[QUOTE=9thFloor]
True enough, I recognize that. But it’s not just the pastor, it’s the church that has stances that are institutionally consistent with the types of sermons he gave.
[/quote]
This is not true. UCC is majority white. Wright was just one pastor of one congregaton.
[QUOTE=Diogenes the Cynic]
What “hate speech?” I haven’t seen or heard any hate speech from Jeremiah Wright.
[/QUOTE]
I’ve seen many Americans re-act very strongly to people slagging off America. It’s not too big of a leap to think that some view the whole “God Damn America” thing as hate speech. That’s ridiculous IMO but something I’ve seen.
Alternativly it could be just another example of shit sticking. If people hear this kind of stuff enough it becomes true to some of them eg. Iraq=9/11, Obama=Muslim etc.
[QUOTE=Diogenes the Cynic]
What “hate speech?” I haven’t seen or heard any hate speech from Jeremiah Wright.
[/QUOTE]
I’m referring to the questions that will be asked and the manner in which they will be asked. In fact, that’s already happened using that language verbatim.
As to whether or not YOU think it’s hate speech, I think we know how you weigh in.
P.S. As I’ve said before, and I will state here again, I happen to agree with most everything Wright has said. I’m handicapping how it will play out by those that matter most in the coming weeks (those that are about to vote). And for those, and many, saying Hillary was never called a nigger may come close to, if not hate speech, at least racially heated contemptuous rhetoric regardless of the context. And yes, I know the context and I got his point.
[QUOTE=Diogenes the Cynic]
This is not true. UCC is majority white. Wright was just one pastor of one congregaton.
[/QUOTE]
LOL Holy crap, that strikes me as a racist thing to say. UCC is majority white, so what? How does that make it “not true” that the church isn’t “institutionally consistent with the types of sermons he gave.”? Wow. Are you saying a white church can’t be institutionally consistent with the type of sermons he gave? You’re white, aren’t you? And you agree with most of what Wright said. So what are you suggesting…that only blacks can be racist in the way that Wright is alleged to have been? Holy crap.
[QUOTE=yojimbo]
I’ve seen many Americans re-act very strongly to people slagging off America. It’s not too big of a leap to think that some view the whole “God Damn America” thing as hate speech. That’s ridiculous IMO but something I’ve seen.
Alternativly it could be just another example of shit sticking. If people hear this kind of stuff enough it becomes true to some of them eg. Iraq=9/11, Obama=Muslim etc.
[/QUOTE]
Good point. In fact, a couple days ago I saw a video thing on CNN called “Name Obama’s religion” where they found that many people still don’t know what religion he is (and I don’t mean denominationally, I mean Christian or Muslim). So it sticks.
9th Floor, you’re advocating the politics of “Oh, my God! They’ll say nasty things about him!”
Duh.
The Democrats have spent 12 years cowering under this philosophy. Instead of confronting people who say nasty things, they’ve spent 12 years trying to avoid doing things about which nasty things could be said, and in doing so have sold Democratic and progressive principles down the river.
Obama’s speech yesterday was the first time in really the last 10 or 12 years that a Democrat has actually stood up in a timely manner and refuted the poison-lobbing. It was a moment that made me proud that I have a change from Independent to Democrat processing at the Board of Elections right now, so I can be ready to vote for him in the PA primary in April and try to counteract in some tiny way the typical stubborn ignorant idiocy of rural Pennsylvania.
[QUOTE=jayjay]
9th Floor, you’re advocating the politics of “Oh, my God! They’ll say nasty things about him!”
Duh.
The Democrats have spent 12 years cowering under this philosophy. Instead of confronting people who say nasty things, they’ve spent 12 years trying to avoid doing things about which nasty things could be said, and in doing so have sold Democratic and progressive principles down the river.
