digg

Join DiggAbout

Discover the best of the web!
Learn more about Digg by taking the tour.

Warning: The Content in this Article May be Inaccurate

Readers have reported that this story contains information that may not be accurate.

Jeremiah Wright and radical, white evangelical ministers

salon.com — The idea that America deserves terrorist attacks and other horrendous disasters has long been a frequently expressed view among the faction of white evangelical ministers to whom the Republican Party is most inextricably linked. Neither Jerry Falwell nor Pat Robertson ever retracted or denounced their view that America provoked the 9/11 attacks.

Bury
show profanity settings
expand all
  • ShemDaimwood, on 03/18/2008, -20/+126So it's okay for radical Republican preachers to accuse America's gays, lesbians, non-Christians, and feminists of causing the September 11th attacks, but blaming our foreign policy is off limits?
    • quaxon, on 03/18/2008, -11/+49Americans don't like facts, they like simple explanations that fit with their (very skewed) perceptions of how the world works.
      • martalli, on 03/18/2008, -5/+18Even that sentence was too long.
      • tripzero, on 03/18/2008, -2/+9Agreed, you should have broken it up into two sentences:

        "Americans don't like facts. They like simple explainations that fit with their (very skewed) perceptions of how the world works."
      • TicoTico, on 03/18/2008, -3/+4Americans loves propaganda and buying *****
      • SmartfulDodger, on 03/18/2008, -1/+6Everyone likes explanations that agree with their perceptions, not just Americans.
        • masterm1nd, on 03/18/2008, -0/+5I'm sorry, he can't agree with you on that.
      • pitlord, on 03/19/2008, -9/+2I agree and those who support Barak Hussein Obama, the enemies' candidate, are all the proof you need of American ignorance and arrogance.
    • Wargalas, on 03/18/2008, -5/+24It wasn't ok then by them and it's not ok now by Wright. Not all Republicans agreed with what Robertson said. In fact, I was furious at him for even suggesting that gays are the reason why 9/11 happened.
      • niczar, on 03/18/2008, -7/+12And who, in the GOP camp, came out against Robertson? No one, that's who.
        • Wargalas, on 03/18/2008, -8/+6Then you weren't paying attention.
        • notanidiot, on 03/18/2008, -5/+9I was, and I didn't hear any uproar either, just a bunch of flagwaving.
      • pitlord, on 03/19/2008, -9/+4So, how does any of this make it okay for Obama to support America's enemies?
        >.>
        • notanidiot, on 03/19/2008, -0/+3I'm pretty sure he denounced these words several times, publicly. Doesn't sound like support to me.
        • johnhummel, on 03/20/2008, -0/+1How is pointing out that US policy in the Middle East is wrong "supporting America's enemies"?

          How is saying "You know, that whole thing with the Shah of Iran, and how the US supported him - not in America's best interest because it lead to a bunch of pissed of Iranian people (remember the Iranian Hostage crisis? Ever wonder why they were so pissed off?)" supporting America's enemies?

          How is saying "US policy in supporting the religious dictatorship of Saudi Arabia has lead to its own extremism that took root in bin Laden - and the US can't claim wide eyed innocence" supporting America's enemies?

          I find it laughable that a white preacher saying "Well, gays are the reason behind 9-11", and an angry black preacher saying "US policy had something to do with 9-11", but the former is a "patroit" and "just speaking his religious beliefs", while the latter is "crazy" and "a racist against white people".
      • fedupamerica, on 03/20/2008, -0/+0Ditto! I sure as hell wouldnt spend 20 years in Robertson's church. I watched him a few times and then he said some pretty stupid crap and I immediatly stopped and sent him a nastygrahm. Can't say the same about Obama.
    • masterm1nd, on 03/18/2008, -17/+15Blaming foreign policy doesn't sound all that bad. The problem is, "blaming foreign policy" doesn't accurately sum up what he said. You know what he said and you know that it was racist and anti American, even Obama admits it and denounces it.

      If a "radical Republican preacher" accuses America's gays, lesbians, non-Christians, and feminists of causing the September 11th attacks, and they are the preacher for 20 years of McCain or any other candidate, they would be done. If the preacher were "blaming our foreign policy" in the same way Wright did with the same anti American and racist quotes Wright said, they would be done. You should look into why you would be defending, minimizing and justifying such hate. Obama should not be elected solely on the chance he does agree with the pastor, because we don't know and would be stupid to take his word for it with such epic consequences at stake. Wright is Obama's friend and spiritual mentor of 20 years. Obama's wife said she's never been proud of America. Meaningful, becomes the meaningless flag lapel issue.
      • dinot, on 03/18/2008, -13/+14Oh please... Obama's wife said she's never been REALLY proud of America until now. It's like me saying "I've never appreciated the internet" vs. "i've never REALLY appreciated the internet until now". See the difference? If not, go away.
        • RepubOperative, on 03/18/2008, -17/+9You did not read what he wrote: "If a "radical Republican preacher" accuses America's gays, lesbians, non-Christians, and feminists of causing the September 11th attacks, and they are the preacher for 20 years of McCain or any other candidate, they would be done."

          Why is Obama able to keep you liberal assholes on a short leash? Why does Obama have the power to keep the votes he obtained even after he has fallen from grace?

          Because he is black.
          • staticneuron, on 03/18/2008, -7/+14Oh, this is comedic gold. I wonder what you are trying to say RepubOperative?

            No. A republican linked to anything of that sort would not be denounced. Obama has a friend and mentor that has said some over the top things. Does that mean EVERYTHING he says is disagreeable.... not at all. I keep my eyes open when I see mud being thrown from any side. You're the type to stir up the pot.

            I see through these political hijinks and I see through people like you.
          • soot, on 03/19/2008, -1/+1He's a ***** *****.
      • wendelgee2, on 03/18/2008, -6/+10One word: Hagee.
        • hittnrun, on 03/19/2008, -5/+2that is a fvcking dumb thing to bring up just because Obama's racist background has been brought out into the light. Nothing surprising. This is the same attitude you detect from Oprah Wnfree too. They use both sides of the race card to get what they crave, money and power.
      • dan222555, on 03/18/2008, -9/+8"Really" having the definition you're referring to is not typically a modifier applied to the word proud. How often are people somewhat proud? You're either proud or you aren't...there's little gray area in between.
        • diggduggDOOM, on 03/18/2008, -2/+4Right. Just like sometimes I'm so angry I want to hit someone, and other times I'm not angry at all. No gray area when it comes to emotions, no siree...
        • diggduggDOOM, on 03/18/2008, -2/+4Don't like that example? I'm proud of little Johnny when he tries his best but doesn't make the team. I'm REALLY proud of little Johnny when he tries again next year, makes the team, and scores the winning goal in the championship game.
        • dan222555, on 03/18/2008, -6/+1Your first example was weak because no one said anything about anger.

          In your second example, apparently you're only kinda proud of Johnny in the first place....so what do you tell him, "Johnny....I'm kinda proud of you but I could be prouder"? I doubt it. No, you're just proud. When you say 'really' in the second case it's more for emphasis than to imply your prouder than a previous case of minimal pride (which doesn't really exist). Few people distinguish between varying levels of pride. If you ask two people who's kid's just got into college how proud they are of them and one says, "I'm proud of my son" and the other says "I'm REALLY proud of my son" does that imply the second is prouder (which is a word that sounds awkward because you never hear it for this very reason) than the first. No. They're both proud, one is just emphasizing it more.
        • diggduggDOOM, on 03/19/2008, -1/+3What you say or do not say out of politeness or concern for a child's esteem is not necessarily how you actually feel. Emotions are subjective and there are varying intensities and types.

          "Few people distinguish between varying levels of pride." How would you quantify the varying levels of pride anyways? Your scenario is not a good representation. Let's try one parent with two kids. One kid does his best and only gets into community college. The other kid tries her best and gets into an ivy league college. The sense of pride that parent feels probably is different with regard to each child, but no self-respecting parent would say that.

          Or another one: Let's say you accomplish a single tough task at work. You may be proud of yourself. Next you strive for years and years and earn the Nobel Prize. Are you honestly telling me you wouldn't feel greater pride in that world-recognized accomplishment? Who knows, you could feel more proud of the single task completed, but to suggest that there are no gray areas, or gradations is laughable.

          On the other hand, you could be heavily medicated. I've heard that some anti-depressants create a mental state where there are neither highs nor lows. Regardless, I would be sad if the pride I felt in my dog learning a new trick (or my ability to teach it) was the same as my child say curing cancer.
        • dan222555, on 03/19/2008, -2/+1"Let's try one parent with two kids. One kid does his best and only gets into community college. The other kid tries her best and gets into an ivy league college. The sense of pride that parent feels probably is different with regard to each child, but no self-respecting parent would say that."
          A good parent should feel equally proud for both of those children. If they didn't, I'd question them as a parent.

          If people distinguish between "proud" and "really proud" how come nobody ever says things like "kind of proud" or a "a little bit proud"? If there are varying levels of pride in excess than how come there aren't varying levels of minimal pride? The answer is simple. Pride isn't an emotion that contains those various degrees. There are times you emphasize you pride more than others, but in general pride is either there or it isn't.

