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

[LaurieAG]

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?

 

Hi Southtown,

 

I've been in this type of situation before in the workplace. You hang in there because you can see the potential benefits from doing and making things right even if most of those people immediately involved cannot see past their own vested interests. It's called leading by example.

[modest]

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?

 

With all due respect, you don't get to say "two wrongs don't make a right" about this. You don't get to compare 400 years of subjugating, murdering, and enslaving an entire culture with feeling angry and bitter. You don't get to tell the Rev. Wright anything on the subject. After 12 generations of his family being raped and screwed by America you think you're going to tell him two wrongs don't make a right? Do you think that's funny or are you just being glib?

 

I saw that O'Reilly episode, and it was frickin' hilarious. The whole show was about false accusations of racism

 

You do think it's funny. You think it's "hilarious".

 

so Obama shouldn't appeal to any incidences of white racism in order to give credence to Wright's behavior.

;) You are audacious! You think you can chastise Obama for mentioning that Wright's culture was stolen and enslaved. Is it just too much for you to hear it? You are going to tell Obama not to talk about it! Damn you've got balls!

 

I didn't hear any valid accusations

 

And you think you get to judge how valid accusations of racism are. Wow. So, they don't get to talk about it and you are going to tell them when it's valid.

 

I like you Southtown, but honestly, please, I'm begging you...

 

-modest

[InfiniteNow]

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.

 

That's really not my problem, and IN NO WAY reflects on me.

 

 

• There are lots of people who can't conceive of the relativity of length and time.
  
• There are lots of people who can't conceive of of the constancy of the speed of light in all reference frames, and what that means.
  
• There are lots of people who can't conceive of Heisenbergian uncertainty.
  
• There are lots of people who can't conceive of a better planet without religion.
  
• There are lots of people who can't conceive of a leader who shows us how to act and doesn't bow down to our archaic beliefs as to how he or she should.
  
• There are lots of people who can't conceive of a black man or a female holding the highest position in the country.
  
• There are lots of people who can't conceive of evolution as an explanation for the richness and beauty of life.
  
• There are lots of people who can't conceive of tectonic plate movement as a key factor in the earths makeup.
  
• There are lots of people who can't conceive of the fact that our earth is 4.6 billion years old.
  
• There are lots of people who can't conceive of ever loving someone fully.
  

 

There are lots of people who can't conceive of MANY things.

 

This lack of vision and ability IN NO WAY negates the validity and truth of those things.

 

If people truly believe that the best measurement of a President is his or her pastor, then we truly have a very long way to go to solve the problems of our country and our world.

 

 

 

YouTube - Top 10 Moments in the Race for "Pastor-in-Chief" http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cHlrsuETKFo

[REASON]

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.

 

Well, he clearly is being supportive of Obama and his speech. His being supportive of Rev. Wright is speculative.

 

As for the context of each clip, I will agree that the entire context of the discussion is missing. But from that standpoint, the same could be said of the comments made by Rev. Wright that were considered so inflamatory and played on a continuous loop for nearly two days. Your context argument is the same one being used by Rev. Wright's defenders. Obama attempted in his speech to validate the context of both points of view, recognizing that issues of race remain in this country and that it is important that we work together to gain understanding and improve that condition.

 

 

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.

 

Actually, his preperatory comment was to start by saying, "one of the great things about Obama's recent speech discussing the issue of race was the way he connected the emotional experiences of various groups in America as really being a part of a common experience. But many on the right couldn't accept Obama's attempt to connect us through our common failings and common humanity, as you can see when FOX News Washington managing editor Brit Hume gave his initial reaction right after Obama's speech and actually implied Obama was dishonest for even trying to make that connection as you can see here."

 

My take on Hume's statement was that he was suggesting that Obama was trying to play both sides by on one hand identifying with Wright and the black community, and on the other his white grandmother and the white community. And that for him to form his argument by suggesting that there is any comparison between a little old white lady from another time with a mildly racist comment here or there, and the kind of comments made in this day and age by a minister from the pulpit of a Christian church, is "deceptive."