Obama’s speech yesterday was the first time in really the last 10 or 12 years that a Democrat has actually stood up in a timely manner and refuted the poison-lobbing. It was a moment that made me proud that I have a change from Independent to Democrat processing at the Board of Elections right now, so I can be ready to vote for him in the PA primary in April and try to counteract in some tiny way the typical stubborn ignorant idiocy of rural Pennsylvania.
[/QUOTE]
Good for you. (no sarcasm)
And I’m not “advocating” any such thing and have to say I resent that accusation although I can see how it might appear. I’m handicapping what I think will happen and that it will play out that way among those that you yourself describe as “typical stubborn ignorant [idiots].” It’s my analysis of how I suspect things will go among said members that comprise the “typical stubborn ignorant idiocy of rural Pennsylvania.” I think we’re agreeing.
[QUOTE=9thFloor]
Were his children with him listening to this hate speech?
[/quote]
The hate speech Obama said he wasn’t present for himself?
The specific kind of hate speech that Obama said had not actually been said in the last 20 years?
Perfectly plausible. Plenty of people have moderated what they say, even though what they think may be different. This became an issue recently because Wright was getting close to retirement and getting older, and both are frequently an impetus for not really giving a damn what people think about what you say any more.
[QUOTE=Hippy Hollow]
Shayna, you note that Reverend Wright should not be assessed on a number of incendiary comments out of a career of 30 years. If I may extrapolate, perhaps you think some of the rhetoric was clumsily-worded but legitimate critiques of American society.
I agree.
I’ve only asked for consistency from the media and the public in this campaign. Geraldine Ferraro said a clumsy and incendiary comment - heck, she said it twice in her political career - but she’s been tarred by many as a racist. Bill Clinton made a comment that might be construed (notice the “might,” I certainly didn’t interpret it that way) as equating Obama with Jesse Jackson - he’s been accused of injecting race into the campaign.
We know a lot more and can assess the actions of Ferraro and Clinton much easier than those of Reverend Wright - they have a lot more press coverage. But either we’re going to be fair and consistent, and state that it’s unfair to label people with negative attributes because they make an occasional controversial statement, or we’re going to hold people accountable for every clumsily-worded rant.
[/QUOTE]
There is NO inconsistency here. I don’t judge ANY of these three individuals, in toto, solely on a single remark out of an otherwise illustrious career. I judge them each for each remark, and I hold them and only them responsible for those words.
Others may think it was pre-arranged with Hillary to have her surrogates make racist remarks on her behalf – I don’t. I think Bill Clinton made an ugly remark that reveals something about how he views black people that he probably didn’t even recognize before it spilled from his lips. I imagine he’s sorry he said it. He was, for the most part, an excellent President – probably one of the best in the last century.
Geraldine Ferraro hasn’t merely made ugly, and flat out wrong, generalizations about African Americans once or twice, she’s compounded her ignorance by going on numerous follow-up interviews, digging her heels in and staunchly defending her hideous generalizations, actually getting outraged that people called her on her offensive remarks. I do actually think she’s deep down a racist, even though she’s fought her whole career for equality. I don’t think she can help herself. She’s apparently too stupid to recognize it, even when it’s pointed out to her plainly.
Would Bill Clinton, the lying philanderer, have been a good mentor to young man wanting a career in politics? HELL YES.
Would Geraldine Ferraro, the closet racist, have been a good mentor to a young woman hoping to rise to the top in the political world? HELL YES.
Likewise, Jeremiah Wright also has a great deal to offer to someone as a SPIRITUAL mentor, which is what he was to Barack Obama.
And the idea that either candidate would make a bad President because of their past associations with any of these three individuals is outrageous and wrong. I am only concerned with how they address them going forward. Bill Clinton was told to put a sock in it, and he did. Geraldine Ferraro stepped down from her official position on Hillary Clinton’s Finance Committee, and Reverend Wright stepped down from his basically ceremonial position on one of Obama’s committees.
I don’t care if Hillary Clinton stays married to Bill, and I don’t care if she stays BFF with Geraldine Ferraro. All I cared about wrt the Ferraro flap was the Hillary be consistent, and do what she called on Obama to do; renounce and reject her support. In her own lameass way, she did. It’s done. Now it’s time to move past this bullshit and talk about the really important things in this campaign.
