Forums
Cross Site
The Asylum
What the media did not show about Wright

« Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next »

Reply To Thread

What the media did not show about WrightFollow

#77 Mar 24 2008 at 3:41 PM Rating: Excellent

__DEL__1673223474136

Scholar

1,162 posts

Quote:

Quote:

So, are you implying that the situation in the ME in particular, and the world in general has become 'better' since your beloved administration took the bit between its teeth and set out to responsibly do something to improve the situation that led to 9/11?

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...

Read the question again. He didn't ask about terrorist attack on U.S. soil. He asked about the situation in the ME and the world in general.

What I and most of us got from the sermon is that U.S. foreign policy created the kind of hatred leading to 9/11. So the question is: did the life of the people in the ME got better or worst as a result of the U.S. foreign policy over the last 7 years?

The fact that there was no terrorist attack in the U.S. in that time span has nothing to do with the question. There was many terrorist attack elsewhere. London, Bali, Madrid ... We call that the rest of the world. The condition leading to 9/11 are still there and even worst today. The resentment and hatred towards the U.S grew exponentially since the invasion of Iraq.

Quote:

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.

Are you that @#%^ing stupid or you're just trying to look like a moron with the argumentative skills of a can of tuna?

There was NO connection between Iraq and 9/11. Even the current administration agree on that. So tell me how invading Iraq in 1996 would have prevented 9/11?

Edit: My apology to any can of tuna that might be reading this

Edited, Mar 24th 2008 7:45pm by feelz

Edited, Mar 24th 2008 7:45pm by feelz

#78 Mar 24 2008 at 4:18 PM Rating: Good

View User Forum

Sage

4,158 posts

Gbaji. Your theories and statements are absolutely true.

But..... only if you have it stuck in your head somehow that the United States of America 'owns' the world.

You said

Quote:

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.

If you believe that you do in fact own the world, then it all starts to make sense.

You're allowed to torture and invade and bomb and boss about and criticsize others for doing, in essence, the same as you are doing yourself.

Because the world and all the people in it are your 'possesions'.

I think you miss the point completely in what the fella was saying (as usual). I don't think he was saying that 'white' America collectively is 'to blame'. I think what he was saying is that the idiotic behaviour of successive administrations, who believe that they 'own' the world, has led to a situation where the rest of the world (thats us) has had enough.

Some have rebelled by not buying US goods or travelling to the US like we used to. Others have gotten so pissed off with the attitude of people who think they are the worlds landlords, that they have physically attacked you.

Once people like yourself understand that the world is 'ours', collectively, not the 'possesion' of the US, then some movement can be made in the understanding and harmony that is needed for the peoples of the world to exist together.

And as other people have already pointed out, making the world a better place doesnt just mean that no-one has blown anyone up in mainland USA.

____________________________

"If you have selfish, ignorant citizens, you're gonna get selfish, ignorant leaders". Carlin.

#79 Mar 24 2008 at 4:20 PM Rating: Excellent

View User Forum

Liberal Conspiracy

TILT

gbaji wrote:

Quote:

Are we supposed to only allow the reading and preaching of scripture now so long as it doesn't sound "Anti-American"?

When you're running for president of the United States? Yeah.

Wow. So you should only be President if you belong to some "feel-good sunshine" church which waters down the scripture to some bland paste.

Huh. Well, that's telling.

Quote:

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.

Which assertations exactly? That the concept of God striking down nations which hold themselves supreme is unscriptural? That Wright shouldn't teach what the scriptures say?

____________________________

Belkira wrote:

Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.

#80 Mar 24 2008 at 5:09 PM Rating: Good

View User Forum

Sage

4,158 posts

Anyway.... How come, during this whole Obama/preacher debate, has no-one bought up Bush's connections to bona fida fruit-loops like Jerry

Quote:

â€œThe idea that religion and politics don't mix was invented by the Devil to keep Christians from running their own countryâ€

Falwell.

Or Pat

Quote:

"You know, I don't know about this doctrine of assassination, but if he thinks we're trying to assassinate him, I think that we really ought to go ahead and do it. It's a whole lot cheaper than starting a war ... We have the ability to take him out, and I think the time has come that we exercise that ability. We don't need another $200 billion war to get rid of one, you know, strong-arm dictator. It's a whole lot easier to have some of the covert operatives do the job and then get it over with."

