Obama's Pastor: U.S. to Blame for 9/11

[latent aaaack]

I bolded the key, the essential in your statement.

I can see no other option for the man to be honest, guilt by association seems to still run rampant in the world.

TAM

I heard Obama's campaign use the "guilt by association" line and found it, as is typical of Obama's political brand terse, slippery, and manipulative. One chooses a church and pastor based on shared beliefs.

Obama didn't end up having a profoundly close 20 year relationship with the extremist pastor because they were poker buddies who just thought eachother were cool guys so they ended up converting to the same religion, having a family-like, personal spiritual and political adviser relationship after some beers one night. Yes, how cruel of America to tear apart their platonic, completely non-idealogical, star crossed man-love.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

I just can't agree with his case for not repudiating Wright.
Obama condemning wright's words you say is admirable I say it was actually more about political survival. And given the fact we agree on the Highlighted part you're not fully convinced it was that admirable. We are pretty much in full agreement.

It was listening to Obama make the case that this was a guy who was a personal friend. You don't just abandon long time friends because they do something stupid. I thought the political thing to do was to just condemn the guy. Obama had no qualms dissing Farrakhan personally. To refuse to condemn your friend of 20 years seems a bit more honorable than political.

But, the opposite to that is, if you know this guy so well, how could you not know what his beliefs were. That side of the sword is a bit more damaging.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

If he knew or should have known about these issues then I have to question Obama's political sense. Surely he should have realised that the church would be a liability if he wanted to stand for higher office?

I think some of this stuff develops insidiously over time.

I'm quite curious about Obama's true religious beliefs considering his mother was an atheist and not a closet one. Was this church a political activity from the beginning or did Obama really find Jesus somewhere?

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

Would I judge a person on cherry picked lines of their pastor even if their pastor were Ann Coulter? No. I would be wary at first, had I known nothing of the man. Honestly, if he's THAT good a faker, he deserves the presidency. If he's actually being straightforward, and, heaven forbid, disagrees with his pastor, which I'm sure he's not the only one in the church, then again, he deserves it.

I don't hear anyone saying Obama shares Wright's views. But you can hardly call the stuff of Wright's "cherry picked".

Wright presents a common theme in some black communities, distrust of the Government and authorities, some deserved, some not. Look at what the immediate opinion was toward OJ's accuittal, the majority of blacks polled bought into the, "he was framed because the police hate successful black men married to white women". What nonsense at least in LA. And I think a few months after the publicity died down a lot of blacks reevaluated that assessment. But there is a cultural divide here.

My ex was a blues musician and we had a lot of black friends. There was nothing weird or abnormal, I'm not saying that. But there is a difference in culture. And within that culture, there are people who express the same version of the world Wright expressed in a number of his sermons. My point is, you know when people view the world that way, it isn't hard to tell. It's hard to believe you wouldn't know about it and it is not a matter of cherry picking.

Example, I enjoy the band Foo Fighters, have since I was but a wee one. Owned every album, read all about them, yet they associate with AIDs denial folk. I didn't know this until recently. Ugly facts tend to hide, and people tend not to define themselves by their negative sides.

Do you know them personally? It's hardly the same thing.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

I am not talking about resentment, I am talking about detonating a bomb in a shopping mall, crashing a plane into a building. Interventions in S. America have not produced anywhere even near the same levels of outward violence towards America. The US supported Pinochet in the 70's and 80's but you don't see Chileans strapping bombs to themselves and attacking us for it....

Did you read your source?

Yes, I read it. I also don't have time to do more research for you. I just pulled up the first couple of examples that came to mind. You really need to read more. We are responsible for human rights atrocities all over the world. There is no question the US has for a century been intervening in country after country, mostly at the expense of human rights. The rest of the world knows this, people in the US are the ones who are naive about it.

The fact not everyone is strapping bombs on is because, of course, there are additional variables involved. But you seem to be saying that the cause doesn't include one of the variables, that of the view the rest of the world has of this country and resentment for the actions of our current and past governments.

What makes you think we have no roll in the blowback just because everyone hasn't become extremists?

 

[IchabodPlain]

Yes, I read it. I also don't have time to do more research for you. I just pulled up the first couple of examples that came to mind. You really need to read more. We are responsible for human rights atrocities all over the world. There is no question the US has for a century been intervening in country after country, mostly at the expense of human rights. The rest of the world knows this, people in the US are the ones who are naive about it.

