PDA

View Full Version : Dr. Jeremiah Wright Jr



Snipe
04-29-2008, 03:41 PM
Jeremiah Wright (http://elections.foxnews.com/2008/03/27/obamas-former-pastor-builds-a-multimillion-dollar-retirement-home/)bought some land in a gated community for $350 k. He then sold it to his church. The church then took out a 1.6 million dollar mortgage to build a home. The home coupled with the land gives him a two million dollar pad. I am fairly certain he did this through his church because of tax reasons. I am not sure how comfortable I am with that.

The guy lives in a rich white gated community. (That made me laugh) He has a 10,340-square-foot, four-bedroom home. Talk about the wretched excess of conspicuous consumption.

It may be a Catholic thing, but millionaire pastors to me seem unseemly. I know our priests don't have wives and families. If they did they would need more resources. You can't take a vow of poverty for your kid. Or at least you shouldn't want too.

This guy lives an expensive lifestyle. In the last three days I think he has flown to Detroit, Texas and Washington DC. I am really curious to find out what people are paying him to speak, (as well as who is paying him and why). I think he probably pockets around 10 grand at some of these events, but that is just a guess.

In the last few days it seems like he is on 15 minutes of fame publicity campaign. He is cashing in on the Obama connection for all it is worth. The guy comes off as a completely self serving son of a bitch.

I don’t like the guy. I have plenty of friends who don’t share my political views. I am not a big Obama fan on ideology, but I like him as a person. I think that Wright is an ass. I think what he did to Obama is unfair and wrong. I was glad to see BHO throw the old Pastor under the bus. This could be a real bump up for Obama. I think other people are going to like this as well.

I hope in the future when his 15 minutes are up that Wright gets blacklisted (pun intended) from speaking engagements. I would like to never hear from him again.

mr. zimpher
04-29-2008, 04:15 PM
Jeremiah Wright (http://elections.foxnews.com/2008/03/27/obamas-former-pastor-builds-a-multimillion-dollar-retirement-home/)bought some land in a gated community for $350 k. He then sold it to his church. The church then took out a 1.6 million dollar mortgage to build a home. The home coupled with the land gives him a two million dollar pad. I am fairly certain he did this through his church because of tax reasons. I am not sure how comfortable I am with that.

The guy lives in a rich white gated community. (That made me laugh) He has a 10,340-square-foot, four-bedroom home. Talk about the wretched excess of conspicuous consumption.

It may be a Catholic thing, but millionaire pastors to me seem unseemly. I know our priests don't have wives and families. If they did they would need more resources. You can't take a vow of poverty for your kid. Or at least you shouldn't want too.

This guy lives an expensive lifestyle. In the last three days I think he has flown to Detroit, Texas and Washington DC. I am really curious to find out what people are paying him to speak, (as well as who is paying him and why). I think he probably pockets around 10 grand at some of these events, but that is just a guess.

In the last few days it seems like he is on 15 minutes of fame publicity campaign. He is cashing in on the Obama connection for all it is worth. The guy comes off as a completely self serving son of a bitch.

I don’t like the guy. I have plenty of friends who don’t share my political views. I am not a big Obama fan on ideology, but I like him as a person. I think that Wright is an ass. I think what he did to Obama is unfair and wrong. I was glad to see BHO throw the old Pastor under the bus. This could be a real bump up for Obama. I think other people are going to like this as well.

I hope in the future when his 15 minutes are up that Wright gets blacklisted (pun intended) from speaking engagements. I would like to never hear from him again.


There are not enough seconds in the day for me to share my unadulterated odium for one mr. wright so I'll spare you that diatribe. But let me just say this: Obama is not "throwing this guy under the bus" because he wants to denounce him. Barack is coming out against him to distance himself from Wright for strictly political gain. Obama's handlers know that the connection between Barack and Wright is not only less than an appealing one, but potentially very damaging to their white voting base considering the "reverend's" stance on not only this country's racial divide, but this country itself. Don't you think for one second that Obama is in complete and total disagreement with this guy because if he were why would he continue to attend his church for the past 20 years, and even more concerning, take his young impressionable children to said church to hear Wright's hate spewing sermons? Something isn't adding up.

jcubspoe
04-29-2008, 04:17 PM
This guy Wright (i refuse to refer to him as Rev.), more then anything, is as arrogant as it gets.

Now for Obama: how can you attend someone's church for 20 years, yes, 20 years (almost as long as it's been since my Flyers have beaten X in Cincy) and not know what they stand for??? The real Obama has shown up.

Snipe
04-29-2008, 04:25 PM
Wright is a basket of goods and not all of them are bad. If you are a young community organizer in Chicago as Obama was, you need to be aquainted with the political power structure. The congregation of Trinity is 6,000, and I am sure those Christians have done some fine things for the community.

You take the good with the bad, and I am sure there is plenty of good. This last bit though is completely self serving and he cashed in while hurting his friend (Obama). And when you look at his 2 million dollar house in a gated white community it makes me laugh.

XUglow
04-29-2008, 04:31 PM
Seriously, didn't his comments on this being an attack on the whole black church and how he wasn't going to stand by and let people attack the whole black church remind you of Otter's speech in Animal House?

He was so crazy in the Q&A the other day that I began to wonder if he wasn't told to go out and be crazy so Obama could legitimately distance himself from the whole mess.

Juice
04-29-2008, 04:34 PM
Regardless of one's opinions for Obama, there is no way they could agree/support this jackass. I cannot think of any pastor/reverend/priest that has said so much crazy, idiotic crap.

I also find it terrible how he takes advantage of the tax exemption of his church. Priests, in a trade for having the tax exempt status of their church, are not supposed to speak on political topics. He has clearly crossed that line based on his countless sermons from his church. Now he is taking advantage of the tax status for his home which is an even more blatant violation. The IRS should go after this idiot so he gets what is coming to him.

XU 87
04-29-2008, 04:56 PM
I'm curious if ABC, NBC, CBS, MSNBC, CNN, AP, Wash Post or NY Times picks up this story. And if they do will, for example, the NY Times, run the story on page 18 in the lower left hand corner so it will have less visibility.

The Artist
04-29-2008, 05:39 PM
I'm curious if ABC, NBC, CBS, MSNBC, CNN, AP, Wash Post or NY Times picks up this story. And if they do will, for example, the NY Times, run the story on page 18 in the lower left hand corner so it will have less visibility.

I think someone from Dayton broke into 87's office and posted under his name.

jdm2000
04-29-2008, 07:39 PM
This guy Wright (i refuse to refer to him as Rev.), more then anything, is as arrogant as it gets.

Now for Obama: how can you attend someone's church for 20 years, yes, 20 years (almost as long as it's been since my Flyers have beaten X in Cincy) and not know what they stand for??? The real Obama has shown up.

The priest at my local parish is retiring after 27 years there--I couldn't tell you what his political beliefs are.



But Wright is still an ass.

Juice
04-29-2008, 08:54 PM
The priest at my local parish is retiring after 27 years there--I couldn't tell you what his political beliefs are.



But Wright is still an ass.


I do not know my priest's either, but there is a huge difference between our priests and Wright. Our priests do not openly speak the way Wright does and nor should they. I find it odd that there are hours of recorded sermons by Wright that are similar to the ones already put out there, and Obama did not hear or attend any of these? He defnitely knew that Wright was a nut.

Fred Garvin
04-29-2008, 09:09 PM
I do not know my priest's either, but there is a huge difference between our priests and Wright. Our priests do not openly speak the way Wright does and nor should they. I find it odd that there are hours of recorded sermons by Wright that are similar to the ones already put out there, and Obama did not hear or attend any of these? He defnitely knew that Wright was a nut.

I'm not sure what you mean by "our" priests. I do know that there are plenty of catholic priests who have done exactly what Wright has done. Wright preaches, hypocritically, the communism that is known as "liberation theology." Xavier's own Paul Knitter is a follower.

Archbishop Romero was a famous practitoner. He preached that communist crap from the pulpit. The pope told him "you need to be careful with this" when telling him to cool it with the feverish populist pulp. Then he famously snubbed Romero.

pickledpigsfeet
04-29-2008, 09:41 PM
John Stewart had a hilarious piece on Wright on last night's Daily Show episode, which I am sure you can find on the net. Also, his bit titled "Penis Theft Panic" was also hilarious.

Juice
04-29-2008, 09:44 PM
I'm not sure what you mean by "our" priests. I do know that there are plenty of catholic priests who have done exactly what Wright has done. Wright preaches, hypocritically, the communism that is known as "liberation theology." Xavier's own Paul Knitter is a follower.

Archbishop Romero was a famous practitoner. He preached that communist crap from the pulpit. The pope told him "you need to be careful with this" when telling him to cool it with the feverish populist pulp. Then he famously snubbed Romero.

Ok, I generalized most Catholic priests but liberation theology is not recognized by the Vatican, and the Pope himself has been quite critical of it. Liberation theology is mostly popular in South America and not Cincinnati. The priests at Xavier are Jesuits and everyone knows their record. Wright is the antithesis of Romero, even though they preached their own form of liberation theology.
My opinion was probably too general. I should rephrase it in that most Catholic priests in the Archdiocese of Cincinnati would never state anything close to that crap.

Fred Garvin
04-29-2008, 10:46 PM
And I am no expert on Knitter. I shouldn't refer to him as a "follower" of anything. I have read of his feud with Ratzinger.

Araceli
04-30-2008, 02:42 AM
Mr Obama is not Presidential material; nor is Mrs Clinton. Many years ago, I developed a very close friendship with Reverend Conners, who was Chaplain of the Cincinnati Police. His Church was near Peoples Corner. The good Reverend passed away many years ago, but up until his dying day he critisized guys like Wright, who "prosper".......there are lots of examples out there, whose kids have Bud Distributerships etc.....from the poverty (not limited to material matter) within our Black and White Communities. Reverend Conners was crucified for speaking out on these rascals by the so-called politically correct elements of the political spectrum. The good Reverend died and left no riches behind and a small home near the X campus. Guys like Wright will continue to grow , prosper and contribute to the destruction of their Brothers thanks to Journalists like Bill Moyers and others of his breed, who are nothing more than a bunch of paternalistic bastards. Please forgive my Latin. Reverend Connors was a proud man, who had a positive influence on more than one XU and UC athlete etc. Iīll never forget a religious event at the First Presbyterian Church in downtown Cincy celebrated jointly by Rev Connors a Baptist, the Presbyterian Minister of the Church, our Bishop and the neighboring Rabbi. All in the name of Brotherhood, love and understanding. "Reverend" Wright just isnīt ON. There is an old and wise saying in Spain....."Tell me who your friends are and Iīll tell you who you are".