Robertson?

While doing the extensive research neccesary for this post, I think I've discovered the wellspring of knowledge from wich gbaji regularly draws. Scary stuff indeed!

____________________________

"If you have selfish, ignorant citizens, you're gonna get selfish, ignorant leaders". Carlin.

#81 Mar 24 2008 at 5:27 PM Rating: Default

Encyclopedia

35,568 posts

feelz wrote:

Read the question again. He didn't ask about terrorist attack on U.S. soil. He asked about the situation in the ME and the world in general.

Um... He also mentioned something about changes in response to the 9/11 attacks. So yeah. I think measuring the number of terrorist attacks on US soil is a reasonable way to score the success in terms of "the ME situation" after 9/11.

Again. How else should we measure success? If "failure" is a policy in the ME that results in attacks like 9/11, then shouldn't "success" be measured in the same manner?

Quote:

What I and most of us got from the sermon is that U.S. foreign policy created the kind of hatred leading to 9/11.

Ah! So you did get that the "ME situation" was in the context of foreign policy resulting in attacks like 9/11. This makes your previous point kinda puzzling, doesn't it?

If what we want to avoid is "the kine of hatred leading up to 9/11", then I'd think that measuring similarly motivated terrorist attacks would be relevant. Wouldn't you?

Quote:

So the question is: did the life of the people in the ME got better or worst as a result of the U.S. foreign policy over the last 7 years?

No. That's not it at all. Because you're making an unstated and unproven assumption that the 9/11 attacks occurred because "the life of the people in the ME got better or worse". You're assuming that quality of life in the ME had anything at all to do with the 9/11 attacks, but you haven't proven or even supported this notion.

You've skipped the step there.

Quote:

The fact that there was no terrorist attack in the U.S. in that time span has nothing to do with the question.

It has absolutely everything to do with the question. You even stated it yourself by repeatedly mentioning the 9/11 attacks. Clearly, our objective with regard to ME policy (one of them anyway) is to prevent/avoid future attacks on US soil. Clearly, we have succeeded.

Quote:

There was many terrorist attack elsewhere. London, Bali, Madrid ... We call that the rest of the world. The condition leading to 9/11 are still there and even worst today. The resentment and hatred towards the U.S grew exponentially since the invasion of Iraq.

By whom? Sufficient to generate another 9/11 attack?

IMO, you're also missing the objective of terrorism as well, but that's a whole nother thread.

Quote:

There was NO connection between Iraq and 9/11. Even the current administration agree on that. So tell me how invading Iraq in 1996 would have prevented 9/11?

Sigh. 9/11 happened because US troops were stationed in Saudi Arabia. US troops were stationed in Saudi Arabia to enforce the UN sanctions on Iraq. Invading Iraq in 1997 would have removed the need for those troops in Saudi Arabia long before OBL sent folks to the US to start taking flying lessons.

Get it?

You're conflating two things. I did not say that the Iraq government planned or cooperated in causing the 9/11 attacks. However, the situation in Iraq was absolutely the primary and root "cause" of the 9/11 attacks. No UN sanctions on Iraq and no need for US troops in Saudi Arabia. Remove one, and the other disappears as well.

____________________________

King Nobby wrote:

More words please

#82 Mar 24 2008 at 5:36 PM Rating: Default

Encyclopedia

35,568 posts

Jophiel wrote:

gbaji wrote:

Quote:

Are we supposed to only allow the reading and preaching of scripture now so long as it doesn't sound "Anti-American"?

When you're running for president of the United States? Yeah.

Wow. So you should only be President if you belong to some "feel-good sunshine" church which waters down the scripture to some bland paste.

Geez! It's all or nothing with you, isn't it?

I'm just saying that if someone wants to run for President, it might be a good idea *not* to attend a church for 20 years with a pastor who spews anti-American rhetoric in his sermons.

It is possible to cover the bible from start to finish without once saying "God Damn America!". It's not required to teach Judo-Christian values Joph.

Quote:

Which assertations exactly? That the concept of God striking down nations which hold themselves supreme is unscriptural? That Wright shouldn't teach what the scriptures say?

Um... Maybe the assertion that America is such a nation? Not one aspect or another that we ought to change in order to avoid divine wrath and whatnot, but the whole country.

You're really stretching on this one...

