Sat, Nov 21, 2009
EURweb |
|
Back to the Article »
Click Here
|
|---|
| Click here to post your comments. |
|
Name:
soulmusic101
Comment: "From Common's point of view, it's obvious that the fury over Rev. Jeremiah Wright's statements was trumped up by conservatives and others who want to derail Sen. Barack Obama's bid for the White House."...Now I wonder who the "Other's" would be? Anybody seen Clinton and her gang?
|
|
Name:
Teigh
Comment: Soulmusic> I hear you but after watching the full context of the comment and coupling that with the fact the Bill Clinton invited the Rev. Wright to the White House in the midst of the Monica Lewinsky scandal; it confirms two things for me: (1) It wasn't the Clinton's that leaked that video (remember Malcolm thought for the longest the the Nation was behind what was being done to him until right before the end when it realized it was much bigger)...I say the Republican party did it. They have realized for the longest that Obama is the one to beat -- not Hilliary. What they also realize is that because most of America is divided whenit somes to race & gender whatever they do -- they can also make it appear that she did it. (2) I have a whole new RESPECT for Barack Obama. The easiest thing to do would have been to put the quote in context by revealing who said it -- he went beyond that and addressed the whole issue of Race In America PERIOD. I am more than sure his staff pulled the entire sermon and saw what some of us are seeing for the first time. What I find perplexing is -- why did it take so long for EUR to expose this. The should have put this out the same day or the next day -- instead of waiting for someone else to report it!
|
|
Name:
professo285
Comment: Now, how about that HRC and the media? Another real brother putting it down for his minister. By the way, did anyone see the story about the photos that Wright and Bill Clinton took together in 1998? Apparently, Wright had prayd for him while the Monica situation was going down?
|
|
Name:
soulmusic101
Comment: Teigh...I see your point but "race-baiting" by the Clinton Gang started awhile back when one of her team players suggested that Obama sold yayo (coke) to school kids. O already admitted to drug use in a previous book. Unlike Bill who didn't inhale...Yeah right. Now Bill is running around saying that only mcCain and HRC love their Country and are Patriotic. Wright visted Bill during the Ken Starr/Monica Lewinsky fiasco in The White House and now he is a "racist". Funny how Bill will never bring ths up.
|
|
Name:
soulmusic101
Comment: Teigh...we already know the Repub's are caable. The only "Other's that stand too profit are the Clinton Team. HRC's underling's know how to play like Karl Rove.
|
|
Name:
soulmusic101
Comment: "capable"
|
|
Name:
soulmusic101
Comment: Funny how when the story broke that somebody was snooping at Obama's passport illegally. A short time later HRC and McCain scream that "hey they looked at my passport too". Sure...HRC...sure.
|
|
Name:
Teigh
Comment: soulmusic101> I hear you and what I love about Obama campaign is that he has inspired us, by both positive and negative press to become aware and involved in the voting process. He's a class act....any other candidate would have thrown the former amb%*$ador to Iraq under the bus and just attributed the comments to him.
|
|
Name:
shulamite
Comment: Teigh, you're absolutely correct. And I hope that Amb%*$ador Peck is classy enough to return the good graces.
|
|
Name:
soulmusic101
Comment: Teigh...notice how Obama's Camp has to fight Bill, Shrillary, Fox News, CNN, Neo-Con's, Racist Peep's, McCain, and HRC's Team all at the same time. And yet Obama still keeps his dignity intact. This is just making "O" stronger and not weaker....You know Bill was upset when Latino Gov. Bill Richardson said that "O" was the kind of Leader you see once in a lifetime. Bill wasted his time at Richardson'e la casa (home) watching the SuperBowl for nothing.
|
|
Name:
McNasty
Comment: I knew once people got a chance to see the whole video it would be another awakening. I said here last week that it was dangerous to have cameras in churches where pastor's spoke freely. I wouldn't expect any less from a black preacher connected to his community and independent of thought! The media took those snippets and ran with it and Obama lost some percentage points. It's gonna take this week to open the eyes of the rest now that the whole video is out there. The rethugs/billary? I see no difference and believe if one hadn't orchestrated it the other would have. Obama is the man to beat and it's a shame that they had to go to the sewer to even try. After Obama's Philadelphia speech billary is looking kinda dry and since Common and Sinbad have lent voice to two critical situations that have come out of their dirty politricks, I'm saying here today billary has run out of anything useful(?) to say and hopefully she will begin her campaign as she should have in the first place: on the absolute truth of her accomplishments.