          In all this you're also that Michelle Obama's used the word "really" in its slang usage meaning "very". But that's not even the dictionary definition of the word and it's technically incorrect to use it in that way. "Really" is defined as meaning "truly" or "genuinely". It would seem to me unlikely than an educated person like Michelle Obama would misuse the word in that sense to begin with. When someone says that they're "really proud" it's much more common to assume they mean that they are "genuinely proud". And taken that way, there's no way to distort Michelle Obama's statement into anything other than what it clearly was.
      • gwinerreniwg, on 03/18/2008, -9/+14Please quote his racist and anti-american remarks.
        I have to say that everything I've heard him quoted as saying in the American media sounds pretty true to me. Let me guess, you're a white american, right? If not, I retract my statement. If you are, I'd say its pretty difficult for you to have any credibility on the "black American experience". Here's a few selected quotes:
        "We've got more black men in prison than there are in college,"
        Sadly this is true.
        "Racism is alive and well. Racism is how this country was founded and how this country is still run. No black man will ever be considered for president, no matter how hard you run Jesse [Jackson] and no black woman can ever be considered for anything outside what she can give with her body."
        I would suspect Rev Wright would be happy to be proven wrong on this point, assuming you can ignore his comments long enough for Barack to have a chance.
        "America is still the No. 1 killer in the world. . . . We are deeply involved in the importing of drugs, the exporting of guns, and the training of professional killers . . .
        This is true - I will not bother to post several articles easily found that show how the US has training camps and programs for foreign fighters with whom we are allies, many of whom are know human rights violators. I will further not point out numerous articles showing Afghanistan has the largest opium production, yet we're in charge, or how a CIA plane recently crashed with several tonnes of cocaine in it.
        "We bombed Cambodia, Iraq and Nicaragua, killing women and children while trying to get public opinion turned against Castro and Ghadhafi . . . We put [Nelson] Mandela in prison and supported apartheid the whole 27 years he was there. "
        This is all essentially true.
        "We believe in white supremacy and black inferiority and believe it more than we believe in God."
        I don't agree with that, but I can certainly see how a black male might feel that way.


        His voice rising, Mr. Wright said, "We supported Zionism shamelessly while ignoring the Palestinians and branding anybody who spoke out against it as being anti-Semitic. . . . We care nothing about human life if the end justifies the means. . . ." Concluding, Mr. Wright said: "We started the AIDS virus . . . We are only able to maintain our level of living by making sure that Third World people live in grinding poverty. . . ."
        • TubaTechno, on 03/18/2008, -8/+4Wow. You can't see the racism if you're viewing it through racists glasses already...
        • pitlord, on 03/19/2008, -4/+2So basically, you're saying you don't have to research anything because you agree with Obama's racist mentor?
          -_-
          At least you're honest.
      • notanidiot, on 03/18/2008, -6/+1I don't like the fact that many blacks are viciously racist, but I can't blame them. I'm white, and I'm not proud of my heritage.
        • warnergt, on 03/19/2008, -0/+1Everybody else isn't proud of your heritage either.
      • johnhummel, on 03/18/2008, -1/+5My question is - what did he say that you think was racist? Please - I've read it. "Chickens coming home to roost" - doesn't sound terribly racist. "Rich white men rule America" - that's racist? Saying that every US president, nearly every CEO, senator, and congressman is a white rich man is racist?

        Am I missing something here?
        • pitlord, on 03/19/2008, -5/+1" "Rich white men rule America" - that's racist? Saying that every US president, nearly every CEO, senator, and congressman is a white rich man is racist?"

          Considering the number Americans in power with non-white skin I'd have to say that not only is it racist, it is an incorrect statement.
        • furi0us1, on 03/19/2008, -1/+3@pitlord
          I've read a few of your posts on this article, and the only explanation I can think of is that you're intentionally satirizing the nonsense that some conservatives seem to think. If thats not the case, I sincerely pity you.

          Oh and by the way, the vast majority of people in power in this country are rich and white. So no, it is not racist. It might be inconvenient for you, but its the truth.
      • Terr01, on 03/19/2008, -2/+9"If a "radical Republican preacher" accuses America's gays, lesbians, non-Christians, and feminists of causing the September 11th attacks, and they are the preacher for 20 years of McCain or any other candidate, they would be done."

        Exactly, and because of that, Robertson did NOT have private chats with President Bush before invading Iraq, and the White House did NOT appoint a staffer to be the official liason with Falwell. Neither event could happen because both of them would be "done", right?

        Oh, wait, those things DID happen. Huh. Whad'ya know?
      • ClosedCaption, on 03/19/2008, -1/+2based on racial intolerance; "racist remarks"
        a person with a prejudiced belief that one race is superior to others
        discriminatory especially on the basis of race or religion

        Since whites are attending Wrights church isnt the "racist" charge a little silly? Or are changing what the word means?
    • dan222555, on 03/18/2008, -8/+14Neither what the white preachers said or what Wright said is right, and I don't think anyone is saying it is. The controversy surrounds Barack Obama's personal relationship with such a person....not whether or not the views of that person are acceptable.
      • CJMac, on 03/18/2008, -5/+12Yeah, but McCain, Bush and many others have similar relationships with similar people - why is there no controversy over that?
        • dan222555, on 03/18/2008, -13/+5No the point is they don't. If you think they do please explain them.
          • Spencer4228, on 03/18/2008, -4/+10RTFA.
            "George Bush had private conversations with Pat Robertson about matters as weighty as whether to invade Iraq. Isn't that a big scandal -- that the President is consulting with an American-hating minister -- someone who believes God allowed the 9/11 attacks as punishment for our evil country -- about vital foreign policy decisions"
          • dan222555, on 03/18/2008, -7/+3I don't read trash.

            And if you have proof of those conversations between Pat Robertson and George Bush please produce it. Otherwise that's just hearsay.
          • notanidiot, on 03/18/2008, -3/+6Buried, if you don't read the article, dont leave a comment.
          • dan222555, on 03/18/2008, -7/+3Well at least I'm saying something productive, unlike you.
          • Terr01, on 03/19/2008, -3/+7You're full of *****, Dan. Even a basic google search will show you the "proof" you harp on about.

            http://edition.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/10/19/robe ...

            "Robertson, an ardent Bush supporter, told CNN in an interview Tuesday night that he urged the president to prepare the American people for the prospect of casualties before launching the war in March 2003."

            "McClellan said Bush did meet with Robertson in Nashville before the invasion, as Robertson recounted."
          • dan222555, on 03/19/2008, -6/+3I'm full of ***** for asking for proof of an accusation?

            Did you even read that first quote? It said he urged to President to prepare the American people for the prospect of casualties. What is that proving?

            None of that proves that Robertson and Bush have a bond that even approaches the bond between Obama and Wright. Bush isn't a member of Robertson's church, he didn't have him marry him and his wife, he didn't have him baptize his children, and doesn't refer to him as "like family".

            Having meetings with an influential religious figure doesn't prove the two have any association beyond that.
          • Terr01, on 03/19/2008, -1/+1"I'm full of ***** for asking for proof of an accusation?"

            No, for this continual "Whaah, no proof! Whaaah, sources too biased! Give me something I could check for myself with minimal effort because my main rhetorical strategy is to bury you in lots of trivial requests for information!"
          • dan222555, on 03/19/2008, -0/+1So I'm full of ***** for not believing anything anybody says on Digg without proof? I know people like you would love to spout off all kinds of ***** and have people automatically believe it's true, but it's not going to happen. I live in a world where nothing is true until it's proven true.

            And the above is a good example why I ask for proof. I asked for it, and you couldn't find anything that proved what was said. You gave me an article and two quotes that didn't even come close to proving anything. The only proof you have of anything exists only in your head which is so clouded over with ideology that you can't separate fact from fiction.
          • Terr01, on 03/19/2008, -1/+1No, you're still not reading my posts. The problem is stupid requests for proof combind with arbitrary dismissal of sources you don't like. You're the kind of guy who goes around Digg and says "It's from ThinkProgress. I believe it must must be inaccurate because I hate them, buried.", while the article would actually be a quote from CNN.

            Let's walk down memory lane here:
            "And if you have proof of those conversations between Pat Robertson and George Bush please produce it. "--Dan222555
            "http://edition.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/10/19/robe ..." --Terr
            "You gave me an article and two quotes that didn't even come close to proving anything. The only proof you have of anything exists only in your head..." --Dan222555

            You ask for proof for something that's trivial to check out, I provide clear proof from both Pat Robertson and the White House press secretary, and then you claim it's "all in my head"?

            So are you just trolling or what?
          • dan222555, on 03/20/2008, -0/+1What the hell does that article prove? The only fact in that article is that Bush and Falwell had a meeting and then there's a disputed claim about what was said. Do you expect to extrapolate from the fact that the two had a meeting that Bush weighed Falwell's opinion at all in the decision to invade Iraq or that the two have a relationship that is at all comparable to the Wright/Obama relationship? If you do, that's ridiculous.
        • blate, on 03/18/2008, -4/+8Aren't the Bushes and the Bin Ladens friends/business partners?
        • WasabiBomb, on 03/18/2008, -3/+8Bush's grandfather was involved in a plot to overthrow the US government (true, look it up). Why is that somehow okay, but Obama's minister's words are totally reprehensible?
          • dan222555, on 03/19/2008, -3/+3Do I really need to tell you why that's different? You don't choose who your grandfather is. You do, however, choose what church to go to and what kind of relationship to establish with a man who spouts hate speech from the pulpit.
          • WasabiBomb, on 03/19/2008, -1/+2Yes, Dan, you really DO need to tell us why that's different. People are demanding that Obama denounce his minister for things that he's said, yet nobody's demanding that Bush denounce his grandfather for something he tried to DO.
            You're right, it does sound different. Bush's situation sounds WORSE.
          • dan222555, on 03/19/2008, -1/+1I'll say it again a little clearer so maybe you get it this time: You don't choose your grandfather.
          • WasabiBomb, on 03/19/2008, -1/+1I'll say it again, a little clearer, so maybe YOU can understand. Whether one can choose one's grandfather or not, the important thing is that Obama's critics have been calling on him to denounce his minister... yet nobody's asking Bush to denounce his involvement in attempting to overthrow the freakin' US GOVERNMENT, nor his grandfather's business dealings with Nazis.

