Power Line News

barney - 21 March 2008 11:14 AM

FredTownWard - 21 March 2008 11:01 AM

I see—honesty problem—you accused me of racism right above:

barney - 21 March 2008 10:46 AM

Let me try it on you - you’re thinking “I’ll let a n*gger in the Whitehouse over my dead body”.

Now you could argue that you tried to QUALIFY it, but as you well know, racism is an accusation too explosive to be qualified…

which is why you did it.

I did it to show you that your type of argument is totally dishonest - I can’t believe I have to spell it out for you - but I was explicitly saying that you are NOT racist. That part:

barney - 21 March 2008 10:46 AM

Let me try it on you - you’re thinking “I’ll let a n*gger in the Whitehouse over my dead body”.

Was an example of faulty implication, like your previous post.

You could have come up with another example; you CHOSE to accuse me of racism because you know how well that charge sticks, even when “allegedly” made in jest.

barney - 21 March 2008 11:14 AM

But, you, on the other hand, explicitly accused me of racism, based on nothing other than my belief that Obama has a good chance of becoming president.

Perhaps you can explain your reasons for playing the racist card.

I did not accuse you of racism; I accused you of agreeing with and thinking like Rev. Wright. Frankly, I was referring more to Wright’s foreign policy views and conspiratorial view of history than to his calling white people in general and critics of black people in particular racists, but you have demonstrated that to be true as well.

barney - 21 March 2008 01:13 AM

BigTex - 21 March 2008 12:52 AM

Short, short memories.

“Typical WHITE Person...”

For 50 points, which presidential candidate did the MSM excoriate for WEEKS when he went to the NAACP convention and used the expression, “You People” in his speech?

Tick.....tick.....tick....

Here’s how the NYTimes covered Perot’s speech to the NAACP.

Not exactly ‘excoriating’, wouldn’t you agree?

Well, The “Little Hand-grenade With the Bad Haircut” gave the speech on July 11th, and he quit the race on the 16th.  Unfair coverage of his remark was the top reason in his speech.

2nd memory check:  which 92 presidential candidate quit the race, then re-entered as an independent a month later? 50 point bonus question:  Name his VP running mate and say whether he knew what he was doing or not <G>.

FWIW, the NYT reporter either wasn’t there or didn’t listen to the actual speech like I did.  Perot said, “YOU PEOPLE” and then quickly corrected himself by saying “your people.” He repeated the ”your people” thing twice more later on just to make sure he didn’t use the words that hurt black folks’ feelings, “you people.”

I still laugh when I hear a black drill instructor refer to his trainees as “you people.” I picture him with a crew-cut, hauling out a chart, explaining how messed up they are…

Rocketman ~(Ä)~ - 21 March 2008 12:12 PM

We Seem ...

To have lost sight of something here:

Just what IS a “typical white person”?

I’d like to know in case I ever run into one.

Thanks.

.

He’s just like the typical black person, or the typical hispanic person, or the typical oriental person (whatever the heck oriental means)…

Since we don’t know everybody, then each persons “typical” is a combination of similar traits observed in dealing with others in same/similar groups.  Over time, we form an idea of how all people in one of the groups will behave, based on our experience.

The above is a description of the one word that nobody - especially nobody who is white - dare accuse Obama of:

stereotyping

BigTex - 21 March 2008 01:09 PM

barney - 21 March 2008 01:13 AM

BigTex - 21 March 2008 12:52 AM

Short, short memories.

“Typical WHITE Person...”

For 50 points, which presidential candidate did the MSM excoriate for WEEKS when he went to the NAACP convention and used the expression, “You People” in his speech?

Tick.....tick.....tick....

Here’s how the NYTimes covered Perot’s speech to the NAACP.

Not exactly ‘excoriating’, wouldn’t you agree?

Well, The “Little Hand-grenade With the Bad Haircut” gave the speech on July 11th, and he quit the race on the 16th.  Unfair coverage of his remark was the top reason in his speech.

Do you have a copy of his speech? My recollection was his primary reason was the resurgence of the democratic party.

Ask someone in Los Angeles whether they would like to drive through Watts (an all Black area) at night.  I’ve never read of any incident involving a white person being hurt, but there is a sense here that it is dangerous. I know when I got lost and ended up there, I felt fear.  That is what I think is meant by typical. I don’t think people are truthful with themselves or like to admit their deep-seated prejudices.

