cougarguard.com — unofficial BYU Cougars / LDS sports, football, basketball forum and message board

cougarguard.com — unofficial BYU Cougars / LDS sports, football, basketball forum and message board (http://www.cougarguard.com/forum/index.php)
-   Politics (http://www.cougarguard.com/forum/forumdisplay.php?f=10)
-   -   C'mon Obama, we weren't born yesterday (http://www.cougarguard.com/forum/showthread.php?t=17741)

hyrum 03-16-2008 05:20 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by SoonerCoug (Post 198857)
I disagree.

I don't think it's fair to compare people who were enslaved and beaten down by jim crow laws to immigrants. Even today, whites are more likely to mistreat or fear blacks than to mistreat Chinese or German or even Mexican immigrants.

How many people alive today were enslaved? I am not saying that discrimination does not exist, but at the same time there are plenty of programs giving distinct advantages to minorities. This is particularly true in educational programs at the high school and college level. I've seen it myself.

SoonerCoug 03-16-2008 05:30 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by hyrum (Post 198858)
How many people alive today were enslaved?

How many people today still experience the effects of slavery and Jim Crow?

Sure, it doesn't take generations for everyone to recover, but it does take generations for most people to recover.

What percentage of the population of Oklahoma is African-American? 8.2%

What percentage of an OU medical school class (on average) is African-American, even with affirmative action? 0.6%

In your opinion, what is the explanation for the disparity?

Archaea 03-16-2008 06:11 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by SoonerCoug (Post 198861)
How many people today still experience the effects of slavery and Jim Crow?

Sure, it doesn't take generations for everyone to recover, but it does take generations for most people to recover.

What percentage of the population of Oklahoma is African-American? 8.2%

What percentage of an OU medical school class (on average) is African-American, even with affirmative action? 0.6%

In your opinion, what is the explanation for the disparity?

sooner you could use much better examples than that. As a scientist, surely you wouldn't use that cause and effect in class.

JohnnyLingo 03-16-2008 06:18 PM

Surely he would. It promotes his political agenda.

SoonerCoug 03-16-2008 06:47 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Archaea (Post 198862)
sooner you could use much better examples than that. As a scientist, surely you wouldn't use that cause and effect in class.

I didn't say I had the explanation. I was asking for opinions as to why there is such a disparity.

Slavery/Jim Crow laws may or may not be the best explanation, but it must be part of it.

Cali Coug 03-16-2008 07:20 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by myboynoah (Post 198813)
This was a conversation about Obama and his poor judgement and outright preveracations. I can see why you and Sooner want to change the subject.

I'm not changing the subject. I am pointing out that your exclusive bickering about Obama is absurd.

myboynoah 03-17-2008 03:05 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Cali Coug (Post 198867)
I'm not changing the subject. I am pointing out that your exclusive bickering about Obama is absurd.

I find your accepting Obama's absurd "Dr. Write said what?!?!?!?" response absurd.

I saw your "absurd" and raised you another.

Tex 03-17-2008 05:33 PM

Ross Douthat reponds to Cali Coug:

Quote:

What horse****. If John McCain were an evangelical Christian and a longstanding member of Jerry Falwell’s congregation, and if he had written a memoir describing, say, how he was “born again” under Falwell’s influence, he would not be the Republican nominee today. With a great deal of luck, he might – might – have done as well in the primaries as Mike Huckabee did, and of course you may recall that Huck had all kinds of difficulties winning non-evangelical votes, faring particularly poorly among Catholics; you may recall, as well, that the press delighted in lobbing him questions about evolution and wives submitting to their husbands and all the rest of it, without any fear of being tagged as anti-religion. And of course Falwell’s brand of evangelical Christianity is considerably more controversial than Huckabee’s. And considerably more apocalyptic, one might add: Imagine, for instance, how McCain’s support of the surge, and his hawkishness more generally, would have been treated if he attended a church whose pastor's foreign policy views are defined by a belief in the imminence of Armageddon.

