Obama and Rev. Wright

[Totenkopf]

I doubt that Clinton was all that conservative by choice. Having a congress and administration split between two parties can have that effect. Unfortunately, that probably only tends to happen when the president is dem and the congress rep. Having the same party in control of both branches is probably never a really good idea.

 

As to Bush, I think that he's proven to finacially be a lefty. He's certainly spending $$ like a traditional lefty democrat. As to the middle class remark, you did say destroyed. I'll take that for poetic license of sorts.

[mimartin]

As to the middle class remark, you did say destroyed. I'll take that for poetic license of sorts.

Nothing poetic about it, if you were one of the former middle class. They are just as angry as Rev Wright. Luckily, my stepfather hasn’t been filmed saying what he said about this country. A country that during the Korean war he lost about a pound of his butt for. In fairness all his problems were not caused by President Bush, they were also caused by former Texas Governor Bush.

[Totenkopf]

Have some people moved from the "middle class" in either direction over the last 20 years? Of course. My point was that "destroyed" was a strong word when applied to the whole concept, not merely individuals.

[Jae Onasi]

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

Just because he's half-white doesn't mean he can't harbor black supremacist ideas, anymore than being half-black means one can't harbor white supremacist ideas. I think it's highly unlikely that he harbors some of these views, but I'd really like him to be clear on this issue. It took him awhile in March to really get things settled down.

 

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

Well, the 'guns and religion' thing _was_ a stupid, ill-thought out statement by Obama. That's going to happen to all the candidates, however. The candidates are running to the point of exhaustion and are in the media's fishbowl constantly. At some point, they all have and will make mistakes. It's inevitable.

 

I found it odd that someone who is a Christian would make that kind of statement about other people of faith (no comments on the rightness or wrongness of faith here, or any kind of statement denigrating people's faith--there are more than enough threads in this forum for that). It made me wonder briefly how deep his faith really was, but he's been pretty forthright about that topic so I'm more inclined to believe what he says on that than not.

 

I also find it odd that Rev. Wright continues to say things that could hurt the Obama campaign. He's too bright to not notice the effect his comments are having on people's opinions (rightly or wrongly). If he wants his friend and spiritual protege to get elected, toning it way down might be wise at this point.

[El Sitherino]

I don't see how the people he's associated himself is in any way a reflection upon who he is as an individual.

 

I've hung out with some messed up people, however do you consider me a risk to society? An immediate threat to another persons well being?

I've grown up and learned lessons from hateful people, does that mean I'm a hateful person? No, just means they happened to teach me how to crap without a diaper. Or how to stand up for what I believe in. Doesn't mean I have to believe in what they do, just support their right to do as I would. (make an active choice of free will, legally)

 

I respect your opinion Jae (and the others with a similiar expressed opinion), however I cannot see the logic behind simplifying an already outlandish and over-exaggerated issue, with "Well they were in a deep spiritual relationship for many years, so he has to believe the same principles as this man" If that were true then why were Malcom X and Martin Luther King Jr. such drastically different forms of Civil Rights protestors? They carried the same message, but one chose one path to the goal, while the other one chose a different path.

 

Would you, do you fault Martin Luther King for maintaining a friendship and professional relationship with Malcom X?

[Jae Onasi]

I don't see how the people he's associated himself is in any way a reflection upon who he is as an individual.

Your close friends have an influence on you. If Obama was hanging around KKK leaders and considered them his spiritual mentors, people would be asking if he was a white supremacist. I would think Obama was about as likely to be a white supremacist in that case based on what he says (which is very small).

 

I've hung out with some messed up people, however do you consider me a risk to society? An immediate threat to another persons well being?

Sithy, I don't wonder about that but I wouldn't be surprised if some do.

 

I respect your opinion Jae (and the others with a similiar expressed opinion), however I cannot see the logic behind simplifying an already outlandish and over-exaggerated issue, with "Well they were in a deep spiritual relationship for many years, so he has to believe the same principles as this man"

I think it's still a legitimate issue to _ask_ about, however. The people who you consider mentors, spiritual or otherwise, have shaped your views on life issues. If you have a very close friend who is saying black supremacist things, people are going to wonder how it affects you, too. If Wright were very white supremacist, homophobic, or fundamentalist Christian, I guarantee you there would be even more questioning and even outrage over their relationship.

 

Up until the Rev. Wright tirades went public, we hadn't heard much more from Obama on race relations other than 'we need unity'. We didn't know where he stood definitively. Now we have a better idea.

 

If that were true then why were Malcom X and Martin Luther King Jr. such drastically different forms of Civil Rights protestors? They carried the same message, but one chose one path to the goal, while the other one chose a different path.

Malcolm X did not want unity of races, he wanted black supremacy. King worked for unity, Malcolm X did not. The only common factor between the two is that they happened to be working on racial issues, but their ultimate goals couldn't have been more different.