            Are you seriously so dense that you can't see that one is an order of magnitude more pertinent to the presidential office than the other?
          • dan222555, on 03/19/2008, -1/+1Are you seriously so stupid as to compare the actions of a man's grandfather who Bush probably had little to no interaction with in his adult life to the actions of someone's chosen personal friend, mentor, and pastor with whom he maintains relations today? There is no comparison and your attempt at it is idiotic.
          • WasabiBomb, on 03/19/2008, -1/+1If it's stupid to expect Bush denounce his grandfather for attempting to OVERTHROW THE US GOVERNMENT, then it's stupid to expect Obama to denounce his minister for a series of out-of-context quotes cherry-picked from over THIRTY YEARS of sermons.
            Can you name ONE instance of Obama "hating whitey" or saying that the US govermnent created AIDS? I mean, if his minister has had such an effect on him, surely you can name one time he's said something similar?
            If not, I propose to you that Wright didn't have the effect on Obama that you claim. Frankly, I think you've already made up your mind, and you're just using Wright as an excuse for your bigoted hatred of Obama.
          • dan222555, on 03/19/2008, -1/+1"If it's stupid to expect Bush denounce his grandfather for attempting to OVERTHROW THE US GOVERNMENT, then it's stupid to expect Obama to denounce his minister for a series of out-of-context quotes cherry-picked from over THIRTY YEARS of sermons."
            Your still neglecting the very obvious differences in the relationship. And please explain how any of the things we've seen Wright saying on the news are out-of-context. They're full paragraphs, with declarative statements. If you can, please tell us how to put "god damn America" and "the US govt lied about creating the HIV virus as a means of genocide..." and comparing the US to Al Qaeda "in context" for us. And whether or not he said some of those things once in thirty years or if he said them every damn day, they are equally offensive.

            "Can you name ONE instance of Obama "hating whitey" or saying that the US govermnent created AIDS? I mean, if his minister has had such an effect on him, surely you can name one time he's said something similar?
            If not, I propose to you that Wright didn't have the effect on Obama that you claim. Frankly, I think you've already made up your mind, and you're just using Wright as an excuse for your bigoted hatred of Obama."
            Where did I say he had any such effect on Obama? You're putting words into my mouth and pulling opinions out of your ideologically clouded head and sticking them to me like labels. I don't think Obama believes the majority of the stuff that Wright said. The point here is the America people want to know what kind of judgment a Presidential candidate has to have in order to associate with such a hate-filled, anti-American man for such a long period of his life.
      • rgersmrk, on 03/19/2008, -2/+3So why aren't we calling Bush, McCain and other prominent republicans racist and having them explain themselves 1000 times a day? The double standard is not only there is it is laughing and poking us with a stick.
        • dan222555, on 03/19/2008, -4/+5The reason is pretty simply and it has nothing to do with a double standard. None of those people have relationships that are analogous to the Wright/Obama relationship.
        • rgersmrk, on 03/19/2008, -1/+0The double standard has to do with the CLOSE ties Bush, McCain and other republicans have with hate mongering white preachers. The media fails to hold white politicians to the same standard as they are to Obama. Burying your head in the sand isn't going to make that any less true.
        • dan222555, on 03/19/2008, -1/+2What you don't get is that none of those "close ties" you refer to even approach the strength of the well-documented Obama/Wright relationship. Neither Bush or McCain go to any of those pastor's churches, nor did they have them marry them or baptize their children. And they don't refer to them as "like family". The relationships are just completely different. This Obama/Wright relationship is a whole different thing, that's why the media has picked up on it.
          • rgersmrk, on 03/19/2008, -1/+0Bush consulting Falwell on going to war with Iraq or not would put him pretty damn close to the president IMO and not that much different, just different colored skin. The difference is Obama isn't afraid to admit his ties to Wright and faces up to it unlike Bush and the republican party.
          • dan222555, on 03/19/2008, -0/+1Where is the proof that Bush consulted Falwell about going into Iraq and at all weighed his opinion into the decision?
          • rgersmrk, on 03/20/2008, -0/+0I was mistaken as to which Bush had close ties to Falwell. It was actually G.H. Bush Sr. that has the close ties to Falwell. My apologies.

            http://search.barnesandnoble.com/Building-Dynamic- ...
            http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/05/15/falwell.pol ...
    • RealHyperX, on 03/18/2008, -15/+12Surely Senator Obama knew how Wright felt even though he might not have heard the exact words. Also, what kind of judgment allows a sitting senator to attend a church that radical?"
      • davdev, on 03/18/2008, -5/+12What kind of Judgement allows a Senator "to blame America for the 9/11 attacks by arguing in a 2002 Senate floor speech that "the spiritual door was opened for an attack against the United States of America" because we pressured Israel to give away parts of the West Bank. " - James Inhofe (R) Oklahoma
        • dan222555, on 03/18/2008, -14/+4Is James Inhofe running for President?
          • davdev, on 03/18/2008, -2/+12The poster's question was "what kind of judgment allows a sitting senator to attend a church that radical?"
            He was directing his question at a sitting Senator, I responded in kind.
          • dan222555, on 03/18/2008, -5/+4So James Inhofe from Oklahoma has as poor judgment as Barack Obama, what have you proven?
          • davdev, on 03/18/2008, -2/+3I have proven that it doesn't take much judgement to become a US Senator, but then we all knew that.
          • dan222555, on 03/19/2008, -8/+3Yes we did, so you still haven't proven anything.
    • cwcentral, on 03/18/2008, -4/+6No it's not okay. And guess what? The media doesn't give Republican preachers a free ride. They have the 1st amendment too, but are well know to be frauds aside from the 1/3 of the population that believes them. Also, just look at all the activist groups that are against them as well.

      Just because the media does NOT give Obama's preacher a free ride is actually fair, he's being put under the same magnifying glass. Considering 98% or liberals are by default tolerant, we should not ignore it and just give a free pass. And of course, only [another] 1/3 of the population will believe him as well.

      Fairness sure hurts when it's being applied to you. Discussion here is interesting as I'm sure a lot on digg is thinking--just buy the system (i.e. gov't) outright and you shall dictate, which is what the republicans have done over the last 10 yrs.
      • davdev, on 03/18/2008, -4/+4Your right, the media doesn't give the Ruplican preachers a free ride, but they absoulutely give the Republican politicians who follow them one.
        • MentalHazard, on 03/19/2008, -1/+1That's quite a generalization. From what I know the media swings left and right at random intervals. Whatever makes money, IE whatever makes the viewers happy, is what is presented. They are not the cause of, only the effect of, America's swing voting meta-majority.
      • notanidiot, on 03/18/2008, -4/+2Republican preachers do get free rides, but its not from the media, its from the altarboys.
    • CrazedLeper, on 03/18/2008, -14/+9Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me. Refusing to RESEARCH 9/11 *FOR YOURSELF* makes you twice fooled. Bush was the figurehead for the 9/11 con. Stop letting your own hubris keep you from learning the truth.

      Bush has *exactly* followed the pattern of what Hitler did to gain power (the same Hitler who was financed, in part, by W's grandfather, Prescott Bush). Hitler destroyed a significant landmark (the Reichstag building), blamed "terrorists" and rode the lie into a dictatorship, an unjustified war (against Poland), a special new police force, secret prisons, torture and millions killed in death camps. It's coming around again because you're all in denial.
      • aidave, on 03/18/2008, -3/+2By RESEARCH 9/11 do you mean watch stupid videos full of nonsense controlled demolition crap? Cuz you are probably getting dug down for even alluding to that.
        • CrazedLeper, on 03/19/2008, -0/+2You obviously are shuffling around second-hand opinions. You should see one of the stupid videos for yourself.
      • Yatata, on 03/19/2008, -1/+3it's sad when you're dugg down in denial and not through legitimate argument. people just don't want to believe that what you're saying is entirely possible and has far more facts to back it up than the argument that lead to the invasion of iraq.
        • PolishLogic, on 03/19/2008, -2/+1He's got nothing legitimate to argue. 99% of the conspiracy theories have been disproved through science and tangible evidence. Yet when it happens the conspiracy theorists fall back on one argument and one only: you're just shilling. However, when it's pointed out to them that they are shilling in the same way they're accusing others of, they can't comprehend it.

          I'll stick to science and independent studies by actual scientists when I do my research. Troofers can have the handycam / Windows Movie Maker films / speculation / connect your own random dots for their proof.

