The politics of racial hatred

[gabosaurus]

It's a shame that Obama has to continually address the controversy with Rev. Wright. After repeatedly stating that their views are divergent on so many issues.
I notice that no one is bringing up Hillary's dealings with Whitewater or her role in Bill's perjury scandal. Or any of the various scandals that McCain will be facing during the general election.

Much of the current firebombs are being lobbed by extreme right wing factions that have a lot to gain from promoting division, among the Dems and along racial lines. They are promoting racial tension that benefits right wing causes.
The see the threads and posts here from the usual sources that normally promote racial and ethnic hatred. The more I see it, the more I know who endorses the white supremacist attitudes that are coming back into vogue.
I don't feel as bad for you as I feel for your children. It's unfortunate that they have to grow up learning distrust and hatred of those different than themselves.

[Yurt]

obama the racist knew about this back in april 2007 gabs, before any MSM picked up on it. but i honestly believe he agrees with wright, but as wright said...he must say what he has to say as a politician. wright keeps the racism alive in case you haven't been following the news lately...

[Pale Rider]

It's a shame that Obama has to continually address the controversy with Rev. Wright. After repeatedly stating that their views are divergent on so many issues.
I notice that no one is bringing up Hillary's dealings with Whitewater or her role in Bill's perjury scandal. Or any of the various scandals that McCain will be facing during the general election.

Much of the current firebombs are being lobbed by extreme right wing factions that have a lot to gain from promoting division, among the Dems and along racial lines. They are promoting racial tension that benefits right wing causes.
The see the threads and posts here from the usual sources that normally promote racial and ethnic hatred. The more I see it, the more I know who endorses the white supremacist attitudes that are coming back into vogue.
I don't feel as bad for you as I feel for your children. It's unfortunate that they have to grow up learning distrust and hatred of those different than themselves.

I think hussein is the one you should be mad at... it's no ones fault but his own he adored this racist preacher for years and years. He's changed his story pertaining to the preach half a dozen times already. Lying. Each one gauged with how much damage control is needed, and he's not fooling anyone. Thing is, now that he wants to be President, it's too little, too late, and he's got himself in a pickle for not doing what he should have done twenty years ago.

[stephanie]

Pfeeesh...of course she isn't upset with Obambam or Wright...

So us WHITES AND (conservatives especially), have no right to question anything about the two Messiahs..

and you can't disagree with Obambam for his politics or his radical associations....It must be because...............HE'S BLACK.

[hjmick]

In no way is it a shame, it is an issue that is worthy of discussion because, unless the anointed one spent his time in the pew listening to his iPod or his Walkman, there is no way in hell he didn't know what the good Reverend was spouting from the pulpit for the last twenty years. This issue goes directly to his judgement and his ability to judge some one's character.

As for Hillary, she's been through the wringer more than once, and she continues to find herself on the sharp end of the political stick. Can you say "sniper fire in Bosnia?" I assure you that, should she start showing signs that she will usurp the potential reign of Obama, Whitewater, Vince Foster, Bill, and the rest of her questionable past will surface as topics for discussion. For now, it seems to me that everybody already knows about all of that whereas Obama is still something of an enigma.

Where McCain is concerned, I guess that all depends on where you hang out. I've been hearing more about the Keating 5 recently than I did when they were in the news.

I can't speak for anyone else here, but I personally couldn't care less about the color of Obama's skin. I want to know if he is the best man for the job. So far, I'm not impressed and part of the reason is his multi-tiered approach to distance himself from Reverend Wright. It strikes me as calculated, planned to limit the damage he might suffer in the Black community.

Don't forget, whoever is elected in November will be every one's President. We all have the right to ask the questions we feel that are important to us and if you, or Obama, or anyone else thinks it's tough now, just wait until after the conventions. This is not a game of tag, this is a race for the highest office in the land and one of the most powerful positions on the globe. Politics is not for the feint of heart.

