| Back to Home > Bulletin Board > Current Events > Topic: Wright vs Wrong |
Topic: Wright vs Wrong
| Author | Message |
| Queen Kong | Posted – 4/30/2008 11:49:34 PM | show profile All things considered, there is one thing about Jeremiah Wright that I give him kudos for: he has not changed his opinions, his posture, or his determination because the national spotlight has been cast on the substance of his preachings. He is today the same minister with the same attitude he had last week, last month, last year, 5 years ago, 10 years ago, and 20 years ago. The only person who has done an about-face when the temperature degree became boiling hot is: Obama. |
| noname1234 | Posted – 4/30/2008 11:57:17 PM | show profile How do you know how Wright has changed or not changed over the last 20 years? What research have you done into his ministry to make that evaluation? |
| Queen Kong | Posted – 5/1/2008 12:43:15 AM | show profile I have a very close friend who is a UCC minister. I also know other members of UCC. Furthermore, it's already being discussed outside of theological circles. Lastly, if you watched the entirety of his appearances at the NAACP and the National Press conference you saw the exact same firebrand you see in the DVDs of his sermons (and not just the :30 segments the general public has been exposed to on YouTube and cable news programs). Seek and you shall find. |
| HyancinthGirl | Posted – 5/1/2008 1:09:24 AM | show profile Ugh. Politics are exhausting me instead of exciting me this year. I think we should forget about the candidates and worry more about who will be their running mates. After all, if one of the three dies in office (ya know, stoke, stray bullet because some group is pissed off) I'm going to be really concerned with the VP's politics. If Bush suddenly died, we'd have Cheney. Shudder to think. |
| chucho | Posted – 5/1/2008 5:37:40 AM | show profile >> What we have here is a failure to understand language usage. << Queen: Yes, I know what "the likes of" means and all. My point is everyone knows Rev. Wrigth by name, but refer to "the likes of" some dead evangelical teevee preacher to talk about McCain's mutawwa. I just find it interesting because we all know Obama's mutawwa by name but there are a lot of people on this thread that don't seem to know the names of the mutawwa that have endorsed McCain. It's the difference between knowing somebody's name because you are paying attention and not knowing somebody's name and alluding to that person by comparison. This is relevant because I think Wright has gotten a lot more attention for his black liberation theology horse crap while McCain religious nutter has advocated far more relevant policy issues -- like calling for an immediate unilateral attack on Iran ASAP. And unlike Obama, McCain has embraced Rev. Hagee's open endorsement. So basically, if you're gonna make comparisons, you should be able to identify these people by name and if the media is going to fixate on politician's mutawwas they should do it fairly and with balance and scrutinize the GOPs religious nutters, too -- especially if they're advocating clear policy issues. Wright is a black racist preacher, but he's not calling for Obama to have certain policies. Hagee, on the other hand is preaching foreign policy issued form the pulpit. I think that's a relevant difference. So that's whay I think "the lies of Falwell" isn't good enough you people should know who Rev. Hagee is by name. He's worse than Falwell. |
| not priveledged | Posted – 5/1/2008 10:56:39 AM | show profile Chucho.... in knowing all of this about Obama and McCain.....Hillary is a clear choice. She has denounced groups like that. It was a media blitz against her. They portray Obama to almost perfection. |
| UGoGirl | Posted – 5/1/2008 12:17:00 PM | show profile Hillary will do anything to win as evidenced by her gutless pandering. I've lost all respect for the lady. |
| chucho | Posted – 5/1/2008 12:18:42 PM | show profile Np: Clinton has a universal health care plan that will probably make me vote for her (probably), but I woudl do that holding my nose in disgust for her support of the right wing war in Iraq (and her continue indications that should could very well bomb Iran just like McCain would), I hold her in contempt for her support of the Bankruptcy Reform Bill and all that money she's been getting from the financial services industry. I hold her in contempt for being beholden to corporate interests her entire life. I do not like Hillary Clinton, and I wouldn't cry if she didn't make it. |
