Govenor Sarah Palin, Mormonism, Post-Mormonism, Politics

[_aussieguy55]

The new policy is socialize your losses and capitalize your gains. You now own and Insurance Company.

Yes it's true Kevin just gives the usual knee-jerk reaction. As for Australia we have a great welfare system, and we have a surplus. Both parties support universal healthcare. My neighbor just had bypass surgery. She did not have to pay a cent. My 1.5% of my wage and many others paid for it. Maybe one day I will need the same. Maybe never. Its just great to know I will never go bankrupt over medical care. Some try to argue that Obama is elitist yet some think it is a Republican codeword for "uppity" Can't have any uppity black in the White House.
I can't think of anything that I buy comes from America except books on Amazon. The clothes I but r from China and India, even the expensive labels. Computers, dvds etc r from China. And it's amusing your country borrows money from China to fund the budget. The Chinese have so much money they now want to buy bluechip Australian mining companies.

I hope your economy does survive, as it effects my super which for the last 5 years has been growing at 12% and now is negative growth.

[_dartagnan]

Yes it's true Kevin just gives the usual knee-jerk reaction.

To what? You throw up something hit piece from the web as if it is a serious piece of journalism and expect a detailed rebuttal? Give me a break. I couldn't even read further than the first paragraph it was so stupid. But I will do it because Trevor asked.

As for Australia we have a great welfare system, and we have a surplus. Both parties support universal healthcare. My neighbor just had bypass surgery. She did not have to pay a cent. My 1.5% of my wage and many others paid for it. Maybe one day I will need the same. Maybe never. Its just great to know I will never go bankrupt over medical care.

Apparently you haven't paid much attention to what I've said about our crap healthcare system.

Some try to argue that Obama is elitist yet some think it is a Republican codeword for "uppity" Can't have any uppity black in the White House.

Race baiting is stupid. To say anyone who doesn't vote for Obama is racist is stupid. The fact is, if America is so racist, then why are most of his voters white? And why are so few black voters voting for McCain? Logic dictates that if there were racism involved, it is coming from black Americans.

I can't think of anything that I buy comes from America except books on Amazon. The clothes I but r from China and India, even the expensive labels. Computers, dvds etc r from China. And it's amusing your country borrows money from China to fund the budget. The Chinese have so much money they now want to buy bluechip Australian mining companys.

Hey, if you think China is such a wonderful place, then by all means, try living there. Write us back in a few years and tell us how it was - that is if you're still alive.

I hope your economy does survive, as it effects my super which for the last 5 years has been growing at 12% and now is negative growth.

You have a super witch? I'm intrigued.

[_dartagnan]

White privilege is when you can get pregnant at seventeen like Bristol Palin and everyone is quick to insist that your life and that of your family is a personal matter

And rightfully so, including Barack Obama who said families are off limits. And traditionally, they have been. But not in the case of Sarah Palin. What we are witnessing now is beyond anything we've ever seen in smearing an entire family. Obama has kids too. Why isn't the media and the radical rightists attacking them?

Black privilege?

and that no one has a right to judge you or your parents, because “every family has challenges,”

Some have more than others. Wise implies that black politicians have their family members attacked. Who? Are these supposed to be valid comparisons?

even as black and Latino families with similar “challenges” are regularly typified as irresponsible, pathological and arbiters of social decay.

Typification is based on statistics, not racism, misguided emotion or unhinged fanticism.

Wise has a problem with facts. Unfortunately for him, they get in the way of his anti-racist career, which requires first that there be racism to keep him in business. The fact is black families are generally less responsible. Racism doesn't explain this fact. I'm not sure what does, but it remains a fact nonetheless. Black children are five times more likely to be raised by a single parent. Is it racism to note this?

Is it racism to simply note the facts? This mentality is what helped create the current AIG crisis in the first place. Take for instance,

"A September 1999 study by Freddie Mac, for instance, confirmed what previous Federal Reserve and Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation studies had found: that African-Americans have disproportionate levels of credit problems, which explains why they have a harder time qualifying for mortgage money. As Freddie Mac found, blacks with incomes of $65,000 to $75,000 a year have on average worse credit records than whites making under $25,000."

But people like Obama cried racism so they were giving loans to people who were unable to pay them. And people like Tim Wise are right behind him echoing the same nonsense.