          Sometimes ***** happens and often it's not a vast conspiracy consisting of 1000's of people from dozens of government agencies as well as 1000's of random civilians being involved type of thing. If you got in a car accident, would you immediately assume that somebody was out to kill you? Sure it would make for an incredible story, but come on.
          • Yatata, on 03/19/2008, -1/+2k, I'll stick to my experts too - like the 5 professional engineers teaching structures to myself and fellow architecture students. Not one of them believes the standard line, given their expertise in how buildings go up, stay up, and come down, I'd tend to believe them. One of them wrote his thesis 20 years ago on the mechanics of steel high rises. He is no conspiracy theorist, he's just a really smart guy who knows what he's talking about.

            did you know that a majority of so-called "9/11 truthers" are college educated professionals, many with masters degrees? hmmm you're right, totally sounds like a bunch of ignorant tinfoil hat wearing quacks...
      • pitlord, on 03/19/2008, -6/+1If you did your research you'd know that Obama's friends in the Middle East have done a lot more to emulate the Nazi system than anyone since WWII.
    • vanzan, on 03/18/2008, -5/+18These creatures are known to be crazy, and their arguments are filled with hate and bigotry. But we all should face the fact that the United State's foreign policy was a major factor in provoking the attacks.

      If you live outside the US and especially in the Middle East, you will find how much people despise what the US does in there and particularity in Palestine.
      • historybuff, on 03/18/2008, -6/+0Really.... be honest..... do you care what these ignorant asses think about the U.S. I sure as hell don't.
      • pitlord, on 03/19/2008, -5/+1The only people who support "palestine" are the enemies of the U.S. The Islamic religious extremists. They only support the fraudulent "palestinians" because they want to destroy Israel. They cannot stand the idea of the return of the Jewish Kingdom because they believe they have already destroyed it.
        -_-
        So, if you really care what these evil people think about the U.S. maybe you should go join them. I'm sure they'd love to have another martyr in the their ranks.
        ^^
        • notanidiot, on 03/19/2008, -0/+1Ummm... I'm not an islamic extremist, but I support Palestine. That was their country, and the Jews got placed there after WWII, and they were supposed to just accept it? They have a right to demand their own land back, and the Jews,... well, the Jews ought to be happy they didn't get wiped out by Hitler and stop whining.
    • JoshuaLowe, on 03/18/2008, -3/+6No, it's not okay they said that stuff. But what's also not okay is when people don't bother to openly disagree with them for 20 years, and only then when tapes are released onto the Interwebs.
      • bookitybook, on 03/19/2008, -0/+0Okay. Fair enough point. But it sure beats all the politicians and presidents embracing the preachers - and worse yet their policy prescriptions! - who are such America-bashers that they claim Katrina, 9-11 etc. are the just rewards of our society. I remember the Reverend Billy Graham preaching at the cathedral's 9-11 memorial and making clear that the "some of you" who were going to heaven didn't include me. (This was before I knew about all his anti-Jewish rhetoric.) Why are our religious leaders our greatest perpetrators of hate speech?
      • cle22, on 03/23/2008, -0/+0America has done so much evil to people and we act as if it doesn't matter; we kill familes, steal people's land and resources and then as why do you hate us. If you were Native American or African American you could possibly understand where Wright was coming from. Slavery would not have happened if not sanctioned by the Church. What do you think of that. Peace unto yu.
    • plnegative1, on 03/18/2008, -1/+3I don't know about the *****, but I'm PRETTY sure the feminists are responsible for the attacks.
    • twomeyw23334, on 03/18/2008, -3/+4I'm pretty sure if McCain sat in a pupil for 20 years of some maniac preaching gay / lesbian / African American hate that it would get equal coverage.
      Is it really that hard to understand why a bunch of rednecks going weekly to listen to a hate monger isn't as news worthy as a presidential candidate doing the same thing?
      • notanidiot, on 03/19/2008, -2/+1Bush is a redneck, he was a candidate.
    • pitlord, on 03/19/2008, -5/+3This is B.S.
      -_-
      So, now it's okay to be a left wing wacko because there are right wing wackos in the world?
      >.>
      Thanks, I'd rather vote for the moderate war vet.
      X^P
      • notanidiot, on 03/19/2008, -1/+2...who sings, "Bomb, bomb, bomb, bomb bomb Iran?" yeah, i think its time for Mccain to go to the nursing home.
    • MentalHazard, on 03/19/2008, -0/+0Neither of those things are okay. Had any of the foreign agents with whom we were involved actually not only used diplomacy but had the integrity to remove the corruption which existed, and still exists, in their countries, we wouldn't be involved.
      The reason we're involved is because we fear for our lives. We don't hate them, we just like being alive. Is it such a crime to want to live?
      • furi0us1, on 03/19/2008, -1/+0The problem is we CREATED many of these corrupt agents that we're now fighting against. If we had not been meddling in other countries affairs in the first place, we wouldn't be in this situation now. Maybe we should have tried that diplomacy thing...
        • MentalHazard, on 03/19/2008, -0/+0There are some bad things we did in the Middle East, yes, but that doesn't mean we have to throw the baby out with the bathwater. A few of the many things we did in the Middle East were actually beneficial. Yes, there are a few good things, and the the solution to all the bad things we have done isn't isolationism/pacifism, however, but simply to adopt self-interested foreign policies and elect somebody intelligent enough to administer them.
          • furi0us1, on 03/19/2008, -0/+1While there may have been a few good things, the bad things far outweight the good, at least in the eyes of those that now hate us. Supporting Saddam, covertly overthrowing the democratically elected govt of Iran and installing puppet dictators. Supporting and funding Isreal, while at the same time turning a blind eye to the human rights violations they commit against the Palestinians. That is by far enough fuel to keep the fires of hate burning for many generations to come.
    • BetterOffEd, on 03/19/2008, -0/+1Can we please just agree that they're BOTH wacko?

      Wright says some crazy things too. (See his accusation that the government released the AIDS virus to rid the nation of black people.)
    • BlacklabelSAR, on 03/19/2008, -0/+1"I'm proud to be an American, where at least I know I'm free"......... pretty ***** sad
  • ccfoo242, on 03/18/2008, -13/+44Even if Obama goes down in flames for this crap I'm glad that at least some people are noticing how much the religious right has infected our politics. Replace "religious right" with Scientologists and nobody would stand for it. I won't stand for either!!!
    • tripzero, on 03/18/2008, -3/+4We should probably let people believe in what they want. If you want to believe Gays/Foreign Policy/Government Conspiracy/whatever caused 9/11 you can believe it. If you believed in the consitution, you wouldn't care about what Scientologists believe in. You'd respect all views and beliefs and go on maintaining your own beliefs being open minded for additional knowledge and information.
      • ssn697, on 03/18/2008, -3/+7The problem is that a candidate for President CAN'T run as a non-Christian. Look at how much ***** Obama had to go through to "prove" he wasn't a Muslim.

        So, every candidate has to pander to America's religious intolerance, just to get into the game. Then, they get hammered for associating with wacko religious nuts, if their particular guy doesn't fit the mold.
    • freedomkeeper, on 03/18/2008, -3/+1Then sit down.
    • cwcentral, on 03/18/2008, -1/+6It's not the religious right, it's all religious factions. Remember, even Dr. King was a minister. So it cuts boths ways.