DC Muskie
04-30-2008, 07:48 AM
Araceli-

I appreciate the thought that you have towards thinking Obama is not presidential material. Not sure how that is linked with your story of AA preachers and Rev Wright.

I have the distinct pleasure of working with many African American preachers and churches. They are filled with the spirit and do marvelous work in their communities. There are also a small portion of this group who drive BMW's, Benz, and other vehicles that I will never be able to purchase. They also hold a great deal of political power.

That isn't any different then say Catholic priests, or even Jesuit ones. Wright's public tour is he currently on is downright laughable. I'm never met anyone who thinks the US invented AIDS to kill off a population, let alone someone who does it in the spirit of God.

God is big business. Always has been, always will be. Wright may be an extremist, but his large bank account is not. Again, we blame the media for this instance, but here we are talking about it. Either we are sheep, or we take seriously enough Wrights views that they merit this attention. We can't have it both ways.

That being said, I understand why Obama was a member there. I'm just not sure why he tuck around for so long. But I really don't understand is why Wright is the center of attention that he is. I'm surprised that he is, I just don't understand.

Billy
04-30-2008, 09:52 AM
That being said, I understand why Obama was a member there. I'm just not sure why he tuck around for so long. But I really don't understand is why Wright is the center of attention that he is. I'm surprised that he is, I just don't understand.

a.) He's a sensational character. He gets airtime for the same reasons that many extremist black voices get coverage. No matter what these guys say, how wacky it is, it's always covered under the premise that "We (the mainstream, mostly white media) owe them their say because we don't walk in their shoes". It's not important that what they say is particularly rational. It is sufficient enough that it makes for good soundbites. This stuff sells. When's the last time something at the National Press Club led the news? Perhaps it was the last time that everyone in the crowd stood and clapped through the whole lecture? It was quite a spectacle on Monday...Obama was right in his characterization. That's not the type of thing you see when Bill Bennett, for example. is up there yammering about school vouchers for 60 minutes on C-Span 2.

b.) I think some of this extreme coverage is possibly a result of the media's self-loathing period that took place right after Super Tuesday. There was this sense that the media was taking it easy on Obama...and had become taken with him. For a week or two, column after column (and two SNL skits) came out which drew attention to it. My guess, is that in some segments of the media, this is a "make up call" of sorts by continuing to attach Obama and Wright. If Bill Clinton eventually takes more shots at how uneven the scrutiny has been, and how mean they are to his wife (which he has not done during April)...the media can play this card.

EDIT: BTW, considering that Obama called the guy his "spiritual mentor", I think it's 100% fair that this stuff is put into play. I'm not implying that this topic should be ignored by the media. I have also noticed recently that the preacher-like cadence which had been part of his speech repertoire for certain audiences has quickly gone away completely. He sounds like a full-time law professor once again.

kyxu
04-30-2008, 10:04 AM
Last summer, I saw Rev Jeremiah Wright "preach" in person in Pittsburgh, as he was the keynote speaker at a diversity leadership conference I was attending. He didn't preach too much about politics, but mostly about racial inequality, and the disproportioned perception of color in America. It was to an overwhelmingly African-American audience (pretty sure I was the only white boy in the place), but not much of his stuff was what any of you on this board would find "controversial". He talked a little bit about events like Katrina and many others that shined a spotlight on the racial problem of America, but there was no "goddamn America" invective, or anything like that.

What I'm saying isn't so much to defend Wright (as I do disagree 100% with his statements about AIDS and other "extreme" statements not rooted in reality, etc.), but that most people making these assumptions on Obama and his long-lived relationship with Wright are basing it on one sermon that's been over-hyped and over-played.

Obama's not the only member of Wright's congregation, and it's obvious that a great number of people share Wright's views on race and politics. But that doesn't necessarily mean Obama does. If the views of my parish priest were attributed to me, I would have no friends.

DC Muskie
04-30-2008, 10:19 AM
Billy-

I think you are correct in the sense this is a make up call from the media. The only thing annoying then negative ads, is the idea the media doesn't do X enough, or does too much of Y. I think this Wright situation just plays into the entire mix and rather discussing anything of substance, this is what we will get. and then we get to talk about it after May 6th. And so on, and so forth.

I disagree with the idea that since Obama called him his spiritual mentor it's fair game. He's never once said he'd seek his advice when at the White House and for years the Republican Party has catered to people like Bob Jones, who preaches and practices just as much disgusting views of America. We don't get months long talk on that. I know it's not the same, but you tend to see the importance of these crazies in order to have a foundation.

