sharkman Posted April 30, 2008 Report Share Posted April 30, 2008 I disagree. Obama was in that church for 20 years, remember. He is fine with Wright's cultural ideologies, he just can't be seen to agree with them since they are so radical, and he finally gets that. Too late. Watching the various news talk shows yesterday (Anderson Cooper among others) there is talk that Wright was acting quite weird at times during his press conference and may have been damaging Obama's campaign on purpose. I have no idea if that is right, but you could clearly see the man has a huge ego and loves the spotlight. I also mentioned yesterday with a link that Wright began using bodyguards. It is confirmed that they are from the Nation of Islam. During Wright's press conference, he was asked, "Jesus said I am the way, the truth, and the light. Is Islam the way to salvation?” Wright: Jesus also said “other sheep I have, which are not of this fold.” This is not what Jesus meant, he was talking about Jews and Gentiles. Christianity does not have any pro Muslim doctrine and the same is true about Islam. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
noahbody Posted April 30, 2008 Report Share Posted April 30, 2008 I said blacks will never get over their anger while people keep dismissing it as not being legitimate. Wright hopes blacks will never get over their anger. If Obama is made King, he knows "God Damn America" will be a tough sell. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AngusThermopyle Posted May 1, 2008 Report Share Posted May 1, 2008 And you are suprised? She thinks that Hitler and Churchill were moral equivelants. smile.gif Seriously? You must be joking, right? What kind of mental gymnastics does someone have to indulge in to come to that erroneous conclusion? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BC_chick Posted May 2, 2008 Report Share Posted May 2, 2008 Anger is legitimate? Do you mean that Wright has a right to be angry? With his anger, and a buck 50, he can buy a cup of coffee.BC Chick, anger gets you nowhere. Just ask the Palestinians, American blacks, the Serbs and yes - Quebec nationalists. It's easy for you to think people should be forgiving and let go of their anger, but you might feel very differently if it were your ancestors who were shackled up and beaten, if no apology ever took place for those crimes, if it were your skin-colour for which you were ridiculed and belittled periodically throughout your life, and if it were you who was continually told you you do not have a right to be angry at these things. In any case, if you think I was arguing that anger is rational and conducive to problem-solving, you're sadly mistaken. I was merely saying that anger is a part of being human. That, I do believe. And BTW, as others have pointed out above, I wasn't falling into the trap of comparable victimhood (what a pathetic pursuit, when you think about it). Instead, I merely made a comparison of style. This guy Wright reminds me of, say, Pierre Bourgault. Both had a chip on their shoulder (although Bougault was a better speaker and Wright's chip seems bigger). As I pointed out before, many French-Canadians would admit that there was more of a class-struggle taking place in their ancestors' lives than there was an ethnic one. The plight of the black slaves, on the other hand, was entirely based on race and you could not/should not find a black person who could say that maybe it wasn't that bad for the slaves. As such, I found it in bad taste to even try and make a comparison between the anger of the two groups. Anyway, this guy Wright seems to have become a (metaphorical) suicide bomber for Obama's campaign. Some even suggest that the Clinton's put him up to it. Anyway, anger and a chip on one's shoulder, whether legitimate or not, don't accomplish anything. Obama's slim chances of becoming president just went to zero. Probably. Still doesn't solve the issue that race-relations will never improve so long as people like you cannot acknowledge that the anger is warranted (even if it is futile). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BC_chick Posted May 2, 2008 Report Share Posted May 2, 2008 Seriously? You must be joking, right?What kind of mental gymnastics does someone have to indulge in to come to that erroneous conclusion? It starts with a good warmup and plenty of stretching... nothing worth hijacking this thread for. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AngusThermopyle Posted May 2, 2008 Report Share Posted May 2, 2008 nothing worth hijacking this thread for. No hijacking, I just couldn't believe that anyone could be so disconnected from reality as to actually believe that. In fact since you don't deny it I guess it must be true. I'm still having a hard time believing that you genuinely believe this. In fact now I'm wondering what factors led you to believe such a fallacious concept. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
M.Dancer Posted May 2, 2008 Report Share Posted May 2, 2008 It starts with a good warmup and plenty of stretching... nothing worth hijacking this thread for. pxplskthxbye Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BC_chick Posted May 2, 2008 Report Share Posted May 2, 2008 (edited) No hijacking, I just couldn't believe that anyone could be so disconnected from reality as to actually believe that. In fact since you don't deny it I guess it must be true. I'm still having a hard time believing that you genuinely believe this. In fact now I'm wondering what factors led you to believe such a fallacious concept. No hijacking.... you just insist on knowing my opinon on a subject completely irrelevant to this thread. I see. Fine, have it your way, in a "non-hijacked" sort of way: In a nutshell, my opinion is a continuation of my thread on Hillary Clinton nuking Iran.... some people around here insist that there is a good guy and a bad guy in war. August likes to make the comparison between Hells Angels and RCMP to drive this point in. I don't see it like that - I see August's example as justice which I differentiate from revenge. Carpet-bombing civilian areas in Germany or dropping a nuke on Tehran, IMO, is not justice. It's revenge. As such, war is never moral. The reasons for going to war, on the other hand, do vary. The end result though - is the same. Innocents are killed and they are "collateral damage." That's not justice. But others choose to put words in my mouth and assassinate my character. It beats having to look in the mirror and see why blacks are angry at whites I suppose. Edited May 3, 2008 by BC_chick Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BC_chick Posted May 2, 2008 Report Share Posted May 2, 2008 pxplskthxbye Practising your nouns and pronouns again? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AngusThermopyle Posted May 2, 2008 Report Share Posted May 2, 2008 Actually I agree with some of your points. However that does not make the comparrison valid. War is not just, never has been and never will be. In short, the goal of war is not to seek justice, its more closely tied to conquest or survival, but most certainly not justice. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sharkman Posted May 4, 2008 Report Share Posted May 4, 2008 The question is, Angus, when a person shows such poor analysis on things like Churchill and Hitler, can one trust them on other things? I once heard it said that war is only negotiation by other means. In some ways this is true, in some others no. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.