hope and the future and unity. That's his platform.
We expected scandals and covered up deals from the Clintons. She isn't running on a platform that says "I don't have scandals and shady deals." Obama is running a campaign on "I represent the future and unity and Clinton is divisive" but he is surrounded by people (or at least one person) that are divisive as his mentors and who are about the past.
And yes, Wright said "God damn America" more than once. That makes its repeated.
Anyone who questioned Bush for his wacky born-again religiosity...
...is bound by the terms of intellectual honesty to equally question Obama for whatever it is y'all are talking about.
The difference is Obama is suppossed to stand for hope and the future and unity. That's his platform.
Right: the person who stands for unity, has friends who don't share his politics precisely.
There's no incongruity there. And I admire it. For most of the time I was a hard-core Libertarian, my best friend was a Socialist. That's a REAL oil and water situation! But if you're an adult, politics is only a small part of why you're in a relationship with someone. You can even admire them and think that they get a lot of things wrong. It's called being open-minded, tolerant, considering all sides.
Now let's admit it: like 50% of the population, you sought hard to find something not to like about the guy. And as of now, this is the worst people could come back with. Really? Because if that's the case, he has my vote.
Anyway, I don't really give a hang about this guy or his beliefs, but I can say that I do not attend the church in which I was raised due to the fact that I don't agree with much of its teachings. If a church goes against what I believe to be right then I am a hypocrite if I sit and listen to it and do not, from time to time, show my disapproval. Very civil disobedience tells me to dissassociate myself from that church, or at least from the hellfire sermons which I find to be divisive and against what I believe about humankind.
All we see are short clips taken from long sermons over a long period of time. Until someone can tell me what happens during the other 99.9% of the service, I will reserve my full judgment about the Reverend. Fuck, you could show a short clip of Hilter or Pol Pot holding a baby and loop that over and over again and make him look like a decent guy. I don't judge celebrities over the one picture taken that makes them look like an idiot. We have seen at most three minutes of a guy, out of context by the way, that Obama has been connected too for at least 62,400 minutes (20 years, once a week, for an hour long service). That is a ratio of 4.81E-5 or 0.0000481. This is nothing more than propaganda.
I want to hear at least a guess to this question. Why is the Reverend taking so much flack for his words? They are not that extreme, why so intense?
Anyone who questioned Bush for his wacky born-again religiosity...
...is bound by the terms of intellectual honesty to equally question Obama for whatever it is y'all are talking about.
I agree, I question Obama more than anyone because of his platform but this is not something that I can agree with. You just have to look through tw's long threads of Bush's repeated wacky born-again religiosity to see how it affects American politics but there is not enough evidence to show that Obama shares the same views as this guy or even that it will affect his leadership ability.
First, Obama is close to Osama and his middle name is Hussein.
Second, Obama is an Islamic extremist.
Third, Obama associates himself with an anti-American racist (I have yet to see anything that suggests he is anti-American or racist).
This is just a silly trend of conservative smear tactics. There are many reasons for Obama to be illegitimizes, but this is not one of them.
This is just a silly trend of conservative smear tactics.
You don't think the Hillary machine is behind this smear?
Its a possibility but all the videos I saw came from FOXNews so I'm pretty sure its safe to assume they are conservative smear tactics. Plus, all the previous attacks have been conservative so they will be blamed either way.
Hillary may actually implode if she thinks about this. The vast right wing conspiracy is helping her?
How do we know those were his worst possible moments over a long period? How do we know that isn't just his regular MO? Do we have video that is all light and positivity? Is positivity a word? :rolleyes:
All we see are short clips taken from long sermons over a long period of time. Until someone can tell me what happens during the other 99.9% of the service, I will reserve my full judgment about the Reverend. Fuck, you could show a short clip of Hilter or Pol Pot holding a baby and loop that over and over again and make him look like a decent guy. I don't judge celebrities over the one picture taken that makes them look like an idiot. We have seen at most three minutes of a guy, out of context by the way, that Obama has been connected too for at least 62,400 minutes (20 years, once a week, for an hour long service). That is a ratio of 4.81E-5 or 0.0000481. This is nothing more than propaganda.
I'm going to assume you quoted the wrong paragraph of my post, since my first paragraph basically said what you retorted, just from the other angle. Now, let's see some happy vids of this guy. They must exist?
How do we know those were his worst possible moments over a long period?
Because it would otherwise be much longer and/or have worse stuff in it.