 

Would you, do you fault Martin Luther King for maintaining a friendship and professional relationship with Malcom X?

King and Malcolm X acknowledged each other's work on race rights and clearly had a cordial relationship, though King never agreed with Malcolm X's methods. Their relationship was not the same as Obama's and Wright's, however. King and Malcolm X did not consider each other their spiritual mentors.

[mimartin]

I also find it odd that Rev. Wright continues to say things that could hurt the Obama campaign. He's too bright to not notice the effect his comments are having on people's opinions (rightly or wrongly). If he wants his friend and spiritual protege to get elected, toning it way down might be wise at this point.

Problem is Rev. Wright see this as an attack on the church he has spent most of his adult life building. He is going to protect his legacy and all the members of the church, not just the one running for President.

 

Would you, do you fault Martin Luther King for maintaining a friendship and professional relationship with Malcom X?

First to your question my answer is no.

 

I see neither man as a saint, they were merely men that were willing and did sacrifice everything for what they believed in and what they thought was right. If we waited for saint’s to change the world then there would have never been a Civil Rights movement or an United States.

 

I remember reading about a man associating with a known criminal sentenced to death. After the condemned criminal showed some compassion for the hero of the story, the hero not only forgave the criminal, but invited him back to his father’s kingdom. Inviting someone home for eternity is a strong association to me. Of course, I’m talking about Jesus who associated with some pretty shady characters too.

 

100% of my best friends are republican, does not make me one.

Malcolm X did not want unity of races, he wanted black supremacy. King worked for unity, Malcolm X did not. The only common factor between the two is that they happened to be working on racial issues, but their ultimate goals couldn't have been more different.

His last few speeches did not reflect this goal. It is possible that Malcolm X attitude change before his death. Besides if he really did want black supremacy, let us remember he was living in a time of white supremacy. It does not sound nearly as radical when you look at it like that. Besides I only believe he wanted separation, not supremacy.

[EnderWiggin]

Well, here we go:

 

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

So what you're saying is that the people in small town Pennsylvania (read:my neighbors) were originally offended by these comments, but "Oh, now that you're saying we're out of touch and bashing the candidate of Pennsylvania, we forgive you and believe you now?"

 

You think that him coming back with a "I know you are but what am I" response helped?

 

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.

For starters, he's not really a journalist. It's an opinion article for a site called "The Ornery American." Second of all, the quotations he used were still consistent with the original comments. You're arguing semantics.

 

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

 

Because in an opinion article, one usually treats his or her opinion as truth. But really, what did you want him to say? That's what he believes; that's what he's being paid for here.

 

Yeah, amazing how it's always supporters at fundraisers

 

This isn't a valid criticism. He's setting up his next point.

 

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.

Ok, I can accept this. I'm sure that he didn't realize that this would become a nation-wide controversy, in any case.

 

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

Right. Opinions are conjecture. So.... what's the problem?

 

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

Oh, well then. It must be impossible for him to have stereotypes.

 

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

Not sure what you're implying. That there aren't 'groups'? You don't believe in demographics anymore? Or are you saying that humans don't jump to conclusions and aren't prejudiced? Please elucidate.

 

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.

 

Just because he's half-white doesn't mean he can't harbor black supremacist ideas, anymore than being half-black means one can't harbor white supremacist ideas. I think it's highly unlikely that he harbors some of these views, but I'd really like him to be clear on this issue.

 

Thanks Jae.

 

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

Yup, he should call San Francisco to make sure there were no African-Americans present.

 

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

I'm sure it is, but you don't get into a private fundraiser with a democrat presidential candidate without being both rich and liberal.

 

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

Nice and glib.

 

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

 

Actually, the day I met him he apologized for not carrying one of these in his pocket.

 

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

Not sure what your criticism is. That he used an analogy to try to back up his point? That he 'assigned context to support his arguments'? Doesn't sound like it's a bad thing to me....

 

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.

Your call, I guess. I guess OSC can't really talk about this point because Obama wasn't specifically wrong, just generally.

 

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

Not everyone can know everything.

 

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.

... Go get your statistics.

 

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

So you disagree with his point? That there are just people all over America that lived in small towns, then lost their jobs, then just continued without a job and without leaving where they were to try and find employment?

 

 

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.

 

Ok, if you'll just grant me an aside here....

 

This makes me laugh - now I'm just arguing for the sake of arguing. I agree that this statement is paradoxically hypocritical.

 

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

 

Agreed.

 

We learned those things about Obama, huh?

Did you have a preexisting problem with OSC or was this one opinion of his just enough to set you off?

 

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!

I'm assuming 'nontroversy' wasn't a typo? What, you agree with Obama on this?

 

Anyway, you're welcome.

