Jeremiah Wright Steps In It Again

[Diogenes_the_Cynic]

@FinnAgain

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.”

I don’t understand your objection here. Obviously he wasn’t talking about all Jews, therefore he was tlking about specific Jews. Which specific Jews don’t matter.

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.”

Because that would be an inaccurate statement. He was OBVIOUSLY talking about specific Jews, not all Jews. Is it your contention that he was referring to a worldwide, global conspiracy of all Jews?

Of course, even if true that for some reason he was specifically talking about Emanuel and Axelrod

Do you really have any doubt that he was?

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”.

Irrational, possibly, but not necessarily racist. I think he probably doesn’t want to believe that Obama really doesn’t want to talk to him, so he’s convinced himself that Axelrod and Emmanuel are whispering in his ear and “keeping him away.” It’s not completely wacko to assume that political advisors can have a lot of influence. It’s actually kind of stupid to try to read that statement as implying the most literal belief possible.

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.

You have a point about feeding into the myths of Jewish control of governments (I actually hadn’t even thought about that), but I’m not convinced that Wright intended it that way. I honestly think it has a lot more to do with personal grudges and resentment he feels against specific people (probably more Axelrod than Emmanuel, since I think he probably feels that Axelrod is the one who convinced Obama to cut him off during the campaign). I think the animosity is personal, not racist. He MAY have antisemitic feelings as well, but I don’t think this single comment represents sufficient proof.

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.

What does Obama have to do with this?

[FinnAgain]

@Really Not All poThat Bright

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.

Notice, however, that he didn’t say “they won’t let me speak to him” but “Them Jews aren’t going to let him talk to me”. Presumably Obama could pick up a phone himself, right? And, of course, if Obama really wanted to speak to Wright, he could just tell Emanuel “put his call through next time.”
.

[Marley23]

@Kimmy_Gibbler

Seems pretty doubtful, considering all three are Chicago political fixtures.

I thought enough sarcasm in that post, but it looks like you missed it. But anyway your post sums up what people are objecting to: as far as Wright’s concerned, Chicago-political-fixture-and-Chief-of-Staff Rahm Emmanuel and Chicago-political-fixture-and-Senior-Adviser David Axelrod are “Them Jews,” as if Jews are all alike.

[FinnAgain]

@Diogenes_the_Cynic

. Obviously he wasn’t talking about all Jews, therefore he was tlking about specific Jews.

1. You still haven’t shown that he was actually talking about any specific Jews. Your bullshit about what’s “obvious” is just more of your habitual behavior. You are caught in a factually incorrect statement, and rather than admit that you’re just bullshitting, you dig faster.

2. As someone who’s said that Obama hasn’t taken certain steps for fear of offending Jews and that AIPAC has essentially set Obama’s policies and that “ethnic cleansing” is going on in Gaza but “they don’t want Barack talking like that” so he doesn’t say anything about it?
   It’s disingenuous in the extreme to pretend that rather than the distinct possibility that Wright was indeed talking about “them Jews” as the same “they” who prevent Obama from calling out the “ethnic cleansing” in Gaza and who Obama won’t dare offend, that he was only speaking about a few specific Jews. Even though by your own statement there were only two of them who he still couldn’t manage to name.

@Diogenes_the_Cynic

which you know damn well that he was.

Your mind reading powers are broken.
Just because you can stridently assert something without being able to prove it, at all, doesn’t mean that anybody who isn’t convinced really knows that your bluster is gospel.

@Diogenes_the_Cynic

What does Obama have to do with this?

He’s the one who’s being “kept from” speaking to Wright by “them Jews”.
Ya know, the topic of the thread?
:rolleyes:

[FinnAgain]

@Marley23

I thought enough sarcasm in that post, but it looks like you missed it. But anyway your post sums up what people are objecting to: as far as Wright’s concerned, Chicago-political-fixture-and-Chief-of-Staff Rahm Emmanuel and Chicago-political-fixture-and-Senior-Adviser David Axelrod are “Them Jews,” as if Jews are all alike.

That’s possible, and bad enough, but I’m not convinced that it’s the only possible interpretation. In the exact same interview in which he made that comment, he also said:

[

Wright told the Daily Press that he has not spoken to his former church member since Obama became president, and he implied that the White House won’t allow Obama to talk to him.

“Them Jews ain’t going to let him talk to me,” Wright said. "I told my baby daughter that he’ll talk to me in five years when he’s a lame duck, or in eight years when he’s out of office. …

“They will not let him to talk to somebody who calls a spade what it is. … I said from the beginning: He’s a politician; I’m a pastor. He’s got to do what politicians do.”

