Obama's "minister"?

[dong20]

C'mon Industrial wake up man. This will not blow over. If the democrats in their gullibility let it go for now, the republicans will NEVER let it go when it comes time for the general election.

I tend to agree with this, although I don't like what it suggests about both the electorate or the electoral process. Not all democrats are gullible, any more than all Republicans would seek to ruthlessly exploit this.

I don't know if you are for or anti, Obama, and it's not really germane to what I'm about to say.

He was close with this man for 20 YEARS. If I was raised by a racist father for 20 years, I would hate black people. If I was raised by a household where everyone was gay and engaged in homosexual acts, you can be damned sure there is a good chance I would grow up sucking dick. If my father figure was a white supremacist, I would probably don the white hood. If my father figure was a black panther, you can be sure I would join in the revolution.

Sins of the Father? It's a bit weak, Skull. It rather denies free will and the ability to choose never mind negating any meaningful degree of self detirmination, don't you think?

Do you (or I) exhibit the exact same behaviors as our parents, or of those with whom we you spend time? If so, is it because we had or have no choice, or because we decided that certain behaviours - honesty and fairness for example are worth emulating and others aren't. Or, that some things make sense and some don't? If you and I can do this, how can you presume Obama (for example) cannot?

Also, since when is homosexuality something learned from parents? If it wasn't in that person's inherent makeup, partaking in homosexual behaviour would imply some form of coercion yes?

Are you suggesting Obama has been coerced by Wright, is there concrete evidence of this in what Obama says and does? What evidence do you have of anything you're asserting so far relating to Obama? Your analogies are more flawed because Obama didn't grow up with Wright, nor was he dependent on him in the same way a child would be.

By this logic, by virtue of having lived together Hillary Clinton would surely be tarred with Bill's brush, or vice versa? Either way she's clearly a liar and can't be trusted. By this logic, McCain having been tortured as a POW should be a amoral sadist with little or no regard to the suffering of others, having absorbed (by osmosis?) his captors hatred of America, not so?

I understand what you're saying and your argument is not entirely without merit but in so far as it related to Obama, without evidence to back it up it's tenuous at best, and simple illogical bias at worst.

He is probably a man scorned when he left the military and developed hatred for America. Along comes a young obama, very charismatic intelligent person, who wright believes he can turn into a soldier in his revolution. Barack, searching for identity in america, was looking for a father figure he never had growing up, and wright became that for him. Took advantage of him. Is using him in his revolution. Barack is the perfect man for the job. He is smooth. Able to captivate millions. You think his minister couldn't see that when he met him?

Speculation. I also think America has brought many of it's problems on itself. But I have never served in the military, nor do I hate America. You seem to be assigning motive based on what ... what you would do in such circumstances?

That may say something about you (or it may not), but based on the evidence I've seen it says little or nothing about Obama. You acknowledge Obama is intelligent yet you then proceed to imply he's unable to use that intelligence to resist negative influence and form his own views. That he is merely a tool in the 'Wright revolution' - it's a very colourful extrapolation but it's based on ... what?

I've said before I actually agree with a lot of what the minister says, but that is because I would take arms in the revolution as well. But there is a lot of america that won't like what the man says, and that he is close with obama. Sorry, anything barack says to discount it at this point means nothing, its nothing more than a desperate and final attempt at reaching his supporters gullibility, people who are so blinded by his words and speeches and will ignore almost anything negative and still push him into office. This is a big deal. Barack looked caught last night on interviews on cnn and fox. He was lying.

If you are able to make that distinction, what leads you to be so sure others can't? What makes you so special in that regard? These are largely rhetorical questions, not personal to you, Skull.

My point is that of course those who are set against Obama are not going to be affected by this, they've already made up their minds. Those very much pro Obama won't change their views either for the same reason. Those who are undecided are key, and with respect, you don't speak for them, Skull. Give them the credit to reach their own conclusions, much as you have done. While it sounds like you have made up your mind, can others not be trusted to do the same.