I'm going to assume you quoted the wrong paragraph of my post, since my first paragraph basically said what you retorted, just from the other angle. Now, let's see some happy vids of this guy. They must exist?
All the videos I saw came from news channels, and the news channels won't show happy videos of the Reverend because that would go against their agenda, so without actually going to the sermon and taping them myself, I can't help you there. Thats why this is called propaganda.
Well, my guess would be that someone tapes his sermons (I think probably a lot of churches do) so that if there are "bad" vids to be found the other side could respond with "good" vids. The non-propaganda side should have an easy time coming up with them, as most involved would be more than happy to show the other side of this man.
Yes, they are taped and
sold to the public to raise money.
FOX News purchased the video recordings of Wright's sermons from the church.
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,337308,00.html
If you want to see the rest of the sermon, feel free to buy them. I will spend my money on something much more worthwhile.
No, I won't give my money to Fox News or some church, but thanks for offering their wares. :confused:
Honestly I think the Bill/Hill machine is behind this one. They have more to gain from it at this point. They are as skilled at manipulating the press monkeys as anyone in the public eyes for at least a generation.
The R smear camp is most likely sitting back, digging for dirt, and taking notes.
/straightens tinfoil hat/
The R smear camp is most likely sitting back, digging for dirt, and taking notes.
That's pretty much it. They'd rather see him implode the week before the general election.
Obama is running a campaign on "I represent the future and unity and Clinton is divisive" but he is surrounded by people (or at least one person) that are divisive as his mentors and who are about the past.
Divisive? Every decisive leader is divisive if that is your definition. To be a decisive leader means one will be divisive.
What do you want? Someone who is politically correct or someone who is honest enough to be a leader? Talk about divisive. Mayor Koch of NYC was extremely divisive - and therefore was one of NYC's best mayors. His ‘Koch Quips’ were famous since he had a bad habit is speaking honestly and frankly. Koch took NYC from the verge of bankruptcy into growth. Giuliani was most divisive. And yet he too was the next NYC mayor that actually got things done. Mayor Lindsay was so much less divisive - and all but bankrupted NYC.
You must decide which you want. An honest leader who will be divisive because he is honest and therefore hears from all. Or a politically correct leader which means he lies and he must even condone corruption. You cannot have it both ways. Which do you want - an honest (divisive) leader or a corrupt nice guy who refuses to hear from anyone what might ruffle feathers?
Meanwhile, you are making assumptions. Obama does not have one spiritual leader. Only a wacko extremist would hear only from one advisor. A leader would hear from the Pope, the Dai Lama, Buddhist priests, and Baha’is. Ever go to Baptist revival services? Ever go to a Jewish service? I believe I had been to every denomination in my community. Does that mean I am divisive because I heard them preach things contrary to popular beliefs? I even listen now and again to Rush Limbaugh because I don't have extremist bias hate - even though Limbaugh preaches hate.
An honest person does not care what that minister is because virtually all religions preach various degrees of hate. My church taught us to condemn all Jews because of what happened to Christ. If informed, then you know which church that was. So do I also believe what Hitler preached? Or did I, instead, ignore the silly preaching from my church - that also endorses pedophilia?
Either the honest leader will also be divisive, or a political correct leader will be indecisive and condone corruption. Which one do you want?
You tube is loaded with clips from this bigot.Some are from the major networks, some are not. Nonetheless, right after 9/11 this screwball was blaming America for everything from Hiroshima to AIDS.
See for yourself.
http://youtube.com/watch?v=l9HUdF9OZa8You tube is loaded with clips from this bigot.Some are from the major networks, some are not. Nonetheless, right after 9/11 this screwball was blaming America for everything from [COLOR="Red"]Hiroshima[/COLOR] to AIDS.
See for yourself.
Damn aliens bombing cities and letting the blame America crowd choose the fall guy.
You tube is loaded with clips from this bigot.Some are from the major networks, some are not. Nonetheless, right after 9/11 this screwball was blaming America for everything from Hiroshima to AIDS.
See for yourself.
http://youtube.com/watch?v=l9HUdF9OZa8
Who cares? Jerry Falwell and Pat Robertson did the same thing. Does that mean all Baptists agree with them?
Let me say this as clearly as I can...
NOTHING REVEREND WRIGHT SAYS HAS ANY CONNECTION WHATSOEVER TO THE POLITICAL VIEWS OF BARACK OBAMA!!!
