floppingaces@gmail.com

There have been some weird comment problems for a while now. Email Curt (address is on his profile) and let him know what happened.

John Mayer: Check with Wordsmith for a link to an entire Rev. Wright Sermon. He sat through one and concluded that there were enough cherries to pick from it that it amounted to a cherry tree of racism.

As for reading assignments: I prefer history. Last year I finished the six volumes of Winston’s Churchill’s history of the Second World War and his 4 volume “History of the English Speaking Peoples.”

If you want to know what the future holds, Churchill will tell you what has happened before and show you how it can and will happen again.

You won’t find any overt blundering racism as you might on every 4th page of an Obama book or a Wright sermon, just a solid understanding of right and wrong and how to combat evil when we confront it.

The second volume of Margaret Thatcher’s is also a favorite of mine. But maybe that’s because I’ve been privileged to see her in person on a number of occasions.

One other book I haven’t read yet, but would add to the list are the letters of Ronald Reagan.

I’ve also got former Secretary of State George Shultz’s rather long book sitting in the pile here. But that’s going to have to wait until I finish a few others first.

ust did a “submit comment” on this thread (before this one), and it’s GONE! Not here! Let’s see if this one gets here.

Boy don’t we all get spoiled with instanteous cyber technology. Sure miss it when it hiccups!

Perhaps TV evangelists feel the decay of civilization brings these ills. The ol’ “fire and brimstone” pulpit is certainly not dead and – as in the case of these men including Wright – often viewed more as religious entertainment than doctrine. Those big tent gatherings provide an evening of energy anad emotion, but they are not the weekly church gathering. Hard to get that “ol time religion” via a TV screen, so religion is still rooted in community. Worship and attendence still takes place predominantly in local churches, synagogues, temples and mosques.

So I don’t see the majority of Americans believing this country’s “sins” (as opposed to those who blame foreign policy) bring on natural or terrorist disasters.

Mike’s A stresses that these evangelists aren’t running for office, thereby not applicable. You counter that it’s not much different than the media criticism of BHO/Wright ties.

In a way, you are both right. These ties with religious entertainment extremes exist, but do not define the individual and his actual religious beliefs. So they have little to do with my assessment of a candidate.

What *does* define their individual beliefs are their own words. BHO may not be “racist”, but he most certainly promises race favoritism (aka affirmative action style policies) in his governance. He made that abundantly clear in his “A More Perfect Union” speech. He also envisions a better country under increased socialism.

So I don’t care who he hangs out with, who endorses him, or what slip of the tongue he makes that brings the PC media machine alive – parsing words and applying perceived absolutes. BHO has told us in unequivocal terms how he wants to govern. He is a socialist making it sound very pretty via a booming baritone, flashy settings, and eloquent execution.

Unfortunately, this country is now filled with too many that want government support for all aspects of their lives because it’s too hard to support themselves. They are not bitter. They are lazy, unambitious and seeking the easy way out. That is the class of self-described victims of government that BHO and HRC seek as their electorate. And that is the decay of humanity I mourn the most.

– On the contrary. If you published the link to the entire speach or sermons, it would lend some credibility to your point of view. Void of that, your fishing for ears and eyes. By the way, I look forward to the list…

Mike’s America writes: “Both you are Wes have been unmasked as enablers of the kind of hate speech you wouldn’t tolerate for a second if the speaker or writer was a Republican.”

– It’s unfortunate that you feel that way. Hate speech is hate speech wether Replublican, Democrat or Independent. Hate speech has no political, racial or ethnic ties.. It simply has a point of view. To understand the source, you have to understand their point of view. This is precisely the issue at hand, simply understanding the point of view of the diverse people that make up the American populus. I don’t believe you have to be Republican, Democrat or Independent to understand that. It’s apparent that BHO is trying to do this but is being met with opinions and arguments that are stalling this effort.

Mike’s America writes: “And Wes, apparently you do NOT understand the difference between a supporter and a Presidential candidate. Read again what I said and think about it.

Continuing to push phony moral equivalence arguments undermines any valid point you may wish to make.”

– Can’t speak for Wes.

I look forward to the list.

Both you are Wes have been unmasked as enablers of the kind of hate speech you wouldn’t tolerate for a second if the speaker or writer was a Republican.

And Wes, apparently you do NOT understand the difference between a supporter and a Presidential candidate. Read again what I said and think about it.