I imagine Obama is feeling very uncomfortable right now, but that implies neither guilt nor innocence without evidence to back either up. If it turned out someone I was close to was (unknown to me) an axe murdering maniac, I may feel uncomfortable too, would that make me an accomplice? Guilt by association is usually a tool of the desperate, IMHO.

If you don't think that some (if not most) of the views expressed in wright's speeches and probably preached to obama over the last 20 years hasn't gotten into the head of obama you are being foolish. This man isn't just his "minister", sorry. If you [obama supporters] can't admit the possibility that this may be plausible you are in flat out denial, and Barack is executing the plan perfectly.

What does that really mean? One could be intimately familiar with the works of Hitler, could have spent time with him - would that make them a Nazi Killer? I could have spent years studying Ghandi, would I now be a pacifist Hindu intent on (peacefully) overthrowing my Government?

I'm sure it has occurred to you that you are as subject to influence as those you are accusing? Or are you suggesting that somehow you are the only one able to form a rational viewpoint on this (or any given) issue?

Getting an ideology or suggested course of action 'into someone's head' doesn't automatically lead to them following it blindly, although advertisers and election campaigners would surely wish it were so.

The possibility of influence isn't the issue so much as your apparent implication that even were an assessment made it would be rendered invalid because (based on your opening paragraph) it's inevitable anyway. I'm sorry, but I don't believe that's accurate, or that it's that simple.

 

[faceking]

How convenient... the minister is now dumped from the "campaign"...

but come on... Obama has been listening and following this guy for how many years.

On the campaign is one thing, much less pointless.... but the FACT that the guy is and has been Obama's minister... is compelling. Obama has sat and stayed with this sort of rhetoric.

 

[Skull Mason]

What you say makes sense. I have nothing to back up anything I say, it is just a feeling I have had and I am throwing it out there for discussion. It sure is possible.

I guess you can say I am for obama. My initial vote went to hillary because I believed barack was dooping the general public into believing this or that [insert any barack speech clip]. It was almost a protest against all the obama supporters, to say I wasn't fooled and I knew what barack was about. I hope he does share some beliefs with that minister. Some of what the minister says ring strikingly true. I just believe that this is very bad for obama.

This is just a hit to obama's electability.

A revolution is a significant change that usually takes place in a short period of time. It can make major changes in culture, economy, and socio-politcal institutions. [wiki].

This is why I will vote for him, not because he will work across the aisle with republicans. Barack has earned credibility to me because of his minister.

 

[faceking]

Oh, and talk about double standard... if McCain's minister uttered even one of those words.... McCain would be toast. Racism is indeed alive and well in America, and a lot of it comes from whom you don't suppose.

 

[B_VinylBoy]

Great... now we have racist freaks on both Clinton and Obama's side. Go fig!

Like I said before, the two are so much alike on so many things, it almost makes no sense to hate one over the other!

 

[Industrialsize]

Great... now we have racist freaks on both Clinton and Obama's side. Go fig!

Like I said before, the two are so much alike on so many things, it almost makes no sense to hate one over the other!

Can you say Haggee?
MCcain hopes you can't.

 

[dong20]

What you say makes sense. I have nothing to back up anything I say, it is just a feeling I have had and I am throwing it out there for discussion. It sure is possible.

I don't disagree it's possible, only that it's inevitable.

I guess you can say I am for obama. My initial vote went to hillary because I believed barack was dooping the general public into believing this or that [insert any barack speech clip]. It was almost a protest against all the obama supporters, to say I wasn't fooled and I knew what barack was about. I hope he does share some beliefs with that minister. Some of what the minister says ring strikingly true. I just believe that this is very bad for obama.

This is just a hit to obama's electability.

I thought so. I agree this could hurt him, but what frustrates me is that really, it shouldn't. Or, if it does, it's probably for the wrong reason.

This is why I will vote for him, not because he will work across the aisle with republicans. Barack has earned credibility to me because of his minister.

I'm pleased that you can see past the headlines. I do agree with you that not everyone else is, or far worse, will even try, as so clearly evidenced by posts 62 and 64.

Of course, I have a more detached view of this.

 

[dreamer20]

Oh, and talk about double standard... if McCain's minister uttered even one of those words.... McCain would be toast...

