Fox's Baier claimed McCain "right away" denounced controversial statements by supporters
SUMMARY: On Special Report, discussing controversial statements by Jeremiah Wright, Bret Baier claimed that "it seemed to take Barack Obama a long time to denounce" Wright's statements, while, Baier said, Sen. John McCain denounced controversial statements from his supporters "right away." However, McCain has yet to address controversial comments John Hagee has made about homosexuals, women, Islam, and slavery, or any of the controversial comments by pastor Rod Parsley.
On the March 14 edition of Fox News' Special Report, discussing controversial statements by Sen. Barack Obama's pastor Rev. Jeremiah A. Wright, who recently retired, guest host and Fox News chief White House correspondent Bret Baier claimed that "it seemed to take Barack Obama a long time to denounce" Wright's statements, while, Baier said, Sen. John McCain denounced controversial statements from his supporters "right away." However, when San Antonio-based evangelist John Hagee, who among other things has said that "Hurricane Katrina was, in fact, the judgment of God against the city of New Orleans" for planning "a homosexual parade," endorsed McCain for president on February 27, McCain responded, "All I can tell you is I'm very proud to have pastor Hagee's support." On February 29, McCain stated that his acceptance of Hagee's endorsement did not signal that he "agree[s] with all of Pastor Hagee's views"; he subsequently asserted on March 7, "I repudiate any comments that are made, including Pastor Hagee's, if they are anti-Catholic or offensive to Catholics," and added on March 11, "I repudiate any comments that are [anti-Semitic] or anti-Catholic, racist, any other," including those by Hagee. But McCain has yet to address Hagee's remarks about Hurricane Katrina, or other remarks Hagee has made about Islam, women, and slavery. McCain has also yet to denounce comments by another supporter, Rod Parsley, senior pastor of World Harvest Church in Columbus, Ohio, who reportedly wrote that "America was founded, in part, with the intention of seeing this false religion [of Islam] destroyed."
On Special Report, Baier, referring to Wright's statements, also asked Fox News chief political correspondent Carl Cameron: "Senator McCain is obviously not stepping into this fray, right?" Cameron replied, "No, he can't," and later added that "McCain constantly says I want to run a respectful campaign." In fact, while McCain chief political adviser Charlie Black said on March 14 that McCain believes "these candidates cannot be held accountable for all the views of people who endorse them or people who befriend them" and instead "should be held accountable for their public policy views," ABCNews.com's The Note reported on the morning of March 14 that the McCain campaign circulated to reporters a Wall Street Journal op-ed in which Newsmax.com chief Washington correspondent Ronald Kessler wrote that "Obama's close association with Mr. Wright ... raises legitimate questions about Mr. Obama's fundamental beliefs about his country." Subsequently, McCain's campaign reportedly said it sent the op-ed "in error." Kessler's op-ed truncated Obama's response to one of Wright's controversial remarks about the September 11, 2001, terrorist attacks, omitting the portion where Obama indicated that he disagreed with the comment, as Media Matters for America has noted.
The Dallas Morning News reported on February 28 that McCain initially "deflected a question" about previous controversial remarks by Hagee, when Hagee endorsed him:
Mr. McCain deflected a question about whether he agreed with Mr. Hagee's end-times theology in which he connects Iran's nuclear threat with the Apocalypse, the final battle of good and evil on earth.
"All I can tell you is I'm very proud to have pastor Hagee's support," Mr. McCain said.
As Time's Swampland blog noted on February 29, McCain provided two statements that day indicating that he did not agree with all of Hagee's views and statements:
This morning, McCain was asked about it [the Hagee endorsement] by the traveling press. His response:
And I am very proud of the Pastor John Hagee's spiritual leadership to thousands of people and I am proud of his commitment to the independence and the freedom of the state of Israel. That does not mean that I support or endorse or agree with some of the things that Pastor John Hagee might have said or positions that he may have taken on other issues. I don't have to agree with everyone who endorses my candidacy. They are supporting my candidacy. I am not endorsing some of their positions.
But the wave of criticism kept growing. So several hours later, the McCain campaign released a stronger statement of condemnation.
Yesterday, Pastor John Hagee endorsed my candidacy for president in San Antonio, Texas. However, in no way did I intend for his endorsement to suggest that I in turn agree with all of Pastor Hagee's views, which I obviously do not.
On March 8, the Associated Press reported that McCain's initial "response had been tepid," but McCain "took a stronger stance on Hagee's views in an interview with The Associated Press" on March 7:
Republican presidential candidate John McCain on Friday repudiated any views of a prominent televangelist who endorsed him last month "if they are anti-Catholic or offensive to Catholics."
McCain has come under fire since televangelist John Hagee endorsed him on Feb. 27, but until Friday his response had been tepid. The Arizona senator merely said he doesn't agree with everyone who endorses him. He said Friday he had been hearing from Catholics who find Hagee's comments offensive.
Hagee, leader of a San Antonio megachurch, has referred to the Roman Catholic Church as "the great whore" and called it a "false cult system" and "the apostate church" -- "apostate" means someone who has forsaken his religion.
On Friday, McCain took a stronger stance on Hagee's views in an interview with The Associated Press.
"We've had a dignified campaign, and I repudiate any comments that are made, including Pastor Hagee's, if they are anti-Catholic or offensive to Catholics," McCain said.
"I sent two of my children to Catholic school. I categorically reject and repudiate any statement that was made that was anti-Catholic, both in intent and nature. I categorically reject it, and I repudiate it," McCain said.
As Think Progress noted, on the March 11 broadcast of Bill Bennett's Morning in America, McCain said that he "repudiate[s] any comments" that are "anti-Semitic or anti-Catholic, racist, any other," including any by Hagee, but added, "I will say that he [Hagee] said that his words were taken out of context, he defends his position." The Los Angeles Times summarized McCain's response to Hagee's comments about Catholicism in a March 15 article:
McCain initially avoided specifically commenting on Hagee's statements. Two days after the Feb. 27 endorsement, McCain said Hagee's support "does not mean that I embrace everything that he stands for and believes."
He stressed he was proud of Hagee's "spiritual leadership to thousands of people" and praised his commitment "to the independence and the freedom of the state of Israel."
It was not until a week later -- after Catholic groups, the Democratic National Committee and its chairman, Howard Dean, kept the drumbeat of criticism going -- that McCain explicitly told the Associated Press he rejected and repudiated any anti-Catholic statements, including Hagee's.
Moreover, McCain has yet to address any of Hagee's specific remarks other than those concerning Catholicism, which were criticized by Catholic League President William Donohue. Donohue responded to McCain's March 7 remarks by stating: "Sen. McCain has done the right thing and we salute him for doing so. As far as the Catholic League is concerned, this case is closed."
McCain has yet to address any controversial remarks by Parsley, although Fox News reported on March 15 that, "[r]egarding Parsley's comments on Islam, campaign officials point to McCain's denunciation of similar comments made by Rev. John Hagee -- noting that the presumptive GOP nominee was not endorsing Parsley by accepting the pastor's endorsement and does not agree with all of his views."
Additionally, McCain touted the endorsement of Tennessee Republican Party chairwoman Robin Smith even after the state party issued a February 25 press release titled "Anti-Semites for Obama" that stated in its original form: "The Tennessee Republican Party today joins a growing chorus of Americans concerned about the future of the nation of Israel, the only stable democracy in the Middle East, if Sen. Barack Hussein Obama is elected president of the United States." The press release added that "Robin Smith, chairman of the Tennessee Republican Party" said, "Voters need to know about two items that surfaced today which strongly suggest that an Obama presidency will view Israel as a problem rather than a partner for peace in the Middle East."