      That's why the founding fathers wanted separation of church and state. It's not an epiphany and pretty logical if you think about it. And it's pretty easy to respect as along as the fanatics don't take over (left or right).
      • pitlord, on 03/19/2008, -1/+1This has nothing to do with religion. This is all about extremist views on either side and to keep pointing the finger at each other is the only thing that is keeping us blind to our common enemy.
        >.>
        So blind, in fact, that many innocent victims have unwittingly turned to support our enemies' own candidate in our presidential elections.
        -_-
        Personally, I hope Obama wins so that the world will finally see the enemy for who they are. By the time his term is over there will be no doubt who we are at war with. They know who they are and they declared war on US ALL decades ago. In our arrogance we've completely ignored them, sold houses and businesses to them, given them free health care and education, and now we are voting them into office.
        o.o
        Looks like Israel will soon be the safest place in the world for decent people. G-d's time in this world is near and the lies of the nations against His chosen people and His chosen land will not stand against His holy light.
        -_-
        It will be up to YOU to decide the side with which you will fight.
        • yakski, on 03/19/2008, -0/+1Are you that stupid or are you just baiting people... no one could possibly be this stupid and ignorant...
    • pitlord, on 03/18/2008, -2/+2Sorry, but the religious LEFT is just as bad as the extreme right. The problem is with the extremists, not the religion.
      -_-
      Save the "extreme" for the sports. Religion requires balance.
    • warnergt, on 03/19/2008, -0/+1Congrats on your bigoted statements about the religious right.
  • barackman, on 03/18/2008, -14/+33Both Pat Robertson and Jerry Falwell have something in common - they're both white! Since when are you responsible for what some ***** say out of his mouth?? Hell - I don't agree with my own father half the time! Anybody who knows anything about the man knows that Barack Obama doesn't have a hate bone in his body - the man is half-white for god's sake. He is equally proud of both sides of his heritage - as it should be - so get over it!!
    • cashman57, on 03/18/2008, -28/+8Anyone who knows anything about Ron Paul knows he is not a racist.
      Where were you when he was being attacked?
      Obama made a serious tactical error.
      Even if I were to completely ignore this so-called preacher, even if Obama never had any religion at all I would never vote for him or support him.
      It is because I am American that I oppose his candidacy. It is because I am acutely aware of freedom lost that I have gained a whole new perspective on freedom.
      There are things I like about Obama and unlike the Clintons I would share a table in my home with Obama.
      I don't think he's a bad man, just misguided and naive.
      His opposition to me being secure is my opposition to him being president.
      I have as much right to be secure as he does, right?
      Probably more because he could at least run away from danger if he had to.
      I would be left sitting there, do I still have a right to be secure? My Constitution says I have a right to be secure in my person, property, papers, and effects but Obama does not want me to be secure.
      At least not as secure as he is.
      I despise this man Wright for what he said. I despise anyone who thinks they have the right to damn ME!
      I also despise people who would take what he said in passing, as if it does not matter.
      Obama told us to look to his church to see where he's at spiritually and I find that man Wright as despicable.
      Just as I find some of the statements some people said were Ron Paul as despicable.
      Do you think Obama is any better than Paul?
      At least with Ron Paul I have the promise and a plan to back it up.Peace. I believe in it. We would all be better off if our military was here at home and not all over the planet defending the empire.
      Man, we can't afford that empire and it isn't security to make people strip at airports and disarm them. People, my fellow Americans, you, me, we all need to be secure in our person, and that has to be number one and the president should not offer us the promise of security by putting us in the right war. That's Obama. The right war. As if we need to be in a war. as if war is our hope and our change is the place we wage war and the hope of peace is put off for another generation.
      I can't wait. We need peace now. The lives of our children and theirs depend on peace and without peace you have no prosperity.
      I think Pat Roberson should mind his own business and I thought Falwell was a joke.Robertson claiming it was someone who caused it and the permissiveness of America led to it was stupid and wrong.
      What caused it was the empire your man wants to run.
      I want him to be president of the united States first, and his first obligation is the security of the Nation and you can't be secure if you are broke and your troops are abroad.
      If Obama is to be president we will be broke and our troops will be off fighting the "right war". Guaranteed.
  • DavidIrons, on 03/18/2008, -6/+43People who say that Obama gets a free pass for everything need to pay attention to this. McCain first attacked Falwell (and other agents of intolerance) , had a falling out with evangelicals, lost the 2000 election and then later made up with Falwell to try to restore his image. Hateful evangelicals are so entrenched that their rhetoric is expected but when a hateful leftist pops up then suddenly all hell breaks loose. I'm sick of these double standards.
    • pintomp3, on 03/18/2008, -0/+6john mccain stood on stage and accepted the endorsement of john hagee, who called the catholic church "the great whore". more on hagee:
      http://www.pbs.org/moyers/journal/10052007/profile ...
      mccain's spiritual advisor rod parsley called for the eradication of islam:
      http://www.motherjones.com/washington_dispatch/200 ...

      i wonder why soundbites of their hateful words aren't played over and over on the corporate media.
      • Pillage, on 03/18/2008, -2/+1why didn't the Media didn't make a big deal about Obama visiting with William Ayers and Bernardine Dohrn of the weather underground? Maybe because they didn't have a very close relationship, that it wasn't enough to question his judgment?
        "William Ayers said in a September 11, 2001 New York Times profile that he does not "'regret setting bombs[in the Pentagon]. I believe we didn't do enough."'

  • matt70, on 03/18/2008, -21/+29Again the big difference is that Obama has not embraced this hate like McCain and the other wanna be Reaganites. He has rejected it. McCain tried to reject it in 2000 and was soundly beaten by Dubya. For all those GOP'ers saying that Obama (or even Hillary) will say anything to get elected, take a look at your guy. If it is not obvious that McCain's 2000 Straight Talk Express took a right turn in 2008 then you might want to go have yourself admitted somewhere. The funny thing about all of this is that McCain is just lying to the right to get votes. McCain would sell them out in a hot second if he gets elected. Even funnier is that most of you know it and can't do anything about it.
    • cashman57, on 03/18/2008, -20/+9My guy is the Republican with a plan for peace and prosperity.
      Your guy promises the right war and economic doom.
      • matt70, on 03/18/2008, -12/+19Prosperity for whom? The last 7 years have seen a lot of "prosperity" for the wealthiest Americans.
        Peace? I'm not even going to comment on that one. The people will decide.
        • bohemianowl, on 03/18/2008, -15/+7I wish the people had a voice. its all about special interests and globalist banksters. Obama is a globalist. I am voting 3rd party or writing in RP
        • cashman57, on 03/18/2008, -15/+6Your mind is like a parachute. As long as you keep it closed it can't work and if you open it too late the ground will smack you.
          http://www.ronpaul2008.com/prosperity/
          • neognostic, on 03/18/2008, -3/+9So that explains your brain damaged delusions, your parachute didn't open. I've seen your bigoted inane arguments for months, and now I have an explanation.
    • reinventit, on 03/18/2008, -7/+5cain is really a whore! I liked him until bush publicly humiliated him with that disgusting hug. That ended it for cain, he was done right then.
      • awills, on 03/18/2008, -0/+3Yeah, and he reversed his position on torture! That was his strongest stance! That guy used to be cool, but he has been completely broken by the christian right, and is now their bitch.
      • PolishLogic, on 03/19/2008, -0/+1Really? A hug did it for you? Wow, you must have been a McCain diehard.

        /facepalm
    • dan222555, on 03/18/2008, -7/+10"Again the big difference is that Obama has not embraced this hate like McCain and the other wanna be Reaganites."
      Actually the big difference is that neither McCain nor any of the other people you're referring to had a close personal relationship with any of these white preachers like Obama does with Wright. McCain hasn't supported the churches of any of these men with money and his attendance. And he didn't have any of these men marry him and his wife or baptize their children. So who really is embracing the hate?
      • pintomp3, on 03/18/2008, -2/+6rod parsley doesn't just endorse mccain, he is his spiritual advisor:
        http://www.alternet.org/blogs/peek/79527/

        mccain said he was "proud" of the endorsement from hagee:
        http://www.huffingtonpost.com/jane-hamsher/mccain- ...

        where are they calls to denounce their hateful comments?
        • PolishLogic, on 03/19/2008, -0/+1And Wright married the Obamas, what's your ***** point? Why should either of them have to denounce them? What does it matter, honestly?

          A couple of kooks that happen to like these guys said so. Bottom line. Then again, the public was up in arms about Paul not returning $500 from a white supremest as if it meant he was a Grand Dragon and a Senator.
      • dan222555, on 03/19/2008, -1/+1Well first of all you've given me articles from two incredibly left wing sources. But nevertheless I'll tell you why both those cases are different from the Obama case.

        In that first article it says "McCain called Parsley a 'spiritual guide'". Doesn't say his spiritual guide or anything more than that. You can't take that one statement and extrapolate it to prove that McCain and Parsley share the same relationship that has been well-documented between Wright and Obama. You'd have to provide additional evidence to even begin to prove that.

        Once again in the Hagee case, McCain has no personal relationship Hagee. Hagee endorsed him and McCain showed his appreciation for that endorsement. You once again haven't proven a relationship exists between those two that is comparable to Wright/Obama.
        • Terr01, on 03/19/2008, -1/+2"Well first of all you've given me articles from two incredibly left wing sources."

          This again? Instead of unproductively whining about it, quit the laziness and take five seconds to check them against major news organizations with google. Meh.

          So put 'em up: What are these incredibly strong bonds of brotherhood which tie Obama and Wright together into an inextricable ball?
          • dan222555, on 03/19/2008, -1/+2"So put 'em up: What are these incredibly strong bonds of brotherhood which tie Obama and Wright together into an inextricable ball?"
            I have to point them out for you?

            He's been a member of the man's church for almost 20 years. He's given money to the church and endorsed the pastor by attending his church. He chose Wright to marry him and his wife and to baptize his children. He's said he is "like family" numerous times including in his speech today.

            None of these other "relationships" being mentioned with McCain or anyone else have those kinds of qualities.
          • PolishLogic, on 03/19/2008, -1/+2The only unproductive whining going on here is the whining about this story as if it is of any importance. If you have audio of McCain or Obama saying the same things that these other guys said, then it's a story.

            People always bitch about taking responsibilities for your own actions. Yet in this story, as well as McCain's, everyone is expecting the candidates to take responsibility for another person's actions. Grill Wright, grill Parsley for what was said. Hell, you might as well have slammed Ted Bundy's parents for their son being a rapist. After all they did give birth to and raise him, right?
          • dan222555, on 03/19/2008, -1/+1The relationships one establishes in their lifetime are a testament to an individual's judgment. When you're young you make a judgment as to whether or not you're going to hang out with the bad kids on the playground or the good kids. And that decision says a lot about your sense of judgment and your character. Barack Obama has made the decision to hang out with one of the baddest kids in town--and that calls into question his judgment. That's why this is a big story and that's why voters care. No one is holding Obama responsible for what is pastor said nor are they proclaiming he believes what his pastor says. This is a question of judgment in regards to who a person chooses to associate with.
          • Terr01, on 03/19/2008, -1/+1That's it? Well, maybe I'm just a hippe-liberal-secular-progressive-whatsit, but Church is not just an excuse to rub elbows with the pastor any more than going to a dentist for your physical health means you and your dentist are best friends for life.