White privilege is when you can call yourself a “fuckin’ redneck,” like Bristol Palin’s boyfriend does

First of all, this is something that was posted on his website when he was only 17 years old. Secondly, how is this white privilege? Is Wise suggesting that a black person couldn't get away with calling himself a redneck? As I noted before, they get away with calling themselves "niggas" all the time, which is something a white person couldn't get away with.

Black privilege?

and talk about how if anyone messes with you, you'll “kick their fuckin' ass,” and talk about how you like to “shoot crap” for fun, and still be viewed as a responsible, all-American boy (and a great son-in-law to be) rather than a thug.

So a 17 year old high school kid talked smack on the web a year ago. What's the world coming to huh?

White privilege is when you can attend four different colleges in six years like Sarah Palin did (one of which you basically failed out of

This is a probably more horse crap he dug up from the huffingtonpost.

whereas a person of color who did this would be viewed as unfit for college

Oh really? Then maybe Mr. Wise can provide some examples where black people were "viewed" as "unfit for college" simply because they were attending different schools. He's just making stuff up as he goes. He has no valid examples.

and probably someone who only got in in the first place because of affirmative action.

If the grades are there, there is little reason to assume affirmative action was at work. Black privilege is when you don't necessarily have to make the grades in order to get into a upper tier college.

White privilege is when you can claim that being mayor of a town smaller than most medium-sized colleges, and then Governor of a state with about the same number of people as the lower fifth of the island of Manhattan, makes you ready to potentially be president

How is that white privilege when Obama's experience wasn't questioned by most Americans, even though he doesn't even have half that experience? Black privilege again?

while being a black U.S. Senator, two-term state Senator, and constitutional law scholar, means you’re “untested.”

It doesn't, no matter what his color is. His pathetic level of experience in office in no way makes him ready to be President. Again, the only person today making a big deal out of Obama's ethinicity, is Obama and his supporters. When they start falling in the polls, pull out the white man's guilt. Black privilege at it again.

White privilege is being able to say that you support the words “under God” in the pledge of allegiance because “if it was good enough for the founding fathers, it’s good enough for me,” and not be immediately disqualified from holding office--since, after all, the pledge was written in the late 1800s and the “under God” part wasn’t added until the 1950s--while believing that reading accused criminals and terrorists their rights (because, ya know, the Constitution, which you used to teach at a prestigious law school requires it), is a dangerous and silly idea only supported by mushy liberals.

This is more abuse Palin has taken from a liberal and deceptive media that would never have been tolerated if she were black. Black privilege strikes again.

Incientally, Palin never said the fathers "wrote" the phrase, only that the founding fathers believed this was a country "under God." Apparently Wise is willing to lie to get his points across. No suprrise there.

White privilege is being able to be a gun enthusiast and not make people immediately scared of you.

ROFL. Yea, because you know, when blacks are armed with guns in the city and wearing gangsta bandanas, they're just hunting the same as a white woman and mother of five, in the mountains of rural Alaska. Again, the facts get in the way of Mr. Wise's idiotic rant. I suppose Palin also has a tatoo on her tummy like Tupac Shakur with a giant pistol? It takes a true idiot to engage in this kind of ludicrous moral equivalence. Hunting is not illegal. Does Barack Obama hunt? Has anyone accused him of being a thug for owning a gun?

White privilege is being able to have a husband who was a member of an extremist political party that wants your state to secede from the Union, and whose motto was “Alaska first,” and no one questions your patriotism or that of your family

LOL. Kinda ironic because I just watched her interview 2 hours ago with Sean Hannity and she was asked that exact question. Turns out this is just another example of media horse crap, which she never would have fell victim to if she were black. After all, you don't see CNN questioning Obama on basic issues like abortion or gun ownership, let alone his relationship with the terrorist Bill Ayers. Black privilege.

while if you're black and your spouse merely fails to come to a 9/11 memorial so she can be home with her kids on the first day of school, people immediately think she’s being disrespectful.

I've never once heard this. Mr.Wise sounds like the Muslim alarmists who are dying to find some kind of example, any kind of example, that they could use to keep Muslims victimized so they can sue for more compensation. But apparently he hasn't heard the media attacking Palin for lying about everything from book burning to setting foot in Iraq. They wouldn't have made up any of these non-existent scandals to begin with if she were black. Black privilege again.

