ABC's Ross reported Wright's 9-11 remarks -- but not that Obama disavowed them
SUMMARY: On Good Morning America, ABC's Brian Ross reported on a 2001 sermon by Rev. Jeremiah Wright, former pastor of Sen. Barack Obama's church, in which Wright made controversial remarks regarding the 9-11 terrorist attacks. While Ross noted that Obama has said that Wright is "like an old uncle, who sometimes says things I don't agree with," at no point did Ross report that Obama has specifically disagreed with Wright's 9-11 remarks.
On the March 13 edition of ABC's Good Morning America, ABC News chief investigative correspondent Brian Ross reported that "[i]n his first sermon after September 11, 2001," Rev. Jeremiah Wright, former pastor of Sen. Barack Obama's church, Chicago's Trinity United Church of Christ, "said the U.S. had brought on the [9-11 terrorist] attacks with its own terrorism." Ross then aired a clip of Wright saying: "We bombed Hiroshima, we bombed Nagasaki, and we nuked far more than the thousands in New York and the Pentagon, and we never batted an eye. We have supported state terrorism against the Palestinians and the black South Africans, and now we are indignant. Because the stuff we have done overseas has now been brought back into our own front yard. America's chickens are coming home to roost." However, while Ross noted at the conclusion of his report that Obama has said that Wright is "like an old uncle, who sometimes says things I don't agree with," at no point did Ross report that when asked about Wright's 9-11 comments in particular, Obama reportedly said, "The violence of 9/11 was inexcusable and without justification."
The New York Times reported on April 30, 2007:
On the Sunday after the terrorist attacks of 9/11, Mr. Wright said the attacks were a consequence of violent American policies. Four years later he wrote that the attacks had proved that "people of color had not gone away, faded into the woodwork or just 'disappeared' as the Great White West went on its merry way of ignoring Black concerns."
Provocative Assertions
Such statements involve "a certain deeply embedded anti-Americanism," said Michael Cromartie, vice president of the Ethics and Public Policy Center, a conservative group that studies religious issues and public policy. "A lot of people are going to say to Mr. Obama, are these your views?"
Mr. Obama says they are not.
"The violence of 9/11 was inexcusable and without justification," he said in a recent interview. He was not at Trinity the day Mr. Wright delivered his remarks shortly after the attacks, Mr. Obama said, but "it sounds like he was trying to be provocative."
Later in the Good Morning America segment, during an interview with Obama campaign adviser and Christian ethics scholar Shaun Casey, co-anchor Chris Cuomo stated that Wright "is a man who says that America should be damned, that it is to blame for 9/11, that [Nation of Islam leader Louis] Farrakhan deserves an award for epitomizing greatness." In response, Casey noted that Obama has "repudiated those views." Indeed, in addition to disagreeing with Wright's remarks about 9-11, Obama also issued a statement disagreeing with the decision by Trumpet Newsmagazine, of which Wright is the CEO and founder, to give Farrakhan an award. The assertion that Farrakhan "epitomized greatness" was made by Trumpet Newsmagazine managing editor Rhoda McKinney-Jones in an article she wrote about the award; it was not made by Wright.
From the March 13 edition of ABC's Good Morning America:
[begin video clip]
ROSS: In his first sermon after September 11, 2001, Reverend Wright said the U.S. had brought on the attacks with its own terrorism.
WRIGHT: We bombed Hiroshima, we bombed Nagasaki, and we nuked far more than the thousands in New York and the Pentagon, and we never batted an eye. We have supported state terrorism against the Palestinians and black South Africans, and now we are indignant. Because the stuff we have done overseas has now brought right back into our own front yards. America's chickens are coming home to roost.
ROSS: Reverend Wright retired last month, but members of the church say he left a lasting impression on them and Senator Obama.
UNIDENTIFIED WOMAN: He spoke the truth, continues to speak the truth, and people can label that as "radical," but I think it's insightful.
UNIDENTIFIED WOMAN: No, I wouldn't call it "radical," I'd call it being black in America. It's not radical. How radical is that?
[end video clip]
ROSS: Reverend Wright declined to comment or appear on this program, as did Senator Obama. In his most recent appearance in Ohio, when he was asked about it, Senator Obama said that Reverend Wright was "like an old uncle, who sometimes says things I don't agree with" -- Chris.
[...]
CUOMO: But is there a responsibility as a candidate for president to associate yourself, certainly as a spiritual adviser, with ideas that are consistent with your campaign? Senator Obama saying his campaign's about moving away from divisive politics, from sniping and attacks, and then to say your spiritual adviser is a man who says America should be damned, that it is to blame for 9-11, that Farrakhan deserves an award for epitomizing greatness? Does that go together?
CASEY: I think he's repudiated that very clearly. If you had any evidence that, in fact, that Senator Obama had embraced those views, we would have seen that in the piece. But the fact that you didn't have any video of Senator Obama embracing those views; in fact, he's repudiated those views, I think it's very clear. I mean, it's interesting to me, you haven't vetted Hillary Clinton's pastor's sermons; you haven't vetted President Bush's pastor's sermons; you haven't vetted John McCain's pastor's sermons. So you're not holding them to that standard, which I think is very interesting.
CUOMO: And you believe that what the reverend has said doesn't go beyond the pale of what he preaches in terms of religion, it doesn't deserve any more scrutiny than that, it doesn't have anything to do with politics, this is just the media picking on Senator Obama?
CASEY: No, it's fair to ask those questions, but what -- you have to accept Senator Obama's answers, that he repudiates those specific political views on the three or four issues that you've outlined; and I think you have to take his word for that.
Not mention shrub's various religeous inspirations.
Casey seems to have his head on straight.
Kudos to Barack for aiming a few at McCaw. Be nice if Hillary joined in.
A who can cut John down the best contest is one I could get behind.
No, it's fair to ask those questions, but what -- you have to accept Senator Obama's answers, that he repudiates those specific political views on the three or four issues that you've outlined; and I think you have to take his word for that.
Right on, Casey.
Except for the fact that Obama hasn't reputiated anything Wright has said. An Obmama staff surrogate's heresay is all that is involved. The senator is remaining personally silent on his own, supposed, "repudiation" of the overtly militant racist Mr. Wright.
Face it, Obama has subjected himself to the strong influence of Wright's militant racist pulpit for TWENTY full years!!! And now he claims (via subordinate campaign staffer) to have "repudiated" Wright's message. I'll go out on a limb here and state my full faith in at least some of your being bright enough to see through that line of nonsense for the political scam it is.
MAG,
Your utter willingness to avoid topic/subject/ substance in deference to mincing words, focusing on semantics and other such trivialities is NOT laughable.... IT'S disturbingly sad.
(HINT #1: You missed my point.)
(HINT #2: Definition: Militant "Having an agressive or combative character especially on behalf of a cause.")
Suggestion: Don't sweat the little stuff, i.e. mincing words, focusing on semantics and other such trivialities.
Now, what were you saying?
(HINT #1: You missed my point.)
You couldn't find a point, Fact Finder, if you sat on it.
Do you feel better now? Waaaa.... boo hoo?
Obama has a long, visible history. Is there anything you can point to in his Harvard history, his time as a lawyer or his more than a decade as an elected official that indicates he has a "militant racist" agenda?
Do you think there's some subconscious brainwashing that has taken place? He's been programmed to act on Wright's more radical statements at some later date? Are you that paranoid?
Obama has never put forth any kind of statements or agenda that produce cause for concern relative to Wright's personal positions.
I'm not a nutcase paranoid delusional idiot who thinks Obama is a stealth agent of Wright. Are you?
The short answer is "No".