 

To me, this is a good example of what the narrator is suggesting, that Obama is attempting to draw a comparison, and commentators on the right, such as Brit Hume, don't accept it suggesting it is deceptive for him to do so.

 

There's a lot of parsing of words in this situation. I think, as you have suggested, it is important that we try to understand the context of what Obama is trying to convey, that racism is a shared experience in this country and that we have to be willing to work together to improve relations. Neither Rev. Wright or Brit Hume in this instance, are doing what Obama is advocating. Rather, they are looking to fan the flames of controversy to garner attention and ratings. I think that is part of the reason why he has rejected Wright's comments. The other being that he simply doesn't agree with them.

 

 

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.

 

I wouldn't know. As a minister, my father was firmly supportive of the Civil Rights Movement and MLK. But the bitterness of white racism in this country has long been generated throughout many facets of society outside the church environment. Obama is literally white and black, so he has the unique perspective of experiencing racism from both points of view. That is part of the reason why he is able to draw a connection.

 

 

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."

 

"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."

 

This statement by O'Reilly is indicative of the conflation I spoke about earlier. His implication is that Obama is "dangerous" because of statements made by Wright that make many Americans angry and not like him. Guilt by association, even after Obama has condemned the statements. To me, this is an unfair characterization of Obama by Mr. "No Spin." (I always imagine he is saying "nose pin," referring to what you have to wear to survive the stench of his ridiculous comments and self aggrandizement. ;))

 

 

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.

 

Maybe so. But again, it is not an attempt to bring unity as Obama is advocating, just more flames. But hey, flames = ratings = no cancellations, right? (Bill will never hesitate to remind everyone about his popularity. They all do.)

 

 

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.

 

With every action there is an equal and opposite reaction. For me, the reation (liberal or not) is partly to the notion that it is summarily wrong and unpatriotic to critcize the US. In fact, pulpit or otherwise, our right to criticize our country's failings with the intention of the betterment of it, is fundamental to the values of our constitutional democracy. Suggesting that it is wrong for someone to do so feels like an attack on my fundamental rights. Of course, then there's the conflation issue I"ve mentioned which I see as unfair.

 

 

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

 

Anger as a result of racism - Yes.

Anger for the sake of creating more racism - No.

 

But to me, this question really cuts to the true heart of the matter. This is where people who are considerate of others can find common ground and work toward a better understanding and better relations. This is what I believe Obama is advocating in his speech.

 

 

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

 

While there are those supporting Obama that may cheer on Rev. Wright, I don't think it is proper to characterize them as Obama's "base" since he has rejected Wright's inflamatory comments. I think Obama's appeal is really more with progressives than the traditional left wing. But keep in mind, no matter what you're told, Liberals don't really hate America any more than Conservatives do. They just see a different approach for success. Fortunatley, our system of checks and balances moves us in a different direction when things aren't working. Such as now. ;)

 

 

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.

 

I guess, if you consider him as having a 20 year plan to become President.

 

My impression of Barack is not this Slick Willy guy you try and make him out to be. I know it hard not to since he is a politician. But in listening to him, I have found him to seem very genuine. As an Independent, I am faced with supporting who I feel is the best candidate from any party. I was happy to see John McCain become the Republican nominee. I see him as a public rejection of Neoconservatism. I prefer more traditional conservatives that are interested more in small government, cuts in wastful spending, tax cuts, and the strength of our capitalist republic, than the colonization of other nations. But I am concerned he will continue failed Bush policies.

 

So I have decided to support Obama. (But he's definitely not my hero. :hihi:)

[Southtown]

Hi Southtown,

 

I've been in this type of situation before in the workplace. You hang in there because you can see the potential benefits from doing and making things right even if most of those people immediately involved cannot see past their own vested interests. It's called leading by example.

Sorry, ma'am, but I don't know what you mean by this.