White privilege is being able to make fun of community organizers and the work they do--like, among other things, fight for the right of women to vote, or for civil rights, or the 8-hour workday, or an end to child labor--and people think you’re being pithy and tough, but if you merely question the experience of a small town mayor and 18-month governor with no foreign policy expertise beyond a class she took in college--you’re somehow being mean, or even sexist.

Black privilege is being able to pretend your time as a community organizer was actually more noble than it really was. Obama spent his time "organizing" disgruntled poor folks to get together and protest, often violently, against any company they thought they could milk, using typical race-baiting techniques. A white community organizer could hardly get away with this. Maybe it is just an "Asian privilege" since Michelle Malkin is the one exposing his former occupation as a joke: http://townhall.com/columnists/Michelle ... are_a_joke

White privilege is being able to convince white women who don’t even agree with you on any substantive issue to vote for you and your running mate anyway, because all of a sudden your presence on the ticket has inspired confidence in these same white women, and made them give your party a “second look.”

Hilarious. And black privilege is getting most white Americans to vote for you simply because you're black. The nation is filled with misguided idiots like Tim Wise who think electing a black President and breaking this so-called "racial barrier" is more important than actually electing someone who is qualified and isn't in it for his own self interests. They will continue to turn a blind eye at all the evidence against Obama because of this black privilege.

White privilege is being able to fire people who didn’t support your political campaigns and not be accused of abusing your power or being a typical politician who engages in favoritism

He can't possibly be referring to Palin firing Monegan, can he? This is why I didn't take this moron seriously. He isn't interested in the facts.

while being black and merely knowing some folks from the old-line political machines in Chicago means you must be corrupt.

This is generally true no matter what the race. Notice Mr. Wise is not comparing apples to apples. Is he seriously suggesting that when white peoiple are associated with crooks, nobody ever suggests they're crooked as well? Is he also a part-time comedian?

But being able to get away with former terrorist associations without being questioned by the media, is something only a black politician could get away with. Why? Because if you ask, you're a racist. Black privilege strikes again.

White privilege is being able to attend churches over the years whose pastors say that people who voted for John Kerry or merely criticize George W. Bush are going to hell, and that the U.S. is an explicitly Christian nation and the job of Christians is to bring Christian theological principles into government, and who bring in speakers who say the conflict in the Middle East is God’s punishment on Jews for rejecting Jesus, and everyone can still think you’re just a good church-going Christian, but if you’re black and friends with a black pastor who has noted (as have Colin Powell and the U.S. Department of Defense) that terrorist attacks are often the result of U.S. foreign policy and who talks about the history of racism and its effect on black people, you’re an extremist who probably hates America.

Yes folks, this rambling maniac said all of that in one sentence.

But suffice it to say, he doesn't even come close to representing Wright's radical views properly, nor does he understand that white politicians have been more criticized for their relationship to Falwell, than Obama has even been criticized for his 20 year relationship with Wright. That's because this is a black church that loves to cry about racism. Why give them an excuse? Score another point for Black privilege.

White privilege is not knowing what the Bush Doctrine is when asked by a reporter, and then people get angry at the reporter for asking you such a “trick question,”

Actually, she was raked through the coals by the media, maybe because she wasn't black. This is proved by the fact that Obama didn't know what the Bush doctrine was when he referred to it in 2005, and yet nobody questioned his knowledge on the matter. Black privilege again.

while being black and merely refusing to give one-word answers to the queries of Bill O’Reilly means you’re dodging the question, or trying to seem overly intellectual and nuanced.

Yes of course. White politicians have never been accused of dodging questions. Ever. In fact, we've been reserving this for a black presidential candidate all these years. Thank God Obama has come along so we can finally start making this accusation in the political arena.

Again, is this guy really supposed to be taken seriously?

White privilege is being able to claim your experience as a POW has anything at all to do with your fitness for president

LOL. Of course. And I suppose Mr. Wise would have us believe that if he were black, he would be laughed off the stage. Wise never provides an apples/apples comparison, which makes it easier for him to pretend he is making valid points.

while being black and experiencing racism is, as Sarah Palin has referred to it a “light” burden.

More horse crap.

And finally, white privilege is the only thing that could possibly allow someone to become president when he has voted with George W. Bush 90 percent of the time

More exagerration, but what is his evidence that a black Republican candidate could have never become president while voting for Bush 90%? There is no apples and apples going on here. He is just babbling incoherently with all these run-on sentences.