However can you think that after sitting and listening to that type of racist crap for over 20 years without getting up and walking out speaks to the level of influence the aforementioned racists crap must have on Obama, especially after 20 years of dutifully absorbing said racist crap?
As I've said before, dispite my disagreement with Obama's ideologies, I've maintained -- to this point anyway -- that Obama appears a nice guy. However, upon learning about the pastor's heavy influence on Obama, I have developed a really bad feeling towards the guy.
Hey, two weeks ago who would've looked at the Gov. of NY and thought he was hiding any deepseeded anti-social behaviors? Same could be said for Mark Foley, Bill Clinton, Jimmy Swaggart, Britney Spears. for that matter.
Paraniod? NO! Healthfully skeptical? You bet!
20 years of dutifully absorbing said racist crap?
How do we know what he's offered to be "absorbed" over those 20 years? For all we know, 98% of what Wright has said from the pulpit was scripture-based, uplifting and inspirational. I think it's reasonable to say that none of us in this forum really knows what he was preaching from week to week. All we have are some isolated, cherry-picked statements about one particular stunning moment in American history.
I couldn't care less what Obama's been exposed to over the years. I'm going to judge him entirely on his words and his actions. What Wright may or may not have said is almost entirely meaningless.
I couldn't care less what Obama's been exposed to over the years.
You're kidding right? Let me guess: modern day, progressive, liberal democrat? Couldn't care less what the president of the united states has been exposed to over the years! Are there many more like you at home? HELP!!!!!!!
Let's say a candidate grew up in an alcoholic household. If there are no signs of alcoholism I can disregard that. Say it was an abusive household. I can disgregard that. Let's say he grew up with parents who were members of the KKK. If he had as long an adult history as Obama and his personal principles appeared to go against that upbringing, I could still support him.
Obama has never provided the slightest hint of radical racist leanings. I'd need to have some solid reason to be concerned. Obviously you don't.
Fact,
My mother is a hard-core conservative Republican who has NEVER voted for a Democratic candidate. EVER. She watches Fox News, listens to Limbaugh and has some attitudes towards race in society that some would call controversial. I lived under her roof and have been within her area code for 26 of my 31 years.
However, I am a liberal, progressive democrat even though I have heard my mother's disdain and vitrol for my political philosophy and party for most of that time.
My mother and I are very close, just not politically. She was the reason I went to church even though we interpret the Bible very differently.
It is possible to be around someone for over 20 years, be exposed to them more than weekly and not pick up ALL of their sentiments, isn't it?
We're not talking about Obama's mother.
Here's a question for you. IF you, as an adult, were to meet someone whose ideologies were completely counter to your own, and that person owned and operated a church from which pulpit said person preached said unsavory ideologies, would you, as an adult, spend the next 20 years supporting that person, listening to that person, seeking that person's advice regarding said ideologies? Or would you find a different source of influence?
In the case of you and your mom you lived with together. Obama has not spent the past 20 years supporting this preacher while under duress, or under any such obligation.
Not an affective analogy.
None of us know enough about Wright to know what would be completely counter to his ideology. The echo chambers are focusing on a small number of statements on one topic. We have no idea what topics he preached on before or since. Wouldn't that be significant?
Fact,
My minister who I support very closely has much different political ideologies than I do. He has, however, been a great source of advice throughout my adult life in other areas. I have sought out his counsel and asked for advice at times during my adult life. I have supported him by going to his church. So, yes, I think if you claimed that I had the same political agenda as my minister, I would do what Obama did, disavow his political statements, but keep him in my life as a true mentor and friend.
Chris Cuomo stated that Wright "is a man who says that America should be damned, that it is to blame for 9/11...
Man, some people really get confused by a little straight talk. I'm not saying I think Wright's remarks were well thought out, but to translate them as damning America and blaming America for 9/11 is a little melodramatic.
I guess this happens to those who take criticism of our Government or military too personally, those groupthinkers who can't distinguish between individual Americans and the abstract America. Rather than objectively addressing problems with U.S. policy, the emotions kick in, the defenses go up, and the flag-waving eejits start drooling down their chins.
Kernal,
This is not the stuff of melodrama, he says that this attack coming to our shores are "our chickens coming home to roost".
P.S. Sorry about the chicken quote, I just can't respond to you without some derisive poultry comment!
PlowedConned, I don't believe you're even certified to perform "derisive".
I did see a clip tonight explaining where the "damning America" came from. Wright was referring to Blacks who might respond to being urged to sing "God Bless America" with "God Damn America". I'm a white guy who might pick that tune on certain days, so I'm not going to tell anybody else not to feel that way.
Although it would be easy. I could hold a little flag as I sang, only pausing to wipe the drool. PC, you've got something on your shirt.
Good morning Col.
Man, some people really get confused by a little straight talk. I'm not saying I think Wright's remarks were well thought out, but to translate them as damning America and blaming America for 9/11 is a little melodramatic.
Wright's remarks WERE well thought out. He's a church pastor. His "remarks" were delivered during a church worship service. Chuch pastors spend significant amounts of prayerful time and thought seeking God's guidance when composing their church messages and sermons. The only logical conclusion is that these words were definitely well thought out and planned.
Further, the full and obvious implication of said comments is and was that America deserved 9/11.
Not to sound disrespectful but your closing remarks are unrelated, empty, venomous, cutting, and diversionary in nature. They validated nothing.
Hi Facty. I never said Wright's remarks weren't thought out, just that they weren't well thought out. You went off into Dizzyland at that point.
And please don't ever worry about sounding disrespectful towards me. I would be concerned for my mental health if you respected me.
My closing remarks were brilliant, concise, relevant, and obviously a little on the nose.You just got your adjectives all mixed up.
COL,
Please note the following statement that I included in my previous comment includes the words "well thought out": "Wright's remarks WERE well thought out."
With that clarification stated, your moronic, masterbatory bit of mirror smooching was a bit off its intended mark. Wouldn't 'cha say!
Suggest you put your glasses back on and READ before ejaculating prematuraly, as you did before.
PS Respectfully, my anal sphincter.
hmmm... If you believe his remarks were well thought out, I have to conclude that you agree with him, which makes the rest of your original post pretty contradictory. I don't believe Wright's thinking was done very well.
Can I help you with anything else?
ps, Facty- could you keep the issue of my issue and your posterior tissue within the confines of your closeted fantasies? Kinda creepy.Thanks.
Operative word (that you conveniently overlooked, my liberal little blogwart) is "RESPECTFULLY".
In my original post (SEE ABOVE) I said some ridiculous closing comment regarding being respectful to you, upon which you promptly up-heaved that vomitus mass of your imaginary sense of civility, to which I closed my subsequent comment with "respectfully my anal sphincter." Note that I made that comment out of total respect for you, dearie. Plus I thought it sounded funny.
PS No fantasy where you're concern.
PSS You want "creepy"? Consider your apologetic approach to discussing Mr. Wright, the black militant radical racist who hides behind the pulpit from which to spit his racist vemon. Talk about "creepy"!
You're so funny! I bet you're a real hoot at parties.... like birthday parties... 4-year old's birthday parties, that is.
If you believe his remarks were well thought out, I have to conclude that you agree with him,
In which case you would be completely incorrect. My belief that his statement was well thought out was to say that Wright THOUGHT OUT what he was going to say, and knew what he was saying. Well thought out, as in well planned. I'm not agreeing with him at all and I'd expect you to be smart enough to have picked up on that bit of reality. But, then maybe I over estimated your level of gray matter activity.
which makes the rest of your original post pretty contradictory.
See above.
I don't believe Wright's thinking was done very well.
Slight variation on your original statement. However, you're obviously coming around. Keep moving toward the light of truth. It's over here to the right...
