Text of Obama's SpeechFollow

He fails to say what everyone already knows is true. That this poster carries some significant weight politically for raving socialists in the region. If you want to advance in the Socialist party in Illinois, it's a good idea to talk to Smasharoo. See how that works? We all know it's true.

That certainly does seem to imply that Smasharoo carries significant weight which isn't shared by the other posters on the forum. And that, if you want to advance, it makes more sense to talk to Smasharoo than to Trickybeck or Jophiel.

You keep twisting yourself in knots though. It's fun to watch.

Ok. But what if I said "If you want to be a socialist, it would be a good idea to talk to this person"? That would be a bit different, now wouldn't it? It's a recommended action, not a requirement.

Sure. If you added "we all know it's true" immediately afterward, however, there would be no other connotation that could be derived from the combination other than that you were asserting that it was the case that one MUST attend this church to succeed in the given case.

Qualifying everything doesn't make you any less wrong, regardless of what you may think, it just makes you a coward. A coward who's still wrong.

And a racist!

Nah, there are hundreds of other reasons he's a racist, qualification of arguments because of fear of being proven wrong isn't one.

You're all sitting there patting yourselves on the back, while missing the substance of the issue.

Your post contain a lot of things: Equivocations, ad hominem attacks, appeals to authority, thinly veiled racism, ludicrous straw men, willful ignorance, a complete lack of any intellectual rigor, etc.

No one would ever maintain they had ever contained substance, though, or spoke to it. Not once.

Sorry mate. One guarantee when you qualify every single thing you ever post to the point of stating nothing is that you can't argue substance.

So, to reiterate: Cowardly, wrong, devoid of substance. Or to coin a phrase "Gabjiesqe"

There was plenty of substance in my argument Smash. You guys just chose to avoid and/or ignore it. I've repeated the "substance" over and over, and you continue to avoid and ignore it. Strange, don't you think?


Let me repeat it again: The reason that Obama attended that church for 20 years was likely because as a rising black Democrat politician he felt he had to be "active" in some form of Afro-centric organization, and the Trinity church offered that in spades. It's large. It has a strongly and identifiably "black" agenda. And it's very politically active. All things that look very good on a black Democrats resume.

As much as pundits on the left may try to conceal this, the sort of rhetoric Wright spewed is just not that uncommon among "black" churches and afro-centric organizations. The very ones that Democrats favor. If you look at quotes from Sharpton and Jackson from 20-30 years ago, you know who they sound very much like: Yup. Reverend Wright. It's the same message and it hasn't changed much or stopped. And it's the message that the Democrat party wants black folks to hear and believe.


I remember back in the days when I worked the counter at a convenience store, we carried a newpaper called "Voice and Viewpoint". Basically, it was aimed at African-Americans. I read it regularly (you get *really* bored during the graveyard shift). What did I read? Pretty much the exact same stuff that Wright was saying in his sermons. This isn't new. It's not surprising. And it's almost impossible for a black Democrat to rise politically without endorsing or at least nodding to that ideology in some way.


I suppose we can speculate that his choice of church had nothing to do with a planned political career. But then we're left wondering why he was there if he didn't actually believe what Wright said. It's kinda one or the other, and either way, it's bad for him.

Edited, Mar 25th 2008 6:40pm by gbaji

Our priest is a Pole who spent several years ministering in Latin America.

I swear to God I'm not making this up.

How many people work as community organizers, then get their law degree and work in civil rights law, and don't have some aspirations to a political career later on? I suppose lots of them don't succeed at political careers, but his choice of jobs is pretty much what people do when they're trying to build up to a career in politics. That he didn't run for office until ten years later is meaningless.



When he first held political office is irrelevant. He was clearly working at politically active jobs long before running for any office. And yeah. I think most people who think they might someday run for office start by building their "resume" first. And that's going to include community activities, involvement in local politics, volunteering at elections, participating in other people's campaigns, etc.

