Hrm… are we in yet another episode of Dio Is a Stubborn Ass Who Invents Non-Facts to Rationalize His Bullshit?
Explain how it was “specific Jews” who were keeping Obama from seeing Wright.
Further, if you aren’t totally full of shit, name those specific Jews he was complaining about. I’ll admit there may have been specifics, but I’m used to how you argue and without a cite I’m more likely to believe Der about religious/conservative people’s thought processes.
Explain how Wright’s conspiratorial view whereby it isn’t Obama’s choice, but “them Jews” who are somehow not letting Obama choose who he talks with.
Explain how, even if it was Emanuel and another Jewish person or two who was advising against Obama meeting with Wright, that “them Jews” becomes a good descriptor to use. If someone criticizes Obama, you’d be fine with them saying “That black guy is fucking up our economy!” Right? Nothing odd about that, eh?
It’s interesting to watch you go completely off the rails as soon as a topic emotionally effects you. So far it seems to be various political matters, gender issues and human sexuality that turn you into a auto-parody at the drop of a hat. Strangely enough you’re actually able to remain fairly lucid and rational when it comes to religion.
Well, if I remember my grammar rules correctly, only nine-fingered Jews are properly addressed using the accusative plural. So it’s either Rahm Emanuel, or somebody else who is (a) Jewish, and (b) owns a woodchipper.
I would just like to suggest that it would be very hard for Wright to step in it again, seeing as how his whole approach to life is one big cow pie.
I don’t have a real big problem with some his and his churches basic philosophies (has anybody here actually checked out the church’s website?).
I do have a problem with what he’ll say personally to keep himself in the spotlight, never acknowledging that perhaps it was his continued public and personal actions and statements after the campaign started that slammed the door on his and Obama’s relationship – not them Jews.
If I had reason to believe that Rev. Wright actually said things like “them Jews!” in every sermon for 20 years, then I’d see the parallel to StormFront, whose message is unrelenting and unambiguous. But people (and groups) can and do change over time, becoming more insular, more insane, more dedicated, as their audience grows. Case in point: the GOP of the present day. It doesn’t follow that the GOP will always be so; pendulums swing.
If we compare the crazy-ass statements of … oh, let’s say Rush Limbaugh … to those of Wright, we might have a better parallel than to StormFront. Rush has stepped in the crazy more than once; he has made hateful, inaccurate, paranoid and disingenuous remarks, but he has also (much as I hate to admit it) made some good points. He’s not pure-D 100% crazy-ass bullshit liar freak 24/7, or at least he wasn’t always so.
Obama disavowed Wright when it became clear Wright stepped in the crazy himself (and, let’s face it, when it became politically inconvenient to adhere to him). Personally, I take that as a sign that the good reverend got wackier and further afield the more attention he drew. I don’t see that happening with the Republicans and Limbaugh … yet. Why is that, do you think?
Yup. The fact that he’s not talking to Wright is a bonus.
The problem is that they’re all lashed together like ships; if we let one sink there’s a risk that it’ll drag more down with it (see: “too big to fail”). At least we’re getting some of it back.
Do we need any more large dams built?
Who are these other automakers? Apart from FIAT, I mean.
Same here. I’ve said elsewhere that he may be postponing the gay-friendly bits of his agenda to avoid undermining his credibility with the Muslim world (see: his speech in Cairo) but there’s only so much leeway I’m willing to give.
Yes, because the main purpose of the United Church of Christ is to hate them Jews. :rolleyes:
As I said above, I’ve got inlaws whom I like as people and are warm, welcoming and friendly even though they hold some repugnant views. There are certain topics that we don’t discuss because it’s clear we won’t agree. I believe that “don’t ask, don’t tell” is a common family dynamic.
Without knowing what sort of social dynamic was involved, it’s hard to say whether this was a reasonable action for the Obamas. Did all his close friends attend the same church? Did they agree with the occasional loony outbursts, or did they tolerate them to avoid making waves? Don’t know.
But it is in mine.
Depends entirely on the church. Some are very close-knit, especially (I believe) in the African-American community.
Heh. You think your life could withstand the level of scrutiny his has had without anything questionable turning up amongst any of your current and former acquaintances and family? I highly doubt it (not just for you, but for anyone).
Yup.
Matter of opinion. As has been pointed out, he spends a lot of time with “them Jews” for an purported anti-Semite.
Honda, Toyota, Nissan, BMW, Mercedes (although given how the DaimlerChrysler thing went down, presumably they’re not up for it) or VAG… or hell, even Ford.
For that matter, I’d have no problem with entirely new companies springing up to fill the void. One of the big problems with the US auto industry is that the Big Three were so big - having to compete with such deep pockets is a bigger barrier to entry than any other you can imagine, other than perhaps a government-enforced monopoly.
It would be interesting to see, say, Apple or Sony or Nike or Time Warner enter the motor industry- and even more interesting to see some actual small-scale domestic automakers building mass-market cars rather than exotics or electrics.
He may have also been referring to adviser David Axelrod. Far be it from Wright to keep his name straight (or Emmanuel’s, he’s only the WH Chief of Staff). “Them Jews” is pretty much all the same.
