Presidential debates on ABC right now-both parties

Lately, the Dems have done a wonderful job in getting a Republican elected.  They're doing it again as we speak.  If they keep going after each other in this manner, McCain gets to look better and better.  He just has to sit back and wait till all the fur stops flying and choose his desk for the WH.

Whenever I read someone saying it's not going to be politics as usual, guess what, it is politics as usual and it gets worse.  They send their henchmen out on radio shows, and it gets really bad.  I thought the talking heads on TV were mild mannered representatives to what I'm listening to on the radio.  They can say anything they want, and they do, and the public gets turned off...totally disgusted and will vote the high road.

March 21, 2008 The full story behind Wright's "God Damn America" sermon Posted: 06:33 PM ET

Editor's note: CNN Contributor Roland Martin has listened to several of the sermons of Rev. Jeremiah Wright from Trinity United Church of Christ in Chicago. Portions of the sermons have been excerpted in recent stories. Martin says listening to the full sermons help put the excerpts in context.

I just finished listening to the nearly 40-minute sermon Rev. Jeremiah Wright gave on April 13, 2003, titled, "Confusing God and Government."

For those of us watching and listening to the media in the last week, it is better known as the "God Damn America" sermon.

Wright's scriptural focus was Luke 19:37-44 (reading from the New Revised Standard Version).

In this sermon, Wright spoke about the military rule during biblical days, led by Pontius Pilate. It was clear, through his language, such as "occupying military brigade" that he was making an analogy to the war in Iraq.

"War does not make for peace," he said. "Fighting for peace is like raping for virginity."

"War does not make for peace. War only makes for escalating violence and a mindset to pay the enemy back by any means necessary," he said.

He then gets to the thesis of his sermon, saying, "y'all looking to the government for only what God can give. A lot of people confuse God with their government."

Wright criticizes the Bush administration and its supporters for using Godly language to justify the war in Iraq. He equates using God in America as condoning the war in Iraq to the same perspective of Islamic fundamentalists.

"We can see clearly the confusion in the mind of a few Muslims, and please notice I did not say all Muslims, I said a few Muslims, who see Allah as condoning killing and killing any and all who don't believe what they don't believe. They call it jihad. We can see clearly the confusion in their minds, but we cannot see clearly what it is that we do. We call it crusade when we turn right around and say that our God condones the killing of innocent civilians as a necessary means to an end. WE say that God understand collateral damage. We say that God knows how to forgive friendly fire."

"We say that God will bless the shock and awe as we take over unilaterally another country, calling it a coalition because we've got three guys from Australia, going against the United Nations, going against the majority of Christians, Muslims and Jews throughout the world, making a pre-emptive strike in the name of God. We cannot see how what we are doing is the same thing that Al-Qaeda is doing under a different color flag - calling on the name of a different God to sanction and approve our murder and our mayhem."

He continues on his thesis of equating government with our God, saying that God sent the early settlers to America to take the country from Native Americans; ordained slavery; and that "we believe that God approves of 6 percent of the people on the face of this earth controlling all of the wealth on the face of this earth while the other 94 percent live in poverty and squalor while we give millions of tax breaks to the white rich."

He also criticizes the "lily white" G-7 nations for controlling the world's capital.

Then Wright speaks to:

1. Governments lie.

"This government lied about their belief that all men were created equal. The truth is they believed that all white men were created equal. The truth is they did not even believe that white women were created equal, in creation nor civilization. The government had to pass an amendment to the Constitution to get white women the vote. Then the government had to pass an equal rights amendment to get equal protection under the law for women. The government still thinks a woman has no rights over her own body, and between Uncle Clarence (Thomas), who sexually harassed Anita Hill, and a closeted Klan court, that is a throwback to the 19th century, handpicked by Daddy Bush, Ronald Reagan, Gerald Ford, between Clarence and that stacked court, they are about to un-do Roe vs. Wade, just like they are about to un-do affirmative action. The government lied in its founding documents and the government is still lying today. Governments lie."

"The government lied about Pearl Harbor. They knew the Japanese were going to attack. Governments lie. The government lied about the Gulf of Tonkin. They wanted that resolution to get us in the Vietnam War. Governments lie. The government lied about Nelson Mandela and our CIA helped put him in prison and keep him there for 27 years. The South African government lied on Nelson Mandela. Governments lie."

"The government lied about the Tuskegee experiment. They purposely infected African American men with syphilis. Governments lie. The government lied about bombing Cambodia and Richard Nixon stood in front of the camera, 'Let me make myself perfectly clear...' Governments lie. The government lied about the drugs for arms Contra scheme orchestrated by Oliver North, and then the government pardoned all the perpetrators so they could get better jobs in the government. Governments lie."

"The government lied about inventing the HIV virus as a means of genocide against people of color. Governments lie. The government lied about a connection between Al Qaeda and Saddam Hussein and a connection between 9.11.01 and Operation Iraqi Freedom. Governments lie."

"The government lied about weapons of mass destruction in Iraq being a threat to the United States peace. And guess what else? If they don't find them some weapons of mass destruction, they gonna do just like the LAPD, and plant the some weapons of mass destruction. Governments lie."

2. Governments change. He said long before the United States colonized the world, so did Egypt.

"All colonizers are not white. Turn to your neighbors and say that oppressors come in all colors."

He then went back to the Bible and spoke about the changing of kings in Babylonia.

"Prior to Abraham Lincoln, the government in this country said it was legal to hold African in slavery in perpetuity...when Lincoln got in office, the government changed. Prior to the passing of the 13th, 14th and 15th amendments to the Constitution, government defined African as slaves, as property. Property, people with no rights to be respected by any whites anywhere. The Supreme Court of the government, same court, granddaddy of the court that stole the 2000 election. Supreme court said in it's Dred Scott decision in the 1850s, no African anywhere in this country has any rights that any white person has to respect at any place, any time. That was the government's official position backed up by the Supreme Court - that's the judiciary; backed up by the executive branch - that's the president; backed up by the legislative branch and enforced by the military of the government. But I stop by to tell you tonight that government's change."

"Prior to Harry Truman's government, the military was segregated. But governments change."

"Prior to the Civil Rights and equal accommodation laws of the government in this country, there was backed segregation by the country, legal discrimination by the government, prohibited blacks from voting by the government, you had to eat and sit in separate places by the government, you had sit in different places from white folks because the government said so, and you had to buried in a separate cemetery. It was apartheid, American style, from the cradle to the grave, all because the government backed it up."

"But guess what? Governments change. Under Bill Clinton, we got a messed up welfare to work bill, but under Clinton blacks had an intelligent friend in the Oval Office. Oh, but governments change."

"The election was stolen. We went from an intelligent friend to a dumb Dixiecrat. A rich Republican who has never held a job in his life; is against affirmative action (and) against education - I guess he is; against healthcare, against benefits for his own military, and gives tax breaks to the wealthiest contributors to his campaign. Governments change. Sometimes for the good, and sometimes for the bad."

"Where governments change, God does not change. God is the same yesterday, today and forever more. That's what his name I Am means. He does not change."

"God was against slavery on yesterday, and God, who does not change, is still against slavery today. God was a God of love yesterday, and God who does not change, is still a God of love today. God was a God of justice on yesterday, and God who does not change, is still a God of justice today."

"God does not change."

3. He then speaks of the government in his Bible text and said the Romans failed. Then he said the British government failed even after it colonized the world. He said the Russian government failed. The Japanese government failed. The German government failed.

"And the United States of America government, when it came to treating her citizens of Indian descent, she failed. She put them on reservations."

"When it came to putting her citizens of Japanese descent fairly, she failed. She put them in interment prison camps."

