Obama's Speech in Response to the Wright Controversy

Given that you don't feel like listening to rational arguments regarding our ignorance of the details of Wright's background, and that you have the absurd requirement that Obama dissociate himself entirely from Wright based on this single issue, let's focus instead on an alternative silly claim of yours:

Please define "lending support".

 

kumbaya

<object width="425" height="355"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/H-CAcdta_8I&hl=en"></param><param name="wmode" value="transparent"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/H-CAcdta_8I&hl=en" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" wmode="transparent" width="425" height="355"></embed></object>

 

Basically, it seems to me there is alot of over reacting to Mr. Obama's association with Rev. Wright. It's not criminal or evil.

It's understandable and rational actually.

 

it feels like a whole lot of nothing.

 

This is really hurting Obama.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20080320/ts_nm/usa_politics_gallup_dc

 

You are as racist as Obama's gran-gran. I hope you can live with yourself.

 

I suppose the idea of independent thought is foreign to you then.

I grew up in a church (omg, a WHITE church!! ) that preached hatred of gays, vilification of abortion, and a strict adherance to the "literal" interpretation of the bible.

I now disagree fundamentally with everyone of those concepts.


Similarly, Obama (in his speech) disagrees with Wright. But refuses to either
a) disown him as if he has no tangible goodness.
or
b) act as if the Wright is not a perfect example of some of the larger race issues this country faces.

I don't have any problem with that stance. Seems logical to me.

I know people of all walks of life with prejudices and hatred and misconceptions. I don't misanthropically dissociate myself from those people. I accept that they have flaws. Like Obama, I think those flaws have an origin, and like it or not, the origin is not always simple human frailty. Often it is a complex bundle of historical, ideological, and experience-based emotion - often coupled with a good dose of misconception.

That does not make the end result acceptable, but striving to understand and address that complexity is far more effective than pretending it does not exist.

 

You don't think Obama contibuted financially to that church? Didn't Obama put Wright on at least one committee even though he knew Wright was a loose cannon? A political figure showing up to your church week after week throws a stamp of approval to the message the pastor is delivering.

You're the one failing to embrace rational thought.

 

And you are a fool with his back to the wall who has nothing left but to play the race card. OJ would be proud of you.

 

When you run for president on a claim of uniting the country and for 20 years have been unable to get one of your best friends to stop spreading a hate message, then I might put you in the same boat with Obama. Not to mention he put Wright on a religous committee and knew the man was making stupid remarks.

 

I didn't know this!!!! That sucks!!!

 

Again, you act as if you know, unequivocally, that Wright has done nothing in his years as a pastor other than make racially charged rants.

1) Of course you don't know this.
2) Please provide me one president not affiliated with a "loose cannon" by your very broad definition. Moreover, as the above request is naturally impossible, please provide proof of a president (outside of Bush - too easy) that was swayed to some zany action due to said "loose cannon".
3) Please state clearly, that you uphold the same standards you demand of Obama. I want to know that you immediately disown ANYONE you know who makes offensive remarks. Without exception.

 

I say this out of observation. I talk to dozens and dozens of people in the course of a day and politics is always a hot topic. People (white and Hispanic) ranging from my 87-year-old mother (a life-long Democrat who hates Hillary Clinton) to East Texas truckers are all concerned about the Wright controversy. They simply don't understand or condone Obama's stance on Wright.

Be aware. Most are neither stupid nor intelligensia. They are voters. However, as the messenger, if you want to "shoot" me, that is your perogative.

 

It's funny. I used to be really bitter about this (I suppose I still am occasionally), but the positives totally outweight the negatives.

I think much more clearly because of this experience. While I am saddened to see others I know embrace this indoctrination, I know that my questioning has led me to a better path. I am firmer in my convictions, now that I know how easily convictions can be manipulated.

 

I know a candidate for the President of the US had no business putting Wright on his Spiritual Advisory Committee knowing he made those types of statements. He only removed Wright after the crap hit the fan. Obama was planning on relying on advice from that nut.

The man is running for an office that I'm not qualified for and it's looking like these days that he isn't either. I'm not the one claiming to change and unite the country so I'm not held to a standard that I never claimed I was capable of upholding. Obama's the one who's claiming he can unite us.

 

I'd argue those "hate messages" are part of the motivation for his appeal to "unity". You know, like his speech says.

People make stupid remarks all the time. Especially politicians. You are again unqualified to state that those remarks are represenative of everything ever said or done by the man.


But its ok that we disagree. You obviously hold your presidents to very high standards. Ergo, I assume you don't vote.

 

Pot calling the kettle black.

Dude, you are the one the one that has got nothing.

 

And you would have a weak argument. The guy may be his friend and he can't disown him but that doesn't explain why he put him on his Spirtual Advisory Committee knowing Wright had spread hate messages. It would be like Jimmy Carter giving Billy Carter a job heading up the ATF.

I'm as qualified as you are to say they aren't.

You'd assume wrong.

 

The latest polls say I've got plenty.

I wouldn't dare call the kettle black because I'm sure you'd play the race card on that one too.

 

I am not saying anything of the sort. I don't know. And I would not assume to know. You do. Do I give him the benefit of the doubt? Yes. It would seem highly unlikely that the man is a reincarnation of malcom X. Furthermore, I fail to see what benefit Obama would gain by lying about Wright's charity and compassion in his speech.

But I don't know for sure. You claim you do.

It's really a moot point though, since you claim that "nutty" remarks should be grounds for immediate dismissal. Of course you don't hold yourself or anyone you know to such an impossible standard, but that's not hypocrisy - it's sound judgement. Our presidents must be pure as the driven snow. Moreover, everyone they interact with must also be pure as the driven snow.

This impeccable requirement is, I am sure, perfectly represented in other candidates and achievable through strenuous mental excercise and the occasional glass of port.

A pity.

Thanks for the discussion. It was, if nothing else, interesting.