65 y.o. white woman - 21 March 2008 03:09 PM

Ask someone in Los Angeles whether they would like to drive through Watts (an all Black area) at night.  I’ve never read of any incident involving a white person being hurt, but there is a sense here that it is dangerous. I know when I got lost and ended up there, I felt fear.  That is what I think is meant by typical. I don’t think people are truthful with themselves or like to admit their deep-seated prejudices.

Lady, who knows what Obama meant by “typical white woman?”
The fact that he would try to lump us together is what’s offensive.
By your reckoning, Jesse Jackson is a “typical white woman,” too, because he admitted he also was afraid of black people.
The fact remains that “typical” white, black and Hispanic people fear black men because they disproportionately commit more of the violent crimes in our country.
This isn’t born out of racism or prejudice, as Obama implies, but sheer reason, experience and common sense.

JentheNeoCon - 21 March 2008 03:16 PM

65 y.o. white woman - 21 March 2008 03:09 PM

Ask someone in Los Angeles whether they would like to drive through Watts (an all Black area) at night.  I’ve never read of any incident involving a white person being hurt, but there is a sense here that it is dangerous. I know when I got lost and ended up there, I felt fear.  That is what I think is meant by typical. I don’t think people are truthful with themselves or like to admit their deep-seated prejudices.

Lady, who knows what Obama meant by “typical white woman?”
The fact that he would try to lump us together is what’s offensive.
By your reckoning, Jesse Jackson is a “typical white woman,” too, because he admitted he also was afraid of black people.
The fact remains that “typical” white, black and Hispanic people fear black men because they disproportionately commit more of the violent crimes in our country.
This isn’t born out of racism or prejudice, as Obama implies, but sheer reason, experience and common sense.

Jen’s made a couple of good points here.

Furthermore, this....

I don’t think people are truthful with themselves or like to admit their deep-seated prejudices.

...is an example of the leftists having partially achieved their goal of coercing a denial of reality and innate survival instincts by self-censoring “reason, experience and common sense”, lest one feel “bigoted”.

The idea is to allow yourself to be assaulted or murdered, by not protecting yourself from obvious danger, because to do otherwise is “hurting the racial tinker-bell’s feelings”.

The ideological beliefs thrusted upon society by a select few whom deem it necessary to force us to believe that we, those labeled as “white people”, some how must pay for the past atrocities of a select few who have been dead for decades, even centuries, need to be muzzled!

I come from a long like of American Indian linage from my father’s side and several generations from my mothers as well as German and Irish. I am pretty confident when I state that for several generations not only did we have nothing to do with slavery and the atrocities bestowed onto those who were actual SLAVES, but that the Native “American” Indians suffered far more atrocities than did the “black man”, albeit a select number and not ALL black men & woemn.

Shall I dare mention that it is a proven fact, and not twisted views of history, NOT EVERY BLACK person was enslave and that in fact black people owned slaves? Dare we not speak the whole truth where this is concerned? Wait, NOT EVERY WHITE person owned slaves either!! Hmmmmmmmmmm
This is not a matter of political party, but rather a matter of Obama using the race card to get what he wants, and that is crap.

I for one do not particularly like being clumped into the group of “people” who enslaved Africans anymore than I am sure certain aspects of the black race like being clumped into the category of criminals and ignorant lazy people because a select few of their race are just that.

Stereotyping

I am not a big Hilary Clinton fan, but the more that man opens his mouth and spews his hatred and throws around the race card, the more I would vote for her if I had to with the key word being if I had to.

I am a former police office and value the 2nd amendment to the T. I have a concealed handgun license and will carry my weapon so long as I feel there may be a need to defend myself, or most importantly my children.

My point:

I do not do so because I fear black people anymore than I do so because I think aliens are going to come out of the sky and suck us all up in their spacecrafts tomorrow. I do so in order to protect myself from whom ever deems it necessary to commit a crime against myself, my children or God forbid some other helpless soul.

I will never spend MY valuable time to walk out of MY way to get out of yours simply because of the color of your skin, your gender, your religious preference or your sexual preference.

