| We hope you enjoy your visit. You're currently viewing our forum as a guest. This means you are limited to certain areas of the board and there are some features you can't use. If you join our community, you'll be able to access member-only sections, and use many member-only features such as customizing your profile, sending personal messages, and voting in polls. Registration is simple, fast, and completely free. Join our community! If you're already a member please log in to your account to access all of our features: |
| The Race Card and Uncle Tom Card; Sick and Tired of the Double Standard | |
|---|---|
| Tweet Topic Started: Mar 13 2008, 07:42 PM (1,560 Views) | |
| STC | Mar 24 2008, 04:15 PM Post #61 |
![]()
Commodore
|
^^^ A little bit of light reading for me there! :lol: Thanks 'Trep
|
| Offline | Profile | | Quote | ^ |
| Wichita | Mar 24 2008, 07:25 PM Post #62 |
|
The Adminstrator wRench
|
I agree. There are also serious issues of religion, gender, class, and ethnicity in this country.
Call me a cynic, but I think his speech was about dealing with being associated with a very racially divisive individual.
Because that is the racially divisive word that the person lecturing others on racial divisiveness used ...
I agree but I suspect not for the same reason that you do. I would have been more impressed with the man had he dealt with the issue of his minister's comments upfront. |
| Offline | Profile | | Quote | ^ |
| ImpulseEngine | Mar 25 2008, 05:28 PM Post #63 |
|
Admiral
|
And they have nothing to do with this discussion so why mention them? ![]() Yes, that was the reason he gave the speech, but only a very small part of what it was about. No, it's because people would rather discuss all the distractions than the real point. People would rather get caught up in finger pointing and entertainment than address an issue. I would have been more impressed if people cared enough to come to an understanding of where that pastor's comments come from, how they reflect a culture and where it comes from, and also come to an understanding of how much of that culture consists of an interdependency between a people who often have little more than each other and how that plays a huge part in why Obama won't disown this pastor. The simple fact is we don't want to understand. We just want to judge and point fingers at this pastor, and by extension Obama, over some comments expressed totaling maybe a few hours at most out of his 20+ years of preaching. It makes no difference to us what else went on during those 20+ years that might account for Obama's loyalty and closeness with this pastor. Let's just condemn him when we really don't know squat about the situation. And, after Obama's well-expressed explanation, and his rejection of the comments in question, and when none of that really even SHOULD have been necessary in the first place because Obama is not the pastor, it's just not good enough for us because he didn't disown the pastor and because he carelessly used a phrase like "typical white person". Oh please. We're not interested at all in the racial issues. Political crap is more important. This isn't directed at you personally Wichita - there are too many others out there saying the same things. I'm just disgusted with so many people in this country who care more about the garbage than they do about what's really important. And then so many others just get swept up in it. |
| Offline | Profile | | Quote | ^ |
| ImpulseEngine | Mar 25 2008, 05:28 PM Post #64 |
|
Admiral
|
Speaking of hypocrisy and double standards, while Obama's pastor is all over the news, has anyone even heard about Pastor John Hagee - a man who McCain has hailed as a spiritual advisor - and his anti-Catholic, anti-Semitic, and anti-Islam comments? Darn that left-wing media. They're always after those guys on the right while giving the left a free pass.