On the March 5 edition of Special Report, Cameron stated that "McCain several times today reiterated his commitment to run what he calls a respectful campaign against Democrats. It seemed a pretty clear signal to his party not to be throwing any low blows on his behalf," thereby joining numerous other media figures who have characterized McCain as a candidate who avoids negative campaigning or uncritically reported McCain's assertion that he is one, despite extensive evidence to the contrary.
From the March 14 edition of Fox News' Special Report with Brit Hume:
BAIER: Carl, Senator McCain is obviously not stepping into this fray, right?
CAMERON: No, he can't. And it's a little bit of "people in glass houses can't throw stones," or shouldn't. And it's remarkable the number of supporters and surrogates who have had to be denounced by both sides. And it might say something about the absence of a great deal of direct head-on criticism between the candidates themselves.
McCain's faced so much of it where his supporters and surrogates have said things that are considered inappropriate that his campaign manager, Rick Davis, this week put out a big memo basically scolding everybody, saying, hey, it's not helping. Senator McCain constantly says I want to run a respectful campaign because, frankly, he recognizes that whether he's running against a woman or a black man, the likelihood of the rhetoric going over the top often is a reality they need to get ready -- they need to prepare for.
BAIER: But Senator McCain says it right away. Major, it seemed to take Barack Obama a long time to denounce these statements, as they were gaining steam among every network going around, starting here.
GARRETT: To say the Obama response has been evolving is to be charitable. I sent an email to the chief spokesman, Bill Burton, this morning saying, is there any need that the campaign feels to either distance itself, place for their contacts or in any way shape or form, add more of Barack Obama's own voice to what the Reverend Wright has said? The one-word answer I received was no. That was this morning. Quite clearly, that strategy shifted as the hours and the extensive coverage of this continues.
As I mentioned on the McCain thread about the "mistake" his campaign made, he is an ESTP personality type, same as Bush. He will get away with any damn thing he pleases. His campaign will keep making mistakes and not be held accountable, just like Bush. He will "apologize" for Hagee, but this faux paux won't stick to him like glue, unlike Obama and Clinton's. Make no mistake, it's not just the press that will be fooled by McCain. Many Americans will be fooled as well. Whoever our nominee is, they had better be prepared for the fight of their lives.
I don't know if I'd say the press is "fooled" by McSame. They seem to have seats on the crap talk express. If McCain wins the election, I hope the media gets full credit for the assist.
This is pretty interesting. With the internet and other alternative sources now being able to expose the problems with the media, they may have decided that rather than try to tone their conservative agenda down, they'll just turn it up to 11 and hope enough voters are smothered with the BS to win the election.
If it works, my optimism about the intelligence of the average American is going to be pretty damaged.
I don't know Col., I like your optimism, but I'm afraid it's a little uhm...optimistic. ;)
The American individual is generally smart and well-educated. The American people collectively are dumb, stupid animals who vote on trivialities.
But I could be wrong.
DB, I won't argue with you. We have an amazing stoopidity surplus in this country, maybe not individually, but as a mob. Just look at the pinheads posting here who think criticism of our government is hate, and that if everybody who has it good would just be happy and shut up, all of the problems would go away.
(Bruce, I'm not talking about you, you made a coherent point, and even if I'm not on board with your take 100%, I at least appreciate you posting original thoughts and an actual reality-based comment)
You write:
I don't know if I'd say the press is "fooled" by McSame. They seem to have seats on the crap talk express. If McCain wins the election, I hope the media gets full credit for the assist.
For all the ifs and giving the press the benefit of the doubt, it's hard to escape the more likely conclusion that we no longer have a free press. Corporate sponsorship with the help of both our major political parties appear to have co-opted the media. It serves the very big business interests.
Unlike you who finds this "pretty interesting," I find it pretty depressing. While the internet is still free and permits us to exchange at least our preceptions of the information we're getting, what "other alternative sources" are there "to expose the problems with the media?" I don't think there's any doubt that our media is in the hands of a relatively small group already turning up the volume of BS. I'm only surprised that you've any optimism "about the intelligence of the average American." It's the "average American" that has now twice elected our current president! This is hardly cause for optimism!
Sorry, TadekKorn, I won't be depressed, I'm a pretty happy guy.We all know who controls the media, and I included other sources (local weeklies, public broadcasting at its best) just to cut off any arguments.
I don't know why you're focusing your questions on me, I'm just hopeful, but fully prepared for a stoopid majority.
He will get away with any damn thing he pleases. His campaign will keep making mistakes and not be held accountable, just like Bush. He will "apologize" for Hagee, but this faux paux won't stick to him like glue, unlike Obama and Clinton's.
Which is exactly why, in my opinion, the situation looks so grim for Obama. In all fairness when your spiritual leader is saying damn America and you're running for the office of the president of the U.S. it kinda rubs people who go for the patriotic symbolism the wrong way.
princessoftires,
Did you happen to catch Obama's new claim about his lovin, God-fearing pastor? Here verbatim are is comments on FOX yeaterday:
Obama: Well, Major, I gotta confess that as you know I was voting in the Senate all day yesterday, so I wasn't following this story as carefully as I could have been and then I flew back to Chicago. When I saw these statments, many of which I had heard for the first time, then I thought it was important to make a very clear and unequivocal statement.
None of these statements were ones that I had heard myself personally in the pews. One of them I had heard about after I had started running for president and I put out a statement at that time condemning them.
The other statements were ones that I just heard about while we were... when they started being run on FOX and some of the other stations. And so they weren't things that I was familiar with. Once I saw them I had to be very clear about the fact that these are not statements that I am comfortable with. I reject them completely. They are not ones that reflect my values or my ideals, or Michelle's; and that had I heard them, had I been sitting in the church at the time that they were spoken, I would have been absolutely clear to Rev. Wright that I didn't find those acceptable.
The excuses are priceless:
Obama saying that he was voting all day on Thursday so he didn't know about this is an absolute joke.
It's impossible to believe that he didn't know there was a controversy. It's inconceivable.
It's also inconceivable that Obama would sit under this dude's ministry for 20 years and not get an inkling or hear other's feedback about the sermon topic.
I think it's interesting that Obama says Wright's statements don't reflect his values and they don't reflect Michelle's values. Obama went out of his way to do damage control for Michelle. That was no accident.
Wright and Michelle sound like they're on the exact same page, divisive and angry and down on America.
As far as Pittsburgh radio really getting under the left's skin, try listening to Quinn on Sirrus or at this site from 6-9 am. Make sure to take your heart pills prior.
http://www.wpgb.com/main.html
PROUDCONSERVATIVE: You, like most right-wingers, are making your usual mistake of being unable to see the world outside the range of the blinders you are wearing.
You make assumptions about Obama’s relationship with his church and pastor based on the relationship you have with yours - and, assuming you are white, there is no way YOU can understand what it's like to live in America as an African-American or mixed-race. So don't try to judge their feelings or attempt to tell anyone how they should feel.
You, just like Hannity, make assumptions about the effect this Rev.Wright "exposure" will have on most American voters based on how big a concern you THINK it should have (which is based on how something like this would affect the campaign of a “Christian” Republican candidate).
Wright and Michelle sound like they're on the exact same page, divisive and angry and down on America.
AGAIN, take of your blinders - You have no idea just how many voters ARE devisive and angry and down on America. They are not alone. Your contentment with the status quo actually puts YOU in a minority!