"When it came to putting the citizens of African descent fairly, America failed. She put them in chains. The government put them on slave quarters. Put them on auction blocks. Put them in cotton fields. Put them in inferior schools. Put them in substandard housing. Put them scientific experiments. Put them in the lower paying jobs. Put them outside the equal protection of the law. Kept them out of their racist bastions of higher education, and locked them into positions of hopelessness and helplessness."

"The government gives them the drugs, builds bigger prisons, passes a three strike law and then wants us to sing God Bless America. Naw, naw, naw. Not God Bless America. God Damn America! That's in the Bible. For killing innocent people. God Damn America for treating us citizens as less than human. God Damn America as long as she tries to act like she is God and she is Supreme."

"The United States government has failed the vast majority of her citizens of African descent. Think about this. Think about this. For every one Oprah, a billionaire, you've got 5 million blacks that are out of work. For every one Colin Powell, a millionaire, you've got 10 million blacks who cannot read. For every one Condi-Skeezer Rice, you've got 1 million in prison. For every one Tiger Woods, who needs to get beat at the Masters, with his Cablanasian hips, playing on a course that discriminates against women, God has this way of brining you up short when you get to big for your Cablanasian britches. For every one Tiger Woods, we've got 10,000 black kids who will never see a golf course. The United States government has failed the vast majority of her citizens of African descent."

"Tell your neighbor he's (going to) help us one last time. Turn back and say forgive him for the God Damn, that's in the Bible though. Blessings and curses is in the Bible. It's in the Bible.

"Where government fail, God never fails. When God says it, it's done. God never fails. When God wills it, you better get out the way, cause God never fails. When God fixes it, oh believe me it's fixed. God never fails. Somebody right now, you think you can't make it, but I want you to know that you are more than a conqueror through Christ. You can do all things through Christ who strengthens you."

He then went on to talk about the salvation of Christians through the death of Jesus Christ. The sermon ended with a song proclaiming, "God never fails."

I don't think the public is really understanding yet what Rev Wright is all about..........I am pretty sure this will be Hillary's last card to play maybe just before convention.........he is a leader in the Black Theology Liberation Movement which is extremely dangerous Marxist based political movement that started in Africa moved to Palestine and then through South America.......they are separatist that teach hatred of the white man and the Jews.............they mix in religion and operated through the churches........the founder of the Black movement in America is Dr. James Cone and has written several books that anyone can google and read..............this will eventually be Obama's downfall...........his wife is extremely active in the movement and it's just a matter of time before the reporters and journalist start publishing their findings..........this is not over.......it hasen't even really begun..............Shokk

Paulette, Stating that you can go through Wright's sermon and rip it apart and actually doing it are two different things.  I would love to see you take each statement of Wright's and prove it wrong.

However, to do so, you would have to show that slavery did not exist; that slaves were not encased in chains, that they were not put on blocks for auction, that the Constitution that declared all men are created equal was not written while its primary writer was a slave holder. 

You'd have to prove that the U.S. didn't intern the Japanese during WWII.

You'd have to prove the Tuskegee experiments didn't happen.  

I won't continue because there's far too much in Wright's sermon to discuss here.  Two days ago, I examined three of the points that the Australian essay pointed to as lies and showed they were not lies. I'd have to go through the entire history of western civilization to show that much of what Wright says is true.  I don't have the time.

So, I would really be interested to read the proofs you can provide that what Wright says is not true. Perhaps his manner of saying them makes you uncomfortable, or perhaps you don't like his tone or his purpose in saying them, or the implications of what he says as it relates to your life, but many of the facts are indisputable.  Yes, he exaggerates occasionally, but everyone on this thread uses hyperbole from time to time to prove her point. 

The only uncomfortable part of his speech for me is his reliance on God to rectify things.  I'm not a believer, but wright says everything a believer would want to hear, that God never changes, that God is all loving, that God wants us to be good.   But since you identify yourself as a Christian, I would think these would be acceptable.  He does say them at a Christian service, so obviously I can't object.  If he said them in Congress or at a political meeting, I would object strongly.

Amy--Now, to some of the points you addressed to me, in another post: 

so Richardson should stay with the Clintons even though he doesn't believe Hillary would be the best president?