 

Thanks for reading... can't wait to see how you'll respond .

 

_EW_

[Achilles]

So what you're saying is that the people in small town Pennsylvania (read:my neighbors) were originally offended by these comments, but "Oh, now that you're saying we're out of touch and bashing the candidate of Pennsylvania, we forgive you and believe you now?"

 

You think that him coming back with a "I know you are but what am I" response helped?

No, I'm saying that the author stated something but wasn't very clear about what he was trying to convey

 

Sometimes my questions are just questions.

 

To the point you raised though: not everyone in PA felt that Obama was off the mark. Some people did come forward and say that they were bitter. Hillary got boo'ed at one of her rallies for trying to say that Obama was out of touch for that comment.

 

For starters, he's not really a journalist. It's an opinion article for a site called "The Ornery American." Second of all, the quotations he used were still consistent with the original comments. You're arguing semantics.

Not arguing semantics at all. He absolutely responded to someone else's comment and attempted to pass it off as a legitimate response to what was said originally. Journalist or no, it's still sloppy thinking.

 

Because in an opinion article, one usually treats his or her opinion as truth. But really, what did you want him to say? That's what he believes; that's what he's being paid for here.

Except the intellectually rigorous people that acknowledge that their opinions are simply opinions

 

He is absolutely entitled to his opinions, however passing opinion off as fact is only impressive to some audiences.

 

This isn't a valid criticism. He's setting up his next point.

Speaking of opinions...

 

Ok, I can accept this. I'm sure that he didn't realize that this would become a nation-wide controversy, in any case.

No, I'm sure he didn't.

 

Right. Opinions are conjecture. So.... what's the problem?

No, sometimes opinions are informed. The problem is that the author is trying to pass his opinion off as fact but

 

1) isn't making much of an effort to know what he's talking about and

2) not really making much of an effort to clarify that he's simply sharing what he thinks rather than acurrately interpret reality. Let the reader beware.

 

Oh, well then. It must be impossible for him to have stereotypes.

Impossible? No. Significantly less likely? I would argue yes.

 

Not sure what you're implying. That there aren't 'groups'? You don't believe in demographics anymore? Or are you saying that humans don't jump to conclusions and aren't prejudiced? Please elucidate.

Simply pointing out that the author's choice to categorize Obama as a black man with white stereotypes is fairly hypocritical considering that he's attempting to lambaste Obama for doing something similar and attributing it to racism. Something about the shoe being on the other foot or what have you

 

Thanks Jae.

Not sure that Jae addressed my point, so you'll need to expand please. Thanks.

 

Yup, he should call San Francisco to make sure there were no African-Americans present.

Or simply not made the statement without knowing. That was an option too

 

I'm sure it is, but you don't get into a private fundraiser with a democrat presidential candidate without being both rich and liberal.

Funny, I was invited to a private Obama fundraiser, but I'm only middle-class and moderate.

 

Maybe you're wrong on this one?

 

Nice and glib.

Does that mean "no"?

 

Actually, the day I met him he apologized for not carrying one of these in his pocket.

Well let's think about it: if the statistic is "countless" then trying to keep track would defy reason, no?

 

Not sure what your criticism is. That he used an analogy to try to back up his point? That he 'assigned context to support his arguments'? Doesn't sound like it's a bad thing to me....

That didn't sound like an analogy. It sounded like an ancedote (as indicated by "I have heard remarks like:". The fact that he was using the ancedote here tells me that he thinks it's applicable.

 

However he tells us that the person making this statement is directing this critism at a particular group of people and means something specific by it. There is absolutely no evidence for this present in the statement itself. Don't believe me? Imagine that the comment is being a made about someone conservative. The first assumption immediately fall apart, yet he still tries to paint the speaker as an idiot. Furthermore the second assumption is completely fabricated. Therefore he has assign context to the statment in order to make it say what he needed it to say so that he could prop up his own comment. Which was my point.

 

Your call, I guess. I guess OSC can't really talk about this point because Obama wasn't specifically wrong, just generally.

Except that Obama can't even be generally wrong on this point because he never made any comment on this point in the first place.

 

Not everyone can know everything.

Indeed. It doesn't excuse the fallacy.

 

... Go get your statistics.

Link

Clearly PA is not the worker's paradise that the author wants us to believe it is (not that's it's sucking eggs either).

 

So you disagree with his point? That there are just people all over America that lived in small towns, then lost their jobs, then just continued without a job and without leaving where they were to try and find employment?

No, what I said was, "I wonder what evidence Mr. Card intends to present to support his assertion."

 

(hint: this is the standard line that I use when someone makes an argument that depends on them having to prove a negative to support it).

 

I'm looking forward to seeing how Mr. Card intends to prove that there is no one living in a small town that lost their job, went on welfare, and is currently bitter about it. Keep in mind that if we find one, his argument falls apart. The more we find, the more silly his argument will become.