As to Ezra's larger point, of course it’s “fine” to be a white Christian extremist in America; it's also fine to be a black Christian extremist like Jeremiah Wright. This is a free country, after all. Nobody in the national media was parsing the Reverend Wright's sermons before the 2008 campaign, and nobody would be parsing them today if he was just one minister among many supporting Barack Obama for President. I have no doubt that many, many Democratic politicians have put in an appearance at churches whose pastors share Wright's outlandish political views without anyone kicking up a fuss, just as Republican politicians have long accepted the support of figures like Falwell without taking too much heat about it. The distinction here, for the umpteenth time, is that Wright isn't just Obama's supporter; he's his pastor, his friend, and his spiritual mentor, which makes him exactly the kind of person whose views ought to be of interest to a public that's considering electing Barack Obama President of the United States. And as to the substance of those views, well, if Ezra really thinks that Wright's sermons have sparked controversy because he broke a taboo against getting angry over the fact that "blacks have suffered a long history of oppression in this country" and "still face deep institutional discrimination," I would suggest that he take another look at them, paying particular attention to Wright's remarks about 9/11, as well as what appears to be his suggestion that the U.S. government created not only the crack epidemic, but the AIDS epidemic as well.

(It's also worth noting that two of the specific examples of white Christian extremism Ezra nods to - Falwell's 9/11 comments, and General William Boykin's "my God is bigger than your God" remarks - both provoked controversies that ended in public apologies, albeit of the mealy-mouthed, "I'm sorry if you were offended" variety. Whereas I'm not holding my breath waiting for Reverend Jeremiah Wright to "clarify" his remarks.)
Cali ought to stop channeling Ezra Klein.

http://rossdouthat.theatlantic.com/a...and_wright.php

Cali Coug 03-17-2008 05:40 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tex (Post 199142)
Ross Douthat reponds to Cali Coug:



Cali ought to stop channeling Ezra Klein.

http://rossdouthat.theatlantic.com/a...and_wright.php

What an ironic post, given the fact that Falwell was selected as an example of a person it would be awful to be associated with, and given the fact that Falwell was, in fact, associated with McCain as a prominent supporter.

http://cougarguard.com/forum/showpos...2&postcount=36

Tex 03-17-2008 05:41 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Cali Coug (Post 199149)
What an ironic post, given the fact that Falwell was selected as an example of a person it would be awful to be associated with, and given the fact that Falwell was, in fact, associated with McCain as a prominent supporter.

http://cougarguard.com/forum/showpos...2&postcount=36

If you read my post, Douthat explains why it is a poor comparison.

Cali Coug 03-17-2008 05:46 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tex (Post 199151)
If you read my post, Douthat explains why it is a poor comparison.

I find his explanation lacking.

Why must I endorse the views of my friends, associates and spiritual advisors? I certainly don't endorse the political views of my ultraconservative spiritual advisors. Do I have to? Do I have to agree with my friends on their political viewpoints? Do I endorse their views by being their friend? What about my associates? I don't even know half of their political views, let alone have any reason to endorse them.

You are grasping at straws here, Tex. Given your half-hearted attempt to make your silly arguments, I can only assume you know it too.

Tex 03-17-2008 05:47 PM

John Derbyshire, not a typical right-wing conservative, takes a similar view:

Quote:

[Me] I repeat: Obama's toast. He may yet get the Democratic nomination, but tens of millions of Americans who are neither (a) black nor (b) guilty white liberals are simply appalled that Obama would revere a guy like Jeremiah Wright for 20 years, whatever the particularities of which services he did and didn't attend. It defies belief that Obama knew this man for all that time, intimately enough to have him supervise at the Obama wedding and the children's baptisms, yet did not know that Wright is a white-hating, America-hating crank. Who on earth believes this?

