Should Obama supporters condone his choices?

[Upbeat]

It's happening.
While surfing a number of blog sites on AW and elsewhere, I found that a number of Obama supporters claim it's not his (Obama's) fault that Rev. Wright shouts 'hate America' rhetoric.
Yet, it is Obama who, for years, heard what the Rev. had to say.
It was Obama's choice to follow the Rev's guidance.
A U.S. President has many crucial choices to make while in office.
We need a President who makes his/her choices very carefully.

[My-Immortal]

A U.S. President has many crucial choices to make while in office.
We need a President who makes his/her choices very carefully.

One could argue that all three candidates have made poor choices in some aspect of their personal lives. It still remains to be seen whether these poor personal choices (of any candidate) will doom any of their candidacies. I suspect that supporters of any given candidate will not hold their favorite to the same fire they hold their opponents -- but then, isn't that human nature--to see the good in the people you admire and to see the wicked in the people you dislike?

But yes, regardless of who wins, hopefully he/she WILL make their choices carefully, wisely, and with more thought toward the good of the entire country than what we've experienced in many, many years.

Take care all -

[small axe]

It's happening.
While surfing a number of blog sites on AW and elsewhere, I found that a number of Obama supporters claim it's not his (Obama's) fault that Rev. Wright shouts 'hate America' rhetoric.
How many is 'a number' ??? Two?
And unless Obama is expected to sew his Pastor's lips shut, no, it isn't Obama's 'fault' :)

In America, we call it respecting 'free speech'

Yet, it is Obama who, for years, heard what the Rev. had to say.
Well, he heard the Reverend make some energetic sermons, that's all you can say about it.

It was Obama's choice to follow the Rev's guidance.

Show us your proof that Obama chose to 'follow the Rev's guidance.'
A U.S. President has many crucial choices to make while in office.
We need a President who makes his/her choices very carefully.

One important 'choice' is for a President to be able to let another man speak, and try to understand what his position is ... Even if and when the President doesn't agree with the other, and doesn't 'follow his guidance'

It's called the wisdom of listening and understanding, whether the other man is a potential friend or a potential foe. :Hug2:

[William Haskins]

in the absence of deep experience, obama built the early rise in his campaign on "judgment".

he has clearly shown poor judgment repeatedly: rezko, wright, his association with bill ayers, his comment about his grandmother.

[Upbeat]

One could argue that all three candidates have made poor choices in some aspect of their personal lives. It still remains to be seen whether these poor personal choices (of any candidate) will doom any of their candidacies. I suspect that supporters of any given candidate will not hold their favorite to the same fire they hold their opponents -- but then, isn't that human nature--to see the good in the people you admire and to see the wicked in the people you dislike?

But yes, regardless of who wins, hopefully he/she WILL make their choices carefully, wisely, and with more thought toward the good of the entire country than what we've experienced in many, many years.

Take care all -

While objectively considering Obama's choice to follow Rev. Wright's sermons and to abide by his guidance for 20 years or more, I found Obama's choice NOT to be what the U.S. needs by one who is expected to make the choices he/she must make as President of the U.S.

[My-Immortal]

in the absence of deep experience, obama built the early rise in his campaign on "judgment".

he has clearly shown poor judgment repeatedly: rezko, wright, his association with bill ayers, his comment about his grandmother.

Excellent points. I'm sure you could quite easily come up with an equally impressive list of poor judgements for Hillary and McCain too, right (You seem more knowledgeable about politics than others (including myself) which is why I'm making this assumption).

[My-Immortal]

While objectively considering Obama's choice to follow Rev. Wright's sermons and to abide by his guidance for 20 years or more, I found Obama's choice NOT to be what the U.S. needs by one who is expected to make the choices he/she must make as President of the U.S.

Then, you've made your decision easier by eliminating one of the three remaining choices. Good for you.

If I were to consider the candidates's abilities to lead solely on their personal choices in their life, I'd also have to look at their marriages. That's a highly personal choice and some might say an indication on a person's ability to choose wisely. I know some people look down on me for my divorce, while others look up to me because of my strong second (and according to my wife, last) marriage. Should I assume from McCain's divorce and Hillary's spouse's infidelity that they both are also capable of making poor personal choices? Is a choice of a spouse more important than the choice of a minister? That's for each voter to decide, I suppose.