As for your disbelief in Obama’s excuse of being at work and unaware of the witch hunt that was going on – maybe you don’t realize that, unlike McCain, SOME senators actually show up at the capital once in a while to vote and do their job.
Clevagetive,
Thanks for making the point about Obama and Michele's attitudes about this wonderful country, its opportunities and advantages over any other country on this earth. There are many folk who are offended by their sentiments, as if racism is the same as it always was and that it occurs now where else in the world.
As far as my race, what difference would it make? If I am white, you say I am a racist, if black..an uncle Tom. Whatever minority I belong to, this country allows for each person to go as far as their talent and gumption will take them. That is why this land is seen as such a place of opportunity for anyone coming here. They all come, legally or not, as wanting to share in this country's bounty and they all come with hurdles to overcome, including minority status. If you state it matters what race, then you believe to an inherent deficit that I do not accept nor practice.
And if Obama wasn't aware of this before a trip home, he's got a poor group of advisors around him or he just didn't want to speak to the matter until he had a chance to deliberate with those lousy advisors. I would hope the latter was true and there is no offense in stating that.
Thanks for making the point about Obama and Michele's attitudes about this wonderful country, its opportunities and advantages over any other country on this earth.
If the country lived up to its potential, I would agree with this statement. The fact of the matter is that the U.S. is the most class rigid society in the industrialized world and the vast majority of the wealth in this country is being shared by a sliver of people. Many Americans are behind left behind.
There are many folk who are offended by their sentiments, as if racism is the same as it always was and that it occurs now where else in the world.
There is still a lot of racism in this country and the sentiments are directed towards America because this is where they live.
Whatever minority I belong to, this country allows for each person to go as far as their talent and gumption will take them.
Again, if the country lived up to its potential, I would agree with you.
If you state it matters what race, then you believe to an inherent deficit that I do not accept nor practice.
I would say there are inherent obstacles (caused by outside forces) because of race.
And Black Americans have a unique history with this country that cannot be compared to any other group with the possible exception of Native Americans.
Looneytunes,
I don't agree on your assessment of the rigidity of wealth in this country. More people have the opportunity to gain through economic freedom than most, if not all, countries. We have an entrepeneurial spirit in America that make us exceptional. Many people come to our shores, or people who were born here and make their own mark on our economy. Even Hungarian born George Soros was able to benefit from his citizenship here, using economic speculation to destroy currencies and the savings of millions of individuals throughout the world while making billions of dollars himself. Ain't America Grand!
Here's an interesting take on the idea of the rich hoarding all the wealth. This is written in the Atlantic, hardly a card carrying group of conservatives, by an English transplant.
"Is the American middle class really as beleaguered as it appears to think? That’s debatable, at least. The stagnation of real incomes—that much-cited statistic—seems belied by a steadily improving quality of life. Capturing improvements in the range and quality of products, so that meaningful comparisons of incomes can be made over time, is a difficult statistical problem, and the statistics must be taken with a grain of salt. Who really believes that ordinary Americans are barely any better off in material terms than they were in the early 1970s? There were no cell phones back then, no video games; few homes had microwave ovens. There were no iPods, if you can imagine. Life was hard.
The claim that job insecurity has worsened in recent years also seems exaggerated: Overall measures of job tenure and job displacement show no marked change. The idea that the middle class is burdened by unprecedented amounts of debt—that people are having to borrow to make ends meet—is overstated. Most personal debt is mortgage debt, generously subsidized by taxpayers, and backed (for the moment, at least) by highly appreciated holdings of property. Delinquency is rising, especially for “sub-prime” borrowers (those with weak credit histories), but the proportion of households getting behind in their debts is still very small. You may be surprised to know that more than 40 percent of middle-income households carry no credit-card debt at all. "
Here's the link to the whole article.
http://www.theatlantic.com/doc/200704/social-class
And as far as racism, how is it possible for a bi-racial man to become one of the most powerful persons in our country, Secretary of State Colin Powell or now Condalezza Rice? Or a member of the Supreme Court? Or a candidate for President? Sure, no one denies the existence of racism, but how is it possible in this country where overwhelming racism supposedly exists?
The fact that Clive Crook (the writer of your sited article) is an Obama supporter shows the depth of Obama’s appeal. Clive Crook is from Great Britain and has only lived in the U.S. for 5 years. He might be a good economist, but he can hardly base his sociological observations on personal experience. He is just another privileged white guy who made his conclusions based on a few statistics he cites as not seeming to add up to the general perception of economic inequalities in America. There are plenty of other articles out there that have been written to highlight the ever widening gap between rich and poor, and the increasing difficulty of even the middle class to keep their heads above the water.
Funny how whenever progressives try making a comparison to anything in European society as an example of a possible solution to an American problem, we are shot down - yet you post an excerpt of an article by a guy who uses examples of Great Britain’s class structure as an argument for America’s class and racial problems? For years progressives have been using the European community as an example of how mature societies of the world deal with many of our adolescent “problems” (health care, gays, sexual prudeness, over-religious, etc.)– Are you telling me that conservatives are finally realizing this too?
cleveagetive,
I was responding to looneytunes comments about the rigidity of our economic classes. The article takes a different view. As to your stories, post 'em if you got 'em!
Your insight into Clive's support of Obama, also proves another point. With all this terrible racism that we have here, how could a white european elite economist support an american of both black african and white europenan hertitage? Only in America could something like this happen! Ain't America grand!?!
He can do it because racism against blacks isn't as bad in England as USA - he is more worldly in his views than the average American (and definitely more than the average conservative). Painting Clive as your average American white guy is a bit of a stretch!
I don't know where you were raised, or your race (which might explain your naivety) - but I'm a white guy raised in northeast Ohio and can tell you racism is alive and well and living in America!
Looneytunes,
Grow up.
I don't agree on your assessment of the rigidity of wealth in this country. More people have the opportunity to gain through economic freedom than most, if not all, countries. We have an entrepeneurial spirit in America that make us exceptional.
We have a higher porportation of our population in poverty than any of the European countries. And if your poor, there's less opportunity in any country.
There's severe class rigidity in this country and the vast majority of wealth is concentrated in the hands of a few.
Even Hungarian born George Soros was able to benefit from his citizenship here, using economic speculation to destroy currencies and the savings of millions of individuals throughout the world while making billions of dollars himself. Ain't America Grand!
I have no idea how Soros accumulated his wealth and your description seems like you pulled it right out of your ass. And how does this story change the fact that America is the most class rigid society with wealth concentrated in only a few hands?
Here's the link to the whole article.
http://www.theatlantic.com/doc/200704/social-class
I disagree with the author. Here's a couple of articles you can read here and here.
Americans are barely any better off in material terms than they were in the early 1970s? There were no cell phones back then, no video games; few homes had microwave ovens. There were no iPods, if you can imagine. Life was hard.
What does the advancement of science have to do with class rigidity, stagnant wages and the unfair distribution of wealth in this country?
The claim that job insecurity has worsened in recent years also seems exaggerated: Overall measures of job tenure and job displacement show no marked change.
I'm not sure what the author means by this. Job tenure and job displacement would should no marked change if employees are so fearful of losing their job that they accept cut in wages and benefits just to stay employed.
The idea that the middle class is burdened by unprecedented amounts of debt—that people are having to borrow to make ends meet—is overstated. Most personal debt is mortgage debt, generously subsidized by taxpayers, and backed (for the moment, at least) by highly appreciated holdings of property.
If this were the case, there would have always been this level of personal debt.
And as far as racism, how is it possible for a bi-racial man to become one of the most powerful persons in our country, Secretary of State Colin Powell or now Condalezza Rice?
