Obama and Rev. Wright

[Totenkopf]

While I think his long association with the man raises questions, it won't impact my decision about Obama. Obama is basically a big govt socialist (not much different than Hilary, but more left leaning) and that's why I could never vote for the man.

[mimartin]

I love how democrats are labeled “Big Government” socialist, spenders as a sort of put down. Yet, the Republicans have became the party of “Big Government” Corporate American yes men whose only real concerns are “Big Business” and the “Religious Right.” The Republicans are even more financially unstable than their liberal counterparts (what else would you call someone that spends at the same rate as the liberals yet cuts taxes at the same time, borrow and spend < tax and spend, at least to a real conservatives).

 

Likewise, Obama gaffe or Rev. Wright’s comments will not affect my vote for the big government socialist party over the big government big business party.

 

I’m starting to sound like

[JCarter426]

The Republicans are even more financially unstable than their liberal counterparts (what else would you call someone that spends at the same rate as the liberals yet cuts taxes at the same time, borrow and spend < tax and spend, at least to a real conservatives).

 

Reminds me of a certain senator who wants to cut taxes and give out free healthcare. No, not him, the other one.

 

By the way, anyone notice that the three major candidates are senators? The last senator to be elected president was one John F. Kennedy, almost fifty years ago.

 

He was also the last northerner to be elected. Just some random trivia for you.

[mimartin]

Reminds me of a certain senator who wants to cut taxes and give out free healthcare. No, not him, the other one.

Not really, she wants to cut the taxes on the middle class while doing away with the Bush tax cuts that benefited millionaires. At least according to Urban Institute-Brookings Institution Tax Policy Center that is who benefited the most. Also most of these were not asked for by Bush, they were added by the Republican Congress, which John McCain was a member. Therefore, it was just a rogue Republican deciding that we should over spend and run up a huge deficit.

According to the Urban Institute-Brookings Institution Tax Policy Center, a majority of the tax cuts from these two tax-cut measures — 54 percent of these tax cuts, to be precise — will go to the 0.2 percent of households that have annual incomes of more than $1 million a year. These households will receive added tax cuts averaging nearly $20,000 a year from these two tax-cut measures, when the measures are fully in effect.[/Quote] In fairness, they passed congress in 2001 before 9/11/2001, before the wars and before Katrina. The irresponsibility happens after these things happened and the tax cuts were not repealed or modified even though we increased spending.

 

Didn’t the Republicans once favor a balance budget amendment? This is why I am no longer a Republican. I am a conservative when it comes to financial matters and spending, but those concepts died within the Republican Party long ago.

 

 

Got a kick out of Obama’s people getting this picture of President Clinton and Rev. Wright in the White House out to the media. That can change my impression of him, but it still want get me voting for a Republican.

[JCarter426]

Not really, she wants to cut the taxes on the middle class while doing away with the Bush tax cuts that benefited millionaires.

 

Yeah, that will take care of the cost for a while, but it's not a good permanent solution.

 

Didn’t the Republicans once favor a balance budget amendment? This is why I am no longer a Republican. I am a conservative when it comes to financial matters and spending, but those concepts died within the Republican Party long ago.

 

This is why I don't trust Republicans--they keep changing their views on the economy, they can't decide whether they're for States' Rights or Big Government...

 

That doesn't mean I trust Democrats any more, though.

 

In fairness, they passed congress in 2001 before 9/11/2001, before the wars and before Katrina.

Not before there were plans to go into Iraq, though--but that's not entirely Congress' fault...oh, wait, it is, because they admonished their power to declare war decades ago.

[Totenkopf]

Not before there were plans to go into Iraq, though--but that's not entirely Congress' fault...oh, wait, it is, because they admonished their power to declare war decades ago.

 

I think you meant abdicated.

 

@mimartin--I agree that this administration budgets $$ like drunken dems. On the other hand, the drunken dems in Congress have done little to try and stop him. I don't know about you, but we're overtaxed, especially given the value we receive for the extortion we endure. I think, though, that both parties are moving toward bigger and bigger centralized govt, just that the dems are running toward it while the reps amble inexorably forward. I think that we probably need some kind of peaceful (hopefully)revolution to reverse this, but don't see it happening anytime soon. As a footnote, I recall that even though Reagan dropped the top capital gains rate and still increased the $$ coming into the Treasury, the dems managed to spend something like $1.37 for every $1 of revenue generated. Tax and borrow and spend, apparently. The troubling thing, however, is that there's a $53 trillion dollar entitlement debt (SS)looming over us in the immediate future. Combined with interest payments on the debt, we are screwed no matter what we end up doing in the forseeable future.

[JCarter426]

I think you meant abdicated.

 

I need more sleep...