Can I help you with anything else?
At the moment, no. However in the event that I catch myself drifting toward the intellectual and moral chasm of modern day liberal thought, I'll give you a call.
"Well thought out, as in well planned"
I don't think they were planned very well. Are you realizing yet that you're arguing with your misinterpretation of my words? Good luck.
No. Are you realizing your grammatical incompetence causes same?
I made my points; I'll stick to them. I'd bet your childish insistence to focussing on trivialities must have given rise to a few wrist slaps and office visits for you back in jr high.
Move on, charlie...
American global trust has been betrayed by a militant minority of economic royalists in our government. It is our responsibility to replace them with humanitarians and public servants.
No suprise the hardline rightie FF knows nothing of genuine responsibility.
Whatever you say, buddy. Wright was speaking to the need for accountability and taking responsibility for the actions of our government.
No he wasn't. Go back and listen to his remarks. He didn't say anything resembling your innocence-of-the-driven-snow apologetic toilet bowl torpedo.
American global trust has been betrayed by a militant minority of economic royalists in our government.
What is an "economic royalist"?
It is our responsibility to replace them with humanitarians and public servants.
No, it's our responsibility to replace those who need to be replace with statesmen who believe in the wisdom of our founding fathers, as well as defending our constitution, the bill of rights, and our national security.
No suprise the hardline rightie FF knows nothing of genuine responsibility.
Awwwwww! Can we all have a virual group tree hug while the resident "hardline rightie" can gathers his composure and his nads that were kicked so brutally from his scrotal region....? <sniff>
Whew... that's better! Thanks. Jezt, wo bin ich? Ah yes.... What have you to say about my sense of responsibility? At least I know how to enquire and gather information on current events while remembering to kick the bias from my boots. Plus I certainly know how to distinquish truth from opinion, and that from sheer and utter nonsense and poppycock... You know, like that pointless little hemorrhoidal flare-up that manifested itself as your closing remark.... <snicker>
Conservatives have repeatedly exercised poor judgment because they refuse to accept responsibility. Whether it's expressed in the horror of the Katrina aftermath, the public betrayal that is the Iraq occupation or poisoned Chinese toys reaching our children; conservative will not accept responsibility for their failure to question their sneering assumptions about the way the world and our government ought to work. You guys lack vigor, you have no new ideas, y'all barely have the strength to argue your principles anymore. It's all just bluster.
Also,
Economic roayalists = oilmen = ceo's = moguls
It's time to take back our government and restore, just as our founding fathers prescribed, our country's proud traditions of equality of justice and opportunity, the right to privacy, the freedom of principled dissent, the rule of law and the patriotic act of citizens, not corporations, working to form a more perfect union.
Another thought - If alive today what would Jesus Christ the "Prince of Peace" say about the bombing of Hiroshima?
I can promise you he wouldn't claim that the words "God damn America" are in the Bible. And he wouldn't promote racism and calling people "nigger", and refering to the US as the "US of KKK-america", and other such CRAP!
Perhaps this is the context in which a Christian pastor prepares his sermons.
Yea, and perhaps same could be implied -- equally preposterously -- for the KKK, white supremist racist bonehead who spit his racist CRAP from the pulpit. YEA RIGHT!
These remarks got HUGE play on RWR (right wing radio) today, the talking points repeated all day long. He certainly did not say "America deserved 9/11," but that's apparently the narrative that's been developed.
I am always curious as to how these attacks are so in lock step- the hate radio crowd, the networks, all played this today, when these remarks and videos have been out there for years. How did it get decided to launch this today? Does anyone have the backstory as to these so obviously carefully orchestrated attacks?
I disagree. That has been a huge part of this entire discussion which began with one apologist defending Wright by claiming he hadn't outright STATED America deserved 9/11. I clarified this point.
Definitely warranted.
Go up a few posts and read the following:
These remarks got HUGE play on RWR (right wing radio) today, the talking points repeated all day long. He certainly did not say "America deserved 9/11," but that's apparently the narrative that's been developed.
I am always curious as to how these attacks are so in lock step- the hate radio crowd, the networks, all played this today, when these remarks and videos have been out there for years. How did it get decided to launch this today? Does anyone have the backstory as to these so obviously carefully orchestrated attacks?
Your boy, watershed, made this out to be some sort of unfounded right-wing radio conspiracy; AND that Wright has not SAID America deserved 9/11.... My comment followed that that was missing the general point because Wright DID IMPLY that America deserved 9/11.
I am intellegent enough to be able to note that although a person does not outright SAY something, the IMPLICATION is fully within the speaker's context and the implied message (not fully, openly stated) is quite obvious! In this case that was true. I merely made that distinction. But if you want to continue to waste your own brain inventing more mosquito-like buzzing sounds that are meant to be taken as following the conversation, then enjoy yourself.
I hate to disappoint, everyone, but I'm logging off. Enjoy...
Have you actually taken the few minutes to review the man's actual words? I'm sorry; that was a stupid question, wasn't it?
Here see for yourself: http://abcnews.go.com/Blotter/story?id=4443788&page=1
By the way, this is the second time I've posted this link today.
"By the way, this is the second time I've posted this link today."
Congrats!
PS: Did the black man scare you *both* times?
PS: Did the black man scare you *both* times?
I owe you an apology, dont I? I actually thought that you were seriously engaging in this conversation. Sorry! Won't make that mistake again.
Note to self: No more comments back to the gov'na.
Good Lord. He never said "deserved", or implied it.
You misspelled "intelligent".
Negligent? Interesting in a conspiratorail sort of way.
No black helicopters here... just cold hard facts:
http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/04/10/august6.memo/index.html
There was intelligence suggesting bin laden was going to strike the US. This was first known in 1998. The media gripe about this was that the government had not informed the public on this. Is it a mere coincidence that the context of the word "government" in this complaint is always used in the sense so as to implicate the Bush administration, even though this was known back in the 90's?
Well, back in 1998 and 1999 and 2000 what are you saying that Bill Clinton should have done about it? Tell us all to panick and run away?
Likewise, what would you have had Bush do about it?
This is old news, but it does seem to creep its way back into discussion. Finally, what does this have to do with Obama's racist preacher?
If you can actually listen to his statements and not hear that he was in fact saying America deserved it, then you should have your ears checked. Example: I did not SAY that your hearing is bad; or that you seem to be missing an obvious point. But I DID openly and obviously IMPLY those things. As such, you could state that I said you need to have your hearing checked...
Very very much that very same element of communication. You are getting hung up on legalistics and semantics that could be argued in court before a judge. But within the context of the common rules and understanding of communication, such arguments are apologetic bias.
Ooooohhhhhhh !
He never said America deserved 9/11 - he implied America deserved 9/11.
Ooooohhhhhhh !
PS: I did not say you're leery of black men who talk too loud.
Watershed,
You know I support Obama, I have not definitely decided I will vote for him as he is not even the nominee yet, but he is very attractive as a candidate and I intend to give him fair consideration if given the choice.
That being said, this issue is now becoming more than just a Hannity, rightwing radio gotcha irritant for Obama. It is now being covered in the mainstream press and people are going to hear about it, and they are going to expect Obama's response. In my opinion, he needs to be forcefull and clear about his denounciation of this wacky, off the wall pastor. I don't condemn Obama for his words, but he can't ignore it, or send his spokespeople out to distance himself from Wright. If he wants to silence this entire dustup he needs to be honest, forthright and firm in his statements......I have faith the American people will respect that, reject the "guilt by association" accusations, and accept Obama at his word.