            Now, if it's different for conservatives and "you guys" have much much closer relationships with your religious leaders...?
          • dan222555, on 03/19/2008, -1/+1That made very little sense, but I'll respond nevertheless. The Obama/Wright relationship is very clearly more than the typical pastor/church-goer relationship. That's been well-documented and spoken to by Obama himself. If you can't see that, I don't know what to tell you.
    • warnergt, on 03/19/2008, -0/+1It took Obama 20 years to reject it in a half-hearted sort of way.
  • jarrodandlaura, on 03/18/2008, -16/+26Seriously. Everyone knows we were attacked not because those knuckleheads hated our freedoms, but because of our policies. Everyone knows that african-american young men (though, I admit he could've/should've included whites, latinos, iraqis, etc & women as well) are dying for a war based on lies (about 935 of them) and faulty intel. Everyone knows the CIA sanctioned drugs being pumped into urban communities. The only thing I can really disagree with is the idea that the US created HIV to kill blacks and gays...
    then again... considering our history, is it really that far fetched a story? is it really incomprehensible that Wright and others from his generation would believe that?
    Has the American public forgotten about the Tuskegee Experiments - where black men were used as human guinea pigs to study the effects of syphilis?
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tuskegee_Study_of_Unt ...
    or try CNN if you don't care for wikipedia...
    http://www.cnn.com/US/9704/08/tuskegee/
    And after all of this, we're supposed to be upset over Wright's comments - or think that Obama hates whites, when his own mother was white? Do people really think the American public is that stupi... nevermind.
    • cashman57, on 03/18/2008, -16/+8"GOD DAMN AMERICA"
      That's what he said and I could care less what else he said. He's no preacher that I would respect or admire.
      Seriously if I came in and said that to you about you and your family and friends would you sit there and ask me what ELSE I had to say?
      Obama said to look to his church to see where he comes from.
      He tied that man together with him in word and deed and now is not the time to change the subject.
      • gwinerreniwg, on 03/18/2008, -3/+5You must REALLY be offended by the bible then. He's not talking about "God destroy America". The Bible itself talks about God destroying Israel and damning Israel for its transgressions. That doesn't mean He wants to destroy it. He doesn't want to destroy the country that he lives in, his children live in, his congregation lives in.
      • furi0us1, on 03/19/2008, -1/+1If those three little words really offend you that much, you really need to get out more...
    • VitriolAndAngst, on 03/18/2008, -0/+5You are assuming that the people who are going to react to this nonsense are going to actually be THINKING. Nope. Next, they'll have an ad; "Obama has a black baby..." Whatever gets them another corporate crony President will get spun in the media. Expect it.
    • awills, on 03/18/2008, -1/+1Right on!
  • NoDrama, on 03/18/2008, -10/+14People who gave Falwell's utterly un-Christian comments a pass but won't give 12 minutes to listen to the sermon that's caused the uproar are audacious (if not arrogant) to judge this man.
    http://digg.com/2008_us_elections/Lo_behold_Revere ...
    The video, btw, is very low quality, but the audio is more than sufficient to make the point that this is seriously blown out of proportion by the use of an excerpt. Who cannot be made to look a fool by taking their remarks out of context?
    Judge not, Christian, lest ye be judged.
    • cashman57, on 03/18/2008, -13/+7Obama TOLD us to judge him by his church. Do you have a memory problem?
    • Wargalas, on 03/18/2008, -1/+8I'm not a Christian, so I'll judge all I want.
  • scottc, on 03/18/2008, -5/+23The quote at the end of the column sums it up well:

    "When Senator Obama's preacher thundered about racism and injustice Obama suffered smear-by-association. But when my late father -- Religious Right leader Francis Schaeffer -- denounced America and even called for the violent overthrow of the US government, he was invited to lunch with presidents Ford, Reagan and Bush, Sr." - Frank Schaeffer, son of highly influential Religious Right figure Francis Schaeffer
  • quaxon, on 03/18/2008, -13/+23 The sad thing is that most of what the pastor is saying is 100% factual and spot on. You do not agree with facts, they are true whether you decide to acknowledge them or not. He may have said it in an unkind or unwelcoming matter, but pretty much everything he said was spot on. White americans did infect blacks with syphilis without their consent or knowledge in the tuskegee experiments which lasted into the 70s, Al Queda did attack us because we have been ***** up their land for the past decades, America is exactly like al queda under a different flag and with more money/more advanced weapons(specifically the CIA, who i would argue is far worse than al queda), we have killed more people in iraq and afghanistan than were killed in the WTC attacks... I mean, what exactly did he say that wasnt true? I dont understand why when americans are faced with facts they dont like they vilify the person stating them, attack their character to completely discredit them and then call what they say wrong. I am the most anti-religious person and never thought id say a pastor was correct, but this guy absolutely is.
    • oldhick, on 03/18/2008, -9/+11No its not. Point to the evidence where we created aids as Jeremiah says we did.
      • quaxon, on 03/18/2008, -10/+8I guess i should have added that the one thing he could be wrong about (and i dont really believe it either though i am skeptical) is that aids was created to kill blacks. But then again when you look at the las century and how blacks have been treated by whites (must i bring up tuskegee again? how about CIA putting crack in black neighborhoods?)) it is not too far-fetched. Either -way everything else i listed that the pastor said is absolutely true and cannot be disputed.
    • Bkaufman, on 03/18/2008, -9/+4Libtards like you represent everything that is wrong with America today. Continue making excuses for black racism, while being hyper sensitive to white racism. America is far from perfect, but we are no Al Queda, and the fact that you try to compare us to them is all the proof I need that you are a self hating idiot.
      • WasabiBomb, on 03/18/2008, -1/+10Wow. The economy's going to hell in a handbasket and we're involved in a pointless war which is killing thousands of innocent people and which is further draining our resources... and you claim that "Libtards" are what's wrong with America? Are conservatives so ineffectual that even when in near total control of the government, they STILL screw things up... and it's somehow because of the liberals?

        You're freakin' deluded.
        • Bkaufman, on 03/19/2008, -1/+2Hi. IM AGAINST THE WAR. Just because I am against people who make ignorant comments does not mean I am for an ignorant foreign policy. I don't appreciate political hypocrisy, which is why I am so against left wingers who are willing to give racist black people (like the Reverend Right) a pass because of white guilt. We certainly aren't perfect with regards to race, but anyone who says God Curse America is not someone who is contributing positively to race relations in America.
    • jameskong15, on 03/18/2008, -4/+4Beyond just the AIDS thing, he has claimed that the “white arrogance” of America’s Caucasian majority is responsible for the woes of the world, especially the oppression of blacks… Talk about crazy racist hyperbole.
      • WasabiBomb, on 03/18/2008, -2/+7Bush's grandfather was involved in a plot to overthrow the US government (true, look it up). A grandfather has MUCH more influence over a man than his preacher does. Why is it okay that Bush has a relative that wanted to tried to overthrow the goverment, but not okay that Obama's minister says something you don't like?
        • Bulletbillx, on 03/19/2008, -1/+3Prescott Bush also supported the Nazis and Hitler.
        • jameskong15, on 03/19/2008, -1/+2Nice strawman as I never claimed what Bush's Gfather or Bush himself did/said was okay; you just made that ***** up, acted like I agreed with it, and attacked it, lol. Both were wrong.

          Still, what exactly does that have to do with someone claiming X race was responsible for the world's woes anyway? That’s Hitler ***** right there.
          • WasabiBomb, on 03/19/2008, -0/+2Show us exactly where you demanded that Bush denounce his grandfather's actions.
    • cle22, on 03/23/2008, -0/+0Hi, you must be a white person under 30yrs old. The reason Black people think the "Aids thing" is possible, is because "this country", the "dominant race did it to us before, remember the Tuskegee Experiment? Oh, you may not, because it didn't happen to you or your people and it was not taught in school. Just try to understand that maybe just may be Native Americans and the African American have had a different experience in America. I think a lot of the anger comes from White Americans, belittling other peoples experiences and acting like they never happened. "Why are you so angry?" "post 9/11 "Why do they hate us?" America is a great country, yes, but we have done a lot of things to a lot of people here and abroad. If you take out the Amens and the emotion, what the pastor said is true. The Black church has been the only place where Black people can let go of their frustration at slavery,JimCrow, and discrimination. I have heard many white fundamentalist preachers say similar if not worse. Did we tell all the Catholics they should leave their church and all that stuff with the priest. (and we know the priest were wrong) America has always had double standards for whites/minorities. I think the anger can subside if white America stops acting so incredulous/amazed that some people have a different view of American; not that we don't love her, but she hasn't always been good to us. And after so much "warranted" distrust; why should we trust you all the way now? Have you changed? We want to be nice, but we have learned to beware.
  • stoker1967, on 03/18/2008, -5/+12See..........John Hagee for anti catholic, pro Zionist dribble.
  • Whatup, on 03/18/2008, -8/+5Hypocrites, wolfs in sheep's clothing.
  • oldhick, on 03/18/2008, -18/+5I think the christian right is an awful thing, but there is a difference between Falwell, Robertson and whomever else endorsing a candidate and having Falwell or Robertson on your campaign staff, marry you, baptize your children, etc...
    The point isn't that someone who has extreme views has associated themselves with Obama. Its that someone who has such extreme views is one of his most intimate friends/mentor.
    • wendelgee2, on 03/18/2008, -0/+4Hagee.
      • oldhick, on 03/19/2008, -0/+1I'm unfamiliar with Hagee and am not sure who or what Hagee is.
    • davdev, on 03/18/2008, -2/+3What about advising those same people on Policy, Supreme Court Justices and whether we should go to war or not. All of those have been done with Bush and the religious right zelots.
  • colonelbuckshot, on 03/18/2008, -8/+13Jeremiah Wright's comments were linked to race and white people and there's the key difference. Greenwald is making a false analogy in order to spin the issue.

