Join the Discussion

Comments So Far: 197

• KvilleTXComment removed: User banned.35 Replies

  • 0%

    hyperbola4 months ago

    you sound like one of those who is easilyled around by the nose by slogans designed to keep a corrupt elite fllecing you.

    Fair play for false prophets

    ... But let's consider more carefully what so many others have blithely dismissed. Let's look at the three specific outrages and see whether they fit the level of denunciation they've provoked.

    1. The US government and AIDS:

    â;¦ based on this Tuskegee experiment and based on what has happened to Africans in this country, I believe our government is capable of doing anything.

    In expressing his suspicions about what the US government is capable of doing, Wright cited Medical Apartheid, by Harriet A Washington, published in January, 2007. This is the opening passage from the Washington Post's review:

    Reply

    25 Replies

    • 0%

      hyperbola4 months ago

      The Tuskegee Syphilis Study remains an ignominious milestone in the intertwined histories of race and medical science in U.S. society. Initiated in 1932, this tragic 40-year long public health project resulted in almost 400 impoverished and unwitting African American men in Macon County, Ala., being left untreated for syphilis. Researchers wanted to observe how the disease progressed differently in blacks in its late stages and to examine its devastating effects with postmortem dissection.

      A fresh account of the Tuskegee study, including new information about the internal politics of the panel charged by the Department of Health, Education and Welfare with investigating it in 1972, lies at the center of Harriet A. Washington's courageous and poignant book. The balance of Medical Apartheid reveals, with arresting detail, that this scandal was neither the first chapter nor the last in the exploitation of black subjects in U.S. medical research.

      Reply

      20 Replies

      • 0%

        hyperbola4 months ago

        Tuskegee was, in the author's words, "the longest and most infamous â;; but hardly the worst â;; experimental abuse of African Americans. It has been eclipsed in both numbers and egregiousness by other abusive medical studies."

        Although medical experimentation with human subjects has historically involved vulnerable groups, including children, the poor and the institutionalized, Washington enumerates how black Americans have disproportionately borne the burden of the most invasive, inhumane and perilous medical investigations, from the era of slavery to the present day.

        ..Among those outraged by Wright's suggestion that the US government could have been involved in the creation of HIV, I imagine few could counter his suspicions with any factual information about the real origins of the virus. How many of the pundits could even explain what a retrovirus is, let alone where this particular one came from?

        Reply

        19 Replies

        • 0%

          hyperbola4 months ago

          Whether Wright's suspicions are baseless, in the light of Tuskegee, the fact that he has them should be neither shocking nor terribly surprising.

          2. Wright's views on Louis Farrakhan:

          â;¦ how many other African-Americans or European-Americans do you know that can get one million people together on the mall? He is one of the most important voices in the 20th and 21st century. That's what I think about him.

          I've said, as I said on Bill Moyers, when Louis Farrakhan speaks, it's like E.F. Hutton speaks, all black America listens. Whether they agree with him or not, they listen.

          Now, I am not going to put down Louis Farrakhan anymore than Mandela would put down Fidel Castro. Do you remember that Ted Koppel show, where Ted wanted Mandela to put down Castro because Castro was our enemy? And he said, "You don't tell me who my enemies are. You don't tell me who my friends are."

          Reply

          18 Replies

          • 0%

            hyperbola4 months ago

            Louis Farrakhan is not my enemy. He did not put me in chains. He did not put me in slavery.

            Suppose Wright made the observation: William F. Buckley was one the most important voices in America. Would anyone have said that he was praising Buckley? Or would they have merely recognized the obvious: that he was drawing attention to the extent of Buckley's influence?

            Is Wright correct in saying that when Farrakhan speaks, black Americans â;; whether they agree with him or not â;; listen?

            As someone who is not a black American, I don't know, but neither I imagine do most of those white pundits who repeated the claim that Wright had "praised" Farrakhan.

            3. Terrorism and the US:

            You cannot do terrorism on other people and expect it never to come back on you.

