You wanna meet the REAL Rev. Wright ???
POSTED BY: AURaptor
UPDATED: Monday, March 31, 2008 01:30
VIEWED: 12781
PAGE 7 of 13
Quote:Because when we were discussing Don Imus, we were discussing Don Imus, not the girls of the basketball team. If you want to discuss Rev Wright and his audience, then go ahead and discuss Rev Wright and his audience. But conflating Obama with Wright is silly.
Because unlike you, me, and Joe Blow, Rev. Wright has an audience. This seemed to make a difference when we were discussing Don Imus, so why not now?
---------------------------------
Let's party like it's 1929.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
Because when we were discussing Don Imus, we were discussing Don Imus, not the girls of the basketball team. If you want to discuss Rev Wright and his audience, then go ahead and discuss Rev Wright and his audience. But assuming that Obama follows lock-step with everything his minister says is just silly.
How about 'guilty by association'?
Obama legitimizes Rev. Wright's racism by just being there. If it is okay for a Presidential nominee it must be more than okay for everyone else.
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:Because it's a stupid premise?
How about 'guilty by association'?
Or, if you want to look into a person's associations, like I said: Why stop there?
---------------------------------
Let's party like it's 1929.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:Quote:Because it's a stupid premise?
How about 'guilty by association'?
You sure you want to go down that road?
Bush must be evil because he associates with Cheney, who is associated with Haliburton. Both associated with Rove and Libby who associated with Rumsfeld who associated with Saddam who associated with...
Are you sure this isn't a simple case of see, hear, and speak no evil when 'your' guy is involved?
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Well, I see we xposted. Like I said: Why stop at one contact? Especially a contact that has no quid pro quo attached? If you're going to judge a person by "the company he keeps" then look at those who would influence that person day to day: their boss, their spouse, the lobbyists that wheedle them and the staffers that feed them information. You laso have to look at their history: What have they done in the past that was significant? Do they have patterns of behavior?
I shouldn't have to be telling you this. You're smarter than that, I thought. To focus on a single person and then blow up the significance until it blots out everything else is just hysteria.
---------------------------------
Let's party like it's 1929.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
Well, I see we xposted. Like I said: Why stop at one contact? Especially a contact that has no quid pro quo attached? If you're going to judge a person by "the company he keeps" then look at those who would influence that person day to day: their boss, their spouse, the lobbyists that wheedle them and the staffers that feed them information. You laso have to look at their history: What have they done in the past that was significant? Do they have patterns of behavior?
To my thinking, the staffers and lobbyists (who are open to scrutiny) are a part of the job. If ya wanna be President, you take the good with the bad.
Where Obama voluntarily chooses to worship and who he voluntarily chooses to listen to are just that, his choice. One choice that is not working in his favour at this time, be that right or wrong.
Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
To focus on a single person and then blow up the significance until it blots out everything else is just hysteria.
Blowing things up is counter-productive, so is glossing things over. Two different kinds of hysteria, both just as dangerous.
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Get over it. The guy is a RACIST.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
I am glad that my family owned slaves. They helped out a lot of people. U.S.A. beats the ever loving hell out what exist in Africa.
bb
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by BigDamnNobody:
How about looking at this from another angle. I remember the "scum trap" analogy and thought it quite apropos. The whole reason RWED was initialy formed was to keep discussions such as this from the regular board. A point that I thought Finn made quite clear. We all can wax poetic about our shared interest, Firefly, but things can get quite heated when discussin politics and the like. I've often found it interesting that such diametrically opposite individuals could find themselves enamoured of the same show, but I digress.
Instead of scaring off potential recruits at the main board, our crap finging sessions were sent to RWED where the inquisitive can go if so inclined. I believe it was more the tone and subject of these discussions, not the discussers themselves which are the "scum" that requires "trapping".
But hey, far be it for me to put words in Finn's mouth. If he actually meant to call people scum than I guess that is his right as well. Heard much worse insults in these parts than that though, much worse.
Hey BDN,
Thanks for the civility of your comment. I too was pleasantly surprised at the appeal of Firefly to people of such disparate political views. (I remember my first encounter with this amazing phenomenon when someone posted that Malcolm Reynolds reminded him of George W. Bush. "Holy crap!" I thought, "How is that even possible?" But I was younger then...
) Few works of art span such chasms of ideology and temperament and those few that do are the great ones. While it's true that I tend to post in the RWED far more than I do up the page, doesn't mean I don't lurk up there a great deal. It's just that I've been here since we were writing post cards to Hollywood addresses and I've about said all I can about the best T.V. show I've ever seen and the only T.V. show I wouldn't feel deeply embarrassed to campaigned for.
But back to Finn. You don't have to put words in his mouth because he speaks for himself. Back in the WTF? People on here voted that Bush should be prez in '04?! thread he said:
Quote:(Slam against those of us who take it seriously.) It’s full of conversations and ideas that are more fanciful and unrealistic then probably any discussion anywhere else on the board. (Surely Finn is not including himself as the author of any such conversations and ideas.) The fact that there is no moderation means that real debate is buried under dishonesty and personal attacks and crazy paranoid delusions.(All presumably from people Finn doesn't like, people not Finn--and begs the question, "Why does he waste his time?") But it creates a reservoir into which all the crap goes. Like a filtration system in a pool, it attracts all the those people(aka: "all the crap" referenced in the previous sentence) and all that discussion that would otherwise foul the waters and eventually ruin the board completely. By keeping all the Bush-haters, for instance, (Exactly!) in this little room, discussion in the other boards can continue without that destabilizing influence...(...of people other than Finn, of course.)
RWED is largely a joke.
Hardly the neutral analogy you propose he offered us.
I was here at the RWED's genesis and I think it was entirely appropriate at the time to keep every discussion from devolving into politics (as so many did back then--anyone here remember Ghoulman?), but I also think it is a testament to Joss's genius that his astonishingly short-lived television program would inspire so many people of such different political convictions to still be hashing things out now 6 years on.
HKCavalier
Hey, hey, hey, don't be mean. We don't have to be mean, because, remember, no matter where you go, there you are.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:Indeed. Then, we should look at Reverend Wright's sermons in totality, or at least take a enough of a sampling to know if the entirety of his viewpoint is represented by three words or by a quote from a white ambassador.
Blowing things up is counter-productive, so is glossing things over. Two different kinds of hysteria, both just as dangerous.
Anyone here care to do some research on Wright's views? He's written four books so - start cracking! Or are we just going to go with a couple of snippets?
More importantly, since Wright isn't running for Office, does anyone care to research Obama's views and history? 'Cause I'd rather meet Obama than Wright.
---------------------------------
Let's party like it's 1929.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME