the larger point still stands though. The main 'legitimate' attack on Obama is based on what someone else, not Obama has said as the pore over his sermons and writings with a fine tooth comb hoping to find outrage to hurt Obama.
if a man attends a racist church for 20 years, it stands to reason he himself is a racist.
Differentiating-- attacking-- on the basis of race...I think that counts as racism.
I think I've said it here at least one before that I think the spiel that we are all the same is rather bullshit. There are obviously differences between the races. I don't think it's "racist' to think otherwise.
It's when you play on those differences to say that one group is somehow superior and the other, inferior to another based on those differences that you start veering into racism.
"...where white folks' greed runs a world in need..." actually is quite catchy and indicative of the type of rhyming oratory that I don't particularly like myself, but is popular in some black churches. To be quite honest, it reminded me of Midnight Oil's "The Dead Heart"...
Quote:
We don't serve your country Don't serve your king Know your custom don't speak your tongue White man came took everyone
We don't serve your country Don't serve your king White man listen to the songs we sing White man came took everything
We carry in our hearts the true country And that cannot be stolen We follow in the steps of our ancestry And that cannot be broken
We don't need protection Don't need your land Keep your promise on where we stand We will listen we'll understand
Mining companies, pastoral companies Uranium companies Collected companies Got more right than people Got more say than people
Forty thousand years can make a difference to the state of things The dead heart lives here
Now is it OK for this guy to sing that because he's a 7 foot tall white singer/politician and not a black Reverend?
the larger point still stands though. The main 'legitimate' attack on Obama is based on what someone else, not Obama has said as the pore over his sermons and writings with a fine tooth comb hoping to find outrage to hurt Obama.
if a man attends a racist church for 20 years, it stands to reason he himself is a racist.
That's YOUR interpretation of his church though based on what little you know based on outrageous sound bites that Obama has already conemned.
the larger point still stands though. The main 'legitimate' attack on Obama is based on what someone else, not Obama has said as the pore over his sermons and writings with a fine tooth comb hoping to find outrage to hurt Obama.
if a man attends a racist church for 20 years, it stands to reason he himself is a racist.
That's YOUR interpretation of his church though based on what little you know based on outrageous sound bites that Obama has already conemned.
sound bites, his church released it as a DVD. you cant attend a racist church for 20 years and condemn it when the jig is up, and be considered sincere. only a mindless idiot like you would believe that.
the larger point still stands though. The main 'legitimate' attack on Obama is based on what someone else, not Obama has said as the pore over his sermons and writings with a fine tooth comb hoping to find outrage to hurt Obama.
if a man attends a racist church for 20 years, it stands to reason he himself is a racist.
That's YOUR interpretation of his church though based on what little you know based on outrageous sound bites that Obama has already conemned.
sound bites, his church released it as a DVD. you cant attend a racist church for 20 years and condemn it when the jig is up, and be considered sincere. only a mindless idiot like you would believe that.
Actually, i would argue that YOU are an idiot for making such a strong judgement based on the sound bytes that you've seen out of context.
Here's Jeremiah Wright’s now infamous sermon regarding 9/11 in its full context. Dr. Wright makes it clear he is quoting a white ambassador and that the words are not his own. He is merely commenting on something said by another.
Dr. Wright clearly came out against the acts of terror committed against this country, and contrasted them against acts of terror by this country. He is saying that both are wrong and that America may be able to look within for healing. It's not exactly artfully worded, but it's not that different from what Falwell and the like on the right have also said and were also condemned for.
midnight oil is running for president? i dont think that's allowed, theyre australian. whomod you really need to fact check.
As I mentioned the other day, when whomod knows he's losing an argument, he falls back on the defense that "someone else did it too."
I guess whomod thinks two wrongs DO make a right.
No. I asked a question. Is that considered a racist song? It goes back to the point that you seem to think Wrights similarly worded phrase is racist.
BTW, is it too obvious to point out that the media and the public, save for you guys and the right wing media you follow, have moved on from this story and were sufficiently swayed by Obama's speech. The only people still not satisfied I don't think wil EVER be satisfied nor would they EVER have voted for Obama regardless of Wright anyways.
