When the Crazy Uncle shows up

[Big Don]

No question, but he said it, and there was quite a fuss afterward-because he said it.

The problem with the things Rev. Wright said-aside from some of them seeming to be right out of the National Enquirer-is not their substance, or lack thereof, but the way they make Americans feel.

For example:

"We bombed Hiroshima, we bombed Nagasaki, and we nuked far more than the thousands in New York and the Pentagon, and we never batted an eye.”

Offensive as a post- 9-11 comment? Sure-it's mostly true, though.

The difference: We were in a war, You may have heard of it, WWII, Tom Hanks made a movie...

“We have supported state terrorism against the Palestinians and black South Africans, and now we are indignant because the stuff we have done overseas is now brought right back to our own front yards. America’s chickens are coming home to roost.”

Don't know that there's any evidence that we've supported state terrorism against black South Africans, though we did support the apartheid regime and condemn it at the same time. Our support for Israel is not even worth going into, though, and, while the status of "Palestinians" becomes even another argument, there is no doubt that Israel's treatment of the people identified as such is, in general, opressive.


“The Israelis have illegally occupied Palestinian territories for over 40 years now. Divestment has now hit the table again as a strategy to wake the business community and wake up Americans concerning the injustice and the racism under which the Palestinians have lived because of Zionism.”

Were Mexico or Canada to start lobbing missiles into our cities, we would not be as lenient as the Israelis

This is arguably true.

only if you ignore terrorism against Israelis

“The government gives them the drugs, builds bigger prisons, passes a three-strike law and then wants us to sing ‘God Bless America.’ No, no, no, God damn America, that’s in the Bible for killing innocent people. God damn America for treating our citizens as less than human. God damn America for as long as she acts like she is God and she is supreme.”

It may be attributed by some to the same "Enquirer" school of journalism, but there is evidence that the CIA supported cocaine trade to finance the Nicuraguan Contras, and this trade led to the formulation of crack cocaine. Indeed, stringent drug laws and three-strike provisions have led to more prisoners and more prisons from drug-related crime than anything else-and prisons are fast becoming a profitable business in this country.

Iran-Contra, Ollie North, they had a whole Congressional investigation... Not about drugs...

So, excluding the rhetoric (and that's what it is, in the larger context of where it was said) this could be construed by some as partially true.

“Racism is how this country was founded and how this country is still run!…We [in the U.S.] believe in white supremacy and black inferiority and believe it more than we believe in God.

Considering the nation's historical treatment of Indians and Blacks, I'm gonna say that I'm completely biased on this one-but it's still true, rhetoric aside. ("believe in it more than we believe in God")


“Barack knows what it means living in a country and a culture that is controlled by rich white people. Hillary would never know that. Hillary ain’t never been called a ******.

Neither has Obama's mother...

Hillary has never had a people defined as a non-person.”

Again, I'll point out my personal bias, based on personal experience (the original quote mentioned being passed by cabs, something I had A LOT of experience with once)-doesn't make any of it untrue.

Years ago, when Bob Dole was running for President, he pointed out that Democrats were in office at various times the country has gone to war, and called them "Democratic wars," pointing out the death toll for each one, from WWII through Viet Nam, and saying that "Democratic Wars" killed more people than any others (or words to that effect, I can't find the exact quote right now.) There was a huge backlash against this, and he didn't even get the nomination-for a lot of other reasons as well, but this factored in. The point is, though, that he was not wrong in what he said, but only in the way that he said it....

The fact remains, though it is overlooked (I wonder why) that the democratic party endorsed slavery IN IT'S NATIONAL PLATFORM, that Republicans spearheaded the abolition of slavery and every major civil rights act, against often violent (the KKK attacked Republicans as often as blacks)opposition by democrats.

 

[elder999]

The difference: We were in a war, You may have heard of it, WWII, Tom Hanks made a movie..