            Reply

            17 Replies

            • 0%

              hyperbola4 months ago

              For seven years, public discourse in America has conspired to sustain the notion that the term "terrorism" has an unambiguous and objective meaning. Although in theory it is possible that we could all agree on what terrorism is, in practice it has become the prerogative of the US government to determine what are admissible and inadmissible applications of the term. "Terrorism" has become a proprietary brand and the US government holds the copyright.

              On April 30, 2008, five Tomahawk cruise missiles were launched from a U.S. naval vessel off the Horn of Africa, aimed the town of Dusa Marreb in central Somalia. According to the Washington Post, the strike "leveled a house belonging to the reclusive leader, Aden Hashi Ayro, who was inside at the time with at least one of his top commanders, according to his followers." Aryo is accused of having ties to al Qaeda. A witness said he counted 16 bodies around the crater where the missile(s) had exploded.

              Reply

              14 Replies

              • 0%

                hyperbola4 months ago

                On February 29, 2008, the US government granted itself legal authority to blow up Aryo and those in his vicinity by designating the group to which they belong, Al-Shabaab, as a terrorist organization.

                Although the Pentagon cannot confirm the number or identities of all the people killed in the missile strike, anyone who would have the audacity to refer to a military action such as this, as an act of "terrorism" is sure to be denounced. Among respectable commentators, the act itself is just as sure to receive little if any comment. Somalia is a lawless state; America's role in contributing to that lawlessness is a subject supposedly of no interest or concern to the American people.

                http://warincontext.org/2008/05/02/campaign-08-...

                Reply

                13 Replies

                • 0%

                  aceofspades14 months ago

                  Hyp - would you have a break-down if it was to disclosed that Wright is a closet Zionist?

                  Reply

                  12 Replies

                  • 0%

                    hyperbola4 months ago

                    Fortunately zionist racists are becoming ever more irrelevant in america. Israelis will welcome their end in our country. Of course, we will also have to root out the zionists in the democratic party.

                    For Israel's Sake, Moderate American Jews Must Find Their Voice

                    Religion â;; Radical zionist political associations have embraced the most right-wing figures of American politics from Rick Santorum and Trent Lott to Tom DeLay and George Bush - all in the guise of being "pro-Israel." Enough. These extremists don't speak for me or the majority of American jews and they endanger Israel.

                    http://religion.propeller.com/story/2008/05/03/...

                    Reply

                    11 Replies

                    • 0%

                      aceofspades14 months ago

                      Hyp - your anti-Zionist rants are political, so rant on, but very often you cross-over into being an overt anti-Semitic.

                      Since you appear to admit to being Jewish , you must really have problems with being such, & if you are male perhaps a foreskin reconstruction would be in order.

                      Reply

                      5 Replies

                      • 0%

                        tanglang4 months ago

                        HA!

                        Reply
                      • 0%

                        Mdiar4 months ago

                        "foreskin reconstruction would be in order"

                        LMAO

                        Reply

                      • ranchhandComment removed: User banned.
                      • 0%

                        hyperbola4 months ago

                        Oh both political and moral Ace. You support crimes against humanity by religious sects?

                        Zionism versus Judaism

                        Religion â;; Zionists have managed to unforgivably drag judaism's name through the mud for more than 60 years. Zionism might be a racist, supremacist ideology - but Judaism is most definitely not. The more Jews who make this distinction, the better: both for security of their fellow Jews, as well as to end zionist crimes against Palestinians.

                        http://religion.propeller.com/story/2008/04/15/...

                        Mechanisms of Zionist Denial

                        Religion â;; An Israeli professor dicusses the mechanisms of denial used in Israel, America and around the world to cover up zionist crimes against humanity.

                        http://religion.propeller.com/story/2008/05/01/...

                        Reply

                        1 Reply

                        • 0%

                          hyperbola4 months ago

                          Jewish Palestinian speaks out against 'apartheid state'

                          Religion â;; His duty, he says, is the same of all persons' worldwide--to mobilize against war crimes perpetrated by governments in citizens' own names. "Not in my name," Davis cries out--a closed hand gesticulating his affront. "Not in my name as an individual and citizen." He raises his voice as loud as he is able to shout. "Not in my name".

                          http://religion.propeller.com/story/2008/05/02/...