____________________________

King Nobby wrote:

More words please

#83 Mar 24 2008 at 5:44 PM Rating: Excellent

View User Forum

Liberal Conspiracy

TILT

gbaji wrote:

I'm just saying that if someone wants to run for President, it might be a good idea *not* to attend a church for 20 years with a pastor who spews anti-American rhetoric in his sermons.

His sermons (well, the parts you're on about) are warnings against the path that America is on and why he thinks that it's wrong. That's not anti-American.

Quote:

It is possible to cover the bible from start to finish without once saying "God Damn America!". It's not required to teach Judo-Christian values Joph.

So? You can go cover to cover and not say a lot of things commonly said in church. You need to show that what he is teaching is unscriptural.

Quote:

Um... Maybe the assertion that America is such a nation? Not one aspect or another that we ought to change in order to avoid divine wrath and whatnot, but the whole country.

He doesn't say the whole country is and he explictly lists the aspects which he sees as "sins" of the nation, the same as the Old Testament lists off what other nations have done to incur God's wrath.

Quote:

You're really stretching on this one...

You're the one arguing that his sermons are somehow "wrong" and reason for concern. If you can't back it up with anything stronger than "It's Anti-American!" then don't blame me.

Edited, Mar 24th 2008 8:44pm by Jophiel

____________________________

Belkira wrote:

Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.

#84 Mar 24 2008 at 5:48 PM Rating: Good

View User Forum

Sage

4,158 posts

Regarding the post above......Well a few above actually. Im a slow typist....

You sir, are a blithering simpleton. You have so little understanding of the world and its dynamics that I truly wonder how you remember to keep breathing.

Quote:

I did not say that the Iraq government planned or cooperated in causing the 9/11 attacks. However, the situation in Iraq was absolutely the primary and root "cause" of the 9/11 attacks. No UN sanctions on Iraq and no need for US troops in Saudi Arabia. Remove one, and the other disappears as well.

Quote:

It has absolutely everything to do with the question. You even stated it yourself by repeatedly mentioning the 9/11 attacks. Clearly, our objective with regard to ME policy (one of them anyway) is to prevent/avoid future attacks on US soil. Clearly, we have succeeded.

On one hand, you say that the reason you were attacked on 9/11 was because of the hatred generated by US troops being stationed in Saudi Arabia (a country in the ME).

On the other hand, you state that the invasion and on-going occupation of Iraq (also a country in the ME) that has led to the deaths of hundreds of thousands and the destruction of some of the holiest sites in Islam, has been a succesful ploy to make the muslim world love you so much that they havnt felt the need to attack you again since 2001.

Or do you mean that you've shown how all-powerful your military is, and that you are not afraid to use it, which is what has made the US hating terrorists pause for thought, while planning their next attack?

Because if you believe the latter, you are even more deranged than it would first appear.

Equal and opposite reactions. Its a law of the universe.

Edited, Mar 24th 2008 9:50pm by paulsol

____________________________

"If you have selfish, ignorant citizens, you're gonna get selfish, ignorant leaders". Carlin.

#85 Mar 24 2008 at 5:54 PM Rating: Default

Encyclopedia

35,568 posts

Jophiel wrote:

gbaji wrote:

I'm just saying that if someone wants to run for President, it might be a good idea *not* to attend a church for 20 years with a pastor who spews anti-American rhetoric in his sermons.

His sermons are warnings against the path that America is on and why he thinks that it's wrong. That's not anti-American.

No they aren't. They are condemnations of an America that he doesn't feel a part of.

And let's avoid a semantic argument and say "That's something I don't expect a President to associate himself with" instead of "Anti-American"? I just don't want this to devolve into a silly argument over what exactly "anti-american" means. It's irrelevant anyway. What matters is that to most Americans, the language and sermons of Wright run counter to the sorts of things they think a president should believe about the US.

A President is the representative of the US to other nations. He must at his core believe in his own nation. It need not be blind faith, but he has to believe that his nation is "good", or else why choose to lead it? It would be like someone wanting to be captain of the football team, but he hangs out with a bunch of people who constantly call the team losers and football a joke, etc...

____________________________

King Nobby wrote:

More words please

#86 Mar 24 2008 at 6:01 PM Rating: Good

View User Forum

Sage

4,158 posts

Can he not believe that his country is good, but that it has been led astray by an administration that has, at worst been dishonest and self-serving and at best been a bunch of incompetant scoundrels?