 

Did you have a preexisting problem with OSC or was this one opinion of his just enough to set you off?

Never heard of him until you posted that link

 

I'm assuming 'nontroversy' wasn't a typo?

No, it was quite intentional.

 

What, you agree with Obama on this?

I guess that depends on what you mean by "agree with Obama".

 

Obama was asked by a couple of volunteers what to expect when they went to PA to canvas for him. He replies (paraphrasing): "Depends on where you go. Some parts of the state are bitter about government. Add to that that some people are skeptical about me. Can you blame them considering how long they've been let down? So some communites are going to be highly suspicious of our message because I don't look or act like they do."

 

So with the context of the question and the full response, no, I don't disagree with Barack Obama. I think that he could have certainly phrased that one particular sentence a lot better, but I don't disagree with the overall sentiment of his comments.

 

 

Thanks for reading

It was my pleasure.

[EnderWiggin]

Sometimes my questions are just questions.

How philosophic

 

Speaking of opinions...

Touche.

 

Impossible? No. Significantly less likely? I would argue yes.

I would agree.

 

Not sure that Jae addressed my point, so you'll need to expand please. Thanks.

 

Pretty sure she (and I) meant that his viewpoints don't really have to depend on his genetics. If he identifies himself with the black supremest ideals, then it doesn't matter.

 

Or simply not made the statement without knowing. That was an option too

 

Not really... that option doesn't sell the Rhinoceros Times or look good in the Ornery American.

 

Funny, I was invited to a private Obama fundraiser, but I'm only middle-class and moderate.

 

Maybe you're wrong on this one?

http://blogs.suntimes.com/sweet/2008/04/obamas_bitter_comment_came_at_1.html

And this... although not sure how factual.

http://www.zombietime.com/obama_visits_billionaires_row/

 

Does that mean "no"?

 

I'm so sorry.

 

Well let's think about it: if the statistic is "countless" then trying to keep track would defy reason, no?

What do you mean? I don't think he tried to keep track of how many... I was being a bit facetious there. Please elaborate.

 

That didn't sound like an analogy. It sounded like an ancedote (as indicated by "I have heard remarks like:". The fact that he was using the ancedote here tells me that he thinks it's applicable.

 

However he tells us that the person making this statement is directing this critism at a particular group of people and means something specific by it. There is absolutely no evidence for this present in the statement itself. Don't believe me? Imagine that the comment is being a made about someone conservative. The first assumption immediately fall apart, yet he still tries to paint the speaker as an idiot. Furthermore the second assumption is completely fabricated. Therefore he has assign context to the statment in order to make it say what he needed it to say so that he could prop up his own comment. Which was my point.

Yes, anecdote is a better word. It may or may not be false, but you're saying that you have a problem with the accuracy and not the technique. Thanks for clarifying, makes more sense now.

 

Indeed. It doesn't excuse the fallacy.

Maybe not.

 

Link

Clearly PA is not the worker's paradise that the author wants us to believe it is (not that's it's sucking eggs either).

Not to be rude, but that statistic tells us nothing. It has an overall unemployment rate, but nothing on the last 25 years of small-town Pennsylvanians and their economic troubles after they lose their jobs.

 

I'm looking forward to seeing how Mr. Card intends to prove that there is no one living in a small town that lost their job, went on welfare, and is currently bitter about it. Keep in mind that if we find one, his argument falls apart. The more we find, the more silly his argument will become.

If you find one, his argument does not fall apart. Obama's comment said that small town Pennsylvanians cling to these things because they're bitter towards the government after they lose their jobs. Card's refutation was that there aren't actually people like that. They were arguing about the majority. They both know that there are outliers.

 

Never heard of him until you posted that link

Ok.

 

No, it was quite intentional.

Of course.

I guess that depends on what you mean by "agree with Obama".

 

Obama was asked by a couple of volunteers what to expect when they went to PA to canvas for him. He replies (paraphrasing): "Depends on where you go. Some parts of the state are bitter about government. Add to that that some people are skeptical about me. Can you blame them considering how long they've been let down? So some communites are going to be highly suspicious of our message because I don't look or act like they do."

 

So with the context of the question and the full response, no, I don't disagree with Barack Obama. I think that he could have certainly phrased that one particular sentence a lot better, but I don't disagree with the overall sentiment of his comments.

 

I don't think that religion is something that small-town Pennsylvanians cling to in order to survive their economic plight. Besides that, I would be inclined to agree with you.

 

It was my pleasure.

Mine as well.

 

_EW_

[Jae Onasi]

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.

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

But we don't know for sure until Obama gives us evidence, do we? The color of his skin is irrelevant to his feelings on black or white supremacy.