....the sound bytes that you've seen out of context...
"God Damn America" still means "God Damn America." There's no part in the speech where he "damned" our nation in which he says, suggests or even hints that he didn't really mean it, or that he thought America was in danger of damnation, and he wanted to save it.
No, if anything, it's clearer that he meant what he said.
im sorry g-man, im gunna have to disagree with you. osama bin laden has in different words said "god damn america", why is it alright for bin laden to say it and not Obama's spiritual leader rev. wright?
....the sound bytes that you've seen out of context...
"God Damn America" still means "God Damn America." There's no part in the speech where he "damned" our nation in which he says, suggests or even hints that he didn't really mean it, or that he thought America was in danger of damnation, and he wanted to save it.
No, if anything, it's clearer that he meant what he said.
Actually i've listened to a number of sermons on KWAVE, my denominations radio station, where they look into Revelation and conclude that the United States is in for a huge decline and irrelevance in the face of prophetic events. So God will indeed damn America, whether we like it or not seeing as how a European superpower and not the US is not a factor in Apololyptic prophecy, in fact the US is pretty much a non-entity in apocalyptic prophecy.
To point it out as being on account of sin and arrogance is just an extension o that. I don't think ANY pastor, at least not any biblically honest ones, tailors their speeches to fit a pro-U.S. supremeacy standpoint.
in fact the US is pretty much a non-entity in apocalyptic prophecy
Not surprising, considering that apocalyptic prophecy is a big fairy tale that dates back to a time before the US even existed.
In any event, you're back to "someone else did it." Please see my earlier observations as to what that means.
You keep on bringing things up and expect them to somehow live in some vacuum. I'll keep your thoughts on Christianity saved though for future reference.
....the sound bytes that you've seen out of context...
"God Damn America" still means "God Damn America." There's no part in the speech where he "damned" our nation in which he says, suggests or even hints that he didn't really mean it, or that he thought America was in danger of damnation, and he wanted to save it.
No, if anything, it's clearer that he meant what he said.
Actually i've listened to a number of sermons on KWAVE, my denominations radio station, where they look into Revelation and conclude that the United States is in for a huge decline and irrelevance in the face of prophetic events. So God will indeed damn America, whether we like it or not seeing as how a European superpower and not the US is not a factor in Apololyptic prophecy, in fact the US is pretty much a non-entity in apocalyptic prophecy.
To point it out as being on account of sin and arrogance is just an extension o that. I don't think ANY pastor, at least not any biblically honest ones, tailors their speeches to fit a pro-U.S. supremeacy standpoint.
the larger point still stands though. The main 'legitimate' attack on Obama is based on what someone else, not Obama has said as they pore over his sermons and writings with a fine tooth comb hoping to find outrage to hurt Obama.
This is a far cry from Hillary where all you need is to juxtapose footage of her campaign speeches, which she herself said with file footage of what actually transpired.
Is Obama claiming that he was conceived because of the Selma, AL march but finding out later that he was born three years before not the same as Hillary? How about the fact that he denied telling Canada that his NAFTA talk was just political bullshit to get Ohio votes, but later the memo of the meeting with his campaign to the Canadian diplomat in Chicago said just that not the same either?
whomod said: I generally don't like it when people decide to play by the rules against people who don't play by the rules. It tends to put you immediately at a disadvantage and IMO is a sign of true weakness. This is true both in politics and on the internet."
the larger point still stands though. The main 'legitimate' attack on Obama is based on what someone else, not Obama has said as they pore over his sermons and writings with a fine tooth comb hoping to find outrage to hurt Obama.
This is a far cry from Hillary where all you need is to juxtapose footage of her campaign speeches, which she herself said with file footage of what actually transpired.
Is Obama claiming that he was conceived because of the Selma, AL march but finding out later that he was born three years before not the same as Hillary? How about the fact that he denied telling Canada that his NAFTA talk was just political bullshit to get Ohio votes, but later the memo of the meeting with his campaign to the Canadian diplomat in Chicago said just that not the same either?