 

With all due respect, you don't get to say "two wrongs don't make a right" about this.

Doesn't matter who says it bud, it's the truth.

 

You don't get to compare 400 years of subjugating, murdering, and enslaving an entire culture with feeling angry and bitter. You don't get to tell the Rev. Wright anything on the subject. After 12 generations of his family being raped and screwed by America you think you're going to tell him two wrongs don't make a right? Do you think that's funny or are you just being glib?

Tell them all to take it out on me if it will appease the tension. Otherwise, what will? Any talk of racial anger should be accompanied by an ultimate resolution. If not, the issue will eventually resurface.

 

You do think it's funny. You think it's "hilarious".

What exactly do I find funny? Did you see the episode?

 

You are audacious! You think you can chastise Obama for mentioning that Wright's culture was stolen and enslaved. Is it just too much for you to hear it? You are going to tell Obama not to talk about it! Damn you've got balls!

I say no more bigotist preaching by either camp, and no more defending one by citing the other.

 

And you think you get to judge how valid accusations of racism are. Wow. So, they don't get to talk about it and you are going to tell them when it's valid.

 

I like you Southtown, but honestly, please, I'm begging you...

 

-modest

No not me, dude. I'm just saying that the episode was an opportunity for some angry black organizations to plead their cause to America, and it made me chuckle. When you see it, we can debate it point by point.

 

Well, he clearly is being supportive of Obama and his speech. His being supportive of Rev. Wright is speculative.

Ok, whatever. :confused:

 

Obama attempted in his speech to validate the context of both points of view, recognizing that issues of race remain in this country and that it is important that we work together to gain understanding and improve that condition.

Rhetoric. How exactly do we (as president) plan to achieve this goal and what will it cost the "us?"

 

To me, this is a good example of what the narrator is suggesting, that Obama is attempting to draw a comparison, and commentators on the right, such as Brit Hume, don't accept it suggesting it is deceptive for him to do so.

I will acknowledge white racism. I was born in Texas, after all. But racism from a pulpit today can effect the future because old ideas are thereby being planted into new minds.

 

Neither Rev. Wright or Brit Hume in this instance, are doing what Obama is advocating. Rather, they are looking to fan the flames of controversy to garner attention and ratings.

Well, I doubt Wright is after ratings. :lol: Why does Wright do it then, I wonder. :shrug:

 

But the bitterness of white racism in this country has long been generated throughout many facets of society outside the church environment. Obama is literally white and black, so he has the unique perspective of experiencing racism from both points of view. That is part of the reason why he is able to draw a connection.

Ok. I obviously don't trust any politicians. To me they are always scheming and devising and plotting. I don't care if Obama identifies with or draws connections. It's all blabber to me. As a presidential candidate he should stick to the subject and lay out the details of some sort of plan for (executive) action.

 

This statement by O'Reilly is indicative of the conflation I spoke about earlier. His implication is that Obama is "dangerous" because of statements made by Wright that make many Americans angry and not like him. Guilt by association, even after Obama has condemned the statements. To me, this is an unfair characterization of Obama by Mr. "No Spin." (I always imagine he is saying "nose pin," referring to what you have to wear to survive the stench of his ridiculous comments and self aggrandizement. :hihi:)

By "dangerous" Bill meant politically. He was saying that some people who don't like Wright, such as myself, might look toward Obama with renewed speculation.

 

In fact, pulpit or otherwise, our right to criticize our country's failings with the intention of the betterment of it, is fundamental to the values of our constitutional democracy. Suggesting that it is wrong for someone to do so feels like an attack on my fundamental rights. Of course, then there's the conflation issue I"ve mentioned which I see as unfair.

I can't argue with that, but we seem to be moving away from the racist indoctrination side of things.

 

Anger as a result of racism - Yes.

Anger for the sake of creating more racism - No.

How about "Anger as a result of racism for the sake of creating more racism?"

 

But to me, this question really cuts to the true heart of the matter. This is where people who are considerate of others can find common ground and work toward a better understanding and better relations. This is what I believe Obama is advocating in his speech.