Thanks for the discussion. Take care -

[poetinahat]

I wonder how long before we have a president who admits to not going to church (or whatever congregation you have)? And should that make one bit of difference at all?

"I did not have worship with that pastor."

[Upbeat]

Then, you've made your decision easier by eliminating one of the three remaining choices. Good for you.

If I were to consider the candidates's abilities to lead solely on their personal choices in their life, I'd also have to look at their marriages. That's a highly personal choice and some might say an indication on a person's ability to choose wisely. I know some people look down on me for my divorce, while others look up to me because of my strong second (and according to my wife, last) marriage. Should I assume from McCain's divorce and Hillary's spouse's infidelity that they both are also capable of making poor personal choices? Is a choice of a spouse more important than the choice of a minister? That's for each voter to decide, I suppose.

Thanks for the discussion. Take care -

Obama's choice to follow Wright's negative rants re/our country for more than 20 years, cannot be compared to strictly personal choices such as marriage.

[My-Immortal]

Obama's choice to follow Wright's negative rants re/our country for more than 20 years, cannot be compared to strictly personal choices such as marriage.

I'm glad you've never been married to a negative person for any length of time...

:)

Thanks for the discussion.

[Upbeat]

I'm glad you've never been married to a negative person for any length of time...

:)

Thanks for the discussion.

Yes, it's been a good discussion & one more thing - How about 24 years?

[small axe]

While objectively considering Obama's choice to follow Rev. Wright's sermons and to abide by his guidance for 20 years or more, I found Obama's choice NOT to be what the U.S. needs by one who is expected to make the choices he/she must make as President of the U.S.

It was Obama's choice to follow the Rev's guidance.

Show us your proof that Obama chose to 'follow the Rev's guidance.'

then
abide by his guidance
and
Obama's choice to follow Wright's negative rants re/our country for more than 20 years


If you were actually 'objective' you'd be able to answer my objective questions (above).

Since all you're doing is repeating your opinion ... go for it dude.

Vote in November and we'll all see how that works out for you. :)

[Don Allen]

You also have to remember that Obama is a resident of Chicago, and by Chicago political standards he is squeaky clean.. It is almost ,,,,,no it is impossible for any politician to emerge from Chicago unscathed or untainted by political corruption, this is not an exageration, it is very possible in the next few years theat the federal govenment may be forced to intercede into the political landscape of this city and the State of Illinois, It's that bad. I mention this because Haskins brought up Rezco who is a piece of work that has manipulated every politician in this state for the last 10 years. The current Govenor willl go to jail based on his dealings with Rezco. Obama's biggest mistakes have been his insistence on running an honorable campaign while trudging around with the likes of Wright, Rezco, and a bunch of other Chicago crooks looking for a piece of his action at every turn. If you were to be genuinely fair to the guy you would contend that he has had to battle not only Race, inexperiance, and the failings of his own church, but an element so powerful yet so secretive (The chicago political elite) that it's amazing as well as a true testiment to his charactor that he has gotten this far.

[NikeeGoddess]

Quote:
Originally Posted by William Haskins
in the absence of deep experience, obama built the early rise in his campaign on "judgment".

he has clearly shown poor judgment repeatedly: rezko, wright, his association with bill ayers, his comment about his grandmother.
Excellent points. I'm sure you could quite easily come up with an equally impressive list of poor judgements for Hillary and McCain too, right (You seem more knowledgeable about politics than others (including myself) which is why I'm making this assumption).you're missing the point. the reason this is significant ONLY to obama is because he was very specific by saying he had better "judgement" than his opponents. the other candidates are not making that claim. they've been around in politics long enough to know better than to make such a high and mighty claim. obama has foot in mouth disease.

way back when obama was making his "i'm going to run" speech he had wright listed as one of his speakers. he removed wright from the program because he knew that wright was a little too rough for the general crowd. he knew! he knew! he knew! back then that wright was too controversial... and now it has reared it's ugly head.

can you imagine if hillary was a member of jerry falwell's church for 20 years and insisted she didn't realize he was a politically dangerous and controversial pastor? you KNOW that would be a lie for her to suggest that. no doubt in your mind.