Wright also said Obama should have sent a U.S. delegation to the World Conference on Racism held recently in Geneva, Switzerland, but that the president did not for fear of offending Jews and Israel. He specifically cited the American Israel Public Affairs Committee, an influential pro-Israel lobbying group.

“Ethnic cleansing is going on in Gaza. Ethnic cleansing (by) the Zionist is a sin and a crime against humanity, and they don’t want Barack talking like that because that’s anti-Israel,” Wright said.](http://www.dailypress.com/news/dp-local_wright_0610jun10,0,7603283.story)

It certainly seems like Wright holds a worldview in which “them Jews” “ain’t going to let [Obama]” do something and that Obama won’t do other things because “they don’t want Barack talking like that”.

It certainly speaks to a worldview in which “they” “them” “the Jews” get to dictate what Obama does and does not do, up to and including not “letting” Obama speak to certain people.

[Clothahump]

@samclem

Right. They’ll give it up when they give up “Clinton got a blow job.”

:rolleyes:

That was never the issue. The issue was that Clinton committed a felony while in office - perjury. But what the hell, you libs will never grasp that basic concept, will you?

[FinnAgain]

So, guns, eh?
Declawing cats while driving your SUV and choosing to remain childless?

[Diogenes_the_Cynic]

@FinnAgain

1. You still haven’t shown that he was actually talking about any specific Jews. Your bullshit about what’s “obvious” is just more of your habitual behavior. You are caught in a factually incorrect statement, and rather than admit that you’re just bullshitting, you dig faster.

What’s disingenuous is you pretending the intent was NOT obvious. Are you seriously contending that it’s plausible to hypothesize that he was talking about all Jews? If you honestly think that, then I think you’re the one who’s being irrational.

2. As someone who’s said that Obama hasn’t taken certain steps for fear of offending Jews and that AIPAC has essentially set Obama’s policies and that “ethnic cleansing” is going on in Gaza but “they don’t want Barack talking like that” so he doesn’t say anything about it?

This sentence has a question mark at the end of it, but I don’t understand what you’re asking. I can say that anti-Zionism is not necessarily synonomous with antisemitism.

It’s disingenuous in the extreme to pretend that rather than the distinct possibility that Wright was indeed talking about “them Jews” as the same “they” who prevent Obama from calling out the “ethnic cleansing” in Gaza and who Obama won’t dare offend, that he was only speaking about a few specific Jews. Even though by your own statement there were only two of them who he still couldn’t manage to name.

I honestly think this interpretation is ridiculous.

Your mind reading powers are broken.

Lend me some of yours. You’re the one who knows without a doubt that Wright was referencing a personal belief in global Jewish conspiracies

Just because you can stridently assert something without being able to prove it, at all, doesn’t mean that anybody who isn’t convinced really knows that your bluster is gospel.

In this case, I’m just observing the obvious. I think you know as well as I do who Wright was referring to.

[Really_Not_All_That_Bright]

@Clothahump

That was never the issue. The issue was that Clinton committed a felony while in office - perjury. But what the hell, you libs will never grasp that basic concept, will you?

Clinton was acquitted of all charges, but you “cons” will never grasp that basic concept, will you?

Finn, you forgot fat people.

[Sarahfeena]

@FinnAgain

1. You still haven’t shown that he was actually talking about any specific Jews. Your bullshit about what’s “obvious” is just more of your habitual behavior. You are caught in a factually incorrect statement, and rather than admit that you’re just bullshitting, you dig faster.

Whether or not he was talking about “specific Jews” is irrelevant, because the fact that they are Jewish is irrelevant. The only reason to mention it is in a racist context. So it’s far more than a graceless descriptor, it’s a flat-out racist one.

[Shodan]

@Gyrate

Yes, because the main purpose of the United Church of Christ is to hate them Jews.

Well, isn’t that the problem? Surely there were some UCC churches in the Chicago area who didn’t have a raving loony racist and anti-Semite at their head. Yet, for whatever reason, Obama didn’t seek them out, or, if he did, did not find them congenial. Instead it was that specific church, and even that specific pastor, who had so major an influence on his life. Even to the point that he dedicated a book to him, and referred to that specific pastor as his mentor.

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.

I’m sure it is. But that dynamic only works if both sides agree not to dwell on offensive subjects. If one side keeps bringing it up, then “don’t ask, don’t tell” ceases to work.