There's always exceptions to the rules. And I bet they had a lot of obstacles that they had to overcome simply because of their race. They were able to overcome those barriers but a lot of people won't be able to do it or don't have the tolerance for it.
Loonz and Cleve:
Trying to reason with ProudCon is like trying to teach a pig to sing. It frustrates you and annoys the pig. He really doesn't want to have a substantive discussion. All he has to offer is third-grade name-calling and debunked right-wing talking points.
But he's fun to play with for awhile - kinda like that new toy on Christmas morning... :)
PROUDCONSERVATIVE: As far as my race, what difference would it make?
You're kidding me, right? If you are NOT black then there is no validity to your logic - That's why I said I assumed you are white. Just as there is little credibility in any argument a man might give regarding women's issues, there is no credibility in your arguments regarding black social issues if you are white.
You mean Quinn the sexual predator. I tune in for a laugh whenever I need it. His nonsense is tired and always two days old. He never has an original thought and his phony Christian sidekick, Rose, is dense. I will give Quinn credit for one thing, he will never debate an issue. Why, because he can't answer any question. If you ever listen to him, you know I'm right.
In Pittsburgh, he is laughed at. But his true followers, the hill people of West Virginia and the Alabama section of Pennsylvania think he is the second coming of Rush. He tries to be Rush but just can't make the grade.
P.S. The sexual harassment bit is real...but wait, What about Senator McBush and Hagee? Hey, you must be Quinn. Do will you concede that Senator McBush should also be questioned? I think Sen Obama has been,(should have been) and has answered. If you don't believe him, fine.
Quoting from your own comments:
OBAMA:"Well, Major, I gotta confess that as you know I was voting in the Senate all day yesterday so I wasn't following this story as carefully as I could have been..."
YOU:"Obama saying that he was voting all day on Thursday so he didn't know about this as an absolute joke."
Do you see that you reported the wrong information/conclusion about what you yourself had just written? I suspect that this is what happens over and over again with those false reportings, much like the false prophets who deceived the people in Biblical times.
Hope this helps you to be a more careful reader so that your conclusions will match the information you read.
How very unsurprising that anytime a liberal offers a better populist alternative to the same old conservative bullcrap they are cast as a radical. You need to wake up.
Michelle Obama is a class act. She worked herself hard to achieve the goals she set but she never forgot the sacrifices made by her family. She loves her country but she knows the longterm freedom, opportunity and prosperity of this country is threatened by unenlightened corporatists. To lump her in with Wright is sheer sneering laziness.
Proudconservative;
You see, you are just too dumb to understand why it is only right that given the privilege of living in the greatest, richest, kindest, most generous, most tolerant country in the world, you should be filled with hatred towards your homeland.
If you were black, or mixed race, you would understand why racism and hatred are only possible for whites and no others, and spouting things that would make David Duke blush would be 'understandable, given the oppression you suffer.'
You are in such a minority - actually liking the country that is the hope and envy of all the world - why it's just disgraceful to think that there are Neanderthals such as yourself still breathing! If you can't find some way to vilify the US, you could at least have the decency to keep quiet!
Pity you.
<sarcasm off>
Ever seen the movie "The Bucket List"? I saw it last night, very good film with a good message. I recommend it.
We go around one time.
Time goes by quickly.
You can choose to be angry, devisive and down on America. You can look at the world that way. There are definitely things that need to be improved, things that we can do better. I just think that's a regretful way to spend your days if it gets too consduming, looking at the world through THAT lens, anger. It takes a lot of energy to be angry, energy that can be better spent doing other things, like enjoying life.
We go around one time.
Bruce:
You've apparently bought into the premise that the Obamas are "angry." That's what happens when the right-wing noise machine is allowed to spout its nonsense unchallenged.
You can criticize your country and not be labeled as "angry." There are a lot of us who are very displeased with what's been done to our country these past eight years.
And there's nothing worse than what Thomas Paine would refer to as the "sunshine patriotism" of the Sean Hannitys of the world ... you know, all those guys who wear a flag pin while they're pooping all over everything the flag stands for ...
Sportsguydave-
I wasn't referring to the Obama's. I was referring to the voters that Clevenative was talking about in his post. Obama has a fine, uplifting message. Clearly that's why he is winning.
Who do you think put that video out? Do you think it was McCain? I don't think so.
It was from the hateful, egotistical, maniacal Clinton Machine. They uncovered this when Obama was not even in attendance.
And is 24 hours or less soon enough to denounce or reject his views?
Get real MMFA. You really are in the tank for those nuts.
Damn Clintons..Abe Lincoln learned never to take their theatre seats. Oh, the Clinton hatred. I suggest that all cons give back the money they made during my friend Bill Clintons' 8 years in office. Oh, the Clinton hatred. A woman trying to be President, God help those macho republans. Get out the scalpel, she will have a ball or balls dancing in the streets.
Why would the Clinton Mean Machine put this out knowing that a lot of idiots would blame them? Is it possible that this Rovian tactic would hurt both of the Democratic candidates? One from its' substance and the other from the conspiracy nuts while those same nuts defend Sen McBush. It is a great political move either way you look at it. BUT, the Rovebots can do whatever they want because come November that Democratic Party will destroy the right wing because of one thing, our President, George W. Bush. Now defend him..
" i just want to be friends"
"my friends"
I think you've got it!
Can you cough up an example of Obama supporting Wrights diatribes? Of course you cant since in each case he has repudiated these statements. Then again if you really beleive the mainstream media is liberal I guess you will believe anything.
Obviously it's a whole different ball game when the candidate is "proud to receive" the support of a controversial figure, as McCain is. No amount of disassociation makes that go away.
This goes to both Obama and Hillary supporters: the "wrong" candidate is more trustworthy than the media. Even when the candidate is proven wrong, they are still more trustworthy than the media.
Obama's denial feels fishy to me, but I'll wager more money that the media is making this pastor "Blacker" than he really is.
Another example of how the entire discussion has spun into the RNC's preferred frame of reference:
A 3rd party who is a friend of Obama's has made disparaging remarks about America. Obama has rejected all such statements. The right-wing media now pounds on the guilt by association and projection drum - he must believe and share (along with his wife) at least some of these odious sentiments. This leaves him in a position where no matter how many times he says he doesn't, and in fact categorically rejects them, he must somehow be lying.
A U.S. SENATOR is now an Anti-American. Reels the mind.
Those of us who support Obama need to honest and admit that Wright was more than a "friend". Wright was Obama's closest spiritual advisor and mentor. Obama is doing the "right" thing by throwing "Wright" under the bus and completely turning his back on his friend. This is what true politicians do. Unfortunately, Obama also had to admit in the same week that he had received TWO HUNDRED AND FIFTY THOUSAND DOLLARS in contributions from the corrupt Chicago fixer Resko.
I hope that Obama can quickly deal with these scandals - but I'm worried that it might be too late. The latest poll numbers show that Obama is dropping rapidly and is actually losing to McCain.
Good luck Obama! I still support you!
Daily Presidential Tracking Poll
Not another Conservative is a troll if I ever saw one, being deceitful about his methods and the sentiments behind them.
Linking to a Rasmussen poll is one clear sign. They're a Republican hit group mascarading as a non-partisan polling agency. Look at the ads on the site. The advertisers know who the audience is. It's conservatives.
Rasmussen still claims that somewhere close to 38% of Americans support George Bush. They try to support that nonsense by asking people if they somewhat support Bush, and then they lump that in with people who strongly support him. Nevermind the fact that in their survey, the number of people who strongly disapprove of Bush's actions is larger than that combined number.