The Selma story though was not him using it to show that it qualifies him and makes him ready to be commander in chief or even President. It was just some clumsy and frankly stupid anecdote he made up. The Ireland story and the Bosnia story however, were intended precisely to somehow show that she's qualified and has the experience to lead "on day 1".
Obama said later that he meant to credit the entire civil rights movement with his parents' union, not just the Bloody Sunday marchers. So while he clearly wasn't conceived because of Selma, the larger point of an interracial union being made possible by the civil rights movement and all the advancements towards interracial unions being less "taboo", certainly still stands.
This again however has absolutely ZERO to do with why he's qualified to be ready on day 1. It's just an attempt to tie his story to Selma and try to connect with voters there.
And I think the media understood that. Basically it was a case of pandering to a particular group of people in Selma and trying to tie himself with them. Just like the media understand that Hillary's lies directly relate to her claims of having commander in chief credentials, which she does not.
The Canada thing you said yourself that BOTH camps deny and BOTH camps have been accused of. And regardless, it's not as if Obama didn't already pay a price for that rumour. A price that Hillary didn't pay BTW.
whomod says that lying is wrong....unless it's just to pander to the voters...cuz everyone does that...except when it's pandering to voters about your experience...in which case it's wrong....unless someone else lied too...then lying's okay again.
whomod says that lying is wrong....unless it's just to pander to the voters...cuz everyone does that...except when it's pandering to voters about your experience...in which case it's wrong....unless someone else lied too...then lying's okay again.
I don't like pandering either. And it did make Obama look stupid. And then that was that. The media and everyone else moved on. Done deal. My point wasn't that it wasn't wrong to say that. My point is that his statements didn't imply qualifications for the job of President or frankly didn't imply anything but to try to credit the town he was speaking at and the historical events there with his birth. To give the people hearing his speech there that day the warm fuzzies or something I guess.
The media isn't dwelling on it because they already gave it the airtime it deserved given the ....um... severity and relevance of the dishonesty?
No one is saying Obama never lied or pandered or is some saint. The point is that he's not lying on why he's qualified to be President with tall tales about battle action and treaty negotiations.
This video isinspiring. It's 13 minutes long but worth a watch.
It's a video of students at the Bronx High School of Performance and Stagecraft reacting to Obama's historic speech on race. The best part is when several of the students give their own versions of the "Yes We Can" speech. After the past couple weeks, inspiration is a good thing.
The point I was making was not that my grandmother harbors any racial animosity. But she is a typical white person. If she sees somebody on the street that she doesn't know. . .there's a reaction in her that doesn't go away and it comes out in the wrong way.
we all look alike anyways.
Kudos to Fox’s Chris Wallace for taking Fox And Friends ‘To Task’ For ‘Two Hours Of Obama Bashing’
On Fox and Friends this morning, hosts Steve Doocy, Brian Kilmeade, and Gretchen Carlson spent multiple segments sensationalizing a comment Sen. Barack Obama (D-IL) made yesterday, in which he referred to his grandmother as “a typical white person” in some of her racial reactions. Obama made the comment while discussing his recent speech on race relations in America on a Philadelphia radio show.
When the trio welcomed Fox News Sunday host Chris Wallace onto the show, instead of previewing his show this weekend, Wallace announced that he was going to take his fellow Fox hosts “to task” for their “excessive” and “somewhat distorting” coverage of what Obama said:
Quote:
Hey listen, I love you guys but I want to take you to task if I may, respectfully, for a moment. I have been watching the show since 6:00 this morning when I got up, and it seems to me that two hours of Obama bashing on this typical white person remark is somewhat excessive and frankly I think you’re somewhat distorting what Obama had to say.
Wallace — who said that the issue “was a little more complicated than we’ve been portraying” — went on to chastise his very uncomfortable-looking colleagues for the next five minutes. Watch it:
Trying to defend their coverage, Carlson said they played up Obama’s comment because she “felt that maybe the attention was being taken away from what people really wanted to hear Barack Obama speak about, which was his association and what he thought about the comments by his minister Jeremiah Wright.”