Certainly Obama should have hammered him when he got the chance. I think he did that yesterday. This is not some sort of Ted Haggard we are dealing with, we are dealing with a guy who looking to shine a little.

I just think there are a million of other reasons to dislike Obama, rather then what his preacher says.

kyxu
04-30-2008, 10:42 AM
Totally agree, DC.

There are many other reasons to not vote for Obama or question whether he has the leadership or "love" for America beyond this whole Wright thing. Those who use this as a reason to call his potential into question weren't going to vote for him anyway.

Billy
04-30-2008, 10:52 AM
I disagree with the idea that since Obama called him his spiritual mentor it's fair game. He's never once said he'd seek his advice when at the White House and for years the Republican Party has catered to people like Bob Jones, who preaches and practices just as much disgusting views of America. We don't get months long talk on that. I know it's not the same, but you tend to see the importance of these crazies in order to have a foundation.


The President will need to surround himself with good/competent people once elected. If you examine the Bush 43 presidency, many of the problems came from the mistakes of his staff. Whether that be various leaks, bad intelligence, or an incompetent Secretary of Defense.

So, it would seem to me, that the people whom a candidate has surrounded his/herself with in the past is of some importance. It's really the only way we can gauge their ability to delegate. Jeremiah Wright isn't just a "crazy uncle". This is a guy who Obama trusted and admired...it's in writing. Complicating matters, is the general perception (which I believe to be accurate having admittedly never stepped inside of a predominantly black church) that politics and religion are heavily intertwined in that community. The notion that Rev. Wright has just gone off the deep end in the last 3 months, and Senator Obama was completely unaware of any of his extreme politcial views is a bit hard for me to believe.

So, if you believe it's possible that Obama knowingly placed questionable people in a role of guidance in his own life...then I believe it's entirely appropriate to at least pay attention to something like this and worry that he could do the same for the country.

DC Muskie
04-30-2008, 11:04 AM
This is where I think we'll just disagree. If you believe that Wright formed Obama completely then why haven't I heard one thing in regards to Obama thinking that US invented AIDS? If Obama surrounded himself with a man so filled with hate, then why doesn't Obama promote that point of view?

When W brought on Chaney to be his VP, you saw the lack of judgment that was to come. If Obama brings Wright to serve as the Director For Faith Based Initiatives, then yes I can see that being a problem.

But to say that because Obama lived near this church, and was a grass roots organizer and choose to be apart of this community and therefore open to his judgment for the country as whole, is somehow painting Obama with a wide brush. It's like saying that since W married a librarian he'd be capable of forming complete, correct and coherent sentences.

This is not a case of taking all of it, or leaving all of it. For a long time Obama took his good and ignored his bad. I think that is the best judgment in this case.

XU 87
04-30-2008, 12:08 PM
It appears to me that Obama needed Wright back when Obama was trying to get his political campaign started in Chicago. I've read that Wright's church is huge with approximately 6000 members. And I've also read that Wright was pretty influential within Obama's district. As one publication wrote, "Wright gave Obama street cred." But I think we can agree that while Obama probably doesn't agree with many of Wright's views on issues such as AIDS and 911, Obama probably wasn't denouncing Wright 10 years ago when Obama was running for Illinois state senator.

But Obama doesn't need nor want Wright at this point now that Wright is a detriment to the campaign.

When thinking about all this, the phrase "Live by the sword die by the sword" comes to mind.

DC Muskie
04-30-2008, 12:25 PM
It appears to me that Obama needed Wright back when Obama was trying to get his political campaign started in Chicago. I've read that Wright's church is huge with approximately 6000 members. And I've also read that Wright was pretty influential within Obama's district. As one publication wrote, "Wright gave Obama street cred." But I think we can agree that while Obama probably doesn't agree with many of Wright's views on issues such as AIDS and 911, Obama probably wasn't denouncing Wright 10 years ago when Obama was running for Illinois state senator.

But Obama doesn't need nor want Wright at this point now that Wright is a detriment to the campaign.

When thinking about all this, the phrase "Live by the sword die by the sword" comes to mind.

I don't doubt Obama needed Wright to gain some credibility with people. Is that wrong? Again, show me where Obama took all the bad from Wright and has been promoting it as his view of America.

Seriously, we're getting to the point in this country where we want experienced, non Senators, who governed states and never aligned themselves at any point with someone who said anything negatively about America.

That's the guy or gal we want in this country. When time and time again all we have shown for ourselves is people like Wright or Haggard, or Rod Parsley hold the dance card for our representatives.

Believe me, if Wright is Obama's biggest problem, then that's fine by me.

Araceli
04-30-2008, 12:38 PM
Araceli-

I appreciate the thought that you have towards thinking Obama is not presidential material. Not sure how that is linked with your story of AA preachers and Rev Wright.

I have the distinct pleasure of working with many African American preachers and churches. They are filled with the spirit and do marvelous work in their communities. There are also a small portion of this group who drive BMW's, Benz, and other vehicles that I will never be able to purchase. They also hold a great deal of political power.

That isn't any different then say Catholic priests, or even Jesuit ones. Wright's public tour is he currently on is downright laughable. I'm never met anyone who thinks the US invented AIDS to kill off a population, let alone someone who does it in the spirit of God.