And who isn't? But how the hell do we go about it? The candidates rhetoric without detailed plans is like hot air without a balloon. Maybe if he went beyond the pie-in-the-sky goals and actually laid a path, then I could probably overlook my prejudice.

 

While there are those supporting Obama that may cheer on Rev. Wright, I don't think it is proper to characterize them as Obama's "base" since he has rejected Wright's inflamatory comments. I think Obama's appeal is really more with progressives than the traditional left wing. But keep in mind, no matter what you're told, Liberals don't really hate America any more than Conservatives do. They just see a different approach for success. Fortunatley, our system of checks and balances moves us in a different direction when things aren't working. Such as now. :hihi:

Buncha buzz words to me, dude. I know you got more substance underneath. I just haven't heard much from that platform in my neck of the woods, if you know what I mean.

 

I guess, if you consider him as having a 20 year plan to become President.

I do see that kind of thing as requiring a bit of foresight. ;)

 

My impression of Barack is not this Slick Willy guy you try and make him out to be. I know it hard not to since he is a politician. But in listening to him, I have found him to seem very genuine. As an Independent, I am faced with supporting who I feel is the best candidate from any party. I was happy to see John McCain become the Republican nominee. I see him as a public rejection of Neoconservatism. I prefer more traditional conservatives that are interested more in small government, cuts in wastful spending, tax cuts, and the strength of our capitalist republic, than the colonization of other nations. But I am concerned he will continue failed Bush policies.

 

So I have decided to support Obama. (But he's definitely not my hero. :hihi:)

And I have heard more real world policy laid out from McCain, but he's definitely not my hero either. :D

[Southtown]

If people truly believe that the best measurement of a President is his or her pastor, then we truly have a very long way to go to solve the problems of our country and our world.

I am not talking about Obama being judged by his friends, family, or coworkers. Wright is his pastor, he is the spiritual head of an allegiant group. This concept is not understood around here, obviously. Church goers in my experience can either come to agree with their pastor, come to part ways with their pastor, or they can just sit and stew with internal conflict. A forth possibility, I guess, is that they can just show up and smile and don't listen to a whole lot of blabber from the stage. You may say that my inability to put my finger on Obama's particular state of mind in this circumstance reflects solely on me, but I am quite familiar with church goers and you have not given me much insight which would explain why I shouldn't jump to conclusions three or four.

[InfiniteNow]

YouTube - Barack Obama in Philadelphia http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QORZY11IHMo

 

 

 

The pastor thing isn't important to me. I care about REAL issues.

 

 

:confused:

[Southtown]

The pastor thing isn't important to me. I care about REAL issues.

 

C'mon dude. Are there any real answers for those real issues?

 

Take on the oil lobbyists and invest in renewable energy that's affordable and clean and will help create 5M American jobs? That being, pray tell?

 

No tax breaks to companies that ship jobs overseas. That's funny. It's another tax hike disguised as an "incentive." Where will the increased revenue go? And where will it come from? The foreign employees? Or the domestic?

 

Reform bankruptcy laws so that employers can't dump your pension with one hand while collecting bonuses with the other? I'm not aware of that happening, but sounds good to me. How?

 

Universal health care? I've got coverage, and a 2k deductible. And even when I get coverage, the insurer decides what will be covered. I've got lots to say about insurance practices and subsequent office experiences. We best not open this bag. My medical grievances have nothing to do with the universality of health care. Even if... how?

 

Tax cuts for the middle class? But tax hikes for their employers... What rolls downhill? :hihi:

 

Federal assistance to struggling homeowners? Sure sounds good. Do I have to pay for it?

 

Independence, change, God bless America!

 

Did I miss anything real?

 

:confused:

[InfiniteNow]

Are there any real answers for those real issues?

 

Of course there are.

[REASON]

Did I miss anything real?

 

Of course you did. You've missed the reality of the failure of the status quo (except for those of the privileged few).