Noting Obama’s speeches this week on the economy and the war in Iraq, Wallace replied that “maybe it’s the media doing” the deflecting:
Quote:
Far be it for me to be a spokesman for the Obama campaign, and I will tell you that they would laugh at that characterization, but you know, the fact is that after giving a speech on race earlier this week, on Tuesday, he gave a major speech on Iraq on Wednesday and a major speech on the economy yesterday. And so, I think they would say that in terms of deflecting attention away from the issues people really want to hear about, maybe it’s the media doing it, not Barack Obama.
“I appreciate you respecting us enough to say it on camera as opposed to writing an email,” said Kilmeade after hearing Wallace’s criticism.
So again, kudos for Wallace doing the right thing there. I do take exception for that type of reporting that FOX does and i'm glad to see Wallace speaking against it. it does lend a bit of respectability to himself.
And on a day that saw not only the news cycle move over to the passport story as well s the Richardson endorsement for Obama, I'm wondering if Wallace also doesn't see the handwriting on the wall and realizes that an Obama presidency with a continued Obama boycotts of FOX news because of that type of reporting would only further hurt and marginalize their network.
That' just speculation on my part as to motive but regardless of what motivated him, whether professional maneuvering or genuine desire for fairness, I'm glad he did that.
I especially liked how Obama called his grandmother a "typical white person."
Originally Posted By: whomod
Originally Posted By: britneyspearsatemyshorts
Originally Posted By: Barack Hussein Obama
The point I was making was not that my grandmother harbors any racial animosity. But she is a typical white person. If she sees somebody on the street that she doesn't know. . .there's a reaction in her that doesn't go away and it comes out in the wrong way.
we all look alike anyways.
Kudos to Fox’s Chris Wallace for taking Fox And Friends ‘To Task’ For ‘Two Hours Of Obama Bashing’
On Fox and Friends this morning, hosts Steve Doocy, Brian Kilmeade, and Gretchen Carlson spent multiple segments sensationalizing a comment Sen. Barack Obama (D-IL) made yesterday, in which he referred to his grandmother as “a typical white person” in some of her racial reactions. Obama made the comment while discussing his recent speech on race relations in America on a Philadelphia radio show.
When the trio welcomed Fox News Sunday host Chris Wallace onto the show, instead of previewing his show this weekend, Wallace announced that he was going to take his fellow Fox hosts “to task” for their “excessive” and “somewhat distorting” coverage of what Obama said:
Quote:
Hey listen, I love you guys but I want to take you to task if I may, respectfully, for a moment. I have been watching the show since 6:00 this morning when I got up, and it seems to me that two hours of Obama bashing on this typical white person remark is somewhat excessive and frankly I think you’re somewhat distorting what Obama had to say.
Wallace — who said that the issue “was a little more complicated than we’ve been portraying” — went on to chastise his very uncomfortable-looking colleagues for the next five minutes. Watch it:
Trying to defend their coverage, Carlson said they played up Obama’s comment because she “felt that maybe the attention was being taken away from what people really wanted to hear Barack Obama speak about, which was his association and what he thought about the comments by his minister Jeremiah Wright.”
Noting Obama’s speeches this week on the economy and the war in Iraq, Wallace replied that “maybe it’s the media doing” the deflecting:
Quote:
Far be it for me to be a spokesman for the Obama campaign, and I will tell you that they would laugh at that characterization, but you know, the fact is that after giving a speech on race earlier this week, on Tuesday, he gave a major speech on Iraq on Wednesday and a major speech on the economy yesterday. And so, I think they would say that in terms of deflecting attention away from the issues people really want to hear about, maybe it’s the media doing it, not Barack Obama.
“I appreciate you respecting us enough to say it on camera as opposed to writing an email,” said Kilmeade after hearing Wallace’s criticism.
So again, kudos for Wallace doing the right thing there. I do take exception for that type of reporting that FOX does and i'm glad to see Wallace speaking against it. it does lend a bit of respectability to himself.
And on a day that saw not only the news cycle move over to the passport story as well s the Richardson endorsement for Obama, I'm wondering if Wallace also doesn't see the handwriting on the wall and realizes that an Obama presidency with a continued Obama boycotts of FOX news because of that type of reporting would only further hurt and marginalize their network.