 

I think that we probably need some kind of peaceful (hopefully)revolution to reverse this, but don't see it happening anytime soon.

 

Thomas Jefferson once said that a country needs a revolution every so often.

[mimartin]

@mimartin--I agree that this administration budgets $$ like drunken dems. On the other hand, the drunken dems in Congress have done little to try and stop him.

The "drunken dems" are doing a better job than the Republican Congress did. Now where does that bridge go again?

 

Just like every other American I’m for my taxes being cut, but I’m for more of a across the board tax cuts proponent . I could care less about the top .02%, as they already have an army of tax attorneys and accounts to make sure they are not over paying their taxes. If Paris Hilton or Britney Spears have to pay $20,000 more in taxes, so be it. Maybe that will stop them from making a fool of themselves one day out of the year.

 

The troubling thing, however, is that there's a $53 trillion dollar entitlement debt (SS)looming over us in the immediate future. Combined with interest payments on the debt, we are screwed no matter what we end up doing in the forseeable future.

Entitlement Yes, people are entitled to the money they put into social security over their lifetime of work. I wonder where oh where the surplus in Social Security went. It was last seen in the 1980’s, about the time of the last major tax cuts.

[Totenkopf]

The "drunken dems" are doing a better job than the Republican Congress did. Now where does that bridge go again?

 

Just like every other American I’m for my taxes being cut, but I’m for more of a across the board tax cuts proponent . I could care less about the top .02%, as they already have an army of tax attorneys and accounts to make sure they are not over paying their taxes. If Paris Hilton or Britney Spears have to pay $20,000 more in taxes, so be it. Maybe that will stop them from making a fool of themselves one day out of the year.

 

But are they, really? Are they putting more money down on the debt or merely trying to reign in defense expenditures for PR purposes?

 

Now where does that bridge go again?

 

I'm guessing this in reference to Red Stevens of AK. More unnecessary pork, but might have been more successful if it were supposed to lead somewhere into WV.

 

Somehow, I suspect they they wouldn't skimp on making asses of themselves on slightly less money. But the interesting stat is that the top 10-20% of $$ earners (as share of economy) pay somewhere on the order of 40% of fed taxes. How much is enough? Aren't you just catering to class warfare sentiments?

 

Entitlement Yes, people are entitled to the money they put into social security over their lifetime of work. I wonder where oh where the surplus in Social Security went. It was last seen in the 1980’s, about the time of the last major tax cuts.

 

Two things: 1)Are they entitled to MORE than they put in? and 2)As I recall, SS was folded into the general fund well before the 80s and it was dems who controlled congress (power of the purse, ne?)for over 40 years.

[Jae Onasi]

Tax discussions belong in their own thread. Please return to the topic....

[Weiser_Cain]

Reminds me of a certain senator who wants to cut taxes and give out free healthcare. No, not him, the other one.

 

By the way, anyone notice that the three major candidates are senators? The last senator to be elected president was one John F. Kennedy, almost fifty years ago.

 

He was also the last northerner to be elected. Just some random trivia for you.

Bush is from Connecticut.

[JCarter426]

He wasn't elected.

 

And in any case, his father was from Massachusetts, but that doesn't make either of them northerners, since they both consider themselves from Texas.

 

But back to Obama and Wright...

 

Again, I ask the question, what does Obama's reverend's beliefs have anything to do with whether or not Obama would make a good president? It's not like Clinton or McCain don't have their share of crazy friends. And it's especially strange seeing as how favorable the media has treated Obama so far.

[Jae Onasi]

The reason Obama's relationship with Rev. Wright is such a big deal is because of the closeness of that relationship. If Obama were a white candidate and Wright was a white preacher spewing white supremacy vitriol, his candidacy would be in the toilet. People are worried that his close relationship with Wright for over 20 years means he shares some of these same extreme and just plain wrong viewpoints about race. For instance, does Obama feel God should damn America? Does Obama feel whites should be overthrown so blacks can rule as is their 'rightful place'? Is Obama so entwined in the kind of culture that Wright espouses that he can no longer relate to whites (or Hispanics, Asians, or any other non-white race) without prejudice?

 

Obama can't claim to be a uniter of all Americans if he shares the same anti-white views that Wright has, and that is the chief issue right now that he'll have to answer, and answer well, if he wants to stay in the candidacy. He's taken a couple missteps in the last week (denying he was in the pew when Wright said some of these outrageous things, saying his white grandma, who has said some racial slurs, was a 'typical white American'). I understand Obama is proud of his heritage, as anyone should be since it shapes who we are. What I want to know is if that pride extends so far that he endorses and shares the black supremacy ideals that Wright has. I view any racial supremacy, white, black, or otherwise, as a poison in this world, and I want to make sure anyone who's going to be my President doesn't harbor supremacist ideas.