[Little-Acorn]

The "politics of racial hatred", as you called it, are what's been keeping the Democrat party alive for the last several decades, as they tirelessly tell blacks, Hispanics etc. that they have enemies trying to destroy them and that only the Democratic party can help fight them off.... while in fact the presence of such "enemies" is 90% imaginary, and constantly puffed up by those Democrats in an effort to fool people into voting for them while they do nothing to "solve" the "problem". Bigots and racists certainly exist, but in far fewer numbers than the Dems (including bigots such as Jeremiah Wright) would like you to believe, and their effect is far smaller.

Same goes for the politics of class hatred, as the same Dems also ceaselessly drum - "the wealthy" are out to get you, strip you of everything you have, so we must fight them and punish them etc., ignoring the fact that many of "the wealthy" are the ones who spearhead most advances in prosperity and equal opportunity in this country (something poor people don't have the resources to do).

The reason Wright's comments are drawing so much fire, is because they are drawing attention of liberals for the first time, and exposing just where much of the racism and bigotry really lies: In the Democrat party and its supporters such as Wright. No wonder the screamoing and feigned outrage is so high.

[gabosaurus]

What makes you think that "liberals" endorse what Rev. Wright has to say?
Do "conservatives" endorse the practices of the Westboro Baptist Church? Their members believe that they speak on behalf of you.

[glockmail]

What makes you think that "liberals" endorse what Rev. Wright has to say?
Do "conservatives" endorse the practices of the Westboro Baptist Church? Their members believe that they speak on behalf of you.
I'm glad that you see equivalence there. Now tell us how much you love Obama.

[Dilloduck]

What makes you think that "liberals" endorse what Rev. Wright has to say?
Do "conservatives" endorse the practices of the Westboro Baptist Church? Their members believe that they speak on behalf of you.

Liberals are mute. Even they can't stretch the truth enough to try to apologize for Wright. ( ok--maybe MFM can )

[gabosaurus]

I'm glad that you see equivalence there. Now tell us how much you love Obama.

Why is there not an equivalence?

[glockmail]

Why is there not an equivalence? Babe- there is.

[Yurt]

Why is there not an equivalence?

what exactly is the equivalent situation you are referring to?

[manu1959]

It's a shame that Obama has to continually address the controversy with Rev. Wright.

guess he should have picked his church a bit more carefully.....guess it was a good idea at the time to be a part of a "black" church when he started off in politics.....

[glockmail]

what exactly is the equivalent situation you are referring to? Wright v. Westboro Baptist

[theHawk]

It's a shame that Obama has to continually address the controversy with Rev. Wright. After repeatedly stating that their views are divergent on so many issues.

Thats because he has been caught in a lie. No one is stupid enough to believe he never heard any of this garbage from Wright over the last twenty years. No one except the political hacks that follow him like sheep.




I notice that no one is bringing up Hillary's dealings with Whitewater or her role in Bill's perjury scandal. Or any of the various scandals that McCain will be facing during the general election.

The big guns will be pulled out for Hillary should she become the candidate.




Much of the current firebombs are being lobbed by extreme right wing factions that have a lot to gain from promoting division, among the Dems and along racial lines. They are promoting racial tension that benefits right wing causes.

Yes, its all the fault of the people pointing out the truth isn't it? The "extreme right", nor the Hillary camp put the words into Wright's mouth. It was Obama who said he was his spiritual advisor for 20 years, not Hannity. Its not the far right's fault that Obama goes onto FoxNews and tells Chris Wallace that Wright has been "caricatured" by a few sound bites, then just a few days later Wright goes to a press conference and just confirms what we all thought of him, forcing Obama to say how "shocked" he was over the new comments. Its becoming glaringly obvious that Wright has always acted this way and now Obama is screwed. Not because of what Wright is saying, but because of Obama lying about his knowledge of it.




The see the threads and posts here from the usual sources that normally promote racial and ethnic hatred. The more I see it, the more I know who endorses the white supremacist attitudes that are coming back into vogue.
I don't feel as bad for you as I feel for your children. It's unfortunate that they have to grow up learning distrust and hatred of those different than themselves.
Oh of course, anyone against Obama is a white supremacist. Thats going to be a great way to win over votes for Obama in November. :laugh2:
Nevermind the fact that his church is completely based on race and inciting racial hatred, just call everyone else racist!