The MSM can't smother this, not in the age of the web, though they are trying mightily. (The Sunday New York Times "Week in Review" Section had nothing about Wright; neither did the main news section.) Americans are a fair-minded people, who find double standards obnoxious. A guy who says "nappy-headed ho's" in an irreverent radio show is dragged round the city walls behind a chariot to the delighted howls of a mob of self-righteous "anti-racists"; yet a man who uses the authority of the cloth to damn our country and curse white people, is praised as a "biblical scholar" by a candidate for the presidency? I don't think so. This won't stand. The man is toast.

I don't even think Gore can pick Obama as a running mate now.
http://corner.nationalreview.com/pos...Y4MzU2Nzg5ZTM=

Cali Coug 03-17-2008 05:48 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tex (Post 199156)
John Derbyshire, not a typical right-wing conservative, takes a similar view:



http://corner.nationalreview.com/pos...Y4MzU2Nzg5ZTM=

Why don't you give me your view, instead of giving me everyone else's, so that later on (inevitably) when you are trounced you don't then claim to have never actually supported the position that was whipped?

I am going to guess there are over 10,000 articles on this topic. Are you going to post them all, each one with a "see- so and so says so too" (need I point out that is a logical fallacy)?

Tex 03-17-2008 05:49 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Cali Coug (Post 199155)
I find his explanation lacking.

Why must I endorse the views of my friends, associates and spiritual advisors? I certainly don't endorse the political views of my ultraconservative spiritual advisors. Do I have to? Do I have to agree with my friends on their political viewpoints? Do I endorse their views by being their friend? What about my associates? I don't even know half of their political views, let alone have any reason to endorse them.

The distinction you are failing to see is the closeness of the connection between the two (read Derb's comments above). You're trying to make Wright look like a run-of-the-mill supporter who's outlandish comments shouldn't matter.

There are lots of voters who won't see it that way.

Cali Coug 03-17-2008 05:50 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tex (Post 199159)
The distinction you are failing to see is the closeness of the connection between the two (read Derb's comments above). You're trying to make Wright look like a run-of-the-mill supporter who's outlandish comments shouldn't matter.

There are lots of voters who won't see it that way.

When did I say they weren't close? Answer my questions in the post above (which involve close relationships too). Does James Carville endorse his wife's views on politics?

Tex 03-17-2008 05:50 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Cali Coug (Post 199158)
Why don't you give me your view, instead of giving me everyone else's, so that later on (inevitably) when you are trounced you don't then claim to have never actually supported the position that was whipped?

I am going to guess there are over 10,000 articles on this topic. Are you going to post them all, each one with a "see- so and so says so too" (need I point out that is a logical fallacy)?

Does this mean you can't respond to their points?

Cali Coug 03-17-2008 05:52 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tex (Post 199161)
Does this mean you can't respond to their points?

Does this mean you can't respond to mine or formulate your own?

Tex 03-17-2008 05:52 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Cali Coug (Post 199160)
When did I say they weren't close? Answer my questions in the post above (which involve close relationships too). Does James Carville endorse his wife's views on politics?

I think Carville and Matalin have made their relationship clear. Obama has not done so with Wright (though he tried over the weekend).

Another interesting stat from National Review:

Quote:

Rasmussen:

Most voters, 56%, said Wright’s comments made them less likely to vote for Obama. That figure includes 44% of Democrats. Just 11% of voters say they are more likely to vote for Obama because of Wright’s comments.

This is disturbing:

However, among African-Americans, 29% said Wright’s comments made them more likely to support Obama. Just 18% said the opposite while 50% said Wright’s comments would have no impact.
Regardless of what you say, Cali, this appears to be a stumbling block for the Obama campaign.

http://corner.nationalreview.com/pos...ExZDM2ZmY4Nzc=

Cali Coug 03-17-2008 05:54 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tex (Post 199164)
I think Carville and Matalin have made their relationship clear. Obama has not done so with Wright (though he tried over the weekend).