His aim as 'leader' would then be to lead it back onto the path of righteousness...

It doesn't make him anti-american, just anti incompetant previous administration(s).

____________________________

"If you have selfish, ignorant citizens, you're gonna get selfish, ignorant leaders". Carlin.

#87 Mar 24 2008 at 6:02 PM Rating: Default

Encyclopedia

35,568 posts

paulsol the Righteous wrote:

On one hand, you say that the reason you were attacked on 9/11 was because of the hatred generated by US troops being stationed in Saudi Arabia (a country in the ME).

Well. I didn't say it. Technically, OBL said it

Quote:

What is the meaning of your call for Muslims to take arms against America in particular, and what is the message that you wish to send to the West in general?

The call to wage war against America was made because America has spear-headed the crusade against the Islamic nation, sending tens of thousands of its troops to the land of the two Holy Mosques over and above its meddling in its affairs and its politics, and its support of the oppressive, corrupt and tyrannical regime that is in control. These are the reasons behind the singling out of America as a target.

"The Islamic Nation" is a reference to Saudi Arabia. "The land of the two Holy Mosques" is a reference to Saudi Arabia. Get it?

Quote:

On the other hand, you state that the invasion and on-going occupation of Iraq (also a country in the ME) that has led to the deaths of hundreds of thousands and the destruction of some of the holiest sites in Islam, has been a succesful ploy to make the muslim world love you so much that they havnt felt the need to attack you again since 2001.

No. I didn't say that. I said it is not going to lead to the same kind of hatred that resulted in the 9/11 attacks. Pay close attention to the words I use.

Our invasion and meddling in Iraq certainly may (and has) result in military and insurgent response in Iraq. It does not warrant large scale terrorist attacks on US soil. US troops in Saudi Arabia *does*. You do understand that to a fundamentalist Muslim, there's a huge difference between Iraq and Saudi Arabia, right?

Try understanding the issue first. It might help.

Edited, Mar 24th 2008 7:02pm by gbaji

____________________________

King Nobby wrote:

More words please

#88 Mar 24 2008 at 6:05 PM Rating: Default

Encyclopedia

35,568 posts

paulsol the Righteous wrote:

Can he not believe that his country is good, but that it has been led astray by an administration that has, at worst been dishonest and self-serving and at best been a bunch of incompetant scoundrels?

And if Wright had said "God Damn the Bush administration", you'd have a point.

You're grasping at straws here...

____________________________

King Nobby wrote:

More words please

#89 Mar 24 2008 at 6:12 PM Rating: Good

View User Forum

Sage

4,158 posts

Quote:

Try understanding the issue first. It might help.

Condescending ****.

from the NIE report 2006.

Quote:

a large body of all-source reporting indicates that activists identifying themselves as jihadists,although a small percentage of Muslims, are increasing in both number and geographic dispersion.

Quote:

If this trend continues, threats to US interests at home and abroad will becomemore diverse, leading to increasing attacks worldwide

Quote:

We assess that the operational threat from self-radicalized cells will grow inimportance to US counterterrorism efforts, particularly abroad but also in the Homeland

Quote:

We assess that the Iraq jihad is shaping a new generation of terrorist leaders and operatives; perceived jihadist success there would inspire more fighters to continue the struggle elsewhere.â€¢ The Iraq conflict has become the â€”cause celebreâ€œ for jihadists, breeding a deep resentment of US involvement in the Muslim world and cultivating supporters forthe global jihadist movement.

Quote:

Four underlying factors are fueling the spread of the jihadist movement: (1)Entrenched grievances, such as corruption, injustice, and fear of Westerndomination, leading to anger, humiliation, and a sense of powerlessness; (2) the Iraq â€”jihad;â€œ (3) the slow pace of real and sustained economic, social, and political reforms in many Muslim majority nations; and (4) pervasive anti-USsentiment among most Muslimsâ€“all of which jihadists exploit

Quote:

We assess that such groups pose less of a danger to the Homeland than does al-Qaâ€˜ida but will pose varying degrees of threat to our allies and to US interestsabroad. The focus of their attacks is likely to ebb and flow between local regimetargets and regional or global ones

____________________________

"If you have selfish, ignorant citizens, you're gonna get selfish, ignorant leaders". Carlin.