[_aussieguy55]

Are you the Bill O'Rielly of Mormondiscussions? Opinionated Mormon to opinionated exmormon

[_dartagnan]

Bill O'Reilley? He is a News Analyst, and not a political pundit. He doesn't share much at all about his political opinions.

It never ceases to amaze me how many liberals insist on getting their facts from the Daily Show and then speak as if they're educated.

by the way, did anyone just listen to McCain's blistering critique of Obama a few minutes ago. He went for the jugular, and hit him where it really hurts liberals: the truth. The Obama camp has to really be running around trying to figure out how they're going to spin the evidence connecting Obama to Fanny and Freddie.

McCain finally pointed out that two years ago he was the one politician who rang the alarm bell on the current crisis. He warned Washington of the imminent collapse of FF, and the democrats who were in their back pocket, spun the situation and insisted there was no crisis on the horizon at all. This is something I have been saying for days. McCain must be a lot smarter and more educated on the economy than I thought. After all, none of the Ivy league economists predicted this.

As it was with the surge, McCain proves once again he knows what he is talking about, even on the economy. This is the kind of uncanny foresight we need leading our nation.

Also, last night's interview with Palin proved I was right again about the her alleged desire to teach creationism. She pointed out that her father was a science teacher and they respect science and evolution and she never wanted to add creationism to the curriculum.

This is what I said last week when responding to beastie.

Update: Oh check this out. On FOX they are interviewing students from the University of Colorado whose English professor handed out an assignment for the students to read Palin's RNC speech and then write an essay that undermines her claims and explains how Palin is a fairy tale for Republicans. They are supposed to provide three sources criticizing her but none that support her. The Professor made the republican students identify themselves, in which case a democrat student yelled "F-U" when they did, to which the professor chuckled and did nothing.

Hilarious. I mention this because Trev made a comment about the libs dominating academia. This is a well known fact.

[_Trevor]

Because I keep seeing Reverend Wright's controversial sermons raised in connection with Barack Obama, I decided to listen to any one of his sermons I could find online. So far, I have found one--the (in)famous sermon in response to 9/11.

Wright's 9/11 sermon is one of those that has been used as evidence of Wright's anti-Americanism. After listening to the whole sermon, I am left with quite a different sense of what Wright is trying to say. I remain skeptical about Wright's supposed anti-Americanism, although admittedly I have not listened to all of his sermons. I am eager to listen to other sermons in which he has allegedly made anti-American remarks, so that I can decide for myself whether he really does hate America.

But, in the matter of the 9/11 speech, I think it is relatively clear that he does not hate America. First of all, he approaches the topic by examining the Jewish response to the sacking of Jerusalem, in which he argues that religious sorrow was transformed into blanket hatred of others. He uses this as his jumping off point to reflect on the mood in America after 9/11.

This is an important point that must not be ignored: Wright is using the most holy city in the Judeo-Christian and Islamic traditions to compare with the US. The comparison is both positive and negative. Wright approves of righteous sorrow over loss, but seems concerned about the possibility of unrighteousness in a revenge that will afflict the innocents among others.

Also, when speaking of America, he constantly uses the term "we." In other words, he does not see America as they. He clearly sees himself as an American, and in beginning to wrap up his sermon, he calls for 9/11 to serve as a time for "self examination" in spiritual terms. How is my relationship with God? with my family?

Wright does propose a different vision of America than one that conservatives would like to see. He also condemns what he sees are the past sins of America. But, he does so as an American, and, in my opinion, as one who sees good in America, and who can yet identify this nation with a most holy city. We may disagree over Wright's ideals concerning America, but I think it is deceptive to stamp simplistically Wright as an America hater, if the press on this speech is at all representative of the way others have generally (mis?)interpreted him.

I also note that right-leaning pastors outside of the black community used the same disaster as an opportunity to express anger and call for repentance concerning those things in America that they do not like--like homosexuality, for example.

[_dartagnan]

Reverend Wright did exactly what Palin was falsely accused of. She was accused of presuming which side God was on. The media had a field day with it. It still does. So are the atheists.

Of course, she never said God was on our side, but she was attacked for it anyway.

Wright comes right out with it in a racially charged sermon and states emphatically that God is against us. The liberals don't attack him for saying this, maybe because that is just another example of black privilege?