    Wright claimed that 9/11 was self-inflicted due to "state terrorism against the Palestinians and black South Africans" and it proved that "people of color had not gone away". He also called on blacks to condemn the United States: "(The government) builds bigger prisons, passes a three-strike law and then wants us to sing 'God Bless America'... God damn America for treating our citizens as less than human"
    • PolishLogic, on 03/18/2008, -2/+6Exactly what I thought when reading that article. Of course you know this means you'll be dugg down for pointing that out, and I'll be dugg down for agreeing with you.

      Hell the digg description spins this story out of the gates. "Neither Jerry Falwell nor Pat Robertson ever retracted or denounced their view that America provoked the 9/11 attacks." Right, they stood by their views because those are their views, and because of that a number of people distanced themselves from those two. Much like Obama is distancing himself from Wright. Besides, I'd think that Wright would agree to an extent with the Falwell/Robertson view as well. In fact, I think a good I think a good deal of Americans who take an unbiased look at our foreign policy over the last 70 years would agree as well.

      However, to act as if race is the center-piece to this attack is foolish and should be treated as such. Just the same way Parsley's comments should have had no bearing on McCain, Wright's comments should have no bearing on Obama. Last I checked they were not the same person, or even two people attached at the brain. So why do we treat people as such when this stuff happens? If Obama said "yeah, so? He's right, you know", then we'd have cause to be concerned and look at this more carefully, but he didn't.

      This is one gigantic example of a non-story that won't go away because, just like a traffic accident, everyone wants to watch and comment on it, with hopes that it drives visits their way. Why not focus on his economic policy or ....you know... something actually ***** important. Rather than what some jackass with a bible in his hand has to say.
    • pintomp3, on 03/18/2008, -4/+4are you denying that 9/11 is a result of our foreign policy? or do you really think it's because they "hate our freedoms"? bin laden himself said that our support for israel was a reason. we were the last democratic government who still supported apartheid south africa, reagan saw no reason to stop trading with them. america has more of it's own citizens in prison than any other country. the cia was involved in the drug trade. he grew up during a time when he was considered a lesser human because of the color of his skin. ignoring our history and our actions is not patriotism.
      • PolishLogic, on 03/19/2008, -1/+2Way to not pay attention to this discussion. Nobody can ignore our history. Slavery's ills are taught about at the grade school level. However you do realize that there is a black person making a damn serious run at the highest office in the land right? Although, that probably means nothing to you because you seem to be more focused on the past than what that shady past has evolved into. It's one thing to remember our history, it's another to remember it to a point that you want to continue living it just to prove a point. Hell in your scenario Americans should continue to hate the British.
        • pintomp3, on 03/19/2008, -2/+1what happened with england was hundreds of years ago, jim crow was around until just decades ago. the CIA was dealing drugs in the 80's. james byrd jr was lynched in the 90's. our past reverberates into our present. we cannot bury our heads and pretend it's over. we should tackle it head on. ignoring it won't make it go away. we should not live in the past, but you cannot deal with the problems of the present by ignoring how we got here.
          • PolishLogic, on 03/19/2008, -1/+1Even better to realize that what we've accomplished at this point is amazing. Why are we always quick to praise everything else when something good happens, but in the area of race and racial relations we're always quick to point out how ***** it was and seldom do we point out how far we've come in just an incredibly short time, relatively speaking.

            You said it yourself, Byrd was lynched in the 90's (by completely ***** backwards people...every country in the world has theirs), yet the next decade we have, like I said, a black person making a serious run at the presidency. Not a Jesse Jackson half-assed attempt, while screaming things like Hymietown, but a guy who's got an incredibly realistic shot at being the first black President in a country founded as a slave country.

            I mean hell, black people were constitutionally declared 3/5th's of a person at one point, and then not allowed to vote until the 15th Amendment. Yet right here, right now, there's a black person with a solid shot at leading 'that' country. Maybe you should take a step back and take the meaning of that in for a moment. Just look at some of the states he's won primaries in. Yet you'd rather talk about what happened decades ago?

            England happened 100's of years ago, yet it took about the same amount of time for an alliance to form as it did to go from slavery to the Civil Rights Act. Yet a couple decades later we're side by side in WWII and 'bestest' of buddies. Point being, it's ridiculous to feverishly dwell on our past racial divides. Acknowledging and accepting is one thing, but to dwell to the point of failing to recognized where we've gotten to is just like saying "slavery should still exist".

            Sorry, but for me the past reverberates into our present to the extent that see the journey we took to get here. There's still a way to go but damn, can't you see where we are and how the stage is set to play out? Sorry for the comment length, but damn.
  • masterm1nd, on 03/18/2008, -17/+13Wow, I just wanted to let the first 50 posters know that all the minimizing, justifying, and misquoting in the world won't save him.
    • VitriolAndAngst, on 03/18/2008, -5/+8And, I just want you to know, that all the 50 Cracker comments to follow -- aren't going to keep him out of office.

      Of course, the election fraud will do that.

      We expect this kind of nonsense to get a lot of attention, because Republicans don't want to talk issues. And it seems, Hillary has become a Republican, since it's easier to join 'em if you can't beat 'em.
      • masterm1nd, on 03/18/2008, -4/+5First of all, every idiot running has the same policy's. Second of all, your use of "Cracker" while defending him doesn't exactly help his current situation. Third of all, electing a possibly anti American front man as president is kind of a big deal.
  • moolaismyfriend, on 03/18/2008, -7/+11Religion breeding ignorance and hate? NOOOO when did that start happening?
  • esdjco, on 03/18/2008, -17/+9Obama can't deny this crap. He's not heard his Reverend Jeremiah Wright rave about white America and Goddamn the USA of KKKA. That's a load of crap. Obama is a liar and has to be aware of his pastors statements. He's been super close with this guy for 20 years. Give me a break. For someone to sit there for 20 years and not say anything seems like he agrees.
    • Hetman, on 03/18/2008, -3/+6OMG not a black man conspiracy to bring down the white devils. Ohhh knows if Obama is president, then what. A pimped out air force one? Pradas and hip hop for everyone in the country? Give me a break. It is not like Obama is so much more different than any other candidate. Nothing is going to change if he becomes president. Him and Hillary are like 98% the same candidate.
    • lukemann, on 03/18/2008, -1/+2When you're campaigning based on how great your judgment is this is a problem. He affiliated himself with this church to gain support among African Americans in the Chicago area. Now that he doesn't need him anymore, I guess it's time to throw the reverend under the bus.
      • Hetman, on 03/18/2008, -2/+2I live in chicago. Every politician is associated with a church organization. Im sure the church Huckabee goes to talks about how gays are evil and women rights should be denied. And that actually would effect the president because of the issuie. On the other hand I highly doubt that if Obama wins he is going to call for the destruction of jews and white america.
    • VitriolAndAngst, on 03/18/2008, -2/+6Hey, I'm a white guy -- and I totally agree with Jeremiah Wright that there are fricken' racists in positions of power. I even remember reading about a senate investigation that proved the CIA was shipping crack into inner cities.

      I just seem to have the opinion, that these people in power don't see me as any more valuable on earth as any other minority -- but, if I were an oppressed minority, I might take it personally. Hell, I've heard enough cracker comments from other white guys to know, that there is an issue. It shouldn't drive someone's entire life as an obsession, however -- and I doubt Obama's minister spends more than a couple sermons a year talking about "blue eyed devils."