I sincerely hope this doesn't derail the Obama campaign, if the Clinton antics lately have shown us one thing, it's that we need to get past the nasty divisiveness of politics..........Hannity and the rest will be there to smear and divide, can't help that - but combat that with truth, honesty and character, and they will not succeed. I believe.
Understood. I agree that some reaction is deserved and the best thing for him to do. I imagine it's forthcoming.
My question was more about the timing. I listened to the openers from a number of different RWR outlets that day, and they ALL had the same clips and the same responses (the "this is OBVIOUSLY what he believes!!" nonsense). I mean literally the same narrative. And I truly wonder how this works. Who decides that this was the story to run with, and how does it get to the RWR, and then the networks? How are these attacks manifested? It scares me, quite literally scares me, the force of the orchestration.
I think he'll have to do something. He may have said something in the past, but this has fresh legs, and is being run HARD right now. It's definitely in his best interest to hit this one head on.
Terrifying, but I think the right thinks they've found their swift boat meme, and they are rubbing their hands with glee.
and has been the senator's "spiritual advisor" and current campaign advisor.
Now, we know why Michelle Obama has never found much to be proud of and why Obama refuses
to follow accepted etiquette when it comes to the Pledge and the flag.
Your fake outrage makes no sense especially when presented with a Keith Olbermann-like, overwrought style.
The connections between warmonger and apocalypse cheerleader John Hagee scare me more than any connection between Wright and Obama. Obama has disavowed comments, what do you want him to do?
Ready to invade Iran, Genghiz? Are you volunteering?
To the contrary Schlong,
Mr. GENGHITZ pretty well nailed it! Your style of commenting is most heavily dominated to a substantial degree by sub-human Rosie-esque insults that amount to nothing more than vocalized fecal-smears that bear very little resemblance to civilized discussion or even the tiniest element thereof.
"sub-human Rosie-esque insults that amount to nothing more than vocalized fecal-smears that bear very little resemblance to civilized discussion"
Such as....
"Schlong"
...sub-human Rosie-esque...
Tell me, Fact Finder - how badly do your knuckles drag on the floor when you walk on your hind legs? Or have you not yet mastered that skill?????
Tell me, Fact Finder - how badly do your knuckles drag on the floor when you walk on your hind legs? Or have you not yet mastered that skill?????
Not at all, and therefore not BADLY at all. But thanks for asking. Hey wait a minute.... Did you say "knuckles" and "drag" in the same sentence? I am as breathless as I am speechless -- well almost -- at your ability to actually put these two silly little liberal wank-job words into an overused insinuated reference whose foolish, pre-K-level meaning is that any person who disagrees with a modern day liberal democrat must be a "NUC-KLE-D-RAG-GING Rushketeer! That is quite the impressive mental trick. Hey, did you learn that during or after your backwards slide into the chasm of Marxist-liberalist intellectual wastelands so often celebrated by the politically intellectually stunted among us?
Get in step with the millions already dead, in the service of their country!
So how about that Mr. Smarty pants communist,Mr Monday morning cornerback,Mr.Wheelchair General,psssst!
Are you gomma be there when America comes a nock nock nocking on your backdoor?
"Greetins from The President of The United States!"
Its all the FST's fault I swear! 80$
Eweston,
I can tell by the color of your tie
that you're an American.
Well, so am I!
High bub, howdy, How do you do.
And while we're on the subject.
And while we're on the subject!
How's the old wazoo!
Thanx Mescal.
shoes for industry.
shoes for the dead.
All hail Marx and Lennon (Groucho and John)
Obama said the pastor 'was trying to be provocative".
No, Obama. He was trying to say what he believed about 9-11.
In a fair world, This part where Obama tries to excuse Wright's behaviour would be cherry-picked and magnified in the press. But it's not a fair world. It's a world in which the media roots for Barack Obama.
The media doesn't have the time or inclination to root for Obama. They are far too busy heralding McCain's apparent flip flops as Straight Talk.
C'mon, man... pay attention.
There continues to be a problem with anti-Semitism in the black community, but believe me it used to be much worse.
Senator Obama is part of a younger generation of black leaders who are going beyond the old anti-Semitic attitudes.
You're kidding, right?
He can agree with another person on some things, and disagree on other things, and still associate with that person. The rules say that you don't need to put your hand over your heart for the national anthem. You sing, if you wish, and you don't clap at the end. And he's objecting to the hypocrites who were wearing the flap lapel but not being loyal and patriotic American, so he's not wearing one - it's the hypocrites who ruined the wearing of the flag pin.
Blonde,
You certainly managed to completely sidestep L's point entirely, didn't you? (Not to worry, your secret is safe with me...)
Maybe because Longo's post was filled with lies and distortions. Obama was 'associated' with Rezko, OK. Hillary is 'associated' with about 100 people who are worse than Rezko. 'Blame-America-First' is not an ideology, but personal accountability is. (those were the distortions)
The lies were that he 'refused' to wear a flag pin or put his hand over his heart. Those statements are inherently false.
did you read the post? Or are you just here for the comments?
He wasn't even there that day...the pastor's comments were dumb, but Obama didn't "subject his children to them." Obama didn't even subject himself to them.
MM(vl) drops about 2 minutes of the beginning of the video. I know that the goofball from Texas that supports McCain is a connection that is brought up here and rightfully so. Why accept the support of someone who expouses a theology far different from your own? That is something that McCain should be willing to do. However, I'm not sure that minister was ever McCain's pastor.
Obama should have to answer why for 20 years he chose to sit under this man's ministry. It's one thing to advocate for a candidate but another to hear what Jeremiah Wright preached every Sunday.
I know many of you fear the links we 'wingnutz' we place here, but I would encourage to watch since MM(vl) has conveniently edited some important claims that ABC reports on.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zWvxTUy47Fk
PC,
What do you think of McCain calling Rod Parsley a "spiritual advisor?"
Colonel and fryboy,
I think there is a difference between an endorsement, or seeking one, and attending, joining, supporting, getting married in and baptizing children in a mentor's church.
I don't think McCain is a card carrying member of this guy's church. Whether or not he should be seeking this kind of support is another matter. I wish all religious institutions and leaders kept to the business that God has given and stay away from the filth of politics.
Well, Proudcon, I'll assume that ,since you took 7 or 8 lines to avoid answering Fried's question, that I was right- nobody has told you what to think yet.
But then , I would have been pretty surprised if you had answered.
"This contradicts the message of inspiration, hope and ultimately, peace that anyone I've been aware of would seek during a service which the message and example of Christ would be presented."
I'd say about half the churches I've ever been to (and I've been to quite a few) preach this message. The other half are fire and brimstone, bringing down the house bible-thumpers.
And I seem to remember in 2004, pastors kicking parishioners out of their church because they said they were voting for Kerry.
hmm...
G2,
What do you think of Dobson, Robertson, Hagee and Parsley?
panfluteguy,
The problem is not what Jeremiah Wright said, is as much as Obama's choice to remain under this man's ministry. This is what Obama needs to explain.
SOLON "I have gone to plenty of churches where I TOTALLY disagreed with my pastors political views. They are entitled as Americans to think whatever they want about politics. I dont GO to Church for the politics and hold my nose and tolerate it when its tossed out there. It seems reasonable to me Obama might do the same. He disavowed the remarks. YOU might think he needs to do more. I dont."
So, was that the year you were running for President of the United States and had your pastor, the one who you TOTALLY disagreed with his political views, a major advisor on your campaign? You know, Obama is trying to convince this country that he can hold the highest political office we have. It's not unreasonable for us to hold him to a higher standard than we hold you to. He's got a really close relationship with this man, and we don't just have a right, we have an obligation to find out all we can about the influence Wright has on Obama. What if Obama plans to put Wright somewhere in his Cabinet should he be elected?