How dare anyone be so presumptuous!

You are just not that important to me in order to waste my time on something so ridiculous. Likewise, our society has more pressuring issues other than that of spending our time defending ourselves in 2008, yet here we are as “white people” defending ourselves against the stereotypical view that has been thrusted upon white America, a view that states we are “typical white people” and fear blacks.

LOL.........fear blacks?!?!

By the off chance the non-racial and well informed seasoned leader might read this: Mr. Obama, if I fear anything, it is the well-being of my children-nothing more, nothing less! What I fear is knowing that people like you are and/or may waste valuable taxpayers dollars to fight about something that is ridiculous and quite frankly redundant. That over 3 million children will starve in the process because all of the money wasted on something like this could be used to feed starving AMERICAN children and the elderly. Better yet, that money would be better spent on those with psychiatric problems, the problems that if treated would afford many homeless individuals the opportunity to become gainfully employed and productive citizens.

I have listened to the speeches of both Obama and his religious leader in their entirety-and what their intentions were or are, well are quite frankly irrelevant.

I seriously doubt old Imus’ intentions were to be a racial jackass, but what he said apparently was racists and offended many. I for one had no idea that “nappy headed whoe” was a racists remark and I believe most did not take it that way until good old Reverend Sharpton got his claws into it.

Should I, someone who is inadvertently lumped with the “typical white people” be allowed to sue Barack Obama for his comments? I am truly offended as an American citizen regardless of my race and/or ethnicity.

Again, my point is that we try to focus on the bigger picture when in some aspects, especially appointing someone to run our country; it is the little things that matter too.

We are a country still comprised of a larger percentage of a white population, therefore grouping white people into the category like he did, comparing them to his grandmother, is truly quite offensive.

I wasn’t alive when my grandparents and great grandparents were younger, but I surely never recall either set of grandparents acting in the manner that Barack is accusing them of as acting like.

We are taught as children not to let name-calling bother us, to be bigger than the other person and walk away; of course that is unless the name-calling is by a white person to that of a minority. Then it is a racist remark, but let the shoe be on the other foot, the foot where an alleged educated black leader is running for President and groups ALL white people into a category as Barack did and we should be grateful he pointed out the obvious.

Really? What is the obvious, that all white people are alike or that Barack’s comments were stereotypical and quite frankly begs to questions Mr. Obama’s intentions with this country should he acquire the office of the US Presidency.

Here’s to you Mr. Obama, because your racial presumptions are exactly what this country needs! How about you throw in your Reverend as the Vice President, because on a sarcastic note we know how much better off this country would be then.

Again, how dare anyone be so presumptuous to lump ALL Whites into a category as Barack has!

barney - 21 March 2008 01:59 PM

BigTex - 21 March 2008 01:09 PM

barney - 21 March 2008 01:13 AM

BigTex - 21 March 2008 12:52 AM

Short, short memories.

“Typical WHITE Person...”

For 50 points, which presidential candidate did the MSM excoriate for WEEKS when he went to the NAACP convention and used the expression, “You People” in his speech?

Tick.....tick.....tick....

Here’s how the NYTimes covered Perot’s speech to the NAACP.

Not exactly ‘excoriating’, wouldn’t you agree?

Well, The “Little Hand-grenade With the Bad Haircut” gave the speech on July 11th, and he quit the race on the 16th.  Unfair coverage of his remark was the top reason in his speech.

Do you have a copy of his speech? My recollection was his primary reason was the resurgence of the democratic party.

It’s folded in my wallet so I can keep it next to the place that reminds me of Perot…

I’m sure you can locate it on the web somewhere.  You will also find he had many,many reasons, all bereft of rationality, and they changed frequently.  I simply recall the one he mentioned most and that got the most coverage.

Remember getting the Dallas cops to check his house for wiretaps?  He was sure Bush’s spies had lesbian photos of his daughter Caroline.  Then, Bush was planning on busting into the wedding, etc., etc. 

I think it was at a presser that he blamed the media: “When his allegations caused a sensation, Perot backed off, castigating reporters for what he called “your twisted, distorted stories.” Time magazine 9/9/92.

He’s just as deranged as Jeremiah Wright, but he was white, so it was OK to make fun of him.