                          Reply
                    • 0%

                      Mutainia4 months ago

                      Good use of "al-taqqiya", O Jihadist of the Pen, hyperebola. I'm pretty sure the Jihadists and Libs actually believe you.

                      Reply

                      4 Replies

                      • 0%

                        tanglang4 months ago

                        What about the liberal jihadists?

                        Reply

                        3 Replies

                        • 0%

                          Mutainia4 months ago

                          Oh, don't you KNOW it! :)

                          Reply
                        • 0%

                          someday1014 months ago

                          Like PETA?

                          Reply

                          1 Reply

                          • 0%

                            tanglang4 months ago

                            And elf. And the American Criminal Latinos Union.

                            Reply
            • 0%

              Global_Warmer4 months ago

              "Louis Farrakhan is not my enemy. He did not put me in chains. He did not put me in slavery...."

              You're right, he did not. However, if you know your history, you'd know that slaves were people of conquered tribes in Afirca, and originally enslaved by their own people, only later to be sold to the Europeans. The proverbial chains began in Africa long before the white man ever set foot there. However, if it makes you feel better, you can continue to credit white people with the invention of slavery.

              Reply

              1 Reply

              • 0%

                tanglang4 months ago

                What he also seems to forget is that the very tribe who sold almost every single slave to the west continued to own slaves until just a few years ago.

                Reply
    • 0%

      someday1014 months ago

      These could have / would have theories are no different from what has been said about the moon landing, the magic bullet and the governments involvement on 9/11.

      As for AIDS. How about it attribute it to black people not using condoms or using dirty needles.

      The problem is that you to blame the white man for everything and not take responsibilities for your own actions.

      Take a cue from Bill Cosby.

      Reply

      3 Replies

      • 0%

        tanglang4 months ago

        Forget Bill Cosby. He is a first class douchebag. A few weeks ago a black Atlanta Judge (Marvin Arington) ordered all the white people to leave HIS courtroom so that he could "speak to his people". Bill Cosby then came to town to speak at a predominantly black school where he yelled, "Who are the white people? Who are these white people who were offended by what Judge Arrington did?...I want to meet them! I want to know why they were offended! They're MY people! Let me speak to MY people!"

        Reply

        2 Replies

        • 0%

          someday1014 months ago

          I did not know that. I was referencing how He had in the past said stop blaming the white man for you problems and to take responsibility for you actions.

          And I think what Bill was saying was the White people are his people, as are blacks. We are all one and the same. To look past racial boundaries.

          Reply

          1 Reply

          • 0%

            tanglang4 months ago

            That is actually what the message the Judge was trying to push on the blacks in the courtroom. And don't get me wrong, I think the message is good. I just think he went about it in a very bigoted way.

            Reply
  • 0%

    jaern4 months ago

    regardless of what people think about Rev Wright-you cannot hold Obama accountable for the words or actions of his minister.

    Reply

    8 Replies

    • 0%

      tanglang4 months ago

      You can and you should. Oprah had the good sense to leave when she heard what wright was preaching. Obama stayed. WHY? He either stayed because he knew that wright could help his local political career, or because he agreed with the message.

      Reply

      4 Replies

      • 0%

        mesodude4 months ago

        "Oprah had the good sense to leave when she heard what wright was preaching."

        --Tangy, nothing in this story proves that Oprah left because she didn't like the message or the messenger. All we know is that she didn't like the tone in which the message was being delivered. Are you deliberately glossing over that distinction?

        Reply

        1 Reply

        • 0%

          tanglang4 months ago

          So she left because his voice was flat? :D

          Reply
      • 0%

        hyperbola4 months ago

        Well tang, let's see if you are consistent in your condemnations. By the way, your predicted response that McCain is not in Hagee's congregation is fully addressed in the article so think before you reply.

        The All-White Elephant in the Room

        Politics â;; Bored by those endless replays of the Rev. Jeremiah Wright? If so, go directly to YouTube, search for "John Hagee Roman Church Hitler," and be recharged by a fresh jolt of clerical jive.

        http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/articl...

        Reply
      • 0%

        jaern4 months ago

        should you be held accountable for anything your friends or family members say?