Anyone who says different is a moron.
:wstupid: It must be true. It's in bold type!
Well then slap my ass and call me a moron.
Off to the Church Of The Honky. This week's sermon is "Mudder Effin' Black People Done Takin Over Our Fine Country." It's OK though, I don't really agree with it. See ya later.
It's true and the truth is highlighted in bold. Have fun at church. Unlike retarded people, I won't assume your political opinions are influenced by the religious sermons being delivered to you.
You're right, they are completely separate. I keep all my emotions, feelings, desires, needs, viewpoints, and opinions very seriously compartmentalized. None of those intangibles are even slightly related to any of the other intangibles. :headshake
I'm glad to hear that. I don't keep everything separate, but I certainly keep my religious views and my political views separate as they are completely unrelated and both are better when they aren't mixed.
Luckily our founders knew that and so did Jesus of Nazareth.
Well, we have your assurance that you are able to keep those things completely separate. Unfortunately, not everyone is you.
True, but more people are like me than like those who think the Obama can be faulted for the political opinions of his pastor.
All we see are short clips taken from long sermons over a long period of time. Until someone can tell me what happens during the other 99.9% of the service, I will reserve my full judgment about the Reverend.
This clip shows the context of the angry "America's chickens are coming home to roost" statement:
[youtube]QOdlnzkeoyQ[/youtube]
It's ten minutes and you don't have to watch the whole thing.
But if you do, it'll become very clear that the Rev's statements were edited for maximum impact. And by the end of it, you may even think he's a decent man, as the bulk of the sermon is not ranting about America, but using the events of 9/11 to encourage people to build their personal relationship with their God.
So, PW45, the tapes are for sale? A whisper goes around (a few months ago - I heard it) that even Obama thinks his pastor may be a minor issue for him. So, somebody highly motivated buys all the tapes, and picks out the very worst 30 seconds of sound bites in them. They compile it into a video, and they give that video to Fox News. It's already the length and format they need to make it a 60-second news item during they day, and perfect for the nightly pundits to bite on at will.
It takes a lot of time, planning, and expertise to put together something like that. The videos they are culling from are hours long. It involves video know-how and a certain amount of money committed to the technologies involved. Fox could have done it, but they would have claimed to have done so no matter who did the original footwork. And you have to wonder how highly motivated a Fox writer or reporter is going to be, to go through hours of tapes, made over years. It would probably take a week to do. Those people have actual deadlines to worry about!
It could have been a 527 advocacy group, could have been Hillary, could have been McCain. The timing is only right for Hillary though. It happens in a series of attacks her side has engineered since she fired her previous campaign manager and went on the attack. (In a sort of a shotgun fashion: get a wide enough blast pattern and something is going to hit.) Half of the attacks are direct and traceable; others, such as giving a pic of Obama wearing a weirdly ethnic garment to Drudge, are untraceable but fit the pattern of a campaign on the ropes, using everything they have.
[FONT=Verdana][SIZE=5][SIZE=2]Peter Pumpkinhead put to shame
Governments who would slur his name
Plots and sex scandals failed outright
Peter merely said
"Any kind of love is alright!"[/SIZE][/SIZE][/FONT][FONT=Verdana][SIZE=5][SIZE=2]
[/SIZE][/SIZE][/FONT]
Thanks UT. In the last 20 years, I've been into church exactly twice and both were for funerals. I didn't see any hatred being spread in that sermon. You've helped prove that once again, we've got chickenshit people using chickenshit tactics and taking cheap shots at Obama when he hasn't said or done anything remotely resembling what they accuse him of. This includes mentioning his minister, showing him without his hand on his heart during "America the Beautiful" and claiming it was during a pledge, repeatedly mentioning his middle name, comparing is last name to Osama, showing him in robes while visiting Africa, etc.
Yeah Radar. Agreed, his reverend does not have anything remotely to do with Obama's politicking. And those chickenshit tactics are just to belittle a very decent, quality man. Skewing videos and thinking he's a Muslim extremist because of his name (which he had no control of and no relevance when he was born) is bullshit.
Shit, I'd wear robes if I were visiting Africa, out of deep respect to the culture.
I have seen a few exaggerations and even lies told by the Reverend, but nothing he has done is anything different than what Bill O'Reilly has, just that it is coming from another angle.
Why the hypocriticalness? Can we as a nation not accept a different point of views?