If you were a full, heavily supportive, highly involved, personally engaged member of a church where the pastor spouted off this type of racist hate speech, and your pastor were white, AND you were running for the office of president of our US, THEN I can promise you this issue would enter into the theater of public discussion and for darn good reason, I will add.
Otherwise, this has nothing to do with your church experiences.
Get with the program, Moronic Conservative.
Look at the bold text at the top of this page. You'll see the following text:
Rev. Jeremiah Wright, former pastor of Sen. Barack Obama's church....
FORMER pastor, Lame-Brained Conservative - FORMER!!! That means that Rev. Wright is NO LONGER BARACK OBAMA'S PASTOR.
(If you have trouble comprehending this, let me know and I'll type it slower for you....)
Wiz, former pastor or not Wright currently serves on Obama's African-American Religious Leadership Committee.
If one is going to get all over Hillary because of Geraldine Ferraro's remarks & insist she step down from her minor role in Hillary's campaign, then shouldn't the same standards be applied to Obama?
Sorry, but unless Obama quickly & decisively denounces Wrights remarks & cuts all ties with this divisive pastor, I for one would have a difficult time even considering him for President.
Sorry, but unless Obama quickly & decisively denounces Wrights remarks & cuts all ties with this divisive pastor, I for one would have a difficult time even considering him for President.
Whether you agree with jeremiah Wright or not, he DOES have a right to state his opinions - that's what "Freedom of Speech" is all about.
Why is no one demanding that John McCain distance himself from that known hate merchant, televangelist John Hagee????? Why are people getting so upset over this NON-ISSUE?????
Why are people getting so upset over this NON-ISSUE?????
Why? Maybe because mainstream America is distrustful of black people with Afrocentric views. This kind of stuff scares the living sh8t out of some people...but, of course, these are the same people who are frightened by anything not considered traditional mainstream.
"Why is no one demanding that John McCain distance himself from that known hate merchant, televangelist John Hagee?????"
John McCain, I demand that you distance yourself from that known hate merchant, televangelist John Hagee!!!!!
So there!
easywriter,
i think there is a difference between an endorsement and sitting in the pew for 20 years or so, having married you and baptizing your children.
there needs to be some kind of separation between Obaman and his minister's views and it is up to Barak to do that. He also needs to see that this isn't anything near mainstream America and in fact is why many question his and his wife's view of this country.
As Solon explained so well, Obama might agree with his former pastor's religious views while condemning and rejecting his pastor's political views.
The former pastor is a religious advisor, not a political advisor.
As Solon also said, just because the pastor and Obama agree on some issues doesn't mean that they are in synch on every issue, and therefore Obama shouldn't be tarred with all of his former pastor's outrageous political views.
this is obama's spiritual advisor, he is a racist hate monger. Obama said he picked the church because he wanted a church that shared his values and beliefs, he has been attending for 20 years this minister baptised his children, performed his marraige he went for spritiual moments b4 announcing his candidacy. If hillary had david duke for a spiritual advisor the media would crucify her. His advisor say god damn america, his wife says its the first time she has felt good about america. He sits in a congregation and stays for 20 years and said that this minister was the inspiration for the audacity of hope. The media stinks and is very unfair. America will not elect a pastor and spiritual advisor that reminds them of president al sharpton and president jessie jackson. What do we really know about obama with friends like rezko and william the bomber of the 70's and rev jeremiah wright and lets not forget michelle's radical thesis
good going america john (mcsame) mccain and the right wing machine will eat this guy alive.
"America's chickens are coming home to roost."
I don't know if anyone else caught this but the reference to chickens coming home to roost harkens back to the public statements of Malcolm X, Luis Farrakhan's predecessor at the Nation of Islam, immediately after the assassination of JFK, another violent national calamity, when he used essentially the exact same words.
Unfortunately, I think Wright could be a bigger problem for Obama in the general election...if Obama gets the nomination, as he most likely will. At some point Obama is going to have address the situation in greater detail, more than just rejecting Wright's comments, and calm the fears of voters who are disturbed by Wright...and the sooner the better.
Seeing as Rev. Wright is now retired and no longer Barack Obama's pastor, I don't think his sermons are the issue that the right-wing wackos are making it out to be.....
Last sentence should read: Obama is going to have to deal with this situation with greater depth and clarity.
Sorry...
Obama's relationship with Wright, or even by some of Wright's comments, this will definitely bother a lot of people who would otherwise be sitting on the fence looking for a reason not to vote for McCain. Obama is going to have this situation with greater depth and clarity.
Irony,
Wright currently serves on Obama's African-American Religious Leadership Committee. This tie should be cut ASAP.
I'm not planning on voting for McCain & doubt anything would change my mind, however even though I've been considering Hillary, I also figured that if Obama won the nomination I could see myself getting on board. Now I'm not too sure about that.
Where, and or HOW has Pastor Wright been racist? Please, show us where he has been racist, and called for the separation of the races, and other things like that. I know you can't provide an example, because they dont' exist.
Now about this little tirade he came off with post 9/11. There are many terrorist experts in the world today that agree that 9/11 was caused by the tilt and movement of American foreign policy, along with our coziness with what the terrorists call apostate regimes in the middle east. They didn't just do it because they "hate our freedom" as we keep being told. No. They attacked us because of our foreign policies. Pro Israel, sanctions against Afghanistan, sanctions against Iraq, sanctions against Iran, buddy buddy with Saudi Arabia, American troops on their holy land, and so on and so forth. You should really read up on this stuff, and or actually LISTEN to what the terrorists are saying. It's no mystery why we were attacked, they told us why. Wright was actually correct in his chickens coming home to roost analogy in this case, mostly because they were, and did, unfortunately.
You might want to educate yourself a little more.
Orangeblossom,
Not racist? Have you heard or seen the full clip from abc news, not the shortened version MM(vl) placed in the blog? It is much more than just a little tirade after 9/11.
Please check it out flower, I have come to expect so more of you.
http://abcnews.go.com/Video/playerIndex?id=4443230
very insightful.
I hadn't seen this full clip before or noticed that there was a repeated pattern with the pastor. This certainly does scare me. I don't like feeling a uncertainty about the true intentions of a person I am going to vote into office.
I am surprised that this type of information was not presented earlier. If it had been I feel that Obama might not be in the position he is in now.
Then again, even in the full version of the clip it only showed briefs moments of him talking, and the newsanchor explained what he was saying without letting the clip run. To be fair I did happen to see a clip of him saying "not God bless America, God damn America" and him blaming the the problems of black youth on the government for building bigger prisons to hold more people (blacks?, the commentator says he is talking about black people, and all the people in the crowd are black, so maybe its fair to assume hes talking about blacks, but from what I hear he doesn't say that directly). He also says that the government gives them the drugs to sell that inadvertantly put them in the prisons and only gives them 2 chances to stop selling those drugs before they are in there for life (three strike law).
These ideas are extreme in themselves and come to a single conclusion about a whole multitude of problems that can be explained for many more reasons then the government.
Just a hint of logic. Assuming that the government actually gives them the drugs to sell, does that somehow make it right? If the government hands out guns does it make it right for people to go out and shoot other people with them? Those people have a choice to throw those drugs and guns away.
Obama responds by saying his church isn't particularly contraversial and then another clip rolls about him him saying "and they will not only try to attack you if you point out whats going on in white america--the US of KKK A."
Hard to believe that the forerunner for unity goes to a church, and has been going to that same church for 20 years, that speaks so highly of division. To further call his church uncontraversal is mind boggling. What to Mr. Obama is contraversal if not having deep associations with a this man?
Hillary is definately the lesser of 2 evils now.