        Reply
    • 0%

      Global_Warmer4 months ago

      I hold Obama accountable for participating in a church that teaches and supports racism.

      Reply

      2 Replies

      • 0%

        mesodude4 months ago

        How do you feel about McCain supporting pay bias against women? Are you outraged by that also?

        Reply

        1 Reply

        • 0%

          Global_Warmer4 months ago

          I must have missed that sermon on youtube.

          Reply
• 0%

  getreal14 months ago

  Huffington Post can run all the damage control it wants with CNN joining in. I saw, I heard and I was quite disappointed. You just don't play down the past or the present happenings of life so easy. There are people that do not forget. God didn't tell man how many times to turn the cheek.

  Reply

  30 Replies

  • AtheismIsRealityComment removed: User banned.14 Replies

    • 0%

      newbie04204 months ago

      Turn the other cheek when you can but when you see money changers in you Father's Temple you flip over thier tables and tell them to get the heck out.

      Jesus didn't "turn the other cheek" then did he?

      I love it when people use certain parts of Jesus' teaching and conveniently forget others.

      Reply

      13 Replies

      • 0%

        Jaydee404 months ago

        Pick and chose religion is religion to it's very core. I think we can agree on at least one thing Newbie0420.

        Reply
      • 0%

        cushi4 months ago

        You, in turn, picked one to conveniently refute his! That's the problem with "us" putting our own interpretations on the scriptures, but that is what it's there for...to be used and studied by us as guidelines for living.

        Therefore, I cannot say that either one of you are completely right or completely wrong.

        Bottom line is, we all have to exercise our own judgment, and hopefully, we will reckon correctly.

        Reply

      • AtheismIsRealityComment removed: User banned.10 Replies

        • 0%

          newbie04204 months ago

          First off, I never forgot the other parables like you conveniently did. I turn the other cheek as much as possible, yet there are certain times you just can't which, IMO, is the whole point of the money chnagers parable.

          Secondly, I find it funny that you use religion to attack religion but at the same time deny it's existance.

          Finally, I'm not going to go here with you, you can misquote and take things out of context from the Bible all day but in the long run you're a religion hating atheist who isn't really worth my time.

          I know, I know, how "Christian" of me....

          Reply

          9 Replies

          • AtheismIsRealityComment removed: User banned.8 Replies

            • 0%

              newbie04204 months ago

              Hmmmmm

              http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/parable

              1. a short allegorical story designed to illustrate or teach some truth, religious principle, or moral lesson.

              Is it a story in the Bible? Yes

              Does it illustrate or teach some truth, religious principle, or moral lesson? Yes

              It is a parable.

              "Jesus never ordained his disciples to take up arms against ANYBODY. He said they were to turn the other cheek."

              Why, then, did he NOT turn the other cheek when he saw the money changers in his temple???

              I'll be waiting for your reply.

              Reply

              7 Replies

              • AtheismIsRealityComment removed: User banned.6 Replies

                • 0%

                  newbie04204 months ago

                  Are you claiming Jesus was a hypocrite and told his deciples to "do as I say not as I do" and turn the other cheek, while he himslef didn't do it to the money changers?

                  Sounds like hubris from where I am sitting.

                  Which bring me WAY back to my original point of you cherry picking certain parts of the Bible to attack the religion you don't even believe in anyway.

                  Reply

                  4 Replies

                  • AtheismIsRealityComment removed: User banned.3 Replies

                    • 0%

                      PsychoHosebeast4 months ago

                      Take it to PM

                      Reply

                      2 Replies

                      • 0%

                        tanglang4 months ago

                        At this point it looks more like PMS.

                        Reply

                        1 Reply

                        • AtheismIsRealityComment removed: User banned.
                • 0%

                  someday1014 months ago

                  Funny! An aetheist arguing what god and jesus would to to bring home his point.

                  Reply
  • 0%

    mesodude4 months ago

    What I find hilarious about comments like this is that it's the very people who are pretending that this "controversy" has shaken their faith in humanity to the core (LOL) who are quick to tell people who were enslaved that they need to "just get over" America's more than 300 year history of racism against blacks.