God is big business. Always has been, always will be. Wright may be an extremist, but his large bank account is not. Again, we blame the media for this instance, but here we are talking about it. Either we are sheep, or we take seriously enough Wrights views that they merit this attention. We can't have it both ways.

That being said, I understand why Obama was a member there. I'm just not sure why he tuck around for so long. But I really don't understand is why Wright is the center of attention that he is. I'm surprised that he is, I just don't understand.
DCMuskie; I have serious doubts about Mr Obama simply because it does not make sense to me that he and Reverand Wright have been pals for over 20 years. In that period of time, you would think that Mr Obama would have gotten to know the guy. At the same time, I have just heard Mr Obamaīs statement of today about about Wright. Good, solid, strong ; yet I find it hard to believe. Is it politics? Is it the true stuff? Your guess is as good as mine.
As to the Black Church, the man I mentioned is one of many, many examples of good, honest followers of Christ. Reverend Connors as Chaplain of the Cincinnati Police Dept and his own Baptist Church spoke out constantly about certain "individuals", who are anything but "Reverend". He was a true man of God. You are absolutely correct when you say that Rev(?) Wright is not an example of the majority within the Black Church, but the problem is that the Wrights and Jacksons, amongst others , get the coverage of the Bill Moyers types, which is totally unjust, incorrect journalistically speaking and, to put it mildly, fraud. What can be done to change this? How can we stimulate the truth? Your guess is as good as mine. A good start just might be the fact that we invest time in writing and expressing our opinions.
As to Mrs Clinton, you are right. She apparently has nothing to do with all of this matter, but her husband has certainly "played the cards" of some of those individuals who Bill Moyers and others have given far more coverage than they deserve. She is, in my humble opinion, rubbing her hands to glee over a matter which should be considered as tragic and very, very sad.

Billy
04-30-2008, 12:55 PM
This is where I think we'll just disagree. If you believe that Wright formed Obama completely then why haven't I heard one thing in regards to Obama thinking that US invented AIDS? If Obama surrounded himself with a man so filled with hate, then why doesn't Obama promote that point of view?


It's a bit more abstract. I don't think anyone's accusing Obama of being a complete minion of Wright. However, this guy was advertised (by Obama) to be considerably more than just some fringe player in his life. There are hundreds of churches on the south side of Chicago (from what I glean...I don't venture south of Congress Blvd as a general rule). There are many, many people more influential than Rev. Wright if their relationship was founded, and continued based solely on politial expediency. Jesse Jackson immediately leaps to mind.

This is the converse to him getting votes because he has a relationship with Oprah. There are a lot of women who will vote for Obama, in part, because of that particular relationship. He brings her out on stage and says "Look at this. Look at who I am surrounding myself with!". People are impressed, and they cheer, and his supporters have no problem calling attention to that because, of course, it benefits him. But when the characters are found to be unsavory, how can it also be asked that the public turn away because there's nothing to see?

Except this isn't Oprah. This is a relationship which we can assume from his writings has had a far more profound influence on him.

BTW, Obama himself said last week that this was a fair issue to be in discourse. I tend to agree with you...in and of the fact that this isn't a huge problem for me, personally. Just like I don't give a shit if he's chummy with Oprah. However, I have no problem with it being discussed and mulled over.

DC Muskie
04-30-2008, 01:00 PM
I just want to point out something here, Araceli...

On one hand you want to know why Obama was associated with Wright for over 20 years, then get upset that the Bob Moyers of the world give him a platform to speak? Which is it then? Did you judge a guy off of one, or two youtube clips you saw? Or did you judge him after the Moyers interview at which point you blame Moyers for having giving him a platform to express himself, since you find it highly important of his associations with Obama.

You sir, have an extremely high threshold of standards towards your presidential candidates. No wonder you can't find anyone, you dispose of Obama because of one relationship you don't like. My, if you want to search for something, surely you can do better then this.

Why is it hard to believe that Obama doesn't believe the US invented AIDS to kill black people? Why is it hard to believe that Obama doesn't believe America was deserving of the attacks on 9/11? Other religious types have said this. Obama is not allowed any allowances to the good Wright has done? I'm not sure what good Wright has done because he decided to go on this tour and talk about his crappy ideas. I guess we should assume everyone in that congregation believes America is an AIDS inventing, terrorist society. I'm more worried about the thousands of people, then one guy.

Again, people who find this the least bit revelant are the ones who weren't going to vote for him. Everybody says Obama needs to distance himself. Then he does, then people question, "Is it real?" What exactly do you want? It's a guy who runs a church talking smack. This is America, people talk smack all the time. As long as my presidential nominee doesn't think the US invented AIDS, I could care less who he hung out with for 20 who thinks our government did.

I'd rather people said, Obama learned economics from Stalin. Here's why, X, Y, and Z. That, in my mind is plausible argument. This Wright situation, is nothing more then fluff, to blame Obama about his decision making capabilities, and blame the media for pushing it, even though all of us eat it up.

It's the garbage that ruins the process.

Juice
04-30-2008, 03:18 PM
Obama's first house was paid for with the help of Tony Rezko, does that count reflect poorly on his character?