| Printingman | Posted – 5/1/2008 12:48:46 PM | show profile | email poster Chucho, throughout the years, you have always come up with the best misinformation and disinformation We all know Hillary would have no part in bombing Iran, Hillary would exhaust every option possible both diplomatically and ethically before that kind of decision (if ever) wold be made. |
| not priveledged | Posted – 5/1/2008 3:10:02 PM | show profile Ugo...That was very devious of you, my goodness. It seems that objectivity keeps escaping you in Senator Obama's pandering! Dialog from - "McCain and Hillary's Gas Tax Joke" Ugo - "Obama knows it wouldn't go anywhere either, but he's not pandering. Gotta like that! I hope he doesn't have to resort to the absurdity." Novel - "Don't you think it is a little absurd that Obama asked to put signs up at the fuel pumps in his district stating, "Senator Obama reduced your gasoline prices" after voting for a gas tax suspension in his home state of Illinois. (source: Illinois senate transcript 4/15/2000)" Ugo - "Good for Barack Obama for resisting this shameful pandering" Novel - "No, he is very adeptly using media, the American people, and the system to win an election. Now that's the epitome of pandering." Ugo, it shows quite obviously here... that you just love to love Barack Obama and love to hate Hillary Clinton! You have a complete lack objectivity, based on your political hopes. He is not who he appears to be! I say - People wake up! Place your vote! Vote Hillary Clinton! Don't allow yourselves to continue to be unaware of this very saavy and slick politician! He is not as benign as he leads you to believe! |
| not priveledged | Posted – 5/1/2008 3:13:14 PM | show profile Chucho...health care is a monumental issue. |
| Queen Kong | Posted – 5/2/2008 4:10:10 AM | show profile > chucho Posted ? 5/1/2008 12:18:42 PM < >> I hold her in contempt for her support of the Bankruptcy Reform Bill << Senator Clinton DID NOT vote for the bill. It's one thing to dislike Clinton -- but when you so vehemently tell lies about her record you lose your credibility. I'm not going to check any other assertions you've made about her. One Pinocchio Moment is enough. source: http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=109&session=1&vote=00044 Clinton (D-NY), Not Voting Obama (D-IL), Nay McCain (R-AZ), Yea |
| chucho | Posted – 5/2/2008 5:54:30 AM | show profile >> Senator Clinton DID NOT vote for the bill. << Queen; She voted for the bill in 2001. T >> Senator Clinton DID NOT vote for the bill. << Queen, she voted for the bill in 2001. The NYT calls it a "mixed record": "Actually, Mrs. Clinton has a mixed record on the bankruptcy bill, which wended its way through Congress over the course of several years, and on fighting the banks, which are a major constituency and major source of campaign contributions in New York. . . . The bill popped up again 2001, which was Mrs. Clinton?s first year in the Senate. She worked with Republicans on it and was one of 36 Democrats who helped it pass the Senate, saying it had been improved from when she opposed it. Still, this version was vigorously opposed by consumer groups and unions, and ultimately did not become law." |
| HyancinthGirl | Posted – 5/2/2008 9:21:28 AM | show profile To sort of segue back to the original topic at hand, has anyone seen the entire speech that Rev. Wright made where he remarked, "God damn America"? I just watched it for the first time all the way through last evening, and the snippets that we were shown really do try to skew his opinion. He actually goes into the oppression of women and how rich white America is keeping them down. It's an interesting change from what I thought the original sermon was trying to achieve. |
| chucho | Posted – 5/2/2008 10:05:56 AM | show profile I forgot to post the link for Queen to read. SO, no, I'm not lying: http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2007/08/08/clinton-and-the-bankruptcy-law/ Clinton opposed it then added a bipartisan rider on custody payments, then voted for it along with a handful of Democrats. Then she didn't vote because, as you have pointed out, her husband was under the knife, and then said she would have voted against it. The bill she did vote for along with 35 other Democrats in the Senate was "vigorously opposed by consumer groups and unions". . . . "Mr. Obama and former Senator John Edwards of North Carolina have been hammering Senator Clinton for accepting money from ?Washington lobbyists,? who have given far more to her ($413,000) than they have given to anyone else this year." Clinton is playing both sides here: she wants the money from Wall Street, she wants the poor black Brooklyn women's vote. I call this classic NeoLiberalism. And she did vote for that bill. Ergo: I'm not lying. |