The definition of "war" evolved greatly in WWII-we killed many civilian non-combatants in that war-deliberately. Many in Hiroshima and Nagasaki, BTW-though true military-industrial targets were often hard to determine in japan at that time. Many more in Europe, but that's another story. IN any case, there is no difference.

.Were Mexico or Canada to start lobbing missiles into our cities, we would not be as lenient as the Israelis only if you ignore terrorism against Israelis

Terrorism against the Israelis is as much a fact as their oppression, whatever the reason or justification-doesn't make it any less oppressive

Iran-Contra, Ollie North, they had a whole Congressional investigation... Not about drugs...

Said Congressional investigation did find evidence of our government supporting cocaine trade to partially finance one end of the whole thing.

Neither has Obama's mother...

Yeah, but she isn't running for President, she's dead.

Of course, when she was alive, she toted around a little brown baby-sometimes in parts of the world-like this country- where she probably got a much better idea of what Wright was speaking about than Hillary-or you-could ever have.

The fact remains, though it is overlooked (I wonder why) that the democratic party endorsed slavery IN IT'S NATIONAL PLATFORM, that Republicans spearheaded the abolition of slavery and every major civil rights act, against often violent (the KKK attacked Republicans as often as blacks)opposition by democrats.

It is "overlooked" because it's ancient history. The roles of the two parties have actually almost switched since that time.

 

[Andrew Green]

The difference: We were in a war, You may have heard of it, WWII, Tom Hanks made a movie...

"War" has become a fuzzy term as of late. There was no declaration of war when the US invaded Iraq, which killed more civilians then 9/11 did.

Vietnam had no declaration of war, yet many civilians where killed.

And don't forget, the US was created by the actions of "terrorists" fighting against the British Empire.

Were Mexico or Canada to start lobbing missiles into our cities, we would not be as lenient as the Israelis only if you ignore terrorism against Israelis

Again, this is rather fuzzy. The Palestinians did have that land first, but have been losing their land since the UN chopped a piece of it out and gave it to Israel.

So to put it into perspective from the Palestinians point of view, suppose the EU where to step in, and chop out 30% of the US, turn it over to the Native Americans and heavily arm them. Chances are, the US would put up a fight. Both groups would have a reasonable claim to that land, and when fighting breaks out who is "right" and who is "wrong" becomes a fuzzy issue depending on how you look at it.

Neither has Obama's mother...

So we are resorting to "your mama" lines now?

The fact remains, though it is overlooked (I wonder why) that the democratic party endorsed slavery IN IT'S NATIONAL PLATFORM, that Republicans spearheaded the abolition of slavery and every major civil rights act, against often violent (the KKK attacked Republicans as often as blacks)opposition by democrats.

[/quote]

Because it is not relevant to the current state of affairs. Both parties, even the country as a whole, has shifted gears greatly on many issues.

 

[zDom]

I remember when I was a child, and my Mother told me that the Easter Bunny was going to bring us some candy or some such thing. She said that this Rabbit was as big as a human and would walk through the front door of the house to deliver the basket.

I could care less for the basket, I only wished to see this big rabbit for myself. Well, it was quite a letdown when I was told that there was no such Rabbit after all. It was only a made up story.

Much like the feeling one gets when you are punched right in the solar plexus, and the air goes out of you, and it doesn't go back in very easy.

Much like the feeling I got when this story broke, the story about the crazy acting preacher. I will still vote for Obama, though, he is the best of three that I can see. I say that he is the least likely to be "business as usual, no problem, all of you fat cats just line up, its still business as usual!"

With the other two -- yes, "business as usual, you have your RepubliCrat here to server you, no problem -- forget about ordinary citizens, then!"

You REALLY think Obama, if elected, is going to look out for ordinary citizens, eh?

Good luck with that. If he does, why, I'll be just as surprised as if a big man-sized rabbit DID come bursting through my door with a basket full of chocolate eggs.