I hope that clears things up for you.
[QUOTE=9thFloor]
Good for you. (no sarcasm)
And I’m not “advocating” any such thing and have to say I resent that accusation although I can see how it might appear. I’m handicapping what I think will happen and that it will play out that way among those that you yourself describe as “typical stubborn ignorant [idiots].” It’s my analysis of how I suspect things will go among said members that comprise the “typical stubborn ignorant idiocy of rural Pennsylvania.” I think we’re agreeing.
[/QUOTE]
“Advocate” was too strong, and I apologize and retract that. “Acquiesce” may be more appropriate. I refuse to acknowledge that that sort of politics has any legitimacy. It’s done NOTHING for the Democrats in the last 12 years. Absolutely nothing, except to make us a political non-entity. There are two reasons the Democrats got the majority in both houses of Congress in 2006: Republican scandal and a willingness, during the campaign, to talk about the debacle of Iraq and run on ending it. Surprise! We won!
And then we immediately caved when it came time to do something about it. In any and all avenues. After using strong pushback on the spineless meme to get elected, Democratic congressmen and senators adopted the spineless meme themselves and did…nothing. Didn’t even really TRY to do anything, because they were afraid the Republicans would paint them as soft on terrorism or soft on defense or soft on security. And again, it’s gotten us nothing but a Congressional approval rating that’s on par, if not lower, than Bush’s presidential approval rating. At least we’re still higher than Cheney!
[QUOTE=9thFloor]
I’m sorry, I don’t know what you’re talking about seriously. What proposition? I was asking a question.
[/QUOTE]
The proposition that detestable groups have an obligation to endorse the worst candidate. It proceeds necesarily from your apparent demand that we consider Barak Obama an unacceptable candidate, on the strength of his support FROM NoI and NBPP.
If those groups can be shown to have supported GWB in 2000 and 2004, then maybe such an obligation exists, and maybe they are diligent about meeting it. Come back with cites that it is so, and we can discuss kicking Barak to the curb. Otherwise, your demand has no basis for serious consideration.
ETA: As to your assertion that you were [merely] asking a question, I submit that your tone carried a strong suggestion of a demand that we consider Obama unacceptable because of who has voiced support for him.
[QUOTE=kaylasdad99]
The proposition that detestable groups have an obligation to endorse the worst candidate. It proceeds necesarily from your apparent demand that we consider Barak Obama an unacceptable candidate, on the strength of his support FROM NoI and NBPP.
If those groups can be shown to have supported GWB in 2000 and 2004, then maybe such an obligation exists, and maybe they are diligent about meeting it. Come back with cites that it is so, and we can discuss kicking Barak to the curb. Otherwise, your demand has no basis for serious consideration.
ETA: As to your assertion that you were [merely] asking a question, I submit that your tone carried a strong suggestion of a demand that we consider Obama unacceptable because of who has voiced support for him.
[/QUOTE]
“Detestable groups have an obligation to endorse the worst candidate”? Sorry, I really don’t know what we’re talking about now. I didn’t make a demand that Obama be considered unacceptable based on those endorsements. I said they gave me pause, explained why, and asked if it gave others pause and why not.
Since I made no such demand, I’ll dismiss your dismissal of it having no basis for serious consideration and your “go fetch” come back with cites bullshit. That seems to be your “tone.”
Moving on.
[QUOTE=jayjay]
“Advocate” was too strong, and I apologize and retract that. “Acquiesce” may be more appropriate. I refuse to acknowledge that that sort of politics has any legitimacy. It’s done NOTHING for the Democrats in the last 12 years. Absolutely nothing, except to make us a political non-entity. There are two reasons the Democrats got the majority in both houses of Congress in 2006: Republican scandal and a willingness, during the campaign, to talk about the debacle of Iraq and run on ending it. Surprise! We won!