What a load of crap for a statement. You don't see the double standard there? O'Reilly is a commentator, not a preacher.
It could have been a 527 advocacy group, could have been Hillary, could have been McCain. The timing is only right for Hillary though. It happens in a series of attacks her side has engineered since she fired her previous campaign manager and went on the attack. (In a sort of a shotgun fashion: get a wide enough blast pattern and something is going to hit.) Half of the attacks are direct and traceable; others, such as giving a pic of Obama wearing a weirdly ethnic garment to Drudge, are untraceable but fit the pattern of a campaign on the ropes, using everything they have.
I agree completely.
What a load of crap for a statement. You don't see the double standard there? O'Reilly is a commentator, not a preacher.
They both preach. One just uses 'God' as a justification, one uses truth and news.
Don't ever use the word "truth" in connection to anything Bill O'Reilly says. He's a liar, an asshole, and an idiot just like Lou Dobbs.
They both preach. One just uses 'God' as a justification, one uses truth and news.
I consider them both to be nothing more than commentators. They are not much different from each other.
I know, I was using both 'truth' and 'news' in a sarcastic manner.
I consider them both to be nothing more than commentators. They are not much different from each other.
That was my original point.
Don't ever use the word "truth" in connection to anything Bill O'Reilly says. He's a liar, an asshole, and an idiot just like Lou Dobbs.
Just like Radar.
I never lie for any reason. I don't need to. Lying is for weaklings and cowards like you Merc.
I never lie for any reason. I don't need to. Lying is for weaklings and cowards like you Merc.
:lol2:
My permit.
Radar. Would you kiss around on a dick? Hey bud lets not lie? Come on since you never lie and live in the great state. Tells us all you've never lied. And you ran for office! HELLO
1. I never lie.
2. I live in a great state. It's economy surpasses that of most other states combined and is greater than all but a few nations on earth.
3. I didn't say I've never lied, I say I never lie. I've lied in the past, but that was when I was a child. I haven't lied in many years, and none of those were on this board.
4. I did run for office. Perhaps the fact that I don't lie cost me the election. I think it probably had more to do with the fact that I am a white man who was running as a Libertarian in a strictly Democratic district where white people are less than 10% of the population against a 20 year incumbent who is a black female in the Democratic Party and who shows up constantly on the news pulling the race card.
5. I would not kiss around or on or near a dick. A dick and my mouth are never in the same area and aren't likely to be near each other short of some kind of prison gang rape scene and then it would happen after I was knocked unconscious.
:lol2:
You lie, you live in a crap state on the left coast, you don't pay taxes, you support illegal aliens, you think the blacks derailed your election. You would make a great politician!!!! :devil:
1. I don't lie.
2. I live in a great state on the most beautiful coast.
3. I pay taxes.
4. I support the same principles as our founders and welcome all immigrants with open arms with or without papers and demand that my servants in government abide by the Constitution so I ignore unconstitutional laws including all immigration laws.
5. I don't think "blacks" derailed my election. I think I ran in a district where I had no chance of winning. Nobody but a black democrat can win in California's 35th Congressional District, and even then they won't have a chance against the incumbent.
6. The only true thing you said in your entire post was that I'd make a great politician. This is true because of my previous statements; I don't lie, I support the principles that built this nation, I know that freedom is for ALL people, etc.
Just a rhetorical note. To those who think Rev wright was quoted out of context, I'm glad to hear that you're taking the blame for AIDS, black poverty, middle east perpetual war, WWII, and all the other ills on this planet. How can Radar call California a great state, when all those white folks out there have ruined the world for everyone?
Note Calif recent cuts in the budget because of the burden of illegal immigartion. See the recent headlines.
The cuts in the budget have nothing to do with immigration. They have to do with the fact that the State (much like the fed) is trying to do everything for everybody. The Democratic controlled Senate won't cut any services, and the Republican Governor won't allow any increased taxes.
When the budget was made, housing in California was doing great and the state projected income based on that. Now that housing is in the toilet, those numbers had to be revised and the state now has less income but the same or higher bills.
Undocumented immigrants (there is no such thing as an illegal immigrant and only liars and morons claim such) aren't closing hospitals, are less likely to commit crimes than those born in America, they do pay taxes, they are coming here to work and not for handouts, and they pay billions and billions more into the system than they use in services.
Poor illegal aliens have to go home for an education now. Poor fellas. The sooner we kick them out the better. Make them come back through the gate.