 

Just because he's half-white doesn't mean he can't harbor black supremacist ideas, anymore than being half-black means one can't harbor white supremacist ideas. I think it's highly unlikely that he harbors some of these views, but I'd really like him to be clear on this issue. It took him awhile in March to really get things settled down.

Not sure that Jae addressed my point, so you'll need to expand please.

 

Obama's close association with someone who makes some statements that are black supremacist is going to raise the question of whether or not Obama also shares these views--he had not been very specific about them until Wright's comments, mostly because it just wasn't raised as much of an issue before then. You appear to be saying (and I could have read it wrong, in which case this is moot) that because Obama is half-white, he's unlikely to be a black supremacist. I'm saying that doesn't necessarily follow. I've heard blacks calling other blacks 'niggers' in the fully pejorative sense. I've heard whites calling other whites 'crackers' because they hate their own race. Obama could have been a black supremacist in spite of being half white--genetics are indeed ultimately irrelevant to his views on racism. If Obama went to KKK meetings on a weekly basis, we'd all be asking if he was a white supremacist. The argument that 'it's unlikely because he's half-black' would hold as much weight as the one that says he's unlikely to be a black supremacist because he's half-white.

 

If someone is going to lead this melting pot of a nation and treat people of all races fairly, I don't want to guess where he or she is at on racial issues based on his or her personal skin color. I want to know where all the candidates are at on racial issues by what they say and do.

 

I don't think that religion is something that small-town Pennsylvanians cling to in order to survive their economic plight.

Humor mode on: Well, I know if I ever lose my job and suffer economically, I'm going to pull out my shotgun and sit on the porch clinging to it with all my might because that will be so helpful in improving my financial situation.

 

I understand the paraphrase of Obama's comments, Achilles, and agree in that I think that's what he meant, too, just said in a maladroit manner that made me cringe since I knew how it was going to get spun. However, others are going to make the argument 'we can't go by what we think he meant, we can only go by what he says'. I think it's extremely unlikely Obama's a black supremacist, too, but he needs to be very clear in articulating to his opponents that he's not a supremacist of any color.

[EnderWiggin]

Humor mode on: Well, I know if I ever lose my job and suffer economically, I'm going to pull out my shotgun and sit on the porch clinging to it with all my might because that will be so helpful in improving my financial situation.

 

I already sit on my porch with a gun (praying, I might add)....

It's us here Pennsylvanians' version of a 401k.

 

_EW_

[Jae Onasi]

 

Well, I might sit on the porch with a shotgun when my daughter gets old enough to date.

[EnderWiggin]

 

Well, I might sit on the porch with a shotgun when my daughter gets old enough to date.

 

Believe me, you never had to experience it, but the boy is nervous enough around you. You don't need a weapon to do that.

 

But, again, from personal experience.... nerves aren't going to stop him, if you know what I mean.

 

So, actually a shotgun is probably a good idea.

 

But you shouldn't have to experience it anytime soon, right? I mean, when you're 29 years old....

 

_EW_

 

PS: Achilles, I was just thinking... I remember when I first joined in Jul 04 and you still had Ewan McGregor as your avatar. That was a seriously long time ago, huh?

[Achilles]

Pretty sure she (and I) meant that his viewpoints don't really have to depend on his genetics. If he identifies himself with the black supremest ideals, then it doesn't matter.

That's good because I wasn't arguing his genetics. I was arguing his upbringing. His dad was gone, he was raised by his white mother and for a brief time by his white grandparents. So where do these alleged black supremacist values come from? Is Harvard law school as cesspit of any-Caucasian sentiment? You know what I hear? A lot of speculation about someone because he's half-black.

 

Not really... that option doesn't sell the Rhinoceros Times or look good in the Ornery American.

Heaven forbid that the hit count on his blog should suffer for a little integrity.

 

http://blogs.suntimes.com/sweet/2008/04/obamas_bitter_comment_came_at_1.html

And this... although not sure how factual.

http://www.zombietime.com/obama_visits_billionaires_row/

And?

 

(the fundraiser I was invited to was a $1,000 dollar event as well).

 

Only the wealthy can swing this? Remember the question that set this whole thing off was posed by someone that was going to PA to canvas for Obama. Think a lot of millionaires are knocking on doors for the campaign? Maybe yes and maybe no, but you'll need more than this to convince me.

 

Yes, anecdote is a better word. It may or may not be false, but you're saying that you have a problem with the accuracy and not the technique. Thanks for clarifying, makes more sense now.

Technically I have a problem with both, but I'll let that go for now.

 

Not to be rude, but that statistic tells us nothing. It has an overall unemployment rate, but nothing on the last 25 years of small-town Pennsylvanians and their economic troubles after they lose their jobs.

Mr. Card's contention was that everyone that did not have a job left. If that's the case, then why is PA on the losing end of the median unemployment rate? I don't need to track 25 years worth of data to debunk his assertion.