"Meet the new boss/Same as the old boss" — The Who, '71

 

[Catalyst]

Ah to see ourselves as others see us! I don't think the citizens of any country know exactly how others see them.

That's why I particularly enjoy when folks from England like you and Sukerkin weigh in on things. You're viewing events through a different lens that sometimes is a reality check for me, sometimes uncomfortable (in a learning sort of way), but always respected.

 

[Catalyst]

"We bombed Hiroshima, we bombed Nagasaki, and we nuked far more than the thousands in New York and the Pentagon, and we never batted an eye.”

Offensive as a post- 9-11 comment? Sure-it's mostly true, though.

I think ultimately that the use of Atomic Weapons to end WW2 in the Pacific was the lesser of two evils.

My Father and 6 of his 9 brothers fought the Japanese in the Pacific. When I was little and would hear the war stories, it was not a Sunday walk in the park (to put it politely). The Japanese fought to the death in places like Saipan, Iwo Jima, Okinawa, etc. Even when they knew they weren't going to win, they were determined to kill as many of the enemy as they could before they themselves died. Surrender was not an option they would consider.

They were going to be even more fanatical in the defense of the home islands. The War Dept. estimated gigantic casualties if a full invasion of the home islands had to happen.

Using the Atomic Bomb prevented having to do a full scale invasion and avoided those huge casualties.

While it was shocking to use Atomic Weapons, it did end the war sooner rather than later.

Just my $0.02

 

[FearlessFreep]

That's why I particularly enjoy when folks from England like you and Sukerkin weigh in on things. You're viewing events through a different lens that sometimes is a reality check for me, sometimes uncomfortable (in a learning sort of way), but always respected.

See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Johari_Window

 

[Marginal]

It's funny that this stirs people up, but when types like Fallwell says similar things, (God directed 9/11 to happen 'cause of feminists) his endorsement of McCain is still welcomed.

 

[navyvetcv60]

Let me preface my comment by saying, I hope this controversy sinks Baraka Hussein Obama's campaign, i think he like Jimmy Carter will be detrimental to our nation.
As far as Rev. Wrights comments. THIS IS A FREE NATION HERE, HE CAN SAY WHAT EVER HE WANTS AS LONG AS HIS CONGREGATION APPROVES. People in this country needs to grow up and quit being so easily offended by what others say. In the eyes of our fathers were all cowards with the ease of offense and political correctness.
I'm sure his churches tax free status will be looked at after all this.

 

[Andrew Green]

Baraka Hussein Obama's

I don't think I will ever understand this tactic of constantly sticking his middle name into things as a method of discrediting him.

But by that logic, if John McCain gets elected, and you can't find a guy named Robin with a funny green hat, you are all doomed.

 

[elder999]

I think ultimately that the use of Atomic Weapons to end WW2 in the Pacific was the lesser of two evils.

My Father and 6 of his 9 brothers fought the Japanese in the Pacific. When I was little and would hear the war stories, it was not a Sunday walk in the park (to put it politely). The Japanese fought to the death in places like Saipan, Iwo Jima, Okinawa, etc. Even when they knew they weren't going to win, they were determined to kill as many of the enemy as they could before they themselves died. Surrender was not an option they would consider.

They were going to be even more fanatical in the defense of the home islands. The War Dept. estimated gigantic casualties if a full invasion of the home islands had to happen.

Using the Atomic Bomb prevented having to do a full scale invasion and avoided those huge casualties.

While it was shocking to use Atomic Weapons, it did end the war sooner rather than later.

Just my $0.02

All the evidence we have at hand indicates that the Emperor's surrender was iminent, and the U.S. was aware of this; while a protracted invasion was a consideration in using the bomb, there were other, deeper and more driving motives for using it-first one being simply that we could.

"...in [July] 1945... Secretary of War Stimson, visiting my headquarters in Germany, informed me that our government was preparing to drop an atomic bomb on Japan. I was one of those who felt that there were a number of cogent reasons to question the wisdom of such an act. ...the Secretary, upon giving me the news of the successful bomb test in New Mexico, and of the plan for using it, asked for my reaction, apparently expecting a vigorous assent.