      I'm white with Blue eyes -- but I don't take it personally. Try speaking Spanish and you will hear worse.
      • InspectorGadget, on 03/18/2008, -3/+2The CIA doesn't ship crack into the inner city. Do you have any idea the mountain of litigation that would result if that were the case? This country has enough outspoken people that we would have heard about it from some credible sources by now.
        • erkokite, on 03/18/2008, -2/+3The government gets away with all sorts of things that should are blatantly illegal. Tuskegee experiments, MKULTRA, Bay of Pigs, ECHELON, just to name a few. Just in the last few weeks, a law was passed that protected contractors in Iraq from legal investigation, when they are notorious for stealing funds and providing inadequate or nonexistent services IIRC. A high level CIA official was recently investigated for leaking nuclear secrets, and was linked to the Plame scandal. The CIA is not above shipping crack into the inner city, especially if they can make money doing it.
  • Ell3, on 03/18/2008, -19/+5While there's no shortage of crazy white preachers, at least they don't hate America.
    • illegalcortex, on 03/18/2008, -2/+7May I introduce you to a man named Fred Phelps...
    • jk33l, on 03/18/2008, -0/+9I grew up in an Christian evangelical church and I know a lot of preachers say they "love America". But then 95% of the sermon is about separating yourself from this world and going into the details about everything wrong with America. I often left many of these churches with the feeling that I lived in a horrible society in the US. That's why so many people still stuck in that environment are still waiting for "rapture" to take them away.
      • gbro, on 03/18/2008, -4/+1Being "in" the world but not "of" the world is standard Christian doctrine, I'm not sure why you find it offensive. Could you share the rest of the sermon?
    • davdev, on 03/18/2008, -0/+7I would argue the Pat Robertson certainly hates America that is why he wants to change it to a theocracy
  • dan222555, on 03/18/2008, -7/+14And find me the presidential candidate that has any of those people mentioned as their personal pastor and spiritual adviser. That's the point here. Not who says what and what side of the political spectrum there on. We all know there are people that say horrible things on both sides of the political spectrum. This is about a specific man's association with a person that says these deplorable things....nothing else.
    • davdev, on 03/18/2008, -3/+4and you don't think Bush has/had close relationships with Falwell, Robertson, Haggard et al? They all had special access to the President and were influential in his policy making. They may not have baptized his children, but they still were very close personally
      • dan222555, on 03/19/2008, -3/+2I don't think it because you nor anyone else has provided any proof of that.
        • davdev, on 03/19/2008, -3/+1Do you live under a rock?
          • dan222555, on 03/19/2008, -2/+3Cute, but no. I live in a world where words that come out of people's mouth's are not automatically true.....they must be proven true.
    • pintomp3, on 03/18/2008, -3/+1rod parsley is mccain spiritual advisor:
      http://www.motherjones.com/washington_dispatch/200 ...
      "Senator John McCain hailed as a spiritual adviser an Ohio megachurch pastor who has called upon Christians to wage a "war" against the "false religion" of Islam with the aim of destroying it"
      • dan222555, on 03/19/2008, -3/+1He called him "a spiritual adviser"....not necessarily to him. And that doesn't even begin to prove that the two have the kind of well-documented personal relationship that exists between Wright and Obama.
  • insanebrain, on 03/18/2008, -5/+6-"The idea that America deserves terrorist attacks and other horrendous disasters ..."
    Isn't that what half of the world thinks ??
    • Ell3, on 03/18/2008, -7/+5Yea, people in the 3rd world.
      • Isileth, on 03/18/2008, -2/+4Actually Americas approval ratings around the world are extremely low, even with "allies". Over here is something in the region of 30%.

        America hasnt had the best record lately.
        • Veretax, on 03/19/2008, -1/+1And we should care what the rest of the world thinks, exactly why exactly?
      • wtrwlkr, on 03/18/2008, -1/+2And that somehow justifies wishing death and destruction on the American people?
    • Isileth, on 03/18/2008, -3/+4I wouldnt say people think they deserve it, more that we can see why its happening.

      Its certainly a hole America dug for itself and now, sadly, they are paying the price for it.
  • fleischner, on 03/18/2008, -9/+12"Black theology refuses to accept a God who is not identified totally with the goals of the black community. If God is not for us and against white people, then he is a murderer, and we had better kill him. The task of black theology is to kill Gods who do not belong to the black community. ... Black theology will accept only the love of God which participates in the destruction of the white enemy. What we need is the divine love as expressed in Black Power, which is the power of black people to destroy their oppressors here and now by any means at their disposal. Unless God is participating in this holy activity, we must reject his love."
    -- James Cone, a distinguished professor at New York's Union Theological Seminary, cited by the Rev. Jeremiah Wright on the TUCC website as the man who "systematized" Wright's theological system, known as Black Liberation theology.

    Yes, I've posted this before. But someone has to do the job the media refuse to.
  • Hetman, on 03/18/2008, -4/+3I do not care. Im sure their has been many a black man that has said he hates the white devil. That really doesnt bother me.
    • freedomkeeper, on 03/18/2008, -2/+2Really? It should. Do you have a problem with white men running around with sheets on their heads, saying 'Burn the blacks'?
    • Hetman, on 03/18/2008, -1/+1Reverebds/preachers say stupid stuff constantly. They are always blaming some evil. Be it gay people, white people, whores etc. It is the corner stone of their racket. And no it doesn't bother me that a preacher made bigotry remarks. Like I mentioned above they all do it.
  • InspectorGadget, on 03/18/2008, -10/+570% of this thread so far has been ad hominem tu quoque attacks against other loony Christian leaders who haven't said anything about Obama's preacher made by people trying to imply that only the supporters of Falwell etc. could possibly find Obama's connection to Wright troubling. ***** them both. The religious-whacko ***** has to stop whether it is about god "hating fags" or how white people invented AIDS. Obama's speech today was not a full enough repudiation to reassure me and many others. Suffice it to say that most people would abandon a "friend" that was out-and-out racist and out of touch with reality no matter how close they once were. Wright doesn't embody the conflict within different aspects of the black community, as Obama stated. Wright embodies hate, lies, and general douchebaggery that ought to have been left way back in history like all religious demagoguery.
    • davdev, on 03/18/2008, -1/+3"Suffice it to say that most people would abandon a "friend" that was out-and-out racist and out of touch with reality no matter how close they once were"

      That is simply not true. I have friends and familty that occasionally say things that make me cringe, though I am not going to abandon my relationships with them, because for the most part they are good people. I try to educate them on why I have a problem with the things they say but I will never cut them out of my life.
  • eviscero, on 03/18/2008, -7/+5Someone call the waaambulance.
  • stonklit, on 03/18/2008, -5/+10Um, why would you denounce a view that America provoked 9/11? I've been saying that ***** long before 9/11.

    Provoke people long enough and they're gonna ***** lash out. Why do you think the WTC was targeted the first time?

    It's the ***** truth. And guess what? It'll happen again. Hell, it might even be INTERNALLY now that they're ***** on the rights of many... and rightfully so.
  • ColonelJessup, on 03/18/2008, -13/+3You people need to get lives/girlfriends/hobbies.
  • Coestar, on 03/18/2008, -7/+8C'mon, people. Of course the U.S. Government (and it's foreign policy, or lack thereof) is solely to blame for any and all attacks there have been, or ever will be, on the U.S. Of course they don't like it when people point that out, and of course they call it "anti-Americanism" to do so. The main reason that they let evangelicals say that it's because of some religious issue is, obviously, because it distracts from the real truth of the matter. Do you really think some "terrorists" are going to go out of their way and make a complex plan to bomb us... because of homosexual sex? Seriously?
    • Veretax, on 03/19/2008, -0/+1So wait. SO we ASKed for the British to slaughter civilians on the Boston Masacre? I guess we asked for the Barbary Pirates to attack our shipping too? How about Pearl Harbor I guess we had that coming too? What a ridiculous statement. WHile in the case of 9/11 you can point to some things as having empowered Al Qaeda to do this, but ultimately it is the parties who carried it out who are responsible.
  • TheSwashbuckler, on 03/18/2008, -7/+9Neither Falwell or Robertson were members of anyone's campaign. Wright was. In call's into question the decision making of the person who claims he has the "judgement to lead."
  • ralph12c41, on 03/18/2008, -12/+7Barack Obama is not going to be able to dance out of this. He doesn't have the courage to damage his "street cred" in the hood by distancing himself from his anti American, white hating pastor and "mentor". He is lacking in common sense and judgment. Trying to divert attention by trying to link the story to white evangelical pastors is transparent and isn't going to stick.
    • Hetman, on 03/18/2008, -5/+4So your the white guy that tries to use black slang and fails miserable. kewl.
      • InspectorGadget, on 03/18/2008, -4/+4You just failed at using 13 year-old girl slang. That's even worse.
      • Hetman, on 03/18/2008, -0/+3Im a 13 year old girl though.
    • erkokite, on 03/18/2008, -1/+3Meh. Seems like it would work to me. It is a good point. Obama's pastor gets called out for borderline hateful rhetoric, in which he criticizes racist policies in the US. Falwell and his ilk regularly say far worse. Stuff on the same level as the filth spewed by hate groups like Westboro Baptist, and yet they still receive heavy endorsement from Republican politicians. It's true.
  • captric, on 03/18/2008, -5/+6I like the Rev Wright only a little less than I like Falwell et al. But I don't hear white radical ministers blaming blacks for inventing AIDS to wipe out a race of people, or GODAMNING America. Whits and his followers are the worst racists in American Society. If they were white they would be shunned, but they are EMBRACED by black people.
    • pintomp3, on 03/18/2008, -1/+1no, they just blame AIDS on the gays.
      • furi0us1, on 03/19/2008, -1/+0But its still OK to blame things on gays in this country...
  • freedomkeeper, on 03/18/2008, -9/+4Nice way to deflect any political heat from obama and his preacher to the 'white, religeous right', whatever the hell that is.
    • wendelgee2, on 03/18/2008, -3/+4It's most of the evangelicals, is what it is.
      • InspectorGadget, on 03/18/2008, -3/+2Except they're not "white" as part of their declared identity. We can object to them for a whole host of reasons, but Bob Jones University aside, evangelical Christians are far more focused on religion or the lack thereof versus race as a divisive factor.
      • freedomkeeper, on 03/18/2008, -2/+2So racist black preachers and their sheep are cool, white evangelical preachers and their sheep are bad...got it. Thanks for the clarification.
    • erkokite, on 03/18/2008, -2/+2The religious right most certainly does exist. Just look at the connection between evangelical figures such as Falwell (although now deceased), Robertson, and people like Mike Huckabee and George Bush. They're completely buddy buddy. Having attended a conservative Baptist church for many years (although no longer), I can speak personally about the support fundamentalist Christians have for the Republican party, even in the face of all their wrongdoings. Looking around