|
|
Name:
giantsfan
Comment: Why didnt Obama step in and put the Rev's comments in their proper context. Instead, he called him his "Crazy Uncle". Im going to vote for Obama, but I have lost some respect for him. He could have released the entire sermons himself, and saved the Pastor from SOME of the heat he has taken........
|
|
Name:
BigMamaThang
Comment: You can see more videos and hear more sermons at:
http://www.youtube.com/user/TRINITYCHGO -
http://www.youtube.com/user/ronptech -
http://essence.typepad.com/news -
http://www.cnn.com/CNN/Programs/anderson.cooper.360 -
The truth is finally starting to come out. When Jeremiah Wright's sermons are taken in full context, there is nothing racist or anti-American about them. They are trying to take down Obama by destroying his pastor and his church. However, we all know the devil is a liar and God is on the side of righteousness.
|
|
Name:
naturalsista
Comment: obama could have quashed the whole thing by saying the words the media keeps showing over and over are actually the words of former ambazzador edward peck that rev. wright was quoting but then obama wouldn't have had 45 minutes of air time to himself without shrill face staring at him and butting in. obama did the right thing by letting this thing play itself out and at the same time we all got to see once more the true face of americans.
|
|
Name:
JGGIRL
Comment: I wonder how much publicity the actual sermons will get.
|
|
Name:
mcctusk
Comment: Natural>> unfortunately, Obama could not have squashed the whole thing, because everyone does not see things as you and i do. I have seen posts on youtube, under this clip that STILL call Rev. Wright racist and anti-American. I agree that he did the right thing by letting this thing play out AND by letting his supporters reveal the truth to those who would want to hear the truth. In politics in 2008, the one thing you cannot do is be defensive. That is a weak move that sends the message that you will cower under pressure. As they say, the best defense is a good offense, which is what Obama did!
|
|
Name:
Stephanie
Comment: SoulMusic, I so agree with you. As soon and HRC and John McCain started whinning, I knew it was a conspiracy! Big Time!!! FOCK, I wish the election would be over with...
|
|
Name:
naturalsista
Comment: mctusk, i understand and agree. i was posting in reference to giantsfan. what i've seen thus far is that no matter what obama does or say is not enough for those who don't want him to succeed.
|
|
Name:
Teigh
Comment: mcctusk & naturalsista....I agree with mcctusk, naturalsista -- the real issue isn't who said what..the real issue is that all these years later (and I'm talking hundreds of years because I knew my great grandmother and my grandmother was first generation post slavery/sharecropper) Race is still single most divisive topic in America. And Obama showed the REAL measure of a man by not throwing the amba s s ador under the bus (that was way too easy) instead he adressed the 1000 pound elephant in the room RACE IN AMERICA and pretty much put ALL OF US in check -- both the black and the white community. On another note, I really wonder what the black community in New York State and New York City feels about Ms. Hillary now that she has shown us what she really thinks about us -- the black community voted her in and she threw all of us under the bus all in the name of an election where she pretty much can never catch up to Obama!!!! So when this reality set's in she come back to NYS & NYC and tell us what?
|
|
Name:
Kulchaman
Comment: Rev. J.Wright was only speaking the truth when media got a hold of this clip from his church..where in the context that he being blame for being racist, not the case...congregation has many white members as well...preach on !
|
|
Name:
mcctusk
Comment: Excerpts from Former Amb%*$ador Edward Peck's October 11, 2001 appearance on CNN's Crossfire:
BILL PRESS: Amb%*$adorWe know Osama bin Laden has been supporting the terrorists, financing them and arming them. He's not alone, and perhaps not the most dangerous. There's Hussein that we know is supporting terrorist groups like the Hezbollah the Hamas, and probably bin Laden. We know he has got biological weapons. Probably has nuclear weapons. Wouldn't this war against terrorism be a mistake if we stop at Osama bin Laden and don't take out Saddam Hussein as well?