 

Solutions to the problems you enumerate cannot be examined if we are unwilling to test the waters. Society's willingness to test the waters often requires inspiration and motivation by good leadership. An example would be the inspiration and leadership of Martin Luther King generating a movement that led to the Civil Rights Act, an important change from the status quo at the time.

 

Change is inevitable though, and should sometimes be hastened.

 

We've seen the results the the changes made by the Bush Administration. Approximately 80% of the population feels the country is on the wrong path.

 

It's time for a new path. And this time I am choosing a candidate who is willing to recognize the general dysfunction in Washington, because you can't fix a problem if you are unwilling to recognize there is one.

[Southtown]

Of course there are.

Sorry, bro. I owe you an apology. I didn't mean to change gears like that. I know when my wife does it during an argument, I get pretty frustrated. Anyway, you were obviously saying that you listen more to a candidates ideas than you criticize his history. I understand. Sorry to change the subject like that. We can argue particular issues or whatever, but I'm not real up to speed regarding Obama's speeches, debates, etc.

[Southtown]

Of course you did. You've missed the reality of the failure of the status quo (except for those of the privileged few).

 

Solutions to the problems you enumerate cannot be examined if we are unwilling to test the waters. Society's willingness to test the waters often requires inspiration and motivation by good leadership. An example would be the inspiration and leadership of Martin Luther King generating a movement that led to the Civil Rights Act, an important change from the status quo at the time.

 

Change is inevitable though, and should sometimes be hastened.

Not all change is good, though.

 

We've seen the results the the changes made by the Bush Administration. Approximately 80% of the population feels the country is on the wrong path.

 

It's time for a new path. And this time I am choosing a candidate who is willing to recognize the general dysfuntion in Washington, because you can't fix a problem if you are unwilling to recognize there is one.

Of course, but I'll need more details before I jump on the bandwagon.

[InfiniteNow]

Sorry, bro. I owe you an apology. I didn't mean to change gears like that.

It's quite alright, Southtown. I did not take your words personally, nor did I find any personal insult in them, but I thank you tremendously for showing your true character and making this apology just in case. It's actions like this which remind me just how good of a guy you really are, and why we continue to be friends.

 

When I read your response, you listed some very real, very important, and very difficult issues. I was glad to hear something said which went beyond the pastors comments, which went beyond accusations of elitism, which went beyond false stories suggesting that his nanosecond scratch of his nose was actually him flipping people off. You raised REAL issues, and that is never something for which one should apologize. That's PRECISELY what I want people to start caring and talking about.

 

The one part of that post that I would take significant issue with was your opening, and only because your tone was that of someone already defeated. As you well know, hope and inspiration go a very long way toward changing people's lives, and I posit that, if enough individual live's are changed and inspired, then society itself will be as well.

 

The moment we go into a challenge thinking that we cannot overcome it, then we have already failed. It is a self-fulfilling prophecy, and the failure is our own creation.

 

I am not suggesting that the problems we collectively face are simple, easy, or have any silver bullets. No, sir. I am suggesting that the longer we continue distracting ourselves using the venomous policies of old and nonrelevant character attacks on those who seek HONEST improvements, and TRUE advancement of culture... those who genuinely wish to SERVE their country and who truly wish to REPRESENT our planet..

 

The longer politicians keep slinging feces at their opponents for the sole purpose of ensuring re-election the following fall... the longer our populace continues accepting this as appropriate political discourse... the longer we the citizens go on pretending that the stink which comes with all of this imaginary and rhetorical feces somehow matters...

 

...The longer we all avoid facing and overcoming our very real and shared challenges together.

 

Solving our challenges certainly won't be easy, and it definitely won't be quick, but it will be downright impossible if we continue to approach one other like immature children, and I, for one, am ready for someone who will lead us all in this effort by example.

[REASON]

Not all change is good, though.