Jim Geraghty’s “The Campaign Spot” on NRO has the following:

Survey USA Sees Huge Wright Fallout

Survey USA has some dramatic numbers, illustrating the Wright fallout for Obama.

In Alabama, Obama had been down 14 to McCain. Now he’s down 27.

In Minnesota, Obama has gone from up 7 to down by 1 percent.

In Wisconsin, he’s gone from up 11 to up by 4 percent.

In California, Obama’s lead actually increased by 3 percent (to 14), but here’s the biggest shocker. In Massachusetts — the state of John Kerry, Ted Kennedy, Michael Dukakis, Barney Frank, etc. — Obama’s gone from up 7 to a TIE.

Now, I don’t really expect McCain to win Massachusetts this fall. (One reader wondered if this number was a reflection of voters’ hangover/buyer’s remorse over Obama’s buddy, Deval Patrick.) But the idea that what was considered one of the bluest states in the nation could be in play has to keep certain superdelegates up at night.

UPDATE: N.Z. Bear notes that since the Obama story really caught the public’s attention, March 14, about 30 percent of all blog posts on the Internet mentioning “Obama” have also included the word “Wright.” In the two days since the speech, the percentage has remained stable. He’s got a really neat graph found here.

NahnCee - 21 March 2008 11:59 AM

Congratulations, suzette.

With just one post you’ve got yourself slapped with an “ignore” on the grounds that you’re too dumb to breath and I don’t want your name-calling contaminating my computer.

Way to communicate.

Too dumb to “breath,” NahnCee? Maybe you’re jealous, since you’re too dumb to spell, darlin.’

- SooooZet

Ps. Last time I checked, it was more or less considered “free speech,” rather than “name calling” but I’m familiar with your type - only want said what you can agree with. Tsk, tsk. Take your uptight computer and . . . well, use your uptight imagination.

Oh, yeah and NeoConjob - I have Plenty of things I’d like to say to you, you sorry, ignorant desk worker living in your own, self righteous bubble. However, I have to restrain myself, since I’m not on my boss’s dime (I’m self-employed - thanks so much for the great work you’ve done on our pitiful economy, CHIMP CHIEF). In conclusion, therefore, WHAT EVER!

Ironically this was posted almost one week BEFORE Barack opened his stereotypical mouth.....Gee, wonder where he gets it from?

CHICAGO — Barack Obama’s controversial pastor and the church he’s served for 36 years may be in hot water over statements he has made from the pulpit in support of the Illinois senator’s run for the White House.

The Rev. Jeremiah Wright Jr. preaches that he follows the righteous path, but when it comes to the federal tax law, his Trinity United Church of Christ may have crossed the line.

Wright praised Obama from the pulpit on Jan. 13 in what was billed as his final sermon at the Chicago church.

“There is a man here who can take this country in a new direction,” Wright said during his sermon, according to recordings obtained by FOX News.

It was not the first time Wright appeared to endorse Obama, who was baptized at Trinity United, has been an active member of the church for two decades and receives spiritual mentorship from Wright.

The title of Obama’s second book, “The Audacity of Hope,” was taken from a sermon by Wright.

During a Christmas sermon, Wright tried to compare Obama’s upbringing to Jesus at the hands of the Romans.

“Barack knows what it means living in a country and a culture that is controlled by rich white people,” Wright said. “Hillary would never know that.

RelatedStories
As Obama Talks Religion, Questions Surround His Controversial Pastor “Hillary ain’t never been called a nigger. Hillary has never had a people defined as a non-person.”

In his Jan. 13 sermon, Wright said:

“Hillary is married to Bill, and Bill has been good to us. No he ain’t! Bill did us, just like he did Monica Lewinsky. He was riding dirty.”

FOX News purchased the video recordings of Wright’s sermons from the church.

“It’s pretty clear an indirect endorsement of Barack Obama — that’s not something you’re supposed to do according to the tax code,” said Andrew Walsh, a professor at Trinity College who specializes in religion in politics.

The tax code bans churches from participating in or intervening in a political campaign. Violations can result in the loss of a church’s tax exempt status.

The Obama campaign issued a statement in response to FOX News’ inquiries about Wright’s sermons.

