Isn't it more of a stand to not cut the guy off completely? Listen, there's plenty of folks 'round here that say some stupid shit I don't agree with, but I'd still be willing to have a beer with any of you, because I realize you're all basically decent people. If that makes me a dirty hypocrite, then fine. Yes, even apostle.
No, given the comments Wright made, Obama would be best served to severe all ties with him. The guy is a racist pig. Absolutely no need to be around him. But then again, Obama has been around him for the past 20 years....so why should any of that change now?
It just seems that for Obama that racism is tolerable if his friends do it, but intolerable if someone else does it. Some people mind that sort of hypocrisy.
Yes, just like he fired his pastor from his campaign almost a year after he started the campaign. He didn't think anyone would find out about his pastors unusual services. Anyone who believes that Obama wasn't aware of his pastors antics last year is fooling themselves. Obama allowed the man to be on his campaign team for a year. Even after asking him not to participation at his invocation so as not to possibly create problems. Sorry, but if Obama were truly serious about what he has been saying the past few days, he would've renounced his membership at this church long ago. That as of yet, still hasn't happened. Obama is still far too busy playing both sides. Saying he dislikes his pastors words, yet, he still holds a membership at that same church. Go figure on that one.
That is basically what it amounts too. It is also taking a toll on his on his numbers... at least this week it is.
What do you want? Obama suggested Imus should be fired, because racist shit isn't cool. Someone pointed out that Wright was also apparently making with the racist shit, and Obama took the same stance, that Wright should also be fired. So Obama fired him. Just like he suggested should be done to Imus. But apparently it's not good enough, unless Obama totally shuns and disowns Wright. When did Obama suggest that Imus should be abandoned by all his friends? When did Obama suggest Imus was a terrible person with no redeeming values? When did Obama hold anyone to the standard you're trying to hold him to now?
Do you agree with everything Elwood posts? Do you agree with everything T'Bonz posts? Are you still members of their boards anyway? Seems to me like you can separate the person and their works from their opinions. Why can't Obama do the same?
A quote from Wright, about 9/11: And here's what Michael Moore had to say: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P23PezcMdB4 And just for fun, a quote from Jerry Falwell: Is Michael Moore a racist? Has John McCain denounced and rejected the support of Pat Robertson, who nodded and agreed with Falwell? Then there's this: Is this correct, Christians? Would a nation be damned for killing innocent people? Would a nation be damned for treating its citizens as less than human? Would God damn America for acting as though it was God? No, really. I'd like to know if this is theologically correct. If the consensus is that he's wrong, I'll acknowledge that.
When we had that whole drama last summer over Crosis and the PM's and Cheekymoney, many people stepped away from this place--however temporary for most, including myself--because they had HUGE issues with the way the place was run and the ethics of some folks running it. Likewise TBBS. If people were willing to gloss over glaringly ugly behavior/association that was going on five years ago, we wouldn't be having this conversation here. Point is, if people feel passionately enough to speak up against something, they WILL do it. Obama doesn't think it's that big a deal to associate with someone that holds those ideas that he's been preaching against from day one of his campaign. Considering quite a bit of everything Obama has for him is feel-good "Let's all forget about race" rhetoric, I can see why this will hurt his campaign. I doubt Clinton will win the nomination if the stance defense of him from some in this thread is any measure, but it just makes him seem full of shit and a hypocrite.
I kinda remember that from my newb days. I also remember threads calling for Elwood to sell the board, but he didn't. Considering the people at the very top haven't changed since then, why'd you (and others) eventually come back?
To be honest, the drama of 2007 was a cumulation of issues that I'd seen cropping up time and time again for years, going back to when I was a n00b (and that was a LOOOOOOOOONG time ago). I came back because Elwood appeared to me making changes in the best interest of the board. He got rid of some mods who weren't right for the job and implimented some changes that ultimately worked out for the people's best interest. The ones that remain have learned from the mistakes of others (because honestly, most of the ones still here haven't been involved in board drama and a few that have took their lumps with grace and learned from it), and as a result, there hasn't been a mod-related drama since. Although summer is a few months off, so there's still tons of time for that record to be broke.