[Yurt]

Wright v. Westboro Baptist

the situation is not equivalent, obama attended teh church for 20 years and was so close to his pastor that he called him uncle and wrote a book due heavily to the influence of his spiritual advisor....

[retiredman]

the situation is not equivalent, obama attended teh church for 20 years and was so close to his pastor that he called him uncle and wrote a book due heavily to the influence of his spiritual advisor....


and according to all reports, the vast majority of his preaching and his pastoring was gospel driven and caring. Jeremiah Wright still receives the endorsement of his national denomination, which trace our roots straight back to the pilgrims.

but you cannot get past the soundbites, and clearly have no real desire to. They feed your preconceived notions perfectly.

[Yurt]

and according to all reports, the vast majority of his preaching and his pastoring was gospel driven and caring. Jeremiah Wright still receives the endorsement of his national denomination, which trace our roots straight back to the pilgrims.

but you cannot get past the soundbites, and clearly have no real desire to. They feed your preconceived notions perfectly.

you cannot get past the fact <-- that not one single person in the pews acts surprised or shocked during any of the outrageous comments that were caught on tape. you cannot get past the fact <-- that wright and obama talked in april of 2007 about wright having to distance himself from obama due to wrights "controversial" sermons. you cannot get past the fact <-- that these happen to be caught on tape, no shock from the audiences, thus leading to the conclusion that he has "preached" that kind of hate before.

and are you seriously saying that the two situations are "equivelant?" if so, exactly how?

[retiredman]

you cannot get past the fact <-- that not one single person in the pews acts surprised or shocked during any of the outrageous comments that were caught on tape. you cannot get past the fact <-- that wright and obama talked in april of 2007 about wright having to distance himself from obama due to wrights "controversial" sermons. you cannot get past the fact <-- that these happen to be caught on tape, no shock from the audiences, thus leading to the conclusion that he has "preached" that kind of hate before.

and are you seriously saying that the two situations are "equivelant?" if so, exactly how?

When I heard the soundbites, some parts of some of them were a bit over the top as far as I was concerned, but as a white middle aged man, even I was not SHOCKED or SURPRISED by any of them.

I wish he had not said "God Damn America, but perhaps, "shame on America"

I have absolutely zero problem with him quoting the middle eastern diplomat who suggested that our chickens had come home to roost. We were foolish to think we could continue to arm Israel, provide Israel with unilateral uncritical support for all of its expansions into occupied territories, that we could station non-muslim troops on muslim holy ground, that we could continue to prop up and support corrupt arab dictators and monarchs, that we could invade arab countries, and continue to control the skies over their heads for a decade, that we could support economic sanctions on a country of innocent people in an attempt to punish their brutal dictator...that we could do all that and NOT suffer some form of retaliation for that. We should have expected that those actions might very well breed a violent negative reaction.

YOu cannot get past the fact that the level of controversy of sermons that Obama was worried about in 2007 might not have been as severe as the ones from which the soundbites were taken. You, of course, jump to the unsubstantiated conclusion that they were. But again...that is because it supports your preconceived bias.

[midcan5]

The Year in Hate Active U.S. Hate Groups Rise to 888 in 2007

By David Holthouse and Mark Potok

"The latest annual count by the Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC) found that the number of hate groups operating in America rose to 888 last year, up 5% from 844 groups in 2006. That capped an increase of 48% since 2000 — a hike from 602 groups attributable to the exploitation by hate groups of the continuing debate about immigration. And it comes on top of some 300 other anti-immigration groups, about half listed by SPLC as "nativist extremist," formed in the last three years.

At the same time, FBI statistics suggested that there was a 35% rise in hate crimes against Latinos between 2003 and 2006. Experts believe that such crimes are typically carried out by people who think they are attacking immigrants."

http://www.splcenter.org/intel/intelreport/article.jsp?aid=886

http://www.hatecrime.org/subpages/hatespeech/hate.html

http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/pub/pdf/hcrvp.pdf

[glockmail]

Make it 889 with Rev. Wright's church.