[Achilles]

The fact that he is half-white leads me to suspect that he is probably not a black supremacist.

[Totenkopf]

Then again, not everyone in the Nazi regime was "pure aryan", even by their own standards. Many blacks in the US have some degree of white in their background. Take a look at Wright, he's even lighter than Obama, but that doesn't seem to make any difference.

[Balderdash]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7mlZeb2k8NA

 

You know you're useless when Sharpton of all people gets the better of you...

[mimartin]

Then again, not everyone in the Nazi regime was "pure aryan", even by their own standards.

Yet, how many were 1/2 Jewish?

[John Galt]

Yet, how many were 1/2 Jewish?

 

Hey, according to some sources Hitler was 1/4 Jewish, a Rothschild, no less.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maria_Schicklgruber

 

On topic: Of all the faults I've found in Obama, racism doesn't seem to be one of them, and I honestly agree with some of the "contraversial" things that Rev. Wright was saying. For example, I find it more probable that God would(should he exist) be more likely to damn America for killing hundreds of thousands of Koreans, Vietnamese, and Iraqis as opposed to damning it for putting up with homosexuals, as some on the religious right believe.

[Totenkopf]

Yet, how many were 1/2 Jewish?

 

Considering that anyone with black blood in thier lineage is often considered "black" first, it becomes a matter of racial identity politics and not genetics. A "half-black" is still considered black and almost always identifies with that group. It's not inconceivable that a "half-black" could be a racial supremecist at heart, all the more so if they feel alienated from the other half of their genetic background (nuture over nature). Obama's not responsible for the words that come out of another man's mouth, only how he reacts to that person afterward.

[EnderWiggin]

Nice little article by my favorite author:

 

http://www.ornery.org/essays/warwatch/2008-04-13-1.html

 

(I'm sure everyone here knows about the 'small towns are bitter and cling to guns/religion' comment, right?)

 

_EW_

[Achilles]

At first, Obama tried to turn these words into an asset, insisting that people are bitter about government failures, and that anyone who says he's "out of touch" is far more out of touch themselves.

 

That didn't work for him.

I wonder what he means by "That didn't work for him".

 

(These last two quotations are from the paraphrase of Obama's remarks by Catherine Lucey in the Philadelphia Daily News, 15 April 2008.)

Too busy to listen to the comments himself and make his own summary? Taking secondary sources at face value when primary sources are available doesn't strike me as being consistent with the ideals of journalistic integrity.

 

Unfortunately, it is a misrepresentation to claim that he was speaking of politicians distracting voters with wedge issues. His list of things that result from supposed small-town bitterness began with clinging "to guns or religion" -- it can hardly be classed as a misstatement when that's how he started his list.

Not sure what he's attempting to convey here.

 

No matter how he tries to dance around it now, Obama was showing us who he really is -- one of those rare glimpses.

Opinion as fact. I'm always a big fan of this.

 

He was speaking to an audience of supposed friends -- people who presumably loved him for having the most liberal voting record in the Senate.

Yeah, amazing how it's always supporters at fundraisers

 

But someone taped it and it got to the media and now we know what Obama thinks and says in private.

Actually the person that taped it was the media and happens to be one of the reporters assigned to his campaign. I guess that blows the whole "he had no idea they were there" thing out of the water.

 

Is It Racism?

This whole section is conjecture, but the man is entitled to his opinions.

 

That Obama harbors racial stereotypes is clear from other contexts.

Did he get those from his white mother, his Indonesian step-father, or his African grandparents?

 

Does this make Obama a racist? No, it makes him human. We all harbor information we've learned and conclusions we've reached about people who belong to other groups:

And which group does the author assume that Obama "belongs" in? Who's racist now?

 

We have no evidence of Obama hating or abusing or mistreating or rejecting white people, even though he obviously harbors quite-incorrect stereotypes about them.

And the fact that Obama is half-white? Raised by his single white mom?

 

Yes, clearly Obama was raised in an environment devoid of diversity.

 

We need to keep in mind that Obama was not speaking to a group of black people; my guess is that most of his listeners at that San Francisco fund-raiser were white.

Woot! Conclusions based entirely upon speculation. Love these too.

 

Obama was speaking to a group of rich liberals

Really? How does he know this? Or is this more speculation on his part?

 

...and he was using language that sounded like the way leftist intellectuals speak about the ignorant people who don't think and act the way leftist intellectuals think they should.

Is there a textbook available for those of us that want to learn more?

 

I have been in countless conversations with elitists of the Left, and this is precisely how they talk. They make sweeping generalizations about "the middle class" or, specifically, "the white middle class." They make mocking, disparaging remarks about "people who shop in malls" or "WalMart shoppers."