 

If you find one, his argument does not fall apart.

Unfortunately you're wrong. It's sad that Mr. Card felt inclined to use such specific wording, but he did indeed say something very stupid. Happens to a lot of people

 

PS: This is one of the many problems with arguing for a negative: once a positive is found, the argument is vaporized.

 

Obama's comment said that small town Pennsylvanians cling to these things because they're bitter towards the government after they lose their jobs.

Some small town Pennsylvanians. Some. See Barack Obama didn't make the same mistake that OSC did. Nor did he make a generalization about all Pennsylvanians or small town people in general. It pays to note what is actually being said.

 

Card's refutation was that there aren't actually people like that. They were arguing about the majority. They both know that there are outliers.

Nothing in Mr. Card's language indicates that. Considering that he's a writer, I suspect that he said precisely what he meant to.

 

I don't think that religion is something that small-town Pennsylvanians cling to in order to survive their economic plight. Besides that, I would be inclined to agree with you.

It's completely inconceivable to you that some people (there's that word again) might fit that description? Think about it.

 

But we don't know for sure until Obama gives us evidence, do we? The color of his skin is irrelevant to his feelings on black or white supremacy.

Have you been to an Obama rally? Read either of his books? Or do you get most of everything in sound bites via the media?

 

Unfortunately when it comes to people, we have what they do and what they say. In both cases, we have nothing that would indicate to us that Obama is racists.

 

Obama's close association with someone who makes some statements that are black supremacist

"Black supremacist"?

 

...is going to raise the question of whether or not Obama also shares these views--he had not been very specific about them until Wright's comments, mostly because it just wasn't raised as much of an issue before then.

Assuming that Obama diligently attended church every Sunday for 20 years, keep in mind that Rev. Wright gives three sermons (assuming that he never took a Sunday off either). Each of these is separate from the others, so there aren't any repeats.

 

So even if Obama went to church every Sunday and sat in a pew and listened to a sermon from Wright, there's a 66% chance that Obama could have missed something controversial (assuming that Wright said something controversial every week).

 

You appear to be saying (and I could have read it wrong, in which case this is moot) that because Obama is half-white, he's unlikely to be a black supremacist.

You're half right. Because Obama is half-white, was raised in a multi-cultural family, was raised by a single white mother (who took him around the world and exposed him to various cultures via her anthropology), was raised by white grandparents, etc, it doesn't make a lot of sense to me that he harbors black supremacist tendencies. I mean, are black people somehow more inclined to harbor these behaviors? At what point to step back and recognize that a lot of what we're saying sounds stereotypical (if not racist)?

 

If someone is going to lead this melting pot of a nation and treat people of all races fairly, I don't want to guess where he or she is at on racial issues based on his or her personal skin color. I want to know where all the candidates are at on racial issues by what they say and do.

I'm assuming that McCain and Clinton have sufficiently crossed the "racist" threshold for you? I recommend either of Obama's books if you get the time. And hopefully you'll have a chance to attend a rally at some point too.

 

PS: Achilles, I was just thinking... I remember when I first joined in Jul 04 and you still had Ewan McGregor as your avatar. That was a seriously long time ago, huh?

Time flies, eh. I remember when LF was where I came to talk about modding video games.

[EnderWiggin]

That's good because I wasn't arguing his genetics. I was arguing his upbringing. His dad was gone, he was raised by his white mother and for a brief time by his white grandparents. So where do these alleged black supremacist values come from? Is Harvard law school as cesspit of any-Caucasian sentiment? You know what I hear? A lot of speculation about someone because he's half-black.

 

You're right. I'm actually a racist-in-disguise. I'm voting for him so I don't blow my cover.

 

It's all speculation based on the fact that he's a member of a black supremacist church. At least, I think that's where this thread started.

 

Heaven forbid that the hit count on his blog should suffer for a little integrity.

Not that either the Rhino Times or Ornery.org are his or anything. But you're right, because for every single point he makes every week, he should research it even if he thinks he's right until he's sure. Then he can publish it. Otherwise, he should keep his opinions out of his opinion article.

 

And?

 

(the fundraiser I was invited to was a $1,000 dollar event as well).

 

Only the wealthy can swing this? Remember the question that set this whole thing off was posed by someone that was going to PA to canvas for Obama. Think a lot of millionaires are knocking on doors for the campaign? Maybe yes and maybe no, but you'll need more than this to convince me.

 

Not many middle class Republicans are spending $1000 just to hear Obama talk for a while. How's that for a stereotype?

 

Technically I have a problem with both, but I'll let that go for now.

Anecdotes really are useful. I fail to see the problem with them. Please explain.

 

Mr. Card's contention was that everyone that did not have a job left. If that's the case, then why is PA on the losing end of the median unemployment rate? I don't need to track 25 years worth of data to debunk his assertion.