    Reply

    14 Replies

    • 0%

      tanglang4 months ago

      In the words of Spike Lee "move the F on!" When one of the top the candidates for POTUS is black, and went to an Ivy League school, you cannot say that our country treats blacks unfairly. Or believe that. You especially cannot believe that the goverment created aids to kill black men.

      Reply

      13 Replies

      • 0%

        cushi4 months ago

        And exactly how long has it taken to for even 1 to get there and be a viable candidate? There have been many, many, many, many, many, many qualified black men AND women who would have made great candidates, but they were denied even the possibility of running, much to this country's shame and even moreso, likely, to its detriment!

        Even now, Sen. Obama is often the object of dirty tactics, smears, racial slurs, hate, scorn, ridicule...you name it! There are people who are DETERMINED that no black man (or woman) will EVER hold the highest office in the land or occupy the "white house" (equivalent in their minds to "de BIG HOUSE!"

        Reply

        10 Replies

        • 0%

          tanglang4 months ago

          Who cares how long it took? The point is that it is happening NOW! You cannot cry over yesterday. It is gone. Bye bye.

          If you dwell in the past there is no hope for the future.

          There are also people who only vote for him or her because of their race or sex. They are equally stupid. You also have Obamas friends rediculing HIllary. You have Obama giving her the finger in public. She (and this pains me to say) gets hated on more than he does on a daily basis.

          Remember, HIllary ain't never been called a N____R!

          Reply

          9 Replies

          • 0%

            mesodude4 months ago

            "Who cares how long it took? The point is that it is happening NOW! You cannot cry over yesterday. It is gone. Bye bye."

            --So you're speaking from the perspective of someone who has been oppressed?

            Reply

            6 Replies

            • 0%

              tanglang4 months ago

              Was Cushi? Are you?

              Reply

              2 Replies

              • 0%

                mesodude4 months ago

                I'm not the one pretending that the words from a political candidate's pastor's seven year-old sermon have shattered my world. You are. So I ask you again, are you speaking from the perspective of someone who has been oppressed in some significant way? And before you ask, not being able to get Hannah Montana tickets does not qualify as hardship, Tangy. ;-x

                Reply

                1 Reply

                • 0%

                  tanglang4 months ago

                  But I soo totally wanted them. And they were like all sold out! OMG! Can you imagine?

                  Seriously though, I don't believe Obama or wright had it any harder than I did.

                  Reply
            • 0%

              someday1014 months ago

              I can. And I am not black. Blacks forget that they are not the only one oppressed in America. They forget they were not the only ones segregated. - They are just more vocal.

              Furthermore they feel they are entitled to the presidency.

              And the white elitist voters think that becuase he's black he can "transcend all divides".

              The youth just think he's cool becuase being black is cool right now. It's a hip hop nation. Even Madonna has gone hip hop to sell records.

              I think he's another unqualified (dubya being the first) yet charasmatic politician who will jsut about say anything to get elected.

              Only reason he hasn't been called on his two faced political ways is becuase if the white media does, they are deemed - get this - racists.

              Reply

              2 Replies

              • 0%

                mesodude4 months ago

                "I can. And I am not black."

                --So then you CAN'T know precisely what it feels like to be victimized as a black person just as men can't totally understand what it feels like to be a woman and fear being raped.

                "Blacks forget that they are not the only one oppressed in America. They forget they were not the only ones segregated."

                --How do you know what they forget? Is this a comment that would be acceptable to make about Jews? If not, why not? Because Jews are less "vocal"?FTR, blacks were ENSLAVED by white people. They suffered a little bit more than just segration.

                Reply

                1 Reply

                • 0%

                  someday1014 months ago

                  Being pulled over becuase you a Hispanic driving a nice car. Women clutching their purses in elevators. No I have no Idea, and know one else does because you said so.

                  FYI, Atecs and Mexicans were not only enslaved, but also slaughtered. Check the books.

                  Maybe they don't forget, but they sure seem to when they get on their soapbox and start complaining about what is due to them because of the past.

                  Reply
          • 0%

            mesodude4 months ago

            "There are also people who only vote for him or her because of their race or sex. They are equally stupid. "

            --That's exactly how I feel about anyone who chose to "stay the course" and voted to re-elect Bush in Novemeber '04 when the course was clearly a one way trip down the crapper.