EDWARD PECK, FORMER AMb%*$aDOR TO IRAQ: Let me answer your question. I think it's not a mistake for the following reasons. No. 1 is that nobody in this world -- with the possible exception of Tony Blair -- gives us the right to decide who rules Iraq. That is not part of our charter. It is not part of our mandate. Now, they can't stop us, because we are who we are. But when you take out Saddam Hussein, the key question you have to ask then is, what happens after that? And we don't have a clue. Nobody knows, but it's probably going to be bad. And a lot of people are going to be very upset about that, because that really is not written into our role in this world is to decide who rules Iraq.
PRESS: We don't know what is coming next, but it's hard to believe it could be any worse than Saddam Hussein. But you know, Amb%*$ador, looking at this today -- Bill Kristol at "The Weekly Standard," he got a passel of conservatives to sign this letter to President Bush.
|
|
Name:
mcctusk
Comment: PRESS: Saying, we've got 41 conservatives. We have to put Saddam Hussein in the target. But he's not alone. There are even some liberals who are speaking like this, and talking about the evidence that we do have that there was a link here in the September 11 bombings. I would like you to listen to one of my favorite liberals and hear what he had to say. Senator Joe Lieberman.
SEN. JOSEPH LIEBERMAN, CONNECTICUT: We have heard reports of contact between the individuals who were on those planes that committed those atrocities against America on September 11; contact between them and various members of Iraqi intelligence. The obvious fact is that Saddam Hussein has the motive to have wanted to strike us. I think if the trail leads in this case to Iraq and contact with the attacks of September 11 or with terrorism generally, we have to go at them.
PRESS: If the trail leads, are you saying we look the other way?
PECK: No, but the trail hasn't led there yet.
PRESS: Pretty clear.
PECK: You have to understand now. Just like the colonel here, I'm a veteran of the armed forces. I have had two tours of active duty in the Army. And I don't take a back seat to anybody in terms of patriotism. This is the greatest nation that ever was and may be the greatest nation that ever will be. But that's my view, and it is not universally shared. So we have come out with 21 pages of proof that Osama bin Laden was involved. I have read that material. That's allegations. That's not proof. It's an entirely different thing. Proof of what it means to us. So, yes, he's not a nice guy, Saddam Hussein. But I think that the costs to our nation and its interests of taking him out are probably vastly exceeding anything we would gain by doing it.
|
|
Name:
mcctusk
Comment: NOVAK: I want to read you a CNN/"USA Today"/Gallup poll taken just over the weekend. "Action against other countries that are just harboring terrorists": 78 percent approved, 16 percent disapprove. Now, I don't want to criticize the Gallup organization, but I would like a definition of terrorist. You know, one man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter. They don't say terrorist connected with September 11. They don't say terrorist connected with anything. Were the Israeli Haganah or Stern Gang terrorists when they blew up the King David Hotel? What is a terrorist?
MAGINNIS: Taking innocent lives unnecessarily, whether it be 9- 11 or it being Hamas or Hezbollah going into pizza parlors, blowing up innocent civilians. That's terrorism to me.
NOVAK: What about Israeli F-16s shooting down Palestinian civilians?
MAGINNIS: If they shoot down Palestinian civilians and they're not collateral damage in going after a known Hamas or Hezbollah person that happens to be at the wrong place at the right time. And those sorts of circumstances do take place. But unfortunately, when we are dealing with terrorism and they are targeting civilians -- in many cases, primarily civilians, quite frankly -- they are not targeting the military
|
|
Name:
mcctusk
Comment: PRESS: Amb%*$ador, as former amb%*$ador to Iraq I know you have affection for the country and for its people, and you are disgusted with what Saddam Hussein has done with that country. When you look at this guy, it's not just the events of September 11, as horrific as they were. We had a couple weeks ago on CROSSFIRE Laurie Mylroie, an author who has written a book where she puts out what I think is pretty convincing evidence that it was Saddam Hussein and his intelligence that were the masterminds behind the 1993 bombing of the World Trade Center. If we don't get him now, aren't we letting him get away with two attacks on the United States in a row? Don't you believe her evidence?