[Celia Cyanide]

Obama's choice to follow Wright's negative rants re/our country for more than 20 years, cannot be compared to strictly personal choices such as marriage.

You're saying that religion is not a personal choice?? I believe it is. Some people don't care what church a candidate goes to, what their married life is like, or if they smoked pot in college. Other people DO care about any or all of those things, and that is their prerogative.

You're saying that you don't approve of Obama's choice to stay at Wright's church, and that's your decision. Other people might be more disapproving of some of the choices that the other candidates made.

[Bird of Prey]

Nobody sits in front of wrathful, racist minister for twenty years and doesn't agree with what he's saying. Obama agreed with the man. It's that simple.

[donroc]

Pro Obama: "It's guilt by association."
Anti-Obama: "It's the company he keeps"

From KOTO, aka, keen observer of the obvious. ;)

[GeorgeK]

Nobody sits in front of wrathful, racist minister for twenty years and doesn't agree with what he's saying. Obama agreed with the man. It's that simple.

If anyone could, it'd be a politician. What about the rest of the congregation? They sat there too. Does this church have a higher percentage of members with criminal records?

[johnnysannie]

Nobody sits in front of wrathful, racist minister for twenty years and doesn't agree with what he's saying. Obama agreed with the man. It's that simple.

It's not simple at all.

[Upbeat]

Nobody sits in front of wrathful, racist minister for twenty years and doesn't agree with what he's saying. Obama agreed with the man. It's that simple.

Indeed it IS that simple. Any U.S. President must depend on good, knowledgeable advisers as he goes through the process of making decisions of vital importance to our country.
Obama's 20 year history of accepting Wright's counseling provides more than enough evidence that he is not suited to become President.

[AndreaGS]

I don't feel that you have to agree with someone's views to associate with, or even befriend, them.

I'm friends with a guy who is a staunch Republican, respects and likes Bush, thinks evolution didn't happen, and believes that global warming (if it is happening) could be good for the world.

Never stopped me from hanging out with him. We've had civil discussions, but the simple matter is that we will never agree, and I deplore his viewpoints. But he's a good man who treats those around him with kindness and respect. *shrugs*

I have another friend who is slightly racist and isn't from the area. We're all a little embarrassed for him at times, I think, but he's not a horrible person. It's just the way he was raised and the place he came from.

I guess I just don't see it as a huge deal.

[johnnysannie]

Indeed it IS that simple. Any U.S. President must depend on good, knowledgeable advisers as he goes through the process of making decisions of vital importance to our country.
Obama's 20 year history of accepting Wright's counseling provides more than enough evidence that he is not suited to become President.

Who says Wright counseled him?
Wright was his pastor; my pastor has never "counseled" me.
There are some aspects of my church and religion that I personally don't agree with but I haven't walked out.

(shakes head, walks away)

[NikeeGoddess]

I'm friends with a guy who is a staunch Republican, respects and likes Bush, thinks evolution didn't happen, and believes that global warming (if it is happening) could be good for the world.

Never stopped me from hanging out with him. We've had civil discussions, but the simple matter is that we will never agree, and I deplore his viewpoints. But he's a good man who treats those around him with kindness and respect. *shrugs*

I have another friend who is slightly racist and isn't from the area. We're all a little embarrassed for him at times, I think, but he's not a horrible person. It's just the way he was raised and the place he came from.
but those people are not your advisors. that's the difference.

every president has advisors to aid them in decision making in different areas of governing. this is because we cannot assume they are all-knowing. they use advisors in military matters, economic and money matters, etc... and in this particular case -- religious matters.

[InfinityGoddess]

Nobody sits in front of wrathful, racist minister for twenty years and doesn't agree with what he's saying. Obama agreed with the man. It's that simple.

He insists that he didn't agree with everything that Wright said. And I believe him.

So really, it's not as simple as that.