Wow, "countless". That sounds like a lot.

 

I have heard remarks like: "I don't know how people who don't read books can stand their lives" -- thus expressing the double assumption that people who aren't part of the academic Left don't read books, and that people who don't read books have lives that are not worth living; both statements are, of course, ludicrously false.

As are the assumptions that he's assigning to that statement. Thumbs up, Mr. Card. Way to arbitrarily assign context to support your arguments!

 

Let's look at those false assumptions. In verse 1, Obama says, "the jobs [in small towns] have been gone now for 25 years and nothing's replaced them."

 

First of all, it wasn't the people in the small towns of Pennsylvania and the Midwest who lost jobs because of the deindustrialization of America -- it was people in industrial cities and suburbs in the rust belt.

Did Obama specify why they lost the jobs? It seems he only specified that the jobs were gone. It seems that Mr. Card's introduction of deindustrializaton vs. factory-farming is completely irrelevant.

 

Obama's statement that the jobs are gone and that nothing has replaced them seems to be correct. Not sure how the "false assumption" is anything other than the author's.

 

In the last part of this section, Mr. Card makes sweeping assumptions very similar to those that he attempts to lambaste "liberal elists" for a few paragraphs earlier. Perhaps he should include a sentence or two about hypocrisy in his "what it means to be human" section.

 

Government Failure

Mr. Card isn't aware of any programs therefore there must not have been any. Got it.

 

But what Obama is clearly implying, between verses 1 and 2, is that it is the loss of jobs twenty-five years ago that has embittered the people now living in small towns.

 

This is the single stupidest part of what he said. Because, if you have a brain, you will realize that the people who did not find jobs in those small towns left them twenty-five years ago! That's why the towns have shrunk!

Well the ones that could afford to leave left. The ones that had job skills that allowed them to find work elsewhere probably left too. I wonder if I need to pull out unemployment statistics or if we can simply acknowledge that Orson Scott Card is the idiot here.

 

There is no one in Midwestern or even Northeastern small towns who lost his job twenty-five years ago and stayed in the small town living off the welfare of his neighbors ever since, who is bitter about the failure of Presidents to "save" them.

I wonder what evidence Mr. Card intends to present to support his assertion

 

Only a Leftist intellectual is capable of such obvious stupidity -- but I will bet you that most Leftist intellectuals who read Obama's statement saw nothing wrong with it. To these elitists, you don't actually have to have information or logic in order to make vast generalizations and completely explain away entire classes of people. In fact, such false and evidence-free generalizations have been the stock in trade of the intellectual Left from Karl Marx on.

This is my favorite paragraph of the whole thing. Might as well put on a dress and rant about how much he hates cross-dressers while he's at it.

 

The Results of Bitterness?

This commentary in this section is based on a logical fallacy known as biased sample

 

So what have we learned about Obama?

 

1. That he's as full of ignorant stereotypes as anybody;

 

2. That he's capable of saying really stupid, thoughtless, obviously-false things; and

 

3. That he thinks he's really smart for saying them.

We learned those things about Obama, huh?

 

The rest of Mr. Card's article seems to drift off onto to topics other than the "bitter" nontroversy, so I'll quit here. Thanks for sharing the link!

[mimartin]

I guess there is no point in reading the article as Achilles seems to have quoted about 90 % of it. Too bad the author of the article is not a member; I would pay to see his response.

 

One question, there is still a middle class? Why would elitists of the Left be making sweeping generalizations about a group that the elitist of the Right have destroyed over the past eight years? (oh, I guess I just made one, I must be an elitists of the Left).

 

Nice post Achilles.

[Achilles]

One question, there is still a middle class? Why would elitists of the Left be making sweeping generalizations about a group that the elitist of the Right have destroyed over the past eight years? (oh, I guess I just made one, I must be an elitists of the Left).

Here is my public service post of the day.

Nice post Achilles.

Thank you, sir.

[Totenkopf]

I guess there is no point in reading the article as Achilles seems to have quoted about 90 % of it. Too bad the author of the article is not a member; I would pay to see his response.

 

One question, there is still a middle class? Why would elitists of the Left be making sweeping generalizations about a group that the elitist of the Right have destroyed over the past eight years? (oh, I guess I just made one, I must be an elitists of the Left).

 

Nice post Achilles.

 

 

Middle class isn't dead yet. Give the lefties an administration or 2 and they'll probably all be on the dole.

[mimartin]

Middle class isn't dead yet. Give the lefties an administration or 2 and they'll probably all be on the dole.

Under Bill Clinton the middle class grew, we can't say the same under the present president’s tenure.

 

Are you saying the compassionate conservative title made Bush a lefty, because I will agree Bill Clinton was way more conservative than Bush financially.