Strongly approve 16%
Somewhat approve 22%
Somewhat disapprove 18%
Strongly disapprove 41%
So it took you what, 72 hours to jump on the McCain bandwagon?
But hey, party before country, right comrade?
sheesh
What strikes me is the huge, gross, monumental over-hyping of the significance of what Wright says. Is there the slightest shred of evidence that Obama shares the more extreme aspects of Wright's perspective? Obama has written two books. Do they contain anything that reflects a radical agenda? We all would know it if they did. He has an almost twelve year legislative record. Is there anything radical reflected in there? Nope. How about in his time as a lawyer? Anything there? Nope. He's given hundreds of speeches. Do they reflect a radical ideology? Again, we know those would have been picked apart by political enemies for something to criticize. There's nothing there. Are there any other groups he belongs to, any activities in his personal life that indicate radical ideologies? No and no.
Radicalism recap: Writings? No. Legislative? No. Legal career? No. Speeches? No. Associations? No. Activities? No.
It's becoming very obvious that Wright isn't being embraced by Obama's enemies because they actually believe it says something significant about Obama. It's just a disingenuous means to the end of damaging Obama. Disgraceful.
I wonder how this compilation tape got made, and who distributed it.
I don't think it was Hillary, or her campaign. I think it's a Karl Rove-inspired swiftboating done by nasty conservatives.
It could have just been ABC News.
ABC News hates Democrats. Don't you remember the "Path to 9-11" series., full of lies against the Clintons? We shouldn't underestimate the mainstream media's ability to smear. Not everything has to be Rove's creation.
I wonder how this compilation tape got made, and who distributed it.
You can buy the DVD's or CD's online at the Trinity United Church website. Anyone is free to buy them, listen/watch them, report on them.
http://www.tucc.org/store/index.cfm?action=catbrowse&catid=40
I would imagine the media dug this stuff up, but if it makes you feel better to blame the Clintons or the GOP, feel free. But if you're gonna make those accusations, prove it.
I've listened/read Obama's explanation & quite frankly I've finally come to the conclusion that it doesn't ring true. Obama belonged to this church for 20 years & even if he didn't happen to be in attendance when some of the most hateful rhetoric was presented I find it hard to believe he never heard about it. Wright has been Obama's religious mentor & a close friend. And Obama was clueless? That's hard to fathom.
I would say that Obama has not only been dishonest about what he knew, but has shown bad judgment in remaining part of Wright's flock. Isn't judgment Obama's biggest asset according to him?
Let's just suppose Barry Osborne, White, first term senator is running for President. Let's assume he's an eloquent speaker & has captured the attention & support of Whites & Blacks. Then the news leaks out that his preacher, his mentor, his friend, of a church he has attended for 20 years has delivered sermons calling for White supremacy, degrading Blacks, & hostility towards the U.S. Now let's try to figure how that would play? And what would happen to Barry Osborne's candidacy....
Solon,
You're defense of Obama is admirable. Your contention that you don't care if your mechanic belongs to the KKK or is Nazi is laughable as you seem to go into conniptions whenever someone leaves of "ic" from Democrat when referring to the largest political party in the U.S.
Your argument regarding Wright sounds eerily like Obama's. :-) You may not care if your mechanic has extreme and biggoted views when getting your car fixed, but would you go back once you found out? I think not.
AA:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/frank-schaeffer/obamas-minister-committe_b_91774.html
This rhetoric is the same on the left and on the right. Are you a Reaganite? Then you should have been appalled at the Rev. Schaeffer's books and comments. Otherwise, any criticisms of Obama's minister just ring hollow.
Yeah a good chance I would. He has a right to his opinion. We dont have to take long walks in the moonlight for him to fix my car. I DO take strong exception to people who use a derisive name for the Democratic party to show contempt and insult when WE are supposed to be having a conversation. For the most part it is the SAME people doing it for the SAME reason. WE are having a personal discourse. Talking to each other. If a Therapist I was going to for grief counselling did a good job but said Democrat Party once in three of four years I woulnt stop going to her suddenly think she cant DO HER JOB. This isnt that hard to follow. I dont agree with ANYONE all the time. IF I washed my hands of anyone who EVER said something I thought was outrageous. I would have no one to fix my car, do the maid service, or fix my plumbing. As long as they do THEIR job and arent constantly obnoxious. I dont care. I run into this quite often. The guy who fixes my computer is a liberal though.
Truth Time: Wright Is Right
by DF
Thomas Jefferson. He was a brilliant political philosopher. But when he wrote “All men are created equal” he didn’t mean it the way I take it. He wasn’t talking about the rights of all men. He certainly wasn’t talking about the rights of women. The man owned slaves.
This country was built on the backs of African slaves on land that was robbed in the slaughter of Native Americans.
We’ve come a long way since 1776. In many ways, America still represents some of the best hopes of this dream of human liberty. But we are not perfect. We have not yet arrived at our destination. And this country is still largely controlled by rich, white men. You can say, if you wish, that Jeremiah Wright is too loud and too angry, but you cannot say that he is wrong. I’ve been astounded by all of the people on this so-called progressive forum that seem to be held aghast at these ideas. I thought that progressives knew that the Iraq War was predicated on lies. I thought that progressives knew that unilateral support for Israeli policies with respect for Palestine was a source of difficulties in our nation’s relationships in the Middle East at large. I thought that progressives knew that 9/11 didn’t happen because they hate us for our freedom, but because of a complex history of these relationships that go back at least 50 years if not back through the better part of the 20th century. I thought progressives knew that entering the halls of power isn’t easy if you’re not a white man.
Let me be clear on this: This is only a problem for Barack Obama in that there are still a lot of pinheads around that don’t understand that dissent is the highest form of patriotism. And he’ll distance himself from it because he has to and because Wright’s style isn’t his. It’s not how Obama rolls. But there’s nothing untrue about Wright’s statements in and of themselves.
This is a picture that I like to look at every so often to remind myself of these realities. It’s a picture of nine white men beaming over Bush as he signs the “partial birth abortion” ban. It’s ten white men presiding over the rights of women. There isn’t one woman present here. This is the reality of power in America today. You can squawk all you want about how everything is fair, but that isn’t the way it shakes out, now is it?
If America wants to insist on maintaining the status quo so that we can make sure that rich, white men can keep taking advantage, then I say d*mn America, too. If America wants to insist that no wrong can be done underneath Old Glory, then I say d*mn America. If America wants to insist that nothing our nation does in the world community will ever come back on us, then I say d*mn America, but I don’t have to because she’s already d*mned herself. The power of the ideas that founded this country was not in the men who codified them. The power lies in the way that they ring to true to all who encounter them, encouraging them to be spread ever wider, ever deeper. It is the touchstone of human nature that we desire to be free. It is this spark that becomes a fire when we realize that we are all locked into this struggle together.
The struggle is not over and maybe it never will be, but don’t get confused about Jeremiah Wright. His only crime is being abrasive, but the people who find him most abrasive are the people who have are invented in denying the truth that he speaks.
Complete article http://www.commondreams.org/archive/2008/03/15/7702/
This is why Ms. Pearline is one of the best posters on this sight. I haven't heard or seen the sermons that seem to be at "issue", but I am not surprised that this man is angry. The idea that one should not be angry about the direction that the country has taken or about the mistakes this country has made, ecpecially with regard to people of color around the world, is absurd. I would recomend Howard Zinn's A Peoples History of the United States.
By the way, I noticed that Mr. McCain has distanced himself from Rev. Hagee's remarks about Catholics. Wiil he denounce the remarks about gays, women and Islam. Maybe I missed it.