I just think that the company you keep can say a lot about you. Do I think Obama is as bad as these guys? No. Do I think Obama has benefitted from their influence or positions in society? Definitely.

blobfan
04-30-2008, 03:18 PM
The only thing annoying then negative ads, is the idea the media doesn't do X enough, or does too much of Y.

I think that's may be the heart of the problem. Since when is the media supposed to DO anything? Aren't they supposed to report on what others do? Too much of our so-called news these days is reporters reporting on each other. That's how we get these never-ending stories about issues of minimal importance. Wright's a kook. We get that. Do we need 10 days of debate upon pundits about how this will or should impact Obama's bid for president? All they are doing is giving Wright and his ilk a bigger say than they deserve.

Araceli
04-30-2008, 04:03 PM
I just want to point out something here, Araceli...

On one hand you want to know why Obama was associated with Wright for over 20 years, then get upset that the Bob Moyers of the world give him a platform to speak? Which is it then? Did you judge a guy off of one, or two youtube clips you saw? Or did you judge him after the Moyers interview at which point you blame Moyers for having giving him a platform to express himself, since you find it highly important of his associations with Obama.

You sir, have an extremely high threshold of standards towards your presidential candidates. No wonder you can't find anyone, you dispose of Obama because of one relationship you don't like. My, if you want to search for something, surely you can do better then this.

Why is it hard to believe that Obama doesn't believe the US invented AIDS to kill black people? Why is it hard to believe that Obama doesn't believe America was deserving of the attacks on 9/11? Other religious types have said this. Obama is not allowed any allowances to the good Wright has done? I'm not sure what good Wright has done because he decided to go on this tour and talk about his crappy ideas. I guess we should assume everyone in that congregation believes America is an AIDS inventing, terrorist society. I'm more worried about the thousands of people, then one guy.

Again, people who find this the least bit revelant are the ones who weren't going to vote for him. Everybody says Obama needs to distance himself. Then he does, then people question, "Is it real?" What exactly do you want? It's a guy who runs a church talking smack. This is America, people talk smack all the time. As long as my presidential nominee doesn't think the US invented AIDS, I could care less who he hung out with for 20 who thinks our government did.

I'd rather people said, Obama learned economics from Stalin. Here's why, X, Y, and Z. That, in my mind is plausible argument. This Wright situation, is nothing more then fluff, to blame Obama about his decision making capabilities, and blame the media for pushing it, even though all of us eat it up.

It's the garbage that ruins the process.
I donīt really believe we differ much on this issue. Your "fluff" idea is perfect with me, but the problem is that, from what I have seen so far, Mr Obama is just that....FLUFF. There is nothing there that shows me that he is or will be Pres material and that he would be capable of dealing with this very tough world. The same goes for Mrs Clinton, who inevitably has to be dragged into the picture that the Moyers types have printed. She/Obama.....its all the same. Now, if someone at anouther time wants to discuss the options.....thats anouther story. This is not a question of "colors".....not even Primary Colors.

picknroll
04-30-2008, 05:24 PM
Jeremiah Wright (http://elections.foxnews.com/2008/03/27/obamas-former-pastor-builds-a-multimillion-dollar-retirement-home/)bought some land in a gated community for $350 k. He then sold it to his church. The church then took out a 1.6 million dollar mortgage to build a home. The home coupled with the land gives him a two million dollar pad. I am fairly certain he did this through his church because of tax reasons. I am not sure how comfortable I am with that.

The guy lives in a rich white gated community. (That made me laugh) He has a 10,340-square-foot, four-bedroom home. Talk about the wretched excess of conspicuous consumption.

It may be a Catholic thing, but millionaire pastors to me seem unseemly. I know our priests don't have wives and families. If they did they would need more resources. You can't take a vow of poverty for your kid. Or at least you shouldn't want too.

This guy lives an expensive lifestyle. In the last three days I think he has flown to Detroit, Texas and Washington DC. I am really curious to find out what people are paying him to speak, (as well as who is paying him and why). I think he probably pockets around 10 grand at some of these events, but that is just a guess.

In the last few days it seems like he is on 15 minutes of fame publicity campaign. He is cashing in on the Obama connection for all it is worth. The guy comes off as a completely self serving son of a bitch.

I don’t like the guy. I have plenty of friends who don’t share my political views. I am not a big Obama fan on ideology, but I like him as a person. I think that Wright is an ass. I think what he did to Obama is unfair and wrong. I was glad to see BHO throw the old Pastor under the bus. This could be a real bump up for Obama. I think other people are going to like this as well.

I hope in the future when his 15 minutes are up that Wright gets blacklisted (pun intended) from speaking engagements. I would like to never hear from him again.
Snipe, I think who's repsonsible and who's paying him is as plain as one's nose on one's face. The Clinton's dug up this guy and his 2003 pulpit tirade, and they are paying him to chat it up all around the country. Mr. William Jefferson Clinton said back before the SC primary that this is about race, and I guess he meant black-on-black. And he's the guy, along with the Hillary campaign staff, subverting and distracting this Hare -Tortoise race behind the scenes as Hil-Rod walks right past the finish line on June 3.

mr. zimpher
04-30-2008, 05:40 PM
This is where I think we'll just disagree. If you believe that Wright formed Obama completely then why haven't I heard one thing in regards to Obama thinking that US invented AIDS? If Obama surrounded himself with a man so filled with hate, then why doesn't Obama promote that point of view?