I don't recall calling Wright anti-American. I recall noting Wright's race baiting techniques as it is used to keeping the black communities down while he gets rich off of their grief. Obama's past is riddled with connections to all kinds radical left-wing race baiters and extremists who have influenced him. The fact that he chose to attend Wright's church should come as no surprise.

Having said that, can you point out any evidence that Wright likes America? Has he ever said anything positive about it? You'll have to do better than his reference to the royal "we." As far as I can tell from his sermons, America is Satan's kingdom on earth, creating death and destruction and oppression throughout the world. This guy would be considered a hero in Arab countries. Is it any wonder Michelle Obama says America is a "mean" place to live? Do you realize this man also accuses the US government of creating HIV as a genocidal means of clensing Africa of its black inhabitants? He said to his congregation, including the Obamas, "The government lied about inventing the HIV virus as a means of genocide against people of color. The government lied." - http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=58928

According to Wright, America has always been and will always be a racist country. What's so positive and uplifting about this? This guy should be tried for ministerial malpractice. People should go to Church to be uplifted spiritually, not enraged and made to feel inferior. He uses religion to cloak his radical political agenda and Obama is a product of that environment of hate.

But Wright is by no means the worst of the lot. The worst three would include:

1. Saul Alinsky

Obama was trained by the Alinsky-founded Industrial Areas Foundation (IAF) in Chicago and worked for an affiliate of the Gamaliel Foundation, whose modus operandi for the creation of “a more just and democratic society” is rooted firmly in the Alinsky method.

In the Alinsky model, "organizing" is a euphemism for "revolution" -- a wholesale revolution whose ultimate objective is the systematic acquisition of power by a purportedly oppressed segment of the population, and the radical transformation of America's social and economic structure. The goal is to foment enough public discontent, moral confusion, and outright chaos to spark the social upheaval that Marx, Engels, and Lenin predicted -- a revolution whose foot soldiers view the status quo as fatally flawed and wholly unworthy of salvation. Thus, the theory goes, the people will settle for nothing less than that status quo's complete collapse -- to be followed by the erection of an entirely new system upon its ruins. Toward that end, they will be apt to follow the lead of charismatic radical organizers who project an aura of confidence and vision, and who profess to clearly understand what types of societal "changes" are needed.

But Alinsky's brand of revolution was not characterized by dramatic, sweeping, overnight transformations of social institutions. As Richard Poe puts it, "Alinsky viewed revolution as a slow, patient process. The trick was to penetrate existing institutions such as churches, unions and political parties." Alinsky advised organizers and their disciples to quietly, subtly gain influence within the decision-making ranks of these institutions, and to introduce changes from that platform.

For several years Obama himself taught workshops on the Alinsky method.

2. Bill Ayers

Bill Ayers was a 1960s leader of the homegrown terrorist group Weatherman, a Communist-driven splinter faction of Students for a Democratic Society. Characterizing Weatherman as "an American Red Army," Ayers summed up the organization's ideology as follows: "Kill all the rich people. Break up their cars and apartments. Bring the revolution home, Kill your parents." Today Ayers is a professor of education and a Senior University Scholar at the University of Illinois.

In the mid-1990s, Ayers and Dohrn hosted meetings at their Chicago home to introduce Barack Obama to their neighbors during his first run for the Illinois Senate. Ayers also contributed money to Obama’s 1996 Senate campaign.

In his 2001 screed, Fugitive Days, Ayers boasts that he "participated in the bombings of New York City Police Headquarters in 1970, of the Capitol building in 1971, and the Pentagon in 1972." All told, Ayers and Weatherman were responsible for some 30 bombings aimed at destroying the defense and security infrastructures of the United States. "I don't regret setting bombs, said Ayers in 2001, "I feel we didn't do enough." In Fugitive Days, Ayers reflects on whether or not he might use bombs against the U.S. in the future. "I can't imagine entirely dismissing the possibility," he writes.

In 1999 Ayers joined the Woods Fund of Chicago, where he served as a director alongside Barack Obama until the latter left the Woods board in December 2002. In 2002 (while Obama was still on the board), the Woods Fund made a grant to Northwestern University Law School's Children and Family Justice Center, where Ayers' wife, Bernardine Dohrn, was employed.