Another interesting stat from National Review:



Regardless of what you say, Cali, this appears to be a stumbling block for the Obama campaign.

http://corner.nationalreview.com/pos...ExZDM2ZmY4Nzc=

Now you are taking a totally different approach (not surprising- you seem to realize you can't support your previous position that Obama is wrong to be associated with Wright at all).

Whether this is a political liability for Obama remains to be seen. Likewise with McCain's relationship with Falwell.

Tex 03-17-2008 05:58 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Cali Coug (Post 199166)
Now you are taking a totally different approach (not surprising- you seem to realize you can't support your previous position that Obama is wrong to be associated with Wright at all).

No, I stand by that point. And I think both Douthat and Derbyshire have made good comments supporting why it's a valid association to criticize. Attacking me for posting them doesn't support your proposition.

As to the political liability, I don't think the Wright issue is in the same ballpark with the Falwell "issue."

Cali Coug 03-17-2008 06:02 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tex (Post 199168)
No, I stand by that point. And I think both Douthat and Derbyshire have made good comments supporting why it's a valid association to criticize. Attacking me for posting them doesn't support your proposition.

As to the political liability, I don't think the Wright issue is in the same ballpark with the Falwell "issue."

You have yet to even attempt to dispute my arguments as to why both Douthat and Derbyshire (and, I guess, you- though your endorsement is pretty soft at the moment) are wrong. Instead the best you have come up with is "I don't think the Wright issue is in the same ballpark with the Falwell issue." Really more of a factual statement on what you think than an argument, but I don't expect much, so well done.

Tex 03-17-2008 06:07 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Cali Coug (Post 199171)
You have yet to even attempt to dispute my arguments as to why both Douthat and Derbyshire (and, I guess, you- though your endorsement is pretty soft at the moment) are wrong. Instead the best you have come up with is "I don't think the Wright issue is in the same ballpark with the Falwell issue." Really more of a factual statement on what you think than an argument, but I don't expect much, so well done.

If your argument is that a man shouldn't be judged by his closest associations, then I disagree. Obviously the best (and starting) barometer ought to be the man himself: what he says and what he does. And by and large, that's what I've criticized Obama for (empty suit, etc.)

But a man's closest friends and associates influence his thinking, and it's a fair thing for the electorate to weigh in their decision. In this respect, Obama's relationship with Wright bears no resemblance to McCain's to Falwell. It's a bad case of "they do it too!" which really does nothing for your position.

Cali Coug 03-17-2008 06:12 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tex (Post 199173)
If your argument is that a man shouldn't be judged by his closest associations, then I disagree. Obviously the best (and starting) barometer ought to be the man himself: what he says and what he does. And by and large, that's what I've criticized Obama for (empty suit, etc.)

But a man's closest friends and associates influence his thinking, and it's a fair thing for the electorate to weigh in their decision. In this respect, Obama's relationship with Wright bears no resemblance to McCain's to Falwell. It's a bad case of "they do it too!" which really does nothing for your position.

In which case, we know James Carville is a secret Republican.

Tex 03-17-2008 06:17 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Cali Coug (Post 199175)
In which case, we know James Carville is a secret Republican.

Is this supposed to be a response? I already said Carville and Matalin's relationship is well-known and well-defined. Pretending that it's the same with Wright and Obama is again foolhardy. Moreover, neither of them is running for President.

But for what it's worth, I think either Carville or Matalin would have trouble running for the presidency of their respective parties, for (at least) that reason. I think it would certainly be a campaign issue.

Cali Coug 03-17-2008 06:30 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tex (Post 199179)
Is this supposed to be a response? I already said Carville and Matalin's relationship is well-known and well-defined. Pretending that it's the same with Wright and Obama is again foolhardy. Moreover, neither of them is running for President.

But for what it's worth, I think either Carville or Matalin would have trouble running for the presidency of their respective parties, for (at least) that reason. I think it would certainly be a campaign issue.

Oh please. A "campaign issue" for Carville or Matalin? You are rapidly losing credibility (and you don't have much to lose).