“Senator Obama has said repeatedly that personal attacks such as this have no place in this campaign or our politics, whether they’re offered from a platform at a rally or the pulpit of a church,” said Bill Burton, a campaign spokesman.

“Senator Obama does not think of the pastor of his church in political terms. Like a member of his family, there are things he says with which Senator Obama deeply disagrees.”

Click here to visit Trinity United Church of Christ Web site.

Obama defended Wright’s longtime activism for blacks in America last week at a campaign event in Ohio.

“Jeremiah Wright ... has said some things that are considered controversial because he’s considered that part of his social gospel,” Obama said.

The Internal Revenue Service wouldn’t comment on whether it is looking into potential tax violations at Trinity United. The church declined to make Wright available for an interview.

Congregant Dwight Hopkins, a professor of Theology at the University of Chicago, said there is no basis for the IRS to go after the church.

“From the church side they will say it’s theology,” said. “If it wasn’t a senator running for president and it wasn’t his church, then I think we could say all kinds of things.”

The IRS has written dozens of letters warning churches against political advocacy from the pulpit. Yet it has revoked a church’s tax-exempt status only twice in the last half-century.

Walsh said it’s not typical for the IRS to enforce the rules.

“There’s a tension here between the desires of the religious leaders to say important things in the public marketplace and the IRS rules, and so most of the time, the IRS does not enforce these rules,” Walsh said.

The public scrutiny of these sermons comes in the wake of last month’s revelation by the head of the United Church of Christ that the IRS is investigation a speech Obama gave at the denomination’s national conference last year in Connecticut.

In a certified letter, Marsha Ramirez, IRS director, EO Examinations, wrote:

“Our concerns are based on articles posted on several Web sites including the church’s which state the United States Presidential Candidate Senator Barack Obama addressed nearly 10,000 church members gathered at the United Church of Christ’s biennial General Synod at the Hartford Civic Center, on June 23, 2007. In addition, 40 Obama volunteers staffed campaign tables outside the center to promote his campaign.”

The church and the Obama campaign have denied that any inappropriate political advocacy occurred during this speech.

Does anyone besides me see humor in a man named wRIGHT helping undo the candidacy of a Leftie.  Perhaps we’ll hear Mrs. Obama go on TV to complain about a vast wRIGHT wing conspiracy.  At least this time, she’ll really have something to complain about.

Yes, Evon.  Ever since this post came up, I, a right-leaning conservative, have wanted to write that Rev. Wright on the Left is wrong. Right? There— I’ve done it and no longer feel left out.

conservativeblackone - 21 March 2008 02:59 AM

March 19, 2008

The White Preacher Double Standard: How Hagee, Parsley and the Rest Get Away with Everything

What separates all of these outrageous preachers from Barack Obama’s?

You guessed it.

They’re white and Reverend Jeremiah Wright is not.

If it’s not racism that’s causing the disparity in media treatment of these preachers, then what is it?

13 reasons the “disparity” isn’t racist:

1.  Obama has been an active member of Wright’s hate-filled church for almost two decades.

2.  Obama did not denounce Wright’s hate speech until after it became a media firestorm.

3.  Obama gave Wright a prominent position on his campaign staff.

4.  McCain was endorsed by, but does not regularly attend the churches of, any of the pastors you mentioned.

5.  McCain publicly denounced Falwell’s comments regarding 9/11/01, and he did so before a media firestorm.

6.  McCain publicly denounced the anti-Catholic statements of Hagee, and he did so before a media firestorm.

7.  I’ve seen McCain repeatedly chastised on MSNBC, CNN and in several newspapers over both Parsley and Hagee.

8.  Both Guiliani and Romney have dropped out of the race. 

9.  Romney was skewered by the media for his Mormonism, and for about a year before the media said anything about Rev. Wright.

10.  One of the reasons Romney lost the nomination was because of his religion - this can be verified through exit polling data, etc.

11.  Mormons dropped their discriminatory practices in the 1970’s.  Rev. Wright spewed hatred from the pulpit until his 2008 retirement.

12.  Romney was brought to the Mormon faith by his parents as an infant.  Obama chose Wright’s church as an adult.

13.  Whether you agree or disagree with it’s stance, the Christian bible denounces homosexuality.  The Christian bible does not say anything about hating “rich, white people”.