| PluckyPane | Posted – 5/2/2008 1:07:26 PM | show profile hg, there's a thread in the tv news corner about this. |
| Queen Kong | Posted – 5/3/2008 6:14:52 AM | show profile > chucho Posted ? 5/2/2008 5:54:30 AM < >> Queen; She voted for the bill in 2001. << Why is this so difficult to understand? 2001 is not 2005. The negotiations and compromises of the 2001 bill -- which did not pass -- were different when the bill resurfaced in 2005. Measure S. 256 (the Bankruptcy Reform Bill) is formally called "Bankruptcy Abuse Prevention and Consumer Protection Act of 2005." When the Senate vote was convened, Senator Clinton was not present; however, prior to the final vote, she voted against cloture of S. 256. Whichever way you twist and turn it, Hillary Clinton DID NOT vote for the bankruptcy bill of 2005. |
| chucho | Posted – 5/3/2008 9:57:02 AM | show profile Whichever way you twist and turn it, Hillary Clinton DID NOT vote for the bankruptcy bill of 2005. << #1.) You're the one making the twisting distinction between the 2000 version and the 2005 version. #2.) It's essentially the same bill, which was vehemently opposed by labor and union -- traditional Democratic strongholds. You need to see the forest here: Hillary Clinton made a very shrewd, but dishonest, move here. She didn't want to vote for the early version until she was able to put in some "bipartisan" compromise that protected recipients of alimony from the bill's hawkish approach to consumer bankruptcy. This allowed her to say "hey, I managed to negotiate a bipartisan agreement for the protection of single moms, blah blah blah" But this was crap. She did that to flim flam and spin her support of the bill. It might be noble to protect single parents receiving alimony from the strictures of the bill, but what about the rest of society? And I don't beleive for a moment that the difference between supporting and not supporting this bill was based on the alimony issue. She needed SOMETHING to justify her support, so she decided that in order to vote for the bill she needed to get something out of it -- and I truly believe the her support for that bill had a lot more to do with protecting the interests of the financial services industry than it did to protect single moms. I think it's completely "Kool Aide" to not see that Clinton is very shrewd in her style and that she wasn't going to vote for a bill that would alienate her constituency without something she could spin into her decision. Then the second version comes around, stripped of what it was she needed to justify voting for something like that, and instead of having to make a decision she did not have to make the decision because of personal circumstances -- and now she wants you to believe that in a hypothetical world where she would have been present for that vote that day, she would have opposed it because some bipartisan thing on alimony wasn't present in that version? Please. But my main point here is I'm not lying. And if you don't think Clinton isn't beholden to Wall Street, you probably need to lay off the powdered fruit-flavored drink. |
| chucho | Posted – 5/3/2008 10:01:47 AM | show profile >> But this was crap. She did that to flim flam and spin her support of the bill. It might be noble to protect single parents receiving alimony from the strictures of the bill, but what about the rest of society? << I am repeating that because if Clinton decided she need to protect single parents from this bill, why woudl she support a bill in which you have to protect certain segment of society (and not others) from the legislation? This is nuts. If the bill is bad for single moms it's bad for a lot of people. Clinton knew that. But she also gets a crap-load of money from lobbyists, financial services industry and corporate lawyers. She was on the board of frickin' Wal Mart, which fights against labor rights (so much that at least one sate is suing Wal-Mart for publishing an internal memo on how to skirt providing health insurance to its employees and sticking the government with the tab). I think any true liberal Democrat would be skeptical not only of Clinton but even of Obama. But as I said before: the choices are so bad I'll probably end up gambling on Clinton because at least she pretends to be seeking universal health care for all. |