First of all, you are pretending to know the depth of the relationship between Obama and Wright. He has gone to the church for 20 years and he has thanked Wright in the past. What else do we know about the relationship? Little, and yet you have already made them domestic partners.

Second, Obama has already distanced himself from Wright's politics, just like Carville and Matalin clearly have. Your position of "it isn't enough" is as vague as most other positions you take. What is enough, Tex? Take a position on something for once.

Third, the treatment Obama is receiving from Republicans in particular for his association with Wright is hypocritical, at best. Notice McCain isn't saying much? He doensn't want to tread in this water. To do so would be foolish with his association with Falwell and others he vowed never to associate with in 2000 (only later to cozy up to them).

In the spirit of Tex, here is a nice little article on the topic you may find interesting.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/frank-...e_b_91774.html

Spaz 03-17-2008 06:41 PM

This post has nothing to do with the thread topic, so feel free to ignore.

I've noticed a favored trend of those debating issues on this board is to attempt to brow-beat someone into defining their opinions specifically enough to then show where their definition doesn't fit. Obviously hoping to claim some sort of victory.


Pretty disingenuous method, IMO. Not only does it result in misleading conclusions, but creates an atmosphere where defining oneself is contrary to one's best interest.

Tex 03-17-2008 06:43 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Cali Coug (Post 199189)
Oh please. A "campaign issue" for Carville or Matalin? You are rapidly losing credibility (and you don't have much to lose).

First of all, you are pretending to know the depth of the relationship between Obama and Wright. He has gone to the church for 20 years and he has thanked Wright in the past. What else do we know about the relationship? Little, and yet you have already made them domestic partners.

I don't remember all the pieces I've read, but I seem to recall that Wright married Obama and his wife? He cites Wright as a mentor, took a phrase of Wright's for his book, and as you note, has been a member of his congregation for a very long time. It seems it's quite a bit more than a casual relationship.

One wonders why Obama's objection to the man's visceral hate didn't come up earlier.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Cali Coug (Post 199189)
Second, Obama has already distanced himself from Wright's politics, just like Carville and Matalin clearly have. Your position of "it isn't enough" is as vague as most other positions you take. What is enough, Tex? Take a position on something for once.

I guess I need to clarify that personally, I don't care much about the issue. I am much more interested in criticizing him for the Messianic Cult he's created, than his pastor's racist anti-American bigotry. I read Obama's statement distancing himself ... ok, well enough for me.

I don't think all voters feel the same way.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Cali Coug (Post 199189)
Third, the treatment Obama is receiving from Republicans in particular for his association with Wright is hypocritical, at best. Notice McCain isn't saying much? He doensn't want to tread in this water. To do so would be foolish with his association with Falwell and others he vowed never to associate with in 2000 (only later to cozy up to them).

You keep bringing up Falwell like it means something.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Cali Coug (Post 199189)
In the spirit of Tex, here is a nice little article on the topic you may find interesting.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/frank-...e_b_91774.html

Yes, that was interesting. Was there something in particular you wanted me to comment on?

Spaz 03-17-2008 06:46 PM

Just to see if I'm following this debate correctly...

Tex: Obama's close association with Wright will hurt his electability. His closeness to Wright is more damaging than McCain's association with Fallwell because of proximity & influence of Wright.

Cali: Obama & Wright's relationship is no better or worse than McCain's with Fallwell, and won't have a dramatic affect on electability for either party. Proximity & influence are not distinguishing factors in differentiating the two relationships.


If I've got the gist of things correct, I fail to see why you're still going at each other. Neither of you is likely to convince each other (or anyone else) of your opinion.

myboynoah 03-17-2008 06:48 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by KiteRider (Post 199169)
We are a part of a church that encourages us to know our past. We march the trails that our ancestors marched to come out West. We visit Haun's Mill and Carthage with bowed heads and tear-filled eyes. We are moved by those stories and they are a part of our identity. Utah, where many of us call home, was the genius of our American Moses. Our culture and identity spring out of persecution and flight. In our private meetings, and for generations of temple attenders, these stories are/were told over and over again, becoming a deep part of who we are.