Futher investigation into this repeated pattern of racist statements need to be made and put out into the public, I sure hope they will be.
Look for the selling of those sermons to cease by tomorrow.
Chris,
I would encourage your righty friends to listen to all of the sentiments put forth by Wright, not just the sound clips put on the news. Then, I would encourage them to not only research Obama's quotes on the man, but also the policies that Obama has voted for, advocated for and stands for. If you and your friends have the deep political discussions that my friends and I do, that should be an interesting topic.
After that discussion is done, ask your righty friends what they think of John Hagee and McCain's embrace of his endorsement. Ask the tough questions of them as I would expect them to do of you. Does McCain, who has embraced this endorsement want war with Iran? Is McCain anti-Catholic? If your friends are of a draftable age, do they want to serve in McCain's "more wars"?
If they are concerned about Wright, ask them about McCain's embrace of Rod Parsley. McCain, according to the link at the end of my post, has called Parsley a "spiritual advisor." He appeared at a rally with the man in Columbus. Parsley has called on Christians to "wage a 'war' against the 'false religion' of Islam with the aim of destroying it."
The bottom line is that both candidates have a few "allies" who are questionable. Personally, I would never vote for the one who has two advisors who 1) want to attack a much larger and powerful country than the two we are involved with now, and 2) wants to eradicate the largest religion on earth. Wright says outrageous things, no doubt, but which advisors scare you more?
If your friends are concerned by Wright's soundbites that much, ask them to look into their own candidates friends if they are fair and honest people politically. If they refuse to, they wouldn't vote for Obama anyway.
http://www.motherjones.com/washington_dispatch/2008/03/john-mccain-rod-parsley-spiritual-guide.html
Fried,
Let's not forget that President Bush has James Dobson on speed dial, and consults him about things such as, Supreme Court nominations, and who would be acceptable to him as a nominee for such an important position and all. Not to mention that President Bush has also had private lunches with just about every right wing talk show host you can name. Boortz, Limbaugh, Hannity, Carlson et all, have been invited to the White House to commune with the commander in chief several times since he took office, and I don't see anyone screaming about how that's bad (well, people from the right that is). Why is that? Is it because IOKIYAR? Most likely, yes.
Now, if we look at a lot of liberals and lefties, we see people who can call BS on things that are BS regardless of who is spouting them. We don't immediately defend and deflect like right wingers tend to do a lot of the time, at least in my opinion. I've heard right wingers on other bulletin boards that I frequent actually DEFEND Mark Foley back when that whole thing blew up. I heard people defend him, because those pages were just trying to lure him in. Yeah, OK. I mean, that man's colleagues tried to defend him as well, until they realized it was mission impossible.
The thing is, with the folks on here decrying Wright, they don't look inward, as you suggest, and see who advises their political peeps. They won't do it either. Because as you suggested, and something I agree with, the people who truly and rightly scare me, are the religious wingnuts who advise McCain. Who advise Bush, and who advise a lot of republicans.
Mag,
Great post and I agree completely. I think those who are most up in arms over Obama's supposed religious views which seem, in their minds, to be represented in Reverend Wright and Farrakhan owe Obama, and frankly the country, a second look. This is the most important election I can remember and if they are giving Obama a religious test, how do they feel about Bush's inner circle (as you said) and the one McCain is gathering.
It HAS to be done for both men at this point. I personally fail to see how Rev. Wright is scarier than Hagee or Parsley. Could someone please explain?
As I said, good post Mag!
Fried,
I wouldn't call any of them scary. As a matter of demographics, Rev. Wright's America-hate words are far more inflamatory to all Americans in general in my opinion. They are on the front page right now.
In a perfect world it might be that the right-wing ministers are scarier, but this is not a perfect world. They for the most part have slipped under the radar. Rev. Wright is currently being tracked. Many Americans are not used to seeing the type of rhetoric that Rev. Wright espouses. His words run diametrically opposite of Obama's campaign of unifying and change. It is in my opinion a major setback for Obama in November to be associated with this minister.
Let's ask this question.
Would you rather have his words out front and in front of everyone to see like they are? Or would you rather have crazed right wing religious leaders hiding in the background and able to wheel and deal, and change things around in this administration with their influence and deal making?
I'd rather have Wright out front blasting away. The religious right hide in the shadows, and wield incredible influence still over republican candidates.
Mags,
I'm with you. Have it right out front for all the world to see.
"I wouldn't call any of them scary. As a matter of demographics, Rev. Wright's America-hate words are far more inflamatory to all Americans in general in my opinion. They are on the front page right now." (AA)
AA, you would not call Parsley's call for Islam to be eradicated scary? Did Wright call for the dissolution of the United States? Did Wright call the largest denomination of Christianity anti-Semitic and claim Hitler got his inspiration from the Catholic church? The only reason his rhetoric is on the front page is that the media made it a story. Why are Wright's words, in your opinion, more inflammatory to all Americans than the statements made by Hagee and Parsley? Hagee connects to far more people than Wright does.
In a perfect world it might be that the right-wing ministers are scarier, but this is not a perfect world. They for the most part have slipped under the radar. (AA)
They have only slipped under the radar because the American media, for whatever reason, has allowed that to happen.
Rev. Wright is currently being tracked. Many Americans are not used to seeing the type of rhetoric that Rev. Wright espouses. His words run diametrically opposite of Obama's campaign of unifying and change. It is in my opinion a major setback for Obama in November to be associated with this minister.
And Obama has disavowed those words. Do you not take him at his word?
What is scarier to you, AA:
1) A candidate who has disavowed divisive words from a preacher OR
2) A candidate who has embraced the endorsement of one preacher who openly has advocated for war with Iran AND the same candidate embracing a preacher who is opening calling for war on Islam?
Which one scares you more? Why?
Fried,
I admit I haven't followed up on the writings or preachings of the ministers you have illustrated. By what your write, each of those statements is equally objectionable in my mind.
As I said, the ministers don't scare me. I don't think anyone in power takes their views on Islam or Iran seriously. I certainly don't.
I don't know exactly what their congregations number, but my guess is they number far less than 100,000. I wonder how many of their congregations agree with their political or biggoted statements. We know Obama says he doesn't.
I think there is a difference worth noting. Politicians seek many endorsements from a wide variety of people. Obviously they don't believe everything the endorser believes. Obama's problem is that this hate speech is coming from his minister, whom he has faithfully attended these past 20 years. It puts him much closer to the source than McCain. There has never been, as far as I know, a repudiation of Rev. Wright's speeches by Obama until this campaign. Heck, up till the night before, Rev. Wright was going to say a prayer at Obama's announcement for presidency. You'll have to admit that Obama's relationship with Wright is much stronger than McCain's acceptance of an endorsement by those other two ministers.
The pronouncements by each of these ministers is troubling in my book.
AA,
There is one big difference here: Obama has disavowed and distanced himself from Wright's comments. McCain has done nothing of the sort or even been questioned about Hagee or Parsley.
As far as their followings go, Hagee has a mega church of 19,000 and the President and CEO of his ministiries which are broadcast on 160 TV stations, 50 radio stations and is carried in Canada, Africa, Australia and New Zealand
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Hagee
As far as Parsley goes, read for yourself:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rod_Parsley
Until this campaign, when would Obama have denounced him? No one had ever heard of Rev. Wright before this.
Obama has denounced Wright's speeches, Hagee has an audience that Wright could only dream of!
Are you calling for McCain to distance himself?
I agree, Obama is probably much closer to Wright, but his statements pale in comparison to those made by Hagee and Parsley, don't you agree?
Pale in comparison? funny.
No I don't agree. I think they are all equally objectionable.
Yes, Mr. McCain should distance himself from Hagee and Parsley.