OH NOES!!:shock:

McCain Faces Fire Over Minister's Views, Presumptive GOP Nominee Faces Questions Over Rev. John Hagee's Provocative Preachings - CBS News

 

[Trinity]

I imagine Obama is feeling very uncomfortable right now, but that implies neither guilt nor innocence without evidence to back either up. If it turned out someone I was close to was (unknown to me) an axe murdering maniac, I may feel uncomfortable too, would that make me an accomplice? Guilt by association is usually a tool of the desperate, IMHO.

This isn't guilt by association. This Guilt by Lack of Judgement. All the analogies in the world cannot erase the fact the Obama counts Jeremiah Wright as his mentor, spiritual leader and moral compass and Jermiah Wright preaches a message which is opposite to what Obama is running on. There is no question Wright influenced Obama.

The 'friend who becomes an axe murderer,' the 'Hitler association' - neither analogy is comparable to the relationship Obama has had with Jeremiah Wright. Wright was Obama's mentor, inspiration, and pastor who fed Obama spiritually on a weekly basisly for upwards of 17 years. To now claim that Obama was unaware of Wright's obvious beliefs? To claim he never heard nor was he ever informed about hard held unamerican, hate filled beliefs? That is not believable. By remaining in the church and allowing Wright to remain his mentor until this story broke calls not only Obama's own character but his judgment into question.

 

[Trinity]

OH NOES!!:shock:

McCain Faces Fire Over Minister's Views, Presumptive GOP Nominee Faces Questions Over Rev. John Hagee's Provocative Preachings - CBS News

John Hagee is not John McCain's Minister. McCain did not attend Hagee's Church for 20 years. Hagee has endorsed McCain so McCain is taking fire for Hagee's Preaching, but the two instances are not equal.

 

[dong20]

OH NOES!!:shock:

McCain Faces Fire Over Minister's Views, Presumptive GOP Nominee Faces Questions Over Rev. John Hagee's Provocative Preachings - CBS News

John Hagee is not John McCain's Minister. McCain did not attend Hagee's Church for 20 years. Hagee has endorsed McCain so McCain is taking fire for Hagee's Preaching, but the two instances are not equal.

Since when did that matter? Oh yes, since about 20 minutes ago.

Next>>>

 

[Industrialsize]

John Hagee is not John McCain's Minister. McCain did not attend Hagee's Church for 20 years. Hagee has endorsed McCain so McCain is taking fire for Hagee's Preaching, but the two instances are not equal.

I see it's either Clinton or McCain for you?

 

[Skull Mason]

Yeah I agree the two instances are not equal. Mccain just needs a religious nut to endorse him so he will get votes from the far right. There is no relationship there; it is all for show.

Has anyone here read malcolm x's autobiography? The minister exudes some of him in his gospel. Just from a random youtube search:

YouTube - MALCOLM X: They Claim I Bombed My Own House

This revolution began with him in chicago and hopefully will live on.

I wanted Hillary to get Bill back in the white house, now it is Obama so he can get Wright in there. Fight the Power.

 

[deleted213967]

The possibility of influence isn't the issue so much as your apparent implication that even were an assessment made it would be rendered invalid because (based on your opening paragraph) it's inevitable anyway. I'm sorry, but I don't believe that's accurate, or that it's that simple.

Dong, what strikes me in this sordid affair is the double standards:

Ferraro's unsavory comments were to Obama's minister's tirades what apple cider is to Bavarian schnapps.

Obama is running for POTUS.

Obama, not McCain, not Clinton is claiming to unite, to transcend race, gender e tutti quanti.

His associations are fair game.

Even if he were applying for an entry-level radar technician contractor job at Camp Pendleton, the US military would scutinize his associations and hold them against him.

Obama's minister is not fair to Hillary besides when he claims she doesn't know what it's like to be called a "n*****" (note how race is so irrelevant in 2008 that I still have to use ***** because I am white).

She's been called a "monster" and a "cunt" on many occasions, and certainly worse in this very forum.