At a 2007 reunion of former members of the Weather Underground and Students for a Democratic Society, Ayers complained about “a kind of rising incipient American form of fascism”; America’s “jingoistic patriotism, unprecedented and unapologetic military expansion, white supremacy …, attacks on women and girls, violent attacks, growing surveillance in every sphere of our lives, … the targeting of gay and lesbian people …”
In 2008 the Obama campaign produced a “fact sheet” pronouncing Ayers and Dohrn to be "respectable" members of the "mainstream" community.

3. Frank Davis

Frank Marshall Davis (1905-1987) was a black poet and writer (he wrote for the Honolulu Record, a Communist newspaper), and a known member of the Soviet-controlled Communist Party USA (CPUSA).

In 1950 Edward Berman, a member of the NAACP’s Honolulu branch, testified to the House Un-American Activities Committee (HUAC) that Davis had “sneaked” into local NAACP meetings to “propagandize” the organization’s members about America’s “racial problems,” with “the avowed intent and purpose of converting it into a front for the Stalinist line.”

Davis was identified unequivocally as a CPUSA member in a 1951 report of the Commission on Subversive Activities to the Legislature of the Territory of Hawaii (CSALTH), which, along with HUAC, also charged that Davis was affiliated with a number of communist-front organizations. According to Max Friedman, a former undercover member of several Communist-controlled “anti-war” groups, Davis testified in 1956 before the Senate Internal Security Subcommittee and took the Fifth Amendment when asked about his Communist Party membership.

In the 1970s Davis met a teenage Barack Obama and his family, who also lived in Hawaii. Davis soon became the young man's mentor and advisor.

In his 1995 book, Dreams From My Father, Obama writes about Davis but does not reveal the latter’s full name, identifying him only as "a poet named Frank" -- a man with much "hard-earned knowledge" who had known "some modest notoriety once" and was "a contemporary of Richard Wright and Langston Hughes during his years in Chicago," but was now "pushing eighty." (Several sources -- including Professor Gerald Horne, Dr. Kathryn Takara, and libertarian writer Trevor Loudon -- have confirmed that Obama’s “Frank” was indeed Frank Marshall Davis.)

Obama in his book recounts how, just prior to heading off to Occidental College in 1979, he spent some time with "Frank and his old Black Power dashiki self." Says Obama, "Frank" told him that college was merely "an advanced degree in compromise," and cautioned him not to "start believing what they tell you about equal opportunity and the American way and all that sh--."

[_dartagnan]

Notice also that McCain didn't have to wait a few days after talking to "economic advisors" before offering a solution to the crisis on Wall Street.

Obama did.

So who really knows more about the economy? McCain was able to wax infrmatively on the subject because he was the guy who warned Wasington about this crisis years ago.

Obama went to law school and taught classes on race and gender. He knows nothing about the economy. He keeps changing his plan - as one writer put it, like monkeys banging on a keyboard -http://startthinkingright.wordpress.com/2008/09/19/obama-economic-plan-40-like-monkeys-randomly-typing/

And I am sick and tired of hearing the media say McCain's ads are "lying" when they say Obama wants to raise taxes. Despite Obama sudden "turn about" stance just before the election, his record proves he will raise taxes at every opportunity. 94 times in two years, he voted to raise taxes. Doesn't record mean anything, or is that only when you vote along with Bush?

UPDATE: Obama's news release about the collapse of AIG is HILARIOUS because he doesn't even know what the acronymn stands for. Now I will wait to see how many of those same media pundits who made a huge deal over Palin's supposed ignorance over the "Bush doctrine, lambast Obama for being ignorant about the name of the corporation that just went bankrupt.

http://hotair.com/archives/2008/09/17/m ... c-in-2005/

[_Trevor]

Reverend Wright did exactly what Palin was falsely accused of. She was accused of presuming which side God was on. The media had a field day with it. It still does. So are the atheists.

I don't recall hearing that in Wright's sermon. Maybe you can point me to the passage where he says that. Are we thinking of different speeches?

I don't recall calling Wright anti-American.

I don't recall claiming you had. I laid out my reasons for my commentary on Wright's speech fairly clearly:

Because I keep seeing Reverend Wright's controversial sermons raised in connection with Barack Obama, I decided to listen to any one of his sermons I could find online. So far, I have found one--the (in)famous sermon in response to 9/11.