Because Obama and his handlers know that promoting such views would be catastrophic to a political career. Not saying that Barack agrees with such perspectives but even if he did he would not use them as a platform for his campaign. Come on that was not a difficult answer to devise.

DC Muskie
05-01-2008, 08:07 AM
Obama's first house was paid for with the help of Tony Rezko, does that count reflect poorly on his character?

I just think that the company you keep can say a lot about you. Do I think Obama is as bad as these guys? No. Do I think Obama has benefitted from their influence or positions in society? Definitely.

I agree with the Rezko issue...and I always wonder why that hasn't been brought up. We should know what their relationship was especially if Rezko is a criminal.

DC Muskie
05-01-2008, 08:09 AM
Because Obama and his handlers know that promoting such views would be catastrophic to a political career. Not saying that Barack agrees with such perspectives but even if he did he would not use them as a platform for his campaign. Come on that was not a difficult answer to devise.

Seriously, to even suggest that Obama could hold the same opinions of Wright on the AIDS issue or 9/11 is dumbfounding. I doubt so many people in the Democratic party would decide to help him win the campaign if Obama held these views. Or you think Obama is an incredible liar. So your point is really irrelevant.

DC Muskie
05-01-2008, 08:21 AM
I donīt really believe we differ much on this issue. Your "fluff" idea is perfect with me, but the problem is that, from what I have seen so far, Mr Obama is just that....FLUFF. There is nothing there that shows me that he is or will be Pres material and that he would be capable of dealing with this very tough world.

Again, your standards for presidential material is out-of-this-world high. We can easily find faults from any modern day presidential candidate and make the same argument. The one notable exception you might have is GWH Bush.

Gotcha politics is never going to go away, simply because it has been here since the advent of television.

XUglow
05-01-2008, 05:12 PM
Northwestern just ditched Wright on conferirng an honorary degree on him at this year's graduation.

That's OK with me, but they need to rethink the back-up plan of giving the degree to Miley Cyrus instead.

Araceli
05-02-2008, 02:37 AM
Again, your standards for presidential material is out-of-this-world high. We can easily find faults from any modern day presidential candidate and make the same argument. The one notable exception you might have is GWH Bush.

Gotcha politics is never going to go away, simply because it has been here since the advent of television.
Soory DC, but I donīt understand where you are going on this one. As to "high standards", of course. Weīre talking about the most powerful person on the face of this good earth.....politically.....and the Leader of the Western World. I donīt want an individual who has been created by the media people, which, tragically is not easy to prevent. Iīm not looking for so-called charismatic individuals (the term charismatic is not correctly applied, but the media have set the trend. As you probably know, charismatic has more to do with the ability to be evangelic and spread the word of Christ), but a person, who really understands the concept of power and the application of such to the resolving of challenges on a short, medium and longterm basis. That means judging candidates according to credibility, conviction, legitimacy, education/training , experience. work ethic, projects/planning. The rest is, as you have said, "fluff". Yes, I am demanding and and try my best to separate "beauty", "appeal" etc from "substance".

Billy
05-02-2008, 08:14 AM
Soory DC, but I donīt understand where you are going on this one. As to "high standards", of course. Weīre talking about the most powerful person on the face of this good earth.....politically.....and the Leader of the Western World. I donīt want an individual who has been created by the media people, which, tragically is not easy to prevent. Iīm not looking for so-called charismatic individuals (the term charismatic is not correctly applied, but the media have set the trend. As you probably know, charismatic has more to do with the ability to be evangelic and spread the word of Christ), but a person, who really understands the concept of power and the application of such to the resolving of challenges on a short, medium and longterm basis. That means judging candidates according to credibility, conviction, legitimacy, education/training , experience. work ethic, projects/planning. The rest is, as you have said, "fluff". Yes, I am demanding and and try my best to separate "beauty", "appeal" etc from "substance".

I'll try this again. Who should the Democrats nominate?

Last time I asked in another thread, you said that there were no worthy Democratic candidates. There are over 100,000,000 registered Democrats in the United States. Over a thousand of whom are Democratic office holders, who have on some level been vetted and approved by some form of a significant constituency. So for you to have the opinion you are espousing, this simply must be more about your feelings on the general ideology of the party, than it is about the "quality" of the characters within.

If that's the case as I suspect, and you don't like their politics, it would be more intellectually honest to frame your argument that way...as opposed to making this about them personally...and of course going to the old right-wing standby: blaming the media for everything.

Araceli
05-02-2008, 10:08 AM
I'll try this again. Who should the Democrats nominate?

Last time I asked in another thread, you said that there were no worthy Democratic candidates. There are over 100,000,000 registered Democrats in the United States. Over a thousand of whom are Democratic office holders, who have on some level been vetted and approved by some form of a significant constituency. So for you to have the opinion you are espousing, this simply must be more about your feelings on the general ideology of the party, than it is about the "quality" of the characters within.