That' just speculation on my part as to motive but regardless of what motivated him, whether professional maneuvering or genuine desire for fairness, I'm glad he did that.
wow. racism and religious intolerance from you guys. so what if he is a muslim. islam is ultimately just as crazy as any other religion. no more, no less. it's only that the people in the middle east live in a shitty desert with lots of violence that the religion gets the bad reputation but it's just another abrahamic religion. it doesn't matter if he is a muslim, what matters is where he has lived and was raised. i doubt he lost family to the Israelis or to American intervention in the middle east. I doubt that any of the motives for terrorism exist. it just means he's boring at a party and is probably a bit too serious to have any real fun. bush started wars which killed hundreds of thousands using very religious speeches to justify it (democracy is god's gift to the world isn't too far from a bin laden speech), yet none of you are railing against having a christian president.
I was going to post that Pariah and at least 2 other people here seem to thrive and enjoy having racial animosity and misunderstanding between the races.
Originally Posted By: Friendly Neighborhood Ray-man
wow. racism and religious intolerance from you guys. so what if he is a muslim. islam is ultimately just as crazy as any other religion. no more, no less. it's only that the people in the middle east live in a shitty desert with lots of violence that the religion gets the bad reputation but it's just another abrahamic religion. it doesn't matter if he is a muslim, what matters is where he has lived and was raised. i doubt he lost family to the Israelis or to American intervention in the middle east. I doubt that any of the motives for terrorism exist. it just means he's boring at a party and is probably a bit too serious to have any real fun. bush started wars which killed hundreds of thousands using very religious speeches to justify it (democracy is god's gift to the world isn't too far from a bin laden speech), yet none of you are railing against having a christian president.
i seriously doubt bush is a christian president, he vetoed a bill giving healthcare to millions of poor american children.
I was going to post that Pariah and at least 2 other people here seem to thrive and enjoy having racial animosity and misunderstanding between the races.
On Sunday night, President Bush is set to throw out the first ball at Nationals Park and help inaugurate the Washington Nationals' new stadium.
President John F. Kennedy did the same on April 9, 1962, when D.C. Stadium debuted as the home field for the fledgling Washington Senators, in their second season as the American League's second Senators franchise.
The park — known today as RFK Stadium, after the late president's slain brother — was the out-of-date home for the Nationals over the past three years.
Forty-six years ago, more than 44,000 fans showed up for the Senators' opener, a then-record for a Washington sporting event. News stories called the ballpark "beautiful," "first class," "magnificent" and "graceful." The previous fall, the park's other tenants, the NFL's Washington Redskins, had christened the stadium.
Before the 1961 season began, Calvin Griffith, the owner of the original Senators franchise, moved that team to Minnesota and changed its name to the Twins. The American League, fearing congressional vengeance, immediately filled the vacancy by awarding Washington a new team. The 1961 Senators played as tenants of the old owner at Griffith Stadium.
Charlie Brotman, the longtime public address announcer for the Senators, handled the logistics of Kennedy's opening-day toss. Brotman recalled looking for the president in the dugout before the 1962 opener, but not finding him anywhere.
"And so now I'm panicking a little bit," Brotman said. "I went down the passageway from the dugout to the locker room to see if he's there. Midway down the passageway, there is President Kennedy, smoking a big cigar, all by himself, no security, no friends, just relaxing and having the time of his life. And I said, `Mr. President, it's time to go to work.' He said, `OK,' snuffed out the cigar, and I escorted him to the box seats. And he had a wonderful time."
Bush is to make his delivery from the pitcher's mound to Nationals manager Manny Acta. Kennedy, in keeping with the tradition of the times, made his toss from the presidential box in the stands, throwing the ball up for grabs into a scrum of players from both teams. Nobody could haul in a Kennedy pitch that one reporter described as a "half-speed curve."
Finally, Senators pitcher Marty Kutyna picked up the ball on the first base line and brought it over to the young president for an autograph.
Kennedy looked confident as he made the toss from behind the Senators dugout, surrounded by Vice President Lyndon Johnson, Cabinet secretaries and members of Congress. But he was not as self-assured when a foul ball came screeching into his box.