You can buy the DVD's or CD's online at the Trinity United Church website. Anyone is free to buy them, listen/watch them, report on them.
There's a huge, undeniable difference between the whole tapes of his sermons and this compilation tape that every news organization has had a copy of. Everyone has the same compilation. Unless news media have changed, they don't share work product. Someone else made that tape. Who?
I would imagine the media dug this stuff up, but if it makes you feel better to blame the Clintons or the GOP, feel free. But if you're gonna make those accusations, prove it.
So it's okay for you to say that you "would imagine" that the media created this tape without you providing any proof, but it's not okay for me to say that I think it's a conservative creation without me proving it? Don't you see the blatant hypocrisy in your statement? I sure do. It seems illogical that the media would have, by chance, all edited his statements in the same order and the same exact soundbites. It makes perfect sense that someone with an anti-Obama bias would have done it, but I have to prove my suggestions and you don't?
I've listened/read Obama's explanation & quite frankly I've finally come to the conclusion that it doesn't ring true. Obama belonged to this church for 20 years & even if he didn't happen to be in attendance when some of the most hateful rhetoric was presented I find it hard to believe he never heard about it. Wright has been Obama's religious mentor & a close friend. And Obama was clueless? That's hard to fathom.
Solon is a great explainer, and he's explained countless times that Obama's minister is is religious mentor, and Solon gave a great example of how he doesn't examine his own car mechanic's political views or movie reviews. It's not hard to fathom at all.
I would say that Obama has not only been dishonest about what he knew, but has shown bad judgment in remaining part of Wright's flock. Isn't judgment Obama's biggest asset according to him?
As Solon explained, he can find spiritual guidance from his minister valuable without agreeing with a single one of his pastor's political views. On top of that, isolating the pastor's comments and misinterpreting them to give them the most sinister interpretations is faulty and biased.
I wonder how many U.S. Presidents were elected based upon how well they "addressed" the comments of private citizens... or how many past presidential candidates failed to get elected, based on how poorly (if at all) they "addressed" the comments of people who are not themselves, and not spokespersons or staff or even campaign workers.
You know what the most significant thing about the presidential campaign is so far, specifically as it appears to us through the "media"?
It's how inane and shallow and insubstantial it is... true.
I'm no spring chicken, I've been around the block several times now, and I've been watching these things closely for a number of years, and without a doubt I have never seen a campaign like the present one, never as shallow and empty of actual Policy opinions, and as empty of any kind of talk that you would think was informative, or even interesting... true.
And as a terrible fall-out and side effect to this empty and insubstantial campaign, so devoid of any serious Policy opinions ideas and talk, is this:
The American People, as an electorate, have nothing firm to hold onto any candidate by... nothing substantial that candidate stands for, that the particular American Person can believe in, and take a stance on, as they stand for the candidate.
And as a result of that, the People's opinions of the candidates are so wavering, and so subject to change, that those opinions ebb and flow with each little comment the candidate makes, no matter how insignificant... not only the candidate's words, but the comments of people who do not represent the candidate in any way, even their insignificant words seem like reason enough, to believe in or not believe in the candidate.
Do you know how shallow a political belief is, that it can waver and even change, based upon completely insignificant things said, not just by the candidate, but by people who are not even part of the campaign?
Again, this is as bad as I've ever seen it... this is as shallow as it gets... the American People are at present just a national focus group in this campaign, with their thumb on a button, registering "for" and "against" the candidates, alternately, with evey little utterance, no matter how insignificant (like "as far as I know")...
And for the sole reason that the candidates give us nothing substantial to hold onto, and to believe in them by... no Policy opinion, or even any words that you'd call informative or interesting.
Or least that's the way they appear to us, through this "media".
You know, I half expect, that sometime in this campaign, perhaps toward the end of August, there will be some brisk and aggressive talk, in the "media", about a candidate's (admitted) use of cocaine as a young man...
And when that happens, he will begin to lose millions of prospective voters (mostly in "Red States", but nationwide really), and even those who might have supported the young man in the Democratic Primaries, will waver in their opinion, once the cocaine card is played day and night as only this "media" can do...
And that powdery mess will work havoc on the young man's support with the American People, not so much for the abuse of the substance, but for the insubstantial campaign the young man (and all the others too) have given us...
We'll have nothing to hold on to... we'll be just blowing in the breeze...
That's how shallow it is right now: All someone has to do is just sneeze wrong, and the American People's opinion of that person flies away.
I've never seen it as empty and as shallow as this. That's the most significant thing about the current presidential campaign so far, in my opinion.
Take some comfort in that the media is not as powerful as your post suggests.
From 1999-2000, every media outlet in the nation had "DO NOT VOTE FOR AL GORE" displayed prominently for every minute of every day, yet half the country did anyway. The media cannot be fixed, but its power is slowly withering to nothng.
I think the democrat will win in a walk this year no matter who it is or how "slimed" they are, because the conservative power structure is crumbling. Back in the day, each party had a 40% base so solid that nothing on the planet could shake it. But 8 years of Bush has actually eroded their 40%. And as Krugman said in his book, the southern bloc is fraying at the edges.
In the 80s, conservatives had a winning coalition. In the 90s and 00s, the coalition needed the media to keep it afloat. in the 10s, the media will not be enough.
"From 1999-2000, every media outlet in the nation had "DO NOT VOTE FOR AL GORE" displayed prominently for every minute of every day,"
??? i'd be interested to see your sources... since it was up 'every minute of every day' it shouldn't be hard to present your evidence.
Crap, now I'm forced to admit that an obviously hyperbolic statement was hyperbolic.
No candidate will ever be trashed as much as Gore was. See just about any article on dailyhowler.com, and his catalog of examples is still not exhaustive.
I agree completely with the idea that the "media", specifically the broadcast media, and most specifically the cable news outlets, are at a relative low right now, in their influence and manipulation of the American People.
Witness the past few months, and the extreme malice that "media" worked on both Sen. Clinton and her husband... it was at times a frothing hatred, and particularly startling was the way that "media" relently criticized the former President's campaigning for his wife... the way they often described Mr. Clinton was as though he were a racist bumbling idiot, a walking disaster, destroying single-handedly his wife's campaign (and all of this a strange sounding thing from the "media", when contrasted with the American People's wide-spread fondness for Mr. Clinton).
And so what did the "media" get for so much hatred and disrespect to Mr. and Mrs. Clinton?
Why, right at the height of it all, the People of Ohio and Texas marched right to the polls, and registered a majority support for Mrs. Clinton, in both those States (and Providence Plantation too!)...
Evidence, that is, of how little regard and attention People give, to this "media", most specifically the cable part of it.
Among the outrages perpetrated by the right-wing and alluded to in this article was the statement by pseudo-Christian John Hagee that Katrina was God’s judgment against the city of New Orleans for it’s civic endorsement of homosexuality. I will leave the truth of that statement to the theologians. However, why when some area of say, Texas or Oklahoma, both right-wing strongholds, is devastated by floods or fires or hurricanes, do we never hear some pastor come out and say that this is God’s judgment against those states for the hard-heartedness of it’s people who ratify fascist legislation, shred the social contract with the less fortunate, and put people to death with casual cruelty while calling it justice? And where were these phony Christians with their self-righteous pontifications when a church in Alabama, a church, mind you, was struck by a tornado on Easter Sunday a few years back and something like 8 people died about how this was God’s judgment against the melding of the religion of the Savior, Jesus Christ, with the steal-from-the-needy-and-give-to-the-wealthy social Darwinism of conservative ideology which was, no doubt, embraced in this church. This was a clearer indication of God’s judgment than the ridiculous proclamations likely to come out of the profane mouths of fake Christians like Hagee and Pat Robertson.