I never claimed that we weren't responsible for human rights atrocities and intervention in many parts of the world. In fact, I said the opposite, which is that the US has intervened in S. America numerous times.

The fact not everyone is strapping bombs on is because, of course, there are additional variables involved.

But what do those who strap bombs to themselves share in common?

But you seem to be saying that the cause doesn't include one of the variables, that of the view the rest of the world has of this country and resentment for the actions of our current and past governments.

I am not sure what you mean by this. Are you saying anti-us sentiment can be a factor? I might be inclined to agree, but I do not think it is the driving force.

There are plenty of people who dislike (or hate) America, but this in-and-of-itself does not produce outward violence and attacks upon the US. What does produce this violence is a ideology which is resentful to western culture, one which actively advocates violence as a method of change.

What makes you think we have no roll in the blowback just because everyone hasn't become extremists?

What's interesting is that you are making my point for me. You can't reduce all anti-us sentiment, and especially violent extremism to blowback. Many, including Mr. Wright (and Ron Paul) have attempted this argument, but it falls completely flat when you look at South and Central America. Why aren't Panamanians coming across the border to kill Americans for installing Noriega? Blowback isn't some magical term that explains all evil in the world. In fact, it's utterly useless when looking at the consequences of inaction.

 

[Cincinnatus]

It was listening to Obama make the case that this was a guy who was a personal friend. You don't just abandon long time friends because they do something stupid. I thought the political thing to do was to just condemn the guy. Obama had no qualms dissing Farrakhan personally. To refuse to condemn your friend of 20 years seems a bit more honorable than political.

But, the opposite to that is, if you know this guy so well, how could you not know what his beliefs were. That side of the sword is a bit more damaging.

Don't play semantics with yourself say what I know you really think. That the point is how could anyone reframe from repudiating their friend of 20 years if he made similar comments, which A.) hurt your campaign. B.) Gave you a false impression of his character. and C.) made you look like a blissfully unaware dolt.

Honestly, obama is the same guy who thinks he's a good judge of character when it comes to Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. He also thinks his judgements on policy are accurate. Yet this guy doesn't know his pastor-like uncle of 20 years is one of the most racist and hate failed men this side of the American provincial coin who makes don imus look like an alter boy? I'd have to be retarded to trust obama's judgements on anything after this.

 

[Tailgater]

It's possible he used this church to rise up in Chicago politics. Politicians from Chicago are routinely caught up in corruption and the old "you scratch my back" routine. It wouldn't surprise me if Obama goes down flaming at some point, even if he is elected president. IMO, you don't get to where you are in that city without rolling around with pigs.

 

[T.A.M.]

I think it is all complete speculation. From what his "true" religious views are, to the "why" of his church selection, all speculative.

TAM

 

[marksman]

Given Obama has a very short record of actual accomplishments, everything about him is speculation.

We speculate that he is a different kind of politician.
We speculate that he is going to endeavor to fulfill his campaign promises.

Of course it's speculation. The problem is that a candidate who asks us to be speculators when we vote for him is going to be more vulnerable to speculations on why not to vote for him.

And I'm probably still going to vote for him, mind you. But saying "It's all speculation" is illustrating the problems with Obama, not minimizing them.

 

[Cincinnatus]

You want to see how black people view it?
http://board.rapmusic.com/showthread.php?t=1086420

"i dont vote anyway but obama seems ok... but i don't like how he denounced his preacher cause people are calling him racist you been going to that church 20 years and listening to his sermons and probably offering financial support to the congregation but you don't have the balls to admit you agree with what he says?"

"We all know Obama agrees with his pastor. However, he cannot verbalize his agreement because Reverend Wright made his statements in a very anti-American way despite them being true:"God bless America? No, no, no. God damn America for killing innocent people!" Even Obama's wife has a very militant stance but has had to censor herself throughout her husband's campaign so he can come out victorious. And as for the people who were calling Pastor Wright racist for expressing racial injustice? Boy, boy, boy, all I can do smh...it baffles me."

 

[Cincinnatus]

Given Obama has a very short record of actual accomplishments, everything about him is speculation.

We speculate that he is a different kind of politician.
We speculate that he is going to endeavor to fulfill his campaign promises.

Of course it's speculation. The problem is that a candidate who asks us to be speculators when we vote for him is going to be more vulnerable to speculations on why not to vote for him.