According to The New York Times, as the towering foul headed toward Kennedy in the fourth inning, his special assistant and longtime friend David Powers blocked the president and the ball bounced off the top of the dugout. The Times' front-page headline the next day said Kennedy was "Good Pitch, No Field."
Two Senators players had a bit of an adventure making their way to the game that day. Rookie Senators pitcher Jim Hannan recalled getting a ride from outfielder Jimmy Piersall, whose book about his battle with mental illness, "Fear Strikes Out," had been turned into a movie and created quite a stir.
"He showed up in what looked like a '37 Chevy," said Hannan, now a stockbroker in Washington. "It broke down right in front of the White House. So we had to take a cab to the stadium."
Later, the White House placed a call to Piersall, Hannan said. A secretary told him to hold for the president.
"And Kennedy gets on and says, `What are you doing leaving that piece of junk in front of my house?'" Hannan relates with a laugh. Piersall and Kennedy knew each other personally, Hannan said. In the 1950s, Kennedy was a real senator, from Massachusetts, while Piersall played for the Boston Red Sox for much of the decade.
Piersall did not shy away from the president at the ballpark. On his way out to center field, the colorful ballplayer playfully slapped Kennedy on the shoulder.
When rain showers briefly interrupted the game, the president and his party stayed dry by passing time in the umpires' room, signing autographs and chatting with the men in blue. Only days before, Kennedy had nominated former NFL star Byron White to the Supreme Court. The president asked umpire Hank Soar, another ex-NFL player, for a scouting report.
"I never saw any better," Soar told Kennedy, according to The Washington Post.
Kennedy had such a good time at the game that he blew off a 4:30 p.m. appointment at the White House with the Laotian ambassador to stay until the last out. It was 5:30 by the time the president returned.
"The Laotian ambassador, Tiao Klapman, of the patient, understanding East, was waiting for him," the Times reported.
The Senators got off to a good start in their new stadium, defeating the Detroit Tigers, 4-1. "I'm leaving you in first place," JFK told the team's top brass after the game, and indeed the Senators owned the best record in the league; no other American League teams played that day.
But the effect didn't last. Washington lost 101 games that season and finished last in the 10-team league.
The Senators were last again in 1963, leading to a modest rallying cry for the next year: "Off the floor in '64." They met that goal, barely, finishing in 9th place. The new Senators would manage just one winning season, in 1969, before moving on to Texas following the 1971 season, where the Senators became Rangers.
A politically connected investor named George W. Bush eventually became the managing partner of the Rangers.
Well Obama's ride as the new JFK is over. sorry whomod.
What's the difference between an idiot and a fool in your mind?
An idiot is at least able to notice when the emperor is naked.
A fool would pick fights with Bruce Lee, Sly Stallone and Mr T, lose against all, and still claim each time that he "won" again.
"Batman is only meaningful as an answer to a world which in its basics is chaotic and in the hands of the wrong people, where no justice can be found. I think it's very suitable to our perception of the world's condition today... Batman embodies the will to resist evil" -Frank Miller
"Conan, what's the meaning of life?" "To crush your enemies, see them driven before you, and hear the lamentations of their women!" -Conan the Barbarian
"Well, yeah." -Jason E. Perkins
"If I had a dime for every time Pariah was right about something I'd owe twenty cents." -Ultimate Jaburg53
"Fair enough. I defer to your expertise." -Prometheus
Originally Posted By: The New Adventures of Old PJP
Originally Posted By: the G-man
What's the difference between an idiot and a fool in your mind?
an idiot is captain sweeden and a fool is whomod.
You are dead to me now.
You didn't even spell my poster name correctly.
"Batman is only meaningful as an answer to a world which in its basics is chaotic and in the hands of the wrong people, where no justice can be found. I think it's very suitable to our perception of the world's condition today... Batman embodies the will to resist evil" -Frank Miller
"Conan, what's the meaning of life?" "To crush your enemies, see them driven before you, and hear the lamentations of their women!" -Conan the Barbarian
"Well, yeah." -Jason E. Perkins
"If I had a dime for every time Pariah was right about something I'd owe twenty cents." -Ultimate Jaburg53
"Fair enough. I defer to your expertise." -Prometheus