[A.M. Wildman]

You also have to remember that Obama is a resident of Chicago, and by Chicago political standards he is squeaky clean.. It is almost ,,,,,no it is impossible for any politician to emerge from Chicago unscathed or untainted by political corruption, <snip>

As another Illinoisian and "down-stater" I can tell you that Obi Won Kenobi in Star Wars described the Chicago Democratic Party perfectly

"A more wretched hive of scum and villainy you'll never find."

it's amazing as well as a true testiment to his charactor that he has gotten this far.

Nah, nothing to do with his character. Rezko, et. al are too busy with the Grand Jury to cause him any problems at the moment.

Hey, Don you think Blago will get the cell next to Georgie Ryan? :D

[Upbeat]

Who says Wright counseled him?
Wright was his pastor; my pastor has never "counseled" me.
There are some aspects of my church and religion that I personally don't agree with but I haven't walked out.

(shakes head, walks away)

Obama himself said it.

[My-Immortal]

you're missing the point. the reason this is significant ONLY to obama is because he was very specific by saying he had better "judgement" than his opponents. the other candidates are not making that claim. they've been around in politics long enough to know better than to make such a high and mighty claim. obama has foot in mouth disease.

Interesting. Obama makes a claim that he has better 'judgement', and if he shows an example of poor 'judgement' all hell breaks lose - but since Hillary and McCain doesn't make the statement about 'judgement', they could basically make one poor judgement call after another and it would be okay with you. Good to know.

Regardless of a person's claim about 'judgement', shouldn't all candidates be judged on their 'judgement' equally?

I mean, using your logic (if I understand it right) -- Hillary has come out touting her 'experience'....so that would mean you should only concern yourself with debating the merits of her claimed experience, and not the perceived lack of experience on Obama's part, right?

The foot in mouth disease must be contagious.

[small axe]

the reason this is significant ONLY to obama is because he was very specific by saying he had better "judgement" than his opponents. the other candidates are not making that claim.

Obama was talking about having had "better judgement" than Clinton and McCain voting to allow Bush to invade Iraq.

You're comparing Obama's "judgement" going to Church where the Reverend made some fiery Sermons ... with Clinton and McCain voting to help Bush start a WAR that has cost 4000+ American lives, maybe killed 100,000+ Iraqi lives, and now costs the USA $10,000,000,000 each month with no end in sight.

Lets compare that again:

Obama going to Church ... vs ... Clinton and McCain voting to allow a WAR. :(

Church ... vs ... starting a War. :(

Angry words ... vs ... dropping bombs. :(

"I disagreed with my Pastor" ... vs ... "We regret to inform you that your child/father/mother/brother/sister/husband/wife has been killed fighting in Iraq."

It's tragic. It's the most tragic error of judgement in our young century.

I agree: 'this is significant ONLY to Obama' ... because it shows Clinton and McCain used very, very, very bad 'judgement' indeed!

[Tanatra]

Most of my family are/were racist. I was surrounded by them constantly in my childhood.

So clearly, I fit the definition of a racist to a tee. Nevermind the fact that I attended one of the most ethnically diverse colleges in Georgia and many of the most intelligent and driven people that I've ever known are anything but caucasian. It's all about what those which I associate myself with say; what I actually say & do is irrelevant!

Sorry to distill the Wright controversy into such a stupid analogy, but that's pretty much my view on all of this. If we're going to condemn people for interacting with individuals that aren't perfect, "flawless in every way" citizens, we're singling out one man in an occupation where virtually every participant in its history is guilty.

Before someones dubs (or condemns?) me as an Obama supporter, I'm actually rather undecided at this point. I do have a problem with his habit of "speaking for voters", I've never been a fan of attacks on rival candidates (the media is more than sufficient for that) and the man is showing signs of becoming burned out by the roasting he's endured in the media. The roasting certainly won't end if he gets elected, but at least it'll finally be over political issues.

[Takvah]

Look, I think that Obama could very easily come out and say, "I knew he was controversial, I knew he was incendiary... but he was my friend. I likely cut him more slack than I should have and I found him to be an embarrassment at various times." Instead we get some nonsense deal wherein he says, "I never heard it," and some linkage between his racial identity and his support of Wright. Say what?!