And then we immediately caved when it came time to do something about it. In any and all avenues. After using strong pushback on the spineless meme to get elected, Democratic congressmen and senators adopted the spineless meme themselves and did…nothing. Didn’t even really TRY to do anything, because they were afraid the Republicans would paint them as soft on terrorism or soft on defense or soft on security. And again, it’s gotten us nothing but a Congressional approval rating that’s on par, if not lower, than Bush’s presidential approval rating. At least we’re still higher than Cheney!
[/QUOTE]
I do have to agree with you on that; there is a tradition of spinelessness in that regard that Obama seems unusually adept at circumventing by ‘calling out the pink elephants’ rather than wincing at the mention of any of them like most do.
[QUOTE=Bosstone]
The hate speech Obama said he wasn’t present for himself?The specific kind of hate speech that Obama said had not actually been said in the last 20 years?Perfectly plausible. Plenty of people have moderated what they say, even though what they think may be different. This became an issue recently because Wright was getting close to retirement and getting older, and both are frequently an impetus for not really giving a damn what people think about what you say any more.
[/QUOTE]
All very possibly just as you say. But the questions will be asked to find the answers. Obama **says **he wasn’t there when that kind of hate speech was made in 20 years. Is he lying? We’ll find out.
[QUOTE=Shayna]
There is NO inconsistency here. I don’t judge ANY of these three individuals, in toto, solely on a single remark out of an otherwise illustrious career. I judge them each for each remark, and I hold them and only them responsible for those words.
Others may think it was pre-arranged with Hillary to have her surrogates make racist remarks on her behalf – I don’t. I think Bill Clinton made an ugly remark that reveals something about how he views black people that he probably didn’t even recognize before it spilled from his lips. I imagine he’s sorry he said it. He was, for the most part, an excellent President – probably one of the best in the last century.
Geraldine Ferraro hasn’t merely made ugly, and flat out wrong, generalizations about African Americans once or twice, she’s compounded her ignorance by going on numerous follow-up interviews, digging her heels in and staunchly defending her hideous generalizations, actually getting outraged that people called her on her offensive remarks. I do actually think she’s deep down a racist, even though she’s fought her whole career for equality. I don’t think she can help herself. She’s apparently too stupid to recognize it, even when it’s pointed out to her plainly.
Would Bill Clinton, the lying philanderer, have been a good mentor to young man wanting a career in politics? HELL YES.
Would Geraldine Ferraro, the closet racist, have been a good mentor to a young woman hoping to rise to the top in the political world? HELL YES.
Likewise, Jeremiah Wright also has a great deal to offer to someone as a SPIRITUAL mentor, which is what he was to Barack Obama.
And the idea that either candidate would make a bad President because of their past associations with any of these three individuals is outrageous and wrong. I am only concerned with how they address them going forward. Bill Clinton was told to put a sock in it, and he did. Geraldine Ferraro stepped down from her official position on Hillary Clinton’s Finance Committee, and Reverend Wright stepped down from his basically ceremonial position on one of Obama’s committees.
I don’t care if Hillary Clinton stays married to Bill, and I don’t care if she stays BFF with Geraldine Ferraro. All I cared about wrt the Ferraro flap was the Hillary be consistent, and do what she called on Obama to do; renounce and reject her support. In her own lameass way, she did. It’s done. Now it’s time to move past this bullshit and talk about the really important things in this campaign.
I hope that clears things up for you.
[/QUOTE]
Well, at least you seem consistent in your views about them on both sides.
It’s unfortunate you have to conclude Ferraro is stupid rather than consider that she is right about the Obama campaign consciously pressing a race card narrative on the other side. Oh well, we each see it the way we do.
[QUOTE=9thFloor]
“Detestable groups have an obligation to endorse the worst candidate”? Sorry, I really don’t know what we’re talking about now. I didn’t make a demand that Obama be considered unacceptable based on those endorsements. I said they gave me pause, explained why, and asked if it gave others pause and why not.