I was thinking the same thing. Could you imagine the fun we would be having if the basketball game that got socked by the tornado in Atlanta the other day was a game between Oral Roberts University vs. Bob Jones University?:)
Ok, so any righties still trying to push this Obama pastor mess has to read this:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/frank-schaeffer/obamas-minister-committe_b_91774.html
and then, if you are still harping on it, there is no hope for you.
"When Senator Obama's preacher thundered about racism and injustice Obama suffered smear-by-association. But when my late father -- Religious Right leader Francis Schaeffer -- denounced America and even called for the violent overthrow of the US government, he was invited to lunch with presidents Ford, Reagan and Bush, Sr.
Every Sunday thousands of right wing white preachers (following in my father's footsteps) rail against America's sins from tens of thousands of pulpits. They tell us that America is complicit in the "murder of the unborn," has become "Sodom" by coddling gays, and that our public schools are sinful places full of evolutionists and sex educators hell-bent on corrupting children. They say, as my dad often did, that we are, "under the judgment of God." They call America evil and warn of immanent destruction. By comparison Obama's minister's shouted "controversial" comments were mild. All he said was that God should damn America for our racism and violence and that no one had ever used the N-word about Hillary Clinton.
Dad and I were amongst the founders of the Religious right. In the 1970s and 1980s, while Dad and I crisscrossed America denouncing our nation's sins instead of getting in trouble we became darlings of the Republican Party. (This was while I was my father's sidekick before I dropped out of the evangelical movement altogether.) We were rewarded for our "stand" by people such as Congressman Jack Kemp, the Fords, Reagan and the Bush family. The top Republican leadership depended on preachers and agitators like us to energize their rank and file. No one called us un-American...."
Sometimes it's how you say it. Maybe it's just me but repeatedly saying, "GD America" from the pulpit somehow seems a lot more inflamatory than saying "America is Sodom".
a few issues with your assertion:
First off, I don't think he was repeatedly saying "GD America." I've heard two separate instances in the media, and the rest is just him being played over and over...and over and over again.
Second, the context of these words are something to be considered. It's my view that he's invoking a holy indignation into his speech, rather than denouncing the statehood of America.
Finally, saying "America is Sodom" is the same, biblically as saying "GD America." God damned Sodom with fire and brimstone. Logically, the extension can be made that if America is Sodom, God also damned America.
Personally, I think it's all a load of hogwash anyway. The Bible consists of verbal tales past down through the generations then finally put on to paper roughly 3,000 years ago. They then became distorted and contrived as more and more people re-interpreted it while translating from Aramaic to Latin to German to English and so on. Hell, the KJV was written by a homosexual pedophile, and one of his prominent translators was a lesbian.
The point is, putting too much emphasis on the religious sentiments of Obama's pastor is both shallow and trivial. And dangerous, given the state of religious ignorance in this country.
Then again, it could be a good thing. Perhaps this will be a catalyst for a more frank and open discussion about religion.
But I doubt it.
Well said, DB. It looks like you've actually listened to Rev. Wright's words, and taken it as an opportunity for some introspection and critical thinking.Unfortunately, we've got a significant number of Americans who are content to let the media tell them that a hateful scary black man told everybody to say "God Damn America".
Now they can direct all of that energy that might go to good use in their brains directly to their mouths as they demand Obama renounce and reject a list of items to make the nincompoops comfortable.
DB,
I understand the context, but it is inflammatory and hate-America speech even within it's context. ReverendWright stated that , "The government gives them the drugs, builds bigger prisons, passes a three-strike law and then wants us to sing 'God Bless America.' No, no, no, God damn America, that's in the Bible for killing innocent people".
What is Reverend Wright saying with "The government gives them drugs"? Who is "they" and what drugs is he talking about?
What does bigger prisons have to do with anything? Are not the criminals in prison found guilty of crimes?
Maybe someone can explain why Rev. Wright is against a three strike law? Would he be in favor of a four-strike law? Five? Six?
You can try to dismiss this type of rhetoric if you want. But you haven't sold me. It is still much more inflamatory than referring the story of Sodom and Gomorrah.
DB, many of your assumptions regarding the translations of the Bible are in error. That is a myth.
Yes, there are different versions and differences in translation but to say the translations have lost their initial meaning is unfounded. Yes, Some versions were translated years ago and biblical scholarship has improved since then. While some words may be interpreted differently, overall, the Bible, including the New Testament, has so many different sources from the time of Christ, that the interpretations have been recognized by scholars for being faithfully translated to modern day languages.
I don't claim to be a Biblical scholar so can you tell me who is the author of KJV version whom you describe as homosexual pedophile? Who is the lesbian translator? Why is their sexual preferences relevant? (I'm surprised because your criticism of the Bible interpreters sounds like a homophobic rant.) Thanks.
King James, of course.
And no, it's not a homophobic rant. It's meant to illustrate that holding on to the biblical presuppositions that it was written by God is patently false, especially if you believe that God condemns homosexuality. However, I can't find the information on this at the moment, and seeing as how it's understandably inflammatory, you can disregard that if you wish.
And per my Baptist up-bringing, the KJV was the one true version, and any other versions were an abberation of the word. That's just how I was brought up. But then you have to consider that most English translations (the NIV, the NKJV) are derived from the KJV.
And yes, the Biblical stories have lost many of their original meanings, especially since we still today can't agree on what any one specific passage means, let alone an entire book of the Bible. For example, most Christians today seem to dismiss the Apocrypha and the Gnostic gospels. Since they aren't in today's Biblical accounts, many believe them to be false accounts. However, it was as recently as the early 18th century that the Apocrypha was widely read and influential in popular culture. Similarly, the gnostic gospels, which were largely written out by the Nicene Creed in the 4th century, have since surfaced and have exposed contradictions in the new testament. Jesus Christ was married, or at least being in a sexual relationship, for instance, which would have made a lot more sense in that day and age than him traveling alone. And similarly, that Mary Magdalene was an equal to Jesus then, but who was demonized and dismissed as a prostitute.
And recently, the Gospel of Judas was found, and seemed to insist that he was preferred over the others, and even that his "betrayal" was actually insisted upon by Jesus in order to fulfill his worldly duties.
DB,
Your ignorance of Biblical scholarship is not uncommon. Those gnostic gospels and the Gospel of Jude have been dated back to the second centrury A.D. The timing of the writing shows them to be well after the four gospels. Scholars agree they were written to conform to the their particular heresy. To rely on them is to be in error.
Interesting discussion. Thanks.
Gotta run. See ya!
My "ignorance" is from 12 years of study.
Your ignorance of transcriptional archeology is what is not un-common.
Yes, those documents are from the 2 century A.D.
Truth is, we don't have any original document that translates into the Bible today. Every document had been written and re-written over and over. Even the original four gospels, which were not the original four gospels, just four of the many, had been re-written and passed down through the generations.
This doesn't mean the gnostic gospels are not about the life of Jesus, just that the Council of Nicea debated the merits of each gospel and chose the ones that best represented their interpretations.
DB,
I don't claim to be a Biblical Scholar. Are you claiming such? Twelve years of study? Is this formal study? I apologize for calling you ignorant.
Yes, there were other writings at the time, however, transcripts on papyrus have been found dating back to the first century that support the writings used in the fourth century. I don't get why you say the gospels were written and rewritten. It is obvious they were. However scholars go back to the earliest texts and writings of the Church Fathers to confirm their accuracy.