So, Hagee blaming the Catholic Church for Hitler and Parsley wanting a war to extinguish Islam are the same as Wright to you? Did Wright call for the deaths of millions as Parsley has?
I trust that you will hold McCain as accountable as you are holding Obama here.
Hi Chris,
Parsley wants full scale war on Islam and McCain made an appearance with him according to the link I posted.
I listened to Laura Ingraham on the way into work, she had Byron York on discussing how the Repubs could use all of this stuff- Obama's being surrounded by "America-haters"- but they have to be very careful not to have it seen as racist.
They repeated all of the things that we've been seeing in the media( and from several posters here); Wright said "America deserved 9/11", Michelle O's "radical college paper", the flag pin and pledge of allegiance propaganda.
I know a lot of it will backfire on the right, but this very thread has a few examples of our fellow Americans who are swallowing exactly what the GOP media is feeding them.
Just curious.
Because some bright folks consider it unpatriotic to blame America, or even insinuate or suggest blame, for anything whatsoever. The crowd that says: UAS! USA! USA!...
Obama would not get their vote anyway. However, there are people on the fence that Obama doesn not need to risk alienating.
Yes, I said pins. I'll be damned if I'll let someone question my patriotism. I've got eighteen of them on today. I usually wear thirty-six, but I'm only feeling half as patriotic as usual.
It beats my US Flag wrapped sombrero which I wear with a Lou Dobbs for President T-Shirt.
Worrier,
I guess we can lapel you as patriotic!
Unfortunately Obama's refusal to wear an American flag pin is symbolic of his war views and in addition, his view regarding America. He is entitled to his opinion, I don't have any qualm about that. It sends a message, rightly or wrongly, to many, that he is not proud of the United States.
A presidential candidate does many things that are purely symbolic. Attending parades, showing up after weather disasters, having honorary committee members, etc. to convey one message or another.
Obama's refusal to wear a flag conveys his anti-war views but also falls into his Pastor's G*dam America tirade, and his wife's, "for the first time proud to be an American" comment to form an overall view by others that Obama is not patriotic. (Others undoubtedly will disagree.) I am saying the symbolism carries a powerful message that does not help his campaign. Many Americans expect our leader to be our #1 defender of our country, even with all its flaws. Those little symbols, like wearing a lapel pin flag are very conspicuous when they are absent.
IT'S JUST A PIN! AND IT MEANS - NOTHING...
Anyway, according to the VFW standards for the American flag, they suggest that lapel pins are attire, and attire made from the American flag is verbotten, and it's taken as a sign of dis-respect for the flag.
There are many highly super patriotic people in the United States, and guess what? None of them wear a stupid lapel pin. It's called wrapping yourself in the flag for the benefit of appearance. Look at his actions, not what he's wearing. But hey, if you wouldn't vote for someone because they are not wearing a lapel pin, you weren't going to vote for him anyway.
Lapel pins are as stupid as yellow ribbon magnets people stuck, or stick on their cars.
Mag,
I don't disagree with a thing you say except that the symbolism of a presidential candidate making a point of not wearing this pin stands out symbolically by its absence.
I for one do not feel the need to wear the flag although I do enjoy putting my flag out on national holidays.
Who knows, maybe more people will vote for Obama because he doesn't wear the pin. Is it political courage or simply picking the wrong battle and sending the wrong message. Everyone is free to judge for themselves.
True, true.
Here's the thing though. He didn't wear one before he started running for President, and if he were to pin one on now, it would appear he would be doing it, as I said, for appearance only.
As others have said, some of the folks who wave the flag the hardest lately (and wear their properl lapel pins such as Bush, Cheney, et all), have been the ones trampling on the flag, and the Constitution the most.
Anyway, as I said, there are plenty of people who are uber patriotic, they don't need a pin to show it to everyone. I feel secure with Obama, and his political positions, and I also feel comfortable with his non pin wearing attitude, or choice as it were.
The flag pin really bothers me. Many of those who wear it and wave it refused to serve under it. That says more about them then anyone who doesn't .
AA,
The pin has to be a non-issue. Patriotism does not appear on a lapel, it appears in your actions.
Would these former flag officers in the military endorse a non-patriot?
http://my.barackobama.com/page/community/post/samgrahamfelsen/gGBTgn
Have you ever been to his website? He believes in this country!
"Unfortunately Obama's refusal to wear an American flag pin is symbolic of his war views and in addition, his view regarding America." (Anotheramerican)
Why is that "unfortunate"? Are you assuming everybody has the same prejudices you do? In your mind,what does not wearing a pin tell you about a person's opinion of the war and America?
This is an interesting post by you, AA. First you characterize Obama not wearing a pin as a "refusal" (I believe Sean Hannity refers to it that way as well), then you use quotation marks around a statement from Michelle Obama that you have omitted a word from. The same word omitted by most in the media. Coincidence?
What I'm getting at is this; It's pretty hard to take your analysis and commentary on the media as anything but ridiculous when you constantly demonstrate that you've been completely suckered by the most obvious and biased propaganda that this site addresses.
Col.,
I quoted Michelle Obama from memory. My aplogies. What was the missing word? Why didn't you post the more accurate since you decided to call me on it? Sounds rather nitpicky to me.
How can I take you seriously when you snipe at minor typos while ignoring the gist of my post? :-)
Actually, I am just kidding. You can take or leave my opinion as you wish. I do enjoy the conversations and discussions. It would be boring if everyone agreed on everything.
As a sidelight, I find it interesting that you are trying to link me to Hannity when I do believe you are saying that it is unfair to link the words of Rev. Wright to Obama. Am I wrong? It sounds like you are guilty of the same argument you criticize the media with regards to Rev. Wright and Obama.
Nice try at deflection. :-)
I quoted Michelle Obama from memory. My aplogies. What was the missing word? Why didn't you post the more accurate since you decided to call me on it? Sounds rather nitpicky to me.
My point, exactly. Your "memory" is of the mis-quote promoted by the media. The missing word is "really". deliberately omitted, and , whether deliberately and dishonestly repeated by you, or simply effectively used on you, you fell for it.
How can I take you seriously when you snipe at minor typos while ignoring the gist of my post? :-)
Typos don't happen in consistent, repetitive patterns. You insult everybody's intelligence by expecting them to believe this.
Actually, I am just kidding. You can take or leave my opinion as you wish. I do enjoy the conversations and discussions. It would be boring if everyone agreed on everything.
I know, :-), you're just kidding/it's a joke. Sort of a cowardly way to spread the propaganda, don't you think?No accountability.
As a sidelight, I find it interesting that you are trying to link me to Hannity when I do believe you are saying that it is unfair to link the words of Rev. Wright to Obama. Am I wrong?
Yes
It sounds like you are guilty of the same argument you criticize the media with regards to Rev. Wright and Obama.
I'm not even sure about the stretch you're attempting to make here.If you can polish it up a little to where it makes sense, I'll be happy to respond.
Nice try at deflection. :-)
I think you accidentally typed your inner dialogue.
Col.
I am disappointed but not surprised by your response. I apologized for the misquote and explained how it came about. Your assigning evil motives to me is unwarranted.
Had I not used quotes, the meaning of Mrs. Obama's words are still the same, only varying by degree. Again, Mrs. Obama is saying that for the first time, she is really proud of her country. My original comment remains true to it's intent and understanding even with the inadvertently missed the word "really".
I am surprised that you have decided to ignore that observation in favor or harping on the missing word.
As for my other comment, I thought my argument was easily understood.
1. You are critical of those who link Rev. Wright's words to Obama.
2. You link Sean Hannity's words to me.
e. You are guilty of the same thing you criticize.