If critics of Clinton are going to say that her mismanagement of her campaign and its finances indicates the job that she will do as president... then it is fair to wonder if Obama's judgment is going to be adequate to measure our allies and our enemies. If you live by the sword, you die by the sword. I see a lot of people wanting it both ways. Obama surrounded himself with some questionable people to get to where he is... many people do... BUT, they don't then proclaim themselves... "new". He's the same old politician, his pigmentation just happens to be different.

[GeorgeK]

I have a question. Is it common for preachers to tape their sermons? Why is there a tape at all?

[Takvah]

I have a question. Is it common for preachers to tape their sermons? Why is there a tape at all?

It's the CIA and Clinton operatives that were taping the sermons.



In truth, as it turns out, Dr. Wright is a carnival barker with an ego. His teachings needed to be archived for future haters and made available in DVD format to the flock... you know, so they could share the good word.

[GeorgeK]

So they weren't televised on some cable access show or something? He was simply archiving his own sermons because he thought he was that perfect?

Maybe he used them as pre-game reviews on strategy to see what hand gestures and comments would get the congregation digging deeper into their pockets. He was maybe just honing his craft.

But then if it was for personal use, who leaked the tapes? Yeah, probably just the ego thing. But if there are 20 years worth of tapes, then some poor obsessed fool could watch them all and tell us if the few soundbites we have are all from 2 or 3 Sundays in which case any given parishoner might have missed or dismissed it or if it was a weekly thing. I know I don't have the energy.

[TwentyFour]

The thing I despise about Obama and the Rev. fiasco is the fact that he took up for the rev. the first time and the second time he completely threw him to the wolves. Why didn't he just cut ties first and say "It's his right to think that, I do not associate my views with his and vice versa." I just think it was two faced to do it unless he realized he would lose the race if this kept up. I don't know that many preachers who are truly god fearing, but this guy isn't someone I'd like to be associated with if I were running for any office. I'd join a mormon church before that would happen. (HAHA, when I typed mormon before proofreading, I accidently left the second m out...I felt like one for such a typo :))

[cethklein]

I have a question. Is it common for preachers to tape their sermons? Why is there a tape at all?

Because like the Fallwell's and Robertsons, and Hagards of the world, Wright is more interested in making a buck than preaching the gospel. Wright is doing what people like Fallwell have done for years. We never heard about it though because the media was afraid to call him out too because he's black. My wager is there are far more of these black "pastors" at these "mega churches" doing this too, we only heard about Wright because of his connection with Obama.

I'm personally of the school of thought hat these "mega churches" should not be allowed to claim tax exempt status as they are clearly profiting. But that's another debate in and of itself.

[Upbeat]

Because like the Fallwell's and Robertsons, and Hagards of the world, Wright is more interested in making a buck than preaching the gospel. Wright is doing what people like Fallwell have done for years. We never heard about it though because the media was afraid to call him out too because he's black. My wager is there are far more of these black "pastors" at these "mega churches" doing this too, we only heard about Wright because of his connection with Obama.

I'm personally of the school of thought hat these "mega churches" should not be allowed to claim tax exempt status as they are clearly profiting. But that's another debate in and of itself.

Yes; and he 'is making a buck' - more than enough to buy a mega home for himself. It's huge!

[William Haskins]

in his defense, most of the square footage is necessary to house his ego.

[NikeeGoddess]

Look, I think that Obama could very easily come out and say, "I knew he was controversial, I knew he was incendiary... but he was my friend. I likely cut him more slack than I should have and I found him to be an embarrassment at various times." Instead we get some nonsense deal wherein he says, "I never heard it," and some linkage between his racial identity and his support of Wright. Say what?! exactly! i would have so much more respect for him if he would just tell it like it is -- tell the truth. most people know what it's like to have a friend that you should be a bit ashamed of... but, "i can't help it. he's my friend."

not only that - this is partly what caused wright to go off and speak his mind. he was hurt by the media. but he was more hurt by his friend disowning him.