Inaccurate texts have been discarded over time. Just because some in the 18th century read gnostic writings does not prove them to be accurate today. The gnostics were considered heretics by many of those Church fathers. Biblical studies show them to be written in the 2nd century. Since they do not conform to earlier writings of the gospels, epistles, and letters from writers of that day, they are not considered to be the authentic teachings of Jesus by the vast majority of biblical scholars.
I do find the subject very interesting. Thanks for the discussion.
Col.
I've responded since you wrote your opinion of me. I hope my responses change your mind about me.
I would think we could get beyond these types of posts and discuss the issues rather than personalities.
Solon,
The date of the writings is disputed. However the Gospel of Thomas follows gnostic thought which was heretical and developed in the 2nd centrury. Another strike against it is that it does not conform to the earlier gospels.
Another problem is that it is the 'secret sayings of Jesus' and supposedly Thomas is Jesus's twin brother.
It is a stretch to believe that this 'gospel', which is so outside the others, is authoritive, as it is at odds with the others.
No major Christian group accepts this gospel as canonical or authoritative.
What does bigger prisons have to do with anything? Are not the criminals in prison found guilty of crimes?
Maybe someone can explain why Rev. Wright is against a three strike law? Would he be in favor of a four-strike law? Five? Six?"
Sorry, I started off on a tangent and forgot to address these issues.
First, "they" in Wright's speech is the CIA, which, true or not, many African Americans believe introduced crack into the black community in the early '80s as a way to destroy the black community. Like I said, not saying it's true or not, just that that's what many African Americans believe.
And the prisons issue? There are something like 3x as many African Americans in prison than there are white people, yet they are only something like 9-11% of the population. So bigger prisons, to them, means more African Americans in prison. Some get unfair sentences, like the recent crack laws that were struck down. To get the same sentence for trying to sell a gram of crack, you'd have to try to sell way more cocaine. This was seen for a long time as an unfair sentencing practice against African Americans.
The three strike law, again, is seen as unfair, though I'm not sure I can articulate why, exactly.
Black patriots love our country, even though it has often hated us. We love our country, even while we hold it accountable for its faults.
AA, poor black communities have the largest drug problem but they are poor and they don't have planes to bring the drugs into their communities, they don't have boats to bring drugs into their community but some how the drugs are there in an abundance.
One of the reasons black males make up such a larger percentage of the prison population is crack cocaine.
Facts: "Powder cocaine and crack cocaine are two forms of the same drug, containing the same active ingredient." Crack cocaine is the only drug for which the first offense of simple possession can trigger a federal mandatory minimum sentence. Possession of 5 grams of crack will trigger a 5 year mandatory minimum sentence. "Simple possession of any quantity of any other substance by a first-time offender-including powder cocaine-is a misdemeanor offense punishable by a maximum of one year in prison." In 1986, before mandatory minimums for crack offenses became effective, the average federal drug offense sentence for blacks was 11% higher than for whites. Four years later following the implementation of harsher drug sentencing laws, the average federal drug offense sentence was 49% higher for blacks. In federal court today, low-level crack dealers and first-time offenders sentenced for trafficking of crack cocaine receive an average sentence of 10 years and six months. This is: --only 18% less than the average prison sentence received by those who committed murder or manslaughter (153 months); --59% longer than the average prison sentence received by rapists (79 months); --38% longer than the average prison sentence received by those guilty of weapons offenses (91 months).
Same drug, different prison sentences =JUSTICE?
Pearlene,
I understand your point. Drugs are indeed a problem and it is tragic in the black urban community. I am all for equal justice. I am simply saying that the laws of the country and states are being adjudicated and the guilty are being sentenced in many instances to prison.
We can change the laws and/orchange the prison sentences if that is the desire of the citizenry. But until then, the lawbreakers are still being sentenced to jail. I'm not sure how it could be any different? Are you advocating something else?
The spell of idiocy the media that doesn't matter tries to whip up, is not worth the wasted effort. Talking heads are all ignored nowadays, like a blind spot in the American conscience where we know what we're really looking at and how to see with or without them regardless. Mediamatters should shift its analytic emphasis to straight news and stop vamping with the nuisance of affected relevance in tv personalities or their endless train of unremarkable blather.
Take Mr. Obama at his own word, judge his skills and character by his own action, not that of the weakest association--mere juxtaposition.
AA - What is Reverend Wright saying with "The government gives them drugs"? Who is "they" and what drugs is he talking about?
Have you never heard that the CIA run "Air America" raised money by bringing heroine and other drugs into the US during Vietnam? More recently there were the contras and the coke that the CIA helped bring into the US.
In conjunction with that, why are manadtory minimum sentences administered at a lower threshold for crack cocaine than for powder?
Old,
I've heard of it and even remember a movie about it. However is it accurate? Do you have any references? Do we know the extent of the air-lifts?
Even if it is factual, do you have any evidence that it is being done 40 years later?
You can do the google, no? There is info at wiki...
According to The Politics of Heroin in Southeast Asia, a 1972 study by historian Alfred W. McCoy, Air America transported opium and heroin on behalf of Hmong leader Vang Pao.[1] This allegation has been supported by former Laos CIA paramilitary Anthony Poshepny, former Air America pilots, and other people involved in the war. University of Georgia historian William M. Leary claims that this was done without the airline employees' direct knowledge and that the airline itself did not trade in drugs.[2]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Air_america
As for more recently, the contras were apparently being helped with trafficking by the CIA. Check out Gary Webb. I also quickly found this...
http://ciadrugs.homestead.com/files/outline.html
As for your comments pertaining to the overall justice system, if you can't see the inequity in sentencing between crack (an urban drug of choice) vs. the powder version of the same drug (the party favour of the rich) then I don't know what else to tell you.
OLD BENJAMIN
Here is an excerpt from an article written by The Sentencing Project.org regarding the background for crack cocaine sentencing guidelines:
Crack cocaine became prevalent in the mid-1980's and received massive media attention due in part to its exponential growth in the drug market. In the wake of widespread media attention, crack was portrayed as a violence inducing, highly addictive drug that created a plague of social problems, especially in inner city communities. (can't really argue with this point)
With the media spotlight focusing on crack, Congress quickly passed federal sentencing legislation in both 1986 and 1988. This included mandatory sentencing laws based on the premise that crack cocaine was 50 times more addictive than powder cocaine. For good measure, Congress doubled that number and came up with a sentencing policy based on the weight of the drug an individual was convicted of selling. Thus federal sentences for crack were constructed to relate to sentences for powder cocaine in a 100:1 quantity ratio.
Initially, crack cocaine was widely viewed as a social menace that was categorically different from powder cocaine in its physiological and psychotropic effects. However, these assumptions were more reflective of the prevalent panic and fear that arose out of the explosive growth of the crack market than conclusions of scientific investigation (emphasis added by me).
Link to full article http://www.sentencingproject.org/Admin/Documents/publications/rd_raceandclass_penalties.pdf
I can't agree with this last statement enough - we must not make decisions based on fear and panic (created by a few influential folks that have a stronghold on the media) or because it 'feels like the right thing to do' without reviewing ALL the facts.
Just for the record - the Democrats held the majority of both the House and Senate in 1986 and 1988. Furthermore, Pres. Bill Clinton just admitted 'regret' on crack cocaine sentencing. In 1995, when the U.S. Sentencing Commission first recommended eliminating the 100-to-1 sentencing disparity, President Clinton opposed that change. Here is the link http://blogs.usatoday.com/oped/2008/03/bill-clinton-ad.html
Lkenyon