As I mentioned, my father-in-law had fairly racist views, including on the topic of Asians. As it happens, both my children are Asian. If my father-in-law had persisted in airing his views on Asians in my presence, then the compromise you mention would not have been possible.

And if the pastor of any church of which I was a member spouted anything anti-Asian (or anti-black, or anti-white for that matter), you better believe he would hear from me in good round terms. And if that kind of tirade happened even rarely from then on, I am out the door. I neither stay, nor overlook. Racism is sin. That much, my church at least has learned many years ago.

Regards,
Shodan

[VinylTurnip]

@Clothahump

That was never the issue. The issue was that Clinton committed a felony while in office - perjury. But what the hell, you libs will never grasp that basic concept, will you?

Oh, we grasped it. It was grasped, absorbed, and born anew as one of the Bush administration’s Guiding Principles: “You can’t perjure if you refuse to testify.”

[Kimmy_Gibbler]

@Marley23

I thought enough sarcasm in that post, but it looks like you missed it. But anyway your post sums up what people are objecting to: as far as Wright’s concerned, Chicago-political-fixture-and-Chief-of-Staff Rahm Emmanuel and Chicago-political-fixture-and-Senior-Adviser David Axelrod are “Them Jews,” as if Jews are all alike.

If anything, that just shows the divide between the rough-and-tumble political operatives in city machines versus the doe-eyed good-government types out in the suburbs. The black vote, the Jewish vote, the blue-collar “white ethnic” vote, Bucktown yuppies, etc. etc. are all still broadly-conceived interest groups that are typically taken to be monolithic in city politics. There’s a reason why “Bridgeport” or “Humboldt Park” can be used as adjectives describing more than just mere neighborhoods in Chicago. I guess this is kind of innocuous in general, but occasionally these groups end up at loggerheads with each other (read, say, a piece in the Defender about including Asian-Americans in the city MBE/WBE set-asides, or listen to a Bucktown yuppie when the city floats the idea of including low-income housing on their block) and it can get unlovely. Especially to residents of the lily-white, upper-middle-class suburbs where they have the luxury of considering this kind of gritty urban politicking to be beneath them.

So, is Rev. Wright an anti-semite? I don’t think so, but I do think he is engaging in habits of mind that people who grew up in generic suburbs (or even some of our newer Western and Sun Belt cities) without ethnic neighborhoods might easily mistake for it.

[Sarahfeena]

I see what you’re saying, K_G, but I think you are underestimating the level of simmering hostility there is between some of these neighborhoods and the ethnic groups that occupy them. I lived in Obama’s neighborhood, and I think there is no doubt that what looks like and sounds like racism there very much is real, entrenched racism.

[Kimmy_Gibbler]

@Sarahfeena

I see what you’re saying, K_G, but I think you are underestimating the level of simmering hostility there is between some of these neighborhoods and the ethnic groups that occupy them. I lived in Obama’s neighborhood, and I think there is no doubt that what looks like and sounds like racism there very much is real, entrenched racism.

If you lived in BO’s neighborhood for the same reason I lived in BO’s neighborhood, you know that doesn’t count.

[FinnAgain]

@Sarahfeena

Whether or not he was talking about “specific Jews” is irrelevant, because the fact that they are Jewish is irrelevant. The only reason to mention it is in a racist context. So it’s far more than a graceless descriptor, it’s a flat-out racist one.

I think that’s most likely true, but may possibly not be. He could, conceivably, be referring to certain staffers who happen to be Jews by a quick label much like someone might tell a coworker about “that guy who came in yesterday with a Hawaiian shirt on”.
But I wouldn’t put money on it.

I find it much more likely that “them Jews” are the same “they” who “don’t want Barack talking like that” since it’s also “them Jews” who “will not let him to talk to somebody who calls a spade what it is.”

@Diogenes_the_Cynic

What’s disingenuous is you pretending the intent was NOT obvious.

Not being convinced by your blanket-assertions-via-fiat-with-not-even-a-pretense- of-proof-let-alone-logical-cogent-support-attached-to-them is evidence of disingenuous behavior?
Get over yourself.

@Diogenes_the_Cynic

This sentence has a question mark at the end of it, but I don’t understand what you’re asking.

As pointed out in the first bullet point, you are full of shit when you pretend that one possible interpretation of Wright’s remarks is the only one, let alone the “OBVIOUS” one.
Then, seeing as how the actual meaning of the remark is in question for anybody who isn’t an apologist shill like you, the context is then added that in the very same interview in which he claimed that “them Jews” weren’t going to “let” Obama talk to certain people, he also claimed that “They” (American Jews) were preventing Obama from speaking honestly. Given that context, that it was even more dishonest of you and your stubborn deceptive bullshit to pretend that only your apologia could be right and that it was so “OBVIOUSLY” right that anybody who wasn’t convinced was being disingenuous.