And I'm probably still going to vote for him, mind you. But saying "It's all speculation" is illustrating the problems with Obama, not minimizing them.

That's a good point. Double standard.

 

[T.A.M.]

Fact: They all have dirty laundry, people they have associated with who perhaps do not espouse or represent the views or objectives of the candidate.

What I hope comes out of all of this is the candidate who can best take your country into the future in terms of world relations, diplomacy, and leading by example.

To me, Obama seems the best equipped in terms of his demeanor, oratory skills, etc...to do this.

The rest will all be handled by his team any way, as it will for the others (you really think McCain will have any significant input on economy policy?).

TAM

 

[marksman]

The rest will all be handled by his team any way, as it will for the others (you really think McCain will have any significant input on economy policy?).

See, this is the same thing I heard eight years ago. "Sure, Bush doesn't know who the President of Kazakhstan is. But look at the experienced team he has working for him: Rumsfeld, Cheney, Powell. You think Bush is really going to have serious input on foreign policy?"

Experience matters. I don't want a politican who is going to be pushed around by unelected officials with an agenda I didn't get to vette.

 

[bigred]

I think some of this stuff develops insidiously over time.

I'm quite curious about Obama's true religious beliefs considering his mother was an atheist and not a closet one. Was this church a political activity from the beginning or did Obama really find Jesus somewhere?

Impossible to say for sure of course, but neither answer would surprise me. If he's a card-carrying atheist but has aspirations to higher offices, he no doubt knew it could really hurt his chances.

He could either be the regular swell guy he is projecting or the most deviously deceitful guy around. His excellent oratorial/imagery skills make it hard to say, and that's scary...

 

[Drysdale]

Yes, I read it. I also don't have time to do more research for you. I just pulled up the first couple of examples that came to mind. You really need to read more. We are responsible for human rights atrocities all over the world. There is no question the US has for a century been intervening in country after country, mostly at the expense of human rights. The rest of the world knows this, people in the US are the ones who are naive about it.

The fact not everyone is strapping bombs on is because, of course, there are additional variables involved. But you seem to be saying that the cause doesn't include one of the variables, that of the view the rest of the world has of this country and resentment for the actions of our current and past governments.

What makes you think we have no roll in the blowback just because everyone hasn't become extremists?

America cant win, when we dont intervene it's where's your compassion?
When we do it's,why are you butting in?

Sooo, lets just close all our borders,stop trading with all other countries,pull all our troops out of foriegn countries,and just mind our own business.

That's the answer?

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

I never claimed that we weren't responsible for human rights atrocities and intervention in many parts of the world. In fact, I said the opposite, which is that the US has intervened in S. America numerous times. ....

We may agree more than either of us realizes. Perhaps we weigh different variables with different values. Don't make assumptions about the weights I apply to different variables and I won't second guess the weights you apply. I do think the history of the US's interventions is pretty significant. OTOH, I think the oppression of women and insanity of the Islamic extremists is also a significant contributor to the current extremist violence.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

Don't play semantics with yourself say what I know you really think. ...

I did say what I really thought. If it doesn't match your view of the world that doesn't mean is wasn't what I really thought.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

America cant win, when we dont intervene it's where's your compassion?
When we do it's,why are you butting in?

Sooo, lets just close all our borders,stop trading with all other countries,pull all our troops out of foriegn countries,and just mind our own business.

That's the answer?

Try reading a little real history. We have more often than not intervened on behalf of corporate interests and against human rights.

I propose that had we supported labor organizers instead of brutal dictators for the last century we'd have customers for our products instead of terrorists on our doorstep. Of course that is an over-simplistic over-generalized summary but generally has truth to it.

So it is time to realize that and change our approach. Bill Clinton at least was going in the right direction. GW Bush has taken us back to the worst of our time in history.

We need to acknowledge it and change it. It is as simple as that.

 

[CFLarsen]

Try reading a little real history. We have more often than not intervened on behalf of corporate interests and against human rights.

I propose that had we supported labor organizers instead of brutal dictators for the last century we'd have customers for our products instead of terrorists on our doorstep. Of course that is an over-simplistic over-generalized summary but generally has truth to it.

So it is time to realize that and change our approach. Bill Clinton at least was going in the right direction. GW Bush has taken us back to the worst of our time in history.

We need to acknowledge it and change it. It is as simple as that.

Can you list those whom the US should not support?

Are there any that are so bad that the US should intervene by military force?