Obama's Pastor

[mr_genius]

Better:

 

 

 

edit: The thumbs down in Rome during a gladiator event meant do not kill. so thumbs up would be ban

Edited March 21, 2008 by mr_genius

[KipWellsFan]

Yellowcard. One more inflammatory post, and this is closed.

 

I guess calling Michelle Obama a racist, and saying Barack was proud to have the support of the black panthers wasn't enough.

[Balta1701]

I guess calling Michelle Obama a racist, and saying Barack was proud to have the support of the black panthers wasn't enough.

It is the filibuster. At some level, the only rule that really survives is the personal attack one here I think. Barring anything truly bad.

[mr_genius]

I guess calling Michelle Obama a racist, and saying Barack was proud to have the support of the black panthers wasn't enough.

 

you're a racist

[HuskyCaucasian]

The FULL (well, almost full) "chickens come home to roost" sermon. Judge for yourself, not what the MSM and Fox News is pushing on you...

 

[HuskyCaucasian]

I meant that the passport story should knock the Wright story out of the press for a while.

 

Fox News? Well, that is a different story. The Wright thing is too juicy to leave along. and, well, the passport story reflects negatively on the Bush administration and they lack ability to be critical of this administration.

By the way, on Hannity they brushed off the passport thing (about 30 seconds of coverage) and moved on to talk more about Wright.

[mr_genius]

The FULL (well, almost full) "chickens come home to roost" sermon. Judge for yourself, not what the MSM and Fox News is pushing on you...

 

please keep defending this guy. and if you will make him a centerpiece of the dem platform

 

 

i honestly think you guys are going to piss away a sure win in Nov.

 

wow

Edited March 21, 2008 by mr_genius

[lostfan]

i honestly think you guys are going to piss away a sure win in Nov.

I'm pretty sure the Democrats do have it in them to f*** this up

 

Hence why I'm registered Independent

[Kid Gleason]

The FULL (well, almost full) "chickens come home to roost" sermon. Judge for yourself, not what the MSM and Fox News is pushing on you...

 

Can you really use Hiroshima and Nagasaki as an argument? Those acts were done to bring a country to it's knees that just would not stop, even though it was obvious the war was lost. It was that act that finally ended WWII. That was not terrorism, that was war.

[Rex Kickass]

Historically there is some argument there, at least with the second atomic explosion as to whether that was actually necessary.

[BigSqwert]

From Roland Martin (CNN):

 

As this whole sordid episode regarding the sermons of the Rev. Jeremiah Wright has played out over the last week, I wanted to understand what he ACTUALLY said in this speech. I’ve been saying all week on CNN that context is important, and I just wanted to know what the heck is going on.

 

I have now actually listened to the sermon Rev. Wright gave after September 11 titled, “The Day of Jerusalem’s Fall.” It was delivered on Sept. 16, 2001.

 

One of the most controversial statements in this sermon was when he mentioned “chickens coming home to roost.” He was actually quoting Edward Peck, former U.S. Ambassador to Iraq and deputy director of President Reagan’s terrorism task force, who was speaking on FOX News. That’s what he told the congregation.

 

He was quoting Peck as saying that America’s foreign policy has put the nation in peril:

 

“We took this country by terror away from the Sioux, the Apache, Arikara, the Comanche, the Arapaho, the Navajo. Terrorism.

 

“We took Africans away from their country to build our way of ease and kept them enslaved and living in fear. Terrorism.

 

“We bombed Grenada and killed innocent civilians, babies, non-military personnel.

 

“We bombed the black civilian community of Panama with stealth bombers and killed unarmed teenage and toddlers, pregnant mothers and hard working fathers.

 

“We bombed Qaddafi’s home, and killed his child. Blessed are they who bash your children’s head against the rock.

 

“We bombed Iraq. We killed unarmed civilians trying to make a living. We bombed a plant in Sudan to pay back for the attack on our embassy, killed hundreds of hard working people, mothers and fathers who left home to go that day not knowing that they’d never get back home.

 

“We bombed Hiroshima. We bombed Nagasaki, and we nuked far more than the thousands in New York and the Pentagon and we never batted an eye.

 

“Kids playing in the playground. Mothers picking up children after school. Civilians, not soldiers, people just trying to make it day by day.

 

“We have supported state terrorism against the Palestinians and black South Africans, and now we are indignant because the stuff that we have done overseas is now brought right back into our own front yards. America’s chickens are coming home to roost.

 

“Violence begets violence. Hatred begets hatred. And terrorism begets terrorism. A white ambassador said that y’all, not a black militant. Not a reverend who preaches about racism. An ambassador whose eyes are wide open and who is trying to get us to wake up and move away from this dangerous precipice upon which we are now poised. The ambassador said the people we have wounded don’t have the military capability we have. But they do have individuals who are willing to die and take thousands with them. And we need to come to grips with that.”

 

He went on to describe seeing the photos of the aftermath of 9/11 because he was in Newark, N.J., when the planes struck. After turning on the TV and seeing the second plane slam into one of the twin towers, he spoke passionately about what if you never got a chance to say hello to your family again.

 

“What is the state of your family?” he asked.

 

And then he told his congregation that he loved them and asked the church to tell each other they loved themselves.

 

His sermon thesis:

 

1. This is a time for self-examination of ourselves and our families.

 

2. This is a time for social transformation (then he went on to say they won’t put me on PBS or national cable for what I’m about to say. Talk about prophetic!)

 

“We have got to change the way we have been doing things as a society,” he said.

 

Wright then said we can’t stop messing over people and thinking they can’t touch us. He said we may need to declare war on racism, injustice, and greed, instead of war on other countries.

 

“Maybe we need to declare war on AIDS. In five minutes the Congress found $40 billion to rebuild New York and the families that died in sudden death, do you think we can find the money to make medicine available for people who are dying a slow death? Maybe we need to declare war on the nation’s healthcare system that leaves the nation’s poor with no health coverage? Maybe we need to declare war on the mishandled educational system and provide quality education for everybody, every citizen, based on their ability to learn, not their ability to pay. This is a time for social transformation.”

 

3. This is time to tell God thank you for all that he has provided and that he gave him and others another chance to do His will.

 

By the way, nowhere in this sermon did he said “God damn America.” I’m not sure which sermon that came from.

 

This doesn’t explain anything away, nor does it absolve Wright of using the N-word, but what it does do is add an accurate perspective to this conversation.

 

The point that I have always made as a journalist is that our job is to seek the truth, and not the partial truth.

 

I am also listening to the other sermons delivered by Rev. Wright that have been the subject of controversy.

 

And let me be clear: Where I believe he was wrong and not justified in what he said based upon the facts, I will say so. But where the facts support his argument, that will also be said.

 

So stay tuned.

 

- Roland S. Martin, CNN Contributor

[FlaSoxxJim]

Historically there is some argument there, at least with the second atomic explosion as to whether that was actually necessary.

 

Absolutely, and many scholars feel neither was necessary and Japan was already days or weeks away from surrender.

 

But, wtf, if you're spending $2 billion (that's $23 billion of today's crappy dollars) and employing 130,000 people to build some bombs, you're sure as $hit going to use them to bomb somebody.

[Balta1701]

Absolutely, and many scholars feel neither was necessary and Japan was already days or weeks away from surrender.

 

But, wtf, if you're spending $2 billion (that's $23 billion of today's crappy dollars) and employing 130,000 people to build some bombs, you're sure as $hit going to use them to bomb somebody.

On the other hand, there are probably an equal number of scholars who have come to the opposite conclusion, that the atomic bombings were key in both bringing the Russians in to the war and in helping sidetrack the military leaders who wanted to keep the war going at all costs.

 

I think the first one clearly served a purpose. It's not as certain that the 2nd one did, because from some reports the news about what had truly happened in Hiroshima took a few days to get out and filter back to the leadership, by which time the Russians had already invaded Manchuria and Nagasaki had been bombed.

 

There was a legit coup attempt on the night before the Emperor's surrender broadcast was to be aired, which another smaller bombing raid disrupted, but let's not pretend it wasn't touch and go there for a while. Harry Truman said ater the war that he would have dropped the bomb again knowing what he knew at the time, but wouldn't have done so if he'd known what he knew at the end of his presidency. It's a damn complicated question.

[HuskyCaucasian]

Can you really use Hiroshima and Nagasaki as an argument? Those acts were done to bring a country to it's knees that just would not stop, even though it was obvious the war was lost. It was that act that finally ended WWII. That was not terrorism, that was war.

I think that is correct on your part. However, his larger point is true in my opinion. We spend so much time bombing in other countries and invading foreign lands. then we have the audacity to say "how dare they" when someone we pissed off fights back on our turf.

 

I am NOT defending the attacks of 9/11 in anyway. I am just saying we are a rather cocky nation who thinks it can do no wrong and all others should submit to us.

Edited March 21, 2008 by Athomeboy_2000

[FlaSoxxJim]

 

 

I've also seen We're derailing this thread now but good.

 

I've also seen justification of Hiroshima from the standpoint that Little Boy was a very different bomb than the Trinity bomb. While I think that is a BS position that fails to take human lives into the equation, I do agree with the counter argument that Nagasaki was that much more unnecessary because Fat Man was a plutonium implosion bomb just like the Trinity bomb and so we already understood it's capabilities and already had made the military point with Hiroshima.

[BearSox]

Can you really use Hiroshima and Nagasaki as an argument? Those acts were done to bring a country to it's knees that just would not stop, even though it was obvious the war was lost. It was that act that finally ended WWII. That was not terrorism, that was war.

If we didn't bomb Japan, we would have lost at least half a million soldiers, if not more, trying to invade Japan. We gave them all the warning in the world, but they brushed it off thinking there is no way we'd bomb them. If they didn't surrender after Nagasaki, there would have been another bomb dropped, and if they still refused, another one, and so on. You are completely correct, that was not terrorism, but war.

[BearSox]

Absolutely, and many scholars feel neither was necessary and Japan was already days or weeks away from surrender.