PECK: No, I do not. I think Dr. Mylroie has got a real phobia about this, and if she possibly could, she would accuse him of being responsible for male pattern baldness in the United States. Saddam Hussein is not all that powerful. And we have been -- I have no -- I have an affection for that country because I lived there, but my job has been all these years to learn to understand these other countries so I could tell my country about them. Do not confuse, please, the message with the messenger. And the message is that we have been bombing Iraq whenever we feel like it for the last 10 years. Nobody likes that, least of all the Iraqis, and but lot of other people besides.
We have been responsible -- pardon, I'll take it back. We have accepted responsibility for the death of 500,000 Iraqi children on American television, a position taken by the then-amb%*$ador to the United Nations. A lot of people don't want to excuse you for that. So if Saddam Hussein believes, in the words of Dr. Mylroie that he's still at war with the United States, could it be the daily bombings? Could it be the $94 million that Congress appropriated to finance his overthrow. Sir, that's an act of war. Whether you want to accept it as such, we are going to finance people to overthrow his government? That is -- that is called a hostile act, you see? So if he's upset with us, there may be a reason for it
|
|
Name:
mcctusk
Comment: PRESS: U.S. ground forces [may be] going to go in. Do you agree and don't you agree that's a necessary next step?
PECK: I always feel, you know, as a former military man, yeah, that's it. Because you have to have an objective. You have to know what it is you are going to accomplish, and how you are going to accomplish it and what the end game is. I think that going into Afghanistan -- where in addition to fighting the Taliban forces, who are armed with slingshots and large rocks, as far as I know -- you're going to look for individuals. That's hard to do in a country like that.
PRESS: So that's a no?
PECK: I would say it's not a smart thing to do. I would say it would be a very dumb thing to do you. You have got a surrogate that you can use and arm and equip and so forth: the northern forces. Go that way. Don't put U.S. forces on the ground.
PRESS: Let me follow up on that. Isn't that in fact the best role for-- we are not talking perhaps about an expeditionary force, but we're talking about special forces that could go in and help the Taliban prepare them, train them, equip them, maybe give them transportation to the front, protect the refugees; the job for U.S. special forces has to be there.
PECK: I guess so. But that's kind of how we started out in Vietnam. That didn't work out to our advantage. Because you start out and they are not doing well, so we have to do more and then we try this and then we try that.One of the things you have to understand -- try -- is that a lot of people, an awful lot of people are going to resent seriously the fact that we believe that if we don't like that government, we have the right to throw it out, overthrow it and put somebody else in place.
I sat at this very table a couple of years ago when the United States was debating the Iraq Liberation Act. And my opponent -- pardon me, my partner at the time -- was, we were going to go in and put this group in power and bring democracy to Iraq. You cannot enforce democracy. You don't stuff it down people's throat. It comes this way. Not that way. So that an awful lot of folks around the world are going to say, "Hey, that is not your job."
|
|
Name:
mcctusk
Comment: PRESS: I know we've been focusing on what comes next. I want to come back, if I can, to what we are doing today.
PECK: Yes, sir.
PRESS: Day two of this war against terrorism in Afghanistan. 94 percent of the American people support it. Do you? Are you among the 94?
PECK: Oh, yes, sure. Except that you ask the American people the question one way and they will say, "yes we are for it." And then you watch the body bags to come home and then they are against it. Polling is a very tricky business, sir. I don't need to tell you that. When you tell me that 86.2 percent of the people want lower taxes and 94 percent more services, I recognize that there's a conflict there. What the American people want is something that's very hard to understand because A) they don't know where Afghanistan is; B) they know nothing about it; and c) they have no idea whatsoever as to what the potential gains and costs are from getting involved
The difficulty that we face is that I support -- because I understand how democracy works -- we have to go out and do the sorts of things we are doing. So we will mercilessly, viciously, effectively attack and destroy all kinds of symptoms. When the rubble has settled and the dust is gone, the disease is still going to be out there untouched. Because we don't want to look at why, why it is that all of these people hate us. It's not because of freedom. It's not because Brittney Spears has a belly button or because we export hamburgers. They hate us because of things they see us doing to their part of the world that they definitely do not like.