And joining a church with a politically active agenda most definitely fits into a list of things a person planning a career in politics might do. Why would you think otherwise? Would you have us believe that most politicians are like Mr. Smith, and just one day up and decide to run for congress? That's a fairy tale. You know that in the real world of politics, you don't get a shot at any significant office unless you pay your dues first. What exactly that entails differs from party to party, but if you want to be something more then that "whacky 4th party candidate", you have to go through the hoops, and often prep for years or decades prior to your first run.



No. White people are understandably concerned about the same sort of racism applied to them that black people don't like applied their way. If you can replace "white" with "black" in Wrights sermons, present them to a black audience, and have them be ok with it, then you'd have a point.

But you know and I know that this wouldn't fly. Why is it racist if said one way, but not if said the other? Isn't the very fact that you make this distinction racist? I think so...





And yet, if McCain had spent 20 years in a church run by a member of the KKK, who spewed racist sermons to his flock, you'd be the first in line to call him a racist, wouldn't you?

You do see the hypocrisy of this, right?




No. It's not. It's your opinion. And one that most Americans don't agree with.

Go figure, most Americans are White.

And yet, if McCain had spent 20 years in a church run by a member of the KKK, who spewed racist sermons to his flock, you'd be the first in line to call him a racist, wouldn't you?

Hard to say, it's not a direct comparison. McCain is a racist, while Obama isn't unpatriotic and deeply loves America.

Ummmm....

I'm white, and I dont find what he said in that sermon racist. In fact for a religeous type, i found that what he had to say was pretty insightful.

The fact that he recognises that nothing happens in isolation to anything else (previous foreign policy decisions having repurcussions on future events for example) makes him infinitly smarter, or perhaps just more honest, than almost anyone in US politics (right or left) today.

To compare his sermon with the rhetoric of the KKK is utterly crass of you.


And just as a point of order....

Naughtyword. What gbaji suffers from is anything but 'conservatism'.

Paranoia, delusions and verbal diarrhea for sure, but conservatism? No way.
I'm more of a conservative than he is.

This in no way disqualifies the subject as racism. It just makes the racism understandable, racism with which we can sympathize. We can look at racism bred as a response to persecution and realize that there is a very good and understandable reason for that response. That doesn't fully justify it though, but what it does do is change the way in which we must attempt to fix the racism. When the cause of one's racism is vengeance rather than fear it's obvious that it can't be neutralized in the same way.

We've already been over this. We're not left to wonder, being that we have very plausible and sensible explanations (though I can imagine for you, it probably doesn't help to only have a very selective application of reason). You've been running with this assertion that no one really believes, you haven't demonstrated any evidence to suggest that he joined the church to further his political career (ignoring my request a page ago), and haven't even been able to build a convincing circumstantial case for your point. You just seem to think "everyone already knows, but they're in denial." Let me state unequivocally that no, I don't know, and in fact happen to think you're plain wrong.



Oh. Hahahah. Most ignorant Americans disagree with the facts? Surprise?

We could just talk very briefly how American schools are more segregated today than they were in the 70's, or how black children are at a significantly higher risk of being labeled with a mental/emotional disability despite not having one. How cheap crack used primarily in black communities is prosecuted in a laughably more severe way than powder cocaine used primarily by whites for no apparent reason. I mean, I really could go on. And on, and on, and on. People who think that the system is not only fair now, but doesn't contribute to the cycle of poverty and criminal involvement just aren't trying very hard.

I mean, I can't BELIEVE that most Americans aren't actively looking to find reasons why those blacks' complaints and frustrations are warranted.



Too true. While I acknowledge that racism within the black community is a problem, there's a stark contrast between the two. Being in the majority race group with nearly all the financial and political power-- oh no, those poor, underrepresented blacks are racists. I'll sit in my home at my dinner table and complain about it... it's such a nuisance... well, not really... but it's hypocritical. Pretty much the modern justification for white on black racism. They're doing it too!

I wonder if this whole debacle wasn't just a clever way to get focus off of Obama's Islamic heritage....