|
| Offline | Profile | | Quote | ^ |
| Dandandat | Mar 25 2008, 06:27 PM Post #65 |
|
Time to put something here
|
What is there to understand about racism? That in this case it MAY come from feelings of oppression that no longer exists and hasn’t for my life time? That this POSSIBLE fact makes racism ok? Sorry it doesn’t, it's not even close to being ok for any reason. What this pastor said and did, whether it be for a few hours or a few years worth of racism it is wrong. And if Obama wants to by me president he most certainly has to explain his association with this bigot even if the words said did not come from Obama himself. That’s the price must Obama pay for wanting to be my president, we aren't talking about him wanting to be my friend, or my employee; we are talking about him wanting to represent me to the world and caring for my best interests and so it is absolutely necessary that he explain many aspects of his life to me, and most certainly that includes his associations with possible unsavory people. So Obama must explain himself; do I accept his explanation? Frankly I found it two faced, I found him sitting on the fence on an issue that should be black and white. If my white grandmother came to offend a group of people (and more especially an entire country) on account of racism I would do more then simply distance my self from those actions. I would be the first person to ask my grandmother to apologies for her words. I may understand why she said them, I most certainly would not stop loving her, but I would try to be the strongest influence around her trying to make her a better person. I see nothing of that from Obama; All I see is a man saying "It wasn't me, and oh by the way a lot of white people have made racists comments, so hey" I also found it despicable how he was equating the venomous comments made by his Reverend to the typical off color racists remarks made by the elderly. Yes I'm sure we have all had family members who have said racist comments and they where wrong, on that count Obama is correct. But I heard what the Reverend said and I've rarely come across comments so angry, so intent on persuasion, intent on furthering the hate; they are not at all typical of what I've heard in my house hold and to say that they are; as Obama has said is simply another offence. I also find it unpalatable how easily he through his own grandmother under the bus, Since I have no idea how his grandmother is I would give her the benefit of the doubt and assume most if not all the comments she has made in her life that where in fact racists where no where near what this man had said in his past. Sorry Obama had a real moment to shine here; and he simply didn’t, what's worse is that in some cases he's even hurt himself. |
| Offline | Profile | | Quote | ^ |
| Dandandat | Mar 25 2008, 06:35 PM Post #66 |
|
Time to put something here
|
Yes "national controversy" that no one even heard of that makes sence. Wait why is the NYTimes even doing a story on someone no one heard of? |
| Offline | Profile | | Quote | ^ |
| Minuet | Mar 25 2008, 09:42 PM Post #67 |
|
Fleet Admiral Assistant wRench, Chief Supper Officer
|
Dandandat - the article you linked is the first one I have seen on Rev. John Hagee. I had to look closely to even find his name on the article (very small lettering at the top) In contrast the information about Obama's preacher has been in the paper here in Canada and Obama's speech was reported on. Now I don't know all the details about what John Hagee is supposed to have said. The article linked is his own explanation and doesn't have the original remarks. With that said I think that Impulseengine's point is that McCain has not been asked to distance himself from those remarks. The Reverend is being asked personally about his remarks. But in the case of Obama no one is talking to his preacher. They are pointing the finger at Obama himself. That does seem to be giving the two men totally different treatment. But again I do admit I am making that comment not knowing the exact original comments of Mr. Hagee or how serious they actually were. |
| Offline | Profile | | Quote | ^ |
| ImpulseEngine | Mar 25 2008, 09:49 PM Post #68 |
|
Admiral
|
Those two sentences alone explain why you have the perspective you do in the whole rest of your post. As for your comments about Pastor John Hagee in the subsequent post, I didn't say no one heard of him. I asked if anyone heard about him and the issues I specified. |
| Offline | Profile | | Quote | ^ |
| ImpulseEngine | Mar 25 2008, 09:51 PM Post #69 |
|
Admiral
|
You're on target Minuet. And the fact that you don't know the details about Hagee, but you do about Obama's Pastor, reflects my point as well. |
| Offline | Profile | | Quote | ^ |
| Franko | Mar 25 2008, 10:01 PM Post #70 |
|
Shower Moderator
|
This is the most attention I've ever seen paid to a virtually obscure down-home preacher in the middle of a presidential campaign. By the way, rich white men do own America. The rest is owned by Saudi Arabia. |
| Offline | Profile | | Quote | ^ |
| Wichita | Mar 26 2008, 05:59 AM Post #71 |
|
The Adminstrator wRench
|
Last night I started to respond to this post but got distracted by another task before I finished it. My original response was "fair point". I am going to change that now. To extent this thread is about "race", you are correct. However, you also made this statement:
In part - to me and some other people who's words I have read - this is ALSO about religion. A number of people who have read Rev. Wright's words have responded by saying "they weren't that bad" or "have you walked out every time your minister said something you disagreed with?" If my minister said something similiar to Rev. Wright from the pulpit, yes, I WOULD walk out the first time I heard it. I would also be following up with the Church leadership on the subject. If he returned and made a second sermon in the same vein, I would shop for a new ward (not religion, ward) to attend. God commanded us to love one another - period. Any minister who does not at least ATTEMPT to lead his flock in that direction is, IN MY OPINION, not teaching the Gospel, but something entirely different. That is the same response that I have heard from a number of religous people. During the 17 years I worked with Girl Scouts, I worked with ministers from any number of different churches, including some black churches. The ministers of the black churches with which I am familiar, were far more political than many of the other churches, but I never heard of them saying something hateful or blatantly bigoted. Each of those men were of the same generation as Rev. Wright, but, yet, did not react the same way. And, oddly, just as I typed those words, the news came on the radio and Hillary said she would have cut ties with the pastor. :lol: I agreed with Hillary on something. The second point is that although people may not have an understanding of being discriminated on the basis of race, it does not mean that they have absolutely no understanding of discrimination because they may have experienced it on other issues. You also said:
Just a few months ago, some of the same people (I never heard you say it, but others have) who are saying that Obama shouldn't have to explain the association with the pastor and that it had nothing to do with him gleefully demanded that Romney explain the racist and sexist history of his church. I also find that hypocrisy to be disgusting and it is part of why I am not impressed with how Obama's chose to react or share the opinion that his response was "well-expressed". In his case, he was asked about DOCUMENTED statements made by his pastor. In the case of Romney many of the beliefs were not from the Mormon church itself but anti-Mormon sites. Obama, at least, got ask to respond to actual comments - not the ravings of the KKK site. People may not understand what it means to be black, but they do understand what it means to lose jobs, housing, and even their lives because of their ethnicity, religion, and/or gender. |
| Offline | Profile | | Quote | ^ |
| Wichita | Mar 26 2008, 06:14 AM Post #72 |
|
The Adminstrator wRench
|
The interesting thing about your comment to me is that I have heard that McCain's spiritual advisor is an entirely different minister (although also of a megachurch). I recall awhile back that the leader of some church (Ted something?) was caught in a sex/financial scandal. I had never heard of him before that day, but almost immediately, the press was demanding that Bush explain his ties to the man because the man - apparently - had visited the White House several times. Heck, even Hillary had to defend herself about the people (including Obama's Rev. Wright) who visited the White House during the Clinton administration. I understand the point that you are trying to make ImpulseEngine, but, unfortunately, this demand that politicians explain their association with religion has been prevalent for at least 20 years in American politics. BTW, I was confused by the mention of Hagee because I was pretty sure that his church was in Texas (why would a senator who lived in Washington and Arizona fly to Texas for church every week?) so I went to Hagee's website. I did find out that his church is in San Antonio, BTW. However, I also found this: Why Christians should support Israel Other than where he was located, I know zero about Hagee, but I find it interesting that he is called "anti-semitic". |
| Offline | Profile | | Quote | ^ |
| Wichita | Mar 26 2008, 06:26 AM Post #73 |
|
The Adminstrator wRench
|
OK, just read the NYTimes link ... The reporter was a bit antagonistic, wasn't she? :lol: As to McCain seeking Hagee's endorsement ... Throughout this primary season, I have heard any number of candidates seek the endoresement of any number of religious leaders. I don't see how McCain is behaving differently in that regard. Nor do I see that as making Hagee McCain's "spiritual advisor".
I don't know what you have seen in Canada, but I have seen articles talking directly to Rev. Wright about his comments. He was the source for the information that Obama "disinvited" him from the announcement of his candidacy, for example. |
| Offline | Profile | | Quote | ^ |
| Wichita | Mar 26 2008, 06:30 AM Post #74 |
|
The Adminstrator wRench
|
I know - from rereading my comments - that they give the appearance that I am somewhat angry at Obama. That is not the case. My response to his handling of this situation is a not a negative as much as it the absence of a positve. Some have portrayed him as the second coming of Martin Luther King, Jur. That's a huge "positive" and I disgree with THAT. |
| Offline | Profile | | Quote | ^ |
| Dandandat | Mar 26 2008, 07:31 AM Post #75 |
|
Time to put something here
|
I don't know what your talking about? the whole article is about this man in the form of Q & A. So I have no idea the relevance of the size of his name? Do you think people would read this article and not know who it was answering the questions? That's a bit silly. As for this being the only article, do a Google news search there are plenty of them. |
| Offline | Profile | | Quote | ^ |
| Go to Next Page | |
| « Previous Topic · Politics and World Events Forum · Next Topic » |



:lol:

9:33 AM Jul 11