If there was anything in what you said that prompted me to think about this issue further and post here, it was your contention that Wright sees "nothing good" coming from American government, which must have been hyperbole on your part.

After all, he was highly influenced by Reverend "God damn America" Wright, who sees no good from American government. It is no surprise, therefore, that Obama would oppose the war.

What I am bothered about is the tendency for differences on what constitutes the ideal America devolving into accusations that certain people simply hate America. I don't know that you have made that leap, but at times it seems like you are edging up to the line, since you talk about these folks seeing nothing good in American government, or viewing American corporations as monsters that need robbing. Some of the rhetoric here is supplied by you, and I want to make sure you aren't exaggerating in order to persuade. Not that I don't believe that you believe what you are saying is true. There may be, however, a difference between your conviction, and what is the case. Looking past selective quotes and colorful language is one way I hope to figure out what is going on.

Having said that, can you point out any evidence that Wright likes America? Has he ever said anything positive about it? You'll have to do better than his reference to the royal "we." As far as I can tell from his sermons, America is Satan's kingdom on earth, creating death and destruction and oppression throughout the world.

So, how many of his sermons have you read in their entirety? I admitted that I have only heard the one in its entirety, and that I have read selective quotes from others. I found it interesting that in the one case I did check, the quotes did not come close to representing fairly the actual message he was trying to convey. So I am curious to see whether your impression is based on quote reading, or actual reading of entire sermons.

As for him proclaiming his love for America, it seemed to me that this was implicit in his entire sermon. Maybe you need a quote from that sermon that says, "I love America" in order to be convinced, but I don't. I think it is fairly clear that he loves America from the overall message. You can love your family, recognize it has real problems, and try to spur it to get better through tough criticism all at the same time. I don't see a problem in that.

Maybe when we have both listened to a good number of his sermons in their entirety, and fairly examined them to discover what the intent of his message is, we can come back and have something more useful to say on the subject. As things stand, I think it is unfairly prejudicial to take a few far-out statements in isolation from a thirty-year career in the ministry and make bold proclamations about the character and beliefs of the speaker. I will not base my political decisions on such negative proof-texting.

Carefully note, however, that I am not accusing you of doing that. I have no idea, but that you have careful studied his entire oeuvre, and are coming to a considered conclusion based on such careful examination. I am interested to see what you have actually done to draw the conclusions you have presented here.

[_dartagnan]

I don't recall hearing that in Wright's sermon. Maybe you can point me to the passage where he says that. Are we thinking of different speeches?

I am referring to the famous "God damn America" phrase. Dwight Hopkins a professor at the University of Chicago Divinity School says this phrase,"means a sacred condemnation by God to a wayward nation who has strayed from issues of justice, strayed from issues of peace, strayed from issues of reconciliation."

I believe that is what Wright was saying, that God is not on America's side. And how could he be after hearing the description of America in Wright's eyes? He says nothing positive, and exagerrates the negative. Wright clearly did not believe God was on America's side on the war. Palin was attacked for saying God was on our side in the war, even though she never said that. To this day the media outlets have never noted their mistake and let the falsehood stand

If there was anything in what you said that prompted me to think about this issue further and post here, it was your contention that Wright sees "nothing good" coming from American government, which must have been hyperbole on your part.

No, I stand by that. Can you name something good he has said about America? I guess he thinks it is good in the sense that it has so many blacks chosen by God, but as far as the government is concerned, what good has he said of it?

What I am bothered about is the tendency for differences on what constitutes the ideal America devolving into accusations that certain people simply hate America. I don't know that you have made that leap, but at times it seems like you are edging up to the line, since you talk about these folks seeing nothing good in American government, or viewing American corporations as monsters that need robbing

Well, this is based on my understanding of Black Liberation Theology.

Some of the rhetoric here is supplied by you, and I want to make sure you aren't exaggerating in order to persuade.

It is possible, but I don't think I am. I am simply sharing what I know about what Black Liberation Theology teaches. Is that wrong? Obama attended a Black Liberation Church for twenty years. It corresponds to his background with race-baiting extremists. It corresponds with his obsession with all things racial with respect to socio-economics. His pastor has said some truly offensive and outrageous things about this country, and now Obama wants to be its commander in chief. Is questioning the religious teachings of pastors of candidates only appropriate when they are white Evangelicals?

Black privilege again?