Disagree. Just because they left doesn't say where they went. PA is a big state. He said they left small towns. Cities=unemployed.

 

Unfortunately you're wrong. It's sad that Mr. Card felt inclined to use such specific wording, but he did indeed say something very stupid. Happens to a lot of people

PS: This is one of the many problems with arguing for a negative: once a positive is found, the argument is vaporized.

Partially disproved? Yes. Vaporized? Not sure if you can actually argue that. I'd say for the most part Obama was wrong. OSC says there aren't people like that around either. Perhaps he knew that not every person was the same, and was talking instead about the overall state of the... well... state?

 

Some small town Pennsylvanians. Some. See Barack Obama didn't make the same mistake that OSC did. Nor did he make a generalization about all Pennsylvanians or small town people in general. It pays to note what is actually being said.

 

So what you're saying is that Obama "could have certainly phrased that one particular sentence a lot better," except for the word some? And that is what makes his argument foolproof?

 

Nothing in Mr. Card's language indicates that. Considering that he's a writer, I suspect that he said precisely what he meant to.

 

I'm sure he thinks that there are no outliers in his equation and that every case is the same.

 

It's completely inconceivable to you that some people (there's that word again) might fit that description? Think about it.

 

Hmm... I'm not sure how you can sit there and say that there are a minute amount of people who cling to the right to bear arms and their faith as a solution to their economic hardship. It doesn't make sense to me. At all. Who are these people, and why do they think faith will allow them to help their finances and get back at the government that they're so bitter towards?

 

I also fail to see how if one person fits that description it makes Sen. Obama right and veritable and OSC completely and utterly wrong.

 

 

 

Here's what it comes down to.

 

I don't disagree with the overall sentiment of his comments.

You don't.

I do.

 

 

Overall, I don't think that we can argue more about this subject (besides the specific things I just asked). It's just circling around word choice and this fundamental difference we have in opinion.

 

 

Time flies, eh. I remember when LF was where I came to talk about modding video games.

 

I still do - but I much prefer these little discussions we have

 

And I thank you for your time. It was good talking to you.

 

_EW_

[Achilles]

It's all speculation based on the fact that he's a member of a black supremacist church. At least, I think that's where this thread started.

I think we need to be very careful to distinguish between "black theology" and "black supremacy". I've seen a few people use these interchangeably, however they are not the same thing.

 

Not that either the Rhino Times or Ornery.org are his or anything. But you're right, because for every single point he makes every week, he should research it even if he thinks he's right until he's sure. Then he can publish it. Otherwise, he should keep his opinions out of his opinion article.

Huge difference between having an opinion and making stuff up. Now here you are, at least partially inspired to participate in this thread because of what you perceive to be as inaccuracies about Pennsylvania. It's okay for you to argue for accuracy about a topic that you consider important, however I'm a schmuck for doing the same thing?

 

Not many middle class Republicans are spending $1000 just to hear Obama talk for a while. How's that for a stereotype?

Dunno. Maybe we can ask some.

 

Anecdotes really are useful. I fail to see the problem with them. Please explain.

Anecdotes can be useful, yes. Using them to make generalizations, not so much.

 

(remind me to tell you some time about the guy that I worked for that wanted to run a 400-person contact center based on anecdotal information )

 

Disagree. Just because they left doesn't say where they went. PA is a big state. He said they left small towns. Cities=unemployed.

You are entitled to your opinion.

 

Partially disproved? Yes. Vaporized? Not sure if you can actually argue that.

Hypothesis: There are no black swans

Test: A black swan is found.

Conclusion: Black swans do exist. Original hypothesis failed.

 

Now, let's try this again.

Hypothesis: "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." (emphasis added)

Test: ?

Conclusion: ?

 

I'd say for the most part Obama was wrong.

Well that would seem to jive nicely with his comments considering that he specified that he was only talking about some people. Perhaps the two of you don't disagree on that much after all?

 

OSC says there aren't people like that around either. Perhaps he knew that not every person was the same, and was talking instead about the overall state of the... well... state?

So OSC was trying lambaste someone else for doing the same thing he was? I don't follow.

 

So what you're saying is that Obama "could have certainly phrased that one particular sentence a lot better," except for the word some? And that is what makes his argument foolproof?

Go back and re-read the paragraph. Then re-read the offending sentence.

 

Yes, I believe the sentiment of the paragraph was accurate. I also think that the last sentence could have been worded better. Unfortunately many people are taking the one sentence as a generalization because they are hearing it out of context.

 

I'm sure he thinks that there are no outliers in his equation and that every case is the same.