I'd give credit to Obama for practicing what he preaches if he had cut his political ties to Wright when he first became aware that his preacher was spewing all sorts of nutty shit but he didn't, even though he had personally heard some of Wright's wacko sermons and like Kirk said was aware enough of the potential damage that he might inflict on his political fortunes to keep him away from his campaign's kick-off event he didn't have a problem with him being his spiritual adviser, he only finally fired the guy after the MSM became aware of just how big of a hate filled douchebag the good Reverend really was.
And to add to that post (since 14th Doctor repped it and he may call hypocrisy on this): I probably may have very well come back here anyway, regardless. I've made a lot of e-Friends and met good people I wouldn't have otherwise run into. When all's said and done, this is still one of my favorite hangouts online, even if we've had some people at the top in the past who lowered the batting average a bit. BUT I would not have condoned the behavior of those in power that I disagreed with. Particularly, ones who dismiss every criticism as trolling, because that was EXACTLY the mentality that people left TBBS and many other places online for. Hmmm, preaching one thing adamently and supporting a mentor on the polar opposite end...that reminds me of someone I know, but I can't think of his name...
True, Obama didn't cut political ties to Wright until his comments caused a shitstorm, but Obama didn't cut ties with Imus either, not until Imus's comments caused a similar shitstorm. It's not like Obama didn't know Imus's history either. If nothing else, as least he's consistent.
Okay, you're usually much more reasonable than this, but this post really got a laugh out of me! Talk about a stretch! Do you really not realize that the roles of coordinator on a message board, and pastor in a church, are not even remotely similar?
Meh. They're both in charge of large groups with a unifying theme. They both dictate the their organizations policies. Kirk is a Premium member at TrekBBS, so he's supporting at least one organization financially. It's not a perfect simile by any means, but there's a valid point there about disagreeing with someone politically while still claiming active membership in their organization. If you want to start calling me "Mr. Fantastic," I wont mind.
What a nice attempt at deflection. I don't see Elwood running around here posting racist remarks. I am also not supporting Elwood currently, or this site. Please see the above. I for a fact that I do not click on any of the marketing links that are rather abundant at a site like trekbbs. I also get the feeling that T'Bonz isn't receiving a cut of the profits from Christian either. I also cannot think of a time that T'Bonz has preached to me with racism eminating from her mouth. If I saw racist rantings coming from either of the individuals listed I more than likely would not be posting in either of the forums. Keep attempting to equivocate. That is about all those who support Obama can do at this point. They certainly can't explain away his hypocrisy or his support of racism in any other fashion. The one reason is simple, there is no excuse for his continued affiliation with a racist organization that he currently has affiliation with. I'm sure Robert Byrd is downright jealous of the success Obama has had even with his racist affiliations and the negative impact Byrds affiliations has had in preventing him from ever running for higher office. No, these things cannot be separated. In fact, it is rather easy to draw on just how much influence Jeremiah Wright has had on Barry Obama. Especially when one listens to the similarities between their two sermons.
What is there to be confused about? What we are seeing is the equivocation of the left in their attempt to rationalize away Obama's continued involvement with a racist organization and people like Wright and the Trinity church.
Pissed me off that you were a crybaby and negged me simply because my negging you pissed you off. Translation: You can't back up your argument. You're trying to turn your own bullshit into marmalade and it isn't working. I showed you were you were wrong. Now, either prove to me how Obama's speech had no substance, or drop the argument. Since this is a religious debate, let's look at this aspect from that standpoint, shall we, Spanky? What sort of company did Jesus keep? Why, he hung out with prostitutes, tax collectors and vagrants. Do we judge Him by the company he kept? I think Huckabee said it best: Thanks for playing, Spanky. We have some wonderful parting gifts for you back in the Green Room.