 

But, wtf, if you're spending $2 billion (that's $23 billion of today's crappy dollars) and employing 130,000 people to build some bombs, you're sure as $hit going to use them to bomb somebody.

 

Japan would have never surrender. It is Japan code to never surrender and to die is better then surrending. If you surrendered, your name would become a disgrace. Japan would have not surrended if not for the bombings. Like I said in a previous post, it would have cost the lives of at least half a million U.S. Soldiers trying to invade Japan. Hell, I bet if we only bombed Hiroshima, they still wouldn't have surrendered.

 

And, it's not like we didn't give them warnings. We told them, we have this weapon and we will use it on you if you do not surrender. Even before bombing the cities, the U.S. warned all them to leave and get away. They didn't listen. And there was a difference of 3 days between the two bombs. I mean really, after the first one they should have surrendered right away. But it was against their code.

[FlaSoxxJim]

If they didn't surrender after Nagasaki, there would have been another bomb dropped, and if they still refused, another one, and so on. You are completely correct, that was not terrorism, but war.

 

And where exactly would these bombs have come from? Manhattan Project only developed the 3 bombs that had already been detonated. The fourth atomic bomb wasn't tested until nearly a year later.

 

[FlaSoxxJim]

Japan would have never surrender. It is Japan code to never surrender and to die is better then surrending.

 

And if that was truly the case then no amount of bombs would have forced a surrender and we'd have had to kill every last person in the country. It makes for good moral justification to flatly state that japan never would have surrendered, but there is a lot of evidence suggesting that wasn't the case.

[BearSox]

And where exactly would these bombs have come from? Manhattan Project only developed the 3 bombs that had already been detonated. The fourth atomic bomb wasn't tested until nearly a year later.

they would have made more. We weren't going to invade Japan because the amount of lives it would cost would be way too high.

 

Here is a nice little article about Japanese code and how you should never surrender:

 

http://history1900s.about.com/od/worldwari...ldiersurr_2.htm

[lostfan]

If we didn't bomb Japan, we would have lost at least half a million soldiers, if not more, trying to invade Japan. We gave them all the warning in the world, but they brushed it off thinking there is no way we'd bomb them. If they didn't surrender after Nagasaki, there would have been another bomb dropped, and if they still refused, another one, and so on. You are completely correct, that was not terrorism, but war.

Well... at that point I don't think we had any more yet. We could've made more since we knew how of course, but from the way I understand it we were basically bluffing (if you can really refer to killing 130,000 people as "bluffing").

 

The stuff you said about surrender in the next post is pretty spot-on though, I was reading some article about Japanese soldiers they'd find in the woods like 30 years later who'd been lost from their units or whatever. These guys were some hard-core old guys who as far as they were concerned were still in the military and just were waiting to be reunited with the army, had no idea the war ever ended, and refused to believe it when they were told.

[Balta1701]

they would have made more. We weren't going to invade Japan because the amount of lives it would cost would be way too high.

 

Here is a nice little article about Japanese code and how you should never surrender:

 

http://history1900s.about.com/od/worldwari...ldiersurr_2.htm

The problem with this interpretation is that there is a lot more complexity than what you're admitting to. Yes, by all accounts, the Japanese code ruled out surrender during that war, and that was seen throughout the campaign. But there are more than a few reports that say that despite the code, the Emperor and several other high members of the leadership had all they were willing to take after the firebombings and defeat after defeat. After all, if the code says never surrender, why would a larger bomb, which honestly did significantly less damage than the Tokyo firebombings, be able to overturn that? If they hadn't had some thinking along those lines in the first place, then the bomb wouldn't have made a difference.

 

And we still shouldn't underestimate the part that the Soviet invasion of Manchuria and their complete destrcution of the Japanese forces there played in the decision.

[BearSox]

And if that was truly the case then no amount of bombs would have forced a surrender and we'd have had to kill every last person in the country. It makes for good moral justification to flatly state that japan never would have surrendered, but there is a lot of evidence suggesting that wasn't the case.

The Japanese believed in the Busido Code of the Samurai (http://www.bigbearacademy.com/bushido-code.html). They weren't going to surrender unless something really big happened, and that was Fat Boy and Little Man.

 

So to say that Japan would have eventually surrendered and that the Bombs were unnecessary, IMO, is false. Our options were either invade Japan and lose hundreds of thousands of American soldiers in the process, or bomb them. I don't know about you, but I'd choice to bomb them over invade them any day. And it's not like we dropped the bombs on them without any warning.

Edited March 21, 2008 by BearSox

[FlaSoxxJim]

After all, if the code says never surrender, why would a larger bomb, which honestly did significantly less damage than the Tokyo firebombings, be able to overturn that? If they hadn't had some thinking along those lines in the first place, then the bomb wouldn't have made a difference.

 

^^^

 

Yep, Pastor Wright threadjack complete.

 

[Kid Gleason]

^^^

 

Yep, Pastor Wright threadjack complete.

 

Exactly as the pastor had planned. Evil, evil, evil man.