|
|
Name:
naturalsista
Comment: mctusk - i read a few of peck's interviews and the man tells it like it is.
|
|
Name:
mcctusk
Comment: Sorry, I know that is alot to read, clearly, Former Amb%*$ador to Iraq Edward Peck was ADAMANT in being outspoken about what is now five years into this war. He is not called anti-American, and he had waaay more information than all of the decision makers in Washington.
|
|
Name:
mcctusk
Comment: Naturalsista> he does. And if you recall, his %*$essment and judgment was never considered reasonable when he was the point of contact between the UN inspectors , the Iraqis and the US government. He told Congressional committee after congressional committee that they saw no evidence of WMD. However, Saddam Hussein was reluctant to show the inspectors his 'whole hand', because (as we now know) it would have exposed the fact that he was VERY weak militarily. Something that would have been welcomed news to Iran and Pakistan. So he didn't comply with the UN inspectors. The rest is history.
|
|
Name:
naturalsista
Comment: 4,000 plus and climbing soldiers dead because of lies...
|
|
Name:
musbdherbs
Comment: the media or an Obama supporter not tied to the campaign should have made the clarification. Obama should not have been in a position of trying to explain something people had no interest in watching. People REALLY would not have wanted to see that. The news media...Olbermann included...have not bothered to play additional clips for that same sermon...or even what he said about God's love exactly after the "chicken's roost" statement. In fact, Roland Martin was on a panel w/some conversative radio host and invited him to watch the entire sermon to put the comments in context. The host said he wasn't interested. hence, the lack of coverage of the entire sermon.
|
|
Name:
amethyst
Comment: I'm glad Common made those remarks. Obama isn't in a position to say certain things, he's being diplomatic and neutral, trying to appeal to a mixture of people. Like musb said, others have to say what needs to be said. My pastor talked about that a couple of weeks ago. He said he hopes Obama's camp will get more Black preachers involved because they can say what Obama can't.
|
|
Name:
McNasty
Comment: I agree Musb! Obama didn't have any business clearing up what was said by his pastor nor was there anything wrong with him referring to him as his crazy uncle. The black community knew what he meant and the fact remains that no matter what Obama could/would have said this situation had to play out for the naysayer to get that the sermon should not have been played in part, but the whole thing should have been out there the first day. Oh, wait a minute - there wouldn't have been anything for anyone to be jumping around about if it was. The fact that Obama let this play out to the end just makes me love him more. The more you chase gossip the more elusive it becomes and what was out there wasn't anything but a bunch of damn gossip - nothing factual could be found until the whole video surfaced.
|
|
Name:
Paulettejr
Comment: I believe that when Obama arrived in Chicago, a new face and a stranger -- fresh out of Harvard and Columbia, looking for a way to help the poor and opposed people of the south side of Chicago (which is r-e-a-l-l-y oppressed) he faced a group of people that WOULD NOT TRUST HIM ON ANY LEVEL. The only way to be accepted into that community as an outsider was to be accepted and endorsed by someone the community trusted -- Rev. Wright. Without the support of Rev. Wright Obama would never have been accepted since he was a complete stranger to Chicago. Once accepted by Rev Wright Obama built his credibility in the community thanks to the support of Rev. Wright. Obama probably got elected because he was a member of Trinity Church and the support he received and the platform he received because of the church.
How can he now denounce the person and the church that helped to get him to where he is? I agree that he should denounce the words and ideas behind the words but he cannot denounce the person who helped to get him to where he stands today.
We also have to remember that when he graduated from Harvard and Columbia he was struggling with his racial identity. He did not have a real sense of what being a Black man was since he was raised White. How intrigued he must have been to find a person like Rev Wright who spoke from a Black perspective and who I imagined he sat and listened to in order to LEARN about Blackness and being a Black man in America and during that time Rev Wright taught him how to be a good practicing Christian not just an observer of the faith.
I don't agree with Rev Wright's volatile words but I totally understand the relationship between Obama and the Rev. It makes sense.