Since I made no such demand, I’ll dismiss your dismissal of it having no basis for serious consideration and your “go fetch” come back with cites bullshit. That seems to be your “tone.”
Moving on.
[/QUOTE]
Meh. I’ll agree wth your final paragraph here. I had my own perception of what you meant, but I don’t seem to be skillful enough to convey it to you. You’ve been quite busy today with this thread, and my contribution, such as it is, wasn’t really very consequential. I won’t take up any more of your time on it.
I’m curious: Should Obama head the ticket in November, am I right in suspecting you’ll be on board with him? Or would you be more inclined to a.)vote McCain; b.) sit out the presidential race; or c.) cast a protest vote for Nader, or one of that – crowd?
[QUOTE=Shayna]
Well who the hell said they shouldn’t? I’ve judged him. Obama’s judged him. We find those particular words offensive.
We do not, however, judge the man based solely on those particular words.
He has 30 years of ministering to his parishioners and serving the community.
Thirty years, not 5 minutes of soundbites edited out of a couple of recent sermons.
You cannot possibly know the full measure of a man by a few sentences.
[/QUOTE]
I agree with this in principle. But how many words does it take to be enough of the man that it is fair to judge him on them? I think it also depends on what was said. And I think you’re being grossly inconsistent, as your words above seem to directly conflict with the type assessment you make here concerning Geraldine Ferraro: (bolding mine)
[QUOTE=kaylasdad99]
Meh. I’ll agree wth your final paragraph here. I had my own perception of what you meant, but I don’t seem to be skillful enough to convey it to you. You’ve been quite busy today with this thread, and my contribution, such as it is, wasn’t really very consequential. I won’t take up any more of your time on it.
I’m curious: Should Obama head the ticket in November, am I right in suspecting you’ll be on board with him? Or would you be more inclined to a.)vote McCain; b.) sit out the presidential race; or c.) cast a protest vote for Nader, or one of that – crowd?
[/QUOTE]
Fair enough. I’d consider McCain or sit it out (though sitting out makes me wince). To be hyperbolic to make the point, I’d go with wrongheaded competence over rightheaded incompetence (as I see it). He’s too green, to me. And, as I’ve been saying (apparently unclearly) I take into consideration that he’ll have NOI and others like that who’ve endorsed him harassing him on what they will demand that he do for the black community as they see it now that they’ve finally gotten “one of their own” in power. He’s also gotten lots of endorsements across the board from folks that I believe are endorsing what they see as an empty suit that they can then hold it over to get something back on the basis that “I made you and endorsed you based on nothing so you owe this and that to me and without my credibility which you yourself lacked you never would be here, etc…”.
I really don’t want to have to deal with their bullshit for 8 years.
If HRC wins this, she will have done it pretty much against the tide of endorsements from folks that could see her as an empty shell. If there’s one thing everyone agrees on, it’s that she’s not a hollow suit. Filled with evil, some say, but certainly not a hollow neophyte come out of the clear blue sky in one election.
I thought it was a well thought out speech. He could have simply dissed the reverend and been done with it. He chose to flesh out his take on related issues. It was an intelligent and informative speech ,especially when compared to Bushs’ stumbling speeches that he even had trouble reading.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8Ux3DKxxFoM
Who is presidential here,?
[QUOTE=9thFloor]
Fair enough. I’d consider McCain or sit it out (though sitting out makes me wince). To be hyperbolic to make the point, I’d go with wrongheaded competence over rightheaded incompetence (as I see it). He’s too green, to me.
[/QUOTE]
Hehe…competence? From the Clinton campaign? From Mark “I win whether Clinton or McCain becomes President because my company is representing both of them” Penn? From the campaign that didn’t even plan past Super Tuesday because she was supposed to be inevitable? From the campaign that decided that it could afford to use the old-Democrat “only big blue states” strategy? That competence?
If she can’t run a goddamn campaign, how’s she going to run the country?