#90 Mar 24 2008 at 6:34 PM Rating: Default

Encyclopedia

35,568 posts

Yes. Let's just quote snippets from an NIE.

They're designed to be alarmist. They always are.

What's missing (because it's not mentioned in this NIE) is an assessment comparing likely results based on a US presence in Iraq versus no presence. That's kinda the key issue, right?

You also missed the part where it says that while there will be more attacks, they are decentralized and disorganized, and thus are smaller and less likely to be "9/11 style" attacks. Basically, instead of large groups of terrorists communicating and planning attacks, you've got some local hotheads deciding to blow something up "for the cause", and they usually fail miserably...

Other bits you missed:

Quote:

Greater pluralism and more responsive political systems in Muslim majority nations would alleviate some of the grievances jihadists exploit. Over time, such progress, together with sustained, multifaceted programs targeting the vulnerabilities of the jihadist movement and continued pressure on al-Qaâ€™ida, could erode support for the jihadists.

You also left off the second half of this one:

Quote:

The Iraq conflict has become the â€”cause celebreâ€œ for jihadists, breeding a deep resentment of US involvement in the Muslim world and cultivating supporters for the global jihadist movement. Should jihadists leaving Iraq perceive themselves, and be perceived, to have failed, we judge fewer fighters will be inspired to carry on the fight.

Huh. Kinda changes the whole meaning of the paragraph, don't it?

Basically, if we succeed in Iraq, the prediction is that the trend will reverse itself. If we fail, things will get worse and global terrorism will grow.

Gee! Isn't that what Mr. Bush has been saying for years now?

____________________________

King Nobby wrote:

More words please

#91 Mar 24 2008 at 6:38 PM Rating: Excellent

View User Forum

Liberal Conspiracy

TILT

gbaji wrote:

A President is the representative of the US to other nations. He must at his core believe in his own nation. It need not be blind faith, but he has to believe that his nation is "good", or else why choose to lead it?

By all accounts, Obama does believe that America is innately good. The most compelling evidence you've presented to suggest otherwise is a minute or so of YouTube footage from his pastor's 20 year career which you can't even argue is unscriptural -- just that you don't like it.

Obama is running for president. Not to bring up the obvious but, if you hate this nation, you don't typically run for its highest office. Arguing that the case is otherwise deserves more extraordinary evidence than a minute of out-of-context clips from a guy's pastor.

____________________________

Belkira wrote:

Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.

#92 Mar 24 2008 at 6:44 PM Rating: Default

Encyclopedia

35,568 posts

Jophiel wrote:

By all accounts, Obama does believe that America is innately good.

What accounts Joph?

I don't know the man personally. Neither do you. What "accounts" are you talking about?

The "accounts" I know of is not wearing the flag lapel pin after 9/11, not putting his hand on his heart during the pledge, and sitting in a church listening to Reverend Wright for 20 years.

All the "accounts" seem to indicate exactly the opposite Joph. And that's what the voters are going to be looking at. He can claim whatever he wants, but it's actions that matter. An yeah, I get that those are just symbols and shouldn't matter, but barring some other information those symbols do matter.

We should just trust that he really does love his country though? Why? Seriously. Why?

____________________________

King Nobby wrote:

More words please

#93 Mar 24 2008 at 6:46 PM Rating: Excellent

Tracer Bullet

12,636 posts

gbaji wrote:

The "accounts" I know of is not wearing the flag lapel pin after 9/11, not putting his hand on his heart during the pledge, and sitting in a church listening to Reverend Wright for 20 years.

Hahahahahahahahhaahhahahahahhahahhaa

Remember what I said about flag-waving fake patriots?

Okay.

Quote:

We should just trust that he really does love his country though? Why? Seriously. Why?

(Aside: This concludes my ever acknowledging gbaji's existence for an indefinite period of at least 1 year.)

Edited, Mar 24th 2008 9:48pm by trickybeck

#94 Mar 24 2008 at 7:25 PM Rating: Excellent

View User Forum

Liberal Conspiracy

TILT

gbaji wrote:

The "accounts" I know of is not wearing the flag lapel pin after 9/11, not putting his hand on his heart during the pledge, and sitting in a church listening to Reverend Wright for 20 years.

Shit, that was too funny. Not only did you manage to quote glurge e-mail, you even managed to parrot the errors in the glurge e-mail (the hand/heart thing occured during the national anthem, not the Pledge). 'Grats on proving yourself brainwashed by the memes of the Right and random spam e-mails though.