Funny, I always thought that "The Audacity of Hope" was the product of American marketing genius, inspiring while using words that mean everything and the opposite of everything.

Now I know there is more where that came from...

 

[dong20]

This isn't guilt by association.

Dress it up how you want, but pretty much yes, it is.

...To now claim that Obama was unaware of Wright's obvious beliefs? To claim he never heard nor was he ever informed about hard held unamerican, hate filled beliefs? That is not believable. By remaining in the church and allowing Wright to remain his mentor until this story broke calls not only Obama's own character but his judgment into question.

I wasn't claiming Obama was unaware of Wright's (as you say) obvious beliefs. After all, if they were so obvious how could he plausibly do so? I don't believe Obama did so. But he may have.

Based on the premise of your argument; McCain should not have accepted Hagee's endorsement should he? After all, Hagee's views are equally obvious. Isn't that suggestive of a 'lack of judgment'? One logical inference could that he agreed with Hagee's views - right until the story broke that is, yes?

The same guilt by association or, if you insist, guilt by lack of judgment may now be applied to McCain, and if so, it would likely be based on equally flawed reasoning process.

 

[B_Nick4444]

Rumors of the death of racial division in America have been greatly exaggerated.

evidently:

Democrats divided by race, sex - Decision '08 - MSNBC.com

 

[Skull Mason]

CNN isn't coming through for me right now, only news I can watch is fox. I'm gonna go sit on my roof its beautiful outside.

 

[B_Hung Muscle]

Dude, if you're on the roof, point yourself toward Manhattan so we can all have a look.

 

[playainda336]

Oh, and talk about double standard... if McCain's minister uttered even one of those words.... McCain would be toast. Racism is indeed alive and well in America, and a lot of it comes from whom you don't suppose.

I agree. But it still wouldn't be fair to McCain.

Great... now we have racist freaks on both Clinton and Obama's side. Go fig!

Like I said before, the two are so much alike on so many things, it almost makes no sense to hate one over the other!

I agree actually. The only reason I support Obama over Hillary...or even McCain over Hillary is that I just don't see her plans to carry out the things she says. I think her heart is in the right place.

 

[dong20]

Dong, what strikes me in this sordid affair is the double standards:

Ferraro's unsavory comments were to Obama's minister's tirades what apple cider is to Bavarian schnapps.

Obama is running for POTUS.

Obama, not McCain, not Clinton is claiming to unite, to transcend race, gender e tutti quanti.

His associations are fair game.

Even if he were applying for an entry-level radar technician contractor job at Camp Pendleton, the US military would scutinize his associations and hold them against him.

Obama's minister is not fair to Hillary besides when he claims she doesn't know what it's like to be called a "n*****" (note how race is so irrelevant in 2008 that I still have to use ***** because I am white).

She's been called a "monster" and a "cunt" on many occasions, and certainly worse in this very forum.

Funny, I always thought that "The Audacity of Hope" was the product of American marketing genius, inspiring while using words that mean everything and the opposite of everything.

Now I know there is more where that came from...

I think the entire process is becoming more sordid, almost by the hour. Double standards are a factor of human nature, I don't worry about them too much, irritating though they can sometimes be. Name calling is irrelevant, and primarily a tool of those unable to formulate or express a reasoned, coherent argument.

I wasn't seeking to dispute that associations are fair game, merely that they should be considered logically, balanced against what the candidate's record actually indicates about them and what one's considered opinion of them was beforehand.

If I read what you say correctly - you now know there is more ... when really you don't. You only believe there is, perhaps based on recent events. You may be right, in fact you probably are. The same argument applies to McCain and Clinton of course, and naturally many will use these associations as a vehicles to smear them in the same way. Of course, Hillary has had some baggage of her own from day one.

There seems to be a presumption that somehow Obama is under Wright's influence, if not his control. I see no real evidence of this. Neither do I see evidence that McCain is under Hagee's.

Ultimately it probably doesn't matter too much at this point. Entrenched voters made their mind up long ago, and I'd wager many of the undecided voters seldom read past the headlines, forming their decisions at the last minute based on the catchiest soundbite or the juiciest gossip they're hearing.