"During his recitation of the relevant facts, I had been conscious of a feeling of depression and so I voiced to him my grave misgivings, first on the basis of my belief that Japan was already defeated and that dropping the bomb was completely unnecessary, and secondly because I thought that our country should avoid shocking world opinion by the use of a weapon whose employment was, I thought, no longer mandatory as a measure to save American lives. It was my belief that Japan was, at that very moment, seeking some way to surrender with a minimum loss of 'face'. The Secretary was deeply perturbed by my attitude..."

- Dwight Eisenhower, Mandate For Change

 

[kaizasosei]

don't you think that Obama sound a little too much like Osama....

 

[navyvetcv60]

I don't think I will ever understand this tactic of constantly sticking his middle name into things as a method of discrediting him.

But by that logic, if John McCain gets elected, and you can't find a guy named Robin with a funny green hat, you are all doomed.

I'm sorry, i don't understand your concern here. We frequently use for example, John Fitzgerald Kennedy, Ronald Wilson Reagan, Richard Millhouse Nixon, William Jefferson Clinton, i could go on...
I just don't understand your response?? No tactic was meant!! Why the sensitivity?

 

[Big Don]

I don't think I will ever understand this tactic of constantly sticking his middle name into things as a method of discrediting him.

Hillary Rodham Clinton likes hers, I just assumed that was how to refer to democrat politicians, by their full names.

 

[Marginal]

I'm sorry, i don't understand your concern here. We frequently use for example, John Fitzgerald Kennedy, Ronald Wilson Reagan, Richard Millhouse Nixon, William Jefferson Clinton, i could go on...
I just don't understand your response?? No tactic was meant!! Why the sensitivity?

Who routinely tosses in Wilson? Bill Clinton's usually referred to as Bill Clinton. For that matter, the only reason people refer to Dubya at all is to differentiate from the senior Bush.

 

[FearlessFreep]

Who routinely tosses in Wilson? Bill Clinton's usually referred to as Bill Clinton. For that matter, the only reason people refer to Dubya at all is to differentiate from the senior Bush.

I hear it on occasion; it's usually done to add gravitas, although sometimes is positive and sometimes it's negative, depending on the amount of reverence and/or sneer in the voice

 

[Andrew Green]

Use of a middle name or initial in politics to alter the image the name brings to mind is a very old political tactic. One which both sides of the fence have been guilty of.

But in this case what it really comes down to is only his opponents use (and often emphasis) his middle name, not to mention occasionally having little slips of the tongue and saying "Osama" rather then "Obama."

Public figures realised long ago that the name they use to market themselves is impoartant to how they are percieved. This isn't just for politicians, but for musicians, actors writers, etc.

 

[FearlessFreep]

Public figures realised long ago that the name they use to market themselves is impoartant to how they are percieved. This isn't just for politicians, but for musicians, actors writers, etc.

Yeah, cause what kinda stage name is "Paul Hewson"??? : )

 

[Marginal]

I hear it on occasion; it's usually done to add gravitas, although sometimes is positive and sometimes it's negative, depending on the amount of reverence and/or sneer in the voice

When the "gravitas" is being exclusively applied by right wing blowhards, this becomes hard to beleive. (Much like meaningless terms like the war on terror, or the existence of a vast Islamofacist conspiracy.)

 

[Big Don]

When the "gravitas" is being exclusively applied by right wing blowhards, this becomes hard to beleive. (Much like meaningless terms like the war on terror, or the existence of a vast Islamofacist conspiracy.)

Or left wing twits with the War on Poverty or the Vast Right Wing Conspiracy™
BTW, the only ones to whom the term War on Terror is meaningless are those who are too craven to admit there are people out there that want to kill them, just to watch them die.