My only regret is that I ran out of smilies.

Quote:

We should just trust that he really does love his country though? Why? Seriously. Why?

Twelve years of elected public service sounds reasonable. Not counting time spent running voting registration drives and working as an attorney represting voting rights cases (among other civil rights affairs). If a history of dedicated public service to his state and country work means less to you than whether or not he wears a flag pin, then I don't know what to tell you.

Edited, Mar 24th 2008 10:26pm by Jophiel

____________________________

Belkira wrote:

Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.

#95 Mar 24 2008 at 8:05 PM Rating: Excellent

View User Forum

Leet Haxör

29,919 posts

I have yet to hear any of the candidates pontificate as to the merits of the Wombat in today's information driven society. Until that time, none of them get to win. For behold, I wield the Chad Dimpler of doom!

____________________________

Arch Duke Kaolian Drachensborn, lvl 95 Ranger, Unrest Server
Tech support forum | FAQ (Support) | Mobile Zam: http://m.zam.com (Premium only)
Forum Rules

#96 Mar 25 2008 at 2:20 AM Rating: Good

RedPhoenixxx

View User Forum

Sage

7,735 posts

gbaji wrote:

"The Islamic Nation" is a reference to Saudi Arabia.

It's not, it's a reference to the whole of the Muslim world you stupid brick-headed ****.

You still don't get it. US troops in Saudi was just one of the many factors proving that the US "has spear-headed the crusade against the Islamic Nation."

Gbaji, please, just this once. Try to think. Just once.

If Islamic terrorism's raison d'etre was "US troops in Saudi", we could end the war on terror and any threats of a future terrorist attack just by withdrawing troops from Saudi Arabia. All the bombings in Madrid, London, Istanbul, Bali, Baghdad, Basra, all of these... are because of US troops in Saudi?

Think about it.

____________________________

My politics blog and stuff - Refractory

#97 Mar 25 2008 at 5:54 AM Rating: Good

__DEL__1662941810887

Scholar

9,997 posts

Quote:

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.

I guess if you conveniently overlook the deaths of the thousands of soldiers and innocent civilians, the math does look kinda nice.

Quote:

Sigh. 9/11 happened because US troops were stationed in Saudi Arabia.

Aha! So the real cause of 9/11 was... us?

Yeah, I guess I can see how completely forgoing diplomacy in dealings with one country by starting an unmerited war would get our troops out of Saudi and prevent a terrorist attack. Man, I can't believe we didn't see that coming.

And I'll spare you a response to your last post aimed at me seeing as the points were already adequately addressed.

#98 Mar 25 2008 at 6:07 AM Rating: Good

__DEL__1662941810887

Scholar

9,997 posts

Quote:

I'm just saying that if someone wants to run for President, it might be a good idea *not* to attend a church for 20 years with a pastor who spews anti-American rhetoric in his sermons.

Apparently God is anti-American.

Quote:

And let's avoid a semantic argument and say "That's something I don't expect a President to associate himself with" instead of "Anti-American"? I just don't want this to devolve into a silly argument over what exactly "anti-american" means. It's irrelevant anyway. What matters is that to most Americans, the language and sermons of Wright run counter to the sorts of things they think a president should believe about the US.

Oh, ok. I guess I'm thankful then that most Americans don't vote. Idiots. God damn them.

Quote:

It need not be blind faith, but he has to believe that his nation is "good", or else why choose to lead it?

To change it into something good? Damn, that was easy.

Quote:

And if Wright had said "God Damn the Bush administration", you'd have a point.

Doesn't roll off the tongue quite as nicely. I think the problem here is not a divide between conservative/liberal or American/anti-American, but of people who ARE able to infer from the sermon that there are parts of America which should be damned, as well as those which shouldn't, and people who are fucking stupid.

#99 Mar 25 2008 at 6:17 AM Rating: Excellent

View User Forum

Will swallow your soul

29,360 posts

Quote:

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.

People who are angry at America, who hold us all accountable for the ills done in our names, and who dissent... are no longer Americans?

My goodness, the Founding Fathers would be so surprised.

____________________________

In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act.