@Diogenes_the_Cynic

Lend me some of yours. You’re the one who knows without a doubt that Wright was referencing a personal belief in global Jewish conspiracies

Liar.
I’ve never said anything of the sort.
And it’s blatantly obvious from my posts, as I’ve continually used phrases like “possible interpretation”.
Who do you think you’re fooling, anyways? In a two page thread you think you can lie about posts made in the last few hours and somehow trick people when I can cite my own posts?
WTF is wrong with you?

And your stupid strawman about global Jewish conspiracies? It’s telling that you’re unable to deal with the actual things I say without having to make shit up. Wright actually said that due to Jews in the US, Obama will not do certain things because “they do not want [him to]”. That’s what was actually said by him. Making up some sort of global Jewish conspiracy is just more of your same habitual dishonesty when you get backed into a corner. Why, those who point out Wright’s own words must be crazed conspiracy nuts, just like those who aren’t convinced of your claims-by-fiat must secretly know that you’re right but be fucking with you.

You loon.

@Diogenes_the_Cynic

I think you know as well as I do who Wright was referring to.

You finally said something true (by accident, I’m sure).

Neither you nor I can be sure of what Wright’s thoughts were. Claims that there is only one “OBVIOUS” interpretation are intellectually lazily and intellectually sloppy. claims that anybody who doesn’t buy into the one and only “OBVIOUS” interpretation are disingenuous are not only lazy and sloppy, they’re vile and stupid.

Now, I’ve laid out the facts and how Wright’s belief that “Them Jews” aren’t going to “let” Obama do something coupled with his own statements that Obama will not do certain political things because “[American Jews] do not want [him to]” provides a possible and somewhat compelling interpretation.
You’ve offered your normal smarmy idiocy and asinine, stubborn fact-less “certainty” that amount to nothing other than you being a pig headed moron spouting off and demanding that everybody come to the same conclusions, sans logic, that you have or there’s something wrong with them. You’ve done nothing other than assert a claim without even a pretense of effort at arguing for it. All you’ve done is spew concentrated stupid.

What a waste you are when you’re in this mood. Go back to posting about biblical history or something.

[Sarahfeena]

@Kimmy_Gibbler

If you lived in BO’s neighborhood for the same reason I lived in BO’s neighborhood, you know that doesn’t count.

No, I didn’t go to school there I just lived there because I wanted to as a young adult. It’s actually a great neighborhood, and if you want a stable, diverse neighborhood , you can’t beat it. I think that some of the more blue-collar neighborhoods like the ones you mentioned demonstrate a lot more of the problems with racism that we have in the city. But there’s plenty of bitterness and anger to go around, and I’ve heard plenty of people talking just like the Reverend. I never doubted that they were expressing their true beliefs and feelings.

[Sarahfeena]

@FinnAgain

I think that’s most likely true, but may possibly not be. He could, conceivably, be referring to certain staffers who happen to be Jews by a quick label much like someone might tell a coworker about “that guy who came in yesterday with a Hawaiian shirt on”.
But I wouldn’t put money on it.

I find it much more likely that “them Jews” are the same “they” who “don’t want Barack talking like that” since it’s also “them Jews” who “will not let him to talk to somebody who calls a spade what it is.”

You are being overly generous with your interpretation. If he’s referring to specific people, and he knows they are Jewish, then he knows their names, which he could have used intstead. Or he could use their job titles. That at least would have been relevant to his complaint. There’s no earthly reason he would use a descriptor for any reason other than he thinks it’s relevant to his point. Therefore, he thinks the fact that they are Jewish is relevant. Racism.

[ElvisL1ves]

@Really_Not_All_That_Bright

Clinton was acquitted of all charges

You’re referring to his impeachment. As for criminal charges, none were ever even filed. Even the civil suit was dismissed as baseless.

but you “cons” will never grasp that basic concept, will you?

It’s a matter of faith, not fact.

[FinnAgain]

@Sarahfeena

You are being overly generous with your interpretation.

Could be. As I said I think you’re most likely right, and the simple gratuitous nature of the mention of their ethnicity coupled with the worldview he shared about American Jews in the same interview tends to support your conclusion.

Of course “Emanuel and Axelrod” is several more syllables than “them Jews”, but I don’t find sheer ennui to be more compelling of a reason than, in context, Wright’s views that Ameican Jews have undue political power over Obama.