You're stating as fact that Richardson is supporting Obama because he thinks Obama would make a better president than Hillary, and by implication that I support old-time favor-ridden politics.  I'll examine that premise:

Richardson could have had a major impact on the vote in New Mexico, where he's governor, on Super Tuesday had he endorsed Obama.  Instead on Super Sunday, he watched the super bowl with Bill Clinton and didn't endorse either candidate.  New Mexico was won by Clinton.  The only favor-ridden politics working here is with Richardson, looking for the best payment for his endorsement.  He waited to make his endorsement until he was very sure that Hillary was not going to win. It's very late in the season  for him to be making an endorsement.  At this stage, Hillary has just a bit more than a snowball's chance in hell to win. 

You can certainly elect to believe that Richardson is sincere; I don't believe he's sincere. The evidence at hand, with his endorsement coming so late, tells me that he believes Obama will win the nomination.  He can't wait until the convention to cuddle with Obama, no favors will be returned if he waits that long.  This was the perfect moment--he could say it was Obama's speech that took him over the edge. A bit of a sleaze all around, I would say. Or, to be less direct, just another politician making hay.

Your other points:

You could read Obama's speech 100 times, but unless you actually heard the speech in context and in it's entirety, you really don't have the full view of the speech.

Before I even get to your main point, I don't understand what you mean by hearing his speech in context.  When one speaks of context, one usually means reading something in its entirety and understanding the purpose behind the speech, not listening to snippets, as is the tendency in the television age.  I've already said I read it twice and I certainly understand its context:  to tamp down the anger over his attendance at Wright's church.  It's a good speech but it doesn't have that much in it that bears reading more than twice, so I won't read it 100 times. Instead, I might ask if you've read the speech--reading is very different from listening, as I will explain below.

As philosophers have pointed out through the ages, it's the emotional highs generated by listening to great orators (Hitler was one) that stimulate crowds to do things (like the rush to war or to participate in lynchings, or in Kristallnacht) that they might not have done if they had encountered the words on paper.  I've never been a person captivated by rock stars (even the rock star of my generation, Elvis).  I am moved to action and emotion by words on paper, not in listening to them spoken from a stage as part of a crowd.  A great Shakespearean production can move me in the theatre but I am equally moved when I read his plays at home.  And I prefer reading great poetry, not listening to it.

Some speeches, Hitler's for example, don't have the same resonance on paper.  And no, I'm not comparing Obama to Hitler, just explaining that one should always sit quietly, by oneself, and read a politician's words and not just listen to them.  To read is a very different, and more sobering experience, than to listen, particularly when in listening, the words are mingled in with the smell and mood of the crowd.

But, nevertheless, I still don't see why your knickers are in such a twist since I've already said, two or three times here, that I read Obama's speech and thought it excellent. That's a far bigger compliment than saying I heard his speech and liked it.  So much missed when you don't read it on paper.

One thing I didn't point out previously (stimulated by my thoughts on Richardson) is that it would have been so much more courageous if it hadn't been forced by the Wright event.  He avoided talking about race for the most part until Wright forced him to it.  Still, I'm glad he did finally address it, as it needed to be said, but how much better if he had written it before he found himself between a rock and a hard place.  And how much better if Bill Clinton had made the same speech 16 years ago--of all the white politicians alive today, only he could have made a similar impact.

The irony here with respect to Obama's speeches: For me, he's not a great speaker. All those little stops he makes irritate me.  But that's me and not a criticism of him.  Obviously, he gets the crowd going, if we're to believe the media, that hundreds of young women are fainting at his rallies--shades of Elvis!

Inna--I don't think McCain has Alzheimer's (think of his mother), just that he really isn't a wonk and never has been.  Years ago, when he was younger, I thought him an ineffectual debater, focusing on a few cliche's, like his recent  "waving the white flag of freedom."  So boring when you've heard it more than once--and from him I've heard it at least ten times in the last few months.  My suggestion to him is to get a new writer.