I assumed he meant Emmanuel and probably Axelrod. Is it a good descriptor to use? Well, it’s not a graceful descriptor to use, but it isn’t some kind of smoking gun proof of bigotry.
I’ve known a lot of older white people who for some reason always feel the need to identify minorities by race without necessarily intending any malice. They’ll talk about going to the bank and talking to the black teller or hiring the Mexican neighbor kid to mow the lawn. I’m not prepared to declare somebody a bigot on some a slim item of evidence. As far as I know, Wright has no history of making antisemitic or racist remarks before, so I’m not going to get my knickers in a bunch about this. George W. Bush has said worse withoit getting accused of antisemitsm.
Wright is as much of a gets-it-right-sometimes nutwad as Limbaugh They both try to be as wild-eyed and out there as they can because the audience (read, the people who pay his bills) sways easily to the tune they play, no matter how formless it gets.
This, frankly, makes Obama look better for cutting the ties when he did.
Now as RNATB points out, this bailout thing is nutso. We spent how much money on not only the banks, which is another fishy kettle, but GM and Chrysler as well, only to have them go tits up anyway? THAT was foolish. Now this ‘cash-for-clunkers’ deal? Where’s THAT money gonna come from?
I find myself wanting to grab someone by the lapels and shake them until this makes sense.
Compare and contrast my parents, who have stayed with the same Catholic church, and even stayed active on the church council and as organist, and then bitterly complained each week for a solid five years about the insanity the priest spouted from the pulpit (until his untimely death). In that case, it wasn’t so much racist or hateful spouting as it was just completely non-Catholic doctrine (the guy in question preached a belief in reincarnation, and his sermons about teens and sexuality were, shall we say, quite lurid), but it does serve as an anecdote of some very deeply religious people who chose to ride out a bad moment in the continuity of pastoral activity for the sake of staying with a congregation.
And for that matter, both my parents applauded the man personally for being a great guy who poured his heart and soul into a little-liked charity (he operated a shelter for homeless and destitute men in small-town Appalachia) even when they decried the more out-there aspects of his doctrines.
This, of course, is only relevant if either that the Obamas joined that church in spite of Wright, was willing to ignore Wright’s foibles because despite his mouth he’s good at the general job of being a pastor, or that Wright got more insane at some point after the Obamas were sufficiently part of that congregation that it would have been jarring to leave.
I don’t really think we have the information to speculate on which of those three it might be.
Your first statement was that “he was talking about specific Jews.” (notice, no probably or maybe or kinda. You made a definitive statement. In other words, you were bullshitting, again. Stop doing that shit.)
Your second was that you “assumed Rahm Emmanuel. Other than that I don’t know.”
Why do you even engage in such behavior in the first place? Instead of stating definitively “He was talking about specific Jews” why not just say “Gee, I have no clue, but I’d like to believe he was talking about specific Jews.”
Of course, even if true that for some reason he was specifically talking about Emanuel and Axelrod, you’ve totally avoided the fact that it betrays that Wright holds some sort of paranoid conspiracy if he believes that Obama is being kept from speaking with him by anybody, at all. As if Obama isn’t even allowed to decide who he talks to, due to the overbearing influence of “them Jews”.
Stop rationalizing a position you’ve already adopted based on emotion and actually think about this for a moment. Instead of saying that Obama has chosen not to speak with him, he’s alleging that the President of the United States of America is having his actions controlled by "them Jews. Stop reflexively defending Wright long enough to wonder why exactly myths of Jewish control of the US government aren’t exactly, ahem, kosher.
Meanwhile, stop bringing up Bush. It was an obnoxious tactic when “but Clinton!” was used during Bush’s presidency and it’s an obnoxious tactic when “but Bush!” is used during Obama’s presidency.
Having just done some intrepid sleuthing (okay, Googling and searching the ADL webpage for mentions of Wright), it’s not as clear as I thought that Wright is an anti-Semite. He hasn’t actually said anything that could be construed as anti-Semitic.
That said, according to the New York Times he once referred to Zionism as “white racism”, and he’s on record as a big fan of Louis Farrakhan (and the church’s magazine, The Trumpet, gave him what amounts to a “Man of the Year” award in 2008).
Yeah but, Wright ostensibly knows better. This wasn’t him talkin’ shit at the diner or barbershop, this is him getting out in front of the public talking this madness, knowing full well what he’s saying. He’s an attention whore that cares only for his own petty notariety and nothing for Obama. He deserves no quarter.
You sound terribly like you’re making excuses for this windbag.
Seems pretty doubtful, considering all three are Chicago political fixtures. When I was a hack at a Chicago PR agency/lobbying firm in the early 2000s (run by a woman who orchestrated Obama’s anti-war speech and would later become one of Obama’s chief bundlers), each of these names were pretty familiar and not likely to be confused by anyone with any political cred, which includes Rev. Wright. He’s not the bumpkin you seem to think he is.
Well, he may be partly correct. The WH CoS controls access to the President (and advises him), and if I were Emanuel and Wright called, I’d tell him to go away, and I’d certainly tell Obama that I didn’t think it was a good idea to see or speak to Wright.
Now, the fact that he used “them Jews” as the identifier is certainly an issue, but I think you’re reading a bit too much into this.