            Reply

            1 Reply

            • 0%

              tanglang4 months ago

              First of all they are not the same. People voting for Bush did so because they thought he was the best man for the job. That does not mean they wanted to stay the course. It means they thought he was the best man for the job. Furthermore, even if they did vote for him just because they thought staying the course was a winning choice (Which seems to be the case btw) it is still not even close to being the same thing as voting for someone based on race or sex.

              Reply
      • 0%

        mesodude4 months ago

        n the words of Spike Lee "move the F on!"

        --I see...So, in what way does exploiting our country's racial divide (the way the GOP does at every election) further that goal, Tangy? Please enlighten me.

        Reply

        1 Reply

        • 0%

          tanglang4 months ago

          The only one exploiting the racial divide is wright and anyone who thinks like him or chooses to associate with him.

          How does the GOP exploit the racial divide? The last time I checked it was a dem who was getting almost all of the black vote.

          Reply
• 0%

  tchef4 months ago

  The title of this story is misleading. Oprah actually has said nothing in it. It is only conjecture from as the story puts it "Oprah's" friend. The author didn't even get a response from Harpo productions.

  Reply

  3 Replies

  • 0%

    cushi4 months ago

    I'm so glad you made this point. I just read the article and was thinking the same thing. There is nothing of substance here.

    Reply
  • 0%

    mesodude4 months ago

    Thanks. Most importantly, it doesn't tell us whether or not Oprah actually agreed with the substance of Wright's sermons.

    Reply

    1 Reply

    • 0%

      cushi4 months ago

      Nor is she being accused of it by virtue of having attended his church for "X" number of years!

      Reply
• 0%

  Poulenc4 months ago

  Let us not, please, rehash the Wright-Obama drama,

  pro or con. Those who can "forgive" O. his desultory disconnect with W. will, those who cannot, won't.

  However, I find this, form the article, telling:

  "...But Winfrey also had spiritual reasons for the parting....[she] cited her fatigue with organized religion and a desire to be involved with a more inclusive ministry. In time, she found one: her own. "There is the Church of Oprah now," said her longtime friend, with a laugh. "She has her own following."

  Amen.

  The point being, that Winfrey and Wright share a ministry: show biz.

  Reply

  27 Replies

  • 0%

    djrevelky4 months ago

    I accidentally gave you a positive.

    I think the Wright-Obama thing needs to be rehashed, and rehashed, and rehashed.

    Obama didn't agree with what Wright said, he has admitted that. Fair enough. But Obama also said he stayed friends with Wright for political reasons. Interesting...so this man sacrifices his morals to get ahead in politics?

    HEY! He said it.

    So either Obama agrees with Wright, or he sacrificed his "morals" for the political connections Wright had. We either have a crazy conspiracy theory "poor black me" racist or we have a who holds nothing sacred if he can gain some momentum.

    Obama makes the Clinton's look honest.

    Reply

    26 Replies

    • 0%

      Jaydee404 months ago

      Can you fnd one politician who doesn't sacrifice his morals to gain office? It's a game they all play changing loyalties to get ahead, Obama is no different that way. The reason people don't like Wrights view points is because honesty hurts.

      Reply

      14 Replies

      • 0%

        libsRfunny4 months ago

        Nothing honest about telling blacks they can't succeed. Proof they can succeed: Oprah, Obama (who is half white yet still seemed to succeed despite half his blood oppressing the other half) and Wright himself, who is being moved into a 10,000 square foot, multi-million dollar mansion in the suburbs paid for by the very "oppressed" blacks whom he fleeced for decades.