#100 Mar 25 2008 at 11:23 AM Rating: Decent

Encyclopedia

35,568 posts

Jophiel wrote:

gbaji wrote:

The "accounts" I know of is not wearing the flag lapel pin after 9/11, not putting his hand on his heart during the pledge, and sitting in a church listening to Reverend Wright for 20 years.

Shit, that was too funny. Not only did you manage to quote glurge e-mail, you even managed to parrot the errors in the glurge e-mail (the hand/heart thing occured during the national anthem, not the Pledge). 'Grats on proving yourself brainwashed by the memes of the Right and random spam e-mails though.

Um... What difference does it make? I remembered that for some time people where saying one, then they realized it was the other. I didn't feel like looking it up and picked one.

Does it make any difference?

US Code title 36, section 10 wrote:

Â§171. Conduct during playing

During rendition of the national anthem when the flag is displayed, all present except those in uniform should stand at attention facing the flag with the right hand over the heart. Men not in uniform should remove their headdress with their right hand and hold it at the left shoulder, the hand being over the heart. Persons in uniform should render the military salute at the first note of the anthem and retain this position until the last note. When the flag is not displayed, those present should face toward the music and act in the same manner they would if the flag were displayed there.

Â§172. Pledge of allegiance to the flag; manner of delivery

The Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag, 'I pledge allegiance to the Flag of the United States of America, and to the Republic for which it stands, one Nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.', should be rendered by standing at attention facing the flag with the right hand over the heart. When not in uniform men should remove their headdress with their right hand and hold it at the left shoulder, the hand being over the heart. Persons in uniform should remain silent, face the flag, and render the military salute.

Nope. No difference.

It's not about blind patriotism. While these may seem like unimportant symbols of patriotism they do matter to a whole bunch of people. No one expects or requires that everyone treat these ceremonies with the respect reflected in the code, but we *do* expect that if you want to run for President, it might just be a good idea.

You scoff at this, but it's "huge". What we see is a pattern of Obama failing to perform the most basic ceremonial representations of patriotism and then insisting that the US voters not care about this when deciding if he should be President. Um...

Quote:

Twelve years of elected public service sounds reasonable. Not counting time spent running voting registration drives and working as an attorney represting voting rights cases (among other civil rights affairs). If a history of dedicated public service to his state and country work means less to you than whether or not he wears a flag pin, then I don't know what to tell you.

So he's qualified to be elected dog catcher Joph. This does not mean that I want to entrust this man with the power and position of the President of the United States.

His "history" doesn't enstill me with any sense that he's qualified to be the chief executive of the entire country. Not by a long shot. He's incredibly under experienced for someone running for that office. You know this. I know this. Everyone knows this. He's running on personality and ideas. He's asking us to ignore his lack of experience and give him a shot anyway. So yeah. I'm going to look just a bit closer at everything he says and does because we don't have enough information about him otherwise.

If his experience is so grand, what did he do while serving in your State Joph? Without googling, can you name a single bill he was responsible for? And depending on the sorts of cases, his experience as a civil rights attorney may or may not win him many votes among those in the middle and the right.

See. What you're not getting is that while this stuff doesn't matter to you, it does to the very block of voters he needs to win over if he wants to have a chance. Sitting back and saying "This doesn't matter" simply isn't going to fly. It works great on those who already think that Obama is the second coming. For everyone else, it looks like just one more reason not to vote for him.

____________________________

King Nobby wrote:

More words please

#101 Mar 25 2008 at 11:30 AM Rating: Decent

Lunatic

30,086 posts

You scoff at this, but it's "huge".

To people who never, ever, ever, ever, ever, ever, ever, ever were going to vote for a black man to begin with. If this is the excuse they end up using to avoid admitting being racists, that's fine. You choose to use other spurious issues, to each his own. The salient point is that absolutely zero votes are actually lost over this. Zero.

____________________________

Disclaimer:

To make a long story short, I don't take any responsibility for anything I post here. It's not news, it's not truth, it's not serious. It's parody. It's satire. It's bitter. It's angsty. Your mother's a *****. You like to jack off dogs. That's right, you heard me. You like to grab that dog by the bone and rub it like a ski pole. Your dad? Gay. Your priest? Straight. **** off and let me post. It's not true, it's all in good fun. Now go away.

« Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next »

Reply To Thread

Recent Visitors: 147 All times are in CST

Anonymous Guests (147)

Forums
Cross Site
The Asylum
What the media did not show about Wright

© 2024 Fanbyte LLC