Not that I don't believe that you believe what you are saying is true. There may be, however, a difference between your conviction, and what is the case. Looking past selective quotes and colorful language is one way I hope to figure out what is going on.

Well, I recommend you study more about Black Liberation Theology.

Unfortunately, few of Wrights sermons are available on the web, but what does exist online, corresponds well with what I have been saying about BLT.

According to Anthony Pinn, who teaches philosophy and religion at Rice University in Houston: "God's presence in the world is best depicted through God's involvement in the struggle for justice. God is so intimately connected to the community that suffers, that God becomes a part of that community."

Dwight Hopkins, says black liberation theology admittedly interprets passages in the New Testament literally, particularly the charity of Jesus passages. Their goal is to create something of a theocratic state that follows these principles to the letter. Give to the poor man no matter if it means giving him your shirt or even giving up your life for him.

If anything should scare the living bejeezus out of our resident atheists, it is Barack Obama and his belief that God is with him in his political agenda of stealing from the rich and giving to the poor and fostering this eternal atmosphere of racial resentment and victimhood.

As for him proclaiming his love for America, it seemed to me that this was implicit in his entire sermon. Maybe you need a quote from that sermon that says, "I love America" in order to be convinced, but I don't.

Then what are you basing it on? He expresses nothing remotely similar to a love for country.

I think it is fairly clear that he loves America from the overall message. You can love your family, recognize it has real problems, and try to spur it to get better through tough criticism all at the same time. I don't see a problem in that.

I think this is a poor analogy. Surely there has to be at least one citation from the sermon that you are basing your conclusion on. Simply saying he could be speaking in love - somewhere in that cloud of hateful rhetoric - because the country is comparable to a family, and Wright probably loves his family, is a weak argument to say the least. From what I can tell, there is no indication in his sermon that he has the slightest respect for American government or society. If you really love "America," yet despise its government and society, then what's left to really love?

Again, I recommend that you read more teachings from BLT to get a better context of the hatred this man has been spewing for decades.

I think it is unfairly prejudicial to take a few far-out statements in isolation from a thirty-year career in the ministry and make bold proclamations about the character and beliefs of the speaker.

With all due respect, I'm not basing anything on "few far-out statements in isolation." I should warn you that you're on the verge of sounding like a Mormon apologist who tries to argue that context proved Gordon B. Hinckley has never been cryptic or disingenuous in interviews with journalists. That he really does know God is a man and that it is taught regularly in Church. If you study LDS doctrine over the years you can understand this. Likewise, if you actually study the fundamental principles behind BLT and what makes it different from other Christian faiths, you'll have a better grasp on what Wright's comments meant and so much of Obama's past and statements will make better sense.

I will not base my political decisions on such negative proof-texting.

I would never base a political decision strictly on what someone's religious teacher taught either. I mean that would be religious bigotry. Well, maybe not if the teacher was black (grin). Black privilege and all that jazz.

Wright was such a minor point in all that I provided, I'm surprised you're still focusing on it. There is plenty reason not to vote for Obama, which has hardly anything to do with Wright. The simple fact that Obama is connected to the parties responsible for the recent collapse at Wall Street, should be enough evidence to sway most reasonable voters. In a perfect world, this alone should be enough to launch McCain into the white house. But people still have to rely on the liberal media for their information.

I notice you didn't address his comments about the US government planting HIV to kill millions of African blacks. This sounds like Obama's argument that the US government started the Iraq war as a means to detract attention away from the crimes against America's minorities. LOL. I mean, this has BLT written all over it.

At what point do you actually have to say to yourself, this guy is a moron who really does hate America? I mean really, what does it take to prove he hates America? Does he have to commit terrorism against it? Well, if that's the case, then what do we do with Bill Ayers, who Obama thinks is respectable? Were those bombs planted out of context? I appreciate you trying to be fair and giving him the benefit of the doubt, but where does one cross that line of reasonable doubt? If Palin's pastor had said even a fraction of this stuff, she'd be tarred and feathered and they burnt at the stake, along with her husband, children and her future grand children.

Carefully note, however, that I am not accusing you of doing that. I have no idea, but that you have careful studied his entire oeuvre, and are coming to a considered conclusion based on such careful examination. I am interested to see what you have actually done to draw the conclusions you have presented here.

Well as I said, my view is based on much more data than Obama's affiliation with Wright. Wright is just the tip of the iceberg.