As Mormons we have some parts of our own history through which we can (if we dare) begin to appreciate the sensitivities of the black community. As a young child I recall a news story about a very old woman. She had been born into slavery. She was alive when I was alive. In my lifetime slavery was part of the living memory of some. When black families follow the prophet's advice, and explore their genealogy, they journey past trees covered in Strange Fruit and burning crosses. The black genealogist becomes a witness to government sanctioned terrorism, human experimentation (eugenics and exposure to disease) and subjugation.

How can black men and women honor and respect the memory of their ancestors without being angry?

For eighty years following the murder of Joseph, our ancestors swore blood oaths against the American government. Our ancestors moved to Utah when it wasn't even a U.S. territory. The trends of modern Mormon conservativeness, our lack of trust in the government, grow out of this history. Now take the Mormons' persecution and suffering and multiply that by thousands of lynchings and generations of public humiliation and a government that, in Reverend Wright's lifetime, sanctioned official segregation and discrimination.

In the Holy Temple, my great grandfather swore to avenge the murder of Joseph Smith. He swore to pray unceasingly to avenge the blood of the prophets upon this nation, and to teach that vengeance to his children and grandchildren. This is the history of our ancestors. I can understand it and sympathize with it. I am also glad that this hateful anti-America message was removed from our ceremonies. Thankfully I was born and raised in a day when the government's ire was not directed at my people. If not, and if I were running for public office, I might find myself in the same position as Obama today, or Senator Reed Smoot from our own history, forced to reject, denounce and deny my church's teachings.

One last note about the history of political activism in black churches. The tradition comes from the times of slavery, when slaves adopted their masters' religion and discovered that church was one of the few places they could speak openly about their situation. At church they would learn to sing together, and these hymns became the music that helped them endure their hardships. The lyrics were full of coded language, and they became a way for slaves to speak freely in front of their captors. Reverend Wright is part of a long important tradition of black activism in black churches. He is more American than apple pie. His anger is righteous, and his criticism is worth our consideration. We can't go about just ignoring major voices in our various American sub-cultures, or we risk shunning a potential Abinidai or Samuel.

I'm personally saddened that Obama felt that it was politically expedient to denounce his preacher.

A nice read and you make some interesting points.

As justified as black anger is, one takes a chance in how people will react to it. Martin Luther King understood this and appealed to the better parts of our beings and changed a nation. Rev. Wright doesn't and limits his reach. Who had a greater impact on paving the way for Obama's candidacy.

Perhaps Obama's association with his church was out of political expediency early on in his career, making denouncing his preacher a simple political calculation.

Tex 03-17-2008 06:59 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Spaz (Post 199204)
Just to see if I'm following this debate correctly...

Tex: Obama's close association with Wright will hurt his electability. His closeness to Wright is more damaging than McCain's association with Fallwell because of proximity & influence of Wright.

Cali: Obama & Wright's relationship is no better or worse than McCain's with Fallwell, and won't have a dramatic affect on electability for either party. Proximity & influence are not distinguishing factors in differentiating the two relationships.


If I've got the gist of things correct, I fail to see why you're still going at each other. Neither of you is likely to convince each other (or anyone else) of your opinion.

You've got the positions about right, I think. I'm not really "going at" Cali, nor trying to convince him (I don't think either one of us has succeeded at that in any topic over the months).

It's just a discussion.

Spaz 03-17-2008 07:18 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tex (Post 199216)
You've got the positions about right, I think. I'm not really "going at" Cali, nor trying to convince him (I don't think either one of us has succeeded at that in any topic over the months).

It's just a discussion.

Fair enough. I just get frustrated at times reading the same thing over & over again, without any headway being made....