If critics of Clinton are going to say that her mismanagement of her campaign and its finances indicates the job that she will do as president...you know the truth here is that hillary assumed she would slide right in with a free ride to the convention. by the time she looked over her shoulder she didn't see obama trampling over her lead and zooming up the hill. her management went as far as super tuesday when she thought things would be over. it's easy to see how she this could happen. she didn't have enough watchdogs out there looking at the opposition on her own team.

[chartreuse]

It's happening.
While surfing a number of blog sites on AW and elsewhere, I found that a number of Obama supporters claim it's not his (Obama's) fault that Rev. Wright shouts 'hate America' rhetoric.
Yet, it is Obama who, for years, heard what the Rev. had to say.
It was Obama's choice to follow the Rev's guidance.
A U.S. President has many crucial choices to make while in office.
We need a President who makes his/her choices very carefully.

I find what Obama's pastor says to be completely irrelevant, and the same would be true of any other candidate. It's when a candidate themselves starts to spew religious rhetoric that I find it unacceptable.

However, if you do want to bring Obama's pastor into it, all I can say is that I'd probably get along fabulously with Rev. Wright, as I have said "god damn America" more times than I can count, and certainly hate America at least as often as I find anything to respect or like about it. And no, neither race nor class have anything to do with it - I'm a white female doing better financially than the vast majority of people I know.

As for "choices," one is ALWAYS going to be disappointed with candidates in that respect, at least up until the point one admits that people running for office are actually human beings, and not programmable holograms who have been completely stripped of any human desires, frailties, or faults. For my part, I prefer a President whose humanity is on full display, be it that they took drugs and enjoyed it, said something that was politically incorrect (but oh so obviously true), or simply had an association with someone who has views the majority don't identify with. And hell, if that candidate happens to actually know what arugula is, is that REALLY a bad thing? Does knowing how to identify anything beyond iceberg lettuce really make one an elitist?

[mscelina]

Oh dear...

un-unselfbanninates from P&CE...

[GeorgeK]

... all I can say is that I'd probably get along fabulously with Rev. Wright, as I have said "god damn America" more times than I can count, and certainly hate America at least as often as I find anything to respect or like about it... ?

The thing that made me the most patriotic was a vacation, where I prepared for it by learning the language of the foreign country before I left.

When I got back to the US I literally wanted to kiss the ground. I didn't know really what we had until it wasn't in front of me anymore.

[donroc]

God Damn America? That's telling God to damn me and other citizens as well because WE are America. What did I ever do to deserve that from you? Are you also a citizen? Typically as with others so negative on these political threads, you leave no info on your bio. If a citizen, you are damning yourself, unless you presume to be better than the rest of us. I can understand G-ding politicians and specific laws in a heated moment, but hating one's country that much at any time? That is extreme.

[cethklein]

\

you know the truth here is that hillary assumed she would slide right in with a free ride to the convention. by the time she looked over her shoulder she didn't see obama trampling over her lead and zooming up the hill. her management went as far as super tuesday when she thought things would be over. it's easy to see how she this could happen. she didn't have enough watchdogs out there looking at the opposition on her own team.

But why does she need watchdogs? Isn't she supposed to be a political genius? Shouldn't she (or better yet, her husband) have seen this coming?

[blacbird]

you know the truth here is that hillary assumed she would slide right in with a free ride to the convention. by the time she looked over her shoulder she didn't see obama trampling over her lead and zooming up the hill. her management went as far as super tuesday when she thought things would be over. it's easy to see how she this could happen. she didn't have enough watchdogs out there looking at the opposition on her own team.

Pretty much a correct assessment of the basic Clinton campaign blunder (as I've said elsewhere). But you can't blame the "watchdogs" or the lack of such on anyone but the candidate herself, can you? It's like a military general losing a battle because there weren't enough captains out there commanding companies of soldiers; whose fault is it that there weren't enough captains out there?

caw

caw

[NikeeGoddess]

i like to make analogies of things with sports or movies or both. in the bad news bears they sent watchdog ogilvie to spy on and study the other teams. he did a great job and a key player in the rise of the underdog team. if it weren't for him and their star girl pitcher then they would never had made it to the finals. this may have been obama's favorite movie. but he should remember the ending. unlike most underdog stories where they come out triumphant - the bears lost. but second place is still good reason to cheer.