Continuing to push phony moral equivalence arguments undermines any valid point you may wish to make.

I also chose them for a different reason. Without knowing their sources, you said that they all sounded like “bonafide America haters.” Now that you know the sources, can you understand the discomfort many feel with politicians seeking/accepting political endorsements from these people? They corrupt both politics and the Church, but (in my opinion) they do more damage to the latter.

Mike, you asked how many of those figures are running for President. It should be noted that McCain actively sought (and, in Hagee’s case, secured) political endorsements from several of these people (no one would want Phelps’ endorsement); McCain went so far as to name Hagee a “spirtual guide.” I believe that Hagee’s endorsement was reported on this very blog, even as people were bashing Obama over Rev. Wright’s comments. It isn’t a “moral equivalence” argument, but rather a statement on the intersection between religion and politics (to the detriment of both). Personally, I don’t think that God has a party affiliation, and it disgusts me when others argue that He does.

—————

Returning to the general point, I do know people who have thrown themselves into “something else” when they lost their jobs, suffered a medical setback or went through other personal trauma. For some (I live in Kentucky, after all) it was hunting and guns, others threw themselves into church (though, sadly, not necessarily faith – there’s a difference), the Internet filled the void for some, and still others turned to drugs and/or alcohol. Yes, there’s some bitterness in all of them; some people just rise above it better than others.

– No I did not. I simply believe that this is being taken out of context for gain at the expense of a very serious election that should be decided on issues not emotion. He was neither being racist or condescending. Again, his statements reflected a rationalization of what people feel when they are disenfrachised from a system they help to create. Would I want a leader who was thoughtful enough to listen from the perspective of the speaker? The answer, yes. Would I want a leader who listened from THEIR perspective? The answer would be NO.. Very dangerous.

Mike’s America writes: “I linked to the video yonason found of Obama in his own words, IN CONTEXT, from his books which are interspersed with Rev. Wright’s outrageous statements on video.”

– Rather than put snip-its in a well put together video psuhing certain views, why not encourage those you write to in the blog to read the book and conclude for themselves. I think
that would be more constructive than manipulating opinions via video clips. The video represents good marketing and “PR” work but should not be used to persuade voters. Please read the books and speaches for yourself. Then you will ensure that nothing is taken out of context.

Mike’s America writes: “It’s up to people to decide for themselves whether these statements are racist or not. But something tells me that if a white man said or wrote anything even approaching this kind of garbage (Nappy headed hoes anyone?) John Mayer would be first in line to condemn it as racist.”

– Let’s distinguish between racist statements and explanation of a sentiment or behavior. What Imus said was racist. Does that mean that he is racist? I don’t have the answer because I don’t know him personally. In 2008, 2006 or 2007 at the time, given the progress we have made in America, I would beleive that he is not. What’s interesting is that my opinion does not matter and I am okay with that. However, that statement “Nappy headed hoes”, is a far cry from BHO comments explaining some of the sentiments/feelings in “small town america”. If you are specifically calling out passages from his book as racist, please explain which ones. It’s simple in my mind. This is not about race or gender. BHO is showing that as a leader, you have to understand your audience and their perspectives/view/feelings on various issues. He has shown and continues to show that he does and can by empathetic and sympathetic to this. I think what is at stake is that this is frieghtening to many. It is easier to cast someone as a racist rather than trying to see their point of view and then draw conclusions. What’s interesting is that he has not said anything racist, but rather, simply tried to awaken America to the thoughts driving people in Rural America, Inner City America, Middle Class America, Upper Middleclass America and Rich America. You can add ethnic origin to this as you like, but suffice it to say, income has a way of blurring racial lines.

Mike’s America writes: “The problem that John Mayer and the other apologists for Obama who never have an explanation, but always have an excuse is that they are enabling one side of this race issue to continue with thoughts, words and actions that they themselves condemn.”

– On the contrary, I would love for this to rise above race, as it should, and focus on issues. If we realize that void of color, we all want jobs, better education, access to capital, better roads, schools, healthcare, an opportunity for our kids and the list goes on. We begin to walk down the path of change. I make no excuses for any one. I simply want people to read for themselves and not be persuaded by threads that take statements out of context, video marketing clips to persuade voters for certain candidates etc. I look forward to issues coming to the table so I can see how candidates respond.