        Reply

        1 Reply

        • 0%

          tkyrchncs4 months ago

          lRf-I love it that we argue about almost everything, but on this subject we agree 100% and I could not have said it better myself! I wish I could hold down the button and give you "good" until my finger is too tired! LOL

          Reply
      • 0%

        cushi4 months ago

        I never thought that Rev. Wright deserved to be demonized the way he was for stating some very painful, but truthful things! Nevertheless, I don't fault Barack Obama for distancing himself eventually, because I do believe that Rev. Wright intentionally re-surfaced right before the PA primary, in part, to retaliate against Obama for criticizing his remarks. One thing I have observed about Sen. Obama, is that he is not afraid to take an unpopular, even while running for office, so I do not feel that he distanced himself from Wright on the basis of that. There is a fundamental disconnect between what he believes and what Rev. Wright espouses, and the fact that Wright's timing suggests an attempt to be vengeful is what pushed the Senator to make the final break.

        Reply

        11 Replies

        • 0%

          newbie04204 months ago

          "I do believe that Rev. Wright intentionally re-surfaced right before the PA primary, in part, to retaliate against Obama for criticizing his remarks"

          He did it because if Obama were to win the Presidenct he could no longer claim whitey made AIDS to kill black people and that whitey runs the world and opresses blacks.

          He, like Sharpton and Jackson, has a vested interest in Obama NOT winning.

          Reply
        • 0%

          tkyrchncs4 months ago

          He is demonized not for his truth, but for his arrogant and unChristian manner, and for his unChristlike cursing of our nation.He has the right to say exactly what he pleases of course, just like anyone else, but if you present yourself to me as a Christian, certain standards of behavior obtain. Nobody ever lives up to all of those standards all the time, but that is the goal, and failure merits apology and amends, not national speaking engagements. And spectacular failure should merit spectacular amends. He deserves no hearing from any Christian, in my opinion, until he does so.

          Reply

          3 Replies

          • 0%

            cushi4 months ago

            That is a matter of opinion,and not everyone feels that way, I don't, and I am not alone in my view.

            It was extremely unjust to pull those 30 second sound bites out and portray the whole of Rev. Wright as an angry, racist, hateful, unpatriotic American when nothing could be further from the truth.

            There is definitely a double standard being applied to him as opposed to other ministers who have said things equally outrageous or even moreso.

            I don't have a problem with him speaking out in his own defense, either, but I do question the timing of his most recent remarks because I do believe it was purposed to do damage to Obama's campaign by playing to the fearful overreactions of a percentage of the public who have responded in typical, knee jerk fashion.

            Reply

            2 Replies

            • 0%

              cloud154 months ago

              Cushi, it was well within his rights to damn this country. If he wants to go to the top of a mountain and take a megaphone and just yell God Damn America, then let him do it. But when he starts going around telling people that the government created AIDs with the intention of genocide against colored people, and other clear racist remarks, then there is a problem.

              Reply
            • 0%

              tkyrchncs4 months ago

              My comment is clearly identified as opinion. It is NOT unfair to single out the offensive parts of someone's behavior, which is all I have done. I have in 50 yrs of active religious exploration and study known quite a few Christian ministers of at least four races and several ethnicities and have never heard one of them say "God damn" ANYTHING. It flies directly in the face of Christ's own words that we should love one another and BLESS our enemies, even if you view the nation you THRIVE in (as Wright clearly does) as an enemy. You can lend credence to a Christian argument by your correct behavior, or completely obscure your message by bad behavior and the latter is what Wright has done, not just for me, but for many others who contribute here, some of whom have completely opposite politics from mine.

              Reply
        • 0%

          Leemck024 months ago

          Cushi, you make a good point,Obama's record supports him as being an independent thinker. He tends to act from reason rather than pressure.

          Reply

          5 Replies

          • 0%

            tanglang4 months ago

            An independent thinker who voted the same way Hillary did 84 out of 85 times? Hmmmm, seems odd doesn't it? Unless of course THEY are independent thinkers who just so happen to think alike.

            Reply

            4 Replies

            • 0%

              PsychoHosebeast4 months ago

              So let me get this straight--there's only two ways to vote, for or against... so if he voted DIFFERENTLY than Clinton 84 out of 85 times... well, other than basically making him a brain dead Republican, then he'd be voting like all of them, so you could say the exact same thing.

              Is that what you aren't saying? Just how do you vote completely independently of what everyone else thinks when there's only two ways to go?

              Reply

              1 Reply

              • 0%

                tanglang4 months ago

                Actually, after criticizing someone for screwing up the Iraq war, Obama voted to promote him whereas Hillary voted against it. Seems HIllary actually wore her thinking cap that day.