 

This is very true. There have been many changes in our society since I was young that I am uncomfortable with, or flat out just don't like. Many of which I became aware of with fatherhood. :smart:

 

 

Of course, but I'll need more details before I jump on the bandwagon.

 

Yes. One should always tread wisely. I'm really not known for being much of a bandwagon person either. I'm more of a skeptic in behalf of common sense (if that makes any sense).

 

I believe we can agree that it is easy to be skeptical of politicians. :weather_snowing:

[wddycus]

I have been tracking this election from the very first day and most of the time I am a good judge of people. The more I listen to Obama the more I am going to vote for Clinton he sounds like a sob he try and talk over 95% of the people and that I do not like that in a President he has to be able to talk to all the people. The way he push his pastor away after all the years he had been going to his church he knows what kind of a person he is he just gave him to the wolfs. I did not like him when he play the race card about when he said all his brother should vote for me because I is black what if Clinton had come out and told all white people should vote for her the news media would have had a field day with that. I have always been for civil rights but I am sorry to say I just cannot trust him. We have to have a change Bush Has really hurt my Country. Lets Give a women a chance the men have pretty well have screw up my country it will probably take a women to clean house.

[InfiniteNow]

Well,, I've known scores of women who couldn't clean their purse, let alone fix the troubles we face as a nation and a planet.

 

Let me ask you tihs...

 

How is it that so many people continue to attribute gender and race with some special significance in this, the 21st century?

 

Try to remember, people, it's 2008, not 1008, and any individual differences (IMO) far exceed any group attributions in which we place some strange personally biased and skewed significance.

[modest]

With all due respect, you don't get to say "two wrongs don't make a right" about this.

Doesn't matter who says it bud, it's the truth...

Tell them all to take it out on me if it will appease the tension. Otherwise, what will?

 

I'll tell you what will appease the tension. You could apologize.

 

When people feel wronged they will speak out. It’s the least they will do. Political correctness has curtailed the concept of late. But, it is still a conservative ideal and more than that it is the American way.

 

Conservative activists might feel wronged by Mexican immigrants. Some might scream and shout obout the “Goddamn Mexican rats coming to take our jobs”. They also might go down to the border with guns and try to find them.

 

Activists in front of abortion clinics scream at little girls, “God hates you murderers”. A southern Baptist preacher promises hell for the gay member of the congregation, and Rush Limbaugh begged his listeners to riot in Denver today.

 

People get pissed over some truly ridiculous things. But you, Southtown - you have picked the wrong group of people and the wrong subject to tell people to shut up and quit whining about. You not only failed to recognize righteous indignation - you missed it by a mile. Anger over racism and slavery is not “wrong” as you say it is. It is righteous. If you are Christian (I have no idea if that’s the case and I don’t want to offend if your religion is other or none), but if you are then this is a concept you should like. This is the kind of anger that is not a sin. Jesus trashing the temple and going after the moneychangers was righteous anger.

 

Not only did you fail to understand Rev. Wright’s anger was justified, you further mocked other victims of racism - saying it is “not valid” and “hilarious”. Then you tell Obama it is “wrong” to explain what it means to feel anger from being the victim of racial inequality. You need to apologize for all of this.

 

Two days after the 9/11 attacks Pat Roberson and Jerry Falwell said America deserved to be attacked. They said God gave us what we deserved because of feminism and gays and separation of church and state. This is not righteous indignation because gay people didn’t attack America on 9/11. This kind of anger is prevalent in churches and it’s pointed at homosexuals and feminists and secularism and it is wrong. It is not righteous. You should be able to see the difference.

 

To John McCain's credit he could see the difference back in 2000 when he refused to align himself with Falwell and Roberson unlike Bush. So this isn't a political issue to me. McCain is again doing what is right by insisting the RNC not attack Obama for what his reverend said. That, Southtown, is what's "right". And, when you say “two wrongs don’t make a right” as a way to tell black people not to get too upset about racism and slavery, I don’t think you realize how unbelievably bad that looks. I think an apology would go a long way.

 

-modest