Hope that helps!
Pot meet kettle,
I found your last critique to be pretty funny and shows how unaware you are of your own extreme bias.
You wrote:What I'm getting at is this; It's pretty hard to take your analysis and commentary on the media as anything but ridiculous when you constantly demonstrate that you've been completely suckered by the most obvious and biased propaganda that this site addresses.
me- This coming from a person who buys lock-stock-and-barrel everything that MMFA in all it's bias, puts out. Once you criticize the others here who sip the MMFA kool-aid, I'll then consider your observation. Until then, thanks for the laugh.
AA, I cited clear examples of you playing into the medias influence on you, and your response is that I'm hypocritical because I don't criticize MMFa or other posters enough for you?
weak.
It is amazing to me that these very popular Christian clergymen are so divisive. I think they have forgotten what the good-news is all about. It is shame because they reinforce in non-believers the exact opposite of what Christianity is all about. These ministers need to exclaim what is right about their view of Christianity rather than what is wrong with one version or what is wrong with any political group. Christianity is about lifting people up, not putting different believers down. Unfortunately this message has been repeatedly corrupted down through the ages.
I find it interesting, although sad, that we are seeing ministers both on the left and right exhibiting the same types of intolerance even if they are directed at different groups. These ministers are doing far more harm than good.
AA,
Well said! I think that any voter who has concerns about Reverend Wright should check out the statements of Rod Parsley over the years as well as Hagee. If they think Wright's statements are over the line, I encourage those same concerned folks to rationalize why Parsley and Hagee make more sense.
Fried,
Parsley's church is about 20 miles from me. I am not Protestant, but work with some very active and wonderful Protestant Christians. We had a discussion the other day and both of them, (who worship at diferent churches,) felt Parsley was of the Jimmy Swaggert, Pat Robertson mold. In other words, they did not care for his brand of preaching and mentioned his constant request for donations.
I have caught Parsley on TV a couple of times while flipping channels. I only watched for a minute or two since I knew he is local. Other than that, I do not know anything more except he has a mega-church. Maybe my co-workers are correct? Maybe not? I dont' know.
AA,
Check out this link and let me know what you think:
http://www.motherjones.com/washington_dispatch/2008/03/john-mccain-rod-parsley-spiritual-guide.html
As soon as they're exposed Obama disavows the beliefs of his supporters, including those of his wife and his spiritual mentor! What does this man believe? But really, who cares anymore? His chickens have come home to roost. Now that the hatemongering towards the US, not to mention Hillary, at the church he's been supporting for 20 years has come to light, he won't ever become president. I just hope he doesn't get nominated because McCain will surely win against this two-faced, empty suit. I'm disappointed that Media Matters has such an Obama bias that this question would even be raised, since 20 years at a church sort of speaks for itself. But of course ABC did indeed air the Obama disavowal with the story (that "ole uncle" line, sort of like the other "boneheaded" thing) What, does Media Matters want the story to center on Obama's disavowals?
ARJay,
What do you think the American people will think of Rod Parsley and John Hagee or will the media ignore their statements?
Hey, jackmonkey.
I know a bunch of catholics, and yet, even though there were hundreds, possibly thousands of priests who abused young boys and girls, then they must chastise the church and leave immediately right? That's the whole projection you're trying to make with Wright and Obama, but that's OK. IOKIYAR I suppose.
Mags,
Can you tell me when he retired? What has he retired from doing? Has Rev.Wright stopped preaching? Has the pastor of his church renounced Rev.Wright's hate-speech? C'mon.
Lets get beyond irrelevant parsing. That was a very weak response. You can do better.
Oh, and I'm also more than willing to bet that there are still many child abusing priests still fully frocked. It took the church how many years to expose it and start doing something about it? 50-60 years in some cases?
Mags,
Hey, I'm willing to bet another politician will eventually be caught with a call girl.
You seem to be ignoring the gist of my post. There is a huge difference between the Catholic Church's position condemning priest's and sexual abuse and the lack of condemnation regarding Rev. Wright's anti-America, race-baiting, racist sermons by Obama. ...Unless you want to equate his acceptance of Rev.Wright's preachings as the same as the cover-up by the Church was guilty of doing for so many years. Which is it?
No, what I'm trying to equate is that apparently people, maybe such as yourself, and others on here, are trying to get Obama to break his ties to the church to which he belongs for the words of its FORMER pastor (ie, he retired), when you have good catholics around the world who haven't broken their ties to their church for the monstrous activities of their pastors/priests.
rosepetal,
He just retired, his last sermon just last sermon. He also remains with Obama's campaign as an advisor on a faith based outreach committee for americans of black african descent.
And how to justify his remaining under this man's ministry and tutelage for the last 20 years?
Right on!
GOVERNOR 4 PRESIDENT
Gov, I agree
On a junior high history test 100 years in the future some teacher will ask for an essay on the following.
"List and describe the events that lead up to the attacks on the United States on September 11, 2001."
My guess is that those students won't get full credit unless they include some of the actions of the US in the same way that we look at the actions of the US in the late 1800 with some embarassment and regret. Mark Twain, who was around at that time, was fervently opposed to US imperialism in the Phillipines. He said "Stand up for your country always, Stand up for your government when they deserve it.
No problem.
It does seem odd that there seems to be a new political correctness that now stems from the right. Well, I'm not running for president either so I guess that meanswe don't need to follow the rules on "How to be a Patriot".
I've been reading a lot of Mark Twain lately. He had much to say on patriotism and it warn't none too good.
OK - on our side have HRC's lead financial person tossed out for being a racist and sexist. We have BO's pastor and spiritual advisor nailed as a militant racist that would evoke another rant from Kieth Olberjerk if he wasn't already int he tank for Mr. O. Niether of these clowns have the experince to be a principal of an inner city school never mind POTUS
On their side we have a repub who flops from lib to con pending his audience and how much good press he can get - no core values.
We are so SOL !!
No disguises here chicken man - here in NY the repubs are as lib as the dems so it really doesn't matter what side of the aisle wer're on. 10 months before the election and we have no clear leader in this mess.
Face it Cluckster - you're just as SOL as I.
I hear a lot of the same speech from both sides of the argument. One side saying that "Just because he was subjected to the preacher's sermons doesn't mean he actually believes the way the preacher does" The other side saying "You can't actually willingly go to a church for 20 years without agreeing with what the pastor says"
However, I have yet to hear anything about what the pastor really says beyond a few statements that they had to backtrack 7 years to get. Could these be merely isolated incedents that in no way give a clear picture of what is regularly being preached at this sermon? We can speculate all we want, but having a source for some hardcore facts about what goes on in this church on a regular basis would be more in order.
Here is what we do know, whoever drug that clip out had to date back 7 years to get it, and I think a reasonable person could assume that if this sermon is something that is regularly taped (which I personally have no idea if it is) then finding more contraversies and presenting them in public view would also be a goal of this presenter.
Personally, I don't think that Obama shares his views even if he actually believes them, in fact I think most serious politicians simply go to church because it is a christian based society with christian voters and to be anything other then christian would be political suicide.
No this repudiation smacks of nothing more than political cheap talk. He did not repudiate him in the six and half years since the comments were made (and who knows what others from him) and now he does when there is political heat? No, this is a pure political move because if this were his true feelings he would a disassociated himself a while ago - he has plenty of time!
To those of you who have drunk the Obama Kool-aid, does this incident helps you see Obama's non-campaigner side? LIke so many other politicians, he will say anything if it is politically expedient. Furthermore, is it becoming clear that he is not new and fresh. He has a nice, sleek packaging, but underneath the visible layers, he is the same ole, more taxes, bigger government Democrat we have come to expect.