                "Just how do you vote completely independently of what everyone else thinks when there's only two ways to go?"

                Vote "Present" I guess.

                Reply
            • 0%

              cushi4 months ago

              That is generally why people belong to the same organization or political affiliation, is it not? Because they tend to think alike on many things? What is so strange about that??

              Reply

              1 Reply

              • 0%

                tanglang4 months ago

                What is strange? The fact that he says he is nothing like her. That he brings about change from her old politics.

                Reply
    • 0%

      Leemck024 months ago

      djrev, Should the effects of segregation be rehashed, rehashed and then rehashed? This is what you get each time each time digging in the wound. Some stuff happened. What's in it after the third retelling of Rev Wright? I hope you took time to hear the whole thing for yourself rather than wanting to hear the distorted version over and over. If you hear the Rev Wright crap, then look at the dollar and our condition where it is possible to lose global economic positioning, you will not want America to be Dammed, as in economic collapse. Reverend Wright will not be in policy making or negotiations. Please talk about whether any of these candidates can step up to the plate for the Dollar, local economies that are cutting back, the War, our competition for Oil, and those things that will help us survive. Tell me over and over how jobs are coming back to America. I was taught to overlook foolishness, not dig in it.

      Reply
    • 0%

      cushi4 months ago

      He said nothing of the kind! Where on earth did you get that from? He said the man was like an Uncle to him, like family in other words. It is very, very difficult, under any circumstances, to distance someone like that from your life, whether there are fundamental differences or not. It was a very difficult decision for Obama to make and one that I am sure did not bring him any happiness whatsoever. It was done out of necessity because Wright's comments were blown up to the point that he was not being allowed to confront far more critical issues than who the pastor of his church was.

      Reply

      8 Replies

      • 0%

        newbie04204 months ago

        "It was a very difficult decision for Obama to make and one that I am sure did not bring him any happiness whatsoever."

        Doubt it, it's simply political convenience at it's best. So much for "change" from Obama, he proves more and more everyday he's just your typical corrupt Chicago politician who will use people when convenient and dispose of them just as quickly when they become inconvenient.

        Obama 08-Change I can't believe in.

        Reply

        1 Reply

        • 0%

          Candida4 months ago

          newbie0420: "who will use people when convenient and dispose of them just as quickly when they become inconvenient."

          This is hilarious. Before Obama distanced himself from Wright, all I could hear: Why doesn't he denounce him?

          Then, when he spoke out against the particular statements, people were screaming: Why didn't he do it before? Why doesn't he leave the church? Why didn't he break with Wright a long time ago?

          Now, that he has distanced himself from Wright, you are saying that he uses people and then disposes of them quickly when they become inconvenient.

          He is doomed if he does, and he is doomed if he doesn't. This is really funny and very sad at the same time.

          Reply
      • 0%

        libsRfunny4 months ago

        He said Wright was more than like and uncle. He said Wright was his "mentor." For 20 years a bigoted racist who preached blacks cannot succeed instead of telling them they can - which, of course, they can - was mentor to the man who would be president. That is why Wright is relevant and one of many reasons Obama should no be president.

        Reply

        5 Replies

        • 0%

          cushi4 months ago

          I have several mentors and they mentor me in different aspects of life interests that I have. That still doesn't mean that he subscribed to Rev. Wright's philosophies in their entirety, just as I don't suscribe to everything my mentors advise.

          It is obvious you have made up your mind to dislike and distrust Sen. Obama, which is your right and I respect that, but there is different way to interpret the situation and it deserves to be considered.

          Reply

          2 Replies

          • 0%

            libsRfunny4 months ago

            Mentors teach others. Obama said Wright was his mentor as well as "like an uncle." That goes way beyond hearing a sermon or opinion.

            Reply

            1 Reply

            • 0%

              cushi4 months ago

              I never said they didn't. I said, just because someone mentors you, doesn't mean you believe or adopt everything they present to you! Is it really that difficult a concept for you?

              There are people I have grown up around who have taught me many things, some good, some bad...I had to make up my own mind abou