If that's the case as I suspect, and you don't like their politics, it would be more intellectually honest to frame your argument that way...as opposed to making this about them personally...and of course going to the old right-wing standby: blaming the media for everything.
Nope thats not my case. I belong to NO party and never will. In general, I despise the concepts of "left" and "right". Its a case of good solution or bad solution. If the prime material is defective, forget the rest. I donīt like "pop" culture candidates; nor do I like the Argentinian solution for the precedence this implies. This is a very serious matter and, Iīll just have to wait and see. Weīll have time to talk. My great uncle, who was a full prof at the University of Chicago at the age of 17, once told me the following during the Goldwater-Johnson campaign, which you certainly did not experience...."Nephew, Iīm voting for Johnson. Donīt ever forget that its a bad-ass world and that nice guys just donīt fit in." I only agree to a certain extent, but my old Irish uncle left a big impression on me.....Adenauer, Thatcher, De Gaulle understood la real politique. No! no! Mr. Obama attacking Pakistan is not the answer. No! No! Mrs Clinton, being the only woman in a Clinton Administration, who is behind the desk and not under the desk is not the answer.

Snipe
05-02-2008, 11:01 AM
From the New York Times one year ago: link (http://www.nytimes.com/2007/04/30/us/politics/30obama.html?_r=1&pagewanted=all&oref=slogin)


Mr. Wright, who has long prided himself on criticizing the establishment, said he knew that he may not play well in Mr. Obama’s audition for the ultimate establishment job.

“If Barack gets past the primary, he might have to publicly distance himself from me,” Mr. Wright said with a shrug. “I said it to Barack personally, and he said yeah, that might have to happen.”


Barack H Obama's "New Politics".

Meet the new boss,
Same as the old boss.

Billy
05-02-2008, 11:28 AM
Nope thats not my case. I belong to NO party and never will. In general, I despise the concepts of "left" and "right". Its a case of good solution or bad solution. If the prime material is defective, forget the rest. I donīt like "pop" culture candidates; nor do I like the Argentinian solution for the precedence this implies. This is a very serious matter and, Iīll just have to wait and see. Weīll have time to talk. My great uncle, who was a full prof at the University of Chicago at the age of 17, once told me the following during the Goldwater-Johnson campaign, which you certainly did not experience...."Nephew, Iīm voting for Johnson. Donīt ever forget that its a bad-ass world and that nice guys just donīt fit in." I only agree to a certain extent, but my old Irish uncle left a big impression on me.....Adenauer, Thatcher, De Gaulle understood la real politique. No! no! Mr. Obama attacking Pakistan is not the answer. No! No! Mrs Clinton, being the only woman in a Clinton Administration, who is behind the desk and not under the desk is not the answer.

Look, I can see how you could be dissatisfied with the two Dems that are out there now. They're similar. I'm a Libertarian, so I don't like them much, myself. But my difference with them is due to a clear ideological chasm. Mainly, I don't like how they are going to spend money.

Your opinion seems to stem from anciliary matters like the state of Argentina...or the fact that Charles De Gaulle would never show up on WWE...or from some apparent feeling of nostalgia for the 1960s that you seem to have.

Meh...I'm not particularly swayed.

DC Muskie
05-02-2008, 12:26 PM
Soory DC, but I donīt understand where you are going on this one. As to "high standards", of course. Weīre talking about the most powerful person on the face of this good earth.....politically.....and the Leader of the Western World. I donīt want an individual who has been created by the media people, which, tragically is not easy to prevent. Iīm not looking for so-called charismatic individuals (the term charismatic is not correctly applied, but the media have set the trend. As you probably know, charismatic has more to do with the ability to be evangelic and spread the word of Christ), but a person, who really understands the concept of power and the application of such to the resolving of challenges on a short, medium and longterm basis. That means judging candidates according to credibility, conviction, legitimacy, education/training , experience. work ethic, projects/planning. The rest is, as you have said, "fluff". Yes, I am demanding and and try my best to separate "beauty", "appeal" etc from "substance".

I think Billy put it best in the post above, that you seem stuck on a past age, simply because you feel the media has too much of a hand in how a candidate is presented to you. If that is the case, then my question of your standards is too high still stands. Why do I say this? Simply because the people you long for were never vetted the way people are today. FDR would never have been president now, simply because the question of his handicap would have made people uneasy. Or on the other hand, the media could have made him too charismatic for your liking.

All I'm saying is, I do not expect my president to be perfect. I do expect him to be inspirational, rational, calm and respectful when the time calls him or her to be. The current president to me seems overwhelmed at times in his office, with his "magic wand" references, and "it's hard to be president" statements, while at the same time tries to be "the decider" persona.

There are plenty of men that have sought the White House with many deficiencies in their resumes. Some of those men went on to be great presidents, some did not. Your opinion of Obama is not presidential material, to me, steams from this idea that he is a media creation, and therefore unworthy of discussion. I would beg to ask which candidates you have been privy to that has allowed you unfiltered access into their credentials? It seems no one will meet your standards, because your standards rely on what you witnessed in a time long since passed.