Obama, Oprah, Common and many other upward mobile Blacks all came from Trinity Church and these are pretty well adjusted, kind and generous, almost zen like people, so Rev Wright must have preached some love as well.
|
|
Name:
deedeeVon
Comment: I just love Common > me(all dreamy eyed)
|
|
Name:
Taurusingr
Comment: Soulmusic 101....I said the SAME THING about the "passport issue" on the other post so I hear you TOO!!! Yall know what...OPRAH is THE ANSWER!!! If SHE would go back to what MADE HER show the SHYT it used to be back in the ()'s & show THIS CLIP or THE WHOLE thing on HER SHOW??? WHAT!!?? THAT would PUT THEM ALL ON BLAST!! The only black person whites MIGHT listen to is OPRAH!!! It's OBVIOUS NOT ONE NEWS CHANNEL will show it so, It's up to HER!! She (at least) owns her own production co. I'm NOT sleep on the "NETWORK" having final say but, HER SHOW is the BEST shot at EXPOSING THESE LIES!!!
|
|
Name:
shulamite
Comment: Naturalsista --> Thanks for posting the Peck interview. He told the truth. Again - I hope Pecl has the guts to stand behind Obama and challenge the media on what they are doing.
|
|
Name:
shulamite
Comment: I'm sorry: I meant mcctusk...
|
|
Name:
Taurusingr
Comment: Natualsista & others...Obama is what Washington has & will ALWAYS be against...He's the "snag" in the crocheted fabric of this country!!! And when EVER you pull a sang, The WHOLE THING can come losed!! This is why ALL OF THEM... Bill, Hill, Bush, Mc Cain, Rove & THE MEDIA(controlled by the Special Interests Groups) have a "CONSCIENCES"!!! to do WHATEVER IT TAKES to STOP OBAMA & ANYONE like HIM!!! That means NOT EXPOSING the TRUTH about THAT SERMON! NOT holding Bill's FORMER ASSOCIATION with Wright AGAINST HIM!!( since Wright is SOOOO BAD!!) And NOT doing what ANY RESPONSIBLE journalist/NEWS ENTITY would do....be OBJECTIVE!! See, being ANTI-OBAMA means BEING FOR ANY & EVERYTHING THIS COUNTRY has done & IS DOING.... WRONG!!! But THIS is .....AMERICA!!!
|
|
Name:
InnerCityRose
Comment: I am so glad that Obama hasn't stooped to their petty level. Obama 08.
|
|
Name:
McNasty
Comment: Paulettejr Obama doesn't have any business denouncing anything the pastor said simply because that's what the pastor meant in the context of his sermon. The least thing he could say he did, that he did not necessarily agree but that the man had the right to say it if that's how he felt. Man, the media did their job on us didn't they?!!
|
|
Name:
Taurusingr
Comment: Mc Nasty: I agree, but if had NOT said WHAT he said to reject Wright....The MEDIA REEEEAALLY would've TWISTED THAT SHYT!! Just like HRC tried to "IMPLY"in the debate when the question was ask about why "O" didn't REJECT Farakhan!..remember??? Look, NONE of this OPPOSITION to "O" has ANYTHING to do with what HE HAS DONE OR NOT DONE!!! IT'S an OPPOSITION to CHANGE!!! And ESPECIALLY from an entity that has been HISTORICALLY DISCRIMINATED AGAINST!!! I bet YT thinks/feels that if a Black person becomes POWERFUL in this country, & gets IN THE WHITE HOUSE, THEY will FINALLY have to PAY for ALL THEY'VE DONE to US (which is just IGNORANCE & GUILT talking!!) & The WORLD will FUUUUUUTHA see the LIE of their DESCRIPTION of US!!
|
|
Name:
mcctusk
Comment: Excellent post Paulette. I made similar remarks concerning his racial identity on another EUR post concerning Rev. Wright and Obama.
|
|
Name:
mcctusk
Comment: McNasty> While I agree with you in the one sense, remember that Obama IS still a politician, and his denunciation of Rev. Wright's words was done our of political expediency. Being a politician who is running for President, he went just as far as he needed to go to ease one faction of his constituency (progress whites), without alienating another (us). It is diplomacy, I think he played this one beautifully. AND this shows to me that he can walk that fine line between Israel and Palestine, Pakistan and India, North and South Korea.
