Who would you like to see as the next US President?

[freeztar]

Yep. God bless George W.

 

;)

[REASON]

 

I believe he means Washington. I could be wrong. ;)

[Southtown]

Believing is a tricky thing, you see... I could be wrong.

[Thunderbird]

Yep. God bless George W.

 

 

How about about M.L.K.?

[Southtown]

How about about M.L.K.?

Oh gee. My mistake. I thought you said "modern." ;)

[Thunderbird]

Oh gee. My mistake. I thought you said "modern." :)

 

I did say modern.:)

[C1ay]

They are running for an office which represents the entire population, complete with all of it's disagreements and different points of view.

 

That there is part of the problem. The President of the United States IS NOT a representative of the people, he/she is an executive of the laws written by the representatives of the people. The people need to learn that they are not electing a representative to support their point of view.

[Thunderbird]

That there is part of the problem. The President of the United States IS NOT a representative of the people, he/she is an executive of the laws written by the representatives of the people. The people need to learn that they are not electing a representative to support their point of view.

 

 

Yea, but it makes for a horrible stump speech “ I am not a representative of the people, I am an enforcer of laws”

[InfiniteNow]

That there is part of the problem. The President of the United States IS NOT a representative of the people, he/she is an executive of the laws written by the representatives of the people. The people need to learn that they are not electing a representative to support their point of view.

 

I've never heard of such a thing. Would it be possible for you to share where this approach is articulated so that I may further educate myself? Hoping also that you'll be more specific than something like "it's in the constitution." :D

[Southtown]

I did say modern.:)

I could have said MLK mon, but I then I would be showing my age. :)

[Southtown]

Ok. It seems I may have been right about Wright appealing to a certain base. Quite a divisive topic this may be after all. Much to discuss! :)

 

YouTube - White America Victimized by Black Anger About Racism? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oNRXyrkLGt4

[REASON]

Ok. It seems I may have been right about Wright appealing to a certain base. Quite a divisive topic this may be after all. Much to discuss! :shrug:

 

I don't think the video you included is indicative of your statement above that the Wright issue should remain a devisive topic. The need for it to remain devisive comes out of the need to discredit an obviously popular political opponent.

 

Wright's appeal is inconsequential in this matter since he is not running for President.

 

Anyway, a few sound bites is hardly enough information to assassinate the character and integrity of Rev. Wright, even when the the comments he made can be perceived as inflamatory. But its not like he's advocating preemptive war. He was condemning perceived injustices here at home.

 

Assassinating Obama's character and integrity based on controversial statements made by his pastor amounts to guilt by association. Obama should be judged on his own merits.

[Southtown]

I don't think the video you included is indicative of your statement above that the Wright issue should remain a devisive topic. The need for it to remain devisive comes out of the need to discredit an obviously popular political opponent.

The video seemed to me to be only a short enough slice of each show to convey the views of the narrator, an apparent Obama and Wright supporter. Also, each clip seemed completely void of context.

 

For example, Mr. Narrator's only preparatory comment for the Brit Hume clip was that he "actually implied Obama was dishonest for even trying to" connect black racism with white racism. But Brit Hume said in the clip (and I paraphrase) that Barack's grandmother came from a different time than Wright did and that her racial slurs were more accepted in pre-civil-rights days. "Some may find it deceptive," were Brit's actual words. "Why doesn't Brit Hume just speak for himself?" Mr. Narrator retorts, talking around Brit's point, I feel.

 

My take is that two wrongs don't make a right anyway, so Obama shouldn't appeal to any incidences of white racism in order to give credence to Wright's behavior. I have never heard any white racial slurs when I was attending churches. The only place to hear racial remarks from a pulpit these days are in kkk meetings, or so I thought.

 

Also, I saw that O'Reilly episode, and it was frickin' hilarious. The whole show was about false accusations of racism by a select few organizations, and good ol' Bill gave them airtime to voice their views. Personally, I didn't hear any valid accusations. But, my point here is that Mr. Narrator actually makes me laugh when he segways into the clip with a description that has nothing to do with the context of Bill's episode.

 

"Even worse [than Brit], later that day Fox News' Bill O'Reilly came on to explain that it's not that whites don't understand racism, or even that whites don't understand black anger about racism, but according to O'Reilly the real problem is that blacks don't understand white anger over black anger about racism, as you can see him argue here."

-- Mr. Narrator

 

"I don't know whether you understand the anger that many Americans hold for people like Reverend Wright. They really don't like him, and I think anything around him is going to be dangerous."

-- Mr. Bill

The entire point of that O'Reilly episode was to investigate the validity of said "black anger" by dedicating a whole show to airing the views of certain activist organizations (and commenting on them, of course.) After automatically assuming that said "black anger" is valid, Mr. Narrator then continues to defend the source of Rev. Wright's anger with clips from various late night television shows.

 

The fact that there's now a liberal momentum against the reaction of people who disapprove of Wright astonishes me. So, as I said, there is in fact a certain liberal base of people who sympathize with Wright, and I doubt very highly that a man a smart as Obama discounted that fact, nor its value in an Presidential Candidacy.

 

But I ask, is any anger that stirs up more racism ever really justified?

 

Anyway, a few sound bites is hardly enough information to assassinate the character and integrity of Rev. Wright, even when the the comments he made can be perceived as inflamatory. But its not like he's advocating preemptive war. He was condemning perceived injustices here at home.

I am not condemning Wright. I'm only saying that people exist in Barack Obama's base that would cheer the Reverend on.

 

Assassinating Obama's character and integrity based on controversial statements made by his pastor amounts to guilt by association. Obama should be judged on his own merits.

Neither am I condemning Obama. I simply suggest that the man knew that Wright could help him with a certain crowd of people, since he spent that last 20+ years going to church with some of them.

[InfiniteNow]

Sorry mate. Your comments are still concerns about Wright, and not Obama himself.

 

It's as if you're judging my character by the craziness of my ex-girlfriends. Frankly, if you do that, I am pretty well screwed. I only ask that you judge ME, not by the words of people I know or knew, but what I do and who I am. Judge ME. Look at who I am, and what I do. I've had some batshit crazy chicks in my life, and I've had some pretty disturbed friends as well. But, they're not me, so discussions of them and their lives is not relevant to me or my character.

 

In a mature society such as ours, I can only hope that the same sentiment applies as well to someone running for President.

[Southtown]

With all due respect, if crazy girlfriends or disturbed friends started a congregation and preached at you every week, but you continued to attend, would you do it out of allegiance or alliance?

 

I consider you a friend, would you attend my church? ;)

[InfiniteNow]

I consider you a friend, would you attend my church? ;)

 

It's very possible that I would, since I enjoy the company of my friends, and the social cohesion brought to us within a church setting. However, my attendance would not signify my total accpetance and complicity in your personal actions and beliefs, and anyone who suggested othewise would be grasping at straws for ways to besmirch my character.

 

I'm frankly pretty comfortable if you attack me. However, if you begin attacking those around me as if it is somehow relevant, then I lose any hope of defending myself from this irrational attack, and I can only hope to demonstrate that the comments being lodged at me were nothing but non-sequitur from the start.

 

I can defend my own actions, words, and beliefs. The moment you start asking me to defend the same attributes of others with whom I associate, then your battle has begun with the default position being guilt without possibility of logical proof to the contrary.

[Southtown]

Ok. I see your point of view. But there are church goers who take the sermons seriously. And those people can't conceive that someone could attend for 20+ years without some sort of devotion to the subject matter. I speak from experience. These people will be hard pressed to see your point as I do.