What the media did not show about WrightFollow

Isn't it against the rules to have socks? I say pitchforks and torches.

Hahahahah, one would think you were the first sock exposed, as opposed to... probably someone in the hundreds. You are not a special and unique snowflake.

Also, snide? Wow. That was nice compared to how socks are usually busted (bannination, etc)

And there's no account information needed, it's really obvious when you quote someone on the same IP address as you.

Point taken.

Yeah, you'd think he'd get the hint...

I said it was not farfetched that people would believe such a thing.

But whatever. You're never going to admit you were wrong, and I don't really care that much.

So if his grandma did get up in front of a room full of religious followers and "whip them into a froth" you would expect him to disown her, or distance himself from her in some way? Please. Half of my immediate family are ignorant, racist people that churn my stomach at times. I see them of my own volition-- I have no kind of obligation to be involved with them. I love them, and nothing they do, no matter how taboo, will change that. I will still sit with them for dinner at family gatherings.

But it's not in the blood. Blood doesn't mean a damn thing to me. I'd side against family quickly if it came down to a matter of morality. One of my grandmothers isn't related to me by blood at all, and I haven't known her for as long as Obama has known Wright. That doesn't change that I consider her family. Many people assign family roles to people not biologically related to them based on the role they play in that person's life. If you can't empathize with that, then yeah, I guess it must seem like apples to oranges.

Does the fact that I was raised by a bunch of racists and brought up to share their values in any way ensure that I agree? No. It's a different generation, and though I disagree vehemently with their views, I also acknowledge that my ability to change them is limited at best. Just because you're willing to listen to what someone has to say and accept them as one of your own doesn't say anything for your likeness of mind.

More to the point, and especially since we're supposed to wring our hands at the idea of Obama's daughters going to church, who had a greater impact on Obama's upbringing and development? His grandmother who helped raise him from a child or someone Obama didn't meet until his 20's?

Personally, even back in the day when I was attending church services several times a week, leading a Bible study group twice a week and was partially in charge of a campus ministry, I'd still have said that my mother had a much greater impact on who made me what I was than the church leadership did. And that was with a church which was widely considered to be a cult

I enjoy your cereal bars, however.

I'm well aware that there are black people in this country who identify themselves as Americans. But not Wright. And not people who agree with Wright. And (presumably) those black Americans wouldn't attend Wrights church.

See how that creates a problem for Obama?



Really? Did he take blame in his sermons? Did he say that we're all at fault? Cause it sure looked to me like the theme was to create some kind of moral separation between the "oppressed black folks" and "evil white America". I didn't see him placing blame on "our America". If anything, he's saying that it's not "our America", but rather "white America", and thus he and his flock aren't responsible. It's all fault of others and they're all just innocent victims...


Maybe I missed the self blame part of his sermons. Could you point that out to me?



I'm sure you do.

I'm sure you also don't have a clue why this would be a total disaster.



No. That's not what it means. What you're talking about is taking blame. Which is a totally different thing. Taking responsibility includes actually doing something about what has happened with some kind of aim towards making things better. Taking blame is a political vehicle designed to allow others to more easily attack the leader in question. It makes the angry Left happy, but doesn't actually solve any problems (and usually creates more).

What measurement are you using?

If we're talking about improving "the situation that lead to 9/11" (your words), then I suppose we'd measure that by looking at terrorist attacks on US soil over time, right? Hmmmm... Let's see. WTC bombing in 1993. Couple embassies bombed in 1996. And 9/11 itself. That's 4 attacks by the same group and for largely the same reason over a 10 year period of time.

In the following 6.5 years, how many? Zero... Hmmm...


By any objective measurement, despite your assumptions to the contrary, the strategy of the Bush administration in terms of dealing with the threat of terrorism against the US would seem to be working.

Against this, you have a subjective assumption that what we're doing is wrong and wont work, largely fueled by your own dislike of the Bush administration itself.


I'll take the objective analysis every time thank you...



How about you back that up with something more substantial then "Well, some other Liberals say that what we're doing will make things worse!!!".

Can you?



It misses the "nail" because (as I've argued many times) the primary motivating reason for the 9/11 attacks and those leading up to them was not us "meddling negatively", but because we had US soldiers stationed in Saudi Arabia. Now, we can certainly also call that "meddling", but since the major argument against invasion of Iraq was that "the sanctions were working" and those troops were part of the sanction package, that argument comes off as kind of weak.




No. It's the direct result of the previous administrations insistence on trying to please everyone with foreign policy, resulting in half measures that didn't accomplish what they were supposed to do, but caused some pretty major negative problems for us over time.

You do realize that had we made the choice to invade Iraq back in say 1996/1997, we would have had a fraction of the problems we've had (although the faction fighting likely would have happened anyway), and 9/11 would never have happened. Sadly, the evil "neo-cons" were right that the only way the US would wake up to the growing threat was when a major terrorist attack succeeded. Had we listened to them back then, we'd have been much much better off. Unfortunately, we didn't, the terrorist attack happened, and we were still left with the same problems that needed to be solved and actions that needed to be taken, only now they were harder and more costly.


What's sad is that the one group who had the foresight to see this and suggest a course of action to avoid it is blamed for the situation instead. Strange, isn't it? I guess the truth is based on who says something the loudest and most often.


]

That white america isn't to be trusted? Gee! That's so unifying. I feel a warm fuzzy part of the Obama nation already!

Or that the US should fall over itself apologizing to the rest of the world for being bad? Yes. Cause that worked so well when Kennedy did it. He was seen as "weak". That's why the Soviet's decided to see if they could put nuclear missiles in Cuba. Or did they skip that part of history class?

The US president can't be seen that way and certainly can't act that way. It's a disaster waiting to happen. As much as we can complain about US heavyhandedness, the reality is that there are a bunch of nations and leaders out there just waiting for a weak US president who they can take advantage of. And the world seems to be much much worse off when that happens.

Way to miss the very next paragraph Joph.



When you're running for president of the United States? Yeah. I think perhaps questioning the wording and meaning of said preaching is kinda important. Sitting meekly in a pew for 20 years without lifting a hand or posing a question or challenge to the assertions of Wright is pretty telling IMO.