|
|
Name:
ThruTheFire
Comment: Flipping channels one Sunday morning, from T.D.Jakes to the comical phoney "healers", preaching,screaming and singing was on every channel it seemed until this one made me stopand listen. there was something about his voice that drew me in and made me listen. I hung on every word and knew that he was not just "preaching" but was teaching. It wasn't until about the third week that his relationship with Obama came up. Rev. Wright spoke of a very long, close and loving bond, and Barac coming to him seeking advise on matters and the advice given at no time sounded "crazy uncle"like. So it disappointed me to hear Obama's handling of this. As strong as he's spoken about everything else, I wish he'd been as strong in support of Rev. Wright. Rev. Wright was on his election committee until YT picked one part of one speech to vilify the man. And all of a sudden he's notonly dropped from the committe but repeatedly called "my FORMER pastor" and "crazy uncle". Like common said, the church has all races as membersand with all the good this man has done forthe community, I think thye right thing to do would have been nto defend him before/after that historic speech on race.
|
|
Name:
Renetta
Comment: Obama is in a battle of wicked demons who will stoop to any level to rip him apart. I live in Chicago and many of Rev Wright's congregation lives in my building and they FULLY support Barack and understand exactly what he's up against. He's being squeezed from both sides - but I'm not falling for it and I'm working even harder now to get him elected.
|
|
Name:
telthepe
Comment: is what the rev wright true or not? this is the reason we will continue to have problems, because white supremacy won't/can't recognize their policies, world view, nation view, black man view, their heroes, our heroes-they are very different. how is thomas jefferson, george washington, ronald reagan(who yt people consider to be the best president ever), or even billy c(you know-hillary's husband), they can never be my heroes. 'nuff said!!!
|
|
Name:
telthepe
Comment: i meant to say, "is what the rev wright said true or not?"
|
|
Name:
amethyst
Comment: ThruTheFire - I believe that Obama consulted with Rev. Wright before making the speech. Call me an optimist and strong Obama-follower, but I don't see him dissing a 20-year relationship. I believe Rev. Wright understands and supports how Obama handled it. I believe they will always be close, and know that sometimes they will play the game by the rules that yt set up to begin with. Yt (i.e. Hillary) just didn't expect Obama to play the game soooo doggone well!
|
|
Name:
mamamay
Comment: A copy of this video needs to be sent to CNN, MSNBC,et al, because many of their reporters have continued to play the spliced snippets of the tape and continued to demand that Obama denounce his church home. No no, this is not what we came so far all these years to, to have misunderstanding persons demand that we turn away from. I am so happy that it was not just me who have blogged to suggests that Rev's message had been misconstrued. The Media needs to apologize to Obama and to Rev Wright. Out of many, we are one. Thanks EurWeb. I am very happy. Carry on. Vote for Obama's Victory.
|
|
Name:
Taurusingr
Comment: Yall know what's funny/interesting about this shyt? Neither the Media or ANYONE has ask the CHURCH "It's SELF" (a majority WHITE ORG.) why THEY allowed Wright to STAY, Since HE is believed to be Sooooo crazy & ANTI-WHITE!!! Surely if THAT shyt were TRUE...THEY (OF ALL PEOPLE) would've had "a little problem" with such a "LUNATIC" standing ANYWHERE near one of THEIR churches!!! See how deductive reasoning & a little OBJECTIVITY, DEFUSES ALL THEIR WEAK SHYT!! But America BOUGHT IT ANYWAY b/c America DOESN'T WANT TO BE what it "CLAIMS" to be.....RIGHTEOUS & FAIR!!! But EVERY time they throw dirt on "O", one of THEIR BONES comes FLYING out of THEIR CLOSET!!!....I LOVE THIS COUNTRY!!! What a GOOD SHOW it is.... SOMETIMES!!!
|
| Back to Top |
| Click here to post your comments. |
| Back to the Article » Click Here |
|---|
...