Three Books that support some of the facts in Wright's sermon:  

It's somewhat fascinating that I'm reading tomorrow's Book Review section as I'm writing this and find three reviews of books, all of which support factually some of what Wright says in the sermon posted by Amy:

"Human Smoke," by Nicholson Baker, on the beginnings of WWII.  The premise, I gather, is that peace might have been achieved if Churchill had wanted peace.  According to the writer, he loved war.  Also, there's a brief mention in the review of Roosevelt wanting Pearl Harbor to happen. (See Wright's sermon) 

Another is "Throes of Democracy," by Walter McDougall. It discusses the American Civil war Era, 1829-1877.  One interesting quote: "All the sound and fury signify little to him (referring to McDougall) besides Americans' extraordinary talent for wrapping their bloodletting and money-making in thick layers of moralistic pretense."  (See Wright's sermon)

The Third is "Fatal Misconception," The Struggles to Control World Population, by Matthew Connelly.  The review speaks of some of the ills forced on third world people to control their populations.  The title of the review is "Birth Control for Others." 

Go Hillary! 

 

Inna--just saw your post.  I believe you're paraphrasing Churchhill in that quote.  Funny because I just read a review dealing in part with Churchill's joy in war--obviously the writer doesn't respect Churchill, and I never have.  My very right-wing Republican brother who worships money as most people worship God, is always using that quote against me.  I have both head and heart, which is I think where perfection lies. LOL

Inna--the example of your daughter does not a case make; what does frostbite have to do with your daughter becoming an independent?  Will she wait for a second case of frostbite before she registers as a Republican? Get out your Copi; there's more to logical fallacies than ad hominem attacks.  How about non sequiturs.  You first prove your point before congratulating yourself on it. 

And your last statement would seem to disprove your point as well.  Churchchill seemed to be saying (note, I say seemed) that the older one gets the more likely they are to become hardheaded; your point reverses that.  But, hey, if it takes losing a few brain cells to find you have a heart, I say go for it! 

Inna--there were no ad hominem attacks in your post. I wasn't suggesting there were. I was just reminding you that there is more than one type of logical fallacy, one of which is a non sequitur, or in English: it doesn't follow. Your second statement didn't follow your first.  I know you didn't mean that your daughter had become an independent because she had frostbite--or at least I hope that's not why it happened.  Just having some fun!  Sorry!

I also know the underlying assumption of Churchhill's quote, just don't agree with it, and neither by the way do recent studies. It's been shown that older women, more than men, tend to stick with the values they held when young.  Men are more likely to turn conservative, but the conclusion is that this happens because men have less sympathy for others and also, as they age, that they lose some of the physical and moral courage they had as youths.  Women it would appear are more courageous.  So, maybe it was the frostbite!

Which goes to show why the Democrats are so dependent on older women. Maybe it's time we showed them a thing or two, not by voting for Republicans, but by creating our own party. 

My parents: my father died quite young, at 50, but my mother lived to 89, and she had nothing childish about her.  Her mind was as sharp when she died as when she was a young woman.  And she remained a dedicated Democrat (and worked for the party) until her death.  She had a great heart and never thought of herself.  Even in her 80's, she would visit what she called the elderly to help out. 

Hi anneshirley,

It is hard to know when someone is "just having fun" on the internet. I usually put smiley faces to stress this fact.

I think that men become more conservative becasue they are more likely to be breadwinners and have to deal with financials.

And Inna--it's also contrary to reality.  I don't have the statistic but I remember reading that elderly women are poorer than elderly men; and then there are all those single moms that have to support their children.  It's been a very long time (and you said earlier you're 47--I have 20 years on you) that men were the breadwinners!  Where have you been hanging out?

Inna--that's great but it doesn't in any way support your statement

that men become more conservative becasue they are more likely to be breadwinners and have to deal with financials. 