[InfinityGoddess]

God Damn America? That's telling God to damn me and other citizens as well because WE are America. What did I ever do to deserve that from you? Are you also a citizen? Typically as with others so negative on these political threads, you leave no info on your bio. If a citizen, you are damning yourself, unless you presume to be better than the rest of us. I can understand G-ding politicians and specific laws in a heated moment, but hating one's country that much at any time? That is extreme.

He wasn't "God-damning" Americans. He was "God-Damning" American policy. There's a difference.

Whereas the likes of Rev. Hagee, Pat Robertson, the late Falwell, etc. really did "God-damn" America by blaming certain swaths of the American populace for disasters such as 9/11 and Katrina. I mean, what did gay people, Catholics, liberals, feminists, and non-Christian people ever do to these guys to deserve the hatred? It's not like any of these groups are forcing these guys to live as they do (whereas Robertson, Hagee, and their ilk believe our country is a "Christian Nation" and want to force everyone to conform to what they believe when it comes to religion, women's rights, gay rights, etc.). They're free to believe what they want, as far as I'm concerned. They are NOT free, however, to force anyone to conform to their views any more than the people they hate are allowed to force anyone to conform to their views.

What Rev. Wright was trying to convey was that our policies regarding the Middle East, Latin America, and even towards minority groups here at home have been less than stellar. That our policies have been ethnocentric at best, and at worst hypocritical. Now, that doesn't mean that he was 100% right about everything (obviously he's a bit of a kook in some of what he believes, including the whole AIDS thing), but that's the gist of what he was saying overall.

[donroc]

IG, read more carefully. I was not addressing Wright's remarks in this instance. Also, re-read my last sentence as well.

[William Haskins]

He wasn't "God-damning" Americans. He was "God-Damning" American policy. There's a difference.

link to wright making this distinction in the original context?

no. this is the same pass that's given to obama when he says something stupid. we're told, on the one hand, that he's a brilliant orator, and then we need college students from jersey clarifying their comments for them.

wright's a big boy. he knows what he said and had both the verbal acumen and the opportunity to make it a clear condemnation of policy rather than a wholesale cultural attack.

[InfinityGoddess]

link to wright making this distinction in the original context?

Try watching his sermons in full. That would help for starters.

no. this is the same pass that's given to obama when he says something stupid. we're told, on the one hand, that he's a brilliant orator, and then we need college students from jersey clarifying their comments for them.

wright's a big boy. he knows what he said and had both the verbal acumen and the opportunity to make it a clear condemnation of policy rather than a wholesale cultural attack.

I don't give Obama a pass on everything he does (there are issues I don't agree with him on). He wasn't even my favored candidate in the beginning. The only reasons why I favor him now is because he's a) Not Hillary, b) his policies are closer to Edwards than Hillary and he can help down-the-ticket Dems if he's on the ballot, and c) he's in the lead with Hillary having no chance of catching up to him barring a miracle.

Furthermore, it's not a "cultural attack" to point out that whites still have more privilege than non-whites. It's a criticism and a reality that still occurs to this day. Discrimination still happens.


It's not a "cultural attack" to say that we have been hypocrites when it comes to "spreading democracy". Do the Iraqis feel freer after Saddam was taken out? What about the Chileans who remember "our guy" Pinochet? Did they feel so free in his torture chambers? Or the Iranians after we interfered with their government back in the day only to wind up living in a theocracy? Do we really want to interfere with their government again after all that?

The fact that 9/11 happened was because of some angry Saudis who hate their government that they wanted to hurt us for propping up that government up and having a base in their country. The chickens really did come to roost, and Goddess forbid anyone point that out or else they "hate" America.

[johnnysannie]

I have a question. Is it common for preachers to tape their sermons? Why is there a tape at all?

It's probably far more common than you would think.

In the area where I live, many churches do this - some air the service on television, some just have the archived tapes that members can "check out" to watch at home.

I have an aunt who is a member of one of the huge mega-churches (same state, different area) and her church does this. Heck, you can even go to their website and watch sermons online.

Taping sermons isn't uncommon at all any more.

[Gravity]

Online streaming, too.