The spin machine may, or may not, be able to get Obama extricated from this Wright mess, but either way, this revelation is telling about his character. You can quibble about how he's handled this thing, what the speech meant, how his actions compare to others in similar situations, but really, there're a few things that he can't rightly dodge. It's church. Now, either Obama attended church because it sits right with his convictions, or because it's a good PR move. If it's a matter of conviction, he's really in the soup for this. Back when I was still a church-going sort, a lifetime ago, I had a friend who's father was the minister of a "black" church. On a few occasions, Angie asked me to go to services with her, and I did. The one thing which impressed me about the congregation, besides the absolutely remarkable, passionate singing, was that they were enthusiastic about their faith. I've attended Roman Catholic services, and nearly every stripe of Protestant worship, and in most cases, had it not been for several cups of very strong coffee quaffed before, I'd have nodded off. Not so with Angie's church. You can always question someone's sincerity in regard to beliefs, but you couldn't deny the enthusiasm with which that congregation engaged worship. If you were sitting in one of those pews, you couldn't have done much else but focus upon the message. If Barak Obama, a political personality, a guy who's appearance is his stock and trade, is sitting in a church such as this, I asset that it's an impossibility that he missed the message being preached by Wright. For a man who's been embraced as model for what blacks 'can' accomplish in the country, I'd bet the farm that he was on his feet clapping, singing, and offering up "Amens" just like the rest of the congregation. You certainly can't assert that he's going to stand there shaking his head while his fellow parishioners are swept up in the rapture. And while you may be tempted to argue, "Well, he missed that sermon", that simply can't wash. Churches, regardless of the reasons parishioners attend, are communities. If the preacher screws up at the pulpit, or in his personal life, every member gets to knowing about it. Members of the congregation talk about the messages, before services, after services....once again while waiting for worship to begin a week later. It stretches the credulity to entertain the notion that Obama was oblivious as to the nature and extent of Wright's message. Perhaps the most salient point in this argument, though, is the nature of the relationship between the parishioner and the church. A church's primary function is to support the value system of the parishioner by providing re-enforcement through sermons and study, and by establishing a community comprised of like-minded people. Yes, there will be quibbles over dogmatic minutiae, but as a rule, church congregations are of one mind. It's not like people continue to attend churches which they don't feel represent their beliefs and values. Believers shop for churches, and settle into ones which best represent their character and conscience. This is the case with Obama, unless.....he's not there out of conscience, but is attending for political expediency. If he's settled into Wright's congregation because he's making a concession to his community, to keep up appearances, you can't really condemn him for it. On the other hand, you also can't go slapping that onto his resume as proof that he's an 'everyday' kind of guy who does the same things that other decent 'everyday' kinds of guys do. There's nothing at all wrong in attending church for reasons other than religious. People do it all the time, and it's really hard to knock the practice. But if Obama's not there for the message, not there because this church is the best fit with his conscience and continues his association for the "photo-op" angle, there's no reason that you can't impugn the spin that puts him into a Pew with some frequency. In either case, and even ignoring the fact that he's called Wright a mentor or "person of influence" in his life, the fundamental nature of belonging to a church, this church, throws up red flags in regard to Obama's involvement, at the very least calling his sincerity and leadership abilities and inclinations into question.
And tell me that you'd be silent if it were revealed that McCain was keeping company with Fred Phelps. Hey..you know...if it's good for Jebus and Obama.....
Okay, Spanky, I'll play. Let's talk about McCain. McCain recently sought out the endorsement of Pastor John Hagee who has been quoted as saying the following: How do I respond to it? Don't care. I judge men by the content of their character, not necessarily by the company they keep. Just because one associates with a crackpot doesn't mean one lacks the courage to tell said crackpot "You are wrong". Let's look at you, you spew a lot of bullshit, but that doesn't mean I wouldn't have a beer with you. As for your neg-rep, Spanky: Ironic, coming from the man who can't even rise to a challenge to back up his own arguments.
Keep neg-repping me, Spanky. It just shows that even you know that you can't back up your arguments. Truth hurts, I guess, and neg-repping makes the pain go away.
Funny that you can't refute my arguments with facts, Sparky. Truth hurts, I guess, and inane, irrelevant babble makes the pain go away
You mean, because white people being racist isn't cool. But black people, specifically his pastor, being racist is alright for Obama. He's a hypocrite.
Elwood is my spiritual adviser. Plus, I agree with everything he does. I even worship the ground he walks in. So can I stay here? On a more serious note, the comparison between Elwood/T'Bonz and Wright is pretty lame.
I've refuted your argument, Spanky. Specifically, you claimed that the speech was without substance. I pointed out to you an example of substance in the speech. Argument refuted. I challenged you to back up your argument by showing me how the entire speech is devoid of substance. You have refused. Instead, you've manufactured side arguments in order to detract from your initial assertion and have tried to bait me into engaging in a rep war with you. Nice try, but most of us are intelligent enough to see through this.
You seem to be ignoring the part where Obama fired Wright from his campaign. In fact, Wright isn't actually the pastor of Obamas church anymore, having retired in February 10, 2008.