UtahDan 03-17-2008 07:25 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Spaz (Post 199232)
Fair enough. I just get frustrated at times reading the same thing over & over again, without any headway being made....

Then what is appealing to you about internet message boards?

creekster 03-17-2008 07:26 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by UtahDan (Post 199242)
Then what is appealing to you about internet message boards?

LOL.


He likes to complain about things that will never change.

Spaz 03-17-2008 07:27 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by UtahDan (Post 199242)
Then what is appealing to you about internet message boards?

Many discussions go places. Politics & Religion discussions tend to not. I primarily go to boards for sports, but since things are pretty slow, I'm stuck lurking on the Politics board here.

Spaz 03-17-2008 07:28 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by creekster (Post 199246)
LOL.


He likes to complain about things that will never change.

I sure do. I LOVE to complain about Utah driver's lack of consideration & ability to know what is going on around them...

il Padrino Ute 03-17-2008 08:16 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Spaz (Post 199250)
I sure do. I LOVE to complain about Utah driver's lack of consideration & ability to know what is going on around them...

You are correct about Utah drivers' lack of consideration; however, they know what's going on around them. They just don't care what's going on around them - hence the lack of consideration.

Tex 03-18-2008 12:26 AM

Mark Steyn nails why this is an issue for people, specifically with Obama:

Quote:

“We nuked far more than the thousands in New York and the Pentagon, and we never batted an eye,” said the Reverend Wright. “We have supported state terrorism against the Palestinians and black South Africans, and now we are indignant because the stuff we have done overseas is now brought right back to our own front yards.”

Is that one of those “things I don’t always agree with”? Well, Senator Obama isn’t saying, responding merely that he wasn’t in church that morning. Okay, fair enough, but what would he have done had he happened to have shown up on September 16th? Cried “Shame on you!” and stormed out? Or, if that’s a little dramatic, whispered to Michelle that he didn’t want their daughters hearing this kind of drivel while rescue workers were still sifting through the rubble and risen from his pew in a dignified manner and led his family to the exit? Or would he have just sat there with an inscrutable look on his face as those around him nodded?

All Senator Obama will say is that “I don’t think my church is actually particularly controversial.” And in that he may be correct. There are many preachers who would be happy to tell their congregations “God damn America.” But Barack Obama is not supposed to be the candidate of the America-damners: He’s not the Reverend Al Sharpton or the Reverend Jesse Jackson or the rest of the racial-grievance mongers. Obama is meant to be the man who transcends the divisions of race, the candidate who doesn’t damn America but “heals” it — if you believe, as many Democrats do, that America needs healing.

Yet since his early twenties he’s sat week after week listening to the ravings of just another cookie-cutter race huckster.
It's really a question of judgment, and maybe a little of hypocrisy.

http://article.nationalreview.com/?q...BiNDVjMjU5MGQ=

exUte 03-18-2008 01:07 PM

What does Mitt's 'pastor' preach from
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by SoonerCoug (Post 198696)
McCain's pastor:


the pulpit?

exUte 03-18-2008 01:11 PM

Sure. You believe Obama? What's he supposed
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by SoonerCoug (Post 198708)
No. I'm just saying it's a little like going after Mitt Romney over Delbert Stapley.

I do believe that Obama is smarter and more reasonable than his pastor, and I believe Obama when he says that he completely disagrees with some of his pastor's statements.

I disagree with plenty of stuff I hear at Church, and I still attend. Haven't you ever had someone say something atrocious or racist from the pulpit? I admit that it's rare, but it does happen. We have less of a problem with racism than anti-gay bigotry.

Heck, we had a member of our stake presidency say that depression is a direct result of not having the spirit. That's pretty f-ed up, IMO.

to say, that he agrees with his pastor. Remember what his wife said recently........this was the only time in her life she was proud to be an American. Combine that with what the Pastor has been spewing.....sounds like Michelle definitely bought into that crap. I doubt it didn't rub off on Obama.


All times are GMT. The time now is 03:22 PM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.2
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.