You provided some of the statistics yourself, in the census report you posted earlier, to disprove what you say.  That report shows that about 20% of families are headed by single mothers.  Couple that with the fact that more than 50% of married women with young children work (I'm sure the figure is much higher for women with older children), and you can figure out that more women are acting as breadwinners for their families than are men. (Whether men make more money than women is an entirely different story, and not a pleasant one, but not related to this discussion.)  Men are more conservative politically for exactly the reasons I cited before--they have less emphathy for others.  For the most part, conservatives are more concerned about self and their own circles than they are with the community as a whole. 

Feminism never took a wrong turn.  If it weren't for feminists in this country, you wouldn't have had the choices you did.  They're the ones who agitated for the equal protection laws.  Without them, those laws would not have come into being.  Women, not feminists, took a wrong turn when they forgot what they owe to the feminists.  The ones who are sitting back now, wagging their fingers at the feminists who support Hillary, the same feminists that worked so hard to secure them their opportunities, and suggesting they give it a break, particularly about Hillary, may not be so smug when we have a completely conservative court and many of their rights, including abortion rights, are gone.

Amen! 

Inna--first, enjoy your party.  It should be fun. I love dressing up myself.

Second, please stop putting your thoughts into my mouth.  I didn't put men down (I have a perfectly delightful husband, lucky me).  I said what has been observed in study after study, that men are less empathic than women, which tends to make them more conservative politically. They are more conservative politcally, and it has nothing whatsoever to do with wisdom.  Whether this difference comes from nature or nurture, I won't conjecture.  There are dozens of studies available discussing this controversy, some pushing one way and some the other.  I'm not taking a stand, at least not here.

I also didn't say conservatives are only concerned with themselves; I said they are concerned with themselves and their own circles (family, religion, race, country) but not with the community at large, certainly not as much as liberals.  I'll remind you that conservatives use the term "bleeding hearts" to describe liberals and it's meant to be derogatory.  I take it as a compliment.  Our hearts do bleed for others--one of the reasons we're liberals. 

In my darkest days of writing I can't imagine myself saying that women need men "like fish need a bicycle." I like men and would find life very boring without them. 

Funny, but just last week there was an article in the New York Times Magazine that said exactly the opposite, that the wealthiest do not give the most, based, of course, on a larger survey than Bill Gates and Warren Buffet. The article is probably still on its website as it's only a week old.

And most of the wealthest are not Republicans.  I don't mean this in any snide way, but this is probably because very bright people tend to lean left. Democrats, when they put their minds to it, are very good at earning lots of money. In a survey of the prestigious Ivy League schools (Harvard, MIT, Princeton, Yale, and others) with, obviously, the most prestigious faculties, well over 90% identify themselves as Democrats.  For some reason, pleople assume that if someone has money it means they're Republican. Not true.

And why have you concluded that Bill Gates is a Republican?  He's never released information about his political affiliation, and refuses to do so.  He spreads his money around supporting Republicans and Democrats, but a bit more to Democrats, and this year he's given the maximum to Obama.  In addition, Bill Gate's father is leading the fight, along with Warren Buffet, against the Republican proposal to get rid of the inheritance tax.  All Democrats support the inheritance tax. I don't know of any Republicans who support it.

Warren Buffet, who is wealthier than Gates, has always been identified with Democratic policies and ideas, although like Gates he doesn't tell people how he votes when he enters the booth.  But most people assume he votes Democratic.  This year he said he wants to help either Obama or Clinton into the White House.

Where did I say anything about giving money to charity?  I have a problem with the whole concept of charity.  I prefer the European model where its citizens are taxed at higher rates to provide social services, such as health care.  The thought of someone having to beg for money for cancer care, as I see happening all too frequently here, makes me physically ill. But to your point, I get my information from reading, and I hope from reliable sources.  The Times is a major source of information and whether one likes its political stance, it's certainly reliable for its facts. 

And one minor point.  I've been filling out IRS forms for well more than forty years, and I've never seen a box that asked for my political affiliation.  So how could the IRS know whether Republicans or Democrats give more in the way of charitable deductions?