[avatar4321]

The Year in Hate Active U.S. Hate Groups Rise to 888 in 2007

By David Holthouse and Mark Potok

"The latest annual count by the Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC) found that the number of hate groups operating in America rose to 888 last year, up 5% from 844 groups in 2006. That capped an increase of 48% since 2000 — a hike from 602 groups attributable to the exploitation by hate groups of the continuing debate about immigration. And it comes on top of some 300 other anti-immigration groups, about half listed by SPLC as "nativist extremist," formed in the last three years.

At the same time, FBI statistics suggested that there was a 35% rise in hate crimes against Latinos between 2003 and 2006. Experts believe that such crimes are typically carried out by people who think they are attacking immigrants."

http://www.splcenter.org/intel/intelreport/article.jsp?aid=886

http://www.hatecrime.org/subpages/hatespeech/hate.html

http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/pub/pdf/hcrvp.pdf

id like to know what the standards are for determining what a "hate group" is. Simply stating that there are more hate groups without defining what a group has to do to qualify as a hate group is nothing but fluff.

[Yurt]

When I heard the soundbites, some parts of some of them were a bit over the top as far as I was concerned, but as a white middle aged man, even I was not SHOCKED or SURPRISED by any of them.

I wish he had not said "God Damn America, but perhaps, "shame on America"

I have absolutely zero problem with him quoting the middle eastern diplomat who suggested that our chickens had come home to roost. We were foolish to think we could continue to arm Israel, provide Israel with unilateral uncritical support for all of its expansions into occupied territories, that we could station non-muslim troops on muslim holy ground, that we could continue to prop up and support corrupt arab dictators and monarchs, that we could invade arab countries, and continue to control the skies over their heads for a decade, that we could support economic sanctions on a country of innocent people in an attempt to punish their brutal dictator...that we could do all that and NOT suffer some form of retaliation for that. We should have expected that those actions might very well breed a violent negative reaction.

YOu cannot get past the fact that the level of controversy of sermons that Obama was worried about in 2007 might not have been as severe as the ones from which the soundbites were taken. You, of course, jump to the unsubstantiated conclusion that they were. But again...that is because it supports your preconceived bias.


why is your cult leader obama saying that his comments do not represent his views and in fact contradict everything he stands for if wright's views are acceptable? maybe wright is correct, obama is only saying that because he must say what a politician must say....

[mundame]

maybe wright is correct, obama is only saying that because he must say what a politician must say....


Of course Wright is right.

If Obama MEANT it, he'd have left the church and Wright long ago.

[glockmail]

id like to know what the standards are for determining what a "hate group" is. Simply stating that there are more hate groups without defining what a group has to do to qualify as a hate group is nothing but fluff. A hate group is a group with beliefs that are not pee see.

[hjmick]

why is your cult leader obama saying that his comments do not represent his views and in fact contradict everything he stands for if wright's views are acceptable? maybe wright is correct, obama is only saying that because he must say what a politician must say....

Maybe? Please. The Reverend is right. Obama is saying what he needs to say as a politician, damage control. The evidence is clear, Wright said nothing over the last few days that he hasn't said before, and from the pulpit. It wasn't much more than a month ago that Obama told the nation that he could no more disown Wright than he could his own grandmother. Wright was like an Uncle. Now, not so much. What changed? Wright is still the same bombastic preacher he was before, Obama is still the same man, but the voters are taking more notice and the press, with the exception of Bill Moyers, is asking increasingly tougher questions about their relationship. Legitimately.

Wright has pointed out one of the things Obama was hoping no one would notice, he’s just another politician. His whole campaign has been predicated on one thing, that he's a different kind of politician.

Not really.

[mundame]

It wasn't much more than a month ago that Obama told the nation that he could no more disown Wright than he could his own grandmother. Wright was like an Uncle. Now, not so much. What changed?


What changed? A gazillion commentators, including the editorial page of the Wall Street Journal, advised Obama to furiously reject Wright and quick, or he'd lose out bigtime!

So Obama did that.

Then everyone says he's only doing it because he's a politician and everyone told him to, and that's true also. http://www.pagealumni.us/boards/style_emoticons/default/evil6.gif