Yes, the language that he used would seem to indicate that. If you feel comfortable making assumptions about his intentions based on some other criteria, then please don't let me stop you

 

Hmm... I'm not sure how you can sit there and say that there are a minute amount of people who cling to the right to bear arms and their faith as a solution to their economic hardship. It doesn't make sense to me. At all. Who are these people, and why do they think faith will allow them to help their finances and get back at the government that they're so bitter towards?

Go back and re-read Obama's statement. You appear to be taking liberties with what he said.

 

"So it's not surprising then that they get bitter, they cling to guns or religion or antipathy to people who aren't like them or anti-immigrant sentiment or anti-trade sentiment as a way to explain their frustrations."

(emphasis added)

 

I also fail to see how if one person fits that description it makes Sen. Obama right and veritable and OSC completely and utterly wrong.

Because finding a black swan invalidates the argument that there aren't any.

 

Here's what it comes down to.

<snip>

You don't.

I do.

Okay.

 

Overall, I don't think that we can argue more about this subject (besides the specific things I just asked). It's just circling around word choice and this fundamental difference we have in opinion.

Perhaps.

 

I still do - but I much prefer these little discussions we have

Me too

 

Thanks for the enjoyable discussion!

[Jae Onasi]

Unfortunately when it comes to people, we have what they do and what they say. In both cases, we have nothing that would indicate to us that Obama is racists.

I haven't found anything in his speeches or books that would indicate that, either, but I'm glad he's clarified it for the record.

Or do you get most of everything in sound bites via the media?

No--I went back and read the texts of Wright's sermons to get the full context. Some of it was blown out of proportion, particularly the 'chickens have come home to roost' sermon where I felt he was saying more 'We're getting what we deserve and shouldn't be acting surprised when it happens' more than 'I hate America and God should damn it' as is portrayed in the media. I think some of it is also a knee-jerk reaction to the obvious reference to Malcolm X's 'chickens have come home to roost' speech 40 years back. Some of Wright's comments in other sermons were racist, however, and he is not apologetic about them.

"Black supremacist"?

My apologies for the grammar error.

Assuming that Obama diligently attended church every Sunday for 20 years, keep in mind that Rev. Wright gives three sermons (assuming that he never took a Sunday off either). Each of these is separate from the others, so there aren't any repeats.

My pastor gave 2 sermons on Sunday when we had split into two services, and while not exact, they are very, very close to each other. I think it was highly likely that Wright did something like that--the sermons obviously could not be identical, but they would be essentially the same. I don't think that Wright said racist/inflammatory things or wrote inflammatory articles for the church bulletin every week. However, he did say that often enough for Obama to have heard/read them.

 

Obama himself admitted in his March 18th speech not long after the Wright controversy broke that he had indeed heard Wright say inflammatory comments. Some of the church bulletins from the weeks that Obama attended had inflammatory comments in them. If Obama heard or read those comments and continued to sit in the pew nodding, clapping, and giving an 'amen!' to Wright, is it unreasonable to assume that he might have agreed with the Reverend, until he came out and specified that he did not?

 

Because Obama is half-white, was raised in a multi-cultural family

As I noted above with the proviso, if skin color wasn't what you were talking about, then the argument didn't apply. So I appreciate the clarification.

 

I'm assuming that McCain and Clinton have sufficiently crossed the "racist" threshold for you?

No, actually, they have not completely done so--I haven't heard them talk a lot about race except in reference to finding some of Wright's comments offensive, and they both were very careful in their wording. That's at least a start, however. They both grew up during the pre-Civil Rights era and likely were exposed to racist ideas given the sentiments of the time. Saying anything racist at this point would be political suicide for each so I doubt we'll hear anything remotely racist pass their lips.

And hopefully you'll have a chance to attend a rally at some point too.

I would have loved to have gone to one, but the lovely WI blizzards and work prevented it. Both Clinton and he had to cancel some rallies in WI because it was just too dangerous if not impossible to travel--some roads actually got shut down for awhile because the snowplows couldn't keep up. Yay for 16 inch snowfalls. I'll have to live with speech transcripts unless he happens to swing back this way again sometime, and I hope he does.

I think we need to be very careful to distinguish between "black theology" and "black supremacy". I've seen a few people use these interchangeably, however they are not the same thing.

No, they are certainly not interchangeable, and I don't use them that way even if others might. 'Black theology' mixes religion heavily with social justice issues and to some extent politics (e.g King's sermons) but is careful not to be racist. For 'black supremacy' I go with the definition "Black supremacy is a racist ideology which holds that black people are superior to other races and is manifested in bigotry towards persons not of African ancestry". Wright's sermons include both black theology and racism, though the media has focused far more on his racist comments than on his social justice/religious comments.

 

As long as Obama can continue to clearly articulate that he does agree with Wright's racist comments, he's going to weather the storm just fine. He's in a tough spot having to be clear on how he feels about those comments while not throwing his friend and mentor to the wolves.